Archive for the ‘Taxes’ Category
Investment Politics: Jobs, The Economy, and Social Security
Steve Selengut asked:
Who wants to be a president; the President of the United States? Social Security reform is the winning ticket. Research supports the thesis that Social Security reform would provide all the lubrication necessary to get our economic ball bearings rolling in the right direction. Economies do not grow, or increase employment, when job providers are taxed and regulated unmercifully, throttling their energy, creativity, and profitability. Consumer spending pushes the economy; we need to do more than hand out a few hundred bucks.
The objective of the exercise, Barack, is to permanently place more disposable income in consumers’ wallets while providing incentives for employers to hire more workers. There are three areas where the impact of reforms would be beneficial to all, irrespective of political sentiment. Social Security reform would benefit the most people, most quickly. Next on the list, Hillary, would be elimination of income taxes (federal, state, and local) on: (a) all forms of retirement income, and then, (b) all forms of investment income. Third, and particularly important for job creation, John, would be the elimination of all income taxes and nuisance fees on businesses.
Who wants to be President?
Social Security will be the easiest to implement quickly while producing unprecedented increases in disposable income, business cost reductions, and job growth. Here’s a rough outline of a brainstorming plan. Throw out the politics and focus on the program— phase one deadline, January 1,2010.
Change Social Security funding to a mandatory, private program, for all employed persons, and add a voluntary program for those who are not employed. All employees would contribute to deferred fixed annuities, purchased from new divisions of qualified financial institutions. Existing Social Security credits would be the initial deposit to the contracts for all participants under age 60.
Employer matching contributions would be eliminated and participant contributions would be cut to a mandatory 3% of total compensation (including deferred comp, stock options, etc.). Both changes would be phased into the system by participant age group over a five-year period, youngest first. The five age groups would be 13-year periods starting at zero to thirteen (obviously for voluntary accounts) and ending with ages fifty-two through sixty-five.
Phase one would involve qualifying providers, assignment of workers, issuance of contracts, elimination of employer matching contributions, and elimination of income taxes on social security payments. Employers would be required to appoint at least one person to coordinate the transition.
Contributions to the annuity contracts would begin upon issue; the Social Security Administration (SSA) would have five years to move credits to participants, starting with the youngest group, and would be responsible for shortfalls to retirees for five years.
Under the new system, there would be no penalties for early retirement, but tax free annuity payments would begin at age sixty-five whether or not the person continued to work. Participants could voluntarily establish retirement accounts for non-working spouses and children, and could elect to deduct an additional 1% of salary for each account. A new Federal Administration for Social Security (ASS) will select, qualify, and monitor provider companies and their investment portfolios to assure that only high quality, income-generating securities are used to fund benefits.
Companies showing a surplus would be able to invest up to 25% of the surplus in stocks that qualify for the Investment Grade Value Stock Index (IGVSI). Only fixed life annuities would be available, but there would be 50% of cash value, family-only, death benefits up until the time of retirement. After age 65, the death benefit would be reduced 10% per year for four years. There would be no loans, withdrawal privileges, etc.
The *** would be represented on provider company boards, would monitor annual audits of firm financial statements, and would supervise the selection of all non-company directors (60% of the board). Each provider company would be encouraged to use non-market value portfolio assessment techniques, such as The Working Capital Model, to monitor income portfolios. Retiree associations would also be represented on company boards of directors, and board member compensation would be capped at a reasonable number, plus 45% of *** related expenses.
Annuity providers would be assigned a fair share of the huge Social Security Retirement Income Account (SSRIA) participant pool; every dollar contributed would be invested. All providers would use the same mortality tables and base interest rate guarantees in their calculations and would be precluded from any form of advertising. Companies would be required to focus 100% of their efforts on the SSRIA.
Annuity providers would be allowed a .5% investment management fee so long as the Annuity Investment Portfolio generated no less than the 3.5% income level needed to fund a guaranteed 3% contractual cash value growth rate. 50% of any excess realized income would be added to retirement accounts in the form of dividends.
The remaining 50% would be apportioned between three separately managed accounts for: retirement benefit support contingencies (20%), universal health care and disability benefits for annuitants (50%), and post retirement death benefits (10%). Half of the remaining 20% would become “surplus”. The balance would accrue equally to the employees of the insurance company— the mailroom staff receiving the same dollar amount as the CEO.
These changes would produce: a whole new sub-industry of jobs, increase disposable income, reduce the Federal budget deficit, provide universal retirement benefit eligibility, stabilize the market for plain vanilla corporate and government debt securities, reduce corporate expenses and product price levels, and subsidize health care for senior citizens. Annuity providers would have significant incentives to minimize costs, but their investment portfolios would be closely supervised to prevent excessive risk.
Politicians at all levels just love for us to **** big business, and have no compunctions about taxing and regulating employers in every manner imaginable. The impact is higher prices, lower job creation rates, and the need to move many operations to lower cost environments. Many small businesses simply refuse to hire additional employees. Regulatory procedures and company defense measures add billions to the costs of goods and services.
Social Security benefits are grossly inadequate yet we continue to tax all forms of retirement benefits. Politicians ignore the simple solutions to these problems and none seem to care about Social Security reform. It’s just too big an issue to be so shockingly ignored, but the last politician with any courage— well, I can’t remember who that was either.
Susan
Who wants to be a president; the President of the United States? Social Security reform is the winning ticket. Research supports the thesis that Social Security reform would provide all the lubrication necessary to get our economic ball bearings rolling in the right direction. Economies do not grow, or increase employment, when job providers are taxed and regulated unmercifully, throttling their energy, creativity, and profitability. Consumer spending pushes the economy; we need to do more than hand out a few hundred bucks.
The objective of the exercise, Barack, is to permanently place more disposable income in consumers’ wallets while providing incentives for employers to hire more workers. There are three areas where the impact of reforms would be beneficial to all, irrespective of political sentiment. Social Security reform would benefit the most people, most quickly. Next on the list, Hillary, would be elimination of income taxes (federal, state, and local) on: (a) all forms of retirement income, and then, (b) all forms of investment income. Third, and particularly important for job creation, John, would be the elimination of all income taxes and nuisance fees on businesses.
Who wants to be President?
Social Security will be the easiest to implement quickly while producing unprecedented increases in disposable income, business cost reductions, and job growth. Here’s a rough outline of a brainstorming plan. Throw out the politics and focus on the program— phase one deadline, January 1,2010.
Change Social Security funding to a mandatory, private program, for all employed persons, and add a voluntary program for those who are not employed. All employees would contribute to deferred fixed annuities, purchased from new divisions of qualified financial institutions. Existing Social Security credits would be the initial deposit to the contracts for all participants under age 60.
Employer matching contributions would be eliminated and participant contributions would be cut to a mandatory 3% of total compensation (including deferred comp, stock options, etc.). Both changes would be phased into the system by participant age group over a five-year period, youngest first. The five age groups would be 13-year periods starting at zero to thirteen (obviously for voluntary accounts) and ending with ages fifty-two through sixty-five.
Phase one would involve qualifying providers, assignment of workers, issuance of contracts, elimination of employer matching contributions, and elimination of income taxes on social security payments. Employers would be required to appoint at least one person to coordinate the transition.
Contributions to the annuity contracts would begin upon issue; the Social Security Administration (SSA) would have five years to move credits to participants, starting with the youngest group, and would be responsible for shortfalls to retirees for five years.
Under the new system, there would be no penalties for early retirement, but tax free annuity payments would begin at age sixty-five whether or not the person continued to work. Participants could voluntarily establish retirement accounts for non-working spouses and children, and could elect to deduct an additional 1% of salary for each account. A new Federal Administration for Social Security (ASS) will select, qualify, and monitor provider companies and their investment portfolios to assure that only high quality, income-generating securities are used to fund benefits.
Companies showing a surplus would be able to invest up to 25% of the surplus in stocks that qualify for the Investment Grade Value Stock Index (IGVSI). Only fixed life annuities would be available, but there would be 50% of cash value, family-only, death benefits up until the time of retirement. After age 65, the death benefit would be reduced 10% per year for four years. There would be no loans, withdrawal privileges, etc.
The *** would be represented on provider company boards, would monitor annual audits of firm financial statements, and would supervise the selection of all non-company directors (60% of the board). Each provider company would be encouraged to use non-market value portfolio assessment techniques, such as The Working Capital Model, to monitor income portfolios. Retiree associations would also be represented on company boards of directors, and board member compensation would be capped at a reasonable number, plus 45% of *** related expenses.
Annuity providers would be assigned a fair share of the huge Social Security Retirement Income Account (SSRIA) participant pool; every dollar contributed would be invested. All providers would use the same mortality tables and base interest rate guarantees in their calculations and would be precluded from any form of advertising. Companies would be required to focus 100% of their efforts on the SSRIA.
Annuity providers would be allowed a .5% investment management fee so long as the Annuity Investment Portfolio generated no less than the 3.5% income level needed to fund a guaranteed 3% contractual cash value growth rate. 50% of any excess realized income would be added to retirement accounts in the form of dividends.
The remaining 50% would be apportioned between three separately managed accounts for: retirement benefit support contingencies (20%), universal health care and disability benefits for annuitants (50%), and post retirement death benefits (10%). Half of the remaining 20% would become “surplus”. The balance would accrue equally to the employees of the insurance company— the mailroom staff receiving the same dollar amount as the CEO.
These changes would produce: a whole new sub-industry of jobs, increase disposable income, reduce the Federal budget deficit, provide universal retirement benefit eligibility, stabilize the market for plain vanilla corporate and government debt securities, reduce corporate expenses and product price levels, and subsidize health care for senior citizens. Annuity providers would have significant incentives to minimize costs, but their investment portfolios would be closely supervised to prevent excessive risk.
Politicians at all levels just love for us to **** big business, and have no compunctions about taxing and regulating employers in every manner imaginable. The impact is higher prices, lower job creation rates, and the need to move many operations to lower cost environments. Many small businesses simply refuse to hire additional employees. Regulatory procedures and company defense measures add billions to the costs of goods and services.
Social Security benefits are grossly inadequate yet we continue to tax all forms of retirement benefits. Politicians ignore the simple solutions to these problems and none seem to care about Social Security reform. It’s just too big an issue to be so shockingly ignored, but the last politician with any courage— well, I can’t remember who that was either.
Susan
Reducing Taxes On Social Security – Advantages And Disadvantages Of This Debatable Issue
Abhishek Agarwal asked:
The Social Security Act of 1935 is among the primary acts the United States government is imposing. The acts main function is to give a lifetime reward to workers who have retired by the age of 65. That was the time of the Midst of Depression and where programs regarding social security were then based on. Due to the expansion of these programs, the programs are considered to be a leading federal program. The funds for these programs demand almost a quarter of the funds in the federal.
For in a long time now, the payments given by the social security programs were free of tax. This was the setup since for the most part of the grantees life, the grantees were paying for their social security record.
In this case, change has always been a part of our life. Just like for programs in Social Secuirty, it has changed over the years and are still subject to change. Presently, a part of the payments given by the programs is taxable. There was one period where the benefits were almost taxed by 50% and other brackets even reached 85% taxable rate. Various measures were tried and employed in reducing the tax rates of the payments, however majority of them were futile. Due to the changes, it won’t be a surprise if there would come a year where people would pay the benefits of their social security at a very high rate. This could be partly attributed to increasing population. One important setback that is situation reflects is that because of the increasing population, some time in the future many people would become dependent on the social security programs especially the benefits when the time for their retirements comes. The setback could probably be best solved if the tax rates could be lessened by the government. In this way, there’s a higher probability that people would gain more income.
Another possible solution that could be taken as of the moment is to increase the rates of the taxes imposed on present employees. This way could somehow ensure that while there is an increasing population, the entire system would not necessarily fall apart. Presently, employees pay taxes after earning $ 90,000 firstly. The employees are still taxed similarly, since in this way the government is able to increase the cap rather than having the employees pay a higher percentage. In this way, the burden in placed on the higher bracket employees rather than those middle class ones.
One concern arising presently is that the social security and its benefits are now put at risk. There are retirees now enjoying benefits that people in the future would not be able to perhaps enjoy. Currently, it is determined that employees now would be getting 25% less of the benefits that retirees are enjoying presently. However retired grantees are also on the lookout to make sure that even with the booming population, taxes would be reduced so that we could avoid having people living underneath the poverty line.
Those who are currently working and paying for their benefits could be assured that in the long run they would be able to enjoy the benefits they are saving for now with additional savings for that matter. The present situation demands that the government find ways to reduce the taxes so as to avoid the conflict that the benefits enjoyed by the retirees presently would not be the same as to the retirees in the future. The changes could happen given that bad case social security programs are now encountering, it would perhaps be possible for the government to eventually lessen the taxes on these benefits and programs.
Lance
The Social Security Act of 1935 is among the primary acts the United States government is imposing. The acts main function is to give a lifetime reward to workers who have retired by the age of 65. That was the time of the Midst of Depression and where programs regarding social security were then based on. Due to the expansion of these programs, the programs are considered to be a leading federal program. The funds for these programs demand almost a quarter of the funds in the federal.
For in a long time now, the payments given by the social security programs were free of tax. This was the setup since for the most part of the grantees life, the grantees were paying for their social security record.
In this case, change has always been a part of our life. Just like for programs in Social Secuirty, it has changed over the years and are still subject to change. Presently, a part of the payments given by the programs is taxable. There was one period where the benefits were almost taxed by 50% and other brackets even reached 85% taxable rate. Various measures were tried and employed in reducing the tax rates of the payments, however majority of them were futile. Due to the changes, it won’t be a surprise if there would come a year where people would pay the benefits of their social security at a very high rate. This could be partly attributed to increasing population. One important setback that is situation reflects is that because of the increasing population, some time in the future many people would become dependent on the social security programs especially the benefits when the time for their retirements comes. The setback could probably be best solved if the tax rates could be lessened by the government. In this way, there’s a higher probability that people would gain more income.
Another possible solution that could be taken as of the moment is to increase the rates of the taxes imposed on present employees. This way could somehow ensure that while there is an increasing population, the entire system would not necessarily fall apart. Presently, employees pay taxes after earning $ 90,000 firstly. The employees are still taxed similarly, since in this way the government is able to increase the cap rather than having the employees pay a higher percentage. In this way, the burden in placed on the higher bracket employees rather than those middle class ones.
One concern arising presently is that the social security and its benefits are now put at risk. There are retirees now enjoying benefits that people in the future would not be able to perhaps enjoy. Currently, it is determined that employees now would be getting 25% less of the benefits that retirees are enjoying presently. However retired grantees are also on the lookout to make sure that even with the booming population, taxes would be reduced so that we could avoid having people living underneath the poverty line.
Those who are currently working and paying for their benefits could be assured that in the long run they would be able to enjoy the benefits they are saving for now with additional savings for that matter. The present situation demands that the government find ways to reduce the taxes so as to avoid the conflict that the benefits enjoyed by the retirees presently would not be the same as to the retirees in the future. The changes could happen given that bad case social security programs are now encountering, it would perhaps be possible for the government to eventually lessen the taxes on these benefits and programs.
Lance
Guaranteed Social Security Benefits: Make It So
Steve Selengut asked:
The comically complicated PSA (Personal Savings Account) legislation bouncing around Congress will raise taxes, increase investment risk, and expand the size of government. Let’s stop applying Band-Aids to spouting arteries. We are looking for a guaranteed retirement benefit program, and organizations capable of providing one. Additionally, we want the new program to reduce taxes, create jobs, boost the economy, cut prices, and increase salaries. Difficult? Not really.
This is the conceptual outline of a five-year implantation plan, a starting point for the brainstorming needed to develop the nitty-gritty details, rules, regulations, laws, and agencies. All that is needed is the will to change things productively. Politicians like to debate changes to determine why new ideas can’t be implemented. Here’s a plan that must be implemented. Have a listen, throw out an incumbent, and protect your future.
Guaranteed benefit programs have been around for over 100 years, and millions of people throughout the world enjoy the benefits they provide. Here’s how they do it. Every month, they deposit money into a trustee-managed investment account. The money avoids the stock market (for the most part), index funds, commodities, or MLM-like derivatives and is carefully invested in high quality debt securities, many privately placed for better yields.
All earnings are reinvested in similar securities, and the fund eventually produces more in earnings than the participating investors contribute; the trustee manages the portfolio. At retirement, the deposits stop and the guaranteed benefits begin. The benefit is guaranteed for life— extraordinary concept, older and wiser than any living congressman or presidential candidate.
What if, instead of donating 7.6% of your salary (15.3% if you are self employed) to support the war de jour: (a) you could choose to deposit from 3% to 5% of your salary in a guaranteed retirement program maturing anytime after age 60, (b) the lifetime benefit is totally income tax free, and (c) your employer uses his savings to either create jobs, raise non-executive salaries, reduce prices, or increase shareholder dividends. Interested?
The SSRIA (Social Security Retirement Income Annuity) is a new and improved version of the ancient Deferred Fixed Annuity— a boring but guaranteed fixed-amount-only retirement vehicle. (Wrong, I don’t sell annuities— they just happen to be the perfect Social Security problem solver.) There are a bunch of new wrinkles: (1) The minimum contribution is mandated for all employed persons, but anyone with a Social Security number can have a SSRIA.
(2) Qualified (15 years of Fixed Annuity experience) SSRIA providors are assigned to participants randomly by SS#— only one per participant, per lifetime, please. Since the “qualified-by-qualified-people” providor companies have no acquisition, retention, or advertising expenses, there are no sales commissions; administrative expenses and investment management fees are capped at .5% of the total fund Working Capital.
(3) All SSRIA contracts, regardless of provider, will contain the same terms, interest guarantees, retirement benefit choices, and pre-retirement death benefits, thus eliminating any incentives for internal fraud and manipulation of statistics.
(4) Qualified providers will establish separate tax exempt, “mutual” subsidiaries to manage and control operations, assuring that profits are distributed to contract holders. Profits are allocated 50% to active contract holders and 50% to a health insurance trust fund for retired participants (HITF). (5) All providers will use the same mortality, investment earnings, and expense assumptions in their annuity benefit calculations, and only Life and Life + One Annuities are available. (6) Benefit payments will be jointly guaranteed by the parent companies and the Federal Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation. Parent Company income taxes would be reduced by 50%.
Implementation would be completed over a five-year period, and interpreted with an “intent of the law” bias:
In Year One, the Federal Government would purchase single premium SSRIAs for all active Social Security recipients— hey, they squandered the money. Also in year one: (1) all employee and employer contributions would be cut by 25% (the first of four such annual cuts) and deposited to individual SSRIAs. (2) All Federal, State and Local income taxes on SSRIA payments would be declared illegal and forever prohibited. (3) A private company would be chartered to audit the disposition of corporate tax savings within all public companies and private companies employing 10 or more persons 18 months before enactment.
In Years Two through whenever, the Federal Government would add to retiring persons SSRIAs to bring the annuity benefit to the level guaranteed by the OASI plus COLAs. Once an equalization level is achieved, federal responsibility would cease for that retiree.
In Years Three through Five, all Federal, State and Local Income taxes on all forms of private retirement accounts (IRA, 401(k), 403(b), etc.) would be reduced by one third per year, and would be declared forever illegal at the end of year Five. A Federal Sales Tax of 1% or 2% (on all final-product-sales, not a VAT) could be enacted after the second year’s cut. From Year Three forward, SSRIA holders would be able to view their projected monthly benefit at various retirement ages, based on contract provisions and their deposit and earnings history.
By the end of the Year Five: (1) Employers would have no Social Security tax responsibilities, but would be responsible for either employing more people, reducing their product prices, raising non-executive salaries not subject to the minimum wage, or paying higher dividends to shareholders. Any manipulations of their operations or executive compensation packages clearly intended to circumvent the intent of these reforms would be fined appropriately within the Board of Directors, senior officers, and legal council of the Company— personally, and in each capacity.
That’s right, if a senior officer is also on the Board, and responsible for controlling jobs, product prices, or dividends, he or she would be personally responsible for three separate fines. (2) Employees would select their level of salary deduction for year six; the election can be changed once in any twelve-month period. No employee can contribute more than the maximum 5% of salary to an SSRIA.
Of course there are a lot of ifs, ands, and buts in here, but it is a clearly doable program within an established professional infrastructure. It will increase jobs, reduce taxes, boost the economy and reduce the role of government— in 50,000 less words and 25 fewer years than any approach even being considered in Congress.
Make it so— yeah, you!
Barry
The comically complicated PSA (Personal Savings Account) legislation bouncing around Congress will raise taxes, increase investment risk, and expand the size of government. Let’s stop applying Band-Aids to spouting arteries. We are looking for a guaranteed retirement benefit program, and organizations capable of providing one. Additionally, we want the new program to reduce taxes, create jobs, boost the economy, cut prices, and increase salaries. Difficult? Not really.
This is the conceptual outline of a five-year implantation plan, a starting point for the brainstorming needed to develop the nitty-gritty details, rules, regulations, laws, and agencies. All that is needed is the will to change things productively. Politicians like to debate changes to determine why new ideas can’t be implemented. Here’s a plan that must be implemented. Have a listen, throw out an incumbent, and protect your future.
Guaranteed benefit programs have been around for over 100 years, and millions of people throughout the world enjoy the benefits they provide. Here’s how they do it. Every month, they deposit money into a trustee-managed investment account. The money avoids the stock market (for the most part), index funds, commodities, or MLM-like derivatives and is carefully invested in high quality debt securities, many privately placed for better yields.
All earnings are reinvested in similar securities, and the fund eventually produces more in earnings than the participating investors contribute; the trustee manages the portfolio. At retirement, the deposits stop and the guaranteed benefits begin. The benefit is guaranteed for life— extraordinary concept, older and wiser than any living congressman or presidential candidate.
What if, instead of donating 7.6% of your salary (15.3% if you are self employed) to support the war de jour: (a) you could choose to deposit from 3% to 5% of your salary in a guaranteed retirement program maturing anytime after age 60, (b) the lifetime benefit is totally income tax free, and (c) your employer uses his savings to either create jobs, raise non-executive salaries, reduce prices, or increase shareholder dividends. Interested?
The SSRIA (Social Security Retirement Income Annuity) is a new and improved version of the ancient Deferred Fixed Annuity— a boring but guaranteed fixed-amount-only retirement vehicle. (Wrong, I don’t sell annuities— they just happen to be the perfect Social Security problem solver.) There are a bunch of new wrinkles: (1) The minimum contribution is mandated for all employed persons, but anyone with a Social Security number can have a SSRIA.
(2) Qualified (15 years of Fixed Annuity experience) SSRIA providors are assigned to participants randomly by SS#— only one per participant, per lifetime, please. Since the “qualified-by-qualified-people” providor companies have no acquisition, retention, or advertising expenses, there are no sales commissions; administrative expenses and investment management fees are capped at .5% of the total fund Working Capital.
(3) All SSRIA contracts, regardless of provider, will contain the same terms, interest guarantees, retirement benefit choices, and pre-retirement death benefits, thus eliminating any incentives for internal fraud and manipulation of statistics.
(4) Qualified providers will establish separate tax exempt, “mutual” subsidiaries to manage and control operations, assuring that profits are distributed to contract holders. Profits are allocated 50% to active contract holders and 50% to a health insurance trust fund for retired participants (HITF). (5) All providers will use the same mortality, investment earnings, and expense assumptions in their annuity benefit calculations, and only Life and Life + One Annuities are available. (6) Benefit payments will be jointly guaranteed by the parent companies and the Federal Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation. Parent Company income taxes would be reduced by 50%.
Implementation would be completed over a five-year period, and interpreted with an “intent of the law” bias:
In Year One, the Federal Government would purchase single premium SSRIAs for all active Social Security recipients— hey, they squandered the money. Also in year one: (1) all employee and employer contributions would be cut by 25% (the first of four such annual cuts) and deposited to individual SSRIAs. (2) All Federal, State and Local income taxes on SSRIA payments would be declared illegal and forever prohibited. (3) A private company would be chartered to audit the disposition of corporate tax savings within all public companies and private companies employing 10 or more persons 18 months before enactment.
In Years Two through whenever, the Federal Government would add to retiring persons SSRIAs to bring the annuity benefit to the level guaranteed by the OASI plus COLAs. Once an equalization level is achieved, federal responsibility would cease for that retiree.
In Years Three through Five, all Federal, State and Local Income taxes on all forms of private retirement accounts (IRA, 401(k), 403(b), etc.) would be reduced by one third per year, and would be declared forever illegal at the end of year Five. A Federal Sales Tax of 1% or 2% (on all final-product-sales, not a VAT) could be enacted after the second year’s cut. From Year Three forward, SSRIA holders would be able to view their projected monthly benefit at various retirement ages, based on contract provisions and their deposit and earnings history.
By the end of the Year Five: (1) Employers would have no Social Security tax responsibilities, but would be responsible for either employing more people, reducing their product prices, raising non-executive salaries not subject to the minimum wage, or paying higher dividends to shareholders. Any manipulations of their operations or executive compensation packages clearly intended to circumvent the intent of these reforms would be fined appropriately within the Board of Directors, senior officers, and legal council of the Company— personally, and in each capacity.
That’s right, if a senior officer is also on the Board, and responsible for controlling jobs, product prices, or dividends, he or she would be personally responsible for three separate fines. (2) Employees would select their level of salary deduction for year six; the election can be changed once in any twelve-month period. No employee can contribute more than the maximum 5% of salary to an SSRIA.
Of course there are a lot of ifs, ands, and buts in here, but it is a clearly doable program within an established professional infrastructure. It will increase jobs, reduce taxes, boost the economy and reduce the role of government— in 50,000 less words and 25 fewer years than any approach even being considered in Congress.
Make it so— yeah, you!
Barry
