SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Donald Trump and Angela Merkel will join 2,500 world leaders, business executives and charity bosses at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland which kicks off on 23 January. High on the agenda once again will be the topic of inequality, and how to reduce the widening gap between the rich and the rest around the world.
The WEF recently warned that the global economy is at risk of another crisis, and that automation and digitalisation are likely to suppress employment and wages for most while boosting wealth at the very top.
But what ideas should the great and good gathered in the Swiss Alps be putting into action? We'd like to know what single step you think governments should prioritise in order to best address the problem of rising inequality. Below we've outlined seven proposals that are most often championed as necessary to tackle the issue – but which of them is most important to you?
- Provide free and high quality education
- Raise the minimum wage
- Raise taxes on the rich
- Fight corruption
- Provide more social protection for the poor
- Stop the influence of the rich on politicians
- Provide jobs for the unemployed
Do you think these ideas are enough, or are there any better ideas to close this wealth gap ? You too can participate and vote for the idea that, you think, works best.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Justin Case on Saturday January 20 2018, @10:43PM (24 children)
How did we establish that "closing the wealth gap" is worth doing, or even possible?
I bet if we gave every single person on Earth $5 million, within a year many of the same people would be broke again. Either they can't discipline their impulses, or they live in corrupt countries that don't recognize property rights.
Anyway, only two of the listed proposals are legitimate functions of government:
* Fight corruption
* Stop the influence of the rich on politicians
But then, those are both the same thing. And you rely on those exact rich people and corrupt politicians to enact the remedies. Hmmm.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by julian on Saturday January 20 2018, @10:54PM (2 children)
Let's instead close the opportunity gap, and then whatever wealth inequality still results is probably the healthy result of a dynamic society in fair competition. As a liberal that's always been my understanding of our economic goals. It's not about lowering wealth inequality, that's just a lazy short-hand way of explaining it quickly. What we really want is to minimize inequality due to luck, and maximize inequality that's the result of effort and talent while maintaining a reasonable floor below which we don't allow people to fall. Societies that place no lower bounds on poverty end up with crime and other social diseases that have to managed through police, courts, and prisons. So you end up paying for it anyway.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @01:23AM (1 child)
There is no real opportunity gap in the US. Does not matter what walk of life you come from here, if you are the next Einstein you will raise to the top. You can get admission to an Ivy, and your tuition will be all but paid for. If you are just mediocre, then why the fuck should the society elevate you?
BTW wtf is this "Poland has gun control." meme on the bottom of the page? Yes it's some left over Communist law, but by and large if you want private arms for national defense (like Militia type activities) or hunting it's pretty easy to do.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @06:07AM
You seem to be assuming that the US public education system is fit for purpose? Or do you believe that people like Einstein were just born with all the knowledge of the world coded in their genes?
If you're mediocre, you should be allowed to elevate yourself to mediocrity. In American society as it stands, mediocre people born to a rich family are considered "elite", and never have to work a day in their lives, whereas mediocre people from poor families struggle to support themselves through education by working multiple minimum-wage jobs, with little prospect for real societal advancement.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by noneof_theabove on Saturday January 20 2018, @10:56PM (14 children)
Just the taxing as it will cover everything else.
Only one way to fix the taxes. Get in the 21st Century and put it in the "banking system".
When the Dems get back power they must immediately institute the Federal Ingress Egress Tax System [ FIETS ©wap3 ]. I will try to keep this simple as most people do not understand numbers beyond 3 times their pay check, including the "richies", that are running this fleecing of America.
Ingress = coming in
Egress = going out
On each end there this is only 1 transaction, true creators like Monsanto, they create seeds to sell, no ingress, literally, and the end consumer that buys a steak, cooks it and poof it is gone, no egress.
There is between 5 and 15 trillion dollars per day that pass through the banking system, ingress and egress, and it varies everyday. [ Mon-Fri 52 weeks]
So for easy numbers I will use 2% of each transaction both in and out totally 4% for any entity, corporation or person. No homes, children, big money wall streets pay, congress, president, EVERYONE PAYS, Bill Gates, Mark Zukerburg, Warren Buffet, etc. When you sell [in money] or buy [out money] that is a transaction and tax applies. So when your employer cuts your pay check there is 2% [out], when your check is cashed/deposited [in] there is 2%. The grocery store pays 2% when they get stuff [in] and you pay 2% when you take stuff home [out].
Simple so far?
Now the number, and I will use the conservative 5 Trillion $5,000,000,000,000 per day 5 days a week 52 weeks a year.
$5,000,000,000,000 * 0.04 [4% the 2% + 2%] = $100,000,000,000 [100 billion] per day.
times 5 days a week = $500,000,000,000 [500 billion] per week
time 52 weeks a year = $26,000,000,000,000 [26 trillion per year]
The National Debt is $17 Trillion = GONE. Well we will work the on it using left over funds.
Current 2018 budget from federal-budget.insidegov.com [http://federal-budget.insidegov.com/l/120/2017-Estimate] is Income $3.21T expenditure $3.65T for a 2.6% increase in deficit.
so $26T - $3.65T = $22.35T SURPLUS.
Not exactly a surplus as this now PAYS FOR EVERYTHING.
Full education for all [at least a bachelor, maybe master/phd for those that approve their worth say for doctors, teachers, etc or full Vo-Tech for welders/truck drivers don't need the extended education].
+++++++
Full basic medical for all. [hospital, doctors, pharma but you want the optional botox then you pay a negotiated price that is listed just like prices at McDonald's and stores].
+++++++
Excellent military with FULL BENEFITS to retirees and vets.
+++++++
Social Security is fully funded and solvent at a living amount and adjusted yearly for new cost of living [mainly food/housing as medical is covered].
+++++++
Infrastructure to fix deadly bridges and new mass transit.
+++++++
Get us on non-fossil energy but f*ck that expensive nuclear, there is better less expensive used in submarines and destroyers.
+++++++
NO MORE F*CKING 1040 FORMS AND 35,000 PAGES OF TAX CODE !
I used to have 22-24% pulled from paycheck and got back a few hundred for about 19% on April 15. Yes, 4% and no paper work, that's a real raise of 15% not congressional vodoo magic numbers.
Of course you don't necessarily spend your entire pay check, and money moving within the banking system has not fee.
+++++++
this is all encompassing and in 3-5 years the national debt is gone.
A fractional amount could be included [maybe not needed] that would be allocated to the states, regions, cities instead of sales tax.
Is this doable, YES.
Sorry H&R BLOCK and lower level IRS and tax lawyers. Thank for your prior services as you are no longer needed in the digital age.
The upper level IRS remains to monitor the banking system and collect the payments [ok the banking system could keep a small fee to cover expenses for computers, etc]
NOTE: transaction percent could be adjusted year, 6 months, or maybe 3 months to reflect the overall system status.
NOTE: I wap3 do hearby mark my Intellectual Property Rights for the FIETS, Federal Ingress Egress Tax System concept, use without my permission is forbidden. [K.I.S.S. Legal Stuff]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by tftp on Saturday January 20 2018, @11:08PM (5 children)
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 20 2018, @11:38PM (4 children)
Suppose your business purchases passenger jets, paints them to order, and then sells them. Each jet costs you $300 million, and you sell it for $310 million.
With VAT: You pay a percentage of $10 million, perhaps 30%. So $300,000 tax.
With this: You pay 2% of $300 million, and then 2% of $310 million. So $12,200,000 tax.
This thing, for the given business, is more than 40 times worse. Of course, no matter what kind of tax is imposed, businesses will restructure their operations to minimize it. In this case, the aircraft would simply never be sold by the manufacturer. They would lease it. That way, subsequent sales wouldn't get taxed again and again on the full value of the aircraft.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @12:04AM (2 children)
"With VAT: You pay a percentage of $10 million, perhaps 30%. So $300,000 tax.
With this: You pay 2% of $300 million, and then 2% of $310 million. So $12,200,000 tax."
That's what the parent is trying to hide. The fact that under his small 2% rate, the cost for EVERYTHING will skyrocket. There's no way someone will buy and paint a jet with just a 10 million upgrade on the price in the new system. You would expect them to sell it at 330 million or more, minimum. The exact same thing happens with the groceries you buy, which in most sane countries not taxed at all (except junk food etc), the cost of the ingress tax will be passed along to the person paying the egress tax in the form of an increased price tag.
The bottom line is greed. The producers will not accept the additional cost. It will be passed along to the final consumer.
I'm not saying tax reform is long overdue (And in the opposite direction Trump pointed it in recently) but any new system that magically creates trillions of tax dollars DEFINITELY has a price that the consumer will pay in full. What you need is to close off ALL tax loopholes used by the rich (personal and business).
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Sunday January 21 2018, @08:35PM
The claim that all taxes always fall on the consumer is an oft-repeated statement, but isn't actually true.
Who ends up paying the tax depends on the nature of the market where the tax is applied. Some of the many variations that you can learn all about in Econ 102:
- In highly competitive markets (enough buyers and sellers that no one player has the power to set prices) for a product that everyone can do without completely, the tax as an additional cost of production will push the supply curve upwards. However, because demand decreases with price, the sellers will typically find it's more profitable to take a partial hit on their profit margin in order to sell more product than it is to push the entire cost of the tax onto the buyers. That puts some of the cost of the tax on their owners / shareholders.
- In highly competitive markets for products where there's a viable substitute (e.g. pizza vs Chinese food delivery), and the tax is imposed on only one of those markets then there will be a shift from the taxed good to the un-taxed good, and again the sellers of the taxed good will consider taking a partial hit on their profit margins in order to compete with the untaxed good.
- In monopoly markets with viable substitutes (e.g. prescription drugs with not-quite-as-good generics available), again the monopolist will find it more profitable to take a partial hit to their profit margin to reduce the people who opt for the substitute.
- In monopoly markets for essential goods and no viable substitutes (e.g. prescription drugs with no generics available), the monopolist will indeed push the entire tax onto the customer, because they have absolutely no reason not to.
- In monopsony markets (one buyer), basically the entire tax will fall on the seller.
And the simplest example of why taxes don't always fall on the buyer: When income taxes go up, what pretty much never happens is the boss immediately giving everybody a raise.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1) by Kalas on Friday January 26 2018, @04:44PM
30% of 10M is 3M, not 300K.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @10:33AM
your business purchases passenger jets, paints them to order, and then sells them. Each jet costs you $300 million, and you sell it for $310 million
Where do I get some of that paint?
It sounds absolutely magical.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by khallow on Sunday January 21 2018, @02:56AM (7 children)
You just know that something smells when they have to invent a whole new name for it when there's already sales tax, VAT, etc out there. How about a better idea? We just don't do that and thus, don't have to pay the consequences of making that mistake. Sales taxes and such are already known to be regressive. This would end up being yet another such tax which the rich would be adept at avoiding, such as by leasing everything (as AC noted [soylentnews.org]).
Sorry, this is a idiotic approach. Transactions aren't wealth inequality. Everyone needs to trade to get what they need, but the rich would be particularly well positioned to trade in ways that don't incur this new tax. This is not the first time I've seen someone try to solve wealth inequality by counterproductively attacking something that isn't part of wealth inequality.
And who again is paying for this? There's not going to be 5 trillion in transactions when it's all taxed at the massive rate of 2%. It would be educational to see how quickly the free lunchers use up this bonanza for all the frivolous crap you mentioned (as well as plenty you didn't mention), but not worth $100 billion a day.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @09:37AM (6 children)
I wish we had someone like you to push against military funding
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 21 2018, @11:39AM (5 children)
You do have me. But military spending is only 20% of the US federal budget and very little of the state or local level budgets. To solve things, you also need to deal with (and by that, I mean greatly reduce) entitlements. Personally, I'm in favor of a 25-50% reduction across the board in benefits and spending on everything in order to get spending in line with revenue. There's not much point to increasing taxation more when in the case of the US, it's spent so poorly and the political establishment borrows so readily.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @01:25PM (2 children)
Personally, I'm in favor of a 25-50% reduction across the board in benefits and spending on everything
You are about to find that the poor favour a 20% reduction in the rich - and in America the poor have GUNS. Another problem is
that they may be very poor in money terms and also poor at identifying the rich. The killing may not be the right people
and may not be easy to stop.
There is a natural balance between rich and poor - it is established and maintained by the poor killing the rich. However,
(read up on chaos theory) some transitions are smooth and others are abrupt. In a smart administration, the rich see the
poor coming and make concessions. In others they lose their heads (see French Revolution, Haiti).
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Sunday January 21 2018, @02:37PM
Your violent fantasies overlook that a person with more money can afford
* More/bigger guns
* Security people to wield the guns
* Fences, alarms, cameras, walls...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 21 2018, @03:13PM
The poor isn't necessarily on your side. Most of them want a functioning society too.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Sunday January 21 2018, @08:54PM (1 child)
Why is that necessarily the solution, and not, say, taxing rich people to fully fund the entitlements in question? For example, we could completely eliminate any kind of debt in the Social Security system by eliminating the cap on wage income subject to FICA tax. We don't do that because we don't choose to do that.
Bear in mind that when you translate "greatly reduce entitlements" into real rather than financial terms, what you're saying is "We should let millions of poor cripples and elders die."
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 23 2018, @10:36PM
Who needs death panels when you've got death legislation?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday January 20 2018, @11:45PM (2 children)
you rely on those exact rich people and corrupt politicians to enact the remedies. Hmmm.
Well, we could vote them out, every last one of them in the house. It doesn't take any effort to tune out the propaganda.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @01:25AM (1 child)
"FUCK RICH PEOPLE"
Also:
"Rich people, bail me out plz!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @09:13AM
Oh, come now! Does such hyperbole do anything to foster a practical solution?
Here is my suggestion. Money is green, Soylent Green. It's rich people. Don't fuck them. As with the Donald, they just seem to enjoy that. Eat the rich. Seriously.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Saturday January 20 2018, @11:58PM (2 children)
Yep, that's a well established aspect of human nature. Even many entertainers who "earned" their millions seem to have a perpetual problem with spending it all. A factory I had a summer job in used to pay weekly, on Tuesday, because they knew that people tended to blow their paycheck on Friday night, so giving the money on Tuesday at least let them pay their bills before succumbing to impulse.
On thing that I think modern technology could improve with respect to this problem in human nature is: instead of transacting recurring payments in weekly, monthly, or annual cycles, move to real micropayments. $60,000/yr income wouldn't be paid at $5,000 per month, but instead at 1929 micro-dollars per second. A $1800 per month mortgage payment would instead deduct at 694 µD/s, a $400 car payment at 154 µD/s, internet service at 25 µD/s etc. and usage based utilities would be even better, you could see in real-time how consumption translates to tangible money, perhaps the electric bill might peak at 200 µD/s while you are charging your car, and settle down to 10 µD/s when most major appliances are shut down.
Discrete purchases could still be in discrete dollars, for people who live with a positive balance in their savings account, or for those who live on credit, things could be spread out over the next 30 days, and credit could stop when the current positive cash-flow on an account drops below ~140 µD/s per person that account provides for - effectively saving enough money for food, transportation, and normal life expenses. So, if a family of 4 has 2500 µD/s income, and 1200 µD/s established recurring expenses (including income taxes), that leaves 640 µD/s for discretionary purchases... a $150 night on the town could be financed for 30 days (almost like credit cards do), for 58 µD/s - do that 4 times a month and you'll see the 640 µD/s discretionary cash flow diminish down to ~408, and slowly recover as each 30 day payoff happens. Creditors might even give discounts for heavy front-end payback, that same 58 µD/s meal might be discounted to an average of 55 µD/s if the payer agrees to a 30 day term that starts at 110 µD/s and linearly decreases to 0. Even saving 10% of income for retirement would require setting aside 250 µD/s, but you can easily see there are still 390 µD/s left over for discretionary expenditures, over and above basic food, etc.
I think this kind of system would be much easier for most people to grasp and manage than the current: big insurance bill coming up once every 6 months, taxes once a year, paycheck bi-weekly, mortgage and utilities monthly, etc. etc. I would still prefer to run a positive balance in a savings account (preferably one that pays meaningful interest, meaningfully increasing as the balance increases), but it is clear that many (most?) people would tend to run on the debit side of the scale, and that's O.K. - a $12K Caribbean vacation, financed for 12 months is only 386 uD/s, and the family's entire recurring financial picture would be easily summed up by a single number that could continuously update on a cellphone app.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by tftp on Sunday January 21 2018, @02:18AM (1 child)
I believe that with this creeping system of income and expenses it is much harder to understand what's going on. Instead of a clear sum twice a year you are dealing with deductions that are hard to measure. This will lead to the situation when services will be just charging what they want.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday January 21 2018, @03:57AM
Well, the system we have works well enough for me, and presumably for you, so any change is likely going to be more confusing than helpful, at least at first. However, GP's suggestion of "giving every person on the planet $5M tomorrow" has a well known flaw that would clearly be addressed by instead giving every person on the planet 1584 μD/s for the next 100 years.
I do think that shifting everything to a common time scale, and having that time scale be as small as possible, would make the relationships more intuitive, not less, after getting used to the initial change. With income expressed per year, paid bi-weekly, and various bills coming at all different intervals, it's much harder to get a grasp of how the various services relate. At present, my internet service is increasing from $55 per month to $65 per month, and it pisses me off because that's inflating much faster than everything else in my life - while the service provided is not improving at all. If that internet service bill were on the same time-scale as all the other regularly recurring credits and debits in the account, it would seem to be easier to compare with them, not harder.
🌻🌻 [google.com]