1. Hi there, Guest

    Only registered users can really experience what DLP has to offer. Many forums are only accessible if you have an account. Why don't you register?
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Introducing for your Perusing Pleasure

    New Thread Thursday
    +
    Shit Post Sunday

    READ ME
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Q4 2019 Story Competition is kicking off!

    Prompt:
    Foreign Magical Regions (Setting outside of Britain) Length: 2.5 - 5k
    Get writing Folks!
    Dismiss Notice

U.S. 2020 Elections

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Conquistador, Jan 20, 2019.

  1. DR

    DR Secret Squirrel ~ Prestige ~ DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,716
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Connecticut
    High Score:
    2810
    And why, one must ask, would those programs be fully funded when loads of people would be getting their dividend?

    Answer: They wouldn't be. That's as logical as people assuming charter schools don't affect public funding.
     
  2. amek

    amek Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2017
    Messages:
    122
    Gender:
    Male
    High Score:
    0
    The problem is that it indirectly takes away funds from these programs and gives Republicans justification when they do try to remove medicare/ss/etc. I'm honestly in favor for a much more modest ubi plan that goes to everyone lower than 500000 (arbitrary number) a year and acts as a supplement to other programs.
     
  3. Howdy

    Howdy Dark Lord

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2008
    Messages:
    1,853
    Location:
    The Playhouse
    As some of my friends have already stated and perhaps I didn't articulate, his UBI is laying the groundwork for de-funding vital welfare programs that literally keep people alive today. Not to mention the injustice of most of us being able to spend 1k a month on Fortnite skins or whatever shit when tens of millions of people in this country are truly suffering.

    UBI may be in our trajectory for the future, but not now and definitely not with Yang.
     
  4. Newcomb

    Newcomb Headmaster

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2013
    Messages:
    1,195
    Location:
    The Evergreen State
    That. Was a pretty fantastic read.

    I read the whole thing, and I think I'm gonna donate to this guy.
     
  5. amek

    amek Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2017
    Messages:
    122
    Gender:
    Male
    High Score:
    0
    Well probably a more limited ubi for lower and lower-middle income people maybe?But yeh he is probably not going to become president but as some sort of economic advisor or cabinet official? I honestly don't see why not.
     
  6. Arthellion

    Arthellion Lord of the Banned ~ Prestige ~

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2017
    Messages:
    619
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    High Score:
    2398
    There are numerous other programs to take funds from other than welfare. Plus the VAT would solve a lot of those problems. Not all, but a lot.

    I fully agree that republicans would try to devalue welfare. But I think that is a slippery slope fallacy. Just because we do A, doesn’t mean B necessarily follows. I think attaching the morality of Republicans angst against welfare to Yanfs plan isn’t logical.

    I do see Howdy’s point though on fortnite skins. And that would be common ground...but freedom to choose right?

    That said, tax laws and such aren’t my forte...but reading the plans of other candidates...none of them explain their ideas as well as Yang does.

    Think there was an article I read recently that said whoever wins should hire Yang as their “secretary of explaining shit”
     
  7. amek

    amek Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2017
    Messages:
    122
    Gender:
    Male
    High Score:
    0
    To be completely honest though I'd rather we have a ubi program that targeted lower and middle class families/people because, if I'm not screwing up my econ 101, they will spend it not save it because they need to already. The middle and lower classes have been getting progressively more squeezed over the years. Also yeh VAT seems like a way of getting around shell companies, but where there is a tax lawyer and Lots of lobbying funds there is always a way.
     
  8. DR

    DR Secret Squirrel ~ Prestige ~ DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,716
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Connecticut
    High Score:
    2810
    Like what.

    Also, the whole point of a cash payout is to then eliminate the payouts it replaces.

    Value added taxes are regressive, you're more likely to hurt the people you're trying to help by having the UBI. And what, exactly, is the point of imposing a regressive tax to then fund a universal dividend?

    If the point is to do an end run around corporate tax avoidance, how about you run an end around this dumb idea and just rewrite corporate tax law.
     
  9. Arthellion

    Arthellion Lord of the Banned ~ Prestige ~

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2017
    Messages:
    619
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    High Score:
    2398
    As lower/middle income, I support that idea too. @Amekonnen

    Edit:
    @Darth Revan your department doesn’t do much these days? We can start with you guys. :D (I kid I kid)

    But the military for one. Ice detention centers. Mass incarceration. Etc.
     
  10. DR

    DR Secret Squirrel ~ Prestige ~ DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,716
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Connecticut
    High Score:
    2810
    Congratulations, you've just invented the progressive bracketed income tax.
     
  11. amek

    amek Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2017
    Messages:
    122
    Gender:
    Male
    High Score:
    0
    Well it's progressive on the federal level but if you factor in state taxes (which are usually really regressive) it actually cancels out for lower/middle income people. I guess we have to make the system even more progressive on the federal level to make it a net progressive system. (VAT, If done right, REALLY helps corporations have been avoiding lot of taxes)
     
  12. DR

    DR Secret Squirrel ~ Prestige ~ DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,716
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Connecticut
    High Score:
    2810
    Sounds nice, but it won't pay the $3.9tn/annum that a UBI of $1k/mo/American would cost. The entire government budget is $4.4tn.
     
  13. Arthellion

    Arthellion Lord of the Banned ~ Prestige ~

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2017
    Messages:
    619
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    High Score:
    2398
    Did you read the article? Yang dealt with all this and answered those objections.
     
  14. amek

    amek Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2017
    Messages:
    122
    Gender:
    Male
    High Score:
    0
    Sure not the 1000, but if you make it a more modest 200-500 dollars a month to only low income/middle income people while implementing a tax that somehow taxes corporations then it quickly becomes feasible.
     
  15. DR

    DR Secret Squirrel ~ Prestige ~ DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,716
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Connecticut
    High Score:
    2810
    I did, and his answer was basically to cook the books and add in the Republican talking point of 'magic growth!'

    These things never materialize.

    So why not just raise low income tax credits and close some corporate loopholes? The answer is right in front of you, staring you in the face.

    There's literally no reason to go to the trouble of doing any of this.
     
  16. amek

    amek Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2017
    Messages:
    122
    Gender:
    Male
    High Score:
    0
    To be fair as far as I can tell the idea is pretty sound(give money to people who you know will spend it, essentially supporting the middle/lower classes by giving them money not services). The problem I have is that it still seems like a bit of a stretch to have that growth instantly. Hence more modest amounts targeted to people who need them. It's a lot more efficient, and the principles seem pretty sound.
    --- Post automerged ---
    The problem is that the public has to constantly close the loopholes and sometimes we need them to actually be competitive, but once we look away the corporations will just start to lobby using lots of money again (congress isn't changing campaign finance laws in any meaningful way until the public really gets pissed) and voila back to square 1.
    --- Post automerged ---
    Also ubi is a simpler way of raising credits so the hope is there is less paperwork and overhead for the government.
     
  17. Agayek

    Agayek Half-Blood Prince DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    3,562
    Kinda? If you go back and read it, he handwaved a decent chunk of the cost. His exact words on the topic were:
    Basically, he's straight up saying:
    1) Either $800 billion of existing welfare programs will be shifted to pay for UBI, OR people consuming $800b in existing welfare benefits wouldn't take the UBI payout. Either way, that's $800b being spent that's not being counted because reasons

    2) He'll add a VAT that, somehow, companies will actually pay instead of avoiding like the rest of their taxes, for another $800b

    3) Another $4-500b of tax revenue will just magically appear

    Which leaves us with a grand total of $900b at minimum of additional spending, using his own best-case figures, which is in and of itself a 25% increase in the federal budget that isn't accounted for. Using more realistic numbers, we're looking at around $1.5-2t of additional spending (read: 30-50% of the current budget) with no funding for it in sight.

    It's good that someone is talking about the problems of automation and the raw economics of what's coming, but his proposal is simply infeasible and would bankrupt the country far faster than even the oil wars.

    Edit:
    Personally, I'd rather they abolish all the existing welfare systems and just set up a negative income tax (ideally setting the baseline at "a bit above the poverty line for wherever a given person lives") and expand medicare to cover everyone; would neatly solve 90% of the problems with our current welfare systems and be actually affordable.
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2019
  18. amek

    amek Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2017
    Messages:
    122
    Gender:
    Male
    High Score:
    0
    Medicare to Medicaid (there is a difference, at least as far as I know), have some sort of way of paying people throughout the year (giving the people the money throughout the year encourages them to use it on bills and such and not on splurging like they do with their refunds, have some programs for the neediest (This is kinda hard to define but these people really need the government), and get corporations to pay their goddamn taxes and then sure that seems cool.
     
  19. pbluekan

    pbluekan Headmaster DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2014
    Messages:
    1,152
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Dancing in the Mindfield
    The thing is, Yang really isn’t politically radical. At least not in the same way Bernie is. UBI isn’t really more extreme than any of Bernie's myriad plans for student debt, welfare, Medicare for all, or whatever. It’s just consolidated. Instead of a dozen programs, Yang has two. Instead of mandating how and where money is spent, he just puts it directly into the hands of consumers. Instead of regulating away money in politics, he just dilutes it away through pure economics. The whole thing is very in line with small government thinking while remaining as an extremely progressive agenda.

    What he is, is a moderate who has looked at the facts and come up with a plan to deal with them. He’s practically the only moderate in the race at the moment.
     
  20. Fluffiness

    Fluffiness Fourth Year

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2013
    Messages:
    116
    Getting rid of welfare is moderate?
     
Loading...
Similar Threads
  1. Sesc
    Replies:
    25
    Views:
    1,532
  2. Xiph0
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,508
  3. Dark Belra
    Replies:
    136
    Views:
    19,554
  4. DR
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    2,231
  5. DR
    Replies:
    48
    Views:
    8,461