Topic's posts
Posts in total: 154
--> @Alec
Alec... if 52 times 5 is 260 and there are 52 weeks in a year then how can working 5 days a week mean working 340 days a year?

Also... are basic arithmetic and spelling skills required to be considered "compitent"?

(Yes, I am litterally just going to copy/paste this every time you make a post that ignores me until I get an answer.)
--> @Alec
Why is there now an allergy tax?

I thought that the concept of sin taxes were meant to 'punish' certain behaviors. For that matter, why is the government obligated to punish people who engage in adulterous behavior? Is it really under the purview of the federal government to interfere in people's personal relationships? 

Also, if we only garner 2 trillion dollars, it would be a major decrease from previous years when it was over $3 trillion dollars (1).


https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-are-sources-revenue-federal-government

--> @blamonkey
Sorry for not getting back to you, but I've been busy with some other people who accuse me of being a troll.

The allergy tax is designed so people with allergies have incentive to treat them, just like STDs.  This eliminates allergies within society if everyone gets their allergies treated.  I have an allergy so when I'm old enough, I can get my allergy treated and avoid the tax.

Also, if we only garner 2 trillion dollars, it would be a major decrease from previous years when it was over $3 trillion dollars (1).
In the years before 2023, we get $3.8 trillion.  This is a slight increase with no income tax.
--> @blamonkey
Sorry for taking so long, but I'm finally deciding to address your points after the headache I got with Ramshutu.  Here it goes:

Treatment =/= cure.
What's the difference?

Would people who try to treat their STDs be exempt from the tax?
Only those that succeed in curing/treating(I don't know the difference) their STDs get exempt from the tax.  An exception applies to HIV because you can't get treated of HIV yet.  Anyone with HIV would face something worse; castration, being necessary to prevent them from wanting to have sex.

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.
They could tent in the shade.  It's cooler there.  Where this spot is is up to them to figure out.

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 
Do you know why sleeping on the street is punishable?

San Fransisco, because it offers homeless shelters to people, can still ban camping in public.
As long as the shelters don't cost any additional money, I'm fine with them using a shelter.  I don't want the government paying welfare payments to people who don't contribute as much to society as the rich do.  Any poor person that thinks the businessman has it easy should honestly try being a business man.  Any struggles the poor person puts up with in an effort to make a business, rich people also tend to endure.

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.
That's if the poor person chooses the hardest option.  There are easier options that they can do, like what I call, "Weekend break option 2" where only 243 days are worked per year, or about 5 days a week with a 3 week vacation, like everyone else.  Under this model, they still get over $6000 a year once all other significant expenses are paid(food, insurance, taxes).  This money can be used for investment.

The average amount of hours worked per week is about 44-47 hours (5)
This is because if companies want to make a worker work more then they have to pay overtime.(https://www.oshaeducationcenter.com/articles/employee-overtime/). Cutting this regulation and bumping the overtime threshold to 60 hours a week (12 hours on, 12 hours off) helps enable poor people to get ahead in American society as the spreadsheet confirms.

So, teenagers who get pregnant would pay the tax as well?
They or their parents would.  

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. 
It's hard to fake a ring or photo on the spot.  A ring is very expensive, and most people who are in the situation have no idea of the tax, so the odds of them buying a ring just to show that that they are, "married" is very low, most people don't have that wit on them, even if the ring is cheaper.  I could make the unintended pregnancy tax $500 instead so people aren't likely to spend $1000 to save $500.

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).
Insurance can cover these costs and the sheet shows how poor people can afford health insurance.

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.
Good point.  Currently, the alcohol tax is pretty low, around 3 cents per beer I think, although I'm not sure.  Doubling this small tax won't be very noticeable.

People don't like paying more money for things, so they will naturally buy from the multitude of cars with better fuel economies.
Some people would barely notice the 30 cent tax price; currently gas is taxed at around 20 cents per gallon.  A 10 cent increase won't scare away too many drivers.

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 
That's in 2030, 10 years from now.  In the meantime, gas can be taxed.  When it's 2030, there would be about 320 million cars on the road, so there would still be a majority of cars still using gasoline.  Gas tax can increase gradually as the percentage of gas users goes down so it doesn't scare away too many people from using gas.

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.
For the crime that they did to the rape victim, the punishment of temporary slavery is not too cruel.  It also isn't unusual, since the 13th amendment allows slavery if punished for a crime.

What would this slave work entail?
I would say construction work managed by construction workers and prison guards seems like something that can be done.  It's ultimately up to the prisons to decide what work they need for their community. 
--> @Alec
Alec... if 52 times 5 is 260 and there are 52 weeks in a year then how can working 5 days a week mean working 340 days a year?

Also... are basic arithmetic and spelling skills required to be considered "compitent"?

(Yes, I am litterally just going to copy/paste this every time you make a post that ignores me until I get an answer.)

--> @Discipulus_Didicit
Alec... if 52 times 5 is 260 and there are 52 weeks in a year then how can working 5 days a week mean working 340 days a year?
They would work weekends because someone has to do it and they would get a 3 week break.
--> @Alec
"Because someone has to do it" in real life generally translates to "people take turns doing it"... not that you know much about real life of course.

There are a few things I would expect you to know about though. One of those things is integrity (No I don't expect you to have it, I expect you to know about it though.) You said that you had a plan where people work 5 days a week (5 days a week does not necessarily mean mon_fro obviously) but now you are pretending you never even said such a thing... and nobody is suprised given your track reckord thusfar.
--> @Discipulus_Didicit
You said that you had a plan where people work 5 days a week (5 days a week does not necessarily mean mon_fro obviously) but now you are pretending you never even said such a thing
I presented 4 options for poor people to use if they wish to survive on their own without government interference.  Some require more days per week then others.
--> @Alec
Okay; what you’re doing, is going through every crippling issue with your idea, the asserting its not a crippling issue.


Lets get specific.

Please show me how eating “sandwiches and McDonalds” can be achieved within your allocated budget. Can be done without investing substantial amounts of sugar, fat or salt - as these cause substantial health issues over time. Please also explain how macronutrients like vitamin a,b,c, etc can be kept at reasonable levels without so as not to give major health problems.

I don’t think it’s possible, and I think you’re just pulling that assertion out of your a**z


Secondly : you say there is no issue with individuals sleeping in tents, let’s ignore the issue of crime: you’ve stated people can pee and poop in “buildings”, and can work nearby.


The population of Philidephila is 1.6m people. With a poverty rate of about 26% let’s not bother calculating the number of those above the line that would now be made homeless and just assume it will effect these only.

Please show me, roughly, where you think 400,000 people in Philadelphia would sleep, where nearby locations for work and how many individual positions you would estimate would be within 2 miles.

Find a mall, estimate 1000 minimum wage vacancies - point out where nearby people would sleep, where their nearest shower facilities would be: and explain why you feel people would congregate in large tent groups near major hubs of minimum wage employment.

Also, please explain how security would work, and the specific scenario you envisaged whereby only 7-10 tents would be.

I can’t take you seriously given how you have provided absolutely no actual answer - and have simply asserted a naive assertion that the insurmountable problem how to give access to clean water, sanitation, showers to 400,000 homeless people in a city, whilst making sure these facilities are within 2 miles of 400,000 minimum wage jobs.











--> @Alec
I presented 4 options for poor people to use if they wish to survive on their own without government interference.  Some require more days per week then others.

If people can't afford to buy their cocaine then the Mexican drug cartels go out of business, leading to global economic collapse within 6 to 8 years.
--> @Ramshutu
If everyone is "working" (totally not debt slavery lol) such ridiculous hours then that means there are less jobs to go around because businesses can hire less people and just work them more hours. How high do you think the unemployment rate would get? I haven't run the numbers yet but off the top of my head I am thinking 10% easy.
--> @Discipulus_Didicit
If a full time job is working 40 hours, say; and individuals require 12 hour days 24/7 to survive: they will be required to work 84,hour weeks - so two full time jobs.

With a poverty rate of 43million. Even if we assume 75% are already working two full time jobs, the US economy needs to add 10 million jobs. Given there are arguably 100m in near poverty, and there’s probably only a minority of people working 2 jobs, that number is likely to be much much higher.


--> @blamonkey
Did I change your mind?

--> @Alec
Not really. Can't respond right now though.
--> @blamonkey
Why?
--> @Ramshutu
Even if we assume 75% are already working two full time jobs, the US economy needs to add 10 million jobs.

Looks like we currently have about 6 mil unemployed here:


So implementing ASTAP would immediately triple that then?

That is just immediate effects... a massively increased deficit would not bode well for the long-term.

Sounds great, let's do it!

--> @Discipulus_Didicit
I already established it would destroy the economy, as it would likely substantially increase the tax burden of the majority of poor people: who have the highest pay velocity. A dollar to a poor person gets spent substantially more times in a year than a dollar to a rich person.
--> @Ramshutu
I already established it would destroy the economy, 

Great. Next you can work on establishing that Superman is a fictional character and that eating food is necessary for survival lol.
What's the difference?
A cure alleviates the symptom of a medical issue completely. You can "treat" autism, but you cannot cure it completely. This applies to the STDs as well. Viral STDs cannot be completely cured whatsoever, but their symptoms can be mitigated. Bacterial STDs can be cured completely with antibiotic medication, but the overuse of antibiotics has resulted in prolonged infections worldwide. Strains of bacteria that have caused calamitous health crises have acquired antibiotic resistance because of our dependency on them (1). In other words, the treatment for bacterial STDs may not be effective in the near future.

Also, antibiotics costs money. To uninsured poorer adults, it is an unreasonable demand to pay for this sort of treatment. This is especially apparent if one is infected HIV. On average, it costs $400,000 dollars over someone's lifetime to treat HIV (2). As a result, less than half of low-income people living with HIV never get treated (2).


Only those that succeed in curing/treating(I don't know the difference) their STDs get exempt from the tax.  An exception applies to HIV because you can't get treated of HIV yet.  Anyone with HIV would face something worse; castration, being necessary to prevent them from wanting to have sex
People who are castrated, (where the testes or ovaries are excised from the gonads of subject,) can still engage in intercourse. This is from the Washington Post:

" Research on 900 castrated sex offenders showed that the rate of repeat offenses was low, about 5 percent. But 46 percent of the men said they continued to have intercourse" (3).

Libidos are dampened by the castration, but that doesn't mean they stop engaging in sexual behavior. 

This is because if companies want to make a worker work more then they have to pay overtime.(https://www.oshaeducationcenter.com/articles/employee-overtime/). Cutting this regulation and bumping the overtime threshold to 60 hours a week (12 hours on, 12 hours off) helps enable poor people to get ahead in American society as the spreadsheet confirms.
Working overtime is linked to cardiovascular disease, higher injury rate, depression, lackluster productivity, absenteeism, higher consumption of alcohol and tobacco, and a sundry of other health problems (4). The CDC uploaded an extensively researched fact sheet on the dangers of working more than 40 hours a week for a long time (5). Do these workers sound productive to you? 

It is not the workers who decide the shifts. Managers are the ones' who schedule employees' shifts. Shift managers aren't going to schedule people for 60 hours if they are not necessary. For every minute that a worker is idle, the company loses money. Perhaps companies will save money that routinely pay overtime, but the firms that do so, per my previous evidence, are heavily compensated for their work (i.e. silicon valley workers.) This is not the case for minimum wage workers. There is no reason for a McDonalds to have every employee there for 60 hours a week unless another sports team is offered a free dinner by the White House. 

They could tent in the shade.  It's cooler there.  Where this spot is is up to them to figure out.
So, tornadoes, hail, frigid temperatures, and hurricanes are all fine to experience in a tent? Even when living in the shade, this would still be concerning. In LA, temperatures were low, and the weather  was wet, causing concerns of the homeless dying of hypothermia (6). There are already over 900 confirmed fatalities of homeless due to colder weather in LA alone (6). Without proper shelters, where are these people going to live in the hot or cold months of the year?

It's hard to fake a ring or photo on the spot.  A ring is very expensive, and most people who are in the situation have no idea of the tax, so the odds of them buying a ring just to show that that they are, "married" is very low, most people don't have that wit on them, even if the ring is cheaper.  I could make the unintended pregnancy tax $500 instead so people aren't likely to spend $1000 to save $500

I think I proved my point. 
Insurance can cover these costs and the sheet shows how poor people can afford health insurance.
Even with insurance, the average out-of-pocket cost of a birth is nearly $2,000 (8). I don't think my parents,who were making about $70k a year, could afford this without dipping into credit.
Good point.  Currently, the alcohol tax is pretty low,around 3 cents per beer I think, although I'm not sure. Doubling this small tax won't be very noticeable.
At the very least it won't be as noticeable, but I don't think the budget should depend on the solvency of the alcohol industry. If sales decline further we would just keep raising the tax until beer becomes as expensive as Hamilton tickets. 
 
Some people would barely notice the 30 cent tax price;currently gas is taxed at around 20 cents per gallon.  A 10 cent increase won't scare away too many drivers.
Even if people barely register the increase in the tax, the availability and inexpensiveness of fuel efficient cars have already pushed the average miles per gallon of vehicles higher than ever. Also, a 10 cent increase per gallon would be visible to people who routinely fill up their car with gas. I have already shown that the average car fill-up would cost 9 additional dollars. Consider the transportation of goods by trucking companies such as Amazon. Do you think that they wouldn't notice the increase and adjust their fleet of cars accordingly to save money? 
That's in 2030, 10 years from now.  In the meantime,gas can be taxed.  When it's 2030, there would be about 320 million Carson the road, so there would still be a majority of cars still using gasoline.  Gas tax can increase gradually as the percentage of gas users goes down so it doesn't scare away too many people from using gas.
The majority of the money generated by Aluminium Scented Tickle-me-Elmo and Pals (ASTAP) used to come from gasoline. Now it comes from the taxes on rape, cigarettes, and additional sales tax on everything, (presumably increasing the cost of gasoline, beer, and other goods by $1 since the sales tax is universal.) The problem with Ale Soaked Tomatoes and Pickles (ASTAP) is that is depends on the consumption of these goods remaining constant. Even with the additional $1-per-unit sales tax arbitrarily increasing the price of cigarettes by $1 on top of the $10 increase, we wouldn't generate enough revenue constantly through this method. The CDC mentions that plenty of Americans still smoke, but cigarette purchases have continued to decline rapidly for years (9). It is easy to suggest that we just raise these taxes in 10 years. However, if these industries that we would largely depend on for revenue start failing, what then? What happens if an economic recession occurs and hundreds of companies are forced to shut their doors?
 
For the crime that they did to the rape victim, the punishment of temporary slavery is not too cruel.  It also isn't unusual,since the 13th amendment allows slavery if punished for a crime.

Due process can curtail certain rights of criminal offenders. Demanding that they pay off a million dollar tax through forced labor is not a reasonable demand. The Turner Test is used by courts to determine if a prison regulation violates the 8th amendment (10).While there are technically 4-factors that a regulation needs to meet to be deemed constitutional, it can be summarized as followed:
1) Does the regulation promote a legitimate penological interest?

2) Does the regulation create an undue burden on prison resources?
3) Are there valid alternatives that can serve the penological interest that you are trying to promote through the regulation?
 
The first answer is obvious. We are not promoting a penological interest at all. We are trying to fill government coffers, so deterring crime can't be a legitimate reason for passing the policy. If rape decreases, we would see an equal decline in revenue. The second one is similarly obvious. Prisons would be tasked with finding long-term employment for a convict who cannot be near areas with children. Employers aren't keen to hire rapists, and even if they were, it would take years before they can pay off the tax in its entirety. Are you going to force businesses to employ them? Nevertheless, this would definitely burden staff as they try to arrange work schedules, transportation etc. at a time when there are barely enough prison guards to the point that teachers and secretaries are filling those positions despite their complete lack of training (11). As for the last question. Well, you tell me. Are there other ways that we could tax people to fill coffers without interfering with the lives of nonviolent inmates,correctional officers, and prison budgets? The courts wouldn't hold this up. 

--> @Alec
 
I would say construction work managed by construction workers and prison guards seems like something that can be done.  It's ultimately up to the prisons to decide what work they need for their community. 
Why would we burden prisons with finding jobs for these people if they barely can afford staff or to fix prison infrastructure? The GAO reports that the current backlog of prison repairs is over 200 at federal prisons alone (12). The Bureau of Prisons should focus on the well-being of their inmates and staff members, not the federal budget. 
 
 

--> @blamonkey
Why would we burden prisons with finding jobs for these people if they barely can afford staff or to fix prison infrastructure?
I'm not sure on this, so I might be wrong, but it might be due to the lack of funds going to prison.  They get more funds by prisoners working on things like construction projects so the prisons get more funds by selling the houses they create.

The GAO reports that the current backlog of prison repairs is over 200 at federal prisons alone (12). 
What is a backlog?

The Bureau of Prisons should focus on the well-being of their inmates and staff members, not the federal 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.




--> @Alec
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, let’s deal with the practicalities of this: which clearly show 0 thought.


Firstly, where are these construction projects? Are they located in the prison? If not; you have transportation costs. Worse, you’ll need lots of guards. Keeping prisoners locked up in a secure facility is trivial - extra guards to deal with all the prisoners being out in public would be necessary: however there will inevitably be murderers and rapists that escape whilst on projects. Leave alone the issue of leaving such people in the presence of a variety of large and small construction tools.

How will all the millions of sick, desperate tent dwellers who have committed no crime react when their construction Jobs are given to convicts? What is the market size of the construction industry, is there even a market for where all these new buildings are coming from? Why build more houses when you already have 10m vacant buildings that the poor can no longer afford?

What if individuals refuse to work? Or do a poor job because they are unmotivated? Can the construction company employing them fire them? Where do they go if they are fired?







--> @Alec
What is a backlog?

Here is my comprehensive economic plan, where I both control and modify Us society, and maintain a balanced budget. I have a firm and key grasp in the personal, health and economic issues this plan would cause.

--> @Alec
The posts before the one you responded too may have some of the answers you are looking for.