6 ms·

>So we are going to raise taxes on the middle class to give free money to people that choose not to work? 1. UBI aims to streamline redistribution of wealth an

by totony 5y ago

>So we are going to raise taxes on the middle class to give free money to people that choose not to work? 1. UBI aims to streamline redistribution of wealth and remove a lot of bureaucracy around it, reducing a lot of the cost of the current system 2. Why the middle class specifically? Upper class could shoulder most of the costs (if there are) easily >I would not be ok going to work to pay people that have decided that they are fine living on the UBI and don't want to work anymore. Then don't work. We already have taxes for things which are way less useful for society. You could choose not to work and live on with the bare minimum. That's the freedom UBI brings. Now probably you'd do something or another out of boredom which would end up being useful to society anyway. You'd just do it for free instead of having to convince someone to pay for it. EDIT: A better way to put it is to see UBI as an investment into people instead of as a cost. You give them what they need to live so that, in aggregate, they can innovate more and worry less about making ends meet. Notwithstanding the fact that this is something we can do, for somewhat cheap and would help a lot of people.

nradov 5y ago
Have you actually done the math? The reality is that there aren't enough upper class people to generate sufficient tax revenue for a meaningful UBI. While I do support higher taxes at the upper levels, you can only squeeze people so much before they decide to bail out and move to tax havens.
- totony 5y ago
  >The reality is that there aren't enough upper class people to generate sufficient tax revenue for a meaningful UBI. What makes you think so? There are a lot of discussion online about the costs/benefits of UBI. This article has an US-centric view on how this could be afforded https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/14/budget-neutral-universal-basic-income-plan-would-pay-1320-per-month.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/14/budget-neutral-universal-bas...
  - giantg2 5y ago
    Interesting. Sounds like it axes Medicare, SS, and a large number of tax deductions (which is how the US implements a lot of policy). I'd love a simplified tax code, but unsure of the SS and Medicare removal. I wonder how that would look for people who are currently collecting, paying in at various stages, etc. That would be a massive windfall for most if the money paid-in was returned. I'm not sure which veteran benefits they want to get rid of specifically, but this could be a bad idea. One of the main ways to increase economic class if one is poor is to serve in the military and have the pay for college after they get out (yes, the payment could cover part of it, assuming they aren't using it for living expenses which would be mostly covered during their enlistment). The VA is under funded and doesn't have a great record, but that's so highly beneficial to many.
    - nybble41 5y ago
      > Sounds like it axes Medicare, SS, and a large number of tax deductions… … as well various special-purpose programs including housing benefits, SSI, SNAP, TANF, veteran's benefits, WIC, Medicaid, SS Disability, and disaster relief. I'm sure those currently receiving these benefits will be thrilled to find out that they're being replaced by a flat UBI payment of $15k/yr (minus taxes) with no allowance for special circumstances or hardship. > [SS and Medicare removal] would be a massive windfall for most if the money paid-in was returned. Undoubtedly, but what are the odds of that happening?
      - relaxing 5y ago
        It sounds like you’re being sarcastic, but it will be vastly preferable to avoid the bureaucracy that comes with all those programs. Not to mention the cognitive burden that comes from constantly being means tested.
        giantg2 5y ago
        "but it will be vastly preferable" To whom? The government, sure. The individuals using those programs, probably not. Healthcare costs alone would likely wipe that out (for the demographics using Medicare). Rent in many areas would eat more than half.
wonderwonder 5y ago
Lets say we instituted a 100% wealth tax on the 1%, that's 45 trillion if somehow we could get the cash value for their stocks at a normal valuation(which someone would have to buy). How many years does that fund the UBI for until we run out of that money?
- totony 5y ago
  See this post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30248741 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30248741
  - Msw242 5y ago
    That says wiping out all social programs and raising taxes on those over 1m/yr in income would cover 15k/yr. It seems like 45tn in asset seizures would cover the additional 15k/yr for around 10 years. But I would be very worried about the impact on capital markets and company formation. I would immediately leave the US if this kind of seizure got through the House and looked like it might pass the Senate.
    - wonderwonder 5y ago
      The stock market would go to zero as there would be no one capable of buying that stock and pretty much no demand either. People would know that their assets can be seized whenever the government wants. 401k's and retirement accounts would be wiped out. Pension funds would go bankrupt overnight. I feel like this is the scenario that so many overlook when they call for massive wealth taxes or the abolishment of the billionaire / millionaire class.
      - totony 5y ago
        This is hyperbole. Removing loopholes and taxing the top 5% more will not destroy society. Just like taxing the middle class didn't make them stop working, or made them work shitty jobs just to not pay taxes.
citrin_ru 5y ago
> Why the middle class specifically? Upper class could shoulder most of the costs Reach people have disproportionate political influence so the can carve some exemptions for themselves and they have resources to exploit unintentionally created loopholes. Middle class typically have no ways to avoid taxes.

by totony 5y ago

nradov 5y ago

Have you actually done the math? The reality is that there aren't enough upper class people to generate sufficient tax revenue for a meaningful UBI. While I do support higher taxes at the upper levels, you can only squeeze people so much before they decide to bail out and move to tax havens.

totony 5y ago
>The reality is that there aren't enough upper class people to generate sufficient tax revenue for a meaningful UBI. What makes you think so? There are a lot of discussion online about the costs/benefits of UBI. This article has an US-centric view on how this could be afforded https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/14/budget-neutral-universal-basic-income-plan-would-pay-1320-per-month.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/14/budget-neutral-universal-bas...
- giantg2 5y ago
  Interesting. Sounds like it axes Medicare, SS, and a large number of tax deductions (which is how the US implements a lot of policy). I'd love a simplified tax code, but unsure of the SS and Medicare removal. I wonder how that would look for people who are currently collecting, paying in at various stages, etc. That would be a massive windfall for most if the money paid-in was returned. I'm not sure which veteran benefits they want to get rid of specifically, but this could be a bad idea. One of the main ways to increase economic class if one is poor is to serve in the military and have the pay for college after they get out (yes, the payment could cover part of it, assuming they aren't using it for living expenses which would be mostly covered during their enlistment). The VA is under funded and doesn't have a great record, but that's so highly beneficial to many.
  - nybble41 5y ago
    > Sounds like it axes Medicare, SS, and a large number of tax deductions… … as well various special-purpose programs including housing benefits, SSI, SNAP, TANF, veteran's benefits, WIC, Medicaid, SS Disability, and disaster relief. I'm sure those currently receiving these benefits will be thrilled to find out that they're being replaced by a flat UBI payment of $15k/yr (minus taxes) with no allowance for special circumstances or hardship. > [SS and Medicare removal] would be a massive windfall for most if the money paid-in was returned. Undoubtedly, but what are the odds of that happening?
    - relaxing 5y ago
      It sounds like you’re being sarcastic, but it will be vastly preferable to avoid the bureaucracy that comes with all those programs. Not to mention the cognitive burden that comes from constantly being means tested.
      - giantg2 5y ago
        "but it will be vastly preferable" To whom? The government, sure. The individuals using those programs, probably not. Healthcare costs alone would likely wipe that out (for the demographics using Medicare). Rent in many areas would eat more than half.

wonderwonder 5y ago

Lets say we instituted a 100% wealth tax on the 1%, that's 45 trillion if somehow we could get the cash value for their stocks at a normal valuation(which someone would have to buy). How many years does that fund the UBI for until we run out of that money?

totony 5y ago
See this post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30248741 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30248741
- Msw242 5y ago
  That says wiping out all social programs and raising taxes on those over 1m/yr in income would cover 15k/yr. It seems like 45tn in asset seizures would cover the additional 15k/yr for around 10 years. But I would be very worried about the impact on capital markets and company formation. I would immediately leave the US if this kind of seizure got through the House and looked like it might pass the Senate.
  - wonderwonder 5y ago
    The stock market would go to zero as there would be no one capable of buying that stock and pretty much no demand either. People would know that their assets can be seized whenever the government wants. 401k's and retirement accounts would be wiped out. Pension funds would go bankrupt overnight. I feel like this is the scenario that so many overlook when they call for massive wealth taxes or the abolishment of the billionaire / millionaire class.
    - totony 5y ago
      This is hyperbole. Removing loopholes and taxing the top 5% more will not destroy society. Just like taxing the middle class didn't make them stop working, or made them work shitty jobs just to not pay taxes.

citrin_ru 5y ago

> Why the middle class specifically? Upper class could shoulder most of the costs Reach people have disproportionate political influence so the can carve some exemptions for themselves and they have resources to exploit unintentionally created loopholes. Middle class typically have no ways to avoid taxes.