|
Skyweir posted:In the US, the highest income group spend around 7 times less of their income on food compared to the lowest income group. But you see, if a billionaire spends $50 on buying a nice dinner and a poor spends $1.50 on cooking an adequate dinner the poor is spending less money on dinner 
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 14:55
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 00:18 |
|
|
blowfish posted:But you see, if a billionaire spends $50 on buying a nice dinner and a poor spends $1.50 on cooking an adequate dinner the poor is spending less money on dinner if you can't eat for a week that's fine, you can just wait until the government gets around to redistributing it to you *votes against higher taxes and redistribution*
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 15:01
|
|
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:What a load of loving bollocks. e.g. Corporation tax is on profits so by definition it isn't levied on companies that reinvest their surplus. A significant share of those reinvestments will show up as newly-acquired assets in the corporation's balance sheet, that will depriciate in subsequent periods. The resulting period mismatch of the surplus and the recognition of the reinvestment as an expense results results in opportunity cost, because while it zeroes out in the long run, you still have taxable profit in the period of the surplus.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 15:09
|
|
|
GC actually makes a lot of sense and nobody had really often much of a coherent counter-argument. However GC, what kind of distortions do you see introduced by exemptions for food from the VAT? Excess caviar consumption?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
Squalid posted:GC actually makes a lot of sense and nobody had really often much of a coherent counter-argument. However GC, what kind of distortions do you see introduced by exemptions for food from the VAT? Excess caviar consumption? The foie gras market will go quack!
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
Were there really Moroccan riots in Brussels and some other European cities? I'm looking at some local coverage which sounds racist ("Moroccans burning non-Muslim shops") and major outlets seem to be silent. Football hooligans don't surprise me at all, but rioting after a win - that does. edit: here are some videos. I don't speak the language. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP52fI8rtW0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCg7Od5fWsY Doctor Malaver fucked around with this message at 16:23 on Nov 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
Post world cup placement riot by Moroccan hooligans in Brussels. Anonymous police sources complaining they couldn't intervene, city officials saying the police was present but had the priority of restoring public order before they could stop looters. The anonymous police complain about not enough manpower and an inability to deploy vehicles in the pedestrian zone cause of the concrete blocks that are in place to stop car/truck terror attacks like the one in Nice. So mostly a way out of control situation that was poorly anticipated and managed by the city.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 16:22
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:The only way for the bolded statement to be true is if the government spends more money on the rich than the poor (in absolute terms). The only way a tax cut with the properties that a lower VAT-base for food has will help the poor is if the alternative is even more money being spent on the rich. The relative spending on food is a complete red herring, it doesn't make sense to look at this question in relative terms. Yes, a lower VAT-base increases the relative spending power of poor people more than rich people. However, government spending also disproportionately benefits poor people, and it can actually be targeted towards poor people (though most left-wingers here like to classify everyone up to the upper middle class as poor*, and some politicians do too, making it a bit less effective) The rich can dodge VAT on food because they buy their caviar from duty free shops at the airport they visit with their bizjets. But I approve of any plan that give the poor no recourse but to eat the rich.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:The rich can dodge VAT on food because they buy their caviar from duty free shops at the airport they visit with their bizjets. Soylent Bourgeoisie will be the dietary staple of the future. It will be plentiful and nutritious, if a little prone to causing gout in those who overindulge.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
Squalid posted:GC actually makes a lot of sense and nobody had really often much of a coherent counter-argument. However GC, what kind of distortions do you see introduced by exemptions for food from the VAT? Excess caviar consumption? Well the main direct distortions would be relatively harmless (still bad!) attempts to classify stuff as food which isn't food, which may lead to inefficient production from farmers or just blatant fraud if enforcement is not strong enough (imagine a Happy Meal, except with a really valuable toy), overconsumption of food relative to other luxuries (caviar vs. vacations) and stuff like that. There's also the case that VAT exemptions can be regressive if stuff like restaurants get to charge food VAT rates. Those aren't the big issue though, the big issue is "ok, we cut VAT for certain goods, now the government has a shortfall." This can be remedied in two ways - either cut spending, which will probably hurt the poorest the most, or increase other types of taxes. If the policy solution is to increase other taxes, then you face the consequences of those taxes - work becomes less attractive of a choice. Even if the increased taxes fall 100% on rich people, you've essentially added a new layer of taxation which is used to pay for a tax cut for other rich people. Which is a problem because you don't just have the distortion that people will overconsume food (which isn't a huge problem) but you have the simultaneous problem that people will be less inclined to work, which is a big problem! It's just part of a more general principle - the state shouldn't exist to shuffle money around between middle class and rich people, it should try to give the poor some minimum standard of living and provide essential services. Shuffling money around creates disincentives for work and incentives to overconsume stuff. If the problem you're facing is that "poor people spend too much money on food," the solution should be to give them money directly (which for example the US does with SNAP).
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
Of course, if you give income-dependent aid to the poor, then at the cutoff point for that aid you're creating disincentives to work too. Also, there is no political constituency to protect programs like SNAP if they are entirely income-dependent, since voters above the cutoff point are only going to support these programs if they are sufficiently altruistic to do so, and that voting bloc is frequently not large enough to maintain an electoral majority (also, SNAP doesn't give its beneficiaries money; it gives them food stamps). Therefore, if your primary interest is in protecting the poor, there's a strong case for supporting universal programs even if they're economically not the most efficient.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:Were there really Moroccan riots in Brussels and some other European cities? I'm looking at some local coverage which sounds racist ("Moroccans burning non-Muslim shops") and major outlets seem to be silent. Riots in Brussels because Moroccan hooligans watched Morocco's football match and went loco like hooligans are bound to do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41961412quote:The EU's chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, says he is planning for the possible collapse of Brexit negotiations with the UK.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
And to absolutely no one's surprise
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
The UK is dead set on not leaving, huh? What are the chances of the EU just kicking them out, instead of doing that whole "transition phase" spiel for next decade or so? Pretty slim I guess. The UK leaving the economic union would be bad for everyone, so why force them?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
They're going to do this transition thing until UK decides not to leave, so they can then say "ok, since you were technically out for a couple years, you lose all your special snowflake benefits". At least I hope they do that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
As a staunch Remain supporter I hope the talks collapse. The best prospect of no Brexit is up against the prospect of no-deal Brexit. Frankly a lot of this is in line with what I would've predicted when we triggered A50. If anything the UK government has been just more shambolic and bad at this than I could ever have imagined.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:The UK leaving the economic union would be bad for everyone, so why force them? The EU might decide they'd rather get rid of the guys vetoing every reform you agreed on for the past 2 years than dealing with this poo poo. It's a slim possibility, but I can see it happening if the Brits suddenly go to the council and say "what up boys, give us our rebates ya cunts, also we'll veto your integrated military command centre"
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
Pluskut Tukker posted:Of course, if you give income-dependent aid to the poor, then at the cutoff point for that aid you're creating disincentives to work too. Also, there is no political constituency to protect programs like SNAP if they are entirely income-dependent, since voters above the cutoff point are only going to support these programs if they are sufficiently altruistic to do so, and that voting bloc is frequently not large enough to maintain an electoral majority (also, SNAP doesn't give its beneficiaries money; it gives them food stamps). Therefore, if your primary interest is in protecting the poor, there's a strong case for supporting universal programs even if they're economically not the most efficient. While I'm a huge fan of universal programs, income traps are trivially avoidable for individual programs with a gradual drop off of benefits. Of course, the problem still arises with people receiving subsidies for food AND fuel AND daycare or whatever still hitting a point where earning a marginal dollar loses more than a marginal dollar in benefits, which is why universal basic income is the best solution. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
Truga posted:They're going to do this transition thing until UK decides not to leave, so they can then say "ok, since you were technically out for a couple years, you lose all your special snowflake benefits". While shooting the British pound in the head would be hilarious it would also cause a nontrivial amount of global economic upset.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:The UK is dead set on not leaving, huh? I don't think anyone knows what the UK wants at this point, and that includes both the UK government and the opposition. Or at least, it's not clear what kind of deal they might be prepared to accept, since they're clearly not going to get what they want. There is no deal on offer that gives anyone in the UK a win, so anyone in the UK prepared to make any deal at all is going to get pilloried as a traitor by a large share of the press and by their political opposition. So only a very brave politician would deal, and I don't know who that is. Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:What are the chances of the EU just kicking them out, instead of doing that whole "transition phase" spiel for next decade or so? Pretty slim I guess. The UK leaving the economic union would be bad for everyone, so why force them? In the absence of a deal, the chances are 100%, since that's the consequence of the article 50 invocation. It seems also that legally, a transition phase would only be acceptable for a limited period.And what with the uncertainty created by putting Britain into a sort of indefinite transition phase , plenty of (economic) damage would be done in that case too. GreyjoyBastard posted:While I'm a huge fan of universal programs, income traps are trivially avoidable for individual programs with a gradual drop off of benefits. I am Dutch, and we have created this exact problem here (people even get into financial trouble because they start working and then they quickly have to pay back the benefits they no longer qualify for). Of course, reduced incentives to work for people on low incomes are a luxury problem to have in comparison with,say, the people receiving welfare benefits in the UK. Pluskut Tukker fucked around with this message at 22:13 on Nov 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
Truga posted:They're going to do this transition thing until UK decides not to leave, so they can then say "ok, since you were technically out for a couple years, you lose all your special snowflake benefits". No way in hell are they getting their rabate back, after they have officially rejoined. There isn't even any justification for it left anymore. I think it had originally something to do with the way France was doing agriculture subventions back then or something. Deltasquid posted:The EU might decide they'd rather get rid of the guys vetoing every reform you agreed on for the past 2 years than dealing with this poo poo. It's a slim possibility, but I can see it happening if the Brits suddenly go to the council and say "what up boys, give us our rebates ya cunts, also we'll veto your integrated military command centre" They are not getting any political voice during the "transition phase". Once they are out of the EU in 2019, they lose any represention. That's why it's so hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
Pluskut Tukker posted:I don't think anyone knows what the UK wants at this point, and that includes both the UK government and the opposition. Or at least, it's not clear what kind of deal they might be prepared to accept, since they're clearly not going to get what they want. There is no deal on offer that gives anyone in the UK a win, so anyone in the UK prepared to make any deal at all is going to get pilloried as a traitor by a large share of the press and by their political opposition. So only a very brave politician would deal, and I don't know who that is. This is an extremely bad and inaccurate analysis of the situation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:This is an extremely bad and inaccurate analysis of the situation. Please elaborate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
Pluskut Tukker posted:Of course, if you give income-dependent aid to the poor, then at the cutoff point for that aid you're creating disincentives to work too. Also, there is no political constituency to protect programs like SNAP if they are entirely income-dependent, since voters above the cutoff point are only going to support these programs if they are sufficiently altruistic to do so, and that voting bloc is frequently not large enough to maintain an electoral majority (also, SNAP doesn't give its beneficiaries money; it gives them food stamps). Therefore, if your primary interest is in protecting the poor, there's a strong case for supporting universal programs even if they're economically not the most efficient. Well it's possible to design benefits that aren't completely discontinuous as someone pointed out. But even then, giving everyone a €100 credit card for food (like SNAP) is a more efficient program than giving the poor a €100 tax cut (and even then it doesn't target all poor people equally) and the rich a €500 tax cut. In terms of political constituencies, sure, but keep in mind there is also tax fatigue which will lead to a general backlash against all social programs... If the government mainly shuffles money around which causes high tax rates, people will get pissed off and cut back all sorts of programs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Well it's possible to design benefits that aren't completely discontinuous as someone pointed out. But even then, giving everyone a €100 credit card for food (like SNAP) is a more efficient program than giving the poor a €100 tax cut (and even then it doesn't target all poor people equally) and the rich a €500 tax cut. In a time where work is increasingly precarious, people work on temporary or zero-hours contracts, or are forced into self-employment in the 'gig economy', the design of some sort continous benefit schedule is a nontrivial problem. People will have a different income from month to month and there is no way you can adjust the benefits accordingly to let them maintain a stable income. Other than that, the SNAP program, even though it is really effective at doing what it is designed to do, is under continuous threat from Republicans anyway. People will find a way to complain about social programs and what they cost pretty much regardless of the level of taxation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
Pluskut Tukker posted:In a time where work is increasingly precarious, people work on temporary or zero-hours contracts, or are forced into self-employment in the 'gig economy', the design of some sort continous benefit schedule is a nontrivial problem. People will have a different income from month to month and there is no way you can adjust the benefits accordingly to let them maintain a stable income. The goal of the program is not to guarantee income stability but to guarantee a minimum living standard. And you already have the problem that the program can either measure income monthly (and then pay too much to people with volatile incomes) or annually (and possibly underpay people), but those are not problems of continuouness but of the program in general. Continuous schedules probably make this better because people have less incentives to manipulate high fluctuations of incomes down. And overall willingness to pay taxes is a function of the tax rate (and other things, of course), even if there are some people who will complain regardless of the rate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:As a staunch Remain supporter I hope the talks collapse. The best prospect of no Brexit is up against the prospect of no-deal Brexit. The thing I see as more likely than the Tories walking back on Brexit is them failing the negotiations, but calling elections with something like 6 months left before the 2 years run out in order to force labour to either walk back on it or deal with a tiny negotiation window for Brexit - at least, if I was in May's shoes that would seem as a far better alternative to actually sorting out this mess myself. In Greece we had a similar situation; the January 2015 elections were early elections, Samaras did not exhaust his term as prime minister.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:The goal of the program is not to guarantee income stability but to guarantee a minimum living standard. And you already have the problem that the program can either measure income monthly (and then pay too much to people with volatile incomes) or annually (and possibly underpay people), but those are not problems of continuouness but of the program in general. Continuous schedules probably make this better because people have less incentives to manipulate high fluctuations of incomes down. Guaranteeing a minimum living standard or a stable income are really not that different; you would assume that what constitutes a minimum living standard is pretty stable from month to month, and whether you give people rental assistance and food stamps or a financial benefit to achieve either end ought to be a wash from an economic point of view, though the latter probably has the advantage that the recipient has more flexibility and thus, independence. I think the willingness to pay taxes is probably more related to the level of trust in the system than it is to tax rates, which is why different countries can have wildly variable levels of taxation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
Pluskut Tukker posted:Please elaborate. (1) It over represents how mainstream the government's "hard brexit" position is amongst its own party, or the cabinet even. (2) It misrepresents Labour's (the opposition) "support" for Brexit which has always been conditional on it not being a total clusterfuck. (3) Under estimates popular support for a "soft" Brexit. (4) Over estimates influence of angry right wing media. Recent polling has put "wrong to leave the EU" ahead in the general population. The referendum result won the leavers the right to have a go at Brexit, but as it increasingly looks like a disaster people are wide open to the idea of back peddling on the whole thing. Labour's position has always essentially been "if you can do a Brexit where you don't gently caress over people's rights and screw the economy then fine I guess" which the hardcore remain camp has spun as a "pro-Brexit" position but tbh my view has always been that it's reserving the right to change our mind when the inevitable chaos ensues without being viewed as the people who tried to sabotage the whole process from the start.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:The thing I see as more likely than the Tories walking back on Brexit is them failing the negotiations, but calling elections with something like 6 months left before the 2 years run out in order to force labour to either walk back on it or deal with a tiny negotiation window for Brexit - at least, if I was in May's shoes that would seem as a far better alternative to actually sorting out this mess myself. In Greece we had a similar situation; the January 2015 elections were early elections, Samaras did not exhaust his term as prime minister. From what I've read it seems like some Labour meeting with Barnier et al last longer than the government's meetings. It's complete speculation but I wouldn't be surprised if Labour have an alternative withdrawal bill in reserve with approval of the EU.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:From what I've read it seems like some Labour meeting with Barnier et al last longer than the government's meetings. It's complete speculation but I wouldn't be surprised if Labour have an alternative withdrawal bill in reserve with approval of the EU. That seems silly. The EU is miffed about the image of "keep voting until you get it right" that people have labeled them with, and this kind of obscure deal-making would be more of the same. The EU has been repeating its official stance like a mantra: the UK is a sovereign country that can do as it please, unburdened by the others, and we're here to help them mitigate the damage. That's the EU's official position because it knows that otherwise any Brexit failures can be framed as sabotage by the EU. This is why I think it's more likely that the EU will kick the UK out if it drags its feet after the march 2019 deadline, deal or no deal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:That seems silly. The EU is miffed about the image of "keep voting until you get it right" that people have labeled them with, and this kind of obscure deal-making would be more of the same. Well yeah it seems silly because it is silly. But parliament is sovereign. And if the opposition can negotiate a deal that can get a majority in parliament then that's legitimate. If it happens it's because the EU recognise that the current UK government is completely dysfunctional and the opposition offer a more serious chance of achieving anything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 00:22
|
|
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:(1) It over represents how mainstream the government's "hard brexit" position is amongst its own party, or the cabinet even. Thanks for the explanation. I nevertheless disagree with your assessment. At this point nobody in British politics who matters has given any indication at all that they might opt to go for Remain instead; they have all been paying lip service to the importance of respecting the outcome of the referendum and thereby boxed themselves into a corner. This has created a discourse where there's really no other option but to Leave, never mind how politicians may talk about 'jobs-first Brexit' or other rubbish. The only way to get out of this corner is to have another election or another referendum. I don't rate the chances of a second referendum happening and a new election is clearly not on the cards with the current government being such a shambles. A second point is that there may be popular support for a soft Brexit, but the only kind of soft Brexit on the table is one where everything continues as now, including Britain having to pay up, without having any influence on what happens in Brussels. Britain would in this scenario be like Norway i.e. 'governed by fax '. I don't think people will still support a soft Brexit once they figure out what it means beyond the rhetorical abstraction. As soon as you get specific about possible deals, you start talking about Britain possibly coughing up GBP 40-50 billion, continued free movement of workers, or instituting a customs border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. This is a poo poo sandwich and I'm not convinced people will want to eat it. Additionally, I'm not sure people will want to stay in the EU if this is what the EU is offering, never mind that it's the best option to forestall economic disaster. Finally, it'd be good if the media were less influential than I thought. But seeing as Theresa May felt compelled to have dinner with Dacre of the Daily Mail this week, Boris Johnson wrote for the Telegraph and Gove was a journalist(!), for the Times(!), I suspect that the relevant British politicians themselves place a great deal of importance on what the papers are writing. I'd be happy if I were wrong about this though, since (perhaps outside of the FT), the British press is a loving disaster when it comes to writing about Brexit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
Anyone want a laugh? http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/paul-goldsmith/why-ireland-might-have-to_b_18377892.html What a stupid article.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 02:00
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Anyone want a laugh? aaaaahahahahahaha
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
Pluskut Tukker posted:Thanks for the explanation. I nevertheless disagree with your assessment. At this point nobody in British politics who matters has given any indication at all that they might opt to go for Remain instead; they have all been paying lip service to the importance of respecting the outcome of the referendum and thereby boxed themselves into a corner. This has created a discourse where there's really no other option but to Leave, never mind how politicians may talk about 'jobs-first Brexit' or other rubbish. The only way to get out of this corner is to have another election or another referendum. I don't rate the chances of a second referendum happening and a new election is clearly not on the cards with the current government being such a shambles. A Norway style outcome is exactly how you can allow soft-leave voters to save face and continue to pretend they won whilst also not wrecking the economy. If the right wing press were that powerful then Theresa May would have a 100 seat majority right now and Jeremy Corbyn wouldn't be a serious contender for forming the next government.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 02:07
|
|
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:A Norway style outcome is exactly how you can allow soft-leave voters to save face and continue to pretend they won whilst also not wrecking the economy. If the right wing press were that powerful then Theresa May would have a 100 seat majority right now and Jeremy Corbyn wouldn't be a serious contender for forming the next government. An outcome where you cede all control to 'Brussels', give up on limiting worker migration from Europe, and cough up £50 billion is not an outcome that can be portrayed as a win by anyone. Also, my last point was that the rightwing press has power because members of government treat it as if it had power, not because it is able to sway voters. Besides, in comparison to the complete mess that the current government is, Corbyn should be leading by 10+ points in the polls instead of barely pulling even with May.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 08:53
|
|
|
Pluskut Tukker posted:An outcome where you cede all control to 'Brussels', give up on limiting worker migration from Europe, and cough up £50 billion is not an outcome that can be portrayed as a win by anyone. I think you don't understand politics development.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 12:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 00:18 |
|
|
Truga posted:I think you don't understand politics development. Well, that certainly put me in my place.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 13:02
|
|