she is the rich.
Congress is covered by the current law. The FTC has said as much.
I propose the following. A 100% tax on every dollar a politician and spouse make about the base salary for their position.
I musta missed that part in the Constitution that says “tax the rich and give it to the parasitic multitudes”.
Whatever happened to “equal protection” under law?
Years of botox use has finally destroyed what few brain cells Pelosi had left. Unfortunately she keeps on getting re-elected because the district that she represents are a bunch of far left whack job kooks. Hey Nancy, I got news for ya, you are RICH, I say we raid her wallet and just go nuts
Hey Nancy!
You’re not rich because of superior intellect or inovation.
You’re rich because you are corrupt!
Why don’t we impose a 90% tax on folks like you?
Please do not make up your own title or alter published titles.
Thanks.
I like the idea of imposing a “congressional inverse tax” on members of Congress. It would work like this:
For every percent the tax rate of ANY segment of the American taxpaying populace is increased, the salary of each member of Congress WHO VOTED FOR IT and of each of their staff is reduced by like percentage. The only vote counted for this purpose is the final vote and excludes any previous votes on measures later amended prior to the final vote.
Conversely, To be “fair” and to provide an incentive for tax cuts, the same would result in the reverse, with a “twist”. For every percent the tax rate of EVERY segment of the American taxpaying populace (across the board) is decreased, the salary of each member of Congress and of each of their staff is increased by like percentage
So, for example, a 6% increase in capital gains tax (from 15% to 21%) would result in a 6% decrease in salary of each member of Congress who voted for it (and a 6% decrease in salary of the members of their staff).
Alternatively, for example, a 6% decrease in capital gains tax (from 15% to 9%) would result in a 6% increase in salary of each member of Congress WHO VOTED FOR IT as well as a 6% increase in salary of each member of their staff (those who voted against the cut, and their staff, would receive a decrease in salary).
For example, if the capital gains tax rate is eliminated altogether would result in a 15% increase in salary for those who voted for the reduction (and a 15% decrease in salary for those who voted against the cut).
This would apply only when a tax measure is actually enacted into law. If Congress has to overrides a presidential veto to enact such a tax measure, the President would have his/her salary increased or decreased accordingly (effective the date of the veto override vote). If the President simply signs the measure, then his/her salary remains unchanged and we thank him/her for cooperating.
This bold plan would mean that when Congress enacts a tax measure that benefits the people, they are rewarded. And, when Congress enacts a tax measure that harms the people, they are harmed financially as well.
I realize that most Democrats (and many RINOs) would never agree to such a notion (and the law of unintended consequences would probably be invoked in a way that would cause me to pull down this proposal), but it is fun to contemplate such a scenario.