Script

Re: changed to "wealth inequality"
« Reply #180 on: February 07, 2019, 06:46:44 AM »
On abolishing deductions. I have proposed this before, but had the feeling it wasn't taken very seriously.

Ultimately, the idea of 'taxing rich people higher' versus 'abolishing deductions' is just two ways of skinning the same cat. It both falls under the heading of wealth redistribution.

Yes, affluent people can afford more expensive things -- nothing wrong with that per se -- and, yes, they most often don't need the state to help them make their purchases, in particular expensive cars or second houses and especially not when it comes to third houses or a park of apartments.

Not sure though whether getting rid of all and every single deductability is a good thing -- and most probably not a good thing for all and everybody, especially less affluent people. I'm thinking medical and educational here -- provided you have such a system in the first place.


john12ax7

Re: changed to "wealth inequality"
« Reply #181 on: February 08, 2019, 04:25:18 PM »
The problem with deductions is it usually ends up convoluted and complicated and often doesn't fix the problem it is supposed to. A progressive tax system where the extra money is used for basic social services makes a good  bit more sense to me.

Script

Re: changed to "wealth inequality"
« Reply #182 on: February 09, 2019, 01:32:26 AM »
I agree.

With Tesla cars, I'd say it's pretty much a case of indirect corporate sponsoring via private deductions.

----
But take medical deductions in the Japanese year-end tax filing for example. All Japanese people have to pay 30% on all hospital and pharmacy bills (it's capped though, so that nobody ends up having to pay 30% of a chemotherapy for example). But once medical expenses are above a certain threshold (roughly $2000 per annum IIRC), a percentage of those expenses can be deduced from the taxable income. There is  a formula for calculating it yourself. It's so simple that any 10-year old can perform it. Ultimately, the higher the annual income, the less can be deduced -- up to the point of medical expenses not being deductible at all. The idea here is that higher incomers can afford those expenses without other taxpayers having to help carry the load.

However, the covolution here enters when people try to deduce expenses for beautifying face lifts, botox treats and wanton boob adjustments... ... Basically all not deductable.

Could use a similar system for educational expenses, deductions for caring for dependent family members, work-related travel expenses, mortgages etc and even donations.

--------
What we do not want though, when abolishing all deductions, is that more people suddenly have to queue up at local administrations and start wasting 'valuable' time -- both private and public --  to claim new benefits and allowances instead.

JohnRoberts

Re: changed to "wealth inequality"
« Reply #183 on: February 09, 2019, 11:08:11 AM »
Results were just reported for a basic income experiment in Finland. Admittedly only 2,000 people and run for only two years, so it was far from a definitive experiment design, and the results were disappointing.

The government hoped this would increase labor participation, it didn't. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47169549

Of course the concept is still alive and well in the current political cycle here.

JR
Visit https://circularscience.com to hear what properly "cleared" drums sound like.

john12ax7

Re: changed to "wealth inequality"
« Reply #184 on: February 09, 2019, 04:18:31 PM »
I think basic income is worth exploring,  lots of potential benefits.
But I really don't see why people think it would change employment levels. That's not really the main point or a useful gauge of success.

Script

Re: changed to "wealth inequality"
« Reply #185 on: February 09, 2019, 05:27:37 PM »
At best -- or worst -- UBI reduces the administrative work load (read: costs).

On a personal, psychological level, 'happier' people are less likely to place the affluent piggie in the middle. The IMF said something similar in an economic study back in 2010 or 2012 -- albeit in highly academic vernacular.

JohnRoberts

Re: changed to "wealth inequality"
« Reply #186 on: February 11, 2019, 06:16:56 PM »
Finland Gave People $640 A Month, No Strings Attached. Here’s What Happened.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/universal-basic-income-finland-ontario-stockton_us_5c5c3679e4b00187b558e5ab

"2,000 people randomly selected from a pool of 175,000 unemployed Finns, aged 25 to 58, to take part in one of the most prominent universal basic income trials in the world."

"Finland’s universal basic income test, which cost the government about $22.7 million, was designed and administered by the country’s social insurance agency, Kela. The experiment aimed to help the country assess how to respond to the changing nature of work and ― given its 8-percent unemployment rate at the time ― how to get people back into the labor market"
Hello.... Didn't I just post about that exact study in this same thread 2 days ago?

If you want to be newsworthy, Rahm Emanuel in Chicago, thought it was such a great idea he announced giving $1000 to a month to 1000 low income Chicago residents.  ::)

I guess good ideas like that are hard to keep down.....  :-[

JR

PS: What I thought was an actual interesting political development in the news today was the new governor of CA withdrawing his national guard troops from the southern border.  The national guard do technically report to the state governor so he can. While this is mostly political posturing, if CA leadership thinks the wall is immoral they should go ahead and remove the border barriers in Tijuana. How could that end badly?  ::)
Visit https://circularscience.com to hear what properly "cleared" drums sound like.

pucho812

Re: changed to "wealth inequality"
« Reply #187 on: February 11, 2019, 06:40:49 PM »

JR

PS: What I thought was an actual interesting political development in the news today was the new governor of CA withdrawing his national guard troops from the southern border.  The national guard do technically report to the state governor so he can. While this is mostly political posturing, if CA leadership thinks the wall is immoral they should go ahead and remove the border barriers in Tijuana. How could that end badly?  ::)

our Governor in CA is not the only one to do so. The Governor of New Mexico did the same thing over the weekend at their respective border to Mexico.
You tell me whar a man gits his corn pone, en I'll tell you what his 'pinions is.

scott2000

Re: changed to "wealth inequality"
« Reply #188 on: February 11, 2019, 06:53:55 PM »
Hello.... Didn't I just post about that exact study in this same thread 2 days ago?

Can't believe I missed it....   :-[

our Governor in CA is not the only one to do so. The Governor of New Mexico did the same thing over the weekend at their respective border to Mexico.

isn't the latest caravan going to Texas???

« Last Edit: February 11, 2019, 06:59:41 PM by scott2000 »

JohnRoberts

Re: changed to "wealth inequality"
« Reply #189 on: February 11, 2019, 07:18:12 PM »


isn't the latest caravan going to Texas???
The last caravan is probably still in Tijuana so might be a little crowded there...

They are probably not going to El Paso, but who knows? That would make an interesting story.

JR
Visit https://circularscience.com to hear what properly "cleared" drums sound like.


Re: changed to "wealth inequality"
« Reply #190 on: February 13, 2019, 12:47:03 AM »
I'm a little puzzled at Finland's aims in that experiment.

Will it have any influence on the promotion of UBI in the US?

In the current political climate I can't see it being called anything but a new name for welfare and the same set of slandering.

and then on the other side,

This is a quote taken from Andrew Yang's Q & A page:

As Dutch philosopher Rutger Bregman puts it, “Poverty is not a lack of character. It’s a lack of cash.”


And both sides seem to be making essentially the same error by  assuming that through some external circumstances or reform they can change something that is more or less intrinsic.  And for some reason that type of truth is forever disturbing to people.   It seems that the lack of acceptance is the obstacle - the acceptance of the fact that there is stratification in the ability to earn income and it has its limits just like everything else.   So the question becomes not "How are we going to fix something that's broken?"  but should be "How are we going to deal with the situation from a perspective of acceptance, and not unrealistic (and, over time, idiotic) expectation?"

scott2000

Re: changed to "wealth inequality"
« Reply #191 on: February 13, 2019, 09:03:54 AM »
I'm a little puzzled at Finland's aims in that experiment.

Will it have any influence on the promotion of UBI in the US?


Me too. I think maybe there is an unemployment issue that was being addressed? I can't tell if there is an inference that there are jobs available there or if they want to promote people to start new businesses but, it looks like there are no definitive answers or results outside of the obvious outcome that could be expected so far. Meaning, of course happiness can be an expected result. It would be nice to see some other results too .
Some days I'm happy, some days I'm not,,,,, Even when the scenario is really the same..... Feelings are like the weather and very subjective imo.... At least in the case of making a major decision or giving something a lot of weight.....

 I guess it would influence the US  in some ways? Shouldn't it?

I think it gets confusing when we are supposed to look at examples from other countries and then we aren't allowed to when it doesn't fit the certain framework.  One example would be like how we are asked to look at countries like Norway as an example of how success looks but, turn a blind eye when say for example, their immigration policies are extremely tough. Or Venezuela.....for another example...


In the current political climate I can't see it being called anything but a new name for welfare and the same set of slandering.

and then on the other side,

This is a quote taken from Andrew Yang's Q & A page:

As Dutch philosopher Rutger Bregman puts it, “Poverty is not a lack of character. It’s a lack of cash.”



I feel like Andrew Yang deserves more attention. He is a very interesting candidate yet I haven't seen a mention of him outside of some posts here and what little I've heard from him myself. That seems strange to me and makes me uncomfortable in strange ways.

For me, this two sides argument seems like an easier way to manage blame or take credit for. I personally think there is a multi-faceted view that is being glossed over when talking about people and their opinions/views.... One example would be the lack of discussions on why people who voted for Obama, changed over to Trump this last election. Maybe a bad example but, if I had to go to Burger King and take either the hamburger or cheeseburger, I wouldn't go. Ok, another bad example...lol....But Yang isn't on the menu afaik...... or He's on the menu but You have to ask for him......




And both sides seem to be making essentially the same error by  assuming that through some external circumstances or reform they can change something that is more or less intrinsic.  And for some reason that type of truth is forever disturbing to people.   It seems that the lack of acceptance is the obstacle - the acceptance of the fact that there is stratification in the ability to earn income and it has its limits just like everything else.   So the question becomes not "How are we going to fix something that's broken?"  but should be "How are we going to deal with the situation from a perspective of acceptance, and not unrealistic (and, over time, idiotic) expectation?"

I first heard Yang when I threw out my back and was stuck on my kitchen floor for several hours. I liked what I heard and it was because of someone here that I even knew of him and this UBI in detail. Of course it was extra interesting to me at that particular time not being able to move but, I liked the glimpse......

Then there are the guys that I can't get to help me beyond showing up in their driveway when I pull up to pick them up. I had one guy, among many, who I really like, that was just an endless drain on me financially but, he was one of the nicest guys I ever met. Of course I couldn't work with him after a while but I am still friends with him. I even had customers threaten to fire me if I brought him on the job....lol.....They were so frustrated with his lack of motivation....No joke.... But, if money were no object or necessity, he'd be giving motivational speeches on how to be a cool guy.....

I guess my point is that the stratification could be an objective topic.....??

Off topic a bit but, I really enjoy watching some of those YT videos on how people live off the grid...... They seem pretty happy without fancy stuff...... But they work their tails off like nobody that's for sure......



« Last Edit: February 13, 2019, 09:39:10 AM by scott2000 »

JohnRoberts

Re: changed to "wealth inequality"
« Reply #192 on: February 13, 2019, 11:07:21 AM »
Me too. I think maybe there is an unemployment issue that was being addressed? I can't tell if there is an inference that there are jobs available there or if they want to promote people to start new businesses but, it looks like there are no definitive answers or results outside of the obvious outcome that could be expected so far. Meaning, of course happiness can be an expected result. It would be nice to see some other results too .
Some days I'm happy, some days I'm not,,,,, Even when the scenario is really the same..... Feelings are like the weather and very subjective imo.... At least in the case of making a major decision or giving something a lot of weight.....

 I guess it would influence the US  in some ways? Shouldn't it?
Looks like it influenced Rahm Emanuel in Chicago.  ::)
Quote
I think it gets confusing when we are supposed to look at examples from other countries and then we aren't allowed to when it doesn't fit the certain framework.  One example would be like how we are asked to look at countries like Norway as an example of how success looks but, turn a blind eye when say for example, their immigration policies are extremely tough. Or Venezuela.....for another example...
The scandanavian countries are often offered as successful models of working socialism but that isn't strictly true, while they do work, mostly. The homogeneous and fairly wealthy populations accept high taxation in return for generous government entitlements and security net.

The Finnish experiment is ultimately looking to reduce the waste in managing the current entitlements programs and this promises to be easier to manage, the cost/benefit results are still in question.

I resist comparing Venezuela to Finland... not even close. Finland is a parliamentary democracy, Venezuela is (was) a democracy with a ruler who refuses to hold a fair election and step down.  BTW when a country offers lots of free stuff (Finland), you need borders to keep people out, right now Venezuela needs borders to keep people in (many have already left with many searching for food and medicine just across the border in nearby Columbia.  Maduro has blocked US humanitarian aid once again.

[update] the opposition leader is calling for a caravan of Venezuelan citizens to carry back the US humanitarian aid that is sitting across the border in Colombia blocked by Maduro, the hope is that the soldiers will not fire on their own citizens bringing back the humanitarian aid. [/update]

The world is tightening the screws on his oil revenue so without dollars he can't pay his generals and will ultimately lose their military support unless Russia or China steps up with more direct financial support (they have already loaned him a lot).

[update] it looks like China is hedging their bets and negotiating with representatives of the new opposition government to protect their $20B investment. Russia has extended credit via their state owned oil company and tried to get title to CITGO assets in the US (good luck with that).  [/update]
Quote
I feel like Andrew Yang deserves more attention. He is a very interesting candidate yet I haven't seen a mention of him outside of some posts here and what little I've heard from him myself. That seems strange to me and makes me uncomfortable in strange ways.

For me, this two sides argument seems like an easier way to manage blame or take credit for. I personally think there is a multi-faceted view that is being glossed over when talking about people and their opinions/views.... One example would be the lack of discussions on why people who voted for Obama, changed over to Trump this last election. Maybe a bad example but, if I had to go to Burger King and take either the hamburger or cheeseburger, I wouldn't go. Ok, another bad example...lol....But Yang isn't on the menu afaik...... or He's on the menu but You have to ask for him......

I first heard Yang when I threw out my back and was stuck on my kitchen floor for several hours. I liked what I heard and it was because of someone here that I even knew of him and this UBI in detail. Of course it was extra interesting to me at that particular time not being able to move but, I liked the glimpse......

Then there are the guys that I can't get to help me beyond showing up in their driveway when I pull up to pick them up. I had one guy, among many, who I really like, that was just an endless drain on me financially but, he was one of the nicest guys I ever met. Of course I couldn't work with him after a while but I am still friends with him. I even had customers threaten to fire me if I brought him on the job....lol.....They were so frustrated with his lack of motivation....No joke.... But, if money were no object or necessity, he'd be giving motivational speeches on how to be a cool guy.....

I guess my point is that the stratification could be an objective topic.....??

Off topic a bit but, I really enjoy watching some of those YT videos on how people live off the grid...... They seem pretty happy without fancy stuff...... But they work their tails off like nobody that's for sure......
Yes, it is kind of like complaining about gravity, but a popular theme for marshaling political support and anger toward a small minority of the very wealthy (class warfare... Billionaire is now a dirty word).

JR
« Last Edit: February 13, 2019, 03:55:57 PM by JohnRoberts »
Visit https://circularscience.com to hear what properly "cleared" drums sound like.

Re: changed to "wealth inequality"
« Reply #193 on: February 13, 2019, 11:50:51 AM »
Quote
I guess it would influence the US  in some ways? Shouldn't it?


I hope it doesn't become the great divider at the next election only bc we always have enough distractions already.  This seems like it could make a good topic for skirting around hard issues like solutions to more affordable healthcare in the US.

There seems to have been enough interest in the Nordic countries for there to be another experiment ran but I'm still unsure of their objectives.  The Swiss  govt didn't seem too interested though and I haven't seen much change in that.


Quote
I first heard Yang when I threw out my back and was stuck on my kitchen floor for several hours. I liked what I heard and it was because of someone here that I even knew of him and this UBI in detail. Of course it was extra interesting to me at that particular time not being able to move but, I liked the glimpse......

Some people I've spoken with who I would classify as "Particular Liberals"  are already shunning him on grounds that he is "too entrenched in capitalism"  (and Im not even sure what that means) but it did seem that he had some unexpected opposition already, should he decide to run in 2020.   It seems in contrast to the Bernie supporters who jumped on the bandwagon a lot quicker and more unanimously.



Quote
Then there are the guys that I can't get to help me beyond showing up in their driveway when I pull up to pick them up. I had one guy, among many, who I really like, that was just an endless drain on me financially but, he was one of the nicest guys I ever met. Of course I couldn't work with him after a while but I am still friends with him. I even had customers threaten to fire me if I brought him on the job....lol.....They were so frustrated with his lack of motivation....No joke.... But, if money were no object or necessity, he'd be giving motivational speeches on how to be a cool guy.....

Yes, exactly - people like that.   One of the things Wang did say that intrigued me had to do with UBI allowing those who couldn't work for whatever reasons an opportunity to contribute to the world in a more creative way instead of constantly being under the gun to "find a job"   ("or die!"  lol) .


JohnRoberts

Re: changed to "wealth inequality"
« Reply #194 on: February 13, 2019, 12:06:55 PM »

I hope it doesn't become the great divider at the next election only bc we always have enough distractions already.  This seems like it could make a good topic for skirting around hard issues like solutions to more affordable healthcare in the US.
I believe it is already being floated as part of the "green new deal" being promoted by AOC. Some are already distancing themselves from her policy statement that reads like impossible (surely unrealistic) wishful thinking.

Primary competitions tend to drive candidates further left (or right for republicans) to appeal to their political party base. Then for the actual election they need to pivot back to the center to appeal to the full voting population. So far this one looks like business as usual. AOC who is too young to even run this time, is defining the extreme left this time, making everyone else moderate by comparison. Some pretty remarkable attempt to differentiate with extreme single issue arguments, which is more typical for this stage of the competition.

JR
Quote
There seems to have been enough interest in the Nordic countries for there to be another experiment ran but I'm still unsure of their objectives.  The Swiss  govt didn't seem too interested though and I haven't seen much change in that.


Some people I've spoken with who I would classify as "Particular Liberals"  are already shunning him on grounds that he is "too entrenched in capitalism"  (and Im not even sure what that means) but it did seem that he had some unexpected opposition already, should he decide to run in 2020.   It seems in contrast to the Bernie supporters who jumped on the bandwagon a lot quicker and more unanimously.



Yes, exactly - people like that.   One of the things Wang did say that intrigued me had to do with UBI allowing those who couldn't work for whatever reasons an opportunity to contribute to the world in a more creative way instead of constantly being under the gun to "find a job"   ("or die!"  lol) .
Visit https://circularscience.com to hear what properly "cleared" drums sound like.

Matador

Re: changed to "wealth inequality"
« Reply #195 on: February 13, 2019, 05:04:24 PM »
Primary competitions tend to drive candidates further left (or right for republicans) to appeal to their political party base. Then for the actual election they need to pivot back to the center to appeal to the full voting population.
This would have been the standard thinking prior to Hillary Clinton losing to Donald Trump. :)

Given that many aspects of the 'Green New Deal' are recently polling north of 60% (even Fox News polls!), perhaps the right move is not to tact to the center to try and appeal to everyone, but stick to your guns and continue to put forward policies that one believes in and ensure that your voting block turns out.  It certainly worked for Trump.

JohnRoberts

Re: changed to "wealth inequality"
« Reply #196 on: February 13, 2019, 08:23:22 PM »
This would have been the standard thinking prior to Hillary Clinton losing to Donald Trump. :)

Given that many aspects of the 'Green New Deal' are recently polling north of 60% (even Fox News polls!), perhaps the right move is not to tact to the center to try and appeal to everyone, but stick to your guns and continue to put forward policies that one believes in and ensure that your voting block turns out.  It certainly worked for Trump.
This is a classic "who doesn't want world peace" kind of question (I want world peace)..... but as often happens there is no practical way to realize that specific wish list of results without bankrupting us all.

"The Green New deal"  is aspirational... (code for don't check the math).  AOC got a senator to co-sponsor her resolution in the senate so Mitch McConnell said sure lets schedule a formal vote on it... :o

The senator with his name on this resolution is crying foul because they don't really want to vote for the record in this not ready for primetime, wishful thinking state. It is rare that I get amused by anything McConnell does but he actually got me this time.  8)

This will be an interesting election cycle if this is the kind of stuff they put their chips on, but admittedly this is just primary days, so not trying to appeal to middle America yet. The base will eat this up (except for that senator from hawaii who needs to fly in a fossil fuel burning airliner to get to DC). 

JR   

PS: I suspect many on the right are rooting for the democrats to embrace this new green deal with both hands, while the specific resolution is vague (i read it). The real nonsense is the answers they give media when asked for details about how to accomplish this. 
Visit https://circularscience.com to hear what properly "cleared" drums sound like.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
1318 Views
Last post March 06, 2006, 02:48:27 PM
by CJ
7 Replies
1991 Views
Last post July 31, 2007, 03:21:32 AM
by Pentium
5 Replies
1771 Views
Last post April 10, 2009, 01:55:01 PM
by Silvas
5 Replies
1697 Views
Last post June 23, 2009, 03:31:16 PM
by audiox