patrick.net

says

That's exactly what works wonderfully for me now. I only do cash deals now

That's because no one wants to pay for a blow job with their credit card.

This is just so ridiculous. Either a job is worth paying a certain amount for it or it isn't. If people are willing to do the job at a lower rate then that is the value of the job. Period. Anything else is welfare or a charitable contribution. Why are we forcing small business owners to make charitable contributions without the requisite tax deduction?

rando says

Isn't that the idea behind the basic income guarantee? Do no work, get paid anyway?

It depends on how the basic income is implemented. If it's implemented the way executive pay and owner income is implemented, namely by siphoning the active wealth production of others, then yes. If a basic income is implemented by sharing the wealth created by automation, then no. The owners of automation did not design, create, refine, or maintain the automations, STEM workers did. One could argue that STEM workers should therefore reap the sole benefits of these automations, but that is not the system we have or ever will. So why not let the whole of society reap the benefits of automation instead of letting such advancements cause poverty and stagnation? Let automation provide a guaranteed income that drives the virtuous cycle of consumption and production.

The problem with the rich isn't that they live in luxury without working. The problem is that they live in luxury on the backs of the rest of us. When Goldman Sachs makes billions, it comes from the pockets of many who did no wrong including you.

turtledove says

If people are willing to do the job at a lower rate then that is the value of the job.

No, that is exactly not true. A job's worth is determine by the wealth it produces not how little you get get a worker to settle for by setting up the laws so that the worker has no power.

The pay you should question is that of the owner and executive. How necessary is the "job" of owning?

mmmarvel says

Isn't everything basically a service? If I build a brick wall for you, I've done you a service to build the wall.

You can define everything as a good using the same technique. If I clean your house for you, I've sold you the good of cleanliness.

The point is there is a big difference between no skill manual labor and highly skilled technology jobs. It's a material difference in the nature of the economy created and the prosperity of the people in that economy. It's foolish for the U.S. to sell off all the intellectual assets (read people with skills) to developing nations. The superpower of the 21st century will be determined by economics, not military might. So which do you prefer as our masters, China or India?

mmmarvel says

As for capitalism, if I offer a job at a dollar an hour but everyone thinks the pay is too low, no one will accept the job and I will be forced to raise the pay till someone accepts it.

The hypothesis that the most efficient allocation occurs when every player tries to exploit every other player as much as he can get away with only works if all players have equal power, and clearly they do not.

Ironman says

That's because Dan has never owned a business, never been in a position of authority or a manager, never had to hire or fire an employee and never has had budgetary responsibilities.

I've done all the above except fire. Shows what a #whinyLittleBitch like you knows.

I doubt you ever produced anything in your life except butt hurt in goats.

Dan8267 says

Let automation provide a guaranteed income that drives the virtuous cycle of consumption and production.

But what exactly would you tax to tax only this automation profit?

The details are hard. Georgism is pretty simple by comparison: tax non-productive rent seeking, especially rent on land. Do not tax productive work at all.

rando says

But what exactly would you tax to tax only this automation profit?

The details are hard. Georgism is pretty simple by comparison: tax non-productive rent seeking, especially rent on land.

How about a vice tax, and a tax on fossil fuels, and luxury items.

Strategist says

How about a vice tax

Wait, no vice taxes! That would suck all the fun out of life.

rando says

Strategist says

How about a vice tax

Wait, no vice taxes! That would suck all the fun out of life.

Yeah, poor Rin would go broke.

Looks like I pissed off #whinyLittleBitch. I guess he'll send me that invite to his house now. Oh no, he won't because he's a lying coward.

rando says

But what exactly would you tax to tax only this automation profit?

I'd rather replace privately owned automation with publicly owned automation. For example, 95% of banking is boring standard stuff that computers do without human interference. Why can't there be a national non-profit bank that does all basic banking functions: checking, savings, credit/debit card, etc?

Similarly, a public wifi system available to all. It would require very little active management as computers do all the jobs.

rando says

The details are hard. Georgism is pretty simple by comparison: tax non-productive rent seeking, especially rent on land. Do not tax productive work at all.

Georgism is definitely the way to do for supporting most public expenses like defense, infrastructure, government, etc. However, I think Georgism needs to be brought into the 21st century. It's not just a land tax, although land is still the largest public resource used by private individuals. Geostationary orbits, the EM spectrum, waterways, etc. are all public resources often used by private owners. A carbon and a methane tax would also fall into this umbrella.

Tax stuff that imposes a cost on society. Don't tax stuff that doesn't consume public property. So tax land and emissions, but not buildings and income.

Dan8267 says

Why can't there be a national non-profit bank that does all basic banking functions: checking, savings, credit/debit card, etc?

Woah, that's the kind of talk that gets bankers angry! The post office does that kind of stuff in Germany, and lots of people use it.

But now that we're on it, why are there so many health insurance companies? Do they actually even compete at all?

Mostly I agree with you though. Georgism should not be just about land, but about all natural resources, like EM spectrum. No one created it, so why do some people get to profit from owning it?

rando says

But now that we're on it, why are there so many health insurance companies?

There is no need for health insurance companies at all. Health insurance should be completely nationalized as the private sector isn't adding any value whatsoever. Risk goes to zero when you have a million people in your pool, nonetheless 310 million. As such, there is no reason for profit streams in health insurance. It's a non-wealth-producing industry that doesn't mitigate risk, even in theory, better than a social program could. And the whole system could be automated.

Think of the savings in advertisements, fighting claims, and administrative costs.

This is another case of politicians buying votes. Which is the problem where the decision makers pay no price for lying. Even bigger when you have a more centralized government.

turtledove says

This is just so ridiculous. Either a job is worth paying a certain amount for it or it isn't. If people are willing to do the job at a lower rate then that is the value of the job. Period. Anything else is welfare or a charitable contribution. Why are we forcing small business owners to make charitable contributions without the requisite tax deduction?

More like extortion.

Dan8267 says

The issue applies to tens of millions of Americans and is a deep and systemic economic problem.

Despite the aforementioned's poverty levels, the level of sloth and gluttony in many cases is staggering

Just curious, have any of the people that fit your description ever approach you looking for a job? If so, without a guaranteed basic income and at will employment, would you hire them?

Lastly, how many of these individuals have you even come across in your life? In boca, I doubt many

MMR says

Despite the aforementioned's poverty levels, the level of sloth and gluttony in many cases is staggering

The reality is that these people collect welfare and work under the table at the same time.

indigenous says

welfare and work under the table at the same time.

If they were truly making enough to get off welfare and chose to do it, then it would be bad. The bigger problem is that people are disincentivized from working at all.

How much can legitimate small business owner run companies that have bookkeepers, accountants and taxes to pay annually afford to pay off the books? Outside of the restaurant business, I can't think of any off top of head

France is lousy with this problem in the US construction, restaurants, small manufacturing, day labor, gardeners, anyone who does residential work as there are no 1099s issued, etc etc

There are currently 10 million on permanent disability what percentage of them also work???