1. Hi there, Guest

    Only registered users can really experience what DLP has to offer. Many forums are only accessible if you have an account. Why don't you register?
    Dismiss Notice

If you were President/Prime Minister/King/Dear Leader/Taoiseach

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Taure, May 12, 2018.

  1. Arthellion

    Arthellion Minister of Magic

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2017
    Messages:
    1,352
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    High Score:
    0
    Dude. Not sure what your problem is with me, but chill out. You don't like me. Fine.

    You've made that clear. Now, dislike me in silence and I'll ignore you as well.

    People definitely should rip stupid plan and policies apart (and I agree with a great deal of Apoc's post)...but its possible to do that respectfully. Resorting to the condescending tone destroys rational conversation and prevents any sort of ideas from truly being expressed. Its the equivalent of ad hominem attacks.
     
  2. Zombie

    Zombie John Waynes Teeth Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,193
    High Score:
    2,094
    Because I don't want to derail this anymore than it already has. This is politics. Apoc had many salient points in response to momo's post, and just because you can't handle the manner in which it was delivered doesn't mean he can't. Also, he already said that he's going to respond to make his point more clear when he got the chance. There is not other replies to his post other than apocs talking about what is wrong with his post, nothing else has been said other than Neckbeard 1 and you poor english speaking boy coming to defense of someone that doesn't need defending.

    That's all I'm saying. So both of you can suck my dick. The assumption Arthellion made here was that momo needed defending. There used to be a post here somewhere that said don't' say something without being able to back it up, this is the politics forum after all.

    Because you're too thin skinned to take the comments directed at someone not you doesn't mean he's not.

    As it is, to keep on topic, momo's post is deeply flawed. While these are hypothetical scenarios, there are many things being said that doesn't make much sense and I'd like to see him give a better explanation other than "Make harassing the police against the law." Because that's a pretty loaded statement considering the ongoing atmosphere.


    @Arthellion I'll dislike you in silence as soon as you agree to be stupid in silence.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2018
  3. Moukaboy

    Moukaboy Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2016
    Messages:
    155
    High Score:
    0

    I'm not a native English speaker and I'm young, I'm quite happy with my English.
    BTW and -you can trust me on this since I'm 18- you're very immature, like insanely so.
    I'd be happy to suck your 3 inch dick btw.
    See?we can both equally immature, I think.
    Maybe.
    More on topic, we've already established that some of Momo's points are flawed, we're arguing about how to go in correcting them like civilized people.
     
  4. apoc

    apoc The Once and Ginger King DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2012
    Messages:
    307
    Location:
    People's Republic of California
    There are some points that are certainly issues which need addressing in there, to be clear, it’s just that the language around them is extremely reductionist and portrays a lack of a lot of the deeper complexities inherent in those issues. The tax bit is a good example. The tax code is an issue of contention at the moment because there’s some real issues that need fixing as well as a hot political debate over what the actual intent of of our tax code should be and the need to adapt after some serious structural economic changes over the past decade. But if the solution was just to throw experts at the problem we wouldn’t be here in the first place. Experts disagree and there’s a heavy and undeniable political element that will play into whatever policies are implemented - there’s no real perfect centrist unbiased tax unicorn ( though there are some general policies a lot of economic data says are a step in the right direction). This makes the post frustrating because it’s such a simplification of the issue and a lot of other points are the same way.

    And then there’s just a bunch of downright nonsensical stuff in there too like the “no trying crimes committed over the Internet”, “Levy high taxes on universities with high tuition”, and “match four year college graduates with careers”.

    For Christ’s sake what forum do you think you’re on? Condescension towards uniformed opinions is a proud DLP tradition.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2018
  5. Arthellion

    Arthellion Minister of Magic

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2017
    Messages:
    1,352
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    High Score:
    0
    Silencing the opposition is hardly the intelligent or moral stance stance to take. I'd note, that the only time I can remember you actually debating me on any topic, was the homeless one which honestly appeared to be you taking something personally and responding in anger as opposed to rational thought. Any other time you've only responded with ad hominem attacks. (Neckbeard? Really? I'm cleanshaven thank you very much).

    Being stupid is refusing to learn and grow from differing viewpoints. I'd point to several times when, on DLP, during discussion I've changed my viewpoint on a matter because the argument being given was better than my own viewpoint. And when I've debated others, more often than not, they and I have done so in a respectful manner. Why can't you do the same?

    I'm not defending Momo's points. Nor am I defending Momo himself. I'm calling out people acting like jerks.

    There is a difference between being thin-skinned and requesting people to act civilized. The way you've been acting, You're no better than trump screaming about his small hands and the hick who refers to Obama as Obummer.

    So once again, fuck off until you can treat people with whom you disagree with decency.
     
  6. Sauce Bauss

    Sauce Bauss Headmaster DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2008
    Messages:
    1,132
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    The justice system is already pretty rough for those without significant means, with many public defenders being able to only dedicate a few minutes/hours of counsel to each person. Adding an additional financial burden on families and individuals isn't practical. The cost of imprisoning somebody in the US is, what, fifty thousand a year? I can't recall the exact number, but it outweighs any potential revenue generation by orders of magnitude.

    This was attempted under George H.W. Bush and all it did was kill the yacht industry for a decade. Employees who make luxury goods have high wages, and the knock-on effects of lowering spending on them will put tens of thousands out of work for no appreciable revenue generation. People will just buy used, or wait out the policy while it starves the industry. Here's a good article about what happened last time it was attempted.

    For the most part, if a job being created makes financial sense then the company is going to do it anyways. Very few ultra rich are sole proprietors taking in income directly from a company they own in its entirety. In a corporate structure, does every shareholder get the tax break? Is it only major shareholders? Executives who actually made the hiring decisions on behalf of the shareholders?

    As to bringing jobs back, that's a bit of a lost cause in my opinion. The reason those jobs left is because most of them require either very little skill or education to accomplish, or the regulatory burden in the US was too high. We should focus on making new jobs in new industries, rather than pining for the days when your daddy could make $32/hr with no diploma working for a unionized steel mill.

    As @apoc mentioned, the criminal justice system in the US is horribly mismanaged. We focus on retribution rather than reformation. Punishment over rehabilitation. The US is 4% of the world's population, and we have over half the world's people imprisoned. We outdo China, North Korea, Russia, Syria, Iran, and all the rest combined. It's pretty disgusting when you think about it. In parts of Europe, they're shutting prisons down because they've managed to cut crime down so severely. We have an Attorney General who said one of the most pressing problems in America is empty prison beds.

    As for committing crimes while on drugs, if anything being on drugs should bring a lesser sentence. Running someone over while drunk is less criminal than doing so deliberately while sober, certainly? We already have laws making those actions illegal, there's no reason to introduce additional complexity. We give judges quite a bit of agency in terms of sentencing, so let's trust their judgment when it comes time for context.

    You speak of due process in another part of this post, but you say we should stop keeping people on death row for a decade. That happens because people have the right to appeal their death sentence, which is a liberty I would think nobody finds objectionable. The death penalty has been proven to not serve as a deterrent, the cost of it is exorbitant, the timelines ludicrous, and in the end it brings a lot of negative attention. We are one of the only developed nations that retains the death penalty, and we should probably move into line with the rest of the west.

    Again, to echo apoc this isn't really a pressing issue societally. For some mental illnesses, they can be dealt with via medication or treatment. If somebody makes a mistake while not in their right mind, should we execute them? You say people would want the worst for the offender, but as a nation of laws and justice we should rise above eye for an eye. We're better than that, aren't we?

    While I agree with you in a sense, it does speak to your probable sources of news and biases that this is an issue of note. I think the social tensions created by affirmative action outweigh the good created, and existing laws against discrimination should bear the brunt of it. It's a tricky topic to navigate, so you should be very clear in your verbiage when you speak on it to avoid misunderstandings.

    Harassment is already illegal, and police officers should not be given special protections in the law outside of their actions as an arm of the state. They are servants of the public, and should thus be held to a higher standard of conduct. They rarely are. They are civilians, as the rest of us are. There were 128 officers killed in the line of duty in 2017, there is no carnage assailing American police despite the President's narrative. You're more likely to be an innocent person killed by the police than a policeman is likely to be killed.

    The current anti-police narrative in the public is largely due to a failure on the part of the police to self-police(ha). When an officer does wrong, the rest of the force closes ranks. You don't see this happen to the Army, for example, because the Uniform Code of Military Justice serves as a mechanism for the military to punish its own. The police only admit wrongdoing when there is video evidence of it combined with overwhelming public outcry. That's not a recipe for good relations with the public.

    This one is a seductive notion, I do understand the desire. It carries an unfortunate consequence, however. If you make false accusations carry the same punishment, then nobody will ever come forward after a false accusation. Friends and family who might otherwise have contradicted a story will not do so because they don't want their friend or child to go to prison. The saying is "better a thousand guilty men go free than one innocent man be imprisoned," is it not? This is what that looks like. It is better to help the innocent escape imprisonment than it is to punish those who would fabricate claims.

    As above, this one's seductive. The court of public opinion is cruel, and I can think of several ways that we could probably accomplish our goals while minimizing witch hunts. The thing is, you are promised a public trial in order to prevent government excesses. We do not have secret police disappearing people into the night for unknown reasons, and the publicity of arrests is why that happens. You, I, and we have a right to know what a person is accused of so that we can know that justice is being done.

    This one seems like a bad choice for government intervention. Employers want to employ people, that's how they make money. Employees want to be employed, ditto. Government intervention would create a hellish bureaucracy that would doubtlessly create various perverse incentives that would distort the job market.

    This one is, again, a tricky one. Do you provide tax benefits to companies that have interns? What if a company just wants to not pay a receptionist, so they take on interns to answer phones and be the office coffee bitch? Do you reward companies that employ a student who was formerly an intern? If so, how? Tax breaks? See, this is why the current tax code is so complex. We use it as a tool to shape society, and to reward/punish various behaviors. Nearly every item in the tax code makes sense when you explain the reason it was adopted, but it is the code in its entirety that ends up looking ridiculous and unwieldy.

    This would likely be a violation of free association or some such. If a graduate is willing to work as an unpaid intern, should they be prevented by legislation? If that is so objectionable, then why only people with four year degrees while it's okay for HS graduates?

    This is pretty unclear, but the most viable way would be to simply not offer federal funding for student aid at such universities. The majority of the rise in tuition has come from administrative bloat which has mostly come from, you guessed it, government regulations such as the current interpretation of Title IX.

    Senior care is mostly a problem of medical cost over anything else, which would merit an entire research paper or book of its own. I have a paper in progress on that topic funnily enough, but it's not fit for public consumption yet.

    Income diversity prevents the creation of ghettos, ethnic and otherwise, which I would consider a public good. Letting poor people, black people, immigrants, etc. congregate can create problematic issues with subcultures, crime, etc. We should bring everybody into mainstream America, and income diversity in neighborhoods is one way to do so.

    The problem today is not funding research into alternate energy sources(except fusion), but in funding for their adoption. We could go 95% green in twenty years if we so chose. Nuclear base load, natural gas peaker plants while we get solar and wind rolled out. Done. It's a lack of political will, rather than ability.

    Agreed. The cost of vehicular transportation is one of the largest barriers to prosperity for lower income Americans. The pollution created, both air and noise, is a bit of an issue as well.



    There you go creating complexity in the tax code again. It'd be easier to simply subsidize public transportation, or have it be funded by the government. As an aside, I'm pretty sure that having free public transport would end up paying for itself through increased economic activity acting as a revenue multiplier for the state since it benefits from everyone else benefiting, but I've seen no research on the topic yet. An interesting question though.

    The story of the neglected veteran is one that gets my gorge up at this point, to be honest. American society is still traumatized after Vietnam, and so we've resorted to hero worship to try and make up for it. My family's fought in every war since the Revolutionary, we've got hundreds of years of active duty service in the last three two generations, and I was pursuing a commission myself. I say this only so that you know I come from a place of respect and understanding for the military in general. Currently, it's more a question of how benefits are administered rather than a lack of them. School is paid for, healthcare is paid for. In Texas you don't pay for parking, tolls, or property tax. You get your pension, you get preferential hiring. We provide a lot for veterans, it's just the logistics of it that lead to failures you see on the nightly news.

    As to soldier pay, we already pay soldiers a lot. An E-2 coming out of basic is making the equivalent of $12/hr before any of his/her stipends. They're getting free housing or BAH, free medical, subsidized food, clothing allowances, tuition assistance if they take classes while active duty, they don't pay taxes on half the stuff they buy, they get a few hundred a month for food, bonuses if you're separated from your family, signing bonuses, reenlistment bonuses, thousands of discounts from businesses, free legal advice from JAG, more money if you're married or have children, and combat/danger bonuses to boot. A single 18 year old is making $22k before stipends or benefits. They are well-compensated, and have the best retirement in the country as the cherry on top.

    We're working on it, but the third offset strategy is tricky now with falling public research, the ability for other nations to acquire our tech through espionage and cyber-warfare, etc. Additionally, asymmetric warfare is the new hotness. I can pay a 22 year old hacker $40/hr to break into Raytheon's database and steal the tech for a $2MM missile. A dude with a couple grand worth of explosive can take down a bridge, and a single attempted plane hijacking can increase our security budget by millions. Dollar for dollar, the government is losing this battle. I don't know how old you are, but when I was a kid the belief was that the government was ten years ahead of the private sector. Most people would laugh in your face if you said that now. Private industry is leaving government in the dust, and that's likely to be the case for the foreseeable future.

    Crimes are crimes, whether they're committed online or not. 99% of online activity is lawful and protected under the First in the US though, so I'm not overly concerned for us. Canada, the UK, and Germany are a different matter though.

    There's an interesting constitutional question as regards that. Would twitter, facebook, et al be considered the public forum now? If so, speech should be safe against censorship even from the companies themselves. It's something to look out for in the future.

    We need a digital consumer bill of rights as we had a consumer bill of rights in the 30's, I agree.

    Burdening people with taxes would cause disproportionate harm for the revenue it might generate. No illegal immigrant could ever start a business in that environment, which should be a disqualifier on the face of it.

    I don't understand what you mean by the city robbing the government. Cities and states have no obligation to arrest you for violating federal law, just as federal agents have no obligation to arrest you for violating state law. They frequently do so as a sort of professional courtesy, but there's nothing forcing their hand. The government is trying to extort cities into complying by withholding funding, but that's because the feds want to have their cake and eat it too.

    We already have one of the most stringent systems in the world on this front, you'd not get any return on that investment.

    Is there any war worth fighting other than for what you believe is right? As the sole superpower, we have an interest in every nation on every point of the globe.

    Foreign aid is frequently a carrot we use to get other concessions from nations. Its part of the budget is minuscule, and the returns we get from it are exponential. If anything, we should quintuple the foreign aid budget. It also helps the US brand, which has knock-on effects in terms of relationships with other nations and their citizens.

    We can barely audit our own spending like that, trying to enforce that mandate on another nation would be impractical as well as insulting. The point of aid is to help, not to try and run their country for them. If we're getting kudos for helping, let's not spit in their face and force them to thank us for it.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2018
  7. apoc

    apoc The Once and Ginger King DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2012
    Messages:
    307
    Location:
    People's Republic of California
    I maintain that my graph was the most concise and appropriate response.
     
  8. Darth_Revan

    Darth_Revan Secret Squirrel Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    966
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New England
    High Score:
    2810
    A couple brief responses:

    We already do this, anyway. It's called the pre-tax commuter benefit. You can use up to $260 per month to go to public transport to and from work, and in return, it's exempted from income tax gross income.

    Just a point of order, they do have an obligation to hold and turn over a person of they know that the person has violated the law. States and cities are trying to get around this by simply not checking and claiming ignorance. Federal law reigns supreme, and the government is, in my view, entirely in the right to deny all funding to municipalities who refuse to comply.

    Edit: To clarify, they are not supposed to seek out and arrest people for violations that are not their jurisdiction, but if they have you under their power for whatever reason, they are supposed to check to see if there are any warrants out on you, and if there are, they are required to arrest you.

    The most common example of this is traffic stops. When the cop goes back to his car with your license for a while and is tapping away on his computer, that's what he's doing.
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2018
  9. Xiph0

    Xiph0 Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    9,004
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    People's Republic of California
    Mouka is gone, he's been warned before about crossing the line. A few of you are skirting the edges (including you, Arth. Not your job to be polite police in any fucking way shape or form) but I'm happy with the boundaries as they are so far. Carry on.
     
  10. Agayek

    Agayek Heir

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    2,664
    Been thinking about this for the last few days, may as well throw my hat in the ring:

    Financial/Taxes
    • Eliminate all deductions and tax credits, and establish a fixed, progressive tax rate, in the process eliminating all loopholes and methods of abuse of the system. Any income earned inside the United States will see 30% (or whatever it is at a given income level) go to Uncle Sam by April 15 of the next year, period.
    • Replace the current system of incentives via tax manipulation with a rebate-esque system, whereby you still note things that would give you a deduction in your taxes while doing your return, but instead of reducing the money you submit now, you receive a payout worthy of the previous year's deductions after paying this year's taxes.
      • I would also prefer if this system only sees payouts when the government is running a budgetary surplus, with these payouts being a portion of that surplus flagged for that purpose, such that the exact amount of a given payout is determined by the size of the overall surplus, but I'd have to see some actual science on the effect of this to support it.
    • Eliminate all forms of federal financial aid, from food stamps to housing allowances and everything in between, and all of the bureaucracy intrinsic to such things, saving the country over a trillion dollars a year.
    • Examine the country-wide data and determine a minimum amount of money required for an acceptable (even comfortable if it can be afforded) standard of living, and set that as the threshold for a new negative income tax. Anyone who makes under that level will be paid instead of paying taxes, and the fixed progressive tax rate mentioned above will be such that it could not possibly bring someone under that level
    • Ensure the budget operates at a surplus year over year until the national debt is back into the billions, at minimum.
      • Special exceptions may be made in the event of another financial crisis.
    Legal/Justice
    • Corporations are not people, and will not be legally considered such. They will be free from the obligations, protections, privileges, and rights inherent to such.
      • As an extension of this, in the result of any corporate missteps, the executives of that corporation (the precise legalese escapes me, but essentially the chief executives and/or the board of directors) will be held legally accountable. Any punishment leveled on the corporation will, by necessity, include legal punishments, from fines up to and including imprisonment, of said executives.
    • Copyright will return to its original "25 years from date of first publication", and any attempt to extend that duration will mean the immediate forfeiture of said copyright.
    • Eliminate mandatory minimums from all sentencing
    • Legalize most forms of drugs, from marijuana on up to opioids. If people want to fuck themselves up, that's their prerogative.
      • Mandate that sentencing for actual crimes committed as a result of aforementioned legal drugs (see: mugging someone for drug money, getting high while driving, etc) be significantly tougher and less lenient than it would be for the same crime without the drugs.
    Healthcare
    • Open a government-funded, and annually audited, health insurance provider that every citizen is automatically enrolled into. Any given individual could choose to opt out of it, and receive a slightly larger tax rebate as a result, but their dues will be automatically extracted from their taxes.
      • Private health insurance companies will still be freely permitted, but they will have to compete with a minimum standard of care and price.
    Infrastructure
    • Raise the gas tax and, until the first round of work is done, allocate a small portion of the federal budget toward the highway fund to repair, refurbish, and, if necessary, rebuild the many examples of crumbling infrastructure.
    • Much like the health insurance provider mentioned above, open government-funded and regularly audited providers for electricity, water, and internet with the mandate to provide a minimum acceptable standard for all citizens.
    Education
    • Eliminate the incessant standardized testing methods introduced by Bush Jr and worsened by Obama; it's not working and is just another layer of bloat.
    • Increase funding for public education, with a significant portion of the increase flagged exclusively for raising teacher salaries
    • Increase both funding and oversight for charter schools
    • Cut off funding for any school whose curriculum includes topics derided by the wider scientific community (read: intelligent design, flat earth, etc)
    • Re-classify student loans such that they are forgiven by a declaration of bankruptcy
    • Increase funds for public universities, with the long-term goal of reducing four year tuition to less than the cost of a brand new car.
    • Increase funding for NASA, along with a directive for new orbital telescopes and supporting technologies as well as developing a method for reliable, positive-return asteroid mining to help pay for it all
    Immigration
    • Drastically simplify the immigration process, with a special focus on removing the redundancies resulting from multiple departments being involved, with the long-term goal of the average applicant receiving a final yes/no response within one year's time of their application submission.
    • Significantly increase the number of visas issued in a given year, potentially by as much as an order of magnitude.
      • Final count ultimately depends on how well the optimizations of the process go and how more applicants impacts the "one year turnaround" goal
    • Increase funding, training, and oversight for ICE, with the goal of expediting their job without the various PR nightmare's they've inspired since Trump took office
    • Cut off all sanctuary cities/states/whatever from all forms of federal funding and assistance until such time as they stop flouting federal law and abide by the terms of the union.
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2018
  11. Blinker

    Blinker Slug Club Member DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2011
    Messages:
    197
    Location:
    Bristol, UK
    On the negative income tax, mind fleshing out rough numbers if you've got them in your head? I've come across the idea in passing and like the look of it, but I worry about disincentives from high marginal tax rates.
     
  12. ScottPress

    ScottPress The Horny Sovereign Prestige

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2013
    Messages:
    2,591
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Holy Moose Empire
    High Score:
    1,826
    Would this mean that if I write a book, then 25 years later it's in public domain, even if I'm still alive and the book is still being sold? Or 25 years after my death/after I stop doing anything with the IP?
     
  13. Agayek

    Agayek Heir

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    2,664
    I don't have hard numbers for the poverty line and all that, so I can't speak there, but for the sake of this discussion, let's set the line at $15,000 a year.

    That means, if you make, say, $11k, then Uncle Sam would send you a check for $4k to make up the difference, $8k means that check would be $7k, etc. If you make exactly $15k, then you don't get paid at all, but you also don't owe any money.

    Once you get above $15k though, then you start owing money at a progressively higher rate. In my head, the first bucket (of $5k for the sake of discussion) would be 10%, then it goes up by 5% each bucket to an upper limit of 30%, so if you made $24k that year, you'd owe 15% in taxes, or $3600, leaving you with $20400 to spend.

    The trick, though, is that this tax cannot bring you below the minimum accepted level, of $15k in this example. So if you, for example, made $15,001 that year, you'd qualify for the 10% tax rate, but you'd only owe $1. If you made $16k, then you'd owe $1600, but since that would take you under the limit, you'd actually only owe $1,000.

    I'd need some data and to run some math to figure out the exact rates and ranges of the buckets to best serve the country, but it seems an elegant solution to the problem that's substantially less wasteful than what we currently have.

    It would mean the former, yes. It means the clock starts when the first work enters the market, and you have 25 years to maximize your profits off of that IP before anyone can legally make use of it.

    Let's be real here; if an IP has existed profitably for 25 years, it has entered the public consciousness, and as a direct result, deserves to be in the public domain.

    This is actually how copyright worked, and it worked just fine, up until Disney refused to let go of their copyright on Mickey Mouse and kept (keeps) buying out Congress to get an extension.
     
  14. ScottPress

    ScottPress The Horny Sovereign Prestige

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2013
    Messages:
    2,591
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Holy Moose Empire
    High Score:
    1,826
    I dunno, seems unfair to me. If I created something, I don't see why my legal inheritors shouldn't own it even after I'm gone. Or at least make it 15 years past the original creator's death. With your idea, the person who shall remain nameless could put MOR on Amazon and legally sell it in 2022 (for the sake of argument I'm ignoring the fact that JK is British). Any douchebag could begin selling Queen's music on iTunes if they could dupe someone into buying from them instead of, you know, Queen.

    Meh.

    Edit: when did Disney start fighting copyright limitations? Cause if it was in like, the 50s or something, we have to consider that those were different times. Some old laws simply don't make sense in the modern reality.
     
  15. Blinker

    Blinker Slug Club Member DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2011
    Messages:
    197
    Location:
    Bristol, UK
    Just so I'm not putting words into your mouth, the take home pay of someone who makes $8k and $16k is exactly the same? Both end up with $15k? Why would I bother working more if I was earning $8k, it doesn't gain me anything but loses me time I could spend on family, hobbies, etc. It might even cost me more because now I have to commute etc.

    I appreciate that these are numbers you've just come up with so this isn't meant to be a "Gotcha!" thing, just illustrating the kinds of difficulties I think are going to come up with this kind of policy.

    edit: meant to tag Agayek
     
  16. Agayek

    Agayek Heir

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    2,664
    They shouldn't because it's part of the public consciousness by that point. It's been subsumed into the culture, and holding copyright like we're doing now locks down the cultural discourse, because topics become taboo.

    For example, let's take a look at basically every big name Disney animated movie in the last 80 years, from the Little Mermaid on up to Frozen. None of them, not a single one, would exist if copyright worked like you suggest. They're all adaptations of existing stories and previous works, and are flagrantly in violation of any sensible copyright law.

    That's one of the reasons why I find Disney's insistence on infinite copyright to be hilariously ironic.

    Edit: In response to your edit, Disney fights copyright limits every time they near the current copyright limit on Mickey Mouse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act is the one that immediately comes to mind about it, from 1998

    Why do people on welfare work now?

    It's the exact same thing at the end of the day.

    Edit: To try and clarify a bit further, the thing with the line here is that that's the minimum for an acceptable living standard (in my head, that basically translates to "shelter, food, water, and power", though I could see an argument for extending that to include "internet access" as well). The incentive for going out and working more is that your resume looks better, so that you'll get hired by someone who pays more and you can stop eating ramen and/or pancakes every day.

    People don't like living in poverty, and if they have a way out, they're going to pursue it. All this does is take the current tangled mess that is the US financial aid system and cuts out the bloat, simultaneously saving the state money and ensuring everyone has a minimum baseline they don't need to worry about while they work to escape their situation.
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2018
  17. Lindsey

    Lindsey Headmaster

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,029
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    The major problem is some areas in the country are much more expensive than others.

    15 dollars an hour isn't a bad income for much of the country, yet in Seattle, San Francisco, New York City, etc, it's almost unlivable. It would be hard to make a tax negative plan like yours country wide. It would need to be region, if not city, based.
     
  18. ScottPress

    ScottPress The Horny Sovereign Prestige

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2013
    Messages:
    2,591
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Holy Moose Empire
    High Score:
    1,826
    Sure, they shouldn't because it would be a shitty thing to do, but how many people would do it just because it would be allowed? Imagine fanfic writers flooding the ebook market with their shit. And how does copyright lock down discourse or promote taboos? What's the name of this site again? There are authors who outright say they don't want any fanfic of their IPs and fanfic still exists and discourse is lively.

    On a more serious note, consider the case of an IP that is published, but sees little no success. Then, 24 years later, it becomes a hit because whatever, someone made it a meme, it was referenced in a big movie, a celebrity said they liked that niche, obscure thing. Suddenly the creator starts making money from their creation after a long time. I for one would feel robbed if a few months later the IP would enter public domain. Being technically published for 25 years doesn't necessarily mean that the IP's monetization potential has been realized.

    At the risk of sounding callous, isn't that the problem of whoever lost/relinquished copyright of the OG Little Mermaid?

    Ironic indeed, but they're fighting to keep what's theirs.

    Ultimately I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one.
     
  19. Agayek

    Agayek Heir

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    2,664
    Not really. The way I'd set it up would be to establish whatever the federal government finds sufficient for the minimum standard, and then it'd be up to the individual states/municipalities to handle their own aid on top of that however they please, whether that's maintaining the current system or their own version of the federal NIT.

    If those states or municipalities don't do enough to help their people on top of the federal aid, then it's up to the people effected to replace them with people who will.

    Edit:
    You misunderstand. By "they shouldn't", I was saying "your descendants should not own the IP you let loose into the wild", not "people shouldn't publish derivative works".

    You mean the guy that had been dead for over a century by then, and who wrote it long before copyright law was changed to "indefinite"?
     
  20. Chengar Qordath

    Chengar Qordath The Final Pony Prestige

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,030
    High Score:
    1,802
    Well, a part of why people on welfare work is that quite often continuing to receive those benefits requires making some sort of effort to be productive member of society, looking for work, etc.

    Really, for any sort of mandatory minimum income to not have issues you'd probably need to do a major restructuring of entire economy and wage system. Like having everyone receive $15k (or whatever sum) just for being alive, and then your job brings in extra income over and above the $15k minimum.

    Barring that, I'd say the tax idea works a lot better if tax only applies to what you make after $15k (or whatever number) and we get similar brackets for the increases at other percentage points. Otherwise you end up with situations where earning more money just means you pay more taxes while having less real income. To show the numbers:

    Someone earns $29k a year, putting them in the in 10% bracket. They pay $2900 in taxes, and end up with $26100 in real income.
    They get a raise, and now earn $30k a year, bumping them up to 15% tax. They now pay $4500 in taxes, and have a real income of $25500.

    That $1000 pay raise actually wound up costing them $600. Not an ideal situation.
     
Loading...