Utah Guns Forum banner
1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,195 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
It is Official, I filed today with Sherrie Swensen, Salt Lake Count Clerk, to run for State Senate to represent District 3.

If you are serious about having more individuals in office who uphold the Constitution & most especially our Amendment Rights, especially the 2nd Amendment, then please help with my campaign! At this time the best help I can receive is monetary, until after the Caucus meetings on March 21st, 2006. Then I will need other assistance in making phone calls, soliciting funds & many other activities, which at this time are unknown to me.

My platform is as follows:

Support Credit Unions

Support the Constitution as written by our Founders, and strong
defender of Amendment rights

Support fiscal responsibility of our school districts, specifically
including reduction of administrative costs in favor of teacher salaries
and student materials (and elimination of excessive waste)

Support certain voucher programs for private education

Support reallocation of state funding for students who are not
attending school in school districts due to Home Schooling, and making
that money available to Home School Teachers (parents) for purchase of
needed educational materials, in the form of refundable tax credits

Strong Defender of 2nd Amendment Rights, specifically including tough
standards for conceal carry permits

Support Reduction of Government Waste

Support strengthening the family

Support amortization (but not elimination) of State Unclaimed Property
Fund, with individual items reverting to the State coffers after seven
years

Support investigation of an alternative to the State Board of Regents
for governance of the state education system

Support a reduction of taxes & a removal of the State Food Tax

Support restructuring of laws governing Divorce & custody of minor
children

Support Citizen Councils to monitor police and judges, and to
investigate, fine, give over to a Grand Jury for trial, or to fire those
who break the law. The jury system is the foundation of free republics
everywhere, and the best way to prevent the misconduct of the
magistracy.

Robie Cagle
Candidate for State Senate
District 3
Home Phone 801-281-1879

Please consider contributing to this campaign. Or consider aiding me in this endeavor by volunteering to help with phone calls and sign placement, when the time comes.

I appreciate everyone one of you who regularly visit these pages, and who assist in defending our rights. Hopefully, together, we may be successful .

Donations may be made by check to:

Cagle for Senate
C/O Robie Cagle
870 East 4070 South Apt. # 60
Murray, UT 84107

OR

Cagle for Senate
C/O Mary Lapray
592 Channel Drive
Murray, UT 84107

:D
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,552 Posts
Can you name the candidates that you will be running against?

Looks like a good platform. In 99% of the cases when I vote, if the candidate is not a strong supporter of 2A rights, he will NOT get my vote.

Good luck!

As a side note, you said:
tough standards for conceal carry permits
What do you mean by that? I, for one, feel that having to 'apply' to carry concealed is already an infringement on my rights. It's a necessary evil. Not something I would necessarily like to see becoming stricter.

What say ye?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,195 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Tapehoser,

I will be running against Gene Davis (D).
He has not filed to run, yet. So far for District 3 I am the only registrant.
As for "tough standards for conceal carry," this just means that if we can keep things as they are, and improve on where we are allowed to carry, and have a better program for the training class, perhaps with at least some range time, other states may be more willing to allow us to carry-or be more reciprocal when we visit them. I hope this answers your question? I have thought of maybe editing that portion out. I am open to ideas though.
Thanks for the comments.

Robie
:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
I'd like to see less restrictions on carrying, including true open carry laws.

How about, instead of getting rid of sales tax and relying on income tax, we turn it around?

I think income tax is immoral, and sales tax is more appropriate. Just my opinion.

Great platform overall, though. I wish you luck.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts
I have to disagree about requiring more in the way of training. Most people applying for permits already have extensive experience with firearms. To be honest if you fully support the 2nd amendment there should be no hurdle at all for a law abiding citizen to carry. I think a better idea would be to make the permit optional, the only reason we should need the optional permit is if we were planning on carrying out of state.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,195 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
After careful consideration, and input from those here on this webpage, I am removing the line which reads:

specifically including tough
standards for conceal carry permits

It should now read as:

Strong Defender of 2nd Amendment Rights.

This fits better, not only with my own philosophy, but with the thoughts of those I widh to represent.

I appreciate the comments & concerns.

:)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,616 Posts
With that change, the platform is better.

I have to agree that a sales tax is better than an income tax. Sales taxes are somewhat self-regulating, because if legislators want to raise it, the people see and feel it every time they make a purchase, and can immediately raise cain with the legislature.

Income taxes constitute a power of government to destroy incentive and productivity in society as government tries to Socialize society. Fundamentally evil.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
289 Posts
Relying on sales tax for the state's revenue is a bad (read = terrible) idea, because it is a prime example of a regressive tax, meaning it hits the poor the hardest of all. I would never vote for anyone who was willing to legislate that idea.

See, everyone, whether rich or poor, has to buy food, clothing, and other things. The tax on all that becomes a larger percentage of a poor person's income than someone with a larger income. Here's an example from the web site: http://www.psnw.com/~bashford/taxation.html

(Quote)
Let's imagine two frugal traveling salesmen. They each have to buy a new car every four years to (say) keep up appearances, and they need reliable transportation.
(One guy makes 20K, the other 300K)
Run the numbers on a the RATE of total income each pays on on 5% sales tax.

Poor Boy buys a $20,000 car pays $1000 or 5.0% of his income.
Rich Boy buys a $60,000 car pays $3000 or 1.0% of his income.

Poor Boy has 5 times the tax bite, or rate of tax on a car. Rich Boy hardly feels sales taxes.

Then run the numbers on a $30 pair of Levis, and the tax rate discrepancy triples.
Sales tax is NOT a flat tax.
(Unquote)

That's why it would be beneficial to do away with the sales tax on food. Let me say, if the legislature wanted to do away with the food tax, it could do that. The excuses why they didn't do it this session are just that -- excuses.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
^ That might be correct, but there's a fundamental flaw to that logic.

The government has no RIGHT to regulate and force everyone to be equal.

We are *created* equal. That does not mean that we must be regulated throughout our lives to STAY equal.

Sales tax IS fair. Income tax destroys the incentive to excel.

Income tax, in my opinion (coming from an LDS pov), is a plan of Satan. It mimicks tithing. Only income tax is by FORCE, and the more you make, the MORE you have to pay. "Some people are more equal than others."

Tithing is 10% of our total income. If you make $1 million, or $10,000 a year, it's still 10%.
Is that then, unfair?
It certainly is harder for lower income people to part with 10% of their income than rich folk.

And so the heavy, graduated income tax appeared in the Communist Manifesto. The First Presidency, if I recall, referred to Communism as (at the time) "the greatest Satanical threat to ever sweep the earth".

So the Church identified Communism as a plan of Satan. A graduated income tax, as far as I know, first became popular and promoted with Communism. The timeline that it was introduced in our country (1930's, correct?) makes sense, as communism creeped into America.

Long story short, income tax is UNfair, and immoral.

If this country got by just fine WITHOUT income tax before the 30's, then we could get by just fine without it today.

(sorry for the lengthy post)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
289 Posts
Government cannot make us equal, but they dang well better treat us fairly! Unfairness in taxation is one of the reasons we are not subjects of the British Queen. Consider the Stamp Act, the tax on tea, etc. If you think that the income tax as we presently pay it is fair, you're right -- too many loopholes that the more affluent can use to reduce their tax. And a graduatied income tax is unfair also. (By the way, the income tax as it now stands is FAR less graduated than it was 50 years ago. The tax rate for the highest incomes was 75%!)

But a sales tax is the worst kind of graduated tax. Reference my preceding post. If sales tax replaced income tax, the sales tax percentage would have to be very high. Our present sales tax of 6.6% (in SL County -- less in some other counties) is a pittance to the percentage that would be required to finance state government, let alone federal government. That would truly be an unfair tax.

Your analogy to tithing is good in only one respect. If everyone would pay the same percentage of their income as tax (a true flat tax), that would satisfy me as fair. But to liken income tax to a Satanic plan or Communism is laughable. If income tax is, so is civil marriage. Does your church condemn civil marriage as a tool of Satan?

You're wrong about income tax starting with the rise of Communism. The first income tax in the U.S. started about the time of the Civil War. It failed only because there was no way to compel everyone to pay it.

Compel is the correct word. A tax, ANY kind of tax, is a forced contribution of our resources to the running of the government. Do you think that you could somehow get out of paying sales tax? Of course you could. Never eat, never drink, never clothe yourself. Never have a car, or an appliance, or have a home.

Unless you're a whole lot wealthier than I am, a sales tax instead of income tax would be... ummm... a taste of Satan's abode.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
66 Posts
Let me propose something in the middle. A graduated flat tax. I know that sounds dumb, but let me explain. The tax would have no loop holes or credits, and it would be graduated to give some releif to the poor. If you make this much you would pay a flat percentage of it. If you landed a big job then the percentage would go up. Anyone who could read a chart could plainly see how much they own, and of course tax preparations would be a snap.
My experiance with taxes are that everybody has an opinion and none of them are the same. That's OK. We're individuals in a free country, and I say "That's just Bully"!

Hey Hey... Stay safe out there!
Scallywag
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
203 Posts
The problem is not taxes. Taxes are the symptom, not the problem. The problem is spending. You can adjust where the taxes come from until the sun implodes, but it's still simply squabbling about whether to put the bandaid on the entry point or exit point of the gunshot wound.

Mjolnir said:
But a sales tax is the worst kind of graduated tax.
I don't buy this type of socialst double-talk. If you want to soak the most productive members of society, stop hiding behind the rhetoric and just come out and say it. I can respect people who say what they mean even if I disagree, but have only contempt for those that blow smoke --- including talk about "fair" and "unfair." :roll: We can manipulate the percentages and statistics until the cows come home, but it doesn't change the fact that we're being taxed to death because politicians never saw a good cause that didn't need just a little more money.

Arguing over who pays more using which yardstick, without addressing the fact that our state legislature spends like drunken sailors is like slaves squabbling over who got the bigger piece of rotten bread. They may determine a "fair share" eventually, but they're still slaves.

If sales tax replaced income tax, the sales tax percentage would have to be very high.
So? You're saying that putting the fact that Utah has high tax rates in people's face everytime they go shopping is bad, but taking it out of their pay (where they rarely pay any attention) is bad. High taxes are high taxes.

I know, I know, you have your favourite yardstick to show that one tax is bad and another is good.

... That would truly be an unfair tax.
:roll: unfair unshmair ... slash the budgets and attack the real problem.

Life isn't "fair" anyhow.

... Do you think that you could somehow get out of paying sales tax? Of course you could. Never eat, never drink, never clothe yourself. Never have a car, or an appliance, or have a home.
But it would then be voluntary, at least.

The idea isn't to "get out of" paying taxes, anyhow. No matter what the tax code is, people can and will use it to their best advantage. It's politically naive or deceptive to call this "taking advantage of loopholes," or "getting out of paying a fair share." The tax code is the tax code. Tweak it, bend it, fold, spilde, or mutilate it all you want. Humans will still seek to pay the minimal amount of tax under the law. If you want people to pay more than the minimal amount required by law, establish a fund whereby people can volunteer out of the goodness of their heart.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
203 Posts
Sorry, this hard-left language is really grating on my nerves.

Mjolnir said:
Government cannot make us equal, but they dang well better treat us fairly!.
Sorry, we are equal, or have you forgotten to read the Declaration of Independence? Or Rousseau, or Cicero, or any of those other great thinkers of the past to whom the Founders looked for inspiration and tutelage? What you mean is, I believe, "government cannot make us all have the same number of material goods," which is the heart of communism. I would agree wholeheartedly with this. Nor should government try.

I don't want to be treated "fairly." That's a liberal's way of saying "unequally but in a way I can pat myself on the back." I want government to operate only within its constitutional bounds, which is to treat us all equally before the law, and keep its mitts in its own pockets.

Look to the underlying principles upon which the Founders operated. This will keep us all out of a great deal of trouble.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
289 Posts
Let me tell you why. Here you guys are, complaining about income tax hurting the rich because of graduated tax, and then wanting to substitute a sales tax.

Here am I pointing out that a sales tax is a graduated tax. It is, only in reverse of a graduated income tax. A graduated income tax stings the rich and (as was pointed out) stifles a person's will to make the big bucks for himself and others. But a sales tax is a graduated tax that hurts the poor, and also stifles the will to excel, fostering the attitude "Why not let the government give me welfare?"

So here am I avocating a flat income tax (read my post). It's neither a graduated tax against the very rich, nor is it a graduated tax against the very poor. For heaven's sake, how is that a leftest philosophy?

I did say government cannot MAKE us equal. Where did I say we are not INHERENTLY equal? And I said I wanted to be treated fairly. Is not that to be treated EQUALLY?

I say again, bad post, guy, attacking before reading.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
203 Posts
bad post, guy, attacking before reading.
:lol:

What did I attack (you didn't specify), and what didn't I read first (again, you didn't specify)? After I read the entirety of the thread, I spoke my mind plainly. No ire was directed at you.

Mjolnir said:
... a sales tax ... is a graduated tax that hurts the poor,
You have your beliefs, you've expressed them, but don't expect everybody to agree. The author that you offer for supporting evidence, Douglas Bashford, pontificates a mighty spell, but his article is rampant with bad logic. If I say, "BS," to your conclusions, why say you that I am the bad guy? The arguments you present are old ideas, have a lot of holes in them, and I recognize that there are a lot of people who buy into them anyhow. I'm not going to roll over and say, "Amen, brother!"

More importantly (for everybody else), I don't think this is the appropriate forum for wrangling over taxation. Gun issues, yes.

And I said I wanted to be treated fairly. Is not that to be treated EQUALLY?
No. "Fair" is a rhetorical device. It's subjective.

You said, for example, that the sales tax is an unfair tax on the poor, but it is a flat tax rate that doesn't discriminate on the basis of income. In other words, the tax rate remains constant for everybody whether a person buys a lettuce or a Lexus. No exceptions. Will you deny that is equal treatment before the law?

It something treats all men completely equally, but is unfair, then your claim that "fair=equal treatment" lays contradicted.

I did say government cannot MAKE us equal.
Yes. "Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 12:13 am" BTW: this is good-natured ribbing. :)
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top