Presidential Election: 11/3/20 ---Now the President Elect Joe Biden Thread

[PeterMP]

9 minutes ago, ixcuincle said:

 

Every developed country other than the US uses a VAT. Is thre any reason the US is the lone holdout? 

 

Again, I'm not really against a VAT.  They certainly have their uses.  But adding a VAT is almost certainly going to hit the poor the hardest, and then to not offset that somehow is going to affect the real living standard of the poor.

 

They almost certainly hurt new and small businesses more, and then to not offset that somehow is going to have affects.

[ixcuincle]

7 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Again, I'm not really against a VAT.  They certainly have their uses.  But adding a VAT is almost certainly going to hit the poor the hardest, and then to not offset that somehow is going to affect the real living standard of the poor.

 

They almost certainly hurt new and small businesses more, and then to not offset that somehow is going to have affects.

 

I suppose Yang's 1000-per-month freedom dividend would address rising prices. 

 

https://www.yang2020.com/policies/value-added-tax/

 

A VAT is currently used by 160 out of 193 developed countries because it is a more efficient way of generating revenue with no loopholes. Big companies and rich people are excellent at moving things around to avoid taxes – Amazon, Google, and other companies funnel hundreds of billions in earnings overseas. A VAT makes it impossible for them to benefit from the American people and infrastructure without paying their fair share.

[PeterMP]

15 minutes ago, ixcuincle said:

 

I suppose Yang's 1000-per-month freedom dividend would address rising prices. 

 

Not if it comes with the elimination of benefits that the poor are getting.

 

He's going to make the poor choose whether to get existing federal support or take the $1,000 per a month.

 

Welfare programs (in many cases the state and federal are linked, like Medicaid, so I'm not sure how'd you tease out how much of that is federal vs. state, but a decent amount of it is going to be associated with federal dollars) can easily pay out over $17K a year. 

 

https://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2015/feb/01/rhode-island-center-freedom-and-prosperity/do-common-welfare-programs-pay-equivalent-2083-hou/

 

You take a single mom with 2 kids using Medicaid, CHIP, SNAP, etc.  It is likely that taking the $1,000 a month is going to be a net loss of income if that's her choice.  Then the UBI is going to increase prices.

 

And I'll point out, he's not really saving the money he says he is from the programs because unless everybody buys into the $1,000 month, he can't actually eliminate the administration associated with the welfare programs.

 

I know what a VAT is and what they are used for.

[PeterMP]

His plan is great if you are at least lower middle class with a small family or no family.

 

I'm higher than middle class with two kids and a wife.  It would be great for us.

 

If you're single, poor, with a couple of kids.  Not so much.

 

**EDIT**

I'm the product of a 2 parent household where both parents have a college education (though, my mom went back to school to get her degree when I was young so there is a pull yourself up by the bootstraps component to my childhood).  My wife is the product of a 2 parent household where both parents have a college education.  We're both college educated.  We live in an expensive area, but no matter how you determine it (e.g. adjust for cost of living), we're well above middle class (though not top 10%).

 

Now, take a house hold with a single mother that is not college educated and works two jobs and still needs government assistance to really make ends meet that is the product of a single parent that is not college educated.

 

If your economic plan benefits my family over that other family compared to the status quo, your economic plan has problems IMO.

 

And my family does much better compared to the other family under his economic plan compared to the status quo.

[LadySkinsFan]

Close the ****ing loopholes!

[Cooked Crack]

Bernie Bros. Buttigeg Boys.

[ixcuincle]

58 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

His plan is great if you are at least lower middle class with a small family or no family.

 

I'm higher than middle class with two kids and a wife.  It would be great for us.

 

If you're single, poor, with a couple of kids.  Not so much.

 

**EDIT**

I'm the product of a 2 parent household where both parents have a college education (though, my mom went back to school to get her degree when I was young so there is a pull yourself up by the bootstraps component to my childhood).  My wife is the product of a 2 parent household where both parents have a college education.  We're both college educated.  We live in an expensive area, but no matter how you determine it (e.g. adjust for cost of living), we're well above middle class (though not top 10%).

 

Now, take a house hold with a single mother that is not college educated and works two jobs and still needs government assistance to really make ends meet that is the product of a single parent that is not college educated.

 

If your economic plan benefits my family over that other family compared to the status quo, your economic plan has problems IMO.

 

And my family does much better compared to the other family under his economic plan compared to the status quo.

i would recommend you go to his website and check his policy. out of all 20 candidates he has the most detailed and in-depth policy out of all of them, available on his site. check the site and see if it addresses your concerns and qualms. 

[PeterMP]

44 minutes ago, ixcuincle said:

i would recommend you go to his website and check his policy. out of all 20 candidates he has the most detailed and in-depth policy out of all of them, available on his site. check the site and see if it addresses your concerns and qualms. 

 

I did.  That's how I know that he is going to give people the choice between continued federal welfare benefits and the UBI.  That's I know he's going to institute a VAT.

 

Though his page is a bit disorganized with bits here and there.  For example, he's got a bit on climate change (that's underwhelming), but then else where he's got a bit a carbon dividend (which is better (thought that is also a regressive tax that will hurt the poor more too that it does not appear he's going to offset either)).  Generally, I'm underwhelmed.  He seems to see government as a solution to all problems without it being clear how government is going to solve the problem.

 

I doubt having the federal government produce generic drugs makes much sense.  I suspect it would make more sense to make it harder for the prices of generics to go up or down and make it easier for companies to enter the generic market, but that isn't discussed at all.

 

How does the government force US News to not include factors related to selectivity in their college rankings?

 

Really, it is easy to pick apart most Presidential campaign ideas.  Many of them are not very good.

 

But the basics are still the same in terms of his big ticket plan.  Introducing a VAT and a UBI where the poor have to chose between current government assistance programs and the UBI benefits two parent middle class and above households more than one parent poor households as compared to the status quo.

[The Evil Genius]

VATs are inherently regressive (and thus by nature hurt people with less money).

 

Why is that even an argument here?

[@DCGoldPants]

That Wohl story is nuts. 

[NoCalMike]

6 minutes ago, @SkinsGoldPants said:

That Wohl story is nuts. 

 

It's crazy how Wohl keeps getting caught red-handed over and over, then simply moves on to the next hoax attempt.

[The Evil Genius]

Just now, NoCalMike said:

 

It's crazy how Wohl keeps getting caught red-handed over and over, then simply moves on to the next hoax attempt.

 

White male privilege.

[@DCGoldPants]

21 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

 

It's crazy how Wohl keeps getting caught red-handed over and over, then simply moves on to the next hoax attempt.

At some point one of his targets needs to go after him for defamation. His father also. Clean them out. 

[Bozo the kKklown]

57 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

But the basics are still the same in terms of his big ticket plan.  Introducing a VAT and a UBI where the poor have to chose between current government assistance programs and the UBI benefits two parent middle class and above households more than one parent poor households as compared to the status quo.

This is my fear with UBI. Yang is a libertarian masquerading as a Democrat, imo. UBI sounds like ending social programs.

[TheGoodBits]

51 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

This is my fear with UBI. Yang is a libertarian masquerading as a Democrat, imo. UBI sounds like ending social programs.

 

Some consolidation of social programs is fine if the net result is the same or better. Just like if universal healthcare comes with ending programs like CHIP.. that program is replaced by something else. If we are taking care of healthcare for poor people, a UBI for other basic needs like housing and food should be fine in theory. 

 

That said, if Yang is really trying to pay for it with regressive taxes like a VAT then his policies aren't well thought out enough. 

 

[Bozo the kKklown]

38 minutes ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

 

Some consolidation of social programs is fine if the net result is the same or better. Just like if universal healthcare comes with ending programs like CHIP.. that program is replaced by something else. If we are taking care of healthcare for poor people, a UBI for other basic needs like housing and food should be fine in theory. 

 

That said, if Yang is really trying to pay for it with regressive taxes like a VAT then his policies aren't well thought out enough. 

 

The thing is 12,000 a year probably isn't going to be enough. And then you get to the point where UBI is slashed to fund something for rich people and those social programs are gone.

[ixcuincle]

44 minutes ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

 

Some consolidation of social programs is fine if the net result is the same or better. Just like if universal healthcare comes with ending programs like CHIP.. that program is replaced by something else. If we are taking care of healthcare for poor people, a UBI for other basic needs like housing and food should be fine in theory. 

 

That said, if Yang is really trying to pay for it with regressive taxes like a VAT then his policies aren't well thought out enough. 

 

it's vat plus other solutions i.e. consolidating welfare which is already a drain on our resources 

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

This is my fear with UBI. Yang is a libertarian masquerading as a Democrat, imo. UBI sounds like ending social programs.

 

You could do this in away that would make (more) sense.

 

You could not cut government programs designed to aid the poor.  You could not pay out any money to the UBI the first year of the VAT.  As you take money in from the VAT, you could use it to make low interest loans to small and new businesses, states, and local governments.  If you are collecting enough money you'd saturate that market (for things that make sense to actually give out loans for) and loans could be made to bigger companies at a more normal interest rate.

 

This does 3 things for you:

1.  It helps offset the disadvantage the VAT is going to have to small and new businesses. 

 

2.  It is also going to help state and local governments that in many cases are in the best place to support the poor (and you haven't cut the federal programs in place already to help them).

 

3.  It has the added benefit of competing with municipal bonds, which is frequently a low risk no federal tax place the very wealthy use to stash their money so there is an indirect negative impact on the wealthy.

 

Then after year one, you start to pay out a UBI based on how much the VAT collected the previous year.  Then yearly the UBI is adjusted based on how much the VAT took in the previous year and the success/failure of the loans made.  Every year the money coming in during that year is shunted to a loan system that focuses on low interest loans to small and new businesses and state and local governments.  The following year you set the UBI.  There will always be somewhat more of a lag because presumably some of the loans won't be one year loans, but that shouldn't be too hard to deal with.

 

If with the UBI somebody means tests out of government assistance programs, then they test out.

 

(The only real issue is this is going to be in a time of economic downturn, the VAT is going to collect less money and the UBI and ability to make loans is going to go down.  At a time when you are most likely going to be looking to infuse the system with money, what will be a normal government support method is going to to be decreasing the money it is putting into the system.  To give the economic system the stimulus that it needs to recover during an economic down turn is going to be that much harder.)

 

Of course, if you did this, the banks, big companys, and the wealthy would scream bloody murder.

[LadySkinsFan]

Funding increases in the military budget and tax breaks for the wealthy are the drains on our resources.

[PeterMP]

39 minutes ago, ixcuincle said:

it's vat plus other solutions i.e. consolidating welfare which is already a drain on our resources 

 

Can you give an example where consolidating welfare is expected to save much money because he doesn't?

 

" Current spending.  We currently spend between $500 and $600 billion a year on welfare programs, food stamps, disability and the like.  This reduces the cost of Universal Basic Income because people already receiving benefits would have a choice but would be ineligible to receive the full $1,000 in addition to current benefits."

 

That's not really consolidating.  That's making people choose what benefit they want to take.

 

But why make the poor make the choice between government assistance programs and the UBI.  Most welfare programs are already means tested and gradient based on income.  If the UBI gets them to the point they test out or get less benefit, then they just come out of them anyway or get less benefit.  Just give them the (full) UBI and continue current means and gradient testing for existing welfare programs.

 

Obviously, if you do something with healthcare where Medicare is no longer any issue, then it doesn't matter, but isn't hard to imagine that most things you would do will take a few years to control and lower prices.  Meanwhile, you've got people that are having to choose between the government assistance and the UBI.

 

(if healthcare costs just dropped even 15% in a year that would actually be pretty bad for our economy in terms of you'd have people whose incomes would have to be changing very quickly that can't adjust quick enough.  Let's say the government steps in with a public option that is quickly much cheaper.  Well, private insurance companies are going to quickly cut their payrolls and many of those workers will be people that aren't wealthy that don't have a lot of training to go into other jobs.  Any healthcare plan that is drastically and quickly going to lower healthcare costs also has to deal with the people negatively impacted by that change.  It isn't hard to imagine IF drastic savings in healthcare are achieved that you will also created a relatively large pool that in the very short term aren't going to be able to afford that even drastic cheaper healthcare and will need government assistance.)

[ixcuincle]

If people chose which one they wanted to take wouldn't that lower the 600b albatross that is welfare? Why do we spend that much on welfare? 

This Biden man he taking money from Comcast for fundraisers and trying to depict himself as the Democratic nominee lol. I look forward to seeing how he slip up. I know I'm not the only one wary of a 77 year old man running for president. He is literally more of the same. What the hell would a 77  year old man know about modern issues affecting 21st century families. Does all his experience in Washington working with lobbyists help his cause to the "millennial" Democrat hungry for change? The party leaned towards Obama and Sanders for change from the status quo. Biden offers nothing of that sort. Biden is just running because "I'm not Trump" which is a very solid pitch but platform wise, what the hell is he offering? Oh, and by the way, has he signed that pledge not to accept money from lobbyists yet, like the other democratic candidates? 

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/09/democrats-corporate-lobbyists-1259703

 

Why the hell would any self-aware liberal take any money from corporate entities. The entire democratic platform should be shying away from the corruption in politics and lobbyists. Lobbyism is evil. "But free moneysssss."

[ixcuincle]

https://theintercept.com/2019/04/17/democratic-candidates-lobbyist-donations/

 

Someone needs to call out these hypocrites for taking money from corporations. We must eliminate special interests from politics. We must know that our candidates are out for our own interests and not the interests of corporations or lobbyist groups! 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

6 minutes ago, ixcuincle said:

If people chose which one they wanted to take wouldn't that lower the 600b albatross that is welfare? Why do we spend that much on welfare? 

A much smaller percentage of our resources go to social welfare programs than in other developed countries.

3 minutes ago, ixcuincle said:

https://theintercept.com/2019/04/17/democratic-candidates-lobbyist-donations/

 

Someone needs to call out these hypocrites for taking money from corporations. We must eliminate special interests from politics. We must know that our candidates are out for our own interests and not the interests of corporations or lobbyist groups! 

Couldn’t agree more. Let’s both pledge to only vote for candidates who refuse to accept donations from special interest groups and who campaign on a serious platform of taking the money out of politics.

[PeterMP]

 

55 minutes ago, ixcuincle said:

If people chose which one they wanted to take wouldn't that lower the 600b albatross that is welfare? Why do we spend that much on welfare? 

 

He's taking the number from CATO (which is a conservative think tank).

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/01/12/no-we-dont-spend-1-trillion-on-welfare-each-year/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f51e3b0f0f7b

 

The biggest thing is Medicaid, which is $228 billion and that doesn't include what is funded for CHIP.

 

But that also includes things not being paid to the government.  For example, Yang says he wants:

 

"Tax breaks for child-care services"

 

There is a childcare tax credit that many people are eligible for to offset the costs of childcare.  CATO considers that welfare.

 

The EITC.  Welfare.

 

Yang wants more early childhood education.

 

"It also increases sociability, and it relieves the financial burden of finding daycare for families who struggle to afford it."

 

CATO- $7.1 billion to fund Headstart- welfare! 

 

Along with the normal welfare programs like foodstamps, etc.

 

Yang is either lying, badly informed, or is talking about making the poor make huge choices about them and their childrens' future.  (I actually hadn't considered the first two options originally, but maybe he's a liar or doesn't know where the number he threw out comes from or what it includes.)

 

Do I send my kids to Headstart or take the UBI?  Do I take a childcare tax credit or the UBI?

 

Either way it is a bad look.

 

Again, I'll ask.  Almost all federal welfare programs (even things like the ETIC and childcare tax credit) are means tested and gradient based.  Why make people make the choice?

 

If people means test out of them or get less benefit based on taking the UBI, then the money associated with those programs are going to go down naturally without having to choose.  If you give every adult, $12K a year, the money for those programs are going to go down on their own.  Fewer people will qualify for less support from Medicaid, CHIP and benefits from the EITC the childcare tax credit naturally without having to force a choice.  (Though if you tie the tests for welfare programs to inflation (which is done in many cases), then not as many people will reduce their benefit as you might expect because there will be some pass through on the VAT.  Prices will go up some.  I don't have a good idea of how much, but there will be some pass through.  It will not be a dollar for dollar exchange even when just looking at the poor.)

 

**EDIT**

IMF paper on pass through of VAT in Europe.

 

https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2016/12/31/Estimating-VAT-Pass-Through-43322

 

puts the average VAT change pass through at 40%.  With no real affect on GDP and a small, but significant increase in unemployment.  Though there are additional complexities where increases in VAT are different than decreases and increases have a higher pass through.  So you're probably looking at prices going up over $0.4 for each $1 you raise.

 

Looking at Europe, the VAT might actually increase unemployment and therefore increase the number of people that need government assistance.

 

(Most taxes have a negative impact on unemployment, and it is small.  So not something I'd kill the idea over.)

[NoCalMike]

Yeah the issue with the way Andrew Yang is presenting UBI is that a flat fee of (I'll go with the figure he is using) $1000 won't mean the same thing to everyone.  For my family, for instance, the $1000 would pretty much be a bonus, money to invest in my children's future, pay down debt, pay current bills, perhaps every so often use some of it as "fun money" but for a family that is currently on welfare, if the UBI eliminates their welfare, then that $1000 is basically merely going to be covering what the welfare was covering previously. 

 

I am not against the idea of UBI on it's face, but the more Yang's specific proposal is looked into and picked at, the more it seems like a different version of a GOP flat tax scheme where it hurts a lot of the people it is supposedly supposed to be helping.