Possible Changes or additions to laws of Country
POLITICAL: Improvement of Representation
As a representative democracy, it is essential that the relationship between the population represented and their representative not be subverted by the natural selfishness of all organisms which results in preference of the representative to his or her own goals over the welfare of the majority of those nominally represented. For instance:
Since prestige, a more than average income, and many other rewards accompany being an elected representative, it is natural to want to retain that position. Apparently it can take a sum of money vastly greater than the salary paid for the office held, so that “campaign contributions” are needed.
Many Congressmen rely upon corporations and very wealthy people to provide the funds for the campaigns for election which come every two years for members of the House and every six years for members of the Senate. Monetary support equates to praise and approval, both of which are welcome to any living being so that the tendency of a representative of the people to give great attention to the views of their contributors is, perhaps, as inevitable as the preference shown by parents to their own children over that of other children of the same age who live in the same or other neighborhoods. It is a perhaps natural tendency to meet more often with contributors, or those they recommend, then with unknown constituents who call for an appointment and who can only give their single vote to their representative. The people must help representatives curb such natural tendencies.
Wining and dining of representatives by lobbyists also shows an apparent approval and respect. It may cause a representative to feel friendly towards someone with whom they had a friendly meal, golf game, or shared entertainment and interesting conversation, perhaps even the implied possibility of a future job with the employer of the lobbyist, especially if the lobbyist was previously a member of Congress. As with contributors, it is only natural that a representative may look forward to meetings with lobbyists more than with constituents who cannot afford to wine, dine, and entertain him, or who may, instead, be critical.
To restrain representatives whose integrity does not already result in a desire to best serve the majority of their constituents, and to limit attempts of lobbyists and by powerful special interests to monopolize representatives, the Senate and House can pass laws that:
Outlaw any campaign contribution from any corporation and from any entity other than an individual citizen. We do understand that our Supreme Court has held a previous ban of corporate contributions unconstitutional, using the outlandish concept that a corporation is equal to a human citizen, the inanity of such a conclusion is obvious on its face. There is no corporation which took a bullet in the Revolution, that helped frame the Constitution or any other thing that only humans can do. We must always remember that the Supreme Court also, at one time, upheld slavery and later declared a law forbidding child labor as unconstitutional. American citizens rejected both of these rulings by the USA Supreme Court and should immediately reject the idea that any corporation or entity, other than a human, can be a person under any interpretation of “person” in any Constitutional provision or any statute
1. . To preclude an interpretation that anyone but a human being can be a citizen, perhaps you should warn our citizens that to prevent any future Supreme Court from ponderously and erroneously concluding that a corporation or union organization can be a citizen, citizens must demand that the President and each representative of citizens should test the common sense of anyone nominated to that court using a litmus test: does the nominee to that court agree that only people can be citizens?
Our President Teddy Roosevelt in a speech in Kansas on August 31,1910 said: ” It is necessary that laws should be passed to prohibit the use of corporate funds directly or indirectly for political purposes; it is still more necessary that such laws should be thoroughly enforced. Corporate expenditures for political purposes, and especially such expenditures by public service corporations, have supplied one of the principal sources of corruption in our political affairs.”
President T. Roosevelt would naturally never accept dodges such as PAC nor the deductibility of any expenditure which was designed to provide more wealth to any corporation by affecting the election of any member of either chamber of Congress, its President, or any court official.
2. Outlaw any campaign, or other, contribution within any given year to any government official, elected or appointed, by any individual in excess of some reasonable multiple of the Federal minimum hourly wage effective in that year. Ask any nominee to the Supreme Court if they would find that giving dollars is so entitled to treatment as free speech as to warrant either the appearance of, or actual, corrupting influence of permitting some individual to give sums of money beyond the ability of the majority of citizens to give. Reject those who would not agree that the people, through their representatives, should set a limit on such contributions.
3. Outlaw any lobbying efforts by any special interest directed at any person elected or appointed to any office of the Federal government. This would forbid wining, dining, entertainment, trips and any such effort by a lobbyist, or any group of them, or any corporation or other organization. This would not preclude anyone associated with the lobbyist from stating to any news media, their view on any law contemplated by Congress, the lobbyists and owners of special interests themselves having the right of every other citizen to express an opinion on any issue. Constituents of a given representative shall be given reasonable access to their representative to express their views on any issue but shall be counseled at the time of each and every appointment with the representation, by presentation of a printed form, perhaps entitled “Ethics Requirements”, setting forth that no constituent and no person wishing to discuss any potential change in old or passage of new legislation shall pay for food, wine, entertainment, or travel, lodging or anything of any value, to the representative or to any of his or her family, other than the permitted campaign contribution.
President Roosevelt, on this subject in the August 1910 speech said:” For every special interest is entitled to justice, but not one is entitled to a vote in Congress, to a voice on the bench, or to representation in any public office. The Constitution guarantees protection to property, and we must make that promise good. But it does not give the right of suffrage to any corporation.”
Cronyism may yet be the death of our Republican Democracy.
4. Provide each representative who is not re-elected, with a sum annually, equal to some high percentage of the pay received while in office, combined with setting a criminal sanction upon both the ex-congressman and any entity that either lobbied such representative, or which is controlled by any entity that lobbied him or her, who employs him or her in any capacity within the greater of the same number of years for which the stipend mentioned shall be given or three years.
A declaration under penalty of perjury would be required each year from each person receiving such compensation that they had received no property of any sort during the past year from any entity which had given funds to any campaign by him, or had lobbied him or her while in office. This would be published on a blog designed to go to such oversight group as the Congress may devise as well as to the group of citizens, perhaps all in the country, who elected that former representative.
This concept is directed against the corruption of our government by special interests providing revolving door employment.
5. Require each representative to maintain a detailed log, showing dates, times, and places of meetings with constituents and any others, with the names of the constituents and a fully informative notation as to the purpose of the meeting and the subject thereof as well as a notation, placed in a special section of such log, as to whether there had been any prior meeting with the same person or persons within the two weeks prior to the reported meeting. This log will be posted upon the internet at the blog which the representative shall set up for such log as the primary purpose of that blog. However, nothing shall preclude use of such a blog to inform constituents of views of the Congress person on legislation and re. any legislation which he or she authored or sponsored as well as the completed and the current objectives the Congress person has so as to keep the public aware of his acts and the degree to which promises made in campaigns have been met. A like log will be required to show the receipt of any request for assistance, or for preference, in getting any Federally funded contract and of any and all compensation or benefit, if any, received by the representative or spouse or blood relative within two degrees of the representative, for such assistance or preference. If no such benefit or compensation was received, the government representative would have to make an annotation on the log to that effect and sign it under penalty of perjury.
6. Require that the full transcript of any speech given to any entity or group for a fee by each director of each regulatory body, each Congressional representative, by the President and each Supreme Court Justice, be reported to the public, via the internet, within ten days after it was made, including the date, identity of the audience, place of speech, the amount of the fee and to whom such fee was paid if payment is to other than the speaker. With the report of such speech, shall be a report of all of the costs for the person speaking and anyone accompanying them together with all other costs associated with the speech. Among such costs shall be all those for transportation, lodging and meals, and “presents” or any other goods or benefits provided for the speaker and his or her staff because of the speech, including those paid by any associate or “friend” of the entity paying such fee. Such report shall also be provided by each such official to such agency or agencies as the Congress shall designate. If a government official has not received any fee for any speeches during any given quarter, he or she shall sign a statement so stating at the end of each quarter. The signature shall be on a line of a form designed for purposes of making such a report which shall be made under penalty of perjury. The report shall be made available to the public via some blog or better means as well as being filed with a designated group which would review and store all such reports.
7. Establish that any violation of the above shall be deemed to be an attempt to corrupt the Constitutionally established right of citizens to representation. Such attempts shall be subject to criminal prosecution and upon conviction of any such offense, the public official or elected representative shall be deemed impeached and removed from office automatically, with an immediate loss of the right to all benefits, including but not limited to salary, pensions, and health benefits, and immediately upon conviction and shall also be subject to such punishment as the judge shall deem appropriate or as the Congress shall may specify by laws it passes.
8. The representatives shall determine, on an annual basis, the number of trained investigators, prosecutors, supporting staff and all facilities and services necessary to enforce the above and fund it with a sum deemed adequate but no less than the then existing as the median salary or wage for each person in such staff plus the costs of office space, utilities and supplies common in large corporations in the same city for the prior year for a like number of employees. The rationale for any increase or decrease in numbers of people funded or any other reason for changes in funding shall be reported by individual representatives to their constituents via their blog and any other appropriate means.
9. Make a like determination of the budgetary needs of enforcing the regulations or rules of each other committee or entity established by the Congress at any time so long as it is in existence. It does Americans no good to have an agency purported to be primarily concerned with the welfare of citizens if there is inadequate funding of the means of performance, including research, investigation of pertinent facts, and enforcement, depending on the nominal purpose of the agency. For example, only: a) the FDA should be adequately funded to insure that Americans get healthy foods and medicines. b) The SEC must have full funding of staff to evaluate actions of banks and wall street hedge funds, as well as of the existence of actions or combinations not allowed by law. and c) The EPA must be provided with experts to evaluate pollution, track it down, and then to correct it or to be able to prosecute and otherwise cause the perpetrator to cure the problem so that no more Love Canals or pollution from mine tailings, asbestos, lead or other dangerous or noxious materials of any sort will harm citizens, etc. The enforcement function should be overseen by the Congress to assure that citizens are fully protected and to help it determine if more funding is necessary.
The suggestions above are primarily to eliminate even the appearance that persons elected as representatives or president by the people, and each official, judge or head of a department or of a regulatory body, have a preference for any entity above their constituents and to the society. The last, 9, is to prevent shell organizations being set up by corrupt politicians working with enterprises which might have their profits adversely affected if rules and regulations deemed necessary to the public welfare are enforced. Such shell organizations would be intended to mislead citizens into thinking their needs are being given top consideration over all special interests.
We are sure that other suggestions will be made by humans who have knowledge and have become wiser than I to the ways used to corrupt and take away control of our government. Many such people also wish for the best representative democracy possible. President Roosevelt was a perfect example of the wisdom inherent in our race.
At the same time our race is so filled with good people that most tend to assume that even those who wish to plunder them are probably good people. At least one of our wise men said in effect: “Trust but verify.” That means to have faith in the basic goodness of all humans but stand ready to revoke that faith in anyone whose actions are not beneficial to the society as well as being good for them individually. The reports suggested above are designed to provide that verification, not of corruption, but of devotion to the public welfare and a means to let people guide their public officials.
Such reports could also be sent or made available via blogs to oversight groups set up in other branches of government.
POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC
History shows that the USA was intended to be a land of equal opportunity and justice. We are afraid that those who first overthrew monarchy, the founders of your country and secondly, France, both retained a tenet of feudalism that has caused much of the disparity of wealth in the United States and perhaps in other countries with a great disparity.
When the United States threw off monarchy, it did not end the feudal provision for inheritance by heirs to property but only terminated the rights of inheritance of the “right to rule” as king or monarch. The people became the equivalent of the king so that, as they supplanted the monarch who was the “owner” as per the rationale of King Charles and others who followed William the Conqueror.
While Monarchs firmly enforced their right as ruler, as the embodiment of the country, to grant rights to use of the commonly owned wealth of the nation to both grant and have reversion of those rights to the “throne” upon their whim whether before or after the death of the grantee, in neither revolution did the revolutionaries seize upon this right of the entire nation to all of its wealth in common. Therefore, while the inheritance of the right to rule was repudiated, the right to accumulations of wealth could still be inherited. The right of the country to reversion of all such wealth was not claimed by either group of revolutionaries, being totally overlooked.
It is logical that the prevalent economic system is “capitalism”. That system recognizes the innate “me first” instinct essential to survival of single organisms as vs survival of a species. Capitalism gives an incentive to creative people to create new products, means of production, transport or sale of production, by permitting such innovators to accumulate great wealth. However, the passage of very large accumulations of wealth to grand-children of the innovators can harm a society by creating dynasties of wealth. In our experience, the beneficiaries of such dynastic wealth are not innovators bringing greater wealth to the entire society but usually stagnant pools of income and compounding of the wealth of people lucky to be among those two or more generations from the innovators.
It was your President Theodore Roosevelt who, considering some relatively modest accumulations of wealth in his time, in a speech on August 13, 1910 said. “Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective — a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate.”
In France, in 2014 there was a relatively small exemption of wealth inherited by grand-children. While the total inheritance of children was free from inheritance taxes on the first one hundred thousand Euros, grandchildren had only 1,594 Euros as their exemption The graduated tax reached 45% on sums over 1,805,669 Euros, roughly equivalent to two million dollars.
In the USA there was an exclusion of 5.34 Million dollars and a maximum tax of 40% on any excess above that exempted amount. Apparently only two tenths of one percent of the estates being taxable. Effectively, there has been no estate tax in the USA since about 2001 when the exclusion was $675,000 and the maximum rate was a 55%. I wonder what this hero of the current Republican Party would say when faced with the lack of progress on an idea which Teddy Roosevelt deemed essential to Equal Opportunity in the American Society?
No nation has any wealth except for that created by the people residing in it.
Some argued that the fertile lands and lodes of gold were wealth but until worked and, for gold, mined and transported, the wealth was only potential. The citizens of the Iroquois Confederacy which had a culture that was an example for Benjamin Franklin of a truly democratic society. They shared according to need with each human, desiring the esteem of their family, clan, members, all working hard for the society. The people of the USA, during WWII, with its shortage of goods and rationing that minimized the value of money as effective demands for luxury, also worked hard despite the inability of most laborers to accumulate much wealth or indulge in luxuries.
We must change the system so that people will look forward to the reduction in need for human labor, not fear it.
I do not understand why anyone would be expected to work forty hours a week when, say, 20 hours by everyone able to work, including the unemployed, would produce all that was needed. Why not let robots do all the farming, repair of machinery, cleaning, manufacture of clothing from weaving to tailoring, and routine medical work; almost any work human beings had to do in the old days? It seems just too strange to believe that any intelligent society would not have a method to insure distribution of goods produced by robotic means to those formerly needed to produce those goods as well as to the rest of the society.
Well, it seems that in this early part of the 21st century, that if, for example:
An employer has 100 employees and needs them to produce all the goods which he sells. Then he buys robots, or more productive machines and can produce the same goods with those robots and just thirty of the employees. The employer will ‘lay off’ the seventy workers no longer needed. With 100 qualified people seeking the work done by 30 people, the supply of labor is increased so that employer would get not only the benefit of not having to pay 70 people replaced by robots but can also cut pay to people to fill the positions of the 30 positions he still needs to fill with humans. Economists and employers justify this by saying everyone is paid what they are worth even if that is not a “living wage” as defined by Republican President Teddy Roosevelt. Many who are paid less than a living wage are even told by their employers who keep profits high by keeping pay low, to apply for welfare benefits. This means that everyone else subsidizes those employers.”
“In the Iroquois confederacy, each person was entitled to a basic allowance which took care of their basic food, shelter and clothing needs. The productive machinery was owned by the society as a whole and a percentage of production was distributed equally. Their elected leaders would determine what this was per person each year in terms of their money. They would use that as a basis for distribution of the allowance, factoring in the differing needs of children of different ages for the total family allowance. In our society, and maybe all of them now, most of the robots and other machinery for production are owned by the people who own the businesses using them. If they can get resident human labor cheaper, they do so. If not. they may outsource. It is a race to the bottom for the majority of citizens who do not own the means of production. the supply of non-human and outsourced Labor keeps increasing as we advance.
It is hard to compete with a robot, or with someone in another country who will take ten percent of your wage to do some job. Jobs with a living wage get scarce everywhere with cheaper transportation and advances in science.
Access to advanced machines and rare resources logically must be limited to those deemed qualified by their peers to properly use them. Those able to do the most will deservedly get the most respect and, in addition to their basic allowance, probably should even get their pick of extremely rare goods as well as their treasured access to advanced machines and robots
In the Iroquois confederacy people were equal owners of the land and its resources while those who cultivated or mined it, wove clothing for all, or built shelters for all, had full access to the use of the goods produced. as always happened since each of their citizens wanted to do as much for their society as most people did during the Second World War. They knew that all wealth was created by their people, and so the wealth was shared by all. The most productive received great praise and respect from all and were deferred to when something special, and scarce, was created or found.
President Teddy Roosevelt said in the same speech of 1910: “Moreover, I believe that the natural resources must be used for the benefit of all our people, and not monopolized for the benefit of the few, and here again is another case in which I am accused of taking a revolutionary attitude.”
Licensing by the Federal Government of our common resources for a fee plus a percentage of the revenue could insure benefit to all of the people. A properly funded entity with experts able to assess the value of the resource being licensed for use, would assure benefit to all, not just the licensee who would also be required to concurrently clean up all pollution caused by the exclusive use allowed to it. The highest officials of such an agency would also have to report to their boss, the people, in the same manner as elected officials.
Under feudalism, if there was no one to inherit, or simply at the whim of the monarch, all the land rights held by the deceased person, would escheat to the monarch. In this way the monarch could grant then to someone else who seemed loyal and competent and was assured that, in return for the income derived from land rights granted them, the tenants would protect the entire kingdom from invasion and from treason to the monarch.
In the USA the citizens are supposed to be the rulers, not some individual nor some group of the wealthy. Instead of control of inheritance by a monarch, all property of any deceased citizen passes to heirs only according to laws which are passed by representatives of the people. We have studied those laws, including the taxes on the portions passing to others.
Again, it seems only reasonable to induce people to create and market products beneficial to all by letting the innovator receive extraordinary incomes and to accumulate fantastic wealth during their lifetime. The capitalistic system provides this incentive, and so has proven to be better for societies than those claiming to be communist economies.
However, if a large proportion of wealth of decedents passes to those preferred by those who currently own 40% of the national wealth of the USA, there arises a great risk of creation of dynasties of wealth. Such dynasties will lead to stagnation of our economy with the beneficiaries of such wealth finding it compounding over the years with little or no effort on their part. Such beneficiaries would have little need to spend much of their wealth on anything other than necessities, having inherited mansions, furniture, and the like and having little greater need for food and clothing than people who need welfare supplements to survive. Effective, money-backed. demand, would be much less than if the accruing wealth went to those making, or ready to make, things beneficial to the society but who are unemployed because of lack of funds or the rise of automation, robotics and outsourcing.
Where there are dynasties of wealth, there is less chance for people at lower income levels to move up to middle or top levels. Holders of dynastic wealth usually share control of enterprises and can control who is employed as top executives and the salaries paid, with nothing preventing them from filling the top salaried position with themselves, their families, or peers. In our opinion, this is a major reason that fantastic salaries now go to top executives, e.g. In the USA as much as 300 times that of average workers compared to the 20 times the average wage common in the 1960’s.
By prevention of tax deduction of the amount of all pay to any executive that is in excess of such multiple of (e.g) 20 times that for the median pay of non-executives for the pertinent business entity, there may be an incentive to increase the wages of the average worker (maybe even to a “living wage” as that had been defined by President Theodore Roosevelt), to regain that deduction for wages and salaries, and to reduce employee turnover. There could also be a special income tax on any such excess to further create disincentives for such practices.
On the subject of a living wage, your wise President said in the same 1910 speech.” No man can be a good citizen unless he has a wage more than sufficient to cover the bare cost of living, and hours of labor short enough so after his day’s work is done he will have time and energy to bear his share in the management of the community, to help in carrying the general load. We keep countless men from being good citizens by the conditions of life by which we surround them.”
His speech continued as he said, sometimes quoting President Lincoln:
“I hold that while man exists it is his duty to improve not only his own condition, but to assist in ameliorating mankind.”
And again quoting from that August 31, 1910 speech:
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
“In every wise struggle for human betterment one of the main objects, and often the only object, has been to achieve in large measure equality of opportunity. In the struggle for this great end, nations rise from barbarism to civilization, and through it people press forward from one stage of enlightenment to the next. One of the chief factors in progress is the destruction of special privilege. The essence of any struggle for healthy liberty has always been, and must always be, to take from some one man or class of men the right to enjoy power, or wealth, or position, or immunity, which has not been earned by service to his or their fellows. That is what you fought for in the Civil War, and that is what we strive for now.”
“At many stages in the advance of humanity, this conflict between the men who possess more than they have earned and the men who have earned more than they possess is the central condition of progress. In our day it appears as the struggle of freemen to gain and hold the right of self-government as against the special interests, who twist the methods of free government into machinery for defeating the popular will. At every stage, and under all circumstances, the essence of the struggle is to equalize opportunity, destroy privilege, and give to the life and citizenship of every individual the highest possible value both to himself and to the commonwealth. That is nothing new.”
President Roosevelt in the same speech called for equality of opportunity, saying: “Practical equality of opportunity for all citizens, when we achieve it, will have two great results. First, every man will have a fair chance to make of himself all that in him lies; to reach the highest point to which his capacities, unassisted by special privilege of his own and unhampered by the special privilege of others, can carry him, and to get for himself and his family substantially what he has earned. Second, equality of opportunity means that the commonwealth will get from every citizen the highest service of which he is capable. No man who carries the burden of the special privileges of another can give to the commonwealth that service to which it is fairly entitled.
On special interests he said: “Now, this means that our government, national and state, must be freed from the sinister influence or control of special interests. We must drive the special interests out of politics. That is one of our tasks to-day. (I have skipped some. Representatives may go to internet for his speech of August 1910 for all of it.) every special interest is entitled to justice, but not one is entitled to a vote in Congress, to a voice on the bench, or to representation in any public office. The Constitution guarantees protection to property, and we must make that promise good. But it does not give the right of suffrage to any corporation.
The true friend of property, the true conservative, is he who insists that property shall be the servant and not the master of the commonwealth; who insists that the creature of man’s making shall be the servant and not the master of the man who made it.”
All wealth held by the estate of a deceased person who amassed that wealth while residing in a nation, was, to a large extent created, as the Republican President held, by all citizens of the nation and used the wealth and labor of that nation as well as by the deceased. The wealth was protected by the society’s police and defense forces. Sales were made with less expense and greater profit because of the infra-structure paid for by the entire society. The demand was, primarily, from fellow citizens of the entrepreneur.
If excessive wealth goes to those preferred by the deceased, national wealth disparities will be perpetrated to the detriment of equal opportunity which our great president said should be the objective of our republican nation. Naturally, the children of innovators of great benefit to society should have secure futures which can be had first by provisions in estate tax provisions and later by securing equal opportunity and a guaranteed adequate income to all.
Since the top 1% generally own many businesses and income producing property, they can insure that they are also among the top percentages in income by simply using control of businesses to designate their members as chief executives and set the wages paid to them at a very high level.
A number of things can be done to change this, before the rising disparity leads to civil disorder. As I read on the internet, at least one multi-billionaire has warned that a revolt like that of the French revolution when another incredible disparity occurred would happen. While there were pitchforks in that revolution, a modern one would be with guns and home-made bombs like happened in North Africa. I am sure you, like President Theodore Roosevelt, can think of something to add to or modify the details of the previous and the following suggested remedies:
1. An annual 1% tax on all wealth in excess of five million dollars held by any single family residing with each other. Brokers and banks could be required to report on the value of all, bank accounts, stock, mortgages. The multi-millionaires could copy the tax bill assessments for their real property and insert their best opinion of current value as well as their best estimates of art objects, all foreign deposits, trust assets under their control or revertible to them, all foreign stock and corporations and then list their debts, if any, related to each asset. All proceeds of such a tax should go into a fund, e.g. one called the “National Wealth Trust Fund.”
2. Tax all estates assets valued at over one million dollars going to grandchildren, and over three million going to children of the deceased. This would be payable in interests in the assets the estate, e.g. stocks, bonds, mortgages, cash, annuities, etc. in the proportion that the tax had to all the wealth in the estate, not just cash. Cash is of such fleeting value while asset values are inherent and proven business interests will ordinarily provide better income and appreciation. As a result, growth in income and appreciation of assets otherwise going with the estate would go into the National Wealth Trust Fund as part of an Equal Opportunity Fund.
3. (Shareholder power) Provide that no officer, or professional employee of a corporation may be paid an annual compensation that is ten times or more than that the median paid to worker in a given industry per government statistics for the latest year such data is available, can be paid without the prior written approval of at least 2/3 of the shareholders with said approval being required to be validated by a panel of a number of shareholders. The panel would have to document their decision with pertinent statistics from the Federal Government. Any compensation paid in excess of what such a majority of shareholders have approved shall be subject to the same criminal penalty as embezzlement of the excess amount. In no event, whether or not approved in writing as provided above, shall compensation in excess of the maximum set above shall be tax deductible.
4. Establish a minimum wage equal to a living wage with there being different amounts for employees of different ages, and status e.g. 18 and under; married of any age, residents of an area with a particularly high cost of living etc.
5. Reduce the maximum hours in the work week with any time over that being required to be paid at a multiple of three times the regular rate. This will effectively decrease the “labor” supply thereby boosting wages paid employees. Remember that President Roosevelt considered time as well as the amount paid as being important to a “living wage”.
6. Preclude the shaving of time from the standard work week as is currently done to in much of the retail work places and require pay, at the full rate for any job in which they are employed for all time in which the employer or the agent managing the affected employee, directs any full or part-time employee to be in stand-by status as well as for any time between shifts if shifts are within the same twenty-four-hour period. The hours set for a given work week, whether that is 40 hrs or some lesser number as may later be established, shall all be for specified connected periods within specific days of the week so that employees can better plan their days and have a meaningful family life as well as involve themselves in the community work, political, charitable or social.
7. Tax all the types of income, for example but not limited to: interest, dividends, rents, capital gains, royalties, rents, salary and wages, at the same rate or rates as any other type of income. (a) Congress should consider whether this concept should extend to the social security tax which we understand is now limited to wage and salary incomes below a certain amount.