I have no idea how things will go, but I'm guessing it'll get ugly before it gets better.
I have no qualms helping to provide for people who need providing. So let's just suppose we do that with UBI. Now, UBI needs to be funded by someone. If you are funding UBI, what is the purpose of giving you back that money?
This is why UBI efforts will ultimately fail—they both fundamentally oppose crucial aspects of the concept for completely different reasons.
https://www.verywellhealth.com/the-lung-flute-product-review...
I will ask for tests for CF at the next appointment and ask if they are aware of the lung flute and would prescribe it, thanks for the suggestion. Searching amazon for "lung flute" turns up some types of devices I haven't seen before.
Seen an ENT about chronic tonsilitis yet?
But the standard UBI payments come in no matter what.
Can you better phrase how you're looking at this like an experiment with control and test components?
I'm asking if after having given everyone an escape hatch, what is going to fund UBI?
And I'm gonna take the property tax to finance UBI but also to incentivise him to maybe sell some of his property to lower his property tax percentage. To reduce his ability to suck out UBI of his tenants from them.
OK, I see where you're going with that. The part I object to is really just an implementation detail. It's not cheaper to give him money and pay him back because 1) that's work that someone has to do, and more importantly 2) the reason you need to know if he should not be getting it is because you need to know how much to tax him in the first place, and it's the same job.
That said, I don't like the implication for the aged who no longer work. I'd prefer to keep people in their homes than to tax them out of them.
To give UBI you just need to know if the guy has pulse and what is his chosen bank account. You can delegate both of those tasks to banks. Heck, you can delegate paying the guy to banks as well. They can just credit his account out of a thin air, the way they currently do when they give loans. You can destroy equivalent amount of money that you gathered from tax to keep things in balance.
The tax on the other hand is completely different job. Because you need to find out what properties this guy has (directly and through subsidiaries) and how much are they worth on the market and set up account for him to pay and inform him about how much he needs to pay and confiscate his assetes if he doesn't pay. That's much more work but it can bring vast amounts of money and improve our insane system of real estate where hoarding is not only cheap but even profitable.
Regarding old folks. Tax on a single or even two or three properties should be zero. You might even get a tax credit if you own just single property that would help you with your mortgage. However for more properties it should raise significantly. Maybe if you have 1000 properties tax should cost you at least few of them each year.
Technical note about replying to a post. I think reply link is not visible for a while after creating a post. Last time I had ttouble with this I just waited a bit and it showed up.
It's the depth/flamewar metric.
> you need to find out what properties this guy has...and inform him about how much he needs to pay
Right. You need to do this. So, at this point, you know whether or not he needs the original benefit.
Not everyone classifies government spending as a handout. Many countries have some sort of "Labour party" that tends to want to have high taxes, and over time such parties get plenty of votes.
Mexico taxes significantly less than the US does, the US is closer to other Anglosphere countries than it is to Mexico.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_ta...
Being paid to not work is just as conditional as being paid to work.
People are incentivized to meet the condition. Paying them to not work means they are incentivized to not work!
(Which I guess is still technically people staying home, but its a bit different if you're being forcibly locked in your apartment in China vs what the "lockdown" was in the US)
High inflation isn't the fault of people barely scraping by, its a reaction to supply disruptions worldwide.
I expect 10% inflation for the next decade, because of demographic shifts and deglobalization, in the US. The rest of the world will be worse as capital flees to the US.
That said, a decade of 10% inflation would be an awfully cruel joke for millennials, who experienced the worst recession since the Depression around the time they graduated university, a decade of stagnant wages, another recession and global pandemic, and then, even if they managed to find themselves financially stable (e.g., tech employees), still hard-pressed to save for retirement under the weight of inflation.
Yes, it will be bad for all of us. I've lost the ability to earn an income due to long covid, yet my income is likely to be constrained to the meager cost of living adjustments that are wrangled out of a reluctant Congress in the remaining years of my life... should I make it to age 62 in 3 years to finally get "early" social security.
There will be wage growth roughly in line with inflation, so those who can participate in the labor force won't have it as bad as I will.
I wish you all luck.
This is all on top of the checks, of which there were 3.
Assuming you claimed unemployment the entire time, you would've gotten paid ~$24k + normal UI.
And people are blaming the stimulus checks? Shows you the power of business interests in the media.
Personally I'd like to see progressive real estate tax introduced. The more property you own, the higher percentage of its value you need to pay each year as a tax.
Though, personally I'm more in favor of a land value tax, I think op is on the right path. Having the tax pegged to factors like average wage / rent of an area would help landlords keep it in check, though.
This tax could also be starting not from 0% but from negative value owners of a single small property might get tax credit that could help them with their mortgage in the environment of dropping property prices. For larger families with larger single properties UBI could help.
As for land value I'd like to treat the land as just another property and include its value into the total value that the tax rate is based on. I wouldn't pay attention too much about local wages. I think that information influences property values that the tax rate should be based on.
There might be secondary effects as well. Like dropping prices of properties might make land for new developments cheaper.
This marketing that redirects blame onto “inflation”(a gov failure) or “people being at home” or “shortages” only serves to distract while corporations post profits, layoff while kicking back to shareholders, and continue to pay as little as possible for the labor.
Let's say someone (who also has an illness like diabetes) has two children and isnt able to work for five years because of long covid. Will the UBI payments be high enough to support them and their children? Or would higher payments be needed to support for them? Would they get a different UBI as a single dude in his 40s?
If so that's fine - but then it just seems like its welfare not UBI.
"Welfare" beyond that can and should be discussed and considered - I'm not advocating for taking away any of the welfare state as a trade for implementing UBI, personally.
Everyone receives it, everyone pays taxes accordingly, those with enough tax liability end up netting $0 or less in UBI for the period.
Note that, given the actual structure of Medicare (partially publicly subsized private insurance with a public default and minimum-benefit option which still has premiums, part of which is waived for Social Security and Railroad Retirement beneficiaries), the ACA is almost Medicare for all, and with a default public option (even with premiums for most people) the “almost” would go away.
(“Medicare for all” is sometimes used as a code for universal, premium-free, public-only insurance, but that’s not at all similar to Medicare.)
> I'm not advocating for taking away any of the welfare state as a trade for implementing UBI, personally.
What could go wrong?
Their societies might get younger instead of trending towards inverted population pyramid?
Oh, the horror.