I still think you will have a problem of choice - are people going to choose A or B? Let’s assume there will be a fork for A, should B become safe net.
People then have the choice of maximising their income and minimising their overheads. A is clearly going to look like the best option here.
Ofc, poor folk may pick B for some free cash, but where is the the incentive for rich folk not to choose A (it would cost them much more)? Moreover, if no rich folk join B, where is the money going to come from to pay the poor folk?
In that scenario I believe A) will only be preferable to those in society that would rather save the “dust” of maybe cents in their pockets over the idea of giving it to good causes. As most of the objections to the traditional tax system are addressed in option B) logic dictates that at least some fraction of the 50% supporting A) would be satisfied with the new system. We appeal to more people logically. We would be left with a very small fraction of the potential Network objecting and with no obvious logical reason to object that I can see, as there is no coercion involved at any stage whatsoever.
It is basically a question of product a) or product B). Your preference will probably fall along political lines. A) also precludes B) coming into existence, hence it can never be a “first step” towards B). This makes it a political issue.
I’m talking about a tiny fraction of 1% of funds that would normally go elsewhere.
After Nick explaining the role of the Foundation, this does not change anything there or touch it. We are also already using the idea of good causes via the Foundation - the general idea/vision has already been accepted by Network users.
I think we must assume a fork would create A should B be safe net. Then people who dislike B will use A. Those who dislike B will likely be those who are net contributors.
People who just want a cheap, secure, distributed network and/or have some wealth they wish to hang on to are going to choose A most of the time. This is simple game theory stuff.
That leaves B with a funding problem.
Just because something isn’t coercive, it doesn’t mean people will use it; quite the opposite in fact, if they have a different preference.
Exactly, but the corollary would also apply. Whichever system is enacted by Maidsafe A) or B) will cause detriment to the option not chosen. I’m not sure what you have established.
Yes they will. And people wanting to create B will choose B) most of the time, again, I’m not sure of the point except to say you believe more people would choose A).
The opposite scenario would leave A with a funding problem. Am I missing some crucial point somewhere?
Yes, I can spot the non-sequitur there. Did you spot this one?
or the inherent glaringly axiomatic nature of and therefore redundancy in the argument that if someone prefers something, they are more likely to choose it?
Taxation appears to be efficient as the wealthy are taxed very hard, so that the inefficiencies are hidden. If you don’t have wealthy people to tax hard, there isn’t going to be much of anything to spend.
Ofc, we can both claim A or B will be more popular. If the services B provides are only given freely to those who spend a certain amount on the network, then it is essentially like loyalty points. However, without taking more from the rich, than the poor, the network would just be funding what could have been bought directly anyway.
Actually, neither of us has to be right - I am certain A will be forked* if it isn’t the default anyway. If you claim A deters B, then you’re scuppered regardless.
*tbh, even the 1% proposed may lead to this. With open source, you have to be very careful not to try to extract something from the software which can just be written out in a fork… If it can be, there is a high chance it will be.
A) funds devs and infra-structure
B) funds devs, infra-structure and whatever else society decides to fund.
I’m absolutely fine with it not being too much at the start, a penny from each would soon add up if the Network grows exponentially, it will scale with it.
It will not of course be a “tax” that works as in the real world it could be simplified as a transaction tax that goes to good causes of the communities choice.
The main thing I’m concerned about is having the inherent functionality for B) to become a reality. I am not a coder so can only speculate as to how such a system would be coded/implemented. I’m just putting the basic concept out there to be discussed really as I see a problem.
I really do appreciate people attacking the idea actually as it stimulates discussion.
I know…and that’s what I’m not liking
I’d even be Ok with this, but it appears to preclude it, hence a political decision has already been made in favour of the “free market economy” side of the argument.
Edit:
If you think about it from the Foundation’s perspective, they would currently be reliant on Maidsafe the company doing well and Charity donations (not 100% sure). The likelihood of charity donations to the Foundation goes up if there is an extra “pot of money” that users can just click “Foundation” when given a choice. In B) users could choose “Dev pod 1” or “Republican Party” etc, so long as it was a recognised “charity”. Transactions made by them, or part of farming reward, whatever always go to the clicked charity, until such a time as they decide to click a different charity. This way society funds what it wants and these projects/charities would flourish affecting real world politics.
Imagine a disaster situation - the community just click “Africa aid” or something and funding streams come in immediately, effecting things on the ground. It is an automatic fast responding societal safety net.
Thinking about it, it probably means some jiggery pokery with farming/dev rewards and building in a voting system linked to wallets or something. It may not need to be a major overhaul or transaction fee thing I don’t think, just some further tinkering as to where rewards go. ……maybe? No clue really.
If we use the definitions of “tax” and “farming fee” extremely loosely, and we argue they fit in the same bucket, MaidSAFE will be run at least 5 times more efficiently than a government.
Let me explain @Al_Kafir , for The Foundation to take 5%, and farmers to receive 1% for their mainteneance efforts, that is a small fraction of what I would conservatively say Governments charge their citizens an average of 30% each to run everything. Now of course, the matter of scale aside (highways, emergency ser ices, healthcare etc VS essentially a software network with its citizens providing most of the hardware), I’d say 1% is actually quite low!
5 times more efficiently than a no tax system maybe but nowhere near the levels of efficiency a Network incorporating a built in “cuddly tax system” (by my definition throughout this thread) - nor one that had a voting system tied to it as to where funds were spent.
The Safe Network only addresses the tax aspect for infra-structure, ie builders and farmers - it does not have a community pot of money for good causes or charities etc that is community directed. The current model is a totally free market economy, without a tax system (a part- one with a centralised charity add-on.), the “missing part” of the tax system being reliant on centralised charity instead.
No need actually… let me explain…the 5% the Foundation take is not “coded into” the Network as far as I understand, therefore it does not/cannot operate like a tax.
In fact if it did, and it was coded into the Network to dribble feed the Foundation, then if the Foundation (consensus aspect) is later de-centralised back to the community - then this would operate like the tax system I suggested and no further issues from me - the mechanism for model B to evolve would be there.
I would urge to code the 5% in, as this seems to provide for a future tax mechanism.
Same here!..
Edit:
Looking into my Crystal Ball, I see it as an inevitable that the final future structure of the Foundation will be de-centralised in nature and that it’s aims/goals will be more all encompassing and about empowering the individual. Either this happens or the Foundation would keep all it’s aims/goals and self-direction and compete with other charities – the Foundation function being replaced by the de-centralised Govt (for want of a better word) and power given back to the users/electorate.
I know, I’m not doing my argument many favours am I? Mainly because those words don’t seem to work either. It’s not a toll, it’s a community pot of money raked in from the functioning Network currency and community directed - more like a trust fund then, but collected like tax., Organisation is not the correct word either to describe the de-centralised consensus of users/electorate - govt is.
I’d suggest that the issue is with people’s associations with these words, but would suggest it’s something they need to get over. There’s nothing wrong with the idea of de-centralised govenment - it’s the word…it is what it is really - whatever entity is governing the allocation of funds so to speak. Maybe fund manager/management?
At the end of the day, I think this is very closely tied to the debate about whether technology is neutral/apolitical/amoral etc. I think I could make a convincing case against this notion…given the chance.
It seems to me by way of redefining various concepts then making statements based on twisted terminology, you’re digging a large hole then claiming you can dig your way out.
I’m trying to explain a concept, for which available terminology does not fit exactly and correct wording evades me, with which to convey the concept. I believe the concept itself is not that difficult to grasp and that my terminology is hardly a million miles away from the processes I’m describing.
Yes, I am and that’s where the problem arises.
“twisted” in the way and for the reasons I just gave.
What’s the hole I’m digging and how would my jumping to a different argument about the neutrality of technology get me out of it? One argument at a time please - do you accept my reasons or not - if not why not and what exactly is my motivation for “twisting terminology” ?
OK…Kafir-nomics it is then. Model B is the Socio-Economic model of Kafir-ism , which is a more equitable balance between Right/Left political ideologies than a modern Liberal Democracy. The “tax system” is split into 2 aspects, the infra-structure aspect is autonomously dealt with by the Network (farmers/builders) - the other aspect is “everything else the individual members of society want the tax to go to” - this would usually be charities, causes, projects etc.
It differs from other tax systems, in that there is (definitely) no coercion and individuals have a say on what it is spent on. This creates the Society/Community we want, because the things people want funded get funded - it is a totally de-centralised Govt in effect…
