Stuffism
I, myself, do not align myself to any type of political identity. However, I do have a rather interesting idea.
Corporations controlled by the government
"A corporation exists strictly as a product of corporate law and is a legal entity separate from its founders, managers, and employees with its own contractual obligations and rewards." In America, corporations operate under the corporate laws of the state in which they are incorporated. Most jurisdictions now allow the creation of a new corporation through registration.
An important (but not universal) contemporary feature of a corporation is limited liability. If a corporation fails, shareholders normally only stand to lose their investment and employees will lose their jobs, but neither will be further liable for debts that remain owing to the corporation's creditors. Several types of conventional corporations exist in the United States. Generically, any business entity that is recognized as distinct from the people who own it (i.e., is not a sole proprietorship or a partnership) is a corporation. This generic label includes entities that are known by such legal labels as ‘association’, ‘organization’ and ‘limited liability company’, as well as corporations proper.
Only a company that has been formally incorporated according to the laws of a particular state is called ‘corporation’. A corporation was defined in the Dartmouth College case of 1819, in which Chief Justice Marshall of the United States Supreme Court stated that " A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of the law". A corporation is a legal entity, distinct and separate from the individuals who create and operate it. As legal entity the corporation can acquire, own, and dispose of property in its own name like buildings, land and equipment. It can also incur liabilities and enter into contracts like franchising and leasing.
Despite not being natural persons, corporations are recognized by the law to have rights and responsibilities like natural persons ("people"). Corporations can exercise human rights against real individuals and the state, and they can themselves be responsible for human rights violations. Corporations are conceptually immortal but they can "die" when they are "dissolved" either by statutory operation, order of court, or voluntary action on the part of shareholders.
Essentially- I believe that Corporations should be controlled by the government. By the offered protection of reduced liability (such as a business being sued, rather than an individual, or a corporation being charged for manslaughter or murder rather than individual for a poisonous or dangerous substance) I believe that a corporation should be government controlled, or at least heavily regulated.
Certain regulations include a salary cap and being taxed, and obligations towards moral objectives, state goals, and an obligation to work towards the "state" first (I.E. to buy American) as well as a goal for job creation.
A corporation is, in obligation, a government employee, and must be done as told (although, this is all within the reasons of basic human decency, as protected by the state).
Salary Cap (and Taxes)
"No Human should be worth more than another". Ideally, this is a model for basic human thought in social interaction which should even extend even into business. Unfortunately, this also means that the better or hard working are payed as much as the less hard working, and as such an unfair balance of work and pay is created.
While I agree no human is worth more than another, and financially should not be "worth" than another, I believe that in order to preserve the best of the capitalist idea but promote fairness in fiscal monetary relationships, I believe that a salary cap should be put into place.
"No human should be financially worth 8 more times than another". A rather arbitrary notion, but it sets the salary cap to roughly 400,000 dollars (which, coincides with being in the top 1% of wage earners). While this number may be changed or altered in the future, I think that it provides a relatively good balance.
(sort of rambling)
It also allows a flat tax to be more applicable. Usually, a progressive tax is placed onto the "rich"; this is due to the fact that the "poor" cannot compensate for a regular flat tax. There is a base cost of living; a house, a car, groceries, electricity, running water, and even a computer, radio, TV, air conditioning and lighting fixtures. Without these things, it is arguable that survival is either impossible or too increasingly ridiculous or uncomfortable. As such, a progressive tax is required, as those who are making barely enough to afford these basic commodities cannot up the ante on the amount of money required. A base cost of living causes a salary increase to improve the quality of life exponentially; point and case, if you compared the living quality of someone who makes 40,000 a year compared to 80,000 a year, despite the person who makes 80,000 a year making double per year, it is arguable that their living quality is much higher than this, which more expensive cars, a much bigger house, and even a better neighborhood resulting in a better school system. The reason is primarily due to the base cost of living. If a person, requires, say, 40,000 dollars in order to survive, they must pay their full salary (of course, pretending that taxes do not exist, or factoring this in) in order to pay for their basic commodities. A person who makes 80,000 per year can afford their basic commodities along with another entire person's salary worth, meaning that any extra accessories literally equate to another person's salary; such as an improved car, specialized phone, expensive television, or various other types of devices. Essentially, someone with a base salary for living standards is required to spend a flat rate, so an increase in salary is felt far beyond the amount increased. A few extra thousand dollars could result in much improved quality of life, by allowing washing machines, dryers, microwaves, ovens, blenders, coffee machines, plates, furniture, etc. which another individual might not have.
If we assume a 10% tax, than a person who makes 40,000 per year needs to pay 36,000 dollars. A person who makes 80,000 dollars pays 72,000 dollars. However, if the first 40,000 dollars are paid for the same standard of base living, than an individual who makes 80,000 per year now has 36,000 dollars worth of "spending money" than an individual making 40,000 per year does not have. This means that, an improved house, more food than is required, and leisure and exercise is available to those who make this amount of money, compared to those who cannot afford any of these types of things. This means that, while the salary is doubled, the amount of "spending money" present is infinitely higher compared to someone who spends most or all of their money on sustenance.
If this individual is, comparatively taxed 10% more, they would suffer less than someone who spends most or all of their money on sustenance. 36,000 dollars is required for base living, so a person who makes 40,000 dollars per year would fall short 4000 dollars if required to pay a 20% tax rate. If we take a person who makes 80,000 dollars, however, they easily fit into the margin required for sustenance. 80,000 - Tax=(.2N, or 16,000), - Base cast of living=(36,000), then the individual would still make 28,000 dollars in "spending" money.
(sort of rambling)
Taxes- If a salary cap is imposed, than the extra money will be given to the business, which is then audited, and has a certain amount of it's money sent to the state (depending on how much money is given to increase the business revenue and given as salary, etc.). A base percentage of Taxes will be administered, although the number is not yet decided upon (probably the same as the U.S., which is around 25%, or 15-35%).
Essentially, all the rest of the money goes to the business, which is then taxed. In addition, people are taxed, but it is at a rather low rate, and non progressive, at 10%.
Exception of the Sole proprietorship
While a salary cap is imposed for corporations and even partnerships, a sole proprietorship is considered to be the one exception to the "salary cap".
This because a sole proprietorship is considered to be a person's personal money, and as such the amount of money spent and earned is strictly their own. While corporations and partnerships are essentially business that rely on others, and the salary cap is intended to make business more fair (such as in minimum wage), a sole proprietorship represents a person dealing solely with their own money, who incur their own debt and require their own expenditure to pay it off. All liability is placed on the owner of the business, and all money is their own.
In addition, some of the best aspects of capitalism are stilled kept. If a person has a garage sale, for example, they are allowed to keep the extra money they make, even if this is above the salary cap. In addition, if a person sells their T.V, furniture, or other items, they are still allowed to keep their money even if it out reaches their salary cap.
For similar reasons, a sole proprietorship is allowed to exceed the said salary cap, only because it represents a person's individual wealth and individual business inter actions.
If an individual sales plants or soap or cuts hair or mows lawns in order to receive extra money, the limit on the money earned is not restricted. However, the money received can still be taxed by the government (at around 10%) and any money saved this must be reported or filed each year (although, if a person's salary is applicable enough to pay for the taxes, then no money from the business transaction is required). Money that is earned and this manner and immediately spent is not necessarily taxed.
