Author
|
Topic: No money?
|
Gregory Stegeman |
posted 11-03-98 03:16 AM ET
I think I posted this before or it might have been a dream. there should be a way for your civilization to eliminate money. I guess they kinda did with energy but do common people use money still. Or do you tax them for energy.
|
Roland
|
posted 11-03-98 08:05 AM ET
That would be a very weak faction. No money, no music, as we say... |
DJ RRebel
|
posted 11-03-98 08:35 AM ET
No music ??? Aaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrgh !!!  |
Roland
|
posted 11-03-98 08:45 AM ET
Yes, it's awful. But think about it: would you do your DJ job for free ?Therefore: Ohne goed ka musi! |
DJ RRebel
|
posted 11-03-98 08:52 AM ET
If I had all my needs taken care of by the government enough to make me content .. sure .. what is money anyways ??? It's evidence of work ... I'm sure someone could figure out a neat way to get around it's use !!! Ah ... but humanity is too gready and it wouldn't benefit the people in power because they are the rich, and in a society with money, you know what they say ... the rich get richer while the poor get F#@&3d !!! |
Roland
|
posted 11-03-98 09:03 AM ET
Such a system would only do away with the virtual money we have right now, but still, you'd have a sort of exchange of goods and service. Who would produce the things for your "needs taken care of by the government enough to make me content" ? How would you get them ? Vouchers, credits, it's all a kind of money.And I like money, BTW...
|
DJ RRebel
|
posted 11-03-98 09:30 AM ET
ok .. point taken, I like money too but my theory is this:I work my job which goes towards filling the total needs of the entire community .. and if everyone else does the same thing, then in theory no money would be needed if the population works hard enough to fulfill all their needs !!! Ex: X amount of farmers provide food for the entire population, X # of workers make the equipment needed for the farmers, X # of engineers to make the roads to connect everyone together, X # of doctors, X # of entertainers etc etc etc ... if the right balance was struck, and people acted with honesty, integrety and moderation when needed, this type of society could flourish ... but I have yet to meet one person who fits that description in its purest form, so it really wouldn't work in a human society in this day and age !!! |
Roland
|
posted 11-03-98 10:48 AM ET
I still doubt that would work. Even with the best will, money and market are the two things to optimize resource allocation... |
Silent Bob
|
posted 11-03-98 06:37 PM ET
Besides, money is the only thing that gets me out of bed in the morning. What's my motivation to work hard in that society? I might as well take a job as a door stop because I'll get as much money as the president.Besides, I'm already getting f***** out of 40% of my paycheck by our government so don't tell me that people who aren't working are getting screwed. |
Zoetrope
|
posted 11-03-98 10:42 PM ET
Don't forget that money is something produced by government to keep us all under its control.Sceptical (I'd say naive)? Why do you suppose notes and coins are legal tender only if the government issues them? And why do they have politicians' faces on them? Who do you suppose decides what's your property and what is not? Who do you suppose has the power to put a freeway through your house whenever they want? Or to uproot your garden to put a mobile phone tower there? Money and property rule, sure. But who rules money and property? Do they do that by your consent, or by market choice, or by brute force? Talking of freedom (or its lack), wouldn't it be a nice change if members of your faction could decide they'd had enough of being imposed on, and set off to establish a life of their own, as free settlers? |
Roland
|
posted 11-04-98 05:39 AM ET
Bob, 40 % ? US taxation ? Really ?For me it's about 35 % (in good ol' Europe)... guess I earn less than you do, but if I include VAT, that would make it about 45 %. Interesting... On a bit diffreent calculation method, it would be about 50 %. Ok, we are overtaxed... but 40 % still amazes me... |
Heckler
|
posted 11-04-98 05:57 PM ET
Actually when you concider all factors U.S. tax goes Higer than 40% you dont want to forgetHigher prices because of taxes on empoyers to support the unemployed. Sales tax. And most of the money spent on insurance can be traced back to Government pockets. Heckler (I'm thinking I'm thinking give me a minute) |
Pudz
|
posted 11-04-98 06:57 PM ET
Umm, a marxist socitey wouldn't need money would it? everybody would do their best, and everyones belongings would belong to everyone, you wouldn't have to bye anything. , but still i like my benjamins. Hey I worked hard for them!!! ~8^) |
Silent Bob
|
posted 11-04-98 08:52 PM ET
Yeah, they stick me for 40%. That's the total of federal, state, disability, social security, and up the *** tax. And it's not like I'm making a whole lot. In California the cost of living is higher than most of the country so salaries are higher. Here 3 bedroom track houses across the street from the prison in Milpitas (a nearby town) are going for over 400K. I can't afford one but the gov't says I'm making over a middle class salary and taxes me higher. You see, the poor aren't really the ones getting screwed by the government. The hard working american is. But that's just my gripe....don't want to get you all down. What I look forward to is that with the way property prices are going here I can sell my 2 bedroom condo for some outragous price like $2,000,000 when I'm ready to retire and move to a place where money actually holds value. |
Roland
|
posted 11-05-98 05:44 AM ET
This is really interesting.Let's take an average income here: say 40.000 $. That would be taxed about 50-52 %, if I include everything from income tax, payroll tax, sales taxes (VAT) etc... If you take an average US income, say 45.000 or 50.000 $ (?), and include all those taxes, how much would it be taxed ? It's just amazing as statistics usually put US taxes at 30 % of GDP, und ours at 44 %. Translated, this would be 35 % for an everage income. Where's the differnce coming from ?
|
Silent Bob
|
posted 11-05-98 01:51 PM ET
45,000 - 50,000 is an average to above average salary in most parts of the country. In silicon valley, california it doesn't get you very far. Anyone under 30,000 here is eligible for low income housing. Compared to most of this country, europe is worse with taxes (or so I've heard). But salaries are high in silicon valley so that makes the cost of living rise and puts me in a higher tax bracket. |
Fenris
|
posted 11-05-98 02:47 PM ET
From what I understand the average salary in the US is somewhat less than 40K/year. It is probably 40-50K for the white collar market, but blue collar pulls it down. However, I also live in California and that skews my whole perspective.The 30-40% tax figures that have been quoted earlier are just the obvious ones. Their are many hidden taxes; sales, use taxes, property taxes, etc. that in actuality boost the tax figure well over 50%. |
Roland
|
posted 11-05-98 02:55 PM ET
If that is true, I either gotta redo my calculations or the usual statistics are all wrong. With average, I meant about average, or some middle income as an example. I put the US figure a bit higher as statistics (again) say that income in the US is a bit higher.No, for the 40.000 $ figure I get, even with a sales tax boosting spending pattern, not beyond 55 %. If it is truely 40-50 % in the US for about the same income, the only other reason I could think of is that there are more huge single incomes in the US, and they are a lot less taxed than here. Probable, but I guess you know more about that. Just here, you won't get much beyond the 55 % as well.
|
MikeH II
|
posted 11-10-98 08:31 AM ET
Those are high average salaries. How are you guessing them? |
Roland
|
posted 11-10-98 01:26 PM ET
I'm taking some numbers that have been considered average salaries. I could also try this one (for Austria):GDP: 2500 billion ATS (300k per capita) 1600/1700 bill: income (rest: I'd have to look up the stats) 1200 bill: income for workforce (excluding capital gains, entrepreneurs) 1200 bill : 3 mill workers = 400k per year 400.000 ATS = approx 35/37k $ That's all before taxes. So the 40.000 $ figure is around average, though it may be higher. |
MikeH II
|
posted 11-10-98 01:41 PM ET
I don't know what the average is here but if $30,000 is about �20,000 I think that would be reasonable. But I get less than that, then again I'm still training basically.I know all that kind of data is on the CIA site but I feel nervous going there for some reason. Must be all the "YOU ARE BEING MONITORED!" warnings they have. Very useful for research into economies of countries though. |
Fluke
|
posted 11-11-98 12:08 PM ET
Well I live in one of the most tax intensive countries in the world (at least income tax wise) but it doesn't bother me. The first 5000$ is tax-free (I really wish I could remember the right word) after that it's 50-68%. But then again there's some money that everybody get like childcheck about 120$ pr. child pr. month and there's a pension all get if they're over 67. And when I decide to go to university (and I will unless I get a real job somehow before) it will be free! And with my average I can get in just about anywhere I want (I have no plans to become a midwife or a shrink). I like that, I like that I can need get heart surgery without having to pay for it the rest of my life. And the basis of my lifeview is that there is nothing to fear in the world and I can't think of anything that I would trade that for.'cept love |
Ultra SupremePaco
|
posted 11-11-98 05:48 PM ET
In my area, the average annual salary is $100,000. Sure, call us spoiled. But because of this, no one really wants to accept low paying or minimum wage jobs. Not even the High School students, they would rather get paid a lot of money from their parents. It's a workers' market over here...~Paco |
Ultra SupremePaco
|
posted 11-11-98 05:50 PM ET
Did I mention the cost of living is really expensive, but the quality is superb? This area comes with its pros and cons... |
Roland
|
posted 11-12-98 05:23 AM ET
100.000 $ ? Whoppa....Mike, I think the numbers are about right. The 400k ATS is about 20k pounds; if we take an exchange rate that's a bit more realistic, maybe 23k. Average income should be a bit higher here than in the UK, as per capita GDP is a bit higher. But 100k $... NIMZUGAL SMACNORD... |
Roland
|
posted 11-12-98 08:44 AM ET
And I just love seeing thgis discussion in a thread entitled "No money?". Off topicness at its best... |