= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
nazgulnarsil comments on General Bitcoin discussion thread (May 2011) - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (50)
This reply is ambiguous. Are your referring to Falkvinge's or Milton's arguments?
Anyway, I find replies of the kind "someone else has already made this point better, duh" pointless and annoying. If they'd include a pointer to the earlier discussion, that'd be useful. But otherwise it's just saying "I'm better than you because I happened to hear about this subject earlier than you did, hah!".
I don't find it pointless and annoying at all if the person in question actually made the point in a much more thorough way. playing the non-strongest version of arguments off against each other is a waste of everyone's time.
The problem is not including a link to said arguments.
Google negative income tax and read the article...
Naz I think you are a little off though. the negative income tax is an implementation of a few possible implementations of a basic income system. Friedman liked it because it was better then normal welfair or the progressive tax we have. He wanted a flat tax. He did not particuly want the NIT, he wanted less welfair overhead and a flat tax.
If you do not have an income tax you can not use a negative income tax to implement a basic income.
Falkvinge is coming from the other direction. He is saying we will be forced to have a flat tax (VAT) because of bitcoin and that in order to still have wellfair we will need to implement a basic income, his citizens income.
It is all crazy talk though.