Yang's $1,000/month UBI Government Payment

[Borderland]

Might be an interesting option, Give people a choice..$1000 a month, OR no income tax... Of course, all the high rollers are going to jump on the no income tax option, But for example, if I were given the choice, I’d have to go do a little math first, I’m thinking that the no income tax option would benefit me more...

Something is going to break real soon. Either they're going to have to scrap income tax altogether or raise the rates, especially on high income earners. That's not going to make very many people happy. Trump gave everyone, especially high income earners' a tax cut but that just raised our debt to 24 trillion. If you don't think that's an issue, what for the next budget appropriations fight in congress and they shut down the fed gov't .......again.

Income tax is a bad idea. Lots of people with income, like those who are self employed, don't pay it. They work on a cash basis. I've hired a few.

Those that pay no income tax would prefer the 1K/mo. That alone would make me favor the no-more-income-tax plan. Everyone would then be playing on a level field. The fed could then raise the consumption tax on fuel, tobacco, alcohol, airline tickets etc. Wouldn't break my heart. At least the free loaders would be paying something.

[ralph]

Something is going to break real soon. Either they're going to have to scrap income tax altogether or raise the rates, especially on high income earners. That's not going to make very many people happy. Trump gave everyone, especially high income earners' a tax cut but that just raised our debt to 24 trillion. If you don't think that's an issue, what for the next budget appropriations fight in congress and they shut down the fed gov't .......again.

Income tax is a bad idea. Lots of people with income like those who are self employed don't pay it. They work on a cash basis. I've hired a few.

Those that pay no income tax would prefer the 1K/mo. That alone would make me favor the no-more-income-tax plan. Everyone would then be playing on a level field. The fed could then raise the consumption tax on fuel, tobacco, alcohol, airline tickets etc. Wouldn't break my heart. At least the free loaders would be paying something.

Wasn’t the government funded by sales tax in the years prior to WWI? Seemed to work, but I’m thinking that institutions like the MIC wouldn’t like this, as their gravy train would probably have to be cut a bit...a large bit.. One rule of thumb everyone needs to remember when talking about issues like this, There’s NO money in solving problems.. This is especially true when talking about a corrupt government like ours, the elected members of which, are primarily concerned with getting re-elected, rather than doing the job they were elected for in the first place..

[GardoneVT]

I don’t need to slam two trains together to know it’s gonna make an epic mess.

UBI may be a well intentioned effort to fix income inequality or poverty, but the honest solutions to those problems already exist. We’ve even tried it a time or two before. Cut government expenses, reduce regulatory & tax burdens, and let the market operate. Give Free Market Capitalism a Chance!

Of course there’s zero support in and outside of DC to meaningfully cut government expenses, so that ideas intellectual theater.

[Joe in PNG]

The idea of using UBI to replace all those social programs and multiple entitlements is nice, but it will never work.

Because they will never get around to repealing all those social programs and multiple entitlements.

Both are just legitimized vote buying scams.

[deputyG23]

Wasn’t the government funded by sales tax in the years prior to WWI? Seemed to work, but I’m thinking that institutions like the MIC wouldn’t like this, as their gravy train would probably have to be cut a bit...a large bit.. One rule of thumb everyone needs to remember when talking about issues like this, There’s NO money in solving problems.. This is especially true when talking about a corrupt government like ours, the elected members of which, are primarily concerned with getting re-elected, rather than doing the job they were elected for in the first place..

Taxes on distilled spirits provided a lot of US funding prior to 1913.

[txdpd]

Please explain how this graph is the result of Britain, Italy, Sweden and France, "cooking the books."


https://www.economist.com/graphic-de...-their-country

Graphs like that are basically the pot calling the kettle black, and skew relatively insignificant differences in percentages over a broad span to make something out of nothing. Scaled out 0-100% everyone’s dots end up in about the same place.

The grass is the same shade of green everywhere in the developed world.

[ralph]

The idea of using UBI to replace all those social programs and multiple entitlements is nice, but it will never work.

Because they will never get around to repealing all those social programs and multiple entitlements.

Both are just legitimized vote buying scams.

Pretty much it, But we can’t have the truth get the way of telling (or selling) a nice story, now can we?

[Joe in PNG]

Pretty much it, But we can’t have the truth get the way of telling (or selling) a nice story, now can we?

People need to be more cynical and misanthropic when it comes to government.

[Jeep]

I struggle with the idea of an UBI as my concern is that it will make things worse for those who need it and not better. And for those of us who are net taxpayers, the taxable burden either has to increase or more money has to be borrowed (created by the Federal Reserve System). $12,000 per year per person times 350 million people is $4.2 trillion per year. The US GDP is about $20 trillion, so the UBI is more than 20% of GDP. Yang's plan is to offset the cost with a federal 10% VAT (Value Added Tax), and quite frankly that scares me as it less than half (20% of $20 trillion is $4 trillion). So the VAT rate would have to increase to stop the debt from increasing.

Once we have a de facto federal sales tax, our tax burden looks much like those in the EU as there would be local, state, and federal sales and income taxes. I would only support a VAT IF the Constitution is amended to not allow the federal income tax.

VATs are also "regressive", much like straight sales taxes are. So the people who need the benefit of the UBI pay the brunt (in terms of percentage of their income) in taxes to purchase goods. So the people the scheme purports to help do not get so much help as $1200 per year is likely lost to the VAT versus basically nothing in federal income tax now.

I think that this is the post of the thread to date. The math is easy, but no one-especially the media--ever seems to do it. For example, Obama's original stimulus plan in 2009 of $900 billion to create or save 3 million jobs came to $300,000 per job. Since even the government can't spend $300,000 to create or save a job, it was clear from the start that the stimulus was really designed to get cash into the hands of many of the groups who had supported Obama--which it did.

A new entitlement that costs $4.2 trillion a year--or 20% of the GDP--will cause federal taxes to double.

So what does that mean for you? If you are in a family of four, the government will pay you $48,000 per year. But, if you are in the top 50% of income earners you are going to be paying at least all of that, plus the government's handling charges for all the bureaucrats needed to keep track of people, prevent fraud and sent the checks out. And you probably will be paying some part of someone else's $48,000 per year because there are not enough billionaires and millionaires to pay for this, and if it is paid for with a VAT then the whole thing will be pretty phony because even the poor will get relatively little net benefit. In other words, it is likely you will be net negative, and perhaps significantly net negative for this. Which means that a lot of people will have a lot less money to spend--which will decrease VAT revenues and require more income tax contribution (which will further cut spending)

I lived in Europe for a good part of my childhood. When the government put a 10% VAT in, they said it would not raise prices. It did--prices went up by an average of 10% the first day, which meant everyone was 10% poorer. They used the money for the basic income they were paying to all mothers in the country. The economic theory was something to the effect that mothers were now guaranteed money in case their worthless husbands spent all their wages on drink (of course, the worthless husbands simply beat the basic income out of their wives so they could spend it on drink). In fact, it was a ridiculous system of taking money from everyone, paying a big slug to the new unionized government workers who would vote for the Socialist politicians who pushed this, and then returning a smaller amount to the people than was taken in the first place. Now the "mother's allowance" is a fixed entitlement that can't be changed that swallows a huge amount of the very high taxes the people are charged. And the VAT rate now averages over 20% and the income tax rate on the middle class is close to 10%.

It's all a scam, as is a guaranteed income. It simply costs far too much and mathematically it always will. And giving money to the bulk of the people who will pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits is simply a con designed to get people to think that this is good for them when they in fact are paying in much more than they are taking out. The numbers don't lie. You can't make a guaranteed income work.

[Borderland]

I don’t need to slam two trains together to know it’s gonna make an epic mess.

UBI may be a well intentioned effort to fix income inequality or poverty, but the honest solutions to those problems already exist. We’ve even tried it a time or two before. Cut government expenses, reduce regulatory & tax burdens, and let the market operate. Give Free Market Capitalism a Chance!

Of course there’s zero support in and outside of DC to meaningfully cut government expenses, so that ideas intellectual theater.

One of the reasons for that is the vast expanse of government jobs. Lots of politicians keeping those jobs for their constituents. If the fed is anything like where I worked (local gov't) they could easily cut 25% of that work force and still provide the same level of service.

Case in point. I used to work as a project surveyor on some pretty big projects (10-15M). About the time I retired my job as a project surveyor was eliminated and moved to private contracts. Did the number of positions in my unit change? Nope. Just less work being done by the same number of employees. I know this because I still have contact with people I worked with.

Gov't is too big but I'm afraid that it won't change because of the ripple it would cause in the economy. Not everyone can get a job that replaces those wages and benefits with little or no credentials like professional licenses or education. It's job welfare and hidden from the public. Democrats like it because unions can deliver the votes. Ever wonder why gov't employee unions always endorse democrats? Job welfare is your answer. This goes right back to the proposition that gov't isn't very good at much of anything.

I was threatened with my job a few times but all I did was say put it in writing so I can consider your proposal. Never happened. I'd be right back doing the same job next week working in the private sector making more money, more benefits and less BS.