Higher taxation of the rich, backfires.

[Aeris]

14 minutes ago, Dwarniel said:

I think it's like 3000, not completely sure,I don't have one. Don't need it 

Thank you for sharing about the situation in france, i learned a lot 

34 minutes ago, Dwarniel said:

 

I think It's relative poverty is tolérable in France though if you're not into material possession. Was kind of joking at first.

Norway poors got probably others kinds of problems. It's more easy to control little country. France is just a bit bigger and taking all strangers for corporation profit. Serv the rich & don't diserve the one who live there. ( Lot of 'black working' means : not under the eye of the system )

There is a lot of social help for mothers who got kids. ( Until they go 18y + ) It's a bit complicated to resume an entire system.

Better being poor in France than USA though. 

Edited August 11, 2019 by Aeris

[Emeline]

@Aeris you are right about the taxation situation in France except that I would add that top 1% mostly do not pay their taxes (put their money in Switzerland or somewhere)... And that the taxation is not progressive enough, almost the same for everyone resulting in up middle classes paying actually more than top 1%... When you are over 30000 per year basically you are paying for everyone while top 1% do not pay anything most of the time ...

[Chi_]

54 minutes ago, Dwarniel said:

I pay 40% of my salary in tax, and i don't really have insurance ?  I only pay like 15usd a month just in case the apartment burns down, then i'll get all of my belongings replaced. 

I would probably pay more if i had a car, its really high taxation on cars in Oslo. They want the cars out of the city, to create a green city. They put a lot of money into roads for bikes, electric busses, electric rent a car and so on

Thank you for the information! 

I see that it's pretty much equal to the situation in Germany. One would end up paying about 40% more or less to the government as well. But most of that money goes to the insurance which includes health insurance, unemployment benefit insurance and pension insurance. On top of that a little bit more which you pay directly to the government as tax. 

 

So given that the financial situation is pretty much the same in both countries, I see it a viable option to live there given all the other benefits of Norway.

[tenta]

On 8/6/2019 at 3:54 PM, Yog said:

Cons:
-They worked very hard for it and are probably the most talented and capable people on the planet.
-Thus you cripple the most capable, and strip them of motivation. ( lets put the resentment aside )
-Its unethical, wealth/reward is given to people that didn't work for any of it. Thus crippling them also.
-You are playing with serotonin, that's playing with fire.
-Pareto principle is a cosmic law, it works for ants,trees, beans, stars and galaxies, it works for wealth too.
-Jesus: The poor will be with us always.
 

Yeah, all your assumptions are based on the ultra rich being these ethical honest hard workers while those below them don't deserve whichever UBI income

Take the following examples:

 1. Hierarchies where those at the top have lower willpower, lower IQs, lower charisma and lower work ethic than those below them they get to boss   around and shit on

 2. A billionaire refusing to save 500K lives or to improve them significantly just to have money they will never spend, ever

 3. A learning disabled highschool student investing the willpower to get a decent grade, with which a gifted student could become a state champion in   something, for you to just say "this guy just worked hard" while there are thousands of genetic and environmental factors playing into it

[Emeline]

@tenta very good examples the assumption based on the top 1% percent being ethical hard worker is pretty funny ... If you think about how they make their wealth, it is pretty much based on exploitation inheritance and passive income, for most of them...

[Yog]

6 hours ago, tenta said:

Yeah, all your assumptions are based on the ultra rich being these ethical honest hard workers while those below them don't deserve whichever UBI income

Take the following examples:

 1. Hierarchies where those at the top have lower willpower, lower IQs, lower charisma and lower work ethic than those below them they get to boss   around and shit on

 2. A billionaire refusing to save 500K lives or to improve them significantly just to have money they will never spend, ever

 3. A learning disabled highschool student investing the willpower to get a decent grade, with which a gifted student could become a state champion in   something, for you to just say "this guy just worked hard" while there are thousands of genetic and environmental factors playing into it

I am aware of these things you pointed out, in fact everyone is. We see it all the time. I made post in the spirit of the things we rarely see.

• Really high quality people will get hurt by the same sword. We need the best on top. And if you really are high quality, you will get on top and be rich, doctor, musician and what not.
• The rich scammers and corrupted people will always find ways to dodge. That's how they came there in the first place. We might just export our problems elsewhere.
• Taxing needs to be way more contextual and complex if we are to do this integrally and fairly. If that is even possible.

 @Dwarniel I love the Scandinavian models, been in Denmark and Sweden for some time. I'd say things are wayyy better than what other European countries or the US have. A lot of care for its citizens, a lot. I love that. I would like it even more if it was more dynamic and contextual. It has also been extremely effective at producing equality of opportunity, witch is neat.

I'd say it still has things to work on, deal with that depression and suicide spike for eg, a result of flattening the hierarchies, thus hacking various biological systems. Cant wait to see how will they solve that!
 

Edited August 11, 2019 by Yog

[Nivsch]

On 9.8.2019 at 6:54 AM, SFRL said:

Probably very motivated. People who earn a billion dollars are very motivated to always make more money anyways. That's why they are billionaires. 

But that is exactly why these people are not the most creative nor giving high value to the society and therefore high tax them seems ri be a good thing.

But in the other hand, if we tax to high the big corporations managers they will have less motivation to be in your country and it can be a problem. What do you think about that?

[Scholar]

1 hour ago, Nivsch said:

But that is exactly why these people are not the most creative nor giving high value to the society and therefore high tax them seems ri be a good thing.

But in the other hand, if we tax to high the big corporations managers they will have less motivation to be in your country and it can be a problem. What do you think about that?

 The question is, why are big corporation managers so valuable? There are few of them, because only few people get the opportunity to manage a big corporations and thus learn how to manage a big corporation.

Maybe a better solution is to focus on producing more high quality corporate manages, via an educational pipeline. That way the value of these managers will go down and they will not be able to demand as much money for what they do.

How do we produce high quality corporate managers without having them be in control of big corporations? I would suggest simulations that are based in real world data, have them compete in a artificial environment and that way educate them on how to be effective managers. More quality managers will lead to less demand, less demand will lead to lower prices.

If the worry is that competent people will leave our environment, produce more competent people.

 

The trick of course is that other countries will steal our competent people if we produce them. But oh well, that is what the US has been doing to developing countries for years. Let other countries produce high quality doctors and then offer these doctors a better salary than they would get in some third world country in africa or india. The beauty of globalism.

Edited August 13, 2019 by Scholar

[Apparition of Jack]

14 hours ago, Scholar said:

Maybe a better solution is to focus on producing more high quality corporate manages, via an educational pipeline. That way the value of these managers will go down and they will not be able to demand as much money for what they do.

How do we produce high quality corporate managers without having them be in control of big corporations? I would suggest simulations that are based in real world data, have them compete in a artificial environment and that way educate them on how to be effective managers. More quality managers will lead to less demand, less demand will lead to lower prices.

This already exists. It's called the market and entrepreneurship.

The problem isn't the lack of people wanting to / being able to become great business managers. Give the people the right resources and a million new businesses will pop up tomorrow. The problem is a vampiric market that heavily discourages new start-ups and small/medium businesses to the advantage of already-bloated multinationals. By using government programs to reduce the leeching affect giant corporations have over markets, we can create a truly thriving civil economy.

Edited August 14, 2019 by Apparition of Jack

[Scholar]

On 14.8.2019 at 6:56 AM, Apparition of Jack said:

This already exists. It's called the market and entrepreneurship.

The problem isn't the lack of people wanting to / being able to become great business managers. Give the people the right resources and a million new businesses will pop up tomorrow. The problem is a vampiric market that heavily discourages new start-ups and small/medium businesses to the advantage of already-bloated multinationals. By using government programs to reduce the leeching affect giant corporations have over markets, we can create a truly thriving civil economy.

I think what you are arguing is seperate from the issue of high quality business managers that can manage a billion dollar company. I don't think we have systems in place that teach you how to do that effectively, and noone is going to take the risk to hire a newbie CEO to manage his company.

The question was not about creating new businesses but about how to lower the value of high end corporate managers, and that I think you can only do by supplying the market with more high end corporate managers.

 

You can replace business managers with military generals and the same would apply. Military generals are so valuable because it takes such a huge amount of experience to get that proficient at the job. The experience you can only get by already being in positions of power, which is why only so few people ever get the chance to develope themselves to become military generals.

The advantage we have today is that we can simulate experiences via simulations, and I think we should use that as an educational tool so as to supply the market with high-end competence from the get go.

Edited August 15, 2019 by Scholar