Re: the future long term financial apocalypse of the USA

On Fri, 31 May 2024 11:27:18 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

On 5/31/2024 11:02 AM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

On 5/30/2024 3:06 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:

On 5/30/2024 10:49 AM, Cryptoengineer wrote:

On 5/30/2024 11:18 AM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

On 5/29/2024 9:12 AM, Paul S Person wrote:

On Tue, 28 May 2024 11:51:23 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:
>

On Thu, 23 May 2024 02:24:03 -0400, Kevrob <kjrobinson@mail.com>
wrote:
>

OTOH, sending every adult in the country, say, $4K/mo and then
taxing
the heck out of any income over $48K might work. Particularly as
people lose interest in working and robots take over their
jobs. It
could even use a single rate, applicable to all, since those not
making very much would be making their $48K ($96K for married
couples,
of course, plus $48K for each dependent). At last! A single-rate
proposal that everyone can support!

>
Sounds like Huey Long's old proposal (smaller numbers of course given
it was the 1930s - and over a certain amount he wanted to tax 100%)

>
I have sometimes toyed with the idea that, given such a scheme, the
tax rate should be set at /what is needed to balance the budget/ plus
pay 10% of the National Debt off. But there are obvious problems:
>
1. Actually paying the National Debt off might not be that good an
idea. But paying it down to a reasonable goal might be.
2. Republicans would squeal like stuck pigs. OK, /that's/ nothing new,
but the National Debt is their only weapon to destroy Social Security
with, and actually reducing it is something they would never tolerate.
3. Democrats wouldn't use the extra to pay off the National Debt;
they'd just spend it. Eventually, the rate needed would exceed 100%,
which is clearly a non-starter.
>
So, while what I proposed above might help with some things, it won't
help with others. OTOH, in 100 years, say, when 99% of current jobs
are held by machines, /some/ method of keeping the Rest of Us alive
and distributing the goods will be needed.

>
But will the people owning the machines doing 99% of the work agree?

>
This is going to be a serious challenge, and its not the people *owning*
the machines, as it is the people *controlling* them.
>
How long before the Morlocks decide they don't need so many Eloi,
even if they're the stockholders, and can't be eaten?
>
[Yes, I know this plays into conspiretard theories about Population
Reduction.]
>
pt

>
Depends on how many guns that the Eloi have.
>

And if the Morlocks who control the manufacture of guns and ammunition
continue to supply the Eloi....

>
Yes. Actual power lies in the hands of those who can make and do
things. People who only consume, and don't produce, exist by the
tolerance of the former.

And when those who can make are all machines? Do we want to be in
control of our machinery or do we not?

This is fine when there's bonds of affection between one and the
other - parent to child, adult to retired parent, or disabled
relative, but when the means of sustainment of non-productive
people is drawn from  society as a whole, those who provide
will start to wonder just why they bother.
>
We're starting to see more calls to cut back Social Security
and other entitlements. I expect this will increase, more
rapidly as the demographic crisis in  developed countries
starts to bite.

We are seeing calls from a political party that has been doing
everything it can to destroy Social Security since Ronny was elected.

And even some of them are smart enough to want to fix it instead. They
know how their voters will react if it is gone; it will make the
reaction to the repeal of Roe v Wade (more properly, to that party's
laws passed as a result) look like a tempest in a teapot.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"