ASTAP

Author: Alec

Posts

Total: 189
#31
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
Pay for your own birth control.  It's not that expensive.  You can buy 6 condoms for $5. 
Contraception is better and more pleasing. I say we should make things in people's life better but guess you are not.
If you can't afford birth control, don't have sex.  It's easy. 
If you can't afford medical related issues go die. Don't worry this has happened. Cut down on the apathy alright.
I've been a virgin my whole life.
If you did have sex then you would have had it with a minor because from the lack of understanding you have shown you seem to be young. 
ASTAP enables helping people by discouraging bad things.  They aren't big taxes either for the most part.
Taxing doesn't help and you have yet to prove it with the tax on smoking. 
If there were citations to the graph you would ask what are the citation's citations.  For some reason, you ask for links and when I provide links, you want links to those links.  If I gave you those, you would ask for more, etc.  
Do you understand what good evidence is? In order to have good evidence it need to be properly sourced. That graph missed that okay. I know you are young but I didn't think you didn't understand what good evidence was. I wanted links to actual evidence not a graph. Do you want me to give you a graph on imgur or do you want a link to a credible site or has links to credible sites? 
I want to note that this is a different graph from the first one. Secondly when was smoking tax or the tax on smoking increased?
They can get insurance.
66.6% of bankruptcy is claimed because of medical related issues. Medical insurance is medical related issues.
I don't believe that the government should subsidize any private company.  If this is trickle down economics, then no.
"Trickle-down economics, also called trickle-down theory, refers to the economic proposition that taxes on businesses and the wealthy in society should be reduced as a means to stimulate business investment in the short term and benefit society at large in the long term."
The person said that the top 10% of drinkers drink 74 beers a week.
Where did they link the source to this statistic? 
I would also like to add that you said poor people wouldn't buy drinks. Nothing in that article stated what you said here:
I imagine rich people are disproportionally more likely to be practicing alcoholics because they can afford it.  

Off topic but still relevant?
How are you for government when you pretty much want to abolish taxes if everyone wasn't sinful?
#32
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Alec
How did you get $24000 a year?  My link got nearly $40,000 per year with a $7.25 minimum wage
I googled minimum living wage which gave minimum living wages for all the states. And then I googled minimum wage for Florida. I'm guessing you've got a minimum living wage for a household and you're using the federal minimum wage

There are 24 hours in a day.  A minimum wage worker can work 15 hours a day and have their expenses fulfilled with a $7.25 minimum wage.
Right. But the hours to be worked have to be provided from somewhere. Businesses employ people and set hours based on the viability of operating that business in that period of time. Business maintain operability based on the number of customers they receive. You've decreased the number of customers by requiring them to work for longer hours, as well as overworking them such that they're unlikely to wish to do anything after their shift(s).


Showering once a day takes about half an hour.  Meal preparation can be done quickly if they buy food that's easy to prepare, like many sandwiches.  If they can't afford I house, I suggest just buying a tent and using that as a shelter.  It works and it's cheap, which is what poor people need.  Thoughts on that?
My thoughts are you've drastically lowered the quality of life for a majority of Americans, murdered the ones at the lower end and unaffected the rich minority. I understand your thought process was to lower the tax burden on the rich, however you've excessively pushed this burden onto the poor. I have no idea why you think this is a good idea. Depending on your income, money does not retain the same utility. For a poor person, $10 might be the difference between eating today. For a rich person, $10 is meaningless. It might well be that taxing a poor person $100 would have a dramatically greater impact than taxing a rich person $10,000.
Topic's author
#33
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@dustryder
Right. But the hours to be worked have to be provided from somewhere. Businesses employ people and set hours based on the viability of operating that business in that period of time. Business maintain operability based on the number of customers they receive.
If a business operates from 6 am to 9 pm(or 6:00 to 21:00, I don't know if New Zealand has the 24 hour clock), then that's seems to be when people would be getting stuff from that business.

My thoughts are you've drastically lowered the quality of life for a majority of Americans
This does not affect the majority of America.  All it does is it gives the poor what they deserve for working a low paying job.  If they want a better job, they got to earn it.  How they would earn it depends on their profession.  Plus according to my spreadsheet, the poor at the end of the year would actually have a lot of money left over.  They may not be living in a house, but they have money that can be used for investments so they can eventually afford to rent a place due to dividends.

murdered the ones at the lower end
How did I murder them?  Putting someone in a tent is not murdering them.

I have no idea why you think this is a good idea.
Because the rich contributed way more to society then the poor did and therefore should be allowed to keep their money.  Therefore, I think any income tax is unjustified towards the rich that earned their money.  It's like GPAs.  If your GPA is a 4, someone else's GPA is a 1.5, and you need a GPA of 2 to pass, is it justified to take .5 from your GPA to give it to the guy who didn't work as hard?  Or is it better to encourage the guy with a 1.5 GPA to get a 2 on his own independently so he can be successful without bringing you down.  The best way to being up the poor should not involve bringing down the rich.



#34
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Alec
If a business operates from 6 am to 9 pm(or 6:00 to 21:00, I don't know if New Zealand has the 24 hour clock), then that's seems to be when people would be getting stuff from that business.
But you've at least doubled the minimum requires hours. Do you think businesses can support these extra wage costs? Do you think there will be as many customers when they too have to put in more work to secure their their lifestyle?

This does not affect the majority of America.  All it does is it gives the poor what they deserve for working a low paying job.  If they want a better job, they got to earn it.  How they would earn it depends on their profession.  Plus according to my spreadsheet, the poor at the end of the year would actually have a lot of money left over.  They may not be living in a house, but they have money that can be used for investments so they can eventually afford to rent a place due to dividends.
The majority of Americans do not currently pay at least $17,000 in tax annually. They pay around ~$10,500. This difference is not an insignificant number. So yes, it would affect the majority of America.

It sounds like you're punishing the poor for being poor. The simple fact of life is where you are born in life more often than not decides where you will end up in life. A person who is born in poverty in the ghetto's is more likely to continue to be impoverished for his/her life compared to someone born upper-class. I think it is untenable to punish someone for something that is not their fault.

How did I murder them?  Putting someone in a tent is not murdering them.
Well what happens to someone who cannot work, or works but cannot get enough hours? Or the people who now have to work more than double their hours every single day with 1 hour of rest inside a tent that contains all their belongings.

Because the rich contributed way more to society then the poor did and therefore should be allowed to keep their money.  Therefore, I think any income tax is unjustified towards the rich that earned their money.
This isn't absolutely true. For example, how would you approach someone that has scammed their way into wealth or someone who has purely inherited all of their wealthy? Poor people put in hard work, why do you think it's justified to negate their hard work just because it isn't as impactful towards society? But it's more than that. Why do you think it's justified to put them into slave-like conditions?

It's like GPAs.  If your GPA is a 4, someone else's GPA is a 1.5, and you need a GPA of 2 to pass, is it justified to take .5 from your GPA to give it to the guy who didn't work as hard?  Or is it better to encourage the guy with a 1.5 GPA to get a 2 on his own independently so he can be successful without bringing you down.  The best way to being up the poor should not involve bringing down the rich.
So this scenario relies on both people starting from the same GPA. The more likely scenario is that one person's GPA starts at 4.0, and another person's GPA starts at 1.0. The person with the 1.0 GPA has a chance to end up with a good GPA, but in general, the person with the higher starting GPA will end up with the higher GPA..

In this scenario, your solution for the person with the 1.0 GPA is give him far more difficult coursework than the person with the 4.0 GPA  because you think that he should prove himself worthy of a higher GPA. However in reality, the difficult coursework is far too difficult for anyone except for the exceptional few and you end up suppressing the others.
Topic's author
#35
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@dustryder
Do you think businesses can support these extra wage costs?
How would it be more expensive?  If anything, it's cheaper for a business because they don't have to hire someone around the clock.  

They pay around ~$10,500.
It's nearly $12,000.  Besides, the US has a debt to pay off.  We need to tax people more to pay our foreign debt off.  Once we pay off our debt, taxes would fall to about $13,000 per person.

It sounds like you're punishing the poor for being poor.
I'm not.  I'm merely not rewarding it with tax discounts.

The simple fact of life is where you are born in life more often than not decides where you will end up in life. A person who is born in poverty in the ghetto's is more likely to continue to be impoverished for his/her life compared to someone born upper-class.
With this tax system, it would encourage poor people to earn more money since they're not being taxed for earning more anymore.  With a strict spending plan that poor people can adopt as found in https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/136MFNyPCnOs50_QltxPvkBpS2OydnNfG7WZYb21qTrM/edit#gid=320988619, it enables the poor to save money up for things like investing which can help them get out of poverty.  This way, they aren't dependent on the government for social programs that hold them back.

Well what happens to someone who cannot work, or works but cannot get enough hours?
Why can't they work?  If they're mentally disabled (I say this as someone with autism), then they can still work at stop and shop as a shop bagger or something.  I know someone who is mentally handicapped that does that.  

Or the people who now have to work more than double their hours every single day with 1 hour of rest inside a tent that contains all their belongings.
They work less then double what they currently do by American standards(America has 8 hour work days).  They would get 9 hours to do what they want.  This mostly will be occupied by sleep but they can do other things.

For example, how would you approach someone that has scammed their way into wealth or someone who has purely inherited all of their wealthy?
If they got their wealth through illegal means, then they would be punished.  If they inherited their wealth, then they basically got a very big gift from their Dad.  It doesn't make sense to tax a gift.  Most billionaires are self made with the majority of their wealth.  By mentioning people who inherited their money, your basically saying that the self made rich people can keep their wealth.

Poor people put in hard work, why do you think it's justified to negate their hard work just because it isn't as impactful towards society?
Because contribution to society matters more then the amount of work you put into a product.  For example, if you spend 20 hours a day working on a solving a crossword puzzle, you don't deserve to get paid for it.  If you spend 20 hours a day developing a cure for cancer, you deserve to get paid for it.  It's the same amount of work, but it's the productiveness to society that matters.

Why do you think it's justified to put them into slave-like conditions?
It's not slavery if they get paid a satisfactory wage that they can tolerate.  Especially when this wage is high enough where they can save money and get ahead eventually.

The more likely scenario is that one person's GPA starts at 4.0, and another person's GPA starts at 1.0. The person with the 1.0 GPA has a chance to end up with a good GPA, but in general, the person with the higher starting GPA will end up with the higher GPA..
The person that started with a 1.0 GPA probably won't get as high of a GPA, but they can still get a GPA of 2 or 3 with enough production to their GPA.  He would have more work to do, it wouldn't necessarily be more difficult, but he would have to play catch up if he wants a decent GPA.  It's harder, but possible, and it's through independence and lack of government redistribution and an emphases on independence that America has a higher GDP per capita then the EU, while being less urban.  Right Wing America even has a higher GDP per capita then even left wing Scandinavia.

8 days later

Topic's author
#36
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
Bump.

Here's the link:


#37
blamonkey
blamonkey's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 532
3
5
8
blamonkey's avatar
blamonkey
3
5
8
It is possible for people to be born with STDs (1). Should they be punished for the rest of their life for actions they never committed? Also, couldn't someone claim that the kid they had wasn't an accident even if they were? It seems like an easy system to game.

The other taxes are probably not going to raise a lot of revenue in the long term. We already have a gas tax which funnels money into the Highway Trust Fund. Unfortunately, lower fuel consumption and higher fuel efficiency standards for automobiles has decreased the amount of money paid into the fund (2). The rise of electric vehicles and hybrid cars definitely will have an impact on gas consumption as well, particularly if the gas tax is raised to 75 cents a gallon. The tax could deter purchases of less fuel efficient cars in favor of more fuel efficient cars. The average price of a gallon of gasoline in March of 2019 was $2.50. Multiply that times 12 to get an average fill-up of an automobile to get $30.00. 75 cents more would increase the price by 9 dollars. The EIA estimates that the average gas tax per gallon is about 30 cents (3). By more than doubling the tax, consumers are faced with a decision. Either they a) losing more money every time they fill up at the gas pump, or b) buying a more fuel efficient car that is approaching the purchasing price of cars with lower fuel standards. The prospective cars don't even need to be hybrids to decrease fuel consumption. The DOE found that 27% of new light-duty automobiles had fuel economies over 30 mpg in 2018. in 1995, the number was 4.4% (4).

Assuming that the consumption of gas doesn't decrease, there are still problems that plague the tax system because it increases the price of household fuel consumption. 1 in 3 households faced challenges paying their energy bill in 2015 according to the EIA (5). The Americans most likely to spend more of their income on fuel happen to be in the lowest quintile of income earners in the US averaging about 10% of their income being spent on fuel (6). Prices would increase drastically, affecting the livelihoods of lower-income Americans. The EIA study from 2015 also found that 1/5 of families in 2015, for 1-2 months, reduced or eschewed purchases of basic goods (i.e. medicine, food etc.) to pay an energy bill (5).

Alcohol sales, something the ASTAP largely depends on, might not be high enough to maintain consistent revenue streams. Growth rates for wine and spirits are declining, and beer sales are decreasing by about 1.5% (7). One reason for this is likely the increase in medical marijuana, which researcher directly linked with declining alcohol sales (8). The legal marijuana movement is larger than ever at the moment. If legalization continues, there is no doubt that alcohol sales will decline further. A $2 excise tax might push consumers away too.

The rape portion of the tax system seems unattainable. How do we guarantee that every rapist has over a million dollars to pay the state? If they don't have the money, then what happens? Are we going to garnish their wages? Well, since rapists are unlikely to find jobs, that wont be effective. 

For the record, I sympathize with people who want to streamline tax law. I really do. I think that the details need to be ironed out before this tax system becomes solvent though.

Sources
Topic's author
#38
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@blamonkey
Should they be punished for the rest of their life for actions they never committed? 

I wouldn't think of it as a punishment.  I would think of it as an incentive to get the STD treated so they become less common in society, making it better.  Also, it ignores the people who get an STD from sex.  It's not a big punishment for adults either; $200.

Also, couldn't someone claim that the kid they had wasn't an accident even if they were? It seems like an easy system to game.

I have 2 thoughts on this:

1) If they weren't married, it would be safe to assume the kid was by accident.  When going to the doctor that provides the delivery, they would ask for proof of marriage, like a ring or photograph.  If there is none, they get charged an extra $5000 for the delivery.  This money goes to the federal government.

The other taxes are probably not going to raise a lot of revenue in the long term.
They would in the long term.  People will still use gas, people would still smoke and drink.  If rape rates fall, that's a good thing.  People will still commit adultery.  They are not big taxes, so people would probably just pay the fine and continue to do what they do.

The rise of electric vehicles and hybrid cars definitely will have an impact on gas consumption as well, particularly if the gas tax is raised to 75 cents a gallon.
The rise of the gas tax won't have much of an impact on gas consumption.  Most people would just accept the higher gas payments.  We've had higher gas prices.  I don't know if this has happened in Kentucky, but in my state, the gas tax was about $1.30 per gallon and it didn't discourage gas buying.  The current gas tax is around 30 cents a gallon.  75 cents per gallon is somewhere in the middle.

The tax could deter purchases of less fuel efficient cars in favor of more fuel efficient cars.
It barely does, if at all.

The average price of a gallon of gasoline in March of 2019 was $2.50.
That's including tax.  Add 55 cents per gallon and a 12 gallon fill up would cost $6.30 extra per fill up.  If people don't notice the change from a $1 increase in the price, they won't notice it much from a 55 cent increase.

1 in 3 households faced challenges paying their energy bill in 2015 according to the EIA (5). The Americans most likely to spend more of their income on fuel happen to be in the lowest quintile of income earners in the US averaging about 10% of their income being spent on fuel (6).
Poor people often don't pay for their own electricity bill.  If they have a renting cost too high, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/136MFNyPCnOs50_QltxPvkBpS2OydnNfG7WZYb21qTrM/edit#gid=320988619 shows how poor people can afford ASTAP if the have a minimum wage job.

 Growth rates for wine and spirits are declining, and beer sales are decreasing by about 1.5% (7). One reason for this is likely the increase in medical marijuana, which researcher directly linked with declining alcohol sales (8).
I didn't include weed sales because I didn't know how much revenue they would produce.  Once Canada tests it out for us, and once they confirm that it won't wreck society after 5 years or some time like that, the US can give it a try.

A $2 excise tax might push consumers away too.
When people buy beer, they are thinking about how many beers they want I imagine.  They'll probably notice the extra beer prices and reluctantly pay the extra money.

The rape portion of the tax system seems unattainable. How do we guarantee that every rapist has over a million dollars to pay the state? If they don't have the money, then what happens? Are we going to garnish their wages? Well, since rapists are unlikely to find jobs, that wont be effective. 
I'm honestly willing to enslave rapists until the wages they would have received for their work pay for the rape they committed if they don't have the money up front.  This way, the wages they generate from their slavery can restitute the state for what they would have spent on labor.

I think that the details need to be ironed out before this tax system becomes solvent though.
It's not perfect, but I think it's better then the establishment right wing or left wing tax plan.  Both plans are based around income, which discourages money making.  We need something that discourages bad things instead of discouraging income.  We need something where everyone contributes equally to the tax plan, whether rich or poor.  Since many people think the poor can't afford the tax plan, I made a spreadsheet showing how they could.  The link is below:

#39
blamonkey
blamonkey's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 532
3
5
8
blamonkey's avatar
blamonkey
3
5
8
-->
@Alec

I wouldn't think of it as a punishment.  I would think of it as an incentive to get the STD treated so they become less common in society, making it better.  Also, it ignores the people who get an STD from sex.  It's not a big punishment for adults either; $200.
Treatment =/= cure. Would people who try to treat their STDs be exempt from the tax? Also, what of the people who are born with STDs? $200 isn't something that people can live on, but it is still a considerable chunk of money that doesn't need to be taken. Also, the link you gave me which showcased what the system would look like for poor people raises quite a few questions. Namely, it instructs poor people to live in tents. What of the extreme environments in which people live? Florida, Arizona, Texas, and other states tend to have blisteringly hot temperatures and turbulent weather conditions. Also, some municipalities banned sleeping in/camping in public. Additionally, so-called "anti-vagrancy" laws punish people who camp in public at an astonishing rate. Despite the Justice Department taking the official position that we should not criminalize homelessness through these ordinances, 10,000 citations were doled out in 2015 (1). Even with federal courts challenging these laws, there is still leeway for municipalities to punish people who camp in public if they offer some services to the public (i.e. homeless shelters regardless of their quality). San Fransisco, because it offers homeless shelters to people, can still ban camping in public.

The income earned by people on minimum wage will inevitably differ from what is shown in that link. It assumes that people on the minimum wage work 12 hours a day, or 84 hours per week. The average amount of hours worked per week is about 44-47 hours (5). Poor people would make less money and could barely scrape by under the ASTAP tax plan.
I have 2 thoughts on this:

1) If they weren't married, it would be safe to assume the kid was by accident.  When going to the doctor that provides the delivery, they would ask for proof of marriage, like a ring or photograph.  If there is none, they get charged an extra $5000 for the delivery.  This money goes to the federal government.
So, teenagers who get pregnant would pay the tax as well? Also, a ring and a photo can be faked. A marriage certificate is easy to lose, so it is possible for a lot of people to show up with no documentation of a marriage. This is especially true if a woman is in labor and thus intense pain before arriving at the hospital. The cost of having a birth is already outrageous. The delivery, epidural, and caring for the newborn child could cost over $15,000 if done at a hospital (2).

#40
blamonkey
blamonkey's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 532
3
5
8
blamonkey's avatar
blamonkey
3
5
8
They would in the long term.  People will still use gas, people would still smoke and drink.  If rape rates fall, that's a good thing.  People will still commit adultery.  They are not big taxes, so people would probably just pay the fine and continue to do what they do.
My evidence suggests that consumption of alcohol and gasoline could decrease without the excise tax. Regardless, excise taxes can have an impact on consumers if the cost is visible enough. In fact, Australia faced a significant hurdle when it tried to decrease alcohol consumption. Despite alcohol sales falling by about 30%, there was a 46% increase in hard liquor sales (3). This is likely because of its higher alcohol content which requires less units needed to get inebriated. In other words, one product was substituted for another. In the US, we would likely experience something very similar as people choose marijuana instead of alcoholic beverages. In fact, states that have legalized medical marijuana have experienced a decrease of alcohol consumption of about 15% (4) A noticeable increase of 2 dollars per unit of alcohol sold would probably contribute to this decrease as well. I am not suggesting that Budweiser is going to go bankrupt, but we probably will face budget crunches in the future if alcohol is one of the main drivers of the budget.
The rise of the gas tax won't have much of an impact on gas consumption.  Most people would just accept the higher gas payments.  We've had higher gas prices.  I don't know if this has happened in Kentucky, but in my state, the gas tax was about $1.30 per gallon and it didn't discourage gas buying.  The current gas tax is around 30 cents a gallon.  75 cents per gallon is somewhere in the middle.
People don't like paying more money for things, so they will naturally buy from the multitude of cars with better fuel economies. The International Energy Agency forecasts that by 2030, electric automobile purchases would rise to 125 million, which is much more then the current electric fleet today which only totals 3 million (6). Cars that aren't electric or hybrids would still see better fuel economies compared to cars from the past. I am not necessarily suggesting that we would immediately see a dip in revenue with the plan. Forecasts are often exaggerated. However, tying ourselves to volatile industries doesn't seem to be the best solution.

I'm honestly willing to enslave rapists until the wages they would have received for their work pay for the rape they committed if they don't have the money up front.  This way, the wages they generate from their slavery can restitute the state for what they would have spent on labor.
Um.... I don't like rapists either. I think advocating for literal slavery is a bit much. They probably will never find a decent job after the conviction, they are put on a sex-offender registry which limits where they can live, and are ostracized by society. I have little sympathy for rapists, but they still have their 8th amendment rights which prevents the state from inflicting cruel and unusual punishment on them. What would this slave work entail?

There are some other points, but I am fairly certain I addressed the bulk of the arguments. 


#41
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@Alec
You have a tax on needy children.

And you expect the housing market to shift to tents, shanties and apartment boxes

You expect the poor to work 15 hours a day.



I predict the cumulative effect is that an underclass of people become completely dependant on their employers, assuming they have employment. Probably no land, no time to think for themselves, no wheels, few skills.


Is maximizing GDP your singular goal?
Topic's author
#42
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@Snoopy
You have a tax on needy children. 
Where?

And you expect the housing market to shift to tents, shanties and apartment boxes
Shanties are dangerous, so not those.  I don't know what an apartment box is.

You expect the poor to work 15 hours a day.
12 hours a day.  I found a way for them to survive off of 12 hours of work a day.

I predict the cumulative effect is that an underclass of people become completely dependant on their employers, assuming they have employment.
I don't think that's the case by it's self.

Probably no land, no time to think for themselves, no wheels, few skills. 
They would have time to think for themselves.  Not sure about the "no wheels" part.  That is up to the person if they are willing to pay for a used or new car.  If they live close to work, they won't need a car.

#43
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@Alec
Your tax on births out of wedlock it's what I'm referring to
Topic's author
#44
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@Snoopy
I'm taxing the pregnancies to discourage premarital sex.
#45
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Alec
I like the 1.25m rape Tax, because if there’s one thing we know about rapists, it’s that they’re all millionaires.

I almost like it as much as the STD tax - because, we all know everyone with an STD is going to rush to get tested for STDs now that they come with multiple hundred dollar penalties. Everyone is sure to chose “not have sex” over “not get tested”.

Or maybe the $12k per person charge is the best, because the one thing we know about the unemployed, the retired, those in poverty, those supporting multiple adults on minimum jobs, is that they can afford thousands of dollars in extra tax per year.

Wait - I have a brilliant idea! Why don’t you just tax rapists $100 billion dollars??? That will make al your money!






This spreadsheet is unintentionally hilarious

#46
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Alec
No, No! The unintended pregnancy tax is the best!

“Excuse me miss, was your pregnancy intentional”
”what if I say no?”
”then we tax you $5000”
”then, uh. Yes! I totally meant to have this baby!”
”excellent, then you are exempt!”



“Mr President, we appear to have a 748204819% increase in teenagers getting pregnant on purpose”

#47
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Alec
No I have it! The best bit of this is that poor people will have no problem paying the $12k tax because they can just live in a tent and work 12 hour days for the entire year with the except Christmas, Boxing Day. Easter Sunday, labour day and Presidents’ Day. 

Their lazy asses need to work 12 hours on New Year’s Eve and Day though. And when they’re sick..



#48
blamonkey
blamonkey's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 532
3
5
8
blamonkey's avatar
blamonkey
3
5
8
-->
@Alec
I should mention that the 10k citations given out to public campers was from one city. 
#49
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Alec
12 hours a day.  I found a way for them to survive off of 12 hours of work a day.

I would be truly shocked to find that you work more than 12 hours a week.

Also noticed that you recently changed your profile political ideology. Please change it back, this was so much funnier when you were pretending to be a libertarian.
Topic's author
#50
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@Ramshutu
It seems that your developing 1st place syndrome.  Don't worry, it happens to many people who get 1st on this site.  It happened to RM.

Anyway:

I like the 1.25m rape Tax, because if there’s one thing we know about rapists, it’s that they’re all millionaires.
The rapist would get enslaved temporarily in order to pay off their debt to society.  What they would do is up to the prisons and up to the states to decide.

I almost like it as much as the STD tax - because, we all know everyone with an STD is going to rush to get tested for STDs now that they come with multiple hundred dollar penalties.
If this happens, then STDs would be eradicated from society.  Or they just pay the $200 and continue to have STDs.  Lets say for the sake of argument that virtually everyone gets their STDs treated(exception applies for incurable STDs).  Then we just increase the taxes in a different category.

Or maybe the $12k per person charge is the best, because the one thing we know about the unemployed, the retired, those in poverty, those supporting multiple adults on minimum jobs, is that they can afford thousands of dollars in extra tax per year.
The unemployed can get a job.  Stop and Shop is always hiring.  I know from personal experience.  

No I have it! The best bit of this is that poor people will have no problem paying the $12k tax because they can just live in a tent and work 12 hour days for the entire year with the except Christmas, Boxing Day. Easter Sunday, labour day and Presidents’ Day. 

Their lazy asses need to work 12 hours on New Year’s Eve and Day though. And when they’re sick..
I packed in 5 sick days for them per year.  They would have to work on the holidays since the shops would be busier then.
#51
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Alec
It seems that your developing 1st place syndrome.  Don't worry, it happens to many people who get 1st on this site.  It happened to RM.
Actually no: I have, and have for a while had “I understand what is physically possible and reasonable”, your proposal is mostly a convoluted combination of wishful thinking, naive assertions that don’t take into consideration any practicalities - and just plain nonsense.

The rapist would get enslaved temporarily in order to pay off their debt to society.  What they would do is up to the prisons and up to the states to decide.
“Temporarily”. So, let’s say you find a way to get rapists to earn money. Somehow. Minimum wage for 12 hour days - presuming they don’t drop dead or die: they have to pay their personal tax, assuming the state pays for their food and accommodation - that minimum wage will earn them 18k per year. Which means that they’ll be able to pay their 1.25m fee in 70 years.

Given the current average lifespan in the US around 79 years, and the apparent lack of 10 year old rapists. This is just a ridiculous and poorly thought out idea that has almost no hope of ever being practical.

If this happens, then STDs would be eradicated from society.
It’s sarcasm. You are proposing a fine for individuals who go to a doctor, request and STD test, and have it come back positive.

Congratulations: you’ve now given every teenager and every young adult a massively compelling motive not to get tested for an STD. This will have the complete opposite effect that you’re proposing. Which should be obvious.

The unemployed can get a job.  Stop and Shop is always hiring.  I know from personal experience. 
Lol.

Okay. So hear me out, this will be a little bit complex to understand. 

You and “people” are different. What is possible for you, may not be possible for others. Some people have children, and must find a job that have hours that are less than 12-16 per day. Not everyone can get a job at stop and shop, they may not be presentable, they may not pass an interview, there may not be one nearby. There may not be many jobs in the area, the available jobs may not be a job they are qualified for.

This is not even considering the retired, housewives, and students that don’t even participate in the workforce.

But it is nice that you would recommend any other human being work 12 hour days 360 days a year. You should try it for a few weeks!

I packed in 5 sick days for them per year.  They would have to work on the holidays since the shops would be busier then.
If I have to explain to you why it’s not reasonable or practical to expect human beings to work 360 days per year, 12 hours a day; then quite frankly at this point I would have to despair at the quality of the US education system.

People have kids, they have to pay for child care; they have to see friends, family, relax, they need time to reach their jobs. They have to manage their personal hygiene, shop for groceries, cook and prepare food, etc. 

If they have a job 2 miles from where they live ( because they won’t be able to have a car -right). If they’re fit and healthy, they could make than in 30 minutes. So that’s an extra hour in the day. Then there is hygiene and cleaning. An extra 30 minutes. Food prep and eating/cleaning up time 60 minutes. Let’s presume people have a shit on work time : if you get that that’s a total of 22.5 hours per day if you sleep the recommended 8 hours.

You have shopping twice a week (no car remember! Can’t carry everything), so that’s an hour to get there and back x 2;
30 minute shop x 2 so that’s 3 hours. (So two days worth of spare time). 

This is presuming people don’t have children. Children need to be dropped off at school, played with, bonded with, etc.

I mean good lord man: you are not serious here? You’re tying to troll us, right?
Topic's author
#52
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@Ramshutu
“Temporarily”. So, let’s say you find a way to get rapists to earn money. Somehow. Minimum wage for 12 hour days
They're job would be too hard for minimum wage.  It could be as a construction worker or something, which pays a much higher wage(I think it's $14.9 an hour)(https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Construction_Worker/Hourly_Rate).  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/136MFNyPCnOs50_QltxPvkBpS2OydnNfG7WZYb21qTrM/edit?ts=5ce7ac53#gid=971426790 shows how the rapist can pay for all of this if they have raped once or twice.  Beyond that, I probably would prescribe harder work for the rapist so more revenue comes in or a public execution that would have ticket sales that would generate the lost revenue that the state was entitled too under this law.

Congratulations: you’ve now given every teenager and every young adult a massively compelling motive not to get tested for an STD. This will have the complete opposite effect that you’re proposing. Which should be obvious.
Under this tax law, once it comes into effect, everyone would be required to get tested for STDs the next time they see a doctor.  If they have an STD, they pay the tax or get it treated.

Some people have children, and must find a job that have hours that are less than 12-16 per day.
If you can't afford to have kids on your own, the gov would encourage you to set the kid(s) up for adoption.

This is not even considering the retired, housewives, and students that don’t even participate in the workforce.
The retired have social security that would help the retired out.  Housewives can work.  Students can also work.  I heard college is very unstructured and many people get a job while doing school so they can pay the taxes from that.

But it is nice that you would recommend any other human being work 12 hour days 360 days a year.

Only those on minimum wage have to work that hard to pay off the debt because compared to a CEO or a doctor, their job is not very productive to society on a per hour basis.

People have kids, they have to pay for child care; they have to see friends, family, relax, they need time to reach their jobs.
If they can't afford kids, they should set the kids up for adoption.  If they work 12 hours a day, if they live close to work, and sleep 5 hours a day (something they can get used too, farmers do it.  My Dad does it.  It just needs a little adjusting), then they have 7 hours of additional time per day to do whatever they want/need to do.

Food prep and eating/cleaning up time 60 minutes
They can eat fast food since it's cheap, keeps them alive, and is quick to get and to clean up.

I mean good lord man: you are not serious here? You’re tying to troll us, right?
I'm not trolling.  I'm just very fiscally conservative, so I'm trying to get rid of the income tax.  If a cigarette tax discourages smoking and if an alcohol tax discourages alcohol consumption, then an income tax discourages income making.
#53
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Alec
And again, you appear to be calling foul of understanding how reality works.

Your “plan”, and I use that phrase very liberally here: effectively mandates every one who is currently unemployed and/or is below the poverty line to work crippling 12 hour days on all but 5 days in the entire year.

You also require - in order for this to be financially viable - these individuals to live in tents, and seem to not realize the issue of hygiene and lack of address is not conducive to keeping a job.

Not only that, you’re forcing the poor - who likely can’t buy or maintain a car due to cost, to find work within walking distance (which given my time living in the US, walking distance is about 200m), massively limiting options.

In addition, you’d effectively end up forcing all low income families and single parents - of which google tells me is about 15 million (http://www.nccp.org/topics/childpoverty.html) to put their children up for adoption.

Of course, you don’t seem to account for the increased costs of an adoption and foster system - which is now going to be 40 times larger than it is today, nor the social fall out of how these systems on balance inhibit the potential of the individuals.

Your also not accounting for the health problems associated with over work, crippling stress, and emotional trauma of having to give up your children, remain socially isolated due to having to work all but 1.5 hours every single day for your entire life. Given that social isolation raises risks of suicide; it’s not looking good for poor people is it!

Let’s not forget they can eat fast food. 3 meals a day, 360 days, even coming in cheap at $3 per meal, that adds up to what? $3600 - that’s $1000 more than you have in your spreadsheet.

Not to mention the devastating health effects of being able to eat nothing but fast food. 

What do you think that would do to health premiums?

Maybe if they can’t afford for fast food, and don’t have time for actual food: perhaps you can let them eat cake?


This “plan”, again liberally, would basically destroy your country. 

Even if the tens of millions of people in poverty somehow put up with it, sent their kids up for adoption - the reality is that you will be devastating their lives, and setting up levels of social animosity that will set the US up for violent revolt - as has happened in literally every country where the oppression of the poor rises to the insanity you’re suggesting.



The ridiculous notion of people living in tents, or trivializing working 12 hour days without a break, as if someone can simply wake up one day, get a job, and then start work; is almost as ridiculous as the idea that all rapists can work as trained construction workers, or work 70 years to pay a ridiculous victim tax.

Boiling down increasingly complex socio economic conditions, individual personal motivations, and individual situations to such naive and overly simplistic “solutions” doesn’t work, and is so naive that I have to question your sanity.












Topic's author
#54
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@Ramshutu
and seem to not realize the issue of hygiene and lack of address is not conducive to keeping a job.
My suggestion to overcome this is they could shower in another person's house(if that person consents) and the poor person could pay 25 cents or something to shower 1 time in another person's shower.  The homeowner makes a profit, the poor person gets clean.

Not only that, you’re forcing the poor - who likely can’t buy or maintain a car due to cost, to find work within walking distance (which given my time living in the US, walking distance is about 200m), massively limiting options.
Walking distance is farther then 200 m.  I would say that it is around 800m.  That's a 10-15 minute walk for them.  

Of course, you don’t seem to account for the increased costs of an adoption and foster system - which is now going to be 40 times larger than it is today, nor the social fall out of how these systems on balance inhibit the potential of the individuals.
I'm fine with the adoption system's cost going up.  It's short term welfare.  In about 2 years on average, the kids would find a new home if the adoption agencies advertise more until they get rid of all their kids and levels are back to normal, except this time poor people aren't having kids they can't afford.  To prevent them from having kids and to save money on welfare, I would be fine with neutering all people who fail to pay a reproduction matience tax that I should add to ASTAP in order to prevent more kids from being on welfare.  This benefits the poor person because there is less holding them back from having unrestricted sex.

Your also not accounting for the health problems associated with over work, crippling stress
Jobs at McDonalds aren't stressful.  They're more boring I imagine.

emotional trauma of having to give up your children
Since the parents would be told that their kids were going to find a better life, the parents would probably understand.  If they want to stay in touch with their kids, they can share email addresses and they can stay in contact that way, while the kid is in the foster system.

 remain socially isolated due to having to work all but 1.5 hours every single day for your entire life
They would work 12 hours a day, have 5 hours of sleep a day, and have 7 hours a day for everything else.  Everything else seems like it wouldn't take a significant amount of time.  They have a little under 7 hours of free time a day to do whatever they want.

Given that social isolation raises risks of suicide; it’s not looking good for poor people is it!
They are not being isolated.  They can talk with:

-Their manager.
-Their coworkers.
-Anybody that they encounter in the 7 hours of free time they have in a day.
-Their kids via email if their employer is okay with that as a perk.
-Their spouse.

They aren't being isolated from society.

Let’s not forget they can eat fast food. 3 meals a day, 360 days, even coming in cheap at $3 per meal, that adds up to what? $3600 - that’s $1000 more than you have in your spreadsheet.
Maybe they could eat something other then fast food.  Given that 8% of the nation spends less then $50 a week on food, they can spend $50 a week on food, just like what 8% of the population does less then.  This doesn't mean that they receive less food or the food is of lower nutritional value, but it could mean that they could just not eat out at restaurants, since those are expensive.

as has happened in literally every country where the oppression of the poor rises to the insanity you’re suggesting.
Most countries are from a fiscal standpoint, left wing of the US.  Countries have poor masses and revolts because of fiscally left wing policies.  Look at Venezuela and Cuba.  China is communist, they would have protest if it were legal.  Africa is fiscally left wing.  America is one of the most, if not the absolute most fiscally conservative country in the planet and we have the highest GDP in the world, one of the highest GDP per capitas in the world.  The poor aren't oppressed, especially under ASTAP.  If they were oppressed, then how would they be making the profits that they are making under ASTAP?  They make over $6,000 in profit once all other expenses are paid before 2023 according to the new model.  ASTAP isn't perfect, but I'm willing to make some changes to it if they are good changes.

is almost as ridiculous as the idea that all rapists can work as trained construction workers
To the best of my knowledge, being a construction worker doesn't require much training.  It merely is hard work, which is why the job pays somewhat well.  There are highschoolers that I know that do construction work and that is with no college or scholarly training whatsoever.

work 70 years to pay a ridiculous victim tax.
It's not 70 years if they rape once.  If they rape once, it's 25 years of labor.(https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/136MFNyPCnOs50_QltxPvkBpS2OydnNfG7WZYb21qTrM/edit?ts=5ce7ac53#gid=971426790)

I have to question your sanity.
Ad hommin attack.
#55
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Alec
Yeah you’re trolling. You can’t be serious.

The suggestion that people can live off 5 hours sleep, live in tents, have six days off a year, only socialize with their coworker, send their children off for adoption, can definitely get and keep a job with no home address and to ask to use other people’s houses for showers, and cleaning; and to suggest they live off fast food, and won’t be aocially isolated, that being forced to find a job within 2 miles of where they live.

That’s not possible.

In the real world, there would be riots, it would not be close to ever being accepted, people would refuse to pay taxes, and states would secede. This policy is ridiculous and inhuman to a degree that it can’t possible be serious.

Enforcement would be impossible, and you’d find the poor working for barter, not earning anything and not paying taxes as they have no money - all so they can keep their kids and not need to work 12 hours a day. You know, parents tend not to want to give up their kids.

Basically, your looking at systemic collapse of the entire US capitalist system, and probably overthrow of the government from the tens of millions of poor people you’re trying to force to give up their kids, live in a tent and eat nothing but fast food.

This is not practical, it’s barely human and it doesn’t even bother to account for either basic human nature, or to hold any actual empathy from the individuals it would harm.

The fact that you do not seem to understand the practical and personal impact on the millions of lives you will be destroying with these objectively ridiculous ideas, and the fact that you dismiss the practical flaws and human issues with even more nonsensical answers that make even less sense.

You’re either trolling, you’re an idiot; or your insane.

And Just FYI that’s not an ad hominem attack. An Ad Hom attack is when I attack you instead of your position. I’m attacking you because of your position: among others the idea that you think it’s practical to ask 15 million families to give up their children, and you somehow think it’s going to happen....
Topic's author
#56
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@Ramshutu
The suggestion that people can live off 5 hours sleep
My Dad does it.  Many farmers do it.  It's hard at first, but just takes adjusting.  They could use that 7 hours of extra time they have partly for a nap.

have six days off a year
I have 2 basic options for them.  Option 1 is 5 days off a year.  Option 2 is 25 days off a year.

people would refuse to pay taxes,
People may protest the taxes, but they would pay them.  It's better then our current tax system, a tax system that discourages income production by taxing it.

Enforcement would be impossible, and you’d find the poor working for barter, not earning anything and not paying taxes as they have no money
I have disproved this fear mongering.

You know, parents tend not to want to give up their kids.
Parents want what's best for their kids; often putting their kid's lives before their own.  If this means setting them up for adoption with the intention of providing them with a better life, then the parents ought to be willing to do this.

Basically, your looking at systemic collapse of the entire US capitalist system
This policy enhances capitalism because it enables people to keep what they earn and then get taxed on things that are neutral or bad for society.

eat nothing but fast food.
They could buy food from stop and shop, but it would have to be cheap and they would basically have to make it on their own.  They could have sandwiches for example.  Those can be healthy and they are cheap to make.

you think it’s practical to ask 15 million families to give up their children
I don't want to pay for their parasitic families.  I would rather use the foster system, which is temporary and sets the kids up for a better life with a better family.  The original parents can still hang out with the kid, they just wouldn't take care of a kid they couldn't afford.

All other points that I made were dropped.  You are appealing to feelings.  Facts don't care about your feelings.
#57
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Alec
My Dad does it.  Many farmers do it.  It's hard at first, but just takes adjusting.  They could use that 7 hours of extra time they have partly for a nap.
Your days does it. Some farmers do it. Does he also live in a tent, and live off fast food, and have 5 days off a year? And have to give up his children?

You're asking 15 million people to do it with little respite in the entire year. Not for money, or out of specific immediate necessity: because somebody changed the law to make it happen.

”My dad does it”, for some limited time in some limited way is a ridiculous proposition.


People may protest the taxes, but they would pay them.  It's better then our current tax system, a tax system that discourages income production by taxing it.
The option this “plan” gives people, is to live in a tent, give up your children, and work 12 hour days, and lose your car, and eat junk food for each meal.

Im sorry but you’re an idiot if you think any reasonable parent is going to be faced with a choice between paying taxes and keeping their child, and chose taxes, the fact you don’t understand that is so unbelievably naive and ridiculous that I am certain your trolling.

Seriously, you think any reasonable human being would pay taxes if it meant giving their children away?

This isn’t a plan, as I said: it gives no practical understanding to how human beings work.

I have disproved this fear mongering.
No, what you did. Is incorrectly assume people work the way you say they will. You are assuming everyone will fall into line. No one will complain. No one will riot. Everyone will hand over the kids. Etc.

At this point I don’t even really care why you’re being this naive.

Parents want what's best for their kids; often putting their kid's lives before their own.  If this means setting them up for adoption with the intention of providing them with a better life, then the parents ought to be willing to do this.
You’re not a parent right? Why don’t you ask a few parents what they think about that. Parents may give up their kids because of extreme poverty, or violence.

No parent will give us their children because of their tax bill. What planet are you on? Seriously! 

It wont happen. No matter how many naive assertions where parents act the complete opposite to humans act you make.

They’d turn to barter - exchanging services for food, they wouldn’t pay their taxes, or they would turn to crime. Good luck trying
to deal with that crime wave of millions of people. Know many police offers that would arrest a single mom for not paying her taxes in order to feed her child?

Good luck enforcing that! The police will think the laws are unfair. The military will think the law is unfair. Most of the population would think the law was unfair. If it was implemented it would not be obeyed, if it was enforced it would cause revolt.

This policy enhances capitalism because it enables people to keep what they earn and then get taxed on things that are neutral or bad for society.
The policy destroys capitalism. While you may like it; the complete lack of disregard for human beings, and quite frankly, your psychopathic lack of empathy for the people this law would destroy is its downfall.

Few of the millions of those it affects will be able - and fewer willing to suffer the outrageous burden your forcing on them. When millions of individuals feel they are being mistreated and oppressed by an economic system: and an economic system that forces millions to give up their children and live in tents just to survive; and tens of millions more who see the first hand oppression and reject it - you will end up with revolt. It’s literally how the French Revolution and the Communists Came to power. 

They could buy food from stop and shop, but it would have to be cheap and they would basically have to make it on their own.  They could have sandwiches for example.  Those can be healthy and they are cheap to make.
So let’s assume that everyone lives within 2 miles of a stop and shop. Shop Sandwiches are almost always high in sugar, high in salt and lacking in basic nutrition. Do you understand the nutritional content an individual needs to remain healthy? I think not.

Yet another farcical attempt to naively wave away the fundamental problems with your absurd policy.

I don't want to pay for their parasitic families.  I would rather use the foster system, which is temporary and sets the kids up for a better life with a better family.  The original parents can still hang out with the kid, they just wouldn't take care of a kid they couldn't afford.
Erm no. Are you saying this because you want it to be true? I suspect so: as this is contrary to almost every scrap of evidence on the subject.

Seperarion of children from loving, primary care givers causes major long term harm to the mental health of the children. Ignoring the sheer impossibility of increasing the size of foster care by a factor of 40; the anger and resentment it would foster in the population, and the fact you’re substantially damaging an entire generation of children that will likely face severe emotional issues with adults and don’t seem to appreciate the damage that if will do the country


All other points that I made were dropped.  You are appealing to feelings.  Facts don't care about your feelings.
You’ve made a serious of largely nonsensical claims that ignores the basics of human nature, and reality. You’re expecting the entire population affected to simply do what you say because, well, just because. This complete inability to account for actual humans is the problem with your policy, not my feelings.


This policy isn’t serious, it’s laughable. If you think this is credible, and plausible; then I’m fairly certain that you’re going to have issues dealing with the world.


Topic's author
#58
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@Ramshutu
You're asking 15 million people to do it with little respite in the entire year. Not for money, or out of specific immediate necessity:
It's because that's all they can afford without welfare.  I think we need to eliminate welfare completely because it makes poor people dependent on the government and rich people without the consent of rich people.  

The option this “plan” gives people, is to live in a tent, give up your children, and work 12 hour days, and lose your car, and eat junk food for each meal.
They would have the option on whether or not to buy a car, but they can afford a used car under this proposal in some situations.  They wouldn't have to eat junk food for each meal, but they just would have to eat cheap food.  For example, you can make sandwiches pretty cheaply and those can be pretty healthy.

Im sorry but you’re an idiot if you think any reasonable parent is going to be faced with a choice between paying taxes and keeping their child, and chose taxes
If the parents are told that their kids would benefit from the adoption system, then the parents would do what's best for the kid.

I am certain your trolling.
Although I am willing to admit that my tax plan is very right wing, I'm not trolling.  I'm just very far right on taxes and think that the income tax should be abolished.

You’re not a parent right? Why don’t you ask a few parents what they think about that. Parents may give up their kids because of extreme poverty, or violence.
The poor in America aren't living in extreme poverty.  Under my system, they are still making about as much as the average, the average person from Quebec, and that's our poor people making the average amount as a typical person from a 1st world province.  

Most of the population would think the law was unfair.
Right now, most of the population is in support of the income tax, but with this alternative being brought to pay for things, many people would be on board with it, mainly conservatives.  I don't see what's wrong with living in a tent and working 12 hour days with no kids if you manage to keep significant amounts of money afterwards.  ASTAP has been updated.

you will end up with revolt.
If people are shown how they can survive under this system, and if that survival guide is reasonable, then the poor people would be like, "Okay, we can do this".

It’s literally how the French Revolution and the Communists Came to power. 
Both were from monarchies that weren't accountable to the will of the people.  Both also banned things like free speech, which resorted to violence.  Once the populous supports the idea (which there are a lot of ideas that were/are unpopular that became popular, like the wall and homosexuality), then it can happen.  If the poor people are shown how they can thrive under ASTAP, they would be willing to support it.

Shop Sandwiches are almost always high in sugar, high in salt and lacking in basic nutrition.
Sandwiches can be healthy for you if it's PB&J, Turkey and Cheese or something like that.

Do you understand the nutritional content an individual needs to remain healthy?
To an extent.  I'm not a food expert, but I know some stuff about it.

Seperarion of children from loving, primary care givers causes major long term harm to the mental health of the children.
If the kid stays in contact with their parents by email or text or something like that, the kid won't miss out too much.  Besides, in 2 years on average, they would get a new family, one that is better for them since that family is more financially stable.

Ignoring the sheer impossibility of increasing the size of foster care by a factor of 40; the anger and resentment it would foster in the population, and the fact you’re substantially damaging an entire generation of children that will likely face severe emotional issues with adults and don’t seem to appreciate the damage that if will do the country
Once the kids find a new family, they would be fine.  So this nation won't be damaged.

You’ve made a serious of largely nonsensical claims that ignores the basics of human nature, and reality.
People will comply with the tax system if they are shown how to live with the new tax system.  The poor won't get that screwed over, the parents would do what's best for the kid, and it enables the poor people to make some profit at the end of the year, which they can use for investments, like stock.

You’re expecting the entire population affected to simply do what you say because, well, just because.
Because I want to abolish the income tax and I want to abolish welfare.

If you think this is credible, and plausible; then I’m fairly certain that you’re going to have issues dealing with the world.
I think it can work.  I work with the world just fine.

#59
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Alec
This plan isn’t right wing. I don’t know what it is, as I’m pretty sure “retarded” isn’t a wing.

Every single one of your absurd explanations for how human beings are going to live appears to start with:

“They can just...”

They “could”.

What you don’t get, is that they’re not going to.

People aren’t going to voluntarily move into tents, they’re not going to give up their children. They’re not going to get a 12 hour day 360 days a year job. They’re not going to live off sandwiches.

Why?

Because they are human beings. You ridiculous idiot.

If any human being is faced with either being kicked out of their home, having to give up their children, or not paying tax - they’ll chose the latter every single time.

They “could” work 12 hours days 360 days a year, but they’re really not all going to do that because you say they will. 


People would chose to stay in their house and not pay tax; they’ll turn To cash-in-hand jobs. Perhaps crime. Forcing people into desperate situations makes them do desperate things.

The fact that the law would be enacted on an entire socio-economic group - your peer group, would mean that these people’s friends and families would likely be suffering too. And turn the government into the enemy of these people - the source of their oppression.

From there, you could either go full on dictatorship: and use tools of the state to enforce your ridiculous plan through mass incarceration, enforced family separation: but that’s basically going to end up violent revolt.

Your plan is stupid, because it is based on your own idiotic wishful thinking about what people will do and won’t do because you say the will- rather than any objective analysis of how individuals will react.

So lets list some of the actual real world examples that demonstrate why your naive wishful thinking won’t work.

1.) Almost every communist revolution, and the French Revolution was driven primarily by the poor in the country seeing the wealth disparity - and believing that the rich are intentionally oppressing the poor. (Which would indeed be the case here). 

You’re setting yourself up for violent overthrow through your oppression.

2.) Poor people could live in tents today. They don’t do it; as it is basically becoming homeless. You cannot get a bank account, and less so Job without a fixed address, lack of clean sanitation and ability to cook and clean clothes is a major health risk, and a barrier to continued employment. Your solution “just use a neighbours house”...

That works out so well right now with homeless people, the few hundred thousand people living rough are ALL able to get jobs, have frequent showers, shave and clean their clothes on a weekly basis with no problems, right? They’re all living the dream!

No. That’s not how people work. Imagine a dirty individual walking up to your house and asking to take a shower. Most people would say no.

Worse; if they say yes it is likely because they agree that they recognize they have been forced into that position by the government: that doesn’t bode well for the government...

3.) Poor people could give up their kids today for Adoption they don’t. If they aren’t doing it now, what makes you do think they’ll do it with your plan? 

4.) People could increase their hours today for more money, for food: they can move cities for better jobs; or give up these car. They can do it today - but they don’t.
 
Why not? Because in the US you need a car, cuties are too spread out, jobs are too far away. It’s physically demanding to work that long that often; people may do it for their kids, they already earn cash under the table for informal work, the idea that they won’t do it now, but will totally do it to pay the government is irrational.

5.) You need 2000 calories per day, a mix of carbs, fat, protein, and broad set of fresh fruit and vegetables for a healthy diet. Most processed and cheap foot contain little of the latter, and lots of salt and sugar for taste and preservation.

No. You can’t live of sandwiches, cheap bread has too much sugar, the fresh fruit and veg is too expensive and doesn’t keep  outside (you live in a tent remember) long. 

Don’t pretend you have any clue about nutrition, when food insecurity and poor diets is one of the major problems that come along with poverty. 

6.) So, we know child separation is mentally harmful to children, the dietary health issues relating to food insecurity related to poverty, and from chronic lack of sleep and overwork; and issues relating to lack of clean sanitation are going to devestate the health of the poor more so than it is already. 



So no; you’re entire “plan” is bad, and the only way you seem to make it work is by assuming, naively, that humans will act against their own nature.


Worse, enacting policies that separate children, and cause excessive harm, health issues and even death, is beyond immoral: it is horrifyingly inhuman - and the fact that you seem to be more interested in vilifying individuals as “parasites”, and demanding that loving, caring parents should simply “give away” their children without recognizing or empathizing with the human cost of your own policy borders on pscyhopathic.

Worse, you’re supposed to be a Christian, and it goes against almost everything Jesus said about the treatment of others.

So yeah, good luck with that!






#60
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Ramshutu
Every single one of your absurd explanations for how human beings are going to live appears to start with:

“They can just...”

They “could”.

What you don’t get, is that they’re not going to

That is not the worst part.

He wants to sentence a signifigant portion of the population to ridiculously reduced living standards, such as litterally living in cardboard boxes and using bikes as transport, just so his rich parents can afford to get him more toys because they won't have to pay taxes anymore.

The worst part is not that he thinks this is realistic (though you are correct that it isn't)... The worst part is that he thinks this is a good thing.