Okay this is my poorly constructed tax/spending proposal...

[Paradoxical]

All numbers are up for modification. I did not calculate these using any sort of revenue calculator. So I do not know if, for instance, my plan actually cuts from the deficit.

Any-who...

Cap personal annual income at 25 times the national poverty rate. Any income over that will be taxed at 100%

Increase the top quartile of annual income earner's marginal tax rate by 10%. Increase the 2nd highest quartile of annual income earner's marginal tax rate by 5%

Alter corporate taxes so that gross profit for each corporation cannot exceed $500,000 for each stated employee. If you have 1000 employees, your maximum gross profit annually is $500 million. All gross profit exceeding that limit will be taxed at 100%. The top earner may not receive more than 15 to 20 times the pay of the lowest paid.


Cut federal defense spending by roughly 75% ($529 billion saved annually). Dismantle the standing army. Remove all troops from foreign countries. Create mandatory 3 month service (training) for all citizens at the age of 18 (assuming healthy physical and mental faculties). Issue a firearm to each trainee that they must keep and care for. Every 12 months, each person must complete a day of intensive field and weapons practice.

The conditions for the reserve army can be altered. I was trying to model it after the Swiss system. The most important feature is ending the standing army.


Cut corn, wheat, cotton, soy, dairy, tobacco, peanut, livestock and other subsidies totaling $17 billion annually. This is also up for debate.

[LiberalLoner]

1. I appreciate all the thought and effort you went to in this, and am glad for it

to be a good discussion-starter.

I wanted to mention something though and I hope it won't be seen as criticism (I don't mean any!)...I read this really great book once by Timothy Egan called "The Worst Hard Time." It was about the dustbowl during the Great Depression. Anyway when I read the book I understood better why there were subsidies for farmers and ranchers. And why they sometimes got paid not to plant. It's all about not getting into the situation we had back then where farmers would plant more and more trying to make a living, and when there was a glut on the market, prices would fall, to the point where the farmers lost money for every acre they planted.

So I guess in a way, I'm okay with those subsidies because I can't figure out otherwise how we can stop the depression-era problems with overproduction.

[deaniac21]

2. It might cut from the deficit but only after it totally kills the economy.

[Paradoxical]

3. Why would it kill the economy?

[badtoworse]

4. "Poorly constructed" being the operative words

Your ideas would stifle achievement and the desire to be successful. No government should be in a position to disctate how much a person can earn or how much profit a corporation can have. People should be able to go as far and be as successful as they can - that is what leads to greatness on a personal and a national level. Corporations have shareholders who invested money in the hope of getting a good return. If the corporation does well, the profits belong to the investors. Your ideas would lead to underachievement and a society where mediocrity is the best you could hope for.

Sorry, but you are coming off as very smallminded. You really need to stop looking at sucessful peoples' earnings as yours for the taking - it's sophomoric. Try focusing more on making a success out of yourself.

[Paradoxical]

5. So you believe that people deserve to make millions of dollars a year?

And how do you justify such a belief?

[Make7]

7. If I developed a pill that cured cancer in a single dose...

... would it be unreasonable for me to make one dollar of profit for each pill I sold?
 

[Paradoxical]

10. Well, health care is a right. So you'd be guilty of theft.

Jonas Salk developed the vaccine for polio and gave away it's formulation for free because he believed that such knowledge belonged to humanity, not himself.

[Cerridwen]

11. "There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?"

Jonas Salk: His sole focus had been to develop a safe and effective vaccine as rapidly as possible, with no interest in personal profit. When he was asked in a televised interview who owned the patent to the vaccine, Salk replied: "There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?"

It's on wiki...and elsewhere.

[Paradoxical]

13. Jinx. You owe me a six pack of wine coolers.

:o

[Cerridwen]

14. Ewwww. But, well, okay. It's *your* poison, after all.

:D

[badtoworse]

19. Deserve has absolutely nothing to do with it. and I don't need to justify it.

If they have created that much value then it belongs to them. This view is grounded in the concept of private property and our constitutionally guaranteed right to own it. That is not to say that income can't be taxed at reasonable and fair levels, but the income belongs to the person who earned it first and the onus is on the government to justify why it needs to take a portion of it in taxes.

Your premise flows from the idea that all wealth belongs to the government and the government has the power to decide how much you are allowed to keep. That is a fundamentally Marxist premise that I reject completely. If your idea were adopted, who's to say the number would stay at 25 times the poverty level? If the government needed more, they could and would just give you less. Sorry, no government should have that much power.

I was under the impression that Democratic principles include standing up for our civil rights which include the right to our property. Your ideas do not respect those civil rights and do not belong in a Democratic forum. Why don't you start a Marxist Underground?

[Cerridwen]

6. You make two questionable assumptions right off the bat.

1) that everyone's idea of success=$$$$$ and/or the trappings thereof.

2) that people will only achieve if there is a monetary reward.

Though wages have remained stagnant and/or fallen, Americans are still one of the highest producers, i.e. achievers. If people, in fact, only produced/achieved based on their monetary compensation, our production levels would have stagnated and/or fallen.

People feel rewarded for the work they do based on things not displayed on a paycheck. There have been a few studies on this and for many people, a "pat on the back" will result in even more of a productivity increase than even a raise. Then there's this thing called "taking pride in ones work." It still exists. Look at our production output.

There are many people who do not measure their success based solely on their credit rating or bank account. Some base it on the number of people they've helped; the quality of the product or service they produce, etc. There actually are other things in this world besides just the Almighty Dollar.

The problem we have in the 21st Century is that a large percentage of the population has been put into the position that they have to be employed at jobs based on their financial needs rather than on their skill set, talents or vocation. Too many of us have become slaves to mortgages or debt rather than to our muse; whether our muse speaks to us in rhyme or good plumbing installs or the best mowed lawn or whatever.

If you ever get a chance, I highly recommend you read some of Justice Louis Brandeis' work as well as anything about Jonas Salk or Florence Nightingale; among others. He came from poverty and cured polio yet refused to profit from it. She came from money and left it behind to minister the sick, wounded and dying. There are many Salks and Nightingales in the US, around the world, they just don't get the media coverage. Brandeis is a model I wish more liberal/Democrat/progressive people would learn.

There is more to personal motivation than a paycheck and there is more to success than a mansion or a fancy car.

When did we in the US forget that?

[kestrel91316]

8. This is DEMOCRATIC Underground, not Libertarian Underground. Just FYI.

[Cerridwen]

9. I was just thinking about you as one of my examples.

I swear.

I was thinking of the people on DU whom I know love to do their work and who would continue to do so regardless of the money if only they could have the necessities of life and health to make it possible for them to do so.

Another was PCIntern and another is a lawyer whose username escapes me.

[kestrel91316]

12. Thank you.......sniff.

[Cerridwen]

15. I currently have 3 dogs.

My sister has 2 dogs and 1 cat.

My sister-in-law has 3 dogs, 2 horses, 1 goat, and 6(?) sheep. My best friends are horse people...and dog people...and cat people...and ferret people...and an occasional reptile people. You don't think I notice vets? :)

[hfojvt]

17. I have three dogs

I don't notice anything good about vets. Maybe it is just where I live. My vet is across the street from a military base. I think they get tons of pass through customers and they just make their money giving shots and tend not to get attached to any owners or their pets. I was not happy with their service for either of my dogs that passed away.

The small town Iowa vet seemed friendlier, but I was quite annoyed when my first dog got spayed. They insisted that she had to stay overnight, presumably so her condition could be monitored. But when I showed up the next morning at 6 a.m. there was nobody there!! That morning there was a huge lightning storm too, and she hated lightning. So there she was all alone in a cage listening to the 1812 Overture at full volume and repeated twenty times.

She'd have been much better off at home.

[Cerridwen]

18. That's awful. I've had much better luck with mine, er, I mean

my dogs' vets. Of course there was a really awful puke when I was in Portland, OR. The rest of the staff were wondrous, however.

Then there's kestrel91316 who posts here at DU and who would be my choice were she to live in my area. :)

Apparently, I, and my animals, have been lucky in my choices.

I'm sorry for your pets (and you, of course) that you have not had such luck. :(

I know some good ones in Vegas, Portland, OR, Carson City, NV and the Phoenix, AZ area if you ever need one. Then there's kestrel91316 who's someone in CA(?).

edit to put numbers in

[badtoworse]

20. Rejecting Marxist ideas does not make you a Libertarian.

[hfojvt]

16. your proposals are more about social engineering

than they are about the budget. You would cap income at $272,250 for a single person (minus the other taxes they pay) and $367,750 for a couple or single parent of one, and $558,750 for a family of four.

The 100% tax rate would raise no revenue, since nobody would want to make more than the cap. Which is kinda interesting. Where would the money go if it was not being siphoned off by the big guys?

So there is Peyton Manning, no longer making $14 million a year. He'd only be making $367,750, but he could make another $95,500 for each kid. Would that encourage him to have more kids?

The owner, on the other hand, could make $500,000 per employee if he incorporated. Then he could also reduce his profits too. "Look, my corporation just bought a beach house." "Look, my corporation just bought a porsche." It also bought several laptops that ended up in my nephew's bedrooms, but for some reason they were never reported stolen.

I think there would be some possibilities there to purchase stuff for myself with corporate money and thus avoid those onerous income taxes.

To mandate three months of service and also firearm ownership is not gonna be popular. Sounds like a huge loss of freedom to me. "Big brother says you gotta have a gun and gun-training".

Big brother might have a hard time pushing me around once I've had some weapons training.