|
We need one now, OP.
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 21:57 |
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Yeah the only problem is you multiply the US population by a very modest basic income like $15,000/year and the figure you get is whooooops. Uh, you just tax the $15,000 out of the people making well over $15,000.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2014 05:22
|
|
|
Food is already heavily subsidized, I don't know how people can expect it to get much lower. In fact a lot of people (stupid people in my opinion) criticize hoe cheap food is in the US for enabling people to get fat - somehow ignoring that if it were more expensive you're going to get a lot more people dying of starvation. And it is subsidized for "healthy" food plenty too. Really, the only place to go from here is straight up issuing rations to people at full scale - lord knows the military always has plenty of food coming in that they are not going to use, and can be prepared and eaten by people living in a slumlord's apartment just as well as in loving Iraq or whatever. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 05:55 on Nov 2, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:$15,000 x 340 million people = $5.1 trillion. 2014 US GDP is 17.3 trillion (check wikipedia). FY 2013 Federal tax receipts were 2.8 trillion. 5.1+2.8=7.9 7.9/17.3=0.4566 Also hey genius: 20% of the US population is under 15, solidly children. Why would they need the basic income when they can't even legally work in most fields? So you can knock 68 million out of your presumably future population right there (since we only have under 320 million now). And then you have people already on who were going to be on Social Security - that tops out at about $30k a year and most people are closer to $15k a year - so again a no impact segment. That's currently 56 million people. So we can chop a good 110 million people out of your estimate right there. Effectronica posted:Any plan except the harsh one obsoletes Social Security entirely, as it pays adults about 1500/year more than median SS benefits. In addition, it completely obsoletes TANF and probably food stamps as well. However, it does nothing for healthcare and it's debatable whether it can really cover housing all that well, as even the low end of apartments outside of city centers are too expensive for a single renter under the GMI. Well we certainly wouldn't repeal section 8 over it - and the guaranteed income might make more landlords accepting of section 8 vouchers.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2014 06:13
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Wow you're being hostile immediately when I was just posting really basic figures. Why wouldn't they be? Actual mincome experiments have functioned fine without also giving money to the children directly. I mean I guess it would be nice that kids would potentially build up a tidy $225,000 trust fund by the time they can start attempting a learner's permit, but it's also not necessary to do so.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2014 06:43
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Taking a figure of 320 million and knocking off a trillion dollars from federal tax receipts for social security and welfare programs to be replaced by basic income puts the figure at 38% of GDP; looking more reasonable but it still doesn't include state tax burden and makes the optimistic assumption that all social security and welfare money was paid for by taxes in the first place. Our GDP would be quite a bit higher if we didn't have so many people who couldn't afford to buy anything but the bare basics. Or do you not understand late capitalist economies? Demand talks.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2014 06:46
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:This scheme would have so many second order effects I think we'd need to have a team of economists work up a paper on it before saying how it would shake out. (or insulting anyone's intelligence for that matter!) We already know most of the effects: it has been successfully performed on trial basises. I will feel free to insult the intelligence of anyone who adds 20+ million phantom people to their equations based on future population while not also inflating the gdp they're going to use for argument, friend. Because that's you just being intellectually dishonest and trying to create a worst case scenario from no sense whatsoever - a veritable Mises.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2014 06:52
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:What the gently caress? I'm calling you a liar who chooses to ignore facts. I thought the reference was clear. You made a post based on 340 million people being the us population (it won't be that until AT LEAST around 2020 by current projections) but using GDP and tax revenue figures based on now. That's called being willfully ignorant, or just plain stupid. You take your pick.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2014 07:33
|
|
|
The hard effects are clear: people are able to afford to live. That's all we need to know.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2014 07:37
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Unfortunately, now that people can afford to live, what will the second-order impacts be? Will we see a rapid increase in unemployment as service industry jobs are made obsolete due to more affordable home and fast-casual dining? How many McDonald's and other franchises will go belly-up due to an upward shift in consumer spending trends? Unemployment rates only matter when employment is necessary to stay alive. By modern standards you could say that unemployment during the 50s say was easily 40% or something due to how many women kept house rather than work. It also seems odd to think the service industry or fast food would collapse from it, fast food is already a more expensive option, and service industries are precisely what people with extra money can make use of and buy.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2014 07:53
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:
The facts still stand that people didn't seem to generate concerns or security issues during time periods where fewer people "needed" to work. Or, for that matter, that they also didn't seem to lessen those during periods when even more people were working (say, when child labor was widespread and many old people would stay at least part time employed til death due to lack of old people support programs). Plus you seem to misunderstand the whole nature of fast food businesses - the convenience factor is huge for all income ranges, and they're all free to introduce other dining styles in the same restaurant. Many McDonald's in particular have undergone a Starbucks-lite interior redesign that can accommodate a swift pivot to also doing "fast casual" inside or even table service. And I'd dare say that a basic income includes a stimulus towards supporting increased tourism/road tripping where fast food is particularly useful.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
i am harry posted:Grow vegetables in the United States on federal land by federal farms paying federal wages and we'd send the $2 red bell pepper into the annals of history. We don't need to grow more for that. Are you not aware that most crops in the US have price supports to subsidize farmers by trying to ensure a certain minimum floor?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
i am harry posted:Are you saying that the federal government keeps the price of a single red bell pepper at ~$2? The federal government keeps prices of most crops grown in the US at levels that ensure farmer's profits - this how nearly all farm subsidies work. Incidentally this is why its so hilarious when idiots claim that HFCS is used because farm subsidies keep it cheap - they do the opposite. Bell peppers are grown in the US plenty. South American production only comes into play for people like you who demand to have them when they're in season on the opposite side of the world. Trying to grow more of them in the US wouldn't help you outside of season here unless you're going to put them in indoor facilities with artificial growing cycles.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
i am harry posted:What the gently caress are you talking about "people like me"? Specifically because they're $2 each year-round, my bell peppers grow in a pot in my back yard and they do exceptionally well with very little help thanks very much. Ok so you admit that your idea to make peppers cheaper by wasting a bunch of money on government farms for them is stupid? Great!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
on the left posted:It's not concern trolling to point out the fiscal problems of mailing 20k to 240 million people, and the expected growth in numbers of US citizens once US citizenship has a cash NPV of well over 500k. Why would you need to mail? Christ get some better stupid complaints.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
on the left posted:So someone who worked on an H1B and gets kicked out of the country will get screwed out of his/her social security benefits because you are petty and spiteful? So now you're complaining about the present situation? Because most h1b workers have a hell of a time getting social security benefits 30 years since they were in the country if they didn't actually stya in the country with permanent residency or citizenship by the time they're 65. And they sure as poo poo don't have much luck in getting social security disability while living outside the country.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
on the left posted:It would cost about 4-5 trillion dollars to mail out 20k to each resident in the US over 18. This is a large portion of GDP, and comes in before other government expenses that are needed. It would require a huge tax increase even if we simultaneously ended every other entitlement program (including medicare/medicaid) and shut down the military. No it wouldn't, child. It's amazing you're so backwards you still think checks are needed.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 04:18
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Property doesn't mean what you think it does Uh, If we paid property tax on those things it would accumulate very little money, due to the rates it works at. It would also interestingly enough result in a strange imbalance in taxes by having a lot more of them paid to municipalities, counties, and states versus federal level, plus many places have 0 property tax.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 05:14
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:What do you mean by the rates it works at? All wealth is property. A property tax is a wealth tax. Property taxes need to be utilized in order to rectify wealth inequality. Income taxes will not fix that problem, the sad truth is that even with a 90% marginal tax rate on the top bracket the ultrawealthy are still woefully undertaxed. In New Jersey, widely regarded as having some of the highest property taxes in the nation, the property tax rates are effectively around 2.6%. Other states are often below a full percent. That's not enough money to take out of say a Donald Trump.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 05:47
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Oh yeah, I mean, they need to go way up. I know they are pathetically low now, especially in the US. Things like derivatives and stocks would be so easy to tax with the way our financial system currently works. There are so many different ways we could attack wealth inequality it's astounding. Most likely as a result of the past 40 years of concerted effort to do the exact opposite. Well the reason they are low is because they are actual property taxes, that is taxes on real property in the strict sense. Since a ton of poorer people also have it, the rates need to remain somewhat low to ensure they can continue to have things. That's why wealth taxes like you want usually aren't implemented as an expanded property tax, but as their own separate thing. Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:I guess causing massive inflation is one way of not increasing the deficit. We've increased the monetary supply pretty heavily without causing inflation for what, 20 years now?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 06:09
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Why can't the taxes be progressive and have brackets like income taxes? Home under 25th percentile in your region? Exempt. Home over 25th percentile in your region? Tax doubled. Obviously play numbers, but is there a reason property taxes can't be progressive? Because property taxes are as a rule flat or minimally progressive. They also tend to involve working off of a government conducted valuation of a an asset that will be legally considered not to change in value for an extended period of time. That's what property tax as a concept is. When we just want to tax wealth, and we want to tax actual wealth as of this very banking day, well, we do something different called a wealth tax which abandons the many strictures a property tax by convention has. See: Cyprus's "tax" when handling covering underinsured bank accounts.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 06:17
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:That's how we use it but property tax as a concept can encompass ANY TAX ON PROPERTY. Like, the word Property Tax has an actual meaning and the "as a rule" you've just thrown on there doesn't exist. The fact that they work a current way now isn't support for that they can't work another way. No it really can't. I mean linguistically it can in the same way that "socialist policy" can now mean "neoliberal orthrodoxy said by a black man". But no, when you're going after wealth it becomes a wealth tax, because it goes beyond real property and into virtual property in the form of bank accounts, stock shares, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 06:23
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Honestly I don't really care what the word is. In Economics, it's called a Property tax if you're taxing property. If you want to call it a Wealth tax so that people understand the difference from our typical property taxes, feel free. Right, and property tax in economics is pretty flatly down to what we use property tax for today. The same principles don't really apply when your policy goal now involves all wealth, and as such wealth taxes based on instantly knowable values etc are a whole different thing. If we ran property tax methods for taxing back accounts, your tax would easily be calculated on your balance 3 years ago the last time an officially verified check was done.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 06:32
|
|
|
on the left posted:Yes, the population will simply vote away all the bad effects of their misguided policies. To see this sort of strategy in action, look to Venezuela or Cuba for a colorful example. Wow so now you claim Venezuela and Cuba have free and open elections? You usually say otherwise.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
My Lil Parachute posted:I honestly don't see why it is morally right to literally pay people to do nothing. At least tie it to trivially easy volunteer work like a few hours a week helping in nursing homes or something. Jail is functionally paying a a lot of money so that somebody does just about nothing. Especially in max/supermax security prisons.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Harsh and unforgiving antitrust legislation. The current telecomms situation is massively overdue for a repeat of what happened to Ma Bell. So you have no idea what happened with Ma Bell then? Let me tell you what happened: we created 7 local monopoly operators, and they had such an incumbent advantage that landline services besides long distance remained with the incumbent monopoly operator something crazy like over 95% of the time. With the only major "moving" coming from the newly formed monopolies deciding to sell off less profitable, mostly rural operating areas to small companies (who then themselves became pretty much the incumbent monopoly). Most importantly, let's say it's 1992, well after the decision and things have shaken out. Can you, a Bell Atlantic customer get service from one of the neighboring baby bells like NYNEX, Ameritech or BellSouth? No, you definitely can't for local phone service, and you only have a slim chance of getting them for long distance (and they all charge about the same rates for that anyway. 10 years on from that you can now get "NYNEX" service but only in so much as Bell Atlantic and NYNEX have now merged with GTE as well to form Verizon. 10 years on from that it's modern times so you've dropped a landline altogether in your last move. Just about the only thing that actually moved people off the original monopoly baby bell for their area or its merger successor was cell phone lines, which often as not were also purchased from the wireless subsidiary of their landline service (although there were plenty of cases of the cell carrier ending up owned by a rival to your landline, if you even kept the landline. So yeah, doing what we did in the AT&T case is not going to do anything to remove monopolies. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Nov 6, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 21:57 |
|
|
Much of the US' rationing during World War II was not strictly needed, but was done as part of making sure people would keep up with rationing of things that really needed it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2014 23:45
|
|