It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


5 ways to get America working again ?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 05:36 AM

Originally posted by beezzer
Something I posted Jan 23rd of this year.

Stop relying on government. They (government) have obviously FAILED in any attempt to create jobs and revitalize the economy.

We (the people) should just take care of ourselves. Create industry, new markets, new oppourunities.

To the devil, with the nanny-state and handouts! Isn't it time we showed the government and the rest of the world that we don't NEED handouts to succeed.
We don't NEED government to succeed.
We can do it on our own!!!!

Yes, Ron Paul's idea of limited government is best, power corrupts and when it gets as large
as the federal government is, it corrupts absolutely.

We can make the health care system a co-op based off what Medicaid is now,
and make it better, but keep it out of the hands of corporations and the government.

Make a not for profit like churches, and make it a co-op like farmers use and
much like USAA insurance for military members.

Part of our medical delimma is due to synthetic growth hormones in the meat and milk,
another part is GMO, and mercury in corn syrup.

MSG has 24 different names to hide it from the public and it is linked to diabetes and cancer.

Get the poisons out of food and water, most of Europe has banned Fluoride in drinking water,
its already in the tooth paste and even the toothpaste label says its a poison.

No tax on basic food nation wide just like Texas.

posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 06:26 AM
reply to post by xuenchen

Austerity is probably the last thing we need now. Nobody is spending any money but the Government basically. If they stop spending money, we're screwed.

One idea that may or may not work. Instead I think we're gonna have to bite the bullet and print money. We're already doing this with quantitative easing. But not Federal Reserve debt money. The Treasury has the power to print debt free money also, but they don't use it because it causes inflation. But we don't have bad inflation right now. We have kind of a mixed bag. Whatever.

The Government maybe should start a giant infrastructure/jobs program. Rebuild the roads, highway, dams, electric grid, broadband infrastructure, or whatever. Give a crap load of people jobs and it would lead to economic expansion (hopefully). Maybe pay off some of the debt. All using debt free money from the Treasury.

But this will lead to inflation right? Right. Prices will go up because everyone will have a crap load of money in their pockets right? Right!

Step 2:
Raise taxes and mostly on the rich. We need to do this anyway, but no politician will do it, but we have to, to pay our debts. We can cancel out inflation by raising taxes, raising the interest rate, putting the reserve rate back to where it was, and so forth. After all, the point isn't a free lunch. It's gonna be tough to fix.

Then we can use those tax dollars and put them into healthcare, education, paying off our public/foreign debt, and so forth. It might just work to get the debt down to a manageable level.
edit on 25-7-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-7-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 06:36 AM
Drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico?

Any idea how many wells are out there now. No exactly on overlooked spot. Might we try your backyard.

posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 06:45 AM
What blows my mind is that people ACTUALLY think that ANYONE can 'fix the US economy'. Because of all the political rancor here the sheeple actually think that choice of President can make a difference. Despite what either side is saying it can't. This is a fully GLOBAL problem. There is no way to fix one part of it in any meaningful way. Businesses are in full-on survival mode. They are desperately doing everything they can to bolster the bottom line. That mindset is counter to job expansion and an improving larger economy. Believe what you want but this situation is FAR more complicated than the sophomoric political ads want you to believe.

posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 08:36 AM

Originally posted by gorgi

Originally posted by TheOldProfessor

Originally posted by gorgi
Number 3 would work . Cheaper energy would allow most people to spend money on other goods .

To the people who say a flat tax is good are WRONG!!! A flat tax is regressive and hurts the average person.

Austerity is the worst one! the cut in spending will crash the economy. I know the doomers and Ron Paul fanatics want that but its a very very bad idea
edit on 23-7-2012 by gorgi because: spelling

A flat tax is not regressive.

A regressive tax is one that takes a larger percentage from low-income people than from high-income people. Examples include such things as a $4.00 tax on a pack of cigarettes. The $4.00 tax represents a higher percentage of a poor man's wages than a rich man's income. Regressive taxes also includes sales taxes on necessities since poor people generally spend a greater percentage of their total income on such things than rich people.

A progressive tax is the opposite; it takes a larger percentage from high-income people than from lower-income people. An example is the present IRS tax code in which higher levels of income are taxed at higher rates.

A flat tax is in the middle; it taxes only income and takes the same percentage from all people. Since it does not tax products or services, it cannot be regressive and since the rate is the same at all income levels, it is not progressive.

I find it strange that when it comes to taxing income, the government extolls the virtue of progressive taxation. However, the poor and middle-class are being literally taxed to death by the many various regressive taxes imposed upon them at all levels of government.

The example you used is about the cigarette tax is actually an example of a "sin" tax. Its designed to reduce consumption.

A flat tax is in a way a regressive tax in that it unfairly takes away money from the people who could use it the most.

Even though the cigarette tax is a "sin" tax, it is still regressive by definition. Perhaps I should have used the example of Federal, State and local taxes on gasoline, or taxes on telephone service, or a hundred or so other truly regressive taxes.

By definition a regressive tax is one in which a higher PERCENTAGE is paid by those with less income. Since a flat tax uses the same PERCENTAGE for all taxpayers, it is not regressive by definition. However, I do agree that ALL taxes - except for those which are truly progressive - place a disproportionate burden on the poor and middle class.

I am not arguing against your concept; rather I am arguing - perhaps nitpicking - the technical difference between a regressive tax and a flat tax. Although a flat tax may work if there are certain adjustments or exceptions for those with limited incomes (greatly increasing the personal exemption amount for example), I think everyone would agree that a fixed tax on all income would be a tragedy for the poor. While a millionaire may not blink at a 20% tax bill, the family who lives from paycheck to paycheck would be devastated if 10% of their total income was taken in taxes. Just because a flat tax is not regressive doesn't mean it is fair.

But that is only my humble opinion (OK, I lied about the humble part).

I will give you the last word. Have a great day.

posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 08:50 PM
reply to post by TheOldProfessor

Yes most people agree. If you tax me at 10% and a millionaire 10% it's not actually the same because a large portion of my 10% will not be disposable. However, the millionaire will most likely pay all his 10% out of just his disposable income alone. So he pays the tax with money he doesn't need to survive, where I would be left having to use part of my survival money to pay my 10%.

That's why anyone seriously supporting a flat uses one of two versions. The first is exemptions for the poor to even it out, and the second is exemptions on basic needs like food, clothes, shelter, or whatever.

I'm not sure either really even it out, but you're exactly right that you can't just do a straight up flat tax and be fair.

posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 09:08 PM

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by gorgi
But a flat tax is the only true "fair" tax.

Everyone pays the same percentage.

That way, everyone (and I mean everyone) pays their fair share.

beezer, not only is a flat tax a horrible idea, i'd love for you to explain how a flat tax would be collected on UNreported incomes ??
besides the fact that such an indiscretionary, indirect tax is UnConstitutional

posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 09:16 PM
reply to post by xuenchen

Revamping the tax code is hard....but.....

First-hand, I can tell you that where I live, it's expensive as heck to hire people. Its not their salary -- you can always justify that -- otherwise, you wouldnt consider hiring someone....

It's the taxes! You pay payroll taxes, unemployment taxes, FICA, etc, etc, NONE of which goes into the hands of the employee.

NOW, I am all about paying my fair share. Tax my income, but as soon as companies have to worry about the tax implications of hiring new employees....we hesitate. We eventually hire, but slower, and at lower rates.

I'm not saying "I don't want to pay any taxes as an employer"....what I am saying, is don't hamper the hiring equation with complex taxes, and their tangential impact on benefits and other employment-related costs that don't go to comp.

SIMPLIFY the tax code, and free employers up to make pure, simple, economic decisions....

Thanks for a good are on to something....

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in