President Andrew Yang

User avatar
Speaker to Animals
Posts: 38685
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:59 pm

Re: President Andrew Yang

Post by Speaker to Animals » Sun Apr 07, 2019 4:57 pm

pineapplemike wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 4:55 pm
what if we tax the new flow of money and direct a percentage back to the government for even more flow

That would be a consumption tax. Probably the most defensible tax, but when you have every other kind of tax, it becomes incredibly regressive.

A flat consumption tax on all non-food/medicine goods coupled with the abolishment of all confiscatory taxation could work. But good luck convincing your elected officials to abolish confiscatory taxes.

User avatar
pineapplemike
Posts: 4650
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:34 pm

Re: President Andrew Yang

Post by pineapplemike » Sun Apr 07, 2019 5:00 pm

i bet my monthly $1k will end up actually working out to $970 or $850 or $710 or some other regressive shit. uncle sam always takes a bite

Smitty-48
Posts: 36399
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 3:22 am

Re: President Andrew Yang

Post by Smitty-48 » Sun Apr 07, 2019 5:02 pm

pineapplemike wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 4:55 pm
what if we tax the new flow of money and direct a percentage back to the government for even more flow
The NIT will flow back to the government.

The money that doesn't flow back to the government, is the QE for the banks and Silicon Valley bucks.

Money you hand straight to the trailer park gets spent immediately.

That flows through Main Strait and Wall Street, back to the government.

Money is like blood.

The amount is not so important.

Velocity is what matters.

The faster it moves, the hotter the economy.

The hotter the economy, the more revenues, both private and public.
Nec Aspera Terrent

User avatar
pineapplemike
Posts: 4650
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:34 pm

Re: President Andrew Yang

Post by pineapplemike » Sun Apr 07, 2019 5:04 pm

i like money

User avatar
Speaker to Animals
Posts: 38685
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:59 pm

Re: President Andrew Yang

Post by Speaker to Animals » Sun Apr 07, 2019 5:05 pm

pineapplemike wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 5:00 pm
i bet my monthly $1k will end up actually working out to $970 or $850 or $710 or some other regressive shit. uncle sam always takes a bite
It would make no sense at all to tax a UBI check. The idea is to get money to people to drive the macro demand curve. Taxes get collected in consumption and through confiscation of income and wealth, same as ever.

I think for this to really work, you need to up the amount probably by about 150% and abolish most taxes. Property taxes in particular should go. Income taxes should go. Just tax consumption.

Definitely get rid of corporate taxes too. That's where this guy is completely off his rocker in wanting to tax corporations to fund this shit. Corporations will just leave or find a way out of paying taxes anyway.

Make the UBI about 30k per year in current USD. That would force automation to accelerate, and it would put employers and workers on an even playing field for employment. Nobody is going to work for minimum wage in most cases under that situation. Just kids, like shekel cucks always claim minimum wage is really for (but we all know they are fucking lying).

Smitty-48
Posts: 36399
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 3:22 am

Re: President Andrew Yang

Post by Smitty-48 » Sun Apr 07, 2019 5:10 pm

pineapplemike wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 5:04 pm
i like money
Money likes you.

It's your empire.

Your money wants to be with you.

Just a handful of banks and tech companies are ruining this romance.
Nec Aspera Terrent

User avatar
Speaker to Animals
Posts: 38685
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:59 pm

Re: President Andrew Yang

Post by Speaker to Animals » Sun Apr 07, 2019 5:13 pm

The main interest to me regarding a UBI is that it seems like it could possibly rapidly get us out of this death spiral of capitalism while actually making it possible to preserve free markets from both the socialists and the Chamber of Commerce type cunts who are all about fucking up free markets (labor markets, for instance) when it profits them.

You could, for example, transition away from wages altogether. Pay people a percentage of the revenue generated in a business. A business would have to compete for workers in that situation by offering a decent percentage with a corresponding risk. If somebody wants to take chances and work for a start-up, maybe they get paid for their labor, maybe not, but they have that choice, and they always have a basic income to live on in the meantime. This also aligns the economic interests of workers with those of the business owners. Workers don't want a bunch of other workers there doing nothing because that just eats into whatever percentage of the revenue the workforce gets. They also have a vested interest in this business prospering because that means they get paid more.

Capitalism really fucking sucks when you think about it. The concept of borrowing money from banksters through usury to pay workers wages, where you have to compete with unions and all this other shit to produce something is played out.

Smitty-48
Posts: 36399
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 3:22 am

Re: President Andrew Yang

Post by Smitty-48 » Sun Apr 07, 2019 5:18 pm

It's called a strike of capital.

Not enough cash flow starts to compound and then the money just sits on the sidelines.

The last time this happened the solution was radical.

World War Two.

Spartan UBI.

Problemo; thermonuclear bombs.

Need another radical way to break out of the malaise.

NIT.

Milton Friedman knows.
Nec Aspera Terrent

User avatar
Speaker to Animals
Posts: 38685
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:59 pm

Re: President Andrew Yang

Post by Speaker to Animals » Thu May 02, 2019 9:06 am


User avatar
Fife
Posts: 15157
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:47 am

Re: President Andrew Yang

Post by Fife » Fri Jun 28, 2019 2:35 pm

Image