StarshipCapricorn User Forum

Hi genniii, I'd like to interject some thoughts by way of questions with comments. I have some concerns with what you have proposed above and would like to know...

In another thread, you'd had given definitions for constitutional republic stating that:

Constitution
Clearly written Rules Of Law applicable to all

Republic
Equal protection of Law to Everyone

If this is true, why then tax only businesses? The tax laws you have proposed are unequal in that only those hearty ones who have what it takes to run a business will be taxed. Seems unfair. The taxing of their gross income would be a great burden in that you'd also be forever taxing their 'operating capital' of which they need to reinvest to continue doing business. The rate of attrition due to the tax will eventually drive them out of business.

The cost of things would go up by at least the two percent decided upon--as any business man would figure their total costs and then simply add the 2% right on the top of it all. So, in effect, the consumer will be paying the tax and thus would not be getting the best, fairest deal possible. What would happen if it was decided that a 2% tax wasn't enough and a 4% or even 6% tax seemed to be more to the liking? How would one explain the doubling or tripling of their taxes? If a 6% tax was the starting point and a surplus came in to being, who decides what should be done with the surplus?

What to do about those who oppose any kind of tax and yet they still wish to do business? Do you bar them from doing business? Business people find that keeping accurate records of their expenses is time consuming and bothersome, to say the least. What happens when something doesn't seem right with their bookkeeping? Are they to be punished, fined or other? What kind of system of laws are to be implemented and what would be the cost to enforce such laws?

The proposal also seems to indicate the continuance of the 'welfare state' in that the plan calls for the forced taking from those who have and which is then given to those who do not. We've seen that the 'have nots' will have no incentive to ever do much because someone else will pay their way.

It does seem fair that, since the earth's resources do belong to everyone, that such should only have a value placed upon it that is in direct proportion to the labor costs of mining, growing and etc.. So instead of charging for the actual fixed value of a thing, only the labor cost of that thing are charged.

In an autocratic society, it would be to each their own. To each community, their own... as in; when if roads needed repair, the community would raise the funds needed, by donation only, to get the job done. (Business people usually do make the largest donations in money and their personal time. A tax will typically void any project of the latter... something about having to do the book keeping.)

I'm looking toward the future where the need of roads and bridges are a thing of the past. For the cost of one bridge and ten miles of road, 1,000 hover-cars could be produced. Communities will typically take care of their poor and down-trodden of their own free will.

To make things new, one must let go of the old.