my connection with the tea party

[kandrathe]

Income taxes are too high, ...

Lowest of almost all the industrial nations.

Not really. Generally, the EU is also too high. I'm looking at "total tax rate", and not just the federal portion. But, the nations who are "eating our lunch" are well below us in total tax rate.

Here is some world bank research by Price Waterhouse Coopers.

http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/paying-taxes/data-tables.jhtml

On Manhattan, the average weekly wage is $1453, whereas the average in Sioux City, Iowa is $720.

What is it in Bombay? In Monaco?

I understand your point, but I don't care for the purposes of determining what is optimum within the US system of laws. I would leave it up to India, and Monaco to develop a scheme that is right for their citizens.

Generally, tax money is mismanaged ...

No. Generally tax money is well managed. The media doesn't report on the millions of programs and projects that come in under budget and on time. People, in general, are too stupid to work that out for themselves. All they hear about is the relatively small number of boondoggles and assume that all government programs are boondoggles. Just like they assume all boaters will drown because of a handful of stories each year about boating accidents.

Well, boondoggles aside --

I don't need to point to particulars, we can analyze this in general and ask ourselves some crucial questions. As of June 2011 numbers the US labor force was about 153.7M of which 139M are currently employed;

Based on the 2010 census...
http://www.census.gov/govs/apes/

Federal and military employment
-- 2.8 million federal employees

State and local government
-- 5.3 million state employees
-- 14.5 million local government employees

22.6M / 153.7M is about 14.7% of the workforce is employed in some government capacity. So there is one government employee for every 7 workers. I would call that inefficient. This is an employee who's wages and benefits must be taken from the taxed earnings of the other 6 workers.

So, they should at least respect the hard working people who paid the taxes.

Vote them out of office, and they will (at least) listen to you even if they don't respect you. The problem isn't with the politicians, they are just playing by the rules that are in effect. The problem is with the rules.

I do, and maybe you try to as well, but not enough of my fellow citizens can get past emotional issue politics to vote for boring people who understand leadership and management.

I'm not sure why people obsess about the top 2%, or millionaire taxes.

Because that is a nice, easy to understand, trivial, unimportant factoid that captures the imagination of the numerically illiterate and logically barren -- i.e., the vast majority of voters. I suspect that if asked to convert that 2% to a number of people in the USA, many of those voters couldn't get the number right within a factor of 10.

It's a good sound bite. Yeah! Let's get our torches and pitchforks and make old Ebenezer Scrooge pay for everything, or we'll ransack his house and take the pot of gold he's got buried in his cellar. What a mean old man, you know him not paying for tiny Tim's operation.

Another problem is that the higher in the system hierarchy tax rates are set, the more unfair they become (federal > state > county > local). Why?

Because armies are more expensive than police forces?

No, more due to differences in local economies, and the distribution of who pays taxes as opposed to those that get services. Is it fair for citizens of NYC to pay for improvements in Nome?

... Collapse the empire.

Rhetoric. There is no "empire". Indeed, there should be one. If we're really doing good for the people of Iraq or Afghanistan, then they should be paying us plus a bit extra.

I mean close down or turn over most of our foreign bases to the locals. They should deal with their own issues, and we should disentangle ourselves from every brush fire in the world.

Repeal the "Patriot Act" or modify it to not authorize spying on citizens and de-facto data collection.

I agree, but I suspect this is small potatoes in a budget debate.

It's not so much of a budget problem as a "freedom" problem. I aim to de-fang the beast, and starve it until its not a threat to its own citizens.

Poverty levels are set by Zip code, ...

This is, IMO, a brilliant idea. I know you don't like a graduated income tax, but consider an income tax that is based on the local poverty level. Of course, there would be problems. I'll need to think about this some more, but at first blush, I think this might be the best new idea I've heard on this topic in years.

Thanks. I'm trying to address inequalities.

[*]Base road usage taxes on odometer readings. Tampering with an odometer is illegal already, so just allow people to report their odometers at purchase, sale, scrap and periodically (quarterly or yearly).

The problem with odometer readings is that it is very easy to disconnect an odometer. There are better solutions based on available technology. They can even be used to adjust the rates for type of road (surface as opposed to limited access, for instance) and time of travel (cheaper in the wee hours or on weekends, max cost during the daily commute).

I think we are on the same page. I'm just a little hesitant to allow big brother access to everyone's movements and current locations. It would be too easy for the jack booted thugs to kick down the doors ala the movie "Brazil".

Corporate taxes would be set as the average corporate taxes of the worlds lowest 10 nations.

That would be zero, or nearly so. Might as well just eliminate them completely, especially since the corporations just pass those taxes on.

Well, no. If corporations are going to be treated as quasi people, with freedom of speech, and etc. then they should be willing to contribute enough to cover the costs of those government functions that they use. It just shouldn't be 35% while the Asian rim remains at 5-10%.

Each person would be required to have an tax free savings account (similar to an IRA, 10-15% of payroll) that the individual sets up with their bank when they begin working.

A good bad idea. If simply passing such a requirement into law were sufficient, then it would be a great idea. However, it would have to be enforced, and I suspect the enforcement of such a law would require an agency that would dwarf the SSA.

Actually, it's not much different than it is now. When an employer's payroll processor withholds FICA, they send the money to an electronic account. In this case, the account would be the tax payers account, rather than a big pool of money that congress people go swimming in and spend at their whim. Power (money) to the people.

[*]Peg the value of the dollar to the average price of a basket of precious commodities. This is not a volatile as a gold standard, yet eliminates the Federal Reserve and Treasury departments fiat currency shenanigans.

Right, cure the patient's cold by giving him a healthy shot of Ebola. If the Federal Reserve and Treasury Departments are indeed engaging in shenanigans, then address that (those?) issue. Monetary value linked to a commodity is not a solution -- history shows that it has plenty of troubles of its own, not the least of which is hording (although, it we link the dollar to a pound of salmon, hoarding might not be a problem for long).

I wouldn't want it pegged to something like gold, because you are right in that it can be manipulated. It's pretty much impossible to manipulate a broad range of hard asset commodities.

The Social Security retirement age would be the national average life expectancy minus 10 years, adjusted every 3 years. Transition Social Security to draw from the individuals tax free "Life account". Limit outlay payments to local cost of living, as some multiplier based on local poverty rate (e.g. 1.5x, or 2x). Whatever is unused at death goes into the pool to help underfunded retirees, after $250K (or whatever) goes to each of your dependents accounts.

Let's see if I understand: you want to give me the freedom to have a government mandated "life account" rather than forcing me to pay into a social security pool. That account, which supposedly is my property, is not available to me until I reach some relatively arbitrary age (why not 5 years less than life expectancy? or 5 more than life expectancy for that matter?). Even when it is available, I'm still restricted in how much I can draw at any given time. And the "surplus" goes into some vague, heretofore unmentioned, pool. Minus, of course, some survivor benefits.

Well, it might not be Social Security, but it sure smells like social security to me. The only plus I see is using the local poverty level as an index. The big minus is that it would take a huge government staff to administer and verify.

I'm willing to enable "social security", so long as the money is out of the governments hands. You are right that 10 years is arbitrary, but so is setting the age at 65, or 70. You might make it flexible, so long as the draw down on the account didn't expend the accumulated assets before the average life expectancy age were reached. So, if you want to retire at 50, you might, but at a reduced payout amount. The goal of a social security program is to help everyone to help themselves where possible, and help the very small number of those that cannot help themselves in the process.

Medicare would be a voucher system, and would draw from the individuals tax free "Life account".

OK. What about health insurance? Do we just roll the dice and hope no one in our immediate family comes down with a major problem? Do we get the freedom of having some kind of government mandated health insurance? Do we keep the present system under which your health insurance depends on your luck in getting a job that gives you coverage? Do we just let the unfortunate die? Do we have some kind of nationalized health plan for everything more life threatening than a common cold or paper cut?

Start to finish (well, to present -- it's not over yet), my little bout of leukemia has cost nearly two million dollars. That represents well over my total net worth, including investments, retirement accounts, and the value of my house. Would you expect every individual to set aside that much? It happened to me when I was nearly 60. I might, just possibly, have been able to put that much aside if you include the SS "tax". What do you do if the patient is 20 and going to med school at the time? Tell him to work for the next 40 years to get the money he needs before you'll give him the treatment that will extend his life expectancy from a few weeks to that 40 more years?

Yes, the vouchers would be to acquire basic comprehensive health insurance, and catastrophic coverage. I'm just re-privatizing the health insurance market and removing the impetus for inflation by creating a reasonable fixed price that the government will pay.

College costs would drawn from the tax free "Life account", and allowed to go negative up to 4x national average yearly tuition, room, and board.

In-state public college or university, tuition, room, board, and books should be covered through advanced degree subject to certain conditions. The first condition is an adequate rate and level of progress. The second is a field of study for which there is a demand (if you want to learn to paint or play an instrument, then good for you -- do it on your nickel).

I agree and disagree. We need musicians and artists, and I'm torn by the same issue griping classical education in every university and college. Is the purpose of college to pursue a vocation? Is there a value in just studying English literature, as opposed to studying to be an English teacher?

Eliminate at the federal level departments that are administered at the state level such as; Education, Housing, Energy, Agriculture, etc.

Let's see:
Energy -- hydroelectric dams and nuclear plants supply energy to multiple state areas (indeed, some energy is exchanged between Canada and the USA). So, yeah, it makes sense to administer that at the hamlet level.
Agriculture -- sure. After all, the requirements of a corn stalk vary widely from county to county in the corn belt. And destructive farming practices in one county are perfectly reasonable in another. Not to mention that the runoff from the farms respect county and state lines, so the regions down stream don't need some higher authority to help keep things under control.
Education -- on this I sort of agree with you. However, I feel that we need some national (not necessarily federal) authority to ensure that a high school diploma represents a certain level of knowledge. Perhaps the city, county, and state educational boards throughout the country need to unite and generate their own governing organization. The institutions of higher learning could support this by not accepting candidates graduating from non-accredited schools. Some alternative would have to be available for the home schooled and similar cases.
Housing -- well, we agree on about 1 1/2 out of 4 -- about par for our discussions.

I realize there are some endeavors that cross state or national boundaries, but mostly there are already non-federal regional based management groups that meet and determine policies. There are some agencies, such as Interior, which already cover federal lands and waterways.

End the war on drugs, the war of poverty, and all the other losing battles against concepts. Treat all drugs equally, and tax them according to their level of societal harm.

This is a hodgepodge. First, there is the lexical nonsense of "war" on drugs, on poverty, on terrorism. Because of the muddled thinking this terminology leads to, we are involved in real wars that have no real effect on terrorism; the drug situation has escalated to almost guerrilla war proportions; and poverty is continued to be ignored.

Terrorism is a crime, often an international crime. Treat it as such.

Poverty cannot be eradicated. Hunger can. Homelessness can. However, no matter what is done, there will always be some percentage at the bottom of the economic scale (and anyone who doesn't understand that should go back to watching Survivor and leave these issues for adults). Up to some arbitrary point, these are "the poor". Whether that means they don't have enough to eat or that they have to drive a Ford instead of a Ferrari is the only really important question.

Drugs? Alcohol, nicotine, caffeine are legal and yet they already cause problems with legislation that restricts what can be made, what can be sold and to whom, what taxes need to be payed to what authority. Recreational drugs? The world was going to come to an end if something wasn't done about demon rum. Something was done -- epic fail as they say nowadays. It would seem that intelligent people would learn the lesson. And they have. But the other 90% of the voters keep progress from being made.

I think we agree. I'm just acknowledging that there are limits to what government can eradicate.

Eliminate inheritance taxes.

I've mixed feelings. However, this is mostly an academic point. The present level is sufficiently high that it doesn't effect much of anyone. Those whom it does effect are mostly smart enough to incorporate themselves or set up limited partnerships so that there is no inheritance in the legal sense. The few who are both rich enough to be effected and stupid enough not to take advantage of the many loopholes deserve to pay. Call it a stupidity tax.

More like an honesty tax. If you play by the book, you get burned. If you manipulate and finagle the system, you can avoid getting burned. So, in general, I oppose systems where people need to lie or cheat as a matter of course. Such as, with financial aid in declaring your degree/major just to get aid. Or, when people on welfare actually earn less money if they get a job and tell the truth. It just screams for people to defraud and deceive, and that is just a bad design.