USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0
- Thread starter dxmnkd316
- Start date
- Status
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0
I still have a ratchet set I bought when I was in Boy Scouts, working on the Home Repairs merit badge. I don't recall who made it though. That was last millennium.
I still have a ratchet set I bought when I was in Boy Scouts, working on the Home Repairs merit badge. I don't recall who made it though. That was last millennium.
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0
It depends in part on how the services of the social support network are delivered. We already give everyone in this country a basic income, except it is disguised because it is provided in the form of Medicaid, SNAP, Section 8, etc.
I am totally fine with helping people in need be fed, clothed and housed.
I do think it would work better if we just added up the cost of all that assistance, and gave people that amount in cash instead, and then let them pay directly for those services that they really want. At first it would look like the same outlay, but over time it would reduce administrative state overhead and also empower people.
I know there are concerns that some people who receive the cash would not spend it the way we'd like them to spend it, and that can be a problem with neglectful parents and needy children. At the same time, we could shift government employment from monitoring a number of different programs separately into monitoring the universe of all programs holistically. I think we'd all be better off, and it also would be a great unifying gesture: the left wants to help people but doesn't trust people to act on their own, while the right likes to harness market forces to improve outcomes in ways that no one can foresee ahead of time. It seems to me that we'd get the best of both while avoiding the worst of both by just giving everyone their basic income 100% in cash and then let them buy whatever benefits they choose with it (housing, food, access to healthcare, education and job training, etc.).
I think an honest accounting of the value of all those in-kind services would be really helpful in setting better public policy.
It depends in part on how the services of the social support network are delivered. We already give everyone in this country a basic income, except it is disguised because it is provided in the form of Medicaid, SNAP, Section 8, etc.
I am totally fine with helping people in need be fed, clothed and housed.
I do think it would work better if we just added up the cost of all that assistance, and gave people that amount in cash instead, and then let them pay directly for those services that they really want. At first it would look like the same outlay, but over time it would reduce administrative state overhead and also empower people.
I know there are concerns that some people who receive the cash would not spend it the way we'd like them to spend it, and that can be a problem with neglectful parents and needy children. At the same time, we could shift government employment from monitoring a number of different programs separately into monitoring the universe of all programs holistically. I think we'd all be better off, and it also would be a great unifying gesture: the left wants to help people but doesn't trust people to act on their own, while the right likes to harness market forces to improve outcomes in ways that no one can foresee ahead of time. It seems to me that we'd get the best of both while avoiding the worst of both by just giving everyone their basic income 100% in cash and then let them buy whatever benefits they choose with it (housing, food, access to healthcare, education and job training, etc.).
I think an honest accounting of the value of all those in-kind services would be really helpful in setting better public policy.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0
Who are you and what have you done with FreshFish?
On second thought, I don't want to know. Ping me if you need help disposing of the cadaver.
Who are you and what have you done with FreshFish?
On second thought, I don't want to know. Ping me if you need help disposing of the cadaver.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0
I've had some thoughts about welfare reform as well, somewhat along the same lines. I don't remember everything I had come up with, but the biggest points for me were:
Requesting person/family has to actually present a budget of what is required. No gaming the system's high pay; you get what you need and no extra. I would have it reviewed at the county level, but I was thinking more of a NYS reform at the time I had come up with this. It also helps to educate the requesters on what they're actually spending and where improvements, if any, can be made, from any angle.
Requesters must actually put in work hours, whether by employment or volunteer community service. Similar to Maine's plan, although I'd go higher on the number of hours, and also include a 1-2 month stop-gap period. Travel to other places in the country for employment interviews would be included in the stop-gap, albeit expenses would be as strict as government-funded work travel. Don't contribute? You don't get anything.
Requesters must show evidence of inability to otherwise pay to qualify for financial assistance. However, I would consider also offering any packages that are offered to qualified requesters at competitive prices to non-qualifiers in order to not only help gain revenue through bulk pricing, but also keep the providers honest. Absolutely no mandate, though: People can go to whatever source they want.
Part of the inspiration came from a county grocery program that used to happen where I grew up (not sure if it still happens now, though; I don't live there presently, and we didn't participate at the time I left). Each month or so, for a nominal price (whether cash or food stamps), you could buy a decent amount of generally non-perishable groceries that would last until the next time the program made an offering.
I've had some thoughts about welfare reform as well, somewhat along the same lines. I don't remember everything I had come up with, but the biggest points for me were:
Requesting person/family has to actually present a budget of what is required. No gaming the system's high pay; you get what you need and no extra. I would have it reviewed at the county level, but I was thinking more of a NYS reform at the time I had come up with this. It also helps to educate the requesters on what they're actually spending and where improvements, if any, can be made, from any angle.
Requesters must actually put in work hours, whether by employment or volunteer community service. Similar to Maine's plan, although I'd go higher on the number of hours, and also include a 1-2 month stop-gap period. Travel to other places in the country for employment interviews would be included in the stop-gap, albeit expenses would be as strict as government-funded work travel. Don't contribute? You don't get anything.
Requesters must show evidence of inability to otherwise pay to qualify for financial assistance. However, I would consider also offering any packages that are offered to qualified requesters at competitive prices to non-qualifiers in order to not only help gain revenue through bulk pricing, but also keep the providers honest. Absolutely no mandate, though: People can go to whatever source they want.
Part of the inspiration came from a county grocery program that used to happen where I grew up (not sure if it still happens now, though; I don't live there presently, and we didn't participate at the time I left). Each month or so, for a nominal price (whether cash or food stamps), you could buy a decent amount of generally non-perishable groceries that would last until the next time the program made an offering.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0
Interesting. While the profile of this grows, and the experiments return results and build a best practices toolkit, it's going to get harder for the knucks to keep this idea out of the US media.
Interesting. While the profile of this grows, and the experiments return results and build a best practices toolkit, it's going to get harder for the knucks to keep this idea out of the US media.
unofan
Well-known member
I doubt it. We still don't have universal health care, mandatory paid parental leave, or even mandatory paid sick leave. And you think we'll be shamed into a UBI?
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0
um, I thought the law required emergency rooms to provide treatment to everyone who needs it? That sounds like universal health care, and while we might complain that it is "substandard," I'd bet 75% of the world's population would be delighted to have it. Health care and health insurance are two very different things, and it sounds like you are confusing the two.
um, I thought the law required emergency rooms to provide treatment to everyone who needs it? That sounds like universal health care, and while we might complain that it is "substandard," I'd bet 75% of the world's population would be delighted to have it. Health care and health insurance are two very different things, and it sounds like you are confusing the two.
We already have one in disguised form, do we not? I thought anyone who couldn't afford food qualified for SNAP, anyone who couldn't afford health insurance had Medicaid, etc. Isn't the more important question not whether we have it, but how to make it work better than what we have now? I'd very much prefer that, out of a fixed budget, substantially more value be delivered to recipients by improving delivery services and reducing administrative overhead. Analogous to school systems these days having more administrators than teachers; what sense does that make?
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0
I agree that corporate control of media has so far ensured that only plute policies are permitted to be discussed in front of the vast majority of citizens. But that's changing and the change is being driven by, of all people, the far right. Extremely stupid wingnut rightwing ideas are now part of the national discourse. Some of these, like the anti-immigration hysteria of a few years ago, run directly counter the interests of the plutes.
We can learn a lot from the Morlocks when it comes to reaching people. This is a fantastic guide to how to effectively fight for a sincerely leftist agenda, and it is overtly inspired by the Tea Party boobocracy. I hope every Democrat in the country reads it and acts on it.
"The people united can never be defeated" is bullsh-t. We have been defeated going on 60 years as the rest of the world surpassed us first in rights then in quality of life. You can't just fight hard to win, you have to fight smart, especially when confronted by the soft fascism of the monetization of politics in America. Scoob seems to think that only its replacement by the hard fascism growing on the right can shock Americans into reclaiming our country. I don't believe that is so. People will vote their interests, but until we can criminalize the bribery that makes our government the personal property of the 1%, we need to overwhelm the political class with the dire threat of unemployment if they do not follow our will.
I agree that corporate control of media has so far ensured that only plute policies are permitted to be discussed in front of the vast majority of citizens. But that's changing and the change is being driven by, of all people, the far right. Extremely stupid wingnut rightwing ideas are now part of the national discourse. Some of these, like the anti-immigration hysteria of a few years ago, run directly counter the interests of the plutes.
We can learn a lot from the Morlocks when it comes to reaching people. This is a fantastic guide to how to effectively fight for a sincerely leftist agenda, and it is overtly inspired by the Tea Party boobocracy. I hope every Democrat in the country reads it and acts on it.
"The people united can never be defeated" is bullsh-t. We have been defeated going on 60 years as the rest of the world surpassed us first in rights then in quality of life. You can't just fight hard to win, you have to fight smart, especially when confronted by the soft fascism of the monetization of politics in America. Scoob seems to think that only its replacement by the hard fascism growing on the right can shock Americans into reclaiming our country. I don't believe that is so. People will vote their interests, but until we can criminalize the bribery that makes our government the personal property of the 1%, we need to overwhelm the political class with the dire threat of unemployment if they do not follow our will.
Last edited:
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0
Scoobs headline of the day:
8 people have as much wealth as half the world
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/01/15/global-inequality-oxfam-report/96545438/
Scoobs headline of the day:
8 people have as much wealth as half the world
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/01/15/global-inequality-oxfam-report/96545438/
Go back to 1900
Morgan
Carnegie
Rockefeller
Rothschild
Rhodes?
Krupp??
Not much has changed except the names.
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0
I would go with the top five:
Vanderbilt, Ford, Carnegie, Morgan, and Rockefeller. I'm guessing those five had as much as the bottom 50% at one time.
ETA: http://www.businessinsider.com/richest-americans-ever-2011-4#
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_historical_figures
Interesting.
I'm actually curious, since 1850, when was wealth equality the absolute worst? Not sure how to define that, but I'm guessing it was the Gilded Age. Wiki estimates the top 1% had 51% of the property though the top 10% had 75% of the wealth (which is no different than today apparently https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States)
I would go with the top five:
Vanderbilt, Ford, Carnegie, Morgan, and Rockefeller. I'm guessing those five had as much as the bottom 50% at one time.
ETA: http://www.businessinsider.com/richest-americans-ever-2011-4#
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_historical_figures
Interesting.
I'm actually curious, since 1850, when was wealth equality the absolute worst? Not sure how to define that, but I'm guessing it was the Gilded Age. Wiki estimates the top 1% had 51% of the property though the top 10% had 75% of the wealth (which is no different than today apparently https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States)
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0
My guess is 1893, 1929, and 2006. I leave it as an exercise for the reader why I picked those three dates.
My guess is 1893, 1929, and 2006. I leave it as an exercise for the reader why I picked those three dates.
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0
2006? I would have said closer to 2007 or 2008.
2006? I would have said closer to 2007 or 2008.
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0
I'm having a panic attack that I can't come up with the answer. I feel so depressed.
I'm having a panic attack that I can't come up with the answer. I feel so depressed.
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0
Mostly well done by the board. It appears that there is likely a high point around the turn of the century, 1929 and actually today. Graph one says the 'today' high point was in 2007, but I expect its 2016 (not shown on these graphs).
http://inequality.org/wealth-inequality/
If you consider that the US as a percent of world wealth probably maxed between WWI (prior Europe) and 1980 (after emerging markets), then that would make 1929 the worst wealth disparity post antiquity in the history.
Mostly well done by the board. It appears that there is likely a high point around the turn of the century, 1929 and actually today. Graph one says the 'today' high point was in 2007, but I expect its 2016 (not shown on these graphs).
http://inequality.org/wealth-inequality/
If you consider that the US as a percent of world wealth probably maxed between WWI (prior Europe) and 1980 (after emerging markets), then that would make 1929 the worst wealth disparity post antiquity in the history.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0
Pretty obvious why you picked them, though I would say the inequality is even worse today, given the record number of people on food stamps and at/below the poverty line.
Pretty obvious why you picked them, though I would say the inequality is even worse today, given the record number of people on food stamps and at/below the poverty line.
FadeToBlack&Gold
Microlot Marxist
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0
And yet STILL, you want everything privatized, and think taxation is theft. Hilarious.
And yet STILL, you want everything privatized, and think taxation is theft. Hilarious.
It's not theft. It's a "Protection Fee".
- Status