Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Demeter

(85,373 posts)
Fri Dec 5, 2014, 10:34 AM Dec 2014

The US Government's Fundamental Flaw: Government by Exception

When our Founding Fathers (and I can't tell you how much I resent the fact that NOT ONE woman was ever consulted or included in the process) created a new nation, they sought to ensure that NO ONE was above the law: that all men were created equal before God and the law.

This laudable goal was swiftly subverted by the slave owners, who would stand to lose all their capital investment (in other people's productivity) as well as their power to terrorize the hapless. The Civil War partially and unevenly rectified some of this power imbalance, but the job is not done.

Today, after 200+ years of experimentation and experience, it's time to go back to the first principles of the Constitution and the Enlightenment in general, and do a Constitution 2.0:

ALL MEN AND WOMEN AND CHILDREN ARE CREATED EQUAL BEFORE THE LAW

The first thing this would do is establish some basic minimums below which no law could dig holes in people's lives. The first area of equality would be FINANCIAL:

1. Taxation: the definition of income would be all inclusive. Didn't matter where it came from. The Rich (or as I call them, the Obscenely Wealthy) would be taxed on all income from any source during their lifetimes, and when their heirs inherit those heirs would be taxed as well...WITHOUT FAIL! Modest annual gift-giving to family would be tax-exempt. Provisions for the disabled would shelter a true living income, but all extra would be taxed.

2. The definition of NON-TAXABLE income would apply to ALL people, and it would refer to the first XXXX dollars per household, a number that would be determined by the cost of living for each person in the household. Anything above the cost of basic survival: food, clothing, shelter, medical expenses, education, and retirement savings; would be taxed.

Employment costs: travel and transportation, dependent care, work-related equipment, special wardrobe, etc. could be itemized and deducted, to a modest limit, for ALL people full or part-time workers, not just business owners.

This puts a floor under everybody below which the government cannot force a household into poverty, nor restrict their share of the national income, nor make employment unaffordable for families with dependents, nor force the able adults into neglect or institutionalization of their dependents in order to survive at all.

The amounts allotted to each category will be CURRENT: no more defining today's poverty levels in terms of 20 years ago, when costs were much less, average wages were tiny, and the value of the dollar was so much higher.

If due to medical conditions, a household's medical cost was higher that the "average", this would raise the economic base non-taxable income of the household. Ditto educational expenses.

3. EVERYONE would be able to save. They would all have enough to live on, and a little more...if they didn't save a minimum, the unsaved allotment would be taxed. If they didn't have the minimum to save, their savings account (which could be accessed only under specified conditions) would be credited with the annual savings amount.

4.The average cost of rent in the local market, determined annually by {value of property/years of useful life/number of properties in the locale}, would set the "mortgage deduction"; all extra housing costs would be taxable. Ditto for energy costs. Ditto for any other deduction: the limits would be set by reasonable, current levels of expense, not some random number from 1955.

5. Under this basic economic scheme, we could go to Universal Single Payer for a level of medical care that covers "average" people. Those with severe expenses would get additional care, from USP. Those with "purely cosmetic" issues would pay out of taxed income. If you don't need it to stay physically healthy and alive, it's optional, and you pay for it. (The insurance companies can sell coverage for future cosmetic surgery; they will be locked out of the health insurance business altogether forever.)

The goal is to ensure a life-and hope-sustaining minimum family income--and in a way that is much more responsive to economic reality than anything Nixon ever dreamed of, a basic income that puts a floor under the American dream.

This would be very different from current tax law, which has lots of loopholes for the Rich, none for the ordinary. And if the basic household needs cannot be met by income, the government will have to make up the difference in real money. The reckoning would be at least annual, perhaps more frequently for families in serious distress, but the support must be SUPPORT, not charity, and not capricious. We must show some basic humanity to our fellow men and women and children, whoever they are, wherever they are, to eliminate the barriers of poverty. No more keeping people oppressed in economic cages.


The second area of equality would be LAW:

1. The Bill of Rights must be made the law of the land, with suitable added clarity to eliminate current abuses by government of the People.

2. The courts must be regulated. No longer can they be bought and sold, subverted and captured by Special Interests. The People should be able to be the Ultimate Authority for laws that govern the People as a body via National Referenda. For individuals, the courts will have to follow the law (which they haven't been doing much, lately).

The Third area of equality would be FOREIGN POLICY AND TRADE:

I do not have a prescription for this area, as it is not something I have studied enough to have an informed opinion about. All I know is we are being screwed over with Endless War, ridiculous trade policies that are giving away our national economy to other nations, immigration abuses of amazing creativity, and the like. Our nation needs Ego Boundaries more than the panic about "secure borders" that some like to invoke. We need some humility and fairness in our dealings with other nations; we need to get off the Empire delusion and into the World of Equals mode. And we need to dethrone the Corporate Kleptocracy, the Cronies that buy and sell people and nations, the Banksters, the unelected dictators.

Then we can do our Founding Fathers and Mothers justice.



3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The US Government's Fundamental Flaw: Government by Exception (Original Post) Demeter Dec 2014 OP
You are describing a tax system even more burdensome than we now have. JayhawkSD Dec 2014 #1
That's the old libertarian canard Demeter Dec 2014 #2
A lot of people would bust a gut laughing to hear me called a libertarian. JayhawkSD Dec 2014 #3
 

JayhawkSD

(3,163 posts)
1. You are describing a tax system even more burdensome than we now have.
Fri Dec 5, 2014, 11:35 AM
Dec 2014

Deductions, floors, cielings, amounts saved or not saved... And documentation for all of it, along with forms to fill out and tax accountants to fill them out because the average taxpayer will not understand the language.

The tax process should be no more complex than is supportable for a tax return printed on a post card.

 

Demeter

(85,373 posts)
2. That's the old libertarian canard
Fri Dec 5, 2014, 01:08 PM
Dec 2014

No, it's not. Because the income level will have an absolutely untaxable baseline income. If you want more money sheltered from taxes, THEN you fill out forms. And there won't be a need to be coy about it, no percentages and exclusions and so forth.

 

JayhawkSD

(3,163 posts)
3. A lot of people would bust a gut laughing to hear me called a libertarian.
Sat Dec 6, 2014, 11:58 AM
Dec 2014

Simplicity of a tax code is not libertarian. A prograssive taxation does not need to be complex to be highly progressive, which I believe our income tax should be. Conducting social policy through the tax cose, however, is barbaric.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The US Government's Funda...