Well, thats what happens when the political scene is dominated by old people, who know how to calculate loans...
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Sunday, June 14, 2009 8:45:58 AM)| |  | Deep Freeze wrote: | | No! They wouldn't! AND.... that is just the way it is ( *throwing my hands up..**) HAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Thats true, I guess. I just did the maths for us - lets say that GMI is 300€/month, and with a population of 2 million, that means 600 million € per month... Or per year, it means more than 3/4 of the entire budget.
IDK, I still think it would be possible. Those loopholes can be closed, but considering that we would have to tax the rich... Well, it would be a political decision, and since politicians themselves are rich, I dont think they will decide for it.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | axing the rich is getting harde and harde to do...IRS and government leave a million loop holes for the wealthiest to protect their money...not including offshore accts...it all sounds great in theory, but it practicality, it won't work for lack of funds...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | I agree, and thats why I like the idea of GMI. Now, the minimum wage here is a joke too. 500€ total, which means that the worker gets about 300€. Which if you are single and have the good fortune of owning your home, is enough for a basic survival. If you have kids, and a rent/loan payments to pay, its imposibble to get through the month without welfare.
Now, GMI would be set somewhere between 200€ and 400€, and it doesnt matter if you have any other source of income. So, that means that for someone with a minimum wage, the overall income would double. If you have kids, they would get GMI too, which means even more money. Of course, I dont doubt that GMI wont happen anytime soon. So far there were a few articles in the press, and a TV debate about it, but nothing more serious.
As for funding, taxing the rich would be enough, imo. And a bit more responsibility in managing the budget (which usualy means less toys for the military, and Im always in favour of that), and I think we could pull it off.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | My goal would be to create a system that keeps everyone above the poverty level, and that would include those that work...minimumwage in the States is a joke...the problem would be funding it all, I mean, we're talking serious bank here...how could this be pulled off?? Even taxing the wealthiest would only put a dent in what would be needed,,,
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ok... Crime seems to be sooo 2 days ago, so how about a new topic...
GMI - Guaranteed minimum income. A proposal of a system that would replace the current welfare systems. Each citizen/inhabitant (depending on the proposition) of a certain country gets a certain amount of money each month - old, young, employed, unemployed, rich, poor, married, single, doesnt matter. Everybody gets a specified amount of money.
Basicaly the idea is that it would help redistribute the wealth - if such a system would be instituted, rich would be more highly taxed, therefore they would pay in taxes much more than they would get through GMI. Thats one way, or if you happen to have oil, you can do like Alaska, and fund it through oil profits (Alaska along with a village in Namibia are the only cases of that in practice - there was a Canadian city in the 1970s that had it, but has since abolished it).
On the other hand, the minimum wage would have to be a lot higher than GMI, so that work would still pay off more than simply staying at home and collecting the money. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
