Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[10ebbor10]

You're missing the point that the tax burden on those rich people hasn't increased at all under this proposal. What it does, is to massively reduce government overheads, whilst ensuring nobody is broke.

say the top tax rate is 40% now. The rich aren't running away yet, right? The flat tax would be 40%, and everyone, including the rich get their $15,000. Why would they run away when there's no actual increase in the taxes for the rich?

You're not going to make it with 40% though. Also, a flat tax vs a bracket tax to 40% is still a serious difference, as it's 40% of the whole stack rather than 40% of the entirity.

In order to ensure living for everyone, you will need to pay everyone minimum wage, right? However, in many countries, minimum wage is defined as something like 75% of average wages. Meaning that you'll have to increase taxes to at least 75% to have the system pay for itself.

((Btw, realistic number is about 20k per year per person, minimum wage. At least for Belgium, that is. ))

[Reelya]

I don't think that 75% thing makes mathematical sense, though. You want 75% of the base wage, not 75% of the average income. No capitalist country has a minumum wage of 75% of average income

The idea is that if you sit on your ass rather than working, the base payment would replace the welfare system, and if you work it replaces progressive taxation. So there's no need to have it at 75% of average wage, or even 75 of median wage. It's not intended to even replace "minimum wage", which is the amount you would get for working 40 hours.

how much does welfare pay for a single person in Belgium? That would be a good starting point.

[RedKing]

Totally love to be able to walk up to a research lab or something and just say, "Hey, fuck pay, there anything I can do to help out around here?"

I picture this as the Aperture Science model of scientific research.

"Umm...sure! Here, drink this and tell me if you feel anything weird. For science. Oh, and before you drink it, could you go stand over behind that lead shield? It's for safety. Oh, and probably your safety too."

[10ebbor10]

I don't think that 75% thing makes mathematical sense, though. You want 75% of the base wage, not 75% of the average income. No capitalist country has a minumum wage of 75% of average income

Yeah sorry, made a large miscalculation there. Was about 50-60%. Still, it's far larger than your 40%, and would count for your entire income, rather than a select part.

Besides, it's not exactly fair to use minimum wage and scrap all other welfare, because it's by far not enough to cover certain health costs and such without governement interference.
In the end, by the very design of your system it will end up with both the very poor* and the rich falling out of the boat in favour of the lower-middle class.

*Read that as people that would be dependent on wealthfare for more than their minimum loan, like chronical sic and such

Edit: Your minimum stuff should be enough to life from, hence, more or like equal to minimum wage. Right? You could further lower it to the minimum allowance ensured by wealthfare, but then you're really harming the poor, rather than aiding them.

[Reelya]

Why would the rich or the poor "fall out of the boat"?

The top tax rate would remain the same, and the living allowance would replace welfare payments. Those two groups would be almost entirely unaffected, by the very design of the system.

If the living allowance is equal to current welfare, and the working poor are also entitle to it, that means the currently unemployed are no worse off, and it's NO MORE burden on the state than the current arrangement - disproving that taxes would have to massively rise.

Since everyone would be eligible, the state wouldn't have to investigate welfare recipients to check they aren't working - it's these regulatory system that would be obsolete where the true savings occur.

[10ebbor10]

Why would the rich or the poor "fall out of the boat"?

The top tax rate would remain the same, and the living allowance would replace welfare payments. Those two groups would be almost entirely unaffected, by the very design of the system.

Since everyone's arguments against the proposal are contradictory, I'll wait until you guys have done some actual maths.

I did some actual calculations. You just rejected them for no reason.

Let's just use logic.

In order to completely replace welfare, the allowance you get would need to be as high as the amount of money the poorest person gets, you said so yourself. You simply can't pay that to everyone without exorbitant taxes. Point this, that in any case somebody is going to have to pay. You can't just simply scale up the aid +-15% of the population* recieves to everyone and expect to finance all that with just increased bureaucratic efficiency. The governement isn't doing that bad.

*People below poverty line

[GlyphGryph]

Working is fucking expensive. If you don't have to work to get your money, you can get by with a lot less of it. working a job costs the average lower-income person several hundred dollars a month, which amounts to several thousand a year. Even beyond that, a base income gives a lot more flexibility to spend that money in more efficient ways.

Our current mode of living is remarkably inefficient, and by necessity - the realities of the modern work environment require that inefficiency in order to have even the possibility of income. Without that pressure, costs would be much lower.

As for medical costs, a system like this would obviously work much better with some sort of nationalized healthcare.

My point is that there'll be people stuck in the middle; midle-middle class people like that friend of mine, not poor, not rich.

I still don't understand this. Who? How? Even if the middle middle class ends up taking a slight paycut, the safety net and greatly increased mobility it provides should work rather effectively to assist them in balancing that out.

[DrPoo]

I argue against affimative action for people who like red sausages.
Not really.

Actually i am wondering. Will there ever be a perfect system?

[Helgoland]

Yes, but then someone will fuck it up.

GG, why not simply have a progressive tax on all income and a fixed citizen's income for everyone provided by the state that covers basic expenses? The real bureaucratic costs don't occur in determining who has to pay how much, as far as I know.

I'm all for radical tax reform, though: Why do we even have stuff like deductions?

[Darvi]

Yes, but then someone will fuck it up.

Not if there's nobody around to fuck it up.

[Helgoland]

Yes, but then someone will fuck it up.

Not if there's nobody around to fuck it up.

As I have recently posted elsewhere:
Relevant?

[Darvi]

... I'll take the fifth.

[Neonivek]

... I'll take the fifth.

I'll take the 4th

[Sheb]

Fuck you.

[Scoops Novel]

Touche.