Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: My Income Tax Plan

Posted 1 year ago on May 9, 2012, 7:51 p.m. EST by The99Rises (12)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I've supported this movement from the beggining but I just joined the site, and Here's my first post: My personal fair progressive income tax plan, as follows: Below $5000/year-0% $5000-10,000/year-0.5% $10,000-50,000/year-2.5% $50,000-100,000/year-5% $100,000-200,000/year-10% $200,000-400,000/year-20% $400,000-800,000/year-25% $800,000-10,000,000/year-30% $10,000,000-100,000,000/year-35% Over $100,000,000/year-50%

Anyone agree or disagree? Any suggestions on improvement? (I promise to have more productive posts in the future, comrads)

61 Comments

61 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by Justoneof99 (80) 1 year ago

I prefer the "perfectly progressive" 10% across the board. Why should somebody working 2 jobs be taxed at a higher rate than somebody sitting home watching The Simpsons?

[-] 1 points by GregOrr (113) 1 year ago

You can put this idea on http://the99percentvotes.com if you like. I just launched this site for people to submit, discuss, and vote on public policy ideas. There are a couple of related proposals on the site, but yours is different

[-] 1 points by Shule (1528) 1 year ago

I like it. Have you calculated total revenue generated with this plan as compared to revenue generated with the current plan? From my eyeball estimate it looks like your plan will bring in a lot more money. I don't think those in power will never go for it, precisely because it may bring too much income in for the government. I think the real problem with these "1%" types is that they are power freaks (more so than simply money greedy), and they are trying to take our government down by starving it of revenue; being without any type of strong government that can set rules of conduct for business, the 1% power freaks can do what they want unabated. Evil huh?

[-] 1 points by quatloo (-4) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

17% flat tax.

[-] 1 points by The99Rises (12) 1 year ago

Never thought of that, but that could be a good idea.

[-] 1 points by wellhungjury (296) 1 year ago

How about this. 1.5 x poverty level and below---0%. Everyone else----23% (All income) You get a deduction for up to two children and that is it. I guess loopholes can be discussed in another thread.

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 1 year ago

Why 23%? Where did that number come from?

I want to have a federal minimum living wage enacted, so that we no longer have a "poverty line" in the first place. It is disgusting that in this day and age full-time working people cannot afford life's basic necessities.

I think the real money is in the 76,000 pages of tax code that are filled with loopholes, tax breaks, and exceptions. If we can take out all of these "favors" then people will be paying what they are supposed to pay, instead of merely what their accountants can help you get away with.

[-] 1 points by wellhungjury (296) 1 year ago

I chose 23% as a starting point, because that is the average taken out of current incomes, including most claimed dependents, state and federal with no loopholes. I can agree that tax deductions (loophole) reform can be key in cleaning up all the tax confusion. Transparency would go a long way. basically, I am proposing a type of flat (flatter) tax. To me, it is fair, but I know I will get attacked on this.

Living wage seems like a workable idea. I still think that certain types of jobs, just do not pay for themselves and that problem would have to be addressed.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

If the job needs doing it is worth getting paid to do it - otherwise eliminate the job. Living wage - FOR ALL !!!

" Living wage seems like a workable idea. I still think that certain types of jobs, just do not pay for themselves and that problem would have to be addressed ".

[-] 1 points by wellhungjury (296) 1 year ago

All or none....I think there is room for compromise. Not all conditions fit all situations. I would elaborate, but gotta run to D-town for some stuff I don't get paid to do.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

The worker does a job that is necessary to the running of the business. The least paid worker deserves a living wage for their time and effort.

No If's And's or But's.

If the job is not needed - do not fill it. If the job is necessary to the daily operation of a business then it deserves no less than a living wage. Period.

[-] 0 points by wellhungjury (296) 1 year ago

Teenagers that are starting out, dipping ice cream do not need living wages. I am an advocate for realistic wages for work, but I also look at both ends of the economic exchange. If the job needs to be done and a kid can do it at minimum wage, it serves to get them started in the work force. Nothing is black and white...I know you will not change your mind and I like to keep my mind open. So back to the original thread post. Flat taxes.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Dgoerz (20) 1 year ago

Then less people will be employed

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Not so. As many as are needed will be employed. The fat will just have to be trimmed off of the top.

[-] 1 points by Dgoerz (20) 1 year ago

How so? if you increase the price demand will be altered, no?

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

No. A job that is required for the normal healthy operation of a business will not be skimped on because it would hurt the business. Raising prices to customers will also have that effect - the only reasonable thing to do would be to trim fat off of the top - or slowly fail as a business.

[-] 1 points by Dgoerz (20) 1 year ago

So raising the price of something does not effect the demand because it is a necessary good? So check-out people at the supermarket could not be replaced by automated machines or check-in people at the airline counter?

Are you also saying that raising prices to customers on a needed good will not impact demand. Gasoline prices go up and there is no demand destruction?

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

There are already automated check outs being installed at supermarkets and other stores. Run that automated airline check-in past the TSA or Homeland security.

Gas prices go up economy suffers - small businesses go out of business due to excessive cost to operate. Familys living on the edge start to fail due to costs. See economic meltdown - conditions leading into the collapse.

[-] 0 points by Dgoerz (20) 1 year ago

That's right, the jobs that can be automated are being automated so why would you want want to force a minimum wage on a company when it would be cheaper for them to automate. This is going to force down employment.

I don't think using the TSA as an example is a pretty good example as that bunch is both inefficient and corrupt.

Prices go up, people suffer. That's the point so let's keep prices down.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Nope Sorry.

Didn't buy that argument the 1st time around as has already been delineated.

Every working person needs a living wage - Period.

Read through the post and all of the comments - then if you still disagree come up with a better argument.

Till then. BuBye.


[-] 0 points by Dgoerz (40) 25 minutes ago

Unemployment up to, so less people enjoying the living wage. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 0 points by Dgoerz (20) 1 year ago

Just because you deny it doesn't make it false. History tells us about the laws of supply and demand so your ideas of a living wage won't fly and pass Congress. Maybe try passing it in Coon Rapids but it won't pass in DC.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

And living wages up.

[-] 0 points by Dgoerz (20) 1 year ago

Unemployment up to, so less people enjoying the living wage.

[-] -2 points by sannhet (-4) 1 year ago

Popular propaganda, DKAtoday. Tell us more about your plan for converting ideals to reality...

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Thanks for making another stupid comment. You made one on another thread that had no reply option left. Oh - How - fortuitous.

Here ya go SFB:

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (8141) from Coon Rapids, MN 0 minutes ago

Tell ya what. Read any news article on the cause of the meltdown - any news article - it will point directly at wallstreet. But seeing as you have apparently missed all of this (?) ( coma? ) you can watch a good and very easy to follow documentary - not too many large words - maybe you can have an individual with some intelligence watch it with you to help explain the meaning. Nice that you can pause the program if you need to do this.

Inside job: http://documentarystorm.com/inside-job/

[-] 1 points by sannhet (0) 2 minutes ago

So now you're an investment adviser, DKAtoday?

Which is true, then: You've never been to Wall Street? Or you've never been to Coon Rapids? Or [where my money is] you've never been to either?

Don't just reply: Let's get this over with: Post proof one way or the other. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink ↥twinkle ↧stinkle edit delete permalink

[-] -2 points by sannhet (-4) 1 year ago

I don't do misdirection, DKAtoday, so no cigar:

Which is true, then: You've never been to Wall Street? Or you've never been to Coon Rapids? Or [where my money is] you've never been to either?

Don't just reply: Let's get this over with: Post proof one way or the other.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Stick your head back up your (x) - you seem to be getting light headed - too much oxygen and not enough methane for a determined troll like you.

No I have never been to wallstreet and I have no real desire to go there either. Until of course they get nailed to the wall - then I will want to go see a true historic site of American triumph in the face of unmitigated evil.

I do not need to prove my residence to you or anyone else. Where I live is not the issue - what is the issue is your trying to discredit me. I do not care about you or your accusations. I only care to support the movements against greed corruption and crime - and that should be evident to anyone who looks at my comments or posts.

So shove your head back up your (x) before you pass out and die from oxygen poisoning.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Now he's prawda. Sounds like multiple personality disorder to me.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Nothing new - there are sock puppet user trolls - they do that so that they can bypass time restrictions on postings and also vote multiple times.

I am just so flattered that they think me worthy of so much attention. They have announced that their project today is to discredit me. As If I have any significant value. I am deeply touched by the sentiment.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Proof has already been posted - you can inform yourself as can anyone else who cares by looking through posted history starting back at Oct. 18 2011.

BTW - even if ( if ) you were successful at discrediting me - So What? - I am only one of litterally millions who are sick and tired of the greedy corrupt criminals and their manipulation of our government.

So feel free - have at it - SHIT HEAD.

[-] 0 points by penguento (362) 1 year ago

Really? Suppose your widowed grandmother on a fixed income needed some kid to mow her lawn and the government told her she'd need to pay him $25 an hour plus benefits. Suppose your 16 year old wanted a part time job but the minimum wage was $20 an hour plus benefits, with the result that the low-end jobs went away and your kid couldn't get a job of any kind unless and until she had the skills to qualify for a $20 an hour job? Is anybody really any better off in these situations? And how is your kid supposed to get the skills and experience if she can't get a job in the first place?

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Grow the fuck up. Lets regulate children's lemon-aid stands. SFB.

[-] 0 points by penguento (362) 1 year ago

I take it that you don't buy into the reductio ad absurdum argument. Fair enough. But then, where do you draw the line? McDonald's mostly hires a lot of 16 year olds, but also some adults. Living wage or not? What about ticket takers at movies? Dishwashers and busboys in diners? Mostly kids, but also some adults. There are many more examples right on the cusp. How do you decide which needs to be a living wage job and which not? Who gets to decide?

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Who lives at home and is not an adult in the eyes of the law? An emancipated teen can have the same rights and responsibilities as a regular legal adult. So lets say if it is an OJT job for a high school kid still living at home there could be some leeway. Otherwise no.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Skippy2 (485) 1 year ago

The primary reason for the Income Tax is not revenue for the Gov't. It has evolved into a control method. Are you or your business doing something the Elite approve of, you get a tax break. If not , you get a tax penalty. If you actually are so stupid that you think you can stand up to the Gov't, you get an IRS audit ,penalties,fines and maybe jail. If you really anger them, your house gets surrounded and your wife gets shot while holding you child. Now do you actualy think the All Powerful Whores that run this country will give up such a useful tool of "Social Engineering"?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by francismjenkins (3713) 1 year ago

We can at least start by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, implementing the Buffet rule, and then, if we want to cut taxes on the middle class, we replace the revenue with something else (like a value added tax).

[-] 1 points by GreenMonster (8) from Atlanta, GA 1 year ago

Letting the Bush Tax cuts expire raises taxes on everyone, including adding people back to the tax rolls that paying nothing now (Bush tax cuts removed whole income brackets).

Lets assume that since in the next line you would like to cut taxes for the middle class, that you only want the Bush tax cuts to expire for the top 2%.

Doing that and the Buffet Rule would only bring in about $75 billion a year in extra revenue ( 70 from Bush tax cut, 5 from Buffet rule). Only about $850 billion more to cut from the budget.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 1 year ago

Or ... a value added tax.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Pulling out of Afghanistan will save close to a trilion.

[-] 1 points by GreenMonster (8) from Atlanta, GA 1 year ago

Yes, over 10 years, so another $100 billion, only $750 billion to go.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Remove fossil Fuel subsidies - another step in the right direction.

[-] 1 points by GreenMonster (8) from Atlanta, GA 1 year ago

Remove drilling or other subsidies all companies get not just oil companies, will only increase the cost of drilling to the company, who then passes it back to the consumer.

But the government would take in about $4 billion more. Lets say you reduce the size of the military also by $146 billion a year, you just need $600 billion more.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Every little step in the right direction helps. It is like do you consider a penny to have any real worth? No? I would love to have one penny from every bank account in the USA - I would be filthy rich. This same concept goes into all of the little ways that government could spend money more wisely as well as removing unnecessary tax breaks.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

It's a start in the right direction.

[-] 0 points by Coyote1983 (61) 1 year ago

I do have one thought on this.

Perhaps we could try capping the amount of total net worth a person can have. Make the cap pretty high though, like as much as a person could possibly spend in a lifetime. Maybe $1 billion. The excess goes directly to the government, to pay off the national debt and get things done.

Just a thought.

[-] 2 points by Dgoerz (20) 1 year ago

So you are going to take away somebody's liberty to succeed? Isn't this against all that the US stands for?

[-] 1 points by Coyote1983 (61) 1 year ago

Take away a person's liberty to succeed?

I'm talking about an amount of money that a person could not spend in a lifetime no matter how they tried. Once they reach that point, they HAVE succeeded.

[-] 1 points by Dgoerz (20) 1 year ago

But that is not up to you or me to decide. That's the point of liberty and freedom - to allow people to live their lives the way they want to not the way other people or the government think they should - no?

[-] 1 points by Coyote1983 (61) 1 year ago

When did I say anything about controlling people's lives?

[-] 1 points by Dgoerz (20) 1 year ago

Limiting how "much a person could possible spend in a lifetime" is controlling.

[-] 1 points by Coyote1983 (61) 1 year ago

No, no, no.

You misread my post.

I'm talking about limiting the amount of total Net worth a person can have. But the limit should be quite a bit of money. More than they could spend in a lifetime.

[-] 1 points by Dgoerz (20) 1 year ago

Neither you nor I should tell somebody that they can only make so much. You are going to tell Mark Zuckerberg not to start Facebook or Jobs, Apple?

[-] 1 points by Coyote1983 (61) 1 year ago

You aren't listening to reason, and you are obviously not going to. You just came here to argue pointlessly. I have nothing more to say to you. Good day.

[-] 2 points by Dgoerz (20) 1 year ago

Hitler thought he was arguing very reasonable as well.

I will defend liberty.

[-] 1 points by Coyote1983 (61) 1 year ago

Ok, you have a valid point there.

Thank you, sir.

[-] 1 points by shifty18 (9) 1 year ago

There wont be any excess because nobody is going to do anything once they have a billion dollars.

[-] 1 points by Coyote1983 (61) 1 year ago

Well that's fine, too. Then that person can retire and someone else gets a shot at earning a billion.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by 2percent (0) 1 year ago

Here is the plan.

  • 17% flat tax on all earnings over the family of four poverty rate. No loop holes! One page tax form.

  • 1% national sales tax. Excluding store bought food.

The national sales tax is to wring taxes from the "underground economy". All the drug dealers, bookies, prostitutes, and people working for cash will be paying some taxes.

Also, this will allow transparency, if the government wants to raise the taxes it will be obvious and people will be held responsible in elections.

[-] 1 points by regimechange (15) 1 year ago

You talk about changing the taxation system when we should be talking about changing the government that gets the tax revenues. Even the best tax plan in this scenario is simply rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic:

http://thisisthenewnormal.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/norm-al-120216-3.jpg

[-] 0 points by jgriff (6) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

You think drug dealers are going to charge a sales tax?

hysterical

[-] 1 points by 2percent (0) 1 year ago

jgriff, If you were addressed my plan, you may not have understood it correctly. I suggested a 1% National Sales tax as a method to tax the underground economy. Currently and in the past the drug dealers, bookies, prostitutes, and people working for cash known as the "underground economy" have paid no federal, state and local taxes or very little declared income tax. To force them to pay a tax, it would be through a National Sales tax. Yes, you and everyone would pay, but at least the underground economy would have to pay into the system. No, I'm not foolish enough to believe the national sales tax would be charged by the drug dealers, bookies, prostitutes, for products and services they provide illegally. But they would have to pay a national sales tax for every gallon of gas, clothing, car, and luxury items they buy.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

oil companies pay no tax for the underground oil

[Removed]