Negative income tax

Tom Kalbfus · 2013-11-12 19:58:08

RobertDyck wrote:

I may be Canadian, but we pay attention to the US. I am very interested in politics. I noticed the number of candidates listed for US presidential elections was 17 in year 2000. It's been about that ever since. One of the candidates in year 2000 was the nominated candidate for a political party called the Tea Party. So they started as a political party, failed, then decided to join the Republicans and take over their nomination process. They're basically taking over the Republican party.

There are state political parties and there are national political parties, to have a national party in the United States, you need to have a state political party of the same name in each of the fifty states. It is very very very hard to start a major party in the United States, in our entire history there have only been four:
The Federalist Party (George Washington, John Adams), The Democratic Republican Party (Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Jefferson Davis, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama), The Whig Party (Can't think of any presidents, but it was a 19th century party that preceded the Republicans), The Republican Party (Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan)

RobertDyck wrote:

I also noticed candidates for the Reform party, Green party, and others. For some reason the media keeps ignoring all parties and candidates other than the Republican and Democratic. Voters aren't getting information, often don't even know the others exist. That's a problem.

The Green Party was invented in Germany much as the ideas for Communism and National Socialism were, the Reform party was Created by Ross Perot and his billions, unfortunately one man can't buy a party into existence, the process of fundraising is just as important as getting the money, it was Perot's deep pockets that created the Reform Party, and when Ross Perot lost his bid to become President, his deep pockets went with him, Pat Buchanan later ran for President as a Reform Party candidate, but that went nowhere, another third party that was created for the benefit of one candidate was the Progressive Party also known as the Bull Moose Party, which Theodore Roosevelt ran under when he didn't get nominated under the Republican ticket. Third parties are really hard to establish, and most of the time they don't become one of the two major parties, but on occasion it does happen. In the 19th century for instance the Republican Party replaced the Whig party, the Federalist Party became extinct and so forth.
The actual party is not very important, its who the party members are that define what the party is and what it stands for. The Tea Party is not an actual national political party, not yet anyway, its very name evokes the Boston Tea Party, which started the American Revolution, so people who call themselves Tea Party members tend to be patriots. Those during the American Revolution that opposed the Tea Party ended up moving to Canada and making it into an English speaking country mostly instead of a French speaking one.

RobertDyck wrote:

Much of the agenda for the Tea Party makes a lot of sense: power by the people, accountability, etc. Unfortunately they're extreme right-wing.

That sounds like a tautology, what makes you say that its extreme right wing, is it because the Media tells you it is right wing and you take their word for it. The Tea Party takes its ideas from the Founding Fathers of the United States of America. If you call us right wing, you are also calling George Washington right wing and Thomas Jefferson, and John and Samuel Adams. Yes, Thomas Jefferson, the founder of the Democratic Party was also a believe of the cause of the Sons of Liberty and their Tea Party, Thomas Jefferson was just as much against taxation without representation as was George Washington. So how do you say we are different from those two besides not owning slaves?

RobertDyck wrote:

Political parties tend to be farther right in the US than Canada, but even Americans see the Tea Party as so far to the extreme right that they have to be described with expletives.

You still have not given a reason why you think it is extreme right wing other than repeating what the media says about it. Are we to the Right of George Washington or Thomas Jefferson or John Adams, if so then how so? In the 18th century, being "Right Wing" meant you were a monarchist, but that definition a lot of right wingers moved to Canada and became your ancestors.

RobertDyck wrote:

Tom Kalbfus wrote:
Right now our government has gotten out of control, it has legislated against the people and enacted legislation that we did not want, the Media has become less a watchdog and more of a servant to this government.
Yes Tom, that is true. However, the Affordable Healthcare Act is something the voters want. The last presidential election was campaigned on this. Polls show Americans do want it. However, the extreme right just doesn't understand it.

Well the polls show otherwise, why do you suppose it was passed without a single Republican vote and why do you suppose the Republicans regained the majority in the House afterwards?

RobertDyck wrote:

I was invited to a group on LinkedIn. The purpose of the group is impressive; I was honoured to be invited. However, during the government shutdown, one members said the members of that group were smart people, so proposed they brain-storm to find a solution. One member likened the Act to Marxism. I tried to explain that Democrats had extreme expectations for president Obama; many of which were unreasonable and he never stated he intended to do that. But president Obama has failed on almost every issue important to Democrats, both ones he never said he would do, and ones he did. Healthcare is his only success. So there's no way Democrats can back down. Any solution to the shutdown cannot involve de-funding Healthcare. Then I got attacked. The founder of that group pointed out 85% of that group are Republicans, and I noticed the founder is a Texas Republican. Ooooohhhh! What did I get into? So I shut up, and they changed the subject.

Marxism was invented in Germany, and so was National Socialism, I am not interested in founding any party in America that has German origins because of Germany's checkered past in politics and starting two World Wars, other than that they had brilliant rocket scientists.

RobertDyck wrote:

I've never understood why America doesn't have a healthcare system. I've read media reports of an individual, a working middle class man with a house and family, who was diagnosed with cancer. He was worried healthcare expenses would consume all his savings, require he sell his house, lose everything. His wife and children would be left with nothing. So rather than see treatment, it committed suicide. Closed himself in his garage and ran the car, poisoned himself with carbon monoxide. There's more than one report of this. The current system in the US means only the rich can live, everyone else dies.

What it has is a healthcare market, but just as your local supermarket won't provide you with free food, neither will your local hospital or doctor's clinic provide you with free medical care, and its not the hospital's fault that healthcare is not free any more than its your local grocery store's fault that it does not give away food for free. If you want the government to provide healthcare, the best way to so it is for the government to give you money so you can buy healthcare, and just so you don't spend that money on alcohol and cigarettes or gamble it away in Los Vegas, the form of that money should be in vouchers. Now socialists don't like that approach of the government just giving you money so you can buy things, nope they like control, they like to tell the doctors what services they can provide and how much they should be allowed to charge, but that doesn't work anymore that the government just saying that gasoline should cost one dollar a gallon or 27 cents per liter in Canada. Would you support a measure where the Canadian Parliment passed a law that stated that gas stations could only charge 27 cents per liter of gasoline? What do you think would happen if they did? You'd see signs that say, "Sorry no gas!" or "Out of business!"

RobertDyck wrote:

In 1997 I worked in a suburb of Richmond, Virginia. I just finished a work contract in Calgary, Alberta. My employer in Calgary insisted all programmers incorporate as one-person corporations, that way they didn't have to pay the employer's portion of Employment Insurance and Canada Pension Plan (Canada's equivalent to Social Security), or the employer's portion of health insurance premiums. All contractors for that company had to pay both the employer and employee portions. Alberta rules require the employer pay 2/3, the employee pays 1/3, but I had to pay both. This means I paid triple what a typical employee paid in Alberta. While in Virginia, I called Alberta Health to ask about coverage. They said they would continue to cover me for up to one year, provided I continue to pay premiums. And if I got sick, they would pay the hospital at the usual Alberta rate. If an American hospital charged more, I would have to pay the difference. Ok, I was young and healthy. But I paid quarterly (once every three months). When you convert what I paid from Canadian dollars to American, using the exchange rate at the time, what I paid quarterly is equal to what my American colleagues paid monthly. So despite the fact I paid triple what a typical Alberta worker paid, my American colleagues paid triple what I paid. That means Americans paid nine times what someone in Alberta paid.

Well Canada can't run US hospitals so they pay your bills for a set amount and you pay what goes over that amount, now that is basically a voucher where the government pays for it.

RobertDyck wrote:

And Republicans still claim the American system didn't need fixing! Obama Care isn't perfect, but it's a step in the correct direction.

RobertDyck · 2013-11-13 00:28:20

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

Those during the American Revolution that opposed the Tea Party ended up moving to Canada and making it into an English speaking country mostly instead of a French speaking one.

Um, no. Don't think America is the centre of the universe. The United States has a rich history, and you're proud of it. Good for you. But America did not dictate Canada. "New France" was a colony of France, established before New England. Then England established 16 colonies. Yup, I said 16. When America's founding fathers organized the Declaration of Independence, they tried to convince all 16 colonies sign. Only 13 signed, they became the United States of America. The other 3 were Newfoundland, Upper Canada (now called Ontario), and Nova Scotia.

Newfoundland was established by English businessmen long before any government colony. Quickly businessmen from Portugal, France and Spain joined. It was centuries before any European country gained control over Newfoundland. At one point there was actually a war of businessmen vs government. Details are long and complicated, the first summer fishing camp was established in 1497; the first permanent house built in 1498. So we're talking about 500 years of history. Newfoundland was the last province to join Canada. They were proud of their history, tried becoming their own country for a while, but were too small. They joined Canada in 1949.

When the US did declare independence, many citizens saw themselves as British subjects, and didn't want to separate. Others just wanted to live their lives, didn't want to be involved in a war. They moved north to Upper Canada or the mainland part of Nova Scotia. So many moved to Nova Scotia that the province split. The mainland part became New Brunswick. So in a sense, New Brunswick was founded by Americans who didn't want to be Americans.

Actually, the northern half of the State of Maine was also part of Nova Scotia. But some American Surveyor didn't draw the border straight, he arched it north. At that time Canada was still a colony of Britain, who didn't want another fight, so let it go. Many people had moved there from the 13 colonies to get away. They had abandoned their homes to move to Canada, but found some government men had redrawn the border. Some moved again, others stayed.

"New France" originally consisted of 3 colonies: Quebec, Acadia, and Louisiana. Acadia was conquered by the British and annexed. That land was added to Nova Scotia. That was before Canada was Canada, and before the US Declaration of Independence. It was about Britain and France, not either our countries. Most Acadians were forced out by British soldiers, moving to southern Louisiana. Over the years the name "Acadian" was slurred to become "Cajun". Quebec consisted of what is now Quebec, plus Labrador, Ontario, New Brunswick, Michigan, Wisconsin, Maine, northern New York State, northern Ohio, northern Indiana, northern Illinois, northern Minnesota, and Minnesota east of the Mississippi. Basically the entire coast of the Great Lakes, extending inland many miles. The British conquered Quebec in 1758-1763. That's what made it English, not anything America did.

That sounds like a tautology, what makes you say that its extreme right wing, is it because the Media tells you it is right wing and you take their word for it.

I am hesitant to respond to this. There are many specific policies that the Tea Party stands for that make it objectionable. The idea that anyone who isn't filthy stinking rich should be denied medical services and allowed to die. Treating abortion as if it's murder. (wince!) Abortion was a nasty issue here in Canada. Took many years before laws were established for a reasonable compromise. We also have some right-wingers who want to re-open that debate. Let sleeping dogs lie. The fact so many Tea Party members try raising that issue is another reason to criticize them. And they don't just raise it, they try to push an ideological extreme.

The Tea Party takes its ideas from the Founding Fathers

So much chest pounding and flag waving. Bottom line: bullshit. The Democratic Party also takes it ideals from the Founding Fathers. In fact all political parties can say that. The Tea Party is a relatively recent creation; it wasn't established by the Boston Tea Party.

RobertDyck wrote:
Tom Kalbfus wrote:
Right now our government has gotten out of control, it has legislated against the people and enacted legislation that we did not want, the Media has become less a watchdog and more of a servant to this government.
Yes Tom, that is true. However, the Affordable Healthcare Act is something the voters want. The last presidential election was campaigned on this. Polls show Americans do want it. However, the extreme right just doesn't understand it.
Well the polls show otherwise

Do they? Which polls? Any polls I've seen show the majority of Americans support Obama Care. Try watching MS-NBC instead of Fox. Or any American media other than Fox.

Marxism was invented in Germany

Huh? Do you really not get it? I ridiculed the statement. Any claim that it's "Marxism" demonstrates complete ignorance. Harping on about Marxism demonstrates you are just as ignorant. Try reading how the Act works.

Rhetoric like that sounds like McCarthyism. Unreasonable, and un-American. Let me give you another example. Did you hear/read how unions were created in the United States? Back when cargo was transported by canals, one businessman got a government contract to dig a canal. His contract said he wouldn't get paid until the canal was finished; that way the government could ensure the work would actually get done. So this businessman decided he wouldn't pay his employees either. After working several months without a single paycheque, all employees went on strike. All they wanted was their pay. They didn't demand a raise, just pay for work up to that time. The businessman refused to pay them, stating they wouldn't get paid until he was. He actually hired goons to beat up the strikers, demanding they get back to work. Unions did a valuable service to America. Are you going to claim unions are also Marxist? Try saying that to the face of a Teamster. Oh, oh! Please let me watch while you say that to a Teamster!

Of course I believe unions have gone too far in recent years. I could complain about what they've done, but I think you could too.

In fact the Liberal Party of Canada is not "Liberal" in the sense that Republicans and Tea Party'ers use the term. In fact the Liberal Party of Canada is moderate: believes in free market, and free trade. Believes in reducing government spending, and the number of individuals in the federal civil service. Believes in balanced budgets, reducing government debt, and reducing taxes. In fact the Liberal government succeeded in reducing spending in 1994, delivered a balanced budget in 1997, reduced the debt, reduced both personal income tax and corporate income tax, abolished the federal individual surtax and corporate capital tax.

What [America] has is a healthcare market

If you can't afford what the market demands for gasoline, you can decide to just not buy it. If you don't have gasoline for your car, then buy a diesel vehicle. Or electric. Or ride a bus. Or bicycle. Or just simply walk. But when you're sick, if you don't accept healthcare, you die. This lets businessmen drive the price to extremes. And if people don't acquiesce to extortion, they die. This isn't free market, it's extortion. When someone is killing people, or letting people die, then it's a problem. That's the point. When you have someone who demands "pay me or die", that isn't free market; it's extortion. That is what America has right now. That's why America needs something. Exactly how it will work will be unique, not a copy of Canada or any other country. America is working it out right now. Those involved in extortion don't want their racket taken away, they'll fight tooth-and-nail. That's what we're seeing.

RobertDyck wrote:
In 1997 I worked … Virginia. Alberta Health … said they would continue to cover me for up to one year. … they would pay the hospital at the usual Alberta rate.
Well Canada can't run US hospitals so they pay your bills for a set amount and you pay what goes over that amount, now that is basically a voucher where the government pays for it.

Again, Huh? How is that a voucher? That's health insurance. It's insurance that I bought and paid for.

JoshNH4H · 2013-11-13 01:36:28

I'd like to remind you guys about on topic rules. If you'd like to continue this argument in free chat I won't stop you but this subforum is about Martian politics and the politics you're referencing are Terran in nature.

My personal suggestion is that it is not worth the time to make these arguments. I think we all know where we stand and I would be quite surprised to see anything in the way of concession by either of you. Talking and communication are very different things, and when politics become involved I find the latter usually stops.

Tom Kalbfus · 2013-11-14 05:53:17

Continued on Not so Free chat.

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2013-11-14 05:58:00)

Terraformer · 2013-11-14 06:23:54

Mmmm, thanks for the history lesson about Canada, very interesting. I'll have to read up on Newfoundland, it could make for an interesting counter-factual... make the government lose, have a laissez-faire system established there...

Tom Kalbfus · 2013-11-14 07:33:03

Has nothing to do with Mars, so we end it here.

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2013-11-14 07:51:27)

RobertDyck · 2013-11-14 09:01:52

Terraformer wrote:

Mmmm, thanks for the history lesson about Canada, very interesting. I'll have to read up on Newfoundland, it could make for an interesting counter-factual... make the government lose, have a laissez-faire system established there...

I wrote a long article in a discussion thread several years ago. Where did it go? Just as Robert Zubrin uses the history of Lewis and Clark as historical example of settling a new world, with lessons for Mars, I used Newfoundland. Let's see if I can repeat the main points, but keep it short.

Christopher Columbus discovered America in 1492. Then John Cabot decided to go see what's out there, he was an English explorer. In 1497 he took a northern route, and discovered Newfoundland. He also discovered the Grand Banks, at that time the richest fishing ever discovered in history. And he discovered a natural bay on the coast of Newfoundland. He discovered the bay on a Catholic holiday called St. John the Baptist Day, so called it St. John's harbour. When he returned, English fishermen (let's call them businessmen) set out to harvest this rich resource. They used the data the government explorer provided with location of the rich resource, and location of a safe harbour. They built a summer fishing camp on the shores of St. John's bay. They returned the following year, and to ensure no one destroyed their camp, built a house for a permanent caretaker. That one individual would be the only man to stay over winter. That permanent house was the first European house in North America since the Viking explorer Lief The Lucky, son of Eric The Red. (Today Lief is commonly called Lief Ericson). The fishing camp grew, became a town. That town never did fail, it still exists today. The city of St. John's is the capital of the province of Newfoundland. All this is long before the Pilgrims of Plymouth Rock. Long before Roanoak. Long before James Town. Government attempts to build a colony were abject failures. But the one built by businessmen is still successful today, more than 500 years later.

They built a street: Waterfront Street. That was the first street ever in North America, and still exists today. We have no documentation when it was built, who built it, or how it was funded. All we have are letters from people who visited St. John's. One letter indicates the street wasn't there, another letter years later indicates it was. Lesson: private business really sucks at documentation. They're great at building profitable business, not but documentation.

Today we know lots of details of Christopher Columbus and John Cabot: their names, the names of all officers, their ships, the exact day and time they left. Everything in excruciating detail. Government exploration agencies (analogy to NASA) are really great at documentation. They can identify profitable resources (the Grand Banks), and safe place to work and live (St. John's). NASA can document gold/platinum rich asteroids, and water rich asteroids for fuel. Private business really sucks at that. But government really sucks at trying to establish profitable business. Roanoak and James Town were abject failures. But St. John's is still a vibrant city. Since the first permanent house was built in the summer of 1498, that's over 500 years.

Success happens when a government exploration agency develops technology, and documents profitable resources and safe working locations. Then leave private industry to establish profitable business. If government tries to establish a colony, we get Roanoak. People die. When private industry tries to explore, we get zero documentation. Knowledge is lost. And when industry tries to take the lead for technology development, we get stalled. Let each do what it's good at for maximum success.

(that's the short version)

Last edited by RobertDyck (2013-11-14 09:50:42)

RobertDyck · 2013-11-14 09:40:24

Technology: in the 1400s (or was that earlier?) the Spanish developed new military technology called Navigation. It let their ships travel beyond sight of land. They also developed big ships capable of traveling deep ocean. That technology was key to colonizing North America. In the 20th century rocket technology was developed for ICBMs, then those rockets were used for space.

Aircraft technology went from the Wright Flyer to a B-52 bomber very quickly: 1904 to 1952. Technology for the B-52 was used to develop a 707 Airliner; first flight December 1957. Mercury flew in 1959, so following that analogy we should have commercial space flight by late 2012. What happened?

The Space Shuttle was supposed to be a fully reusable Two-Stage-To-Orbit spacecraft. According to documents from NASA in 1968. The requirements called for a lifting body orbiter, attached to a piloted flyback booster. The booster would have a delta wing similar to the Shuttle orbiter as it was built, but the booster would not have a heat shield. It was to have a cockpit for a single pilot, who would fly it back to KSC. The orbiter would carry 7 astronauts plus luggage to a space station. The station was to orbit at 400km altitude, and 50° inclination. That's just about where it is now. And it was to be built with Saturn 1B rockets, not the shuttle itself. But Richard Nixon got elected, gutted NASA to redirect money to the Vietnam War. That didn't work, but NASA never recovered.

Today some NASA engineers claim a fully reusable TSTO is too difficult. NASA was able to build it in 1968, but engineers are too timid today. Furthermore, if you describe Skylab to an engineer, most will tell it would never work. It's amazing how much has been lost. And here are NewMars we get people claiming VentureStar was too advanced. This is 2013; we should have the equivalent to a 707 carrying passengers to space. Not a propeller powered, fabric wing biplane, but a 707.

Terraformer · 2013-11-14 10:21:45

Well, I wouldn't say we're *that* behind schedule, if you were expecting regular commercial manned passenger spaceflight by the end of last year. A few years, maybe a decade behind schedule, but compared to the preceding 5 decades...?

Did they have NGOs on the same level as we do now, back in the European age of exploration, excepting the Catholic church? If the cost for launching probes gets low enough, they could be a significant player, in addition to governments and business. Especially if they can buy off the shelf probes from companies like Planetary Resources. If it costs $100k to explore an asteroid and map out it's composition and size, then...

As for where your previous post went... it would have been lost in the Great Crash.

That's quite interesting information about Newfoundland. I think the first colonies will be business run. Any idea on how the rule of law worked during the early stage? Maybe you can point me in the direction of a book?

RobertDyck · 2013-11-14 13:31:15

Terraformer wrote:

That's quite interesting information about Newfoundland. I think the first colonies will be business run. Any idea on how the rule of law worked during the early stage? Maybe you can point me in the direction of a book?

There were a number of websites with historical information. Newfoundland made a big deal of celebrating their 500th anniversary. I have difficulty finding most of them now. There is this:
Newfoundland and Labrador Heritage - Fishing Admirals

Though not a naval admiral in any sense of the word, the 'fishing admiral' was simply a label assigned to the first ship captain who entered the harbour at the start of the fishing season. He also had the first choice of fishing rooms in the harbour. The 'vice-admiral' and the 'rear admiral' were the second and third ship captains who entered the harbour respectively. It was their job to assist the fishing admiral in his duties.
"Fishing Room": The waterfront area from which a fishery was conducted - including all necessary facilities.

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-04-28 07:26:25

Suppose the United States offered a negative income tax to whatever US company wanted to establish a Mars colony, would it cost the US government less than to fund the colony directly? I'm am sure a private company could find profitable activities for a human colony to do that could defer the costs of establishing it. If the US government offers them a negative corporate income tax, it just might get the colony off the ground!

JoshNH4H · 2014-04-28 11:03:52

E.g. a subsidy? The US government does offer those to industry at times, with varying results. A "worst case" example would be Solyndra or Lockheed/Boeing (specifically their space division), while a "best case" example would be SpaceX or GM*.

I think the most important kind of subsidy that the government can give to any potential space company is an investment in technology and infrastructure. Beyond that, low or no interest loans to space companies would be a fantastic way to enable progress in a high-growth industry.

Good technology investments that the government could engage in include storage and liquefaction of liquid hydrogen for long periods with low mass and low energy costs, inflatable and reliable reentry technologies, spin gravity systems, propulsion technologies, ISRU, and methods for creating some basic structure of governance or land usage rights for outer space within the confines of the Outer Space Treaty.

Good infrastructure investments include two or three cheap launch systems and a system of fuel production and depots based on Lunar water resources.

Given a profitable, or at least sustainable, community of people in space, low interest loans are better than subsidies because they would not distort the market for space activities and instead simply make it easier to create viable outposts of human civilization.

*I'm willing to retract the statement about GM if it will keep us focused on Mars.

clark · 2014-05-17 00:01:42

Ever hear the joke about the Martian who never paid his taxes? No? Of course not. He died from asphyxiation because his Hab could't afford the oxygen. Not really funny when you think about it.

You're all pretty much on the wrong side of delusional if you think that Mars or any space based colony would ever be some kind of tax haven for personal wealth. It doesn't make any sense. But hey, dream your dream.

Terraformer · 2014-05-17 04:33:19

Er, what? Those weren't taxes, those were rent. He was free to rent a Hab off someone else, or build his own. No-one else in the market? Well, that's very different from violently shutting down your competitors.

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-05-17 06:03:49

clark wrote:

Ever hear the joke about the Martian who never paid his taxes? No? Of course not. He died from asphyxiation because his Hab could't afford the oxygen. Not really funny when you think about it.
You're all pretty much on the wrong side of delusional if you think that Mars or any space based colony would ever be some kind of tax haven for personal wealth. It doesn't make any sense. But hey, dream your dream.

Why couldn't he afford his oxygen with all the money he saved in not paying taxes? It is not a given that oxygen will be provided by the government, or require taxes to pay for. I think each home will have its own oxygen generator, and it would be the oxygen generator that people buy. Mars also doesn't have poor people, no transients or homeless people that need taking care of by the government, and illiterate Latinos can't afford the ticket to get there, so they won't be picking crops under plastic domes anytime soon!

clark · 2014-05-17 08:43:29

Bright. Brilliant. Future!

Closet racism aside, your vision is absurd. Each home will have its own oxygen generator? What else will it have? Guns no doubt. Maybe it is a world filled with your idea of the "right" kind of people and everyone else is shunted out an airlock.

Take me to promised land Brother! Take me to where your masturbatory junior high fantasy is played out, word by word, riding out into the heavens in the last row of the short bus.

P.S. Don't forget your helmet.

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-10-17 06:54:45

clark wrote:

Bright. Brilliant. Future!
Closet racism aside, your vision is absurd. Each home will have its own oxygen generator? What else will it have? Guns no doubt. Maybe it is a world filled with your idea of the "right" kind of people and everyone else is shunted out an airlock.
Take me to promised land Brother! Take me to where your masturbatory junior high fantasy is played out, word by word, riding out into the heavens in the last row of the short bus.
P.S. Don't forget your helmet.

I don't know how everyone else would get there to be shunted out of an airlock. Getting people to Mars is expensive, I can't imagine anyone paying to transport useless people to Mars that can't find work. All the vagrants, all the poor living on one dollar a day won't be on Mars, and their won't be any on Mars for quite a long time, they would probably have to be born on Mars, but it will take a few generations of natural births to produce a bunch of people who can't find work.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2013-11-12 19:58:08

Re: Negative income tax

#27 2013-11-13 00:28:20

Re: Negative income tax

#28 2013-11-13 01:36:28

Re: Negative income tax

#29 2013-11-14 05:53:17

Re: Negative income tax

#30 2013-11-14 06:23:54

Re: Negative income tax

#31 2013-11-14 07:33:03

Re: Negative income tax

#32 2013-11-14 09:01:52

Re: Negative income tax

#33 2013-11-14 09:40:24

Re: Negative income tax

#34 2013-11-14 10:21:45

Re: Negative income tax

#35 2013-11-14 13:31:15

Re: Negative income tax

#36 2014-04-28 07:26:25

Re: Negative income tax

#37 2014-04-28 11:03:52

Re: Negative income tax

#38 2014-05-17 00:01:42

Re: Negative income tax

#39 2014-05-17 04:33:19

Re: Negative income tax

#40 2014-05-17 06:03:49

Re: Negative income tax

#41 2014-05-17 08:43:29

Re: Negative income tax

#42 2015-10-17 06:54:45

Re: Negative income tax

Board footer