The Central Forward Party

You need to stimulate the middle class to stimulate the economy. Giving more money to
the wealthy does not significantly increase consumption. The people in the upper class
financially have enough to do what they want. If you increase their taxes they wine but
continue to go out to eat, purchase clothes and travel. They will not change their basic
buying habits. If you increase the income fo the middle class, it gives them money to
buy things they want and need and will not currently purchase. It will stimulate the
economy. Economies have generally performed better under Democratic leadership
when compared to Republican leadership. Reaganomics never worked. I am not in love
with either party. I am a centrist and I believe that members of both parties put their
personal interests above the public.
My plan is similar to what Ray Dalio has suggested. It is what Clinton and Gore did in
the 90’s that was so successful. (They reduced the budget by $150 Billion when the
total budget was only $1.5 Trillion.) I would reduce the budget, lower taxes to the middle
class and lower interest rates.
It should be noted that George Bush Senior deserves a lot of credit for Clinton’s
success. Bush increased taxes which alienated the Republican party which is why he
lost.
We need to lower taxes to the middle class and raise taxes to the Wealthy.

1. Reducing Taxes
   a. I would lower taxes by 3% to people with incomes below $500,000
   These are estimates, not precise to the dollar.
   Income: $30,000
    Typical effective federal tax ≈ 5%
    3% cut → reduces rate to about 2%
    Savings: ~ $900 per year
   Income: $60,000
    Typical effective federal tax ≈ 9%
    3% cut → reduces rate to ~6%
    Savings: ~ $1,800 per year
   Income: $100,000

 Typical effective federal tax ≈ 13%coninue
 3% cut → reduces rate to ~10%
 Savings: ~ $3,000 per year
Income: $250,000
 Typical effective federal tax ≈ 20–22%
 3% cut → reduces rate to ~17–19%
 Savings: ~ $7,500 per year
Income: $500,000
 Effective rate ≈ 25–28%
 3% cut → reduces to ~22–25%
 Savings: ~ $15,000 per year
How This Affects People Economically

1. More disposable income
   People keep more money after taxes:
    Low-income: modest increase in spending power
    Middle-income: noticeable help with cost-of-living
    Upper-middle (~$200k–$500k): significant cash benefit
2. Consumption likely increases
   Lower earners tend to spend most additional income → boosts:
    retail
    food
    housing
    auto
    services
   Higher earners may save or invest more.
3. Broader economic effects
   A widespread 3% tax cut under $500k earners would:

 stimulate economic activity
 increase short-term GDP
 reduce federal tax revenue
 increase federal deficit unless offset by spending cuts

Example Table: Impact of a 3% Tax Cut
Here are some sample incomes and how much extra take-home pay they’d get:
Annual Income
($)

Extra Take-Home per Year
($)

Extra Take-Home per Month
($)

You can read this as:
 Make $50k/year → keep $1,500 more per year (~$125/month)
 Make $100k/year → keep $3,000 more per year (~$250/month)
 Make $500k/year → keep $15,000 more per year (~$1,250/month)
The government receives $12 Trillion dollars from people with incomes below $500,000
This will cost the US government $360 billion

I would increase taxes by 3% for people who earn between $2 million and $10 million
Raising federal income taxes by 3 percentage points on people earning between $2
million and $10 million per year would likely bring in on the order of:
≈ $20–$45 billion per year,
with a central ballpark around $30 billion per year.
I would raise taxes by 5% for people who earn between $10 million and $100mil
Short version:
Raising federal income taxes by 5 percentage points on people earning between $10
million and $100 million per year would likely bring in roughly:
�� About $40–50 billion per year in extra revenue
�� A reasonable central estimate is ≈ $42 billion per year

How I got that number (in plain terms)

1. Find how much income is in that group
    In 2022, total AGI (all taxpayers) ≈ $14.8 trillion.
    IRS data show that taxpayers with AGI of $10 million or more had about $1.05
   trillion of AGI (7.1% of all income) on ~34,600 returns.
    I would increase taxes by 8% for people who earn between $100
    I would raise taxes by 10% for people who earn more than $100 million
    Given U.S. data on ultra–high-income households, a 10-percentage point tax increase
   on annual income over $100 million would very roughly bring in on the order of:
    �� About $30–$50 billion per year in the U.S.
    Round that:
    �� Estimated range: $15–25 billion per year
   �� Central ballpark: ≈ $20 billion per year
   We will increase income tax by 10% for people who earn in excess of $1 billion
   A 10-percentage-point tax increase on people with incomes over $1 billion
   per year would probably raise on the order of:
   �� Roughly $3–8 billion per year in extra federal income tax revenue
   �� A reasonable midpoint is around $5 billion per year
   I would increase the budget for the IRS by $5 billon This will generate
   Annual new revenue:

 $12.5B–$15B per year (conservative)
 $15B–$20B per year (moderate)
 $30B–$50B+ per year (aggressive estimates including deterrence)
Summary of above
Reducing taxes for people who earn less than $500,000 would cost $360 billion
Increasing taxes for people who earn between $2 million and $10 million will generate
$30 Billion
Increasing taxes for people who earn between $10 million and $100 million will generate
$42 billion
Increasing taxes for people who over $100 million will generate $30 to $50 Billion will
generate $40 Billion
Increasing the budget to the IRS by $5 billion will generate $40 billion
Getting rid of tax deduction for oil and gas will save $10 to $20 billion
This would be a net loss of $200 billion
This will be more than offset by taking away the ability of Congress to draft bills and will
result in a dynamic growing economy
I would then lower interest rates to stimulate the economy.
The cost for a $800,000 home with 20% down will be:
At 6% the payment will be $3837.12 per month
Debt ratio at $150,000 is 30.7%
At 5% the payment will be $3,435.66 per month
Debt ratio at $150,000 is 27.5%

When I was in my 20’s we considered a 27% ratio for housing to be the maximum debt
ratio for “Class A paper (mortgage)”.
The cost for a $600,000 home with 5% down will be:
At 6% the payment will be $3237.57 per month
Debt ratio at $150,000 is 25.9%
At 5% the payment will be $2,898.84 per month
Debt ratio at $150,000 is 23.2%

We will make housing more affordable.
I would reduce the cost to run the government.
My plans to allow people to work when on Welfare and moving the medical
insurance to Health Savings Accounts will result in a surplus that we can use to
pay down debt
Requiring Senators and Congressmen to submit bills to a nonpartisan group of
intellectuals to review and evaluate will save the country billions of dollars.
That same committee will create new solutions to reduce the cost of running the
government.
A non- partisan group of intellectuals drafting the bills will mitigate the problem where
either party can keep laws from passing. Also, both parties have their constituents they
try to satisfy on issues like Gun Control and Abortion. Currently most bills require 60%
to get approved because of the Filibuster. Having a non-partisan group of individuals
draft and review bills will take away the need for the Filibuster.
Congressmen and Senators should make sure the bills meet the needs of their
constituents. They should suggest changes and can offer riders to bills They can even
draft bills, but all bills must be reviewed and accepted by this organization. In addition,
the government accounting office must review every bill and confirms the expected cost
is reasonable for the problem the bill is designed to correct.