Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Huh? You're just making stuff up. That's not what happened with 1%ers in 1960. They used shelters, exclusions, and deductions to avoid taxes. They were spending the money, not investing it. Bring your wife on that "business trip" to Europe? Tax deduction. The car? The company gave you one to drive and you weren't taxed on it. Go out to dinner? Tax deduction. Swimming pool in the back yard? Medical tax deduction.
What am I making up? You are only looking at a small segment. A pittance in the grand scheme, and most of these deductions are still being used.
The greater portion of business profits went into growing the business. Building income wasn't easy, but building capital was.
BTW it's 0.1%, not 1%. Most of the 1% are poor slobs who work for a living.
Huh? You're just making stuff up. That's not what happened with 1%ers in 1960. They used shelters, exclusions, and deductions to avoid taxes. They were spending the money, not investing it. Bring your wife on that "business trip" to Europe? Tax deduction. The car? The company gave you one to drive and you weren't taxed on it. Go out to dinner? Tax deduction. Swimming pool in the back yard? Medical tax deduction.
All interest you paid was dollar for dollar deductible.
The loopholes benefited everyone as well, not just that 1%.
Incentive to work? I thought the whole reason basic income was being discussed was because of the looming high unemployment due to robots and improved technology.
Where does all the money come from to pay all US citizens a basic income?
It's not budget neutral, not even close.
It's one of the reasons, I guess. I was thinking the OP of this particular thread was imagining it being implemented when there is still a lot of human labor.
Who knows what tax revenue will be once the robots take over?
$3 trillion is what the government would have to pay out each and every year for just basic income of $10K a year.
And that means you cannot get rid of the welfare programs.
Now add in your regular budget.
And of course we'd all get COL raises every year right ?
$3 trillion is what the government would have to pay out each and every year for just basic income of $10K a year.
And that means you cannot get rid of the welfare programs.
What you smokin?! $8k/yr is plenty. People are working 40 hrs a week for <$15k.
Why do you think you can't get rid of welfare programs?
My SS payment at 70 would be $2700/month. I'm going to give that up and get $600/month instead ? No thanks.
No you don't give it up. But you also don't get $8k on top of it.
$8k/yr is enough to live on. I'm quite certain of that.
BI should be linked to GDP and tech unemployment rates. I think 15% of GDP is a good start. If computer and robotic capabilities increase as much as expected, few people will be able to earn a wage 50 years from now.
What you smokin?! $8k/yr is plenty. People are working 40 hrs a week for <$15k.
Why do you think you can't get rid of welfare programs?
$8K a year comes to $666/month.
What is the cost of welfare for people per month ?
Some are getting $1000 housing credit for rent and I didn't even touch on the other programs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
