Universal Basic Income; 'bout time or batshit crazy?

[ttystikk]

Not that I am reacting to your overall argument, just this snip. Instead of a Westerncentric social identifier for the "age", I posit the age known as anthropocene, as our "civilization" has been dubbed by the global scientific community.

"Everything is better digital..." ~eager proctologist

The beginning of the Sixth Great Extinction of life on Earth.

 

[abandonconflict]

View attachment 3968900

"investopedia" lol.

No really, I actually laughed out loud. I think you're not quite keeping up. It's like that time you though inflation was a tax. You're dumb.

 

[twostrokenut]

"investopedia" lol.

No really, I actually laughed out loud. I think you're not quite keeping up. It's like that time you though inflation was a tax. You're dumb.

it's the largest tax on the poor. as you are a liberation theologist, I understand you can't acknowledge this truth because it defeats your method.

 

[abandonconflict]

Oh I get it, it's like when pedo-rob equates tax with rape. You don't know what the word actually means, so you just insist that it's exactly the same as something else that it's completely different from. You're really dumb.

 

[ttystikk]

it's the largest tax on the poor. as you are a liberation theologist, I understand you can't acknowledge this truth because it defeats your method.

Lol word salad much?

 

[esh dov ets]

I'm trying to figure out what you're doing here. Can you explain?

i can explain,again.
taking $1000 from the top 2% of wealth holders making an income every month of over $500,000 a year.
giving $1000 a mo. to the base 50% or so of earners who make less than 30,000 a year.
...............................................................................................................................................................................................
there are approximately 318 million people in the U.S. ,,2% of that is 6,360,000 people
6,360,000 x $1000=$6,360,000,000
there are around 52% of Americans that make less than $30,000 a year. 50% of 318 million people is 159, approximately 160 people
.
so this isn't enough. the pool of people receiving ubi can be smaller , say every one under 26,000 a year. the pool of people paying into it can be increased to say everyone over 250,000 a year and the tax can be increased to 1-2% total income tax .

I just learned that the top 2% make 250,000 -$500,000 a year not a month. though there is a smaller pool of those making over 1 million a year. ...
Corporations on the other hand, can make millions a month.
walmart net income of around $213,000 per store, per month, in the U.S. x 4,625 U.S. stores .

So i am trying to figure out how to do this.
the top 2% of earners paying a 1% tax could give 160 million people approximately $90-$200 a year.
there are over 5 million taxable companies in the U.S.

ubi is not the only option.
something similar like a citizen's dividend (CD)--which operates off of the principal that everyone owns the land and its natural resources, and is funded by the industrial use of them.

 

[ttystikk]

i can explain,again.
taking $1000 from the top 2% of wealth holders making an income every month of over $500,000 a year.
giving $1000 a mo. to the base 50% or so of earners who make less than 30,000 a year.
...............................................................................................................................................................................................
there are approximately 318 million people in the U.S. ,,2% of that is 6,360,000 people
6,360,000 x $1000=$6,360,000,000
there are around 52% of Americans that make less than $30,000 a year. 50% of 318 million people is 159, approximately 160 people
.
so this isn't enough. the pool of people receiving ubi can be smaller , say every one under 26,000 a year. the pool of people paying into it can be increased to say everyone over 250,000 a year and the tax can be increased to 1-2% total income tax .

I just learned that the top 2% make 250,000 -$500,000 a year not a month. though there is a smaller pool of those making over 1 million a year. ...
Corporations on the other hand, can make millions a month.
walmart net income of around $213,000 per store, per month, in the U.S. x 4,625 U.S. stores .

So i am trying to figure out how to do this.
the top 2% of earners paying a 1% tax could give 160 million people approximately $90-$200 a year.
there are over 5 million taxable companies in the U.S.

ubi is not the only option.
something similar like a citizen's dividend (CD)--which operates off of the principal that everyone owns the land and its natural resources, and is funded by the industrial use of them.

This still needs some work but I can see where you're going with it.

 

[esh dov ets]

I can't figure out what point you are trying to make. The article you quote is impenetrable too. First, it talks about wage earners and the median wage and then talks about percentage of all Americans. Since children don't (legally) work, how many do you think earn a wage? But children are Americans, Were children included in their statistical breakdown? They don't say. It seems as if the reporter didn't understand what they are talking about.

Some related statistics:
Per capita income = GDP/ total population = $56,000 (2015)
Personal income = How much a person -- the wage earner -- makes in a year
median personal income = the amount at which 50% of wage earners make less and 50% make more = $38,000 (2016)
https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/
Household income = The total incomes of every resident (over 15) of a house
Median household income = the amount at which 50% of households make less and 50% make more = $56,000 (2016)

Amounts listed for per capita income and median household income were lifted from Wikipedia articles.

I can't recall what you were trying to say.

children aren't realy relevant here. they are included in total pop. when you slice the pop to get a percentage, children just won't be in the working slice but they are accounted for. Weather or not they are in the "makes less than" slice is irrelevant because no one is going to give kids there own ubi.

the median income is also irrelevant because we are talking about what is enough vs who has less then enough.

personal income; is important
household or combined income ;vs
household expenses; may be considered such as average utilities ect. kids vs. no kids..

that is who needs what
then there is where are you going to get it

where is there a surplus of money
military\defense
the top 2% of wealth holders
the companies using our land and resources to make profit from them and from us.

 

[ttystikk]

children aren't realy relevant here. they are included in total pop. when you slice the pop to get a percentage, children just won't be in the working slice but they are accounted for. Weather or not they are in the "makes less than" slice is irrelevant because no one is going to give kids there own ubi.

the median income is also irrelevant because we are talking about what is enough vs who has less then enough.

personal income; is important
household or combined income ;vs
household expenses; may be considered such as average utilities ect. kids vs. no kids..

that is who needs what
then there is where are you going to get it

where is there a surplus of money
military\defense
the top 2% of wealth holders
the companies using our land and resources to make profit from them and from us.

Median income is important, as by definition half of all wage earners earn less than that amount.

 

[esh dov ets]

i think titty covered your post accurately.

your name is literally
2 stroke nut. i can't top that.

 

[esh dov ets]

my math was off at first and the huffpost is biased if not 100% accurate.
i intended to take the problem of helping those who needed it, with something like ubi.
my point is that it is already needed and not bat shit crazy.

on another note. some think it is counter revolutionary because it will placate those most effected by income inequality or class hierarchy.

 

[ttystikk]

my math was off at first and the huffpost is biased if not 100% accurate.
i intended to take the problem of helping those who needed it, with something like ubi.
my point is that it is already needed and not bat shit crazy.

on another note. some think it is counter revolutionary because it will placate those most effected by income inequality or class hierarchy.

The Australian tax system is very progressive in that it taxes those making the least amount of money at the lowest rates. Those who make more pay a larger percentage of their income.

It used to be that way in America as well. Now the rich pay very little, especially considering that political bribes are not only legal but tax deductible.

 

[ttystikk]

my math was off at first and the huffpost is biased if not 100% accurate.
i intended to take the problem of helping those who needed it, with something like ubi.
my point is that it is already needed and not bat shit crazy.

on another note. some think it is counter revolutionary because it will placate those most effected by income inequality or class hierarchy.

Replace placate with satisfy and I would agree with you.

 

[esh dov ets]

Replace placate with satisfy and I would agree with you.

Absolutely not.
Actual equal opportunity would be satisfaction anything less is less.

 

[ttystikk]

Absolutely not.
Actual equal opportunity would be satisfaction anything less is less.

Well ya got me there!

 

[ANC]

inflation is simply the rate of depreciation of the value of a currency.

 

[DiogenesTheWiser]

Not that I am reacting to your overall argument, just this snip. Instead of a Westerncentric social identifier for the "age", I posit the age known as anthropocene, as our "civilization" has been dubbed by the global scientific community.

"Everything is better digital..." ~eager proctologist

I've followed age names based on historians and the politics of an era or time period. I get your post, though.

 

[SneekyNinja]

my math was off at first and the huffpost is biased if not 100% accurate.
i intended to take the problem of helping those who needed it, with something like ubi.
my point is that it is already needed and not bat shit crazy.

on another note. some think it is counter revolutionary because it will placate those most effected by income inequality or class hierarchy.

Dude you can't even accept that universal means universal...

Your idea (although admittedly relatively well costed, good job on that) fails the first test.

For example in countries with universal healthcare, the rich aren't denied treatment

 

[esh dov ets]

Dude you can't even accept that universal means universal...

Your idea (although admittedly relatively well costed, good job on that) fails the first test.

For example in countries with universal healthcare, the rich aren't denied treatment

it's not health care. it's not denying rich folk treatment. it's a micro step tward equality. its a way to help the poor or it's pointless.
why should the mega rich get extra money? to be fare? how is it fair to maintain income gaps?
i guess i don't accept the that the rich need UBI . Where as the poor need and deserve more basic income.
maybe something like a citizen's dividend (CD), would go to everybody, because the land and resources belong to everybody . problem is not everyone benefits from companies destroying the environment and no one needs those products as there are better sources and systems. The problems with ubi are the same and more. we get a small amount of money in order to look the other way as the rich get richer and companies exploit us and our worlds resources. Also, it costs to much money to give everyone enough so that it makes a difference for those that need it.
i understand the definition of universal and that UBI is just a term, so it could mean anything.
there are no countries doing tis, there are only experimental programs that show good social results but unscaleable costs.

since ninja skims...
why do rich people need it.?
how do you justify giving rich people more money?
it would cost 1-2 trillion for the poor and double if you include those that don't need it.

 

[ttystikk]

it's not health care. it's not denying rich folk treatment. it's a micro step tward equality. its a way to help the poor or it's pointless.
why should the mega rich get extra money? to be fare? how is it fair to maintain income gaps?
i guess i don't accept the that the rich need UBI . Where as the poor need and deserve more basic income.
maybe something like a citizen's dividend (CD), would go to everybody, because the land and resources belong to everybody . problem is not everyone benefits from companies destroying the environment and no one needs those products as there are better sources and systems. The problems with ubi are the same and more. we get a small amount of money in order to look the other way as the rich get richer and companies exploit us and our worlds resources. Also, it costs to much money to give everyone enough so that it makes a difference for those that need it.
i understand the definition of universal and that UBI is just a term, so it could mean anything.
there are no countries doing tis, there are only experimental programs that show good social results but unscaleable costs.

since ninja skims...
why do rich people need it.?
how do you justify giving rich people more money?
it would cost 1-2 trillion for the poor and double if you include those that don't need it.

Alaska gives its oil dividend to every citizen, rich and poor. The rich pay it back in the form of taxes. That's easy enough to replicate.