421–430 of 669 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't a flat tax rate lower the income that a state has?
Yeah, and it makes it even easier for the rich to become richer, which is why they're the ones advocating for it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Keep going until you're taxing everyone that makes over $80K/year or so, and you pretty much have it being balanced. I never understood the UBI argument. 30 seconds of napkin math would show you how insane the proposal is, even at the rate of $1000/month. If you want to increase welfare for those below the median income, fine, let's have that discussion. Don't play games with the word 'universal'
The premise of it being universal is that it doesn't have an explicit phase out and instead it's implicit in the tax system. Obviously someone making six figures is not going to be a net recipient, but they would still have the money deposited into their account. The amount would just be smaller than the amount they're paying in taxes. The advantage of doing it this way is that it makes it clear what's going on. Righ…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are looking for the term "effective marginal tax rate." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_marginal_tax_rate To give a sense how much benefits code and tax code have in common, see this worksheet for SNAP eligibility, which resembles a second tax return: https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/recipient/eligibility . You get to do something similar, again(!), for Medicaid. The American benefits code is a patchwork of…
Under that concept, well, if actually taking the social security (Grundsicherung) in Germany as a given, even assuming low CoL situations (it's worse in higher-CoL situations), the effective average tax rate past like about 160 EUR/month of income will rise to a peak at around 1500 EUR/month income and then continuously decrease to the super wealthy limit tax just under 50%. At least you technically never have less m…
been there, done that. it's not severe, it's not even 2 hours per month and maybe waiting for 2 or three letters from xyz.
2 hours of non-engaging bureaucratic work for 1300 € per month. Thats 650 €/h ...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think something like this already exists in the U.S. It's called the Earned Income Tax Credit. Low income people may get a tax credit that could result in a bigger refund. Effectively, some people are getting money they woudln't be getting without working. It makes a lot of sense, imo. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p596
The U.S. Government also pays farmers not to grow crops! See, e.g., the Conservation Reserve Program ( https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation-... ).
This is a pretty generous reading of the study. One result they are missing out is that the income actually reduced overall employment compared to the control group, and ended up decreasing household earnings: https://www.nber.org/papers/w32719 Even with a generous reading, it was an extremely expensive study. And similar proposals like the Negative Income Tax would cost far less money and have none of the presented…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
2024 tax brackets Tax rate Single filers Married couples filing jointly Married couples filing separately Head of household 10% $11,600 or less $23,200 or less $11,600 or less $16,550 or less 12% $11,601 to $47,150 $23,201 to $94,300 $11,601 to $47,150 $16,551 to $63,100 22% $47,151 to $100,525 $94,301 to $201,050 $47,151 to $100,525 $63,101 to $100,500 24% $100,526 to $191,950 $201,051 to $383,900 $100,526 to $191,1…
Wow! It's amazing how anti-tax Americans are when their taxes are so low! My income is at the 24% level above, and I'm paying 52% marginal taxes in Ireland (or 35% of my total income after tax credits etc)
Their taxes probably are lower than yours, but probably not by as much as you think, and certain things like medical insurance are really expensive in the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is the goal to get people to quit their jobs and get a nice apartment? Isn't it supposed to be a minimum base level of support? Why do we keep moving the goal posts? And if everyone quits their job and lives in a nice apartment, where is this money going to come from? The problem with welfare today is that its a disincentive to work. Start working, you lose your transfer payments. A lot of people are stuck in thi…
Back in my college speech class, a woman gave a presentation basically supporting the "welfare today is a disincentive to work" myth, with emphasis on "today" (or current), while totally destroying the notion that welfare recipients don't "want" to work. She was a stay-at-home mom with 2 kids, her husband commit suicide after serving in Iraq and then being pushed out of the military (this was the 90s when the US mili…
let the woman work & make sure her bank account statements aren't stressful. she'll take some learning paths to get certificates, qualifications, skills required for promotions, financials literacy and self-employment. pay for all of it in advance, set a time limit and rep limit for exams of three years and 12 exams. if she fails, don't pay for her learning paths anymore but keep her bank account statements stress free.
she'll have money to spend on the markets and sh'll pay at least some taxes ans she'll be evolving, living, and her children will, too, and her chances to meet a proper new partner will be much higher.
students in their early twenties who don't have children and are eligible for some form of federal financial support don't really need even more money and there are incentives to perform and get projects, grants, scholarships for all kinds of characters. apprentices who earn waaaaay too little should also get stress free bank account statements for obvious reasons.
I used to support UBI but after seeing the US stimulus money get socked away into savings and the stock market, leading to rising prices and inflation, I no longer support it. I think all it will do is raise the cost of nearly everything and those that couldn’t afford the basics still won’t be able to since they’ll be more expensive.
All that combined meant for those that didn't have an immediate need, it was effectively like getting a small bonus from work - putting it in savings or an investment made a lot of sense. I also know several friends that were only able to pay rent or bills because of it.
That is different than if people who need it were given a base source of income that was predictable and long term. I don't think it would just dump into savings then - it would get spent on a new car, or rent, or to pay off debts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This stupid adage by Marx has to die. It never works. For one, some people have extraordinary abilities, and will be pissed off if, in exchange for their extraordinary contributions, they only got the income "according to their needs", as defined by government. This basically takes away all the motivation to excel at something. Also, the masses would be discontent because their perceived "needs" are much bigger that…
I think you might be mistaken about the ratio of the average person's needs/abilities... a probing question is: do we really need telemarketers to continue to exist (just so people have jobs... and that's better that people receive unwanted calls... because?)? Greed is greed and shouldn't be rewarded. I otherwise basically agree with you... just that most people are basically able and society doesn't need to do thing…