4 ms·

60k is the average working income, not average adult income or human income. You are also casually applying a 20% hike, which for many people is their entire b

60k is the average working income, not average adult income or human income. You are also casually applying a 20% hike, which for many people is their entire budget after taxes and housing. My effective rate is already >40%, and you are proposing another 20%. That would mean others are getting more of my salary than I am. 12k seems an absurdity low number to provide universal shelter, Healthcare, food, security, and entertainment. My newspapers are full of stories on how 100k/yr isn't a living wage in California

Dylan16807 2y ago
> 60k is the average working income, not average adult income or human income. It's close enough, that's for 240 million people. If I use Gross National Income I get a much higher number. I'm not worried about children right this second. > You are also casually applying a 20% hike, which for many people is their entire budget after taxes and housing. Another 20%, minus 12 thousand dollars. That makes a big difference. The median worker would pay significantly less than before. And I already said progressive would be better. But a flat tax like that is very simple and would not be the end of the world. > My effective rate is already >40%, and you are proposing another 20%. That would mean others are getting more of my salary than I am. Are you taking the minus 12k into account? If so it sounds like you're making a lot more than the people you just described that can't find reasonable housing. You'll be fine. > 12k seems an absurdity low number to provide universal shelter, Healthcare, food, security, and entertainment. My newspapers are full of stories on how 100k/yr isn't a living wage in California The nice thing about having a guaranteed income is that you actually can move without massive risk. Or you can adjust it based on location, idk, I'm going with the simple version first. If it only helps most people then that's enough to show the idea has merit. Nitpicking won't work!
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  do you know that Gross National Income has nothing to do with average individual income? If you are taking that as your baseline, you have already nationalized every industry and productive asset in the country.
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    Income taxes wouldn't need to-- nevermind. Okay. Please stop nitpicking and either defend your claim about "100% socialization of income" or admit you were wrong. Sorry for saying irrelevant words, I will try to minimize them. A flat tax increase of 20% of income minus 12k would be far from ideal, but anyone making less than 60k would have less taxes, anyone making 60k-120k would have a 0-10% of income increase, and super high cost of living places could use different numbers. The exact details don't matter because I only made that scenario to prove your claim wrong. Because it's wrong.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      At the end of the day, I have fun I don't think you are 60k number is right, or your 12K number is sufficient to cover all of the cost of living a comfortable life. This is fundamental to the difference. I think the desired level of Ubi is on par if not higher than the average American Income. This leads to the 100% redistribution claim. It is very simple. If we assume the average income is 60k, urinalysis is still wrong. A 20% flat tax for Ubi would then provide a 12K benefit. This would not be a net positive for incomes between 60 and 120k. The break-even point would be an income of 60k, progressing to a 10% net loss at 120k. 20% of 120 is negative 24,000, and 12 would be returned via Ubi.
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        I meant to say income tax increase of 0-10% for 60k-120k. That's why I said break even at 60k. Sorry for the confusion. > I think the desired level of Ubi is on par if not higher than the average American Income. This leads to the 100% redistribution claim. It is very simple. You think the "desired level of UBI" is more than the median income? You're talking to caricatures and fools, not real advocates. And you should have said you were talking about far more than $1000 a month significantly earlier in the conversation.
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        I think most advocates sell UBI as a replacement for welfare and enough that people would feel "comfortable" quitting jobs they don't like, or support the disabled. Top post for this thread mocks 12K as a negligible handout, and claims UBI has never been tried. Let me ask you what level of UBI would support a disabled mother of two that cant work? What level of UBI would allow a construction worker to quit their job and go back to engineering school? These are exactly the types of things advocates claim UBI would solve (along with poverty and crime).
iainmerrick 2y ago
My effective rate is already >40%, and you are proposing another 20%. That would mean others are getting more of my salary than I am. There’s nothing magical about exceeding a 50% marginal tax rate. (Hitting 100%, sure, that would be bad.) There’s definitely a psychological threshold there for most people. I ran an informal survey a few years back about what tax rates people would consider fair, and there was a very strong clustering at 50%. I have a hard time understanding it myself. The whole point of taxation is redistribution, so why would you care whether you’re “winning” versus the marginal tax rate?
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  >The whole point of taxation is redistribution, so why would you care whether you’re “winning” versus the marginal tax rate? A substantial portion of the population doesnt think taxation should be used for distribution at all. They think the fundamental point of taxation is to pay for public goods that everyone uses like roads, police, and firemen.
  - iainmerrick 2y ago
    You’re right -- that is actually what I had in mind (in addition to welfare), but I was imprecise.

Dylan16807 2y ago

> 60k is the average working income, not average adult income or human income. It's close enough, that's for 240 million people. If I use Gross National Income I get a much higher number. I'm not worried about children right this second. > You are also casually applying a 20% hike, which for many people is their entire budget after taxes and housing. Another 20%, minus 12 thousand dollars. That makes a big difference. The median worker would pay significantly less than before. And I already said progressive would be better. But a flat tax like that is very simple and would not be the end of the world. > My effective rate is already >40%, and you are proposing another 20%. That would mean others are getting more of my salary than I am. Are you taking the minus 12k into account? If so it sounds like you're making a lot more than the people you just described that can't find reasonable housing. You'll be fine. > 12k seems an absurdity low number to provide universal shelter, Healthcare, food, security, and entertainment. My newspapers are full of stories on how 100k/yr isn't a living wage in California The nice thing about having a guaranteed income is that you actually can move without massive risk. Or you can adjust it based on location, idk, I'm going with the simple version first. If it only helps most people then that's enough to show the idea has merit. Nitpicking won't work!

s1artibartfast 2y ago
do you know that Gross National Income has nothing to do with average individual income? If you are taking that as your baseline, you have already nationalized every industry and productive asset in the country.
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  Income taxes wouldn't need to-- nevermind. Okay. Please stop nitpicking and either defend your claim about "100% socialization of income" or admit you were wrong. Sorry for saying irrelevant words, I will try to minimize them. A flat tax increase of 20% of income minus 12k would be far from ideal, but anyone making less than 60k would have less taxes, anyone making 60k-120k would have a 0-10% of income increase, and super high cost of living places could use different numbers. The exact details don't matter because I only made that scenario to prove your claim wrong. Because it's wrong.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    At the end of the day, I have fun I don't think you are 60k number is right, or your 12K number is sufficient to cover all of the cost of living a comfortable life. This is fundamental to the difference. I think the desired level of Ubi is on par if not higher than the average American Income. This leads to the 100% redistribution claim. It is very simple. If we assume the average income is 60k, urinalysis is still wrong. A 20% flat tax for Ubi would then provide a 12K benefit. This would not be a net positive for incomes between 60 and 120k. The break-even point would be an income of 60k, progressing to a 10% net loss at 120k. 20% of 120 is negative 24,000, and 12 would be returned via Ubi.
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      I meant to say income tax increase of 0-10% for 60k-120k. That's why I said break even at 60k. Sorry for the confusion. > I think the desired level of Ubi is on par if not higher than the average American Income. This leads to the 100% redistribution claim. It is very simple. You think the "desired level of UBI" is more than the median income? You're talking to caricatures and fools, not real advocates. And you should have said you were talking about far more than $1000 a month significantly earlier in the conversation.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        I think most advocates sell UBI as a replacement for welfare and enough that people would feel "comfortable" quitting jobs they don't like, or support the disabled. Top post for this thread mocks 12K as a negligible handout, and claims UBI has never been tried. Let me ask you what level of UBI would support a disabled mother of two that cant work? What level of UBI would allow a construction worker to quit their job and go back to engineering school? These are exactly the types of things advocates claim UBI would solve (along with poverty and crime).

iainmerrick 2y ago

My effective rate is already >40%, and you are proposing another 20%. That would mean others are getting more of my salary than I am. There’s nothing magical about exceeding a 50% marginal tax rate. (Hitting 100%, sure, that would be bad.) There’s definitely a psychological threshold there for most people. I ran an informal survey a few years back about what tax rates people would consider fair, and there was a very strong clustering at 50%. I have a hard time understanding it myself. The whole point of taxation is redistribution, so why would you care whether you’re “winning” versus the marginal tax rate?

s1artibartfast 2y ago
>The whole point of taxation is redistribution, so why would you care whether you’re “winning” versus the marginal tax rate? A substantial portion of the population doesnt think taxation should be used for distribution at all. They think the fundamental point of taxation is to pay for public goods that everyone uses like roads, police, and firemen.
- iainmerrick 2y ago
  You’re right -- that is actually what I had in mind (in addition to welfare), but I was imprecise.