>WS:
>You may not be aware of it, but most research, health, and educational
>institutions in this country are 501(c)(3) nonprofits and thus exempt
>from income and property taxes. [...] This is why cities asks these institutions to pay PILOTS (payments
>in lieu of taxes) - which these 'nonprofits' fight tooth and nail. On
>the positive side, these nonprofits are the major or sometimes sole
>source of employment growth in the cities, as the private sector is
>shedding jobs.
>
>
I had to look up 501 (c) (3) I noticed this quote: "none of the earnings
of the organization may inure to any private shareholder or individual.
In addition, it may not attempt to influence legislation as a
substantial part of its activities and it may not participate at all in
campaign activity for or against political candidates [...]
The exempt purposes set forth in IRC Section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and the prevention of cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erection or maintenance of public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening of neighborhood tensions; elimination of prejudice and discrimination; defense of human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.
To be organized exclusively for a charitable purpose, the organization must be a corporation, community chest, fund, or foundation. A charitable trust is a fund or foundation and will qualify. However, an individual or a partnership will not qualify. "
It appears to be 50/50 in that it's good, but flawed.
>WS:
>Centralized at the national level policy would go be more progressive -
>the current system is designed to maximize the local control of schools,
>and that give all kinds of religious and right wing kooks an instrument
>to mess with school policy (cf. the Scopes trial).
>
>Centralized nation-wide school curriculum would also eliminate the need
>for standardized testing - which is another highly regressive feature
>of the US educational system.
>
>
You have a good point, however, do you think the teachers would like the ability to have a say in some of the local decisions (via democratic vote)? The recall of Scopes trail hits close to home - I live in Alabama. I can say that our science department is already put under strict guidelines so not to aggravate the fundamentalist (no offense to Christians on the board). At least in Tuscaloosa, where I was raised, their was scientific material always around for those that was curious. Also, the fact that organizations make such a fuss over the law of evolution, actually makes it quite rebellious, and therefore, means that a lot of young people except it. Even though the subject was, and to a large degree still is, not taught well in Alabama, people like Edward O. Wilson were able to become internationally respected in the subject. I do agree with you, when you say standardized testing is regressive.
>>(4) Stop giving PBS tax dollars (recall the education facility)
>>
>>(5) Eliminate a state grant for the arts (again recall the education
>>facility)
>>
>>
>
>WS:
>WHY????? The problem with PBS public funding is that such funds are
>discretionary rather than statutory. That means that reactionaries in
>Congress can yank them if the PBS does not sing the tune they want to
>hear. Statutory transfers i.e. public payments mandated by law (as it
>is the case in many European countries) would free PBS and kindred
>institutions from political pressures that influence their programs.
>
>
Remember, I said anything that was educational would not have to pay income or property tax. That was before you told me about 501 (c) (3), which I did not known about. I still think the National Endowment for the Arts is a joke. If anything, the American art world is pathetic; anything that resembles art is slapped with a label and capitalized. Why the hell did the government give our tax dollars to things like "Sundance Film Festival"?
>WS:
>
>
>That's quite regressive and reactionary. The current high bracket
>income tax is 28% if memory serves - much more progressive than you
>propose. The threshold for the $0 tax is, I believe somewhere around
>$5k a year. So the current tax system is more progressive than you
>suggest.
>
>A truly progressive tax would be closer to 70-80% in high income
>brackets (say, over $1m a year). Abolishing the $80k ceiling for the
>flat social security tax would also travel a long way in eliminating the
>supposed "crisis" of social security.
>
>
I doubt that would work. First, the rich might be taxed 28%, but once the accountants get a hold of the paperwork, I bet its reduced to about 5-15%; as for corporations, I wouldn't be surprise if they don't even pay 2%.
As for the 70-80% tax, what would persuade a person to try to aim for that income, if they are only going to have to give away a considerable amount of money back to the government?. Our government has shown itself to be neither fiscally prudent, nor socially altruistic. Why give them money, only to spend it on themselves, inefficient policys, and higher military (which I believe might be the downfall of our government, if we don't get rid of this Roman wannabe bullsh*t policy's).
Although I enjoy reading, and listening to Noam Chomsky, I know a libertarian socialist system will never happen. Look what happen to Spain, when they tried, or Russia, when Wilson was in office. The way the corporations are treating Chavez makes me skeptical a social democratic system would even work.; even ex-liberals like Marc Cooper are ready to spit in Chavez face. I won't be selling my lousy 55 shares of JNJ anytime soon, but I continue to become more cynical toward the corporate structure, and the libertarian capitalist who support it.