Federal Government Revenue: the Income Tax

[Gokul43201]

Those things are not generally paid for by the income tax historically in the U.S., cost a very tiny fraction of current tax revenues, and basically have nothing to do with why we have an income tax.

Local property taxes and state sales taxes are more than adequate to pay for fire and police plus many other things, and the fuel tax (and tolls) covers the cost of roads.

All of this is true (I think), but Aknazer could just as easily have added "when Saddam Hussein fires his nuclear tipped ICBMs at your suburban neighborhood in Topeka, Kansas, the US Military can't save you by retroactively starting a preventive war to spread democracy in the Middle East".

 

[Al68]

All of this is true (I think), but Aknazer could just as easily have added "when Saddam Hussein fires his nuclear tipped ICBMs at your suburban neighborhood in Topeka, Kansas, the US Military can't save you by retroactively starting a preventive war to spread democracy in the Middle East".

Sure, but then my response would have been quite different, if I even posted one.

 

[Gokul43201]

Sure, but then my response would have been quite different...

Please don't let the slightly different looking letters in my username stop you from sharing your thoughts! :tongue2:

Seriously, it's questions like this - what I consider the slightly harder ones - that I was hoping to hear responses to when I made this thread. For supporters of taxation systems that rely on payment linked to usage - and you could count me among that number - the hard question is not how governments ought to seek funding for building roads, or running fire and police departments, or maybe even paying for public education. It is the funding of duties that are not easily associated with individual use, like providing for a national defense or responding to a large-scale infectious outbreak, that make the basis for a valuable discussion, in my opinion.

 

[Aknazer]

All of this is true (I think), but Aknazer could just as easily have added "when Saddam Hussein fires his nuclear tipped ICBMs at your suburban neighborhood in Topeka, Kansas, the US Military can't save you by retroactively starting a preventive war to spread democracy in the Middle East".

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but you come across to me as so. I do think that the military should protect us from those that would directly threaten us, but going into "spread democracy" is a craptastic reason to go to war. Hell we're not even a "democracy" but rather a democratic republic. So if Hussein were to threaten the U.S. with ICBMs I would have no qualms with the military launching a preemptive attack to prevent them from being able to carry out the threat.

 

[Gokul43201]

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but you come across to me as so.

Yes, I was, though that wasn't the primary purpose. What can I say? I couldn't resist the opportunity for a cheap shot!

I do think that the military should protect us from those that would directly threaten us, but going into "spread democracy" is a craptastic reason to go to war. Hell we're not even a "democracy" but rather a democratic republic. So if Hussein were to threaten the U.S. with ICBMs I would have no qualms with the military launching a preemptive attack to prevent them from being able to carry out the threat.

Agreed. And I'm solely at fault for inviting this discussion, but I'd like to request that people not respond to the obvious insinuation in my post, lest the thread veer off into a discussion about the Iraq War. As punishment, I shall accept one post each, filled with slings and arrows of outrageous rebuke, from whosoever shall choose to hurl them.

The primary purpose of that post was to ask how governments should fund the military. Clearly, this can not be achieved in as easily a targeted manner as the building of roads and bridges. What solution do pay-as-you-go proponents suggest?

 

[russ_watters]

Seriously, it's questions like this - what I consider the slightly harder ones - that I was hoping to hear responses to when I made this thread. For supporters of taxation systems that rely on payment linked to usage - and you could count me among that number - the hard question is not how governments ought to seek funding for building roads, or running fire and police departments, or maybe even paying for public education. It is the funding of duties that are not easily associated with individual use, like providing for a national defense or responding to a large-scale infectious outbreak, that make the basis for a valuable discussion, in my opinion.

Ultimately, I don't think it matters except for people on the far ends of the spectrum. Most proposals I've seen for flat taxes and national sales taxes include provisions for exempting low-income people or many of the items low-income people spend much of their money on (such as food). Ultimately, people have an idea of what they think people should pay in taxes and will adjust any tax system to make that profile happen.

I support the current type of system only because it is possible to implement it in a simple way, whereas it is not possible to simply implement a usage-based system in a way that makes it progressive. Regardless, the reality is that our tax system is ridiculously overcomplicated, so my vision is only that: a vision.

 

[Al68]

The primary purpose of that post was to ask how governments should fund the military. Clearly, this can not be achieved in as easily a targeted manner as the building of roads and bridges. What solution do pay-as-you-go proponents suggest?

I don't know of any kind of plan to fund the military that resembles the "pay for services" model like the road tax. Of course there are many other alternatives to an income tax to fund the military, such as a sales tax, VAT tax, excise taxes, tariffs, etc.

 

[Al68]

Ultimately, people have an idea of what they think people should pay in taxes and will adjust any tax system to make that profile happen.

That's true for any tax system except an income tax. It can and is made so complex that people are misled about what different people actually pay. That enables politicians to enact tax policies that most people oppose.

As a single, but IMO very representative example, I heard Rev Sharpton on talk radio say that the income tax should be changed so that the top 5% pay about 15% of all income taxes. He had no idea that such a change would greatly reduce the taxes paid by the rich, and even advocated the opposite in the same interview.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That's true for any tax system except an income tax. It can and is made so complex that people are misled about what different people actually pay.

As a single, but IMO very representative example, I heard Rev Sharpton on talk radio say that the income tax should be changed so that the top 5% pay about 15% of income taxes. He had no idea that such a change would greatly reduce the taxes paid by the rich, and even advocated the opposite in the same interview.

Of course, this is just for taxable income. My tax bracket is much higher, but in the end I normally pay about 15% of my real income in Federal taxes. I do opt to pay Self-Employment tax for the sake of SS but could easily avoid most of it.

 

[Aknazer]

Yes, I was, though that wasn't the primary purpose. What can I say? I couldn't resist the opportunity for a cheap shot!

Agreed. And I'm solely at fault for inviting this discussion, but I'd like to request that people not respond to the obvious insinuation in my post, lest the thread veer off into a discussion about the Iraq War. As punishment, I shall accept one post each, filled with slings and arrows of outrageous rebuke, from whosoever shall choose to hurl them.

The primary purpose of that post was to ask how governments should fund the military. Clearly, this can not be achieved in as easily a targeted manner as the building of roads and bridges. What solution do pay-as-you-go proponents suggest?

Ahh. Well I wasn't really directing it at that particular war, but in general I believe in preemptive attack. And to add to the discussion, I would say the military would need to be properly funded to be able perform such preemptive attacks. A "military" such as Japan's that is only able to "defend" itself will not be able to properly defend the country against anyone truly intent on attacking the country. A country that is too weak to properly attack is too weak to properly defend.

 

[ginru]

Since the involuntary taking of one's wealth leads to discord and rebellion, I'd rather see a system emerge that opts for social investment for services and focuses on incentive-based solutions among all its members. I'd prefer this Pay-into-Progress approach instead of the income tax or even the pay-as-you-go option that has been mentioned.

 

[nismaratwork]

Since the involuntary taking of one's wealth leads to discord and rebellion, I'd rather see a system emerge that opts for social investment for services and focuses on incentive-based solutions among all its members. I'd prefer this Pay-into-Progress approach instead of the income tax or even the pay-as-you-go option that has been mentioned.

Uh huh... and when people like Perspacitity show up, what then?

Sorry ginru, that pipe dream has been tried, and AFAIK it leads to predators ruling the roost.

 

[Aknazer]

Since the involuntary taking of one's wealth leads to discord and rebellion, I'd rather see a system emerge that opts for social investment for services and focuses on incentive-based solutions among all its members. I'd prefer this Pay-into-Progress approach instead of the income tax or even the pay-as-you-go option that has been mentioned.

But how would it work? It might just be me, but I honestly don't understand how something like this would actually fund a government. What exactly do you mean by "Pay-into-Progress" as to me that simply sounds like having companies charge more for the goods so that they can then re-invest that added cost into more research, which then makes me wonder how one would pay into roads, the military, firefighting, and various other government functions. Also with your talk of "social investment for services" and "incentive-based solutions among all its members" it sounds a lot like the socialism ideal to me.

In addition, it generally takes far more than the "involuntary taking of one's wealth" for a government to collapse because it is that taking of the money that pays for what the government does, but it's things like oppresion, tyranny, incompetence, etc that cause rebellion. Even the American Revolution wasn't directly caused by the taking of the money (the taxes) even though they played a part, but rather the fact that the colonies didn't have a voice when it came to being taxed (ie they were oppressed) while all areas inside of Britain had a voice in the matter. Now I'm not saying there's never been any revolts because of the taking of money (over-taxation can easily lead to it), but that there is generally other reasons for the revolt outside of simply the taking of one's money.

 

[nismaratwork]

But how would it work? It might just be me, but I honestly don't understand how something like this would actually fund a government. What exactly do you mean by "Pay-into-Progress" as to me that simply sounds like having companies charge more for the goods so that they can then re-invest that added cost into more research, which then makes me wonder how one would pay into roads, the military, firefighting, and various other government functions. Also with your talk of "social investment for services" and "incentive-based solutions among all its members" it sounds a lot like the socialism ideal to me.

In addition, it generally takes far more than the "involuntary taking of one's wealth" for a government to collapse because it is that taking of the money that pays for what the government does, but it's things like oppresion, tyranny, incompetence, etc that cause rebellion. Even the American Revolution wasn't directly caused by the taking of the money (the taxes) even though they played a part, but rather the fact that the colonies didn't have a voice when it came to being taxed (ie they were oppressed) while all areas inside of Britain had a voice in the matter. Now I'm not saying there's never been any revolts because of the taking of money (over-taxation can easily lead to it), but that there is generally other reasons for the revolt outside of simply the taking of one's money.

I took away: "crystal-gripping hippie colony", and not in the good way from his post.

 

[Astronuc]

I can't find an option I like.

There has to be some taxation.

The tax system should be more fair. But then what is considered fair?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html

 

[nismaratwork]

I can't find an option I like.

There has to be some taxation.

The tax system should be more fair. But then what is considered fair?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html

Nothing in life is fair, but death is a great equalizer, so I guess that's fair. Beyond that, I agree with you.

 

[Gokul43201]

I can't find an option I like.

I thought the list was exhaustive - maybe I'm missing something. Could you explain how it isn't?

There has to be some taxation.

None of the options demand the complete absence of taxation, and the first three demand the existence of some taxation.

 

[nismaratwork]

I thought the list was exhaustive - maybe I'm missing something. Could you explain how it isn't?

None of the options demand the complete absence of taxation, and the first three demand the existence of some taxation.

Which do you like?

 

[Gokul43201]

I put my vote in as soon as I started the thread. The poll is public - votes can be seen by clicking on one of the histogram tallies.

 

[nismaratwork]

I put my vote in as soon as I started the thread. The poll is public - votes can be seen by clicking on one of the histogram tallies.

Ahhhh, "I prefer a system with a somewhat smaller role for income based taxation"

Thanks, I didn't know the vote-breakdown system.

 

[Perspicacity]

Uh huh... and when people like Perspacitity show up, what then?

Sorry ginru, that pipe dream has been tried, and AFAIK it leads to predators ruling the roost.

Lol! I had almost the exact same thought. It seemed to me that he thinks that the government will just politely explain to me how subsidizing my neighbors mortgage or health-care is the right thing to do and that I would gladly contribute.

Everyone does understand that I (and other people like me) really just don't feel like carrying water for others, right? I don't mind contributing for things like roads or national defense—but it already pisses me off enough to know that people who've never paid a dime in taxes get to walk on the roads that I helped pay for. To add insult to injury, much of those people think that I should pay for their education, health-care, retirement, artwork, etc...

 

[nismaratwork]

Lol! I had almost the exact same thought. It seemed to me that he thinks that the government will just politely explain to me how subsidizing my neighbors mortgage or health-care is the right thing to do and that I would gladly contribute.

Everyone does understand that I (and other people like me) really just don't feel like carrying water for others, right? I don't mind contributing for things like roads or national defense—but it already pisses me off enough to know that people who've never paid a dime in taxes get to walk on the roads that I helped pay for. To add insult to injury, much of those people think that I should pay for their education, health-care, retirement, artwork, etc...

I thought you might, I mean, you represent a valid and real portion of the population; it would be plain stupid to ignore that. You're obviously part of a range of multiple views on how money should be moved (or not), and for all that we disagree in areas... voluntary community love is not my style either.

 

[Proton Soup]

I can't find an option I like.

There has to be some taxation.

The tax system should be more fair. But then what is considered fair?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html

maybe the government could start a for-profit corporation whose revenues are used to fund government services.

 

[ginru]

Lol! I had almost the exact same thought. It seemed to me that he thinks that the government will just politely explain to me how subsidizing my neighbors mortgage or health-care is the right thing to do and that I would gladly contribute.

Everyone does understand that I (and other people like me) really just don't feel like carrying water for others, right? I don't mind contributing for things like roads or national defense—but it already pisses me off enough to know that people who've never paid a dime in taxes get to walk on the roads that I helped pay for. To add insult to injury, much of those people think that I should pay for their education, health-care, retirement, artwork, etc...

This anger at the thought of someone forcing you to carry water for others is part of what I was getting at. When you're the one with the apple taken from you, it creates a resentment and a natural resistance to such action. When you're the one who feels it unfair that the neighbor has been systematically favored with having nice apples while you're born in a cycle of poverty, then there's resentment in the other direction too. Conflict in the form of either violence or simply stagnant political partisanship may result between those who feel that forcefully taking the apples is necessary for the collective good and those who want to keep all their apples to themselves.

This is why that socialist with the noble dream (but flawed methods) should instead focus on an alternative yet non-polarizing method of empowerment for the guy with no apples. Creatively innovate and teach the poorer neighbor to value something that is under-appreciated yet plentiful... perhaps the seed (Time-based currency). Teach him to plant that and invest in his own orchard, thus turning the poor man's backyard into a laboratory for innovation and experimentation of ways to create the best gardening methods. In other words, create Social Progress through Non-Profit industries that thrive on an alternative currency and thus effectively lessen the cost of or take over many government functions. Soon the rich neighbor will be knocking on his door to invest in those ideas as that's more economical than buying his apples from overseas. That's how I define Progress and how we should be paying into it through cooperation, investment and experimentation.

Now on the topic of how to fund a military, I feel this to be an inefficient approach to peace. It's like a community where everyone feels they need to have their own guards to protect their house, thus costing everyone more in the long run. The progressive solution would be to establish a police force and for the community to invest towards that system of order. Instead of pushing for this progress, we prefer to live/act in fear of terrorists, rogue nations, etc. coming to kill us, but then that fear leads to violent actions that in turn give inspiration to criminals and terrorists to recruit against us. Hence, why I prefer a tactic of starving them of recruits by investing in socially progressive solutions to end poverty, unemployment and extremism. Turn the Time and Human Potential of the underclass into valued resources.

So yes, I'm a dreamer and a crazy one at that, but I feel Utopian goals are what the world should be actively moving towards through investment, incentive and creative innovation. Money is an artificial creation, but the innovation of its usage seems to mainly favor the Haves and of course then the burden of payment falls on them (which they don't like). The Have-Nots in turn get left behind and exploited through destructive extremism and cycles of poverty (which they don't like). Most of us wish there was a better system but how do we as a civilization get to that better system unless we lose our fear of experimentation?

 

[ginru]

This time-currency system mentioned here is what I'm getting at, though I'd like to see it evolved even more to create innovative new industries and economies that perhaps could replace welfare entirely along with some other government services:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/july-dec10/maine_11-17.html

I hope that we could empower the younger generation with this kind of thinking by using it in the education system. Perhaps as an incentive for students to support their school by getting paid time credits to tutor and TA classes, thereby lessening the need to hire more teachers (thus saving real money).

Shift low-income neighborhoods and slums towards a campus living system where people can learn, live, teach, work and share resources locally within this alternate economy. And this would be a dream come true for businesses looking to recruit a low-cost, innovative and motivated work force.

Getting back to my original point though, I feel that instead of fighting over the apple and how to cut it up, we should focus more on the seeds and thus avoid having leftovers attract elements that undermine both houses. I envision the ideal system as a balancing act between dual economies, with the alternative one mentioned above filling a sort of passive, maternal role (Non-Profit sector) that works in tandem with the traditional, aggressive role of the competitive economy (Profit sector). Right now it seems we excel at things like technology and business innovation which thrive on the latter but we struggle at community values and social progress which depend on the former. If we find the right balance then perhaps we'll finally be evolving beyond the wastefulness or even the need for conventional governments.

 

[Jasongreat]

ginru;3210399]This anger at the thought of someone forcing you to carry water for others is part of what I was getting at. When you're the one with the apple taken from you, it creates a resentment and a natural resistance to such action. When you're the one who feels it unfair that the neighbor has been systematically favored with having nice apples while you're born in a cycle of poverty, then there's resentment in the other direction too. Conflict in the form of either violence or simply stagnant political partisanship may result between those who feel that forcefully taking the apples is necessary for the collective good and those who want to keep all their apples to themselves.

IMO, the neighbor might of also started with no apples, but he/she went out got a job or invented their own, worked hard, saved money by sacrificing and not buying everything they wanted, and eventually went out and bought the house with a good apple tree. The idea that some need others to provide is ridiculous. Atleast in the US, anyone can get rich, as well as everyone being able to go broke, it is getting extremely more difficult to do either.

This is why that socialist with the noble dream (but flawed methods) should instead focus on an alternative yet non-polarizing method of empowerment for the guy with no apples. Creatively innovate and teach the poorer neighbor to value something that is under-appreciated yet plentiful... perhaps the seed (Time-based currency). Teach him to plant that and invest in his own orchard, thus turning the poor man's backyard into a laboratory for innovation and experimentation of ways to create the best gardening methods. In other words, create Social Progress through Non-Profit industries that thrive on an alternative currency and thus effectively lessen the cost of or take over many government functions. Soon the rich neighbor will be knocking on his door to invest in those ideas as that's more economical than buying his apples from overseas. That's how I define Progress and how we should be paying into it through cooperation, investment and experimentation.

Not only do you want to force one neighbor to support his neighbor, you also want the recipient to be forced into agricultural experiments? Wouldn't it be an easier and less expensive solution to just have everyone take take care of themselves and if they want apples to go about learning how to do it, or just go to his neighbor and offer to buy one? As far as the taxes go, not only does the victim have his give his neighbor money, he also has to fund the bureaucracy needed to transfer his/her wealth.

Now on the topic of how to fund a military, I feel this to be an inefficient approach to peace. It's like a community where everyone feels they need to have their own guards to protect their house, thus costing everyone more in the long run. The progressive solution would be to establish a police force and for the community to invest towards that system of order. Instead of pushing for this progress, we prefer to live/act in fear of terrorists, rogue nations, etc. coming to kill us, but then that fear leads to violent actions that in turn give inspiration to criminals and terrorists to recruit against us. Hence, why I prefer a tactic of starving them of recruits by investing in socially progressive solutions to end poverty, unemployment and extremism. Turn the Time and Human Potential of the underclass into valued resources.

You'll get no argument from me on the size and scope of the US military. I am not as niave to think we don't need any military, on the otherhand I think having one of ours' stature only makes it easier to stick our nose where it doesn't belong, costing lives and billions in wealthe. Having a country full of able bodied men who owned any weapon they could design build or think of and describe to another to build would, imo, make any other imperialistic government think twice about invasion.

So yes, I'm a dreamer and a crazy one at that, but I feel Utopian goals are what the world should be actively moving towards through investment, incentive and creative innovation. Money is an artificial creation, but the innovation of its usage seems to mainly favor the Haves and of course then the burden of payment falls on them (which they don't like). The Have-Nots in turn get left behind and exploited through destructive extremism and cycles of poverty (which they don't like). Most of us wish there was a better system but how do we as a civilization get to that better system unless we lose our fear of experimentation?

Nothing wrong with being a dreamer, i am one myself, but being a dreamer that needs others to supply their dreams is a dissapointment waiting to happen. Money is only a tool making it simpler to trade ones labor/product to another for their labor/product. Money is a liberating invention, not a oppressive one. The only ones who get left behind are those who choose to. You could say they don't know how, or what needs to be done, but if they spent as much time reading, watching, thinking and learning about how to improve themselves or situation, as they do reading, thinking and learning about how society,government owe them, their 'luck' would improve. Reminds me of a quote from Thomas Jefferson that goes something like, I am a firm believer in luck and I find that the harder I work, the luckier I get.

Its not the '"haves" fault that others "have-not", but it is the the "have-nots" who suffer most from the current income tax, as well as most other proposals. Most of the rich sell their labor/products to the not as rich, so if we raise the tax on the rich, we raise the tax on the poor. Even if the percentages and amounts are miniscule the not as rich still have to devote more of their labor/product to live, whereas the rich have already made enough off of their labor/product that they can sit back and withdraw from the economy.

 

[Astronuc]

I thought the list was exhaustive - maybe I'm missing something. Could you explain how it isn't?

None of the options demand the complete absence of taxation, and the first three demand the existence of some taxation.

Somewhere between:
I prefer a system with a somewhat smaller role for income based taxation
I prefer a system with a somewhat larger role for income based taxation

What about the same role for income taxed based taxation?

Or none of the above.

I would prefer that everyone pays a fair share. Then again, I think the federal government should be more conservative with respect to expenditures.

 

[russ_watters]

I would prefer that everyone pays a fair share.

Opinions on what a "fair share" is vary pretty widely...

 

[Gokul43201]

Somewhere between:
I prefer a system with a somewhat smaller role for income based taxation
I prefer a system with a somewhat larger role for income based taxation

What about the same role for income taxed based taxation?

Perhaps it wasn't worded very well, but the first option is expected to cover that. In the US, about 33% of total Federal revenue comes from income taxes, and I think it makes up nearly 50% in Australia. I imagine there may be some European countries where it is a little higher still.

[PLAIN]http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/include/usgs_chart_pie1.png

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/index.php

 

[Dale]

That is for the state governments I believe. The federal government has a much higher fraction from income tax and has almost no income from fees I believe.

My preference is for the "fair tax".

 

[ginru]

Not only do you want to force one neighbor to support his neighbor, you also want the recipient to be forced into agricultural experiments? Wouldn't it be an easier and less expensive solution to just have everyone take take care of themselves and if they want apples to go about learning how to do it, or just go to his neighbor and offer to buy one?

We're misunderstanding each other as the bold part is actually what I'm getting at... basically a voluntary, incentive-based approach rather than forcing the rich neighbor to give money to the poor neighbor. If the poor one manages to work his own investment first, then eventually the rich one will voluntarily pay for that service rather than outsource the job overseas.

You'll get no argument from me on the size and scope of the US military. I am not as niave to think we don't need any military, on the otherhand I think having one of ours' stature only makes it easier to stick our nose where it doesn't belong, costing lives and billions in wealthe. Having a country full of able bodied men who owned any weapon they could design build or think of and describe to another to build would, imo, make any other imperialistic government think twice about invasion.

That's ok as it would be like owning a gun for protecting your house, which I'm not actually against. Raising large sums of money to fund an army to protect your house though is what I feel to be inefficient. This is why when asked how to fund a large military, I would prefer reducing the size of government while going with more cost-effective strategies to peace.

Now I don't expect the current generation in power to make real social progress since our perspectives are dominated by fear of the world. For us, having an army to guard the house and impose our will is considered essential, but eventually we'll get a future generation with a perspective more conducive to fundamental changes. My goal is to figure out how to inspire and empower such a generation, which would hopefully be adept at investing in progress rather than acting out in fear.

Nothing wrong with being a dreamer, i am one myself, but being a dreamer that needs others to supply their dreams is a dissapointment waiting to happen. Money is only a tool making it simpler to trade ones labor/product to another for their labor/product. Money is a liberating invention, not a oppressive one. The only ones who get left behind are those who choose to. You could say they don't know how, or what needs to be done, but if they spent as much time reading, watching, thinking and learning about how to improve themselves or situation, as they do reading, thinking and learning about how society,government owe them, their 'luck' would improve. Reminds me of a quote from Thomas Jefferson that goes something like, I am a firm believer in luck and I find that the harder I work, the luckier I get.

I feel the bold part is the ideal rather than the reality. If someone's life amounts to being a wage slave that works hard but just barely stays above water and doesn't feel they have the time/energy to better themselves, then I don't see that as a liberating situation. That's why I'm calling for an alternative currency/economy that serves to innovate and evolve these standards. The conventional currency would continue to serve the Haves, and of course it should be allowed to do so. But the underclass needs an alternative system that better serves their interests, and ideally I see both systems as being able to work in tandem with each other for everyone's benefit.

And again, I'll repeat that the wealthy should NOT be forced to fund this system against their will. By the end of this year, I'm actually hoping to launch a project like this and I'm determined to avoid depending on donations or government funding.

 

[nismaratwork]

Opinions on what a "fair share" is vary pretty widely...

History would seem to indicate that "fair" is how much you can take before people fight back beyond the capacity of society's means to resist.

In short, there is no fair, but that also means there is no UNfair. So... "eat the rich"?

 

[nismaratwork]

We're misunderstanding each other as the bold part is actually what I'm getting at... basically a voluntary, incentive-based approach rather than forcing the rich neighbor to give money to the poor neighbor. If the poor one manages to work his own investment first, then eventually the rich one will voluntarily pay for that service rather than outsource the job overseas.

That's ok as it would be like owning a gun for protecting your house, which I'm not actually against. Raising large sums of money to fund an army to protect your house though is what I feel to be inefficient. This is why when asked how to fund a large military, I would prefer reducing the size of government while going with more cost-effective strategies to peace.

Now I don't expect the current generation in power to make real social progress since our perspectives are dominated by fear of the world. For us, having an army to guard the house and impose our will is considered essential, but eventually we'll get a future generation with a perspective more conducive to fundamental changes. My goal is to figure out how to inspire and empower such a generation, which would hopefully be adept at investing in progress rather than acting out in fear.



I feel the bold part is the ideal rather than the reality. If someone's life amounts to being a wage slave that works hard but just barely stays above water and doesn't feel they have the time/energy to better themselves, then I don't see that as a liberating situation. That's why I'm calling for an alternative currency/economy that serves to innovate and evolve these standards. The conventional currency would continue to serve the Haves, and of course it should be allowed to do so. But the underclass needs an alternative system that better serves their interests, and ideally I see both systems as being able to work in tandem with each other for everyone's benefit.

And again, I'll repeat that the wealthy should NOT be forced to fund this system against their will. By the end of this year, I'm actually hoping to launch a project like this and I'm determined to avoid depending on donations or government funding.

It sounds to me that you're on your way to either proving us wrong, or more likely discovering how difficult it is to translate a dream into reality. May your pain be brief, your recovery swift, and the trauma minimal.

 

[ginru]

It sounds to me that you're on your way to either proving us wrong, or more likely discovering how difficult it is to translate a dream into reality. May your pain be brief, your recovery swift, and the trauma minimal.

Hey, thanks After two previous failures, I'm hoping to channel what I've learned into this 3rd attempt. I'm keeping my plans simple, costs low, dependencies minimal, and approaching it as a life-long mission so I'm not relying on instant results. One of my biggest worries is actually what to do in the case of a sudden rush of applicants.

To answer your previous question though about what to do with people that don't wish to contribute. If they put nothing in then they'd simply get nothing out. They're free to invest in whatever they feel brings the best return, so if living in a hermit shack on the outskirts of society is what they prefer then that's their choice (as long as they don't trespass onto others' investments).

 

[nismaratwork]

Hey, thanks After two previous failures, I'm hoping to channel what I've learned into this 3rd attempt. I'm keeping my plans simple, costs low, dependencies minimal, and approaching it as a life-long mission so I'm not relying on instant results. One of my biggest worries is actually what to do in the case of a sudden rush of applicants.

To answer your previous question though about what to do with people that don't wish to contribute. If they put nothing in then they'd simply get nothing out. They're free to invest in whatever they feel brings the best return, so if living in a hermit shack on the outskirts of society is what they prefer then that's their choice (as long as they don't trespass onto others' investments).

...And what of social predators, secret cartels, sociopaths and just-plain narcissists? It is human to seek advantage within a system, and some percentage will do so through intimidation, violence, graft, blackmail, etc. M.I.C.E. never goes out of fashion.