|
archangelwar posted:There is little point to a mincome without a strong progressive tax system. I would also heavily favor policy aimed at reducing income and wealth inequality. Having a MGI would also bump up all earnings to higher tax brackets and out of exemptions. Could increase overall tax revenue and pay for itself. I've been asking for numbers to see if this occurs.
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 11:19 |
|
Nintendo Kid posted:No it really can't. I mean linguistically it can in the same way that "socialist policy" can now mean "neoliberal orthrodoxy said by a black man". But no, when you're going after wealth it becomes a wealth tax, because it goes beyond real property and into virtual property in the form of bank accounts, stock shares, etc. Honestly I don't really care what the word is. In Economics, it's called a Property tax if you're taxing property. If you want to call it a Wealth tax so that people understand the difference from our typical property taxes, feel free. My Imaginary GF posted:Having a MGI would also bump up all earnings to higher tax brackets and out of exemptions. Could increase overall tax revenue and pay for itself. I've been asking for numbers to see if this occurs. I know you're new here but you don't just "ask for numbers" and have them appear for you. Go do the math yourself if you really think that effect would be significant.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
Any recommended reading on how to craft talking points? I want Basic Income talking points and if none already exist would be willing to try cobbling some together to spam/test. Edit: Also, I'm seeing cost/affordability calculations using GDP. Would Total Personal Income* be a good substitute? *For which the 2012 figure is $13,401,868,693. Accretionist fucked around with this message at 06:49 on Nov 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 06:28
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Honestly I don't really care what the word is. In Economics, it's called a Property tax if you're taxing property. If you want to call it a Wealth tax so that people understand the difference from our typical property taxes, feel free. Right, and property tax in economics is pretty flatly down to what we use property tax for today. The same principles don't really apply when your policy goal now involves all wealth, and as such wealth taxes based on instantly knowable values etc are a whole different thing. If we ran property tax methods for taxing back accounts, your tax would easily be calculated on your balance 3 years ago the last time an officially verified check was done.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 06:32
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Right, and property tax in economics is pretty flatly down to what we use property tax for today. The same principles don't really apply when your policy goal now involves all wealth, and as such wealth taxes based on instantly knowable values etc are a whole different thing. Alright, I did a little research and I agree with you. Wealth taxes are pretty well established as "a thing" worldwide and there's really no reason not to call it that. Honestly it sounds better.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 06:36
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Well, when the current issue is consumption held down by debt service obligations, yes, increased rates of inflation do induce additional demand and promote economic growth. A single year of it would exceed the current M1 and would match all bond purchases done during all the rounds of QE. So unless there's real data it seems very high.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 13:03
|
|
|
EasternBronze posted:The reason why these entitlements exist is because some people do dumb things with their life. What about the guy who blows through all his income half-way through the year or a woman who gets it extorted out of her from an abusive boyfriend? A perfect example is people who win the lottery. Are you literally mentally deficient, or do you just play a retard on the internet? You don't pay out something like this in a lump sum for the same reason you don't pay foodstamps out in a lump sum. So even people who are terrible at financial management can't gently caress it up. Pay it out as a bimonthly check just like a paycheck and you can't gently caress it up too much beyond a couple weeks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 14:41
|
|
|
No obviously we would pay out the lifetime UBI in one lump sum when you turn 16. This would clearly be a horrible idea and thus UBI is debunked.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 14:43
|
|
|
Hell, take it a little further and roll in government-run and funded debt counselling for everyone on a mincome. One of the most productive things for our economy we could do is to get the poor financially literate as well as secure so they're not stuck in debt spirals.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 14:47
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Are you literally mentally deficient, or do you just play a retard on the internet? I never said anything about a lump sum payment. "Just like a paycheck", yeah that totally works out great for everyone. You can have a medical emergency and that $800 a month means that now you only owe 44,200 dollars instead of the full 50 grand.  Even people who make well more than the minimum income make use of these social safety nets for unforseen reasons. The idea that we're going to just give everyone 400 dollars a week and than that will cover everything by magic is just wishful thinking. Is there something about this thread that causes hallucinations or mass delusion because it seems that every post I make, someone jumps out with a "gotcha" about something I didn't say.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 15:22
|
|
EasternBronze posted:The idea that we're going to just give everyone 400 dollars a week and than that will cover everything by magic is just wishful thinking. You mean the strawman you fabricated in your own head because your posts got owned so hard? EasternBronze posted:Is there something about this thread that causes hallucinations or mass delusion because it seems that every post I make, someone jumps out with a "gotcha" about something I didn't say. Just post better, it's really not that hard. My suggestion? Stop.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
Is the proposal not to phase out welfare and other assistance programs in exchange for the GMI?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 16:00
|
|
EasternBronze posted:Is the proposal not to phase out welfare and other assistance programs in exchange for the GMI? No, the question is "Will we need a basic income in the future?" Nobody is suggesting fading out existing social programs UNLESS other social programs can cover the gap. That's possible, but not any time in the near future. Bringing up healthcare is laughable, I 100% promise you there is not a single person who supports GMI who doesn't also want to see proper healthcare provided to everyone. You're building strawmen that simply don't exist. The thing is, this is painfully clear to anyone reading the thread. The reason everyone keeps calling you out is because you're posting like an idiot.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
Has anyone in the last five pages actually disputed the need for a basic income in the future?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 16:05
|
|
EasternBronze posted:Has anyone in the last five pages actually disputed the need for a basic income in the future? Has anyone in the last five pages actually said "let's institute a GMI and get rid of existing social programs simultaneously, let's eradicate all social assistance and give people a paycheck"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
EasternBronze posted:Has anyone in the last five pages actually disputed the need for a basic income in the future? Well, I'd dispute that point. GMI is a once in a generation possibility due to economic considerations. Now is that time. down with slavery posted:Has anyone in the last five pages actually said "let's institute a GMI and get rid of existing social programs simultaneously"? To be fair, I want GMI implemented that disqualifies individuals from entitlement programs. I'd prefer less government in entitlements by allowing individuals to use the value how they want.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
To the majority of people in America, any kind of aid to the poor is morally atrocious. Take a look at the Freep thread. That's how the vast majority of Americans think deep down, they're just too scared of (rightly) being painted as monsters for voicing their true feelings. How the hell are you going to sell GMI to a bunch of hateful fuckers like us?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 16:12
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:To be fair, I want GMI implemented that disqualifies individuals from entitlement programs. I'd prefer less government in entitlements by allowing individuals to use the value how they want. Yes, I get that, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say you're probably interested in instituting it in a way that would not cause massive economic shocks, ie this would never happen: EasternBronze posted:"Just like a paycheck", yeah that totally works out great for everyone. You can have a medical emergency and that $800 a month means that now you only owe 44,200 dollars instead of the full 50 grand. EasternBronze posted:The idea that we're going to just give everyone 400 dollars a week and than that will cover everything by magic is just wishful thinking. Textbook straw men TwoQuestions posted:To the majority of people in America, any kind of aid to the poor is morally atrocious. Take a look at the Freep thread. That's how the vast majority of Americans think deep down, they're just too scared of (rightly) being painted as monsters for voicing their true feelings. down with slavery posted:The science is in, it's time for the citizenry to stop putting up with such bad politicians. Ultimately, if people keep voting for Barack Obama or Mitt Romney, we'll always get Barack Obama or Mitt Romney. We simply have to hold our politicans to a higher standard. Populism has worked in America in the past. There's no reason it can't again today.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
TwoQuestions posted:How the hell are you going to sell GMI to a bunch of hateful fuckers like us? "We're giving folks freedom from entitlements. If they choose to squander that freedom on new rims and tires, they'll have to find a way to keep feeding themself. Either they work and keep buying food and eating, or they don't." I'm pretty sure a Freep audiece can understand the implications.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
"Freep" is a increasingly small portion of the population. You don't need to convince Freep, you need to convince 60% of the population. You don't need to convince the business community, you need to convince 60% of the population. Compassion is still alive in America, as much as it might be hard to believe if you watch the news.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
TwoQuestions posted:To the majority of people in America, any kind of aid to the poor is morally atrocious. [citation needed]
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:"Freep" is a increasingly small portion of the population. You don't need to convince Freep, you need to convince 60% of the population. You don't need to convince the business community, you need to convince 60% of the population. Compassion is still alive in America, as much as it might be hard to believe if you watch the news. You need to convince business. Convince business, you'll win the election. Pure populism in America is against any government, especially central banking and national currency.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Has anyone in the last five pages actually said "let's institute a GMI and get rid of existing social programs simultaneously, let's eradicate all social assistance and give people a paycheck"? Yeah, the idea of eliminating current benefit programs to make way for the GMI has been bandied about. Pyroxene Stigma posted:I'm with you here. If a candidate ran on abolishing social security, unemployment, welfare, and food stamps only to roll them into one glorious minimum income package I'd applaud the subterfuge. My Imaginary GF posted:"We're giving folks freedom from entitlements. If they choose to squander that freedom on new rims and tires, they'll have to find a way to keep feeding themself. Either they work and keep buying food and eating, or they don't." Are you sure you're on your meds?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 16:20
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:You need to convince business. Convince business, you'll win the election. You will never convince business lol, do you really think business is apprehensive because of data? It's all about the bottom line, you are not going to get the "business" community (ie the 1%) to get behind levying huge taxes on themselves. More importantly, there's no need to. quote:Pure populism in America is against any government, especially central banking and national currency. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal down with slavery fucked around with this message at 16:24 on Nov 4, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 16:21
|
|
EasternBronze posted:Yeah, the idea of eliminating current benefit programs to make way for the GMI has been bandied about. One person said it, obviously joking My Imaginary GF isn't saying that as much as you're trying to read that into his posts. Pro tip, if you ever feel like "everyone is out to get you" it might be that you're just posting poorly.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 16:23
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:You will never convince business lol, do you really think business is apprehensive because of data? It's all about the bottom line, you are not going to get the "business" community (ie the 1%) to get behind levying huge taxes on themselves. More importantly, there's no need to. "Look, we know your bottom line is hurting; everyone's is. This initiative will increase middle-class consumption of X sector goods by Y% over Z timeframe, in addition to [other secondary economic impacts] and increasing capital available at banks by A sum over Z timeframe and stimulating B increase in state tax revenue through delegated spending decisions and C increase in federal tax revenue through D, E, and F second-order and third-order impacts. Under current forecasts, G, H, and I industries and sectors disproportionately benefit from current entitlement programs which restrict spending decisions. Wouldn't it be more beneficial if we even out entitlement distribution so that Wal-Mart isn't the #1 profiter from Food Stamps? If an individual wants to spend their check on hot food from Qdoba, buy organic produce at WholeFoods before picking up a case of 312 at BP on their way to getting 50 boxes of detergent at CostCo for their new Genuine Maytag Washing Unit, why shouldn't we let them?"
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 16:31
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:"Look, we know your bottom line is hurting; everyone's is. This initiative will increase middle-class consumption of X sector goods by Y% over Z timeframe, in addition to [other secondary economic impacts] and increasing capital available at banks by A sum over Z timeframe and stimulating B increase in state tax revenue through delegated spending decisions and C increase in federal tax revenue through D, E, and F second-order and third-order impacts. The 1%: "Who cares, I just bought a new yacht"
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:The 1%: "Who cares, I just bought a new yacht" If your argument against GMI is that wealthy individuals tend to enjoy sailing as a recreating, gently caress off because you're as bad as EasternBronze.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 16:34
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:If your argument against GMI is that wealthy individuals tend to enjoy sailing as a recreating, gently caress off because you're as bad as EasternBronze. No my argument is that GMI is never going to happen out of the "good will" of the business community. They will oppose policy which negatively impacts their bottom line, and massive wealth taxes/redistribution will do just that. My point is that the business community has no incentive to increase taxes on themselves, which a GMI will assuredly do (even if you're not willing to accept that yet and keep begging for someone to make the math work) and never has. If the business community doesn't understand the clear argument behind Universal Healthcare, how do you expect to use that method to bring about GMI, a much more radical social policy. Again, read about the New Deal, you are mistaken if you think it happened because business was informed enough. The only incentive the 1% will listen to is a majority of the population telling them "we do this or you don't get our vote"
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:[citation needed] Just look at the comment section of any economically related news article, and 3/4 of the posters are bitching about moochers and welfare leeches. Imagine if you were some minimum-wage chump, and someone wants to give everyone what you've worked so hard to have. No, they've worked hard to be better than that filth, no way are they going to let such a policy through! Those lazy fuckers deserve to suffer, they deserve to starve, they deserve to die!
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 16:39
|
|
TwoQuestions posted:Just look at the comment section of any economically related news article, and 3/4 of the posters are bitching about moochers and welfare leeches. Ahh yes, the comments section on an article about economics, truly the most accurate representation of the American psyche. quote:Imagine if you were some minimum-wage chump, and someone wants to give everyone what you've worked so hard to have. No, they've worked hard to be better than that filth, no way are they going to let such a policy through! Those fuckers deserve to suffer! They'd die before accepting any help from the government, and they'll die before anyone else does either! Income/wealth inequality is my pet issue, and I work with a variety of organizations to bring about change and I can assure you that the average American, given the correct messaging, is quite compassionate.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 16:40
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Ahh yes, the comments section on an article about economics, truly the most accurate representation of the American psyche. Citation needed on that one. For the record, GMI is a loving brilliant idea, we just hate each other too much to let it happen. EDIT: typo
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
TwoQuestions posted:Citation needed on that one. I agree, however, I am of the opinion that the appropriately targeted message of hate can get it in place.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 16:45
|
|
TwoQuestions posted:Citation needed on that one. http://www.gallup.com/poll/161927/majority-wealth-evenly-distributed.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/166904/dissatisfied-income-wealth-distribution.aspx 
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:"We're giving folks freedom from entitlements. If they choose to squander that freedom on new rims and tires, they'll have to find a way to keep feeding themself. Either they work and keep buying food and eating, or they don't." Since you're apparently being serious about this social darwinism stuff, you probably need to realize that this can't work the way you want it to because there are individually rational choices at low income levels (and $15k/year certainly qualifies) that are socially expensive. We don't want people foregoing healthcare, even temporarily, because there's a large social cost in uninsured people showing up at hospitals. It's cheaper for everyone to be covered as a basic right so that financial considerations don't prevent people from getting basic preventative care. Food is less of a concern since I doubt most people are stupid enough to let themselves starve, but healthcare is very much something that's still going to be a major problem. If you want to do away with other social safety nets, then you have to enshrine in policy some form of minimum income that guarantees the payout will automatically scale over time to guarantee some basic standard of living. Effectively, someone living on minimum income needs to be able to afford basic necessities like food, shelter, transportation, and healthcare for the system to be meaningful. Paradoxish fucked around with this message at 17:07 on Nov 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:http://www.gallup.com/poll/161927/majority-wealth-evenly-distributed.aspx What are these organizations you work with that help address this problem?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 16:54
|
|
TwoQuestions posted:What are these organizations you work with that help address this problem? There are a variety of organizations that work on this issue: http://inequality.org/organizations/ is a good place to start Personally, I am a believer in that we need to stop playing the game of "lesser of two evils" if we're ever going to see change in America. I think a populist movement *IS* possible and while I support the Democrats in my district, I'm still waiting to see someone make it to the national stage worth getting behind. Until then, I vote Green at the national level, not because they embody my beliefs entirely, but because they are largest political party who I'm willing to put up with and I think the only way to get the Democrats to move left is to force them to do so in order to capture the vote. If I could pick any leftist third party to be "smybolic vote" it would be http://www.justicepartyusa.org/issues the justice party but until they make more traction I feel like I can make more impact by working with the Greens. I don't think it's about waiting for perfect. It's about realizing that the people in this country with the greatest need are those in poverty. Children are suffering in this country every day. Families go hungry. The population of homeless continues to grow. These people could be productive citizens, it's wasted human capital. In my eyes, this is the most pressing issue and I think that if we start to address wealth/income inequality a lot of other things will start to fall into place. Not only that, the polling continuously shows that a majority of Americans do see inequality as a problem. down with slavery fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Nov 4, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
Sweet Jesus, I just googled "Guaranteed Minimum Income" on a lark, and I found sympathetic articles on The Atlantic and Reason.com of all places. I looked in the comment sections expecting hate and horror, and even the Reason article had comments mostly supportive of such a plan. I'm absolutely stunned. I take back what I said, this kind of thing is possible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:If the business community doesn't understand the clear argument behind Universal Healthcare, how do you expect to use that method to bring about GMI, a much more radical social policy. Yeah exactly. If the business community were motivated by the bottom line, we'd have had UHC for decades now as businesses would be only too happy to offload those liabilities onto a more cost-effective single-payer system. The top 1% are motivated by spite. Paradoxish posted:Since you're apparently being serious about this social darwinism stuff Whoa whoa. MIGF's posts might be entertaining, but don't take him too seriously about this social darwinism stuff. He roleplays as an ultra-nationalist corporatist technocrat war hawk. Banter if you like, but know that you're going to get back a hilarious Otto von Bismarck parody advocating the ruthless expansion of American political and business objectives by any means necessary in the German Empire vein. It is pretty funny that his persona is actually more rational about it than actual pro-business conservatives who are perfectly willing to hurt the economy in order to gently caress the poor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 11:19 |
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:"Look, we know your bottom line is hurting; everyone's is. This initiative will increase middle-class consumption of X sector goods by Y% over Z timeframe, in addition to [other secondary economic impacts] and increasing capital available at banks by A sum over Z timeframe and stimulating B increase in state tax revenue through delegated spending decisions and C increase in federal tax revenue through D, E, and F second-order and third-order impacts. Eh. You'd face a lot of justified skepticism among business leaders presented with that analysis. The money has to come from somewhere and no matter how you propose to fund it you will generate economic upheaval on a scale you can't predict if the GMI is big enough to matter. Slices of the employment market will be thrown into chaos. No amount of fast talking about multipliers is going to overcome that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 19:11
|
|