Zero percent income tax on incomes up to $100,000 - 50% flat rate on income exceeding that

[JackRiddler]

FORM 1040-Zero, PART A:

What's wrong with zero percent income tax on anything up to $100,000 and 50 on everything above that?

Why is anyone making $30,000 a year being taxed on it at all? What is progressive or just about that?

People should have an incentive to work for their money, and you can make a case that your hard work is earning your income up to some arbitrary and decent point (like $100,000), but above that no matter how smart and hard working, creative inventive or entrepreneurial you are, you are benefiting from the existing society and its infrastructure and everything everyone else does to make it all work.

Naturally, any candidate who offered to abolish income tax for incomes below $100,000 would have a huge surge - why doesn't any adopt such an idea?

Flat tax of 50 percent after the $100,000 exemption on all income, including proceeds from capital gains (except first home). No other loopholes. (Please don't tell me not enough people would get rich under this scheme. They would.)

Reach agreements with other countries to end offshore abuse and make sure the rich are always paying taxes somewhere. With the enforcement mechanisms freed from pursuing penny-ante cases against helpless people, there should be enough resources to cover evasion by the rich.

You, Jane Lipstick and Joe Sixpack, would still be paying taxes: FICA, State and municipal. And, one can only hope: charges on a universal health plan for all residents.

---

PART B: Ecological Balance Sheet

How to make up the shortfall? Replace income tax with environmentally-based production charges.

This will mean higher prices through the introduction of energy and environment charges on manufacturing (and equivalent tarriffs - oops, there goes the WTO). This is Paul Hawken's scheme as laid out in his classic book, The Ecology of Commerce, and I think it's brilliant: creating true prices by reintroducing the "externalized" environmental costs as economic costs to producers. The producers pass it on in price - which will at last reflect the true costs of what we consume, instead of dumping those costs on future generations in the form of ecological disaster.

The primary charge should be on hydrocarbon energy consumption, obviously, with other charges on various resources used or pollutants emitted and varied according to how important a given product is (food getting a break over plastic puke). All the bureaucrats who created the impossible tax code of today can focus on this instead.

Hawken recommends a 20-year phase-in to replace income tax with true price. I think that's too long given the present crisis.

You might end up paying the same in the end, but through price, not tax. The money would come first to you, instead of being withdrawn, and you'd decide how to spend it, and prices would reflect true costs - or you would save the money, even, there would be an incentive again for that old-fashioned activity.

Ideas?

---

APPENDIX F (for Fiat)

And if you want a really crazy idea: a board of economists appointed to staggered 10-year terms by Congress and the president replace the Federal Reserve and decide how much deficit is allowable based on the projected impact of infrastructural investment on future growth. Instead of borrowing the deficit from banks that issue fiat and collect a multiple in interest back from the government, the government instead issues the damned fiat itself, without adding anything to its (your) future interest payments on debt.

[sandnsea]

1. Clark proposed $50,000

when he ran in 2004. It seems people want to pay their fair share because they don't like the rich calling them freeloaders and telling them their voice doesn't count because they don't pay taxes.

[JackRiddler]

2. Fair share?

This is an exact reversal of reality.

If you're a cog in the machine (or a farmer) for 40 or 50 or 60 or 70 hours a week and make $30-$60 K gross, you HAVE paid your fair share.

If you rake in millions a year on interest, equity and real estate deals - and that's on any number of hours work a week - then you OWE your fair share. You're the one living off the rest.

[sandnsea]

18. Hey, that's how people think

I hear lots of people supporting a flat tax for that very reason. I think the entire system is set up for the wealthy and so they should pay for it, but a lot of people don't. I would have though Clark's proposal would have gotten a lot more attention too, but it didn't. That's why I keep saying we have a lot of educating to do if we're ever going to get the Blue Dogs to change their votes.

[JackRiddler]

22. Yes, I see contradictory reactions further down in the thread...

On the one hand, not paying income tax while the rich do gives the feeling of being a freeloader, even though it's the cumulative work of the society that allows rich people to exist in the first place (without the society and the infrastructure it provides they could ahead and invent all they like, it wouldn't make them rich).

On the other hand, the proposed system is called cruel to the very same prospective freeloaders, because although the $30-40 K earners are freed of income tax, they pay higher prices on some things due to the environmental charges. I should have mentioned (forgot) that of course food and housing would be relieved of the environmental charges. A system of charges passed on in product prices requires much calibration and sophistication, which is why Hawken proposes a 20-year transition period. Again, I don't see politics in this country working that way. Things tend to get done now, in five years, or never.

One thing this system would do is to discourage consumption, especially of frivolities, and encourage saving, which are good and necessary things for ecological and I think moral reasons, too. But in our present reality of reversed values, decreased consumption - especially of the frivolities that tend to pull higher profit margins than essentials - would result in a contracted economy and therefore a recession.

But this should only encourage us to finally find a way to redefine what constitutes "growth" so that growth in destructive things (like war) and growth in frivolities are no longer counted as growth, and are considered undesirable or neutral rather than necessary to economic function.

(See: as usual if every American doesn't buy a shitload of junk this Christmas the world economy collapses into depression. It's insane.)

Guess: It's incompatible with capitalism driven solely by profit.

[hfojvt]

7. I remember that as $75,000 and a three line form

I thought it was a bad idea, and still do. Why? For the same reason I oppose the Bush tax cuts. Eliminating income taxes on the first $100,000 of income is a way bigger tax cut for people making $95,000 (which, BTW, puts them in the top 15% or so) than it is for me at $13,000.

In fact, as a single guy, I do pay taxes at $11,000. I will have to put $600 or so in my IRA to avoid them. Then there's the $1,000 I pay in FICA taxes and the other $1,000 my employer pays in my name instead of giving to me.

Then there's more regressive state taxes. All income over $5,250 is taxed by the state, including my mandatory 4% contribution to my retirement. State taxes should be cut and that revenue replaced by more progressive federal taxes before rich people get another tax cut.

[pnwmom]

3. For one thing, a $100K income makes you rich in some parts of the country,

and barely able to get by in others.

[leftist_not_liberal]

6. SCHIP anyone? n/t

[krispos42]

8. Hitting the rich harder...

would make those expensive areas cheaper.

As it is now, the rich are taking their tax cuts and buying and selling real estate to other rich people for massive profit, dragging up home prices.

Something like 40% of all people that bought or sold a home last year was buying or selling a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or more house.

[slampoet]

16. Wow excellent point. Great post.

[pnwmom]

28. Those people aren't rich. They're living in very ordinary homes for the

most part. And they can't just move to a cheaper part of the country unless their jobs are portable, or they retire.

And what happens when prices drop by 30% or more and their mortgages end up being higher than their home value?

Watch for a surge of new bankruptcies under your new tax plan.

[krispos42]

29. If you are buying and sellings homes other than your primary residence...

for profit, you're rich.

And what happens when prices drop by 30% or more and their mortgages end up being higher than their home value?

If their morgage is higher than their home value, then I guess they'd better not sell, then. But that does not lead to bankruptcy in and of itself. That just means that their investment went down instead of up for a while. You know, like investment often do.

They might have to wait (*gasp*) a few years for the prices to come back up again before they can sell at a profit.


Besides, how are the current economic policies keeping bankruptcies in check? Hundreds of thousands of families are being screwed over by the collapse of the subprime morgage market and the spike from the adjustable-rate morgages.

[pnwmom]

32. I think your plan, as it is, is flawed. It means a windfall for those with relatively

good incomes in low cost areas and the reverse for people with median incomes in high cost areas.

And I'm not talking about people buying and selling homes other than their primary residence. I'm talking about people who, under your plan, would have to pay mortgages higher than the value of the depreciating homes they're living in -- and who would have to sell their houses at a loss if they had to move or lost a job. This would add to the mortgage/bankruptcy problems that we're already having.

"That just means that their investment went down instead of up for a while. You know, like investments often do." I think the reason you're so sanguine about the situation is because you would benefit personally. And the millions of average people in high cost areas who would be hurt don't matter to you.

[krispos42]

37. It's always been a windfall for high-income/low lost people

Living in, say, South Dakota, which does not have a state income tax is especially beneficial.

I don't know what to tell you. The reason those places are hugely expensive is because the accumlated wealth of the top 1% has climed to stratopheric levels, give them much more income to spend on a ritzy homes in exclusive suburbs. Which, of course, builds on itself. And in case you haven't notices, the good-income people have given not two shits about what their lifestyle has done to the rest of the market. The upper-middle-income couple in suburban New York cares not how them buying a 750,000-dollar house affects the working-class couple trying to buy a fixer-upper. They apparently just HAVE to have that exclusive address. And the fact that they working-class couple is now in a bidding war with developers to buy the fixer-upper (who want to restore it to sell it to another upper-middle-income couple) is lost on them.

And nearly all of those expensive, exclusive areas are on a large body of water. In fact, the million or two square miles of the American heartland are steadily draining to the coasts. This is not a good idea at all. Hurricanes, rising ocean levels, and earthquakes all threaten the American coastlines, yet people are flocking there. This also means that more food has to travel more miles to get to everybody, which is not something that helps global warming at all.

We're setting ourselves up for a disaster.

Under my plan something in excess of 85% of American households would not pay any federal income taxes at all. Only the top 5% or so would see their income taxes go up.

But here's another important issue:

The Supreme Court has ruled that spending money on politicians is free speech. Therefore, the more money you have, the more free speech you have.

The top 1% owns something like 60% of the nation's wealth. thanks to the Reagan and Bush tax cuts. That means they have 60% of the free speech. And when 60% of the free speech that is making the media and leaking into politician's ears is from the top 1%, that's the constituancy they respond to. And lo and behold, you have BushCo's America. Run by the rich and powerful that thirst for profits, tax breaks, lucrative government contracts, and deregulation.

We need a generation, at least, under something like my plan. It should be inflation-adjusted, of course. Then in the year 2030 or so, we can maybe crank the floor up to $100,000 single/$165,000 married (2007 equivelent).


I would not benefit very much from this. I don't pay a whole lot in taxes to begin with. I paid a little over $3,000 last year, which I do not complain about. So, no, I'm not doing this because I would benefit personally.

[ecstatic]

9. so true. Should be based on # of household members and

cost of living.

[silverojo]

13. You can say that again

50% taxation is a little too steep for incomes that low. It's not poverty level by any means, but it's a far cry from the millionaires who don't pay any taxes at all b/c of loopholes. Go after them first, that'd be more fair.

[JackRiddler]

25. Okay, so I'm thinking like a New Yorker

where $100 k for a family putting two children through school and paying rent or a mortgage is... a joke compared to $100 k in a lot of other places. Yes.

And believe me, I ain't no $100 k earner!

[pnwmom]

27. I know prices in New York City are unbelievable, and state taxes are high

too.

The cost of living is bad enough in my Seattle suburb, where an average 30 year old 3 bedroom ranch is over half a million now.

[blondeatlast]

40. Yep. nt

[Selatius]

4. Unpopular suggestion, but I simply recommend taxing unearned income the same as earned income

If anything, earning money by selling your labor should be taxed less than earning money by getting somebody else to sell their labor to you. Do people honestly think a CEO of a Fortune 500 giant is entitled to 20,000,000/year with a 15,000,000 bonus, while there are workers out there who can't even afford health care insurance? Details will have to be ironed out, but that's beyond the scope of this post.

[blondeatlast]

41. That's a workable idea--and a good way to frame the income

disparity among BoD guys and the workers.

Since corps are always talking about how much they "produce" for America (I just watched the tail end of The corporation, as it happens), let's make them put up or shut up.

Who in the corporations are really contributing to the economy? Workers, middle managers, all the folks that spend a sizeable percentage of their income on their homes, families, and reasonable expenses.

[leftist_not_liberal]

5. There is a difference

between wage income and other sources like corporate profits and investment income.

just sayin'

[krispos42]

10. 75% over 75,000 for singles, 125,000 for married

adjusted gross, of course. No exceptions for dividends and such.

You wanna pay less in federal income taxes? Get more deductions, get married, put more into your retirement plan, or make less money.

I have exactly zero sympathy for people making large amounts of money. Live within your means. I manage to do so on a paycheck far, far less than $75,000 a year.

[JuniperLea]

36. Depends on where you live

$75k gross a year in Los Angeles is chicken feed... even if you live in a neighborhood riddled with gunshots and graffiti.

[Warren DeMontague]

11. I've got an even better idea: Everyone who makes as much as me or less should pay NO TAX.

Everyone who makes MORE than me is a fucking greedy shit, and should have to pay 90%... or MORE!

Muahahahahahahaahahahahaahha!!!!!!!!

:eyes:

[aquart]

12. For one thing, because it makes those under $100,000 feel like charity cases.

For another, it encourages the rich in their self-importance. And makes them feel entitled to cheat.

It also eliminates charitable deductions which will starve the arts and social works organizations.

And taxing what people buy is cruel only to people of lower incomes who MUST spend all their money on necessities.

Oh, why waste breath. It's an idiotic idea and will be treated with the lack of respect it deserves.

[DJ MEW]

14. cut sales tax, raise income tax

"And taxing what people buy is cruel only to people of lower incomes who MUST spend all their money on necessities"

I have often thought that cutting state sales tax would help growth in the economy by making things a little cheaper, in MI we pay 6% on non-food items although they have been talking about a tax on food items too, lately.

It would seem that the lost income from a small decrease in sales tax would be easily made up by a small increase in income taxes on people making over 50,000 a year, but I am no economist so I don't know.

[Selatius]

31. Sales taxes are levied by state governments. We're mostly talking about the federal government here.

The fed levies no sales tax as far as I know, but its primary vehicle for raising money is the income tax. As far as sales taxes go, I could only suggest that the state governments repeal the tax and replace it with property taxes. Make it progressive so you aren't hitting small owners as hard as plantation owners and agricorporations that own huge tracts of land.

[AdHocSolver]

15. The rich don't need excuses to feel self-important...or feel entitled to cheat. n/t

[2rth2pwr]

17. So if I make $150,000 based on my sales production and

my colleague at the same company earned $100,000 based on his production I get to take home $75k and he brings home $100k? Brilliant! That should definitely encourage people to work harder.

Can anyone say Nobel Peace Prize?

[LeftCoast]

19. I don't really support the idea, but I think using the OP's calculation you'd bring home $125k

I think the OP is talking about taxing income earned above $100k only. What you make under $100k would not be taxed.

[hfojvt]

20. no, you have it wrong. The tax is only on income over $100,000

Thus, you would pay only $25,000 in taxes. Since an AGI of $150,000 currently pays $41,197.25, depending on your deductions, that would still be a gain for you from the current system.

From the tax tables in 2001

AGI *** tax
5,000 * 754
10,000 * 1,504
20,000 * 3,004
40,000 * 7,626
80,000 * 19,060
90,000 * 22,110

That is for a single person. Families with children get $3,000 exemption per child and a $1,000 tax credit per child, so their taxes are much lower even at higher incomes. Since standard deduction plus exemption is something like $8,200 that means actual income is about AGI + 10,000.

So this plan gives a tax cut of zero to me, and $1,504 to people making $20,000 and $20,000 to people making $100,000. Seems to me that it makes the tax system far less progressive. Currently a family of four making $40,000 pays about $47 in income taxes, so this plan would save them $47. Whereas a family of four making $90,000 would get a tax cut of over $10,000. Even families making $150,000 would still be getting a tax cut of $10,000 or more.

To repeat, thats
$0.00 for families making less than $39,000, and
$10,000+ for families making $90,000 - $150,000

to which I would add, parenthetically :argh:

[JackRiddler]

24. But combined with the production charges

You would no longer have corporations paying... no tax at all. The point is to shift taxation from working people (including high earners among them) to corporations. This is reflected in prices later, of course, but one has more control over what one actually makes.

Why should people who earn well from work (and I have to assume anywhere from 20 up to $100 k income it usually involves lots of work) pay income taxes while capital gains in the millions get off with a pittance?

Would you go for it with a universal health plan?

[hfojvt]

26. capital gains are personal income, not corporate income

I'm not gonna check the numbers at 4:30 AM, but last time it did not seem as if there was enough income to get sufficient revenues from corporations. Just because I think this plan is stupid does not mean I support low capital gains tax rates.

Health care is a separate issue, although tax increases will be required to fund it.

[JackRiddler]

39. and where did I say that?!

(I didn't say corporate tax is the same as capital gains!)

Besides reestablishing corporate taxation, which I'm sure we're both for, I was suggesting Paul Hawken's idea of environment charges (primarily on hydrocarbon energy and raw material use) on production, which businesses would pass on in price. Again, the burden of the taxes working people pay is shifted from income (people are currently punished for working!) to price (with lower rates on essential production, e.g. food). People might end up paying the same as they do today, but in a different form that conditions the market to include ecological costs and thus may serve to get us off the path to ecological disaster.

If prosperous people at the $100 K range benefit from that disproportionately, I have less of a problem because the rich above that level will finally pay a share (they currently barely do).

The numbers would be made to work in Hawken's scheme during the long transition period which would allow adjustments.

The numbers would work instantly by the way if the U.S. a) stopped trying to militarily dominate the planet and stripped the Pentagon and the related agencies down to actual defense of this country and genuine emergency response and nothing else; b) stopped giving a gift to the banks every year on interest when deficit spending could instead be covered by issue of fiat (which is the case already, except it's issued by private institutions that get interest back - cut out the interest - have an independent appointed economic board determine allowable deficit levels on an economic basis).

[JackRiddler]

23. NO!

You'd be taxed at a 50 percent rate on the 50 k over 100 k, i.e. you would pay $25 k. So everyone has incentives to earn $100 k. In fact, they have every incentive to earn as much as they can and want, just like the present system (High tax rates don't stop people from working and some from getting rich in continental Europe, ain't that weird?)

Sorry if I did not phrase this proposal clearly.

[Solar_Power]

52. Don't let the facts get in the way

[dysfunctional press]

53. ummm...learn some math.

you would pay 50% of your income OVER $100,000- meaning that in your scenario, your after tax take home pay would be $125,000, NOT $75,000.

it's this kind of american ignorance that keeps us from adopting a truly progressive tax system.

[AdHocSolver]

21. Tax reform alone does not solve any problems. We need trade policies that create jobs.

Wealth is created only through production of goods by means of manufacturing jobs and the production of food by family farms. The cause of much of the fiscal and financial problems in the U.S., for individuals and government revenue, is the fact that our U.S. dollars are being sent to Asia and the Middle East (for oil).

Economic activity involves the circulation of money. If most of our goods were manufactured here in the U.S., rather than China, what we pay for those goods would go to pay American workers. In turn, those workers would pay taxes on their earnings, and they also would buy goods produced by other Americans...who would also pay taxes. The financial troubles the U.S. faces today is due in large measure to the off-shoring of manufacturing.

The U.S. economy today is run in a manner that corresponds to an attempt to fill a bath tub while leaving the drain unplugged. Because of unbalanced trade agreements like NAFTA, WTO, and indiscriminate Most Favored Nation trading status for countries like China, our real wealth, produced by manufacturing jobs, is being drained out of the U.S. and being sent overseas.

Unemployed people have difficulty supporting themselves, and don't pay taxes. Much of the wealth of the rich people comes from sending jobs overseas for cheaper labor costs. To tax the profits of the wealthy made by sending jobs overseas is burning the barn to get rid of the rats after the rats have already fled.

My solution is to eliminate the profit of sending jobs overseas by imposing trade laws and tariffs that will remove the incentives to off-shore those jobs. By returning jobs to the U.S., you enable Americans to once again support themselves, and at the same time these employed Americans pay taxes to finance the government.

Another required action is to reduce oil consumption to stem the flow of dollars outside of the U.S. We need mandated fuel efficiency standards to force the production of electric and hybrid-electric vehicles, promote a mass-transit infrastructure, and speed up the development and adoption of solar and wind power.

[sinkingfeeling]

30. Sorry, opting out anyone from filing and 'paying' taxes just decreases the sense of

'common good' and community. If no one with incomes under $100,000 were to pay taxes, the vast majority of the country would not be contributing to the country. I find that wrong.

[pnwmom]

33. And I don't see how the numbers could possibly work either. n/t

[JackRiddler]

35. Taxes is not equal to income taxes and furthermore...

Please! Nothing has screwed the idea of the common good in this country as the practice of taxing the income of the workers (and holding them under annual terror) to subsidize the rich while conning them into thinking the money's going to the poor. You think filing creates a sense of citizenship? We're in alternate universes, here.

The common good would be for the 90-plus percent to see their common interests, and especially to recognize and confront the less-than 1 percent who run the show for their own interest only and whose actions only incidentally benefit a minority around them. It's time for the world to stop being the plunder toy of billionaires, militaries, corporate contracters and banks.

[sinkingfeeling]

43. Sorry, I disagree. I was taught as a child that being American involved several key things. One was

paying taxes to fund the interstate system, education, social services, and our 'defense'. Another was voting, in each and every election. The third was to be a active participant in our government, by calling or writing to our elected representatives. Do I think the top 1% or so aren't paying their fair share? Absolutely, but I think everyone should pay for government (even though, in the last couple of decades, fewer and fewer do). If you're 'poor', then file and maybe you'll pay a few dollars in actual income taxes or more likely, you'll get back 'Earned Income Credits', but at least you're participating in funding the United States.

[JackRiddler]

44. "paying taxes to fund the interstate system, education, social services, and our 'defense'"

This is exactly what U.S. citizens would continue to do under the Hawken idea of reform, just in a different, more ecological, and possibly more just fashion than today.

Strawman.

[sinkingfeeling]

45. Not if 85% of the citizens aren't paying anything .The Hawken idea needs to go.

[JackRiddler]

48. Again and again, you misrepresent it.

The 85 percent ARE paying taxes, through true-cost prices set up by the environmental charges. Not to mention FICA, State and I hope a health plan!

The 85 percent ARE paying taxes, through true-cost prices set up by the environmental charges. Not to mention FICA, State and I hope a health plan!

The 85 percent ARE paying taxes, through true-cost prices set up by the environmental charges. Not to mention FICA, State and I hope a health plan!



Furthermore, the 85 percent provide the labor that makes the 1 percent rich. The rich owe to the 85 percent, not vice-versa.

Furthermore, the 85 percent provide the labor that makes the 1 percent rich. The rich owe to the 85 percent, not vice-versa.

Furthermore, the 85 percent provide the labor that makes the 1 percent rich. The rich owe to the 85 percent, not vice-versa.

[taught_me_patience]

34. 100k is not very much in Los Angeles

And people who make more than that already get taxed at nearly 50% (when state income taxes are included). Your numbers make no sense. We all live in a society and each person should be expected to contribute. Carefully graduating taxes higher as incomes get higher is the fairest method of taxation. Here is a fair proposal:

Increase the top bracket to 50% for those making 300k or more.
Increase the SS tax income limit beyond $94,200
Eliminate some of the loopholes that allow rich people to get away with paying a lower percentage of taxes.
Tax dividends as ordinary income (not at 15% which was one of Bush's gifts to the rich)

[JuniperLea]

38. Yep

The cost of living is outrageous here. $3.05 for gas... $24,000 a year to live in the ghetto, complete with gunshots at night and graffiti on the walls out front... at $77k a year, gross, I'm pinching every penny. If I were living in Council Bluffs, Iowa, I'd be living high on the hog on that income. In LA, the hog is living better than I am.

[StrongBad]

42. I still would rather just have a true progressive tax structure

Back in the WWII era we were taxing those in the top tier somewhere in the way of 90% of their gross income, while those in the lowest tier would be taxed much much less if not at all.

Because of some reasons mentioned upthread (different costs of living throughout the nation), this would probably be altogether easier to implement and get accepted by the majority of the population.

[slutticus]

46. So...

Someone making $99,999.99 per year gets to keep $99,999.99 per year, and someone making $100,000 per year gets to keep $50,000 per year?

People will start fighting for demotions.

[DaveJ]

47. Only 50%???

In the 1950s the rich were taxed up to 91%. That seems fair to me for people who make billions.

[JackRiddler]

49. Fine.

Suggest a progressive graduated tax system that allows a single exemption, no other loopholes, of $100,000 and on income above that starts at 50 and goes up to 91 for billionaires. Effectively an income cap. I'm for it.

First, as we've seen, you'll have lovers of the rich rush in to say, oh my God, if they don't have money they won't be able to give us all the wonderful things they do. We don't want to freeload, let us pay for the Pentagon and the Debtagon.

Second, as we've seen, you'll have people who make less than $100,000 rush in to say, oh my God, that's so much money, $100,000 makes you rich!

[DaveJ]

50. I'm not for 50% on $100,000

I could see it start at 10% and then just go up from there. I'm not for an income cap, just for taxing people fairly without it being any strain on them. For instance, a 50% tax on $100k would be a strain whereas 50% on $1 Million wouldn't.

The only way I cold support an income cap would be if we had free housing, healthcare, etc., and some way of guaranteeing that corporations cannot trick people into getting into debt up to their eyeballs the way they have done. That's what causes people to need $100k+ just to get by.

[JackRiddler]

51. Sigh... am I this bad as a writer?

The idea is that up to $100 k is freed of income tax. $100 k = zero. Everything ABOVE that = half. So 101 thousand = five hundred bucks tax. Which also sounds unjust to me, but you have to draw the line somewhere.

More importantly, 5.1 million = 2.5 million tax. Get it?

[onenote]

54. do you have an estimate of what the revenues would be from this tax approach?

Would it bring in more or less than the current tax rates?

[JackRiddler]

Revenues from income tax would almost surely be less

unless our diligent tax investigators, freed from pennyante audits of the poor, discover stores of well-hidden riches. ;)

The shortfall in my opinion should be made up by:

- environmental charges as described above and far better in Paul Hawken's book...

- no longer adding interest payments to the budget. If you can guarantee repayment of purchase price plus interest on credit, you can also issue and guarantee the damn fiat instead.

- stop putting $600 billion a year into imperialism.

[JackRiddler]

55. dupe nt

[1932]

56. What's so hard about putting more progressivity in the system? Why one rate and two tiers?