Print

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

[Descan]

Really? No comment on my wheelchair analogy?

I thought it was great. ._.

[SalmonGod]

Really? No comment on my wheelchair analogy?

I thought it was great. ._.

I thought it was quite accurate.

[Nadaka]

a flat tax can be fair... but not at the current  level of welfare. if every household had poverty level stipend from the govornment and free universal welfare? i think that a flat tax could be fair. but that would require a flat tax around 50%, which would give the average flat tax supporter an aneurism.

[Mr. Palau]

Progressive taxation is unfair, but the people who are being discriminated against by progressive taxation also received all the benefits of an unfair inheritance system. If everyone started with the same amount than no matter then the world would be fair and progressive taxation would be unfair, but in this world some people are born to rich parents and others are born to poor parents, and it is only fair to have the children of the rich pay more than the children of the poor after they grow up. The rich is inevitably made up mostly of the children of rich people, so taxing the rich is a proxy for taxing their children. Also by definition the children they would have would be children of the rich.

After all the rich kids went to good schools got a good education got all the benefits of their parents income, which is much larger than that of the poor.

This is just my opinion but I think if there was a hypothetical world where everyone started out equal in every generation than even a percentage based taxation (ex. flat 10%) would be unfair there. Everyone started out equally, so they should all have to pay in an equal amount to provide equal benefits to all, otherwise it would be unfair. The only real fair tax in this hypothetical world would be a head tax.

[Sheb]

Even if everyone started equally, wealth would not depend on merits alone. Some guy may make a really lucky investment, or win at the lottery. Some other guy may get sick and drown in health debt.

[Descan]

Is why I love the idea of a basic income guarantee. You get enough money every year to survive (and possibly invest in a business or education) and everything else you want you have to contribute something and make money off it.

Equality of opportunity, rather than equality of end result. You don't handicap the fast racers to make sure everyone finishes at the same time, but you DO make them all start at the same line.

I've been hovering around 10k a year or so, which is about 300 billion up here annually, and 3 trillion in America for every man, woman and child. If you make it taxable income, then it's actually a good deal less than 300/3 billion/trillion. Would also be able to get rid of food-stamps and other welfare and their accompanying bureaucracy, though maybe not disability benefits.

[Eagle_eye]

10k isn't enough for a lot of places. I'd say just make food staples, basic housing, and education free, period.

[Sheb]

It's easier to hand out money than have the government manage public housing and staples for everyone.

[Eagle_eye]

But also potentially a lot less effective.

[Descan]

People tend to be pretty smart about what they need to survive. You don't need to hold their hands and say "Okay, now you need food, electricity, and rent!" They can figure that out on their own.

With pure money, you give people the freedom to tailor to what they need, something you can't do with vouchers.

Plus, with pure money, you save on bureaucracy because you can just do it through the IRS.

[Zangi]

People tend to be pretty smart about what they need to survive. You don't need to hold their hands and say "Okay, now you need food, electricity, and rent!" They can figure that out on their own.

With pure money, you give people the freedom to tailor to what they need, something you can't do with vouchers.

Plus, with pure money, you save on bureaucracy because you can just do it through the IRS.

Then there are the few people who find ways to spend most of it on 'vices' like gambling, drink, hallucinations.  And then everyone else hates it now cause of those few people.

[Sheb]

Except with an universal income, you don't get the feeling those guys are ripping you off, because they only get the same things you do.

[GlyphGryph]

But also potentially a lot less effective.

There's not much more less effective than government handouts. The problem is that the government has to either spend a lot of resources figuring out what's best for you in particular... or they need to develop a one size fits all solution that is practically guaranteed to cost more for less value than you really deserve.

There's not much more efficient than letting the people with the relevant knowledge make the decisions (though helping to give them more knowledge is often a wise investment)

[Eagle_eye]

But just giving people money still leaves gaps. Not everyone is a rational, competent individual. Anything that's necessary for survival should be available regardless of how incredibly idiotic someone is. Give people money, and you're going to get a small group who blow it on themselves, and their dependents get screwed.

[Sheb]

Well, their dependents should get their own money. In the case of kids, well, that's why you get social workers, like we do now.