Sheepe

click on one of our sponsors! OR REMOVE ADS

Okay, so these are sort of waaay out there ideas, I'm not sure I support them completely (but I did come up with them)

So, let us start with the craziest:

1) No 1st Term Abortions
Why - Makes you think long and hard about the life you are terminating.

2) Dynamic Maximum Wages
- Top payed worker in company can be paid no more then X (Be it a percent, amount or multiplier) of the least paid worker
Why - CEOs need talent, but they don't need several billion to pay for it

3) Dynamic Social Security
- Everyone pays in X% of your income for Y years
- Everyone gets out $Z
Why - Currently everyone pays in a set amount, this means the very rich are ONLY contributing as much as the extremely poor. Its rather illogical!

4) Income taxes proportional to income vs. national/state average
- Seriously? Do you need that much money to be happy?
- (Okay, I could expand it, but can't think of an adequate way to explain it)

So pick and peck, just a discussion starter

-Sheepe

Krasch

Canada kind of does #3 already with it's Canada Pension Plan.

We pay a percentage of our income up to a cap (which is about $40000 taxable income) beyond which we pay no more.
We get out a set amount up to a maximum, based on how much we've paid into the plan over the years. Said amount is further adjusted up or down 0.5% per month that one takes the payments earlier or later than their 65th birthday up to a maximum of 5 years. (i.e. 30% less if you start getting benefits at age 60, 30% more if you wait until turning 70)

And both Canada and the US already have progressive tax systems where the wealthier pay a higher percentage of their income than the poorer. Canada's federal marginal tax rate starts at 15% (with about $9600 or more being tax exempt) and maxes out at 29% (Total including provincial taxes in Ontario is 49.4%)

joerockhead

Socialism? Communism?

What about Democracy?

___________________________________________


Visit the worlds best website -
www.badass67.com - Black Sunshine

Sheepe

Yeah, I didn't think that 3 and 4 were that radical, but I suppose I was thinking them carried to the next step. Well, maybe only 4 in this case

eg: If you are in the 99th percentile in wealth (Wealthier than 99% of the country) your tax rate would be (maybe) 99%.... but I suppose it mostly stems from my lack of understanding the current tax system

-Sheepe

Car Enthusiast

yeah a democracy would be nice

Krasch

There's only one big, big problem with that, it actively discourages success.

The reason is that such a system isn't about taxing the RICH per se, it's attacking high income earners. And that is a totally different ball of wax. High income earners aren't rich, they're trying to get to the state of being rich. Bill Gates isn't rich as God because Microsoft pays him obscene amounts of money every year. He's one of the richest people in the world because a long time ago he made a good amount of money in the Microsoft IPO and since then has invested the money wisely and gotten a great return for his investments, taking full advantage of the shelters, deductions, and credits available to him, AND for a long period of time was pretty miserly in terms of spending said money. Bill's salary from Microsoft including bonus for 2006 was actually less than $1,000,000. Large compared to most of us to be sure, but he didn't get over $100 billion by sticking that salary into a chequing account.

You have to remember that the tax burden in the US is largely paid for by that top few percent as it is. Tax the top wage earning bracket in such a usury and confiscatory way and you'll insure that no one, and I mean NO ONE will make enough money to land in that bracket. They'll make sure they don't in order to protect as much of their income as they can, just as you or I would do. And when that happens, the burden of tax revenues is going to come crashing downward on the poor and middle class, as there would be no upper class as we know it today.

On top of that, most of the poor and middle class are employed by high income earners who create and run companies, either directly or indirectly. Attack the high income earner, and they'll be less able and less willing to do so, and then watch unemployment skyrocket.

The only thing a tax scheme like you've proposed would do is make things worse for everyone, especially the poor.

And god forbid you or I come up with "the next big thing". Imagine doing that, making it into a success like a Google or an Apple. Then imagine having done that having to give the bulk of the rewards of that to the IRS. Would you really want that?

Class warfare SOUNDS good on paper, but it's one of those things that's really unwise when you take a good hard look at it.

FattyJJ

This

Juan.©amaney

Heh, Democarcy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

I like #1 a lot.

#2 has good intentions, but why cap off goals of those ambitious enough to seek better, and why reward those too stupid to try and do better. Minimum wage should not equal a living wage, it's a stepping stone to get your feet wet into the working worls.

#3 I dislike, since I don't believe in social security...you should have set aside for yourself.

#4 I'd support a flat tax.

___________________________________________

Sheepe

Thank you Krasch for shooting down that idea. You're very right, it wouldn't work.

Juan, for #2 I was thinking at least a 10,000 multiplier, if not more. But I understand what you are saying there

-Sheepe

Juan.©amaney

It encourages mediocrity was my argument Sheepe. I'm in the belief that people shouldn't be able to make a living off minimum wage. Also, 10,000 x the current minimum wage is not enough for what some people do. CEO's or not, you are worth exactly what you are getting paid.

___________________________________________

cm8

I agree with number two, however that will never happen. Some one always has to be looked down on and I'm afraid we are it.

Bonecrusher

So basically no Abortion what so ever?

I do not believe in Abortion as a form of birth control. But there are many cases (totally different debate) where Abortion may/should be necessary.

I'm close to supporting state mandated abortions. All these welfare case parents with multiple children should not be allowed to procreate unless they can finacially support their creation. I'm sick and tired of watching my tax money (Medicaid tax) pay medical care for all the friggin waste of life beings from the projects. I pay for my own health insurance and then the copay that it doesn't cover while all these other losers have free medical care thanks to those of us that work for a living.

So no 1st term abortions? That'd rule out my idea. I like mine better. Can't afford it? Well you get one kid then your spade or neutered to help control the poor population.



That's a great idea. Why don't we teach that in high school so kids won't worry about college and will simply aim to work their way into assistant management at the local fast food joint.

I'm thinking when I head to the hospital I want the doctor who cheated and wrote answers on his wrist to pass the medical exam while the professor who couldn't give two shits plays away on his new half priced Iphone. Or worse all you get it some Nurse because all the doctors took a management position over the high school kid at the fast food joint.

Let's not reward hard work, lets reward settling for less because it'll do thanks to the new maximum wage idea.



Everyone pays in a certain amount but then again...you only recieve a small fraction of what you ever really earned anyway.

I know that when I look at my pay stub I pay multiple times more than what my lowest paid employees make and more than my substantially compensated employees make. Of course if I was maximum waged I wouldn't. But this is the real world...and the poor do not pay the same thing as the rich or even the middle class.

A set amount makes more sense when you say a set percentage. The way you said it makes it sound like myself and the janitor both pay in $10 a check. That couldn't be further from the truth.

Unless you plan and save for retirement you're screwed anyway. Social Security won't sustain your way of life unless you've been sustained by government handouts your entire life anyway.



Everyone needs more money. Whether you have it all or have none you want more. It's human nature. Why punish those who are lucky enough, fortunate enough, or determined and hard working enough to reach a cetain level of success?

I believe entirely in a flat tax system across the board with absolutely no deductions, exemptions, or credits for anything. I don't care what you spend for work, daycare, medical care...etc....you pay a certain percent across the board. IF you can't afford it because you're poor than either get a second job or curtail your spending habits and lower your standards for your quality of life.