3 ms·

This is just a guess but the GDP of California is estimated to be around $3tn. So $300bn is approx 10% GDP. So, by VAT, maybe they mean a 10% haircut on absolu

This is just a guess but the GDP of California is estimated to be around $3tn. So $300bn is approx 10% GDP. So, by VAT, maybe they mean a 10% haircut on absolutely everything?

SllX 7y ago
Nope. This link appears to be the Bill text which I’ll peruse in a moment, but here’s the Newsweek article I was reading last night. https://www.newsweek.com/new-bill-would-give-nearly-every-californian-1000-month-similar-andrew-yangs-freedom-dividend-1488547 https://www.newsweek.com/new-bill-would-give-nearly-every-ca... And the relevant bit: “The program would be paid for with a state value-added tax of 10 percent on goods and services, with exemptions for groceries, medicine, medical supplies, clothing, textbooks and other items. Recipients of several programs, including the state's Medicaid plan, would be ineligible.” Not to wax too political here, but the insane part to me isn’t even the UBI bit which I’m not fond of but open to changing my view in the coming decades, the insane part is the introduction of a new type of tax we previously didn’t have, and near as I can tell isn’t intended to replace the sales tax, and not just a new tax, but at a pretty high rate. Actually you know what? I just looked at the bill text, it was less than I thought and it was more insane than I thought. Here’s section 2: “SEC. 2. It is the intent of the Legislature to fund the CalUBI Program with a value-added tax of 10 percent on goods and services, except medicine, medical supplies and equipment, educational materials, including textbooks, tuition or fees for education, food, groceries, and clothing.” It is the intent of the legislature to fund it with a VAT, and if you know anything at all about California law, then you probably know that means a ballot measure which will need 2/3 support from the electorate. Theoretically that ballot measure could be used to replace the sales tax, but it probably won’t be because only part of the sales tax is State, and much of it is appropriated by law to fund very specific projects or programs.
moralestapia 7y ago
"It's easy, we only need 10% of the total economic output of California" Whew ...
- bryanlarsen 7y ago
  The money doesn't disappear. An argument can be made that transferring money from the rich to the poor will boost the economy rather than hurting it. The average taxpayer should be net-zero: the exact same amount going out in new taxes as is coming in in UBI. They'll scream "my taxes went up by $1000 per month!" conveniently ignoring the $1000 per month cheque they're also receiving. That's assuming a fully costed proposal, which this one isn't.
  - ppf 7y ago
    Maybe, but not all consumer spending is created equal. You get the industry and commerce that consumers purchase.

This is just a guess but the GDP of California is estimated to be around $3tn. So $300bn is approx 10% GDP. So, by VAT, maybe they mean a 10% haircut on absolutely everything?

SllX 7y ago

Nope. This link appears to be the Bill text which I’ll peruse in a moment, but here’s the Newsweek article I was reading last night. https://www.newsweek.com/new-bill-would-give-nearly-every-californian-1000-month-similar-andrew-yangs-freedom-dividend-1488547 https://www.newsweek.com/new-bill-would-give-nearly-every-ca... And the relevant bit: “The program would be paid for with a state value-added tax of 10 percent on goods and services, with exemptions for groceries, medicine, medical supplies, clothing, textbooks and other items. Recipients of several programs, including the state's Medicaid plan, would be ineligible.” Not to wax too political here, but the insane part to me isn’t even the UBI bit which I’m not fond of but open to changing my view in the coming decades, the insane part is the introduction of a new type of tax we previously didn’t have, and near as I can tell isn’t intended to replace the sales tax, and not just a new tax, but at a pretty high rate. Actually you know what? I just looked at the bill text, it was less than I thought and it was more insane than I thought. Here’s section 2: “SEC. 2. It is the intent of the Legislature to fund the CalUBI Program with a value-added tax of 10 percent on goods and services, except medicine, medical supplies and equipment, educational materials, including textbooks, tuition or fees for education, food, groceries, and clothing.” It is the intent of the legislature to fund it with a VAT, and if you know anything at all about California law, then you probably know that means a ballot measure which will need 2/3 support from the electorate. Theoretically that ballot measure could be used to replace the sales tax, but it probably won’t be because only part of the sales tax is State, and much of it is appropriated by law to fund very specific projects or programs.

moralestapia 7y ago

"It's easy, we only need 10% of the total economic output of California" Whew ...

bryanlarsen 7y ago
The money doesn't disappear. An argument can be made that transferring money from the rich to the poor will boost the economy rather than hurting it. The average taxpayer should be net-zero: the exact same amount going out in new taxes as is coming in in UBI. They'll scream "my taxes went up by $1000 per month!" conveniently ignoring the $1000 per month cheque they're also receiving. That's assuming a fully costed proposal, which this one isn't.
- ppf 7y ago
  Maybe, but not all consumer spending is created equal. You get the industry and commerce that consumers purchase.