Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
We aren't reinventing the word communism. Communism at its most basic theoretical concept is just that, a concept. You can't say a form of progression towards more communism can never be stable, because you have no idea what the future looks like (note I'm not arguing for implementing communism now, just that society might move more gradually towards it). When the vast majority of people in the future might be unemployed with no way of earning a paycheck, keeping in the capitalism at all cost will go against human psychology. Why? Because people really do not enjoy suffering and wallowing in poverty just because people in the 20th century did bad things in the name of communism. Why not just abolish capitalism then, slavery and child labor came from capitalism!

The tired old excuse of excusing capitalism because it wasn't exactly capitalism is no better than the excuse to excuse communism because it wasn't exactly communism. Why do colonisation and corporatism not fall under capitalism, the end goal was still making money. Hell the East India Company had stock holders. Colonisation started off as a way to find more advantageous trade routes and alternative ways of making money on new products. How isn't that capitalism?

Capitalism works fine when most of us have it relatively well. But there might come a time in the future where that isn't the case. So societal pressure might lead to a move towards a more socialist government with capitalist elements. That isn't glorifying communism or forgetting about its horrific atrocity. Its the recognition that we can't just declare all forms of communism unworkable when we don't even know if capitalism has a viable future for the common man on the street. Nobody is arguing a return to dictatorships or police states.

As for UBI, sure its unworkable now because most of us work and with that work taxes for UBI would be paid. So its people working to pay taxes to give themselves UBI. But there might be a moment where most people are no longer employed because of advancement in robotics. But then the government also makes little in tax money because its tax base is gone. You can't make a detailed calculation of something that hasn't even happened yet, because that just means fudging the numbers. What is clear is that in a future of fewer jobs, tax rate on business will need to make up for that shortfall in income tax, because companies will make more anyway from the reduction in labor costs. Your Apple example is bad, Apple employees pay taxes to the government with their paycheck from Apple. When those employees are out on their asses Apple gets to keep their whole paycheck, which is where the money from UBI would come from.

I don't think there will be an entire new political system,that would be like reinventing the wheel. What is likely is a technocracy that leans more heavily towards socialism to provide for the majority of the population while capitalism can be allowed to go on as it does currently, except with higher taxes.

Where on earth did you found me "excusing capitalism" in my last post where I have clearly stated, that pure form of capitalism (self regulating free market based upon rational competition mechanisms) is inherently unstable and short lived by the very concept of unrestricted concentration of capital and inequally informed transactions and evolves naturally to corporationism and pretty much feudalism equivalents. That is, BTW the biggest axiom flaw of libertarianism (which is pretty much an academic counterweight to communism).

And you seriously keep missusing the word communism when what you describe later is socialism and it's redistribution mechanisms, not common ownership of producion means and ban on any private property, which communism is based upon. Those two systems are not synonims either as basic concepts nor applied implementations... And when I wrote about communism being against human psychology I did mean the very traits of homo sapiens sapiens species at neurological and endocrynological levels - that has nothing to do with "not knowing how the future will look like". As a species we have hardly evolved since first documented stone tools and nothing in our psychology is collective in communist theory sense. We are literally capped at around 150 strong 'tribes' - that is why you can have succesfull small communities or communes but such constructs do not scale up and fall apart easily. For the future to be based on true academic communism we would have to invent a way to augment our species at biological level and then apply that means to everyone on the planet. Hardly probable and most definitely don't fall under "volountary shift towards communism" category. Really, please spend an hour listening to Sapolsky's lectures, read about human brain reaction to relative poverty/wealth (earlier monkey experiment example by Sebster is entirely about this "feature" of our brain construction) and then come back to praising non-oppresive communism as possible.

The problem with tax funding UBI is a belief that companies pay their taxes from their share of profit while in reality this is always pushed onto final consumer, especially when you have oligopoles or monopoles and not early stages of true competetive free market, when and only when pushing costs onto consumer leads to lowering profit and being driven off the market. But we are long past that point.

The only way of making UBI work as a mathematical concept without some external source of wealth or huge surplous of goods over population needs is turning all production into non profit organisations (treating automated production the same way as natural resources - that is in a way that Norway or Saudi Arabia treat oil based money), but I do not see that happening without reinventing civilisation or even human species either.

As you might have realise by now I have very low opinion about humanity and it's ability to transcend it's biological limitations. One last thing to add, as I have already spent too much time of writing posts in this thread - my entire perspective on the matter is focused on timespans of centuries, not single government terms or even decades.

For the very end may I make two reading suggestions. First, "Men Like Gods" by H.G.Wells is quite illustrative and educative piece written by a strong advocate of early academic communism disappointed by how practicalities of communism revolution turned out. It is set in a future where communist ideals were finally achieved after 5k years, by population reduction to only couple of hundred thousands people on entire planet, getting rid of deseases, pests and predators and social engineering population so that only intelectual properties and achievements were sexually attractive. And the second one is Huxley's "Brave New World" where perfect social stability is achieved by getting rid of sense of relative personal value and status - that is by breeding everyone to be perfectly happy about the level of social hierarchy they're at. Those are my two favourite non-terror socialist utopias/dystopias that have at least a hint of probability and are focused on real obstacles in achieving sustainable and happy socialist civilisation.

nou wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
We aren't reinventing the word communism. Communism at its most basic theoretical concept is just that, a concept. You can't say a form of progression towards more communism can never be stable, because you have no idea what the future looks like (note I'm not arguing for implementing communism now, just that society might move more gradually towards it). When the vast majority of people in the future might be unemployed with no way of earning a paycheck, keeping in the capitalism at all cost will go against human psychology. Why? Because people really do not enjoy suffering and wallowing in poverty just because people in the 20th century did bad things in the name of communism. Why not just abolish capitalism then, slavery and child labor came from capitalism!

The tired old excuse of excusing capitalism because it wasn't exactly capitalism is no better than the excuse to excuse communism because it wasn't exactly communism. Why do colonisation and corporatism not fall under capitalism, the end goal was still making money. Hell the East India Company had stock holders. Colonisation started off as a way to find more advantageous trade routes and alternative ways of making money on new products. How isn't that capitalism?

Capitalism works fine when most of us have it relatively well. But there might come a time in the future where that isn't the case. So societal pressure might lead to a move towards a more socialist government with capitalist elements. That isn't glorifying communism or forgetting about its horrific atrocity. Its the recognition that we can't just declare all forms of communism unworkable when we don't even know if capitalism has a viable future for the common man on the street. Nobody is arguing a return to dictatorships or police states.

As for UBI, sure its unworkable now because most of us work and with that work taxes for UBI would be paid. So its people working to pay taxes to give themselves UBI. But there might be a moment where most people are no longer employed because of advancement in robotics. But then the government also makes little in tax money because its tax base is gone. You can't make a detailed calculation of something that hasn't even happened yet, because that just means fudging the numbers. What is clear is that in a future of fewer jobs, tax rate on business will need to make up for that shortfall in income tax, because companies will make more anyway from the reduction in labor costs. Your Apple example is bad, Apple employees pay taxes to the government with their paycheck from Apple. When those employees are out on their asses Apple gets to keep their whole paycheck, which is where the money from UBI would come from.

I don't think there will be an entire new political system,that would be like reinventing the wheel. What is likely is a technocracy that leans more heavily towards socialism to provide for the majority of the population while capitalism can be allowed to go on as it does currently, except with higher taxes.

Where on earth did you found me "excusing capitalism" in my last post where I have clearly stated, that pure form of capitalism (self regulating free market based upon rational competition mechanisms) is inherently unstable and short lived by the very concept of unrestricted concentration of capital and inequally informed transactions and evolves naturally to corporationism and pretty much feudalism equivalents. That is, BTW the biggest axiom flaw of libertarianism (which is pretty much an academic counterweight to communism).

And you seriously keep missusing the word communism when what you describe later is socialism and it's redistribution mechanisms, not common ownership of producion means and ban on any private property, which communism is based upon. Those two systems are not synonims either as basic concepts nor applied implementations... And when I wrote about communism being against human psychology I did mean the very traits of homo sapiens sapiens species at neurological and endocrynological levels - that has nothing to do with "not knowing how the future will look like". As a species we have hardly evolved since first documented stone tools and nothing in our psychology is collective in communist theory sense. We are literally capped at around 150 strong 'tribes' - that is why you can have succesfull small communities or communes but such constructs do not scale up and fall apart easily. For the future to be based on true academic communism we would have to invent a way to augment our species at biological level and then apply that means to everyone on the planet. Hardly probable and most definitely don't fall under "volountary shift towards communism" category. Really, please spend an hour listening to Sapolsky's lectures, read about human brain reaction to relative poverty/wealth (earlier monkey experiment example by Sebster is entirely about this "feature" of our brain construction) and then come back to praising non-oppresive communism as possible.

The problem with tax funding UBI is a belief that companies pay their taxes from their share of profit while in reality this is always pushed onto final consumer, especially when you have oligopoles or monopoles and not early stages of true competetive free market, when and only when pushing costs onto consumer leads to lowering profit and being driven off the market. But we are long past that point.

The only way of making UBI work as a mathematical concept without some external source of wealth or huge surplous of goods over population needs is turning all production into non profit organisations (treating automated production the same way as natural resources - that is in a way that Norway or Saudi Arabia treat oil based money), but I do not see that happening without reinventing civilisation or even human species either.

As you might have realise by now I have very low opinion about humanity and it's ability to transcend it's biological limitations. One last thing to add, as I have already spent too much time of writing posts in this thread - my entire perspective on the matter is focused on timespans of centuries, not single government terms or even decades.

For the very end may I make two reading suggestions. First, "Men Like Gods" by H.G.Wells is quite illustrative and educative piece written by a strong advocate of early academic communism disappointed by how practicalities of communism revolution turned out. It is set in a future where communist ideals were finally achieved after 5k years, by population reduction to only couple of hundred thousands people on entire planet, getting rid of deseases, pests and predators and social engineering population so that only intelectual properties and achievements were sexually attractive. And the second one is Huxley's "Brave New World" where perfect social stability is achieved by getting rid of sense of relative personal value and status - that is by breeding everyone to be perfectly happy about the level of social hierarchy they're at. Those are my two favourite non-terror socialist utopias/dystopias that have at least a hint of probability and are focused on real obstacles in achieving sustainable and happy socialist civilisation.

This is the part that comes across as an excuse of capitalism by devolving responsibility on 'colonialism' and 'corporatism', which all came down to pure financial gain:

nou wrote:
Most of the death toll put on the shoulders of capitalism in this thread (including native americans holocaust) is either a result of state driven colonisation era or corporporationism (and historically, the biggest offender in 'corporation death toll' category was East India Company, by huge margin).

Then you go on about how pure capitalism never really existed except for a short historical period, which is exactly the case modern day communists make "oh that was just Stalinism/Maoism/North Korea". Purity does not matter, what matters is what happened.

Also no, early communism before Marx talks about making society more equal as well. The seize the means of production and no private property only materialized with figures like Marx. That's the problem with communism, it has so many different concepts just thrown into the same pile. Hell the end goal of communism is world socialism. Even Marx uses socialism and communism and Marxism is described as scientific socialism. It's an absolute minefield of overlapping terms, even the Soviets used socialism and communism. Early communism before Marx advocated a redistribution too, just like modern day socialism. The psychology mumbo jumbo is just laughable, when we were hunter gatherers none of these systems were developed, evolutionary psychology is one of the worst academic guess work tracks that involves heavy projecting on the past. Yet somehow without evolution capitalism is the system for us, even though capitalism wasn't as is for most of human history? Sapolsky is a single researcher, and while he is a good one, his word isn't set in stone. We have already constructed a reality of ourselves beyond the monkey example, one that accepts certain monkeys not doing work but vilifies others that also don't work. I'm not saying a hypothetical form of communism is going to work in the future, all I'm saying is that there might be a societal pull in that direction when the whole modern economy goes to gak.

The problem with UBI in the scenario where there are less jobs is that companies can't push prices on the consumer. Because if they do that they destroy the purchasing power of their own consumer market, meaning they don't sell anything. UBI is required in a system where the modern economy no longer functions as it does now, so its useless to predict ways of why it would fail based on today's metrics.

I share the negative outlook on human nature and this shift in potential economy will possibly destroy governments as they are set up now or as Baron says potentially mean the end of democracy. The problem is that this process is likely going to start in the lifetime of all of us, so we better start making some plans.

I've read both books and they are very good reads indeed. The world is often stranger than fiction and I don't think we will ever achieve communism or socialist utopia as described because it would require too much, but a large role of socialism in the government certainly seems plausible.

a belief that companies pay their taxes from their share of profit while in reality this is always pushed onto final consumer,

Not quite. A product sells for what someone will buy it for. Whether a company will make that product depends on how much they can sell if for compared to how much it costs to make it.

Income taxes don't really come into the equation that much as they are completely based on the amount of profits, so they do not have an effect on the cost of a good as far as making a profit or not is concerned.

It's really the same 'job creator' myth that lower taxes leads to more employment when employment is based on someone needing something done not on having extra money available.

Disciple of Fate wrote:As for UBI, sure its unworkable now because most of us work and with that work taxes for UBI would be paid. So its people working to pay taxes to give themselves UBI. But there might be a moment where most people are no longer employed because of advancement in robotics. But then the government also makes little in tax money because its tax base is gone. You can't make a detailed calculation of something that hasn't even happened yet, because that just means fudging the numbers. What is clear is that in a future of fewer jobs, tax rate on business will need to make up for that shortfall in income tax, because companies will make more anyway from the reduction in labor costs. Your Apple example is bad, Apple employees pay taxes to the government with their paycheck from Apple. When those employees are out on their asses Apple gets to keep their whole paycheck, which is where the money from UBI would come from.

So here's my problem, if you're paying everyone through tax money, and supposedly the EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVVVVVIIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL corporations don't pay a dime, where is the tax revenue coming from? The second it becomes unprofitable for a corporation to produce a good or service, they will most assuredly stop, and those that have the wealth accumulated will ferry away with it while the labor force will be left out to dry. Now, you aren't getting taxes from corporations OR employees to give everyone free money, so it all blows up.

You can break down all three economic systems into one question, and the answers to that question: How do I get rich people's money? Capitalism's answer is exchange goods or services for said money, with the rate of exchange dictated by the owner of said money, and altered if they can't get the goods and services at lower prices than the receiver of the money is willing to accept. Socialism's answer is for government to take on the services and basic needs of everyone, and pay for it in taxes. This has the nasty side effect of the rich leaving with their money once they get unfairly taxed at a severely higher rate than anyone else. Even if it's even across the board but higher than 51%, most corporate interest/rich people with money will simply bail as they would rather the services be privatized and increase employment. Communism's answer is to take the power and money away from the rich, as well as the capacity to generate said wealth (factories, production, the like) and give control of them to the governing body wholesale who then dictates what everyone gets. Of course, every revolution is a peaceful one with no bloodshed, and that governing body never keeps most of the wealth for themselves. It comes down to how you incentivize the populace to contribute. Threatening a collapse of employment to scare people into going full socialist/communist early vs. pointing weapons at people to force participation vs. creating a supply/demand chain for goods and the wealth needed to pay for said goods. To me, one is clearly more humane, and actually generates wealth for the populace. The others either generate wealth for the ruling class, or consume more than they can collect/produce. That's my view, I look at sustainability.


After interviewing my 16 year old daughter, she laid out how she'd be able to cohabitate with friends to mitigate expenses in order to be able to live off of $1,000.00 without having to get supplemental income. Essentially she sees no reason to work for something that she could get for free. THAT is the reality of a UBI. Unless you make it IMPOSSIBLE for someone to subsist on it without work in any way, it will blow up.

First off, taxes being higher on the rich is in no way unfair. Second off, some people choosing not to work is an intended feature of UBI not a bug.

 Just Tony wrote:

Disciple of Fate wrote:As for UBI, sure its unworkable now because most of us work and with that work taxes for UBI would be paid. So its people working to pay taxes to give themselves UBI. But there might be a moment where most people are no longer employed because of advancement in robotics. But then the government also makes little in tax money because its tax base is gone. You can't make a detailed calculation of something that hasn't even happened yet, because that just means fudging the numbers. What is clear is that in a future of fewer jobs, tax rate on business will need to make up for that shortfall in income tax, because companies will make more anyway from the reduction in labor costs. Your Apple example is bad, Apple employees pay taxes to the government with their paycheck from Apple. When those employees are out on their asses Apple gets to keep their whole paycheck, which is where the money from UBI would come from.

So here's my problem, if you're paying everyone through tax money, and supposedly the EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVVVVVIIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL corporations don't pay a dime, where is the tax revenue coming from? The second it becomes unprofitable for a corporation to produce a good or service, they will most assuredly stop, and those that have the wealth accumulated will ferry away with it while the labor force will be left out to dry. Now, you aren't getting taxes from corporations OR employees to give everyone free money, so it all blows up.

You can break down all three economic systems into one question, and the answers to that question: How do I get rich people's money? Capitalism's answer is exchange goods or services for said money, with the rate of exchange dictated by the owner of said money, and altered if they can't get the goods and services at lower prices than the receiver of the money is willing to accept. Socialism's answer is for government to take on the services and basic needs of everyone, and pay for it in taxes. This has the nasty side effect of the rich leaving with their money once they get unfairly taxed at a severely higher rate than anyone else. Even if it's even across the board but higher than 51%, most corporate interest/rich people with money will simply bail as they would rather the services be privatized and increase employment. Communism's answer is to take the power and money away from the rich, as well as the capacity to generate said wealth (factories, production, the like) and give control of them to the governing body wholesale who then dictates what everyone gets. Of course, every revolution is a peaceful one with no bloodshed, and that governing body never keeps most of the wealth for themselves. It comes down to how you incentivize the populace to contribute. Threatening a collapse of employment to scare people into going full socialist/communist early vs. pointing weapons at people to force participation vs. creating a supply/demand chain for goods and the wealth needed to pay for said goods. To me, one is clearly more humane, and actually generates wealth for the populace. The others either generate wealth for the ruling class, or consume more than they can collect/produce. That's my view, I look at sustainability.


After interviewing my 16 year old daughter, she laid out how she'd be able to cohabitate with friends to mitigate expenses in order to be able to live off of $1,000.00 without having to get supplemental income. Essentially she sees no reason to work for something that she could get for free. THAT is the reality of a UBI. Unless you make it IMPOSSIBLE for someone to subsist on it without work in any way, it will blow up.

Ok look, tax money now for the most part comes out of people's paychecks right? When those jobs no longer exist because a company has a robot, they don't spend money on the paycheck for that employee anymore. Then you would need a system where that paycheck money through business tax goes to the government that can then use it for UBI. The problem isn't where the money for UBI will come from, the problem is that once UBI is a societal necessity the government will have already collapsed through lack of taxes if they haven't overhauled tax on business in the first place. In an economic system where UBI becomes such a necessity rich people have nowhere to run to, because all these countries have the same issue and if they don't want to participate in UBI they lose a massive amount of consumers. Its all great that you're rich, but when people are so poor they can't afford food what good will money do? It means either rich people share, or society as a whole collapses and they can live on the moon somewhere, except without society being rich isn't very helpful.

Your daughter is a bad example. Because UBI really becomes a concept when your daughter has no work, not because she doesn't see a reason to work, there just isn't any work available for her anymore. We're talking about a future where perhaps 80-90% of the global jobs become obsolete unless there is some new massive industry. As I said, UBI doesn't work when most of us still have jobs, because then we work to finance our own UBI. UBI works when companies have cut labor costs by cutting the majority of their staff and those cut labor costs will have to be taxed. Either you make human employment mandatory or you need some sort of non-human labor tax on them.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

nou wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
We aren't reinventing the word communism. Communism at its most basic theoretical concept is just that, a concept. You can't say a form of progression towards more communism can never be stable, because you have no idea what the future looks like (note I'm not arguing for implementing communism now, just that society might move more gradually towards it). When the vast majority of people in the future might be unemployed with no way of earning a paycheck, keeping in the capitalism at all cost will go against human psychology. Why? Because people really do not enjoy suffering and wallowing in poverty just because people in the 20th century did bad things in the name of communism. Why not just abolish capitalism then, slavery and child labor came from capitalism!

The tired old excuse of excusing capitalism because it wasn't exactly capitalism is no better than the excuse to excuse communism because it wasn't exactly communism. Why do colonisation and corporatism not fall under capitalism, the end goal was still making money. Hell the East India Company had stock holders. Colonisation started off as a way to find more advantageous trade routes and alternative ways of making money on new products. How isn't that capitalism?

Capitalism works fine when most of us have it relatively well. But there might come a time in the future where that isn't the case. So societal pressure might lead to a move towards a more socialist government with capitalist elements. That isn't glorifying communism or forgetting about its horrific atrocity. Its the recognition that we can't just declare all forms of communism unworkable when we don't even know if capitalism has a viable future for the common man on the street. Nobody is arguing a return to dictatorships or police states.

As for UBI, sure its unworkable now because most of us work and with that work taxes for UBI would be paid. So its people working to pay taxes to give themselves UBI. But there might be a moment where most people are no longer employed because of advancement in robotics. But then the government also makes little in tax money because its tax base is gone. You can't make a detailed calculation of something that hasn't even happened yet, because that just means fudging the numbers. What is clear is that in a future of fewer jobs, tax rate on business will need to make up for that shortfall in income tax, because companies will make more anyway from the reduction in labor costs. Your Apple example is bad, Apple employees pay taxes to the government with their paycheck from Apple. When those employees are out on their asses Apple gets to keep their whole paycheck, which is where the money from UBI would come from.

I don't think there will be an entire new political system,that would be like reinventing the wheel. What is likely is a technocracy that leans more heavily towards socialism to provide for the majority of the population while capitalism can be allowed to go on as it does currently, except with higher taxes.

Where on earth did you found me "excusing capitalism" in my last post where I have clearly stated, that pure form of capitalism (self regulating free market based upon rational competition mechanisms) is inherently unstable and short lived by the very concept of unrestricted concentration of capital and inequally informed transactions and evolves naturally to corporationism and pretty much feudalism equivalents. That is, BTW the biggest axiom flaw of libertarianism (which is pretty much an academic counterweight to communism).

And you seriously keep missusing the word communism when what you describe later is socialism and it's redistribution mechanisms, not common ownership of producion means and ban on any private property, which communism is based upon. Those two systems are not synonims either as basic concepts nor applied implementations... And when I wrote about communism being against human psychology I did mean the very traits of homo sapiens sapiens species at neurological and endocrynological levels - that has nothing to do with "not knowing how the future will look like". As a species we have hardly evolved since first documented stone tools and nothing in our psychology is collective in communist theory sense. We are literally capped at around 150 strong 'tribes' - that is why you can have succesfull small communities or communes but such constructs do not scale up and fall apart easily. For the future to be based on true academic communism we would have to invent a way to augment our species at biological level and then apply that means to everyone on the planet. Hardly probable and most definitely don't fall under "volountary shift towards communism" category. Really, please spend an hour listening to Sapolsky's lectures, read about human brain reaction to relative poverty/wealth (earlier monkey experiment example by Sebster is entirely about this "feature" of our brain construction) and then come back to praising non-oppresive communism as possible.

The problem with tax funding UBI is a belief that companies pay their taxes from their share of profit while in reality this is always pushed onto final consumer, especially when you have oligopoles or monopoles and not early stages of true competetive free market, when and only when pushing costs onto consumer leads to lowering profit and being driven off the market. But we are long past that point.

The only way of making UBI work as a mathematical concept without some external source of wealth or huge surplous of goods over population needs is turning all production into non profit organisations (treating automated production the same way as natural resources - that is in a way that Norway or Saudi Arabia treat oil based money), but I do not see that happening without reinventing civilisation or even human species either.

As you might have realise by now I have very low opinion about humanity and it's ability to transcend it's biological limitations. One last thing to add, as I have already spent too much time of writing posts in this thread - my entire perspective on the matter is focused on timespans of centuries, not single government terms or even decades.

For the very end may I make two reading suggestions. First, "Men Like Gods" by H.G.Wells is quite illustrative and educative piece written by a strong advocate of early academic communism disappointed by how practicalities of communism revolution turned out. It is set in a future where communist ideals were finally achieved after 5k years, by population reduction to only couple of hundred thousands people on entire planet, getting rid of deseases, pests and predators and social engineering population so that only intelectual properties and achievements were sexually attractive. And the second one is Huxley's "Brave New World" where perfect social stability is achieved by getting rid of sense of relative personal value and status - that is by breeding everyone to be perfectly happy about the level of social hierarchy they're at. Those are my two favourite non-terror socialist utopias/dystopias that have at least a hint of probability and are focused on real obstacles in achieving sustainable and happy socialist civilisation.

This is the part that comes across as an excuse of capitalism by devolving responsibility on 'colonialism' and 'corporatism', which all came down to pure financial gain:

nou wrote:
Most of the death toll put on the shoulders of capitalism in this thread (including native americans holocaust) is either a result of state driven colonisation era or corporporationism (and historically, the biggest offender in 'corporation death toll' category was East India Company, by huge margin).

Then you go on about how pure capitalism never really existed except for a short historical period, which is exactly the case modern day communists make "oh that was just Stalinism/Maoism/North Korea". Purity does not matter, what matters is what happened.

Also no, early communism before Marx talks about making society more equal as well. The seize the means of production and no private property only materialized with figures like Marx. That's the problem with communism, it has so many different concepts just thrown into the same pile. Hell the end goal of communism is world socialism. Even Marx uses socialism and communism and Marxism is described as scientific socialism. It's an absolute minefield of overlapping terms, even the Soviets used socialism and communism. Early communism before Marx advocated a redistribution too, just like modern day socialism. The psychology mumbo jumbo is just laughable, when we were hunter gatherers none of these systems were developed, evolutionary psychology is one of the worst academic guess work tracks that involves heavy projecting on the past. Yet somehow without evolution capitalism is the system for us, even though capitalism wasn't as is for most of human history? Sapolsky is a single researcher, and while he is a good one, his word isn't set in stone. We have already constructed a reality of ourselves beyond the monkey example, one that accepts certain monkeys not doing work but vilifies others that also don't work. I'm not saying a hypothetical form of communism is going to work in the future, all I'm saying is that there might be a societal pull in that direction when the whole modern economy goes to gak.

The problem with UBI in the scenario where there are less jobs is that companies can't push prices on the consumer. Because if they do that they destroy the purchasing power of their own consumer market, meaning they don't sell anything. UBI is required in a system where the modern economy no longer functions as it does now, so its useless to predict ways of why it would fail based on today's metrics.

I share the negative outlook on human nature and this shift in potential economy will possibly destroy governments as they are set up now or as Baron says potentially mean the end of democracy. The problem is that this process is likely going to start in the lifetime of all of us, so we better start making some plans.

I've read both books and they are very good reads indeed. The world is often stranger than fiction and I don't think we will ever achieve communism or socialist utopia as described because it would require too much, but a large role of socialism in the government certainly seems plausible.

Just last clarification as you again quoted me partially and then accused me of defending capitalism - I don't say that pure capitalism have not existed, what I say it's that it CANNOT exist beyond theoretical construct and a brief period during each attempt at it. You must be strongly projecting your typical adversaries onto my posts to read this part as a defense of a concept so strongly flawed that it is not sustainable beyond a decade or two...

And if you know Sapolsky's works and are aware of modern neuroscience discoveries and models of behaviour but still think that evolutionary psychology is something to be thrown out the window when discussing social models then I must admit, that "filocommunism" is so strong within you, that I have absolutely nothing more to "throw" at you to make you reconsider. "Just one researcher" comment really shows how you approach explanatory and PREDICTIVE neuroscience and put armchair philosophy (all academic communist thoughts really) above hard experimental evidence. And no, we haven't gotten past the monkeys as relative poverty is the (measurably) one of the main drives of violence and crime and relative status is still the main metrics people use to judge themselves upon...

One thing that really bothers me about you is that you so strongly believe in socialism and communism and yet you are aware that European pension systems are fundamentally unsustainable and are a burden so heavy across whole europe, that noone really knows what to do with it except trying to fill generations volumes gaps with migration streams. That was probably the only post from you that I wholeheartedly agree with.

Anyway, thanks for educative discussion, it helps me greatly with understanding why western countries have so strong filocommunist movements.

nou wrote:
Just last clarification as you again quoted me partially and then accused me of defending capitalism - I don't say that pure capitalism have not existed, what I say it's that it CANNOT exist beyond theoretical construct and a brief period during each attempt at it. You must be strongly projecting your typical adversaries onto my posts to read this part as a defense of a concept so strongly flawed that it is not sustainable beyond a decade or two...

And if you know Sapolsky's works and are aware of modern neuroscience discoveries and models of behaviour but still think that evolutionary psychology is something to be thrown out the window when discussing social models then I must admit, that "filocommunism" is so strong within you, that I have absolutely nothing more to "throw" at you to make you reconsider. "Just one researcher" comment really shows how you approach explanatory and PREDICTIVE neuroscience and put armchair philosophy (all academic communist thoughts really) above hard experimental evidence. And no, we haven't gotten past the monkeys as relative poverty is the (measurably) one of the main drives of violence and crime and relative status is still the main metrics people use to judge themselves upon...

One thing that really bothers me about you is that you so strongly believe in socialism and communism and yet you are aware that European pension systems are fundamentally unsustainable and are a burden so heavy across whole europe, that noone really knows what to do with it except trying to fill generations volumes gaps with migration streams. That was probably the only post from you that I wholeheartedly agree with.

Anyway, thanks for educative discussion, it helps me greatly with understanding why western countries have so strong filocommunist movements.

In no way am I a communist for the 111th time. I'm done with this conversation too when you try to be in denial about defending capitalism when I literally have a quote of you saying its not capitalism but 'corporatism', trying to absolve the larger concept of capitalism. You totally ignore what I say and just makeup your own arguments about me being a 'filocommunist'. I don't strongly believe in communism or socialism. I'm center left on most issues and a mix of capitalism and socialism is the best way forward once we ditch democracy's shortsightedness. But shame on me for being a commie lover I guess?

And evolutionary psychology is absolutely laughable. It just moves with what is hip right now, I remember when evolutionary psychology tried to retroactively explain away the oppression of women as natural. Its all a bunch of projection and determinism on the human past, in no way verifiable beyond a "trust me, I'm an evolutionary psychologist." "Oh society is the way it is because of evolution, its meant to be unequal!" or "rich people are rich because they're genetically better"

Normally if a thread travels so fast that responses get buried and quasi addressed, I will let it go. Not this time.

First off, rules of the post: you have to do a double shot of Jaegermeister each time Peregrine says "bootstraps".

 Peregrine wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
If communism is so great, how come it is always imposed by violence? It has wrecked every country it has come to. Its nothing more than compulsion and terror.

And yet it is still better than the alternative. Capitalism only succeeds because it is not capitalism anymore, it is capitalism moderated by socialism. Take away the socialism and you have a brutal Darwinian dystopia where the privileged few are supported by the slavery of the masses and death by starvation is the acceptable fate for anyone who is not productive as a slave.

So work for reward is slavery, but forced by a totalitarian regime to work whatever the state tells you to work and accept whatever scraps they dictate you need is NOT? I don't have the words.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Under a capitalist economic system you are more than capable of simply "going off the grid" and living a life where you provide all your own sustenance.

Only if you are willing to remove yourself from society and all of its benefits. No electricity, no health care, nothing. Get a minor infection, the kind of thing that is easily treated with modern medicine? You're probably dead. Enjoy scavenging for food in the middle of the wilderness until you finally die, miserable and alone. But that's not really an endorsement of capitalism, it's simply acknowledgement that the state is not all-powerful and can not force anything upon you if you are determined to disappear into the remote wilderness. The exact same thing would happen in a communist state occupying the same geographical area.

Funny, there are several tribes of people who don't live in any sort of modernized area, who live off the land and not only survive but thrive. Well,, until civilized people bulldoze down their forests and force them to integrate. Hell, we have Amish communities in the States where people live without government assistance, interference, or advancement. The difference between doing that in a capitalist nation and a communist nation is that the capitalists don't need to quell any people refusing to contribute as an example to the populace in order to keep people contributing.

 Peregrine wrote:

It's still "work or starve to death" but that "gun" as you so eloquently put it was placed there by nature, not by capitalism. But yeah, go ahead and bang the propaganda drum instead of dealing in facts. Communism as it exists today blows up without either changing doctrine (such as the Soviet Union replacing "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" to " from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution") to compensate for the inherent shortcomings of the economic model, force people through physical violence to produce (What we see most commonly in communist economies), or to essentially brainwash the working class into working for the enjoyment of work and the betterment of society, which is what Marx explicitly pushed in his writings as having to be necessary for the model to work.

Capitalism also blows up without changing its doctrine to incorporate socialism. And as automation continues to make people unemployable in any meaningful way capitalism will either continue to change in this direction or will be destroyed. Capitalism can only survive so long as the unemployable masses are brainwashed into thinking that they can become rich with enough bootstraps. Allow them to know the truth, that they can execute the tyrants and replace their state with a socialist one, and capitalism ends.

That's one.

I didn't realize unionizing was socialism. Simply refusing to work until better pay is given isn't a socialist practice. That, and the counter is that there's nothing to stop people satisfied with less from crossing the picket line for that job. What makes capitalism NOT blow up is the fact that skateboards don't build themselves. Without workers, the corporate heads make NO MONEY whatsoever. There isn't even a stock market to play if you have no produce. Creating welfare entitlements didn't suddenly change corporate/capitalist outlook.

 Peregrine wrote:

Working two jobs to make ends meet isn't lazy, in fact that's the exact OPPOSITE of lazy.

But that's not what the anti-socialists say. The belief is that if you're poor it's because you're lazy and deserve to be poor, that if you really cared you'd bootstraps yourself into being rich instead of being poor with multiple jobs.

That's two. WOOT!

The anti-socialists say that subsidizing the lower class doesn't incentivize them to do better. And they are right. If you work at McD's for minimum wage, and get $1,000 on top of your wage, you just got more comfortable. You didn't get an excuse to suddenly get your law degree so you could better society. "For the greater good" is an empty purse, and you'll starve an entire nation on that concept. ESPECIALLY when you can't fund that entitlement and the whole thing becomes unsustainable.

But that's really the plan behind socialism, isn't it? Here's your UBI. Oh, you can't afford health insurance because of the taxes we took out to pay for the UTI? Well, we'll give you health care. Not health treatment, health care. By the way, more taxes coming out. Oh, can't afford gas or insurance for your vehicle anymore? Don't worry, we'll subsidize the public transportation system and expand it to compensate for the massive influx of passengers, with more taxes from you, naturally. Oh, now you can't pay rent/house payments? Oh, do we have you covered. Here's government subsidized housing, at a lower standard of living that you had before. Need to build up instead of out, you know, just have to take more of your check. Oh no, you say not much left for food and the like? Say no more, we'll take the rest of your check, and here's your EBT card. Slow burn Communism. Niftily enough, the taxes will have to be increased on businesses who will be forced into destitution only for the state to acquire them and take control of production. For the greater good, you know. Especially since government heads are known for paying themselves at the same rate as their constituents.

 Peregrine wrote:

Are there people who don't NEED them but chase after them solely to work less?

Perhaps you should ask yourself why people do this. Why are people willing to accept a life of poverty to avoid working? Why are the jobs that are available so unappealing that barely struggling along with the absolute minimum required for survival is a desirable alternative? Answer this and you will understand why capitalism is doomed, and why socialism is inevitable.

Why? Because they can. Read my earlier bit about my 16 year old. Now look at the last two to three generations. They'll pirate whatever they want with impunity, they'll milk any handout they can, and do whatever it takes to put off becoming self reliant as long as possible. Well, except for my oldest, he was fast tracking his independence from the second he could work. After graduate school, he'll be set up better than I currently am, and I appreciate his ambition.




While we're at it, what is so wrong with ambition? That seems to be the main difference between capitalism and non-capitalism. If it wasn't for ambition, you wouldn't have the device you are currently viewing this on. If it wasn't for ambition, there wouldn't have been a boat for my great grandparents to have come from Lithuania to the US. If it wasn't for ambition, we would never have set foot on the moon, or had satellites in orbit to manage all sorts of data applications. If it wasn't for ambition, there'd be a different dominant species on this planet.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

Disciple of Fate wrote:As for UBI, sure its unworkable now because most of us work and with that work taxes for UBI would be paid. So its people working to pay taxes to give themselves UBI. But there might be a moment where most people are no longer employed because of advancement in robotics. But then the government also makes little in tax money because its tax base is gone. You can't make a detailed calculation of something that hasn't even happened yet, because that just means fudging the numbers. What is clear is that in a future of fewer jobs, tax rate on business will need to make up for that shortfall in income tax, because companies will make more anyway from the reduction in labor costs. Your Apple example is bad, Apple employees pay taxes to the government with their paycheck from Apple. When those employees are out on their asses Apple gets to keep their whole paycheck, which is where the money from UBI would come from.

So here's my problem, if you're paying everyone through tax money, and supposedly the EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVVVVVIIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL corporations don't pay a dime, where is the tax revenue coming from? The second it becomes unprofitable for a corporation to produce a good or service, they will most assuredly stop, and those that have the wealth accumulated will ferry away with it while the labor force will be left out to dry. Now, you aren't getting taxes from corporations OR employees to give everyone free money, so it all blows up.

You can break down all three economic systems into one question, and the answers to that question: How do I get rich people's money? Capitalism's answer is exchange goods or services for said money, with the rate of exchange dictated by the owner of said money, and altered if they can't get the goods and services at lower prices than the receiver of the money is willing to accept. Socialism's answer is for government to take on the services and basic needs of everyone, and pay for it in taxes. This has the nasty side effect of the rich leaving with their money once they get unfairly taxed at a severely higher rate than anyone else. Even if it's even across the board but higher than 51%, most corporate interest/rich people with money will simply bail as they would rather the services be privatized and increase employment. Communism's answer is to take the power and money away from the rich, as well as the capacity to generate said wealth (factories, production, the like) and give control of them to the governing body wholesale who then dictates what everyone gets. Of course, every revolution is a peaceful one with no bloodshed, and that governing body never keeps most of the wealth for themselves. It comes down to how you incentivize the populace to contribute. Threatening a collapse of employment to scare people into going full socialist/communist early vs. pointing weapons at people to force participation vs. creating a supply/demand chain for goods and the wealth needed to pay for said goods. To me, one is clearly more humane, and actually generates wealth for the populace. The others either generate wealth for the ruling class, or consume more than they can collect/produce. That's my view, I look at sustainability.


After interviewing my 16 year old daughter, she laid out how she'd be able to cohabitate with friends to mitigate expenses in order to be able to live off of $1,000.00 without having to get supplemental income. Essentially she sees no reason to work for something that she could get for free. THAT is the reality of a UBI. Unless you make it IMPOSSIBLE for someone to subsist on it without work in any way, it will blow up.

Ok look, tax money now for the most part comes out of people's paychecks right? When those jobs no longer exist because a company has a robot, they don't spend money on the paycheck for that employee anymore. Then you would need a system where that paycheck money through business tax goes to the government that can then use it for UBI. The problem isn't where the money for UBI will come from, the problem is that once UBI is a societal necessity the government will have already collapsed through lack of taxes if they haven't overhauled tax on business in the first place. In an economic system where UBI becomes such a necessity rich people have nowhere to run to, because all these countries have the same issue and if they don't want to participate in UBI they lose a massive amount of consumers. Its all great that you're rich, but when people are so poor they can't afford food what good will money do? It means either rich people share, or society as a whole collapses and they can live on the moon somewhere, except without society being rich isn't very helpful.

Your daughter is a bad example. Because UBI really becomes a concept when your daughter has no work, not because she doesn't see a reason to work, there just isn't any work available for her anymore. We're talking about a future where perhaps 80-90% of the global jobs become obsolete unless there is some new massive industry. As I said, UBI doesn't work when most of us still have jobs, because then we work to finance our own UBI. UBI works when companies have cut labor costs by cutting the majority of their staff and those cut labor costs will have to be taxed. Either you make human employment mandatory or you need some sort of non-human labor tax on them.

And what happens when every job ISN'T automated? I work in a place that utilizes automation every chance it can, especially when there are critical assembly areas where particle contamination risks system functions because of tolerances. Even then, in the parts of our shop where they automated, robots are outnumbered by people 4 to 1. There are jobs that they COULD automate easily, but they don't. It's funny that the hopes and dreams of this UBI fueled communist future comes from this perceived notion that robits will took 'er jerbs. We've already got the crown prince of the automation camp, Elon Musk, replacing automation in the Tesla plant with humans. There is so much that robots simply can't do that we're millennia away from any meaningful incursion by automation on the workforce. And that's just the labor sector. Service sector? Look at how slow that is moving. We're still not to the point that a McD's can run on minimal human staff. McD's. There's no damn art to producing a Double Quarter Pounder (Great, NOW I'm hungry...). The doom and gloom of automation taking over is part fearmongering to foster to an inferior economic system, and wishlisting for people who want to suck down pizza rolls while playing Dark Souls.

So basically the only way UBI can come is if every employment opportunity collapses, and we default back to "take rich people's money"? Got it. You'll pardon me if I don't impart that sensibility into my children.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skyth wrote:
First off, taxes being higher on the rich is in no way unfair. Second off, some people choosing not to work is an intended feature of UBI not a bug.

How do you figure it's not unfair? Should you shell out half your paycheck or more to subsidize someone else? In my circle of friends, two of us are mid to higher income, one is on the wealthy scale, and five earn a bit below us, with one at minimum wage. Should I be expected to shave off my check to pay the guy working security because he chose a job that didn't pay as well as mine? ESPECIALLY when he literally had a chance to work at the same place as me? There's a reason practically every religious based law teaches an equivalent to "Thall shalt not covet." As an atheist, even I can see the fault in lusting after other peoples' stuff.

Once again, the intended feature is what will backfire. Your thought is that someone given free money will suddenly decide to chase down a better career/income/life, and I don't doubt some will. It's the far too many who will simply take the freebies and exist that will be the issue, and it'll be far more than you are willing to admit.

 Just Tony wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

Disciple of Fate wrote:As for UBI, sure its unworkable now because most of us work and with that work taxes for UBI would be paid. So its people working to pay taxes to give themselves UBI. But there might be a moment where most people are no longer employed because of advancement in robotics. But then the government also makes little in tax money because its tax base is gone. You can't make a detailed calculation of something that hasn't even happened yet, because that just means fudging the numbers. What is clear is that in a future of fewer jobs, tax rate on business will need to make up for that shortfall in income tax, because companies will make more anyway from the reduction in labor costs. Your Apple example is bad, Apple employees pay taxes to the government with their paycheck from Apple. When those employees are out on their asses Apple gets to keep their whole paycheck, which is where the money from UBI would come from.

So here's my problem, if you're paying everyone through tax money, and supposedly the EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVVVVVIIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL corporations don't pay a dime, where is the tax revenue coming from? The second it becomes unprofitable for a corporation to produce a good or service, they will most assuredly stop, and those that have the wealth accumulated will ferry away with it while the labor force will be left out to dry. Now, you aren't getting taxes from corporations OR employees to give everyone free money, so it all blows up.

You can break down all three economic systems into one question, and the answers to that question: How do I get rich people's money? Capitalism's answer is exchange goods or services for said money, with the rate of exchange dictated by the owner of said money, and altered if they can't get the goods and services at lower prices than the receiver of the money is willing to accept. Socialism's answer is for government to take on the services and basic needs of everyone, and pay for it in taxes. This has the nasty side effect of the rich leaving with their money once they get unfairly taxed at a severely higher rate than anyone else. Even if it's even across the board but higher than 51%, most corporate interest/rich people with money will simply bail as they would rather the services be privatized and increase employment. Communism's answer is to take the power and money away from the rich, as well as the capacity to generate said wealth (factories, production, the like) and give control of them to the governing body wholesale who then dictates what everyone gets. Of course, every revolution is a peaceful one with no bloodshed, and that governing body never keeps most of the wealth for themselves. It comes down to how you incentivize the populace to contribute. Threatening a collapse of employment to scare people into going full socialist/communist early vs. pointing weapons at people to force participation vs. creating a supply/demand chain for goods and the wealth needed to pay for said goods. To me, one is clearly more humane, and actually generates wealth for the populace. The others either generate wealth for the ruling class, or consume more than they can collect/produce. That's my view, I look at sustainability.


After interviewing my 16 year old daughter, she laid out how she'd be able to cohabitate with friends to mitigate expenses in order to be able to live off of $1,000.00 without having to get supplemental income. Essentially she sees no reason to work for something that she could get for free. THAT is the reality of a UBI. Unless you make it IMPOSSIBLE for someone to subsist on it without work in any way, it will blow up.

Ok look, tax money now for the most part comes out of people's paychecks right? When those jobs no longer exist because a company has a robot, they don't spend money on the paycheck for that employee anymore. Then you would need a system where that paycheck money through business tax goes to the government that can then use it for UBI. The problem isn't where the money for UBI will come from, the problem is that once UBI is a societal necessity the government will have already collapsed through lack of taxes if they haven't overhauled tax on business in the first place. In an economic system where UBI becomes such a necessity rich people have nowhere to run to, because all these countries have the same issue and if they don't want to participate in UBI they lose a massive amount of consumers. Its all great that you're rich, but when people are so poor they can't afford food what good will money do? It means either rich people share, or society as a whole collapses and they can live on the moon somewhere, except without society being rich isn't very helpful.

Your daughter is a bad example. Because UBI really becomes a concept when your daughter has no work, not because she doesn't see a reason to work, there just isn't any work available for her anymore. We're talking about a future where perhaps 80-90% of the global jobs become obsolete unless there is some new massive industry. As I said, UBI doesn't work when most of us still have jobs, because then we work to finance our own UBI. UBI works when companies have cut labor costs by cutting the majority of their staff and those cut labor costs will have to be taxed. Either you make human employment mandatory or you need some sort of non-human labor tax on them.

And what happens when every job ISN'T automated? I work in a place that utilizes automation every chance it can, especially when there are critical assembly areas where particle contamination risks system functions because of tolerances. Even then, in the parts of our shop where they automated, robots are outnumbered by people 4 to 1. There are jobs that they COULD automate easily, but they don't. It's funny that the hopes and dreams of this UBI fueled communist future comes from this perceived notion that robits will took 'er jerbs. We've already got the crown prince of the automation camp, Elon Musk, replacing automation in the Tesla plant with humans. There is so much that robots simply can't do that we're millennia away from any meaningful incursion by automation on the workforce. And that's just the labor sector. Service sector? Look at how slow that is moving. We're still not to the point that a McD's can run on minimal human staff. McD's. There's no damn art to producing a Double Quarter Pounder (Great, NOW I'm hungry...). The doom and gloom of automation taking over is part fearmongering to foster to an inferior economic system, and wishlisting for people who want to suck down pizza rolls while playing Dark Souls.

So basically the only way UBI can come is if every employment opportunity collapses, and we default back to "take rich people's money"? Got it. You'll pardon me if I don't impart that sensibility into my children.

UBI is viable when a majority of unemployment collapses yes. But you still need an overhaul of taxation, if for example just 20% of your country is made permanently unemployed due to mechanization. That is still an unbearable tax weight for the current system, you would still need to increase taxation on business for regular unemployment benefits or social welfare if you don't move to UBI. The issue is we have no idea how many jobs will disappear because automation is in its infancy, robotics is up and coming. Even if its just 10% that is a massive number. And yes, eventually the burden falls on the rich, because most rich people have been made wealthy by their business profits, profits that would need to be taxed more severely. It isn't about making the rich people poor, its about taxing the income of rich people in such a manner they still get to be rich, yet the rest of society isn't wallowing below poverty level because the government isn't making enough in taxation to keep functioning. Automation and technology to reduce dependency on labor is to the advantage of the wealthy, for the sake of the well being of society there needs to be a downside to the continuous reduction of employees.

Taxing the rich more is not unfair. First off, everyone needs a set amount to live on. The portion that is needed to live on is a lot less for someone who is rich. Thus it is unfair to tax the poor person the same rate as a rich person.

Second off deals with the marginal utility of money. The amount of happiness provided by adding another dollar of income is less than the previous dollar. Taxing a rich person has quite a lesser effect on their happiness as opposed to the same tax rate on a poor person.

The third reason has to do with economics where money in the hands of a poor person is spent, growing the economy. More of the money in the hands of a rich person is saved making the economy stagnate.

Of course the US gets things backwards. The federal tax rate on the middle class is higher than that for the rich. Any additional dollar that a worker earns the federal government gets at least 25 cents. The rich investor has his income taxed at a max of 20%.

But of course you choose the weird example where of course the person making less is allegedly due to being lazy rather than mostly luck like it is in most cases.

I also don't understand the unfair argument. Without society those people would have never been rich, they would sit somewhere in animal skins banging rocks together. These people are rich because of what society gives them, why is it unfair that society requires compensation?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I also don't understand the unfair argument. Without society those people would have never been rich, they would sit somewhere in animal skins banging rocks together. These people are rich because of what society gives them, why is it unfair that society requires compensation?

I dont agree with that statement, I believe they are rich because they gave society what it wants and were compensated for it. The rich provide goods and services that we want and we pay them, that does not mean they then owe us for it.

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I also don't understand the unfair argument. Without society those people would have never been rich, they would sit somewhere in animal skins banging rocks together. These people are rich because of what society gives them, why is it unfair that society requires compensation?

I dont agree with that statement, I believe they are rich because they gave society what it wants and were compensated for it. The rich provide goods and services that we want and we pay them, that does not mean they then owe us for it.

And they could only give society what it wants because society provides the entire infrastructure and market to provide for? So society 2, rich people 1. They can only make those goods and provide service because there is a society that enables them to do so. Good luck getting rich on Antartica, maybe they could sell jackets to penguins after inventing money for penguins

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I also don't understand the unfair argument. Without society those people would have never been rich, they would sit somewhere in animal skins banging rocks together. These people are rich because of what society gives them, why is it unfair that society requires compensation?

I dont agree with that statement, I believe they are rich because they gave society what it wants and were compensated for it. The rich provide goods and services that we want and we pay them, that does not mean they then owe us for it.

And they could only give society what it wants because society provides the entire infrastructure and market to provide for? So society 2, rich people 1. They can only make those goods and provide service because there is a society that enables them to do so. Good luck getting rich on Antartica, maybe they could sell jackets to penguins after inventing money for penguins

they are also a part of said society by paying taxes and providing jobs etc...

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I also don't understand the unfair argument. Without society those people would have never been rich, they would sit somewhere in animal skins banging rocks together. These people are rich because of what society gives them, why is it unfair that society requires compensation?

I dont agree with that statement, I believe they are rich because they gave society what it wants and were compensated for it. The rich provide goods and services that we want and we pay them, that does not mean they then owe us for it.

And they could only give society what it wants because society provides the entire infrastructure and market to provide for? So society 2, rich people 1. They can only make those goods and provide service because there is a society that enables them to do so. Good luck getting rich on Antartica, maybe they could sell jackets to penguins after inventing money for penguins

they are also a part of said society by paying taxes and providing jobs etc...

Yes and in exchange they get to benefit from what society has to offer. I still don't see how increased taxes are an unfair deal, their wealth is still based on the efforts and expenditures of society before they got rich. Everybody pays taxes, why can't those with a lot more help those with a lot less? Its not in the interest of the rich to let people suffer in poverty, the rich historically tend to get strung up when you piss off the majority too much. I mean, the government isn't going to take all their money, they are still going to be more than comfortably rich at the end of the day and free to increase their fortune with the stability society provides.

 thekingofkings wrote:

I dont agree with that statement, I believe they are rich because they gave society what it wants and were compensated for it. The rich provide goods and services that we want and we pay them, that does not mean they then owe us for it.

You might be surprised to find that Rich People, such as Warren Buffet, disagree with this. Buffet has repeatedly stated that persons of extreme wealth, such as himself, should be taxed more, not less, as the wealthier they become, the less that give back in return. This is usually due to thier money being placed in things such as holding companies and shell companies that do not, in and of them selves produce a nything, but rather own smaller parts of companies that do, and serve no purpose other than tax dodges and to more efficiently harvest money from corporations that actually do something. Buffet has, on occasion, railed against companies like Disney that produce no physical goods, merely IP, which in the House of Mouse's case is frequently stolen from others.

Men such as Bill Gates have, on occasion, agreed with this position.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I also don't understand the unfair argument. Without society those people would have never been rich, they would sit somewhere in animal skins banging rocks together. These people are rich because of what society gives them, why is it unfair that society requires compensation?

I dont agree with that statement, I believe they are rich because they gave society what it wants and were compensated for it. The rich provide goods and services that we want and we pay them, that does not mean they then owe us for it.

And they could only give society what it wants because society provides the entire infrastructure and market to provide for? So society 2, rich people 1. They can only make those goods and provide service because there is a society that enables them to do so. Good luck getting rich on Antartica, maybe they could sell jackets to penguins after inventing money for penguins

they are also a part of said society by paying taxes and providing jobs etc...

Yes and in exchange they get to benefit from what society has to offer. I still don't see how increased taxes are an unfair deal, their wealth is still based on the efforts and expenditures of society before they got rich. Everybody pays taxes, why can't those with a lot more help those with a lot less? Its not in the interest of the rich to let people suffer in poverty, the rich historically tend to get strung up when you piss off the majority too much. I mean, the government isn't going to take all their money, they are still going to be more than comfortably rich at the end of the day and free to increase their fortune with the stability society provides.

It's a symbiotic relationship between the rich and the society. Neither can exist without the other. The rich got rich by providing society what it wanted, while making use of what was already in society. Saying that rich people should pay huge chunks of their income to subsidize people who don't provide society with anything is just as bad as saying the rich shouldn't pay taxes.

Disciple of Fate wrote:Every time we have a thread about world economics I love how people jump on to fight the communist straw men. Nobody here was saying Stalin or Mao were the #1 coolest guyz in the universe. Were discussing socialism/communism in the non 20th century definition of the word as a possible future shift due to significant economic and technological changes. Nobody is arguing to build a time machine to enjoy those 1930's Gulags.

There are some who do that, usually called tankies.

Just Tony wrote:And what happens when every job ISN'T automated?

We still have a problem. Look at the big financial disasters of the past. None needed extremely high unemployment rates to cause trouble. Wealth inequality keeps rising and at some point it'll be unsustainable and people will be fed up. We had revolutions in the past when people were unsatisfied with the status quo. As a US citizen you should be very familiar with the concept.

I work in a place that utilizes automation every chance it can, especially when there are critical assembly areas where particle contamination risks system functions because of tolerances. Even then, in the parts of our shop where they automated, robots are outnumbered by people 4 to 1. There are jobs that they COULD automate easily, but they don't. It's funny that the hopes and dreams of this UBI fueled communist future comes from this perceived notion that robits will took 'er jerbs. We've already got the crown prince of the automation camp, Elon Musk, replacing automation in the Tesla plant with humans.

Your company may not have many good opportunities for it right now but that doesn't mean it's the same for every other company out there. Compare manufacturing output with employment numbers in the US manufacturing industry (from after WW2 till today). Employment numbers are down while output and profits stayed relatively stable. What you are seeing is the end state of this wave of automation. The next one might not even hit you or your company directly but lawyers, for example, got hit hard by better search algorithms. Instead of having a dozen newbies and paralegal rummage through archives for weeks they have a few do it in days. And now we have a situation with many underemployed young layers who are in huge debt.

And Musk is an bad example for automation (don't just read his interpretation of things). He jumped head first into it without having had any experience. Look at the other car manufacturers and how they handled it. They used automation where it was useful for removing production bottlenecks instead of going all Musk and painting KUKA robots Tesla Red while not using warning labels (not good for his aesthetic preferences) which caused injuries (above usual rates) in his factory. There's a reason why Tesla's production had manufacturing delays and that because Musk's an "optimist" and has to sell a very optimistic view of Tesla to survive. Besides, their manufacturing output is minuscule even compared to smaller automotive brands.

If you want a large scale example look at Foxconn. They started deploying more robots in China because for certain jobs it was even for them cheaper to use robots than hire even more people (and they huge numbers of employees that's not even workable in developed countries). All those companies evaporate more jobs in a year than Musk's companies created in a decade. Or their expansions get by with fewer employees than was usual in past decades. These days they don't even need to create certain jobs so they are not perceived as being "lost". They just skip the step of creating certain jobs that then could be destroyed by automation decades later.

So basically the only way UBI can come is if every employment opportunity collapses, and we default back to "take rich people's money"? Got it. You'll pardon me if I don't impart that sensibility into my children.

There's no need for things to get that extreme. There are already thousands of "millennials are killing industry X" articles written by overpaid boomers who conveniently ignore that the standard of living for young people is slowly decreasing. Guess why they can't buy all the trinkets? At some point your children will see the reality for themselves no matter what sensibility you instil in them.

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

It's a symbiotic relationship between the rich and the society. Neither can exist without the other. The rich got rich by providing society what it wanted, while making use of what was already in society.

On, no, society gets along fine without the rich. Look into the Flight of the Earls sometime. Or all the wealthy who fled America following the crash of 29 trying to save their assets. The idea that society cannot survive without the rich comes directly from Ayn Rand.

Two, since you ignored this lat time, again, some of the richest have been pushing for higher taxes on wealth, not lower.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

It's a symbiotic relationship between the rich and the society. Neither can exist without the other. The rich got rich by providing society what it wanted, while making use of what was already in society.

On, no, society gets along fine without the rich. Look into the Flight of the Earls sometime. Or all the wealthy who fled America following the crash of 29 trying to save their assets. The idea that society cannot survive without the rich comes directly from Ayn Rand.

Two, since you ignored this lat time, again, some of the richest have been pushing for higher taxes on wealth, not lower.

Wealth and income are different.

If Warrent Buffet wants to pay more in Feseral income tax he can. He can send the IRS as much money as he wants they’ll happily take it. He can also pay himself a salary that puts him in whatever tax bracket he wants to be in.

Capital gains gets taxed at a different rate than income because investment fuels economic growth which is a good thing and the average investor doesn’t have Warrent Buffet levels of wrath and investment.

The govt could raise more revenue to fund more things if they taxed everyone’s tax free 401k contributions but that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
On, no, society gets along fine without the rich. Look into the Flight of the Earls sometime. Or all the wealthy who fled America following the crash of 29 trying to save their assets. The idea that society cannot survive without the rich comes directly from Ayn Rand.

Two, since you ignored this lat time, again, some of the richest have been pushing for higher taxes on wealth, not lower.

Wealth and income are different.

If Warrent Buffet wants to pay more in Feseral income tax he can. He can send the IRS as much money as he wants they’ll happily take it. He can also pay himself a salary that puts him in whatever tax bracket he wants to be in.

Capital gains gets taxed at a different rate than income because investment fuels economic growth which is a good thing and the average investor doesn’t have Warrent Buffet levels of wrath and investment.

The govt could raise more revenue to fund more things if they taxed everyone’s tax free 401k contributions but that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.

You actually can't. The Government has to give any money that they're not due back otherwise they're in a legal quagmire. Yes, both parties can just look the other way and make it "okay", but if an audit happens (which WOULD happen, because conservatives love nothing more to find any reason to defund stuff) then it would force the IRS's hand to give it back.

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

It's a symbiotic relationship between the rich and the society. Neither can exist without the other. The rich got rich by providing society what it wanted, while making use of what was already in society. Saying that rich people should pay huge chunks of their income to subsidize people who don't provide society with anything is just as bad as saying the rich shouldn't pay taxes.

It really isn't, the rich got rich because they happened to be in the right place at the right time. Society started without rich people and 10th generation old money is rich by the virtue of being rich. Its perfectly possible to be rich nowadays without providing anything to society. I never said the rich should pay huge chunks, what I said was if the rich in business are going to save a lot of money on labor costs due to advancement in robotics, what they save in those labor costs should be heavily taxed so society can take care of the permenantly unemployed. So in that way they don't pay more relative to what they pay today, and I don't think they pay a proportionate amount now personally.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mario wrote:

Disciple of Fate wrote:Every time we have a thread about world economics I love how people jump on to fight the communist straw men. Nobody here was saying Stalin or Mao were the #1 coolest guyz in the universe. Were discussing socialism/communism in the non 20th century definition of the word as a possible future shift due to significant economic and technological changes. Nobody is arguing to build a time machine to enjoy those 1930's Gulags.

There are some who do that, usually called tankies.

Sorry, I should have been more clear that I meant nobody in this thread

I have had the pleasure of meeting people in full on denial about Stalin and those that believe Kim Il-Sung was the democratically elected leader of Korea got shafted by the US, forcing the poor man to do all kinds of horrible things to his own people. People are crazy.

skyth wrote:Taxing the rich more is not unfair. First off, everyone needs a set amount to live on. The portion that is needed to live on is a lot less for someone who is rich. Thus it is unfair to tax the poor person the same rate as a rich person.

So because someone is successful, they should be penalized and subsidize everyone who isn't? Also, who dictates what is "needed" to live? Do we then move to identical housing? One model of vehicle for everyone? Do I have to eat a certain way if that's what's NEEDED to live vs. what I WANT to do? Plus, where does it stop? Don't answer, I already know.

skyth wrote:Second off deals with the marginal utility of money. The amount of happiness provided by adding another dollar of income is less than the previous dollar. Taxing a rich person has quite a lesser effect on their happiness as opposed to the same tax rate on a poor person.

I imagine anyone getting charged more for something than the next person would make someone unhappy, regardless of income. I'm relatively well off, should my water bill for instance be higher than my neighbor who makes less than me solely because I make more money? Apply the principle broadly, and stop focusing on the specifics of "rob from the rich to give to the poor", and you'll see the flaw in the thinking, and why I call it unfair.

skyth wrote:The third reason has to do with economics where money in the hands of a poor person is spent, growing the economy. More of the money in the hands of a rich person is saved making the economy stagnate.

You don't know rich people, then. They spend more because they have more, and it goes into the economy. Also their money is invested in other pursuits, which generate jobs and revenue for the economy. So this is patently false on your part, and pretty damn assumptive. I picture your idea of a rich person as some codger sitting atop piles of money like Scrooge McDuck.

skyth wrote:Of course the US gets things backwards. The federal tax rate on the middle class is higher than that for the rich. Any additional dollar that a worker earns the federal government gets at least 25 cents. The rich investor has his income taxed at a max of 20%.

https://taxfoundation.org/2018-tax-brackets/

Gee, the lower income brackets pay a lower percentage. Almost like the poorer people pay less in taxes already. Gee...

Don't try to soft sell it, you want what the rich have earned without doing what the rich have done to earn it. Your average company head spends 12-18 hours a day in their office, managing their companies. They get taxed on their income, the company's revenue, regulatory taxation, you name it. On top of that, you have some person with an advanced degree in basket weaving who's calling for the company head to basically pay their bills since they are unemployable as a basket weaver. It's ridiculous.

skyth wrote:But of course you choose the weird example where of course the person making less is allegedly due to being lazy rather than mostly luck like it is in most cases.

No, I chose the example where someone purposely chooses to work a low paying job with next to no effort to their job solely to get added benefits ie. free money. THAT is lazy. That person that can't understand rudimentary math, who now buses tables? I don't call them lazy. Nor did I call all minimum wage workers lazy. Nice false equivalence, though.

BaronIveagh wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

I dont agree with that statement, I believe they are rich because they gave society what it wants and were compensated for it. The rich provide goods and services that we want and we pay them, that does not mean they then owe us for it.

You might be surprised to find that Rich People, such as Warren Buffet, disagree with this. Buffet has repeatedly stated that persons of extreme wealth, such as himself, should be taxed more, not less, as the wealthier they become, the less that give back in return. This is usually due to thier money being placed in things such as holding companies and shell companies that do not, in and of them selves produce a nything, but rather own smaller parts of companies that do, and serve no purpose other than tax dodges and to more efficiently harvest money from corporations that actually do something. Buffet has, on occasion, railed against companies like Disney that produce no physical goods, merely IP, which in the House of Mouse's case is frequently stolen from others.

Men such as Bill Gates have, on occasion, agreed with this position.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

It's a symbiotic relationship between the rich and the society. Neither can exist without the other. The rich got rich by providing society what it wanted, while making use of what was already in society.

On, no, society gets along fine without the rich. Look into the Flight of the Earls sometime. Or all the wealthy who fled America following the crash of 29 trying to save their assets. The idea that society cannot survive without the rich comes directly from Ayn Rand.

Two, since you ignored this lat time, again, some of the richest have been pushing for higher taxes on wealth, not lower.

Wealth and income are different.

If Warrent Buffet wants to pay more in Feseral income tax he can. He can send the IRS as much money as he wants they’ll happily take it. He can also pay himself a salary that puts him in whatever tax bracket he wants to be in.

Capital gains gets taxed at a different rate than income because investment fuels economic growth which is a good thing and the average investor doesn’t have Warrent Buffet levels of wrath and investment.

The govt could raise more revenue to fund more things if they taxed everyone’s tax free 401k contributions but that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.

Luke_Prowler wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
On, no, society gets along fine without the rich. Look into the Flight of the Earls sometime. Or all the wealthy who fled America following the crash of 29 trying to save their assets. The idea that society cannot survive without the rich comes directly from Ayn Rand.

Two, since you ignored this lat time, again, some of the richest have been pushing for higher taxes on wealth, not lower.

Wealth and income are different.

If Warrent Buffet wants to pay more in Feseral income tax he can. He can send the IRS as much money as he wants they’ll happily take it. He can also pay himself a salary that puts him in whatever tax bracket he wants to be in.

Capital gains gets taxed at a different rate than income because investment fuels economic growth which is a good thing and the average investor doesn’t have Warrent Buffet levels of wrath and investment.

The govt could raise more revenue to fund more things if they taxed everyone’s tax free 401k contributions but that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.

You actually can't. The Government has to give any money that they're not due back otherwise they're in a legal quagmire. Yes, both parties can just look the other way and make it "okay", but if an audit happens (which WOULD happen, because conservatives love nothing more to find any reason to defund stuff) then it would force the IRS's hand to give it back.

https://www.quora.com/Can-you-pay-more-tax-than-you-owe-There-seem-to-be-a-lot-of-millionaires-willing-to-pay-higher-taxes-and-they-want-the-government-to-make-them-do-so-by-changing-the-tax-code-but-cant-they-just-pay-more-regardless-of-what-their-1040-says

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/04/23/if-warren-buffett-wants-to-pay-more-taxes-why-doesnt-warren-buffett-just-pay-more-taxes/#5f1d408a6d1a

Three seconds on google shows me that he most assuredly CAN pay the government more, but in two roundabout ways. It's totally feasible to do so, and nothing stops them from doing it. Except they don't, unless they are explicitly told to do so. I can't wrap my head around that, unless there's some attempt to hold other people accountable, and this is their tactic.

Mario wrote:

Disciple of Fate wrote:Every time we have a thread about world economics I love how people jump on to fight the communist straw men. Nobody here was saying Stalin or Mao were the #1 coolest guyz in the universe. Were discussing socialism/communism in the non 20th century definition of the word as a possible future shift due to significant economic and technological changes. Nobody is arguing to build a time machine to enjoy those 1930's Gulags.

There are some who do that, usually called tankies.

RationalWiki? It looks like a more "intellectual" Urban Dictionary.

Mario wrote:

Just Tony wrote:And what happens when every job ISN'T automated?

We still have a problem. Look at the big financial disasters of the past. None needed extremely high unemployment rates to cause trouble. Wealth inequality keeps rising and at some point it'll be unsustainable and people will be fed up. We had revolutions in the past when people were unsatisfied with the status quo. As a US citizen you should be very familiar with the concept.

As a US citizen, I'm very familiar with the concept of taxation without representation, which is what kicked off our Revolution. The government levied excessive taxes on the Colonies without having any recourse for the Colonists to petition any grievances with the tax rates. The only modern parallel to this would have been the Tax Surplus event back in 2000. Gore took the King George route, and Bush took the "no taxation without representation" route, which he argued "You want to raise taxes to get more? Great, but don't overtax and simply keep it." in essence. IF you want to hammer the inequality revolution, you should have chosen France.

I work in a place that utilizes automation every chance it can, especially when there are critical assembly areas where particle contamination risks system functions because of tolerances. Even then, in the parts of our shop where they automated, robots are outnumbered by people 4 to 1. There are jobs that they COULD automate easily, but they don't. It's funny that the hopes and dreams of this UBI fueled communist future comes from this perceived notion that robits will took 'er jerbs. We've already got the crown prince of the automation camp, Elon Musk, replacing automation in the Tesla plant with humans.

Your company may not have many good opportunities for it right now but that doesn't mean it's the same for every other company out there. Compare manufacturing output with employment numbers in the US manufacturing industry (from after WW2 till today). Employment numbers are down while output and profits stayed relatively stable. What you are seeing is the end state of this wave of automation. The next one might not even hit you or your company directly but lawyers, for example, got hit hard by better search algorithms. Instead of having a dozen newbies and paralegal rummage through archives for weeks they have a few do it in days. And now we have a situation with many underemployed young layers who are in huge debt.

 Just Tony wrote:

skyth wrote:Taxing the rich more is not unfair. First off, everyone needs a set amount to live on. The portion that is needed to live on is a lot less for someone who is rich. Thus it is unfair to tax the poor person the same rate as a rich person.

So because someone is successful, they should be penalized and subsidize everyone who isn't? Also, who dictates what is "needed" to live? Do we then move to identical housing? One model of vehicle for everyone? Do I have to eat a certain way if that's what's NEEDED to live vs. what I WANT to do? Plus, where does it stop? Don't answer, I already know.

They aren't penalized, the pay according to their means. The idea that its a penalty is laughable, because else all taxation above the bare minimum is a penalty.

But say for example you get paralyzed from an accident and can't work anymore, should you be penalized for being in that accident? When you can't get work anymore because of outside effects not in your control, should you be left to starve? Rich people still get to be rich, but in exchange for society not ripping them to shreds by having a functional and protective government they can help by making sure to pay an adequate amount of tax to the government. It isn't in the interest of the rich to let society fall apart, because they tend to end up as the scapegoats. That isn't meant as a threat, its just how it is historically. In a future where the rich desperatly cling to every dollar in an increasingly poor society its going to resemble an authoritarian state pretty quickly. We have examples of that less then a few decades ago in Central America.

And really, when you have 50 billion and you make 1 billion a year, does it matter that much if your taxes are either a 100 million or lets say 400 mil? At what point does such an obscene amount become meaningless numbers?

 Just Tony wrote:
So because someone is successful, they should be penalized and subsidize everyone who isn't?

They're not penalised. If the machine operator is paid $50,000 and loses $10k in tax, and his boss is paid $100,000 and pays $30k in tax, then you might like to say the boss is penalised because he pays so much more in tax, but at the end of the day the boss has $70k and the worker has $40k, the boss is still in the better position by a long way.

The mistake you're making is looking at tax seperate to the rest of society. But it is all one system. The property and contract rules, police and the courts that enforce those rules, and the infrastructure and education system that allows modern businesses to function - these were all written by the same government that writes the tax code. It's nonsense to pick one part of the system in isolation and claim that's the unfair bit, while everything else should be left as some kind of taken for granted natural order.

Also, who dictates what is "needed" to live?

Making decisions like that is what democratic society is.

 Just Tony wrote:

skyth wrote:Of course the US gets things backwards. The federal tax rate on the middle class is higher than that for the rich. Any additional dollar that a worker earns the federal government gets at least 25 cents. The rich investor has his income taxed at a max of 20%.

https://taxfoundation.org/2018-tax-brackets/

Gee, the lower income brackets pay a lower percentage. Almost like the poorer people pay less in taxes already. Gee...

The tax brackets alone might say so, but in practice the rich can usually (quite legally) utilize a whole lot of different tax deductions and loopholes that make it so they pay less in the end. Putting the wealth into shell companies and so on also helps, ofc. ÏIRC one of the candidates in the last US presidential race (a moderately succesful businessman) had to rearrange some of his charities so that he'd pay more than the lowest rate that still pays something. And Trump got enough deductions from one of his business blunders that he could have gone years without paying tax at all - and yet he was never poor! Not to mention big corporations which often manage to get away with paying maybe 20% of what the tax rate is through all sorts of creative (and legal) manuevers...

Thing is, the more you have the easier it is to hide part of it. The tax office knows exactly what I own and how much I make and have the power to tax me in full. The bank tycoon with companies in five different countries is harder to keep track of, and while he (probably) pays more than me in cold hard cash he is very likely to get away with a lower percentage.

It's almost as if Tony didn't read what I wrote and is arguibg against something else.

Capital gains is taxed at a max of 20%. (And no FICA taxes) The lowest tax bracket is 10% plus a 15% FICA tax on top of that.

 Just Tony wrote:

skyth wrote:Second off deals with the marginal utility of money. The amount of happiness provided by adding another dollar of income is less than the previous dollar. Taxing a rich person has quite a lesser effect on their happiness as opposed to the same tax rate on a poor person.

I imagine anyone getting charged more for something than the next person would make someone unhappy, regardless of income. I'm relatively well off, should my water bill for instance be higher than my neighbor who makes less than me solely because I make more money? Apply the principle broadly, and stop focusing on the specifics of "rob from the rich to give to the poor", and you'll see the flaw in the thinking, and why I call it unfair.

Alright, let's play the other side of this game. A C-Section birth costs 30,000 or so in America. Your average wealthy person Harumphs, adjusts their monocle, and moves on. A family making minimum wage pulls in 15 grand a year. They of course, don't pay and it wrecks their credit even further. What they do pay sets them back considerably. a middle class family agrees to a payment plan, and spends years paying off this debt.

The wealthy child is of course all set for college when the time comes.

The poor child is not, unless they manage to scrape together enough scholarships.

The middle class child is unlikely to, unless their family invests in a plan early, or they manage to secure many scholarships.

Nothing about the start of these three children's lives has any difference but the amount of wealth their family happened to have. Logically speaking, if the wealthy child ends up paying more taxes it is perfectly fair- not only did he have higher earning potential from birth, but he has obviously realized that potential if he remains wealthy. If he does not, then he is not taxed as a wealthy individual.

Society is not a commodity. It is an obligation anyone who lives in it must support.