Socialcapitalism?

[Farang]

Sociapitalism. your word doesn't flow as well.

Capicialism. the italians might like that one

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane
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.

You're looking at the scale all wrong. Based on 2007 figures, that high school dropout, after 25, will get just enough money to live by. They aren't going to enjoy life so much. People making 6 figure incomes are already progressively paying more than those making less, so nobody can argue that this is any less fair to them. This gives us a flat income tax, and forces taxation to occur based on consumption. Consumption = jobs and economic growth. Redistribution = raised standard of living across the board.

The neuro-surgeon can't do his job if someone else isn't there cleaning his environment. While he was in school, he was at the pay level of that janitor, so he won't be spending the rest of his career paying off his loans.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Forget all the incentive to work arguments, the real problem with this and almost all such 'raise minimum wage' type of schemes is that it just leads to inflation.
Give everyone $16k more and the bottom rung for poverty will increase by that amount due to inflation. The results of a market economy are that the market will always adjust to keep level of wealth relatively stable. Giving everyone $n is the same as giving no one $n. All it will ever accomplish is to reduce the savings of the middle class who keep a disproportionate amount of their money in cash.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN
Forget all the incentive to work arguments, the real problem with this and almost all such 'raise minimum wage' type of schemes is that it just leads to inflation.
Give everyone $16k more and the bottom rung for poverty will increase by that amount due to inflation. The results of a market economy are that the market will always adjust to keep level of wealth relatively stable. Giving everyone $n is the same as giving no one $n. All it will ever accomplish is to reduce the savings of the middle class who keep a disproportionate amount of their money in cash.

As you pointed out, the market will adjust and become stable. The inflation will only happen once, if it happens at all. Recent studies have shown that raising the minimum wage had little effect on inflation. How does this reduce the savings of the middle class, exactly? I'm not following you.

 

[Net]

$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)

figuratively speaking:
so the first person has a highschool degree, second person has a bachelors/masters, and third went to law school, medical school, or was a sucessfull business man.

alright then. the highschool graduate has a 4 year advantage. Basically the highschool degree guy makes $300,000 while the bachelor guy is racking debt through student loans to make that extra $25k a year.

in 12 years the bachelor will even out with the highschool degree if he gets enough raises to pay off all the debt he acquired while in school.

12 * 25,000 = 300,000 - student loans = $ x amount + raises = even

roughly speaking.

that's a great way to make more of our country be uneducated.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: net
alright then. the highschool graduate has a 4 year advantage. Basically the highschool degree guy makes $300,000 while the bachelor guy is racking debt through student loans to make that extra $25k a year.

in 12 years the bachelor will even out with the highschool degree if he gets enough raises to pay off all the debt he acquired while in school.

12 * 25,000 = 300,000 - student loans = $ x amount + raises = even

roughly speaking.

that's a great way to make more of our country be uneducated.

The 4year people will typically spend about $40k on their education. In 4 years, they had already paid all that off with the redistribution. Your logic applies to the way things are now - why would I spend 4 years in college, when I could be making minimum wage like the high school graduate? Its call an investment. You eventually make more.

 

[BoberFett]

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).

Why would anyone want to make $70K in your scenario?

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

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).

Why would anyone want to make $70K in your scenario?

Its actually $100K in the end, which is $25k more than the other guy.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: BoberFett

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).

Why would anyone want to make $70K in your scenario?

Its actually $100K in the end, which is $25k more than the other guy.

Big deal? I'd gladly just sit home and do nothing and collect $65K rather than work my ass off for a few bucks more.

 

[Zebo]

I think A loaf of bread would cost $16,002. ...Too tired to tell you why. Has something to do with value is relative.

Big deal? I'd gladly just sit home and do nothing and collect $65K rather than work my ass off for a few bucks more.

Maybe that's why - only the if you stood to gain significantly above the freebie would one get out of bed and produce, most would stay at home.

 

[Zebo]

Also, If only payroll tax a lot of wealthy people will have no tax since they don't mess with payroll. Has Paris Hilton ever had a W2? I doubt it. Or is she in tax free munis? Probably.

What do you do about non wages? Capital gains? Rents? Corp tax? Inheritance tax?

Sounds like it has issues from get go whereby Paris gets $16,000 and pays nothing. Probably she'll appreciate that free day at the salon from us.

I could see this working if we treated all post expense gains as income though. But you probably need to sit down and think though

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Also, If only payroll tax a lot of wealthy people will have no tax since they don't mess with payroll. Has Paris Hilton ever had a W2? I doubt it. Or is she in tax free munis? Probably.

The income tax isn't used by the government at all, its redistributed. The taxes are sales and property. In which case, Paris would be paying in a lot more than she is now.

 

[BoberFett]

This may be the stupidest taxation idea I've ever heard. You think the Feds are just going to give up trillions from their budget?

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
This may be the stupidest taxation idea I've ever heard. You think the Feds are just going to give up trillions from their budget?

Well they would have to, if its law. And they won't give up anything if there is a national sales and property tax to compensate.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: MotF Bane
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.

You're looking at the scale all wrong. Based on 2007 figures, that high school dropout, after 25, will get just enough money to live by. They aren't going to enjoy life so much. People making 6 figure incomes are already progressively paying more than those making less, so nobody can argue that this is any less fair to them. This gives us a flat income tax, and forces taxation to occur based on consumption. Consumption = jobs and economic growth. Redistribution = raised standard of living across the board.

The neuro-surgeon can't do his job if someone else isn't there cleaning his environment. While he was in school, he was at the pay level of that janitor, so he won't be spending the rest of his career paying off his loans.

He very likely didn't have a job at all, and instead was studying. How was he at the pay level of the janitor?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Zebo
Also, If only payroll tax a lot of wealthy people will have no tax since they don't mess with payroll. Has Paris Hilton ever had a W2? I doubt it. Or is she in tax free munis? Probably.

The income tax isn't used by the government at all, its redistributed. The taxes are sales and property. In which case, Paris would be paying in a lot more than she is now.

I'm a little miffed because you say "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,"

Now your saying a sales and property tax.

Make up your mind.

 

[dullard]

I'm curious here. Who pays for things like roads and the military? If you think sales tax and property taxes will cover that, you'll be shocked at how high those tax rates will have to be.

You argue that you want to end multiple-taxation, but then you'll have this ~50% income tax, a ~30% sales tax on things you buy (including your car and home), and then a massive yearly property tax on that car and home. You are still stuck with multiple-taxation.

Your plan seems like a small modification of the fringe-element-popular fair tax proposal. That proposal has many flaws, and there are many threads discussing those flaws.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN
Forget all the incentive to work arguments, the real problem with this and almost all such 'raise minimum wage' type of schemes is that it just leads to inflation.
Give everyone $16k more and the bottom rung for poverty will increase by that amount due to inflation. The results of a market economy are that the market will always adjust to keep level of wealth relatively stable. Giving everyone $n is the same as giving no one $n. All it will ever accomplish is to reduce the savings of the middle class who keep a disproportionate amount of their money in cash.

As you pointed out, the market will adjust and become stable. The inflation will only happen once, if it happens at all. Recent studies have shown that raising the minimum wage had little effect on inflation. How does this reduce the savings of the middle class, exactly? I'm not following you.

Raising minimum wage only had little effect on inflation because each time we only raised minimum wage a little. If we had raised minimum wage a lot it would have had a larger effect in proportion to the rise. If people have more money then the cost of goods will rise. That is the basics of inflation.
Take this as an example:
I am a landlord that rents low end appartments. I rent my appartments for $500 a month. Most of my appartments have two working people living in them, that on average have a $40,000 joint income. At this rate they get by okay. Now the new plan comes in and they go from having $40,000 a year to $150,000 a year. They now have an extra $110,000 that they can spend on housing! That is the new low end salary for a couple. So I need to change my rental prices to reflect that my customers no longer have 6-10k to spend on housing, but 110-120 grand to spend on housing. Prices are not set to be as low as possible to make a profit, but to be as high as possible and still have customers.

Seeing this we can now see how it reduces savings.
It reduces the savings of middle class by erroding the buying power of their savings.
I'm going to use the numbers you used eariler in this thread:

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

Now lets say each of these people had $10k in savings before your plan.
Before your plan the lower class person with a $20k a year job had a full half of his yearly salarly in savings. Meaning he could live for half a year on his savings if he had to. After you plan he now only has ~13% of his wealth in savings, meaning he can live just over one month. That is a change of 36% of his wealth he has lost.
The middle guy only loses 3% of his wealth, and the rich guy actually gains 1% of wealth in the deal.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
This may be the stupidest taxation idea I've ever heard.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: SagaLore
That means every adult would receive back $16,000. :shocked:

Or you could, you know, never take AWAY that $16,000 in the first place.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN
Now lets say each of these people had $10k in savings before your plan.
Before your plan the lower class person with a $20k a year job had a full half of his yearly salarly in savings. Meaning he could live for half a year on his savings if he had to. After you plan he now only has ~13% of his wealth in savings, meaning he can live just over one month. That is a change of 36% of his wealth he has lost.
The middle guy only loses 3% of his wealth, and the rich guy actually gains 1% of wealth in the deal.

You're making this a sudden switch. What if this was done slowly - 1% increment every year, so in 50 years we reached 50% and stopped?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: masteryoda34

Anyways, there actually is substantial evidence that increasing taxes decreases productive behavior.

yeah, at 70% and higher rates, increasing taxes is more punitive than anything else. below that it doesn't. that's what the evidence says, iirc. it's been a while since i took labor economics though.