4 ms·

Western countries are knee deep in public debt, but very rich when it comes to private wealth. We don't need to print money, we just need to increase taxes a bi

by capisce 12y ago

Western countries are knee deep in public debt, but very rich when it comes to private wealth. We don't need to print money, we just need to increase taxes a bit, especially on the wealthiest 1 %. Inflation is an unfair tax as it targets middle class savers the most, instead of the rich who have most of their wealth in real estate, shares and bonds, etc. Some prices would rise, but not enough to offset the benefits of basic income. Our economy has more than enough productivity and wealth to provide everyone with food and shelter. The majority of food production is largely automated and does not require a lot of cheap labor. Your claim that basic income is not sustainable is unsubstantiated. Basic income is a great way to share the proceeds of automation and increased productivity among the many instead of just among the few.

ekianjo 12y ago
Are you one of the Occupy Wall Street guys? :) It's very easy for corporations or rich individuals to move away from places were tax increase too much. More unemployment, is that what you want? Because when such companies/people move, they don't spend their money locally anymore. Yeah, and they are free to move, unless you want to set up a totalitarian regime. And the claim that taxing the very rich will save the government from its debt is hilarious, seeing that the US government, for example, has dozens of trillions of USD in debts and I have yet to hear about any company who has a trillion of net worth.
- capisce 12y ago
  One of the Occupy Wall Street guys, like Obama? http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/07/obama-tax-inversion-walgreens-avoid-executive-powers http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/07/obama-tax-inver... Sure, tax evasion is a problem, but the fact is taxes have been on a downward curve for decades now. Wealth and corporate tax evasion is a race to the bottom, and requires international cooperation. Should we just shrug and let inequality grow without bounds? We don't need to restrict people's freedom to move, but the EU and US could for example cooperate on introducing tariffs on companies that base their operations in tax havens. Of course, there is still a lot that could be achieved on a purely national level too. The US public debt is at 18 trillion USD, whereas total private net worth is at least three times that amount: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_position_of_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_position_of_the_Unite... Sounds like it should be possible to reduce the public debt to a more manageable level.
  - ekianjo 12y ago
    Well you are obviously on another end of the political spectrum, I consider that taxes are way too high in many countries, and that governments should restrict the scope of what they do instead of increasing the tax burden on generations to come. Obviously this is not a very popular stance to have these days, but I am strongly convinced this is the best one if we are serious about our economic future.
    - capisce 12y ago
      While I am strongly convinced more redistribution is needed if we are serious about the well being of humanity. Economy should be a tool to serve humanity, not the other way around. Unless your head has been stuck in the sand, you might have noticed that pretty much all the increased profits generated since the 1970s have gone to the very few and rich. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/12/05/u-s-income-inequality-on-rise-for-decades-is-now-highest-since-1928/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/12/05/u-s-income-i... Even if you only care about economic growth and not about inequality, there is evidence that economic growth is held back by the current levels of inequality: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/upshot/alarm-on-income-inequality-from-a-mainstream-source.html?abt=0002&abg=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/upshot/alarm-on-income-ine... Where is the evidence for the case that taxes are way too high? Growing public debt will also be a burden on generations to come.
      - ekianjo 12y ago
        > Unless your head has been stuck in the sand, you might have noticed that pretty much all the increased profits generated since the 1970s have gone to the very few and rich. Unless you head has been stuck in the sand, worldwide poverty has decreased significantly since the 1970s and that's become the market has been more opened than before, not because governments have been overspending. > Even if you only care about economic growth and not about inequality, there is evidence that economic growth is held back by the current levels of inequality Bullshit. Inequality increase is obviously normal. Someone who starts with more capital will see their absolute income rising faster than someone with lower capital, so obviously "inequality" will rise no matter what. It would be very strange if it went the other way around. Besides, Inequality is bullshit because the level of life for almost everyone on Earth has increased generation after generation, and the poor have been getting less poor than they were, so for almost everyone it is a positive trend. Look at China, if you want an example of how hundred of millions of people benefit from a newly opened market to get out of poverty. > Where is the evidence for the case that taxes are way too high? Growing public debt will also be a burden on generations to come. What evidence do you need? When 45% of you gross salary goes back to the government in taxes, that's the only evidence you need. EDIT/ And, you know, if you want to help the poor, nobody prevents you from giving your savings and income to charity or to whoever you like. You know, you don't need the government to do that for you with added inefficiency and bureaucracy.

by capisce 12y ago

ekianjo 12y ago

Are you one of the Occupy Wall Street guys? :) It's very easy for corporations or rich individuals to move away from places were tax increase too much. More unemployment, is that what you want? Because when such companies/people move, they don't spend their money locally anymore. Yeah, and they are free to move, unless you want to set up a totalitarian regime. And the claim that taxing the very rich will save the government from its debt is hilarious, seeing that the US government, for example, has dozens of trillions of USD in debts and I have yet to hear about any company who has a trillion of net worth.

capisce 12y ago
One of the Occupy Wall Street guys, like Obama? http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/07/obama-tax-inversion-walgreens-avoid-executive-powers http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/07/obama-tax-inver... Sure, tax evasion is a problem, but the fact is taxes have been on a downward curve for decades now. Wealth and corporate tax evasion is a race to the bottom, and requires international cooperation. Should we just shrug and let inequality grow without bounds? We don't need to restrict people's freedom to move, but the EU and US could for example cooperate on introducing tariffs on companies that base their operations in tax havens. Of course, there is still a lot that could be achieved on a purely national level too. The US public debt is at 18 trillion USD, whereas total private net worth is at least three times that amount: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_position_of_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_position_of_the_Unite... Sounds like it should be possible to reduce the public debt to a more manageable level.
- ekianjo 12y ago
  Well you are obviously on another end of the political spectrum, I consider that taxes are way too high in many countries, and that governments should restrict the scope of what they do instead of increasing the tax burden on generations to come. Obviously this is not a very popular stance to have these days, but I am strongly convinced this is the best one if we are serious about our economic future.
  - capisce 12y ago
    While I am strongly convinced more redistribution is needed if we are serious about the well being of humanity. Economy should be a tool to serve humanity, not the other way around. Unless your head has been stuck in the sand, you might have noticed that pretty much all the increased profits generated since the 1970s have gone to the very few and rich. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/12/05/u-s-income-inequality-on-rise-for-decades-is-now-highest-since-1928/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/12/05/u-s-income-i... Even if you only care about economic growth and not about inequality, there is evidence that economic growth is held back by the current levels of inequality: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/upshot/alarm-on-income-inequality-from-a-mainstream-source.html?abt=0002&abg=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/upshot/alarm-on-income-ine... Where is the evidence for the case that taxes are way too high? Growing public debt will also be a burden on generations to come.
    - ekianjo 12y ago
      > Unless your head has been stuck in the sand, you might have noticed that pretty much all the increased profits generated since the 1970s have gone to the very few and rich. Unless you head has been stuck in the sand, worldwide poverty has decreased significantly since the 1970s and that's become the market has been more opened than before, not because governments have been overspending. > Even if you only care about economic growth and not about inequality, there is evidence that economic growth is held back by the current levels of inequality Bullshit. Inequality increase is obviously normal. Someone who starts with more capital will see their absolute income rising faster than someone with lower capital, so obviously "inequality" will rise no matter what. It would be very strange if it went the other way around. Besides, Inequality is bullshit because the level of life for almost everyone on Earth has increased generation after generation, and the poor have been getting less poor than they were, so for almost everyone it is a positive trend. Look at China, if you want an example of how hundred of millions of people benefit from a newly opened market to get out of poverty. > Where is the evidence for the case that taxes are way too high? Growing public debt will also be a burden on generations to come. What evidence do you need? When 45% of you gross salary goes back to the government in taxes, that's the only evidence you need. EDIT/ And, you know, if you want to help the poor, nobody prevents you from giving your savings and income to charity or to whoever you like. You know, you don't need the government to do that for you with added inefficiency and bureaucracy.