5 ms·

That's how communism was supposed to work, and the guys in charge of redistribution took the lion's share for themselves.

Ygg2 10y ago
There are ways to making this work. Sadly, none applies to dollar. One solution. Make dollars worthless, unless they have been stamped with a stamp, for the current month. Basically force people to pay taxes on money. Say you have to pay 10% of the value. Got 2bil, congrats. You are paying $200 million each month.
- ant6n 10y ago
  A simpler way would be to print more money and cause more inflation. 10% wealth destruction per month matches the hyper inflation of Germany in the 20s.Of course the rich who store their assets in non liquid form weren't as affected as the poor who didn't know how to pay for bread.
  - visarga 10y ago
    There is another way, without issuing money. Create a new currency, dedicated for paying UBI to people. Then require that companies pay part of their taxes in this currency, in order to make it valuable. It should cycle itself back and there would be no need to issue new UBI money. The deeper problem is that companies have a conflict of short term / long term interest. In the short term, they would prefer to sell their products with as little taxes as possible, and hire as few people as possible. But in the long term, their interest is to have a thriving population and a robust market. If companies don't act responsibly towards society, there is a pressing need to organize self-reliance. We need to create a new economy based on unemployed people. With good management, they could cover a part of their needs without external help, maybe even be self sufficient. In a sense, we could employ the mass of jobless to work for their needs, thus finding employment and solving their problems directly.
    - fpig 10y ago
      I see this repeated all the time but I consider it to be completely wrong. It is always in my interest to keep $X rather than give it to someone else. Even if they use the $X to buy my product, that's still less favorable for me than to just keep it and not sell the product. And the chance that they would buy my product with that money is almost zero anyway. Giving people money in hopes that they will buy your product is mathematically a losing strategy, in short or long term.
      - visarga 10y ago
        Companies are benefiting from paying less salary and thus not supporting society, but in tern, expecting the same society to buy their products. Population was already reliant on salary, which was a part of the cost of production. It won't change much, just that now it is redistributed more.
    - Kalium 10y ago
      I eagerly await you building the society of self-reliance of which you speak. It sounds like there's nothing stopping you!
      - visarga 10y ago
        If it's so bad, then you take the lead and provide a different idea.
        Kalium 10y ago
        I earnestly and honestly think that if you believe in the notions you have advanced, then you should work towards implementing them. Surely the jobless masses will be happy to work for their needs, and self-sufficiency will obviate the need for any external assistance.
  - Ygg2 10y ago
    No, that won't lead to inflation. Quite opposite, it would lead to deflation, since you have same material value, represented by a lower number of bonds/money. The value of money, each month would go up, and printing money could be use to counter act the deflation, creating a stable currency. Keep in mind that if you use your money before it expires each month, you get more value than if you just sit on it.
- adrianN 10y ago
  Many people don't think that a flat tax is a good system. I think you'd want to tax rich people more, percentage wise.
- fpig 10y ago
  Inequality isn't there because the rich hoard actual dollar bills in their basement. What you suggest would affect the poor and middle class more than the rich.
  - Ygg2 10y ago
    True, there would need to be other methods to deal with super rich, although they'd just escape jurisdiction into other states. I don't think poor/middle class would be that badly affected. With money taxed, you have a lot of incentive to give that money away, to avoid paying cost.
    - fpig 10y ago
      You have an incentive to exchange dollar bills for some other form of assets. This is easier for the rich, and richer people tend to hold a lower percentage of their wealth in cash. So the system you propose is regressive; it is actually less redistributive than some kind of flat tax. The idea is just incredibly stupid as a way to redistribute wealth.
      - Ygg2 10y ago
        Well, it did prove itself as a prototype once: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freigeld https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freigeld - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C3%B6rgl#The_W.C3.B6rgl_Experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C3%B6rgl#The_W.C3.B6rgl_Expe... Government still gets to redistribute whatever taxes it accrues.
        fpig 10y ago
        No it hasn't, absolutely nothing on those pages is an argument against anything I wrote. Not only can the rich easily avoid this system, they don't even need to do anything because today, the rich already hold almost all of their assets in non-cash form. So your idea doesn't work even if the rich literally to do nothing about, they are already safe before you even start. Yes, the government can redistribute money of poor and middle class people that was collected this way back to them.
- VMG 10y ago
  This childish understanding of economy and prosperity would be funnier if authoritarian regimes wouldn't try them on a regular basis. They find out that cash holders don't use it to fill their bathtub but run their business.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- theamk 10y ago
  This would be totally devastating to many people who do not earn that much. Before, you could stash $200 per month to make a nice "rainy day fund" in case you lose job, get sick or your car breaks down. Now you would not be able to do so -- just work work work and don't even think about leaving your job! And the worst part, it would not even work against rich people. So I got 2bil? Great, I will buy 5 houses and a furniture factory. And move the rest to my shell company in Caribbeans.

Ygg2 10y ago

There are ways to making this work. Sadly, none applies to dollar. One solution. Make dollars worthless, unless they have been stamped with a stamp, for the current month. Basically force people to pay taxes on money. Say you have to pay 10% of the value. Got 2bil, congrats. You are paying $200 million each month.

ant6n 10y ago
A simpler way would be to print more money and cause more inflation. 10% wealth destruction per month matches the hyper inflation of Germany in the 20s.Of course the rich who store their assets in non liquid form weren't as affected as the poor who didn't know how to pay for bread.
- visarga 10y ago
  There is another way, without issuing money. Create a new currency, dedicated for paying UBI to people. Then require that companies pay part of their taxes in this currency, in order to make it valuable. It should cycle itself back and there would be no need to issue new UBI money. The deeper problem is that companies have a conflict of short term / long term interest. In the short term, they would prefer to sell their products with as little taxes as possible, and hire as few people as possible. But in the long term, their interest is to have a thriving population and a robust market. If companies don't act responsibly towards society, there is a pressing need to organize self-reliance. We need to create a new economy based on unemployed people. With good management, they could cover a part of their needs without external help, maybe even be self sufficient. In a sense, we could employ the mass of jobless to work for their needs, thus finding employment and solving their problems directly.
  - fpig 10y ago
    I see this repeated all the time but I consider it to be completely wrong. It is always in my interest to keep $X rather than give it to someone else. Even if they use the $X to buy my product, that's still less favorable for me than to just keep it and not sell the product. And the chance that they would buy my product with that money is almost zero anyway. Giving people money in hopes that they will buy your product is mathematically a losing strategy, in short or long term.
    - visarga 10y ago
      Companies are benefiting from paying less salary and thus not supporting society, but in tern, expecting the same society to buy their products. Population was already reliant on salary, which was a part of the cost of production. It won't change much, just that now it is redistributed more.
  - Kalium 10y ago
    I eagerly await you building the society of self-reliance of which you speak. It sounds like there's nothing stopping you!
    - visarga 10y ago
      If it's so bad, then you take the lead and provide a different idea.
      - Kalium 10y ago
        I earnestly and honestly think that if you believe in the notions you have advanced, then you should work towards implementing them. Surely the jobless masses will be happy to work for their needs, and self-sufficiency will obviate the need for any external assistance.
- Ygg2 10y ago
  No, that won't lead to inflation. Quite opposite, it would lead to deflation, since you have same material value, represented by a lower number of bonds/money. The value of money, each month would go up, and printing money could be use to counter act the deflation, creating a stable currency. Keep in mind that if you use your money before it expires each month, you get more value than if you just sit on it.
adrianN 10y ago
Many people don't think that a flat tax is a good system. I think you'd want to tax rich people more, percentage wise.
fpig 10y ago
Inequality isn't there because the rich hoard actual dollar bills in their basement. What you suggest would affect the poor and middle class more than the rich.
- Ygg2 10y ago
  True, there would need to be other methods to deal with super rich, although they'd just escape jurisdiction into other states. I don't think poor/middle class would be that badly affected. With money taxed, you have a lot of incentive to give that money away, to avoid paying cost.
  - fpig 10y ago
    You have an incentive to exchange dollar bills for some other form of assets. This is easier for the rich, and richer people tend to hold a lower percentage of their wealth in cash. So the system you propose is regressive; it is actually less redistributive than some kind of flat tax. The idea is just incredibly stupid as a way to redistribute wealth.
    - Ygg2 10y ago
      Well, it did prove itself as a prototype once: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freigeld https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freigeld - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C3%B6rgl#The_W.C3.B6rgl_Experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C3%B6rgl#The_W.C3.B6rgl_Expe... Government still gets to redistribute whatever taxes it accrues.
      - fpig 10y ago
        No it hasn't, absolutely nothing on those pages is an argument against anything I wrote. Not only can the rich easily avoid this system, they don't even need to do anything because today, the rich already hold almost all of their assets in non-cash form. So your idea doesn't work even if the rich literally to do nothing about, they are already safe before you even start. Yes, the government can redistribute money of poor and middle class people that was collected this way back to them.
VMG 10y ago
This childish understanding of economy and prosperity would be funnier if authoritarian regimes wouldn't try them on a regular basis. They find out that cash holders don't use it to fill their bathtub but run their business.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
theamk 10y ago
This would be totally devastating to many people who do not earn that much. Before, you could stash $200 per month to make a nice "rainy day fund" in case you lose job, get sick or your car breaks down. Now you would not be able to do so -- just work work work and don't even think about leaving your job! And the worst part, it would not even work against rich people. So I got 2bil? Great, I will buy 5 houses and a furniture factory. And move the rest to my shell company in Caribbeans.