Discussion on Living Income Guaranteed

Back to Latest topics

How do you feel about the abolishment of Personal Tax?

E3e733ce654a9058566d3a2fd6ae0f9a?s=45&d=identicon
Maite Zamora Moreno

Should L.I.G. be funded through Tax or rather through Nationalization of the Country's resources, where personal tax can then be abolished?

Posted
39ea31417feac1c80ad6bb7a37957442?s=45&d=identicon
Bella Bargilly

LIG should not be funded through tax as that is like charity, where the rich give to the poor but the essence of the system is not changing and the inequality remains.
I agree with abolishing of personal tax. I read a report on Monday in the local newspaper saying that according to the annual report of the tax payers union, only this Monday the Germans start working for their own pockets - meaning that if one looks at the numbers, people's income for their work (from January to beginning of July) has gone into Tax and social security payments. This sums up to appx. 53% of one's salary. That's just huge!

Posted
C44896419315a543c8b58ca5af3dd47e?s=45&d=identicon
Anna Brix Thomsen

In Scandinavia we currently pay some of the highest income taxes in the world. It is fine from the perspective that we've got very well-functioning public systems, like the free education and nearly-free health care system. However there is virtually no organ or institution that decides where the tax-payers money will be allocated, except for government officials and various lobby groups. So we are constantly seeing huge concert halls and bridges and other 'cultural landmarks' being built -- whereas other areas of the system are in dire need of funding. And as a tax-payer I have little to no influence over this because we have within a representative democracy already handed over the trust and authority to the government to make the best decisions on behalf of the citizens. So I would be happy to stop income taxes if it means that a system with a higher level of transparency, accountability and common sense is implemented - where the 'communal' money is allocated to where it is most needed, even if it is beyond the country's own borders.

Posted
45300b72e83e2de0ae929cd1f783c805?s=45&d=identicon
Ann Van Den Broeck

This is a comment someone made and posted on facebook:

Government is still government. Centrally coerced power nonetheless.

" If we define competition as the ability achieve the best living condition in a society " has absolutely NOTHING to do with competition within a free market sense. Such fundamental misrepresentations / rebranding of words is disservice. None of these terms mean anything. "Activation of the economy"?

Who knows what standards they employ for not interfering with the "nationalization of natural resources". How do you qualify "interfere with public services"? Who the hell even determines what is objectively the "highest quality"?

This is complete monopoly of resources, enstated through force / coercion / compulsion, with extremely ill-defined definitions of language. This is one step away from having a dictator.

A HUGE issue with this program, besides the mind-blowing idiocy in their understanding of basic economic concepts, is the perversion of price.

I guarantee you if you linked a good description on how they intend to replace the price mechanism I'll blow it away in a second. Not even Zeitgeisters' resource-based economy can figure this out.

You know how monopolies are kept in check in a FREE MARKET? Companies A, B, C, D. A uses profits / loans to buy companies B. Company C raises the price of his business since he knows that company A is trying to corner the market. If Company A tries to buy D he either already used so much of his $$$ or took on so much debt than company D can simply hold on and corner the market himself.

Self-interest and FREE markets naturally limit these things. It is self-regulating.

How about collusion? A, B, C, and D form a union and agree to raise prices across the board. Guess what? The first company who defects from the pact and drops his prices gets the WHOLE market share. In return the other 3 companies HAVE to lower their prices as well.

Probably have never heard that in your entire life.

It's a big ol lie that the government "protects" you from monopolies and collusion. They kill the competition and FORM the monopolies. Governments take out the risk of monopoly by taking AWAY the risk. Ever hear of bank bailouts? Privitized profits and socialized losses? They only got that big anyways because of the government. The problem isn't banking. It's the coercive nature of government which traps people (under the point of a gun) to this fraud.

Bureau of Standards? I mean the hell, it is not economically efficient of ideal to produce everything to the "highest-standard" possible. Should a lead pencil be made from Brazillian hardwood? Would wooden pallets for shipping all be required to be made from hardwood to withstand maximum weight load? Would we even have the existence of goods such as particle board / press wood / mulch (after all ALL of these were reinventions of waste products which had no productive use before...... but according to this theory we should have not have even cut the lumber before we planned what to do with the chips). You put this policy in place 100's of years ago and we'd have no such thing as cheese or whey protein because damn........ once you make the cheese we'd have to employ 100 researchers to find out what to do with the whey! Guess no cheese until we figure out the "perfect plan" eh?

The understanding of the fundamentals are completely whack. Even if you cut past this hogwash it ultimately is just coercive force / violence by the state put into extreme, pretty much Soviet Russia or Communist China. Centrally-planned, coerced ideals through "objective calculations" that seem good on paper but starve millions due to misallocation of resources.

Not really worth any more of my time. All of the 10+ pages from this program have been utterly shameful. If it wasn't for the fact that stupid people can "democratically" vote and enslave the rest of us under this type of tyranny I wouldn't even bother.

Posted
Db61277056b0e616207838f79546984a?s=45&d=identicon
Leila Zamora Moreno

The person who wrote you this comment has undoubtedly a very strong conviction about government and importance of free market / laissez-faire. It is clear that he or she has read the Living Income Guaranteed proposal through this lens – and thus interpreted the information through already preconceived ideas and fears which resulted in a distortion of what the proposal actually states and stands for.

We will write up a blog to address these misapprehensions.

Posted
45300b72e83e2de0ae929cd1f783c805?s=45&d=identicon
Ann Van Den Broeck

Awesome! Thx Leila. Looking forward to it, and will send it through once it is online.

Posted
E3e733ce654a9058566d3a2fd6ae0f9a?s=45&d=identicon
Maite Zamora Moreno
Posted
91088b79593a9b290f21a2d50d4e0672?s=45&d=identicon
Viktor Persson

Taxation obviously doesn't work – it only places financial strain on the weakest in society and creates an enormous governmental machine that really doesn't make any sense.

To remove personal taxation would mean that lot's of resources are freed up – that our government will shrink in size and that we can instead focus upon building our own personal lives with that money. Still there are some cool points that should still be funded, like the police, firefighters, health-care and education – but this can be done rather through a value-added tax – so that the taxation becomes fair and proportionate in regards to the extent in which you participate in the system; with income taxation there is no such proportionality and fairness existent.

Posted