The future and AOC

oliverclaude

General Morden's Aide
As just another clueless Eurotrash, who dares to lurk into Dumpster's infamous hole, I must admit, the thread title made me very curious. So... AOC = Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, an American politician and activist and... WOW! She's got everything the next Pope should call his own: She's a young (29) and attractive woman, identifies herself as Catholic of Latin-American ancestry but, apparently, also has Sephardic Jewish roots -- yeah, that's the real thing, none of that Ashkenazi counterfeit, the girl made her homework. She strongly supports LGBT, is a DP socialist who already worked for Bernie Sanders, and yeah, she can also dance. Hot. Her political style, with all her raving Twitter followers and sympathy schisms, has been described as Trump 2.0, well, at least kind of. Jahana Hayes, Ilhan Omar (as seen with her on the Rolling Stone cover): brace yourselves! Here comes AOC, the future not-future of the Democratic Party. Nice. Talking about automated cars, it seems that automated design of politicians, tailor made as one size fits all, isn't so sci-fi anymore.

P.S. Regarding OP's questions: 4 x No.
 

norton9478

So Many Posts
No Time
For Games.
20 Year Member
The two Sci Fi books that explain the shit in this thread are "Player Piano" by Kurt Vonnegut and "Plague On Wheels" by kilgore trout.
 

evil wasabi

The Jongmaster
20 Year Member
Is your question not in relation to the current day, but in regards to some fanfic of yours 1,000 years from now?

How do we get from the world today into this utopia?
Certainly, millions will die before it happens.

Considering earth’s current population growth is at 131.4 million per year, and the death rate is 55.3 million per year, we can strike that comment from the rhetorical question. Millions are dying no matter what.

Otherwise, so much that we think to be necessary are not. So much that we think to be important are not. We are given concepts like gender, race, nationalism, to fuel tribal conflict and dull senses, while the magician palms the coin in a slight of hand.
 

lithy

Most Prominent Member of Chat
20 Year Member
Considering earth’s current population growth is at 131.4 million per year, and the death rate is 55.3 million per year, we can strike that comment from the rhetorical question. Millions are dying no matter what.

Otherwise, so much that we think to be necessary are not. So much that we think to be important are not. We are given concepts like gender, race, nationalism, to fuel tribal conflict and dull senses, while the magician palms the coin in a slight of hand.

I don't know where you are ultimately driving this thread but I like it.

Also, it is sleight not slight, only mention because I had no idea until recently.
 

Xavier

Orochi's Acolyte
20 Year Member
What a load of shit. Ok, it can happen now, almost every job outsourced (not what we are talking about) or automated (ok). Cheap and lazy? lol If it saves them money they would be all over it. Self-service McDonald's kiosks are the best example you can come up with? In the past, every job that people thought would be obsolete has been replaced by several other jobs in its place. Glass blower in the late 1800s? Well glass molds did put them out of work, but now you needed techs to work on the glass machine. Stifling economic growth to 'save jobs' is always a bad idea and a long term failure.

Lithy says^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

While you raise some good and points about electric cars i know there has to be some push back behind the scenes from teamsters and others who worry about the possible 5 million US workers who wil be displaced.

I'd estimate in most any industry it would cost at least several years of workers wages to fully automate. Many large wealthy corporations have already made the leap and do so whenever the chance arises.

Most companies haven't though because it would take several years to get a return and nobody cares about several years out at this moment in time. Everything is about what next quarters earnings look like.

I recently quit a job after working there for a couple years. They are updating machinery, (getting the same machines only newer) and twice now they've removed and disposed of the wrong machines before figuring out that it wont work for them and they still arn't installed or running.They also also have used equipment they find and its takes them years to install it, several more years to getting them running but still not working right. Other equipment's been broken for six months to five years.

Heck the trash compacter dumpster was broken for a month when I left. Trash was overflowing everywhere. You would think that one would be easy enough for someone to tackle . Implementing more automation would be x4 for everything. They have a hard time just keeping up with ten year ago. In fact they recently just finished getting windows 7 installed on everything.

BTW good job describing econ101, and that's how things should work in a perfect world. Guess what though the world isn't perfect.
 
Last edited:

norton9478

So Many Posts
No Time
For Games.
20 Year Member
Green New Deal is essentially WWII only instead of everybody building ships, tanks and planes to destroy, we are building windmills and solar panels.

Instead of inventing radar and proximity fuses, we are inventing smart grids and self shutting apliences.

Instead of inventing nuclear fission, maybe we will invent sustainable cold fusion.
 

Xavier

Orochi's Acolyte
20 Year Member
I keep hearing people say wealth distribution over the last decade.

I find it disturbing if by that they mean anything other than a more progressive standardized and fair tax code for large corporations and extremely wealthy individuals.
 

lithy

Most Prominent Member of Chat
20 Year Member
I keep hearing people say wealth distribution over the last decade.

I find it disturbing if by that they mean anything other than a more progressive standardized and fair tax code for large corporations and extremely wealthy individuals.

"more progressive" and "fair". Ok, start by defining fair, a term people love to throw around.

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2018-update/

FF622_1-1024x739.png


FF622_2-1024x739.png
 

evil wasabi

The Jongmaster
20 Year Member
"more progressive" and "fair". Ok, start by defining fair, a term people love to throw around.

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2018-update/

FF622_1-1024x739.png


FF622_2-1024x739.png

I'm going to write a bunch of shit you already know.

Fair is that every individual pay for the government to the extent that they can afford. A Filthy rich 1% can afford to pay more in taxes, and many of them pay nothing - and as they are doing everything within the law, it's ok for now. The rich pay more because the government serves them more than they do you or I.

On a legal philosophy note, law began as a way to protect private property. The very ten commandments are about criminalizing theft of property, real, chattel, or otherwise, in the eyes of God. We have seen these translated into real property law, criminal codes, family law, etc. Breaking these down, you find that these protect those who have against those who should have not.

Offering universal healthcare, for example, is an extension of this legal philosophy of protecting the property of the rich by dulling the masses with healthcare. Infrastructure jobs protect the rich by taking the serviceable males out of the criminal pool and giving them something to protect (their shitty job and income) (also, all people are criminals at the whim of the government). Expansion of government, which is done by both parties, on a basic level removes people from the unemployed and gives those otherwise virtually unemployable people a reason not to engage in crime. Those people, integrated into the system, serve as daemons to protect the wealth of those who have it, both by their function and by their illusion of purpose and self value.

The red line, the mendoza line, is whether the tax protects your property more than the government interferes with your life.
 

Xavier

Orochi's Acolyte
20 Year Member
Yeah yeah. In the last 20 years or so people with dependents who make under $75k a year pay little to nothing in federal income taxes. Cool story bro.

Every time I've looked into it these people who don't register in your stats pay a higher percent of their income into other taxes like sales tax, city , state, property, automotive, gas and so on.

There's different types of wealth accumulation. You knows there's getting enough to live comfortably, enough to retire, set up your children. Then it starts becoming some sort of a contest to build a multi generational dynasty to winning the game of Monopoly and leaving everybody else with nothing.

Right after setting up your children the tax rate should start to skyrocket. I dunno if I had to guess I'd say that somewhere around 5M+ a year.

I guess it comes down to do you believe that people who have more things than you are better than you or others who have less. Because that's what your being sold. We need to keep cutting taxes on the weathly and give them more money because they're better than you. They do what's best with money and it will trickle down to you.
 

lithy

Most Prominent Member of Chat
20 Year Member
I'm going to write a bunch of shit you already know.

Fair is that every individual pay for the government to the extent that they can afford. A Filthy rich 1% can afford to pay more in taxes, and many of them pay nothing - and as they are doing everything within the law, it's ok for now. The rich pay more because the government serves them more than they do you or I.

On a legal philosophy note, law began as a way to protect private property. The very ten commandments are about criminalizing theft of property, real, chattel, or otherwise, in the eyes of God. We have seen these translated into real property law, criminal codes, family law, etc. Breaking these down, you find that these protect those who have against those who should have not.

Offering universal healthcare, for example, is an extension of this legal philosophy of protecting the property of the rich by dulling the masses with healthcare. Infrastructure jobs protect the rich by taking the serviceable males out of the criminal pool and giving them something to protect (their shitty job and income) (also, all people are criminals at the whim of the government). Expansion of government, which is done by both parties, on a basic level removes people from the unemployed and gives those otherwise virtually unemployable people a reason not to engage in crime. Those people, integrated into the system, serve as daemons to protect the wealth of those who have it, both by their function and by their illusion of purpose and self value.

The red line, the mendoza line, is whether the tax protects your property more than the government interferes with your life.

To your first point, while I would agree that the government 'serves' the high earners more, low earners receive more in services than they pay in, so even in a services based tax system they would be worse off. I personally prefer consumption based taxes over income based and if we really want to, then exempt a set amount or maybe some classes like food/clothes (but then there are luxury items within those classes, so how to distinguish).

Good (if cynical ;)) perspective on the rest.

Yeah yeah. In the last 20 years or so people with dependents who make under $75k a year pay little to nothing in federal income taxes. Cool story bro.

Every time I've looked into it these people who don't register in your stats pay a higher percent of their income into other taxes like sales tax, city , state, property, automotive, gas and so on.

There's different types of wealth accumulation. You knows there's getting enough to live comfortably, enough to retire, set up your children. Then it starts becoming some sort of a contest to build a multi generational dynasty to winning the game of Monopoly and leaving everybody else with nothing.

Right after setting up your children the tax rate should start to skyrocket. I dunno if I had to guess I'd say that somewhere around 5M+ a year.

I guess it comes down to do you believe that people who have more things than you are better than you or others who have less. Because that's what your being sold. We need to keep cutting taxes on the weathly and give them more money because they're better than you. They do what's best with money and it will trickle down to you.

You won't find me disputing that certain taxes have a differing impact at differing income levels. The question though is how is it possible to remedy that. Why is it that Democrat voting states have the highest state income taxes if those taxes are unfair to low earners?

I can believe that high earners are extraordinarily fortunate/lucky and didn't 'earn' $5M more than me simply through their hard work and perseverance or being simply better than me and still believe that they should be allowed to accumulate wealth as they wish without a disproportionate burden of taxes. Even completely level tax brackets still leaves the high earner contributing a larger portion of the tax base.

Progressives want to appeal to the 'goodness of man', that we should do something to save the environment or help the poor, but then they use the tax code and force of law to make those things happen. Under your ideal, the Gates Foundation doesn't exist. Is it worth the tradeoff? Do you think the government, given the right resources can do better for the everyman?

I get it, even a 60% real tax rate on someone earning $10M/year leaves them with an extraordinary amount of money. Enough that after one year, I could retire under my current spending and feel like I never had to work another day. But...then again, if I just work one more year...

Maybe trickle down doesn't work, but also maybe I don't care to take my pound of flesh from anyone else.
 

evil wasabi

The Jongmaster
20 Year Member
“Tauntauns, mr. President! This is a native reptile mammal species indigenous to the Ice Planet Hoth.”
 

Xavier

Orochi's Acolyte
20 Year Member
“Tauntauns, mr. President! This is a native reptile mammal species indigenous to the Ice Planet Hoth.”

What was this all about? I've had time to reflect now and I still don't get it. It wasn't funny for the most part except for the sheer absurdity of it. Guess the guys made a name for himself.
 

evil wasabi

The Jongmaster
20 Year Member
What was this all about? I've had time to reflect now and I still don't get it. It wasn't funny for the most part except for the sheer absurdity of it. Guess the guys made a name for himself.

he made a great effort to shame AOC with memes. It was kind of lolz, like if your local retirement home found 4chan.

It painted AOC's green deal as something that it's not. She wants to update infrastructure to be more efficient and to get our transport to be carbon neutral. This isn't bad unless you're a republican who can't rectify the profit flow.
 

norton9478

So Many Posts
No Time
For Games.
20 Year Member
They say it will also take away cheesburgers and ice cream although there is potential in there to give dairy and beef farmers a subsidy/tax credit for recapturing methane gas which they can use for heat/energy production. Which would be paying them to harness free energy.
 

RAZO

Mayor of Southtown
15 Year Member
Nah son, I need my red meat and dairy. Dont want to turn into one of those frail vegans. Medium rare all day.
 

Tripredacus

Three 6 Mafia
10 Year Member
"more progressive" and "fair". Ok, start by defining fair, a term people love to throw around.

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2018-update/

FF622_1-1024x739.png


FF622_2-1024x739.png

This is worthless without context. Where is the chart showing what percentage these groups have in the total amount of money in the country? Whatever this chart reflects:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealt...tes#/media/File:US_Wealth_Inequality_-_v2.png
Should be included when using charts like that.
 

lithy

Most Prominent Member of Chat
20 Year Member
This is worthless without context. Where is the chart showing what percentage these groups have in the total amount of money in the country? Whatever this chart reflects:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealt...tes#/media/File:US_Wealth_Inequality_-_v2.png
Should be included when using charts like that.

The top graph shows that the top 1% has 19.7% of the total adjusted gross income...

The top 10% account for 46.6% of total AGI.

Is that the context you are looking for?
 

Tripredacus

Three 6 Mafia
10 Year Member
Hmm perhaps. Is there a chart that shows similar to the one I put, but from wages only? I have some feeling that the chart I posted would include investments and other things that would not apply to anything that gets taxed.
 

SML

NEANDERTHAL FUCKER,
20 Year Member
Hmm perhaps. Is there a chart that shows similar to the one I put, but from wages only? I have some feeling that the chart I posted would include investments and other things that would not apply to anything that gets taxed.


Get in the pinball thread and tell me what you think about the new Black Knight.
 
Top