Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 474 posts

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#121

Post by zenhack »

kuzimoto wrote: post #98
93po wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing unethical about a wealth tax. Billionaires made their fortunates on the backs of society and have only maintained that power and wealth through corruption and bribery. They should have never had that money to begin with.

You realize the top 1% already pay for a disproportionate amount of the taxes? Also they own businesses that employ hundreds of thousands of people. To tax people's wealth on top of the standard tax is plain evil, and will end up driving all the wealthiest people out of the country...

> You realize the top 1% already pay for a disproportionate amount of the taxes?

In absolute terms maybe (though there are some glaring exceptions -- Amazon famous literally pays $0 in taxes), but not relative to how much they make.

> To tax people's wealth on top of the standard tax is plain evil,

I don't see any reason why taxing net worth is at all less sensible than income. If anything I think it makes more sense; why should someone who's had a lucky break but is still not rich have to pay taxes like they are?

> will end up driving all the wealthiest people out of the country...

I don't take seriously the idea that any of them are going to give up living in the US over a couple percent of their income (which is what the wealth taxes folks have been talking about would take, at most).

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#122

Post by pmart123 »

Proziam wrote: post #88

My primary concern with UBI is not the concept itself, but the risk for people in power to use it against the people. Once UBI exists, people will rely on it for survival. It will be the single most influential campaign topic. Worse, if UBI were to get 'Obamacared' then we'd end up with a massive battle over implementation, followed by a much worse system than the one we had prior (worst of all worlds with numerous '…

That's a great point.

After the government shutdowns and lock-ins began, I started to think about our current political trends. If we keep voting for political leaders that tend towards fascism or socialism, we could end up with severe consequences.

Both camps were eager to close restaurants and stores without establishing economic fallback plans. Essentially, they indirectly removed the SMB owner/middle class. This seems like the first step towards making people solely reliant on IBU even it is promised only as a "temporary fix."

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#124

Post by bavell »

godelski wrote: post #119
bavell wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, his idea of Democracy Dollars is great. Wash out the lobbyist money and allow politicians to run a campaign on popularity without pandering to donors or special interests. Not sure why this idea hasn't gained more traction tbh.

In several states small political donations (up to $50 or so) are tax deductible. More money spent is not deductible.

I'm happy to learn that but the cap seems pretty low. :/

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#125

Post by strken »

danaris wrote: post #57
timw4mail wrote: post #6

I don't see how a universal basic income could be sustainable in any way. You either have debt hyperinflation, or you have taxes high enough that the universal basic income is meaningless.

It's easy to structure taxes such that the UBI is extremely meaningful—it helps the people at the low end a lot, the people in the middle a little, and the people at the upper end end up paying more. But guess what? They weren't using that money anyway (except to make more money for themselves).

The people at the top don't have much money (as a percentage of their holdings), they have "wealth", where wealth means productive enterprises like e.g. toilet paper factories. The people at the bottom work in toilet paper factories and are given money which they use to buy toilet paper from the people at the top, and thus there is a productive equilibrium between the wiping masses and the owner of the means of wiping.

When the people at the top make less money, they invest less money into new toilet paper R&D and new factories. When the people at the bottom make less money, they spend less on toilet paper, and the people at the top make less money. The balance is fragile, and if your end goal is that your citizens have access to the finest and most luxurious bathroom experience they can, then you must take care to balance the engine of capital with great precision.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#126

Post by paulmd »

buzzkillington wrote: post #109

Why he isn't: Suggested income: $12,000 US Population: $327,200,000 Total cost for first year: $3,926,400,000,000 Total government expenditure for US: $3,800,000,000 So we would need to shut down everything the government does to afford his UBI. I personally don't feel like going for free market ICBM solutions is the best way to run an army, but each to their own.

wow, what a strawman you've built there.

that US government expenditure is a constantly changing number, when the government wants to buy some ICBMs they don't go cut food stamps correspondingly, they just increase the amount of government expenditure.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#127

Post by taneq »

kuzimoto wrote: post #98
93po wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing unethical about a wealth tax. Billionaires made their fortunates on the backs of society and have only maintained that power and wealth through corruption and bribery. They should have never had that money to begin with.

You realize the top 1% already pay for a disproportionate amount of the taxes? Also they own businesses that employ hundreds of thousands of people. To tax people's wealth on top of the standard tax is plain evil, and will end up driving all the wealthiest people out of the country...

Do they, in real terms? Like, in terms of percent-of-net-worth-per-annum rather than dollars-per-individual? Because I highly, highly doubt that.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#128

Post by Tempest1981 »

kuzimoto wrote: post #98
93po wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing unethical about a wealth tax. Billionaires made their fortunates on the backs of society and have only maintained that power and wealth through corruption and bribery. They should have never had that money to begin with.

You realize the top 1% already pay for a disproportionate amount of the taxes? Also they own businesses that employ hundreds of thousands of people. To tax people's wealth on top of the standard tax is plain evil, and will end up driving all the wealthiest people out of the country...

So do you think the current system is working well?

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#129

Post by _2d30 »

qqqwerty wrote: post #13
aazaa wrote: post #3

The interview here is compelling. Yang's book is even more compelling. But what Yang doesn't do here or in his book is make a powerful case to fiscal conservative spelling out just how universal income will avoid demolishing the economy through inflation. Until this happens, UBI is going nowhere. Although COVID-19 is on everyone's minds right now, it wasn't too long ago that Venezuela, its hyperinflation, and empty s…

Inflation is a non-issue. Economic growth has largely been constrained by demand, not supply. And the modern economy is saturated with replacement goods. If the demand for milk goes up, I can switch to soy milk. If soy milk goes up, I can switch to Almond. And if all of them go up, I just drink water. Once most basic needs are met, inflation looses its power with a few exceptions. The financialization of our economy…

I think the "financialization of our economy" => higher house prices is at best a part of the story. The other part is absurd zoning laws and restrictions on the supply of housing. This couples with people's expectations that house prices should always be going up and that housing is an investment.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#130

Post by lukifer »

allovernow wrote: post #65

The fact that covid is screwing the world right now does not mean that we should all be getting UBI under non emergency conditions. Putting Romney's plan in with Yang's is a conflation here because one is only for a single unprecedented global emergency, not everyday life. That said, UBI is quite literal wealth redistribution. You take taxes from the haves and give the cash directly to the hands of the have nots. The…

Bear in mind, we already engage in significant wealth redistribution. There's an argument that it's more efficient to do by writing checks, rather than through complex federal bureaucracies. It's the reason that Milton Friedman favored a negative income tax, and that GiveDirectly.org is considered by the Effective Altruism community to be one of the best charities.
Post reply on HN