re: PoliBoard: Teach me why a flat tax is bad.

quote:

---

ven a modest $10,000 per person puts that budget line at $3 trillion. Just your UBI. Most SS recipients get more than that - up to 2.5 or 3.5 times as much, so they're not going to go for it.

Just getting to $15k and you're starting to flirt with 4 1/2, 5 billion (with a "B") for your UBI.

SO - how are you going to pay for that with your wealth and sales tax?

---

I should have clarified. I'm for a partial universal basic income, simply making sure that each qualified American has an income of at least $2K a month, if you already earn that much or more, you get nothing.

so for example, say you have a family of 4 with 2 working parents earning $160K a year. That family gets nada. They don't need it.

The most recent stats I've seen would suggest that 45M Americans would qualify , except that around 4 million of those are in jail or prison at any given time and thus would not qualify, so let's say 40M Americans would receive $2K a month or $24K a year or $960B a year for partial universal basic income. Roughly


Unless you would argue that a person who makes $50K a year should also get the $24K a year. True it's not strictly fair to not give them the same, but I don't believe fairness is the goal of welfare. I believe keeping people from dying on the street is.

quote:

---

I'm for a partial universal basic income, simply making sure that each qualified American has an income of at least $2K a month

---

I don't think you're using proper terms (IMHO) - your "universal" is just more class warfare Marxism. There will be no incentive to work up to $24,000 per annum.

quote:

---

They don't need it.

---

So, we're DEEP in the manifesto, now? Got it.

quote:

---

so let's say 40M Americans would receive $2K a month or $24K a year or $960B a year for partial universal basic income. Roughly

---

Except for all the folks who are bringing in $24k, $25k, $26k - and they're going to quit, go to the house and get their free $24k a year, too.


Now, I understand the concept and I applaud your efforts to work it out - but as it is - the total benefit package for some of these families is $50k, $60k, $80k - when you factor in housing, food, child care, medicine, medical cards, utility assistance, straight up cash - your $2k per person per month just isn't going to do it, IMHO.

quote:

---

Unless you would argue that a person who makes $50K a year should also get the $24K a year.

---

Well, you do that if you want to call it "universal" - and take a step away from Marxism. You also do that if you want people to work.

quote:

---

There will be no incentive to work up to $24,000 per annum.

---

quote:

---

Except for all the folks who are bringing in $24k, $25k, $26k - and they're going to quit, go to the house and get their free $24k a year, too.

---

Correct, which means now we can do away with minimum wage laws because companies will be forced to pay $30-35K a year for workers.

As for those who would choose to stay home. I respond with so what, that has the added benefit of lowering unemployment. Let me use my SIL as an example, she earns $36K a year . MY brother right around $80. They have 2 kids. The Partial universal says that a family of four should make $96K a year. So , if my SIL quit her job and stayed home with her kids they would receive $96K - my brother's $80K income or $16K a year. Which results in a $20K pay cut overall in their family income. My Brother and SIL would take that cut to have my SIL home with her small children.

What does that result in besides my niece and nephew having their mommy home with them? Why it results in a $36K a year job opening up for someone else to take. Potentially, probably , taking THAT person off the partial universal basic income rolls.

The system I envision is a complete paradigm shift, but given the rapid changes in our employment needs in this country, we need to think outside the box.

quote:

---

We no longer need american labor.

---

While this may be true for bulk manufacturing - it is dangerous to make a blanket statement that dozens of millions of working age folks are useless.

If they're useless (I don't think they are, but for argument's sake), then all we're going to do with universal income is subsidize uselessness. And we can't both say all these folks are useless, yet import third world folks to do the work these "useless" folks refuse to do and cannot be done from Asia, remotely.

Of course the drones are coming - perhaps within a generation, but until then it is a bad practice to just slide into sloth. Hunger is the great motivator - the great metaphorical "whip" to keep humans moving forward. Without it, we're doomed as a species.

We'll stop evolving and be supplanted by something that IS driven to improve.

quote:

---

Except those folks are going to be busy making babies to get that family income up to $96k for absolutely zero return of labor, contribution, etc.

---

I guess you missed where I said qualifying? Two kids per adult, after that, no new money.

quote:

---

I guess you missed where I said qualifying? Two kids per adult, after that, no new money.

---

That changes with the first election.

National Flat Sales Tax and VAT.

quote:

---

PoliBoard: Teach me why a flat tax is bad.

---

Not that it's bad, it's just never going to happen. Ever, ever, ever.

Frankly, how would it stop corruption and wasteful spending. People in Louisiana won't even allow education and roads to be paid for with an exclusive tax. It's sounds great in theory, but when you actually expect people to be okay with a use tax, good luck with that.

quote:

---

Is the ability to pay for stuff with $225,000 really any different than the $250,000?



Don't care. You're trying to justify the disparity in taxation between the two by using emotion.

Person B is already taxed $22,500 more than Person A in your scenario, and you want them taxed more for no other reason than being more successful. The only reasoning you can come up with is "but they'll literally be homeless and starve" if they have to contribute proportionally.

It's insanity. Next, you'll tell us how they'll literally die in the streets due to lack of health insurance if we don't subsidize it.

---

Sometimes you actually have a decent take on a particular discussion, this is one of those times.

quote:

---

How about a rate of 30-35%? That would be sufficient to cover the necessary government investments in America, and would be pretty much in line with the taxation levels in much of the developed world.

---

wouldn't this lead to an insanely higher tax collection?