Wheres Obama and the Libtards on this?

[vigor]

You are assuming that the only way to create capital is through exploiting natural resources, which maybe was true, say, during the industrial revolution, but certainly is not true today. Further, you seem oblivious to the fact that everyone would be a UBI recipient, and so can use that income however they wish, including toward the "purchase" of property. Second, I'm not advocating tax evasion, simply pointing out that our current system (which you think is more logical) encourages it. Consider me baffled how you got to totalitarianism.

Millions slaughtered through abortion? You seem to have an overly simplistic understanding of the issue. See Steven Pinker's book The Better Angels of Our Nature for a convenient summation of some actual data (http://www.amazon.com/Better-Angels-Our ... 145&sr=1-1). Given that I've stressed that our current system is far from ideal several times I'm seriously at a loss with your line of argument.

Here's a couple stats on abortion: The abortion rate is in decline. Nearly all (9/10) abortions are performed within the first trimester stage of pregnancy (while well over 10% are due to health concerns or because of rape/incest), meaning you'd have to argue that the fetus during this stage is a fully formed human for this to be analogous to murder. Obviously there isn't a consensus on that. Finally, it's conceivable that education and knowledge (which leads to lower birth rates) could as well lead to lower conception rates. The fact is that many consider birth prevention distinct from infanticide. That you don't isn't surprising but neither does it provide the foundation for any sort of refutation.

Seriously? You're linking me to an amazon book store?

If you're creating a governmental system, you can't have the attitude "leave if it doesn't suit you", what's the point if you're not prepared to take responsibility for everyone? You'd end up with people opposing you and you could never reach any stability. If you expect it to have flaws you're aiming too low. I'd rather legalize and tax than outlaw or ban. Why would you want to lower birth rates to begin with?

If resources weren't wasted we'd have enough for everyone.


"Food waste in the United States is estimated at roughly between 30 to 40 percent of the food supply. In 2010, an estimated 133 billion pounds of food from U.S. retail food stores, restaurants, and homes never made it into people's stomachs. The amount of uneaten food in homes and restaurants was valued at almost $390 per U.S. consumer in 2008, more than an average month's worth of food expenditures. "

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usd ... 6/0112.xml

[switch]

[NewMutator]

I was pressed for time while composing my previous post so I'll address your concerns a little more at length here, Vigor.

"Seriously? You're linking me to an amazon book store?"

Sure, I took the liberty of linking you to a bookseller in the off chance you would appreciate the extra convenience. Evidently you do not. If it suits you, go ahead and pretend I didn't provide a link, it really is of no consequence.

"If you're creating a governmental system, you can't have the attitude "leave if it doesn't suit you", what's the point if you're not prepared to take responsibility for everyone?"

1) Where did you get the idea I have any interest whatsoever in creating a "government system"? That is insane.

2) Where did I ever say "love it or leave it" or any comparable statement? I'm merely stating the obvious: that multinational corporations are notorious at engineering methods for straight up tax evasion. If that's your agenda feel free to follow suit since our current system (corporate capitalism) not only allows it but encourages the practice.

3) What does me taking responsibility for everyone have to do with anything at all? You've lost me. I have no idea what your objection is. I'll even recap later in this post to make things simple for you to understand.

"f you expect it to have flaws you're aiming too low."

Kind of irrelevant! Exposing flaws in our current system does not imply that a proposed improvement is flawless or flawed. I honestly am baffled by this; it seems you are simply throwing out objections without any thought as to what you are objecting to. This actually leads me to think that contradicting me is more important to you than maintaining the integrity of whatever position you hold.

"I'd rather legalize and tax than outlaw or ban."

You've lost me. How did you even arrive at this ignoratio elenchi?

"Why would you want to lower birth rates to begin with?"

It's not a question of what I want. Here's a simple breakdown: Implementing UBI -> higher rates of education (kids finish school instead of being impelled to join the workforce) + overall increase in quality of life -> decrease in crime, hospitalizations + more brainpower leveraged into increasing economic efficiency + lower birthrate (not to mention fewer abortions!) -> Hooray! Malthus was wrong! We're saved from global catastrophe!

If you're like dac and irrationally think that a UBI would increase incidence of laziness and enable hordes of worthless sack-of-shit dependents then this data is extremely pertinent. It essentially implies that a UBI would have a direct or indirect influence upon population growth, moderating it, and that one expected effect would be more efficient application of humanity's accumulated knowledge-wealth base since people's attentions would not be constrained as much by work-related anxiety (a subject worth exploring in its own right; in effect, because people would be competing for available jobs to supplement their disposable income (as opposed to working for the right to exist) they no longer need fear dismissal).

"If resources weren't wasted we'd have enough for everyone."

Our current system practically mandates resource inefficiency. This can be eased through something akin to what I propose here. Again, your "criticism" isn't really directed at what I proposed at all, but at the current state of things, which I agree, is less than ideal.

Anyway, allow me to elaborate a bit to reduce your apparent confusion.

I'm interested in implementing a UBI. As a moderate, one would think you'd love the idea, since many conservative economists have already proposed something like it (see Friedman's "negative income tax", or Charles Murray's guaranteed income plan, or even just modify the details for implementing a "flat tax") and the left is by definition for it (providing a universal, unconditional safety net). It's practically a win/win.

Why would conservatives even consider something like this? It would abolish the welfare state, means testing, and government cruft. It would reduce the size of government significantly, open the door to ditching the minimum wage (which is an entire topic in itself: Minimum wage stipulations are already ignored by many employers outsourcing jobs to interns, volunteers, and freelancers. One could even argue that the minimum wage eliminates jobs since lower-wage employment opportunities are forced to move to the black market - see systemic exploitation of "illegal" migrant workers in the U.S.), reduce risk of fraud, and decrease monopolization of new capital while injecting money directly into the market vis-à-vis capitalism, to name but a few possible reasons.

Using a land tax in the way I describe is just one suggestion for how to fund it (as I've already emphasized in this very thread), though it doesn't really matter if you want to use income or land taxes. The entirety of existing entitlement programs can largely be dismantled and the emancipated funds used to cover a sizable chunk (perhaps most) of the potential cost. I just happen to be of the opinion that a land tax is the more ethical and self-consistent option in terms of securing additional funds for UBI distribution.

Any questions?

[vigor]

I'm not ordering a book to be able to answer to a post on this forum.

Yes, I'm objecting to the things you say, and I am also willing to change my stance if I realize my position isn't holding.

The only country that has anything similar to what you're describing, a completely free income, is as far as I know Dubai, but they're not handing out free money, they give people free housing, food and schooling. We're talking really low quality stuff and they can only do this because they have oil.

I'm also objecting to your view that land can't be owned and that taxes are voluntary. You've said a few times now that taxes are voluntary because you can avoid them. That's not how it's supposed to be, the intent is that people are to pay taxes, not avoid them. When we get this far, it is a system, not some small thing. You can't just pick out some small pieces and change those as if there was no whole.

Your idea that it's insane to create a governmental system I just find inconceivable. If I have any ideas I think are good enough I write a document and send it in as a suggestion to whoever is responsible for that area. I don't take any credit for it, it's fine for them to steal it because when I see they are using what I sent them, I get things done my way, which is the reason why I bother doing it. Maybe this is easier to do in a small country, but I guess you could still go about it at the state level in the US.

Having a discussion like this is a way of testing the ground and learning more, being able to deflect opposing arguments etc. If you never dare to challenge your own views you're going to be unprepared and won't convince anyone.

[vigor]

The idea of implementing an UBI isn't doable in political reality, even if it worked like you say it would, for the simple reason that people in a democracy wouldn't allow it throught the vote, while a dictator wouldn't want it. Even if it would remove beurocracy, it's not possible to drive through with this.

I also find it strange that when other people don't adress what you're writing, you complain about them not reading your post.

When I do read it and answer to each part of it, you're saying I'm just set on criticising and don't have any view of my own.

[NewMutator]

Holy shit Vigor. How many times can I repeat myself in this thread? Taxes are not "voluntary because you can avoid them." I've never even said anything remotely like that. You're literally blowing my mind. What I did say is that taxes are voluntary to the extent you can participate in determining your local tax policy. In fact, there are organizations lobbying to abolish taxes altogether! Though, again, their objections aren't directed at having to pay taxes at all, necessarily, but at what they consider immoral uses for them, as well as the fact one could make a pretty good case for a tax on income or capital being fundamentally unethical (as I have already done!). But, again, a tax on income is not the only kind of taxation possible, as I have gone to considerable lengths to to emphasize.

Your notion that I am attempting to create a government system is what I find insane. I am doing no such thing. Go ahead and create a new government! But please don't infer that that is what I am attempting to do, because I have no intention of reinventing the wheel.

"The idea of implementing an UBI isn't doable in political reality, even if it worked like you say it would, for the simple reason that people in a democracy wouldn't allow it throught the vote, while a dictator wouldn't want it. Even if it would remove beurocracy, it's not possible to drive through with this."

All I can say is you're making a shitton of assumptions. You're basically arguing from ignorance (not to mention failure of imagination). As such, there's really no point in continuing this discussion.

"I also find it strange that when other people don't adress what you're writing, you complain about them not reading your post.

When I do read it and answer to each part of it, you're saying I'm just set on criticising and don't have any view of my own."

What makes you think you have addressed anything I have written here? You disregard nearly everything I write and persist in your predetermined ideology (whatever that is!). You're not responsive to the most rudimentary of logic. The only way you'd change your mind is if somebody with whom you already agreed did too. Honestly, if I didn't know any better, I'd think you were trolling me. That's how bad it is.

Consider this my final post unless somebody has something meaningful to add.

[switch]

I endorse the negative income tax. Should have become policy years ago. Tax evasion is a real issue, and is one of the reasons why high taxes on wealth are not effective; which is why property and estate taxes are important.

[NewMutator]

"There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision."

-Everyone's favorite libtard economist, Friedrich Hayek

EDIT: https://googledrive.com/host/0B68HCFLtg ... lator.html

[zagon667]

flat out do not believe you. you must have huge tax breaks from owning a home or something.

the federal bracket hits 28% starting at 85k. tack on another 9% for state tax and you're already up to 37% just in state and federal income tax. then add on medicare, social security, and whatever other crap they charge you for and you're up damn near 50%. then they put on a sales tax, oh and more than half the cost of gas is taxes. it adds up really fast. the govt is getting about half the GDP annually and they're still broke as fuck. its ridiculous.

Sorry, just reading this now.

1) Social Security only taxes up to the first ~106k so after that I don't pay anything -- so there's about 6.2% effective tax that goes away for ~1/3 of my income.
2) Last year when I did my taxes, the Fed income tax came to about 20% of gross income. Add in the social security (about 4%) and Medicare (2%), and then state taxes (I think it was 8 or 9), and I ended up in the mid-30s. Which is nowhere near 50%, as I said.

A lot of this was due to tax breaks, correct. I own my house in a high-cost area (right outside of DC) so the mortgage income deduction is huge. I also deduct my state and property taxes since I itemize. Property taxes I suppose I should include in this assessment as well, but they fall into my monthly mortgage payment when I am thinking about my cost-centers. I also max out my pretax 401k and do commuter benefits pretax as well. Plus the health insurance premiums, etc.

Basically, someone like me is probably a good case study for why our tax system is so fucked up and in need of an overhaul.

[zagon]

Nice login douche bag my login was always zagon666

[zagon667]

You are zagon666. I am zagon667. Totally different people. weird coincidence though.

[zagon]

Only problem is ive used the name Zagon for over 13 years going back to TFL demo

Trademarked™ Copyrighted©

I was Zagon666 for ages on TFL and SB
Zagon420 for awhile

Now just

Zagon ·u·
and

zagon

You could be zagon5634567 and you still wouldnt be THE ZAGON so how about you stop trying to ride my coat tails and get your own name/login

[Kashmir]

Everybody should read this essay, written a long time ago. Consider the points made and how they apply to America today and it's easy to figure out what is wrong with this nation. The welfare programs - social security, welfare, medicare - are easy examples of people plundering the system.

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G001

[switch]

Everybody should read this essay, written a long time ago. Consider the points made and how they apply to America today and it's easy to figure out what is wrong with this nation. The welfare programs - social security, welfare, medicare - are easy examples of people plundering the system.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/

[Kashmir]

I know one person who didn't bother to read, made an assumption that it was politically driven and acted accordingly. Sad really, if the laws we had protected the 3 basic principles that he points out and stopped there it would elminate most of the problems we have.

[par73]

Sam, I might have voted for Obama twice but that also gives me every right to critize anything he's done, if I wanted to.

In the words of my fellow comrades at the Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts, Fuck Obama! lol

Sam please tell me where transgendered and transsexuals fit into the "Conservative" agenda? Oh right, labor camps, no existence, no recognition. We have children in our country that don't realize there is more than just Male and Female Genders and Sex, and we have children in our country who hear at recess time "Ok, boys line up here, girls line up here" and they freeze because they don't know what to do.

Please tell me where social movements fit into the Conservative agenda, please tell me where women's rights fit into the Conservative agenda.
Most of the people in congress and the senate are 40 years old+, white, and male. how much of the US population is 40 years old+, white and male? a very small percentage.

TELL ME SAM, WHERE DOES MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION FIT INTO THE CONSERVATIVE AGENDA?

PLEASE SAM, TELL ME, How's Reaganomics treating you? You enjoying the piss trickling down into your slim pockets?

The world is not black and white, we have been indoctrinated to think by reason of dualism and while it may have made us into a wealthy country at one point (and our capitalist agenda has soared, we are now suffering, having countries like Russia and China surpass us in a variety of categories, such as education. There is more than just Capitalism, and Socialism (Buddhist Economics). There is more than just republicans and democrats (independents, green part), there is more than just liberals and conservatives, more than radicals and moderates.


Please tell me Sam, does the Middle Class actually exist? Or is it an illusion built by the Upper Class so that people who aren't in the Upper class won't get pissed off and start a social change and movement which has happened throughout the ages (From Rome, The Middle Ages, The American Revolution, The French Revolution, The Russian Revolution). In the conservative agenda, the Middle Class "exists". The liberals who have read Karl Marx, may have a different point of view, and perhaps a more accurate one, about the "existence" of the Middle Class.