View Poll Results: Where do you stand?

Voters
95. You may not vote on this poll
  • I don't support Andrew Yang's UBI

    33 34.74%
  • I support Andrew Yang's UBI

    62 65.26%
Page 20 of 26 FirstFirst ...
10
18
19
20
21
22
... LastLast
  1. #381
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnusthegreat View Post
    That's not my argument. I was simply stating I hope I can contribute as much as the person that refuses to work, as he's been put on a pedestal.
    What did the poor do to you, to make you hate them so much? Why exactly do you find it morally acceptable to wish starvation and suffering upon them?

  2. #382
    Quote Originally Posted by DisposableHero View Post
    What did the poor do to you, to make you hate them so much? Why exactly do you find it morally acceptable to wish starvation and suffering upon them?
    I wish you could read an argument and discuss it. I never stated anything remotely close to what you insinuate. It's clear you aren't thinking.
    Last edited by Jonnusthegreat; 2019-12-14 at 07:34 PM.

  3. #383
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    It's nice that you explain it but there should be no reason for you to do so. I mean, this is your private life and whatever reason you have to want UBI is of no one's business, even if you simply don't want to work.

    We're a society, and even the ones not working are contributing to it, people have to get this into their stupid brains.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Simply existing is giving something to society though. All the jobs associated with a UBI for example. Or the simple fact that you existing means you need stuff which in turn means others have work.

    Of course, if everyone was like "I don't want to work" then it will collapse, but considering that a UBI is for everyone, the wage on top of it is like a bonus month by month and people will continue to want to have luxury items.

    Another positive of UBI is it is giving people more of a choice in life and a better position when negotiating wages which is really needed in countries like the US.
    This is my entire opinion on the matter. My only negative towards this is how rewarding work has become for myself and others which has taken the forefront of the base level economic ideas of the western world. I tend to look at people as creatures of habit and that work should come before all else, its a legacy item in my eyes. How much more should people like myself before rewarded over those that are considered lazy by the majority of the populace? How much should they get? Should it be a even across the handout or should it capped at a specific income threshold? Should we eliminate the rest of the social safety net programs like most Libertarian economists think? How do we maintain the current control mechanism that businesses have over employees if they are freely allowed to walk?

    Those questions will only be changed once we have a massive global problem that forces them to change. In my eyes i would rather work being a 25-30% bonus overall with a UBI provided to help keep a fully automated economy moving. But do not think that if the world becomes automated tomorrow that corporations and business leaders will bend over, some are even talking about downscaling and having a South African tale of 2 worlds idea. I was recently talking to heirs of a Australian mine who said the same very things to me.

    Would a national rent control pass? Would land continue to stay cheap in specific parts of the US? How do you not get people to not collude to keep rents/land high? I mean people do not understand the massive scale of change that would be required when the US can not even get reasonable healthcare passed.

    Understand i am firmly in support of a UBI but i know that the barriers to entry are so large ( in the US at the very least ) that without immense and frankly insane structural change it will be impossible, meaning that if the Alaskan dividend was attempted today it would be voted down.
    Last edited by jeezusisacasual; 2019-12-14 at 09:12 PM.

  4. #384
    Quote Originally Posted by jeezusisacasual View Post
    Understand i am firmly in support of a UBI but i know that the barriers to entry are so large ( in the US at the very least ) that without immense and frankly insane structural change it will be impossible, meaning that if the Alaskan dividend was attempted today it would be voted down.
    What a shitty take this is. "It's the right thing, but it'll be hard to get done, so we shouldn't try."

  5. #385
    Quote Originally Posted by DisposableHero View Post
    What a shitty take this is. "It's the right thing, but it'll be hard to get done, so we shouldn't try."
    Go ahead and try honestly. I want to see how far this goes in the current political climate. We all know that single payer healthcare is the far best choice from studies to cost and it will not happen until mid to late 2020s. And i never said do not try but letting you know that just because a democrat wants it does not mean the rest of the party will go lock step behind them. But please tell me that i am wrong about the political climate today and going forward?

    To get this passed you would have to first have a President and cabinet to betray any larger donor. Also it would require whomever the president to go to the various states of those legislators reside to raise a rally outside their homes hopefully with the power of the state government. They would then have to find a funding mechanism for the party after they leave office since they will likely have pissed off every single donor which in the US Dollars = Speech and Corporations are people also. So yes dismantle all of those barriers if at all possible and i will do what i can to support such a fight but i understand the reality of the situation.
    Last edited by jeezusisacasual; 2019-12-15 at 03:42 AM.

  6. #386
    The Unstoppable Force Mayhem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    pending...
    Posts
    20,985
    Quote Originally Posted by jeezusisacasual View Post
    This is my entire opinion on the matter. My only negative towards this is how rewarding work has become for myself and others which has taken the forefront of the base level economic ideas of the western world. I tend to look at people as creatures of habit and that work should come before all else, its a legacy item in my eyes. How much more should people like myself before rewarded over those that are considered lazy by the majority of the populace? How much should they get? Should it be a even across the handout or should it capped at a specific income threshold? Should we eliminate the rest of the social safety net programs like most Libertarian economists think? How do we maintain the current control mechanism that businesses have over employees if they are freely allowed to walk?

    Those questions will only be changed once we have a massive global problem that forces them to change. In my eyes i would rather work being a 25-30% bonus overall with a UBI provided to help keep a fully automated economy moving. But do not think that if the world becomes automated tomorrow that corporations and business leaders will bend over, some are even talking about downscaling and having a South African tale of 2 worlds idea. I was recently talking to heirs of a Australian mine who said the same very things to me.

    Would a national rent control pass? Would land continue to stay cheap in specific parts of the US? How do you not get people to not collude to keep rents/land high? I mean people do not understand the massive scale of change that would be required when the US can not even get reasonable healthcare passed.

    Understand i am firmly in support of a UBI but i know that the barriers to entry are so large ( in the US at the very least ) that without immense and frankly insane structural change it will be impossible, meaning that if the Alaskan dividend was attempted today it would be voted down.
    The US and its politicians seriously need to grow up and look for stuff outside their spheres and see how other countries work and do things.

    For some reason, the can-do attitude of Americans changed to a can't-be-done attitude when it comes to something that resembles massive change even only by the looks of it.
    Quote Originally Posted by ash
    So, look um, I'm not a grief counselor, but if it's any consolation, I have had to kill and bury loved ones before.

    A bunch of times actually.

  7. #387
    Mechagnome
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Untraceable
    Posts
    720
    I like it but its un-sustainable. In reality it will just make things more expensive
    "We Choose Truth over Facts" - Joe Biden
    "You're too old to vote for me" - Joe Biden

  8. #388
    Quote Originally Posted by js3915 View Post
    I like it but its un-sustainable. In reality it will just make things more expensive
    It depends on cost. For instance in places with large population centers things would likely jump more then the more rural areas which is in part what people want. The goal will be to build out the struggling Rust belt towns and areas with some form of commerce. Get Bill and Steve to make that pastry shop a reality in a place like Jackson Wyoming and the like. UBI can be a thing that would lift a solid 20% of the American underbelly right out of poverty. Lets not kid ourselves about the " charitable " giving that some people / corporations use to avoid paying taxes to begin with.

    With a UBI people a couple go move to a rural town and easily buy a 80 to 120k home off of just the UBI alone, assuming the land rights are regulated across the nation. Funding is also not so bad really but i think those funding mechanisms will be used to tackle the growing Debt issue in the US at the very least. Things like a VAT is a last ditch effort to pass the cost onto the general populace instead of the corporate class. This is another reason why i was saying about how hard this would be to get passed in that the FED already looks into Unionization and strikes as factors into rate changes, this is why some find Paul Volcker a horrible man since he asked for the impartiality of the FED as it was not the entire case prior to his leadership. As a finance guy i actually think that is best but it can show you whom they are aligned with.

    I really want a UBI above all else and i would like it before we see a new wave of extreme poverty in the western world.

  9. #389
    Mechagnome
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Untraceable
    Posts
    720
    Quote Originally Posted by jeezusisacasual View Post
    It depends on cost. For instance in places with large population centers things would likely jump more then the more rural areas which is in part what people want. The goal will be to build out the struggling Rust belt towns and areas with some form of commerce. Get Bill and Steve to make that pastry shop a reality in a place like Jackson Wyoming and the like. UBI can be a thing that would lift a solid 20% of the American underbelly right out of poverty. Lets not kid ourselves about the " charitable " giving that some people / corporations use to avoid paying taxes to begin with.

    With a UBI people a couple go move to a rural town and easily buy a 80 to 120k home off of just the UBI alone, assuming the land rights are regulated across the nation. Funding is also not so bad really but i think those funding mechanisms will be used to tackle the growing Debt issue in the US at the very least. Things like a VAT is a last ditch effort to pass the cost onto the general populace instead of the corporate class. This is another reason why i was saying about how hard this would be to get passed in that the FED already looks into Unionization and strikes as factors into rate changes, this is why some find Paul Volcker a horrible man since he asked for the impartiality of the FED as it was not the entire case prior to his leadership. As a finance guy i actually think that is best but it can show you whom they are aligned with.

    I really want a UBI above all else and i would like it before we see a new wave of extreme poverty in the western world.

    Yeah but who is paying for this... You realize to give everyone 1K a month to 217M Americans will cost 2.604 trillion / year

    You could ask all the billionares to pay but they would be broke after the first year. Just because they're net worth is a billion doesn't mean they have a billion sitting in their bank account.

    You could tax businesses but they will pass the taxes back to the populace which will eat a big portion of that 1000/m for the majority of people.

    Instead of giving people free money maybe fix the tax system first. I would love to pay less in taxes I feel overtaxed as is. 1000/mo wont help that especially if higher prices means that 1000 will be more like 500 or less with higher cost of goods
    "We Choose Truth over Facts" - Joe Biden
    "You're too old to vote for me" - Joe Biden

  10. #390
    Quote Originally Posted by js3915 View Post
    Yeah but who is paying for this... You realize to give everyone 1K a month to 217M Americans will cost 2.604 trillion / year

    You could ask all the billionares to pay but they would be broke after the first year. Just because they're net worth is a billion doesn't mean they have a billion sitting in their bank account.

    You could tax businesses but they will pass the taxes back to the populace which will eat a big portion of that 1000/m for the majority of people.

    Instead of giving people free money maybe fix the tax system first. I would love to pay less in taxes I feel overtaxed as is. 1000/mo wont help that especially if higher prices means that 1000 will be more like 500 or less with higher cost of goods
    You can have a myriad of ways to pay for it but to claim inflationary metrics is kind of odd as how much liquidity is flush in the financial markets with next to no real inflation outside of healthcare / rents. No one is saying that none of the taxation costs wont be placed on the consumer ( this is why i think a VAT would be best as a major way to pay for it to keep the cycle of consumerism going in the US ) but it will not be as much as you would think. This is the same argument that various fear mongers used in Seattle and New York that the market apocalypse is coming and outside of already struggling businesses that has largely not been the case see all the inflationary reaction.

    Places you would likely see real inflation would be in Land and utilities above all else. It would be rather stable on the land for the foreseeable future in that places like i mentioned before would be more apt at people to move like the Dakotas, Nebraska, Wyoming ( my home state ), Idaho etc. This would also be a very large boon for the Dollar Generals of the world as they would explode more then they already are.

    I mean talking of taxation is a bit funny because here in Australia i am taxed at 32.5% and i am taxed in the US at 31,000$ a year ( which i get removed due to breaks and allowances) which i find to be fine in every way where as in the US i was taxed at around 26% ( i have no children nor do i want them ) which was in my eyes to low. But that being said a VAT is coming to the US one way or another simply to combat the growing debt or to pay for more of the societal needs that are coming in a world ever growing more automated.

    I work in finance and i understand that completely with regards to taxation on investments and the like. I help people hide money for a living and have done so for over a decade.

  11. #391
    All UBI does is cut off welfare, make people poor in the long run who are already poor by inflation and does nothing at all until we are in a system where resources and production doesn't matter. As long as food exists, and can't be instantly created, as long as people need to work to maintain systems UBI is dumb. You give 1000 dollars to every person in the US. All that does is devalue currency everyone else has and the market will rebalance itself and that money is then worthless.

    Lets say this Box of cereal costs 3 dollars. Everyone gets UBI, so now everyone can buy that same box of cereal. But in order to pay for UBI you have to tax someone. That person who is taxed is likely to be some business owner. That business own then raises the price of cereal to help pay for that tax. That in turn raises the price of milk also, or of the movie tickets because those going to the theatre need to raise prices. The point here is that money is a medium of exchange for good. And when you give 1000 dollars of resources out, those resources need to be taken from somewhere else and those people whose resources are taken are of course going to try and recoup the money lost. So while initially it might work, in the end the economy rebalances and the only thing you managed to do is pretty much nothing in the end. The only way UBI works is in a post needs society where no human labor is involved in anything. Then you are in a communist society at that point anyways so why have money? Targeted social programs are much much much more effective then the money spent otherwise.

  12. #392
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    61,879
    Quote Originally Posted by Wermys View Post
    You give 1000 dollars to every person in the US. All that does is devalue currency everyone else has and the market will rebalance itself and that money is then worthless.
    That same argument gets raised every time someone talks about raising the minimum wage.

    It's a bullshit argument and it is not supported by any data whatsoever. There's no correlation between hikes in the minimum wage, and hikes in inflation. Which means there's no reason to expect a different bump to low-income spending capacity to lead to a comparable bump in inflation.

    It's a bit more complex than with minimum wage, but minimum wage has the secondary factor of directly contributing to a rise in prices, via increasing the wage component of those prices. And that bump is still statistically irrelevant and not enough to produce a correlation in inflation. And that doesn't exist at all with a UBI. The whole claim lacks any merit whatsoever.

    Particularly when inflation can easily be addressed in both cases simply by tying the UBI stipend or minimum wage to the cost of living, so they're automatically adjusted with inflation on a yearly basis (or twice a year, or whatever you want).

  13. #393
    Old God Vash The Stampede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Better part of NJ
    Posts
    10,536
    Quote Originally Posted by Wermys View Post
    All UBI does is cut off welfare, make people poor in the long run who are already poor by inflation and does nothing at all until we are in a system where resources and production doesn't matter.
    I'm sure the Federal Reserves pump of 4 Trillion dollars won't have any effect on inflation either. The reason UBI won't cause inflation is because the money isn't coming from thin air, unlike the Federal Reserve is doing by literally printing money to give to banks.

    As long as food exists, and can't be instantly created, as long as people need to work to maintain systems UBI is dumb.
    Farming is largely automated already, just not 100%.


    You give 1000 dollars to every person in the US. All that does is devalue currency everyone else has and the market will rebalance itself and that money is then worthless.
    You tax the wealthy who have far too much money and you redistribute it through UBI. You get the money by fucking the rich. As long as no money is printed, inflation shouldn't happen.
    Lets say this Box of cereal costs 3 dollars. Everyone gets UBI, so now everyone can buy that same box of cereal. But in order to pay for UBI you have to tax someone. That person who is taxed is likely to be some business owner. That business own then raises the price of cereal to help pay for that tax. That in turn raises the price of milk also, or of the movie tickets because those going to the theatre need to raise prices.
    As long as you have healthy competition then prices shouldn't go up. Rent and housing prices will because they're more like an oligopoly, which is why you need rent control. Also you don't tax the business, you tax the wealthy through a wealth tax.

    The only way UBI works is in a post needs society where no human labor is involved in anything. Then you are in a communist society at that point anyways so why have money? Targeted social programs are much much much more effective then the money spent otherwise.
    We're not too far off from having most jobs taken away via automation. We're probably 2-3 years away from truckers losing their jobs to self driving technology, and we can already replace Bank Tellers, cashiers, and even pharmacists with kiosks. Just a matter of time before the wealthy get even greedier and push our society into the brink of collapse. If Boston Dynamic robots can do this, then why debate about a UBI instead of enact it before the situation gets bad?

  14. #394
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    61,879
    Quote Originally Posted by Vash The Stampede View Post
    As long as you have healthy competition then prices shouldn't go up. Rent and housing prices will because they're more like an oligopoly, which is why you need rent control. Also you don't tax the business, you tax the wealthy through a wealth tax.
    I can't even call these people capitalists any more, because what they're supporting isn't Adam Smith's vision, it's the mercantilism he was proposing an alternative to. Right down to the nationalist economics, rather than globalist.

    Wages are a small part of the costs of most products. For instance, fast food (where minimum/low wages are widespread, unlike a lot of other industries), studies show that a bump to a $15 minimum wage (a 107% increase at the time of the study) would lead to about a 4% bump in actual food prices; https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ra...nds-2015-07-28

    That's a ratio that's a clear, obvious win for low income earners. And again; that's considering the direct impact of higher wages on the cost of production.

    Once we exclude that particular factor, as we would have to with a UBI since it does not increase costs of production at all, the pressures on price are going to be supply, demand, and competition, roughly speaking (a few other minor factors). Supply won't increase, much. Demand is going to be highly dependent on the particular market; do lower-income people eat fast food because it's cheap, because it saves time, or do they see it as a luxury? The first two would tend to see a reduction in demand for fast food, because people can afford better and have more free time to cook. The latter would see an increase, because people can afford it more easily. And that complexity extends everywhere, and supply will generally respond to that demand shift; supply is a function of demand in a competitive economy, unless there's resource scarcity in play; if there's more demand, production will step up supply to meet it, and prices remain relatively static as a result. Because, as you noted, competition will let competitors undercut each other if they don't do this.

    Prices are a factor of how much people are willing to pay, not how much they are capable of paying. If McDonalds tried to create "McDonalds Elite", with the same food but ten times the price, for rich people, they wouldn't make money. Even though those rich people can afford those higher prices. Because they can get it cheaper at the regular McD's. No matter how much money people have, they're not willing to pay $50 (at current values) for a Big Mac combo.

  15. #395
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    That same argument gets raised every time someone talks about raising the minimum wage.

    It's a bullshit argument and it is not supported by any data whatsoever. There's no correlation between hikes in the minimum wage, and hikes in inflation. Which means there's no reason to expect a different bump to low-income spending capacity to lead to a comparable bump in inflation.

    It's a bit more complex than with minimum wage, but minimum wage has the secondary factor of directly contributing to a rise in prices, via increasing the wage component of those prices. And that bump is still statistically irrelevant and not enough to produce a correlation in inflation. And that doesn't exist at all with a UBI. The whole claim lacks any merit whatsoever.

    Particularly when inflation can easily be addressed in both cases simply by tying the UBI stipend or minimum wage to the cost of living, so they're automatically adjusted with inflation on a yearly basis (or twice a year, or whatever you want).


    The difference is that minimum wage targets a specific segment of the population. That segment with increased minimum wages causes the bottom earners spending levels to rise. Which is desirable. They are the most likely to spend that money and use it. But those earning over a certain amount will not spend that money at all. Instead it will get absorded into savings. And as that UBI money cycles through the economy it will reequalize. While money that is used for people on welfare OR through an minimum wage increase is targeted at a specific segment of the population and generally helps them a lot more. I will stand by what I said. Supply IS finite, and giving everyone 1000 dollars does absolutely nothing at all in the long term. Targeting minimum wage OR increasing welfare for specific segments of the population is much much more effective use of the money. Because that money is likely to get focused on a specific segment that is likely to spend it immediately. While UBI does nothing because you have a finite amount of resources in the economy and that money if everyone gets it will result in absolutely nothing in the end.

    An argument could be made harshly taxing the rich and supplying everyone with UBI which is viable. Because it is distributing resources to the bottom segment of the population and the middle of the population and even the rich. Who will not get back what they put into it in taxes. But why do that? Its stupid to me to do so when its smarter to just target a segment that needs it. And welfare or minimum wage increases does the same. We are not even close to the point of being post scarcity. Or to put it another way. I would rather take the 1000 dollars the middle and upper class gets and invest that into schools and education rather then give them that money. Which gets back again to my point. UBI only works post scarcity. Its much more effective to target segments with welfare or minimum wage increases. Otherwise its an inefficient use of resources just giving everyone a 1000 dollars.

  16. #396
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    61,879
    Quote Originally Posted by Wermys View Post
    The difference is that minimum wage targets a specific segment of the population. That segment with increased minimum wages causes the bottom earners spending levels to rise. Which is desirable. They are the most likely to spend that money and use it. But those earning over a certain amount will not spend that money at all. Instead it will get absorded into savings. And as that UBI money cycles through the economy it will reequalize. While money that is used for people on welfare OR through an minimum wage increase is targeted at a specific segment of the population and generally helps them a lot more. I will stand by what I said. Supply IS finite, and giving everyone 1000 dollars does absolutely nothing at all in the long term. Targeting minimum wage OR increasing welfare for specific segments of the population is much much more effective use of the money. Because that money is likely to get focused on a specific segment that is likely to spend it immediately. While UBI does nothing because you have a finite amount of resources in the economy and that money if everyone gets it will result in absolutely nothing in the end.
    UBI proposals come tied to complete overhauls of a lot of other economic factors. Which is why the tests have been non-universal basic incomes; you can test those in a smaller environment without needing to significantly change the entire national system.

    You'd need to rework income taxes. They'd be increased, and you'd likely lose the tax-free bracket entirely (the purpose of that tax-free bracket being replaced by the UBI). Raising income taxes and ensuring those making less than, say, 100k is fairly trivial math and not something to worry about; you can achieve that just by setting your expectations and spending 10 minutes with some paper and pen. You'd want to significantly bump income taxes on the wealthy, so even if they get the UBI stipend, they're paying more than its value in additional taxes.

    I think the $1000/mo is too low; I'd favor a living UBI, so closer to $20k/year, not $12k. At that level, you can remove minimum wage protections and the like, because workers can comfortably say "nah" when asked to clean toilets for $1/hour. You'd need to pay enough to entice workers, and that's all the control we need.

    The idea that a UBI will just negate out is just . . . wrong. Weirdly, crazily wrong. I have no idea where you're getting that. It's like you're forgetting that tax brackets exist, and that the stipend is tax-free.

    An argument could be made harshly taxing the rich and supplying everyone with UBI which is viable. Because it is distributing resources to the bottom segment of the population and the middle of the population and even the rich. Who will not get back what they put into it in taxes. But why do that? Its stupid to me to do so when its smarter to just target a segment that needs it. And welfare or minimum wage increases does the same. We are not even close to the point of being post scarcity. Or to put it another way. I would rather take the 1000 dollars the middle and upper class gets and invest that into schools and education rather then give them that money. Which gets back again to my point. UBI only works post scarcity. Its much more effective to target segments with welfare or minimum wage increases. Otherwise its an inefficient use of resources just giving everyone a 1000 dollars.
    The gain of a UBI is administrative. Any system that's not universal means you need to check on a monthly basis whether applicants still qualify for the stipend. They're having to verify their lack of sufficient income, you need staff who can adjudicate and process this information as well as new applicants, and a system for randomly auditing cases to check for fraud. It's a similar administrative demand that welfare already has, likely higher because you'd have more people on the stipend.

    With a UBI, all you have to verify is citizenship, and that their current address is within the country. This doesn't need to be updated every month. The administrative overhead is far less than a non-universal basic income, even if it covers a much wider population. And given that the stipends paid out to wealthier citizens get pulled back in higher taxes, there's no fiscal loss; the net effect is a much more efficient distribution of support funding to those in working- and lower-middle-class lifestyles.

    The idea that this can only work post-scarcity is incredibly wrong. Like, I don't think you understand what "post scarcity" means. Post-scarcity means if I want a new car every week because charging my car is annoying, that's fine. I can have that. Because they're free, or so cheap they may as well be (like $5 in current valuation, say).

    In such a society, a UBI is irrelevant, because everything is so abundant nothing has value and nobody needs help making ends meet.

    Nor do we need that kind of bounty to make a UBI affordable. We just need a tax structure for it, which we could establish literally tomorrow, if we wanted to. The difficulty there is political and systemic, because convincing everyone to do this and shifting the current system to the new one are both going to present challenges. It's not a difficulty based in achieving the end result.

  17. #397
    Quote Originally Posted by js3915 View Post
    Yeah but who is paying for this... You realize to give everyone 1K a month to 217M Americans will cost 2.604 trillion / year

    You could ask all the billionares to pay but they would be broke after the first year. Just because they're net worth is a billion doesn't mean they have a billion sitting in their bank account.
    Their net worth combined is not enough to pay UBI for one year. And they don't actually own their net worth but less.
    So even if we take ALL the money from every billionaire in the US and leave them completely broke on the street... it is not enough to pay UBI for even one year.
    So you can be sure it will be your taxes that will go up. And that is only for the UBI.
    and the geek shall inherit the earth

  18. #398
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    61,879
    Quote Originally Posted by d00mGuArD View Post
    Their net worth combined is not enough to pay UBI for one year. And they don't actually own their net worth but less.
    So even if we take ALL the money from every billionaire in the US and leave them completely broke on the street... it is not enough to pay UBI for even one year.
    So you can be sure it will be your taxes that will go up. And that is only for the UBI.
    Because you're setting your standard at "billionaires", and not considering that there are plenty of people with "only" tens or hundreds of millions in income who should be paying much higher tax rates, too.

    Plus, there's plenty of money that could be adjusted around in the budget. 2.6 trillion is a lot, but current outlays are already ~4.1 trillion.

    Current outlays are about 18.7% of GDP, mandatory and discretionary combined. Just as a comparison, Canada's closer to 21% lately (and our budget is way more balanced than the USA's, to boot). Germany's around 19.5%. The USA could be drawing significantly more, particularly as all these figures aren't accounting for a UBI.

    A UBI should expect to see higher overall tax rates as a percentage of GDP than we currently do. People making upper-middle-class or above should, in theory, be contributing more in taxes; I'd say the tipping point should be in the region of $75k-250k/yearly income. Anyone making below that would be better off, anyone above that not quite as well off, scaling in both directions. The idea that this would kill the economy or something is just ridiculous nonsense.

  19. #399
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    People making upper-middle-class or above should, in theory, be contributing more in taxes; I'd say the tipping point should be in the region of $75k-250k/yearly income. Anyone making below that would be better off, anyone above that not quite as well off, scaling in both directions. The idea that this would kill the economy or something is just ridiculous nonsense.
    And why SHOULD they be contributing more than they already do? Because that's how you'd stop poor people from dying of preventable crap? Who cares?

    You're going to have a hard time convincing me the discrepancy between humans shouldn't be accurately represented in their earnings as well. We're not all similarly capable. On the contrary, we're hugely disproportionately capable in basically every regard. Ergo, if what society desires from a services standpoint also has that huge disproportion in results and capability, why should lifestyles not reflect that?

  20. #400
    I dunno...put a wealthy man in the same Thunderdome that most of us have to fight in.
    Acquittal doesn't mean exoneration


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •