What are your thoughts on a basic income?

[Dr Kynes]

Those are called progressive liberals and make up the largest part of the current Democratic party's followers.

there is nothing "Progressive" about their game plan, as is it directly copy/pasted from The Brothers Gracchi ~175 BC

they are also as far from "Liberal" as you can be. "Liberalism" was about the "Liberation" of human ingenuity from the domination of The Church, and The Nobility.

Call em what they are: Democrats. (Demo --> People, Crat --> Ruler) dominating the plebs through their own weakness and stupidity.

 

[UncleBuck]

your "prebate" is just a complex scheme to shift the burden from one group to another. it is The Dole wrapped up in postmodern Newspeak and the flawed concepts of "consumer driven economy"

the economy is people doing productive work, and trading their surplus for the surpluses of others.
hoping the magical mythical "consumer" will foot the bill for debt financing is pure fallacy.

debt driven economic booms always come to a bad end, and eventually SOMEBODY has to pay.
when the gravy train grinds to a halt, and the biscuit wheels crumble to dust, the rabble will demand MORE MORE MORE.

if you want something, EARN IT.

you literally said nothing.

 

[UncleBuck]

There's no need for basic income because everyone is gainfully employed and nobody ever goes with out sustenance or shelter. Indeed, nothing is ever wasted and there are no empty houses.

isn't capitalism great?

 

[desert dude]

isn't capitalism great?

Yep. Ask anybody who grew up under communism.

 

[SnapsProvolone]

Oxygen. That's what you get for free. Sure that will change in time.

 

[bongbrain]

that there are 2 governments whos minimum wage is higher than ours. 1,800 a month for russia and sweden(or switzerland)

 

[UncleBuck]

that there are 2 governments whos minimum wage is higher than ours. 1,800 a month for russia and sweden(or switzerland)

that's simply not true.

 

[Padawanbater2]

from whence cometh these monies?

I would imagine taxes

 

[heckler73]

so, it's Magic?

cool story Dumbledore.

Not magic...just keystrokes.
The only constraint is (excessive) inflation, which is a function of capacity utilization and (un)employment, ultimately.

http://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/powerpoints/7DIF.pdf
From page 2:
Money is created by government spending (or by bank loans, which create deposits). Taxes serve to make us want that money - we need it in order to pay the taxes. And they help regulate total spending, so that we don’t have more total spending than we have goods available at current prices - something that would force up prices and cause inflation. But taxes aren’t needed in advance of spending - and could hardly be, since before the government spends there is no money to tax.

I challenge you to prove that wrong and I recommend reading that little pamphlet of some 100 pages before you respond (or at the very least, Part I).
Take the time out to appreciate its significance in relation to your faulty paradigm. I'd prefer to see a thoughtful critique, although I doubt its manifestation will become an issue in need of addressing. However, I leave room for the possibility...

 

[beenthere]

Not magic...just keystrokes.
The only constraint is (excessive) inflation, which is a function of capacity utilization and (un)employment, ultimately.

http://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/powerpoints/7DIF.pdf
From page 2:
Money is created by government spending (or by bank loans, which create deposits). Taxes serve to make us want that money - we need it in order to pay the taxes. And they help regulate total spending, so that we don’t have more total spending than we have goods available at current prices - something that would force up prices and cause inflation. But taxes aren’t needed in advance of spending - and could hardly be, since before the government spends there is no money to tax.

I challenge you to prove that wrong and I recommend reading that little pamphlet of some 100 pages before you respond (or at the very least, Part I).
Take the time out to appreciate its significance in relation to your faulty paradigm. I'd prefer to see a thoughtful critique, although I doubt its manifestation will become an issue in need of addressing. However, I leave room for the possibility...

Type mosler economics refuted in a google search, one economist even said he was a goof ball.

 

[BigNBushy]

your "prebate" is just a complex scheme to shift the burden from one group to another. it is The Dole wrapped up in postmodern Newspeak and the flawed concepts of "consumer driven economy"

the economy is people doing productive work, and trading their surplus for the surpluses of others.
hoping the magical mythical "consumer" will foot the bill for debt financing is pure fallacy.

debt driven economic booms always come to a bad end, and eventually SOMEBODY has to pay.
when the gravy train grinds to a halt, and the biscuit wheels crumble to dust, the rabble will demand MORE MORE MORE.

if you want something, EARN IT.

The working poor spend every penny they earn, living pay check to pay check.

In recognition of that fact, the prebate is nothing more than a mechanism by which the poor are not taxed on every penny they earn. Just like in our current tax system.

That goal is one of the few things the fair tax and the current income tax share.

If you are thinking of this as a handout, you are thinking all wrong.

I'm not sure if you know who Neil Boortz is. He was a radio talk show host, and a libertarian. He was an ardent proponent of the fair tax, and a vehement opponent of handouts to the poor.

Yet he was such a staunch fair tax supporter he co-wrote two books in favor of and expaining the fair tax.

It is obvious you have very little knowledge of it, or what knowledge you do have is superficial and has come from the fair taxes opponents that happen to have as much respect for the truth as uncle buck.

 

[BigNBushy]

Edit: the prebate only serves to shift the burden off of those who earn below the poverty limit. Essentially they pay no taxes. And no one pays any taxes until they surpass the poverty line, and then are only taxed on what they earn that is in excess of the poverty line. That's all it is.

 

[heckler73]

Type mosler economics refuted in a google search, one economist even said he was a goof ball.

http://conant.economicpolicyjournal.com/2010/10/refutation-of-mosler-economics-and.html

I assume you mean him?
Mmm yes...his bias is clearly punctuated by his use of language (coercive comes up a lot...reminds me of Rob Roy).
Yet he never seemingly "refutes" anything. Rather, he constructs straw men and summarily smashes those down instead of providing evidence to the contrary.
Typical Austrian hack...although, he's not as loony as "coconut" Bob Murphy, I'll give him that.

I will admit that Mosler's explication is rather "simple", but it is meant for the layman and not those with perhaps more knowledge of the underlying intricacies involved, to which I'd direct one towards Wray's or Mitchell's work (preferably the former, only due to Billy's tendency to get long-winded), or even Cullen Roche's paper (which essentially says the same things sans "Job Guarantee" Program).

EDIT: Mosler engages Conant directly in the comments on Part III of his critique.
http://conant.economicpolicyjournal.com/2010/11/refutation-of-mosler-economics-and_27.html

 

[Dr Kynes]

Not magic...just keystrokes.
The only constraint is (excessive) inflation, which is a function of capacity utilization and (un)employment, ultimately.

http://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/powerpoints/7DIF.pdf
From page 2:
Money is created by government spending (or by bank loans, which create deposits). Taxes serve to make us want that money - we need it in order to pay the taxes. And they help regulate total spending, so that we don’t have more total spending than we have goods available at current prices - something that would force up prices and cause inflation. But taxes aren’t needed in advance of spending - and could hardly be, since before the government spends there is no money to tax.

I challenge you to prove that wrong and I recommend reading that little pamphlet of some 100 pages before you respond (or at the very least, Part I).
Take the time out to appreciate its significance in relation to your faulty paradigm. I'd prefer to see a thoughtful critique, although I doubt its manifestation will become an issue in need of addressing. However, I leave room for the possibility...

your statement merely describes the CURRENT scheme which is a miserable failure.

"Money" is not created by government, but rather by MARKETS.

government merely regulates the currency. it produces nothing. it's job is to defend society and secure the uninterrupted marketing of goods and services from which it gathers the taxes which it uses to fund it's various projects in furtherance of society's aims.

your assertion is an example of circular reasoning

Rome did not tax so it could spend, it taxed to secure a treasury, housed under the temple of Juno. when the senate needed funds for a project, such as a road, a bridge or a Colosseum, they requisitioned the gold (derived from taxation) from the treasury, and when the treasury was low, they borrowed against future taxation from private lenders, who were ALWAYS repaid from treasury monies, or in many cases (such as Rome's water system, various temples and the Via Appia) the cost was paid by a benefactor as a gift to the city.

in no way were Rome's taxes dependent on spending, and spending was limited by revenue on hand or loans which could be taken against future revenue.

Treasuries are intended to be a storehouse of TREASURE against future need, not a moneylender's bank or a monetary Ouroboros forever consuming it's own tail.

these debt based systems are designed to impoverish the government placing it in the hands of those who hold the purse strings (see the Italian City States of the late medieval period through the Renaissance) but only a foolish person borrows from a loan shark and thinks he can not pay it back with considerable interest, and without forever having additional strings attached.

History is replete with examples of governments which spent only as the treasury allowed (ancient china from Qin Sher Huang Di to the Song Dynasty), as well as those which taxed, and rarely spent (see The Vatican), and even some which never taxed at all (see native american tribes)

your argument may sound convincing to some, but it is sophistry, and has no validity outside our current debt based economy and Fiat Currency.

 

[Dr Kynes]

The working poor spend every penny they earn, living pay check to pay check.

In recognition of that fact, the prebate is nothing more than a mechanism by which the poor are not taxed on every penny they earn. Just like in our current tax system.

That goal is one of the few things the fair tax and the current income tax share.

If you are thinking of this as a handout, you are thinking all wrong.

I'm not sure if you know who Neil Boortz is. He was a radio talk show host, and a libertarian. He was an ardent proponent of the fair tax, and a vehement opponent of handouts to the poor.

Yet he was such a staunch fair tax supporter he co-wrote two books in favor of and expaining the fair tax.

It is obvious you have very little knowledge of it, or what knowledge you do have is superficial and has come from the fair taxes opponents that happen to have as much respect for the truth as uncle buck.

your "prebate" is a sop to the plebs, nothing more. in fact your whole argument is pointless since the federal government has no constitutional power to tax labour or wages at all, and has no power to tax transactions within a state, or between the states.

Congress is empowered to lay stamp taxes on goods in interstate or international commerce, levy tariffs, and submit a bill to it's member states for remission of funds by apportionment.

in breif, the congress can tax GOODS in commerce (not labour services or your sweat) and it can tax the states, not people.

arguing for a "fairtax", (just a slogan for a national sales tax, which is as unfair as any tax ever devised) is stupid.

sales taxes are nothing new, they are a lethal chokehold for the economy, and a boon for black marketeers.

YOU obviously have very little knowledge of how economies work, and what little you do have was shat directly into your mouth from between the broad buttocks of a person who would do VERY WELL INDEED if his income, investments and holdings are untaxed.

the system is FUCKED and needs fixing, but this proposal is Dead On Arrival.

 

[heckler73]

your statement merely describes the CURRENT scheme which is a miserable failure.

"Money" is not created by government, but rather by MARKETS.

government merely regulates the currency. it produces nothing. it's job is to defend society and secure the uninterrupted marketing of goods and services from which it gathers the taxes which it uses to fund it's various projects in furtherance of society's aims.

So...Treasuries are "created" by markets?
The "scheme" is not a failure; it is the misapplication of it and ignorance of elected representatives that is the true failure.
Think about it for a second. If you were in charge of America's purse strings, wouldn't you be acting as if the "debt is too high"?
Your previous comments seem to indicate that.
Your reps are no more cognizant than you.

Canada ran under this "scheme" quite well from ~1935 to the early 70s, when at the behest of the IMF (and perhaps Britain) we began playing the GBC game so as not to unsettle the "gold standard" hangover that was causing ForEx grief post-Nixon. Keep in mind (because I know I've told this to you before) interest-bearing Federal Gov't debt is merely a "sink" for liquidity, not a necessity for "loans".

[video=youtube;6yA1WwkBKLE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yA1WwkBKLE[/video]

 

[Dr Kynes]

So...Treasuries are "created" by markets?
The "scheme" is not a failure; it is the misapplication of it and ignorance of elected representatives that is the true failure.
Think about it for a second. If you were in charge of America's purse strings, wouldn't you be acting as if the "debt is too high"?
Your previous comments seem to indicate that.
Your reps are no more cognizant than you.

Canada ran under this "scheme" quite well from ~1935 to the early 70s, when at the behest of the IMF (and perhaps Britain) we began playing the GBC game so as not to unsettle the "gold standard" hangover that was causing ForEx grief post-Nixon. Keep in mind (because I know I've told this to you before) interest-bearing Federal Gov't debt is merely a "sink" for liquidity, not a necessity for "loans".

[video=youtube;6yA1WwkBKLE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yA1WwkBKLE[/video]

what a groovy strawman you have erected. i am sure youll be able to smite it with great smotency.
Treasuries are created BY SOCIETIES (usually the ruling body, monarch, or in a few cases, the collective itself) as a store of value for use in furtherance of the society's aims.

why is that so hard for you to figure out?
i realize you have to spend a lot of time reading the mindless jibber-jabber of econo-frootloops, and accepting wholeheartedly their disparate and contradictory theories, and of course you have to divert considerable brainpower to craft your smug replies and condescending attitude, but this is not that hard an idea to figure out.

if a king decides to build a castle, he does not ponder how he will tax his subjects and passing merchants LATER to construct it, cuz craftsmen dont work on credit.
he pays them from his TREASURY, and hopes to recoup those costs through taxation and tolls LATER.

you have placed the economic cart before the horse.

bold ideas and a sack full of gold can accomplish a lot, but all the bold ideas on earth cannot do shit if the sack is empty.

our CURRENT system is foolish, illogical, and doomed to fail, since the taxation needed to pay for a project is ALWAYS just a future projection, and those rarely turn out as well as hoped.

but at least now i understand what you fools mean when you say "austerity doesnt work". you actually believe that saving up to do shit in the future is impossible, due to the uncertainty of prognostication, while simultaneously accepting the foolish notion that you can predict the future actions of the economy and people accurately, so buying shit with debt totally works.

when sensible people say "austerity" they mean cutting spending so you can start BUILDING UP A TREASURY (which we havent had since the FDR regime) so when you DO want to build something or buy something, you dont have to pay for it with debt, and thus avoid the interest payments.

the only reason the current debt circlejerk has not fallen on it's face yet, is Twofold...

1: TAXES ARE LEVIED AS HEAVILY AS GOVERNMENT CHOOSES, REGARDLESS OF ABILITY TO PAY

if you dont want to buy a new car, you dont have to, when the tax man comes for his piece of the action you WILL give him everything he wants, or suffer the consequences, and unfortunately theres noplace to run from the IRS since they now tax YOU instead of your commerce.

2: THERE IS NO GOVERNMENT CREDIT CARD REPO-MAN

if there was a guy ready willing and able to take back possession of a building, highway, or aircraft carrier when the congress misses a few payments, shit would operate more sensibly and the fools who make those charts and videos you love so much would have to get real jobs

 

[NoDrama]

the federal government has no constitutional power to tax labour or wages at all, and has no power to tax transactions within a state, or between the states.

Even if everyone learned the truth of this statement do you think it would change anything?

 

[UncleBuck]

Even if everyone learned the truth of this statement do you think it would change anything?

you TROOFERS are quite adorable, and it is giving me a rather solid erection.

 

[NoDrama]

you TROOFERS are quite adorable, and it is giving me a rather solid erection.