So true. Business needs to make profit, and limited resources need to distributed so that it maximizes shareholder value. For example, if you are the water company, wealthier neighborhoods use more water, and in effect rightfully get more of a consideration when it comes to services, quality and whether or not you will repair that broken pipe. You need less pipes, just thicker ones. These customers are paying for better water by filling their pools with lots and lots of it, while the poor just drink it and shower once a week. Let's give better service to customers that deserve it.
How a bank can be identical to a person is something you have to explain. Yes, there is very likely a good contact between the bank leaders and Putin, but they have other clients as well (they are pretty big, actually) and the point the GP made was that in the actual papers there was no evidence whatsoever involving Putin, and still newspapers opened the story with his picture.
That's like opening a story about the drug addiction of some White House secretary with a picture of Obama and calling him a drug lord.
It is simply dishonest journalism. A good journalist does not make up connections, he investigates them and reveals what he finds, not what he thinks maybe (hopefully) is there.
But aside from some whining online, nothing will happen because we are not starving, and we have TV and Playstations. The rulers have learnt since the French Revolution, you know?
Yes, but you can't really curb that, unless you specify for each and every case what are expenditures and what not, and what may be deductible and what not: that's where some of the loopholes are created, and always will be. And one can't just say: "oh, we'll not look at profit, but at total revenue", because what about companies that actually HAVE costs?
Two simple solutions. One, do not allow deductions at all. Sure companies have costs and yes this will cause some economic shifting, but it will be easy, transparent and fair. Or two, allow only deductions of expenditures within the country. If you license from a company in the same country, you can deduce the expenditure (because the other company will book it as a revenue and pay taxes on it). As soon as it crosses a border, not eligible for deduction.
Basically, taxing companies on their gross total revenue, without looking at their costs, means those companies go bankrupt
It will make some business models unprofitable, yes. But this happens all the time, not just with taxation. We didn't bail out the horse carriage drivers, they had to innovate (e.g. turn towards tourism) or go out of business.
In your example, what will more likely happen is that company A will re-negotiate their deal with company B, because company B is not stupid either and will understand that taking only 50 instead of 80 millions still gives them more profit then insisting on 80 millions and making company A go out of business, yielding them 0 millions in the end.
So I don't see how you can readily tax companies without allowing them to deduct their costs, and without looking at the actual profits.
One more note: Strangely, we can tax people without allowing them to deduct their costs (or allow them to deduct only a tiny, very specific fraction of their costs).
Whenever companies are given more then people, something is wrong.
As for Germany... well, no doubt not everything goes well - but their economy is still better off than in most other countries of the EU. And it's *still* a welfare state. Just compare it with the USA, and I think the differences will still be more than obvious.
Can't destroy a good system in one generation without people noticing. But for the past 20 years, every german government has very much tried to make the country more like the USA. And our economy is strong not because, but despite the government.
I actually agree that not all privatisation is better - though in many cases it has proven to be, indeed, better. The major issue is to recognise where it does work well and where it doesn't.
Agreed. The point is that, like in most ideological arguments, both sides turn inevitable out to be full of shit. Pure capitalism is just as stupid and evil as pure communism.
I fear that's again more of a semantic issue again, or maybe just being a bit pedant about it. I think it was understood to mean: you don't have a *viable* alternative.
It's clear that you don't live in Germany. Where for the past 10 years every political decision has been justified as being the only alternative. I cannot remember one time where our so-called leaders stood up and said "there are several possible ways to solve this issue, we have decided to use this way, for this reason". It's always "there are no alternatives". The german word "alternativlos" (without alternative) has even been on the list of candidates for "word of the year".
Now... I do agree that, with unlimited free-trade-agreemnts (TRIPS, etc.) with all other countries in the world, the EU would be far worse off and get a giant whooping... the cause of that is also clear: there is far too much costs here (in wages, in taxes, in about everything). We can't compete with those countries who do not have that. So either we lower our costs, or the other countries raise theirs (aka, introduce a similar welfare-state as ours). Preferably both.
It's not just welfare state, that's another strawman. Again, here in Germany, there isn't much welfare state. I have friends who were unemployed for a considerable time, and the only thing they have left compared to 3rd world countries is that they didn't starve and weren't out on the street, and that's it. I've seen tiny apartments in old houses in such bad conditions that I wouldn't want to live there unless the alternative is sleeping under a bridge. Welfare state my ass.
What drives costs is also a working legal system, a good infrastructure and political stability. You don't get roads, trains, electricity, plumbing for free. You don't get firefighters and police that will be at your site within single-digit minutes for free. You don't get ports and airports for free.
Oh, and to come back to the welfare state: History lesson: In Germany, the welfare state was introduced by a very conservative, right-wing, militaristic, loyal-to-the-king (Kaiser) government. As a means to undermine the left-wing parties and take their support among the working class. The system that was created was so good that not only did it prevent a left-wing government for many decades, it also survived a revolution and two world wars intact. And now they want to tell us it is unsustainable and in crisis and we need to buy private insurances additionally. They think people are total idiots, and sadly, they are right.
As long as you have countries that are reasonably stable, but which are financial more beneficial, you'll still have the same exodus.
That is true to some extent.
Now we hit the "inevitable" argument. Is a race-to-the-bottom competition really the only answer? Because every fool can see that there will always be at least one other country willing to offer the super rich a lower tax rate. As long as the tax rate is above 0, it is beneficial for that country to attract some of the super rich.
No, the correct answer is not to enter into a competition. The correct answer is cooperation. The countries of the world need to agree on a minimum tax rate that nobody will undermine. Who are the tax havens? Typically tiny countries. And one big one - the USA. That is, sadly, where any type of cooperation fails. When you have a big bully in the mix.
Or is it to accept competition, and modernise our economy as well as our social security, so we don't need those artifici
What you propose is basically an nationalisation of private firms
Yes, it is. That's why I called it revolutionary. Note that I'm not proposing it. I'm simply showing that the inevitable argument is bullshit because if you want to prevent capital from leaving the country, you can. The question is if you want, not if you can.
We've seen how successful communism and socialism was, where they nationalised private companies (hint: it didn't turn out well).
The failure of communism had little to do with that question. There is the inefficiency problem of central planning and the lack of incentives, true. But the USSR failed mostly due to external factors and their crazy military expenditures (which for the USA worked to stimulate the economy at the expense of the government, but in the USSR, where both were basically the same, it did much harm).
There are many nationalised, successful and efficient companies in the world. In Europe, privatization was late (80s, 90s) and today it is clear where it worked (telecommunication) and where it failed bitterly (railroad companies).
But we knew that before. That in natural monopoly situations a publicly-owned company is the best solution, every economy textbook contains that bit.
So you don't only want to tax them where they are located, but also where they sell their goods?
No, I want to tax their profits where they are generated.
And you mean more than just VAT (because that's already the case now)?
VAT is a joke. I own a small company. How much VAT do you think I pay? No, I'm not proposing new taxes, extra taxes or higher taxes. I propose a fair tax system without all the loopholes that allow big internationals to siphon billions of dollars out of countries, tax-free.
That's called protectionism.
And aside from neocon propaganda, there is nothing wrong with a moderate amount of protectionism. We humans, so stupid. We make one mistake (too much protectionism) and then immediately go to make the opposite mistake (completely unregulated financial flows). Probably we will go back to the first mistake next, instead of understanding that all life is a careful balance between opposing forces.
What you suggest is just not realistic. And I think you know that as well. It's something you *want* and ideologically hope for, but I think deep down you know it's unrealistic.
I don't even want it. As I said: Until multinational corporations have tanks, the "inevitable" argument is bullshit. I'm tired of hearing it. "There is no alternative" has become a mantra to silence opposition and competing ideas. There is always at least one alternative. If you didn't find it, you didn't look. Maybe your proposal is indeed the best option, but it never is the only option and everyone who claims that it is the only option, that there is no alternative, is either a total idiot, or he knows that his isn't the best option, he can't win on merit, he has to argue on inevitability. If your option is the best, you can always come out and say "there are other options, but mine is the best" and then provide the logical argument why. If you deny the existence of other options, almost certainly you have something to hide.
I'm talking now about a *realistic* proposal to introduce an UBI. Advocating a form of communism, arresting the rich, or seizing property *before* the law is passed, is just asinine. (And you would *need* to do it that way, because if you give them the time to see the law coming into effect, they'll bail out again, of course).
We went away from that argument. I said that a basic income will not ruin the country. I'm also sure it doesn't require any drastic laws. We simply got sidetracked into that argument by your insistence that it will and then the rich will run away and you can do nothin
So the next step will be to have distress fingers, i.e. if I use my left thumb, the phone will lock up and I need to enter my code, TouchID will not work by itself anymore.
Problem solved. Apple, you listening? Wait, you don't have to. Any expert in security knows about canaries and distress signals, so you're probably working on it already, right?
"I think the point of the parent poster was that the "This money will come back to the government in no time." in the post (to which he responded) is wrong."
Again: My argument was never that all will come back immediately. Some will come back immediately, all will come back eventually.
If something I wrote made it seem like I was saying all will come back immediately, that's a misunderstanding or bad wording on my part.
So the reasoning we need more people to sustain the people we have now IS FAULTY.
The system was invented in a time of population growth, and one of the reforms that would have had to be made was to adapt it to a more static population model. Instead, the system was booed and money was taken out of it for other purposes, to fabricate a crisis.
But such a reform would have been possible. A static population can support its old people from the economic activity of its working age people. Why not?
for a state which want tax-income, there are only a limited amount of options
Ah, the inevitability argument. My favorite strawman.
For a state who wants to do something, there's little to stop it. If you really have the will. Heck, if you want to play hardball, you can tell the super-rich to pay their taxes or you will take their companies. They will threaten to move their companies to China. To which you'll respond by taking their companies and giving them to someone who keeps them in the country. You just have to do it before they do the move, not wait until everything is gone and then cry about how unfair the world is.
In the end, they can move their factory to China, but they need to sell here, because people in China have chinese wages and can't buy all the shit.
If you want to, you can get your taxes. The problem isn't ability, the problem is will.
But yes, this is basically revolutionary. With the current system and the bullshit "reforms" they sell us every few years, you are right the middle class is following. Heck, I am planning to leave the country, and I'm a good distance away from super-rich.
Greece, Spain, Portugal, etc. are not western countries?
Please. Nothing what happened there had to do with people buying TVs from China on Alibaba.
You do realise that it's not only the rich themselves (personally) that go abroad, but also large international companies?
Of course I do. And if you want to have a company in India, producing something to sell in India, be my guest. And if you want to sell your indian stuff in my country, pay your taxes. So simple, yes?
The problem with tax avoidance has never been that there's international trade. The problem is that with the current corporate tax systems, you can shift profits into low-tax countries and expenditures into high-tax countries with no actual real economy equivalent. It's the same problem that we have with the financial market, that activities there are purely virtual and have no relation to the real economy anymore. Except that when the financial matrix crashes, it takes the real economy down with it.
Unvirtualize this shit and everything becomes a lot more clear.
So it doesn't matter if you drastically tax the persons, or the companies: in both cases, when you exaggerate your taxes, both will flee. It seems this never actually gets through to some.
Who talks about drastically exaggerating taxes? Just close the loopholes.
That wasn't my point. I didn't say no money is or was going to flow out now, I just said you can't recuperate 100% of your money, and thus *what you said*, namely that people will buy stuff and the money of that immediately goes back to the government IS UNTRUE. God damn, you're obnoxiously obtuse.
Only because you put words into my mouth. Some money will come back immediately. All of it will come back eventually, either through longer circles (purchase-loan-purchase-taxes) or through the creation of additional wealth because people start businesses, or create art, or don't have to commit crimes for a living anymore (reduced costs of police, courts and prisons) and many other effects.
Of course if you look at a very simplified model where you ignore any and all side-effects, you can say "money leaves the country, so it will go bancrupt, q.e.d." but you would have to close your eyes quite a lot.
Point is, people order things increasingly from abroad, and if you products and services are more expensive in your country than elsewhere, you'll loose loads of money that way.
Yes, true. Some money will leave the country this way. Time will tell if it's a devastating factor or not. Money also leaves the country in many other ways, for example migrants sending money home to their families, or investments into foreign companies, etc. etc. - I don't have numbers to estimate which of these factors is the largest. Do you?
But what I am saying is that this is already happening, so how is it possibly an argument against basic income?
ALL have it very hard to maintain their welfare system. And with sharply rising costs due to an ageing populace, immigrants that can use the benefits without having contributed to it before, and rising costs in healthcare, it's rather obvious none of them will be able to maintain their current system.
Shows how little you know. Yes, the systems are breaking, because - I already explained. And immigrants are actually beneficial, especially to the pension system, because few old people immigrate, young people pay into the pension fund, and they have more children then europeans. That might not sit well with some political orientations, but looking just at the pension system, it's great.
You're obsessively fixated on 'the rich', probably due to ideological reasons, but that doesn't matter in the discussion here.
For practical reasons. A hundred thousand poor together have less money parked in offshore accounts then one rich.
The only thing I'm saying is, that money IS flowing abroad which IS NOT coming back to the government.
And strangely, no western country is running out of money. How do you explain that? Ah yes, trade balance. Except that all the countries we are talking about have a positive trade balance.
the fact that, the more you try to tax the rich, the more inclined they will be to go abroad and transfer their money *even more* than they already do now.
If we didn't have a corrupt political class, it would be absolutely trivial to tax the rich properly. Here is how: Travel where you want. Bring your money where you want. But money that you make in this country gets taxed in this country, period.
All the funny games work by using intentional loopholes in the tax system to bring money (real or on paper through accounting tricks) outside the country without paying taxes first. I'm not the first to propose a flat, relatively low, tax rate with no exceptions. In fact, a swiss professor on economics did the math on that and proved that it would work.
I'm not for taxing the rich. I'm for taxing everyone. At the moment, we are mostly taxing the middle class (poor have too little, rich have tax advisors and tax havens).
once you tax the superrich too much, they'll just be go
If you say you recuperate 20% (btw, you do understand one can directly buy goods abroad by internet, I suppose? And thus, forgo 'local shops', and only leave the distribution-services (partly) as coming 'back into the economy'?) But regardless, saying 20% comes back is saying 80% does not come back.
No, it's saying that 20% comes back to the government immediately. Of the shop price of an electronics item, a good estimate is that 50% goes to the manufacturer. The rest is taxes, shop profit, logistics and such. 50% leaving the country is a more honest estimate (and very few people order their stuff at Alibaba, most will use a local Internet shop).
But that money would leave the country if people get their income from a basic income, or from a salary, or from unemployment money. It's not like when you introduce a basic income, suddenly lots of money will flow out of the country that didn't before. To make a more honest estimate, we should only calculate the difference.
in the EU most welfare-systems already are reeling and becoming unmaintainable, even when pouring large sums in it
That is bullshit. The system I have a bit of knowledge about is the german pension system, and it could have very well survived with minor restructuring. It was intentionally sabotaged by two generations of politicians, because the insurance industry wanted in on the gig. So it was a) discussed to death and b) money in the pension fund was used for other purposes until the system actually did hit a crisis. But that crisis was manufactured so that insurance companies could sell you additional pension funds (with tax benefits). Investing the same amount of taxes into the pension fund directly would have easily covered the gaps.
That is why I am so very critical about these "oh, it can't work" criticism, usually coming from people with an interest in not having it work.
Oh, and also: If we worry about money leaving the country, we should arrest all the rich people. They bring more money outside the country than even the most aggressive shopping spree of the lower class ever could. So again one more reason to not worry about what is a strawman.
For example a professor of economy and former finance minister, who said that giving people a basic income will allow a lot of them to start their own business, which they did not so far for fear of failing and ending up with nothing. Many people stay in regular jobs for that reason.
To which I say: he is right. People WILL buy things from abroad, and thus it's impossible that all the money comes back - certainly not if you have a trade deficit.
Yes, they will buy things from abroad. Often in local shops (20% already recovered), which pay salaries to their local sales people and contract other local busineses (for cleaning, telecommunication, logistics, etc.) where more jobs are paid from this money.
I said "money that immediately goes back", I did not use "all" and "immediately" in the same sentence. Some will come back immediately, some will take longer circles. But eventually, especially considering the savings of not having 20 other social support systems with all their overhead and inefficiencies, neither the government nor the country will go bancrupt.
Well, I partially agree that if you tax the rich too much, they're much more prone to flee abroad.
Ah, the standard neocon bullshit strawman. The rich flee abroad for a million reasons, most of them having nothing to do with taxes. Quality of life is the largest group of why they do it. Any income class, the first thing that people do with more money is to improve their life. If you can afford it, you will simply go to where the climate is better, the streets are more clean, the people more friendly or whatever it is that is important to you.
The super rich don't flee any country. They simply move their official location of living into a tax haven, buy a house there that they never actually visit, and abuse the tax loopholes that corrupt politicians created and maintain for them.
And the "if you tax them too much" makes me angry. They will do this if the difference is 10% or 1% or 0.1% - because at their income range, even 0.1% makes a difference. The whole "boo, don't tax them so much" is simply the rallying call for a race-to-the-bottom that leaves everyone a loser, except the super rich.
"This money will come back to the government in no time." is still wrong.
Only if you don't understand basic economy and completely ignore the wealth creation effect that investments do, especially investments into the low and middle class. Please, we have to have this discussion again? Trickle-down has not been sufficiently debunked by history? Money to the rich disappears out of the economy much, much more than money to the poor. Money to the poor tends to create small businesses, which create additional jobs and additional income, which can be taxed. The question is if the money "lost" is higher than the wealth generated. It could just as well be the other way around, that a basic income boosts the economy so much that the government gets back more taxes then it spends on this.
If I have 20 euro, and I spend part of it which never gets back in my pocket, I have become poorer than I was before.
You are confusing personal money management with a national economy. Again you ignore the effect of wealth creation.
Again, what has that to do with it? Whether it already is a problem or not worth screaming about is not the issue here. That it IS a problem, is. Whether it's with China or the EU or the US isn't the point neither; that there ARE trade-deficits *IS*. This means some countries loose out, period. As said, this means some countries will have a net positive balance, and some a net negative. If you have a net-negative, this means you'll lose money and that money doesn't come back
Switzerland has a positive account balance of over 50 trillion US$. Their population is about 8 million. They won't run into a negative account balance for a very, very long time, no matter how much of the money from a basic income leaves the country.
I don't know. I rather found that he raised some valid points, with interesting ramifications. Maybe he lacked a bit in further explaining of his points, but - provided I interpreted it correctly - I think I mediated that a bit.
I still see too much of the standard neocon fearmongering in there. "omg, don't give money to people, they can't handle it" - say the guys who brought us the last five global financial meltdowns.
There is no way to 'recuperate' 100% of the money you gave away to your citizens. Some of it invariably will go outside your country.
The richer you are, the more likely you are to bring the money outside the country. Giving everyone a few bucks or giving the super-rich tax cuts - which you think is more likely to keep money inside the country?
Sure, it doesn't leave the 'global economy', but that's a small comfort, when it's your region (aka country) that is getting impoverished
None of the experiments on basic income that were run to date showed evidence of an imperishing the country effect. Where you get this idea and is it backed up by any evidence?
But you did hear of trade deficits, no?
Yes, but if you are worried about that, then you should already be running around, screaming. And despite popular opinion, a lot of the trade deficit is not with China, but with other EU countries, for example. Germany especially holds a lot of the trade deficit of other EU nations (and, in fact, a larger account balance than China, globally). The Netherlands and, surprise, Switzerland, are high on that list as well. Now since we are talking about Switzerland here, trade deficit is not among their chief concerns.
So the reasoning in the parent is seemingly reasonable, but actually made up out of fear and ignorance.
Please kill yourself. We don't need people with a view of humanity like that on this planet.
You are completely oblivious to anything going on in the world. Fear is a terrible motivator, we know enough psychology today to understand that it inhibits higher brain functions, preventing any kind of invention or progress. For slavery, that is actually a useful feature, but you don't even understand slavery and that it wasn't avoidance of being killed that made the system work.
So please, jump off a bridge somewhere, or in front of a train or whatever you prefer, because it isn't people being lazy that are the scourge of humanity, it is people like you who don't see the greatness in our species, the potential, the fact that if you would only listen and give them a chance, every single human would have one small thing to contribute. Most just live and die without ever getting the chance to do it, and it's because of fuckers like you who don't believe they should have the opportunity, they should do hard work instead, because of that small Stalin in your head telling you that the unwashed masses are up to no good and need to be kept busy, against their will, with hard work so they don't start to do some thinking.
I actually did start my own company, and it wasn't such a big success that it would pay the bills, so now I'm doing freelance work which pays nicely (I'm an information security consultant) but is more stressful than a regular job.
I have a long list of things that I would like to do, both in my field and outside. I just don't have time for it, if it doesn't in some way end up as profitable, at least a little bit. With a basic income, knowing myself the first month or two I would do some shit that I've just wanted to do for a long time, but then all the articles I wanted to write, the speeches I wanted to give, the software I wanted to create would appear.
Giving people a survival is the #1 humanity thing that a western society should feel itself morally obligated to do. If we can afford private jets and million dollar wedding parties for the super-rich, how can you possibly make any ethically justifiable argument that the same society has people looking for food in trash cans?
Wasn't this exactly was Greece was already doing with half of the population?
Only in the same way that store vouchers and armed robbery are the same thing. Yes, in both of them some items from the store change hands to some other people with no money exchange, but that is where the similarities end.
Greece had a massive corruption problem and was intentionally thrown under the truck by the rest of the EU to make sure that no left-wing government with actual reforms would survive, because there were similar parties already getting ready in Spain, Portugal, Italy and elsewhere, and the neocons couldn't allow that to happen, it would've interrupted this whole class warfare from the top thing they are doing so successfully to move more money from everyone to the 0.1%
But the question is, who's going to pay for it?
Is that a real question? Are you kidding? We have trillions available to save some banks who lost big at the casino, but we're asking where to get the money to pay people a survival income?
Start taxing the rich folks and they'll just hide or move their money into places where it can't be touched.
That's why you need to start jailing them for tax evasion so this bullshit stops. Of course you need to tax the rich, at the moment they are the ones who don't work but still get free money, and not exactly $2500 a month.
But more importantly, where to get the money is actually not so difficult. It's a pretty well established fact that lower income people consume more of any additional income. If everyone suddenly has $2500 a month more, the 0.1% will just burn it on some shit or put it in some investment with the rest of it - no benefit to society. That is the main reason why the super-rich need to be cut down and brought back into productive society - investment today doesn't mean factories and jobs, it means gambling at the stock exchange. But the 99.9%, what will they do? Buy better furniture, a new TV, a new iPhone, a new car. Money that immediately goes back into the economy, creates jobs and thus more wealth. Wealth that is taxed. This money will come back to the government in no time.
Look, I have interests and hobbies and shit that I like to do so I wouldn't just sit on my ass. But would any of that have any payback to society? No, or if it did it'd at least be coincidental.
A lot of the people we admire today for their contributions to art, literature, science, exploration and a dozen other things did not have day jobs that were of any benefit to society. A lot of them were wealthy landlords who were into science because they were curious and had nothing else to do.
And if we have one Newton for every one thousand people hanging around doing useless shit, as a species we would profit massively.
The other part is that there's shitty work that needs doing, if a sewage pipe burst I'm sure fixing it is not going to be at the top of anyone's list. So if you're paying everyone enough that they don't have to take the job, you have to pay them enough that they want to take the job. That'll drive wages up that'll drive prices up which means the "living wage" from basic income won't be enough. And then you're just right back where you started, if you raise basic income the shitty jobs won't get done again.
That used to be true 50 years ago. Today, you have two options:
a) pay enough money for shitty jobs so that someone actually does it. But there aren't so many shit-shovelling jobs anymore that it would affect prices. How many people fixing sewage pipes do you need in a city? Which fraction of one percent of the population? That will affect prices? Please.
b) since these shitty jobs will be high paid, there's incentive for someone to invent a robot to do it in the future.
To search for sexism in random statements by random people on the Internet that deal with topics nowhere near gender issues is kind of mental, don't you think?
It's not just that. The Saudis and Turkey are the obvious supporters behind Daesh (ISIS) as well, and everyone with three working brain cells knows it. But everyone is so tied up with them that it took Putin of all people to point it out.
A 9/11 lawsuit would potentially bring all these ties to light as well, and open up a whole can of worms that would probably end with the Saudi ruling family on Interpols Most Wanted list.
Obvious stunt. If you are jealous enough to consider this, you definitely do not want to see what's going on in detail. A simple yes/no would be more than enough.
Slashdot Mirror
So true. Business needs to make profit, and limited resources need to distributed so that it maximizes shareholder value. For example, if you are the water company, wealthier neighborhoods use more water, and in effect rightfully get more of a consideration when it comes to services, quality and whether or not you will repair that broken pipe. You need less pipes, just thicker ones. These customers are paying for better water by filling their pools with lots and lots of it, while the poor just drink it and shower once a week. Let's give better service to customers that deserve it.
How a bank can be identical to a person is something you have to explain. Yes, there is very likely a good contact between the bank leaders and Putin, but they have other clients as well (they are pretty big, actually) and the point the GP made was that in the actual papers there was no evidence whatsoever involving Putin, and still newspapers opened the story with his picture.
That's like opening a story about the drug addiction of some White House secretary with a picture of Obama and calling him a drug lord.
It is simply dishonest journalism. A good journalist does not make up connections, he investigates them and reveals what he finds, not what he thinks maybe (hopefully) is there.
But aside from some whining online, nothing will happen because we are not starving, and we have TV and Playstations. The rulers have learnt since the French Revolution, you know?
Yes, but you can't really curb that, unless you specify for each and every case what are expenditures and what not, and what may be deductible and what not: that's where some of the loopholes are created, and always will be. And one can't just say: "oh, we'll not look at profit, but at total revenue", because what about companies that actually HAVE costs?
Two simple solutions. One, do not allow deductions at all. Sure companies have costs and yes this will cause some economic shifting, but it will be easy, transparent and fair. Or two, allow only deductions of expenditures within the country. If you license from a company in the same country, you can deduce the expenditure (because the other company will book it as a revenue and pay taxes on it). As soon as it crosses a border, not eligible for deduction.
Basically, taxing companies on their gross total revenue, without looking at their costs, means those companies go bankrupt
It will make some business models unprofitable, yes. But this happens all the time, not just with taxation. We didn't bail out the horse carriage drivers, they had to innovate (e.g. turn towards tourism) or go out of business.
In your example, what will more likely happen is that company A will re-negotiate their deal with company B, because company B is not stupid either and will understand that taking only 50 instead of 80 millions still gives them more profit then insisting on 80 millions and making company A go out of business, yielding them 0 millions in the end.
So I don't see how you can readily tax companies without allowing them to deduct their costs, and without looking at the actual profits.
One more note: Strangely, we can tax people without allowing them to deduct their costs (or allow them to deduct only a tiny, very specific fraction of their costs).
Whenever companies are given more then people, something is wrong.
As for Germany... well, no doubt not everything goes well - but their economy is still better off than in most other countries of the EU. And it's *still* a welfare state. Just compare it with the USA, and I think the differences will still be more than obvious.
Can't destroy a good system in one generation without people noticing. But for the past 20 years, every german government has very much tried to make the country more like the USA. And our economy is strong not because, but despite the government.
I actually agree that not all privatisation is better - though in many cases it has proven to be, indeed, better. The major issue is to recognise where it does work well and where it doesn't.
Agreed. The point is that, like in most ideological arguments, both sides turn inevitable out to be full of shit. Pure capitalism is just as stupid and evil as pure communism.
I fear that's again more of a semantic issue again, or maybe just being a bit pedant about it. I think it was understood to mean: you don't have a *viable* alternative.
It's clear that you don't live in Germany. Where for the past 10 years every political decision has been justified as being the only alternative. I cannot remember one time where our so-called leaders stood up and said "there are several possible ways to solve this issue, we have decided to use this way, for this reason". It's always "there are no alternatives". The german word "alternativlos" (without alternative) has even been on the list of candidates for "word of the year".
Now... I do agree that, with unlimited free-trade-agreemnts (TRIPS, etc.) with all other countries in the world, the EU would be far worse off and get a giant whooping... the cause of that is also clear: there is far too much costs here (in wages, in taxes, in about everything). We can't compete with those countries who do not have that. So either we lower our costs, or the other countries raise theirs (aka, introduce a similar welfare-state as ours). Preferably both.
It's not just welfare state, that's another strawman. Again, here in Germany, there isn't much welfare state. I have friends who were unemployed for a considerable time, and the only thing they have left compared to 3rd world countries is that they didn't starve and weren't out on the street, and that's it. I've seen tiny apartments in old houses in such bad conditions that I wouldn't want to live there unless the alternative is sleeping under a bridge. Welfare state my ass.
What drives costs is also a working legal system, a good infrastructure and political stability. You don't get roads, trains, electricity, plumbing for free. You don't get firefighters and police that will be at your site within single-digit minutes for free. You don't get ports and airports for free.
Oh, and to come back to the welfare state: History lesson: In Germany, the welfare state was introduced by a very conservative, right-wing, militaristic, loyal-to-the-king (Kaiser) government. As a means to undermine the left-wing parties and take their support among the working class. The system that was created was so good that not only did it prevent a left-wing government for many decades, it also survived a revolution and two world wars intact. And now they want to tell us it is unsustainable and in crisis and we need to buy private insurances additionally. They think people are total idiots, and sadly, they are right.
As long as you have countries that are reasonably stable, but which are financial more beneficial, you'll still have the same exodus.
That is true to some extent.
Now we hit the "inevitable" argument. Is a race-to-the-bottom competition really the only answer? Because every fool can see that there will always be at least one other country willing to offer the super rich a lower tax rate. As long as the tax rate is above 0, it is beneficial for that country to attract some of the super rich.
No, the correct answer is not to enter into a competition. The correct answer is cooperation. The countries of the world need to agree on a minimum tax rate that nobody will undermine. Who are the tax havens? Typically tiny countries. And one big one - the USA. That is, sadly, where any type of cooperation fails. When you have a big bully in the mix.
Or is it to accept competition, and modernise our economy as well as our social security, so we don't need those artifici
What you propose is basically an nationalisation of private firms
Yes, it is. That's why I called it revolutionary. Note that I'm not proposing it. I'm simply showing that the inevitable argument is bullshit because if you want to prevent capital from leaving the country, you can. The question is if you want, not if you can.
We've seen how successful communism and socialism was, where they nationalised private companies (hint: it didn't turn out well).
The failure of communism had little to do with that question. There is the inefficiency problem of central planning and the lack of incentives, true. But the USSR failed mostly due to external factors and their crazy military expenditures (which for the USA worked to stimulate the economy at the expense of the government, but in the USSR, where both were basically the same, it did much harm).
There are many nationalised, successful and efficient companies in the world. In Europe, privatization was late (80s, 90s) and today it is clear where it worked (telecommunication) and where it failed bitterly (railroad companies).
But we knew that before. That in natural monopoly situations a publicly-owned company is the best solution, every economy textbook contains that bit.
So you don't only want to tax them where they are located, but also where they sell their goods?
No, I want to tax their profits where they are generated.
And you mean more than just VAT (because that's already the case now)?
VAT is a joke. I own a small company. How much VAT do you think I pay? No, I'm not proposing new taxes, extra taxes or higher taxes. I propose a fair tax system without all the loopholes that allow big internationals to siphon billions of dollars out of countries, tax-free.
That's called protectionism.
And aside from neocon propaganda, there is nothing wrong with a moderate amount of protectionism. We humans, so stupid. We make one mistake (too much protectionism) and then immediately go to make the opposite mistake (completely unregulated financial flows). Probably we will go back to the first mistake next, instead of understanding that all life is a careful balance between opposing forces.
What you suggest is just not realistic. And I think you know that as well. It's something you *want* and ideologically hope for, but I think deep down you know it's unrealistic.
I don't even want it. As I said: Until multinational corporations have tanks, the "inevitable" argument is bullshit. I'm tired of hearing it. "There is no alternative" has become a mantra to silence opposition and competing ideas. There is always at least one alternative. If you didn't find it, you didn't look. Maybe your proposal is indeed the best option, but it never is the only option and everyone who claims that it is the only option, that there is no alternative, is either a total idiot, or he knows that his isn't the best option, he can't win on merit, he has to argue on inevitability. If your option is the best, you can always come out and say "there are other options, but mine is the best" and then provide the logical argument why. If you deny the existence of other options, almost certainly you have something to hide.
I'm talking now about a *realistic* proposal to introduce an UBI. Advocating a form of communism, arresting the rich, or seizing property *before* the law is passed, is just asinine. (And you would *need* to do it that way, because if you give them the time to see the law coming into effect, they'll bail out again, of course).
We went away from that argument. I said that a basic income will not ruin the country. I'm also sure it doesn't require any drastic laws. We simply got sidetracked into that argument by your insistence that it will and then the rich will run away and you can do nothin
So the next step will be to have distress fingers, i.e. if I use my left thumb, the phone will lock up and I need to enter my code, TouchID will not work by itself anymore.
Problem solved. Apple, you listening? Wait, you don't have to. Any expert in security knows about canaries and distress signals, so you're probably working on it already, right?
"I think the point of the parent poster was that the "This money will come back to the government in no time." in the post (to which he responded) is wrong."
Again: My argument was never that all will come back immediately. Some will come back immediately, all will come back eventually.
If something I wrote made it seem like I was saying all will come back immediately, that's a misunderstanding or bad wording on my part.
So the reasoning we need more people to sustain the people we have now IS FAULTY.
The system was invented in a time of population growth, and one of the reforms that would have had to be made was to adapt it to a more static population model. Instead, the system was booed and money was taken out of it for other purposes, to fabricate a crisis.
But such a reform would have been possible. A static population can support its old people from the economic activity of its working age people. Why not?
for a state which want tax-income, there are only a limited amount of options
Ah, the inevitability argument. My favorite strawman.
For a state who wants to do something, there's little to stop it. If you really have the will. Heck, if you want to play hardball, you can tell the super-rich to pay their taxes or you will take their companies. They will threaten to move their companies to China. To which you'll respond by taking their companies and giving them to someone who keeps them in the country. You just have to do it before they do the move, not wait until everything is gone and then cry about how unfair the world is.
In the end, they can move their factory to China, but they need to sell here, because people in China have chinese wages and can't buy all the shit.
If you want to, you can get your taxes. The problem isn't ability, the problem is will.
But yes, this is basically revolutionary. With the current system and the bullshit "reforms" they sell us every few years, you are right the middle class is following. Heck, I am planning to leave the country, and I'm a good distance away from super-rich.
Greece, Spain, Portugal, etc. are not western countries?
Please. Nothing what happened there had to do with people buying TVs from China on Alibaba.
You do realise that it's not only the rich themselves (personally) that go abroad, but also large international companies?
Of course I do. And if you want to have a company in India, producing something to sell in India, be my guest. And if you want to sell your indian stuff in my country, pay your taxes. So simple, yes?
The problem with tax avoidance has never been that there's international trade. The problem is that with the current corporate tax systems, you can shift profits into low-tax countries and expenditures into high-tax countries with no actual real economy equivalent. It's the same problem that we have with the financial market, that activities there are purely virtual and have no relation to the real economy anymore.
Except that when the financial matrix crashes, it takes the real economy down with it.
Unvirtualize this shit and everything becomes a lot more clear.
So it doesn't matter if you drastically tax the persons, or the companies: in both cases, when you exaggerate your taxes, both will flee. It seems this never actually gets through to some.
Who talks about drastically exaggerating taxes? Just close the loopholes.
That wasn't my point. I didn't say no money is or was going to flow out now, I just said you can't recuperate 100% of your money, and thus *what you said*, namely that people will buy stuff and the money of that immediately goes back to the government IS UNTRUE. God damn, you're obnoxiously obtuse.
Only because you put words into my mouth. Some money will come back immediately. All of it will come back eventually, either through longer circles (purchase-loan-purchase-taxes) or through the creation of additional wealth because people start businesses, or create art, or don't have to commit crimes for a living anymore (reduced costs of police, courts and prisons) and many other effects.
Of course if you look at a very simplified model where you ignore any and all side-effects, you can say "money leaves the country, so it will go bancrupt, q.e.d." but you would have to close your eyes quite a lot.
Point is, people order things increasingly from abroad, and if you products and services are more expensive in your country than elsewhere, you'll loose loads of money that way.
Yes, true. Some money will leave the country this way. Time will tell if it's a devastating factor or not. Money also leaves the country in many other ways, for example migrants sending money home to their families, or investments into foreign companies, etc. etc. - I don't have numbers to estimate which of these factors is the largest. Do you?
But what I am saying is that this is already happening, so how is it possibly an argument against basic income?
ALL have it very hard to maintain their welfare system. And with sharply rising costs due to an ageing populace, immigrants that can use the benefits without having contributed to it before, and rising costs in healthcare, it's rather obvious none of them will be able to maintain their current system.
Shows how little you know. Yes, the systems are breaking, because - I already explained. And immigrants are actually beneficial, especially to the pension system, because few old people immigrate, young people pay into the pension fund, and they have more children then europeans. That might not sit well with some political orientations, but looking just at the pension system, it's great.
You're obsessively fixated on 'the rich', probably due to ideological reasons, but that doesn't matter in the discussion here.
For practical reasons. A hundred thousand poor together have less money parked in offshore accounts then one rich.
The only thing I'm saying is, that money IS flowing abroad which IS NOT coming back to the government.
And strangely, no western country is running out of money. How do you explain that? Ah yes, trade balance. Except that all the countries we are talking about have a positive trade balance.
the fact that, the more you try to tax the rich, the more inclined they will be to go abroad and transfer their money *even more* than they already do now.
If we didn't have a corrupt political class, it would be absolutely trivial to tax the rich properly. Here is how: Travel where you want. Bring your money where you want. But money that you make in this country gets taxed in this country, period.
All the funny games work by using intentional loopholes in the tax system to bring money (real or on paper through accounting tricks) outside the country without paying taxes first. I'm not the first to propose a flat, relatively low, tax rate with no exceptions. In fact, a swiss professor on economics did the math on that and proved that it would work.
I'm not for taxing the rich. I'm for taxing everyone. At the moment, we are mostly taxing the middle class (poor have too little, rich have tax advisors and tax havens).
once you tax the superrich too much, they'll just be go
If you say you recuperate 20% (btw, you do understand one can directly buy goods abroad by internet, I suppose? And thus, forgo 'local shops', and only leave the distribution-services (partly) as coming 'back into the economy'?) But regardless, saying 20% comes back is saying 80% does not come back.
No, it's saying that 20% comes back to the government immediately. Of the shop price of an electronics item, a good estimate is that 50% goes to the manufacturer. The rest is taxes, shop profit, logistics and such. 50% leaving the country is a more honest estimate (and very few people order their stuff at Alibaba, most will use a local Internet shop).
But that money would leave the country if people get their income from a basic income, or from a salary, or from unemployment money. It's not like when you introduce a basic income, suddenly lots of money will flow out of the country that didn't before. To make a more honest estimate, we should only calculate the difference.
in the EU most welfare-systems already are reeling and becoming unmaintainable, even when pouring large sums in it
That is bullshit. The system I have a bit of knowledge about is the german pension system, and it could have very well survived with minor restructuring. It was intentionally sabotaged by two generations of politicians, because the insurance industry wanted in on the gig. So it was a) discussed to death and b) money in the pension fund was used for other purposes until the system actually did hit a crisis. But that crisis was manufactured so that insurance companies could sell you additional pension funds (with tax benefits). Investing the same amount of taxes into the pension fund directly would have easily covered the gaps.
That is why I am so very critical about these "oh, it can't work" criticism, usually coming from people with an interest in not having it work.
Oh, and also: If we worry about money leaving the country, we should arrest all the rich people. They bring more money outside the country than even the most aggressive shopping spree of the lower class ever could. So again one more reason to not worry about what is a strawman.
Who was talking about investments?
For example a professor of economy and former finance minister, who said that giving people a basic income will allow a lot of them to start their own business, which they did not so far for fear of failing and ending up with nothing. Many people stay in regular jobs for that reason.
To which I say: he is right. People WILL buy things from abroad, and thus it's impossible that all the money comes back - certainly not if you have a trade deficit.
Yes, they will buy things from abroad. Often in local shops (20% already recovered), which pay salaries to their local sales people and contract other local busineses (for cleaning, telecommunication, logistics, etc.) where more jobs are paid from this money.
I said "money that immediately goes back", I did not use "all" and "immediately" in the same sentence. Some will come back immediately, some will take longer circles. But eventually, especially considering the savings of not having 20 other social support systems with all their overhead and inefficiencies, neither the government nor the country will go bancrupt.
Well, I partially agree that if you tax the rich too much, they're much more prone to flee abroad.
Ah, the standard neocon bullshit strawman. The rich flee abroad for a million reasons, most of them having nothing to do with taxes. Quality of life is the largest group of why they do it. Any income class, the first thing that people do with more money is to improve their life. If you can afford it, you will simply go to where the climate is better, the streets are more clean, the people more friendly or whatever it is that is important to you.
The super rich don't flee any country. They simply move their official location of living into a tax haven, buy a house there that they never actually visit, and abuse the tax loopholes that corrupt politicians created and maintain for them.
And the "if you tax them too much" makes me angry. They will do this if the difference is 10% or 1% or 0.1% - because at their income range, even 0.1% makes a difference. The whole "boo, don't tax them so much" is simply the rallying call for a race-to-the-bottom that leaves everyone a loser, except the super rich.
"This money will come back to the government in no time." is still wrong.
Only if you don't understand basic economy and completely ignore the wealth creation effect that investments do, especially investments into the low and middle class. Please, we have to have this discussion again? Trickle-down has not been sufficiently debunked by history? Money to the rich disappears out of the economy much, much more than money to the poor. Money to the poor tends to create small businesses, which create additional jobs and additional income, which can be taxed. The question is if the money "lost" is higher than the wealth generated. It could just as well be the other way around, that a basic income boosts the economy so much that the government gets back more taxes then it spends on this.
If I have 20 euro, and I spend part of it which never gets back in my pocket, I have become poorer than I was before.
You are confusing personal money management with a national economy. Again you ignore the effect of wealth creation.
Again, what has that to do with it? Whether it already is a problem or not worth screaming about is not the issue here. That it IS a problem, is. Whether it's with China or the EU or the US isn't the point neither; that there ARE trade-deficits *IS*. This means some countries loose out, period. As said, this means some countries will have a net positive balance, and some a net negative. If you have a net-negative, this means you'll lose money and that money doesn't come back
Switzerland has a positive account balance of over 50 trillion US$. Their population is about 8 million. They won't run into a negative account balance for a very, very long time, no matter how much of the money from a basic income leaves the country.
I don't know. I rather found that he raised some valid points, with interesting ramifications. Maybe he lacked a bit in further explaining of his points, but - provided I interpreted it correctly - I think I mediated that a bit.
I still see too much of the standard neocon fearmongering in there. "omg, don't give money to people, they can't handle it" - say the guys who brought us the last five global financial meltdowns.
And yet you promote fear, which is the #1 source of devastation and suffering.
There is no way to 'recuperate' 100% of the money you gave away to your citizens. Some of it invariably will go outside your country.
The richer you are, the more likely you are to bring the money outside the country. Giving everyone a few bucks or giving the super-rich tax cuts - which you think is more likely to keep money inside the country?
Sure, it doesn't leave the 'global economy', but that's a small comfort, when it's your region (aka country) that is getting impoverished
None of the experiments on basic income that were run to date showed evidence of an imperishing the country effect. Where you get this idea and is it backed up by any evidence?
But you did hear of trade deficits, no?
Yes, but if you are worried about that, then you should already be running around, screaming. And despite popular opinion, a lot of the trade deficit is not with China, but with other EU countries, for example. Germany especially holds a lot of the trade deficit of other EU nations (and, in fact, a larger account balance than China, globally). The Netherlands and, surprise, Switzerland, are high on that list as well. Now since we are talking about Switzerland here, trade deficit is not among their chief concerns.
So the reasoning in the parent is seemingly reasonable, but actually made up out of fear and ignorance.
billions of human leaches that provide nothing.
Please kill yourself. We don't need people with a view of humanity like that on this planet.
You are completely oblivious to anything going on in the world. Fear is a terrible motivator, we know enough psychology today to understand that it inhibits higher brain functions, preventing any kind of invention or progress. For slavery, that is actually a useful feature, but you don't even understand slavery and that it wasn't avoidance of being killed that made the system work.
So please, jump off a bridge somewhere, or in front of a train or whatever you prefer, because it isn't people being lazy that are the scourge of humanity, it is people like you who don't see the greatness in our species, the potential, the fact that if you would only listen and give them a chance, every single human would have one small thing to contribute. Most just live and die without ever getting the chance to do it, and it's because of fuckers like you who don't believe they should have the opportunity, they should do hard work instead, because of that small Stalin in your head telling you that the unwashed masses are up to no good and need to be kept busy, against their will, with hard work so they don't start to do some thinking.
Contrary to the 0.1% who will put the money into offshore accounts, build a factory in China, buy a holiday house in Spain or a company in Brazil.
Your argument was what, exactly? That global trade is bad and we should only permit people to buy things that were made within a 100 mile radius?
Here, here, here!
I actually did start my own company, and it wasn't such a big success that it would pay the bills, so now I'm doing freelance work which pays nicely (I'm an information security consultant) but is more stressful than a regular job.
I have a long list of things that I would like to do, both in my field and outside. I just don't have time for it, if it doesn't in some way end up as profitable, at least a little bit. With a basic income, knowing myself the first month or two I would do some shit that I've just wanted to do for a long time, but then all the articles I wanted to write, the speeches I wanted to give, the software I wanted to create would appear.
Giving people a survival is the #1 humanity thing that a western society should feel itself morally obligated to do. If we can afford private jets and million dollar wedding parties for the super-rich, how can you possibly make any ethically justifiable argument that the same society has people looking for food in trash cans?
Wasn't this exactly was Greece was already doing with half of the population?
Only in the same way that store vouchers and armed robbery are the same thing. Yes, in both of them some items from the store change hands to some other people with no money exchange, but that is where the similarities end.
Greece had a massive corruption problem and was intentionally thrown under the truck by the rest of the EU to make sure that no left-wing government with actual reforms would survive, because there were similar parties already getting ready in Spain, Portugal, Italy and elsewhere, and the neocons couldn't allow that to happen, it would've interrupted this whole class warfare from the top thing they are doing so successfully to move more money from everyone to the 0.1%
But the question is, who's going to pay for it?
Is that a real question? Are you kidding? We have trillions available to save some banks who lost big at the casino, but we're asking where to get the money to pay people a survival income?
Start taxing the rich folks and they'll just hide or move their money into places where it can't be touched.
That's why you need to start jailing them for tax evasion so this bullshit stops. Of course you need to tax the rich, at the moment they are the ones who don't work but still get free money, and not exactly $2500 a month.
But more importantly, where to get the money is actually not so difficult. It's a pretty well established fact that lower income people consume more of any additional income. If everyone suddenly has $2500 a month more, the 0.1% will just burn it on some shit or put it in some investment with the rest of it - no benefit to society. That is the main reason why the super-rich need to be cut down and brought back into productive society - investment today doesn't mean factories and jobs, it means gambling at the stock exchange.
But the 99.9%, what will they do? Buy better furniture, a new TV, a new iPhone, a new car. Money that immediately goes back into the economy, creates jobs and thus more wealth. Wealth that is taxed. This money will come back to the government in no time.
Look, I have interests and hobbies and shit that I like to do so I wouldn't just sit on my ass. But would any of that have any payback to society? No, or if it did it'd at least be coincidental.
A lot of the people we admire today for their contributions to art, literature, science, exploration and a dozen other things did not have day jobs that were of any benefit to society. A lot of them were wealthy landlords who were into science because they were curious and had nothing else to do.
And if we have one Newton for every one thousand people hanging around doing useless shit, as a species we would profit massively.
The other part is that there's shitty work that needs doing, if a sewage pipe burst I'm sure fixing it is not going to be at the top of anyone's list. So if you're paying everyone enough that they don't have to take the job, you have to pay them enough that they want to take the job. That'll drive wages up that'll drive prices up which means the "living wage" from basic income won't be enough. And then you're just right back where you started, if you raise basic income the shitty jobs won't get done again.
That used to be true 50 years ago. Today, you have two options:
a) pay enough money for shitty jobs so that someone actually does it. But there aren't so many shit-shovelling jobs anymore that it would affect prices. How many people fixing sewage pipes do you need in a city? Which fraction of one percent of the population? That will affect prices? Please.
b) since these shitty jobs will be high paid, there's incentive for someone to invent a robot to do it in the future.
To search for sexism in random statements by random people on the Internet that deal with topics nowhere near gender issues is kind of mental, don't you think?
What we know for sure is that if we live in a simulation, the programmer is one crazy dude.
What has become of our great nation?
Maybe it never was so great, just now with more international information available it becomes more obvious?
No, you want to believe that, but it's not true. I have no love lost for either Bush, and especially the 2nd one is a war criminal.
But I don't believe that they directly supported Daesh with money, weapons and soldiers.
It's not just that. The Saudis and Turkey are the obvious supporters behind Daesh (ISIS) as well, and everyone with three working brain cells knows it. But everyone is so tied up with them that it took Putin of all people to point it out.
A 9/11 lawsuit would potentially bring all these ties to light as well, and open up a whole can of worms that would probably end with the Saudi ruling family on Interpols Most Wanted list.
Obvious stunt. If you are jealous enough to consider this, you definitely do not want to see what's going on in detail. A simple yes/no would be more than enough.