Non-mainstream ideas you would implement if President

[almostbusto]

[ QUOTE ]

Lastly, eliminate public school entirely. Replace with a cash handout to lower-income families which they can chooose to spend on education if they wish. No compulsory attendance of course.


[/ QUOTE ]

forgot this one. very good idea imo.

[troymclur]

For all you pardoning people. Why don't you make the stipulation for 'non-violent' drug offendors?

[ QUOTE ]
I would radically change the tax system. I would replace our current annual income tax, and most other taxes, with a very progressive tax on all income. This would include capital gains, gifts, inheritances, etc. So estates would not be taxed, but heirs would.

Additionally, I would change the accounting system so that you aren't taxed based only on the previous year's income. Instead, you would be taxed based on something like 10% of your income for each of the past 10 years. So if you earned an inheritance of $1 million, it would be treated as though you received income of $100,000 for each of the next ten years, which would tax this income in a much lower bracket than someone who actually earned $1 million every year.

The tax would probably be about the same as it is now for middle-income earners, but reach about 95% once a person was making over $1 million/year. Taxes would also be lower for the working poor because the income tax would replace the regressive payroll tax.

[/ QUOTE ]

95% income tax for 1 million+? Are you a communist? (serious question)

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
For all you pardoning people. Why don't you make the stipulation for 'non-violent' drug offendors?

[/ QUOTE ]

What's a violent drug offense?

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would radically change the tax system. I would replace our current annual income tax, and most other taxes, with a very progressive tax on all income. This would include capital gains, gifts, inheritances, etc. So estates would not be taxed, but heirs would.

Additionally, I would change the accounting system so that you aren't taxed based only on the previous year's income. Instead, you would be taxed based on something like 10% of your income for each of the past 10 years. So if you earned an inheritance of $1 million, it would be treated as though you received income of $100,000 for each of the next ten years, which would tax this income in a much lower bracket than someone who actually earned $1 million every year.

The tax would probably be about the same as it is now for middle-income earners, but reach about 95% once a person was making over $1 million/year. Taxes would also be lower for the working poor because the income tax would replace the regressive payroll tax.

[/ QUOTE ]

95% income tax for 1 million+? Are you a communist? (serious question)

[/ QUOTE ]

I consider myself a socialist, but the idea is not that radical. The top income tax rate in the United States was above 90% from the 1940's to 1960's, and this rate started at a much lower income level than $1 million, even accounting for inflation.

[Case Closed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For all you pardoning people. Why don't you make the stipulation for 'non-violent' drug offendors?

[/ QUOTE ]

What's a violent drug offense?

[/ QUOTE ]

I could probably beat you to death with a pound of coke. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
but it's pretty bad on 2+2 compared to some other political or philisophical message boards I read and it smacks of a certain level of intellectual laziness and some macho need to attack the messenger (you're a stupid dumdumhead) rather than constructively rip apart the message

[/ QUOTE ]

Most political message boards I've seen have one clearly prevailing viewpoint... even when there's enough differences to have disccussions, all but one group are a smallish minority. Here, we've not only got 2 largish groups that are very different (we'll call them liberal and libertarian), but one of those groups is so out of the "mainstream" that many people seem to find its huge presense here offensive and attack it constantly. They don't do that so much on boards where the viewpoint is barely present.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
I assume you mean toxic to humans - ie; so all those using drugs would die? good idea. can't wait to see how it works.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, motivate those who are tolerating the tyrannay into outright revolution. Great idea.

Hey wait... YEAH! [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]

If the government imposed a 100% inheritance tax that somehow couldn't be avoided, I'd prefer to liquidate all my assets and literally burn the money before I die rather than let such an evil government get it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Of course, this would be a much less evil way to fund government than the taxes we have now... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
For all you pardoning people. Why don't you make the stipulation for 'non-violent' drug offendors?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oxymoron. Using or selling drugs isn't violent and these are the drug crimes. People who are in jail for murder, attempted murder, theft, whatever aren't in jail for drug crimes, even if they're drug related. Anyone in jail for a "drug crime" (using or selling) is in jail for a non-violent crime. Some people might be in jail for multiple crimes, like say selling drugs and murder, but pardoning the drug crime does not mean pardoning the murder.

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So is it safe to assume you can't back up your implied claim that whatever majority of wealth the top 3% hold, it stays in their families for generation after generation?

[/ QUOTE ]

Back it up? It exactly stays there feel free research this on your own.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't matter if 3% control 90% of the wealth. Wealth is not finite. The rich aren't stuffing their cash in mattresses keeping everyone else from it. They spend and invest, which circulates money through the economy and allows others to earn and create wealth for themselves.