How would you fix the United States' budget problem?

[Mr Bananagrabber]

The marginal utility of consumption maybe. Not the marginal utility of anything. Obviously to continue working at that point requires getting more utility from something than you'd get from leisure. I think popular opinion is that it's the wealth and power that gives you status. Your power isn't diminished by cutting back your hours worked, but the tax means that your income is now lower. So unless you want to justify the slightly ridiculous claim that at that point you receive utility from actual labour, then it's reasonable to conclude that hours worked will be cut back.

People receive utility from accomplishing the specific tasks of a job, from social comradery, the authority that the job commands and the respect of others inside and outside their field. Why does someone with 20 billion dollars continue to work? After a certain point you have to admit that the marginal utility from more money is null and it just becomes a dick measuring contest. I'd say let them measure dicks and not allow them to amass money that could be used to gain political power.

Right, but I'm saying the metric they all use to measure their dicks is net worth. You're saying they have very little marginal utility of consumption past a certain point, and I agree. You're saying they continue to work despite the fact that they don't need money to consume, and I agree. I'm saying that they continue to work because despite the fact that they don't need money for consumption, they get utility from having money in and of itself.

If that weren't the case, what would we expect to see? We'd expect to see their incomes not be so large anyway, because you don't need to provide more income to incentivise the person to work more. They'd be getting utility from the work, not from the income, so competitive forces would push the equilibrium wage down. And we'd also expect to see rich people not fighting increases in their marginal tax rates.

[Arborlawn]

People receive utility from accomplishing the specific tasks of a job, from social comradery, the authority that the job commands and the respect of others inside and outside their field. Why does someone with 20 billion dollars continue to work? After a certain point you have to admit that the marginal utility from more money is null and it just becomes a dick measuring contest. I'd say let them measure dicks and not allow them to amass money that could be used to gain political power.

Right, but I'm saying the metric they all use to measure their dicks is net worth. You're saying they have very little marginal utility of consumption past a certain point, and I agree. You're saying they continue to work despite the fact that they don't need money to consume, and I agree. I'm saying that they continue to work because despite the fact that they don't need money for consumption, they get utility from having money in and of itself.

If that weren't the case, what would we expect to see? We'd expect to see their incomes not be so large anyway, because you don't need to provide more income to incentivise the person to work more. They'd be getting utility from the work, not from the income, so competitive forces would push the equilibrium wage down. And we'd also expect to see rich people not fighting increases in their marginal tax rates.

This is why I am an essentialist.

[Mr Bananagrabber]

I agree with these two:

"Appropriate distribution of taxes based on distribution of income.
Appropriate distribution of Social Security Taxes based on distribution of income."

I'd also add, in that vein, mandatory 401k contributions to reduce the social security burden and promote self-funded retirees, a la Australian superannuation; and universal healthcare funded with a flat income tax levy.

I agree with those two, as well as lowering retirement age to 56, and lower Small Business Tax to 0%

Small business tax to 0 I have no opinion on. But why lower retirement age to 56? People are living crazy long now. The retirement age, which entitles you to social security, needs to be increased. I'd prefer that most retirees were fully self funded (and that can happen in the future), in which case I don't care when they retire. If they've got enough savings to retire at 50, that's fine by me. Their money, their business.

[Mr Bananagrabber]

Right, but I'm saying the metric they all use to measure their dicks is net worth. You're saying they have very little marginal utility of consumption past a certain point, and I agree. You're saying they continue to work despite the fact that they don't need money to consume, and I agree. I'm saying that they continue to work because despite the fact that they don't need money for consumption, they get utility from having money in and of itself.

If that weren't the case, what would we expect to see? We'd expect to see their incomes not be so large anyway, because you don't need to provide more income to incentivise the person to work more. They'd be getting utility from the work, not from the income, so competitive forces would push the equilibrium wage down. And we'd also expect to see rich people not fighting increases in their marginal tax rates.

This is why I am an essentialist.

I don't know what that means. I'm guessing you think people should only want what is essential for survival?

[Arborlawn]

I agree with those two, as well as lowering retirement age to 56, and lower Small Business Tax to 0%

Small business tax to 0 I have no opinion on. But why lower retirement age to 56? People are living crazy long now. The retirement age, which entitles you to social security, needs to be increased. I'd prefer that most retirees were fully self funded (and that can happen in the future), in which case I don't care when they retire. If they've got enough savings to retire at 50, that's fine by me. Their money, their business.

Well, I am Mediterranean. My father is Italian, and my mother is Jewish. In both cultures, once the children have started their careers, or have taken on the family's small business (Which is why I support a 0% Small Business Tax, better for families, broader economy), the parents retire, live off of a mix between government pensions and are supplemented by family pensions. I believe and support family wealth, rather than personal wealth.

[Arborlawn]

This is why I am an essentialist.

I don't know what that means. I'm guessing you think people should only want what is essential for survival?

Eh, sort of. I believe in having enough for happiness. All else is unnecessary. No need for 40 hour weeks, or working to 65 (see my last post). If we can make things easy and nice to live, do it.

[Parpolitic Citizens]

I don't know what that means. I'm guessing you think people should only want what is essential for survival?

Eh, sort of. I believe in having enough for happiness. All else is unnecessary. No need for 40 hour weeks, or working to 65 (see my last post). If we can make things easy and nice to live, do it.

That's interesting. Maximal happiness is achieved at 75,000 in America.

[Mr Bananagrabber]

Small business tax to 0 I have no opinion on. But why lower retirement age to 56? People are living crazy long now. The retirement age, which entitles you to social security, needs to be increased. I'd prefer that most retirees were fully self funded (and that can happen in the future), in which case I don't care when they retire. If they've got enough savings to retire at 50, that's fine by me. Their money, their business.

Well, I am Mediterranean. My father is Italian, and my mother is Jewish. In both cultures, once the children have started their careers, or have taken on the family's small business (Which is why I support a 0% Small Business Tax, better for families, broader economy), the parents retire, live off of a mix between government pensions and are supplemented by family pensions. I believe and support family wealth, rather than personal wealth.

I'm perfectly fine with the idea of family wealth. If the culture is for kids to support their parents financially, that's all good. But why would that extend to the taxpayer supporting them with social security? Social security means you're taxing everybody of working age, who also have families to support, in order to assist your family. Now when your country's birthrate is sufficiently low that your population begins to age, that puts an incredible burden on those of working age. It seems the European solution to this has been to enter into debt in order to fund this system. So you have two options: raise taxes dramatically on the working age with an ever increasing burden as the population ages; or you can have those who are capable of supporting themselves economically actually be self-sufficient.

[Arborlawn]

Eh, sort of. I believe in having enough for happiness. All else is unnecessary. No need for 40 hour weeks, or working to 65 (see my last post). If we can make things easy and nice to live, do it.

That's interesting. Maximal happiness is achieved at 75,000 in America.

Yes sir. Yes it is. I don't believe in the production of toys, and many other things. I would rather walk, though I'll drive long distances. I will faithfully arrive at Cafe for lunch, for 2 hours, in between my 3 hour morning shift and 2 hour afternoon shift. I would rather shop in an open market of farmers than a shopping mall, or get it from my own garden. I believe in a low standard of living (in terms of income, if you will) and a high quality of life. A middle class family should be able to survive on 24,000.

[Exalted Draconia]

Divide it into several countries, including a restored Confederacy, because the South has hated being part of the Union ever since it lost the Civil War. Then watch to see which part does best.

My own corner would be a small monarchy where I would sell titles of nobility to the highest bidder and boost tourism to the max. Locate it in Maine, I think. Plenty of lobster that way.

[Mr Bananagrabber]

I don't know what that means. I'm guessing you think people should only want what is essential for survival?

Eh, sort of. I believe in having enough for happiness. All else is unnecessary. No need for 40 hour weeks, or working to 65 (see my last post). If we can make things easy and nice to live, do it.

Right, but this is a personal choice right? If others want unnecessary shit, that's their business. It shouldn't affect you one way or the other what other people want.

[Arborlawn]

Well, I am Mediterranean. My father is Italian, and my mother is Jewish. In both cultures, once the children have started their careers, or have taken on the family's small business (Which is why I support a 0% Small Business Tax, better for families, broader economy), the parents retire, live off of a mix between government pensions and are supplemented by family pensions. I believe and support family wealth, rather than personal wealth.

I'm perfectly fine with the idea of family wealth. If the culture is for kids to support their parents financially, that's all good. But why would that extend to the taxpayer supporting them with social security? Social security means you're taxing everybody of working age, who also have families to support, in order to assist your family. Now when your country's birthrate is sufficiently low that your population begins to age, that puts an incredible burden on those of working age. It seems the European solution to this has been to enter into debt in order to fund this system. So you have two options: raise taxes dramatically on the working age with an ever increasing burden as the population ages; or you can have those who are capable of supporting themselves economically actually be self-sufficient.

The option really is to create one national 401K as I like to call it.

[Mr Bananagrabber]

Eh, sort of. I believe in having enough for happiness. All else is unnecessary. No need for 40 hour weeks, or working to 65 (see my last post). If we can make things easy and nice to live, do it.

That's interesting. Maximal happiness is achieved at 75,000 in America.

Yeah, because that's a meaningful statement.

[Arumdaum]

Do away with money and the government.

[Arborlawn]

Eh, sort of. I believe in having enough for happiness. All else is unnecessary. No need for 40 hour weeks, or working to 65 (see my last post). If we can make things easy and nice to live, do it.

Right, but this is a personal choice right? If others want unnecessary shit, that's their business. It shouldn't affect you one way or the other what other people want.

No. It affects others. This can only work if a whole society lives this way. Otherwise, they will cause increases in costs of living, etc, etc.

[Arborlawn]

That's interesting. Maximal happiness is achieved at 75,000 in America.

Yeah, because that's a meaningful statement.

Studies show that happiness increases with higher income, up to 75.000. Afterwards, happiness no longer correlates to income.

[Mr Bananagrabber]

I'm perfectly fine with the idea of family wealth. If the culture is for kids to support their parents financially, that's all good. But why would that extend to the taxpayer supporting them with social security? Social security means you're taxing everybody of working age, who also have families to support, in order to assist your family. Now when your country's birthrate is sufficiently low that your population begins to age, that puts an incredible burden on those of working age. It seems the European solution to this has been to enter into debt in order to fund this system. So you have two options: raise taxes dramatically on the working age with an ever increasing burden as the population ages; or you can have those who are capable of supporting themselves economically actually be self-sufficient.

The option really is to create one national 401K as I like to call it.

Okay. But that means you have to force people to give up a larger portion of their earnings today to give them the ability to retire early. But having it national instead of personal doesn't matter unless you plan on giving people considerably more than they personally save, in which case you have exactly the same problem as I posed before.

[New England and The Maritimes]

That's interesting. Maximal happiness is achieved at 75,000 in America.

Yeah, because that's a meaningful statement.

Eh, surveys on happiness levels showed little to no increase over around the mid 70,000s on a broad scale. Not sure how someone would base policy around that, but it's not exactly made up.

Personally, I think the issue is more about effective rates rather than just marginal. Some of this will come as ending near-permanent tax holidays for specific companies or industries, and some of it will and should come from raising our nominal rates and ending a few tax breaks like our mortgage rebates.

This should all come a bit further down the road, but it does have to come up eventually. We've been living fat and sassy on borrowed money, and everyone needs to wake up, not just the middle class and the poor who are the target of this "Expand the base" nonsense.

[Mr Bananagrabber]

Yeah, because that's a meaningful statement.

Studies show that happiness increases with higher income, up to 75.000. Afterwards, happiness no longer correlates to income.

I take it as a personal rule to disregard any sentence that begins with the phrase "studies show" as bullshit. If a study shows it, reference the study.

But that's not the point. The point was about the inherent ambiguity in a concept so poorly defined as "happiness", and the inability to accurately measure it or compare any measure across people.

[Parpolitic Citizens]

The option really is to create one national 401K as I like to call it.

Okay. But that means you have to force people to give up a larger portion of their earnings today to give them the ability to retire early. But having it national instead of personal doesn't matter unless you plan on giving people considerably more than they personally save, in which case you have exactly the same problem as I posed before.

A simple solution be to create a national mutual fund with shares of every company. Of course there are other ways of doing this but they tend to involve the absolution of work...

[Arborlawn]

The option really is to create one national 401K as I like to call it.

Okay. But that means you have to force people to give up a larger portion of their earnings today to give them the ability to retire early. But having it national instead of personal doesn't matter unless you plan on giving people considerably more than they personally save, in which case you have exactly the same problem as I posed before.

Rather incorrect actually. I have examined some studies showing that it would only require people, all working people, to put in 1% of their income for 40 years, to produce enough for everyone to retire at 250% their annual salary before retirement.

[Parpolitic Citizens]

Studies show that happiness increases with higher income, up to 75.000. Afterwards, happiness no longer correlates to income.

I take it as a personal rule to disregard any sentence that begins with the phrase "studies show" as bullshit. If a study shows it, reference the study.

But that's not the point. The point was about the inherent ambiguity in a concept so poorly defined as "happiness", and the inability to accurately measure it or compare any measure across people.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 28,00.html

The authors found that most Americans — 85% — regardless of their annual income, felt happy each day. Almost 40% of respondents also reported feeling stressed (which is not mutually exclusive with happiness) and 24% had feelings of sadness. Most people were also satisfied with the way their life was going.
(See TIME's special issue on the science of happiness.)

So, where does the $75,000 come into play? Researchers found that lower income did not cause sadness itself but made people feel more ground down by the problems they already had. The study found, for example, that among divorced people, about 51% who made less than $1,000 a month reported feeling sad or stressed the previous day, while only 24% of those earning more than $3,000 a month reported similar feelings. Among people with asthma, 41% of low earners reported feeling unhappy, compared with about 22% of the wealthier group. Having money clearly takes the sting out of adversities.

[Mr Bananagrabber]

Right, but this is a personal choice right? If others want unnecessary shit, that's their business. It shouldn't affect you one way or the other what other people want.

No. It affects others. This can only work if a whole society lives this way. Otherwise, they will cause increases in costs of living, etc, etc.

Well first off, it's say it's none of your business telling other people what they should want. Second, the cost of living for us, in this consumerist environment, is already bullshit low. Also, dude, you're on a computer right now; so you're clearly not that into this essentialist stuff. You don't need anybody else's cooperation to go and pull a Walden.

[Mr Bananagrabber]

I take it as a personal rule to disregard any sentence that begins with the phrase "studies show" as bullshit. If a study shows it, reference the study.

But that's not the point. The point was about the inherent ambiguity in a concept so poorly defined as "happiness", and the inability to accurately measure it or compare any measure across people.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 28,00.html

The authors found that most Americans — 85% — regardless of their annual income, felt happy each day. Almost 40% of respondents also reported feeling stressed (which is not mutually exclusive with happiness) and 24% had feelings of sadness. Most people were also satisfied with the way their life was going.
(See TIME's special issue on the science of happiness.)

So, where does the $75,000 come into play? Researchers found that lower income did not cause sadness itself but made people feel more ground down by the problems they already had. The study found, for example, that among divorced people, about 51% who made less than $1,000 a month reported feeling sad or stressed the previous day, while only 24% of those earning more than $3,000 a month reported similar feelings. Among people with asthma, 41% of low earners reported feeling unhappy, compared with about 22% of the wealthier group. Having money clearly takes the sting out of adversities.

Great, you've learnt the miracle of citation. Kind of ignored the meat of my post though...

[Arborlawn]

No. It affects others. This can only work if a whole society lives this way. Otherwise, they will cause increases in costs of living, etc, etc.

Well first off, it's say it's none of your business telling other people what they should want. Second, the cost of living for us, in this consumerist environment, is already bullshit low. Also, dude, you're on a computer right now; so you're clearly not that into this essentialist stuff. You don't need anybody else's cooperation to go and pull a Walden.

Essentialist is not minimalist. Differences exist between the two. Essentialists would deem a computer essential now that everyone in society has one. Minimalists would deny computers for the exact same reason Essentialists have them. Essentialists do not reject modernity, essentially just wanting to use modernity to make life easier and simpler. Minimalists reject modernity. You are a Minimalist. Good job being a jackass.