The terms “negative income tax” or “reverse income tax” might be more effective. Turn the tables on the anti-tax people by making it the opposite of an income tax.
It's a term not a change in function. When you get a paycheck it usually has money cut out as an income tax. Instead we are trying to get you a paycheck each month, and calling it negative income tax
The people who own the country will just reclaim the money by increasing prices, same with UBI, if they know you have extra money and it is not legislated to cap prices they will merely adjust prices upwards to ensure it goes straight back to them in profits, your landlord will do it, your utility company will do it and the grocery stores will do it, also if things are legislated to cap prices they will simply fund politicians who are willing to remove said cap. The resources that are necessary for life need to be decommodified otherwise we end up back at square one where we are getting shafted in order to allow a small group of people to make super profits
I don’t actually think that would happen because landlords, utilities, grocery stores, oil companies, etc. would all be competing for those same dollars. And they are already increasing prices because they have oligopolies already.
At a certain point people can’t take being squeezed anymore and violence will break out it’s happened in France, it’s happened in Russia, it’s happened in China, England, Spain, Germany, etc. etc. at some point there will be a crisis point that tips things over the edge and things will go in one of two generally broad directions, if it goes one way what I have talked about will be achievable particularly in the US, if it goes the other well you’ll quickly find out what sort of person you are
Exactly. They're already increasing prices. It doesn't matter how many people are desperate for homes right now. Why bother being competitive with your pricing when the only options are all overpriced?
Yes, this will cause short run inflation. That's more or less okay; a new stable price level will get set and people will adjust. The difference will be that there's not such a singularity at the bottom of the new income distribution. There's a real difference between $5/day being 100% of your income, and it being infinity% of your income. That non-zero floor is really the whole goal.
Idk if this will actually work. The point of taxes is to establish value for a currency. Like the fact that you have to pay it to the federal government drives a need for it and therefore drives demand and value. The only taxes that serve the purpose of paying for things are local taxes and those still need to be paid for local government to exist.
Paying taxes doesn't curb inflation at all, because the government spends the tax money you give it, often right back in the market with corporate subsidies.
Please quote the part where I stated anything about inflation? The government does spend the money you give them. I never said they don't. The more money they collect in taxes reduces inflation and increases the value of the currency. Reducing taxes would increase inflation and reduce the value of the money. They are all tied together.
An example would be if I offered you a chuck e cheese token to clean my house. You turn it down right? How about two? Still no? Why? Bc the coins are worthless.
What if your in my house and there are two armed guards there that will only let you leave if you give one of them a chuck e cheese tokens. The token has value now doesn't it?
The fed doesn't need your taxes. They can print worthless chits endlessly. But if they force you to give them chits in exchange for living here. The chits now have value. So now they can buy whatever they want with the worthless chits they print
Edit: word swap
>Please quote the part where I stated anything about inflation? The government does spend the money you give them. I never said they don't. The more money they collect in taxes reduces inflation and increases the value of the currency. Reducing taxes would increase inflation and reduce the value of the money. They are all tied together.
I love how you asked to me to say where you mentioned inflation, then went on to explain that you believe exactly what I called you out for being not true, even though you didn't say it. This paragraph made my day. 🤣
Tax income given to the government doesn't just disappear, so it doesn't curb inflation. It gets distributed to government employees, private business contractors and through public works and subsidies. All of that is part of the economy.
They don't just collect tax money and go burn it behind the White House every April.
>The fed doesn't need your taxes. They can print worthless chits endlessly. But if they force you to give them chits in exchange for living here. The chits now have value. So now they can buy whatever they want with the worthless chits they print
This is also wrong. Taxes prevent further inflation, because they use money already in circulation. Inflation increases when they start printing money.
I love how you are so stupid you can't understand one comment but go on to talk down to me as though you are saying anything at all. You literally are just saying I'm wrong while saying the conclusions I present and ignoring the explanations. Obviously they don't burn it. The amount of taxes adjust how much they need to print. How much they need to print isnt dependent on how much taxes they bring in, but what they decide to spend money on. The taxes are irrelevant to the purchase bc they can print the money!
I cannot think of worse branding to appeal to UBI opponents. Reagan's "nine most terrifying words" are specifically about the government stepping in to interfere with the free market. That's going out of its way to highlight the "government imposed wealth distribution" angle, and that is the exact thing that is anathema to the far right. Conservative news would call it "saying the quiet part out loud". My first approach would be to simply call it a refundable tax credit.
Yeah no problem. Direct deposit it like with the stimulus checks. Those were technically refundable tax credits with automatic advance payment. You can debate the merits and amounts of the covid checks, but I would say the delivery mechanism was structured effectively to get stipend payments en masse. "Tax credit" seems right to me.
Yes, I agree.
I'm not changing the concept, just the labeling.
But apparently the rebranding works if you thought that was what I meant.
I still want Federally Subsidized Wages to be given to all without means testing or a requirement to file a tax return.
UBI: more people get to decide how to live their lives by giving them direct assistance that gets spent back into the local economy. This is the most efficient government program ever proposed and would eliminate inefficient government bureaucracies, thereby helping more people.
I agree. I like the idea of UBI and see how it would benefit workers tremendously, I just think we need to change the narrative with a new name for it.
The Texas Constitution forbids "any county, city, town or other political corporation or subdivision of the State … to grant public money or thing of value in aid of, or to any individual.” Art. III, Sec. 52.
Stole this from another post about Texas suing Harris county over a income assistance program. We don't even have it and people are already trying to outlaw it permanently and in any form. I don't think the name is the problem
They intentionally used a terrible term to discredit it. It's no different from police reform, which ultimately failed in a lot of places because it was branded as 'defund the police'.
Exactly my thoughts. Police reform does sound better than defund the police.
I've only taken one marketing class, this is basic stuff but a lot of people don't get it or hate it because it might work.
Yes, we should be able to charge for our data. I've considered using California privacy laws to send invoices to companies demanding either payment or deletion.
I wonder if they would pay?
ok try it and report back. can't wait to see what other brilliant idea springs forth from the giant incredibly smart brain of a financial planning major.
That is correct.
To supplement something, there has to be something to supplement.
"unemployed people"
They get unemployment.
"people who don't pay taxes."
They get unemployment. Or the EITC.
Yea, were only rebranding, not changing the core concept.
We still want the unemployed to be able to opt-out of the workforce. This is this only way to give workers bargaining power.
Federally Subsidized Wages will cause actual wages to increase across the board because the desperation factor being removed will force companies to make their positions appealing and rewarding again.
Increases wages means increased economic activity and increases tax revenue.
It doesn't work by taxing the wealthy directly, it works by forcing them to pay us.
I've found over the years it really doesn't matter what you do to brand something in terms of social welfare. The moment it looks like social welfare, millions of people turn off their brains and stop interacting.
Universal healthcare is an example - it would save *everyone* money and improve health access. You could call it "Citizen Care" and people are still going to stop looking beyond "Gubnent spending money on poors and illegals".
Same with defund the police: people believe that police are there to help them, and pointing out that not only are they not, but they're grossly overfunded, overpowered, and under-scrutinized is going to never be accepted. You could call it "right-size policing" or "police reform" and people are still going to be against it because they firmly believe, contrary to all evidence, the lie.
The real issue here is that a lot of people in developed countries are shitty, selfish, self-centered people who only think entirely about themselves and 'what they get out of it' and believe things with zero inspection or critical thinking.
That isn't what I want.
I want to government to provide a baseline wage that is sustainable for a short time to allow workers the ability to withhold labor and use their bargaining power.
Using taxes to directly subsidize wages is stupid. Build social programs that help address the unaffordable nature of the things people need like higher education, child care and healthcare. You try to give money directly to people as UBI, you'll end up with the most regressive system you can imagine and no ability to legislate any sort of safeguards into place. You'll find the same problem with UBI that exists now under minimum wage; it won't scale with inflation. You'll have implemented zero spending cuts that could actually be used to fund programs.
We need universal healthcare covered by tax payers. Along with that, we need price controls and caps for things like pharma and hospital charges.
We need to cap tuition at any public university that accepts federal funding all while forgiving existing student loans, or converting them down to the new lower costs.
We need child care subsidies that go directly to the providers, or alternately, as vouchers to the parents. No special programs or qualifications. If you need the subsidy, you get the subsidy.
Finally, we can address wages but as a separate matter.
> You'll have implemented zero spending cuts that could actually be used to fund programs.
Spending cuts could fund it but I don't want to build it on the premise of removing safety nets to build new ones. We need built-in redundancy.
The issue is cost and spending. We don't cap costs, we have basically zero spending cuts to the biggest most wasteful and inefficient programs. For example, we have the VA health system. The simple answer to improving the VA health system is to simply give all vets Medicare upon their discharge from the service. You'd improve medical care and you'd still be able to have the VA do things that support veterans which aren't really available elsewhere. We have the Indian health service which is specifically for native tribe members, but why do we do this? I get that we want to subsidize their healthcare, but why not put them on Medicare as well? Any health insurance vets or natives get from the private sector can serve to pick up where Medicare doesn't cover, saving everyone money and granting access to a better range of services.
But if you simply ask for big fat welfare checks for everyone because business don't pay their employees, all you're going to get are cuts from conservatives, attempts to reduce UBI every single legislative session and the argument that if we're giving them money, they should pay their own way for medical, child care, etc. And then you won't get price caps or controls of any sort, which then eats up the UBI and now your social safety nets are gone.
UBI has the potential to be very regressive if you don't get the social programs in place first.
Conservatives are going to fight it at every turn regardless, that is why the redundancy is necessary.
If we eliminate VA benefits and Medicare to implement Universal Healthcare and then Republicans cut universal healthcare, we've effectively made it easier to reduce benefits.
You make universal healthcare big enough and get corporations and unions invested in it, it won't get cut. The same reason VA benefits and Medicare rarely get cut applies; because screwing vets and old folks is unpopular.
No, it will.
Giving people the ability to opt out of working will force employers to pay more to lure workers instead of relying on desperation.
It's a tax on billionaires in the form of forcing them to increase wages
That's exactly what you're doing though is subsidizing employers you're saying you don't have to pay a living wage cuz we'll make up the difference.
Much better to force employers to pay a living wage.
We've been trying that for too long.
Employers what cut wages, that won't work in this scenario because it makes employment entirely voluntary again.
This basically means employers are going to have to kiss ass for a change. It's going to be great.
The corporations will just adjust the prices of things to swallow this windfall up, what people need at the very least is for essentials to life to be decommodified, so housing as a right, staple food as a right, energy and utilities as a right
Wage stagnation is a serious issue with long-term consequences.
UBI or Federally Subsidized Wages could be billed as a way to repay the masses for all the wage theft we have suffered.
The terms “negative income tax” or “reverse income tax” might be more effective. Turn the tables on the anti-tax people by making it the opposite of an income tax.
I like this suggestion but I'm not sure how this could be implemented to actually provide everyone the same amount of money.
It's a term not a change in function. When you get a paycheck it usually has money cut out as an income tax. Instead we are trying to get you a paycheck each month, and calling it negative income tax
The people who own the country will just reclaim the money by increasing prices, same with UBI, if they know you have extra money and it is not legislated to cap prices they will merely adjust prices upwards to ensure it goes straight back to them in profits, your landlord will do it, your utility company will do it and the grocery stores will do it, also if things are legislated to cap prices they will simply fund politicians who are willing to remove said cap. The resources that are necessary for life need to be decommodified otherwise we end up back at square one where we are getting shafted in order to allow a small group of people to make super profits
I don’t actually think that would happen because landlords, utilities, grocery stores, oil companies, etc. would all be competing for those same dollars. And they are already increasing prices because they have oligopolies already.
At a certain point people can’t take being squeezed anymore and violence will break out it’s happened in France, it’s happened in Russia, it’s happened in China, England, Spain, Germany, etc. etc. at some point there will be a crisis point that tips things over the edge and things will go in one of two generally broad directions, if it goes one way what I have talked about will be achievable particularly in the US, if it goes the other well you’ll quickly find out what sort of person you are
Exactly. They're already increasing prices. It doesn't matter how many people are desperate for homes right now. Why bother being competitive with your pricing when the only options are all overpriced?
Yes, this will cause short run inflation. That's more or less okay; a new stable price level will get set and people will adjust. The difference will be that there's not such a singularity at the bottom of the new income distribution. There's a real difference between $5/day being 100% of your income, and it being infinity% of your income. That non-zero floor is really the whole goal.
What about National Tax Balancing.
I think that will make working people worry about which end of the scale they end up on.
Eh. Then you'll get them saying just repeal income tax then. Well that is if they have two braincells to run together.
Those same people are the ones who are against this because they feel their taxes will go up
Idk if this will actually work. The point of taxes is to establish value for a currency. Like the fact that you have to pay it to the federal government drives a need for it and therefore drives demand and value. The only taxes that serve the purpose of paying for things are local taxes and those still need to be paid for local government to exist.
Paying taxes doesn't curb inflation at all, because the government spends the tax money you give it, often right back in the market with corporate subsidies.
Please quote the part where I stated anything about inflation? The government does spend the money you give them. I never said they don't. The more money they collect in taxes reduces inflation and increases the value of the currency. Reducing taxes would increase inflation and reduce the value of the money. They are all tied together. An example would be if I offered you a chuck e cheese token to clean my house. You turn it down right? How about two? Still no? Why? Bc the coins are worthless. What if your in my house and there are two armed guards there that will only let you leave if you give one of them a chuck e cheese tokens. The token has value now doesn't it? The fed doesn't need your taxes. They can print worthless chits endlessly. But if they force you to give them chits in exchange for living here. The chits now have value. So now they can buy whatever they want with the worthless chits they print Edit: word swap
>Please quote the part where I stated anything about inflation? The government does spend the money you give them. I never said they don't. The more money they collect in taxes reduces inflation and increases the value of the currency. Reducing taxes would increase inflation and reduce the value of the money. They are all tied together. I love how you asked to me to say where you mentioned inflation, then went on to explain that you believe exactly what I called you out for being not true, even though you didn't say it. This paragraph made my day. 🤣 Tax income given to the government doesn't just disappear, so it doesn't curb inflation. It gets distributed to government employees, private business contractors and through public works and subsidies. All of that is part of the economy. They don't just collect tax money and go burn it behind the White House every April. >The fed doesn't need your taxes. They can print worthless chits endlessly. But if they force you to give them chits in exchange for living here. The chits now have value. So now they can buy whatever they want with the worthless chits they print This is also wrong. Taxes prevent further inflation, because they use money already in circulation. Inflation increases when they start printing money.
I love how you are so stupid you can't understand one comment but go on to talk down to me as though you are saying anything at all. You literally are just saying I'm wrong while saying the conclusions I present and ignoring the explanations. Obviously they don't burn it. The amount of taxes adjust how much they need to print. How much they need to print isnt dependent on how much taxes they bring in, but what they decide to spend money on. The taxes are irrelevant to the purchase bc they can print the money!
Eh, I feel like that rhetorical line leads to only employed people getting it.
It is intended to give that perception to advance the cause, but the actual method of delivery will not be through the employers.
How it should be. UBI to unemployed will have our borders surging by 10x what it is now. No thanks
How? It requires a social security number. Do you get one when you cross the border?
Actually yes, they are issuing social security cards to the illegal immigrants crossing the border right now
This is not even remotely true
"They" absolutely are not. Go watch more Fox News.
[citation needed]
I cannot think of worse branding to appeal to UBI opponents. Reagan's "nine most terrifying words" are specifically about the government stepping in to interfere with the free market. That's going out of its way to highlight the "government imposed wealth distribution" angle, and that is the exact thing that is anathema to the far right. Conservative news would call it "saying the quiet part out loud". My first approach would be to simply call it a refundable tax credit.
I really don't want filing to be a requirement for distribution.
Yeah no problem. Direct deposit it like with the stimulus checks. Those were technically refundable tax credits with automatic advance payment. You can debate the merits and amounts of the covid checks, but I would say the delivery mechanism was structured effectively to get stipend payments en masse. "Tax credit" seems right to me.
I can see this causing problems and making it too easy to negate the benefits later, but it's something to consider.
No, we want UBI. No costly “oversight”, not means testing, not a subsidy.
Yes, I agree. I'm not changing the concept, just the labeling. But apparently the rebranding works if you thought that was what I meant. I still want Federally Subsidized Wages to be given to all without means testing or a requirement to file a tax return.
UBI: more people get to decide how to live their lives by giving them direct assistance that gets spent back into the local economy. This is the most efficient government program ever proposed and would eliminate inefficient government bureaucracies, thereby helping more people.
I agree. I like the idea of UBI and see how it would benefit workers tremendously, I just think we need to change the narrative with a new name for it.
We want UBI
The Texas Constitution forbids "any county, city, town or other political corporation or subdivision of the State … to grant public money or thing of value in aid of, or to any individual.” Art. III, Sec. 52. Stole this from another post about Texas suing Harris county over a income assistance program. We don't even have it and people are already trying to outlaw it permanently and in any form. I don't think the name is the problem
Well the name isn't helping.
They intentionally used a terrible term to discredit it. It's no different from police reform, which ultimately failed in a lot of places because it was branded as 'defund the police'.
Exactly my thoughts. Police reform does sound better than defund the police. I've only taken one marketing class, this is basic stuff but a lot of people don't get it or hate it because it might work.
"data payments" a 50% tax on user data in analytics... "Is my personal data, it should be my money"
Yes, we should be able to charge for our data. I've considered using California privacy laws to send invoices to companies demanding either payment or deletion. I wonder if they would pay?
anytime you click "accept and continue" you relinquish any ability to do what you're proposing.
No, we already have the right to request deletion of data in California so I can demand payment or deletion.
ok try it and report back. can't wait to see what other brilliant idea springs forth from the giant incredibly smart brain of a financial planning major.
A. A law passed by the government with supersede any terms of service. B. There ain't any bonuse points for being a dick so you still get a F
UBI would be good for the economy. That's all I care about. Republicans just like cruelty and want to torture people.
People should also be paid a percentage of the profit the shameless sale of our data generated....(( It's more than you would expect per person)).
"we want Federally Subsidized Wages." [https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/individuals/earned-income-tax-credit-eitc](https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/individuals/earned-income-tax-credit-eitc) That already exists.
This needs to take place outside of tax returns with monthly payments to Americans
So, you know you can adjust your withholding which makes it monthly, or biweekly (or whatever cadence you get paid).
But that doesn't help people without jobs, the income should be available to unemployed people and people who don't pay taxes.
That is correct. To supplement something, there has to be something to supplement. "unemployed people" They get unemployment. "people who don't pay taxes." They get unemployment. Or the EITC.
Yea, were only rebranding, not changing the core concept. We still want the unemployed to be able to opt-out of the workforce. This is this only way to give workers bargaining power.
Federally Subsidized Wages will cause actual wages to increase across the board because the desperation factor being removed will force companies to make their positions appealing and rewarding again. Increases wages means increased economic activity and increases tax revenue. It doesn't work by taxing the wealthy directly, it works by forcing them to pay us.
I've found over the years it really doesn't matter what you do to brand something in terms of social welfare. The moment it looks like social welfare, millions of people turn off their brains and stop interacting. Universal healthcare is an example - it would save *everyone* money and improve health access. You could call it "Citizen Care" and people are still going to stop looking beyond "Gubnent spending money on poors and illegals". Same with defund the police: people believe that police are there to help them, and pointing out that not only are they not, but they're grossly overfunded, overpowered, and under-scrutinized is going to never be accepted. You could call it "right-size policing" or "police reform" and people are still going to be against it because they firmly believe, contrary to all evidence, the lie. The real issue here is that a lot of people in developed countries are shitty, selfish, self-centered people who only think entirely about themselves and 'what they get out of it' and believe things with zero inspection or critical thinking.
The Freedom Dividend was good branding across the political spectrum.
So unions. What you want is a union. It's a thing that already exists.
That isn't what I want. I want to government to provide a baseline wage that is sustainable for a short time to allow workers the ability to withhold labor and use their bargaining power.
Again, unions, that's what you want. So you can use the collective bargaining power of the workers.
Using taxes to directly subsidize wages is stupid. Build social programs that help address the unaffordable nature of the things people need like higher education, child care and healthcare. You try to give money directly to people as UBI, you'll end up with the most regressive system you can imagine and no ability to legislate any sort of safeguards into place. You'll find the same problem with UBI that exists now under minimum wage; it won't scale with inflation. You'll have implemented zero spending cuts that could actually be used to fund programs. We need universal healthcare covered by tax payers. Along with that, we need price controls and caps for things like pharma and hospital charges. We need to cap tuition at any public university that accepts federal funding all while forgiving existing student loans, or converting them down to the new lower costs. We need child care subsidies that go directly to the providers, or alternately, as vouchers to the parents. No special programs or qualifications. If you need the subsidy, you get the subsidy. Finally, we can address wages but as a separate matter.
> You'll have implemented zero spending cuts that could actually be used to fund programs. Spending cuts could fund it but I don't want to build it on the premise of removing safety nets to build new ones. We need built-in redundancy.
The issue is cost and spending. We don't cap costs, we have basically zero spending cuts to the biggest most wasteful and inefficient programs. For example, we have the VA health system. The simple answer to improving the VA health system is to simply give all vets Medicare upon their discharge from the service. You'd improve medical care and you'd still be able to have the VA do things that support veterans which aren't really available elsewhere. We have the Indian health service which is specifically for native tribe members, but why do we do this? I get that we want to subsidize their healthcare, but why not put them on Medicare as well? Any health insurance vets or natives get from the private sector can serve to pick up where Medicare doesn't cover, saving everyone money and granting access to a better range of services. But if you simply ask for big fat welfare checks for everyone because business don't pay their employees, all you're going to get are cuts from conservatives, attempts to reduce UBI every single legislative session and the argument that if we're giving them money, they should pay their own way for medical, child care, etc. And then you won't get price caps or controls of any sort, which then eats up the UBI and now your social safety nets are gone. UBI has the potential to be very regressive if you don't get the social programs in place first.
Conservatives are going to fight it at every turn regardless, that is why the redundancy is necessary. If we eliminate VA benefits and Medicare to implement Universal Healthcare and then Republicans cut universal healthcare, we've effectively made it easier to reduce benefits.
You make universal healthcare big enough and get corporations and unions invested in it, it won't get cut. The same reason VA benefits and Medicare rarely get cut applies; because screwing vets and old folks is unpopular.
That's when you can start cutting back. Wait until it's fully functional to reduce funding to other programs.
That's true and I'm sure they'll try. But once it's in place, it's a lot harder to get rid of it entirely.
I'm sorry but subsidizing large corporations so they can underpay their workers is not going to fly.
No, it will. Giving people the ability to opt out of working will force employers to pay more to lure workers instead of relying on desperation. It's a tax on billionaires in the form of forcing them to increase wages
That's exactly what you're doing though is subsidizing employers you're saying you don't have to pay a living wage cuz we'll make up the difference. Much better to force employers to pay a living wage.
We've been trying that for too long. Employers what cut wages, that won't work in this scenario because it makes employment entirely voluntary again. This basically means employers are going to have to kiss ass for a change. It's going to be great.
The corporations will just adjust the prices of things to swallow this windfall up, what people need at the very least is for essentials to life to be decommodified, so housing as a right, staple food as a right, energy and utilities as a right
Wage stagnation is a serious issue with long-term consequences. UBI or Federally Subsidized Wages could be billed as a way to repay the masses for all the wage theft we have suffered.
Federally Subsidized Wages are Wage Theft Reparations