Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I doubt talks of raising the minimum wage has much to do with any of this, really.

It has been the dream of the people running the show to automate everything that can possibly be automated. I don't think there is any real "ramping up" going on right now, and that's just a convenient political argument against raising the minimum wage.

Like it or not, this is the future. 12 years ago my salary was sent to India to pay 5 or 6 people with masters degrees to do much more work, and they lived like kings off of that pay. I'd be really surprised if more than 30% of what I used to do back then even requires any human input at all anymore.

These days, I can't even feel relatively safe that a manual labor job that can't be outsourced to another country is going to be around in another 5 or 10 years because of automation, or at least changing the entire way people shop online. Hell... even the trucks that haul all of our shit all over the country are going to be driving themselves in my lifetime.


I don't mean to sound like a Socialist, but I do think that given these advancements it is time to start legitimate discussions on a Universal Basic Income.

The only Democratic candidate I've heard talk about it is Andrew Yang. While he fully supports the UBI, he is against raising the minimum wage... Automation being one of the reasons. Another one being that a larger minimum wage equates to more taxes paid.

https://www.yang2020.com/policies/the-freedom-dividend/


EDIT: Incidentally, the amount of theft that occurs with scan and go is outrageous, but it was put in the budget beforehand. Low maintenance registers with a one time installation cost save a bundle over human employees and they don't get paid any benefits or call in sick.

You've got to remember that these corporations that are struggling don't really put any emphasis on customer service anymore. The quirks that present themselves, such as needing human input for the use of coupons or alcohol purchases aren't anything that they really care about. The only thing that matters in the end is the bottom line.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Starting with the "bottom line" comment: Apparently the installation of such dysfuncational self-scan machines caused SUCH a loss in sales that the manager was fired. I know that in THIS case it doesn't mean that automation can't work and won't increase, but this is one instance where it didn't.

ABOUT UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME (UBI): In a rational world, if goods aren't produced by people then access to goods shouldn't be tied to "work". That in fact was the end state that Marx predicted. HOWEVER, there is one giant barrier to UBI, and that is the fact that the USA buys a lot of its manufactured goods from abroad (where they are NOT produced by automation). That means that these other nations have to accept the dollar as credible payment, which means that when they bring these dollars back to the USA they have to be able to purchase something of equivalent value. With no manufacturing here, what are they going to purchase? More Treasuries? And what do those Treasuries get them? More paper money?

Who is going to issue this UBI? The government? Will it just add to the debt? Will the government then have to pay the Fed interest on this debt? And who pays for this interest? The taxpayers? Unless the tax structure is changed to take more money from the corporations and (especially) banks and other financialists, this will simply bleed the middle class, again.

The concept of UBI is just the government stepping in, one more time, to paper over the essential contradiction of capitalism, which is - as FREM explained - like one person at a poker table taking 10% of the money each round. Eventually, the table runs out of money. People have advocated for a long time (Keynes, FDR, GWB, Obama, AOC etc) that the government step in and inject more money into the system ... that's what happened in the last collapse. But that doesn't really solve the problem.

---

It should be noted that UBI would replace all other forms of welfare, at least by anybody I've heard seriously debate the topic.

No more food stamps. No more EIC.

Just a straight up $1,000 payment per month to every adult in the US, no matter what their financial situation.

It would be a tax free $12,000 per year to do with as you please. Most people couldn't live off of this and would still be required to work. However, the UBI has the benefit over other forms of welfare in that it doesn't dis-incentivize people from working.

As a personal example, I've talked about how when you're working at the lower rungs you face a lot of them. I make $4 more per hour now than I did working for K-Mart, with about the same amount of hours. On paper, this sounds great. But in the mean time, I lost $2,400 tax free in food stamps. So not only do I have to pay state, local and federal taxes on an extra $4,200 per year in income, but I lose $2,400 in tax free money for food.

I really didn't get much of a raise. Maybe $1 per hour?


And while low earners would be putting most of that toward necessities like rent and keeping the lights on, those that already find themselves with disposable income would be pumping $12,000 into the economy by buying shit they don't need. It's the reverse of trickle-down economics which is a huge failure.


Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I doubt talks of raising the minimum wage has much to do with any of this, really.

It has been the dream of the people running the show to automate everything that can possibly be automated. I don't think there is any real "ramping up" going on right now, and that's just a convenient political argument against raising the minimum wage.

Like it or not, this is the future. 12 years ago my salary was sent to India to pay 5 or 6 people with masters degrees to do much more work, and they lived like kings off of that pay. I'd be really surprised if more than 30% of what I used to do back then even requires any human input at all anymore.

These days, I can't even feel relatively safe that a manual labor job that can't be outsourced to another country is going to be around in another 5 or 10 years because of automation, or at least changing the entire way people shop online. Hell... even the trucks that haul all of our shit all over the country are going to be driving themselves in my lifetime.


I don't mean to sound like a Socialist, but I do think that given these advancements it is time to start legitimate discussions on a Universal Basic Income.

The only Democratic candidate I've heard talk about it is Andrew Yang. While he fully supports the UBI, he is against raising the minimum wage... Automation being one of the reasons. Another one being that a larger minimum wage equates to more taxes paid.

https://www.yang2020.com/policies/the-freedom-dividend/


EDIT: Incidentally, the amount of theft that occurs with scan and go is outrageous, but it was put in the budget beforehand. Low maintenance registers with a one time installation cost save a bundle over human employees and they don't get paid any benefits or call in sick.

You've got to remember that these corporations that are struggling don't really put any emphasis on customer service anymore. The quirks that present themselves, such as needing human input for the use of coupons or alcohol purchases aren't anything that they really care about. The only thing that matters in the end is the bottom line.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Starting with the "bottom line" comment: Apparently the installation of such dysfuncational self-scan machines caused SUCH a loss in sales that the manager was fired. I know that in THIS case it doesn't mean that automation can't work and won't increase, but this is one instance where it didn't.

ABOUT UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME (UBI): In a rational world, if goods aren't produced by people then access to goods shouldn't be tied to "work". That in fact was the end state that Marx predicted. HOWEVER, there is one giant barrier to UBI, and that is the fact that the USA buys a lot of its manufactured goods from abroad (where they are NOT produced by automation).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I doubt talks of raising the minimum wage has much to do with any of this, really.

It has been the dream of the people running the show to automate everything that can possibly be automated. I don't think there is any real "ramping up" going on right now, and that's just a convenient political argument against raising the minimum wage.

Like it or not, this is the future. 12 years ago my salary was sent to India to pay 5 or 6 people with masters degrees to do much more work, and they lived like kings off of that pay. I'd be really surprised if more than 30% of what I used to do back then even requires any human input at all anymore.

These days, I can't even feel relatively safe that a manual labor job that can't be outsourced to another country is going to be around in another 5 or 10 years because of automation, or at least changing the entire way people shop online. Hell... even the trucks that haul all of our shit all over the country are going to be driving themselves in my lifetime.


I don't mean to sound like a Socialist, but I do think that given these advancements it is time to start legitimate discussions on a Universal Basic Income.

The only Democratic candidate I've heard talk about it is Andrew Yang. While he fully supports the UBI, he is against raising the minimum wage... Automation being one of the reasons. Another one being that a larger minimum wage equates to more taxes paid.

https://www.yang2020.com/policies/the-freedom-dividend/


EDIT: Incidentally, the amount of theft that occurs with scan and go is outrageous, but it was put in the budget beforehand. Low maintenance registers with a one time installation cost save a bundle over human employees and they don't get paid any benefits or call in sick.

You've got to remember that these corporations that are struggling don't really put any emphasis on customer service anymore. The quirks that present themselves, such as needing human input for the use of coupons or alcohol purchases aren't anything that they really care about. The only thing that matters in the end is the bottom line.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Starting with the "bottom line" comment: Apparently the installation of such dysfuncational self-scan machines caused SUCH a loss in sales that the manager was fired. I know that in THIS case it doesn't mean that automation can't work and won't increase, but this is one instance where it didn't.

ABOUT UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME (UBI): In a rational world, if goods aren't produced by people then access to goods shouldn't be tied to "work". That in fact was the end state that Marx predicted. HOWEVER, there is one giant barrier to UBI, and that is the fact that the USA buys a lot of its manufactured goods from abroad (where they are NOT produced by automation). That means that these other nations have to accept the dollar as credible payment, which means that when they bring these dollars back to the USA they have to be able to purchase something of equivalent value. With no manufacturing here, what are they going to purchase? More Treasuries? And what do those Treasuries get them? More paper money?

Who is going to issue this UBI? The government? Will it just add to the debt? Will the government then have to pay the Fed interest on this debt? And who pays for this interest? The taxpayers? Unless the tax structure is changed to take more money from the corporations and (especially) banks and other financialists, this will simply bleed the middle class, again.

The concept of UBI is just the government stepping in, one more time, to paper over the essential contradiction of capitalism, which is - as FREM explained - like one person at a poker table taking 10% of the money each round. Eventually, the table runs out of money. People have advocated for a long time (Keynes, FDR, GWB, Obama, AOC etc) that the government step in and inject more money into the system ... that's what happened in the last collapse. But that doesn't really solve the problem.

---

It should be noted that UBI would replace all other forms of welfare, at least by anybody I've heard seriously debate the topic.

No more food stamps. No more EIC.

Just a straight up $1,000 payment per month to every adult in the US, no matter what their financial situation.

It would be a tax free $12,000 per year to do with as you please. Most people couldn't live off of this and would still be required to work. However, the UBI has the benefit over other forms of welfare in that it doesn't dis-incentivize people from working.

As a personal example, I've talked about how when you're working at the lower rungs you face a lot of them. I make $4 more per hour now than I did working for K-Mart, with about the same amount of hours. On paper, this sounds great. But in the mean time, I lost $2,400 tax free in food stamps. So not only do I have to pay state, local and federal taxes on an extra $4,200 per year in income, but I lose $2,400 in tax free money for food.

I really didn't get much of a raise. Maybe $1 per hour?


And while low earners would be putting most of that toward necessities like rent and keeping the lights on, those that already find themselves with disposable income would be pumping $12,000 into the economy by buying shit they don't need. It's the reverse of trickle-down economics which is a huge failure.


Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Pay taxes on $4,200 more income, leaving about 3,200 more in take-home. No more $2,400 Food Stamps, so $800 more effective take-home. If you worked 2,000 hours for the year, that's 40 cents per hour more. If you worked 1,500 hours per year, that's 53 cents per hour more.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
"Why shouldn't everybody order everything from Amazon?"

There are a few reasons why I prefer to shop locally - you get to walk away with your item that very day, instead of waiting for delivery; you get to inspect what you're buying, which is nice whether you're talking about apples or deckboards for example; and the store people get to know you so they'll order items for you from their suppliers you can't get online (products are sold to businesses that aren't sold directly retail). Plus it's nice to chitchat with people.

That said I sometimes use Amazon's inventory, and look online in general, to research products.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I doubt talks of raising the minimum wage has much to do with any of this, really.

It has been the dream of the people running the show to automate everything that can possibly be automated. I don't think there is any real "ramping up" going on right now, and that's just a convenient political argument against raising the minimum wage.

Like it or not, this is the future. 12 years ago my salary was sent to India to pay 5 or 6 people with masters degrees to do much more work, and they lived like kings off of that pay. I'd be really surprised if more than 30% of what I used to do back then even requires any human input at all anymore.

These days, I can't even feel relatively safe that a manual labor job that can't be outsourced to another country is going to be around in another 5 or 10 years because of automation, or at least changing the entire way people shop online. Hell... even the trucks that haul all of our shit all over the country are going to be driving themselves in my lifetime.


I don't mean to sound like a Socialist, but I do think that given these advancements it is time to start legitimate discussions on a Universal Basic Income.

The only Democratic candidate I've heard talk about it is Andrew Yang. While he fully supports the UBI, he is against raising the minimum wage... Automation being one of the reasons. Another one being that a larger minimum wage equates to more taxes paid.

https://www.yang2
020.com/policies/the-freedom-dividend/


EDIT: Incidentally, the amount of theft that occurs with scan and go is outrageous, but it was put in the budget beforehand. Low maintenance registers with a one time installation cost save a bundle over human employees and they don't get paid any benefits or call in sick.

You've got to remember that these corporations that are struggling don't really put any emphasis on customer service anymore. The quirks that present themselves, such as needing human input for the use of coupons or alcohol purchases aren't anything that they really care about. The only thing that matters in the end is the bottom line.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Starting with the "bottom line" comment: Apparently the installation of such dysfuncational self-scan machines caused SUCH a loss in sales that the manager was fired. I know that in THIS case it doesn't mean that automation can't work and won't increase, but this is one instance where it didn't.

ABOUT UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME (UBI): In a rational world, if goods aren't produced by people then access to goods shouldn't be tied to "work". That in fact was the end state that Marx predicted. HOWEVER, there is one giant barrier to UBI, and that is the fact that the USA buys a lot of its manufactured goods from abroad (where they are NOT produced by automation). That means that these other nations have to accept the dollar as credible payment, which means that when they bring these dollars back to the USA they have to be able to purchase something of equivalent value. With no manufacturing here, what are they going to purchase? More Treasuries? And what do those Treasuries get them? More paper money?

Who is going to issue this UBI? The government? Will it just add to the debt? Will the government then have to pay the Fed interest on this debt? And who pays for this interest? The taxpayers? Unless the tax structure is changed to take more money from the corporations and (especially) banks and other financialists, this will simply bleed the middle class, again.

The concept of UBI is just the government stepping in, one more time, to paper over the essential contradiction of capitalism, which is - as FREM explained - like one person at a poker table taking 10% of the money each round. Eventually, the table runs out of money. People have advocated for a long time (Keynes, FDR, GWB, Obama, AOC etc) that the government step in and inject more money into the system ... that's what happened in the last collapse. But that doesn't really solve the problem.

---

It should be noted that UBI would replace all other forms of welfare, at least by anybody I've heard seriously debate the topic.

No more food stamps. No more EIC.

Just a straight up $1,000 payment per month to every adult in the US, no matter what their financial situation.

It would be a tax free $12,000 per year to do with as you please. Most people couldn't live off of this and would still be required to work. However, the UBI has the benefit over other forms of welfare in that it doesn't dis-incentivize people from working.

As a personal example, I've talked about how when you're working at the lower rungs you face a lot of them. I make $4 more per hour now than I did working for K-Mart, with about the same amount of hours. On paper, this sounds great. But in the mean time, I lost $2,400 tax free in food stamps. So not only do I have to pay state, local and federal taxes on an extra $4,200 per year in income, but I lose $2,400 in tax free money for food.

I really didn't get much of a raise. Maybe $1 per hour?


And while low earners would be putting most of that toward necessities like rent and keeping the lights on, those that already find themselves with disposable income would be pumping $12,000 into the economy by buying shit they don't need. It's the reverse of trickle-down economics which is a huge failure.


Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Pay taxes on $4,200 more income, leaving about 3,200 more in take-home. No more $2,400 Food Stamps, so $800 more effective take-home. If you worked 2,000 hours for the year, that's 40 cents per hour more. If you worked 1,500 hours per year, that's 53 cents per hour more.

---

Well... I only paid FED taxes on 3,500 of it, so $350 there. Another roughly 8% for SSI/Medicare and roughly 5.5% for state and local for 13.5% of the whole $4,200 comes out to $567. $917. Yup... that sucks.

Forgot to mention that I lost my EIC payment of $300 that I used to get at the old job too.

So, -$1,200 in the tax differences, and the $2,400 of tax free food stamps for a whopping $600 extra in my pocket with the $4 more an hour I'm making now.

I work roughly 1,300 hours per year for that.

So around 46 cents per hour I get to pocket out of that $4 more per hour I earn at this job.



Anybody else see the problem here?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
I'm not ignoring this thread or the discussions (or your posts Jack), but I'm rationing my inet time since I have a lot to do. YAY retirement but only the first week felt like vacation. After that all the stuff I failed to get done while employed started pestering my mind.

More about the wonders of US foreign policy:
The International Criminal Court abandoned an Afghanistan war-crimes inquiry that could have implicated American forces.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/12/world/asia/icc-afghanistan-.html]

---

Shoo comrade troll.

Too RUE, bitterly regret (something one has done or allowed to happen). I guess the fact that you've become a troll who trolls America weighs heavily on your mind, hey comrade? Or is it because you come from a second rate country?



T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THG:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
I'm not ignoring this thread or the discussions (or your posts Jack), but I'm rationing my inet time since I have a lot to do. YAY retirement but only the first week felt like vacation. After that all the stuff I failed to get done while employed started pestering my mind.

More about the wonders of US foreign policy:
The International Criminal Court abandoned an Afghanistan war-crimes inquiry that could have implicated American forces.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/12/world/asia/icc-afghanistan-.html]

---

Shoo comrade troll.

Too RUE, bitterly regret (something one has done or allowed to happen). I guess the fact that you've become a troll who trolls America weighs heavily on your mind, hey comrade? Or is it because you come from a second rate country?



T

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
"Why shouldn't everybody order everything from Amazon?"

There are a few reasons why I prefer to shop locally - you get to walk away with your item that very day, instead of waiting for delivery; you get to inspect what you're buying, which is nice whether you're talking about apples or deckboards for example; and the store people get to know you so they'll order items for you from their suppliers you can't get online (products are sold to businesses that aren't sold directly retail). Plus it's nice to chitchat with people.

That said I sometimes use Amazon's inventory, and look online in general, to research products.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Everything that you said: you must be old.

---

Quote:

---

How are you going to explain any of that to the new waves of anti-social kids?
Chitchat? How does that go over with peeps who text each other while sitting next to each other, in Virtual Conversation? Or peeps who sit at a table of others, or a table for 2, while texting others? Imagine a few years ago, when more visitors were at this site - what if 2 of us were sitting next to each other while exchanging posts on this Virtual Bulletin Board. Not even including sockpuppets.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Don't feel bad, you only had 88.5% of your additional pay confiscated through Taxation, and you didn't need to work extra for it. For folk who worked a lot harder for more pay, they used to have 90% of it confiscated - that was the top Marginal Tax Rate, clearly defined in the Tax Code, no extra calculations like yours to understand.

This is why our Tax system is the least progressive of the options.

Maybe you should revisit the Consumption Tax with a fresh mind. That is the most progressive Taxation available. With most of your spending, on non-luxury transportation, grocery, housing/upkeep, medical/dental, could be untaxed depending upon your Local Tax Laws. So you would have paid no additional Fed Taxes on your additional income. But your interwebs costs and all of those Cinema trips you make would have likely been taxed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I doubt talks of raising the minimum wage has much to do with any of this, really.

It has been the dream of the people running the show to automate everything that can possibly be automated. I don't think there is any real "ramping up" going on right now, and that's just a convenient political argument against raising the minimum wage.

Like it or not, this is the future. 12 years ago my salary was sent to India to pay 5 or 6 people with masters degrees to do much more work, and they lived like kings off of that pay. I'd be really surprised if more than 30% of what I used to do back then even requires any human input at all anymore.

These days, I can't even feel relatively safe that a manual labor job that can't be outsourced to another country is going to be around in another 5 or 10 years because of automation, or at least changing the entire way people shop online. Hell... even the trucks that haul all of our shit all over the country are going to be driving themselves in my lifetime.


I don't mean to sound like a Socialist, but I do think that given these advancements it is time to start legitimate discussions on a Universal Basic Income.

The only Democratic candidate I've heard talk about it is Andrew Yang. While he fully supports the UBI, he is against raising the minimum wage... Automation being one of the reasons. Another one being that a larger minimum wage equates to more taxes paid.

https://www.yang2
020.com/policies/the-freedom-dividend/


EDIT: Incidentally, the amount of theft that occurs with scan and go is outrageous, but it was put in the budget beforehand. Low maintenance registers with a one time installation cost save a bundle over human employees and they don't get paid any benefits or call in sick.

You've got to remember that these corporations that are struggling don't really put any emphasis on customer service anymore. The quirks that present themselves, such as needing human input for the use of coupons or alcohol purchases aren't anything that they really care about. The only thing that matters in the end is the bottom line.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Starting with the "bottom line" comment: Apparently the installation of such dysfuncational self-scan machines caused SUCH a loss in sales that the manager was fired. I know that in THIS case it doesn't mean that automation can't work and won't increase, but this is one instance where it didn't.

ABOUT UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME (UBI): In a rational world, if goods aren't produced by people then access to goods shouldn't be tied to "work". That in fact was the end state that Marx predicted. HOWEVER, there is one giant barrier to UBI, and that is the fact that the USA buys a lot of its manufactured goods from abroad (where they are NOT produced by automation). That means that these other nations have to accept the dollar as credible payment, which means that when they bring these dollars back to the USA they have to be able to purchase something of equivalent value. With no manufacturing here, what are they going to purchase? More Treasuries? And what do those Treasuries get them? More paper money?

Who is going to issue this UBI? The government? Will it just add to the debt? Will the government then have to pay the Fed interest on this debt? And who pays for this interest? The taxpayers? Unless the tax structure is changed to take more money from the corporations and (especially) banks and other financialists, this will simply bleed the middle class, again.

The concept of UBI is just the government stepping in, one more time, to paper over the essential contradiction of capitalism, which is - as FREM explained - like one person at a poker table taking 10% of the money each round. Eventually, the table runs out of money. People have advocated for a long time (Keynes, FDR, GWB, Obama, AOC etc) that the government step in and inject more money into the system ... that's what happened in the last collapse. But that doesn't really solve the problem.

---

It should be noted that UBI would replace all other forms of welfare, at least by anybody I've heard seriously debate the topic.

No more food stamps. No more EIC.

Just a straight up $1,000 payment per month to every adult in the US, no matter what their financial situation.

It would be a tax free $12,000 per year to do with as you please. Most people couldn't live off of this and would still be required to work. However, the UBI has the benefit over other forms of welfare in that it doesn't dis-incentivize people from working.

As a personal example, I've talked about how when you're working at the lower rungs you face a lot of them. I make $4 more per hour now than I did working for K-Mart, with about the same amount of hours. On paper, this sounds great. But in the mean time, I lost $2,400 tax free in food stamps. So not only do I have to pay state, local and federal taxes on an extra $4,200 per year in income, but I lose $2,400 in tax free money for food.

I really didn't get much of a raise. Maybe $1 per hour?


And while low earners would be putting most of that toward necessities like rent and keeping the lights on, those that already find themselves with disposable income would be pumping $12,000 into the economy by buying shit they don't need. It's the reverse of trickle-down economics which is a huge failure.


Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Pay taxes on $4,200 more income, leaving about 3,200 more in take-home. No more $2,400 Food Stamps, so $800 more effective take-home. If you worked 2,000 hours for the year, that's 40 cents per hour more. If you worked 1,500 hours per year, that's 53 cents per hour more.

---

Well... I only paid FED taxes on 3,500 of it, so $350 there. Another roughly 8% for SSI/Medicare and roughly 5.5% for state and local for 13.5% of the whole $4,200 comes out to $567. $917. Yup... that sucks.

Forgot to mention that I lost my EIC payment of $300 that I used to get at the old job too.

So, -$1,200 in the tax differences, and the $2,400 of tax free food stamps for a whopping $600 extra in my pocket with the $4 more an hour I'm making now.

I work roughly 1,300 hours per year for that.

So around 46 cents per hour I get to pocket out of that $4 more per hour I earn at this job.



Anybody else see the problem here?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

You are really moving up in the world.

Don't feel bad, you only had 88.5% of your additional pay confiscated through Taxation, and you didn't need to work extra for it. For folk who worked a lot harder for more pay, they used to have 90% of it confiscated - that was the top Marginal Tax Rate, clearly defined in the Tax Code, no extra calculations like yours to understand.

This is why our Tax system is the least progressive of the options.

Maybe you should revisit the Consumption Tax with a fresh mind. That is the most progressive Taxation available. With most of your spending, on non-luxury transportation, grocery, housing/upkeep, medical/dental, could be untaxed depending upon your Local Tax Laws. So you would have paid no additional Fed Taxes on your additional income. But your interwebs costs and all of those Cinema trips you make would have likely been taxed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:

Quote:

---

Originally posted:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
I'm not ignoring this thread or the discussions (or your posts Jack), but I'm rationing my inet time since I have a lot to do. YAY retirement but only the first week felt like vacation. After that all the stuff I failed to get done while employed started pestering my mind.

More about the wonders of US foreign policy:
The International Criminal Court abandoned an Afghanistan war-crimes inquiry that could have implicated American forces.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/12/world/asia/icc-afghanistan-.html

---

Shoo comrade troll.

Too RUE, bitterly regret (something one has done or allowed to happen). I guess the fact that you've become a troll who trolls America weighs heavily on your mind, hey comrade? Or is it because you come from a second rate country?

T

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
"Why shouldn't everybody order everything from Amazon?"

There are a few reasons why I prefer to shop locally - you get to walk away with your item that very day, instead of waiting for delivery; you get to inspect what you're buying, which is nice whether you're talking about apples or deckboards for example; and the store people get to know you so they'll order items for you from their suppliers you can't get online (products are sold to businesses that aren't sold directly retail). Plus it's nice to chitchat with people.

That said I sometimes use Amazon's inventory, and look online in general, to research products.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Everything that you said: you must be old.

---

That's an impertinent comment, you young whippersnapper! I'm also impatient. If I'm working on something and I need an item, I want to just get it and continue working, not have to wait for delivery. And if it's something I'm planning - you know, you can look at all the online photos, descriptions, and reviews you want, but it's not like looking at the real thing.

Quote:

---

How are you going to explain any of that to the new waves of anti-social kids?
Chitchat? How does that go over with peeps who text each other while sitting next to each other, in Virtual Conversation? Or peeps who sit at a table of others, or a table for 2, while texting others? Imagine a few years ago, when more visitors were at this site - what if 2 of us were sitting next to each other while exchanging posts on this Virtual Bulletin Board. Not even including sockpuppets.

---

Basically, I'm antisocial, but I discovered way back in my pre-teens that having good social relations lets you in on a larger, more exciting world.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I doubt talks of raising the minimum wage has much to do with any of this, really.

It has been the dream of the people running the show to automate everything that can possibly be automated. I don't think there is any real "ramping up" going on right now, and that's just a convenient political argument against raising the minimum wage.

Like it or not, this is the future. 12 years ago my salary was sent to India to pay 5 or 6 people with masters degrees to do much more work, and they lived like kings off of that pay. I'd be really surprised if more than 30% of what I used to do back then even requires any human input at all anymore.

These days, I can't even feel relatively safe that a manual labor job that can't be outsourced to another country is going to be around in another 5 or 10 years because of automation, or at least changing the entire way people shop online. Hell... even the trucks that haul all of our shit all over the country are going to be driving themselves in my lifetime.


I don't mean to sound like a Socialist, but I do think that given these advancements it is time to start legitimate discussions on a Universal Basic Income.

The only Democratic candidate I've heard talk about it is Andrew Yang. While he fully supports the UBI, he is against raising the minimum wage... Automation being one of the reasons. Another one being that a larger minimum wage equates to more taxes paid.

https://www.yang2
020.com/policies/the-freedom-dividend/


EDIT: Incidentally, the amount of theft that occurs with scan and go is outrageous, but it was put in the budget beforehand. Low maintenance registers with a one time installation cost save a bundle over human employees and they don't get paid any benefits or call in sick.

You've got to remember that these corporations that are struggling don't really put any emphasis on customer service anymore. The quirks that present themselves, such as needing human input for the use of coupons or alcohol purchases aren't anything that they really care about. The only thing that matters in the end is the bottom line.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Starting with the "bottom line" comment: Apparently the installation of such dysfuncational self-scan machines caused SUCH a loss in sales that the manager was fired. I know that in THIS case it doesn't mean that automation can't work and won't increase, but this is one instance where it didn't.

ABOUT UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME (UBI): In a rational world, if goods aren't produced by people then access to goods shouldn't be tied to "work". That in fact was the end state that Marx predicted. HOWEVER, there is one giant barrier to UBI, and that is the fact that the USA buys a lot of its manufactured goods from abroad (where they are NOT produced by automation). That means that these other nations have to accept the dollar as credible payment, which means that when they bring these dollars back to the USA they have to be able to purchase something of equivalent value. With no manufacturing here, what are they going to purchase? More Treasuries? And what do those Treasuries get them? More paper money?

Who is going to issue this UBI? The government? Will it just add to the debt? Will the government then have to pay the Fed interest on this debt? And who pays for this interest? The taxpayers? Unless the tax structure is changed to take more money from the corporations and (especially) banks and other financialists, this will simply bleed the middle class, again.

The concept of UBI is just the government stepping in, one more time, to paper over the essential contradiction of capitalism, which is - as FREM explained - like one person at a poker table taking 10% of the money each round. Eventually, the table runs out of money. People have advocated for a long time (Keynes, FDR, GWB, Obama, AOC etc) that the government step in and inject more money into the system ... that's what happened in the last collapse. But that doesn't really solve the problem.

---

It should be noted that UBI would replace all other forms of welfare, at least by anybody I've heard seriously debate the topic.

No more food stamps. No more EIC.

Just a straight up $1,000 payment per month to every adult in the US, no matter what their financial situation.

It would be a tax free $12,000 per year to do with as you please. Most people couldn't live off of this and would still be required to work. However, the UBI has the benefit over other forms of welfare in that it doesn't dis-incentivize people from working.

As a personal example, I've talked about how when you're working at the lower rungs you face a lot of them. I make $4 more per hour now than I did working for K-Mart, with about the same amount of hours. On paper, this sounds great. But in the mean time, I lost $2,400 tax free in food stamps. So not only do I have to pay state, local and federal taxes on an extra $4,200 per year in income, but I lose $2,400 in tax free money for food.

I really didn't get much of a raise. Maybe $1 per hour?


And while low earners would be putting most of that toward necessities like rent and keeping the lights on, those that already find themselves with disposable income would be pumping $12,000 into the economy by buying shit they don't need. It's the reverse of trickle-down economics which is a huge failure.


Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Pay taxes on $4,200 more income, leaving about 3,200 more in take-home. No more $2,400 Food Stamps, so $800 more effective take-home. If you worked 2,000 hours for the year, that's 40 cents per hour more. If you worked 1,500 hours per year, that's 53 cents per hour more.

---

Well... I only paid FED taxes on 3,500 of it, so $350 there. Another roughly 8% for SSI/Medicare and roughly 5.5% for state and local for 13.5% of the whole $4,200 comes out to $567. $917. Yup... that sucks.

Forgot to mention that I lost my EIC payment of $300 that I used to get at the old job too.

So, -$1,200 in the tax differences, and the $2,400 of tax free food stamps for a whopping $600 extra in my pocket with the $4 more an hour I'm making now.

I work roughly 1,300 hours per year for that.

So around 46 cents per hour I get to pocket out of that $4 more per hour I earn at this job.



Anybody else see the problem here?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

You are really moving up in the world.

Don't feel bad, you only had 88.5% of your additional pay confiscated through Taxation, and you didn't need to work extra for it. For folk who worked a lot harder for more pay, they used to have 90% of it confiscated - that was the top Marginal Tax Rate, clearly defined in the Tax Code, no extra calculations like yours to understand.

This is why our Tax system is the least progressive of the options.

Maybe you should revisit the Consumption Tax with a fresh mind. That is the most progressive Taxation available. With most of your spending, on non-luxury transportation, grocery, housing/upkeep, medical/dental, could be untaxed depending upon your Local Tax Laws. So you would have paid no additional Fed Taxes on your additional income. But your interwebs costs and all of those Cinema trips you make would have likely been taxed.

---

Are you kidding me? I made $15.3k vs $11k, and only pocketed $600 difference.

88.5% of nothin' turns out to actually be a lot in this instance. That tax fuckery for the lowest earners turned out to be 20% of my virtual non-existent take home pay last year.

On the plus side, this little exercise opened my eyes. I have even more incentive to jump ship if I don't like the switch to days. They pushed out my store manager and moved a real asshole in the position this week. Not a chance in hell I'm sticking around there if it turns out I don't like the job when all I have to do is find a job making $9/hour and get back on food stamps and just about break even.

Shit... I must have spent a lot on cheap beer. I hardly saved anything working at KMart. Turns out I can't blame the pay scale for that one.


Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Impertinent yes. Trying to emulate one of the Trolls who 'splained that words and definitions are only for us old fogeys, ways of the soon to be forgotten.

---

Quote:

---

Non-Virtual intercourse prolly not as exciting as more better pixels in your text.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Impertinent yes. Trying to emulate one of the Trolls who 'splained that words and definitions are only for us old fogeys, ways of the soon to be forgotten.

---

Well, I like my old fogey ways. And if they die with me - I won't be in a position to care!

Quote:

---

Non-Virtual intercourse prolly not as exciting as more better pixels in your text.

---

Non-Virtual intercourse is to pixels as a da Vinci is to a cartoon. But I suppose if you don't like nuance and have to be hit over the head with fake emoticons expressing fake emotions digital is OK.

Well, back to looking up emergency equipment, supplies, and treatment. It's just tedious so I'm taking breaks.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Don't feel bad, you only had 88.5% of your additional pay confiscated through Taxation, and you didn't need to work extra for it. For folk who worked a lot harder for more pay, they used to have 90% of it confiscated - that was the top Marginal Tax Rate, clearly defined in the Tax Code, no extra calculations like yours to understand.

This is why our Tax system is the least progressive of the options.

Maybe you should revisit the Consumption Tax with a fresh mind. That is the most progressive Taxation available. With most of your spending, on non-luxury transportation, grocery, housing/upkeep, medical/dental, could be untaxed depending upon your Local Tax Laws. So you would have paid no additional Fed Taxes on your additional income. But your interwebs costs and all of those Cinema trips you make would have likely been taxed.

---

I'm sorry, but NOBODY produces enough through work to make $1m a year. Or even $0.5m. But that's the difference between 'income', which doesn't care how you get your money (you could even be robbing people), and wages.
And Consumption Tax if implemented as a sales tax is the most regressive unless a complicated system of exemptions, sliding scales, rebates etc are used.
Perhaps we shouldn't tax income based on hourly wages, and only tax non-wage income.

Anyway, back to looking into hemostatic v pressure bandages.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Consumption Tax is the least regressive, the most progressive.

When the taxable items are copying the existing Taxation structure of the State, it merely piggybacks on the Taxation apparatus already existing.
If your local Laws have Tax-exempt status for groceries, education, non-luxury housing, transportation, medical/dental, then those spendings will continue to be untaxed. If you choose to live where those non-luxury items are taxed, then your Local Politicians are going to be far more responsive to reasonable changes in status.

The lowest income earners spend the vast majority of their funds on these items which can be tax-exempt.
The highest income earners are going to have the highest percentage of their spending on taxable items. Even if they eat nothing but lobster and steak at home, how much can they really spend on just groceries? All of their luxury spending gets taxed.

When the lowest income people pay taxes on the smallest amount of their expenses, and the highest earners pay taxes on the largest amount of their expenses, that is the most progressive, the least regressive.
And no more complicated than what is already in place now. What is now taxable can remain taxable, what is now tax-exempt can remain tax-exempt. If the Taxpayers are currently happy with paying taxes on each little item, then they can continue to do the same.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Consumption Tax is the least regressive, the most progressive.

When the taxable items are copying the existing Taxation structure of the State, it merely piggybacks on the Taxation apparatus already existing.
If your local Laws have Tax-exempt status for groceries, education, non-luxury housing, transportation, medical/dental, then those spendings will continue to be untaxed. If you choose to live where those non-luxury items are taxed, then your Local Politicians are going to be far more responsive to reasonable changes in status.

The lowest income earners spend the vast majority of their funds on these items which can be tax-exempt.
The highest income earners are going to have the highest percentage of their spending on taxable items. Even if they eat nothing but lobster and steak at home, how much can they really spend on just groceries? All of their luxury spending gets taxed.

When the lowest income people pay taxes on the smallest amount of their expenses, and the highest earners pay taxes on the largest amount of their expenses, that is the most progressive, the least regressive.
And no more complicated than what is already in place now. What is now taxable can remain taxable, what is now tax-exempt can remain tax-exempt. If the Taxpayers are currently happy with paying taxes on each little item, then they can continue to do the same.

---

The basic idea is the same as trickle-down - that rich people will spend (or invest) us into prosperity. It doesn't work. Rich people neither invest nor spend everything they have. A substantial portion of their wealth is locked away from circulation.
The other idea I've found doesn't work in real life is the idea that the closer the government, the more representative it'll be. From watching real life in the surrounding cities and local agencies, I've seen that everyday people are too pressed by life to actively participate in local government. Instead, the wealthy and the businesses have the spare time and money to hound the planning commissions, the regulators, the service providers etc on a daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly basis. When, for example, there's a local regulation or fee being considered the businesses will be literally lined up at the local government's door, ready to whine and threaten as long as necessary. I have literally NEVER seen a people-initiated change being considered. And I spent a couple of years on one of my city's commissions, made presentations re zoning to the city council, and worked for a government agency.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Consumption Tax is the least regressive, the most progressive.

When the taxable items are copying the existing Taxation structure of the State, it merely piggybacks on the Taxation apparatus already existing.
If your local Laws have Tax-exempt status for groceries, education, non-luxury housing, transportation, medical/dental, then those spendings will continue to be untaxed. If you choose to live where those non-luxury items are taxed, then your Local Politicians are going to be far more responsive to reasonable changes in status.

The lowest income earners spend the vast majority of their funds on these items which can be tax-exempt.
The highest income earners are going to have the highest percentage of their spending on taxable items. Even if they eat nothing but lobster and steak at home, how much can they really spend on just groceries? All of their luxury spending gets taxed.

When the lowest income people pay taxes on the smallest amount of their expenses, and the highest earners pay taxes on the largest amount of their expenses, that is the most progressive, the least regressive.
And no more complicated than what is already in place now. What is now taxable can remain taxable, what is now tax-exempt can remain tax-exempt. If the Taxpayers are currently happy with paying taxes on each little item, then they can continue to do the same.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
The basic idea is the same as trickle-down - that rich people will spend (or invest) us into prosperity. It doesn't work. Rich people neither invest nor spend everything they have. A substantial portion of their wealth is locked away from circulation.
The other idea I've found doesn't work in real life is the idea that the closer the government, the more representative it'll be. From watching real life in the surrounding cities and local agencies, I've seen that everyday people are too pressed by life to actively participate in local government. Instead, the wealthy and the businesses have the spare time and money to hound the planning commissions, the regulators, the service providers etc on a daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly basis. When, for example, there's a local regulation or fee being considered the businesses will be literally lined up at the local government's door, ready to whine and threaten as long as necessary. I have literally NEVER seen a people-initiated change being considered. And I spent a couple of years on one of my city's commissions, made presentations re zoning to the city council, and worked for a government agency.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Your claim that middle class or upper or high income earners or wealthy will spend the same amount on yachts, mansions, fine dining, Escalades, Ivy League Schools, Private Schools, cottages, nannies, and Country Clubs as ultra-poor and poverty level earners is preposterous and falls on its face.

Are you not in CA? That Proposition 8 or whatever that allows Citizens to reverse Laws directly is the worst thing around, and grotesquely applied to the worst cases.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Consumption Tax is the least regressive, the most progressive.

When the taxable items are copying the existing Taxation structure of the State, it merely piggybacks on the Taxation apparatus already existing.
If your local Laws have Tax-exempt status for groceries, education, non-luxury housing, transportation, medical/dental, then those spendings will continue to be untaxed. If you choose to live where those non-luxury items are taxed, then your Local Politicians are going to be far more responsive to reasonable changes in status.

The lowest income earners spend the vast majority of their funds on these items which can be tax-exempt.
The highest income earners are going to have the highest percentage of their spending on taxable items. Even if they eat nothing but lobster and steak at home, how much can they really spend on just groceries? All of their luxury spending gets taxed.

When the lowest income people pay taxes on the smallest amount of their expenses, and the highest earners pay taxes on the largest amount of their expenses, that is the most progressive, the least regressive.
And no more complicated than what is already in place now. What is now taxable can remain taxable, what is now tax-exempt can remain tax-exempt. If the Taxpayers are currently happy with paying taxes on each little item, then they can continue to do the same.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
The basic idea is the same as trickle-down - that rich people will spend (or invest) us into prosperity. It doesn't work. Rich people neither invest nor spend everything they have. A substantial portion of their wealth is locked away from circulation.
The other idea I've found doesn't work in real life is the idea that the closer the government, the more representative it'll be. From watching real life in the surrounding cities and local agencies, I've seen that everyday people are too pressed by life to actively participate in local government. Instead, the wealthy and the businesses have the spare time and money to hound the planning commissions, the regulators, the service providers etc on a daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly basis. When, for example, there's a local regulation or fee being considered the businesses will be literally lined up at the local government's door, ready to whine and threaten as long as necessary. I have literally NEVER seen a people-initiated change being considered. And I spent a couple of years on one of my city's commissions, made presentations re zoning to the city council, and worked for a government agency.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Your claim that middle class or upper or high income earners or wealthy will spend the same amount on yachts, mansions, fine dining, Escalades, Ivy League Schools, Private Schools, cottages, nannies, and Country Clubs as ultra-poor and poverty level earners is preposterous and falls on its face.

Are you not in CA? That Proposition 8 or whatever that allows Citizens to reverse Laws directly is the worst thing around, and grotesquely applied to the worst cases.

---

I'm completely baffled by your reply! Something went wrong. I hope we can pick this up tomorrow.

I'm working on x-mas gifts - disaster first aid / emergency / survival kits. I USED to be a licensed EMT, so I'm using my knowledge to create efficient kits. Everything should have more than 1 use or be easy to MacGyver. For example, weak tincture of iodine works as an antiseptic, water purifier, and radiation prophylaxis. Emergency blankets are good for shock, warmth in cold weather, sun shelter, and signaling. So I'm sorry if it makes me sound arrogant, but I look at the commercial first aid kits and I snicker. I can do better. You don't need a gazzillion band-aids in 20 sizes. When a disaster strikes you need things that will keep you and your family alive when help might not get to you for a week. That's what I'm working on. Ah ... retirement! One has the time to do all sorts of things!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Trickle Down is completely unrelated, as far as I can tell. It sounds like you are not paying attention, and also might never.


Also, I forgot Retirement and Savings - both of which are usually not taxed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Tax short-term capital gains 75%. You're not "working" or adding anything to the economy when you plunk some cash into the stock market/tech/real estate/precious metal/unicorn farts roulette wheel for a nonosecond or three, and have your speculative move pay off.

What we should be taxing is what's called the "rentier" economy: Money gathered through the sheer fact of ownership. Doesn't matter if what you own is a zinc mine or rental units or an bank or a stock or a painting.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
They forced you to switch to days?

---

Quote:

---

Do they still have a night shift doing what you did?

---

Quote:

---

Do they still have the same number of employees doing the tasks that you do?

---

Quote:

---

Are you thinking of doing that bike assembly job, for lots more money?

---

Quote:

---

And you might have caught on to the point.
For those facing the Marginal Tax Rate of 90%, that means making
another $4,200 results in $420 of more Take-Home pay.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Trickle Down is completely unrelated, as far as I can tell. It sounds like you are not paying attention, and also might never.


Also, I forgot Retirement and Savings - both of which are usually not taxed.

---

Consumption tax is INHERENTLY regressive. One has to do many 'things' to it to try to make it not so. But on a percentage basis, it seems unavoidable that poorer people will still spend a larger portion of their income on consumption tax, on everyday small 'luxuries', than a rich person will spend on their cars or yachts.

---

Quote:

---

TV other than free on-air? Sounds like a luxury to me. Soda? Chips? Luxuries. Fast food 'restaurant' meals? Luxuries. Cat food for your pet? A luxury. And so on.

---

Quote:

---

Wealthy people OTOH won't pay nearly the percentage of their income on consumption tax because they simply don't spend as big a portion of their income. You've said so yourself. Poor people spend every last dime, rich people don't.
So, just to be clear, I'm talking about proportion of income whose spending will go to luxury tax. That's what makes it regressive.

I likened it to trickle down only because they both rely on fictional behavior of rich people. In trickle down, the fictional behavior is that when they have 'enough' money they'll start investing in production just because they feel like it, and so prices will come down. No one apparently thought to question why a rich person would invest in diminishing profitability. In consumption tax the fictional behavior is that rich people will spend a large portion of their income on luxuries and so the tax will be progressive. But they don't. They don't spend a large portion of their income at all. I think it was Thorstein Veblen who basically said - there are only so many cars you can buy. So many gold toilet paper holders. And so on. There's even a limit to luxury spending, and so a limit on luxury tax, especially compared to income..

---

Quote:

---

Healthcare's Hemorrhaging As Medicare-For-All Massacre Continues

For the fifth day of the last six, healthcare stocks are getting hammered as fears that 'Socialist Democrats' great experiment with 'Medicare for All' are growing...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Trickle Down is completely unrelated, as far as I can tell. It sounds like you are not paying attention, and also might never.


Also, I forgot Retirement and Savings - both of which are usually not taxed.

---

Consumption tax is INHERENTLY regressive. One has to do many 'things' to it to try to make it not so. But on a percentage basis, it seems unavoidable that poorer people will still spend a larger portion of their income on consumption tax, on everyday small 'luxuries', than a rich person will spend on their cars or yachts.

---

I'm not sure if we are communicating

Quote:

---

TV other than free on-air? Sounds like a luxury to me. Soda? Chips? Luxuries. Fast food 'restaurant' meals? Luxuries. Cat food for your pet? A luxury. And so on.

---

I would hope that paid TV would be a luxury, and certainly should be. I only get 25 channels of on-air broadcast. Why would more be non-luxury? Poor or low income folk should spend less time watching TV anyhow.
I don't recall if soda is taxed, but it should be. Chips usually are, and should be. All sodas should be. Juices and tap water are not, and are better than sodas, and would reduce the healthcare burden. Yes, sodas and chips are luxury items. If you are so wealthy that you choose to pay a luxury tax when you can easily avoid it, more power to you.
All restaurant should be classified as luxury. How complicated is it to make a hamburger at home? Chicken? PBJ, Grilled Cheese? And less fast food should also reduce the healthcare burden.
All pets are a luxury.

Quote:

---

Wealthy people OTOH won't pay nearly the percentage of their income on consumption tax because they simply don't spend as big a portion of their income. You've said so yourself. Poor people spend every last dime, rich people don't.
So, just to be clear, I'm talking about proportion of income whose spending will go to luxury tax. That's what makes it regressive.

I likened it to trickle down only because they both rely on fictional behavior of rich people. In trickle down, the fictional behavior is that when they have 'enough' money they'll start investing in production just because they feel like it, and so prices will come down. No one apparently thought to question why a rich person would invest in diminishing profitability. In consumption tax the fictional behavior is that rich people will spend a large portion of their income on luxuries and so the tax will be progressive. But they don't. They don't spend a large portion of their income at all. I think it was Thorstein Veblen who basically said - there are only so many cars you can buy. So many gold toilet paper holders. And so on. There's even a limit to luxury spending, and so a limit on luxury tax, especially compared to income..

---

So let's try to use an example, with $1,000 per month based on UBI proposals.
$400 - non-luxury rent/mortgage.
$100 - non-luxury vehicle cost, and perhaps maintenance (but not fuel)
$200 - grocery, not taxed
$100 - monthly average cost of kid's school
$50 - medical/dental, untaxed
$850 - total non-taxed expenses per month.
So, 15% of the low income person's income is exposed to Tax. If the tax was 20%, then the total tax percentage is 3% of the income, assuming that every single dollar of the $150 was spend on luxury items.

Now somebody who earns $20,000 per month.
To spend only the same 15% on taxable items, they would need to spend only $3,000 on taxable expenses.
If it is non-luxury housing, the monthly payment would likely be less than $1,000 - but let's say $2,000 for this example.
Non-luxury vehicle payment: likely less than $250 per month, but let's say $500 for this example.
If it's still the same school as the other kids, that is still $100.
Still $50 for the same medical/dental as the poor person.
So far, $2,650 in non-taxable expenses.
So for grocery, let's say a month of steak, lobster, crab legs. Could that be $30/day? So, $900/month. Could it be more? Do tell.
That makes it about $3,600 of Tax-free expenses.
So, $16,400 per month is exposed to Tax as luxury level spending.
They we would need to put $13,400 of that per month in untaxed retirement in order to keep the same low Taxation percentage as the low income earner.
If you are really claiming that the high earner is not going to spend any of that $13,400 per month on any taxable item, fine dining, cottage, etc, then I'm calling BS. If they do spend any of that, they are paying a greater percentage of their earnings on Tax.

Let's look at the wealthy, with no income. As a non- income person, they pay no Income Tax now. $Zero.
But if they spend any of their fund reserves on any item that is taxable, then they pay the Consumption Tax.

So explain to me how the higher earners paying more Taxes with Consumption Tax means it is less progressive than any other system, where the higher earners pay relatively less Taxes.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Trickle Down is completely unrelated, as far as I can tell. It sounds like you are not paying attention, and also might never.


Also, I forgot Retirement and Savings - both of which are usually not taxed.

---

Consumption tax is INHERENTLY regressive. One has to do many 'things' to it to try to make it not so. But on a percentage basis, it seems unavoidable that poorer people will still spend a larger portion of their income on consumption tax, on everyday small 'luxuries', than a rich person will spend on their cars or yachts.

---

Quote:

---

TV other than free on-air? Sounds like a luxury to me. Soda? Chips? Luxuries. Fast food 'restaurant' meals? Luxuries. Cat food for your pet? A luxury. And so on.

---

Quote:

---

Wealthy people OTOH won't pay nearly the percentage of their income on consumption tax because they simply don't spend as big a portion of their income. You've said so yourself. Poor people spend every last dime, rich people don't.
So, just to be clear, I'm talking about proportion of income whose spending will go to luxury tax. That's what makes it regressive.

I likened it to trickle down only because they both rely on fictional behavior of rich people. In trickle down, the fictional behavior is that when they have 'enough' money they'll start investing in production just because they feel like it, and so prices will come down. No one apparently thought to question why a rich person would invest in diminishing profitability. In consumption tax the fictional behavior is that rich people will spend a large portion of their income on luxuries and so the tax will be progressive. But they don't. They don't spend a large portion of their income at all. I think it was Thorstein Veblen who basically said - there are only so many cars you can buy. So many gold toilet paper holders. And so on. There's even a limit to luxury spending, and so a limit on luxury tax, especially compared to income..

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
"I agree with the Cable TV as well. Luxury."

Not a 'concept' discussion but - people who live in hilly areas, or remote areas, lost signal with the switch to digital, or never had over-air signal at all. After the switch I completely lost over-air signal. So I tried 2 or 3 antennas that supposedly let you pick it up and go w/out TV service and they don't work. Some people need a version of cable to have TV at all.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
You live in Wisconsin where most food isn't taxed unless it is prepared. That's a state tax, and not the norm as far as I know.

Unless the laws have changed in Wisconsin, that includes soda and junk food. It did when I lived there, anyhow. You're going to have a huge uphill battle getting those taxed because you'd be fighting huge companies like Coke, Pepsi and Nestle. They haven't even been able to remove soda and junk food from SNAP benefits, which are completely untaxed, because of this. Arguments that I've heard are that it's too difficult, which is bullshit, because they managed to do it just fine with alcohol and cigarettes.

I agree that restaurants should be classed as luxury tax in the scenario.

I'm on the fence about pets. I don't own one, but I feel that's an entirely different conversation. There are a lot of health benefits for people who own them, particularly mental and emotional health.


I agree with the Cable TV as well. Luxury.

Basic internet plans should be considered a utility today though, so not luxury. The luxury taxes should only be applied to any additional costs for higher tier plans. (Cost of the higher tier plan, minus the cost of the basic plan before luxury taxes are applied).



You're going to have to be more clear on what you consider "non-luxury rent/mortgage" at only $400 per month. Unless you're living in the middle of nowhere, those prices are section 8 prices. Hell, I don't have rent or a mortgage, but when you factor in property taxes and insurance alone, I'm still paying nearly $200 per month just to live in my paid for house.

I'd be willing to bet that if you wanted to live in the seediest parts of Gary, IN, you could probably pull off $400/mo. But I don't think that living somewhere where there is a reasonable expectation that you won't be burglarized or murdered on any given day is a luxury.

And my property tax rate is cheap in my state. Much cheaper than many other states. I've already had this argument with Second before and proved that because of the differences between state and local taxing authorities, two houses that are valued at the same amount in two different states could see as much as a 300% difference in tax rates. Would we need to start talking that poor people could only live in certain states? If you argue "yes" for this, how do you suppose one would go about moving all of these people and setting them up with their new lives?



I have no clue where you're getting that $50/mo. figure for medical and dental insurance either. Full time employees making $11.50/hr where I work have to pay at least $130 per month for this insurance, and the cost goes up for better plans and additional family members added.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
"I agree with the Cable TV as well. Luxury."

Not a 'concept' discussion but - people who live in hilly areas, or remote areas, lost signal with the switch to digital, or never had over-the-air signal at all. I never had cable. But after the switch I completely lost over-the-air signal. So I tried 2 or 3 antennas that supposedly let you pick it up and go w/out TV service and they don't work. Some people need a version of cable just to have any TV at all.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
You live in Wisconsin where most food isn't taxed unless it is prepared. That's a state tax, and not the norm as far as I know.

Unless the laws have changed in Wisconsin, that includes soda and junk food. It did when I lived there, anyhow. You're going to have a huge uphill battle getting those taxed because you'd be fighting huge companies like Coke, Pepsi and Nestle. They haven't even been able to remove soda and junk food from SNAP benefits, which are completely untaxed, because of this. Arguments that I've heard are that it's too difficult, which is bullshit, because they managed to do it just fine with alcohol and cigarettes.

I agree that restaurants should be classed as luxury tax in the scenario.

I'm on the fence about pets. I don't own one, but I feel that's an entirely different conversation. There are a lot of health benefits for people who own them, particularly mental and emotional health.


I agree with the Cable TV as well. Luxury.

Basic internet plans should be considered a utility today though, so not luxury. The luxury taxes should only be applied to any additional costs for higher tier plans. (Cost of the higher tier plan, minus the cost of the basic plan before luxury taxes are applied).



You're going to have to be more clear on what you consider "non-luxury rent/mortgage" at only $400 per month. Unless you're living in the middle of nowhere, those prices are section 8 prices. Hell, I don't have rent or a mortgage, but when you factor in property taxes and insurance alone, I'm still paying nearly $200 per month just to live in my paid for house.

I'd be willing to bet that if you wanted to live in the seediest parts of Gary, IN, you could probably pull off $400/mo. But I don't think that living somewhere where there is a reasonable expectation that you won't be burglarized or murdered on any given day is a luxury.

And my property tax rate is cheap in my state. Much cheaper than many other states. I've already had this argument with Second before and proved that because of the differences between state and local taxing authorities, two houses that are valued at the same amount in two different states could see as much as a 300% difference in tax rates. Would we need to start talking that poor people could only live in certain states? If you argue "yes" for this, how do you suppose one would go about moving all of these people and setting them up with their new lives?



I have no clue where you're getting that $50/mo. figure for medical and dental insurance either. Full time employees making $11.50/hr where I work have to pay at least $130 per month for this insurance, and the cost goes up for better plans and additional family members added.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I just found out that 2 doors from mine, the house recently got bought for $25,000. That would be a $250 monthly mortgage payment. This is about 20-30 steps away.
The neighborhood? In the opposite direction, there are 2 doors between me and the High School, about 100 steps. The better High School, on the good side of town.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I just found out that 2 doors from mine, the house recently got bought for $25,000. That would be a $250 monthly mortgage payment. This is about 20-30 steps away.
The neighborhood? In the opposite direction, there are 2 doors between me and the High School, about 100 steps. The better High School, on the good side of town.

---

Damn dude. You must live in a pretty sketchy part of town, or that was a foreclosure that is rotting away and had all the pipes taken out or something. $25,000 for a house in Milwaukee? That's borderline Detroit prices.




Just wondering... are you saying that any homes valued under $100,000 should be exempt from property taxes, and/or any value of a home that is under $100,000 on pricey homes should be taxed only above the first $100,000?

I could get on board with that. Even after I reduced my property taxes to less than half of what they were when I moved here, the property taxes that I do pay are around 10% of my net pay for the year, and my home hovers just around $100,000 in value as far as the taxing authority is concerned.

That would free up a nice chunk of change. Most of that money goes to fund schools that I'll never be putting any kids through.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I just found out that 2 doors from mine, the house recently got bought for $25,000. That would be a $250 monthly mortgage payment. This is about 20-30 steps away.
The neighborhood? In the opposite direction, there are 2 doors between me and the High School, about 100 steps. The better High School, on the good side of town.

---

Damn dude. You must live in a pretty sketchy part of town, or that was a foreclosure that is rotting away and had all the pipes taken out or something. $25,000 for a house in Milwaukee? That's borderline Detroit prices.




Just wondering... are you saying that any homes valued under $100,000 should be exempt from property taxes, and/or any value of a home that is under $100,000 on pricey homes should be taxed only above the first $100,000?

I could get on board with that. Even after I reduced my property taxes to less than half of what they were when I moved here, the property taxes that I do pay are around 10% of my net pay for the year, and my home hovers just around $100,000 in value as far as the taxing authority is concerned.

That would free up a nice chunk of change. Most of that money goes to fund schools that I'll never be putting any kids through.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

That might be true about Milwaukee, but I live in Green Bay. That house is 60% larger than my 3-bedroom, and it is 2-story, so likely 3 or 4 bedroom.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I just found out that 2 doors from mine, the house recently got bought for $25,000. That would be a $250 monthly mortgage payment. This is about 20-30 steps away.
The neighborhood? In the opposite direction, there are 2 doors between me and the High School, about 100 steps. The better High School, on the good side of town.

---

Damn dude. You must live in a pretty sketchy part of town, or that was a foreclosure that is rotting away and had all the pipes taken out or something. $25,000 for a house in Milwaukee? That's borderline Detroit prices.


Just wondering... are you saying that any homes valued under $100,000 should be exempt from property taxes, and/or any value of a home that is under $100,000 on pricey homes should be taxed only above the first $100,000?

I could get on board with that. Even after I reduced my property taxes to less than half of what they were when I moved here, the property taxes that I do pay are around 10% of my net pay for the year, and my home hovers just around $100,000 in value as far as the taxing authority is concerned.

That would free up a nice chunk of change. Most of that money goes to fund schools that I'll never be putting any kids through.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

That might be true about Milwaukee, but I live in Green Bay. That house is 60% larger than my 3-bedroom, and it is 2-story, so likely 3 or 4 bedroom.

---

So... your house would be only worth about $15,000 by comparison?

That doesn't sound right in Green Bay either.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
You live in Wisconsin where most food isn't taxed unless it is prepared. That's a state tax, and not the norm as far as I know.

Unless the laws have changed in Wisconsin, that includes soda and junk food. It did when I lived there, anyhow. You're going to have a huge uphill battle getting those taxed because you'd be fighting huge companies like Coke, Pepsi and Nestle. They haven't even been able to remove soda and junk food from SNAP benefits, which are completely untaxed, because of this. Arguments that I've heard are that it's too difficult, which is bullshit, because they managed to do it just fine with alcohol and cigarettes.

I agree that restaurants should be classed as luxury tax in the scenario.

I'm on the fence about pets. I don't own one, but I feel that's an entirely different conversation. There are a lot of health benefits for people who own them, particularly mental and emotional health.


I agree with the Cable TV as well. Luxury.

Basic internet plans should be considered a utility today though, so not luxury. The luxury taxes should only be applied to any additional costs for higher tier plans. (Cost of the higher tier plan, minus the cost of the basic plan before luxury taxes are applied).



You're going to have to be more clear on what you consider "non-luxury rent/mortgage" at only $400 per month. Unless you're living in the middle of nowhere, those prices are section 8 prices. Hell, I don't have rent or a mortgage, but when you factor in property taxes and insurance alone, I'm still paying nearly $200 per month just to live in my paid for house.

I'd be willing to bet that if you wanted to live in the seediest parts of Gary, IN, you could probably pull off $400/mo. But I don't think that living somewhere where there is a reasonable expectation that you won't be burglarized or murdered on any given day is a luxury.

And my property tax rate is cheap in my state. Much cheaper than many other states. I've already had this argument with Second before and proved that because of the differences between state and local taxing authorities, two houses that are valued at the same amount in two different states could see as much as a 300% difference in tax rates. Would we need to start talking that poor people could only live in certain states? If you argue "yes" for this, how do you suppose one would go about moving all of these people and setting them up with their new lives?



I have no clue where you're getting that $50/mo. figure for medical and dental insurance either. Full time employees making $11.50/hr where I work have to pay at least $130 per month for this insurance, and the cost goes up for better plans and additional family members added.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

I don't have any true disagreement with anything you said.
Whatever grocery is untaxed now in any locality would remain exempt from Consumption Tax. No reprogramming needed, just piggyback the system with a different percentage.

Are pets taxed now? Rue indicated pet food is taxed. Most cats and dogs I know get table scraps. If it is taxed now, that tells you the opinion or viewpoint of your locality right now. I do not disagree with the level of Taxation in whatever Tax Hell anybody chooses to live in.

People have said that they could live on a $1,000 per adult per month stipend. How much rent or mortgage are those people paying, whether or not they are splitting it? $100,000 house is about $1,000 mortgage. $1,000,000 house is about $10,000 mortgage. At some point such a value is beyond bare necessity, and enters the realm of luxury. The same house in LA, DC, Alabama, and North Dakota will have different values. Each State or locality already sets their own Tax rates, and this would continue. If the cheapest 20% of homes in a State or community were at or below a certain price, say $100,000 - then that could be considered the Bare Necessity price, and the first $100,000 of any house would be untaxed - and the $1,000,000 house is still paying tax on $900,000 value, the most progressive version of income (or wealth) Tax. If your community wants to Tax all homes, but not apartments, that is your business.
Your argument is pushing the $1,000 stipend to be ALL untaxed spending, and I tried to fit in budgeted numbers which allowed for some spending to be taxed, trying to use a reasonable argument to show Rue and SIGs that Consumption Tax is the most progressive form of Taxation: Taxing the poor the least, while also Taxing the higher income or wealthy the most - through non-taxation of bare necessities.
However you want to fit spending into a $1,000 per month Budget, please show how that will result in higher Taxation rate compared to somebody in the $10,000 per month range, or the $30,000 range.

Please show figures that you feel are more realistic, and which show that the poorer person will pay more or equal rate of Taxation compared to the high earner or non-earning wealthy, with Consumption Tax. I continue to view that Consumption Tax is the most progressive form of Taxation, and am trying to accept any reasonable argument that it is not.


Regarding grocery Tax currently, soda is still taxed in WI, as it was in the 80s when I ran the registers. Same for chips. Also for Deli items, which are prepared/processed. Meat Department is all untaxed, as I recall. At least basic Cuts of meat. Dairy was untaxed, maybe yogurt was exception - but some States might Tax dairy.
I don't recall any example of soda being untaxed.

I was trying to fit in figures, and hoped basic phone, basic internet would be part of utilities.
I think basic phone is $10/month - like "Obamaphones" provided by Reagan. I don't have basic Internet outside of my phone, I use the library computers.

And hey, if you've never seen a Tax that you weren't eager to pay, move to higher tax States, such as NY, NJ, CT. Consumption Tax allows you to CHOOSE if you want to pay Tax, if you want to divert your funds to Taxable items. Instead of having Your Pay confiscated, without you even seeing it before it is confiscated by Income Tax.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JAYNEZTOWN:
One positive I can say about Trump is he has not started any new wars...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JO753:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JAYNEZTOWN:
One positive I can say about Trump is he has not started any new wars...

---

It's likely he will start a war with Iran befor the 2020 election. He'z alredy working on it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I just found out that 2 doors from mine, the house recently got bought for $25,000. That would be a $250 monthly mortgage payment. This is about 20-30 steps away.
The neighborhood? In the opposite direction, there are 2 doors between me and the High School, about 100 steps. The better High School, on the good side of town.

---

Damn dude. You must live in a pretty sketchy part of town, or that was a foreclosure that is rotting away and had all the pipes taken out or something. $25,000 for a house in Milwaukee? That's borderline Detroit prices.


Just wondering... are you saying that any homes valued under $100,000 should be exempt from property taxes, and/or any value of a home that is under $100,000 on pricey homes should be taxed only above the first $100,000?

I could get on board with that. Even after I reduced my property taxes to less than half of what they were when I moved here, the property taxes that I do pay are around 10% of my net pay for the year, and my home hovers just around $100,000 in value as far as the taxing authority is concerned.

That would free up a nice chunk of change. Most of that money goes to fund schools that I'll never be putting any kids through.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

That might be true about Milwaukee, but I live in Green Bay. That house is 60% larger than my 3-bedroom, and it is 2-story, so likely 3 or 4 bedroom.

---

So... your house would be only worth about $15,000 by comparison?

That doesn't sound right in Green Bay either.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

My house was $40K in 2010, but with a 2-car garage. This other place has a single car garage.


That house was a Good Deal. Nobody said poor people should be required to pay the highest prices.
I didn't know it was selling cheap. I'd met the prior resident, but haven't met the new owner.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SECOND:
I'll pick a policy issue: the exploding national debt. Voters don't understand a damn about it and they don't want to.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=61377&mid=1
077838#1077838

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SECOND:
I'll pick a policy issue: the exploding national debt. Voters don't understand a damn about it and they don't want to.

---

---

Quote:

---

I think voters understand enough to realize that it doesn't matter which party is in the oval office.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Well, the chart is national debt, not federal deficit.

---