SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the next-up-is-the-unicorns-pooping-skittles-act dept.
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
Search engine and consumer privacy advocate DuckDuckGo has announced the "Do-Not-Track Act of 2019," a piece of draft legislation that would legally require sites to honor users' tracking preferences.
[...]If the act picks up steam and passes into law, sites would be required to cease certain user tracking methods, which means less data available to inform marketing and advertising campaigns.
The impact could also cascade into platforms that leverage consumer data, possibly making them less effective. For example, one of the advantages of advertising on a platform like Google or Facebook is the ability to target audiences. If a user enables DNT, the ads displayed to them when on browsing[sic] those websites won't be informed by their external browsing history.
[Ed Note: By proposed they mean "That's why we're announcing draft legislation that can serve as a starting point for legislators in America and beyond. "]
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 08 2019, @12:49PM (6 children)
The problem is capitalism, this can be easily proved:
A. Employees get their money from wages, so the employer pays through wages.
B. Disposable income = wages – (taxes + the cost of living)
Under capitalism the first term of (B) in the brackets is negligible and can be rounded to zero. This can only be solved by increasing taxes.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday May 08 2019, @02:36PM (5 children)
Disposable income = (wages + universalBasicIncome) - (taxes + costOfLiving + sjwExpensesDuesFees)
As wages approach zero, universalBasicIncome can rise to more than cover the 2nd bracketed term.
What the government gets in taxes pays for an expansive government plus universalBasicIncome.
Therefore: taxes > universalBasicIncome
At the same time, to keep Disposable income positive (and not negative), . . .
Therefore: taxes < universalBasicIncome
Some people say the math cannot possibly work. They simply have not experimented with UBI at a large enough scale. What could go wrong?
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 08 2019, @02:42PM (3 children)
I stopped reading when I saw "sjwExpensesDuesFees"
Were you trying to make a point?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday May 08 2019, @02:56PM (2 children)
I don't think he was trying to make a point. He made a point.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday May 08 2019, @03:45PM
Thank you.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Thursday May 09 2019, @08:03AM
He is using 'taxes' in a deceptive way.
In the the second bracketed term in the first equation it refers to personal income tax, as this is for an individual only.
In the second equation he uses the term 'taxes' to refer to all government revenue, as this is summed across the population.
Places like Norway and Alaska show that governments can in fact invest money and pay a UBI from dividends.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 08 2019, @04:23PM
There is nothing wrong with negative disposable income in general. As long as it is less negative than other investments people will still get loans. Government just needs to make sure interest rates on savings are negative enough to stimulate lending.