I strongly VOTE for a new law to be put that everyone must give a percent of theyr salary away. normal citizens should give 2% and rich people,since they are rich and can afford much more(most of the times are financily stable enough) must give 7-12 % monthy.
they should make a commision,thats very STRICT and is watched by everyone,the public mostly.and most of the money should go to fixing world problems,charity,hunger,maybe inventions and making new high tech for better life available more easy and cheap to the public.
and by charity i dont mean,going into some one sickness,and some actress made the charity and she gets 50% ..NO! NEVER!
were talking here fight the world's biggest problems! but this will only succed if theyr is public open strict watch of where the money goes!
i challenge the more competent politicians on the forum to tell me whats wrong with having such a law?im sick of watching all the rich people get new cars,meanwhile,hundreds of commercials make me donate money..me? the average joe that barely lives?rich people,and holders usualy donate to escape fees and to make an image even!
only problem is the government wont like the idea,and even if they implement this they wont want the public to know where the money goes..in theyr pockets
ENOUGH OF THIS I SAY!

[edit on 24-8-2009 by Stillalive]

Whats wrong with that is I am an American and America is free. I should not have to give any of my money to anything i dont want to. It is really as simple as that. I have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and besides America is still capitalist. That is a socialist and damn near communist idea.

Problem A:
People (rich and poor alike) tend to have a "tiny" problem with taxes. So while noble people (like OP,surely) would gladly pay 2 percent - or more, some less noble ones (like me ,probably) would not appreciate paying another two percent to
Problem 2:
bunch of beurocrats who would spend the money in multiple meetings, on multitude of different commities, and on quarrels one with another due to
Problem 3:
political and economical differences.
A little example - people in African country are suffering from famine/epidemics. 100 millions are needed and are available from your noble fund. Now bunch of dudes with totally unrelated interests sit down and start to decide how to invest it all wisely. Experts,hotels, meetings - couple of millions are spent at once. Then - what is source of food/medication? Country X says - we donate the most, it should be bought from us. Country Y says that theirs is the best. Z - that theirs is the cheapest. There is a silent struggle about who would get the contract. Result is not always the best possible. Or usually not the best possible. Another ten millions wasted on this strugle. Then - who would be responsible for delivering it to people? Government of African country? But they have enemies, do not control all the territory, are corrupt and such. Majority of aid goes to local militias who then resell it and make money. Several millions do reach the simple people who in the meanwhile are suffering from thirst too. And have bigger problems like civil war going on between now rich militias and government forces.
So my suggestion - fixing result of problem does not work. Fixing the problem is needed. Investing the money in economy and stability of these countries would eventually make them capable of fighting emergencies by themself. US (and others) are sending billions $ to poor countries for decades - and those billions come from taxpayers pockets, just as you suggested. Result is - same old, same old. Famines, wars, hunger,malaria and bunch of other problems. Western firms that produce the goods sent as aid - gain. Economy of countries who reiceve those goods remains in crap.

[edit on 24-8-2009 by ZeroKnowledge]

i was thinking more like,remove the useless/too high taxes,and use this as a new better tax that actualy does something,maybe people can vote and decide what the money to be spend for.its hard to just take money from the rich people,but with the high percent for rich people seems more reasanable.
i say remove the useless taxes that goes into federal reserve/milionaires pockets and use this instead. and 2% isnt that much,every city can use 50% of the money for a betternment to the town and people

well im even struggling to get a job my self,but im sure when i get rich i would try to make a difference i dont know...
maybe the senate and the stuff/owners of the law shouldn not get any of the %.that was the idea all along.like the taxes you have now,but bring this tax instead of the old ones,and make sure that no money goes to burocrats or whatever.

Originally posted by Stillalive
i was thinking more like,remove the useless/too high taxes,and use this as a new better tax that actualy does something,maybe people can vote and decide what the money to be spend for.its hard to just take money from the rich people,but with the high percent for rich people seems more reasanable.
i say remove the useless taxes that goes into federal reserve/milionaires pockets and use this instead. and 2% isnt that much,every city can use 50% of the money for a betternment to the town and people

Well, now THAT makes it different;;;;tell you what, get rid of my Income tax and Social Security which eats up a good thirty percent of my pay and you can have twelve percent to do WHATEVER you want....well, until it pisses me off.

If people want to make the world better, vote for me to control the wrold. Then the world will know peace. Cuz I have the brains and balls to do so.

a lot of your income tax should be going right where im talking about.like lets say half of the income tax goes for the REAL reasons,not just in rich peoples pockets