Would you support this economic proposal?

[Kingpoleon]

Income tax brackets:
1: 8%
2: 12%
3: 20%
4: 25%
5: 30%
6: 35%
7: 40%
8: 45%
- Raise the child tax credit to $3,000 for first three children for everyone making under $150,000; phased out for everyone making $168,000 annually at a tax credit deduction of fifty cents on every dollar raised in revenue


Corporate tax:
1: 11%
2: 19%
3: 24%
4: 29%
5: 34%
6/7: 39%
8: 29%

Value-added tax: 22%

Replace all non-HUD/SNAP welfare with $12,000 GBI for all single people and $25,200 GBI for all married couples. Phased out for people who get a job after two years. $600 credit for first four children for married couples/widows/widowers, $500 credit for first three children for single parents.

Revenue-neutral universal healthcare(HAA).

NASA funding to $48 billion.

Minimum wage to $11.00 within four years.

This would cut taxes on small businesses, cut the top rate by almost a fifth, raise at least $6.6 trillion from the VAT alone, cut taxes on everyone except those in the top three brackets, and introduce a permanent solution for welfare and healthcare. It would also add incentives for people to work, for companies to hire and grow, for people to marry, for people to get an education, and for people to have children at a slightly faster rate. If we really want to break the cycle of poverty for millions of Americans, it would be worth it. If we need a one time wealth tax for multimillionaires of five or even ten percent, we can do it. If we need a permanent .1% stock market sales tax, we can do it. At the end of the day, once we begin offering deductions for businesses that hire people and mandate longer, more substantial unemployment compensation, we can ensure a healthy economy no longer dependent on the boom-bust cycle.

[Dr. MB]

It’s decent but I think the rate for the low brackets is too high and the high brackets too low.

[Kingpoleon]

It’s decent but I think the rate for the low brackets is too high and the high brackets too low.

Income, corporate, or both?

[OSR stands with Israel]

Taxes - Too high across the board( I would need to see what the standard deduction is and which specific income levels these rates applied to for me to even reluctantly support this )

Spending - I would may support it but I would want more spending reforms as well

Minimum wage - I would have different min wages based for rural and urban areas .

You don't have anything on infrastructure , regulatory reform ,trade reform

[DavidB.]

Lol @ specifying NASA funding

[mvd10]

How would this be implemented? I'm not sure what the VAT base is, but if it also includes food it would raise more than 4% of GDP, and implementing something like that in 1 year would definitely trigger a huge recession. But I'd support adopting a VAT and reforming SS/medicare in order to reduce the long-term deficit to a more sustainable level.

[Kingpoleon]

How would this be implemented? I'm not sure what the VAT base is, but if it also includes food it would raise more than 4% of GDP, and implementing something like that in 1 year would definitely trigger a huge recession. But I'd support adopting a VAT and reforming SS/medicare in order to reduce the long-term deficit to a more sustainable level.

A 22% VAT wouldn’t necessarily need to include food. The goal isn’t necessarily the percentage - it’s an amount of at least five trillion dollars. Unlike the income and corporate tax rates, a sales or value-added tax is not progressive and so is focused more on revenue than relative rates. I thought it sounded rather high, but one source says a 5% VAT raises ~$1.6 trillion. I adjusted for reduction in sales to 22%, but I forgot to account for revenue growth multiplying at a faster rate than percentage raised.


To be clear, the guaranteed basic income would also go to most people >65(eventually sixty-eight by 2028 and seventy by 2036).

[mvd10]

How would this be implemented? I'm not sure what the VAT base is, but if it also includes food it would raise more than 4% of GDP, and implementing something like that in 1 year would definitely trigger a huge recession. But I'd support adopting a VAT and reforming SS/medicare in order to reduce the long-term deficit to a more sustainable level.

A 22% VAT wouldn’t necessarily need to include food. The goal isn’t necessarily the percentage - it’s an amount of at least five trillion dollars. Unlike the income and corporate tax rates, a sales or value-added tax is not progressive and so is focused more on revenue than relative rates. I thought it sounded rather high, but one source says a 5% VAT raises ~$1.6 trillion. I adjusted for reduction in sales to 22%, but I forgot to account for revenue growth multiplying at a faster rate than percentage raised.


To be clear, the guaranteed basic income would also go to most people >65(eventually sixty-eight by 2028 and seventy by 2036).

Oh, I completely read over the basic income part lol. I think a very broad-based 5% VAT could raise $5-6 trillion in a decade, so a 22% rate would either mean a huge tax increase or a very narrow based VAT (which isn't good, it should be broad-based). 22% is higher than most European countries. But if you want to implement a basic income and reduce the deficit you probably need VAT rate in the 20s.

[Kingpoleon]

To be fair, replacing Social Security, making federal healthcare revenue-neutral, and the tax increases would surely help balance the budget.

[OSR stands with Israel]

To be fair, replacing Social Security, making federal healthcare revenue-neutral, and the tax increases would surely help balance the budget.

what income levels do your tax brackets apply to though.

[Kingpoleon]

To be fair, replacing Social Security, making federal healthcare revenue-neutral, and the tax increases would surely help balance the budget.

what income levels do your tax brackets apply to though.

The same as the current ones. A tax cut for all but the richest of Americans.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

I'd (somewhat reluctantly) support this.

[lekmanin]

I'd (somewhat reluctantly) support this.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

It's miles better then the Republican plan. I might support it.

[Torie]

I can't make any sense of the plan. It has a 22% VAT (I don't like VAT much, in part because it is regressive), a top 45% marginal income tax rate, and a corporate rate that gets up to 39% before dropping down again to 29%.  That seems like a big tax increase overall.

I would cut the corporate rate to 25%, allow corporate deductions for dividends paid at the corporate level, tax dividends received at the ordinary rate, detach deductions for local taxes from what the rates are in individual states (so you only get a partial deduction in high tax states), and leave the rates on ordinary income the same more or less. The estate tax would not change. That is my first rough cut at it, subject to scoring. But it should be close to revenue neutral hopefully. Oh the idea of taxing business income that is not in a corporation, but taxed to the individual, at a lower rate than ordinary income rates, I quite detest. We would all want to work for ourselves, rather than as an employee. It is just hideously unfair really.

Having looked into it, it appears that about 20% of the corporate tax really functions as a regressive sales tax, rather than a tax on capital. So it has a regressive aspect, and some of the loss in revenue from cutting the rate, and allowing for dividend deductions, would be make up by taxing dividends at a higher rate that are received by individuals (up to 39% or so top marginal rate, rather than 28%).