Yeah, I know I have a list of things I'd spend money on if I had more of it. Mostly home and vehicle repair. That's why I'd be all for taxing people more if they have more money, and not taxing people at all if they make below a certain amount.

(October 23, 2014 at 12:41 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Pissing money down ratholes doesn't 'help' anybody. That money could be spent wisely but usn't.

The problem with fiscal "conservatives" is that they are only 'conservative' about money which goes to help poor people.

When it comes to the military-industrial complex the sky is the limit.

That's a broad brush you have there. I am fiscally conservative and I oppose the huge war machine.

(October 23, 2014 at 2:54 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Rich people currently have a lot of tax breaks, but all they do is let the money build up in their accounts. Give tax breaks to the poor and the more money they have the more they will spend, they do not have any spare money so what comes in goes out.
So for a healthy economy give the poor more money, they will help circulate it. Rich people are like log jams on the economy just building it up where it does no good.

So what if people have more money to spend? If the amount of stuff they can spend it on doesn't change, all it means is the stuff that does exist will just cost more. If a hundred dollars bill magically appeared in everyone's pocket....there would be no net improvement in the standard of living. If an IPAD magically appeared in everyone's pocket, there would be an increase in the standard of living.

Also, Rich peoples money circulates just like everyone else. Rich people don't behave like Scrooge McDuck and keep their money in a huge vault only to swim in it.

---

(October 23, 2014 at 3:08 pm)Chad32 Wrote: Yeah, I know I have a list of things I'd spend money on if I had more of it. Mostly home and vehicle repair. That's why I'd be all for taxing people more if they have more money, and not taxing people at all if they make below a certain amount.

I'd like to get rid of disability, social security, unemployment, welfare, food stamps, etc and replace it with a universal basic income. Take all the government bureaucrats administering those programs and put them to work making stuff.

We'd be much better off.

Is the amount of universal basic income higher or lower than the minimum wage ??

And with no payment of taxes, what incentive is there for those people to vote for candidates that can implement a sustainable system, instead of pols who will instead 'break the bank' for votes ??

These folks long term best interests lie in being satiated at a level the rest of the people paying for it can sustain.

Perhaps a 'more workable' solution is to just arbitrarily draw a line at 3%, or 4.02% (or whatever) of the population and the folks below the line are 'poor' and the people above it are not. Curiously, the folks in the government tracking the poverty rate will be out of jobs because the poverty rate will simply be defined as a constant %, regardless of what the number might be under the current system. But so it goes.

Also, a similar idea can 'fix' social security. Arbitrarily decide how many workers there will be per retiree in perpetuity, and work out the retirement age from that.

So, for example, if we decide there will be 10 workers per retiree, then the 'average' worker will work 10 days for each day of social security they get, on average. Actuaries can figure out the retirement age annually and project them into the future.

If life spans continue to increase, the retirement age will automatically will automatically increment, if conditions deteriorate, and people start dying off, the retirement age can move the other way.



There, we've just 'solved' poverty and fixed social security.

Anything else we need to look at ??

(October 23, 2014 at 10:24 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: Is the amount of universal basic income higher or lower than the minimum wage ??

And with no payment of taxes, what incentive is there for those people to vote for candidates that can implement a sustainable system, instead of pols who will instead 'break the bank' for votes ??

These folks long term best interests lie in being satiated at a level the rest of the people paying for it can sustain.

Perhaps a 'more workable' solution is to just arbitrarily draw a line at 3%, or 4.02% (or whatever) of the population and the folks below the line are 'poor' and the people above it are not. Curiously, the folks in the government tracking the poverty rate will be out of jobs because the poverty rate will simply be defined as a constant %, regardless of what the number might be under the current system. But so it goes.

Also, a similar idea can 'fix' social security. Arbitrarily decide how many workers there will be per retiree in perpetuity, and work out the retirement age from that.

So, for example, if we decide there will be 10 workers per retiree, then the 'average' worker will work 10 days for each day of social security they get, on average. Actuaries can figure out the retirement age annually and project them into the future.

If life spans continue to increase, the retirement age will automatically will automatically increment, if conditions deteriorate, and people start dying off, the retirement age can move the other way.



There, we've just 'solved' poverty and fixed social security.

Anything else we need to look at ??

I'd get rid of minimum wage.

People would still pay taxes if they earned income over and above their universal basic income but there would be no deductions or tax credits. Just a simple progressive tax rate.

How much universal basic income people got would depend on tax revenues. Say the government took in 3 trillion dollars in 2014. In 2015 the government would pay say 50% or 1.5 trillion back in the form of a universal basic income.

I don't have a detailed plan so if pressed I am certainly open toward change. I just think a universal basic income is more fair and more efficient then a hodgepodge of government programs and an army of government bureaucrats telling you how to spend money.

I think automation will eliminate the need for most people to work. I see two possible futures ahead of us. The one we are headed toward...where the government dictates how much we spend on food, how much we spend on housing, how much we spend on utilities, etc. Or the one I would like to see....where the government just administers the distribution of a technological dividend and we have the freedom to use that dividend any way we want.

I saw we need the progressive part to return...I mean Teddy was a badass.....minus banning drinks of course.

(October 23, 2014 at 10:20 am)polar bear Wrote:

(October 23, 2014 at 9:22 am)vorlon13 Wrote: Those of us socially liberal and fiscally conservative find both parties abhorrent.

I agree both parties suck, they tell us one thing and do another.

How can someone be socially liberal and fiscally conservative? To me that says that they agree we need to change how we treat our fellow man and not worry so much about corporations, however, funding such programs is impossible because "fiscal responsibility" is code words for lower taxes. If it is right socially, we need to do it...period

Perhaps because, most of all, not everyone lives in America and not all countries have the same problems. I'm socially liberal because I find it to be the most rational outcome, and fiscally conservative because I want lower taxes, I'm tired of my government making excessive amounts of debt without consulting anyone and, most of all, I'm tired of people who don't work at all living of minimum wages and other incomes granted by social security, including free houses with TV and internet.

I'm a socially liberal because I want everyone to be free in society and not be judged for what they are

I'm fiscally conservative because I don't think anyone has the duty to support anyone else.

(October 24, 2014 at 3:01 am)Heywood Wrote:

(October 23, 2014 at 10:24 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: Is the amount of universal basic income higher or lower than the minimum wage ??

And with no payment of taxes, what incentive is there for those people to vote for candidates that can implement a sustainable system, instead of pols who will instead 'break the bank' for votes ??

These folks long term best interests lie in being satiated at a level the rest of the people paying for it can sustain.

Perhaps a 'more workable' solution is to just arbitrarily draw a line at 3%, or 4.02% (or whatever) of the population and the folks below the line are 'poor' and the people above it are not. Curiously, the folks in the government tracking the poverty rate will be out of jobs because the poverty rate will simply be defined as a constant %, regardless of what the number might be under the current system. But so it goes.

Also, a similar idea can 'fix' social security. Arbitrarily decide how many workers there will be per retiree in perpetuity, and work out the retirement age from that.

So, for example, if we decide there will be 10 workers per retiree, then the 'average' worker will work 10 days for each day of social security they get, on average. Actuaries can figure out the retirement age annually and project them into the future.

If life spans continue to increase, the retirement age will automatically will automatically increment, if conditions deteriorate, and people start dying off, the retirement age can move the other way.



There, we've just 'solved' poverty and fixed social security.

Anything else we need to look at ??

I'd get rid of minimum wage.

People would still pay taxes if they earned income over and above their universal basic income but there would be no deductions or tax credits. Just a simple progressive tax rate.

How much universal basic income people got would depend on tax revenues. Say the government took in 3 trillion dollars in 2014. In 2015 the government would pay say 50% or 1.5 trillion back in the form of a universal basic income.

I don't have a detailed plan so if pressed I am certainly open toward change. I just think a universal basic income is more fair and more efficient then a hodgepodge of government programs and an army of government bureaucrats telling you how to spend money.

I think automation will eliminate the need for most people to work. I see two possible futures ahead of us. The one we are headed toward...where the government dictates how much we spend on food, how much we spend on housing, how much we spend on utilities, etc. Or the one I would like to see....where the government just administers the distribution of a technological dividend and we have the freedom to use that dividend any way we want.

Of course you'd get rid of the minimum wage. Why the fuck should a human being make enough to feed themselves and pay their bills. Who the fuck likes surviving?

All that crap above is just justification for your own fucking greed.

No one I consider sane should advocate getting rid of the open market or the private sector, as if you could on a planet of 7 billion in any case. But you are completely bat fucking shit insane to think only one class matters. There is already dictation going on, by global corporatism. It is not constructive wealth that improves the human condition. It is a global competition to create more poverty, exploitation and slave wages.

FUCK YOU and anyone who thinks we should get rid of the minimum wage. We should not even be calling it a "minimum wage" but call it a "livable wage".

You want to go down this road? We can but you are in for a world of verbal hurt.

As for the broad bush I've been noted as using;

I don't feel the need to reinvent the wheel. Since the early '80s Grace Commission (and probably others preceeding my notice) the government has been repeatedly PAYING FOR help in reigning in the wasteful, specious, corrupt, stupid, fraudulent, criminal, redundant and redundant federal spending.

200 billion over 30 years mounts up to over 1/3 (not allowing for compounding) of the current national debt. These studies have identified in excrutiating, outrageous and horrifying detail literally myriads of spending clusterfucks.

(October 24, 2014 at 1:13 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(October 24, 2014 at 3:01 am)Heywood Wrote: I'd get rid of minimum wage.

People would still pay taxes if they earned income over and above their universal basic income but there would be no deductions or tax credits. Just a simple progressive tax rate.

How much universal basic income people got would depend on tax revenues. Say the government took in 3 trillion dollars in 2014. In 2015 the government would pay say 50% or 1.5 trillion back in the form of a universal basic income.

I don't have a detailed plan so if pressed I am certainly open toward change. I just think a universal basic income is more fair and more efficient then a hodgepodge of government programs and an army of government bureaucrats telling you how to spend money.

I think automation will eliminate the need for most people to work. I see two possible futures ahead of us. The one we are headed toward...where the government dictates how much we spend on food, how much we spend on housing, how much we spend on utilities, etc. Or the one I would like to see....where the government just administers the distribution of a technological dividend and we have the freedom to use that dividend any way we want.

Of course you'd get rid of the minimum wage. Why the fuck should a human being make enough to feed themselves and pay their bills. Who the fuck likes surviving?

All that crap above is just justification for your own fucking greed.

No one I consider sane should advocate getting rid of the open market or the private sector, as if you could on a planet of 7 billion in any case. But you are completely bat fucking shit insane to think only one class matters. There is already dictation going on, by global corporatism. It is not constructive wealth that improves the human condition. It is a global competition to create more poverty, exploitation and slave wages.

FUCK YOU and anyone who thinks we should get rid of the minimum wage. We should not even be calling it a "minimum wage" but call it a "livable wage".

You want to go down this road? We can but you are in for a world of verbal hurt.

The minimum wage prices some people out of the market. It benefits some workers at the expense of other workers. After slavery blacks were climbing the economic ladder just fine. Black unemployment was equal too and often less than white unemployment. Cheap black labor was under cutting white labor....so what did the whites do? Implement a "living wage".....which completely devastated the black community.

People who support a living wage are as bad as the Klan.....sure they have good intentions but they are effectively racist pigs.

A universal basic income insures everyone has the means to feed themselves.....without skewing the labor market. A universal basic income doesn't favor anyone.