|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
ISIS CURES TROONS posted:Rich people's assets being seized and redistributed is such a dumb, retarded fantasy. Doubly so because you expect US voters to go for it. oh well guess America is going to collapse then because that's literally all that's left, because they took the wealth of the poor and middle class and put it on cold freeze for their own enrichment
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 04:17 |
|
|
It's happened before. We imposed a 90% tax rate, broke up monopolies, gave a basic income to the elderly, and created the most prosperous and egalitarian* society ever seen on Earth. The rich hated it because they prefer a poo poo economy that lets them look down on poor people rather than a good economy that benefits even them. But we did do it, and it was popular, and we could do it again if we could figure out cross-racial working class solidarity *Uh, if you were White VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 01:55 on May 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 01:51
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Either you don't understand how welfare means testing works, or you're feigning ignorance for the sake of your argument. There is a huge difference between a progressive tax policy with a negative low end, and the rules that we use for bankruptcy means testing, which is what most means testing is based on in the US. Not to mention the horrific Clinton era work requirements that Obama rolled back. The advantage of a GMI over traditional welfare programs is you don't need that kind of means testing. You can administer it through the tax code as a negative income tax. The people asserting that a GMI has odious reporting requirements and significant government overhead are wrong. Means testing doesn't need to be some terrible, inefficient, unreasonable process. We are describing tax and transfer systems that are functionally identical.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The advantage of a GMI over traditional welfare programs is you don't need that kind of means testing. You can administer it through the tax code as a negative income tax. The people asserting that a GMI has odious reporting requirements and significant government overhead are wrong. Means testing doesn't need to be some terrible, inefficient, unreasonable process. We are describing tax and transfer systems that are functionally identical. oh wow, more welfare through tax credits...
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The advantage of a GMI over traditional welfare programs is you don't need that kind of means testing. You can administer it through the tax code as a negative income tax. The people asserting that a GMI has odious reporting requirements and significant government overhead are wrong. Means testing doesn't need to be some terrible, inefficient, unreasonable process. We are describing tax and transfer systems that are functionally identical. Why are you so insistent on a compromised position that would be comparatively politically easy to topple?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 02:12
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:UBI does not "tax the middle class to give welfare to the rich"; that is mathematically impossible. You're forgetting about rich people with significant assets who report very little income, genius. Income and wealth aren't the same.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 02:12
|
|
|
ISIS CURES TROONS posted:Rich people's assets being seized and redistributed is such a dumb, retarded fantasy. Doubly so because you expect US voters to go for it. "please don't take my flophouse out of my hands"
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 02:14
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:You're forgetting about rich people with significant assets who report very little income, genius. Income and wealth aren't the same. i'm sure the people in here are into all kinds of freaky wealth redistribution. they're not interested in only having boring vanilla income taxes
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 02:14
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:You're forgetting about rich people with significant assets who report very little income, genius. Income and wealth aren't the same. Hey, if you want to tack on an assets tax in addition to a universal income program, I'm all for it!
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 02:15
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:You're forgetting about rich people with significant assets who report very little income, genius. Income and wealth aren't the same. Okay. Where are the middle class people coming from though.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 02:19
|
|
|
So I guess by "mathematically impossible" vitalsigns meant "avoidable with substantial changes to the tax code".
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 02:21
|
|
|
Implement a wealth tax as part of the UBI? Doesn't seem so complicated.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 02:22
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:So I guess by "mathematically impossible" vitalsigns meant "avoidable with substantial changes to the tax code". which needs changed and fixed badly anyway? sounds like a good idea to me
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 02:23
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:So I guess by "mathematically impossible" vitalsigns meant "avoidable with substantial changes to the tax code". Or mathematically insignificant so who gives a poo poo other than conservatives and centrist concern trolls?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 02:24
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:You're forgetting about rich people with significant assets who report very little income, genius. Income and wealth aren't the same. 1. the GMI through the income tax code that you're proposing suffers from the same problem. 2. There are not enough of these people that it represents a net transfer of wealth from the middle class to the rich, this is that dumb "we can't help any poor workers because what if we accidentally help someone with rich relatives" argument again. The top 1% of asset holders almost all have very high incomes because duh amassing assets allows you to collect income from those assets. 3. If they're living rich lifestyles without drawing income from gains, dividends, or interest them they are spending down their assets so it's a self-limiting problem 4. It's also a self-limiting problem because they will die and their heirs will pay inheritance taxes provided people like you don't keep reducing them. 5. The real problem here is that we don't have enough asset-taxing policies like the property tax, not that we are giving money to people. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 02:30 on May 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:So I guess by "mathematically impossible" vitalsigns meant "avoidable with substantial changes to the tax code". also, if you're not planning on actually targeting upperclass wealth, then was your GMI plan actually supposed to be a wealth transfer from the middle class to the poor? that's a real lovable social safety net. no way anyone's cutting that
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
ISIS CURES TROONS posted:Rich people's assets being seized and redistributed is such a awesome, great idea. I expect one day soon US voters to go for it.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 02:32
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:So I guess by "mathematically impossible" vitalsigns meant "avoidable with substantial changes to the tax code". No it's mathematically impossible for a UBI to represent a net transfer of wealth from the middle class to the upper class. The person with huge assets who doesn't collect income from them and doesn't spend them down to finance his lifestyle and just mooches off social security in a life of asceticism* is a theoretical outlier and not representative of how the wealthy actually make money in America. *Not sure why someone would do this, I guess to create a technicality to concern troll on the internet? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 02:42 on May 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 02:35
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No it's mathematically impossible for a UBI to represent a net transfer of wealth from the middle class to the upper class. He's claimed to work in forensic accounting, so either he's really loving lovely at his job (quite possible!) or he's just trolling.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
See here's the thing JC. I completely agree with you that we should be doing something about the assets held by the tax-dodging ultra-rich. If you want to spend a few hundred million dollars to create an agency capable of tracking and valuing and reporting assets and overseas accounts and shell companies until we've accounted for every last dollar, great. But then we should use that information to bring in hundreds of billions in revenue from wealth taxes so that huge investment is well spent, rather than just laying out all that money only to claw back Miss Havisham's $300 social security check. The problem is you're using this argument disingenuously: that because such an asset valuation agency doesn't exist, then a universal program is stealing from the middle class to help the rich. But this applies to all kinds of government spending: are roads, elementary education, national defense, Medicare, UHC-countries, fire departments, etc bad, even though the tax burden falls mainly on the wealthy, because theoretical asset-rich income-poor people use them too? Obviously not. Even the GMI you proposed has the same loophole. Ytlaya made a good point about your double standards: you're selectively using our mostly non-existent wealth taxes as an automatic refutation of proposals you don't like, but you exempt programs you favor from that standard. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 03:54 on May 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 03:45
|
|
|
Taintrunner posted:oh well guess America is going to collapse then because that's literally all that's left, because they took the wealth of the poor and middle class and put it on cold freeze for their own enrichment This poster had it right a few pages back: Paradoxish posted:The problem is that we're rapidly approaching a point where we functionally no longer have a democratic system. Republican policies are entirely unacceptable to Democratic voters and Democratic policies are entirely unacceptable to Republican voters. There may be compromises that are acceptable to the moderate wings of both parties, but those compromises are unacceptable to the remaining constituencies and probably horrifying to the far-left and far-right wings of both parties. Hell, the only reason we're hanging on to a thread of basic federal social services is because Republicans are too incompetent to gut them when they have total control of the government. The Democrats would be completely powerless to stop them if they could actually get their poo poo together. Either the US is going to break up or liberals will give up and just let republicans do whatever they want
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 03:56
|
|
|
JC has the same double standard in the minimum wage argument as well. A central bank policy that deliberately increases the money supply to hit a 1-2% annual inflation target is fine, and all the unemployed people on fixed income with no COLA are unimportant. But when the minimum wage might raise prices by half a percent one time (which would be negated anyway by the central bank backing off in QE to keep inflation at the target) it's automatically a nonstarter because it's associated with a policy JC doesn't like. Also notice that when a ubi comes up, which would unambiguously help those same people he professes to care about above all when he opposes a living wage, whoops suddenly we can't help the unemployed after all because uh really the most important thing is making sure not a single rich ascetic miser ever gets a dime from the government. QE though, which is welfare for rich investors and a penalty on those exposed to inflation, is apparently fine, somehow. E: to be clear I think QE is better than going RonPaul endthefed if better Keynesian stimulus is politically impossible while Republicans control the legislature. But it's a bit weird to agree with QE but then say we must never do anything that causes inflation or gives a dime to high-asset people. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 04:20 on May 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 04:09
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:I encourage the stereotype that all leftists know nothing about firearms. It makes it easier to take fuckers like you by surprise. Happy trails, dickface. happy trails yourself  Crowsbeak posted:FTFY. Sorry, comrade, you'll have to find someone other than those more fortunate than you to pay for your dacha in Baja California. Pretty sure any straight up wealth transfer laws would be slam dunked in the courts as a violation of the 4th. ugh its Troika fucked around with this message at 04:48 on May 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 04:42
|
|
|
Yes, please stop paying taxes and tell the court the 1040 is an unreasonable search and seizure, I'm sure they will be blown away by your legal acumen. Make sure you capitalize your name and remind them you're a boat too.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 05:11
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The advantage of a GMI over traditional welfare programs is you don't need that kind of means testing. You can administer it through the tax code as a negative income tax. The people asserting that a GMI has odious reporting requirements and significant government overhead are wrong. Means testing doesn't need to be some terrible, inefficient, unreasonable process. We are describing tax and transfer systems that are functionally identical. A negative income tax policy would only affect a fraction of citizens, whereas a universal (Hint Hint) unconditional basic income program would affect, well, universally, each citizens. So UBI would be an entitlement, not a welfare program. And the people claiming that means testing is a terrible, inefficient, are basing that claim on our actually existing means tested welfare programs. Even if, this time around, a means tested program is implemented well, you haven't addressed the other advantages of a universal program: electoral messaging, and resilience against cuts.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 05:23
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:How is the liberal Clintonista anti-UBI argument somehow even dumber than the conservative Republican arguments? That is just loving impressive. It's the Democratic/neoliberal spin cause they agree with the Republicans with regards to protecting the rich but can't just come out and say it. The UK Tories are making GBS threads on Corbyn's proposal to remove school fees (or something like that) and they're framing it in this exact way, as taking from the poor to give to the rich. BTW Obama's Messina is working for the Tories on this election.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 07:22
|
|
|
ISIS CURES TROONS posted:
Then why have they not invalidate any of the current laws? Also Baja sucks.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 12:48
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/nytopinion/status/868428698218835968 https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/868434598799306752 even matty glesias gets it e: https://twitter.com/patrickgaspard/status/868431733649268736
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 12:58
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Then why have they not invalidate any of the current laws? Also Baja sucks. Besides, civil forfeiture has run rampant with no signs of stopping. Wealth transfer is only acceptable when it comes from the poor, apparently.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 14:44
|
|
|
Finicums Wake posted:A negative income tax policy would only affect a fraction of citizens, whereas a universal (Hint Hint) unconditional basic income program would affect, well, universally, each citizens. So UBI would be an entitlement, not a welfare program. And the people claiming that means testing is a terrible, inefficient, are basing that claim on our actually existing means tested welfare programs. Even if, this time around, a means tested program is implemented well, you haven't addressed the other advantages of a universal program: electoral messaging, and resilience against cuts. I have to admit the issue with the UBI in most cases is that it would have to be an income supplement, a larger version of Bush's rebates checks rather than an income replacement otherwise the budget math isn't going to work. The US can sustain higher deficits significantly longer than other countries but there are most likely limits before you start getting serious devaluation. (I think my priority in either case would be an actual UHS system, and then maybe childcare.) I actually don't think the liberal model has a way to fix the issue of free capital movement, inequality and automation. The taxes needed to pay for a useful UBI system will always be undercut by tax evasion, which is in turn almost always going to happen if you have free movement of capital. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 18:23 on May 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
Free Kilroy he did nothing wrong (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
Scent of Worf posted:Free Kilroy he did nothing wrong If Obama left the CIA torture whistleblower John Kiriakou (literally the only person convicted in relation to it) to serve his term in jail and never pardon him, I don't see the mods here being any more lenient.   - Joe Biden, 1994
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
Scent of Worf posted:Free Kilroy he did nothing wrong Kilroy's crime is that he only had the balls to threaten to shoot people on a post over the internet over politics. LaVoy Finicum may have have been a complete sociopath who stood for pretty much every wrong cause to find in America today, and just like Kilroy he also wrote self-insert fiction about murdering the hated enemy in cold blood (sometimes with their own guns), but unlike most of the leftist tough guy posters in this thread and across the forums in general, Finicum actually had the balls to get out there and fight like a retard for the things he believed in. And sure, all he got in the end was a face full of lead that he all but begged for after failing like five times to draw his weapon while surrounded by federal agents. But that's still more than the bold proclamations of guillotines and the suggestion that violence solves political disputes today in Trumpmerica, as seen in this thread. If you're wasting time here fantasizing about how all you want to do is beat up and/or murder "the enemy", you're accomplishing even less than a loving domestic terrorist. gently caress people like Kilroy, and Lavoy Finicum for somehow being more useful to their own causes. fivegears4reverse fucked around with this message at 20:54 on May 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
fivegears4reverse posted:Kilroy's crime is that he only had the balls to threaten to shoot people on a post over the internet over politics. Right, because if you don't murder people and then die, you can't get anything done. 
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
If the ultimate goal is armed revolution, we're debating the wrong debate. Fortunately, that doesn't have to be the ultimate goal, I really do think we can fix things nonviolently.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:If the ultimate goal is armed revolution, we're debating the wrong debate. Fortunately, that doesn't have to be the ultimate goal, I really do think we can fix things nonviolently*. * With a lot of money to give to lobbyists
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
Scent of Worf posted:Free Kilroy he did nothing wrong 
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
Armed revolution isn't going to be happening, despite Antifa's feeble efforts. e: hell yeah someone finally got rid of that dumb hot dog avatar for me 
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 02:13
|
|
|
wrong thread
Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 18:58 on May 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 04:17 |
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:https://twitter.com/nytopinion/status/868428698218835968 That's a shifty tweet, but the article actually says thst cutting Food Stamps in the Trump budget would cause horrifying misery and legislators need to fight the idea that cuts to government programs are inevitable.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 18:55
|
|
