Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8789 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-21-2017 8:47 PM
354 online now:
Aussie, Coyote, DrJones*, edge, JonF (5 members, 349 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Post Volume:
Total: 819,254 Year: 23,860/21,208 Month: 1,825/2,468 Week: 334/822 Day: 60/67 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
345Next
Author Topic:   The 50-50-50-50-50 tax and economic plan.
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3506
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


(1)
Message 16 of 75 (660236)
04-22-2012 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by RAZD
04-22-2012 2:13 PM


Re: No numbers anywhere
So.... still no numbers?

Come on, RAZD, you're the one making the proposal, show us something? Why so shy?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by RAZD, posted 04-22-2012 2:13 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Rahvin, posted 04-22-2012 3:12 PM Dr Jack has responded
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 04-22-2012 5:32 PM Dr Jack has responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 717 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 17 of 75 (660238)
04-22-2012 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Dr Jack
04-22-2012 2:31 PM


Re: No numbers anywhere
So.... still no numbers?

Come on, RAZD, you're the one making the proposal, show us something? Why so shy?

Is it possible for a forum member to calculate anything remotely approaching an accurate projection for a tax/social welfare plan this far-reaching?

I don;t think RAZD is going to be able to give us anything beyond the most basic numbers simply due to the limits f practicality.

Perhaps we could discuss whether such a plan would be a good idea under the assumption that the budget would be balanced? I could imagine significant debate over the specific amounts being used, the fact that some are static numbers not tied to inflation and so will not provide the same benefit in 10 years that they would provide today, the mandatory retirement age, etc.

I'd rather see some discussion on those lines rather than continually insisting on numbers that would require a Congressional committee and 6 months of research to calculate.


The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers

A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. Albert Camus

"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Dr Jack, posted 04-22-2012 2:31 PM Dr Jack has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Dr Jack, posted 04-22-2012 3:25 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3506
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


(1)
Message 18 of 75 (660239)
04-22-2012 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Rahvin
04-22-2012 3:12 PM


Re: No numbers anywhere
Working out basic numbers shouldn't be that hard, I'm not looking for a detailed budget plan.

I'd rather see some discussion on those lines rather than continually insisting on numbers that would require a Congressional committee and 6 months of research to calculate.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Rahvin, posted 04-22-2012 3:12 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 04-22-2012 5:44 PM Dr Jack has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18965
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 19 of 75 (660246)
04-22-2012 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Dr Jack
04-22-2012 2:31 PM


Numbers in the report
Hi Mr Jack,

So.... still no numbers?

So ... still no evidence that feeding the bottom economic level doesn't work?

Message 11: ... Citizen income (aka negative income tax systems) just don't stand up in the cold light of day.

Is this or is this not just your assertion of your personal opinion.

Come on, RAZD, you're the one making the proposal, show us something? Why so shy

There are numbers in the linked report on the Canadian town for what actually worked there: why so shy about reading it to see what they are and then make an informed reply?

Message 18: Working out basic numbers shouldn't be that hard, I'm not looking for a detailed budget plan.

Read the report and then we can talk. The full report is a pdf, so it is difficult to copy.

I've provided enough information to show that these programs work, you have just voiced your opinions and one-liner snippets. Read the report and get back to me on where you think it would break down.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : split post

Edited by RAZD, : pdf


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Dr Jack, posted 04-22-2012 2:31 PM Dr Jack has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Dr Jack, posted 04-23-2012 3:54 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18965
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 20 of 75 (660248)
04-22-2012 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Dr Jack
04-22-2012 3:25 PM


early retirement helps reduce underemployment
Hi again Mr Jack

Also, mandatory retirement at 50 is bonkers, anti-libertarian and cruel.

LOL. Being told to get out and enjoy yourself is cruel?

When I was growing up in the 50's and 60's there was a lot of talk about how people would cope with the increased leisure time that improved production would generate. One way proposed was early retirement expanding the "golden years" ... and there are other places in the world that have lower retirement ages than the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retirement

quote:
The "standard" retirement age varies from country to country but it is generally between 50 and 70 (according to latest statistics, 2011). ...

There are also lots of advice websites on how to retire at 50 ... so how is that bonkers?

quote:
Message 1: 5. mandatory retirement at 50.
Something for everyone to hate ...

One way to initiate a debate is to take an extreme position ...

One way to mock a particular argument is to take it to an extreme position ...

[qs]

Also, mandatory retirement at 50 is ... anti-libertarian ....

So? To me this is just more evidence that libertarian policies are bonkers ... .

Remember that we have more job seekers than we have jobs, thus getting people to retire earlier is one way to allow everyone in the work force to benefit.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : T


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Dr Jack, posted 04-22-2012 3:25 PM Dr Jack has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Buzsaw, posted 04-22-2012 6:52 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 22 by crashfrog, posted 04-22-2012 9:06 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 36 by Dr Jack, posted 04-23-2012 5:10 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 21 of 75 (660252)
04-22-2012 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by RAZD
04-22-2012 5:44 PM


Re: early retirement helps reduce underemployment
RAZD writes:

There are also lots of advice websites on how to retire at 50 ... so how is that bonkers?

There's a huge difference in how to do and you will do, by madatory law. Some of us value our Constitutional rights, i.e. our freedom to do or not to do.

The most valuable, productive and well experienced and capable employees of employers is the middle aged ones. Certainly they will detest the notion that their freedome to hire will be taken from them by some oppressive law. It will be expensive to replaced valuable employees with unexperienced ones needing to be trained, etc.

RAZD, I would fear you ever as much as I fear the possibility of the re-election of our present despot.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Someone wisely said something ;ike, "Before fooling with a fool, make sure the fool is a fool." :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 04-22-2012 5:44 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by RAZD, posted 04-22-2012 10:00 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 75 (660255)
04-22-2012 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by RAZD
04-22-2012 5:44 PM


Re: early retirement helps reduce underemployment
LOL. Being told to get out and enjoy yourself is cruel?

Yeah, RAZD. It's actually cruel to lock people out of gainful, meaningful employment. It's actually cruel to prevent employers from taking advantage of experience.

Suppose that you're a 49-year-old working as a manager in a system of shelters for battered women. Over the years you've gained profound meaning in your life as you've sheltered the most vulnerable and shared their pain. Here's your birthday present - you have to quit and play shuffleboard or something, because the law says you can't work after 50.

Of course it's cruel.

Remember that we have more job seekers than we have jobs, thus getting people to retire earlier is one way to allow everyone in the work force to benefit.

Forcing experienced people into undesired permanent unemployment isn't the way to grow the economy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 04-22-2012 5:44 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 04-22-2012 9:50 PM crashfrog has responded

  
Shield
Member (Idle past 392 days)
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-29-2008


Message 23 of 75 (660256)
04-22-2012 9:18 PM



NINE NINE NINE
Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by RAZD, posted 04-22-2012 10:13 PM Shield has acknowledged this reply

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18965
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 24 of 75 (660257)
04-22-2012 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by crashfrog
04-22-2012 9:06 PM


what's the problem?
Hi crashfrog,

Forcing experienced people into undesired permanent unemployment isn't the way to grow the economy.

But this is your opinion that it is undesired and your use of "poison the well" words (permanent unemployment => no income => bad connotations, cue the fox news demonizing squad ...).

When the point is that it is possible to do other things you have wanted to do but put off because you were working.

Yeah, RAZD. It's actually cruel to lock people out of gainful, ...

Except you still have $50/day/person income -- income that is in excess of poverty level pay, income that is more than many people get from pensions or social security when they retire at 67 (or will it be over 70 for your age group, cruelly making you work more years than your parents) and considerably more than minimum wage from part time work driving a bus ...

Are you saying that it is not possible to live comfortably on $50/day?

Or that you only get joy\happiness from work? How protestant.

Suppose that you're a 49-year-old working as a manager ...

That has failed to have any backup trained and educated because they are a lousy at delegation of tasks and can't plan more than a week ahead? Perhaps you need to be replaced but have too high an opinion of yourself to see it?

Paint, write books, travel, take care of grandkids, volunteer to the peace corps, mentor at schools, walk from one side of the country to the other, or any number of thousands of other things. There are more rewarding things to do than just working for pay week after week. Do it before you are too beat up by age and disease to be able to do it.

We can afford to lighten up the work load because there are more job seekers than jobs, we can afford to share the wealth of production improvements and an economy stimulated by increased spending.

Heck you could also have mandatory 50 days of holidays\vacation per year for workers ...

http://www.nationmaster.com/...around-world-legally-required

quote:
France 5 weeks + 2 weeks of RTT (Reduction du Temps de Travail, in English : Reduction of Working Time) = 7 weeks. The most significant vacation time of any country in the world

That's 49 days in France, and the RTT is because there are more job seekers than jobs ...

Finland has 35, several countries have 30+ days.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : clrty

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by crashfrog, posted 04-22-2012 9:06 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by crashfrog, posted 04-23-2012 8:39 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18965
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 25 of 75 (660258)
04-22-2012 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Buzsaw
04-22-2012 6:52 PM


heavens ... Buzsaw and crashfrog agreeing???
Hi Buzsaw,

Heaven forfend, Buz, that you need to be nudged to set aside worldly affairs and have to take up a spiritual cause ... your personal "trip to mecca" if you will ...

Curiously it seems I have united Buzsaw and crashfrog ... a rather remarkable accomplishment eh?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Buzsaw, posted 04-22-2012 6:52 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18965
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 26 of 75 (660259)
04-22-2012 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Shield
04-22-2012 9:18 PM


nine nine nonsense
Hi rbp

NINE NINE NINE

Exactly, just what is being mocked and parodied and taken to an extreme position that should make the skin crawl of all fixed tax proponentists.

You want a flat tax ...? try this one for size eh?

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Shield, posted 04-22-2012 9:18 PM Shield has acknowledged this reply

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5988
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 27 of 75 (660260)
04-22-2012 10:57 PM


Funding
I'm curious; is there enough money to do this?

How do the figures come out?

This reminds me of a plan Heinlein mentioned in the late 1930s, which he detailed in his first novel--published just a few years ago. The title of that was For Us, The Living.

He had a solution for the money problem: the government just prints it. The idea behind that is most money is just bookkeeping anyway.

Have you any ideas on this?


Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by RAZD, posted 04-23-2012 3:49 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18965
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 28 of 75 (660262)
04-23-2012 3:49 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Coyote
04-22-2012 10:57 PM


Re: Funding
Hi Coyote,

I'm curious; is there enough money to do this?

Is there enough money to pay ceo's million dollar salaries and bonuses? Yes. Would that money be subject to the flat tax? Yes Is this a "lot more" money than is currently paid in taxes by these people? Yes.

How do the figures come out?

Hard to find usable data, without mixing apples and oranges, but let's take a wild swing at it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

US federal spending is currently on the order of 3.6 Trillion $US for 2011, with 0.7 Trillion $US for Social Security

http://en.wikipedia.org/...2012_United_States_federal_budget

quote:
The enacted budget contained $2.469 trillion in receipts and $3.796 trillion in outlays, for a deficit of $1.327 trillion.[40]

3.8 Trillion $US for 2012

Less 0.7 Trillion $US est for 2012 Social Security cost (replaced) = 3.1 Trillion $US needed to pay for current allocations.

The Gross Domestic Product was:

http://en.wikipedia.org/...of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29

quote:
List by the International Monetary Fund (2011)[2]
GDP Millions $US
1. United States 15,094,025

15 Trillion $US in the GDB subject to tax

50% = 7.5 Trillion $US

Less current 3.1 Trillion $US allocated outlays = 4.4 Trillion $US

http://geography.about.com/...ulationdata/a/uspopulation.htm

quote:
Updated July 21, 2011
The current U.S.A. population is over 311 million people

311 million x 365 x 50 = 5,675,750 million or 5.7 Trillion $US

Cutting this back to 4.4 Trillion would mean

4,400,000 / 311 / 365 = ~$39 per hour instead of $50 or $14,235 per year

Still more than poverty level wages, and about double the amount in the Canadian study.

Certainly in terms of first order of magnitude approximations it works.

A 10% increase in GDP from the stimulation of the economy would add 1.5 Trillion $US of which 0.7 Trillion would be added to the 4.4 Trillion $US bringing it closer:

5,100,000 / 311 / 365 = ~$45 per hour instead of $50 or $16,425 per year.

Another 10% increase in GDP in the following year and you are there with gravy.

This does not include the cost savings from combining IRS, welfare, social security, unemployment etc administrations all into one simplified easy to manage program.

This does not include state income tax revenues and other elements.

Could we start with $30/day/person ($10,950/year) and have a surplus? This is closer to the amount in the Canadian study.

Could we cut other government programs (military budget)?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : math fix


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Coyote, posted 04-22-2012 10:57 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Dr Jack, posted 04-23-2012 5:00 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3506
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 29 of 75 (660263)
04-23-2012 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by RAZD
04-22-2012 5:32 PM


Re: Numbers in the report
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 04-22-2012 5:32 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 04-23-2012 4:03 AM Dr Jack has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18965
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 30 of 75 (660264)
04-23-2012 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Dr Jack
04-23-2012 3:54 AM


Re: Numbers in the report
Hi Mr Jack,

I can see no numbers indicating the system provided a balanced budget in the report. Perhaps you can point them out?

IIRC they ran into budget issues when the government changed and that's why the program was canceled and boxed up before any evaluations were done.

... your numbers would be different anyway.

Yeah, that's just a first blush look and doesn't incorporate all the proposals. At least it's not out of the ballpark.

The Canadians reduced the benefit by 50% of any earnings and a system like that (25%?) would reduce the expenditure but it would be very difficult to figure out how much.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : ..


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Dr Jack, posted 04-23-2012 3:54 AM Dr Jack has acknowledged this reply

  
Prev1
2
345Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017