Quote:
Originally Posted by lookout123
Ideology? Not at all. Waste. Waste. Waste.
|
By ideological, I was referring to the proposal to defund Planned Parenthood (women's health screening and pregnancy prevention) and deep cuts to social safety net programs which will only cost taxpayers more in the end.
Quote:
|
I'm a strong proponent of making dead certain that each one of our military branches is the strongest of type in the world BUT the R&D process is so full of waste it is obscene. Lobbiests and backslapping politicians have spent decades creating processes that are less focused on introducing the best technology to the field than they are on enriching themselves. For a very good example of the excesses read the book Boyd.
|
The federal government has had a significant role in R&D since the industrial revolution and helped fuel most innovations since then. Even before then, guys like Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton advocated government subsidies of R&D for the advancement of technologies to the benefit of industry.
Particularly when the focus is on basic research which stimulates innovation vs applied research. There is not enough return on investment for the private sector to spend on basic research.
Not to invest in a knowledge based economy would only make it much more difficult for the US to compete when other countries are making significant government investments in those areas.
Address the waste with a scalpel not a chain saw.
Quote:
|
In regards to the flat tax, I firmly believe absolutely every single person living legally in the US should pay income tax or no one should. As I've described in the past, my view on a flat tax isn't really flat but I truly believe 1% on every single dollar up to $50-60K and 20%(ish) on every dollar of personal income over with no deductions beyond first home mortgage interest would solve many problems.
|
Sounds alot like Paul Ryan's proposal to have only two tax rates - 10% for income up to $100K, eliminating the alternative minimum tax, and 25% for income above that amount.
But then he also had to add a 8% VAT (national sales tax) and an assumption of a 7% annual GDP growth rate (5% would be considered highly optimistic) in order to be revenue neutral with the massive cuts he proposed.
I understand the ideology of wanting to tax everyone equally, but taxing those on the margin at the same rate as those at the top just doesnt make economic sense to me. Again, taxpayers will end up paying more as those on the margin are forced to turn to other programs just to survive.