The Living-Wages-Tax-Allowance bill is a grassroots initiative to boost the economy by cutting your income tax. Under this bill, 99% of U.S. workers will pay fewer taxes. 67%, 95 Million workers, will pay no income taxes at all.
When Congress established income taxes in 1894 the rate was 2% and was only levied on incomes over $101,200 (in 2010 dollars) - affecting fewer than 10% of workers.
Real expenses should be fully deductible. This obvious rationale is common practice when taxing corporations. If the government taxed business before they've turned profitable, most businesses will fail and collapse under the burden. Income taxes levied on gross revenues would be detrimental and prevent growth and financial prosperity. Appropriately, businesses are taxed only on their NET-GAINS, i.e. on their Income-in-excess-of-Operating-Expenses.
This bill will apply the same logic to individual workers and only levy income taxes on their NET-GAINS, i.e. on their Income-in-excess-of-Living-Expenses.
Todayís standardized-deductions of $6,000 are unreasonable. A 100% deductible BASIC-LIVING-ALLOWANCE of approximately $50,000 per household per year will cover reasonable and necessary expenses. The Living-Wages-Tax-Allowance bill will boost the economy by ending the detrimental burden of income taxes currently levied on struggling workers. This will infuse the economy with trillions of dollars - increasing demand for goods and services.
The Living-Wages-Tax-Allowance bill will be revenue-neutral and at the same time free millions of workers from their forced dependance on public assistance.
Please bring up points that were missed, elaborate on issues not fleshed out, add ways to make the idea/bill better, suggest a companion for GREATER Raters to consider. Please check your facts, grammar, syntax, punctuation, credit sources and quotes, and keep it under 500 words unless you absolutely cannot—then never more than 700 words. Please keep your criticism constructive. We will likely not print destructive criticism although a well written partisan rant bringing up new issues in the idea/bill or previous Op-eds may be accepted if it ends on a constructive note—especially if it offers an alternative idea/bill.
Shorter "letters" are encouraged that bring a new facet to the subject. The intent of the Op-eds is to fully cover the issue for the kind reader to consider before rating, and not waste their time with redundancy or the dreaded—"people-screaming-at-one-another-while-wearing-earplugs-syndrome." Think of the idea/bill as the base with the Op-eds stacked on top to form a structurally sound argument. The goal here is to have a GREATER US for the greatest number of citizens/neighbors. We may publish your piece without notice—so please only submit completed articles. We may, also, contact you for a rewrite or edit. We might even offer suggestions. It is our intention to fairly present the views of fiscal conservatives, independents, and social liberals—to find the overlap of whole-hearted support (nonpartisan) plus the commonality of the "I-can-live-with-that" (bipartisan).