A Citizen's Dividend

[Geoist]

I listen to Thom Hartmann almost daily. And while I do not always agree with him (he's a bit of a Statist), I think he hits the nail on the head here! Bring on a Citizen's Dividend for the nation! The socialists will get what they want (a smaller gap between rich and poor), and the capitalists will get what they want (more efficiency in the marketplace).

 

[Spartacus FPV]

This guy started losing his credibility when he called it "The Republican Great Recesssion" as if it wasn't started by a liberal President and the repeal of Glass Steagal.

That being said, his idea for a national dividend is merely the forced redistribution of the wealth accumulated by the wealthiest billionaires he speaks of circa minute two. Not new revenue, which begs the question of the reaction by said billionaires should the returns on their investments be threatened, who would more likely not engage in said business the following year.

When you chase away the job creators by trying to redistribute what they produce, everyone sufferes because a fraction of zero is 0. You're not entitled to the profits of others, and I am not a shareholder in my neighbors.

 

[Geoist]

This guy started losing his credibility when he called it "The Republican Great Recesssion" as if it wasn't started by a liberal President and the repeal of Glass Steagal.

I cannot quote anything Hartmann said about Glass-Steagall but I'm pretty certain he opposed its repeal.

In any case, I'm not going to defend a lot of the things he has said before, but I do like what he is saying here. Even a blind squirrel find an acorn sometimes.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

I cannot quote anything Hartmann said about Glass-Steagall but I'm pretty certain he opposed its repeal.

In any case, I'm not going to defend a lot of the things he has said before, but I do like what he is saying here. Even a blind squirrel find an acorn sometimes.

This sounds to me like spreading out the nuts of the squirrel who collected them amongst those who didn't because they share his forest, because he is "profiting" from the "commons", his efforts and their laziness be damned. The more I listen, the less I agree.

If an oil company pays a state leases and royalties for their business, the fee should be the cost. Anything more, for the sake of giving out dividends to state residents, is an increased cost which the consumers of said company's oil will pay. It will be reflected at the gas pump, and in the prices of all things shipped (trucks use gas too.) There is no free lunch to be had here.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Yet another whacky socialist scheme that lacks math and economic sense. The fact that any increase in oil company "production" costs would necessitate a corresponding increase in final product (oil/gas) price is conveniently ignored. This goober acts as if these monied industrial wizards would gladly give up their yachts, vacation homes and lavish lifestyles yet continue to produce just as much product (maintain all current reinvestments), even as they see that income foolishly given away to mooching morons unable to do anything but foolishly consume it. The system in Alaska "works" only because that $2K/head is maybe 10% of that needed to survive, roughly the equivalent of a local tax cut of about 10% in any major US city/state. While that seems like a good deal, it goes as quickly as it came since, in Alaska, the cost of living is about 30% higher and wages are average. Using the wage calcualtor, in link below, I would need a raise from $30K to over $43.5K (40% more?) to maintain the same standard of living in Fairbanks, AK as in Austin, TX. Hmm...

Cost of Living in Alaska - Fairbanks, Alaska Cost of Living - PayScale

 

[tererun]

He totally ignores the american pipe dream of someday being so rich you can crap on everyone else. It would seem there are a large number of people who believe in that despite the reality they will never be allowed into the rich class. Still the hope that someday they can be wasteful and cruel to others is what drives many of the people in this country to work. We have been told repeatedly that without that pipe dre4am most of the lazy white people would just stop working and live off the state, even in a situation where work could get you some perks. If the perks are not big enough to crp on others then it simply is not worth it to many.

These ideas work in a place where people can be satisfied with living a life that has perks but is not excessively wasteful. How many people do you know without excessive greed and hate for their fellow man? i think i can count the number i know on my right hand.

 

[Neomalthusian]

He totally ignores the american pipe dream of someday being so rich you can crap on everyone else. It would seem there are a large number of people who believe in that despite the reality they will never be allowed into the rich class.

And how is it that it seems this way?

Still the hope that someday they can be wasteful and cruel to others is what drives many of the people in this country to work.

:shock: Your comments are nonsensical, and blinded by irrational bitterness. I cut out the rest of them for

 

[MoSurveyor]

Yet another whacky socialist scheme that lacks math and economic sense. The fact that any increase in oil company "production" costs would necessitate a corresponding increase in final product (oil/gas) price is conveniently ignored.

I don't see that at all. In reference to oil, the price at the pump may increase a tiny fraction (assuming he's even advocating for an increase in lease prices) but it would not effect everyone the same since not everyone uses the same amount of oil products.

This goober acts as if these monied industrial wizards would gladly give up their yachts, vacation homes and lavish lifestyles yet continue to produce just as much product (maintain all current reinvestments), even as they see that income foolishly given away to mooching morons unable to do anything but foolishly consume it.

No, I do not think he's saying the billionaires will give up profits. What he's advocating is simply rerouting of money that's already paid by industry in the form of fees and leases by having Uncle Sam pass that money on to the people, equally, instead of putting it in the general fund.

As for "foolish consumption": Don't look now but that's what drives the economy. ~70% of our economy is consumer spending. Without it, as many businesses have found out in the last few years, we're dead in the water.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I don't see that at all. In reference to oil, the price at the pump may increase a tiny fraction (assuming he's even advocating for an increase in lease prices) but it would not effect everyone the same since not everyone uses the same amount of oil products.

No, I do not think he's saying the billionaires will give up profits. What he's advocating is simply rerouting of money that's already paid by industry in the form of fees and leases by having Uncle Sam pass that money on to the people, equally, instead of putting it in the general fund.

As for "foolish consumption": Don't look now but that's what drives the economy. ~70% of our economy is consumer spending. Without it, as many businesses have found out in the last few years, we're dead in the water.

LOL. The economy should be booming then since the federal gov't consumes (spends) 40% more than it earns (taxes). What you really seem to be saying is that the welfare queen should now get only $2K from the gov't just like the CEO. Remember that in AK nobody pays taxes (except sales/property) yet all get that $2K. Only corporations are taxed in AK, so that the people do not want corporate taxes raised since every $1 taken from the corporation is $1 less to be paid back to them.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Remember that in AK nobody pays taxes (except sales/property) yet all get that $2K. Only corporations are taxed in AK, so that the people do not want corporate taxes raised since every $1 taken from the corporation is $1 less to be paid back to them.

That arithmetic doesn't work out, either. If Exxon is paying a 20% corporate tax (for example), and deducts an extra $100 from it's AGI for increased fess/leases, then their tax burden only decreases by $20 - yet AK gains $100 from the lease for a net gain to AK of $80.

 

[Geoist]

If an oil company pays a state leases and royalties for their business, the fee should be the cost.

The point of the segment is that when that territory is leased, the money the state receives should be returned to the citizens.

Anything more, for the sake of giving out dividends to state residents, is an increased cost which the consumers of said company's oil will pay. It will be reflected at the gas pump, and in the prices of all things shipped (trucks use gas too.) There is no free lunch to be had here.

The amount for the lease should be in line with the value of that space. I do not believe it should be more than that.

 

[Geoist]

Yet another whacky socialist scheme that lacks math and economic sense.

While Thom Hartmann may be a socialist, it is hardly a "socialist scheme". This idea was proposed by Thomas Paine in Agrarian Justice. Historically, it has been supported by libertarians and conservatives like William F. Buckley Jr, Frank Chodorov, Albert Jay Nock, and Milton Friedman.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

The point of the segment is that when that territory is leased, the money the state receives should be returned to the citizens.

So long as the state is not running deficits, that's fine with me. But I think that should be the case for all excess revenue.

 

[gavinfielder]

I think it's a decent idea. In fact, it's a great idea in terms of economics. I mean it's basic keynesian theory, put purchasing power in the hands of people who purchase and the economy will boom and jobs will be sustained. No liquidity trap, no demand shortfall. Oil royalties need to be dealt with carefully as oil prices still have the capacity to affect CPI. But the stock trade public royalty, now that's just golden. The stock market, as a secondary exchange market of non-productive assets is functionally little more than a money sink in terms of macroeconomics. Bringing some of that money back into the market of real goods and services would be enormously stimulative.