Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Tax Rates Based on Social Value of Work

Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 14, 2011, 3:22 a.m. EST by ILikeDemocracy (66)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

this may be entirely impractical,

but what if tax rates were based on the social utility of people's jobs

imagine fireman and teachers with a 0% tax rate, hedge fund managers, and junk food and junk media producers taxed in the high 90%s. perhaps we would have children aspiring to "careers" other than fame

12 Comments

12 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 13 years ago

As long as I get to assign the value, I fully support this idea.

[-] 1 points by ILikeDemocracy (66) 13 years ago

sorry my friend, you get one voter's share in the decision, like the rest of us :)

if it were limited to jobs making over $200,000, it really might be possible to have an online referendum setting a rate based on average of everyone's votes.

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 13 years ago

Yeah, we'll see. We'll have to vote to see whether or not I get to be the decider first.

[-] 1 points by ComplexMissy (291) 13 years ago

That's interesting! What a creative idea... hmmmm, something else to think about :)

[-] 1 points by ILikeDemocracy (66) 13 years ago

thanks Missy... it is nice the door has opened to new ideas!

[-] 1 points by ComplexMissy (291) 13 years ago

It is! :)

[-] 1 points by ConfusedSceptic (80) 13 years ago

So what the devil do the low-end entry-level positions get taxed? Burger flippers and cart pushers really don't do all that much for the world, but they don't have the bloody money to be taxed like that.

[-] 1 points by ILikeDemocracy (66) 13 years ago

there's value is people selling food. but you are correct, part of the equation would need to be income level.

perhaps if social utility applied only to earnings over what anyone reasonably needs to amply support a family... say $200,000...we could have online referendums whether athletes or hedge fund managers should be taxed additionally on the 10-20 million they make annually beyond the initial $200,000 earnings.

everyone could make a different case for different numbers, but right now by default we are deciding contribution to society (or pollution of it) is irrelevant.

I still say fireman should pay 0%

[-] 1 points by ConfusedSceptic (80) 13 years ago

But what if corporate magnates all take second jobs as part-time (or even full time, if you prefer) firemen in extremely low-risk areas? While I agree that it's shameful to over-tax good public servants (firemen, police officers, teachers), to abolish their tax is to open up a giant loophole in the tax-code... unless you want to say: "sorry, you're too rich to become a firefighter or teacher."

[-] 1 points by ILikeDemocracy (66) 13 years ago

tax the w-2 as CEO at one rate, and if they get a second job as a fireman, tax that w-2 at 0%.

[-] 1 points by ConfusedSceptic (80) 13 years ago

Fair enough. But what if your firemen have to work second jobs, or are, as is prevalent down here in Texas, volunteer firemen? To what advantage is taxing them at 0% then?

[-] 1 points by ILikeDemocracy (66) 13 years ago

each job taxed by it's own rate whether first or second job.

you are right, there is no way to give a tax break to a volunteer fireman. personally I think there would be a benefit that society was showing its appreciation to fireman, paid or volunteer.