The 50-50-50-50-50 tax and economic plan.

Let's see some numbers then? I strongly suspect that, in fact, the system you're suggesting just plain won't work. Citizen income (aka negative income tax systems) just don't stand up in the cold light of day.

Numbers, RAZD. Show us some numbers indicating that your apparently arbitrary set of 50s adds up to coherent budget.

So.... still no numbers?Come on, RAZD, you're the one making the proposal, show us something? Why so shy?

Working out basic numbers shouldn't be that hard, I'm not looking for a detailed budget plan. I'd like the moon on a stick; but since I can't get it I see little point discussing the political impacts of my stick-moon antics. Would a citizens income be a grand idea if it was practical? Aye, I think it would. Do I think it would be practical, at all, no I don't.Also, mandatory retirement at 50 is bonkers, anti-libertarian and cruel.

I can see no numbers indicating the system provided a balanced budget in the report. Perhaps you can point them out?I'd note as well that since you've presented your own set of parameters, your numbers would be different anyway.

Yay, numbers! Your proposal calls only for 50% income tax, GDP is not equal to the total of everyone's income. You will need additional tax codes to achieve a tax take of 50% of GDP.Worse, you've exempted the first $50k everyone earns; that will have a significant effect in reducing the total tax you're taking. The Canadian study was earlier in time, wasn't it? Are you accounting for inflation.

Hi RAZD Yes, it is. There's a barrel of psychological research that shows that performing useful work is vital to well-being. People have a deep seated need to be useful. Pissing about is all very well, but it gets old fast; especially if you're low on funds - which people certainly will with only a few years to save for retirement and relying on your citizens income for all their needs.Moreover, 50 is damn young. 50-year olds are not in their dotage; without the over 50s, science has just lost all its professors, for example. And heaven help you if you've ever thought to change careers; there's just no time. I'll be just shy of 40 when I finish my PhD, forced retirement at 50 would mean just ten years in which to actually work in science. Forcing people out at 50 means taking a whole load of people at the peak of their careers and telling them, no, you can't carry on doing what you love, what gives you meaning in life and what you want to do. There are doubtless many people who would be happy to retire at 50; that doesn't mean that forcing the rest to do so is okay. Heh I meant libertarian in the old fashioned sense of freedom; not the howling crazies of the American right. Sure, but it also places the burden of paying for everyone who has been forced out of work onto the young. Indeed.

Writing computer games.