Caveman 2 Cosmos (ideas/discussions thread)

[Thunderbrd]

So there wouldn't be too much difference, if Russia was christian (any "flavor" of this religion) theocracy or old fashioned military dictatorship or monarchy instead of communism, just that church and religion or something else would be under siege instead of communism/socialism

Basically yes, exactly. It's just an idealism that's been played on to isolate the opposition force to our own power bloc. Much like dividing people by race or religion often amounts to as well.

Of course it must be made sure that the "curve" is always rising, or in other words that you never end up poorer for any $ you gain. I don't know about the USA, but that is part of our tax code (hasn't always been that way, in which case people ended up voluntarily turning down a bit of money and ending up with more, only the civil servants were not allowed to do that ...).

The curve is on the taxation (taxed more the more you make without loopholes) but the benefit payout is flat rate regardless of who or what you make. This simplicity enforces fairness and diminishes corruption's influence via targeted system manipulations.

I seem to remember that the first president who wanted to implement a healthcare system was Nixon.

I was of the impression that Harry S. Truman was one of the first US presidents who tried to implement a type of universal healthcare system.
He was involved in the drafting of the Japanese constitution (A really good one imo, quite similar to western European constitutions in regards to welfare laws), and after that he proposed the fair deal which contained a lot of points that were in the same spirits as to that found in the Japanese constitution.
Most of the "Fair Deal" points got turned down in congress, and never became part of US law (a pity imo).

I'm not really up on the history of these tbh. I HAVE seen that many GOP and Dem ideals have gravitated over time and you can often see the influence of specific $ sources adjusting their political theories in insidious ways over time.

 

[tmv]

The curve is on the taxation (taxed more the more you make without loopholes) but the benefit payout is flat rate regardless of who or what you make. This simplicity enforces fairness and diminishes corruption's influence via targeted system manipulations.

There are two approaches which you can use (they should be more or less equivalent - I hope the pictures make it clear):

• There is the money someone earns who has no income, and for each $ (s)he earns, xyz ct of this money is lost (usually 30 ct or 50 ct). Right after reaching zero, ordinary taxation starts.
• In a first step (purely mathematical), everyone gets xyz $ of money, then the tax is calculated from the sum of this money and whatever the person earned - at first taking money from the added money. If there is still added money left, they get the money, otherwise the pay taxes (the lower curve is what actually happens, the upper curve is what would happen without the social measure).

Spoiler Full Images :

 

[Thunderbrd]

There are two approaches which you can use (they should be more or less equivalent - I hope the pictures make it clear):

• There is the money someone earns who has no income, and for each $ (s)he earns, xyz ct of this money is lost (usually 30 ct or 50 ct). Right after reaching zero, ordinary taxation starts.
• In a first step (purely mathematical), everyone gets xyz $ of money, then the tax is calculated from the sum of this money and whatever the person earned - at first taking money from the added money. If there is still added money left, they get the money, otherwise the pay taxes (the lower curve is what actually happens, the upper curve is what would happen without the social measure).

View attachment 506419 View attachment 506421

Spoiler Full Images :

View attachment 506419 View attachment 506421

I would advocate a complete disconnection between payout and taxation. Taxation would not take the amount paid out as income but would only tax on income earned beyond the base level, a higher percent the more was earned. This would tally once a year. Whereas the payout would be a monthly dividend, the same amount paid to each person regardless of their station.

It might mean there's a bit of shuffling about of currency and some would pretty much just break even at some point, while those beneath that line are being supported by gov and those above the line are supporting the gov and the rest of the system, but it does simplify things to take it as two very different accounts.

 

[Toffer90]

Basic income is meant to be the wealth floor within society so it should be considered equal to no income, for all intent and purpose, when implemented.
Everyone gets the same from the state, so why should the state bother to include that amount when deducing peoples income tax. It just becomes a stupid forth and back.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Basic income is meant to be the wealth floor within society so it should be considered equal to no income, for all intent and purpose, when implemented.
Everyone gets the same from the state, so why should the state bother to include that amount when deducing peoples income tax. It just becomes a stupid forth and back.

Yeah, basically. But when you consider that payments like Social Security ARE considered income for taxation, even though the state pays it, I don't think it's natural to some to consider it NOT a part of taxable income. I agree with your statement though.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

Yeah, basically. But when you consider that payments like Social Security ARE considered income for taxation, even though the state pays it, I don't think it's natural to some to consider it NOT a part of taxable income. I agree with your statement though.

Social Security is not given to everyone Basic Income is. On the other hand there we already have a tax free threshold below which no tax is paid. With BI I would expect that threshold to be higher than the BI (and based on gross income not net).

 

[tmv]

@Everyone who answered: I'm not sure that I got my point across (and the not-mathematically-precise pictures obviously didn't help). First of all, there is no "forth and back", other than during a calculation to be made. In this calculation, everyone gets a bit of money added. Then the tax is calculated from the sum. The remainder is what this person is "supposed to have", so if the money they have is below that, they get money, otherwise they pay money. The alternative is that you make two distinct definitions, one about the "social" sector (below the threshold, where the person gets money), one about the "tax" sector (above the threshold, obviously). These two approaches are supposed to be very similar, there are advantages and drawbacks with each of them, but they are subtle (perhaps the most important one: in the latter case you are free to define the slope in the "social" sector - how much ct do you keep from every $ you earn - whereas in the former case it is a natural result from the tax code).

This kind of social security has the following advantages compared with a "traditional" set of social security measures:

• It's only dependent on the money you have, not how you got it (we don't need to talk about legal vs. illegal here), nor does it depend on your current situation. Governments may love these distinctions, but they are very arbitrary, and only invite corruption and lobbyism.
• With too many different social measures, a simple error in lawmaking can lead to a few of them not being adapted when (inflation?) causes a need for a rise. From what I have heard, we have more than 130 different social measures in Germany, which could be a nightmare to adapt, especially since the first point is not implemented.
• Every form of social measure needs an administration. While this is an interesting approach to fight unemployment, it is really not an effective one.
• A dedicated social administration has the same problem doctors currently have (see ... somewhere above - we had that discussion already): Their ultimate goal should be their own removal. You cannot expect people to work for that goal enthusiastically. By placing this with the tax office instead, you circumvent that problem. The tax office needs to know your income anyway, and you can even do something to improve that office's reputation.
• Almost by its nature it would be a much simpler system - people would be able to understand it. You see what your gross income is and you can immediately say what you are going to have as a net income.

 

[Toffer90]

Are you saying that income tax should be disbanded and the wealth tax should be strengthened to cover the loss?

That does not sound like a good idea to me. Wealth tax is mostly meant for high value property or for very wealthy funds/accounts. It's rationality becomes flawed when dealing with details, smaller amounts.
People would then be rewarded for consuming as much as they can every month, by not having to pay tax because their bank account is below a limit at the point where wealth taxation looks at what a person have; may even get a payout if I understood what you wrote correctly.
The strength of income tax is that it is applied to money before a person gets that money, and therefore the person is free to do with the money as he/she pleases without having to worry about further taxation of said amount, wealth tax is only applied to those with so much that they couldn't possibly even consider spending it all to avoid the wealth tax.

It is imperative for basic income that it is a stable sum paid out every month to everyone equally regardless of how much a person has earned at any point in a year.
If someone who has earned a lot halfway into a year, suddenly loose his/her income and get some unforeseen expenses that bankrupts him/her; then that person should still get the same amount of basic income tax free for the rest of the year regardless of how much tax that person has paid the first half of the year.

Basic income as a system would obsolete a lot of social measures that have huge administrations, while basic income itself would not require much administration.
There are already administrations that work with citizen registration and such that could easily be expanded to make sure that each registered citizen has a registered bank account which would get automatic payments every month.

 

[Thunderbrd]

With BI I would expect that threshold to be higher than the BI (and based on gross income not net).

I think so that it's less corruptable and costs less to process, BI should be based on nothing but you being a citizen with a mailable address. Nothing more nothing less. No evaluation to complicate things. And it should not have anything to do with taxation. You COULD turn it down by not cashing the check but that would be silly because there would be no benefit in it other than to donate to the government in an unclaimed manner.

There are already administrations that work with citizen registration and such that could easily be expanded to make sure that each registered citizen has a registered bank account which would get automatic payments every month.

Would sure make census a cheaper affair! And the government could also use it to leverage assurance of tax compliance since that would be a fairly reasonable cause to penalize a portion of that basic income.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

I think so that it's less corruptable and costs less to process, BI should be based on nothing but you being a citizen with a mailable address. Nothing more nothing less. No evaluation to complicate things. And it should not have anything to do with taxation. You COULD turn it down by not cashing the check but that would be silly because there would be no benefit in it other than to donate to the government in an unclaimed manner.

Would sure make census a cheaper affair! And the government could also use it to leverage assurance of tax compliance since that would be a fairly reasonable cause to penalize a portion of that basic income.

And so all the homeless miss out Many in my family don't have a mailable address, per se, they get their post delivered care of the local shop that acts for the post office. Where "local" means the only shop or town within 100 miles of where they live or work.

Checks are almost non existent here in Australia. Most pay and even social security benefits are paid directly into a bank account. Since ATMs are everywhere there is no restriction on where you can withdraw the money. Heck I have withdrawn money from my local bank (ie a locally owned and run bank not part of a big bank) in the UK.

Ah yes, in the US you pay taxes differently. Here the tax is taken out when you get paid. Tax time is only about figuring out if you own them a bit or they owe you a bit. Similarly shelf price of goods is what you pay at the cash register all taxes have been merged into the price.

 

[Thunderbrd]

And so all the homeless miss out

There should be provision made for being able to get a free gov sponsored mailing address at the nearest post office. Simple solution. The goal isn't to deny anyone but to make sure they are correspond-able with.

Many in my family don't have a mailable address, per se, they get their post delivered care of the local shop that acts for the post office.

Which, if registered with the agency, should count just as well. It should be easy as showing up and saying you need an official address - the trick is you can only have one so the census will always be accurate - if they go elsewhere or move, fine, just register a change of address. The economy and law enforcement efforts would benefit a lot from this because it would also insist on a rock solid paper trail or you miss out on a significant amount of $ you're expected to have to get along in life.

The biggest danger in this system is how ID theft could play a role so we'd have to crank down on ensuring that's much more difficult.

Checks are almost non existent here in Australia. Most pay and even social security benefits are paid directly into a bank account.

Yeah, Whisperr has explained that and in your case you could go direct to account and just require an account rather than an address. However, here, many cannot get a bank account because they've been blacklisted from being able to due to owing a bank $ somewhere.

Ah yes, in the US you pay taxes differently. Here the tax is taken out when you get paid. Tax time is only about figuring out if you own them a bit or they owe you a bit. Similarly shelf price of goods is what you pay at the cash register all taxes have been merged into the price.

Taxes are done the same way with income if you are an employee but if you are self-employed you have to either pay it all at the end of the year or you generally are expected to do quarterly payments. Regardless, tax time is still all about figuring out how much is owed or owed to you.

Some states do the same here with pricing but yeah, it can be a bit rough for y'all when you come here and shop and get hit by the state income tax at the register, finding out the price is before tax. Making matters worse for travelers, there is no national sales tax, only state by state and even county by county, some areas having none at all while others being as high as approaching 20%.

There are some interesting arguments to abolish income tax and go off of sales entirely (you call it GST) but there's a lack of curvature to counteract the 'steamroll effect' of high income earners - though admittedly it does force them to pay at least the full share - fair on a linear basis to some extent, ignoring that they can often save much easier than the poor and the system might also inspire hoarding as a result.

 

[tmv]

Are you saying that income tax should be disbanded and the wealth tax should be strengthened to cover the loss?

That does not sound like a good idea to me. Wealth tax is mostly meant for high value property or for very wealthy funds/accounts. It's rationality becomes flawed when dealing with details, smaller amounts.
People would then be rewarded for consuming as much as they can every month, by not having to pay tax because their bank account is below a limit at the point where wealth taxation looks at what a person have; may even get a payout if I understood what you wrote correctly.
The strength of income tax is that it is applied to money before a person gets that money, and therefore the person is free to do with the money as he/she pleases without having to worry about further taxation of said amount, wealth tax is only applied to those with so much that they couldn't possibly even consider spending it all to avoid the wealth tax.

It is imperative for basic income that it is a stable sum paid out every month to everyone equally regardless of how much a person has earned at any point in a year.
If someone who has earned a lot halfway into a year, suddenly loose his/her income and get some unforeseen expenses that bankrupts him/her; then that person should still get the same amount of basic income tax free for the rest of the year regardless of how much tax that person has paid the first half of the year.

Basic income as a system would obsolete a lot of social measures that have huge administrations, while basic income itself would not require much administration.
There are already administrations that work with citizen registration and such that could easily be expanded to make sure that each registered citizen has a registered bank account which would get automatic payments every month.

Not at all. I was speaking about income (there isn't even a wealth tax in Germany, because it was more expensive to collect than what was gained that way). I meant "everyone gets a bit of money added" to the gross income - sorry if that wasn't clear. The entire "apparatus" I described was meant to be the way to go from gross income to net income.

The left in Germany always wants to reintroduce the wealth tax, without even addressing the problem I mentioned above. Besides, I don't think a wealth tax is a fair system (the money gets taxed when it reaches you - income tax - it doesn't need to be taxed anymore. And a wealth tax pushes inflation.). So it is income that is valued in those calculation, not wealth. I hope that clears it up.

 

[Noriad2]

In the Netherlands there is sort of a wealth tax. The government simply assumes that everybody gets 4% interest on all capital and thus adds 4% of your savings to your income. Lowest tax rate is about a third so the effective tax is at least 1,33%, more if you have high income. If you put the money in a bank account you get very little interest due to the central bank setting interest rates low, so effectively you're paying more tax than you get interest which effectively is a capital tax. But people who invest and manage to get more than 4% yield are in luck.

 

[tmv]

In the Netherlands there is sort of a wealth tax. The government simply assumes that everybody gets 4% interest on all capital and thus adds 4% of your savings to your income. Lowest tax rate is about a third so the effective tax is at least 1,33%, more if you have high income. If you put the money in a bank account you get very little interest due to the central bank setting interest rates low, so effectively you're paying more tax than you get interest which effectively is a capital tax. But people who invest and manage to get more than 4% yield are in luck.

4 %?! Do they think Duisenberg is still in charge? Where do you get that kind of interest, especially with the current bear market?

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

In the Netherlands there is sort of a wealth tax. The government simply assumes that everybody gets 4% interest on all capital and thus adds 4% of your savings to your income. Lowest tax rate is about a third so the effective tax is at least 1,33%, more if you have high income. If you put the money in a bank account you get very little interest due to the central bank setting interest rates low, so effectively you're paying more tax than you get interest which effectively is a capital tax. But people who invest and manage to get more than 4% yield are in luck.

Australia has a similar scheme.

 

[DC0]

I asked a historian friend about why he felt we were so dramatically and violently opposed to communism and his perspective was that it wasn't really the economic side of things so much as it was just another rising competitive power base. Given that Scandinavian countries were, as you correctly express, so closely aligned with us diplomatically, we just didn't really make it public knowledge that such strong socialism was being adopted there. We still don't really care - Russia is a capitalist state now and it's still the prime opposition to many forces in our government. Communism was just a way to identify the enemy and demonize them.

Much negative that's been taught here, economically, about socialism and communism has been taught for propagandic reasons.

I'm sure much about capitalism on the other side of the fence has been much the same - it isn't THAT bad a system and does have it's place in a health economic body. I'm the odd duck that gives some credence and criticism to both and urge instead a strategic balance between the two.

What?! OMG. You are really brainwashed by commies, Americans. Here is educational video how exactly you were made "useful idiots" (using comrade Stalin's terminology) by communists:
Former KGB Agent Yuri Bezmenov Explains How to Brainwash a Nation (Full Length)
It is long. But please, watch it! It is EXACTLY how it was done. It started with those "Frankfurt School" guys getting into USA universities.

And now look at you! You actually think "socialism does have it's place in a health economic body" along with capitalism! OMG! This is a disaster. You just know ****. I'm sorry I'm so emotional. But please, I was born in 1979 in USSR. I grew up in USSR in a village near military base, my both parents were working for the military. And it was the best possible way to live USSR: they got almost enough food. Literally.
I remember SO MUCH from my childhood. And you know **** about socialism.
You never stood in a line 2-3 hours long hoping to get a blue frozen chicken only to find out that store has ran out of chicken. It was blue, literally. I guess because it died from natural cause, like hunger.
You never visited a dentist who took your baby tooth a locking pliers (a tool for machinist). Because they didn't have special dentist instruments.
I bet you have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER what was the best kind of toilet paper in USSR! It was a carbon paper. Because there was NO toilet paper in USSR. At least in 1980-es. So people used either newspapers or whatever paper they could steal from their work.
And yes, in 1930-es to 1953 you COULD actually get killed by communists in concentration camp if you used a newspaper with a portrait of Lenin or Stalin in a toilet.
You have no idea what a celebration it was when friendly African socialist regimes have sent in fresh bananas. They all were animal fodder type (large ones) and always green, because you couldn't bring in ripe bananas to USSR without getting them rotten.
For me as a kid the greatest treat was dried bananas, vacuum packed. It was available only to military, as part of special rations.
And believe me, I can go on and on and on about how real socialism works.

You Americans somehow believe that Venezuela is "wrong socialism". And Cuba. And North Korea. No. These are all examples of how proper and correct socialism works.

Scandinavian countries have slowly been moving away from socialism since the 80's, so that has probably been giving some peace of mind to those most afraid of socialism in the western world.

Scandinavian countries has moved away from free society and embraced socialism starting in 1960-es. It was marked with economic decline. So they tried to repair their economies by introducing free market reforms. Currently all those "wet dream of Bernie Sanders" examples of "socialist paradise" are leaving on remnants of pre-socialist economies and overwhelming and unsustainable government debt. Here are several educational videos:
Is Denmark Really A Socialist Utopia?
Why is Scandinavia so expensive?
Debunking Utopia: Exposing the Myth of Nordic Socialism
Sweden Not a Socialist Success
The Myth of the Socialist Scandinavian Countries
Scandinavian Socialism: Dangers of the Welfare State
Johan Norberg - Swedish Myths and Realities - this one is the most concise and informative. With a couple of brightest insights (healthcare example).
The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism

 

[DC0]

Why I came in this discussion in the first place. I'm sorry I got off the proper topic but "it was not real socialism" topic really makes me mad. I just had to make clarification.

Dear Modders!
Please observe this screenshot and write me what you see built along perimeter of the city.

Currently the game says it is "Walls", available after Masonry is discovered. Presumably, it is made of bricks or stone, shaped into bricks.

Now here is an example of proper walls:

And also, somehow game thinks that Palisade (a wall made of tree trunks, sometimes with soil or clay between them - sorry, no screenshot) is also "A Wall", available for construction after Masonry is discovered.

I kindly ask to immediately implement changes to the game to make a Wall after Masonry is discovered to look like on second screenshot.
It's just a game breaker otherwise.

 

[raxo2222]

Why I came in this discussion in the first place. I'm sorry I got off the proper topic but "it was not real socialism" topic really makes me mad. I just had to make clarification.

Dear Modders!
Please observe this screenshot and write me what you see built along perimeter of the city.

Currently the game says it is "Walls", available after Masonry is discovered. Presumably, it is made of bricks or stone, shaped into bricks.

Now here is an example of proper walls:

And also, somehow game thinks that Palisade (a wall made of tree trunks, sometimes with soil or clay between them - sorry, no screenshot) is also "A Wall", available for construction after Masonry is discovered.

I kindly ask to immediately implement changes to the game to make a Wall after Masonry is discovered to look like on second screenshot.
It's just a game breaker otherwise.

Eh there is something between megakolkhoz and megacorporation like Germany or France or UK
I think they sounded too extremist for you, because they used wrong terminology.
Aren't largest European countries social democracies, just not as intense as Nordic countries?

As for walls there are fences too.
Abatis/Fire Abatis are unlocked at Simple Wood Working/Fire Making. Next one Barbwire Fence in Industrial era.
Palisade is unlocked at Carpentry, Earth Wall is unlocked at Megalith Construction and so on.
With Toffer's pedia you can see building graphics.

Most likely you or someone else built fence type defense after some walls.
Someties you can lose

 

[DC0]

Most likely you or someone else built fence type defense after some walls.

My cities from recent saves I've uploaded here are on both screenshots. I strongly doubt I've built Fire Abatis after Walls in case of city on 1st screenshot. It's my second most developed city (previously capital of Mongols). And I'm sure I had Fire Abatis built before Masonry was discovered and Walls built.

I'll remember about this possibility in the future.

 

[raxo2222]

My cities from recent saves I've uploaded here are on both screenshots. I strongly doubt I've built Fire Abatis after Walls in case of city on 1st screenshot. It's my second most developed city (previously capital of Mongols). And I'm sure I had Fire Abatis built before Masonry was discovered and Walls built.

I'll remember about this possibility in the future.

Sometimes you can lose building to events.