Politics Coronavirus crisis shows need for wealth tax, basic income, Financial Times editorial argues

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
I totally disagree. The fact that all these political leaders have the ability to at the sign of a bill bail out their corporate sponsored buddies, give themselves raises, slide in political agenda’s give Billions to, “Other”, doesn't in my mind equate to we should give them more power and be more dependent on them.
The Bill that many have cited as socialism is really more or less Crony capitalism.
Yet we think these same people should be given authority of our health, of our livelihoods? I think they need less power not more.
 
TorturedBlazerFan said:
I totally disagree. The fact that all these political leaders have the ability to at the sign of a bill bail out their corporate sponsored buddies, give themselves raises, slide in political agenda’s give Billions to, “Other”, doesn't in my mind equate to we should give them more power and be more dependent on them.
The Bill that many have cited as socialism is really more or less Crony capitalism.
Yet we think these same people should be given authority of our health, of our livelihoods? I think they need less power not more.
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with a wealth tax and basic income?
 
RR7 said:
What does that have to do with a wealth tax and basic income?
Click to expand...
A lot. Taxes go to corrupt government officials to do what they please with it. UBI is the process of furthering people’s reliance on the government. So you in one fell swoop give these people who just used COVID19 to give themselves a raise, more money and we make ourselves more dependent on them at the same time.

edit: for the record they didnt pass the version that gave them the raise, but it was proposed.


HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Salaries And Expenses

For an additional amount for “Salaries and Expenses”, $25,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2021, except that $5,000,000 shall remain available until expended, to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, domestically or internationally, to be allocated in accordance with a spend plan submitted to the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives by the Chief Administrative Officer and approved by such Committee: Provided, That such amount is designated by the Congress as being for an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
 
TorturedBlazerFan said:
A lot. Taxes go to corrupt government officials to do what they please with it. UBI is the process of furthering people’s reliance on the government. So you in one fell swoop give these people who just used COVID19 to give themselves a raise, more money and we make ourselves more dependent on them at the same time.

edit: for the record they didnt pass the version that gave them the raise, but it was proposed.
Click to expand...
You're taking more money away from the wealthy in that wealth tax. At the same time giving a basic income to everyone under x amount of yearly income. It's taking from the top percentages and giving to the lower percentages. Does it give them extra money for pet projects? Maybe. Is it coming off of the buffets and gates's and musk's of the country instead of me and you? Absolutely. So fund your pet projects off your rich friends, and give me something out of it. I dont see how something like a wealth tax is construed as a negative. I dont see how basic income could be either.
 
TorturedBlazerFan said:
I totally disagree. The fact that all these political leaders have the ability to at the sign of a bill bail out their corporate sponsored buddies, give themselves raises, slide in political agenda’s give Billions to, “Other”, doesn't in my mind equate to we should give them more power and be more dependent on them.
The Bill that many have cited as socialism is really more or less Crony capitalism.
Yet we think these same people should be given authority of our health, of our livelihoods? I think they need less power not more.
Click to expand...
I guess my point is, as you pointed out, they have the ability to sign a bill and bail out their buddies. They do. Andthe wealthy aren't paying extra on that. And it's going to bail out their buddies, not the people under 100k. It seems like you're responding as a general comment to the bill recently passed, and less to the idea of a wealth tax and basic income. So currently, no basic income, no wealth tax, congress can bail out buddies. Under generic proposed idea...wealth tax, basic income, and they can still bail out their buddies. Yet, at least, under the 2nd one, bailing out their buddies is also going to come at a larger expense to their buddies. Not us
 
RR7 said:
You're taking more money away from the wealthy in that wealth tax. At the same time giving a basic income to everyone under x amount of yearly income. It's taking from the top percentages and giving to the lower percentages. Does it give them extra money for pet projects? Maybe. Is it coming off of the buffets and gates's and musk's of the country instead of me and you? Absolutely. So fund your pet projects off your rich friends, and give me something out of it. I dont see how something like a wealth tax is construed as a negative. I dont see how basic income could be either.
Click to expand...
Lets do some math...
We want to have the wealthy support say, 150,000,000 people. With say something that might barely pay someone's food for a month 1k. That is 150,000,000,000‬ per month. For a year that's, 1,800,000,000,000 how long do you think the .1%ers can keep that up? Oh, wait they can't for very long. So the government starts to tax corporations, which is fine but eventually all you've done is make two classes, the ultra-elite oligarchs who have all the power and don't tax themselves cause their public 'servants' and everyone else is completely 100% dependent on them.
 
Last edited:
RR7 said:
I guess my point is, as you pointed out, they have the ability to sign a bill and bail out their buddies. They do. Andthe wealthy aren't paying extra on that. And it's going to bail out their buddies, not the people under 100k. It seems like you're responding as a general comment to the bill recently passed, and less to the idea of a wealth tax and basic income. So currently, no basic income, no wealth tax, congress can bail out buddies. Under generic proposed idea...wealth tax, basic income, and they can still bail out their buddies. Yet, at least, under the 2nd one, bailing out their buddies is also going to come at a larger expense to their buddies. Not us
Click to expand...
I think it's an interesting idea, UBI and wealth taxes, but I don't think it's sustainable, and I don't think long term it is viable. I have no problem taxing the wealthy more and their corporations for one they need to stop creating tax loopholes for guys like Jeff Bezos and his companies. I also think that through this experience I look at the government and people in charge and think wow I really don't want to be any more reliant on you guys then we are already are.

I actually really liked Yang, he was maybe the one guy of the Democrats I thought sounded like he had some new idea's, I questioned the 1k a month and all that with him as well, but UBI maybe in the future has some merit to it, but at least right now IMO, I just don't think the numbers add up. We need massive changes to the system at large, on a scale larger than let the .01er's pay for it, for that type of system to work IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RR7
Less people = bigger slice of UBI!

Kick the illegals the fuck out, son!
Stricter borders.
More nationalism.
Dependance on being self sufficient.
More telecommuting.
Same with school. E learning!
 
barfo said:
Ah, the silver lining of the pandemic.

barfo
Click to expand...

Nah, kicking illegals out and having stricter immigration requirements would be a much better outcome.

Less strain on healthcare too.
 
EL PRESIDENTE said:
Nah, kicking illegals out and having stricter immigration requirements would be a much better outcome.

Less strain on healthcare too.
Click to expand...
We already give enough government money to farmers. I don't wanna see their cries for $$ if they can't get cheap labor
 
TorturedBlazerFan said:
Lets do some math...
We want to have the wealthy support say, 150,000,000 people. .
Click to expand...

how did you get to 150 million?

only 38 million live below the poverty line, and I'm guessing the template wouldn't pay children the same as adults. But as a liberal who spent 40 years self-employed, I'm not sure I'm in favor of UBI. Maybe some form

I'm certainly in favor of much higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations along with closing all those offshore loopholes...(an 'easy' place to start is to shit-can the stupidly low ceiling on SS taxes. It's around 138K now but should be in the 10 million range, or higher...solves any future funding issues of SS)

certainly these ideas merit debate and discussion
*****************************************************

just a somewhat related random observation: whenever single-payer or medicare for all comes up a lot of people go ballistic about the cost and the scope of the potential system. Of course taxes would go significantly higher, but would the off-set of no insurance premiums be greater than the additional taxes? Has anybody ever looked at that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: RR7
wizenheimer said:
how did you get to 150 million?

only 38 million live below the poverty line, and I'm guessing the template wouldn't pay children the same as adults. But as a liberal who spent 40 years self-employed, I'm not sure I'm in favor of UBI. Maybe some form

I'm certainly in favor of much higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations along with closing all those offshore loopholes...(an 'easy' place to start is to shit-can the stupidly low ceiling on SS taxes. It's around 138K now but should be in the 10 million range, or higher...solves any future funding issues of SS)

certainly these ideas merit debate and discussion
*****************************************************

just a somewhat related random observation: whenever single-payer or medicare for all comes up a lot of people go ballistic about the cost and the scope of the potential system. Of course taxes would go significantly higher, but would the off-set of no insurance premiums be greater than the additional taxes? Has anybody ever looked at that?
Click to expand...
Yes they have and the numbers seem to vary depending on where you look. With some saying overall its cheaper, and some saying its worse my guess is theres a lot of political and personal bias’ involved when coming to the formula’s for it. Especially since Ive seen people claim its like 20 trillion more expensive over 10 years and some say its like 100’s of billions less.

The 150M was just a little less than half of the country. Even if you cut it down to 40M its still ridiculously expensive if the “rich” are the only ones paying for it, I used 1k a month (which isnt much too).

Im definitely ok with forcing Rich and ultra rich corporations to pay their fair share (and more), I think all these loop holes to get out of paying stuff needs smacked into oblivion too.
 
wizenheimer said:
Of course taxes would go significantly higher, but would the off-set of no insurance premiums be greater than the additional taxes? Has anybody ever looked at that?
Click to expand...

I believe that is the primary bases for Bernie Sanders whole campaign. But you know something..something...cuba
 
  • Like
Reactions: RR7
TorturedBlazerFan said:
Yes they have and the numbers seem to vary depending on where you look. With some saying overall its cheaper, and some saying its worse my guess is theres a lot of political and personal bias’ involved when coming to the formula’s for it. Especially since Ive seen people claim its like 20 trillion more expensive over 10 years and some say its like 100’s of billions less..
Click to expand...

IIRC, health care cost 3.6 trillion in 2019. So, assuming some inflation maybe 40 trillion over 10 years. But how much of that 40 trillion goes to insurance companies? I'm guessing it's a significant percentage. And how much is eaten up by duplication 200 times over because of all the various corporations and entities involved in the circus?

another factor: with a single payer system, federal taxes are going to jump but state taxes are going to drop. A couple of examples: in 2015, Oregon 'spent 10.2 billion on health care. California spent 92 billion. Now, much of that, about 70-80%, is pass-thru medicaid spending. If you figure the two states only chip in 20% of that total spending, then California and Oregon paid 20 billion in 2018 (2 billion for Oregon). That was 2015. So then, over a 10 year period that's 200 billion. Not all of that will be saved because I'd imagine a large chunk of it would be. That's probably another offset of 2-3 trillion over 10 years

and like it or now, maybe the best run federal program has been Medicare. Sure, it has funding issues but that's because of the political divide.
 
wizenheimer said:
IIRC, health care cost 3.6 trillion in 2019. So, assuming some inflation maybe 40 trillion over 10 years. But how much of that 40 trillion goes to insurance companies? I'm guessing it's a significant percentage. And how much is eaten up by duplication 200 times over because of all the various corporations and entities involved in the circus?

another factor: with a single payer system, federal taxes are going to jump but state taxes are going to drop. A couple of examples: in 2015, Oregon 'spent 10.2 billion on health care. California spent 92 billion. Now, much of that, about 70-80%, is pass-thru medicaid spending. If you figure the two states only chip in 20% of that total spending, then California and Oregon paid 20 billion in 2018 (2 billion for Oregon). That was 2015. So then, over a 10 year period that's 200 billion. Not all of that will be saved because I'd imagine a large chunk of it would be. That's probably another offset of 2-3 trillion over 10 years

and like it or now, maybe the best run federal program has been Medicare. Sure, it has funding issues but that's because of the political divide.
Click to expand...
Ive seen several sets of numbers and like I said they vary greatly on how expensive single payer healthcare would be. There are other factors though, last I saw about 550k people are employed by insurance companies, what do we do with those people? Especially after the last month or so when unemployment just spiked and will continue too for a while, were just adding to the people in the poverty line. Healthcare is probably the one, “socialist” for lack of a better term thing I can actually get somewhat on board with, something feels wrong about for profit healthcare IMO, there should not be financial incentive to keeping people unhealthy, or addicted to prescription medications.
Crony capitalist health care obviously doesnt work. Ive heard of a “subscription” model of health care in parts of the mid-west that I think sounds interesting, I think its like $40 a month and everything but catastrophic is covered. - I am not saying thats the answer either.

I am definitely cynical and jaded towards the government and big businesses too, but I guess I see a lot of this as leading to just more power and money into the hands of high ranking government officials and Im extremely uncomfortable with that.

I know its extremely un-American, but I would absolutely be in favor of taking away the feds and becoming like a dozen or so countries. At the very least to me States should have more power to govern how they see fit for their needs and the power of the federal government should be much less intrusive. Im not much of a globalist I guess.
 
TorturedBlazerFan said:
Lets do some math...
We want to have the wealthy support say, 150,000,000 people. With say something that might barely pay someone's food for a month 1k. That is 150,000,000,000‬ per month. For a year that's, 1,800,000,000,000 how long do you think the .1%ers can keep that up? Oh, wait they can't for very long. So the government starts to tax corporations, which is fine but eventually all you've done is make two classes, the ultra-elite oligarchs who have all the power and don't tax themselves cause their public 'servants' and everyone else is completely 100% dependent on them.
Click to expand...
Oh boy, I love math, But I think you really mean let's do some arithmetic.
 
TorturedBlazerFan said:
I know its extremely un-American, but I would absolutely be in favor of taking away the feds and becoming like a dozen or so countries. At the very least to me States should have more power to govern how they see fit for their needs and the power of the federal government should be much less intrusive. Im not much of a globalist I guess.
Click to expand...

I don't feel like this is un-American, but more dangerous than anything. 1900 Europe. I'm not trying to play that game. Globalism is our current status. We are better united than we are divided.
 
Shaboid said:
I don't feel like this is un-American, but more dangerous than anything. 1900 Europe. I'm not trying to play that game. Globalism is our current status. We are better united than we are divided.
Click to expand...
We are not united now though. In fact, trying to force this "unity" through majority rules and tells minorities to shove off has the opposite effect on unity.
 
TorturedBlazerFan said:
We are not united now though. In fact, trying to force this "unity" through majority rules and tells minorities to shove off has the opposite effect on unity.
Click to expand...

So don't throw your vote away and unite behind Joe Biden. Then you won't be a minority.

You're welcome for me solving your problems. Got any marriage problems you'd like me to solve next?
 
EL PRESIDENTE said:
We can use migrant workers.
Click to expand...


From where?....Trump has taken care of that for us.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...mworkers-visas-food-supply-chain-coronavirus/

American farmers are bracing for a shortage of seasonal workers following the State Department’s suspension of routine immigrant and nonimmigrant visa processing in Mexico, including for temporary migrant laborers, beginning Wednesday.

The delay in visa processing for farmworkers comes just as harvest season begins in Florida. Companies responsible for feeding the country are already expecting fewer available workers to manufacture, deliver and unpack groceries as the coronavirus pandemic intensifies.

The seafood industry, including fisheries and crab-picking in Maryland, whose hiring season starts in April, will also be affected by the U.S. government’s decision.

 
yankeesince59 said:
From where?....Trump has taken care of that for us.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...mworkers-visas-food-supply-chain-coronavirus/

American farmers are bracing for a shortage of seasonal workers following the State Department’s suspension of routine immigrant and nonimmigrant visa processing in Mexico, including for temporary migrant laborers, beginning Wednesday.

The delay in visa processing for farmworkers comes just as harvest season begins in Florida. Companies responsible for feeding the country are already expecting fewer available workers to manufacture, deliver and unpack groceries as the coronavirus pandemic intensifies.

The seafood industry, including fisheries and crab-picking in Maryland, whose hiring season starts in April, will also be affected by the U.S. government’s decision.
Click to expand...

Temporary shutdown due to coronavirus. They should be back.
 
TorturedBlazerFan said:
We are not united now though. In fact, trying to force this "unity" through majority rules and tells minorities to shove off has the opposite effect on unity.
Click to expand...

What other form of government do you propose? If the states are independent, there will still be a majority and a minority within the state. Probably if you make each household an independent country, there will still be divisions because the kids will want a later bedtime.

The tension between majority and minority has always existed in this country, and it exists in every other country too. The only way I see to cure it is get rid of all the humans.

barfo
 
barfo said:
The only way I see to cure it is get rid of all the humans.
Click to expand...

This has promise. Let's start with this proposal and refine it. How about getting rid of all humans except me and those I personally like? That could work.
 
Minstrel said:
This has promise. Let's start with this proposal and refine it. How about getting rid of all humans except me and those I personally like? That could work.
Click to expand...

As long as you like me, I'm on board with that.

barfo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Featured content

Back
Top