A basic income for all

[Angstrom]

private property is a thing (unfortunately)

Yes it is.

Effort & intelligence is also a thing (unfortunately for you)

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

None, but I shape and assemble wood material into furniture & living spaces. . And that is valuable to many people that are willing to pay me top dollars.
Trees come from the forest just in case you didn't know

The earth provides trees and I have the skill and knowledge to produce something that is in demand with this natural resource.

Oh wait!!! That would require effort & intelligence. n/m

Just wanted to clarify that you know nothing about foraging. Thanks.

 

[Angstrom]

Just wanted to clarify that you know nothing about foraging. Thanks.

It's true, but I know where to find that knowledge if life needed me to. .

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

It's true, but I know where to find that knowledge if life needed me to. .

As a result, we know that your opinions on forgaing are worthless.

 

[Angstrom]

As a result, we know that your opinions on forgaing are worthless.

My opinion on foraging have been clear from the beginning . They are based on the fact that all animals on earth survived by foraging at one pointe or a other . Are you saying this is not true?

It's now clear that your a idiot

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

My opinion on foraging have been clear from the beginning .

Clear and worthless, being based on ignorance.

 

[Angstrom]

Clear and worthless, being based on ignorance.

foraging is the "all living things on earth". basic income

 

[Dixie Cup]

But if both pay 10% its fair. Right now the percentage slides with the more you make, the more you give the government. I think a flat 10-15 or even 20% is the way to go with no deductions or rebates to anybody. I like your idea of a 0% on all income below a certain level.

Actualy, that's the case now - if your income is below a certain level you don't pay any tax. Now, whether that level is low/high enough may be up for discussion but it sounds like what some posters are saying is that if you have low income you still pay taxes and that's absolutely not the case, anywhere in Canada.

 

[taxslave]

A fair tax is one we should all want. An "equal" one is not something anybody can readily define. Suffice it to say that the present system is one that is in need of reform. Once tax shelters are ended and when all capital sent overseas is recaptured we can go about reforming it to the point where it can possibly be eliminated as I have suggested before.


One thing to always bear in mind is, the income taxes in 1863, 1893, and 1913 were all created during or just before a war. This was done in anticipation of government generating revenues to fight the wars and people who profited from them. Elimination of the income tax is one way to insure that we do not have any more foreign wars - something that war profiteers do not want you to know pr to consider.

Still have to define fair. Is it fair that I have to pay 40% of my income so someone that doesn't work doesn't have to pay any?

 

[Dixie Cup]

I absolutely agree that the tax code needs to be scrapped and started over again. There are far too many exemptions, credits, benefits etc., etc. and always something new almost every year. It makes one want to pull their hair out. That's just in the preparation of taxes.


As for the fairness, I'm all for basic level of income earned for al l- no tax - anything above that, taxed as a flat rate of 10 or 15%. Done.
It's simple and, despite what some people say about the "fairness" of a flat tax, it is fair in that EVERYONE pays the same % and those making more pay more. Obviously, 10 (or 15%) of $50,000 is a lot less than 10 (or 15%) of $150,000, so those who earn more pay more. Can't get any fairer then that!


JMHO

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Nah, the only two options for a truly fair tax are either:

1. Everybody pays the same amount, or

2. You actually calculate the benefit each taxpayer receives from government activity, and tax them accordingly.

NB: That second one would skyrocket taxes for the wealthy.

 

[captain morgan]

Depends on the degree of gvt regulation for option #2

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Depends on the degree of gvt regulation for option #2

At any level of regulation, the wealthy benefit far more from government than the poor.

Let us take Taxpayer A, a corporate vice president making $1,500,000 a year plus stock options, and Taxpayer B, his maid, making $15,000 a year with no benefits.

Now, the military protects their property equally, but his property is worth millions and hers is worth tens. So he gets millions in benefit from the army, and she gets tens. Tax them accordingly.

He flies regularly, she flies not at all. So he pays considerable tax for the aviation authority, and she pays none.

If he calls the cops, five squad cars, a SWAT van, and a helicopter will answer his call. If she calls the cops. . . let's not be silly. So he pays for the cops, and she pays nothing.

Obviously roads, bridges, and other infrastructure benefit him far more than her, both in acquiring and maintaining his wealth. So he pays for almost all of it. She pays for the four streets she uses.

U.s.w.

 

[nimrod]

At any level of regulation, the wealthy benefit far more from government than the poor.

Let us take Taxpayer A, a corporate vice president making $1,500,000 a year plus stock options, and Taxpayer B, his maid, making $15,000 a year with no benefits.

Now, the military protects their property equally, but his property is worth millions and hers is worth tens. So he gets millions in benefit from the army, and she gets tens. Tax them accordingly.

He flies regularly, she flies not at all. So he pays considerable tax for the aviation authority, and she pays none.

If he calls the cops, five squad cars, a SWAT van, and a helicopter will answer his call. If she calls the cops. . . let's not be silly. So he pays for the cops, and she pays nothing.

Obviously roads, bridges, and other infrastructure benefit him far more than her, both in acquiring and maintaining his wealth. So he pays for almost all of it. She pays for the four streets she uses.

U.s.w.

I'll take taxpayer B-if she'll have me-this place really needs a spring cleaning -and i'm lonely.Unnhhh -could she send a "bathing suit' pic and have a copy of today's paper (date legible)' in her hand?

 

[captain morgan]

At any level of regulation, the wealthy benefit far more from government than the poor.

Let us take Taxpayer A, a corporate vice president making $1,500,000 a year plus stock options, and Taxpayer B, his maid, making $15,000 a year with no benefits.

Now, the military protects their property equally, but his property is worth millions and hers is worth tens. So he gets millions in benefit from the army, and she gets tens. Tax them accordingly.

He flies regularly, she flies not at all. So he pays considerable tax for the aviation authority, and she pays none.

If he calls the cops, five squad cars, a SWAT van, and a helicopter will answer his call. If she calls the cops. . . let's not be silly. So he pays for the cops, and she pays nothing.

Obviously roads, bridges, and other infrastructure benefit him far more than her, both in acquiring and maintaining his wealth. So he pays for almost all of it. She pays for the four streets she uses.

U.s.w.

Fair enough, but those numbers change radically when you look at the pic from the other side.

Tax payer B doesn't fly , so can they opt out and therefore not pay for that component? How about if taxpayer A gets together with some like-minded folk and live in a gated community with their own 'security', can they dissociate from that element?

In the end, using the military example, that body provides a blanket service to all citizens equally and not based on the value of their land/holdings... Just like the munis offering public transit to all folks wherein the taxpayer A group may never step foot into a subway but is paying a portion of their taxes into it for the common good

 

[Sal]

At any level of regulation, the wealthy benefit far more from government than the poor.

Let us take Taxpayer A, a corporate vice president making $1,500,000 a year plus stock options, and Taxpayer B, his maid, making $15,000 a year with no benefits.

Now, the military protects their property equally, but his property is worth millions and hers is worth tens. So he gets millions in benefit from the army, and she gets tens. Tax them accordingly.

He flies regularly, she flies not at all. So he pays considerable tax for the aviation authority, and she pays none.

If he calls the cops, five squad cars, a SWAT van, and a helicopter will answer his call. If she calls the cops. . . let's not be silly. So he pays for the cops, and she pays nothing.

Obviously roads, bridges, and other infrastructure benefit him far more than her, both in acquiring and maintaining his wealth. So he pays for almost all of it. She pays for the four streets she uses.

U.s.w.

it's pretty wild when you lay it out that way

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Fair enough, but those numbers change radically when you look at the pic from the other side.

Tax payer B doesn't fly , so can they opt out and therefore not pay for that component? How about if taxpayer A gets together with some like-minded folk and live in a gated community with their own 'security', can they dissociate from that element?

In the end, using the military example, that body provides a blanket service to all citizens equally and not based on the value of their land/holdings... Just like the munis offering public transit to all folks wherein the taxpayer A group may never step foot into a subway but is paying a portion of their taxes into it for the common good

Ah, yes, "equality." Like the great old epigram that "the law in its majestic equality forbids both rich and poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, or steal bread."

Yay, equality.

But it's OK. You can go for Option 1, where Richie Rich pays $12,000 a year out of his $1.5 mil salary, and Pavlova Poverty pays $12,000 a year out of her $15,000 wages. Because that's equal, and we all know equal means fair.

 

[gore0bsessed]

So it looks like a pro-basic income party has won in Finland.

Pro-EU coalition loses in Finland election as Centre party wins 49 seats | World news | The Guardian

Finland’s political parties embrace experimentalism | Nesta

The polls’ current favourite is the Centre Party. A liberal, agricultural and, well, centrist outfit, it has committed to experiments in its manifesto. The Party says it will trial its basic income model for citizens, before it goes Finland-wide. - See more at: Finland’s political parties embrace experimentalism | Nesta

 

[Angstrom]

I wish I had enough money to buy you a plane ticket to go live there..... Permanently GoreObsessed

 

[MHz]

I'm not sure the 'basic income' is a total solution. If a worker gets some more above the 'basic' then that amount should equal what it takes him 'to live at his expectations' and 'wages' are not an item that can be inherited as those children get the 'basic' and assuming they want to work,an income that supports those demands and what the income can provide over the 'basic'.

The OT version would add such terrible demands as interest charges only be applied to the persons who earn more than ones running the basic income services.