Jobs guarantee with income support in response to technological unemployment?

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,222
@tomar,

^^ The student debt bubble may be the next 2008-2009 crisis. Not to worry for the banks though. It will be another taxpayer bailout. We are getting distressingly used to it.
Indeed

Its currently estimated at around $1.5 tn

U.S. Student Loan Debt Statistics for 2019 | Student Loan Hero


Then this story made the news

CORRECTED: College students are investing in bitcoin with financial aid money

That 20% of students were using these loans to invest in bitcoin... Then it appeared the story was a fake, or vastly exagerated.... However the wider point is that student loans ARE used for various things (investments, susbstitute for mortgages for those who dont qualify, etc...) by SOME of the "students"

Also because many of these loans are deferred payment, the outstanding amounts grow until students graduate, find a job and can start repaying...Some dont realize this
 
Apr 2018
951
Upland, Sweden
I'm sorry, putting a bit of order is "screwing"?

If I'm not mistaken, the recent crisis were more about the financial system going totally out of control. So out of control that even the financial system itself didn't controlled whatsoever.

As far as I can see, last turbulences were more about the financial system screwing itself and other systems than vice-versa.

You mentioned a couple of times the free movement of capital.

Why free movement of capital is automaticaly supposed to be totally deregulated, to be totally totally irresponsible? (irresponsible in the sense of not having any legal, juridical, social, aso, responsibility).

What is that sacrosanct in an irresponsible freedom of movement of the capital that force us to change radically all systems, change any sector of society, all but the financial one?

_______
PS: thank You for the graphs.and the link.
I'm not saying that I like the current system. I'm just saying that the practical alternatives that we have to the current system will have large consequences. Free movement of capital does not have to be totally unregulated of course, but the problem is in the practicalities of regulating it...

The global financial system is global. Yes, the US has a much greater role (although smaller and smaller) than anybody else, but it is still essentially global, because the elites who run it do not increasingly identify with any one country and its interests and are not bound by them. The problem of legislation is that if my country has more restrictive legislation in one sphere every other country automatically will have some incentive to have more liberal regulation - ergo tax havens. So how do you deal with this problem? By either 1) international treaties or 2) granting/ admitting power to supranational actors, or sometimes even national actors - when I buy stocks in my bank here in Sweden for example, I have to sign a document that I comply with the American SEC and their new rules - to impose their will on everybody else.

Alternative 1) is very difficult, because countries have different traditions of what constitutes reasonable state interference in the economy or not and don't always agree. Alternative 2) can be problematic for all sorts of other reasons. Right now we have some kind of combination of those approaches being tried, and it doesn't seem to be working very well. This is why I say that in the future we will see alternative 3) some kinds of capital controls and restrictions of free movement of capital are quite likely, because I see the multilateral institutions breaking down and countries turning protectionist. I think this is the only way to solve this problem (at the cost of creating other, but arguably less serious problems).

I agree many of the impliactions of that will probably be good, and I agree with you that the current system does not work well, but I am still not very keen on the idea of my government being able to tax me further with me just sitting there with my bum in the proverbial toaster and having to "take it". No, I'd rather not really. Yesyes, it is a democracy everyone has the right to vote and therefore the theoretical ability to influene these things, but that doesn't make the current level of taxation fair, at least not in my view.

----
P.S. You're welcome. Pretty interesting curves right, no matter what one believes?
 
Last edited:

Chlodio

Ad Honorem
Aug 2016
3,810
Dispargum
Yes , you are correct... although it is more complex with regards to companies... But for the consumer that is what it looks like

Which is one other reason why whining that it "affects the poor more than the rich" is silly... its like complaining that a product costs the same for the poor and the rich.... Will Apple see its i phone to one at a discount if one proves their revenues are low ?
I see your post 137:
Chlodio said: There's a difference between expenditures and income. The wealthy don't spend all of their income. They save major portions of their income. VAT doesn't tax savings. It only taxes expenditures. The percentage of income paid as VAT is significantly less for the wealthy.

To which you replied: This is a cliche... Some do, some dont and some even overspend....
Which is why , as already mentionned, what is relevant is not "rich vs poor", but spending patterns





But spending patterns of the rich generally are very different than spending patterns of the poor. The poor live hand to mouth. While some rich people may spend all of their income, most do not. They save and invest quite a bit. The difference between income tax and sales taxes like VAT is that income taxes tax all income while sales taxes only tax the income that people spend. If the rich are allowed to avoid taxes on the money they save and invest, most rich people will end up paying a lower percentage of their incomes than poor people. Most poor people generallly avoid paying any income tax at all, but the poor pay sales taxes on almost everything they buy.

One of the ideas behind the progressive income tax vs the regressive sales tax is the belief that the rich should pay more, not less, tax. By definition, the rich accumulate wealth. It's what they do. It's how they became rich. Accumulated wealth is bad for the economy. Wealth best serves the economy by circulating. Progressive taxes are intended to restrict the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few and to put that wealth back into circulation. Regressive taxes like VAT don't do that.
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,222
But spending patterns of the rich generally are very different than spending patterns of the poor. The poor live hand to mouth. While some rich people may spend all of their income, most do not. They save and invest quite a bit. The difference between income tax and sales taxes like VAT is that income taxes tax all income while sales taxes only tax the income that people spend. If the rich are allowed to avoid taxes on the money they save and invest, most rich people will end up paying a lower percentage of their incomes than poor people. Most poor people generallly avoid paying any income tax at all, but the poor pay sales taxes on almost everything they buy.

One of the ideas behind the progressive income tax vs the regressive sales tax is the belief that the rich should pay more, not less, tax. By definition, the rich accumulate wealth. It's what they do. It's how they became rich. Accumulated wealth is bad for the economy. Wealth best serves the economy by circulating. Progressive taxes are intended to restrict the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few and to put that wealth back into circulation. Regressive taxes like VAT don't do that.
Actually this is built into VAT... because the "rich" tend to buy different products they generate much more tax revenue (obviously VAT on a Ferrari is not the same as VAT on a VW..... and on second hand cars there is no VAT)... VAT never bothered me when I had little or no revenue, because I simply was not buying anything other than food...

Accumulated wealth is not a problem IF its being invested.... Governments are incapable of managing their budget (as evidenced by the large deficits most everywhere) so more taxes are not necessarily good...
 
Oct 2013
14,071
Europix
but I am not very keen on the idea of my government being able to tax me further with me just sitting there with my bum in the proverbial toaster and having to "take it".
IDK if You realize the contradiction in Your position: the state is not cashing the legal taxes ,You are complaining about the state taxung You further.

But if the taxes would be paid by every one,.not only by a part, there wouldn't be any need rise the tax %! Most probably, they could even be lowered.

And, as a principle, that is too difficult in this globalised world to get a grip on this, allow me to say ... it's blabla.

I can call my friend Mark from FB, and in 5 minutes I'll know were You spent Your vacations and with who. I can call my friend John from NASA, or Jean from DSS, or Isaac from Mosad, or Ivan from FSB, and I'll get a pic with You reading this post. And Your IP address, and Your postal address, and if the neighbor's cat is in their garden or in Yours now.

So no, that it can't be done, I don't buy it.
 
Apr 2018
951
Upland, Sweden
IDK if You realize the contradiction in Your position: the state is not cashing the legal taxes ,You are complaining about the state taxung You further.

But if the taxes would be paid by every one,.not only by a part, there wouldn't be any need rise the tax %! Most probably, they could even be lowered.

And, as a principle, that is too difficult in this globalised world to get a grip on this, allow me to say ... it's blabla.

I can call my friend Mark from FB, and in 5 minutes I'll know were You spent Your vacations and with who. I can call my friend John from NASA, or Jean from DSS, or Isaac from Mosad, or Ivan from FSB, and I'll get a pic with You reading this post. And Your IP address, and Your postal address, and if the neighbor's cat is in their garden or in Yours now.

So no, that it can't be done, I don't buy it.
Sure taxes "could" be lowered as a response to the government getting access to more money. Would they be lowered though? What incentive does the government have to lower its taxes when it already runs almost half of the domestic economy - would even more money make it inclined to save more? If you look at those graphs I sent you again you'd see that government spending as % of GDP is at an arguable all time high, and social spending as a percentage of GDP has exploded disproportionally more than all other forms of government spending. Yet somehow, the problem is that the government doesn't have enough money...

This is why I say: clear rules, clear lines in the sand. I don't want some government agency tracking all my transactions (which in effect is what you seem to be suggesting) in an unaccountable way. I even less want the NSA, or DSS or Mosad tracking all my transactions, and cooperating in ways that are not transparent at all to the citizen. What will they do with that power? Will they simply follow the national interest, or will they perhaps misuse their power...? I would much rather simply have the government forbidding me to move capital out of for example the EU without express permission, or logging and taxing all such transactions by 30% or something.

From what I've understood most forms of tax evasion today are in practice legal. The people in question cannot be punished for it, it is immoral yes (arguably - in some cases definititely) but it is not criminal.
 
Last edited:

Chlodio

Ad Honorem
Aug 2016
3,810
Dispargum
Actually this is built into VAT... because the "rich" tend to buy different products they generate much more tax revenue (obviously VAT on a Ferrari is not the same as VAT on a VW..... and on second hand cars there is no VAT)... VAT never bothered me when I had little or no revenue, because I simply was not buying anything other than food...

Accumulated wealth is not a problem IF its being invested.... Governments are incapable of managing their budget (as evidenced by the large deficits most everywhere) so more taxes are not necessarily good...
If I ever see a VAT that works that way, I'll look on it more favorably, but here in the US we've never had a VAT.

I still have a problem with accumulated wealth. Not all wealth is invested. Not all investments are equally useful. One problem with the US stock market in recent years is that there is too much money in the market and not enough good investments to absorb it all so we get these repeating cycles of boom and bust caused by too much money chasing too few good investments. Even if it's invested, accumulated wealth represents a concentration of power in too few hands. I'm not calling for some mythical workers paradise where everyone is equally poor, but things have gotten to an unhealthy extreme in recent years.
 
Oct 2013
14,071
Europix
. I don't want some government agency tracking all my transactions (which in effect is what you seem to be suggesting) in an unaccountable way. I even less want the NSA, or DSS or Mosad tracking all my transactions, and cooperating in ways that are not transparent at all to the citizen.
That's a bit odd: You are tracked, and not only by governments and governmental agencies, but by zillioins of private companies and private individuals. And I say "odd" because (at least theoretical) You can expect, You can ask for transparency when it comes to governmental agencies, but You can't (nor theoretically nor practically when it comes to individual companies.

But You missed the point: in an epoch were even individuals on the other side of the world can know what size You shoe You are explaining that we cannot control tax evasion ... sorry, but ... duh?

If you look at those graphs I sent you again you'd see that government spending as % of GDP is at an arguable all time high, , and social spending as a percentage of GDP has exploded disproportionally more than all other forms of government spending. ...
Context without figures doesn't mean a lot, figures without context mean nothing.

Take the graph You posted, and look at it, then answer Yourself to a couple of questions:

-what was the life expectancy 100 years ago compared to today?
-how many days a week and how many hours a day was a worker working compared to today?

To go to the end of Your logic: You wanna pay a visit tomar or chlodio, so You get into Your Volvo and ride ... on waht, The road, I suppose. You will not able to go in car there, as in front of my house, there's no practicable road, as i just am not in the mood to waste my time making a road: I don't have a car, so I don't need it. So You continue on foot. Only that You fall, so You have to call ... who? There's no 911. A guy robs You. You call ... who? You wanna get Your money back, or at least You're seeking for justice ... You call who ?!?

From what I've understood most forms of tax evasion today are in practice legal.
You'we understood wrong: we were talking (and giving examples of estimations) about tax evasion, which is illegal, not about tax avoidance, that is legal.
 
Oct 2013
14,071
Europix
If I ever see a VAT that works that way, I'll look on it more favorably, but here in the US we've never had a VAT.
It works that way, only that the example is reductive: You don't pay VAT on a used car. I don't pay a VAT on my used car either: I've just bought myself a 1963 Ferrari 250 GTO, costed me just some dozens of millions...
 

Similar History Discussions