Member since 3 years ago
3 ideas posted
14 comments 246 votes
-12 votes
I disagreeDevices which use electricity sold in the United States ought to be clearly labeled with maximum energy use while being actively used and while sitting idle. This should include all devices, from major appliances to USB peripherals and RAM chips.
-34 votes
I disagreehttp://www.forbes.com/2009/01/29/irs-high-income-personal-finance-taxes_0129_wealthy_americans.html "WASHINGTON, D.C.--The 400 highest-earning taxpayers in the U.S. reported a record $105 billion in total adjusted gross income in 2006, but they paid just $18 billion in tax, new Internal Revenue Service figures show. That works out to an average federal income tax bite of 17%--the lowest rate paid by the richest 400 during ...more »
http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/29/irs-high-income-personal-finance-taxes_0129_wealthy_americans.html
"WASHINGTON, D.C.--The 400 highest-earning taxpayers in the U.S. reported a record $105 billion in total adjusted gross income in 2006, but they paid just $18 billion in tax, new Internal Revenue Service figures show. That works out to an average federal income tax bite of 17%--the lowest rate paid by the richest 400 during the 15-year period covered by the IRS statistics. The average federal tax bite on the top 400 was 30% in 1995 and 23% in 2002...
... the top 5% of earners--those with an adjusted gross income of $153,542 or more--now pay a higher effective tax rate than the top 400."
Democrats rightly say that the rich don't pay their fair share, while Republicans respond (quite truthfully) that those in the highest income tax brackets pay a confiscatory 35% tax, with Obama suggesting an increase to 39.5%.
However, the billionaires whose wealth comes mainly from capital gains pay much lower taxes than the millionaires who collect a salary for their work. This disparity is not going to get smaller by increasing the income tax. (To be fair, Obama is also advocating an increase in capital gains to 20%.)
Why is it that income from a day's work should be taxed at a higher rate than (largely) unearned investment gains?
I propose that we raise the capital gains tax and lower the top tiers of the income tax so that they are roughly comparable.
Real estate capital gains could be taxed at their current rate, so as not to adversely affect homeowners whose primary residence increases in value. (This is a minor detail that I am open to alternative suggestions.)
« less full details »
-9 votes
I disagreeApproval voting[1] is a system where a voter may vote for as many candidates as he or she wishes. As an example, suppose a voter likes a particular third party candidate, as well as a mainstream candidate. Should the voter "throw their vote away" on the candidate who isn't likely to win, or vote for the mainstream candidate? With approval voting, they could simply vote for both candidates. The candidate with the ...more »
Approval voting[1] is a system where a voter may vote for as many candidates as he or she wishes.
As an example, suppose a voter likes a particular third party candidate, as well as a mainstream candidate. Should the voter "throw their vote away" on the candidate who isn't likely to win, or vote for the mainstream candidate? With approval voting, they could simply vote for both candidates.
The candidate with the most votes wins, as usual.
States could allocate their electoral votes to the winner, similar to the way we do things now, or with a constitutional amendment or the agreement of enough states, we could do a direct popular vote using the approval voting system.
I prefer approval voting to IRV and Condorcet voting because it's much easier to explain how a winner is determined, but any of those would be a vast improvement over the current system. Ranged voting is another reasonable alternative.
[1] href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting
« less full details »
Copyright © 2013 IdeaScaleFeedback Software
| Widget | IdeaScale Privacy Policy
Powered by IdeaScale
Social Web