0125 - Increasing the Gross Domestic Product

Discussion related to Forward

0125 - Increasing the Gross Domestic Product

Postby dr pepper » Sun Feb 23, 2020 9:00 pm

Image
User avatar
dr pepper
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 7:52 pm

Re: 0125 - Increasing the Gross Domestic Product

Postby strange7person » Mon Feb 24, 2020 11:42 am

All of Zoa's transactions are, necessarily, recorded. Even if, hypothetically, it accepted a sack of grain in exchange for its services, it would need to itemize and evaluate said sack so that it could report its earnings to its owner, pay taxes, list the sack as one of its associated assets, etc. Zoa enjoys a great deal of autonomy (because said autonomy is profitable), but it's still, in some ways, on a pretty tight leash.

Of course, all of Lee's transactions are similarly recorded and monitored. In theory, Lee could trade people services or assets, but, in practical terms, everything they do is in credits, which are electronic. We've seen quite a bit of this already in the present, as more and more commerce is handled through debit, credit, and other purely digital interactions.

The move to digital currency is (rightly) seen as exclusionary to poorer individuals, yet another way low- and no-income people are pushed to the margins of society. Businesses that don't accept cash are effectively banning customers who might happen to be poor. After all, it's hard to open a checking account when you don't have a fixed address and the money you want to deposit is a cupful of assorted change - even more so when the intermittent banking fees are a significant chunk of those earnings.

Man, remember when we were kids, and the bank paid you for some reason? That was a weird time, huh?

Anyway, I might point out that the dollar certainly still exists in Forward (the Canadian Consumer Credit is a meta-currency, its value set by fiat as a certain amount of Canadian dollars, fluctuating automatically with the cost of living), and, if Lee felt that their personal financial liberty was being infringed by a totalitarian government, they are absolutely free to convert their creds into dollar bills. They would then (as with crypto currency today) have to find vendors willing to accept tokens whose primary selling point is that the government cannot track your purchases. Also, they'd have the asset tax on those dollar bills automatically deducted from their basic income until they can somehow prove that they're no longer holding the asset. Also, although the actual purchases are anonymized, if there's enough incidental evidence that Lee's activity is detrimental to themselves or others, a red flag will pop up in some database somewhere, and they might get a visit from a sympathetic counsellor who wants to help make sure they're not inadvertently committing a crime or putting themselves in crushing debt.

Yes, the personal debt that is a hallmark of the twenty-first century economy is a thing of the past by 2167. You're also not allowed to set your own house on fire.

So, wait, instead of personal debt that any given individual could theoretically pay off someday by hard work or a windfall, there's this universal asset tax which prevents anyone subject to government authority from ever accumulating any significant material wealth? And if the government thinks you might own anything valuable off-the-books, burden of proof is on you to somehow demonstrate that you don't. Fail to prove that negative in the face of a big enough accusation and you'll fall through a hole in the social safety net.

That 25%+ tax rate seems excessive, though after a bit of research it's not utterly without precedent.
strange7person
 
Posts: 80
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2018 3:51 pm

Re: 0125 - Increasing the Gross Domestic Product

Postby MarkGyver » Mon Feb 24, 2020 3:14 pm

Tailsteak wrote:Also, they'd have the asset tax on those dollar bills automatically deducted from their basic income until they can somehow prove that they're no longer holding the asset. Also, although the actual purchases are anonymized, if there's enough incidental evidence that Lee's activity is detrimental to themselves or others, a red flag will pop up in some database somewhere, and they might get a visit from a sympathetic counsellor who wants to help make sure they're not inadvertently committing a crime or putting themselves in crushing debt.


strange7person wrote:So, wait, instead of personal debt that any given individual could theoretically pay off someday by hard work or a windfall, there's this universal asset tax which prevents anyone subject to government authority from ever accumulating any significant material wealth?


Yes anyone can theoretically pay off their personal debt. But a huge part of modern capitalism consists of investors pressuring employers to use their monopsony status to keep wages from rising with productivity. Hard work and wealth in the developed world have been substantially decoupled for several decades. I don't know/remember if Forward's asset tax uses marginal rates, but it's still possible to accumulate wealth. It's just that you'll hit diminishing marginal returns before reaching monopsonistic exploitation levels of power.

That said, anyone who truly believes in their personal merits and their ability to get at least fair value and not just depressed market rate for their work is more than free to try moving to the CSA and trying their luck. Or, if they want to keep their safety nets, they can stay in Canada and start a business which has regular revenue which keeps their wealth constantly topped up. I vaguely recall something about financial instruments make specifically for smoothing out income and asset taxes so you'd have as much available during your day off as during your workweek.

strange7person wrote:And if the government thinks you might own anything valuable off-the-books, burden of proof is on you to somehow demonstrate that you don't. Fail to prove that negative in the face of a big enough accusation and you'll fall through a hole in the social safety net.


If Lee loses their off-the-books assets, then I'm sure they can easily request and grant permission for an audit to prove their lack of possession. The difficulty of proving a negative is only proportional to the size of the area to search. For example, it's trivial for me to press Ctrl+F on my keyboard and type "leopard" to prove that your post doesn't mention that particular large spotted feline by that spelling. But proving that you've never said "leopard" on this forum would take more effort.

strange7person wrote:That 25%+ tax rate seems excessive, though after a bit of research it's not utterly without precedent.


Don't forget transaction fees. For example, Tailsteak's main source of reader support, Patreon charges between 5% and 12%, "Plus payment processing". We have little to no idea how much of the 25% is from government vs private fees.
MarkGyver
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 2:56 am

Re: 0125 - Increasing the Gross Domestic Product

Postby Darkfeather21 » Mon Feb 24, 2020 10:41 pm

So the main thing I'm taking away here is that somehow this world is still on a Gold Standard. Except instead of being bound to a rare soft metal or a crude black liquid, the CCC is just backed by an arbitrary piece of paper that the government says is worth money.

That somehow feels worse even though it's still closer to the final goal of currency than the modern day.
Darkfeather21
 
Posts: 214
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2015 2:50 am

Re: 0125 - Increasing the Gross Domestic Product

Postby lolzor99 » Tue Feb 25, 2020 11:59 am

So, it looks like Zoa can advertise a price without including additional fees. That's interesting. Of course, that's allowed in modern Canada (at least with regards to sales tax, I haven't researched beyond that) but I'm surprised there aren't rules against it, especially in the context of an oral transaction.
lolzor99
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2018 4:39 pm

Re: 0125 - Increasing the Gross Domestic Product

Postby Killjoy » Thu Feb 27, 2020 8:33 pm

strange7person wrote:
All of Zoa's transactions are, necessarily, recorded. Even if, hypothetically, it accepted a sack of grain in exchange for its services, it would need to itemize and evaluate said sack so that it could report its earnings to its owner, pay taxes, list the sack as one of its associated assets, etc. Zoa enjoys a great deal of autonomy (because said autonomy is profitable), but it's still, in some ways, on a pretty tight leash.

Of course, all of Lee's transactions are similarly recorded and monitored. In theory, Lee could trade people services or assets, but, in practical terms, everything they do is in credits, which are electronic. We've seen quite a bit of this already in the present, as more and more commerce is handled through debit, credit, and other purely digital interactions.

The move to digital currency is (rightly) seen as exclusionary to poorer individuals, yet another way low- and no-income people are pushed to the margins of society. Businesses that don't accept cash are effectively banning customers who might happen to be poor. After all, it's hard to open a checking account when you don't have a fixed address and the money you want to deposit is a cupful of assorted change - even more so when the intermittent banking fees are a significant chunk of those earnings.

Man, remember when we were kids, and the bank paid you for some reason? That was a weird time, huh?

Anyway, I might point out that the dollar certainly still exists in Forward (the Canadian Consumer Credit is a meta-currency, its value set by fiat as a certain amount of Canadian dollars, fluctuating automatically with the cost of living), and, if Lee felt that their personal financial liberty was being infringed by a totalitarian government, they are absolutely free to convert their creds into dollar bills. They would then (as with crypto currency today) have to find vendors willing to accept tokens whose primary selling point is that the government cannot track your purchases. Also, they'd have the asset tax on those dollar bills automatically deducted from their basic income until they can somehow prove that they're no longer holding the asset. Also, although the actual purchases are anonymized, if there's enough incidental evidence that Lee's activity is detrimental to themselves or others, a red flag will pop up in some database somewhere, and they might get a visit from a sympathetic counsellor who wants to help make sure they're not inadvertently committing a crime or putting themselves in crushing debt.

Yes, the personal debt that is a hallmark of the twenty-first century economy is a thing of the past by 2167. You're also not allowed to set your own house on fire.

So, wait, instead of personal debt that any given individual could theoretically pay off someday by hard work or a windfall, there's this universal asset tax which prevents anyone subject to government authority from ever accumulating any significant material wealth? And if the government thinks you might own anything valuable off-the-books, burden of proof is on you to somehow demonstrate that you don't. Fail to prove that negative in the face of a big enough accusation and you'll fall through a hole in the social safety net.

That 25%+ tax rate seems excessive, though after a bit of research it's not utterly without precedent.



Like I said before, this is a bonkers economy designed to make people as dependent on the state as possible.
Likes his women like he likes his coffee... a little sweet, a little spicy, a little strong, a little earthy, a little smokey, totally honest, and maybe a little offended by being compared to a beverage.
Killjoy
 
Posts: 448
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2016 9:58 am


Return to Forward

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: yomikoma and 2 guests