Economics

[Rallywagon]

So, I was looking for a thread that I could use to further a discussion about socialism, communism, universal basic income, wealth redistribution and all that jazz. The only thing I could find that made sense was a socialism vs. communism thread that was 16 years out of use.
So, I am starting this thread as a place to discuss different ecominc theories. I am going to start off by continuing this discussion with @GranTurNismo.
If there is already a better thread, please move this post there. Thank you.

How so? It doesn't have to be. Raising the minimum wage, setting a UBI, and cracking down on multi-billionaires doesn't sound like communism. Even under the most ideal form of government, there's going to be both rich and poor people, not a classless society. But the goal is to increase the quality of life for poor people as much as possible while also limiting corruption of the rich.

UBI is a really bad idea. On it's own, it immediately requires a raise in tax. I think a better idea would be to reduce taxes and free up more of a workers income for themselves. The problem as I see it with UBI is that it funds free loaders. I am fine with forms of welfare that help those that have run into temporary misfortune, and those that are incapable of helping themselves. I'm certainly not as standoffish to taxation as Danoff. I do think the whole system needs to be reconsidered though.
Regardless. With UBI, you are literally having the government taking from those that earn and create, and redistributing it to every one. That is just about the very definition of communism. Again, forgetting the fact that in order pay everyone 1000 dollars, or whatever arbitrary amount, everyone will have to pay 1000 dollars in, and no, corporations are not go g to pay it, as with all things, costs incurred to a business are always reflected in their prices. Better instead would be to fix taxes so that I pay 1000 dollars, or what ever percentage, as that's more workable, less per pay check, or whatever equivalent on a 1099, etc. Taking from individuals what they have themselves earned and created, and redistributing it to the masses is a great why to reward malingering and punish hard work.

 

[baldgye]

So, I was looking for a thread that I could use to further a discussion about socialism, communism, universal basic income, wealth redistribution and all that jazz. The only thing I could find that made sense was a socialism vs. communism thread that was 16 years out of use.
So, I am starting this thread as a place to discuss different ecominc theories. I am going to start off by continuing this discussion with @GranTurNismo.
If there is already a better thread, please move this post there. Thank you.

UBI is a really bad idea. On it's own, it immediately requires a raise in tax. I think a better idea would be to reduce taxes and free up more of a workers income for themselves. The problem as I see it with UBI is that it funds free loaders. I am fine with forms of welfare that help those that have run into temporary misfortune, and those that are incapable of helping themselves. I'm certainly not as standoffish to taxation as Danoff. I do think the whole system needs to be reconsidered though.
Regardless. With UBI, you are literally having the government taking from those that earn and create, and redistributing it to every one. That is just about the very definition of communism. Again, forgetting the fact that in order pay everyone 1000 dollars, or whatever arbitrary amount, everyone will have to pay 1000 dollars in, and no, corporations are not go g to pay it, as with all things, costs incurred to a business are always reflected in their prices. Better instead would be to fix taxes so that I pay 1000 dollars, or what ever percentage, as that's more workable, less per pay check, or whatever equivalent on a 1099, etc. Taking from individuals what they have themselves earned and created, and redistributing it to the masses is a great why to reward malingering and punish hard work.

Why is rasing taxes so bad? And why is making sure everyone can afford food, shelter, (and I guess) healthcare bad?

Seems like the current model in the US at least isn’t working to support those who would most benefit from UBI. So further reducing the money going into the system seems like it would only lead to an increase in poverty and people’s in ability to afford things like, homes, food and healthcare... seems like if you have a population that is well fed, healthy and safe that that on its own would increase productivity, create more jobs etc etc

 

[Rallywagon]

Why is rasing taxes so bad? And why is making sure everyone can afford food, shelter, (and I guess) healthcare bad?

Seems like the current model in the US at least isn’t working to support those who would most benefit from UBI. So further reducing the money going into the system seems like it would only lead to an increase in poverty and people’s in ability to afford things like, homes, food and healthcare... seems like if you have a population that is well fed, healthy and safe that that on its own would increase productivity, create more jobs etc etc

I think having a higher educated populace that is able to take care of themselves, rather than requiring handouts from the governement at the expense of everyone else is a better solution. Im personally not against universal healthcare nor "free" community college. We have welfare programs that help those in need, be it shelter, food, or healthcare. We also have a slew of charitable organizations to help with these issues. However, it should not be the governements, nor the rest of societies responsibility to take care of able bodied and minded individuals. You want to help the populace, dont create a new policy that will raise taxes and the cost of living. Let people keep more of the money they earned rather than giving them someone else's.
Also, I am not personally against taxes either. Nor government as a whole. There are many facets of life that should not be handled by the corporate sector. I do not have faith that free markets somehow regulate themselves. But, I don't think you make a society better by essentially stealing from a group odd people that have created something for themselves for the benefit of a group that hasn't. Have you ever worked in an environment where **** bags got promoted to get them out of an area, while the hard workers were given all the work and stress? That's the environment you create with UBI.

 

[baldgye]

I think having a higher educated populace that is able to take care of themselves, rather than requiring handouts from the governement at the expense of everyone else is a better solution. Im personally not against universal healthcare nor "free" community college. We have welfare programs that help those in need, be it shelter, food, or healthcare. We also have a slew of charitable organizations to help with these issues. However, it should not be the governements, nor the rest of societies responsibility to take care of able bodied and minded individuals. You want to help the populace, dont create a new policy that will raise taxes and the cost of living. Let people keep more of the money they earned rather than giving them someone else's.
Also, I am not personally against taxes either. Nor government as a whole. There are many facets of life that should not be handled by the corporate sector. I do not have faith that free markets somehow regulate themselves. But, I don't think you make a society better by essentially stealing from a group odd people that have created something for themselves for the benefit of a group that hasn't. Have you ever worked in an environment where **** bags got promoted to get them out of an area, while the hard workers were given all the work and stress? That's the environment you create with UBI.

We’re not talking about handouts though, we’re talking about making sure everyone working, gets a fair salary.
Not everyone can or should be working towards becoming CEO. Some people need to work in restaurants or take out the trash, or clean... what you want is you want to make sure those people are able to have an enjoyable life. I agree that everyone should want to take care of themselves and I think it’s fair to say most people want this too. However not everyone is born into an environment where this is possible. So it’s about making sure that those people are supported so they can live a decent life.

I’m not sure I understand you’re stance on taxes though. As you seem to be anti-tax but then pro-healthcare for all? Wouldn’t that increase taxes and have that money go to people unable to afford healthcare? Shouldn’t those people just work harder to be able to afford it instead of (for example) you being punished for their inability to work or get a proper job?

And capitalist systems often promote the wrong people. I know of several companies who have directors who are widely inappropriate for their positions, but due to their connections are untouchable.

 

[Rallywagon]

I elaborated on my stances on tax that you quoted. As well as addressing my stance on the "capitalist" system.

Also, I am not personally against taxes either. Nor government as a whole. There are many facets of life that should not be handled by the corporate sector. I do not have faith that free markets somehow regulate themselves.

Specifically it's the idea of wealth redistribution and UBI that I am against. Wealth redistribution is exactly, full stop, communism. UBI is a gray shade of the same. Also, UBI as I understand it is for anyone 18 and older, regardless of whether they are working. But even if they have to be working, that makes even less sense. Raising taxes amd the price of goods on working people so they can have more money? Just think about that. Taking money, to give it back? Really? How about not. How about we look at ways we can reduce taxes instead, free up more of my income rather than taking more from me to give around to other able bodied workers.vif they have issues with what they are being paid, their are options for them that doesnt require taking my money for them. Again, this I think just goes to show the mentality that can be built of this idea. With out UBI, your work as a cook, but need to earn more, so (hypothetically) you strive get better. You either go to school for culinary arts and find a much better paying job (should be feasible if you have tuition free community colleges) or you go find a slightly better paying job based off the experience you gained at the least place and work up the ranks. Or you have a crap cook job, but because you have UBI, you dont really care to progress in the field and stagnate at that job, never bettering yourself or improving your station. "Not everyone can or wants to be a CEO" sounds an awful lot like a defense for slackers when I never said anything about being a CEO, only advancement in a career path, which is something everyone should strive for.

 

[PocketZeven]

IWealth redistribution is exactly, full stop, communism.

I disagree with the statement that wealth distribution is full stop communism. I think the most wealthy should contribute much more then the less wealthy. But at the same I also think that the current systems of welfare are also not working. The idea is that UBI replaces welfare and I think it is an interesting idea that should be explored.

 

[baldgye]

I elaborated on my stances on tax that you quoted. As well as addressing my stance on the "capitalist" system.

Specifically it's the idea of wealth redistribution and UBI that I am against. Wealth redistribution is exactly, full stop, communism. UBI is a gray shade of the same. Also, UBI as I understand it is for anyone 18 and older, regardless of whether they are working. But even if they have to be working, that makes even less sense. Raising taxes amd the price of goods on working people so they can have more money? Just think about that. Taking money, to give it back? Really? How about not. How about we look at ways we can reduce taxes instead, free up more of my income rather than taking more from me to give around to other able bodied workers.vif they have issues with what they are being paid, their are options for them that doesnt require taking my money for them. Again, this I think just goes to show the mentality that can be built of this idea. With out UBI, your work as a cook, but need to earn more, so (hypothetically) you strive get better. You either go to school for culinary arts and find a much better paying job (should be feasible if you have tuition free community colleges) or you go find a slightly better paying job based off the experience you gained at the least place and work up the ranks. Or you have a crap cook job, but because you have UBI, you dont really care to progress in the field and stagnate at that job, never bettering yourself or improving your station. "Not everyone can or wants to be a CEO" sounds an awful lot like a defense for slackers when I never said anything about being a CEO, only advancement in a career path, which is something everyone should strive for.

We seem to be at polar opposites in terms of how we think about the economy and the government. I don’t agree that wealth redistribution = communism. Because that’s basically all tax does, moves your wealth into somewhere else.

If in your example the cooks wages weren’t enough for him to provide for himself, and your solution is for them to just get more educated... then why are so many people in the first world living in poverty? Are all working poor just slackers?

I’m not really for or against UBI, I don’t really know the economics of it and how it would play out. But you seem to be advocating for more of the system to rely on a ‘capitalism’ solving solutions it’s already failing to address...

 

[Northstar]

I think the most wealthy should contribute much more then the less wealthy.

Since trickle down economics doesn't work, what do you think will happen when you suddenly raise taxes on the rich?

The idea is that UBI replaces welfare and I think it is an interesting idea that should be explored.

Sure, but I would rather see them cut things like military spending and just take less from my check instead of taking it than giving it back and pretending they are doing me a solid.

 

[PocketZeven]

Since trickle down economics doesn't work, what do you think will happen when you suddenly raise taxes on the rich?



Sure, but I would rather see them cut things like military spending and just take less from my check instead of taking it than giving it back and pretending they are doing me a solid.

Thats an easy question. Have a look at history and other countries that have higher taxes.

edit:

make america great again?

 

[Northstar]

Have a look at history and other countries that have higher taxes.

Such as?

 

[PocketZeven]

Such as?

Scandanavia, switzerland etc.

 

[Northstar]

Scandanavia, switzerland etc.

So... the U.S. just needs to become a tax haven?

 

[PocketZeven]

So... the U.S. just needs to become a tax haven?

You are deflecting. It isnt about foreign money here, but domestic policy.

 

[Northstar]

You are deflecting. It isnt about foreign money here, but domestic policy.

You're the one that brought up foreign countries!!!!

And I'm guessing I shouldn't even bring up the fact that countries like yours cause the U.S. to lose out on quite a bit of taxable dollars? So, no, I'm not deflecting, because foreign money plays a role in domestic policies.

 

[PocketZeven]

You're the one that brought up foreign countries!!!!

And I'm guessing I shouldn't even bring up the fact that countries like yours cause the U.S. to lose out on quite a bit of taxable dollars? So, no, I'm not deflecting, because foreign money plays a role in domestic policies.

Are you deliberately misrepresenting my post? Taxhaven = Low tax on foreign investements or assets. How is that relevant to the discussion of redistribution of wealth domestically?

That said explain how scandinavia and switzerland are taxhavens.

 

[Northstar]

How is that relevant to redistribution of wealth?

Because the uber-rich in the U.S. will just funnel even more money to your country and others like it, all while laying off workers in the U.S. or outsourcing jobs to protect their profits.

 

[PocketZeven]

Because the uber-rich in the U.S. will just funnel even more money to your country and others like it, all while laying off workers in the U.S. or outsourcing jobs to protect their profits.

I am not scandinavian or swiss (they arent even tax havens) and I wasnt talking about corporate taxes.

I am curious if you studied economics?

 

[baldgye]

Because the uber-rich in the U.S. will just funnel even more money to your country and others like it, all while laying off workers in the U.S. or outsourcing jobs to protect their profits.

Isn't this about economics? Who cared about the american workers?

 

[PocketZeven]

Isn't this about economics? Who cared about the american workers?

Its about taxing billionaires and not billion dollar companies. You can have lower corporate tax and high income tax.

edit: correction

 

[Rallywagon]

Ok, so, first off, this is thread is for economics across the board, not specifically UBI. It just so happened that UBI is what was started on. That includes billionaires, tax havens, corporate taxes, etc. The whole lot.
Now, why are tax havens an issue (Switzerland was listed as a tax haven until just this year BTW), because corporations and extremely wealthy in the US can stash their money into banks in a tax sheltered account in one of these countries, where tax regulations are far more favorable. If the money was kept in accounts in the US, it would have been that much more tax money in the US coffers. Which would provide more for things like education and healthcare, things that would better serve communities than taking money from everyone and giving it back to everyone.
Answer me this, if something like the Freedom Dividend is initiated and every citizen in the US gets $1000 a month, who's paying for it. Not at the talking point level. Follow the money trail all the way to its conclusion and tell me, everyone gets 1000 a month, where does that come from?

 

[PocketZeven]

Ok, so, first off, this is thread is for economics across the board, not specifically UBI. It just so happened that UBI is what was started on. That includes billionaires, tax havens, corporate taxes, etc. The whole lot.
Now, why are tax havens an issue (Switzerland was listed as a tax haven until just this year BTW), because corporations and extremely wealthy in the US can stash their money into banks in a tax sheltered account in one of these countries, where tax regulations are far more favorable. If the money was kept in accounts in the US, it would have been that much more tax money in the US coffers. Which would provide more for things like education and healthcare, things that would better serve communities than taking money from everyone and giving it back to everyone.
Answer me this, if something like the Freedom Dividend is initiated and every citizen in the US gets $1000 a month, who's paying for it. Not at the talking point level. Follow the money trail all the way to its conclusion and tell me, everyone gets 1000 a month, where does that come from?

Northstar was suggesting that raising taxes on the rich does not work. I pointed out it has historically and in the present. Trickle down economics has little succes. That is also my problem with libertarianism.

edit:
My own view is that extreme wealth should either be taxed or invested into new business or assets that benefit economic growth. Extreme wealthy people buying yachts, expensive wines, cars and other expensive items do not benefit enough people to "trickle down".

 

[Rallywagon]

Northstar was suggesting that raising taxes on the rich does not work. I pointed out it has historically and in the present. Trickle down economics has little succes. That is also my problem with libertarianism.

edit:
My own view is that extreme wealth should either be taxed or invested into new business or assets that benefit economic growth. Extreme wealthy people buying yachts, expensive wines, cars and other expensive items do not benefit enough people to "trickle down".

Wealthy companies I agree should do all of that. For civilians there should be a flat tax percentage rate. Everyone pays the same percentage. The more you make, the more you will pay in. But I dont see a god reason someone who makes 500k annually should pay a higher percentage rate than someone who makes 15k. Further, you are talking about destroying who industries of high skilled labor. You know who can afford to commission wonderful works of art? Likely not even the person making 500k annual.
Why do you think rich people need to be taxed beyond what everyone else is? Do you have some sort of hate for people who have earned more money than you?

 

[PocketZeven]

Wealthy companies I agree should do all of that. For civilians there should be a flat tax percentage rate. Everyone pays the same percentage. The more you make, the more you will pay in. But I dont see a god reason someone who makes 500k annually should pay a higher percentage rate than someone who makes 15k. Further, you are talking about destroying who industries of high skilled labor. You know who can afford to commission wonderful works of art? Likely not even the person making 500k annual.
Why do you think rich people need to be taxed beyond what everyone else is? Do you have some sort of hate for people who have earned more money than you?

No I do not hate people who earn more money. I just think that when a domestic economy rewards smart people and hard work and you are priveleged to have extreme wealth, you are in a position to contribute more to the whole society.

I am speaking about extreme wealth here. There are too many loopholes that give millionaires and billionaires paying little to no tax. How does higher taxrates destroy industries or skilled labor?

Commissioning works of art should be no problem, but my problem is with people who speculate on works of art and not because they enjoy the art.

 

[Northstar]

I am not scandinavian or swiss

Netherlands is widely known as a tax haven.

https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2019/...-alongside-ireland-malta-and-cyprus-say-meps/

How does higher taxrates destroy industries or skilled labor?

Because while money may not roll down hill, 🤬 sure does.

 

[PocketZeven]

Netherlands is widely known as a tax haven.

https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2019/...-alongside-ireland-malta-and-cyprus-say-meps/



Because while money may not roll down hill, 🤬 sure does.

Did I mention the Netherlands? No I did not.

 

[Northstar]

Did I mention the Netherlands? No I did not.

You live there according to your profile, that's why I brought it up!

You're the one that brought up foreign countries!!!!

And I'm guessing I shouldn't even bring up the fact that countries like yours cause the U.S. to lose out on quite a bit of taxable dollars? So, no, I'm not deflecting, because foreign money plays a role in domestic policies.

 

[ryzno]

There are too many loopholes that give millionaires and billionaires paying little to no tax.

Funny enough the bottom 50%+ don't pay a penny in taxes and usually get a EIC refund, there's your UBI...

 

[PocketZeven]

You live there according to your profile, that's why I brought it up!

There are reasons why I purposefully ,did not use the Netherlands as an example. You already know one of them.

Funny enough the bottom 50%+ don't pay a penny in taxes and usually get a EIC refund, there's your UBI...

I think you should delve more into the material. I am not a fan of it either, but I understand what Yang is trying to achieve.

 

[Northstar]

You already know one of them.

Sorry, my mindreading skills are a tad dull, care to enlighten me?

 

[PocketZeven]

Sorry, my mindreading skills are a tad dull, care to enlighten me?

Netherlands=tax haven