[quote=AN][quote=CA renter]1.) Restrict the ratio of highest-paid to lowest-paid people who work for or own a particular corporation (including ALL types of compensation to any individual). If they want the benefits of incorporation (basically spreading the risks), then they should have to pay for those benefits by spreading the rewards, as well.
2.) Tax ALL income at the same, steeply progressive rates.
3.) Eliminate the ability to step-up the cost basis of assets for heirs of large estates. Adjust the cost basis by some sort of inflation factor instead in order to avoid being taxed on “inflation.”
4.) Universal healthcare for all U.S. citizens. Medical costs are one of the leading causes of bankruptcy. Unfortunately, if someone is stricken with a devastating illness, they are often unable to work (and maintain affordable insurance) at the very same time that they need this insurance. We pay the highest medical costs for some of the worst outcomes, respectively. Americans desperately need to wake up and learn more about the different healthcare systems and their outcomes.
5.) Lift the cap on income subject to SS taxes, increase SS contributions from both employees and employers, and increase the benefits with the possibility of adjusting the benefits based on needs.
6.) Consider imposing tariffs on “U.S. companies” (and foreign companies?) that do most of the manufacturing overseas if they want to sell goods in the U.S. These costs should offset any differences in labor and environmental standards between the two countries.
If the company isn’t paying for all of the legal, physical, social, and other infrastructure provided by our government (because they are doing most of their work overseas), they should have to buy the right to be a U.S. company with all of the protections and benefits that this affords them.
Just these steps alone would greatly reduce the income and wealth gaps, while still allowing people the ability to save for retirement and enjoy a decent quality of life.[/quote]
1)What would that ratio be? I wonder how this will affect CEO’s decisions, especially regarding inversions to bypass this all together.
2)This wouldn’t matter if the company is non-American (inversion).
3)What would be considered large?
4)This a whole other debate, but sure, reform of our healthcare system. There is a reason why the rich people from other countries come here for healthcare.
5)So, what you’re saying is, the richer you are, the more you pay, but the less you’ll get and the poorer you are, the less you pay into the system but they more you’ll get. How can such system be sustainable?
6)So, you’re imposing tarriffs on most companies. Most tech products are made overseas. Wouldn’t this give companies one extra reason to invert? Since they’ll have tarriffs imposed on them anyways?
Wouldn’t this also cause a trade ware against other nations? How does this help the little guys in the bottom rung if everything they buy becomes more expensive? Wouldn’t that eat up any gain their get from income increase?[/quote]
1. The ratio can be variable, but here is an article stating that Peter Drucker suggests a 20:1 ratio.
Here’s an article about the average American’s ignorance regarding executive/worker compensation ratios. The U.S. is far above any other nation in this metric.
2.)Taxing all income at the same, steeply-progressive rates would indeed matter, whether or not there was an inversion because of rule #6 — foreign companies would not receive the benefits of publicly-funded U.S. infrastructure of all types — no IP protection, no naval protection of their sea lanes, they would have to pay for the use of our roads (if they sell here), etc. if they were not a U.S. corporation and/or if they were a U.S. company that only wanted to be headquartered here because of the many benefits we provide. They (foreign or domestic) would have to pay for the benefits of being domiciled here and/or doing business here. And any money that would be earned here would be taxed by us at these progressive rates. I would even argue that corporate taxes could be made progressive, as well, though I would not tax corporations as highly as individuals unless the money was going to an individual, at which point they’d be taxed at the individual rate.
While costs might go up a bit initially, I firmly believe that we can produce better quality goods for fair prices, even after taking into account the superior labor and environmental protections here. Also, the purchasing power of labor would be increased, offsetting much (or all) of the increased costs that would result from domestic production vs importing the cheap junk from abroad, IMHO.
Also, I would argue that a widget that costs $20.00 but lasts for 10 years is “cheaper” than a widget that costs $2.00 but only lasts for six months. I’m not nearly as convinced as you are that we are better off because of cheap imports that are often of inferior quality.
3.) My mistake, as I was thinking of the issue of estate taxes on large estates when I started writing this.
While I am generally opposed to estate taxes, one could make the argument that there should be a progressive tax rate applied to inherited wealth above a certain threshold. IMO, it should be lower than individual or corporate tax rates because this income/wealth has already been taxed when it was first earned, and I do believe in property rights.
Additionally, inheritance dilutes wealth rather than concentrate it, contrary to popular myth. But the unjustifiable accumulation of additional wealth after inheritance is what needs to be dealt with, and this would be addressed by changes to current laws regarding stepping up the cost basis of assets, along with a higher, progressive tax rate for unearned income.
Heirs of ANY property/estates should not be able to step up the cost basis to market values upon inheritance. The cost basis for ALL assets, whether inherited or not, should be offset by some sort of inflation factor. There should be no difference between inherited and non-inherited assets.
4.) Rich people don’t only come here for care, they go to other countries, too. Many go to Europe for treatment. Some wealthy people even go to Mexico for treatment. While the wealthiest individuals can certainly get exceptional treatment here, most average Americans will spend more to get less than average people in other countries.
But I think that we both agree that our current healthcare system desperately needs to be reformed. How that happens, and what the end result should look like would be a fun, but different, debate.
5.) Yes, that’s what I’m saying. Yes, it’s socialism, but I think it’s the best way to prevent elderly people from living in abject poverty…with the added effect of keeping more money in circulation via the additional purchasing power of this demographic. We could either charge a flat SS tax, as we do now, or we could make it progressively smaller after a threshold (maybe a flat rate up to $500K, and reduce the rate incrementally from there, perhaps at every $500K) where it would eventually go to zero; but that would be at a much higher income level than what we have now.
6.) Most companies desperately want access to U.S. consumers. They can be foreign companies/inversions, or domestic companies. Any money made here would be taxed at our corporate/individual rates.
Any foreign company would not have access to any of our govt-provided infrastructure or services (including military, distribution infrastructure, or IP protection, etc.) unless they pay a proportional share of the costs (plus a profit for our govt?).
We already have trade wars. Note how many countries are trying to devalue their currency, and look at all of the countries that allow for the exploitation of labor and the environment in order to be more competitive. I believe in global trade, but only when the playing field is level. Fair trade, not free trade, except for when a country needs to import from another country because they are absolutely incapable of providing a particular good/service for themselves.
