Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 33
Like Tree62Likes

Thread: Contest

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northwest Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,059
    I can get behind most of this except the 'flat tax' bit...I've yet to see a version that doesn't continue to hurt the least fortunate and assist/benefit the most fortunate...

    IMHO; any talk of a Flat Tax should begin with incomes over 250K and be at at least 30% until the debt is eliminated. How many Fat Cat's would go for that? Some, but not enough......so it may have to be Higher yet, no?

    This is Why I still advocate for some form of LVT or Single Tax....a single/simple tax on LAND (Sea) and the resources below (resulting in a SHARING economy by providing a Basic income)......

    That and a simple, small tax on daily trades on Wall Street would/could simplify and even the playing field a little bit more than it is today or has ever been, really....I think most people are resistant to a LVT 'because' its too simple and we've been conditioned/trained to believe our solutions are complex when they have never been complex....that's the Myth that only perpetuates the lies....
    Neil likes this.

  2. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    east coast
    Posts
    406
    I propose that the prize of the contest not be a monetary reward, but a cooperative effort to implement the winning plan.
    Ernest, droneBEE, Brad* and 1 others like this.
    "The stress of nature never ends, but at a certain level still other driving forces originate which put the whip to the creative power of man with a multiplied force... The new relations are detected first by a few (with the finest moral tentacles), afterwards by more, then they are consolidated in rules which begin to push aside the earlier moral code and in the end eliminate it."

    "They who decry the loss of masculinity the loudest, are certain of it in themselves the least."

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    784
    Quote Originally Posted by Neil View Post
    Here's my idea - simply let free market capitalism dominate the economy without actually becoming anarchists, until capitalism is practically rendered obsolete (i.e. essentially the point where the transition will have predominantly completed).

    If anything will make for a smooth transition, I don't believe anything else will do as well as free market capitalism.
    Well I think you just might get what you wish for in the future because wouldn't the Trumpster agree to a lot of this?

    I myself don't even believe that a "Free Market" is something that is even real or possible. I just think it's a Hypothetical idea that can never really work how people want or expect it to because behind this whole proposal are our Human Fallibilities & Natural World Limitations. Things that are all central to how we organize ourselves in these Economic structures that most people Fail to take into consideration & think Critically about.
    Phil and droneBEE like this.

  4. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    120
    Quote Originally Posted by fsir View Post
    I propose that the prize of the contest not be a monetary reward, but a cooperative effort to implement the winning plan.

    Why not keep both incentives? The prize money should attract people to the website, and knowing that the winning plan will be implemented should encourage people to keep planning, reviewing, rating and sharing.
    Perhaps the winner would decide to use the prize money to help implement his or her plan.
    fsir, Ernest and droneBEE like this.

  5. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    east coast
    Posts
    406
    Quote Originally Posted by Brad* View Post
    Why not keep both incentives? The prize money should attract people to the website, and knowing that the winning plan will be implemented should encourage people to keep planning, reviewing, rating and sharing.
    Perhaps the winner would decide to use the prize money to help implement his or her plan.
    Even better!
    droneBEE and Brad* like this.
    "The stress of nature never ends, but at a certain level still other driving forces originate which put the whip to the creative power of man with a multiplied force... The new relations are detected first by a few (with the finest moral tentacles), afterwards by more, then they are consolidated in rules which begin to push aside the earlier moral code and in the end eliminate it."

    "They who decry the loss of masculinity the loudest, are certain of it in themselves the least."

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia
    Posts
    1,190
    Quote Originally Posted by droneBEE View Post
    I can get behind most of this except the 'flat tax' bit...I've yet to see a version that doesn't continue to hurt the least fortunate and assist/benefit the most fortunate...

    IMHO; any talk of a Flat Tax should begin with incomes over 250K and be at at least 30% until the debt is eliminated. How many Fat Cat's would go for that? Some, but not enough......so it may have to be Higher yet, no?
    But a tax wouldn't be a flat tax if it begins at some threshold. With a 10% flat tax, a person making $250k or more is paying more in taxes alone than what a person earns if they only make less than $25k. If everyone had to pay the same tax bill amount, this is highly advantageous to those who make less than $25k over those who make $250k or more. The fairness is already built into the fact that the tax bill is not fixed but based on what someone makes. However, I wouldn't be opposed to ramping up to a 10% tax rate as the amount that someone makes goes up.

    BTW, did you know that we actually do that for a tax rate that's not 10%, but a rate that seems optimized for maximizing revenue? A while back I was trying to find out if there was ever a study or calculation done to see if there was anything in common with the Laffer curve and something in engineering called impedance matching.

    If you look at an impedance matching optimization curve, it's similar to the Laffer curve (http://electronicdesign.com/communic...ching-part-1):


    One thing I found was this blog where someone determined that the optimal tax rate for maximizing revenue is about 35%:

    The Crier Curve: An Engineer's Look at the Laffer Curve
    The Crier Curve

    Take a look at what our marginal tax rate ramp up actually goes to (35% for $175k or more):


    Quote Originally Posted by droneBEE View Post
    This is Why I still advocate for some form of LVT or Single Tax....a single/simple tax on LAND (Sea) and the resources below (resulting in a SHARING economy by providing a Basic income)......

    That and a simple, small tax on daily trades on Wall Street would/could simplify and even the playing field a little bit more than it is today or has ever been, really....I think most people are resistant to a LVT 'because' its too simple and we've been conditioned/trained to believe our solutions are complex when they have never been complex....that's the Myth that only perpetuates the lies....
    Ok, but wouldn't an LVT effectively be redundant? How is the value of a plot of land derived if not based on how much the owner or user of that plot of land is generating in revenue? And if a plot of land in question is generating revenue, the party making that revenue is already paying more in taxes. If someone isn't generating revenue from that land, what makes it valuable in the first place?

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia
    Posts
    1,190
    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    Well I think you just might get what you wish for in the future because wouldn't the Trumpster agree to a lot of this?
    I hope so & it might be one of the reason for why people voted for Trump; it's one of the reasons for why I voted for him.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    I myself don't even believe that a "Free Market" is something that is even real or possible. I just think it's a Hypothetical idea that can never really work how people want or expect it to because behind this whole proposal are our Human Fallibilities & Natural World Limitations. Things that are all central to how we organize ourselves in these Economic structures that most people Fail to take into consideration & think Critically about.
    We know from first-hand experience that an economy does worse as government intervention increases. Venezuela is the most recent example that serves to prove this again.

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northwest Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,059
    Quote Originally Posted by Neil View Post
    But a tax wouldn't be a flat tax if it begins at some threshold. With a 10% flat tax, a person making $250k or more is paying more in taxes alone than what a person earns if they only make less than $25k. If everyone had to pay the same tax bill amount, this is highly advantageous to those who make less than $25k over those who make $250k or more. The fairness is already built into the fact that the tax bill is not fixed but based on what someone makes. However, I wouldn't be opposed to ramping up to a 10% tax rate as the amount that someone makes goes up.

    BTW, did you know that we actually do that for a tax rate that's not 10%, but a rate that seems optimized for maximizing revenue? A while back I was trying to find out if there was ever a study or calculation done to see if there was anything in common with the Laffer curve and something in engineering called impedance matching.

    If you look at an impedance matching optimization curve, it's similar to the Laffer curve (http://electronicdesign.com/communic...ching-part-1):


    One thing I found was this blog where someone determined that the optimal tax rate for maximizing revenue is about 35%:

    The Crier Curve: An Engineer's Look at the Laffer Curve
    The Crier Curve

    Take a look at what our marginal tax rate ramp up actually goes to (35% for $175k or more):



    Ok, but wouldn't an LVT effectively be redundant? How is the value of a plot of land derived if not based on how much the owner or user of that plot of land is generating in revenue? And if a plot of land in question is generating revenue, the party making that revenue is already paying more in taxes. If someone isn't generating revenue from that land, what makes it valuable in the first place?

    That's not how a LVT would work, since 'earned income' from LABOR would no longer be taxed. We already pay Taxes on both the LAND beneath us and any Improvements we or another may make above (its the improvements part that actually prevents advancing...as it can only be 'Regressive' in purpose and scope, while a simple LVT is always Progressive in purpose and scope)....so we already 'know' or have some idea what the LAND below our Homes is worth......a simple adjustment, that ignores improvements, focusing strictly on Land Values created by society, not wealthy landlords/speculators.....would be FAIR to all Earthlings.......and with the revenue generated......people suffering due to the innovations of automation could/should receive some form of 'basic Income'.....that doesn't stigmatize the receiver....like our current welfare system does today....

    It has been suggested and predicted that by adopting such a system would END the unscrupulous practice of Land Speculation, which only serves to 'artificially 'drive up the price and profit of everything....Hurting all but the profiteers....who invented this insanity for themselves after all.....

    The value that is currently placed on Land isn't based on how much revenue it is generating per say (after all, its just sitting 'there' right?)...nor how much wealth is 'taken' or stolen from it.

    The value of Land is determined by the "Society' that lives there..(location)..and by the Resources above and Below it that are needed or desired by that same same society......WHO deserve a SHARE...

    That's 'where' the income/revenue happen, where it comes from.....Don't tell it to the rich though....they'll have a hissy fit insisting that 'they' are responsible for spreading/creating wealth, not thieving what was never theirs to begin with.....

    In any event, I believe that those who benefit the most from Society should be required to also SHARE with Society.....because it is our society that actually is the Creator of said wealth....Not the self proclaimed JOB Creators....who forget they could do NOTHING and would have Nothing without all of us contributing....
    Last edited by droneBEE; 01-13-2017 at 06:52 AM.
    Brad* and Ernest like this.

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia
    Posts
    1,190
    Quote Originally Posted by droneBEE View Post
    That's not how a LVT would work, since 'earned income' from LABOR would no longer be taxed. We already pay Taxes on both the LAND beneath us and any Improvements we or another may make above (its the improvements part that actually prevents advancing...as it can only be 'Regressive' in purpose and scope, while a simple LVT is always Progressive in purpose and scope)....so we already 'know' or have some idea what the LAND below our Homes is worth......a simple adjustment, that ignores improvements, focusing strictly on Land Values created by society, not wealthy landlords/speculators.....would be FAIR to all Earthlings.......and with the revenue generated......people suffering due to the innovations of automation could/should receive some form of 'basic Income'.....that doesn't stigmatize the receiver....like our current welfare system does today....

    It has been suggested and predicted that by adopting such a system would END the unscrupulous practice of Land Speculation, which only serves to 'artificially 'drive up the price and profit of everything....Hurting all but the profiteers....who invented this insanity for themselves after all.....

    The value that is currently placed on Land isn't based on how much revenue it is generating per say (after all, its just sitting 'there' right?)...nor how much wealth is 'taken' or stolen from it.

    The value of Land is determined by the "Society' that lives there..(location)..and by the Resources above and Below it that are needed or desired by that same same society......WHO deserve a SHARE...

    That's 'where' the income/revenue happen, where it comes from.....Don't tell it to the rich though....they'll have a hissy fit insisting that 'they' are responsible for spreading/creating wealth, not thieving what was never theirs to begin with.....

    In any event, I believe that those who benefit the most from Society should be required to also SHARE with Society.....because it is our society that actually is the Creator of said wealth....Not the self proclaimed JOB Creators....who forget they could do NOTHING and would have Nothing without all of us contributing....
    Ok, well then in that case it seems like all it does is change the criteria for determining value from something objective (e.g., some percentage of income or sales revenue) to something more subjective & arbitrarily determined criteria conjured up by some centralized government entity. Such a thing could only serve to benefit crony capitalists, as far as I can tell. At best if the subjective & arbitrarily determined criteria happens to coincide with an objective type of criteria, the net result would be that everyone is just paying the same except that more of the revenue collected by taxation is going to more overhead for paying experts to come to the same conclusion that a percentage on income or sales revenue does automatically, rather than going to something like funding improvements to roads, schools, fire departments, or other parts of society's infrastructure - or at least reducing the tax bill.

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northwest Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,059
    Aw c'mon bro....Haven't you read any Henry George yet?

    "One cannot debate Henry George, to do so is to not know him" -Tolstoy
    Last edited by droneBEE; 01-14-2017 at 10:44 AM.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
web statistics
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1