Split UBI - Split From Breakdown In Civil Order

[Elixir]

Except for the little detail that the loopholes are normally on the business side rather than the personal side

Lol! Like that makes a big difference? When I have breakfast served to me in bed, fly off to Monaco in my "business jet" where my "business yacht" is moored, for a business meeting with similar types... and off to the Caymans...
Does it really matter that the plane, the boat, the breakfast, are all titled to or billed to The Company vs titled and billed to Mr Me?

 

[Elixir]

Try reading what she actually wrote.

"middle-income people start looking at their ever increasing tax bill and realize that they could stop working and maintain the same standard of living"
- what she actually wrote

How are they going to do that, unless their standard of living costs 15k, Loren? If they stop working where are they getting anything more than the 15k Emily's strawman promised them? Are they cashing in their 401K?

 

[Toni]

Once again, you are making the fundamental mistake of thinking money has value.

Yet again, no! Money represents value, it does not have value independent from what you can do with it. Fewer people working fewer hours = lower productivity = fewer things to buy with your money. The average standard of living has to drop.

Once again you think you disagree with what I wrote but don’t actually understand it and offer up a poorly reasoned rebuttals that is inaccurate in its purported facts and irrelevant.
I know what money is and is not. Apparently more clearly than you.

No one suggested fewer people working but if that’s your real concern you should be in a huge panic about all the boomers hitting their retirement and leaving the work force.

Fewer people working fewer hours does NOT mean reduced productivity, necessarily. It means fewer people working fewer hours. Nobody discussed fewer people working.

So productivity is unrelated to productivity? Productivity is worker-hours * multiplier based on their equipment and organization.

Not by any definition I can find.

You often seem to know a little and think it’s a lot. This is one of those times.

 

[Elixir]

Google thinks Productivity is a measure of economic performance that compares the amount of goods and services produced (output) with the amount of inputs used to produce those goods and services.

Almost sounds more like efficiency to me.

 

[bilby]

Your side

I'm a person, not a side.

If you have a problem with something I have said, then feel free to raise that with me.

If you have a problem with something that someone other than me has said, then feel free to raise it with them.

But if you have a problem with a position I haven't espoused, and want to attribute it to me, then I have a problem with you.

Not with your side; With you personally, for misrepresenting my position.

 

[bilby]

Taxes are an inefficiency.

Not really. They're an unavoidable necessity.

You are inherently increasing inefficiency with your approach

If taxes increase, the effort required to collect them does not (calculating 25% of X doesn't require less work than calculating 50% of X); So the effort per tax dollar collected (and therefore any inefficiency) falls.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Except for the little detail that the loopholes are normally on the business side rather than the personal side

Lol! Like that makes a big difference? When I have breakfast served to me in bed, fly off to Monaco in my "business jet" where my "business yacht" is moored, for a business meeting with similar types... and off to the Caymans...
Does it really matter that the plane, the boat, the breakfast, are all titled to or billed to The Company vs titled and billed to Mr Me?

The screeching is always about deductions--but it's rarely deductions that are the actual issue. Deductions are far more about the middle class than about the wealthy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Taxes are an inefficiency.

Not really. They're an unavoidable necessity.

Not contradictory. I'm not saying they aren't necessary, I am saying they introduce inefficiency. We have to accept that there will be some inefficiency but you need to understand that the higher the tax rate the greater the inefficiency. For a simple example consider the fact that some large companies buy life insurance on their employees. It's presented as sinister (because they profit from employees dying) but it's really just about taxes. They buy in sufficient bulk that the overhead costs are less than the tax saved because life insurance proceeds are tax free. The higher the tax rate the more situations will arise where businesses will use wasteful transactions to save on taxes.

You are inherently increasing inefficiency with your approach

If taxes increase, the effort required to collect them does not (calculating 25% of X doesn't require less work than calculating 50% of X); So the effort per tax dollar collected (and therefore any inefficiency) falls.

Real world, people engage in transactions with an eye to minimizing taxes.

 

[Elixir]

Except for the little detail that the loopholes are normally on the business side rather than the personal side

Lol! Like that makes a big difference? When I have breakfast served to me in bed, fly off to Monaco in my "business jet" where my "business yacht" is moored, for a business meeting with similar types... and off to the Caymans...
Does it really matter that the plane, the boat, the breakfast, are all titled to or billed to The Company vs titled and billed to Mr Me?

The screeching is always about deductions--but it's rarely deductions that are the actual issue. Deductions are far more about the middle class than about the wealthy.

I don’t think deductions for stuff like childcare are bad, and I agree that big bucks are deducted in small amounts. But even small business owners have tremendous tax advantages over employed individuals. Ask me how I know.
Those advantages scale really well, too.

 

[laughing dog]

In any point in time economics is zero sum.

. That is untrue.

 

[laughing dog]

The issue is whether a 40% tax bite will wreck the economy. The European experience suggests it won’t. I get you think taxes woukd have to doubled because of your biases but there is no logical reason that is required.

The US currently takes in 24% of GDP as taxes. That equates to about $5T of revenue. $15K per person of UBI also equates to about $5T of cost.

If you change the tax rate to accomplish 34% of GDP - the weighted average of OECD countries, that's put revenue at $7.1T, an increase of $2.1T.

29% of current revenue is spent on Social Security and on Economic Security Programs - Let's say we can completely eliminate those if we have UBI. That 29% equates to $1.45T. That means that $3.55T is spent on things that can't reasonably be eliminated.

So at 34% GDP tax rate, you've got $7.1T of revenue, $5T of UBI costs, and $3.55T of other costs, for a shortfall of 1.45T.

What rate do we need to actually cover the $8.55T of spend? By my math, that works out to a tax rate of about 41% of GDP.

Is it technically doable? Sure. You can do it. Is it reasonable and sustainable? That's a different question. That would make us the 8th highest taxes OECD country.

How are you going to make that happen? Are you going to put that all on the highest tax bracket? There's simply not enough of them, even if you increased that bracket to 90%. And that bracket is everyone with incomes of $690K and above. That's well, well below the level of the multi-billionaires that keep being addressed.

What's your plan for how to accomplish this? How much are you going to increase corporate taxes, and how are you going to keep them from skirting those taxes given the enormous loopholes that exist? How much is going to be plugged into personal income tax, which makes up the lion's share of revenue? How much impact will it have inflation - because it's going to definitely reduce the after-tax income that people have available to spend.

And all of that is assuming that employer's don't follow bilby's advice and drop everyone's wages to offset the UBI. And it's assuming no change in the labor market, everyone continues to work and nobody decides to stay home instead.

Yes, the devil is in the details. And the details are important for implementation but not for a general discussion. Because the details are the trees in the forest of “ will it necessarily ruin the economy”.

Which is why we are focusing on the details. You are focusing on fantasy.

Details require specifics. At this stage, specifics are assumptions. You are cherrypicking assumptions consistent with your fantasies.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The issue is whether a 40% tax bite will wreck the economy. The European experience suggests it won’t. I get you think taxes woukd have to doubled because of your biases but there is no logical reason that is required.

The US currently takes in 24% of GDP as taxes. That equates to about $5T of revenue. $15K per person of UBI also equates to about $5T of cost.

If you change the tax rate to accomplish 34% of GDP - the weighted average of OECD countries, that's put revenue at $7.1T, an increase of $2.1T.

29% of current revenue is spent on Social Security and on Economic Security Programs - Let's say we can completely eliminate those if we have UBI. That 29% equates to $1.45T. That means that $3.55T is spent on things that can't reasonably be eliminated.

So at 34% GDP tax rate, you've got $7.1T of revenue, $5T of UBI costs, and $3.55T of other costs, for a shortfall of 1.45T.

What rate do we need to actually cover the $8.55T of spend? By my math, that works out to a tax rate of about 41% of GDP.

Is it technically doable? Sure. You can do it. Is it reasonable and sustainable? That's a different question. That would make us the 8th highest taxes OECD country.

How are you going to make that happen? Are you going to put that all on the highest tax bracket? There's simply not enough of them, even if you increased that bracket to 90%. And that bracket is everyone with incomes of $690K and above. That's well, well below the level of the multi-billionaires that keep being addressed.

What's your plan for how to accomplish this? How much are you going to increase corporate taxes, and how are you going to keep them from skirting those taxes given the enormous loopholes that exist? How much is going to be plugged into personal income tax, which makes up the lion's share of revenue? How much impact will it have inflation - because it's going to definitely reduce the after-tax income that people have available to spend.

And all of that is assuming that employer's don't follow bilby's advice and drop everyone's wages to offset the UBI. And it's assuming no change in the labor market, everyone continues to work and nobody decides to stay home instead.

Yes, the devil is in the details. And the details are important for implementation but not for a general discussion. Because the details are the trees in the forest of “ will it necessarily ruin the economy”.

Which is why we are focusing on the details. You are focusing on fantasy.

Details require specifics. At this stage, specifics are assumptions. You are cherrypicking assumptions consistent with your fantasies.

We can't determine exactly how it should work. We can, however, do back of the envelope calculations to see roughly what the effects would be. You keep responding with derails even to the point of contradicting yourself.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Except for the little detail that the loopholes are normally on the business side rather than the personal side

Lol! Like that makes a big difference? When I have breakfast served to me in bed, fly off to Monaco in my "business jet" where my "business yacht" is moored, for a business meeting with similar types... and off to the Caymans...
Does it really matter that the plane, the boat, the breakfast, are all titled to or billed to The Company vs titled and billed to Mr Me?

The screeching is always about deductions--but it's rarely deductions that are the actual issue. Deductions are far more about the middle class than about the wealthy.

I don’t think deductions for stuff like childcare are bad, and I agree that big bucks are deducted in small amounts. But even small business owners have tremendous tax advantages over employed individuals. Ask me how I know.
Those advantages scale really well, too.

Yeah, we both do a schedule C. All business expenses come off the top before they are income, so not only are they not limited by the standard deduction but there's no FICA, either. Which is what I was saying--the real benefits are in keeping things from being "income" in the first place. (Not to mention that it's pretty obvious that a lot of people engage in a certain amount of fraud in counting what's a business expense.)

 

[Elixir]

Except for the little detail that the loopholes are normally on the business side rather than the personal side

Lol! Like that makes a big difference? When I have breakfast served to me in bed, fly off to Monaco in my "business jet" where my "business yacht" is moored, for a business meeting with similar types... and off to the Caymans...
Does it really matter that the plane, the boat, the breakfast, are all titled to or billed to The Company vs titled and billed to Mr Me?

The screeching is always about deductions--but it's rarely deductions that are the actual issue. Deductions are far more about the middle class than about the wealthy.

I don’t think deductions for stuff like childcare are bad, and I agree that big bucks are deducted in small amounts. But even small business owners have tremendous tax advantages over employed individuals. Ask me how I know.
Those advantages scale really well, too.

Yeah, we both do a schedule C. All business expenses come off the top before they are income, so not only are they not limited by the standard deduction but there's no FICA, either. Which is what I was saying--the real benefits are in keeping things from being "income" in the first place. (Not to mention that it's pretty obvious that a lot of people engage in a certain amount of fraud in counting what's a business expense.)

I agree with all of that … let’s talk about tightening it up, so we can move on to raising the MW.
I don’t think there’s a lot of low-hanging fruit to be gathered from mom and pop small businesses, but there are untold billions that could be recouped from medium and large businesses and their jet-setting execs. The problem is that the really big ones control the candidates for every meaningful office in the land.
Until elections are publicly financed, corporations and billionaires are taxed at Eisenhower-type levels and Trump-style election cheats are slapped down with great force, there is little chance of restoring the lost middle class or raising the poorest out of the gutter.

 

[Emily Lake]

And the Alaska Permanent Fund, called UBI all over the internet, is considered taxable income.

Well gee, if the internet says it, it must be true!

What Is UBI | Stanford Basic Income Lab

Universal basic income takes on distinct forms in different historical and geographic contexts. It varies based on the funding proposal, the level of payment, the frequency of payment, and the particular policies proposed around it.

basicincome.stanford.edu

Periodic
It is a recurrent payment (for example every month), rather than a one-off grant.

Cash payment
It is paid in cash, allowing the recipients to convert their benefits into whatever they may like.

Universal
It is paid to all, and not targeted to a specific population.

Individual
It is paid on an individual basis (versus household-based).

Unconditional
It involves no work requirement or sanctions; it is accessible to those in work and out of work, voluntarily or not.

 

[Emily Lake]

Yes, the devil is in the details. And the details are important for implementation but not for a general discussion. Because the details are the trees in the forest of “ will it necessarily ruin the economy”.

I think those details - which can make it or break it entirely - are important BEFORE we get to the implementation phase. It's irresponsible to move forward with a policy that could have disastrous results with the naive assumption that we'll just figure it out as we go.

 

[Emily Lake]

When you bring in more tax, and spend that tax in any way (whether on defence and healthcare, or as payments to individual citizens), doing so changes the GDP of the nation.

As you are aware that it's not a zero sum game, can I ask why you're using an example that assumes that it is?

How do you propose to bring in more tax, bilby? I'm being serious here, no snarkiness involved.

Your proposal has been to pay everyone $X, tax everything above $X, require employers to reduce all wages by $X. You're already putting people in a position where their effective take-home is being reduced. Your proposal results in almost everyone having less income than they do right now. How much higher do you think you're going to need to increase your taxes in order to keep giving the same money back to people over and over again? There's no new income being generated, it's all just three-card-monty.

 

[laughing dog]

[
We can't determine exactly how it should work. We can, however, do back of the envelope calculations to see roughly what the effects would be. You keep responding with derails even to the point of contradicting yourself.

You cannot do back of the envelope calculations without assumptions.

History leads me to believe your fling out bs accusations of derails to deflect focus from your inadequate arguments.

 

[laughing dog]

Yes, the devil is in the details. And the details are important for implementation but not for a general discussion. Because the details are the trees in the forest of “ will it necessarily ruin the economy”.

I think those details - which can make it or break it entirely - are important BEFORE we get to the implementation phase. It's irresponsible to move forward with a policy that could have disastrous results with the naive assumption that we'll just figure it out as we go.

I would think that details would also determine if there is implementation.

 

[ZiprHead]

And the Alaska Permanent Fund, called UBI all over the internet, is considered taxable income.

Well gee, if the internet says it, it must be true!

What Is UBI | Stanford Basic Income Lab

Universal basic income takes on distinct forms in different historical and geographic contexts. It varies based on the funding proposal, the level of payment, the frequency of payment, and the particular policies proposed around it.

basicincome.stanford.edu

Periodic
It is a recurrent payment (for example every month), rather than a one-off grant.

Cash payment
It is paid in cash, allowing the recipients to convert their benefits into whatever they may like.

Universal
It is paid to all, and not targeted to a specific population.

Individual
It is paid on an individual basis (versus household-based).

Unconditional
It involves no work requirement or sanctions; it is accessible to those in work and out of work, voluntarily or not.

Blah blah blah...