This Rolling Stone piece hits the nail on the head. Deficits only matter when Democrats are the President

Originally posted by: LiveFreeNW

Depends on how you sell it. You could stress the cost savings and efficiencies that could be created. 

 

As far as the distancecentive to work is concerned I would reply: 

 

If we were starting from ground zero, that could certainly be the case but we are not. We are starting with the current "welfare state". We are already spending money on this issue. This is about making it more efficient and streamlined to save money and reduce fraud. 

 

It provides no more disincentive to work than the current system.

 

In fact it provides less disincentive to work than the current system. 

 

If someone receiving benefits gets a job and stops benefits, it can be very difficult to get back on welfare if they lose that job a year or two later. This is a powerful disincentive against finding work and encourages people to get trapped in the system long-term. 

 

A negative income tax would eliminate that problem. 

 


As far as fraud is concerned, or wastefraudabuse as MAGA terms it, I can see people earning money under the table to avoid having their tax credits lowered/eliminated. But I suppose that's prevalent now.

 

How would you feel about the government simply providing basic food, clothing, shelter, and medical care to everyone, and the first X% of income being taxed, on some kind of graduated scale? Much like today's system, we could exempt the first $X of earnings from taxation.

 

My thought is, you could choose to live a basic life, with survival and health assured, but if you wanted any kind of amusement, luxuries, or possessions, you'd have to earn them by working. Then your earnings would be taxed, mildly at first but then steeply progressively.

 

This would be effectively a negative income tax with an initial exemption (first $10K earned, something like that, would be tax-free). But rather than a cash payment to non- or low earners, that would be tendered in the form of the basic stuff of life, as detailed above. You might live in a dormitory, eat bland cafeteria food, etc., but you could survive and do so indefinitely if you wanted.

Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis

As far as fraud is concerned, or wastefraudabuse as MAGA terms it, I can see people earning money under the table to avoid having their tax credits lowered/eliminated. But I suppose that's prevalent now.

 

How would you feel about the government simply providing basic food, clothing, shelter, and medical care to everyone, and the first X% of income being taxed, on some kind of graduated scale? Much like today's system, we could exempt the first $X of earnings from taxation.

 

My thought is, you could choose to live a basic life, with survival and health assured, but if you wanted any kind of amusement, luxuries, or possessions, you'd have to earn them by working. Then your earnings would be taxed, mildly at first but then steeply progressively.

 

This would be effectively a negative income tax with an initial exemption (first $10K earned, something like that, would be tax-free). But rather than a cash payment to non- or low earners, that would be tendered in the form of the basic stuff of life, as detailed above. You might live in a dormitory, eat bland cafeteria food, etc., but you could survive and do so indefinitely if you wanted.


The questions I would have about such a proposal would be: 

 

How is it to be paid for? 

 

How do we define basic? Or more accurately who defines basic? 

 

Does basic shelter mean a small house, studio apartment, dorm style apartment, a tent? 

 

Does basic food mean three squares a day with enough nutrition to maintain a healthy and fit lifestyle? Does it mean the bare minimum to keep someone alive? The nutritional needs of different people very based on lifestyle.

 

What does basic clothing mean? Enough for someone to be comfortable or just enough to not catch hypothermia? 

 

How are these things distributed? 

 

I could imagine a lot of bureaucratic waste and bickering over every choice. 

 

I like the negative income tax approach because it gives poor people what they need the most. Money. It also keeps administrative bureaucrats from having to look over everyone's shoulder. 

 

I think it keeps things simplified. Why pay a bunch of government officials to decide how much and what kind of food is considered a basic need etc? 

 

 

Another approach I have thought about (under the current tax system) is to allow everyone to lower their AGI with a dollar for dollar deduction on  their primary residence, primary transportation,  non-elective medical expenses, and groceries. 

 

But I think that would be more expensive and a tougher sell than a negative income tax. 

 

Originally posted by: tom

Iran has refused to concede that point & what about the missile program?

 

What about funding and arming terrirists?


I don't believe the US should start a war for Israel's benefit.

 

If you believe the US needed to start a war with Iran because of its perceived threat, how many other countries will need to be attacked?

I don't believe the US should start a war for Israel's benefit.

 

Iran is developing intercontinental missiles which can only be used to attack the US by an insane leadership that has been screaming death to America for 47 years.


Originally posted by: tom

I don't believe the US should start a war for Israel's benefit.

 

Iran is developing intercontinental missiles which can only be used to attack the US by an insane leadership that has been screaming death to America for 47 years.


Let's see...even if that nonsensical propaganda is true...there are at least eight other nations that have nuclear weapons as well as missile delivery systems...should we attack them all, just to be safe?

 

I'm not aware of the Can Only Be Used to Attack the US weapon, but who knows what them Iranian meanies may be cooking up.

 

Stupid Tom still weasels away when we ask him what law allows Trump to attack another sovereign nation because they MIGHT be a threat.

Originally posted by: tom

I don't believe the US should start a war for Israel's benefit.

 

Iran is developing intercontinental missiles which can only be used to attack the US by an insane leadership that has been screaming death to America for 47 years.


47 years?!?!? Seems they're as bad as Trump at actually accomplishing anything. 

 

How many other countries will the US need to attack with similar profiles?

Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now