It could be run fairly and responsibly. Start by abolishing the EPA, and any other entity that can levy a fine without going to court. Next eliminate the IRS by passing the Fair Tax. Of course that would leave us with about two million newly-unemployed with absolutely no life skills.
But it’s still significantly regressive, unless it is carefully designed to have a higher rate in proportion to the likely wealth of the person engaging in that transaction. (In the UK, we only have 2 rates of VAT that I’m aware of, so it might as well just be a sales tax… and it doesn’t replace income tax.)
As for the actual strip, is the joke based around the suggestion that a responsible level of spending would mean major cuts to social security?
It wouldn’t cost the middle class a fortune if the government was run fairly. The problem is that the 1% has bought the government and is running it so that the middle class is footing the bill, while they use the money they are saving by using tax loopholes to buy more polititians to write more loopholes.
“Fairly” is open to interpretation, and said interpretation will get vicious quickly. “Responsibly” would reduce duplication and needless complication. Bigger government means more government workers sucking down tax money and fewer workers making products and services producing that tax money.
Run fairly & responsibly? – Until I read the comments – I was going to say to give everyone a numbered bib and sneakers and make them run a marathon every day. with timer chips attached.
Boots at the Boar Premium Member over 9 years ago
Ah hahahahahaha! Government exists to further careers and ruin lives, depending on if you know or anger the right people.
Isn’t Frank on the government elder dole by now? How would it cost him a fortune?
Keith Messamer over 9 years ago
That’s the only thing it won’t blow a mere fortune on.
Olddog1 over 9 years ago
Boots, retires pay taxes, including on Social Security, up to 85% of the total is taxable. Some people saved some money while working.
Agent54 over 9 years ago
To “run fairly” is idealistic and undefinable, responsibly a little less so.
Agent54 over 9 years ago
To “run fairly” is idealistic and undefinable, responsibly no so much.
jbmlaw01 over 9 years ago
It could be run fairly and responsibly. Start by abolishing the EPA, and any other entity that can levy a fine without going to court. Next eliminate the IRS by passing the Fair Tax. Of course that would leave us with about two million newly-unemployed with absolutely no life skills.
mbzylnf2 over 9 years ago
But it’s still significantly regressive, unless it is carefully designed to have a higher rate in proportion to the likely wealth of the person engaging in that transaction. (In the UK, we only have 2 rates of VAT that I’m aware of, so it might as well just be a sales tax… and it doesn’t replace income tax.)
As for the actual strip, is the joke based around the suggestion that a responsible level of spending would mean major cuts to social security?
Diane Lee Premium Member over 9 years ago
It wouldn’t cost the middle class a fortune if the government was run fairly. The problem is that the 1% has bought the government and is running it so that the middle class is footing the bill, while they use the money they are saving by using tax loopholes to buy more polititians to write more loopholes.
Al Nala over 9 years ago
“Fairly” is open to interpretation, and said interpretation will get vicious quickly. “Responsibly” would reduce duplication and needless complication. Bigger government means more government workers sucking down tax money and fewer workers making products and services producing that tax money.
Comic Minister Premium Member over 9 years ago
Agreed Larry.
Number Three over 9 years ago
Has Frank just come from the “Dream On” party?
xxx
Hunter7 over 9 years ago
Run fairly & responsibly? – Until I read the comments – I was going to say to give everyone a numbered bib and sneakers and make them run a marathon every day. with timer chips attached.
Hunter7 over 9 years ago
People on welfare get more per year than the full yearly Old Age Pension.