Sheri, I just read the "issues" and the "solutions".
While many of the issues are legitimate, the solutions in most cases will not work.
Much of it boils down to the basic premise that if you charge more taxes/benefits/wages to a business, the business has three choices. Increase prices to reflect the rising costs, cut operating costs, or downsize/close to avoid them. A business will not invest in expansion without profit, and will not operate without making a profit for long, and everyone employed there will go down with it.
This creates a cascade effect identical to the trickle-down economics in reverse. If the wages go up and the price of the product goes up accordingly, who wins? The government, who taxes the wage earner on their increased wages. If the company closes down due to increased costs, the workers will lose the wages entirely.
Where is all the money coming from to pay for these proposed programs? You can't get it out of American automakers or suppliers. You can't get it out of agriculture.
Since the US can't cap free market salaries and bonuses and benefits, I would agree with taxing compensation beyond a reasonable level with a "windfall tax" or something like it. Perhaps it would be best to "penalize" a company for overcompensation, as well as tax the excess compensation itself. This would apply to athletes and other highly paid individuals as well as corporate CEOs, and may drive down the compensation to more realistic levels. And businesses who provide health insurance to their employees should receive credit for the premiums, not just a reduction in the taxable income.
States should not be allowed to tax employee compensation and benefits, nor gross sales. Tax exemptions for relocations should be dropped, as this encourages businesses to shop around to see what state will give them the best incentive to move there.
This country operates on tax revenue, and I understand there is a need to collect. But the system is broken, those who contribute the most to the economy are hit hard, those who suck from the economy are not taxed equitably, and at the other extreme those who leverage the loopholes are not taxed equitably. The proposal to make a "quick and easy" tax return will be met with joy by a lot of people. Michigan did that for years with the Single Business Tax. One form, a few minutes, and you could go on with your life. However, if you did the 6 to 8 forms for alternate calculation methods, you could often cut hundreds or thousands off that tax bill.
Remember that all trade agreements are two way streets. If we get access to foreign markets, they get access to ours. And since trade policy is to "build developing nations", that means that it's often a 90% incoming/10% outgoing balance of trade, which sends American money overseas. Other countries are getting richer at our expense. Why not keep our money inside our border whenever possible?
It will take a lot more than campaign promises to fix this country. But it has to start somewhere.
I think understand what you are saying about "trickle down" economics. I agree with those points. The tax system is broken and does need to be taxed more evenly. If we look at the "trick up" economics, if the middle class is taxed too heavily or has no money because of health care costs, they will not have money to spend. Businesses will lose earnings, lay off people, and possibly close leading to further unemployment. I won't say one method is better than the other. I think it works a little both ways. The part I didn't like about trickle down economics is if corporations get tax cuts will they pocket the money for the CEOs or will they try to expand business, share the profit with higher wages for the average worker, and give out bigger stock dividends. In trickle up, it's pretty much guaranteed middle class will spend money on business. I do think there is a fine balancing act with both economic systems being used.
As far as CEO salaries, I found this article interesting.
I knew they were way overpaid but finding out they are paid 400 times more than the average worker in the USA compared to other countries average of 20 times their average worker really puts it into perspective. If the companies put a ratio of paying the CEO 20 to maybe 50 times their average worker, it would be a cap but it would be more fair and flexible depending on the CEOs performance. It would give the CEO an incentive to be more responsible for the company to make more money. It would help the workers also because the CEO would want to raise their wages to raise his/hers. Of course, this all depends on revenue, taxes, and different outside variables effecting revenue.
I don't think I agree with States not taxing sales and employee earnings. I think it is needed for public services that everyone uses. I will agree that benefits should not be taxed.
I do agree that the trade with US and other countries is unbalanced. Too much is imported and not enough is exported which leads to the US losing earnings and jobs.
It would be nice to have simpler tax forms for convenience but I am concerned that some may lose out on certain tax breaks. I'm questioning how Obama plans to pay for his policies. I know he said at his press conference Friday that he would be looking at programs line by line to see what works and what doesn't. I hope he can cut out some of the programs throwing money away and use that money for things more productive. Especially with less revenue coming in from businesses and unemployed workers and more going out to "stimulate" the economy, every penny will be needed.
"An ignorant man thinks he knows everything, a wise man knows he doesn't."