Issues in terms of importance

There are a lot of issues floating around in the political landscape right now, and they all deserve some level of importance. When it comes to the most important issues facing America today, here is how I think of them in terms of importance.

Social justice has many aspects demanding attention as always. You have racial justice as an ongoing issue in the United States, with police brutality, unequal education opportunities, and the persistent cross cleavage underlying the whole issue ruining lives constantly. These deserve attention, and require policies that address the root issues of the inequality which breeds racism, and bring down our homicide rate which disproportionately affects African American men more than any other demographic. This requires government policy to end the inequity and save lives.

Other social issues regard rape culture, LGBT rights, immigrant rights under the Geneva protocols, and much more.

Economics is a persistent issue. Tax fairness is a problem apparent to most, issues with Social Security, although not a big issue among voters with average information, is highly concerning to most economists, regardless of political affiliation.

Health Care is a persistent issue, and we must implement universal health care as soon as possible to save money and most importantly lives.

The environment is an issue which has clear working solutions to global warming. A well designed carbon tax would do more to fight global warming than any other policy, in terms of intensity, speed, and fairness. You wouldn't ignore physics when designing a rocket, and you shouldn't ignore economics when dealing with the consumption, production, and trade of oil. To not use economic theory is folly and will bring forward ineffective policies.

Infrastructure has massive impacts on economic growth, economic mobility, and of course the environment. Lacking economic mobility hurts low income Americans significantly, making it more difficult to climb out of poverty. Designing a durable, cost-effective, and functional infrastructure network is critical to all of these issues. We need to make it so as few people as possible need a car in order to live good lives by having good high quality mass transit and by investing in AMTRAK.

All of this is well and good, but at the end of the day these require having good government in order to ensure these policies are implemented efficiently and equitably. In "The Quality of Government" by Bo Rothenstein he comes to the conclusion that a factor which led Singapore to be developed was not democracy but more based on having a really effective leader. There is a big debate of course about Singapore, but it cannot be denied that there is a clear connection between the quality of government and social well-being. Quality of government is inversely correlated to corruption, and this is tied to inequality and social trust. The theory is that having a society where people trust each other helps reduce inequality, and this leads to lower corruption in society. These three variables are very correlated, and seem to be more important than simply having a more democratic government.

The vast majority of Americans want to have modern infrastructure, good environmental protections, a strong and equitable economy, and a society where people can live comfortably without race hurting people on a daily basis. According to the research by Bo Rothenstein among other political economists, we can start by building social trust in our society as a key feature of our societies to bring people together. I am getting involved with a group of friends building Imaginal Cafes with the goal of spreading them around the world. It is quite similar to the Alternative Library in Bellingham, Washington which I have been involved in now for about 5 years. What these spaces do is create non-sectarian, intentionally drug and alcohol free spaces for people to come together and enjoy themselves. When people are able to come together in a place free of influencing drugs beautiful things can be built which build trust and community.

This is fundamental to building a country which works for all people, and the foundational block when we look at political research. This will start at grassroots by activists who build those bridges and build communities of love and trust which are open to more people coming in all the time. We need places in every town in the world where people come together in a way which is social. Concerts are good because people get out, but when was the last time you actually talked to a stranger at a concert? As soon as alcohol gets involved, the probability of building the connections which we crave goes to 0. Political party gatherings are a good place to start even if you don't have an Imaginal Cafe in your community yet.

So, as a political economist, the first question is what types of policies can we implement to grow social trust? The first idea which comes to my head is mandating worker's rights. Guaranteeing every worker gets vacation and paid sick leave so people have the ability to be more refreshed and mentally able to go out into their communities and build those connections. This will make it easier to organize for all other issues when people are feeling like they are part of a community with the energy such a community can provide which breeds friendship and a better world. We must keep working on all of these issues at once, and I am grateful for all of the activists who work on all important issues. I am hopeful we can make a better system where it is easier to achieve all of these issues.

As we are building our social trust in our country, we need to also ensure that we have equitable elections. Our current election system in most of the United States inevitably breeds a party system dominated by only two major parties, like all single mark election systems. We need to have an election system which allows people to vote their conscience regardless of the "electability" of other candidates, and the only way to do this is ranked voting. Ending the two party system will reduce corruption, encourage social trust since having more smaller parties will be forced to work together to solve problems, and also force parties to stick to their platform, or their voters will leave them in the next election cycle for their coalition partner. This needs to be done in tangent with building Imaginal Cafes to grow social trust all at the same time, and building Imaginal Cafes will make it easier for people to get involved in making our election system fair.

I am personally focusing my political energy right now on three major issues. One of them is The Imaginal Cafe so we can have a better world for everyone, one is of course Carbon Washington, the most amazing group of environmental activists I have ever met in my life, and the third is FairVote so we can have governments with politicians who really represent the communities they are meant to serve. The three go together so well, and by building this more collaborative world, where we make decisions based on science, reason, and fact as opposed to hearsay, coincidence, and falsehoods we will be able to make a world which works for all.

2020 is our last chance

In 2000 the Presidential election was stolen from President elect Al Gore by vote rigging in Florida. I fully believe based on all available evidence this is the case. Vice President Gore was going to attempt to make monumental shifts in how America was going to tackle the biggest challenge of our time, which is global warming, and instead we got an oil man from Texas, which was followed up by invading one of the largest petrostates in the world America wasn't actively buying oil from.

In 2008 President Obama was elected, and he did everything he could to fight global warming, but given opposition from his own party, and the lack of proper messaging from the Democrats, the Republicans won in 2010 by portraying the Affordable Care Act as a socialist takeover, and the Democrats rolled over. Any chance of significant accomplishments to fight global warming at a national level ended on that day in 2010 for a decade.

In 2016 I worked with a group of young activists on what is to date the most progressive plan to fight global warming to date, and we were defeated by millions of dollars of money from big polluters and a large number of "environmental groups" and our Governor who opposed us and urged their supporters to vote no.

In 2018 the same environmental groups proposed their own plan which exempted the exact same companies who bankrolled the opposition to the initiative I worked on.

I don't believe in coincidence in politics as a rule.

In 2019 the same governor who opposed the initiative I worked on signed a 100% clean electricity bill which will cut up to 10% of Washington State emissions, and a few other bills with the most Democratic legislature in over 70 years.

2020 is the most decisive year for fighting global warming. The oil companies who opposed 732 are literally in high ranking government positions. The administration is rolling back as many environmental regulations as they can. We must stop them.

In Washington State we have an opportunity to pass a significant bill to reduce global warming emissions from every industry, an opportunity which will not come back for at least a decade. Democrats will probably lose seats next year. At the Federal level we need to ensure we have the best leaders we possibly can, because the clock is ticking. We need a President who firmly supports a carbon tax and has a long record of supporting it.

For Carbon Washington, Audubon society, and Citizens Climate Lobby, we have to present in the legislature through our allies and members a real significant proposal to reduce global warming causing emissions without exempting the worst polluters in America. We will force the hand of those environmental groups to put forward a counter proposal immediately, because we now know the main difference between 732 and 1631 was not where the money was going to be spent, but in who was not going to pay the tax AT ALL under 1631. Our opponents will HAVE to have a counter proposal, and if they don't we can point at how they were not transparent about their process, postponed their proposal as long as possible, until after Governor Inslee's bill had failed, not giving voters the information they needed to make an informed decision. This is a corrupt tactic. In 2020 if we put forward a proposal they will be forced to put forward a counter proposal immediately which all people who care about the environment will be able to see side by side, or assume they still want a proposal which fully exempts the largest polluters in Washington, which is unethical, counterproductive, and regressive.

If I am angry, it is because I love my planet. If you are not angry at this point, you are not paying attention.

2020 is probably the last year to put forward a real plan to fight climate change. Other environmental groups will have to support it or have a counterproposal ready, and with Governor Inslee running for President he will have to support it or drop out of the Presidential race.

In terms of the Presidential race, we need a candidate who fully supports an exemption free carbon tax, and the only candidate running who unapologetically supports such a policy who is either a sitting or former governor or Senator is Senator Bernie Sanders, and he deserves your vote. See also my political platform post I made from opinion polls, which is what he has been working for since before I was even born. No other candidate has the record of support for fighting global warming close to his, and many have had the opportunity. No other has both supported such proposals consistently AND openly state it on their platform.

If your car is compromised, it means it doesn't work. Politics is no different.

When it comes to how two carbon tax initiatives have failed, they failed because the mainstream newspapers in this state didn't accurately represent them, the estimates the Secretary of State published were incorrect according to independent reviews, and corruption from long existing self declared environmental groups betrayed their supporters and lied to voters. The majority of people in America support such a plan, the issue is we need messaging and have to fight corrupt organizations more effectively.
I urge you to work with us, so we can do what needs to be done. If we force Governor Inslee to support it I fully believe we can succeed, but we can probably only do it in 2020, and only with the best proposal we can possibly write.

I will be working over the next few months to build this policy with my crew, and talk to the legislators I know about how I believe this is our last and best chance.

The Path to Fair and Equitable Carbon Pricing

This morning, as I was eating my breakfast, I was thinking about global warming and carbon taxes as I usually do. We had some important progress done this year, and we can use the momentum we have gotten from this next year to pass significant legislation in 2020 in the Washington State Legislature.

Brief history of the climate fight in Washington State:

• 2014: A group of young activists, mostly in college, get an initiative to the legislature passed, jump starting the climate fight here in Washington State.
• 2015: The same group of activists (myself included) successfully gathered enough signatures to file Initiative 732, a progressive, exemption-free carbon tax whose proceeds would go back to tax payers to alleviate the most regressive tax code in the United States of America. Remember that income inequality was the big issue everyone was talking about in 2015. A large number of self-declared environmental groups break off at this point, saying we were doing it wrong, without giving specifics on what they would do differently.
• 2016: We work hard on trying to get Initiative 732 on the ballot, a number of self-declared environmental groups, newspapers, and Governor Inslee slander the bill by misrepresenting what it would actually do, and the only exemption free carbon tax proposal in American history to date was defeated.
• 2017: Governor Inslee proposes his counter proposal. The big difference is that he has exemptions for every industry from coal to natural gas to oil refineries, and is a much lower tax. After it is defeated the Alliance finally proposes their bill, which is very similar to Governor Inslee's bill in terms of who benefits.
• 2018: The Alliance's initiative is defeated. It neither succeeded to get big oil companies to reduce their opposition at the end through massive government handouts to them, and its lower rate combined with massive tax breaks to multinational fossil fuel producing companies, many of whom are also Fortune 500 corporations, fails to get enough environmental activists involved in order to pass.
• 2019: The 100% clean electricity bill is signed into law by Governor Inslee, along with several other exemption-free bills to mitigate global warming.

Here is where we are today, and in 2020 we have the biggest opportunity in a decade to pass major legislation. This is the time to fight for a proper exemption-free carbon tax. In the 60 day session we have 6 days per step, with 5 steps to get through each chamber. I believe several factors of our current situation make 2020 the year to get it done:

• The media was misleading about initiative 732, so people didn't understand what they were voting on, and we simply didn't have the manpower to correct what the Seattle Times, etc. were saying about it.
• More and more Americans are saying they are concerned about global warming. We have successfully moved the Overton Window.
• We are at a point in history where Carbon Washington has more political capital than ever before. We have thousands of members, and this is the time when we have the opportunity to use it. We must use it.
• Every single piece of climate policy which has passed has not had line by line exemptions like 1631 did. If we propose another bill without those line by line exemptions we can win.
• Governor Inslee has announced Global Warming as his main issue. We can use this to our advantage by proposing a truly progressive carbon tax like 732 in the legislature last year. If he supports it, he looks like a flip flopper because he fought against us in 2016, if he opposes it, he looks like he isn't actually serious about global warming, and a liar. He MUST support this bill, since being a flip flopper is better than being a liar, and he must actively fight for it if he is to have any chance of winning the Presidency. We MUST use this to our advantage.
• If the Alliance fights against our exemption free proposal, than they will lose support among their members. If they support it, they look like flip floppers. For the same reason as Governor Inslee, they MUST support this bill or stop existing. They are doomed no matter what because of their behavior over the last 5 years. They should go out better than they came in. It's up to them.

With majority support, and the fact that Governor Inslee and the Alliance have simply no choice but to support a good carbon tax bill we at Carbon Washington can propose through some of our supporters, likely Debra Lekanoff, Sharon Shewmake, Beth Doglio, and Joe Fitzgibbon, hopefully with one or two Republicans as well, I truly believe that we can pass a real carbon tax bill this upcoming legislative session. The Alliance and Governor Inslee have no option but to support it, and we will then have the phone banking power to pressure the chairs of the committees it will go through to get a hearing and a vote. If we get a few groups in the Alliance to phone bank their supporters as well, we will have even more supporters calling legislators, which helps significantly. It is also unlikely that 2021 will have better numbers in the legislature for climate action, so I believe this is the best shot we are going to have for a while.

The political action steps are simple really, and continuing what we have done before:

• June 2019: Start canvassing legislators, getting their support for a bill in the next session and getting their opinions.
• November 2019: Have a solid proposal with as many legislators giving verbal support for it as possible, with a final draft finished by the end of the month:
• January 2020: Two companion bill are proposed, one in each house, with as many cosponsors as we can muster.
• Day 6: Get it to a committee vote:
• Day 12: Get it to Ways and Means.
• Day 18: Get it to the Rules committee:
• Day 24: Passed out of committee.
• Day 30: Passed second house
• Day 36: Committee vote
• Day 42: Ways and Means
• Day 48: Rules Committee
• Day 54: Passed second house
• Soon after Day 54: Governor Inslee signs the first exemption free carbon tax in American History into law.

Since Trump will likely lose next year, given that he lost the House last November, and that we will not have a Governor who has announced climate change as his number one priority for his Presidential run after the 2020 election, the number of legislators who support acting on climate will likely go down after the next election, and more and more Americans are concerned about global warming than ever before, 2020 is going to be the best year to pass an exemption free carbon tax in the foreseeable future.

What legislation will pass

When designing legislation which has a chance of passing, there are a number of things which a legislator or non-profit needs to keep in mind. Based on my personal experience as a Carbon Washington employee, and volunteering for education and LGBT* rights, I have a few ideas, 3 regarding specific bills, and 2 regarding general political behavior:

1. Any bill you propose should explicitly focus on one, and never more than two, issues. There will never be a single bill which will solve all of the world's evils.
2. Every piece of your bill should work with every other part of the bill towards solving the problem or two which you are trying to address. No section of the bill should explicitly undercut another section or the stated goal. Riders kill bills.
3. Amendments will almost definitely whittle down your bill when it is being worked on by the legislature, the times they will strengthen your bill are few and far between. If you have any chance of passing legislation you need to start with a bill which is as strong and coherent as possible. This doesn't mean a word limit, but the sections should clearly link to each other.
4. Be decisive about your values, honest with everybody, and willing to take a stand for what is right.
5. You only have so much political capital. Political capital is the amount of time you get talking to voters and legislators, which limits how much you can pass in a given year before fatigue sets in. Previous successes give you legitimacy, increase your political capital, as does having supporters on your mailing list and having many small donors to your campaign. 1000 donations of $3 is worth more than one donation of $3000 because those 1000 people have more time they can use to volunteer for you than one individual. Alienating supporters and losing reduces your political capital, and financial resources. Use it wisely.

The reason I say these three things is because of my experience over the last 7 years lobbying for different pieces of legislation on several topics. The legislation I have worked on which has passed followed all of these points. Several major high-profile pieces of legislation I have watched and a couple which I have worked on failed one of these three tests. These rules are based on my observations working on the climate fight here in Washington State.

The first rule is addressing a concern which a lot of environmental groups brought up with initiative 732. They argued and argued about where we should put the money, which no one could agree on. Some environmental groups outright opposed the initiative for this reason alone, even though their official communications were essentially slander. There are a lot of problems in this world which need to be corrected, and it is going to take a lot of time and energy. Choosing to oppose an environmental initiative because it isn't focusing on education is ludicrous. They are two different issues, with connections to be sure, and are both very important, but refusing to work on one issue before another is complete guarantees nothing will ever get done until that behavior stops.

Governor Inslee's carbon bill and Initiative 1631 are what I am addressing with point two. They were riddled with exemptions for most of the worst polluters in Washington State, and when I was talking to legislators about his bill I was hoping they hadn't read it. The exemptions lost support and reduced the enthusiasm for both of them, because they were counter productive. Bills should NEVER include sections which undermine themselves, this guarantees failure in my experience. You should absolutely never write in sections which your core voter bloc will find reprehensible, because this will definitely lose you more votes than you will gain. On the other hand, if you focus on one issue, address it very well, then everybody who agrees with you on that one issue will be easy to convince to support it. If you make it complicated and try to focus on too many issues at once, then you will lose votes, getting nowhere. This can be summarized in two ways:

1. Riders kill bills.
2. If you can't fit the summary of a bill on one side of a 3x5 note card, it is already dead.

Point three is based mostly off of the American health care debate, particularly Obamacare. Every Democratic President since Franklin Delano Roosevelt has tried to expand health care to all Americans. President Johnson succeeded in creating both Medicare and Medicaid by starting from a point of strength. President Obama succeeded by putting together a bill which had a chance of passing, and with every section working together as one well oiled machine. All three systems are not as grand as they were originally proposed, but they were able to get through because they were congruent and strong from day one. A weaker bill in 2009 would have failed. A Medicare For All bill unfortunately also would have failed. To solve this, Obama wrote a bill based heavily off the German health care system and succeeded in passing it. This rule does not apply as much for intiatives, but it is a law I have observed while working on lobbying in the Washington State Legislature.

The fourth point applies to everyone who is talking to an elected official or working on a campaign. You must make a direct ask on what you want that person to do. It is not rude to say to a voter, "I would like you to fight global warming by voting yes on Initiative 732" or something like that for whatever you are working on. Politicians talk to a lot of people every day, and when talking to politicians you have to be very clear about what you want them to do. This ties in a lot with my second point, where you need to keep your bill simple if you have a chance of passing it. In Washington you only get 15 minutes per meeting with a legislator, and during that time you need to get as much information into about 5 minutes as you can. Having a bill which focuses on a single issue and isn't self-defeating will ensure this time can be used effectively. However, if the bill you are working on has sections which counteract the declared point of the bill you are going to spend most of your time trying to explain that while the bill has sections which are counterproductive, the senator should still vote for it. This wastes your time, and you will probably fail.

Case in point: I was talking to Senator Tim Sheldon from Hoodsport, Washington last year about an environmental bill I supported. He was on the fence about it, but this was one which was clearly written and well-designed. He was obviously on the fence on it from the beginning, but since it was clearly an environmental bill I just had to mention that our district is the home of massive forestries and fisheries, and how global warming and the pine beetle invasion is already killing jobs in our district. He ended up voting for the bill out of committee later that week, and I believe my talking to him made a real difference that day. That bill didn't include any riders or exemptions to it either, which made my job relatively easy.

Another example of strong legislation is the 100% clean electricity bill which was passed this year in Washington State. It isnt the most radical proposal by a long shot, but it does 3 things:

1. It eliminates emissions from electricity production over 20 years.
2. The entire bill is focused on that one goal, with no exemptions.
3. It started off strong and ended strong.

The bill is now law.

A lot is going to happen next year, and a lot of planning is going to be done by environmentalists here in Washington State. Hopefully we will learn from our successes and failures of the last 5 years so we can pass meaningful legislation next year which will make a real difference.

Why a Pigouvian Tax Cannot Play Favorites

This week has been amazing, with three major pieces of legislation which will reduce emissions in Washington State over the (very) long term passing and being signed by Governor Inslee this week. This is following 5 years of work which Carbon Washington and Audubon Washington have been doing to try to get policies which achieve three goals, 1. Reduce global warming, 2. Fight income inequality, and 3. Do not give special treatment to the largest polluters in our state.

This bill fulfills all three. It has issues, mostly that it has a very long timeline and doesn't do enough to incentivize reductions in emissions before 2030, but this is a major step towards a carbon tax which fulfills those three goals those of us at Carbon Washington, Citizens Climate Lobby, and Audubon are working towards.

The third goal has been the sticking point over the last 5 years. Both Governor Inslee's bill in 2017 and the initiative from the Alliance in 2018 (which conveniently had no details until after the Governor's bill was dead) would have given millions of tax payer dollars to coal, oil refineries, and natural gas corporations through tax exemptions every single year. These would have mitigated much of the reduction in global warming these politically expensive pigs in lipstick would have created. If the exemptions had not been in the bills they would have made a bigger difference, and been on the revenue side almost indistinguishable from 732, but by exempting the worst polluters in Washington in both cases, the reductions of emissions would have been relatively minimal. The Yes on 1631 campaign didn't provide estimates on global warming reductions, but the No campaign did, and while it would have made some impact, completely exempting over 20 major polluting industries would have significantly reduced its impact. They tried to give public money to the biggest polluters in the nation, sacrificing the health of our children's generation as our schools are starved for funds in exchange for immediate political favors.

This is why they fail.

This is also why I will not vote for Governor Inslee in the Presidential race.

Another example of how exemptions to Pigouvian taxes play out has to do with the proposed toll in downtown Manhattan New York will implement at some time in the near future. As they explained in this episode:

RAFIEYAN: There are still plenty of details that need to get ironed out, not least of which is just how much is this toll going to cost? New York Governor Andrew Cuomo suggested a flat fee per car per day of about 11 or 12 bucks and $25 for trucks. But there will be some exemptions. The state has already approved breaks for emergency vehicles, for people with disabilities. And other groups are asking for exemptions as well - delivery truck drivers, livery cab drivers, motorcyclists, police officers.

VANEK SMITH: And that could really affect how much money the congestion pricing plan brings in. And at least in Mohammad's view, if all these guys get exemptions, it's not going to help traffic at all or raise much money.

This is my beef with I-1631 and Governor Inslee's proposal. As soon as you give one special interest group an exemption to a policy, whether it be to a road toll or to a carbon tax then everybody in the world and their second cousin feel like they are also entitled to special treatment. When it comes to problems like global warming and traffic, we are all guilty. I walk to work (partially because I don't have a car right now, but I did even when I did have a car) to reduce my impact, but I do not deserve special treatment for my good behavior when I pollute. Just like with a road toll, as soon as the most common offenders start to get exemptions you have defeated the reason of using a Pigouvian tax and not a general income tax, making no progress.

If we are not going to use a carbon tax to fight the biggest problem facing humanity today, instead of handing out millions of tax payer dollars to the dirtiest companies in the world, what are we doing?

We are now coming to a monumental point in Washington State history where environmental groups have the political capital and support of the average person to make monumental historic changes which will ripple across the country and the world, making our world livable for all for centuries to come. It is up to us to take this political capital and convert it to real substantial policy which will end the biggest challenge facing humanity today. This means that whatever we propose next year MUST treat all pollution equally, no matter who is destroying our shared air. We have already tried the policies which court the Petroleum Manufacturers Association, and their attempts got us no where. The only proposals which have made it through the legislature give no handouts to any large polluters. This is not a coincidence, this is how politics works. Compromising with the devil always fails.

We MUST propose a carbon tax in the legislature in January which gives no exemptions to any major polluter in our state. This is the only way forward which I can see. While there are certainly many policies which we can do alongside a carbon tax, at the end of the day a well designed carbon tax MUST be part of the package if we are to have any hope at curbing global warming. It is simply the most effective policy to fight global warming ever devised according to many economic journals which compare the efficacy of different policies.

Are you with us or against us?

Design a Carbon Tax Now! Or, how to make a more efficient legislature to solve our problems.

Abstract

Thoughts on how to design a more effective legislature to solve important issues like global warming by using ranked voting.

Introduction

It is now 2019. We are about to start the legislative session with the largest Democratic Majority in Washington State for 70 years, and if we are ever going to get progress done in our state, now is the time.

This means we need to do it right, there are multiple issues plagueing our state. The 5 which most concern me are:

1. The lack of any policy to reduce carbon emissions
2. First Past The Post Voting
3. Insufficient transit in the Seattle Metro Area
4. Underfunded schools at every level.
5. The most regressive tax structure in the United States of America.
6. Police brutality in Washington is in the 13th highest in the nation

Now, when the legislature convenes on 14 January we are going to need to get a lot of progress done. The budget is going to be on the minds of every legislator, and it is going to effect everyone in our state, every agency, and every issue. We are going to need to make big decisions in the next thirty days which are going to have immense consequences for everyone in our state.

One issue which stymies progress is literally everyone has their own agenda and what they believe should be done first. Historically this has a history of people blocking other proposals which are related to theirs because they are not identical in some way.

This is immature, destructive, and hurts everyone in our state. We need a better politics to solve problems effectively and efficiently. My education makes me believe that ranked voting has one answer. A fairly strong speaker of the house is another answer, though not as preferable.

Now, in the most ideal world where everyone was working for the greater good, this wouldn't be an issue. But, news flash, we don't live in a world remotely similar to that world. Shocker, right?

Ranked voting to design bills

A way to do this would be to have legislators propose general topics, and have them consolidated into one list by the leadership of the legislature and the next day have every legislator from each house would vote on the issues by importance using ranked voting. The votes would be tallied within minutes and then would go down the list from the most important to least important in terms of how bills would be proposed to the chamber. The obvious advantage to this is every legislator has a say in the priorities, and have literally no incentive to block legislation because it isn't their pet project first. There would be some granularity to this, so a carbon tax would be separate from a potential income or capital gains tax, etc. which would give the first issue priority. The budget would not be on the list because it is going to be negotiated regardless and the content is already proposed by the governor. I wouldn't touch that process because the state budgets are so sweeping. From that point the bills from each house of the legislature would be proposed in the order which every member already had a say in, meaning it will be fairly democratic. They have an incentive to get them through the first step quickly, because that lets them get onto other proposals. At that point they will all go through the normal committee/public hearing process which already exists.

But then there is another issue which is that the bills proposed will be presented by both houses and you could end up with major issues between the two issues. This slows the process down and is inefficient at providing real solutions. A way to solve this from the beginning so we don't end up with 3 or more bills doing similar things in contradictory ways is that every member of the legislature votes on issues and which pieces to include in the bills as one body in the first week using ranked voting. The votes of every Senator could be worth twice the votes of every Representatives to keep it proportional (in the case of how the Washington State Legislature is structured, since there are twice as many representatives as senators) and they would vote together on how to construct the proposals from the beginning. This gives every bill the highest likelihood of success, guaranteeing every piece of the bill has majority support before it is even compiled.

In the case of a carbon tax, there are several pieces to it:

1. How much will the tax start at?
2. How much and in what way will the tax change over time? (linear vs. exponential vs. flat)
3. Who/what is exempted from the bill?
4. Where does the money go?

Every other tax will work in a somewhat similar way, an income tax would look like so:

1. How much will the tax be? Will it be done by brackets or a smooth function? How much will different income levels pay?
2. What will be exempt?
3. Will the tax change over time?
4. Where does the money go?

An expenditure bill would work like so:

1. How much money is the legislature willing to spend on this project?
2. How should the money be distributed?

This would solve the issues I have seen above, and probably make for a more efficient legislative session with less infighting, because everyone has already had a say on the year's most important pieces of legislation before it is even written. Once the vote is done it would take only a couple days for a few professionals to write the bill out the way the legislators wanted. At that point, it should be fairly easy to get good legislation done quickly, solving the problems which plague our state.

The advantage to this method over a strong speaker is the power is spread evenly between every member of the legislature. This gives as close to a guarantee as I can figure out that they have majority approval before they even go to committee, without free riders which the majority of legislators and citizens oppose. If a legislator was obstinate about not getting exactly what they want on a regular basis they can always be censured by the legislature, for acting on bad faith, and could potentially cost them their seat in the next election. This would be made even easier by having ranked voting for all elections in our state.

1. Legislators propose topics for legislation
2. Legislators choose which topics are the most important
3. Legislators vote on which specific proposals should be enacted for each topic. Proposals will be done with ranked voting. Complimentary proposals would both be included if they have majority support.
4. Bills are presented to the legislature, use our existing process, guaranteeing every section has majority support.

Ranked Voting for Elections

Ranked voting will make a better politic for our state (and eventually country) because we will no longer have a two party system given time. More liberal Democrats will split from more centrist Democrats, and the Fascist Tea Party will split from Eisenhower Republicans. This will mean that members of one party who do not accurately represent their constituents will have a real challenger in the general election. This will give a more accurate representation of what people in our state want to have happen. This will benefit everybody. The top two system is better than party primaries, but still does not guarantee an accurate representation the way single transferable vote does.

Conclusion

By using ranked voting for both designing policies and electing our elected officials we should be more able to solve the problems plaguing our state, our country and our world. It should eliminate waste, corruption, and encourage legislators to focus on solving the very real problems facing our world.

Washington State Taxes

Governor Inslee anounced on Tuesday a plan to finally fully fund our K-12 schools here in Washington State. This is years overdue, and it has been unacceptable for our government to not do their job for so long. Washington currently has the most regressive tax structure in the United States, since we rely so heavily on our sales tax. The B&O is barely any better in its progressivity. We also leave capital gains untouched.

Inslee's plan as the Seattle Times announced will do the following:

1. Increase the B&O Tax on select professions, accountants, attorneys, real estate agents,and others from 1.5% to 2.5%. This will raise $2.3 billion.
2. A Carbon Tax of $25 per metric ton raising $2 billion.
3. A 7.9% tax on capital gains above $25,000 for single filers and $50,000 for joint filers. Retirement plans, homes, farms, and forestry are exempt. It will only raise $821 million.
4. Several other tax exemptions will be repealed, on water bottles and oil manufacturers.

I personally think the Carbon Tax and repealing exemptions for environmentally destructive activities makes a lot of sense and I wouldn't change them from Inslee's proposal.

The B&O tax is regressive towards small businesses and we are one of only 3 states in the country to tax gross receipts. This is a very regressive tax, and will hurt people starting out in these fields significantly. These are already professions which are heavily regulated and have to pay thousands of dollars to get licensed in order to practice in Washington State which can be prohibitive, as I have learned from experience.

A capital gains tax is a good idea, but this proposal like most capital gains taxes is a flat tax. It also ignores retirement plans which leaves a huge source of income untapped. It would be done better by treating all income equally and then taxing each individual's sum at a progressive rate.

Washington State's Tax Code is so backwards we need to redo a lot of it. I would propose the following:

1. Income Taxes are done at a progressive rate with a range determined by a formula which I originally saw on Daily Kos and then modified. Taxes go as low as -4% (where you get 4% of your income back at the end of the year) and then go as high as 12% progressively. All income is treated the same under this income tax plan. The point where you switch from receiving money to paying money is at $100,000 per year. This will raise $15 billion per year.
2. A Carbon Tax as proposed by Carbon Washington and Jay Inslee of $30/metric ton which will increase by $1/metric ton every year until it hits $50/metric ton. This will be scaled to inflation. Increasing the Carbon Tax will keep it from reducing revenue and help end carbon emissions sooner.
3. Current property taxes raise $10 billion per year.
4. Fund the Working Families Tax Credit.
5. An Estate Tax of 10% on all inheritances above $1,000,000 per year per recipient.
6. Other existing state taxes, (smoking, alcohol, etc.) currently raise $15 billion per year.

The B&O and general sales taxes are repealed in full.

This will balance the budget immediately. Eliminating the sales tax and B&O taxes will be a progressive shift in our tax structure which we desperately need and funding our schools is essential for our economic survival and human rights.

Inslee is on the right step here and this discussion needs to continue to happen. I hope he will succeed at funding our schools and taxing carbon emissions. I hope we will then continue the civic debate to look at our tax code and make it so that poor families stop shouldering the burden of funding our state's programs. Our current system is bad economics which must be fixed. This here is one full plan to do just that.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1O8QIfnPMb53pfyvwOc7cusIAuK_aeXgGaPe4sM3VOyU/edit?usp=sharing is the spreadsheet including data for my proposals including the federal plan.

The Climate Debate

In the current climate debate, we have two vital initiatives right now in Washington State. Carbon Washington or I-732, which I have written about multiple times, and ST3 for Sound Transit are going to make our state a better place to live. Carbon Washington make our tax code a bell shaped curve as opposed to a simple regressive code, tax carbon, and fund the earning families income tax credit. These are all good things which we need to do right now. ST3 is going to fix the Greater Seattle mass transit mess which threatens our quality of life.

There are several arguments here which have been talked about and I see which are arguing against these propositions.

The first one are signs saying "No on ST3, fund education first". This is a red herring argument. It doesn't have anything to do with the content of ST3 and seeks to get people to vote against the progressive initiative we have right now and focus instead on another important issue. If there is an actual problem with ST3 then the opposition needs to state exactly what is wrong. There are major issues with ST3, primarily that the timeline for construction extends for 40 years. Most of the construction will be done within 20 years, but it still leaves some vital projects off for a long period of time. This however is not a valid reason to vote against ST3. It will set us in motion to get our mass transit funded and then in 3 years or so we can put forward another proposition to speed up the time frame. Voting against ST3 will not cause mass transit to move forward, but it will mean that we will get no additional progress until another proposition on the ballot. A net loss for climate activists.


The arguments against Carbon Washington on the other hand suffers from attacks which are both Red Herrings and Straw Men. The first common argument I see is they complain it is not funding our education. I lobbied for education in college and understand it is a vital issue. This however is a bill focused on three main issues, and three issues only. Inequality, the regressive nature of our tax code, and climate change. Education is not on the list. We need to fund our education system, and we do need to get additional funding for our state, but these are not what Carbon Washington does. Carbon Washington does about as much as one piece of legislation could possibly do and it does the three major issues through one major policy change, which is tax replacement with a more progressive tax than what we have.

The most common straw man argument against Carbon Washington I have heard from people who do not understand economics is that it will not reduce emissions. This is moose shit. Taxes reduce consumption of the good which is taxed, which is one of the most proven theories in all of economics. By taxing carbon it will increase the advantage of renewables making it so more people will move to renewable technology and consume less oil. This is one of the most widely agreed upon issues by economists around the world, and all of the evidence in the field points to this is true.



The other major argument against Carbon Washington is that it will hurt poor people. This is another big truck load of moose shit. When economists have graphed the impact of Carbon Washington on Washington State families vs. the current tax code we find the following results:


The graph speaks for itself. The opposition is lying.

This bill has shown very clearly that a lot of environmental organizations in Washington state are poorly run by people who do not understand climate science. Actual experts in related fields at universities across the state have endorsed I 732, while the people opposing it are not experts and do not do actual research to back up their claims. Their weak arguments only make me want I 732 to pass it even more to fight idiocracy as much as climate change. Good luck finding a professional with a degree in a related field who opposes Carbon Washington. This fight has turned into scientists vs. absolutists who have in their mind that there is only one way to fix a certain problem. Anyone who has ever studied economics knows that this is completely not true, and is what makes economics fun. There are multiple ways to fix economic problems, and often times the differences between solutions, such as carbon taxes vs cap and trade, comes down to small efficiency gains.

When it comes down to it, Carbon Washington is here now. People who only want other solutions have not filed their initiatives. Global warming is an imminent threat to humanity and we need to do what we can now. If there is an improvement to the carbon tax in the future (which will probably be a small technocratic tweak), a bill that funds our education, and possibly an income tax I will support that. Given how those are years away at a bare minimum we need to do what we can today. Not voting for Carbon Washington would have been like voting against gay marriage in 2012 because it didn't include hate crime legislation. Such actions are a fool's endeavor. Carbon Washington is a net gain for working class families, and a net gain for our climate here in Washington State. ST3 is far from perfect but it is better than nothing.

This is why the only pro-climate action this election is to vote YES on 732 and YES on ST3.

Resources:
https://yeson732.org/faq/

I support I 732

Last year as I was finishing my degree in political economy, I learned of a new initiative from Yoram Bauman to implement a carbon tax in Washington State, and immediately started to gather signatures during my summer in Olympia a few times. It is the first initiative I ever supported to this extent.

After studying economics for two years, I have learned that carbon taxes are the most efficient way to reduce carbon emissions. You get more revenue than you will from a cap and trade scheme, and when we compare British Columbia and California, two similar west coast regions with abundant sources for generating electricity in renewable ways, we see that one of them has implemented carbon taxes, and one a cap and trade. Both California and British Columbia saw a reduction in their carbon emissions both per capita and in total, since the implementation of these schemes, despite growing economies, and a nationwide trend in the US of increasing emissions.

When it comes to the efficiency of schemes however, economists know that carbon taxes are better for a couple key advantages 1. It is harder to give special deals to political benefactors, 2. It impacts everybody's emissions regardless of size, 3. It taxes every ton of carbon equally, and 4. it is easier to implement because you don't need yet another level of bureaucracy handing out permits. Carbon taxes and Cap and trade can be adjusted (assuming you don't have a policy like the ridiculous laws put in place by Tim Eyman here in Washington) to get the desired amount of carbon reduction, so at the end of the day either one can be used to get the desired amount of carbon reduction, as we see in the California vs. BC example.

When it comes to inequality, I 732 is the second best initiative we could have, only a state income tax could be more effective in addressing inequality. Washington State is the most regressive state in the country when it comes to our tax system because of our sales tax. This means that I 732 is going to put more money in the hands of young parents, children, college students, and minorities by reducing their tax rate by at least 1%. Sierra Club opposes the initiative saying it doesn't do enough, but they are opposing something good because it isn't as much as they want.

Here is the reality. I want an income tax in Washington State and to invest more into renewable energy. This is the reason why I support I 732. By increasing the price of carbon based fuel sources it will give a larger economic advantage to renewable energy which will help spur solar, geothermal, and other carbon neutral electricity sources in Washington State. We currently have one coal powered plant in the State, the TransAlta Plant in Centralia, which is responsible for 19% of Washington State's emissions by itself. Transportation is the biggest contributor to climate change in Washington State by far, accounting for 42% of our total emissions, and between a carbon tax and a cap and trade scheme, the carbon tax is the only one which I know will impact our largest source of emissions. By increasing the cost of carbon people will drive less.

The Carbon Tax is the first step to fixing our broken tax system. We need to replace our sales tax in full with an income tax. With the additional increase provided by a state income tax we can then invest in education, create tax credits for renewable energy, build our mass transit system faster, and shut down the TransAlta Plant in Centralia. We could even create a small universal basic income which would benefit poor families.

If Washington State passes the Carbon Tax it will make it easier to make further improvements to our tax system which will allow us to increase investment in infrastructure and education, both of which are severely lacking, and are critical the future quality of life of our state.

Vote yes on I 732 for a better Washington next month.

Extra sources
Washington State Emissions by source

Tax Code

1. Preamble
2. Income Tax
   1. Determinants
   2. Margins
   3. Deductions
   4. Earned Income Tax Credit
3. Sales Tax
   1. Amounts
   2. Exemptions
4. Carbon Tax
5. Politics Tax
6. Payroll Tax
7. Inheritance Tax
8. Corporate Income Tax
9. Basic Income
10. Process for Receiving Taxes
11. Where the Money Goes
12. Process for Making Tax laws
13. Punishments for tax fraud
14. Tax code Restrictions
15. Defending the Progressive Income Tax
16. Defending the lack of many popular deductions in the Income Tax
17. Defending the inclusion of and changes to the Corporate Income Tax
18. Defending a Progressive Capital Gains Tax
19. When we run a surplus

Statement of purpose

The tax code is riddled with tax breaks that do not benefit the economy. The tax code is practically regressive, with an extremely low tax burden for the wealthy relative to both our history and other developed nations, and starting at a high rate for the middle class. The tax code should be improved to ensure it works in the best way possible. The goal for social programs is to tax the incomes with the lowest marginal propensity to consume to boost programs that provide opportunities to further their education and ensure all people are able to work which is the most effective way to boost GDP per capita and average quality of living.

Income Tax

Definitions:

• Citizen: Someone who possesses American citizenship or American nationality.
• Non-citizen: Someone who does not possess American citizenship or American nationality.
• Global Income: The total income for the individual from all countries and all sources.
• Domestic Income: The total amount of income made within the United States and its territories.

Effects:

• American citizens will be taxed on their Global Income.
• Non-citizens working in the United States on a Green card or work visa will be taxed on their Domestic Income.

Filing statuses

• Individual File - An individual file individually.
• Family - A married couple can file with their minor children on the same tax form or as individuals.
• Dependent - A person under age 25 who makes less than the cost of living may file with their parent(s).

Determinants

Income tax will be determined by the sum of income from wages, stocks, bonds, interest, dividends, gambling, game show winnings, rental income, capital gains upon realization, and tips, after tax breaks. This includes all domestic and foreign income under these expenses. Income from S Corporations and LLCs may be treated as regular income, or may be paid through the corporation.

Margins

1. People will pay the percent of their income equal to 0.5*((Income/(Number of household earners*cost of living))-subtractor)/SQRT(10+(Income/(Number of household earners*cost of living))^2) which will yield a smooth progressive income tax where everyone under $5000 will pay a negative income tax and everyone above $50000 will pay taxes. The 0.5 at the beginning is the maximum tax rate. The subtractor will be 6.
2. The cost of living will be determined by the cost of transportation, food, utilities, and housing for different family sizes in their home region as determined by the IRS through a survey. Utilities is defined as average cost of water, electricity, and internet. This will be determined by the Bureau of the Census annually for every state and region. A citizen’s cost of living will be determined by their region that the Bureau of the Census will determine. Each region needs to have a similar cost of living and economy throughout. The cost of living paid for each household will be determined by the head of household, spouse, and number of minors residing in the same place.

Deductions

1. The value of money spent on post-secondary education will be fully deducted from income. Money used for sending out scholarships that are dispersed will also be fully deducted until no income tax is owed. You do not have to be related to the person to deduct this and you can deduct your own education if it is on the path to a degree or certificate or necessary for work and required by an employer or the government for a license. Money offered in scholarships is included in this deduction. The amount spent on the education of other Citizens for post-secondary education is fully deductible.
2. The value of money spent out of pocket on health care will be fully deducted from your income, up to the average per person cost of Medicare minus the amount paid by employers and government programs, and money can be earned through this credit if the value of health care exceeds the taxes owed before exemptions. Expenses on vitamins or vacations do not count. You can include any medical expense you pay for any person. Life insurance, babysitting, maternity clothes, nutritional supplements unless prescribed by a doctor, cosmetic surgery, toothpaste, teeth whitening, food, and weight-loss expenses are not deductible. This will be in place until there is a single-payer health care system.
3. There will be a deduction equal to State, and local taxes paid.
4. Foreign taxes will be fully deductible from the amount of money you are taxed.
5. If you are stolen from the value of goods stolen may be deducted from your taxes. The same is true for property lost in a fire.
6. The owner of a business may deduct business expenses that are moved to the business’ account. Business taxes are determined separately. Money put in for careers may be deducted. Money used for licenses is fully deductible.
7. Union dues are deductible.
8. You may deduct up to the cost of living for your household in charitable deductions. Charities that are deductible may not be involved in politics. A deductible non-religious charity must give at least 50% of its money to the cause. Religious organizations are deductible as long as at least 10% of their donations go to charity non-mission expenses (due to the nature of religious organizations). Deductible charities and religions may not spend more than 5 times the cost of living for the salary of any person. Deductible charities must make their financial records open for the public to view on the internet, which will be complete and include revenue and sources of revenue, and all expenses and where each expense goes. A charity or religion that fails to follow these rules will not be deductible and will be treated as a business.
9. Taxes owed will be decreased by 1% for every member on the filing who votes.
10. The amount invested into Individual Retirement Accounts (IRA) may not be withdrawn under any circumstance until the depositor turns 65 will not be considered income up to the cost of living. Amounts invested in IRAs up to 6% of income or 6% of 10 times the cost of living (whichever is lower) will be tax-deductible. They will be taxed as regular income when withdrawn. There may be no minimum withdrawal when the IRA reaches maturity. Employers may match employee minimum contributions, and employees may put more into the account in a year than their employer puts in at any time the employee chooses.

All deductible amounts will be added up and 10% will be given to the tax payer as part of their tax bill.

Earned Income Tax Credit

1. The Earned Income Tax Credit will continue as it is.

Sales Tax

There will be a sales tax in the United States in the following margins. It will function as an income tax on businesses which is forwarded to customers in slightly higher rates.

1. A 10% tax will be charged on the sales of cigarettes and cigars.
2. A 2.5% tax will be charged on the sale of alcohol.
3. A 20% tax will be charged on the sale of firearms.
4. A 20% tax will be charged on the sale of ammunition for firearms.
5. A 10% tax will be charged on the services of tanning salons.
6. A 20% tax will be charged on the sale of any vehicle having less than 10 miles per gallon on the highway.
7. A 15% tax will be charged on the sale of any vehicle having between 10 and 15 miles per gallon on the highway.
8. A 12.5% tax will be charged on the sale of any vehicle having between 15.1 and 20 miles per gallon.
9. A 10% tax will be charged on the sale of any vehicle having between 20.1 and 30 miles per gallon on the highway.
10. A 5% tax will be charged on the sale of any vehicle having above 30.1 miles per gallon.

There will be no general sales tax because the sales tax is by nature regressive and regressive taxes have a higher multiplier than progressive taxes on GDP because they disproportionately affect the poor who need to be able to expand their wealth most of all.

There will be no Corporate Gross Income Tax.

Carbon Tax

There will be a tax of $43/tC ($43 per every metric ton of Carbon emitted) from every fuel source and every factory and every household. Carbon Taxes will be implemented at the point of combustion, so people and companies who use cars will pay the carbon tax at the pump, factories and power plants will be required to track their carbon emissions through the year.

The United States emitted 1.522 billion metric tons of CO2 from transportation in 2013, meaning this would have yielded around $45 billion of revenue if carbon emissions didn’t drop. If this meant that carbon emissions were reduced by 5% (just a random guess) than total revenue would have been around $42.75 billion of revenue from transportation alone.

Total CO2 emissions from the US in 2012 were 6.526 billion metric tons, and the amount of carbon emitted has been steady since the 1990s. If the carbon tax reduced emissions by 5%, we would receive $266.6 billion dollars of revenue.

http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=307&t=11

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources.html

Politics Tax

Every donation to a political campaign at any point of the year is subject to be taxed at the following rates per individual donor. For this purpose money lobbyists give to politicians is considered a campaign donation. It depends on how much the donor donates to politicians, the rate will be on the total amount of donations:

• If the maximum amount a person donates up to half the cost of living in their home state they will pay 5% of their donations in tax.
• If the maximum amount a person donates between 50% and 100% of the cost of living in their home state they will pay 15% of their donations in tax.
• If the maximum amount a person donates between 100% and 250% of the cost of living in their home state they will pay 20% of their donations in tax.
• If the maximum amount a person donates between 250% and 500% of the cost of living in their home state they will pay 25% of their donations in tax.
• If the maximum amount a person donates between 500% and 750% of the cost of living in their home state they will pay 30% of their donations in tax.
• If the maximum amount a person donates between 750% and 1000% of the cost of living in their home state they will pay 35% of their donations in tax.
• If the maximum amount a person donates between 1000% and 1500% of the cost of living in their home state they will pay 40% of their donations in tax.
• If the maximum amount a person donates between 1500% and 2000% of the cost of living in their home state they will pay 45% of their donations in tax.
• If the maximum amount a person donates above 2000% of the cost of living in their home state they will pay 50% of their donations in tax.

Corporations, think tanks, PACs, SuperPACs, foreigners, and unions may not donate to political campaigns. There is no cap on the amount an American citizen may donate to campaigns they will vote on. Donating to a political candidate that you cannot vote for is a Class I Felony. A corporation that donates to a political campaign will have its Business license revoked and the entire Board of Directors, CEO, and other officers will all be guilty of a Class I Felony. If an individual makes a mistake of reporting their donation they will have 4 years to correct their mistake and pay the tax. If after 4 years the person still has not reported they will pay 10 times the tax they would have paid. A foreigner that donates to an American politician will be barred from entering the United States for life and their American assets will be seized by the government.

Inheritance Tax

Inheritances will be taxed at a progressive rate per recipient. Spouses are exempt.

1. All Inheritance under 50 times the cost of living will not be taxed.
2. Inheritances between 50 times the cost of living and 100 times the costs of living will be taxed at 20%.
3. Inheritances between 100 times the cost of living and 250 times the costs of living will be taxed at 30%.
4. Inheritances between 250 times the cost of living and 500 times the costs of living will be taxed at 40%.
5. Inheritances above 500 times the cost of living will be taxed at 50%.

Corporate Income Tax

Corporations have two options for how they will be taxed:

Option 1 for C Corporations, LLCs, LLLPs, and Series LLCs is to have all taxable income as defined below will be paid for by the corporation.

Option 2 for S Corporations, LLCs, LLLPs, and Series LLCs is to have all taxable income sent to the stockholders.

The equation to determine the taxable income is as follows:

Corporations will be taxed at a progressive rate based on their net income calculated as follows:

1. A= Total Revenue
2. B= Employee income with varying rates, compensation in cash, IRAs, medical benefits will all count towards these categories.
   1. X: Employees that make below 100% of the living hourly wage will have their income taxed at 100%.
   2. Y: Employees that make at least 100% and below 250% of the living hourly wage will have 100% of their total income deducted from the corporation's taxes.
   3. Z: Employees that make at least 250% and below 5000% of the living hourly wage will have 125% of their total income deducted from the corporation's taxes.
   4. Employees that make at least 5000% of the living hourly wage will have no deduction on their income.
3. C=Total sum of cash spent on capital Investment in buildings, manufacturing, and other physical assets, advertising,.
4. D=Amount of money paid to foreigners at rates below the Federal Minimum Wage adjusted for purchasing power parity in that country.
5. E=Total State and foreign taxes
6. P=Political Donations
7. F=Charitable Donations

R = Tax Rate

B=X-Y-1.25Z

A+X-Y-1.25Z-C+D-E

R(A-B-C+D-E+P)-F equals Taxes owed. If the answer is negative, no money will be given.

Tax*(Total Revenue-Wages-Investment+Below wages-Taxes+Political Donations)-Charity = Taxes owed

Living Hourly Wage is defined as the amount of money needed to be earned per hour to make the cost of living in one year working 1920 hours in one year. (40 hours per week for 48 weeks)

The tax rates are as follows:

1. 5% on taxable income for companies that give all of their employees and contractors at least 5 weeks of paid vacation time and unlimited sick leave.
2. 10% on taxable income for companies that give all of their employees and contractors from 4 weeks but less than 5 weeks of paid vacation time and unlimited sick leave.
3. 15% on taxable income for companies that give all of their employees and contractors from 3 weeks but less than 4 weeks of paid vacation time and unlimited sick leave.
4. 20% on taxable income for companies that give all of their employees and contractors from 2 weeks but less than 3 weeks of paid vacation time and unlimited sick leave.
5. 25% on taxable income for companies that give all of their employees and contractors from 1 week but less than 2 weeks of paid vacation time and unlimited sick leave.
6. 30% on taxable income for companies that give all of their employees and contractors less than 1 week of paid vacation time and unlimited sick leave.
7. 35% on taxable income for companies that do not give all of their employees and contractors unlimited sick leave.

Definition of Charitable Donations:

• Donations that go towards financial assistance, providing medical, scientific, or educational value towards an individual will be considered a charitable donation and be completely tax deductible.

Basic Income

Every family will receive $5,000 per person in Basic Income (to be annually adjusted for inflation). For minors half of their income will go to the parents and half will be put into a new Basic Income Trust Fund which the minor will get when they turn 18 where it will get interest as government bonds until that point in time.

Where the Money Goes

1. 50% of all surplus revenue of the Government of the United States will go into a fund for spending in years where a deficit is run. This will be held by the Federal Reserve for future use. This fund may not be tapped without an Executive Order or Act of Congress when spending is greater than income. This money may not be used in any year where Spending is equal to or less than revenue.

Process for Making Tax Laws

The Process for making a tax law code change lies in the power of Congress. The Internal Revenue Service, Courts, and President may make no change without the approval of a simple majority of both houses of Congress.

Punishments for Tax Fraud

Any American citizen convicted of lying the IRS on their income will have committed a Class I felony and lose the right to vote for the rest of their life. They will lose the right to run for office. They will be incarcerated for 10 years in a Federal Prison with no bail and charged ten times the amount that they owed and didn’t pay. Citizens have one year to correct mistakes.

A business that cheats on taxes will be fined one hundred times the amount of taxes owed from previous years. Companies have one year to correct mistakes without incurring fines.

Cost of Living

The cost of living will be calculated by Metropolitan/Micropolitan Statistical Areas as defined by the Census Bureau.

Defending the Progressive Capital Gains Tax

I already know the least popular part of taxing capital gains as regular income is going to be the claim that I am hurting investors. There is some merit to this in the immediate term, but it only looks at the individualistic short-term side of the picture. Citizens will claim I need to tax capital gains at a lower rate than regular income, that capital gains keep the economy running, that taxing capital gains as regular income introduces double taxation, but there are some problems with this. Most arguments come from this far-right think tank’s article on why they claim to oppose a progressive capital gains tax: http://reason.com/archives/2013/01/06/why-double-taxation-must-cease

1. The biggest problem they are wrong about is that the Utilitarian capital gain tax does not introduce double taxation. The Capital Gains tax is only on the amount the investment made, which means that despite what many will claim, it is only getting taxed once, upon withdrawal.
2. Another thing, is that you are only taxed once you pull the money out, if you leave the money in a stock for over a year you will only pay taxes the year you pull your money out. You don’t get taxed every year on your investments, unless you are constantly reinvesting. http://www.irs.gov/uac/Ten-Important-Facts-About-Capital-Gains-and-Losses
3. Taxing capital gains as regular income will give the government enough revenue to fix the debt without touching spending. 10% of our government spending in Fiscal Year 2012 went to the debt, and that money should be going to the American Citizens in the form of health care and education.

These types of groups write sensationalist loaded language that is designed to make Citizens who already agree with them to be outraged (and frankly, I have occasionally been the victim of some left-wing groups doing the same tactic) and should be ashamed of themselves.

Taxing capital gains as a progressive tax is just fair and actually makes good economic sense. If someone invests their money early and keeps it in for decades they could have billions of dollars, like pretty much everyone on the Forbes 400 list. If Capital Gains are taxed at a fixed rate and you have a billion dollars in the stock market and the market collapses and you pull everything out along with your billionaire peers the market will collapse further and companies will have less capital to invest with, which will put them at odds between the continued growth of the company through assets and employees, or giving their investors their annual/quarterly dividend and increase to their stock, and we all know which usually takes priority. To stabilize the stock market we need to give an incentive for these mega-investors to keep their money in for the long term so that companies can use their money efficiently, downturns can be short, and unemployment can be lower than otherwise which will preserve our economy’s demand curve. By preventing large market collapses it will help Citizens who have their money in the market from losing all of their gains, and companies will continue to have capital to invest and grow, and hire more Citizens which will raise the demand curve, decrease unemployment, and make a stronger economy. This is why a progressive income tax that treats capital gains as regular income is just healthy economics for America and the world.

Will a progressive capital gains tax make a substantial difference? In America there are about 250,000,000 adults, and lets conservatively assume that one percent of these Citizens make over a million dollars a year. That equates to $2,500,000,000,000 of income per year, or 17% of our GDP. Under the current tax structure, the government will make $500 billion from that income, but under the Utilitarian tax code the government will make at least $625 billion instead. For Citizens in the top 400 richest Americans, if we assume they make at least $100 million per year, that is a lower limit of $40 billion of annual income. This currently gets taxed at 20% when they take it out (since most of it is in capital gains) which is $8 billion of income for the government. With the Utilitarian tax code, they will pay an effective rate of 69%, which means the government will make $27.6 billion instead. While 69% seems really high, they are still keeping $31 million of after-tax income, and by taking their money out of the stock market over a long period of time they can easily lower the tax burden, so no one will really pay 69% because they will remove their money from the stock market over a long period of time. But the most important part is that this will punish Citizens from removing all of their money from the stock market at once which hurts the economy, and will create revenue for the government during future recessions to put the economy back on course with smaller deficits in the bad times, and the government will not need to run deficits in the good times under such a system. This will mean less frequent and less severe recessions as part of the market cycle, which is good for everyone from the factory worker who won’t get fired to the CEO who won’t see his company’s market cap decrease significantly. On the other hand, the current tax structure doesn’t punish Citizens for pulling out all their money at once which creates recessions by making the stock market more volatile when many investors act at once which can occur when stocks act erratically.

Another closely related issue with the corporate world is how much Citizens should be paid. www.ethisphere.org is a collection of stocks that beats the S&P 500 every single year in growth, and are selected not for their stock returns (which are considerable) but for their morality. By paying their workers more every year than their counterparts they have lower turnover, lower training costs, lower hiring costs, and their employees make fewer errors which cost any company money, giving these companies money to either grow, and/or pay their investors more money than their minimum-wage and/or Chinese slave driving competitors. (http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/slaverya21stcenturyevil/2011/10/2011101091153782814.html) By paying Citizens more money this helps the corporation immediately by getting and keeping the best workers in the market and making them valued which makes a difference. In the long term at the societal level it raises the demand curve for goods and services which means that more Citizens can afford the goods the corporation makes which increases their demand and means that a stable relationship between company owners, employee, investor, and consumer can develop. This is just good economics from every perspective for the reasons I outline above. My tax code will help move us toward such a world. As Henry Ford said, “There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible.”

Read more quotes from the inventor of automated production at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/h/henry_ford.html#UsAPu4ARukU4mAvm.99

Defending the Lack of Many Popular Deductions in the Income Tax

There are hundreds of deductions in the United States Tax Code, from the beloved Home Mortgage Interest Deduction, to the hobby deduction (no joke), to short-selling stocks, to 401k fees, office rent, business insurance, dues to business organizations (as an individual), travel expenses, and most of these are impossible to accurately defend. We should keep deductions that help our economy as a whole and eliminate the ones that hurt us.

The Home Mortgage Interest Deduction makes the government lose billions of dollars a year. It give consumers little reason to shop for a lower interest rate in the marketplace, and with no cap makes it extremely regressive. Citizens who need the most help get the smallest deduction, Citizens who need no help get the largest deduction. It doesn’t benefit society. Home ownership over apartment ownership does not need an extra incentive, as inexpensive apartments can easily cost $500 per month, while a mortgage for a larger house will be less before the tax deduction. Also, the common perception that the United States has a higher home ownership rate than outside of the country is completely false as can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ownership_rate

Clearly this deduction fails to make a significant difference in home ownership, doesn’t actually help the principal of the mortgage, and only eliminates the incentive for consumers to shop for a lower interest rate making an annual bailout of banks. This does not function as a tax cut. The only real beneficiary are the banks who can charge higher rates of interest.

Losses from ponzi-schemes are deductible. We shouldn’t be deducting things from poor investment choices which decreases the need for responsibility and due diligence and does not benefit the country. This is a completely different argument from national health care because making sure that everyone has health care increases the competition of the American worker which benefits the common good. People do not choose to get ill, people choose to give their money to a scammer. Ponzi schemes, gambling deductions, and sky high mortgage interest payments do not benefit Americans who are not part of such schemes.

We currently allow some deductions for Citizens who buy bonds.

Defending the Corporate Income Taxes changes

The current Corporate Income Tax system is perverse. The most popular argument for a corporate income tax is that it is a way to tax the rich. This is just plain wrong. When a company is deciding its prices it puts the corporate income tax into its calculations for how high to set the prices, and the prices are inflated so the company makes the amount of money it wants regardless of what the corporate income tax is, sure there is competition but that doesn’t come into account as much because consumers will pay the tax no matter where they bring their business. Also, many companies make their expenses work to get enough deductions so that they don’t have to pay anything in taxes. Clearly, the modern corporate income tax doesn’t work.

It has been widely commented by economists on how it is not ideal on how companies are taxed for bringing foreign-earned cash back home to the United States. There are two ways to look at this, first of all they are investing their money in foreign countries, but since the products are generating cash abroad it means that they are selling items abroad. If we have companies potentially exporting items to the United States we want them to be able to bring the cash back home to invest domestically. The current corporate tax code makes such a move detrimental to the company, but with the current tax code they will get tax benefits for bringing money home and creating domestic jobs. We need to encourage companies to grow jobs here at home which is why this part of the corporate tax (along with most of it) has been removed.

We will modify the Corporate Income tax to encourage companies to pay their employees more to increase the aggregate demand curve of the economy which is necessary for the economy to function.

Defending the Negative Income Tax and UBI

This tax code proposes a massive transfer of income from the richest of the country to the poorest through a negative income tax and Universal Basic Income. This is done for multiples reasons, but one of the most important is people with less income are more likely to spend it. This helps stimulate the economy. It also has a political component because people who feel like they have more of the pie are more likely to vote which is what the majority of political science research demonstrates, which will improve our nation’s political well-being.

Providing a general level of wellbeing will help significantly alleviate poverty and stimulate impoverished communities. It will reduce inequality which is tied to gun deaths and other social ills. Instead of spending money on implementation this is a more effective way to get people out of poverty.

Defending the Corporate Income Tax

Every part of the Corporate Income Tax is designed to do specific things. The first thing which is to encourage corporations of all sizes to pay people more than the cost of living in states is designed so that the working poor will see bigger paychecks from their employer so they won’t need as much welfare from the government at all levels. This subsidy encourages this transfer of income to workers helps to reduce income inequality.

the second most important thing is all investments corporations make will be deducted to encourage them to save and increase the amount of economic capital they build. This will have the direct impact of increasing America’s savings rate which increases our long-term potential growth.

Effect of a balanced budget

This will be the automatic process for when the budget is balanced to help boost GDP growth.

1. We will increase the subtractor in the event of a balanced budget which has the dual effect of increasing the number of people who get money back in their taxes and decreases taxation for all.
2. Half of the surplus will be allocated to public schools and sent to them to be used as local school administrators decide. The remaining half will be sent directly back to the people in the form of a check.

In the case of a surplus the money will first pay off the debt early, if there is no debt, it will be sent back to the Citizens in the form of a check proportional to the amount of tax Citizens paid. If the government receives a surplus for two years in a row and the debt is completely paid off then the lowest tax bracket will be eliminated. If the government has a surplus after eliminating the lowest tax bracket the new lowest tax bracket will be eliminated the following year. If the government runs a deficit after eliminating tax brackets the highest bracket eliminated will be reinstated the following year. Congress may adjust the lowest bracket to balance the budget, but income under the cost of living may never be taxed. Congress may also add tax brackets above the highest existing tax bracket to balance the budget, which shouldn’t be necessary.

Thanks to http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/11/02/1032501/-The-Smooth-Curve-Tax-Fixes-Rick-Perry-s-Flat for the beautiful smooth income tax equation!

Here is how it will look in reality.