Here are a few modest proposals that would fix most of our problems

[pscot]

1 Lift the cap on social security earnings to $200,000.

2 Raise the income tax rate on high earners to 50%.

3 Put a 50 cent tax on motor fuel.

4 Pull out of Iraq.

These simple actions would restore the dollar, improve our credit, shore up social security, reassure our friends around the world and reduce energy consumption while balancing the budget and providing capital for infrastructure, health care and large scale mass transit. Y'all can work out the details, I'm going to go have breakfast. Later I'll share my plan to solve the Israel-Palestine problem.

[bobbolink]

1. I'm ever so relieved to know that homelessness isn't a "problem".

Thanks for thinking of us.

[pscot]

4. Truly sorry

Homelessness is essentialy a local problem, but my plan generates enough cash to provide generous subsidies to local government programs. We should be able to build 200,000 urban and suburban apartment units in 2 years, plus 100,000 detached rural units. This will not only house the homeless, it will give a much-needed lift to the construction industry.

[bobbolink]

6. You are WRONG. But, that's such a good way to dismiss all of us who are homeless.

HOMELESSNESS is, in large part, an epidemic because HUD (A FEDERAL program!) haas been slashed over 65% in 25 years.

Giving "lifts" to industry is one of the big causes of homelessness.

Maybe someday it will hit you close enough to matter.

[Midlodemocrat]

11. Nice. Wishing homelessness on someone is very progressive.

:eyes:

[Warpy]

15. Been there.

I don't think there's any rage to compare with being out on the street and seeing the closed up residences of people who have multiple homes across the globe.

You're right about HUD. It's going to get worse as the mortgage mess continues to escalate. Eventually even the most hard hearted banker is going to realize it's to his advantage to keep foreclosed properties occupied, but in the near future, you're going to have a lot of company out on the street.

[robinlynne]

2. lol. Thanks!

[Selatius]

3. Actually, I think the tax rate should be higher to boost spending on social programs.

I'm thinking of returning to the 60 or 70 percent tax rate for income earners 500,000 or higher. I also think unearned income should be taxed the same as earned income beyond the first 500,000 in a year. This tax bracket should also be allowed to float with the rate of inflation.

With the extra revenue, more Pell Grants can be given to more students. More money would be available to job training programs. More money would be available to public schools. Money would be there for a transition to universal health care, although I don't think Congress is going to adopt single-payer health care anytime soon. We could start paying down the debt, investing money in alternative energy, offset the rising cost of gasoline with an expanded food stamp program, etc.

[riverdeep]

7. I don't know.

George Carlin had a line something to the effect "The government loves the middle class. The poor don't have shit to take. But the rich are slippery bastards."

Something tells me you raise the rate on taxation of income, and they'd find a way around. Like, just leaving.

[bobbolink]

17. One time where Carlin is wrong.

So many people now, including "liberals", think sales taxes are just wunnnnerful.

it takes much more from poor folk than for muddleclass.

[Selatius]

18. They could, but then they'd be abandoning a customer base of millions in the US.

Not a smart idea from a business stand-point, unless your customer base is largely external to the United States, for example, like selling arms in war zones in Africa and the Middle East.

[riverdeep]

19. I'm confused, I though we were talking about personal income, not corporate.

I don't see any reason why, especially in this age of telecommunication, the rich have to legally reside in their primary market. Commute in and out, sure, but reside?

[Selatius]

20. I include both corporate and individual, since corporations are considered individuals as well.

Even if we're dealing with a flesh and blood person, he could move out of the country, but if he's getting his paycheck from selling in the US market, his money comes under taxation regardless of where he lives.

[JackintheGreen]

9. I'm comfortable with higher taxes, but not with this

I do so hate to take a repug line of this, but if a $500K earner is netting, quite literally, what a $250K earner is, what could possibly drive her/him to do it? People work harder and
longer in this society because at a certain level of white-collar work it is materially rewarded. They certainly do NOT do it so that they can give more to the least among us. What would likely happen is that corporations who wish to continue to grossly overpay their execs would further offshore or find other loopholes for the top 5% of their employees/directors.

There have to be better ways lessen the gap between the least and the most among us.

[Jim__]

16. Why do you think a $500K earner would be netting the same as a $250K earner?

I assume we are talking marginal tax rates which is how the US income tax is currently structured. A $500K earner would net the same as a $250K earner on his first $250K of income. He'd only pay the higher rates on income above that. For instance, if the 50% rate took effect at $500K, then the $500K earner would only pay 50% on his last dollar earned. He'd net much more than the $250K earner.

[pscot]

21. You may be right, Jack

The highest rate during the Clinton years was about 40%, and that seemed to be effective. Nominal corporate income taxes are already pretty hig, so I wouldn't mess with those. European countries rely heavily on VAT, which is essentially a sales tax, and on much higher payroll taxes (SSI) on employers. Either one of those would be a tough sell here.

[pscot]

10. I considered returning to the 86% rates of the Eisenhowr years

but decided that was unnecessary, considering the huge increase in the number of rich people today. And we will be taxing the earnings of hedge fund managers as regular income. In addition, the IRS will be given adequate staff to go after tax shirkers and evaders, and we will be actively pursuing earnings illegaly sequestered in off shore tax havens such as the Cayman Islands.

[riverdeep]

12. Already you're conceding that for this to work it's dependent on many other things.

To make even the things you describe happen, you need someone in there who would want to do those things. That means someone who isn't bought and paid for, that means election reform and strong public financing.

Maybe it'll happen, but considering that rich people have been figuring ways around everything for centuries, I doubt it.

[jlake]

5. Re the Social Security tax

Everyone says we should raise the limit to this number or that.
I think we should make it a progressive tax. 1% under 25,000/year and the higher your income the higher percentage you pay.
It is ridiculous that the middle class often pay ss tax on their full incomes while the wealthy pay it on only a fraction.
The rate should be 10% for people making millions a year....but I do think that income tax should max out at 50%.

[TahitiNut]

22. The basic problem is that the payroll tax base is shrinking.

Not only are the number of people paying the payroll tax NOT increasing with the population, the PAY they receive is not keeping pace with inflation.

It's a supply-side problem - not enough people in the "lower 90%" being employed and thos who are are getting less.

Raising the 'cap' only masks the systemic issue of our steady slide into "plantation economics" and the "elimination of the middle class."

One of the BEST things we can do for Social Security is raise the Federal Minimum Wage.

If there were another "best thing" ... it'd be enacting a 2% sales tax on the sale or trade of stock - corporate equities - and depositing that in the OASDI/HI Trust Funds. It's the property that can be bought and sold without a sales tax. That's fucking insane.

[WinkyDink]

8. The point about SS is not to raise the cap; it is to tax FROM THE TOP DOWN, and THEN

putting in a cap.

[Warpy]

13. First, get Social Security overpayments out of the general fund

Nothing you do to raise the cap or increase the rates will have any effect at all until you do that. We're already paying enough in OASDI to allow Congress to scrape 40% off the top to disguise the true effect of tax cuts to the richest. Removing overpayments from the general fund would mean that they could be used within the system, itself, both to insure future payouts and to shore up Medicare.

Raising the top marginal rate is an absolute necessity, but why not make it a truly progressive tax with confiscatory rates for those greedy CEOs who are looting companies while they stiff their employees? This alone will improve the standing of the dollar as pressure is taken off the money supply by the ever increasing Federal debt.

Considering how much of the inflation Washington says we're not experiencing is coming from increased fuel costs, your gas tax is a bad idea. If the dollar ever improves to the point that we're lusting over H2s to drive every day from the exurbs, THAT is the time to impose such a tax. It would be unconscionably inflationary now.

Pulling out of Iraq is essential, both for them and for us.

[Jade Fox]

14. But, but.....

These are very complex issues, and we must debate them endlessly before making tiny, ineffectual changes, dontcha know?:sarcasm:

I was thinking last night, while watching the GOP debates, about how impossible it seems to make the smallest, commonsense decisions these days that would improve our collective lives.

[pscot]

23. That's the beauty part of this plan

I deliberately kept it simple, so the average guy can understand it. If Congress drags their feet we just take it to the streets and sell it. We tell folks all their problems will be solved by this plan. Once the people are behind it it can't lose.