5 ms·

Its funny how the anti-UBI people always couch their arguments against UBI as in the best interest of irresponsible poor single mothers...as if providing a sing

Its funny how the anti-UBI people always couch their arguments against UBI as in the best interest of irresponsible poor single mothers...as if providing a single mother of 4 with a basic income is in her own worst interest and will lead to irresponsible spending. Let me ask you: what do you do now when a mother of 4 doesn't qualify for SNAP or housing assistance, and her 1,2 or 3 jobs isn't enough to cover rent or put food on the table? What do you do now when a SNAP recipient sells their food card and spends the cash? My general experience is anti-UBI proponents don't even know about these issues, and if they do they both don't give a shit and have no more answers than a pro-UBI person. At the end of the day the current model is failing, I for one would much rather see all the tax breaks offered to the rich be rolled back, including estate taxes and capital gains...because as of now all that was premised on "trickle down economics" or maybe better phrased as poor people can eat the crumbs of the rich, and so far the crumbs haven't made their way down and to date that what the poor have been told..."tough".

tomschlick 7y ago
> Its funny how the anti-UBI people always couch their arguments against UBI as in the best interest of irresponsible poor single mothers That's done because those same cases will be used by legislators to justify reinstating these programs after UBI kills them. When they need to drum up public support they always tug at the heartstrings. > what do you do now when a mother of 4 doesn't qualify for SNAP or housing assistance First, I highly doubt a mother of 4 wouldn't qualify for any of those things (net income would be $3,188/mo with 5 members). Second, you seem to think removing SNAP, housing credits, and others and replacing it with $1k/mo would work. I'd argue most of those benefits are worth way more in many cases. In Yang's proposal he would give people the option to choose, which I don't think be adopted very well except for those of us who are already doing just fine and would take the extra money to save/invest. > I for one would much rather see all the tax breaks offered to the rich be rolled back, including estate taxes and capital gains. The top 10% already pays 70.6% of US taxes and the top 1% pays 39% alone. In comparison the bottom 50% pay around 2.8%. What is the magical number that is enough? And when does it become not worth it anymore for those people to reinvest? IMO, the government should never be taking more then 50% of someone's income.
- throwaway_law 7y ago
  >Second, you seem to think removing SNAP, housing credits, and others and replacing it with $1k/mo would work. No that is only one potential implementation of UBI, and generally the only one acknowledged by the Anti-UBI crowd (in a fear mongering sort of way). >I'd argue most of those benefits are worth way more in many cases. In fiscal year 2017, the average SNAP household received about $254 a month, or about $1 per meal. And my understanding with housing is 19 Million people are eligible/qualify, but only 25% get assistance, so its essentially a lottery. I'm fairly certain that 75% who get nothing would prefer the $1,000. >The top 10% already pays 70.6% of US taxes and the top 1% pays 39% alone. Those numbers are very consistent with the percentage of wealth owned by these groups. Except, the bottom 50% are paying 3x the % of wealth they own. Maybe the bottom 50% should pay 1% to match the % of wealth they own and then the top 10 and 1 % can pay 3x the % of wealth they own in taxes for a while. >IMO, the government should never be taking more then 50% of someone's income. That seems totally arbitrary, but maybe fair if we are talking about wages, the thing is the tax benefits to the rich that I highlight like inheritance/estate tax or capital gains taxes has nothing to do with work and wages...and its exactly why people like Warren Buffet pay less in taxes than his secretary and the rich have been able to transfer vast amounts of wealth and fortunes tax free. Again maybe we could experiment with tax wages at the capital gains rate and capital gains at the rate of wages for a little and see how that goes.
  - tomschlick 7y ago
    > No that is only one potential implementation of UBI, and generally the only one acknowledged by the Anti-UBI crowd (in a fear mongering sort of way). Because it's the most likely to be implemented and is the only one being touted by presidential candidates. > And my understanding with housing is 19 Million people are eligible/qualify, but only 25% get assistance Is that 25% get approved out of 19 million applying, or just 19 million are eligible but most dont apply? That's an important distinction. > Those numbers are very consistent with the percentage of wealth owned by these groups. You're talking about wealth, I'm talking about investments. Taxing capital gains at a higher rate would just lead to less investment. Less real estate being built which in turn means higher housing prices, less VC funding so less opportunity for jobs, etc. It's taxed lower because it's a higher risk. > That seems totally arbitrary It's not. At no point does the government deserve more money than I do for my own work. Yes the government provides that safety net, schools, roads, etc but that is paid for on an individual level way before 50%. I agree that we need to strengthen laws that allow companies to hide money, but at the same time every single one of us tries to pay the lowest amount every year come tax time; so I can't blame corps for doing the same.

tomschlick 7y ago

> Its funny how the anti-UBI people always couch their arguments against UBI as in the best interest of irresponsible poor single mothers That's done because those same cases will be used by legislators to justify reinstating these programs after UBI kills them. When they need to drum up public support they always tug at the heartstrings. > what do you do now when a mother of 4 doesn't qualify for SNAP or housing assistance First, I highly doubt a mother of 4 wouldn't qualify for any of those things (net income would be $3,188/mo with 5 members). Second, you seem to think removing SNAP, housing credits, and others and replacing it with $1k/mo would work. I'd argue most of those benefits are worth way more in many cases. In Yang's proposal he would give people the option to choose, which I don't think be adopted very well except for those of us who are already doing just fine and would take the extra money to save/invest. > I for one would much rather see all the tax breaks offered to the rich be rolled back, including estate taxes and capital gains. The top 10% already pays 70.6% of US taxes and the top 1% pays 39% alone. In comparison the bottom 50% pay around 2.8%. What is the magical number that is enough? And when does it become not worth it anymore for those people to reinvest? IMO, the government should never be taking more then 50% of someone's income.

throwaway_law 7y ago
>Second, you seem to think removing SNAP, housing credits, and others and replacing it with $1k/mo would work. No that is only one potential implementation of UBI, and generally the only one acknowledged by the Anti-UBI crowd (in a fear mongering sort of way). >I'd argue most of those benefits are worth way more in many cases. In fiscal year 2017, the average SNAP household received about $254 a month, or about $1 per meal. And my understanding with housing is 19 Million people are eligible/qualify, but only 25% get assistance, so its essentially a lottery. I'm fairly certain that 75% who get nothing would prefer the $1,000. >The top 10% already pays 70.6% of US taxes and the top 1% pays 39% alone. Those numbers are very consistent with the percentage of wealth owned by these groups. Except, the bottom 50% are paying 3x the % of wealth they own. Maybe the bottom 50% should pay 1% to match the % of wealth they own and then the top 10 and 1 % can pay 3x the % of wealth they own in taxes for a while. >IMO, the government should never be taking more then 50% of someone's income. That seems totally arbitrary, but maybe fair if we are talking about wages, the thing is the tax benefits to the rich that I highlight like inheritance/estate tax or capital gains taxes has nothing to do with work and wages...and its exactly why people like Warren Buffet pay less in taxes than his secretary and the rich have been able to transfer vast amounts of wealth and fortunes tax free. Again maybe we could experiment with tax wages at the capital gains rate and capital gains at the rate of wages for a little and see how that goes.
- tomschlick 7y ago
  > No that is only one potential implementation of UBI, and generally the only one acknowledged by the Anti-UBI crowd (in a fear mongering sort of way). Because it's the most likely to be implemented and is the only one being touted by presidential candidates. > And my understanding with housing is 19 Million people are eligible/qualify, but only 25% get assistance Is that 25% get approved out of 19 million applying, or just 19 million are eligible but most dont apply? That's an important distinction. > Those numbers are very consistent with the percentage of wealth owned by these groups. You're talking about wealth, I'm talking about investments. Taxing capital gains at a higher rate would just lead to less investment. Less real estate being built which in turn means higher housing prices, less VC funding so less opportunity for jobs, etc. It's taxed lower because it's a higher risk. > That seems totally arbitrary It's not. At no point does the government deserve more money than I do for my own work. Yes the government provides that safety net, schools, roads, etc but that is paid for on an individual level way before 50%. I agree that we need to strengthen laws that allow companies to hide money, but at the same time every single one of us tries to pay the lowest amount every year come tax time; so I can't blame corps for doing the same.