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. Farhial

    Farhial First Year

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2011
    Messages:
    34
    Location:
    Occasionally Chicago
    That's not how progressive tax brackets work. The money made in each bracket is taxed at that bracket percentage. The person would be taxed at 10% for $29k and 15% for that $1000 dollars that put them in the $30k tax bracket.
     
  2. Agayek

    Agayek Prisoner DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    2,922
    Realistically, and the way we do tax calculations now, is that the percentage tax on income only applies to income within that tax bracket; so you'd see 0% tax on the first 15k, 10% on the next 5k, 15% on the next 5k, etc up to whatever the maximum tax is. That's the best way to handle tax brackets I've seen, and would include that, I just went and forgot about it when I was running the numbers above.

    So with that, if you're making 16k, you'd end up owing $100 in taxes. Similarly, from your example of 29->30k, you'd go from owing $2050 (for $26,950 real income) to owing $2250 (for $27,750 real income)
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2018
  3. VanRopen

    VanRopen Order Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2011
    Messages:
    825
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    If it’s being pegged to the poverty line, that’s already something we can determine by region/skew wrt cost of living. Though on that note, the way we calculate poverty needs to be refreshed too. We’ve openly acknowledged the calculation is an old formula based on old data for ages, and have gone so far as to have the census calculate a much better value - but don’t use that as the official one because inertia.

    But yeah. Nothing is actually stopping the federal minimum to be based on local conditions.


    ...though I think housing should remain an area of government interest even with this framework removing other parts of the safety net. Not in terms of subsidies, but in the sense that the government should directly invest in housing. Between high upfront costs and the chilling effect of NIMBYs, it’s a market inelastic enough that direct government building may be warranted. That’s more cost-effective than subsidies anyways, and since housing is generally one of someone’s largest expenses (another failure of the current official poverty calc) and this will lower rents by increasing availability you’ll be dropping NIT payouts factored through local COL anyways.
    --- Post automerged ---
    That’s not how progressive tax brackets work.

    The guy making 30k pays 10% on his first 29k, then 15% on the last thousand.
     
  4. Stenstyren

    Stenstyren Professor

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2009
    Messages:
    402
    I'm a big proponent of universal basic income, but I think you're being a tad optimistic here. My take on it would be that instead of taking away all the earned money (which will dissuade people from starting their own business, doing smalltime jobs etc. unless they have a really long term outlook on life) you should make sure there is something left in the wallet. For example, if someone makes 1$ in a year, they should get 15.001$ for that year. However, this tapers of quite steeply such that when you are earning 20k by yourself you are no longer getting any assistance.

    Don't mind the exact figures to much, just throwing it out there but I think you will have problem if you can't encourage small-time entrepreneurship among the population.
     
  5. ScottPress

    ScottPress The Horny Sovereign Prestige

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2013
    Messages:
    2,888
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Holy Moose Empire
    High Score:
    1,826
    Why not? I understand that intellectual property is not the same as physical property or even money (which is increasingly just digital data), but it's still something I created and own, so why should my inheritors give it up to the public? Perhaps there's something I'm missing here, but how is the principle different from the house I built becoming public property after 25 years?

    Ok, let's be rational. You can't prosecute someone for murder before murder was criminalized and the descendants of saint Peter aren't gonna sue for back-profits from the Bible, but IPs created after we decided that intellectual property can be owned are relevant to the topic. Like I said, we're not gonna agree on this one.
     
  6. Agayek

    Agayek Prisoner DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    2,922
    Because the house you built isn't an intrinsic part of the public consciousness and integral to cultural development.

    The whole thing with IP entering the public domain is because there's no such thing as an original idea; everything builds off of previous ideas, and when you lock ideas behind IP walls, you stifle growth. That's why I referenced Disney's animated films; they're massive contributors to the culture, forming and shaping the way people, both within and without, view the culture and influencing the ways the culture has developed.

    And they wouldn't have existed if everyone got an eternal copyright on whatever they produce.

    Your (well, our seeing as it's the modern state of affairs) attitude toward copyright is massively damaging to the potential of your society and culture in the name of the almighty dollar, and that just doesn't sit right with me.

    Edit:
    I mean, shit. Harry Potter wouldn't be able to exist under those rules, given that Rowling blatantly ripped off Tolkien on every level save the philosophical.

    No, we can't. And I'm not saying we should (though I will point out that copyright did exist back then, it was just "X years from date of publication" thing rather than "forever"). What I'm saying is that we should keep in mind that there will be a next Little Mermaid, or Frozen, or Harry Potter, or some other cultural milestone, and we should leave the door open for that to exist, not strangle it in the crib.
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2018
  7. ScottPress

    ScottPress The Horny Sovereign Prestige

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2013
    Messages:
    2,888
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Holy Moose Empire
    High Score:
    1,826
    @Agayek, and C.S.Lewis basically ripped off the Bible, but Chronicles of Narnia is a transformative work. It's not like he just changed the names and called it a day.

    I can't fathom how anyone could claim that HP is a ripoff of Tolkien's work. Is Harry supposed to be a hobbit? How does copyright stifle creativity today? If Disney wants to reroll its stable of old hits as live-action remakes, it's free to do so. Disney didn't stop JK Rowling and it's not stopping our very own Joe.

    And yes, there will be the next big thing, which is another reason why there's nothing wrong with letting Rowling keep ownership of HP. Allowing other people to use existing IPs is precisely an incentive to not be creative, no? No one's trying the copyright the broad concept of The Chosen One, but JK should be allowed to still own her Chosen One in 4 years.
     
  8. Agayek

    Agayek Prisoner DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    2,922
    Last thing I'm gonna say on the subject, here anyway, but I've gotta ask: have you seen what people have been doing with copyright claims lately? It's worse than patents, and I didn't think that was possible.

    If this same state of affairs had always existed, you can bet your ass Rowling would have been buried in copyright lawsuits by the third book, and never would have finished the series.
     
  9. ScottPress

    ScottPress The Horny Sovereign Prestige

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2013
    Messages:
    2,888
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Holy Moose Empire
    High Score:
    1,826
    @Agayek, do you mean things like DMCA abuse on YouTube? And who would've sued Rowling?

    Of course people have tried and succeeded in cypyrighting/trademarking ridiculously broad things, but that doesn't mean you turn all the way around. I wouldn't want anyone to copyright "school for people with superpowers" cause then Marvel would tell Rowling to stop infringing on X-Men, but Marvel sure as hell should rightfully own the X-Men and Xavier's X-Mansion. At the same time, Rowling owns Hogwarts.
     
  10. VanRopen

    VanRopen Order Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2011
    Messages:
    825
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    But why does her granddaughter need to own Hogwarts 100 years after it entered the public consciousness?
     
  11. ScottPress

    ScottPress The Horny Sovereign Prestige

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2013
    Messages:
    2,888
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Holy Moose Empire
    High Score:
    1,826
    I'm not opposed to that in principle. I'm opposed to taking Hogwarts away from JK and putting it in public domain long before JK is due to depart this world. Some expiration like 100 years after the original creator's death is fine with me, but certainly not while the original creator is still alive.

    Edit: Obviously this would have to be logically adjusted for corporate-owned IPs, say the 100 mark after the death of the corporate employee who first came up with the idea, or just take the average human lifespan plus 100 years before Disney's stuff goes public domain.
     
  12. Chengar Qordath

    Chengar Qordath The Final Pony Prestige

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,093
    High Score:
    1,802
    I know.

    The whole point of that part of my post was Agayek's proposal appeared to not be working that way, given he was saying stuff like a person making $15,001 pays $1 in taxes, while someone making $16,000 pays $1000 in taxes. Reading posts in context is a useful skill.

    Yeah, most of the big problems caused by copyright law today aren't something that could be fixed with the proposal to make things enter the public domain a bit faster. Corporations having far too much power to abuse copyright law is less about Disney still holding the copyright to Mickey Mouse, and more about the fact that Disney has deep pockets and very good lawyers. The average citizen can't afford the lawyer fees for a long drawn-out legal battle (not to mention non-monetary costs) against a blatant copyright troll, let alone a major corporation.
     
  13. Farhial

    Farhial First Year

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2011
    Messages:
    34
    Location:
    Occasionally Chicago
    A simple way to incentivize work on a guaranteed minimum income scheme would be to reduce aid by fifty cents for every dollar the person earns. Thus someone who makes no money is given $10,000 to survive, while someone who earns $1 is given $9,999.50, and so on until you reach the cutoff point you want or aid dollars reach zero--someone making $10,000 a year is given $5,000 dollars in aid, and someone making $20,000 receives nothing. Thus people who work still receive more money than they would by not working.
     
  14. momo

    momo Groundskeeper

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2017
    Messages:
    342
    Location:
    Your Mother's Basement
    High Score:
    0
    On the public domain thing...works shoukd EVANTUALLY enter the public domain.

    But that should be 10-20 years after the creator’s death. Public Domain is important but say a kid writes a hit story when he is 16. For something to be part of “puboic consciousness” it must be popular. Do you think that the creator deserves to spend half his like reading spin-offs and watching movie reproductions for which he doesnt get paid.


    25 years is a ridiculously low number. Maube 25 after death. Or even 10-20.
     
  15. Aekiel

    Aekiel Angle of Mispeling Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    987
    Location:
    The Shire
    High Score:
    9,373
    25 years is too short. George RR Martin would have lost the copyright to A Song of Ice and Fire a few years ago if that was the case. I'm inclined to go with death of the creator +20 years, but no longer.
     
  16. arkkitehti

    arkkitehti Groundskeeper

    Joined:
    May 31, 2012
    Messages:
    351
    I don't really see why copyrights should be stronger than the protection offered by patents. It's the same principle: you come up with a new idea, and in exchange of bringing that idea to the public you get a protected period of monopoly on the commercial use of that idea. I don't see a reason why George RR Martin should have rights to GoT IP any longer than Pfizer had to Viagra.

    Personally I would handle all IP protection with a short-ish free protection period starting after publishing/patenting, after which the IP holder could buy infinite amounts of set length extensions at exponentially increasing cost.
     
  17. Agayek

    Agayek Prisoner DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    2,922
    My only issue with that is that it skews the power toward large corporations even further.

    I'd certainly back it, but I'd probably include a provision that the extensions are only available to individual copyright holders, not corporate ones.
     
  18. ScottPress

    ScottPress The Horny Sovereign Prestige

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2013
    Messages:
    2,888
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Holy Moose Empire
    High Score:
    1,826
    My last word on the copyright issue is that I would absolutely not be down with the original creator losing copyright while they're still alive, and then the creator's inheritors losing copyright at the moment of death. That's ridiculous.
     
Loading...