5 ms·

Having negative income tax brackets for those that: 1. Work + 2. Declare their income (i.e., file tax returns) + 3. Make below X amount ... is more financia

Having negative income tax brackets for those that: 1. Work + 2. Declare their income (i.e., file tax returns) + 3. Make below X amount ... is more financially reasonable and has the benefit of keeping the person working/trying/moving. In this system, as an example, someone making below 30K year would gets the difference between what they make and the 30K mark given to them. Otherwise, the only other solution is to just have the FED print out the 5-10+ trillion/year this guaranteed minimum income program needs - and distribute it each month. Most people are already paying a 40-60% effective tax rate (all use, property, local, state, federal taxes - and other related fees - added up) on what they earn, and you really can't tax them more for obvious reasons.

raldi 11y ago
Speaking for people who make as much as, or more than, me: We could afford to pay a lot more in taxes.
- powertower 11y ago
  > Speaking for people who make as much as, or more than, me: We could afford to pay a lot more in taxes. Here you go friend... http://fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html http://fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html If what you just said is true, I'm sure you've already done this many times before. Lead by example, practiced what you preached, paid your real tax due. And if not, no need to wait any more. Here is also the public debt gift page (and stats) if you don't like the above one... https://www.pay.gov/public/form/start/23779454 https://www.pay.gov/public/form/start/23779454 http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm
  - vdaniuk 11y ago
    This argument doesn't have merit. Tragedy of commons/game theory provides us the basis to understand that individual/group efforts are insufficient. Voluntary donations to government from well-meaning individuals will put them at a disadvantaged position against those who are not concerned with the well-being of the others. Advocating for across the board changes for everyone is a more efficient strategy.
    - powertower 11y ago
      > Voluntary donations to government from well-meaning individuals will put them at a disadvantaged position against those who are not concerned with the well-being of the others. The people that hold your position also say that the privileged can't be disadvantaged. What I'm point out is hypocrisy.
      - vdaniuk 11y ago
        >The people that hold your position also say that the privileged can't be disadvantaged. Sorry, I don't get it. Can you elaborate please?
        powertower 11y ago
        I work for myself, and after I pay my taxes, I have about 2-5K left in my bank account. Then I live month-to-month from what I take in and what I chip away at. If he can afford to pay more taxes, if he makes so much more than I, he can't be disadvantaged to me or the rest of us who can't afford to pay more taxes - by paying what he claims he wants to (but yet does not).
        vdaniuk 11y ago
        >he can't be disadvantaged The point is not that they are disadvantaged in absolute terms, but in comparison to those who value profit above all else. Voluntary gifts to gov diminishes relative power of those more compassionate and increases relative influence of those who are less inclined to help others. Also, the increase in taxation in question could be applied only at the top of income ranges. Moreover, if you have $2-5K left in your bank account you may be considered privileged by some standards.
- gergles 11y ago
  Speak only for yourself, please. I paid close to 50% of my income in income and payroll taxes last year. I live in the US and am not in the top marginal federal tax bracket. I feel I am taxed more than adequately when compared to other economies that provide a much greater service level for their citizens. The problems in the US are not on the supply side, they are on the demand (government spending) side, and simply - they are on the military complex side.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    The top marginal income tax bracket isn't the place where you pay the highest combined income + payroll tax, since the the larger part of tax is capped and it is otherwise flat, not progressive. If your paying close to 50% combined, it probably means you'd pay less, as a percentage, if you made more. Getting close to 50% total rate is hard.
  - ezzaf 11y ago
    Why isn't the statement that people on high incomes can afford to pay more tax generally true? Simply feeling that the tax you pay is adequate does not mean paying more would be unaffordable. Certainly you could more afford it than someone on an income of half or a quarter of yours. The question of whether reducing funding of the military complex would be a better policy than tax increases is a valid one, but unrelated.
transfire 11y ago
A solid BI system could be done for around $2-3 trillion, not $5-10+. BI supporter tend to over shoot, $2000 a month is too high and will disincentivize work too much. (Although, the market would correct itself via inflation given enough time.) I worked out the figures, and roughly the equivalent of a 16hr/week job at min wage would be close to optimal and affordable. Taxes should be lower too, btw, but that has to do with wasteful spending in many areas, and nothing to do with BI which can actually help get rid of some that waste.
- falcolas 11y ago
  > disincentivize work too much This assumes that work is good, and that not working is bad. How do you back up that assumption? What happens when there is not enough work for everyone? If your value is intrinsically tied to your job, and there just aren't enough jobs to go around, are you supposed to just die and make way for someone who won the N lottery which let them get the job? Or should employers create unnecessary jobs just for the sake of giving everybody a job (and thus taxing us in another way, to support paying all of these unnecessary jobs)?

raldi 11y ago

Speaking for people who make as much as, or more than, me: We could afford to pay a lot more in taxes.

powertower 11y ago
> Speaking for people who make as much as, or more than, me: We could afford to pay a lot more in taxes. Here you go friend... http://fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html http://fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html If what you just said is true, I'm sure you've already done this many times before. Lead by example, practiced what you preached, paid your real tax due. And if not, no need to wait any more. Here is also the public debt gift page (and stats) if you don't like the above one... https://www.pay.gov/public/form/start/23779454 https://www.pay.gov/public/form/start/23779454 http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm
- vdaniuk 11y ago
  This argument doesn't have merit. Tragedy of commons/game theory provides us the basis to understand that individual/group efforts are insufficient. Voluntary donations to government from well-meaning individuals will put them at a disadvantaged position against those who are not concerned with the well-being of the others. Advocating for across the board changes for everyone is a more efficient strategy.
  - powertower 11y ago
    > Voluntary donations to government from well-meaning individuals will put them at a disadvantaged position against those who are not concerned with the well-being of the others. The people that hold your position also say that the privileged can't be disadvantaged. What I'm point out is hypocrisy.
    - vdaniuk 11y ago
      >The people that hold your position also say that the privileged can't be disadvantaged. Sorry, I don't get it. Can you elaborate please?
      - powertower 11y ago
        I work for myself, and after I pay my taxes, I have about 2-5K left in my bank account. Then I live month-to-month from what I take in and what I chip away at. If he can afford to pay more taxes, if he makes so much more than I, he can't be disadvantaged to me or the rest of us who can't afford to pay more taxes - by paying what he claims he wants to (but yet does not).
        vdaniuk 11y ago
        >he can't be disadvantaged The point is not that they are disadvantaged in absolute terms, but in comparison to those who value profit above all else. Voluntary gifts to gov diminishes relative power of those more compassionate and increases relative influence of those who are less inclined to help others. Also, the increase in taxation in question could be applied only at the top of income ranges. Moreover, if you have $2-5K left in your bank account you may be considered privileged by some standards.
gergles 11y ago
Speak only for yourself, please. I paid close to 50% of my income in income and payroll taxes last year. I live in the US and am not in the top marginal federal tax bracket. I feel I am taxed more than adequately when compared to other economies that provide a much greater service level for their citizens. The problems in the US are not on the supply side, they are on the demand (government spending) side, and simply - they are on the military complex side.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  The top marginal income tax bracket isn't the place where you pay the highest combined income + payroll tax, since the the larger part of tax is capped and it is otherwise flat, not progressive. If your paying close to 50% combined, it probably means you'd pay less, as a percentage, if you made more. Getting close to 50% total rate is hard.
- ezzaf 11y ago
  Why isn't the statement that people on high incomes can afford to pay more tax generally true? Simply feeling that the tax you pay is adequate does not mean paying more would be unaffordable. Certainly you could more afford it than someone on an income of half or a quarter of yours. The question of whether reducing funding of the military complex would be a better policy than tax increases is a valid one, but unrelated.

transfire 11y ago

A solid BI system could be done for around $2-3 trillion, not $5-10+. BI supporter tend to over shoot, $2000 a month is too high and will disincentivize work too much. (Although, the market would correct itself via inflation given enough time.) I worked out the figures, and roughly the equivalent of a 16hr/week job at min wage would be close to optimal and affordable. Taxes should be lower too, btw, but that has to do with wasteful spending in many areas, and nothing to do with BI which can actually help get rid of some that waste.

falcolas 11y ago
> disincentivize work too much This assumes that work is good, and that not working is bad. How do you back up that assumption? What happens when there is not enough work for everyone? If your value is intrinsically tied to your job, and there just aren't enough jobs to go around, are you supposed to just die and make way for someone who won the N lottery which let them get the job? Or should employers create unnecessary jobs just for the sake of giving everybody a job (and thus taxing us in another way, to support paying all of these unnecessary jobs)?