what kind of law would you write?

[JahJahwarrior]

1. Yes, it would have to actually be a resolution. Anything amending the Constitution is not a bill but a resolution.

2. Those hidden laws and money things and slipped in while a committee appointed by the two houses rectifies the bills--they start the same in both houses, but get amended. When they are passed, they might be quite different. a committee then makes them both agree, and inthe process slips in little things. I could try to write a bill not allowing those things to be added, but it might be technical and confusing. And its not extremely debatable, which is something we want (debataability)

3. My bill would probably say that the speed limit for the right lane is the minimum limit for the left lane, and that police would be unable to ticket up until 10 over. Already, they are unable (atleast in florida) to ticket for 5 over, becuase of speedometer problems, it gives you some leeway. Right lane would stay 5 over, left would be ten over and have a minimum.

4. Yes, a law standardizing laws between states would be the day I commit suicide.
5. The infant mortality rate was high, and I think the age might have been a little lower, we do have medicines that can keep people alive longer today. I think that could be provne. What we cannot do is keep people senile. I am 50/50 on the resolution to change the age of congressmen. would we also have to change the age of the president? I think the law would have good points, but maybe we souldn't change the ages that much. What about just bumping it up by 5 years for every position? (rep, senate, prez) People might be living a little longer, but not tons longer, and regardless, they still lose their mind at some point.

6. On that point, what about a law requiring you to pass some IQ test to be allowed to run for office? This does not solve the problem of federal judges being "not there" but still being on the bench, as they are never elected. Hm.

 

[Walter]

I am 50/50 on the resolution to change the age of congressmen. would we also have to change the age of the president? I think the law would have good points, but maybe we souldn't change the ages that much. What about just bumping it up by 5 years for every position? (rep, senate, prez) People might be living a little longer, but not tons longer, and regardless, they still lose their mind at some point.

Why? Are we being overrun with kids in congress? Is this a problem? Most of the people in congress have kids who could run for office. This is a non issue.

 

[JahJahwarrior]

someone else posted the idea, it's a resolution that could be debated well. I'm not for it or against it. It doesn't need to change, but it's something that would make people think. Even if I didn't take it to a tournament, it might be fun to debate in class


actually, what would you think of a law limiting the terms in congress? It's in line with what Thomas Payne wrote.

 

[Bill51]

I will fight any further attempts (and the unconstitutional ones currently on the books) to limit campaign spending in any way, shape, or form. We came up with a pretty good nation by having the likes of Jefferson buy booze for everyone who voted for him – and everyone knew what was happening. What is needed is more open disclosure of campaign funding – but that got driven more underground when they passed the well intended but stupid campaign laws we got. Spending money (as long as it’s not government money) to campaign is the HIGHEST form of free speech.

I will also oppose any law limiting an elected officials term in office as the very act of having elections is a form of term limits if the voters no longer want their official. If they do want to keep sending the same person to Congress what right does the government have to limit their free speech and freedom to elect whoever they want? Now if you want to talk term limits – where we need term limits is on the unelected bureaucrats that are actually 80% of the problem. The sad thing with limiting elected officials terms is that it takes most politicians the better part of their first term to figure out how to get anything done over the objections of the bureaucrats. If the permanent seat government employees knew they could outlast the elected officials with a firm date of leaving they could easily stonewall the politicians to the point we would have a Soviet style government by the bureaucrats for the bureaucrats.

If we’re going to get into Constitutional Amendments (age of office holders) as well as laws, then I will add the repeal of the 17th Amendment and have states appoint Senators like the framers intended rather than having them elected by a public that has been pandered to with our tax dollars. I would also add the repeal of the 16th Amendment linked to a Federal consumption tax and permanently abolish any income tax that penalizes an individual for actually producing something.

 

[ams511]

(
(2) I would write a law abolishing the income tax and the inheritance tax and all other taxes on production.
(3) I would shift the tax burden from the producer to the consumer - a national sales tax, with the following items exempted from the sales tax:
Everything else gets taxed - everything, no exceptions - it'll take about 18% on other sales to finance things, but notice you can live quite comfortably tax-free if you walk to work and to market.
- notice that this system encourages production, savings, frugality, and walking (good health). It discourages wanton spending, driving (global warming), frivolous purchases, but allows folks to buy as much as they want. It puts the control of your tax burden in your own hands.
(4) I would write a law requiring the revelation of all taxes. No more hidden taxes.
(5) I would write a law that requires politicians to live in the district they represent at least six months out of the year.
Rick

(2) The wealth transfer taxes were originally written to prevent the super rich from tranfering their wealth to their children to create dynasties. The problem was that they were not indexed for inflation so now it bites people who are not super rich. Congress wants to sacrafice these people so that public opinion on the tax becomes negative and the law can be scrapped. The main benificiaries will be the 100 million a year CEO's that cannot purchase enough insurance to cover the tax bite when they die. You know the guys that contribute large sums for congressional campaigns.

(3) The consititution originally banned income taxes, it needed to be amended to allow for the taxation of income. How did they get people to agree to it? By promising that it would only apply to people with over a million dollars a year in income. You can see how the original idea became perverted over time. How did they finance government before that you may ask? excise taxes, import tariffs and corporate taxes. Perhaps we should make a law that whatever is promised when a law is enacted needs to be observed. If you look over time taxes paid by corporations are declining and those paid by individuals are increasing. I want a law requiring publicly traded companies to disclose their tax returns as well as the tax returns of their officers and board members. That would be a revelation.

Also sales taxes are regressive, meaning as income increases the average tax paid decreases. So the poorer you are the bigger the tax bite. This violates one of Adam Smith's tenants of taxation, that they should be progressive.

In addition, sales taxes do create what is called a "dead weight loss" to the economy because by making goods and services more expensive it also reduces demand which reduces production.

Most taxes distort decisions, the only one that doesn't is a flat tax. You pay say 15% of your income in taxes and thats it. Congress could give an exemption for people below the poverty level and indexed for inflation and also allow for individuals to deduct social security taxes paid. Businesses can deduct what they pay, why can't we.

I agree with you on points 4 and 5.

 

[shakeybrainsurgeon]

Why? Are we being overrun with kids in congress? Is this a problem? Most of the people in congress have kids who could run for office. This is a non issue.

No its not a non-issue. Rick Santorum was a congressman in his late twenties, then went into the senate, as one example. Except for a few years as a legislative aid, he had no experience doing anything in the private sector or even in holding local office before he spent 16 years making our laws nationally. Not many people would go to a 28 year old heart surgeon, but it's OK for that person to make national policy.

Had he continued to be re-elected, Santorum might have spent 50 years in Congress, an absurdity. Yes, we have older people in the Congress, but many, like Byrd, have been there forever. I'm not saying the Congress is overrun by kids, but it is does contain a number of young empty suits who have made a career out of campaigning. Santorum's replacement, Bob Casey, has similarly weak credentials.

By requiring someone to be fifty before assuming a high office like Senator, we might have a more vetted pool of candidates and, moreover, candidates who have some life/private experience. You will still have the career politicians, but the number may be fewer.

Ted Kennedy was elected to the Senate at age 30; Byrd at age 40 --- consequently both have been in the Senate for almost half a century. If you look at the bios, it's not atypical for a representative to start in the early thirties and move into the upper chamber in their late thirties or early forties. How many corporations have the upper echelon of management start in their thirties or early forties? How many universities elevate professors that quickly? If they are talented yes, but the congress is not teaming with geniuses, just with glib people who look good.

Not getting into his politics or his scandals, consider Bill Clinton. He went from a few years as a law instructor to attorney general to governor to President in his forties. he never had any signficant non-governmental experience, no military experience, no law practice experience, never met a payroll, hired or fired an employee, never even had a MORTGAGE in his life before leaving the presidency. He spent most of his adult life with limos and bodyguards. I'm not saying his performance was bad, but giving the reins of government to people who have yet to accomplish anything besides getting a law degree and winning an election is dubious.

 

[Rick Murchison]

Also sales taxes are regressive, meaning as income increases the average tax paid decreases. So the poorer you are the bigger the tax bite. This violates one of Adam Smith's tenants of taxation, that they should be progressive.

Not so in my scheme. Take another look. Your house, your utilities, your food, clothing, transportation (other than gasoline) would only be taxed if you choose to buy big and new. My scheme taxes only those who choose to spend on things other than essentials - the poor needn't pay a dime. Neither do the rich need to pay any tax so long as they live like the poor. But in my scheme, if you want to live high on the hog, you're the one paying the taxes. So even though it's a sales tax, it's a targeted sales tax that pops the rich. However... it doesn't punish the rich just for being rich if they don't spend rich.
Rick

 

[Rick Murchison]

(2) The wealth transfer taxes were originally written to prevent the super rich from tranfering their wealth to their children to create dynasties. The problem was that they were not indexed for inflation so now it bites people who are not super rich. Congress wants to sacrafice these people so that public opinion on the tax becomes negative and the law can be scrapped. The main benificiaries will be the 100 million a year CEO's that cannot purchase enough insurance to cover the tax bite when they die. You know the guys that contribute large sums for congressional campaigns.

If you're super rich (the Kennedys leap to mind) there's no problem at all transferring your wealth; that's why the tax law is 10,000 pages long instead of two - burried in there are the protections for those folks. Who gets killed is the guy with a couple hundred acres and no cash. The value of the land pushes the family farm into the inheritance tax bracket and the family has to sell to the bubbas (who are protected) to survive. Besides all that, what gives you the right to reach into the pocket of a guy who's made a fortune legally and paid all the taxes on the money already? Why should you be able to steal his money when he dies - or prevent him from just giving it to his family before he dies? "It's just not right to let someone have that much money?" Why not? They earned it - they have a right to do whatever they want to do with it without it being taxed again and again and again.
Which brings to mind another tax that ought to be scrapped - property tax.
Rick

 

[TxHockeyGuy]

1. Mandatory sunset of all new laws after 2 years. Before the 2 year sunset the law would have to be voted upon again. All laws would have a mandatory sunset of 15 years and have to be voted back in again before it could remain on the books.

2. Elminate all personal income tax and move to a sales tax. Certain items such as food would be exempt. This would make tax evasion much more difficult. Corporations would be required to pay a tax based on a percentage of their profits.

3. Any person or corporation found to be doing anything illegal to realize a financial gain would be charged a minimum of 3x that financial gain. This would include but not be limited to the hiring of illegal workers, abuse of the H1B visa program, and tax evasion.

4. The FBI would become an investigative agency that would use state and local officials to make arrests on their behalf. It should not be a law enforcement agency.

5. The immediate abolishment of the BATFE. Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms should be the name of a convenience store, NOT a government agency.

6. Many people are going to be against me on this, but I say legalize currently illegal drugs. We are not, nor will we ever, win the war no drugs. History shows that it is very likely the problems related to drugs will be far less, no they will not go away, if we legalize them. Note I didn't say they wouldn't be regulated.

7. What is in your home or you car is the business of no one else. Employers should have no right to search personal property, conduct mandatory/random searches, or conduct mandatory/random drug screening. If they suspect someone is doing something illegal that is a matter for the police, not human resources.

8. If someone illegally enters your property and injures themselves the property owner should not be held liable.

9. If someone attempts to injure or rob you, you should have the right to use force, including lethal force, to defend yourself and your property. You should also not be able to be sued for the use of that force.

 

[ams511]

Not so in my scheme. Take another look. Your house, your utilities, your food, clothing, transportation (other than gasoline) would only be taxed if you choose to buy big and new. My scheme taxes only those who choose to spend on things other than essentials - the poor needn't pay a dime. Neither do the rich need to pay any tax so long as they live like the poor. But in my scheme, if you want to live high on the hog, you're the one paying the taxes. So even though it's a sales tax, it's a targeted sales tax that pops the rich. However... it doesn't punish the rich just for being rich if they don't spend rich.
Rick

Rich with all due respect, I still think it is a regressive tax. Given two taxpayers, one making $10,000 a year and one making $ 100,000 a year and both enjoy a taxable beer, which taxpayer bears a larger relative tax burden? Also by taxing new goods you penalize production, probably more so than by taxing income. Smith's theory is based on the law of dimishing marginal utility, which states given an increasing quantity of an item the last item is worth more than the first. So that people with higher incomes feel less pain paying taxes so they can pay more. It is is a complicated issue with no easy answers. Some people would argue that the poor should pay taxes, after all they receive the same benefits (maybe more) than someone rich. I think the only thing we all agree on is that we don't like paying taxes.