3 ms·

I agree that corporations behave rationally avoiding tax. I agree it's the government's (global gov not just US) fault. I agree it's a complex problem because i

by lz400 9y ago

I agree that corporations behave rationally avoiding tax. I agree it's the government's (global gov not just US) fault. I agree it's a complex problem because it probably needs a global, not local/nation level solution. But yes basically those tax avoidance tricks loopholes should be closed. I disagree that a welfare state is unsustainable. I think it's not and if anything, seems most of the thinking of the future once automation and ML take over most of the world is that some type of UBI will be necessary. I don't know the exact form but I agree. The brutal increase in productivity and value added by technology will have to be offset with a redistribution of that wealth if we want a functioning society. We might start now and fix the welfare state.

candiodari 9y ago
The problem is that you sidestep the obvious issue as if it doesn't exist. Money represents economic activity. Healthcare and elderly care currently consumes 20% of all economic activity. That is what's unsustainable. This is out of the question towards the future, since those people do not contribute 20% of GDP in the first place (and they'd need to contribute almost 40% to justify that). I guess the question I'm asking is simple: you want to increase this expenditure ... ok. What do you drop ? Please pick other parts of the economy that we can just drop ... Please don't just handwave "just automate it and save 50%" but ...
- lz400 9y ago
  First, elderly healthcare is 34% of healthcare spending in the US (and healthcare is 16% of GDP) so it isn't be 20% of all economic activity in the US. And US healthcare is very expensive compared to other countries. Second, seems to work in Europe and Japan (Japan has a very old pop and total healthcare spending is 8% of GDP). Maybe the US has the wrong healthcare system? :) Third, the welfare state is not only healthcare for the elderly.

by lz400 9y ago

candiodari 9y ago

The problem is that you sidestep the obvious issue as if it doesn't exist. Money represents economic activity. Healthcare and elderly care currently consumes 20% of all economic activity. That is what's unsustainable. This is out of the question towards the future, since those people do not contribute 20% of GDP in the first place (and they'd need to contribute almost 40% to justify that). I guess the question I'm asking is simple: you want to increase this expenditure ... ok. What do you drop ? Please pick other parts of the economy that we can just drop ... Please don't just handwave "just automate it and save 50%" but ...

lz400 9y ago
First, elderly healthcare is 34% of healthcare spending in the US (and healthcare is 16% of GDP) so it isn't be 20% of all economic activity in the US. And US healthcare is very expensive compared to other countries. Second, seems to work in Europe and Japan (Japan has a very old pop and total healthcare spending is 8% of GDP). Maybe the US has the wrong healthcare system? :) Third, the welfare state is not only healthcare for the elderly.