OPP Newsletter

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

What the article misses is what happens to corporate profits. Sooner or later, these profits manifest themselves into individual income. Tax individual income, regardless of source, the same and with no allowances or deductions. The result would be:
- no reduction in revenues to the government
- increased competitiveness of corporations for activities in America, thereby reversing the offshoring that has occured.
- a significant reduction in the cost to all of maintaining a complex and minimally understood tax system
- reduce a bureaucratic organizations to bully those who they do not favor - i.e. - the IRS and conservatives.

Lin19

I agree tax reform is needed at all levels but as long as individuals as well as corporations can give as much money as they like to politicians it is the same as a bribe. For this reason I think there should be only publicly funded e******ns with no outside money being used. This would make the system fairer and allow more people to run for office.
As it is now the rich have control of the government and can do what they like. Both political parties are controlled by the rich and it is one reason that the parties behave the same no matter who is in control, while the people loose.

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

Public financing would be nothing more than cementing those in power - how would you finance a 3rd or 4th candidate? The real answer would be to make political but two restrictions on political contributions - one, must be a registered v**er, and two, must be fully disclosed.

As to being controlled by the rich, if the rich are really in control of both parties they are pretty darn generous - the top 10% paying close to 90% of all income taxes - you'd think with their control they'd pay less.

Lin19

They are working on it. Publicly funded e******ns is only one reform, term limits is another. None will likely happen with things the way they are now. I doubt the rich want it known how much control they have or there might be real political revolutions as the average people would not stand for it.

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

Who is working on what? Term limits for whom, and how long, and both federal and state positions?

What is your evidence that the rich has so much control, and how much control do you think that is?

Lin19

Various groups have suggestions for term limits, my suggestion is 12 in the House and Senate, 20 or 25 years for federal judges in any one position including the supreme court. check www.thepoliticaledge1.com for one site.
The idea of the rich and powerful being is control was from a TV show on the History channel and others. When I looked into it more I found various people have researched it and written article and books about it. Still it is hard to prove since they keep things as quiet as possible. Check the Discovery channel or History channel's store for copies of the shows on it and they reference various individuals who have been researching the groups. Ex. Yales Skull and bones club.

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

You can't seriously base such an enormous assumption on TV shows - if you really looked into this you'd find many very rich people on both sides of the ideology divide - people like Soros who are very "progressive" and people like Koch who are very "conservative" - A better description of them would be liberal (pro government control) and libertarian (much smaller government).

Lin19

Dave; You are making my point when you say there are rich on both sides. The rich are buying control of our government as long as there is unlimited "contributions" to politicians for their e******ns. They will do what they are paid to do.
Maybe you read the example I gave on another site. A local retired judge wrote an article about politicians in my state. In short the judge listed names and amounts of donations to local legislators to get them to pass a cost increase for the electric corporations. In all it was close to $500,000 spent across the state to get an increase in electric rates. This was only needed because the governor vetoed the first rate increase so they had to pay extra to override his veto. When I say cost increase it gave them the right to increase rates basically without oversight.
Even though many average citizens were against the increase it passed because money talks. The rich and corporations pretty much control the government and will as long as their is no limit on political contributions.
I can not remember the names of who was doing the research on groups of the wealthy and their meeting places but there are several that meet in various locations around the world to discuss what they want done and according to the authors who have researched this, what they want done gets done.
Unlike a lot of others I think that the people should control their own government, but I know of those who feel differently and believe in the benevolent dictator system.

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

There are limits to what anyone can give to a candidate. There is no limit to what they can give to a supposed non-political organization. If it were up to me I'd have but two restrictions on political contributions - 1 - can be made only by registered v**er (no organizations whether they be PACs or unions or wh**ever) and 2 - full disclosure of who gave what to whom.

Your concern about the wealthy controlling the government has some validity, but be careful going to far with that. Remember that it is the wealthy who overwhelmingly pay the income taxes - if they have all that power that would not be the case.

If, however, you are truly concerned about the control the few have over the many, remember that the vehicle to do that is government. The more that issue bothers you the more you should be for smaller government.

Lin19

Agreed Dave. I am more for individuals rights and states rights than having a big all controlling government. Still as I understand the latest Supreme Court decision not only can individuals and corporations donate as much as they like even foreigners can donate, although I am not a lawyer and have not read their decision, I am only going by what I have read and heard. Still I favor each candidate having an equal amount as the best way for v**ers to have a better choice and term limits.
But if you have read the recent news that the government is cutting food aid to the poor, while still giving breaks to big Agricultural corp. plus pay increases for senior government officials but cutting funds for veterans programs(if it passes congress) It seems the rich have an edge with both parties. There are ways to save tax dollars and keep things running but then some big corps. would loose money? (ex. military wants NO NEW TANKS, but congress insists they take some) does not make much sense unless you are getting money from corps that makes things related to tanks?

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

I do believe you are sincere but you are misinformed. There are clear guidelines on what individuals can give politicians, and it is illegal for a poltician to accept contributions from non-citizens. The Supreme Court decision you are concerned with has to do with something considerably different - it is the 401c's that are part of the IRS discussion today. These organizations are supposed to be civic information and education types - in other words they cannot expressly support a party or a candidate - and if they follow that rule they cannot be regulated by the government. It is generally referred to as the Citizen's United decision.

As to the rich, certainly they have more influence on many things than those with less resources - more influence is hardly control. The influence they have when using their resources directly is part of being in a capitalist and democratic system. It is when they lever their power through government that problems arise. That is a singular reason to advocate for smaller government - for government only where government is absolutely necessary - and to study where government is absolutely necessary look to our founding fathers - they covered that subject well in our Constitution