andrewducker (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2003-09-01 08:21 am
andrewducker) wrote2003-09-01 08:21 am
Robots and Income
All you people interested in a possible future of income, go and have a read of this.
In it the writer points out that increasing automation is basically going to create an unemployed class and that something is going to have to be done about this. He basically invents Citizen's Income, an idea I'm wholly in favour of. I sent him an email telling him that the idea had been invented numerous times before (with a few links) and some off the top of my head figures:
In my opinion, the best way to manage citizen's income is as a percentage of the median wage, and then tax _everyone_ at 50% of their wages (obviously you don't tax the citizen's income bit), simultaneously simplifying the taxation of individuals so that there are no fiddly exemptions.
Let's say that the median wage is $30,000 and citizen's income is set at 2/3 of that ($20,000).
if the person was earning nothing, then suddenly they're $20,000 better off.
If they were earning a low wage of $15,000, then they're now earning ($15,000/2 + $20,000 = )$27,500, a substantial rise.
A person on the median wage goes from $30,000 to $35,000.
A person on a high wage ($100,000) is now on $70,000.
And a person on a ridiculous wage ($1,000,000) is now on $520,000
All of these final figured should, of course, be compared to the current income _after tax_.
Of course, living in a country, as I do, with a 40% upper tax bracket, this seems perfectly reasonable to me. I'm not sure the average American is going to go for it, but it would certainly revolutionise the world - no more poor people, anywhere...
In it the writer points out that increasing automation is basically going to create an unemployed class and that something is going to have to be done about this. He basically invents Citizen's Income, an idea I'm wholly in favour of. I sent him an email telling him that the idea had been invented numerous times before (with a few links) and some off the top of my head figures:
In my opinion, the best way to manage citizen's income is as a percentage of the median wage, and then tax _everyone_ at 50% of their wages (obviously you don't tax the citizen's income bit), simultaneously simplifying the taxation of individuals so that there are no fiddly exemptions.
Let's say that the median wage is $30,000 and citizen's income is set at 2/3 of that ($20,000).
if the person was earning nothing, then suddenly they're $20,000 better off.
If they were earning a low wage of $15,000, then they're now earning ($15,000/2 + $20,000 = )$27,500, a substantial rise.
A person on the median wage goes from $30,000 to $35,000.
A person on a high wage ($100,000) is now on $70,000.
And a person on a ridiculous wage ($1,000,000) is now on $520,000
All of these final figured should, of course, be compared to the current income _after tax_.
Of course, living in a country, as I do, with a 40% upper tax bracket, this seems perfectly reasonable to me. I'm not sure the average American is going to go for it, but it would certainly revolutionise the world - no more poor people, anywhere...
no subject
"Personally, I don't think people have a right to take away money I earn fair and square, to give it to people who haven't earned it."
How much is fair? If your business nets you enough income to maintain a comfortable lifestyle, is that fair? If it nets enough to give you and ten other people a comfortable lifestyle, and you keep it all, is that fair?
By your rationale, you are implying that any monopoly is automatically fair, as they 'worked' to earn that money. So, effectively, the oil-cartels are 'fair'. Interesting notion.
Yes government mis-manages taxes. However, Andy is proposing a more utopian solution - a fairer taxation system, that is well managed by a (the) government. He's not just proposing "give more money to the government", he's proposing that it's used wisely. So, while I think what you said is true, I don't think it's part of the argument.
You raised the "Rowling" point. There are plenty of other authors out there struggling to make ends meet, who's output is far more plentiful if not as well received. Is this fair? Especially as it's 'art', and is therefore subjective? How much money does JK need? Regardless of how popular her works are, what does it acheive to have her soaking up money like that? How does society benefit? Why should she, who wrote novels for seven years, now be able to do whatever she likes for the rest of her life, while doctors and nurses and many other people who contribute health and safety to society will have to work till they are 60-70, to ensure they have enough money to be comfortable throughout their lives?
At the other end of the spectrum, while I'll happily pay more tax to see people off the streets, and a more balanced society, I wouldn't tolerate free-loaders. The £20,000 hand-out would definitely be conditional on behaviour deemed acceptable by society, and as mentioned elsewhere, utilising those people with less specific skills to do necessary menial tasks such as keeping the streets clean.
Capitalism is many things, but no one with the least bit of unselfishness could ever describe it as fair. It attracts me, and I'd love to earn millions and retire, but I still wouldn't consider it 'fair'. Fortunate, but not fair.
no subject
But yes, I think that so long as money is earned legally and ethically, it is fair. If every person in the world wants to feed their obsession with Rowling and give her money, let them. She, for whatever reason (because I haven't read her books, and if I do, will only buy them used, because I don't feel like giving her my money), makes people happy, she deserves it.
I, as a consumer, have the right to spend the money I earned however I want (so long as it is legal and not immoral). If I want to give it to you, or to Rowling, or to the poor, is my own choice. Who are you to say, that person has enough money, she's not allowed to sell books anymore?
My God, give people who work hard and create things that other people want the ability to achieve success, and you will see the benefits to society. How many people have been motivated to write, because they see her success? How many children have been motivated to read because they love her books? How much taxable income has been brought in, both nationally and internationally, by her success?
I absolutely hate the idea that financial success should be artificially limited. The closest that the world can come to being "fair" is to give everyone the same opportunity to succeed, and reward them when they do.
no subject
OK, JK gets all that money. What I was questioning is - what's she going to do with it? She can't possibly spend it all, therefore what good does it do her? Why does she need it? Where is the benefit in her having anything over a few dozen millions? So she can figure on the "rich-list"? What does that acheive?
Your attitude seems to be "Who cares? It hers." which frankly, I find astonishing. I find it astonishing that anyone can feel that way. While I think there are genuinely some wasters in the world, who take complete advantage, I think there are far more people who don't get the same opportunities as you and I, and are far less well off. These people deserve our pity, and I for one would welcome measures that would even things out, even though it meant I had slightly less.
You are way off topic on Andy's post anyway. Essentially, he says that the current minimum income for everyone is zero, and tax is too little. He suggests raising that minimum income to £20,000, that everyone (including JK) would be entitled to. Earnings above that (from the £10,000 a year admin job to JK's astronomical income) would be taxed at 50%. The rich would therefore stay richer than the poor, the overall wealth would just be more evenly distributed. All he's doing is moving the base-line from zero to £20,000. People who earn money would have more than those who earn none, therefore the incentive to work is still there. JK would still have more money than her contemporaries, as she can only pay tax on what she earns. If she pays more tax, it's because she earns more money, but she'll still be wealthier, as she pays the same proportion of tax.
I take it you don't think there should be a welfare system? Certainly, your attitude seems to be "every man for himself", which has always been my interpretation of "The American Dream". Why should I pay ANY taxes? After all, I earned it. In fact, we should privatise all amenities, and that way the people who can afford garbage collection can pay for it, and those who can't, well, too bad? How far would you be willing to take your opinion that if you work (hard or otherwise) for your money, you should keep it?
Andy didn't suggest anything too radical - increased income tax, for the eradication of poverty. In reality it would never work, but the theory is commendable.
You surprised me.
no subject
The positive impact is that your 'altruistic' benefits, such as kids being encouraged to read, would only be furthered as the books would be more affordable, and therefore more readily available to people with less means. Your comment regarding giving everyone in life the same opportunity - this is where it starts.
Take another 'creation' then - medicine. Should individuals and/or companies be able to create, say, a cure for Aids and then only sell it to those who can afford it? After all, their hard-work created it, so why shouldn't they control how they benefit from it?
no subject
no subject
I said that you had accused me of several things that I neither said nor implied. I believe that I stated in another part of this thread that I was actually for welfare, for instance, and I think that you saying that I have an "every man for himself" attitude is neither called for nor justified by my opinions stated here.
I believe you're wrong that becoming financially successful benefits only individuals, but in the face of the earlier accusations, which I found a bit too hot for a friendly discussion/debate, I don't really motivated to continue.
No hard feelings, though.
no subject
no subject