A fun fact about billionaires.

[Simfan34]

A whopping 6 people had an income over $1 billion in 2013. The total sum of their income over $1 billion was $8.5 billion. Make of that what you will.

[TNF]

Six too many.

Billionaires should not exist. And neither should millionaires, for that matter. It is disgusting that, in a nation with so many impoverished, that any person would have an income so stratospheric as to allow themselves mansions and private jets while many do not have proper food or shelter. The billionaire and the millionaire are class enemies that should be dealt with in the appropriate manner.

[Adam Griffin]

Is Simfan making up numbers again in the absence of a GM?

[Simfan34]

Is Simfan making up numbers again in the absence of a GM?

http://www.forbes.com/hedge-fund-managers/

[Adam Griffin]

Is Simfan making up numbers again in the absence of a GM?

http://www.forbes.com/hedge-fund-managers/

C:\Users\Atlasia> run forbes.exe
'forbes' is not recognized as an internal command, operable program or batch file.

C:\Users\Atlasia> run usa.exe
'usa' is not recognized as an internal command, operable program or batch file.
ERROR: CONTINUITY INCONSISTENCY IMMINENT
System will now shutdown to prevent irreparable damage to core files.

Psst, this is only for hedge fund managers.

[TNF]

Is Simfan making up numbers again in the absence of a GM?

Wouldn't be entirely surprising, given his own fact free tenure as GM.

[Simfan34]

Psst, this is only for hedge fund managers.

Hedge fund managers are the only people who have cash incomes that large.

[Adam Griffin]

Psst, this is only for hedge fund managers.

Hedge fund managers are the only people who have cash incomes that large.

Since when do other earned assets not count as effective income? This wasn't stipulated. There are many others who earned much more in 2013 than the guys on your list.

 

[Simfan34]

Psst, this is only for hedge fund managers.

Hedge fund managers are the only people who have cash incomes that large.

Since when do other earned assets not count as effective income? This wasn't stipulated. There are many others who earned much more in 2013 than the guys on your list.

That is true, but they saw larger increases in net worth rather than in terms of taxable income. We could only tax capital gains.

[Adam Griffin]

Psst, this is only for hedge fund managers.

Hedge fund managers are the only people who have cash incomes that large.

Since when do other earned assets not count as effective income? This wasn't stipulated. There are many others who earned much more in 2013 than the guys on your list.

That is true, but they saw larger increases in net worth rather than in terms of taxable income. We could only tax capital gains.

Perhaps I've missed a Senate debate that revolves around taxable income? I assumed you posted this as an out-of-the-blue defense/rebuttal against the notion that the accumulation of wealth to an extent is harmful to the economy. Yet those effects would be similar whether it is taxable or not - and perhaps, it could be argued that accumulation of non-taxable income is even riskier (due to there being no government mechanism that ensures some redistribution through taxes).

At any rate, we can't be sure how many billionaires or how many people earned a billion dollars last year in Atlasia, due to the fact that the country has taken a fundamentally different course over the past 10 years in regards to economic policy. This is why the office of Game Moderator is important.

[Simfan34]

Psst, this is only for hedge fund managers.

Hedge fund managers are the only people who have cash incomes that large.

Since when do other earned assets not count as effective income? This wasn't stipulated. There are many others who earned much more in 2013 than the guys on your list.

That is true, but they saw larger increases in net worth rather than in terms of taxable income. We could only tax capital gains.

Perhaps I've missed a Senate debate that revolves around taxable income? I assumed you posted this as an out-of-the-blue defense/rebuttal against the notion that the accumulation of wealth to an extent is harmful to the economy. Yet those effects would be similar whether it is taxable or not - and perhaps, it could be argued that accumulation of non-taxable income is even riskier (due to there being no government mechanism that ensures some redistribution through taxes).

At any rate, we can't be sure how many billionaires or how many people earned a billion dollars last year in Atlasia, due to the fact that the country has taken a fundamentally different course over the past 10 years in regards to economic policy. This is why the office of Game Moderator is important.

The post was in reference to the proposal of a 100% on all income greater than $1 billion. Indeed, that is exactly why the office of GM is important. Alas, when I made steps towards doing just that, I was ousted by your party.

[Adam Griffin]

Alas, when I made steps towards doing just that, I was ousted by your party.

LOL

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Is there any reason to think that Atlasian policies would actually result in more taxable income by billionaires than IRL?

[Adam Griffin]

Is there any reason to think that Atlasian policies would actually result in more taxable income by billionaires than IRL?

No, but the point (or at least, my original one) is that ordinary citizens don't get to just make up/transpose figures from the real-world into the game. For his own argument's sake, he's probably presenting an even weaker case than he could.

[TNF]

Psst, this is only for hedge fund managers.

Hedge fund managers are the only people who have cash incomes that large.

Since when do other earned assets not count as effective income? This wasn't stipulated. There are many others who earned much more in 2013 than the guys on your list.

That is true, but they saw larger increases in net worth rather than in terms of taxable income. We could only tax capital gains.

Perhaps I've missed a Senate debate that revolves around taxable income? I assumed you posted this as an out-of-the-blue defense/rebuttal against the notion that the accumulation of wealth to an extent is harmful to the economy. Yet those effects would be similar whether it is taxable or not - and perhaps, it could be argued that accumulation of non-taxable income is even riskier (due to there being no government mechanism that ensures some redistribution through taxes).

At any rate, we can't be sure how many billionaires or how many people earned a billion dollars last year in Atlasia, due to the fact that the country has taken a fundamentally different course over the past 10 years in regards to economic policy. This is why the office of Game Moderator is important.

The post was in reference to the proposal of a 100% on all income greater than $1 billion. Indeed, that is exactly why the office of GM is important. Alas, when I made steps towards doing just that, I was ousted by your party.

>molds unemployment numbers and other numbers to fit his own ideological/political agenda
>complains about politics elsewhere

[Simfan34]

Psst, this is only for hedge fund managers.

Hedge fund managers are the only people who have cash incomes that large.

Since when do other earned assets not count as effective income? This wasn't stipulated. There are many others who earned much more in 2013 than the guys on your list.

That is true, but they saw larger increases in net worth rather than in terms of taxable income. We could only tax capital gains.

Perhaps I've missed a Senate debate that revolves around taxable income? I assumed you posted this as an out-of-the-blue defense/rebuttal against the notion that the accumulation of wealth to an extent is harmful to the economy. Yet those effects would be similar whether it is taxable or not - and perhaps, it could be argued that accumulation of non-taxable income is even riskier (due to there being no government mechanism that ensures some redistribution through taxes).

At any rate, we can't be sure how many billionaires or how many people earned a billion dollars last year in Atlasia, due to the fact that the country has taken a fundamentally different course over the past 10 years in regards to economic policy. This is why the office of Game Moderator is important.

The post was in reference to the proposal of a 100% on all income greater than $1 billion. Indeed, that is exactly why the office of GM is important. Alas, when I made steps towards doing just that, I was ousted by your party.

>molds unemployment numbers and other numbers to fit his own ideological/political agenda
>complains about politics elsewhere

>Thinks Marxism is a viable guide for economic policy-making in the 21st century
>Is literally the second most important person in the country at the point
>Seems surprised that someone adhering to mainstream economic thought would assume this has lead to economic catastrophe

Also:

Is there any reason to think that Atlasian policies would actually result in more taxable income by billionaires than IRL?

Yes:

[Adam Griffin]

These "making numbers up without GM approval" accusations are bullsh!t.

We use RL numbers for the sake of convenience constantly, and it'd be almost impossible to hold an informed discussion if we did not. If there's a reason why a particular figure is likely to be extremely different in Atlasia, anyone can point to that difference and argue why it would have that effect.

As I've pointed out elsewhere, it cuts off discussion and makes the game less interesting when the GM just tells everyone how it is. We rarely have that level of certainty IRL, where people disagree on how to measure things or even what things we should be measuring.

Besides, we don't have a GM. It's ridiculous to insist that all fact-based debate cease until we do. Even if the office were occupied, he wouldn't have time to approve every fact as accurate.

No it's not. Citing population figures or the amount of arable land is one thing, but using US figures for a matter like this while having a completely different tax structure, completely different subsidies, and overall a notably different economic policy for the past ten years is stupid - plain and simple.

The trajectory of this game's economy - as both reported by many preceding GMs and by simple analysis of existing legislation passed over the past decade - renders real-life figures useless in discussions like these. It may not be convenient, but I'll tell you what else is not convenient: letting everyone and anyone make up their own figures so that every cost assessment turns into an ideological squabble.

Although admittedly rough in a few places, here's a comparison between Obama's 2013 budget and this one. I've rounded everything to the nearest billion, so figures may not match what you see in either budget exactly. Right click for a version that doesn't kill your eyes.



We spend more on healthcare ($200 billion), education ($49 billion), housing ($30 billion), veterans ($28 billion) and energy & environmental protection ($34 billion).

We spend less on defense ($323 billion), Social Security ($90 billion - presumably this is a consequence of Atlasia having reformed the system years ago), the treasury ($56 billion -this is because tax credits are counted under this department), homeland security ($43 billion - we hold other agencies responsible for disaster management and spend much less on border security), international affairs ($36 billion, mostly because we spend far less on international aid), and the CIA ($23 billion).

Re: The shockingly small difference in healthcare spending - Last year's estimate for ANH (Fritzcare) was about $800 billion, IIRC. At my request, Griffin reviewed the various provisions behind Fritzcare and formulated a new, higher estimate - it still looks low, but after discussing the subject with Griffin I am prepared to accept this figure. Keep in mind that IRL a huge portion of healthcare spending is by the government via Medicare, Medicaid, TRICare, CHIP, and the VA. Health care spending is highly concentrated among the old and the disabled who are covered under these programs. This and other cost-control measures taken together explains why health care spending - while still higher than IRL - is lower than you might expect. I suggest PMing Griffin if you're interested in a more detailed description of his accounting procedures.

An array of items are different in Atlasia than they are in real-life. Income tax rates are different. Capital gains rates are different. The amount of federal revenue is different. The price of oil and gold is different. The stock markets are completely different. Unemployment rates are different. Inflation is different. And on and on and on...

Everything has an actual cost, and concrete consequences that originate from said actions. There are intangible and abstract effects that can be debated, but the core data behind any policy-related decision - particularly in a freaking game - should have some consistency. After all the pages of shit that we went through in 2013 for your budget and based on what I can recall, I'm sure the last thing you would've wished to see was for that squabbling to go on for another 10 pages and 3 months, with people coming in there and offering their "perspective" as to why all of your receipts and expenditures were grossly off because of some ideological or real-life constraint. That's why Simfan's tenure as GM was so short-lived: he single-handedly decided that he was going to completely alter the trajectory of the past ten years by citing Forbes and WSJ's ideological bent on real-life figures.

Real-life stats are a starting point, not a copy-and-paste solution for those who value quantity over quality in an attempt to continue pumping as much milquetoast legislation through the pipes to keep the sludge moving. I'd be perfectly fine with 3/4 of the crap that's discussed in the Senate grinding to a halt if it meant there was more thought put into the actual figures behind the policy (the hypocrisy of which we've all been guilty of at some point or another).

I thought eliminating the cost analysis system for the GM office was a good move that would improve overall critical thinking behind legislation, but I can see one year out that I was horribly wrong. Now, every single fact and figure seems subject to an array of "opinions", many of which have no factual basis in the game in which we operate. Simfan is a key architect of this trend.

But hey, maybe we're all forgetting that in the absence of a GM, the SoIA has authority over these matters now. Nobody has even bothered to ask him for a cost estimate in the past month - something he himself has not abolished. It's not even a matter of conveniently excusing this problem because we don't currently have an authority figure capable of rendering a judgement; it's a matter of a select few eliminating the legitimacy of the process because they think they know better and now feel they have the political capital to do so, which all really began because of a freaking alien timeline scenario. And that's what's bullsh!t.

[Simfan34]

Hey, at least I never had the country invaded by Chinese people pretending to be aliens.

[Deus Naturae]

So...the assumption is that, due to Atlasian government policy, there are actually more billionaires in Atlasia than IRL?

[Oakvale]

So...the assumption is that, due to Atlasian government policy, there are actually more billionaires in Atlasia than IRL?

I'd direct you to this post:

Is there any reason to think that Atlasian policies would actually result in more taxable income by billionaires than IRL?

Yes:

[Simfan34]

Consider the ongoing debate over the proposed repeal of New York's scaffold law, for instance.

I haven't read past this, but this is going on? I'm inclined to say good riddance to the ugly things and the make-work union justification for them, but they're godsends when it rains...

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Is there any reason to think that Atlasian policies would actually result in more taxable income by billionaires than IRL?

Yes:

Sure we've had inflation, but isn't nominal GDP growth more relevant here?

[Simfan34]

And this?

Well, someone should at least attempt to assess the costs of such legislation, rather than all of you just paddling around in circles asking, "how much will it cost?".

The last unemployment report put the rate at 8.9%. The target is 3%. We'll assume that to get to a (BLS-style?) rate of unemployment, half of the measured percentage-point difference (being working-age, willing and able-bodied people) would need to be hired. If we roughly assume a country with 315,000,000 people, then such a program would need to hire approximately 9,000,000 people (5.9% / 2 = 2.95; 2.95 * 3,150,000).

So a minimum wage job at $10.50/hour - excluding any sort of benefits or additional costs - would come to around $3.9 billion per week, or $203 billion per year.

[Adam Griffin]

And this?

Well, someone should at least attempt to assess the costs of such legislation, rather than all of you just paddling around in circles asking, "how much will it cost?".

The last unemployment report put the rate at 8.9%. The target is 3%. We'll assume that to get to a (BLS-style?) rate of unemployment, half of the measured percentage-point difference (being working-age, willing and able-bodied people) would need to be hired. If we roughly assume a country with 315,000,000 people, then such a program would need to hire approximately 9,000,000 people (5.9% / 2 = 2.95; 2.95 * 3,150,000).

So a minimum wage job at $10.50/hour - excluding any sort of benefits or additional costs - would come to around $3.9 billion per week, or $203 billion per year.

I've given up, and am now leading by your example. The difference being of course that I'm merely offering an example of how to calculate such things, rather than creating standalone threads with titles that say "fact" and claim such is so.

Facker off, troll.