Real World Event Discussions
my platform as presidential candidate - what's yours?
POSTED BY: rue
UPDATED: Monday, June 3, 2024 14:50
VIEWED: 27072
PAGE 7 of 27
Monday, April 15, 2019 6:23 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:Starting with the "bottom line" comment: Apparently the installation of such dysfuncational self-scan machines caused SUCH a loss in sales that the manager was fired. I know that in THIS case it doesn't mean that automation can't work and won't increase, but this is one instance where it didn't.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I doubt talks of raising the minimum wage has much to do with any of this, really.
It has been the dream of the people running the show to automate everything that can possibly be automated. I don't think there is any real "ramping up" going on right now, and that's just a convenient political argument against raising the minimum wage.
Like it or not, this is the future. 12 years ago my salary was sent to India to pay 5 or 6 people with masters degrees to do much more work, and they lived like kings off of that pay. I'd be really surprised if more than 30% of what I used to do back then even requires any human input at all anymore.
These days, I can't even feel relatively safe that a manual labor job that can't be outsourced to another country is going to be around in another 5 or 10 years because of automation, or at least changing the entire way people shop online. Hell... even the trucks that haul all of our shit all over the country are going to be driving themselves in my lifetime.
I don't mean to sound like a Socialist, but I do think that given these advancements it is time to start legitimate discussions on a Universal Basic Income.
The only Democratic candidate I've heard talk about it is Andrew Yang. While he fully supports the UBI, he is against raising the minimum wage... Automation being one of the reasons. Another one being that a larger minimum wage equates to more taxes paid.
https://www.yang2
020.com/policies/the-freedom-dividend/
EDIT: Incidentally, the amount of theft that occurs with scan and go is outrageous, but it was put in the budget beforehand. Low maintenance registers with a one time installation cost save a bundle over human employees and they don't get paid any benefits or call in sick.
You've got to remember that these corporations that are struggling don't really put any emphasis on customer service anymore. The quirks that present themselves, such as needing human input for the use of coupons or alcohol purchases aren't anything that they really care about. The only thing that matters in the end is the bottom line.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
ABOUT UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME (UBI): In a rational world, if goods aren't produced by people then access to goods shouldn't be tied to "work". That in fact was the end state that Marx predicted. HOWEVER, there is one giant barrier to UBI, and that is the fact that the USA buys a lot of its manufactured goods from abroad (where they are NOT produced by automation). That means that these other nations have to accept the dollar as credible payment, which means that when they bring these dollars back to the USA they have to be able to purchase something of equivalent value. With no manufacturing here, what are they going to purchase? More Treasuries? And what do those Treasuries get them? More paper money?
Who is going to issue this UBI? The government? Will it just add to the debt? Will the government then have to pay the Fed interest on this debt? And who pays for this interest? The taxpayers? Unless the tax structure is changed to take more money from the corporations and (especially) banks and other financialists, this will simply bleed the middle class, again.
The concept of UBI is just the government stepping in, one more time, to paper over the essential contradiction of capitalism, which is - as FREM explained - like one person atNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, April 15, 2019 7:02 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:Quote:
Originally posted:Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I'm not ignoring this thread or the discussions (or your posts Jack), but I'm rationing my inet time since I have a lot to do. YAY retirement but only the first week felt like vacation. After that all the stuff I failed to get done while employed started pestering my mind.
More about the wonders of US foreign policy:
The International Criminal Court abandoned an Afghanistan war-crimes inquiry that could have implicated American forces.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/12/world/asia/icc-afghanistan-.html
Shoo comrade troll.
Too RUE, bitterly regret (something one has done or allowed to happen). I guess the fact that you've become a troll who trolls America weighs heavily on your mind, hey comrade? Or is it because you come from a second rate country?
T
R U too Rue too?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, April 15, 2019 7:06 AM
Quote:That's an impertinent comment, you young whippersnapper! I'm also impatient. If I'm working on something and I need an item, I want to just get it and continue working, not have to wait for delivery. And if it's something I'm planning - you know, you can look at all the online photos, descriptions, and reviews you want, but it's not like looking at the real thing.
Originally posted by rue:Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Why shouldn't everybody order everything from Amazon?"
There are a few reasons why I prefer to shop locally - you get to walk away with your item that very day, instead of waiting for delivery; you get to inspect what you're buying, which is nice whether you're talking about apples or deckboards for example; and the store people get to know you so they'll order items for you from their suppliers you can't get online (products are sold to businesses that aren't sold directly retail). Plus it's nice to chitchat with people.
That said I sometimes use Amazon's inventory, and look online in general, to research products.Quote:Everything that you said: you must be old.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:Basically, I'm antisocial, but I discovered way back in my pre-teens that having good social relations lets you in on a larger, more exciting world.
How are you going to explain any of that to the new waves of anti-social kids?
Chitchat? How does that go over with peeps who text each other while sitting next to each other, in Virtual Conversation? Or peeps who sit at a table of others, or a table for 2, while texting others? Imagine a few years ago, when more visitors were at this site - what if 2 of us were sitting next to each other while exchanging posts on this Virtual Bulletin Board. Not even including sockpuppets.
Impertinent yes. Trying to emulate one of the Trolls who 'splained that words and definitions are only for us old fogeys, ways of the soon to be forgotten.
Non-Virtual intercourse prolly not as exciting as more better pixels in your text.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, April 15, 2019 7:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:Starting with the "bottom line" comment: Apparently the installation of such dysfuncational self-scan machines caused SUCH a loss in sales that the manager was fired. I know that in THIS case it doesn't mean that automation can't work and won't increase, but this is one instance where it didn't.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I doubt talks of raising the minimum wage has much to do with any of this, really.
It has been the dream of the people running the show to automate everything that can possibly be automated. I don't think there is any real "ramping up" going on right now, and that's just a convenient political argument against raising the minimum wage.
Like it or not, this is the future. 12 years ago my salary was sent to India to pay 5 or 6 people with masters degrees to do much more work, and they lived like kings off of that pay. I'd be really surprised if more than 30% of what I used to do back then even requires any human input at all anymore.
These days, I can't even feel relatively safe that a manual labor job that can't be outsourced to another country is going to be around in another 5 or 10 years because of automation, or at least changing the entire way people shop online. Hell... even the trucks that haul all of our shit all over the country are going to be driving themselves in my lifetime.
I don't mean to sound like a Socialist, but I do think that given these advancements it is time to start legitimate discussions on a Universal Basic Income.
The only Democratic candidate I've heard talk about it is Andrew Yang. While he fully supports the UBI, he is against raising the minimum wage... Automation being one of the reasons. Another one being that a larger minimum wage equates to more taxes paid.
https://www.yang2
020.com/policies/the-freedom-dividend/
EDIT: Incidentally, the amount of theft that occurs with scan and go is outrageous, but it was put in the budget beforehand. Low maintenance registers with a one time installation cost save a bundle over human employees and they don't get paid any benefits or call in sick.
You've got to remember that these corporations that are struggling don't really put any emphasis on customer service anymore. The quirks that present themselves, such as needing human input for the use of coupons or alcohol purchases aren't anything that they really care about. The only thing that matters in the end is the bottom line.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
ABOUT UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME (UBI): In a rational world, if goods aren't produced by people then access to goods shouldn't be tied to "work". That in fact was the end state that Marx predicted. HOWEVER, there is one giant barrier to UBI, and that is the fact that the USA buys a lot of its manufactured goods from abroad (where they are NOT produced by automation). That means that these other nations have to accept the dollar as credible payment, which means that when they bring these dollars back to the USA they have to be able to purchase something of equivalent value. With no manufacturing here, what are they going to purchase? More Treasuries? And what do those Treasuries get them? More paper money?
Who is going to issue this UBI? The government? Will it just add to the debt? Will the government then have to pay the Fed interest on this debt? And who pays for this interest? The taxpayers? Unless the tax structure is changed to take more money from the corporations and (especially) banks and other financialists, this will simply bleed the middle class, again.
The concept of UBI is just the government stepping in, one more time, to paper over the essential contradiction of capitalism, whNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, April 15, 2019 7:18 AM
Quote:Well, I like my old fogey ways. And if they die with me - I won't be in a position to care!
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Impertinent yes. Trying to emulate one of the Trolls who 'splained that words and definitions are only for us old fogeys, ways of the soon to be forgotten.
Quote:Non-Virtual intercourse is to pixels as a da Vinci is to a cartoon. But I suppose if you don't like nuance and have to be hit over the head with fake emoticons expressing fake emotions digital is OK.
Non-Virtual intercourse prolly not as exciting as more better pixels in your text.
Well, back to looking up emergency equipment, supplies, and treatment. It's just tedious so I'm taking breaks.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, April 15, 2019 7:30 AM
Quote:Non-Virtual intercourse is to pixels as a da Vinci is to a cartoon. But I suppose if you don't like nuance and have to be hit over the head with fake emoticons expressing fake emotions digital is OK.
Originally posted by rue:Quote:Well, I like my old fogey ways. And if they die with me - I won't be in a position to care!
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Impertinent yes. Trying to emulate one of the Trolls who 'splained that words and definitions are only for us old fogeys, ways of the soon to be forgotten.Quote:
Non-Virtual intercourse prolly not as exciting as more better pixels in your text.
Well, back to looking up emergency equipment, supplies, and treatment. It's just tedious so I'm taking breaks.
Doing EMT work?
For Trolls who cain't spellify, emoticons be da most bestest thang. Trolls can pretend to be non-bots.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, April 15, 2019 7:52 AM
Quote:I'm sorry, but NOBODY produces enough through work to make $1m a year. Or even $0.5m. But that's the difference between 'income', which doesn't care how you get your money (you could even be robbing people), and wages.
Originally posted by rue:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Don't feel bad, you only had 88.5% of your additional pay confiscated through Taxation, and you didn't need to work extra for it. For folk who worked a lot harder for more pay, they used to have 90% of it confiscated - that was the top Marginal Tax Rate, clearly defined in the Tax Code, no extra calculations like yours to understand.
This is why our Tax system is the least progressive of the options.
Maybe you should revisit the Consumption Tax with a fresh mind. That is the most progressive Taxation available. With most of your spending, on non-luxury transportation, grocery, housing/upkeep, medical/dental, could be untaxed depending upon your Local Tax Laws. So you would have paid no additional Fed Taxes on your additional income. But your interwebs costs and all of those Cinema trips you make would have likely been taxed.
And Consumption Tax if implemented as a sales tax is the most regressive unless a complicated system of exemptions, sliding scales, rebates etc are used.
Perhaps we shouldn't tax income based on hourly wages, and only tax non-wage income.
Anyway, back to looking into hemostatic v pressure bandages.
Consumption Tax is the least regressive, the most progressive.
When the taxable items are copying the existing Taxation structure of the State, it merely piggybacks on the Taxation apparatus already existing.
If your local Laws have Tax-exempt status for groceries, education, non-luxury housing, transportation, medical/dental, then those spendings will continue to be untaxed. If you choose to live where those non-luxury items are taxed, then your Local Politicians are going to be far more responsive to reasonable changes in status.
The lowest income earners spend the vast majority of their funds on these items which can be tax-exempt.
The highest income earners are going to have the highest percentage of their spending on taxable items. Even if they eat nothing but lobster and steak at home, how much can they really spend on just groceries? All of their luxury spending gets taxed.
When the lowest income people pay taxes on the smallest amount of their expenses, and the highest earners pay taxes on the largest amount of their expenses, that is the most progressive, the least regressive.
And no more complicated than what is already in place now. What is now taxable can remain taxable, what is now tax-exempt can remain tax-exempt. If the Taxpayers are currently happy with paying taxes on each little item, then they can continue to do the same.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, April 15, 2019 9:37 AM
Quote:The basic idea is the same as trickle-down - that rich people will spend (or invest) us into prosperity. It doesn't work. Rich people neither invest nor spend everything they have. A substantial portion of their wealth is locked away from circulation.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Consumption Tax is the least regressive, the most progressive.
When the taxable items are copying the existing Taxation structure of the State, it merely piggybacks on the Taxation apparatus already existing.
If your local Laws have Tax-exempt status for groceries, education, non-luxury housing, transportation, medical/dental, then those spendings will continue to be untaxed. If you choose to live where those non-luxury items are taxed, then your Local Politicians are going to be far more responsive to reasonable changes in status.
The lowest income earners spend the vast majority of their funds on these items which can be tax-exempt.
The highest income earners are going to have the highest percentage of their spending on taxable items. Even if they eat nothing but lobster and steak at home, how much can they really spend on just groceries? All of their luxury spending gets taxed.
When the lowest income people pay taxes on the smallest amount of their expenses, and the highest earners pay taxes on the largest amount of their expenses, that is the most progressive, the least regressive.
And no more complicated than what is already in place now. What is now taxable can remain taxable, what is now tax-exempt can remain tax-exempt. If the Taxpayers are currently happy with paying taxes on each little item, then they can continue to do the same.
The other idea I've found doesn't work in real life is the idea that the closer the government, the more representative it'll be. From watching real life in the surrounding cities and local agencies, I've seen that everyday people are too pressed by life to actively participate in local government. Instead, the wealthy and the businesses have the spare time and money to hound the planning commissions, the regulators, the service providers etc on a daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly basis. When, for example, there's a local regulation or fee being considered the businesses will be literally lined up at the local government's door, ready to whine and threaten as long as necessary. I have literally NEVER seen a people-initiated change being considered. And I spent a couple of years on one of my city's commissions, made presentations re zoning to the city council, and worked for a government agency.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, April 15, 2019 10:21 AM
Tax short-term capital gains 75%. You're not "working" or adding anything to the economy when you plunk some cash into the stock market/tech/real estate/precious metal/unicorn farts roulette wheel for a nonosecond or three, and have your speculative move pay off.
What we should be taxing is what's called the "rentier" economy: Money gathered through the sheer fact of ownership. Doesn't matter if what you own is a zinc mine or rental units or an bank or a stock or a painting.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, April 15, 2019 10:25 AM
Quote:The basic idea is the same as trickle-down - that rich people will spend (or invest) us into prosperity. It doesn't work. Rich people neither invest nor spend everything they have. A substantial portion of their wealth is locked away from circulation.
Originally posted by rue:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Consumption Tax is the least regressive, the most progressive.
When the taxable items are copying the existing Taxation structure of the State, it merely piggybacks on the Taxation apparatus already existing.
If your local Laws have Tax-exempt status for groceries, education, non-luxury housing, transportation, medical/dental, then those spendings will continue to be untaxed. If you choose to live where those non-luxury items are taxed, then your Local Politicians are going to be far more responsive to reasonable changes in status.
The lowest income earners spend the vast majority of their funds on these items which can be tax-exempt.
The highest income earners are going to have the highest percentage of their spending on taxable items. Even if they eat nothing but lobster and steak at home, how much can they really spend on just groceries? All of their luxury spending gets taxed.
When the lowest income people pay taxes on the smallest amount of their expenses, and the highest earners pay taxes on the largest amount of their expenses, that is the most progressive, the least regressive.
And no more complicated than what is already in place now. What is now taxable can remain taxable, what is now tax-exempt can remain tax-exempt. If the Taxpayers are currently happy with paying taxes on each little item, then they can continue to do the same.
The other idea I've found doesn't work in real life is the idea that the closer the government, the more representative it'll be. From watching real life in the surrounding cities and local agencies, I've seen that everyday people are too pressed by life to actively participate in local government. Instead, the wealthy and the businesses have the spare time and money to hound the planning commissions, the regulators, the service providers etc on a daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly basis. When, for example, there's a local regulation or fee being considered the businesses will be literally lined up at the local government's door, ready to whine and threaten as long as necessary. I have literally NEVER seen a people-initiated change being considered. And I spent a couple of years on one of my city's commissions, made presentations re zoning to the city council, and worked for a government agency.
Your claim that middle class or upper or high income earners or wealthy will spend the same amount on yachts, mansions, fine dining, Escalades, Ivy League Schools, Private Schools, cottages, nannies, and Country Clubs as do ultra-poor and poverty level earners is preposterous and falls on its face.
Are you not in CA? That Proposition 8 or whatever that allows Citizens to reverse Laws directly is the worst thing around, and grotesquely applied to the worst cases.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME