The solution to economics

[Silhouette]

A system that fostered indefinite economic stability, low taxation, a realistic living wage for grown people working full time jobs to support their families, affordable essential goods produce and services, and other such essential consumer needs, would be more than well-met I’m sure.

The only tax-free countries I know of are those who have oil bolstering their economies, so what would be the bolster for countries that don’t?

Have you tried running a SIM on it Sil, to see how it would fare over time? now that would be interesting.

I did indeed start programming a simulation for this very purpose. My C++ skills ought to be adequate, though not long ago I found myself getting bogged down with the syntax of adapting certain functions to my needs and the whole thing was put on hold for a bit - it's hard enough to structure and systematise a sufficiently complex simulation of a society as it is without adapting it to my model, but hopefully I'll find myself able to resume my efforts in the near future. The effect should meet all of the above requirements - but who knows? Maybe it'll all amount to nothing. I'm just offering a preview at this point to gauge the reactions of people who might be interested in such a project, and should simulated practice back up the theory I've glossed over, I'll see about presenting it in a more official capacity.

What I like about Silhouette is that he so proud that he has to prove he is objectively worth something as a philosopher from time to time. This is what philosophy is made of, proud men, and some very proud women as well. There never was a humble teacher. Just smart enough to act humbly here and there so people might be more inclined to take his teachings to heart, and think about them honestly.

Not quite my MO. I'm a little beyond having anything to prove at this point - I've already made several original breakthroughs across several fields, including theology (categorically disproving God), mathematics (disproving Cantor's diagonal argument), philosophy (Experientialism) and now economics. You're correctly identifying that I'm proud of my achievements, but my stating of their existence and quality is simple fact - I seek no personal acknowledgement nor to gain any sense of social worth, my pride is for me and contingent upon my successes rather than a general personality trait. From ye olde Zarathustra: "Man is something that is to be surpassed" - when I gather too much honey, I perform a "down-going" to serve like an alpha or beta test. That's all this is, and I'm sure the style of my contributions and what I'm saying here can come across as pride or even arrogance - which is fine, I don't mind how people think of me as a person, I just have an aesthetic preference for correcting things.

Yes, you do appear to be one of only a few so far who "has understood this thing". You also offer some interesting insights reading "around" my solution in way I hadn't begun to consider, and it's not without interest that you see overlap with your Value Ontology. I'd say Phoneutria has also addressed some of the particulars, which is very welcome, in predictable stark contrast to this guy:

"Solution" to economics he says... LOL, when will you learn Sil? Ever?

Let me guess, your "solution" is to take my taxpayer money, and dole it out among the poor and whomever else YOU decide, with MY money?

How do you think you are coming across here?

That you need to "guess" what my solution is, and that you guess very poorly, proves that you have failed to even begin to read anything I've written before deciding what to say about it. Your subsequent posts show that you've maybe made it as far as the first line.
Your immediate dismissal on these grounds alone indicates that you've already resolved to disagree regardless of what I have to offer, and your subsequent assertions confirm my initial suspicions that you intend to disagree merely on the grounds of arguments I've already heard from you ad nauseum.

What then is my motivation to engage with you when any possible discussion is already pre-determined? It's not without irony that there is no possible freedom to any interaction with you.

I'll keep a look out for any signs that you've attempted to open your mind and impartially consider what I've actually said, instead of simply taking the opportunity to reel off the usual pre-prepared sentiments - but we both know exactly where this is going to go.

With the housekeeping out of the way, onto some content:

as annoying as ecmandu is, I agree with him on the following

we don't we hear the wealthy boast about being the ones paying the highest taxes of all
you'd think that they'd throw this number around all over the media
"I paid x millions in tax this year! y% of my income!"

instead they keep their tax returns under lock and key
because they are scamming the people out of their taxes due in every possible way that they can

because fuck taxes

i can see this working in a sort of science fiction utopic flick, with a different species entirely, that evolved with those values built into their physiology. not us apes.

if i have to pay $300 for a pound of rice which costs $3 to my housekeeper, I'm going to pay her $10 to go buy me a pound of rice, and she is going to take it

I'm willing to grant Ecmandu's cynical evaluation of the wealthy, even in its extreme form, and it would still overlook a certain subtlty that I briefly mentioned in an earlier post.

Let's say that the wealthy really do have absolutely no interest whatsoever in publically declaring or even participating in any philanthropy - that's not the only factor at play here. Maximum dedication to the "bottom line" of profits depends also on the appearance that there is more to it than that. This is what Zizek would refer to as "ideology". He demonstrates this better than I can, with various often humorous examples, that cold hard material facts alone don't complete the entire human picture - that in cultures all over the world we find the underlying mechanisms of society functioning only with a kind of narrative to mask it and make it palatable. It's not the least charm of history that we can look back at all the quaint rituals and mythologies of the past from which we have now (mostly) grown too sophisticated to take seriously - instead adopting new ideologies that are yet to become noticed by the general public and then sufficiently questioned, as they always eventually will be. Philosophers tend to be at the forefront of such "progressions", with pscyhologists close behind to ease the emotional transition. For example, we used to be professionally counselled for enjoying ourselves too much and now we are professionally counselled for not feeling we're enjoying ourselves enough. Without ideology, sex would just be a biological chore consisting only of the mechanical actions to pragmatically achieve the continuation of the species - without all the flirtation, suggestive innuendos and suspense. It appears to be a psychological necessity for humans to unconsciously participate in ideology, which always takes the form of pretending that we're all doing good, which currently involves the mutually agreed flattering perception that profits aren't actually the only thing that matter to employers.

Apologies if you're already familiar with ideology, but you see how this means that any potential cognitive dissonance that might result from doubting this ideology must be proven to be unfounded through token demonstrations of altruism like charity. It doesn't take much to realise that if we were truly charitable, we'd fix the systems that afford us enough disposable income to give to charity in the first place, which are the same systems that result in the existence of those who need charity in the first place. But obviously that'd kinda fuck you over and who are these charity cases to deserve what we've worked hard to earn for ourselves anyway? Ideology. The wealthy need to believe they're good people and we see everywhere the effects of market forces causing companies to present themselves as environmentally friendly (greenwashing) etc. - to maintain and hopefully increase their share of the market and competitive advantage.

All it takes is a few early adopters of my solution to try and grab some quick initial fame and recognition that they would otherwise not get, and the competition soon realises they are losing out relatively, making them feel the need to at least appear to give a shit whether or not they "really" do, and sign up to participate in contemporary ideology (and not incidentally reap the benefits of doing so).

It's not as simple as "fuck taxes", even if that's how one really feels.
It's obvious why companies all keep their tax records secret in just the way you explain - but it's not so obvious why you'd want to stay off the radar by refusing to participate in my solution, which is entirely voluntary don't forget.

[Ecmandu]

Silhouette,

Your last reply made me realize that you think your system is so much better, that anyone who comes on board will immediately crush the competition.

Also, I disproved cantors diagonalization argument as well! I wonder if we have the same disproof. Mine is super simple! Just make new lists for all the diagonals! (Duh). Sometimes the simplest things are the hardest to figure out!

[Silhouette]

Your last reply made me realize that you think your system is so much better, that anyone who comes on board will immediately crush the competition.

It's not even necessary for my system to be "so much better" than what we have, it is sufficient to merely introduce a new valuable way for people to derive competitive advantage that also happens to benefit society, and market forces do the rest.

Also, I disproved cantors diagonalization argument as well! I wonder if we have the same disproof. Mine is super simple! Just make new lists for all the diagonals! (Duh). Sometimes the simplest things are the hardest to figure out!

Don't worry, I've not forgotten - you tend to remind me of this every time I bring it up. I was just mentioning my achievements, feel free to list yours but your achievements won't be on my list of achievements because they're yours and not mine.

I seem to remember that we don't have the same disproof - mine simply shows that his proof is only conditionally true dependent on the numeral system being used, and that it is false in e.g. unary. His diagonalisation method requires a list of sets such that the list is as long as the size of the sets (in order to make a square across which a diagonal set can be constructed). The possible length of the list of sets will always be equal to the numerical base being used to the power of the size of the sets, which for bases more than 1 will always mean a longer possible list than the size of the sets, leaving plenty of "other" combinations to be constructed from a list that's only as long as the size of the sets. But since this isn't always the case, depending on the base system used, his proof fails when it comes to number bases like unary.

I've suggested before that "new lists for all the diagonals" would presumably require extra dimensions than just the 2 used in Cantor's argument, along which to construct these new lists - I think you agreed.

But back to the topic of the thread...

[Fixed Cross]

Not quite my MO. I'm a little beyond having anything to prove at this point - I've already made several original breakthroughs across several fields, including theology (categorically disproving God), mathematics (disproving Cantor's diagonal argument), philosophy (Experientialism) and now economics. You're correctly identifying that I'm proud of my achievements, but my stating of their existence and quality is simple fact - I seek no personal acknowledgement nor to gain any sense of social worth, my pride is for me and contingent upon my successes rather than a general personality trait. From ye olde Zarathustra: "Man is something that is to be surpassed" - when I gather too much honey, I perform a "down-going" to serve like an alpha or beta test. That's all this is, and I'm sure the style of my contributions and what I'm saying here can come across as pride or even arrogance - which is fine, I don't mind how people think of me as a person, I just have an aesthetic preference for correcting things.

Yes, you do appear to be one of only a few so far who "has understood this thing". You also offer some interesting insights reading "around" my solution in way I hadn't begun to consider, and it's not without interest that you see overlap with your Value Ontology. I'd say Phoneutria has also addressed some of the particulars, which is very welcome, in predictable stark contrast to this guy:

Yes, I always add much value when I consider an idea seriously, "lets see if I can make this kitty purr" is my general attitude when someone has put some work in something but it doesn't quite run yet.
Not that Ive gotten it road-ready, to be fair. I merely handed you a set of tools to develop it.

You could really have something here. It depends entirely on whether you can make it into a model.


Note: considering that this porto-idea might very well not become a full fledged idea, Ill revert back to my default of a 20 percent flat yearly revenue tax on companies above a certain market cap and no private taxes.
Thats a simple idea, and it is guaranteed to work in the ways I think a society should work; it alleviates pressure from people in general and it is a big hurdle for companies on the road to hegemonic positions.
it creates lots of problems, but

[Ecmandu]

(Side thread in this thread)

Fuck silhouette!! Ok, there’s the deal with math. Every fucking operation is a new dimension.

You cannot do unary without the space or enter bars. That’s 3 dimensions. Nothing can be done without 3 dimensions! My technique is just making a new list (actually) an infinite number of them (to subsume all possible diagonals from the first list). I’m still using 3 dimensional logic. *end rant*

NOW!!! About this thread!!! If you don’t have a system that defeats the competition, you’re going to have to force people to do it. Just like my system.

So then it becomes a matter of which system is best to force on people.

[Silhouette]

Yes, I always add much value when I consider an idea seriously, "lets see if I can make this kitty purr" is my general attitude when someone has put some work in something but it doesn't quite run yet.
Not that Ive gotten it road-ready, to be fair. I merely handed you a set of tools to develop it.

You could really have something here. It depends entirely on whether you can make it into a model.

It runs, it just hasn't "been run" yet - it's road-ready to the extent that it could most certainly be driven, though "road-ready" presumably also entails knowledge of "how" to drive it and "how good" it would look being actually driven. To those ends, details still need to be ironed out.

The philosophy "around it" could of course be worth exploring, as you have begun to do and I have not (for which you "offer tools") - but it's not really my concern at the moment as I'm more interested in seeing it be driven first.

It already is a model, cohesive and clear in its foundations, just not a completed one with all the details worked out. That's more what I'm interested in exploring at the moment.

Note: considering that this porto-idea might very well not become a full fledged idea, Ill revert back to my default of a 20 percent flat yearly revenue tax on companies above a certain market cap and no private taxes.
Thats a simple idea, and it is guaranteed to work in the ways I think a society should work; it alleviates pressure from people in general and it is a big hurdle for companies on the road to hegemonic positions.
it creates lots of problems, but

It's an interesting reflex to side with "the devil you know", having been shown that "the grass is greener on the other side". Of course the ultimate evaluation lies in real application, but consider that this is by default a rejection of anything new - unless you're simply siding with caution preliminarily, subject to further evidence: "on the fence", so to speak, but perhaps leaning more towards getting off on the side of the "tried and flawed" than "the new and potentially less flawed". An entrepreneurial spirit, perhaps, is what's needed to commit to exploring a "porto-idea" over a "full fledged idea".

To briefly comment on your "default", any "market caps" inherently divide society and create tension either side of the cut-off point: it's arguable that your default creates a lack of incentive to want to progress beyond the "market cap" where suddenly a fifth of your earnings is taken away from you by threat of the force of law, making the higher bound of non-taxpayers considerably more rich than the lower bound of taxpayers, incentivising the lower bound of taxpayers to "earn less to earn more". People will divide themselves into being clearly one or the other to avoid that awkward middle ground, and on a social level a stigma will be created dividing the "social contributors" from those who don't contribute to society. To avoid all this, I believe tax systems often resort to only taxing revenue above the market cap at the higher rate, and taxing the revenue below that market cap at the lower rate, but this is why I side with a continuous function (the 80-20 curve) and completely avoid these issues altogether. Additionally, I apply my solution specifically to "expenditure" and not "revenue", because I do not want to even go near any potential penalisation of working to create revenue. If anything, it's "taking" from society for yourself that has grounds to be interfered with, but giving to society ought to be encouraged - and my solution allows this explicitly through the mechanism of creating a "disconnect in the continuous flow of currency around the whole economy": allowing a temporary disjunct between the price paid and price received (ultimately fully accounted for by paying off the deficits with the surpluses with mathematical precision).

All of this, as well as the arguments I've made thus far - and more that I've so far neglected to mention - is why my solution is so more sophisticated than the comparatively much more blunt instruments of "tax this in this way, but don't tax that in that way" which is the mental box within which the overwhelming majority tend to prefer to remain inside.

If you don’t have a system that defeats the competition, you’re going to have to force people to do it. Just like my system.

So then it becomes a matter of which system is best to force on people.

Yes, for lack of a better approach than using force, you're going to have to either force people in some way like in your system, or simply throw out force altogether and do nothing - as in the much more simplistic Libertarian "laissez faire" anti-solution.

That's why I resolved to create a better approach than either "using force" or "doing nothing". Turn to the carrot - not the stick. Some sticks are better than others as you say, such as your "maximum wage" system, but my intention is to think outside of this "tax box" and instead explore the realm of incentives rather than duke it out in the seemingly endless fight over which is the "least bad" way to lessen iniquities. Ultimately that fight is always won by those in power in the same way: the negative effects are largely passed down to those with the least power, and those with the most power remain largely unaffected. The only way to resolve this is to come up with a mechanism that incentivises those in power to genuinely want to lessen iniquities, by tying this in with their self-interest (which was always all they were going to follow anyway) - with or without any of these impotent attempts to "tax them" that don't providing any incentive for them to not simply decide "nah, not gonna do that" as they've always done so far.

That's why I went ahead and solved economics.

[phoneutria]

people already voluntarily donate to charitable foundations and greenwash their businesses, for reputation

what am I missing?

[Silhouette]

people already voluntarily donate to charitable foundations and greenwash their businesses, for reputation

what am I missing?

I mean, quite a lot - but I find this kind of thinking and questioning really valuable, so thanks for pushing your point.

As in a previous post of yours, you mean to draw attention to the similarities between what we have already, and what I'm proposing - correct?
These similarities are entirely intentional, because it seems that if you propose to change too much, too many people balk and reject too easily. However the other side of the coin is that if too little changes, is the payoff worth the effort? No doubt this balance is the reason why so little ever does actually change, and it may even be the case that the two overlap with one another, making change only possible if it is forced through sufficiently stealthily. Let's assume not for now.

The statement that "people already voluntarily donate to charitable foundations and greenwash their businesses, for reputation" is true, but owing to the breadth and simplicity of this abstraction, all the crucial detail that makes all the difference is glossed over and "missed".
Which people, and how many of them voluntarily donate? How much do they donate, and to which charitable foundations? How much of their greenwashing is facade and how much is representative of their objective impact on wider society?

Using my solution, 9% of all people are donating to the entire 91% of everyone else. In return they earn an objective measure of exactly how much impact they're having on wider society, that they have every incentive to maximise in order to compete with the rest of the 9% over how much revenue they can generate to maximise how much they can spend on their employees and capital investments, which is how they earn this incentivising measure. There is no cheating here, nor want nor desire to cheat, because the incentive is all in self-interest as well as altruistic - they even gain a very precise way to compete, which generates the kind of pressure that people at the very top thrive upon, which only motivates them further to generate more value than ever before. Where there's incentive to hide tax records and overemphasise charity in our current system, there's every incentive to show off for reputation using my solution, and an objective measure can't be over or understated as to how much and how wide-reaching their charity really is. Everyone knows exactly where it's going, which is directly towards the deficit incurred by the 91% that affords enhanced "equity of opportunity" for all of them by allowing them to pay less to enter into the competition themselves, and which rewards their frugality and cost-effectiveness in doing so. Lower spenders face less risk to be entrepreneurial, bolstering the Classical Liberal ideal of perfect competition, and the most successful voluntarily keep themselves in check, which naturally wards off monopoly and oligopoly. Market forces push material wealth towards the middle, from both ends, while still maintaining material inequality to aid in incentivising those who still want to succeed according to that measure, without impacting negatively on the pursuit of immaterial wealth that is now more free than ever before to reach now measurable and objectively comparable limits for all the most successful people to aim towards. Why do chess grandmasters still compete with each other to achieve ever higher Elo ratings?

[Dan~]

You heard it here first - finally a solution to bridge the divide between the economic left and right.

Neutrality:

How do I know that the right are in favour of my solution?
For one, there is a common sentiment shared by the rich that success is not all just about being monetarily well off, it's about a much broader spectrum of success and freedom, for example to do good for society by enabling valuable goods and services to be available to many more people than would otherwise be able to access such things. Perhaps there's also an individual element of satisfaction derived from challenge, maybe to get the most out of yourself or against competition.

Just to help diffuse any doubt here, allow me to draw upon a quote by the US's very own current president (as of the time of writing this post) that echoes the above values:

Money was never a big motivation for me, except as a way to keep score.

The right generally share a preference to not have these goals infringed upon or compromised, as is commonly the goal of the left - via means such as taxation, which I believe can be done away with.

How do I know that the left are in favour of my solution?
There is a way to resolve the apparent conflict between the loss aversion of the right and the distribution of wealth favoured by the left, which can be done by first identifying some unquestioned assumptions about "currency". Rather than getting rid of money altogether, as has been proposed by some branches of leftism, the benefits of having a standard benchmark against which to value all goods and services can be held onto. But there is a critical disadvantage to currency, which is that interfering with the flow at any specific points affects the flow of the whole thing - you can't localise and pinpoint things like taxes without the effects being displaced and flowing around the whole economy. For example, the effects of a sales tax aren't restricted to proportionally affecting the most lavish of spenders more than the most frugal among us. Prices can just be raised to absorb the extra cost, or jobs cut, to allow employers and shareholders to afford just as much as they felt entitled to before, whilst employees and non-shareholders still have to pay more for the same thing even if they don't have a job at all after business expenditure cuts to pay for higher taxation. Working in itself can in this way be penalised by a tax intended only to affect spending.

If this cornerstone of modern economic theory was overcome, the left wouldn't need to be so concerned about effects like these on the less economically fortunate - so they would surely support my solution as well.

Get to the point:

We achieve this via a disconnect in the continuous flow of currency around the whole economy. Money given doesn't necessarily have to equal money taken. Better still, the role of standard benchmark that money currently plays can be maintained by simply funding spending deficits with surpluses.
But why would anyone want to pay a surplus, I hear you ask?
I refer back to the common sentiment of the rich. Surplus can be kept track of and an individual non-exchangeable "score" can be kept - and even published. Want to demonstrate your social value? Want an official measure to go by to compete against yourself or others? Want to advertise the integrity and benevolence of your company to attract consumers to the best and most successful of all the competition? A simple number that won't be taxed can do that for you objectively, just as it can land you a position working for the best companies. Just like before, the only way you can build this score is to first sell well and earn well before you can spend well - and as a top "giver" in society that such a person can afford to be, you receive the price you sell at regardless of how much is paid for it, and who you sell to, due to this "disconnect" in the continuous flow of currency at the point of exchange.

Unlike with tax, nothing is lost to "penalise" buying, selling or even working - and no consequences are passed messily throughout the whole economy to places they weren't intended to reach.
Yet like tax, the less economically fortunate are paying less, funded by the more economically fortunate but without the more economically fortunate losing out and allowing them to maintain what they are really after in just the same way as Trump.

Since there are no downsides to this solution, it can be entirely optional. Businesses can continue to operate as normal, perhaps sticking to cash, or exchanging money any way that my solution doesn't track. They don't have to pay any surplus and they get no "score", and without one they prove to everyone that they are staying off the radar for whatever reason. Perhaps their revenues aren't enough to cover their costs because they're inefficient or don't offer good enough products and/or services? Perhaps they want to hide something by steering clear from a simple and objective measure of goodwill? Perhaps you're only rich from inheritance (which will be decreased in the same way as a big spender spending on anything) and you want to hold back from giving it to society - avoiding this simple objective measure will prove this to everyone. There's no need to keep track of deficits and negative "scores", because otherwise a bad start in life can result in a lifetime of endlessly paying your way back up no matter how generous and socially valuable and successful you are in later life, which is unfortunately like things are with today's economic model. Being socially in credit at any point in life can be rewarded in this way without ever being taken away at a later date. Equally this gives a much better chance for new businesses, since they can start out paying deficits until they are in a position to run an efficient company selling high quality goods and/or services that gets them on the leaderboard even if the company remains small. You can't fake social utility without giving back to society and you also won't be penalised if you aren't in a position to give back to society for any reason.

Tax becomes obsolete since the poor are supported yet the rich are also rewarded without limit for doing good. Left and right both win.

The math:

Last year I began exploring the mathematics of all of this with the first two posts of this thread, where I introduce the mathematical model that I would propose to use to pull off the above solution to all our current economic problems. It's based around the 80-20 rule, or "Pareto Principle", to maintain economic inequality at an "optimal" rate - to make sure that success is rewarded at all levels of wealth. After the first 2 posts, I began talking about using a Sigmoid function to mimic the "Elo rating system" (as used in chess etc.) that adapts the 80-20 Pareto Distribution. I decided to scrap that since Elo doesn't achieve the afore-mentioned "disconnect in the continuous flow of currency" that solves everything, whereas the initial 80-20 curve does (upon application to what I explained above).

The curve that I'm using to model this principle follows the form of \(f(x) = L/e^{-k(x-x_0)}\), where \(L\) is the curve's maximum value, \(k\) is the growth rate (steepness of the curve) and \(x_0\) is the midpoint of the curve.
For population "\(p\)", when \(L\) is roughly \(\frac{\sqrt{22}}{110}\), \(k\) is roughly \(\frac{7.7}p\) and \(x_0\) is \(\frac{p}2\), we get the 80-20 properties (the larger \(p\) gets) where the mid point of the y axis is the price, and the x axis tracks the relative historical "rate of expenditure" by any given individual or company. Like any personal bank account, your individual outgoings can be tracked throughout your life, placing you somewhere along this x axis, and you use the curve to read off the proportion of the price you pay for any item you want to buy from the y axis. There can be one set of data for individuals and a separate set of data for businesses.

Some facts:
Only the top 9% of spenders will be paying a surplus that will pay off the entire deficit incurred by the remaining 91%, making it no social shame to not have a particularly high score if any at all and affording all the more glory for achieving one.
The very highest spender will only be paying a maximum of 2200 times more than the very lowest spender.
The average person will be paying about 47 (the square root of 2200) times more than the very lowest spender (and therefore obviously about 47 times less than the highest spender). The difference between how much average spenders spend compared to one other is minimal - it's only when spending gets very high that significant differences emerge (as is characteristic of exponential curves such as the 80-20 one).

Who would enforce this idea unless it were famous?

Democrats are controlled by the media.
People choose famous things.

[Fixed Cross]

Sil hold your horses there for a second - I spoke of something which has not been implemented yet, which I invented the idea of.
So no, no "devil you know".Y ou correctly identify the (fertile, in my eyes) tension this idea produces tough.

And the grass had not been shown greener on the other side, thats the whole point. Your machine hasn't been driven and I wasn't thinking 'around it', I was honing in on application methods.

[Fixed Cross]

To briefly comment on your "default", any "market caps" inherently divide society and create tension either side of the cut-off point: it's arguable that your default creates a lack of incentive to want to progress beyond the "market cap"

Thats not arguable, thats a fact.
So the amount is to set so that certain industries cant avoid it. The mathematics will be like, "large" but very straightforward.

The idea is that certain industries can not avoid growing beyond that market capitalization, such as car industries.
Its also thinkable to put a 10 percent tax on say, 2 million plus businesses and 10 percent on 20 million plus, divine the tension over two thresholds. Keep in mind my numbers are arbitrary estimates. Could turn out to be much lower or higher when calibrated to reality.

And, there has to be recognition for the services here great companies do the country, by paying taxes. They would essentially be heroes of the nation.

All this said, really do not wish to give the impression I have forgotten about your idea or dismiss it. Its a pretty fascinating idea and I want to see it developed. In absence of such development for now, I think my idea is, at this point, more pragmatic, and since I already had it, Ill work with it for now until you clarify your idea some more.

[Fixed Cross]

By the way at the philosophical and ontological backbone to my idea is the understanding that for people to owe money merely because they exist and provide for themselves is absolutely unjustifiable.
And that corporations such as those that employ massive manufacturing plants are entirely contingent upon a Society, so for them it is justified to have to contribute to that society.

To be born is not to be contingent upon society. Taxation by the state of a private persons existence is among the most grandiose idiocies humans are still working with.

[Silhouette]

Who would enforce this idea unless it were famous?

Democrats are controlled by the media.
People choose famous things.

This is part of the purpose of sharing my idea - things aren't going to get famous without at first getting shared with a small number of people.
I'm starting cautiously in case someone can spot anything obvious that I've missed, and to expose me to the kinds of questions that people have when exposed to ideas like this. This better prepares me for sharing it to a larger number of people, in the hopes that it will go on to become famous "enough" to get chosen.

Sil hold your horses there for a second - I spoke of something which has not been implemented yet, which I invented the idea of.
So no, no "devil you know".Y ou correctly identify the (fertile, in my eyes) tension this idea produces tough.

And the grass had not been shown greener on the other side, thats the whole point. Your machine hasn't been driven and I wasn't thinking 'around it', I was honing in on application methods.

Yeah, of course the exact specifics of your default might not have been implemented yet (at least as far as we're aware). I didn't make it clear that I meant the general idea of "tax this and not that" is "the devil we know", even if some different specific configuration of it hasn't "been run" yet. The grass is greener without this devil, and my solution doesn't show any signs of being anything but the greenest of greens. Fair enough that we need the practice to confirm the theory, and I am trying to withhold complacency - I'm just not trying that hard since there's still no reason to.

By all means bring up your own ideas as a point of comparison - maybe even make your own thread to carry on discussion in more depth about it there, though I'm pretty sure if you did we'd just run into the usual right vs left impasses that we all know and love by now - I can think of several things to say about your last post. That's just another reason why my solution here is so valuable - it transcends all that. No "large" mathematics required either, just an understanding of what an exponential function is, maybe how the specifical one I use works and why, but you don't even really need to understand any of that except that it's an 80-20 approximation - and that's it.

Anyway, if I work out any of the few remaining details I'll update things here and in the meanwhile answer questions and alleviate any concerns that anyone might have in the meantime.

[Fixed Cross]

In summary for those who haven't understood your idea, which is everyone else:
Sils idea comes down to rich peoples money being worth relatively less, which despite everything means that is an implicit capital tax.
My idea simply means only corporations pay taxes, not humans.

Which naturally means less corporation forming and more medium sized businesses. It also means a lot for corporate culture, which will change from robber-baron instinct to world-building desires.
And it means a much smaller state.

S - its fine to just have these ideas out there, bots will harvest much of the semantics at all times. This is how AI is being developed, by developing algorithms that recognize operational concepts through syntactic density and "colouring" - so concepts are being recognized "from the outside" that is, without being understood. Much like animals are being selected by mates on outward characteristics and not based on understanding. The patience you put in your explanation as well as the postponing of explication, keeping the implications pure, is recognizable by such programs, just as such undisturbed and un-prodded unfolding behaviour is recognizable as representing value in the natural world.

Forgive me for my analysis here, no one has ever become better from my flattery (it seems quite lethal and perhaps thats why I do it) but yeah, it ties in with the evolution threads in a relevant way.

What is memetic fitness?
Which idea has the most of it?
Your idea may be the Neanderthal to my more pragmatic hominid of corporate tax; the Neanderthal had a brain which required lengthy operations to be completed before an action was taken.

[Silhouette]

Sils idea comes down to rich peoples money being worth relatively less

Rich people's money is worth the same as it always was to anyone selling to them. It's also worth just as much to them when selling to others, if not more altogether, only it's split between what's exchangeable for surplus material things, and the immaterial and eternal measure of their life's success, which is converted into better value for money for 10/11 of society who enabled them to become rich in the first place by being their "market" - perhaps on top of everything else lending to them a wholesome "altruistic" wealth if they're not psychopaths.

which despite everything means that is an implicit capital tax.

Capital is not touched by tax or anything at all with my solution. The buying of further capital than what the already rich already have goes less far in the short term material sense, but due to the immaterial sense translating into a better reputation that they're rewarded with for being more generous with their wealth, they attract ever more custom and revenue back to them, all the while accumulating immaterial "capital" that will never ever decrease or be compromised for all time regardless of any future market instability or other life changes. This affords them more security yet also rewards more spending and risk, and with material wealth paying off the deficit incurred by the 91% getting better value for money, small new businesses are enabled and the material wealth of people is attracted towards the middle where the medium sized businesses are - so my solution transforms any "robber-baron instinct" and "world-building desires" into the immaterial realm and away from having socially detrimental consequences on material wealth. No state required, except maybe for essential services for which the profit model isn't suited, only with no tax required to fund it. For more of a surplus in price-paying than a deficit, to pay for such things, with my solution requires merely opening up the opportunity to accumulate an objective success score to more people. The 80-20 optimisation stays the same.

My idea simply means only corporations pay taxes, not humans.

Corporations are cooperating humans - I reject this distinction.

[Ecmandu]

Silhouette,

The ultra rich don’t give a shit about their reputations (because they’re ultra rich and don’t have to!) Most of them are autistic, narcissistic or sociopathic.

Even if they donate to charity, their businesses are sociopathic. And that’s being generous, because their donations are tax write offs or tax shelters. Most of them use that money to do non profits that act as think tanks or political activist corporations (lobbying for free) to support making more money.

Personally, I think your system is not viable.

[Silhouette]

Silhouette,

The ultra rich don’t give a shit about their reputations (because they’re ultra rich and don’t have to!) Most of them are autistic, narcissistic or sociopathic.

Even if they donate to charity, their businesses are sociopathic. And that’s being generous, because their donations are tax write offs or tax shelters. Most of them use that money to do non profits that act as think tanks or political activist corporations (lobbying for free) to support making more money.

Personally, I think your system is not viable.

I've already explained why this isn't a problem.

But instead of repeating myself I'll move things on to a detail that was bugging me: how exactly would the introduction of my solution play out for businesses?
Which successful business would voluntarily enter into a scenario where they might have to pay twice the price for everything by virtue of being the biggest spender?

The answer is that the solution doesn't have to be adopted fully and wholeheartedly from the outset. The way it will start will be incredibly small - a petty insigificant purchase by an opportunistic up-coming company just to get pole position on the scoreboard for cheap publicity, maybe even to simply ironically display dominance, perhaps even mockingly. But this move won't stand for long - another company could easily chip in a couple of extra dollars in a one-off purchase of a slightly more expensive item. Still pocket change at this point, but the competition to be the next leader will quickly snowball into elaborate displays of "Zahavian Signaling" that the biggest companies now have incentive to enter into. A company that is so successful, that it can afford to be the biggest spender, taking the material brunt of enduring the most costly position yet still remaining successful - is all the more impressive and objectively proves itself to be the best company to work for and to buy from. And all the while all this surplus spending goes towards new companies, and even medium-sized companies, being able to pay much less for what they need to enter into this race themselves. We tend towards perfect competition, monopolies are naturally curtailed, and all relying on the "worst" nature of companies that you can think of.

The same is just as plausible for individuals, with even the most impulsive of psychopaths playing chicken with each other to feed their narcissism by competing for the top spot. Again, relying on all the "worst" nature of humans that you can think of.

My solution is precisely the opposite of "not viable" - it's all but guaranteed by Game Theory, even assuming the worst of people and companies - especially assuming this. It's called the "Escalation of commitment".

[Ecmandu]

Silhouette,

Nobody in the top brackets gives a shit. Your theory is basically a scaled sales tax. Nobody who is calling the shots would go for that. They’re fine just how they are. This is why I stated to you that both of our systems would have to be forced, the question then becomes: which one works the best for everyone.

[Silhouette]

Silhouette,

Nobody in the top brackets gives a shit. Your theory is basically a scaled sales tax. Nobody who is calling the shots would go for that. They’re fine just how they are. This is why I stated to you that both of our systems would have to be forced, the question then becomes: which one works the best for everyone.

As in my last post, "going for that" won't really be choice for them. In the same way that someone in the working class might not want to got for a job, the alternative is worse so they have to "consent". The top brackets won't give a shit to begin with, but after a while it will be out of their control no matter how fine they were before.

Force doesn't work - you said it yourself: the ultra rich can just choose to get around paying some tax or other, and in the same way they'll find a way to get around the maximum wage. There's already so many loopholes in the law to be able to pull off stuff like that - no matter how hard you try to force, they're already more than primed to quell any such overt attempts on their power.

The only thing left is to covertly plant unassuming seeds that people like you can write off so carelessly, and watch them grow - feeding off the very same mechanics that got us into this mess in the first place. "Which one works the best for everyone" clearly isn't your system when it's not best for the only people who matter for it to work at all - and who can brush it aside like they always have before anyway. By contrast, my solution will inevitably become what they will realise to be best for themselves, and also everyone else, as a result of the very same principles that made them ultra rich in the first place.

At this point it just seems like you simply don't "want" my solution to be valid, and above all else it just seems like you desire revenge against the very people I'm going to win over - getting them to decide for themselves to be socially responsible. You're not going to win by force, you gotta be cleverer than that. I know how, and the only way you're going to get on the winning team is by dropping this mindset, before even going into the discussion, that my solution is invalid. The rational thing to do is not to assume I'm wrong from the outset and then try to rationalise some reasons why, but to first entertain the facts and theory objectively and impartially. Seek to understand what it is on its own merits without your own assumptions first and only THEN evaluate.

[Ecmandu]

Silhouette,

The ultra rich are not altruistic people. They don’t even care about patents! Did you know the mouse that laptops use was invented by xerox? That windows DOS was created by people who are almost broke now?

Business (copywrites as well) have their own trajectories, bestowed upon them by the law. If we change the law, the system changes.

My system is better than yours because it requires more cooperation. Pure and simple. Want to build the world trade centers (build for 50 billion dollars) you need thousands and thousands of people to agree. That’s why I call it a co-op economy (better communication for better outcomes). Your system has no communication - it’s autocratic and dictatorial in a way that mine isn’t - my system honors capitalism and democracy more than yours does.

[MagsJ]

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.

[Fixed Cross]

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.

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.

[WendyDarling]

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.

[promethean75]

Taxing wages is unconstitutional because a wage is not a profit from the sale of a commercial product. A wage is an equal exchange that produces no profit. Only a sale produces a profit.

I do not support the taxation of the proletariat unless there is no other class. Only business owners should be taxed in a capitalist society.

It is doubly absurd to think a wage laborer should be burdened by two parasites profiting from his labor. X amount of the money he generates goes into the pocket of the useless parasite, and Y amount into the pocket of the local and federal government. Nah fuck that. Tax man come to my crib I got somethin for him.

[MagsJ]

Taxing wages is unconstitutional because a wage is not a profit from the sale of a commercial product. A wage is an equal exchange that produces no profit. Only a sale produces a profit.

..and yet we are still taxed the BLEEP out of.. and then some.

Collecting tax is akin to that first taste of blood for wild animals, in that once experienced, things can never go back to the way they were.