Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Fw: [LandCafe] Re: New economic model Hudson , Bezemer plus Dave Wetzel

Expand Messages
  • Peter Daniels
    In Denmark there are no tax exemption for children, instead cash - taxfree 0-2 year: DKR 4.248 paid quarterly 3-6 year: DKR 3.363 paid quarterly 7-14 year:
    Message 1 of 9 , Oct 3, 2012
      In Denmark there are no tax exemption for children, instead cash -  taxfree
       

      0-2 year: DKR 4.248 paid quarterly 

      3-6 year: DKR 3.363 paid quarterly

       

      7-14 year: DKR 2.646 paid quarterly

       

      15-17 year: Dkr 882 paid monthly

       

      With a maximum of Dkr 35.000 per year, no matter how many kids you have.

       

      I am personally against all kinds of exemptions and prefer a CD

       

      rgds

      Dan Pedersen

       

    • k_r_johansen
      ... Yeah, go nordic model! :) Norway also pays out 150 $ per month per child. It s crazy, people can spend it on heroin, gambling, cigarettes, and will churn
      Message 2 of 9 , Oct 3, 2012
        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Daniels" <danp61@...> wrote:
        >
        > In Denmark there are no tax exemption for children, instead cash - taxfree
        > I am personally against all kinds of exemptions and prefer a CD
        >

        Yeah, go nordic model! :) Norway also pays out 150 $ per month per child. It's crazy, people can spend it on heroin, gambling, cigarettes, and will churn out kids by the dozen to get more. Only that they generally don't, seems like not infantilising people works just fine.

        Kj
      • walto
        ... QED W
        Message 3 of 9 , Oct 3, 2012
          --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "k_r_johansen" <kjetil.r.johansen@...> wrote:
          >
          > Norway also pays out 150 $ per month per child. It's crazy, people can spend it on heroin, gambling, cigarettes, and will churn out kids by the dozen to get more.

          QED

          W
        • k_r_johansen
          ... You didn t get it did you, it doesn t happen. This payment itself doesn t induce more childbirth. In fact this payment + exceptionally generous maternity
          Message 4 of 9 , Oct 3, 2012
            --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            >
            > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "k_r_johansen" <kjetil.r.johansen@> wrote:
            > >
            > > Norway also pays out 150 $ per month per child. It's crazy, people can spend it on heroin, gambling, cigarettes, and will churn out kids by the dozen to get more.
            >
            > QED

            You didn't get it did you, it doesn't happen. This payment itself doesn't induce more childbirth. In fact this payment + exceptionally generous maternity benefits + virtually free childcare etc., barely manages to get the birthrates up to replacement rates. The benefits are still smaller than the expenses/loss of income.

            Kj
          • mattbieker
            ... He got it. It was a QED tradeoff: sure, it undermined his fear of incentive to be a baby-factory, but it also undermined Roy s claim of means to gamble
            Message 5 of 9 , Oct 3, 2012
              --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "k_r_johansen" <kjetil.r.johansen@...> wrote:
              > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@> wrote:
              > > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "k_r_johansen" <kjetil.r.johansen@> wrote:
              > > >
              > > > Norway also pays out 150 $ per month per child. It's crazy, people can spend it on heroin, gambling, cigarettes, and will churn out kids by the dozen to get more.
              > >
              > > QED
              >
              > You didn't get it did you, it doesn't happen. This payment itself doesn't induce more childbirth. In fact this payment + exceptionally generous maternity benefits + virtually free childcare etc., barely manages to get the birthrates up to replacement rates. The benefits are still smaller than the expenses/loss of income.
              >
              > Kj


              He got it. It was a QED tradeoff: sure, it undermined his fear of incentive to be a baby-factory, but it also undermined Roy's claim of means to gamble use drugs.

              Though, to be honest, it really does neither, because we have no meaningful comparison; thus, no QED.
            • roy_langston
              ... In Canada we use a combined system of spousal and child income tax deductions and unlimited cash Child Tax Benefit payments, but the cash payment per
              Message 6 of 9 , Oct 3, 2012
                --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Daniels" <danp61@...> wrote:

                > In Denmark there are no tax exemption for children, instead cash - taxfree
                >
                > 0-2 year: DKR 4.248 paid quarterly
                >
                > 3-6 year: DKR 3.363 paid quarterly
                >
                > 7-14 year: DKR 2.646 paid quarterly
                >
                > 15-17 year: Dkr 882 paid monthly
                >
                > With a maximum of Dkr 35.000 per year, no matter how many kids you have.

                In Canada we use a combined system of spousal and child income tax deductions and unlimited cash "Child Tax Benefit" payments, but the cash payment per child is a lot less than the Danish system gives, at least for the first few children.

                > I am personally against all kinds of exemptions and prefer a CD

                In practice there is not much difference between the UIE and a CD; but politically, I guarantee you the UIE will be a far easier sell.

                -- Roy Langston
              • k_r_johansen
                ... Depends. I ve seen the debates in the US on the FairTax, and the frothing outrage on the issue of universally distributed prebates from some pol s on the
                Message 7 of 9 , Oct 4, 2012
                  --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@...> wrote:
                  > In Canada we use a combined system of spousal and child income tax deductions and unlimited cash "Child Tax Benefit" payments, but the cash payment per child is a lot less than the Danish system gives, at least for the first few children.

                  > In practice there is not much difference between the UIE and a CD; but politically, I guarantee you the UIE will be a far easier sell.
                  >

                  Depends. I've seen the debates in the US on the FairTax, and the frothing outrage on the issue of universally distributed "prebates" from some pol's on the right tells me that cash payments may not right for some jurisdictions politically... Where cash benefits is an established practice, it may not be that tough. As a little handout to you though, on the Basic Income-program in Namibia, I believe this quote is right up your alley:

                  http://www.bignam.org/BIG_pilot.html

                  <i> The criticism that the BIG is leading to increasing alcoholism is not supported by empirical evidence. The community committee is trying to curb alcoholism and has reached an agreement with local shebeen owners not to sell alcohol on the day of the pay-out of the grants. </i>

                  ;)

                  Kj
                • roy_langston
                  ... Oh? And just where is that evidence? ... IOW, the shebeen owners had to be convinced to ignore the empirical evidence that the BIG led to increased
                  Message 8 of 9 , Oct 4, 2012
                    --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "k_r_johansen" <kjetil.r.johansen@...> wrote:

                    > As a little handout to you though, on the Basic Income-program in Namibia, I believe this quote is right up your alley:
                    >
                    > http://www.bignam.org/BIG_pilot.html
                    >
                    > <i> The criticism that the BIG is leading to increasing alcoholism is not supported by empirical evidence.

                    Oh? And just where is that evidence?

                    > The community committee is trying to curb alcoholism and has reached an agreement with local shebeen owners not to sell alcohol on the day of the pay-out of the grants. </i>
                    >
                    > ;)

                    IOW, the shebeen owners had to be convinced to ignore the empirical evidence that the BIG led to increased alcohol consumption.

                    Here's a note for you:

                    http://www.beatcopdiary.vpd.ca/2011/09/23/welfare-wednesday/

                    -- Roy Langston
                  • k_r_johansen
                    ... Hehe, I think the project managers wanted to make sure the empirical evidence stayed that way. It s an accepted fact in aid-circles that programs need a
                    Message 9 of 9 , Oct 5, 2012
                      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "k_r_johansen" <kjetil.r.johansen@> wrote:
                      >
                      > > As a little handout to you though, on the Basic Income-program in Namibia, I believe this quote is right up your alley:
                      > >
                      > > http://www.bignam.org/BIG_pilot.html
                      > >
                      > > <i> The criticism that the BIG is leading to increasing alcoholism is not supported by empirical evidence.
                      >
                      > Oh? And just where is that evidence?

                      >
                      > > The community committee is trying to curb alcoholism and has reached an agreement with local shebeen owners not to sell alcohol on the day of the pay-out of the grants.
                      > >
                      > > ;)
                      >
                      > IOW, the shebeen owners had to be convinced to ignore the empirical evidence that the BIG led to increased alcohol consumption.<

                      Hehe, I think the project managers wanted to make sure the empirical evidence stayed that way. It's an accepted fact in aid-circles that programs need a bit of tinkering according to local circumstances to work, such as dealing with women instead of men for better effects. Still, this and similar programs in India show that a major part of the money from cash transfer shows up in education and a reduction in child labour, and generally represents an overall improvement in quality of life.
                      From your linked account of Vancouver on welfare-wednesday, maybe that means you've got to close down your Shebeen's that day, or reform the welfare system. Maybe the fact that the lines at the wine-stores and pubs where I'm from isn't particulary longer on Child Benefit payout day (but may jump slightly on pension day), is because of rather strict alcohol control measures for all I know.

                      Kj
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.