Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, stlrams said:

His income is zero so he qualifies for public housing, food stamps, subsidized electric and oil programs, state health program, Obama phone program etc...  I know numerous people like him that are taking advantage of the system.  I think the more you offer, the more people will game the system.  

Get rid of all those programs and all the bureaucracy and infrastructure necessary to administer them.  Replace with UBI, problem solved.

  • Like 2
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 280
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

All of this. And, if I'm going to get upset, it's going to be over the few at the very top that game the system with much more significant effects that cost us so much more than millions at the b

Haven’t you heard that if we tax the extremely wealthy at a much higher rate that people will stop trying to get rich?  I think we are just stuck with 400 people having more than 150M - nothing can be

I just want to add that, so far, this has been one of the better threads here in the PSF. I've already learned a good bit from some of you, appreciating the other perspective, and from the vast majori

Just now, Rich Conway said:

Get rid of all those programs and all the bureaucracy and infrastructure necessary to administer them.  Replace with UBI, problem solved.

I think that solves the problem as far as I’m concerned, but I detect the that@stlrams seems to think that it’s somehow immoral or wrong for his brother to not want to work.  That’s a very common attitude and one that is a big hurdle in getting people to buy into UBI (or be generally supportive of social safety nets).

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

I think that solves the problem as far as I’m concerned, but I detect the that@stlrams seems to think that it’s somehow immoral or wrong for his brother to not want to work.  That’s a very common attitude and one that is a big hurdle in getting people to buy into UBI (or be generally supportive of social safety nets).

The bolded is an attitude that I will probably never understand.  Would it be immoral or wrong not to work if one had a billion dollars sitting in the bank?  Is it immoral or wrong not to work if one is a retired firefighter with a pension?

I suspect the thought process is not that it's immoral not to work, but that it's immoral or wrong to accept "free" money from a government entity.  Which is also an odd argument unless one is also ready to argue against Medicare, Social Security, private business bailouts of all kinds, government subsidies of all kinds, etc.  At some level, one could argue that something as simple as me attending the free, public dog park in my town or enjoying the free, public library is akin to accepting free money from the government.

I would also ask someone making the "not working is immoral" argument to imagine a hypothetical world in which energy and resources were unlimited.  Should one still choose to work in such a world?

That said, even if one does want to make the argument that it's immoral or wrong to "take advantage" of all the programs mentioned, someone in that position should still understand that a UBI is still a better solution than the existing myriad of means-tested programs which can actually discourage work, whereas a UBI doesn't.

Edited by Rich Conway
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

The bolded is an attitude that I will probably never understand.  Would it be immoral or wrong not to work if one had a billion dollars sitting in the bank?  Is is immoral or wrong not to work if one is a retired firefighter with a pension?

I suspect the thought process is not that it's immoral not to work, but that it's immoral or wrong to accept "free" money from a government entity.  Which is also an odd argument unless one is also ready to argue against Medicare, Social Security, private business bailouts of all kinds, government subsidies of all kinds, etc.  At some level, one could argue that something as simple as me attending the free, public dog park in my town or enjoying the free, public library is akin to accepting free money from the government.

I would also ask someone making the "not working is immoral" argument to imagine a hypothetical world in which energy and resources were unlimited.  Should one still choose to work in such a world?

That said, even if one does want to make the argument that it's immoral or wrong to "take advantage" of all the programs mentioned, someone in that position should still understand that a UBI is still a better solution than the existing myriad of means-tested programs which can actually discourage work, whereas a UBI doesn't.

:goodposting:

And, UBI doesn't offer a glamorous lifestyle. It's still low income living.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

The bolded is an attitude that I will probably never understand.

***
the existing myriad of means-tested programs which can actually discourage work, whereas a UBI doesn't.

Well, it’s not an attitude I agree with but I think it’s important that we try to understand it so that maybe we can move forward.

And for what it’s worth, I think UBI discourages work too, just not as much as means-tested programs.  For me “discouraging work” isn’t a negative but for a lot of people it’s a HUGE one.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stlrams said:

His income is zero so he qualifies for public housing, food stamps, subsidized electric and oil programs, state health program, Obama phone program etc...  I know numerous people like him that are taking advantage of the system.  I think the more you offer, the more people will game the system.  

I honestly could care less that a small percentage of people are willing to game the system just to get the basics in life. In fact, that’s exactly what I want. I don’t care if you have a job or not, you should be provided shelter, food and the basics to live.

Now, if these people are living super high quality lives that would be one thing but I don’t see that being the case. I believe the vast majority of the country would strive to be better than the bear minimum so why get worked up over it when you’ll have more wealth + opportunities than them because you chose to work?

Edited by Bucsfan5493
  • Like 4
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bucsfan5493 said:

I honestly could care less that a small percentage of people are willing to game the system just to get the basics in life. In fact, that’s exactly what I want. I don’t care if you have a job or not, you should be provided shelter, food and the basics to live.

Now, if these people are living super high quality lives that would be one thing but I don’t see that being the case. I believe the vast majority of the country would strive to be better than the bear minimum so why get worked up over it when you’ll have more wealth + opportunities than them because you chose to work?

All of this.

And, if I'm going to get upset, it's going to be over the few at the very top that game the system with much more significant effects that cost us so much more than millions at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder getting by with the basics.

  • Like 5
  • Love 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Bucsfan5493 said:

I honestly could care less that a small percentage of people are willing to game the system just to get the basics in life. In fact, that’s exactly what I want. I don’t care if you have a job or not, you should be provided shelter, food and the basics to live.

Now, if these people are living super high quality lives that would be one thing but I don’t see that being the case. I believe the vast majority of the country would strive to be better than the bear minimum so why get worked up over it when you’ll have more wealth + opportunities than them because you chose to work?

Small percentage?  Wut?  How small do you think this is?

Also, who gets to determine what "super high quality lives" means?  Because I guarantee you for most people, "super high quality lives" are the guys who make more than you.  That's how it's always been.  It's determined by jealousy, not need.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, I have a friend who is similar. He and his wife work a little bit, but in general, they keep their income to a minimum so that they qualify for subsidized housing and childcare and food, etc. However, they certainly are not living a glamorous life. They have almost no money to spend on things that most of us would consider essential to living a good life (beer money, occasional splurge on really good food, vacations to nice places, etc.).

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

I think that solves the problem as far as I’m concerned, but I detect the that@stlrams seems to think that it’s somehow immoral or wrong for his brother to not want to work.  That’s a very common attitude and one that is a big hurdle in getting people to buy into UBI (or be generally supportive of social safety nets).

I wouldnt say immoral but believe every able person can contribute in some form or fashion.  The 15k wouldn’t cover his expenses so where’s the rest coming from? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bucsfan5493 said:

I honestly could care less that a small percentage of people are willing to game the system just to get the basics in life. In fact, that’s exactly what I want. I don’t care if you have a job or not, you should be provided shelter, food and the basics to live.

Now, if these people are living super high quality lives that would be one thing but I don’t see that being the case. I believe the vast majority of the country would strive to be better than the bear minimum so why get worked up over it when you’ll have more wealth + opportunities than them because you chose to work?

Ok let’s provide the basics for everyone in the us as you suggest.  What do you think happens next?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, stlrams said:

I wouldnt say immoral but believe every able person can contribute in some form or fashion.  The 15k wouldn’t cover his expenses so where’s the rest coming from? 

Can you flesh out what you mean by “can contribute”?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Can you flesh out what you mean by “can contribute”?

Work or even volunteer at soup kitchen, food pantry, religious organizations, school crossing guard etc anything rather then doing nothing.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rich Conway said:

Get rid of all those programs and all the bureaucracy and infrastructure necessary to administer them.  Replace with UBI, problem solved.

As long as you're ok with a portion of those people abusing this and still ending up homeless and hungry, then, yeah, it's fine.  This is the reason we allocate current aid efforts - we know there is a substantial population that can't take care of themselves and would waste an undefined aid situation.

Edited by Sand
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dawgtrails said:

Nobody needs to worry about where their next meal is coming from?

Not a chance.  There will be many that go through the UBI monies and end up hungry.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sand said:

Not a chance.  There will be many that go through the UBI monies and end up hungry.  

Of course.  But it's not an all or nothing proposition.  No system is perfect.  Yes, some will not use it as its intended.  Yes, some will still not be able to take care of themselves with some financial support.  But it still helps a lot more people and provides the opportunity for basic living needs. 

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, gianmarco said:

Of course.  But it's not an all or nothing proposition.  No system is perfect.  Yes, some will not use it as its intended.  Yes, some will still not be able to take care of themselves with some financial support.  But it still helps a lot more people and provides the opportunity for basic living needs. 

UBI is designed to replace the current system.  We don't need a UBI overlaid on top of the current system - that doesn't make sense.

As you can tell I'm against a UBI.  There is a reason we separate and allocate aid into many categories.  They help ensure that for this population that can't take care of itself we have dedicated resources to feed them, house them, provide for their children, etc.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, stlrams said:

Ok let’s provide the basics for everyone in the us as you suggest.  What do you think happens next?  

I’d say poverty and crime would go down, quality of life would shoot up for a large percentage of people and that would result in more people being able to contribute to the economy and have opportunities to create a business themselves one day.

55 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

Small percentage?  Wut?  How small do you think this is?

Also, who gets to determine what "super high quality lives" means?  Because I guarantee you for most people, "super high quality lives" are the guys who make more than you.  That's how it's always been.  It's determined by jealousy, not need.

5%? I don’t know. The quality of life these people are living is not good and I just can’t imagine a large percentage would choose that lifestyle if they didn’t have to. Why would you choose to never have money to spend on yourself or your family and live at the bear minimum to get by your entire life? Just doesn’t sound desirable to me and I feel like most would come to realize that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sand said:

UBI is designed to replace the current system.  We don't need a UBI overlaid on top of the current system - that doesn't make sense.

As you can tell I'm against a UBI.  There is a reason we separate and allocate aid into many categories.  They help ensure that for this population that can't take care of itself we have dedicated resources to feed them, house them, provide for their children, etc.  

That wasn't what I meant by "all or nothing".  I meant, just because the system can't help everyone doesn't mean you abandon the idea.  I didn't mean it as an addition to the current system.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, dawgtrails said:

Nobody needs to worry about where their next meal is coming from?

I think we’ll see a huge surge in illegal migration.  This is more incentive for people to want to come here.  

  • Thinking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A few thoughts:

  1. Why is this referred to as Universal Basic Income.  Income typically implies there is some work or investment made by the recipient.  Income.  Whats being proposed is the opposite, it is essentially Universal Welfare.  Thats not necessarily bad, but I think better to be more direct.
  2. Why should this not be UBI.  Income...as in you work and you get income.  Other than there are a set of people that cannot possibly contribute in any way (lets exclude them from this discussion)...why is the expectation that people contribute a bad one?
  3. Who benefits when people receiving UBI contribute?  All the people that are paying into UBI of course.  Why is that not a positive?
  4. If anybody has a good reference I'd like to read the most exhaustive possible analysis of the financial impact of UBI.  That means truly looking at the entirety of impacts.  Probably needs to be from a source that is clearly not political.
    1. In terms of entirety of impacts.  In the financial models are we assuming that basically every job today experiences wage inflation, including in some instances up to the amount of UBI received?  Will that inflation in turn create a higher necessary UBI.  Who pay the salaries of the all government employees that now will earn up to $15k more.  Interested in analysis of these sort of boomerang / circular impacts.
Edited by djmich
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a good read dispelling some myths about welfare

Here is another that discusses how billionaires contribute to welfare

It would be interesting if someone actually looked at the money from welfare "fraud" or "abuse" and its costs to taxpayers in comparison to the wealthy elite/corporations that game the system and avoid taxes due to loopholes/etc.

ETA -- Relevant section:

Welfare As We Know It

But the question remains: do such programs create a “culture of dependency”? In the case of PKH, children who grow up healthier and more educated will arguably be better positioned to earn higher incomes and work longer into the future. Of course, to confirm this empirically, we would need to follow the original sample population into adulthood as they enter the workforce and develop careers.

In the meantime, critics will doubtless argue that the program creates dependency for able-bodied adults today. And they might even contend that the culture of dependency will be reproduced inter-generationally, as parents’ attitudes about not working and “being on the dole” are passed down to their children.

Yet here it is worth taking a step back and exploring where the idea of welfare dependency comes from in the first place. We know that beliefs about dependency, laziness, and voluntary unemployment among the poor are pervasive. But why is that?

"Indonesia’s cash-transfer program yielded significant improvements in some of the most stubborn and problematic areas of public health and education."

The primary culprit seems to be classical economic theory, which predicts that when governments provide benefits, individuals may decide that they can afford to work less (economists refer to this as the “income effect”). Similarly, if recipients worry about losing eligibility for benefits if they earn more, they may abstain from work. It is this moral hazard that supposedly leads people to remain poor and rely on welfare indefinitely.

But the evidence does not always support this theory. In another study, my colleagues and I re-analyzed data from seven different experimental trials of government cash-transfer programs throughout the developing world, from the Philippines to Morocco to Mexico. We found that in most cases, men who received benefits tended to be working already, and that there was no evidence that systematic income support reduced work. In an even more recent study, Sarah Jane Baird, David J. McKenzie, and Berk Özler of the World Bank undertook a systematic review of the economics literature on this topic and came to a similar conclusion.

As for PKH, we did not find that program recipients stopped working, even after six years of receiving cash transfers.

Edited by gianmarco
  • Like 1
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, stlrams said:

I think we’ll see a huge surge in illegal migration.  This is more incentive for people to want to come here.  

There is already a strong motivation for people from poor countries to come here in my judgment.  I’m not convinced that this would be some sort of tipping point.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

There is already a strong motivation for people from poor countries to come here in my judgment.  I’m not convinced that this would be some sort of tipping point.

I'm not convinced anybody has really examined this impact, not just of changes to illegal immigration volume but the impact of the large majority of those individuals likely better off just collecting UBI.

Edited by djmich
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

There is already a strong motivation for people from poor countries to come here in my judgment.  I’m not convinced that this would be some sort of tipping point.

Not to mention that those here with illegal status can't/don't qualify for UBI.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sand said:

As long as you're ok with a portion of those people abusing this and still ending up homeless and hungry, then, yeah, it's fine.  This is the reason we allocate current aid efforts - we know there is a substantial population that can't take care of themselves and would waste an undefined aid situation.

Exactly this.  We really expect the recipients to manage this UBI and meet their basic needs?  I suggest we are way overshooting our citizens' management skill.  If UBI came once a month, by the 5th or 7th of the month you'd have kids hungry.  I get the premise, I actually like the premise of UBI versus what we do now.  But after we do it, are we really going to walk away and absolve ourselves of caring for those who are unable/unwilling to manage it properly for the month or whatever time period it is for?  That's the only way this makes sense is if it's a one program replaces all the other public aid type programs we have now.  I just don't see us doing this one thing and saying "tough" to those who don't manage it properly.

Edited by Shula-holic
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shula-holic said:

Exactly this.  We really expect the recipients to manage this UBI and meet their basic needs?  I suggest we are way overshooting our citizens' management skill.  If UBI came once a month, by the 5th or 7th of the month you'd have kids hungry.  I get the premise, I actually like the premise of UBI versus what we do now.  But after we do it, are we really going to walk away and absolve ourselves of caring for those who are unable/unwilling to manage it properly for the month or whatever time period it is for?  That's the only way this makes sense is if it's a one program replaces all the other public aid type programs we have now.  I just don't see us doing this one thing and saying "tough" to those who don't manage it properly.

This isn't borne out by studies of direct transfers of money in lump sums to the poor vs. staggered benefits or benefits that are limited to certain purchases (food stamps, etc.). I would have to look again, but I believe it has been shown that poor people actually do quite well managing lump sums and make dollars stretch much further than people give them credit for. Addicts are a wildly different story, however, and I suspect that for a large percentage of them, this would be true.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, rockaction said:

This isn't borne out by studies of direct transfers of money in lump sums to the poor vs. staggered benefits or benefits that are limited to certain purchases (food stamps, etc.). I would have to look again, but I believe it has been shown that poor people actually do quite well managing lump sums and make dollars stretch much further than people give them credit for. Addicts are a wildly different story, however, and I suspect that for a large percentage of them, this would be true.

My point is even if it's true for 80% of people, are we truly going to just let the other 20% have to live with that result?  Color me skeptical.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Shula-holic said:

My point is even if it's true for 80% of people, are we truly going to just let the other 20% have to live with that result?  Color me skeptical.

Color me very skeptical as well. We won't deny them basics in the end. There's a real problem for the UBI to sort out, and it comes down to the mentally indigent and addicts.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Rich Conway said:

The bolded is an attitude that I will probably never understand.  Would it be immoral or wrong not to work if one had a billion dollars sitting in the bank?  Is it immoral or wrong not to work if one is a retired firefighter with a pension?

I suspect the thought process is not that it's immoral not to work, but that it's immoral or wrong to accept "free" money from a government entity.  Which is also an odd argument unless one is also ready to argue against Medicare, Social Security, private business bailouts of all kinds, government subsidies of all kinds, etc.  At some level, one could argue that something as simple as me attending the free, public dog park in my town or enjoying the free, public library is akin to accepting free money from the government.

I would also ask someone making the "not working is immoral" argument to imagine a hypothetical world in which energy and resources were unlimited.  Should one still choose to work in such a world?

That said, even if one does want to make the argument that it's immoral or wrong to "take advantage" of all the programs mentioned, someone in that position should still understand that a UBI is still a better solution than the existing myriad of means-tested programs which can actually discourage work, whereas a UBI doesn't.

The billionaire who isn’t working is more likely to be a taxpayer still.  I do know a few who wouldn’t get off the couch unless they are making $25/hour with full benefits.  This really applies now with the states kicking in the extra 4-600 in unemployment.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FairWarning said:

The billionaire who isn’t working is more likely to be a taxpayer still.  I do know a few who wouldn’t get off the couch unless they are making $25/hour with full benefits.  This really applies now with the states kicking in the extra 4-600 in unemployment.  

The theory is that unemployment would disappear if a UBI were implemented.

I'm seeing a lot of arguments against social safety nets in general, which is a common theme amongst most UBI critics.  I'm not seeing any arguments why our current patchwork collection of mostly means-tested social safety nets (welfare, SNAP, unemployment, minimum wage, etc.) are superior to a UBI.  That is the question that needs to be addressed.  Is a UBI superior to the existing policy?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, supermike80 said:
21 hours ago, Sand said:

Not a chance.  There will be many that go through the UBI monies and end up hungry.  

Bingo!!!!!

This seems like it could be somewhat alleviated if there were a system to garnish someone's UBI for necessary living expenses like rent.  I wouldn't expect it to be a common thing but if there's someone that just burns all their UBI every week on lottery tickets there could be some process so that his landlord will get paid from the deadbeat's UBI money before it ever gets into the hands of the real recipient.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

This seems like it could be somewhat alleviated if there were a system to garnish someone's UBI for necessary living expenses like rent.  I wouldn't expect it to be a common thing but if there's someone that just burns all their UBI every week on lottery tickets there could be some process so that his landlord will get paid from the deadbeat's UBI money before it ever gets into the hands of the real recipient.

Well youd think this could be done with the current welfare system.  but no, it can't.  remember this is a gubbermint operation.  It's going to be a cluster

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, FairWarning said:

The billionaire who isn’t working is more likely to be a taxpayer still.  I do know a few who wouldn’t get off the couch unless they are making $25/hour with full benefits.  This really applies now with the states kicking in the extra 4-600 in unemployment.  

The bolded doesn't make any sense to me.

From a morality and/or economic standpoint, which is worse?

1)  Joe Schmo sitting on his couch and not paying any taxes.  Gets some benefits, has a side hustle but doesn't pay any taxes on it.  He gets $15,000/year in benefits and avoids paying $5,000 in taxes.

2)  Joe Super Schmo who has billions and pays $100,000 in taxes, but due to a loophole, has actually avoided paying $200,000 in taxes.

You think #2 is better because "he's likely to be a taxpayer still"?  Morally?  For the good of our citizens and our economy?

I'm guessing that's part of the fundamental difference in how some of us view this.  And, there's no "right" answer here, but I think it's obvious that I clearly disagree with the above bolded.

Edited by gianmarco
  • Like 1
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rich Conway said:

The theory is that unemployment would disappear if a UBI were implemented.

I'm seeing a lot of arguments against social safety nets in general, which is a common theme amongst most UBI critics.  I'm not seeing any arguments why our current patchwork collection of mostly means-tested social safety nets (welfare, SNAP, unemployment, minimum wage, etc.) are superior to a UBI.  That is the question that needs to be addressed.  Is a UBI superior to the existing policy?

Well, the current system only applies to a subset of the populace.  I don't get anything from any of the current safety nets.  I didn't even get any stimulus or Covid relief.  I'm not complaining.  I didn't have any disruption to my income stream.  But that's money the government didn't need to spend.  So there's that.   And I'm not saying the current system is superior to a UBI.  But this is a valid argument in favor of the current system. 

I think there are other alternatives to a UBI but they wouldn't fly with the lib crowd so I won't go in to them here.  But, it's not an either or proposition.

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, gianmarco said:

The bolded doesn't make any sense to me.

From a morality and/or economic standpoint, which is worse?

1)  Joe Schmo sitting on his couch and not paying any taxes.  Gets some benefits, has a side hustle but doesn't pay any taxes on it.  He gets $15,000/year in benefits and avoids paying $5,000 in taxes.

2)  Joe Super Schmo who has billions and pays $100,000 in taxes, but due to a loophole, has actually avoided paying $200,000 in taxes.

You think #2 is better because "he's likely to be a taxpayer still"?  Morally?  For the good of our citizens and our economy?

I'm guessing that's part of the fundamental difference in how some of us view this.  And, there's no "right" answer here, but I think it's obvious that I clearly disagree with the above bolded.

What???

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rich Conway said:

The theory is that unemployment would disappear if a UBI were implemented.

I'm seeing a lot of arguments against social safety nets in general, which is a common theme amongst most UBI critics.  I'm not seeing any arguments why our current patchwork collection of mostly means-tested social safety nets (welfare, SNAP, unemployment, minimum wage, etc.) are superior to a UBI.  That is the question that needs to be addressed.  Is a UBI superior to the existing policy?

That’s a good question, IDK if it’s better than what we have now, or are we just rearranging the deck chairs.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gianmarco said:

The bolded doesn't make any sense to me.

From a morality and/or economic standpoint, which is worse?

1)  Joe Schmo sitting on his couch and not paying any taxes.  Gets some benefits, has a side hustle but doesn't pay any taxes on it.  He gets $15,000/year in benefits and avoids paying $5,000 in taxes.

2)  Joe Super Schmo who has billions and pays $100,000 in taxes, but due to a loophole, has actually avoided paying $200,000 in taxes.

You think #2 is better because "he's likely to be a taxpayer still"?  Morally?  For the good of our citizens and our economy?

I'm guessing that's part of the fundamental difference in how some of us view this.  And, there's no "right" answer here, but I think it's obvious that I clearly disagree with the above bolded.

Define loophole.  Remember that anything you call a loophole is a part of the IRS code and generally available to all taxpayers.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rich Conway said:

 I'm not seeing any arguments why our current patchwork collection of mostly means-tested social safety nets (welfare, SNAP, unemployment, minimum wage, etc.) are superior to a UBI.  That is the question that needs to be addressed.  

I've argued exactly that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gianmarco said:

The bolded doesn't make any sense to me.

From a morality and/or economic standpoint, which is worse?

1)  Joe Schmo sitting on his couch and not paying any taxes.  Gets some benefits, has a side hustle but doesn't pay any taxes on it.  He gets $15,000/year in benefits and avoids paying $5,000 in taxes.

2)  Joe Super Schmo who has billions and pays $100,000 in taxes, but due to a loophole, has actually avoided paying $200,000 in taxes.

You think #2 is better because "he's likely to be a taxpayer still"?  Morally?  For the good of our citizens and our economy?

I'm guessing that's part of the fundamental difference in how some of us view this.  And, there's no "right" answer here, but I think it's obvious that I clearly disagree with the above bolded.

If it’s a legal loophole, so what?  

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sand said:

Define loophole.  Remember that anything you call a loophole is a part of the IRS code and generally available to all taxpayers.

Without knowing specifics, assuming Trump truly paid $750 in taxes somewhat recently.  Assuming he accomplished that in a manner that may or may be available to taxpayers.  Even if it may end up being considered legal, we'll just say it's not what was intended.

Let's use that kind of idea of a loophole.  In other words, drastically underpaying what would otherwise be expected, legal or not. 

I think we can agree that those kinds of "loopholes" shouldn't exist and need to be eliminated, but we all know that it will never happen and those with means can have their lawyers/accountants find ways to skirt their responsibilities.

In other words, kind of like pr0n.  You know it when you see it kind of loophole that allows someone like Trump to pay $750 in a given year.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...