posted
Today's blabber is on economics, starting with the news today that workers on unemployment must eventually accept a job offer, or lose benefits.
I'm guessing that is in resposne to (GOP) complaints that "they earn more on inemployment than they would with a job, so they have no incentive to work" (presumably projecting that is how a GOP member would behave).
And I don't know which side I disagree with more, but now I mention 'minimum wage' and make the observation:
Maybe unemployment benefits should match (or at least be no less than) a full time minimum wage job?
Thus, any legal job offer (would have to meet minimum wage) would be not less than being on unemployment, so the inducement to reject the job offer is minimized.
But not removed, since maybe I could live on less if I also didn't have to actually do any work, so the offer would have to be significantly more than minimum wage to motivate me to take it, based purely on 'my getting money for doing work that someone else wants to have done'
ANYWAY, when I started this babble, I was going to say that passing this ;test' (increasing probablitt of workers returning to work), might define the baseline of what a Basic Income should be set to (and then every citizen receives this basic income each month, not means tested -- just 'american fairness' we all get the same size slice of this particular pie.
But now it's a little more like "your job offer has to motivate me to give up my free time" where minimum wage is more "I need to be able to eat, and have a place to pile up my possessions in"
unfortunately, real estate has become so speculative, it's very difficult to establish a secure living situation on a budget. I don't know what Government can do there but offer tax incentives for the construction of non0speculative homes.
I guess it would have to be in their definition that the current owner can't speculate on it. I mean, I guess it's just "low rent apartment" basically (financially) though the actual structure is as cool of a complex as 3D printing can create.
Not sure who would own it. the governebtm I guess (we, the people, own it... how communist!)
And the gov would fund some number of jobs to maintain the facilities, with regular inspections (of the facilities - plumbing, paint, etc. ), basically funded by the 'rent' which is paid by some fixed portion of your basic income check. (deducted before you see it)
probably group plan like 4 bedrooms and one set of kitch/livingroom/family room common areas. Probably a separate bath for each bedroom (private door entry options? Maybe 2 doors, s bedrooms each.)
Anyway, some mix that works both for individuals sharing a space, and families (and growing families). But grouped so you don't have to make one kitchen per bedroom. But more personal than a barracks and a dining hall.
But I dunno, maybe a dining hall is a nice thing, I don't mean to rule it out. Local businesses would then need to compete with the dining halls. But the dining halls would charge an amount gauranteed to fit within your basic income.
a group ideally would be large enough that it could afford ameneties like swimming pools and gym equipment (health making things better for everyone), while at the same time fostering the illusion of privacy.
again, local commerce/online sales, would have to compete with these 'inexpensive, but not irresponsibly so' alternatives.
So, the goal being something like:
* I get 10K/Month from Basic Income, because I am an american, living the best possible life in the USA. This is socialism outright, and my goal is for socialism to handle all the entitlement stuff, and let capitalism be rithlessly competitive (but with medium regulation and inspection against monopolies (labor or corporate).
* I pay no income tax on that. (maybe I pay no income tax at all, ever, unless I am a corporation) My goal is to move 100% of the tax burden onto the capitalist corporation, who pays a sustainable tax on services sold. And yet, I want it to balance out that the corporation can still make insane profits (if they sell a desirable product). Many details to be worked out there, and disincentives to game it. But let's just thing in terms of GDP.
Since I am too lazy to be educated, let's prentd the GDP is the toal dollars of goods/service sold.
And I will google a couple numbersL recent GDP for USA: 20 trillion population of USA: 300+ million
and let's say that's only 250 million basic income checks since there will probably be logical exemptions for evil criminals and welfare babies.
20Trillion is 20,000,000 million. And dividinfg that by 250 million gives us about $80,000 to work with on a per person basis. That number is just random, of course, but may be within an order of magnitude of correct, and feels like it could work.
But that's how much got sold, and I said I wanted the capitalists to be able to get rich, so while they received (I claim for purposes of this babble, but of course these are not real numbers) 20 trillion dollars in cash, as 'sum of the price of things sold' and we all know that the list price is twice the cost of the item, so we let them keep 10Trillion right away... well.. ok, they still have to have accountants and work out cost of goods sold, to establish a per product baseline cost, so as to be able to work out the actual profit from the sale, and the tax would ultimately follow that, but let's SAY the price is 2x their cost, just to ballpark is. So they make 10T 'profit' a year, and let's now call that one trillion dollars a month, as profit. I think a progressive tax like this: 0 - BasicIncome 0% tax BI - 1 million profit 10% tax 10M - 100M 20% 100M-1B = 30% 1B-1000B = 40%
with most corporations paying about 20-30% So call it 25% on average, and so 1/4 of out monthly trillion.
$250Billion/month --> tax income to the government
ok, just to be weird, call it 2500 billion a year, from which we subtract existing stuff like the military, let's call that 1500 billion, leaving 1000 billion a year, or 100B/month for basic income payments. Divide that by 250Million 'americans'.. 100,000M /250M
Posts: 10887 | From: California | Registered: Dec 1998
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
