• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Panama Papers prove it: America can afford a universal basic income

Lafayette said:
In fact, we've known about that fact for quite some time. Various analyses have been conducted, by two groups independently, both out of universities in California:

*Piketty - Ratio of Household Wealth to National Income. Insufficiently taxed upper-income - only 30% rates in the US - gushes up to Wealth, which (minus Debt) becomes Net Worth.
20141108_FNC156.png


*Domhoff - that shows how only 20% of American households own 89% of America's Net Worth.
View attachment 67200004


Need more be said? It's high-time we stop-the-ripoff of the American middle- and lower-classes!

What do the rich actually do with the money? Like most of us, they die and leave it to their inheritors. Can you imagine billions being carried away by people who never worked a day in their lives to earn it? Quite simply, they "lucked out"?

I can't ...
Click to expand...

Stop using Picketty data.. He's admitted his numbers are not complete or factual at this point..
 
MY POINT?

austrianecon said:
Stop using Picketty data.. He's admitted his numbers are not complete or factual at this point..
Click to expand...

So says the Financial Times. But, what should one expect of the FT, or Bloomberg, or the WSJ?

About the controversy, and from The Economist itself (article, Picking holes in Piketty), an excerpt:
These findings led Mr Giles [of the Financial Times] to conclude that Mr Piketty’s estimate of wealth inequality are “undercut”. Yet adjustments and interpolations are always necessary when disparate data sets are combined. The question is whether Mr Piketty had a reasonable basis for making the judgments he did. His lack of explanation in places makes that hard to assess. As The Economist went to press Mr Piketty was preparing an update to the technical appendix to further explain his data and calculations, and take issue with the Financial Times’ concerns. Whether he made reasonable choices will be the issue. Economists who disagree with Mr Piketty but have worked with his data have defended his empirical record.

More important is whether the errors—if they are errors—undermine his thesis. To find out, Mr Giles adjusted the wealth-distribution series to correct the discrepancies he found. In the case of France and Sweden the basic trend was unchanged. In America’s case, some of the underlying source data show a more gradual recent rise in inequality than Mr Piketty’s estimate. However, a new, highly regarded study published after “Capital” was printed (written by frequent co-authors of Mr Piketty’s but using different methodology) also finds a steep rise.

But there is little evidence, so far, to support the serious charge of cherry-picking statistics. Nor have his findings that wealth concentration is, once again, rising been fatally undermined.
Click to expand...

Historically, the numbers can be murky, because data sets hundreds of years ago were incomplete and even estimates. But the more modern data sets - from government tax authorities - are indisputable.

Except of course as regards the Panama Papers, where individuals have escaped altogether any process whatsoever of obtaining the data. In which case, if accountable, would make the statistical outcomes even worse than what Piketty describes.

My Point? Thousands of years have passed and still, mankind is obsessed with the accumulation of wealth symbolic of personal "success" - as if they could take it with them when they go ...
 
Last edited:
VanceMack said:
Were 20-30 trillion in actual debt. Today. And you think the answer is that somehow you have the right to more of other peoples income.
Click to expand...

You betcha - especially when "other peoples' income" was taken from them by Reckless Ronnie's institution of Unfair Flat Taxation.

Proper progressive taxation (at 95% of income at the highest levels) would have assured that the money went into the Public Purse. From which it is dispensed upon projects that benefit the American people as a whole.

For instance*, ridding itself of the shame of a PostSecondary education that costs and arm-and-a-leg compared to elsewhere on this planet. Or a healthcare system that is twice as expensive as that of a comparable economy, namely that of the EU. Both of which, along with inhumanly low Minimum-Wage levels across the country keep 15% of Americans incarcerated below the Poverty Threshold. (Btw, that's about 50 million American men, women, and children in this "Great Land of ours". The populations of the state of California and Illinois combined.)

Open your eyes ...

*And if you want the bona fide statistical data to back up these claims, just ask. I've already posted them a good number of times in this forum.
 
Last edited:
Lafayette said:
MY POINT?



So says the Financial Times. But, what should one expect of the FT, or Bloomberg, or the WSJ?

About the controversy, and from The Economist itself (article, Picking holes in Piketty), an excerpt:


Historically, the numbers can be murky, because data sets hundreds of years ago were incomplete and even estimates. But the more modern data sets - from government tax authorities - are indisputable.

Except of course as regards the Panama Papers, where individuals have escaped altogether any process whatsoever of obtaining the data. In which case, if accountable, would make the statistical outcomes even worse than what Piketty describes.

My Point? Thousands of years have passed and still, mankind is obsessed with the accumulation of wealth symbolic of personal "success" - as if they could take it with them when they go ...
Click to expand...

So there is no historical baseline? Gee imagine that. Can't claim **** if you have no historical baseline.

And your position is bull****.. Americans avoiding taxes don't do business in Panama (well those who weren't committing a crime in the first place) because US has a free trade agreement with Panama which means banking records can be seized by the IRS. Americans can avoid taxes in the US. Be it the Virgin Islands, Delware or New Jersey.
 
Lafayette said:
You betcha - especially when "other peoples' income" was taken from them by Reckless Ronnie's institution of Unfair Flat Taxation.

Proper progressive taxation (at 95% of income at the highest levels) would have assured that the money went into the Public Purse. From which it is dispensed upon projects that benefit the American people as a whole.

For instance*, ridding itself of the shame of a PostSecondary education that costs and arm-and-a-leg compared to elsewhere on this planet. Or a healthcare system that is twice as expensive as that of a comparable economy, namely that of the EU. Both of which, along with inhumanly low Minimum-Wage levels across the country keep 15% of Americans incarcerated below the Poverty Threshold. (Btw, that's about 50 million American men, women, and children in this "Great Land of ours". The populations of the state of California and Illinois combined.)

Open your eyes ...

*And if you want the bona fide statistical data to back up these claims, just ask. I've already posted them a good number of times in this forum.
Click to expand...
There is an undeniable reality that will never sink in. You want something? Earn it. Bill Gates didnt knock your ass down and steal your pennies. You arent entitled to a penny of his earnings. Not a ****ing penny. That ANYONE thinks they are owed an income for merely ****ing existing....geeeeeezus....WTF happened to people?
 
I could give a rats ass about the rich placing money in off shore accounts. I want to see if any politicians were stealing money from there respective countries, and their people.

The rich have a right to place their money where ever it is legal.
 
ANOTHER WAY TO CUT THE INCOME PIE

Income fascinates us. Perhaps more than wealth, since income is instant in-the-pocket (for most of us), and wealth is something that builds over time (like household property value of a mortgage paid incrementally).

Whatever, here is one more way to look at the persistent Income Disparity in the US, and how most of that disparity comes skimmed right off the top, from the Congressional Budget Office:

49440-Home-Image.png


I have presented after-tax infographics of the distribution of income, this time it the before-tax version.

How can that table be made more fair to minimize Income Disparity? By forcing companies to observe a simple rule- that in those companies with "other income incentives", such as stock-options, bonuses and finally to stop-the-rot by applying a confiscatory progressive tax-rate above 1 megabuck per annum of 95%.

The above applies today to an unfairly select grouping of individuals in large corporations. The fact that a company succeeds, either well or badly, depends upon the total-effort of those working in the company. It is logical therefore that the entire work-force be able to share in the rewards of success.

Not all equally, of course, but all equitably. In fact, those "rewards for success" can be built-in to the job-review process at each level. All it takes is a bit of effort to change fundamentally how the fruits of success could be shared more fairly in our market economy ...
 
Last edited:
ONE STEP FURTHER

One step further must be taken in the analysis.

"What if" a megabuck was the upper limit before confiscatory taxation-rates were applied? What would happen to the millions up on millions of dollars that companies would not pay individuals beyond the mega-buck level?

Well, for one thing Hollywood Superstars would stop getting their %-age of total film revenues. Have a look at their total salaries here: List of highest paid film actors. (And perhaps you may think, like me, that such salaries are absurd in a nation suffering from abject Income Disparity.)

Pray tell, who deserves that sort of money for working 2/3 months a year before a movie camera? There must be a point where logic enters the consideration. We've seen enough of "Grab all you can while the grabbing is good!"

So, if confiscation indeed is enacted, we wont see many of those Hollywood Stars funding election outcomes in the US. Which, some would say is a good thing, given the usage of the BoobTube to promote candidates like they were clothes-washer detergent ("cleaning whiter than white") or air-fresheners.

Still others would say, "Hey, aint gonna do no good. It's all wrapped-up already". Which is likely true only for as long as the American public sits on its duffs and spectates election outcomes. Which they do often, far too often lately, because the outcome is so predictably bad. As has been since the 2010-midterm elections - when Replicant control of the HofR ended any pretense of an Obama Administration quickly getting the nation out of the worst recession since the 1930s with Stimulus Spending. (We've spent 2/4 years more in that recessional period than was necessary because of Replicant vanity and pursuit-of-power.)

MY POINT?

1) Let's not forget, going into this upcoming national election, that the HofR and Senate are an integral part of our democratic system - thus, no less important than the Presidential media-circus.

2) It is only by tackling the challenge-posed by the reformation of upper-income taxation that we can find a solution more fair to the other 90Percenters who work all-together to generate the Income-Pie so adeptly purloined by the 10Percenters.
 
Last edited:
VanceMack said:
There is an undeniable reality that will never sink in. You want something? Earn it.
Click to expand...

It will be difficult for for simple minds, but try anyway: The new rule is "earn it honestly".

As I tried to explain above, upper-income taxation is applied exclusively to a group of people who skim the corporate-pie with exceedingly high-salaries (often driving the companies into failure). The list of said-failures is so long it is boring. If interested, see it here: List of corporate collapses and scandals.

But, most of those people running the listed companies "got out with their own megabuck or more".

So, please, stop with the naive-simplicity of "You want something? Earn it." Which, in the US, has lead to the horror of entire generations living below the Poverty Threshold. Whilst 10Percenters prance about with Estates-with-a-Lamborghini on each continent.

I am not saying that incomes should all be the same, and the means of production should be owned by the state. Socialism has taught us that such a system cannot work with humans. With robots perhaps one day, but not today.

I am saying that:
-The share-out of corporate-compensation should more inclusive of all company-workers - from the executive offices to the shop-floor - who contribute to its success (not equally but equitably).
-Upper-income taxation should be confiscatory beyond a certain level* that is some very-large multiple of the average wage (which is $52k at present), and ditto as regards inheritance taxation. A market-economy as rich as ours should be fairly enjoyed by all who participate with no exaggerated pay-out to a select-few (because income-taxation has been rigged in their favor).
-That point-in-time was the 18th century when our forefathers lived in an Agricultural Age and could not foresee the mighty change that passage into the Industrial Age would bring to incomes and the creation of Greatly Rich families.

As regards the above, we are simply regressing to a point-in-time when an upper-class (called a monarchy) was obtaining all the revenue (from land-holdings, because industry did not exist) and having their government build poor-houses for the rest. I, for one, would like to think we are not repeating that history!

*And let's not forget the SubPrime Mess that led us to Great Recession because some banksters on Wall Street wanted to make their megabuck illegally - by knowingly employing falsified income-declarations that substantiated their mortgage loans, which were then securitized generally. Once discovered, the failure of the securitized-loans almost sunk our entire economy.
 
Last edited:
Lafayette said:
It will be difficult for for simple minds, but try anyway: The new rule is "earn it honestly".

As I tried to explain above, upper-income taxation is applied exclusively to a group of people who skim the corporate-pie with exceedingly high-salaries (often driving the companies into failure). The list of said-failures is so long it is boring. If interested, see it here: List of corporate collapses and scandals.

But, most of those people running the listed companies "got out with their own megabuck or more".

So, please, stop with the naive-simplicity of "You want something? Earn it." Which, in the US, has lead to the horror of entire generations living below the Poverty Threshold. Whilst 10Percenters prance about with Estates-with-a-Lamborghini on each continent.

I am not saying that incomes should all be the same, and the means of production should be owned by the state. Socialism has taught us that such a system cannot work with humans. With robots perhaps one day, but not today.

I am saying that:
-The share-out of corporate-compensation should more inclusive of all company-workers - from the executive offices to the shop-floor - who contribute to its success (not equally but equitably).
-Upper-income taxation should be confiscatory beyond a certain level* that is some very-large multiple of the average wage (which is $52k at present), and ditto as regards inheritance taxation. A market-economy as rich as ours should be fairly enjoyed by all who participate with no exaggerated pay-out to a select-few (because income-taxation has been rigged in their favor).
-That point-in-time was the 18th century when our forefathers lived in an Agricultural Age and could not foresee the mighty change that passage into the Industrial Age would bring to incomes and the creation of Greatly Rich families.

As regards the above, we are simply regressing to a point-in-time when an upper-class (called a monarchy) was obtaining all the revenue (from land-holdings, because industry did not exist) and having their government build poor-houses for the rest. I, for one, would like to think we are not repeating that history!

*And let's not forget the SubPrime Mess that led us to Great Recession because some banksters on Wall Street wanted to make their megabuck illegally - by knowingly employing falsified income-declarations that substantiated their mortgage loans, which were then securitized generally. Once discovered, the failure of the securitized-loans almost sunk our entire economy.
Click to expand...
For someone talking **** about simple minds...do you understand that in fact a 'universal basic income' is indeed a paycheck for merely existing, above and beyond anything actually earned by the individual? Earn it honestly? Bull****. People clamoring for UBI believe it is something they are entitled to. They believe its something they are owed.

You arent owed a damn thing. That anyone would actually believe they are is pathetic.

But now for the good news. Nothing is preventing you or anyone else that touts this system from rushing out there, creating a successful business, and distributing the fruits of your labor however the **** you see fit. Funny thing though. We always see people bleating on about socialism...how wonderful it is...and how it really should be. We never see them actually DOING it. We never see them actually living it. And at the end of the day its the same sad song...you dont want to distribute YOUR wealth. You are convinced you have some sort of right to distribute other peoples wealth.

Pathetic.
 
Last edited:
VanceMack said:
... do you understand that in fact a 'universal basic income' is indeed a paycheck for merely existing, above and beyond anything actually earned by the individual?
Click to expand...

Yes, so what?

If push comes to shove and the country needs defending, you are going come after my son or daughter to do the fighting for you. If they must contribute with their lives to defending the nation, why do they not deserve a subsistence living when they need it. (And believe me, plenty of American families need it nowadays.)

Do we make a distinction for police or fire protection or schooling within the population? Then why do so for somebody who needs basic income because they are incarcerated below the Poverty Threshold and earn on average about $1K a month? Did they ask to be poor?

And what's the skin of your back if they are afforded a subsistence wage (which, for a family of four is only $23K). You'd rather they break into your house and take the money?

(Probably yes, since then you could machine-gun them for breaking-and-entry! You'd get a real kick outta that, wouldn't you ... ?)

VanceMack said:
We always see people bleating on about socialism...how wonderful it is...and how it really should be. We never see them actually DOING it.
Click to expand...

Where did you ever look?

How many times must I put it into your THICK SKULL that we are not talking about Socialism! What I promote as an alternative political option is called Social Democracy.

Have a look, then at least you'll understand correctly what you hate so much ...
 
Lafayette said:
Yes, so what?

If push comes to shove and the country needs defending, you are going come after my son or daughter to do the fighting for you. If they must contribute with their lives to defending the nation, why do they not deserve a subsistence living when they need it. (And believe me, plenty of American families need it nowadays.)

Do we make a distinction for police or fire protection or schooling within the population? Then why do so for somebody who needs basic income because they are incarcerated below the Poverty Threshold and earn on average about $1K a month? Did they ask to be poor?

And what's the skin of your back if they are afforded a subsistence wage (which, for a family of four is only $23K). You'd rather they break into your house and take the money?

(Probably yes, since then you could machine-gun them for breaking-and-entry! You'd get a real kick outta that, wouldn't you ... ?)



Where did you ever look?

How many times must I put it into your THICK SKULL that we are not talking about Socialism! What I promote as an alternative political option is called Social Democracy.

Have a look, then at least you'll understand correctly what you hate so much ...
Click to expand...
When push came to shove I served 20 years. 2 of my kids currently serve. My father spent 20 years in. His as well...as did his all the way back to 1887.

That you think someone owes you an existence makes me want to puke. I really dont know what happened to people.
 
Whether they can afford it or not is not the issue...whether it would be helpful to America's future is (imo).
 
austrianecon said:
Americans avoiding taxes don't do business in Panama (well those who weren't committing a crime in the first place) because US has a free trade agreement with Panama which means banking records can be seized by the IRS.
Click to expand...

There are no banking records in Panama. Just documents that incorporating the holding-companies that own assets elsewhere, some with their owner names - but some with fiduciary trusts signed by other non-original owners of the properties (as lawyers often act on behalf of the original owners).

The financial institutions accepting funds on behalf of the Panamanian companies can be in London (or elsewhere), wherever there is no law prohibiting anyone to open investment or banking-accounts accessible via the Internet from any place in the world ...

Your friends, the plutocrats, aren't dumb ...
 
VanceMack said:
That you think someone owes you an existence makes me want to puke.
Click to expand...

You're like regimentation. It gives you purpose on a daily basis.

Not all people need such discipline, however ...
 
Lafayette said:
You're like regimentation. It gives you purpose on a daily basis.

Not all people need such discipline, however ...
Click to expand...
That you think discipline and regimentation is a relevant counter argument for your support of the notion that its RIGHT that pathetic ****s demand free paychecks for their existence is rather telling.

No one owes you anything. Not a penny. You arent entitled to the wealth of others. That you think you are is pathetic.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
Because our present system does not (or cannot) provide jobs for everybody, yet that is still the way we distribute the fruits of our production - through the labor market.
Click to expand...

By 'our present system' I assume you are referring to the mixed economy that you champion rather than a market economy. Because you are quite correct that our current mix of statist controls that govern the remnants of the American capitalist system do, in fact, make it impossible for everyone to have a job. Perhaps some day you might actually be in a position to hire someone and realize that the regulations you support inhibit employment rather than encourage it. But you go right ahead and keep pushing for unionization and $15 minimum wages and paid family leave and other such liberal fantasies all the while wringing your hands as to why there aren't enough jobs for everyone...
 
Fletch said:
By 'our present system' I assume you are referring to the mixed economy that you champion rather than a market economy. Because you are quite correct that our current mix of statist controls that govern the remnants of the American capitalist system do, in fact, make it impossible for everyone to have a job. Perhaps some day you might actually be in a position to hire someone and realize that the regulations you support inhibit employment rather than encourage it. But you go right ahead and keep pushing for unionization and $15 minimum wages and paid family leave and other such liberal fantasies all the while wringing your hands as to why there aren't enough jobs for everyone...
Click to expand...

Still beats your system where everybody has a job, but the lowest are paid fifty cents/hour, and still can't afford to shelter and feed themselves.
 
VanceMack said:
That you think discipline and regimentation is a relevant counter argument for your support of the notion that its RIGHT that pathetic ****s demand free paychecks for their existence is rather telling.

No one owes you anything. Not a penny. You arent entitled to the wealth of others. That you think you are is pathetic.
Click to expand...

And nobody owes you civil order, which protects your wealth. It's a tradeoff. That you think you are entitled to such protection is not only pathetic, it's also selfish.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
Still beats your system where everybody has a job, but the lowest are paid fifty cents/hour, and still can't afford to shelter and feed themselves.
Click to expand...

Except that isn't how it would work. But I suppose thinking that that is how a market economy would work is what leads people into the arms of the state.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
And nobody owes you civil order, which protects your wealth. It's a tradeoff. That you think you are entitled to such protection is not only pathetic, it's also selfish.
Click to expand...

You don't have civil order 'which protects your wealth' if the mob can take from you what they wish. It is difficult for you, a liberal, to argue for the protection of the wealth of Peter when you are the champion of the power of Paul to take it, now isn't it. And yes, the defense of ones rights is indeed a selfish act. If you wish to be selfless and surrender your rights there are plenty of people and places on the globe that will gladly oblige. Best of luck
 
RetiredUSN said:
He was right. Nobody owes you anything.
Click to expand...

I never asked for any more than I did not earn. But, I was fortunate. There are tiny percentage of our population who cannot even achieve a living wage, because we've no law that guarantees that minimum. Which is why working in America can be hellish, especially at times of a long-term economic recession as America is just exiting.

The question remains nonetheless, At what level of income is earning too much simply far too much? The answer is, When it is far beyond your needs.

It's a fool's world that wants to have always more, more, more of the value that we all work hard to generate, especially when having just the minimum is forbidden to such a sizable number of fellow citizens. But, what does that matter when life is all about me, me, me.

And that is the world America has created for itself. Where half of all income goes to just 10% or all households, and the other 90% scramble for the other half.

But, you won't understand. You're evidently not so good at numbers - especially when they displease you ...
 
Last edited:
Lafayette said:
I never asked for any more than I did not earn. But, I was fortunate. There are tiny percentage of our population who cannot even achieve a living wage, because we've no law that guarantees that minimum. Which is why working in America can be hellish, especially at times of a long-term economic recession as America is just exiting.

The question remains nonetheless, At what level of income is earning too much simply far too much? The answer is, When it is far beyond your needs.

It's a fool's world that wants to have always more, more, more of the value that we all work hard to generate, especially when having just the minimum is forbidden to such a sizable number of fellow citizens. But, what does that matter when life is all about me, me, me.

And that is the world America has created for itself. Where half of all income goes to just 10% or all households, and the other 90% scramble for the other half.

But, you won't understand. You're evidently not so good at numbers - especially when they displease you ...
Click to expand...

I am pretty good at numbers, but that is beside the point, it has nothing to do with your wealth envy or fake righteousness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom