To celebrate this we'd need a sharing of the common wealth. This is the polar opposite of the USA/UK. Right now we have a people taking the most (much of it through rentier activity) and the rest are given make-work too keep from idle-hands. If we had land value tax we'd be getting somewhere.
All a land value tax will do is drive up rents. A tax on wealth above 2 million USD adjusted for inflation would be better.
This is totally wrong. Why don't our "businessmen" landlords charge more rent now. Read up.
All a land value tax will do is drive up rents. A tax on wealth above 2 million USD adjusted for inflation would be better.
This is totally wrong. Why don't our "businessmen" landlords charge more rent now. Read up.
When costs go up, they tend to get passed on-- Especially when everyone is subjected to the same cost increases. An example: Look at what happens to restaraunt prices when the minimum wage is increased. (I'm not endorsing that we should not raise the minimum wage, I'm just using it as a substitute for a land value tax as both will be applied uniformly).
No, it doesn't. https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-bud... Large parts of those segments representing health care and social security represent money that is paid out to people who are working -- that is, it's a direct subsidy to employers who don't feel like paying their workers enough to cover their grocery and housing bills.
Medicare (21%) - healthcare for retired people who don't work Medicaid (21%) - healthcare for low income, including people who don't work "safety net programs" (9%) - for the unemployed or disabled I get 51% from that.
Medicare is an insurance program. You don't get it unless you've already paid into it. It's administered by the government, but it really isn't paid for by the government.
Medicare (21%) - healthcare for retired people who don't work Medicaid (21%) - healthcare for low income, including people who don't work "safety net programs" (9%) - for the unemployed or disabled I get 51% from that.
Medicare is an insurance program. You don't get it unless you've already paid into it. It's administered by the government, but it really isn't paid for by the government.
If the Medicare premiums are not voluntary, how is it different from a tax?
Medicare is an insurance program. You don't get it unless you've already paid into it. It's administered by the government, but it really isn't paid for by the government.
If the Medicare premiums are not voluntary, how is it different from a tax?
If you don't have a job, you're not getting the benefits.
Sure, as much logic as there is in defining everything to be a nail to make your hammer seem more useful. When we worry about the economy, we're worried about a lot more than present consumption, or else we could just eat the seed corn and call it a day.
So an economy based on consumption is not sustainable?
I was careful to say "present consumption", which is not the only thing we care about. If your economic model only cares about that, you will incorrectly focus on it at the expense of other things. Yes, the goal of all production is (some species of) consumption; that doesn't justify economic policies that artificially goose present consumption.
Huh, at least in the US, over 50% of the federal budget provides just those things to people that don't have jobs.
I'm not sure that we do. Most of the budget goes to defense, social security, and medicare. None of these primarily provide food, shelter or medical care to the unemployed. A large portion of the budget goes to provide these things to the elderly but a very small portion of the budget goes to provide these things for the unemployed.
"People need an income to survive. Most people get incomes through jobs" Exactly, which makes any quibbling to my statement nothing but worthless pedantry. "Jobs being displaced through technology means output is produced more effectively without the job than it would be with the job, and someone is capturing the value of that output." Which has absolutely nothing to do with my question. "The issue becomes one of dis…
> Exactly, which makes any quibbling to my statement nothing but worthless pedantry. No, it doesn't. The job is not the need, its just the most common way of satisfying the need. The need is the income. Automation of jobs because automation is more efficient means that the economy becomes better at producing output which can be distributed through other existing means of providing income, notably, tax-funded social b…
I'm sorry, but I find that a whole load of horse shit. Especially in today's political climate in the US, I see there being absolutely no benefit to the people who's jobs are displaced. Basic income is a non-starter, especially basic income to the level where one could actually raise a family on, as many of these people are family people.