American Equity

This whole idea of "coastal elites" and "flyover states" is just a tool that those with real power (corporations and special interests) are using to divide Americans so that they are easier to control. If you were the NRA looking to make sure that "bump stocks" don't get banned after a gunman shoots hundreds of people in Vegas using them, where would you focus your resources? On the Senate, of course! Because the House can't do anything without the Senate's approval and influencing 41 Senators is a lot easier than trying to influence hundreds of members of the House.

It's the same with the presidential election. If you're the NRA, what's easier for you to influence? A popular vote or our current electoral college system where only a few swing states matter?

If you're saying that the electoral college and the Senate are a means of protecting those in the "flyover states", then I would just you how that's working out? Do you think "Wyomingers" are the ones who are going to benefit from repealing the estate tax? The House, Senate, and Executive branch are all controlled by Republicans who should, in theory, be advocating for "Wyomingers" and yet they seem to only be working on behalf of the interests of the wealthy, special interests, and corporations.

Just abolish the states all together as far as I'm concerned and let's have one unified America, which would be much harder for special interests and corporations to influence.

Since a couple years back, we have a 1% tax on wealth in Colombia, which applies to anyone who has above approx. 330,000 USD in assets

I don't think it has disincentivated anybody from becoming less wealthy and/or working less. It just incentivizes tax evasion, but even that is not significant.

On the other hand, a large number of social programs have been built around this new tax. Anybody in the country could get cancer and would get free decent healthcare.

As a tax reform idea this is extremely promising.

I hope that one or more silicon valley billionaires run for national office on this kind of platform.

Sam is smart to point out that one of the main friction points is how this kind of thing pertains to immigration.

What's missing is an updated version of the narrative behind give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses. Instead we get the vile rhetoric of Donald Trump that blames immigrants and minorities for all sorts of problems.

The American version of this sort of program needs to be fundamentally different from the "stipend" given to Saudi citizens by their elitist monarchs, and it cannot be designed to serve a similar political function (keeping the masses content).

Instead, we must view basic income as a system of positive and negative taxation that preserves the incentives individuals have to work hard to improve their own outcomes.

It must also eliminate the many perverse incentives and psychologically defeating categorizations (welfare, workers comp, etc.) that assault the dignity of those receiving income from the state today.

There are many costs of poverty that are not typically accounted for properly -- the harm done to children whose parents can't manage adequate prenatal or early childhood care, the human capital wasted by those who experience a setback that makes their planned investment in their own skills financially unwise, the time and energy wasted attempting and policing all sorts of major and minor fraud related to state payments, etc.

The biggest enemy to progress in America is the zero-sum mindset that plagues so many people and fuels their resentment toward immigrants. The areas of the nation facing the most decay and the least hope are the ones that seem to have adopted this mindset.

> buying and building are two different things

Consider the way Kickstarter projects describe their "backers". On the "Why Kickstarter?" page they say backers are "helping to create something new". Yet, one could easily consider Kickstarter simply a website for pre-orders, no different from buying in any other method.

The line between a buyer and a backer/builder isn't so clear.

But the purchase provided capital, which enabled further production. Banks don't lend money out of the goodness of their hearts, either.

And, really, have you never bought something in small part because you liked the seller? That's the sentiment behind the exhortation to "buy local" or to buy Girl Scout cookies or from a local school's fundraiser. I suppose you could say a purchase is a contribution to the extent that the price exceeds the cost of production.