- 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: $2000 each month Covid19 UBI. Muh Socialism
Posted on 4/16/20 at 10:56 am to Sneaky__Sally
Posted on 4/16/20 at 10:56 am to Sneaky__Sally
quote:
Any UBI proposal should only be considered along with how it will be funded.
That's not how DC works. The intended outcome is the most important driver, not the probable nor the actual outcome.
Along with that it's still wealth redistribution. Why do you feel it's okay to take the wealth from some and give it to others who have not worked for it?
1
Posted on 4/16/20 at 10:57 am to Centinel
quote:
quote:
The most prominent UBI proposals in this country's history haven't been.
Yet.
UBI will most certainly be means tested.
I don't think it could either pass or be implemented effectively if means tested.
Posted on 4/16/20 at 10:58 am to Sneaky__Sally
quote:
I don't think it could either pass or be implemented effectively if means tested.
It only takes paying just enough people to get the votes to pass it.
quote:
or be implemented effectively
It's the government. Of course it won't be implemented effectively.
This post was edited on 4/16/20 at 10:59 am
Posted on 4/16/20 at 11:04 am to Bard
quote:
$2000 each month Covid19 UBI. Muh Socialism
quote:
Any UBI proposal should only be considered along with how it will be funded.
That's not how DC works. The intended outcome is the most important driver, not the probable nor the actual outcome.
Along with that it's still wealth redistribution. Why do you feel it's okay to take the wealth from some and give it to others who have not worked for it?
I'm not making a moral argument here. It is, or soon will be, necessary to maintain balance and will result in a stronger economy. Look at what we are having to do right now and the economic fallout of COVID. Look at the economic fallout of 2008. Both would have been heavily mitigated with some economic certainty and UBI serves as a risk management tool. Not to mention providing a floor for people to pursue education, start a business at a young age, decreased stress levels and increased health.
And again, this is why you have to look at how it will be funded. If you can achieve the above benefits without a major negative as a result of the funding mechanism, the economy as a whole is stronger.
Personally, I was very compelled by Andrew Yang's funding plan and proposal - a 10% VAT, decreased gov't spending in other areas which are outlined if you are interested, increased tax revenues as people spend the money and then some very minor things overall like carbon tax, etc. to get to the final total.
Posted on 4/16/20 at 11:05 am to Centinel
I think our gov't officials are terrible but that doesn't mean UBI is a bad idea if it comes along with the right leadership.
Posted on 4/16/20 at 11:08 am to Oilfieldbiology
So I can get more, "Payment Status Not Available" messages? Sweet.
Posted on 4/16/20 at 11:11 am to Phat Phil
So I could possibly get a 24k raise without doing anything?
Holy shite this is the best virus ever
Holy shite this is the best virus ever
Posted on 4/16/20 at 11:12 am to Sneaky__Sally
quote:Then what happens when bad leadership takes over? Because it will.
I think our gov't officials are terrible but that doesn't mean UBI is a bad idea if it comes along with the right leadership
UBI puts us on a path to the next generation Bernie Sanders. "Vote for me and I will DOUBLE your current basic income". A disaster ensues.
That's why I will be opposed to UBI. Under benevolent leadership it can work, under terrible leadership it will lead to failure.
Posted on 4/16/20 at 11:16 am to Ronaldo Burgundiaz
quote:
Then what happens when bad leadership takes over? Because it will.
IMO, tie its hands and make it so it takes a super-majority to increase it. IF a good leader comes along and can get both teams on board - Republicans should be able to make it very hard to alter. Base it on CPI with an increase every 5 years or something - strictest possible regulations to alter it.
I think the gov't is already failing and 90% of those leaders are crooks so I'm willing to take a risk.
This post was edited on 4/16/20 at 11:19 am
Posted on 4/16/20 at 11:38 am to Sneaky__Sally
quote:
It is, or soon will be, necessary to maintain balance and will result in a stronger economy.
A house of cards looks sturdy but it's still a house made only of cards. There is no strength gained from making the economy more dependent on a centralized government, especially one as fiscally inept as ours.
quote:
Look at what we are having to do right now and the economic fallout of COVID. Look at the economic fallout of 2008. Both would have been heavily mitigated with some economic certainty and UBI serves as a risk management tool.
Absolutely wrong and dangerously short-sighted. The money for such a program doesn't just appear out of thin air, that money has to come from somewhere and that somewhere is to tax those same people $3 just to give them $1 back as well as taxing the very businesses they used to work at and are hoping to go back to once things settle.
You seem to be looking at this solely (or at least primarily) from the aspect of receiving the money without weighting it against where that money comes from nor the long-term impact to the economy overall. To reiterate, any positives are only in the extreme short-term with the negatives growing the longer the term goes on.
quote:
And again, this is why you have to look at how it will be funded. If you can achieve the above benefits without a major negative as a result of the funding mechanism, the economy as a whole is stronger.
Which is why any conversation about UBI must first state how it is to be paid for, not any hypothetical positives.
quote:
Personally, I was very compelled by Andrew Yang's funding plan and proposal - a 10% VAT, decreased gov't spending in other areas which are outlined if you are interested, increased tax revenues as people spend the money and then some very minor things overall like carbon tax, etc. to get to the final total.
Amway looks good in theory too.
There are multiple problems with Yang's proposal.
-Going with a VAT would require a Constitutional Amendment and it's simply not going to happen.
-Even if the Amendment passed the VAT rate would end up being a moving target Congress plays with for elections, just like income taxes. The income tax was originally 1% and was said it would never go above 7% during debates. Look at it now and see the future of a VAT.
-Part of Yang's idea was that UBI would be in lieu of welfare. On the surface that's a big win. The problem is that not only would you have increased costs due to having to run both programs simultaneously but there's no way on God's green earth Congress is going to do away with SNAP, Section 8, WIC, TANF, etc. Ever. What we would end up with would be UBI being an extra welfare program (but one that costs more than all the others combined).
Posted on 4/16/20 at 11:41 am to Ronaldo Burgundiaz
quote:
UBI puts us on a path to the next generation Bernie Sanders. "Vote for me and I will DOUBLE your current basic income". A disaster ensues.
This. Once UBI is in place every single politician, on both sides of the isle, will run on who will increase UBI the most.
Posted on 4/16/20 at 11:42 am to Sneaky__Sally
quote:
And again, this is why you have to look at how it will be funded. If you can achieve the above benefits without a major negative as a result of the funding mechanism, the economy as a whole is stronger.
Sure. If only Santa Claus was real this would totally work fine. Taking capital from productive endeavors and giving to unproductive endeavors never leads to more wealth.
Posted on 4/16/20 at 11:43 am to Sneaky__Sally
So more recycling of money via the government. Cool.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News