• Light/Dark
  • Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

2020 Democratic Presidential Primary | OT | Hickenlooper makes it to the debate

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reader mode
TerminusFox

TerminusFox

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
3,851
tabris said:
So there is currently 16.01 trillion dollars per year of income paid out in the United States (2016 numbers).

There is 230 million adults.

For $12000 UBI a year, it would need 2.760 trillion of that pie. If we were to do a fair flat tax rate against everyone to redistribute that 1 to 1 - that would be a flat tax rate of 18% across all that 16.01 trillion dollars. So essentially the cross-over point of where you would start "losing money" is around $67000 a year. I think it's fair to ask everyone above that income to pay a bit more towards society.

Now I couldn't find exact stats for capital gains, but those should be included and currently it's almost a 1 to 1 for tax revenue between income and capital gains. So assuming that would follow same rule, and ideally a bit more - that would make the break or cross-over point of where you would start "losing money" to ~$130000 a year. Now that even becomes an easier number to swallow and a easier bracket of people to expect to pay a bit more.

So you can easily do a fair flat rate against everyone - no exceptions - just whatever earned from income and capital gains of flat 9% (divided 18% in half if we can also tax capital gains that) across everyone is divided out by 12 and paid to all 230 million adults.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
At that point, you're restructuring the entire economy, and no one has any idea what that even looks like.

This is the definition of uncharted territory.
 
SaveWeyard

SaveWeyard

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,540
tabris said:
So there is currently 16.01 trillion dollars per year of income paid out in the United States (2016 numbers).

There is 230 million adults.

For $12000 UBI a year, it would need 2.760 trillion of that pie. If we were to do a fair flat tax rate against everyone to redistribute that 1 to 1 - that would be a flat tax rate of 18% across all that 16.01 trillion dollars. So essentially the cross-over point of where you would start "losing money" is around $67000 a year. I think it's fair to ask everyone above that income to pay a bit more towards society.

Now I couldn't find exact stats for capital gains, but those should be included and currently it's almost a 1 to 1 for tax revenue between income and capital gains. So assuming that would follow same rule, and ideally a bit more - that would make the break or cross-over point of where you would start "losing money" to ~$130000 a year. Now that even becomes an easier number to swallow and a easier bracket of people to expect to pay a bit more.

So you can easily do a fair flat rate against everyone - no exceptions - just whatever earned from income and capital gains of flat 9% (divided 18% in half if we can also tax capital gains that) across everyone is divided out by 12 and paid to all 230 million adults.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If you're interested in the affordability issue I really do recommend Guy Standing's book on UBI. He has a pretty good chapter on it, but here's an interesting excerpt where he quotes Harvard professor Greg Mankiw:
Consider an economy in which average income is $50,000 but with much income inequality. To provide a social safety net, two possible policies are proposed. Which would you prefer?

- A universal transfer of $10,000 to every person, financed by a 20-percent flat tax on income.
- A means-tested transfer of $10,000. The full amount goes to someone without any income. The transfer is then phased out: You lose 20 cents of it for every dollar of income you ear. These transfers are financed by a tax of 20 percent on income above $50,000.

I have seen smart people argue as follows: Policy A is cray. Why should Bill Gates get a government transfer? He doesn't need it, and we would need to raise more taxes to pay for it. Policy B is more progressive. It targets the transfer to those who really need it, and the transfer is financed by a smaller tax increase levied only on those with above-average incomes.

But here is the rub. The two policies are equivalent. If you look at the net payment (taxes less transfers), everyone is exactly the same under the two plans. The difference is only a matter of framing.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Of course, as Standing goes on to point out, they aren't really the same because means testing incurs additional costs, administrative and personal, that reduce the value of any payment below its nominal value. The basis of the means-tested benefits, the earned income value, is also unstable, making that whole policy unstable.
 
OP
OP
pigeon

pigeon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,447
TerminusFox said:
At that point, you're restructuring the entire economy, and no one has any idea what that even looks like.

This is the definition of uncharted territory.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Well we've already been to all the other places and none of them eliminated poverty so maybe it's time to try something new.

Also that math is unfortunately no good because children need to be paid for as well. You could do Bruenig's family fun pack if you don't want to give kids a full UBI, though.
 
woman

woman

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,532
Atlanta
weirder said:
$1000/mo, even as a low figure to begin the discussion, would inject a lot of money into poor communities and help towards ending homelessness. Whatever the right figure works out to this could not only provide housing it could fuel the economy and create new small business and local investment in those areas nationwide. This together with improved healthcare and education bills would improve the lives of ...woww...what would the right figure for that be? The thought of that much wealth redistribution in a nation like the USA is breathtaking to consider. Really. but what is the reality?
Yang and Marianne met a few days ago. Went to catch up on what's going on with her and there's an article about her launch in Washington Post Magazine.






and...


That is a huge boost.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Genuinely in awe at her fearlessness. No other Democrat has come out so unapologetic in their demand for justice.
 

Deleted member 3896

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
5,815
woman said:
Genuinely in awe at her fearlessness. No other Democrat has come out so unapologetic in their demand for justice.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I didn't know anything about her really until a week or two ago. I just assumed she was going to be an airy fairy joke candidate... I was shocked at how wrong I was.

You're exactly right. She's fearless, bold and has a visionary sense of justice that's rooted in history and intellectualism. Really hope she makes it to the debates.
 
samoyed

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
tabris said:
Now I couldn't find exact stats for capital gains, but those should be included and currently it's almost a 1 to 1 for tax revenue between income and capital gains. So assuming that would follow same rule, and ideally a bit more - that would make the break or cross-over point of where you would start "losing money" to ~$130000 a year. Now that even becomes an easier number to swallow and a easier bracket of people to expect to pay a bit more.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Capital gains is identical to income for short term gains (investments held under 1 year) and at a different rate for anything above that:

25t5MP4.png


https://www.investopedia.com/articl...gterm-vs-shortterm-capital-gain-tax-rates.asp
 

Deleted member 14459

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,874
weirder said:
$1000/mo, even as a low figure to begin the discussion, would inject a lot of money into poor communities and help towards ending homelessness. Whatever the right figure works out to this could not only provide housing it could fuel the economy and create new small business and local investment in those areas nationwide. This together with improved healthcare and education bills would improve the lives of ...woww...what would the right figure for that be? The thought of that much wealth redistribution in a nation like the USA is breathtaking to consider. Really. but what is the reality?
Yang and Marianne met a few days ago. Went to catch up on what's going on with her and there's an article about her launch in Washington Post Magazine.


and...


That is a huge boost.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


Nothing would be a better representation of the American psyche and ID than electing a millionaire self-help guru to become president - well, perhaps with the exception of Howard Schultz, with whom she shares the idea that at center of politics lies the need to "rise above the fray of politics" by embracing the soul of apolitics and pushing for ideas but without the agonism of politics. Running america like a cult would be a truly american experiment - and that you can make some money on the side would be an added bonus facilitated by the fact that "her staff, from security guards to consultants, work for Williamson for free, out of gratitude for the change in their lives fomented by her work." The reposting of her inspirational quotes written in dreamy cursive font, a sentence or two as not to be an IP infraction of her latest self-help book, would just be an added bonus.
 
Last edited:

Rilakkuma Fanatic

Member
Nov 20, 2017
3,613


Sen. Cory Booker's campaign will announce a slew of endorsements Thursday from New Jersey Democrats in a show of home state support so far unmatched by rival Democratic candidates for president.

Every Democrat in New Jersey's congressional delegation is throwing their support behind the state's junior senator -- including 11 House members, among them House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone, and Sen. Bob Menendez, who previously announced he would back Booker.

"Cory will bring Americans together," Pallone said. "He is what we need to move our country forward from the divisive policies of Donald Trump."

Top state Democratic lawmakers will also endorse Booker, including Gov. Phil Murphy, who earlier confirmed his support; Lt. Gov. Sheila Oliver; the state Senate president and the state Assembly speaker; all four Democratic county executives; and party chairs from all 21 counties in the state.

Booker will also receive the backing of his hometown leaders, Newark Mayor Ras Baraka and members of the city council.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

So basically, every Dem NJ House member from Watson Coleman and Kim to Sherrill and Van Drew is endorsing him. One hell of a shot. In contrast:

Most others have garnered support from a fraction of their home state lawmakers.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, of Minneosta, has won the backing of her state's governor and Senate colleague, Sen. Tina Smith. But, unlike Booker, Klobuchar has not locked up all of the House Democrats representing Minnesota, with backing from two of five members thus far.

The same goes for Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who has the thumbs up from Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey and Reps. Lori Trahan and Joe Kennedy, but the rest of the Massachusetts congressional delegation has yet to weigh in. The state's governor, Charlie Baker, is a Republican.

Meanwhile, Sen. Kamala Harris has locked up endorsements from California Gov. Gavin Newsom and four of the state's members of Congress. But her colleague Sen. Dianne Feinstein has expressed a preference for former Vice President Joe Biden, urging him to jump into the primary.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
 

Rilakkuma Fanatic

Member
Nov 20, 2017
3,613


(I think it's more so that Kamala was the frontrunner, rather than necessarily the biggest threat. But all the FUD being spread is unsurprising.)
 

Deleted member 5666

user requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,753
I think its a mix of her frontrunner status and that of the candidates announced she is clearly the most electable in terms of likelihood in being able to beat Trump.
 

Deleted member 2145

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
29,223
I'm just gonna say that when Trump lands on a cop-themed nickname for Harris I'm blaming some of yall for helping to speak it into existence
 
KingK

KingK

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,856
Reposting from poliERA:

So Buttigieg is setting up a series of "repairs to democracy"/structural reforms as his top priority to get done. https://thinkprogress.org/bernie-sa...842a80-6b35-e911-b8b3-281878391efb&ceid=41903

He wants redistricting reform, eliminating the electoral college, DC and Puerto Rico statehood, and has not closed the door on court packing or pushing for nuking the filibuster.

I really like that he's acknowledging these structural hurdles to enacting/preserving progressive policies that the other candidates so far have dismissed or danced around.

I think Pete's my top pick now, followed by Sanders and Warren. Harris would be my fourth pick, after that I don't really have a preference (as long as it's not Biden or Booker).

Pete was also on 1A on NPR the other day for a 40+ minute interview. I just got around to listening to it, and it's good.
 

Deleted member 13364

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,984
The people who despise Bernie and have been bitching about him in their echo chambers for the last three years are in for a bit of a rude awakening now he's announced.
 

Deleted member 5666

user requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,753
Number of Completion said:
The people who despise Bernie and have been bitching about him in their echo chambers for the last three years are in for a bit of a rude awakening now he's announced.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Seeing how he is struggling to get above the high teens and is far behind Biden in polling, I doubt it. He will likely do worse than he did in 16 since he faces better competition.
 
Reader mode
Status
Not open for further replies.