Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Quite frankly, I would never want to be dependent upon some church or institution to make decisions about my care, unless I had PAID them to do so. I am relying on my investments to enable me to provide for my own retirement - one that I choose, where I make my OWN decisions thank you very much.
You could choose where you want to go, but the funding would be derived from cooperative control and sharing of capital, so you would not have to pay anything off hand.
Well, they are technically not double dipping, since gains tax is assessed on gains and not the amount you invested post tax.
But here is the catch. The government and or Fed purposefully keeps inflation at 2-3% and my investment needs to "gain" at least that amount to be even. Why should I pay gains tax on the whole amount of gain, and not just the amount over inflation? If they continue to tax the whole amount of gain, I should be allowed to claim tax break on the amount I lost to inflation as well. Not gonna happen either, I know, but I thought I should stake a claim here
I’m fine tying the 90% CGT to inflation so value is not loss.
My point is capital ownership should not equate to a growth or shrinkage in wealth (when at all possible).
I noticed you missed my question. I'll pose it again:
How would this work? Where would my checks in retirement come from? What is the mechanism that would be generating the revenue needed?
Generating revenue is not the question, in fact it doesn’t have to be a factor.
If communities owned the capital they used (electric systems, infrastructure, etc.) that capital could be used and maintained by the community democratically allowing retirees to utilize these infrastructures without having to worry about property taxes, or any charges on public service.
And it would free up health institutions, families, and religious institutions to provide support for the elderly.
If you don't allow people to make money off of capital, they will not own capital after a few years or a generation. If that's your goal here, whom you think should own capital? I mean, you know, human civilization needs capital to make farm equipment, cars, new medicine, new computers.
What you were proposing originally is not new. Most throughout the human civilization, there was practically no growth. Do you really want to go back to stone age or to an early agrobased society with no modern medicine, transport system and smartphone/computer? I bet you don't have the skills to survive even one day in that condition - most left wing propaganda toting millennials can't survive either.
1. To your first paragraph, yes, I see this as a good thing.
Capital should be owned cumulatively by the people who use it (either through consensus or democracy), so while capital could not be accumulated independently, it could be shared cooperatively cross farms and industry based on production requirements.
2. Yes there will be less (which again I see as a good thing) but that doesn’t mean people will go backwards technically;
Inventions will still happen, it is just the application that will be limited as there would be no large for-profit organization to market it (which is a good thing for multiple reasons).
And bartering, trading could still happen, but major public infrastructure couldn’t be utilized by one vendor as all who use it own it.
Do you really think retirees should be dependent on corporate wealth? Stock investments along with commodity investments make buyers reliant on the well being on the company/seller of commodity to produce wealth for them.
Wouldn’t it be much more sustainable to have community cooperative investment offer the institutions retirees needed to live life well?
Why on earth do you think a co-op agreement is more sustainable than well diversified investment portfolios? Practically speaking, how would that co-op work? What is my incentive to work harder if I don't see the results of my work?
You need to explain why you think a community cooperative would be sustainable before going forward.
1. To your first paragraph, yes, I see this as a good thing.
Capital should be owned cumulatively by the people who use it (either through consensus or democracy), so while capital could not be accumulated independently, it could be shared cooperatively cross farms and industry based on production requirements.
2. Yes there will be less (which again I see as a good thing) but that doesn’t mean people will go backwards technically;
Inventions will still happen, it is just the application that will be limited as there would be no large for-profit organization to market it (which is a good thing for multiple reasons).
And bartering, trading could still happen, but major public infrastructure couldn’t be utilized by one vendor as all who use it own it.
I'm curious, why do you think that your utopian principles and practices don't have wide-spread support? Why haven't they been implemented if they are such superior ideas?
I'm curious, why do you think that your utopian principles and practices don't have wide-spread support? Why haven't they been implemented if they are such superior ideas?
Because power wants to retain power.
My ideas are the natural state of human organization without an organizational force opposed to it.
Since the state period, power has always used wealth. propaganda, force, and entertainment to retain and grow there power.
The government and the corporations, and the military (part of the government) will lose power so they must build a system where these ideas can't be entertained and to build so many economic barriers to make it seem nearly impossible.
Why on earth do you think a co-op agreement is more sustainable than well diversified investment portfolios? Practically speaking, how would that co-op work? What is my incentive to work harder if I don't see the results of my work?
You need to explain why you think a community cooperative would be sustainable before going forward.
Investments in the private sphere don't involve the creation of wealth, but the ownership of capital. The fact that you can become wealthier from not producing anything is problematic in that the more wealth someone controls, the greater access to freedom and economic control that is provided to them (which is finite in nature).
It is natural to first work with those closest to you, and secondly with those in another location;
We clean our own dishes for free because that is what we must do to sustain our living standards, similarly people pool together resources when they cannot own/control anything because that is what is necessary for public works.
Native tribes didn't share because they were more benevolent than us, but because they had needs to do as such.
Like I posted here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
Generating revenue is not the question, in fact it doesn’t have to be a factor.
If communities owned the capital they used (electric systems, infrastructure, etc.) that capital could be used and maintained by the community democratically allowing retirees to utilize these infrastructures without having to worry about property taxes, or any charges on public service.
And it would free up health institutions, families, and religious institutions to provide support for the elderly.
My ideas are the natural state of human organization without an organizational force opposed to it..
No, your ideas are the natural state of human organization for very small groups (less than 150 people in total) where everyone knows everyone else personally and where almost everyone in the group is related to everyone else (by either blood or marriage). That organizational system breaks down outside those conditions! Why you can't seem to grasp that is beyond me. Most people have no difficulty realizing that a group of hundreds, thousands, or millions of people can't run using the same organizational structure that works for a hunter-gatherer band or a small Neolithic village.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
