Introducing the 97%(96.83) Party.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

96.83 percent of Americans earn an annual income below $150K.

GOALS

Serve the interests of 97% of the people.

Fig leaf to the other 3%

If our policies fuck you, take solice. When your income falls back into the 97% we're looking out for you- You'll still be at the top!

[LostInAnomie]

1. Fine with me.

If you're making over $150K you can take care of yourself.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

2. True.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

3. 99% tax beginning at the 99.84 percentile.

All we're doing is looking out for the interests of 97% of the people.

If that sounds wrong, you're an idiot. Plus+++ Those feeling the brunt of policy are immediately protected when they fall to the lowly sum of $150 a year. "We got your back!"

[Cirque du So-What]

4. I'm going local!

I drive on this highway every day.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

5. Please contribute.

If this isn't a no-brainer, I don't know what is.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

6. It's Super Simple!

If you make less than $150K a year....Congratulations! You're a member in good standing! :party:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

7. 97% of Du'ers fall into this category- unscientifically..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7963096&mesg_id=7963096

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

8. Eerily quiet.

:cry:

[kenny blankenship]

9. It sounds GREAT to me.

But I had thought that's what the Democrats were for.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

10. That's the 40% Party.

Generously.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

11. Let's bury this idea.

[kctim]

12. Hmmmm

So what are some of these interests of the people that you will serve?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

15. Tax policy.

The reverse of what it is now.

[kctim]

23. That's a goal

not goals. Not even a very popular one either.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

24. Not popular?

It benefits 97% of the people!

The exact opposite of not popular. :dunce:

[NeedleCast]

27. you're opperating under the assumption that this would actually benefit

97% of the people.

It wouldn't.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

34. ?

Great assertion!

[kctim]

45. Only IF

97% of the people agree with a 99% tax on people making only 150k (which they don't) AND if they all share your opinion on what "benefits the people" (which they don't)

Sorry. I know you are just having some fun, dreaming and all. I shouldn't be so sour grapes like.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

58. Just a dreamer.

Lol.

"...making only 150K."

Let's explore "only." "Only" 97% of Americans make less than $150K. Your idea idea of "only" is completely reversed.

"Only" in your world can "Only" mean a 3% majority.

Incredibly lame.

[NeedleCast]

13. No Thanks

Silly idea.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

14. So you make more than $150K?

The odds are against it.

[NeedleCast]

17. Nope

I make about half that.

I just think it's a ridiculous idea. The suggestion that you're going to be dragging the top 3% back down in line with the rest of "the people" doesn't sound good. It sounds draconian.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

19. Wow!

But subjecting the 97% to the 3% isn't?

Just fucking WOW!

[NeedleCast]

20. I didn't say that

That's a nice red herring you're tossing out there though.

I'm fairly comfortable with a scaling tax system and wouldn't be opposed to raising taxes (slightly) or creating another tax bracket for very high individual incomes. That's not what you seem to be suggesting though. What you're suggesting is taking "their" money and giving it to "us."

THe problem with this (ridiculous) idea is that "their" and "us" usually continue to change...because after you've managed to (theoretically) drag down the top 3% under 150k you'll have someone come along and say "screw those 150k richies, I propose the we tax them down to 100k, no 75k, no 50k!"

Now, if you want to propose a sane change to existing tax law, I'm happy to listen.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

22. It's always 97%.

You can only move to $50K if that's at 97%.

It'll never happen. Red herrings, indeed.

I'd bet heavily that the number would move up, not down.

[NeedleCast]

28. Math

I understand that math is hard, but if you keep the cap at 97% of what it used to be, you understand that it ALWAYS goes down, right?

You understand that if you make a hard cap at any number, and the next time you re-assess your plan you do 97% again, the number will always be less.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

30. Only if there is no additional production.

From 0% disposable income to %1-96% disposable income won't have an effect? Sister, please!

If you believe the extra purchasing power of the 97% won't have an effect on the economy/production, you're right. If you're sane, the economy will hum.

Math is hard. You might want to reflect on who it is hard for...


GDP isn't constant. Get it?

[NeedleCast]

40. There's no incentive for additional production

You've limited salaries (and I'd assume business incomes) to 150k/year. In fact, there's a huge incentive for massive production cut offs.

So answer me this, what do you plan to do with business taxes?

Lets look at a large corporation. I'm going to say Dell, since I'm sitting at a Dell laptop.

Dell claimed to Employe 65,200 people in 2009.

So one of two thigns is going to happen. You pick.

1. You're going to impose the 150k salary cap on businesses as well as individuals.
2. you're only going to impose the 150k salary cap on individuals.

In scenario 1, Dell (the corporation) can only make 150k/year. How do you propose Dell pay it's 65,200 employees when it's income is so capped.

In scenario 2, Dell (the corporation) continues to be able to make a lot of money, but it can only pay it's highest paid employees 150k. So you end up with a Dell having massive amounts of capital with nothing to do with it.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

33. Psst.

The number has been moving down for the last 30 years.

:think:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

16. Explain the silliness.

:rofl:

Please come out for the 3%! Please! Please! Please!

[NeedleCast]

18. You haven't actually posted anything for me to have to explain yet

Except that the idea involves somehow dragging the top 3% down to an income level below 150k/year.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

21. Correct.

What's your vested interest in the top 3%?

Taxes:
99% on income over %150K

Healthcare:
97% coverage.

Trade:
97% of jobs located in the US

Diplomacy:
97% of policy geared toward rewarding the 97%---not the 3%.

et cetera...

[NeedleCast]

26. Well, this would take a long time to explain

I have no vested interest in the top 3% other than the fact that they supply a shit-storm of jobs so before you go taxing their income back down to 150k you need to realize this would cause a total collapse of the job market because there'd be no reason for anyone to invest much capitol in anything if they were going to be seriously limited in the return they could expect on it. You need to understand economics 101 for this, and you're giving all indications that you don't.

Like it or not, most western countries rely in part on a capitalistic system (with varying degrees of social systems as well) and making sudden, dramatic change to that system would be bad.

There's no reason for me to build an office building costing several million dollars if I'm limited to an income of 150k/year. There's little reason for me to make any sort of large scale investment of capital if I'm limited to an income of 150k/year.

There's no reason for me to take out a loan to buy a restaurant because if I'm limited to 150k in income it could take me forever to pay back the loan, nor is there a reason for a lending institution to continue to issue large loans because no one would be able to pay them back.

There's no reason for me to take on the additional hardship of law or medical school (and possibly having to take out large loans) if my compensation is limited to 150k, so enjoy getting your health care at McDonalds. You can get bypass surgery from the same guy making it neccessary. Nor is there any reason for me to continue to do anything beyond what I'm currently doing at my job once my salary hits 150k.

You can also just scrap a ton of jobs, because no one will be able to buy luxary items anymore. So for better or worse, we can close down the BMWs and Mercedes of the world, any sort of large scale consstruction or project development, any sort of luxary vehicles, travel agencies, luxary vacation spots, high end hotels, the list goes on and on...and you get to deal with the fallout of all those jobs being lost (but I'm sure your Robin Hood style plan has some way to deal with that...right?).

What you've proposed is play ground liberalism. Sounds really swell on paper. In reality, it's stupid and would be a disaster.

So are we just talking about income here? What about people with assets that total over 150k? Do they get to keep their stuff or you going to take that away too? What do you propse we do with the items we take? Sell them for the greater good of the 97%? Lovely, let me introduce you to the wonders of inflation and devalued currancy. That'll be fun.

Edit: Further, you need to understand that your net gain for the 97% here is zero. Because if you're going to tax people who are making over 150k so heavily that they can't make over 150k, then no one will make over 150k, and your net tax gain is zero (actually, you lose a lot, but I'm not going into that explanation).

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

29. Ah, but there is a reason.

Maybe you can figure it out.


Divide the wealth of the 3% into the 97%.

The $150K figure moves up in order of magnitudes.

The top 3% own 69% of America's wealth(NOT 3%). The number will move down? Ridiculous. That top marginal bracket will keep moving up as "Selfers" move to maximize their income.

Think of it as trickle-up economics. We've tried the other one, lol.

[NeedleCast]

35. You've already imposed a rule that precludes people moving up in income

You've yet to address the job issue. You've yet to address the larger, more complex issues of capitalization. If you want to argue for a almost purely socialistic system, go ahead, but that doens't make what you've proposed any less ridiculous.

You're failing to understand a lot about economics still. If you're essentially capping salaries at 150k, you make those people the top earners, so now doctors, lawyers, etc. become the top earners at 150K and everyone else makes incrementally less...unless you're operating under the assumption that if you make the income cap 150k, everyone is going to stay at their current salary level, which they wont. So now my 70k job is going to pay me 35k instead. That teacher making 35k is going to make 23k, and so on...

You seem to be suggesting that putting a salary cap at 150k is going to increase the mean income of most people. There's no trickle up effect here because you've essentially provided an income cap which no one can go past. There's no incentive for employers (who are now limited in income to 150k as well and I'm assuming you would also limit business income to 150k as well) for me to pay you the same amount I make, so I just cut everyone's salary. I stay at the top, everyone else moves down.

Again, for better or worse, we live in a society where businesses are in the business of making money and if you limit their ability to make money, you limit their ability to employee people (please note this is not an argument for deregulation). You understand though, that if you limit the amount of money my business can make to 150k then if I pay myself 50k/year and hire two employees who I pay 50k/year my business makes zero, right?

You've also failed to address the net tax loss you're going to see in the short term. If no one can make over 150k, you essentially take trillions out of the taxable base. So that guy who was making 300k last year and paying roughly 38% in taxes is now paying 38% of 150k instead.

Example:
Last year Bob made 400,000 dollars and was taxed at 40%. Bob pays 160,000 in taxes.

This year, under your system, Bob can only make 150K because of your salary cap. His employer says "well, there's no reason to keep Bob's salary at 400,000k, we'll have to change it to 150k." So this year, Bob generates much less in tax revenue because he's paying 40% of 150k, which is a lot less than 40% of 400,000k. Net loss of tax revenue. Get it?

So the system your proposing also creates a LOT less tax revenue in the short and long term.

Let me break it down for you though.

1. You limit income via tax-cap at 150k.
2. Employers will cap salaries at 150k, because there's no reason to pay you more.
3. Unless you forbid it with a draconian law to prevent it, most employers will just slash salaries across the board.
4. Twp plus Three lowers overall tax revanue (a lot).
5. You still have the same number of people and the same number of projects you have to fund via taxes, but you have a lot less tax revanue to do it with.
5. Five (above) is really, really bad.

(Please note that if you plan to make the maximum profit a business can make 150k as well, then most large employers couldn't afford to pay most of their employees more than a few bucks a year).

Sucks when playground libralism has to deal with the reality of a mathmatic and economic system, but there it is.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

42. (1) the $150K number is only $150K because it's at 97%.

That number is fungible.

(2)Correct, until the number moves up...which it will (rememember, you're introducing 30% of net worth into the economy)

(3)Until it moves up, as it obviously will. See #2

(4)?

(5)Uh, you don't think a 99% tax will increase revenues? On 30% of net worth? Really?

Note: Capital gains are treated as income.

[NeedleCast]

46. FFS - No one will make over 150k in your system!

(5)Uh, you don't think a 99% tax will increase revenues? On 70% of net worth? Really?

There is no incentive for anyone, anywhere, to pay anyone else over 150 if the salary cap is 150k!

Why is this hard to understand?

If you don't read any part of this post, make this the part you read.

If you tax people at 99% on salaries over 150k, no one will make over 150k and thus there will be no tax revenue from those making over 150k, becaue they won't exist! Your tax NEED stays the same (or increases) and your tax BASE drops dramatically.

In your system, there will be no one making 500,000/year or a 1,000,000/year or even 151,000/year because there's no reason (or capaiblity) for an employer to pay anyone more than 150,000k/year! So you can't taxe those people at 99% because they simply cease to exist under your system. No one, not company, not individiual is going to make more than 150k because there's simply no reason for them to make more than 150k.


So all these people who make over 150k and who you intend to tax at 99%...they don't exist anymore, because they're all gone, because you've impossed (essentially) a salary cap. Get it?!?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

25. "Let's kick it. I'll say "kick it" and you'll just kick it with a tasty groove, ok?"

1 2 3 kick it...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9awBmTi7kk

[DavidDvorkin]

31. That spike at $100-150K is odd.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

32. Why?

[DavidDvorkin]

49. It sticks out, isn't part of the overall pattern.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

54. It's the richest of the poorest.

Nothing else.

[WeDidIt]

36. Third parties are always bad ideas.

I'll stick with the Democratic Party.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

37. "Let's kick it. I'll say "kick it" and you'll just kick it with a tasty groove, ok?"

1 2 3 kick it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9awBmTi7kk

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

38. "Let's kick it. I'll say "kick it" and you'll just kick it with a tasty groove, ok?"

1 2 3 kick it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9awBmTi7kk

[fatbuckel]

39. RUMMYisFROSTED

???????? What planet are you from????

[NeedleCast]

41. Not one where any sort of economic reality applies, apparently

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

44. 3% of our country owns 30% of the wealth.

If you're OK with that...

I'm just a crackpot! But you....you're totally reasonable.

[NeedleCast]

47. Again you're putting words in my mouth

You can post all the little images you want and pretend that means you win at the internet if you like.

Your idea is still stuipd.

Am I okay with 3% owning 30% of the wealth? No.

Do that mean your ridiculous idea is good? Also No. Propose a system which would not instantly destory the economy and maybe I'll back your play.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

50. The "ridiculous idea" of backing 97% of the people?

"It's patently ridiculous!"

Make your argument for the 3%.

[Statistical]

55. Please explain how it would instantly destroy the economy.

The rich 3% might be slightly less rich but that doesn't mean they will just give up.

If after taxes I make $250,000 a year it is still better than making $80,000 after taxes. It doesn't matter how much the taxes are.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

43. The one where 3% of the people control 30% of the wealth.

You?

[murdoch]

48. People in the top 3% generally don't earn their money

A fellow named Jamie Johnson made a movie Born Rich about himself and other kids he knew. He was born a billionaire. His father was born a billionaire. His father's father was born a billionaire.

There are two ways of getting money - by being a worker, meaning going out and earning it, or by being a rentier. Rentier expropriate surplus value from those who work via rent, dividends and interest.

Most of the people in the top 3% get their money this way.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

51. k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9awBmTi7kk

[Statistical]

52. Is that personal income or household income? n/t

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

53. Both.

[DatManFromNawlins]

56. People need to vote like assholes

The only way to get representative democracy in this country is for people to vote for their own selfish best interests. This will put the rich at a gigantic disadvantage.

[Gold Metal Flake]

57. What is the source of your tasty graph?

I'm liking the basic implication.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

59. I take umbrage at "implication."

These brackets are decades old.

No offense.

[Gold Metal Flake]

60. Burnt umbrage is my favorite crayon.

I like the graph. Better?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

61. (Source) An old wiki graph.

Still accurate. It hasn't changed in my lifetime- except for the worse.

[Hamlette]

62. not all in the top 3% are the enemy

Many in the top 3% agree they should pay more in taxes. It isn't saying "fuck you" to them, its saying "since your share of the pie is bigger, your share of the taxes should be too. Come join us in caring for our country."

Saying "fuck you" is the same attitude the GOP has to the 97%.