• 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!

Finland is considering imposing Charles' Murray's idea on national income

I can appreciate means testing to disqualify those whose government income becomes negligible.

I'm sure it could be devised in a way to ensure minimum disincentive capacity.

For me, as long as the benefit doesn't really cut off until you're close to the six figure income range or so, the two schemes are essentially the same.
 
imagep said:
You might, but others might not agree that the hassle, responsibility, etc. is worth the hassle.
Click to expand...

I doubt this is true of most. Hell, you'd actually make more in my example with a 100k base salary due to tax graduation. For the sake of simplicity I went for a flat 28%, but the actual post tax income is $78928.18 (100000-90751)*.72+(90750-37451)*.75+(37451-9226)*.85+9226*.9 or well over twice what about 50% of the population is taking in after tax. Disincentivization is minimal. Few people are going to pass up a chance at the former if it's within their capability to attain.

I see what you are saying, but it's not pointless, you are just missing the points. The first point is a matter of perceived fairness, and thus political viability. If people think that a proposed system is more fair than the current system, then they will be more likely to accept it. The second point is to eliminate the possibility that taking away or reducing the government benefit will be a disincentive to earning a larger income. If someone making $100k has to pay an extra $10k to get that $10k back as a BIG, then it's a wash to them, but this isn't about someone who is in that "wash bracket", it's about people who need that money to put food on the table, or to be able to save for a down payment on a home.

Surrealistik, you see what Thrilla is saying? THAT'S why we shouldn't means test a BIG. Means testing it partially defeats it's purpose, and totally defeats it's political viability. He said he wouldn't support a means tested BIG, and neither would I.

I bet you could tally up the positions of the dozen or so posters on this thread, and you wouldn't come up with enough supporters of a means tested BIG for support to reach the 50%+1 level. You remove that means testing, and I assume that you have gained Thrilla, and I know you have gained my vote, so that's an increase of about 20-30% support, which very well may be enough to make it politically viable.
Click to expand...

I'm not concerned about reaching a majority consensus on these forums if it would mean either giving benefit money to the well off, or a nonsensical increase in taxes that nets to 0 for them or less. The former would be a colossal waste and makes no sense whatsoever fiscally, no matter how many people want to complain about it's inequity. For those who would tout such inequity as the basis of their argument against, they may as well complain about something ludicrous like the flat tax not being a thing; it's essentially the same principle. In the case of the latter, I very much doubt there would even be a marketing benefit; after all the people who make money well above the phase out as a rule aren't stupid and know that vis a vis the extra taxes they pay, that the benefit will either net to 0 or a negative.
 
imagep said:
It's a fact, not a fear, than automation increases productivity.

The best proof is the fact that despite the fact that American work hours decreased by 40% during the 20th century, our standard of living still increased more than in all the history of mankind put together.
Click to expand...

The average work week did not decline from 72 hours to 40 hours because of the benevolence of employers, but because of legislation passed by Democrat politicians, despite the Resistance of Republicans, to reduce the work week.

Due largely to the Reagan Counter Revolution, the nine to five job has become a pleasant memory. Now most employers require their employees to work from eight to five.

An excellent way to deal with unemployment would be to further reduce the work week, without reducing salaries. This would require more governmental intervention in the economy. If white working class Americans had reason to associate the Democratic Party with programs that helped them, the Democratic Party would once again dominate the United States, like it did from 1932 to 1980.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom