Solutions

[Snerk]

Calling it pennies is perhaps silly but you see where I'm coming from. Taxes on alcohol and tobacco hits low income earners inproportionally hard but leaving these products cheap and easily available comes with problems on their own. Very expensive health problems that hits low income earners equally hard.

 

[Zardnaar]

Booze and Tobacco is a luxury tax. It's taxed heavily here.

A pack of cigarettes is around $15 USD iirc. Government s try to stamp it out. I think they've got the % down to something like 15%.

 

[El_Machinae]

I don't mind externality taxes. I don't like sin taxes. If you need free money to treat smokers and their lung cancer, taxing cigarettes is fine. If your goal is to stop people from smoking, I don't like it. It's paternalistic.

The idea that 'most taxes are paid by the rich' is a trick of math and that's it. The working poor have already been taxed through the function of having their consumption reduced. I hope the next two paragraphs capture the idea.

Consider this, if I buy a plowhorse for my farm, the total taxes I pay goes up because my total income has gone up. If the horse gets better at its job, my taxes go up even more. If I figure out how to cut its feed efficiently, or if I figure out how to cut its living conditions efficiently, my taxes go up (because its feed is deductible). This is because I capture the majority of the horse's productivity as profit and then I am taxed on that profit. Some people would then say "oh, the horse is not contributing very much to society! It pays zero taxes!". But, it's very clear that the horse is a net contributor to the economy as a whole. But if I can cut its wage by reducing its heat or by feeding it less-tasty food, then my taxes go up.

It works the same with my technicians. I bill them out at $100 per hour. I pay them $20 per hour. Marginal costs are $30 per hour. So I make $50 per hour off of their labour. They get taxed on the $20. I get taxed on the $50. If I can reduce their pay to $15, I get taxed on the $55 and it looks like my total tax contribution has gone up and theirs has gone down. Their contribution to society hasn't gone down. If they get better at their job, so that I bill $120 then I get taxed on the $70 and they continue to get taxed on their income. You'll note that in the $120 scenario, it doesn't matter who caused their value-increase. I could have bought a new tool. They could have bought a new tool. Whatevs.

Your entire life, productivity has compounded. But labour's share of the productivity capture hasn't risen. There are two theories for why this has happened. First, the worker has contributed zero to the increase in productivity and all of the productivity gain has been because management is superior. OR productivity gains have been from arenas where it did not increase labour's negotiation power. I believe it's the second.

 

[MaryKB]

Alcohol's incredibly cheap here. But there's a scale. You can buy wine for $2 a liter or $200 a liter right next to each other in your local grocery store.

Your entire life, productivity has compounded. But labour's share of the productivity capture hasn't risen. There are two theories for why this has happened. First, the worker has contributed zero to the increase in productivity and all of the productivity gain has been because management is superior. OR productivity gains have been from arenas where it did not increase labour's negotiation power. I believe it's the second.

I feel I disagree, I believe most productivity increases are from technology advancement.

 

[El_Machinae]

Me too. So why hasn't the Laborer's wage gone up?

 

[Zardnaar]

I don't think the tobacco tax covers the tobacco health cost.

 

[Snerk]

I'm all for economic incentives for choices that benefits society. Paternalistic or no, the upsides far outweighs the downsides. Be it taxes on alcohol or tax breaks on electric vehicles over fossile fuel vehicles.

 

[Samson]

I don't think the tobacco tax covers the tobacco health cost.

In the UK the tax from tobacco is more than the NHS spends on smokers in total. If they did not smoke the NHS would still spend some on them.

 

[Zardnaar]

In the UK the tax from tobacco is more than the NHS spends on smokers in total. If they did not smoke the NHS would still spend some on them.

IDK, it didn't but they cranked the tax up not so long ago.

 

[Lexicus]

Me too. So why hasn't the Laborer's wage gone up?

Because labor's collective political position has been destroyed. The working class has almost never been so atomized and divided against itself.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yeah, that's captured in my second option

 

[Akka]

I don't mind externality taxes. I don't like sin taxes. If you need free money to treat smokers and their lung cancer, taxing cigarettes is fine. If your goal is to stop people from smoking, I don't like it. It's paternalistic.

But it works.

The idea that 'most taxes are paid by the rich' is a trick of math and that's it. The working poor have already been taxed through the function of having their consumption reduced. I hope the next two paragraphs capture the idea.

That's the main reason why progressive taxes are good and flat taxes aren't.

 

[Lexicus]

Yeah, that's captured in my second option

Not really though. You imply it was not political choices that caused this...

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm not, but ehn. We're both describing the elephant that someone else is denying

 

[Hygro]

Orange oil spray.

You have to leave it down for a while after you use it, there’s a small learning curve to making it work beyond a killing tool but you’ll quickly see ants avoiding the residue making it easy to zone them. We’d get real nasty about it and leave it around with the dead disintegrated ants for a couple days... definitely works well with the poisons they crawl into and take home (those take some time to work) but I know you have pets.

 

[Yeekim]

Not really though. You imply it was not political choices that caused this...

Not only political choices, I don't think?
It stands to reason that if human labor can be substituted with AI and machines, its bargaining position suffers.
This could be mitigated by political choices, I presume, but this is not necessarily easy.
How do you tax (use of) AI for example?

Edit: My bad, you said "collective political position", which I somehow read as "bargaining position". Admittedly these are somewhat different, if related.

 

[Dekker]

What is everyone's thoughts on Mondragon, the corporate blend of capitalism and socialism where executives aren't obscenely compensated?

 

[Estebonrober]

What is everyone's thoughts on Mondragon, the corporate blend of capitalism and socialism where executives aren't obscenely compensated?

Then first page results on searching this term pops up as a Basque region township. Blending capitalism and socialism is where I am at politically right now though. Use capitalism as the tool to raise all ships through regulation and redistribution. Its my primary voting cause and why I've chosen to support Warren in the dem primary.

Capitalism is a means to an end, not an end in of itself. I hammer my family with that rhetoric all the time actually. Stop worshiping the cash and start focusing on the goods, whether material or service.

 

[Dekker]

Then first page results on searching this term pops up as a Basque region township. Blending capitalism and socialism is where I am at politically right now though. Use capitalism as the tool to raise all ships through regulation and redistribution. Its my primary voting cause and why I've chosen to support Warren in the dem primary.

Capitalism is a means to an end, not an end in of itself. I hammer my family with that rhetoric all the time actually. Stop worshiping the cash and start focusing on the goods, whether material or service.

There is a corporate conglomerate in the Basque region designed for its workers to be part owners and with a democratic voice within the company. They vote on things like the gap between executive and worker pay.
Instead of arbitrary wages set by the company and shareholders and executives raking in all the cash, working for the company and creating the products/providing the services entitles one to the profits earned from that.
For instance, Amazon workers wouldn't be compensated based on what other warehouse workers make, the company profits would directly reflect in their salaries. Obviously Bezos, executive s and shareholders would still earn tons of money but now so would the people who make it possible for them to do so.

 

[Estebonrober]

There is a corporate conglomerate in the Basque region designed for its workers to be part owners and with a democratic voice within the company. They vote on things like the gap between executive and worker pay.
Instead of arbitrary wages set by the company and shareholders and executives raking in all the cash, working for the company and creating the products/providing the services entitles one to the profits earned from that.
For instance, Amazon workers wouldn't be compensated based on what other warehouse workers make, the company profits would directly reflect in their salaries. Obviously Bezos, executive s and shareholders would still earn tons of money but now so would the people who make it possible for them to do so.

I've been telling management everywhere that incentive based wages is best, but no one listens.