is AN idiot. Only an idiot would write "A idiot."
This is a good example of why education should be free and available to even idiots.
I don't think your math works out. For a 15% tax to yield $20,000 per household would imply an average household AGI (adjusted gross income -- i.e., after all deductions, including personal exemptions) of $133,333 per year. That implies an actual gross income of closer to $150,000 for your math to work. According to the last US census, the average household income is closer to $50,000. So you really need a 40% tax to make your equation balance. That means, your proposal benefits any household making less than $50K, hurts all households making more than $50K, with those making exactly $50K breaking even.
BTW, in order to fund all government programs without cuts, the 15% tax has to be on top of current tax rates. So someone currently in the 15% tax bracket would have to pay a marginal tax of 30%. Notably, the rich already pay a much higher tax rate than 15%.
Corporations have to pay income tax,but are not households. Try again. ;p
A 15% tax on 17 trillion GDP would allow something just North of $21,000 per household.
What is a Black Swan? “A black swan, when it arrives, cannot even be recognized as a black swan. When the black swan assaults us, with the wing beats of some rapist Jupiter, then we must rewrite history.”
_Bruce Sterling
Senior-Lazarus_Long wrote:
A 15% tax on 17 trillion GDP would allow something just North of $21,000 per household.
Taxing GDP is just a sleight of hand accounting trick. pt22064 is correct your bullshit math doesn't work. But I'll tell you what Mr Wealthredistribution, how about mandatory sterilization for anybody opting to accept the government thievery of the rest of the population. If you're too dumb, lazy or unmotivated to figure a way to feed and house yourself with all the opportunity and free education available in the US at least keep them from having kids to make more lazy dumb unmotivated people (probably the reason they are in poverty to start with, having children they couldnt afford or being a child someone couldn't afford). As for those already with children, you could not opt the kids in and collect their payment as well and anyone having a child 10 months after the law passed is ineligible without adoption. Id accept those conditions for your new tax.
I would prefer mandatory sterilization of anyone who makes more than $250,000. They are the thieves. The math works fine. Milton Friedman worked it out in the 1970s,and got a Nobel prize for his efforts.
Honestly I don't give a shit what you think of me. Everybody born has an opportunity to make as much of themselves as possible and we all must live with the consequences of our decisions. But you two want to change that and make everybody else responsible for the poor choices made by some. I have lived with dirt poor people and millionaires so your consdecending chastising of me and what I know of people bothers me not a whit. You know nothing about me. Because somebody makes a success of themselves you want to punish them and reward those that don't. I do believe your good intentions are typical of most modern socialists. Misguided, inaccurate and foolish but that is what defines socialists.
Besides I thought you lefties would like the population control aspect of my idea. Less people to pollute, crowd and ruin the earth but then again fewer useful idiots to perpetuate your economic nonsense.
.
.
.
I would prefer mandatory sterilization of anyone who makes more than $250,000. They are the thieves. The math works fine. Milton Friedman worked it out in the 1970s,and got a Nobel prize for his efforts.
I just wanted to clarify things. I said sterilization as a condition IF one CHOOSES to accept the government minimum based on the fact that if you cant take care of yourself you should not be responsible for raising children. You said MANDATORY sterilization based on how successful you are and how much your salary is. Now WHO has the fucked up perception of the world?
. that's for you punk.
Im thinking the OP and you are one in the same just to make it look like there is someone that agrees with you.
you claim my mind cant comprehend why your stupid plan wont work but your stupid plan doesn't make everyone a millionaire either. In fact instead of everyone having at least a chance of succeeding, your nonsense makes sure everyone is poor. And you display your ignorance brilliantly everytime you call me a pos. Please, resume your name calling it's very entertaining. And just so everyone knows, THIS IS WHAT YOU GET IF YOU VOTE FOR BERNIE. This clown is a rabid bernie supporter and if you follow his idiocy, you'll soon be in shakles for disagreeing with the standard state issued propaganda.
This forces us to first see the individualistic question "How can everyone (every individual) get good jobs," rather than "How can we ensure that society is running smoothly and everyone is taken care of?"
We want jobs because we want everyone to be taken care of, to have a good standard of living.
My point is, what if we have the ability to provide a good standard of living for everyone but there simply aren't enough "good" jobs for everyone?
In the current capitalist society this is a problem. It means the rich benefit from our great standard of living but those with low-pay work or no work are left to suffer at no fault of their own - a fault of the system being able to provide, yet refusing to out of stubborn, outdated values.
In a socialist society, it is a good thing.
The socialist society still rewards work, just creates a livable safety net for those who are simply not needed in the production cycle.
Agreed:)