Fair. Though, who’s gonna pay for the water, food, healthcare and housing? Paycheck or protection for the people? Feed the struggling and struggle more on the what 16$/hr and then beg for a raise because of more taxes that you wanted or what? It’s naive to think that it’s a possibility to feed, house and medically care for everyone without having some kind of a forethought otherwise you’re stuck with negative hindsight. I don’t know how to be more rational about this.
Seems easy to me. Taxes have to be high enough so that everyone gets those minimums we discussed. They cannot be lower. And all government spending should go to fixing the basic human rights first before a single penny is allocated to anything else.
I’m happy to pay a higher tax rate.
Whatever works so that no one has to be homeless or hungry.
Okay so doing the math and I hope I’m right and this is without Ai because I know how much you all hate it. So there’s 350mil people in the US. There’s 163mil working individuals. It’s 6.3E11 to provide $1,800 month which means if you divide that by the amount of workers you get 3865.0306748466257668. So I’m willing to guess that’s how much a month it would cost to the workers of this country to provide $1,800/MO to everyone in the entire country. Which means you’d have to make that figure smaller because not everyone makes enough to cover that a month.
So that means that if every worker reached that 3865.0306748466257668 every 9 months by paying 429.44785276073619631 a month in extra taxes…
It would take 13.24 years taxing the 429.44785276073619631 extra to the working people of the US to have enough money saved up for everyone in the country (current population of 350mil) for 25 years based on the 1,800$/MO income that would be dispensed.
I understand it’s just paper with cloth fiber that has no value unless we put that value to it. Yes, I understand money is a valueless idea but you take it away Humans are gonna wanna trade something whether it’s your skills or your philosophical babbling, they’re gonna want something in return. You take away one thing you replace it with another. So if someone asks you to cement their driveway you’re gonna want something in return, you might want food, their time back or now you get one night in their home.
Okay smart ass, would you do work all day for free? Free as in, absolutely nothing in return or would you at the very least want to be able to feed yourself so you’d work for food, right? Oh shit what if you worked and you want food but you need a new shirt but you need to collect a bunch of fruit to trade for that shirt and that shirt was needed to keep doing your work, now you’re collecting fruit but what if it spoils first so you have to find the best spot that won’t spoil except that territory is controlled by a person who wants 2 sticks for every hour they keep your food unspoiled, what then?
I’m just saying you can take away money and you will not have a free society where everyone is just in some utopia being accepting of one another there will still be murder and people will still want something in return. Whether it’s your time talking to someone or providing a service like building a house, someone is still going to want your pile of rocks for that.
If you want to hunt and gather shit move the hell to the Appalachians other than that pay for your goods and services.
We just made a trillionaire. You’re fucking joking, right? Is it really more important to you for one person to have more than they can even comprehend than for basic human needs to be met in a world where we have everything required to support the needs of everyone across the board and still have excess? Because if so, that’s as pathetic as it is stupid and heartless.
Whatever we save for the future for this population size will not cover the future population. So no matter what you will never have enough to feed, house and provide medical care for everyone.
So relative to this population size is what saving for the future using the previously given equation would give. Meaning you could save more in less time but that’s more taxes. Then you’d have inflationary rates making it so paychecks only match the rising cost of goods…
Fair. Though, who’s gonna pay for the water, food, healthcare and housing? Paycheck or protection for the people? Feed the struggling and struggle more on the what 16$/hr and then beg for a raise because of more taxes that you wanted or what? It’s naive to think that it’s a possibility to feed, house and medically care for everyone without having some kind of a forethought otherwise you’re stuck with negative hindsight. I don’t know how to be more rational about this.
Seems easy to me. Taxes have to be high enough so that everyone gets those minimums we discussed. They cannot be lower. And all government spending should go to fixing the basic human rights first before a single penny is allocated to anything else.
I’m happy to pay a higher tax rate.
Whatever works so that no one has to be homeless or hungry.
Okay so doing the math and I hope I’m right and this is without Ai because I know how much you all hate it. So there’s 350mil people in the US. There’s 163mil working individuals. It’s 6.3E11 to provide $1,800 month which means if you divide that by the amount of workers you get 3865.0306748466257668. So I’m willing to guess that’s how much a month it would cost to the workers of this country to provide $1,800/MO to everyone in the entire country. Which means you’d have to make that figure smaller because not everyone makes enough to cover that a month.
So that means that if every worker reached that 3865.0306748466257668 every 9 months by paying 429.44785276073619631 a month in extra taxes…
Nothing says “I understand maths and economics” quite like giving every number to 16 decimal places.
Money is made up. You know that money is made up, right? That’s only a limitation because society chose for it to be.
It would take 13.24 years taxing the 429.44785276073619631 extra to the working people of the US to have enough money saved up for everyone in the country (current population of 350mil) for 25 years based on the 1,800$/MO income that would be dispensed.
So, no, you don’t at all understand that money isn’t real.
I understand it’s just paper with cloth fiber that has no value unless we put that value to it. Yes, I understand money is a valueless idea but you take it away Humans are gonna wanna trade something whether it’s your skills or your philosophical babbling, they’re gonna want something in return. You take away one thing you replace it with another. So if someone asks you to cement their driveway you’re gonna want something in return, you might want food, their time back or now you get one night in their home.
It’s always something.
Man, capitalism has really fucked you up.
Okay smart ass, would you do work all day for free? Free as in, absolutely nothing in return or would you at the very least want to be able to feed yourself so you’d work for food, right? Oh shit what if you worked and you want food but you need a new shirt but you need to collect a bunch of fruit to trade for that shirt and that shirt was needed to keep doing your work, now you’re collecting fruit but what if it spoils first so you have to find the best spot that won’t spoil except that territory is controlled by a person who wants 2 sticks for every hour they keep your food unspoiled, what then?
There’s always something.
I’m just saying you can take away money and you will not have a free society where everyone is just in some utopia being accepting of one another there will still be murder and people will still want something in return. Whether it’s your time talking to someone or providing a service like building a house, someone is still going to want your pile of rocks for that.
If you want to hunt and gather shit move the hell to the Appalachians other than that pay for your goods and services.
We just made a trillionaire. You’re fucking joking, right? Is it really more important to you for one person to have more than they can even comprehend than for basic human needs to be met in a world where we have everything required to support the needs of everyone across the board and still have excess? Because if so, that’s as pathetic as it is stupid and heartless.
Whatever we save for the future for this population size will not cover the future population. So no matter what you will never have enough to feed, house and provide medical care for everyone.
We do, though, we currently have that capacity. It’s just barred by capitalism, ego, and crippling stupidity.
So relative to this population size is what saving for the future using the previously given equation would give. Meaning you could save more in less time but that’s more taxes. Then you’d have inflationary rates making it so paychecks only match the rising cost of goods…
We don’t have the ability to do it for everyone.
Do you mean redistribute wealth from billionaires? I think it’s been pretty well established, that will never happen.