Opinions expressed on the Whig Blog, in the Forums and in comments are those of the individual authors and do not necessarilly represent positions of the Modern Whig Party. The ability to post opinion pieces and comments is not restricted to Whig members (although blog entries are by invitation.) These items are not pre-screened but are subject to our Terms of Use. Please Contact Us or Ask a Question if you have concerns about the content.
Hello, I'm trying to create a tax plan but I need a little help in the details department. I created a simple framework to build off of. I need some more forward thinking ideas! Thank you in advance. Please read my very basic framework.
The American Tax plan
Elimination of federal income tax on service members (active, reserves, National Guard personnel)
Reduction of federal income tax on first responders (firefighter, police officers, medics, and certain medical personnel)
Elimination of federal income tax on veterans with combat experience and veterans with service related injuries
This past Thursday 02/09/12 I was fortunate enough along with some other NC Whig members to hear notorious ex lobbyist and poster boy for corruption in our federal government, Jack Abramoff speak in Raleigh, NC. It was an enlightening experience as Mr. Abramoff made some points I agreed with and others I did not. I for one personally think that he is trying to make a difference by using his recognition as a “villain of the story” to help reform our government. He certainly is not profiting very much from it as he has an enormous restitution to pay after nearly 1,300 days in federal prison.
Last Sunday, in between bouts of funny commercials and the Madonna concert I changed over to The Simpsons for, the New York Giants defeated the New England Patriots in the Super Bowl. Given my that neither my pick or my team made it, I'm rather pleased with the outcome - after all, any day I get to see the smile get wiped off of Tom Brady's smug face is a good day.
The State of the Union address had the theme "build America to last" with heavy emphasis on jobs. I want to know why now? This is where Mr. Obama should have placed his emphasis when he first took office instead of health care reform.
In March of 2009, he said that not only are most of the jobs that were moved offshore not going to come back, but that we did not need or want them to do so because they would be bad for the economy. After three years of continuing high unemployment it would seem Mr. Obama was mistaken about the last part.
As the new year approaches, it is only natural for people to both look to the past and look to the future, and guessing where ourselves and this year will fit in the long term. In fact, I am reading one of my old science-fiction pulp magazines from around the mid 1950s, and some of the guesses they had for our own time.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
By 29 I realized something was seriously wrong with what I was doing. Work led to riches - then it all disappeared. That was in 1987. Didn't realize then the economic anarchy of Reaganomics then, but I was greatly impacted by it.
Also, there was the shift to 'Human Resources vs. Personnel' - a serious death blow to civilized society. We are now just a thing in the minds of those who 'use' us. Think about it folks. I may use and put my words differently at times, but think about this new reference to what was once called people or a body. Now 'it' is a resource.
This book is a well written and exciting history of the early days of the American Experiment. The book provides a detailed examination of the contrasting principles of the American Colonial life. Long before the Civil War (touched on in his second book of the series) there were deep tensions between the “Puritan North” and the “Cavalier South.” These competing philosophies have had a direct impact on the American people and governing principles to this day.
This book summarizes and gives context to the intellectual debates in the Federalists and Anti-Federalist papers. The author presents the historical context in a very neutral manner and therefore this work is a little more “academic” than some of the other books I have read.
Hi, I'm Keystone from Texas. This website makes the MWP look promising to me. I agree on some of the issues that seem to be a consensus such as gun law, same sex relationships, and affirmative action. It also seems that people here share my view on the irresponsible deficit that we are running at. But I just have other questions...
1. What is the stance on Free Trade vs Fair Trade?
2. What is the stance on current intervention in the Middle East (the "where we stand" section is very vague about this)?
3. More specifically, what is the stance on the Israel/Palestine conflict?
I have no connection to how this group came up with this, but I did come to the main point on my own a few years back. While out here in the peaceful outback of Nevada, with wind, dust, and grit a person tends to do some thinking.
I also hold that our US Constitution needs approval each generation, but let's try to get our voice back first.
Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer
Recent comments
Sorry, responded before getting to the bottom.
peace
Dogwood - "As far as a flat tax being harder on the poor, in my opinion that couldn't be further from the truth."
I'd be interested in your reasoning.
1. What is the stance on Free Trade vs Fair Trade?
Most people here seem to support fair trade vs. free trade. Personally, I respectfully disagree with that position.
2. What is the stance on current intervention in the Middle East (the "where we stand" section is very vague about this)?
Yes, I agree the parties position is very vague. I think there may be several factions within the party that disagree on this subject--"Where We Stand" looks like it was designed to please all of them.
Personally, I reject non-interventionism while simultaneously rejecting adventurism. I think this philosophy is called "Liberal realism," amongst several other names. I'm also Wilsonian enough to support humanitarian intervention in extreme cases. But my approach to foreign policy is in a constant state of flux.
3. More specifically, what is the stance on the Israel/Palestine conflict?
I don't think the party's taken a stand on this.
4. What is your stance on Social Security?
Again, I don't think there's and official position. But few people in the U.S. are really against Social Security.
5. What about other hot button issues such as SOPA, legalization of Marijuana (I don't use the stuff, FYI), etc.
Most issues seem to be subject to debate.
"I would generally classify myself as a fiscal conservative/social liberal. That seems summarize what the people here are. Am I correct? Or do I need to continue my ongoing search for a political party that shares my beliefs?"
Yes, most people here do appear to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I'm not--I reject balanced budgets in favor of responsible borrowing and proper capital budgeting, and take a center-right to conservative stance on a number of social issues (and a center-left stance on others), but yeah, most people be are FC/SL.
FYI, I'm not formally a Whig yet.
It has always been my personal belief that if someone takes a human life then they themselves have left their life to void. No doubt others in the past have shared this opinion, and that is how capital punishment came about. Many can argue, debate, and agree that there is a problem with the death penalty, but I think the consensus is that America needs to be bigger than the individual and consider the value of human life over revenge. Where is the fix to be made? It is definitely not an issue that can be put to rest in one sentence, let alone nine comments. Regarding trial, these key points are always brought up: irrefutable evidence, eye witness testimony, forensic evidence, and mental stability of the defendant. Regarding sentence, issues such as intent, societal reparation, and appeal are discussed. But to dig further, if one is not sentenced to death, and given life imprisonment without parole, what are they doing in prison? How are long-term prisoners handled, paid, recuperated? Then it is no longer a discussion of capital punishment, but of both the prison and appeals system. To continue on that topic, even when a prisoner has been sentenced to death, they spend countless years tied up in appeals and litigation, pushing the discussion back to the prison and appeals systems. Say the death sentence is abolished; this is not a difficult concept, but it would change the focus. The focus will then be on the treatment of long-term prisoners. But, we are here discussing capital punishment. And with that I say, if a person displays gross neglect for the sanctity of human life, an inability to accept rehabilitation, repeated aggression in social settings, and no prospects for civil living, then and only then should they be considered for a death sentence. Otherwise, they should live out their lives in federal prison with no parole, and limited appeals. In long-term imprisonment rehabilitation, hard-labor community service, construction, farming, sanitation, and education should be the focus of an inmate's term. The days of sitting in a cell, plotting, building prison community and hierarchy in the yard, and collecting a wage should end. Prisoners should give back to the country and local communities they are taking from, earn their room and board, develop beneficiary skills, and gain higher education. If a person did the crime, they should pay for it in sweat and blood, not just in time; they shouldn't have to pay for it with their life.
Valid questions.
Look at it this way: this country gives states large sums of money for homeland defense, while states are laying off police and firefighters. Also, salaries for first responders are contributing to states' financial problems. I am not sure I would include DMV personnel in these tax discounts!! but I am open to suggestions about where to draw the line. This is less about "who is deserving" and more about the public good / public safety.
As far as "taking from America" I would certainly include companies that are using tax loopholes, and there are companies that receive enormous subsidies from the U.S., despite being profitable without subsidies. Those subsidies should end. The financial firms that are supposedly "too big to fail" and get taxpayer money? Takers. As far as outsourcing in general, I think American trade policy has contributed to the problem, and ought to be looked at. Our policy allows Chinese goods to be cheap, so companies go to China. And then, on election year, the same companies give campaign contributions to the politicians who gave them all this cheap labor.
Does "people who give something to America" include all public servants and members of the armed services? How do you determine who should be considered an "American contributor" and thus pay less taxes?
Same could be said of people who "take from America". How is this defined exactly? Is any company that outsources considered a taker? Or is it only when combined with taking advantage of our current tax loopholes that it becomes an offence?
Hello!
The Founding Fathers were in favor of a progressive tax plan. I agree with the general idea that people who give something to America should be taxed less: service members and first responders, say. But I also think that people who take from America should be taxed more - for example, the people who pay nothing in taxes and send American jobs to China (yes, I am thinking about G.E.). This is only fair, because their behavior indicates that they are taking more than they are giving back. I'd also suggest the following as a place to start thinking about a tax philosophy: http://american_almanac.tripod.com/carey95.htm
I will make this very short. I am inclined to agree with what newindependentwhig said above, especially point 5.
Hello!
In my opinion regarding where Whigs stand on these issues, I'd say:
(1) Free trade is a complicated subject to begin with; currently, so-called free trade agreements help corporations increase their profits but harm Americans. I'd refer you to this link: http://american_almanac.tripod.com/carey95.htm and particularly the sentence, "To raise the value of labour throughout the world, we need only to raise the value of our own."
(2) Given the Whigs' historical support for infrastructure and economic independence, I'd say that a Whiggish solution would involve alternative energies to prevent America from being dependent on enemies like Iran. And part of the solution would be to encourage Arabs to reach an agreement about staying within their own borders and nuclear non-proliferation.
(3) The Whigs were in favor of limited involvement in foreign affairs, and America has been very involved in Israel ever since the Cold War. There's no simple answer there but it would be fascinating to ask the opinion of the American people.
(4) Social Security is a public good; it is not contributing to the deficit. I don't think Whigs would approve of switching over to stocks, and I doubt that they'd support nationalizing pension plans. But that's the kind of issue where public participation -- perhaps a referendum -- is needed.
(5) Whigs are of the John Locke tradition which holds that the private acts of citizens, which do not harm others, should not be illegal. As far as SOPA goes, hmmm, I'm inclined to think that Whigs would regard the Internet as a public good, and as such, not something that should be turned into a corporate fiefdom, which is clearly the intent of SOPA.
You ask is there a connection between current tax rates and the poor economy and pre WWII rates and economy. I see no connection at all.
Your assertion is based on income tax rates. Income taxes are a drop in the bucket compared to total tax suffered in this country today. Add in local sales taxes, property taxes, gas taxes, various government service fees and on and on.
We pay exorbitant taxes to all levels of government and those governments spend that and more forcing the economy into its weakened state.
The only way to revive this dying economy is radically slash spending, revamp the tax code and give the people their money back and let the free market correct the last 60 years if rotten government.