I and I's Road To Economic Recovery
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-11-2013, 09:54 PM
I and I's Road To Economic Recovery
(12-11-2013 07:46 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  You have some reasonable ideas, but they're all executed soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo poorly it makes them excruciatingly unrealistic.
Thought as for point 12, I know nothing about that.

Like take the junk food/fruit and veg. I completely agree that fruit and veg should be cheaper and junk food treated like alcohol and smokes where it's taxed heavily. But the way you wanna do it is just sooo shit.

It's like you have absolutely zero understanding of 1) money 2) how the economy works 3) money.

I'll give my opinion more in depth point by point a bit later because I think the points you raise aren't bad, just poorly executed.

Point 12 is a stupid rule in the US where once someone has student loan debt they can NEVER get out of that debt. Bankruptcy suits in the US cover everything but child support and student loan debt.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2013, 10:05 PM
RE: I and I's Road To Economic Recovery
So you want the government to spend lots of money on the people, but the government doesn't have any money except what it takes from the people (taxes) and what it prints. Since you want to slash tax revenue and increase spending, I assume this should be paid for by printing money. You do understand that this disproportionally harms the poor and middle-class, and radically alters the way people behave since they can no longer save and plan for the future and have to live for today?

As far as taxing "bad stuff", like junk food, everybody agrees taxing something discourages that thing, so taxing junk food would help reduce consumption of junk food, just like Europe's 400% tax on gas means people take public transport. And, frankly, that's better than the current mindset of taxing (ie discouraging) "good stuff".

Where you lose me is why you treat hiring 100 workers as "bad stuff", like junk food, that must be heavily taxed and discouraged. Say two guys make widgets. The first makes shitty widgets, and barely struggles to keep a business with 50 employees going. The second makes awesome widgets, and he can't keep up with production and wants to hire 10,000 workers. So because he's really good, he should be severely punished and forced into retirement or more likely driven out of the country to take his awesome widget business somewhere that he'll be appreciated, and then we will lose 10,000 jobs and Americans will have the choice of importing his awesome widgets and having a trade deficit, or buying the first guys shitty domestic widgets.

This is like reverse-social darwinism. Survival of the weakest, destruction of the fittest. Imagine the state we'd see in the world today with such a system where we kill off all the smartest and most talented. Oh wait, that happened.... Read about the Khmer Rouge, and the history of Cambodia to see how well that worked out. I have a good friend who is Cambodian, and you know, it didn't really work out so well for them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2013, 10:43 PM
I and I's Road To Economic Recovery
(12-11-2013 10:05 PM)frankksj Wrote:  So you want the government to spend lots of money on the people, but the government doesn't have any money except what it takes from the people (taxes) and what it prints. Since you want to slash tax revenue and increase spending, I assume this should be paid for by printing money. You do understand that this disproportionally harms the poor and middle-class, and radically alters the way people behave since they can no longer save and plan for the future and have to live for today?

As far as taxing "bad stuff", like junk food, everybody agrees taxing something discourages that thing, so taxing junk food would help reduce consumption of junk food, just like Europe's 400% tax on gas means people take public transport. And, frankly, that's better than the current mindset of taxing (ie discouraging) "good stuff".

Where you lose me is why you treat hiring 100 workers as "bad stuff", like junk food, that must be heavily taxed and discouraged. Say two guys make widgets. The first makes shitty widgets, and barely struggles to keep a business with 50 employees going. The second makes awesome widgets, and he can't keep up with production and wants to hire 10,000 workers. So because he's really good, he should be severely punished and forced into retirement or more likely driven out of the country to take his awesome widget business somewhere that he'll be appreciated, and then we will lose 10,000 jobs and Americans will have the choice of importing his awesome widgets and having a trade deficit, or buying the first guys shitty domestic widgets.

This is like reverse-social darwinism. Survival of the weakest, destruction of the fittest. Imagine the state we'd see in the world today with such a system where we kill off all the smartest and most talented. Oh wait, that happened.... Read about the Khmer Rouge, and the history of Cambodia to see how well that worked out. I have a good friend who is Cambodian, and you know, it didn't really work out so well for them.

Yes, if these were implemented it would phase out the necessity for a capitalist system and it's government, making it not practical to keep money concentrated into the government and corporate ( they are one in the same) hands.

There would be no restrictions on hiring more than 100 workers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2013, 10:44 PM
I and I's Road To Economic Recovery
(12-11-2013 10:05 PM)frankksj Wrote:  So you want the government to spend lots of money on the people, but the government doesn't have any money except what it takes from the people (taxes) and what it prints. Since you want to slash tax revenue and increase spending, I assume this should be paid for by printing money. You do understand that this disproportionally harms the poor and middle-class, and radically alters the way people behave since they can no longer save and plan for the future and have to live for today?

As far as taxing "bad stuff", like junk food, everybody agrees taxing something discourages that thing, so taxing junk food would help reduce consumption of junk food, just like Europe's 400% tax on gas means people take public transport. And, frankly, that's better than the current mindset of taxing (ie discouraging) "good stuff".

Where you lose me is why you treat hiring 100 workers as "bad stuff", like junk food, that must be heavily taxed and discouraged. Say two guys make widgets. The first makes shitty widgets, and barely struggles to keep a business with 50 employees going. The second makes awesome widgets, and he can't keep up with production and wants to hire 10,000 workers. So because he's really good, he should be severely punished and forced into retirement or more likely driven out of the country to take his awesome widget business somewhere that he'll be appreciated, and then we will lose 10,000 jobs and Americans will have the choice of importing his awesome widgets and having a trade deficit, or buying the first guys shitty domestic widgets.

This is like reverse-social darwinism. Survival of the weakest, destruction of the fittest. Imagine the state we'd see in the world today with such a system where we kill off all the smartest and most talented. Oh wait, that happened.... Read about the Khmer Rouge, and the history of Cambodia to see how well that worked out. I have a good friend who is Cambodian, and you know, it didn't really work out so well for them.

What does the Khmer Rouge have to do with this?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2013, 10:58 PM
RE: I and I's Road To Economic Recovery
(12-11-2013 09:54 PM)I and I Wrote:  
(12-11-2013 07:46 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  You have some reasonable ideas, but they're all executed soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo poorly it makes them excruciatingly unrealistic.
Thought as for point 12, I know nothing about that.

Like take the junk food/fruit and veg. I completely agree that fruit and veg should be cheaper and junk food treated like alcohol and smokes where it's taxed heavily. But the way you wanna do it is just sooo shit.

It's like you have absolutely zero understanding of 1) money 2) how the economy works 3) money.

I'll give my opinion more in depth point by point a bit later because I think the points you raise aren't bad, just poorly executed.

Point 12 is a stupid rule in the US where once someone has student loan debt they can NEVER get out of that debt. Bankruptcy suits in the US cover everything but child support and student loan debt.

Ok child support makes perfect sense. But student loans...?
Why?
Is it to stop students who just got out of university who virtually have nothing (no house, probably no car etc..) just file for bankruptcy and wipe their student loan??

Here student loans are interest free so it's not really an issue and you only have to pay it back once you're earning over a certain amount, about 35K a year or something.

Quote:Truthfully, I can barley afford food as is, junk food is a hella a lot cheaper. If good healthy food went down in price I'd be pretty fucking happy, versus everything going up.

Well it's not so much as taxing junk food as it is making fruit, veg and milk (people always forget milk, but it's expensive and good for you) and some breakfast cereals (the good for you stuff) and whole bread, all tax free.
And than you compensate the governments loss of tax income by making up the difference taxing junk food.

So it's basically shifting what's cheap and what's not.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2013, 11:26 PM
RE: I and I's Road To Economic Recovery
(12-11-2013 10:44 PM)I and I Wrote:  What does the Khmer Rouge have to do with this?

The Khmer Rouge shared your view that successful capitalists were evil, and everybody should be laborers. Naturally, the intellectuals, entrepreneurs, doctors, and, well, anybody educated, refused to cooperate. And, like all left-ist utopian visions, violence was used to force compliance, which meant that everybody with an education had to be killed so they'd have left a docile labor class. You can watch The Killing Fields, or better yet read about it, but I'll save you the trouble and skip to the end: it turned out very, very bad.

Also, when I pointed out that your solution means all successful companies would be driven out of the country. Google, Apple, Microsoft, and anybody who makes a product people want to buy, cannot serve their customers with <100 employees, and Bill Gates sure isn't going to slave around the clock to build Microsoft, like he did in the early days, if he knows he's going to hit a glass ceiling once he reaches a certain level of success. He'll just move to Singapore or something, and start the business there. You said "yes", implying this is your plan. I'm still confused how driving out all the companies that make awesome products, and keeping only the small companies that make stuff few people want to buy, is good for the country. It really does sound like the Khmer Rouge to me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2013, 11:28 PM
RE: I and I's Road To Economic Recovery
(12-11-2013 10:58 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Ok child support makes perfect sense. But student loans...?
Why?
Is it to stop students who just got out of university who virtually have nothing (no house, probably no car etc..) just file for bankruptcy and wipe their student loan??

Here student loans are interest free so it's not really an issue and you only have to pay it back once you're earning over a certain amount, about 35K a year or something.

Student loans in the US at one point not too long ago were entirely privately funded. As part of reforms a few decades ago, federal regulations attempted to make student loans more affordable by providing government guarantees to the banks who provided those loans, subsidizing some loans, and from time to time setting guidelines on interest rates. The government made these changes in the 1980s in order to manage the costs to the government for the loan guarantees.

The law seemed reasonable at the time. College grads 30 years ago typically only had a few thousand in student loans after graduating--certainly not financially ruinous if it couldn't be discharged in bankruptcy. The problem is, of course, that the law did not keep up with changes in the costs of college.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BryanS's post
12-11-2013, 11:43 PM
RE: I and I's Road To Economic Recovery
Mayor I and I "kissing hands and shaking babies"




Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2013, 11:44 PM
I and I's Road To Economic Recovery
(12-11-2013 11:26 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(12-11-2013 10:44 PM)I and I Wrote:  What does the Khmer Rouge have to do with this?

The Khmer Rouge shared your view that successful capitalists were evil, and everybody should be laborers. Naturally, the intellectuals, entrepreneurs, doctors, and, well, anybody educated, refused to cooperate. And, like all left-ist utopian visions, violence was used to force compliance, which meant that everybody with an education had to be killed so they'd have left a docile labor class. You can watch The Killing Fields, or better yet read about it, but I'll save you the trouble and skip to the end: it turned out very, very bad.

Also, when I pointed out that your solution means all successful companies would be driven out of the country. Google, Apple, Microsoft, and anybody who makes a product people want to buy, cannot serve their customers with <100 employees, and Bill Gates sure isn't going to slave around the clock to build Microsoft, like he did in the early days, if he knows he's going to hit a glass ceiling once he reaches a certain level of success. He'll just move to Singapore or something, and start the business there. You said "yes", implying this is your plan. I'm still confused how driving out all the companies that make awesome products, and keeping only the small companies that make stuff few people want to buy, is good for the country. It really does sound like the Khmer Rouge to me.

Capitalism had already driven out manufacturing. And no I don't care if someone dislikes his own countrymen enough to leave and take his company somewhere else. Nobody is making them stay or leave. You act as if there is something special about people like bill gates, as if without them life would be bad.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2013, 11:47 PM
RE: I and I's Road To Economic Recovery
Quote:1. Get rid of the income tax.

Nope. Unfair. Does away with a huge chunk of the governments tax revenue (here it's the biggest percentage of all tax revenue for the government).

I've tried to explain this several times to Dark Light, he has the same opinion as you, but he's small minded due to all the inbreeding. Better put a ' Tongue ' or he might take that the wrong way. Tongue

You use the services of the armed forces (they defend your oil, ehh I mean human liberties). You use the police, firemen, judicial etc... etc... etc...
You use all these services. Maybe not directly, such as you may not directly need the fire department right now but you may at some point. And the police force are in the community arresting criminals to protect you. Same with the judicial system, that's working to protect society aka you. The armed forces too. Etc..
THIS isn't measurable. ie: Frank doesn't use more police protection than you. He might we don't know, but you might use more fire services than him etc..

Income tax is the best way to pay for these things as it's the most fair. Everyone uses these services that make society tick and so everyone should have to pay for them. It's fair based on income because the more you have the more you have to lose.
ie: If North Korea invaded USA and took it over. If you have a $20million dollar mansion and $50mil in the bank and that's all seized, than that's a bigger loss than if you lost your $300,000 home and $200 in your savings account (for example). And so assuming you have a higher paying job to afford a $20mill mansion, you should pay higher taxes because you're using more of the services in society that keep society civil in the sense that you have more to lose.

If you get what I'm saying.


GST (Government service tax. Our version of your sales tax?????? the 15% tax they put on all goods) is a consumption tax and so is fair for the things it taxes.
ie: If you drive more you buy more petrol and as such pay more taxes that help maintain the roads.

Quote:2. Business that pay 20 dollars an hour at least to all it's employees will get no interest loans for 5 years.

No, stupid. Firstly, increasing minimum wage (which you are effectively trying to do) is pointless because companies up the price of their goods to compensate.
Second, increasing minimum wage can hurt small business. I think that's a weak argument but it can happen.

Thirdly, interest free loans are fucking stupid.
The interest is not a magical number, it represents risk. Why should I invest $50K in your risky business venture at 0% interest when I could buy near 100% safe government bonds at 5% interest???
Literally nobody, NOBODY would give out interest loans.

The only people that would give out interest free loans is the government, but even than they wouldn't either. Half of new business fail. That's money wasted.
It's waaay too expensive, it's waaay to risky and it's open to so so much abuse that it's beyond ridiculous. If I can get an interest free loan as a small business there's no reason NOT to take it. I could get it from the government, put it in the bank, collect interest for 5 years and than give it back to the government!!

It's a stupid idea. Interest free loans are doable.
Oh, and yes I know I said earlier my government gives out interest free student loans. It's stupid and it's costing the country HEAPS by fucktards that go to university, get a philosophy degree and than can't find fucking work so they fuck off to Australia. It's devaluing university degrees because every Dick and Harry has one.

Quote:4. Immediately begin roads, highways, rail line construction projects by hiring people who don't have a job.

With what money?
Sounds like glorified welfare to me.
Also, while we're on government employment. If the government is the only one that will give interest free loans, what incentive is there for the government to pay it's employees $20 an hour?

Quote:5. Free health care for people who enroll in a complex preventative care paid for by the government. If one doesn't want to enroll in this preventative care plan, then you get to swim with the insurance company sharks by your self.

Isn't that what Obamacare is doing?

And it's stupid. Healthcare should be run like here, or Scandinavia or Switzerland.
You don't sign up here, it's just free. If I break my leg I go to the hospital, they fix and I go home. No money exchanged. The hospital than bills the government and the government pays for me.
I pay for it out of my taxes (which are around the same as you Americans I might add before you claim we pay stupidly high taxes).

There's no stupidly pointless signing up and complicated insurance contracts.

Quote:6. Ration card, free vegetables, free fruits and free meat. Any other drug... I mean junk food you want to abuse, it's out of your pocket, from buying it, all the way to the diabetes check up with your private insurer.

Stupid.
This doesn't allow for supply and demand in the fruit and veg market. It'd make the industry inefficient as prices would be set, paid for by the government which again brings up the question of "with what money?".

Better to make fruit and veg (and whole grain bread and milk and certain breakfast cereals) tax free and make up the loss of tax revenue difference by taxing junk food.

Quote:7. Heavy graduating taxes on companies that make junk food.

Graduating how?
The bigger the company the bigger the tax???
What about Coke? They make coke (obviously) but they also own water companies (they own several here, small companies they've brought out). Water isn't junk food.

Better to do what I said in my last point.

Quote:8. Free teaching and medical degrees for people willing to work in poor areas.

I actually like this. And I think it's entirely doable.
Here the armed forces will pay for your degree but you have to work for them for X amount of years. If you stop working for them before that time you break the contract and get slammed with paying for the degree.
I think you could do the exact same with this.

Quote:9. End credit default swaps.

What are credit default swaps?

Quote:10. Stop all home foreclosures

I'm not knowledgeable on the foreclosure procedure at all.
I was never sure of what happened to the rest of the money.
ie: if you owed $1,000 on your half mill house and the bank foreclosures your home, do you get the other $499,000 when it sells or does the bank get the whole $500,000?

If you get the difference (total minus what you owe) than I think the foreclosure system is fair and works and am all for it.
If the bank get's all the money (ie: the whole $500,000 despite you only owing $1,000) than that is total bullshit and criminal.

Quote:11. Forgive all student loan debt.

Nope. Unfair on those that have paid it off.

Quote:12. End the completely stupid rule that student loans can't be covered in a bankruptcy.

yea, fair enough.

Quote:13. Heavy Graduating taxes on companies that hire more than 100 workers. The taxes will cease if the corporations are turned over to employee vote and controlled corporations.

Beyond stupid. I think Frank answered this well. It's punishment for success.
Tall poppy syndrome.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes earmuffs's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: