151–160 of 164 posts
And it would cost 3.6 Trillion (300M adults x 12k), so where does that come from? I'm all for basic income, but id love to see a way this to actually be funded. Ideally from the corporations that are gaming the tax laws. Or is it reducing social security / medicare / other welfare etc?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not on that scale. QE is more than an order of magnitude smaller, and already that is at the limit of what economists feel “safe” doing.
Economists perhaps but central bank governors don't feel they've hit any sort of limit. They all say over & over they remain "prepared" to "respond" & have an array of "tools" at their disposal. Not to mention some of the largest central banks are still actively engaged in aggressive QE & negative interest rate policies. Don't confuse a slight ny-fed tighetning with central bank prudence. They have none. Aggressive i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If everyone's being paid $1000 per month more, you'd expect all jobs to pay less, and the profits from companies used to pay for it.
So then essentially everyone would make the same they are now; thus resulting in little to no-change. When it's all said and done, having a $1000/m basic income would be little different than increasing the minimum wage by the same amount.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Optimizing based on taxes seems cheap Depends on the total amount of taxes paid. Some people dodge a couple billion every year by doing some clever tricks with their residence, citizenship and tax domicile.
Not if you're a US citizen :) even renouncing forces you to pay taxes to the IRS on your way out the door (the expatriation tax: https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/expa... )
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't it depend on the crime? Someone breaking in and stealing my television to sell for drug money isn't envious of my TV; he just needs to get high. Someone engaged in a hit-and-run isn't envious of my car, they just can't afford car insurance and know that if they stick around they're very likely going to lose their license, car, and the ability to get to work. Sure, some crime is due to just people being too la…
Of course. But nobody is doing hit and runs so they can make a living.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Economists perhaps but central bank governors don't feel they've hit any sort of limit. They all say over & over they remain "prepared" to "respond" & have an array of "tools" at their disposal. Not to mention some of the largest central banks are still actively engaged in aggressive QE & negative interest rate policies. Don't confuse a slight ny-fed tighetning with central bank prudence. They have none. Aggressive i…
You’re dreaming if you think it will get more aggressive. Most economists are extremely concerned about hyperinflation, or at least 1970’s level double digit inflation as a result of QE. The “economists” I was talking about was not people employed by the fed. Go read any economic open related to QE.
The "economists" you're talking about don't matter. They have no voting power over monetary policy. All fed govenors that control monetary policy at all the major central banks speak daily about how inflation is subdued, possibly a long-term phenomenon, & indicates plenty of slack in the labor force. If I drank every time Janet Yellen said "inflation remains well anchored for the foreseeable future" in just 2017 then I'd be passed out asphyxiated. Ben Bernanke himself just recently authored a piece indicating the next series of tools to use in future crisis since rate cuts won't have as much impact at historical low levels (surprise more aggressive! price fixing & negative rates in the US). He did a tour in Japan discussing the use of "Helicopter Money" in the next crisis. Basically anybody that has any ability to control monetary policy is running away from what you think & say at an accelerating pace. They have a deep bench of folks to maintain that groupthink too so don't expect one of your enlightened economists to be in a position of power any time soon.
Economists don't matter in determining real life, real world monetary policy. Fed governors & politicians do.. repeat that to yourself in front of a mirror because you are confused.
Remember QE didn't just happen. It was TARP, QE1, QE2, Operation TWIST, QE3 (open ended). Across the pond it was QE, Corporate bond buying, negative interest rates, yield pegs. It always progresses every single time. In fact, the burden of proof is on you to find an economic down turn with decreasing interventionism on behalf of the central banks.
Japan started QE in 2001. Now they have over 1 quadrillion (yes that's real not me being tongue in cheek) in debt primarily owned by the BOJ & the BOJ now owns a stunning >70% of the entire domestic ETF market & are still buying at record clips. They are outright buying stocks! The SNB is actively buying stocks.. in fact they own a shit ton of Apple. Why is the SNB printing money & buying Apple? Look it up they issue the equivalent of a 13d form.. it will blow your nips off at how much more extreme they get every single day. I can cite every single thing & will if you don't believe me but simple google searches from the central banks own research firms are where I get my data.
The next crisis will have any or all of the following MORE EXTREME central bank "tools" deployed: capital controls, selling bans, negative rates (possibly on depositors), outright buying of stocks via ETF's, outright buying of corporate debt by the NY-FED, price fixing of 10 year treasuries, helicopter money.
Timestamp this shit cause it's gold son.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There was recently an article about a study on the prevalence of hookworm in is US south[0]. It seems to me that basic income could go a long way towards resolving this issue. One of the examples cited in the article involved a trailer park where they pumped sewage into open pools. If every member of the park was getting some form of basic income, the state could require the trailer park to install a septic system an…
> If every member of the park was getting some form of basic income, the state could require the trailer park to install a septic system and the trailer park, in turn, could charge it's renters more and put in the system. What you're describing is a special case of the exact sort of inflation that critics are afraid of (more money for tenants across the board just means more money that rentiers can extract). If the a…
This sounds like something in between where there's a law requiring an increase in quality. I expect that wouldn't be necessary. People with (a little) more money have more options and can vote with their feet by moving to a better trailer park.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just don't get the logic. If, today, the trailer park owner is not required to provide adequate sanitation (which strikes me as heinous btw), why would UBI change that? Either the state couldn't care less or their are laws that are being flouted. Either way, it's not clear why a change in distribution methodology would change either. The bit of your argument that I completely agree would occur is that the trailer p…
I agree. UBI is such a fascinating idea, but much like communism it feels like an extreme that will never work in practice. Everyone gets an extra $1000/month. Great. That's extra money flowing into an economy which absolutely affects supply/demand for the things everyone needs (food, shelter). Food might be fine because there's a lot of competition, but landlords? Rental prices are almost completely set by market de…
Take a look at social security to see how this plays out. Why do you think so many retirees move to Florida?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Makes sense, if you’re already wealthy then you pick where to live based on where you want to live. Optimizing based on taxes seems cheap, I’d imagine they’d rather solve that by making more money. Plus it’s not like US citizens have much choice, they have to pay the IRS no matter where you live in the world forever. Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide haha.
The way I like to think about it is this: Kansas has low taxes, but no one's dying to move there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's been studies that found the rich don't leave a place due to taxes. I.E. California has one of the biggest economies in the world... http://minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2011/02/documents/...
Well, the rich generally leave a place due to what season it is.