Society, Holidays etc (split from Ossus tax thread)

[acesand8s]

Also, such enterprises as family farms are also subject to it. The actual value of the farm in terms of land value, etc. is fairly high, but the income from it isn't enough to be able to pay taxes on it and still be able to live. So it's not uncommon for them to get bought up by big corps when the original owner dies.

I believe there are currently provisions where if the primary asset is a farm or a business that's triggering the Estate Tax, the family can continue operating the business and pay the tax off over a period of time. As a result, the belief that multitudes of farms are being sold off to pay for the tax is largely a myth, (although I'm sure there are examples of the family selling the farm because it was dad/mom/grandpa that had their heart in it). Any hypothetical 90% inheritance tax is going to need a provision like that and in fact, it would probably have to be strengthened/allow a longer time for payment of the tax.

[Big Phil]

it is about maximizing the utility from society's resources.

A very good argument can be made that the very poor also harm society by contributing to it less than they receive (in the form of healthcare, education, transportation, food stamps, etc.). If that's the standard that we're using, then enslavement of the poor makes as much sense as wealth redistribution from the rich.

[Coyote]

The wealthy, however, not only want but need an educated base of workers to enhance productivity. Those workers need food, housing, and access to medical care that will keep them productive. So taxes to maintain the workers is in the company's best interests.

Why not let the companies run the schools, the housing, and the medical care? Well, then the company isn't "the Car Company" now it's the "social services company that also makes cars".

[Lusankya]

1. Universal Healthcare - while a good basic idea, what is the quality of that healthcare? Where is the economic incentive for doctors to practice, or for companies to invent new money making and life saving drugs and immunizations? Anecdotally I've been told by Canadian and English friends that the best Cancuck and Limey doctors don't practice at home - they go where they can make money. I've also been told that if you have a serious, urgent medical condition you'd better find a private hospital to take you in, as if you wait for public healthcare, you're likely to die before you get seen. How do you address the potential issues of long lines or wait times?

In Australia, if something goes really wrong, then you want to be in a public hospital. Private health insurance gives you the following benefits: cheaper cost for non-medicare-covered services, shorter waiting times for non-life threatening conditions, nicer rooms in the hospital and better rehabilitation.

3. Free Education - good idea, but remember that people tend to value much more highly those things for which they had to struggle and pay for themselves. If everyone gets a free education, how many people will finish college and get advanced degrees? Are there any examples in the real world of countries with free education systems you can point to?

Australia had free education when my mother was young. Now we've changed it to HECS (Or Commonwealth Supported places, or whatever they call it now). Basically, you get a "loan" from the government, and you pay it back through extra taxation once you earn more than a certain amount. I think one of the reasons that we actually got rid of free university education was to decrease demand for university education. I think the entrance scores were quite ridiculously high.

[Big Phil]

The Duchess of Zeon's proposal might need some tweaking, but it has a sound foundation. Your proposal is just outright absurd.

Really? Duchess of Zeon is proposing the Soviet Union, a society that collapsed in less than a century and proved itself to be severely dysfunctional. While ethics of her proposal (universal healthcare, universal education, feed everyone, etc.) are solid and I agree they are noble goals, her approach is completely out of touch with reality. The only way societies of this sort function is with a dictatorial government forcing people to do things with the threat of imprisonment or death. It amazes me that so many people are on a rah-rah, yay communism! yay USSR! bandwagon.

[fgalkin]

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.

Why? Deductions are certainly abused now, but I do not see why they need to be done away with entirely. Why should one be taxed on money one does not have?

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.

No real objection here

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.

This is not only impossible to enforce, but extremely silly. Why? Let's look at the problem closer:

Most people in and above that wealth range usually own several residences in different countries, between which they travel often. This is not done out of decadence, but for tax reasons- by living a certain number of days in a country, they can file as a resident, or a non-resident, whichever is more beneficial to them. They are literally counting the number of days they can spend in a certain place. This is also why so many of them own luxury yachts and spend a significant amount of time on them. They are very serious about this- I know of a person who was almost fired for ccing one such multi-millionaire in a business e-mail, while he was residing in Britain, which enabled the British tax collectors to claim that he was working, and charge an appropriate tax.

Needless to say, these houses are expensive to both purchase and maintain. A fairly modest mansion in London can easily cost in the $20-50 million dollars range, and cost a million a year to maintain (this is based on real figures for a real house, by the way). Now, consider the fact that you need several, plus add travel expenses, and you can see why your $100 million figure is actually nowhere near enough to guarantee the lifestyle your average multi-millionaire is used to maintain.

And now, here comes the fun part- because so many of these people already have a significant international presence, and offshore accounts in different banks in different countries, there is absolutely nothing stopping them from leaving the US and moving, say, to Europe. Naturally, a lot of their properties are valued at much more than $100 million, and thus would be unsellable, unless the government pays for them, and then turns them over to the public, but they will still win enormously by ridding themselves of the insane tax burden you are proposing.

The only people who would not leave are people who actually contribute to the American economy, and are tied to a specific location- Silicon Valley businessmen, Wall Street brokers, Hollywood actors and producers, etc- the people who actually do something to maintain the supremacy of the US economy. And even they will have a very strong incentive to leave and try their luck elsewhere.

Most of these people, DEATH, do not work--they sit at home and watch money accumulate from their investments. Well, big deal, now the government's investing it instead.

Do you have a source for this?

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.

I support inheritance taxes, but maybe 90% is a bit too hight.

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.

Don't forget incentives for skilled immigrant labor to come to the US. The native US intelligentsia is all but dead, thanks to the rampant anti-intellectualism of true "Americans" which makes the country dependant on foreign brainpower.

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.

I am not sure we should LOWER productivity, especially in times of crisis, when we need to rapidly restore and re-organize American industry.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Bilbo]

Really? Duchess of Zeon is proposing the Soviet Union, a society that collapsed in less than a century and proved itself to be severely dysfunctional.

I must have missed where she called for a centralized command economy, state seizure of all industry, and an end to all private investments.

Her proposal sounds more like it was inspired by France, a nation doing pretty well right now, than by the USSR.

So France has an arbitrary wealth cap? Also I do believe that race issues between frogs and muslims is about where black white relations were about 40 years ago.

Yep, definitely a society one wants to copy some while going further over the edge.

[Big Phil]

Really? Duchess of Zeon is proposing the Soviet Union, a society that collapsed in less than a century and proved itself to be severely dysfunctional.

I must have missed where she called for a centralized command economy, state seizure of all industry, and an end to all private investments.

Her proposal sounds more like it was inspired by France, a nation doing pretty well right now, than by the USSR.

It's either inspired by the USSR or revolutionary France, what with the calls for wealth redistribution. Neither of those societies were particularly successful, both of which required a heavy handed government and abuse of the citizenry to maintain control.

That's really the point I'm trying to make - Duchess describes all of the positives of her ideal society without any thought or mention of exactly how it's going to happen. The "government" will do it - okay, but how? I'm guessing using secret police, overt military force, and other abuses that make life oh so pleasant. But it'll all be done in the name of the greater good, so it's okay, right?

[K. A. Pital]

I thought it was more inspired by French dirigisme than USSR or, heaven forbid, "revolutionary France" - a non-industrial revolution somewhere far off into history...

But sure, don't let me interrupt the pathetic wank-criticism by association. The Duchess goes nowhere close to what the USSR was. The USSR didn't have a cap of 100 million on the wealth of capitalists. There were NO capitalists period. The USSR didn't allow industries to run their course while their owners were simply 100% taxed - the USSR had all, or an overwhelming majority of them nationalized, without taxing the owners - their assets were simply nationalized and that's it.

So before you go on criticizing someone's proposal, at least get a fucking clue on what the person is proposing.

[Big Phil]

I thought it was more inspired by French dirigisme than USSR or, heaven forbid, "revolutionary France" - a non-industrial revolution somewhere far off into history...

But sure, don't let me interrupt the pathetic wank-criticism by association. The Duchess goes nowhere close to what the USSR was. The USSR didn't have a cap of 100 million on the wealth of capitalists. There were NO capitalists period. The USSR didn't allow industries to run their course while their owners were simply 100% taxed - the USSR had all, or an overwhelming majority of them nationalized, without taxing the owners - their assets were simply nationalized and that's it.

So before you go on criticizing someone's proposal, at least get a fucking clue on what the person is proposing.

Stas, before you get pissy that someone is criticizing your beloved USSR, think about how the USSR formed. Where did all of the Imperial Russian capitalists, nobility, and other wealthy folks go after the USSR was formed? Did they just hand over their wealth, say they were sorry, and join the proletariat? Or were they killed, exiled, or punished, and their wealth confiscated?

[fgalkin]

I thought it was more inspired by French dirigisme than USSR or, heaven forbid, "revolutionary France" - a non-industrial revolution somewhere far off into history...

But sure, don't let me interrupt the pathetic wank-criticism by association. The Duchess goes nowhere close to what the USSR was. The USSR didn't have a cap of 100 million on the wealth of capitalists. There were NO capitalists period. The USSR didn't allow industries to run their course while their owners were simply 100% taxed - the USSR had all, or an overwhelming majority of them nationalized, without taxing the owners - their assets were simply nationalized and that's it.

So before you go on criticizing someone's proposal, at least get a fucking clue on what the person is proposing.

She's proposing a utopia which, like all other utopias is unattainable. Not because it's ZOMG TEH SOCIALISM!, but because it's simply unworkable, and will massively hurt the US economy, to boot (not to mention me personally- I will most certainly lose my current job then).

Stas, before you get pissy that someone is criticizing your beloved USSR, think about how the USSR formed. Where did all of the Imperial Russian capitalists, nobility, and other wealthy folks go after the USSR was formed? Did they just hand over their wealth, say they were sorry, and join the proletariat? Or were they killed, exiled, or punished, and their wealth confiscated?

What the fuck does that have to do with anything?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Big Phil]

snip

This is the United States - we're stubborn and contrary just for the sake of it. Even when politicians try and promise us beneficial things like universal healthcare, 45% of the country opposes it. Whether you like it or not, a cap on personal wealth is a radical idea - it's not one that's ever been tried in a successful society.

[Big Phil]

Stas, before you get pissy that someone is criticizing your beloved USSR, think about how the USSR formed. Where did all of the Imperial Russian capitalists, nobility, and other wealthy folks go after the USSR was formed? Did they just hand over their wealth, say they were sorry, and join the proletariat? Or were they killed, exiled, or punished, and their wealth confiscated?

What the fuck does that have to do with anything?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Stas is saying that the USSR can't possibly be the model because of its command economy and lack of wealthy folks - there were no millionaires in the USSR in the 1960's and 1970's because their money was taken away from them in the 1920's.

[fgalkin]

Stas, before you get pissy that someone is criticizing your beloved USSR, think about how the USSR formed. Where did all of the Imperial Russian capitalists, nobility, and other wealthy folks go after the USSR was formed? Did they just hand over their wealth, say they were sorry, and join the proletariat? Or were they killed, exiled, or punished, and their wealth confiscated?

What the fuck does that have to do with anything?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Stas is saying that the USSR can't possibly be the model because of its command economy and lack of wealthy folks - there were no millionaires in the USSR in the 1960's and 1970's because their money was taken away from them in the 1920's.

Yes, and? His point is that Marina's proposal is not Soviet-style communism, which of course it isn't. I don't see how repressions of the 20s have anything to do with anything.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[TheKwas]

I thought it was more inspired by French dirigisme than USSR or, heaven forbid, "revolutionary France" - a non-industrial revolution somewhere far off into history...

But sure, don't let me interrupt the pathetic wank-criticism by association. The Duchess goes nowhere close to what the USSR was. The USSR didn't have a cap of 100 million on the wealth of capitalists. There were NO capitalists period. The USSR didn't allow industries to run their course while their owners were simply 100% taxed - the USSR had all, or an overwhelming majority of them nationalized, without taxing the owners - their assets were simply nationalized and that's it.

So before you go on criticizing someone's proposal, at least get a fucking clue on what the person is proposing.

Stas, before you get pissy that someone is criticizing your beloved USSR, think about how the USSR formed. Where did all of the Imperial Russian capitalists, nobility, and other wealthy folks go after the USSR was formed? Did they just hand over their wealth, say they were sorry, and join the proletariat? Or were they killed, exiled, or punished, and their wealth confiscated?

He's not getting prissy that you're criticizing the USSR, he's mocking you for not understanding the fundamental difference between a social democracy (with, omg, high taxes for the rich) and Soviet Communism (where 'the rich' doesn't refer to anyone), and he's perfectly right in doing so.

Furthermore, I haven't heard ANYTHING from Duchess about a revolutionary uprising or anything of that radical sort. She's outlying a society she thinks would be ideal and hasn't even outlined a way she would like such a society implemented, meaning that you're jumping to unfounded conclusions based on what you want her to say to make your side of the argument easier (and nothing is easier to an American than comparing your opponent to a pinko-commie, we've already seen it numerous times in this thread).

As far as I can tell, it sounds more like the Duchess would like a slow incremental progression towards such a society, sorta like how France, Sweden, and Finland moved towards very similar societies. Perhaps slowly increasing tax rates until they reach the level she views optimal? Perhaps, instead of being a mumbling ass that makes wild speculations (along with outright false claims), why not just ask Duchess to clarify? In fact, I myself plan on doing just that.



Duchess and fellow proponents of Duchess's society: Why is there a need for a wealth cap if there is also a 90% inheritance tax on the very rich? Wouldn't that serve essentially the same purpose? I mean, if one man gathers a personal fortune of 500 million in his own lifetime, he really has no chance to spend it on himself anyways and society can wait for his death before putting that money more directly to public good, plus the savvy businessmen has more incentive to continue to grow his personal fortune (which is probably also growing the economy as a whole). As long as his children and grandchild don't become outrageous millionaires themselves and create an aristocracy class, is it really that important to claim that wealth during the individuals lifetime rather than later?

Furthermore, I would predict that an inheritance tax would go over much better politically and socially, as you're not taking the current rich people's money and facing their political wrath to the same extent.

[K. A. Pital]

Or were they killed, exiled, or punished, and their wealth confiscated?

That's exactly my point, Sanchez. Marina proposed a rather generous wealth cap on the rich. 100 million USD. In the USSR, the very existence of a capitalist was impossible. My point was that Marina's model is rather far from the Soviet command economy.

She's proposing a utopia which, like all other utopias is unattainable.

Wait. Is Marina really proposing a utopia, or a working model of a nation-state? No one said her nationstate would be perfect and free from any negative sides. No one said all of her mechanisms would work perfectly.

For example, yes, the wealth cap on the rich might cause them to move out their capitals. On the other hand, perhaps it would be good to wipe out the speculators and leave only people who are conscious enough to invest in the domestic economy regardless of whether it's more or less profitable than offshores.

I never said Marina's proposals would work perfectly. But they are all technically feasible policies, legally implementable. Maybe not now, maybe not in the US of A. However, could one imagine such a society existing and working - in a reasonably imperfect fashion, with downsides as well as upsides? Of course yes.

A reasonable debate would evaluate the upsides and downsides of Marina's social engineering, not just say "it's an utopia and so won't work". Just sayin.

As far as I can tell, it sounds more like the Duchess would like a slow incremental progression towards such a society, sorta like how France, Sweden, and Finland moved towards very similar societies

I always thought it was a model of a democratic socialist / social democratic low-GINI society. Apparently people don't realize that most social democratic nations, at peak of their dirigisme strategies, channeled enormous amounts of wealth redistribution to attain very low GINI rates (in the vinicity of 30), and highly taxed the super rich and the rich in general.

If people have a beef with low-GINI societies that have attained this social equality by other measures than popular revolution and forcible nationalization (Second World), I wonder why? After all, Finland is a far better, more socially developed and more just society than the US of A.

[SirNitram]

snip

This is the United States - we're stubborn and contrary just for the sake of it. Even when politicians try and promise us beneficial things like universal healthcare, 45% of the country opposes it. Whether you like it or not, a cap on personal wealth is a radical idea - it's not one that's ever been tried in a successful society.

Incorrect. This is SDN: It's got folks from all over, and we endorse logic, not the farcical nonsense of 'I see a single comparison I can make directly to the USSR, this invalidates your idea entirely' fallacies.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The Duchess of Zeon's proposal might need some tweaking, but it has a sound foundation. Your proposal is just outright absurd.

Really? Duchess of Zeon is proposing the Soviet Union, a society that collapsed in less than a century and proved itself to be severely dysfunctional. While ethics of her proposal (universal healthcare, universal education, feed everyone, etc.) are solid and I agree they are noble goals, her approach is completely out of touch with reality. The only way societies of this sort function is with a dictatorial government forcing people to do things with the threat of imprisonment or death. It amazes me that so many people are on a rah-rah, yay communism! yay USSR! bandwagon.

Marina's proposal is NOT the Soviet system at any real level. Even absolute wealth caps (as unrealistic as they are) are not definitive of the USSR, and were not the cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union. I thought that this kind of OH NOEZ TEH COMMIEHS was the kind of Joe Sixpack agitprop I wouldn't encounter on SD.net.

[Big Phil]

You know what - fuck it. Issue dropped. Duchess' plan for wealth redistribution aside, her ideas make a lot more sense than what we've got now.

[Broomstick]

Now that I've had a couple days to digest the proposal, and some time to compose a reply, I'm going down the list/recapping the original proposal.

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.

I'm OK with this progressive income tax. I presume there would continue to be other flat taxes such as sales taxes or perhaps luxury taxes and so on.

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.

I question that it needs to be 10%. In the US this would require quite a bit of restructuring due to the use of sales taxes for local governments. As with most Marina proposals, the implication is a strong central government.

Alternatively, there could be sales taxes apportioned to various levels of government. For example, the national government might get 5% and state/province 3% and local municipalities 2%. This would have the effect of providing more income proportionally for high population areas. People living in a rural areas might not pay city sales taxes, but they would also face greater costs in regards to food and goods transportation to their locations so this may all work out in the end. Rural people do not enjoy city amenities, after all.

All tax brackets would be increased by 10,000 USD for your first child, and 5,000 USD for each child after that.

Personally, I'd like to see a flat 10K for each child. If the reduction for subsequent children is a subtle population control then I'd suggest 10K for the first, 5K for the second, 2.5K for the third, and none for subsequent children. If you want a large family, fine, but you pay for it, the government/society will not subsidize it.

Upon reflection, I don't think parents should be penalized for multiple births, so perhaps this would be better expressed as 10K for each child of the first pregnancy, 5K for each child of the second pregnancy, etc.

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.

I oppose a personal wealth cap. As I stated previously, I think this would be better served by limiting the inheritance of heirs. I have nothing against people acquiring wealth in their lifetime due to hard work (and contrary to what Marina has state, I don't think the self-made super-rich are sitting at home on their assets - we have billionaires like Paul McCartney who continue to work although clearly they do not need to do so.) I think we have to allow some wealth to be handed down to heirs, but there should be some incentive for healthy adults to work. Perhaps spouses should get a larger share (or the entire estate), and a higher amount allowed for disabled dependents.

Joint filing of taxes would of course be abolished, as it would no longer be relevant.

So.... if someone is a stay at home parent they're screwed? I think joint filing would have a role for such instances as stay at home parents who most certainly do contribute to the overall family situation Or perhaps this would become a means of indicating head of household for dependent adults (disabled, stay-at-home-parents, elderly parents, etc.) Single filing for adults with an outside income makes some sense.

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).

Why just charities? Why not allow investment in business, since that most certainly provides jobs for other people? Why not allow investment in scientific research? Energy generation? Mass transit? Educational resources? Basically, you want extreme wealth to be used rather than just sitting, and used for the benefit of society, right? So allow these tax shelters for a variety of enterprises rather than just charities.

Inheritance would be taxed at 90% with property valued up to 5 million USD per designated heir and family personal possessions exempted.

I'd rather just allow people to give their heirs a designated amount (sure, let's say 5 million) without that inheritance being taxed, but anything above that can not be passed on and goes to the state.

There may be issues with, say, art collections or the like. Perhaps there can be a mechanism whereby heirs can argue such a collection should remain intact. While there is much merit to forcing public display, some items we have exist only because they were preserved by private collectors.

The next item is quite a laundry list:

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.

You realize the energy conversion will take some time, right?

I question if electrification is appropriate for ALL railroads. Certainly it can work in urban areas, but across large areas of largely uninhabited territory it may be more sensible to rely on fuel-carrying engines rather than electrification.

Again, the transition to hybrid/clean tech vehicles will take time. Will you provide a subsidy to those of lower income to either convert or replace their vehicles? I realize you wish to force everyone to mass transit, but again, outside of urban areas that won't be cost-effective and it might be cheaper to subsidize a conversion to more efficient personal vehicles. Also, some professions may not pay much but might require personal transportation rather than mass transit and such people should not be penalized.

I am, of course, in favor of universal single-payer insurance, which has been demonstrated to work in other places.

Guaranteeing housing and food are good ideas. The housing/food must be adequate, but not luxurious as we do not want to give incentive for people to stay on the dole who don't have to.

Public university costs: Yes, make people pay for their books and other "consumables". High performing students should qualify for scholarships not from a particular university but from the government to cover transportation and other expenses incurred if attendance at the school of their choice requires travel/relocation as well as tuition. However, I think your $10/credit hour is too small. I'd say $100/credit hour. This would be covered by scholarship for high-performing students. Alternatively, if someone doesn't want to pay tuition they can pledge service to the government - such and such period of time for each credit hour. This could be military service, but we don't need a massive military and not all people are able/suited to military service anyhow. Therefore, other means of serving should be available. I'm thinking, as an example, of the several years of service my college roommate gave by using her doctor skills in undeserved rural areas in return for the government subsidizing her medical school costs. Thus, students have three choices: bust your ass and get a scholarship, pledge a term of service, or pay up front. Or a combination of the above. I would also say this program should be applied to things such as trade schools as well as traditional universities. This would enable even the poorest people to get a quality education as well as encouraging a wide variety of education so those not suited to academics can still receive appropriate training. Society needs plumbers as well as doctors.

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.

Why are you offering subsidies to those making such large sums?

I'd say the use of housing credits and food stamps should be used to guarantee a floor beneath which a person can't fall. Realistically, I'd say $200/month in food stamps ($100/month would be a challenge for me to live on, and I have a full kitchen, storage room, and the knowledge/ability to cook from scratch) for the rock bottom, gradually reduced as you go up the income ladder. Likewise, $800/month towards housing (which with I include utilities) for the bottom, gradually rising. So, hypothetically, someone with no income whatsoever would have $600 to spend on housing, $200 for personal items (soap, deodorant, laundry, clothes, transportation, etc.) and $200 for food, or $1000/month. For anything else they would have to do something to earn income or seek charity.

For the disabled or those not working in old age I'd increase all amounts by 50% as those categories incur higher costs, and housing credits could be used, for example, for modifying the home to accommodate physical problems or hiring someone to cook or clean house occasionally as these would be people who couldn't be expected to perform these tasks as well as the able-bodied, and to allow for special diets that might be required.

Note that, for the parent whose child turns 18 and loses the child tax adjustment, the child would acquire the $1000/month living allowance enabling the young adult to either strike out on their own or to stay home and contribute towards the family household. Destitute elderly would likewise be contributing to the household.

Any amount of these credits NOT spent will go into a savings account, to be held for 3 months. At the end of three months they will be released to the person to use however they wish, as a means to encourage savings even among the poor. Thus, someone thrifty enough to find housing for only $500/month and spend only $150 on food for a month will have a net gain of $150 for that month, collected three months later. This will encourage savings, as I said, but can also encourage pooling of resources and cooperation with others which I view as a social good.

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 would agree that $100 additional food stamps should be provided per child. For infants, mothers could use this towards formula, or towards their own diet if they are breastfeeding as lactating women do have higher nutritional and caloric requirements than non-lactating women. At 12, the food stamp allotment for children should rise to $150 for the teen years as teens do eat more than adults and nutrition is critical at that stage.

For dependents, the housing credits may need to be tweaked, but I don't think crowding people is healthy and a larger number in the household requires more space which costs more. Additionally, elderly and disabled people may require assistance around the house and in those cases housing credits might be reasonably put towards hiring such assistance. (This would be separate from medically necessary assistance)

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.

There is merit here, but what about the self-employed? Would we subsidize them taking leave or vacation? How would we do that? Certainly, a self-employed woman who takes maternity leave would at least have the "floor" to depend on, but should there be more? Or should those who are self-employed have the responsibility of saving up for such circumstances?

[Colonel Olrik]

Going back to the holidays topic and to give an example of what engineers in Germany can expect, my official job description is of a research Engineer with three/four years seniority. I get 30 days of paid vacation besides the days the company closes in the Christmas period, and have a 40 hours/week work time which is taken seriously and cannot be exceeded. Which means that overtime accumulates and has to be taken as vacations (As a result, my Christmas break will start next Wednesday instead of Friday).

My salary is quite adequate and I'm pleased with the fact that due to a mostly free education I have no debt to speak of. Its true that I'd be receiving more money in the US, mainly due to much lower taxes, but I prefer a thousand times the free time and if I had a kid/stay at home wife my tax bracket would be much lower - I'd be easily getting more than €1000 extra a month.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Two comments to Broomstick:

1. I realized the housing/food credit extended out much to far after some thought, and made a later revision progressively pulling it back (since eliminating it all at once would act like an additional tax). We might be able to adjust somewhat the values for the rollback.

2. Self-employed people are a somewhat serious issue, and I'd like to hear what some of our Swedes say about how they're handled in Sweden.

[Bilbo]

You know this is Duchess we are talking about. She once advocated a vote to determine if Northern Ireland should be forced to rejoin the rest of Ireland.

Now this would never work right? Because Northren Ireland likes the way things are you say and would not vote to join the rest of Ireland.

Well Duchess had a solution. She was going to allow every person in Ireland and in Northern Ireland vote on this issue. Since the Irish Republic has the larger population and wants to merge the pro-merge vote would swamp the vote of those in Northern Ireland. Basically she wanted to give outsiders the right to vote on an issue about Northern Ireland so that the vote went the way she wanted.

That is how she thinks. So when she trots out some new plans of her remember in the end people do not matter in her thinking. What matters is what she thinks is right and if she was given a chance she would find the way to manipulate thinkgs so that the vote was rigged her way.

[Coyote]

Smells like a bit of a vendetta, too.

[Stark]

Damn people pointing out how Zeon's simpleminded plans are unworkable and absurd.

The guy doesn't actually SAY you should disregard her arguments based on her personal qualities (although this is clearly his suggestion). He simply provided an example of her simpleminded plans being unworkable. Calling that a 'vendetta' (unless he's done it before) would be like banning everyone who rolls their eyes at Shep's predictable simplemindedness