Author |
Message |
|
|
|
Advert
|
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. |
|
|
2018/04/30 11:58:33
Subject: Re:Finnish Basic Income to end this year
|
|
Douglas Bader
|
Just Tony wrote: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.
In a socialist/communist state you may be told to work, but you are not inherently limited to mere scraps. In fact, the goal is to improve the standard of living for everyone.
In a pure capitalist state you work, but the "reward" is poverty. Unlike in the socialist/communist state the people in power in a capitalist state have a personal incentive to keep your standard of living as low as possible so that more of society's wealth can go to them instead. This is why you get people working jobs for poverty-level wages and struggling to afford basic needs. And this is in a state where capitalism is moderated by socialism, in a pure capitalist system anyone who can not be a profitable employee is left to starve to death.
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.
Those groups are a tiny, tiny minority and even the Amish aren't going to refuse the benefits of things like modern medicine. They still interact with the outside world and benefit from society. Removing yourself entirely from society, via living isolated in the remote wilderness, is just a painful way of committing suicide. It doesn't matter how people who wish to die that way are treated under capitalism vs. communism because either way it's still painful suicide.
What makes capitalism NOT blow up is the fact that skateboards don't build themselves. Without workers, the corporate heads make NO MONEY whatsoever.
No, skateboards don't build themselves, but robots build skateboards very efficiently with minimal human involvement. And, in the absence of socialism to moderate capitalism's abuses, the company making those skateboards is free to use the Chinese approach of paying barely enough to avoid death from starvation because there is always someone desperate enough to take the job at that level of pay. The point where capitalism explodes is where too high a percentage of the population becomes literally unemployable as a result of improvements in automation and most of the minority that can get jobs at all are paid next to nothing for their labor.
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.
Nonsense. You're still working a fast food job, AKA living in hell. That is perhaps better than working two fast food jobs to avoid starving to death, but it's hardly a life of comfort and luxury. There is still a lot of incentive to use the fact that you are no longer working 80+ hours a week just to survive and get training of some sort that qualifies you for a better job. It might not instantly give you a law degree, but it sure gives you a much greater opportunity to get one.
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.
Yep, you get it. The inevitable trend is for state control of more and more of the infrastructure of society and the collective operation of everything for universal benefit. That's what happens when only a minority of people are capable of being meaningfully employed.
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.
Are you ing serious? Are you honestly trying to present the stupidity of a 16 year old with no life experience as something worth listening to? Your 16 year old might think they can live on $1000/month, but just wait until they hit the real world and realize that things like cars/vacations/hobbies/etc aren't paid for by mom and dad and there's not a whole lot left after paying necessary expenses out of that $1000. They might have grand plans for cheap living from the safety of being 16 years old and stupid, but they'll very quickly realize the benefits of a good job once they try living that life.
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.
Nothing is wrong with ambition. The problem is that we are heading towards a point where, for a growing number of people, no amount of ambition will be enough because there simply aren't enough jobs available for everyone. At that point "just have ambition" ceases to be a viable response to the need for a communist/socialist system, and the only question is when and how fast this transition happens.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/30 20:52:16
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
|
|
2018/04/30 12:16:13
Subject: Finnish Basic Income to end this year
|
|
Assassin with Black Lotus Poison
|
I think Peregrine has outlined a lot of good points. Capitalism must evolve as more of the population becomes unnecessary from a production standpoint. The jobs which will still be created will be in much less quantities than those lost and require higher education levels.
He also has an excerpt of the lyrics of one of my favourite Maiden songs in his signature.
|
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me. |
|
|
|
2018/04/30 14:27:47
Subject: Finnish Basic Income to end this year
|
|
Kid_Kyoto
|
Gitzbitah wrote:
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.
And with every generation, that divide runs deeper and deeper.
|
|
|
|
|
2018/04/30 14:34:25
Subject: Re:Finnish Basic Income to end this year
|
|
Tzeentch Aspiring Sorcerer Riding a Disc
|
Well it was hard work for those babies to get out of that vagina and receive all that money, who are we to penalize them
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/30 14:34:46
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP) |
|
|
|
2018/04/30 22:51:41
Subject: Re:Finnish Basic Income to end this year
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Disciple of Fate wrote:Well it was hard work for those babies to get out of that vagina and receive all that money, who are we to penalize them
Well, actually moms did all the work. The babies are just lazy freeloader who needs to get to work and earn their living. Don't they have any ambition at all?
|
|
|
|
2018/05/01 00:59:05
Subject: Re:Finnish Basic Income to end this year
|
|
Mekboy Hammerin' Somethin'
|
I've been reading some of this thread the past few days and then I saw this article today.
Basically, they are saying that automation could cost ten million jobs in Britain within the next fifteen years. This is due to at risk jobs, ie order pickers, losing out to automation as well as delivery of those orders being done by drone vehicles.
I'm certainly not informed enough on the issues to offer much of an opinion in this debate, but often there are people saying, "I earned my money, it's mine" and I think to myself, but where did that money come from? What is the ultimate origin of this wealth, which the government uses to create currency which you are given in exchange for your time and skills? I also get the impression that people think that, for instance, if someone in receipt of a government benefit spends that money, it is effectively wasted, they got the money for "free" and they waste it on things they like/want/need without contributing. But the money really exists in a closed loop. If someone get's £100 from the government, and spends it all on alcohol they pay 20% VAT on that alcohol, the worker that served them pays income tax and the business pays its rates et cetera. Some of the worker's pay will be from that benefit money, which they will spend, pay tax and so on. Eventually, the money ends up back at the treasury having passed through many hands and ends up back in the doley's pocket. Unless you've got money under the mattress or remitted abroad then, the money doesn't really go anywhere, just around and around and around.
Anyway, just my thoughts.
|
Be Pure!
Be Vigilant!
BEHAVE!
Show me your god and I'll send you a warhead because my god's bigger than your god. |
|
|
|
2018/05/01 01:16:37
Subject: Finnish Basic Income to end this year
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Disciple of Fate wrote: 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?
Whether meaningless or not, its their money. This sounds more like a simple justification to pillage someone else's wealth.
|
|
|
|
2018/05/01 01:55:34
Subject: Finnish Basic Income to end this year
|
|
Lord of the Fleet
|
Sadly, automation is also coming to places like the service industry, so, brace for no jobs at all in the future.
|
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
|
|
|
|
2018/05/01 03:35:23
Subject: Finnish Basic Income to end this year
|
|
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
A Town Called Malus wrote:I think Peregrine has outlined a lot of good points. Capitalism must evolve as more of the population becomes unnecessary from a production standpoint. The jobs which will still be created will be in much less quantities than those lost and require higher education levels.
It's worth noting capitalism has evolved. We no longer work 6 days a week, 10 or more hours a day. We don't start work at 13 or 14, and retire within a year or two of death hoping our kids earn enough to take care of us. We start work in our late teens or early 20s, we work 5 days, average less than 8 hours a day, and we retire often with 20 or more years of life expected to be left.
And yeah, each of those things were fought for by unions and other movements.
What's interesting to note is that many on the left assume that such gains can't happen anymore, that we can't improve lives through constant, small, incremental gains but instead we have to overthrow the whole system of capitalism. At the same time, the right will claim any new small gain is an unacceptable infringement on the market, but none of them would ever think we should go back to 60 hour working weeks. The extremes of both sides maintain arguments that directly contradict history. Automatically Appended Next Post: Gogsnik wrote:I'm certainly not informed enough on the issues to offer much of an opinion in this debate, but often there are people saying, "I earned my money, it's mine" and I think to myself, but where did that money come from? What is the ultimate origin of this wealth, which the government uses to create currency which you are given in exchange for your time and skills? I also get the impression that people think that, for instance, if someone in receipt of a government benefit spends that money, it is effectively wasted, they got the money for "free" and they waste it on things they like/want/need without contributing. But the money really exists in a closed loop.
This is the core of the issue exactly. All the people who claim it is their money that they created, ask any of them if they were dropped on a desert island, could they mine the resources and then craft their own Audi and build their own townhouse? They can't, because while their place in society might give them the wealth to buy those things, it isn't because their inherent talents, it is because of how they fit in to society.
As such, it makes no sense to ignore all the rules of society, the property rules, the contract rules etc, and look only at the tax laws and say those rules alone are an intrusion on their lives.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/01 03:39:49
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. |
|
|
|
2018/05/01 05:33:30
Subject: Finnish Basic Income to end this year
|
|
Tzeentch Aspiring Sorcerer Riding a Disc
|
thekingofkings wrote: Disciple of Fate wrote: 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?
Whether meaningless or not, its their money. This sounds more like a simple justification to pillage someone else's wealth.
It is their money, made possible by society. Try being that rich in Somalia. Its not pillaging their wealth, its increasing their contribution to the wellbeing of society and themselves. There is no point in being rich if you're so desperatly clinging to every dollar that society collapses and all that money becomes meaningless. They have plenty of money and could you point out how it meaningfully hurts their own well being if they make 600 mil instead of 900 mil a year? That's assuming they even pay their fair share and not get into offshore constructions and bank accounts like plenty do.
|
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP) |
|
|
|
2018/05/01 11:46:29
Subject: Finnish Basic Income to end this year
|
|
Keeper of the Flame
|
Far too much to respond to and keep it organized while juggling work, so this will wind up being multiple posts.
Disciple of Fate wrote: 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.
Once again, if you establish what the tax rate is, and they meet that percentage, anything over isn't yours to take. If you take money from a bank, or from government coffers, it's robbery. If you take it from a rich person, it's social justice. I simply don't have the words...
Disciple of Fate wrote: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?
Oooooooooooooooooooooooooh, this one's in my wheelhouse.
You apply for disability benefits, including Medicaid, EBT, and every other benefit that the government offers you already.
How about personal perspective? Glad you asked.
In 2007, I injured my back during my deployment to Iraq. I'm rated at 10% disabled and draw a monthly check as compensation. I'm fortunate as my job at Cat isn't so physically demanding as to stress that part of my body or exacerbate it, just as my MOS change in the National Guard also works around that. I know that one day in the future, it WILL get worse. Just as I know one day in the far too near future, I won't be able to lift my own daughter. When that time comes, I will file for a reevaluation of my disability rating and go from there. I already have my military pension in place, so I am good there as well. You see, the US already has programs to accommodate people who can't physically or mentally be productive and earn a living. The difference between this and a UBI is qualifiers. I know what 100% disability is going to look like, and I know damn well it wouldn't support my household. At that point, I also know what assistance programs will be available once it gets to that point. By then I will also be getting my pension and probably have my 401K to hit off of. Regardless, I don't expect the government to cut me a $50,000 a year salary on the taxpayers' dime. That's asinine and selfish to expect that.
Disciple of Fate wrote: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.
So extortion? Fascinating. Also, rich people already have something like that in place, it's called wages. Well, the rich people who run businesses, which is almost all of them.
Disciple of Fate wrote: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.
This is why the whole concept of all employment going away is pants on head stupid. With nobody to buy their products, how will the rich make money? There won't be a stock exchange to play, so it all falls apart fast. Regardless of how you think things are going down, only a completely inept upper social class would allow that to happen unless their end goal was to purposefully sabotage wealth creation.
Disciple of Fate wrote: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?
I don't know why I have to keep repeating this. It's about principle. It's about setting a precedent. When you can arbitrarily take away someone's wealth through the government, you set things up to where you can take away ALL WEALTH through the government. I realize for some that is the end goal, but once again, you will eventually deplete that wealth in that case. Far sooner than you'd be willing to admit. Unless, of course, the machine guns come out to "incentivize".
sebster wrote: 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.
Okay, them paying at the current income tax bracket rate is not penalizing them. If the wealthy were paying 80% of the nation's taxes, I wouldn't have an issue as their income is exponentially higher than the lower to middle class. The issue isn't that they are being called to pay 80% of the nation's tax needs, the issue is from them being expected to pay 80% of their income.
sebster wrote: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.
No, I'm making no mistake. I'm looking solely at how you pay for said services.
sebster wrote:Also, who dictates what is "needed" to live?
Making decisions like that is what democratic society is.
A democratic society gave us some of the most destructive leaders to ever disgrace history, and some of the worst economic decisions ever made.
Spetulhu wrote: 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.
The quickest fix is to eliminate any tax deductions completely. That, and raise the tax rate on individual companies, which would ding the rich multiple times for trying the shell company shenanigans. There are other ideas too, but those would solve that problem.
STILL, the original post was that income tax for the rich was a lower rate, and that was patently false. Loopholes may affect what they can pull as far as seeking deductions, but the rate itself is most assuredly higher on the rich than the middle and lower classes. The loopholes need closed, for sure, but that doesn't change the percentage value as written.
skyth wrote: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.
It's almost as if I read exactly what you said and responded directly to it.
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[i][u] taxed at a max of 20%.
So when you say income, you mean actual income for the lower class, but mean capital gains for the rich. Never mind what their actual income is, or that there is a separate set of tax rules for the corporation/company from the start, OR that income and investment earnings are two entirely different things. You didn't just move the goal post, you switched to a different sport in a different state.
For the record, though, I'm all for investment earnings being treated as income for tax purposes, and should be taxed at the same rate. It's one of several tax fix ideas I have.
Gitzbitah wrote: 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..
Let's play that out how it would ACTUALLY go, shall we?
the rich person does some terribly stereotypical thing involving a monocle (because class warfare tropes, I suppose) and simply pays what isn't covered by his/her insurance.
Since I believe I qualify as middle class, I'll field this one from experience. My daughter Charlotte was born C-Section (Lucky me, my son Aidan, who is due at the end of this month, is breach and will more than likely necessitate ANOTHER C-Section) and I submitted the bill to my insurance. I had some copay to pay off.
So there's the real way it would go down. Omitting a major step to foster to political rhetoric is NOT arguing in good faith.
The family pulling in minimum wage submits the cost to government assistance healthcare (My son qualifies for Medicaid because of his Down Syndrome, so this clears up whatever copays left from Tricare we may have. Not sure what government provided health insurance would apply to welfare assistance families). There may be overhead to deal with.
Gitzbitah wrote: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.
Once again, borrowing from my own personal experiences, I dispute this.
There are many grants through the government for students to take care of. Speaking as a person who grew up WELL below middle class, I was able to go to college with nothing but a few grants and my GI Bill. I could have gotten more out of military college benefits, but I wasn't signed up for some in my contract. That avenue is easily available for ANYONE, regardless of upbringing.
If I were to walk out my door at my house and look past the gas station that looms over me from the other side of the street, I can see the tops of the buildings of Purdue University. The attendees at this school come from all walks of life, even from poor upbringings.
That's not even taking into consideration vocational schools or jobs with OJT.
Gitzbitah wrote: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.
So, yet again, punish success. Which, of course, incentivizes people to be less successful. Say what you will, but the monkeys who realize they are working harder or more for the same treats that other monkeys will get for free will indeed stop working for them. It's also why you have rich parents kicking their kids off the trust funds to fend for themselves when they get complacent/entitled.
Gitzbitah wrote:Society is not a commodity. It is an obligation anyone who lives in it must support.
Absolutely, and the structures and administrative apertures of society, I totally agree with you. You are obligated to support and finance. What you are NOT obligated to finance, however, is someone else's expenditures simply based on your success. If you scored a perfect score on your freshman level chem class, and someone else didn't pass because either they didn't understand the material or didn't do enough work to pass, is it your obligation to take a C in that class and donate your hard work in there to bump that person up to a C to be right next to you? That is a question I would hope is rhetorical, but somewhere someone thinks that is how it SHOULD happen. Like I've said a dozen times in threads like this: take the principle behind the law/procedure/whatever and apply it to something else that demonstrates the failed logic behind it, you need to stop getting hung up on specifics, especially when you attach too much emotion to those specifics.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/01 11:47:44
www.classichammer.com
For 4-6th WFB, 2-5th 40k, and similar timeframe gaming
Looking for dice from the new AOS boxed set and Dark Imperium on the cheap. Let me know if you can help.
|
|
|
|
2018/05/01 12:05:28
Subject: Finnish Basic Income to end this year
|
|
Douglas Bader
|
Just Tony wrote:Once again, if you establish what the tax rate is, and they meet that percentage, anything over isn't yours to take. If you take money from a bank, or from government coffers, it's robbery. If you take it from a rich person, it's social justice. I simply don't have the words...
I don't see what your point is here. Nobody is arguing for theft, the rich will be taxed by establishing the tax rate in law and then collecting taxes the same way that everyone else's taxes are collected. Are you trying to suggest that the tax rate has been established forever at X% and can never be changed?
You apply for disability benefits, including Medicaid, EBT, and every other benefit that the government offers you already.
That sounds an awful lot like socialism...
So extortion? Fascinating. Also, rich people already have something like that in place, it's called wages. Well, the rich people who run businesses, which is almost all of them.
Call it what you want, it's the inevitable choice: socialism or violent revolution followed by socialism. And wages don't count when the majority of the population is unemployable and unable to obtain wages.
There are many grants through the government for students to take care of. Speaking as a person who grew up WELL below middle class, I was able to go to college with nothing but a few grants and my GI Bill. I could have gotten more out of military college benefits, but I wasn't signed up for some in my contract. That avenue is easily available for ANYONE, regardless of upbringing.
There are benefits, but there are still two major obstacles:
1) You have to qualify for college in the first place. If you're poor you probably went to a lower-tier school and have weaker academic credentials. You don't have access to test prep classes, the ability to send in piles of college applications at $100 each, and all the various other expenses of getting into college.
2) Grants don't pay for everything. Your tuition may be covered but what about housing? Transportation? Your expenses for breaks when the college is closed? At best you're taking on lots of loan debt just trying to keep your bills paid, at worst you find that there's a gap between what you can afford and the assistance you can get and you don't get to go to college. And you'd better hope you don't have a family that needs support, or you'll have to get a job and start making money instead of investing in the future.
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
|
|
2018/05/01 12:38:15
Subject: Finnish Basic Income to end this year
|
|
Tzeentch Aspiring Sorcerer Riding a Disc
|
Just Tony wrote:Far too much to respond to and keep it organized while juggling work, so this will wind up being multiple posts.
Disciple of Fate wrote: 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.
Once again, if you establish what the tax rate is, and they meet that percentage, anything over isn't yours to take. If you take money from a bank, or from government coffers, it's robbery. If you take it from a rich person, it's social justice. I simply don't have the words...
And why can't the tax rate be adjusted. I'm certainly not advocating robbery, just the adjustment as required. You seem to have enough words to put some in my mouth...
Just Tony wrote:Disciple of Fate wrote: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?
Oooooooooooooooooooooooooh, this one's in my wheelhouse.
You apply for disability benefits, including Medicaid, EBT, and every other benefit that the government offers you already.
How about personal perspective? Glad you asked.
In 2007, I injured my back during my deployment to Iraq. I'm rated at 10% disabled and draw a monthly check as compensation. I'm fortunate as my job at Cat isn't so physically demanding as to stress that part of my body or exacerbate it, just as my MOS change in the National Guard also works around that. I know that one day in the future, it WILL get worse. Just as I know one day in the far too near future, I won't be able to lift my own daughter. When that time comes, I will file for a reevaluation of my disability rating and go from there. I already have my military pension in place, so I am good there as well. You see, the US already has programs to accommodate people who can't physically or mentally be productive and earn a living. The difference between this and a UBI is qualifiers. I know what 100% disability is going to look like, and I know damn well it wouldn't support my household. At that point, I also know what assistance programs will be available once it gets to that point. By then I will also be getting my pension and probably have my 401K to hit off of. Regardless, I don't expect the government to cut me a $50,000 a year salary on the taxpayers' dime. That's asinine and selfish to expect that.
I'm glad you seem to understand the basics. Now imagine a future where through no fault of your own its no longer possible to find employment. The government already struggles to provide for those things now at the current taxrate. Imagine if we put 5 times more people on that system. Without adjustment of tax rate it would collapse. I'm glad you agree the government should not let those people get penalized. If 50-60% has that problem, there is no way that current programs will suffice to cover the problem, this is when UBI comes in.
Just Tony wrote:Disciple of Fate wrote: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.
So extortion? Fascinating. Also, rich people already have something like that in place, it's called wages. Well, the rich people who run businesses, which is almost all of them.
If you call a tax increase extortion then sure! Wages for robots? I don't think you understand what the future might bring for human employment.
Just Tony wrote:Disciple of Fate wrote: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.
This is why the whole concept of all employment going away is pants on head stupid. With nobody to buy their products, how will the rich make money? There won't be a stock exchange to play, so it all falls apart fast. Regardless of how you think things are going down, only a completely inept upper social class would allow that to happen unless their end goal was to purposefully sabotage wealth creation.
Automatisation and robotics are already making a lot of jobs obsolete. UBI could provide a way to safeguard a market when you no longer need a workforce but still save money in the end. In the end business has a choice, either you keep employing humans in the face of better alternatives like robots or you implement UBI to salvage the market.
Just Tony wrote:Disciple of Fate wrote: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?
I don't know why I have to keep repeating this. It's about principle. It's about setting a precedent. When you can arbitrarily take away someone's wealth through the government, you set things up to where you can take away ALL WEALTH through the government. I realize for some that is the end goal, but once again, you will eventually deplete that wealth in that case. Far sooner than you'd be willing to admit. Unless, of course, the machine guns come out to "incentivize".
You have a strange way of characterizing tax increases as "extortion" or "arbitrary", believe me in the context we're discussing there is nothing arbitrary about a tax increase, its in the long term interest of the rich. I never said take all their money, but I'm also not a firm believer in the requirment to make billions a year. Its funny in a sad way how you think there is no middle ground between the current tax rate and just seizing all their money, but it sure makes the discussion sound dramatic for no reason.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/01 12:55:19
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP) |
|
|
|
2018/05/01 12:49:47
Subject: Re:Finnish Basic Income to end this year
|
|
Beautiful and Deadly Keeper of Secrets
|
If you call a tax increase extortion then sure! Wages for robots? I don't think you understand what the future might bring for human employment .
You have a strange way of characterizing tax increases as "extortion"
Your statement previously boiled down to "The rich will pay more taxes or else they'll be killed". That's quite literally extortion. I'm not really getting into this discussion since I'm not that great at economic values in society, but I can see why he's calling it extortion when you put it as bluntly as that.
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.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/05/01 13:00:55
|
|
|
|
2018/05/01 13:01:15
Subject: Re:Finnish Basic Income to end this year
|
|
Tzeentch Aspiring Sorcerer Riding a Disc
|
ZebioLizard2 wrote:If you call a tax increase extortion then sure! Wages for robots? I don't think you understand what the future might bring for human employment .
You have a strange way of characterizing tax increases as "extortion"
Your statement previously boiled down to "The rich will pay more taxes or else they'll be killed". That's quite literally extortion! I'm not really getting into this discussion since I'm not that great at economic values in society, but I can see why he's calling it extortion when you put it as bluntly as that.
Actually if you read what I said it either ends up with the rich dead or an authoritarian state like in Central America. How is that extortion, I'm just looking at history. But I guess history is extortion?
ZebioLizard2 wrote: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.
You should have included the part where I said it wasn't a threat, just observing history. Desperate starving poor people don't tend to be the most friendly of neighbours. Again, take it up with the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Iranian Revolution etc etc. When people have nothing to lose they tend to take matters into their own hands and guess who is going to take the blame? Maybe we should ask Marie Antoinette if she would have taken that extra million a year over her head.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/05/01 13:03:17
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP) |
|
|
|
2018/05/01 13:18:33
Subject: Re:Finnish Basic Income to end this year
|
|
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan
|
Disciple's example is no more extortion than property rights: "Don't step on this piece of land or the police will shoot you". The benefit of the State's monopoly of violence is far greater for those with wealth being safeguarded by it than those without; thus, we expect the people who gain more from the system to pay more into the system.
There's a lot of complaining about the "entitlement" of the poor, but the biggest exemplars of entitlement are the people at the top of the heap that think society owes them anything, rather than the other way around. Buffet, Gates et al. have enough humility to realise that their success wasn't primarily made possible because of their own inherent greatness (although their skill obviously played a part) but through society. For an example of someone who isn't and doesn't, just look at Trump and his small million-dollar loan.
|
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. |
|
|
|
2018/05/01 13:34:28
Subject: Finnish Basic Income to end this year
|
|
Tzeentch Aspiring Sorcerer Riding a Disc
|
In a scenario when most jobs become obsolete, current tax rates won't cut it at the end of the day. Now most new taxes could easily fall on business that cut costs in labor. When you fund UBI with that then society and the economy as a whole can keep running for the most part. Saying its unfair to tax the wealthy more will make society drift more into a police state, because the wealthy are some of the few who can afford taxes and in exchange the government has to protect them against an ever more desperate and poor society. We have seen this examples in history quite a few times. The rich and business want no political change because they won't benefit, but they have to use force to keep social movements who want change down. Central America up until the 90's had US sponsored death squads running around beheading and executing union leaders and student news paper staff. We can directly observe what happens when the elite resist social change at all cost because "its unfair", well it sure isn't pretty either.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/05/01 13:36:05
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP) |
|
|
|
2018/05/01 14:47:36
Subject: Finnish Basic Income to end this year
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Just Tony wrote:Far too much to respond to and keep it organized while juggling work, so this will wind up being multiple posts.
Disciple of Fate wrote: 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
Just Tony 755324 wrote:
skyth wrote: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.
It's almost as if I read exactly what you said and responded directly to it.
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[i][u] taxed at a max of 20%.
So when you say income, you mean actual income for the lower class, but mean capital gains for the rich. Never mind what their actual income is, or that there is a separate set of tax rules for the corporation/company from the start, OR that income and investment earnings are two entirely different things. You didn't just move the goal post, you switched to a different sport in a different state.
When the majority of the rich peoples' income comes from capital gains, it is one and the same. No moving goalposts or anything. But please continue to use dishonest argunents.
Gitzbitah wrote: 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..
Let's play that out how it would ACTUALLY go, shall we?
the rich person does some terribly stereotypical thing involving a monocle (because class warfare tropes, I suppose) and simply pays what isn't covered by his/her insurance.
Since I believe I qualify as middle class, I'll field this one from experience. My daughter Charlotte was born C-Section (Lucky me, my son Aidan, who is due at the end of this month, is breach and will more than likely necessitate ANOTHER C-Section) and I submitted the bill to my insurance. I had some copay to pay off.
So there's the real way it would go down. Omitting a major step to foster to political rhetoric is NOT arguing in good faith.
The family pulling in minimum wage submits the cost to government assistance healthcare (My son qualifies for Medicaid because of his Down Syndrome, so this clears up whatever copays left from Tricare we may have. Not sure what government provided health insurance would apply to welfare assistance families). There may be overhead to deal with.
Gitzbitah wrote: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.
Once again, borrowing from my own personal experiences, I dispute this.
There are many grants through the government for students to take care of. Speaking as a person who grew up WELL below middle class, I was able to go to college with nothing but a few grants and my GI Bill. I could have gotten more out of military college benefits, but I wasn't signed up for some in my contract. That avenue is easily available for ANYONE, regardless of upbringing.
If I were to walk out my door at my house and look past the gas station that looms over me from the other side of the street, I can see the tops of the buildings of Purdue University. The attendees at this school come from all walks of life, even from poor upbringings.
That's not even taking into consideration vocational schools or jobs with OJT.
Gitzbitah wrote: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.
So, yet again, punish success. Which, of course, incentivizes people to be less successful. Say what you will, but the monkeys who realize they are working harder or more for the same treats that other monkeys will get for free will indeed stop working for them. It's also why you have rich parents kicking their kids off the trust funds to fend for themselves when they get complacent/entitled.
Gitzbitah wrote:Society is not a commodity. It is an obligation anyone who lives in it must support.
Absolutely, and the structures and administrative apertures of society, I totally agree with you. You are obligated to support and finance. What you are NOT obligated to finance, however, is someone else's expenditures simply based on your success. If you scored a perfect score on your freshman level chem class, and someone else didn't pass because either they didn't understand the material or didn't do enough work to pass, is it your obligation to take a C in that class and donate your hard work in there to bump that person up to a C to be right next to you? That is a question I would hope is rhetorical, but somewhere someone thinks that is how it SHOULD happen. Like I've said a dozen times in threads like this: take the principle behind the law/procedure/whatever and apply it to something else that demonstrates the failed logic behind it, you need to stop getting hung up on specifics, especially when you attach too much emotion to those specifics.
|
|
|
|
2018/05/01 15:25:21
Subject: Finnish Basic Income to end this year
|
|
Wise Ethereal with Bodyguard
Catskills in NYS
|
Those who benefit most from a society deserve to pay the most into it. And the richest amount us are those who have benefited the most.
|
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote:Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote:Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens BaronIveagh wrote:Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace. |
|
|
|
2018/05/01 16:48:01
Subject: Re:Finnish Basic Income to end this year
|
|
Kid_Kyoto
|
ZebioLizard2 wrote:If you call a tax increase extortion then sure! Wages for robots? I don't think you understand what the future might bring for human employment .
You have a strange way of characterizing tax increases as "extortion"
Your statement previously boiled down to "The rich will pay more taxes or else they'll be killed". That's quite literally extortion. I'm not really getting into this discussion since I'm not that great at economic values in society, but I can see why he's calling it extortion when you put it as bluntly as that.
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.
I believe it's basically the corollary to a Hobbsian viewpoint. For practical purposes, it's not wrong. Classic "strongman keeps humanity from killing and eating each other, state of nature offers only overlapping and absolute property rights for everyone on everything" kind of thing.
Only thing I can see in it that some might find disagreeable is the implications that people might need to pay an appropriate amount into the system representative to what they have to protect.
But you pay more for insurance if you're a health risk. You pay more into insurance if your car is worth more. You pay more into insurance if you have a bigger home full of more stuff. All of that is fine, right? So why not pay more into government/society if you get more out of it too?
|
|
|
|
|
2018/05/01 16:57:08
Subject: Finnish Basic Income to end this year
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Combine with the fact that the biggest reason that the ultra-rich are rich is due to luck.
Plus there needs to be a basic recognition of humanity. The 'work' a rich executive is no where near 5,000 times as valuable or as hard as the workers in the company.
|
|
|
|
2018/05/01 17:07:14
Subject: Finnish Basic Income to end this year
|
|
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
skyth wrote:Combine with the fact that the biggest reason that the ultra-rich are rich is due to luck.
With the promise of capitalism, there are a lot of people who are voting against entitlement programs that would benefit them now or in the future. I always feel that many of the poor people in the US don't see themselves as poor or disadvantaged, they just see themselves as future small business owners who haven't bootstrapped hard enough yet.
|
|
|
|
2018/05/01 17:10:49
Subject: Finnish Basic Income to end this year
|
|
Kid_Kyoto
|
skyth wrote:Combine with the fact that the biggest reason that the ultra-rich are rich is due to luck.
Plus there needs to be a basic recognition of humanity. The 'work' a rich executive is no where near 5,000 times as valuable or as hard as the workers in the company.
I'm unwilling to make value based judgments at this point. However, when a person in a company can receive a bonus larger than another employee's salary even when they get fired for performance reasons, it's not hard to see things are going wrong, particularly when the second employee gets fired for taking the wrong path back from the restroom.
|
|
|
|
|
2018/05/01 17:14:25
Subject: Finnish Basic Income to end this year
|
|
Tzeentch Aspiring Sorcerer Riding a Disc
|
Well this being the first of May, it might be a good moment why this was chosen as international workers day: the US.
In 1886 there were large and violent protests in the US for an 8 hour work day (I know I know... lazy commie scum with their 8 hours). About a dozen people died in the crackdown and four labor leaders were hanged in what is considered a miscarriage of justice. Private business security actually killed protestors.
Why is it so hard to imagine that there might be a return to those kinds of scenes in an economically uncertain future? Those damn socialists enabled an 8 hour working day in the US, those poor rich people suffered such injustice!
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/01 17:17:54
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP) |
|
|
|
2018/05/01 17:19:29
Subject: Finnish Basic Income to end this year
|
|
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Well, some US companies basically maintained private armies to keep labor unions and workers in check. Those are in addition to the many times local, state, and national governments send in police and military forces to help resolve labor disputes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_the_United_States
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/01 17:20:25
|
|
|
|
2018/05/01 17:29:21
Subject: Finnish Basic Income to end this year
|
|
Tzeentch Aspiring Sorcerer Riding a Disc
|
I know, US labor history is fascinating. But it also shows how the less privileged in society fought against the rich and business to improve their lives. So I'm wondering where all the people arguing against higher taxes for the rich and business drew a line in the sand, what year was perfection achieved so as not to be meanies against the wealthy? Were those protesters being unfair too in their opinion? After all, episodes like that cost the wealthy more money. It also shows the amount of social strife that is possible, but apparently saying it might be in the interest of the rich to pay slightly more is a threat and extortion
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/01 17:30:57
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP) |
|
|
|
2018/05/01 23:52:16
Subject: Finnish Basic Income to end this year
|
|
Lord of the Fleet
|
Disciple of Fate wrote:I know, US labor history is fascinating. But it also shows how the less privileged in society fought against the rich and business to improve their lives. So I'm wondering where all the people arguing against higher taxes for the rich and business drew a line in the sand, what year was perfection achieved so as not to be meanies against the wealthy? Were those protesters being unfair too in their opinion? After all, episodes like that cost the wealthy more money. It also shows the amount of social strife that is possible, but apparently saying it might be in the interest of the rich to pay slightly more is a threat and extortion
Mind you, the tax rates on income over a million dollars a year were previously somewhat steep, sometimes almost 90%, in the US. It should be pointed out that this in no way hindered their ability to produce jobs, as the 1940's, 50's and 60's demonstrated.
|
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
|
|
|
|
2018/05/02 02:44:30
Subject: Finnish Basic Income to end this year
|
|
Keeper of the Flame
|
You know what, you guys win. I have responses to every single one of you, but you've simply exhausted me trying to keep up. Nothing I say will change opinions, nor will mine change, so this is a waste of resources. Good day.
|
www.classichammer.com
For 4-6th WFB, 2-5th 40k, and similar timeframe gaming
Looking for dice from the new AOS boxed set and Dark Imperium on the cheap. Let me know if you can help.
|
|
|
|
2018/05/02 06:13:28
Subject: Re:Finnish Basic Income to end this year
|
|
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan
|
Just Tony wrote:You know, that may be one of those experiments where you could kind of guess how it was going to end before you even started it.
Ironic.
|
lord_blackfang wrote:Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote:The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock |
|
|
|
2018/05/03 07:59:45
Subject: Finnish Basic Income to end this year
|
|
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
Just Tony wrote:You know what, you guys win. I have responses to every single one of you, but you've simply exhausted me trying to keep up. Nothing I say will change opinions, nor will mine change, so this is a waste of resources. Good day.
That's solely on you.
|
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. |
|
|
|
|
|