Non-mainstream ideas you would implement if President

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would radically change the tax system. I would replace our current annual income tax, and most other taxes, with a very progressive tax on all income. This would include capital gains, gifts, inheritances, etc. So estates would not be taxed, but heirs would.

Additionally, I would change the accounting system so that you aren't taxed based only on the previous year's income. Instead, you would be taxed based on something like 10% of your income for each of the past 10 years. So if you earned an inheritance of $1 million, it would be treated as though you received income of $100,000 for each of the next ten years, which would tax this income in a much lower bracket than someone who actually earned $1 million every year.

The tax would probably be about the same as it is now for middle-income earners, but reach about 95% once a person was making over $1 million/year. Taxes would also be lower for the working poor because the income tax would replace the regressive payroll tax.

[/ QUOTE ]

See how many people will work when you are taking 95% of the money.....it wont be worth the effort. this is the perfect recipe for turning the US into a third world country.

[/ QUOTE ]

As clearly evidenced by when everybody stopped working and American civilization collapsed in the 1950's when the top income tax rate was 94%.

People who make many millions of dollars a year work because they enjoy working and/or they enjoy the acclaim and sense of worth that it brings them. They may care about their income, but it is more in comparison to others in their field as a measure of relative success than as an absolute number. Anyone who is that rich & has something they would rather be doing than working is already doing it, because they already have the money to do whatever they want.

Take the Beatles, for example. In the song "Taxman", the band specifically whines about Britain's 95% tax rate on the wealthy. Yet had the tax rate been lower, would it somehow have motivated the Beatles to make a better album than Revolver?

[pokerbobo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Exactly....libs want to tear down the rich to make everyone equally poor....instead of removing barriers so everyone acheives who works at it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No we don't. I don't care how hard you think it's true. This is not what liberal want.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why do your elected heros run around yelling "tax cuts for the rich....war on the poor....balancing the budget on the backs of the poor.....draconian cuts.....blah blah blah...." all class warfare tactics....and since there are more middle class and poor people than there are rich people, the emotional crapola they use works on the non thinkers in this country.

This is done to market the idea that it is the rich persons responsibility to provide for all people with less than he has. nevermind the fact that that rich guy provides jobs for others and that itself is more noble a deed than any tax that is stolen and redistibuted by the thiefs in DC.

[latefordinner]

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't matter if 3% control 90% of the wealth. Wealth is not finite. The rich aren't stuffing their cash in mattresses keeping everyone else from it. They spend and invest, which circulates money through the economy and allows others to earn and create wealth for themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahhh let me guess, it "trickles down" right?

[pokerbobo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't matter if 3% control 90% of the wealth. Wealth is not finite. The rich aren't stuffing their cash in mattresses keeping everyone else from it. They spend and invest, which circulates money through the economy and allows others to earn and create wealth for themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahhh let me guess, it "trickles down" right?

[/ QUOTE ]\

When Bill gates got rich...it trickeled down....he created many new millionaires (investors in MS) and many new members of the middle class (employees at MS in lower level jobs). so....ahhh yes it trickles down....it always will.

[Shadowrun]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't matter if 3% control 90% of the wealth. Wealth is not finite. The rich aren't stuffing their cash in mattresses keeping everyone else from it. They spend and invest, which circulates money through the economy and allows others to earn and create wealth for themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahhh let me guess, it "trickles down" right?

[/ QUOTE ]\

When Bill gates got rich...it trickeled down....he created many new millionaires (investors in MS) and many new members of the middle class (employees at MS in lower level jobs). so....ahhh yes it trickles down....it always will.

[/ QUOTE ]

you are right saying that there is no finite amount of wealth.

another problem is the amount of infulence these top 3% have , if they are able to affect policy than it is a BIG problem.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't matter if 3% control 90% of the wealth. Wealth is not finite. The rich aren't stuffing their cash in mattresses keeping everyone else from it. They spend and invest, which circulates money through the economy and allows others to earn and create wealth for themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahhh let me guess, it "trickles down" right?

[/ QUOTE ]

I, Pencil

Im about 90 percent sure you have read this, given that you seem to be fairly well informed on economics. Nonetheless, you may want to review it. This is my public service for the day, and you are beneficiary of it [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[She]

[ QUOTE ]
My presidential actions:

Pardons:
1) Drug offenders.
2) Federal tax evaders.
3) Illegal gamblers and gaming operators.
4) Prostitutes and johns. (Are there federal prostituion laws?)
5) Anyone convicted of a victimless crime I failed to cover.

Vetos:
1) Any bill with unrelated riders.
2) Any bill that increases social spending.
3) Any bill that violates the constitution (I'm not waiting for the SCOTUS to do my job for me).

Reforms to urge Congress:
1) Repeal the 16th and 17th Amendment.
2) Amend the commerce clause to narrowly define interstate commerce or eliminate the term completey.
3) End federal funding of public schools.
4) End the federal reserve system.
5) Eliminate the federal funding of public welfare.


[/ QUOTE ]

FYP.. You forgot one. But yeah, you've got my vote too. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Dan.]

[ QUOTE ]
Repeal the...17th Amendment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why the hatred for direct election of US Senators?

[XChamp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would radically change the tax system. I would replace our current annual income tax, and most other taxes, with a very progressive tax on all income. This would include capital gains, gifts, inheritances, etc. So estates would not be taxed, but heirs would.

Additionally, I would change the accounting system so that you aren't taxed based only on the previous year's income. Instead, you would be taxed based on something like 10% of your income for each of the past 10 years. So if you earned an inheritance of $1 million, it would be treated as though you received income of $100,000 for each of the next ten years, which would tax this income in a much lower bracket than someone who actually earned $1 million every year.

The tax would probably be about the same as it is now for middle-income earners, but reach about 95% once a person was making over $1 million/year. Taxes would also be lower for the working poor because the income tax would replace the regressive payroll tax.

[/ QUOTE ]

See how many people will work when you are taking 95% of the money.....it wont be worth the effort. this is the perfect recipe for turning the US into a third world country.

[/ QUOTE ]

As clearly evidenced by when everybody stopped working and American civilization collapsed in the 1950's when the top income tax rate was 94%.

People who make many millions of dollars a year work because they enjoy working and/or they enjoy the acclaim and sense of worth that it brings them. They may care about their income, but it is more in comparison to others in their field as a measure of relative success than as an absolute number. Anyone who is that rich & has something they would rather be doing than working is already doing it, because they already have the money to do whatever they want.

Take the Beatles, for example. In the song "Taxman", the band specifically whines about Britain's 95% tax rate on the wealthy. Yet had the tax rate been lower, would it somehow have motivated the Beatles to make a better album than Revolver?

[/ QUOTE ]


The problem is that NickMPK is wrong.

1- The top tax bracket was 91% in the 1950s, not 94%.

2- The top bracket started at $400,000. This is equivalent to 2.9 million today, NOT less than 1 million.

Top Marginal Tax Brackets

Inflation Calculator

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, eliminate public employee's unions. Make it completely illegal for government employees to form unions.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't mind could you expand on your reasoning behind this? I assume private businesses could form unions correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

This could take a series of posts but long story short: The govt should not be allowed to tie itself to union labor at the expense of the public, and public employees unions tend to capture the interest of government so that they are the focus of the budget, instead of the actual reason for the budget to begin with.

Teacher's unions are a perfect example. Most of what California does with regard to public education is by direction from the teacher's union and for the benefit of the teachers, not the students. Some of the political rhetoric fails to even obscure that much and comes right out in favor of "teachers". "Support the teachers" etc.

My leaders should not be able to buy votes from the public employees union by giving them sweet deals with my money.

Private sector unions? Have at it.

natedogg