Socialcapitalism?

[SagaLore]

Socialcapitalism is an informal economic system in which property is largely privately owned, and in which part of the profit provides incentive for capital investment and the employment of labor, and part of the profit provides resources to and is encouraged by citizens.

System Type: informal
Ownership: mostly private
Organization: decentralized
Social objectives: mixed
Economic objectives: effectiveness
Political System: Democracy/Polity

Okay so my idea is to set a 50% national income tax - pool it - and redistribute 100% of it to all adults 25 and older. In 2007, total wages was $6.4 trillion, and we had about 200,000,000 adults 25+. That means every adult would receive back $16,000. :shocked: We would then have national sales and property taxes.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: SagaLore
we had about 200,000 adults 25+.

Oh you meant 200M not 200K.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: SagaLore
we had about 200,000 adults 25+.

Oh you meant 200M not 200K.

Sorry, my brain is fried. It took me awhile to find actual figures, then I got distracted on other stuff, while trying to do math.

 

[masteryoda34]

Except nobody would work as hard or earn as much money if they only got 50cents on the dollar of what they were payed.

 

[Ozoned]

What would you do when it costs 1.01 to distribute 1.00?

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: masteryoda34
Except nobody would work as hard or earn as much money if they only got 50cents on the dollar of what they were payed.

I don't believe that at all - reality doesn't back it up. We already give up 20% to 30% of our paychecks and work out butts off (most of us). It goes to the government to let them spend it for us. I'd rather have the money to spend, then have them tax the spending itself. We're a credit society now, so this makes sense. I make a purchase, I should only be taxed once. Instead, most of my purchases are with credit, not cash - so while I'm paying off the card, my income is continuously taxed, when I should be putting that toward my debt.

 

[thegimp03]

Originally posted by: SagaLore
Socialcapitalism is an informal economic system in which property is largely privately owned, and in which part of the profit provides incentive for capital investment and the employment of labor, and part of the profit provides resources to and is encouraged by citizens.

System Type: informal
Ownership: mostly private
Organization: decentralized
Social objectives: mixed
Economic objectives: effectiveness
Political System: Democracy/Polity

Okay so my idea is to set a 50% national income tax - pool it - and redistribute 100% of it to all adults 25 and older. In 2007, total wages was $6.4 trillion, and we had about 200,000,000 adults 25+. That means every adult would receive back $16,000. :shocked: We would then have national sales and property taxes.

If I'm going to get back $16k regardless of whether I make $25k or $250k a year, then why would I or anybody else want to work harder?

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: thegimp03
If I'm going to get back $16k regardless of whether I make $25k or $250k a year, then why would I or anybody else want to work harder?

Ask the person making 225k more than the 25k person.

 

[wwswimming]

the US is certainly moving towards a "command" economy, i.e. one where the central government
organizes the economic activity. we've had that for a long time with the Pentagon & defense
contractors.

now, as the American consumer is no longer able to use their home as an ATM, someone has
to pick up the slack. that someone is the US government.

 

[masteryoda34]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: masteryoda34
Except nobody would work as hard or earn as much money if they only got 50cents on the dollar of what they were payed.

I don't believe that at all - reality doesn't back it up. We already give up 20% to 30% of our paychecks and work out butts off (most of us). It goes to the government to let them spend it for us. I'd rather have the money to spend, then have them tax the spending itself. We're a credit society now, so this makes sense. I make a purchase, I should only be taxed once. Instead, most of my purchases are with credit, not cash - so while I'm paying off the card, my income is continuously taxed, when I should be putting that toward my debt.

It must be some new trend now to say that the facts dispute someone's claim, and then completely fail to actually provide any facts.

Anyways, there actually is substantial evidence that increasing taxes decreases productive behavior. It's known as the Laffer Effect, named after Arthur Laffer. Laffer Curve

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: masteryoda34
Anyways, there actually is substantial evidence that increasing taxes decreases productive behavior. It's known as the Laffer Effect, named after Arthur Laffer. Laffer Curve

The Laffer Curve itself does not say whether a tax cut will raise or lower revenues.

Based on the sample graph, a 50% income tax would be at the bottom of the "prohibitive range".

 

[masteryoda34]

Figure 1 is a graphic illustration of the concept of the Laffer Curve--not the exact levels of taxation corresponding to specific levels of revenues

This graph is only a representation of the idea. Its not actually meant to model the behavior of an actual economy.

The Laffer Curve itself does not say whether a tax cut will raise or lower revenues.

Yes! A key idea of the Laffer Curve. This means that if the statutory tax rates go down and the total receipts go up, the previous tax rate was indeed hampering economic activity.

This is preciously what occurred with the income tax on top 1% earners and with the capital gains tax immediately after the 2003 Bush Tax cuts. Both tax rates were cut, yet the total amount of money the government collected from these taxes went up. Top 1% of income earners in the country now pay ~40% of all income taxes. This percentage is up significantly under Bush.

 

[glenn1]

Originally posted by: SagaLore
Socialcapitalism is an informal economic system in which property is largely privately owned, and in which part of the profit provides incentive for capital investment and the employment of labor, and part of the profit provides resources to and is encouraged by citizens.

System Type: informal
Ownership: mostly private
Organization: decentralized
Social objectives: mixed
Economic objectives: effectiveness
Political System: Democracy/Polity

Okay so my idea is to set a 50% national income tax - pool it - and redistribute 100% of it to all adults 25 and older. In 2007, total wages was $6.4 trillion, and we had about 200,000,000 adults 25+. That means every adult would receive back $16,000. :shocked: We would then have national sales and property taxes.

Why not make it 99%, then everyone could get $31,680.

 

[Dissipate]

Your scheme is sofa king we tod ed.

 

[masteryoda34]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Why not make it 99%, then everyone could get $31,680.

I second the motion! :laugh: :laugh:

 

[imported_K3N]

Originally posted by: SagaLore
Socialcapitalism is an informal economic system in which property is largely privately owned, and in which part of the profit provides incentive for capital investment and the employment of labor, and part of the profit provides resources to and is encouraged by citizens.

Yuck... have you ever heard of slum lords?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: masteryoda34

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: masteryoda34
Except nobody would work as hard or earn as much money if they only got 50cents on the dollar of what they were payed.

I don't believe that at all - reality doesn't back it up. We already give up 20% to 30% of our paychecks and work out butts off (most of us). It goes to the government to let them spend it for us. I'd rather have the money to spend, then have them tax the spending itself. We're a credit society now, so this makes sense. I make a purchase, I should only be taxed once. Instead, most of my purchases are with credit, not cash - so while I'm paying off the card, my income is continuously taxed, when I should be putting that toward my debt.

It must be some new trend now to say that the facts dispute someone's claim, and then completely fail to actually provide any facts.

Anyways, there actually is substantial evidence that increasing taxes decreases productive behavior. It's known as the Laffer Effect, named after Arthur Laffer. Laffer Curve

the laffer has generally been debunked for low tax rates. ie below around 50%. at a point it comes into play, but no anywhere near the range of taxes that americans have generally seen.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
What would you do when it costs 1.01 to distribute 1.00?

Are you kidding? It would cost the US govt. at least 1.25 to 1.50 to distribute 1.00 =)

They have to pay off the right people first you know. Damn buncha criminals. All of them, dems, reps, everyone.

 

[chess9]

Epic FAIL!

1. It's regressive;
2. It will be expensive to implement, i.e. the adminstrative burden would be huge;
3. It isn't better than what we have now.


Care for Strike Two?

-Robert

 

[RichardE]

Does anyone know of any documented studies that Analise the correlation between taxes and productivity? Like when does taxes actually affect productivity?

I am sure the same arguments were made at the turn of the century before a lot of the taxes we pay now were implemented yet we are more produtive. So it seems 5-10% to 20-30% didn't affect productivity, I wonder how far we could go with that.

 

[Jeffg010]

This idea is retarded.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: chess9
Epic FAIL!

1. It's regressive;
2. It will be expensive to implement, i.e. the adminstrative burden would be huge;
3. It isn't better than what we have now.


Care for Strike Two?

-Robert

How is this regressive if its flat 50% across the board, while the poorest people are getting the same back as the richest people? How is this expensive if people simply pay in 50%, and the government simply pays out the exact same amount across the board?

Better or worse, its relative. It isn't better for you because you don't like it.

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: chess9
Epic FAIL!

1. It's regressive;
2. It will be expensive to implement, i.e. the adminstrative burden would be huge;
3. It isn't better than what we have now.


Care for Strike Two?

-Robert

How is this regressive if its flat 50% across the board, while the poorest people are getting the same back as the richest people? How is this expensive if people simply pay in 50%, and the government simply pays out the exact same amount across the board?

Better or worse, its relative. It isn't better for you because you don't like it.

a. You can't give back the same they paid in because of administrative costs;
b. The sales tax is regressive as well.

-Robert

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: chess9
a. You can't give back the same they paid in because of administrative costs;
b. The sales tax is regressive as well.

The administrative costs will be taken care of with taxes collected from sales and property. The redistribution will be 100%.

You throw around "regressive" like its a bad word. So what? Everything in life is regressive.

Take 3 people. They make this much, and get back this much, and end up with this much:

$20,000 (-10,000) + 65,000 = $75,000
$70,000 (-35,000) + 65,000 = $100,000
$300,000 (-150,000) + 65,000 = $215,000

That is pretty progressive, is it not? (65k is 1/3 of total 50% of all 3)

The first two earners want the largest earner to make more money. That puts more into the pool. The largest earner is still making a lot of money, and as they make more, the % itself doesn't go up (which is what happens now in our economy).

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: chess9
a. You can't give back the same they paid in because of administrative costs;
b. The sales tax is regressive as well.

The administrative costs will be taken care of with taxes collected from sales and property. The redistribution will be 100%.

You throw around "regressive" like its a bad word. So what? Everything in life is regressive.

Take 3 people. They make this much, and get back this much, and end up with this much:

$20,000 (-10,000) + 65,000 = $75,000
$70,000 (-35,000) + 65,000 = $100,000
$300,000 (-150,000) + 65,000 = $215,000

That is pretty progressive, is it not? (65k is 1/3 of total 50% of all 3)

The first two earners want the largest earner to make more money. That puts more into the pool. The largest earner is still making a lot of money, and as they make more, the % itself doesn't go up (which is what happens now in our economy).

So the first person is a janitor, and the third person is a neurosurgeon. Why should the person who sweeps the floors get paid so much money, and the neuro effectively be so involved in supporting the floor-sweeper? The sweeper can easily be a high school dropout, the neuro has several years of med school to pay off.