Simple Utah Mormon Politics

Are you of the opinion that the rich are getting richer at the expense of the poor, because government has given them too many breaks on their income taxes? Or are you of the point of view that it is immoral for government to given Earned Income Tax Credits to those who haven't earned enough many to pay any taxes? I'm neither, actually. I'm of the opinion that the income tax is an unconscionable affront to our sensibilities and that it should be abolished. Worse than the money that it takes out of our pockets is the surefire way in which it gets Americans to hate each other. Government has the means at its disposal to raise enough revenue through taxes other than the income tax to satisfy its enormous greed. But, like so the Income Tax was not instituted in order to give the Federal Government more revenue. It was established in order to give the Government more power. many other government programs, the Income Tax was not instituted in order to give the Federal Gover...

Do you suppose that 40 states have "booming local economies" and higher than expected tax revenues because of federal tax cuts? I do so suppose. When we get to keep more of our money we get to stimulate the economy. Government just pays more bureaucrat salaries and buys more '$5,000 toilet seats'. Liberals have a penchant for complaining about a lot of things. One of them is that the rich keep getting richer at the expense of the poor. I've never seen them site a comprehensive study, so that's why I call it complaining. I suppose it could be because I haven't been paying attention to the subject well enough, but I think the fruits of liberal complaining--increased government control of every-freakin-thing--belies the fact that they do not have a good plan. There are help wanted signs, it seems, in the windows or the little grassy plots out front of nearly every business in Utah. Alas, I exaggerate, but not by much. Anybody can get a job right now. ...

I've changed my mind. I think it is time to increase taxes on the rich. They aren't paying their fair share. My proposal will be a phased approach. I have come to agree with liberals that some people have too much money. They're getting to big of piece of the American pie (yes, probably that pie, too ;-) ). So I have a proposal to increase taxes on the rich. Phase I would begin the new tax scheme by introducing it in select regions of the country. The regions that I randomly propose are Washington D.C. and Hollywood. I propose a tax rate of 95%. Phase II is to leave it that way until they scream "Uncle!" Phase III is to send them to an economics class, so they can see that "the pie" actually grows! P.S. Presidential Candidate-soon-to-be Fred Thompson, in a recent "campaign" speech said that, because the Democrats are targeting the rich for tax increases, he suggests that middle-classers steer well clear of the target. I agree.

Do you think a 5% flat tax in Utah will result in fewer charitable contributions? Should we oppose a flat tax, so that our church still gets its charitable receipts? I think we should trust that people will still be charitable. I support the currently proposed 5% flat tax. The Utah Legislature is currently considering a bill which if passed, it is estimated, will incent 80% of Utah taxpayers to choose a 5% flat tax rate. Some legislators, particularly those of the LDS faith, are worried that a flat tax might discourage charitable giving. I hope not. But I could see how a poorly crafted flat tax would have just that effect. The Deseret News says of the LDS church's position on a flat tax: LDS Church leaders have said that whatever personal income tax changes are made, there should still be incentives for charitable giving. In September of 2005, a legal representative for the LDS church read a statement in front of a legislative committee . It said in part: "Our communit...

If the school-aged population in Utah grew at a slower (or flat) rate, it would soon become easy to get a handle on the problem of crowded classrooms in Utah. Since we can't force people with school-aged children to stop moving into the state nor those already here to stop having children, I have a better idea. Inflation usually outpaces rising incomes. The only way for incomes to catch up with inflation is to stop inflation. In much the same way, increases in the school-aged population outpace the ability to provide for the education of that population. Faster increases mean more difficulty. If Utah were a state where people stopped having children and where families from other states were not allowed to come, school-aged children would gradually become a smaller proportion of the population. This would result in a larger proportion of the state's population being tax payers, and their tax payments would go farther because they subsidize a smaller proportion of the state...