This page contains details on financing
the AWSC as well as some reasons for doing so with the programs
outlined. It
also links to PLI's proposed Fair Tax Bracket Reform legislation
that will serve as a back-up revenue source to insure a robust AWSC.
Click
Non-traditional
funding mechanisms to
read the section of the AWSC proposals outlining some non-traditional
funding mechanisms.
Click Serving
with Other nations service corps to
read the section of the AWSC proposals that calls for serving with other
nations service corps and inspiring other nations to create such.
Cost of the War in Iraq
(JavaScript Error)
Our recent warring
policies have spiraled us so deeply in debt that even investments that
save us billions or trillions in the future must convince a significant
percentage of Americans, who lack the vision to invest now to have a
prosperous, less costly future, and smarter, worldly-experienced based
public policy, to support a cost-effective AWSC.
By ramping up to one
million AWSC volunteers over the seven year start-up, the AWSC is acting
as a small, model program. This also gives visionary leadership
time to educate the Forbes 400 and non-tax paying corporations on
how they can voluntarily step up to help fund a program that will right
the State of Our Union and World.
Investing
in AWSC
As deeply indebted nation, how do we pay for the investment in a
robust American World Service Corps?
This page gives you some of the funding answers that are called
for in the proposed AWSC legislation. These revenues streams fund
the AWSC. Revenues from these streams will be deposited into a
locked account escrowed to funding the AWSC.
1.
Revenues from donations
lobbied from Forbes Richest 400
Politicians continuously lobby America’s richest to finance
their image making campaigns. In
2007 and 2008 the poorest person on this list was worth about 1.3 billion.
In 2008 their net worth was $1.57 trillion. Their
average net worth is $3.9 billion.
Should
American citizens demand that their presidential candidates and other
elected reps lobby America's Richest to annually "donate"
under 2% of
their untapped wealth to underwrite the total cost of fielding the AWSC
for 27 years?
Which of the presidential
and congressional candidates would refuse to lobby the richest Americans
to invest in America’s future by having them fund a million Americans a year building
stability at home and abroad?
It is surprising to most that the Forbes 400 have set aside minuscule amounts for charity,
like 0-10%.
Should you support those candidates who refuse to lobby the
richest Americans to invest in the AWSC?
See link above for more
details.
| Accumulated
2007 |
|
This % for each
year |
For 27 |
Total
Forbes |
|
| Wealth of Forbes
400 |
If wealthiest |
Covers AWSC |
years |
donations |
|
| Richest Americans |
donated |
costs of |
of AWSC |
funds AWSC for |
|
| $1,540,000,000,000 |
1% |
$15,400,000,000 |
27 |
$415,800,000,000 |
|
| If
donate this, AWSC totally paid |
|
$26,180,000,000 |
|
$706,860,000,000 |
Pays for entire AWSC
program |
|
2% |
$30,800,000,000 |
|
$831,600,000,000 |
|
|
3% |
$46,200,000,000 |
|
$1,247,400,000,000 |
|
|
4% |
$61,600,000,000 |
|
$1,663,200,000,000 |
|
|
8% |
$123,200,000,000 |
|
$3,326,400,000,000 |
|
Forbes
Richest Documentation
Some
sources of information on the Forbes Richest. A mere billionaire here
is low on the totem poll.
In
1997 Ted Turner donated a Billion dollars to United nation causes,
saying,
"There
are so many rich guys in the world, billionaires. The world is awash in
money and nobody knows what to do with it. We don't want the money they
know what to do with, just the money they don't know what to do
with."
Ten
years later Gates and Buffett trumped that donation about 30 times
over. See how much more most of the other billionaires could do to
make the world safer for their and others' children and grand children.
Who
Gives http://www.forbes.com/2004/09/23/cz_dw_0923philan_rl04.html may
now be blocked form viewing.
Forbes
and other sites offer such information. You can try this site http://afgen.com/feudal2.html
and others to to understand how much wealth the top 1% control.
They have the capacity to reward many Americans who volunteer to do good
in the world.
2.
Revenues
from Estate Tax
When the world becomes more dangerous for our soldiers, it also
become more costly and dangerous for the richest among us.
Even the rich cannot take
their estates with them when they begin returning to dust, so why
shouldn’t a minimal percentage return to previous estate rates be
assigned to make the future safer and smarter by funding the AWSC.
This
progressive Estate Passing Tax ranging from .5 TO 5% on estates ranging
from $5 -20+million will raise at least 1.9 billion per year. This
amounts to about $54 billion over a generation of fielding AWSC
volunteers at home and abroad, or about 8% of the total funds need to
fund the estimated $700 billion investment in the AWSC to reduce
poverty, needs, and the causes of expensive, bloody wars.
The
"Gospel of Wealth" but echoes Christ's words. It calls
upon the millionaire to sell all that he hat and give it in the highest
and best fort to the poor, by administering his estate himself for
the good of his fellows, before he is called upon to lie down and rest
upon the bosom of Mother Earth.
The Gospel of Wealth" Essays and Other Writings, Andrew Carnegie
Hid
Eminence Cardinal Manning says:--
Mr.
Carnegie tells us plainly, first, that the accumulation of stagnant
wealth to be bequeathed to heirs is a vain-glory in the giver, and may
be a ruin to the receiver; secondly, that the bequeathing of wealth for
charities when the man is gone out of life is an empty way of making a
name for generosity;... p.48.
Meanwhile
, as the masses become more intelligent, they may be expected to
criticise and denounce the growth of fortunes which fail to contribute
largely to the public good and finally to insist that they shall be made
to do so. p.67.
3.
Revenues
from Surtax on richest 1% of Americans
The gap between Middle Americans and our richest continues
widening at an increasingly rapid rate.
Socially conscious rich Americans, such as Gates and Buffet, have
express opposition to having their tax contributions to society’s
betterment lowered.
Only a very small share of tax filers have incomes
high enough to be subject to the highest marginal income tax rates. IRS
data show that in 1997, the latest year for which this information is
available:
 | Less than one-quarter of all tax
filers were in tax brackets higher than the 15 percent bracket. |
| Only four percent of tax filers were
in the 31 percent bracket or a higher bracket. |
| Less than one percent of filers were
in the top bracket, where the marginal tax rate is 39.6 percent. The
average adjusted gross income of filers in the 39.6 percent bracket
exceeded $900,000 in 1997. Source: http://www.cbpp.org/3-6-01tax2.htm |
Levying a 3% tax on the top 1% of Americans
(about 1,340,000 households) would raise about $369,198,810,000 in
revenues to fund the investment in the AWSC. This amounts to about
52% of the total funds need to fund the estimated $700 billion
investment in the AWSC to reduce poverty, needs, and the causes of
expensive, bloody wars.
4.
Non-tax paying corporations
The AWSC will have a web site that lists what those non-tax paying
corporations DONATE to underwrite the cost of the AWSC.
When millions of families
have their family members and their friends serving in the AWSC, their
growing understanding of economics will encourage non-tax paying
corporations to invest in
America
through their non-tax deductible contributions to underwrite the cost of
the AWSC.
How
many Middle Americans are comfortable with large corporations paying
little or nothing in taxes, while Middle Americans contribute patriotism
as well as their taxes..
Links to some stats on non-tax paying corporations.
http://www.ctj.org/html/corp0302.htm
#chart corporate welfare
Corporations who paid
no income taxes 2001-2003
http://www.ctj.org/
Corporate income taxes in Bush
years. http://www.ctj.org/corpfed04an.pdf
O stensibly,
the federal tax code requires corporations to pay 35 percent of their
profits in
income
taxes. But only a small proportion of the 275 corporations in our study
paid federal
income
taxes anywhere near that statutory 35 percent tax rate. Instead, the
vast majority
paid
considerably less. In fact, in 2002 and 2003, the average effective tax
rate for all 275
companies
was less than half the statutory 35 percent rate. Over the 2001-2003
period, effective
tax
rates ranged from a low of –59.6 percent for Pepco Holdings to a high
of 34.5 percent for CVS.
The
average effective rate for all 275 companies dropped by a fifth, from
21.4 percent in 2001 to
17.2
percent in 2002-2003.
Here
are some startling statistics
82
COMPANIES PAYING ZERO OR LESS IN TAXES
IN
ONE OR MORE YEARS, 2001-2003 ($-million)
In
the no-tax years
Profits Rebates
Rate
2003
(46 cos.) $
42,622 $
–5,438 –12.8%
2002
(43 cos.) 43,530
–4,945
–11.4%
2001
(33 cos.) 15,664
–2,184
–13.9%
101,816 $
–12,568 –12.3%
5. Import
Levy on developed nations with significant trade imbalances
There
are about 200 nations in the world. In
2006, we ran trade deficits with about 100 of them.
The AWSC bill calls for Congress to define and impose a “nominal
import levy” on those “developed nations” with which we run a
“significant trade deficit.”
At
the minimum, this levy is intended to raise $5,000.000,000 per year, although
Congress may decide to increase this in order to cover AWSC investment needs.
Twenty-seven
years x $5 billion = $135 billion toward covering the investment in AWSC benefits.
This amounts to about 19% of the total AWSC investment needed.
Import tax on those developed
countries with whom we have huge trade imbalances, such as in 2005 Dept. of
Commerce
Trading Partner
Trade imbalance
China
-201.0 billion,
OPEC -92.7 billion
Japan
-82.6
billion
Canada
-76.5
billion
SOURCE:
US
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, BUREAU OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS; RICH CLABAUGH – STAFF
Link to stats on trade deficit nations.
6. Corporate
Foundation Donations
For
a variety of reasons, corporate foundations and philanthropic foundations will
fund the domestic and international programs of the AWSC.
Much of that funding may go to the non-governmental organizations
(NGOs) working under the AWSC umbrella, but some may also come to fund the
AWSC umbrella.
Recent donations by Ted turner and intentions expressed by the
Gates / Buffet Foundation(s) imply that such donations could and should be
much larger than they have been and larger than most
Americans imagine.
7. Excess War Profits Tax
Senator
Judiciary Chairman Leahy and others are working on means to levy a tax on
those corporations who have reaped excessive profits from war.
Links
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200701/010407b.html
8.
Individuals and corporate tax credits for amounts dedicated to underwriting
AWSC.
9. Tax Increase on Middle Americans
$0.00
The
revenue funding approach outlined here relieves Middle Americans of any tax
liability, yet it certainly makes the lives of
Middle America
safer and more prosperous. Those who support
this will be supporting cost effectively strengthening Middle America.
Ask
all the presidential candidates where they stand on the AWSC proposals and
where they stand on the revenue streams we propose to fund fielding a million
American volunteers for 27 years to learn and grow from doing good at home or
abroad.
9.
PLI's AWSC Congressional Proposals proposes other nations replicate funding
mechanisms outlined here.
For
the first time ever, the number of billionaires Forbes could identify crossed
into four figures, reaching 1,125. The total net worth of the group is $4.4
trillion, up $900 billion from last year. Despite the turbulence in the U.S.
markets, Americans account for 42% of the world's billionaires and 37%, of the
total wealth; those shares are down two and three percentage points,
respectively, from last year. http://www.forbes.com/2008/03/05/richest-billionaires-people-billionaires08-cx_lk_0305intro.html
----
Top Earning
Celebrities http://www.aboutxinjiang.com/Service/content/2007-09/29/content_2209579.htm
Top
fifty earning athletes. : http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/more/specials/fortunate50/2007/
In 2007 Tiger Woods toped the list at 112,000,000 with earnings adn
endorsements. Amaré Stoudemire was 50th at $15,000,000. The total
earnings of this group topped $1 billion. Each 1% donated would provide
$10,000,000 to underwrite the AWSC investment and makes real world games less
bloody.
|
