It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

President 2024

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 


I understand all this. Maybe you're missing my point - which you do have a record of doing


The point is this; Prices for goods and services are not based on an individual's income. They're constant within a given market regardless of how much wealth a given customer has.

Isolated in its own little universe, divorced from the reality of markets, saying "the rich and the poor both get taxed for 15% of their income" does in fact seem fair. However if you put it back into the real world, where people need to buy things, you find that taxing the poor at the same rate as the rich has a greater impact on their ability to buy things than it does on the rich. if you're making $18k a year, then 15% of your income is a bigger blow to your purchasing power than if you're making $1,800k a year. With that in mind, we find that a flat tax is actually a regressive tax - that is, it places a greater burden on the poor than on the wealthy. The wealthy may be putting more into the treasury, but it's the poor who are digging in their couches to pay the bills because of it.

I wasn't advocating having the government engage in price-fixing based on income. Simply making the point that if you put in a flat tax, the only way for it to be "fair" is if the government did do that.




posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by puzzlesphere
Interestingly, Frank Zappa was going to run for president (with some amazing political ideas) and fund his own campaign when he died of a particularly fast growing form of prostate cancer... conspiracy?... you decide. I would have voted for him!
edit on 29-7-2011 by puzzlesphere because: Fixed grammar - added another point


Brilliant point. I have often wondered if Frank's increasing involvement in politics was his undoing. Could TPTB have ended a promising political career? His guitar wanted to kill censorship not just your mama!

OP, take heed of all these people and their input. Be aware, very aware, of everything you do between now and election time in 2024. Keep working on promoting and refining your Solar Road ideas as this could open the door for your political career. Just look at what seatbelts did for Ralph Nader, although I wish you more success than Mr. Nader has had.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFoxI wasn't advocating having the government engage in price-fixing based on income. Simply making the point that if you put in a flat tax, the only way for it to be "fair" is if the government did do that.


Sorry, sounded like you were advocating price fixing based on income. Now I understand what you were saying - I get your point but don't necessarily agree.

Taxes are a necessary evil for any society but they are an individual burden and according to the constitution are required to be uniform – meaning one person’s burden should not be proportionally more than any others.


Originally posted by TheWalkingFoxIsolated in its own little universe, divorced from the reality of markets, saying "the rich and the poor both get taxed for 15% of their income" does in fact seem fair. However if you put it back into the real world, where people need to buy things, you find that taxing the poor at the same rate as the rich has a greater impact on their ability to buy things than it does on the rich.


Wealth and earning power are the result of individual ability, education, and ultimately drive. I do understand that in life much like in poker all hands are not equal when dealt. However, how one plays that had is up to him.

Life is not fair, some are born in poverty, some into wealth; however, in America everyone can rise to the challenge or miserably fail. Some who are born into horrible situations prevail and become very successful while others who have a silver spoon from birth plummet miserably by their own hands.

I guess where we differ in opinion is as the government’s role in equalizing the starting hand each is dealt. I think the government that governs least is best.

There are already too many social engineering programs out there designed to give the downtrodden a "leg-up". It is fairly obvious to me that over the years instead of raising the poor from their poverty these programs have created multiple generations of people dependant on the system for sustenance.

Treat people like victims long enough and they will begin to believe it and soon they will accept it and act like it.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


Where did I say I believe we are from another world? You should carefully read what is written. Its not polite to put words in anothers mouth.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


No, I was talking about income tax, not taxing goods and services. It wouldn't be right to charge someone more just because they make more.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Hi Fuzzy, were you intending on replying to my previous post? It's just that you answered the posters directly before and after my post, and seemed to have skipped by mine entirely.

Just curious...
edit on 29-7-2011 by puzzlesphere because: spelling error



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   
While I support your endeavor OP, I don't think the U.S. Presidency will survive into the 2020s. Radical change is happening and the world you've come to know and love will be very different ten years from now. I don't know how, but I do know it will be.
edit on 7/29/2011 by 9Nania because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by puzzlesphere
 


I think a slight tax increase will be sufficient considering I will also try to change the income tax system to a percentage tax.

As for the electric batteries, I can't run until 2024 and I'm confident the technology will change by then. If not it would be nice to spend more on technology and its development and less on wars.

As for my own political experience. For the most part its non existent. But when we look at the track recod of those with "experience" in polotics, we notice some of the decisions they make do not directly reflect the wants of the people that put them in office.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by 9Nania
 


Change is fine with me, when it comes right down to it I will run for whatever political office there is for the nation. To me part of being a great leader is the ability to think on your feet, be rational, and as an elected official continue using the majority vote system.

I don't believe in using telepromptors or haveing speech writers. It you can't even compose your speech you have no right speeking.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by fuzzy0087
 

Thanks for replying, and good level headed answers!... ;-j

Though in a sense it is political speak at its best, suggesting radical sweeping ideas without really understanding the technology involved and that have very little chance of realisation, especially considering the current state of economics and resources... and you didn't address a few of my questions.

If you are serious about eventually running, I would suggest being very careful about proposing a very untested idea as the cornerstone of your campaign, such as solar roads. Instead you should work on a much more rounded political agenda aimed at sustainable small changes to the existing systems to encourage long term change.

Here's just a few, of the many, thoughts and numbers on the solar roads idea to bring it into perspective. The concept is being pushed by essentially 1 man and his wife that have made 1 prototype and released one paper on the prototype. There is not much literature to go on, so we have to take the single paper at its word, and within, it is suggested that the cost would be approximately $10,000 per a 3.7m x 2m panel. This seems to be only for the materials and creation, not including installation, manpower or maintenance. The beauty of current roads is their ease of laying, their flexibility and the capacity for easy repairs. A rigid panel system is largely untested for extensive roadways, and raises many more issues, essentially having to make an engineered "bed" to house the panels, which would increase cost and build time drastically. Maintenance becomes a huge unknown quantity, not the least of which is cleaning. It is a known issue that as solar panels get dirty, their efficiency drastically decreases, which would be even worse in a roadway scenario than the traditional use of solar panels.

On the cost (not including many of the raised points), and working with the minimal value of $10k/panel, the cost is astronomical, just for materials, and the cost would most likely be much for the lifecycle of a single $10k/panel (these are only the vaguest of estimates, as the actual number to get an effective power output is essentially another unknown, not including power storage, which there is no known solution for):

Just Highways - Materials
(75,000,000 metres / 2 metre panels) x $10,000 per panel x 6 average number of lanes = $2,250,000,000,000

Complete US road network - Materials
(6,370,031,000 metres / 2 metre panels) x $10,000 per panel x 4 average number of lanes = $127,400,620,000,000

The figures would require more than a slight increase in taxes, even taking into account a different income tax model... there's only so much movement you could make in taxation, and what you are suggesting seems to indicate you would try to lower overall taxes.

Onto another point, I raised the issue of your political experience not because of your ability to lead and make decisions, but because of the inevitable support you would need in any political campaign, and the types of networking you would need to achieve in the short span of 10 years to get you there. You need support for many reasons, not the least of which is getting any of your bills through the senate. Without “friends”, even if you did get voted in, you would essentially be castrated by the system, which is part of the reason that the 2 party system has developed. Another reason, and a point you didn’t answer from my last post, is concerning your independent wealth and the issue of funding your campaign. Currently it is estimated that to run for the presidency you need approximately $50-$100 million. If the government takes away federal contributions to presidential candidacies, as it seems likely it will in the near future, then this number raises to more like $500 million, probably much more in 10 years time.

An interesting note is that George Washington is the only ever independent president that the US has ever had (and let’s not even get into the conspiracies around him), so if you could manage it, you would be only the second in history, and standing among giants.

If you are dedicated, these are just a few of the types of realities you will be facing, and I wish you the best of luck with your endeavours. I'll keep note of your name for the 2024 elections, and follow your campaign closely, if you get there!

;-j
Cheers



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by puzzlesphere
 


Well my mother always told me if you wanted something bad enough you find a way to achieve it. The price does seem rather daunting and untested...perhaps I will run for local mayor and attempt to convice the people of my small town to allow solar roads to be installed and tested in our town. It would make the town one of the greenest cities on the planet if it works well.

As for my personal wealth, I grew up in poverty and through my teen years working I've made it to a comfortable middle class. I keep gaining wealth and am currently looking for an investor to purchase the business that I work at. Besides, most of my campaign will be on websites like this, youtube, and facebook. I'm determined to find a way to make this happen.



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by fuzzy0087
reply to post by gwynnhwyfar
 


I actually have thought long about the oil dependency, I see this planet as the only one we CURRENTLY have. We need to take care of it and if the technology exists for us to get rid of oil then we need to utilize it for the planets sake.

And for this I plan to raise taxes slightly...before I lose all your votes just follow me here. Using the raise in taxes I will have solar roads built overtop of the existing roads and sidewalks across the country. And then I will supply every hospital, school, business, factory, and home with free energy. After all I'm not running for big oil companies backing me up, I'm running for the American people. Solar roads will supply more electricity than is currently being used.

This also affects fuel. With recent advancements with wirelessly transmitting electricity, electric cars will dominate the roadways. Just imagine, antennas along the roadside sending energy to an antenna on your vehicle for free. Not only will this clean up the environment it will put more money into the pockets of consumers. This will then improve the economy as people will spend more on other things rather than fuel.


I like your vision.
At this point the energy lobbies are clearly allied with the "no progress" side of human civilization - hopefully by then this will change enough. America may not always remain together though if it goes on like this. Then you will have to decide which side you want to run for Presidency.




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join