82 GW of solar required for 3.5 hours/day 30 days.
At 10% efficiency = 820 km^2 At 20% efficiency = 410 km^2 Area of New York = 1,214 km^2(Although 789 km^2 is land) Metro Area of New York = 34,490 km^2
I am just saying things are not as simple as that. Buying in bulk is not always cheaper especially if a lot is thrown out. (Although buying a large bag and then splitting with friends is also an option)
I do not see how, even if more people worked, and the administration costs were less, this would be possible without raising taxes greatly. You will end up taxing people who work, which will just eliminate their basic income portion.
But it will be as part of the tax system and not the welfare system. You won't end up with situations where you lose 90% of your welfare for every dollar you earn.
Business A makes iron ore. For every$1 they get 85c is expenses and 10c is tax. Business B makes steel from the iron ore. For $1.20 they pay 12c in tax and $1 in expenses. leaving 8c in profit Business C makes a wind turbine from from the steel. For $1.40 they pay 14c in tax and $1.20 in expenses. leaving 8c in profit Business D sells the electricity from the wind turbine. For $1.60 they pay 16c in tax and $1.40 in expenses. leaving 4c in profit Business E uses the electricity for the supermarket. For $1.80 they pay 18c in tax and $1.60 in expenses. leaving 2c in profit
From $1.80 the government takes 70c in tax.
As a percentage of the tax take though the idea can work.
If I work for less then I am getting in welfare under Guaranteed Income I am worse off (Cost for traveling to work etc). Why would I even bother to go to work?
So you have a special needs category. The majority of people are not going to fall under that and need monitoring, unlike the current system where everyone on welfare needs monitoring.
What happens when I am say a cook. I can get good deals and make excellent meals cheaper then the government provided ones.
However as the only way to take advantage of the food part of the income is to go to the center I will not cook.
It also does not allow supplementing the income with work. A person earns a living wage. They cannot use the basic wage to provide the basics but have to use their income for it.
Conversely, it's absolutely selfish to enjoy the product of someone else's work by force of government, which is what happens when completely able bodied adults choose welfare over work. It's called slavery. Maybe you've heard of it.
Slashdot Mirror
Benefits are from the federal government not the state government.
And people have not imaged going to mars for decades?
Such as an atmosphere?
Land the tether on the comet first (possibly a spinning comet so that at one point the tether is slower then the comet.).
Then any space ship wanting to hitch a ride only needs to grab the tether and ride it out.
New York State:
11,131GWh / month http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=...
8,525GWh/ month non Renewables
82 GW of solar required for 3.5 hours /day 30 days.
At 10% efficiency = 820 km^2
At 20% efficiency = 410 km^2
Area of New York = 1,214 km^2(Although 789 km^2 is land)
Metro Area of New York = 34,490 km^2
No oxygen in space to make it flammable.
Also less distance so slightly more feasible then a carbon nanotube space elevators.
I am talking from Australia.
If you work from welfare you end up losing 50 (or in the higher bracket 60)%.
You also have to pay tax of about 19%.
If you start off with 0 - 10,000 at 20% (not include the welfare payment) you don't end up with the same problem of welfare reduction + tax.
I am just saying things are not as simple as that. Buying in bulk is not always cheaper especially if a lot is thrown out. (Although buying a large bag and then splitting with friends is also an option)
Is that they welfare system keeping them out of work.
When you lose 90% or more of every dollar you earn why would you want to go to work?
I do not see how, even if more people worked, and the administration costs were less, this would be possible without raising taxes greatly. You will end up taxing people who work, which will just eliminate their basic income portion.
But it will be as part of the tax system and not the welfare system. You won't end up with situations where you lose 90% of your welfare for every dollar you earn.
Assuming everyone gets the wages no matter the hours and it is similar but how are you going to fund enforcement?
And can you get that money if you work for yourself?
Business A makes iron ore. For every$1 they get 85c is expenses and 10c is tax.
Business B makes steel from the iron ore. For $1.20 they pay 12c in tax and $1 in expenses. leaving 8c in profit
Business C makes a wind turbine from from the steel. For $1.40 they pay 14c in tax and $1.20 in expenses. leaving 8c in profit
Business D sells the electricity from the wind turbine. For $1.60 they pay 16c in tax and $1.40 in expenses. leaving 4c in profit
Business E uses the electricity for the supermarket. For $1.80 they pay 18c in tax and $1.60 in expenses. leaving 2c in profit
From $1.80 the government takes 70c in tax.
As a percentage of the tax take though the idea can work.
If I work for less then I am getting in welfare under Guaranteed Income I am worse off (Cost for traveling to work etc). Why would I even bother to go to work?
Possibly also extra for people with disabilities to help them.
So you have a special needs category. The majority of people are not going to fall under that and need monitoring, unlike the current system where everyone on welfare needs monitoring.
Being conceptually different makes it conceptually different.
Replace it with higher income taxes. You get the mean-testing but in the income tax rather then the minimum income.
Apparently Social Insurance Taxes are $1.5 trillion http://www.usgovernmentrevenue... That is a chunk of money going to something that is replaced.
How would they get a minimum income if they are not on the books?
(Although the government providing the services competing with the private sector is not a bad idea)
What happens when I am say a cook. I can get good deals and make excellent meals cheaper then the government provided ones.
However as the only way to take advantage of the food part of the income is to go to the center I will not cook.
It also does not allow supplementing the income with work. A person earns a living wage. They cannot use the basic wage to provide the basics but have to use their income for it.
Capital gains though should factor inflation into the equation.
Conversely, it's absolutely selfish to enjoy the product of someone else's work by force of government, which is what happens when completely able bodied adults choose welfare over work. It's called slavery. Maybe you've heard of it.
Such as road or the police?
I would e.g. mandate courses in cost-concious living (buy large volumes, avoid brand names, cook yourself etc.).
And if you have no storage large volumes will just be wasted.
Cooking also requires a cooker (and probably a house to cook in)
I end up with 80k from my 100k. An extra 20k to me is a lot more valuable then the 800k left over from the 2nd scenario.
workman's comp and disability may still exist.