Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
I didn't say you were on to something, I said you were on something.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                       

Mandatory Start An Innovation Tax(draft)

Its essentally mandatory donation to society
  (-11)(-11)
(-11)
  [vote for,
against]

Basically, from an article I remembered, when you get over a certain amount of individual income, it stops really contributing to your quality of life, and instead just get 'horded' in banks(Excluding people like Richard Branson, and Bill Gates, they are cool).

These money if left in the bank, are not being re-invested back into the economy, and thus market efficiency is reduced.

Lets have a 'mandatory start an innovation tax' which kicks in when you reach over the 'meet higher minimum quality of life' threshold. They are then given a choice to sponsor a public government 'project' (e.g. new school), or to spend it towards a 'innovative project' with a group of other like minded people, or if they don't like the choices given, start their own approved 'innovation project'.

I hope they given no choice but to throw their money away to society, will at least throw it towards something culturally, or economically productive. E.g. Even a massive art piece, will create jobs for the duration of constructing it.

An innovation project, can be anything, from building schools, kick starting a weird business idea with a 'business scholarship', to conducting whimsical engineering or artistic challenges like a spaceship. The two common feature of each example is that they will not expect, and will not get anything back from it. Also that collectively, it must employ a diverse amount of people (basically a crosssection of society), who now have the money they are more likely to spend towards 'foods, or gadget'... and best of all, they worked for it. [Thus helps preserve work ethics, and reduces unemployment]

If you are say Richard Branson, Bill Gates, or similar, who already does those things, you won't get charged as much, as you can claim that you already are cycling the personal money you have back to the economy. But if you are say a bank director who have just gotten a 'golden parachute', and wants to live their life off the money, they are free to do that, but will find their bank account become significantly smaller.

In the end of the day, the reason that this sounds right to me, is the idea of the economy existing in a cycle. The so called 'bosses' depends on money spent by the 'workers', and the so called 'workers' depends on work created by the 'bosses'. So to keep the system working well, and avoid money pooling in the personal banks of people who already met 'the quality of life via money', we give them the choice to throw their money towards something they probably won't get money back on, but will give the bulk of the population more spending power to keep the system strong. (via 'make work')

Also, the act of 'making work' is better than 'the dole', as a project would need to buy 'materials' from other smaller business (thus making it healthier), and also gives the workers (who might end up still looking for jobs) more cash to buy from a different business. So it ends up being a trickle up effect, that saturates multiple industry, thus helps everybody, and in the long run... benefits the people getting 'innovation taxed'

Lastly, to soften the fact they are throwing 'their fruit of their labor' towards lubing up the economy, there should be an agreement that if they actively participate in directing their 'mandatory spending' (and not let the government decide for them), that if they hit hard times, they be given more than the standard dole. (basically, whatever dole they would usually get, they get double)

IDEA IS IN PROGRESS. Logic needs working on so far I think. Aside from that, I'm sure there is some merit in this, after ironing out some bugs.

mofosyne, Apr 08 2010

MODERN MONEY MECHANICS http://www.rayserve...nMoneyMechanics.pdf
Then you can get back to your math homework... [Cuit_au_Four, Apr 09 2010]

[link]






       Spell checking would help (manditory?)
normzone, Apr 08 2010
  

       "These money if left in the bank, are not being re-invested back into the economy, and thus market efficiency is reduced"
Your premise is wrong. Money left in the bank is generally loaned out so people can buy things and invest it elsewhere.
phoenix, Apr 08 2010
  

       shouldn't it be "an innovation" in the title?
po, Apr 08 2010
  

       A lot of the arguments here read like arguments for taxation in general, combined with being able to "write off" (remove from the tax burden) expenses of doing things that society would like you to do. So, that's less of a new invention and more of "let's do the things we're already doing with slightly different accents" - which is a policy discussion, not a new invention.
jutta, Apr 08 2010
  

       so the person saving up for a new car, house or to put the kids through university is:   

       a) screwed   

       b) screwed   

       c) all of the above.   

       choose one.
FlyingToaster, Apr 08 2010
  

       /*These money if left in the bank, are not being re-invested back into the economy, and thus market efficiency is reduced.*/   

       Perhaps you should read "Modern Money Mechanics" and reevaluate this statement.
Cuit_au_Four, Apr 09 2010
  

       normzone - Fixed.   

       FlyingToaster - It really only kicks in when you have say more than a few million dollars, and rising. So in other words, you can afford to lose a large fraction of the money, and still be able to afford it. Unfortunately, it may hamper in your dream to buy an entire country though.   

       jutta & — Cuit_au_Four - sounds right, if this is already done in general by the 'taxation system' then maybe this idea is redundant. Though perhaps the element of allowing part of your taxes to be directly directed to a certain project may still have merit. Maybe I can replace this idea with that, would that sound better?
mofosyne, Apr 09 2010
  

       people with "more than a few million" are already investing in things, whether it be land (which is taxed) or things (which redistributes the money to other people) or business (which is an arm of the economy), and if it's in the bank then the bank is investing it.   

       I think there's R&D tax shelters already.
FlyingToaster, Apr 09 2010
  

       I WANT TO HALFBAKE WITH OTHER PEOPLES' MONEY TOO!   

       This is really two ideas: 1) Government support for entrepreneurship-- I approve; though it's already sort of baked with research grants and less-restrictive laws for small businesses, I'd love to see more research funding. I'd [+] this.   

       2) Soak The Rich-- new taxes to pay for #1. Even more wealth distribution gets a big [-] from me. If you proposed simplifying the current govt. aid system-- gave everyone a check every month, regardless of income, and let them spend it as desired-- that might make the system more efficient and support entrepreneurship.   

       Since you have a computer, you are richer than 90% of the world's population. Howabout you get "innovation taxed" down to the world average ($7000/year) so the sweatshop workers can kick-start quixotic business ideas...actually, aside from the totalitarian horror and personal deprivation that would involve, this has some appeal.
sninctown, Apr 11 2010
  

       we already have a fucking innovation tax. the fact you think we don't shows how sad the state is of people's understanding of how our tax debase and regulate economy works.
teslaberry, Feb 13 2014
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle