Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Tax 100% of income about $26k/year

Posted 2 years ago on Nov. 10, 2011, 4:42 p.m. EST by VladimirMayakovsky (796)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The median American worker makes $26k/year. We can no longer support the top 50% who are living off of the sweat of the bottom 50%. So I propose a 100% tax on all income about $26k to level the playing field. Who is with me?

40 Comments

40 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 2 years ago

IGNORE

[-] 1 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 2 years ago

Clearly you are in the top 50%.

[-] 2 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 2 years ago

Vladimir, since, for whatever reason I cannot repsond to your last input, here is a new thread.

The statements you made about taxes have nothing to do with the USSR. They did not collect taxes

[-] 0 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 2 years ago

May be that's why they didn't survive?

[-] 1 points by gestopomilly (497) 2 years ago

survive? ussr is alive an well and living under an assumed name..

[-] 0 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 2 years ago

Average wage in the USSR is $5k/year. Yes, the Russians are doing well on that instead of whining like pampered Americans. The OWS guys asking for a Soviet style economic system have no idea how good they have it here with their cheap Chinese made laptops and ipads, posting away from Zucchini Park.

[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 2 years ago

OWS is NOT asking for a Soviet system of State Capitalism. If they did, I would not be there. The last thing we need in this country is Stalin's Supply Side economics of the 1930's, much less Hayek's aborted reconstruction of it in Road to Serfdom.

No, OWS is looking at economic systems in terms of Working Class structural control, the last thing the USSR wanted. When workers make the decisions about production, then need is considered in the interests of the community.

By the time Stalin died, the USSR was nothing more than an aborted worker state.

[-] 0 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 2 years ago

Perhaps you should read the history of socialism around the globe and why it always failed?

[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 2 years ago

I have. But your statement of "always failed" is over burdened and dead wrong. One word, China. Also, if you are going to label the West as "capitalist," and you find the categorization of this system as such, be careful. I am seeing a monumental failure all around me, which is why I am a member of the Anarcho-Syndicalist Occupy Wall Street Movement.

I am moving beyond the controlled markets of Communism and Capitalism.

As for my backgound on studying the USSR's system, one of my degrees is in History with a focus on the USSR. I studied under Charles F. Elliott, professor of political science and international affairs, at George Washington. He was a CIA Analyst, and also worked for the State Department, and his father was a member of FDR's kitchen cabinet. His father recruited Henry Kissinger to the CIA. I know, you are now thinking he was State Department. His father recruited Kissinger at Harvard.

Dr. Elliott lived in the USSR on part of the KGB CIA exchange programs.

I wrote one of my academic thesis on Lenin. I am extremely well versed on the USSR's economic and political system.

It is why I am opposed to market systems the like of which existed in Russia and the current market system in the USA. Both system are simply competing versions of the same system, with differences based on culture and history. But fundamentally both systems exploit workers. One claimed to have created a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, the other has a Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie.

As for the USSR's market system, with massive government controls, the West looked to recreate its success in the pre- and post-War years. I think all of Hyack's work on markets stems from his desire to create a Western response to the massive economic development of the USSR in the 1930's and 1940's. It is forgotten from the people's memory that under Stalin, the USSR's grow rate is still the largest and fastest in economic history.

As for the failure of socialism, as you term it, you would have to defend what you mean. If you mean the failure of the a "socialist system," like the Warsaw Pact, OK. But China is a communist system, and they are doing well, all things considered. The market rules in China were exactly were Gorbachev was heading, and looks like Raul Castro is taking Cuba, towards when the political system collapse, which is different than the economic collapse.

[-] 0 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 2 years ago

So do you want USA to become like China? the first thing we would need to do then is adopt Chinese wages and living standards. You cool with that?

[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 2 years ago

No.

[-] 0 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 2 years ago

Why don't you want the USA to become like China? I thought you said that socialism worked in China.

[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 2 years ago

Because I am opposed to free market systems.

Also, Socialism has worked in China, it is working very well.

[-] 1 points by gestopomilly (497) 2 years ago

yes an example of how things are with great wealth disparity. this is what you trying to say is ok for america? just so long as the rich get to be rich?

[-] 0 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 2 years ago

Rich will always get richer, that's the nature of the business. The only thing society needs to ensure is that everyone has a fair shot at becoming rich and it is not hereditary, which is indeed the case in the USA. The Forbes list turns over very frequently as new people join the list and old people drop off.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17710) 2 years ago

Why do you think everyone is greedy? You assume it often.

I'm going to run this by you one more time.

I don't care how many rich people there are, nor how rich. I care about how many poor and struggling people there are.

I want to be comfortable, secure and reasonably mobile, economically. I don't need a yacht.

Not everybody can be an entrepreneur. Not everybody can make a career out of McDonalds. Some do quite well though. Not everybody can pick peaches. Not everybody can sit in an office for 10 hours a day.

It's the lack of "choices" in the labor market. That's hurting us. It's the incredible rise in the cost of housing, insurance and now, education, that's forced us from a traditional family, into one where mothers have been forced into the working world, that also often requires child care services, adding even more costs.

It didn't used to be like that and I still got a hula hoop for Christmas.

What is necessary, is wage that allows for upward mobility, if it can't? There's something wrong with the system.

Here's the thing. The value of most of the world is tied up in derivatives, highly leveraged, cut up and traded all over the world. Even China's in on it. It's a kind of shell game to see who gets all the interest. In my world that's called extraction.

I think it's wrong. I don't have the cure. Do you?

[-] 0 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 2 years ago

I don;t think it is wrong, so obviously I do not have the cure. It is called change. Look, I feel your pain, OK? What has left the US society is the sense of security as anyone can lose their jobs any day if they fuck up. You may think that's a bad thing. I think it's a great thing. It requires people to be nimble. And fucking up is applicable even when you are doing your current job perfectly, because someone else may be upcoming who is also going to do it perfectly but at lower wage. So you have to keep upskilling all the time. That's a great thing! That's why human society has seen tremendous progress in the past 100 years. The upward mobility you speak of? That was not even a dream in the middle ages. Sure there was lots of security but no upward mobility. Now, there is lots of upward mobility for those that adapt continually and keep an eye out for who is about to overtake them, but there is no security. You seem to like traditional families and such. Well, it was a horrible thing that women had no choices to work outside of the home and had to be unpaid slave labor for their husbands. If women want to stay home today they can, they just have to find a well-paid husband looking for a live in prostitute and maid. But the days of doing the same old same old and getting an automatic pay rise because the unions negotiated it for you is gone. You actually have to do something to make yourself worth your wage to your employer. Either that, or be your own employer, and then you will find out how ruthless the market driven by consumers just like you is.

[-] 1 points by gestopomilly (497) 2 years ago

you missing the problem no body cares about who is rich or not.. they care that they do not have a job and that there are no jobs to get. how much they have is not the issue.

[-] 0 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 2 years ago

91% of Americans have a job. There are apple picking jobs with vacancies in Oregon and no takers. Don't tell me there are no jobs. There are jobs that people don't want to do because it is too much like real work.

[-] 2 points by MJMorrow (419) 2 years ago

Vlad, You have a good sense of humor Vlad! [wink] I do not consider your posts trolls, but rather a form of humor, like, "The Onion News Network, Stewart or Colbert." How about a tax on 100% of the wealth of the ultra rich? [giggle] The rich depend on occupational income, for their standard of living, having most of their wealth in the form of home equity, the ultra rich tend not to depend on their occupational incomes, for their standard of living, so if you are ultra rich...naughty, naughty! Throwing the rich under the bus, eh? [wink] Eventually, the ultra rich will throw the rich under the bus, though, when and if there is no middle class, for for the ultra rich to bleed dry.[nods, then grins, while looking at smug, Objectivist, Neo- Liberal, anti-middle class, rich. then mutters to self, "If man is five, then the Devil is six, then the Devil is six..."]

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Occupy an economics class. Then get back to us and maybe more people will listen.

[-] 1 points by GeorgeMichaelBluth (402) from Arlington, VA 2 years ago

Hahaha. OWS official policy is to only limit income on people who AREN'T them. This one hits too close to home

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

LOL ! At LEAST fix your post title by changing "about" to "above" ;o)

[-] 1 points by invient (360) 2 years ago

Ignore. He is a known troll.

[-] 1 points by JoeSteel (58) 2 years ago

Well that will drive massive foreclosures.

[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 2 years ago

I am.

This would create a condition where, housing, health care and education would be open to all. This would create a highly educated and healthy society.

[-] -1 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 2 years ago

I didn't say anything about housing, healthcare and education. I just want to tax the rich to get to a level playing field.

[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 2 years ago

Val, I understand you did not say anything about housing, health care and education.

I did.

But what are you going to do with the tax money? It is going to go somewhere?

Also, your idea is not original. FDR proposed a 100% tax on all incomes above 26K in 1942. He settled for 94% on all incomes above 350,000.

[-] -1 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 2 years ago

Great minds think alike, clearly.

I would burn the tax money. Money is the root of all evil. If there was no money in the world no one would be poor.

I would probably also buy some Chinese made laptops so that I could post from Zucchini park.

[-] 1 points by hoot (313) 2 years ago

bad minds seldom differ, clearly

[-] -1 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 2 years ago

You don't want to pay taxes, eh?

[-] 1 points by hoot (313) 2 years ago

i don't think that one group off people who have an income above 26K/year should be taxed 100% or anything close to that

[-] -1 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 2 years ago

What about equality?

[-] 1 points by hoot (313) 2 years ago

so are you a troll or do you actually believe this?

[-] 0 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 2 years ago

I totally believe this.

[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 2 years ago

Valdmir, OK, now I see where you were going. OK, and that would work. It would increase the value of the money earned.

That is another good idea.

[-] 0 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 2 years ago

Frankly I think the best idea is that no one gets paid. All the income is taxed at 100%. Govt provides basic necessities like communal housing in gray brick high rises, food, and medical care. No one has more than another. That in my mind is the ticket.

[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 2 years ago

Yes, that could work. But that is one hell of an evolutionary step.

[-] -1 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 2 years ago

People living like bees my man. Worked wonders for USSR. I think that's where OWS needs to start.

[-] 0 points by michael4ows (224) from Mountain View, CA 2 years ago

haha... how 'bout 100% tax on income only if its less than $26k... maybe all the non tax payers, handout takers, would leave then :)