LPSG

unconditional basic income

Originally Posted by Perados So, again: why should their be a problem to finance it? Because you're proposing a system that gives away free money to every single citizen and you have yet to identify

is part of a discussion in the Politics forum that includes topics on Political and government related discussions..


Go Back   LPSG > Main > Politics

 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 10-06-2013   #76 (permalink)
KTF40 is offline


Quote:
Originally Posted by Perados View Post
So, again: why should their be a problem to finance it?
Because you're proposing a system that gives away free money to every single citizen and you have yet to identify where this free money comes from. Not to mention the fact that this system would only have a negative impact upon the number of people within a tax base as it provides an incentive to be unemploymed.
KTF40 is offline  
Old 10-06-2013   #77 (permalink)
balsary is offline


Quote:
Originally Posted by slurper_la View Post
If:
A man who represents himself has a fool for a lawyer...

Then:
What is a man who argues with a fool?
Like I said before, we're all ignorant in some way or another.
balsary is offline  
Old 10-06-2013   #78 (permalink)
Perados is offline


Quote:
Originally Posted by KTF40 View Post
Because you're proposing a system that gives away free money to every single citizen and you have yet to identify where this free money comes from. Not to mention the fact that this system would only have a negative impact upon the number of people within a tax base as it provides an incentive to be unemploymed.
Again
You can increase taxation and a huge part is financed by the safed money out of then excess and no more needed services...

Also does only an unemploymency higher then 50% will influence the tax income negative. - and YOU still couldnt offer an arguement why so many people should become lazy AND ARE NO MORE WILLING TO SEARCH FOR A TASK

troll dich!
Perados is offline  
Old 10-06-2013   #79 (permalink)
ConanTheBarber is offline


Quote:
Originally Posted by Perados View Post
HOW IS IT POSSIBLE THAT PEOPLE START NAME CALLING AND THROW SHIT ON EACH OTHER , JUST CAUSE SOMEONE COMPARED TWO POSTS?????

If this is the standard of discussion, does anyone wonder that the senat acts like a kindergarten, as well?

Do you mean the House of Representatives, Perados?

"Conan! What is best in life?"

"To crush your enemies -- see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women!"

That's barbaric, kidz.

Don't try this at home.

~ ConanTheBarber (but you can call me Connie)
ConanTheBarber is offline  
Old 10-06-2013   #80 (permalink)
balsary is offline


Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric_8 View Post
Think away. Deliberate away. Insult away should you see fit. You see, my friend (general term, don't be offended. I don't really mean it), this would be how an adult would manage someone's snark and/or insults. I'm not going to run away and tattle to the almighty mods. You're clearly ok with the sorts of actions you claim to abhor. Why not revel in them?

Fwiw, rejecting reality is roughly the exact same thing as insane. So, in refusing to sling mud with a rather ambiguous, wishy washy post, you still did. Bravo sir! I think you might qualify for a spot on the Sunday news shows.
Roughly the exact same thing, how can it be roughly the exact same thing? You're trying real hard pick a fight here Eric. If I've bruised that enormous ego of yours I apologize. Perhaps you should start LESG and get some support for that. You get to decide all the rules, so insults can be mandatory. It will be roughly the exact same as this site.
balsary is offline  
Old 10-06-2013   #81 (permalink)
Eric_8 is online now


Quote:
Originally Posted by slurper_la View Post
If:
A man who represents himself has a fool for a lawyer...

Then:
What is a man who argues with a fool?
To echo the lingo of my 13 year old cousin: that is adorbs.

I pity da fool!
Eric_8 is online now  
Old 10-06-2013   #82 (permalink)
Eric_8 is online now


Quote:
Originally Posted by balsary View Post
Roughly the exact same thing, how can it be roughly the exact same thing? You're trying real hard pick a fight here Eric. If I've bruised that enormous ego of yours I apologize. Perhaps you should start LESG and get some support for that. You get to decide all the rules, so insults can be mandatory. It will be roughly the exact same as this site.
You've done me like an overripe banana. How I wi continue I persist in this ever darkening world is beyond me.

I pity da fool!
Eric_8 is online now  
Old 10-06-2013   #83 (permalink)
Perados is offline


Quote:
Originally Posted by ConanTheBarber View Post
Do you mean the House of Representatives, Perados?
Propably
For me, everything outside the german bundestag and bundesrat is a senat/parliament - untill i do researchs (ever again)

troll dich!
Perados is offline  
Old 10-06-2013   #84 (permalink)
KTF40 is offline


Quote:
Originally Posted by Perados View Post
Again
You can increase taxation and a huge part is financed by the safed money out of then excess and no more needed services...
Eliminating private sector services such as retirement care does not result in saving money. And as I already said, increasing taxation is not a plausible answer. Here in the US we raised taxes on the rich at the beginning on the year by about $60-70 billion annually depending on which estimate you want to use. The tax increase would not even cover a 1/10 of your proposed spending increase. Thus, your tax argument is obsolete in my eyes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Perados View Post
Also does only an unemploymency higher then 50% will influence the tax income negative.
This also still makes no sense, probably a language thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Perados View Post
- and YOU still couldnt offer an arguement why so many people should become lazy AND ARE NO MORE WILLING TO SEARCH FOR A TASK
Conan provided evidence. Frankly, no evidence needs to be provided because it's a natural reaction for many to put less effort into something when it is given to you for free.
KTF40 is offline  
Old 10-06-2013   #85 (permalink)
balsary is offline


Quote:
Originally Posted by Perados View Post
Also does only an unemploymency higher then 50% will influence the tax income negative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KTF40 View Post
This also still makes no sense, probably a language thing.
Only an unemployment rate higher than 50% will influence tax income negatively.
balsary is offline  
Old 10-06-2013   #86 (permalink)
B_underguy1 is offline
Banned


Quote:
Originally Posted by Drifterwood View Post
It may surprise you, as it did me, that our Labour Party (way more socialist than your Democrats) abolished our flat tax system that our Conservatives (way more socialist than your Republicans) had always supported.

Personally, I would have a flat tax system in the UK of up to 20,000 ($32,000).

Do you know how big an industry Taxation is? It is a bit mad isn't it and counter intuitive, but that is the system that leads to theories such as Underguy's. Economies get so big that you can forget the underlying principles and believe that they exist without any relationship to realities. If we all agree that bananas are worth $10,000 an ounce then so be it. Who are we to argue?
Excuse me? What is this theory that you've invented on my behalf?

If you're alluding to macroeconomic sectoral balance accounting, well that isn't a theory, it's mathematics.
B_underguy1 is offline  
Old 10-06-2013   #87 (permalink)
KTF40 is offline


Quote:
Originally Posted by balsary View Post
Only an unemployment rate higher than 50% will influence tax income negatively.
Which still makes no sense.
KTF40 is offline  
Old 10-06-2013   #88 (permalink)
B_underguy1 is offline
Banned


Unemployment.
B_underguy1 is offline  
Old 10-07-2013   #89 (permalink)
Perados is offline


Quote:
Originally Posted by KTF40 View Post
Which still makes no sense.
At the current system do pay only 50% of all employees pay income tax - 50% doesnt earn enough to pay income tax

If your thesis would be correct and people would start to quit their jobs, its more likelly that those with a low income would do so. - people with a higher income wouldnt quit their jobs for just 2500 franc.
These "low income people" do not pay any income tax today. Thats why it wouldnt affect the total amount of income tax, cause the new unemployed never paid the income tax...
And if currently 50% of all employees dont pay any income tax, the unemploymency rate could increase up to 50%, without effecting the total amount of income tax, in theory. (if just the lowest 50% quit)

troll dich!
Perados is offline  
Old 10-07-2013   #90 (permalink)
Drifterwood is offline


Quote:
Originally Posted by underguy1 View Post
Excuse me? What is this theory that you've invented on my behalf?
Chartalism.

Increasing unemployment to 50% from say 10%, may not affect income tax take, but it would affect every other type of tax take, it would massively reduce the income generation of other people and business, thereby reducing the income tax take, and of course it would increase the social security cost fivefold.

I would also suggest that people who are not employed use more public services than those who are employed, rather than providing these services for nothing.

"We used to think that you could spend your way out of a recession and increase employment by cutting taxes and boosting government spending. I tell you in all candour that that option no longer exists, and in so far as it ever did exist, it only worked on each occasion since the war by injecting a bigger dose of inflation into the economy, followed by a higher level of unemployment as the next step." Jim Callaghan, British Left Wing Prime Minister 1976
Drifterwood is offline  

Tags
basic, income, unconditional

Thread Tools



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:05 PM.

Latest Threads
indian guy from UK
38 Minutes Ago by george
Aussie Nude Beaches
56 Minutes Ago by foresk
New member
1 Hour Ago by Homab
ID Scene
1 Hour Ago by ron_bb

Latest Posts

Latest Blogs

On Cam Now
biggieitalia, bigheadben, easytoplease, lespaul1990, lovestoshow, mike2150, MisterSlave, muzorewi, nineinchking, Nunu470, pervasiveone, plusadvies, sjcollegeguy, straightguygirls, thickaddict, yogenfruz

Please read the rules.

Online: 1990 | Chatting: 68

Sponsors

Copyright 1999-2013 LPSG