|
radmonger posted:Under no scenario can you work the math in any way other than the asset-poor lose out and the asset rich-make out like gangbusters. In the real world, it would be funded by taxes. Higher-earning households would be required to pay more into the Mincome program than they would get out of it. If a set of people accrue property and become a permanent rentier class, then their rental income would be taxed.
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 16:26 |
|
|
Introduce mincome, retain means tested welfare for people with extra living costs (families with children, people with medical conditions), socialize housing so that "asset rich" is not a thing, or at least so that people can be provided with basic assets if they lack them, fund with massive upper-bracket taxation in the immediate and scale down steadily the mincome payments as the high-end taxes dry up. Then increase taxes further down the scale so that the end result is major wealth injection into lower income brackets, who then become middle income brackets who pay into centralized tax pool which is spent on both redistribution and also providing housing/healthcare/childcare/anything else that benefits from centralization. Economy transitions from market-driven wages and private services to taxation and redistribution driven.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
radmonger posted:Note that only being income and asset-blind would reduce bureaucracy costs, so unless you are going round every time someone says 'mincome would cost less to administer' and correcting them, then that's the meaning you are in effect giving your support to. Mincome is only "income and asset blind" in the most superficial sense. Like all government programs, it would be paid for by taxes, which are not blind to income or assets. The wealthy would pay more into the system and, thanks to marginal utility, effectively receive less out of it. Everyone gets it, but it's still a net loss for the wealthy and a net gain for the poor. Beyond that, you're going to have to provide more concrete examples of what you mean by income poor and asset rich individuals. This seems like such an edge case that I just don't understand where you're going with it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
I think there might be something in Deuteronomy about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Introduce mincome, retain means tested welfare for people with extra living costs (families with children, people with medical conditions), socialize housing so that "asset rich" is not a thing, or at least so that people can be provided with basic assets if they lack them, fund with massive upper-bracket taxation in the immediate and scale down steadily the mincome payments as the high-end taxes dry up. Then increase taxes further down the scale so that the end result is major wealth injection into lower income brackets, who then become middle income brackets who pay into centralized tax pool which is spent on both redistribution and also providing housing/healthcare/childcare/anything else that benefits from centralization. Economy transitions from market-driven wages and private services to taxation and redistribution driven. Why will the policy-making class* ever consider a proposal like this? *definition: mid-to-upper-middle class people educated at top/elite universities, living in the northeast corridor, who form and execute the political agenda of the United States by direct involvement in politics as well as indirect employment in media/lobbying/nonprofits
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
on the left posted:Why will the policy-making class* ever consider a proposal like this? Well they won't because they're knobheads, but if we are only going to talk about things that rich wankstains will like then might as well close the forum.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Well they won't because they're knobheads, but if we are only going to talk about things that rich wankstains will like then might as well close the forum. You don't need to be rich to be against losing your house to some moronic Mao-style real estate reform.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 03:15
|
|
|
Social housing is hardly mao style real estate reform, it's a thing that's been done and done successfully. But as always, the rich can't profit off it, so they hate it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 03:58
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Social housing is hardly mao style real estate reform, it's a thing that's been done and done successfully. But as always, the rich can't profit off it, so they hate it. Someone was suggesting over the top reform, but I think it was in response to some other idea and wasn't being presented as a super serious policy idea that we should all be jumping on. You can just tax things right.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 04:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 16:26 |
|
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/o...tm_content=link An interesting take on it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 01:59
|
|