Why I feel the Abortion Consent Law is a Bad Idea.

    When I heard of the proposal from State Representative Bill Bratton of providing written consent from the father of the child before an abortion could occur. A story covered in Mother Jones. My first thought was that was too much of an overreach. Although, the premise seams sound, the law appears to only act as a trump card. And I see this law being summarily overturned in the courts, without much controversy. 

     Although, the proposed law may be well intentioned, I see many problems regarding the application of this law.

     One reason is because, this law functions as a trump card. Thus giving the perceived future father of the baby the ability to override the mother’s wishes by the force of law. Not just equal say, but required participation. The father is not required to do one thing to stop the abortion, just refuse to sign. This leaves to mother exposed to further manipulation. 

     I agree that the current abortion laws do favor the rights of the female over the rights of the male. And this power can be used vindictively. As in the case of a woman saying. I am going to abort your baby in spite of how you feel. However, can we justify placing an equal law that states. You will carry this baby full term, and create a true balance. As for establishing the rights of the unborn, this is the only battle ground that this issue could be won on. The father/mother issue is just an obfuscation.

If the problem was a plague of Succubus that are stealing the seed of virtuous men, in order to obtain the blood price to partake in the sacrament of the radical feminist. Then this law may be applicable.

The problem I have is that this law is that it can give an individual with Machiavellian intentions the ability to use the state to enforce limited slavery.

     If you are male and do not wish to have an aborted baby. There are time tested ways to reduce the chances of this happening. You spend time with your potential mate. You ask questions, share dreams and determine that your mate is compatible and shares your values, before you engage in the activities that can create life. This is not a guarantee, but it greatly reduces the odds of bad decisions. I admit this is hard because, it requires self-control, and self-denial. An activity also mocked in today’s society.

     If your only contribution was to put in the required three dates in the hopes of sampling the goods. Then wishing to use the power of the state to stop a woman from killing your baby. I have no sympathy for you. You will have earned your regret.

     I am pro-life. However, I do not believe you can legislate abortion away, only drive it back underground. The only way to achieve a pro-life society is to win the hearts and minds of the society. Therefore, making it socially unacceptable. This does not include enabling a law that could be viewed as less evil than the law you are trying to remove. If you fight evil with evil, evil still wins.

     God gave us the gift of life, and consequently, he also gave us an equal if not greater gift called free will.  I am sure that God realized that this gift could be used for great evil. However, it can also lead to greater good. If we only existed without choices, we would all just exist, but would not have the ability to rise to exceptional. And our culture has embraced free will and tried to incorporate it into our constitution. We tend to write laws to punish behavior, not to remove the choice. And laws that are designed to remove choice we tend to impugn.

     Consequently, the supporters of abortion have successfully crafted the issue to be an issue of choice. To make the only visible consequence of abortion laws are the removal of a woman’s right to choose. It allow the average person to rationalize the issue to a matter of choice, and avoid having to take a moral stand. Then they can say, “I would never have or encourage someone to have an abortion. I just don’t want to make that decision for someone else.” Then they can rationalize that they are only pro-choice, not pro-abortion.

     I could create several scenarios in which this proposed law could be abused, but in the interest in brevity, I will leave it alone.

     Another issue involved in this is truth. How do you determine the paternity of the father without a court ordered paternity test? All the woman would have to do convince some man to sign a paper for her. Then pretend he was the father. That could lead to a messy court battle to require a paternity test. And then what, all pregnancies requiring paternity test. Maybe not at the beginning, they will only require it if you want an abortion. It would just be another step for state encroachment.

     In short, I believe that the sin of abortion will be the sin our society will have to pay for in future generations. Much like the past sin of slavery still haunts our existence today. Therefore, the only way to minimize the cost is to remove it the proper way, without legislative short cuts.

     There are many hidden agendas that are hiding under the pro-choice argument. Maybe it is time to allow freewill, and make the argument about the consequence and truth of abortion, instead of a matter of choice.

The CIA Diet Center

#satire

With the release of the detail of the Senate investigation into torturing of prisoners. One thing that stood out the most was the assertion about dietary manipulation.

The first thing that came to my mind was that maybe the CIA can franchise some Weight loss clinics. It sounded pretty effective With Khalid Sheikh Mohammad losing fifty pound. The advertising could post a before and after picture of him return to his fighting weight. With results like that, people would line up to pay for membership. And who needs FDA approval when you have congressional approval.

And what innovative patents they could have filed for. Although High Colonics have been around for years, with American ingenuity they took it to the next level. Anal nutrition.

Moreover, this homeopathic therapy has the beneficial effect of a non-surgical laparoscopic bands. Not only can they control the caloric intake, effects of weeks of non-oral nutrition would cause the stomach to shrink to a smaller size, thus limiting future caloric intake after therapy. Making for lasting results after treatment achieved in a natural way.

Although, governmental entities are not allowed to create private ventures, the CIA is rumored to have black op businesses in order to fund untraceable clandestine activity and to act as fronts. This would mean that they could not use their brand or past clientele performance to promote this endeavor, a marketing negative, and a lost a lot of national air-time exposure. They will be left to build the brand from the ground level. Maybe they can just license the franchise under a different name.

Does CO₂ Create Global Warming

I started this quest trying to find how CO₂ was measured and what data sets were used to support the greenhouse hypothesis.  I did not find what I expected.

I expected to have an average of CO₂ level that had been compiled from multiple stations scattered about the globe, and from that data I would be able to determine the standard of deviations collect from the samples to create a global mean. What I have found is that they primarily base their modeling on a few stations. Primarily, the Mauna Loa Observatory, in Hawaii. Most of the other stations that data is used from have similar characteristics. Most are in high altitude regions, and enjoy cold and dry climates, with a few exceptions. One being America Samoa, located between New Zealand and Hawaii, and not at a high elevation.

This I have deduced is important from the way that CO₂ is measured, they pass infrared wavelength through the sample, and measure how much of the wavelength was absorbed to determine the number of particles that are contained in the sample. Before they can do this they have to remove the remaining particles of water from the sample. That led me to think that the absorption rate for H₂O was similar to the absorption rate of CO₂. I am still researching this data, and will not cover it here.

This is an important factor, since H₂O makes up a greater percentage of atmospheric gases than CO₂ even at higher altitudes.  We are talking levels approaching 100 times greater than CO₂ at high altitudes. Something like 30,000 ppm (particles per million) to roughly 372 ppm of CO₂.

To me this has led to an Emperor has no cloths scenario. In which we are told that if you cannot see the effects of global warming, you are uneducated or a fool.  And that 98% of all scientist believe in anthropologic global warming. Is this true or are they afraid of being labeled a fool?

To be clear I am not a scientist, and I believe that human activity does have an effect on the overall climate. Whether this is good or bad depends on the criteria you use, or what you measure.

I will not argue that to date human activity has exacerbated natural weather events. It is hard to dismiss the Dust bowl created in the 1930’s as just a drought. The drought may have been a natural occurrence, however, it was made worse by poor land management practices, and the introduction of mechanized farming. And the 1995 flood reached record levels because of changes to the Missouri, Mississippi Rivers, and the surrounding flood plain areas.

We are taught in grade school of the water cycle. Carbon also has a cycle. This can clearly be seen in the data collected from Mauna Loa. In the winter CO₂ levels rise because more CO₂ is produced than used. Then it starts falling in the spring until it reaches its minimum for the year in fall and starts rising again.

The best model to explain this season cycle is a tree. A tree buds in the spring and starts to develop leaves, which are used for photosynthesis. Photosynthesis combines CO₂ from the air with H₂O with the energy of sunlight to create sugars that are used to grow the tree, and they exhale O₂. Now the sugars that are used to grow the tree become sequestered in the new growth on the tree, and this carbon will remain sequestered until the tree dies and deteriorates. Now in the fall, the leaves lose their function and fall off of the tree. These leaves will deteriorate and release their carbon as CO₂. This is the simple explanation for the seasonal variations of CO₂.

Where everything falls apart for me is when you contribute all the ills of global warming to CO₂ and seem to ignore more prevalent gases that make up the atmosphere. For years, we have been taking sequestered H₂O from the ground and using it in high desert environments. Could this not also have the effect they have been placing on carbon? That is why I question the motivation. Who can they get more money from? Big oil, or millions of smaller users of water? Who makes a better villain? An oil company or a farmer? And don’t complain with your mouth full.

I do not argue that CO₂ has been rising over the past century. I just think that there is a possibility that this rise could be a result of climate change, not a driving force. After all, look at the seasonal fluctuations now. Could this not be happening on a larger scale as growth cycle lengthen and create more new growth? Then when the climate becomes less beneficial, could not this new growth add to the total rise in CO₂ as it dies off and deteriorates at a faster pace than new growth? Thus becoming a lagging indicator instead of a predictor.

With the climate models based on educated guesses, instead of factual data, climate change has become settled politics, not settled science. You tell me we must act now to stop global warming. What if you are wrong and looking at the wrong criteria?  Could you not be causing more harm instead of stopping a perceived threat?

So, I will set here among the uneducated fools and say. “The Emperor has no cloths.” Until, you can produce factual, unbiased data. 

MO CUT Tax

A Look at a Currency Use Tax for the State of Missouri

 Jeffrey P Schaben

The Proposal

     The goal of this proposal is to create a tax system that treats all individuals and organizations equally, without favoring or targeting any group or individual or activity.

     This proposal is to replace the State Sales Tax, The State Personal Income Tax, and The State Corporate Tax for Missouri, with a fixed Gross Revenue tax automatically withdrawn at the financial institution.

      This tax will apply when any individual or organization deposits any new funds into a financial institution in the State of Missouri, that fits the criteria for taxation, then a fee will be extracted at the point of the deposit.

     The criteria for the enforcement of this fee will be any funds that originate outside of the identity of the depositor, or from listed exclusions from taxation. It will be determined by protocols, and monitored by the state banking regulators.

     Some of the exclusion will be return of principle from interest bearing account, social security, and possibly other government payments including hazard pay for the military. These exclusions could be determined by the state legislature. Electronically managed investment account could also be included in the return of principle concept, and acquisition of capital could be included, but not capital improvements. Capital improvement is a subjective value, and prone to shielding of personal expenditures.

     All official federal, state, and local government accounts will be the only accounts exempted from the protocols, thus exempt from the fee.

     The purpose of exclusions is to include all individuals and organizations equally. Thus, only include hard acquisition cost. And not create a situation where any allowed exclusion can be claimed by one entity, but not another.

   

      There will be no industry or individual specific exclusions.

      The goal of this form of taxation is to expand the tax base in an effort to reduce the overall rate to all entities.

      The initial rate for this tax would be 2.8%. Although this rate could be adjusted as necessary as part of the budgetary process. There will be not limits for raising or lowering of this tax, and automatic adjustments will be set by the first draft of this law, in the event of a budgetary impasse.

The fee returned to financial institution for implementing this form of taxation shall be set by the legislature.

      There will be no exclusions from this tax based on the profit or nonprofit status of the organization, including political organizations. All entities conducting business at Missouri financial institutions shall be subject to this fee, regardless of residency requirements.

      Conscientious objection shall be allow through strict cash or barter exchanges, where no funds are transferred though a financial institution.

 

Preface

    

     In 2013 I spent nine months writing a concept book outlining a proposal for a transactional tax I called The CUT(Currency Use Tax) Tax. Now I am trying to write state specific versions to provide baselines to better determine the overall tax rate for this version of taxation. Now, all calculation will be based on a static basis. Therefore, results may vary. I feel this static assessment would lead to higher rates than necessary to maintain a revenue neutral change over rate. I have kept the math simple, too make it verifiable to the average person, based on data readily available on the internet. The reason the rates will be higher than the actual rate is because, I do not factor in the cost of savings, and the additional spending power of the average middle class wage earner, or business.

     The state versions of this idea will not go into depth on the ideas I considered in formulating this plan. For that refer to original The CUT Tax book, and possibly a newer version that I hope to release soon.

     I know the second tax in the CUT Tax is redundant. However I am not a movie director so I could not run around calling it The CUT. The word “CUT” needs a qualifier behind it, and The CUT Fee may have created a little confusion. I didn’t want the Courts asking. Is this a fee or is it a Tax? I just wanted to be very clear that I view this concept as a Tax. There is one option I am looking into. I may change it to the CUFF (Currency Use Financial Fee) in the future. However, that would entail a large amount of work and expense to initiate at this time,

      The CUT Tax differs from other transactional tax in the triggering mechanism. The CUT Tax is designed to act as an automatic Gross Receipts tax. The transaction would only happen on transactions that originate outside of the identity of the individual account holder. Or on new revenue. There would be limited exemptions from this rule. The largest exemption would be the return of principle from interest bearing instruments. Examples would be: savings accounts, certificates of deposit, bonds, and mortgages. In those cases only interest and fees would be considered a new source of revenue, therefore subject to the CUT Tax. Other forms of transactional taxes that have been proposed would include, The FAIR Tax, (A sales taxed based idea), and the APT Tax (A “blind” transactional tax on every possible transaction with no exceptions).

      When I first developed this idea, I excluded Missouri as an ideal candidate for this tax. Primarily due to the geographic makeup of the State. I envisioned more isolated populations as the best candidates to try this form of taxation statewide. States like California, Alaska, Texas, Hawaii, Montana, Colorado, and many other states that I pictured as more geographically remote. In that they did not have major population centers within easy commuting distance to a neighboring state.

      This was because I viewed this tax as functioning without enforcement mechanisms created to ensure compliance. And with Missouri having several metropolitan areas that share borders with different states, I feared a large amount of non-compliance, without the cooperation of the neighboring state. However, with the push for a version of the “FAIR Tax” within our state, I viewed the potential loss of revenue to be less than the Fair Tax losses. Therefore, just as effective, if not more so.

      All plans have trade-offs, and this plan is no exception. This system would work better for the wage earning middle-class and small businesses. However, it could increase cost on businesses and on wealthier individuals. The effects of the FAIR Tax would be the opposite effect.

      I also understand that many of the saving to corporations and non-profits from removal of income tax compliance cost and FICA match, would not become viable unless this system was enacted nationwide. Therefore, I will outline the proposal for both the prospect of enacting before a nationwide version would be enacted, or, the CUT Tax could be passed with the qualification that it would not go into effect unless the Federal Government adopts this system.

      Since I have not developed a National platform in which to launch a campaign from. I will start small. I have always heard that all politics is local. So I will start at the state level first.

Explaining the Concept

     In order to understand how the CUT Tax works, I will lay out a simple transaction.

      When you deposit any money into a financial institution, this will trigger a computer program or protocol to determine the eligibility of the tax.  It would determine if the source of funds originated from outside of the identity of the depositor. This can be determined by listing the accounts held by the individual identity at other institutions. Then the protocol would determine if it originated from excluded sources like return of principle on instrument bearing accounts.

Once the eligibility for the tax is determined, the tax would be withdrawn from the deposit and the tax would be held in escrow until the funds would be transferred to the governmental treasury at a predetermined time. Then the financial institution would receive a predetermined fee to complete the transaction.

      Unfortunately all cash deposits would count as an external source since the origin would be undeterminable. However, the reverse is possible. If you want to avoid the tax than you only have to function on barter or a cash only basis. This is very hard to do in today’s economy. And for this tax to be efficient it must operate at a fee that falls below or equal to the cost entailed to live on a cash only basis. This would allow for legitimate conscientious objection to taxes, and create a competitive pressure on the tax rate.

     Most people do not think of the hidden cost that comes with operating on a cash only basis. The biggest cost is really a risk assessment. If someone robs you of a couple hundred dollars in cash, even if the perpetrator is caught, it is unlikely you will have your money replaced unless caught immediately after the theft. In a theft due through identity theft, you have a better chance at recovering the funds as long as you are aware that it had happened.

      Then you have security cost, which can involve the purchase of safes, security guards and other creative hiding spots. Banks have learned this lesson early in the creation of the banking system. Most only carry enough hard currency to maintain use cycles of the community they operate in. They have found that it is safer to loan out money to credit worthy individuals than to hoard all of their cash assets in a vault.  In this fashion they can spread their risk across a broad spectrum of investments, and even create a profit for the bank.

      Then we get into logistics of currency.  The individual may not stop to think of the convenience such instrument like checks, debit and credit cards have made in their lives. You no longer have to worry about bringing sufficient cash when going about your daily life.  Or having insufficient cash on hand in an emergency.  Now it is just a matter of properly managing your accounts.

     People always ask. If people have to pay a fee, won’t they just go to using cash? I say ask the retailers and credit card companies. The credit card companies charge a fee on the gross amount to retailers when they accept the usage of credit cards. And that seems to be working for them. When was the last time you paid cash price at the fuel pump? Not that long ago there was two prices on most fuel pumps. One for credit, and one for cash. That was because of the fee credit card companies charged. That fee did not go away, it is just incorporated into one price, and you pay it even if you use cash.

      In effect the CUT Tax works like the transaction fee charged by you card issuer.  In the state version it is harder to validate this charge, since states do not create their own form of currency. However, they do regulate the banking industry in their state. On the National level. I could point out that currency does function like a commodity, and therefore, the creator has the right to access a fair market fee for the use of the currency. Thus the CUT Tax.

Arriving at the Tax Percentage.

      When I wrote the original book, I spent a couple of weeks running numbers from public data that was reported to the SEC by various publicly owned companies and reverse engineered a number and applying it to the percentage of the overall market in their sector, to get me close to what I envisioned to be the gross GDP at the time. The number I came up with was 3.8% rate. Meaning if every dollar was taxed the same based on GDP. What would the rate be?

       Later, I found a short cut on the US department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis web page (Interactive Data, 2012). And used the treasury number for total receipts for that year. Around $2,450 billion dollars. I arrived at a 3.77% rate. These numbers have been revised and have changed a little. Currently the GDP number is around $64,652.6 billion for 2012, combined with the number from the Tax Policy Center (Tax facts, n.d.)  That would make the new number .0378 after rounding.

I showed how I have arrived at the national tax rate as a frame of reference. The state version of this tax is not much different, and although you can dispute the data I am using, and the method. I contend that although not precise, it is a good estimation of the actual number.

      Missouri derives its revenue from a few different sources: Personal Income Tax, Sales Tax, Corporate Income Tax, Gaming Tax, Federal grants and other fees and use taxes. I will only concentrate on the Corporate and personal income tax, and Sales tax, and leave the Federal, gaming and use taxes as is.

     I have used ballotpedia.org (Missouri State Budget., n.d.). Which collects budget data from all of the different states. And the revenue numbers for FY 2013 are Personal Income Tax $5,489 Million, Sales Tax $1,872 Million, and Corporate tax $415 Million. For a combined total of $7,776 Million.

And to determine the states gross revenue, I went to the MERIC (Missouri Economic Research and Information Center) (Economic Indicators/Gross Domestic Product, n.d.). And their number was $276,345 Million. So that would make the CUT Tax rate 2.8% to replace the Income and Sales Tax portion.

      That would make the combined tax rate between state and federal at 6.58%.  This would not include any local or county level taxes, or use taxes.

Final Thoughts

     I am not opposed to eliminating either the state income tax combined with the corporate tax or the state sales tax. I just looked at the raw numbers and wonder if either is the best solution.

      In 2013, the revenue to the State of Missouri totaled $8,083 Million. The sources from Personal income tax at 6% rate was $5,489 Million, accounting for 67.9% of the total revenues. The Total revenue from Sales Tax for $1,872 Million at 4.4%, accounting for 23.2% of the total revenue. Then the revenue from Corporate Income Tax was $415 Million, which accounted for 5.1% of revenue. Since the rates on corporate taxes are progressive and varied, it is harder to figure an overall average.

Now to remove the sales tax and leave to corporate level, the new personal income tax would have to be around 8%. Even reducing or removing Corporate Tax rate, the percentage would be 8.4% to remain revenue neutral.

      In my understanding of the Fair tax, they would generally open up the sales tax to all end user items for goods and service. And then cap the maximum at 7% for the state, and 10% for city and local rates. And use this new form to replace the personal income tax, and the corporate tax codes.

The biggest problem I have with this is determining an end user. For the individual, this is easy, anything you purchase would be taxed. The problem is when determining end user on businesses. That can be arbitrary, and could lead to shielding the purchase of personal use items under the umbrella of a business or non-profit organization. Thus the state would have an interest in auditing purchases made by all organizations. Therefore, not really decreasing the states mandate to use force to maintain tax compliance.

      In the CUT Tax model, the state does not need a large collections body to enforce the fee. Only a small monitoring group, which can project and analyze trends. Any discrepancies from collection would either be from error, or fraud. And fraud can be investigated by the local or state law enforcement departments, following the constitutional guidelines long established for investigating criminal activity.  

      In summary, I see this form of taxation as the best option for continuing the American Ideal and culture, where technology is evolving on a rapid pace, and gives us the better balance between personal privacy and public stewardship.

      For more information, please follow me on Facebook, https://www.facebook.com/TheCUTTax, 

      My blog http://thecuttax.blogspot.com/,.

      Google+ https://plus.google.com/u/0/115958078282682149028/about,

       Or the original CUT Tax eBook on Kindle direct.  http://www.amazon.com/CUT-Tax-Jeffrey-Schaben-ebook/dp/B00F74SVB4/ref=sr_1_16?ie=UTF8&qid=1415980067&sr=8-16&keywords=the+cut+tax

The Morality of the CUT Tax

I run into this argument all the time. All taxes are theft. This is a broad generalization that does hold truth because of the way taxes are configured. Most taxes are imposed through threat and upheld through force of law.

I have built the concept of the CUT Tax through the concept that government is giving you a good or service in return for the fee they charge for this service. However, you wonder what service they are giving you, and would I want this service?

The answer to that is simple. They provide a stable form of barter. Well hopefully, the consequences of mismanaging this form of barter is the same as any business. If mismanaged they go bankrupt.

Yes, they have created tax schemes that forces them to enforce their monopoly on currency, through the force of laws.

However, currency is a valid product that can be created and upheld through the rational forces of self-interest. The only trick is to create a system where the cost does not exceed the market place and is valued because of the benefits it affords the user.

I see the CUT Tax as a possible solution to this balance. It offers the acquisition of this commodity at a flat and reasonable fee. If the fee ever exceeds it market value the individual is free to pursue either direct barter, function on a cash only basis, or turn to other forms of currency offered locally and abroad. This would create a market driven limit on the size of fee they can charge. Credit cards already offer this service through their use. They give merchants and consumers a stable format in which to facilitate transactions in an efficient manner. Why not treat our currency in the same form?

What is the Best Transactional Tax Idea?

In the mainstream of ideas, there are two main ideas for a transactional tax format. The first and most known is the Fair Tax, and the second less visible is the APT Tax. My idea of the CUT Tax falls closer to the APT Tax.

I was a proponent of the Fair Tax when it came out in the mid 90’s. I thought at the time it was the best and more realistic alternative to the Income Tax System at the time. Now I am having serious doubts of the Fair Tax model. Many of these doubts arise from current economic structure of our times.

No longer is the main area of growth derived from retail sales. Most personal wealth does not arise from building and selling a retail item. We are shifting to an economy driven by providing services and knowledge, and a large percentage of these services are going to provide goods and services to entities that would be completely free of any taxes. Choosing a Fair tax may lead to taxing a diminishing base.

The biggest issue against the Fair Tax I have is that it creates a relatively small pool in which to collect taxes on. It creates a false premise that government should reward investing, and punish spending. And this is a false premise because it views any spending within an organizational setting to be valid.

An example of this would be a car rental agency may be able to purchase their fleet tax free. This is because they would collect the Fair Tax when they rented out their vehicles. And this would be a reasonable exemption. However, let us expand this concept out to the next level. Suppose the lease is to a business. Then the tax would not be applicable on the end user. Therefore, you have created an incentive for a business to shelter a personal vehicle under a false premise.

Now the natural reaction from the individual that had to buy or lease a vehicle and pay the expensive end user tax would be either to create a business or non-profit, in order to make use of this loophole, or to complain to their representative about this unfair advantage. This will eventually lead to the auditing of every transaction within organizations to ensure that this allowance is not abused. So, instead of eliminating the concept if the Internal Revenue Service, you will just restructure the framework and grant it more authority within the individual states.

If the Fair Tax is enacted, I see a huge shift of popular support to the APT Tax, (Automatic Payment Transfer Tax).

Most of the problem I see with the APT Tax is that it is structured to make the Tax or Fee artificially low to the individual. I believe the 0.35% mirrored rate is a little too optimistic. If it was enacted, I believe a full third of the revenue projections will evaporate by market efficiency.

Now I take issue with the mirrored aspect of this tax, I see it as a way to create an artificially low tax rate in order to promote the growth of centralized government. I mean how can a wage earner complain if all they are paying is 35 cents on every $100.00? However, the true tax would be closer to 0.7%. Which still looks inconsequential until you realize that a majority of the tax becomes embedded into the final cost of every item. This effect is harder to quantify to the individual.

To explained the mirrored tax. They split the tax to be paid equally by the sender and receiver. So, if you have a $1000.00 payroll check, you pay $3.50 upon deposit into your account and the issuer pay $3.50 to issue the transaction. Now you as the receiver would only pay the other 0.35% if you transferred money or bought something else from your account.

In today’s electronic environment, it is unwise to keep your money in one account, and the people who have accounts in financial institutions generally have multiple accounts. You may have a checking account, savings account, retirement accounts, and various credit type accounts. And you will be charged basically both sides of this fee when transferring money from one account to another. This will create a disincentive to create multiple accounts. And in today’s environment of identity theft, it is advisable to have multiple accounts among different financial institutions. Most cases of identity theft can be rectified over time. However, you may need access into an unaffected account until the charges are reversed and you receive a new card issued to the affected account.  I have learned this lesson first hand lately. During the summer, my primary account was compromised three separate times, and most happened over the weekend, without access to money from other unaffected accounts, we probably would have not been able to get fuel for the car or groceries for the weekend until the next business day. If you tax lateral transactions then you encourage the individual to keep all their eggs in one basket.

Now, the CUT Tax (Currency Use Tax) functions like a transactional tax but is only triggered if you receive new funds from an unaffiliated source. It is based on the notion of Gross Revenue, and any lateral transactions within the family of accounts would happen tax free. This could be done with computer protocols and would not need a bureaucracy to manage compliance. All transactions could be monitored by the financial institutions which in turn are already monitored by state banking regulators and the FDIC. So no new enforcement agency created with no new powers granted to the preexisting regulators. The trade off is a higher transactional tax than the APT, but significantly lower than the Fair Tax. It should be around 4%. And it does not distinguish between use or type organization. All organizations and individuals would have the same flat fee based on gross.  Thus no tax advantage to creating organizations, only legal advantages such as Limited Liability.

In my opinion, the battle between the Fair Tax and the APT Tax are battles designed to push a political agenda. One is to protect and expand the consolidation of wealth, and the other is to protect and expand the consolidation of the Central Government.  Both ignore the concept of unintended consequences in the promotion of their agendas. I see my option as protecting and expanding the middle class. That is my agenda, the very rich and the poor will always be with us, so work on a system that promotes the middle.

Should I withdraw my idea?

Now that I found an organization that is built on the concept of a transactional tax, do I drop The CUT Tax idea and maybe join up with the APT tax movement or continue on?

Even though they are built on the same premise. There are differences between the APT and my vision of a transactional tax.

1. ·         The APT covers all electronic transactions, while The CUT Tax only targets transactions that could be considered gross revenue.
2. ·         The APT will be harder to institute exemptions and progressive rates, while the CUT Tax does allow for manipulation with the exclusion list and possible future limits to minimums until the Tax is triggered.
3. ·         The APT splits the transaction fee between the sender and receiver, while the CUT Tax only focuses on the receiver.
4. ·         The lower rates proposed by the APT tax does desensitize the general population to increases in rates. While the higher rate of the CUT Tax does add a sting to rate increases to everyone.
5. ·         The APT is highly researched and proposed by a credible Economist, while the CUT Tax is a logical progression thought up by an unaccredited individual.
6. ·         The APT has been used by wealth redistributionist to create a platform for wealth redistribution, while the Fair Tax has been used by the wealthy to create a platform of wealth protection.

There are many issues to consider while I make this decision. However for now I will only concentrate on the six listed above.

The first issue of covering all transactions equally. I do see a problem with this issue because it creates a new tax on lateral transactions. Many individuals and companies have multiple accounts to diversify their risks. An individual or business may separate their accounts to create safe guards from fraud or identity theft.

In the case of an individual they may create three or more accounts to insulate themselves from the prospect of identity theft, where all of their money is not taken over night by a thief that compromises one of the accounts. This is just common sense. You do not keep all your money in one place in case something happens, you always want backup or a safety net in an emergency. Although you may have these funds restored, you will want unaffected reserves to use until the issue is rectified.

With a business the concerns may be the same. Most businesses will establish multiple account to better track and identify cash flow. They usually separate payroll from general business accounts, and may further divide accounts into sections and fund from a detailed budget to better track progress. The APT would tax any lateral movement of funds, where the CUT Tax would allow for the transfer of funds between accounts without triggering a fee.

On the fact that the APT is harder to manipulate, I will give them that point. In my perceived need to differentiate between types of transactions, I have created possible avenue for politicians to justify exemptions. I even given them one with the exclusion of Social Security payments as being exempted. This I have done just for practical purposes, and in general SS benefits have been considered tax exempt.

Points three, four and six are connected. Although, splitting the fee between the transaction does make logical sense, it also creates a tax that can seams disconnected from reality. If I say I was going to raise your tax from thirty five cents per hundred dollars to fifty cents per hundred in order to expand government, you may say why not, I am not losing that much. Many people will not be able to grasp the end effects of raising the tax rate this much. They may not have the time or the desire to look at the downstream effects of this form of taxation. Although it seems like a minuscule amount of money, the downstream consequence are very high.

That is the reason I do like my form of taxation. It does have a small bite, but it is not inconsequential to the average person. And changes in the system will have to be closer to 25 basis points to make a large impact to the budget, instead of the 5 basis points adding significant revenue in the APT model.

That is why the main opposition to form of tax and the Fair Tax are so politically divided. There is a faction within the APT school of thought that want to use this as a way to increase federal spending. Just as there are factions within the Fair Tax that want a high end user tax to create pressure to reduce governmental spending, and to protect the wealth they have generated.

On the fifth point about credibility. I am just a middle class individual with no accreditation. I tend to have a contrarian view of all plans. At this point in time I only see three alternatives to the tax code issue. One reform the tax code to something reasonable, two the replacement of the tax code with either a fair tax or a transactional tax. At this point I like a transactional tax. My transactional tax.

The APT Tax

I have run across the Automatic Payment Transfer Tax web cite. This is a more inclusive form of tax than I envisioned. It places the fee on both ends of the transaction. This leads to a smaller rate overall. However, it does tax lateral moves of money within individual and company accounts, and rolls all state and federal taxes into one unit.

I agree completely with the concept on a Federal Level. However, I still wish for states to have autonomy over their own form of taxation. If a state chooses this form of taxation, then they will choose it. And I do see a valid argument for use taxes and excise taxes on items society see as harmful or disruptive to the general welfare of the public. Or even in the case of fuel use taxes to maintain road infrastructure.

The one advantage of this system over what I envisioned is that it would be even harder for limits and exclusions to be included at a later date. Therefore, it is a more stable form of taxation. My version would have a shelf life that would have to be maintained or it would lose it effectiveness in time.

My overall goal in writing the CUT Tax has been the elimination of favoritism or targeting of groups by the Federal Tax Code. All taxes should be blind and effect everyone equally. Our government was originally designed to minimize the power for the government to determine winners and losers, we need a system that maintains that spirit, not consolidates power for it's own ends.

The other problem with the extremely small rate is that it creates an unrealistic assumption on the public that raising the tax does not hurt them, how would it hurt business? Therefore, the rate must be at least substantial enough to register in their life before they can think of the effects on the whole of the system. And visible enough to trace it's effects in the marketplace.  

http://www.apttax.com/index.htm

Conflating Taxes with Spending

Many of the people I have talked to after reading my idea on the CUT Tax (Currency use Tax), comment that it is an interesting idea, but it don’t stop government spending. Thus, it is a failure.

I understand their concerns. However, I do not agree with them. Most of these people are strong believers in the Fair Tax, and for a time I was a true believer in the Fair Tax. I accepted the hidden mantra that if you make a tax that is oppressive at the onset, the middle class would rise up and demand a reduction in spending.

That is where the conflation problem occurs. Governments in general do not equate spending to revenue. Unless they are required to balance the budget through their applicable constitution. In the politicians mind, they are not linked. Most of them view spending as investing. The concept that if you throw money at specific problems, you will be repaid in the future by growth, ending the problem, or some other societal return. The only reason most people would accept a 23% tax on all retail sales is the concept that it would punish the sleepers and wake them up. These newly awoken sleepers would then lash out against the governmental spending.

The problem with spending is that if the person doing the spending is not personally accountable for the spending, they can always justify their proposed spending. It is too easy to justify spending if you can just come up with a valid rationale for doing it. An example, would be. “If I don’t secure this money for my district, someone else will use this money on their frivolous plan in their district.”

The ACA has woken me up to the true reality of politics. In my opinion, the ACA was a plan to conflate problems with health insurance to health care in general. And for the initial argument, they were successful. Many people accepted the fact that since we had a health insurance problem, we had a heath care problem.

Also, in my opinion, the fix was designed to collapse the health insurance industry, and then blame all of the problems for the failure on rich doctors, insurance providers, and your employer. Then they could ride the anger of the voters into a new era of a single payer healthcare system.  

     

The problem with creating failures is that you never know how people will react when faced with the new realities your plan has implemented.

     Since 1970 the Federal Government has only had 4 years in which revenues to the treasury exceeded spending. These where not planned, they were accidental and products of accounting gimmicks, or the sudden growth in tax revenue that temporarily exceeded spending. So don’t tell me that if you restrict revenue at a high tax rate you are going to create a tsunami against federal spending. There is no empirical data to support this.  We already have high tax rates that do not generate enough revenue to support spending, yet every dime that is removed from spending is accompanied with the banshee wail of doom and gloom from this reduction. Need I point out the fiscal cliff, and the government shut down as examples? They were billed as the four horses of the apocalypse. Yet we are still waiting for the end, and it may come eventually through hyper-inflation if the deficits do not resolve into a sustainable level.

                

      Most people project how the government would operate, by how they would operate in the real world. If you are running deficits, you would concentrate on two strategies.  The first would be to see how to increase your income, and the second would be to see where you could cut expenses. You may use both strategies in your plan to accomplish your goals. And in the real world you would be held accountable for your success or failure. In government, you have millions of people who do not view priorities the same way, and you may not be judged on the success or failure of your plan, only your intentions. And intentions can be faked. You only have to act sincere.

                

     That is the problem I see with the Fair Tax. Even if most people see taxes on corporations as just a pass through cost. They still don’t want to completely exclude them from the tax equation. Most are intelligent enough to know that you can pass through personal expenses onto business if you are in a position to do this. And they see this as an unfair advantage to business. I just can’t see most of the middle class going along with giving big anything a 0% tax liability, unless they personally benefit. And it is not just big business that can do this. So therefore, they will demand at least that all businesses are audited to ensure they are not taking advantage of the tax laws, for personal benefits. This will not shrink the need for a compliance agency as the IRS, only confine them to Non-profits, and businesses. Then this governmental agency, and politicians will have even more power over these organizations.

                That is why I think The CUT Tax has a real chance at success. Taxes then become a fixed cost for everyone. And yes I agree, that businesses and the poor will suffer more if rates adjust up, compared to the middle class. However, that is the advantage of this tax. It will align everyone on the same page, lower taxes benefit everyone, and everyone pays more for higher taxes.  Then maybe we can concentrate on the battle over spending, without the grand illusion that we can just tax the rich to fix all our problems. 

Is Currency Your Property?

I am going to step out on thin ice here, and make an observation that will probably drown me thoroughly, get me banned on communities, and viewed as a heretic. I also thought of photo shopping a roll of $100 dollar bills on a toilet paper roll for a Meme. But maybe, that would go too far.

I hear the grumbling of complaints that taxes are nothing more than theft. To a point I agree with this concept. They are onerous and the terms are manipulative and controlling. You will get no argument from me on that point. However, you agreed to these conditions by accepting the currency as your measure of wealth. I will argue the point that you do not actually own the currency you hold. Since, true theft only comes from taking of a possession that the taker has no legal claim to, I do not see taxation as theft, more of a disagreement in the terms of possession. It may be extortion, or usury, but not theft in a strictly legal definition. And force does not constitute theft, it is just as a means to an end.

Currency is nothing more than an efficient tool for barter or government infrastructure. It allows you to trade for a hopefully stable marker, which in turn allows you to trade this marker for other goods. We tend to view our wealth in the terms of this marker. However, it is a marker that the individual has no direct control of its value. Its value is determined by values outside of the holder control.

If you make or buy a good you can determine the value of the marker you are willing to pay or receive for the goods. That is the only control you have.  The marker’s value fluctuates on controls outside the lone individual's control. And currency is not actually sold to the individual.  It is loaned to you. With the true ownership of the value of currency residing with its creator, and has been since the creation of the concept of currency.

By loaned, I mean that it has been introduced into circulation, and not sold into circulation. There is no clear path of ownership of currency, only a record of its exchange. There is no original purchaser, only a point of introduction. The government’s most competitive commodity is not sold to the individual, only introduced into circulation.

The terms for holding this currency is dictated by the creator. That means they have the legal ability to set terms for its use. That includes the setting of arbitrary fees or taxes. And forfeiture laws regarding illegal use. This claim is solid, because the strength of the currency is dictated by the strength of the creator.  If you undermine the strength of the creator of the currency, you undermine the value of the currency you hold.

Now I will take another step further out onto this thin ice and mention Jesus, not in spiritual terms, but in the terms of Jesus the Philosopher. I will not get into the divinity of Jesus. That is a personal decision best left up to the individual. I have my own opinion, I will grant you your own.

Jesus, like Socrates, was a philosopher whose teaching we learn about second hand.  Most of his views came from the writings of his students or apostles. Therefore, we do not have a direct, recorded access to his thoughts, only those seen through the filters of his students, and reported by other people and records in history. And those inferred by individuals studying this mans life.

I believe, that Jesus spoke to this issue of ownership of currency directly in the Pharisees Test scripture. When he said. “Render unto Caesar, What is Caesar’s.”  He was not only speaking of the separation of the material and spiritual, but the concept, that the Roman Empire really owned and controlled all of the coinage. Although, the Jewish people had the Shekel, its use was reserved for use within the temple. However, Roman coinage was the coin of the Roman society, and that the holder was only possessing a thing of value upheld by Roman Law, therefore subject to Roman Taxes, or terms of use. Therefore, if you measure your wealth in terms of a particular currency, you have accepted all conditions and taxes placed on that currency.

What I am trying to say is this. If you think all taxes are theft. Then, by all means seek an alternate route to shield yourself from this injustice. Myself, I seek to change the terms of use for currency. I think it has great value in its efficiency. I do not wish to return back to a barter system. Where you have to trade your chickens for goats, only to trade your goats for a side of beef, which is what you wanted at the start of the trade. I want a stable currency that I can rely on to trade for things I need.

To me, that would entail the complete restructuring of the tax system. That means people have to see currency for what it really is, and not as a personal possession they believe it to be, but a tool for building wealth and trade. It is an efficient infrastructure created by the government to facilitate trade, and for purposes of operating the government. Without a functioning sovereign government to uphold its value, it is worthless paper.

At this point, many of you may be saying. That is why I am investing in gold. So, I am covered, if the dollar collapses.  To a point you do hold something of value. However, even the value of gold is inflated past its practical value. We tend to give gold an emotional value that exceeds its utility price. Therefore, its value also can fluctuated on the disposition of the society. In a total collapse, gold may become more of a liability than an asset. People may not wish to trade for it. They may see that accepting gold only paints a target on their head to bandits, and tyrants. The actual exchange rate for gold then could become all your gold for a few grams of lead and gunpowder. However, that is only in a total or near total collapse. It may hold its value in a stable society undergoing extremely difficult economic times. Ultimately, gold is just as much a fiat currency as paper is, so always keep that in perspective. If you can survive until society reemerges, than your horde of gold may make you wealthy. So, speculate in gold if you wish. It is all a crap shoot anyway.

The only reason I am writing this, is that I do not wish to see the government collapse on itself. I only wish to reaffirm its role as stated by our founding documents. And the best way I can see to do that is to totally reform the tax system, and then try to reduce its size to the role envisioned by the founders of the country. I believe they had a great deal of wisdom in creating a system that was supposed to provide a supporting role for the experimentation of the individual states, not a one size fits all government, that dictates to the states.

That is the reason I have proposed the CUT Tax or currency use tax. I want to remove the concept that government can decide who should pay taxes and how much they feel certain individuals should contribute. To me a fair tax would be a tax that is applied to everyone equally, with no exclusions. Only set up on protocols that are triggered by application. That is why I focused on developing a tax or fee that was based solely on use, and not dependant on how, or where you made the money, and also allow for the conscientious objection to taxation. That is why it only applies to electronic transfers. This conscientious objection ability also serves as the counter-balance to keep the fee from rising above the level of efficiency of using electronic transfers. If the fee rises too much, more people will turn towards cash, thus creating competition.

I mentioned that currency is a government created infrastructure. Therefore, like the highways that are funded with a fuel use tax. Why not create a tax based solely on the volume of usage, and not limited to what the government calls profit, or disposable income. This has created a system where wealth is derived from seeking governmental dispensation from certain obligations.

I believe that the current system of taxation has reached a point of diminishing returns. No longer does the progressive tax rates offer a larger return garnered from “wealthy” individuals. They have long ago learned the lesson hidden in the legal reality of money. It is not about how much money that you have in your possession, it is about how much money you control that is not technically in your possession. Ask one of the richest men in America, What does he need with billions of dollars in his name that is subject to an income tax, or even capital gains? When he can pay himself a modest salary, and control the benefits of his unrealized wealth through the ownership of his organization. That way his secretary has a higher tax percentage burden than him on his real unrealized wealth. Add to that and many wealthy individuals have found that by giving their wealth to a non-profit organization, they can control this wealth until death largely tax free, and then control the distribution of power controlling this wealth through legal criteria, including the concept of a single heir in control of the dynasty. It is all just legal semantics. America has come full circle back to the old world concept of legal feudalism with the creation of the Income Tax code, designed to tax the rich.

To return back to the words of that philosopher over 2000 years ago. “The poor will always be with you.” I conclude with so will the rich. So, why try to scheme to take away their wealth, and just design a system that treats everyone as equal, with no exemptions for the crafty, and let the chips fall where they may. Is this fair, I believe so. Because if taxing the rich was the goal, I wish I had known, because, with the current tax law, I am about to join the ranks of the “working poor”.

Dreamer’s Refugee Camps

I have been hearing of an idea proposed by the President to set up camps in Honduras, and Guatemala to deal with the recent surge of minor children crossing our borders illegally.

The way I have heard it reported, is that in a humanitarian gesture, the president wishes to establish camps in Latin American countries to process these children before they undertake the perilous journey across Mexico to America. At first I was shocked that such an idea was even considered, with the numbers already reported that are here. Then I considered that there may have been some minor confusion and political posturing that was twisting the idea away from an idea that would make a great deal of commonsense. Or, I could have just heard wrong. Seems to happen a lot with this president. You know, things like subsidizing only participant in state health care exchanges, and not to participant in the federal exchange.  A Lot of misunderstanding there. Good thing we have the written law to refer back too.

That idea would be that you establish these “refugee camps” with the cooperation of the native countries. You bring in the United Nations to assist in the proper transportation, social, health, and sanitary concerns. Then you ship all of the minors and adult undocumented emigrants (refugees) from the U.S. back to the respective camps of their home country. From there they could be processed more efficiently, in a sanitary, safe, monitored, and controlled environment. This would also go a long way to alleviate the concern shown from the native counties political leaders, on monitoring the proper treatment of their citizens.

This would make the repatriation effort more efficient. You would be able to better able identify the children’s relatives and these children could be cared for in an environment and climate they are accustomed too.  Also, the actual cost to feed and care for these refugees would be less than scattering them to different locations in an unfamiliar culture and environment, and into an environment that has stresses the local citizens and infrastructure to a point that that may not be adequate to handle the sudden inflow of these new visitors. This may contribute to a growing animosity of the visitors that could hinder their assimilation into a new culture.

This would also enable other countries in the world to step forward and take in refugees that could not be repatriated (there may be a few legitimate cases), if that country so desires. Also, it would provide a neutral safe haven until status of the individual minor or adult is determined. And if their families wish to be reunited with their children, they will know where to find them, and not have to make the difficult journey to the U.S. to retrieve them. After all, I would be worried sick if my child undertook a treacherous trip thousands of miles from home. Of course, I don’t believe I would ever allow my child to do this. Although, children run away from home every day. However, we live in a world where it is considered impolite to judge the motivations and actions of others (unless you are a compassionate well educated and accredited government official). Otherwise, you are just a bigot or maybe worse a racist. Therefore, I will keep my opinion on parental responsibility to myself.

This idea make sense on various level. First, would be health care. Once you leave the U.S. jurisdiction, medicines become cheaper, due to lack of intrusive governmental over site and frivolous lawsuits. Second, food and clothing will become cheaper to feed these children for the same reasons. Third, you can hire local labor, which is definitely cheaper, and that will improve the lives of the indigenous citizens of the area surrounding the refugee camp. In Washington parlance, I believe they call this a win-win.

I would Imagine, that the overall cost for this massive effort would fall below the $3.7 or is it now $4.2 Billion that the president is seeking. Especially, if you get the cooperation of the local governments and the UN to help. Maybe even a few foundations and relief organizations would kick in to help solve this humanitarian crisis.

If this is what was really meant by the refugee camp trial balloon, than I will give the president my full support on this issue. If it was as reported. Then, does providing a shortcut and flight to the U.S. solve or aggravate the current problems facing immigration?