Democratic debates

Quote: Wizard

Does anyone make these comments with the annual payments to every resident of Alaska? As to means testing it, the wealthy will pay more in a value added tax than they get. Most reasonable people don't begrudge the wealthy for collecting Social Security, because they paid into it much more than they get out.

I can tell you this, when I was in auto and other loans, people in AK bought all kinds of toys. FWIW, those payments come from state wealth, same as people in say Kuwait. It does not come from any taxes that make transfer payments. A VAT is a very dangerous tax because it is so hidden. So we "give" people $1,000 per month, and tax away most all of it on everything they buy?

Quote:

I'd be interested to do some math on it. Can anyone (Paco) tell me the annual goods sold in the U.S., at the final point of sale? Maybe we could extrapolate from a state with a sales tax. At the end of the day, I'm not opposed to raising taxes significantly to get rid of welfare and provide a state option medical coverage for everybody.

Retail sales hit a record of $6 trillion in 2018, according to the U.S. Census. That's better than the pre-recession high of $4.4 trillion spent in 2007. It's also a 50% increase from 2009's record low of $4.06 trillion.

Now, lets round the current population to 310 million, of which about 78% are over 18 (this is all a simple google search.) This rounds to 242 million adults, which I will lower to 240 million to account for folks in prison, etc, and to get a round number. So you want to give them $1,000 a month in UBI?

This rounds to $2.9 trillion dollars or so. Lets keep on round numbers and call it $3 trillion to account for administration of the program. Congrats! You just required a 50% sales tax to pay for this! The $1,000 per month you are giving has a value of $500! Plus you just raised the price of everything else we buy by about 50%! Then there is the cascading effect. Everything in that room in Vegas has to be paid for, it now costs Steve Wynn 50% more. Think he will eat that?

Then how much more for "public option" health care?

Lesson is the government cannot create wealth this way anymore than it can make an apple appear on your table from thin air.

USA per capita GDP is about $60,000. That is all the wealth there is per person. Already, just over 40% of that goes to government spending at all levels. $60,000 - $24,000 = $36,000. $36,000 is all the average person has left to spend on themselves. Where do we find $12,000 to tax then give back as UBI? And where do we find so much more to put the Feds in the health insurance business?

Quote: odiousgambit

Quote: Wizard

Never mind, it was Andrew Yang.

Here are Yang's policies. I'm considering supporting him.

There doesn't seem to be a progressive idea that ever came across the board that he doesn't like.

But considering only the UBI, it says [emphasis mine]

Quote: link within that link

How would we pay for Universal Basic Income?

It would be easier than you might think. Andrew proposes funding UBI by consolidating some welfare programs and implementing a Value-Added Tax (VAT) of 10%. Current welfare and social program beneficiaries would be given a choice between their current benefits or $1,000 cash unconditionally – most would prefer cash with no restriction....

This qualifier in bold is what keeps it from being absolutely bat-shit crazy and could actually work. In other words, we already have UBI to a large degree.

I therefore consider the proposal to not be bat-shit crazy, merely crazy [I'd never trust it to not develop into an insane giveaway in order to be accepted]

Until the recipients use the money for Lousi Vuittonbags instead of food for their kids and then society will have to swoop in and pay again to feed the kids

Quote: Wizard

Does anyone make these comments with the annual payments to every resident of Alaska? As to means testing it, the wealthy will pay more in a value added tax than they get. Most reasonable people don't begrudge the wealthy for collecting Social Security, because they paid into it much more than they get out.



I'd be interested to do some math on it. Can anyone (Paco) tell me the annual goods sold in the U.S., at the final point of sale? Maybe we could extrapolate from a state with a sales tax. At the end of the day, I'm not opposed to raising taxes significantly to get rid of welfare and provide a state option medical coverage for everybody.

Multiply by 4 to get a simple estimate for the year.

Durable goods (3 years or more)$1,466.19
$492.23  Motor vehicles and parts
$335.69  Furnishings and durable household equipment
$408.23  Recreational goods and vehicles
$230.04  Other durable goods
 Nondurable goods (3 years or less) $2,909.75
$1,008.85  Food and beverages purchased for off-premises consumption
$396.97  Clothing and footwear
$320.59  Gasoline and other energy goods
$1,183.33  Other nondurable goods
$4,375.94 Total Goods



Only 5 states do not have a statewide sales tax. Only 12 states do not have any local sales taxes.

Quote: Pacomartin

Multiply by 4 to get a simple estimate for the year.

Durable goods (3 years or more)$1,466.19
$492.23  Motor vehicles and parts
$335.69  Furnishings and durable household equipment
$408.23  Recreational goods and vehicles
$230.04  Other durable goods
 Nondurable goods (3 years or less) $2,909.75
$1,008.85  Food and beverages purchased for off-premises consumption
$396.97  Clothing and footwear
$320.59  Gasoline and other energy goods
$1,183.33  Other nondurable goods
$4,375.94 Total Goods



Only 5 states do not have a statewide sales tax. Only 12 states do not have any local sales taxes.

Shut up. Don't give my scumbag reps any ideas.

Quote: AZDuffman

The goal you state here is in line with the stated goal of UBI. On the surface it makes sense, no "programs" anymore, as an adult you get the deposit in your account and that is the end of it. Most likely they would kill SS at the same time. One payment for all. Problems will crop up in no time.

First is that we all know that politicians will not stick to this. It would take at least a constitutional amendment that says the government cannot have any other programs at all. Because someone will say, "This is still unfair, look at the people who cannot work and will never be able to do any better! Meanwhile, people are pocketing the money and still going to a better job!" Or, "Why does that single mother have to live on the same amount as some single guy with no kids? We need to bring back WIC so she can feed her kids!"

The industrious people will invest it and the people who spend every dime will spend it. Give me a UBI of $1,000 per month and I will be retired in 15 years or so. Give it to others and they will not know where it went. The same resentments will come up. Eventually there will be calls to means-test it, making it welfare again.

Finally, we cannot afford it! There are not enough rich people to take the money from. Even if the government took over drugs and prostitution rackets, this money cannot be created. The nations trying it usually have oil to sell, or some other way of funding it.

I think you're extrapolating plans not shown here.

SS has a distinct and separate funding stream from UBI. It doesn't follow that it will be cancelled just because a new tax provides a new source of revenue.

As to the VAT, it's a tax on goods - there are many ways and rates in use, but it's usually not charged on basic necessities, like milk or bread. So your claim that "the rich" would be paying for the recipients is off-base.

If ANYBODY buys an item on the VAT non-exempt list, the VAT would be charged. "The rich", by definition, are going to have more discretionary expenditures, so yeah, chances are they will pay a dollar amount more in VAT yearly, than those that can't afford those items, or the high-end ones of whatever.

But them (or anybody) spending money on that stuff is ENTIRELY voluntary, so what's the issue? Don't like VAT, don't buy the luxury item. Or wait til it goes on sale at a price that encompasses the VAT percentage and is equal or below what he was willing to pay.

As a PERCENTAGE of income, chances are the VAT will be regressive - might = 3% of gross income of a poor person, 1% of middle class, .0001% of a "rich" person's funds. Somehow you're bleeding for the "rich" person in this scenario; also completely disregarding that a fair amount of anyone's 1k/mo would itself be returned to the VAT pool through increased purchasing.

As to the income stream (Wizard's comment), I haven't dug into it at all, but Andrew's a numbers guy. He says $1000/mo, every person 18 or over, lifetime, at a rate that averages 50% of the VATs charged elsewhere. I have to think HE's done the math and collected the data, and can provide those specifics (probably already does on his website) since UBI is the centerpiece of his candidacy.

I could be wrong. He could be pulling numbers out of a convenient orifice. But I really doubt that.

I'm interested in hearing more from Yang and looking at the website, and I'm in general against government handouts. If he can replace entitlements funding (WIC, SNAP, Welfare, etc)out of the General federal budget with this (NOT including SS and Medicare which are self-funded), he might really be onto something.

Quote: beachbumbabs

I think you're extrapolating plans not shown here.

SS has a distinct and separate funding stream from UBI. It doesn't follow that it will be cancelled just because a new tax provides a new source of revenue.

Yes, it is separate. But as UBI is "social security for everyone" more or less I am figuring SS would end up being folded into any UBI.

Quote:

As to the VAT, it's a tax on goods - there are many ways and rates in use, but it's usually not charged on basic necessities, like milk or bread. So your claim that "the rich" would be paying for the recipients is off-base.

Only partly correct. A VAT is a tax charged on VALUE ADDED to goods. It is added at every stage of production. A guy cuts down a tree and has to pay VAT at the sawmill. The sawmill makes wood and has to pay the VAT on the total sale price, keeping what they paid before as a "rebate." The wood gets made into a picnic table for sale at THD. THD charges a VAT on the full amount, keeping what they paid to the sawmill as a "rebate." This makes a VAT a very dangerous tax, it is being paid at every level and adds up. It is rolled into the final price, hiding the true cost from the buyer. For more complex goods it gets higher and higher as it is collected at every level of production.

Quote:

If ANYBODY buys an item on the VAT non-exempt list, the VAT would be charged. "The rich", by definition, are going to have more discretionary expenditures, so yeah, chances are they will pay a dollar amount more in VAT yearly, than those that can't afford those items, or the high-end ones of whatever.

But them (or anybody) spending money on that stuff is ENTIRELY voluntary, so what's the issue? Don't like VAT, don't buy the luxury item. Or wait til it goes on sale at a price that encompasses the VAT percentage and is equal or below what he was willing to pay.

See above for what the issue is. You do not save when it "goes on sale" since the tax is collected at every step of production, not at the final sale only.

Quote:

As a PERCENTAGE of income, chances are the VAT will be regressive - might = 3% of gross income of a poor person, 1% of middle class, .0001% of a "rich" person's funds. Somehow you're bleeding for the "rich" person in this scenario; also completely disregarding that a fair amount of anyone's 1k/mo would itself be returned to the VAT pool through increased purchasing.

No, I am "bleeding" for the working person who gets bled left and right for new taxes for UBI handouts.

Quote:

As to the income stream (Wizard's comment), I haven't dug into it at all, but Andrew's a numbers guy. He says $1000/mo, every person 18 or over, lifetime, at a rate that averages 50% of the VATs charged elsewhere. I have to think HE's done the math and collected the data, and can provide those specifics (probably already does on his website) since UBI is the centerpiece of his candidacy.

I could be wrong. He could be pulling numbers out of a convenient orifice. But I really doubt that.

I'm interested in hearing more from Yang and looking at the website, and I'm in general against government handouts. If he can replace entitlements funding (WIC, SNAP, Welfare, etc)out of the General federal budget with this (NOT including SS and Medicare which are self-funded), he might really be onto something.

You simply cannot "create" money just by increasing the velocity of money. Government gives me $1,000 a month, but it has to take that money from somewhere else. He isn't "onto something," he is "on something." Wealth has to be created. To give everyone $1000 per month then the same amount has to be stolen from someone who created it.

You say you are against handouts, but you willingly registered with the party that calls for them? You registered with and seem to support the party that wants to hand out everything from UBI to slavery reparations?

Quote: AZDuffman

...Now, lets round the current population to 310 million, of which about 78% are over 18 (this is all a simple google search.) This rounds to 242 million adults, which I will lower to 240 million to account for folks in prison, etc, and to get a round number. So you want to give them $1,000 a month in UBI?

This rounds to $2.9 trillion dollars or so. Lets keep on round numbers and call it $3 trillion to account for administration of the program. Congrats! You just required a 50% sales tax to pay for this!

I checked your math and it's correct. That does deflate my enthusiasm, I must admit. Maybe I wouldn't fund the whole 2.9 trillion with a VAT but a combination of that, energy tax, property tax, and closing tax loopholes. Yes, I know, shell game. However, my goal is simplification of government and ending welfare.

BTW, in addition to free medical care, I'd like to end income taxes too. Taxes should be based on consumption, not creation.

Quote: Wizard

I checked your math and it's correct. That does deflate my enthusiasm, I must admit. Maybe I wouldn't fund the whole 2.9 trillion with a VAT but a combination of that, energy tax, property tax, and closing tax loopholes. Yes, I know, shell game. However, my goal is simplification of government and ending welfare.

Shell game, yes. "Loophole closing" is kind of just raising taxes. The hard part on ending welfare is you have to be willing to let those that do not work not eat. I was on an interview last year for a place that did not work out, but the recruiters said their biggest problem is too many people would rather just be on the dole.

For folks like you and I it is hard to understand. But there are too many people who have as their goal to maximize their benefits. Saw it when I did taxes. People made more money and were pissed that it took away their EIC, even if the total was more. Some people have the goal of just watching daytime TV and being a general lump, because the alternative they see is living similar but breaking their tail at a job. I don't remember if you said you were ever on the disability end of SS, but if you were I imaging you have seen it.

Quote:

BTW, in addition to free medical care, I'd like to end income taxes too. Taxes should be based on consumption, not creation.

This I am 100% with you on. Just that we have to repeal the right of the government to collect an income tax first.

Quote: AZDuffman

Just that we have to repeal the right of the government to collect an income tax first.

And how would you make people pay for the Army, Air Force, Marines, Navy and equipment, bases for instance. Border patrol. Coast Guard? And how would it not involve theft?

Quote: rxwine

And how would you make people pay for the Army, Air Force, Marines, Navy and equipment, bases for instance. Border patrol. Coast Guard? And how would it not involve theft?

As the thread said excise and sales taxes. While that is still theft, it is a better form of theft.