Staredit Network > Forums > Lite Discussion > Topic: Jobs, Taxes, Class Warfare, wtf?
Jobs, Taxes, Class Warfare, wtf?
Oct 16 2011, 3:35 am
By: Rantent
Pages: < 1 2 3 4 5 >
 

Dec 13 2011, 3:37 am Jack Post #61

>be faceless void >mfw I have no face

No, I'm not in favour of the government giving anyone benefits. But if they ARE going to give benefits, they should give everyone an equal benefit rather than favouring some. Of course, this then creates the problem you mentioned, and in addition the government could simply reduce tax and give out no benefits; the net result would be the same.



Red classic.

Dec 13 2011, 3:38 am ubermctastic Post #62



Yes, but is it the governments right to redistribute wealth as it sees fit?



None.

Dec 13 2011, 3:45 am Jack Post #63

>be faceless void >mfw I have no face

Quote from name:K_A
Yes, but is it the governments right to redistribute wealth as it sees fit?
Uhh. I'm against government benefits is that's what you mean.

Incidentally, forced taxation is unconstitutional in the USA; unfortunately the court cases about that all rule in favour of the US government forcibly taxing peoplre.



Red classic.

Dec 13 2011, 3:54 am Lanthanide Post #64



Quote from Jack
No, I'm not in favour of the government giving anyone benefits. But if they ARE going to give benefits, they should give everyone an equal benefit rather than favouring some. Of course, this then creates the problem you mentioned, and in addition the government could simply reduce tax and give out no benefits; the net result would be the same.
What "problem" I mentioned?

If the government reduced tax and didn't give out any benefits, then someone who was on a benefit of say $10k, now receives $0 income. The "net result" is completely and utterly different.



None.

Dec 13 2011, 3:56 am Jack Post #65

>be faceless void >mfw I have no face

Quote from Lanthanide
Quote from Jack
No, I'm not in favour of the government giving anyone benefits. But if they ARE going to give benefits, they should give everyone an equal benefit rather than favouring some. Of course, this then creates the problem you mentioned, and in addition the government could simply reduce tax and give out no benefits; the net result would be the same.
What "problem" I mentioned?

If the government reduced tax and didn't give out any benefits, then someone who was on a benefit of say $10k, now receives $0 income. The "net result" is completely and utterly different.
The problem of unfair taxes/benefits.

The NET result is the same. Certain individuals may be better off or worse off.



Red classic.

Dec 13 2011, 3:57 am ubermctastic Post #66



What this really boils down to is
Do we want unemployment and very progressive taxes, or do we want emplyment and balanced taxes?

Instead of worrying about the guy with $0 we should give him a job



None.

Dec 13 2011, 4:02 am Jack Post #67

>be faceless void >mfw I have no face

Quote from name:K_A
What this really boils down to is
Do we want unemployment and very progressive taxes, or do we want emplyment and balanced taxes?

Instead of worrying about the guy with $0 we should give him a job
In New Zealand it's hard to give everyone jobs because of artificial wage floors such as the minimum wage ($13 NZD currently), high taxes, and progressive taxes. My boss would be able to hire 3-4 more people if there was no minimum wage; he can't though, which means 3-4 people without jobs.



Red classic.

Dec 13 2011, 4:04 am Lanthanide Post #68



Quote from Jack
The problem of unfair taxes/benefits.
Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about. I didn't say anything about that in my post.

Quote
The NET result is the same. Certain individuals may be better off or worse off.
The NET result is almost certainly far worse.

I've seen comments from many small business owners that the slump in the early 1990's was worse than what we're currently going through. That was after Ruth Richardson significantly slashed benefits; money that people used to buy goods and services in the community. The economy is a money-go-round, if you suddenly throw a whole lot of people off the ride, there's less money circulating and everyone suffers (except those at the very top who already have a lot of capital and can rent-seek).

You should have watched the documentary on child poverty that was on TV a few weeks ago. These children don't have enough to eat and suffer very poor health because of overcrowding in houses and lack of money to buy food. They're unable to learn anything in school, and a whole new generation grows up who hardly have a chance of leaving the poverty trap.

If you suddenly drop these families down to receiving no benefit at all, you're going to make this problem worse, not better. If you think having an expanding underclass is the "same NET result" then you're insane.

Quote
My boss would be able to hire 3-4 more people if there was no minimum wage; he can't though, which means 3-4 people without jobs.
You're imaginging a world where EVERYTHING stays the same except the minimum wage. Sorry, doesn't work like that. With a lower minimum wage, all people who currently earn minimum wage and buy from your employer will have less money to spend. Your employer might now be able to hire 3-4 more people, but he may not need to if his business has dropped because people don't have enough money to buy his goods any more.



None.

Dec 13 2011, 4:12 am Vrael Post #69



Quote from Jack
Quote from name:K_A
Yes, but is it the governments right to redistribute wealth as it sees fit?
Uhh. I'm against government benefits is that's what you mean.

Incidentally, forced taxation is unconstitutional in the USA; unfortunately the court cases about that all rule in favour of the US government forcibly taxing peoplre.
I suppose as you're not an american this is excusable, but taxation is completely constitutional:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
See Article 1
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."



None.

Dec 13 2011, 4:16 am Sacrieur Post #70

Still Napping

The favorite Republican dogma is that tax breaks to the rich "creates jobs". I do not know how they came up with this crazy piece of idiotic logic, but it seems to have worked with other conservatives (what a surprise!). And I still haven't seen one shred of evidence to suggest that tax breaks to the rich will create jobs. Or evidence that suggests capitalism has a magic hand that fixes everything.



None.

Dec 13 2011, 4:16 am Lanthanide Post #71



Quote from Vrael
I suppose as you're not an american this is excusable, but taxation is completely constitutional
I'm not American and I knew that.

Jack's problem is that he hates all governments everywhere and thinks that government shouldn't do anything except defend it's populace from war, apparently. These sorts of anti-government types loves to believe that whatever the government does that they don't agree with is unconstitutional, regardless of the facts.



None.

Dec 13 2011, 4:22 am ubermctastic Post #72



Quote from Sacrieur
The favorite Republican dogma is that tax breaks to the rich "creates jobs". I do not know how they came up with this crazy piece of idiotic logic, but it seems to have worked with other conservatives (what a surprise!). And I still haven't seen one shred of evidence to suggest that tax breaks to the rich will create jobs. Or evidence that suggests capitalism has a magic hand that fixes everything.

I'm just curious where the money actually goes (besided their pockets) because they have to spend it eventually right?



None.

Dec 13 2011, 4:29 am Sacrieur Post #73

Still Napping

Quote from name:K_A
Quote from Sacrieur
The favorite Republican dogma is that tax breaks to the rich "creates jobs". I do not know how they came up with this crazy piece of idiotic logic, but it seems to have worked with other conservatives (what a surprise!). And I still haven't seen one shred of evidence to suggest that tax breaks to the rich will create jobs. Or evidence that suggests capitalism has a magic hand that fixes everything.

I'm just curious where the money actually goes (besided their pockets) because they have to spend it eventually right?

No, actually this statistical analysis shows that the rich tend to save their tax cuts, not spend it.



None.

Dec 13 2011, 4:30 am Lanthanide Post #74



Quote from name:K_A
I'm just curious where the money actually goes (besided their pockets) because they have to spend it eventually right?
'Eventually' is the problem. It's also what they spend it on.

Go give $1,000 to a poor family and watch what they spend it on. Most likely food, clothing, probably a little on some entertainment and to pay bills.

Give $1,000 to someone who is wealthy and they'll just put it in the bank, or spend it on an overseas holiday (money leaves the country) or on a luxury item of some sort. The purveyors of luxury items themselves tend to be wealthy, so you don't get much of a "trickle down" effect at all.

Just look at what happens to a community when Walmart opens up and drives all the mom and pop stores out of business. All the wealth gets shipped out of town and eventually ends up in the Walton's bank account. But the mom and pop shops would have kept the money circulating in the community.

Having said all that, I do believe that rich people sitting on all this money do actually help to dampen down inflation. I believe this isn't something that is given much thought when people talk about redistributing wealth through taxation.

Quote
No, actually this statistical analysis shows that the rich tend to save their tax cuts, not spend it.
Saving is deferred consumption. The money will 'eventually' be spent. The question is how long, and where. Although frankly there's so much money floating around in the world that it can't ever really be spent; I suspect most of it will just evaporate in bank crashes and failed companies. Similar to how a lot of it was created out of thin air by fractional reserve banking in the first place.



None.

Dec 13 2011, 4:31 am ubermctastic Post #75



I suppose we've found the real problem with a conservative plan then haven't we? People aren't trustworthy.
but giving money to the people on the bottom doesn't give them their mom and pop store back either



None.

Dec 13 2011, 4:34 am Lanthanide Post #76



Quote from name:K_A
I suppose we've found the real problem with a conservative plan then haven't we? People aren't trustworthy.
It's not a problem with "a conservative plan", it's a problem with humans in general. Greed it the problem; wanting to have more of something than is necessary to meet your needs. People just want more and more, even at the expense of others.

Taxation and welfare policies are a brute-force and clumsy way to help ameliorate the impact of greed for the betterment of society as a whole. In an ideal world we would hardly need much taxation or welfare at all.

Quote
but giving money to the people on the bottom doesn't give them their mom and pop store back either
No, but you know what does? Sufficient regulation to prevent stores like Wal Mart coming into an area and driving the competition out. Minimum wage laws ensure that stores like Wal Mart have to pay their employees sufficient money to live on and this in itself helps to slow down the money-vacuum process because more money will stay in the local community. When more money stays in the local community, it gives more chance of mom and pop stores being able to compete with the bigger rivals (generally competing on quality and service, not price).



None.

Dec 13 2011, 4:36 am ubermctastic Post #77



Just seems like everyone can identify the problem-Greed, but noone knows how to really fix it. Sure we can find ways to treat the symptoms, but they aren't solutions.



None.

Dec 13 2011, 4:38 am Sacrieur Post #78

Still Napping

Quote from Lanthanide
Quote from name:K_A
I suppose we've found the real problem with a conservative plan then haven't we? People aren't trustworthy.
It's not a problem with "a conservative plan", it's a problem with humans in general. Greed it the problem; wanting to have more of something than is necessary to meet your needs. People just want more and more, even at the expense of others.

Taxation and welfare policies are a brute-force and clumsy way to help ameliorate the impact of greed for the betterment of society as a whole. In an ideal world we would hardly need much taxation or welfare at all.

I don't quite agree with this. I don't believe there is definitive evidence to suggest that humans are inherently greedy, and to the contrary, I think the ball is the court that humans are influenced by their environment. Psychological need certainly makes a play here. But not being able to fulfill those needs encourages the development of greedy humans.



None.

Dec 13 2011, 4:51 am Lanthanide Post #79



Quote from Sacrieur
I don't quite agree with this. I don't believe there is definitive evidence to suggest that humans are inherently greedy, and to the contrary, I think the ball is the court that humans are influenced by their environment. Psychological need certainly makes a play here. But not being able to fulfill those needs encourages the development of greedy humans.
On the purely evolutionary level, having more than your neighbour means you're more likely to survive. Normally this would only be borne out when times get tough however and you're in direct competition with them - usually co-operating leads to better outcomes for all.

But in our modern society where broadly speaking, more money = more fun, where communities are far too large for everyone to know each other personally, there is no incentive to share and share-alike. Being greedy (within the law) is ultimately unpunished and brings it's own rewards of more money = more fun. People are more or less evolutionarily hard-wired to maximise pleasure and enjoyment where possible.



None.

Dec 13 2011, 4:55 am Sacrieur Post #80

Still Napping

Quote from Lanthanide
Quote from Sacrieur
I don't quite agree with this. I don't believe there is definitive evidence to suggest that humans are inherently greedy, and to the contrary, I think the ball is the court that humans are influenced by their environment. Psychological need certainly makes a play here. But not being able to fulfill those needs encourages the development of greedy humans.
On the purely evolutionary level, having more than your neighbour means you're more likely to survive. Normally this would only be borne out when times get tough however and you're in direct competition with them - usually co-operating leads to better outcomes for all.

But in our modern society where broadly speaking, more money = more fun, where communities are far too large for everyone to know each other personally, there is no incentive to share and share-alike. Being greedy (within the law) is ultimately unpunished and brings it's own rewards of more money = more fun. People are more or less evolutionarily hard-wired to maximise pleasure and enjoyment where possible.

Agreed, I just wanted to make the distinction between environmental and evolutionary factors so people don't get the impression that the system is not at fault.



None.

Options
Pages: < 1 2 3 4 5 >
  Back to forum
Please log in to reply to this topic or to report it.
Members in this topic: None.
[06:25 pm]
m.0.n.3.y -- Here's another question. I'm using switch randomization for powerups. There are 9 powerups, and I only want any of the powerups to appear only about 30% of the time. So I was just going to use 5 switches for a total of 32 options and have the other 23 results restart the randomization process. Is there a better way to do this?
[06:04 pm]
m.0.n.3.y -- NudeRaider
NudeRaider shouted: m.0.n.3.y Pro and Demon already gave correct answers, but let me add a pretty elegant way: Have the detection trigger owned by whoever is convenient for you. A single computer player, a force, all players - it doesn't matter. Now detect for the arbiter in conditions - also doesn't really matter how. In actions just set a dc to 1 for all players or the force that should have the text displayed. It will set the dc for each player to 1 individually. Because of this you can make a 2nd trigger that checks for the dc for current player and remove the dc for current player afterwards.
Ok that makes perfect sense NudeRaider
NudeRaider shouted: This method also has a bonus use: If you detect the arbiter in conditions for current player (set trigger owned accordingly!) then you can do the following: Add 1 to dc for current player AND add 1 to dc for all players. And in your 2nd trigger you can distinguish between players that just are informed and the player that actually had it, because their dc will be 2 instead of 1. So you can give them an additional reward or something dynamically.
Wow that's awesome! I'll definitely be doing this. Thanks for the tip, that's really cool
[05:29 pm]
NudeRaider -- This method also has a bonus use: If you detect the arbiter in conditions for current player (set trigger owned accordingly!) then you can do the following: Add 1 to dc for current player AND add 1 to dc for all players. And in your 2nd trigger you can distinguish between players that just are informed and the player that actually had it, because their dc will be 2 instead of 1. So you can give them an additional reward or something dynamically.
[05:27 pm]
NudeRaider -- m.0.n.3.y
m.0.n.3.y shouted: NEW QUESTION: How is it possible to show text to all players when something occurs? EX: Player 1 builds an Arbiter. Trigger says, When player 1 builds an Arbiter, do something, then remove the Arbiter. Now, I'd like text to show for all other players when P1 builds an Arbiter that says "P1 built an arbiter!". But how is this possible when the the original trigger that detects if P1 built an Arbiter then removes the Arbiter in it's actions? Like, the Arbiter is detected as built, then Action occurs for P1, then Arbiter is removed. So how can you detect if the Arbiter is built to show text to the other plays saying "P1 built an Arbiter" if the other trigger quickly removes the Arbiter? Does that make sense?
Pro and Demon already gave correct answers, but let me add a pretty elegant way: Have the detection trigger owned by whoever is convenient for you. A single computer player, a force, all players - it doesn't matter. Now detect for the arbiter in conditions - also doesn't really matter how. In actions just set a dc to 1 for all players or the force that should have the text displayed. It will set the dc for each player to 1 individually. Because of this you can make a 2nd trigger that checks for the dc for current player and remove the dc for current player afterwards.
[05:22 pm]
NudeRaider -- that's why the All Players thing is neat: When one player runs a wait, their copy of hypers will actually be blocked. But the hyper effect will not be disrupted because the hypers of all the other players are still running.
[05:21 pm]
NudeRaider -- *running at the same time for the same player.
[05:20 pm]
NudeRaider -- m.0.n.3.y
m.0.n.3.y shouted: Mini Moose 2707 Shit. Ok what are the exact circumstances where using wait triggers causes wait blocks and messes things up? EX: If player 8 is a computer and has hyper triggers at the bottom of his list, can I use a few of triggers on each human player 1-6 with a few waits each lasting 50 - 1000ms? I've read the articles in SEN Wiki but still not super clear on it :/
simple: 2 waits running at the same time. Hyper triggers constantly block each other, but they have no other purpose than to force another trigger loop, and stay in that "blocking each other" state as long as possible (=NEO)
[05:17 pm]
NudeRaider -- Dem0n
Dem0n shouted: It's recommended to never use waits if you have hyper triggers.
yes and no. If you have to ask: yes. If you know what you're doing, you can use them in a non-disruptive manner.
[05:15 pm]
NudeRaider -- m.0.n.3.y
m.0.n.3.y shouted: ALSO: @NudeRaider for your "other setup" you mean give the hypers to the "All Players" player checkbox, not to each player individually, right?
That's equivalent. At the start of a game sc parses triggers and creates copies of triggers owned by player groups (forces and all players) to each player that is part of that group. During runtime there's only individual trigger owners.
[04:04 pm]
m.0.n.3.y -- Dem0n
Dem0n shouted: That won't work. And it's one extra trigger with 2 actions. Hardly extra work.
You're right. Thank you!
Please log in to shout.


Members Online: Roy