|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted March 25, 2009 09:38 PM |
|
|
They're different because they got indoctrinated and didn't bother moving the sources around.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 25, 2009 09:45 PM |
|
|
Quote:
JJ:
Yes, but exactly how would all the splits be calculated?
Logarhythmically.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted March 25, 2009 10:40 PM |
|
|
Quote:
They're different because they got indoctrinated and didn't bother moving the sources around.
I highly disagree. Its called claiming land and get over it.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 25, 2009 11:20 PM |
|
|
Claiming land that was clearly owned by somebody else. Plus, if they gave it a little thought, they'd realize that war is destructive.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 26, 2009 08:04 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
JJ:
Yes, but exactly how would all the splits be calculated?
Logarhythmically.
I'm going to explain that a little bit more (it was no joke). Simple tax rates are not cutting it, the way I see it, and the system should work logarhitmically:
Depending on the current situation (money floating, average payment and so on you'd set the start value and the logarhithmical base. Let's say the base unit would be 10.000 $ (year) and the base 2 (to make it simple). This will basically mean that the profit(net income)/tax split will be determined this way (all in between lying sums are determined according to the logarhitmical function):
Net income: 10.000: keep: 10.000; tax: 0
Net income: 20.000: keep: 20.000; tax: 0
Net income: 40.000: keep: 30.000; tax: 10.000
Net income: 80.000: keep: 40.000; tax: 40.000
Net income: 160.000: keep: 50.000; tax 110.000
Net income: 320.000: keep 60.000; tax 260.000
and so on.
Now, this is obviously a fairly simple example with simple numbers, but it get's the job done to explain the system. In reality and practise you could afford afford a smaller base than 2 and still get the job done that no matter how many billions a deal would net, the personal gain would be limited, although someone making 100.000.000 in profits would still earn very decent money.
You can forget the objection that a corp need to keep the profits to invest - they don't do that, they are still lending money.
In any case I'd GLADLY see the money NOW spent for Porsches and large estates and so on instead spent for keeping the water clean, making better use of the garbage, take more care in what hits the market, especially in those things you eat and drink and spent generally more money for the well-being of the community instead of the well-being of a few.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted March 26, 2009 10:44 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Plus, if they gave it a little thought, they'd realize that war is destructive.
Destructive, yes, but sometimes also rather profitable. That's why wars exist.
People on the bottom thought a lot about wars, and they reached the conclusion that wars are horrible, yes. Because their role in it is to die.
But people on the top have, however, reached a different conclusion - who cares, when it can bring us profit. Today, you can try to convince them otherwise, and they'll agree with you, but they'll add that it is their duty to defend their citizens, and then they will start another war.
Violence, much like sex, has always been one of the main tools of getting what you want throughout history, and that can't be changed so easily.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 26, 2009 01:41 PM |
|
|
JJ:
Quote:
Net income: 40.000: keep: 30.000; tax: 10.000
Why not keep 25,000? Or 35,000? Why 30,000 exactly?
Quote:
In any case I'd GLADLY see the money NOW spent for Porsches and large estates and so on instead spent for keeping the water clean, making better use of the garbage, take more care in what hits the market, especially in those things you eat and drink and spent generally more money for the well-being of the community instead of the well-being of a few.
I'd much rather see people who've earned their money keep it.
Bak:
Sad but true.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 26, 2009 02:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
JJ:
Quote:
Net income: 40.000: keep: 30.000; tax: 10.000
Why not keep 25,000? Or 35,000? Why 30,000 exactly?
Net income is a function. Imagine a coordinate system. The x-axis is net income, while the y-axis shows what people keep (while the rest is "tax").
The function is y = a[1+Log>b(x/a)] for all x>2a (for x<=2a y=x)
a is the "start value" and b is the base of the logarithm. In the example is a=10000 and b=2, but a and b depend on how high an income you want to keep free of taxes and how high the maximum personal profit should be.
If you change a or b (or both) you set different preferences. With b=2 as in the example, you have to make a net profit of roundabout 5.000.000 $ to keep 100.000 for you, while a net gain of 1.000.000.000 would gain still only 180.000 for you to keep.
If that was perceived not enough of a difference, you might of course change b to 1.8 or something, but it wouldn't change anything about the fact that this would practically limit the amount of what a person could PRIVATELY earn for personal profit.
Quote:
I'd much rather see people who've earned their money keep it.
We are not disagreeing here. We just define the word "earn" in a different way.
|
|
DeadMan
Known Hero
The True Humanitarian
|
|
posted March 26, 2009 02:47 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker:
Quote:
The community decides whether it's ok, to do it (it might need the forest or part of it for other purposes).
Why would any community say, "Okay, you can exploit us."?
____________
I don't matter. You don't matter. But we matter.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 26, 2009 02:48 PM |
|
|
|
Because they would participate - and paricipate massively.
|
|
DeadMan
Known Hero
The True Humanitarian
|
|
posted March 26, 2009 02:51 PM |
|
|
They would participate in mass exploitation of themselves?
____________
I don't matter. You don't matter. But we matter.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 26, 2009 03:17 PM |
|
|
You seem to have a strange opinion on what "exploitation" actually means.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 26, 2009 09:36 PM |
|
|
JJ:
Why would b be 2 and not 1.8 or 2.2? And why would it be logarithmic, and not linear or quadratic?
See, the less private property and market prices there are, the harder it is to do economic calculations.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 27, 2009 07:55 AM |
|
|
Quote:
JJ:
Why would b be 2 and not 1.8 or 2.2? And why would it be logarithmic, and not linear or quadratic?
See, the less private property and market prices there are, the harder it is to do economic calculations.
It wouldn't have to be 2, it could be 1.8 or 2.2 or something else as well. What it was exactly, would depend on how much personal wealth you wanted people to be able to accumulate. I live in the Euro-zone, so going from the current price level (and just to make it more real), the minimum sum a person should have would be 15.000 €/year. Based on that you might make 12.500 € the base value for the formula - this would allow everyone to earn up to 25.000 € tax-free - which would be an incentive wo work even for those who got welfare -, but after that a quite progressive tax would come. You'd pick the base now with the goal to make it effectively impossible to earn more than the sum you'd deem should be the most someone might earn. Since this is AFTER taxes, I tend to think that the limit should not exceed 500.000 €/year net income for a single person, ergo you'd pick the base accordingly.
The logarithmic style is chosen because it allows to steer taxes in a satisfactory way.
Liberalism they way you suggest it, is plain silly - everyone is oh so intent on cutting government power - but what is with the power of simple WEALTH? Don't you think the power of a personal 10.000.000.000 wealth is something to be concerned about as well?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 27, 2009 01:34 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What it was exactly, would depend on how much personal wealth you wanted people to be able to accumulate.
What if I want people to accumulate as much wealth as they're able to without aggression or fraud?
Quote:
Don't you think the power of a personal 10.000.000.000 wealth is something to be concerned about as well?
As long as that money is being used within the law, then no. Plus, the weaker the government, the less the incentive to bribe it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 27, 2009 01:38 PM |
|
|
Then we simply disagree.
I'd like to add that I don't find your opinion very rational, though.
Since this is of no practical consequence, though, since no one of us has any say in it. Makes no sense to discuss it therefore.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 27, 2009 01:45 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Since this is of no practical consequence, though, since no one of us has any say in it. Makes no sense to discuss it therefore.
If everyone subscribed to this idea, then there would be no OSM. 
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 27, 2009 02:02 PM |
|
|
Not everything discussed here is completely theoretical, on the contrary.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted March 31, 2009 04:11 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Net income: 10.000: keep: 10.000; tax: 0
Net income: 20.000: keep: 20.000; tax: 0
Net income: 40.000: keep: 30.000; tax: 10.000
Net income: 80.000: keep: 40.000; tax: 40.000
Net income: 160.000: keep: 50.000; tax 110.000
Net income: 320.000: keep 60.000; tax 260.000
That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard...unless it's the answer to the joke "What do you get when you cross Karl Marx and Euler?"
Why don't you just grab a shovel and bury productivity while you're at it? :rolls eyes:
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted March 31, 2009 05:18 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 05:21, 31 Mar 2009.
|
It hasn't been very long since I posted how disconcerting I find it that our congress (full of monkeys) tries to pass a (completely unconstitutional) law permitting punitive taxation against a small group of people. Now the monkeys are telling the president of a giant US company he has to resign? WTF is going on? Why is our government running corporations now? Oh, gee, the stock market tanks again? Gee, could it be because, I don't know, of TOO MUCH REGULATION? God, WHY ARE THESE MONKEYS RUNNING OUR GOVERNMENT??? Don't these monkeys understand that the markets will fix themselves, and that these regulatory policing policies only make things worse? It doesn't take an economist to see that every time you monkeys do ANYTHING, the markets drop like 4000 points.
Hey, monkeys, here's a thought for you. It doesn't matter how much money you put into the US auto industry. You know why? 2 Reasons: (1) Unions and (2) BECAUSE US CARS SUCK! When Ford designs a car that doesn't look like it a submarine from a Jules Verne novel and gets rid of the overly-catered-to unions that are absolutely killing the US auto industry, then maybe they might stand a snowball's chance in hell against Toyota or Honda or Nissan, who make better cars for less money. And yet, monkeys, you continue to pump US tax dollars into corporations thinking, for some reason, that your bungling over-regulation is going to magically make people want to buy their crappy cars and thus turn the companies around.
Hey tax-payers (mostly also monkeys). Here's a thought for you, too, while I'm at it. The federal government (fellow monkeys) couldn't manage a lemonade stand (exhibit A: look at the proposed 2009 FY budget) and yet it thinks it can miraculously cure a huge US industry on lifesupport by poking it around with a big stick? Why do you monkeys keep voting those other monkeys into office?
[And let's not forget the monkey in charge of GM that, after running his company into the ground, gets 20M in retirement benefits after being asked to resign by the monkeys in the federal government. Nevermind that the fact that GM itself didn't ask the president to resign a long time ago - a nice indication that GM DESERVES to go bankrupt. Why is a company as poorly run as GM deserving of US tax dollars??? Really, watching the news any more is like watching an episode of the Twilight Zone.]
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
