The 99 percent

to answer 3. I don't want to raise the bid/ask spread. Only that there is a tally of the number of instruments you traded and the number of times. and you pay $.10 for trades*times.

to answer 4. The point of this is to stop companies from making subsidiaries in another country to realize gains, and then wait for a tax holiday for repatriation.

I disagree with your second point. I think that making banks which do more than lending money to businesses/individuals into partnerships will do a lot of good. They won't stiff the US tax-payer with the bill by saying that they are too big to fail and that they risked US tax-payer deposits, as is the case of BofA. If a partnership wants to take big risks that's their decision. I'm suggesting to remove the moral hazard, by using the threat of financial system collapse as a stick to get the US gov't to foot the risk bill. 3. I do not say kill derivatives, you read that wrong. I'm more concerned with HFT. That is trades that are decided on by computers and executed in the single digit milliseconds, contribute to the hollowing out of buildings downtown for data-centers, etc. 4. removing the corporate tax is probably too much of a shock to the system, I think aligning it with the personal tax, eliminating loopholes in both, and lowering both is a much better idea. 5. I think that about 20 years is a long enough time to build relationships and get things that you want done. I think that there is cultural and idea turnover each generation that needs to be reflected in the bodies that represent it. Cleaning out the old gives way to the new and the like. I also think that since we limit terms for Presidents that we should do the same in other places. I think that long-standing senators can be every bit as much a tyrant as a permanent president, albeit on a lesser scale.

Then you end up with a situation like they have in Russia:

  1999-2000:
    Prime Minister: Putin
  2000-2008:
    President: Putin
  2008-2012:
    Prime Minister: Putin
  2012-2016 (anticipated):
    President: Putin

Here's why the rich get richer: because the 99% produce too damn much.

Consumerism worked for a while to keep things even, but we've reached a plateau. People can only buy so much crap. But we're more productive now than ever [1].

So where does all that extra money go? The people at the top take it. CEOs don't give their employees raises, and pocket the rest. Bankers play games with your excess money you've dumped into the market and "lose" it. etc.

No-one's missed that extra money until now, because there's always been enough work to go around. Now there's not. Maybe people aren't buying because their "confidence" is shaken. Maybe the Chinese are "taking our jobs". Maybe people don't need more crap.

Guess what, it doesn't matter. Everyone's stuck on debating why there's not enough work to go around. But really, the solution's simple.

Everyone should do less work.

The only way to simultaneously (a) reduce the income gap, (b) lower unemployment, and (c) not return to wasteful excessive consumerism is to shorten the work week and raise the minimum wage.

Those at the top will be forced to pay more per hour worked due to decrease in supply. This will fix the income gap.

The unemployed will suddenly find work, now that more workers are required to perform the same amount of work.

And no-one needs to find any arcane means of "increasing consumer confidence".

I propose a mandatory maximum of 35-hour non-overtime weeks, coupled with a 20% (or greater) increase in minimum wage. Necessarily will likely be a short-term (5-year or less) exemption from these policies for small business owners (defined as those whose executives take home in salary + bonuses less than some threshold, say $200k).

There once came a day when humans were productive enough that a two-day weekend was warranted. As we continue our march down the road of automation, it is only natural that we give ourselves more time to enjoy the fruits of our labors, and not devote our time to serve those more fortunate than us.

[1] http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/USARGDPH

Hoo boy are you wrong.

You are so, so wrong.

I was hoping you were being ironic, but apparently you're serious.

Raising minimum wage and cutting working hours will drop productivity like a stone. You're effectively saying that all workers are equal, and interchangeable. You want to forcibly stop the more productive ones from working, so that their tasks and livelihoods can be given to others.

In the case of a software company you're introducing the twin evils of bad hires and oversized teams. For what? An inferior product produced at a higher price.

Dropping productivity means a drop in living standards for everyone, not just the rich people.

The reason people are out of work is because too many people are paying back too much debt, and that equates to negative savings.

Minimum wages increase unemployment because they set a price floor above the clearing price for the going price of a worker. Now, that's not an argument for getting rid of minimum wages, but you can't argue against the reality of what they do.

The solution is to continue paying back debt, and learn the lesson not to borrow so much next time around. Yes, that sucks, but hard lessons seldom have pleasant consequences.

If you want to stop a lot of wealth accumulating at the top end of the pyramid, by all means break up banking cartels and break the ties between legislators and big business, you won't get many arguments from most people. But fairyland schemes to force people to pay more than wages are worth, and force people to work less hours than they want? Hello, central planning. Hello, centralised control. The only way for this to work is to put the needs of the state above the needs of the individual. Which must, by definition, mean less individual freedom and more state control. What are you going to do with someone who works more than 35 hours? Lock them up at the point of a gun?

"Wasteful excessive consumerism" is an entirely relative proposition. One persons waste is another satisfactory standard of living. To impose an arbitary living standard on someone is to completely control their lives.

You're asking everyone to do less work. Less work by definition means less production, and less production means a lower living standard. And guess where the bulk of that lower living standard will fall - that's right, you can bet your peasant clothes it won't be on the 1%.

To conclude : you're effectively asking for centralised control of peoples wages, centralised control of how much a person can work, and centralised and arbitary division of what is small, medium and large business for the purposes of handing out favors, subsidies and handouts. Eventually businesses will start to fail and so will seek more handouts, bailouts, concessions or are nationalised because they are vital to society (eg mining, energy, farming).

You've effectively described a blend of National Socialism and Stalinism. And we know that both eventually lead to mass murder and misery of millions. This experiment has been tried before, it ends badly for all involved.

I hope you're young and still learning, because if you're of any reasonable age, you should know better by now.