The 99% Declaration » 5. A Fair Tax Code

- Video Chat
- Like This Page
- Facebook
- Twitter
- Back to Top
- Settings

##

# 5. A Fair Tax Code

Grievances Add comments
Dec 082011

A Fair Tax Code. A complete reformation and simplification of the United States Tax Code to require ALL individuals and corporations to pay a fair share of a progressive, graduated income tax by eliminating loopholes, unfair tax breaks, exemptions and unfair deductions, subsidies and ending all other methods of evading income taxes. The current system of taxation unjustly favors the wealthiest Americans and corporations, many of who pay fewer taxes to the United States Treasury than citizens who earn much less and pay a much higher percentage of their incomes in taxes. Any corporation or entity that does business in the United States and generates income from that business in the United States shall be fully taxed on that incomeregardless of corporate domicile or they will be barred from earning their profits in the United States. This will allow honest companies and individuals who pay their fair share in income taxes to take over those markets in the United States economy formerly held by income tax cheats. Businesses and individuals that pay taxes in other countries will no longer be permitted to use that excuse to justify their failure to pay federal income tax in the United States if they obtain benefits from doing business in the United States. Corporations that create jobs in the United States will be rewarded by the tax code and corporations that remove jobs from the United States will be penalized by the tax code. The substitution of lower capital gains tax rates for graduated income tax rates shall be eliminated. This $4 billion a year “hedge fund loophole” which permits certain individuals engaged in financial transactions to evade graduated income tax rates by treating their income as long-term capital gains which are taxed at a much lower rate (approximately 15%) than income tax.

“Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency; but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.” -Benjamin Franklin, 1789.

VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
please wait...
Rating: 9.3/10 (14 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
Rating: +18 (from 20 votes)
5. A Fair Tax Code, 9.3 out of 10 based on 14 ratings

- Post to Facebook
- Post to Twitter
- Add to LinkedIn
- Post to Delicious
- Post to StumbleUpon
- Send via Gmail
- Send via E-mail program
- Print with PrintFriendly
- Add to Tumblr

Get Shareaholic for Firefox
0

### 36 Responses to “5. A Fair Tax Code”

1. mikejaskula says:
   2012/02/08 at 10:40 pm

   As Thom Hartman has written, a progressive income tax drives high income business owners to invest in their businesses: This creates jobs. So when Republicans complain about taxing the job creaters they are correct, except that they must be taxed at the higher rates before they actually start creating jobs.
   The tax code, and tariffs, ought to encourage domestic production of goods and domestic consumption of domestic goods.
   The tax code should also be used to curtail the accumulation of dynastic wealth. Not that we should seek to stop people from getting rich, but someone earning $3 billion a year and keeping 85% of it is not good for society.

   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   please wait...
   Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
   Log in to Reply
2. personhood says:
   2012/01/31 at 2:51 am

   I support tax laws that support job creation here at home. I also would like to see tax laws or farm subsidies that favor organic farming or farming practices that will not pollute our lakes and rivers and aquifer with agricultural chemicals.

   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   please wait...
   Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
   Log in to Reply
3. flaja says:
   2012/01/25 at 12:55 pm

   A progressive tax system is the epitome of socialism, pure and simple. Nobody should be made to pay more simply because they can afford to pay more. Some 45% of U.S. households pay zero in federal income taxes (http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/14/pf/taxes/who_pays_income_taxes/index.htm) so any thought of tax fairness must address this issue first and foremost.

   However, I support an amendment to the Constitution that would expressly regulate government’s power to tax at the federal, state and local levels. I would end the income tax in favor of a tax on wages and salaries (with large personal exemptions- think about taxing actors and musicians and ball players rather than teachers and doctors and factory workers) along with a tax on individual and corporate debt. I would still allow things like property taxes and fees for permits and automobiles, and I would then allow taxes that can regulate pollution and bad behavior (things like taxing food to discourage obesity; taxing fossil fuels to encourage sustainable alternatives and taxing garbage to encourage recycling).

   But until the federal debt is paid down I would post-pone the implementation of the tax amendment in favor of a Tax Equity Act. Every individual and corporate taxpayer would add up their income from all sources for the current tax year. They would divide this amount by the nation’s total income for the previous tax year to calculate what percentage of the national gross income they received. They would then pay this percentage on their income for the current tax year. There would be no deductions and nobody (other than charities and religious organizations) would be exempt.

   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   please wait...
   Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
   Log in to Reply
4. valleyforge1 says:
   2012/01/22 at 12:54 am

   How about we do away with the Federal Income tax.. totally. Instead the Feds get their money from the states. An equitable amount from each state. That way the feds would be controlled by the state….. power of the purse taken out of Congress and placed in the hands of people that will feel the ire of the constituants more readily and quicker. Stae Gov’ts would then actually have to quit being the microcosm of what is going on in Congress. They would actually have to be responsive to the public. People in the states would then actually have to stand up for their rights and thus appreciate them more.

   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   please wait...
   Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   Rating: -1 (from 3 votes)
   Log in to Reply
   - personhood says:
     2012/01/31 at 2:49 am

     I support state rights, but not above individual human rights. I do not want to abdicate my voice in Washington to my state senator.

     VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
     please wait...
     Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
     VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
     Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
     Log in to Reply
5. JGMAC says:
   2012/01/18 at 8:53 pm

   The Tax code should eliminate the cap on FICA for the highly paid, and all such caps, capital gains should be taxes as regular income, except that regarding the sale of a persons family home. Tax deductions for mortgage interest should be restricted to no more than 5 times the annual minimum wage and limited to one home.

   Income tax itself should be indexed to minimum wage. By doing so, it would give the aristocracy an incentive to see the minimum wage increased because it would be in their own self-interests (which is the only thing they care about).

   The indexing would work something like this:

   Anyone making less than 3 times the minimum wage (tmw) (approx. $51,000) would pay no federal income tax whatsoever, would only pay a 2% FICA and no Medicaid deduction.

   Between 4 to 6 tmw (approx. $55,000 & $102,000) the tax rate would begin at about 7% and graduate to about 18%, and FICA would phase in from 2.5% to 7.5% up that scale.

   For incomes beyond 6.1 tmw up to 1,000 tmw the scale would increase rapidly from 20% at the 6.5% level to not less than 40% at the 300 tmw level and 60% at and above 301 to 1,000;

   For all incomes in excess of 1,000 tmw the minimum tax rate would be not less than 75%, with a cap on deductions of every nature not to exceed 30% of gross income, and FICA and Medicaid taxes at 10% each.

   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   please wait...
   Rating: 4.5/5 (4 votes cast)
   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   Rating: +4 (from 4 votes)
   Log in to Reply
6. robdinsmore says:
   2012/01/13 at 2:21 pm

   Taxation is one of the best ways to regulate economic behavior. When you make something cost a lot due to taxes, that behavior becomes inhibited across the entire economy. Payroll taxation is very regressive, and actually drives the wealth gap in terms of how much it costs to pay an executive vs how much it costs to pay 100s of workers.

   Please consider adding a full study of how to possibly include reforming payroll taxes as well. Economically speaking, payroll taxes create a huge disincentive for employers to pay regular workers higher wages instead of paying higher wages to top earners. The way payroll taxes work, particularly SS and medicare taxes is that the employer and employee each pay 6.2% in taxes up to a maximum of 106.8K. What this means to an employer is that paying 1 person 106.8k is 6.2% more expensive than instead paying an additional 106.8k to someone earning more than 106.8k. So they effectively get a larger bang for their buck if they reward top execs with raises than they do if they give a cost of living wage to all their employees earning < 106.8k. There are also unemployment insurance taxes that behave similarly.

   I am not saying that this is the sole driver for the rise in executive pay at the expense of everyone else, but it certainly helped. I can guarantee that once an employer decides their total year end bonus payout that this ~ 7% tax figures in to how they divide it between themselves and then everyone else.

   I don't really know what the best way to fix this would be. Could a progressive payroll tax be implemented politically? On the surface it seems like it could spur some hiring too. If employers pay a lower payroll tax for people earning good, living wages it could help them increase their staff a little. It would certainly be better for workers to have companies hire them a little more cheaply and to have to pay a little more for the more productive workers.

   But would having a progressive payroll tax also restrict compensation growth by the reverse of what I described above? 106.8K is hardly rich if it is the only income a family has, so allowing income to grow above that point for mid-level talent is good for them, their families and for the economy. Allowing their wages to grow without additional tax on both sides of the payroll tax equation is largely a good thing. It's the extreme case that is the problem. Those that take home 200k, 2,000k, etc that have basically escaped the payroll tax. If a CEO takes home 10 million the payrol tax his 'employer' pays is only $6,216 for SS/med and maybe 1000 for unemployment. That is .062% vs 6.2% for everyone earning 106.8k and less. Another way to look at it is that you can pay 100 people with advanced degrees, tons of talent and experience and highly valuable skills 100k, but it will cost you an additional 6.2% however you can pay 1 entitled prick 100 times that for an additional 0.062%. So maybe there is a place to add a luxury payroll tax to disincentivize this type of behavior for large incomes. And everything a company gives to an exec should be subject to this luxury payroll tax.

   I am suggesting that we demand someone look into the economics of payroll tax and come up with a system that is better for the economy as a whole and fair.

   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   please wait...
   Rating: 1.0/5 (1 vote cast)
   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
   Log in to Reply
7. pclark44224 says:
   2012/01/04 at 7:05 pm

   I think the best solution is to eliminate direct federal taxes entirely. No income tax. No fair tax. Just the plan as it was originally put forth in the Constitution prior to the 16th Amendment.

   Now don’t get me wrong here, I don’t expect this to net more money in our pockets. After all, decrease in funds as a result of the lost income taxes would have to be made up for with increased taxes on the states.

   What I do expect this would do is return the buffer zone between the federal government and the people by removing their ability to tax us directly. I believe this would result in greater fiscal responsibility due to the fact that an individual, except in a few limited circumstances, is nearly powerless against the federal government, especially against signed and ratified tax laws. A state on the other hand is a much larger entity with a direct say in the law making progress. And, since taxes are divided equally among the states based on population, then the most populous (ie the powerful) would also have the most to lose from tax increases and monetary waste. I’ll admit this is a bit idealistic, but I think it is probably the best place to start.

   Additionally, I think there would be other beneficial effects as well. Since there is no longer a legal footing taxing taxing industries, there would be less need for lobbying and corporate interference in Congress. I’m not so naive as to think that all lobbying would disappear though, that is addressed in another issue.

   Further I think it would help draw businesses back to America. Since the federal government can no longer tax corporations income, but can still institute tariffs, it would be a greater penalty to manufacture or produce overseas than here in the States. Each state individually would have to determine the best course of taxation (be it property, income, service, sales, etc) but thats what the states are for. And besides competition between the states is better than competition between countries.

   Granted, some of this may be a little far fetched, but I earnestly believe it, even if I’m not putting my arguments across very well at this time.

   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   please wait...
   Rating: 1.0/5 (2 votes cast)
   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   Rating: -1 (from 3 votes)
   Log in to Reply
8. unacceptable says:
   2011/12/30 at 6:26 pm

   The biggest fraud in the US today is the IRS check it out before making any new tax code that requires a federal income tax

   http://youtu.be/s1UT2Ms5E2k

   http://youtu.be/F9PSYkWIuIs

   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   please wait...
   Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   Rating: -3 (from 3 votes)
   Log in to Reply
9. smlgjohn says:
   2011/12/24 at 1:40 am

   i believe the tax code should be reformed in accordance with a national budget which would be all monies required to subsidize and fund the “SWEET” american dream. By “SWEET”, I mean Security (funding the military as a defense military only to protect all people from physical harm from both domestic and foreign sources), Welfare ( to ensure that all americans can get a job, have healthcare, an education, a roof over there head, and enough food to make sure they are healthy, and no welfare shall be recieved without working for it unless it can be proven that you are unable to work in any capacity), Equal justice for all (all americans regardless of race origin class gender ethnicity, religion, or net worth will recieve the same judgement for the same crime and laws will not be passed to favor any group, all laws and judgements should be eye for an eye plus a set amount for penalty against the offender), Education for all who seek it, and finally guaranteed funding for the advancement of technology to provide a better quality of life to all living beings

   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   please wait...
   Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   Rating: -2 (from 4 votes)
   Log in to Reply
   - JGMAC says:
     2012/01/23 at 6:57 pm

     Are you joking? I truly hope you are, particularly with regard to your concepts of justice. I have read some sophomoric material, usually from ditto-heads and rather uneducated tbuggers, so I hope your post is intended to be funny, not serious.

     VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
     please wait...
     Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
     VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
     Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
     Log in to Reply
     - JGMAC says:
       2012/01/23 at 6:58 pm

       My criticism is directed at your tax code provisions or concepts and your juvenile idea of justice.

       VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
       please wait...
       Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
       VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
       Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
       Log in to Reply
10. John P says:
    2011/12/19 at 2:57 pm

    To demonstrate how out of control the corporate tax system is; I invite you all to read the results of a report by Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. It is enlightening and shameful.

    30 Major Corporations Paid No Income Taxes In The Last Three Years, While Making $160 Billion

    http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/11/03/360185/30-corporations-no-taxes/

    and ……………..

    http://www.businessinsider.com/these-are-the-30-american-companies-that-paid-less-than-zero-income-tax-from-2008-2010-2011-11

    As CTJ’s report put it, “just as workers pay their fair share of taxes on their earnings, so should successful businesses pay their fair share on their success. But today corporate tax loopholes are so out of control that most Americans can rightfully complain, ‘I pay more federal income taxes than General Electric, Boeing, DuPont, Wells Fargo, Verizon, etc., etc., all put together.’ That’s an unacceptable situation.” And its one that lawmakers could fix, if they were willing to stand up to the nation’s biggest corporations.

    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    please wait...
    Rating: 3.5/5 (4 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    Rating: +2 (from 4 votes)
    Log in to Reply
11. Mark Greene says:
    2011/12/19 at 10:23 am

    As long as we retain an income tax, I see no moral justification from distinguishing between capital gains, dividend income and ordinary income, at the individual level. They should all be taxed progressively at the same rates. I would never tax estates at lower than conventional rates, as this is about as unearned as income can possibly get – have no problem with exempting a reasonable portion, say 20x poverty level? (Think that would make the current exemption around $500k)

    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    please wait...
    Rating: 3.3/5 (3 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    Rating: +2 (from 4 votes)
    Log in to Reply
    - blake says:
      2012/01/05 at 2:58 am

      I Think your right about the unnatural distinction we make for how we earn our incomes. It should not matter if you made your money with your hands or made it with a fountain pen it all should be taxed the same. On the estates tax what would be your deduction for small businesses. Some families farms or small businesses can be valued into low millions. I know our family business valued close to 500k and all we have is one very small shop.

      VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
      please wait...
      Rating: 3.0/5 (2 votes cast)
      VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
      Rating: -1 (from 3 votes)
      Log in to Reply
    - maplehead74 says:
      2012/01/10 at 6:32 am

      I echo Blake’s concerns . I grew up in Vermont and watched a lot of family farms lost to estate tax. I know live in rural Florida the issue would be worse here as the property value is higher. I am a strong progressive that believes in everyone paying there fair share, but there is a problem when we are losing family farms. These properties seldom go back into agriculture after there lost by the family. This creates all kinds of problems to name a few:
      loss of working knowledge of the land
      employment , a small farm can provide many jobs both directly and indirectly
      less local food
      more reliance on imported food
      if the farm is starts growing row houses like many do in Fl. , now you have a laundry list of environmental impacts

      100 acres of ag land in this area would be valued around 3 million. Most of this area is ag land that has been passed down from father to son… No one is rich around here let me tell you. Everyone is scraping by trying to keep the farm.

      So maybe a estate tax with an agricultural exemption. Yes some people would game it, but there is only so much land you can claim is ag land. A million dollar home in a subdivision for example is not a farm even if it has a kitchen garden.

      VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
      please wait...
      Rating: 1.0/5 (1 vote cast)
      VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
      Rating: -3 (from 3 votes)
      Log in to Reply
      - JGMAC says:
        2012/01/19 at 10:40 am

        Sorry Maple, but no family farm since 1956 has been lost due to Federal Estate Taxes, so you must be talking about Vermont’s State Inheritance Tax. The Federal Estate Tax should be re-instated in full, with exemptions it has always had for the true family farm, family business, up to the inflation adjusted maximum of $15 million. No one should be allowed to pass on more than that amount, in total, in any manner whatsoever to their children, grandchildren, self-serving ‘charitable institutions’, insurance, etc., more than that amount of money or property. As the majority of the Founding Fathers agreed, the establishment of an aristocracy via inheritance is as dangerous (which we now suffer under and due to) as is a church run state.

        VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
        please wait...
        Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
        VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
        Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)
        Log in to Reply
        - blake says:
          2012/01/20 at 9:48 am

          I agree with JGMAC I would have no problem with re-instating the Federal Estate Tax.

          VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
          please wait...
          Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
          VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
          Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
          Log in to Reply
12. Dan Long says:
    2011/12/19 at 4:54 am

    I would not tax anyone until they reached twice the level of poverty for a family. No income tax, no sales tax, no dmv registration fees, no charges at all placed on that individual by the government. Let them file for a “get out of tax free” card with every tax return, that would give them that entitlement until the end of the next year.

    Government uses it all the time when they buy office supplies, computer equipment, anything they want. They pay no sales tax. I’m just extending it to the people that don’t have the money to pay it in the first place. The person that spends $100 weekly in groceries with a sales tax of 6%, pays $312 annually in taxes. Right now, that is $312 more than General Electric pays in taxes. I see no sense in that at all.

    I believe that until this happens, our minimum wage will remain stagnant with no motivation to change, our job markets will remain listless as the middle class competes for space among the poor, and the crime rate will not lower until poverty is replaced by production.

    Now, having given this generous benefit to those at the bottom of the economic ladder, I would also do some work on the unemployment systems within the state. I would make it law that any job opening placed in a newspaper, or media of any type, MUST also be filed within the Unemployment systems of the states. No state agreement, no benefit.

    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    please wait...
    Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)
    Log in to Reply
13. Nathan D says:
    2011/12/19 at 12:47 am

    I believe we should eliminate all taxes on labor or the production of useful goods and services. Instead we should tax natural resources. Starting with land, but also minerals, water, radio frequencies, lumber, wild game, etc…

    And the annual tax ought to equal the annual full-market rent if the right to use or harvest the resource were auctioned to the highest bidder on an annual basis.

    Owners of extremely valuable land in the middle of large cities would either put it to very productive use or sell it to someone who would. Farmland in the middle of nowhere would be lightly taxed. Those harvesting lumber in our national forests would compensate the community for the privilege, as would those sucking oil from the ground, mining coal or other minerals, etc…

    The benefit of taxing natural resources to the same level as renting the privilege, is that those who use or extract the resources, if they do not own the resource/land are already paying the full market rent – but instead of a wealthy, private citizen getting the full amount, it would benefit the whole community by offsetting taxes. Furthermore, those who do own the land or resource and thus avoid paying the full rent are instead collecting that rent from the rest of the community by charging full market rates on their product rather than reducing the cost because they have lower expenses (no rent).

    Another benefit of taxing natural resources is that the collected rent would probably exceed our governments current expenditures eliminating the financial need for any form of income tax, value added tax, sales tax, or taxes on wealth or labor. With so much excess wealth collected from taxing natural resources, the federal government could provided an annual (or even monthly) dividend to every citizen by equally dividing the excess over public expenditures.

    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    please wait...
    Rating: 1.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    Rating: -1 (from 3 votes)
    Log in to Reply
    - Liz Ellis says:
      2011/12/19 at 7:44 pm

      “Owners of extremely valuable land in the middle of large cities would either put it to very productive use or sell it to someone who would.”

      Why? this notion seems like it would put an end to conservation easements, parks, public uses, public access to natural resource in its natural state, public gardens, etc.

      VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
      please wait...
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
      VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
      Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)
      Log in to Reply
      - Nathan D says:
        2011/12/19 at 11:18 pm

        The community as a whole ALWAYS has priority for the use of any parcel of land. If the community’s leaders choose to turn various parcels into parks, streets, or other types of community venues, they can either use eminent domain or if the community outright owns the land, they just refuse to renew the lease. At that point, the land belongs to the community, the community needs to reimburse the owners of the improvements (buildings and such) for the value of those improvements and then the community can convert the land into a park or whatever communal asset the community needs.

        VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
        please wait...
        Rating: 1.0/5 (1 vote cast)
        VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
        Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)
        Log in to Reply
    - Liz Ellis says:
      2011/12/19 at 7:48 pm

      “Farmland in the middle of nowhere would be lightly taxed.”

      Many farmland is already taxed at the local or state level. Continued regulation of our family farmers, combined with the dreams promoted by real estate agents, can lead to small family farmers to consider rezoning requests. If approved, they can subdivide their property into smaller residential (previously agricultural) lots. The result – a loss of net agricultural land, and a gain in net residential land. Is this good for America?

      VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
      please wait...
      Rating: 1.0/5 (1 vote cast)
      VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
      Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)
      Log in to Reply
    - Liz Ellis says:
      2011/12/19 at 7:53 pm

      Nathan, this is an interesting idea, but if the annual tax = the full market rent at auction, what is the gain for those resources that ARE auctioned off – such as timber and shellfish?

      VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
      please wait...
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
      VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
      Log in to Reply
      - Nathan D says:
        2011/12/19 at 11:14 pm

        For consumeable, non-renewable resources like oil or various minerals, the privilege of harvesting those resources would be auctioned off. Either by dividing up the various deposits into individual parcels and auctioning the privilege to harvest that deposit for one year (or another reasonable time period). Or by auctioning the privilege to harvest a set amount of the resource within a reasonable time.

        For consumeable, renewable resources, an appropriate agency would determine how much lumber, fish, or other resource can be safely harvested without over-depleting the stock. In this case the right to harvest a given amount of the resource within a given time would be auctioned off.

        Thus, the value of the un-harvested resources will be returned to the community, but those who harvest the resources get to keep the value of their labor (the harvest resources).

        VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
        please wait...
        Rating: 1.0/5 (1 vote cast)
        VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
        Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)
        Log in to Reply
        - lizell says:
          2011/12/20 at 11:43 pm

          I think this is already being done.

          VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
          please wait...
          Rating: 1.0/5 (1 vote cast)
          VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
          Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)
          Log in to Reply
          - zarepheth says:
            2012/01/04 at 8:33 pm

            I believe limited length leases to harvest or use some natural resources may be auctioned to the highest bidder, but most resources were given or sold a long time ago to whomever had enough money or political influence to gain those resources at or below then current market rates. Since they were sold, the private owners can sit on them or use them as they see fit, irrespective of the needs of the community.

            Furthermore, because most resources were sold or given to private parties a long time ago, even if they paid full market price at the time, the property’s value has increased through inflation, population pressure, and advanced technology – all of which come from the community as a whole. But with the current ownership scheme, the community’s contribution to the value is kept by private parties rather than being returned to the community.

            So for the few resources where limited length leases are auctioned to private parties by the government, there would be no change, but for most resources either the resource’s ownership must revert to the community or the full taxes (combined taxes from all taxing authorities: local, state, & federal) on the resources should be set equal to the full market rate rent for the resources.

            VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
            please wait...
            Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
            VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    - n2g66ngm says:
      2012/01/12 at 10:57 am

      This plan can be tweaked around the edges, but fundamentally this is the right idea. Tax the gifts of the earth; do not tax labor-for-labor exchange. Distribute a fixed annual amount to each citizen, as part or all of the progressivity of the tax system.

      VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
      please wait...
      Rating: 1.0/5 (1 vote cast)
      VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
      Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)
      Log in to Reply
14. David Gilbert says:
    2011/12/16 at 7:15 am

    On creating a progressive federal tax code. The marginal tax rate ought to be raised to 50 percent on income between $500,000 and $5 million, 60 percent on income between $5 million and $15 million, and 70 percent on income over $15 million. The estate tax should be 55 percent and kicks in after $5 million. Capital gains should be taxed at 35 percent. End the home mortgage deduction on first homes over $1 million. End the home mortgage deduction on all second homes. Eliminate corporate loopholes, unfair tax breaks, exemptions and deductions, subsidies and end offshore tax haven abuse saves $100 billion a year. End the wars and reduce the military budget by half saves over $400 billion a year. Corporations should be taxed by a variable amount based on the percentage of their payroll going to US workers. A small business employing 100% US workers should be taxed somewhere between 15-20% while a company that has completely shifted its production overseas should be in the 50% range. Expatriation of capital should be subject to a maximum tax-rate penalty with violation considered a felony act.

    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    please wait...
    Rating: 1.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)
    Log in to Reply
    - Patrick Drazen says:
      2011/12/17 at 7:19 am

      “A small business employing 100% US workers should be taxed somewhere between 15-20% while a company that has completely shifted its production overseas should be in the 50% range.”

      I can get behind this, with the additional stipulation that the company register as a foreign entity, in part, and be publicly listed accordingly.

      VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
      please wait...
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
      VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
      Log in to Reply
15. Patrick Drazen says:
    2011/12/13 at 8:50 am

    Professionalism is definitely key here, as is transparency. IRS employees — actually all government employees — have to function in a transparent system that discourages bribery or other forms of influence, and stymies the ability of tax attorneys to circumvent the ability to levy. All transactions ideally should become public record, accessible online, and be signed off on by at least two different departments to stop things from getting too cozy.

    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    please wait...
    Rating: 1.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)
    Log in to Reply
16. Steve Katz says:
    2011/12/12 at 2:19 pm

    Changes to the customary middle class deductions must be phased in slowly in order to avoid destroying large portions of the economy and/or the personal savings of individuals (e.g., unless phased in slowly, removing the mortgage deduction will decimate the home construction industry and the value of an individual’s home; unless phased in slowly, removing the exemption of municipal bond interest will decimate city coffers and all those who now own municipal bonds).

    As important as changing the tax laws is to creating fairness, so is increasing the enforcement of those laws by increasing the number of IRS agents and the quality of IRS agents (through higher salaries)–thus making it less likely that the richest, most sophisticated taxpayers will be able to evade their responsibilities, while simultaneously more than paying for the cost of the additional and higher quality agents.

    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    please wait...
    Rating: 1.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    Rating: -2 (from 2 votes)
    Log in to Reply
    - JGMAC says:
      2012/01/19 at 10:49 am

      Steve, the tax increases that resulted from Bonzo St. Reagan’s TEFRA tax bill that was the first major shift in wealth and income in the 80”s, did not occur gradually. The middle class and the poor lost the ability to deduct interest on personal loans like car loans, bank loans etc,, their threshold deduction for medical care was more than doubled, yet the top tax rate was decreased by 15 +%, the wealthy were allowed to deduct the interest on multiple homes, and other luxury items. We need to force the DoJ to release the names (which it has) of the Americans that hold off-shore tax-haven bank accounts or hope that WikiLeaks releases that information soon.

      VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
      please wait...
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
      VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
      Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
      Log in to Reply
17. Patrick Drazen says:
    2011/12/11 at 7:13 pm

    I commend to the attention of anyone who’s interested in this question an article in the November 2011 issue of Vanity Fair. Titled “Debt and Dumb”, it draws on the experience of Alexander Hamilton in financing the early days of the US government, comparing the models provided by Britain (democratic taxation) and France (taxation that favored the wealthy). The British model led to stability and the ability to achieve the government’s long-term and short-term goals, while the French model led to the kind of polarized society we now endure, with a wide gulf between rich and poor, no taxes levied on the wealthy who could afford them, which led in part to social unrest and the overthrow of the monarchy. Whatever yuour beliefs, you should read this article for a quick and understandable historical perspective on the use of taxation as a government’s lifeblood, and the need to levy taxes fairly rather than by favoritism.

    http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2011/11/debt-and-dumb-201111

    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    please wait...
    Rating: 1.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)
    Log in to Reply
18. allison says:
    2011/12/10 at 5:44 pm

    Graduated taxes on assets and total sales- with larger corporations paying a sharply graduated marginal rate- would make size increasingly costly, thus forcing larger enterprises to be more efficient or break themselves up voluntarily- this is what we need.
    The bigger question I have is if we want jobs for all and if we want to protect the planet why are we all for taxing income???? Instead of taxing income we should tax activities that contribute to social and environmental dysfunction such as resource extraction, energy, landfills, advertising, etc.. By taxing the stuff we do not want in society we will create more jobs and help the environment and help build a society we do want. This will no doubt reduce the wealth gap in the nation.

    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    please wait...
    Rating: 1.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)
    Log in to Reply
    - tomstpaul says:
      2012/01/10 at 12:54 am

      I am afraid I have to start at the beginning. The country had something called “The Common Market”. In order to sell something within The Common Market, there was no tax. The product was produced within, consumed within, and the dollar circulated within. TARIFFS were the source of government income. The government maintained The Common Market and would collect a commodity specific fee from any producer outside who wished to sell to consumers within. This gave the community the payback for maintaining their “Market” and protected the producers within the market from unfair price competition.

      The government also had land & resources to raise revenue. (That’s a sordid history from what I know.) Every complex code enacted since then needs to be examined-particularly the Income tax. Complexity is the harbor of the Scoundrel.

      We need to now get real serious about the stewardship of our common market, land, and resources. It is obviously the font of great wealth, but it is the only resource upon which future generations must depend and it must be managed for the purpose of the sustainable provision of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness FOR ALL.

      Jobs? Not all jobs are just pursuits. We should be free to occupy our time. We know the fruits of labor. We know the rewards of work. We know the value of entertainment & leisure. We appreciate the gifts of art & science. After 200 years in the making, this land and we, the people, need to SECURE the means of life and the protections and opportunities of freedom FOR ALL. Call it “welfare” if you think it is a more apt term. A basic floor of shelter, nutrition, safety, education, healthcare, must be provided for all.(It is a blessing not a reward.) “A necessitous man is not a free man.” And THEN we can pursue happiness at our own pace & ability. I suspect there should be ample taxing opportunity in “happiness”.

      The Founders were aware of Wall St (East India Co & The Crown for them) and that is a fight we still must win.It is the vortex of power.
      They were not aware of Madison Avenue and I see that as the next block to occupy. Manipulation by advertizing on mass media has infected us all in some manner and to some degree. We see it in others easier than in ourselves. It is disgusting when seen in statistical aggregate. The economic aims of large corporations are plain. Our “consumer habits” were all taken from the shelves of Madison Avenue. This will take some unwinding, however it goes to the point that all jobs are not just pursuits. It goes to good stewardship of resources.

      Our Common wealth must secure the Common good. That is the Tax Code.

      VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
      please wait...
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
      VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
      Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)
      Log in to Reply

### Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Would you prefer Michael Pollok, founder of the 99D, stay or resign?
Stay
Resign
Vote View Results
Share This Polldaddy.com
Should an anonymous donor be allowed to demand the resignation of a 99D board member as a condition of providing the match donation?
Yes
No
Vote View Results
Share This Polldaddy.com

Check out what's being said on all the Grievances and help draft the Petition!

1. Elimination of the Corporate State
View & Comment

2. Abrogation of “Citizens United” Case
View & Comment

3. Elimination of All Private Benefits and Perks” to Public Servants
View & Comment

4. Term Limits
View & Comment

5. A Fair Tax Code
View & Comment

6. Healthcare for All
View & Comment

7. Protection of the Planet
View & Comment

8. Federal Debt Reduction
View & Comment

9. Jobs for All Americans
View & Comment

10. Student Loan Debt Relief & Refinancing
View & Comment

11. Ending of Perpetual War for Profit
View & Comment

12. Emergency Reform of Public Education
View & Comment

13. End Outsourcing and Currency Manipulation
View & Comment

14. Banking and Securities Reform
View & Comment

15. Foreclosure Moratorium
View & Comment

16. Ending the Federal Reserve Bank
View & Comment

17. Abolish the Electoral College and Enact Uniform Election Rules
View & Comment

18. Ending the War in Afghanistan and
Care of Veterans
View & Comment

19. No Censorship of the Internet
View & Comment

20. Reinstitution of Civil Rights
View & Comment

21. Ending the “War on Drugs” and
Curtailing the Prison Industrial Complex
View & Comment

Suggest a Grievance
Please check if your idea fits in one of the already suggested grievances above first. If not, please add your comments here.
Other Suggestions/Revisions
Please check if your suggestion/revision fits in any of the grievances above. If not, you may post comments here.

### Vote for Delegates

- Register to Vote for Delegates

### Become A Delegate

- Become a Delegate

### Get Involved

- Volunteer

The 99% Declaration Website by The 99% Working Group, LTD is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. |  | Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha