3 ms·
Yes, the California economy could absorb an additional $32B in additional taxes if that money is then just re-routed back into consumers' pockets via a UBI. So
by tryitnow 7y ago
Yes, the California economy could absorb an additional $32B in additional taxes if that money is then just re-routed back into consumers' pockets via a UBI.
So the overall tax impact isn't my concern.
My concern is why do this at all if just routes money through the state treasury then back into consumers' pockets?
Unless, the UBI is highly distributive,taking money from the well-to-do and giving it to the poor.
But...if it's highly re-distribute then that will incentivize the rich to leave the state and incentivize the poor to come, over time that's not sustainable.
Having said all this, I still 100% support the idea behind a UBI, I just don't think we're ready to implement on a national level much less a state level.
- subsaharancoder 7y ago> Unless, the UBI is highly distributive,taking money from the well-to-do and giving it to the poor. s/highly distributive,taking money from the well-to-do and giving it to the poor/Forced wealth redistribution
- t-writescode 7y agoYes, correct, forced wealth redistribution. Similar to tax dollars going to defense contractors, teachers, farmers, the elderly and medicare. The federal government is in the business of forced wealth distribution.
- subsaharancoder 7y agotaxation is the backbone of most if not all governments, no argument there and most rational people would agree, but the foaming in the mouth "blame the wealthy for all the ills facing the world and go for their bone marrow" is what I'm totally against YMMMV. At some point you run out of the billionaires and guess who is next in line to get strip mined in the form of additional taxes? the middle class and finally the poor.