I"m not. I was using it as a second illustration that they suffered from a common human problem- they couldn't see more than a month after thier own deaths. The Constitution is a good document, but it needs to adapt and change. If you are going to blindly follow it, regaurdless of the changes to the world, as they ment it, you limit yourself to thier world.

Time is a lot like the highway- you are moving with it, or you are a speed bump.

As I said elsewhere, we should feel responsable for the (I know Chris is going to growl at me) sheep. We are the shepards and the dogs who live with the herd. People like us created the spiffy stuff that let them get the way they are, or at least live past puberty. And yes, I have been called the "kinder, gentler face of totalitarianism".

The idea of a militia is only quaint if one has not taken the time to understand the way the founding fathers set it up. The weapons in use does not matter, they wanted the average citizen of an age able to bear arms to have and be able to use the normal infantry soldiers small arms and equipment. In their day that meant a musket, bayonet, powder and ball. They did not see it as necessary for them to go to the expense of artillery, mortars, and man-o-war ships etc. because they knew that no country on earth and no government in place could become tyrannical with an armed civilian population. They looked to Switzerland as a model that has worked for hundreds of years and just like the Swiss they wanted something that could not be easily dominated but something that would make it hard to dominate others.

In their day the infantry soldier carried a musket. In WWI it was a 1903 Springfield or a 1917 Enfield in WWII it was that same rifle or a M1 Garand and on down through history they expected the citizens of this country to have the same weapon as the infantry soldier of their day.

They did not want us to become a colonial power and the best way to get that is to have your country protected by a militia type of organization. Some have claimed that they meant a National Guard but the National Guard in their day would have been Tories fighting for the British.

The steps and missteps of this county during its development are interesting to study. Did we always do the right thing?? No it is very obvious that we did not but we were also the ones to rectify the situation and in the process steer the whole world away from things like slavery, which had been a worldwide phenomena since earliest recorded history. We took the ideas of the earliest Greek republics and built on them till we have a country unlike any other in history. One where you can be anything you are smart enough and motivated enough to be.

Some will complain about how their ancestors were treated in this country during its growth phase while it was finding its center and deciding what kind of country it was. So what look at history bad stuff happens. Mine got to take a really long walk from North Carolina and Tennessee area to Oklahoma and you know what it has never impacted my life in modern America one bit.

Our founding fathers would be ashamed of what we have done to their life’s work but in this country they set up a way for us to change back to were we need to be so quit complaining and do what needs to be done.

*hugs PC2K*

I was starting to think I was the only one. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> Thank you.

Yep.

The whole point of a militia is not to win. It might, but it mainly makes it to expensive for the other guy to keep his ugly feet on your land.

A Don Quixote Corps, if you will.

Sorry Dude, I don' wanna be a sheepdog... make me a grizzly.

In the tax trade there are a couple of phrases used: “above-the-line” or “below-the-line”. The line referred to is “adjusted gross income” (you’ll see this line at the bottom of the first page of the Form 1040). Below the line are the kinds of deductions that average people are familiar with: exemptions for kids, charitable contributions, mortgage interest, and so on. Back in 1986, in the spirit of tax simplification, Congress severely restricted these kinds of deductions, wiping out many of the benefits enjoyed by the average Joe. Above-the-line is where the action is now. Some above-the-line deductions are used by average people, like a deduction for contributions to an IRA. But above-the-line is mostly where well-heeled players play. When you hear about tax shelters, they target the above the line area. This can be anything from a Schedule E limited partnership or subchapter S corporation “flow-through” to some other similar kind of mechanism used to shelter real income. For example, way-back-when, I studied the effects of the 1986 tax changes for the gov’t, watching Schedule A deductions legislatively disappear and mysteriously reappear on Schedule C or Schedule E (and when I say Schedule E, I don’t just mean rental properties but partnership and S-corporation flow-throughs as well); such areas are unaffected by tax simplification. They are also left untouched by any flat tax proposal.

My point is that it doesn’t matter what numbers you use for tax rates (10%, 20%, or some other number). People like that are unaffected because they play with the definitions of income. You mention “no capital gains”. Now you are going beyond a flat tax into the arena of defining income. When you do that, you’ll meet stiff resistance because now you are crossing a line and affecting the definition of income. Now you’re goring somebody’s ox, a somebody with the financial wherewithal and political connections to make sure his unhappiness gets a hearing. Flat tax proposals don’t do that, except perhaps to wipe out some more below-the-line deductions for the middle class, such as the deductible donations that you mention. That’s what I mean by cynical. Tax simplification invariably and negatively affects the average taxpayer, but is sold as a benefit to the middle class.

Assume, though, that you truly could produce a flat tax, setting aside the gamesmanship with the definition of income. You asked for numbers. Imagine a micro country with 10 households. One has high income, six have middle income, and three have low income. The low income is $20K, the middle income is $50K, and the high income is $120K. Currently MicroLand has a progressive tax system with three rates: 0% for low income, 16% for middle income, and 30% for high income. This produces tax collections of $84K. In order to convert to a flat tax and collect the same amount of tax (“revenue neutral” as they say in Washington), you would have to impose an across-the-board tax rate of 18%. Those with middle income get hurt some, and those with low income get really slammed. If you say, well…I would leave those with low income alone, you would have to impose a flat tax of 20%. You have saved those with low income, but really hurt those with middle income. Under any scenario, those with high income make out great. The reductions in tax rates for the wealthy must be made up by raising the tax rate for those who are currently paying lower rates. In sum, you may have to pay only one rate—whatever it is—but it will result in your paying more tax than you do now, unless, of course, you happen to be wealthy. That is why flat tax proposals are favored by the wealthy. A flat tax acts to transfer wealth to them.

Such a flat tax system is called regressive. What is regressive? Well, here is how one person describes the relationship between a person’s finances and what they can afford to give (for taxes or any other purpose):

“And he sat down opposite the treasury and watched the people putting money into the offering box. Many rich people put in large sums. And a poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which make a penny. And he called his disciples to him and said to them, ‘Truly, I say to you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the offering box. For they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, all she had to live on.’”

Is a flat-tax, regressive tax system fair? That’s a question you have to decide for yourself.

p.s. My apologies for the long-winded post. This whole flat tax thing obviously bothers me.

So basically, you ae saying that the middle class should get used to taking it in the shorts every April?

No, I guess I’m suggesting two things: (1) If your goal is fairness on April 15, then a certain degree of complexity is not only acceptable but desirable, and (2) Approach flat tax proposals with a healthy measure of skepticism.

Here's a interesting number, $7750 (approximate).

That's the "tax" every man, woman, and child would have to pay if we treated the US Federal budget the way you might "fairly" divide up a dinner check with your friends. If the bill was $100 and there were 4 people eating, they'd each pay $25. (Ok, I know, we have to kick in an extra $5 each for the tip, and you always have a few folks out there who want separate checks, but, go with me on this for a second. <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />)

So, what if you took the total projected 2005 federal spending and divided by the current US population; you get about $7750 each. I know that it's unimaginable to think that we just divide up the cost equally, but, the number was interesting to me. It's like when they tell you how much your local school system is spending per pupil.

The US Federal Budget, a little under $8000/person/year. That's what the government is costing us, and that's only at the federal level. The good news is, this $8000 fee would be the only tax, that figure covers the entire Federal budget. No corporate taxes, estate taxes, federal fuel taxes, capital gain taxes, dividend taxes, etc etc etc are needed if somehow everyone pays their slice of the federal pie.

So, for my family of 3, I'm looking at a little under $24000. That's what my share of Washington is. Personally, I don't think we need to spend that much, but, I can live with paying what my family's share is, especially if I know everyone else is facing the exact same fee. Today, that number is like a scorecard. If you have a family of 3 like mine, and you're paying less than $24000, then you're in luck, if you're paying more, well, you're helping pay for your dinner, and someone else's too. Imagine if every new pork project your Senator proposed increased your "slice of the pie" directly. (Hey, being from the People's Republic of Massachusetts, we know all about governement waste, ah, spending.)

Ok, I know this per capita fee thing isn't really going to happen, but it's more a point to show that "fair" can be interpreted a number of ways. As others have pointed out, it's pretty hard to come to grips with the concept of fair, because one person's fair, might just mean more cost to you, whereas your "fair" might cost someone else money.

Ok, enough; because of another bizzare concept, I now will turn the clock back one hour and go to sleep. <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I'm having my dinner at home. A pot of chili costs me less that $10 and it'll feed me and my wife twice!