- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Andrew Yang on Google, Amazon helping pay for his $1,000-per-month UBI plan
Posted on 8/20/19 at 8:21 am to OleWarSkuleAlum
Posted on 8/20/19 at 8:21 am to OleWarSkuleAlum
UBI is $300 Billion a month, $3.6 Trillion a year in the US. No it’s not fricking feasible.
0
Posted on 8/20/19 at 8:23 am to OleWarSkuleAlum
Everybody Yang Chung tonight. What I mean by that, I have no idea, I’ve just felt compelled to say it.
Posted on 8/20/19 at 8:31 am to OleWarSkuleAlum
After reading your post he sent an email to Hillary sayin he had information on her corruption
Posted on 8/20/19 at 8:52 am to Zanzibaw
quote:
Why would these companies support this?
It's the typical political game. They are willing to do this because they are going to receive something even bigger in return. For starters, everything they give will be some sort of direct write-off (Speculation), probably considered tax payments.
I still do not get how this is not considered buying votes. He is directly saying that if you vote for me, I will promise you $1,000 per month just for being in the US.
Has he clarified if this is for everyone worldwide, or just US citizens?
Posted on 8/20/19 at 8:56 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
So, we'll have to print it. Which will make your $1000 a month worth about tree fiddy.
People who believe everyone can just be given $1,000/month free are not smart enough to realize that one it happens, that $1,000 won't be worth what it was before.
"Oh, rent, groceries, bills went up? Wait, even though I have an extra $1,000 I'm no better off than before? Who could have seen this coming?"
Posted on 8/20/19 at 8:59 am to OleWarSkuleAlum
quote:
We can easily institute a VAT and fund UBI.
This guy said "Nope" when he got to math with letters added.
Posted on 8/20/19 at 9:31 am to OleWarSkuleAlum
quote:
We can easily institute a VAT
Would be the end of our middle class when this gets implemented here because payroll taxes and income taxes won't be going away with it. IT's been a good run baws, we are at the 7th inning stretch right now. Save while you can.
Posted on 8/20/19 at 9:34 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
My biggest problem with a VAT tax is what is it for? It's a "just because" tax.
So we are lucky that we had decent non-activits judges back in the day. It has already been ruled by the supreme court that taxes just to tax are unconstitutional and that any new tax has to be appropriated towards something. This is why we should theoretically should never have a wealth or VAT here, but activist judges will most likely change that
Posted on 8/20/19 at 9:45 am to pwejr88
quote:
Just to clarify, Yang is saying he’ll give every citizen $1,000 a month
Just to clarify, Yang is saying he'll give every citizen $1,000 a month OR their current welfare/EBT/Section8/etc.
Po people don't get to double dip.
It will be interesting to see if this is ever brought up by anyone.
It would also be an interesting case study to see if people would be willing to trade all other benefits for that $1,000 a month.
Because if they would, and they did, and the liberals had zero chance of just giving them both for votes, the $1,000 a month idea actually has merit.
Posted on 8/20/19 at 9:58 am to OleWarSkuleAlum
quote:
UBI
Because it's worked so well everywhere it's been tried?
Posted on 8/20/19 at 9:58 am to Weekend Warrior79
quote:
It's the typical political game. They are willing to do this because they are going to receive something even bigger in return. For starters, everything they give will be some sort of direct write-off (Speculation), probably considered tax payments.
His proposal has several problems, the first of which is there is no need for a UBI. We are damned near full employment, and have millions of jobs unfilled. The second of which as he has not approached UBI in a holistic manner.
There is a way to do it that is revenue neutral and deficit neutral. You just have to cut a lot of safety net programs and let UBI replace them, AND you have to adjust Social Security to reflect the new reality.
If you adjust Social Security you have to adjust payroll taxes accordingly, and if you adjust payroll taxes you need to adjust them on the employee and employer side.
quote:
Has he clarified if this is for everyone worldwide, or just US citizens?
He has always been very clear on this... for citizens 18 and over.
Posted on 8/20/19 at 9:59 am to IllegalPete
quote:
Because if they would, and they did, and the liberals had zero chance of just giving them both for votes, the $1,000 a month idea actually has merit.
No it doesnt. If you include Medicaid we spend 800 billion annually on safety net programs. UBI would cost 3 times that.
Posted on 8/20/19 at 10:00 am to OleWarSkuleAlum
Amazon needs to pay taxes, but we don't need UBI
Posted on 8/20/19 at 10:01 am to Bard
quote:
Because it's worked so well everywhere it's been tried?
Where has a UBI been tried?
Posted on 8/20/19 at 11:14 am to OleWarSkuleAlum
Funding UBI is simple. It’s called get your sorry arse off the couch and get a god damn job you lazy frick.
Posted on 8/20/19 at 11:33 am to BlackAdam
quote:
Where has a UBI been tried?
Finland tested it last year or the year before with 900 families. Wasn’t a success.
Posted on 8/20/19 at 11:35 am to IllegalPete
quote:
Just to clarify, Yang is saying he'll give every citizen $1,000 a month OR their current welfare/EBT/Section8/etc.
Ok sure.
Plus People get far more than $1,000 in benefits
Posted on 8/20/19 at 11:37 am to Magician2
quote:
Finland tested it last year or the year before with 900 families. Wasn’t a success.
What Finland did was called UBI, but it was not really. The sample was flawed, as they gave it to unemployed people exclusively as opposed to a representative sample of the population.
A true UBI goes to everyone regardless of employment or income. Their sample should have reflected the makeup of the population. what they did was provide additional unemplyment insurance to people.
Posted on 8/20/19 at 11:41 am to BlackAdam
quote:
Where has a UBI been tried?
Finland.
Ontario, Canada.
The US (see: Negative Income Tax Experiment).
It failed in all of those. Despite this there are MANY countries looking into UBI (with some testing it).
One interesting place it was tried was almost a decade ago in two villages in Namibia. It had a bit of success there in that crime dropped drastically and the economy picked up significantly. A few things about this though:
1. Immigration to these villages spiked (despite the immigrants not being able to participate).
2. There was no other social safety net in place when UBI was introduced.
3. While the local economies did improve, it did not parlay into increased economic opportunities. There were no new, flourishing businesses that became self-sufficient after the program ended. Basically, people just bought more stuff (granted these were largely food and medicines).
Once the UBI stopped things went back to what they had been before.
So what are the lessons we can extrapolate from these?
-At best UBI is a placebo because it only redistributes wealth, it doesn't feed the creation of new wealth.
-For it to have any meaningful impact there can be no other (or very few, at most) safety nets in place prior to implementation.
-UBI will cause increased immigration into the area UBI is going on. Translation: our current illegal immigration problems would seem like "the good old days" after a year or two of UBI's implementation here.
-Economic bonuses that come about because of UBI remain dependent on the continuance of UBI.
This post was edited on 8/20/19 at 11:44 am
Posted on 8/20/19 at 11:45 am to OleWarSkuleAlum
Good Lord. This guy is scary. He has already proven to be completely ignorant about basic corporate law. Now he wants to flat out confiscate assets? He isn’t a huge fan of equal protection? Any other fundamental basics he doesn’t understand? They are piling up.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News