I don’t know how relevant this is now, but here’s a link to another post where I expressed my thoughts on what kind of pitfalls you might most likely face – https://lemmy.world/post/36867409

By the way, what is this phenomenon on Lemmy? Let’s say people are reluctant to read and comment on old posts published just a couple of days or a week ago, but with new ones, it’s a completely different story. What kind of psychology is this? Or it seemed to me?

  • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Standard deduction is $15,000, for that to mean $3,000 in return your effective tax rate from the feds would have to be 20% , you have to be making $100,000 to have that rate, you’d have to be making $300,000 for it to be $4,000. Median income is $40,000

    That used to be bottom tax bracket. Sorry for simplification. The point of it is that it is possible for US to screw poor harder by removing basic exemption and lowering other tax rates for same revenue. They could also turn basic exemption into a refundable tax credit which is equivalent to a UBI amount.

    if we insure everyone that will necessarily cost more

    Removing private insurance, including their profits, from core medical coverage can significantly reduce health care costs. DGAF about private supplementary coverage, though it reasonable that it should be allowed, and further reduces core medical costs that taxpayers would fund. Very simply/obviously lower total healthcare costs saves totality of Americans money, and it is completely irrelevant what portion comes from private insurance or taxes. You’re not to be taken seriously if you can’t grasp this part and need to troll on this point.

    SS costs $1.5 trillion, with a 40% clawback would mean it costs $0.9 trillion

    I just cut $600B from budget and actual revenue raising “net taxes” or equivalent SS fund outlays. It’s a big cut. Many more are possible

    any sort of social safety net. An affordable housing program and food stamps can provide the same sort of support, expanding unemployment insurance to cover quitting would give all the benfits you mentioned, while costing a lot less because your only giving benefits to those who need it and not everyone even if there very well off.

    All of those are crap conditional programs that contribute to slavery and do nothing to give people dignity and freedom. Just pure oppressive evil under hierarchy that has total contempt for humans. It costs far more than UBI because fascist oppressive assholes need discretionary control over programs, instead of “free” tax credits and debits that escape their fascist demonic control over all of our lives. It costs everything to submit to demonic zionazi pig fucking warmongering scum given the discretion to replace programs with austerity for war. It gains everything to exterminate all of their influence and discretion.

    • Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Ok just answer me what you will cut then. If you’re saying this will be balance sheet neutral and no new taxes will be raised then your going to need to make cuts to fund it. It’ll cost $4 trillion, let’s say part of that is existing deductions so bring it down to $3.5 trillion.

      A large majority of the federal budget is defense(war) (~$1T), Medicare ($1T), social security ($1.5T), and medicaid ($0.9T). Food stamps are pocket change $0.1T. Even if you completely eliminated defense any sort of major new spending/tax cuts of this magnitude will require major cuts / elimination of those programs. This is why the Republicans went after Medicaid even though they knew it would be unpopular, there was nothing else to cut that would give them the money for there tax cuts.

      Medicare / medicaid costs $2 trillion and you aren’t getting out of that with universal Healthcare. Yes universal Healthcare would be cheaper for those currently paying into the system but the people on Medicare and Medicaid aren’t paying into the system, it is supported by the tax revenues of working people.

      giving the discretion to replace programs with austerity for war.

      How is it more difficult to cut UBI as opposed to other programs? If the fascists are in control of the government they can pass/repeal any law they want to further there war aims. Doesn’t matter if it’s food stamps or UBI. They can also purge you from the UBI roles just as well as they can food stamps for un-American activity or whatever. Ultimate power still lies with the state to tax and distribute funds, UBI won’t change that.

      It gains everything to exterminate all of their influence and discretion.

      If that’s the case then we need to take away there actual power which lies in there control of capital / the means of production. After UBI the billionaires will still have there money which they can use to fuck up the planet and our democracy. Seriously you need to read some Marx, you understand class conflict and that increasing worker power is good but you fail to understand capitalist power and the ways we can actually take it away.

      • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        balance sheet neutral and no new taxes will be raised then your going to need to make cuts to fund it. It’ll cost $4 trillion, let’s say part of that is existing deductions so bring it down to $3.5 trillion.

        UBI of any amount always costs 0 at most. Any cuts to any programs means negative costs. This doesn’t mean that no one’s tax rates go up, but collectively, the discretionary government collects less from us, where UBI counts as a negative collection amount. UBI does permit getting rid of basic exemption without being regressive. That some investment income gets tax breaks now, like the basic exemption, can be calcuated as no tax break, but a cash cheque exactly equal to the tax break just for those who receive it. The optics of giving cash cheques just for the investor class would seem like bad optics compared to cheque amounts spread out to entire population/citizenry.

        The guideline for program cuts is whether everyone, 90th percentile, or 80th percentile of program benefactors are better off with UBI instead, or with program adjustments, or program has ultra narrow oligarch benefits at great social/pluralist costs.

        How is it more difficult to cut UBI as opposed to other programs?

        SS is close to UBI for seniors. Not only did 8 years of GOP threats to SS solvency not happen, latest tax bill gave a “tax free” boost to SS benefits. The prequel to our current political reality is the movie American History X. The core complaints are that lazy negroes get a larger share of social benefits. And Rodney King incident is also a a key historical marker. Everything was still right with America when the Rodney King verdict occurred. Our political timeline exists as a reaction to the George Floyd murder verdict. UBI is unassailable because there is no reason to hate it, and no one getting “undeserved” extra benefit. Demonic fanatical hatred supporting fascism comes from some plausible manipulation vector.

        If that’s the case then we need to take away there actual power which lies in there control of capital / the means of production. After UBI the billionaires will still have there money which they can use to fuck up the planet and our democracy.

        Rich people employing you to make useful stuff that makes you both richer than not having that opportunity, while again, making useful stuff that people want, is not the problem with free and fair markets. Rich people corrupting markets through political sponsorship/control is the problem. Democracy has never resulted in freedom. UBI is more important freedom. Instead of trolling concern over UBI getting cut, you should be worried that genuinely needed/useful road maintenance still gets budgeted. UBI prevent corruption through an obvious individual cash sacrifice for any corrupt proposal, but even useful programs face an uphill battle when you are taking cash away from everyone to accomplish it.

        Marx, by advocating for labour supremacism, is not much different than con artists (Ayn Rand, OG) simping for Oligarchism. There is not a more deserving supremacist class to the wrong question of which class should that be.

        • Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          12 hours ago

          So your version of UBI is just increasing everyone’s taxes by $12,000 then giving that back to them at the end of the year? So your average person isn’t effected, the “oligarchs” get taxes a bit more to pay for the unemployed who are the only ones getting the $1,000 each month. How is this different then unemployment insurance? You only get the benefit if you’re making no money / unemployed so in a sense it is conditional.

          UBI prevent corruption through an obvious individual cash sacrifice.

          I thought UBI was revenue neutral and wouldn’t effect other programs / the budget. If the government wants to build a bridge theoretically they won’t want to touch UBI so they’ll just raise taxes / deficit to cover it. This is the same system we have now, UBI doesn’t change that.

          you are taking cash away from everyone to accomplish it.

          You are already doing that, that’s how taxation works, that doesn’t stop corruption. That’s also only looking at graft style corruption, it does nothing for the campaign contributions for regulatory changes that is more common. This isn’t stopping an oil billionaire from donating $1 billion to trump’s campaign so he can poison the drinking water of a minority neighborhood. The only way to stop that is to take away there money. Even if you do campaign reform money will always find it’s way into government.

          Marx by advocating for labour’s supremacist

          While Marx was firmly on the side of labour you don’t have to be a labour supremacist to benefit from understanding his analysis on capitalism and class conflict. A trade unionist benefits a lot from reading Marx to understand how to fight for there members while not advocating for the abolition of capital. Same with you, you seem to want more labour power and less capital power, understanding Marx’s analysis on capital power can help you.

          Rich people employing you to make useful stuff that makes you both richer than not having that opportunity, while again, making useful stuff that people want

          Why do I need that rich person employing me? Me and all the other laborers can make useful stuff that makes us all richer without the employer. A capitalist does not make anything, they own things and use that ownership to get a cut of your productive labor. If the workers of an enterprise just stopped giving the capitalist there profit and distributed it evenly there wages would go up and production would keep going. The only thing keeping them from doing that is property rights.

          Your complaint with oligarchs is that there squeezing labor for production is one inherent to capitalism. The capitalist will always try to lower wages and increase production to increase profits. The best way to help workers then would be to remove the capitalist and there profit motive and replace it with management elected by the workers. This is true freedom as the workers are now in complete control of there wages and working conditions.

          Also you can have free and fair markets without capitalism. The workers can own the means of production in co-ops and compete with each other on free and fair markets to sell there products, they just can’t trade there share/stocks.

          • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 hours ago

            So your version of UBI is just increasing everyone’s taxes by $12,000 then giving that back to them at the end of the year? So your average person isn’t effected

            Average income is higher than median income such that 60%-80% of people have below average income. I’m just saying that UBI is net credits = net debits before lowering deficits/discretionary budget through program cuts.

            How is this different then unemployment insurance?

            first you have to stay unemployed to keed receiving benefits. Young or other people studying without recent previous labour force participation are supported. Entrepreneurs, interns, and everyone else is supported.

            You only get the benefit if you’re making no money / unemployed so in a sense it is conditional.

            No. If income tax rates are 5% higher, you get full amount at 0 income, but a linear partial amount until net 0 benefit at $60k income. A 5% sales tax is same thing except for spending instead of income.

            You are already doing that, that’s how taxation works, that doesn’t stop corruption.

            Corruption stems from discretionary spending. That bridge to nowhere someone wants is because their friends would be paid to build the bridge.

            Why do I need that rich person employing me? Me and all the other laborers can make useful stuff that makes us all richer without the employer.

            UBI helps you do that. It might takes months to make the useful thing, and you’re only paid after delivering it. You will need less capital with UBI, and more confidence from lenders that as long as they are paid before you are, they can loan for equipment/building rentals to float you until you make your sale. Capital is a genuinely useful function. A society doesn’t need to grant it extortionist protections which is what gives it a bad name. Property rights exist in communal/coop groups too. Communal property is still property.

            The capitalist will always try to lower wages and increase production to increase profits.

            Everyone is self interested. It is corrupt power imbalances that corrupts the supremacist side into being absolute assholes. It is UBI that gives you the power to organize with like minded comrades on buying the means of production, including the power to invest time for future returns.