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
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.