What's new
By:

Bean's gonna solve the debt crisis right now....

Beantown said:
Well of course you would have to make companies comply. I'm sure they would choose this over sales tax increase or income tax increase.
Click to expand...

How would you enforce this? As a business owner I can set the price of my wares. If I price them accordingly there will never be extra pennies to send to Uncle Sam. Do I get penalized for pricing thusly? That seems an intrusion on my business that goes well beyond the scope of what govt should be involved in.

While your idea wasn't bad and outside the box, nothing will change until Congress quits spending more than what it has.
 
Scat said:
How would you enforce this? As a business owner I can set the price of my wares. If I price them accordingly there will never be extra pennies to send to Uncle Sam. Do I get penalized for pricing thusly? That seems an intrusion on my business that goes well beyond the scope of what govt should be involved in.

While your idea wasn't bad and outside the box, nothing will change until Congress quits spending more than what it has.
Click to expand...

I don't think any smart business would raise prices for customers just to keep an extra few bucks per day.....not to mention the bad publicity in not contributing to paying off the deficit.
 
Scat said:
How would you enforce this? As a business owner I can set the price of my wares. If I price them accordingly there will never be extra pennies to send to Uncle Sam. Do I get penalized for pricing thusly? That seems an intrusion on my business that goes well beyond the scope of what govt should be involved in.

While your idea wasn't bad and outside the box, nothing will change until Congress quits spending more than what it has.
Click to expand...

Nah you just maintain a normal sales tax which would drive uneven amounts. Then you round the final up to the nearest nickel. That comes off the top and goes into the fund. Easy.

But you are dead on about overspending in congress. As a start I think all congressman should have a fixed salary of $100k per year with no raises at all. If that is not enough for their extravagant lifestyle they should be forced to have their significant other work to make up the difference, like the rest of us do. In fact all high-level government jobs, president included, should cap out at $100k per year. After that offer them a bonus with a structure around national debt, unemployment, inflation, % of people on welfare, % of population that are college graduates, and GDP. If all of these are going in the right direction they can get a bonus up to 100% of their salary. This will give them the incentive to help drive improvements in these areas. I think it is about time government is run a little more like a business.

(Not that I put a lot of thought into that, I more or less made it up here on the spot, but something like that would be a big improvement IMO.)
 
Scat said:
How would you enforce this? As a business owner I can set the price of my wares. If I price them accordingly there will never be extra pennies to send to Uncle Sam. Do I get penalized for pricing thusly? That seems an intrusion on my business that goes well beyond the scope of what govt should be involved in.

While your idea wasn't bad and outside the box, nothing will change until Congress quits spending more than what it has.
Click to expand...
If any business went out of their way to screw the country like that, then they should just tax that business. They could do the research and see how many transactions involve pennies today. If your business doesn't average at least 60% (or some number) of that average, then they tax you a certain amount (based on your total number of transactions). I'm guessing that tax would force you to raise your prices higher than your competition, thus hurting your business.

If someone is going out of their way to screw the country, then I have no problem with the government sticking it to them. If everyone was willing to do their part, we wouldn't be in this mess. In this hypothetical situation, it wouldn't even be you doing your part. It would just be you not going out of your way to screw the country.
 
SaltyDawg said:
If any business went out of their way to screw the country like that, then they should just tax that business. They could do the research and see how many transactions involve pennies today. If your business doesn't average at least 60% (or some number) of that average, then they tax you a certain amount (based on your total number of transactions). I'm guessing that tax would force you to raise your prices higher than your competition, thus hurting your business.

If someone is going out of their way to screw the country, then I have no problem with the government sticking it to them. If everyone was willing to do their part, we wouldn't be in this mess. In this hypothetical situation, it wouldn't even be you doing your part. It would just be you not going out of your way to screw the country.
Click to expand...

Not a bad idea either. He is right, if a business-owner did that, what would be the benefit for the business-owner? It really would be going out of the way to screw the country.
 
Beantown is coming up with forward progressive ideas, Ballou is running a political campaign, and we've all generally been in accord without much attacking and harassing.

The lockout has made Jazzfanz a harmonious, peaceable place.

God bless us everyone.
 
The-Joker said:
Beantown is coming up with forward progressive ideas, Ballou is running a political campaign, and we've all generally been in accord without much attacking and harassing.

The lockout has made Jazzfanz a harmonious, peaceable place.

God bless us everyone.
Click to expand...

**** you.
















Come on, someone had to say it.
 
Why do newspapers feel the urge to print idiotic letters like these?

It's because of this type of ignorance and petty partisan attacks why our country is in the state that it's in. This illustrates it beautifully.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/700168708/Tax-the-Obama-campaign.html
Obama calls for "shared sacrifice" tax cuts. Meanwhile, his own reelection campaign has record-setting income. Why is he not willing to share the sacrifice by allowing his campaign to be taxed?

He wants to change the status quo on taxes but maintain his own massive exemption (most non-profit funds lose their tax exempt status when they become politically active).

Obama would of course complain, saying that if his campaign is taxed then he won't have enough money to do everything he'd like to do. Well, yeah. That's the "sacrifice" we all make when we pay taxes. This shows the folly in the "tax the rich" mentality. If it was anyone else with that kind of income, Obama would claim they have more income than they need. Is he willing to apply that standard to himself?

Ryan Larsen

Bountiful
Click to expand...
 
So I found out the McDonald's has about 58,000 million transactions per day in the US. If an average of .02 cents was used to average up to a nickel that would average a little over 1.1 million in deficit payments per day.... JUST from McDonald's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top