Here's an idea: Why not lower taxes on income derived from "work", be that ditch-digging or CEO-ing, and tax more heavily any monies made in non-"work" ways, such as investments, transactions, speculation, stock options, mineral rights, etc. Right now, the tax system is pretty much set up in the opposite way, which pretty much puts it in line with the whole system in place here these days, i.e., those as do the hard work are the last ones to see the profit (and, no, getting a paycheck doesnt count). After all, politicians use the arguement about "working hard for your money" as a reason to lower taxes, but how much work is involved in owning a company? Running one, yes. Owning it? Not so much.
Biblical arguement: "By the sweat of thy brow shalt thou earn thine bread" (dont look into this one too closely, though).
Incidently, nobody ever gets obscenely rich through hard work, it's a myth. Enormous wealth can only be achieved through exploitation, whether it be of resources, ideas, or, usually, people.
This is a cool story about the rebuilding of a mosque in Banja Luka - now the capital of the Serb-run part of Bosnia.
Speaking of Muslims, there's been a lot of criticism directed at those of Muslim faith for their "lack of protest" at the violence carried out in the name of Islam around the world. Yet here in America, many Christian groups not only support, but encourage the War in Iraq, yet we hear no complaints (here, anyway) about their lack of protest, even though Christianity is no more or less anti-peace than Islam is.
One last thought: could it be that Sharia law is making such a strong showing in some places because for the people there it is the only rule of law that they can get? Islamic fundamentalism is an increasing problem in Pakistan, supposedly bringing chaos to their society. Maybe, though, it's the other way around: The chaos and corruption of Pakistani politics is causing people to turn to religion to provide the rule of law because their government cannot, and people prefer to live in a society run by consistent rules.
Could it be a coincidence that here in the U.S., Christian fundamentalism has been rising at the same time that Republican leadership has promoted the case that our government is useless and corrupt (first through accusation, then through their own practice of it)?
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Good point about Pakistan Dave, but I'm not sure that law works either way. I think it's more a matter of the haves and the have nots. Mullah's have, the public have not.
The same works for Christians. The Pope has, the flock has not.
BTW, your word verification has a lisp..."becaauth".
People want a certain level of regularity, of reliability in their lives. If Sharia Law gives them more of that than constitutional law does, then that'll be the one that they'll pick. Most people can learn to live with anything, as long as that anything is predictable. You can see that in the lack of outrage in the crumbling of our own democratic ideals, because so far it's not gotten on the way of what ordinary people expect from their lives. And as long as the change is gradual, they may not object until it's far too late.
Actually, that tax idea has promise, as it doesn't explicitly "penalize the wealthy," as conservatives like to say about Democratic tax plans. The only problem is seniors and middle class sometimes have nest eggs they genuinely rely on, and they can't afford to have them heavily taxed. Interest income isn't just for the leisure class.
Yeah, I realize that, my mother is one of those people. The solution to that, I suppose, would be to have some sort of deductable to start out with, and make sure that interest and dividends have a lower tax rate than money made via speculation (for instance, how about a higher tax rate on capital gains if the turnaround was less than 5 years). The idea is to make sure that actual labor is not the least rewarded type of income.
Post a Comment