|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:My *guess* is that this would be outweighted by the stimulatory effects as low income people started paying more. Between all the existing nations with similar policies of minimum income, negative income tax, or indirect entitlement through strong social welfare systems, the hand-wringing over UBI "secondary effects" or "knock-on effects" are simply a lazy way of arguing against something while pretending to share a sympathetic mindset. It is just simple redistribution, and any other negative consequence of broken capitalism can be dealt with through additional measures.
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 04:51 |
|
|
asdf32 posted:but probably simultaneously discourages an increase in employment. Hence no growth. Why? People with more money buying more things would not result in an increase in providers of those things?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Because all of the potential providers are now getting $15k and feel less need to work? Minimum wage policy supposedly has the exact same effect of pushing out certain sections of the labor force, yet somehow increased unemployment is not a guaranteed consequence of raising minimum wage. Additionally, you are talking about removing the most vulnerable and often least productive elements of the labor force, and offsetting it with increased consumption.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:You can't offset the removal or people from the workforce with increased consumption. Those things are actually contradictory. This is both factually incorrect as well as being somewhat irrelevant. If you are going to continue to make unsupported "just so" claims on top of being intentionally obtuse, I don't really see anything productive from responding to you. You are completely mischaracterizing even the simplistic Econ 101 arguments, much less the deeper macro discussions that move beyond.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
on the left posted:How is it incorrect? Cutting the workforce obviously won't increase production, and if consumption is expected to rise, it's likely that the increased consumption will come at the cost of net exports. Just because a segment of the population voluntarily leaves the workforce does not mean that there is a permanent cut in the workforce, given that we currently have un/underemployment in other labor cohorts, nor does it necessarily mean an overall reduction in production since the displaced cohort currently holds one of the least productive positions.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
on the left posted:I didn't say production would drop, but there's no real reason why production would rise. If you predict increased consumption without corresponding increased production, there's one easy place it can originate: a decrease in net exports. Why are we assuming no increased production?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
on the left posted:What evidence do you have that large amounts of people dropping out of the workforce would increase productivity? Well first of all, we are talking about increased consumption, so I am not sure why you think I am tying increased production as a function of reduction of the workforce. Second, you are once again assuming overall reduction of productive labor, which is yet again a point of contention. Third, you have now introduced the scare words "large amounts" as if not only the previous point were settled, but you have fundamentally changed the argument into a total strawman.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
on the left posted:The whole point of a mincome is to drastically cut the workforce Wait, what? No it isn't, although that is a potential side effect under certain conditions, such as post-scarcity. I don't think anyone is arguing that we are there yet.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2014 04:18
|
|
|
So this means the answer to higher GDP is to increase taxes?!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2014 07:35
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:I'm not sure one exists, hence the "made up in your head" in reference to the trials he's seen. Come on AE, you can troll better than this. Actually several countries have policies that are indistinguishable from minimum income http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_minimum_income But to properly caveat this, minimum income and negative income taxes are different from a universal basic income; this is mostly due to administration though, and should not have significant economic effect (negative income tax, for instance, means that some will still not receive benefit). Edit: At its core, Basic Income is pure and simple wealth transfer using simple dollars rather than indirect benefit or subsidy. The idea that it would have any economic effects distinct from other existing forms of wealth transfer is pure ideological fear of the poor getting money. archangelwar fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Nov 3, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:This shouldn't be too surprising, since one of the beneficial side effects of any form of guaranteed income (along with other social programs like universal healthcare) is to equalize worker bargaining power. There are fewer reasons to put up with bad pay or a poor working environment if you know that you won't starve to death or end up homeless if you're forced into a period of extended unemployment while looking for something better. Also, once your basic necessities are taken care of (healthcare, housing, food, minimum entertainment budget), you don't need a large minimum wage in order to drastically improve your quality of life. At 15k, you can nearly double your income at $7.50 an hour. So the idea that wages will have to rise dramatically to make work dignified is only fueled by the fact that currently a large portion of wage among the working poor is mandatory for basic survival.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
namesake posted:The tragic part is how deep this mentality has sunk into our society. I do hope that the psychological principle of reciprocity can eventually be turned into support for unconditional basic incomes and such but that requires a rather clear ideological position which unfortunately is generally lacking. This is the problem with minimum incomes or negative income taxes versus a basic income, and I hope one day we can wash this cultural mindset away from our collective conscience in much the same way it was forcibly implanted. The idea that this was some natural order was the product of the most insidious of propaganda schemes.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
EasternBronze posted:Just FYI all Americans living overseas have to file a tax return like anyone living in the United States. Living outside the U.S. is not a tax dodge for American citizens and all earned income, even that which comes 100% from foreign sources is taxable. I file my taxes every year with the federal government pretty much exactly the same as if I still lived there. Nice anti-Chinese bigotry though. This is only partially true. It is true you must file a tax return, it is not true that all of your foreign earnings are taxable, depending on how you file and any specific tax treaties we have with the country where you reside. If you are paying US taxes without taking any deductions then you are simply not doing it right. Edit: Also, unless the foreign sources report your earnings to Uncle Sam, there is no way for the IRS to know unless you try and repatriate the money. archangelwar fucked around with this message at 22:38 on Nov 3, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
The fact that this entire thread is being derailed by concern trolling over an issue that deals with less than 2% of Americans just goes to show the desperate lengths people will go through to argue against an idea without directly coming out and stating that they don't want to see money going to minorities/poor. Jesus loving Christ, like the idea of Americans living overseas is a completely insurmountable obstacle to ever implementing any policy.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
EasternBronze posted:Well its an issue that directly effects some posters here so I guess we're going to try and discuss it, regardless of your insistence on tilting at those right-wing windmills. I'm sorry if speaking multiple languages and moving overseas for better healthcare triggers you or something. What the gently caress are you even talking about? This is the first time I have even talked about the expat/diaspora issue in the entire thread, except for the one time I called you out for lying about taxes. I think the trigger thing might be some sort of projection man, why so angry?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
on the left posted:It's not concern trolling to point out the fiscal problems of mailing 20k to 240 million people, and the expected growth in numbers of US citizens once US citizenship has a cash NPV of well over 500k. We have already given you a simple answer. Don't mail checks to overseas citizens (or do, I don't loving care about such irrelevant details). We could sit around all day and debate over what percentage of the time people must spend in the US in order to qualify, but that is irrelevant minutia. That is exactly why what you are doing is concern trolling. You aren't actually interested in discussing the merits or value of a UBI, you just want to keep asserting that you don't want minorities and poor people to get your money but use a side issue like expats as cover.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
on the left posted:So someone who worked on an H1B and gets kicked out of the country will get screwed out of his/her social security benefits because you are petty and spiteful? For gently caress's sake, we can have a transition period where we phase out old policy in favor of new. We don't have to flip the switch overnight. Once again, concern troll.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
EasternBronze posted:You didn't call me out for lying about anything, all of your overseas income is taxable. Nontaxable income is a special category of income that overseas income does not fall in to. Being able to claim a deduction is NOT the same as income being nontaxable. Have you ever actually filed a tax return before? Be honest. Income that you deduct is income that you do not pay taxes on. An overseas American filing taxes on foreign income, using the standard tax law, does not pay taxes on income until it exceeds ~95k, and can also deduct up to 30% living expenses. You are now having a semantic quibble over poo poo I didn't say (check my posts for the phrase "nontaxable income"). Unless you now want to claim that you pay taxes on a deduction... at this point it sounds like you will claim literally anything to avoid admitting you misspoke.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
on the left posted:I'm not concern trolling, because concern trolling would imply that i'm in favor of mincome. Incorrect, concern trolling would imply that you would otherwise consider the merits of a discussion if it weren't for *insert concern here*. If you outright reject a mincome, why do you bother raising periphery concerns that are easily addressable? So either you are concern trolling, or just arguing in bad faith.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
on the left posted:Pointing out reasons something won't work is not arguing in bad faith. Goons pretty much handwave away the massive impracticality of paying out 30% of GDP in cash payments, so why not point out any of the other reasons? Because they are non-reasons. You are literally talking about something that is a) so small as to not even cause a noticeable difference whether or not the issue is addressed and b) and issue that is easily addressed. So at this point I have to question your motives, because your furtive insistence on this being an issue can only be explained by one of two things already mentioned.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
Deductions are income that you do not pay taxes on. I have specifically not used the words "nontaxable income" for a reason. If you want to claim that I am calling income under the deduction "nontaxable" because I said that it is not a taxable level of income, then be my guest. But you are just be pedantic because you understood fully what I meant, and you only wanted to argue semantics. Filing your taxes overseas is not exactly the same as if you live here because foreign income deductions are completely different. You lied. Edit: No matter what language I use, it does not make this quote:I file my taxes every year with the federal government pretty much exactly the same as if I still lived there. archangelwar fucked around with this message at 04:16 on Nov 4, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
EasternBronze posted:No, you specifically said the income was not taxable. What does it mean if income isn't taxable? You literally have to be well into the top decile of income earners to pay a cent of US tax on foreign income. The fact that you try to compare that to normal tax situations of average citizens belies your position.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
EasternBronze posted:It is a true statement, I fill out almost the exact same forms verbatim and than I calculate and take the deductions I qualify for just like every other American citizen. The idea that your tax situation is the same just because you communicate with the IRS is a pretty hosed up definition of "the same." If so, I file taxes in the exact same way as Warren Buffett. You have now rendered any discussion moot. We are all made of atoms, therefore every person is exactly the same YOU CAN'T DEBATE THIS BECAUSE PHYSICS.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
EasternBronze posted:Don't you see how taxing someone who might actually make below poverty wages on the other side of the world is kind of regressive? Is $95k now some figure near the poverty line? Look, I am not a supporter of all US tax law, but I have no idea where you are driving this, and I am not terribly worried about the tax burden of expats with high earnings. quote:I think the GMI is a great idea, I just don't see why some posters here have such a disdain for citizens who live overseas. I worked in America for years before I ever left the country, I've got at least as much right as any new resident does. I don't, I am not even concerned if expats get the mincome. I just think it is an easily addressable issue if it becomes some sort of obstacle, and I am not over-concerned about people losing benefits if they reside primarily overseas. It just simply not a big enough issue to sink the discussion of mincome until you get to "write a very specific and detailed policy proposal with extreme minutia" phase.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
EasternBronze posted:The implication was that people who live overseas are exempt from taxes, that wasn't an accurate statement. A statement no one made. quote:Even the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion doesn't always apply, even if 100% of your income was earned overseas. To a vanishingly small subset of people subject to rare rules such as to make it a point of distraction away from the discussion. Deflection. quote:Of course, you'd have to actually understand the topic to know that. Have you ever actually filed a tax return, overseas or otherwise? Whether I answer in the affirmative or negative does not change the fact that this is a logical fallacy.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
EasternBronze posted:Its not, the reason why these tax deductions exist is to prevent people not making extremely high incomes from facing an onerous tax burden overseas just because of their residency outside the United States. You can go make 15K a year in some other country and that might be totally livable, but not if you don't get those deductions for living outside the U.S. Dude, the fact that you keep talking about poverty and 15k/year in reference to a $95k deduction is just loving weird.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
If I used incorrect verbiage in a post that is perfectly understood, then I apologize, but that does not mean you get to invent your own strawman. I have never once said that citizens overseas were exempt from all federal taxes.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
EasternBronze posted:Can't you see how its a little unjust to exclude working people from federal benefits that they are on the hook for tax-wise? Do you believe you are now entitled to section 8 housing and food stamps regardless of income or location? Like, this is not how benefits work in the current world. You are entitled to what the law entitles you to.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
EasternBronze posted:There are logistical reasons why those can't be given out to people living overseas. How are you going to get a SNAP card to work in China? Is the government going to give me a housing voucher to use in downtown Seoul? Of course, a good leftist answer would be that residency shouldn't effect your right to food, shelter, medical care etc so why even bring this up? If it makes you feel any better just refer to us as "undocumented Americans" instead of "expat". People with high incomes in the US do not also get food stamps unless they meet certain conditions, yet they are also on the hook for paying taxes that go to these services. Attaching qualifying conditions to benefits is normal operation for many benefit programs. Thus your original statement of "Can't you see how its a little unjust to exclude working people from federal benefits that they are on the hook for tax-wise?" is quite meaningless. The lady doth protest too much, and you are venturing firmly into right-wing talking points.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 05:40
|
|
|
EasternBronze posted:I was under the impression the big selling point was that like Social Security, its a federal entitlement that you have as a citizen. For the record, I think it should be given to everyone, including Americans overseas with potentially small caveats. So don't paint everyone with this brush.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
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. While there are certainly people who cannot care for themselves due to mental illness or lack of education, other countries with cash benefit welfare programs have shown that this in fact not a common trait among the poor. But thanks for finally revealing your true feelings.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
on the left posted:Are you implying that it would be done by effectively printing money? Printing 25% of GDP out of thin air would be something like a 25% flat tax on everyone (and the money you just handed out). You really need to fund a GMI without resorting to monetary trickery, by income taxes as others have mentioned. Why not at least partially? You have a lot of despicable beliefs, but you are not an Austrian. Expanding money supply should not be instant anathema to you.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 06:15
|
|
|
on the left posted:Partially is fine, but ~25% every year is an extreme jump. The goal of funding mincome should be to use progressive income tax, not a flat tax that will also degrade the value of the money given out. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 06:20
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:One question that I haven't seen properly addressed is how do we prevent landlords from jacking up rents when they realize that every renter now has, let's say, $15,000/yr extra income. Not to mention things like Obamacare, which have an income-based component where you pay less if your income is lower. I think the first thing you should do is show why this is a position that needs to be refuted. Do you have any proof that such a redistribution scheme causes inflation to the point of wiping out the gains, or is this just "common sense" that needs no supporting evidence?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
quote:My purely-speculative-but-in-my-opinion-not-completely-unfounded assertion is that landlords would be in the exact same mindset if everyone in the country suddenly started making $XX,XXX more per year. There are plenty of countries that have redistributive wealth transfer policies, surely you can pick any one of them and show how the redistribution lead to no change or a decrease in quality of life for the poor.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Everyone looking for an apartment will have at least another $XX,XXX to spend. Families at least twice that. Rents going up, along with pretty much everything else, is a given. That's not how things work.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
I mean, people might be willing to pay a bit more for higher quality living spaces, so the amount people pay in rent overall might increase, but so too would QoL. The idea that it would just be a complete wash flies in the face of every single observed instance of redistribution ever.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Yeah, rents will go up as much the market will bear if they increase their rent by 15k a year they will simply put themselves out of business since those people have other expenses than rent. Even if we were to start accepting such arguments as worth countering, once you are talking extreme social policies like UBI, then dealing with scarcity of basic resources is easily discussed as part of a comprehensive and sweeping social reform.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2014 09:00
|
|
|
My Lil Parachute posted:I honestly don't see why it is morally right to literally pay people to do nothing. I don't see why it isn't. I don't find much merit in ethics based on the Protestant Work Ethic. What if you live in a society where you have X amount of work that can be done by Y amount of people, but you have Y + Z people (where Z is a nonzero positive integer). What do you do with those Z people, let them starve?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 04:51 |
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Again this assumes that the cost of most if not all goods will not rise to compensate for the increased income, in which case demand will go back to its original level. It also doesn't account for the giant fireball that will appear in the sky and consume us all if we were to give money to the poor. Argue against THAT libtards.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2014 20:12
|
|