Poll

Would you support a Universal Basic Income for everyone if it meant working longer?

No
127 (49.8%)
Yes, but no more than 1 year longer
12 (4.7%)
Yes, up to 5 years
19 (7.5%)
Yes, up to 10 years
2 (0.8%)
Yes, up until I am unable to work because of age/physical condition
7 (2.7%)
Yes, but I believe the UBI would not require more revenue/work and would raise productivity
88 (34.5%)

Total Members Voted: 250

Author Topic: Would you support a Universal Basic Income (poll)?  (Read 62978 times)

LennStar

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2540
  • Location: Germany
Re: Would you support a Universal Basic Income (poll)?
« Reply #150 on: May 03, 2016, 01:01:39 PM »
I voted in support of a UBI, and said I would be willing to work an additional 5 years for it. I don't think it would necessarily require that though.

The program would not require significant tax increases for the average person; rather it likely necessitates increases in the top marginal tax brackets. This goes to all forms of income: personal income tax, capital gains/dividends tax, and estate tax. That is something I fully support, even though I intend to end up in those tax brackets over time. I'll note that in the 60's/70's at different points the US' top income tax rate was 91%, capital gains tax rate was 40%, and estate tax rate was 77%. I'd like to see something similar, although probably a lower income tax rate and higher rates for capital gains.

I think others have summed up well why. A UBI directly helps everyone with the stipend, providing enormous benefits to those on the low end of the income scale in access to education, healthcare, and economic opportunity. It indirectly helps the already well-off via a more educated populace and therefore stronger labor force, as well as reduced crime. I think the well-off are morally obligated to give back to ensure others have the same opportunity.
I think if you increase taxes that much, and provide a large UBI, people will start quiting for sure. The more people that move onto UBI, the higher you have to tax others, you can't make UBI desirable enough to have too many people quit or it won't work.
I think you could say that if too many people are quitting, labor costs increase, right?
That makes things more expensive and more people would find the UBI not enough for their targeted lifestyle and those would go back to work.

On this topic, an UBI would create the first real labor market ever! Survival of the fittest not only for people but for companies, too!

deadlymonkey

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 400
Re: Would you support a Universal Basic Income (poll)?
« Reply #151 on: May 03, 2016, 01:06:04 PM »
I would absolutely support a UBI, it has been demonstratably successful in trials in many parts of the world.  I think scaled up it would also work, and would likely save some bureaucracy dealing with the various social services, but substituting UBI for all of them.

For Homelessness, you will never get rid of it.  In any group you have:
1/3 Have - nots:  People down on their luck that need a helping hand to get back in the game and will be successful
1/3 Can - nots:  Mental illness or other disability that means they will likely never support themselves and need continuing governmental assistance
1/3 Will - nots:  People for whatever reason who will never want to work a legit job, prefer to stay homeless and either escew any government interference or prefer to leech off the social safety net.

You can't reduce the Will nots without hurting the Have nots and Can nots. 

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Age: 39
Re: Would you support a Universal Basic Income (poll)?
« Reply #152 on: May 03, 2016, 01:06:41 PM »
The program would not require significant tax increases for the average person; rather it likely necessitates increases in the top marginal tax brackets. This goes to all forms of income: personal income tax, capital gains/dividends tax, and estate tax. That is something I fully support, even though I intend to end up in those tax brackets over time. I'll note that in the 60's/70's at different points the US' top income tax rate was 91%, capital gains tax rate was 40%, and estate tax rate was 77%. I'd like to see something similar, although probably a lower income tax rate and higher rates for capital gains.

Why stop at the top? In 1960 the lowest federal income tax bracket was 20%. Most middle class would be 30-45%.

Of course, this doesn't include all the additional taxes like the those introduced via the ACA, SS taxation. SS was 4.5% vs 12.4% today. Medicare/Medicaid taxes didn't exist. State and local taxes were far lower relatively speaking. It's also misleading to think that our prosperity was due to high taxes, that's false. You cannot tax yourself into prosperity, look to other means.

More troubling is the trend to support higher taxes for personal benefits from the government. In 1960, the military was about 55% of spending, today it's around 16%. We're seeing the growth of entitlements at a historically unsustainable level. I wouldn't be upset at raising taxes if it went to things like military or the state department where people aren't receiving a tangible benefit, but we're raising other people's taxes to sell votes. It's a perversion of the political process.

bb11

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 505
Re: Would you support a Universal Basic Income (poll)?
« Reply #153 on: May 03, 2016, 11:25:12 PM »
I voted in support of a UBI, and said I would be willing to work an additional 5 years for it. I don't think it would necessarily require that though.

The program would not require significant tax increases for the average person; rather it likely necessitates increases in the top marginal tax brackets. This goes to all forms of income: personal income tax, capital gains/dividends tax, and estate tax. That is something I fully support, even though I intend to end up in those tax brackets over time. I'll note that in the 60's/70's at different points the US' top income tax rate was 91%, capital gains tax rate was 40%, and estate tax rate was 77%. I'd like to see something similar, although probably a lower income tax rate and higher rates for capital gains.

I think others have summed up well why. A UBI directly helps everyone with the stipend, providing enormous benefits to those on the low end of the income scale in access to education, healthcare, and economic opportunity. It indirectly helps the already well-off via a more educated populace and therefore stronger labor force, as well as reduced crime. I think the well-off are morally obligated to give back to ensure others have the same opportunity.
I think if you increase taxes that much, and provide a large UBI, people will start quiting for sure. The more people that move onto UBI, the higher you have to tax others, you can't make UBI desirable enough to have too many people quit or it won't work.

The taxes have already been that high. People didn't quit. These are top marginal tax rates, not average tax rates. And as I said I'd like to see the capital gains and dividends rate increase moreso than personal income tax. The very nature of capital gains is you aren't usually working for it. Same with money made through inheritance (estate tax). I think at the very least these forms of income need to be taxed at the same rate as labor income.

Quote
Why stop at the top? In 1960 the lowest federal income tax bracket was 20%. Most middle class would be 30-45%.

Of course, this doesn't include all the additional taxes like the those introduced via the ACA, SS taxation. SS was 4.5% vs 12.4% today. Medicare/Medicaid taxes didn't exist. State and local taxes were far lower relatively speaking. It's also misleading to think that our prosperity was due to high taxes, that's false. You cannot tax yourself into prosperity, look to other means.

None of the taxes you mentioned bring the marginal rates anywhere near the rates from the 60's/70's I quoted. Stop blowing smoke. Also note the the bolded quote is a strawman that I never claimed.

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Age: 39
Re: Would you support a Universal Basic Income (poll)?
« Reply #154 on: May 04, 2016, 12:50:18 AM »
None of the taxes you mentioned bring the marginal rates anywhere near the rates from the 60's/70's I quoted. Stop blowing smoke. Also note the the bolded quote is a strawman that I never claimed.

Of course not, marginal rates don't matter. They never did, even back then. I'm struggling to understand what you plan on accomplishing by raising the tax rate. Could you elaborate as to why you support higher marginal rates if not for a means towards prosperity?

LennStar

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2540
  • Location: Germany
Re: Would you support a Universal Basic Income (poll)?
« Reply #155 on: May 04, 2016, 01:28:34 AM »
I think at the very least these forms of income need to be taxed at the same rate as labor income.
Higher. If not, where is the incentive to work?
(Re-using a sentence loved by people who want to cut social spending e.g. for unemployed)


Quote
Could you elaborate as to why you support higher marginal rates if not for a means towards prosperity?
What do you mean with propserity? More material waste?
Then my answer would be: no.
More health, happier people, better invironment, less stress, better distribution of peoples skill to where they can and want work instead to any job just to earn money?
Then my answer is yes.

PatronWizard11

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 113
Re: Would you support a Universal Basic Income (poll)?
« Reply #156 on: May 04, 2016, 07:00:15 AM »
nah

Steve Rogers

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 38
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Hoboken
Re: Would you support a Universal Basic Income (poll)?
« Reply #157 on: May 04, 2016, 07:19:22 AM »
I personally think with the increase in disruptive technology coming that a UBI will eventually become necessary so i support it 100%

Jeremy E.

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1947
  • Location: Lewiston, ID
Re: Would you support a Universal Basic Income (poll)?
« Reply #158 on: May 04, 2016, 07:38:21 AM »
I voted in support of a UBI, and said I would be willing to work an additional 5 years for it. I don't think it would necessarily require that though.

The program would not require significant tax increases for the average person; rather it likely necessitates increases in the top marginal tax brackets. This goes to all forms of income: personal income tax, capital gains/dividends tax, and estate tax. That is something I fully support, even though I intend to end up in those tax brackets over time. I'll note that in the 60's/70's at different points the US' top income tax rate was 91%, capital gains tax rate was 40%, and estate tax rate was 77%. I'd like to see something similar, although probably a lower income tax rate and higher rates for capital gains.

I think others have summed up well why. A UBI directly helps everyone with the stipend, providing enormous benefits to those on the low end of the income scale in access to education, healthcare, and economic opportunity. It indirectly helps the already well-off via a more educated populace and therefore stronger labor force, as well as reduced crime. I think the well-off are morally obligated to give back to ensure others have the same opportunity.
I think if you increase taxes that much, and provide a large UBI, people will start quiting for sure. The more people that move onto UBI, the higher you have to tax others, you can't make UBI desirable enough to have too many people quit or it won't work.

The taxes have already been that high. People didn't quit. These are top marginal tax rates, not average tax rates. And as I said I'd like to see the capital gains and dividends rate increase moreso than personal income tax. The very nature of capital gains is you aren't usually working for it. Same with money made through inheritance (estate tax). I think at the very least these forms of income need to be taxed at the same rate as labor income.

Quote
Why stop at the top? In 1960 the lowest federal income tax bracket was 20%. Most middle class would be 30-45%.

Of course, this doesn't include all the additional taxes like the those introduced via the ACA, SS taxation. SS was 4.5% vs 12.4% today. Medicare/Medicaid taxes didn't exist. State and local taxes were far lower relatively speaking. It's also misleading to think that our prosperity was due to high taxes, that's false. You cannot tax yourself into prosperity, look to other means.

None of the taxes you mentioned bring the marginal rates anywhere near the rates from the 60's/70's I quoted. Stop blowing smoke. Also note the the bolded quote is a strawman that I never claimed.
Yes the taxes were that high, but there wasn't an alternative, you provide a large UBI and there is an alternative. Combine a large UBI with large taxes and many people will quit. Capital Gains and Dividends are already taxed more than almost any other form of income(as they are double taxed), I think they are about where they should be.

bb11

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 505
Re: Would you support a Universal Basic Income (poll)?
« Reply #159 on: May 04, 2016, 09:12:05 AM »
I voted in support of a UBI, and said I would be willing to work an additional 5 years for it. I don't think it would necessarily require that though.

The program would not require significant tax increases for the average person; rather it likely necessitates increases in the top marginal tax brackets. This goes to all forms of income: personal income tax, capital gains/dividends tax, and estate tax. That is something I fully support, even though I intend to end up in those tax brackets over time. I'll note that in the 60's/70's at different points the US' top income tax rate was 91%, capital gains tax rate was 40%, and estate tax rate was 77%. I'd like to see something similar, although probably a lower income tax rate and higher rates for capital gains.

I think others have summed up well why. A UBI directly helps everyone with the stipend, providing enormous benefits to those on the low end of the income scale in access to education, healthcare, and economic opportunity. It indirectly helps the already well-off via a more educated populace and therefore stronger labor force, as well as reduced crime. I think the well-off are morally obligated to give back to ensure others have the same opportunity.
I think if you increase taxes that much, and provide a large UBI, people will start quiting for sure. The more people that move onto UBI, the higher you have to tax others, you can't make UBI desirable enough to have too many people quit or it won't work.

The taxes have already been that high. People didn't quit. These are top marginal tax rates, not average tax rates. And as I said I'd like to see the capital gains and dividends rate increase moreso than personal income tax. The very nature of capital gains is you aren't usually working for it. Same with money made through inheritance (estate tax). I think at the very least these forms of income need to be taxed at the same rate as labor income.

Quote
Why stop at the top? In 1960 the lowest federal income tax bracket was 20%. Most middle class would be 30-45%.

Of course, this doesn't include all the additional taxes like the those introduced via the ACA, SS taxation. SS was 4.5% vs 12.4% today. Medicare/Medicaid taxes didn't exist. State and local taxes were far lower relatively speaking. It's also misleading to think that our prosperity was due to high taxes, that's false. You cannot tax yourself into prosperity, look to other means.

None of the taxes you mentioned bring the marginal rates anywhere near the rates from the 60's/70's I quoted. Stop blowing smoke. Also note the the bolded quote is a strawman that I never claimed.
Yes the taxes were that high, but there wasn't an alternative, you provide a large UBI and there is an alternative. Combine a large UBI with large taxes and many people will quit. Capital Gains and Dividends are already taxed more than almost any other form of income(as they are double taxed), I think they are about where they should be.

You don't seem to understand what "highest marginal tax rate" means. The rates would not be high on someone earning a low income. If anything their rates would be cut due to the increase on high earners (especially cap gains, dividends, and inheritance), providing much more incentive to produce labor income.

And "double taxation" is perhaps the worst argument in politics (which is saying something). Corporations want personhood, they can pay their own taxes. Money transfers are taxed. If you have $100k in the bank you've paid taxes on and hire me for $100k, I don't get to escape paying taxes because you've already paid them on the money. Even if you keep the $100k and invest it, you only pay any taxes on the gains, not the principal. There is no double taxation. We have capital gains, estate taxes, etc that are lower than labor income tax rates. This creates a perverse incentive where the hardest way to become wealthy is to actually earn your own money.

Jeremy E.

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1947
  • Location: Lewiston, ID
Re: Would you support a Universal Basic Income (poll)?
« Reply #160 on: May 04, 2016, 11:35:33 AM »
I voted in support of a UBI, and said I would be willing to work an additional 5 years for it. I don't think it would necessarily require that though.

The program would not require significant tax increases for the average person; rather it likely necessitates increases in the top marginal tax brackets. This goes to all forms of income: personal income tax, capital gains/dividends tax, and estate tax. That is something I fully support, even though I intend to end up in those tax brackets over time. I'll note that in the 60's/70's at different points the US' top income tax rate was 91%, capital gains tax rate was 40%, and estate tax rate was 77%. I'd like to see something similar, although probably a lower income tax rate and higher rates for capital gains.

I think others have summed up well why. A UBI directly helps everyone with the stipend, providing enormous benefits to those on the low end of the income scale in access to education, healthcare, and economic opportunity. It indirectly helps the already well-off via a more educated populace and therefore stronger labor force, as well as reduced crime. I think the well-off are morally obligated to give back to ensure others have the same opportunity.
I think if you increase taxes that much, and provide a large UBI, people will start quiting for sure. The more people that move onto UBI, the higher you have to tax others, you can't make UBI desirable enough to have too many people quit or it won't work.

The taxes have already been that high. People didn't quit. These are top marginal tax rates, not average tax rates. And as I said I'd like to see the capital gains and dividends rate increase moreso than personal income tax. The very nature of capital gains is you aren't usually working for it. Same with money made through inheritance (estate tax). I think at the very least these forms of income need to be taxed at the same rate as labor income.

Quote
Why stop at the top? In 1960 the lowest federal income tax bracket was 20%. Most middle class would be 30-45%.

Of course, this doesn't include all the additional taxes like the those introduced via the ACA, SS taxation. SS was 4.5% vs 12.4% today. Medicare/Medicaid taxes didn't exist. State and local taxes were far lower relatively speaking. It's also misleading to think that our prosperity was due to high taxes, that's false. You cannot tax yourself into prosperity, look to other means.

None of the taxes you mentioned bring the marginal rates anywhere near the rates from the 60's/70's I quoted. Stop blowing smoke. Also note the the bolded quote is a strawman that I never claimed.
Yes the taxes were that high, but there wasn't an alternative, you provide a large UBI and there is an alternative. Combine a large UBI with large taxes and many people will quit. Capital Gains and Dividends are already taxed more than almost any other form of income(as they are double taxed), I think they are about where they should be.

You don't seem to understand what "highest marginal tax rate" means. The rates would not be high on someone earning a low income. If anything their rates would be cut due to the increase on high earners (especially cap gains, dividends, and inheritance), providing much more incentive to produce labor income.

And "double taxation" is perhaps the worst argument in politics (which is saying something). Corporations want personhood, they can pay their own taxes. Money transfers are taxed. If you have $100k in the bank you've paid taxes on and hire me for $100k, I don't get to escape paying taxes because you've already paid them on the money. Even if you keep the $100k and invest it, you only pay any taxes on the gains, not the principal. There is no double taxation. We have capital gains, estate taxes, etc that are lower than labor income tax rates. This creates a perverse incentive where the hardest way to become wealthy is to actually earn your own money.
I understand how taxes work, my point is those that are taxed high (those supporting those on UBI) would quit their jobs to go onto UBI if the UBI was good enough. You want them to go from being taxed at an effective tax rate of 25% to an effective tax rate of 60%, say they were making $80,000 and taking home $60,000, now they will take home $32,000 instead, or they could get a $20k UBI. I think a lot of people would quit.

bb11

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 505
Re: Would you support a Universal Basic Income (poll)?
« Reply #161 on: May 04, 2016, 01:07:31 PM »
I voted in support of a UBI, and said I would be willing to work an additional 5 years for it. I don't think it would necessarily require that though.

The program would not require significant tax increases for the average person; rather it likely necessitates increases in the top marginal tax brackets. This goes to all forms of income: personal income tax, capital gains/dividends tax, and estate tax. That is something I fully support, even though I intend to end up in those tax brackets over time. I'll note that in the 60's/70's at different points the US' top income tax rate was 91%, capital gains tax rate was 40%, and estate tax rate was 77%. I'd like to see something similar, although probably a lower income tax rate and higher rates for capital gains.

I think others have summed up well why. A UBI directly helps everyone with the stipend, providing enormous benefits to those on the low end of the income scale in access to education, healthcare, and economic opportunity. It indirectly helps the already well-off via a more educated populace and therefore stronger labor force, as well as reduced crime. I think the well-off are morally obligated to give back to ensure others have the same opportunity.
I think if you increase taxes that much, and provide a large UBI, people will start quiting for sure. The more people that move onto UBI, the higher you have to tax others, you can't make UBI desirable enough to have too many people quit or it won't work.

The taxes have already been that high. People didn't quit. These are top marginal tax rates, not average tax rates. And as I said I'd like to see the capital gains and dividends rate increase moreso than personal income tax. The very nature of capital gains is you aren't usually working for it. Same with money made through inheritance (estate tax). I think at the very least these forms of income need to be taxed at the same rate as labor income.

Quote
Why stop at the top? In 1960 the lowest federal income tax bracket was 20%. Most middle class would be 30-45%.

Of course, this doesn't include all the additional taxes like the those introduced via the ACA, SS taxation. SS was 4.5% vs 12.4% today. Medicare/Medicaid taxes didn't exist. State and local taxes were far lower relatively speaking. It's also misleading to think that our prosperity was due to high taxes, that's false. You cannot tax yourself into prosperity, look to other means.

None of the taxes you mentioned bring the marginal rates anywhere near the rates from the 60's/70's I quoted. Stop blowing smoke. Also note the the bolded quote is a strawman that I never claimed.
Yes the taxes were that high, but there wasn't an alternative, you provide a large UBI and there is an alternative. Combine a large UBI with large taxes and many people will quit. Capital Gains and Dividends are already taxed more than almost any other form of income(as they are double taxed), I think they are about where they should be.

You don't seem to understand what "highest marginal tax rate" means. The rates would not be high on someone earning a low income. If anything their rates would be cut due to the increase on high earners (especially cap gains, dividends, and inheritance), providing much more incentive to produce labor income.

And "double taxation" is perhaps the worst argument in politics (which is saying something). Corporations want personhood, they can pay their own taxes. Money transfers are taxed. If you have $100k in the bank you've paid taxes on and hire me for $100k, I don't get to escape paying taxes because you've already paid them on the money. Even if you keep the $100k and invest it, you only pay any taxes on the gains, not the principal. There is no double taxation. We have capital gains, estate taxes, etc that are lower than labor income tax rates. This creates a perverse incentive where the hardest way to become wealthy is to actually earn your own money.
I understand how taxes work, my point is those that are taxed high (those supporting those on UBI) would quit their jobs to go onto UBI if the UBI was good enough. You want them to go from being taxed at an effective tax rate of 25% to an effective tax rate of 60%, say they were making $80,000 and taking home $60,000, now they will take home $32,000 instead, or they could get a $20k UBI. I think a lot of people would quit.

Well first of all your last statement is misleading. Everyone would get UBI. So they could take home $32k in wage income plus the $20k UBI, or they could just take the $20k UBI. $52k take home is a hell of a lot different than $20k take home. But this is why we need UBI implemented and tested in more places, so there doesn't need to be any conjecture.

More importantly I don't think anyone making $250k or less needs their tax brackets increased. That encompasses the vast majority of society. We just need more tax brackets. It's insane that someone making $30M a year pays essentially the same effective rate as someone making $500k. The two people are not even in the same stratosphere. Gradually increase rates above $250k, with a top rate of say 60-70% (spitballing here) for income over $10M per year. That alone would be a big revenue spike. Then start taxing unearned income at least as much as earned income (ideally more, you know, to promote labor as you seem to be so worried about). If I make $100k income off of my sitting on my butt with my $2.5M portfolio I'd pay less in taxes than someone busting their butt at a job to earn that $100k. That is wrong, and does not promote labor. It's only the law because wealthy owners of capital don't want to pay taxes and have an oversized influence in politics.