Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-27-2017 12:41 AM
446 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, nwr, PaulK, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (6 members, 440 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 801,995 Year: 6,601/21,208 Month: 2,362/2,634 Week: 25/525 Day: 0/25 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2345Next
Author Topic:   The 50-50-50-50-50 tax and economic plan.
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 1 of 75 (654430)
03-01-2012 1:47 PM


Republicans and libertarians talk about having a simple flat tax system.

Okay. Let's go further and combine the tax system with the benefit system to create one simple easy to administer plan:

  1. give every registered tax payer $50 per day (= $18,250.00 per year) and eliminate welfare, unemployment, social security and government pensions (including those of congress, etc). You can opt to collect this weekly, monthly or annually (at tax time).
  2. tax 50% of all earnings (wages, interest, dividends, etc) over
  3. $50k per year (ie you can earn up to a $86,500.00 annual salary before your net tax is greater than your net benefit)
  4. share 50% of tax collected with the states, based on population.
  5. mandatory retirement at 50.{abe: years of work? /abe}*

* deleted by popular demand ...

Something for everyone to hate ...

Fully fund medicare (A, B, C and D) for everyone. Let people buy "gap" insurance for what they want to cover in addition to the medicare coverage with a single payer no deductible plan.

Eliminate minimum wage requirements (this is covered by the $50/day benefit).

Eliminate welfare, social security, unemployment, food stamp, etc state and federal programs and management.

All tax funds left over after budget go to reduce the national debt. Once the debt is eliminated the tax rate can be adjusted annually to match the budget requirements.

The money sent to the states shall be used to:

  1. replace state and local (income, property, etc) taxes (abe) and sales taxes(/abe)
  2. pay for state budget
  3. fund local municipalities based on population
  4. pay for state projects (infrastructure maintenance and improvements, including federal highways, etc
  5. pay for high schools to all be equally funded and equipped on a per student basis.

Your paycheck will only have your wages shown: you are responsible for reporting income over $50,000.00 and paying the tax on it. All paycheck deductions are eliminated because they are paid by other means. Your W-2 will show the annual wages. The forms filed by the companies only need show annual wages paid.

With no minimum wage and simplified forms this truly benefits small businesses and promotes job growth, and it allows people to add to their minimum wage by working at will without losing benefits.

abe: it should also eliminate poverty /abe

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : (abe) per Rahvin comment

Edited by RAZD, : {abe} per reply 43

Edited by RAZD, : clrty

Edited by RAZD, : deleted retirement


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Rahvin, posted 03-01-2012 2:02 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 4 by Taq, posted 03-01-2012 3:24 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 9 by crashfrog, posted 04-22-2012 9:36 AM RAZD has responded
 Message 11 by Dr Jack, posted 04-22-2012 9:43 AM RAZD has responded
 Message 44 by RAZD, posted 12-28-2014 12:11 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 57 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-02-2015 4:10 PM RAZD has responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 538 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 2 of 75 (654432)
03-01-2012 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
03-01-2012 1:47 PM


I like the general idea of consolidating the social safety net into a single program. Certainly I prefer single-payer healthcare. I like the idea of mandatory retirement (it helps new generations find work), but at the same time I wonder if 50 is too young, considering life expectancies and the fact that you're basically forcing a lot of your most skilled individuals out of work at the peak of their careers.

But it's rather difficult to comment further without seeing some real budget math...and I somehow doubt that you as an individual have the time or resources to calculate expected tax revenue under this plan and determine whether that single revenue source would be sufficient to pay for the rest of your plans after redundant programs are cancelled.

I'm also not sure property taxes should be abolished. I don't necessarily think that a poor family in a $100,000 home (hey, I live in CA, that's a mud hut here) should pay a lot in property tax, but I do think that Donald Trump should pay some taxes on the real estate he uses to pay for the dead muskrats he wears on his bald head.

And what about sales tax? I don't see a need to charge tax for food, but maybe we should be taxed on obvious luxury goods?

In principle, though, your ideas make more social sense to me than any "flat tax" proposal I've seen from lolbertarians and Republicans.


The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 03-01-2012 1:47 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 03-01-2012 3:03 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 3 of 75 (654439)
03-01-2012 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Rahvin
03-01-2012 2:02 PM


Hi Rahvin,

In principle, though, your ideas make more social sense to me than any "flat tax" proposal I've seen from lolbertarians and Republicans.

Darn, you're supposed to hate flat taxes on principle ...

And what about sales tax? I don't see a need to charge tax for food, but maybe we should be taxed on obvious luxury goods?

Eliminate it -- how you define "obvious luxury" probably differs from Donald's. I meant to have this included in the state share as well. (see abe)

I'm also not sure property taxes should be abolished. I don't necessarily think that a poor family in a $100,000 home (hey, I live in CA, that's a mud hut here) should pay a lot in property tax, but I do think that Donald Trump should pay some taxes on the real estate he uses to pay for the dead muskrats he wears on his bald head.

Why should you pay tax multiple times on something you already own? Donald's chunk would come from his 50% on earnings over $50k.

This would also ensure that elderly\disabled\pensioners could stay in their houses and not be taxed into foreclosure.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Rahvin, posted 03-01-2012 2:02 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6014
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 4 of 75 (654440)
03-01-2012 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
03-01-2012 1:47 PM


give every registered tax payer $50 per day (= $18,250.00 per year)

Prices will rise to meet the increase in income. You will see a spike in inflation that will wipe out any benefit from this plan.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 03-01-2012 1:47 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 03-01-2012 4:19 PM Taq has not yet responded
 Message 8 by crashfrog, posted 04-22-2012 9:35 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 5 of 75 (654445)
03-01-2012 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Taq
03-01-2012 3:24 PM


Hi Taq,

Prices will rise to meet the increase in income. ...

Prices may rise in response to greater spending, which means the economy will grow.

Why would the price of milk go up if demand is constant? It may end up being cheaper to produce some products (lower net wages paid by (especially small) business with no tax deductions included in costs), so small business profits can increase without price hikes.

You will see a spike in inflation that will wipe out any benefit from this plan.

Which will reduce debt load on borrowers, allowing them greater ability to pay off debts. Interest rates will drop.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Taq, posted 03-01-2012 3:24 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 6 of 75 (654448)
03-01-2012 4:49 PM


Companies are people, so ...
They too would be taxed on earnings over $50k/year, and small start up businesses would be eligible for $50/day benefits (based on work completed).

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 7 of 75 (660213)
04-22-2012 7:57 AM


Getting paid to consume
On another thread I mentioned that I read an article that said there will be a point where people will need to be paid to consume, due to population growth and productivity improvements, in order to maintain the economy as we know it.

This may seem an outlandish concept at first ... but wait:

Look at all the agricultural assistance programs, especially where farmers are paid to NOT grow crops in order to keep prices up and competitive so farmers can make a living? This is paying people to do nothing, isn't it? Of course those people continue to consume products, so the foot is already in the door. But why should farmers be the only ones to benefit from such programs?

If there are fewer jobs than job seekers, then shouldn't the same logic be applied and some job seekers should be paid to not work? Wouldn't this make the job market more competitive and provide the same kind of benefit that the farmers get?

So why not give everybody a "consumer stipend" of $50 per day in return for being a tax filing citizen of the USA and as a reward for being a law abiding (ie not in jail) member of the US economy? Or think of it as a dividend for being a share-holder in the US economy.

This would eliminate poverty in the US and give everyone a boost.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : workers

Edited by RAZD, : law

Edited by RAZD, : poverty


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 8 of 75 (660221)
04-22-2012 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Taq
03-01-2012 3:24 PM


Prices will rise to meet the increase in income.

Only if output can't be increased. With unemployment and underemployment high, factories idle, the abundant evidence is that there's plenty of slack in output to take up the increase in income. Prices won't rise as long as output can rise.

Economics 101.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Taq, posted 03-01-2012 3:24 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 75 (660222)
04-22-2012 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
03-01-2012 1:47 PM


mandatory retirement at 50.

What does "mandatory retirement" mean?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 03-01-2012 1:47 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by RAZD, posted 04-22-2012 9:42 AM crashfrog has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 10 of 75 (660223)
04-22-2012 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by crashfrog
04-22-2012 9:36 AM


Hi crashfrog,

What does "mandatory retirement" mean?

It means you stop working for somebody else. It means executives step down and let the next generation take the reins.

But mostly it's included here because americans seem to have some kind of aversion to the whole idea of having lots of leisure time ...

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by crashfrog, posted 04-22-2012 9:36 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by crashfrog, posted 04-22-2012 1:55 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3500
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


(1)
Message 11 of 75 (660224)
04-22-2012 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
03-01-2012 1:47 PM


Let's see some numbers then? I strongly suspect that, in fact, the system you're suggesting just plain won't work. Citizen income (aka negative income tax systems) just don't stand up in the cold light of day.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 03-01-2012 1:47 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 04-22-2012 10:29 AM Dr Jack has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 12 of 75 (660226)
04-22-2012 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Dr Jack
04-22-2012 9:43 AM


actual results of actual programs ...
Hi Mr Jack

Let's see some numbers then? I strongly suspect that, in fact, the system you're suggesting just plain won't work. Citizen income (aka negative income tax systems) just don't stand up in the cold light of day.

It's always easy to assert your opinion, isn't it?

Do you know of instances where such programs have been used in complete saturation of the population?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=canadian%20social%...

http://www.livableincome.org/mincomeclip1.htm (newspaper article discussing the program)

http://www.livableincome.org/atrmincome.htm

quote:
The Manitoba Mincome Study;
Even a small Guaranteed Income has dramatic positive effects on society.

The Ottawa meeting decided to refer to the concept of eliminating poverty by giving everyone enough money to look after their needs, as a Guaranteed Annual Income. This is what it is most often known by these days, although every group seems to have its own preferred term. In the 1970s it was called 'Mincome' and the favored way of administering it was by a Negative Income Tax (NIT) , a tax refund to anyone whose income fell below a cut off line, to bring it back above the line.

In response to this, the Canadian government held its own study. The residents of Dauphin, Manitoba and surroundings, were chosen to be the guinea pigs. The experiment ran from 1974 to 1978. ...

Evelyn Forget ... decided to try and do a study of the Manitoba Mincome study but ran into many obstacles. ... It turned out to be sitting in 1800 boxes in a warehouse in Winnipeg.

It had never been digitalized ...

So she tried a different approach. She looked at census and other information for Dauphin at the same time as the mincome program. She has discovered a lot. Kids stayed in school longer in Dauphin in 1974-78 than before or after. Hospital admissions dropped for Dauphin against her control group and regressed after 1978.

During the study, the divorce rate did not change at all and the pregnancy rate declined. But the Mincome was paid to families, not individuals. ...

Forget says the flaws in the study were; there was limited funding for it. It was run by labor economists who were only interested in labor market effects and considered social impacts to be 'peripheral'. One interesting thing about the Dauphin experiment was that many people refused to participate in the study because it did not pay enough.

Forget found a broader effect on society than merely those receiving the money. When she started tracking the next generation descendants of those who had lived in Dauphin at the time of the study, they also did better than the controls. She thinks those getting the income could keep their kids in school longer, and this convinced other kids to stay longer, and that education was a 'transmitter' of prosperity to the next generation.


Looks to me like (a) your assertion is false and (b) that there are many other (social) benefits for the people than just increased income: better health and better education.

Better health also leads to lower health costs, and the better education leads to better paying jobs.

quote:
We now also have the BIGNAM experiment. This is taking place in the African country of Namibia; Basic Income Grant Namibia. The most important finding in all these studies was that when people had the grants, they worked more, not less, and they made more money.They could refuse sub-standard employment and decide for themselves the most productive use of their time. As well, all social indicators are more positive; school attendance, divorce rates, crime rates, alcoholism; the effects rub off on people who are not even getting the income.

bold added ...

Again, this falsifies your assertion.

... that's two studies of a saturation program that show similar positive economic results AND additional social benefits.

quote:
The Guaranteed income experiments of the 1970s are all dated now. Society and the economy have changed in many ways. An increase in the divorce rate would no longer considered such a problem. As well, society is coming to see the problem as not, how to get people working more, but on how to get people working less. People now work so hard they are damaging their health, yet they are earning less all the time. We are producing so much it is depleting the natural environment.

Poverty elimination activists have moved away from the NIT model and want to see a flat grant system such as BIGNAM. They want to see it go to individuals, and not to family units, to increase women's independence. Yet we still need the evidence that studies such as Manitoba Mincome clearly give; that even a small Guaranteed Income has dramatic positive effects on society. And it is about social effects, not 'labor market' effects. We urged Evelyn to complete her study of the study, and assured her that we will not Forget about her.


It not only gets people out of poverty, and improve their health and education, it gives them the independence to control their lives.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : added


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Dr Jack, posted 04-22-2012 9:43 AM Dr Jack has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Dr Jack, posted 04-22-2012 1:42 PM RAZD has responded

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3500
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 13 of 75 (660231)
04-22-2012 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by RAZD
04-22-2012 10:29 AM


No numbers anywhere
Numbers, RAZD. Show us some numbers indicating that your apparently arbitrary set of 50s adds up to coherent budget.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 04-22-2012 10:29 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by RAZD, posted 04-22-2012 2:13 PM Dr Jack has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 75 (660232)
04-22-2012 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by RAZD
04-22-2012 9:42 AM


It means you stop working for somebody else.

Or what? I mean, is that enforced by legislation? Is it illegal to employ someone older than 50? What about in an advisory capacity? Suppose you need a COBOL programmer or need to consult with the guy who designed the tires on the Lunar Rover.

Is it illegal to work past the age of 50? What if your idea of retirement is running a wine bar or a youth hostel? Or developing apps for the iPhone? My father-in-law retired from being Dean of Students so he could drive a school bus a couple of times a week. It's just beer money for him, something to get him out of the house. I don't expect I'll ever really "retire"; I anticipate my twilight years will include revenue generation just for fun and extra scratch. Why not?

What about granny porn?

But mostly it's included here because americans seem to have some kind of aversion to the whole idea of having lots of leisure time ...

Obviously there are many people who can't afford to take the "leisure time" they desire to, but the notion that the culmination of a successful career should always be idle unemployment is an artifact of your generation, RAZD, not mine.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by RAZD, posted 04-22-2012 9:42 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 15 of 75 (660234)
04-22-2012 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Dr Jack
04-22-2012 1:42 PM


Re: No numbers anywhere
Hi Mr Jack

Message 11: ... Citizen income (aka negative income tax systems) just don't stand up in the cold light of day.

Why don't you provide evidence that this is true rather than just an assertion.

Rather difficult imho, due to the information that I have provided which shows it is false.

Now we can argue about the actual amounts provided, but not about whether or not this does work in general -- we have different cases on hand that show it does.

Numbers, RAZD. Show us some numbers indicating that your apparently arbitrary set of 50s adds up to coherent budget.

Look up ther numbers in the references to see what they used (the information is there). Then we can argue about the effect of different $$ amounts eh?

I also repeat:

quote:
Forget says the flaws in the study were; there was limited funding for it. It was run by labor economists who were only interested in labor market effects and considered social impacts to be 'peripheral'. One interesting thing about the Dauphin experiment was that many people refused to participate in the study because it did not pay enough.

In other words more people would have participated if the numbers they used had been higher ...

We also know from the BIGNAM results that the return was more than the investment, which would also indicate that more investment would increase returns.

Do you have any evidence to counter that?

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Dr Jack, posted 04-22-2012 1:42 PM Dr Jack has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Dr Jack, posted 04-22-2012 2:31 PM RAZD has responded

  
1
2345Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017