I could go for Yang, but only if...

Only if he didn't go to far left/liberal. He has a plan to give each US citizen a grand a month financed by taxes on high tech companies. He has the calculations that show this is doable.

I believe in this because for more than a decade and a half I received the Alaska Permanent Fund dividend. Yang's plan would put a lot cash in pockets that would spend it for essentials and whatever else. As far as the online price increases everyone would have the cash to pay them. You could see the competition in Alaska for those PFD dollars in prices that didn't increase. My friends that still live there look forward to that PFD bump every year. I had friends that invested that money every year. Smart folks!

Besides the money, he is a high tech guy which I think we need. How many of the current politicians really appreciate what high tech can do against us and for us?

Of course he could never get elected but it's an intriguing thought.

 

How about they just lower my tax burden by $1000 a month and we call it even?

 

1. How do you know who is a citizen and who is not? Also, how long until the looney toons say illegals should get theirs too?
2. Alaska had a cash cow to milk (ie petro dollars)...where is the cash cow for Yang's proposal? (we all know it's more deficit spending).
3. 310 million people is close to 4 trillion a year! That's the entire federal budget including the trillion of deficits we currently run! Delete current social programs (yeah like that will ever happen!), delete all military spending, fire all federal workers. Sounds like a good plan to me.....not. (actually I could get on board with the social programs and about 50% of the bureaucrats).

 

That will not facilitate the "I refuse to work" class a chance to buy the latest Jordans or iPhone using your money.

 

But that wouldn't benefit the economy the same way as putting money in all pockets.

 

I am no economist but I just cant get my arms around how this is wise.

Take money from some of us.
Distribute it to all of us.
We spend it or save it.

Sounds like a subsidy for the lazy and big corporations at my expense. Again.

No.

 

1. I agree with you. Just like in Alaska, there would have to be some checking up on recipients.
2.Yang, has a cash cow, the tech companies that make billions. He say he has a valid plan that would pay for it.

Like I said, it couldn't happen but it's an intriguing thought.

 

I know, I heard he wants to pay everyone $1000/month regardless of activity or circumstances.

 

Prices go up, tech companies exit the US.

Win win win... oh wait, no, we're all fucked.

 

Sounds like you are saying you would be one of the few that would spend and pay the tax on the high tech companies and everyone else would stop buying and just save. I don't see that happening. Seems to me most of the 99%'s would spend money and boost the economy. I don't see how this would take money from some of us. Seems like it would benefit everyone just like in Alaska.

 

While the idea of a universal basic income, will honestly, probably be required at some point. We're not there yet, we have record low unemployment in many statistical areas across the nation. How does his plan "trap" tech companies into not following their own best interests? Should we really be trying to "trap" enterprises and organizations? For tax mitigation purposes alone, look at how many billions are routed through licensing agreements with subsidiaries in the Caribbean or Ireland. Increasing taxes, would just encourage this behavior. I'd argue that having a tech background is essentially meaningless at the POTUS level, read through the business case studies.

 

Hey, thanks for your input. Yang's plan is too eutopic. I'd like to see what he says about your comment. I wonder if he even thought of that.

 

I totally missed the tech companies bit. I assumed it was just more of my taxes being taken away and then given back to me and others.

I still dont like the idea though.
For one, the tech companies are dishonest beyond belief. Them giving me and everybody else a grand will further justify their sense of superiority as the "masters of the universe" and further embolden their constant surveillance, censorship, and social meddling.
2nd, they will without a doubt pass the cost along via higher fees, higher retail prices, and harder pushes for the benefit of cronyism, which they already enjoy at a greater rate than most industries.
Finally, I have a real problem with the able bodied/minded refusing to contribute. I see them as oxygen thieves and have no desire to further enable their sloth and theft from the rest of us.

 

Let me give you some perspective on universal basic income. In the 2017 French presidential election, the Socialist candidate (sitting president was also a socialist, but not running for reelection, a very rare occurrence) ran on universal basic income. He scored single digits in the first round of the election. I don't know if they've ever scored be slow but if they did, that was before the 1980s. They haven't recovered from the election. If you think the Democratic Party in the US is in bad shape, you've never seen bad shape.

I mentioned this is the Socialist party in France, right? Yeah, universal basic income. Even the French know better.

 

So 300 million people times 1000 a month is doable...... he either sucks at math or excels at con games.

 

All big Tech is worth about 4 trillion...they'd be bled dry in a year....what then?

 

Let’s see these calculations. The second reply in the thread has already proven this as impossible. $4 trillion per year to be raised from a tax on “high tech companies”?

Does anyone really need to do math beyond $4 trillion to realize how ridiculous this is?

 

Why stop at a grand? Wouldn’t $10k be better?

Imagine 330 million people with an extra $10k a month to spend. Think of the economic stimulus!

Oh, by the way...bread is $600 a loaf now.

 

I do not recall the article so I'm not quoting word for word. I believe in the Netherlands they tri ubi and stopped because unemployment rose to 40% or so. Dual income houses went to because they could make it on that and had more time off and govt quickly saw they couldn't sustain. I don't think it's a good idea.

 

Dual incomes went to one is what I meant to say.