Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

Slush Funding as a Fiscal Reform

ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 9:55:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I have been doing a lot of thinking on ways to create a more fiscally responsible nation, and got to thinking about mandatory slush accounts. Instead of taxing the $hit out of our corporations, we should set up a 5% mandatory slush fund, where we take 5% off of the corporate tax, and force businesses to move that money into a locked non-liquid account, or reserve slush fund, that would go into the federal bank.

That way, these accounts can be collected later, or given as a return holding to companies pending that they have a useful need for the reserve money. These assets will be held in the federal reserve. Another related theory, is that we take the slush money (At 6% now), and siphon 1% of the collected money, into a second account, which corporations will be allowed to use as investment liquid only. As in this 1% can be funneled around as forex, or stocks, in an attempt at boosting investment and increasing the money in their reserve account. Of course, the 1% can't be collected by the government, and is added as a second holding at the corporations own bidding.

Any thoughts? I have never really given this much thought. This could work for other things as well. Instead of always taxing people on certain things, we can move it into accounts controlled by the government. This way the government is more fiscally responsible, and so are citizens/corporations/
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
CJKAllstar
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 11:35:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 9:55:30 AM, ChosenWolff wrote:
I have been doing a lot of thinking on ways to create a more fiscally responsible nation, and got to thinking about mandatory slush accounts. Instead of taxing the $hit out of our corporations, we should set up a 5% mandatory slush fund, where we take 5% off of the corporate tax, and force businesses to move that money into a locked non-liquid account, or reserve slush fund, that would go into the federal bank.

That way, these accounts can be collected later, or given as a return holding to companies pending that they have a useful need for the reserve money. These assets will be held in the federal reserve. Another related theory, is that we take the slush money (At 6% now), and siphon 1% of the collected money, into a second account, which corporations will be allowed to use as investment liquid only. As in this 1% can be funneled around as forex, or stocks, in an attempt at boosting investment and increasing the money in their reserve account. Of course, the 1% can't be collected by the government, and is added as a second holding at the corporations own bidding.

Any thoughts? I have never really given this much thought. This could work for other things as well. Instead of always taxing people on certain things, we can move it into accounts controlled by the government. This way the government is more fiscally responsible, and so are citizens/corporations/

It is interesting, but it seems like across between commercial lending in banks and a government bond, a more convoluted form of basically just the government borrowing money. It is an interesting idea, but it doesn't fix the rudimentary economic problem of less money = less capital and labour = less $$$.

I mean, in terms of fiscal responsibility, although I am not extremely experienced, it seems logical to keep corporation tax low enough not to incite automation and to encourage growth, and rely on monetary policy for economic stability. I don't believe there should be a huge fiscal responsibility in regards to firms.
"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." - George Orwell
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 11:47:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 11:35:39 AM, CJKAllstar wrote:
At 6/26/2014 9:55:30 AM, ChosenWolff wrote:
I have been doing a lot of thinking on ways to create a more fiscally responsible nation, and got to thinking about mandatory slush accounts. Instead of taxing the $hit out of our corporations, we should set up a 5% mandatory slush fund, where we take 5% off of the corporate tax, and force businesses to move that money into a locked non-liquid account, or reserve slush fund, that would go into the federal bank.

That way, these accounts can be collected later, or given as a return holding to companies pending that they have a useful need for the reserve money. These assets will be held in the federal reserve. Another related theory, is that we take the slush money (At 6% now), and siphon 1% of the collected money, into a second account, which corporations will be allowed to use as investment liquid only. As in this 1% can be funneled around as forex, or stocks, in an attempt at boosting investment and increasing the money in their reserve account. Of course, the 1% can't be collected by the government, and is added as a second holding at the corporations own bidding.

Any thoughts? I have never really given this much thought. This could work for other things as well. Instead of always taxing people on certain things, we can move it into accounts controlled by the government. This way the government is more fiscally responsible, and so are citizens/corporations/

It is interesting, but it seems like across between commercial lending in banks and a government bond, a more convoluted form of basically just the government borrowing money. It is an interesting idea, but it doesn't fix the rudimentary economic problem of less money = less capital and labour = less $$$.

This argument is a bit off topic, and more of a broader less taxation contention. As you can see, the proposal advocated converting corporate taxes, and given you live in Britain, I don't know how much you know about American economics. The corporation tax will lower 5% at most, as not even the libertarians can possibly propose lowering it. We very much need that money right now. But back to the point, the OP is that the corporate tax should be converted to a slush reserve. Not that we should lower corporate taxes. That's another debate all together.

When the US government collects taxes, we are stockpiling for next years expenses. We have a lot of government stimulus that relies on the corporate tax, but there are always left over liabilities following the next year. Which is why I am advocating for keeping these as non liquid, so the government can choose to collect them next year. The OP is careful in suggesting this money be used entirely for investment. No, it's a security tax. That money sits, until the company needs it.

Money in the federal reserve, is money controlled by the people.

I mean, in terms of fiscal responsibility, although I am not extremely experienced, it seems logical to keep corporation tax low enough not to incite automation and to encourage growth, and rely on monetary policy for economic stability. I don't believe there should be a huge fiscal responsibility in regards to firms.

This is the common mistake a lot of people make. Although you would be right in thinking that we should keep all corporate taxes low, as that implies stimulation of growth, but many don't take into account that "say's" is often showing that this money will just be taken and sat within individual accounts. This is known as "sitting money", and we try to collect huge reserves, by looking at deficit trends. That's the money that needs to be targeted, so it can be put into useful effect in governmnet programs of stimuli to companies that don't have reserves.

My biggest problem with corporate taxes, is that they're not progressive. If you give me a second, I'll recreate the old windfall formula for calculating taxes based on growth bursts.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 11:54:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Here is the best progressive corporate taxation formula I've created so far.

Txc= Cti (.35 + gbp(.1))

I believe that's how I did it. I'll have to run it really quick to make sure its correct.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
CJKAllstar
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 11:59:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 11:47:23 AM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 6/26/2014 11:35:39 AM, CJKAllstar wrote:
At 6/26/2014 9:55:30 AM, ChosenWolff wrote:
I have been doing a lot of thinking on ways to create a more fiscally responsible nation, and got to thinking about mandatory slush accounts. Instead of taxing the $hit out of our corporations, we should set up a 5% mandatory slush fund, where we take 5% off of the corporate tax, and force businesses to move that money into a locked non-liquid account, or reserve slush fund, that would go into the federal bank.

That way, these accounts can be collected later, or given as a return holding to companies pending that they have a useful need for the reserve money. These assets will be held in the federal reserve. Another related theory, is that we take the slush money (At 6% now), and siphon 1% of the collected money, into a second account, which corporations will be allowed to use as investment liquid only. As in this 1% can be funneled around as forex, or stocks, in an attempt at boosting investment and increasing the money in their reserve account. Of course, the 1% can't be collected by the government, and is added as a second holding at the corporations own bidding.

Any thoughts? I have never really given this much thought. This could work for other things as well. Instead of always taxing people on certain things, we can move it into accounts controlled by the government. This way the government is more fiscally responsible, and so are citizens/corporations/

It is interesting, but it seems like across between commercial lending in banks and a government bond, a more convoluted form of basically just the government borrowing money. It is an interesting idea, but it doesn't fix the rudimentary economic problem of less money = less capital and labour = less $$$.

This argument is a bit off topic, and more of a broader less taxation contention. As you can see, the proposal advocated converting corporate taxes, and given you live in Britain, I don't know how much you know about American economics. The corporation tax will lower 5% at most, as not even the libertarians can possibly propose lowering it. We very much need that money right now. But back to the point, the OP is that the corporate tax should be converted to a slush reserve. Not that we should lower corporate taxes. That's another debate all together.

When the US government collects taxes, we are stockpiling for next years expenses. We have a lot of government stimulus that relies on the corporate tax, but there are always left over liabilities following the next year. Which is why I am advocating for keeping these as non liquid, so the government can choose to collect them next year. The OP is careful in suggesting this money be used entirely for investment. No, it's a security tax. That money sits, until the company needs it.

Money in the federal reserve, is money controlled by the people.

I mean, in terms of fiscal responsibility, although I am not extremely experienced, it seems logical to keep corporation tax low enough not to incite automation and to encourage growth, and rely on monetary policy for economic stability. I don't believe there should be a huge fiscal responsibility in regards to firms.

This is the common mistake a lot of people make. Although you would be right in thinking that we should keep all corporate taxes low, as that implies stimulation of growth, but many don't take into account that "say's" is often showing that this money will just be taken and sat within individual accounts. This is known as "sitting money", and we try to collect huge reserves, by looking at deficit trends. That's the money that needs to be targeted, so it can be put into useful effect in governmnet programs of stimuli to companies that don't have reserves.

My biggest problem with corporate taxes, is that they're not progressive. If you give me a second, I'll recreate the old windfall formula for calculating taxes based on growth bursts.

I understand. Thanks for the response.
"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." - George Orwell
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 12:04:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 11:59:46 AM, CJKAllstar wrote:

Txc=Cti (.40 + gbp(.1<10))

Alright, so let's assume that Big Joe's sushi makes 20,000 in income. We plug that into Cti, and multiply that by the american standard, .40, although in my ideal proposal, it would be .35. We than need to find gbp, or growth burst percentage. Let's say that Big Joe's had 10% growth (caps at 10%). We would then siphon .1 from that. Plug those numbers in, and we have our equation. Alright, here we go. I equate that to get 8.2, which we extend out to 8,200.

8200= 20,000(.40 + .10(.1))
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 12:08:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 11:59:46 AM, CJKAllstar wrote:

Actually, I think I screwed up by making the plug .1, have a "." in front of it. I think the variable should be .10(1), for it to be accurate. Let me try it again.

Txc = 20,000(.40 + .10(1))
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 12:27:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 11:59:46 AM, CJKAllstar wrote:

I understand. Thanks for the response.

Alright, I discovered the answer for sure this time. Incidentally, I was putting a "." in my 20, 000, which you're not supposed to plug in a calculator, unless you're trying to solve 20$. Also, I was siphoning 1 like it was a static, constant variable. It isn't, as it goes up with ever 5% in growth. This is the correct equation to calculating a progressive corporate tax.

Tcx= Cti(.40 + (.gbp/.5))

BTW, I forgot to mention, that this also negates the tax rate for those who suffer economically. Now I plug the numbers back in, and I get 12,000. Which leads me to the final equation.

12,000= 20,000(.40+(.10/.5))

So Big Joe's is paying 2000 more dollars in taxes compared to someone who experienced 0% growth during the same fiscal year. Alternatively, like I said, this equation can also negate your corporate tax. See how I reverse the .10 to a negative?

4000 = 20,000(-.40+(-.10/.5))

Well, now I'm confused, as his tax rate should of been 8000?!?! Anyways, I'm sure it was some minor mistake, and the equation is practically right. Unfortunately, the equation doesn't show the growth change, which means you have to have that information on hand. This would be the equation, simple enough.

20,000(.10)= 2000 + 20,000 = 22,000


or....

Tci(gbc) = Txr + Tci = NI


Actually, I'm wondering why I spend all this time figuring out the equation for windfall taxation. What a waste of a good half hour. Given the fact you weren't even responding, this endeavor has been completely unproductive.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 12:37:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Actually, now that I think about it, this is a simpler tax formula....

Tci (gbc)= Ntxr + Tci(.40)

or......

20,000() = -2000 + 8000

Which means this system is not only simpler, but actually reads the negative right. Either way, both formulas work. I was just thinking to deep into the other one. This is basic mathematics. With the new income being 18,000
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8