Taxes

There is always talk going on about taxes and how much (if any) should being paid, where and to whom...

I've been tossing an idea out for a while and thought there may be some who wanted to discuss it...

First off... this isn't a discussion of IF there should be taxes... or to which level of government or anything like that, this is just about income taxes alone.

The starting point for this is the pverty level in an area... in otherwords, whatever it is that is determined to be the minimum to live on for that area.

This varies greatly, not only by place, but also by how it is defined.

For this purpose we will say that it is the level that a person requires to have basic needs of shelter, food, light, heat, electricity and communications.

We'll just pick a number and say that is $2000.00 per month.

So, the poverty line we will be using is 24,000.00 per year.

Anyone who makes under that amount, gets a guarenteed income supplement to bring their income up to that level.

Anyone making above the poverty level, up to double of it, doesn't recieve the GIS or pay income taxes.

Beyond the 2x poverty level, a person starts paying 1% per 10,000 that they make above it up to a maximum of 50% for income above 548,000 per year.

Note that I don't mean a person slides up 'tax brackets' and gets taxed more on the lower amounts... To make it clearer (lol, I hope);

48k to 58k/year = 1% of 10k or $100/year
58k to 68k/yr = 1% of 10k (100) plus 2% of 10k (200) so $300.00/year
68k to 78k/yr = 1% of 10k (100), 2% of 10k (200), plus 3% of 10k (300), so $600/year
78k to 88k/yr = $600 plus 4% of 10k (400) so $1000/year
88k to 98k/yr = $1000 + 5% of 10k (500) so $1500/year
98 to 108k/yr = $1500 + 600 = $2100/year
108 to 118k/yr = 2100 + 700 = $2800/year
118 to 128k/yr = 2800 +800 = $3600/year
128 to 138k/yr = 3600 + 900 = $4500/year
138 to 148k/yr = 4500 + 1000 = $5500/year
.148 to 158k/yr = 5500 + 1100 = $6600
158 to 168k/yr = 6600 + 1200 = $7800
168 to 178k/yr = 7800 + 1300 = $9100
178 to 188k/yr = 9100 + 1400 = 10500
188 to 198k/yr =10500 + 1500= 12000
198 to 208k/yr =12000+1600=13600
208 to 218k/yr =13600+1700=15400
218 to 228k/yr =15400+1800=17200
228 to 238k/yr =17200+1900=19100
238 to 248k/yr =19100+2000=21100
248 to 258k/yr =21100+2100=23200
258 to 268k/yr =23200+2200=25400
268 to 278k/yr =25400+2300=27700
278 to 288k/yr =27700+2400=30100
288 to 298k/yr =30100+2500=32600
298 to 308k/yr =32600+2600=35200
308 to 318k/yr =35200+2700=37900
318 to 328k/yr =37900+2800=40700
328 to 338k/yr =40700+2900=43600
338 to 348k/yr =43600+3000=46600
348 to 358k/yr =46600+3100=49700
358 to 368k/yr =49700+3200=52900
368 to 378k/yr =52900+3300=56200
378 to 388k/yr =56200+3400=59600
388 to 398k/yr =59600+3500=63100
398 to 408k/yr =63100+3600=66700
408 to 418k/yr =66700+3700=70400
418 to 428k/yr =70400+3800=74200
428 to 438k/yr =74200+3900=78100
438 to 448k/yr =78100+4000=82100
448 to 458k/yr =82100+4100=86200
458 to 468k/yr =86200+4200=90400
468 to 478k/yr =90400+4300=94700
478 to 488k/yr =94700+4400=99100
488 to 498k/yr =99100+4500=103600
498 to 508k/yr =103600+4600=108200
508 to 518k/yr =108200+4700=112900
518 to 528k/yr =112900+4800=117700
528 to 538k/yr =117700+4900=122600
538 to 548k/yr = 122600+5000=127600


Anyone over that level would be paying 50% on whatever was beyond the 548k per year point.

Here is my reasoning behind this...

Everyone is a part of making a society work. Even those who aren't working, for whatever reason that may be. The volutary co-operation of everyone in society is needed to keep things running smoothly.

There is a reason that the saying "a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link" is a common one, and it applies to societies as well.

Leaving people in a situation where they have to battle for survival, while expecting them to honor societal structure and norms, is insane, and will always lead to what we have in the world... namely a huge imbalance that is causing society to tear itself apart constantly.

The more income you have, the more it is dependant upon other people, both in terms of them contributing to your income (by working for, under or with you), and those who are not trying to take it from you in order to survive.

I realize there will be those that will suggest that if people don't have to work to survive, they won't...

That ignores the nature of humans...

Everyone always wants something more then they have... some of us control those urges greatly, others embrace them... That is a personal choice.

However, making sure that people don't have to worry about survival, means they are free to co-operate with each other AND follow their passions in life.

How many Davincis or Einsteins or Hawkins do we lose in the world everyday due to issues that would mostly disappear if survival needs were insured for everyone?

Even for those who chose to stay home and live on the bare minimum and do nothing, are contributing to society by remaining peaceful.

Most will still want to have more then that, and will CHOOSE to work in order to earn more to have more, that will always be true.

Anyway... let's hear what you all have to think about this.

Note, if you feel that there should be NO income taxes, no social services and so on, please stay out of the conversation as this is about HAVING those things, not about wether or not we should.

 

Maybe I'm not understanding it correctly but people who choose to do nothing will get a GSI of $24,000 a year?

I guess I am caught with the above question as it seems that if that is the case then it would throw the whole thing out of whack.

 

Throw the whole thing out of wack?

Re-read it then, because you obviously didn't the first time...

 

The idea makes sense to me.

but I don't think it would make sense to many, in my country at least. The wealthy in the United States think the lower classes are declaring class warfare on them simply by asking them to pay an equal percentage of income taxes. I don't think the wealthy would take well to being asked to pay a larger percentage of their income, especially if the income of the lowest income bracket was being supplemented as an equalizer.

Perhaps the attitude would be different in Canada and parts of Europe where citizens are used to paying a higher tax for more social services already.

 

You didn't answer the question..

 

There are A LOT of people who would be in poverty level.

Where does the money come from to supplement all of it.
Seems like all the income tax money would be paying for the supplements.
I guess that would work. I wouldn't mind that one bit really.

There are many in this country that can't stand somebody "getting something for nothing" though.

I like your idea of people getting to pursue what they really want to do instead of busting their ass working multiple minimum wage jobs to just survive.

It is a shame how many are in the cycle of living paycheck to paycheck and cannot afford to even build up any savings.

 

Your question was answered in the first post.

If you are unable to understand that, I can't help you.

 

Can't we all just get along?

 

Well, I don't expect that the wealthy would like it... I imagine there responses would be along the same line of 'Let them eat cake'...

When the people stand up and say; enough is enough, the wealthy are getting rich off the efforts and co-operation of us, and unless it is equaled out, they will no longer get that co-operation.

I have no problems with people making profit and getting rich, unless it is done at the cost of making others starve and die.

As for those who think that there is going to be a huge drain on resources to make up the gis, that just shows that they have little concept of how people really are. To think that doing this would encourage people to do nothing but collect it and leave it up to those who are wealthy to pay it all, is ignoring that people by nature, want better lives for themselves and their children.

This would level out the playing field so that people wouldn't be trapped into situations that no person should be in without restricting how far someone could rise.

As for the acceptance... the first part, they would have no problem accepting compared to what their reaction would be to me saying that everyone should be treated as individuals (ie, getting married or divorced doesn't change your tax status) and corporations can no longer claim income to have special circumstances and equal (or greater) standing then people.

Something I find funny about those who wish to claim that this wouldn't work... They seem to be more then happy with the idea of having those same people they wont let have enough to keep them out of poverty at (in the example) 24k, being tossed in jail for 80k + per year...

 

I like.

But in instituting it, you could expect hordes of people below the poverty line speaking out in rage, on behalf of the 548k-ers......

 

You mean that ARE below the poverty level?

 

As far as a progressive tax system goes, I like your formula and your reasons for it.

 

Thats the part that I can never understand...

 

I was going to bring up that point as well.

That line of reasoning (or lack thereof) blows my mind

 

No, I was just typing in hypotheticals since that is what this tax formula is.

 

Just to make sure that I understand completely:


Using your example / system an annual income of 100k would be taxed $1620.(?)

And, what of those who choose to do nothing?

 

that tax rate is WAAAAYYYYYYYYYYY to high for the upper class

 

Just to be clear... those who don't have the ability to read... I shall just ignore.

Do you have some reasoning to go with that?

 

OK, I'm stupid and illiterate. Now can you just answer the freaking question?

 

I'm guessing you flip burgers, but want to make sure that some day, when you're manager of your very own McDonalds, you don't have to pay no income subsidies for those flipping burgers under your command.

They get a 24k check in the mail.