Quote from: Foxpup on December 09, 2012, 12:59:35 PM

Quote from: neptop on December 09, 2012, 12:24:28 PM

Money doesn't come from taxes that only rich people have to pay and so the system doesn't rest on their shoulders.

Instead, everyone has to pay, although the rich still pay more, for reasons I will explain below.

Quote from: neptop on December 09, 2012, 12:24:28 PM

The money will in the end go to working people

No it won't. There is no end. No matter how much money the working people make, the non-working people still keep getting their free money.

I am talking about the combination of these two. The 1000 USD, if devalued will be used up and therefor go to the working people, which use it to basically pay for the inflation. Not?

Quote

Quote from: neptop on December 09, 2012, 12:24:28 PM

You won't be able to afford any kind of luxury, if 1000 USD are worth even less

True. And that is a bad thing. Why would anyone think that's a good thing?

[/quote]
Cause it requires people to work, in place of how it is now, where you can lie back and still have what you want.

Quote

Quote from: neptop on December 09, 2012, 12:24:28 PM

Pays would therefor (I guess) be higher, so you won't have this "I'd earn as much, if I didn't work" thing

Guess again.

Devalued money, same work: Higher pay than what the difference between working people, who don't earn much money and people that live on welfare is currently

Quote

Quote from: neptop on December 09, 2012, 12:24:28 PM

It isn't like a tax, because it's not bound to some specific thing (doesn't matter how rich you are)

It is bound to specific thing (your money), and therefore it does matter how rich you are. If your money is being devalued by (say) 10% every year, and you have (say) $100,000, then that's exactly the same as paying $10,000 tax per year. If you have $1,000,000, you're paying the equivalent of $100,000 tax per year.

I am not talking about fixing everything, but making it fairer than it is right now. You pay a different tax depending on how rich you are and receive a different amount of welfare (and that's what I meant with being bound to something) depending on what kind of illness you have, what job you are best at and whether you go to the army.

Quote

Quote from: neptop on December 09, 2012, 12:24:28 PM

It is no traditional minimal income, because it is added and doesn't depend on anything and isn't just for poor people/people who don't work

It is not being added, for there is nothing to add. As I said, the demand for money is fixed, so every dollar that you print is a dollar deducted from the collective purchasing power of everyone who owns dollars. By distributed those dollars to everyone whether they're working or not, you are stealing from everyone who has money (and presumably worked for it), and giving to everyone who doesn't (ie, those who aren't working).

First off working power is not money. I know that, because I don't work a lot, yet receive way more money than people who do, just for sitting on my ass. I usually donate a lot of it, because I feel uncomfortable (seen that donate to EFF/get a humble bundle cheaper thread of mine? I basically donate to all the projects that are about putting power into people's hands (know something?)).

Second, it depends on your view of money. The US and China kinda had a competition (and that was in both Bush's and Obama's time) of printing more and more money to basically devalue their debts. So that already happens only that who receive it isn't evened out.

What I meant with being added is:
Non working guy: 0 + 1000
Working guy: 2000 + 1000

while minimal income, like a lot of countries have it (even if it's a more complex system) is like:

Non working guy: 0 + 1000
Part time worker: 800 + 200
Hard working guy: 2000 + 0

I think from this system you could better work away from stuff like health care, scholarships, family stuff, etc. into the direction where people can choose what's important to them. It also would make administration way easier and therefor make a lot of taxes unnecessary. That's what I am heading for and what I meant with the difference compared to socialism.

Quote

Quote from: neptop on December 09, 2012, 12:24:28 PM

I know, it has an effect and if you really read what I wrote you think that it will act like a tax, because the devaluation is bigger for working people, right? Do you really think the effect would be the same even though the gap between working and none working people is probably even higher than now?

The gap between the working and non-working people will decrease, not increase, and that's bad. It punishes people who work and rewards people who don't.

Compared to the current system, even with money devaluation, really?

Quote

Quote from: neptop on December 09, 2012, 12:24:28 PM

Also do you think it would maybe still be a better solution to have it like that rather to have this complex welfare system every country has now?

Better than what we have now isn't really saying much.

Well, I didn't expect this to solve all problems, just make things better would be a first step.

Quote

Quote from: neptop on December 09, 2012, 12:24:28 PM

If you still think it's exactly the same would you mind telling me why you think it is?

It's not exactly the same. I neglected to mention that inflation, unlike taxation, is an invisible sack of shit. But it stills stinks, and everyone knows it stinks, though the uneducated can't tell where the stink is coming from.

[/quote]
Uh, yep a Bitcoin based economy would be better. I think so too or a society where people are educated. Basically, because I don't think we would have a huge problem with non-workers anymore, but yeah that's why I made that thread. Want to know alternatives and steps to get there. I don't really care, if I am completely wrong with that. I didn't study economy and writing under a pseudonym, so I will at least know I am wrong.

I just consider inflation more fair than taxes, because it evens things out more than all the tax systems. I mean either it's unfair for people who simply were like born into a poor family or something and even if they had potential and will to become workers will end up not getting education and stuff and for society that means that they'd lack a Stephen Hawking, because he had the bad luck of being disabled.

I also think that it would make a difference to the current system, because I think what really makes people work is society. I mean, no matter who you are you are still a human and extremely influenced by the society you are in. Be in Germany in the wrong time and wrong family and you will very, very likely be a Nazi. I mean same thing basically happened in Rwanda only that nobody intervened, because they were no real threat like Germany. Anyway, just making a point on how big the influence of society. You could say the same about the kind of music you listen too, football team you support or the words you use. And if you want to be different you do the opposite. Still influenced by it.

So basically you wanna be rich for society. Be it for your family, for being able to wear nice clothes or to follow your hobbies (if you really hate society).

I don't think strong socialism really was killed because of that. I mean, see Cuba (my standard example on this forum). They support US students and African countries, doing much better than other countries in that area, while having the strongest super power as enemy and being financially sanctioned by it. I think that would kill every EU country. Also from documentaries it's kinda weird. Poor people work and are super happy and rich people are like sitting in their villas living there for free and off the state. Seems to work and from people I know from there the poor ones don't just pretend to be happy. Don't saying Cuba is a good country. It actually sucks in most ways, but given these facts I don't think that the criticism from earlier is like completely true and I think the reason actually is society.