My economic reform ideas

[digsbe]

It seems there are 2 prominent school's of thought when it comes to how we should reform taxes and economics and deal with wealth inequality.

The first one is the more liberal/socialist approach of having high taxes on the rich, corporations, investment income, etc. and taking that taxed money and funneling it to social programs as means to redistribute wealth.

The other is the more conservative/capitalist approach of "trickle down" with lower tax rates under the presumption that less wealth taxed will equate to more wealth for all.

Both plans have their pros and cons, but in my opinion arguably neither actually works.

The problem with both plans is the flaw in human nature: greed.

High taxes on the rich and on corporate income or investment income is only going to drive wealth away, push for tax evasion, and depends on a benevolent government dolling out those funds to the rest of the country. Greed on the government's part time and time again shows how this doesn't happen. Greed on the "1%" part or on businesses just show that they'll either work their way around taxes via financial tricks or just move the company out of the country all together. I personally think such a plan would just squander wealth and give the government too much power while being an overall economic negative for the economy.

We know trickle down tends to not actually trickle down. With automation and student loan issues corporations increasingly demand more work with less benefits. They can get away with it. Excess profits or money is going to go to those at the top and to shareholders, they don't have an incentive to do things for their employees when they are a dime a dozen and are held to standards of "you need this job to pay your government student loans or to just get by because there aren't many alternatives out there." In my opinion, corporations have become increasingly abusive towards employees with severely limited vacation time compared to other countries, poor benefits and more work demanded of employees with layoffs and automation taking jobs. They can demand that you do more with less because you aren't valued and easily replaceable. Wealth doesn't trickle down. In much the same way that arid deserts don't see much rain due to the climate, the climate behind trickle down economics is all about wealth concentrating at the top because there aren't conditions for it to "rain."

My proposal is to warp greed to be a positive. I don't think liberal or conservative policies properly address the issue, and in each case I think it's each party's way of looking out for their special interests. What I propose is more of an innovative overhaul.

We need to raise corporate taxes and taxes on executive income and simplify the tax code to prevent them from wheeling and dealing. Along with this the tax code needs to be reformed to provide financial incentives to treat employees ethically. Companies would get tax breaks for paying higher wages, providing more vacation time and maternal benefits as well as other benefits. It's in their best interest to do this because the taxes and fines set in place would ultimately cost them more than the expenses paid for ethical pay and employment standards. It's a financial incentive through the tax code to force a "trickle down" if you will. Executives and higher income tax brackets that make decisions for companies and employment would see reductions in taxes if they run things ethically, corporate taxes would be lower (and thus more profit for shareholders) when the company puts more of that money back into their employees.

I think such a system financially rewards ethical decisions by the top earners and companies, would put more wealth and benefits in the hands of working Americans and may be a positive thing for the economy. I think it somewhat takes ideas from both prominent economic plans put forth and turns greed into a "good thing" where the greedy outcome is to give more money to others lest it be taken by the government. It shifts where money should go in order to bring about the best financial interest of those who have most of it or the entities that generate it.

 

[Renae]

It seems there are 2 prominent school's of thought when it comes to how we should reform taxes and economics and deal with wealth inequality.

The first one is the more liberal/socialist approach of having high taxes on the rich, corporations, investment income, etc. and taking that taxed money and funneling it to social programs as means to redistribute wealth.

The other is the more conservative/capitalist approach of "trickle down" with lower tax rates under the presumption that less wealth taxed will equate to more wealth for all.

Both plans have their pros and cons, but in my opinion arguably neither actually works.

The problem with both plans is the flaw in human nature: greed.

High taxes on the rich and on corporate income or investment income is only going to drive wealth away, push for tax evasion, and depends on a benevolent government dolling out those funds to the rest of the country. Greed on the government's part time and time again shows how this doesn't happen. Greed on the "1%" part or on businesses just show that they'll either work their way around taxes via financial tricks or just move the company out of the country all together. I personally think such a plan would just squander wealth and give the government too much power while being an overall economic negative for the economy.

We know trickle down tends to not actually trickle down. With automation and student loan issues corporations increasingly demand more work with less benefits. They can get away with it. Excess profits or money is going to go to those at the top and to shareholders, they don't have an incentive to do things for their employees when they are a dime a dozen and are held to standards of "you need this job to pay your government student loans or to just get by because there aren't many alternatives out there." In my opinion, corporations have become increasingly abusive towards employees with severely limited vacation time compared to other countries, poor benefits and more work demanded of employees with layoffs and automation taking jobs. They can demand that you do more with less because you aren't valued and easily replaceable. Wealth doesn't trickle down. In much the same way that arid deserts don't see much rain due to the climate, the climate behind trickle down economics is all about wealth concentrating at the top because there aren't conditions for it to "rain."

My proposal is to warp greed to be a positive. I don't think liberal or conservative policies properly address the issue, and in each case I think it's each party's way of looking out for their special interests. What I propose is more of an innovative overhaul.

We need to raise corporate taxes and taxes on executive income and simplify the tax code to prevent them from wheeling and dealing. Along with this the tax code needs to be reformed to provide financial incentives to treat employees ethically. Companies would get tax breaks for paying higher wages, providing more vacation time and maternal benefits as well as other benefits. It's in their best interest to do this because the taxes and fines set in place would ultimately cost them more than the expenses paid for ethical pay and employment standards. It's a financial incentive through the tax code to force a "trickle down" if you will. Executives and higher income tax brackets that make decisions for companies and employment would see reductions in taxes if they run things ethically, corporate taxes would be lower (and thus more profit for shareholders) when the company puts more of that money back into their employees.

I think such a system financially rewards ethical decisions by the top earners and companies, would put more wealth and benefits in the hands of working Americans and may be a positive thing for the economy. I think it somewhat takes ideas from both prominent economic plans put forth and turns greed into a "good thing" where the greedy outcome is to give more money to others lest it be taken by the government. It shifts where money should go in order to bring about the best financial interest of those who have most of it or the entities that generate it.

Sounds like you've been sniffing commie pinko glue too long Digs. Sorry, dog hit the keyboard.

You are however, advocating government action to alter human activity for a great good end.

That always ends very very poorly.

The best answer, is a flat tax, no deductions, no gimmicks, everyone pays the same flat rate. It also means if you are a politician you cannot raise taxes without EVERYONE paying, and that won't fly, politicians need their rhetoric.

 

[digsbe]

Sounds like you've been sniffing commie pinko glue too long Digs. Sorry, dog hit the keyboard.

You are however, advocating government action to alter human activity for a great good end.

That always ends very very poorly.

The best answer, is a flat tax, no deductions, no gimmicks, everyone pays the same flat rate. It also means if you are a politician you cannot raise taxes without EVERYONE paying, and that won't fly, politicians need their rhetoric.

The way I see it a flat tax with no deductions only hurts the poor and middle class and isn't going to result in more wealth for them or increased wages. I think government should take action. The basis of my plan is that it enables people to earn more and better take care of themselves with companies and the wealthy encouraged to make more ethical financial decisions. The money doesn't go to the government to be distributed out by the government like what liberalism/socialism/communism would push.

It turns greed around to be a beneficial force for most people involved.

 

[Renae]

The way I see it a flat tax with no deductions only hurts the poor and middle class and isn't going to result in more wealth for them or increased wages. I think government should take action. The basis of my plan is that it enables people to earn more and better take care of themselves with companies and the wealthy encouraged to make more ethical financial decisions. The money doesn't go to the government to be distributed out by the government like what liberalism/socialism/communism would push.

It still pits poor vs rich, a flat tax equalizes all. While I understand that 10% say is a lot for someone on the lower end, if you dont have skin in the game as it were... how can you ask others to pay MORE?

 

[digsbe]

It still pits poor vs rich, a flat tax equalizes all. While I understand that 10% say is a lot for someone on the lower end, if you dont have skin in the game as it were... how can you ask others to pay MORE?

In any system there is going to be the rich vs the poor, it just depends on which end the system favors. What I think would happen under my plan is really the only poor people will be those who were unwilling to work and learn a skill set and have more jobs out there for people to support themselves independent of government aid. I hate the idea of a freebie poor class and I think different reforms to social spending should happen to prevent them from readily abusing the system.

Honestly I'd be fine with making most welfare systems a loan pay-back type of system. If it's good enough for students to take out loans to get an education with the goal of bettering themselves I think the same can be true for welfare where ultimately it's money loaned out to help someone through a period of time with them needing to pay it back because in the end they will need to better themselves in most cases (not including disability or certain allowable circumstances).

 

[Renae]

In any system there is going to be the rich vs the poor, it just depends on which end the system favors. What I think would happen under my plan is really the only poor people will be those who were unwilling to work and learn a skill set and have more jobs out there for people to support themselves independent of government aid. I hate the idea of a freebie poor class and I think different reforms to social spending should happen to prevent them from readily abusing the system.

Honestly I'd be fine with making most welfare systems a loan pay-back type of system. If it's good enough for students to take out loans to get an education with the goal of bettering themselves I think the same can be true for welfare where ultimately it's money loaned out to help someone through a period of time with them needing to pay it back because in the end they will need to better themselves in most cases (not including disability or certain allowable circumstances).

Again, politics is the lens that distorts all. If I can promise 40% of the voters they'll get something for voting for me and convince 11% more I either will make them not pay I win. And that's what wwe currently are seeing. Sadly, I think a a complete societal breakdown with economic implosion is needed to shake the system out enough that real change will occur.

 

[Mycroft]

It seems there are 2 prominent school's of thought when it comes to how we should reform taxes and economics and deal with wealth inequality.

The first one is the more liberal/socialist approach of having high taxes on the rich, corporations, investment income, etc. and taking that taxed money and funneling it to social programs as means to redistribute wealth.

The other is the more conservative/capitalist approach of "trickle down" with lower tax rates under the presumption that less wealth taxed will equate to more wealth for all.

Both plans have their pros and cons, but in my opinion arguably neither actually works.

The problem with both plans is the flaw in human nature: greed.

High taxes on the rich and on corporate income or investment income is only going to drive wealth away, push for tax evasion, and depends on a benevolent government dolling out those funds to the rest of the country. Greed on the government's part time and time again shows how this doesn't happen. Greed on the "1%" part or on businesses just show that they'll either work their way around taxes via financial tricks or just move the company out of the country all together. I personally think such a plan would just squander wealth and give the government too much power while being an overall economic negative for the economy.

We know trickle down tends to not actually trickle down. With automation and student loan issues corporations increasingly demand more work with less benefits. They can get away with it. Excess profits or money is going to go to those at the top and to shareholders, they don't have an incentive to do things for their employees when they are a dime a dozen and are held to standards of "you need this job to pay your government student loans or to just get by because there aren't many alternatives out there." In my opinion, corporations have become increasingly abusive towards employees with severely limited vacation time compared to other countries, poor benefits and more work demanded of employees with layoffs and automation taking jobs. They can demand that you do more with less because you aren't valued and easily replaceable. Wealth doesn't trickle down. In much the same way that arid deserts don't see much rain due to the climate, the climate behind trickle down economics is all about wealth concentrating at the top because there aren't conditions for it to "rain."

My proposal is to warp greed to be a positive. I don't think liberal or conservative policies properly address the issue, and in each case I think it's each party's way of looking out for their special interests. What I propose is more of an innovative overhaul.

We need to raise corporate taxes and taxes on executive income and simplify the tax code to prevent them from wheeling and dealing. Along with this the tax code needs to be reformed to provide financial incentives to treat employees ethically. Companies would get tax breaks for paying higher wages, providing more vacation time and maternal benefits as well as other benefits. It's in their best interest to do this because the taxes and fines set in place would ultimately cost them more than the expenses paid for ethical pay and employment standards. It's a financial incentive through the tax code to force a "trickle down" if you will. Executives and higher income tax brackets that make decisions for companies and employment would see reductions in taxes if they run things ethically, corporate taxes would be lower (and thus more profit for shareholders) when the company puts more of that money back into their employees.

I think such a system financially rewards ethical decisions by the top earners and companies, would put more wealth and benefits in the hands of working Americans and may be a positive thing for the economy. I think it somewhat takes ideas from both prominent economic plans put forth and turns greed into a "good thing" where the greedy outcome is to give more money to others lest it be taken by the government. It shifts where money should go in order to bring about the best financial interest of those who have most of it or the entities that generate it.

The biggest problem with our economy...and with our tax code...is people who want to use the laws, regulations and the tax code to manipulate the behavior of individuals, and you want to keep doing that. I say, take your proposal and bury it as deeply as you can in the trash heap of failed government solutions...as quickly as you can.

The best solution for enabling our economy to flourish is to stop 99% of the "do-good" laws, regulations and tax laws and to prevent Congress from enacting anymore of them...ever. More government does nothing but screw things up.

 

[PeteEU]

It still pits poor vs rich, a flat tax equalizes all. While I understand that 10% say is a lot for someone on the lower end, if you dont have skin in the game as it were... how can you ask others to pay MORE?

No it does not. Flat tax is about the dumbest idea ever. Some countries actually have flat tax thanks to American right wing meddling in their affairs, and they have not exactly come out of it problem free... quite the opposite.

Taxes are not suppose to be fair, but to pay for stuff we all agree we need to pay for as a society. Now to regulate the burden of these taxes, the progressive tax system was invented and it works. What breaks it, is the idiotic deductions and loopholes the wealthy have put into many tax codes around the world. Look at the US.. the wealth pay LESS than the middle class and in some cases the poor! How is that fair?

 

[Renae]

No it does not. Flat tax is about the dumbest idea ever. Some countries actually have flat tax thanks to American right wing meddling in their affairs, and they have not exactly come out of it problem free... quite the opposite.

Taxes are not suppose to be fair, but to pay for stuff we all agree we need to pay for as a society. Now to regulate the burden of these taxes, the progressive tax system was invented and it works. What breaks it, is the idiotic deductions and loopholes the wealthy have put into many tax codes around the world. Look at the US.. the wealth pay LESS than the middle class and in some cases the poor! How is that fair?

Pete, you mean what the majority (who pay little to nothing) demand others pay, mob rule. That's what we have now. And that's immoral.

 

[Velvet Elvis]

I'm still sold on the FairTax. Renae is right...the flat tax pits rich versus poor. That's the perfect animosity for politicians to exploit for their gain. The Fair Tax puts the consumer in control of their own taxation. There's the prebate for everyone (not just rich or poor) to go tax-free for their basic needs. However, the rich will pay more in taxes, because they will still consume the luxury items that poor folks can't afford. Don't want to pay more in taxes? Don't consume items/services that you don't need, or can't afford.

Trust me...the rich will still pay much more in taxes, but it'll be on their terms. It won't be extorted from them by Mother Government at the envious behest of the dregs of society.

 

[Renae]

I'm still sold on the FairTax. Renae is right...the flat tax pits rich versus poor. That's the perfect animosity for politicians to exploit for their gain. The Fair Tax puts the consumer in control of their own taxation. There's the prebate for everyone (not just rich or poor) to go tax-free for their basic needs. However, the rich will pay more in taxes, because they will still consume the luxury items that poor folks can't afford. Don't want to pay more in taxes? Don't consume items/services that you don't need, or can't afford.

Trust me...the rich will still pay much more in taxes, but it'll be on their terms. It won't be extorted from them by Mother Government at the envious behest of the dregs of society.

If the Fairtax ever rolled in that would be even more amazing. I like the flat tax on a basis of "Everyone pays the same percentage, want taxes to go up? They go up for all"

 

[Unitedwestand13]

If the Fairtax ever rolled in that would be even more amazing. I like the flat tax on a basis of "Everyone pays the same percentage, want taxes to go up? They go up for all"

"Tax according to their ability to pay"

 

[PeteEU]

Pete, you mean what the majority (who pay little to nothing) demand others pay, mob rule. That's what we have now. And that's immoral.

That is because your tax law is so corrupted that it is basically the opposite of what it should be. That does not mean the idea of progressive tax system is bad. A progressive tax system makes sense, where as a flat tax does not.

Like it or not we need taxes to pay for stuff that the government does for us. We can debate what the government should do, but regardless it needs some sort of income to pay for it.

To ease the burden on the poor and not so well off, then the proportional tax system was invented. It basically means the more you earn the more you pay in % on taxes, so that those that dont earn a lot can pay less and hence get a "hand up" to so they can improve their situation, so that one day, maybe they will have the "privilege" of paying higher taxes because their earnings have reached that level.. thanks to in part that once they were given a helping hand by the rich.

With a flat tax, the only ones that win are the rich.... because the income generated wont be enough to pay for the stuff society wants government to do, and that will mean cutting stuff.. which usually hurts the poor and middle class the exclusively.

What is hurting the present system is the loopholes and inequality that the tax system creates. Something is wrong that a guy earning 10 million a year on the financial markets pays 15% of his income in taxes, but a hard working plumber pays 30%. And yes something is also wrong that even the poor dont pay at least a symbolic tax on their earnings so that they at least feel part of the system... yes it works.

 

[Mr. Invisible]

Whenever someone makes an argument based on "human nature," I generally have to laugh. Human "nature," is extremely malleable as we can see by the difference in societies around the world. In addition to this, it ignores the fact of why people even become greedy: usually because there is scarcity or (in this case) money and power greatly influence one another.

Other than that, sounds like an alright plan.

 

[Moderate Right]

What about a tiered flat tax? We could have say, three (example only), different tax rate tiers but otherwise it would all work the same as being a flat tax. We could have a tier for the poor, one for the middle class, and a higher one for the rich. Exemptions for people, charity, and first mortgage deductions, and that's it. Simplify it enough we could downsize the IRS to close to nothing. Almost everyone would pay something even if only a pittance, no 47% of the population paying zero federal taxes. All those loopholes for the rich would disappear. When taxes need to be raised you could either raise the rate on all of the tiers or just some of the tiers. And please, don't say that's what we have now because I'm talking about something different than what we have now.

 

[sookster]

The best tax system is a progressive tax system because it is a tax on money velocity. The faster the money velocity, the slower the rate of inflation which benefits all.

 

[Riveroaks]

It seems there are 2 prominent school's of thought when it comes to how we should reform taxes and economics and deal with wealth inequality.

The first one is the more liberal/socialist approach of having high taxes on the rich, corporations, investment income, etc. and taking that taxed money and funneling it to social programs as means to redistribute wealth.

The other is the more conservative/capitalist approach of "trickle down" with lower tax rates under the presumption that less wealth taxed will equate to more wealth for all.

...

My own view is that the tax should be a net income tax after exclusions for food, reasonable shelter, reasonable transportation, medical, reasonable clothing, other taxes, and 10% retirement if funded, without subsidies for excessing housing, donations, or anything else.

The tax would be a flat 25% overall max split between Federal, provincial, county and city.

The rich can only be taxed to pay for the care of the poor, since wealth and poverty are the two sides of inequitable resource distribution.

The rich tax for the poor would be redetermined each year based on the costs of caring for the poor.

Rich would be defined as the minimum level required as a base for caring for the poor, with a maximum rate to be determined as well.

Then governments would need to do everything they do within their revenues.

Retirement would be separately funded and the same for rich middle and poor.

 

[Riveroaks]

The best tax system is a progressive tax system because it is a tax on money velocity. The faster the money velocity, the slower the rate of inflation which benefits all.

It makes no sense to tax away the income of the rich progressively just because they are rich.

A flat tax makes more sense. then everybody has skin in the game.

The rich should only be compelled to support the poor on a carefully measured and earmarked procedure.

 

[Moderate Right]

My own view is that the tax should be a net income tax after exclusions for food, reasonable shelter, reasonable transportation, medical, reasonable clothing, other taxes, and 10% retirement if funded, without subsidies for excessing housing, donations, or anything else.

The tax would be a flat 25% overall max split between Federal, provincial, county and city.

The rich can only be taxed to pay for the care of the poor, since wealth and poverty are the two sides of inequitable resource distribution.

The rich tax for the poor would be redetermined each year based on the costs of caring for the poor.

Rich would be defined as the minimum level required as a base for caring for the poor, with a maximum rate to be determined as well.

Then governments would need to do everything they do within their revenues.

Retirement would be separately funded and the same for rich middle and poor.

Who are the poor? There's a big difference between those on hard times and the many people who are bums, don't want to work, and make a life out of scamming others to get by. I don't want any of my tax money, or the rich's tax money going to anyone who is just a lazy ass bum that doesn't want to work. Some would just rather have kids on purpose so they can get more welfare and have an excuse not to work. Anyone who is fit to work shouldn't receive a dime of anyone's or any government's money without having to work for it in some way, shape or form, which could involve doing volunteer or charity work in order to be compensated for being poor. They can pick up garbage in the streets around their home. If they are working already then good for them and we should help them out. Ditto for those who really can't work for whatever reason but that is everyone's responsibility to help these people out through taxes, not just the rich.

 

[Riveroaks]

Who are the poor? There's a big difference between those on hard times and the many people who are bums, don't want to work, and make a life out of scamming others to get by. I don't want any of my tax money, or the rich's tax money going to anyone who is just a lazy ass bum that doesn't want to work. Some would just rather have kids on purpose so they can get more welfare and have an excuse not to work. Anyone who is fit to work shouldn't receive a dime of anyone's or any government's money without having to work for it in some way, shape or form, which could involve doing volunteer or charity work in order to be compensated for being poor. They can pick up garbage in the streets around their home. If they are working already then good for them and we should help them out. Ditto for those who really can't work for whatever reason but that is everyone's responsibility to help these people out through taxes, not just the rich.

Well it is very hard to determine who "deserves" being poor and who does not. Not even sure it can really be done.

 

[PirateMk1]

It seems there are 2 prominent school's of thought when it comes to how we should reform taxes and economics and deal with wealth inequality.

The first one is the more liberal/socialist approach of having high taxes on the rich, corporations, investment income, etc. and taking that taxed money and funneling it to social programs as means to redistribute wealth.

The other is the more conservative/capitalist approach of "trickle down" with lower tax rates under the presumption that less wealth taxed will equate to more wealth for all.

Both plans have their pros and cons, but in my opinion arguably neither actually works.

The problem with both plans is the flaw in human nature: greed.

High taxes on the rich and on corporate income or investment income is only going to drive wealth away, push for tax evasion, and depends on a benevolent government dolling out those funds to the rest of the country. Greed on the government's part time and time again shows how this doesn't happen. Greed on the "1%" part or on businesses just show that they'll either work their way around taxes via financial tricks or just move the company out of the country all together. I personally think such a plan would just squander wealth and give the government too much power while being an overall economic negative for the economy.

We know trickle down tends to not actually trickle down. With automation and student loan issues corporations increasingly demand more work with less benefits. They can get away with it. Excess profits or money is going to go to those at the top and to shareholders, they don't have an incentive to do things for their employees when they are a dime a dozen and are held to standards of "you need this job to pay your government student loans or to just get by because there aren't many alternatives out there." In my opinion, corporations have become increasingly abusive towards employees with severely limited vacation time compared to other countries, poor benefits and more work demanded of employees with layoffs and automation taking jobs. They can demand that you do more with less because you aren't valued and easily replaceable. Wealth doesn't trickle down. In much the same way that arid deserts don't see much rain due to the climate, the climate behind trickle down economics is all about wealth concentrating at the top because there aren't conditions for it to "rain."

My proposal is to warp greed to be a positive. I don't think liberal or conservative policies properly address the issue, and in each case I think it's each party's way of looking out for their special interests. What I propose is more of an innovative overhaul.

We need to raise corporate taxes and taxes on executive income and simplify the tax code to prevent them from wheeling and dealing. Along with this the tax code needs to be reformed to provide financial incentives to treat employees ethically. Companies would get tax breaks for paying higher wages, providing more vacation time and maternal benefits as well as other benefits. It's in their best interest to do this because the taxes and fines set in place would ultimately cost them more than the expenses paid for ethical pay and employment standards. It's a financial incentive through the tax code to force a "trickle down" if you will. Executives and higher income tax brackets that make decisions for companies and employment would see reductions in taxes if they run things ethically, corporate taxes would be lower (and thus more profit for shareholders) when the company puts more of that money back into their employees.

I think such a system financially rewards ethical decisions by the top earners and companies, would put more wealth and benefits in the hands of working Americans and may be a positive thing for the economy. I think it somewhat takes ideas from both prominent economic plans put forth and turns greed into a "good thing" where the greedy outcome is to give more money to others lest it be taken by the government. It shifts where money should go in order to bring about the best financial interest of those who have most of it or the entities that generate it.

There's a way to do what you want without all the social engineering. Eliminate all existing taxes fee's ect.. Then institute ONE transaction tax of .5% to 1.5%. Transaction being defined as the movement of money into or out of a financial institution. Over 2 trillion dollars is moved everyday in the US between financial institutions and various entities. The tax impacts the wealthiest people the most because they are the ones who perform most of the financial transactions and impacts the poorest the least because they perform the fewest transactions. This tax is simple no loopholes and small enough as to discourage evasion.

 

[Moderate Right]

Well it is very hard to determine who "deserves" being poor and who does not. Not even sure it can really be done.

You're right of course but that doesn't mean we can't come up with some idea to try. Maybe, like I suggested, everyone has to work or volunteer in some way for a check, unless proven that they can't work through a proven disability or something. Maybe even everyone has to be free of drugs if they want a check. If they aren't then we force them into rehab instead of jail for a long enough stint that they have a good chance of being drug free when they get out. If they have kids we take their kids away until they can be proven to be drug free. The kids shouldn't have to grow up under the eight ball to start yet another generation of being poor, especially if their parents are on drugs. It wouldn't cost much of anything because the government is already probably supporting the kids anyway. I shouldn't have to support these people that have zero ambition but to be a sponge on society, nor should the rich. If people purposely dig their own grave then they should lie in it.

As far as a tax plan goes we could have a "flat" 5% tier, a 10% tier, and a 20% tier with no deductions for anything except charity and first mortgages, maybe having those capped at one million dollars each. Then we would have a $5,000 exemption for each person in the family. This way the very poor would still pay zero or close to it in taxes but it would be much less that the 47% we have now so most everyone would pay something in taxes, the middle class would pay twice as much as the poor and the rich would pay twice as much as the middle class and four times as much as the poor.

 

[Moderate Right]

There's a way to do what you want without all the social engineering. Eliminate all existing taxes fee's ect.. Then institute ONE transaction tax of .5% to 1.5%. Transaction being defined as the movement of money into or out of a financial institution. Over 2 trillion dollars is moved everyday in the US between financial institutions and various entities. The tax impacts the wealthiest people the most because they are the ones who perform most of the financial transactions and impacts the poorest the least because they perform the fewest transactions. This tax is simple no loopholes and small enough as to discourage evasion.

It sounds like you are advocating that only the rich pay taxes and no one else. Most people don't engage in many transactions from bank to bank.

 

[PirateMk1]

It sounds like you are advocating that only the rich pay taxes and no one else. Most people don't engage in many transactions from bank to bank.

Everyone pays the tax if they deal with a financial institution. Almost everyone is involved with banking somehow. The tax is naturally skewed toward the wealthier paying more in tax because they are dealing, A) with more money B) with more transactions. Which means naturally the wealthier people pay more. More importantly the tax is low enough that it does not really pay to avoid it which is the trick and the best part about the tax. 1.5% is lower than almost any other countries tax by far even when deductions are figured for other countries taxes. The costs involved in trying to avoid the tax would be more than simply paying it. The tax benefits the wealthy by being exceptionally low and ONE consistent rate and ONE tax which requires far less cost to them to figure out what they owe and to whom. So even the corporations that pay nothing in tax would benefit greatly from it. It benefits everyone who is employed by being essentially a 20% jump in pay as there would be no withholding. Coupled with congress being constitutionally limited in altering the tax rate and to not be able to barrow money except for in very limited circumstance the business climate becomes FAR more amicable to business with NO other changes in government. That's a huge plus in my book. We make it to were the parasitic nature of government works in our favor by fostering their greed and encouraging government to make regulations and laws that encourage more business and the making of money.

 

[laska]

The problem with both plans is the flaw in human nature: greed.

High taxes on the rich and on corporate income or investment income is only going to drive wealth away, push for tax evasion, and depends on a benevolent government dolling out those funds to the rest of the country. Greed on the government's part time and time again shows how this doesn't happen. Greed on the "1%" part or on businesses just show that they'll either work their way around taxes via financial tricks or just move the company out of the country all together. I personally think such a plan would just squander wealth and give the government too much power while being an overall economic negative for the economy.

We know trickle down tends to not actually trickle down. With automation and student loan issues corporations increasingly demand more work with less benefits. They can get away with it. Excess profits or money is going to go to those at the top and to shareholders, they don't have an incentive to do things for their employees when they are a dime a dozen and are held to standards of "you need this job to pay your government student loans or to just get by because there aren't many alternatives out there." In my opinion, corporations have become increasingly abusive towards employees with severely limited vacation time compared to other countries, poor benefits and more work demanded of employees with layoffs and automation taking jobs. They can demand that you do more with less because you aren't valued and easily replaceable. Wealth doesn't trickle down. In much the same way that arid deserts don't see much rain due to the climate, the climate behind trickle down economics is all about wealth concentrating at the top because there aren't conditions for it to "rain."

My proposal is to warp greed to be a positive. I don't think liberal or conservative policies properly address the issue, and in each case I think it's each party's way of looking out for their special interests. What I propose is more of an innovative overhaul.

We need to raise corporate taxes and taxes on executive income and simplify the tax code to prevent them from wheeling and dealing.

I think it is stupid to tax non dividend corporate profits, it is penalizing job creation, employee wages, prices to consumers, and overall competitiveness. I wish the Left would understand you soak the rich on their actual salaries and when they take dividends and leave other corporate profits alone. Say a company has 100 million net profits and decides to release 20 million as dividends. The other 80 million goes to either A/expanding the capacity of company to produce goods and/or services by buying more equipment and hiring more employees, and/or B/raise salaries of the employees, and/or C/lower prices to be more competitive, and/or D/invest in other job creating businesses either directly acting like venture capitalists or indirectly through putting the money in the bank and the bank investing the money in job creation/growth. But if that 80 million is taxed at a high rate, that is less money for the company to do all these things, all of which are very positive to the economy. That is why high corporate rates hurt consumers and the little guy in employee salaries the most. The purpose of a company is not some kind of social experiment, it is to provide a good or service that people desire. Profits are not evil, they are the result of a company doing a good job at this(as long as it is not a monopoly). Having such a high corporate tax on non dividend profits just makes the U.S. less competitive and many companies are just relocating to places like Canada with lower corporate rates. On the other hand the lower the corporate rate(0% would be the best) it would make the U.S. a very attractive place in the global market for companies to re-locate to. The trillions of offshore money from U.S. companies would come home and be invested domestically. A 0% corporate rate long term will drastically increase government revenue to pay for social programs. It is a win, win, win. My hope is that Silicon valley tycoons such as Musk can talk sense into the Democratic party on this. Instead of taxing job creation and say having subsidies for renewable energy it would be way smarter to have a 0% corporate rate and tax carbon at real cost and then eliminate the subsidies. The market would then take us much faster to 100% renewable energy economy and instead of it costing taxpayers billions in subsidies that takes away government revenue, the government coffers would increase by billions through the carbon tax. Smart way to go imo.