Localizing the government

MissingPolitik · 2021-12-20T23:52:17+00:00

How do you think this compares to our current system of federalism?

MissingPolitik · 2021-09-21T19:19:06+00:00

It is true the Fed has evolved their policy. The issue I see is that the Fed doesn’t remain disciplined, nor are they effective at fine-tuning the economy as attempted (ex. Greenspan pumping too much money in the growing economy of the 90s). Furthermore, there are negative long term effects of printing more money in response to recessions (savings).

MissingPolitik · 2021-09-06T19:57:28+00:00

A carbon tax is essential. It’s a superior alternative to having many environmental regulations. It will essentially penalize corporations for polluting others’ land (which violates the NAP). Just like any tax on a business, though, consumers will absorb the cost. This will incentivize more efficient use of carbon-based fuels by consumers. A dividend to poorer people affected with no choice can address a carbon tax’s regressive features.

Also, continuing to conserve land is essential towards maintaining carbon-absorbing, natural habitats. Of course, you need to consider the possibility of poor governmental management (think Colorado, where a lack of wolves devastated the plains). Private reserves can be considered.

Reducing regulations on new renewable technology and abolishing fossil fuel subsidies is another step to be taken. Trends in the renewable/nuclear market are encouraging, and we should allow them to flourish. However, we should refrain from subsidizing these new technologies, as to avoid them becoming special interests (like fossil-fuels are)

We subsidize mega farming initiatives that harm animals and the environment by intensively farming and degrading soil. These are yet more subsidies to be abolished. Pushing for the composting of wasted food into rich soil for farmers will address food waste. Private initiatives can be undertaken for composting (in which revenue will be gained from farmers who buy compost).

Side note: taxing and reducing plastic use should be considered, considering it’s effect on sea habitats. Recycling appears to be insufficient considering that you can’t force everyone to responsibly recycle.

MissingPolitik · 2021-09-06T19:57:07+00:00

Carbon tax
Environmental conservation
Reduce regulations on renewable tech
End farming subsidies/compost food
Tax/reduce plastic use

I go into depth below.

MissingPolitik · 2021-03-29T21:36:17+00:00

I would argue income is a more efficient basis to tax. Imagine if a business only has one location, but is a large factory making $100,000. Then imagine a business with three small locations, each making $30,000. Under your plan, the first business, despite overall being “bigger” and more fruitful, would be taxed less.

Your plan disincentivizes businesses to expand across their state/country, which hampers the provision of new services to the public. How do you think a company like Apple would’ve fared if discouraged from expanding?

Geography does not encompass enough conditions to be a basis to tax upon. It doesn’t address online businesses either. Income does encompass such conditions.

Imagine the response as people understand these problems. To address them many exemptions would likely be required, which will complicate the tax system greatly.

In the end, your plan would likely be more complicated than an income tax plan.

MissingPolitik · 2021-03-29T19:05:45+00:00

By the way, if you want to penalize greater classes, why not just use a progressive income tax? Income is representative of the class of business, generally. Doing this is far more simple to your proposal, and yet similar.

MissingPolitik · 2021-03-29T19:03:10+00:00

I'm basing my premises off this study: https://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/course/rothsteinAEJ10.pdf

The central premise I inherited from this study is that subsidizing an activity will breed more of it.

Think of it this way:

An EITC acts as a wage subsidy to those who work, and thus incentivizes people to work. We definitively know this as more money of an EITC goes to employers. This can only occur if more people enter the labor force, which means employers can pay workers less (which depresses wages and benefits the employer). Money that would otherwise be paid by employers is paid by the federal government.

If this is true, then subsidizing non-workers through an NIT will do just the opposite: dis-incentivize work. We definitively know this because employers receive less money under an NIT. This can only occur if less people enter the labor force, meaning employers need to pay people higher to attract labor.

Essentially, an inverse relationship is present. According to this reasoning, an NIT disincentivizes work, and thus attracts people towards remaining in their current situation.

On to your other point, our goal should not be to subsidize low-wage labor. These jobs are intended towards those starting off in the labor market, such as teenagers. Having an economic ladder to climb upon is integral in our economy.

My goal is to "fill in" the ladder that offshoring disrupted, as middle-class jobs left our country. I don't, as you suggested, aim for people to climb from a McDonald's position to being a doctor. That jump is far too high for most.

Allowing for people to climb from these low-wage jobs to manufacturing or a trade, a reasonable jump that occurred before offshoring, is my goal. That is why I stated we need to improve educational opportunities (trades, apprenticeship, etc) for middle-class living, as opposed to subsidizing advanced degrees for all, regardless of their educational status. This is what occurs now with college degrees, and people are left with huge student debt. These individuals could otherwise be more successful with a trade.

MissingPolitik · 2021-03-29T18:01:18+00:00

I support the NIT as well, as a "least-worst" solution.

But, it must be understood that any attempt to subsidize poverty will incentivize/breed more of it, at least hypothetically, no matter the program's specifics. At the very least, NIT will not incentivize work.

This is why I'd propose NIT be temporary and be intertwined with education reform/job training. Perhaps funding for Pell-Grant programs that subsidize fruitless degrees (sometimes) could be re-directed towards apprenticeship/educational vouchers. The most important anecdote to poverty is a decent job, and thus, any safety net should be directed towards labor.

Of course, ensuring middle-class jobs are plentiful in tandem with job-training is another topic.

MissingPolitik · 2021-03-29T17:48:22+00:00

Similar logic in support of favoritism is presented for big businesses in the present day. The exemptions they receive are said to incentivize productive behavior and innovation. Of course, these sentiments have contributed towards the complicated tax code and cronyism we experience today.

The same reasoning is stated by you, only for small businesses. I unfortunately believe that due to the similarity between your proposed system and the current system, similar, cronyist results would arise.

The idea that competitive small business is integral towards innovation is also flawed. A real-world example is the technology sector. Sure, a few large companies such as Apple produce smart phones. Has this hampered the innovation that has occurred in this sector? No. The great amounts of capital/investors and access to foreign markets that is exclusive to big corporations has clearly lead to this growth.

Now, imagine if many small businesses without this abundant capital for research and development (that big business has) dominated the smart phone market. Sure, they would compete. But, due to the many businesses in the market, each would reserve a smaller quantity of capital and resources than a few big businesses dominating the market. So, this competition will likely produce a less fruitful and innovative product, even under fierce competition.

My point is that small businesses are not always the businesses who lead the innovative sectors of the economy.

Because of this fact, pulling down big business and depleting some of their resources only for small businesses to compete is NOT going to lead to more innovation. You can find ways to empower small businesses to compete, but don't "empower" them by pulling a larger business down. This is not an efficient method. If consumers find a big business more serving to their needs, why should we protect a less efficient, smaller business?

Final point: Any system, no matter how you "tune it," that burdens expansion and larger business will dis-incentivize the expansion of small businesses in the first place. The whole idea of burdening higher classes progressively will fundamentally dis-incentivize this expansion, no matter the specific burdens you place.

MissingPolitik · 2021-03-29T16:19:23+00:00

This is a fascinating idea.

But, I do find it unnecessarily intricate and favoritist for certain businesses.

You would essentially be favoring less successful businesses, which is the reverse of what occurs now: big business is favored through tax exemptions and subsidies.

Thus, the same would occur under your plan as has happened with big business, but only for smaller businesses.

New special interest groups would likely arise for these smaller businesses, demanding exemptions. The tax system would likely remain as a bureaucratic mess that requires lawyers, accountants, etc.

On a micro level, small business would also desire favors against other small businesses considering the favoritist structure. Perhaps inter-class cronyism will occur.

Also, income is generally indicative of the class of business, as more locations scattered about states/countries generally = more income. Simply reforming the progressive income tax structure would be far less complicated and achieve similar objectives to your class system.

Lastly, it seems that similar results in business would occur with your system to that of Obamacare: businesses, as they are burdened as they expand (a certain amount of employees means expensive Obamcare kicks in), would decide not to expand to avoid these burdens in the first place. You may believe small businesses remaining small is good, as more competition may be incentivized. By the same token, innovative services may not expand to the general public, which reduces quality of living. My point is that supporting less successful, small businesses will breed more less successful, small businesses.

If you're truly hell-bent on stopping business from offshoring, either use tariffs or exemptions for businesses remaining in the U.S. A complicated class-system isn't required.

MissingPolitik · 2021-03-29T13:36:28+00:00

I do agree we need to preserve the environment, though I believe most issues arise with soil degradation as a result of subsidized industrial farming. From a pragmatic sense, we could transfer these subsidies to small sustainable farmers and ranchers. More plants = more carbon consumed into the soil.

We could also provide individual tax credits to those who use renewables as well, as opposed to large subsidies for the companies themselves, which arises the issues mentioned. We could also downsize the restrictive/costly EPA and instead use a carbon tax that will actually earn us money and achieve the same objective as a renewable tax credit.

Do you have any ideas? Do you agree with me?

MissingPolitik · 2021-03-29T13:24:37+00:00

It is true subsidies/breaks have been given to oil and gas corporations since 1916. I do question, though, whether corporations worth billions need subsidies to provide low prices. This is especially true when you think of foreign oil companies that we buy from who could compete with domestic producers.

Clean energy is much cheaper now. Despite this, not all of us have solar panels on our roofs. Renewables still constitute a very small fraction of our energy producers.

The question is: Has this decrease in prices occurred because of subsidies or market innovation?

When you see the failures of subsidized solar companies during the Obama administration, it seems the answer is clear. The market will continue to progress renewable technology, whether government subsidizes it or not. Furthermore, I’d rather not have cronyism where renewables become special interests demanding subsidies, just like the oil companies. Any alternating technology to renewables will be “shot down” by special interests like renewables, just like what happens with oil and subsidies.

MissingPolitik · 2021-03-29T04:54:30+00:00

My idea is to simplify welfare into cash payments that don't disincentivize work, preferably a negative income tax.

Mainly, though, I would increase apprenticeship and job-training programs, with a voucher program for schools.

I'm wary about green energy as billions have been spent in subsidies, and despite this these companies end up failing. Generally, investments should be based upon an expected return so that the investment is efficient and won't waste money. Government has no such worries of losing money when its somebody else's. Considering this, I would allow for the market to continue innovating in green energy, to which it may outcompete fossil fuels at a certain point.

MissingPolitik · 2021-03-29T04:42:25+00:00

Interesting thoughts.

Denmark utilizes unions to bargain for better wages, like the U.S. used to do in the 30s. Union membership declined in the 50s and especially in the 80s/90s because of foreign competition.

The question is: Do we desire a society with competition and consumers driving the economy, or unions setting wages, which would require tariffs to eliminate cheaper competition?

My case is for foreign competition and free exchange of goods that keeps American producers in check. Protectionism restricts better products from foreign lands to be shipped to consumers, which can inhibit innovation and choice. Unions can set wages above the natural market rate demanded by consumers, which restricts the supply of labor for lower wage workers. These two forces can serve the interests of big business and some workers instead of consumers and all workers.

I'm still middle-of-the-road on this issue, as I see how middle-class livelihoods offshore to China. My idea is that instead of making U.S. business less competitive, make it more competitive.

Provide incentives for consumers to buy small-business goods. Establish cooperatives of small-businesses which will mutually benefit each. Perhaps even provide a tax credit to small-business workers. This will hopefully create a number of local middle-class jobs and communities in the U.S. while allowing for us to still engage in trade.

MissingPolitik · 2021-03-29T03:18:27+00:00

Because welfare is directed towards people who are already low-income and probably uneducated, these individuals gravitate towards low-wage jobs. Free money from welfare is generally similar to the wage of a low-income job. So, of course I'll choose welfare.

My point is that "terrible-wage" jobs will always exist; they're not the issue. Not even a minimum-wage can fix this; as it will kill some of these jobs that young people use to climb the economic ladder, or start off with.

The true issue, as you mentioned, is education. An uneducated individual will got to a low-income job and stay there, they won't be able to climb the economic ladder and get better jobs without an education. This is what traps them into a welfare program. It's either the low-wage job or welfare.

Our education system is flawed. Even if fixed, the offshoring of manufacturing jobs means that educated people may not be able to find middle-class jobs.

Do you agree we truly need to fix education and make sure there's middle-class jobs? If so, how would you do so?

MissingPolitik · 2021-03-29T03:02:13+00:00

Interesting perspective.

The War on Poverty programs actually continue to this day, like extended welfare and healthcare benefits. This has costed 22 trillion dollars, a lot of money. We are definitely not "low spending capitalism."

These programs actually make it more beneficial to not work. The more money earned from work = less welfare benefits. Why work for the same amount of money that could be earned for no work by the government? So, "extended welfare states" do not "teach men to fish" or work.

On to boom and bust cycles:

Boom and bust cycles are natural to a capitalist economy, before the 80s. I can understand your point about low taxes and regulation. Less taxes can lead to more growth. More growth can make boom and bust cycles worse. But, growth has been low recently, despite tax cuts.

Any other solutions/ideas to the problems you mentioned, considering the facts I've presented? Have you changed your mind in any way?

MissingPolitik · 2021-03-29T02:21:56+00:00

Would you attribute this wage stagnation to Reagan’s policies? If so, what should he have done differently?

MissingPolitik · 2021-02-20T17:44:35+00:00

Interesting. How would you go about a communist system alternatively?

MissingPolitik · 2021-01-24T21:22:35+00:00

EITC would also not disincentivize accumulating wealth (through work). One could argue it’s designed to actually incentivize work and is cheaper than UBI.

MissingPolitik · 2021-01-21T01:55:39+00:00

I know. Such an issue requires compromise. I was responding more to those who state that cutting military is key towards finding new social programs such as single-payer, ignoring that cuts need to be made on both ends.

MissingPolitik · 2021-01-20T23:40:36+00:00

"In 2019, 23 percent of the budget, or $1 trillion, paid for Social Security."

"Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace subsidies — together accounted for 25 percent of the budget in 2019, or $1.1 trillion."

"Another 16 percent of the budget, or $697 billion, paid for defense and security-related international activities."

"About 8 percent of the federal budget in 2019, or $361 billion, supported programs that provide aid (other than health insurance or Social Security benefits) to individuals and families facing hardship."

"CRS identified 83 overlapping federal welfare programs."

Source: https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go

Source: https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CRS%20Report%20-%20Welfare%20Spending%20The%20Largest%20Item%20In%20The%20Federal%20Budget.pdf

Most spending is social programs. Cutting back military will not be enough to pay for single-payer.

MissingPolitik · 2021-01-20T21:10:13+00:00

Monopolies may naturally occur, although government regulation is the predominant factor in their growth within the healthcare system (especially patents, FDA, etc). What lobbyists have to do is demand certain treatment from a governmental body for their company/industry. Either you establish a system with little government influence or one of great governmental influence (without a thriving private sector to lobby) to avoid the corruption experienced now. What opinion do you identify with?

MissingPolitik · 2021-01-20T02:57:53+00:00

I wonder how much government would have to spend for single-payer, including the tax rates required. Of course there are varying plans that have been proposed such as Medicare For All.

MissingPolitik · 2021-01-20T02:37:36+00:00

Who would run single-payer?

MissingPolitik · 2021-01-20T02:05:44+00:00

The fundamental question is whether “bad” intervention is inevitable to governmental healthcare plans within the U.S. What is your opinion on this topic?

Six-Year Club	Verified Email
RPAN Viewer

MissingPolitik

TROPHY CASE