Meanwhile Biden is looking like a sleazy politician. He is very un-presidential. https://spectator.org/bidens-unpresident...-rhetoric/

"...It’s just not a good look to stand on the outside with no responsibility and criticize the man tasked with solving the problem. The voters see it as cheap partisanship. And if the challenger’s criticisms are based on falsehoods, as are many of Biden’s, he is destined to be seen as a cynical opportunist exploiting a national emergency for personal gain. This is where Joe Biden is today, and it is most emphatically not presidential."

(03-19-2020 06:20 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(03-19-2020 02:20 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-19-2020 01:39 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  Seeing the government stepping in and taking care of the citizens like this is exactly what she and her ilk want to happen on a permanent basis. She'd be his biggest supporter if these nanny state processes were made a full time endeavor. Don't get me wrong, the steps being taken are much needed at this critical juncture but the prog filth Marxists are ecstatic over it, seeing it as just one step closer to their vision for the country.

I'd much rather trade the bloated welfare programs for a permanent UBI.

Hard to argue when you put it in that perspective. I'd actually entertain support for the idea if they completely eliminated welfare and other federal assistance or at least drastically pared it down to those with legitimate and demonstrable conditions that kept them from working. Although, I'm not sure how you keep it from being gamed when you'd create yet another bloated bureaucracy with the potential for being rife with corruption.

The plan sounds good for rational members on this board regardless of party because we make sound decisions and have future time orientation. Most of you are ignoring the dimmer bulbs of your family tree that without a transfer specifically dedicated for food, housing and child care would blow the direct cash on frivolities instead of essentials. Gaming the system won’t be nearly as bad as the personal mismanagement .

(03-19-2020 06:20 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  Hard to argue when you put it in that perspective. I'd actually entertain support for the idea if they completely eliminated welfare and other federal assistance or at least drastically pared it down to those with legitimate and demonstrable conditions that kept them from working. Although, I'm not sure how you keep it from being gamed when you'd create yet another bloated bureaucracy with the potential for being rife with corruption.

Things like a UBI or a prefund are actually very easy to administer because they go to everyone.

Checks are linked to SSNs, and then those SSNs have to be filed on a tax return. Literally everybody gets the money so there is no 'qualifying'... and those people can now focus on SSN verification. Because paperwork is now flowing both ways on the SSN, it's harder to fake... or better said, more easily/quickly identified when something fishy comes up.

(03-19-2020 06:39 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  The plan sounds good for rational members on this board regardless of party because we make sound decisions and have future time orientation. Most of you are ignoring the dimmer bulbs of your family tree that without a transfer specifically dedicated for food, housing and child care would blow the direct cash on frivolities instead of essentials. Gaming the system won’t be nearly as bad as the personal mismanagement .

perhaps, but not for long.... because there wouldn't be any back-up/alternative.

It's not like many of these people haven't figured out how to convert 'food' into 'cigarettes' already

(03-20-2020 09:32 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-19-2020 06:20 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  Hard to argue when you put it in that perspective. I'd actually entertain support for the idea if they completely eliminated welfare and other federal assistance or at least drastically pared it down to those with legitimate and demonstrable conditions that kept them from working. Although, I'm not sure how you keep it from being gamed when you'd create yet another bloated bureaucracy with the potential for being rife with corruption.

Things like a UBI or a prefund are actually very easy to administer because they go to everyone.

Checks are linked to SSNs, and then those SSNs have to be filed on a tax return. Literally everybody gets the money so there is no 'qualifying'... and those people can now focus on SSN verification. Because paperwork is now flowing both ways on the SSN, it's harder to fake... or better said, more easily/quickly identified when something fishy comes up.

I read an article yesterday that said reduced payments would be made to those with an income of $75,000 and no payments to those with an income of $99,000.
Any info on this?

(03-19-2020 06:20 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  Hard to argue when you put it in that perspective. I'd actually entertain support for the idea if they completely eliminated welfare and other federal assistance or at least drastically pared it down to those with legitimate and demonstrable conditions that kept them from working. Although, I'm not sure how you keep it from being gamed when you'd create yet another bloated bureaucracy with the potential for being rife with corruption.

The IRS could administer it, with little more than current manpower.

(03-20-2020 09:32 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-19-2020 06:20 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  Hard to argue when you put it in that perspective. I'd actually entertain support for the idea if they completely eliminated welfare and other federal assistance or at least drastically pared it down to those with legitimate and demonstrable conditions that kept them from working. Although, I'm not sure how you keep it from being gamed when you'd create yet another bloated bureaucracy with the potential for being rife with corruption.

Things like a UBI or a prefund are actually very easy to administer because they go to everyone.

Checks are linked to SSNs, and then those SSNs have to be filed on a tax return. Literally everybody gets the money so there is no 'qualifying'... and those people can now focus on SSN verification. Because paperwork is now flowing both ways on the SSN, it's harder to fake... or better said, more easily/quickly identified when something fishy comes up.

Yep you could eliminate a crap done of bureaucratic waste with a UBI vs the other bloated and not even all that effective social safety nets we currently have. If you paired UBI with Bismarck, and got rid of all the rest of the bloat and waste we'd be so much better off. Long term it would probably save money.

(03-20-2020 09:42 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-20-2020 09:32 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-19-2020 06:20 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  Hard to argue when you put it in that perspective. I'd actually entertain support for the idea if they completely eliminated welfare and other federal assistance or at least drastically pared it down to those with legitimate and demonstrable conditions that kept them from working. Although, I'm not sure how you keep it from being gamed when you'd create yet another bloated bureaucracy with the potential for being rife with corruption.

Things like a UBI or a prefund are actually very easy to administer because they go to everyone.
Checks are linked to SSNs, and then those SSNs have to be filed on a tax return. Literally everybody gets the money so there is no 'qualifying'... and those people can now focus on SSN verification. Because paperwork is now flowing both ways on the SSN, it's harder to fake... or better said, more easily/quickly identified when something fishy comes up.

Yep you could eliminate a crap done of bureaucratic waste with a UBI vs the other bloated and not even all that effective social safety nets we currently have. If you paired UBI with Bismarck, and got rid of all the rest of the bloat and waste we'd be so much better off. Long term it would probably save money.

That would be my plan.

(03-20-2020 09:39 AM)usmbacker Wrote:  

(03-20-2020 09:32 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Things like a UBI or a prefund are actually very easy to administer because they go to everyone.

Checks are linked to SSNs, and then those SSNs have to be filed on a tax return. Literally everybody gets the money so there is no 'qualifying'... and those people can now focus on SSN verification. Because paperwork is now flowing both ways on the SSN, it's harder to fake... or better said, more easily/quickly identified when something fishy comes up.

I read an article yesterday that said reduced payments would be made to those with an income of $75,000 and no payments to those with an income of $99,000.
Any info on this?

I googled it and found this:

Quote:Under the plan, the details of which were revealed on the Senate floor by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., individuals making up to $75,000 annually would be eligible for a $1,200 check from the federal government.

Married couples who file their taxes jointly would have to make less than $150,000 to qualify for their payment, which would be $2,400.

From there, according to McConnell's proposal, the payments would decrease. For individuals, the sum of the payment would fall by $5 for each $100 earned over $75,000.

The payment would phase out entirely for individuals making more than $99,000 annually, meaning people who make more than that would not get any money from the government, according to the proposal.

For married couples earning more than $150,000, the payment would also decline gradually, and it would phase out completely for couples making more than $198,000, according to the plan.

The checks, however, would reduce to $600 (or $1,200 for married couples) for taxpayers who have little or no income tax liability but have at least $2,500 in qualifying income, according to a GOP summary of the plan.

Link

(03-20-2020 09:46 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-20-2020 09:42 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-20-2020 09:32 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-19-2020 06:20 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  Hard to argue when you put it in that perspective. I'd actually entertain support for the idea if they completely eliminated welfare and other federal assistance or at least drastically pared it down to those with legitimate and demonstrable conditions that kept them from working. Although, I'm not sure how you keep it from being gamed when you'd create yet another bloated bureaucracy with the potential for being rife with corruption.

Things like a UBI or a prefund are actually very easy to administer because they go to everyone.
Checks are linked to SSNs, and then those SSNs have to be filed on a tax return. Literally everybody gets the money so there is no 'qualifying'... and those people can now focus on SSN verification. Because paperwork is now flowing both ways on the SSN, it's harder to fake... or better said, more easily/quickly identified when something fishy comes up.

Yep you could eliminate a crap done of bureaucratic waste with a UBI vs the other bloated and not even all that effective social safety nets we currently have. If you paired UBI with Bismarck, and got rid of all the rest of the bloat and waste we'd be so much better off. Long term it would probably save money.

That would be my plan.

I know it is and it's why despite the fact that I know we disagree on so many social issues you'd have my vote. I actually think this crisis could push us closer to both, as we see both how many flaws there are with the current healthcare model and how much the bloat and waste of our current safety net makes it extremely hard to get money to people quickly in an emergency. If we already had UBI and we needed to raise the levels in a crisis like this it would be a very simple thing to do vs all this nightmare nonsense we've got currently.

(03-20-2020 09:52 AM)usmbacker Wrote:  

(03-20-2020 09:39 AM)usmbacker Wrote:  

(03-20-2020 09:32 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Things like a UBI or a prefund are actually very easy to administer because they go to everyone.

Checks are linked to SSNs, and then those SSNs have to be filed on a tax return. Literally everybody gets the money so there is no 'qualifying'... and those people can now focus on SSN verification. Because paperwork is now flowing both ways on the SSN, it's harder to fake... or better said, more easily/quickly identified when something fishy comes up.

I read an article yesterday that said reduced payments would be made to those with an income of $75,000 and no payments to those with an income of $99,000.
Any info on this?

I googled it and found this:

Quote:Under the plan, the details of which were revealed on the Senate floor by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., individuals making up to $75,000 annually would be eligible for a $1,200 check from the federal government.

Married couples who file their taxes jointly would have to make less than $150,000 to qualify for their payment, which would be $2,400.

From there, according to McConnell's proposal, the payments would decrease. For individuals, the sum of the payment would fall by $5 for each $100 earned over $75,000.

The payment would phase out entirely for individuals making more than $99,000 annually, meaning people who make more than that would not get any money from the government, according to the proposal.

For married couples earning more than $150,000, the payment would also decline gradually, and it would phase out completely for couples making more than $198,000, according to the plan.

The checks, however, would reduce to $600 (or $1,200 for married couples) for taxpayers who have little or no income tax liability but have at least $2,500 in qualifying income, according to a GOP summary of the plan.

Link

My big issue with this is again the means testing. Have this stuff on the back end to get the money back that goes out to people that don't actually need it when filing next years taxes. Also since it's going by income on people's 2018 tax returns if you had a high paying job then that just disappeared because of this crisis on paper you would show up as not needing anything when in reality you actually do.

(03-20-2020 09:39 AM)usmbacker Wrote:  I read an article yesterday that said reduced payments would be made to those with an income of $75,000 and no payments to those with an income of $99,000.
Any info on this?

someone else linked this, but I'm more concerned with the administration than the actual rules.

They should send the money to everyone and then 'claw back' on anyone that meets this sort of criteria.

Some may say 'well, I need to know how much of this money I'm going to get to keep before you give it to me'... but I disagree. If you need the money to pay rent or buy food TODAY, it doesn't matter if they want it back in a year. If you're trying to decide if this allows you to buy a bigger TV, then you should know that you shouldn't get to keep this money.

(03-20-2020 11:10 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-20-2020 09:39 AM)usmbacker Wrote:  I read an article yesterday that said reduced payments would be made to those with an income of $75,000 and no payments to those with an income of $99,000.
Any info on this?

someone else linked this, but I'm more concerned with the administration than the actual rules.

They should send the money to everyone and then 'claw back' on anyone that meets this sort of criteria.

Some may say 'well, I need to know how much of this money I'm going to get to keep before you give it to me'... but I disagree. If you need the money to pay rent or buy food TODAY, it doesn't matter if they want it back in a year. If you're trying to decide if this allows you to buy a bigger TV, then you should know that you shouldn't get to keep this money.

Yep get the damn money out and then you can apply this stuff to the 2020 tax returns.

No thanks to giving me back the money you stole from me earlier with a UBI. It's nothing but an interest free loan to the government from me that I unwillingly participate in.

And anyone who thinks that we are going to get rid of the rest of the entitlement programs by adding a UBI is absolutely foolish. Anyone who voted to get rid of the rest of the entitlement programs would be committing political suicide.

Not to mention the fact that paying people for simply being alive is about the stupidest thing ever proposed.

Here's a better idea......cut the damn federal government back to it's constitutionally mandated functions, cut the damn federal taxes and let me and the other 55.6% of the country that actually pay federal taxes keep the money you were going to send back to us. If the voters of a particular state want to pass a UBI then good on them. I have the option of moving to a state that better suits my beliefs. Just don't ask for federal money to bail you out when you inevitably go bankrupt.

Kap... trying to be open and respectful to you here... despite you really closing the door in your comment...

UBI basically already exists... as we give tax credits and section 8 and subsidized insurance and everything else to people..... ALL from the feds (with more from the states, but let's talk about one issue) and as 'against' that as i suspect you are, it isn't going away. If you want to talk about doing away with those things, that's fine.... but that's a different conversation. Saying it won't happen (that other forms won't go away) is a non-starter.... because I won't support a politician who doesn't do away with one in favor of the other.... and it's not giving you back money they stole, it's taking back money they already gave. If anything, they're giving you an interest free loan, not the other way around.

The system is flawed... the system is broken... This is an attempt to fix the system with a vastly simpler and more straightforward one. The 'cliffs' of our current system create a welfare trap that not only creates a permanent sub-culture, but it bloats the welfare rolls unnecessarily. You have people who WOULD work more or harder or do more valuable work, who decide not to because doing so actually costs them money. Replace it with a UBI and the cliff disappears. The sub-culture may still exist, but it is smaller. Of course there is risk that we set the UBI so high that some people don't work at all, but that's already a risk. I can't tell you how many people fall into the 'cliff', but even if it's only 10%, that's a meaningful cut in the tax burden if we can eliminate that.

If you want to eliminate the system, that's fine.... but that isn't happening. Surely you want to have this system at least be efficient, right?

(03-20-2020 03:03 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Kap... trying to be open and respectful to you here... despite you really closing the door in your comment...

UBI basically already exists... as we give tax credits and section 8 and subsidized insurance and everything else to people..... ALL from the feds (with more from the states, but let's talk about one issue) and as 'against' that as i suspect you are, it isn't going away. If you want to talk about doing away with those things, that's fine.... but that's a different conversation. Saying it won't happen (that other forms won't go away) is a non-starter.... because I won't support a politician who doesn't do away with one in favor of the other.... and it's not giving you back money they stole, it's taking back money they already gave. If anything, they're giving you an interest free loan, not the other way around.

The system is flawed... the system is broken... This is an attempt to fix the system with a vastly simpler and more straightforward one. The 'cliffs' of our current system create a welfare trap that not only creates a permanent sub-culture, but it bloats the welfare rolls unnecessarily. You have people who WOULD work more or harder or do more valuable work, who decide not to because doing so actually costs them money. Replace it with a UBI and the cliff disappears. The sub-culture may still exist, but it is smaller. Of course there is risk that we set the UBI so high that some people don't work at all, but that's already a risk. I can't tell you how many people fall into the 'cliff', but even if it's only 10%, that's a meaningful cut in the tax burden if we can eliminate that.

If you want to eliminate the system, that's fine.... but that isn't happening. Surely you want to have this system at least be efficient, right?

Explain exactly where a government that is already $23 trillion in debt is going to get the funding to provide a basic income to 327 million people.

Oh that's right.....they are going to steal it away from the 55.6% of us who are already footing the bill for the other 44.4%.

Providing each and every American with a UBI isn't going to make the cliff disappear, the same income disparity is still going to be there. Prices will rise because of the increased taxes, driving up the cost of living. The exact same principle behind minimum wage increases. The cliff will still be there, so the need for the government to provide for the sick, lame, and lazy will still be there, thus welfare, Section 8, and all the other ways the government gives MY money away to people who didn't earn it will still be there.


Most importantly is this: IT IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO PROVIDE AN INCOME. UNI OR OTHERWISE, NOR HEALTHCARE TO IT'S CITIZENS.
Since it is not a federal responsibility it remains the purview of the individual states. I have no problem with a state adopting these measures if a majority of it's citizens so desire.

(03-20-2020 03:26 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Explain exactly where a government that is already $23 trillion in debt is going to get the funding to provide a basic income to 327 million people.

Oh that's right.....they are going to steal it away from the 55.6% of us who are already footing the bill for the other 44.4%.

Well, let's start with this...

Anyone who makes more than 'x' would get that money, and then have to pay it back 100% at tax time... an interest free loan... so on a net basis, you're only really providing it to people who make less than 'x'.

How many people that is depends on where we set 'x'... but it's not remotely 300+mm people.... and you're already providing support to all of them right now.

Quote: Providing each and every American with a UBI isn't going to make the cliff disappear, the same income disparity is still going to be there.

You're not understanding the term.

In simplest form, someone making 7.25/hr earns around 15k per year. Depending on the specifics, this person may easily get $1,000 per month (or a whole lot more) in food, tanf. child tax credits, housing allowances etc etc etc... 12k per year.... so they have $27k to spend.

If they get a raise to say $10/hr, they would then earn $20,800... If they lose their $600/mo housing credit because they now earn more than 20k... then they have only $25,600 to spend. They got a 25% raise and end up losing ground. The $10/hr job obviously comes with more responsibility etc... it's a 'harder' job, and they take home less.

What person with a brain would not at least consider NOT taking that 'harder' job?

Quote: Most importantly is this: IT IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO PROVIDE AN INCOME. UNI OR OTHERWISE, NOR HEALTHCARE TO IT'S CITIZENS.

Well, Medicare and the ACA would disagree with you about healthcare, as would all of the various Federal financial support systems that we have about income... that courts have upheld since their inception. The government clearly has the power to tax, and to 'promote the general welfare' which is precisely why these programs are called, welfare.

Again, if you want to make a philosophical argument, we can do that... and I would agree with a lot of what you're saying... but the reality on the ground in 2020 is that the Federal government provides SIGNIFICANT financial assistance to low income people. Because of all of the various programs and their conflicting and confusing rules and spotty enforcement, there is a lot of waste... with the biggest example being the 'black' market worth billions of dollars for things like food stamps where people use money intended for specific purposes, for other purposes... with the 'black market' taking a MUCH larger percentage than any corporation ever could.

If we're going to spend money this way.... and we're probably about 45 votes in the senate and hundreds away in the house from eliminating these programs... It would be far more financially efficient to offer a fixed amount of money to everyone, and then effectively put a 100% tax on that portion (did you get the credit? Did you earn more than 'x'? If yes, then you owe us the amount of the credit back) for anyone who makes enough such that they would not otherwise qualify for support.

This way, when the guy gets a 6k raise, he only loses perhaps 3k in support so he is still 3k ahead. Because he takes 'this' job, he is in line to perhaps get promoted again and make $15/hr and now he takes more home and gets no support.... and now his children don't grow up learning how to milk the system, but instead how to get OUT of the system. In addition to being far easier to administer and far harder to 'cheat'... you eliminate the black market because (using a poor example, but it makes sense) someone who lives where he needs a car to get to work because there isn't a good transit system can now use money given to him for transit towards that car as opposed to having to 'sell' his benefits for 75 cents on the dollar. Now if they blow their money on crap, that's on them.

I would support the states doing the same, even the counties. The Feds should give the same money to everyone... because you don't pay 'less' in Federal taxes if you live in an expensive city than you do if you live in a cheap one... and if California wants to give its citizens more in San Fran (based on property values and thus the high rents that would make you need more money to live there) then that's for them to decide.

(03-20-2020 05:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  In simplest form, someone making 7.25/hr earns around 15k per year. Depending on the specifics, this person may easily get $1,000 per month (or a whole lot more) in food, tanf. child tax credits, housing allowances etc etc etc... 12k per year.... so they have $27k to spend.

If they get a raise to say $10/hr, they would then earn $20,800... If they lose their $600/mo housing credit because they now earn more than 20k... then they have only $25,600 to spend. They got a 25% raise and end up losing ground. The $10/hr job obviously comes with more responsibility etc... it's a 'harder' job, and they take home less.

What person with a brain would not at least consider NOT taking that 'harder' job?

Please, most of the people on this board and in society at large stare at this 'gap' as they progress up the employment ranks and jump into it without hesitation. The person who makes the bolded consideration is one who lacks future time orientation, because the financial loss is temporary.

If the figures are correct my wife and I would be eligible. Thanks to the good Lord we don't need the money but it would be sent to us anyway. If it's correct that at the end of the year we would have to pay it back then our best recourse would be to just buy a one year CD and generate a little income out of it. If we gave the money away it wouldn't be to our best interests as the recipient wouldn't have to PAY IT BACK, we would. It would sort of be like sending Uncle Sam money to him early when you owe him more taxes and lose out on that little amount in interest you would get by paying it at the last moment. It's not much but when you use your Veteran status to acquire discounts at stores at least that pays for the taxes you normally would have to pay. Heck, Uncle Sam taxers us on every little thing anyway, it's nice that we get that discount, (now watch them tax you for getting that discount, LOL)

(03-20-2020 06:10 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  Please, most of the people on this board and in society at large stare at this 'gap' as they progress up the employment ranks and jump into it without hesitation. The person who makes the bolded consideration is one who lacks future time orientation, because the financial loss is temporary.

Not talking about people on this board... and what do you consider 'temporary'?

I just described a 25% raise... How frequently do you get that, and it takes another 25% for that person to eliminate the gap

Here is an article from the Cato institute talking about it... It's from 2014, but the numbers are staggering
https://www.cato.org/blog/new-study-find...are-system

And since we're talking about people who have perhaps been on assistance for more than a generation and are adults earning minimum wage, we aren't talking about people who are majoring in economics.

This is a startling quote

Author Erik Randolph finds that[b] a single mother with two children who increases her hourly earnings from the Illinois minimum wage of $8.25 to $12 only sees her net income increase by less than $400. For many low‐​income workers striving to climb the ladder of prosperity, our welfare system takes away almost all of their incentive to move up from an entry‐​level job as they do not get to realize almost any of these gains. Even worse, someone in this scenario who works hard and increases her earnings all the way to $18 an hour, a wage level which would place her in the middle class, would actually see her net income decrease by more than $24,800 due to benefit reductions and tax increases.

A single mom with 2 kids in Illinois goes from 8.25/hr to $18 and LOSES almost $25,000?