Imagine a country where one corner of that country has something of extreme value (i.e., petroleum) to the rest of the country and the world.
Would the geographical, political, or economic leaders of that small area be better off to separate and exist independently from the rest of the country? What would be the disadvantages and advantages of doing this?
Are there advantages for all states (and all citizens) contributing to a national infrastructure program? Or, should each state be left to itself? What are the advantages and disadvantages of this?
Currently, the Republican tax plan (as it has been passed) metaphysically allows the very wealthy to succeed, or to separate their success from the success of the nation as a whole, and to become a sovereign nation within a nation.
Moreover, it places more responsibility on individual states to either raise taxes (and thereby erase the federal middle class tax gains that the Republicans have now given us), or to find themselves unable to meet their citizens’ traditional, governmentally supplied needs, due to the coming reduction in federal spending. What are the advantages and disadvantages?
To a certain extent, the elimination of itemized deductions for state-based taxes can be a good thing, by keeping more dollars at home and requiring each individual state to be more responsible. However, it also can be devastating, by unduly impoverishing certain states which are not as resource-rich as others.
All itemized deductions for charities and nonprofit organizations should have also been eliminated. Such deductions (although they have become a addicting crutch) significantly distort the economic viability and value, which particular charities and non-profits bestow upon society.
The success of this tax plan will show if, after a year under the new tax plan, more jobs are created than expected, wages substantially increase without the cost of living rising at the same time, the tax system is simpler and not subject to manipulation, and the tax is fair in that those who generate income contribute tax revenue that equates to the benefits that they receive from governmentally supplied services – such as education, court systems, infrastructure, security systems, and the military, etc.
I suspect that, as most pundits, intellectuals, and experts are indicating, the Republicans’ tax package is a great “money heist” that they have engineered to benefit themselves and their wealthy contributors, and that it will do nothing to strengthen us as a nation and people. As the saying goes, “A man or a woman with the briefcase can steal more money than any man or woman with the gun.” As the saying also should go, “A man or woman who is able to command a nation-states’ police services, armies, and medical system, is able to destroy more lives and protect their own, then any wacko with an arsenal, let loose upon our city streets. While the latter is certainly more publically compelling and causes more fear, the former is really more dangerous and results in more loss of life.
Loren M. Lambert © December 20, 2017
Would the geographical, political, or economic leaders of that small area be better off to separate and exist independently from the rest of the country? What would be the disadvantages and advantages of doing this?
Are there advantages for all states (and all citizens) contributing to a national infrastructure program? Or, should each state be left to itself? What are the advantages and disadvantages of this?
Currently, the Republican tax plan (as it has been passed) metaphysically allows the very wealthy to succeed, or to separate their success from the success of the nation as a whole, and to become a sovereign nation within a nation.
Moreover, it places more responsibility on individual states to either raise taxes (and thereby erase the federal middle class tax gains that the Republicans have now given us), or to find themselves unable to meet their citizens’ traditional, governmentally supplied needs, due to the coming reduction in federal spending. What are the advantages and disadvantages?
To a certain extent, the elimination of itemized deductions for state-based taxes can be a good thing, by keeping more dollars at home and requiring each individual state to be more responsible. However, it also can be devastating, by unduly impoverishing certain states which are not as resource-rich as others.
All itemized deductions for charities and nonprofit organizations should have also been eliminated. Such deductions (although they have become a addicting crutch) significantly distort the economic viability and value, which particular charities and non-profits bestow upon society.
The success of this tax plan will show if, after a year under the new tax plan, more jobs are created than expected, wages substantially increase without the cost of living rising at the same time, the tax system is simpler and not subject to manipulation, and the tax is fair in that those who generate income contribute tax revenue that equates to the benefits that they receive from governmentally supplied services – such as education, court systems, infrastructure, security systems, and the military, etc.
I suspect that, as most pundits, intellectuals, and experts are indicating, the Republicans’ tax package is a great “money heist” that they have engineered to benefit themselves and their wealthy contributors, and that it will do nothing to strengthen us as a nation and people. As the saying goes, “A man or a woman with the briefcase can steal more money than any man or woman with the gun.” As the saying also should go, “A man or woman who is able to command a nation-states’ police services, armies, and medical system, is able to destroy more lives and protect their own, then any wacko with an arsenal, let loose upon our city streets. While the latter is certainly more publically compelling and causes more fear, the former is really more dangerous and results in more loss of life.
Loren M. Lambert © December 20, 2017
No comments:
Post a Comment