The total tax - including medicare and medicaid - is about 15%. That’s off the first dollar you earn, even if you’re a self-employed pool-cleaner, clearing $20K.
No, Social Security is absolutely necessary. For poor people who have worked their whole lives - often doing the hardest, dirtiest, most dangerous work - leaving them with nothing when they can’t work anymore is cruel.
And besides, what are you going to do with the 78 year old former construction worker with no money?
I’m totally on-board with shortening copyright as an alternative. But if a person or a corporation wants to hold onto a copyright for an extra ten years by paying for it, I’m OK with that, too. You could even have the fee as a percentage of the value of the copyright, if you wanted.
Copyright protection starts - to my understanding - when you release the art to the public. When you’re still working on it, there’s no copyright.
In any case, I’m fine with free copyright for 10-20 years.
The fee is 1% of the value of the patent. You could even put a floor under it, so that patents worth less than $100,000 were exempt.
I agree, but you have to have some mechanism to discourage patent trolls. Like I said, depending on your definition Apple is a copyright troll itself.
You have a good point. I’m prepared to abandon the trademark idea. I have to say, though, if a company is barely getting by, that should be a sign it’s trademark isn’t worth much, isn’t it? Which in turn means they wouldn’t have to pay much.
I like the idea of making capital gains taxable like any other income. The only thing I’d add is that capital losses should be taken into account. IOW, if you have a capital loss, you should be able to off-set it indefinitely, until the loss is recouped. Otherwise you’re punishing risk-taking, which is economically unhealthy.
Here is a nice tax for you (the US imposed this one for a while, starting in the '30s): a 0.5% tax on financial instrument trades. This reduced volatility in the stock market somewhat by disincentivizing speculation and paid down the deficit. If I were imposing it, the tax would accumulate on derivation: complex derivatives would have a much higher trading tax, based on the number of steps to the original asset.
**That’s how it works now. **:rolleyes:
This is one tax which might be best set to maximize revenue. This is logical: if you regard the U.S. sound financial structure as a service the USG is marketing, it would try to maximize revenue. (And indeed, the U.S. does provide such a service with its regulations and bailouts.) Trade in U.S. stocks is in the ballpark of $50 trillion annually. Assuming it remained there with a 0.1% tax imposed, that would be an extra $50 billion in tax revenue. Not even counting transactions taxes on derivatives, bonds, etc.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
So you favor increasing the SocSec tax on CEO’s? 
Don’t rush to answer; we’re not holding our breath wondering if you can draw this obvious conclusion.
It would encourage corporations that hold old copyrights to do something with them–sell copies, license derivative works. Get the material out there in the culture where it can live and, incidentally, make some money. Rather than sitting on the work of past artists and letting it fade and die.
Why should people who create great value for society by their art be prevented from passing the profit of that on, when people who create value in, say, their business endeavors, can? The heirs of Henry Ford are still doing pretty well.
Other people adding on doesn’t require public domain, it just requires that the material be accessible. Public domain means any random asshole can profit, potentially, without adding anything new.
That’s true. And i tend to agree: taxing people over 50% is counterproductive, since it creates a disincentive to work, and an incentive to cheat.
So I guess I’d propose another rule: a tax ceiling of 50%. Once your effective tax hits 50% it can’t go higher than that.
Uh, not the last time I read the tax code. (Which I admit was some years ago.)
Do you have a cite?
Yes. I’ve personally tried to get old stuff that I liked years ago, and wanted to have for myself - only to discover it’s unavailable, because the copyright owner is sitting on it, and not letting anyone produce or sell it.
The copyright clause of the US Constitution is this:
You’ll notice that the purpose is to “promote the progress of science and arts” and that copyrights were to be granted for “limited times” to the “authors and inventors”.
The purpose is not to enrich corporations indefinitely, or to enrich the children or grandchildren of authors and inventors.
To put it differently, copyrights are supposed to serve the public. They’re not a means to ensure unlimited, unearned profits indefinitely.
Honestly, in the Tax World, that about like asking for a cite on “Does the Earth revolve around the sun?”:rolleyes:
If you didnt know that, you have *never *read the tax code, it’s been that way since 1954 or so, iirc. :dubious:
Here are a few cites anyway fro the top of the Google Search of over 300,000 results:
https://ttlc.intuit.com/questions/2251182-how-many-years-can-i-claim-capital-loss-carryover
If it’s not true, I’ve a lot of revised returns to file.
SS was part of the New Deal program. The Idea was people working now would pay for the retirement of the older workers now. The end result of this would take the older worker out of the job market leaving more positions for the younger workers. And hopefully decreasing unemployment.
it was not a program designed to protect people who lived longer than expected against crushing poverty when they could no longer work to support themselves.
It was a program to get people who could still work to retire.
Wrong. It is not high levels. It starts getting taxes at $32,000 a year. That means if you have a small retirement check coming in or your spouse has a job you are going to pay regular income tax on 85% of you SS check. And remember you already paid taxes on what you paid into the system. This pisses me off.
Net Capitol loss can be taken only at the level of $,3,000 per year.
Or offset your gains. But in any case, you are “able to off-set it indefinitely, until the loss is recouped”. Which is what I said That’s how it works now.
I am not sure what your point is?
Nonsense.
“We can never insure 100 percent of the population against 100 percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life, but we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-stricken old age.” That’s FDR upon signing enactment of the Social Security Act.
From your first link:
The second:
The third is a question and answer. The answer is:
Anyway, that you can only claim $3000 of capital losses against ordinary income - and that you have to wait for year(s)(?) to recover the rest is what I was talking about.
Say you place a big bet on a start-up, and wind up losing a lot of money. What I’m trying to say is you should be able to deduct all the money you lost in the year you lose it, rather than paying taxes on money you don’t have, and waiting years to recover it.
In other words, not a savings account, but an insurance policy.