unconditional basic income

Eric_8

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2010
Posts
3,559
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
73
Location
San Diego
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
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.
 

KTF40

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Posts
1,877
Media
3
Likes
60
Points
133
Location
DC
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
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 Thus, your tax argument is obsolete in my eyes.

Also does only an unemploymency higher then 50% will influence the tax income negative.
This also still makes no sense, probably a language thing.

- 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.
 

B_underguy1

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Posts
1,983
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
73
Location
NZ
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
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.
 

Perados

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Posts
11,002
Media
9
Likes
2,505
Points
333
Location
Germany
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
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)
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,678
Media
0
Likes
2,812
Points
333
Location
Greece
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.
 

B_underguy1

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Posts
1,983
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
73
Location
NZ
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
Chartalism.

I'm describing the system that is. It's not a theory.

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.

How would massively increasing income through the social credit massively reduce income? That's just bizarre.

Nope. Employed people use more resources than unemployed. That's obvious.
 

B_underguy1

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Posts
1,983
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
73
Location
NZ
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
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)

It's unemployment. Any German speaker should understand that.
 

SilverTrain

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Posts
4,623
Media
82
Likes
1,325
Points
333
Location
USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
I'm describing the system that is. It's not a theory.



How would massively increasing income through the social credit massively reduce income? That's just bizarre.

Nope. Employed people use more resources than unemployed. That's obvious.

Oh look! A phact.
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,678
Media
0
Likes
2,812
Points
333
Location
Greece
I'm describing the system that is. It's not a theory.



How would massively increasing income through the social credit massively reduce income? That's just bizarre.

Chartalism is a theory.

Did you miss Vince's post that pointed out that the average wage in Switzerland is more than double the proposed non working entitlement, and that normal unemployment is a very high percentage of the previous salary? Under these circumstances, you would be putting less money into the economy.
 

SilverTrain

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Posts
4,623
Media
82
Likes
1,325
Points
333
Location
USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
I'm describing the system that is. It's not a theory.



How would massively increasing income through the social credit massively reduce income? That's just bizarre.

Nope. Employed people use more resources than unemployed. That's obvious.

Oh look! A phact.

Well, apart from the phact that I was talking about public services not resources. Minor detail, obviously! :cool:




Phact = A fake fucking "fact".

We're on the same team.
 

B_underguy1

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Posts
1,983
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
73
Location
NZ
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
Chartalism is a theory.

Chartalism was a theory. But now we have what we have. What we have isn't a theory.

Did you miss Vince's post that pointed out that the average wage in Switzerland is more than double the proposed non working entitlement, and that normal unemployment is a very high percentage of the previous salary? Under these circumstances, you would be putting less money into the economy.

I don't see how that relates to your previous post.
 

SilverTrain

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Posts
4,623
Media
82
Likes
1,325
Points
333
Location
USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
One is tempted to make reference to the morally restrained. But in point of fact, it is more a case of the morally aggressive. Obnoxiously, misguidedly, tragically, hyper-vigilantly sitting in judgement...