231–240 of 287 posts
Can someone please answer this for me: Why not simply not tax individuals? Suspending mortgage payments, rents, and taxes would have a much greater benefit as far as I can tell. This topic reeks of political opportunism. It looks like everyone in favor of 'UBI' (including politicians and 'influencers') is clamoring for this despite not considering (or, in the case of the politicians, ignoring intentionally) any of th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Unfortunately whenever a president starts talking about this, he has a tendency to be shot. So, refresh my memory: Was Reagan talking about this? Ford? (People attempted to shoot him twice, but not hit.) Kennedy? For that matter, has a president ever seriously proposed this? You sound like you're just making stuff up.
Dr. King was talking about this shortly before he was shot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
QE likely had a smaller inflationary impact simply because the printed money went only towards treasuries and financial instruments disproportionately benefiting the rich (top 5%). There's a strong argument that this is why it didn't show up in the consumer price index and we've also significantly increased wealth inequality. 12k / year for every american is likely too high. I think the Fed should still determine the…
> I think the Fed should still determine the amount of QE based on inflation and economic metrics, however that QE should be distributed via a UBI rather than used to purchase financial instruments. But why go the roundabout way of going through QE to pay for UBI? Why not just increase taxes directly? The answer is, clearly, because once you talk about increasing taxes to pay for something, you start thinking hard ab…
QE is different though, the Fed already has mechanisms in place to decide "how much" and is already printing money not paid for by taxes. Part of the goal of QE is actually to devalue the nation's currency in order to increase exports. The question is just how to best inject this printed money into the nation's economy.
In one way, QE is an extremely efficient (and very difficult to evade) wealth tax applied proportionally and instantly to any entity that holds USD. It would be very hard to pull that off with traditional taxes.
Can someone please answer this for me: Why not simply not tax individuals? Suspending mortgage payments, rents, and taxes would have a much greater benefit as far as I can tell. This topic reeks of political opportunism. It looks like everyone in favor of 'UBI' (including politicians and 'influencers') is clamoring for this despite not considering (or, in the case of the politicians, ignoring intentionally) any of th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is way higher number of situation where US Americans need to have 1000$ ready.
Examples: - don't need to keep beating the dead horse about American healthcare - cars. In most European countries a car is not absolutely vital. A lot of America is "drive til you qualify", and car issues can easily be above a grand. You need a car to go even to the closest store many times, so quarantine would not really get rid of your need for a car.
you're talking about cities, in rural places, europe is not different than the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This won't help a recession one bit as it doesn't incentivize any economic activity Please explain to me how, in a country where 76% of the population lives paycheck to paycheck, putting more cash in their pocket doesn't stimulate economic activity? When someone loses hours at their job due to no customers coming through, how does making sure that person can still eat not, at bare minimum, ensure they can still eat…
A subsidized loan will also put cash in their pocket, will do so more efficiently because it should only be taken out by those who need it to the extent needed. A 1000$ for the people who don't need it is basically a luxury gift in hard times.
Can someone please answer this for me: Why not simply not tax individuals? Suspending mortgage payments, rents, and taxes would have a much greater benefit as far as I can tell. This topic reeks of political opportunism. It looks like everyone in favor of 'UBI' (including politicians and 'influencers') is clamoring for this despite not considering (or, in the case of the politicians, ignoring intentionally) any of th…
Or why not appropriately tax them, especially the ultra high income ones who sneak out of paying with dodgy capital gains and shell company plots, then use that money to give appropriate stimulus?
We're talking about 'giving away' (using the term loosely here) 25% more than the combined market cap of FAANG every other year.
Put another way, that is 76% of annual federal tax revenue at [1]current levels.
No way that's sustainable.
[0]https://www.infoplease.com/us/comprehensive-census-data-stat...
[1.1]https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government-ta...
[1.2]https://nypost.com/2018/07/12/universal-basic-income-would-c...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A subsidized loan will also put cash in their pocket, will do so more efficiently because it should only be taken out by those who need it to the extent needed. A 1000$ for the people who don't need it is basically a luxury gift in hard times.
Whenever you introduce means testing, you can never claim that the people who truly need it will receive it, as you are explicitly offering avenues through which they could be excluded.
Look, There is a reason Romney is backing it - he knows this money will very quickly find its way to high-markup low-value businesses, will not address any structural problems but could be touted as trillion-dollars gift to the common man by the Republicans come November.
This is how we should manage the money supply, and it should be monthly. Direct, debt free issuance of a citizens dividend to every US citizen. Coupled with a wind-down of the debt bubble. Maybe take Steve Keen's idea and require that a certain portion of the payment be used to extinguish any debts. Unfortunately whenever a president starts talking about this, he has a tendency to be shot.