Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wierd]

Capitalism would not be strangled. You WILL get pay above the min assured wage if you continue to work, which incentivizes people to innovate and find ways to stay working.

What the cap strangles, would be the ability if the 1% of wealth holders to dodge paying taxes though capital gains, and limits ceos from giving themselves absurd wages. This limits how far removed from other working people they can get because they can't keep critical mass through capital gains in the face of inflation. They would be forced to have to invest that money into enterprises that make multiple revinue streams that they can aggregate together to stay ahead, and that means having to employ people, and not consolidate the corporate powers they manage.

Another good barrier to suggest is that such managers only be permitted to chair or manage a single corporation, so they cannot aggregate at all. That will denude their fortunes via inflation very quickly when combined against capital gains based incentives being removed.

Removal of citizens united would neatly sew up the package.  Naturally, it would be very unpopular.

[wierd]

Minimum guaranteed income (as usually thought of) is a bad idea for one basic reason.

You have a 100% tax rate on all earnings below that threshold.

The reason I see is that the economy will naturally adjust to absorb all benefit from the income.

Eg, costs of everything will naturally rise to meet what can be extracted, which means that the assured income would be sub poverty. Always.

The only way to mitigate that is to keep the top earners close to the middle class, and keep the middle class close to the assured income level, so the market cannot create poverty through polarization.

[Shadowlord]

Minimum guaranteed income (as usually thought of) is a bad idea for one basic reason.

You have a 100% tax rate on all earnings below that threshold.

Universal basic income does not have this problem. Any additional income is on top of it.

[Reelya]

Basically the reason I hate liberals so much more than conservatives. It's worse watching skinny jean wearing douchebags take over your "side" of things, but I can't adopt positions so far from my central point that more socialism is needed, and indeed that capitalism is going to try to kill us all if we don't kill it first, so left I must remain... as lame as those on that side tend to be.

That sorta brings up a topic i was talking to friends about today, when will a universal wage(you always get $N/week from the government) be necessary?

To be honest, I expect that in most countries we'll just sort of end up there be attrition. e.g. 47 million Americans are recipients of Food Stamps right now, representing 22 million households. That's 1 in 6 households, and poorer households are probably slightly larger, so it might be 20% of all people. If things progress the way they are then in the long run you're going to see 50%+ of households eligible for food stamps. At some point, it becomes cheaper just to give everyone food stamps than to police "eligibility".

[wierd]

Minimum guaranteed income (as usually thought of) is a bad idea for one basic reason.

You have a 100% tax rate on all earnings below that threshold.

Universal basic income does not have this problem. Any additional income is on top of it.

it also makes zero sense to tax that income, since that is taxing money paid out via taxes. its a recurson nightmare, in which any value for taxation becomes an always changing goal post. (lets keep this simple, say the govt pays 100$ a week as base income, and taxes at 10%. that means the people getting the money only actually get 90$ a week, and the govt just isnt paying the full amount. it is indestinguishable from the govt paying 90$ a week, and charging 0% taxes on it. it is also simultaneously equal to all proportional rates between and above that work out the same way. there is no sensible reason to tax this money.)

[PTTG??]

Yeah, you don't tax the universal income, you tax additional income.

[Reelya]

Yeah, you don't tax the universal income, you tax additional income.

One benefit is that you can flatten the income tax rates out for a large percentage of the population by giving money via the minimum-income, but still get the overall effects of a progressive taxation rate.

So you don't have to faff around with tax-free income thresholds and variable rates for low-income earners, and money isn't locked all year up waiting for people to lodge tax returns. So it could have other positives for the money supply (money not being accumulated by the IRS then paid out all at once at the end of the financial year).

[MetalSlimeHunt]

A problem is going to be that eventually businesses will have to be nationalized or at least made cooperatives once they cease to have employees besides executive scions and stakeholders raking in the benefits. This would, however, be a decent way to fund the basic income.

[Reelya]

I can understand being held in a trust, but "cooperatives" only work when you have employees.

[Baffler]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/pennsylvania-state-department-says-stein-missed-recount-deadline/article/2608305

What a shame. At least she still has MI and WI.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I can understand being held in a trust, but "cooperatives" only work when you have employees.

That's basically what I mean, but what we're talking about doesn't have a good term for it. A public business with no employees, or maybe even legacy employees, getting shares of the profit from automated production feeding into a universal income.

Weird shit. If only maniac were here to complain about how none of us understand economics.

[Shadowlord]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/pennsylvania-state-department-says-stein-missed-recount-deadline/article/2608305

What a shame. At least she still has MI and WI.

She launched the fundraising, as far as I know, after the deadline had already passed. I guess that's why she needs millions for lawyers!

P.S. She's also still over $700k short of the $7m final goal. It's barely been trickling up and I wouldn't be shocked if she still hadn't hit $7m by Wednesday.

[Reelya]

I can understand being held in a trust, but "cooperatives" only work when you have employees.

That's basically what I mean, but what we're talking about doesn't have a good term for it. A public business with no employees, or maybe even legacy employees, getting shares of the profit from automated production feeding into a universal income.

Weird shit. If only maniac were here to complain about how none of us understand economics.

there's another alternative that's starting to look pretty good. Companies like Uber rely on centralized data servers etc. But people are starting to make blockchain-based alternatives to entire companies. e.g. once your entire company is an automated digital service, why not automate management and ownership of the company as a decentralized distributed cloud service?

So in other words, those disruptive companies like Amazon and Uber are already looking like dinosaurs, with no-server alternatives popping up based on user-land cloud-tech / blockchain etc.
https://dollarvigilante.com/blog/2016/06/11/arcade-city-decentralized-blockchain-based-uber-killer.html

[TheBiggerFish]

I can understand being held in a trust, but "cooperatives" only work when you have employees.

That's basically what I mean, but what we're talking about doesn't have a good term for it. A public business with no employees, or maybe even legacy employees, getting shares of the profit from automated production feeding into a universal income.

Weird shit. If only maniac were here to complain about how none of us understand economics.

there's another alternative that's starting to look pretty good. Companies like Uber rely on centralized data servers etc. But people are starting to make blockchain-based alternatives to entire companies. e.g. once your entire company is an automated digital service, why not automate management and ownership of the company as a decentralized distributed cloud service?

So in other words, those disruptive companies like Amazon and Uber are already looking like dinosaurs, with no-server alternatives popping up based on user-land cloud-tech / blockchain etc.
https://dollarvigilante.com/blog/2016/06/11/arcade-city-decentralized-blockchain-based-uber-killer.html

Well that's interesting.

[smjjames]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/pennsylvania-state-department-says-stein-missed-recount-deadline/article/2608305

What a shame. At least she still has MI and WI.

Oof, I thought she did it on the right day? That's what happens when you wait too long.

Getting back to the other issue.

There are no strong Democrats in position for a 2020 run. In fact, that's probably how we got where we are -- any non-Hillary establishment candidate would have handily won the primary, and a generic Democrat would have trounced Trump.

Here's the crop we have sub-60-year-old notables in the Democratic Party.

These aren't major names; some of them are city councilors. And this is the short list; if we had a comprehensive list we'd have to start listing dogcatchers.

What has been going on for the past twenty years in the Democratic party?

Probably too long a dominance by the Clintons, but 4 to 8 years is a pretty long time politically, there could be some little known rising star somewhere, might even show up in the 2018 midterms. Also, the Democrats effectively shut out everybody else because they had pre-crowned Hillary as the nominee and thus shut out any potential rising stars.