|
| Thread: Survey on tax structure |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted April 06, 2009 08:34 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Obviously, it wouldn't happen all at once, so people could adapt. Also, there will always be jobs for people to do - creative jobs, jobs machines can't do.
What do you mean, they could adapt? If they adapt it would no longer be capitalistic -- I mean adapt properly, not "90% die or become slaves, the others live well off robots".
Mvass I have a feeling I'm wasting my time for nothing, since I already argued a lot about the creative thing. Haven't I not? Let's call them "routine" jobs (the non-creative ones) which robots would most likely do (this INCLUDES standard research too btw). That was the WHOLE point of it, and yet it seems like always, you want to restart from ground zero as if this thread just started right now. In creative jobs, people are motivated by a lot different thing than just money. I mean, that is exactly why in the software world it happens (since the factory/computer is fully automated) and why companies like Mozilla exist and why people make free stuff. This was the entire point. It's unlikely you'll see free stuff in "routine" jobs, but once those are automated, we'll have more and more. After all compare the 50s when very few people had their own computers/factories, and compare just in 50 years! But in creative ones, that's why it's gonna be a new era, a new system, etc...
Quote:
Another thread derailed by useless offtopic quarrel over the same bull as ever.
I advise you to:
1) read your own posts and one-on-one debates and see how "awesome" they are
2) read some socialism based on few of Marx's principles (not all, mind you, I'm talking mainly about the 'stages' which Marx devised: capitalism --> socialism --> pure communism)
after all, the automated concept was based on it. And it requires a change of system -- heck it's already happened, compared to the 1950s, that's why Open Source and free stuff exist, back then it was only "a vision of future".
must I also remind everyone that change at the second degree in growth as a function? (i.e the first derivative is linear, NOT a constant) For example, a crude approximation is the number of transistors doubles every 18 months or so. Growth is not linear, it is quadratic: 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, etc... (obviously this is only for illustration purposes, it's just to imply that we may not need another 50 years to have the same 'shift' in ideology either!).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 06, 2009 09:14 PM |
|
|
May I remind you that the issue of this thread is TAX STRUCTURE, so not even your darn advice is on topic!
It is NOT communism, socialism, capitalism, automatism, robots, creativity, awesomeness of posts nor advice on what stuff to read.
Can't you show some posting discipline, for god's sake? And that's true for mvass as well, mind you. For once keep to the darn issue instead of ploughing through your favorite record!
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 06, 2009 10:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
2) read some socialism based on few of Marx's principles (not all, mind you, I'm talking mainly about the 'stages' which Marx devised: capitalism --> socialism --> pure communism)
Been taking advice from DeadMan?
You know, it's kind of sad that serious (or are they?) posters are sounding like a joke account.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 07, 2009 01:40 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 01:42, 07 Apr 2009.
|
Quote:
If someone earns 100 millions a year and 90% of that is taxed, he still nets 10 million.
You people do understand that taxes don't exist in a vacuum, don't you? You assume that if you make a drastic change like this, everything else will stay the same.
But the economy doesn't work like that.
Whether or not the guy can still live on 10 million is really such a minor part of the problem with your argument. It's an emotional argument with no substance. What would or wouldn't happen to individual billionaires is irrelevant compared to all the other crap that would happen to the economy if you suddenly started taxing 90% of the incomes of the wealthy. But all you economic morons out there (sorry to be blunt) care about is: oh he's rich, he can afford it.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted April 07, 2009 03:12 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Been taking advice from DeadMan?
You know, it's kind of sad that serious (or are they?) posters are sounding like a joke account.
I didn't say that I agree with Marx because he was, for one, thinking in a too small picture. I never claimed that. If I can draw examples then I will not look anymore like a lone lunatic, that's why I gave the closest example I could think of -- doesn't mean it is the closest. (there is really one programmer in one of the programming forums I visit with most of this stuff laid out systematically, I wish he would post here maybe he would be more clear; I haven't seen him in a while either unfortunately).
But yeah point taken JJ, you're right sorry. Maybe I got too far on that 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 07, 2009 07:14 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
If someone earns 100 millions a year and 90% of that is taxed, he still nets 10 million.
You people do understand that taxes don't exist in a vacuum, don't you? You assume that if you make a drastic change like this, everything else will stay the same.
But the economy doesn't work like that.
Whether or not the guy can still live on 10 million is really such a minor part of the problem with your argument. It's an emotional argument with no substance. What would or wouldn't happen to individual billionaires is irrelevant compared to all the other crap that would happen to the economy if you suddenly started taxing 90% of the incomes of the wealthy. But all you economic morons out there (sorry to be blunt) care about is: oh he's rich, he can afford it.
Nice to see that we have economic genies out there who know exactly that the extremely sensitive lofty tower economy will go completely down the drain if the rich are suddenly not that rich anymore. You know, they might lose their good humor and then god help us all.
I'm rather an economic moron than a useful idiot, to be equally blunt.
Now, don't you find it strange, that every principle of carefulness and collective safety is sacrificed on the altar of "doing it for the sake of progress and profit" - like, for example, building nuclear power plants without a safe way to dispose of the waste, using all kinds of materials and stuff without having any data about potential long-term effects, genetically altering stuff in the safe knowledge that it will mix with the unaltered stuff whether there's one, ten or hundred yards between fields of altered and unaltered crops - while when it comes to taxing those who really HAVE, strengthen natioal control of key economic elements or even nationalizing them or tighten the rules of play, a wailing starts like this might be the end of the world, complete breakdown, everyone loses their motivation... it may be only me, but that is extremely dumb. But nothing seems to be dumb enough to be disbelieved if it's just repeated often enough, it seems.
@Death 
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted April 07, 2009 08:57 AM |
|
|
I fail to see the relevance of your post JJ. What do nuclear power plants have to do with the tax rate and how it affects the economy? You aren't going to argue that publicly funded nuclear plants are more safe than privately funded ones are you?
Your basic argument seems to be "let's take away the means of innovation and production because they might do something bad...and never mind that it also takes away the means of doing something good".
That's like arguing that we should throw everyone in jail because they might commit a crime, and never mind that they might not.
This isn't advanced economics here. The principles are very simple. I've already mentioned one of several ways in which excessive taxation cripples innovation, job creation, etc. (and haven't seen a reasonable argument against that)
But just looking at the tax revenue side of this, excessive taxation doesn't make sense either. Money is basically a tool. And like any tool, when in the hands of someone skilled in it's use, it's a means to create wealth.
By wealth I don't mean rich people with yachts. I simply mean "stuff", everything from televisions to lawn mowers to video games to cars to food....collectively the wealth of a society.
As a tool, money is much like any other tool. A hammer in the hands of a carpenter can create "stuff" which I'm calling the wealth of society. Now the government can take that hammer and sell it and use the money for some public works program. But in doing so, they have taken away the means of the carpenter to create wealth.
Money is much the same. If the government takes away that tool, they also take away the means to create wealth.
Besides taking away the means to create wealth, there is another very simple concept here. We aren't talking about a single confiscation of the rich person's assets (or at least that's not what the thread is about). We are talking about a long term income stream for the rich person, and a long term revenue stream for the government.
This is much like the most basic concept of personal finance. If you spend all your money as you make it, you might have some instant gratification. But you will never save anything and will never have more income than your salary. But if you save that money, you might make some short term sacrifices, but there will be a point when you've saved enough to create an income stream which is far greater than what you would have otherwise.
When the government taxes, for the most part they don't invest it, they just spend it. The less you tax people, the more they can save. Which in turn means a larger long term revenue stream. And just like personal finance, the government might get some short term gratification by taxing the hell out of the evil rich people and spending it all, but in the long run they actually decrease their revenue, not increase it.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 07, 2009 09:32 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I fail to see the relevance of your post JJ. What do nuclear power plants have to do with the tax rate and how it affects the economy? You aren't going to argue that publicly funded nuclear plants are more safe than privately funded ones are you?
Your basic argument seems to be "let's take away the means of innovation and production because they might do something bad...and never mind that it also takes away the means of doing something good".
No, I don't want to argue that, and I don't want to take away the means of innovation and production. I only want to limit the amount of wealth a person can have - and make most of the surplus available for all.
Look at what you see: the educational system is in DEAR need of a massive investment EVERYWHERE you look in the US and Western Europe. Why? Because your means of production are inexorably moving to places where cheaper production is possible due to less costs and limiting laws, which means that US and EU would have to invest heavily into the means of innovation which would be education and research. Which is not happening, clearly a losing option.
Instead we are flooded with cheap trinkets produced in other countries - for the benefit of the CORPS, first and foremost.
The second thing you see is the WASTE that is created which is the second area that would have to be invested a lot more into - waste elimination and recycling, cleaning, refitting of dangerous stuff, in short, cleaning up the mess uncontrolled industrial expansion has brought and still brings.
However, who's to pay for cleaning dumps and for education? TAX money, or, in short, everyone, since someone has to pay teachers and the guys who clean out the rubbish. Production of things is becoming less and less of a problem and ever more automated.
And here the nuclear plants come into play: we don't need hazardous enterprises anymore that risk the whole world because it may be a bit cheaper to produce initially than something else. Profit isn't the standard here, it's responsibility.
|
|
Totoro
Famous Hero
in User
|
|
posted April 07, 2009 04:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
When the government taxes, for the most part they don't invest it, they just spend it. The less you tax people, the more they can save. Which in turn means a larger long term revenue stream. And just like personal finance, the government might get some short term gratification by taxing the hell out of the evil rich people and spending it all, but in the long run they actually decrease their revenue, not increase it.
Would it be wise if the government gave subsidies for those who already have alot of wealth so they could invest it and gain even more and then pay more taxes to the state.
Would be it wise not to tax rich people at all so they had more to invest?
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 07, 2009 10:55 PM |
|
|
JJ:
Yes, the education system needs to be improved, and it needs more funding, but it doesn't need quite as much money as you're implying. We could take some money away from the excessive defense budget, plus raise the retirement age, and that would free up a huge amount of money. Plus, throwing more money at the problem isn't necessarily going to fix it - we need structural changes too, both in school and in society in general.
Totoro:
Because subsidies are taking money away from somebody else. 
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 07, 2009 11:32 PM |
|
|
Ah, it gets cynical. Raising the retirement age. Yes that will gain money why? Because old people get higher pension than unemployed get welfare? Right, let's just raise unemployment among juveniles and young people - has the advantage of freeing them for the army.
I think it's better to reduce the number of ultrarich. Reducing the amount of private jets in favor of claening out the garbage just seems to be the better alternative.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 07, 2009 11:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes that will gain money why?
Because Social Security and Medicare are the largest part of the government's budget?
Quote:
let's just raise unemployment among juveniles and young people
And that's a good thing because...
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 08, 2009 01:21 AM |
|
|
@JJ
You completely misunderstood my point, because everything with you is capitalism vs. socialism. You also seem to think everything is a personal statement directed at you.
Certainly, I'm all for capitalism, but that wasn't really the point I was trying to make.
My point is that, regardless of what you feel is the ideal economic system, the economy is complex, and if you are going to change it from System A to System B, the route you take to get there will not be a simple one. You see all the time that people think that all the problems of the world can be solved simply by taxing the rich. That we can easily go from a capitalist to socialist system by the simple means of taxing the rich. Just take from the rich, give to the poor, and voila - everyone is medium! Simple!
Many of our politicians also seem to think like this. And then they're surprised when it all just blows up in their face. Such "solutions" just show that the people coming up with them have absolutely no understanding of basic economics, and that any major change is going to have major ripples. You can't just suddenly tax a major sector of the populace by 90% and think it's not going to affect everything else.
You want to change the economic system? Fine. But at least lay out a solution that makes it at least appear that you know the first thing about how the economy works (I'm not talking at you, by the way, so don't get your panties in a bunch). For instance, there are numerous economic models by very famous economists (see, for example, Chapter 21 of the work of David Friedman, Price Theory, which is available on-line @ http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Price_Theory/PThy_Chapter_21/PThy_Chap_21.html - actually it's quite a fascinating read if you're into that sort of thing) that show that the financial welfare of "altruists" and "beneficiaries" are intimately tied together. I.e., there's no benefit to a beneficiary of dropping the income of an altruist.
Naturally, such models ALSO do not exist in a vacuum, so making grand conclusions from them is dangerous. But that's sort of the point: if immensely complex economical theories by Nobel Prize winning Economists have difficulties in predicting the nuances of the economy, then how do you expect a simplistic, myopic solution like "tax the rich, they can afford it" to actually have a snowball's chance in hell of solving anything?
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 08, 2009 08:16 AM |
|
|
@mvass
The amount of work available isn't dependant on the age of people working. If you raise pension age, then old people will work 2 years longer. The bottom line is, that someone else will have to WAIT 2 years longer until there's a job opportunity.
You understand that? Fine.
Now, the only way to solve this, is to lengthen education - or to have higher unemployment for younger people. THIS would raise money only if the unemployed (or longer education) come cheaper than the pensioneers, which is a rather cynical this or that way.
@Corribus
My impression was, that currently something of this kind is done. Corps are semi-nationalized and manager incomes are capped. It seems rather easy, and it's creates a precedence. If governments agree, they can do it.
Furthermore - who cares? I mean, no one spared a thought for what would happen with multinational megacorps or how the worls would look with everyone having a computer, driving 2 cars, sporting 3 cell phones and watching 4 TVs. So why think about it now? JUST DO IT! (LOL). Start with the banking/insurance mafia. Get tighter control for the money part - government is involved anyway with their interest rates. Nationalize banks and insurances and change the rules for stock dealing.
Would be a start.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 08, 2009 02:32 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The amount of work available isn't dependant on the age of people working. If you raise pension age, then old people will work 2 years longer. The bottom line is, that someone else will have to WAIT 2 years longer until there's a job opportunity.
Wrong. Lump of labor fallacy.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 08, 2009 02:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
The amount of work available isn't dependant on the age of people working. If you raise pension age, then old people will work 2 years longer. The bottom line is, that someone else will have to WAIT 2 years longer until there's a job opportunity.
Wrong. Lump of labor fallacy.
Not so. The fallacy works only the other way round: reducing the working HOURS won't lead to hiring an equal amount of new labor. Example: you have 3 workers, each working 8 hours a day. If you reduce the working time to 6 hours, you would have to hire a 4th worker to make up for the missing work time - except that it's cheaper to pay them overtime or find other means to reduce the amount of work via rationalization and so on.
This is not so for longer life-working times (and in fact it's a fallacy to think so), since a higher life-working time simply means that "more" labor is available at any given time. Get it up to 67 now, and immediately all people between 65 and 67 are suddenly additionally available for work - they will either be unemployed or employed but not pensioneers, while everyone else is either employed or unemployed as well.
The question is who is cheaper - the unemployed or the pensioneer.
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 08, 2009 03:00 PM |
|
|
Reducing the working hours is reducing the amount of labor. Increasing the amount of available workers is increasing the amount of labor. Just like reducing the amount of working hours does little to combat unemployment, increasing the amount of workers will do little in the opposite direction. Unless there's a minimum wage, of course.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 08, 2009 03:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Reducing the working hours is reducing the amount of labor. Increasing the amount of available workers is increasing the amount of labor. Just like reducing the amount of working hours does little to combat unemployment, increasing the amount of workers will do little in the opposite direction. Unless there's a minimum wage, of course.
*Sigh*
I wonder whether it's a question of language.
A reduction of working hours WOULD lead to less unemployment, if the additional (social, administrative) costs of labor wouldn't be paid per worker, but in proportion to turnover. Since it COSTS money, though, to employ additional people the decrease in unemployment will be significantly lower than what was necessary to make up for the worktime saved.
However, if people simply keep 2 years longer working you simply INCREASE the number of available workers and DECREASE the number of pensioneers.
This in turn will NOT automatically lead to a decrease of payments due to a bigger supply with work, since the old workers will either simply KEEP the job they have or be unemployed - no one hires an unemployed 65-year-old.
Moreover, where it would lead to lower payment that doesn't mean more people would be hired because of it - that can only be done if you have a higher demand, which isn't the case.
No, lengthening of life-working time simply transfers pensioneers into the workforce, since it doesnÄt create new jobs.
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 08, 2009 03:56 PM |
|
|
Due to the increased labor market, there would be a greater supply of labor, which would lead to lower labor costs - which is good.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 08, 2009 04:13 PM |
|
|
No.
No, no, and NO!
QUITE obviously, following your logic, the higher the unemployment rate, the lower the labor costs, so 50% unemployment rate is fine, right?
Except that the unemployed have to eat as well, and someone has to feed them - plus, the less money they have the less they can comsume, so this will reduce demand.
Aside of that, could you stop sounding like Dagobert Duck giving his nephews a lesson in Duckville economics, please?
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
| |
|
|
