Presidential Elections
- Thread starter eyephone
- Start date
NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
We went over this before, I know Yang wants to fund UBI with a consumption tax... what I'm saying is to change the taxation system first... see how that goes and then determine if UBI will even work.
Baby steps.
I guess this is where we disagree.
Just from a practical standpoint, you just made it nonviable because there won't be bi-partisan support for that.
Reason why I support UBI is because people from both sides have reasons to support it. Even if we eventually settle on a different version of UBI, like the negative income tax (which is proposed by conservative godfather of modern economics Milton Friedman), I would be thrilled.
SGIP, thanks for making the effort to re-read my post.
I will be the first one to admit I am biased to my own exposure and experience. But I don't feel it's baseless. If you talk to experienced canvassers, even across different parties and candidates, this is one of the top consensus. We are all frustrated with the large amount of low information voters regardless of who we canvass for. I knocked on over 800 doors in a little over 6 weeks and my team did over 20 times more in total. We have actual data to support this. We ask people basic questions, things like who do you support, why do you support him/her, what issues are important to you etc. Over half the people we visited fall into this category. And these are register voters not just the general public.
Yang wants to make his UBI opt in. By opting into UBI, you forgo other benefits like SNAP and other cash and cash-like programs. I agree with this because this create a path to weaning people off welfare. And UBI doesn't have the same negative incentive as Welfare program where people are incentivized to do less to keep their benefits.
UBI funded by VAT is a wealth transfer. But it's a much better way to transfer wealth than other proposals out there because it doesn't penalize saving. You consume more, you pay more. You can control your consumption.
I highly recommend you watch this 2 min short video of Mankiw. He explain it very well why Yang's UBI is appealing to a conservative economist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShGaev9Zg18
I did like this part of his proposal.
This is also why I like the VAT tax. But at the same time, we don't know the impact on the market (prices of goods, etc) and how much revenue this will actually create.
Then there is the whole psychology of "free" money. Still not sure how that will work.
I agree with that. The biggest obstacle for UBI is the human mind because we are innately programmed for resource scarcity.
But we cannot keep staying at this constant state of deadlock just because we're not sure how it will work. I tell my conservative friends, their kids might vote for a socialist because the stat bares it out. Over 70% of millennials now said they would vote for a socialist candidate. We are marching toward socialism because income inequality is getting worse and they see no better alternatives.
Here's my take on the stimulus. The $2 trillion cost equals roughly $6,000 per man, woman, and child living in the US. I have a family of six, so you just indebted my family by $36,000 plus many years of interest.... and in return I get a $2,000 check. Yay!
I was against the Bush stimulus, the Obama stimulus, and now the Trump stimulus. It is a RIPOFF but the low information voters you speak of only look at the minuscule checks they are getting in the near term, not the massive debt they will have to shoulder for the rest of their lives through higher future taxes.
I don't think Trump's use of the term Wuhan virus is racist. We are in a cold war with China. Tough talk that diminishes their standing in the world is warranted, just as Reagan's tough talk about the USSR was warranted.
Secondly, this is not meant to offend, but Asians are a non-factor when it comes to electoral politics. The only thing that matters when electing a President is swing states, and Asians by and large have chosen to settle in coastal states that are firmly blue.
He also voted in favor of invading Iraq, which makes him a non-starter just like Kerry, McCain, and Hillary. Anybody with that level of piss-poor judgement should be tarred and feathered as a disgrace to their country, not considered a viable candidate for the presidency. One million Iraqi's died as a result of the decision to support Bush in his invasion.
What happened to Obamacare? Why are Democrats giving up on it after less than 10 years after all the promises? Why should we trust them on healthcare this time?
I think Yang's proposal of taxing on consumption instead of income helps me get from whether we should do wealth transfer to how to best do wealth transfer. I mean we are already doing wealth transfer now but doing it rather poorly. More and more people are stuck in welfare.
Personally, I would be a financial loser in Yang's UBI / VAT. But I agree in principle that you consume more, you should pay more. It make sense to me both environmentally and economically. We shouldn't discourage thing we want more of like income. We should discourage consumption by making people pay their fair share because their consumption has environmental impact and strain on public infrastructure.
Yang agrees with you on financial transaction tax. He has a policy very similar to yours. https://www.yang2020.com/policies/financial-transaction-tax/
As President I will...Propose a 0.1% financial transaction tax to help fund Universal Basic Income.
Sorry Trump bashed Obamacare, but now he cares about the uninsured. Which the uninsured will be covered by Obamacare. We are still waiting about Trump health plan.
The GOP don?t like Asian people. (Using K West tone of voice)
I only support the 600 billion part of the 2 trillion that went directly to families. I am fine shouldering the cost associated with that to help struggling families to stay sheltered instead of spreading infections. This is a pandemic, there is a price to pay.
I am going by McCarthy and Trump tweets. See my previous posts for source.
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
Kenkoko said:
We went over this before, I know Yang wants to fund UBI with a consumption tax... what I'm saying is to change the taxation system first... see how that goes and then determine if UBI will even work.
Baby steps.
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
I guess the disconnect here is I'm suggesting doing more than just the VAT to change the tax system. We need to fix that and social security before even considering UBI.
irvinehomeowner said:
I guess this is where we disagree.
Just from a practical standpoint, you just made it nonviable because there won't be bi-partisan support for that.
Reason why I support UBI is because people from both sides have reasons to support it. Even if we eventually settle on a different version of UBI, like the negative income tax (which is proposed by conservative godfather of modern economics Milton Friedman), I would be thrilled.
sgip
Well-known member
Kenkoko,
In re-reading the original post, I did misread the intention - that both parties rely on "low information voters" - which is still way too dismissive of the American voter. We can discuss if on whole, the education system has dumbed down the population, but to say that politicians need rubes (my word, not yours) to get elected, is not a supportable argument IMHO. I will amend my original post accordingly.
Back to the UBI question that's been discussed so far.... If I can grasp what's being suggested... Someone wants to place a VAT on goods and services - VATS that raise the cost of living for the very citizens who right now pay no taxes whatsoever, yet have access to benefits like SNAP, Supplemental SSI, Medicare etc. Then, after taking that money away incrementally with the VAT, they want to give it back to them in UBI.
This thinking is more commonly expressed visually as an Ouroboros
If McDonalds has a 1 percent VAT placed on beef, bread, and coffee, is someone suggesting that the price of a BigMac or a McCafe won't go up accordingly? Odd, because that's exactly what happens everywhere a VAT exists. So now your food costs .50c more, as does your coffee, and other every day items, but hey, I'm getting a $500 check every month!
BRILLIANT!!
In re-reading the original post, I did misread the intention - that both parties rely on "low information voters" - which is still way too dismissive of the American voter. We can discuss if on whole, the education system has dumbed down the population, but to say that politicians need rubes (my word, not yours) to get elected, is not a supportable argument IMHO. I will amend my original post accordingly.
Back to the UBI question that's been discussed so far.... If I can grasp what's being suggested... Someone wants to place a VAT on goods and services - VATS that raise the cost of living for the very citizens who right now pay no taxes whatsoever, yet have access to benefits like SNAP, Supplemental SSI, Medicare etc. Then, after taking that money away incrementally with the VAT, they want to give it back to them in UBI.
This thinking is more commonly expressed visually as an Ouroboros
If McDonalds has a 1 percent VAT placed on beef, bread, and coffee, is someone suggesting that the price of a BigMac or a McCafe won't go up accordingly? Odd, because that's exactly what happens everywhere a VAT exists. So now your food costs .50c more, as does your coffee, and other every day items, but hey, I'm getting a $500 check every month!
BRILLIANT!!
Soylent Green Is People said:
SGIP, thanks for making the effort to re-read my post.
I will be the first one to admit I am biased to my own exposure and experience. But I don't feel it's baseless. If you talk to experienced canvassers, even across different parties and candidates, this is one of the top consensus. We are all frustrated with the large amount of low information voters regardless of who we canvass for. I knocked on over 800 doors in a little over 6 weeks and my team did over 20 times more in total. We have actual data to support this. We ask people basic questions, things like who do you support, why do you support him/her, what issues are important to you etc. Over half the people we visited fall into this category. And these are register voters not just the general public.
Yang wants to make his UBI opt in. By opting into UBI, you forgo other benefits like SNAP and other cash and cash-like programs. I agree with this because this create a path to weaning people off welfare. And UBI doesn't have the same negative incentive as Welfare program where people are incentivized to do less to keep their benefits.
UBI funded by VAT is a wealth transfer. But it's a much better way to transfer wealth than other proposals out there because it doesn't penalize saving. You consume more, you pay more. You can control your consumption.
I highly recommend you watch this 2 min short video of Mankiw. He explain it very well why Yang's UBI is appealing to a conservative economist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShGaev9Zg18
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
Kenkoko said:
I did like this part of his proposal.
This is also why I like the VAT tax. But at the same time, we don't know the impact on the market (prices of goods, etc) and how much revenue this will actually create.
Then there is the whole psychology of "free" money. Still not sure how that will work.
irvinehomeowner said:
I agree with that. The biggest obstacle for UBI is the human mind because we are innately programmed for resource scarcity.
But we cannot keep staying at this constant state of deadlock just because we're not sure how it will work. I tell my conservative friends, their kids might vote for a socialist because the stat bares it out. Over 70% of millennials now said they would vote for a socialist candidate. We are marching toward socialism because income inequality is getting worse and they see no better alternatives.
sgip
Well-known member
How has the soft, squishy term of "wealth transfer" hidden so well the true purpose of the act - envy based theft.
I am not saying we should not tax. I am saying that anyone who believes there is a "fair share" that needs to be paid, will need to demonstrate they are "paying their fair share" first before we take that person seriously. Are readers here giving 5 percent or more to a non-church charity for example? Are proponents of UBI voluntarily over paying their State and Federal Taxes? Why not, since the Government is supposedly better at wealth redistribution. The excitement about UBI wanes when people actually find out they have to pay for it.
I want someone to lead by example. Andrew Yang believes in UBI and has pulled money out of his own pocket to demonstrate it's benefits. It's a good start, but that isn't UBI, that's charity, and it's been done for centuries. To think it would be wise to "nationalize" charity hasn't spent much time at the DMV recently.
As to how to pay for it should it ever come to this? I'd say a 1 cent per share transaction tax. Buy 100 shares of Google? That's $1.00. Sell $100 shares of Google? That's $1.00. This would do a few things - first, take some of the "Casino" feeling out of stocks. Second, it would throttle high volume micro transactions - a bad thing IMHO. Third, anyone with assets (Personal accounts, corporate accounts, insurance company accounts, international trading accounts) all pays an equal amount. Fourth, it can lead to stocks being held long term creating some stability for companies and assets.
On average 55b shares trade daily. That's 110b transactions (one buy/one sell). Assume this tax stunts sales by 20%. 80b shares traded x .01c x 200+ market trading days is a pretty big number to work with.
My .02c
I am not saying we should not tax. I am saying that anyone who believes there is a "fair share" that needs to be paid, will need to demonstrate they are "paying their fair share" first before we take that person seriously. Are readers here giving 5 percent or more to a non-church charity for example? Are proponents of UBI voluntarily over paying their State and Federal Taxes? Why not, since the Government is supposedly better at wealth redistribution. The excitement about UBI wanes when people actually find out they have to pay for it.
I want someone to lead by example. Andrew Yang believes in UBI and has pulled money out of his own pocket to demonstrate it's benefits. It's a good start, but that isn't UBI, that's charity, and it's been done for centuries. To think it would be wise to "nationalize" charity hasn't spent much time at the DMV recently.
As to how to pay for it should it ever come to this? I'd say a 1 cent per share transaction tax. Buy 100 shares of Google? That's $1.00. Sell $100 shares of Google? That's $1.00. This would do a few things - first, take some of the "Casino" feeling out of stocks. Second, it would throttle high volume micro transactions - a bad thing IMHO. Third, anyone with assets (Personal accounts, corporate accounts, insurance company accounts, international trading accounts) all pays an equal amount. Fourth, it can lead to stocks being held long term creating some stability for companies and assets.
On average 55b shares trade daily. That's 110b transactions (one buy/one sell). Assume this tax stunts sales by 20%. 80b shares traded x .01c x 200+ market trading days is a pretty big number to work with.
My .02c
Liar Loan
Well-known member
Kenkoko said:Can't resist a little dig, where's all the " free money bad" TI crowd? Seems to have gone silent since Trump's stimulus
Here's my take on the stimulus. The $2 trillion cost equals roughly $6,000 per man, woman, and child living in the US. I have a family of six, so you just indebted my family by $36,000 plus many years of interest.... and in return I get a $2,000 check. Yay!
I was against the Bush stimulus, the Obama stimulus, and now the Trump stimulus. It is a RIPOFF but the low information voters you speak of only look at the minuscule checks they are getting in the near term, not the massive debt they will have to shoulder for the rest of their lives through higher future taxes.
irvinehomeowner said:
I don't think Trump's use of the term Wuhan virus is racist. We are in a cold war with China. Tough talk that diminishes their standing in the world is warranted, just as Reagan's tough talk about the USSR was warranted.
Secondly, this is not meant to offend, but Asians are a non-factor when it comes to electoral politics. The only thing that matters when electing a President is swing states, and Asians by and large have chosen to settle in coastal states that are firmly blue.
Soylent Green Is People said:
He also voted in favor of invading Iraq, which makes him a non-starter just like Kerry, McCain, and Hillary. Anybody with that level of piss-poor judgement should be tarred and feathered as a disgrace to their country, not considered a viable candidate for the presidency. One million Iraqi's died as a result of the decision to support Bush in his invasion.
Kenkoko said:
What happened to Obamacare? Why are Democrats giving up on it after less than 10 years after all the promises? Why should we trust them on healthcare this time?
Soylent Green Is People said:
I think Yang's proposal of taxing on consumption instead of income helps me get from whether we should do wealth transfer to how to best do wealth transfer. I mean we are already doing wealth transfer now but doing it rather poorly. More and more people are stuck in welfare.
Personally, I would be a financial loser in Yang's UBI / VAT. But I agree in principle that you consume more, you should pay more. It make sense to me both environmentally and economically. We shouldn't discourage thing we want more of like income. We should discourage consumption by making people pay their fair share because their consumption has environmental impact and strain on public infrastructure.
Yang agrees with you on financial transaction tax. He has a policy very similar to yours. https://www.yang2020.com/policies/financial-transaction-tax/
As President I will...Propose a 0.1% financial transaction tax to help fund Universal Basic Income.
Liar Loan said:Kenkoko said:Can't resist a little dig, where's all the " free money bad" TI crowd? Seems to have gone silent since Trump's stimulus
Here's my take on the stimulus. The $2 trillion cost equals roughly $6,000 per man, woman, and child living in the US. I have a family of six, so you just indebted my family by $36,000 plus many years of interest.... and in return I get a $2,000 check. Yay!
I was against the Bush stimulus, the Obama stimulus, and now the Trump stimulus. It is a RIPOFF but the low information voters you speak of only look at the minuscule checks they are getting in the near term, not the massive debt they will have to shoulder for the rest of their lives through higher future taxes.
irvinehomeowner said:
I don't think Trump's use of the term Wuhan virus is racist. We are in a cold war with China. Tough talk that diminishes their standing in the world is warranted, just as Reagan's tough talk about the USSR was warranted.
Secondly, this is not meant to offend, but Asians are a non-factor when it comes to electoral politics. The only thing that matters when electing a President is swing states, and Asians by and large have chosen to settle in coastal states that are firmly blue.
Soylent Green Is People said:
He also voted in favor of invading Iraq, which makes him a non-starter just like Kerry, McCain, and Hillary. Anybody with that level of piss-poor judgement should be tarred and feathered as a disgrace to their country, not considered a viable candidate for the presidency. One million Iraqi's died as a result of the decision to support Bush in his invasion.
Kenkoko said:
What happened to Obamacare? Why are Democrats giving up on it after less than 10 years after all the promises? Why should we trust them on healthcare this time?
Sorry Trump bashed Obamacare, but now he cares about the uninsured. Which the uninsured will be covered by Obamacare. We are still waiting about Trump health plan.
The GOP don?t like Asian people. (Using K West tone of voice)
Liar Loan said:
I only support the 600 billion part of the 2 trillion that went directly to families. I am fine shouldering the cost associated with that to help struggling families to stay sheltered instead of spreading infections. This is a pandemic, there is a price to pay.
eyephone said:Liar Loan said:Kenkoko said:Can't resist a little dig, where's all the " free money bad" TI crowd? Seems to have gone silent since Trump's stimulus
Here's my take on the stimulus. The $2 trillion cost equals roughly $6,000 per man, woman, and child living in the US. I have a family of six, so you just indebted my family by $36,000 plus many years of interest.... and in return I get a $2,000 check. Yay!
I was against the Bush stimulus, the Obama stimulus, and now the Trump stimulus. It is a RIPOFF but the low information voters you speak of only look at the minuscule checks they are getting in the near term, not the massive debt they will have to shoulder for the rest of their lives through higher future taxes.
irvinehomeowner said:
I don't think Trump's use of the term Wuhan virus is racist. We are in a cold war with China. Tough talk that diminishes their standing in the world is warranted, just as Reagan's tough talk about the USSR was warranted.
Secondly, this is not meant to offend, but Asians are a non-factor when it comes to electoral politics. The only thing that matters when electing a President is swing states, and Asians by and large have chosen to settle in coastal states that are firmly blue.
Soylent Green Is People said:
He also voted in favor of invading Iraq, which makes him a non-starter just like Kerry, McCain, and Hillary. Anybody with that level of piss-poor judgement should be tarred and feathered as a disgrace to their country, not considered a viable candidate for the presidency. One million Iraqi's died as a result of the decision to support Bush in his invasion.
Kenkoko said:
What happened to Obamacare? Why are Democrats giving up on it after less than 10 years after all the promises? Why should we trust them on healthcare this time?
Sorry Trump bashed Obamacare, but now he cares about the uninsured. Which the uninsured will be covered by Obamacare. We are still waiting about Trump health plan.
The GOP don?t like Asian people. (Using K West tone of voice)
I am going by McCarthy and Trump tweets. See my previous posts for source.