Trump’s Tax Plan…

Of all the tax plans yet presented, Senator Paul’s is, out of the rest, the most economically sound.

Trump recently announced his tax plan – and although it is nice to hear something other than nativist rants out of Trump, the tax plan he offers should be explored a bit.

First, let’s look at the details.  Instead of seven tax brackets, there would only be four.  Individuals making under $25,000 per year or couples making under $50,000 would be exempt from any income tax.  That’s actually not a bad idea.

Trump also proposes to end the marriage penalty tax, the alternative minimum tax, and the estate tax.  Also, not a bad idea.

Also, no business under the Trump plan will pay more than 15% of income in taxes.  Not a bad idea either.

How does he intend to “make up for it”? “By closing loopholes available to the very rich.”

Not as if that is anything outrageous, besides the fact that the new conservative darling is using a typical left-wing line.  And I would be surprised if closing a few loopholes would have any effect at all.  After all, that line has been used for years but the “loopholes” remain.

It has been intriguing to see the media reaction on this tax plan.

Most news outlets try and estimate the “cost” of such a tax plan; Trump’s tax plan would cost, according to NBC, 10.2 trillion dollars, added to the deficit.  Rand Paul’s, according to U.S. News and World Report, would cost the “economy” 3 trillion dollars over ten years.

Have we forgotten the concept of the Laffer curve?  Typically attributed to the era of “Reaganomics” the concept – government tax revenues increasing when tax rates are decreased – goes back nearly two centuries.

Say what you will about “Reaganomics” or “Trickle-Down economics” (which isn’t actually a legitimate economic theory) – it is absurd to say that tax cuts on anyone could negatively impact the economy.  But that’s what the media will have us think.


What does the future hold for us?

The Future!  

The choices left to the American people aren’t very bright.

I was impressed with the words Rand Paul offered us – but I fear all to much that they fall on deaf Republican ears.  No, this is Trump’s circus, and Trump’s circus it will remain – thanks in a large part to the media.  Trump is great for ratings.  He’s outrageous, offensive, abrasive – and gives talking heads hours of material to talk about.

But put him with other candidates on one stage,  and all of the sudden he isn’t so high and mighty.

I won’t try and predict who will be the nominee.  It is impossible to do so at this point – either I’ll look like a fool or will just happen upon a lucky guess.  But I have a greater chance of looking like a fool, so I refrain from predictions.

I can say this: either the “outsiders” and the “grassroots” will get their way, it will be between an outright socialist on the left, and a fascist on the right.  It will be up to America to decide, then, which oppressive ideology is least oppressive.

Or, if the establishment gets their way, it will be between two mediocre establishment candidates.  Then, America will have to decide which is the least mediocre.  This is precisely what has been done for decades – and the results of this are just what we deserve.

It never occurs to anyone that there are other choices than these?

Choosing between the lesser of the two evils is all well and good – but do not be surprised when you still end up with evil.

But I am getting ahead of myself, the general election is still a year away…

The “War on Police” …

I cannot quite understand why everyone feels compelled to take such firm, concrete sides in nonsense social conflicts.

As with this “war on police” that has come about lately.  I don’t think it is an all-out war; the delusions of a few (very few!) are not sufficient to be considered a “war.”  But no matter; everyone still feels compelled to pick sides in a conflict that no one can truly win.  Here again, both sides are right, and both sides are wrong.

I cannot understand why some condemn the entire police force for the negative actions of a few – nor can I understand why some people worship the police force because of the positive actions of a few.  It seems to me this is just another political conflict.

To those who oppose the police:  do you not realize that the police are a necessary part of a civilized society?  Sure, I oppose the militarization of the police like anyone else; but there will always have to be some form of police presence in a society, or else the laws won’t mean anything – the law is force.  

But it is not right to threaten the individuals who are a part of the police force, just because they are a part of it.  For it is the system itself that deserves the blame.  Threatening individual officers only provides an excuse to expand the police force further.

To those who support (or outright worship) the police:  many of you claim to be quite skeptical of government.  Meanwhile, you are so supportive of the enforcement arm of that government you are so skeptical of.  Don’t you see the contradiction?

The individuals that make up the police force are not worthy of blame, but they still should be looked upon with some amount of skepticism because they have pledged an oath to uphold the laws – the corrupt laws, the laws which punish any amount of non-violent, non-aggressive activity.

Nobody has anything bad to say about firemen.  Why?  They stay in their fire-stations, and only come out if they are needed.  They don’t go around looking for fires, nor do they go around trying to start them.  They serve a very, very useful function.

The police serve a useful function too, but they dedicate too much time and effort trying to enrich themselves with revenue and punish “crimes” that are nonviolent and non-aggressive.