OPL Website Proposals

OPL Page

           November 2022 I paid a web developer to create the OPL website.  The website had a petition directory, featured legislative outlines that users could sign, contact page, membership options, and donation options.  Something has expired and now only the homepage is available and all buttons just reload the homepage. The homepage is still functional, but none of the buttons are.  The website will be updated in the future but for the time being the outlines are featured on this page.  

1: Round Up Service Charge Tax Credit Incentive Proposal

          A round up service charge is a charge in the amount of the difference between a customer’s total and the next dollar.  For example, if a customer’s total is $44.68 the customer would pay $45.  The service charge of $.32 would be distributed to the employees working at the location at the time of purchase.  

         The service charge will substantially increase the wages of people who work in high volume transaction industries, like retail and fast food.  We’ve estimated a full time Walmart store associate would earn about $6.25 more per hour if Walmart implemented a RUSC.  Many workers would likely earn more since the amount a person earns from RUSC is determined by the number of transactions per employee on site.  If a gas station attendant averages 30 transactions per hour he or she would earn about $15 more per hour.  In addition to RUSC increasing income for people in retail and fast fast food, other companies who hire unskilled workers will have to pay more to compete for labor. 

         As RUSC increases the wages of employees in HVTIs, employers will have to pay more payroll tax.  No company is going to implement a program that will cost them money, but fortunately as wages increase more money is paid from an employee in federal income tax than an employer will pay in additional payroll tax.  This means additional income tax collected can be used to eliminate the cost to the company created through RUSC improving wages.  It also means we can afford to incentivize companies to implement the program. 

          The average wage for a Walmart worker is $12 per hour. This is $24,960 annually.  Adding 6.25 per hour through RUSC produces an annual income of $37,960.    

           $24,960 pays $1236 federal income tax. 

           $24,960  pays $1910 payroll tax

          $37,960 pays $2796 in federal income tax

          $37,960 pays $2904 in payroll tax.

          Payroll tax increases $996 

          Income tax increases by $1560 

          The additional payroll tax expense for RUSC is $996 for the employer.  

          The additional income tax from RUSC income is $1560.  RUSCTCI provides the employer a 100 percent payroll tax refund for RUSC earnings that is paid for through the additional income tax collected.  

         There is $564 of newly generated income tax leftover per employee.  We’ve covered employer expenses but most businesses are not going to implement something new just to break even.  RUSCTCI provides companies with 50% of the increased revenue.  The public keeps half and the company is given a tax credit for the other half.   

         Walmart employs 1.6 million store associates and would receive $287 per associate.  $459 million dollars total annually, and the public would receive $459 million dollars in additional tax revenue from Walmart implementing RUSC.  While 459 million in additional tax revenue is not significant in its own right, this is one company among retailers, and retail is one industry among many who would be considered HVTI and be eligible to implement a RUSC. Not to mention additional taxable income generated in other industries who hire unskilled workers as an effect of RUSC on the labor market for unskilled workers.  The increase in tax revenue overall should be substantial.     .  

           As wages increase for people who work in retail and fast food, as well as for unskilled workers, the number of workers who rely on government benefits will decrease which will lead to a dramatic decrease in government spending.  A less prominent decrease may occur from decreased demand for coin currency meaning we’ll save money on the amount of new coins that need to be minted each year.

        There is one qualifier for a business to receive the RUSC payroll refund and the tax credit for implementing a RUSC program.  The company must maintain 100 percent of base wages prior to RUSC, and must maintain wages equal to 90 percent of pre RUSC wages every 3 years adjusted for inflation.  Labor markets decide wages.  Walmart averages about $12 per hour for store associates because on average that is what people are willing to work for to do that job.  (Varying by area of course to produce that average).  If Walmart implemented RUSC and employees earn $6 more per hour on average Walmart could reduce base wages to about $6 per hour and pocket all the round up, since people have shown they are willing to work for $12 per hour.  This qualification assures that the workers and the labor market benefit from the Round Up Service Charge Tax Credit Incentive.  

RUSC increases wages for workers in high volume transaction industries.  

RUSC increases wages for unskilled workers 

RUSC allows companies in HVTIs to make more money

RUSC will create more demand for retail and fast food jobs which commonly experience a shortage of workers

RUSC increases employee efficiency in HVTIs as the employees have a stake in the amount of people they serve.  

RUSC increases public revenue by creating a greater pool of taxable income.  

RUSC decreases federal spending reducing the number of people who are reliant on government benefits 

RUSC decreases federal spending by reducing the demand for coin currency.   

        RUSCTCI is a mechanism to improve wages for unskilled workers who tend to be in the bottom 40% of income earners and below, and will increase profits and efficiency for companies in retail and fast food, as well as increase public revenue without fail, and produce the other mentioned benefits.  There is more money for the working poor, there is more money for companies employing unskilled workers, and there is more money for the public in using the mechanism produced through this legislative proposal. 

The cost to consumers is insignificant, becoming less significant as unskilled workers earn more, and less significant with the natural growth of inflation over the years.  The average household spends $5100 per month, and much of that money is spent outside of retail, fast food or companies considered high volume businesses.  If the average household makes 100 purchases from high volume transaction businesses the monthly cost is $50, representing less than 1 percent of their monthly expenditures.  Of course those who are least able to afford the increase also tend to make fewer purchases spending less than $50 per month, and they’re also the most likely to benefit from RUSC.

2: Balance Stimulus

            The Balance Stimulus is usually the most difficult proposal to introduce because if we begin with the what, it can create prejudices towards the why.  To understand the value of the investment, we have to understand the beauty of capitalism.  In comparing systems, an ideal socialist system represents the will of the people 100%, which means the decision to produce something and how to distribute it, what people will receive and what jobs will be available, will leave a minority of the population or greater dissatisfied, since a representative government will execute the will of the majority.  It can be greater than 49% of the population dissatisfied when there are pluralities, which means sometimes a majority of the population will not get the education they want, the jobs they want, or the products and services they want.  

Capitalism is superior because any person according to their means and ability can produce or purchase any product or service.  The problem with capitalism is the operative words according to their means.  The myth is  a person without money can find employment, save money, and then use that money to improve their income opportunities, through the procurement of capital to start a business, or through enhancing one’s skills.  This is a myth because when most of one’s time is spent earning an income that only meets their expenses, they will never have the time or the money to improve their income opportunities.  We celebrate the exceptions who are able to overcome, but the reality is that 2/3rds of income earners who begin in the bottom 40% of income earners remain there for life, and most of the 1/3rd who reach higher income deciles do not move substantially higher.  The higher a person’s beginning income the greater the likelihood that will move up and the less likely they are to move down.

The second problem with capitalism is the operative words according to ability.  The problem isn’t that people innately have different abilities, the problem is with how one’s means impact the development of their abilities.  Economically stressed households are typically not conducive to productive development.  A person can produce or purchase anything they want according to means and ability, but there isn’t always an opportunity to acquire the means, and the means of one’s parents, as well as the opportunities of the individual negatively impact their ability.  

All human problems are a product of self deception and inadequate opportunities for people to have time and money.  

Adam Smith wrote: “Money, says the proverb, makes money. When you have a little, it is often easier to get more. The great difficulty is to get that little.”  We want to provide the bottom 50% of income earners with that little to enable them to get more, or to improve their income opportunities.  To overcome small income impediments like paying fines to regain their license, to purchase a car to access more opportunities or as a capital asset, to repair credit, to have an environment that is conducive to improving their human capital, and most importantly, to have the means to start a business.  

A balance stimulus provides 

$30,000 for each person in the bottom 20% of income earners.

$20,000 for the next 10% of income earners. 

$10,000 for the next 20% of income earners. 

Qualifications include a citizen aged 18 to 60 years old, net assets not exceeding $30,000, and gross household income not exceeding $100,000.

People who are incarcerated at the time of passage and qualified at the first qualification period will receive their balance stimulus payment upon release.  The most important element of avoiding recidivism is an individual’s opportunities upon release.  If not for the balance stimulus we would be promoting a state proposal for employment for incarcerated people within 3 years of release to allow them to accumulate money to be productive upon release.  

100% qualification would put the total cost at 2.3 trillion dollars. After qualifications are considered, we’re probably looking at less than half of that cost.  

To prevent people from quitting their jobs or moving to reduce their household income to qualify for the balance stimulus we will use double qualification.  A person must be eligible at a predetermined date preceding the passage of the legislation, and at the time of its passage.  The first qualification will determine eligibility for the second qualification, and if the amount of eligibility is different in the second qualification the citizen will receive the amount for the second qualification.     

The balance stimulus covers the cost with the benefit. Directly and tangibly in dollars gained and saved as well as through quality of life improvements for the whole of the public. 

We begin with an immediate reduction of people who qualify for government benefits.  Part of the cost will be less of an expenditure and more the redirection of benefit costs to a sum capable of creating opportunity for the recipient.  

As people improve their income opportunities through their new found means we have a permanent reduction in those who are reliant on government benefits.  We save money in perpetuity.  As people’s incomes increase, those who previously paid no taxes will earn a taxable income, and those who previously paid a little from a small income will pay more from a larger income.  We increase public revenue.  Jobs that previously went unfilled due to a lack of qualified candidates will have qualified candidates to fill these positions as low skilled workers trapped in low paying jobs will have the time, money, and stability to increase their human capital.

Filling these positions means more goods and services are produced and purchased, more profits being made and reinvested, more wages will be paid, more products and services purchased, and so on and so forth. We will see the greatest explosion in small businesses that this country has ever seen. State and local governments will benefit from increased economic activity.  We’ll also save money on treating drug dependency, law enforcement, prosecution, and incarceration.  

One foreseeable objection or concern would be the potential impact a balance stimulus would have on inflation.  The first thing to consider is the distribution, where the overall supply of money isn’t increasing substantially where suddenly everyone has more money.  Somewhere in the neighborhood of 25% of the adult population will be able to access markets they did not previously have access to, and most of the spending will be in production and acquiring skills, not creating a run on high demand goods and services.  

We spent roughly 6 trillion dollars on covid stimuluses, and a balance stimulus costs 1.2 trillion dollars.  If comparing the covid stimuluses to the balance stimulus was apples to apples we should expect to experience roughly 20% the spike in inflation that we have experienced since 2021.  We’re not comparing apples to apples.  During covid not only did we have an increase in the supply of money, but we also had a decrease in production which exacerbated the decrease in the value of money.  The increase in the supply of money among a small percentage of the population will be offset by the increase in production under a balance stimulus.  

The next foreseeable objection is an assumption that people will quit their jobs if they receive a lump sum.  The consequence would be inflation from an increase in the supply of money coupled with a decrease in production.  1st we have to acknowledge that many people in the bottom 20% of the income distribution do not have jobs to quit.  2nd, if a person quits a job to start a business, or quits a job because they’ve been enabled to get a better job we don’t have a decrease in production. 

For less desirable jobs within the market there are tactics that can be employed by the businesses to make the jobs more desirable.  This is why we are prioritizing the Round Up Service Charge Tax Credit, because RUSC will increase the desirability of retail, fast food and other high volume transaction jobs.  Also improves the labor market as unskilled workers earn more as companies compete with high volume transaction industries, and as skilled workers earn more based on the increase in wages among unskilled workers.  

3: Low Income Fuel Subsidy

The purpose of the low income fuel subsidy is to reduce economic contraction stemming from fluctuations in oil prices as well as to curb the impact higher prices have on the quality of life of low income people.  Obviously all the impacts cannot be mitigated as costs to produce and ship items increase as the price of oil increases.  But the price of fuel on low income people and the effect that has on the economy can be minimized.  When fuel prices rise low income people still need to purchase fuel to commute and other necessary travel.  They don’t purchase less fuel because the price increases.  The poor spend a greater proportion of their income on fuel which means they make fewer purchases in other areas that they would normally make which impacts the economy overall.    

The term fuel in this outline means gasoline and diesel. `

We will set the price of fuel to $2.00 per gallon up to 100 gallons per week for the bottom 20% of income earners. We will set the price of fuel to no more than $2.50 per gallon up to 100 gallons per week for the next 20% of income earners (20 to 40% of income distribution).

In addition to the qualifying income, a citizen must be 18 years old, have a household income of less than $100,000 per year, and less than $100,000 in assets. Qualifying income is based on the national individual income distribution. A qualifying citizen will submit their fuel receipts for a week to their local human services agency. Ideally, the agency will be able to incorporate the program into their existing website, allowing receipts to be submitted digitally, have an agent review and release funds to be distributed through direct deposit to a bank, debit card, or EBT card in states where EBT cards can be used for cash purchases or cash withdrawal. For example, if a qualifying citizen in the bottom 20% of income earners purchases 50 gallons of gas at $3.89 per gallon, that citizen will receive reimbursement for 50 gallons of gas at $1.59 totaling $69.50 for that week. To estimate the cost we estimate 20% of the adult population would qualify and participate which is roughly 48 million people. If the average weekly refund for fuel purchases is $100 per week the cost would be 250 billion dollars annually.

To begin the program we would allocate $250 billion dollars for the annual budget of the program. The funds would be distributed to human services agencies on a quarterly basis. The first installment would be 62.5 billion dollars.  Distribution would take place through the qualifying population of each human services county. For example, if 35% of Milwaukee County qualified to participate in the program this would represent about 350,000 people. Milwaukee County Human Services would receive

$35,000,000 to fund the first quarter of the program.

The second quarter of distribution will be based on the previous quarter. For example, if Milwaukee County receives $35,000,000 to fund the first quarter of the program but only uses $28,000,000 in the first quarter, Milwaukee County’s budget for the second quarter will be $28,000,000. Since the county has 7 million left from the first installment they will receive 21 million to fund the second quarter of the program.

If a county exceeds their budget during a quarter participants will be encouraged to continue to send their receipts and will receive their reimbursement once the next quarter of funds is released to the human services agency. For example, if Milwaukee County receives $35 million to fund the program but exhausts the funds prior to the end of the quarter and has $3 million dollars of unpaid receipts, the county’s budget for the following quarter will be $38 million and they will receive $41 million to pay arrears and fund the following quarter.

The next challenge is navigating state and local taxes and fees attached to fuel purchases and other factors that cause fuel prices to be substantially higher in different areas. A place like Los Angeles, California typically has much higher fuel rates due to taxes and fees than other places across the country.  The presumption is that these locations have fewer people in the bottom 20 to 40% of income earners since the cost of living is higher. Still, the goal is to ease the burden of struggling people not to channel federal dollars into state budgets which is what this could do in places like Los Angeles or Chicago. To solve this problem we will use the national average as the ceiling for reimbursement. For example, if a qualifying citizen in the bottom 20% of income earners submits a receipt showing a purchase of 50 gallons of gas at $6.49 per gallon the citizen will not receive a reimbursement for 50 gallons of gas at $4.49 per gallon. They will receive a reimbursement for the difference between $2.00 and whatever the national average is. Today, it happens to be $3.09 so they would receive a reimbursement for 50 gallons at $1.09 or $54.50.

Prices will be updated on a weekly basis to avoid making the process laborious for agents. Reimbursement will be calculated based on the national average on the Monday of the week that the receipt was received. For example, if a citizen submits a receipt on Tuesday, and another on Thursday, their reimbursement will be calculated based on what the national average was on Monday for that week.

Citizens receipts will be eligible for reimbursement for 5 business days after the purchase is made. The program should not impact fuel markets based on the assumption that reimbursement for poor people will create a greater demand for fuel. Poor people travel as needed.  When fuel prices increase it doesn’t cause poor people to use less fuel, it just requires a greater proportion of their income to conduct their necessary travel. Subsidizing the cost of fuel for low income people will not lead to increased consumption causing an increase in demand and an increase in the price. It will limit the impact that higher fuel rates have on the economy by allowing low income Americans to continue their usual spending in other areas by not having to make sacrifices in other areas to purchase fuel.

This proposal may be a contingency proposal, where it becomes unnecessary if we’re able to increases wages by affecting the labor market through RUGO, and if we’re able to pass a balance stimulus that substantially increases the income of people in the bottom 40% of income earners the low income fuel subsidy becomes unnecessary.  It becomes unnecessary as the new low income suffices for low income people to purchase few during periods of high prices without impacting their ability to make their usual purchases.  

4: Centers for Economic Planning

This proposal is contingent upon RUGO, a Balance Stimulus, and OPL failing, since the main purposes of a balance stimulus is to improve the labor market by giving people without money the ability to decide production, and for the profits from Center for Economic Planning owned businesses to be used by the non-monied public to participate in investment politics.  RUGO will improve the labor market, a balance stimulus will create opportunities for the poor to participate in decisions of production, and OPL can be the vehicle of facilitating the will of the public in a political system that is directed by investment.  

Large corporations and individuals possessed of large sums of money or credit are able to introduce products and services into the market and their shareholders benefit from the success of these activities. In a nation where public policy including appropriations are determined by investment politics, industry is able to decide public policy at the exclusion of public interests that do not coincide with the interests of industry. The people of the United States have very little power to decide production and law, because comparatively the people of the United States own very little individually as a share of the market. Town after town, city after city, and state after state we see the same businesses sprawling out across the country.

Centers for Economic Planning are essentially corporations where ownership isn’t determined by people purchasing shares, but through residency within the jurisdiction where a CEP is created. For example, if a city has a CEP all the people within the city are owners of the CEP. CEP will create investment strategies to create and acquire businesses based on direction from the public as well as distribute the profits from the businesses it owns according to the will of the public. Management will be elected and the public will have direct input into and oversight over the investment strategy and appropriation of annual profits.

The purpose of CEP is to allow all people to have control over the decision of production. Where production can take place around ideas that benefit the community as opposed to only being the product of opportunists with money, which leave the majority of the population who is without money disenfranchised from participating in decisions of production. CEP also contributes to ensuring that the economy is growing and firing on all cylinders since CEP will always be investing. This has the effect of creating more opportunities for people to make money through the jobs created by CEP business creation and acquisition.

CEP also increases the quality of income opportunities available since the people who work for CEP owned businesses are also the owners of the CEP who own the company they work for. There’s no incentive for the CEP to only pay market wages to maximize profits for shareholders since the shareholders are the employees themselves. This will impact wages paid to employees of private businesses since private companies will be competing for labor with CEP owned companies.

CEP can also participate in political investment the same as publicly traded corporations. The profits from CEP owned businesses allows the public to influence public policy through political investment, which may make a third party feasible. The CEP becomes the lobby of the small business man and the public in a system where political investment controls public policy.

We seek to create 50 CEPs, funded through 50 1 billion dollar grants. 30 grants will be available for the 30 largest cities in the country determined by population. The remaining 20 grants can be applied for through joint municipal agreements to create a CEP to ensure rural communities have an opportunity to benefit from owning a CEP. A joint municipal agreement means a group of counties or cities agree to create one CEP for the people within their areas.

Many of the functioning details and mechanisms in regard to electing management, creating investment strategies inclusive of public input and oversight have already been thought out but are too numerous to put into an outline intended to serve as a promotional tool for consumption by the public. The details are available in the book “The American Prosperity Proposals” by Orion Simerl, available at LibertyAndTruth.org

5: The Just Law Amendment

The United States is a republic where the duty of legislation is delegated to a small group of citizens elected by the rest. The laws the people are subject to are not a direct product of public will and sometimes are not the product of public interest. Most laws are inherited where even if the present day representatives legislating did represent 100% of the people’s will and interest, most laws existed prior to the people alive today being born. Whether modern creations or inheritance, the people of this country have very little input into the laws that they are to be governed by.

Why do we have laws? The human constant is liberty. At all times and in all settings all people want to do what they want to do. All people can do as they please so long as each individual’s actions do not interfere with the liberty of anyone else. We have laws and use our collective resources to enforce laws because in the prevention of imposition we are freer with laws than we are without them. Every law should prevent more imposition than it imposes.

There are many laws that can be shown definitively not to prevent imposition. A simple example would be seat belt laws. Why is a seatbelt law unjust? Because the act of a person not wearing their seatbelt does not create a risk for anyone other than the person choosing not to wear the device. No one is less safe other than the individual who should be free to assume the risk. A law requiring a person to wear a seatbelt imposes without preventing imposition. 

Seatbelt laws exist to create revenue for municipal governments through tickets for breaking the law, but more important to municipalities and the state is creating occasions for law enforcement officers to interact with the public where other legal infractions can be found. The purpose of this initiative is not to do away with seat belt laws, it’s just an example of a law that is morally wrong and unjust. Or a law that imposes without preventing imposition.

The goal of the Just Law Amendment is to create a functioning legal definition for the word liberty. As a substitute, the JLA I propose will make it incumbent upon the courts to allow a defendant in a criminal case to inform the jury that they may decide whether or not a law is just based on net liberty. Allowing a defendant to create a defense against a law that can be shown to impose without preventing imposition, or where what the law imposes is substantially greater than the imposition it prevents.

There are grassroots movements in different states to pass statutes to allow for jury nullification of law in criminal proceedings. The difference between the amendment I propose and the statutes sought by others is the objective morality of liberty that can be used to measure whether or not a law is just from a place of objectivity. Using liberty as the basis eliminates individual jurors’ subjective sense of justice which can cause law itself to become arbitrary.

Arguments would have to be limited to merits of liberty-based justice regarding the law. A just law challenge should not be based on efforts to create sympathy for the individual, rather a fundamental challenge to the law based on the law imposing without preventing imposition, or net liberty where a law imposes more imposition than it prevents. The prosecution in a just law challenge can argue the merits of the law. Meaning the defense does not gain any unfair advantage in the proceedings.

The Just Law Amendment provides people in this country through a jury of their peers to have oversight over the laws that are created without their direct input, consultation, or approval. Beyond liberating the population from potentially unjust laws they did not consent to there are other potential benefits from the JLA. Mainly in understanding true public opinion regarding laws. If a defendant charged with a crime is found not guilty due to nullification 70 or 80% of the time such charges go to trial, clearly it is in the interest of the state to no longer prosecute the crime, or for the state to change the law. It has the potential to save money in the cost of enforcement, prosecution, and incarceration. The Just Law Amendment protects a citizen from laws that do not serve the interest of the public which may come into being no matter how representative elected officials are of public interest.

Just Law Amendment Preliminary Text: Any person accused of a crime has the right to inform a jury of the jury’s power to nullify law on the basis of net liberty.

6: Media Disclaimer Mandate

The media focuses on stories that will attract the most attention. The media also presents stories in ways that will maximize attention even if such presentations mislead viewers. This includes reinforcing and advancing viewer biases, selecting academics who will use their credentials to add weight to an opinion, as well as the omission of details and context to cater to viewer biases. The media understands people consume information that reinforces their biases and avoid information that challenges those biases. The former feels good and the latter feels bad, so reinforcement attracts and challenge repels.

The objective of the media is not to present the truth to inform the public. The objective of the media is to attract attention to sell advertising. As obvious as this is, the public usually isn’t consciously considering this as they ingest their preferred manufacturers of reality.

Non-profit media outlets are no better. The non-profit media outlets exist to reinforce the biases of their donors. Instead of attracting attention for the purpose of advertising, the non-profit media typically has a very narrow viewer perspective and makes every effort to cater to those biases to attract donations.

We propose a disclaimer to be present during news broadcasts, and on news articles informing the public of the motivation of these media outlets. Corporations are required by law to serve the interests of their shareholders which is earning a return on their investment. As mentioned, this is accomplished by selling advertising, selling subscriptions, and attracting donations (non-profit media). Should a news outlet fail to attract attention which serves the aforementioned purposes it ceases to exist. 

Disclaimer: This broadcast has not been independently verified for full context and accuracy, and will reflect the bias of the broadcaster in their efforts to attract attention to maximize profit.

7: Lowest Paid Employee Wage Disclosure Tax Credit

 If consumers knew the wages being paid to the workers who produce the products and services they purchase, many consumers would purchase higher priced items of comparable quality when they can afford to do so. Companies that pay higher wages than their competitor would increase their share of the market and companies who try to maximize profit by minimizing labor expenses would increase compensation to remain competitive if employee wages were disclosed to the consumer.

Lowest paid employee wage disclosure is a label printed on the packaging of products to inform consumers how the companies that manufacture their products compensate their employees. Imagine walking into a store and the products have an LPE label that denotes the hourly wage of the lowest paid employee of the product. For items of comparable quality and value most people will decide to purchase the product that affords the workers that produce it a higher quality of life. The lowest paid employee will apply to those who are involved in the manufacture, assembly, or processing of materials to produce the product or packaging at the facility where the product is completed for sale. A company who participates in lowest paid employee marketing disclosure will include employees who have been with the company at least 1 year. A company’s starting wage to try out new employees who may not be a good fit shouldn’t negatively impact the company’s LPE rating.

The lowest paid employee is the standard for labeling because averages can be skewed or inflated by the few who earn substantially more than the rest and would harm newer companies who have fewer employees with seniority that earn more based on their tenure with the company. A median wage labeling system could lead to manipulation and be uninformative where the bottom half of employees earn substantially less than the median. Using an index that takes into account the wages of the employees and the cost of living where manufacturing takes place is not necessary. If a company manufactures goods in an area where the labor market is advantageous for the business, they should already benefit from a price advantage over their competitors. Additionally, their competitors have remained competitive despite higher manufacturing cost, and the company in the area with the lower cost of living can probably afford to pay their employees more but do not, because it is not demanded by the labor market.

Companies who already pay their employees higher wages than their competitors should want to participate in LPE labeling for the marketing purpose it will serve to their product. If one brand of products participates and the others do not then the consumer knows the other company has something to hide. Socially conscious consumers will choose accordingly which will encourage companies that manufacture products using low wage labor to increase wages and participate in LPE labeling. To encourage the beginning LPE labeling we want to offer a 3% payroll tax credit to companies that display the lowest paid employees hourly wage on their products.

LPE may be another contingency proposal.  If RUSC improves the labor market, and the balance stimulus enables people in the bottom 50% of income earners to substantially improve their income, LPE labeling will not be required to encourage companies to provide better compensation to their employees to increase market share and save money on taxes.