3 ms·

The only way to help people struggling with income is to lower their income taxes. That forces them to still be productive members of society instead of suppor

by junaru 2y ago

The only way to help people struggling with income is to lower their income taxes. That forces them to still be productive members of society instead of supporting populist handouts that are not sustainable once the ball gets rolling and corporations move out.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
bell-cot 2y ago
> The only way to help... Sounds like you're unfamiliar with the "working poor" in modern America. If your income is low, and rent/food/transportation/health care are expensive, then "pay zero incomes taxes" will not magically balance your books. (Not saying that this measure would balance them either. Nor that it's optimal tax policy/public policy. Nor that doing anything that's anywhere near "optimal" is even possible, in modern-day America):
jimkleiber 2y ago
If a person is a stay-at-home homemaker, cleaning the house, shopping for food, cooking, attending to the children, and more, would you consider them a productive member of society? Edit added below: And what about someone who volunteers 80 hours per week maintaining an open-source software used by hundreds if not thousands of companies? Does one need to be directly paid to be a productive member of society?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- b112 2y ago
  Every rule has exceptions. Removing incentive, and self sufficiency as a goal of our current system isn't the answer. The answer instead is to tweak it so other types of work have value, and result in support. We already have that, in the form of charitable and non-profit foundations, corps. We even encourage that, in the form of tax deductions for those donatong to the same. We have a patch already, it just needs to be deployed more if required. So we already have a mechanism to aid with non-profit open sauce work, Beyond that, there are many different types of hobbies people employ. But to the homemaker, caring for children, he already has a boon, at least where I live. Thousands in tax deductions and credits (eg, just cash) along with monthly cash, the more children, the more paid. The US might use more of that, to patch that hole.
  - scotty79 2y ago
    What you call 'incentive' is direct threat of homelessness and starvation.
  - jimkleiber 2y ago
    If a person is a full-time homemaker, they don't have income so a tax deduction doesn't do much. A credit might, depending on how much it is. I'm curious, do you know how much they receive? Regarding non-profits, most people have jobs with the non-profit, meaning they give services in direct exchange for money. If people are volunteering their services, they must receive money from somewhere else to live, and that often seems to come from a job, a family member, investment, or inheritance. I don't know of many ways we enable people to do communal work, besides maybe those listed above and maybe the tax credits. Actually, if the tax credit equals $750 and is given to everyone, isn't it the same as the proposal above?
    - b112 2y ago
      I don't know of many ways we enable people to do communal work, besides maybe those listed above and maybe the tax credits. I just told you one. Charities, non-profits or foundations. These are the mechanisms that may be used to pay volunteers. There are also tax incentives for the rich to fund them, charitable donations are deductible. I also said "We have a patch already, it just needs to be deployed more if required." It does not matter that these people are "volunteers", for your goal is to see them funded. Saying it's not reasonable to pay them a wage for their volunteer work, doesn't jive here. You say you just want everyone to receive cash. I don't. At all. I want people doing things of worth to society, even a portion of it to receive cash for their efforts. You should note my culture, in that, I believe the infirm, the sick, those mentally incapable of working, and so on should receive a dignified living. I also belive that even those just generally lazy, or to selfish to work should receive shelter, and food. They should not die from the elements, nor starve. But I certainly believe the lazy and selfish should have no extra capital given to them by the state. Only enough to survive, no more. I also don't think handing out cash to rich, poor, lazy, industrious alike makes sense. Save the cash for those we really need to care for, the infirm, the sick, and so on. There is a significant portion of people that are quite simply lazy. I believe it to be double digits. I am not a fan of planned social governance, but if it were to happen, I'd start by prohibiting the lazy from procreating. We don't need more of those genes.

by junaru 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

bell-cot 2y ago

> The only way to help... Sounds like you're unfamiliar with the "working poor" in modern America. If your income is low, and rent/food/transportation/health care are expensive, then "pay zero incomes taxes" will not magically balance your books. (Not saying that this measure would balance them either. Nor that it's optimal tax policy/public policy. Nor that doing anything that's anywhere near "optimal" is even possible, in modern-day America):

jimkleiber 2y ago

If a person is a stay-at-home homemaker, cleaning the house, shopping for food, cooking, attending to the children, and more, would you consider them a productive member of society? Edit added below: And what about someone who volunteers 80 hours per week maintaining an open-source software used by hundreds if not thousands of companies? Does one need to be directly paid to be a productive member of society?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
b112 2y ago
Every rule has exceptions. Removing incentive, and self sufficiency as a goal of our current system isn't the answer. The answer instead is to tweak it so other types of work have value, and result in support. We already have that, in the form of charitable and non-profit foundations, corps. We even encourage that, in the form of tax deductions for those donatong to the same. We have a patch already, it just needs to be deployed more if required. So we already have a mechanism to aid with non-profit open sauce work, Beyond that, there are many different types of hobbies people employ. But to the homemaker, caring for children, he already has a boon, at least where I live. Thousands in tax deductions and credits (eg, just cash) along with monthly cash, the more children, the more paid. The US might use more of that, to patch that hole.
- scotty79 2y ago
  What you call 'incentive' is direct threat of homelessness and starvation.
- jimkleiber 2y ago
  If a person is a full-time homemaker, they don't have income so a tax deduction doesn't do much. A credit might, depending on how much it is. I'm curious, do you know how much they receive? Regarding non-profits, most people have jobs with the non-profit, meaning they give services in direct exchange for money. If people are volunteering their services, they must receive money from somewhere else to live, and that often seems to come from a job, a family member, investment, or inheritance. I don't know of many ways we enable people to do communal work, besides maybe those listed above and maybe the tax credits. Actually, if the tax credit equals $750 and is given to everyone, isn't it the same as the proposal above?
  - b112 2y ago
    I don't know of many ways we enable people to do communal work, besides maybe those listed above and maybe the tax credits. I just told you one. Charities, non-profits or foundations. These are the mechanisms that may be used to pay volunteers. There are also tax incentives for the rich to fund them, charitable donations are deductible. I also said "We have a patch already, it just needs to be deployed more if required." It does not matter that these people are "volunteers", for your goal is to see them funded. Saying it's not reasonable to pay them a wage for their volunteer work, doesn't jive here. You say you just want everyone to receive cash. I don't. At all. I want people doing things of worth to society, even a portion of it to receive cash for their efforts. You should note my culture, in that, I believe the infirm, the sick, those mentally incapable of working, and so on should receive a dignified living. I also belive that even those just generally lazy, or to selfish to work should receive shelter, and food. They should not die from the elements, nor starve. But I certainly believe the lazy and selfish should have no extra capital given to them by the state. Only enough to survive, no more. I also don't think handing out cash to rich, poor, lazy, industrious alike makes sense. Save the cash for those we really need to care for, the infirm, the sick, and so on. There is a significant portion of people that are quite simply lazy. I believe it to be double digits. I am not a fan of planned social governance, but if it were to happen, I'd start by prohibiting the lazy from procreating. We don't need more of those genes.