Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8734 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-27-2017 10:18 PM
438 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 802,052 Year: 6,658/21,208 Month: 2,419/2,634 Week: 82/525 Day: 57/25 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
Author Topic:   The 50-50-50-50-50 tax and economic plan.
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11183
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 61 of 75 (746671)
01-09-2015 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by RAZD
01-08-2015 5:48 PM


Re: 50-50 for you and 50-50 for me (Chico Marx)
Do you want to opt out of society?

I meant could I opt out of this program?

Like, can I decline the free money and then not have to pay the taxes?

Consider the proposition that half of what you make is due to your individual effort and half of it is due to the socio-economic society you live in.

I don't accept that.

If I put in zero effort, I'd make less than half of what I make now.

Contributing half your earnings (via taxes) to build a happy, well educated and healthy society means that you get to live in a society with happy, well educated and healthy people.

That's just you assuming your conclusion that this program would work well.

Part of the pursuit of happiness is that you need a happy environment to live in yes?

I dunno.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by RAZD, posted 01-08-2015 5:48 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by RAZD, posted 01-09-2015 10:02 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 62 of 75 (746678)
01-09-2015 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by New Cat's Eye
01-09-2015 9:29 AM


Re: 50-50 for you and 50-50 for me (Chico Marx)
I meant could I opt out of this program?

Like, can I decline the free money and then not have to pay the taxes?

Can you feasibly opt out of all the benefits provided by taxes? Or are you going to cherry pick ...

I don't accept that.

If I put in zero effort, I'd make less than half of what I make now.

So you are quibbling about the proportion not the basic concept. Like the joke about billionaire ask woman "will you sleep with me for $1million?" the woman says yes and he says "will you sleep with me for $1?" and she says "no, what do you take me for, a prostitute?" and he says "we've already established that, we're just haggling over the price" ...

Curiously I don't think you fully take into consideration how much your salary is dependent on the society and economic structure that surrounds you, from the roads you travel every day to the businesses you interact with.

Can you earn that salary all on your own in total seclusion with no communication other than voice and no transportation other than walking? Really?

That's just you assuming your conclusion that this program would work well.

Actually it is me looking at other countries that provide more social assistance to all people and the happiness and education level of the people there compared to the US.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 61 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-09-2015 9:29 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-09-2015 10:21 AM RAZD has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11183
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 63 of 75 (746685)
01-09-2015 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by RAZD
01-09-2015 10:02 AM


Re: 50-50 for you and 50-50 for me (Chico Marx)
So this is a thinly veiled "No, you wouldn't be able to opt out.", right?

Can you feasibly opt out of all the benefits provided by taxes?

Of course not. But its a yes or no question, RAZD. Apparently one that you cannot answer.

How about this: Can I opt out of the free money for a reduction in my income tax?

Keep the $50 a day and just charge me, say, 10% on taxes or something?

Or is that just totally disallowed?

So you are quibbling about the proportion not the basic concept.

Yeah, its not 50/50. I'm thinking more like 5/95.

Curiously I don't think you fully take into consideration how much your salary is dependent on the society and economic structure that surrounds you, from the roads you travel every day to the businesses you interact with.

But I've helped pay for that stuff.

And all that stuff would still be there even if I put in zero effort and hadn't helped pay for it.

They don't magically grant me a salary by existing.

So I'm still required to put in most of the effort to get where I am.

Can you earn that salary all on your own in total seclusion with no communication other than voice and no transportation other than walking? Really?

Doesn't matter. Without my effort, I wouldn't be anywhere near where I am now.

The existence of the infrastructure allows me to put in the effort, it doesn't grant me the benefits of my effort.

Actually it is me looking at other countries that provide more social assistance to all people and the happiness and education level of the people there compared to the US.

And assuming it would work here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by RAZD, posted 01-09-2015 10:02 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by RAZD, posted 01-09-2015 11:06 AM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 65 by ringo, posted 01-09-2015 11:17 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 64 of 75 (746702)
01-09-2015 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by New Cat's Eye
01-09-2015 10:21 AM


Re: 50-50 for you and 50-50 for me (Chico Marx)
Of course not. But its a yes or no question, RAZD. Apparently one that you cannot answer.

How about this: Can I opt out of the free money for a reduction in my income tax?

Keep the $50 a day and just charge me, say, 10% on taxes or something?

Or is that just totally disallowed?

What you already get is your taxes reduced by $50.

Yeah, its not 50/50. I'm thinking more like 5/95.

Which is just your opinion.

But I've helped pay for that stuff.

And all that stuff would still be there even if I put in zero effort and hadn't helped pay for it.

They don't magically grant me a salary by existing.

So I'm still required to put in most of the effort to get where I am.

And that stuff needs maintenance , it doesn't just magically appear on its own, new structures and innovations that you benefit from don't just magically appear -- it is the work of other people, by society, that makes those things that directly benefit you, not just at work but at home and where-ever you go.

Doesn't matter. Without my effort, I wouldn't be anywhere near where I am now.

The existence of the infrastructure allows me to put in the effort, it doesn't grant me the benefits of my effort.

The work you do doesn't need you to get where it is, the society just needs a person, and you just happen to be a candidate ... without society that job would not exist.

So yes you owe society more than a measly 5% of your value. You claim that without your work society would still give you 5% ... but without society you would get 0%.

And assuming it would work here.

Why not? Does universal health care benefit Europeans more than it would here because they are Europeans? Would free education benefit Germans more because they are German?

Really?

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 63 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-09-2015 10:21 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-09-2015 12:00 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 12820
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 65 of 75 (746705)
01-09-2015 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by New Cat's Eye
01-09-2015 10:21 AM


Re: 50-50 for you and 50-50 for me (Chico Marx)
Cat's Eye writes:

How about this: Can I opt out of the free money for a reduction in my income tax?


You could always give the free money to charity.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-09-2015 10:21 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-09-2015 12:07 PM ringo has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11183
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 66 of 75 (746724)
01-09-2015 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by RAZD
01-09-2015 11:06 AM


Re: 50-50 for you and 50-50 for me (Chico Marx)
What you already get is your taxes reduced by $50.

So: "No, you cannot opt out in any way".

Got it.

Which is just your opinion.

I responded to your opinion with my opinion.

So yes you owe society more than a measly 5% of your value.

Which is just your opinion.

Why not?

I didn't say it wouldn't.

I was just pointing out that you are assuming that it would.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by RAZD, posted 01-09-2015 11:06 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Theodoric, posted 01-10-2015 2:10 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11183
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 67 of 75 (746728)
01-09-2015 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by ringo
01-09-2015 11:17 AM


Re: 50-50 for you and 50-50 for me (Chico Marx)
You could always give the free money to charity.

So could they.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by ringo, posted 01-09-2015 11:17 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by ringo, posted 01-09-2015 12:11 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 12820
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 68 of 75 (746731)
01-09-2015 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by New Cat's Eye
01-09-2015 12:07 PM


Re: 50-50 for you and 50-50 for me (Chico Marx)
Cat's Eye writes:

ringo writes:

You could always give the free money to charity.


So could they.

The government can't be picking and choosing charities to support.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-09-2015 12:07 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by xongsmith, posted 01-09-2015 1:29 PM ringo has responded

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 1761
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 69 of 75 (746747)
01-09-2015 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by ringo
01-09-2015 12:11 PM


Re: 50-50 for you and 50-50 for me (Chico Marx)
Ringo posits:

The government can't be picking and choosing charities to support.

They already do...the Military and it's subcontractors, the Big Oil's fatcats, Big Agra's, Big Pharma's...you name it. Plus the meagre social programs the GOP is trying to eliminate.


- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by ringo, posted 01-09-2015 12:11 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by ringo, posted 01-10-2015 10:38 AM xongsmith has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 12820
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 70 of 75 (746842)
01-10-2015 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by xongsmith
01-09-2015 1:29 PM


Re: 50-50 for you and 50-50 for me (Chico Marx)
xongsmith writes:

ringo writes:

The government can't be picking and choosing charities to support.


They already do...the Military and it's subcontractors, the Big Oil's fatcats, Big Agra's, Big Pharma's...you name it. Plus the meagre social programs the GOP is trying to eliminate.

Point taken - but my point is that if you didn't want your "handout" you could give it to the Catholic Church or the Salvation Army or the NRA or the IRA. The government can't make that choice.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by xongsmith, posted 01-09-2015 1:29 PM xongsmith has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5702
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 71 of 75 (746884)
01-10-2015 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by New Cat's Eye
01-09-2015 12:00 PM


Re: 50-50 for you and 50-50 for me (Chico Marx)
Libertarians are so funny. Don't need society, did it all on their own.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-09-2015 12:00 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 72 of 75 (801603)
03-08-2017 11:02 AM


The Evolutionary Argument for Basic Income
Adding this here to rekindle the thread:

quote:
Universal Basic Income Will Reduce Our Fear of Failure

In Brief

Universal Basic Income is a next step in the evolution of humanity. Thinking of economic and sociological ideas through the lens of Darwinian evolution adds an interesting perspective to discussions of the policy.

The New Evolution

Almost two centuries ago an idea was born with such explanatory power that it created shock waves across all of human society ...

The idea of which I speak is that through random mutation and natural selection, every living thing around us was created through millions and even billions of years of what is effectively trial and error, ...

... Discovering this process of evolution was one of the great accomplishments of our species. Its also possibly the most powerful reason to support another world-changing idea an unconditional basic income.

Let me explain.

Markets as Environments

Our economy is a complex adaptive system. Much like how nature works, markets work. No one central planner is deciding what natural resources to mine, what to make with them, how much to make, where to ship everything to, who to give it to, etc. These decisions are the result of a massively decentralized widely distributed system called the market, and its all made possible with a tool we call money being exchanged between those who want something (demand) and those who provide that something (supply).

Money is more than a decentralized tool of calculation, however. Its also like energy. It powers the entire process like the eating of food powers our own bodies and the sun powers plants. Without food, we starve, and without money, markets starve. ...

If youve ever played Monopoly this should be apparent. The game would not work if all players started the game with nothing. Some wouldnt even make it once around the board. Additionally, if no one received $200 for then passing Go, the game would end a lot sooner. Ultimately the game always grinds to a halt once everyone but one person is all out of money, which is inevitable. No money, no purchases, no market, no game. Game over.

Supply and Demand as Trial and Error

With sufficient money however, markets adapt and evolve based on trial and error. Someone thinks of something to create or do. If people like it, it does well. If people dont like it, it goes away. What does well is modified. If people like the modified version, it does well. If they dont, it goes away. If they like it enough, the original version goes away. Survival of the fittest we call it. This is the evolution of goods and services, which runs on supply and demand, which both in turn run on money and one other thing the willingness to take risks.

Risks as Genetic Mutation

Taking risks is equivalent to random genetic mutation in this biological analogy. A new product or service introduced into the market can result in success or failure. ... We traditionally like to think of these risk-takers as a special kind of person, but really theyre mostly just those who are economically secure enough to feel failure isnt scarier than the potential for success.

This isnt just anecdotal evidence either. Studies have shown that the very existence of food stamps just knowing they are there as an option in case of failure increases rates of entrepreneurship. A study of a reform to the French unemployment insurance system that allowed workers to remain eligible for benefits if they started a business found that the reform resulted in more entrepreneurs starting their own businesses. In Canada, a reform was made to their maternity leave policy, where new mothers were guaranteed a job after a year of leave. A study of the results of this policy change showed a 35% increase in entrepreneurship due to women basically asking themselves, What have I got to lose? If I fail, Im guaranteed my paycheck back anyway. Meanwhile, entrepreneurship is currently on a downward trend. Businesses that were less than five years old used to comprise half of all businesses three decades ago.

Meanwhile, entrepreneurship is currently on a downward trend. Businesses that were less than five years old used to comprise half of all businesses three decades ago. Now they comprise about one-third. Businesses are also closing their doors faster than new businesses are opening them. Until recently, this had never previously been true here in the US for as long as such data had been recorded. Startup rates are falling. Why? Risk aversion due to rising insecurity.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Markets as Democracies

Markets work best when everyone can vote with their dollars, and have enough dollars to vote for products and services. The iPhone exists today not simply because Steve Jobs had the resources to make it into reality. The iPhone exists to this day because millions of people have voted on it with their dollars. Had they not had those dollars, we would not have the iPhone, or really anything else for that matter. Voting matters. Dollars matter.

Evolution teaches us that failure is important in order to reveal what doesnt fail through the unfathomably powerful process of trial and error. We should apply this to the way we self-organize our societies and leverage the potential for universal basic income to dramatically reduce the fear of failure, and in so doing, increase the amount of risks taken to accelerate innovation to new heights.

Failure is not an option. Failure is the goal. And fear of failure is the enemy.

Its time we evolve.


What I said at the end of Message 1 was: "With no minimum wage and simplified forms this truly benefits small businesses and promotes job growth, and it allows people to add to their minimum wage by working at will without losing benefits."

Different argument, same conclusion. Putting my argument in an evolutionary paradigm, feeding and protecting the weakest and the hungriest allows them to contribute to the social group, and this improves the amount of survival for the species. This is why social species evolve.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Phat, posted 03-10-2017 12:21 PM RAZD has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9260
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 73 of 75 (801926)
03-10-2017 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by RAZD
03-08-2017 11:02 AM


Re: The Evolutionary Argument for Basic Income
I dont quite understand your basic model, but I am all for it as long as it benefits the declinuing middle class. (In America...not globally)

I fear being poorer and part of a global equality.

Perhaps it is why I fear socialism.

I also fear unfettered capitalism, however.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
"as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by RAZD, posted 03-08-2017 11:02 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Modulous, posted 03-10-2017 2:25 PM Phat has not yet responded
 Message 75 by RAZD, posted 03-10-2017 3:49 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7388
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


(4)
Message 74 of 75 (801935)
03-10-2017 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Phat
03-10-2017 12:21 PM


Re: The Evolutionary Argument for Basic Income
I dont quite understand your basic model, but I am all for it as long as it benefits the declinuing middle class. (In America...not globally)

Benefits to the globe mean more people outside of America will be able to spend money on American products, further enriching America.

Perhaps it is why I fear socialism.

Socialism suggests that the workers should get a bigger slice of the pie - that is they are rewarded more equitably for the value their labour adds to the the product. This is surely how one goes about benefiting the declining middle class?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Phat, posted 03-10-2017 12:21 PM Phat has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 75 of 75 (801967)
03-10-2017 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Phat
03-10-2017 12:21 PM


Re: The Evolutionary Argument for Basic Income
I dont quite understand your basic model, but I am all for it as long as it benefits the declinuing middle class. (In America...not globally)

Personally I think the argument based on evolution as a model of economics is weak and smacks of Social Darwinism.

There is a strong argument based on economics alone that suggests a basic living minimum wage will improve the overall economy and people's lives along the way.

What it comes down to is transactions -- the 'health' of the economy is based on the number of transactions, where transactions are like the heartbeat of the economy. More transactions means better economy, one that grows and expands.

If you transformed all the transactions in one year to a single day event between two people, the economy would cease as soon as that was completed.

When you look at the economic spectrum and posit giving a person $10, the rapidity that the $10 is spent would be roughly inversely proportional to how rich they were.

But it's not just the person getting the $10 that benefits, because what it is spent on puts that money in someone else's pocket, and the process repeats.

It only ends when someone takes it out of circulation by putting it in savings (and even then part of it gets back into the economy via loans).

Also see "Money as Debt" (50 minutes), a history of banks and banking

The bit at the end about interest is interesting.

Perhaps it is why I fear socialism.

I also fear unfettered capitalism, however.

Unfettered capitalism and unfettered socialism are self defeating as they both tend towards extremes.

But mixing them creates a synergy where one benefits the other and the result is more than the sum of the parts. You end up with a vibrant diversified economy with many entrepreneurs creating businesses and jobs and many people able and willing to buy their products to enhance their lives.

Even in the US now we have a substantial mix of socialist programs and degrees of unregulated commerce.

These still hold true today, if not more so. Things on the right are social programs to either benefit people directly or to regulate against extreme capitalist predation.

Now if we DO want to indulge in a biological paradigm, it seems more appropriate to me to use an ecology model than a "mutation and survival" evolution model.

For instance a (seminal) paper: Hairston, Nelson G., Frederick E. Smith, and Lawrence B. Slobodkin. "Community Structure, Population Control, and Competition." The American Naturalist 94, no. 879 (1960): 421-25. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2458808. (known as the "Why is the world green" paper):

quote:
Abstract

In summary, then, our general conclusions are: (1) Populations of producers, carnivores, and decomposers are limited by their respective resources in the classical density-dependent fashion. (2) Interspecific competition must necessarily exist among the members of each of these three trophic levels. (3) Herbivores are seldom food-limited, appear most often to be predator-limited, and therefore are not likely to compete for common resources.


Species can come and go but the basic ecological structure remains. Population booms and busts occur but the long term trend is towards equilibriums.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 73 by Phat, posted 03-10-2017 12:21 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
Prev1234
5
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017