(May 14, 2014 at 8:48 pm)FlyingNarwhal Wrote: How do we pay for this? I just did a rough calculation of 25,000 (dollars paid per individual) by 300 million (rounded down total population of U.S.) and came up with $7,500,000,000,000 per year. I like the idea, just would like to know how this doesn't put us further in debt.

Show your work.

Not the calculation, but the basis for your assumptions.

But in the mean time me and every working person has to pay for his lazy ass.

(May 14, 2014 at 9:29 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote:

(May 14, 2014 at 8:36 pm)Heywood Wrote: I am a fan of either option provided the government stays out of the market thereafter(e.g. no minimum wage, etc).

Underpaying employers are far from the only problem we all pay for thanks to under-regulated business practices, so this isn't an even trade.

These systems would give people options to simply quit a job if they feel they are being screwed in a labor exchange. People wouldn't have to worry about where there next meal would come from if the quit because they would always be guaranteed a minimum income.

These systems empower workers without interfering in the market. Current systems of minimum wage and such help some but hurt others.

(May 14, 2014 at 9:02 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(May 14, 2014 at 8:48 pm)FlyingNarwhal Wrote: How do we pay for this? I just did a rough calculation of 25,000 (dollars paid per individual) by 300 million (rounded down total population of U.S.) and came up with $7,500,000,000,000 per year. I like the idea, just would like to know how this doesn't put us further in debt.

$25,000 is the exemption. A universal basic income would be about half....so now we are talking about 3.25 trillion a year which is close to what we spend now. Because there is no minimum wage, business profits would be higher which translates into even more income for the government to re-distribute. Taxes might still have to be raised, but such a system is not untenable.

---

(May 14, 2014 at 8:58 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Ignoring for the moment that neither alternative is as politically easy to accomplish as a living wage bill (which itself ain't easy).

1. Let's see a realistic example. A 50% tax over 25k is ludicrous, and changing either number would substantially alter how palatable such an scheme would be - as would making the rate progressive. As it stands, it looks very ad hoc. Would you do away with deductions and exemptions? How is unearned income treated? Business income? How are capital gains treated? What consequences do you anticipate?


2. Where's the money coming from? Is the tax code otherwise the same as it is today or something else? Really, the same questions in 1) apply here too.

Tax code should very much be simplified with only individual exemptions remaining. Instead of taxing corporate earnings and then taxing dividends. Just tax dividends at the individual rate. Corporate tax rate would be 0 on all profits except those retained by the corporation.

Tax rate would be progressive, I used a flat tax for simplicity. But if you earned $25,000 your effective tax rate would be 0. You have to earn at least $50,000 before your effective tax rate is 50%. You could implement it, so that once you earn above $25,000 the positive tax rate is progressive which taps out at a maximum of 50%. I wouldn't do brackets either. Tax rates should be progressive based on a function and not arbitrary brackets.

So let's see a realistic example, as I asked for.

Such a wholesale change to tax code is going to incentivize a whole new set of behaviors and disincentivize a great many things that our current tax code incentivizes. Whether we agree on whether those incentives are positive or not, they nonetheless are what they are. Have you considered what impact your scheme ia going to have on the incomes of working families?

(May 14, 2014 at 9:47 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: But in the mean time me and every working person has to pay for his lazy ass.

You're doing that now anyways....but you are also paying legions of government bureaucrats to administer a rag bag government programs to make sure pot smoking John doesn't starve(food stamps), or freeze(housing/heating assistance) to death, and that he can get a hold of his dealer 24-7(Obama phones).

Huge swaths of government, and the potential for abuse and corruption such swaths bring....can be eliminated.

---

(May 14, 2014 at 9:53 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: So let's see a realistic example, as I asked for.

Such a wholesale change to tax code is going to incentivize a whole new set of behaviors and disincentivize a great many things that our current tax code incentivizes. Whether we agree on whether those incentives are positive or not, they nonetheless are what they are. Have you considered what impact your scheme ia going to have on the incomes of working families?

Under the examples of negative income tax I gave, a Husband and wife would have a minimum of $25,000 year income if neither earned any income (each gets $12500)....which is enough for a couple to comfortably live off in most of the country. They would not incur any positive tax liability until their combined income exceeded $50,000(remember each gets a $25,000 exemption). If their combine income reached $75000 their net after taxes would be $62500. The would be paying an effective tax rate of about 17%. Add a kid who gets his own exemption and their tax rate decreases even more.

To give you more specific examples requires me to write a tax code...which I am not prepared to do. I am simply trying to argue that wealth redistribution is better than the government monkeying with labor markets(where some will end up as winners and others as losers).

Starving and freezing... or looting...

I choose looting, every time. Repossession is three fifths of the law.

(May 14, 2014 at 9:41 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(May 14, 2014 at 9:27 pm)KUSA Wrote: Case 7: John is a lazy motherfucker and doesn't work. He earned 0 dollars in wages. John would get 50% of his exemption or $12,500 paid to him by the government. $12,500 is John's total income for the year. John smokes dope all night and sleeps all day and contributes nothing to society. John is happy and content and thinks anyone that works is a dumb ass.

20 years ago, I used to think that any who got government money should be put on a bus, shipped out to an onion field, and be forced pick onions to earn their government money.

I no longer see that as the case. The reason I no longer see that as the case is because I don't see the need for everyone to work anymore.

We have so much production capacity.....and that production capacity continues to increase at such a rate, that every year less and less human labor needs to be done to support humanity. It is not implausible that a time will come when no one has to work. Machine labor will be capable of supporting everyone.

So yes...under this system John would be able to sit at home and smoke pot all day....but he is going to have a Spartan existence compared to people who want better and are willing work for better while there is still a need for human labor. Chances are, that even John will pick up odd jobs that pay next to nothing(cause he is a lazy pot smoker who won't command a high wage) to earn a little bread to replace the bong he broke.

I think you would find a lot of lazy fucks that would choose this spartan lifestyle. They would also sell dope on the side and drive a better car than I drive. The whole time my money is being stolen from me to fund this. Fuck that shit. We aren't living in star trek times far from it actually. Your idea is awful.

I say do away with any form of income tax for everyone. Go to a sales based tax system.

The universal basic income is an interesting concept - especially as we are developing a society which simply cannot create enough jobs for every one who wants one.

But. It remains a pipe dream and a flawed pipe dream at that for a lot of reasons...not the least of which is the economics of it.

Worse, in California the poverty level for a family of 4 is nearly $45,000 in 2012 dollars while in Mississippi the level is $23,000. Even within states there are always going to be the poverty pockets and the gated communities. In the current political climate I doubt the idea will ever get a fair hearing.

(May 14, 2014 at 10:59 pm)KUSA Wrote: I think you would find a lot of lazy fucks that would choose this spartan lifestyle. They would also sell dope on the side and drive a better car than I drive. The whole time my money is being stolen from me to fund this. Fuck that shit. We aren't living in star trek times far from it actually. Your idea is awful.

You would be getting the same guaranteed income all these 'lazy stoners' would get, so you would lose nothing.

Heywood Wrote:These systems would give people options to simply quit a job if they feel they are being screwed in a labor exchange. People wouldn't have to worry about where there next meal would come from if the quit because they would always be guaranteed a minimum income.

These systems empower workers without interfering in the market. Current systems of minimum wage and such help some but hurt others.

I'm talking about the other things employers do to screw people over for their own advantage, such as ruining the environment, damaging the economy, and subverting the democratic process. Making it so that they can be less exploitative of their workers is just one role of regulation.

(May 14, 2014 at 10:59 pm)KUSA Wrote: I think you would find a lot of lazy fucks that would choose this spartan lifestyle. They would also sell dope on the side and drive a better car than I drive. The whole time my money is being stolen from me to fund this. Fuck that shit. We aren't living in star trek times far from it actually. Your idea is awful.

I say do away with any form of income tax for everyone. Go to a sales based tax system.

1) A good drug dealer probably already drives a better car then you.

2)Tax evasion happens now and is an artifact of any income tax based system. You think waitress don't under report their tip income?

3)The number of people who opt out of work would depend on how comfortable that spartan life style is. How comfortable the "free" lifestyle is would depend on the production capacity of society.

This is the type of system needed to transition into "Star Trek" times and is certainly better than the one we got. We pay legions of bureaucrats telling those too lazy to work or those who cannot work how to spend wealth we take from you and give to them. People use food stamps to buy Red Bull energy drinks because the government forbids them from spending that wealth on diapers(or something else they need). This type of system preserves individual freedom while we transition into "Star Trek" times.

---

(May 14, 2014 at 11:01 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The universal basic income is an interesting concept - especially as we are developing a society which simply cannot create enough jobs for every one who wants one.

Jobs do not make people lives better. Goods and services make people's lives better. If we want to make jobs, give the unemployed spoons and have them dig a canal. If you want to irrigate farmland to produce food to feed the hungry employ a steam shovel.

Get rid of welfare, get rid of social security, get rid of housing assistance, get rid of unemployment compensation, get rid of heating assistance, get rid of college tuition assistance, get rid of food stamps, get rid of telephone assistance, and the whole host of other programs. Make so nobody's labor is ever priced out of the market. Make it so nobody has to worry about catastrophe if they quit a job they don't like. This is much better than the bonds of a "living wage" system.

---

Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: I'm talking about the other things employers do to screw people over for their own advantage, such as ruining the environment, damaging the economy, and subverting the democratic process. Making it so that they can be less exploitative of their workers is just one role of regulation.

These are called negative externalities and there are ways to eliminate or minimize them.