Universal Basic Income...

Post Reply New Topic

What is not the way the law works? Also at the beginning of that internet page it says in most cases all income is taxable unless specifically excluded in the document...most cases doesn't mean all cases. Also there is a good chance that money would not even count as income...find a government source that states that such money would be considered income. If your mom sends you a birthday card with 50 bucks is that also taxable? Not so sure an unprofessional giving of money unrelated to any kind of employment between friends is actually income I'd need to see a source that defines it as such.

let's just say that in actual practice there is a lot of under-the-table wiggle room. this is different from during the shrub administration when the IRS was instructed specifically to go after small fry [who can't defend themselves] and leave the big fish alone. I remember that happening in his 2nd term. in my neck of the woods it was thought to be revenge against the people who voted against him.

The document has a link to another document that spells out what is or is not taxable in exhausting detail.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p525.pdf

I started to read it but by page 5 or so my eyeballs fell right out of my head and onto the floor so I couldn't keep reading. The answers are all in there somewhere I guess. I did find out that even if no money is exchanged you still get taxed. If you barter, you get taxed for the value of whatever it is you bartered. They have a whole section on barter. I am guessing that one-off odd jobs you do would get taxed too, just based on that.

No, one's ability to earn money in a free market is not the same as one's worth as a human being. I know a pizza delivery guy whom I consider a finer human being than about any wealthy "celebrity" I can think of. I don't know how to make this clearer.



The only person I badmouthed was Justin Bieber. If you're a fan, sorry, but I value honesty.



Nobody said anything about such things ? but yes, I don't mind paying for services that offer me and my family a clear value. Why would I want to pay for anything which offers me nothing in return?



That is illogical and historically ignorant. Before a little over a century ago, nobody thought that the federal government ought to be in charge of poor relief. Not only did that society not collapse, people from all over the world risked their lives to come here and take part in the amazing growth in prosperity which economic liberty was creating.

And what are you saying, that we need to keep giving away more and more free stuff or the poor will riot and loot? That's not a logical or moral argument, that's straight-up extortion. There could be no stronger argument for ending the welfare state.



So, you think you're entitled to some of my earnings ? but you can't say why, and it's my fault.



I would rather you did, too. While you're at it, avoid my wallet, and avoid electing politicians who keep taking more and more of my money and giving it to their corporate cronies, sundry foreign dictators, and the welfare queens I see every time I go to the grocery.

With some 60% in the workforce, they would not settle for $1200 a month.

Other programs, welfare, SSI, Unemployment, food stamps, are already paying out the same money, with a very high office cost.

So the cost would be under a trillion, that would go in at the bottom, where it will change hands many times, generate local sales tax, and increase the consumer spending part of the economy.

Our main problem, Capital flows up, then stops, and collects interest.

The problem is too much money, and investing it drives up the price of everything.

Too much Capital drives down the value of Capital.

The Radical Warren Buffet favors taxing all income at a flat rate. He said 30%.

People paying Capital Gains and no Social Security on the next million did not seem right.

The Radical Inventor favors making all income subject to Social Security.

A 1% transaction tax on Securities would bring in a fortune.

All of this would come from those making more than ten times the basic income.

The tax structure would remain the same for those making under $130,000.

This would bring in more than enough for a Universal Income.

It would create an immediate demand for workers, which produces better conditions and higher pay.

This will cause those with the Universal Income to consider how much more they could make working.

Many would continue their education, and two year programs could teach welding, plumbing, electric, machine shop, while upgrading academic skills. We are short on truck drivers, there are jobs without enough trained people.

People making more money will spend it, good for the economy, or save it, good for the economy.

This is not welfare, old style, but a Investment in Citizens, where we want them to earn enough to pay taxes, and have savings.

Maybe it phases out after they make $40,000. Till they make $50,000. By then they are well on their way.

What we want is no poor people, more middle income earners, and a level playing field with the very rich. On their next million, they pay $300,000 in tax and $157,000 to Social Security.

Next we need two tier money, the current stuff for international, and a new Domestic Only issue. Local income cannot be moved out of the country. This would ruin the imported drug business. It can be exchanged for international money, but only if you can prove legal methods, and taxes paid.

We need some new cities, zero energy, 1,000 Mg Broadband, some for the developing economy, and some to keep those war babies out of the way.

All National Lands must be fed, planted, cultivated, to restore them to better than new. That takes a national irrigation system. We are wasting fresh water that can produce life. This drought may end in a few hundred years, we cannot wait. The soil that produces our food is in poor shape.

What this place will look like in a hundred years is something for us to decide now.

A lot of logged over land was bought in Arkansas a while back, it is now National Forests. There is some pitiful land out west that could be put back in tall grass prarie. Cattle have degraded the landscape.

We have looked out for light years, there is no where else for us to survive.

After 200 years of America, this place needs a hundred year rebuild.

We can have the money, the labor, and a long term goal, to die knowing we left this campsite a better place than when we came.

In 2120 people will build a monument to you, and thank you everyday.

YES!

Bring back the Civilian Conservation Core, a truly excellent part of the U.S. New Deal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_C ... tion_Corps
This is the work they did from 1933-1942. Some of it needs to be redone since it has degraded since then. The projects you describe are also needed. There is a lot of work to be done. And a lot of people looking for work who could do it.

When will they find a way to make use of all that salt water in the world???????????

Historically, in many countries social and political reform was done to appease the working class. Around the time of WW1 there was a serious risk of a succesful communist revolution in many European countries, but the non-commie parties moved towards a welfare state to prevent that. There have been quite a few unsuccesful commie revolutions (Troelstra for example), the one country that was rigid and absolutist turned out to become communist (Russia). Not that that works btw, the communist countries don't really have a welfare state comparable to Western countries, you're probably better off being poor in Europe than being poor in China or Vietnam.

So your another one of those people who opposes taxation, but instead of taking it up with the government who taxes you...you just resnet the poor and act like things would remain functional if we just cut welfare. Also back in the day when people thought the government shouldn't do anything to help the poor or fund public services with taxes....many houses burnt down when people couldn't afford a private fire department company to come to their house and put it out. But hell may as well go back to the dark ages.....Also yeah when people are desperate and at risk of death via starvation and what not they are going to try to survive we do not need to increase desperation in this country which ending all welfare would do.

Not to mention once again there are many people on welfare who work....there are other ways to 'contribute' besides working. Also if you hate taxes so much how do you propose we fund public services, and what would be a better more effective solution to address poverty in this country? Might be a hard one as I said 'effective' solution....cutting welfare and than ignoring the issue isn't a solution you know.

how dare you tell me not to vote. how 'bout I tell you to stop voting for scoundrels who want to take away my health care?

^this
Funny part is it is a logical argument....if people are desperate they will do what they need to in order to survive. If welfare is cut, nothing effective is put in its place then what is likely to be the logical outcome. That the poor will just lay down and die? Simply not going to happen. So yeah logically it makes sense for a society to provide for its population(even the poor) otherwise said population is very likely to turn on the society...duh.

the romans were smart enough to see the necessity of bread and circuses, but americans don't seem to be getting the picture. yet.

Maybe the incumbent Roman Foreign Minister should send a delegation to tell us all about the efficacy of such initiatives. Oh, wait...

If it ever worked for the ancient Romans, it was only because their economy was heavily supported by slaves, which made up 30-40% of the population. America kinda dropped the ball 150 years ago on that one.

but sooner than we all think, it will be robots doing the slaves' work and causing the same dynamic.

Okay, you're just plain wrong about this...

TANF (welfare) is about $50 billion/year.

SSI is about another $50 billion/year.

Food stamps is about $80 billion/year.

So, were talking LESS than $200 billion/year for welfare spending.... Also, you won't get more than about 5% saving from administration.

After further thought, I'm not going to consider OASDI or unemployment because they're social insurance, NOT WELFARE, and they aren't funded by general taxes...

If we ever did enact a minimum income, we could do away with unemployment, but that money should just go the general OASDI fund.

As for the rest of your comments, I don't disagree with a lot of what you say...

I'd say we should start with a base income of $10,000.00 for everyone over age 18. The trick is how and when to begin phasing it out...

I say there should be a gradual reduction in money starting at $20,000.00 level (200% of poverty) and totally gone at $40,000.00 (400% poverty).

The trick is reducing the payments without discouraging work or discouraging employers from paying incentive/merit pay. Also, the reduction scheme would have to be politically viable. That would probably be the hardest part....

You could probably come up with a plan that would cost $500-$600 billion per year. That would also, undoubtedly, stimulate the economy and make things better for everyone.

However we'd also need to eliminate the EITC and raise taxes on the upper 50% and *GASP* the holy job creators who reside in the top 10%....

THAT, I'm afraid, will NEVER happen.