• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Panama Papers prove it: America can afford a universal basic income

RDS

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Messages
5,398
Reaction score
1,323
Location
Singapore
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The 1% stole your money and got richer at your expense.
A larger income, to ensure that no American fell into absolute abject poverty – say, $12,000 a year – would cost around $3.6tn. That is a big number, but one that once again seems far more reasonable when considered through the lens of the Panama Papers and the scandal of global tax evasion. Because the truth is that we have all been robbed, systematically, by the world’s wealthiest people, for decades. They have used those stolen dollars to build yet more wealth for themselves, and all the while we have been arguing with ourselves over what to do with the leftover pennies.
The Panama Papers prove it: America can afford a universal basic income | Colin Holtz | Opinion | The Guardian
 

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,230
Reaction score
14,236
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
One cannot rob from you what you did not earn. Even if there were cases of tax evasion why should it go to you or other people? How about I blame them for my student loans or ****ty rush hour traffic reflecting poor infrastructure.
 

RDS

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Messages
5,398
Reaction score
1,323
Location
Singapore
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Macroeconomics affects the man in the street.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
One cannot rob from you what you did not earn. Even if there were cases of tax evasion why should it go to you or other people? How about I blame them for my student loans or ****ty rush hour traffic reflecting poor infrastructure.

There is a case to be made that not paying the legal tax is theft from the other tax payers and/or citizenry. If the taxes were not stolen but payed the existing activities could be financed with lower taxes payed by honest taxpayers or at the same level of taxation government could do more for everyone.
 

Thrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
20,295
Reaction score
9,801
Location
Texas, Vegas, Colombia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other

:lamo

there was no money stolen, no one was robbed, and you, the guy on the street, will never see one penny of that money, unless the owner gives it directly to you....if it goes to taxes, you definitely won't see a single dime, none of us will

the only thing standing in the way of a BIG ( basic income guarantee) is political will.... this money has absolutely nothing to do with it whatsoever.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,183
Reaction score
21,308
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
We should all be able to agree: no one should be poor in a nation as wealthy as the US. Yet nearly 15% of Americans live below the poverty line. Perhaps one of the best solutions is also one of the oldest and simplest ideas: everyone should be guaranteed a small income, free from conditions.

That is the first line from the article cited by the OP. The bolded section raises a question.

My question is...why?

Perhaps if we lived in a Garden of Eden where all our needs and wants are provided for magically, then everyone would have what this article suggests.

Production comes from labor, so someone has to work to provide the goods others wish to have. Other's have to work to earn the wherewithal to buy the produce of others.

So on what basis should anyone be "granted" a small income? From whence is this supposed to come?

Apparently from those who have more than they need. If they won't give it then we must take it from them.

That's sounds fair...:roll:

Anyone ready to go a-Viking? :gunsmilie
 
Last edited:

JohnfrmClevelan

DP Veteran
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
6,345
Reaction score
4,054
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
That is the first line from the article cited by the OP. The bolded section raises a question.

My question is...why?

Perhaps if we lived in a Garden of Eden where all our needs and wants are provided for magically, then everyone would have what this article suggests.

Production comes from labor, so someone has to work to provide the goods others wish to have. Other's have to work to earn the wherewithal to buy the produce of others.

So on what basis should anyone be "granted" a small income? From whence is this supposed to come?

Apparently from those who have more than they need. If they won't give it then we must take it from them.

That's sounds fair...:roll:

Because our present system does not (or cannot) provide jobs for everybody, yet that is still the way we distribute the fruits of our production - through the labor market.
 

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
32,516
Reaction score
5,321
Location
93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
That is the first line from the article cited by the OP. The bolded section raises a question.

My question is...why?

Perhaps if we lived in a Garden of Eden where all our needs and wants are provided for magically, then everyone would have what this article suggests.

Production comes from labor, so someone has to work to provide the goods others wish to have. Other's have to work to earn the wherewithal to buy the produce of others.

So on what basis should anyone be "granted" a small income? From whence is this supposed to come?

Apparently from those who have more than they need. If they won't give it then we must take it from them.

That's sounds fair...:roll:

Anyone ready to go a-Viking? :gunsmilie

its all about redistribution wealth and government being the one doing it.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,183
Reaction score
21,308
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
its all about redistribution wealth and government being the one doing it.

Well, I prefer government rules that prevent those who have from cheating and keeping more than their fair share.

But we live in a Republic, which usually ends up being controlled by oligarchs.

As long as they pay the lawmakers, and make sure there is plenty of bread and circuses to keep the poor happy...nothing will change.
 

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
32,516
Reaction score
5,321
Location
93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Well, I prefer government rules that prevent those who have from cheating and keeping more than their fair share.

But we live in a Republic, which usually ends up being controlled by oligarchs.

As long as they pay the lawmakers, and make sure there is plenty of bread and circuses to keep the poor happy...nothing will change.

i could not agree more with what you have said, however i believe i do have the solution to the problem, but it would never happen.

the problem that we have an oligarchy is because we have collective law making, which the founders sought to prevent, by having the senate appointed and not working in the interest of the people but the state legislatures.

federalist 62 and 63 is good reading on this.
 

dimensionallava

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 12, 2015
Messages
6,414
Reaction score
1,524
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Communist

saying "spending" 3.2 trillion is misleading since all of the money would go back into the economy, programs like universal income education and healthcare add more than a dollar for every dollar spent, while giving that money to the top 1% nets less than 50 cents for every dollar spent. Were "spending" $3.2 trillion now by choosing to give it to a small percent of the population, the majority of that money also leaves the country.

The article also repeats the lie, that the reason we don't have social programs like other countries is because we can't "afford it". America would not initiate these programs even if they could afford them 3 times over
 

RDS

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Messages
5,398
Reaction score
1,323
Location
Singapore
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That is the first line from the article cited by the OP. The bolded section raises a question.

My question is...why?

Perhaps if we lived in a Garden of Eden where all our needs and wants are provided for magically, then everyone would have what this article suggests.

Production comes from labor, so someone has to work to provide the goods others wish to have. Other's have to work to earn the wherewithal to buy the produce of others.

So on what basis should anyone be "granted" a small income? From whence is this supposed to come?

Apparently from those who have more than they need. If they won't give it then we must take it from them.

That's sounds fair...:roll:

Anyone ready to go a-Viking? :gunsmilie

No such thing as free lunch goes without saying. Income should guaranteed to low wage earners as a top-up. You play your part instead of cheating on food stamps.
 

Lafayette

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
7,158
Reaction score
1,369
Location
France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The 1% stole your money and got richer at your expense.

In fact, we've known about that fact for quite some time. Various analyses have been conducted, by two groups independently, both out of universities in California:

*Piketty - Ratio of Household Wealth to National Income. Insufficiently taxed upper-income - only 30% rates in the US - gushes up to Wealth, which (minus Debt) becomes Net Worth.
20141108_FNC156.png


*Domhoff - that shows how only 20% of American households own 89% of America's Net Worth.
Prof. Domhoff, Net Worth and Financial Wealth, US, 2010.jpg


Need more be said? It's high-time we stop-the-ripoff of the American middle- and lower-classes!

What do the rich actually do with the money? Like most of us, they die and leave it to their inheritors. Can you imagine billions being carried away by people who never worked a day in their lives to earn it? Quite simply, they "lucked out"?

I can't ...
 
Last edited:

Lafayette

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
7,158
Reaction score
1,369
Location
France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
THE RIP-OFF

One cannot rob from you what you did not earn.

Classical idiot definition of "taxation".

Taxes are what "YOU OWE" towards paying the functioning of a Federal Government for the benefit of you and your family - IRRESPECTIVE of the amount of money you earn.

Only progressive taxation can assure fairness and equitability of taxation. The flat-rate tax that the US has employed since Reckless Ronnie instituted it in the 1980s is a rip-off of the poorer by the richer.

It means that upper-class lives are more precious than yours. How is that possible in a real-democracy. That was the norm under the monarchic regimes of Old Europe up to the 19th century. The world has changed since then.

Moreover, it was whose work that spawned the profits that American corporations generate. Now you know where most of those profits go - in the pockets of the superbly-rich upper-20% of the American population.

POLITICAL CARTOON (1876)

The Bosses of the Senate
 

Helix

Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
73,702
Reaction score
57,088
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The Panama Papers prove it: America can afford a universal basic income

meh. i don't know if that's the best solution. i support giving kids debt free access to post secondary education / job training. i also support changing our health care system to one that more closely resembles other first world countries so that no one goes broke because they got sick.

as for the wage part, i'm fine with a minimum wage that is tied to inflation. however, you're probably not going to be able to raise a family working an entry level position. give those workers debt free access to college / job training, though. many of them would probably go that route.
 

countryboy

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2014
Messages
18,765
Reaction score
7,408
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
THE RIP-OFF



Classical idiot definition of "taxation".

Taxes are what "YOU OWE" towards paying the functioning of a Federal Government for the benefit of you and your family - IRRESPECTIVE of the amount of money you earn.

Only progressive taxation can assure fairness and equitability of taxation. The flat-rate tax that the US has employed since Reckless Ronnie instituted it in the 1980s is a rip-off of the poorer by the richer.

It means that upper-class lives are more precious than yours. How is that possible in a real-democracy. That was the norm under the monarchic regimes of Old Europe up to the 19th century. The world has changed since then.

Moreover, it was whose work that spawned the profits that American corporations generate. Now you know where most of those profits go - in the pockets of the superbly-rich upper-20% of the American population.

POLITICAL CARTOON (1876)

The Bosses of the Senate

What the heck are you talking about? We currently have a progressive tax system, not a flat tax rate.
 

LowDown

Curmudgeon
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,767
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian

RDS

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Messages
5,398
Reaction score
1,323
Location
Singapore
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What a bunch of garbage. What the Panama Papers show is that Americans by and large don't do that sort of thing. Moreover, they show that capitalism isn't the problem, the problem is government corruption.

Who elected the corrupt government?
 

Lafayette

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
7,158
Reaction score
1,369
Location
France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
No such thing as free lunch goes without saying. Income should guaranteed to low wage earners as a top-up. You play your part instead of cheating on food stamps.

Depends upon what's on the table. It IS a free-lunch, when tax-rates are not progressive, and when flat-rates unfairly tax higher-incomes at lower than progressive rates. (At present the maximum tax is 30% on all income above $105K per year, which is non-sensical.)

Meanwhile the truly-poor - that 15% of our fellow citizens (close to 50 million men, women and children) below the Poverty Threshold - do not even have the protection of a livable minimum wage (if they work) or allocation if they do not.

The argument for a progressive vs a flat-tax rate is well put in this article from Investopedia: Is a progressive tax more fair than a flat tax?

Excerpt:
A Progressive taxation versus flat taxation inspires ongoing debate, and both have proponents and critics. In the United States, the historical favorite is the progressive tax.

Progressive tax systems have tiered tax rates that charge higher income individuals higher percentages of their income and offer the lowest rates to those with the lowest incomes. Flat tax plans generally assign one tax rate to all taxpayers. No one pays more or less than anyone else under a flat tax system. Both of these systems may be considered "fair" in the sense that they are consistent and apply a rational approach to taxation. They differ, however, in their treatment of wealth, and each system may be called "unfair" according to who benefits or is treated differently.

Supporters of the progressive system claim that higher salaries enable affluent people to pay higher taxes and that this is the fairest system because it lessens the tax burden of the poor. Since the poor have the smallest disposable incomes and spend a higher proportion of their money on basic survival needs, such as housing, this system allows them to keep more of their money. Affluent taxpayers are better able to provide for their physical needs and therefore are charged more. A flat tax would ignore the differences between rich and poor taxpayers. Some argue that flat taxes are unfair for this reason. Progressive taxes, however, treat the rich and poor differently, which is also unfair.

Flat tax has one tax rate. Everyone carries the same responsibility, and no one is unequally burdened, rich or poor. Taxes do not discourage high earners from earning more, and the low tax rate encourages the poor to strive to earn more. This reduces the potential deadweight loss of taxation and encourages good work ethics. This system does, however, risk taking too much money away from the poorest citizens.

Both tax policies have significant advantages and disadvantages that may prevent them from perfect fairness.

Unfortunately, this argument does not take into consideration what is called "collegiality" - meaning the shared responsibility of a collective people. Nobody lives on an island, and on which island, alone, have you seen any millionaire?

We have all a responsibility to the collective society in which we live, and that responsibility manifest itself mostly in taxation. The revenues of which (supposedly) go towards realizing certain objectives as decided by those who represent us to the three elements of national governance (the Executive, Legislative and Judicial).

One would, think of late, that the entire governance mechanism has broke down. And given the political stagnation caused by continued Replicant negation the country goes nowhere in terms of bettering the lives of its citizens. When the Right rises to manifest its will to maintain at any price the status-quo without change, there must be a reason.

And that reason is quite simple. The tax mechanism installed by a besotted Reagan administration is adept at generating enormous wealth for a privileged few. Who have decided, like Plutocrats, that "nothing will change". Everything is just fine for as long as the money-pump services their purposes of self-enrichment.

Is THAT the kind of economic unfairness in which you want your family to live? Not me.

And if you cannot see how the rage of people is being expressed in the exaggerated mutual killing, then you are blinding yourself to the facts. What person, who obtains a fair wage and a life-style worth living would want massacre their fellow citizens.

It's a world turned upside-down, and we cannot blame just the drugs and alcohol - which are the propulsion but not the cause of the disastrous acts committed upon their fellow citizens ...
 

Lafayette

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
7,158
Reaction score
1,369
Location
France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
give those workers debt free access to college / job training, though. many of them would probably go that route.

Well put!

And one of the richest-countries on earth can certainly well afford it - were it only to change its effing system of taxation ... !
 

Lafayette

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
7,158
Reaction score
1,369
Location
France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
What the heck are you talking about? We currently have a progressive tax system, not a flat tax rate.

What progressive system of taxation?
Total_Effective_Tax_Rates_2011.jpg


It's a flat-tax above $105K annually ...
 

Helix

Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
73,702
Reaction score
57,088
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Well put!

And one of the richest-countries on earth can certainly well afford it - were it only to change its effing system of taxation ... !

that, and different policy priorities.
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
75,524
Reaction score
31,909
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Well put!

And one of the richest-countries on earth can certainly well afford it - were it only to change its effing system of taxation ... !
:lamo

Were 20-30 trillion in actual debt. Today. And you think the answer is that somehow you have the right to more of other peoples income.
 
Top Bottom