WE NEED A REVENUE CEILING I agree with your idea, but I'd make tax-collection "up-stream". Which is just my way of saying that we should impose a National Sales Tax. Why? Not because I like unfair taxation, and it IS unfair since it does not take into account one's ability to spend (which is intimately related to Personal Income). But because it is far more simple and less expensive to obtain. Europe's value-added-tax (around 20% on all goods/services), is easy to collect and transfer to the government. It is also somewhat more predictable in terms of revenue stream. It is unfair however to the really down-'n-out, so the government should relieve them of any tax on incomes below, say, the Poverty Threshold (which is for a family of four $24K). Even $30K is still below the national average income of $54K). But I must insist on high-taxation for the rich - even confiscatory. Remember the saying "Speed Kills!". Well so do tax-rates of between 15/20% (due to various "tax loopholes").However, the speed is related to the velocity of Net After-tax Income that shifts up into Wealth. And I will spare you the economic-research infographic showing how 0.1% of American families own as much Wealth as 90% do. We are coming out (in terms of unemployment) from the worst American recession since the Great One in the 1930s - and the only difference (between the present and the past) is that this one was devised, orchestrated and performed by Banksters who never went to jail for their criminal offenses. It is difficult for me to comprehend that their larceny was not as culpable and punishable as the poor-fool who robs a delicatessen with an armed-gun and goes to jail. Very difficult - which simply means it should be prevented. And the best way to do that is to disincentivize people from seeking hideously ridiculous incomes by means of an upper-income ceiling*. Say, a megabuck a year ... ? *And we rid the tax-system of all the ludicrous "deductibles"!
Stick around, and you'll be seeing what I mean. What I am telling you is that I don't debate "backwards" but "forwards" ...
what you tell us is that you always want more and more govt violence. Is there any issue where you don't want more violence from your beloved magical liberal govt?
Not really. Just want "economic and societal fairness". Guess you don't know what the words means. You live today in a world where survival of the fittest rules - by a bunch of plutocrats created by excessively low Upper-income taxation. Worse yet, you don't even realize the general harm that unfairness does. Blind, blind, blind ...
and it must always be imposed violently at gun point by libnazis who know what fairness is- right??? Did you ever think of looking for peaceful solutions to problems or is eternal violence all you know?
why too low rather than too high given that top 1% pay 42% of income tax rather than the 1% they should pay?
this is called science. Why are liberals opposed to science and reason? Do you want survival of the least fit to create ever growing lower classes of dependent leeches until you get a sovet result ie., en masse liberal starvation????
Here's why: And I am sure that you think it is perfectly reasonable that 0.1% of American families own as much Wealth as 90% of the remainder families. And why? Because of flat-rate upper-income taxation and the fact that you haven't the slightest sense of Income Fairness that is obtained by means of progressive taxation ...
honestly, as a typical do you advocate any position that does not require more and more govt violence? Did you know America was about freedom. People came here to be free from liberal govt violence.
this is the violent, liberal, anti-science reaction when a liberal loses a debate!! - - - Updated - - - you advocate 10001 liberal policies all of which require govt violence. Do you understand?
No, it's a reaction to a person who posts nonsense, lies, drivel, repeats it in spite of facts presented, and deflects with no real contribution of his own to the discussion.
I began to study and think about economics in a whole new way in 1994...... We do have options...... Volunteerism..... in theory could be organized through a database..... could be made much more efficient and effective...... and increased significantly........ Some estimates are that volunteerism in some form is nearly thirty percent of the existing economy at this time..... could it become forty or fifty percent or an even higher percentage of the economy as mecanization puts more and more people out of work? Theoretically ... yes! If I remember correctly it was Matthew Fox Ph. D. in his book Coming of the Cosmic Christ who postulated that ART in various forms..... could become the way to employ people and give them something significant that they could accomplish with their lives and time and talents.... http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-hour-or-dollar.475481/page-2#post-1067199263 ...... I want you to begin to think of you.... yourself.... as an actor..... playing the role of yourself in a series of semi-reality science fiction films set partly in the 1930's or '40's or '50's or '60's or '70's or '80's? When I campaigned for the office of Municipal Councillor in 2016 I met the programmer who has created: https://civil.money/about
Here is the article that I read back in 1994 that forced me to rethink much of what I had learned in first and second year economics classes........ http://www.michaeljournal.org/articles/politics/item/abraham-lincoln-and-john-f-kennedy IF.... it is indeed true that a USA President or Canadian Prime Minister can save taxpayers billions of dollars in interest costs on the financing of government expenditure through a seemingly small alteration in policy THEN.......... the question posed by Economist John Hotson does indeed have an answer......... probably far more than merely one answer at that....... http://www.politicalforum.com/index...erm-effects-of-climate-change-logical.454306/ Is this analysis of the probable long term effects of climate change logical? ..... http://www.mailstar.net/money.html
