The Panama Papers prove it: America can afford a universal basic income | Colin Holtz | Opinion | The GuardianA 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 1% stole your money and got richer at your expense.
The Panama Papers prove it: America can afford a universal basic income | Colin Holtz | Opinion | The Guardian
The 1% stole your money and got richer at your expense.
The Panama Papers prove it: America can afford a universal basic income | Colin Holtz | Opinion | The Guardian
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.
The 1% stole your money and got richer at your expense.
The Panama Papers prove it: America can afford a universal basic income | Colin Holtz | Opinion | The Guardian
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:
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.
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.
The 1% stole your money and got richer at your expense.
The Panama Papers prove it: America can afford a universal basic income | Colin Holtz | Opinion | The Guardian
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
The 1% stole your money and got richer at your expense.
One cannot rob from you what you did not earn.
The Panama Papers prove it: America can afford a universal basic income
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
The 1% stole your money and got richer at your expense.
The Panama Papers prove it: America can afford a universal basic income | Colin Holtz | Opinion | The Guardian
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.
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.
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.
give those workers debt free access to college / job training, though. many of them would probably go that route.
What the heck are you talking about? We currently have a progressive tax system, not a flat tax rate.
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 ... !
:lamoWell put!
And one of the richest-countries on earth can certainly well afford it - were it only to change its effing system of taxation ... !
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?