5 ms·

Can someone please answer this for me: Why not simply not tax individuals? Suspending mortgage payments, rents, and taxes would have a much greater benefit as

Can someone please answer this for me: Why not simply not tax individuals? Suspending mortgage payments, rents, and taxes would have a much greater benefit as far as I can tell. This topic reeks of political opportunism. It looks like everyone in favor of 'UBI' (including politicians and 'influencers') is clamoring for this despite not considering (or, in the case of the politicians, ignoring intentionally) any of the drawbacks. 1. The money isn't 'free' it's coming out of tax dollars. 2. Once a UBI concept exists, people begin to plan their lives around it. Any changes to the system that aren't increasing the amounts received then have a huge negative impact on a large population. 3. The average American household now carries significant debt, in the tens of thousands of dollars range. They won't be stimulating the economy if they are just paying back (part of) prior debts. 4. Do we seriously trust the US Government to not mess this up? California is the [0]world's fifth-largest economy and still spends more than it takes in, despite placing enormous tax burdens on its residents. The federal government hasn't been any better, historically. At what point does the economic house of cards come crashing down? Who gets crushed first if it does? [0]https://www.businessinsider.com/california-economy-ranks-5th-in-the-world-beating-the-uk-2018-5 https://www.businessinsider.com/california-economy-ranks-5th...

j88439h84 7y ago
Most low-income people pay 0 federal income tax already
chadlavi 7y ago
Or why not appropriately tax them, especially the ultra high income ones who sneak out of paying with dodgy capital gains and shell company plots, then use that money to give appropriate stimulus?
- Proziam 7y ago
  If we assume that we need 1,000 dollars per month for every adult in the country that means we'd have to increase taxes on "the ultra-high-income" to the tune of [0]209,128,094 * 1000 = $209,128,094,000 per month. Or, $2,509,537,128,000‬ per year. We're talking about 'giving away' (using the term loosely here) 25% more than the combined market cap of FAANG every other year. Put another way, that is 76% of annual federal tax revenue at [1]current levels. No way that's sustainable. [0]https://www.infoplease.com/us/comprehensive-census-data-state/demographic-statistics-342 https://www.infoplease.com/us/comprehensive-census-data-stat... [1.1]https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government-tax-revenue-3305762 https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government-ta... [1.2]https://nypost.com/2018/07/12/universal-basic-income-would-cost-taxpayers-3-8t-per-year-study/ https://nypost.com/2018/07/12/universal-basic-income-would-c...
magduf 7y ago
>4. Do we seriously trust the US Government to not mess this up? California is the [0]world's fifth-largest economy and still spends more than it takes in That's because the citizens of California send most of their income taxes to the Federal government, where a portion of it is sent to red states to subsidize them. If California somehow seceded tomorrow and that money was sent to Sacramento instead, the state would suddenly have a budget surplus.
- Proziam 7y ago
  Source? California has an insanely high state income tax (up to 12.3%), compared to Nevada, which has ZERO state income tax. I find it dubious to put the 'blame' on the federal government for California's finances.
  - magduf 7y ago
    I don't need a source, this is common knowledge. Do you not know how the US federal income tax system works? CA does have a high state income tax, but it also contributes far more to federal coffers than NV, and it doesn't get as much back as it puts in. Many other states get more back than they put in. Again, I don't need a source for this, this is common knowledge.
    - Proziam 7y ago
      If you're going to use terms like 'a lot' when dealing with financial topics it helps to offer real numbers backed up by sources so that comparisons can be made. It helps add specificity to points being discussed. So now, when I say "Yes, but a lot of that difference is due to California's own policies forcing higher costs of living -> forcing higher wages -> pushing incomes into higher federal tax brackets...therefore it is actually California's fault that their citizens get creamed on taxes" we could have a meaningful discussion as to what degree California's policies have such effects, and what levers could be manipulated to alter those effects. But sure, go with 'common knowledge' and remove any semblance of intellectualism in the discussion. Let's just make claims like we're on Reddit. > Do you not know how the US federal income tax system works? I do. I'm very aware that there is a substantial systemic interplay between economic conditions within a state and the downwind effects it has on the cost of living, taxation, and quality of life for citizens in that state. The interplay of the various systems at work is definitively not within the realm of 'common knowledge' even if this forum's demographics show higher than average education.

j88439h84 7y ago

Most low-income people pay 0 federal income tax already

chadlavi 7y ago

Or why not appropriately tax them, especially the ultra high income ones who sneak out of paying with dodgy capital gains and shell company plots, then use that money to give appropriate stimulus?

Proziam 7y ago
If we assume that we need 1,000 dollars per month for every adult in the country that means we'd have to increase taxes on "the ultra-high-income" to the tune of [0]209,128,094 * 1000 = $209,128,094,000 per month. Or, $2,509,537,128,000‬ per year. We're talking about 'giving away' (using the term loosely here) 25% more than the combined market cap of FAANG every other year. Put another way, that is 76% of annual federal tax revenue at [1]current levels. No way that's sustainable. [0]https://www.infoplease.com/us/comprehensive-census-data-state/demographic-statistics-342 https://www.infoplease.com/us/comprehensive-census-data-stat... [1.1]https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government-tax-revenue-3305762 https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government-ta... [1.2]https://nypost.com/2018/07/12/universal-basic-income-would-cost-taxpayers-3-8t-per-year-study/ https://nypost.com/2018/07/12/universal-basic-income-would-c...

magduf 7y ago

>4. Do we seriously trust the US Government to not mess this up? California is the [0]world's fifth-largest economy and still spends more than it takes in That's because the citizens of California send most of their income taxes to the Federal government, where a portion of it is sent to red states to subsidize them. If California somehow seceded tomorrow and that money was sent to Sacramento instead, the state would suddenly have a budget surplus.

Proziam 7y ago
Source? California has an insanely high state income tax (up to 12.3%), compared to Nevada, which has ZERO state income tax. I find it dubious to put the 'blame' on the federal government for California's finances.
- magduf 7y ago
  I don't need a source, this is common knowledge. Do you not know how the US federal income tax system works? CA does have a high state income tax, but it also contributes far more to federal coffers than NV, and it doesn't get as much back as it puts in. Many other states get more back than they put in. Again, I don't need a source for this, this is common knowledge.
  - Proziam 7y ago
    If you're going to use terms like 'a lot' when dealing with financial topics it helps to offer real numbers backed up by sources so that comparisons can be made. It helps add specificity to points being discussed. So now, when I say "Yes, but a lot of that difference is due to California's own policies forcing higher costs of living -> forcing higher wages -> pushing incomes into higher federal tax brackets...therefore it is actually California's fault that their citizens get creamed on taxes" we could have a meaningful discussion as to what degree California's policies have such effects, and what levers could be manipulated to alter those effects. But sure, go with 'common knowledge' and remove any semblance of intellectualism in the discussion. Let's just make claims like we're on Reddit. > Do you not know how the US federal income tax system works? I do. I'm very aware that there is a substantial systemic interplay between economic conditions within a state and the downwind effects it has on the cost of living, taxation, and quality of life for citizens in that state. The interplay of the various systems at work is definitively not within the realm of 'common knowledge' even if this forum's demographics show higher than average education.