Sunday, April 22, 2012

Brilliant Idea

I was reading about the French elections this morning.  Looks like our pal Nicolas Sarkozy is not going to be with us much longer.  I think that's too bad.  Sure, he's pompous, audacious, and his economy hasn't exactly sprung back with vitality and prosperity.  But I kinda like the guy.  He has put a decent face on France over the past years, making it almost respectable internationally again.  He planted his foot firmly on the side of Good in the jihad-wars, and been a pal of the US in its various endeavors of late (however dubious some may have been).  I guess it's just great not to have a whimpering idiot at the French helm for a change.

However, it looks like the French public is about to undo all of that.  Sarkozy's primary opponent, socialst Francois Hollande, advocates the usual - more taxes, more spending.  Even a 75% top-tier income tax rate.  It's only a fair share - right?  Having three of every four dollars you make seized by the government seems fair enough to me.  And he looks like the typical sniveling liberal know-it-all.  Of course, he's leading the polls.

But then, there's another candidate vying - a distant third or fourth with no real chance - kind of like the Green party here in the US.  His name is Jean-Luc Mélenchon, and he's even further left, advocating essentially an overthrow of any remaining elements of capitalism left in France.  But we don't need to go there, so I'm not going any further with him.

But I got to thinking, "Geez, how can we get politicians to stop coming up with ludicrously high progressive tax scales?"  They really have no incentive to do otherwise.  They just command that more money be wrung from the populace (at least the part that pays any taxes at all), and it is done.  Fail to comply, and go to jail.  The French seem completely unconcerned about the possible impact a 75% tax will have on their business community.   I would expect to see high-earners fleeing the country soon after such a tax was enacted, taking all that lovely tax money with them, no?

Then I had an idea.  Probably not an original one, yes - just about everything has been thought of already.  But I don't recall hearing this one.

Suppose we give each person voting power in proportion to their top-tier tax rate?  Not their tax paid, just to their top-tier rate.  Let's say that a 25% tax payer gets the equivalent of one vote in an election.   So, if your top rate was 50%, you'd get essentially two votes toward your choice, when a 25%-taxed individual would get just one.  A 75%-taxed person would have three.  And someone paying only 5% tax would get 1/5 of a single vote.  Of course, pay no tax, get no vote whatsoever.

It's a perfect negative-feedback to the taxation loop!  As politicians up the top tax rate, they'll lose their voting base in proportion.  They have a definite incentive not to raise the top tax to obscene levels, lest they be voted out more easily by the people they've taxed the hardest.

In our current system, the poorest vote almost universally for the democrats who promise the highest rates of taxation and punitive assessment.  Why not?  They have no reason not to - and the democrats woo them with seductive language about "fairness" and massive rewards ("entitlements") for those that support their plans.

But scale that voting power in proportion to taxation - and people who pay virtually no tax at all will not be able to flood the polls with votes for candidates who would soak-the-rich ever more viciously.

The more I think about this, the more I like it.

Thursday, April 12, 2012

The Fractional Reserve System

If you want to be scared -- really, really scared -- watch the following video.  It excellently, and understandably, explains serious flaws in our system of commerce and finance.  Most chillingly, it explains:
  1. That all the debt we have (as a nation) can never be repaid fully, because we must repay debts with interest, and nobody creates the "interest" money - it just drains the money supply over time.
  2. Without an ever-increasing spiral of debt, the economy would not be able to function.  How can we have an ever-increasing spiral of debt, where we are now?
  3. In the long term, banks must eventually (by the math) hold all "real" money AND property, leaving nothing - money or otherwise - for anyone else.

Friday, April 6, 2012

Olbermann Gets a Proper Tongue-Lashing

I know I haven't written anything for a while now.  I think I've been in "Breitbart-Coma" since he passed - it sure didn't help any.   Anyway, I may be coming out of it now.  So with that, the point of my post:  a pleasant video that I got a nice grin out of today....  Do enjoy. 
Original Link Here