(May 4, 2017 at 2:30 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(May 4, 2017 at 2:16 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: Is this a joke?

There are other taxes aside from income taxes, you know.

OK, what taxes would apply/not apply and how would administer that?

(May 4, 2017 at 12:37 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Like I said in the original post, don't have a confident position on this. But increasing the tax, and adjusting government spendings, will help. I think the obstacle is more to do with whether or not enough people in power will agree to go through with the plan. And the psychological/financial consequences of such a plan being implemented.

I suppose you could raise taxes but you would have to raise them a lot to fund something like this, also you would risk driving away wealthy individuals and by extension jobs, so that probably isn't the best idea. I agree that government spending could be adjusted in general, but not for this.

The current unemployment benefits and other forms of social assistance (disability, etc) should be improved, not replaced with a universal income. Schemes like this might work in certain states or cities, but it would cost an absolute fortune to implement country-wide.

(May 4, 2017 at 2:16 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:

(May 4, 2017 at 2:15 pm)Chad32 Wrote: It might be nice if people who make below a certain amount a year didn't have to pay taxes. There's your extra money a month.

Is this a joke?

No. Not that I know much about taxes. It might actually be a stupid idea, but I don't see much point in taking money from people who don't have much to start with. Go where most of the money is for taxes, which is the rich people.

(May 4, 2017 at 2:15 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: Devils advocate: I get to apply for jobs outside my abilities, never accept one and get paid. I have to take a job that I don't like, quit/get fired, and get paid. I get to blow the money on vice and the government still has to take care of me (sorry, ponies took it, now feed, house and cloth me). I own a business and you tax me because the business can't pay 5 employees the set wage and I will be taxed, solution, go out of business and get 6 people paid. 

And what of the cost to administer this program? Knowing the government, it will be 50 cents on the dollar. 

Society supports me but I don't need to support society. Very slippery slope.

I think it's worthwhile to restate that I don't think many people think that it should be instituted right now.

But if a massive job deficit occurs where service industry jobs take a massive dive due to automation and technology replacement, and there is a spike in unemployment, how will your small business survive anyhow? And how much will it cost in police spending/welfare/prison management?

Yes, of course there will be takers who will be happy to take---that's true of any entitlement system. I think the slippery slope argument has been debunked many times, though. I also think you underestimate the drive of most people to do better than the minimum. I know I wouldn't just be happy to sit at the poverty line.

Sounds like what is really meant is a Basic Minimum Income (BMI, everyone gets at least the minimum, anyone less than that is raised up to it), not a Universal Basic Income (all citizens get a certain amount of money).

A BMI of $12,000 a year is comparable to current US welfare spending, not counting SSI. That's about $230 a week. Even that's a little bit of a disincentive to work, but if it went down gradually instead of all at once, that disincentive would be greatly decreased. For instance, a person with no income would get $12,000; a person who only had a part time job that paid $8,000 wouldn't just get $4,000 to bring them up to $12,000; but maybe $8,000 to bring them up to $16,000. Someone who made $12,000 might get $6,000 to bring them up to $18,000. Someone making $16,000 might get an additional $4,000 to bring them up to $20,000. And it might top out with an adult making $24,000 getting no extra assistance; and they probably wouldn't care to lose half their income to go on the dole.

There have been a few experiments that indicate most reduced working as a result of these kinds of benefits takes the form of quitting that third job or staying in school longer before quitting to get a job, or going on the dole temporarily to finish college. It might also push up wages for low-end jobs to improve retention when a basic income is available.

(May 4, 2017 at 3:02 pm)Chad32 Wrote: No. Not that I know much about taxes. It might actually be a stupid idea, but I don't see much point in taking money from people who don't have much to start with. Go where most of the money is for taxes, which is the rich people.

We do this already, in the form of standard deductions and personal exemptions. Lower income people with earned income are also entitled to collect the Earned Income Tax Credit, which can be substantial. There's also the Child Tax Credit, which phases out for higher incomes.

Something like 40% of Americans pay no federal income taxes, or receive a subsidy in the form of the above credits.

Ok cool. Good that we're doing something right around here.

(May 4, 2017 at 3:20 pm)Chad32 Wrote: Ok cool. Good that we're doing something right around here.

For now, at least.

(May 4, 2017 at 2:32 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:

(May 4, 2017 at 2:30 pm)Minimalist Wrote: There are other taxes aside from income taxes, you know.

OK, what taxes would apply/not apply and how would administer that?

Regressive taxes.... the kind republicunts love because they hit the poor hardest.   Sales taxes, gas taxes, social security taxes, medicare taxes, and then don't forget all the little state and local levies that they love to pile on....while they are cutting income taxes on their rich scumbag pals.

(May 4, 2017 at 3:11 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote:

(May 4, 2017 at 2:15 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: Devils advocate: I get to apply for jobs outside my abilities, never accept one and get paid. I have to take a job that I don't like, quit/get fired, and get paid. I get to blow the money on vice and the government still has to take care of me (sorry, ponies took it, now feed, house and cloth me). I own a business and you tax me because the business can't pay 5 employees the set wage and I will be taxed, solution, go out of business and get 6 people paid. 

And what of the cost to administer this program? Knowing the government, it will be 50 cents on the dollar. 

Society supports me but I don't need to support society. Very slippery slope.

I think it's worthwhile to restate that I don't think many people think that it should be instituted right now.

But if a massive job deficit occurs where service industry jobs take a massive dive due to automation and technology replacement, and there is a spike in unemployment, how will your small business survive anyhow? And how much will it cost in police spending/welfare/prison management?

Yes, of course there will be takers who will be happy to take---that's true of any entitlement system. I think the slippery slope argument has been debunked many times, though. I also think you underestimate the drive of most people to do better than the minimum. I know I wouldn't just be happy to sit at the poverty line.

Small business will fill the niche that tech can't do, there will always be jobs that machines can't do. 

Maybe I under estimate, but not as much as you think.

---

(May 4, 2017 at 4:32 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(May 4, 2017 at 2:32 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: OK, what taxes would apply/not apply and how would administer that?

Regressive taxes.... the kind republicunts love because they hit the poor hardest.   Sales taxes, gas taxes, social security taxes, medicare taxes, and then don't forget all the little state and local levies that they love to pile on....while they are cutting income taxes on their rich scumbag pals.

And how do you propose the application?