Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Living Allowance - Simple Formula : Do the Math.

Posted 6 years ago on Feb. 28, 2013, 10:34 p.m. EST by ProblemSolver (79)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

With this Formula, everyone will receive a bare minimum of one third the average wage as a living allowance.

EDIT : CORRECTION the above statement should read:

"With this Formula, EVERYONE with an earning of zero will receive a minimum of one third the average wage as a living allowance."

END CORRECTION

  • Take the average wage of every man woman and child.

  • Subtract the average wage from your wage.

  • If the result is positive , you pay one third the difference.

  • If the result is negative , you receive one third the difference.

Do the Math.

EDIT :

According to calculations provided by contributors of this post:

American citizens earning zero wages would receive a daily living allowance of $13.67 per day. Using 2011 statistics.

Thanks for reading.

189 Comments

189 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22855) 6 years ago

This is a good idea. Any way that we can get to a living wage, to ensure that everyone has enough, is a step in the right direction.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 6 years ago

[-] 1 points by nobnot (585) from Kapaa, HI 1 minute ago There must be somthing going on .A whole lot of people seem to spend a lot of time debating her.It is a shame because they should spend that time on things of substance.Ah Vanity.The only similarity she has with a cockroach is that she will flee if you shed light on what she is doing.Insults make you feel better it solves nada. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink


She is a cockroach.

[-] 1 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 6 years ago

Ah,No.That is so harsh.And why did you pick this insect of all the many nice one's to choose from.Why not a butterfly?Or perhaps a Ladybug?

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 6 years ago

You know why. Somewhere along the line multiple IDs and trolling for coin became acceptable.

It is not.

[-] 0 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 6 years ago

I do not know your reasons for insulting.I do not know if it is done for coin.I tend to belive the motives are more personal than monetary.Someone raised in Scarsdale NY.Has an elitest mindset.A true one percenter. I have never noticed her post frequently during normal working hours.They seem to come in weekends and in the eve.This I would assume is because of a day job in a hospital .Of course none of this can be proved,just bits and pieces I have picked up along the way.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

more than enough to live on without paying rent or loans off

[-] 2 points by ProblemSolver (79) 6 years ago

We have reached a time in civilization where no one gets left behind.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

the world is round

what does behind even mean ?

[-] -1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 6 years ago

left to fend for themselves.. the allowance will ensure they at least have a meal to eat .. with all the extreme wealth in the world .. surely we can afford every one a meal.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

food should be available to everyone

afford is a human concept of trade

[-] 1 points by justiceforzim (-17) 6 years ago

Yup. somehow "equal opportunity" and "equal outcomes" have become synonymous.

[-] 1 points by shadows (-39) 6 years ago

In the world of the socialist/communists ( democrats). it is.

[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 6 years ago

The terms, the words, the subjects that propaganda utilizes must have in themselves the power to break the barrier of the individuals indifference. They must penetrate like bullets; they must spontaneously evoke a set of images and have a certain grandeur of their own. To circulate outdated words or pick new one that can penetrate only by force is unavailing, for timeliness furnishes the "operational words* with their exclusive and affective power. Part of the power of propaganda is due to its use of the mass media, but this power will be dissipated if propaganda relies on operational words that have lost their force. In Western Europe, the word Bolshevik in 1925 the word Fascist in 1936 the word Collaborator in 1944, the word Peace in 1948, the word Integration in 1958, were all strong operational terms; they lost their shock value when their immediacy passed.

[-] -1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 6 years ago

Kind of the same way conservative and asshole have become synonymous.

[-] -1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 6 years ago

With the extreme wealth exploited at the top .. no one should be left to fend for themselves .. it's just unthinkable.

[-] 2 points by shadows (-39) 6 years ago

Self reliance is unthinkable? Amibtion, drive and the desire to make something of your life is unthinkable?

[-] -1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 6 years ago

This doesn't stop anyonr from making something out of them self.. it opens the doors to it.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 6 years ago

It wouldn't work, at least not in the U.S. The average income for working Americans is just over $100,000 a year. The top 10% that make over $100,000 a year take close to 50% of all income. The ultra rich making $10 million a year would hardly pay anything. There wouldn't be enough to pay the lower 90%.

Your formula would only work if there were an even number of people above and below the average income.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 6 years ago

The total amount received by those earning less than the average wage will always equal the total amount paid out by those earning more than average.

This works with any number of people and any amount of wages.

A quick example with an average of 5 people:

  • person 1 earns $ 30,000

  • person 2 earns $ 60,000

  • person 3 earns $ 90,000

  • person 4 earns $120,000

  • person 5 earns $120,000

    Total earnings : $ 420,000 Average : $ 420,000 / 5 = $ 84,000

    • person 1 receives $ 30,000 - 84,000 = -54,000 / 3 = $18,000

    • person 2 receives $ 60,000 - 84,000 = -24,000 / 3 = $8,000

Total received : $18,000 + $8000 = $26,000

  • person 3 pays $ 90,000 - 84,000 = 6,000 / 3 = $2000

  • person 4 pays $ 120,000 - 84,000 = 36,000 / 3 = $12,000

  • person 5 pays $ 120,000 - 84,000 = 36,000 / 3 = $12,000

Total paid : $2,000 + $12,000 + $12,000 = $26,000

NOTE :

  • three people above the average pay a total of $26,000

  • two people below the average receive a total of $26,000

If the average was $100,000. A person earning ten million would pay 3.3 million.

Thanks for your comment, jrhirsch.

[-] 1 points by lights (-38) 6 years ago

This would create a lot of inflation by changing the dynamics of purchasing power. As an example, a person earning 10 million still only pays for what one person needs, i.e. one or two cars, a few TVs, one house, etc... He might have a few more of these things, but not that much. The 3.3 million he gives away will be spread by many people who will spent it much more eagerly. Before, that 3.3 million was sitting at the bank not being spent, now it's in the pockets of people who will spend it. The resulting problem is an increase in inflation.

There is indeed some good in your theory, but that inflation problem is real. How do you deal with it?

Another example, take poor people. Now that they all have more money, the food they usually buy will be more expensive thereby cutting down on their newfound riches. It's a question of economic dynamics. If poor people had to live on 200$ for food, and now have 500$ all the food prices will increase since the sellers know the poor people can now afford it. That's how capitalism works.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 6 years ago

You are correct. I completely misinterpreted your formula.

Who calculated the formula and how would it be used?

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 6 years ago

I would like to use it as a worldwide living allowance .. especially for those greatly in need.

Thanks for your reply

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 6 years ago

Have you calculated how much would be taken from a rich country like the U.S.? I assume we'd have a full one third share redistributed around the world. Let's say $5 trillion divided among 5 billion people to make it simple. An additional $1000 a year per worker in the poorer countries.

The real question though is would it be fair? Why should a person be forced to give up a portion of his wealth to a person in another country?

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 6 years ago

The real question though is would it be fair? Why should a person be forced to give up a portion of his wealth to a person in another country?

I don't know how to answer this .. altruism perhaps?

[-] 0 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 6 years ago

Do you not have an answer for every thing Ms.L T

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 6 years ago

I can't explain why we live in an unfair society/civilization and are so unwilling to accept a fair system .. No , I can not explain this. I have no answer. It eludes me .. puzzles me ..

Is it because all those poor people feel maybe one day they too will be billionaires .. but if we take away this unfair system .. their chance of becoming billionaires will no longer exist ?

[-] -1 points by lights (-38) 6 years ago

The major problem with his solution stems from the fact that he believes all money is equivalent. It is not. 5 billion in the pocket of one billionaire is not the same as that 5 billion spread out amongst 100,000 people in 50,000$ chunks.

One billionaire is one person. He doesn't need to buy food like 100,000 people need to. He doesn't need to buy as many cars as 100,000 need to. Most of his money remains out of circulation, in the bank. Spread out, that 5 billion gets spent very quickly This will dramatically increase inflation.

Take a poor country like India. If poor people spend 50$ on food in one month, then suddenly they are all given an extra 150$ to spend on food for a month the result will be an immediate increase in food prices. More money in circulation, higher prices. Every time.

The problem is the underlying capitalist system. With such a system, even though you try to spread out money more evenly, the system quickly returns the poor back to being poor and the rich back to being rich. It's inevitable.

Wealth redistribution needs to be accompanied by a complete change in the economic framework, else it does not have a permanent effect.

The very framework of capitalism tends to create a wealth gap that increases with time.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 6 years ago

If the billionaire gave out $5 billion, the price of food would go up, but the price for the stock that he sold to pay out the $5 billion would go down.

In economics, if you adjust one thing, something else adjusts in relationship to it.

The reason why wealth disparity occurs is unfair trade, not capitalism. The poor consistently trade more of their labor for less of the rich's labor.

[-] 0 points by lights (-38) 6 years ago

In a perfect world you would be right, but because millionaires control the food supply they would simply charge more for the food even if the price for the stock went down. They would charge as much as they possibly could to sell their products. In no time, the wealth inequality would reappear. Capitalism creates wealth inequality over time. It's an innate consequence of the framework.

The profit margin of the little guys is always a lot less than that of the big guys. The reason is because the big guys have control. They can push their profit margins as high as possible as long as people have the money to buy their products.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 6 years ago

If the low and middle classes understood their tremendous economic power, as a group they could easily lower prices tomorrow by saying no, the price is too high, I'll wait till it comes down. The same with wages. If they as a group didn't show up for work because wages were too low, wages would immediately go up.

Capitalism isn't the cause. The only thing that separates the the rich from the poor is is a little knowledge and the courage to stand up for yourself.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 6 years ago

Excellent point.. though very difficult to get all consumers to stop making purchase .. or stop working .. The Billionaires can simply out wait the poor .. a hundred to one.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 6 years ago

Strikes are very effective if enough people participate. Even billionaires have to listen to their customers when sales drop by as little as 10%.

Good examples are the Montgomery Bus Boycott of 1955-56 led by MLK and the 1965-70 grape boycott led by Caesar Chavez.

Don't defeat yourself by saying it's too difficult or they are too powerful. United we are stronger than any billionaire.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

don't pay is over $4 a pound for anything

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 6 years ago

That's a good strategy. I try to limit it to $2 a pound in the supermarket. Like $3 for 3/4 of a pound (12 ozs.) of cereal is a ripoff. The grain cost the manufacturer 10 cents.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

thanks

[-] 0 points by lights (-38) 6 years ago

Solutions built upon theoretical fantasies lead to nowhere and are essentially worthless. They are not solutions. They are delusions.

Sure, everyone could pull out of Bank of America at once. Sure, everyone could force food stores to cut their prices if they rebelled in sync. What if, what when, what about.... Endless meaningless speculations.

Capitalism stinks from the core and the stink just gets funkier as it makes it out the rotten skin that covers this rotten economic fruitcake of an idea.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

From that point of view, the future can only be described as an illusion.

This is logically true.

Unfortunately, it's illusion best planned for, one way or another.

Meaning all planning is theoretical fantasy anyway. So what? Give up?

Or admit that life itself is a conspiracy theory of the universe and get on with it.

[-] -2 points by lights (-38) 6 years ago

Meaning all planning is theoretical fantasy anyway. So what? Give up?

We know capitalism does not work. Many countries have tried it for the last 100 hundred years. We see the devastating results all around us. Money trumps everything. Governments can't do the right thing to save the animals, save the earth from Global Warming, etc... they are powerless. Only money matters.

Saying capitalism does not work is not giving up. It's the first step towards creating a new better system. We must progress forward. What is rotting we let rot. We must stop wasting time trying to patch up a broken system.

Or admit that life itself is a conspiracy theory of the universe and get on with it.

We're not here to pout and just give up. Maybe you are, but not me. We don't just get on with it. We must work hard to create a better world. That's why Occupy exists in the first place.

If you just want to get on with it that's fine. Go play bingo with DKAtoday and your other friends at the retirement home. Enjoy the last few years you have. You deserve it. We need young blood anyhow to build the better world.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

Change the subject much?

Of course. It's all you have. It's just like changing puppets.

The illusion is YOU.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 6 years ago

To some, breaking away from British rule was a fantasy, or landing a man on the moon. Both required knowledge and courage, and we are lacking in both right now.

Capitalism doesn't stink, some of the people within do. It's up to the people to keep it clean.

[-] -1 points by lights (-38) 6 years ago

Nah, the framework of capitalism is a broken system; a system which does not promote democracy, but instead promotes autocracy. Capitalist systems always tend towards Oligarchies. Plato knew this 2,500 years ago.

If your delusions prove me wrong by becoming realities then we'll all be happy. Until then, they remain delusions. Saying we were able to land on the moon does not in any way shape or form make your fantasy tend more towards reality. Until it becomes reality, it's fantasy from top to bottom.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 6 years ago

The free market is democracy in action. Both the buyer and seller vote on the price of exchange. The inequity arises when one party stacks the deck in his favor. Through legislation, deceit, or by force.

[-] -1 points by lights (-38) 6 years ago

The consequence of greed is inequality. Don't blame on a system that which resides in the heart of man. There has been inequality within every system ever tried on earth. It should be obvious that any system, no matter how perfect, will always be corrupted by the selfishness of it's imperfect members.

It's not black or white. There are shades of corruption. Capitalism breeds high levels of corruption. Many systems would breed much lower ones.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 6 years ago

That's like saying that an economic system run by the mafia breeds hoodlums. It's the hoodlums within who have turned it into the mafia.

[-] -1 points by lights (-38) 6 years ago

Blaming our poverty on the rich man will not increase our wage. It's up to the people to get a fair exchange for their labor. The excessive flow of dollars that the rich man receives can be cut off and redirected back to the rightful owner. Knowledge is the tool and courage is the fuel.

I do not blame the rich man. He is one logical consequence of capitalism, the poor man being another. I blame the framework, capitalism itself. This framework will always create a wealth gap that will increase throughout time. Yes, we can cut off some money and redirect... these are the bandages I was referring to earlier. They to not cure the problem, merely hide the wounds. Capitalism does not work.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 6 years ago

The consequence of greed is inequality. Don't blame on a system that which resides in the heart of man. There has been inequality within every system ever tried on earth. It should be obvious that any system, no matter how perfect, will always be corrupted by the selfishness of it's imperfect members.

[-] -1 points by lights (-38) 6 years ago

There is only free market at the beginning of capitalism. As the years go by, some companies do better than others and they grow bigger and bigger and bigger. Then you are left with huge corporations who control the world. They are untouchable. They'll mess you up so bad, and when you bring them to court they'll have the 10 best lawyers in the country tying your neck up in five unlawful loopholes at the same time.

The idea of a free market is a sham. It's not free when some start way out in the middle of the track while you're left at the gates with the other poor chaps. It was free just once, at the very beginning. Those days are long gone. Now we spend our time trying to hide the faults of capitalism by patching them up with welfare and other social programs. It doesn't work. The patches don't heal the wounds, they just cover them up. Underneath, the wounds rot more and more. The smell is putrid.

Pigs bathe in soothing mixtures of milk and honey. They sleep on satin pillows and wash their behind with toilet paper thicker than your best sweater. They lost count of their millions ages ago. While you count your pennies and wonder if you can afford a box of cheap Walmart chocolates for your wife's birthday, they're drowning in the finest wines and playing billiard while their entourage shops for chocolates that cost more than your mortgage.

A free market you say? Your son just finished university with a new business degree. You give him that 10,000$ you saved up through the years from your work at the factory. Now, he only owes 40,000$ in loans. Lucky boy. Problem is, the pig's son, Mr. piglet, was offered his own company, a luxurious jet, fine cigars, 5 nude dancers, and a new leather couch for his 18th birthday. He hasn't even started school yet, but when he will it will be at Harvard in a special club with special connections that your son will never have.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 6 years ago

Blaming our poverty on the rich man will not increase our wage. It's up to the people to get a fair exchange for their labor. The excessive flow of dollars that the rich man receives can be cut off and redirected back to the rightful owner. Knowledge is the tool and courage is the fuel.

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 6 years ago

I don't know where you got the $100,000 number, but this article breaks it down on every level and comes up with $38,000 being the average income for working Americans.

http://www.mybudget360.com/how-much-does-the-average-american-make-in-2010-household-income-new-data-100-million-make-less-than-40000/

"So how much does the average American make? $38,000 even when we add in billionaires and everyone else. "

BUT PS says in the OP that "Everyone will receive a bare minimum of one third the average wage as a living wage".

That amount, if $38,000 is the average, is $12,666 dollars.

Now....the population of the United States currently is roughly: 315,591,000 (that's every "man, woman and child" in America)

AND according to this article-there are roughly 139,000,000 working Americans in 2011

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-02-10/markets/29983414_1_million-net-jobs-new-jobs-payroll-data

So-that means that 176,591,000 Americans-men, women and children don't earn a WAGE at all.

So-according to ProblemSovler's own words, everyone will receive $12,666 (1/3 the average wage). But then he gives a formula in which all the people he lists only people who earn wages in the first place.

Edited to include link to first article I failed to include when I posted this.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 6 years ago

The $100,000 plus figure isn't wages, but income. The wealthy make just one third of their income from wages. The rest comes from business income, stock, interest, dividends, etc.

http://www.independentsrise.com/wealth/forces/graph_saez_components_top_income.html

The U.S. GDP is roughly $15 trillion a year. Divide by the roughly 150 million working people,

http://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/netcomp.cgi?year=2011,

and the result is roughly $100,000 a year per working person. So that $38,000 a year average figure really isn't close to the huge amount of wealth that is actually generated in this country.

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 6 years ago

His Formula is based on wages.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 6 years ago

Total income

[-] 1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 6 years ago

Then go back through and change every instance where yous said "wages" to "income" because they are two different economical categories. And you SAID WAGES.

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 6 years ago

I've said wages , I've said Earnings .. if you can't figure the formula out by now , you never will ..

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 6 years ago

Dude. In economic terms-the word earnings and the word WAGES are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. Anyone with any kind of knowledge about finances knows this. It's money 101.

Wages is "income" that comes from working a job-bonuses, salary, wages, tips etc.

Earnings is ALL THE KINDS OF INCOME that are possible-wages (as described above) as well as investment income, stocks, capital gains, etc.

SO...by saying "earnings" in one place, and "wages" in another-you are CHANGING the category of "income" and thus the statistics and the math and the outcome every time.

If you can't figure that out, and make things consistent, then your formula wil never get off the ground.

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 6 years ago

If you understood the formula you would realize there is only one way the formula works.. You do not understand the formula.

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 6 years ago

Well good luck finding people who understand the formula AND can read your mind and instinctively know what you mean even without being told.

And good luck implementing it after you get people to read your mind and understand it. I have to go bang my head against a hard surface for a while....

[-] 0 points by danya8 (-98) 6 years ago

Poor Americans already have an "allowance".... it's called food stamps, welfare, HEAP, food banks, charities providing meals and clothing, rent subsidies, social security, Obama phones, medicare, medicaid, Obamacare, and every other fucking government handout we already pay for you fucking asshole.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 6 years ago

Looks to me like the government is giving more handouts to the Elite these days..

Have you seen the numbers?

[-] 0 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 6 years ago

Always such a busy little bee.AAA Ms.Little Tree.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 6 years ago

Either we stand up and do something , or we sit back and do nothing (which is what they want).

[-] 0 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 6 years ago

This is so.Than again make belive chats about Phoney issues are only a side show of your mental masturbation.You should do things that are more constructive with your gifts.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 6 years ago

Such as ?

What would you like to discuss ?

[-] 2 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 6 years ago

Let us start with your idea of discussion when what we need is a dialog.

A dialog seeks to satisfy everyones needs.A dicussion seeks to satisfy your own needs.

A dialog is win win solutions.A dicussion is win lose solutions.

A dialog finds the others strengths,lookiging upon the other as a friend.A discussion looks upon the other as the Enemy.

A dialog opens up the communication.A discussion stops the communication.

A dialog ask questions and shows that you want to learn.A discussion holds onto and defends it's position.

A dialog creates energy by active listening,inspiring in a Positive way.A dicussion reduces energy and communication aggressively.

A dialog seeks more solutions,there are more truths.A discussion seeks one solution there is only one truth.

Stop farting around Sara and use your talents for some reasl leadership!

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 6 years ago

What people want is not necessarily what they need.

[-] 2 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 6 years ago

What they need is for you to stop your B.S.

At present you are not filling any needs.

You are wasting your time with these antics.

The time has come for you to show some leadership,not misdirection.

Think about it .

Till next time Sara.

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 6 years ago

I know what you need and want.

[-] 1 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 6 years ago

Arroganc is a defensive mechanism.

Most often found in individuals born to privilege.

Activated by the confrontation of a meaningless void in one's life.

Find somthing of value for your abilities Sara.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 6 years ago

Preferably some place else. She's a cockroach..

[-] 0 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 6 years ago

Let us be nice to each other

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 6 years ago

Such a wonderful thought ..

[-] 0 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 6 years ago

Boulder Brook Equestrian center?

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 6 years ago

We surpassed that a long, long time ago. Don't you think?

[-] 0 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 6 years ago

We all are human,We all get angry and forget to love.It is never to late. We have not surpassed that aspect of our nature.It has always been a hard concept for me.We all make this trip.Some in first class do not want to share with those below deck.In the end they will have to.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 6 years ago

[-] 1 points by cJessgo (779) from Port Jervis, PA 0 minutes ago Lady you can do as you wish.Back at the Ranch we never play the beasts game.We make them obey us.That does not mean we are inhumane to them either.Keep organizing that is what her kind fear most. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink


I have every intention of doing as I wish. Only a cockroach would come to this site and troll with multiple IDs.

[-] 0 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 6 years ago

She has been here from the begining.It fills a need in her life.Some people take her very seriously.Answer and debate.Many very smart.Lord know's why they can not figure her out.She appeals and challenges their intellect.I have none that is why she is so apparent.In all her manifestations.She has been given the boot out.Now not as agressive in her threads.Of late she no longer appears on any other threads but her own.Had worked in tandem with a few others but that does not seem to be the case now.I think that problem solver will take a leave of absence soon.Reinvent herself and be back again.It is the nature of the beast

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 6 years ago

[-] 1 points by cJessgo (779) from Port Jervis, PA 0 minutes ago Split personas only have one side.Ours is larger.The other has better organization.Our goal should be to never stop organizing.In the end we will win.Because we are right.Humans will understad this.Sara is a person she has not become a mature human yet.Do not play her game by feeding into her Phoney debates.At some point she will become a normal well adjusted human.Until that time we must endure her bullshit.I comment on her tactis not her issues. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink


So, if I just make nicey and pretend not to notice (allow her to carry on) then someday she will grow the fuck up.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch she can just carry on trolling for coin and doing what she has to do to earn it without any hindrance at all.

Not a chance in hell

[-] 0 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 6 years ago

Lady you can do as you wish.Back at the Ranch we never play the beasts game.We make them obey us.That does not mean we are inhumane to them either.Keep organizing that is what her kind fear most.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 6 years ago

[-] 1 points by cJessgo (779) from Port Jervis, PA 0 minutes ago She has been here from the begining.It fills a need in her life.Some people take her very seriously.Answer and debate.Many very smart.Lord know's why they can not figure her out.She appeals and challenges their intellect.I have none that is why she is so apparent.In all her manifestations.She has been given the boot out.Now not as agressive in her threads.Of late she no longer appears on any other threads but her own.Had worked in tandem with a few others but that does not seem to be the case now.I think that problem solver will take a leave of absence soon.Reinvent herself and be back again.It is the nature of the beast ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink


Once upon a time, I thought there was a lot more to some people. As it turns out, there was no mystery. They were bonafide douche bags. I don't find her very intelligent. She is a cockroach.

[-] 0 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 6 years ago

There must be somthing going on .A whole lot of people seem to spend a lot of time debating her.It is a shame because they should spend that time on things of substance.Ah Vanity.The only similarity she has with a cockroach is that she will flee if you shed light on what she is doing.Insults make you feel better it solves nada.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 6 years ago

We don't all have multiple IDs dedicated to shit. Yeah?

[-] 0 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 6 years ago

Split personas only have one side.Ours is larger.The other has better organization.Our goal should be to never stop organizing.In the end we will win.Because we are right.Humans will understad this.Sara is a person she has not become a mature human yet.Do not play her game by feeding into her Phoney debates.At some point she will become a normal well adjusted human.Until that time we must endure her bullshit.I comment on her tactis not her issues.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 6 years ago

Not at all. You are just a hideous little slime ball.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 6 years ago

..where is this coming from ?

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 6 years ago

You know where. Don't play that innocent shit.

[-] 0 points by engineer4 (331) 6 years ago

After reading the comments, a few questions to start: As this is an attempt of redistribution, what about the other expenses that any country has to deal with? Even the redistribution system has expenses that would siphon off something.

As this is promoted as a world system, how is this calculated with so many variables that would effect the data used in calculating the numbers ( changes daily) ? How can the numbers be verified, especially from a country that stands to receive large amounts of redistribution.

In a world system, redistribution may go to people that are not viewed as "friendly" to another's country. Why would any citizens support that?

There is an assumption here that there would be a central authority that all money would flow to and then distribute from. Most countries would not support that.

There will be economic concerns with large amounts of currency leaving a wealthy country and going to a less wealthy one. Impact on economy in the wealthy country, inflation problems in the poor country.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 6 years ago

The World economy would BOOM !

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (331) 6 years ago

That is not an answer, only an assumption. Try again, addressing each of the concerns I stated if you would like to have a serious discussion.

Also add to the above: Why would I even consider supporting people in china, who likely work at a low wage which takes jobs from this country? The net effect is that I am actually supporting the low wage operation and hurting my countries economy simultaneously.

Second: How does your formula address the large differentials in standard of living costs on a global scale? You could be subtracting from people who need the extra money to live in their particular location (which may have a very low cost of living).

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 6 years ago

After reading the comments, a few questions to start: As this is an attempt of redistribution, what about the other expenses that any country has to deal with? Even the redistribution system has expenses that would siphon off something.

  • Yes, the redistribution would require expenses. How would you like to pay for this? take the expenses out of the current taxes .. add a small tax on top of those whom pay? .. Remove a percentage from the allowance for administration .. Once the system is in place , calculations could be automatically paid and received electronically.

As this is promoted as a world system, how is this calculated with so many variables that would effect the data used in calculating the numbers ( changes daily) ? How can the numbers be verified, especially from a country that stands to receive large amounts of redistribution.

  • Correct, many difficulties you point in this statement. You remember the Hour-coin system right. What if that system was used in conjunction with this. We would than know electronically exactly how many hour -coins were distributed .. as that would be an electronic system.. than we could easily do the allowance calculation .. But very good well thought points on your part ..

In a world system, redistribution may go to people that are not viewed as "friendly" to another's country. Why would any citizens support that?

  • Redistribution will mainly go to people/countries less fortunate. This will help strengthen those countries . Eventually those countries will contribute to society with their added strength. Again , with the hour-coin system, an efficiency designed system, there will have built in incentives to encourage production . All will reap the rewards of success. Deep subject. Those unfriendly now .. may be due to current and history methods of fairness. I would hope anger and unfriendliness would disappate as the new system takes hold .

  • Yes , there would have to be a centralized system for this. Everyone will be encouraged to join up. The opportunities that come with the hour-coin system are limitless. Who wouldn't join ?

There will be economic concerns with large amounts of currency leaving a wealthy country and going to a less wealthy one. Impact on economy in the wealthy country, inflation problems in the poor country.

  • Inflation will be done away with . The Free Market system will be abolished. Investors will no longer be required. We have the unlimited hour-coin. Money will no longer be gained through investment.
[-] 1 points by engineer4 (331) 6 years ago

You missed the last two. I do not even know where to begin. Please forget the hour coin for the moment and get back to answering my questions with existing currency. The hour coin was not part of the original discussion and is a very large topic on its own.

Inflation is real, no matter what type of monetary system is used. If demand rises too quickly, prices move also. If you cap or control pricing, then you create a black market economy.

A centralized system becomes a one world government. That will not happen and there is no support for it. You will never remove nationalism from an individual.

Include a solution to cost of living differences and how that would be addressed in the redistribution calculations.

Include a solution where low wage jobs in countries (for example,India) will get distribution, which strengthens that economy and weakens another (job loss).

One other thing that was not answered yet: are wage / income distribution formulas calculated on EBIT or ? What is net effect on personal income taxes? Are only wages used or all income?

I do not believe that you would find many Arabs that would redistribute to an Israeli. People are not likely to support others who will harm them. That can not be just glossed over with "anger will pass". We are talking about present day with real threats.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 6 years ago

It is only the Elites that do not agree on a one world government, on fair distribution.

[-] 1 points by Nevada7 (19) 6 years ago

False

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 6 years ago

True. That is why there are wars.

[-] 1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 6 years ago

Had to reply here from another thread as there was no reply button on your comment

I respectfully suggest that you study SUCCESSFUL past struggles both within and outside of this country...Gandhi...Iceland ...Montreal...Sweden & Norway in the early 20th century...the labor movement here & all that led up to the New Deal

Civil disobedience and direct actions have been a part of ALL of them

~Odin~

[-] -1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 6 years ago

Bringing the conversation over.. temporarily:

1 points by frovikleka (1372) from Island Heights, NJ 2 hours ago

Replying here. The third, Occupied Stories link captured the essence of what doing Jail Support is about, and how important it is. So from that link;

...."I think the people with the courage to accept arrest placed their entire beings in danger for all of us."...

..."They took the risk of being arrested, and in spite of the extreme difficulties they faced all around them, they experienced so much love and support from their Occupy friends. I can't help feeling that for those who were arrested, their work will continue with a new sense of urgency and commitment."

No bullshit....doing Jail Support was by far and away my most rewarding experience in Occupy. Being able to be there for someone who sacificed their freedon, and well-being for OUR cause is beautiful. It really is.

I know that it is not easy to face the risk of arrest for standing up for what you believe in, as I have not been arrested yet either. It is however necessary in OUR struggle

All I can say is...courage begets courage

Solidarity shadz......~Odin~

↥twinkle↧stinklereplypermalink

[-]1 points by ProblemSolver (117) 2 hours ago

I have to disagree.

There is no reason to break any laws in this struggle for fairness.

Anyone who does.. will be arrested , and find no support from me.

↥twinkle↧stinkleeditdeletepermalink

I believe the constituional 1st amendment which allows for petitioning the Government with grievences is the best way to accomplish change.

Signatures on petitions. Completely within our right. Will sway the Vote of Congress. No need for imprisonment.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (33733) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

[-]1 points by ProblemSolver (117) 2 hours ago

I have to disagree.

There is no reason to break any laws in this struggle for fairness.

Anyone who does.. will be arrested , and find no support from me.


STINKLE - Because :

Civil disobedience - would not be necessary - "IF" - the government was supporting the people ( state as well as Federal )

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 6 years ago

Occupy refuses to set up petition signing.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

Yes they did. Here on the forum. In protest of being misreported.

Like you, most ignored it, although I linked to it multiple times..

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 6 years ago

I am refering to petitioning Congress with Grievance , as allowed for by the First Amendment in the United States Constitution. A Legal Document well over 200 years of AGE !

Occupy has Adamntly REFUSED.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

Bring your idea to a GA and try and get it rolling.

This is just a forum.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33733) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

So What?

I post plenty of petitions and so do others and plenty of people sign them - and the site does not object.

So post your petitions and if they are worthy people will take part.

[-] -1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 6 years ago

Occupy promotes civil disobedience but not petition signing .. SO WHAT !

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33733) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

Occupy does not speak against petitioning either - every individual and group can do their own thing.... SO THERE...

[-] 1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 6 years ago

The corrupt elite, in which many of our elected officials are part of will never give up the power that they now enjoy... easily or through your formula alone

You may not choose to take part in peaceful direct actions/civil disobedience where you may risk arrest. That's fair enough,

But whatever you and everyone else does to further our cause, it will not be enough if we want the sea change we so desparately need

History has proven my point that involved life changing struggles

~Odin~

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 6 years ago

When has the use of petitioning ever been tried .. to be proven ineffective in a democracy?

[-] 1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 6 years ago

Look at all the failed liberal movements of the last thirty years

Do you think Iceland ...or all of the rest of the struggles I metioned ...got the great reforms they did because of petitions?

There will be good things happening all through our struggle with the aim of trying to placate us with as little as possible, and they will happen through the only system that we have, and that might make you feel more justified in your position

But make no mistake about it, until a critical mass of people get out in the streets, we will have NO sea change, which is what we need if we want to cut neoliberalism off at the knees

Going out now

~Odin~

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 6 years ago

last thought -

You will find more people willing to sign well drafted petitions directly presented to congress , than you will willing to stand out in the rain .. sacrificing everything they have including freedom.

But the true question : Which will achieve the desired results ?

From a Congressional democratic standpoint, a signed petition with 30 million signatures speaks much louder than a hundred and fifty drum banging protestors.

Have a nice day

[-] 1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 6 years ago

Definitely, "...you will see more people willing to sign...petitions.... , than you will willing to stand out in the rain...[scorching heat & frigid cold too]....sacrificing everyhing they have including freedom."

And people have been "willing" to ONLY to "sign petitions" & and similar benign stuff for the last 30 plus years, and LOOK at where that has got us

The placating.... easily reversible....and/or purposely murky reforms that aren't really reforms at all will come through the system because that is the only vehicle that we have now,

Occupy has brought a whole new dialogue to the country, and it has not done so by using the traditional broken redress of grievances process, but rather by applying pressure from outside the rotten system.... by being recalcitrant to that system that has had a strangle-hold on us

The REAL reforms will only come by getting a critical mass of people in the streets, pressuring, & DEMANDING a sea change

The sooner more people are convinced that chancing the risk of arrest is worth the opportunity of having a better world for themselves and their progeny....the sooner we will succeed

Study the history leading up to the New Deal, Iceland's recent history, and all the rest of the successful movements

This is not what i planned on doing in my retirement, and I was out of my comfort zone (not anymore), and I am not reliving the my childhood

And I would like nothing more than to be able to run this rev from the comforts of my home, but I know that will NEVER work

~Odin~

But to pretend that you can get

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

try getting a job after protesting

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 6 years ago

..or prison ..

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 6 years ago

This was intended to be a debate about the Israeli Palesinian conflict ..

When we include the hour-coin system it solves many of the problems you bring up .

The cost of living difference would and should be a level playing field around the world.. everyone should have the same standard of living. or at least live with in the same margin with the ability for slight improvements.

A fair distribution is the ultimate goal.

A one world Government is the only means of achieiving Global fairness and equality.

How do we achieve a one world government ? By designing a system the whole world would be willing to implement. Fairness and equality will be that system. Vote on it.

Thanks for the vigorous discussion.

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 6 years ago

In the game of monopoly everyone receives $200 each time they past go regardless of their earnings. This is not like monopoly.. what you receive/pay will depend on your earnings.

[-] 2 points by Nader (74) 6 years ago

I am pretty sure that people earning zero wages already get benefits in excess of $13.67 per day.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 6 years ago

An unemployed family of four would receive nearly $1500 per month.

It's a means of sharing the profits of the nation .. amongst all citizens..and especially providing a minimal bottom .. and any one with the ambition to earn more can always do so.

[-] 2 points by Nader (74) 6 years ago

What I mean though is that family of 4 is already getting in excess of $1500 per month in benefits. This system would actually be a reduction in benefits to that family.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

$1500 per month. would barely pay rent to someone else here in san diego

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 6 years ago

What is the cost of living up in San Diego ?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

I spend about $1,000 a month for myself

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 6 years ago

Would you refuse the allowance if you were entitled..?

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

not sure what you mean by entitled

but no

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 6 years ago

You keep stating that EVERYONE will receive a bare minimum of one third the average wage as a living allowance. If EVERYONE gets this minimum 1/3 living wage, then even those people who earn a HIGH wage, would also get "the living allowance".

If you take the average wage of every man, woman and child, and half of those men, women and children, do not EARN an actual wage of any kind, you LOWER the average wage because you're including the $0 wage earners in your calculation.

I wanna see YOUR math....because all I get is hilariousness.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 6 years ago

No.

Look closely at the formula.

Those making above the average will pay one third the difference.

Only those below will receive.

If you earn exactly the average, you will neither pay nor receive.

Does that clear it up a bit..

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 6 years ago

Point-if EVERYONE is not going to receive a living allowance from birth on, then you need to correct your posts in another thread that say that "everyone will receive a living allowance from birth on".

Point-every "man woman and child" does not earn a wage. In fact, there are approximately 176,591,000 Americans who fall into this category.

Your formula doesn't address them at all.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 6 years ago

anyone earning "zero" wages would receive the full one third percentage of the average wage. ie. If the average is $6000, than the zero earners would receive $2000.

  • person 1 earns $ zero

  • person 2 earns $ 6

  • person 3 earns $ 12

The average of theses three would be $18 / 3 = $6

  • person 1 would receive: ( zero - $6 ) / 3 = $ 2

  • person 2 would neither pay nor receive: ( $6 -$6 ) / 3= 0

  • person 3 would pay: ( $12 - $6 ) / 3 = $2

Keep in mind zero wage earners will lower the calculated average.

  • If 4 people earn zero, 1 person earns $6, and 1 person Earns $12.

  • The average will be $3.

  • Therefore those earning zero will receive one third of $3.

  • The zero earners will each receive $1.

  • The person earning $12 will pay $3.

The Formula is bullet-proof.

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 6 years ago

"Keep in mind zero wage earners will lower the calculated average".

Yes....exactly. I have kept that in mind. YOU apparently haven't.

Let's say average wage per individual in the US is $38,000 a year. (see above link for why I selected that number)

$38,000/ 315,591,000 (including zero wage earners) = $1.20

That's it, ONE dollar and 20 cents as the "average wage" when you include EVERYONE-even non wage earners.

It gets even better-Now we have to take ONE THIRD of that $1.20-which is $.40 cents.

"Anyone earning "zero" wages would receive the full one third percentage of the average wage"....a whopping $.40 cents. Hooray for a 'living allowance"!!!

If my number of $38,000 is off...let's double it. The "average wage" then becomes $76,000 a year. Same formula. WOOHOO-now people with zero wages are going to get $.80 cents!

Don't forget, the Formula is bullet proof.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 6 years ago

You would have to first multiply $38,000 by 139,000,000 to gain the total earnings in USA, and than divide that amount by the total population. to find the average earnings.

5282,000,000,000 / 315,591,000 = $16,736

The average earning in USA including all men women and children is : $16736

$ 16,736 / 3 = $5,578

People earning zero wage would receive $ 5,578

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 6 years ago

$5,578 / 365 = $ 15.28 per day

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 6 years ago

Um no.

I see that I failed to include the article I used to get the $38,000 number. I have now included it in the original post and I'll put it here too.

http://www.mybudget360.com/how-much-does-the-average-american-make-in-2010-household-income-new-data-100-million-make-less-than-40000/

From the article:

"So how much does the average American make? $38,000 even when we add in billionaires and everyone else. "

The $38,000 number HAS ALREADY BEEN calculated as the average earning number. There are people who make millions, and people who make very little. You take all those people and add up the earnings, and then divide it by the number of WORKERS in order to come up with the average.

The multiplication already took place before I used that number.

YOUR math above only works if every single one of the 139,000,000 makes exactly $38,000. And they don't.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 6 years ago

How do I explain this :

person 1 earns $1, person 2 earns $2, person 3 earns $3.

  • Total people: 3.
  • Total earnings: $6.
  • Average earnings : $2.

Multiply the number of people by the average earnings and you will get the total earnings. 3 X $2 = $6.

139,000,000 X $38,000 = $5282,000,000,000

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 6 years ago

Your calculations are all wrong.

[-] 1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 6 years ago

And yet another site establishing the average US income at

$38,337

http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2011/09/distribution-of-income-for-2010.html#.UTEwQje85pU

[-] 1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 6 years ago

Here's another:

http://bber.unm.edu/econ/us-tpi.htm

TOTAL personal income US for 2011= $12,949,905,000

$12,949,905,000/ 315,591,000= $41.03=the average earning of ALL men, women, and children in the US.

$41.03/3=$13.67

Much MUCH higher, but still, not a "living allowance" to anyone.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 6 years ago

If this is a daily calculation , than $13.67 sounds about right for a daily minimum living allowance..

Thanks for your input.

[-] 1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 6 years ago

Ok...all the numbers from one place.

http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/2011/10/19/first-look-at-us-pay-data-its-awful/

October 2011

"These figures come from the Medicare tax database at the Social Security Administration, which processes every W-2 wage form. All wages, salaries, bonuses, independent contractor net income and other compensation for services subject to the Medicare tax are added up to the penny."

"In 2010 total wages and salaries came to $6,009,831,055,912.11. That’s a bit more than $6 trillion."

"Average pay was $39,959"

“less than 150.4 million” workers

$6,009,831,055,912.11 / 150,4000,000 workers=$39,959 average income.

Now, since the OP said "the average wage of every man, woman, and child" we have to bring in all those people who are "zero" wage earners to find out what THAT average wage would be.

If we use the entire population of the US in 2010, which was 308,745,538 then the average wage drops to $19,465.

And one third of that= $6488

Ok...so now, back to the OP. You say quote " With this Formula, everyone will receive a bare minimum of one third the average wage as a living allowance."

Now, to me, EVERYONE means EVERYONE. So in 2010, using the above stats, 308,745,538 people would get the bare minimum of of $6488. No matter how much they made or did not make. EVERYONE.

And in 2010 that number alone would have amounted to $2,003,141,050,544

Then the OP continues- "Take the average wage of every man woman and child." ( $19,465) "Subtract the average wage from your wage." (Let's say you make the actual average wage for wage earners-$39,959 so $39,959-$19,465=$20,494) "If the result is positive , you pay one third the difference." ($6831 ????) "If the result is negative , you receive one third the difference."

Now hold on here! $6831? That's like 17% of my income! But wait-since I get a "living allowance" as well, I SHOULD get to deduct MY $6488 out of that, so I only pay in $343

Problem- PS didn't say that I got to do that. That would change the Formula.

Question-Where does MY living allowance come from?

Problem. Let's say I have some neighbors who don't want to work, and they have 4 kids. Between the couple, and the 4 kids-their "living allowance" is $38,928! That's pretty darn close to the current "average income" for a worker! Why bother?

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 6 years ago

You are correct . I made an error in my post , I will correct that.

I have added this correction:

EDIT : CORRECTION the above statement should read:

"With this Formula, EVERYONE with an earning of zero will receive a minimum of one third the average wage as a living allowance."

END CORRECTION

The Formula remains the same.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 6 years ago

Are you sure about this total earnings for all Americans.?

12,949,905,000 / 139,000,000 =$93 per American .. maybe that was a daily calculation ?

[-] 1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 6 years ago

Read. It says "Total personal income US for 2011" . It's not a daily calculation.

And YOUR formula insists that you divide the total earnings by the total population-which is 315,591,000-NOT 139,000,000.

I just posted-

"And yet another site establishing the average US income at

$38,337"

http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2011/09/distribution-of-income-for-2010.html#.UTEwQje85pU

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 6 years ago

If there were 139,000,000 americans working in 2011, and all year total they earned $12,949,905,000. Than each of them would have earned an average of $93. obviously this is not a yearly calculation .. I would guess daily..

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 6 years ago

GDP in 2011 was $15 trillion. He needs 3 more zeroes.

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 6 years ago

Let me find a site that has both numbers on it together.

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 6 years ago

No. No they are not. See above.

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 6 years ago

If you took every bit of "money" that exists on this planet, and divided it equally between each man, woman and child, you'd give each one of them a one time payment of roughly $6,000 US dollars.

BUT-and it's a BIG BUT-there would be no more "money" left after that. That $6,000 each would be it. There would be no source for additional money in the future. No money left to give additional babies born. There would be no money from "rich" companies or billionaires to earn as wages, or fund governments, or help anyone beyond that original one time payment of $6,000-because all of that money was divided up equally.

Good luck with that.

[Deleted]

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 6 years ago

420 Trillion what?

[Deleted]

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 6 years ago

What's your point?

My point is that if you took ALL Of the currency in the world, and divided it up equally amongst all the people of the world, they would each get a ONE TIME PAYMENT of $6,000. Is that enough to provide a "living allowance" from cradle to grave?

[Deleted]

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 6 years ago

Never mind. This was a side attempt to get you to understand that the money you need for your formula to work doesn't even currently exist.

But let's just stay focused on how your living allowance NOW seems to apply only to people who earn money, and not to anyone who doesn't therefore it doesn't provide a "living allowance" for everyone at all.

[Deleted]

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 6 years ago

Now go back up there and look at YOUR formula applied to ACTUAL reality. Your "living allowance" program is quite generous. Can't wait.

[-] 0 points by Builder (4202) 6 years ago

Are you going to tell North Korea to stop printing US money?

They are getting so good at it, detection is becoming nearly impossible.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/23/magazine/23counterfeit.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 6 years ago

You can always print more money. But that drops the value of the money already in circulation. And eventually its worthless.

[-] 0 points by Builder (4202) 6 years ago

That's only the case when the treasury knows how much more money has been put into circulation. It was during the last administration that printing more money by the fed res required no notification to the treasury. This method of QE hasn't stopped for almost two decades. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesdorn/2012/12/27/ben-bernankes-qe4-another-step-toward-helicopter-money-and-away-from-freedom/

[-] -2 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 6 years ago

You bring up the last administration...why? If nothing has changed since then, and the current administration is doing the exact same thing, it's an irrelevant point.

[-] 0 points by Builder (4202) 6 years ago

That's when the fed started flooding the market with currency, without congressional approval. Hell, so many trillion given to their bankster cronies to keep their own ponzi scheme afloat. We could go back even further if you'd like to talk about deregulation. What is there you don't like about history?

Your proposal is only so much rhetorical BS, and I'm pointing out why it's BS.

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 6 years ago

Sigh. My proposal was something I was using to get PS to realize how much BS was in his/her proposal. But never mind. I just did the math for him/her instead.

[-] -2 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 6 years ago

"American citizens earning zero wages would receive a daily living allowance of $13.67 per day. Using 2011 statistics."

According to the OP, EVERY citizen, no matter how much they earned or did not earn, would receive a daily living allowance of $13.67 per day.

[Deleted]

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 6 years ago

According to the numbers I took from the Reuters article:

Average daily earning currently-$39,959/365=$109 daily. Average daily EMWC (every man woman child)=$54 daily

1/3 of that would be $36/ $18 per day.

And you're saying that this is no longer a "living allowance" granted to everyone equally, it's only given to people who don't work. Don't we already have that?

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 6 years ago

When the formula is used, the amount is reduced as one earns a wage above zero .. up to the point of actually earning the equal amount of an average wage which at that point a living allowance is no longer received .. anyone earning above the average wage using the formula will pay into the living allowance.. the amount to pay will increase as the earnings increase..

Thanks for everything.

$18 would be the bare minimum any citizen would have as a daily income. It's one of the benefits of being a citizen of the Greatest Country in the World :-)

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 6 years ago

When you pitched this whole idea originally it was something that everyone got from the day they were born-that would help them get a job, help pay for college, allow society to be productive and creative etc.

Now it's welfare. And with your plan someone could pop out 3-4 kids and make more money than the average wage.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 6 years ago

If you are concerned about a woman receiving $18 per day for her child.. what are your thoughts on those CEO's receiving million dollar bonuses .. ?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

they have more than enough to pay everyone else to dance or die

[Deleted]

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 6 years ago

You haven't discussed taxes in your Formula. Would those cease? Is the 1/3 calculated on and taken out of gross income, or net income?

Are you asking for this 1/3 on top of everything else "society" already funds?

We teach basic addition and subtraction to every child in this country starting at age 6. I teach my children not to borrow anything they cannot replace or repay. Mature, responsible individuals who learn financial management plan and save for "times of trouble" so that they and their loved ones never go completely without. Society provides even food, shelter and clothing for those who are homeless. How many people die in the US every day, right now, because they were completely "without" food, clothing and shelter through absolutely no fault of their own?

Our government WASTES billions of dollars every year on programs that benefit no one in any tangible way. You want to give them MORE money and expect them to just doll it out to those in need without taxing a portion of it or misappropriating it? Think of the hands it would have to go through...each one getting a percentage of it-because you gotta pay the workers. Voters freak out when someone attempts to FIX the Social Security program...and you want to replace it?

Good luck with your idea. I'll watch for it.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 6 years ago

Did you know saving money is actually detrimental to the economy?

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (331) 6 years ago

Could you explain that in detail, especially to all the credit unions that serve thier members with loans, mortgages, capital, etc. Also include banks who provide local business loans and mortgages, etc. yes savings removes money from immediate circulation and maybe lowers the multiplier effect, but then it is really just a delay, as the money saved is loaned out in a similar multiplier effect (fractional lending). That money serves the economy very well, locally and on a national level.

Besides, everyone faces a personal financial crisis at least a few times in their lives. Savings provides some buffer for those times. Your comment would suggest that people would be left stranded and then what?

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 6 years ago

Okay, to cover your point. you take out a loan ..pay 5% interest.. buy a house .. the seller puts the money in the bank .. and collects 5% .. now someone else takes out a loan .. from the original money you first borrowed which is now being reborrowed .. and he pays another five percent .. now it's collecting 15% on the original loan .. a few more times of reborrowing and there will be more interested owed than the original loan.. .. So now .. anyone taking out a loan is actually paying a hundred percent interest.. and everyone owes on the loan they took out , but guess what .. the original $100,000 that was borrowed is still only $100,000 in circulation .. but twenty people owe a total of two million dollars .. how do they do .. you can only create so many jobs on a $100,000 in circulation .. This is the same for the national debt .. bonds are sold .. profits are used to make the purchase of the bonds .. and the money from the sale is placed in circulation .. and profits from that are reused to purchase more bonds .. soon the debt is ten times the amount of actual money in circulation .. and the compounded interest .. can never be paid .. there is more interested owed on the money in circulation than actual money ..

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (331) 6 years ago

Are you answering my question or a different one? But to comment. You are making an incorrect assumption that 100% of the house payment money goes back to savings. And you make an incorrect statement: "anyone taking out a loan is actually paying 100% interest". No, they are paying 5%. I already know how money circulates, etc. You made the statement that "savings is detrimental to the economy". Yet in your explanation, you say opposite. How is twenty people owning houses a detriment to the economy? The loaning of money has a similar multiplier effect as money in normal circulation. It is the original savings that creates the available money for loans, and the continued savings that keeps capital available for loaning. Am not sure of why you answered your concern with an opposite position. BTW, the seller who deposits some of the proceeds back into the bank is not getting the same interest rate as the loan rate. The bank would go under rather quickly.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 6 years ago

Just to add to last comment:

The current system is not 'self-correcting' it will crash.

Where as , this Formula always adjust the allowance to the average income.. it will not crash.

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 6 years ago

Which is why I save up my money, pay off my debts, and pay cash for everything afterwards. I participate in "the pile of crap" you just elaborated upon as little as possible. It's good for MY economy.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 6 years ago

Yes but everything you purchase was used by investors money ..and they are paying the accumulated 200% interest .. so ..you are paying for it also with everything you purchase..

Do you think you can created enough jobs for twenty people trying to pay off a loan when only $100,000 exists in circulation .. absolutely not .. you will have to borrow and add to the compounded interested.

Now if no one saved money than all money would be used for keeping the economy running like a well oiled machine.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (331) 6 years ago

Your making a terrible assumption that you need to have all physical money in hand. That is not how it works. You do realize that the physical money quantity does not actually exist? I do not believe that you really understand banking and financial operations, otherwise you would not be making the statements that you do.

[-] -2 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 6 years ago

Really? How is it any different than spending it now and then expecting the GOVERNMENT to take care of me when things are bad? Money to feed my family and put a roof over our heads is money to feed my family and put a roof over my head whether I use it now, or later. One LESS family to take care of if things go to hell is actually a blessing to the future economy.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 6 years ago

You take out a loan .. borrow money to buy a house .. the previous owner takes the money and puts it in the bank .. how do you pay off your loan if the money you borrowed is locked away in a private account .. for the next ..30 years.

[-] -2 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 6 years ago

I pay off my loan with the money I earn from being employed.

What if the person I bought my house from DOESN'T lock it away in a private account? You do know that the BANK the previous owner puts his money in uses that money to make loans to other people, and pays the previous owner interest in return for them borrowing it? Right?

You DO realize that banks are filled with cash, and that "your" savings gets moved all over the world electronically all day every day? It's not just locked away in there....

[Deleted]

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 6 years ago

Aliens. I'm employed by aliens. They pay me in moon rocks which I then sell to the government. Because they are the government, I'm able to charge them 10 times what the rocks are actually worth. I then give 20% of my profit to the aliens and they smoke the dollar bills like weed and eat alien munchies......

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (331) 6 years ago

Where do I apply for employment?

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 6 years ago

I'll talk to them and see if there are any openings. This economy you know....

[Deleted]

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 6 years ago

"There are many women that would love to raise children but are forced to choose a career over family raising because of financial reasons."

There are many women who love having a nice house and nice cars and nice clothes and then complain that they can't afford children. We all make choices. I'm NOT saying that all women without children fit into this category, but many women who say that they were "forced" to choose a career over raising a family are in that situation because of BAD financial decisions that were made.

Where do you think the "finance" in the form of taxes comes from now? Where do you think all the Federal money that goes into the welfare system comes from? The money that puts roofs over heads and pays for food and medical expenses for the bottom third of our population comes from the efforts and taxes of the top two thirds.

[Deleted]

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 6 years ago

Oh they walked right into our homes and ripped it out of our hands and slapped us all on the way out. Right?

I mean NONE of us has ever given a company our money freely and willingly because we want what they have that we don't have-like electricity and heat and clothing and cars and houses and toys and computers and...yada yada

And all of us, if those bastards had just left us our own money would have used it to build our own stuff, grown our own cotton and make our own thread and sew our own clothes and etc etc etc.

The ONLY entity on the planet that can take money that belongs to you without your express permission (and yes, we SIGN on the dotted lines in every other instance) is the US GOVERNMENT. You sign a contract, or engage in free trade with, every other entity on the planet. From your mortgage company to your dentist. And if you didn't get out of that contract exactly what you paid for, then find a good lawyer.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 6 years ago

The billionaires don't manufacturer anything .. the people do.

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 6 years ago

Yes. And people who can just squat and pull products out of their butts or thin air are perfectly free to sell those products and keep all the profit to themselves.

This is a lame argument because if the billionaire didn't exist, the people would have nothing to assemble, nowhere to assemble it, and no clients to sell it to.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 6 years ago

Oh no doubt there is some skill and talent involved. Making many decisions .. keeping the operation running .. but is it worth a billion dollars ? Everyone else in the plant works hard every day too .. they don't get a 'billion dollars ..? why not .. ? abillionaire works an hour a day .. and usually the toughest part ogf his job is answering a phone ..

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (331) 6 years ago

I will assume that you are refering to a CEO or other executive level. By that answer you really do not understand what is required of a high level executive at a corporation. Do some get paid extreme salary? Yes, and sometimes it is ridiculous levels. An executive usually works 10-12 hours per day, and usually part pf the weekend. It is not just answering a phone.

Why is there such hate for corporate executives? Why does everyone assume that every executive is bad, corrupt or evil. Should I assume that every poor person is just a deadbeat with no ambition to do anything? People that have money did not just magically appear, most work very hard to get where they are. Is anything wrong with that? Is success a bad thing? Wouldn't you like to be just as successfull? Is there something wrong with being wealthy?

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (331) 6 years ago

You are asking society to fund families, rather than ask why would a couple have 3-4 children when they can not afford it in the first place. There is some personal responsibility that is required to have a working society, and that includes decisions to have children. No one should have children until they are able to support them. You can not require others to be financially responsible for other's selfishness. Your forcing others to support a particular life style. You are penalizing people who choose not to have children, or just have one. Where does the this requirement of the few to support the many end? Personal life style decisions should not be a financial burden for others.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (331) 6 years ago

You know that was not my comment. It was specific to having children responsibly and not creating a financial burden for others.

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 6 years ago

What proof do you have that everyone earning less than average wage IS responsible? A teenager who goes to school all day only has so much time to earn money IN. Part time jobs drive the average down. Someone who works part time BY CHOICE drags the average down.

And babies cannot be responsible with money, and if their parents were irresponsible bringing them into the world, you'd hand them MORE money on behalf of the child they weren't responsible for in the first place.

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 6 years ago

Thank God or your "average wage" and thus your living allowance would be something like 18 cents. AND there would be no one around to fund it for those who are zero wage earners.

You're talking in circles, which you are free to do. But I'm not going to.

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 6 years ago

Thank you. I had begun to think I was alone here.

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 6 years ago

It IS a full time job. And it IS costly. I know MANY MANY couples who plan financially so that their wives can stay home with their kids. They sacrifice luxuries and other "shallow" things for the greater good of their family AND society. And their kids grow up to be productive members of society.

Society already DOES help cover the cost of child raising for low income families and those who need help.

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 6 years ago

I can't answer that and neither can you in all honesty. Do you know ALL billionaires? Can you truthfully say that NONE of them have ever had to sacrifice anything in their lives? Time with their kids? Family time? Marriages?

Are ALL billionaires lying, stealing, corrupt, monsters? If you have proof of that, please share it? I have no doubt that there are plenty of corrupt "rich" people, but I refuse to indict someone as guilty based on nothing more than the amount of money in their bank account. If you feel good about doing that, so be it. I won't.

If you build a huge corporation that then employs thousands of people-are you not responsible for them to? Do you not OWE it to them to keep things running? To make things profitable? How many of them might have sacrificed things they personally valued because of the weight of sacrificing the company might have been the greater evil.

Do billionaires pay ANY TAXES? Do NONE of them ever contribute? Invent? Benefit society? Why is it OK for you to demonize them all as if they are identical copies of each other? I resent the hell out of people who do that to "the poor", and yet here you are acting like it's FINE to do it to "the rich" because THEN it's true.

It's hypocrisy. It's embarrassing. If you can't be consistent in your values and integrity, then all it proves is that you don't have any at all.

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 6 years ago

What about those people who do not WANT to be employed? Would your force them to be? If a millionaires wife doesn't want to work, YOUR PLAN would give her a freaking living allowance on top of the security she already has. AND each one of her children!

Your plan would give money to everyone who didn't work-even if they live in perfectly good, secure, financially well off situations. That isn't employing the whole world. That's paying it for merely existing and not taking care of itself.

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 6 years ago

There goes your simple formula and math.

Really. Good luck. BEST of luck to you. I'm out. I'll look for my living allowance after I hole up in a bunker somewhere and spend my days in the fetal position rocking back and forth muttering...OWS.....damnit...OWS......