Negative Income Tax / Guaranteed Basic Income

[kalm]

It's just to show you that high taxes on the top 1% does not necessarily kill job creation. There are tons more examples if you need them.

"Progressive" is just another term that has been co-opted by the right.

Think of me as a proto-republican.

Maybe we need a little supply side economics to help spur the economy. After all, LBJ's passage of the JFK tax cuts in 1962 made it possible to fund The Great Society.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/declaring-w ... 1459542563

The first building block of the Great Society was the great tax cut of 1964. This legislation, which cut taxes by $11 billion—the federal budget was around $100 billion at the time—helped boost the economy and increased government revenues by $7.5 billion in its first year. It is hard to know who will be more discomfited by the realization that LBJ was a supply-sider—his liberal admirers or his conservative critics.

Dammitt, 88! Why can't you stay out of this? I was on a roll!



Now I've got homework...

[kalm]

Maybe we need a little supply side economics to help spur the economy. After all, LBJ's passage of the JFK tax cuts in 1962 made it possible to fund The Great Society.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/declaring-w ... 1459542563

Dammitt, 88! Why can't you stay out of this? I was on a roll!



Now I've got homework...

What's even worse is I went to read that article, and the most over-rated newspaper in the world still deems it necessary to require a subscription to their garbage.

If you notice however, in my opening salvo, I included facts and caveats that support both sides of the argument. Even here, you can make a case that government spending also helped spur revenue increases. That's still my main point... there are too many factors in the system to positively say the top 1% need lower taxes because they are the job creators.

Besides, I was already told earlier in the thread that the top marginal rate (the one most affected by the 1964 tax cuts) didn't matter because no one paid it.

[Baldy]

Dammitt, 88! Why can't you stay out of this? I was on a roll!



Now I've got homework...

What's even worse is I went to read that article, and the most over-rated newspaper in the world still deems it necessary to require a subscription to their garbage.

If you notice however, in my opening salvo, I included facts and caveats that support both sides of the argument. Even here, you can make a case that government spending also helped spur revenue increases. That's still my main point... there are too many factors in the system to positively say the top 1% need lower taxes because they are the job creators.

Besides, I was already told earlier in the thread that the top marginal rate (the one most affected by the 1964 tax cuts) didn't matter because no one paid it.

Actually, the Revenue Act of 1964 provided a 20% across the board tax cut, a corporate income tax cut, and it also introduced the minimum standard deduction.

No doubt cutting the top marginal rates was the headline grabber, but the other parts of it were probably more significant. The Keynesians are still trying to figure out how they increased revenue by lowering rates.

[SDHornet]

jelly is a Communist whacko derp!!!

There, I think I covered my bases.

[kalm]

What's even worse is I went to read that article, and the most over-rated newspaper in the world still deems it necessary to require a subscription to their garbage.

If you notice however, in my opening salvo, I included facts and caveats that support both sides of the argument. Even here, you can make a case that government spending also helped spur revenue increases. That's still my main point... there are too many factors in the system to positively say the top 1% need lower taxes because they are the job creators.

Besides, I was alreadhttp://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/01 ... ax-cuttery told earlier in the thread that the top marginal rate (the one most affected by the 1964 tax cuts) didn't matter because no one paid it.

Actually, the Revenue Act of 1964 provided a 20% across the board tax cut, a corporate income tax cut, and it also introduced the minimum standard deduction.

No doubt cutting the top marginal rates was the headline grabber, but the other parts of it were probably more significant. The Keynesians are still trying to figure out how they increased revenue by lowering rates.

Not really.

Republicans, by contrast, argued that while tax cuts were desirable, running an $11 billion deficit, "with no hope of a balanced budget for the foreseeable future, is both morally and fiscally wrong." That balanced-budget fixation was the ruling GOP philosophy until the rise of supply-side economics, which saw tax cuts as a way to boost investment (the supply side versus the Keynesian demand side) by helping the wealthy and business. Deficits were handled with the magical declaration that tax cuts pay for themselves.

It's a notion that the new House GOP majority has taken to bizarre and irresponsible extremes, eliminating "pay-go" rules mandating that new tax cuts or new spending be offset by tax increases or spending cuts. Instead the House now has "cut-go" rules, which require only that new spending be offset with spending cuts—tax cuts need not be offset and tax increases don't count as offsets. This from the party that oversaw deficit explosions in the Reagan and George W. Bush years, then claimed the mantle of fiscal responsibility in last year's elections. At least JFK and his partisan descendants are intellectually honest about deficits

.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/ ... tax-cutter

[Baldy]

Actually, the Revenue Act of 1964 provided a 20% across the board tax cut, a corporate income tax cut, and it also introduced the minimum standard deduction.

No doubt cutting the top marginal rates was the headline grabber, but the other parts of it were probably more significant. The Keynesians are still trying to figure out how they increased revenue by lowering rates.

Not really.

Republicans, by contrast, argued that while tax cuts were desirable, running an $11 billion deficit, "with no hope of a balanced budget for the foreseeable future, is both morally and fiscally wrong." That balanced-budget fixation was the ruling GOP philosophy until the rise of supply-side economics, which saw tax cuts as a way to boost investment (the supply side versus the Keynesian demand side) by helping the wealthy and business. Deficits were handled with the magical declaration that tax cuts pay for themselves.

It's a notion that the new House GOP majority has taken to bizarre and irresponsible extremes, eliminating "pay-go" rules mandating that new tax cuts or new spending be offset by tax increases or spending cuts. Instead the House now has "cut-go" rules, which require only that new spending be offset with spending cuts—tax cuts need not be offset and tax increases don't count as offsets. This from the party that oversaw deficit explosions in the Reagan and George W. Bush years, then claimed the mantle of fiscal responsibility in last year's elections. At least JFK and his partisan descendants are intellectually honest about deficits

.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/ ... tax-cutter

A rising tide lifts all boats.

--John F. Kennedy

[Skjellyfetti]

Good article on this from fivethirtyeight today.

I don't expect anyone to actually read it (except maybe kalm).

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/uni ... ic-income/

[CID1990]

Good article on this from fivethirtyeight today.

I don't expect anyone to actually read it (except maybe kalm).

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/uni ... ic-income/

You are correct.

[AZGrizFan]

Speaking of negative income tax, my son paid $665 in income tax this year. He got back over $1,100.

How the fuck does THAT work? Talk about income redistribution. Why should a person get more back than they actually paid into the system? WTF?

[kalm]

Good article on this from fivethirtyeight today.

I don't expect anyone to actually read it (except maybe kalm).

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/uni ... ic-income/

Sarah Palin would support this.

[Baldy]

Speaking of negative income tax, my son paid $665 in income tax this year. He got back over $1,100.

How the fuck does THAT work? Talk about income redistribution. Why should a person get more back than they actually paid into the system? WTF?

It's called the EITC.

Did you not claim him as a dependent?

[Ivytalk]

Good article on this from fivethirtyeight today.

I don't expect anyone to actually read it (except maybe kalm).

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/uni ... ic-income/

I read it, Unjustified Smugness of Analjelly.

What's not to like? A guy who "crowdfunded" (using Gofvckme.com?) his own basic income, and people were stupid enough to contribute?

Give me $12K per year and I'll have time to solve climate change and global pandemics!

And the last paragraph is particularly rich: "The market economy is great, but we want to substitute it with another system"

Pure, unadulterated drivel.

[AZGrizFan]

Speaking of negative income tax, my son paid $665 in income tax this year. He got back over $1,100.

How the fuck does THAT work? Talk about income redistribution. Why should a person get more back than they actually paid into the system? WTF?

It's called the EITC.

Did you not claim him as a dependent?

Couldn't for 2015. He lived apart from us and wasn't a full-time student. He's since moved back home and is going to school full time, so for 2016 I'll be able to claim him.

I just don't think ANY system where you get back MORE than you paid in is set up correctly.

[AZGrizFan]

Apparently we already have this:

Around the same time, its appeal expanded rightward. Libertarian economist Milton Friedman began to advocate for a negative income tax, whereby those earning below a certain threshold would get money from the government instead of paying taxes.

[AZGrizFan]

These figures are just a floor for a basic income; other economists researching the idea envision something “high enough to ensure a material existence and participation in society,” said Valerija Korosec in an email. Korosec is a sociologist at the Institute of Macroeconomic Analysis and Development in Slovenia, and the author of the first proposal for a basic income in her country. She suggests a target between the current poverty level and as high as 60 percent of the median income. Yes, that would require a huge increase in government revenues and thus, most likely, a big hike in tax rates to fund the redistribution as basic income.

[Ivytalk]

Can't help but notice that, except for his usual tendentious swipe at Sarah Palin, klam hasn't weighed in on the "merits" of the article. Nor has SmellyBelly.

[SDHornet]

Can't help but notice that, except for his usual tendentious swipe at Sarah Palin, klam hasn't weighed in on the "merits" of the article. Nor has SmellyBelly.

How long have you been on this board? A week? You need to seriously lower the bar.

[Ibanez]

Apparently we already have this:

Around the same time, its appeal expanded rightward. Libertarian economist Milton Friedman began to advocate for a negative income tax, whereby those earning below a certain threshold would get money from the government instead of paying taxes.

A friend of ours has a son who is married with 3 kids. They live in a trailer (on his mothers land), he works a FT job and the wife sits home, eating and cheating on the husband. Anyway, our friend tells us that she has to collect all of their paperwork and do their taxes b/c they won't. Every year, they get back $10-12K and they barely pay half that in taxes.

[AZGrizFan]

Much like illegal aliens became "undocumented immigrants", wealth redistribution has now become "guaranteed basic income" or "citizens wage" or "trust experiment"....no matter what you call it, it's a bad idea.

[Baldy]

It's called the EITC.

Did you not claim him as a dependent?

Couldn't for 2015. He lived apart from us and wasn't a full-time student. He's since moved back home and is going to school full time, so for 2016 I'll be able to claim him.

I just don't think ANY system where you get back MORE than you paid in is set up correctly.

AZ's kid was a poor indigent low-income earner in 2015.

What a shitty parent you are.

[AZGrizFan]

Couldn't for 2015. He lived apart from us and wasn't a full-time student. He's since moved back home and is going to school full time, so for 2016 I'll be able to claim him.

I just don't think ANY system where you get back MORE than you paid in is set up correctly.

AZ's kid was a poor indigent low-income earner in 2015.

What a shitty parent you are.

Yeah. That poor indigent low income earner still got his $681 mortgage payment (living in my condo), $175 monthly HOA fee, his $300 car payment, $175/mo car insurance, $50 cell phone and health care paid by me. Yet I STILL couldn't claim him because he wasn't in school full time.

[Ibanez]

AZ's kid was a poor indigent low-income earner in 2015.

What a shitty parent you are.

Yeah. That poor indigent low income earner still got his $681 mortgage payment (living in my condo), $175 monthly HOA fee, his $300 car payment, $175/mo car insurance, $50 cell phone and health care paid by me. Yet I STILL couldn't claim him because he wasn't in school full time.

What is he driving? I see some cost savings right there.

[AZGrizFan]

Yeah. That poor indigent low income earner still got his $681 mortgage payment (living in my condo), $175 monthly HOA fee, his $300 car payment, $175/mo car insurance, $50 cell phone and health care paid by me. Yet I STILL couldn't claim him because he wasn't in school full time.

What is he driving? I see some cost savings right there.

A 2010 Ford Fusion. Nosy fucker.

[Ibanez]

What is he driving? I see some cost savings right there.

A 2010 Ford Fusion. Nosy fucker.

You put it out there.

[AZGrizFan]

A 2010 Ford Fusion. Nosy fucker.

You put it out there.

It has 90,000 miles on it now, I paid $15,000 for it in May of 2013 when it had 45,000 miles on it, financed it through Compass Bank @ 4.75% for 60 months, actual payment is $283 but I pay a little extra to pay it off early, and I just had the oil changed and put new tires on it.

Anything else you'd like to know?