Jobs and the strategy...

Well, here we go again...

 "Senate Republicans vote to kill Obama’s jobs bill"

The President (should I say we the taxpayers) just spent millions of dollars flying the President all over the country on Air Force One, campaigning for the passage of the "Job's" act.

Is it any surprise that the Republicans (R's) killed the bill? Not to me!

It is quite clear that the "do nothing" Congress (R's & D's) intends to "do nothing" that the other side wants. Might be right, might be wrong, but fact is if the "other side" wants it then "this side" does not.

So, how to get out of the quagmire? Well, the answer is that the wrong strategy is being applied. So let's change the strategy. Let me explain...

What the Democrats (D's) need to do is to tell the R's that they accept their plan, the President then needs to, once again, fly all over the Country, but this time promoting the R's job plan. Now, this will put the R's in a precarious situation. Surely they cannot accept a plan that the President is proposing, even if it is their own!

So, what will they (R's) do? Well they will now come up with another plan. They will now "kill" the President's plan... the one they just proposed, and will come up with a "NewNew" plan. Obviously it will have to be just the opposite of the one just proposed that the D's accepted.

So now this "NewNew" plan is proposed to the D's, who easily accept it, as it is what they (D's) wanted in the first place, the President signs it into law, and as a famous "fat man" once said... "And, away we go".

Incidentally... I still think that the ballot should have a spot for "NONE OF THE ABOVE". If "none of the above" wins then all of Congress gets fired, and we start fresh.

Anyway... I have to go out and rake leaves.

Just Say'n

The New and Simplified tax structure.

.

There is a lot of talk - or should I say debate, - or maybe I should say arguments - these days about the tax structure.

The debate is that some want to raise taxes on the 'rich' and some do not. Some think that everyone should pay tax, as some do not pay any tax at all. Others feel that the middle class carries the blunt of the tax bill. (Which appears to be not true as the 'middle class' only - choke, choke - pays 29% of the taxes - see table below)

There is a report published (elsewhere) that states 10% of earners paid 71% of all income taxes. This same report noted that 51% of earners paid NO income taxes.

Therefore, if

 10% paid 71% of taxes and

 51% paid 0% taxes then that means that

39% paid 29% of taxes.

It seems like these arguments just keep going on and on and on.

 Just the other day, while daydreaming and rocking away on the front porch, it suddenly struck me. Ah... a simple solution that will result in a win, win, win situation for all.

Now, it could be that the 10% who paid 71% of the taxes are to be considered "The Wealthy" (more commonly referred to as the 'rich'), and the 51% that paid 0% taxes could be considered "The Non-wealthy" (more commonly referred to as the 'poor'). That leaves the other 39%, who could be considered "The Neither" (more commonly referred to as the 'middle class'.

So... how to solve and make everyone happy.

It is so simple...

Rather than raise the tax on the 'rich', and at the same time devise a way that the 'poor' who do not pay any tax at all can now pay their fair share, and also lower the tax burden on the 'middle class'. It will work like this...

 

Each of the 10% 'rich' is assigned a given number of Surrogates from the 51% group of the 'poor'. This could be done through a lottery in order to avoid discrimination. The 'rich' then give a proportional percentage of their money to each of the Surrogates, in such a manner that the 'poor' are then promoted to the 'middle class', and the rich person is promoted to the class of the 'poor'.

Now that means that there will be 90% who are now in the 'middle class' as opposed to the previous 39%. Since there are now 51% more in the 'middle class' the 'middle class' tax burden can lowered.

The result is as I said. A win, win, win.

The 'rich' win as they no longer are burdened by being hounded to pay higher and higher taxes.

The 'poor' win as they no longer endure the complaints of the 'rich' about not having paid any tax.

The 'middle class' win as their tax burden is now reduced due to the increased pool of 'middle class' taxpayers.

And to top it all off (the icing on the cake - so to speak), "BIG" (as in Big Government) also wins as they will receive more tax than before.

Now, as you see this is a very simple program, but will still need to be managed and administrated by 'someone'. Who better to do this than "BIG". They have the experience, and they soon will have more of your money. A new division could be created called The 'Government Institute For Trading' or simply "GIFT".

Please tell your Congressmen and or Congresswomen of this concept. I think once they see it they will jump right to it, rush it through the Senate, get it signed by the president, and off we go. Debt reduction, Balanced budget, controlled spending, and on and on and on.

 Happy days are here again...

Just Say'n

Why Pay More TAX

Why pay more tax...

Spending and the Budget.

With the immediate Government shutdown crisis temporally averted, the question still remains... "How to balance the budget"?

Spending... What's the problem?

Spending...

Seems like that is all one hears about these days.

It goes like this...

The Great Balancing Act...

Have you ever noticed that when things seem "about right" they also seem to be "in balance"?

Bipartisan Struggle: Taxes and Benefits

* Unemployment funds running out...
* Tax that can't be decided on...
* Health care that wants to be scraped...
* Social Security that is broken...
* Medicare/Medicaid out of money...
* Jobs...
* Deficit...
* Don't ask, don't tell...
* START ( Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty)...
* North Korea...
* Afghanistan...
* Iran...

These are just a few of the many items (PROBLEMS) that are, or should be on Congress agenda. Some, like the Unemployment situation and the Tax issue are urgent.

So, how does Congress go about prioritizing the agenda? How would you prioritize these PROBLEMS? Which PROBLEM would you fix first?