MagsJ wrote:Sil.. the reason I mentioned procreation, is because.. wouldn’t the (all too) human factor have to be factored in, to the configuration, in order to achieve a more realistic resultant observational outcome, and other such human whims and woes that would cause an economy to fluctuate.
Erm, so in so many words, oughtn't I/we to factor in a certain unpredictability into our predictions about my solution?
I'm sure plenty of weird shit will happen as a result of what I propose, but at least we'd have inbuilt mechanisms to contain the limits this time around, which will only work in the first place because we're all human.
I'm not offering a perfect utopia, just a couple of extremely precisely targetted tweaks to improve what we already have by a great deal for everyone - despite things at the moment already having plenty of positive consequences.
Fixed Cross wrote:You have so far failed to convince in the second stage, Silhouette. How to enforce your idea? We just need to naturally trust that it will work, but what of the transition even if it does work, say over the course of a hundred or maybe a few thousand years (you anticipate on no criteria at all), to gather some momentum? Aren't there still taxes to be paid then, yes? So how does that work, do the billionaires pay double? It cant function if implementation is impossible.
Agreed that it can't function if implementation is impossible. A couple of posts ago I anticipated a particular set of events based on some Game Theory, so maybe you missed that since you seem to feel I've anticipated no criteria at all? I'm not going to anticipate hundreds or thousands of years into the future though, at least not before I've ironed out the details I'm still in the process of thinking through, sorry. By all means, exercise your own skills in this department if you wish. But I can tell you that while my solution is in the process of filtering into the mainstream, it can and will coexist side by side with the current system.
How this will happen is quite simple: you choose which system you would like to pay according to. Pick the current system, and all the same rules apply that we already have. Pick my system and you pay no tax on your purchase, and the price you pay will be determined by the current data on everyone's rates of expenditure while using my system (separately to expenditure using the current system) and adjusting what you pay in accordance with where you lie in relation to this current data.
It will begin extremely small scale with just a handful of people chipping in, making the highest rates of expenditure potentially just a few cents (per the time period decided upon when it all begins). Paying "x" times more or less on already cheap items will be nothing for most people, except it'll be a quick and easy opportunity to gain the points that will put you on the scoreboard that my system keeps. There will never be an easier way to gain points than at the very start, to get you recognised forever more, especially for those who may struggle or find it impossible once the whole thing takes off. Such an opportunity will never come again, only incentivising the launch of my solution to the point where it quickly becomes actually difficult to get to the top.
Fixed Cross wrote:My idea (which I not really deliberately but consciously tricked you into disregarding - if there were some critics here they'd notice that you used the rhetorical opening I consciously left you to interpret "humans" not as "private persons" (as I had already defined it!!) but as the biological species which drive and design corporation) is very clear; no person owes money to the state personally. If he is the CEO of a company that does, he can just quit. If a tax paying corporation his property, that means he has consciously and form a position of great wealth decided to grow so large as to have to pay taxes. He would have been free to make a second company and a third, all below the tax limit. But he chose to go for the big leagues, the tax paying men, the aristocracy, The Good.
Thats what this leads to.
You foresee that business owners will split up their companies into smaller and smaller subsidiaries to avoid paying surplus prices according to my system, just like they could to potentially avoid paying as much tax under the current system? Even if that's not what you meant to imply, I'll still address the thought as presenting no problem for my solution.
No matter how small businesses make themselves, the proportionality remains constant based solely on the data gathered from users of my system, such that even if every subsidiary only had 1 sale per day, there would still be companies paying more than others and getting the prices they pay adjusted accordingly. As a bonus, the more companies that exist, the more "perfect competition" we tend towards. But there will also be an incentive to not divide companies smaller and smaller - rewarded by the points you can earn using my system, which only the most lucrative/successful companies will be able to afford no matter what size all the companies are relative to one another. If a company doesn't earn enough to spend enough, no points. This lends an objective measure to the personal glory of going "for the big leagues, the (surplus) paying ones, the aristocracy, The Good."
Apologies if I missed your point, but if I did I'm glad it brought to mind the above scenario.
WendyDarling wrote:Is the problem that tax funds are overburdening and still insufficient or is the problem that they are misspent?
I kinda see what Sil’s idea accomplishes in getting the large sum donations or buy ins but if the people who manage the donations are corrupt, then what has been bettered?
I’d guess that 90% of today’s elected officials are not out to enact treaties for the greater good and betterment of all peoples, to improve their quality of life.
I had considered the problem of the "method" by which surplus prices paid are collected and directed towards paying off the deficit incurred by everyone paying lower than the asking price.
Are you familiar with the way in which Cryptocurrencies keep track of trades in a decentralised way?
At the moment, I'm in favour of setting up a similar system of ledgers to avoid the issue of potential (inevitable?) corruption by members of some centralised institution being in charge of this. Afterall, I'm proposing a taxless system, and a central managing body requires tax funds to keep everyone paid, right? I could actually adjust my solution with one very small change to fund this, but without a centralised managing body there will be no issue with any percentage of elected officials lining their own pockets instead of working "for the greater good and betterment of all peoples" - because there won't be any need for a state to govern taxation.