COLLECTIVE MADNESS
“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."
Good morning beautiful day
ReplyDeleteNot a chance in the world.
ReplyDeleteThe only argument for the flat tax is to transfer cost from the rich to the poor. The problem is, The Poor are poor.
ReplyDeleteNever get it passed, even if it was a good idea, on its' merits.
ReplyDeleteEliminate the mortgage interest deduction, even propose such a thing, and the squealing will commence.
How could that "help" the housing market and the related businesses?
The one flat tax the Federals do impose, FICA, has a low cap on the taxable income applicable.
ReplyDeleteThe first step to establishing the legitimacy of the flat tax concept, eliminate the taxable income cap on FICA.
By eliminating those income caps, the rate that everyone would pay, it could be lower. If the elimination of those income caps were made revenue neutral.
ReplyDeleteWhich may or may not be a good idea, but is a separate issue from the fairness of a flat tax applied equally to all income, regardless of source.
Taxing is like Robbing. You have to go where the money is.
ReplyDeleteIt would not be fair or flat to tax ONLY labor at the flat rate.
ReplyDeleteNo, income from capital would also have to be taxed, flatly.
The Government has a more legitimate claim to a residents capital than it does to their labor.
Since the Government creates the fiat currency, but does not create the people nor does it have but limited authority over them.
Sure, earnings are earnings. Capital gains, labor, interest, whatever.
ReplyDeleteI can't believe anyone still takes Cato seriously.
Health Ins Companies: "Not us Boss, we don' wan no more."
ReplyDeleteInsurance industry agrees to fix kids coverage gap
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR (AP) – 15 hours ago
WASHINGTON — After battling President Barack Obama's health care overhaul the better part of a year, the insurance industry said Monday it won't try to block his efforts to fix a potentially embarrassing glitch in the new law.
In a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, the industry's top lobbyist said insurers will accept new regulations to dispel uncertainty over a much-publicized guarantee that children with medical problems can get coverage starting this year.
Quick resolution of the doubts was a win for Obama — and a sign that the industry has no stomach for another war of words with a president who deftly used double-digit rate hikes by the companies to revive his sweeping health care legislation from near collapse in Congress.
"Health plans recognize the significant hardship that a family faces when they are unable to obtain coverage for a child with a pre-existing condition," Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans, said in a letter to Sebelius. Ignagni said that the industry will "fully comply" with the regulations, expected within weeks.
Health Insurance Companies - No Mas
Consumer Confidence Improves - Home Prices Tick Up
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteUniv. of Tennessee Building Rufus's Dream
ReplyDeleteReading between the lines - it looks like they're thinking "One in every County." Hmmm
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMWM who recently experianced a NDE will be travelling to Sedona to visit psychic vortex sites and to find god and is seeking SWF or MWF as travelling companion in case he fails to hook up. Respond to Spunky at Box 3727, Kalamazoo, MI.
ReplyDelete.
I'm glad his name was "Spunky," and he was from "Kalamazoo." I was starting to worry that might have been someone I've "blogged" with. :)
ReplyDeleteEverybody should have to pay something and nobody should have to pay too much.
ReplyDeleteEveryone should have some skin in the game and there should be a cap on how much money the government can take from an individual.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"and there should be a cap on how much money the government can take from an individual."
ReplyDeleteThere is: All of It.
The Government can lay claim to ALL your time, whit.
ReplyDeleteThey can lay a valid claim to your life.
Why not your property?
What makes property more important or valued than life, to the individual doing the paying?
Conscript:
ReplyDeleteto force (labor, capital, etc.) into service for the government
The difference, of course, is that the property primarily belongs to the "rich," and the conscripted "life" usually belongs to one who is poor.
ReplyDeleteIt's good to be he "who makes the rules."