Progress

Member
  • Content count

    255
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About Progress

  • Rank
    - - -

Personal Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

2,107 profile views
  1. @Claymoree I do not whatsoever assume the stock market is risk free. Most losses from the stock market are usually made by panic selling, often a result of financial illiteracy. The other cause is speculating which if you speculate to this high degree, you would've likely done the same without a birthright fund. Anyone with even mild financial literacy knows how easy it is to make a consistent 8% average compounding very safely. With the rise of ETFs, this is made even easier, cheaper and more accessible. The stock market has consistently grown throughout its history so as long as someone invests and holds longterm in blue chip stocks/etfs, they should be more than fine. I do not assume this ideal is perfection or provide all answers but it does provide a massive safety net, shortening the wealth gap, a retirement fund, extra dividend income and even more income from a salaried person not having to pay 15% social security tax. Furthermore, the government itself can raise revenues through this proposed system through capital gains and estate taxes. These taxes can fund a UBI of some sort in their own right. Yes it is true, that there are issues that during market downturns, the fund isn't as strong however it nonetheless provides dividends and an emergency fund if you choose to pillage it. It can not solve all social issues but better to have $100-300k as an emergency fund when you're out of a job than to not?
  2. I subscribe to this ideology wholeheartedly. A financially literate society is a sustainable wealthy society. Everyone benefits from each others financial literacy. The trends are increasing towards financial literacy which means more and more average people benefiting from the fruits of capitalism. From 2019, 10% of the stock market was owned by retail investors and by 2020, it is now 25%. A staggering 150% increase in retail investor's buying power in the stock market in just one year. Why would we dismantle such an efficient economic system when people are just starting to truly benefit from it. The real policies right now should be how we increase citizen's benefiting and owning the economic system.
  3. @Claymoree If everyone was getting a million a month, that would require massive inflation, aka printing money. There is no extra inflation in my plan. Prices increase my inflation or by supply/demand. As the infrastructure of the United States has not collapse, I'm sure the economy can balance it out. I think you're confusing outright cash vs owning assets. Owning 1 million of stock which provides a 3-5% dividend gives more real buying power as the money is not only not from inflation but directly from companies which have to generate revenues to provide the dividends. Also UBI in my plan is formed from taxes, not inflation.
  4. @neutralempty Stability for UBI could easily be gathered through capital gains taxes and the rest an estate tax on this particular portfolio. I never was a fan of direct taxes and more indirect taxes such as VAT not only provide about the same as income taxes but at least gives some choice to the citizen whether they want to pay a tax or not. *Side note if you noticed now that the tax rate for capital gain(selling stock or getting dividends) is 0% for under $40,000 and the maximum tax rate for any capital gains is actually 20%; you'd notice how the rich get away with paying less taxes, most of their income often come from stocks/dividends and as such their maximum tax rate is 20%. Still for capital gains taxes for capital gains under $40,000 is literally 0% which makes it that much more rewarding when normal people hold stocks. I truly believe having access and owning the market is one of the best ways we can alleviate poverty, it also doesn't require much government interference.
  5. @LfcCharlie4 Well the easiest way to balance out corruption is an absolute removal of lobbyist money into politics and perhaps even an outright ban of politicians from owning stocks when they achieve office. I don't think the stock market is the problem, its an extremely efficient economic innovation, I think the problem is the lack of accessibility, ownership and education of it by the average person.
  6. Well they won't become millionaires til they're quite old so, a higher standard of living really. It also won't really matter because people would become old at very different times and of course die at very different times. Yes people would be become millionaires, but that's mostly on paper as most millionaires are; to comfortably retire, they'd still need to keep the shares and simply live off the dividends. An estate tax on this specific retirement portfolio should even out any other issues. Yes the problem is initial funds, that's why if the government were to start a fund on the citizens behalf with an initial investment of $6800, controlled by parents til age 16 (with some regulatory restraint on parental control) by the time the person is 18, they can have a small yearly dividend but often this is the difference between life and death for some. As they age the dividend would increase substantially. How is the initial investment paid? It'll paid through a special wage tax to cover the initial investment adjusted for inflation for $6800. Of course there would be taxes on capital gains and an estate tax, so the government more than breaks even and yet the average citizen benefits so much from it during their life time. Of course this solution is not enough to solve poverty but it does serve as a good safety net and does solve the poverty if the person can survive til they are older. When people own stocks, they become much more interested in understanding it and the overall economy so this is a natural solution in financial education. Yes it is not perfect but it is certainly better than nothing. It doesn't really matter too much if people grow an aversion to stocks, most people don't exactly check their stocks each day and with the advent of ETFs, it becomes far safer and easier for inexperienced people to safety invest in the market. It is generally imperative that financial education reforms are carried out if such a "birthright investment" is carried out nationally nonetheless. I will not say I have the solution to people struggling to make ends meet but I am relatively supportive of UBI and I think that would help tremendously at the very least. Perhaps a combo policy where there is UBI from ages 18-30 or 35 and afterwards the dividends from this "birthright investment portfolio" should take over the function of UBI.
  7. @neutralempty "Not all have a chance to get passive income via stocks, regardless of access to it. You need money for stocks. If a company needs employees that invest in it, it may educate and treat people way better, at least that's what I expect currently, but maybe they will also start brainwashing employees and it backfires." Yes you need money for stocks but by flat out banning external investments for stocks, by your logic, the previous shareholders (mostly large institutions) would end up with most of the shares and the average person can't benefit from owning shares of a company. Furthermore the banning of shares being sold cuts out a useful investment strategy for companies, forcing them to take on more debt rather than simply selling shares. This will impede economic growth especially in frontier sectors such as cannabis and psychedelic companies that do not have or as easy access to loans. The liability in balance sheet will increase dramatically from such policies. Furthermore, you don't need to block out external investments to encourage employees, offering stock options is enough to encourage higher productivity and cohesiveness and many companies already do so. "Most stocks besides that are owned by institutions so after a stock blockade, the means of production are about to get a lot more unfair How and why?" When for example 75% of Apple is owned by institutions, previous shareholders and in your case, employees with no one else able to invest in, That means that the average 20 year old can no longer use the stock market to increase their wealth because only previous shareholders and employees can own shares. This will greatly concentrate wealth towards people, mostly older own shares before the ban on selling. The shares and means of production are owned by a small exclusive group and no one else can get in. How is this not unfair? Basically everyone just starting out in life are just fucked because they made the unfortunate mistake of not being born before selling stocks was banned. "Yeah, but what kind of people own it now? The employees have a least an important say in the matter than maybe some other stock owners. The problem I can consider is that there are companies who would crash and we would need a way to catch them and put them back on their feet and that could become expensive, if possible at all. But whatever the stock access isn't even what I see as in important point. I don't even know why I am defending it." You want some 13,000 people to exclusively own 3-8% of the market because they work at Google or were blessed enough to be a shareholder before stock selling is banned? This is essentially creating an extreme gatekeeper aristocracy. Do I think more employees should own shares? Yes, a lot of companies feel the same way, it benefits everyone but should they solely own the company? I think that is a disastrous decision which major company employees concentrate unnormal amount of economic power simply because the government said so, it also has consequences on the balance sheet as company valuation plummets to rockbottom and debt from the company not being able to sell shares rockets. Access to stock is a very important point, it is an extremely way of lifting many out of poverty, supplementing incomes, funding college tuitions and retirements. "That is true to some extend, but not in the company's as in the general case, but rather bound to a few peoples horizons and if those people are driven by greed, then they will collect it and not put it to healthy use. By avoiding taxes you aren't benefiting society or the state, which is what needs to be healthy in the first place for us to function. I feel you should definitely not be in favor of this." When a company makes profit, they reinvest in themselves and it is a false assumption to make that this isn't taxed, it actually in many cases is taxed more, for example Pizza Hut has extra profit so they buy new windows, invest in marketing, hire new employees etc. All these reinvestment activities are taxed and when the window company has more profit; they build new cavities, when the marketing company has more profits; they spend more on advertising, when Pizza Hut has new employees; they buy groceries, insurance and pay rent. This cycle continues on for awhile and brings in taxes at every step. It is better to receive taxes indirectly this way since much more people benefit and the actual productivity/wealth of the economy increases. Alternatively a company that is taxed more can't reinvest as much into growth and development and cause a domino effect of economic growth in its influence circle. Yes you can say that the government can use the extra taxes to increase economic development however the free market is generally a lot more efficient at directing resources and generating economic activity. I'm not advocating for "avoiding taxes", I'm saying that more taxes, especially income taxes does not always mean more revenue (I am ok with it being higher than 21% for corporations however) and certain taxes have very different economic consequences. Essentially all taxes are not made the same, see for example the paragraph I wrote about taxing corporations vs taxing wealthy individuals. "The economy doesn't work, but people make it work and they have minds and ideals and values and needs and so on. But if you have a better understanding please elaborate. Maybe you could also tell us what kind of problems you see with capitalism?" The economy doesn't work but people make it work????? Problems I see with capitalism, well theres many but I'll go over what I can list off the top of my head. I think the problem isn't always the free market but often the lack of accessibility the average person has to the free market. That has changed significantly the last 2 years as in 2019, the stock market was comprised of 10% retail investors (Non-institutions) and now nearly 2021, it is about 25%, more than doubling! Still this is not enough. There are various factors on why average citizens don't have much in the stock market however it boils down to education, exposure and initial funds. Education about finances and investing is slowly improving but it really needs to be taught at schools as a requirement, it would exponentially help people and the economy. Exposure to investing goes along with education, there should be more training programs or courses about it on a systemic level. The initial funds is a lot more complicated of a problem I have thought of a possible solution. A $6800 investment into the S&P would average $1 million at age 65, this is not even including reinvesting dividends, which would the investment worth $3 million at a 2% dividend a year. I think this initial investment when people are born into the stock market can solve issues of retirement, eliminate social security (therefore increasing effective salaries of average people), provide a makeshift UBI from the dividends and even reduce dependence on welfare. That being said I do strongly agree with removing money from politics.
  8. @Joel3102 Well said Joel! The stock market is not just for the rich and increasingly more and more average people are coming into the stock market, making up 25% of the stock market right now (2020) versus 10% in 2019. This is an unprecedented growth in redistributing wealth. The issue was never shareholders of companies but rather the lack of access the average person had to the stock market, lack of financial exposure and chiefly, education. The rise of Robinhood has made owning stocks much easier to acquire however the lack of financial education, exposure and literacy has yet to solved.
  9. @LfcCharlie4 There are several issues with these other asset classes. Real Estate= Often very expensive and not accessible to at least 20% of the population and many do not qualify for loans. There are of course Real Estate Investment Trust, however these are literally sold as stocks which this policy would outlaw. Also real estate is the least liquid asset class out of the rest, making it much harder to sell than a stock. Crypto= Extreme volatility and despite being theoretically liquid, the extreme volatility essentially has an extreme punishment for selling when the crypto is trending downwards which happens much more often than stocks generally. Precious Metals= Often very stagnant investment and really only growing in value during an economic downturn. More of a store of wealth than an investment to increase it. Furthermore employee only companies would lead to extreme concentrations of wealth by employees who work at the largest firms with nonprofits and government workers getting fucked over, along with previous shareholders of companies. Most retirees would have to get back to work.
  10. @neutralempty "Yeah the company, but not only a few exclusive people. Think about how that would improve the company/employee relationship if its only stock owners are it's employees. It doesn't say taking something away from people thatis already there. Just not allow new stock owners out of the company." Many companies already have have stock bonuses for employees. There is no need to brick wall the means of production. By brick walling stock to new shareholders, you brick wall access to some of the greatest wealth generation to the average citizen. You do realize 50% of Americans do not own stocks. By this logic, these unlucky fools no longer have the chance to create a passive income and increase their livelihoods. Most stocks besides that are owned by institutions so after a stock blockade, the means of production are about to get a lot more unfair. 50% of stock market value is held by 6 companies. So imagine say 13,000 employees plus previous investors own Google, which makes up around 3-8% of the stock market. That is an extreme concentration of wealth to such a small amount of people. The other factor is stocks value is driven by demand, so when you blockade a company stock from being sold, this will severely crash the value of the stock, along with millions of investing accounts, college funds and retirement accounts. "I don't know if this stands in relation to their skill. Regardless, his company income was not what saved the company. If we were to avoid tax dodging, we may implement another mechanism to support companies state-wise. Maybe that could have helped Elon Musk. In different System you have different ways of achievement. But however the case this sounds to me like, war creates Saints so we cannot get rid of war. " No his company income was not what saved the company, it was his skill as CEO, compensation is high for executives because they specialize in an extremely rare set of skills but also having the legitimacy and experience of performing said set of skills. State involvement in companies has only really worked well in Norway due to their extreme low level of corruption but also the competency of the Norwegian Government. It would be an extreme gamble to get the state involved in the free market at a higher scale and their would be an extreme chance that the American government would inefficiently sponsor companies. "Well it depends on how much sense that would make, since we would get new wealth distribution throughout the whole company. Maybe that could work as a bridge before a better wealth distribution." When a company makes profit, it is in their best interest to reinvest that money to avoid taxes, so the money is spent for the benefit of the company, including employees in one way or another. Furthermore, profits boast the stock price, which help millions of people who own the stocks. Most companies are always spending to expand so wealth hoarding is not exactly a problem for 95% of even the largest companies as it is reinvested in the economy one form or another. This is only really an issue for the largest of the largest companies. On a general note, not related to you specifically but it seems that the Actualized.org community applies idealistic models of personal development such as Maslow's hierarchy and a general push for "green stage" ideals into economics. Now this is all great and all, but it seems few people are actually doing their due diligence on how the economy actually works. Reform is indeed needed in capitalism but I caution against supporting policies that simply seem like "green stage", it doesn't mean it'll work. Any wrong major decision involving the economy can send millions into poverty and stir chaos. That being said, I believe if we are committed to the principals of actualization, the actualized.org community should make stronger strives in understanding economics if we are to impose policies and ideals.
  11. @Leo Gura While most of your suggestions would indeed fix a lot of capitalistic problems, I believe one would severely backfire with two more doing more harm than good. No ownership of stock unless employed by the company means that the company will be held an even more exclusive amount of shareholders and wealth even more concentrated. Lets also remember that a lot of retirements and investment portfolio of average citizens depend on owning shares of companies that the shareholder has no involvement in. Let us also not forget that the stock market has lifted many average people out of poverty or greatly supplemented an otherwise mediocre standard of living. Salary caps would frankly not do much as most compensation or at least it will be after a salary cap would be in stocks and bonuses. If you are advocating for capping these other compensation, I think you find it to backfire as well. Take for example, Tesla, Only Elon Musk or maybe less than 100 other people on earth could pull Tesla off and frankly he barely did it with a month away from bankruptcy. Compensation for executives are high because they are often generally the only people qualified or skilled enough to hold the position. The benefit of their compensation far outweighs their cost. It is never in the shareholder's board to overpay an executive and they do try to lower the compensation as much as possible. Yes, some incompetent people are made executives, however the company pays a severe price, literally when such events happen either in direct losses or opportunity costs. Higher taxes on corporations is a rather ambiguous statement. Should it be higher than the current 21%? I think so, the average federal income tax is 33% for incomes of $60k afterall. It is really on when corporations hit the S&P 100 that wealth is really starting to be hoarded as they max out their growth and therefore have more money than they know what to do with. So even amongst large companies, it is only likes of Apple, Google and Berkshire Hathaway that are true hoarders of money, so I believe there should be a different tax rate to the highest of corporations. Even so it is better to tax high net worth individuals rather than corporations as corporations keeping more profit benefits employees and the economy more or less. I'm far more a proponent of raising capital gains taxes for incomes over $1 million to 33% (the maximum is 20% if stock is held for a year). Individual wealthy people have much less interest to reinvest profits either within the company or the economy than a corporation.
  12. @Lelouch Lamperouge The reason I believed in it was because I could always naturally feel what my soul type was from a very young age and my hobbies/mannerisms reflected it to an atom. Most people could be categorized by their soul types, which is really just a reflection of their life purpose. The souls choose which character they want to play(soul type). In the minor research I had, soul types reincarnate in various different social-economic backgrounds for the sake of balance. For example an artisan being born in a service driven family or a priest in a scholar driven family. The Indian caste system from this logic would actually be a major disservice to a 7 soul types notion.
  13. Hey guys I found some information about most people are grouped into 7 soul types. It was just a gut feeling that I hold it to be true but does anyone have more information? http://personalityspirituality.net/articles/the-michael-teachings/the-seven-roles-in-essence/
  14. @Annoynymous Inflation happens solely due to the oversupply of money, aka money printing. Yang has no intention of printing money for this cause and would use current means via VAT, cutting redundant programs and the natural cyclical money flow from the dividend to cover the costs. Other measures would be to reverse Trump's tax cuts as well as increasing passive income tax rates from a maximum of 20% to 33%(Usual rate for active income).
  15. @Husseinisdoingfine I understand your critiques and they are valid to an extent however I just wanted to elaborate on the situation. If UBI was implemented, employers will not slash pay at least for a couple of years, however other factors effect this as well. UBI would often decrease the supply of certain skilled workers as the people in it for the money consider retirement or work they prefer meanwhile we will see a mass decrease in college education as people are less pressed to attain white collar work. Minimum wage will most likely not decrease, there is enough public pressure to halt that and inflation is enough reason. Employees that get payed well for simple jobs such as Trader Joes would not get a decrease as these companies pay well out of principal. Moreover is that despite exponential inflation, employers have not increased salaries relative to inflation so UBI would balance this trend out. My final point regarding this would also be outsourcing and automation that is happening so the point of employers decreasing pay (unlikely) pails in comparison to the current reality. As for rent prices, yes they may increase but not nearly as drastically as you say. The reason why rent cost so much is usually democratic controlled governments in cities halt building permits in order to preserve the housing prices of homeowners (which I believe is an unethical practice). This is contributing to rent prices much much more than UBI could ever. Furthermore most Americans are homeowner and therefore not renters in competition. UBI may actually increase homeownership as an extra $12k is extraordinarily helpful for mortgages. As for the cost of UBI, I'd estimate 33% of the UBI would trickle right back up as people buy goods and spend money. Furthermore as money spent amongst consumers can be used multiple times, this would create an economic boom in its own right as people have money to spend. The cost of UBI could be further decreased by eliminating programs that become redundant because of it such as food stamps and social security (This would have to be done gradually). Although not stated by Yang, did you know that passive income's maximum tax rate is 20% compared to a maximum tax rate of 33% for people who work. What is passive income? Its the money from stocks and dividends. Essentially the wealthiest people benefit from this lower tax rate while the poor who don't have the money for stocks don't. If you ask any poor person if $1000/month or food stamps, social security and medicare; I bet they'd all pick $1000/month. As a broke college student, $1000/month would help a lot more than the rest combined. That being said I am for medicare for all and hope that Andrew Yang comes up with a more concrete policy.