Live data from Hacker News

Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

simulacrum.cc

621–630 of 681 posts

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#621
post #220

> "How would we pay for it? We could start by getting corporations to pay their taxes." I don't know why people keep harping on corporate taxes. If anything, taxing corporations is regressive -- the taxes ultimately get passed on to consumers through higher product prices, regardless of their income levels. Taxing corporations doesn't produce magic money -- it's still taxing people in the end, but it's the consumers.…

>> If anything, taxing corporations is regressive -- the taxes ultimately get passed on to consumers through higher product prices Tax on corporate profit does not need to have this effect, because it only applies to profits, not to revenue. Sure, if a corporation wants to keep the same amount of profit after a tax hike it has to put its prices up. But because we're only taxing what's happening after deduction of cos…

Taxing on profit isn't going to work because how much profit you make can be adjusted due to creative bookkeeping.

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#622

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You started off with an interesting addition to the conversation, and I was hoping for a reference regarding the relationship between corporate taxes and the ultra-weathy, but instead I got a gratuitous, tired, over-used, boring, ad-hominem about Republicans that added nothing to conversation.

You're the one going political here. What he stated is a well known fact about the Republicans whether you chose to acknowledge it or not.

It isn't a fact. It is an unsubstantiated opinion.

Your assertion that my comment was the political one is nonsensical.

We've got serious long-term and structural problems in this country. We've got to find a way to discuss them that rises above trite generalizations.

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe there is correlation between a lessened burden on wealth producers and it being spread around. The burden on wealth producers is very low, one of the lowest points in the modern era. You would expect in this era of hyper-rich and low-taxation that the wealth would be spreading around. But it's not. Record profits for corporations (read: wealth producers) is turning into record stock highs, record numb…

This isn't something you need to believe or not believe. The stats are in, decades of trickle down have not had the intended effect and various sources have shown this. It's a pretty well supported fact that lessening the tax burden on the mega rich doesn't cause them to go opening businesses and it's surprising people ever believed such nonsense. Why would a rich person take a risk on a new business venture when the…

I think it's because many people don't separate a businessman from the business.

A businessman doesn't open more businesses when he has more money.

A businessman opens businesses when investors will pay and the market will support it.

Turns out, a businessman doesn't need his own money to start businesses, because without a market, there's no point of starting the business, and with a market, there is investment available to seize it.

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#624

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't something you need to believe or not believe. The stats are in, decades of trickle down have not had the intended effect and various sources have shown this. It's a pretty well supported fact that lessening the tax burden on the mega rich doesn't cause them to go opening businesses and it's surprising people ever believed such nonsense. Why would a rich person take a risk on a new business venture when the…

I think it's because many people don't separate a businessman from the business. A businessman doesn't open more businesses when he has more money. A businessman opens businesses when investors will pay and the market will support it. Turns out, a businessman doesn't need his own money to start businesses, because without a market, there's no point of starting the business, and with a market, there is investment avai…

A businessman will do those things, yes. A rich might generally won't (statistically speaking) beyond what ever business they already have, if any.

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#625

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're the one going political here. What he stated is a well known fact about the Republicans whether you chose to acknowledge it or not.

It isn't a fact. It is an unsubstantiated opinion. Your assertion that my comment was the political one is nonsensical. We've got serious long-term and structural problems in this country. We've got to find a way to discuss them that rises above trite generalizations.

We do have problems indeed. And as long as people continue to get bogged down with the silly "Democrat/Republican" song and dance, the issues can't be addressed. The parties are practically the same thing (see: Bush Jr. vs Obama) so seeing one side as a friend and the other as an enemy is just a straw man boxing match.

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#626

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not know what you mean and what "always have" means in your context. The article asks to get more money from corporations which I do not think is feasible. I am in the UK now and this country decided to go for universal income we would have to either close the borders or convince at least the whole of EU to do the same at the same time. Please expand your comment if you can.

> I am in the UK now and this country decided to go for universal income we would have to either close the borders or convince at least the whole of EU to do the same at the same time. That's something of an issue of the EU being a union that is very much like a traditional state, limiting -- by design -- the ability of the subordinate elements to effectively manage certain kinds of policy on their own. That's not an…

The UK could surely apply BI only to their citizens. California would have more trouble, given the 14th Amendment, though might be able to do something similar to what we do with schools, requiring that you live there a certain amount of time before you start receiving BI.

This is assuming that the influx of population actually would be a bad thing, though, which I'm not sure of one way or the other - I see some arguments on both sides that hold at least a little water.

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#627

> "How would we pay for it? We could start by getting corporations to pay their taxes." I don't know why people keep harping on corporate taxes. If anything, taxing corporations is regressive -- the taxes ultimately get passed on to consumers through higher product prices, regardless of their income levels. Taxing corporations doesn't produce magic money -- it's still taxing people in the end, but it's the consumers.…

On a purely logical level, for sovereign nations issuing their own currency, taxation is completely decoupled from spending. You can increase taxes if there's an economic reason for doing so, but it is not a prior constraint on spending.

Not if you think runaway inflation is a problem. With fractional reserve banking, printing $1 adds well more than $1 to the economy (look at charts of M0 vs M1 vs M2). The government only gets to spend that $1. Meanwhile, threat of inflation makes it harder for the government to borrow money, meaning it needs to print more to cover the increased demands for interest.

This is not to say that printing any money ever is a disaster, but simply that there are absolutely constraints imposed by economic realities.

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#628
post #496
post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great links. Curious, how does the book address the issues of cost of living across regions? As $10k in SF is very different than $10k in St. Louis.

If you freely choose where to live, that means you get (at least) $3000 of value renting a $3000/month apartment no matter where you rent it. If it's more expensive for the same size of unit in one place or another, that means you're paying for amenities, or a short commute, or access to a particular job market. So giving people more money to live in SF would be subsidizing the consumption of the amenities that SF pr…

"My suspicion is it would just cause people to overconsume San Francisco real estate relative to their latent preferences."

Which seems like it would make the situation worse, long term. We can increase density further, but there's a limited amount of SF to go around, so driving overconsumption would raise prices, and then we'd need to raise the subsidy we give SF further.

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#629
post #406

> "How would we pay for it? We could start by getting corporations to pay their taxes." I don't know why people keep harping on corporate taxes. If anything, taxing corporations is regressive -- the taxes ultimately get passed on to consumers through higher product prices, regardless of their income levels. Taxing corporations doesn't produce magic money -- it's still taxing people in the end, but it's the consumers.…

You are only a quarter right (or whatever). The incidence of corporate taxation can fall on various entities including the consumers, the employees, and the shareholders. The better argument is that corporate taxation is double (or triple) taxation, as the corporate income gets distributed down to employees and shareholders, which then gets taxed again as personal income and capital gains.

My understanding is that the qualified dividend tax rate is technically a different thing than the capital gains tax rate, and they only happen to have the same value - not that that's very important to this discussion.

More importantly, this is partly incorrect as it applies to employees. Employee wages are an expense deducted before corporate profits are taxed; I believe (though I'm less confident) that in the case of profit sharing money going to employees could face double taxation.

Most importantly, though, "double or triple taxation" is misleading. Every time the money is taxed needs to be taken into consideration, to be sure, but the ultimate question is the overall rate, not the number of passes. (Please, please, please QUINTUPLE TAX me at 0.01% per pass...)

With loopholes and exemptions and deductions and sliding scales and different rates in different jurisdictions and everything, that's not a simple question, unfortunately.

Oversimplifying, though, for a single example...

Consider the following individuals in a State (fictional, if necessary) with no corporate or individual income tax and no tax on dividends, interacting with a corporation in the same State. The corporation turns a profit (income minus expenses) of $2 million/year, some of which it saves year-to-year and the rest of which it pays out in dividends.

    1) Middle-class employee of the company.
    2) Super-wealthy stockholder in the company.
    3) Minimum wage employee of the company.
    4) Middle-class stockholder in the company.
1) Makes 75000, takes standard deduction of $6100. Pays $14492 in income taxes, plus $9300 FICA (half of which comes from employer, but it's still a tax on the employee's income) for a total of $23792, or an overall tax rate of about 31.7%

2) Assuming their income is such that they can be reasonably assumed to be paying the top bracket on their average dollar (this person is really making a ton of money, and it's not all coming from this company): A dollar of corporate income that will wind up in this person's hands is taxed at approximately 34%. The $0.66 cents per dollar that he's receiving is then taxed at 20%, meaning a total of 47.2%.

3) $7.25 * 40 * 52 = $15,080 / year. They pay only $901 in income tax, but the $1870 they pay in FICA brings it up to $2771, which is about 18.4%. They may or may not qualify for assistance under one or more of our various current means-tested systems.

4) Profit within the corporation is taxed the same as for the wealthy investor, but now the $0.66 cents per dollar income is taxed at only 15%, for a total of 44% instead. This assumes they are making more than $36,250, which seems fair - but if they are not, the tax rate on the dividend income is 0%, so they are paying in total only the 34%.

I'm not making any particular point regarding what tax policy ought to be, just trying to shift the focus to numbers that are more meaningful.

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#630
post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When I leave the office building I work at the end of my day, the janitors are just showing up. They probably already only get paid the basic livable wage (probably less), so why would they show up to work if they were getting the paycheck anyways? There's something that deeply bothers me about the notion that the above is a bad thing. Yes, you would no longer have access to low-wage janitorial services. But that's…

Do you think he wants to be scrubbing toilets for a subsistence wage? Thanks for proving my point. No, I highly doubt he wants to scrub a toilet for a subsistence wage. I think a janitorial job would go empty for a long, long time. So now, instead of me focusing on my job, I have to take time out of my day to do something I'd pay someone for. It would be better if you get your basic livable wage but still have to wor…

" I have to take time out of my day to do something I'd pay someone for. "

But apparently you wouldn't pay enough to have them do it, so it's more valuable to you to use your time to do that job.

If you paid more, you could more effectively utilize your time.

"So, if you get $20k per year as a livable wage (figure just chosen for easier math) and a job would've paid $25k, you get the $5k difference in your paycheck. This would help keep the low-interest, but easy, jobs staffed."

So you would only be getting paid 5k then. If I don't work at all, I get 20k. If I work, I get 25k.

I think that's what you're suggesting. Unless you're suggesting you get nothing if you don't work, at which point we don't have a basic income anymore, and this idea is moronic.

Post reply on HN