A New Tax Plan

I hate paying taxes, and would prefer to have the money to spend on myself. I understand however, there is a need for taxes for the general functioning of government. Wouldn’t it be nice if one could fund programs as they saw fit and refuse to fund programs they didn’t support? Not a reference to choosing whether or not to pay taxes, as Thoreau would advocate and be arrested for, but rather a system where one could distribute their money among programs they chose.

It may be as simple as a ballot one submitted with their taxes.

Take this example: I make $50,000/year (gross). I am taxed $10,000. With my tax statement I submit a voter-generated ballot-like form (call it a “tax ballot”), and 90% of my money goes to the programs I want to fund (more on why only 90% momentarily). I want a portion of my dollars to go to national defense, some to welfare, some to some project in my community. I have not only paid my taxes, but I have exercised my political voice. Does this give the rich more power? Sure, from a funding standpoint. But it doesn’t give them any more votes in the legislature. If the masses want certain things unfunded, they lobby to have those things taken off the “tax ballot.” The rich may not have the option to spend money on the things they want if the “masses” choose to take such things off the ballot entirely.

Pork barrel projects would be mostly non-existent from an elected official standpoint. If a community needs something badly enough they can advocate for it. They spend their tax dollars on it. If they don’t get the amount that is required, that money goes into a “lay-away” type plan for future use. Once the project is funded, it can be started. Modifications of this would work as well. Perhaps if a community funds 50% of a project it can begin with the stipulation that a certain percentage will continue to come out of individual taxes until the project is completed. If the community can’t fund it because it’s too expensive, perhaps it isn’t necessary. If it is a necessity, the government has 10% of everyone’s taxes set aside to address this.

The 10% percent set aside however, is not only for addressing these types of issues, but also for ensuring projects are appropriately funded should public opinion dramatically change. The most obvious, but not only, example of this would be military spending. If the government entered into a war that the public decided it didn’t want to fund anymore, they could simply stop sending money. To just stop funding troops overseas in a combat situation would have tragic consequences. The government would be forced to come up with a solution to end hostilities however, because they know money is no longer available, and would have a limited pot of money with which they could effectively withdraw American troops.

If the government decided it wanted more money for a specific reason it could still try to pass bond initiatives. Like current bonds, a person could loan money to the government for the bond and get paid interest on that money because they believe in the investment. War bonds have been an effective way to fund wars. If the government tried to pass an initiative allowing them to issue bonds for fighting a war, it would have to be voted on. If public opinion was against it, it wouldn’t pass, the war wouldn’t be funded, and would eventually have to end.

There are other ways the government makes money, but this would control at least a portion of the money. Specifically, the money that is taken directly from the people is distributed how the people want it to be distributed. It attaches strings to every dollar the government gets in tax revenue. It gives them very little discretion with what to do with tax dollars.

Many already spend time doing their taxes. If given the choice of where their money was spent, they may opt for itemizing their tax dollars. Much like itemizing their tax return, the “tax ballot” could be generated to spend some money on this and some on that. Taxpayers could also opt for generic plans that parties outline, much like voting for a specific ticket on the ballot, but they would be given a choice to “itemize” if they would like.

There is no doubt this plan would pose a logistical problem. Considering the resources the government has and the wasteful spending that occurs regularly however, adequate resources to regulate it are available. It would force a certain amount of accountability on the government, which would also be new. There would also have to be checks put into place that would force the government into some sort of budget balancing debate, which has historically been an issue, but it gives much more power to individuals, more fairly distributes the public’s voice, and gives them a clear incentive on why to pay their taxes.

Faith

"I don't care what you believe, but believe in something."

- Shepherd Book, Serenity

You have to have faith. Not necessarily the believe in God type faith, but faith in life, faith in yourself, faith that things will work out the way they are supposed to work out. We make choices, we learn lessons. Sometimes the most important lessons are learned after the fact. We hope and pray that we haven't damaged anything to the point where we cannot return, but generally, we have, and we can't.

Faith is like hope, but not the double edged sword. Hope can lead us to believe that something we want to happen will, even though it may have no chance. Faith believes that things will happen the way they are supposed to happen, and to have faith allows us to pursue our own happiness. Even if we're unsure that we're on the right path.

So have a little faith. Believe that, as Voltaire said, things happen for a reason, and therefore it must be the very best reason.

The Purpose of Life

Just some random thoughts from today about life in general. I haven't done any studies and I'm just going to ramble about what I think, which isn't really out of the norm.

Every individual is born in a group. If it's just the mother and father, it's still a group. If it's a single mother with no father around, at one point, there still was a group. A child cannot be created without the "group." I remember as a child one of the rituals to becoming a Weeblo was the three sticks (representing the kid and his parents). One cannot stand alone, two cannot stand, but three can be balanced.

We are born into this life and if we're lucky we end up part of a family. We spend the rest of our lives creating new relationships with people we know of as our friends. Some of our friends are brief, some last a lifetime.

Sidenote: I remember Doug writing something about this (reference to types of people in our lives) a while ago, if I can find the link I'll post that.

We all travel this road and make choices. Ultimately, on some level, we are alone, but the whole time we're constantly creating these friendships so we can share this life we've created. Sometimes we become more than friends and have a mutual bond that is friendship, but much deeper. Regardless of the type of relationship, these people create who we are as people.

Here's where I start to get confused. Society (at least from my perspective right now) seems to be turning away from this. The individual is the important piece. Work hard and achieve what you can. You don't need help. I don't mean that society is telling us to abandon others, but there's a perspective that we MUST be independent.

I understand the need to be able to do for oneself, take care of oneself. But is there a problem with leaning? Asking for help? After all, we create friendships specifically for that purpose.

Somewhere along the way we question our existence or our purpose. Everyone wants to hope that at some point in time, after we're gone, we'll be remembered. That in some way we've created something that somebody else will remember. Most of us will never be famous musicians, actors, or authors, so all we can hope for is that those people that we called our friends will remember us and who we were. I find it ironic that we will try to accomplish things independently, but the only way it will have any meaning after we're gone is if somebody else remembers. That someone else are our friends.

...

I may try to clean this up. I just read it (first draft, as always), and I see where it needs some serious editing, but I don't have time right now. Sometimes it's just best to just get the general thought down. I hope it at least made some sense.

Olympic Torch Run Follow Up

Apparently, everyone is claiming victory. The city of San Francisco, the Chinese, and the protesters, well, they're not really happy, but I'd say they probably won. I'm not sure how hiding the torch so no one except the randomly lucky can see it is a victory for San Francisco or China, but I get confused easily.

The protesters were upset they didn't get to do their chanting or cause a ruckus...gee, now there's a surprise. They got the entire city of San Francisco to act like a giant coward and they're not happy?

Sounds like they got exactly what they wanted. Quit protesting for the sake of protesting. You got your message across now shut up and go home.

Olympic Torch Run

I'm watching coverage of the Olympic Torch "run" through the streets of San Francisco. For anyone who doesn't know anything about what's going on, there have been protests around the world (wherever the torch is) about China's treatment of Tibet.

Ok, I get it. China's treatment of Tibet=bad. I don't support the Chinese government but I fail to see how this is in any way productive.

Which one of the torch bearers is actually oppressing anyone?

It's a protest. Have your protest, but don't actually stop the event. The Olympics are NOT about you. There was a group of Buddhists who apparently walked across the Golden Gate Bridge in protest this morning. They didn't stop anything but they were noticed. That's what a protest is supposed to be.

That being said, the Olympics are supposed to be non-political. Granted, one can make many references to them being a political event: Jesse Owens (can't have a Black man showing up the Aryan race and Hitler in front of Germans)/Berlin, Israel/Munich, US (protesting USSR's invasion of Afghanistan)/Moscow, USSR (retaliation for US not going to Moscow)/Los Angeles...but the fact is it's supposed to be about the athletes. These people that have spent their lives (albeit short at this point, most are in their 20s) trying to get here.

Yes, the run is symbolic, but I don't see how anyone is learning anything new about Tibet based on stopping a torch run through a city. I understand protests and getting one's point across, but to me this is just stupid.

Q

It's just a table by the window. It's a nice table, and probably the best seat in the place, but it's just a table.

This table however, has a history. Eight months ago I brought my girlfriend to Q with Doug. We were seated at this table. A couple months later, we broke up. I was devastated, so that night, Doug and I went back to Q, were seated at this table again. I ended up sending a bunch of texts back and forth with her. We ended up getting back together.

Now, eight months later, we've broken up again and Doug and I went to Q ... were seated at the same table.

Doug sent me a text, "this isn't from her." It was pretty entertaining. We laughed. We had a bottle of wine called "Writer's Block." Same bottle we had in July.

Life definitely has a sense of humor.

High Fidelity, Part 2

I posted a review on High Fidelity back in 2003. What a great movie. I watched it last back in September on my computer (because the DVD player on the TV wasn't set up) with a good friend of mine (perhaps a story for another time).

Knowing it's a great movie, and knowing the plot, I decided to take it over to Doug's. Maybe it's the state of mind I'm in, maybe it's just a fantastic movie written by people with a pretty firm grasp on what life is like.

It definitely makes my top 5 movies of all time.