The Red Deal (Domestic Policy)

Off-topic talk on music, art, literature, games and forum games.

How much of this deal do you agree with?

Most to All
2
50%
Most
1
25%
Half
0
No votes
Some
0
No votes
Some to None
1
25%
 
Total votes: 4

mkm
Full Member
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:51 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: The Red Deal (Domestic Policy)

Post by mkm »

Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sat May 05, 2018 3:27 pm Because Red has projects in mind and if Red needs $X, taking it from the fewest people will fuel the least outrage, and the rich have the most money.
That's the part I get. I'm just not sure if Red is better at spending money than "the rich", and why we should transfer money from "the rich" to Red's administration.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sat May 05, 2018 3:27 pm Could you rephrase this? I don’t know what you are saying.
Which part is not clear? "The rich", if they are very rich, spend most of their money very efficiently. They put the resources where they think they are the most productive, and since they are rich by doing so, you may expect that they are better at this, than others, including government. That's primo.
Secundo, if someone produces and sells product X for Y bucks, and now he has to pay extra Z for each sold X, he will produce less, and will increase the price. The price will increase further due to induced lower availability of X. It will hit "the poor" more than "the rich" anyway.
User avatar
Jebus
Master of the Forum
Posts: 2379
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:08 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: The Red Deal (Domestic Policy)

Post by Jebus »

I like the Red Deal
mkm wrote: Sun May 06, 2018 8:09 amif someone produces and sells product X for Y bucks, and now he has to pay extra Z for each sold X, he will produce less, and will increase the price.
He might get away with that if he has a monopoly on the market. Otherwise, this would be a poor business decision.
How to become vegan in 4.5 hours:
1.Watch Forks over Knives (Health)
2.Watch Cowspiracy (Environment)
3. Watch Earthlings (Ethics)
Congratulations, unless you are a complete idiot you are now a vegan.
mkm
Full Member
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:51 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: The Red Deal (Domestic Policy)

Post by mkm »

Jebus wrote: Sun May 06, 2018 8:41 am He might get away with that if he has a monopoly on the market. Otherwise, this would be a poor business decision.
You assume that other participants selling X are not "rich" and therefore don't have to pay the higher tax. I am yet to see "poor", yet competetive players on the market.
User avatar
Jebus
Master of the Forum
Posts: 2379
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:08 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: The Red Deal (Domestic Policy)

Post by Jebus »

mkm wrote: Sun May 06, 2018 9:05 amYou assume that other participants selling X are not "rich" and therefore don't have to pay the higher tax. I am yet to see "poor", yet competetive players on the market.
I'm pretty sure Red was advocating taxing rich individuals and not companies. Either way, your reasoning is faulty. If you try to pass on the increased cost to the customer they will simply stop buying your product. They will either go to a lower priced competitor or stop buying the product altogether.
How to become vegan in 4.5 hours:
1.Watch Forks over Knives (Health)
2.Watch Cowspiracy (Environment)
3. Watch Earthlings (Ethics)
Congratulations, unless you are a complete idiot you are now a vegan.
mkm
Full Member
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:51 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: The Red Deal (Domestic Policy)

Post by mkm »

Jebus wrote: Sun May 06, 2018 9:16 am I'm pretty sure Red was advocating taxing rich individuals and not companies.
Then you have to answer the question why bother running a company, if it won't make you rich? You just make a strong assumption that people do business for noncommercial reasons, and I can hardly agree with that.
Jebus wrote: Sun May 06, 2018 9:16 am Either way, your reasoning is faulty. If you try to pass on the increased cost to the customer they will simply stop buying your product. They will either go to a lower priced competitor or stop buying the product altogether.
We don't live in a binary world, some will, some won't, but clearly there will be some optimization at the side of producers, who usually are "rich" and will try to circumnavigate higher taxation as much as possible to maximize the profit. It includes basically all competitors. Only competitors who wouldn't be forced to make adjustment are those, who wouldn't have to pay the higher tax. "The poor" don't run companies, so it means that higher tax promotes foreign companies which pay their taxes abroad, but I'm quite sure that it's not Red's goal(?). It touches another problem - higher taxes give incentive to register your business where the taxes are lower.
User avatar
Jebus
Master of the Forum
Posts: 2379
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:08 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: The Red Deal (Domestic Policy)

Post by Jebus »

mkm wrote: Sun May 06, 2018 9:46 amThen you have to answer the question why bother running a company, if it won't make you rich?
We don't live in a binary world, i.e. rich or not rich. People will go with what they see as their best option available. Many countries, such as Sweden, do a good job in minimizing the rich/poor gap, while still incentivizing business owners.
How to become vegan in 4.5 hours:
1.Watch Forks over Knives (Health)
2.Watch Cowspiracy (Environment)
3. Watch Earthlings (Ethics)
Congratulations, unless you are a complete idiot you are now a vegan.
mkm
Full Member
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:51 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: The Red Deal (Domestic Policy)

Post by mkm »

Jebus wrote: Sun May 06, 2018 10:36 am We don't live in a binary world, i.e. rich or not rich. People will go with what they see as their best option available. Many countries, such as Sweden, do a good job in minimizing the rich/poor gap, while still incentivizing business owners.
Why should we minimize rich/poor gap? I get the point that we don't want to have a group of people in the society that have nothing to lose. But beyond that?

Of course we have a whole spectrum of degree of intervention (taxation) vs, let's say, a degree of efficiency of doing business. But it's not me who belives, that you can increase the taxes on "rich" to a degree that will bring enough extra cash to sustain administration and set up whatever government projects Red wants to set up, while keeping the prices as they are and without decreasing a motivation to doing business, because people are not running business for profit anyway (lol).
In other words, you think you can have a significant cash flow from the economy with a negligible impact on the economy. It's wishful thinking or intellectual dishonesty.
Cirion Spellbinder
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1008
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:28 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: Presumably somewhere

Re: The Red Deal (Domestic Policy)

Post by Cirion Spellbinder »

mkm wrote: Sun May 06, 2018 8:09 amThat's the part I get. I'm just not sure if Red is better at spending money than "the rich", and why we should transfer money from "the rich" to Red's administration.
Red, I think, would have advisors who would. I also think Red is speaking more broadly. Each of these topics could be their own post.

Also, what do you want to optimize with that money? Red’s administrating would probably be better at championing environmental causes, for example, compared to the owner of a logging corporation, but the logging corporation would be better at providing affordable wood and jobs (assuming it doesn’t have a monopoly).
mkm wrote:“The rich", if they are very rich, spend most of their money very efficiently. They put the resources where they think they are the most productive, and since they are rich by doing so, you may expect that they are better at this, than others, including government.
They are incentivized to spend their money efficiently for their financial interests. Policy makers are incentivized to spend tax payer money to seem or be in favor of taxpayer interests. What evidence is there that the rich’s interests align more closely with taxpayer interests than policy makers’?
mkm wrote:X for Y bucks, and now he has to pay extra Z for each sold X, he will produce less, and will increase the price. The price will increase further due to induced lower availability of X. It will hit "the poor" more than "the rich" anyway.
In order for that to be problem the increased cost of X would have to be greater than the value of government programs to people. Would you agree that people benefit more from government roads than they would from only private roads even if goods may cost more? Why?
User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 3897
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: To the Depths, in Degradation

Re: The Red Deal (Domestic Policy)

Post by Red »

Thanks for the responses, fellas.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Fri May 04, 2018 9:45 am Do you mean making commercial ventures into undeveloped land illegal? If so, why not just charge two to five forests of reforestation? People don't like being told no.
That's a good idea, but where? Is it true that planting too many trees in the wrong area can be bad?
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Fri May 04, 2018 9:45 am Why do you care about a small population of innocents that cost enough money to save even more innocents?
Yeah, that's true. But I want to know when exactly the death penalty should be issued: when and why?
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Fri May 04, 2018 9:45 am Aleppo. Pretty close tho.
United Federation?
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Fri May 04, 2018 9:45 am I would also legalize prostitution so it can be regulated.
I'm against prostitution, not for any sentimental or traditional reasons, but because it can spread STDs and accidentally cause some pregnancies (and vegan condoms aren't as effective as normal ones).
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Fri May 04, 2018 9:45 am Hey I've seen that comic too.
?
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Fri May 04, 2018 9:45 am Would you tax foreign ventures? I wouldn't if the ventures could be proved beneficial to the local populace (e.g. building trains to transport whatever you're selling, but also offering it as a transportation service).
I'm more looking at domestically, since that'll be easier. But if we can get foreign money, that'd be great (I mean, we have a debt of over 6 trillion, so that's probably not gonna happen).
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Fri May 04, 2018 9:45 am What's wrong with memorizing?
I don't want to get into an entire rant about it, but put simply, memorizing and regurgitating doesn't equate to learning and understanding.
Lay Vegan wrote: Sat May 05, 2018 6:06 pm What does this mean? Will you levy carbon/methane taxes on corporations?
Well, Spellbinder said a carbon and methane tax will help the environment (which I will add to my deal), so that can be assumed.
Lay Vegan wrote: Sat May 05, 2018 6:06 pmI’d take it a step further and decriminalize the consumption of all drugs.
I'd take that a step further and decriminalize victim-less crimes.
Lay Vegan wrote: Sat May 05, 2018 6:06 pmAbstinance-only education programs are completely ineffective, since teens who undergo these programs are not more likely to delay the initiation of sexual activity or reduce their number of sexual partners than others who don’t undergo these programs.
I agree that's a problem, and I want us to fix that. I think the major problem is that these classes teach things that kids already learn from other sources, and are likely not convincing enough to get people to practice safe sex, or completely abstain from sex.
I'm not a fan of it, but maybe we can take a more emotional approach to this; You know, give some facts, but also talk more about the STDs, risks getting pregnant, and talk about alternatives, such as masturbation and some good ol' fashioned porn.

But again, as I said earlier, the more effective condoms are non-vegan, so this kinda throws a wrench into another moral element.
Lay Vegan wrote: Sat May 05, 2018 6:06 pm]Isn’t this the UN’s job? Why should America always intervene in foreign affairs, especially when we end up establishing even worse governments/terrorist factions?
This may have been more practical in the days of George Washington, when peaceful international relations were seen as impossible, but in today's world, if we want to do the most good for the most amount of people (not just Americans) we must increase our role, and the UN's job in doing that. It's flawed, but if improved, it can serve a better purpose. Right now, AFAIK, it seems pretty ineffective.

And Jebus and Spellbinder, you're on the mark when I say we should increase taxes in the rich.
It's more about raising the minimum wage which will drive up prices. The rich (and people in general) will have enough to live on, the government will just tax then out of a bit if disposable income (which is something out consumerist society really needs to let go of if we want to make a collective change; altruism is a key trait which people need to learn).
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci
Cirion Spellbinder
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1008
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:28 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: Presumably somewhere

Re: The Red Deal (Domestic Policy)

Post by Cirion Spellbinder »

Red wrote: Mon May 07, 2018 8:43 pmThanks for the responses, fellas.That's a good idea, but where?
Have the deforester find and purchase the land or have them provide the funds to. If no land cannot be found, then the deforestation is illegal until it can be found.
Red wrote:Is it true that planting too many trees in the wrong area can be bad?
Besides in urban areas where they wreak havoc, I have no idea. If it is, change the condition to finding land to suitable land.
Red wrote:Yeah, that's true. But I want to know when exactly the death penalty should be issued: when and why?
I don't know, but the answer lies in countries with rehabilitative prisons: whatever crimes have the lowest percents of rehabability are worth death penaltying. The diplomatic choice would be to let your constituents choose the exact percentage, but I wouldn't be comfortable not executing anyone who has over a 25% chance of failing rehabilitation. I would also recommend executing people who are insane or retarded that commit crimes some arbitrary amount below this percentage.
Red wrote:I'm against prostitution, not for any sentimental or traditional reasons, but because it can spread STDs and accidentally cause some pregnancies (and vegan condoms aren't as effective as normal ones).
If you can regulate prostitution, you can require that only vegan condoms be used and that all prostitutes are checked for all diseases regularly: all by the business.
Red wrote:?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DKrRhbDVoAAmkYZ.jpg
Red wrote:I don't want to get into an entire rant about it, but put simply, memorizing and regurgitating doesn't equate to learning and understanding.
So for math classes would material be taught from the axioms up? I'm just not sure that most high school math classes (except Geometry) can be understood without first arbitrarily accepting everything or having some intuitive but informal reason for accepting everything? I think such an approach is feasible for the rest of the subjects though.
Post Reply