|
Paradoxish posted:It's not a net downward transfer of wealth unless we're talking about a very generous UBI or coupling it with a massive expansion of worker protections and government services. Actually moving wealth down in a way that "sticks" requires something well beyond a subsistence level basic income, otherwise you're only changing where the check comes from for very low income people. If I take $1 from richer people and give it to poorer people that's wealth transfer. Don't be stupid and obfuscatory. It's really as simple as that.
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 02:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 12:53 |
|
|
asdf32 posted:If I take $1 from richer people and give it to poorer people that's wealth transfer. Don't be stupid and obfuscatory. It's really as simple as that. I'm not trying to obfuscate anything. The point is that if we're talking about wealth transfer as a policy, then what matters is whether that wealth transfer has any net effect on the distribution of wealth in society. I'm saying that anything other than a very carefully designed (and probably impossible to implement) basic income probably wouldn't result in any real downward transfer of wealth. This is a pretty important point to make if your policy goal is, for example, to reduce wealth inequality.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 02:56
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:I'm not trying to obfuscate anything. The point is that if we're talking about wealth transfer as a policy, then what matters is whether that wealth transfer has any net effect on the distribution of wealth in society. I'm saying that anything other than a very carefully designed (and probably impossible to implement) basic income probably wouldn't result in any real downward transfer of wealth. This is a pretty important point to make if your policy goal is, for example, to reduce wealth inequality. So again, if I take $1 from a rich person and give it to a poor person that's not wealth transfer how? Don't tell me it's only a dollar.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 03:19
|
|
|
Hot take: rich people evading taxes is a wealth transfer, yet for some reason average Joe gives far less shits about it than a millionaire being forced to give a poor person one (rather worthless in 2017) dollar. Double Spicy: we'd solve a whole lot of economic troubles by killing off a couple hundred million dead branches at the top of the wealth pyramid.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 04:07
|
|
|
So one of my co-workers today was telling me everything is hosed and I should convert my monies in the bank to silver and copper holdings. What is D&D's take on this? Should I hoarde Seems cumbersome and weighty. Senor P. fucked around with this message at 04:44 on Apr 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 04:39
|
|
|
You'll have to invest in good saddlebags for your horse to increase your inventory space for all that silver.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 05:19
|
|
|
If things are so hosed that paper money becomes worthless, gold and silver will not be much better. Who is going to take this useless metal when US currency is no better than toilet paper? The local baron? The banker's guild? They have no more intrinsic value as a method of exchange than the institutions that supported them back in the day.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 06:57
|
|
|
Senor P. posted:So one of my co-workers today was telling me everything is hosed and I should convert my monies in the bank to silver and copper holdings. Silver is the Bitcoin of the metal world. Wild swings in value from day to day. Weird people that for some reason love it. Crazy schemes to try and gently caress over others that backfire due to incompetence. It's got it all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 07:09
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:We've reached a point where most Americans don't feel financially secure enough to take risks and that's probably bad for the economy in the long run. We've reached a point where there is enough information and there are enough connected people sharing stories to realize what losing everything means, and in America, if your risk fails, you stand a good chance of experiencing that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 07:22
|
|
|
Senor P. posted:So one of my co-workers today was telling me everything is hosed and I should convert my monies in the bank to silver and copper holdings. it really depends. have you raided the Tomb of E'l'mar yet? better watch out, heard there's an orb of disintegration hidden somewhere there. best to take it on when you learn the invisibility spell 
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 08:15
|
|
|
Well a UBI (even a very small one) is still a transfer of wealth...but thats okay. I do think any proposal that tries to carve out a UBI from our existing tax/social safety net structure is doomed to fail (they just isn't enough in the system to provide anyone anything close to a livable income). Our social safety net doesn't actually have much waste in it, it is just ridiculously starved of funding. Also, it relies way way too much on tax credits which are often confusing and time consuming to obtain. Something like the EITC is a transfer of wealth (and in some ways is already trying to accomplish something like a UBI) but it isn't automatic and its pay scales are usually quite low (especially if you are single).
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 09:02
|
|
|
What paradoxish is saying is that UBI is just one component of some sum transfer of wealth. If those other components (rent, etc) exceed UBI+Labor productivity then the net transfer is still upwards.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 15:29
|
|
|
How the gently caress is it "risk averse" to not want to take a risk that has a 70-90% (depending on who you ask) risk of failing in the first few years, likely causing you to lose your home (if you had one), retirement, and possibly healthcare (if you're in a non-expansion state). Good luck at staying married under these conditions too Risk averse has a definition, it means that you won't take a risk that has an equal chance of causing you to succeed or fail.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
call to action posted:Risk averse has a definition, it means that you won't take a risk that has an equal chance of causing you to succeed or fail. quote:risk-averse
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:So again, if I take $1 from a rich person and give it to a poor person that's not wealth transfer how? Don't tell me it's only a dollar. You're assuming that the government that implements a basic income simultaneously raises a new tax of equivalent size.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
Regardless of how smart it is to start a new business, it's still true that immigrants seem to be less risk-averse than native-born Americans. That's not terribly surprising considering that we're talking about a group that moved to a new country, which is obviously a fairly large risk.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Regardless of how smart it is to start a new business, it's still true that immigrants seem to be less risk-averse than native-born Americans. That's not terribly surprising considering that we're talking about a group that moved to a new country, which is obviously a fairly large risk. It's also a combination of them having lower living standard expectations, so they know how to run lean, and them having lower access to the kind of comfortable, white collar, high-paying jobs that Americans would be loath to leave to try starting their own thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 15:44
|
|
|
Lote posted:Silver is the Bitcoin of the metal world. Bitcoins don't turn you blue though. Clear win for silver imo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
I hope this is the right spot for this question: So, assuming an increasing part of the workforce gets employed in contract work, a la uber. Wouldn't this be more risky if there was a hint of an economic downturn? Without any kind of protection, these people would end up unemployed pretty much instantly, whereas a salaried employee or even a unionized hourly employee would keep getting paychecks (and spending paychecks) at least a little longer. I live in one of those exotic socialist scandinavian countries, and I can foresee our welfare system taking a pretty big hit if a company like Uber went under, for example. I'm not even sure this is close to becoming a reality, so feel free to correct me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
It's. very close to reality actually. More and more jobs are subcontracting and using people as 'individual contractors'.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
Paolomania posted:What paradoxish is saying is that UBI is just one component of some sum transfer of wealth. If those other components (rent, etc) exceed UBI+Labor productivity then the net transfer is still upwards. It's time for the bottom 90% to vote themselves a raise. If congress can do it every year, why can't we? Fruits of the sea posted:I hope this is the right spot for this question: You are absolutely correct. And in fact, a lot of underemployment and 'false recovery' are due to these kinds of jobs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
call to action posted:How the gently caress is it "risk averse" to not want to take a risk that has a 70-90% (depending on who you ask) risk of failing in the first few years, likely causing you to lose your home (if you had one), retirement, and possibly healthcare (if you're in a non-expansion state). Good luck at staying married under these conditions too Goons obsess on stats like these but not every new business has a 90% chance of failure. There is luck involved - of course! But lack of skill, preparation, realistic plans, etc kills far more new businesses than luck. Basically don't be bad and be willing to work your rear end off for awhile (and know your business ofc) and you have a good shot at making it work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
Fruits of the sea posted:I hope this is the right spot for this question: On top of the fact that those workers will have no jobs or prospects the next time we hit a recession, it's pretty likely we will have a government that will compound that by responding with further austerity measures.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Goons obsess on stats like these but not every new business has a 90% chance of failure. Isn't the rate something like only 30% make it to the ten year mark?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:There is luck involved - of course! But lack of skill, preparation, realistic plans, etc kills far more new businesses than luck. Basically don't be bad and be willing to work your rear end off for awhile (and know your business ofc) and you have a good shot at making it work. For a libertarian, you have a tremendously bad understanding of business economics. "know your business" encompasses having a very well rounded set of personal and technical skills, access to financial capital in different forms to nurture your enterprise, living in a society that has proper regulatory means to ensure that you are not going to get your poo poo bashed in by a larger competitor or that your business has such high barriers of entry that gently caress all, etc
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
dead comedy forums posted:For a libertarian, you have a tremendously bad understanding of business economics. "know your business" encompasses having a very well rounded set of personal and technical skills, access to financial capital in different forms to nurture your enterprise, living in a society that has proper regulatory means to ensure that you are not going to get your poo poo bashed in by a larger competitor or that your business has such high barriers of entry that gently caress all, etc Not a libertarian, and you are being tedious af. edit: To be slightly less dismissive...only slightly, because gently caress this is a tedious point... granting that what you're saying is true - so what? Having the knowledge, finding the money, navigating the conditions of the market you're in...those are the things a business owner does. "It's hard, also a lot of work, also a financial risk you have to manage" is why you get to take the profits. If you look at all that and conclude "welp, this must be impossible and I am left to the fickle winds of chance!" then you're probably not cut out for entrepreneurship even though lots of other people are. Just like a person who looked at the ocean and was like "welp, this sea is huge and fish are small I'll never find them to catch them! Impossible!" is probably not cut out for fishing even though fishing has been making people a living for thousands of years. gently caress, I wouldn't blame anyone for looking at the option of starting a business and concluding "You know, there are way easier ways to net 100k per year". That is absolutely the truth. AstheWorldWorlds posted:Isn't the rate something like only 30% make it to the ten year mark? Dunno, maybe. Running a small business is a lot of work and a lot of risk. It wouldn't surprise me that many people do it for awhile then decide it's not worth it. Or start later in their careers and retire and sell. Be interesting to see survey data. wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 17:30 on Apr 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
AstheWorldWorlds posted:Isn't the rate something like only 30% make it to the ten year mark? Not all of them are run to have the business make money either. One can run a small business in a way that sort of channels money around.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
Fruits of the sea posted:I hope this is the right spot for this question: Theoretically the loss of purchasing power by the unemployed would be made up for in terms of money saved by the employer, theoretically allowing them to bounce back more quickly In reality of course economic downturns are caused by excess supply and too little demand and so that wouldnn't help at all, plus of course the social effects of having very high unemployment spikes
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
Senor P. posted:So one of my co-workers today was telling me everything is hosed and I should convert my monies in the bank to silver and copper holdings. No, you hoard alcohol and hope that you become the trusted bartender in your post-civilization farm town. When poo poo goes bad, having a piece of silver or gold isn't going to do anything to make you happy, feed you, or protect you. It's a lump of fairly useless metal in a society where they're not used in industrial or medical applications. A jug of vodka, portable solar panels with appropriate hook ups to power things, toilet paper, long-lasting food/farming knowledge... those are the things that'll be worthwhile. But it means nothing if you're not involved with your local community (neighbors and others within a few mile radius) because when poo poo goes bad, people band together. If you can help be a leader to guide folks, then maybe you can avoid being killed/eaten/your stuff stolen. If you've got three full gun safes, 10,000 rounds of ammunition, and enough dried spaghetti in buckets to last for 3 years, but you're an rear end in a top hat, you're gonna get yourself raided and killed because nobody is going to help you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
Helsing posted:You're assuming that the government that implements a basic income simultaneously raises a new tax of equivalent size. Well I am assuming that tax increases would follow from UBI but it doesn't matter. The existing tax structure is already makes it so rich people pay more dollars. If the government writes out checks to everyone in equal values (the simplest form of UBI) it's majorly redistributive.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 02:05
|
|
|
I forgot the name, but there's at least one company that makes its money digitally "connecting" freelance workers with companies. The company handles the hiring and the checks. But because they aren't the nominal employer they aren't on the hook for benefits. Meanwhile, the freelancer is on the hook for taxes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 09:00
|
|
|
RandomPauI posted:I forgot the name, but there's at least one company that makes its money digitally "connecting" freelance workers with companies. The company handles the hiring and the checks. But because they aren't the nominal employer they aren't on the hook for benefits. Meanwhile, the freelancer is on the hook for taxes. this is the future of labor, everyone as 1090 wage slaves.too bad the dems did literally nothing about it, cause now the repubs are gonna accelerate the loss of benefits
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 13:00
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Goons obsess on stats like these but not every new business has a 90% chance of failure. Ah yes the classic "ignore the stats, you're above average!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 14:53
|
|
|
Condiv posted:this is the future of labor, everyone as 1090 wage slaves.too bad the dems did literally nothing about it, cause now the repubs are gonna accelerate the loss of benefits
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 14:54
|
|
|
That needs to be a talking point. "It wasn't enough for them to have everything and ensure you had nothing. They had to make sure they shifted the last few taxes they had left onto YOUR shoulders." Honestly, the way 1099 is legislated and executed, it's one of the primary wealth transfers from the poor and working class to the wealthy at this point, or soon will be.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
It's been about ten years since I had to look for a job, so it was a shock to me to find out how much recruiting companies are involved in the process now I would say 90% of the jobs available are through recruiting firms. They're your actual employer, although you have virtually no dealings with them. They skim about 30% of your hourly rate and cut the check, but other than that do nothing. Quite a good scam. One of the things Trump was proposing that snuck under the radar was changing the tax code so that 1099 workers pay a flat 15%. If that happens, everyone is going to push to be become a contractor, but I wonder what that would mean long term. I find the whole thing interesting and weird because it's a whole new world to me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
paternity suitor posted:It's been about ten years since I had to look for a job, so it was a shock to me to find out how much recruiting companies are involved in the process now Welcome to the magical world of de-regulated employment contracts! Enjoy having your wages garnished by middle-hands so that your actual employer can fire you at a whim while also denying you benefits. It's great, your employer gets to offload both risk and costs while you in return get less job security and lower wages. Good luck unionizing when precarious is the defining theme of your work-life. This is actually so efficient that some companies just decided to cut out the middle-men and start their own temp agencies. It's okay because the market says so!
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 15:47
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Well I am assuming that tax increases would follow from UBI but it doesn't matter. The existing tax structure is already makes it so rich people pay more dollars. If the government writes out checks to everyone in equal values (the simplest form of UBI) it's majorly redistributive. That depends on whether the economy is already fully employing its available resources. If the government doesn't raise taxes and if the need to service the new demand of all those low-income UBI recipients by putting idle resources to work then the net result would be a boost to economic growth. For the UBI to have a re-distributive effect it would either have to be accompanied by a tax increase (as opposed to, say, trimming some fat out of the military budget or simply running up the deficit) or economy would have to be near enough to full employment already that the additional demand just inflates prices. For the record I would be in favour of government policies that redistribute income because I think the levels of inequality our society has reached are politically dangerous and economically inefficient, but it's worth pointing out that for the UBI to redistribute income you need to make several other assumptions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
Helsing posted:That depends on whether the economy is already fully employing its available resources. If the government doesn't raise taxes and if the need to service the new demand of all those low-income UBI recipients by putting idle resources to work then the net result would be a boost to economic growth. For the UBI to have a re-distributive effect it would either have to be accompanied by a tax increase (as opposed to, say, trimming some fat out of the military budget or simply running up the deficit) or economy would have to be near enough to full employment already that the additional demand just inflates prices. What is the definition of redistribution that you're working with here? Common sense says that if money is given to people, it has to have come from somewhere, i.e. it has been redistributed. Finance UBI through income tax and you give from the middle class to the poor. Finance it through a wealth tax and you give from the rich to the poor and middle class. Use both and you give from the rich to the poor. Finance it through overt monetary financing and either economic growth or inflation will pay for it, which is eventually a redistribution from owners of currency to the people who don't own much of it. Finance it through cutting the military and you redistribute income from the military-industrial complex to people. The only way you'd avoid doing any kind of redistribution would be if every UBI dollar caused the amount of economic growth that leads to one more state dollar, without any added inflation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 12:53 |
|
|
The money could simply be printed by the government without raising any new taxes to "pay" for it. Unless the economy is already at or close to full employment this wouldn't automatically lead to inflation, it might simply cause idle resources to be put to work to service this increase in demand. Or you could eliminate anti-poverty and welfare programs and convert that money to an equivalent cash payment, which is something a number of conservative commentators have advocated for. The UBI has a strong potential to be re-distributive in nature (and I think that would be a strength and not a weakness) but it's not true by definition that it redistributes anything. It really depends on the larger context in which it is implemented and the exact manner in which it is designed. It's fallacious to think that there's a fixed supply of money that the US government has to tax away from the population first before it can spend on programs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 19:27
|
|