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.
Why should tax payers bailout people for their bad life choices? If you are trying to raise a family on Walmart or Uber driver pay you failed somewhere along the way.
Why should we bailout airlines who layoff thousands despite getting taxpayer money? At least this will be going to good use. Sometimes when you're in a jam you are forced to raise a fam on Walmart and Uber pay.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 28 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,592,007 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnff
So you basically don't have an answer to the most fundamental questions. How much will it cost and where will it come from?
You're describing a system ideally designed to keep everyone, except for a select few ruling class, perpetually in the same state, with no hope for improvement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Therblig
No, I don't have all the answers. I never claimed to. But here's a secret: neither does anyone else.
May be not, but Andrew Yang has a lot of answers and a plan ...
All of the comments (including OP) ever brought up on c-d under a title thread of UBI is asked on Yang venues and answered by Andrew Yang. If I had a better memory I'd have better comebacks on these threads ...
Does it cause inflation? No
Is it awesome? Yes ...
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 28 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,592,007 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marv95
Why should we bailout airlines who layoff thousands despite getting taxpayer money? At least this will be going to good use. Sometimes when you're in a jam you are forced to raise a fam on Walmart and Uber pay.
We didn't, the government did, [they didn't put it to a vote] but interesting enough, no one will say why they are okay with that ... but they will say straight up, why they are not okay with a citizen's bailout. And most of their not okays can be debunked, but they will spew it anyway.
All of the comments (including OP) ever brought up on c-d under a title thread of UBI is asked on Yang venues and answered by Andrew Yang. If I had a better memory I'd have better comebacks on these threads ...
Does it cause inflation? No
Is it awesome? Yes ...
UBI will be supported by tax on all levels of production for all goods and certain services sold in the US.
The tax could be something like a VAT, with a progressive structure and minimal impact on smaller businesses.
Location of production will be irrelevant. Imported goods will be assessed at import va
It will cause inflation because there is no way to charge VAT without the end consumer bearing the brunt of it. Always remember that businesses don't eat costs if they can help it. If they can't pass it along to the consumer and are unwilling to accept reduced profits/no profits they will cease to provide that good or service.
I don't want to see the U.S. become like Costa Rica or Thailand where you have to pay massive import fees making new foreign cars only something rich people can afford. That you would extend such a structure to domestic industries would only create massive unemployment and disinvestment.
Here is a video of a few Tesla buyers in Thailand. One payed $300k for a Tesla what would cost you $100k here in the states.
You have to keep in mind that there are/were two Andrew Yangs: the presidential candidate and the tech geek.
Nothing any major political candidate says about innovative economics or social systems is worth the electrons it floats on; for one thing, it's demanded that they present a whole plan, as ready for Congressional voting, and that means 50% of it is probably nonsense that would never work in reality.
As for Yang the tech guy... well, it's funny how much of his pitch sounds very familiar. I suspect we share at least one Q document here, if not seats at the same discussion. This stuff does not spring from thin air like virus stimulus (that's a joke, son) but has been discussed in interested, knowledgable pockets for a while.
UBI will be supported by tax on all levels of production for all goods and certain services sold in the US.
It will cause inflation because there is no way to charge VAT without the end consumer bearing the brunt of it.
Not necessarily. You are making the pervasive error of trying to poke this one change into our current economic structure, which is why I have patiently maintained for years that any discussion of just dropping UBI onto what we have is somewhere between disastrous and nonsense.
In the shortest possible phrasing, such tax on production would replace the human-employment costs that are being continually reduced and may be all but inconsequential for many products in the near term. That's the whole point.
If Musk can build Teslas with a minimum of human employees, the production costs would be reduced by a vast margin. Two things can happen then: Musk's profits go through the roof, or Tesla MSRPs drop considerably. I don't need two Harvard MBAs, a supercomputer and all the GAOs data to guess which one will prevail.
So if workers are no longer needed, we tax the production itself, be it by any means anywhere. Elon's bizarrely named kid will never want for anything as a result.
But... part of the larger goal and plan is that the role of the consumer will change a great deal anyway.
(Fixed your quoting for you. It's a lot easier if you use the standard method...)
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 28 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,592,007 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Therblig
You have to keep in mind that there are/were two Andrew Yangs: the presidential candidate and the tech geek.
Nothing any major political candidate says about innovative economics or social systems is worth the electrons it floats on; for one thing, it's demanded that they present a whole plan, as ready for Congressional voting, and that means 50% of it is probably nonsense that would never work in reality.
As for Yang the tech guy... well, it's funny how much of his pitch sounds very familiar. I suspect we share at least one Q document here, if not seats at the same discussion. This stuff does not spring from thin air like virus stimulus (that's a joke, son) but has been discussed in interested, knowledgable pockets for a while.
Nope, only one (problem solver) Andrew Yang, who ran for office, as that was the fastest way he could think of, to fix a problem, one that he saw, that will (even at the present) displace thousands of member in the u.s. workforce. I first learned of Yang on, Basic Income Earth Network, several years back, where as they posted an article about him and his ideas ... the article has been archived and is no longer visible for viewing. Never once did he profess during his campaign for office to being a politician, but only he had to become one so that his message could be (considered) heard by more people.
You're right about one thing, that this discussion has been around for a long time (Thomas Paine, Milton Friedman, Martin Luther King, Richard Nixon) and if you care to give a listen to the information that Yang gives and that I have reposted for your benefit, you'd learn a bit more than what you do already.
In so doing you may discover which came first, [Q document ] the chicken or the egg and respond with that information, so we can all figure it out, together in a more comprehensive manner.
Periodic: distributed in regular payments
Cash payment: distributed as funds, not coupons or vouchers
Individual: paid to every adult citizen, not just every household
Universal: it is paid to all citizens, regardless of their situation
Unconditional: there is no requirement to work or willingness to work
Universal basic income models differ in their sources of funding, amounts distributed, and other dimensions.
~ good day ~
btw: you may not know this, [judging by your op] but the world's population replacement level is at 2.5, which is right at the amount of births needed to replace a society; there are more old people than young ones and the young ones are not having the babies [in developed countries) necessary to replace us. This is putting a socioeconomic strain on countries around the world, that they rely on labor for goods and taxation.
"Under Yang’s plan, 10 percent would be the standard VAT rate, but some goods would be taxed at higher or lower rates: luxury items, such as yachts, would face a higher tax rate, while everyday items, such as groceries, would be exempt from VAT or taxed at a lower rate."
You may not know this, but google (one of many) is making a killing of everyone's (by data mining) personal data, and those persons are not getting (non-taxed revenue) a dime for what they own already, by being a human on the Internet.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 28 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,592,007 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Therblig
I don't know what the overhead is for "welfare" administration in this country; I am not sure there's any easy way to quantify it, at least to anything but a ballpark figure.
"Andrew Yang Makes the Case for Universal Basic Income on Joe Rogan"
" ... how much money? ...
government spends 1.5 trillion on 126 welfare programs and social security
[ubi] price tag 1.8 trillion if you say everyone who is 18 and up gets it
the u.s. economy is now 20 trillion up 5 trillion in the last 12 years; federal budget is 4 trillion
if you put 1,000 into everyone's hands, it goes right back into the economy, food, childcare, car repairs ... we get some of the money back in tax revenues, say 400 billion in new tax receipts because everyone is going to be spending more money, we're going to save 1-2 billion on things like incarceration and homelessness services and emergency room healthcare. it's a great incentive to stay out of jail, because you stop getting it if you wind up in jail. ... "
Depends on how smart those who represent us, are ...
You may not know this, but google (one of many) is making a killing of everyone's (by data mining) personal data, and those persons are not getting (non-taxed revenue) a dime for what they own already, by being a human on the Internet.
I'm fairly aware of it, yes. I've been writing about it for almost a decade, since it was tin-foil-hat territory and saying something like "Google is monitoring everything you do" would make people edge away.
As for Yang, he does not have any particular lock on the topic of UBI or any of its components, and hasn't presented anything new to the concept or the discussion. He hasn't even demonstrated any real native expertise, IMHO. He simply became... more recognized because he had a platform (two, actually) to speak about it from. There are a number of us who have been seriously discussing this since long before his YT videos and political campaign, and his approach and terminology and ideas show that he's been exposed to that discussion. (For good, for bad, for indifferent — but he uses specific phrases and concepts unlikely to have come from some other source.)
Just for the record, my post above, #2, is not really even UBI 101; it's one of those letter remedial courses you have to take if you weren't up to speed for the college course. Those who are plunging ahead and asking third and fourth level questions are noted and appreciated, but I vote for keeping it simple. We've just had what may be the first long and reasonably civil exchange C-D has ever had on the topic because those five "rules" cleared the board of the misconceptions that most people have.
But that's the bare beginning of the discussion up there, not some end manifesto.
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.
but they will say straight up, why they are not okay with a citizen's bailout. And most of their not okays can be debunked, but they will spew it anyway. 
