Universal Basic Income

[roderick]

Nope. No idea what you are talking about.

Of course you don't. But think.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Of course you don't. But think.

Hmm, you go ahead and articulate yourself.

 

[struth]

I have read all, or almost all, of Thomas Paine's writings. I think we have a user on this forum who has adopted Paine's name.

Thomas Paine is perhaps most well-known to Americans as being the author of Common Sense, a pamphlet which inspired every patriot to independence.

He also published a series of pamphlets under the title American Crisis. The most famous line most of us have heard from that series is, "These are the times which try men's souls."

Lesser known today, but quite famous during its time, was The Age of Reason. In this three part tome written after we gained independence, Paine completely deconstructed the Christian Bible. He ripped it to pieces.

Paine was an advocate of Deism.

The Age of Reason was a huge bestseller in the US. and led to a revival of deism here.

Not so well known today is Paine's Agrarian Justice.

Like most of our Founders, Paine believe in Natural Rights. He believed "landed property" was an inevitable violation of Natural Rights that needed to be mitigated as the poor were worse off under such a system than when humans had lived in a state of nature.

Paine's solution was for America to provide a tidy sum to every American who reached the age of 21, and to provide an annual sum to everyone who arrived at the age of 50.

The latter half is Social Security. The former is a precursor to a universal basic income, though Paine intended it to be a one time payment so the poor could buy cows or other means to support themselves.

What? Social Security proposed way back in 1797? And UBI, too?!?

It's a very fascinating piece to read, so here it is: http://www.piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/Paine1795.pdf

Just as an aside, Thomas Jefferson also felt the same about the landed class violating Natural Rights, and he proposed a progressive tax on the wealthy, with most Americans being exempt from taxation. (Editing note: I originally posted it was James Madison, but I got the recipient and the sender reversed. See letter in post 4 below. My apologies.)

Our Founders were proto-commies!


Kamala Harris proposed a universal basic income when she was a US Senator in 2018, which puts here squarely in the Liberal column.

More in my next post.

This isn’t anything new, govts have done this for centuries. Monarches would do it to their serfs,

 

[ThisIsMe]

H

For those unfamiliar with UBI, it is basically a payment to every citizen every month by the government. Or, in Kamala Harris's case, a yearly tax credit.

Harris's tax credit was to provide $500 a month to every family earning less than $100,000 and $250 a month for individuals.

It went nowhere, and Harris knew it would to nowhere. This was a pandering gesture in anticipation of running for President in 2020.

So does UBI work?

There have been countless experiments with UBI all over the world, including here in the US on a city by city basis.

Also, the state of Alaska has had a UBI for decades. Sarah Palin even bragged about it.

As far as I know, Finland is the only country which tried it on a nationwide basis.

There is a long running UBI experiment in Kenya, and the results appear to be incredibly promising for lifting people out of poverty.

In Finland and elsewhere, UBI has been shown to increase employment among the poor. Rather than cause people to become lazy with the extra government cash, as its detractors try to claim without proof, it has led to more employment, better health, and other positive outcomes.

Of course it is wildly expensive, but if it leads to prosperity for the poor, then they will be contributing more to the tax revenues.

Anyway, here are some links about where UBI has been tested you may find interesting:

Alaska's UBI program: Alaskans Receive Record Dividends of $3,284

A map of where UBI has been tested: Global Map of Basic Income Experiments | Stanford Basic Income Lab

Finland: An experiment to inform universal basic income

Multiple countries have tested a universal basic income – and it works

England is the latest country to test giving residents a guaranteed amount of money every month, also known as a universal basic income (UBI).

globalaffairs.org

Here is an article about Harris's 2018 plan: https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article220239985.html

How do you get around the problem with society, now knowing you have extra income, raising prices? As people have more money, the cost of living just goes up and we’re right back at the start.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

H

How do you get around the problem with society, now knowing you have extra income, raising prices? As people have more money, the cost of living just goes up and we’re right back at the start.

It's not 1:1, in all cases. Real wages can outpace inflation, and have.

But we have a shameful wealth and income gap. This makes inflation worse. Also -- and this is slightly different -- this causes prices to consistently outpace wages, even without UBI.

It's not a mystery. It's the direct result of tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations over decades.

 

[ThisIsMe]

It's not 1:1, in all cases. Real wages can outpace inflation, and have.

But we have a shameful wealth and income gap. This makes inflation worse. Also -- and this is slightly different -- this causes prices to consistently outpace wages, even without UBI.

It's not a mystery. It's the direct result of tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations over decades.

But wouldn’t the system, over time, adjust to the new income people have? Just like as wages increase, prices keep rising, if people are given ubi, prices would eventually adjust to meet that income, possibly forcing inflation to outpace wages..the answer would then be to keep increasing ubi?

 

[g5000]

why is it with you socialist pricks always think a tax break has to be offset??

does the idea of cutting spending never cross you mind??

Eliminating tax expenditures is the exact opposite of socialism. By defending them, it is you who is the socialist.

In fact, eliminating tax expenditures is as libertarian a principle as it gets.

What you morons don't get is that tax expenditures ARE spending! That's why they are called tax EXPENDITURES.

Eliminating tax expenditures would save $1.5 trillion in the budget every year. That's how much they are costing us.

You are way out of your league and speaking from ignorance.

As I have shown time and time again, it's a fact that tax breaks have to be offset by higher tax rates.

If you don't believe me, just ask Deven Nunes, one of the most hardcore supporters of Donald Trump in Congress:


No tax reform without border adjustment tax, Rep. Nunes says

"If people wanted to drop the corporate rate from 35 to say 33, 32, maybe 30, we could probably do it. But if you go back to several years that we looked at doing just that, the goal was to get to 25 percent, and by the time every lobbyist, every special interest group in town, representing every major corporation in this country, the tax rate was automatically all the way back above 30 by the time you put everybody's special loophole in."

I know for a fact I have shown you this before, but you insist on remaining ignorant and stupid about the truth that tax expenditures are offset by higher tax rates.

Nunes could not have stated it more clearly. Even a moron like yourself can understand it. IF you want to. But you don't. You are willfully ignorant.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But wouldn’t the system, over time, adjust to the new income people have?

Not necessarily in the way you imply, no. As we can see in the US and in other countries, wages can outpace and have outpaced prices. Because time marches on. Economic growth continues.

But if every time an upward pressure on prices occurs, you have a huge wealth gap rendering a significant portion of the earners virtually immune to inflation, it exacerbates the problem.

In fact, these upper earners often BENEFIT from inflation. They begin to conspire (wittingly or otherwise) to push prices even higher.

Go see the housing market right now, for a great example.

 

[progressive hunter]

Eliminating tax expenditures is the exact opposite of socialism. By defending them, it is you who is the socialist.

In fact, eliminating tax expenditures is as libertarian a principle as it gets.

What you morons don't get is that tax expenditures ARE spending! That's why they are called tax EXPENDITURES.

Eliminating tax expenditures would save $1.5 trillion in the budget every year. That's how much they are costing us.

You are way out of your league and speaking from ignorance.

As I have shown time and time again, it's a fact that tax breaks have to be offset by higher tax rates.

If you don't believe me, just ask Deven Nunes, one of the most hardcore supporters of Donald Trump in Congress:


No tax reform without border adjustment tax, Rep. Nunes says

"If people wanted to drop the corporate rate from 35 to say 33, 32, maybe 30, we could probably do it. But if you go back to several years that we looked at doing just that, the goal was to get to 25 percent, and by the time every lobbyist, every special interest group in town, representing every major corporation in this country, the tax rate was automatically all the way back above 30 by the time you put everybody's special loophole in."

I know for a fact I have shown you this before, but you insist on remaining ignorant and stupid about the truth that tax expenditures are offset by higher tax rates.

Nunes could not have stated it more clearly. Even a moron like yourself can understand it. IF you want to. But you don't. You are willfully ignorant.

I wasnt defending them,,
I was for them until you said they needed to be offset,,

in your plan the government still needs to tax at the same amount if not more,,

they dont need to be offset if the government cuts spending,,

youre a socialist because you think taxes are to punish the rich which increases spending,,

thats not what taxs are for,,

 

[g5000]

Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson lived at a time where they believed the Constitution was written for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to govern any other. The people of that day were an industrious people who were invested in contributions to the whole. They were a moral people who had pride in their achievements. They knew restraint.

Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson would look at the tents of drug addicts getting a subsistence from cities like Portland and San Francisco and recoil in horror. That's not what they meant at all. They did not mean that people living off others should spend their time increasing their income by robbing innocent people that work for a living. Just the way welfare works.

If you want people to have UBI the way the founders envisioned it, you need the people they envisioned would benefit.

Paine believed EVERYONE should receive UBI and social security. He believed UBI should be paid for by an inheritance tax.

Jefferson believed the government could not invent too many ways to break up wealth. He believed most people should be exempt from tax, and the rest be taxed progressively.

If you read Jefferson's letter, he talks about the unemployed poor, who people like you call lazy these days.

Jefferson believed the poor were made poor because of their natural rights being violated by the landed class.

Jefferson would immediately recognize todays tent cities and see the exact same causes.

You have some serious blinders on.

 

[jbander]

There are good regulations and bad regulations.

Not allowing a factory to bury toxic waste which leaks into the water table is good regulation.

The example I gave about cabbies and Uber is an example of bad regulations.

As for "the workers time", that is the whole reason Trump was able to rise to power. The middle class and the poor have been getting ripped off for a long time. But they don't know who or how.

This provides an opportunity for a demagogue to come along and point his fat little finger at a particular group and blame them for all our troubles.

Unfortunately, Trump works for the very elites who have been ripping us off.

Come on we aren't idiot. I will guaranty with corporate claims of regulations that are nonsense,if they are really nonsense they will be protected like gold to complain about later but every bottom line regulation will be the ones that are changed or dumped. Again without regulation the wealthy and big b would eat our children.for the bottom line. Do you even live in this country. I am 100% capitalist until or if ever a better way is found , but in 2024 capitalism in this country is a disaster , and it is tax law, tax rate and laws to distribute the wealth into the golden few at the top .
With the case of Reagan's Trickle down crap its a disaster and in my opinion a total joke. Tell me how you can help a troubled economy by making sure you run all the dollars government can control threw the hands of business. You want it to be as effective as possible run it through the hands of the poorest people in the country , they will spend every dollar now . Corporation will hand it out as bonuses and tuck it under the mattress as they have done over the last few decades.

 

[g5000]

I wasnt defending them,,
I was for them until you said they needed to be offset,,

in your plan the government still needs to tax at the same amount if not more,,

Wrong.

they dont need to be offset if the government cuts spending,,

Eliminating tax expenditures IS cutting spending. And it result in EVERYONE paying lower tax rates.

Just ask Reagan. That's exactly what he did in the 80s. He eliminated tax expenditures and lowered tax rates.

For example, did you know there used to be a deduction for auto loan interest? Just like the mortgage interest deduction.

Reagan eliminated it. That one of many he deleted so he could lower tax rates.

And Reagan was a libertarian. He was a friend of Milton Friedman, who was the greatest libertarian economist who ever lived.

Like I always say, the party of Trump is so far off the reservation, they don't know an actual conservative principle when it is kicking them in the balls.

Without the $1.5 trillion of annual tax expenditures, we would have a balanced budget and lower tax rates.

If we then raised the Social Security age to 70 and indexed it to 9 percent of the population going forward, these two things would provide a surplus we could use to pay down the debt.

Our debt is the single greatest threat to the future of our country.

 

[progressive hunter]

Our debt is the single greatest threat to the future of our country.

everything youve proposed will increase the debt,,

and seek help for your TDS cause youre already to stupid,,

 

[g5000]

Come on we aren't idiot. I will guaranty with corporate claims of regulations that are nonsense,if they are really nonsense they will be protected like gold to complain about later but every bottom line regulation will be the ones that are changed or dumped. Again without regulation the wealthy and big b would eat our children.for the bottom line. Do you even live in this country. I am 100% capitalist until or if ever a better way is found , but in 2024 capitalism in this country is a disaster , and it is tax law, tax rate and laws to distribute the wealth into the golden few at the top .
With the case of Reagan's Trickle down crap its a disaster and in my opinion a total joke. Tell me how you can help a troubled economy by making sure you run all the dollars government can control threw the hands of business. You want it to be as effective as possible run it through the hands of the poorest people in the country , they will spend every dollar now . Corporation will hand it out as bonuses and tuck it under the mattress as they have done over the last few decades.

I agree what we currently have in the US is not capitalism. I agree with JD Vance that what we have is a "corporate oligarchy".

But as I said, there are good regulations and there are bad regulations.

 

[jbander]

You want to start at basics ,you make sure no business will be allowed to pay a wage that if worked 40 hours allows for a family of X to survive without government subsidy's , No company should be allowed to have a wage that need me and my neighbors money for gov subsidy for this family to survive to gold plate their bottom line of a corp[oration with the use of my and my neighbors money. Start there. That would get rid of most of welfare cost.

 

[g5000]

everything youve proposed will increase the debt,,

Wrong again.

Eliminating tax EXPENDITURES will drastically lower deficits.

You, and many millions of people like you, have been grossly gaslighted by the very people stealing from you.

You have no clue what actual conservatism is.

[/url]

and seek help for your TDS cause youre already to stupid,,

The very reason I detest Trump is because he is leading you ignorant sheep to perdition.

 

[progressive hunter]

Wrong again.

Eliminating tax EXPENDITURES will drastically lower deficits.

You, and many millions of people like you, have been grossly gaslighted by the very people stealing from you.

You have no clue what actual conservatism is.

[/url]

The very reason I detest Trump is because he is leading you ignorant sheep to perdition.

give me a list of those expenditures and we can talk,,

how have I been gaslighted when I know the government steals from us and gives to people that dont contribute to the tax base??

sounds more like youre the one lying to us,,

 

[g5000]

Tax expenditures have a large effect on the federal budget. On the basis of estimates prepared by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the value of all tax expenditures in the individual and corporate income tax systems totaled $1.6 trillion, or 7.8 percent of gross domestic product, in fiscal year 2019. That amount was equal to nearly half of all federal revenues, exceeded all discretionary outlays, and totaled about 60 percent of all mandatory spending in the federal budget, which includes spending on Social Security and Medicare.

How Specifications of the Reference Tax System Affect CBO’s Estimates of Tax Expenditures​

​

 

[progressive hunter]

Tax expenditures have a large effect on the federal budget. On the basis of estimates prepared by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the value of all tax expenditures in the individual and corporate income tax systems totaled $1.6 trillion, or 7.8 percent of gross domestic product, in fiscal year 2019. That amount was equal to nearly half of all federal revenues, exceeded all discretionary outlays, and totaled about 60 percent of all mandatory spending in the federal budget, which includes spending on Social Security and Medicare.

How Specifications of the Reference Tax System Affect CBO’s Estimates of Tax Expenditures​

​

got a list??

 

[g5000]

give me a list of those expenditures and we can talk,,

There are thousands and thousands and thousands of tax expenditures.

As I just showed, they cost $1.6 trillion EVERY YEAR.

how have I been gaslighted when I know the government steals from us and gives to people that dont contribute to the tax base??

sounds more like youre the one lying to us,,

You've been gaslighted because you actually believe eliminating these EXPENDITURES is socialism.

You could not possibly be more wrong.