G&R Tactical
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 36

Thread: Democratic Candidate Andrew Yang Proposes $1,000 A Month To Every American...

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    OUTPOST 31
    Posts
    7,888
    Feedback Score
    30 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by soulezoo View Post
    I'd make a bad hooker
    Nah, you just don’t get to charge as much


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    “Answer The Bell...” J.W.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    489
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jpmuscle View Post
    1000 dollars a month in my gun fund maybe


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    That's the spirit

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    23,053
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Firefly View Post
    We live in a society of pimps, johns, and whores. Find out which one suits you best and go with it


    Fireflynomics 101

    The more accurate reality is, despite our wishes to the contrary, we are all at various times the pimp, the john or the hooker depending upon the situation and the other players involved.
    It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.

    Chuck, we miss ya man.

    كافر

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    3,894
    Feedback Score
    37 (100%)
    You want my vote it's going to cost you 7 grand a month.
    E pluribus unum

  5. #25
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    11,301
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by MountainRaven View Post
    It's probably worth remembering that many proponents of UBI propose that it be paid mostly or entirely by dismantling all other social welfare programs: No more EBT, no more welfare, &c. That's not to say that it would be possible to have a UBI be $1000 a month by paying for it with money formerly earmarked for welfare programs, cuz I don't know who has done what math on it. But that's the theory.
    Spot on.

    Reagan, in his “a time for choosing” speech talks about how if you divided the amount of money spent on welfare by the number of applicants you could send other kids to Harvard. Assuming you don’t have to bribe the admissions counselor.

    In someways UBI is radically right wing in that it forces people to actually take care and account for them selves.

    My dad always said “there is a lot of money in poverty”....
    I just did two lines of powdered wig powder, cranked up some Lee Greenwood, and recited the BoR. - Outlander Systems

    I'm a professional WAGer - WillBrink /// "Comey is a smarmy, self righteous mix of J. Edgar Hoover and a gay Lurch from the "Adams Family"." -Averageman

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    393
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by MountainRaven View Post
    It's probably worth remembering that many proponents of UBI propose that it be paid mostly or entirely by dismantling all other social welfare programs: No more EBT, no more welfare, &c. That's not to say that it would be possible to have a UBI be $1000 a month by paying for it with money formerly earmarked for welfare programs, cuz I don't know who has done what math on it. But that's the theory.
    That was what Milton Friedman thought. Technically he liked something called the Negative Income Tax. It is phased out as you make more, but it works in such a way that it removes welfare cliffs. Making $1 will always leave you better off than sitting at home. That's a good thing.

    The way UBI would work under most proposals is that the income would be taxable. That means that it would be taxed back at progressive rates. Since Mark Zuckerberg pays about 50% on the margins, the cost to the government is only about half the top line cost.

    Quote Originally Posted by FromMyColdDeadHand View Post
    Spot on.

    Reagan, in his “a time for choosing” speech talks about how if you divided the amount of money spent on welfare by the number of applicants you could send other kids to Harvard. Assuming you don’t have to bribe the admissions counselor.

    In someways UBI is radically right wing in that it forces people to actually take care and account for them selves.

    My dad always said “there is a lot of money in poverty”....
    SNAP (food stamps or EBT) costs about $70B, and about $6.5B of that is administrative costs. If you converted that into a $126/mo per child benefit (current average) the total cost would be $112B. If you got 20% of that back in taxes the cost would fall to $90B and you'd cut about $6B in state and local workers. It would cost a little more but it would gut a significant Democratic base. Worth it? I would say yes.

    Taking the same thing to scale, you could convert SSI, SSDI, SNAP, WIC, EITC, CTC, TANF, CHIP, Head Start, child care, school lunch, etc. It works out to something like $250B. Divided by 74M children in the United States and that works out to about $3,400 per child. Assuming that 20% will be taxed back that's about $4,080 per child.

    In return for the spending (no net increase, mind you) you can eliminate a few hundred thousand unionized public sector jobs.
    Last edited by SethB; 03-18-19 at 00:54.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    10,700
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    I feel like being dark this Sunday.

    Sometimes I pray for a North Korean style famine to hit America SO HARD that everyone on EBT/SNAP/free shit dies off. To include their kids and dogs.

    I’m ready for an American Arduous March.

    Learn to swim. Learn to swim. Learn to swim.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    7,881
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by SethB View Post
    That was what Milton Friedman thought. Technically he liked something called the Negative Income Tax. It is phased out as you make more, but it works in such a way that it removes welfare cliffs. Making $1 will always leave you better off than sitting at home. That's a good thing.

    The way UBI would work under most proposals is that the income would be taxable. That means that it would be taxed back at progressive rates. Since Mark Zuckerberg pays about 50% on the margins, the cost to the government is only about half the top line cost.



    SNAP (food stamps or EBT) costs about $70B, and about $6.5B of that is administrative costs. If you converted that into a $126/mo per child benefit (current average) the total cost would be $112T. If you got 20% of that back in taxes the cost would fall to $90T and you'd cut about $6B in state and local workers. It would cost a little more but it would gut a significant Democratic base. Worth it? I would say yes.

    Taking the same thing to scale, you could convert SSI, SSDI, SNAP, WIC, EITC, CTC, TANF, CHIP, Head Start, child care, school lunch, etc. It works out to something like $250B. Divided by 74M children in the United States and that works out to about $3,400 per child. Assuming that 20% will be taxed back that's about $4,080 per child.

    In return for the spending (no net increase, mind you) you can eliminate a few hundred thousand unionized public sector jobs.
    Are the T's a mistake, did you mean B (billion)?
    "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse." - Henry Ford

    “You are responsible for your actions, but the world doesn’t turn around you, so it’s important that you find something bigger than yourself to work for, a way for you to make a difference.” - Drew Dix, MOH VN '68

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    23,053
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Firefly View Post
    I feel like being dark this Sunday.

    Sometimes I pray for a North Korean style famine to hit America SO HARD that everyone on EBT/SNAP/free shit dies off. To include their kids and dogs.

    I’m ready for an American Arduous March.

    Learn to swim. Learn to swim. Learn to swim.
    Never works that way. Those who know how to game the system continue to game the system. Those unfortunates who depend upon them for survival suffer.

    The wrong people always die.

    If there was some natural catastrophe that destroyed what little infrastructure we have, prepper types would be the first to be victimized by organized street gang types. Self sufficient individuals in small towns would watch half of their children die despite the victory garden in the back yard. Anyone with a functioning large scale farm would be appropriated by government or abandoned to the wolves.

    Only the most ruthless, selfish "survive at the cost of everyone else" types would come out on the back end. The exact same people you would hope to cull from the herd would be all that remained of the herd.

    Old folks and kids, they would be the first victims. Adaptable ghetto rats and trailer shit would inherit the earth.
    It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.

    Chuck, we miss ya man.

    كافر

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    393
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by 26 Inf View Post
    Are the T's a mistake, did you mean B (billion)?
    I meant billion. The data that I found included lots of Ts and I converted it.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •