I'll Say It Again... If I Were King (LOL !!!) I'd Tie The Top Marginal Tax Rate To The Unemployment

All in favor say aye.

It would be nice to do it from the President all the way down to the the local school boards.

But this wouldn't have to be a tax. It would just be a reduction in pay commensurate with the unemployment rate. Or, hell, do it the other way. Start them off at $0 and they can work their way up based on performance. Sort of like a commission-based employment.

There are lots of ways to bring the powerful down from their high perches (both public and private) and make them once again work for the society they claim to serve.

You need to start at 85 percent to 90 percent.

That way if they knock four points off the rate (to under four percent), the top rate will still be 65 percent to 70 percent. Of course, that would inspire millions more people to re-enter the job market, pushing the rate back up to seven percent. Then when the "job creators" knock it down another four points, ending at say three percent, the top tax rate will still be 45 percent to 50 percent.

Otherwise, I like the idea.

It's the story of the Golden Goose. Republicans want to cut it open. Democrats want to preserve it.

--imm

The unemployment numbers would oscillate up and down in an exaggerated cycle of boom and bust. Rising unemployment would lead to rising tax rates which would bring down the unemployment rate which would reduce the taxes which would push the unemployment back up.

"The unemployment numbers would oscillate up and down in an exaggerated cycle of boom and bust."

...expiring in three years?

But your "one time" idea is also interesting. If booms and busts don't happen more frequently.

If there is a cause and effect relationship then it works both ways. If it doesn't work both ways it doesn't work either way. So either it wont work at all, or it will set up an oscillation.

If the theory is that the "job creators" can create jobs, this system provides them with incentive to do so. Since this theory is moronic bullshit, mostly it would raise the tax rate on the wealthy a lot. Which I'm having a hard time finding a downside.

The question becomes, why would unemployment shoot up beyond our current boom/bust cycle?

Knowing their taxes would go back up again if they laid off their employees would theoretically act as a disincentive to do so.

So I don't understand why there would be an oscillation.

the cycle doesn't necessarily have to be exaggerated.

and the latencies inherent in those feedbacks.

If you don't have precise understanding of the nature and strength of the feedbacks then all you can do is "fiddle" with them, and then you don't know how to wait for an effect if you don't know the latencies.

So, no, you can't tune them when you don't understand the exact nature of the feedback loops.

we will need to have many economists study King Willy's plan carefully before putting it into action.

"I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your King."

... is the result of overstimulus. That would only happen if the ratio between the rates was too high.

Your premise is that rich people would hire folks to get a tax break, then "Holy shit! These employees are costing me more than my taxes" and fire them all.

Next year: "70% income tax rate??? Call Labor Ready!"

That might have a crumb of validity if the employees weren't purchasing the rich person's goods and services. He might not like paying all those employees, but he sure isn't going to fire them until the backlog of orders is fulfilled.

I'd make it graduated. 0% for the first 5 million, 100% after that. Ronald Reagan was right. Trickle down economics works just fine, you just have to squeeze the sponge. Basically, the millionaires would have to use it or lose it. Don't care if they spend it on solid gold toilets. Workers have to mine the gold, smelt it, transport it, pour it into the mold, box it up, ship it and install it. Jobs,Jobs,Jobs,Jobs,Jobs

I expect an accountant could come up with some exact numbers to plug in but the concept is outstanding.

Unfortunately, I don't see it ever happening.

I mean, that's what the Rs say. So, if it's true, why wouldn't the Rs agree to this?

I believe the mega wealthy are a threat to our economic security and should be dealt with as such.

Take it back to 90 like it was under Eisenhower. That was what it took to give our country a healthy thriving middle class and truly recover from the depression. We have the road map for how to solve our problems, just not the will to follow it.

We need a new new deal.

If we get to vote for king....you've got my vote.

fix these problems (and who can't come up with any solutions other than to eliminate taxes on those who hurt the country the most)??

Seriously. You'd think they would come up with something like this if they actually gave a damn.

What we have here is too many folks are too close to the money spigot. Put the top rate at 91% (like it was in the 1950's) and if the deficit starts coming down; then the top rate can come down a little.

Use that extra revenue to improve infrastructure (which the wealthy benefit the most from anyway). That way if the contractor makes more than his fair share; it goes back to the government. If the contractor pays his employees well; good jobs have been created.

If you reduce the tax on the 'job creators' because they have created jobs; they will create shitty jobs.

I'm gonna vote for a different king.

tax the top 1% of earners at 35%. After that add 3% to the rate for every 1% increase in the unemployment rate.

The real catch here is that you have to have an accurate unemployment rate. You need a formula that takes into account all unemployed people who are looking for work or not and factors in people who are part time or underemployed.

I would also change the payroll tax to eliminate the cap and instead have a floor. People would not have to contribute and instead would be credited their contributions for the first $10,000 of income. After that they would be taxed at the current rate.

And since the Government seems to be unwilling to honor it's obligation to the social security trust fund, I would also stop putting surplus funds in the trust fund and instead distribute the yearly surplus evenly among the current recipients.