please check out the anti-mandate news »

« prev   random   next »

4
0

Regarding a UBI

By Zak follow Zak   2021 Mar 5, 12:54pm 772 views   47 comments   watch   nsfw   quote   share      


"Some people will take the money and sit around and do nothing, but so what?"

I was thinking about this, and came up with the following. Tldr : eliminate income tax, and create a prosperity dividend instead of a UBI
--

For UBI, the money doesn't magically come from nowhere. You have to take it from someone to give it to someone else. If you "print" it, then you take it from everyone equally, but it then gets spent and redistributed into the hands of business owners who benefit from the spending. This therefore hurts people who are not in the capitalist class through inflation. You can see this is true, because of our current minimum/living wage fight. If increasing GDP over time with inflation is supposed to help everyone, then the minimum wage shouldn't continue to be an issue, as more economic output distributed equally would tend to create additional higher paying jobs. Instead what we see is a reversion to a low paying service economy with more and more people bouncing off the minimum wage floor. At the same time, the wealth disparity is increasing, and the richest 1% have gained substantially more than the 99% below them over the previous 40 years. This can't be blamed on republicans, or democrats, or taxes, as taxes only take further from incomes, and don't ADD to people's incomes. Additionally, the trend has been consistent over both republican and democrat led presidencies and congresses.

So again, currently with a UBI, you will get inflation, which hurts savers, and benefits the 1%, as they get the money. So the bottom 10% will be marginally better off, the middle 89% will be markedly WORSE off, and the 1% will consolidate further wealth (as always). So what's the answer?

In my very humble opinion, a start to the answer is to eliminate the w-2 income tax, and instead gather that tax from income and wages paid by corporations. With the middle class no longer worried that every tax proposed will fiscally damage them, they will be willing to vote for social programs that come from tax revenues instead of from inflation. The tax code will be more fair, as corporations with actual lobbying power will fight amongst themselves to equalize taxes paid. Corporations will be the first to rat each other out from these double irish sandwich tax loops if it means they can lower their own tax burden, instead of jus relying on income taxes to fuel the government, and weasleing their way out of their fair share.

Then, we can do a UBI, but instead of a fixed base income, it can be a prosperity dividend. If the country does well, and GDP goes up, you get a bigger payout. If we have a bad year, your payout won't be as big, but we won't create inflation to erode your savings. Additionally, we eliminate 90% of the IRS having to focus on individual tax returns, and they can focus on corporate compliance. This also saves billions of dollars in paperwork and tax return costs each year.

A side benefit, all the government conspiracy theorist/haters will have a massive reduction in anti-government sentiment, as they are no longer under the gun from the IRS. And instead of people being against corporations (big AND small), we will be cheering for them to earn massive profits, and earn us a higher prosperity dividend.

Additionally, I could see the rich actually lobbying for HIGHER capital gains taxes, and lower wage taxes, as wage taxes would need to be paid every year, but capital gains can occur much less frequently.

What do you guys think?

« First    « Previous    Comments 8 - 47 of 47    Last »

8   zzyzzx   ignore (1)   2021 Mar 5, 3:52pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Zak says
@zzyzzx .. Since it doesn't seem like we are getting away from the federal reserve inflating away our currency, a direct refund of 10% of federal spending divided evenly among each citizen over the age of say 14 (I think this is age you can get first work permit) seems like it could combat this effect of inflation on the general population.

at 4.4 trillion, this would be $440 billion per year refunded to each citizen. That would be about $1200 per year I think. Again, this would need to be coupled to the elimination of the income tax.


Again, tax imports enough so that there is no deficit. No deficit, no printing money. No printing money no inflation.
9   Zak   ignore (0)   2021 Mar 5, 4:10pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

@rin, I pointed out that if the income tax goes away, you could tax wages paid. This means executives can give a big paycheck, but the company still pays the tax on it.
10   HunterTits   ignore (4)   2021 Mar 5, 4:43pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

UBI has been proven to be a total quack job for Leftists to gain more power.

One, it was supposed to be a replacement for welfare. But the Left will not give up the patronage advantages that abolishing the welfare system will do. So now they pitch it ON TOP of the existing welfare scheme. Which is a non-starter for non-leftists...as well as anyone who can do basic budgetary math (see below).

So whenever a Libtard says, "But Milton Friedman supported it!". Point out that he supported TRUE UBI, which meant abolishing the existing welfare system.

Two, it doesn't work mathematically with regards to the above political bullshit. Why...because of something called The UBI Impossible Trinity:



Example: You can have either a large transfer and a low phaseout rate of existing welfare system, or a large transfer with same cost as current system but not all three.

Or you can have a low phaseout rate with the same cost, but that means a small transfer (moola! As in $500/month instead of $2,000/month).

Politically, any of the various two combos w/o the third is a Losing Musical Chairs situation for all concerned...especially politicians.

UBI: Universal Bullshit Imposed
11   Rin   ignore (9)   2021 Mar 5, 4:52pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Zak says
@rin, I pointed out that if the income tax goes away, you could tax wages paid. This means executives can give a big paycheck, but the company still pays the tax on it.


So this would be akin to Alaska's dividend fund?
12   HunterTits   ignore (4)   2021 Mar 5, 4:59pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Rin says
So this would be akin to Alaska's dividend fund?


1) No.
2) Alaskan politicians have tried several times to raid that fund just like they do the fund where all the gas tax receipts go for upkeep on the roads. Someday, they will succeed.

Better solution that I think @Zak is moving towards is something like Capital Homesteading, which is based on Binary Economics.

http://capitalhomestead.org/

http://capitalhomestead.org/page/homestead-flyer

Under such a system everyone would have their own account that they would have full property rights to and the politicians could not easily raid.

Under Capital Homesteading, every child born today could gain by age 65:
$460,000 in tax-sheltered assets.
$46,000 in annual after-tax income.
$1.6 million in dividends during that period.
13   Patrick   ignore (1)   2021 Mar 5, 5:18pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I'm still in love with Georgism, the idea of zero income tax and zero sales tax.

The only tax should be on land values (including radio spectrum, which is a kind of land).

There would be no tax on the building itself, just the value of the land.

- income taxes discourage work, so you don't want that
- sales taxes discourage commerce, so you don't want that
- no one created the land, so taxing it does not discourage land production
- land ownership and taxes paid are all public record (in theory, but the counties fight against open access to that info)
- the elderly could defer their land tax as increasing debt until their death if they wish, so no one would be kicked out
- renters would pay via their rent, because the landlord would have to pay it
- farmers would not go out of business, because all farmers would have the tax, and people have to eat
- taxes correspond exactly to national or state territory
- there would be vast savings on eliminating all income tax and sales tax paperwork. the price would just be the price

It has a zillion advantages, and Winston Churchill was a big fan of the idea until his wealthy landowning relatives told him to shut up about it.

One problem is that it's politically difficult because there is no evading everyone paying the tax one way or another. And people like to evade taxes.
14   HunterTits   ignore (4)   2021 Mar 5, 5:52pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Patrick says
The only tax should be on land values (including radio spectrum, which is a kind of land).


...which won't work unless the Constitution is amended like it was for the income tax. Apportionment, remember?

Won't work politically.

People in West Virginia paying a LVT at a rate five times higher than the folks in Connecticut would be a political non-starter. Hence why no direct taxes have ever been enacted except the income tax after we amended the Constitution to exempt it from the Apportionment Clause.

They did enact income taxes w/o regards to apportionment, but SCOTUS struck them all down. They delayed doing so during the Civil War. But once it was over, the income tax didn't last long before the courts killed that too.

AND it wouldn't work for purposes of levying a land value tax according to Georgist principles. This is because the tax would be levied by fixed fee per square foot or acre. A one sized fits all one, determined via a calculation that has nothing to do with actual market land value but what was divyed up by the apportioned amount that your state has to fork over.

Wyoming -- which has 1% (rounded up!) of the total US population living with it - would thus pay only 1% of the total to be collected. So the total amount would have to be fixed so 1% of that would be allocated to Wyoming. Then that would be divided by the total number of undeveloped privately held land in the state (at least that part of the LVT would be left intact). So, let say that Congress determines it wants to levy a $1 trillion LVT. Wyoming would have to pony up $10 billion in LVT -- not a cent less nor a cent more.

According to this site, 41% of land in Wyoming is privately held. https://www.summitpost.org/public-and-private-land-percentages-by-us-states/186111

According to Wiki, Wyoming land is 97,093 square miles total.

So, 41% of that would be 39,808 square miles.

How much of that land is undeveloped? We don't know. But for purposes of discussion, let's pick a percentage of...I dunno, 30%? This is because land used for grazing sheep can be considered 'developed' even though it has no buildings on it, right? But whatever, we are just picking this out of our ass. So 30% it is.

That's 11,942 square miles of taxable land.

$10 billion divided by 11,942 = $837,380 per square mile.

There is 27,878,400 square feet in a square mile according to this https://duckduckgo.com/?q=how+many+square+feet+in+a+square+mile&atb=v242-1&ia=answer

$837,380 divided by 27,878,400 = an LVT of a whopping three cents per square foot.

Californians with 10% of the US population would pay 10 times that or 30 cents per square foot of undeveloped land. BUT WAIT! Different amount of land and different amount privately vs publicly held in California. And I am not going to go thru that exercise again.

Point is, residents in each state will pay a different amount than those from others and the amount assessed to pay will be set not by market values on the land applicable to the tax but by Apportionment Clause constraints likewise similar to how many votes a state gets in the EC college and how many congressgritters it gets in the House of Non-representatives. This is WHY the Apportionment Clause exists. It's all part of 'representation proportional to taxation and vise versa'.

And this shit would just not fly politically in the 'loser states' like West Virginia that is poor in both land to spread the tax burden across as well as per capita income per residents who get stuck with paying the same amount the rich fucks do per whatever-unit of undeveloped land.

Oh, and this would apply to any 'wealth tax' levied, not just on land. So Elizabeth Warren and her bullshit lawyers who said it would be constitutional to levy otherwise were lying through their teeth.

@Patrick on the plus side, this would be an awesome tax to replace ALL OTHER FORMS of taxation. I mean, a tax ranging on pennies to no more than a buck or two (depending on the state) on the square foot to generate $1 trillion? Generating $7 trillion will only be 7x that amount, naturally. For the folks in Wyoming with the pulled-from-our-ass 30% percentage of undeveloped land it would be what? 21 cents per square foot to pay their part of a $7 trillion tax haul for the Feds? Remember, no more income tax (both personal & corporate) as well as no more excise taxes of any kind (at least not for revenue generating purposes).
15   FJB   ignore (9)   2021 Mar 6, 12:29am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

@Zak I think you have some interesting ideas but overall it's a shitty idea.

Despite what Bernie says Scandinavian countries are actually quite capitalist. They just tax the hell out of everyone (non-progressive) for social services which isn't socialism. The corporations pay a low tax rate. If we go jacking taxes up on corporations they just go elsewhere and we lose jobs and corporations.

Giving out 'free money' is a shit idea overall as well. You just get lazy people who suck from the system and shit goes downhill from there. There's actually a smallish number of people who need that sort of help and I'm not against that. Needs to be a high bar though.

I realize, all of that doesn't matter. We're either going full commie or the country will break up and only part of it will go full commie.
16   FJB   ignore (9)   2021 Mar 6, 12:31am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

zzyzzx says
Again, tax imports enough so that there is no deficit. No deficit, no printing money. No printing money no inflation.


Maybe throw in full reserve lending as well! (instead of fractional reserve)
17   WookieMan   ignore (5)   2021 Mar 6, 4:04am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

HunterTits says
fund where all the gas tax receipts go for upkeep on the roads.

MFT (Motor Fuel Tax) costs my family a ton. Not in purchasing fuel, but business. The system is rife with fraud here in IL. Could literally start making $200k extra a year, maybe more. Municipalities and government bodies in charge of roads cannot use the MFT on products not on the states approved list.

There are literally hundreds of products that would benefit citizens for road infrastructure, but it has to come from general funds and not MFT funds if you're not approved. If you get a product approved by the state, then municipalities can just green light the use of it with no presentation to a board. This may be different state to state, but I'm pretty most have a similar system in place.

Basically if you're not on that list and you have a competitor with a similar, not exactly same, you can't sell to communities that don't want to pull it from their general funds. They'll pick MFT products first because it's much easier and HAS to be used on road infrastructure. You start taking away from parks and rec and people get pissed.
18   Patrick   ignore (1)   2021 Mar 6, 9:59pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

HunterTits says
People in West Virginia paying a LVT at a rate five times higher than the folks in Connecticut


Why would they be paying a different rate?

I don't see what the apportionment clause has to do with it:

Amdt14.S2.1.1 Apportionment Clause
Fourteenth Amendment, Section 2:

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
19   Patrick   ignore (1)   2021 Mar 6, 10:04pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Understanding the 16th Amendment
To counteract the defeat, the government drafted the 16th Amendment, which states, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."4

 The amendment was ratified in 1913, clearing the legal hurdles to an income tax.


Kinda creepy that the Federal Reserve and US income tax came in the same year.
20   HunterTits   ignore (4)   2021 Mar 8, 11:55am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Patrick says
Kinda creepy that the Federal Reserve and US income tax came in the same year.


That was by deliberate design.

Fed was created to keep the US in perpetual debt enslavement. Income tax was created to pay ONLY THE INTEREST on that debt, not the principle. Of course, they haven't achieve that goal yet. But they are certainly getting there.
21   HunterTits   ignore (4)   2021 Mar 8, 12:06pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Patrick says
Why would they be paying a different rate?


Because they have to pay a different amount collectively. And because they are poorer with land values not as high as say, Connecticutt's.

Patrick says
I don't see what the apportionment clause has to do with it:


That is because where ever you quoted that from purposely omitted how it effects direct taxation. The 14th amendment did not remove the apportionment clause yet the text of it is often used to override the part you quoted.

This is the correct text:

ARTICLE I, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 3

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons

14th Amendment uses similar language, but no where in it does it state that the apportionment of direct taxes is nuked.

And here it is explicitly mentioned as well in ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 4.

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

The only direct tax exempted is the income tax by direct constitutional amendment. A lot of idiots on TV pitch that ALL forms of direct taxation were exempted from apportionment despite the fact that that amendment only refers to taxation on income.
23   Patrick   ignore (1)   2021 Mar 8, 1:02pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I see.

But states could still have Georgism.
24   HunterTits   ignore (4)   2021 Mar 8, 2:24pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Patrick says
But states could still have Georgism.


Yes. In fact, I think that they should. Or adopt a VAT with a generous pre-bate check to everyone that covers poverty line expenses.

Anything but another income tax on top of the federal one. The economic incentives being skewed alone from that is bad all by itself.
26   Hircus   ignore (0)   2021 Mar 12, 12:34pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Yahoo finance at it again, giving publicity to commie bitches.
https://finance.yahoo.com/video/shah-foundation-helps-run-guaranteed-200633256.html

Last time was in Stockton CA, but this one is in Chelsea MA at $400 per mo. City Data says Chelsea MA is ~68% hispanic, and low income.

She said the funding was a mix of city, state, philantropic, United Way, and Massachusetts General Hospital. I'm not surprised hospitals support this - they know they can sponge some of the money up by just offering less bill forgiveness to the poor.

It looks like this is their strategy. Both yahoo interviews mentioned that people think UBI will cause people to work less, and both times the commies replie and said "thats just not true and not what we observed". But they lie, because people will act differently when they know the UBI is temporary, especially when the payments are too small to replace a job, and especially during this covid era where people struggle to find low skill jobs more than usual.

I pray we regain control of our media, especially social media, soon. The commies are using it to rapidly advance.
27   HunterTits   ignore (4)   2021 Mar 12, 1:30pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Hircus says
Last time was in Stockton CA, but this one is in Chelsea MA at $400 per mo. City Data says Chelsea MA is ~68% hispanic, and low income.


You can't run a fucking experiment on something that is UNIVERSAL unless it is an ENITRE community. Control groups would the other entire communities to compare.

So doing a small group within a community won't cut it. And nobody to date has done a 'study' so.

Hircus says
because people will act differently when they know the UBI is temporary, especially when the payments are too small to replace a job, and especially during this covid era where people struggle to find low skill jobs more than usual


That too. Plus the effects on pawnshop brokers and loan sharks raising their rates, car dealers raising their prices, landlords raising the rent, drug dealers & hookers raising their prices that would happen if everybody assumed it would be permanent.

And Basic Income for UBI means at least it provides income support up to poverty level. For California, that is around $30k for a family of four or $2500/mo. Even in CA that won't cut it in the coastal cities. In Alaska and Hawaii the poverty level is set higher.

So nothing short full, universal UBI in an entire city that included EVERYONE getting the money (whether they 'signed up' or not) that paid at least $2500 for a family of four for say, like 5 years would be even close to approaching qualification as a viable experiment. The rest is PR stunts, no more.

But in this case I don't say the media is being nefarious, just stupid. Lot of dumbass 23 year olds are now 'reporting' and all that means is taking what people say at face value and getting it published before the deadline. Anything that requires actual critical thinking and research so that they can be at least familiar to wtf UBI or any other policy actually is off the table.
28   Patrick   ignore (1)   2021 Mar 12, 6:01pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I know from when I was on unemployment after getting laid off that I was not particularly motivated to get a new job. I wanted to max out the benefits first.

I think it's just human nature.

UBI sounds like a disaster.
29   Patrick   ignore (1)   2021 Mar 12, 6:03pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

HunterTits says
Lot of dumbass 23 year olds are now 'reporting' and all that means is taking what people say at face value and getting it published before the deadline. Anything that requires actual critical thinking and research so that they can be at least familiar to wtf UBI or any other policy actually is off the table.



You can see the degradation of the news in the bad spelling, bad grammar, and bad reasoning. It's kind of depressing. They used to have editors to check those things.
30   HeadSet   ignore (3)   2021 Mar 13, 5:45am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Patrick says
You can see the degradation of the news in the bad spelling, bad grammar, and bad reasoning. It's kind of depressing. They used to have editors to check those things.

Worse than you think. One reason for so many grammar errors in the print news is the offshoring of the writing to places where English is not the main language.
31   WookieMan   ignore (5)   2021 Mar 13, 6:06am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

HeadSet says
Worse than you think. One reason for so many grammar errors in the print news is the offshoring of the writing to places where English is not the main language.

Isn't the writer in charge of that at this point though? If you need someone to look over your spelling you shouldn't be reporting "news." Grammar and punctuation are a different thing as there is some nuance there as things change and evolve. Spelling errors are not acceptable in news or simple errors like your and you're. Or advice and advise. Grammatically those too;) piss me off the most.
32   PeopleUnited   ignore (1)   2021 Mar 13, 7:52am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

So the idea is that if you “level the playing field” by giving everyone the amount of money equal to the minimum needed for food and shelter then everyone will have food and shelter.

Sounds logical on the surface. But the devil is in the details.

1. First of all where does the money come from that they are “giving” away to everyone?
2. When you give one person $30,000 the effect on the economy is negligible, when you give everyone $30,000 prices go up as supply becomes a limiting factor. So the extra money does not benefit the benefactors, rather it creates even more wealth for those who already are wealthy. UBI therefore guarantees increased wealth disparity.
3. If by magic prices could be controlled, the UBI would still create a class of people dependent on the free money and unwilling to work to produce goods or provide services. The UBI system would collapse under its own weight as the workers would quickly be outnumbered by takers to the point where the availability of goods and services would dry up completely except for the Uber wealthy who could still afford to pay exorbitant prices for what they want and need.
4. Finally, if by magic somehow you could control prices and motivate people to work to produce goods and services despite the fact that they don’t need to work to have their needs met, then you still have a system where the government can tell you what to do, threaten to take away your income if you don’t comply, the wealthy still have their power and privilege, and wealth disparity has not changed a bit. The UBI is a recipe for instant dystopia.

It’s been tried before folks, it is called communism, socialism, or the great reset. It always goes the same way, some elite people have everything they want and most everyone else who escape the genocide and gulags can not even get their basic needs met on a reliable basis. But those who forget history are destined to repeat it. Welcome to 2021 and the great reset new world order. See you in the death camps?
33   mell   ignore (6)   2021 Mar 13, 7:55am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

PeopleUnited says
So the idea is that if you “level the playing field” by giving everyone the amount of money equal to the minimum needed for food and shelter then everyone will have food and shelter.

Sounds logical on the surface. But the devil is in the details.

1. First of all where does the money come from that they are “giving” away to everyone?
2. When you give one person $30,000 the effect on the economy is negligible, when you give everyone $30,000 prices go up as supply becomes a limiting factor. So the extra money does not benefit the benefactors, rather it creates even more wealth for those who already are wealthy. UBI therefore guarantees increased wealth disparity.
3. If by magic prices could be controlled, the UBI would still create a class of people dependent on the free money and unwilling to work to produce goods or provide services. The UBI system would collapse under its own weight as the workers would quickly be outnumbered by takers to the point where the availab...


Valid points but the money is given away anyways, without UBI it's the status quo where it's given to special interests. If you can take some of the special interest racket money off and distribute it equally instead it would be better than the status quo. If you just add it on, then not.
34   Zak   ignore (0)   2021 Mar 13, 11:17am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

To be clear, I am NOT in favor of doing this in general. However, since it doesn't seem like we can do the right thing (getting rid of the FIAT currency) then it seems that what we must do is mitigate the damage as the poor are literally getting decimated by inflationary monetary policy. I hate it, because it makes the centralization of money and control back into the federal government seem not quite so terrible, and even makes poor people think the government is giving them money, but it's less bad than allowing fiat currency WITHOUT a public dividend. The reality is, the money would be those peoples in the first place if we had a sound currency.

To be clear, this isn't about workers vs takers. That is a mislabeling in the first place. The takers are those in the banking and government, inflating away the value of wages and saved money. Even someone not working likely has a family member that IS working, who is less and less able to take care of the non-worker as their wages are inflated away. And it's not the person on public assistance that is taking the money in taxes is it? It's the police state. If you're against something, it should be against mandatory income taxes. Argue for taxes to be voluntary. We seem to collect plenty of money with voluntarily paid sales and energy taxes. Don't want to pay the tax? Don't buy that thing, or don't buy gas, or don't use public utilities. There are alternative options for each of those, it's just massively more convenient to voluntarily pay the tax. And we don't even need police(IRS) to enforce the paying of those taxes (only that merchants actually submit them). On that note though, we should also eliminate taxes on water and sewer, as you literally cannot live without them. Not that they should be free, but we shouldn't tax them at least.
35   HeadSet   ignore (3)   2021 Mar 13, 11:49am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

PeopleUnited says
The UBI system would collapse under its own weight as the workers would quickly be outnumbered by takers to the point where the availability of goods and services would dry up completely except for the Uber wealthy who could still afford to pay exorbitant prices for what they want and need.

Actually, that is where cheap Chinese imports an illegals come in. The idle mob created by the UBI would spend their money on goods created by essentially slaves. Rents, however, would rise and somewhat blunt this effect.

An example of "UBI style affect on rents is shown at military bases near small towns. Whenever the Basic Quarters Allowance is increased thus putting extra money into the pockets of all the local servicemembers, rents all over town immediately go up. That stinks for the locals who have to compete with that.
36   PeopleUnited   ignore (1)   2021 Mar 13, 6:23pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Zak says
against mandatory income taxes


Are taxes the problem or is the way they are spent the real issue? The government should not need to collect income taxes, this is true. In fact the government has no right to even know the assets of any person.

But what we really need is to stop spending other people’s money to pad the pockets of (fill in the blank) government should be small and local and accountable to the people. Not large and federal and oppressive to the people.
37   SunnyvaleCA   ignore (1)   2021 Mar 13, 6:51pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

HeadSet says
One reason for so many grammar errors in the print news is the offshoring of the writing to places where English is not the main language

Yeah, the United States!
38   SunnyvaleCA   ignore (1)   2021 Mar 13, 6:55pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

PeopleUnited says
[UBI] Sounds logical on the surface. But the devil is in the details.
We're now an open-borders non-country, so:
5. Cannot afford UBI for 1 billion or more extra people.
39   HeadSet   ignore (3)   2021 Mar 13, 7:11pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

SunnyvaleCA says
HeadSet says
One reason for so many grammar errors in the print news is the offshoring of the writing to places where English is not the main language

Yeah, the United States!

¿Que?
40   PeopleUnited   ignore (1)   2021 Mar 13, 9:13pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

SunnyvaleCA says
PeopleUnited says
[UBI] Sounds logical on the surface. But the devil is in the details.
We're now an open-borders non-country, so:
5. Cannot afford UBI for 1 billion or more extra people.


But it’s the birthright of all foreign born persons to suckle off the American teat!
41   Patrick   ignore (1)   2021 Mar 13, 9:36pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

HeadSet says
One reason for so many grammar errors in the print news is the offshoring of the writing to places where English is not the main language.



I've also become convinced that most of the articles written about stocks on Yahoo finance are not even written by humans at all. They are just AI generated tripe, no real content, no human reporter.

But at least they get the spelling right! :-)
42   HunterTits   ignore (4)   2021 Mar 13, 9:36pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

PeopleUnited says
But it’s the birthright of all foreign born persons to suckle off the American teat!


43   WookieMan   ignore (5)   2021 Mar 14, 12:02pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

A family of four, married filing jointly, making under $150k is going to get $5,600. Just given to them. Read an article where 89% of the population will get full stimulus payments, while a small fraction of that 89% will get a reduced amount capping at $160k. This is so fucked. Because of the flu?

I'm astonished that 2 working adults cannot make more than $150k combined. Maybe I'm naive, but I really can't comprehend how if you're over 35-60, that you can't pull in $150k combined. Only 11% of the population does that? And yes I know some people own businesses and have lower income but can theoretically make more.

But for a family making $100k they're going to get 5.6% of their annual income just handed to them tax free. That's insane.
44   HeadSet   ignore (3)   2021 Mar 14, 12:46pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

WookieMan says
I'm astonished that 2 working adults cannot make more than $150k combined. Maybe I'm naive, but I really can't comprehend how if you're over 35-60, that you can't pull in $150k combined.


Many "married filing jointly" are single income earners. Especially with school age children.
45   mell   ignore (6)   2021 Mar 15, 9:39am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

WookieMan says
A family of four, married filing jointly, making under $150k is going to get $5,600. Just given to them. Read an article where 89% of the population will get full stimulus payments, while a small fraction of that 89% will get a reduced amount capping at $160k. This is so fucked. Because of the flu?

I'm astonished that 2 working adults cannot make more than $150k combined. Maybe I'm naive, but I really can't comprehend how if you're over 35-60, that you can't pull in $150k combined. Only 11% of the population does that? And yes I know some people own businesses and have lower income but can theoretically make more.

But for a family making $100k they're going to get 5.6% of their annual income just handed to them tax free. That's insane.


Gender studies doesn't pay much. But at least you can go off on a crazed tangent once in a while and make someone's life miserable and sticking it to the white patriarchic heteronormative supremacists!
46   RC2006   ignore (2)   2021 Mar 15, 9:48am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Large percentage of new college grads never go beyond barista.
47   zzyzzx   ignore (1)   2021 Mar 15, 10:01am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

WookieMan says
I'm astonished that 2 working adults cannot make more than $150k combined.


I agree. But I figure that's almost nobody on this board that isn't retired.

« First    « Previous    Comments 8 - 47 of 47    Last »


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions