40 ms·

Key passage: "Unfortunately, we couldn’t make the numbers work. To provide a meaningful dividend each year to every citizen, you’d have to raise enormous sums o

Key passage: "Unfortunately, we couldn’t make the numbers work. To provide a meaningful dividend each year to every citizen, you’d have to raise enormous sums of money, and that would either mean a lot of new taxes or cannibalizing other important programs. We decided it was exciting but not realistic, and left it on the shelf."

xster 9y ago
Ah now she's the vanguard of the progressives like she's the vanguard of party unity and Sanders is the saboteur in the Democratic Party despite her still trying to strong arm super delegates despite complete popular losses all the way to June in 2008 and her saying in interviews that Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June and she still shouldn't back Obama just in case he's assassinated. The passage should read more like: "Unfortunately, we couldn't make the time. To provide a meaningful amount of acknowledgment of existence to the working middle class, you'd have to signal an enormous amount of disloyalty to your corporate donors, and that would mean actually going to the midwest and cannibalizing time spent promising right wing policies to rich suburban Republicans. We decided it was exciting but not necessary. We raised over a billion dollars and can just buy our way through the general election."
thatonechad 9y ago
Anyone with a 4th grade knowledge of mathematics would realize this is a terrible idea. Even the research states this would raise GDP if you didn't raise taxes and pay for it with debt. Its the socialist dream to simply create money out of thin air or put it on credit. But the rich can be taxed more right?
- KGIII 9y ago
  Yes, the rich can be taxed more. I can easily afford more taxes. I don't mind paying my taxes, though I have some complaints about how they are spent.
  - ImSkeptical 9y ago
    You realize you can overpay your taxes and not take refunds. Or, alternatively, give to charity equivalents (and not deduct from taxes). If you think that you personally should pay more in taxes, that's within your power!
    - SimbaOnSteroids 9y ago
      Yes but him alone does not a difference make.
    - matthewmacleod 9y ago
      This is a flippant response. Progressive taxation works primarily because those with broad shoulders contribute the most. Individuals contributing more to government income at the individual level does not have the same results, primarily because the benefits of higher taxation can only be realised if the policy is universally applied.
      - the_d00d 9y ago
        Given the context...I think his response was apt
      - conanbatt 9y ago
        The point is that the person wanting to pay more taxes is not hindered from doing so. The idea is being able to force the ones that dont want to do it, to do it. Of course a policy universally applied will be more effective, but its silly to say its what people want. If people want to give more, they can.
      - ImSkeptical 9y ago
        The comment I'm replying to writes: >I can easily afford more taxes. I don't mind paying my taxes That person's argument is "I don't mind" and therefore taxes should be increased. My point is that just because that individual commenter doesn't mind, that doesn't generalize to everyone else who would be paying more in taxes. In other words "I don't mind paying more" is an argument for you to pay more taxes. It's not an argument for me to pay more taxes, because I do mind. My comment is trying to raise this idea, albeit in a somewhat flip way.
saurik 9y ago
Don't most of the advocates of Universal Basic Income agree with the premise of "cannibilizing other important programs"? I tend to associate UBI with "what you get if you challenge a Libertarian to provide welfare", as it is a single primitive that for some level of squinting replaces large numbers of more specific programs.
- koube 9y ago
  Yes, that is one of the arguments put forth against UBI in the Intelligence Squared Debate on UBI [1]. Basically, the argument is that you'll never raise taxes in the USA, so if you want to help the poor, you have to target the poor, not give half that money to rich people. If you're unable to raise taxes, which you very likely won't be able to, then you just end up taking money away from the poor. If you can raise taxes, you can rebalance the money given to the rich with a progressive tax making it essentially a Negative Income Tax AKA Mincome [2], but again it whether you'd be able to do it or not is a different question. [1] https://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/universal-basic-income-safety-net-future https://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/universal-basi... [2] http://i.imgur.com/JbnFDo5.gifv http://i.imgur.com/JbnFDo5.gifv
- thatonechad 9y ago
  I'm running out of things that the progressives want the government to pay for without any logic and mathematics behind it: 1.) College 2.) Healthcare 3.) Abortion 4.) UBI Why not just throw the entire enchilada out there and just have them pay for everything? If giving people money allows for economic growth, then wouldn't it make sense to just give everyone unlimited amount of money. Why stop at X when you can go for Y.
  - ganeshkrishnan 9y ago
    1,2& 3 is already free is most countries and even in developing countries like India. Why are Americans so averse to universal health coverage?
    - thatonechad 9y ago
filoeleven 9y ago
> that would either mean a lot of new taxes or cannibalizing other important programs Like the state of Endless War? https://theintercept.com/2017/09/13/the-clinton-book-tour-is-largely-ignoring-the-vital-role-of-endless-war-in-the-2016-election-result/ https://theintercept.com/2017/09/13/the-clinton-book-tour-is... If I had my druthers I'd like to see the "defense" budget halved--I don't understand what $600 billion of military spending gets us over $300 billion, and Ron Paul, a libertarian, ran on that very platform. It's okay to say that $300B isn't enough to cover the costs of UBI, but it's a damn sight closer to meeting that threshold, and in my opinion it would result in a lot less blowback (read: future excuses for more military spending). This is something that is still essentially off the table amongst mainstream political discourse, and that is a problem.

xster 9y ago

Ah now she's the vanguard of the progressives like she's the vanguard of party unity and Sanders is the saboteur in the Democratic Party despite her still trying to strong arm super delegates despite complete popular losses all the way to June in 2008 and her saying in interviews that Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June and she still shouldn't back Obama just in case he's assassinated. The passage should read more like: "Unfortunately, we couldn't make the time. To provide a meaningful amount of acknowledgment of existence to the working middle class, you'd have to signal an enormous amount of disloyalty to your corporate donors, and that would mean actually going to the midwest and cannibalizing time spent promising right wing policies to rich suburban Republicans. We decided it was exciting but not necessary. We raised over a billion dollars and can just buy our way through the general election."

thatonechad 9y ago

Anyone with a 4th grade knowledge of mathematics would realize this is a terrible idea. Even the research states this would raise GDP if you didn't raise taxes and pay for it with debt. Its the socialist dream to simply create money out of thin air or put it on credit. But the rich can be taxed more right?

KGIII 9y ago
Yes, the rich can be taxed more. I can easily afford more taxes. I don't mind paying my taxes, though I have some complaints about how they are spent.
- ImSkeptical 9y ago
  You realize you can overpay your taxes and not take refunds. Or, alternatively, give to charity equivalents (and not deduct from taxes). If you think that you personally should pay more in taxes, that's within your power!
  - SimbaOnSteroids 9y ago
    Yes but him alone does not a difference make.
  - matthewmacleod 9y ago
    This is a flippant response. Progressive taxation works primarily because those with broad shoulders contribute the most. Individuals contributing more to government income at the individual level does not have the same results, primarily because the benefits of higher taxation can only be realised if the policy is universally applied.
    - the_d00d 9y ago
      Given the context...I think his response was apt
    - conanbatt 9y ago
      The point is that the person wanting to pay more taxes is not hindered from doing so. The idea is being able to force the ones that dont want to do it, to do it. Of course a policy universally applied will be more effective, but its silly to say its what people want. If people want to give more, they can.
    - ImSkeptical 9y ago
      The comment I'm replying to writes: >I can easily afford more taxes. I don't mind paying my taxes That person's argument is "I don't mind" and therefore taxes should be increased. My point is that just because that individual commenter doesn't mind, that doesn't generalize to everyone else who would be paying more in taxes. In other words "I don't mind paying more" is an argument for you to pay more taxes. It's not an argument for me to pay more taxes, because I do mind. My comment is trying to raise this idea, albeit in a somewhat flip way.

saurik 9y ago

Don't most of the advocates of Universal Basic Income agree with the premise of "cannibilizing other important programs"? I tend to associate UBI with "what you get if you challenge a Libertarian to provide welfare", as it is a single primitive that for some level of squinting replaces large numbers of more specific programs.

koube 9y ago
Yes, that is one of the arguments put forth against UBI in the Intelligence Squared Debate on UBI [1]. Basically, the argument is that you'll never raise taxes in the USA, so if you want to help the poor, you have to target the poor, not give half that money to rich people. If you're unable to raise taxes, which you very likely won't be able to, then you just end up taking money away from the poor. If you can raise taxes, you can rebalance the money given to the rich with a progressive tax making it essentially a Negative Income Tax AKA Mincome [2], but again it whether you'd be able to do it or not is a different question. [1] https://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/universal-basic-income-safety-net-future https://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/universal-basi... [2] http://i.imgur.com/JbnFDo5.gifv http://i.imgur.com/JbnFDo5.gifv
thatonechad 9y ago
I'm running out of things that the progressives want the government to pay for without any logic and mathematics behind it: 1.) College 2.) Healthcare 3.) Abortion 4.) UBI Why not just throw the entire enchilada out there and just have them pay for everything? If giving people money allows for economic growth, then wouldn't it make sense to just give everyone unlimited amount of money. Why stop at X when you can go for Y.
- ganeshkrishnan 9y ago
  1,2& 3 is already free is most countries and even in developing countries like India. Why are Americans so averse to universal health coverage?
  - thatonechad 9y ago

filoeleven 9y ago

> that would either mean a lot of new taxes or cannibalizing other important programs Like the state of Endless War? https://theintercept.com/2017/09/13/the-clinton-book-tour-is-largely-ignoring-the-vital-role-of-endless-war-in-the-2016-election-result/ https://theintercept.com/2017/09/13/the-clinton-book-tour-is... If I had my druthers I'd like to see the "defense" budget halved--I don't understand what $600 billion of military spending gets us over $300 billion, and Ron Paul, a libertarian, ran on that very platform. It's okay to say that $300B isn't enough to cover the costs of UBI, but it's a damn sight closer to meeting that threshold, and in my opinion it would result in a lot less blowback (read: future excuses for more military spending). This is something that is still essentially off the table amongst mainstream political discourse, and that is a problem.