Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: An idea on taxes and political election reform.

Posted 3 years ago on Oct. 24, 2011, 6:53 p.m. EST by 8472ofborg (100) from Bruce, SD
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

There are a million of these on the boards, so I throw in my 2 cents too.

Taxes:

Income tax should be based off multiples of the federal minimum wage. If you make minimum wage to 5 times minimum wage, you pay no taxes. If you make 6 to 10 times minimum wage, you pay no taxes on the first 1-5 times, then 10% of the next 6-10 times minimum wage. 11-15 times is 20%, 16-20 is 30%, exc exc exc.

Sales tax should be based off the product category. Necessities like food, water, heating in the winter, shelter...basically things people can not live without should be tax exempt. Luxury items like (most) electronics, new vehicles (not used), restaurant dining, and fashion accessories should be taxed at 10% or higher. Everything else can be formed into other categories and taxed appropriately. I am not going to take the time to think up every item that can be bought at the moment though.

Election Reform:

Simple fixes here. Remove lobbyists from Washington, people's voices should determine policy, not their money. Get rid of the electoral college and make every vote matter again. Give each politician a specific amount to spend on campaigning, that is all they can use to run on. (AKA homogenize the money in campaigning so the person with the most money doesn't stand the best chance of winning.) Disallow political donations, the only money or advertizing a politician can use is what they are given (let us see who can use it the wisest.) Any election where less than half the illegible voters actually vote should result in a mis-election, where no individual wins office and another election is held. The office in question would remain empty till 50% of illegible voters voted.

There, that is most of my two cents. Comment and discuss if you want, I will edit it based on replies.

19 Comments

19 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by dolfinguy (20) 3 years ago

Great ideas...but How? Here's how--now... Are We the 99%Voters ready to take the REAL next step?....Here is the more proactive solution as the necessary next step-- http://www.getmoneyout.com/ --& tell a friend--tell everyone...because this ones gonna be the hardest next step to take. Election Reform Now-- One person ,one vote ,$100 limit to voters only! Also--how many tent-totin' Occupiers are Registered Voters & ready to Organize Re-call Elections, or run for office, or propose local, state or federal referendums, initiatives or propositions? These 99%Votes would threaten & shock our current politicians to change their tunes --Recall one corporate-suckling congress person in every (or a few) states & see how the rest of elected officials will respond to the Power of the Organized Voters!! Join & support --getmoneyout.com-- Reform Elections first--tax reform will follow... Occupier-- Please--Don't waste time & money on jail-bail. Keep it peaceful, keep it legal, & the 99% wins. Use your American Rights & Freedoms to Organize Votes & Fix America Now. &Read Jeffery Sachs--the "Price of Civilization: Renewing America's Values". or listen to--- http://www.commonwealthclub.org/events/archive/podcast/dr-jeffrey-sachs-101011 ---

[-] 1 points by Howtodoit (1232) 3 years ago

Here's one for keeping them honest:

Here's my dream to get it right:

Today Congress we the people are here to start the wheels of governing turning in a different direction. It’s pretty obvious to us that our voice has been lost in the rambling of lobbyist's hard cash throughout the Halls of Justice.

So Congress we are here to take back our government and restore its fundamental principals to the American people. That this government is for the people, and by the people, and not by the rich people anymore.

Here’s how we plan on accomplishing this: First, ladies and gentlemen of the US Congress, we are setting up a nationwide interactive website devoted to understanding (if possible) why you vote on a particular issue, and if that vote benefits the American people the most? or one of your campaign contributors? After every vote in Congress, the American people can now see what you are thinking, or not. How? These results will be broadcasted nightly on all of the major networks and on the web.

Secondly, to maintain an even playing filed, we will next enact campaign contribution limits on a maximum of $100 for any person or corporation or so forth; so hopefully now we have an even playing field, which now the lawmaker will hopefully pick what’s right for the American people, verse big business!

Next, it gets better, we are introducing a bill that would require all lawmakers to take a lie detector test if they are asked why they voted on a particular bill (I know it's pretty out there-- but would make a good movie).

I’m sorry to say Congress that it has come down to this, but when you deal with children, sometimes you are forced to act according.

Thanks you for your time.

[-] 1 points by sfsteve (151) 3 years ago

I love your income tax idea. Broken down to its basic elements, it is based on four parameters.

  1. The base pay. (You chose the federal minimum wage but you can also choose other things like national average pay, State minimum wage, and state average pay. Each choice offers its own benefits and disadvantages.)

  2. The marginal rate increase. (You chose 10%. Whichever it is, I feel it should be a dynamic. To combat inflation it could be increased, to combat deflation it can be decreased.)

  3. The earnings multiplier. (You chose 5 times. Again, this should be dynamic. You can set it high and have less brackets like we do now or low and have many like they have in the past. but should be entirely controlled by congress. However, upon closer inspection you are treating this as an additive parameter rather than multiplicative. Multiplicative would go from 1x-5x, 5x-25x, 25x-125x, 125x-625x, etc. Earnings at the top tend to be exponential so this is realistic. One way of looking at these is as the number of base pay workers you are equal to. Right now the last range 125x-625x is where the average CEO is at. Using 10% as the marginal rate increase would mean these people would be at 40%, just a bit more than they are now. If it were 15% they would be at 60% considerably higher than they are now.)

  4. The maximum marginal rate. (You don't actually specify this. What it is is simply the marginal rate to which you stop adding marginal rate increases even if the earnings go beyond the point that would otherwise trigger the next margin. If this is set at 100%, then there is an instituted maximum allowable take home pay. If it is less than 100%, there is no limit to the total take home pay.)

Another tweak is to have low wage earnings that fall between the base rate and the base rate divided by the multiplier (0.2x-1x) taxed at the negative of the marginal rate increase (-10%). This, in a way, is like the earned income tax credit where the government simply gives money to people for holding a job even when the pay is terrible.

[-] 1 points by 8472ofborg (100) from Bruce, SD 2 years ago

Yeah, it was made as an example so the individual numbers could be adjusted.

The top tax rate, which I forgot to put in, would be at 50%. Not 50% of their total income, but 50% of their income above the 40% bracket. So, say the bottom rate is 0-$30,000, nobody would pay tax on their first $30,000 of income. The next would be, say, $30,001 to $60,000. They would be taxed at 10%, meaning the most they would pay in taxes is $3,000 a year (30k at 0%, 30k at 10%). Continue the trend, $60,001 to $90,001 and you are paying 20% on it, so the top is $9,000 in taxes a year, the $3,000 from the $30-$60k and another $6,000 for the $60-$90k.

In short, it is fair as everybody pays the same rate on the same amount and it taxes the rich more heavily than it does the poor.

As for the negative tax bracket (or reimbursement) I would like to see it but it would be borderline impossible to get a good majority to agree on it.

I say the same about the 100% top tax rate. Even 50% would be pushing it in a lot of peoples eyes.

[-] 1 points by Brian1000 (4) 3 years ago

Forget debating taxes! It's Election Reform that is needed and ideas like this are very important. When we have a government that represents the 99% and is not working for just the 1% then we can rely on THEM to reform taxes FOR US. Occupy Wall Street is a reaction to a situation where our Governments are no longer representing the people and their values. Don't get distracted by TAXES, it's what the 1% want and when we do we are then playing their game by their rules... FOCUS on values and RESULTS.

1: Equality: Reduce the gap between the rich and poor nationally and internationally [Change the GFS and Banking]

2: Economy: Move from a economic based on Consumerism to one based on Sustainability [Change who we subsidies]

3: Democracy: Ensure everyone has an equal right to vote AND to be voted for [No longer the same couple of near identical parties backed by the same richest 1% - real grass roots democracy]

We don’t care how it’s done, or who it is done by, as long as in a year’s time: ALL economic indices show the rich poor gap is decreasing. A list of all government subsidies is published and a shift is clear. There are new parties and faces in government. The mantra is this “We will never vote for a politician who does not follow the 3 targets of, equality, sustainability and true democracy”

Send this to your friends and your MP/Senator/Governor... and let the change begin...

[-] 1 points by kammce (20) 3 years ago

Hmmm, that sounds like a progressive income tax. The more you make the more taxes are in place. And good ideas on the election reform. I have heard of many sources wanting the same reform for many years but it seem that it has not be reformed yet. Probably because of the 1% is trying to keep that system in place in order for them to have the power.

[-] 1 points by stevemiller (1062) 3 years ago

Tax the rich http://overthecoals.blogspot.com/

The tax loopholes for the rich are illegal because they are all the kickbacks for the bribes they gave to Clinton/Bush/Obama and congress. Tax loopholes are candy for elected officials. The $3 billion loophole that GE used was created by the GE bag men (lobbyists) which transferred that profit to the debt. The same goes for all the multinational corporations, not just GE.

The rich are the masters of wealth transfers from the 99%. Then they turn that around claiming that medicare and social security is a wealth transfer for the 99%. We are the puppets for the rich.

To expect any of this to change because OWS is sitting in the park is silly. Unless OWS actively campaigns for a 3rd party to remove the Republican Democrat CRIME FAMILY in 2012, we will keep getting screwed by the rich. It is a class war that the privileged created.

We 99% are the victims of the class war because the 99% aren't fighting in the war. We are like the Jews who the Nazis loaded into the cattle cars for their trip to the death camps. They all hopped right into the cattle cars as if they were going on vacation.

If we can't elect a 3rd party, the Republican/Democrat CRIME FAMILY will continue destroying all of us. It is a class war that the privileged created.

Obama has a 400,000 annual Latino quota. They admitted this on a PBS show that when they round up innocent people to deport it is collateral damage. They said they meet their quota to keep getting their budget allotment. Its tough shit for the children and others who have a parent shipped back to Mexico.

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 3 years ago

How about 50% tax on ALL income, no deductions.

After you pay for government expenses, you use the remaining money to:

Pay a $40,000 yearly Citizen Dividend to every worker, student or volunteer at a qualified charity as compensation for their ownership share in the planet nature gave to humanity.

This would reduce income inequality, guarantee everyone a job for at least $40k, put an end to the burden of student loans, make the tax code simple and make the tax code fair so that everyone pays the same rate.

it is described in detail here: www.demandTheGoodLife.com

[-] 1 points by 8472ofborg (100) from Bruce, SD 3 years ago

$40,000 a year sounds great, what should I do for the rest of the year when I am earning the $3.75 an hour I would get after tax on minimum wage?

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 3 years ago

You would qualify for the $40k for working full time (you would get half that for working half the time).

So a person who earns $15,600 per year, under this plan, would take home $47,800.

[-] 1 points by 8472ofborg (100) from Bruce, SD 3 years ago

no, they would take home 7,800 a year then get a $40k bonus at the end of the year

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 3 years ago

$40k plus 7,800 equals $47,800.

[-] 1 points by 8472ofborg (100) from Bruce, SD 2 years ago

So, you propose giving people $3,333.33 a month on top of their regular pay?

What I am saying is, if you only give a person $40,000 a year at the beginning of the year and then let them continue to earn $4 an hour after taxes the rest of the year, come years end there will be a lot of very, very upset people.

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 2 years ago

You would most likely not pay that amount out in one lump sum. You would probably just make it a part of their regular paycheck.

But why would people get upset if they got it in one lump sum?

[-] 1 points by 8472ofborg (100) from Bruce, SD 2 years ago

You've never been paid monthly before, have you?

If you got all your income in one day for the entire year, you would have to save it all to pay monthly bills each month and daily needs each day. The problem is, daily and monthly needs are hard to separate from daily/monthly wants. Meaning, most people would blow a portion of it as soon as they got it, just like they do with tax rebates today.

Also, sorry for picking up on this late, but you said every working citizen correct? So rich and poor all start with the same base 40k? I have to ask then, how does that change anything besides the starting point? everybody gets 40k, woo, so now 47k to 60k is lower class and the upper class can add on another 40k to their yearly earnings. That would be rampant inflation. The best example of this is was in Africa. Can't remember the guys name but he promised he would make every citizen a millionaire if he were elected. He was, he did. Thing is, a loaf of bread became 100,000 of their dollars because of it.

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 2 years ago

For practical reasons, it is probably best that their payments be spread out throughout the year.

But it is hard to have sympathy for a guy who actually complains about getting an extra $40k because that $40k was given to him all at once.

Taxes do not cause inflation. It does not increase total income. It just reshuffles existing income.

Not everyone is getting a net increase of $40k. That $40k is funded through a 50% tax.

So if you made $1 million, you would get the $40k. But you would pay $500k in taxes.

[-] 1 points by 8472ofborg (100) from Bruce, SD 2 years ago

I was not saying taxes cause inflation, I was saying the poorest people having 40k all the sudden would cause inflation, just like raising the minimum wage does.

It isn't that I dislike your intent behind the idea, It is that the idea itself needs revising to prevent inflation to negate the change.

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Redistributing existing income through taxes does not cause inflation. And it is completely different than a minimum wage.

If you have an income of $140,000 and I have an income of $20,000, a total of $160,000 is being spent.

If we implement a 50% tax and use that to fund a $40k dividend, you will take home $110,000 and I will take home $50,000. A total of $160,000 is still being spent.

Just because I spent more of that $160k after the tax dividend does not mean we will get inflation.

And paying me a $40k dividend does not mean my employer has to pay me more than the $20k I am currently getting at my job. So unlike a minimum wage, I will not cost any more to my employer. And since I am not costing my employer more, the price of the things I work on will not be increased.

[-] 1 points by 8472ofborg (100) from Bruce, SD 2 years ago

Yes but think from the employer perspective. If your products target group is low income groups and suddenly the low income groups income doubles...or triples...how much more can you sell the product for and still maintain sales? How much more profit is there to be had? Well, apply that to most consumer items as everybody now has more disposable income and you see where I say inflation would occur. Though, at the same time, the economy would be in a much better state.