quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

About twentyfive years ago I conceived of a progressive tax system. It would start at whatever politicians deemed basic necessity and would increase with whatever slope of the exponential function they determined. So for example the first two hundred euro earned would be tax free. Then next the progressive tax starts, say one percent increase per hundred euro's per month earned. So if one earns three hundred euros, one pays 1 euro tax. If one earns four hundred euros, one pays 4 euro's tax (i.e. two percent on two hundred euros). If one earns four hundred euros, one pays 9 euros tax. If one earns twelve hundred euros, one pays one hundred euro tax. If one earns 2200 euros, one pays four hundred euros tax. If one earns 5200 euros, one pays 2500 euros tax. If one earns 10200 euros, one pays ten thousand euros tax.

No deductions except for gifts. So, say someone earns 10200 euros, but has to pay ten thousand euros in taxes. He now donates one thousand euro's each to the Departments of Defence, Economy, Infrastructure, Police, and to his poor mom. He is then left with 5200 euros to be taxed and pays 2500 euros in taxes, leaving him with 2700 to spend as he pleases.

In this scheme minimum wages can be abolished. The consequence of which is that everyone can have a job.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic
Nobody says being poor doesn't suck. It's supposed to. That's what encourages people to stop.

The most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Capitalism requires poverty like a wolf requires prey. Fear of poverty is the whip that gets everyone out of bed in the morning, while excessive reward is what keeps getting the rich out of bed in the morning.

As one person moves out of poverty and another person moves into poverty. The problem for western capitalism at the moment is that the majority of the poor used to be exploited foreigners overseas but now western capitalism is increasing poverty at home as capitalism reduces the size of the middleclass by pushing the middleclasses into poverty.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

i've been on food stamps, and i budget very well, but $200 a month didn't go far. i couldn't buy a ton of fresh vegetables or quality meats and organic grains with that. if i did, my food stamps would run out halfway through the month. i seriously cut back on meals, and ate lots of ramen noodles. it sucked.

This is the part they cant grasp.... or the results.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thezeppo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
About twentyfive years ago I conceived of a progressive tax system. It would start at whatever politicians deemed basic necessity and would increase with whatever slope of the exponential function they determined. So for example the first two hundred euro earned would be tax free. Then next the progressive tax starts, say one percent increase per hundred euro's per month earned. So if one earns three hundred euros, one pays 1 euro tax. If one earns four hundred euros, one pays 4 euro's tax (i.e. two percent on two hundred euros). If one earns four hundred euros, one pays 9 euros tax. If one earns twelve hundred euros, one pays one hundred euro tax. If one earns 2200 euros, one pays four hundred euros tax. If one earns 5200 euros, one pays 2500 euros tax. If one earns 10200 euros, one pays ten thousand euros tax.

No deductions except for gifts. So, say someone earns 10200 euros, but has to pay ten thousand euros in taxes. He now donates one thousand euro's each to the Departments of Defence, Economy, Infrastructure, Police, and to his poor mom. He is then left with 5200 euros to be taxed and pays 2500 euros in taxes, leaving him with 2700 to spend as he pleases.

In this scheme minimum wages can be abolished. The consequence of which is that everyone can have a job.

So, for those who follow the system there is literally no incentive to work harder and receive a higher paying job as you will just end up 'donating' your money to the government to have a living wage anyway. For those who don't, what's to stop you donating your entire salary to the person at the next desk and vice-versa? The only context I can see this working in is a heavily nationalised society, where relative reputations of jobs are irrelevant and salaries are broadly equal. If that is the society you envision, probably the tax system isn't the best place to start.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: thezeppo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
About twentyfive years ago I conceived of a progressive tax system. It would start at whatever politicians deemed basic necessity and would increase with whatever slope of the exponential function they determined. So for example the first two hundred euro earned would be tax free. Then next the progressive tax starts, say one percent increase per hundred euro's per month earned. So if one earns three hundred euros, one pays 1 euro tax. If one earns four hundred euros, one pays 4 euro's tax (i.e. two percent on two hundred euros). If one earns four hundred euros, one pays 9 euros tax. If one earns twelve hundred euros, one pays one hundred euro tax. If one earns 2200 euros, one pays four hundred euros tax. If one earns 5200 euros, one pays 2500 euros tax. If one earns 10200 euros, one pays ten thousand euros tax.

No deductions except for gifts. So, say someone earns 10200 euros, but has to pay ten thousand euros in taxes. He now donates one thousand euro's each to the Departments of Defence, Economy, Infrastructure, Police, and to his poor mom. He is then left with 5200 euros to be taxed and pays 2500 euros in taxes, leaving him with 2700 to spend as he pleases.

In this scheme minimum wages can be abolished. The consequence of which is that everyone can have a job.

So, for those who follow the system there is literally no incentive to work harder and receive a higher paying job as you will just end up 'donating' your money to the government to have a living wage anyway. For those who don't, what's to stop you donating your entire salary to the person at the next desk and vice-versa? The only context I can see this working in is a heavily nationalised society, where relative reputations of jobs are irrelevant and salaries are broadly equal. If that is the society you envision, probably the tax system isn't the best place to start.

Most people earn low wages; so most people will have an incentive to earn higher wages.

This scheme promotes small businesses and therefore a large middle class.

This scheme decreases the social instability caused by few people being extremely rich and many people living in poverty.

People who donate parts of their income to government departments in order to lower their taxes thereby have a large influence on how their money is spent, which they do not have if they simply pay taxes and let politicians decide how to spend that.

Sure you may donate your entire salary to the person at the next desk. I don't care. Be sure that you have some canned food in house.

I forgot to mention a voting compensation for the paying of taxes: Each person has one vote, incremented by say the square of the percentage of tax paid. (The exact factor of increment to be determined by politicians in Parliament.) This gives people an added incentive to earn a lot of money and to pay a lot of taxes. It also gives the people who pay the most taxes the most political leverage.

So say a person earns 1200 euros per month. In this example he pays ten percent tax on one thousand euros = one hundred euros of tax. The increment to his basic one vote is ten percent squared = one hundred percent = one vote. So in an election he can vote twice.

Say a person earns 5200 euros per month. In this example he pays fifty percent tax on five thousand euros = 2500 euros of tax. The increment to his basic one vote is fifty percent squared = 2500 percent = 25 votes. So in an election he can vote 26 times.

Say a person earns 10200 euros per month. In this example he pays one hundred percent tax on 10000 euros = 10000 euros of tax. The increment to his basic one vote is one hundred percent squared = 10000 percent = 100 votes. So in an election he can vote 101 times.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
But, lets not worry about that. Because, as someone recently said, its supposed to be that way so they wont want to be poor anymore.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Im not chasing anything, Rich. In fact, they are hounding me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

That? You mean things aren't working out so well in Germany.. That role model of austerity that everyne including the Germans like to point to? I'd rather look at Iceland who threw the crooks in jail and bailed out the victims.

Yeah, the German model is problematic: their poorest are sliding down from a European lower class standard of living to an American middle class standard of living, which isn't the case in Iceland, Norway, Sweden or Denmark, at the very least, all of which have only a fraction of what the Germans have in terms of skills, natural resources and the like, plus fewer people with a more rural population density (which is more expensive to deal with).

IWYW,
— Awsad.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie
Rule, couple questions.

1. How large of a BIG TAX payer population (holding sufficient votes) would it require to offset the voting of the middle / lower class?
2. If said BIG TAXpayers held a large enough voting block, what would be the first thing they would vote on?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

Most people earn low wages; so most people will have an incentive to earn higher wages.

This scheme promotes small businesses and therefore a large middle class.

This scheme decreases the social instability caused by few people being extremely rich and many people living in poverty.

People who donate parts of their income to government departments in order to lower their taxes thereby have a large influence on how their money is spent, which they do not have if they simply pay taxes and let politicians decide how to spend that.

Sure you may donate your entire salary to the person at the next desk. I don't care. Be sure that you have some canned food in house.

I forgot to mention a voting compensation for the paying of taxes: Each person has one vote, incremented by say the square of the percentage of tax paid. (The exact factor of increment to be determined by politicians in Parliament.) This gives people an added incentive to earn a lot of money and to pay a lot of taxes. It also gives the people who pay the most taxes the most political leverage.

So say a person earns 1200 euros per month. In this example he pays ten percent tax on one thousand euros = one hundred euros of tax. The increment to his basic one vote is ten percent squared = one hundred percent = one vote. So in an election he can vote twice.

Say a person earns 5200 euros per month. In this example he pays fifty percent tax on five thousand euros = 2500 euros of tax. The increment to his basic one vote is fifty percent squared = 2500 percent = 25 votes. So in an election he can vote 26 times.

Say a person earns 10200 euros per month. In this example he pays one hundred percent tax on 10000 euros = 10000 euros of tax. The increment to his basic one vote is one hundred percent squared = 10000 percent = 100 votes. So in an election he can vote 101 times.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thezeppo
I wasn't talking about donating your entire salary to the person at the next desk for nothing by the way - it would be in exchange for their salary so neither would pay any tax.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thezeppo
So a single group have permanent influence in the government through having more votes and controlling the budget? That seems like a step backwards to me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cuckoldmepls

I don't care what your evidence is. When 47% (fact) don't pay any U.S. income taxes then they are freeloaders & using the gov to subsidize their lifestyle. e.g. smart phones, new cars, nice clothes...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie
Rule, couple questions.

2. If said BIG TAXpayers held a large enough voting block, what would be the first thing they would vote on?

2. I have no idea, but it will be interesting to set up a couple of hundred small scale experiments involving as many small towns and see what happens.

quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel


I make 20 grand a year, am single with one dependent because my son is disabled; therefore I do not pay federal taxes. My income is simply too low require me to do so.

However, money is taken out of my check each and every pay period in withholding (in case I do end up owing something; I usually get every penny of that back).

I do own my home and it is without a mortgage because my grandmother gave it to me. I had cost me over 2 grand to clear the deed when she died and her name is still on it because putting it solely in my name will cost me even more. I also bought new a car this past year--it cost all of 15 grand.

Are you saying I shouldn't be able to have a cell phone (which is my primary means of communication since I do not have a land line), own my home and continue pay rent, and shouldn't be entitled to reliable transportation when I do work hard for my money as little as it is?