Re: Awfully quiet in here...

On Sat, 9 Nov 2024 19:55:24 -0500, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

On 11/9/2024 12:03 PM, Paul S Person wrote:

On Sat, 9 Nov 2024 09:54:47 -0500, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
 

On 11/9/2024 8:32 AM, D wrote:

>
>
On Fri, 8 Nov 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>

D  <nospam@example.net> wrote:

On Fri, 8 Nov 2024, Paul S Person wrote:

>
Idaho.
>
Or Montana.
>

Thank you Paul, that confirms what I have so far been thinking about in
terms of places to move to. I have also heard good things about Wyoming,
South dakota, and someone, as strange as it may sound, also recommended
the far eastern parts of oregon. Not sure about that one, but that
was one
recommendation as well.

>
Oregon is weird because it has a very wide mix of different locations
with
very different cultures in the same state and while you might like the
far eastern part, you won't like the state politics as a whole (because
neither side does).

>
Sounds like sweden! No one likes the politics and very different
cultures depending on the area you are in.
>

You would like Wyoming if you like long distances with nothing.  It is
almost the opposite of Europe in terms of just being able to feel like
you are nowhere.  I find that pleasant for a while, but not long-term.

>
Sounds excellent! Since I generally do not like people, being in the
middle of nowhere, with a dog or two sounds like heaven! Sadly it is not
going to fly with the wife since she wants culture, opera and all that
stuff. So I imagine that sadly, in the end, it would have to be 2-3
hours by car from some kind of bigger city. =(
>

You might like Alaska in that Alaska is filled with people who have an
intense interest in personal independence.  Unfortunately it is also
filled with people who have problems who had thought that if they could
just get to Alaska that everything would be fine, and so they brought
their problems with them to Alaska.

>
Alaska is on my list! I did find anchorageopera.org so maybe that could
work! ;)

>
Alaska, unfortunately for your politics, has a government that
interferes in the free market, with a Universal Basic Income
scheme
>
The state has a $50 billion Permanent Fund, and sends checks
to every resident each year. The amount varies by year,
$1200 - $3000 being typical.

 
Actually, it's more of a "everybody gets a share of the profits from
our oil" program.
 
And its taxable federally. Even the checks sent to the kids.

>
How does that work? The minimum income for Federal taxes is
$13,850. The checks don't come anywhere near that. Is it that
they family has to file jointly?

My experience was 20 years ago when I worked for the IRS. So the
answers then may not apply now. I might recommend consulting Pub 17,
which should contain at least a summary and a referral to something
more detailed if not the full details themselves.

Also, I worked very few cases, so any comments I make might, in
theory, identify one or the other, which would be a violation of
Federal law (release of confidential tax information).

The whole point of UBI is that the UBI itself is not taxed. Only
additional income is taxed.
 
Whether this is actually a good idea is a good question. But in 200
years, when most jobs are done by machines and positions filled by
humans are filled either by lottery (the losers -- rather, draftees --
serve) or the courts ("I sentence you to be City Manager for three
years") because nobody wants to work since most people can not for
lack of job availability.
 
But as long as we have more jobs than people to employ, UBI is
probably not ready for prime time.

>
I"m actually fully in favor of UBI, but it seems to run
contrary to 'D's seemingly Objectivist philosophy.
>
ObSF: I first heard of the idea of a UBI in PJF's
"Riders of the Purple Wage".

--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"