It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

We should give Progressives EVERYTHING they want.

page: 5
27
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2019 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: MRinder
a reply to: luthier


The ubi cancels beuracratic cost. Like I said welfare and disability are incredibly inefficient.

So giving welfare and disability to a subset of people is more inefficient than giving it to everyoone?


The. There is the case of companies like Amazon who can use loopholes by "reinvestment" .

Should companies not be allowed to deduct their costs of doing business and not be able to decide what are the best decisions for their companies long term health?


What happens to a town in Michigan when 50k people are layed off? How inefficient is unemployment?

Seems relatively efficient. Companies pay into the fund and money is paid to employees when they are laid off. Then once laid off the company is charged additional fees based on the cost of their former employees unemployment.



12k is also unlikely to be put into bank accounts judging by the american consumer credit mode. So its again put into the economy. The middle class in particular would benefit for a change. While also giving money to buy upgrades etc..

What kind of upgrades are we talking? Like the kick ass Bose speaker package upgrade for a new car or upgrades to first class seats on a flight? This money is also taken out of the economy to pay for the UBI and taxes on the added economic activity will not replace all the money that is spent on UBI. It's impossible. It's what I like to refer to as Progressive math.


It highly unlikely 12k is going to make people who currently want to work stop working to live in poverty. They will however get a boost.

This money has to come from somewhere unless you just plan on running up deficits and printing more money so it's hard to see where this net boost is coming from. It's just shuffling around money.



First off the idea comes from the founders, several libertarian schools like Hayek, Milton, mises...

And yes having social workers and case workers is very expensive. As is the IRS.

The flat tax/ubi or VAT UBI combination means far less bueracrats.

Unemployment is not efficient because it does not last if you become underemployed...people with dignity take lesser jobs right away while looking. This would aid in that. Stress lowers IQ etc...

We are running massive deficits bigger than ever and the president literally tweets for printing. Just as a reference to where we are with that.


However this is a case of automation and AI creating unheard of wealth while reducing employment. Its happening faster than the industrial revolution and that led to massive riots and serious problems..its not a solution but it's a way to dampen what's coming and maybe have time to adjust and retrain.




posted on Jul, 24 2019 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

$12,000/yr isn't much to live on. So in your scenario are we not giving the poor less than they are currently getting given that many are getting food and shelter paid for? The housing allowance alone is close to $12000.00. So are you for making the poor homeless so that we can all get $12000.00/yr. And why did you pick $12,000 as the amount for UBI? Why not $1000 or $100,000?



posted on Jul, 24 2019 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: MRinder

The ubi does not get taken away when you go to school or get a crap job like welfare.

So yeah it would probably make people take crap 30k jobs or part time work in school.



posted on Jul, 24 2019 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: MRinder

The ubi does not get taken away when you go to school or get a crap job like welfare.

So yeah it would probably make people take crap 30k jobs or part time work in school.


Welfare doesn't get taken away when you go to school or get a crap job as you say. Please look it up.



posted on Jul, 24 2019 @ 11:49 AM
link   
If you get a job that gets you a certain percentage above the poverty level then welfare gets trimmed back until you exceed the percentage.

edit on 24-7-2019 by MRinder because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-7-2019 by MRinder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2019 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: MRinder

Right...in which state under which regulation and which president?

How many people does it take to work those cases? Which school programs are allowed for grants? Who decides? How much does it cost to employ deciders and make the rules for who qualifies?



posted on Jul, 24 2019 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Here are some things I have found.


Studies have found that our federal government could save up to $500 billion per year on administrative costs by moving to a Medicare for All, single-payer health care system.



Moreover, the United States pays, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs because Congress has done nothing to regulate the price of medicine. If the U.S. joined the rest of the industrialized world and negotiated with the pharmaceutical companies to lower prices, our country could save up to $113 billion per year.


There would be a 7.5 percent income-based premium paid by employers that would raise $3.9 trillion over ten years. This would also save business owners money. That is 390 billion per year raised.


In 2016, employers paid an average of $12,865 in private health insurance premiums for a worker with a family of four who makes $50,000 a year. Under this option, employers would pay a 7.5 percent payroll tax to help finance Medicare for All – just $3,750 – a savings of more than $9,000 a year for that employee.


There would be a 4% income-based tax that would raise $3.5 trillion over 10 years, or $350 billion per year. This would also save households money compared to their current healthcare plans.


Last year the typical working family paid an average of $5,277 in premiums to private health insurance companies. Under this option, a typical family of four earning $50,000, after taking the standard deduction, would pay a 4 percent income-based premium to fund Medicare for All – just $844 a year – saving that family over $4,400 a year. Because of the standard deduction, families of four making less than $29,000 a year would not pay this premium.


There are some tax breaks that would be disabled that would raise $4.2 trillion over 10 years, or $420 billion a year.


Several tax breaks that subsidize health care would become obsolete and disappear under Medicare for All. The biggest health expenditure is the preference that excludes employer-paid premiums from payroll and income taxes. This is a significant tax break that would be eliminated under this plan because all Americans would receive health care through the new Medicare for All program instead of employer-based health care. The exclusion for contributions to cafeteria plans and the medical expense deduction will also be eliminated.


After this, there are a lot of tax increases for the wealthy proposed.

So far, I have calculated an annual revenue of 1.723 trillion dollars using non-controversial proposals. It looks like Medicare For All would cost 3.6 trillion dollars per year.

Source 1:
Options to Finance Medicare for All


The top line of the paper’s abstract says that the bill “would, under conservative estimates, increase federal budget commitments by approximately $32.6 trillion during its first 10 years of full implementation.”


FactCheck.org

So that leaves us with $1.8 trillion to cover still. (I'm trying to do calculations here, I'm not sure how this will turn out one way or the other, we will have to see)

So it looks like tax increases for the wealthy are now on the table. It looks like the ones Sanders proposes would cover $459 billion per year. This includes imposing a fee on large financial institutions to repay us for the bailout earlier this century, repealing corporate accounting gimmicks, imposing a one-time tax on currently held offshore profits, closing the Gingritch-Edwards loophole, establish a wealth tax on the top .1% (they could afford it), make the estate tax more progressive (Specifically, the plan would exempt the first $3.5 million of a single person’s estate and the first $7 million of a married couple’s estate.) (see source 1), taxing capital gains and dividends the same as income from work, limit tax deductions for the wealthy, and then there is the progressive tax:


40 percent on income between $250,000 and $500,000.
45 percent on income between $500,000 and $2 million.
50 percent on income between $2 million and $10 million. (In 2014, only 136,000 households, the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers, had income between $2 million and $10 million.)
52 percent on income above $10 million. (In 2014, only 16,700 households, just 0.02 percent of taxpayers, had income exceeding $10 million.)


(Source 1)


This option closes the Gingrich-Edwards loophole which allows individuals who own and run an S-Corporation to game the system and avoid paying payroll taxes by claiming some income as business profits.


(Source 1)

These proposals don't look like they will affect the average American much. But, they only add $459 billion per year, bringing our total revenue to $2.182 trillion per year, so we need to make up the rest (1.418 trillion per year).

It looks like one option left on the table is increasing tax revenue by increasing economic activity, income, and wealth. We could also enforce the current tax code, for once.

Economic growth could be increased due to people having more money to spend on things besides health insurance. Americans spend $10,000 per year on average for healthcare. Apparently, we could charge a fee of $10 per year per person in the U.S. and make 3.272 trillion dollars a year. Something like this could make up the difference, while still saving money. Something like this could actually fund Medicare for All all by itself...

Will raising taxes limit growth? Tax cuts did not enhance growth.


As nonpartisan tax economist Bill Gale and colleagues recently wrote, “At the federal level, there is virtually no evidence that broad-based tax cuts have had a positive effect on growth. … That has been amply demonstrated at the national level, where tax cuts have eroded revenue without a discernable effect on economic activity.”


Source 3:
Prospect.org

These are the ideas I could come up with while researching online. I did come up with the $10 / year tax per person on my own, and it seems reasonable, I'm not sure what is going on there, it seems too simple. Something like this could make up the difference. However, I simply don't understand what is going on here with the math. Supposedly, 372 million people in the U.S. paying a yearly tax of $10 each would raise 3.72 trillion dollars per year.

The amount of taxpayers in the U.S. is 140.9 million, so they would each have to pay $20 per year if they were the only ones paying, and this would cover the entire cost of Medicare for All.

However, something is going on here, because I calculated that the current taxpayer only pays $25.85 on average a year in taxes. (3.643 trillion dollars in tax revenue / 140.9 million taxpayers)
edit on 24pmWed, 24 Jul 2019 14:11:44 -0500kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)

edit on 24pmWed, 24 Jul 2019 14:13:02 -0500kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2019 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

I believe the math comes out to $25,855 for each of the 140.9 million taxpayers to raise 3.643 billion in tax revenue.

and the math to raise 3.72 trillion dollars from 140.9 million taxpayers would be around $26,000 per tax payer per year.

I hope this helps clear it up for you.

edit on 24-7-2019 by MRinder because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-7-2019 by MRinder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2019 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: MRinder

Right...in which state under which regulation and which president?

How many people does it take to work those cases? Which school programs are allowed for grants? Who decides? How much does it cost to employ deciders and make the rules for who qualifies?


Did your google break?



posted on Jul, 24 2019 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: MRinder

Thanks, I figured that out and came back here to post this, but you beat me to it!I did the analysis to see the results, not to prove one way or the other. It looks like Medicare for All is expensive!

The best way to ensure these policies don’t come into effect is for Republicans to hold Trump accountable and cleanse their ranks of corruption and then talk policy instead of propaganda. Just my opinion!


edit on 24pmWed, 24 Jul 2019 16:15:36 -0500kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)

edit on 24pmWed, 24 Jul 2019 16:16:01 -0500kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2019 @ 09:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: MRinder

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: MRinder

Right...in which state under which regulation and which president?

How many people does it take to work those cases? Which school programs are allowed for grants? Who decides? How much does it cost to employ deciders and make the rules for who qualifies?


Did your google break?


Nope it didn't break. It shows a massive discrepancy with reality as I suggested.



posted on Jul, 25 2019 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: MRinder
a reply to: darkbake

I believe the math comes out to $25,855 for each of the 140.9 million taxpayers to raise 3.643 billion in tax revenue.

and the math to raise 3.72 trillion dollars from 140.9 million taxpayers would be around $26,000 per tax payer per year.

I hope this helps clear it up for you.


Sort of like the math that the tax cuts wouldn't be a burden on the deficit.

Medicare for all is a terrible idea but linear math for public health is a fallacy. Obama for better or worse tried to model a little after the swiss. Who probably have a system we should check out a little closer.

The part of healthcare people don't discuss is medical negligence from for profit medical research. Not only has it literally led to a replication crisis in medical trials we have an opioid epidemic that started with the government, pharmaceuticals, and doctors.
Up to 50 percent of drug trials can't replicate the results of retried.

Part of the issue with profiting off sick people are the ethical problems that arise. I don't think the answer is government healthcare but regulatory systems have failed. Markets work in democracy but they require oversight in high abuse areas. This isn't even discussed in the debate.



posted on Jul, 25 2019 @ 09:18 AM
link   
The progressive movement has nothing to do with what's fair. Of course life is not fair; it cannot be. But we are all in this together and every person is has value whether we like it or not. As a prosperous, advanced society, we should demand that no person is left behind, that we recognize that we are no stronger than our weakest link. That's why it's crucial to educate all who want to put in the work, provide healthcare to all, stop mindless wars, pay living wages, etc. Explain to me what's wrong with those ideas? Are these not the kinds of things you want for yourself, your family, your community, your nation; the world even? The reason it's not possible under our current structure is that nearly all wealth bubbles up to a relative handful (who cannot possible spend it). The irony is that their great wealth is ultimately derived from everyone else.



posted on Jul, 26 2019 @ 06:29 AM
link   
The reason why progressives have such radical and dangerous ideas is because deep down they want to see Americans suffer.

Many have closer ties and more family in other countires.

They are pissed off Americans have it so well.



posted on Jul, 26 2019 @ 06:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Bloodworth

Yeah because wanting everyone to have access to healthcare and higher education are clearly signs these people don't care for their fellow citizens.



posted on Jul, 26 2019 @ 06:54 AM
link   
I think in their newly created utopia there should be a civil means of offing themselves. Play nice music and make a speech about how their sacrifice is saving the snail salamander or some other species not to mention the Earth and all it contains.

Their bodies will be buried in a shallow grave without a casket so their remains can decompose and feed all the plants and then the animals who feed upon the plants, thus completing the cycle of life and death.

Throw in, it is God's will, and all will be forgiven for the purity of their good hearts plus each surviving family member will get a bonus of some sum of money plus a colored arm ban participation ribbon to wear showing how their family truly cares about mother earth !

I want to be minister of propaganda !!
edit on 727thk19 by 727Sky because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2019 @ 07:05 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky



Tasteful? More like this complete with Lady Gaga music and people cheering, laughing, and clapping as you fly up to the giant bug zapper.



posted on Jul, 26 2019 @ 07:56 AM
link   
without a profit angle for the politician, none of this will pass.

You have to think like them ( what is in it for ME?? )Politicians, unlike normal folks,

Folks in office can't live on a government wage, so they need to profit off of everything they do in office.

unless you can figure a way to skim money for the politician, the "legislation" wont pass.


(notice I did not say left or right)



posted on Jul, 26 2019 @ 08:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Bloodworth

Yeah because wanting everyone to have access to healthcare and higher education are clearly signs these people don't care for their fellow citizens.


Of course not, but what they no comprendo...

There are more people who will never contribute one dime towards heath care then there are those who pay.
There are more peoole who use infrastructure like roads and bridges then there are those who pay for their maintenance.
There are more kids in public schools then there are parents who contribute to school tax.

Problem with progressives liberals is the life raft sinking ship example.

Progressives dont know how to say. No and are lead by compassion rather then logic .

So if a ship sinks they will continue to being people aboard the lift raft until it sinks everyone.

Leaders sometimes need to make uncompassionate decisions in order to protect the lives of their citizens..

Obviously way more complicated then you can even comprehend..

Health care for everyone., free college for everyone.
Lol what are you guys 10 years old?




top topics



 
27
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join