We CAN Erase Homelessness, Too

I was running a few numbers recently and came across a surprisingly depressing thing.  Fighting homelessness/hunger/poverty is not as expensive as most people who can afford to fight it make it out to be.

My ultimate goal in life is to create a self-sufficient society where those who cannot function in society, even if only temporarily, can find a safe place to grow and live; for life or for a short while.  Without getting into too much detail, basically we would welcome the homeless, especially veterans who can’t function well because of PTSD or something, from all over the country into the organization.

Ideally everyone would receive a room of their own, but even if living space had to be shared it would still give people food, shelter, clothing, and a job.  Those who are strong and virile would farm the property owned by the foundation, those who were too weak or inept to farm would be given other tasks such as doing laundry or cleaning the property.

Everyone would have a place in the society, whether for life or only for a short time.  As such we would also welcome battered spouses who have nowhere else to go but back to their abusers, runaway children who do not feel safe or loved at home, and people who are simply fed up with the way society is structured and wants a healthy alternative.

No alcohol, no drugs, no guns, no fiscal castes, just people living together to benefit each other.  I suppose you could call it Socialist, but it’s designed for people that are forgotten or disenfranchised by a Capitalist society, so I guess that’s not a bad thing.  It’s a place that exists without the constraints of money.

Of course you’d need a lot of money to get it to work, cordoning it away from the money-driven, Capitalist society that surrounds it.  Hence why my poor ass hasn’t started the process, yet.

But on a shorter term, I like to look at what it would cost to feed, clothe, and shelter people without creating an off-branching society.

And I was quite depressed to find out how cheap it would be to do so.  Especially since it isn’t being done…not nearly enough.


We CAN Erase The Debt, Easily

You all know that I hate quoting myself, right?  Well I touched on a subject in my last post, but didn’t go really into depth with it.  Now I’m going into a deeper hole to mine some more information.  Follow along with me as I configure these numbers and come to the conclusion that…the nation is bought and owned by the wealthiest members of the nation.  And that there aren’t many ways to change it.

Here’s where the thought started in the last post to recap:

“And look at Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney, who makes about $20,000 every 8 hours.  That’s equivalent to making $2,500 an hour if he worked 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year; that’s a grand total of $21.9 million a year in income.  He pays a little less than $3.3 million a year in taxes.  If he paid the same 22% that I do on my hard-earned money, that’d be a little more than $4.8 million.

And both Romney and my million-dollar CD only pay 15% taxes, whereas I pay closer 22% tax on the money I bust my ass for.  In other words, he pays a little less than $3.3 million a year in taxes.  If he paid the same 22% that I do on my hard-earned money, that’d be a little more than $4.8 million.  Whereas I pay a little more than $4,600 in taxes, but if I only paid 15% in taxes, I’d pay a little more than $3,100.”

Now if we follow along with those numbers…

And if we assume that all the .1% top income earners earn Romney’s amount and pay his level of taxes and that the lower 50% of the nation that make less than $26,000 a year all make the cut-off of 26k and pay my effective tax rate of 22% than we can look at the following results.

Top .1% Population: 300,000 people

Top .1% Income Gross: $6,570,000,000,000 (that is 6.57 trillion dollars)

Top .1% Tax Payment (at 15%): $985,500,000,000 (that is 985.5 billion dollars)

Bottom 50% Population: 150,000,000 people (that is 150 million)

Bottom 50% Income Gross: $3,900,000,000,000 (that is only 3.9 trillion dollars)

Bottom 50% Tax Payment (at 22%): $858,000,000,000 (yup, 858 billion dollars)


Now if we switch those tax rates around we find these numbers…

Top .1% Tax Payment (at 22%): $1,445,400,000,000 (a mighty 1.4 trillion dollars)

Bottom 50% Tax Payment (at 15%): $585,000,000,000 (still a comely 585 billion dollars)

So if we just switch the tax rates, we wind up with the top .1% paying 459.9 billion dollars a year more in taxes and the bottom 50% pays 127.5 billion dollars a year less.

In total that is an increase in $332.4 billion in taxes for the government.  In a period of 4 years we would increase tax revenue by more than $1.3 trillion dollars.

So if we can cut spending by 1.5 trillion dollars a year, that’d cut the budget deficit by 100 Billion dollars (i.e. .1 trillion dollars) a year, so after 4 years we would lower the national debt by 1.7 trillion dollars in 4 years just by making respectable cuts to the wasteful government spending and forcing 300 thousand people to pay the same tax rate as 150 million people who, combined, make less than the aforementioned 300 thousand people.


Now before you rant and rave at those numbers…keep in mind that we’re only looking at .1% against 50%.  If we look at Mitt Romney’s cronies among the top full 1% and realize that they must make around similar amounts as him.  So if we assume that the remainder of the top 1%, the other .9%, make marginally less than him we can create an even fancier number.

We’ll calculate it like this: We’ll assume that the top 1% makes, as a combined average, 20% less than Romney’s income per person.  That gives us the following numbers…

Top 1% Population: 3,000,000 (million) people

Top 1% Income Gross: $52,560,000,000,000 (that would be 52.6 trillion dollars a year)

Top 1% Tax Payment (at 22%): 7,884,000,000,000 (7.9 trillion dollars a year in taxes)

Top 1% Tax Payment (at 22%): $11,563,200,000,000 (yes…11.6 trillion dollars a year in tax income)

So if we raise effective taxes from 15% to 22% on the top 10%, using our numbers, we raise tax income (after accounting for lowering taxes on the bottom 50% from 22% to 15% tax) by $3,551,700,000,000.  In other words: 3.6 trillion dollars a year.

After 4 years, we’d have 14.4 trillion dollars a year, even without the spending cuts.  If we manage to cut spending by $1.5 trillion a year, we’d end up with $14.8 trillion dollars more than we get every year, now, in four years’ time.

So in the term of one single president, we could pay down over 97% of the national debt.  In the same president’s second term, we would erase the national debt in the first few months of his (or her) second term and by the end of the second term we would have a national surplus of 14.3 trillion dollars.

So in 8 years’ time we would not only erase the debt, but acquire a surplus almost equivalent to the debt as of writing this post ($15.2 trillion).

Now explain to me why we can’t have universal free health care and have this huge deficit, again?


Maximum Wage

A big point of contention in this country is the financial disposition of the nation.  1% of the nation owns a large portion of the country and the top 10% owns over 90% of the nation as a whole.  See the diagram below to see the disparityof wealth in America.

That's cool, I liked Georgia, anyway.

But free marketers say that there’s nothing we can do about it.  If you do a good job, you should get paid and paid well…or at least you should if you’re a CEO.  They claim that doing anything about it would violate the freedoms of the wealthy and would ruin the free market.

We created a minimum wage to ‘help’ the poor class.  It does more to damage small business, you know the least wealthy businesses, than it does to harm big business who runs the country, you know the business owned by that aforementioned 10%

So why can’t we institute a Maximum Wage?  You have to be paid $7.25 an hour, minimum.  So how about a nice calm…$40.25 an hour, maximum.

Put a moratorium on hours workable as well; no person can work more than 16 hours without an 8 hour break.  So if you pay a CEO maximum wage for 16 hours a day, every day-7 days a week, year-round, including overtime…then you achieve the maximum wage for a salaried official.

So regular time for 40 at $40.25 equals out to $1610 a week; add in the overtime at $4347 for time and a half of $40.25 over 72 hours.

That means that the maximum yearly wage would be $309,764.  This will include bonuses, so no salary of $300k and then a $4 million bonus, or anything like that.

Let’s look at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s CEOs as a comparison.  They each make $900,000 and then get paid $2.4 million in bonuses.  This is as they ask Congress to give them more money because they can’t make the business profitable enough to stay out of bankruptcy.

So if we assume they had the same losses in 2011 as they did in 2010, that means that Fannie Mae lost $14 billion dollars, even thought they posted an income of $153.8 billion.  That means that their operating expenses were in excess of $167 billion dollars.

So if we cut the CEO of Fannie Mae, Mike Williams, down to $309,764 a year in salary…we just saved the company $2,990,236.  That’s almost 3 million dollars!

So if we assume that the executive board makes 75% of the CEO’s salary and bonuses, that would be about $2.5 million dollars per person.  If we assume an executive board of 10 people, plus the CEO; and we cut that board down from 2.5 million to $300 thousand, then we save 2.2 million dollars, per person.

With just the executive board we’d save the company $24,990,236, that’s roughly $25 million dollars.  It’s not quite 14 billion, but it’s a step in the right direction.  Imagine how many people there make over $300 thousand dollars already, that would all end.

Now we make lobbying illegal like I said in the last post and we also save them another few million.  Before you know it…Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be profitable again!


Or else they’ll fold and we can replace them with something that really works.  Either way’s cool with me.