Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian Puppet...

[wickedsolo]

States allow absorbing sales tax, but no company does it as a standard practice. You'll see it used periodically as a sales incentive. Usually on big ticket items - cars, home improvements, etc.

I would also argue that ubi will only increase the wealth gap. If you're living in poverty, getting an extra$1,000 per month won't get you out. It will go towards things you can't currently afford or offset your government program funding. You're not buying a house. So your quality of life may improve, and that's great. But the person making $100k can use it to accumulate more wealth through savings, because he or she didn't really "need"the extra $.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Yup. Which goes to my “unfair” comments.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Vlad the lad]

1. A VAT is basically a tax on production and consumption. On the production side, it taxes every part of the supply chain whenever value is added to any particular product. What happens is that the company usually eats some of the tax in order to still be competitive and some of the tax is passed on the consumer. On the other hand, a wealth tax is just a search of any individual's total assets and taxing the totality of it.

A VAT is super hard to game because it taxes at every point in the supply process. It's why most developed countries have one. It's honestly regressive by itself because it doesn't directly tax wealth at all (check out Investopedia's page on the VAT). Anybody trying to put together a wealth tax is going to have to try and figure out the total assets of everyone in the country, which is almost impossible and is also why most countries have repealed theirs. The rich are way too smart for something like that.

2. You have to look at who pays into it. The average person will probably pay $600-$700 into the tax while receiving $12,000. People like Jeff Bezos will be paying millions, if not billions into the tax even though he will get $12,000 back. He'll also probably get tons more money back since people will probably buy more amazon crap with money to spend. People who make more usually spend more, and so it generally evens out.

3. Means testing. Plain and simple. According to the stats, I think most people get less than $1000 on welfare so they would switch, but for those who make more, if you ask them about the horrors of means-testing and caseworkers, I think most would say they would gladly switch over. In most cases, getting a minimum wage job means that you have to give up your welfare which essentially places you back at the bottom. If Yang comes along and says instead of you getting $1,200 in welfare along with means-testing, I'll give you $1,000 with no strings attached, the person will feel like they can actually build on something without worrying about falling back into the hole.

Also, I agree with a lot of what you said when it comes to government spending. A lot of that mess needs to go.

I am going to guess that you are young. Under 30.

For those of us over 50, we have seen these pigs time and time again. It doesn’t matter what shade of lipstick you out in the pig, it’s still a pig

So you can change the name. Pretend it has never been tried. But bottom line, you want to take wealth from some people and give to others. And here is the kicker, you think the sum will not change. You think bezos/amazon will happily pay millions more each year, but won’t increase prices??? There is no point in trying to educate you on this topic, you clearly come across as having all of the answers. Here is the sad reality for you. This will never happen.

[wickedsolo]

I am going to guess that you are young. Under 30.

For those of us over 50, we have seen these pigs time and time again. It doesn’t matter what shade of lipstick you out in the pig, it’s still a pig

So you can change the name. Pretend it has never been tried. But bottom line, you want to take wealth from some people and give to others. And here is the kicker, you think the sum will not change. You think bezos/amazon will happily pay millions more each year, but won’t increase prices??? There is no point in trying to educate you on this topic, you clearly come across as having all of the answers. Here is the sad reality for you. This will never happen.

PIGS

Portugal
Italy
Greece
Spain

What do they all have in common? Socialism and high unemployment.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[darb72]

I feel like you are misinformed on the way Andrew Yang wants to fund his main policy. From what you are saying (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that you think Yang wants to implement a sort of wealth tax/income tax, which is categorically wrong. I disagree with wealth taxes because as you said, it punishes those who work and save to get to where they want to in life.

What Yang is proposing is a Value Added Tax (VAT) which taxes consumption. A VAT combined with a Universal Basic Income is super progressive and allows people to build on that while making sure basic staples like food and shelter are taken care of. As he says, "it's not socialism, it's capitalism that doesn't start at zero."

It's the opposite of providing tax breaks to corporations and giving bailouts to wall street. Yangs premise is that the way we have been doing business in the country is creating a larger and larger wealth gap. By giving the money directly to the people, it will spur entrepreneurship, job creation, and a much healthier form of capitalism.

Also, I would also kindly like to point out that your point about people working less has been debunked with pretty much every UBI study. The only people who work less were new mothers and kids who just finished high school (who probably went to college or something). Everyone worked just about the same or changed their profession in order to do something that made them happier.

Also, I would argue and say that the local infrastructure and economy would drastically increase in quality because of the infusion of consumer spending power. You don't need the government building factories when your average consumer is working hard and also has the commensurate amount of money to spend. I can foresee an increased need for mechanics/garages, bakeries, art, and other local businesses that get filled by the private sector.

The only jobs that the government would supply perhaps would be the updating of infrastructure.

I'm talking about socialism, which yeah, Yang is arguing for in a limited sense. His UBI is not comparable to Alaska's because the Alaskan UBI is paid for by funds received from the sale of oil in the state, not taxes. Then there's the fiscal problems of paying 3 trillion a year in UBI, 3/4 of the ENTIRE federal budget, out in free money. The taxes you'd have to raise would make any possible (though highly unlikely) benefit of the UBI negligible. We haven't even gotten into the problem of inflation, which is going to happen if you dole out an extra 3 trillion a year. And do we want to talk about workers?

"Citizens with no need to work will have significant leverage and bargaining power against employers. Any economist will be quick to point out that this will be disastrous for business. Employers will simply relocate to countries where they are not burdened with such entitlements. Without a strong producing base and a population focused on nothing but consumption, UBI will be unsustainable and the economy will crash."https://jadesaab.com/universal-basic...k-c2487d426b6c

If people want money, they should work for it instead of being lazy. The fact that I busted my ass in no way means someone has the right to take money away from my family.

[bandc]

I am going to guess that you are young. Under 30.

For those of us over 50, we have seen these pigs time and time again. It doesn’t matter what shade of lipstick you out in the pig, it’s still a pig

So you can change the name. Pretend it has never been tried. But bottom line, you want to take wealth from some people and give to others. And here is the kicker, you think the sum will not change. You think bezos/amazon will happily pay millions more each year, but won’t increase prices??? There is no point in trying to educate you on this topic, you clearly come across as having all of the answers. Here is the sad reality for you. This will never happen.

Educate me??? Not once have I said that prices would increase. You're literally making stuff up. If I said it, quote it. I've repeatedly said prices will go up.

[bandc]

I'm talking about socialism, which yeah, Yang is arguing for in a limited sense. His UBI is not comparable to Alaska's because the Alaskan UBI is paid for by funds received from the sale of oil in the state, not taxes. Then there's the fiscal problems of paying 3 trillion a year in UBI, 3/4 of the ENTIRE federal budget, out in free money. The taxes you'd have to raise would make any possible (though highly unlikely) benefit of the UBI negligible. We haven't even gotten into the problem of inflation, which is going to happen if you dole out an extra 3 trillion a year. And do we want to talk about workers?

"Citizens with no need to work will have significant leverage and bargaining power against employers. Any economist will be quick to point out that this will be disastrous for business. Employers will simply relocate to countries where they are not burdened with such entitlements. Without a strong producing base and a population focused on nothing but consumption, UBI will be unsustainable and the economy will crash."https://jadesaab.com/universal-basic...k-c2487d426b6c

If people want money, they should work for it instead of being lazy. The fact that I busted my ass in no way means someone has the right to take money away from my family.

1. UBI isn't socialism. It never has been and never will be. If it was, Milton Friedman would have never even thought of proposing things like a negative income tax
2. The government LITERALLY printed 4 trillion dollars for a bailout and yet no one even thought of inflation. All of sudden, because it's UBI, inflation would run rampant, even though there would be NO printing of new money.
3. I said this earlier in the thread, but just to repeat it: In every study of UBI, only two groups of people work less. New mothers, and new high school graduates. Everyone else literally works the same amount. No one became lazy.

Also, that article loses all credibility by saying that citizens would have no need to work. It is literally impossible to provide for oneself off of 12,000 p/yr. It's below the poverty line.

[bandc]

Well I think youre just looking at the margins with poor people. Poor people would be able to go from homeless to being able to rent in an affordable area. People who rent, but are struggling with student loan debt and medical bills will be able to make the leap forward and buy a house.

Also you are forgetting that people who make 100,000 would probably see much less of a net gain since they would be spending into the tax a whole lot more.

[darb72]

1. UBI isn't socialism. It never has been and never will be. If it was, Milton Friedman would have never even thought of proposing things like a negative income tax
2. The government LITERALLY printed 4 trillion dollars for a bailout and yet no one even thought of inflation. All of sudden, because it's UBI, inflation would run rampant, even though there would be NO printing of new money.
3. I said this earlier in the thread, but just to repeat it: In every study of UBI, only two groups of people work less. New mothers, and new high school graduates. Everyone else literally works the same amount. No one became lazy.

Also, that article loses all credibility by saying that citizens would have no need to work. It is literally impossible to provide for oneself off of 12,000 p/yr. It's below the poverty line.

UBI is a wealth re-distribution scheme that relies on a flawed premise and emotional arguments to get morons to support it. Ergo, it is just like socialism.

"LITERALLY printed 4 trillion dollars for a bailout" That is just a flat out lie. There was a 700 billion dollar bailout in 2008, and since then it's ballooned to 4 trillion dollars, NOT dumping 4 trillion into the economy in one fiscal year. The fed has only printed a little (relatively speaking) over 2 trillion since 2008.

Then there's this little gem, "It is literally impossible to provide for oneself off of 12,000 p/yer. It's below the poverty line". The fact I have to tell you that the poverty line shifts depending on local proves beyond a shadow of a doubt you have no clue what you're talking about. None. It is entirely possible to live here in Florence on 12k a year, complete with a car, food, apartment and internet. Bills, including rent, go about 500 for low-end apartments. But since you brought it up, let's take a gander at what the "federal poverty line" (what an insanely stupid concept) is for a family of four in the Continental US. Oh look, it's 25k per year. And unlike some people in this conversation, I'm gonna provide actual data to support my statements, https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines So a household of four, under your plan, will be making 48k dollars a year which puts them nearly double over the poverty line without having to lift a finger.

Let's take a moment to look at your studies. In most studies like Sweden the UBI is given to random people over a short amount of time who know they're going to stop receiving the payments. They're not going to quit their jobs knowing the money is going to run out. Out in Stockton UBI was given to people who already didn't have jobs, so guess what! They couldn't stop working. Pretty much the same thing in Alaska which has the highest unemployment rate in the country.

Cool, you don't like that article, then try this peer-reviewed study that lays out all the ways UBI is a shit idea foisted upon the truly ignorant by the financially stupid because everybody knows the world is a super-duper fair place and nobody should have to work if they don't want to. http://www.world-psi.org/sites/defau...eport_2019.pdf

And learn what the hell "literally" means.

[Greg]

1. A VAT is basically a tax on production and consumption. On the production side, it taxes every part of the supply chain whenever value is added to any particular product. What happens is that the company usually eats some of the tax in order to still be competitive and some of the tax is passed on the consumer. On the other hand, a wealth tax is just a search of any individual's total assets and taxing the totality of it.

A VAT is super hard to game because it taxes at every point in the supply process. It's why most developed countries have one. It's honestly regressive by itself because it doesn't directly tax wealth at all (check out Investopedia's page on the VAT). Anybody trying to put together a wealth tax is going to have to try and figure out the total assets of everyone in the country, which is almost impossible and is also why most countries have repealed theirs. The rich are way too smart for something like that.

2. You have to look at who pays into it. The average person will probably pay $600-$700 into the tax while receiving $12,000. People like Jeff Bezos will be paying millions, if not billions into the tax even though he will get $12,000 back. He'll also probably get tons more money back since people will probably buy more amazon crap with money to spend. People who make more usually spend more, and so it generally evens out.

3. Means testing. Plain and simple. According to the stats, I think most people get less than $1000 on welfare so they would switch, but for those who make more, if you ask them about the horrors of means-testing and caseworkers, I think most would say they would gladly switch over. In most cases, getting a minimum wage job means that you have to give up your welfare which essentially places you back at the bottom. If Yang comes along and says instead of you getting $1,200 in welfare along with means-testing, I'll give you $1,000 with no strings attached, the person will feel like they can actually build on something without worrying about falling back into the hole.

Also, I agree with a lot of what you said when it comes to government spending. A lot of that mess needs to go.

How much do you think a car will cost once every step of production of every part is taxed at say 10% (EU VAT taxes range double or more that)?

Here's the kicker, that car built in Mexico or Japan or Korea won't be taxed at every value-added point.

Taxes should be applied at consumption, where wealth is consumed, and not on production, where wealth is created. I hope you can see why. Our current tax system hammers wealth creation (income taxes) and ignores consumption.

Tha fair tax (https://fairtax.org/about/how-fairtax-works) would be a far better system, and a lot more fair.

[bossofataka]

UBI is a wealth re-distribution scheme that relies on a flawed premise and emotional arguments to get morons to support it. Ergo, it is just like socialism.

"LITERALLY printed 4 trillion dollars for a bailout" That is just a flat out lie. There was a 700 billion dollar bailout in 2008, and since then it's ballooned to 4 trillion dollars, NOT dumping 4 trillion into the economy in one fiscal year. The fed has only printed a little (relatively speaking) over 2 trillion since 2008.

Then there's this little gem, "It is literally impossible to provide for oneself off of 12,000 p/yer. It's below the poverty line". The fact I have to tell you that the poverty line shifts depending on local proves beyond a shadow of a doubt you have no clue what you're talking about. None. It is entirely possible to live here in Florence on 12k a year, complete with a car, food, apartment and internet. Bills, including rent, go about 500 for low-end apartments. But since you brought it up, let's take a gander at what the "federal poverty line" (what an insanely stupid concept) is for a family of four in the Continental US. Oh look, it's 25k per year. And unlike some people in this conversation, I'm gonna provide actual data to support my statements, https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines So a household of four, under your plan, will be making 48k dollars a year which puts them nearly double over the poverty line without having to lift a finger.

Let's take a moment to look at your studies. In most studies like Sweden the UBI is given to random people over a short amount of time who know they're going to stop receiving the payments. They're not going to quit their jobs knowing the money is going to run out. Out in Stockton UBI was given to people who already didn't have jobs, so guess what! They couldn't stop working. Pretty much the same thing in Alaska which has the highest unemployment rate in the country.

Cool, you don't like that article, then try this peer-reviewed study that lays out all the ways UBI is a shit idea foisted upon the truly ignorant by the financially stupid because everybody knows the world is a super-duper fair place and nobody should have to work if they don't want to. http://www.world-psi.org/sites/defau...eport_2019.pdf

And learn what the hell "literally" means.

Sweden does not have and has never had UBI... you might be thinking if Finland, but then your claims make no sense since It was a very limited study, 2000 persons, that were unemployed. So they Didnt have jobs so the point you’re trying to make there is false.
If youre gonna be a smart ass towards bandc and ”literally”, Maybe you yourself Should Also get your facts straight huh?

[Greg]

I think your fear of government implementation is overblown. With a UBI, there is no means testing, there are no caseworkers. It would simply be a matter of leaning into a competency the government already has. Tax returns. If you look it up a VAT isn't hard to implement at all, and distributing a UBI is incredibly easy. Implementation wouldnt be something to worry about.

Also, it's not about taxing the wealthy per se. If you are a saver, then you won't pay nearly as much into the system as a spender.

Also, I didn't quite understand the phrasing of your second sentence.

So they are going to just hand out a grand a month to whoever applies with no checking? I wonder how many Democrat voters (see dead people) I can have living at my house to collect their money?

There is no way this could be implemented without significant more bureaucracy.

[Greg]

When a semi-dictaotorial regime considered one of your main competitors on the world scene, one that has interfered with your previous election and done it´s best to inflict division and spread misinformation, uses it´s state controlled media to boost attention to a contender drawing 1-2% in polls in the US, it means something...

Really? So what does it mean?