• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Any Yang supporters here?

As far as I can see, I like Andrew Yang. He looks like a good human being, honest and straightforward. I do endorse his idea of getting rid of the penny. I have been saying this forever. His "Freedom dividend" is utterly problematic. For starters, we're going to pay for the dividend through a VAT tax AND through taxing big tech. That's right, "your money" will be given to you in exchange for a higher sales tax on everything you buy. Chris Wallace of Fox News pointed out that economists have tested out his plan and discovered it will only be 500 dollars per month, not 1000 dollars. In other words, the taxes he proposed to pay for it, will be not make it to 12k per year/1k per month. Still 6k per year is not too bad either.

But the biggest problem here is this: A freedom dividend and automation do not go hand-in-hand. If the worry is that everything will go automated, then the solution is not to give out free money in exchange for a high sales tax. It would be create more engineers, more jobs around monitoring robots and computers.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
LOL, so Warren/Bernie are socialists but Yang pushing for $1000/month free for everyone is not. OK.

I like Yang but his signature idea would never get passed and if it did, it would never work. It's too radical and sudden a change to the economy.

I think we should pay Basic income to people displaced by NAFTA and free trade and automation. As automation takes more jobs, we should give more people a basic income.
Click to expand...

Having a VAT is not a radical idea and *gasp* applying the law equally (to everyone) may be against "identity politics" but is far from a radical concept.

BTW, how exactly would you determine which persons turning 18 lacked a (well paying?) job due to "NAFTA and free trade and automation" as opposed to some other factor (like having a HS diploma yet poor English and math skills). It would certainly be viewed as a radical concept if we made current "safety net" benefits payable only to those being able to prove that their employment was affected by "NAFTA and free trade and automation".
 
Grandpappy said:
I think the $1K a month thing is really a ploy for media attention and it seems to be working as his numbers are up, but he does have a plan to pay for it with a VAT.
Not so much different than the erase college debt thing.
I know you don't trust me because I'm a Trump supporter, but I really think he's the only one middle class voters would go for. It's the same kind of formula that got Trump elected.
Click to expand...

Trump gave huge tax cuts for the rich. Since the poor and middle class are now paying of a bigger debt, what makes you think he is for the middle class?
 
Grandpappy said:
Is it socialism to give money to rich people? Of course the VAT would tax more on high ticket items, so some wouldn’t come close to breaking even, but think of the savings from shutting down the welfare system. If nothing else, it’s an original idea.
Click to expand...

Yes, actually, giving money to rich people is Socialism. Giving money to wealthy Corporations is called Corporate Socialism. Even under Communism the elites and wealthy had the same benefits as everybody else. Under modern counties with huge Social programs, the wealthy and elites have the benefits and the poor and middle class. It’s very funny you have to ask a question like this. Do you think a wealthy person paying a penny in taxes is Socialism?
 
SheWolf said:
Trump gave huge tax cuts for the rich. Since the poor and middle class are now paying of a bigger debt, what makes you think he is for the middle class?
Click to expand...

Since the poor
Click to expand...

How are the poor paying when they do NOT pay a Fed Income tax to begin with?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Having a VAT is not a radical idea and *gasp* applying the law equally (to everyone) may be against "identity politics" but is far from a radical concept.

BTW, how exactly would you determine which persons turning 18 lacked a (well paying?) job due to "NAFTA and free trade and automation" as opposed to some other factor (like having a HS diploma yet poor English and math skills). It would certainly be viewed as a radical concept if we made current "safety net" benefits payable only to those being able to prove that their employment was affected by "NAFTA and free trade and automation".
Click to expand...

It’s a huge Social program.
 
Luther said:
How are the poor paying when they do NOT pay a Fed Income tax to begin with?
Click to expand...

Working poor people pay taxes. If they have no kids to claim on their taxes, they definitely have taxable income
 
SheWolf said:
Working poor people pay taxes. If they have no kids to claim on their taxes, they definitely have taxable income
Click to expand...

Working poor people pay taxes.
Click to expand...

I said "specifically" the Fed Income tax
If they have no kids to claim on their taxes, they definitely have taxable income
Click to expand...

Depending on what they make could get it all back
 
Luther said:
I said "specifically" the Fed Income tax


Depending on what they make could get it all back
Click to expand...

I am talking about federal income taxes. The standard deduction is currently 12,200. A working poor person easily makes more than that year, which means they will be taxed. That means they pay federal taxes.
 
SheWolf said:
I am talking about federal income taxes. The standard deduction is currently 12,200. A working poor person easily makes more than that year, which means they will be taxed. That means they pay federal taxes.
Click to expand...

A working poor person easily makes more than that year, which means they will be taxed. That means they pay federal taxes.
Click to expand...

Have you ever heard of this?

Claiming EITC Without a Qualifying Child | Internal Revenue Service

The Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit: History, Purpose, Goals, and Effectiveness | Economic Policy Institute
 
Last edited:
SheWolf said:
It’s a huge Social program.
Click to expand...

OK, but "huge" social program spending is already the bulk of the federal "budget" and Yang at least defines a viable funding source for his UBI proposal.
 
BrotherFease said:
As far as I can see, I like Andrew Yang. He looks like a good human being, honest and straightforward. I do endorse his idea of getting rid of the penny. I have been saying this forever. His "Freedom dividend" is utterly problematic. For starters, we're going to pay for the dividend through a VAT tax AND through taxing big tech. That's right, "your money" will be given to you in exchange for a higher sales tax on everything you buy. Chris Wallace of Fox News pointed out that economists have tested out his plan and discovered it will only be 500 dollars per month, not 1000 dollars. In other words, the taxes he proposed to pay for it, will be not make it to 12k per year/1k per month. Still 6k per year is not too bad either.

But the biggest problem here is this: A freedom dividend and automation do not go hand-in-hand. If the worry is that everything will go automated, then the solution is not to give out free money in exchange for a high sales tax. It would be create more engineers, more jobs around monitoring robots and computers.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think so as well. The problem is the continuing trend of technology reducing the amount of labor needed; not just in manual labor roles, but administrative ones as well. We're always going to need people to manage technology, but the amount of people required will likely not be anywhere near the amount displaced by these changes.
 
ElChupacabra said:
Yeah, I think so as well. The problem is the continuing trend of technology reducing the amount of labor needed; not just in manual labor roles, but administrative ones as well. We're always going to need people to manage technology, but the amount of people required will likely not be anywhere near the amount displaced by these changes.
Click to expand...

If the argument here is: We're going to have massive unemployment, then promising 12k per year with massive sales tax is not how to approach the problem.
 
BrotherFease said:
If the argument here is: We're going to have massive unemployment, then promising 12k per year with massive sales tax is not how to approach the problem.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think that's the answer either. Honestly, I'm not sure what the solution to this is. Preparing people to be better suited to a role in a technological world is a good start, but education itself is problematic for many due to its high cost; especially for laborers.
 
BrotherFease said:
If the argument here is: We're going to have massive unemployment, then promising 12k per year with massive sales tax is not how to approach the problem.
Click to expand...

Hmm... how is having an income/payroll tax going work with that "massive unemployment"?
 
BrotherFease said:
I have no idea. I just don't see how passing out "free money" is going to solve the inevitable automation problem.
Click to expand...

A consumer economy depends on having consumers. Having an army of robots cranking out widgets is useless if nobody can afford to buy those widgets.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
OK, but "huge" social program spending is already the bulk of the federal "budget" and Yang at least defines a viable funding source for his UBI proposal.
Click to expand...

I think it’s funny to see so many people who usually trash socialism as supporting this idea. Almost every Democrat attempts how they will fund their programs, and it’s usually through taxes, just like Yang is doing in this situation. Look at how he is proposing how to fund his plan. How is it any different from propels like a billionaire tax to pay for Obamacare? Everybody benefits from the end.

This is just funny to me.
 
SheWolf said:
Yes, I have heard of that. You haven’t proved the working poor never pay taxes. The EITC with no child, has limitations. A person could make around 25,000 a year and not qualify for that credit
Click to expand...
A person could make around 25,000 a year and not qualify for that credit
Click to expand...

Have you notice like I have you keep raising the income?(LOL)

Now it's 25,000

We started at what 12,000(LOL)?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
A consumer economy depends on having consumers. Having an army of robots cranking out widgets is useless if nobody can afford to buy those widgets.
Click to expand...

You think an individual can live comfortably on 12k per year, and having all their goods and services charged a VAT tax, is the solution to automation? I think not.

I like UBI programs, when they are done through the Alaskan method: Government provides all its citizens between 18 and 64 a dividend off of a technological advancement.
 
SheWolf said:
I think it’s funny to see so many people who usually trash socialism as supporting this idea. Almost every Democrat attempts how they will fund their programs, and it’s usually through taxes, just like Yang is doing in this situation. Look at how he is proposing how to fund his plan. How is it any different from propels like a billionaire tax to pay for Obamacare? Everybody benefits from the end.

This is just funny to me.
Click to expand...

It makes more sense to me to give everyone a bit more spending money (taken from total consumer spending) than to continue to reward only economic/social failure. The VAT idea makes much more sense than the complex mess which has been made of the simple concept of taxing income from all sources.

I do not understand why Yang has decided to exclude those over age 64 from the pool of consumers who could benefit from having added spending money.
 
Luther said:
Have you notice like I have you keep raising the income?(LOL)

Now it's 25,000

We started at what 12,000(LOL)?
Click to expand...

Not every tax payer qualifies for EITC. The standard deduction is 12,200, meaning if you qualify for it, 12,200 is deducted from taxable income. I understand the tax code very well. I have worked in public tax accounting, and I personally prepared taxes for many working poor people.

I understand you’re trying to be clever, but your argument appears to be that poor people don’t pay federal taxes in America. You’re clearly wrong. I know what I am talking about, and you’re clearlytrolling more than you’re debating
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom