Topic's posts
Posts in total: 188
--> @Alec
I'm not sure on this, so I might be wrong, but it might be due to the lack of funds going to prison. 
Perhaps. Although, the Bureau of Prisons budget has steadily increased over the last couple decades according to my GAO evidence. This is in part due to shifting national priorities toward defense spending, and the ever-present drug war. 

They get more funds by prisoners working on things like construction projects so the prisons get more funds by selling the houses they create.

So the Bureau of Prisons will reap funding from the construction work instead of the profit being subsumed by the government coffers? It doesn't seem like the project will be worth much if the funds are only distributed to the BOP. Throwing a lot of money at something is not automatically going to make it better. If you want proof, consider the fact that over 70 million dollars was spent on the creation of Jack and Jill (2). After watching the film, if you don't immediately desire to hurl yourself in front of a stampede of elephants, then perhaps you have no soul. Hell, I might even prefer slave labor to watching the equivalent of nails on a chalkboard in movie form for what feels like 3 and a quarter eternities. 

But in all seriousness, onerous parole conditions, hefty legal fees, systemic racism, and mistreatment of the mentally ill pervades the legal system along with the previously mentioned faulty prison infrastructure. No matter how much funding we get from selling houses, these social ailments will probably never be solved without significant focus on the issues of prisoner well-being in the US. If prisons are struggling to pay for adequate staff, it is reasonable to suggest that they could fix their infrastructure dilemma without a heavy dose of government subsidies? I think not. 

What is a backlog?
In this context, it is the accumulation of incomplete work. The repairs on prison infrastructure from years ago have not been completed or started, and as the prisons become decrepit with age, violent outbreaks due to vile prison conditions proliferate. We need money to fix this problem, not add money to the budget. 


The inmates, especially if they are rapists, arsoners, kidnappers, murderers, or people who commit high treason don't deserve good treatment.  Otherwise, jail wouldn't be much of a punishment.  Staff members I think already have good treatment, although I might be wrong.  The aim of my idea is to keep prisons a state owned endeavor that pays for itself and pays the government for the crimes the criminals commit.
A couple things. First off, hiring enough guards to watch over rapists, murderers, kidnappers etc. would exhaust prison budgets, causing revenue to plummet regardless of the sold product. There are hundreds of thousands of people convicted of violent crime in prison (1). How would we be able to monitor the supposedly dangerous people in these prisons from hurting their fellow inmates or themselves?

Regardless, given the previously mentioned constitutional test, this plan stands on shaky legal ground at best.

Since I have space left, I wanted to address a previous argument that you made in a different thread because it is tenuously linked to this one. Specifically, the Eugenics plan would sterilize 15% of Americans. Even if you implemented this plan "slowly," there would be a definite decline in population as a result. I mean, you even mention the possibility of sterilizing more people after the initial 15% of Americans, so I doubt that the results would take a long time to manifest anyway. Sans an explanation as to why rich people will suddenly f*** like bunnies, I can't see this tax plan working in the long term. If the population decreased, then there would be less people consuming alcohol, tobacco, gasoline, etc. Sin taxes would not provide enough revenue if there were no people willing to buy the products. Sure, one could make the argument that we would need less tax revenue because of the declining population. However, if the point of this new tax plan and eugenics plan is to bolster economic growth, then it is doing the opposite of what you intend as GDP constricts and productivity declines.

You might have missed it, so look at posts 144 and 145 for my full response. 

In brief, I don't think Alec's Seriously Troubling Action Plan (ASTAP) will work as intended.


--> @blamonkey
Alec's Seriously Troubling Action Plan (ASTAP)

Not bad.
--> @Discipulus_Didicit
Alecs simply trolling again, people.
Jim
27 days later
--> @blamonkey, @Ramshutu, @Discipulus_Didicit, @Club
ASTAP got significantly modified.  Most of the taxes are gone.  Just a sales tax remains.  What do you guys think of it?
46 days later
--> @Alec
Most of the taxes except the adult american tax is pretty small in cost, and I don't have a rape victim tax.  I do have a rape tax because rape is evil.  I have an unintended pregnancy tax to discourage people from having premarital sex.  I have an STD tax to encourage more people to get their STDs treated.  Alcohol should be discouraged with a tax.  Same with smoking.  The adultery tax is supposed to discourage non consenting adultery.  Adultery breaks families apart.
Yikes.

So, zero privacy and zero freedom.  Nice.
--> @3RU7AL
ASTAP changed to operation 15.  Now, it´s just a 15% sales tax on everything.
--> @Alec
Has the same issue as before with increasing wealth inequality
--> @dustryder
The problem that Alec comes from a wealthy family and so increasing wealth inequality is a good thing in his eyes.
How is wealth inequality a bad thing?  If one person has $1 Million and another has $1, there is less inequality than if one person has $1 Billion and another has $1.  Yet the latter situation is better because the GDP per capita is better.  If a poor person doesn't like their job due to lack of salary, they could find a better job that doesn't require a college degree.
--> @Alec
Terrible analogy. It is stupid things like that which make people think you are trolling.

A better analogy would be choosing between:

One person with $1mil and 1000 people with $1000 each

Or

One person with $1.8mil and 1000 people with $200 each

This is because your plan of taxing the rich less than the poor does not magically create money from thin air.

If you were creating money out of thin air it would still be a problem because that is something called hyperinflation. Hyperinflation is bad. Hyperinflation would mean that your parents would have to buy you a 2016 Fusion for your next birthday rather than a 2020 mustang. Unthinkable I know, but such are the horrors of a broken economy.
--> @Alec
If only a few people are becoming wealthy while others become destitute, that is a legitimate concern. The US democratic process depends largely on wealth, lobbying, and leveraging one's political capital against another. The Sunlight Foundation found that politically active corporations spent over $5 billion dollars in lobbying, and received over $4.4 trillion dollars in government grants and contracts (1). The voice of poorer people is dwarfed by these corporations that can use their bulky profit margins to get what they want.

Also, those who are chronically impoverished tend to have little money to influence elected leaders. Sure, they can vote, but gerrymandering, minor drug offenses, and the winner-take-all electoral college system used in 48 states inhibits the power of people's vote. Instead, low-income people spend more money on housing, energy, and other basic needs that are barely met. Due to the chronic stress of meeting basic needs and medical inflation, the socioeconomic status of a person can determine, to an extent, how long you are going to live. The University of California, San Francisco found that:

"Impoverished adults live seven to eight years less than those who have incomes four or more times the federal poverty level, which is $11,770 for a one-person household" (2).

Also, income inequality does pose numerous economic concerns. For example, South Africa is considered to be one of the wealthiest countries on the African continent (3). Yet, over half of the country is impoverished (4). Would it really be fair to suggest that the economy of South Africa is fine if half of the country struggles to buy food, clothing, and shelter? I doubt it. 
 
Sources

--> @Discipulus_Didicit
This is because your plan of taxing the rich less than the poor does not magically create money from thin air.
Not saying that money comes out of thin air, but wealth does get created.  For example, if you have 5 cents worth of raw materials, you can create a $500 IPhone.  $499.95 gets created in value and no one loses money in the process.  If you hire someone and it costs $100 to hire them, they make 

your parents would have to buy you a 2016 Fusion for your next birthday rather than a 2020 mustang. Unthinkable I know, but such are the horrors of a broken economy.
I have never received either of these things and I can live with it.  I´m not some billionaire's son.  Your stereotyping and you should have better conduct.
--> @blamonkey
If only a few people are becoming wealthy while others become destitute, that is a legitimate concern.
It is a concern.  However, under my plan, the poor would not become destitute.  They merely have to find a better job that doesn't require a college degree.  My sheet shows some jobs they can take.  The University of Georgetown confirmed that there are up to 30 million jobs that don´t require a college degree and pay over $55,000 per year.  Reduce that standard to $35,000 per year, and the number of jobs will skyrocket from this already high amount.

Instead, low-income people spend more money on housing, energy, and other basic needs that are barely met.
Given that the rich spend more on investments, and these would also be taxed at 15% the profit collected, this kindof makes it even.  I think it generates much more revenue than a 15% standard income tax because some of the rich don´t pay income tax due to loopholes.  If the rich don´t pay income tax, then why should the poor?  A 15% sales tax is much harder to avoid for those that don´t want to pay any tax.

"Impoverished adults live seven to eight years less than those who have incomes four or more times the federal poverty level, which is $11,770 for a one-person household" (2).
They wouldn't be impoverished if they found a better job that doesn't require a college degree.
--> @Alec
I'm in the path of Hurricane Dorian, so I won't be able to have a prolonged conversation about this. However, the statistic you used is misleading. It doesn't tell us where these jobs are, or if they require technical degrees and/or 2-year training programs. The data from Georgetown that you cited indicates that most of the jobs created that don't require college degrees will be in skilled-services industries (1). Incidentally, 70% of the US population has no college education (2). 30 million jobs is a lot, but it won't cover every American without a college degree. Another Georgetown study found that holistically, compared to the job figures from 1997, higher paying jobs only requiring a high-school education has decreased, while higher paying jobs requiring 4-year diplomas has increased (3).

I wasn't going to challenge the 15% tax yet. I haven't the time considering the fact that I might lose power in a couple hours. I would be curious to see how this would affect inflation. Coupled with state-level sales taxes, the sales price of taxed products could increase by 22%. Lower income people only making 20k a year who spend most of their money on necessities such as food, medicine, and shelter would disproportionately be affected by this tax.


--> @Alec
A 15% sales tax is much harder to avoid for those that don´t want to pay any tax.

It's actually really easy to avoid if you're rich, just don't spend 100% of your income. Wow, it's almost like rich people do that already... hmm...

People that aren't insanely wealthy do have to spend 100% of their income though. If they don't, they literally die of starvation.

How does your brain work?
--> @blamonkey
I wasn't going to challenge the 15% tax yet. I haven't the time considering the fact that I might lose power in a couple hours. I would be curious to see how this would affect inflation. Coupled with state-level sales taxes, the sales price of taxed products could increase by 22%. Lower income people only making 20k a year who spend most of their money on necessities such as food, medicine, and shelter would disproportionately be affected by this tax.

I already pointed this out (post 99). He is okay with it because it would not effect him.
--> @Discipulus_Didicit
Sorry about that. Didn't realize that it was already addressed. I would argue that it would affect him though. Perhaps the lack of an income tax would greatly increase his disposable income, but he still needs to spend money on necessities like food, medicine, and shelter. People aren't impervious to price increases, especially when certain goods, (such as a college degree,) are becoming all the more necessary and expensive. I am fairly privileged, but that doesn't mean that I have a few thousand dollars laying around that could pay for prescription medication, a car, or the black-hole that is a college degree, sucking in every penny from my bank account and leaving me with nothing but existential dread about my future career and possibly a heart disease from worrying about exams. 

--> @blamonkey
Sorry about that. Didn't realize that it was already addressed. I would argue that it would affect him though. Perhaps the lack of an income tax would greatly increase his disposable income, but he still needs to spend money on necessities like food, medicine, and shelter.

The wealthy spend a significantly smaller percentage of their income on such things than others. Replacing income tax with a sales tax would disproportionately affect less wealthy individuals for this reason and directly lead to a massive increase in wealth inequality.
--> @Discipulus_Didicit
That I agree with. It is a regressive tax that disproportionately targets the poor who are ill-equiped to deal with an increase in price.

--> @blamonkey
 It doesn't tell us where these jobs are
I think the poor people can move to the jobs if they are not found within a local area.

The data from Georgetown that you cited indicates that most of the jobs created that don't require college degrees will be in skilled-services industries 
The workers would have to learn a skill, but this is easier and cheaper than attending a 4 year college.  

30 million jobs is a lot, but it won't cover every American without a college degree.
There are about 210 million American that don't have a bachelor's degree, but some people have an associates degree and no bachelors.  1 states that about 45% of the population has an associates degree.  So the number of people that need jobs is about 176 million.  There are 30 million jobs that don´t require a college degree that pay more than $55,000 per year; to make it even more specific, cite 3 stated that the amount of high paying jobs (median salary of $56,000 per year) that only required a high school degree, is about 13 million.  How to merge these numbers so they are about the same is to let the people who want jobs that qualify in.  What I mean by this is most companies don´t have caps for the number of workers in their company; they just expand their business if they do.  You may be worried about wages falling or unemployment skyrocketing, but that just doesn't happen when you introduce people to better jobs.  I have historical reasoning to back this up.

When African Americans were freed, a concern was that if they were freed and allowed to work the same jobs as white people, that they would take jobs away from white people.  This did not happen.  When women were allowed to work the same jobs as men, a concern was that women would take the jobs away from men.  Did the unemployment rate rise to 50% or so when women were introduced into the workforce?  No.  Businesses find a way to expand when a new freshman workforce is introduced.  The implementation of the policy that I call ¨The Switch¨ as an alternative to the minimum wage would introduce a huge wave of poor people to better jobs that companies would be able to fill as history has confirmed.

Coupled with state-level sales taxes, the sales price of taxed products could increase by 22%.
People already pay sales tax on a state basis, so sales tax would not rise by 22%, just 15% unless your state decided to get rid of the income tax too.

Lower income people only making 20k a year who spend most of their money on necessities such as food, medicine, and shelter would disproportionately be affected by this tax.
The tax at this level only exists until we can pay off the US debt.  After that, the sales tax falls to 8.2%.  This may sound like it still hurts the poor, but the poor already pay a 10% tax on their income.  Assuming they do spend all of their money on necessities, they end up not having to pay an income tax and instead have to pay a smaller sales tax(2).
We don't need people to work lower paying jobs. They can just quit and get higher paying jobs and everything will be fine.

-Alec 2019

OH NO I HAVE MADE A TERRIBLE MISTAKE! I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT NOBODY WORKING LOWER PAYING JOBS MEANT NOBODY WOULD BE AT CHIPOTLE TO SERVE ME THOSE HUGE BURRITOS I LOVE SO MUCH! I REGRET EVERYTHING!!!

-Alec 2025 in the alternate timeline where he won the presidency in 2024 and turned his 'ideas' into reality... Somehow...
The one thing I agree with right-wing libertarians on, that they disagree with the left-wing-type on is that when government starts to literally punish you based on your own life decisions that harm yourself pretty much and no one else, the government is being a tyrannical cunt in the making.

Stay the fuck out of people's personal lives, it is not the government's place to fine or tax people based on what they choose to do in their spare time so long at the other citizens at large aren't harmed. Adultery is strangely worded. Do you mean cheating specifically or sex out of wedlock and in wedlock outside of it which could be consensual swinging and what-not? If you mean the latter as well as cheating, I totally and utterly loathe the moral policing. If you mean cheating specifically, where there's lying and betrayal involved, you're going down a slippery slope because where do you draw the line?

If the government can dictate the kinds of unofficial betrayal you can't do, it inherently incensitivises you to betray and con only in specific ways that scar people anyway, psychologically. You can't fix a society by constantly punishing the evil, sometimes you need to let people who want to be good simply spread their love and let that be the motive.

--> @Discipulus_Didicit
Your point here is if there are no minimum wage workers than there would be no more goods for people.  However, costumers can get these products because the companies that have minimum wage and low wage workers can automate.  No one goes broke since all the workers find better jobs that don’t require a college degree.
@RM

It’s either a sales tax on everything or a bigger income tax on your income for the most part.  The sales tax isn’t meant to punish, its to generate revenue for the government to pay off our massive debt.  Once the debt is paid off, then the national sales tax has to be only 8.2 percent to pay for everything that is needed.