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.
That's 2.4 trillion dollars added to an economy each year chasing the same goods & services.
Wouldn't that encourage companies to produce more goods and services? It sounds to me like UBI would grow the economy and since Yangs plan doesn't involve printing money there would be no inflation. There might be minor price inflation from the VAT but the UBI means the consumer comes out ahead. Waldo I think you are going to be shocked at how big Yang gets and if hes the nominee he will crush Trump.
The Soviet Union collapsed because there military budget was out of control not to mention the rampant corruption of high officials. The USSR never had a UBI because its a capitalist idea in the USSR if you were unemployed you were sent to a labor camp. It was actually illegal not to have a job.
Incorrect. Social wages for the average worker/citizen were set at 23% of income. Whether they actually worked a job or not is a different issue. Everyone was provided for by the government.
But the 1980s, because of it, the USSR, which controlled more than 1/6 of the above ground surface of the planet Earth, could not grow enough food to feed it's people. The economy eventually collapsed completely. And there were periods when the ruble became essentially worthless.
Yang's idiotic idea, of course ignores this simple fact and the very simple math behind it.
Incorrect. Social wages for the average worker/citizen were set at 23% of income. Whether they actually worked a job or not is a different issue. Everyone was provided for by the government.
But the 1980s, because of it, the USSR, which controlled more than 1/6 of the above ground surface of the planet Earth, could not grow enough food to feed it's people. The economy eventually collapsed completely. And there were periods when the ruble became essentially worthless.
Yang's idiotic idea, of course ignores this simple fact and the very simple math behind it.
I'm not going to derail this thread discussing the reason for the USSR collapsing but they had nothing like a UBI and thats a fact unless you have a good source stating otherwise. UBI is capitalism where income doesn't start at zero.
I'm not going to derail this thread discussing the reason for the USSR collapsing but they had nothing like a UBI and thats a fact unless you have a good source stating otherwise. UBI is capitalism where income doesn't start at zero.
Yes they did. Go look up Social Wages. But you are right. This is about Yang.
And IMO. Yang will never be President of the USA. See the discussion above as for the reason why.
The US Census Bureau.
I'm guessing you never went there to down-load for free the X-13ARIMA-SEATS software program like I suggested.
Not only is the X-13ARIMA-SEATS software program used to manipulate hard data to produce "seasonally adjusted" employment numbers, it's also used in calculating poverty.
The so-called "federal poverty level" is the weighted average --- yes, using the X-13ARIMA-SEATS software program -- of the poverty levels of the individual 48 contiguous States.
Alaska and Hawaii are rightfully excluded, because they are both statistical outliers.
So, after manipulating the data using the X-13ARIMA-SEATS software program, the US Census Bureau comes up with the magic number of $12,430 for one person as the "poverty level."
That deceptively belies the fact that the poverty level in some States is $6,030 for one person and in some States, the poverty level is in excess of $20,000.
But, it averages out to $12,430.
So, the federal government is a liar, when it says someone earning $12,000 is below the poverty level, when in fact the poverty level for that State is $6,030.
And, the federal government is a liar, when it says someone earning $16,000 is not in poverty, when the poverty level in that person's State is $18,000.
Those lies result in massive suffering.
That's why Conservatives want to end federal government welfare programs, because the only possible way to alleviate the suffering is to allow the States to handle it, which makes everyone else morally inferior.
One cannot claim to be a moral person while condoning a system that perpetuates constant suffering.
Another lie is the fact that the US Census Bureau only counts earned income.
In spite of pressure for decades, the US Census Bureau refuses to factor in the cash and non-cash federal benefits people in "poverty" receive.
The US Census Bureau has adopted an "alternative poverty measure" but it still fails massively, although it is a step in the right direction.
When you add in the cash and non-cash benefits to their earned income, many are receiving more than $60,000/year.
Consider that the Average Wage Index for 2017 is $50,321/year, so they're doing better than the average American.
Are those people really in "poverty?" No, they're not.
If cash and non-cash benefits were included, then the poverty level isn't 12.3% or whatever it is, it's actually less than 1% and those are almost exclusively "homeless" people.
Regardless, the point remains that people will never accept less than what they're already getting.
That would be stupid, and like I said, they may be dumb, but they're not that stupid.
And a VAT is not going to happen, because it's unconstitutional.
Congress has no power to do that. The only thing Congress can do is levy an excise tax on goods and services.
Did you know that at one time, there was a federal excise tax on chewing gum?
Oh, yes, there certainly was. There was a federal excise tax on a very large number of goods. An excise tax would be tantamount to a sales tax, but technically not quite the same.
All those words and all you did was double down on your specious claim, that somehow recipients of welfare benefits receive some absurdly large amounts of assistance, this time you are claiming they get 60k. whatever...
No where near universal. And most of that transfer involves child care & medical coverage and care for the elderly.
You guys who argue for UBI can't defend it on it's own merits. Hence these endless logical fallacies and obvious dismissal of simple mathematical facts.
UBI can only exist two ways
Print the money and cause extreme currency inflation.
Put the government into transferring vast amounts of wealth regardless of who actually produces it. (incentive to work) Such a great idea for the Federal government to grab another 13% of the entire USA GDP so that it can spread it around like candy. And it's regressive. GDP will start to fall.
These are simple points. They have well defined examples in history. All failures.
Yang is going nowhere. UBI shoots him in the foot before he even starts.
Again, I am not aware that he ever mentioned printing money. Regarding VAT, some of it would go back to consumers (remember, you, me and Bill Gates would also get the same UBI), some of it would go to welfare recipients who (unlike the welfare recipients now) would be incentivized to join the workforce (because they would not lose UBI if they worked, and they would also not get anything more than UBI by various maneuvers that the poor use now to get more welfare money). The federal government would not be grabbing any net GDP.
Most of the transfer of taxpayer money now involves the complete life support package (child care, health care, housing, food - at all ages) for generational welfare users, from the cradle to the grave, and in certain states/counties, the entire population of certain towns lives that way, employment is an unknown concept, and the only occupation is playing the system for additional benefits. I work in healthcare, and have seen it with my own eyes. The size of poverty class in the US is comparable to that of India - with the difference that the welfare poverty in the US is largely a self-chosen lifestyle, because it is so easy to live off of other people while doing nothing. UBI (if it replaces all other welfare programs) would put a defined, and relatively low, limit to welfare lifestyle, and would in effect force people out of welfare. What else do you propose to do about the enormous number of useless, worthless people who only waste oxygen, multiply, and create crime? It is not morally allowed to kill them, so what are you going to do about them other than put some reasonable fixed limit of what you give them (ie, the bare survival amount of $1,000 per month), in such a way that will incentivize them to multiply less and work more?
As a taxpayer in a high tax bracket for many years, I have been financially hurt enough by high taxes, and would never advocate increased transfer of money from earners to non-earners. UBI would hopefully LIMIT that transfer (which transfer is inevitable, unless you are okay with killing all unemployed adults), rather than increase it.
Except that UBI is in no way analogous to printing money.
It doesn't have to be create Inflation.
Universal Basic Income is effectively government-induced Wage Inflation.
The prices of rents, goods and services will rise in response.
So, whatever it was you were hoping to achieve is effectively negated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BornintheSprings
There might be minor price inflation from the VAT but the UBI means the consumer comes out ahead.
No, the consumer loses.
A VAT is unconstitutional. Congress doesn't have the authority to do that.
The Constitution only grants Congress the authority to tax income and income derived from assets, but not the actual assets themselves.
Congress also has the authority to levy excises.
That is, in fact, what Congress would have to do, since it cannot establish a federal sales tax.
You pay a federal excise tax on gasoline. At one time, you paid a federal excise tax on tires and rubber and you pay a federal excise tax on telecommunications.
And, at one time, you paid a federal excise tax on chewing gum.
I kid you not. You can thank the Republican Congress for that. That excise tax was in effect in the 1920s and repealed in 1932, and it was part of the largest tax increase in US history at the time.
Congress can levy an excise tax on individual items, groups of items or classes of items.
So, Congress can place an excise tax on denim jeans, or all denim items, or all clothing, but it cannot establish a sales tax.
That would be one helluva Bill. If you just grouped everything by NAICS code, that Bill would be over 900 pages long.
If you started itemized goods and services to be subject to the excise tax, that Bill would be several 1,000 pages long.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
Say 200,000,000 million adults become eligible for a free $1000 to be deposited into their account each month. This money is created out of thin air by the government borrowing from the Fed.
Actually, it's 258,693,000.
And, the government doesn't have to borrow money, unless there is insufficient funds in the General Fund.
The government would only have to borrow money, if the free-money-give-away wasn't backed by tax revenues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
That's 2.4 trillion dollars added to an economy each year chasing the same goods & services.
$3.1 TRILLION, actually.
The resulting Inflation would be government-induced Wage Inflation, not Monetary Inflation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BornintheSprings
I to would love to see UBI replace all welfare programs it would need to be much higher than what Andrew is proposing say 3000 a month indexed to inflation but he is off to a good start for sure.
That will never happen, because the federal government will never surrender the control it has.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adric
Thomas Paine and Milton Freidman were both big proponents of a UBI.
That's a false statement.
Milton Friedman never supported Universal Basic Income.
What Friedman advocated was a Negative Income Tax, which is a form of Universal Basic Income (there are many forms of Universal Basic Income the ignorant apparently aren't aware).
The arrangement that recommends itself on purely mechanical grounds is a negative income tax.
Source: Capitalism and Freedom, Friedman, Milton, The University of Chicago Press, 1962, page 158.
Friedman opposed Universal Basic Income for the reason stated:
The advantages of this arrangement [the negative income tax] are clear. It is directed specifically at
the problem of poverty. It gives help in the form most useful to the individual, namely, cash. It is general and could be substituted for the host of special measures now in effect. It makes explicit the cost borne by society. It operates outside the market. Like any other measures to alleviate poverty, it reduces the incentives of those helped to help themselves, but it does not eliminate that incentive entirely, as a system of supplementing incomes up to some fixed minimum would. An extra dollar earned always means more money available for expenditure.
[emphasis mine]
Source: Capitalism and Freedom, Friedman, Milton, The University of Chicago Press, 1962, page 158.
Friedman's argument is that the Negative Income Tax creates an incentive to work, because the Negative Income Tax structure allows them to retain more of their income, while Universal Basic Income eliminates the incentive to work.
And, the government doesn't have to borrow money, unless there is insufficient funds in the General Fund.
The government would only have to borrow money, if the free-money-give-away wasn't backed by tax revenues.
$3.1 TRILLION, actually.
The resulting Inflation would be government-induced Wage Inflation, not Monetary Inflation.
The goverment does not have $3.1T. It's currently spending ~4T and revenue is $3.3T. So to create UBI the first year the government has two choices.
Double federal taxes.
Borrow Money from the Fed.
The first option is a non-starter. It will never ever happen. So we are left with borrowing $3.1T from the Fed. Certainly doable. The Fed can create money out of thin air AS LONG AS it has enough base money to cover it. (of course it's their rule they can change it)
This leads to currency inflation, not wage inflation. (wage inflation only occurs if there is a shortage of labor)
So in year 2 your $1000, is only worth $870. The math can't be denied.
All those words and all you did was double down on your specious claim, that somehow recipients of welfare benefits receive some absurdly large amounts of assistance, this time you are claiming they get 60k. whatever...
The specious one is the one who constantly gets their ass handed to them.
You swore up and down that only 20,000 jobs were created in February, because "the Media said so."
In spite of the fact that the CPS showed 274,000 jobs created.
And, in spite of the fact that the CES showed 628,000 jobs created.
You just couldn't wrap your brain around the fact that the "seasonally adjusted" 20,000 is statistically derived, even thought I told you to go the US Census Bureau website and download for free the X-13ARIMA-SEATS software program and study it and play with it.
I can take that 274,000 jobs and using the the X-13ARIMA-SEATS software program make it say anything I want.
I can morph 274,000 jobs into 130,000 jobs or I can make it say 450,000 jobs or I can make it say 20,000 jobs. I can statistically derive any number I want from the original 274,000 jobs.
And, then, how bizarre:
$80,889,354,191.42
$73,369,000,000.00
-----------------------
$7,520,354,191.42 in FICA taxes collected in February.
So, according you, 20,000 workers paid $7,520,354,191 in FICA taxes.
Since the FICA tax is 12.4% for employer and employee, that means those 20,000 workers earned $60,648,017,672 in February.
That means those 20,000 workers had an average income of $3,032,400 in February.
So, those 20,000 workers were getting paid $18,952.50/hour.
Because you reject anything that doesn't fit into your differently twisted belief system, you just refuted your constant claims that wages are "stagnant."
Or, you can just admit you're wrong, because you don't understand the meaning of "seasonally adjusted."
So, here we are again.
Actually, I was pointing out that their combined earned income plus welfare benefits is excess of $60,000 which is more than the $50,321 the average American earns.
But...since you brought it up...yes, some families actually do receive in excess of $60,000 in benefits.
I say some, instead of everyone or many or most, because some only get in excess of $50,000 in benefits and some only in excess of $40,000 or $30,000 or $20,000 and some get less than $20,000.
How they receive in benefits depends on the State in which they live, the number of children they have and the number of benefits they're getting.
So, for TANF, SNAP and Medicaid it amounts to a low of $16,452 (Delaware) to as high as $22,967 (Vermont).
SNAP benefits are the same for everyone, but the amount of TANF and Medicaid depends on the State.
That's $16,452 to $22,967 plus their income.
Just so we're clear on the concept, because you have problems with concepts, it does not include HUD Section 8 or LIHEAP or TEFAP (which pays for their electricity and the other pays for their heat whether that heat is from electricity, natural gas, diesel oil or propane) or WIC or the free milk program or the free lunch program or the free breakfast program or Headstart or anything else.
When you add up all those things, the minimum benefit is $11,150 and the maximum is $60,590.
Plus their income.
So, again, I ask, why would those people give that up to get $12,000/year?
Even if there were two qualifying people in a household, why would they give up that to get $24,000?
Don't forget that the vast majority of households receiving benefits are single parent or single adult, however you want phrase it.
Someone explain why a single mother with three kids would give up $40,000 to get $12,000?
The specious one is the one who constantly gets their ass handed to them.
You swore up and down that only 20,000 jobs were created in February, because "the Media said so."
In spite of the fact that the CPS showed 274,000 jobs created.
And, in spite of the fact that the CES showed 628,000 jobs created.
You just couldn't wrap your brain around the fact that the "seasonally adjusted" 20,000 is statistically derived, even thought I told you to go the US Census Bureau website and download for free the X-13ARIMA-SEATS software program and study it and play with it.
I can take that 274,000 jobs and using the the X-13ARIMA-SEATS software program make it say anything I want.
I can morph 274,000 jobs into 130,000 jobs or I can make it say 450,000 jobs or I can make it say 20,000 jobs. I can statistically derive any number I want from the original 274,000 jobs.
And, then, how bizarre:
$80,889,354,191.42
$73,369,000,000.00
-----------------------
$7,520,354,191.42 in FICA taxes collected in February.
So, according you, 20,000 workers paid $7,520,354,191 in FICA taxes.
Since the FICA tax is 12.4% for employer and employee, that means those 20,000 workers earned $60,648,017,672 in February.
That means those 20,000 workers had an average income of $3,032,400 in February.
So, those 20,000 workers were getting paid $18,952.50/hour.
Because you reject anything that doesn't fit into your differently twisted belief system, you just refuted your constant claims that wages are "stagnant."
Or, you can just admit you're wrong, because you don't understand the meaning of "seasonally adjusted."
So, here we are again.
Actually, I was pointing out that their combined earned income plus welfare benefits is excess of $60,000 which is more than the $50,321 the average American earns.
But...since you brought it up...yes, some families actually do receive in excess of $60,000 in benefits.
I say some, instead of everyone or many or most, because some only get in excess of $50,000 in benefits and some only in excess of $40,000 or $30,000 or $20,000 and some get less than $20,000.
How they receive in benefits depends on the State in which they live, the number of children they have and the number of benefits they're getting.
So, for TANF, SNAP and Medicaid it amounts to a low of $16,452 (Delaware) to as high as $22,967 (Vermont).
SNAP benefits are the same for everyone, but the amount of TANF and Medicaid depends on the State.
That's $16,452 to $22,967 plus their income.
Just so we're clear on the concept, because you have problems with concepts, it does not include HUD Section 8 or LIHEAP or TEFAP (which pays for their electricity and the other pays for their heat whether that heat is from electricity, natural gas, diesel oil or propane) or WIC or the free milk program or the free lunch program or the free breakfast program or Headstart or anything else.
When you add up all those things, the minimum benefit is $11,150 and the maximum is $60,590. Plus their income.
So, again, I ask, why would those people give that up to get $12,000/year?
Even if there were two qualifying people in a household, why would they give up that to get $24,000?
Don't forget that the vast majority of households receiving benefits are single parent or single adult, however you want phrase it.
Someone explain why a single mother with three kids would give up $40,000 to get $12,000?
I already told you that only about 1/5 of low income people in the US receive housing subsidies and more than two-thirds of households in these programs are seniors or people with disabilities; most of the rest are families with children. Heating subsidies pay for a portion of heating bills, they do not cover the entire bill and WIC unless it includes baby formula has a value of about $32-$40 a month and is only available for women with babies or children up to age 5.
Every media source I could find reported 20k jobs in February. This is the most up to date data I can find showing a revision in that to 56,000. If you want to argue, take it to BLS, not me
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.
