Non-joke political policies

[Dragonwinged]

Been a while since I was here last. I'd like to get everyone's opinion on a couple of policies I came up with. As far as I know, no politician in America has yet to suggest anything like these. Tell me what you think, and maybe post some of your own.

1. New Federal Tax policy

I would say, the federal government should charge a flat percentage tax directly to state and territory governments, and leave it up to them how to collect taxes. This is good for multiple reasons. 1) It drastically reduces the need for federal IRS agents, and cuts off federal enforcement from the everyday citizen. 2) It allows for a visual on just how good each tax policy works in terms of total revenue collected per capita, thus making states compete for the best tax policy.

2. The Employee Dependency Program
A full-time employee, feeling insecure of their ability to manage their own finances, hands full fiscal responsibility to their employer. Housing, food, utilities, transportation, healthcare, everything. This in theory would also include financial literacy education, because the EDP isn't supposed to be a permanent program. You're supposed to learn to stand on your own, not rely on others.

 

[Arnox]

1. Couldn't say as I don't have much experience with tax law but this could be good. Could also be bad. You run into the usual problems when you push it off to the states to deal with, and that is that you have roughly 50 states, and thus, 50 chances to get it wrong. Maybe even disastrously wrong.

2. Some people can already manage all that by 18 and wouldn't appreciate it when their employer gets to tell them how they're supposed to spend their money, so you can't make it mandatory, but if you don't make it mandatory, it runs the serious risk of falling by the wayside and being forgotten. Furthermore, if it was mandatory, what if some megacorps take advantage of this and force employees under the EDP to live in a capitalist hellscape apartment building and force the employee to pay the company for their food?

 

[Vendor-Lazarus]

1. New Federal Tax policy

flat percentage tax

A fixed sum from every state, no matter how large it is? No matter how populated it is? No matter what natural resources or income sources it has?
This would only punish the worst off states and reward the rich ones.

2. The Employee Dependency Program

No. Just no. Corporations never think of the human, and the only reasoning they would even think of handling this huge burden would be if they can squeeze the most money out of them, by charging extra.

 

[Arnox]

A fixed sum from every state, no matter how large it is? No matter how populated it is? No matter what natural resources or income sources it has?
This would only punish the worst off states and reward the rich ones.

I think they're talking about a flat percentage rate rather than a fixed sum.

 

[Vendor-Lazarus]

I think they're talking about a flat percentage rate rather than a fixed sum.

That makes much more sense. So it's not 10 out of 100, for example, but 10% out of 100%. Yeah, I don't actually see any major issues with that. Except for the usual tax loop holes, write-off's, and or write-up's and padding the end if politicians seek to garner taxes locally.

 

[Houseman]

For #1, what happens when a state refuses to send their tax because they decide they hate the President or something?
The IRS can punish an individual, but can they punish an entire state? Perhaps by withholding federal funding for certain projects, but is that enough of a deterrent? Would we have another Union vs Confederacy civil war?


For #2, this seems like something only large businesses can utilize effectively. Small businesses, even if they effectively get "free labor", they wouldn't be able to pay for someone's entire life. As long as they do this on their own profits, and this isn't based on, say, federal or state grants or assistance, then that would be acceptable. Of course, it would be instantly be misused. Some rich kid, perhaps the son of a CEO, will inevitably get an all-expenses-paid free ride for a time.

Anybody not equipped to manage their own life, perhaps should just be in an asylum instead.

 

[Dragonwinged]

For #1, what happens when a state refuses to send their tax because they decide they hate the President or something?
The IRS can punish an individual, but can they punish an entire state? Perhaps by withholding federal funding for certain projects, but is that enough of a deterrent? Would we have another Union vs Confederacy civil war?


For #2, this seems like something only large businesses can utilize effectively. Small businesses, even if they effectively get "free labor", they wouldn't be able to pay for someone's entire life. As long as they do this on their own profits, and this isn't based on, say, federal or state grants or assistance, then that would be acceptable. Of course, it would be instantly be misused. Some rich kid, perhaps the son of a CEO, will inevitably get an all-expenses-paid free ride for a time.

Anybody not equipped to manage their own life, perhaps should just be in an asylum instead.

1. The fact of the federal government being less capable of targeting individual citizens is a feature of such a policy. And yes, effectively declaring their membership to the union void, and thus cutting off all federal benefits would be the end result of a State refusing to pay federal taxes. The military would need to come in to enforce the fed's will, but the visuals of a federal government trying to enforce its will on a peacefully seceeding state would likely just cause more states to leave. This is the system as intended: the government fears the people, not the other way around.

2. Effectively what this is is true minimum wage. Because the employer takes care of all financial needs of a full-time employee, specifically a full-time employee, it means that regardless of whether they're on the EDP or not, this paycheck is their sole income, and thus, the company becomes acutely aware if their employee can be sustained on what they're giving them. We already have a long list of government mandated benefits, this is primarily a voluntary, temporary program so as to make someone better prepared to live on their own. Unfortunately, because your employer controls all your finances, they also control most everything else, including where you live, what you eat, how you get to work, etc. The EDP employees essentially become a symbol of just how well an employer treats its employees. And there's likely to be a lot of trial-and-error as employer's figure out what they can safely cut without hurting their own productivity. Because their employee's wellbeing directly affects their productivity, they have an interest in keeping the employee healthy.

 

[Arnox]

1. The fact of the federal government being less capable of targeting individual citizens is a feature of such a policy. And yes, effectively declaring their membership to the union void, and thus cutting off all federal benefits would be the end result of a State refusing to pay federal taxes. The military would need to come in to enforce the fed's will, but the visuals of a federal government trying to enforce its will on a peacefully seceeding state would likely just cause more states to leave. This is the system as intended: the government fears the people, not the other way around.

2. Effectively what this is is true minimum wage. Because the employer takes care of all financial needs of a full-time employee, specifically a full-time employee, it means that regardless of whether they're on the EDP or not, this paycheck is their sole income, and thus, the company becomes acutely aware if their employee can be sustained on what they're giving them. We already have a long list of government mandated benefits, this is primarily a voluntary, temporary program so as to make someone better prepared to live on their own. Unfortunately, because your employer controls all your finances, they also control most everything else, including where you live, what you eat, how you get to work, etc. The EDP employees essentially become a symbol of just how well an employer treats its employees. And there's likely to be a lot of trial-and-error as employer's figure out what they can safely cut without hurting their own productivity. Because their employee's wellbeing directly affects their productivity, they have an interest in keeping the employee healthy.

Nah, I stand by what I said with 2. It's way too open to abuse of some of the most horrible kind. Employers will only give exactly as much as they need to and no more. Not to mention the massive financial strain this would put on small businesses.