Are we witnessing the collapse of America?

the problem with lowering taxation is that it lowers revenue to fund infrastructure or healthcare or what else? Um... See I'm really not in the know, and it's true that I like money. But I also like a sure thing. So I think what would be better is higher taxes but for more stuff. That's better if you ask me. And it would be worth it.

All the things that they say they're going to do right now... I don't know if you watch TV when they debate, but every word is BS. It's like the way that they tax us right now, none of what they're saying can be true. They have to increase taxes to make healthcare and tuition feasible. I mean, certain people can afford healthcare and tuition now, but by no means all people. That's what I think our biggest concern should be.

The thing that confuses me right now and that I don't understand is our military. Should we downsize it?
I like being able to help other countries. It's a part of the American ethos as far as I can see. For example trying to help Afghanistan. But I don't really know what exactly we're doing there.
Anyway

 

Well, old timer, when you and yours pass on, there may be hope for this country yet. If you were around to see it, you might call it destruction. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. I don't know what the moniker "Rainbowtoke" stands for. I've been fortunate to participate in gatherings of the Rainbow Family of the Living Light", a bunch of latter day hippies who gather nationally on an annual basis and regionally off and on throughout the year. I think that when Republicans, Evangelical Christians, and other assorted right wingers are raptured, they will be taken to the Great Gathering in the Sky, to partake of the bounties of the Heavenly Dumpster, and join stand hand-in-hand in the Circle with the homeless; with oothless, bathless drug addicts; prostitutes; dilapidated hebephrenics and other assorted degenerates and low lifes. And it will be Heaven, but some will think they're in Hell. hahahaha!

 

Perhaps you had better re-read my post. I never said anything about lowering taxes. Indeed, taxes would increase for the majority of Americans. The difference is that those with an income of less than $40,000 would owe nothing. And the budget, under the Dice plan, would necessarily be balanced.

Since you mentioned the military I shall respond. Our current military expenditures are totally inexcusable. I remain convinced that key congressmen use the military budget as a way of getting money back to their home districts. The next big 'war' will be fought in cyberspace and, I'm sad to say this, but the US doesn't seem to be currently up to the challenge.

 

they wouldn't pay? That'd deplete the coffers is what I was saying. If they don't pay, I was saying, the government is unable to fund tuition or something else...

 

People who make above $40,000 would pay taxes on every dollar they earn over that amount, the percentage that they would pay would depend on the federal budget for that fiscal year. They may wind up paying 50% of the income they make that is over $40,000, I don't know.

 

I see what you're saying. That's a fine idea! I think that the lower to middle class would thrive under such a plan, but I wonder what would become of social programs designed to benefit them.

 

Hopefully, they are no longer needed.

 

Already its possible to replace virtually every bureaucrat in DC and most public school teachers with computers, while over a trillion dollars was invested in AI last year alone. People making a good living are already starting to discuss how the government must inevitably start putting everyone on the dole. They will have to create jobs such as cleaning up the environment as one of the few productive ways that people can actually contribute to the economy. Before the trade war with China, they had already started automating their entire electronics assembly lines, to the point where 400 workers threatened to jump off a factory roof. If you had any doubts about the future of automation, now is the time to get rid of them.

What we still need is a theory of everything, but its coming fast.

 

I see. That'd be nice, but the reality is a little … I don't know. It's like giving a homeless person money and they don't know to get a haircut so they buy a hamburger or booze or whatever.

So, what I think happens is that those people spend their money on things other than privately owned healthcare and then they need publicly funded healthcare. With my plan they may not have a lot of spending money, but they will get publicly funded healthcare/tuition/etc.

 

What I was saying is that, the taxes can be very useful, given responsible leadership. All of these "pipedreams" like free healthcare can be a reality with a little sacrifice. Why they're not stating a dollar amount when it's debated is probably because we would think we can't afford it. I think it'd be worth it though.

 

I see your point, I really do. But my point is that it is none of my business how people decide to spend their own money. Nor is it any of Uncle Sam's business. Leave people alone.

 

I wish good leaders were all we needed, but the whole world is going to hell in a handbasket and has been for quite some time. Its enough to drive the Pentagon and the entire semi-conducting industry bananas, because they were among the first to really notice the whole planet is going down the rabbit hole. Computer programmers were among the first to realize decades ago that what is coming is self-organizing systems logics. You could say that because quantum mechanics rule the universe, its more useful to think of everything as alive and capable of growing and reproducing. That includes human awareness itself, and we are the collective unconscious awakening from a long nap.

 

People seem to have gotten unbelievably stupid and sheepish so maybe

 

I hope that people, like Rainbowtoke, who want to live in the past, are doomed to repeat it, with all of it's flaws.

 

This might help........ The Alternative Secret History of the World

 

Ditch the income and property tax and institute a consumption tax on goods and services.

Way more revenue will be generated because everyone will pay. Gets rid of most of the IRS.

 

Liberalism isn't destroying America any more than the right's ill-conceived vision would. People are simply moving away from puritanism, sometimes, yes, to ill effect. I don't think abortion is a great thing. I think it's sometimes necessary, but certainly should not be celebrated or even promoted. The sanctity of life should be preserved in our psyche. I don't think it bodes well for us as human beings to have millions of dead fetuses littering our landfills.

But on the other hand, the answer isn't to make prayer in schools obligatory. It isn't to make Christianity the recognized national religion, or ostracize those who don't have the same "family values." We can't just be satisfied with those answers; we need innovators who think outside of the box.

The problem, as I see it, is with capitalism. A system that has no need for values. Values take a backseat to anything that makes a buck. And people will do anything (and often times their ideas are not very good) to put themselves out there. The alternative to all of this madness has got to be for people to grow up spiritually and mentally; it can't be for people to adopt an extreme puritan lifestyle, however. Honestly I'm not sure which prospect is worse.....

 

America suffers from crony capitalism.

 

Sounds like a variation of Steve Forbes' flat tax that he put forward in 1996 & 2000 when he was running for President, or the one Rand Paul proposed in 2015. It's great if you're rich--not so much if you're poor. If person A earns $1000 & person B earns $10,000 and the flat tax is 10%, Person A is left with $900 and person B is left with $9,000. assuming they have to pay the same for the bare necessities. Person A would have little left, person B would have much more. You've added a feature amounting to a guaranteed annual income, in the form of a standard deduction of $40,000 for all. That helps, but doesn't solve the problem of inequitable impact. And there's always the problem of deciding how high the flat tax has to be to bring in the necessary revenue. Paul was calling for 14.5%. Forbes said 17%.

 

Still waiting...