A Modest Proposal

I think we can all generally agree the following:

• The National Debt is too high.
• The deficit is too high.
• Tax law is too complicated.
• Complications in tax laws lead to loopholes to those who have the best accountants.
• Shortfalls in revenue are as much a problem as spending being too high.
• The average citizen is unaware of how accounting works, especially at the government level.
• The average citizen is unaware of how laws work, especially as they apply to the government.

Which leads to:

• More of the nation's revenue being spent on interest payments.
• Loopholes cause those who can afford the best accountants and lobbyists to pay a smaller percentage of the taxes, which leads to the middle class and lower upper class paying a larger share.
• Exemptions for people who have children lead to people who don't have children paying for the services they use.
• Lack of understanding of laws and accounting leads to government being hijacked for the benefit of those who understand them.

For those who aren't paying much attention, I'm going to say that there is no one party or ideology that is responsible for these problems, we've ran deficits for quite a long time.

So what's my proposal? Mandatory personal finance and civics classes in school, with an incredibly difficult grading scale. The following will be taught at the bare minimum.

• How To Read Financial Statements for Both Governments and Businesses
• How to manage personal debt
• How to file your own taxes
• How Government works
• How to read laws
• How businesses can be structured: LLC, S Corp, C Corp, Nonprofits, Sole Proprietorships, Partnerships
• Macro and Microeconomics
• Among other things

Completion of said class is a requirement for voting rights. Some may think removing people's voting rights a bit draconian, but if you don't understand how Governments, Economies, Businesses, Laws, and Taxation work, you shouldn't be voting on people to institute policies that can affect these things.

I disagree. Now what?

I realize you're emulating Swift with the thread title, but what you've actually got here is a Drastic Proposal.

Let's start with this: A quantifiable understanding of everything you've outlined above should at least be mandatory for (1) anyone running for public office at any level, starting with dog catcher, and (2) anyone employed by a TV or radio news outlet, from the Talking Heads through the writers, producers, program directors, down to the gofer.

So I should just be allowed to not pay my taxes if I don't feel like it?

I'm 53, I don't go to school. Now what?

I wasn't actually trying to emulate Swift, and it bothers me that satire has a monopoly on the phrase.

As for your second point, it doesn't do much good to force those people to understand it if they still twist and misrepresent the facts. Only by having a populace educated enough to recognize those twistings and misrepresentations can you defeat them.

That's exactly what he said.

It would only apply to those under the age of majority who have yet to achieve voting rights.

Here's my modest proposal:

Balance the budget (spend less) and live within your means.

Sigh, even if you brought Revenues in line with Expenditures for the FY 2011 budget you'd still have a deficit. This is because Governmental Budgets use the modified accrual basis of accounting which doesn't take into funding for liabilities not due in the current period.

You need a constitutional amendment for that crap.

And no, the enforcement clause won't let you in.

I'm aware you'd need a constitutional amendment.

I don't trust 75% of the country to get it right.

Well, that's more than I trust.

Also you have the irony of the populace voting to restrict voting rights. (Those who show up to vote, that is.)

Given that during the boom we were running a $600 billion deficit, explain exactly how shortfalls in revenue are "as much a problem" as spending too much. If they are (currently) a problem at all, spending too much dwarfs it by at least an order of magnitude.

If you don't have enough money to make your rent, and it's because:

1) Your rent is too high.
2) Your employer isn't paying you what they're supposed to.

Wouldn't it be safe to say that you have a revenue and spending problem?

Accountant, huh?

How about if you piss away most of your disposable income on sugar and bling?

Still want to blame the employer and the landlord/pay and rent rates?

Yes I do, if you live in a place where your rent is too high for your income, you need to move somewhere where its not a problem (i.e. cut spending). But if you have a legal agreement where your employer is supposed to pay you a specific amount, and decides to illegally withhold some of the income that you worked for, you're damn right it's their fault you have a deficit, no matter what you spent it on the rest of your income on.

In our case the rent is government spending, and the employer is US citizens who don't pay their taxes. It's the government's fault for spending too much, but it's also the citizens for not holding up their end of the bargain.

Or are legal obligations only important when we're giving bonuses to CEO's?

It won't work. Little Johnny can't read, doesn't care that he can't read, and the schools don't have the authority to make him sit down, shut up, and stop disrupting class so that the other students can learn.

It sounds like you need to find a cheaper place to rent.

I agree we need more required courses on personal finance and taxes at the high school level. I graduated at the top of my class and had no idea how to file taxes.

Precisely, but you still have another problem. I'll illustrate it with this example.

Rent: $900 a month
Deficit: $600 a month
Wages lost due to violation of legal obligation of employer: $300 a month

Now let's say that the cheapest rent you can get in the area is $600 a month, so you go and move there. Your deficit is $300 a month, the amount you are contractually obligated to receive from your employer, would you argue that the deficit is your fault? Of course not, your deficit is the result of someone else failing to meet their legal obligations, to blame you absolves them of responsibility for what they're supposed to do.

Yes, using your example, it is wrong for the employer not to be paying the agreed amount of money. But, that doesn't put money into the person's pocket. Find another place to live that you can afford and sue the employer.

All of this has little to do with the federal government and its mis management and overspending of our money.

Government estimates are notoriously unreliable, And where did any of that bolded stuff come from? Are you talking about tax cheats?

If you are, then why don't you say you're talking about tax cheats. Do you think anyone here advocates not paying the taxes owed? Do we look like we're in the Obama administration?

Otherwise what you're saying - "In our case the rent is government spending, and the employer is US citizens who don't pay their taxes" doesn't make any sense and I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

What I suspect it really means is that you've been sold a bill of goods and it's time for you to wake up and smell the coffee.

The US government is an insatiable pig, and the rent needs to be lower, a lot lower. Tax rates are just fine for now.

I did say I was talking about tax cheats, it's like the third damn thing in the quote pyramid.

Tax cheats are not the cause of the deficit. An irresponsible Congress and incompetent Preesident is the cause.

Possibly ironic but it's a key ingredient in the Elitist Manifesto. Not much traction for long if the elite doesn't simultaneously empower their fellow elites while disenfranchising the commoners.


Defender, a person can disagree that "Shortfalls in revenue are as much a problem as spending being too high" without being a tax cheat. In fact, lower taxes might go a ways toward the perception of legitimacy that might, over time, decrease the amount of cheating. E.g., I bought my first mail-order cigarettes when the taxes hit over $3 a pack.

And your ideas about a voting qualifications will be found unconstitutional. Plus they're smug, elitist, and kind of offensive, fun as they may be to discuss while ingesting fine wine and exotic cheeses. I'd rather adopt the Starship Troopers approach where only those who join military are citizens with votes than an elitist system based on a world of accountant-qualified credentials (I have a BS in accounting and MBA in taxation/finance btw, so no offense).

You realize that this will take all the Democrats out of public office and wipe out your precious mainstream media? Right?



But of course then it becomes whose quantifiable understanding is used to judge. Yeah.....I'm not seeing your idea working to good....

You didn't get the memo?

Be there at 5 p.m. on Friday.