Yes, you are. UBI sounds great until you sit down and do the math. The Brits never came close to a UBI type benefit system with their high marginal income tax rates. Where do you think that kind of money is going to come from?
No, I'm not. Most of the money would come from those earning middle class wages and above. Say the UBI is a fairly substantial benefit, like $18K/yr in monthly deposits. At some point, say $18K to make some number up, of money that you earn on top of the UBI, you start getting taxed (more than you are now) to pay back a portion of the UBI deposit you're getting. By some higher level of money (that you are earning, on top of your UBI amount) the extra taxes have completely offset the $18K you were getting from UBI. At every higher level the taxes you pay are in part covering more than your share of the UBI, more than your $18K. This includes a lot of people, but the rates are nowhere near the British levels of the 70's, and the math doesn't say that even for this very generous level of UBI.
Remember, every proven citizen of majority and with a pulse gets the UBI, but most pay some of it back because of what they earn themselves, and many pay all of it back, and quite a few pay more than that. But they don't pay for food stamps, welfare, etc. because those are all replaced. (I'm intentionally leaving health care out here -- it's a related but separate issue.) The government no longer needs a bureaucracy to check if your poor enough to get food stamps, secretly working a job, or anything like that. It just issues a direct deposit and is done with it. Less intrusive, cheaper to administer, and not a trap in eternal dependence.
As far as the amounts paid and the tax structure to get it paid for, that requires a detailed analysis of the income demographics and tax revenues in the US, and we don't do more than the math says will fit. We also try to account for second-order effects as markets and behavior change in response to a UBI's adoption, and bring it on in phases so the shocks of change are not too large to absorb.
I don't care how much money Gates or Bezos make. They might be distorting the market for mega-yachts. But they can't eat more then one Filet Mignon a day. So the middle class will get by.
Who said anything about getting all this money from Gates and Bezos? The costs of a UBI would not be laid solely on folks like them. However, they would pay more than 20% tax on their long-term capital gains, say starting above $2M in any given year. And the middle class you refer to is shrinking, while people like me or with higher incomes are still seeing it get better.
Ah yes. The Threat. See the definition of gibs me dat.
I certainly wasn't implying anything remotely close to what the British did in the 70's with their marginal rates on investment income over 90% (I think it was up to 98% at one point). Nothing even the same league as that let alone the same ballpark. Also, remember that at that time investment income was taxed higher than earned income in Britain, whereas in the US we tax long-term capital gains lower. I'll assume that I did not communicate this clearly, rather than assuming you were advancing the rebuttal of a straw man.
As for corporate taxes, I wouldn't propose that they be increased at all. Corporate taxes should be competitive with those of other large developed economies, so as not to encourage the flight of corporate investment or profit overseas. But eventually corporations either pay out profits in the form of dividends or use them to fuel growth. If they do the latter wisely and produce something of in demand, then their market value (stock price) will increase. Later when the shareholders take profits from selling stock they will have to pay taxes on those gains. (Loopholes exist, and they need to be hunted down and squished.) I'm saying that at a high level, it is these capital gains that should be taxed more, though still taxed less than ordinary earned income, and certainly not at the ridiculous 90%+ levels the British once had. (When they came up with that idea they must have been on the wrong mix of recreational substances.) Lower levels of long-term capital gains should still be taxed at a low level, if not even lower than it is now for the 15% middle rate. For the very wealthy, there perhaps needs to be at least one more higher bracket. And it is folks making these levels of money who will profit the most from automation. They'd still profit a hell of a lot, they'd still pay less on their long-term capital gains than on their earned income, but they'd be paying for some of the social upheaval that such automation would produce.
This would tend to correct the enormous and dangerous wealth disparity that is developing. The kind of inequality in the distribution of wealth and income that we're starting to see in the US is historically associated with undesirable social outcomes, to put it mildly.
If you have a job, a lot of it will come from the UBI you yourself get. (Everyone gets a UBI deposit each month, regardless.) As you earn more, you'll pay more until you are paying more than the amount you get from UBI. So in the higher income levels you'll be (partly) paying for someone else to have a UBI. If you have really big capital gains income from investments, you'll pay more to fund the UBI. (Presumably, some of your income from the capital investment that has made you money will be using the automation that has resulted in reduced demand for human labor, so that pays for a fair amount of it.) The idea is that all of these costs are graduated smoothly, so that there is always an incentive to work and always an incentive to invest. The idea is that the benefits that come from automation are in this way provided to many, though not necessarily equally. This makes automation a good thing for most everyone. It keeps meaningful employment a good thing, because you get more when you work. But not a "starve if you don't or if you can't thing". And you remove the minimum wage, so that an employer can hire an apprentice or whatnot for close to nothing and crank the pay up if he/she has real promise. And investment/saving is still a good thing, because all this peachy-keen automation lets production be much more efficient (i.e. inexpensive) so you'll reap a reward from your investment. I'd wind up paying a lot more if it existed, but I still think it's an idea worth looking at. I can afford the extra income and investment taxes, and I'd live in a better society.
No, they're saying that human-human flea transmission was likely the most direct way for Y. pestis to spread. It could still be harbored in rodents, just that means of transmission is less efficient and would not predominate.
I think there is plenty of fault to go around to all parties in this -- the police and the SWATter. The actions of the police, at least the officer who fired and perhaps others, rise to the level of manslaughter. Calling in the police under the pretext the SWATter used should be a felony, and any deaths that resulted from that should be considered felony murder. The police higher up in the administration, and the department as a whole, should be civilly liable in a wrongful death claim. In other words, the SWATter was an amoral shithead who committed a felonious act and got someone killed, the cop who shot him was a fucking incompetent who had no business wearing a badge and may not have gone in intending to kill someone, but did. And his superiors and the department were grossly negligent because they put cops on the street who were not trained well enough to deal with a situation like this in any other way going in on a hair trigger. There's no need to single out THE individual at fault here -- there's several. The fault of one does not exonerate the others.
Not to mention that it's speculating about a general relationship based upon a single anecdote. Even if it's intuitively sensible, which this is not, it's a fallacy of reasoning. An all too common one.
Oh, I do agree about that. It probably does do some good to send a message that this is not funny, but some amoral shit that we won't put up with. Then focus on catching a high percentage of those who try this in the future, whatever he winds up getting.
That's because it is. In fact, to quote the US government's own National Institute of Justice, and confirmed by a fair bit of research, "The certainty of being caught is a vastly more powerful deterrent than the punishment." It's not the severity of the penalty, but the likelihood of it occurring.
Whoa there. Get thee to a chemist, because thy lithium script hath suredly run out. Getting a few things right does not mean that every thought that enters your brain is a divine pearl of wisdom. It may have sounded like poetry in your head, but you need to run it through the bullshit filter once or twice before it actually makes any sense.
Nope it was, since the satellite was going to transmit the Facebook source code to every star that might harbor a technological civilization to threaten us, thus ensuring its immediate collapse.
Yeah, no. I was pretty much describing someone who is the polar opposite of him. I just left out the other million or so other positive qualities he lacks.
Or, we could just forget about any stupid party affiliations and vote for someone who is not notably evil, has a fairly adult viewpoint, and just possibly has the chops to become statesman-like. Such people do exist, and if we reward such behavior, even someone a fair bit short of that mark would come off as fucking Abraham Lincoln right now.
Slashdot Mirror
The moon's "atmosphere"?
Yes, you are. UBI sounds great until you sit down and do the math. The Brits never came close to a UBI type benefit system with their high marginal income tax rates. Where do you think that kind of money is going to come from?
No, I'm not. Most of the money would come from those earning middle class wages and above. Say the UBI is a fairly substantial benefit, like $18K/yr in monthly deposits. At some point, say $18K to make some number up, of money that you earn on top of the UBI, you start getting taxed (more than you are now) to pay back a portion of the UBI deposit you're getting. By some higher level of money (that you are earning, on top of your UBI amount) the extra taxes have completely offset the $18K you were getting from UBI. At every higher level the taxes you pay are in part covering more than your share of the UBI, more than your $18K. This includes a lot of people, but the rates are nowhere near the British levels of the 70's, and the math doesn't say that even for this very generous level of UBI.
Remember, every proven citizen of majority and with a pulse gets the UBI, but most pay some of it back because of what they earn themselves, and many pay all of it back, and quite a few pay more than that. But they don't pay for food stamps, welfare, etc. because those are all replaced. (I'm intentionally leaving health care out here -- it's a related but separate issue.) The government no longer needs a bureaucracy to check if your poor enough to get food stamps, secretly working a job, or anything like that. It just issues a direct deposit and is done with it. Less intrusive, cheaper to administer, and not a trap in eternal dependence.
As far as the amounts paid and the tax structure to get it paid for, that requires a detailed analysis of the income demographics and tax revenues in the US, and we don't do more than the math says will fit. We also try to account for second-order effects as markets and behavior change in response to a UBI's adoption, and bring it on in phases so the shocks of change are not too large to absorb.
I don't care how much money Gates or Bezos make. They might be distorting the market for mega-yachts. But they can't eat more then one Filet Mignon a day. So the middle class will get by.
Who said anything about getting all this money from Gates and Bezos? The costs of a UBI would not be laid solely on folks like them. However, they would pay more than 20% tax on their long-term capital gains, say starting above $2M in any given year. And the middle class you refer to is shrinking, while people like me or with higher incomes are still seeing it get better.
Ah yes. The Threat. See the definition of gibs me dat.
Not sure what you're implying here.
You must have some pretty ugly psychological scars for the batshit crazy to be so strong in you.
I certainly wasn't implying anything remotely close to what the British did in the 70's with their marginal rates on investment income over 90% (I think it was up to 98% at one point). Nothing even the same league as that let alone the same ballpark. Also, remember that at that time investment income was taxed higher than earned income in Britain, whereas in the US we tax long-term capital gains lower. I'll assume that I did not communicate this clearly, rather than assuming you were advancing the rebuttal of a straw man.
As for corporate taxes, I wouldn't propose that they be increased at all. Corporate taxes should be competitive with those of other large developed economies, so as not to encourage the flight of corporate investment or profit overseas. But eventually corporations either pay out profits in the form of dividends or use them to fuel growth. If they do the latter wisely and produce something of in demand, then their market value (stock price) will increase. Later when the shareholders take profits from selling stock they will have to pay taxes on those gains. (Loopholes exist, and they need to be hunted down and squished.) I'm saying that at a high level, it is these capital gains that should be taxed more, though still taxed less than ordinary earned income, and certainly not at the ridiculous 90%+ levels the British once had. (When they came up with that idea they must have been on the wrong mix of recreational substances.) Lower levels of long-term capital gains should still be taxed at a low level, if not even lower than it is now for the 15% middle rate. For the very wealthy, there perhaps needs to be at least one more higher bracket. And it is folks making these levels of money who will profit the most from automation. They'd still profit a hell of a lot, they'd still pay less on their long-term capital gains than on their earned income, but they'd be paying for some of the social upheaval that such automation would produce.
This would tend to correct the enormous and dangerous wealth disparity that is developing. The kind of inequality in the distribution of wealth and income that we're starting to see in the US is historically associated with undesirable social outcomes, to put it mildly.
If you have a job, a lot of it will come from the UBI you yourself get. (Everyone gets a UBI deposit each month, regardless.) As you earn more, you'll pay more until you are paying more than the amount you get from UBI. So in the higher income levels you'll be (partly) paying for someone else to have a UBI. If you have really big capital gains income from investments, you'll pay more to fund the UBI. (Presumably, some of your income from the capital investment that has made you money will be using the automation that has resulted in reduced demand for human labor, so that pays for a fair amount of it.) The idea is that all of these costs are graduated smoothly, so that there is always an incentive to work and always an incentive to invest. The idea is that the benefits that come from automation are in this way provided to many, though not necessarily equally. This makes automation a good thing for most everyone. It keeps meaningful employment a good thing, because you get more when you work. But not a "starve if you don't or if you can't thing". And you remove the minimum wage, so that an employer can hire an apprentice or whatnot for close to nothing and crank the pay up if he/she has real promise. And investment/saving is still a good thing, because all this peachy-keen automation lets production be much more efficient (i.e. inexpensive) so you'll reap a reward from your investment. I'd wind up paying a lot more if it existed, but I still think it's an idea worth looking at. I can afford the extra income and investment taxes, and I'd live in a better society.
No, they're saying that human-human flea transmission was likely the most direct way for Y. pestis to spread. It could still be harbored in rodents, just that means of transmission is less efficient and would not predominate.
Yeah, fiscally this place is a mess. I'd move somewhere else if I wasn't makin' so damn much money.
I think there is plenty of fault to go around to all parties in this -- the police and the SWATter. The actions of the police, at least the officer who fired and perhaps others, rise to the level of manslaughter. Calling in the police under the pretext the SWATter used should be a felony, and any deaths that resulted from that should be considered felony murder. The police higher up in the administration, and the department as a whole, should be civilly liable in a wrongful death claim. In other words, the SWATter was an amoral shithead who committed a felonious act and got someone killed, the cop who shot him was a fucking incompetent who had no business wearing a badge and may not have gone in intending to kill someone, but did. And his superiors and the department were grossly negligent because they put cops on the street who were not trained well enough to deal with a situation like this in any other way going in on a hair trigger. There's no need to single out THE individual at fault here -- there's several. The fault of one does not exonerate the others.
Not to mention that it's speculating about a general relationship based upon a single anecdote. Even if it's intuitively sensible, which this is not, it's a fallacy of reasoning. An all too common one.
Those typical markers won't necessarily occur when neuromuscular blockade (e.g., "sux") is used along with anesthesia.
Oh, I do agree about that. It probably does do some good to send a message that this is not funny, but some amoral shit that we won't put up with. Then focus on catching a high percentage of those who try this in the future, whatever he winds up getting.
That's because it is. In fact, to quote the US government's own National Institute of Justice, and confirmed by a fair bit of research, "The certainty of being caught is a vastly more powerful deterrent than the punishment." It's not the severity of the penalty, but the likelihood of it occurring.
Whoa there. Get thee to a chemist, because thy lithium script hath suredly run out. Getting a few things right does not mean that every thought that enters your brain is a divine pearl of wisdom. It may have sounded like poetry in your head, but you need to run it through the bullshit filter once or twice before it actually makes any sense.
Buses along the strip are routinely packed full.
Typescript transpiles to Javascript. Standard Javascript, in several target versions. The 90's called and they want their worldview back.
Just build a wall in the sky.
I've evergreened a patent for an AI that blockchains the virtual cloud in a quantum Docker container. I'm going to be the first trillionaire.
Not sure of the exact amount, but it's less than one Library of Congress' worth.
I suppose you're right in a sense. Meat is murder. Tasty, tasty murder. Mmm..
Nope it was, since the satellite was going to transmit the Facebook source code to every star that might harbor a technological civilization to threaten us, thus ensuring its immediate collapse.
So.. rename it "Giver"?
Yeah, no. I was pretty much describing someone who is the polar opposite of him. I just left out the other million or so other positive qualities he lacks.
Ok then. Pretty hard to argue with that.
Or, we could just forget about any stupid party affiliations and vote for someone who is not notably evil, has a fairly adult viewpoint, and just possibly has the chops to become statesman-like. Such people do exist, and if we reward such behavior, even someone a fair bit short of that mark would come off as fucking Abraham Lincoln right now.
I honestly, and not being snarky or anything, really, don't know just what the hell you're trying to say here.