Basic Income

[LouderVol]

The fundamental flaw in this argument is that high earners would be satisfied being poor. They won't. They will continue to earn.

so are you arguing because they will continue to earn they should be taxed even more?

 

[tumscalcium]

The fundamental flaw in this argument is that high earners would be satisfied being poor. They won't. They will continue to earn.

You're unbelievable, LG Downer.

Are you really saying high earners should be taxed ridiculous amounts because they'll just keep working harder to keep getting taxed ridiculous amounts? High earners should just be taken advantage of? We should just punish high earners?

 

[ClearwaterVol]

so are you arguing because they will continue to earn they should be taxed even more?

No, I didn't advocate a position. I simply noted the flaw in the argument.

I am for a flat tax. One bracket. Tax begins being assessed at X dollars of income. No deductions. No credits.

 

[Orange_Crush]

What do you do that would be worth trading food for?

Raise food.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

You're unbelievable, LG Downer.

Are you really saying high earners should be taxed ridiculous amounts because they'll just keep working harder to keep getting taxed ridiculous amounts? High earners should just be taken advantage of? We should just punish high earners?

You have got to start reading. You continue to add unsupported assumptions instead of simply reading carefully. It makes you look stupid.

 

[n_huffhines]

What we need is to find a way to deal with aging populations without having to replace them with younger individuals. A great many of our long term problems really need the total population of the world to go down and our economic model does not like that.

We can't even give our retired elderly population a living retirement wage, what makes these fools think they can make basic income for everyone work?

The elderly are the wealthiest demographic in America...

I don't there is anything wrong with the world population. It's bigger than ever and poverty is better than ever

 

[tumscalcium]

You have got to start reading. You continue to add unsupported assumptions instead of simply reading carefully. It makes you look stupid.

Then by all means. Clarify what you typed.

 

[n_huffhines]

The fundamental flaw in this argument is that high earners would be satisfied being poor. They won't. They will continue to earn.

This is true of only some fraction of earners. There are lots of Americans on the margin.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Then by all means. Clarify what you typed.

What I typed required no clarification. You took something that need no clarification and added presupposed conclusions and assumptions that were not contained within or implied within my statement.

This is true of only some fraction of earners. There are lots of Americans on the margin.

I don't have any real sample size to rely upon, but most people I know will continue to earn until nothing more can be earned. Will I do things to defer taxes until a later date like postpone a sale of some asset or defer some earnings to the following year? Sure, but I am not going to turn down income because of taxes.

 

[Madscientistvol]

The elderly are the wealthiest demographic in America...

I don't there is anything wrong with the world population. It's bigger than ever and poverty is better than ever

So there are no problems in the US, Europe, and Japan with the aging of the population. All the vitriol against baby boomers for consuming our medical capacity and not just going ahead and dying is for for nothing?

Why are we being told that we need more immigration to replace the worker void and pay for the social benefits of our older retired population?

 

[Orange_Crush]

The elderly are the wealthiest demographic in America...

I don't there is anything wrong with the world population. It's bigger than ever and poverty is better than ever

My fear is that it's built on a fiat economy which is based on infinite growth. The level of "poverty" in the world today is misrepresented, and it will be reset once world resources prove the infinite growth an impossibility of physics.

 

[tumscalcium]

What I typed required no clarification. You took something that need no clarification and added presupposed conclusions and assumptions that were not contained within or implied within my statement.

Just as I had suspected, my original response sufficed leaving you with no way to defend your point.

 

[volinbham]

To the basic income question - I'm interested in the Finnish approach. I might favor it if we substituted a flat income for the myriad of other welfare support options.

Unfortunately, politicians would just make this additive rather than a substitute.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I don't have any real sample size to rely upon, but most people I know will continue to earn until nothing more can be earned. Will I do things to defer taxes until a later date like postpone a sale of some asset or defer some earnings to the following year? Sure, but I am not going to turn down income because of taxes.

I think you'll find this has been true for the past 50-100 years--the days of consumerism. But I think we are primed for a post-consumerism worldview. I know I am.

I work hard at my "day job". Six figure salary. Big house full of stuff. The problem? They reach in my pocket on both ends--when I make it and when I spend it. I work really hard to make more. The more I make, the more they take. Just so I can spend on things I don't need. Things that will be depricated in a year. Things that will be junk and hauled off in no time.

People are waking up to this. We are trading our finite time for something they create infinitely on bankng spreadsheets.

We (wife and I) are literally downsizing to the point of simplicity. Tiny house. Small holding homestead. Produce most of what we need. Quit the day job. Need less. Spend less.

Can't tax me on what i don't make. Can't tax me on what I don't spend.

Need less. Produce more. Spent time, not money.

I think there's an entire generation getting primed for this reset of thinking. If not, the collapse of the current system may force them to be.

At the end of the day, my attitude right now is:

Who is John Galt?

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Just as I had suspected, my original response sufficed leaving you with no way to defend your point.

Good grief. I hope you're being intentionally obtuse. You didn't attack my original point. You decided to add views to an otherwise simple statement. You really feel I should defend views that I don't hold, didn't pretend to hold and in fact, my only connection to exist in your mind?


In fact a couple posts down, I stated my position on taxes.

No, I didn't advocate a position. I simply noted the flaw in the argument.

I am for a flat tax. One bracket. Tax begins being assessed at X dollars of income. No deductions. No credits.

But you don't like to read.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

I think you'll find this has been true for the past 50-100 years--the days of consumerism. But I think we are primed for a post-consumerism worldview. I know I am.

I work hard at my "day job". Six figure salary. Big house full of stuff. The problem? They reach in my pocket on both ends--when I make it and when I spend it. I work really hard to make more. The more I make, the more they take. Just so I can spend on things I don't need. Things that will be depricated in a year. Things that will be junk and hauled off in no time.

People are waking up to this. We are trading our finite time for something they create infinitely on bankng spreadsheets.

We (wife and I) are literally downsizing to the point of simplicity. Tiny house. Small holding homestead. Produce most of what we need. Quit the day job. Need less. Spend less.

Can't tax me on what i don't make. Can't tax me on what I don't spend.

Need less. Produce more. Spent time, not money.

I think there's an entire generation getting primed for this reset of thinking. If not, the collapse of the current system may force them to be.

At the end of the day, my attitude right now is:

Who is John Galt?

I have respect for people who live this way. Right now it's not for me. Maybe in the future.

 

[n_huffhines]

So there are no problems in the US, Europe, and Japan with the aging of the population. All the vitriol against baby boomers for consuming our medical capacity and not just going ahead and dying is for for nothing?

Why are we being told that we need more immigration to replace the worker void and pay for the social benefits of our older retired population?

Wtf are you talking about? You had 3/4 of that conversation in your head.

I said there is nothing wrong with the world population and there is nothing wrong with fixing elderly benefit shortfalls with immigration. What other solution do you have? Don't think for a second that responsible government is a possibility.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I have respect for people who live this way. Right now it's not for me. Maybe in the future.

It was a description, not a prescription. :hi:

The point was just, I guess, three-fold. (1) The current paradigm can't be sustained. Consumerism will have to end, whether by choice or crash. (2) I think society is waking up to this, and will become more primed for the needed change in paradigm. (3) Over-taxing those who produce will seize things up eventually. The producers will exit stage left.

For me, and more and more people, the rat race is proving toxic and empty promises. The smartest thing to do is drop out, need less, produce more.

 

[n_huffhines]

My fear is that it's built on a fiat economy which is based on infinite growth. The level of "poverty" in the world today is misrepresented, and it will be reset once world resources prove the infinite growth an impossibility of physics.

In what way is the level of poverty misrepresented?

How can infinite growth be an impossibility of physics in a universe that seems infinite? What do you mean by flat economy and what does it mean to be based on infinite growth? As opposed to what?

 

[Madscientistvol]

Wtf are you talking about? You had 3/4 of that conversation in your head.

I said there is nothing wrong with the world population and there is nothing wrong with fixing elderly benefit shortfalls with immigration. What other solution do you have? Don't think for a second that responsible government is a possibility.

My apologies, some of that certainly had to be in my head. Most of my idea is that basic income can't work if we can't even handle elderly benefit shortfalls without importing more workers. If basic income cant even cover that issue it certainly couldnt work on a mainstream level.

I just flat out disagree about the world population and especially since all it's doing is continuing to grow. The biggest inhibitor to being able to do anything about overpopulation is the whole issue of economically dealing with elderly benefits without just bringing in more people to pay for them if the offspring population is insufficient.

Agree fully about responsible government not being the one to tackle it. The next time I see responsible government will be the first.

 

[Orange_Crush]

In what way is the level of poverty misrepresented?

Was probably not the best way of phrasing the issue. What I meant was: We are creating money out of nothing via fractional reserve banking, and it's a currency that is based on nothing (no physical standard).

One day, that will crash, and the poverty level will again reflect against actual respurces.

How can infinite growth be an impossibility of physics in a universe that seems infinite?

You'll need to show that the universe if infinite. Logic would suggest that it's not, both in time and space. The Big Bang theory would indicate it is not.

What do you mean by flat economy and what does it mean to be based on infinite growth?

I'm sure you know what a fiat economy is and the fact that it is based on infinite growth. My God, you're the one convincing us of the need for unlimited immigration to keep the growth going. Do you argue just to argue?

As opposed to what?

What does this question even mean? A fiat economy, as opposed to what? You're the one that starts an economy instruction thread on here, and you're asking these questions?

 

[n_huffhines]

Was probably not the best way of phrasing the issue. What I meant was: We are creating money out of nothing via fractional reserve banking, and it's a currency that is based on nothing (no physical standard).

One day, that will crash, and the poverty level will again reflect against actual respurces.

I was talking about world poverty, not US poverty...not arbitrary, first world poverty, like actual I might starve poverty.

You'll need to show that the universe if infinite. Logic would suggest that it's not, both in time and space. The Big Bang theory would indicate it is not.

How do I show the universe is infinite or finite? I don't think that's a logical conclusion.

I'm sure you know what a fiat economy is and the fact that it is based on infinite growth. My God, you're the one convincing us of the need for unlimited immigration to keep the growth going. Do you argue just to argue?

Wtf...my definition of a flat economy is a slow growing economy (or even worse) and I don't think that's how you're using the word. No need to be a smartass. I'm asking honest questions.

Can you please explain to me what you mean by flat economy?

What does this question even mean? A fiat economy, as opposed to what? You're the one that starts an economy instruction thread on here, and you're asking these questions?

You said a flat economy is based on infinite growth...as opposed to what? Non-infinite growth? How do you base an economy on infinite growth or an alternative? I really don't get what you mean.

 

[southgatevol]

I was talking about world poverty, not US poverty...not arbitrary, first world poverty, like actual I might starve poverty.



How do I show the universe is infinite or finite? I don't think that's a logical conclusion.



Wtf...my definition of a flat economy is a slow growing economy (or even worse) and I don't think that's how you're using the word. No need to be a smartass. I'm asking honest questions.

Can you please explain to me what you mean by flat economy?



You said a flat economy is based on infinite growth...as opposed to what? Non-infinite growth? How do you base an economy on infinite growth or an alternative? I really don't get what you mean.

You are confusing flat economy and fiat economy.

 

[n_huffhines]

You are confusing flat economy and fiat economy.

LMAO f-i-a-t

 

[southgatevol]

LMAO f-i-a-t

Correct.