Society, Holidays etc (split from Ossus tax thread)

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Studies have previously shown that the interest of people in working tends to decline when their effective tax rate (i.e. what they actually pay out) tends to exceed 48%. Now that's what they actually pay out of their total income. Even if someone's entire income, effectively, was taxed at 90%, if they were able to reduce half of their tax burden through manipulation of exemptions, they'd be at a 45% actual tax burden...

My proposal would be to eliminate all exemptions, and start taxation at 25,000 USD, currently; people who have earned less than 25,000 USD pay out no tax at all. Taxation would then rise at the level of 1% per 4,000 USD and would be applied to the entire income, starting at 26,000 USD up to 226,000 USD, so that someone making 226,000 USD a year would pay 50% tax on their entire income (i.e., their net would be 113,000 USD). 50% is chosen since we can actually slightly exceed a 48% rate and still get gains higher than the reductions in propensity to work, broadly speaking. All income above 226,000 USD would be simply taxed at a 50% rate, with no deductions or exemptions throughout the course.

A 10% national sales tax would also be assessed, with the direct goal of controlling spending, minimizing it, and encouraging as much savings as possible to force responsibility in people. The sales tax would not apply to food and other basic items, and furthermore everyone making 30,000 USD a year or less would receive a 3,000 USD sales tax rebate, on the assumption they would have spent all their income, and also as a form of wealth transfer, as the rebate would actually be funded through general revenue. All tax brackets would be increased by 10,000 USD for your first child, and 5,000 USD for each child after that. Maximum personal wealth would be set at 100 million USD per person with another 50 million allowed for each child (note that each parent could separately claim those higher levels); all wealth above that level would be seized to fund social services. Joint filing of taxes would of course be abolished, as it would no longer be relevant.

Short term capital gains would be taxed at 25% and long-term capital gains at 20% for everyone making less than 226,000 USD yearly (or slightly higher for people with children). The rates would increase to 40% and 35% respectively based on your income tax scale, 1% for every 20,000 USD more of reported income above that limit (so that your short term capital gains tax would be 40% for people making $526,000 or more a year from other sources). For everyone making more. To avoid wealth seizure the very rich can divert funds into registered charities (including ones they form, but they must be registered and carefully regulated by the government only). Inheiritance would be taxed at 90% with property valued up to 5 million USD per designated heir and family personal possessions exempted.

The money from this tax scheme would be used to completely convert American energy generation to nuclear and renewables, electrify and expand the railroads, replace every vehicle in the country with a hybrid or other clean technology vehicle, to institute full, universal, single-payer health insurance, to guarantee housing and food for every American citizen, and to make public universities free of all costs except for books and a notional $10.00 USD per credit per semester. For example all Americans making less than $226,000 USD yearly would receive $100.00 a month in food stamps and $400.00 a month in housing credits which would have to be redeemed by anyone offering rent or in payment for any mortgage--these payments being denied to those making more each year as it's obvious that they're capable of providing food and shelter for themselves, and being continued to such a high level as a form of wealth redistribution that covers all of the middle class to mitigate a bit the high tax rates.

The food stamps would also be provided for minor children, and would have to be accepted at all stores selling non-prepared food (housing credit would not be provided for dependents and children unless those children are attending college, wherein it would be provided to facilitate their college education, though public universities, required to offer food and housing under this scheme to students for free, could claim the food and housing credits the dependents receive toward their expenses when they are in college housing and food plans). This would make the effective gross income of a poor single person making $25,500 USD a year out to be $31,500 USD, a much more liveable figure, though of course all expenses except for sundries and food expenses greater than $100.00 a month would be taxed at 10%, plus local taxes, so it balances out, but it's still a substantial improvement, considering that retirement and healthcare would both be guaranteed, as would free public transit.

I of course expect this to get ripped up, but it's a starting point, anyhow, for discussion on a genuinely equitable society. I suspect however the only people who would really oppose living under such a system will be rich Americans. I'd also institute a 4-day, 36-hour workweek (40 hours total with 4 x 1-hour paid lunches), make the minimum wage tied to inflation with a base rate at present of $8.00 nation-wide from which all inflation evaluations in the future would build on, and require mandatory 2 weeks of paid vacation for all employees, rising to 4 weeks after 3 years of continuous employment, 6 weeks after 5 years of continuous employment, and a maximum of 2 months after 5 years of continuous employment. Maternity leave would 60 days before birth, 16 months afterward at 80% for three months and 60% for the next 13, and the father would get 3-months post birth at 60% wages.

[Surlethe]

Studies have previously shown that the interest of people in working tends to decline when their effective tax rate (i.e. what they actually pay out) tends to exceed 48%. ...

I'm afraid that at this point in the school year I have the time to neither really engage this fascinating thread nor to engage your argument, but would you mind at least posting some of those studies? After all, studies have shown that saying "studies have shown" is not a particularly good source of data.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Studies have previously shown that the interest of people in working tends to decline when their effective tax rate (i.e. what they actually pay out) tends to exceed 48%. ...

I'm afraid that at this point in the school year I have the time to neither really engage this fascinating thread nor to engage your argument, but would you mind at least posting some of those studies? After all, studies have shown that saying "studies have shown" is not a particularly good source of data.

I got all worked up about this and went ahead and wrote it and posted it the day before my last round of finals, heh. Yeah, I'll track down the link; it's cached in my list of information for the tax scheme I developed for my fictional society of Kaetjhasti.

[Broomstick]

Marina - change "minor children" to "legal dependent", as caring for an elderly parent or disabled adult relative is something we should encourage, and can be just as costly and demanding as caring for a child.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Marina - change "minor children" to "legal dependent", as caring for an elderly parent or disabled adult relative is something we should encourage, and can be just as costly and demanding as caring for a child.

A very fair correction, and thank you for noting it. Editing period's already gone, but consider it amended. Also, I take it you generally approve of this line of modification to the American scheme of government?

[D.Turtle]

I'd also institute a 4-day, 36-hour workweek (40 hours total with 4 x 1-hour paid lunches), make the minimum wage tied to inflation with a base rate at present of $8.00 nation-wide from which all inflation evaluations in the future would build on, and require mandatory 2 weeks of paid vacation for all employees, rising to 4 weeks after 3 years of continuous employment, 6 weeks after 5 years of continuous employment, and a maximum of 2 months after 5 years of continuous employment.

I'd like to ask about the bolded part.

Since the rest of your proposal is quite extremely leftist in comparison to what I know about the US economy, I would expect this part to be the same. What is a normal amount of paid vacation for a job in the US?

As a comparison, when I started at a temporary work agency at the lowest rate (€7,31 per hour), with no relevant education besides high-school, I received 2 days paid vacation per month - a total of 24 days, or almost 5 weeks a year. I now just started to work at a scrap yard (I got the job through working there for the temp work agency) and have a total of 30 days paid vacation per year. In addition, I also have an unlimited amount of paid sick leave (though if I am sick for more than 6 weeks at one time, they could terminate the contract). Did I mention I only need to visit the doctor if I am sick for more than 2 days?

And I agree with Broomstick: This should deserve its own thread - it has always been extremely enlightening to compare the situation in the US and what I have here in Germany. Like they say: You only know how good you have it when you see how much worse it is in other countries.

[salm]

I'd also institute a 4-day, 36-hour workweek (40 hours total with 4 x 1-hour paid lunches), make the minimum wage tied to inflation with a base rate at present of $8.00 nation-wide from which all inflation evaluations in the future would build on, and require mandatory 2 weeks of paid vacation for all employees, rising to 4 weeks after 3 years of continuous employment, 6 weeks after 5 years of continuous employment, and a maximum of 2 months after 5 years of continuous employment.

I'd like to ask about the bolded part.

Since the rest of your proposal is quite extremely leftist in comparison to what I know about the US economy, I would expect this part to be the same. What is a normal amount of paid vacation for a job in the US?

As a comparison, when I started at a temporary work agency at the lowest rate (€7,31 per hour), with no relevant education besides high-school, I received 2 days paid vacation per month - a total of 24 days, or almost 5 weeks a year. I now just started to work at a scrap yard (I got the job through working there for the temp work agency) and have a total of 30 days paid vacation per year. In addition, I also have an unlimited amount of paid sick leave (though if I am sick for more than 6 weeks at one time, they could terminate the contract). Did I mention I only need to visit the doctor if I am sick for more than 2 days?

And I agree with Broomstick: This should deserve its own thread - it has always been extremely enlightening to compare the situation in the US and what I have here in Germany. Like they say: You only know how good you have it when you see how much worse it is in other countries.

In France you can work no more than 35 hours per week by law. You also have at least 25 days of payed vacation but in most cases you get more than that because of the strong unions and their contracts.

[Alyeska]

I would never want a work week limited to just 36 hours. We get voluntary OT at my job and I love it. In the month of November I had 40 hours of OT, all by choice. Does wonders for the bank account.

[Rogue 9]

I'd also institute a 4-day, 36-hour workweek (40 hours total with 4 x 1-hour paid lunches), make the minimum wage tied to inflation with a base rate at present of $8.00 nation-wide from which all inflation evaluations in the future would build on, and require mandatory 2 weeks of paid vacation for all employees, rising to 4 weeks after 3 years of continuous employment, 6 weeks after 5 years of continuous employment, and a maximum of 2 months after 5 years of continuous employment.

I'd like to ask about the bolded part.

Since the rest of your proposal is quite extremely leftist in comparison to what I know about the US economy, I would expect this part to be the same. What is a normal amount of paid vacation for a job in the US?

I get none. After I've worked my current job for a year then theoretically I get one week per year, but my boss freely shits all over the terms of employment in every other area, so I'd be shocked if I actually did.

[AMT]

I'd also institute a 4-day, 36-hour workweek (40 hours total with 4 x 1-hour paid lunches), make the minimum wage tied to inflation with a base rate at present of $8.00 nation-wide from which all inflation evaluations in the future would build on, and require mandatory 2 weeks of paid vacation for all employees, rising to 4 weeks after 3 years of continuous employment, 6 weeks after 5 years of continuous employment, and a maximum of 2 months after 5 years of continuous employment.

I'd like to ask about the bolded part.

Since the rest of your proposal is quite extremely leftist in comparison to what I know about the US economy, I would expect this part to be the same. What is a normal amount of paid vacation for a job in the US?

As a comparison, when I started at a temporary work agency at the lowest rate (€7,31 per hour), with no relevant education besides high-school, I received 2 days paid vacation per month - a total of 24 days, or almost 5 weeks a year. I now just started to work at a scrap yard (I got the job through working there for the temp work agency) and have a total of 30 days paid vacation per year. In addition, I also have an unlimited amount of paid sick leave (though if I am sick for more than 6 weeks at one time, they could terminate the contract). Did I mention I only need to visit the doctor if I am sick for more than 2 days?

And I agree with Broomstick: This should deserve its own thread - it has always been extremely enlightening to compare the situation in the US and what I have here in Germany. Like they say: You only know how good you have it when you see how much worse it is in other countries.

It can vary wildly. I've been in positions where sick leave was nonexistant: you actually received several "off days" (no doctors note needed, nothing). If you go over those, bam. Fired. You received 1 weeks paid vacation per year.

I've been in another position where again, no paid sick leave, and they technically gave you 1 week paid vacation per year starting one year after you joined. However, rather then pay you on the date you decide to TAKE the vacation, they gave you a "bonus" check on your anniversary in the amount of 40 hours of work. So you either banked it or spent it, and your actual vacation period was considered unpaid leave.

"Thankfully", with my current government job, I now receive 4 hours of sick leave and personal (vacation) leave per 2 week period, with no limit. Unfortunatly, it is a temporary contract position set to end 09/30/2010, so I won't be able to accrue too much.

So in other words, most jobs (especially scut non-management positions) will shit all over you when it comes to compensation for sick leave or vacation.

Yet another from the system.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I would never want a work week limited to just 36 hours. We get voluntary OT at my job and I love it. In the month of November I had 40 hours of OT, all by choice. Does wonders for the bank account.

It wouldn't be a strict limit, Alyeska, it's just that overtime is mandatory over that point, at rates set by the government, per the usual.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I'd like to ask about the bolded part.

Since the rest of your proposal is quite extremely leftist in comparison to what I know about the US economy, I would expect this part to be the same. What is a normal amount of paid vacation for a job in the US?

Zero. There is no legal requirement for corporations to provide paid vacation; the present amount is zero. On average, a well-paying, respectable job will provide you with.. Two weeks. And you will be constantly harassed and encouraged to never use it.

That's one of the main reasons I'm getting out of the country as soon as I can.

[KrauserKrauser]

Zero. There is no legal requirement for corporations to provide paid vacation; the present amount is zero. On average, a well-paying, respectable job will provide you with.. Two weeks. And you will be constantly harassed and encouraged to never use it.

That's one of the main reasons I'm getting out of the country as soon as I can.

This is completely and utterly your viewpoint on this and not par for the course. I, for instance, get 2 weeks paid with 5 days paid off in addition. This scales up to 6 weeks off after 25 years.

I have not been harrassed nor encouraged not to take my vacations, so your average American mile my vary. It is not the desolate shithole picture that Duchess of the Exaggerating Everything would have you believe.

[fgalkin]

Just FYI, in the rest of the world, you get at LEAST 3 weeks off, and as much as 40 days in some countries.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Just FYI, in the rest of the world, you get at LEAST 3 weeks off, and as much as 40 days in some countries.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Yeah, and they'll add more to that for very high paying positions. 2 months is perfectly feasible for an engineer with some seniority, and I'd gladly sacrifice pay raises in exchange for more days of paid vacation anyway.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Some figures on number of people "encouraged" to not use what little vacation time they get.

The Death of the American Vacation.

The Death of the American Vacation
Tory Johnson Says More Americans Aren't Taking Their Days Off
By TORY JOHNSON
July 4, 2006

About a quarter of workers in this country don't receive any paid vacation time. For those who do get it, the average employee in the United States earns 14 days of time off, according to a recent survey by travel site Expedia. And in the last year, the amount of vacation we receive has grown -- from 12 days last year to 14 days this year -- but sadly we've gone from leaving three days on the table to four days on the table. (Incidentally, the time off we receive is nothing compared to other countries. Brits get 24 days, and the French earn a whopping 39 vacation days, almost eight weeks off.

There are two main reasons we're forgoing some of our vacation time: stress and job security.

For some people it is stress. Sixty-five percent of workers say they have trouble coping with stress before, during and after vacation. The fear of returning to a slew of messages and a massive to-do list is enough to keep some people from never leaving their offices. Others worry about job security. They fear if they're out of sight, they're also out of mind. So they'd rather just not go away. And in some cases, the boss makes it clear that he doesn't take kindly to having his employees gone for too long. Worrying about scheduling a real vacation keeps many from using all of the vacation time they're entitled to take.

This is typical of baby boomers because they place a heavy value on office face-time. Boomers created the phrase, "If you don't come in on Sunday, don't bother to come in on Monday." They're more likely to forgo the vacation days they're entitled to than younger generations.

With cell phones and Blackberries and WiFi everywhere, we're still linked to the office -- even if we do go away.

About a quarter of all vacationers in this country say they check voicemail or e-mail while on vacation. It's a combination of being expected to keep in touch, as well as a desire to be wanted and to be in the know. In some cases, it's easier to handle things as they come up rather than return to that huge pile of stuff. One in three workers in a recent Travelocity survey said that not checking messages while on vacation was more stressful than the actual work itself. But that doesn't mean you should allow work to overtake your vacation.

[salm]

Just FYI, in the rest of the world, you get at LEAST 3 weeks off, and as much as 40 days in some countries.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Yeah, and they'll add more to that for very high paying positions. 2 months is perfectly feasible for an engineer with some seniority, and I'd gladly sacrifice pay raises in exchange for more days of paid vacation anyway.

What´s your source for that? At least around here the higher ups work longer hours. I mean, while it is better in Europe it´s not the land of milk and honey either.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Just FYI, in the rest of the world, you get at LEAST 3 weeks off, and as much as 40 days in some countries.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Yeah, and they'll add more to that for very high paying positions. 2 months is perfectly feasible for an engineer with some seniority, and I'd gladly sacrifice pay raises in exchange for more days of paid vacation anyway.

What´s your source for that? At least around here the higher ups work longer hours.

I was thinking of like a position in one of the big French energy conglomerates where the engineers have their own professional society to secure further benefits. I know it doesn't extend that far and you're still expected to be effectively "on call" when working, i.e., 24/7 availability, and I don't mind that, but, by god you do get a real vacation.

And the level in France is 39 days of paid vacation anyway, which balances out to almost two months off anyway. Obviously anyone in a professional position like those in the modern world that I'm going for is going to have to be basically available non-stop while not on vacation, but in Europe, unlike America, there's actually a genuine vacation and a chance to get off work; you can actually disappear and go hiking on some remote coast far beyond the reach of cellphones, as I know from encountering people on such extended vacations along the Olympic Peninsula, for instance, from Europe.

[Vain]

With regards to the vacation thing, I am a (relatively) senior IT guy here in Maryland, and I have more vacation time than I know what to do with. If I took it all at once and burned my paid sick leave as well, I could take three months off in a row. As it is, I take a day whenever I don't feel like coming into the office, and it still accrues faster than I can use it.

I realize that this isn't true all over the place, but it's still a nice counterpoint. I don't feel like I'm bullied into keeping my nose to the grindstone.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

With regards to the vacation thing, I am a (relatively) senior IT guy here in Maryland, and I have more vacation time than I know what to do with. If I took it all at once and burned my paid sick leave as well, I could take three months off in a row. As it is, I take a day whenever I don't feel like coming into the office, and it still accrues faster than I can use it.

I realize that this isn't true all over the place, but it's still a nice counterpoint. I don't feel like I'm bullied into keeping my nose to the grindstone.

Well, the average American gets barely two weeks and doesn't use 4 days of it.

[salm]

And the level in France is 39 days of paid vacation anyway, which balances out to almost two months off anyway. Obviously anyone in a professional position like those in the modern world that I'm going for is going to have to be basically available non-stop while not on vacation, but in Europe, unlike America, there's actually a genuine vacation and a chance to get off work; you can actually disappear and go hiking on some remote coast far beyond the reach of cellphones, as I know from encountering people on such extended vacations along the Olympic Peninsula, for instance, from Europe.

Have you checked up on that? The level in France as regulated by the government is 25 days off paid vacation. You have to be working in a sector with a union that has a labor agreement (which is likely in France) which states that you get these 39 days.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

And the level in France is 39 days of paid vacation anyway, which balances out to almost two months off anyway. Obviously anyone in a professional position like those in the modern world that I'm going for is going to have to be basically available non-stop while not on vacation, but in Europe, unlike America, there's actually a genuine vacation and a chance to get off work; you can actually disappear and go hiking on some remote coast far beyond the reach of cellphones, as I know from encountering people on such extended vacations along the Olympic Peninsula, for instance, from Europe.

Have you checked up on that? The level in France as regulated by the government is 25 days off paid vacation. You have to be working in a sector with a union that has a labor agreement (which is likely in France) which states that you get these 39 days.

It was in the article that I just posted, the average in France is 39 days vacation. Since the minimum is 25 days, the average is 14 days higher.. Which definitely means that some people get at least somewhat more than 39 days of paid vacation.

[salm]

It was in the article that I just posted, the average in France is 39 days vacation. Since the minimum is 25 days, the average is 14 days higher.. Which definitely means that some people get at least somewhat more than 39 days of paid vacation.

Yeah, but it doesn´t necessarily mean that your line of work gets that amount. I´m not saying that you won´t get that or even more i´m just saying that it´s not for sure that you´ll be getting it.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

It was in the article that I just posted, the average in France is 39 days vacation. Since the minimum is 25 days, the average is 14 days higher.. Which definitely means that some people get at least somewhat more than 39 days of paid vacation.

Yeah, but it doesn´t necessarily mean that your line of work gets that amount. I´m not saying that you won´t get that or even more i´m just saying that it´s not for sure that you´ll be getting it.

Well, I've seen quotes like of a fellow working as a Project Manager at an optical manufacturer who gets 48 days off + national holidays, though he does work from 9 AM to 7 PM and overtime becomes extra vacation days as compensation, which I'd be quite willing to do. Certainly it might well be somewhat different for my specific field, but things like that suggest enough flexibility to make me genuinely happy with my work, even if the average time is somewhat lower.

[KrauserKrauser]

Studies have previously shown that the interest of people in working tends to decline when their effective tax rate (i.e. what they actually pay out) tends to exceed 48%. Now that's what they actually pay out of their total income. Even if someone's entire income, effectively, was taxed at 90%, if they were able to reduce half of their tax burden through manipulation of exemptions, they'd be at a 45% actual tax burden...

Ok, even though you have yet to provide any sources for this, we'll take this as accurate and data that sound policy can be built upon.

My proposal would be to eliminate all exemptions, and start taxation at 25,000 USD, currently; people who have earned less than 25,000 USD pay out no tax at all. Taxation would then rise at the level of 1% per 4,000 USD and would be applied to the entire income, starting at 26,000 USD up to 226,000 USD, so that someone making 226,000 USD a year would pay 50% tax on their entire income (i.e., their net would be 113,000 USD). 50% is chosen since we can actually slightly exceed a 48% rate and still get gains higher than the reductions in propensity to work, broadly speaking. All income above 226,000 USD would be simply taxed at a 50% rate, with no deductions or exemptions throughout the course.

Ok, is this income tax or any income based tax on federal, state, city level? I understand the progressivity of it, it makes a bit more since as it reduces the difference between income level taxation in the current plan. I also agree with the no deductions approach to this tax, though if American taxation history is any indication, exemptions and the like will eventually creep into the system. If this stays in place, a graduate flat tax on income could be fairly reasonable with the tax rate being the major argument point. There would be a slight increase in expense from all of the different tax levels but that will grind down to lines on the tax reports, nothing drastic.

A 10% national sales tax would also be assessed, with the direct goal of controlling spending, minimizing it, and encouraging as much savings as possible to force responsibility in people. The sales tax would not apply to food and other basic items, and furthermore everyone making 30,000 USD a year or less would receive a 3,000 USD sales tax rebate, on the assumption they would have spent all their income, and also as a form of wealth transfer, as the rebate would actually be funded through general revenue. All tax brackets would be increased by 10,000 USD for your first child, and 5,000 USD for each child after that.

Ok, national sales tax + progressive flat tax, nothing too serious. Addresses the issues of foreigners earning income in the US not contributing to the tax base and brings the reality of taxes to all levels of the country, no one would be able to avoid the sales tax. Would the rebate also be expanded per child? We are already paying people to have children, why stop I guess. I would rather have that 3k handed out in the form of either non-monetary services or training or specialty loans to get the people above the 30k or whatever bubble. Sorry, I just hate a mooch. Under this plan these people would not be contributing in anyway to the Federal Budget, which just grates my ass.

Maximum personal wealth would be set at 100 million USD per person with another 50 million allowed for each child (note that each parent could separately claim those higher levels); all wealth above that level would be seized to fund social services. Joint filing of taxes would of course be abolished, as it would no longer be relevant.

And you lost me. Welcome to Whacko Land, population, pinko-commies.

So, the government would basically nationalize every business with a market cap of 100million+. Bill and his wife would go from whatever+ billion to 200 million max? Why bother having a cap on the income tax if you are just going to steal everything when someone becomes very successful? Why not just increase the tax on people that earn above that comepletely arbitrary 226k number you pulled out of your ass? Do you really need to set the precedent of the US literally running around like Robin Hood stealing assets directly?

Joint filing of taxes is if nothing else convienient for families as their income and savings are pooled and operating towards the same purpose. You can definitely remove the tax benefits from joint filing, but simply to reduce the number of returns, joint filing should be continued.

Short term capital gains would be taxed at 25% and long-term capital gains at 20% for everyone making less than 226,000 USD yearly (or slightly higher for people with children). The rates would increase to 40% and 35% respectively based on your income tax scale, 1% for every 20,000 USD more of reported income above that limit (so that your short term capital gains tax would be 40% for people making $526,000 or more a year from other sources). For everyone making more. To avoid wealth seizure the very rich can divert funds into registered charities (including ones they form, but they must be registered and carefully regulated by the government only). Inheiritance would be taxed at 90% with property valued up to 5 million USD per designated heir and family personal possessions exempted.

Capital gains rates are not insane, easily something that could be dealt with. I would go even further with a graduate capital gains for low incomes that might reach to 0%. Encouraging low income people to invest would be something I would support, especially as their 25% of such a low number might be offset by the increased investment and investment culture it encourages. Progressive Capital Gains are an interesting idea, any example of where they have been applied successfully?

I already object to your wealth siezure ideas, so I'll just ignore that part. What exactly is the difference between the government taking the money and forcing them to put it into selected charities? You obviously have contempt for wealthy people, why bother giving them the choice?

The money from this tax scheme would be used to completely convert American energy generation to nuclear and renewables, electrify and expand the railroads, replace every vehicle in the country with a hybrid or other clean technology vehicle, to institute full, universal, single-payer health insurance, to guarantee housing and food for every American citizen, and to make public universities free of all costs except for books and a notional $10.00 USD per credit per semester.

Redoing the National Electrical grid for sustainable energy? Grrrreat!
Electrify and expand the railroads? I don't know how much this is really necessary
Replace every vehicle? Wow, talk about expensive. Does everyone get to get one for free? How often will the be replace? Will the government pay for replacements? Repairs? What if the don't take care of their car? Does the government replace everything and insure every car and driver? Wouldn't tax incentives and the like be better for this purpose, you are opening a can of worms that simply has no need of being opened.
Single Payer Health Care Everyone gets served but now there are lines and more waiting lists, it's worked so far in other places, I'm not as opposed to this as I once was.
Free Housing and FoodExpanded Section 8 housing and food stamps I can understand, I would just require stiffer penalties for those that violate the laws and add criminal charges to neglect by the people with Section 8 housing that don't maintain it. If I will be paying for someone to live in a building I effectively own, I want them to be charged with destruction of property if the smear shit all over the walls and ruin the place.
Free UniversitiesDoable, works in other highly taxed countries. Why have the $10 fee? I mean, why bother? What is it for other than a token reminder to them that their school isn't free. Useless gesture that will cost more to collect and organize than the revenue it would generate. Force them to do community service hours instead. After all, time = money.

The food stamps would also be provided for minor children, and would have to be accepted at all stores selling non-prepared food (housing credit would not be provided for dependents and children unless those children are attending college, wherein it would be provided to facilitate their college education, though public universities, required to offer food and housing under this scheme to students for free, could claim the food and housing credits the dependents receive toward their expenses when they are in college housing and food plans). This would make the effective gross income of a poor single person making $25,500 USD a year out to be $31,500 USD, a much more liveable figure, though of course all expenses except for sundries and food expenses greater than $100.00 a month would be taxed at 10%, plus local taxes, so it balances out, but it's still a substantial improvement, considering that retirement and healthcare would both be guaranteed, as would free public transit.

For the most part, you outlined Europe with less communism in the form of outright wealth confiscation. Aside from that, it's not that insane of a plan, almost something I would be willing to argue details toward implementation.

I'd also institute a 4-day, 36-hour workweek (40 hours total with 4 x 1-hour paid lunches), make the minimum wage tied to inflation with a base rate at present of $8.00 nation-wide from which all inflation evaluations in the future would build on, and require mandatory 2 weeks of paid vacation for all employees, rising to 4 weeks after 3 years of continuous employment, 6 weeks after 5 years of continuous employment, and a maximum of 2 months after 5 years of continuous employment. Maternity leave would 60 days before birth, 16 months afterward at 80% for three months and 60% for the next 13, and the father would get 3-months post birth at 60% wages.

These changes are great, with respect to the average worker. This is the plan I would expect out of you Duchess, being a dis-illusioned Capitalist turned Neo-Social/Communist and honestly a lot of the ideas are workable, I mean they are in place in other countries now so that's something.

Increased Vacation time without reduced pay is basically giving everyone huge raises, which the worker of course loves, but the person actually trying to turn a profit will have to factor into his business plan. This will lead to slower economic growth and an undetermined effect on worker productivity. If nothing else it will be harder for businesses to turn a profit with such increases.