|
Nintendo Kid posted:We need one now, OP. Exactly this. The discussion should be, what would be the most practical method of putting one in place? States are too small an area to do this in; too many of the most populous metropolitan regions are across multiple administrative regions. Would there be a way to form interstate compacts structured with the power to set minimum wage standards based upon a formula of travel time, distance, and density from nearest metropolitan center? Nintendo Kid posted: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. The limiting cost of food access isn't the price of food, its the logistics of distribution. A more accurate and impactful question would be, what policies could be pursued that would incentive capacity expansion which would most impact cereal transportation? Unfortunately, the answer is "approve lots more pipelines and subsidize pipeline construction." See how well that plays with donors most likely to donate on humanitarian/social issues. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 05:57 on Nov 2, 2014 |
#
¿
Nov 2, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 17:12 |
|
|
Effectronica posted:The military is 4% of GDP, an exceptionally generous plan like the one being thrown around here is 6%, a more modest plan gives us 5%, a harsh plan that actually skims the poverty line gives us 3%. It's quite doable, since SS benefits equal 5% of GDP already. What is the cost of a plan which would disqualify individuals from entitlement programs? I'd like to be able to show "GMI is an entitlement-reducing and cost-saving proposal".
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2014 06:01
|
|
|
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. I need numbers and citations before I can write it up in a brief, or know which figures to look at for a brief. Seriouspost at that, I could pass along a decent enough proposal directly to someone I know who'd be able to get it implemented on a national level. So, how can I eliminate Obamacare with a GMI? Give me a starting number/formula for a single individual above 18, with incentives to get married.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2014 07:18
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:What the gently caress? Well, you're correct about this: 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!) A properly formulated scheme would result in higher tax income and increased Federal spending levels with increased costs for goods with high demand whose only limit currently is access. Or, such a scheme would result in state revenues rising while tuition costs for higher education soaring if those increased revenues are not allocated appropriately. And lets be honest, when does a windfall ever result in appropriate allocation?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2014 07:33
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:The hard effects are clear: people are able to afford to live. That's all we need to know. 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? Or, how much will higher education rates go up for individuals due to increased access? Will individuals be able to more afford to live the basics of life, while resulting in an overall reduction of tax revenues, or will they live a better life while increasing everyone's profit margins and reducing the deficit and need for entitlement programs?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2014 07:43
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:And don't forget what the knock-on inflationary effects will be when rentiers know that who they are renting to is guaranteed to have $15k a year coming to them. Inflation is taxation based upon perception of a central bank's inability or unwillingness to make its interest payments, so I expect inflation would fall under a GMI while PPP would also be experienced as decreasing for the lower and lower-middle classes, while GDP would experience rapid and immediate growth in most sectors. Bit of a strange scenario, and not one which I think has been faced too much in history. Falling inflation, decreasing purchasing power, with 5-9% higher rates of GDP growth over pre-intervention rates seems like it would further the concentration in wealth towards the higher end and would result in an upward distribution. Hm. Quite complex when examined from a systems perspective. What was the impact of Alaska's oil divident as compared to pre-intervention? Nintendo Kid posted: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. Unemployment rates matter more for population concerns and security issues than they do for purely economic reasons. I don't think there would be a collapse in all fast food; I think there would be an upward shift in spending trends from fast-convenience to fast-casual. From McD's to Chipotle's. Now I'm wondering on the margins for McD's vs Chipotle, and whether the continue shift towards fast-casual without GMI will result in increased or decreased tax revenue. E: Nessus posted:That said here's the real stumbling block: it's going to go to... you know... those lazy, entitled people. You know. THEM.  My plan eliminates Obamacare AND lets the poors be free to die from wasting their money on alcohol and vidya games
My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 08:05 on Nov 2, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2014 07:59
|
|
|
MadMattH posted:I don't think that higher education costs would go up at all. The people who feel like they 'need' a degree to find decent work now would not feel that need if they had a guaranteed income. Those people wouldn't go and pay more for an unnecessary education. I'd guess that there would be less demand for it, and therefore if they wanted to stay in business they'd have to either offer more value for what is currently being paid or lower prices to attract the people who only require that kind of education to advance to something that actually needs it. I think you're making a mistake in assuming that education is a good with elastic demand. Why do high school seniors, even the ones who should go to trade school instead, go to college for 4 years? I guarantee its not because of a perception of future return with increased lifelong earning potential for the vast majority of individuals at non-Ivy institutions. Hell, we're already seeing the impact of a GMI during college enrollment in the form of student loans. Take away the repayment obligation, you'll only increase demand for a limited number of slots, for which foreign competition at higher price is already exerting upward price pressures. And all this minimum wage chat, it completely fails to look at wages as a system. If you live in a state with the bare Federal minimum and border a world-class municipality with a $15/hr wage, you're incentivizing urban blight amongst the working classes unable to afford to cross state borders to take advantage of city pay with residential administrated poverty. It provides perverse incentives unless properly enacted on a regional, multi-jurisdictional level. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 02:33 on Nov 3, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Woah woah woah, giving people enough money to survive comfortably? "I could draft a serious policy brief with a moderate chance for implementation," said the rear end in a top hat who knows his audience and their concerns.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:But the phenomenon you're talking about doesn't really exist in the first place. A quick glance at AA jobs on my local Craigslist found exactly one with "degree preferred," and none that were required. Even in more technical fields like software development a degree isn't really required if you have enough experience. And the reason jobs aren't requiring it is because there isn't the supply that would be needed: Yeah, they're incorrect without understanding of modern social pressures in America. You don't go to college for education; study after study has shown that the value of higher education lies within the network which an individual creates. You fuckn go to school to get drunk, have great times, and learn to operate within a formalized structured environment. Degrees are worthless relative to work experience; the network you create while attaining you degree cannot be valued in pure dollar amounts due to the amount of human development which are you forced to undergo within the confines of a loosely structured environment. So, GMI would increase the cost of education and worsen the student loan crisis for new students. For current and former students, it would reduce the burden of their educational development. Now why I wade into GMI is because of some considerations outside of America. I know a guy who's extended family owns a developing nation, and the country is set for an energy development windfall. The questions for policy development are how to use that windfall to transition individuals into the formal economy while also promoting gender equality and strengthening existing institutional structures so that higher ed doesn't become even more of an elite thing than it is. Its a serious issue on which I can have somewhat of a voice because people are lazy and they'd rather pay you to do the heavy lifting for them while they get to take the credit. E: on the left posted:How is it incorrect? Cutting the workforce obviously won't increase production, and if consumption is expected to rise, it's likely that the increased consumption will come at the cost of net exports. The reply to this, with amoral implications, is that it matters the method and system through which the workforce is cut. Letting them go without a second thought has lower productivity gains than cutting an appropriately unproductive portion of your workforce.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
on the left posted:What evidence do you have that large amounts of people dropping out of the workforce would increase productivity? Depends upon the field. I'm sure it would decrease productivity in those fields that become less cost-competitive due to GMI. How are you measuring productivity, in what sector, and what would the impact of GMI be upon demand in that sector?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
on the left posted:The whole point of a mincome is to drastically cut the workforce, so it makes sense to point out the effects of doing that. Ok, you try messaging that and see how it works. On the left is proposing to create a nation of welfare queens. Vote Right to eliminate minimum wage. Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:It's not though, it's to provide everyone with a basic level of sustenance. One of the big changes caused by the basic income study I linked earlier was that self-employment income went up as people didn't have to worry about starving if starting a business didn't work out. It works better when you phrase it as, "The one piece of legislation that eliminates entitlements and gets rid of Obamacare that they don't want you to know about!" Now sell it to your business donors within the confines of that phrasing. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 04:23 on Nov 3, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
on the left posted:If this is the goal, why not just expand the food stamps program and make getting section 8 housing easier? Then we don't need to worry about the financial difficulty of mailing everyone 15k a year. Because then your opponents in the primary and general will say YOUSE A friend of the family LOVIN DEMONCRAT bad things about you. Your posts come across as if you have no understanding of the considerations you make as an elected representative. Go work for a few campaign cycles and learn rapidly the answer to your question. The entire sell of a minimum income is that it eliminates entitlement eligibility. That's why its starting to gain some traction in the thinktank crowd, and that reason alone. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 04:26 on Nov 3, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
on the left posted:Somehow I have a feeling that expanding welfare is a lot easier than getting the government to sign off on yearly checks to every citizen. The 14th amendment guarantees that any mincome would be quickly broken by birth tourism. So attach eligibility to selective service registration. Make it a national security priority. And no, no, expanding welfare is not easier than anything. gently caress, getting any checks signed by the government is likely to require very significant entitlement cuts soon.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No income restrictions. Presumably we'd require residency. You're arguing against something no one has proposed. Ok, so lets have a grounded proposal from everything discussed so far MinIncome: -Qualify to receive when you register for selective service -Must elect to receive by filing appropriate forms -Distributed on a bi-monthly basis via direct deposit -Can only be distributed to individuals with permanent residences in USA who have established said permanent residence for no less than one year -Counts as income for IRS purposes, taxes/SS automatically deducted? -Set at a level which disqualifies individuals from all entitlement programs (19k? 19.5k? 40k?) -Eliminates ObamaCare Any other parts or component proposals to add to this? Yeah. I just don't know whether they're a naive child or ideologue.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2014 05:26
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Since they don't get the basic income unless they're residents, it's no different from giving it to a "native." Citizens registered for selective service. Those chinese 'anchor-babies'? Pretty drat sure their card will be rejected and they won't have access to in-state tuition subsidies.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2014 06:20
|
|
|
on the left posted:If expats are responsible for paying taxes, why shouldn't they also be able to receive mincome? "Why wouldn't a foreign national, raised and indoctrinated overseas outside of established and respected American institutions, by two culturally non-American and non-western individuals, be able to register for selective service and have their registration accepted?" Because they pose a security threat and, as citizens, have failed to file the appropriate tax documents for the preceding 18 years of their life. E: down with slavery posted:Because it's the law, this thread isn't about your personal crusade to get out of paying taxes Let me be clear: American domestic policy should not take into primary consideration anything except the well-beimg of domestic Americans. gently caress expat tax dodgers. Pay your loving taxes or burn your passport and renounce your citizenship. Don't be a gently caress'n hypocritical rear end in a top hat. Expats don't count for minimim guaranteed income because the policy is designed to boost domestic consumption, not your ability to purchase melamine-laced milk and ground tiger dick. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 06:33 on Nov 3, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2014 06:29
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Because I don't give a gently caress about Americans who have expatriated getting the mincome? One important thing to point out, Manilla is considered American territory by American officials and has been since TR. It may be under local management, yes, so is Puerto Rico. Its still under American sovereignity, so Manilla, in addition to the Panama Canal Zone, are a bit of exceptions when Americans want to live there. E: on the left posted:Hmmm, if a lot of different groups don't care about certain minorities getting mincome, it would seem like that would sabotage any plans to actually implement mincome. I guess it's all for the best because then we don't have to argue about whether its racist to exclude people without IDs or documentation from getting mincome. America: Love it or leave it. You chose to leave it. Now go petition your new government for minimum income.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2014 06:36
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Ahh yes, a tone argument. Quite the cherry on top of your idiocy.  You have insulted the expatriate people. They would do somethimg about it, except that they're too busy chasing tail in foreign lands from desperate peasants looking to GTFO.Any chance we can get back to the substantive discussion at hand? Even if a mincome individual chose to travel the globe for a year, to create a politically feasable program you can't automatically include ever tax dodger as eligible. Remember, the purpose of minimum income is to achieve entitlement reform by making them redundant. E: I have an old union card. Am I a minority?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2014 06:45
|
|
|
on the left posted:Currently, the largest form of entitlement spending (social security) is open to expatriates. If you want to eliminate social security in favor of mincome, you have to allow it. Nah. How about America institutes minimum guaranteed income with the conditions I highlighted above and eliminates social security? Now there's a compromise that has potential for bi-partisan support!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2014 06:53
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:So this means the answer to higher GDP is to increase taxes?! the answer to higher GDP is to have taxes within a goldilox zone; either you increase them on net and you face reduced rates of inflation or you reduce them and face inflation. Of course, since the dollar became the globally accepted currency, normal inflational trends do not apply; there is a strong and unmet demand for the dollar throughout the world, exerting a deflationary pressure on American debt. We should be using this foreign demand to fulfill domestic supply. Like with oil.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2014 07:40
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Hate to break it to you but "moral perspectives" won't win this debate. There are plenty of people in this country who don't have any moral problems with inequality and in fact happily justify it using Just World Theory. I keep saying make it about domestic entitlement elimination, and you've got an economic issue that is sellable to the base. I don't get why people keep ignoring this fact to focus on our expats
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
on the left posted:American citizens overseas is a big issue if you want to replace the entitlement system, since the largest entitlement (social security) is collectible overseas. Additionally, the 14th amendment guarantees that the number of overseas citizens would jump drastically if we were writing checks to every citizen. I'm not proposing GMI for every citizen. I'm proposing GMI for domestic citizens who meet strict qualifications and disqualify expats automatically. gently caress, if you want to argue about morals, a more relevant issue would be whether what convictions disqualify you from GMI eligibility. Anyone convicted of any felony? Drug offences? But no, you're focused on poor, voluntary expats In conclusion, America: Love it or leave it. You chose to leave it. Nintendo Kid posted: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. "keeps" is both an oversimplification and an understatement. I was researching the issue a few months ago for West Africa's developing famine. The portion of food held in reserve has shown a downward trend since the early 80s. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 01:20 on Nov 4, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
EasternBronze posted:I don't really see how from a consensus that living in the U.S. is terrible you than reach this hostility to people who make their living outside of it. Living in America is loving awesome, especially when you're a citizen with a GMI.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
I'm not telling SS recipients to get hosed. I'm giving everyone a better option within America than SS. I would presume the program would be allowed to starve itself to death with further cuts after its replaced for most domestic citizens. It'll starve to death without intervention; far better to put a GMI in place before that occurs. EasternBronze posted:Well considering that overseas citizens also pay taxes I don't see how you can justify excluding them from your minimum income scheme. I was unaware of expats paying American sales and excise taxes on all of their purchases. Huh. Wonder how many expats are 100% honest about their finances and consumption and pay the appropriate taxes.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 01:27
|
|
|
on the left posted:Also, many overseas citizens (and former green card holders and other working visas) collect social security. The US will not default on the promises made to these people, except maybe to replace with a better benefit. Replace with a better benefit domestically, default on the rest. You got a better plan to save social security? I can't think of any.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:The problem is that you can't fully eliminate 'entitlements.' At the very least you'd still want something like a single payer healthcare system since it's ultimately cheaper and more efficient than what we have now. in fact,mother one legitimate problem with basic income systems is how to deal with people who make bad decisions. We don't want anyone starving and its costly to have people avoiding things like preventative care for financial reasons,msg on some level we still need basic social safety nets. You let them die. That's what happens when they make bad decisions throughout the life-cycle. You incarcerate them if they neglect their children and put a share of their GMI into a trust fund for the child to access when they turn 18 and apply for the appropriate programs and applications of those funds. Individuals have a right to die. If you think differently, you may be a Republican Congresscritter. Personally, if someone wants to spend their GMI on just booze and cigarettes, why stop them?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
EasternBronze posted:Is voting only going to be allowed for "domestic citizens" as well? Your underlying point is a good one: A GMI denominated and disbursed in USD will produce inflationary pressures upon non-USD currencies and advance American global economic interests, paid for by taxation upon the global poor. Smart idea. Smart, smart idea. I think that's something that I can sell pretty well: finding a way to tax the global poor while eliminating entitlement eligibility within America. Its a fuckn  program.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
crazypenguin posted:I'm not sure why this discussion of expats matters? Look how well that worked when Obama turned to Durbin's advice on what to do for healthcare: Rather Rahm's single-payer system, we got lovely-rear end Obamacare. If you go in on a program like GMI, you go big or you go home. You need the impact to be felt before the next primary election; you need to sell it to elites, you need to sell it to social darwinists, and you need to sell it to your base. Preferrably, within the same soundbite and within a series digested in under 15 seconds. So, you don't start small. You start small, you're a loving idiot who gets blamed for every single issue that isn't fixed in a person's life while yelled at for everything bad that happens in the economy. You go big, or you go home. You set it at the level of $10/hr net for 40hr/week with 52 weeks/yr and no time off. gently caress, Treasury could do this poo poo via executive order if there was ever sufficient political will. And you know what? I'd do it if ya'll motherfuckers elected me to the slot. Let the Supreme Court deal with the issue as folks get their checks bi-monthly and treasury is ordered to ignore the court until a ruling is made while the issue is stalled at every level of the process and disputed for standing with the friendliest folks you can find. That's 20,800 net income for every individual in America over 18 registered to vote, check in the mail, permanent adresses within America for no less than 1 year only, mailed via USPS, and can only be cashed through an appropriate account at an approved bank which is HQ'd within America. If they want it direct deposited, they can fill in a form at their post office and mail it to the appropriately designated box under Treasury. You go big or you go loving home. I'd expect for impeachment to begin as soon as the process starts so its a matter of time where the more checks that get sent out for the longer period of time, the more of an improvement you'll see within the US economy. gently caress yes I expect the scheme to be accused of vote buying and dirupting the process. The economic question I have is, will you see a reduction in deficit with this program, and will you see GDP growth and a rise in corporate and financial earnings, and if so, how much and in what timeframe under different scenarios of low, medium, and high utilization and target penetration, and whether these results will be seen before completion of impeachment proceedings. on the left posted:I'm in favor of mincome if it means that we get to adopt social darwinistic policies. Unsurprisingly, so are Republicans.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 03:17
|
|
|
EasternBronze posted:Well its an issue that directly effects some posters here so I guess we're going to try and discuss it, regardless of your insistence on tilting at those right-wing windmills. I'm sorry if speaking multiple languages and moving overseas for better healthcare triggers you or something. America: Love it or leave it. You left. Your concerns are only America's when Americans decide you symbolize Americs. So, your social security goes bye-bye. If you want to voice your deep concern on this issue, come and attend events at a VIP table and have private time with the candidate to discuss issues candidly and openly. Whats that, you're overseas? Well gently caress a duck, you're SOL. I do wonder how an appropriate message of "let expats get it, too; that way we shift the tax burden onto the global poor" will play out. Hell, thats the only reason ya'll get social security benefits right now. E: 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. If that was really an issue, why isn't it a concern to wire out 6 trillion to 5 people over 9 months?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 03:36
|
|
|
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? ...do you not follow American politics at all? You seem to not understand how being 'petty and spiteful' is the only think keeping the government open right now. archangelwar posted:For gently caress's sake, we can have a transition period where we phase out old policy in favor of new. We don't have to flip the switch overnight. Once again, concern troll. Depends how you implement GMI. Decision of the FedChair? Yeah, you kinda do need it right now without a transition period and for at least two years. \/\/ CONSTANZA!!!! 
My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 03:46 on Nov 4, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
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. What is the total annual cost of current entitlement programs, and what is the current value of outstanding debt and derivatives of that debt for Americans?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:It literally doesn't matter because the cost isn't an issue. We have more than enough wealth to provide a mincome for every resident of the US. Look, we both know that to be true. Until you can show me the numbers, you won't get business to know it true and the issue is DOA.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
Arri posted:Yes, I can definitely agree with this. Because it is extremely profitable to them personally. What other answer were you expecting? Every man has his price; some are higher than others.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Voters will be fine with it. The ultrawealthy are a very small portion of the population. The only bank accounts (and other assets) we need to tax are the ones that belong to the 1%. Such is the beauty of how bad our wealth inequality has become. To be more precise, we already intercept all data that goes to and from their banks. We know when they send money because all that poo poo is done digitally these days, and America created digital data management and collects everything binary transmitted between nations (and also potentially trinary, that's not my department to know) and especially any data going in and coming from known tax havens. So you're getting the global superrich moving from currency into assets as a way to dodge taxes. For the vast majority of individuals, this won't have an impact. For the sub-superrich expat, you're going to pay your goddam taxes, you're going to pay them when we want, and you should really quit loving around when it comes tax time. So yeah, MGI won't impact the superrich. If anything, it'd be the ultimate test of trickle-up economics.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 05:07
|
|
|
EasternBronze posted:Can't you see how its a little unjust to exclude working people from federal benefits that they are on the hook for tax-wise? That's the entire point of having centralized banking. gently caress your sense of justice; pay me. Justice is subjective; taxes are not. "Taxes are unjust" - Everyone, from loving forever. gently caress yes they will be unfair to you. They're also necessary if you want to have organized nation-states and avoid even higher taxes from entrenched nobility who give even less a poo poo about your survival. down with slavery posted:When? I don't think you grasp just how large the wealth held by the 1% is. Capital has higher rate of return than wages. Ergo, provision of minimum capital to all individuals as a supplement to any independent wages they earn will allow individuals to accrue capital with the rate of capital's return on investment. What about this economic concept is so loving hard for individuals to understand? What I'm asking for is a quantification of these facts so I can better sell the issue. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 05:14 on Nov 4, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
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. You're a loving idiot. Property, specifically, refers to land. For most of history, the world operated on Malthusian dynamics where property ownership guaranteed food surplus and allowed individuals to accumulate capital.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Because the GMI is intended to help out those least fortunate in society. Expats who have chosen to work overseas are not a part of that group, sorry. It's a minor concern and continuing to pretend like "working class expats" (which basically don't exist in the US, if you're contracted to work overseas, you're probably well above the poverty line). Specifically, a GMI is intended to induce domestic consumption subject to multiplier effects. Expats do not deal with American domestic multiplier effects in their consumption habits, and therefore are not worth consideration. If you want a GMI and have student loans to pay, you're free to work in America. Or not; accumulate your capital in America and do with it what you want, in a system with the highest return on GMI's investment. EasternBronze posted:That's great because I worked in China for a year in 2012 and I made under the poverty line and my networth was less than zero thanks to student loans. I'll collect my 15K now, thanks alot! gently caress you; work in America if you want a GMI. I don't give a poo poo how many whores you buy in China. I give a poo poo that the whores you buy in Nevada pay their taxes. You're free to work overseas. You're also free to disqualify yourself from GMI by doing so. The purpose of GMI is for you to go to rural washington speaking 4 languages and being able to create your own business from doing so. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 05:35 on Nov 4, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
EasternBronze posted:Are we allowed to buy products made in China with our GMI funds? As long as all the appropriate taxes are paid when you purchase the item in rural washington, sure! When you purchase it in china, you're not paying the taxes upon the supply chain, the tarrifs, the wages for employees handling the good, the innovations in delivery of that good, and so on. GMI has to be messaged in business language if you want it to be realistic and have a chance of implementation.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:What makes you think messaging it that way will do anything other than let you fall into a trap of discussions that don't need to be had. The numbers work out. The correct language to use is the moral language. There's no reason to change your message to please obtuse trolls like on the left and BronzeMoron Frankly, American politics is a business first with moral messaging second. GMI does not have 0% of implementation; it has an extremely low, non-zero chance. The more you message with business first, and morals second for your savvy idealogues, the higher that chance becomes. Look at the messaging on climate change. Moral imperative? Nothing. Business imperative? Serious discussions begin.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 05:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 17:12 |
|
|
EasternBronze posted:I was under the impression the big selling point was that like Social Security, its a federal entitlement that you have as a citizen. Christ, its like hearing the right-wing reaction to a serious proposal before that proposal is even made. I don't give a poo poo what you do with your money as long as you acquire it through the appropriate process. If you blow it all on ground tiger dick in Guangzhou, don't expect to get food stamps if you ever come back to America. That's the point of GMI: to make entitlements obsolete and lower overall outlays. The argument is whether GMI saves money versus current entitlement outlays. I haven't seen data either way and would really like to.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 05:58
|
|