What objection can there be to solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner?

[danielpalos]

I just ran the numbers again on the website: Income Tax Calculator 2021 - USA - Salary After Tax

It shows that the federal income tax paid by someone with a gross yearly income of 15,080 pays 268 dollars, and that someone making a gross yearly income of 31,200 pays 2,059 dollars; more than seven times more.

 

[WinterBorn]

That is only if the program will continue to be the same, you are changing it fundamentally and that changes the fundamentals of the program. Pretty easy to see through your fallacy.

No fundamental change only faithful execution of existing law and using the same physical infrastructure.

Changing the source of funding, the qualifications for, and the length of time benefits can be drawn, is fundamental change.

 

[danielpalos]

That is only if the program will continue to be the same, you are changing it fundamentally and that changes the fundamentals of the program. Pretty easy to see through your fallacy.

No fundamental change only faithful execution of existing law and using the same physical infrastructure.

Changing the source of funding, the qualifications for, and the length of time benefits can be drawn, is fundamental change.

Not at all. It is merely faithful execution of the law.

 

[Papageorgio]

More fallacy from the man of fallacy. You are clueless when it comes to the homeless.

High cost of housing drives up homeless rates, UCLA study indicates

Sky-high housing costs are a significant factor behind California’s homeless crisis, according to a new analysis from UCLA.

www.latimes.com

New Research Quantifies the Link Between Housing Affordability and Homelessness - National Alliance to End Homelessness

Over the last couple decades, rents in America have been on the rise. Housing experts describe “severely cost-burdened households” — people who are spending far too much of their income on rent. Citizens rightly insist “the rent is too damn […]

endhomelessness.org

.

Skyrocketing home prices are driving up homelessness rate

As home prices continue to ascend, many aspiring buyers are priced out of homeownership -- or as one study found, priced out of having a home at all.

www.inman.com

Only if you ignore the whole point about raising doubling the minimum wage.

I didn’t ignore it, you did. An average one bedroom apartment in Seattle is $1933 a month. Portland $1500, Los Angeles $2400, San Francisco is 2998, New York City $3011, Washinton DC $2063. Minimum wage at $15 per hour is $2600 per month, take out taxes, food, electric, sewer, water and other expenses, you would be unable to afford the apartment, so how did you plan solve homelessness?

 

[Papageorgio]

Yes, you do, I never said different. Which has nothing to do with what I said. Now answer the question. Why is it okay for you not to work and get paid and I could not, even though we both lost our job? That is not equal protection under the law.

I never said you couldn't. I only claim that the reduced benefits would probably not make it worth your while.

I would not have earned income, nor a job just like you however you want to give less. No equal protection for me. You get special protection because of hate and bigotry.

 

[danielpalos]

I didn’t ignore it, you did. An average one bedroom apartment in Seattle is $1933 a month. Portland $1500, Los Angeles $2400, San Francisco is 2998, New York City $3011, Washinton DC $2063. Minimum wage at $15 per hour is $2600 per month, take out taxes, food, electric, sewer, water and other expenses, you would be unable to afford the apartment, so how did you plan solve homelessness?

Splitting costs with a roommate can help.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, you do, I never said different. Which has nothing to do with what I said. Now answer the question. Why is it okay for you not to work and get paid and I could not, even though we both lost our job? That is not equal protection under the law.

I never said you couldn't. I only claim that the reduced benefits would probably not make it worth your while.

I would not have earned income, nor a job just like you however you want to give less. No equal protection for me. You get special protection because of hate and bigotry.

Income from any source.

 

[Papageorgio]

That is only if the program will continue to be the same, you are changing it fundamentally and that changes the fundamentals of the program. Pretty easy to see through your fallacy.

No fundamental change only faithful execution of existing law and using the same physical infrastructure.

You are changing who gets it it and how long, who contributes, where the funding comes from, those are fundamental changes whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

 

[Papageorgio]

Yes, you do, I never said different. Which has nothing to do with what I said. Now answer the question. Why is it okay for you not to work and get paid and I could not, even though we both lost our job? That is not equal protection under the law.

I never said you couldn't. I only claim that the reduced benefits would probably not make it worth your while.

I would not have earned income, nor a job just like you however you want to give less. No equal protection for me. You get special protection because of hate and bigotry.

Income from any source.

That isn’t how unemployment works, you keep wanting to change what unemployment is and how it works. Why the bigotry against those smarter than you?

 

[WinterBorn]

That is only if the program will continue to be the same, you are changing it fundamentally and that changes the fundamentals of the program. Pretty easy to see through your fallacy.

No fundamental change only faithful execution of existing law and using the same physical infrastructure.

Changing the source of funding, the qualifications for, and the length of time benefits can be drawn, is fundamental change.

Not at all. It is merely faithful execution of the law.

No, it is not. Just because the law says employment is at-will, does not mean everyone qualifies for the same programs. Unemployment Compensation is a completely separate program.

And your continued insistence that the changes you want made to UC do not constitute fundamental change is simply untrue.

 

[Papageorgio]

I didn’t ignore it, you did. An average one bedroom apartment in Seattle is $1933 a month. Portland $1500, Los Angeles $2400, San Francisco is 2998, New York City $3011, Washinton DC $2063. Minimum wage at $15 per hour is $2600 per month, take out taxes, food, electric, sewer, water and other expenses, you would be unable to afford the apartment, so how did you plan solve homelessness?

Splitting costs with a roommate can help.

That’s what a person wants, to live with someone in a one bedroom apartment.

 

[WinterBorn]

I just ran the numbers again on the website: Income Tax Calculator 2021 - USA - Salary After Tax

It shows that the federal income tax paid by someone with a gross yearly income of 15,080 pays 268 dollars, and that someone making a gross yearly income of 31,200 pays 2,059 dollars; more than seven times more.

Let me help you with some numbers to show the fallacy of your claim that tax payers would be paying for this.

I ignored the 2020 unemployment numbers, because the pandemic situation skews everything.

In 2019 there were 5.9 million people who were unemployed. (actually more, but this is the documented ones)

If we give every one of them an annual income of $31,200.00, it would cost $184,080,000,000.00.

If every person who collects UC pays $2,059.00 in taxes, that would provide $12,148,100,000.00.

Leaving a difference of $171,931,900,000.00 to be paid by the working tax payer. Every single year.

Adding $171 Billion dollars to our tax burden will mean we all pay significantly more taxes.

 

[danielpalos]

That is only if the program will continue to be the same, you are changing it fundamentally and that changes the fundamentals of the program. Pretty easy to see through your fallacy.

No fundamental change only faithful execution of existing law and using the same physical infrastructure.

You are changing who gets it it and how long, who contributes, where the funding comes from, those are fundamental changes whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

Simplification and solving simple poverty is what it should have been doing to begin with. Full employment of capital resources doesn't seem like a fundamental change to me; do you consider, "filling the ounce" a fundamental change for the postal service?

 

[danielpalos]

That isn’t how unemployment works, you keep wanting to change what unemployment is and how it works. Why the bigotry against those smarter than you?

A right winger typing on the Internet.

Yes, it is how unemployment compensation works.

 

[danielpalos]

No, it is not. Just because the law says employment is at-will, does not mean everyone qualifies for the same programs. Unemployment Compensation is a completely separate program.

And your continued insistence that the changes you want made to UC do not constitute fundamental change is simply untrue.

Isn't now. It would be then. You simply misunderstand the concept. Unemployment compensation is compensation for being unemployed. It really is that simple.

 

[danielpalos]

I didn’t ignore it, you did. An average one bedroom apartment in Seattle is $1933 a month. Portland $1500, Los Angeles $2400, San Francisco is 2998, New York City $3011, Washinton DC $2063. Minimum wage at $15 per hour is $2600 per month, take out taxes, food, electric, sewer, water and other expenses, you would be unable to afford the apartment, so how did you plan solve homelessness?

Splitting costs with a roommate can help.

That’s what a person wants, to live with someone in a one bedroom apartment.

Imagine if women believed more in equality and fiscal forms of responsibility.

 

[danielpalos]

I just ran the numbers again on the website: Income Tax Calculator 2021 - USA - Salary After Tax

It shows that the federal income tax paid by someone with a gross yearly income of 15,080 pays 268 dollars, and that someone making a gross yearly income of 31,200 pays 2,059 dollars; more than seven times more.

Let me help you with some numbers to show the fallacy of your claim that tax payers would be paying for this.

I ignored the 2020 unemployment numbers, because the pandemic situation skews everything.

In 2019 there were 5.9 million people who were unemployed. (actually more, but this is the documented ones)

If we give every one of them an annual income of $31,200.00, it would cost $184,080,000,000.00.

If every person who collects UC pays $2,059.00 in taxes, that would provide $12,148,100,000.00.

Leaving a difference of $171,931,900,000.00 to be paid by the working tax payer. Every single year.

Adding $171 Billion dollars to our tax burden will mean we all pay significantly more taxes.

With a multiplier of two, the amount spent would generate twice that amount in economic activity. In other words, indirect taxes would be raised on 386 billion dollars worth of economic activity. And, those persons would be paying some taxes and creating more demand, unlike what happens now.

In addition, since that program would be simpler, less people would want to apply for more expensive means tested welfare. So we would see a corresponding cost reduction in that program along with a corresponding increase in economic activity which would be generating more indirect tax revenue.

If we use your numbers for a similar amount of people on means tested welfare now, spending 184 billion on means tested welfare now only generates a multiplier of .8 or 147 billion dollars worth of economic activity to be taxed on; a difference of 239 billion dollars worth of economic activity that is not generating tax revenue now.

And, employers would also see cost reductions which may be passed on to consumers since they would no longer need to keep track of unemployment compensation accounts for individuals.

And, with that upward pressure on wages, higher paid labor would be creating more in demand and generating more in tax revenue.

 

[Papageorgio]

That is only if the program will continue to be the same, you are changing it fundamentally and that changes the fundamentals of the program. Pretty easy to see through your fallacy.

No fundamental change only faithful execution of existing law and using the same physical infrastructure.

You are changing who gets it it and how long, who contributes, where the funding comes from, those are fundamental changes whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

Simplification and solving simple poverty is what it should have been doing to begin with. Full employment of capital resources doesn't seem like a fundamental change to me; do you consider, "filling the ounce" a fundamental change for the postal service?

Again, you are not simplifying you are adding conditions and as already shown, it does not solve poverty, it just creates more layers of government and switching responsibility from one agency to another.

 

[WinterBorn]

I just ran the numbers again on the website: Income Tax Calculator 2021 - USA - Salary After Tax

It shows that the federal income tax paid by someone with a gross yearly income of 15,080 pays 268 dollars, and that someone making a gross yearly income of 31,200 pays 2,059 dollars; more than seven times more.

Let me help you with some numbers to show the fallacy of your claim that tax payers would be paying for this.

I ignored the 2020 unemployment numbers, because the pandemic situation skews everything.

In 2019 there were 5.9 million people who were unemployed. (actually more, but this is the documented ones)

If we give every one of them an annual income of $31,200.00, it would cost $184,080,000,000.00.

If every person who collects UC pays $2,059.00 in taxes, that would provide $12,148,100,000.00.

Leaving a difference of $171,931,900,000.00 to be paid by the working tax payer. Every single year.

Adding $171 Billion dollars to our tax burden will mean we all pay significantly more taxes.

With a multiplier of two, the amount spent would generate twice that amount in economic activity. In other words, indirect taxes would be raised on 386 billion dollars worth of economic activity. And, those persons would be paying some taxes and creating more demand, unlike what happens now.

In addition, since that program would be simpler, less people would want to apply for more expensive means tested welfare. So we would see a corresponding cost reduction in that program along with a corresponding increase in economic activity which would be generating more indirect tax revenue.

If we use your numbers for a similar amount of people on means tested welfare now, spending 184 billion on means tested welfare now only generates a multiplier of .8 or 147 billion dollars worth of economic activity to be taxed on; a difference of 239 billion dollars worth of economic activity that is not generating tax revenue now.

And, employers would also see cost reductions which may be passed on to consumers since they would no longer need to keep track of unemployment compensation accounts for individuals.

And, with that upward pressure on wages, higher paid labor would be creating more in demand and generating more in tax revenue.

You keep quoting that multiplier effect. You assume after making the fundamental changes to UC that is will still bring the same multiplier effect.

 

[WinterBorn]

I didn’t ignore it, you did. An average one bedroom apartment in Seattle is $1933 a month. Portland $1500, Los Angeles $2400, San Francisco is 2998, New York City $3011, Washinton DC $2063. Minimum wage at $15 per hour is $2600 per month, take out taxes, food, electric, sewer, water and other expenses, you would be unable to afford the apartment, so how did you plan solve homelessness?

Splitting costs with a roommate can help.

That’s what a person wants, to live with someone in a one bedroom apartment.

Imagine if women believed more in equality and fiscal forms of responsibility.

What? Why do you think women don't believe in equality or fiscal responsibility?