Showing posts with label tax code. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tax code. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 30, 2019

Characteristics of American homicide

As I keep working on studying the relations of which countries do and do not have open borders, the one variable in the United States which keeps sticking out is our very high homicide rate relative to other countries. It is the only variable where we are consistently doing worse than every member of the Schengen Area. Our corruption perceptions index, ease of doing business index, and our press freedom are all in line with member states of the European Union. However, our homicide rate is significantly higher than that of any member state of the Schengen Area.

The big question of course is why, and in order to answer this question I am going to describe what the data shows in several variables:
  1. Regionally
  2. Racial
  3. Inequality

Regions

When it comes to regions, murder rates vary wildly city to city. Statista has the data to fully see where people are most likely to be shot. They found that the cities in the United States with the highest murder rates today are in:
  • St. Louis 66.07
  • Baltimore 55.77
  • Detroit 39.8
  • New Orleans 39.5
  • Cleveland 27.77
  • Memphis 27.73
  • Newark 27.14
  • Chicago 24.13
  • Cincinnati 23.4
  • Philadelphia 20.06
  • Milwaukee 19.83
  • Pittsburgh 17.98
  • Indianapolis 17.91
  • Stockton 17.77
  • Tulsa 17.29
  • Washington, DC 16.72
  • Atlanta 16.41
  • Nashville 16.3
St. Louis has the largest rate by far and than the rate drops significantly after that. Shootings around St. Louis tend to be concentrated around downtown, and in Black neighborhoods. Shooting map, Race map. Almost all of the murders were committed using a firearm.

 When it comes to states, we see (unsurprisingly) a similar pattern:
  1. Louisiana
  2. Missouri
  3. Nevada
  4. Maryland
  5. Arkansas
  6. Alaska
  7. Alabama
  8. Mississippi
  9. Illinois
  10. South Carolina
  11. Tennessee
  12. New Mexico
  13. Georgia

Race

Murder disproportionately impacts African Americans more than anyone else.
https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/08/10/african-american-homicide-rate-nearly-quadruple-national-average-11680

Inequality

Here is a map of states with a higher homicide rate than Lithuania:

Here is a map of US Inequality from Wikipedia:




Not a perfect fit, but still pretty darn close.

The best theory so far which I have tested myself and have not broken is that income inequality is the biggest driver of homicide. This journal article shows how the inequality hypothesis is an unbreakable hypothesis (I tried and failed to disprove the inequality hypothesis myself when I was in college) in determining where there will be more homicides using a linear regression. Meaning, the relationship between them is so strong that it is a linear one at that, which is actually highly unusual.

More articles examining the link, none are very long and all are worth reading:
Reading through these articles, along with my own research, I am completely convinced that in order to reduce our homicide rate we need to focus on reducing our inequality.

So, what does this look like in practice?
  1. Well, the first thing we can do is tax reform. Reducing taxes on low income earners and increasing taxes on the wealthiest in America will make an immediate and lasting effect on American income inequality. This should be fairly obvious. I do not oppose other methods to reduce inequality, but I personally believe this should be the first step. This is part of why I was so quick to join Carbon Washington while studying political economy in college.
  2. What is the point of increasing disability payments if 10% of that money goes right back to the state? What is the point of increasing TANF when property taxes are hitting low income families the hardest as a percentage of income and 13.4% of their income goes to what is essentially a Ponzi scheme which most low income earners will lose money on? We should obviously do both tax reform and improve our safety net.
  3. We should invest in Early Childhood Education. The impacts of Preschool are shown to be lifelong. It allows parents to go back to work, increasing their economic well-being, and substantially helps children with their social skills.
  4. Improving Social security Old Age Insurance would make a significant impact on the ability of people to save and help money in poor families stay in their pockets. I have already written about how Social Security takes money from people who die young (read, are poor and more likely to be a racial minority) and transfers it to people who die old (read, are rich and more likely to be White). Replacing SS OASI with a Basic Income would instead transfer money to those people who need it most, reducing inequality, instead of probably increasing it. That money would stay in their families, not be transferred to richer old white people. The biggest policy move we can do to reduce inequality actually comes from a Republican proposal (if you have read my blog you know I generally have a very low opinion on United Russia, oh, Republicans), and that is to give people the option to privatize their Old Age Insurance contributions. I expect this would end the program within a decade because everyone would opt to privatize their contributions in a situation similar to what Singapore uses. The big difference is when people pass away this money is then inheritable by their heirs because it exists, as opposed to being transferred to rich old white people, as is the policy today. We could also give people the option to put their money in Real Estate as payments on their house mortgage, which is an option in Singapore, which has one of the highest home ownership rates in the world. We could also just end the Payroll tax because it is the most regressive tax in America, though I do like the idea of forcing people to invest in their future in a way which actually provides value to their heirs, which OASI does not. This would literally save lives by reducing inequality.
  5. Ensure all Americans have access to health care, in order to end medical debt which is eating us alive.
  6. We can significantly increase funding for education at all levels. Free college will put young people on a path to save for retirement which will significantly reduce inequality for the long term. Improving schools in poorer neighborhoods by ending the dependence on local property taxes will have long term effects on economic inequality in the United States.
  7. We should expand the Earned Income Tax Credit as soon as possible because it works at reducing inequality.
  8. America seriously needs to join the bandwagon with the rest of the world and implement paid parental leave. This will allow people to keep their jobs and reduce the number of people who have to leave the workforce to take care of their children.
  9. Ending racial segregation is the 6th idea from the Berkeley article, which will of course be the hardest to implement, but allowing people to use their payroll taxes to pay off their house will help this.
  10. The OECD points out that tax incentives for education and health care disproportionately benefit the wealthy. We need to switch to a model which subsidizes these activities.
  11. Improving unemployment benefits for people who lose work which is temporary would help reduce inequality.
  12. Reducing the gender wage gap, which deserves an article on its own because unlike how social security takes from the poor and gives to the rich, this one is super complicated.
  13. Cutting unnecessary government expenditures, particularly when it comes to the military, and then using that money for effective social welfare programs will help inequality by making it so money goes to people who actually need it.
  14. Have no income tax on incomes below $100,000 per year for an individual.
As you can see, there are no shortage of policies the US government can do right now to reduce inequality, save lives, and save money. We should do as many of these as politically possible as soon as we can.

This is ultimately how we will reduce our homicide rate to be in line with other developed economies.

We need to do this now.

Lives are literally on the line.

Black Lives Matter.

References for inequality mitigation:
  • https://haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/six-policies-reduce-economic-inequality
  • http://www.oecd.org/eco/labour/49421421.pdf

Wednesday, April 27, 2016

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.



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.


Monday, March 14, 2016

Pay by mile is flawed

A large number of states are planning on switching from a gas tax to a pay by mile with the advent of electric cars and higher efficiency which is eating into state revenues. The issue with this is it bypasses the major issue. Pay by mile is a regressive tax, because a millionaire is not going to drive 20 times more than the average person, and doesn't address the issue of our lacking mass transit infrastructure in our country. People are not going to reduce the amount they drive significantly due to such a tax, because people need to get to work. (Economists call this inelastic supply) To reduce the wear and tear on our roads we should make traveling by mass transit free, increase the cost of parking in dense areas, increase the number of park and rides on the outskirts of cities for rural people (which would be well served by free mass transit), and then we will see the amount of people driving decrease. We should match the lost revenue from gas taxes etc. with a more progressive income tax which treats capital gains as regular income which will be a much better society. Pay by mile however is not the right answer to our crowded streets. Roads would be paid out of the general fund if gas taxes do not make up enough to take care of our infrastructure. http://www.king5.com/story/news/traffic/2016/03/14/pay-mile-new-transportation-tax/81777292/

Monday, January 18, 2016

Priorities: Education and Social Security

In the United States we have made unusual decisions in what we have funded. We do not fund preschool for all, yet we fund planes which don't fly and the Joint Chiefs of Staff don't want. We do not fund free annual check ups, but we do fund us spending money on chapels on military bases, which should be left to the religious organizations to bear the cost. What can and cannot be considered pork is always going to be up for debate (is protecting a local environment for a few hundred thousand dollars pork? Is making easier access to public scientific information bad for America?) even though some like the two I list here are likely to benefit society, determining whether that is true can become complicated.

However, when it comes to one of the biggest issues in America's budget perhaps no bigger one is who the government gives handouts. The Federal Government redistributed $850 billion ($2700 per person), $705 billion went to the elderly ($2238 per capita), and $144 billion went to disabled people ($457 per capita). This is also one of the most re-distributive programs in America since people get a larger percentage of the amount they put in at lower income levels.

While it is re-distributive the bigger issue is everyone pays in more than the amount of money they get out of social security. Compared to investing in assets this is clearly a worse plan than if people were to invest their money in a diversified index fund. According to Politifact, the average couple will pay in $722,000 in taxes to Social Security and get back $966,000 in benefits, for a return of about 33%. On the other hand, someone who deposited $4000 a year, increasing at 1% a year (even at an income of $40,000, this is reasonable if not on the low side if you have an employer matching Roth 401k program) starting today for the next 40 years and got the average rate of return on capital (which is 8% based on the last 40 years of the S&P 500) would retire with $1.2 million saved on a $201,500 deposit for a 600% return on investment. Here is my work. Even assuming in Compared to an index fund which performs at market rate Social Security does not come close to comparing. If people invested wisely Social Security Old Age Insurance would be completely pointless, even for people near the poverty line.

The bigger issue with this is what we do not fund which is education. Education is the lifeblood of the American economy. If people are not educated it doesn't matter how many computers we have because people won't know how to use them. Education is so important that when it is put into the Solow-Swan growth model it almost completely explains economic differences between countries. If countries are to grow they need both access to capital and education, meaning high quality education is one of the most important issues to economics. Despite this, the gap in educational opportunity in the United States is extremely wide. Schools start with their funding from their local communities which are extremely unequal in terms of resources to start with and the amount which state governments equalize the inequality varies significantly state to state. Students end up at the mercy of their state governments in how much help the state provides to fix the inequality. The Federal government does little to help equalize this inequality in funding available to children (to no fault of the children) despite the amount it would cost would not be a lot. There are currently 50.1 million students in the United States in K-12. If the Federal government were to give an average of $3000 per student to help equalize the inequality between students (which could be used to get extra training for teachers, new computers, whatever they need) this would only cost us $150 billion, which would be only 25% of what we spend on military and 3.8% of the budget. Even $6000 per student would be only half of what we currently spend on military and 7.6% of the budget, assuming that spending comes from other programs. The per capita cost would also be only $476 or $922 per person, which of course would be paid more by the rich than the poor. We can afford this, in fact, we can't afford not to prepare our next generation for the technology of the future. The economic impact of an educated population is far larger than the cost of that education. If I spend $36000 on a student over 12 years and end up boosting her salary from $30000 a year to $60,000 per year it is easy to see what an impact this would have on the economy as a whole.

So, should we get rid of Social Security to pay for better education for young Americans? I'm not sure this is really a choice we have to make. One option we could do is eliminate the cap on Social Security income, fix the system so people at get at least the same amount of money than they put in on average, and use the added revenue to invest in America's education in the form of Treasury Bonds, which is what we already do with Social Security's $2 trillion surplus (and counting). This would guarantee Social Security will essentially never run out of money and provide education to those who desperately need it. Combined with the rest of my tax code this will mean that many people will have credits in Social Security but not end up paying taxes under such a system. This will help protect people, because if your parents don't end up with enough when they retire it will be the children and grandchildren who pay without a program Social Security, and it helps directly redistribute money to the people who need it. Ultimately, the choice between Social Security and education is a false dilemma as long as we are willing to tweak the Social Security program. This is possible, and this is what we must do.

Tuesday, July 7, 2015

Smooth income tax

As I was coming home on October 7th this year, I thought of my tax code which I have designed, and found one flaw. The corporate income tax part is fine, and will be smoothed as well, but I wanted to make it a more elegant equation.

A Daily Kos author beat me to the punch by several years (probably due to being older than me) and wrote a beautiful equation. I have made a few tweaks to it, first of all I removed his 20% increase at the end and reduced the maximum rate to 50%. This reduces the maximum rate and increases the number of people who get money from the government, which will be a big boost to the economy since they spend close to 100% of their income.

The only other issue is how the government will be able to afford everything. The one thing with his calculation is that he probably didn't include capital gains as regular income, which I do. I need to do some work on to see what the impact will be of this policy change in the future, but I expect that treating capital gains as regular income, since they make up most of the income of millionaires, will make a tremendous difference to the government budget.

The only other thing is I increased the number of people who would pay a negative income tax. Using Census bureau data from Wikipedia it is then very easy to calculate how much revenue the government will receive from any tax code.

My equation looks like this: (Maximum Rate*Taxable Income/0% Tax threshold-Subtractor)/Square root(Divisor+(Taxable Income/0% Tax threshold)^2. This is basically the same as the equation proposed in the Daily Kos article, but made so the variables are undefined so they are easily changed. The values I used make the equation look like this: (0.50*Taxable Income/Cost of living for your family in your state - 4)/Square Root(50+(Taxable Income/Cost of living for your family in your state)^2.

For this equation this means that the average family making under roughly $142,000 will receive money as opposed to paying taxes, because of how unequal our distribution of wealth is, and everyone above that number will pay taxes. The Actual tax rate's lowest amount with these numbers is -28.28% and it increases forever approaching but never touching and never exceeding 50%. There will be a few deductions for things such as health care and education as well.

For a family in the 98th percentile they will pay around 15% of their income in total Federal income tax. Even while paying for the negative income tax for 86% of all Americans they will still have close to $5 trillion in income to pay for our expenses (I say our because they are public projects). For comparison the Federal government spent $3.5 trillion last year. This will mean we can either increase the amount of transfer payments people receive or pay off the deficit, whatever will be best for the economy.

When it come to income inequality this tax code will make a tremendous difference. The top 2% of wage earners currently make approximately 58.2% of all income is my estimation in the spreadsheet I used to model this, after tax income for them will then be reduced to 39.5% of income, for almost a 20% reduction. This will help make us a much more equal society.

This has a direct impact to poorer regions in the United States. Let's say you live in a county where the median household income is $40,000. The average tax rate in this county will be approximately -9.8%, meaning a stimulus of approximately $4,000 per person in the county. This tax code will help stimulate the economies of rural areas which will help small businesses across the nation by putting money in the hands of customers who will then spend that money in these local stores. If we look at the economy of Spokane County, Washington (for a random example) they have a median household income of $37,308 and a population of 471,428. This means an economic stimulus of $900 million to their economy, or $2000 per person. Every county in America will receive a stimulus since the top 7% who will pay taxes are dispersed across America and spend only a small percent of their income, and every county's median income is below the 0% threshold.

On the extreme side, Owsley county, Kentucky is the third poorest county in the nation with a median household income of $15,000, a per capita income of $10,000 and a population of 4,600 would have an average tax rate of roughly -25% meaning they would receive approximately $2500 per person for a grand total of $1.2 million. This will stimulate local businesses in these regions which are constantly in depression and move them towards a better future. This is what a tax code should do.

We need a more progressive tax structure, and one of the easiest ways to alleviate poverty and create a more equitable distribution of income is to give people money. This is hardly a Marxist idea since it was proposed by Milton Friedman of all people, and is something that we should all agree on to make our nation a better place. When one looks at what countries use taxation, the vast majority have a progressive tax structure, with the majority of countries with flat taxes being former Warsaw Pact nations, which are hardly known for their successful economic policies. If you want to stimulate an economy you have to look at the multiplier effect on the people your policies are going to effect, and this means that you want to tax the poor who spend the highest percent of their income the least (since consumption has the highest available multiplier, and they use almost all their income for consumption) while those who make the largest amount of money use most of their money for investment which has a lower multiplier than consumption. This is a basic fact of modern economics, and essential to conducting good policy. So, a good tax policy will tax the most on places and people which have lowest impact on overall productivity and tax the least on places and people which use almost all of their income for consumption. This is because the added benefit of one more unit of consumption decreases the more I own. Going from having no lunch to one lunch makes me very happy. Getting a second bite to eat might make me more happy if I am still slightly hungry, but there will come a point where I am going to be full, and at that point getting more to eat might actually make me worse off than just not eating more food. This is satiation. Satiation is why people who make more money save more money as a percentage of their total income than people who make less. This is the reason why we want to have a progressive income tax which means government investment doesn't cut too much into consumption but means that public sector investment is mostly displacing private investment as opposed to consumption, though it will always displace some consumption such an effect is minimized.

I have designed the whole code and here is what the effect on income inequality would be like based on US Census Bureau Data on American Income Inequality:

This shows that while the effect for the my tax code will be relatively small for most people, it will significantly reduce the wealth inequality at the top. This will yield $4.2 trillion of revenue after tax transfers. The income of the top 1% which currently sits at 58.2% of national income will reduce to 40.6% of after-tax income.

This is a good thing because short-term economic growth comes from consumption, and if we cut that too much we could trigger a current recession. The government expenditure should mostly be focused on long-term investment in normal non-recessionary times anyways, meaning it has minimized its disturbance in the economy. This is why we want a progressive income tax.

Friday, August 1, 2014

Inversion

I don't go to the White House website as often as I probably should, but seeing the front page today (30 July 2014) showed me exactly why I voted for President Obama. The front page talks about eliminating loopholes in our tax code that makes it so large corporations are able to avoid paying taxes. This is one major step to fixing our tax code in the short-run which will help balance the budget (which we will need to do when our economy recovers). This is as the President said, a fairness issue because the loopholes that wealthy corporations use are not available to new businesses who are the major source of new jobs in the economy. NBER This is frequently interpreted as being small companies because when companies start out they are naturally quite small, but new corporations naturally tend to be smaller than established companies because they haven't had the time to grow.

This is, of course, only a first step. Our income tax code has far too many loopholes, the vast majority go to those who already make millions of dollars. They love to claim how the home mortgage interest deduction goes to the middle class while the benefits go to those who are able to buy the biggest houses, as in those who already have a lot, meaning that it is an extremely regressive tax cut. Giving capital gains a flat rate increases taxes on seniors who have invested beyond a specified retirement plan (unless if you withdraw over $230,000 from your stock fund) and decreases taxes owed by those who have millions of dollars in income per year. A flat tax is by definition a regressive tax and since people with lower incomes spend a larger percent of their income they are bad for the economy.

Hopefully with a President pushing for such actions there can be real change which will balance the budget which will increase funding for education and health care without cutting necessary services.

Friday, December 13, 2013

Why is Canada doing better than America?

Today I found a great article on the BBC talking about how Canada has a much lower unemployment rate than most European countries and now has a shortage of labor for the booming oil sands in Alberta.

This made me wonder why Canada is doing so much better than the US and Europe and what the underlying differences are between the three major economics (Europe is for obvious reasons more fragmented but their economy is in recession as a whole and that is where people are coming from).

Looking at the underlying features between the US and Canada they are very similar. They have extremely similar labor laws, extremely similar proportions on who works in what industries, and almost every other major figure is similar except for three important features:
  1. Canadians are paid more at the lower wage levels.
  2. Capital Gains are taxed at a progressive rate in Canada, but not in the United States.
  3. It takes only a day to start a business in Canada and they are ranked by the World Bank as the best country in the world, meaning competition in the private sector.
These three features are why Canada is doing so well right now and are finding such a developed economy.

The first point, higher wage levels, means that there is a higher demand for goods and services in Canada at the local level nationwide than in the US or Europe. The US is having a lagging economy right now, almost certainly due to lower consumer demand. Wal-Mart and other retailers are not finding people to purchase their services which is contributing to poor economic performance. Companies cannot stay open if no one will buy their product. Canada doesn't have this problem because everyone working full-time can survive. This helps small businesses and the entire economy.

Taxing capital gains as regular income solves the problem of the government not losing a lot of money during a recession, which keeps deficit low. However, I can't observe a difference in the stock markets so it doesn't dissuade people from removing their money from the market.

The United States has a similar sector makeup, and the oil boom is isolated to Northern Alberta, and the United States is also having an increase in drilling in different regions. But Canada's entire economy is doing better than the US and Europe, so blaming the oil boom is not enough, since it accounts for less than 19% of the economy.

So, the response of the stock markets is the same, the sector makeup is the same, all but one major feature of these economies I find are comparable, and that feature is distribution of wealth.

After the recession in 2008 the rest of the world came back (except Europe, but only after the implementation of austerity) and there was high demand for goods and services. The average Canadian is paid more than the average American, their distribution of wealth is a lot more equitable, close to what Americans want actually. Because of this difference, the change in economic spending wasn't so large in these other countries. a lot of America's economic growth of the past 40 years was also based in a lot of lending, through a system of government incentives for people borrowing for houses, and schools, which is more than other countries that have seen more steady growth. When the economy collapsed, millions of workers were laid off, and demand struggled. Without massive incentives to change this fact and increase the quality of life we will continue to see a major shift in economic growth. Nick Hanauer (an entrepeneur) made a TED talk talking about how the economy is an ecosystem (I'm paraphrasing) and that it requires transactions to be made, and when one large group of people are unable to make the transactions the entire ecosystem/economy falls apart. Other developed countries don't have this problem like us, and it is the only major characteristic that separates the US and Canada.

If we want to see growth and faster recoveries from recessions we need to increase our economy from the bottom so more people can participate, because no entrepreneur can start a business in a market where there is no demand. This is the reason the American economy is stagnating. It is also similar to the reason why the European economy is in depression, because millions of people have had their income taken from them and the aggregate demand curve has collapsed, leaving firms new and old with no demand, decreasing employment, and decreasing GDP, creating a cycle that has been feeding on itself. Western Europe (which has had large economic ties for the past 40 years) is now divided between north and south (though it hasn't always been to the same extent) between the employed and the unemployed, and this has reduced demand for goods and until they find that people in Southern Europe have opportunities restored, I have little doubt Europe will remain in recession. Other major economies are still growing at increased rates (as long as they didn't implement austerity).

I also predict that Canada saw a reduction in their GDP growth in 2012 because they are so heavily tied to the American economy which hasn't been growing as fast as we need to.

We need more avenues to the middle class so everyone with the skill and will can be as well off as possible. It will be a huge boom to our country's economy.

Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Canada
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Canada
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG economic growth by country where available
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0ehzfQ4hAQ Summary of distribution of wealth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKCvf8E7V1g TED Talk

Friday, July 19, 2013

A fully-functional corporate income tax code

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
    1. X: Employees that make 50% of the living hourly wage or less will have their total income taxed at 100%.
    2. Employees that make at least 50% and below 100% of the living hourly wage will have no deduction on their income.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Employees that make at least 5000% of the living hourly wage will have no deduction on their income.
  3. C=Capital Investment in buildings, manufacturing, and other physical assets.
  4. D=Amount of money paid to foreigners at rates below the Federal Minimum Wage.
  5. E=Total State and foreign taxes

B=X-Y-1.25Z
A+X-Y-1.25Z-C+D-E
A+B-C+D-E equals the taxable income.
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. 0% on taxable income up to 5000 times the cost of living in the state where the corporation is based.
  2. 5% on taxable income above 5000 times the cost of living for companies that give their employees at least 5 weeks of paid vacation time and unlimited sick leave.
  3. 10% on taxable income above 5000 times the cost of living for companies that give their employees from 4 weeks but less than 5 weeks of paid vacation time and unlimited sick leave.
  4. 15% on taxable income above 5000 times the cost of living for companies that give their employees from 3 weeks but less than 4 weeks of paid vacation time and unlimited sick leave.
  5. 20% on taxable income above 5000 times the cost of living for companies that give their employees from 2 weeks but less than 3 weeks of paid vacation time and unlimited sick leave.
  6. 25% on taxable income above 5000 times the cost of living for companies that give their employees from 1 week but less than 2 weeks of paid vacation time and unlimited sick leave.
  7. 30% on taxable income above 5000 times the cost of living for companies that give their employees less than 1 week of paid vacation time and unlimited sick leave.
  8. 35% on taxable income above 5000 times the cost of living for companies that do not give their employees unlimited sick leave.

Thursday, July 18, 2013

An Addition to the Corporate Income Tax

Our corporate income tax currently is insane. Many large corporations plan their finances to pay little or no taxes, (source 1 and 2) which means the majority of corporate taxes are paid by small businesses, making it by definition a regressive tax on those corporations that can't hire the best tax accountants to cook the books. It clearly must be modified or even replaced.

A corporate tax is however not a bad idea and if done correctly could be an incentive to improve the economy by rewarding activities that are good for the economy and fining companies for activities that are bad for the economy. Robert Reich argues that we need to cap deductions for pay at $1 million and I agree with him, but on top of this the very nature of the corporate income tax deductions should be made somewhat progressive.

Instead of deducting all the pay to employees at 100% like we currently do, I propose that the income tax deduction be made somewhat progressive based off of the state of residence of each employee. With modern software this shouldn't take any longer for a corporation with modern bookkeeping practices to implement. It is not a progressive income tax like the personal income tax in the way that the percentages apply to the entire earnings of that individual. Here is a sample tax structure:

Important definitions
  • I define living hourly wage as the hourly wage needed so that an employee working 40 hours per week 48 weeks per year to make the cost of living used for income tax purposes (like previous tax posts). For salaried full-time employees it will be determined by the total pay and benefits in a year.
  • This will apply to employees domestic and abroad for all corporations with American management. Domestic employees will have their expected wage calculated as their state wage and foreign employees by the cost of living in their country as calculated by the American government.
  • Income is defined as all compensation defined as the sum of stock options, bonuses, salary. Benefits such as education and health care don't count because I consider them to be necessities for a successful society.
Tax brackets:
  • Employees that make 50% of the living hourly wage or less will have their income taxed at 100%.
  • Employees that make at least 50% and below 100% of the living hourly wage will have no deduction on their income.
  • Employees that make at least 100% and below 250% of the living hourly wage will have 100% of their income deducted from the corporation's taxes.
  • Employees that make at least 250% and below 5000% of the living hourly wage will have 125% of their income deducted from the corporation's taxes.
  • Employees that make at least 5000% of the living hourly wage will have no deduction on their income.
At a cost of living around $20,000 the brackets would be $10,000, $20,000, $50,000, and $1,000,000.
I predict this would have a few positive effects on the economy.
  1. First of all, corporations will have a real incentive to pay their employees more money instead of giving all their gain to the top. This will improve the livelihoods of average Americans, and this will make the economy more efficient because the people who will benefit the most from this are likely to spend a larger percent of their income which is needed to grow small businesses that create the majority of new jobs.
  2. Secondly, it will penalize companies for underpaying employees which will make it easier for Americans to get started in life because they will be paid more.
  3. Thirdly, it is better for the businesses in the long-run. By paying employees more it makes it so employees will be more likely to stay with one company for a career. This means companies will retain more cash to grow in the future, which is good for the employee through immediate compensation, the employer through long-term savings, and the customer through better service from experienced employees, which is an excellent way to retain customers, and increase revenue for the business to invest and grow with.
It just makes sense.