Fauxcahontas on the War Path

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Sep 29, 2011
727
136
593
60
Breckenridge, CO
#81
You didn’t answer my question you deflected. Why don’t you directly answer it (below) in your own words? You claim it’s more than a giveaway. You claim it will in and of itself stimulate the economy to everyone’s benefit. I think you’re just a chicken that thinks the government is the answer to everyone’s problems.

If giving away $1000 per month stimulates the economy such that everyone (including the individuals taxed to pay for the giveaway) sees a net benefit, why not give away more than $1000 per month (like $10,000 per month) so everyone benefits more?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You think I am a "chicken" that thinks that the government is the answer to everyone's problems and I think you are selfish and got lucky with daddy's money who thinks that a bigger economic pie somehow means his already large piece is smaller.

Your question is the intellectual equivalent of when a conservative says that tax cuts can increase tax revenue and a liberal says "Oh, then make the tax rate zero and the revenue will be maximum." Your lack of understanding of how money works with inflation does not make my point wrong. It isn't clever, it is sophomoric.
You’re a chicken because you won’t/can’t directly answer my question.

The last and only thing I received from my dad after moving out of his house was a $500 wedding gift 38 years ago yesterday.

Understand money. Yeah, just a little. I spent a career, much as a senior executive, in corporate finance and M&A for a company that is the largest of its kind in North America, and counts as customers directly or indirectly, every single person in The US and Canada. So yeah, I understand money, economics, taxes, etc., etc. and in a practical way, not out of a textbook, or internet searches, or listening to a bunch of mostly idiots in Washington more interested in getting elected than implementing social economic policies that would solve problems instead of perpetuate them.

And no, I don’t advocate for zero taxes, but yes, there is a point where fewer taxes result in more revenue, just like on the other hand 100% taxes would ultimately result in zero revenue.

Now, get focused, stop the attacks and deflection, and answer my question. If giving away $1000 per month stimulates the economy such that everyone (including the individuals taxed to pay for the giveaway) sees a net benefit, why not give away more than $1000 per month (like $10,000 per month) so everyone benefits more?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Sep 29, 2011
727
136
593
60
Breckenridge, CO
#82
You didn’t answer my question you deflected. Why don’t you directly answer it (below) in your own words? You claim it’s more than a giveaway. You claim it will in and of itself stimulate the economy to everyone’s benefit. I think you’re just a chicken that thinks the government is the answer to everyone’s problems.

If giving away $1000 per month stimulates the economy such that everyone (including the individuals taxed to pay for the giveaway) sees a net benefit, why not give away more than $1000 per month (like $10,000 per month) so everyone benefits more?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not picking a side here but that is simple to answer as not all things are linear, meaning that just because something is good in a small amount more of it does not always make it better. Caffeine in smaller amounts wakes you up and helps many start the day but moving up to a tablespoon will kill you.
I would agree. But UBI is being sold as a program with net economic benefits to everyone, rich and poor. Unlike your analogy, if some of a program is economically beneficial, why not more?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Aug 16, 2012
1,843
1,001
743
56
#83
You’re a chicken because you won’t/can’t directly answer my question.

The last and only thing I received from my dad after moving out of his house was a $500 wedding gift 38 years ago yesterday.

Understand money. Yeah, just a little. I spent a career, much as a senior executive, in corporate finance and M&A for a company that is the largest of its kind in North America, and counts as customers directly or indirectly, every single person in The US and Canada. So yeah, I understand money, economics, taxes, etc., etc. and in a practical way, not out of a textbook, or internet searches, or listening to a bunch of mostly idiots in Washington more interested in getting elected than implementing social economic policies that would solve problems instead of perpetuate them.

And no, I don’t advocate for zero taxes, but yes, there is a point where fewer taxes result in more revenue, just like on the other hand 100% taxes would ultimately result in zero revenue.

Now, get focused, stop the attacks and deflection, and answer my question. If giving away $1000 per month stimulates the economy such that everyone (including the individuals taxed to pay for the giveaway) sees a net benefit, why not give away more than $1000 per month (like $10,000 per month) so everyone benefits more?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Happy anniversary
 
Sep 29, 2011
727
136
593
60
Breckenridge, CO
#84
You’re a chicken because you won’t/can’t directly answer my question.

The last and only thing I received from my dad after moving out of his house was a $500 wedding gift 38 years ago yesterday.

Understand money. Yeah, just a little. I spent a career, much as a senior executive, in corporate finance and M&A for a company that is the largest of its kind in North America, and counts as customers directly or indirectly, every single person in The US and Canada. So yeah, I understand money, economics, taxes, etc., etc. and in a practical way, not out of a textbook, or internet searches, or listening to a bunch of mostly idiots in Washington more interested in getting elected than implementing social economic policies that would solve problems instead of perpetuate them.

And no, I don’t advocate for zero taxes, but yes, there is a point where fewer taxes result in more revenue, just like on the other hand 100% taxes would ultimately result in zero revenue.

Now, get focused, stop the attacks and deflection, and answer my question. If giving away $1000 per month stimulates the economy such that everyone (including the individuals taxed to pay for the giveaway) sees a net benefit, why not give away more than $1000 per month (like $10,000 per month) so everyone benefits more?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Happy anniversary
Thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
27,396
32,370
1,743
oklahoma city
#85
You’re a chicken because you won’t/can’t directly answer my question.

The last and only thing I received from my dad after moving out of his house was a $500 wedding gift 38 years ago yesterday.

Understand money. Yeah, just a little. I spent a career, much as a senior executive, in corporate finance and M&A for a company that is the largest of its kind in North America, and counts as customers directly or indirectly, every single person in The US and Canada. So yeah, I understand money, economics, taxes, etc., etc. and in a practical way, not out of a textbook, or internet searches, or listening to a bunch of mostly idiots in Washington more interested in getting elected than implementing social economic policies that would solve problems instead of perpetuate them.

And no, I don’t advocate for zero taxes, but yes, there is a point where fewer taxes result in more revenue, just like on the other hand 100% taxes would ultimately result in zero revenue.

Now, get focused, stop the attacks and deflection, and answer my question. If giving away $1000 per month stimulates the economy such that everyone (including the individuals taxed to pay for the giveaway) sees a net benefit, why not give away more than $1000 per month (like $10,000 per month) so everyone benefits more?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So, you can understand that lower taxes can increase tax revenue but the lowest possible taxes will not. So you get the concept that more is not always better. Yet, you continue to ask this WTF stupid question. Ok, sure.
It isn't a deflection. I'm trying to get across to you how economically idiotic your question is. I'm obviously failing at that.
 
Last edited:

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
27,396
32,370
1,743
oklahoma city
#86
The numbers you gave add up to $1020 and those are not the only government assistance programs that exist. What about Snap, Pell Grants, Tax credits, Section 8 housing, school lunch program, energy assistance, etc., etc., etc.

If you want to talk about getting rid of a major portion of the welfare state, not just two or three programs, but most (or all) of it, then maybe we can look at the numbers and figure out how it's going to be paid for. But putting this in place, right alongside all or most of an already completely broken welfare system still in place and no specifics about how to pay for it...it's just not acceptable. I'm sorry, we're never going to agree on this.

I did tell you I would add my thought on reform though. I'm not sure either party is interested in doing anything but just a few things I'd like to try. We need to incentivize working...making either employment, continuing education, or public service mandatory to receive benefits. And people who do work do not automatically lose their benefits, that's just stupid, make some sliding scale so that they make more with partial benefits and salary than they would on just benefits alone. Benefits should also be bare necessities.....they should be something that people don't want to live on forever......beans and rice make a perfectly nutritious meal. We also need to get private charities more involved, instead of giving tax credits to people who don't work, give tax cuts to people who donate to charities. I'm sure if we had a list of all available government assistance programs, we could do down that list and come up with literally dozens of ideas to try that does not involve simply giving more money to more people.
And some of that is very much in line with what he is proposing but from a non-punitive perspective. Requiring public service for benefits(presuming cannot afford higher education and the economy is not giving job opportunities) is not a lot different than rewarding activities that enrich society through human-centered capitalism.

Tax cuts are already given to people that donate. That has not even been close to enough.

How does your system deal with the concept of automation taking over the jobs like is starting to occur? Do you really want to send a 55 year old truck driver to school to become a software guy or whatever knowing that when he was young and vigorous he did not have the aptitude for that then so no way it is going to happen now? Have you seen the success rates of such programs, literally in the single digits.
 
Sep 29, 2011
727
136
593
60
Breckenridge, CO
#87
You’re a chicken because you won’t/can’t directly answer my question.

The last and only thing I received from my dad after moving out of his house was a $500 wedding gift 38 years ago yesterday.

Understand money. Yeah, just a little. I spent a career, much as a senior executive, in corporate finance and M&A for a company that is the largest of its kind in North America, and counts as customers directly or indirectly, every single person in The US and Canada. So yeah, I understand money, economics, taxes, etc., etc. and in a practical way, not out of a textbook, or internet searches, or listening to a bunch of mostly idiots in Washington more interested in getting elected than implementing social economic policies that would solve problems instead of perpetuate them.

And no, I don’t advocate for zero taxes, but yes, there is a point where fewer taxes result in more revenue, just like on the other hand 100% taxes would ultimately result in zero revenue.

Now, get focused, stop the attacks and deflection, and answer my question. If giving away $1000 per month stimulates the economy such that everyone (including the individuals taxed to pay for the giveaway) sees a net benefit, why not give away more than $1000 per month (like $10,000 per month) so everyone benefits more?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So, you can understand that lower taxes can increase tax revenue but the lowest possible taxes will not. So you get the concept that more is not always better. Yet, you continue to ask this WTF stupid question. Ok, sure.
It isn't a deflection. I'm trying to get across to you how economically idiotic your question is. I'm obviously failing at that.
You won’t answer because I think you know you’d be walking face first into an embarrassing trap. Good luck with your economic absurdity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

OSU79

Federal Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Oct 22, 2009
11,137
10,766
1,743
Back home in God's (Green) Country
#88
Do you really want to send a 55 year old truck driver to school to become a software guy or whatever knowing that when he was young and vigorous he did not have the aptitude for that then so no way it is going to happen now? Have you seen the success rates of such programs, literally in the single digits.
Ironically, still a greater chance of success than most of the proposals I heard thrown out in the last debate!
 

wrenhal

Territorial Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
8,490
3,880
743
49
#89
You’re a chicken because you won’t/can’t directly answer my question.

The last and only thing I received from my dad after moving out of his house was a $500 wedding gift 38 years ago yesterday.

Understand money. Yeah, just a little. I spent a career, much as a senior executive, in corporate finance and M&A for a company that is the largest of its kind in North America, and counts as customers directly or indirectly, every single person in The US and Canada. So yeah, I understand money, economics, taxes, etc., etc. and in a practical way, not out of a textbook, or internet searches, or listening to a bunch of mostly idiots in Washington more interested in getting elected than implementing social economic policies that would solve problems instead of perpetuate them.

And no, I don’t advocate for zero taxes, but yes, there is a point where fewer taxes result in more revenue, just like on the other hand 100% taxes would ultimately result in zero revenue.

Now, get focused, stop the attacks and deflection, and answer my question. If giving away $1000 per month stimulates the economy such that everyone (including the individuals taxed to pay for the giveaway) sees a net benefit, why not give away more than $1000 per month (like $10,000 per month) so everyone benefits more?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So, you can understand that lower taxes can increase tax revenue but the lowest possible taxes will not. So you get the concept that more is not always better. Yet, you continue to ask this WTF stupid question. Ok, sure.
It isn't a deflection. I'm trying to get across to you how economically idiotic your question is. I'm obviously failing at that.
Then explain to him why you think 1,000 is the sweet point. Why is 5,000 not the sweet point or 500? Because if that's what you're trying to get across to him you're not really saying it correctly.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
27,396
32,370
1,743
oklahoma city
#90
Then explain to him why you think 1,000 is the sweet point. Why is 5,000 not the sweet point or 500? Because if that's what you're trying to get across to him you're not really saying it correctly.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
$1000 is an amount that covers but does not hugely increase most means-tested welfare so that makes that transition smooth so that people getting assistance now can start using that to better themselves instead of the welfare trap. It is an amount that can be fit within the $20 trillion dollar economy we have without causing disruption. And, it can be budgeted. And, it could be done without requiring a change in money supply.

Very much like tax rates, nobody knows the exact "sweet point." And, let's be real, the $1000 amount is an amount a candidate is running on in his plan. Will that exact amount come to fruition? Doubtful given history. Pres Trump has tried hard to keep his promises but the exact tax plan that congress put into law was not what he was running on. I'm not so much interested in is it $500 or $1000 or $1250 as the concept of ending the welfare trap and the decline of the lower end of our economy.

When people start making stupid tax claims like zero percent or 100% to make a point then they are ignored by people actually discussing tax policy. Even AOCs 70% was laughed at. What he is saying is simply worthy of ridicule just like her. I admit that I have done a very poor job ignoring him like I should have.
 
Sep 29, 2011
727
136
593
60
Breckenridge, CO
#92
Then explain to him why you think 1,000 is the sweet point. Why is 5,000 not the sweet point or 500? Because if that's what you're trying to get across to him you're not really saying it correctly.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
First, I'm not convinced any amount of a giveaway would result in a benefit to every taxpayer. In fact, I think that claim is total vote sucking BS. But if that is what someone believes, certainly they explain why more is not better, or why more is not better. Just "believing" some vote-hungry politician is exactly what they hope for.

Oh, and comparing UBI benefits to tax reduction benefits is ridiculous. Each is based on totally separate rationale and theory. And the knucklehead poster pushing this scam cant economically defend his position.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
27,396
32,370
1,743
oklahoma city
#93
First, I'm not convinced any amount of a giveaway would result in a benefit to every taxpayer.
Nobody is convinced of that. In fact, there isn't a government policy ever created that net benefits every single taxpayer. Ctaggie, who used to post here and was economically brilliant, often said that all tax policy creates winners and losers. The goal is the most benefit. Do you think when Trump's tax plan called doctors, lawyers, brokers etc "personal service business" not eligible for the 20% business deduction but real estate agents were included that was for everyone? Winners and losers, based on tax laws.

Sure, there are fund managers that make millions that depending on what they invest in are going to pay more in VAT than they get from $12K plus investment gains. Someone like Jeff Bezos, who knows, as his business could increase or decrease with the VAT/UBI.

But, any claim that it helps every single taxpayer is a strawman or a misunderstanding. Nothing does that. Nothing.
 

wrenhal

Territorial Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
8,490
3,880
743
49
#94
Then explain to him why you think 1,000 is the sweet point. Why is 5,000 not the sweet point or 500? Because if that's what you're trying to get across to him you're not really saying it correctly.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
$1000 is an amount that covers but does not hugely increase most means-tested welfare so that makes that transition smooth so that people getting assistance now can start using that to better themselves instead of the welfare trap. It is an amount that can be fit within the $20 trillion dollar economy we have without causing disruption. And, it can be budgeted. And, it could be done without requiring a change in money supply.

Very much like tax rates, nobody knows the exact "sweet point." And, let's be real, the $1000 amount is an amount a candidate is running on in his plan. Will that exact amount come to fruition? Doubtful given history. Pres Trump has tried hard to keep his promises but the exact tax plan that congress put into law was not what he was running on. I'm not so much interested in is it $500 or $1000 or $1250 as the concept of ending the welfare trap and the decline of the lower end of our economy.

When people start making stupid tax claims like zero percent or 100% to make a point then they are ignored by people actually discussing tax policy. Even AOCs 70% was laughed at. What he is saying is simply worthy of ridicule just like her. I admit that I have done a very poor job ignoring him like I should have.
But how does replacing $1,000 worth of welfare with $1,000 of the Ubi help the poor get anywhere.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
27,396
32,370
1,743
oklahoma city
#95
But how does replacing $1,000 worth of welfare with $1,000 of the Ubi help the poor get anywhere.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
Because if you are given means-tested welfare, you have to prove that you are poor to get it. Meaning, you can't have a savings account with any money in it. If they give you food stamps, you have to buy food. If they give you home heating oil reimbursement, you have to get home heating oil. Essentially the government is controlling your life and telling you exactly what to do with the little bit that you get and if you get any more, they take it away. Which, of course, is an incentive not to get any more.

A UBI, on the other hand, can be spent in any way the person needs. And contrary to belief, the majority of poor people do not want to be poor. So, in the UBI studies that have been done, people take the money and do things with it such as paying overdue bills, going to school, starting a small business or whatever. Instead of food stamps that give you $350 for food, if you can figure out a way to eat less, with the UBI you can buy a cheap car. The bottom line of the comparison is the individual does a better job allocating the resource than a government bureaucracy. Unlike means-tested welfare, it does not trap them in poverty. And, everyone that say's "No, they will just be lazy/waste the money/not work/ skip school" etc have not read the studies that show it isn't the case. so, while @Rack likes to write huge posts about what he thinks will happen, it is not what has been shown.
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
20,014
9,011
1,743
Earth
#96
Millions and millions of Americans think this government run program might be a bad idea based not only on opinion but also facts and data gathered over history, means tested programs or not (i.e. Social Security is in trouble and one day may fail). All one has to do is google why UBI is a bad idea and one can read hundreds of articles and see tons of YouTube videos and movies similar to the UBI positive one posted. They also stand firmly on the other side of this argument. They also claim facts and data are on their side..So, the bottom line here comes down to worldview and how we view human nature and who we choose to believe. Not really the agenda biased "facts and data" from both sides because each side does that in nearly every argument including this one. My personal main beef with this is that the Government has messed up every social program that they have ever tried and they have drained the middle class in taxes to do so, why would we trust them with this one? I'd love to see people put their OWN money where their mouth is to help our fellow man rather than ask the government to do it for them by taking it from every tax payer and redistribute it...especially the tech giants involved heavily in the industry that they themselves claim is going to cause the problem requiring government action...that's where my issue is with government programs and why we all need to be more generous personally and corporately.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
27,396
32,370
1,743
oklahoma city
#98
Millions and millions of Americans think this government run program might be a bad idea based not only on opinion but also facts and data gathered over history, means tested programs or not (i.e. Social Security is in trouble and one day may fail). All one has to do is google why UBI is a bad idea and one can read hundreds of articles and see tons of YouTube videos and movies similar to the UBI positive one posted. They also stand firmly on the other side of this argument. They also claim facts and data are on their side..So, the bottom line here comes down to worldview and how we view human nature and who we choose to believe. Not really the agenda biased "facts and data" from both sides because each side does that in nearly every argument including this one. My personal main beef with this is that the Government has messed up every social program that they have ever tried and they have drained the middle class in taxes to do so, why would we trust them with this one? I'd love to see people put their OWN money where their mouth is to help our fellow man rather than ask the government to do it for them by taking it from every tax payer and redistribute it...especially the tech giants involved heavily in the industry that they themselves claim is going to cause the problem requiring government action...that's where my issue is with government programs and why we all need to be more generous personally and corporately.
1. Every article I read about why it is a bad idea is opinion or misrepresentation of studies. So, of course, on the internet you can find people for and against everything. There are people who are convinced that the moon landing was faked. But, their "data" does not hold up.
2. The US middle class is now felt to be between $40K and $122K or so. That would be currently a tax bracket of 12% or 22%. IF a single person had the max middle-class income and took no deductions other than standard the effective tax rate would be around $18K. So, the government would have to raise taxes on the middle class 66% to make this not a net gain for even the highest of them.
The method of taxation proposed as the primary mechanism VAT is intended to hit the "tech giants" that pay little to no tax. It is not paid for with personal income tax increases. Do you think after years of not doing it tech companies are going to just start giving on their own good will? Maybe we could just ask politely that central Americans will just stop coming across the border, too. How many decades of requesting generosity of those that are making the gains because of the changed economy are going to be enough before you accept that it didn't work?
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
20,014
9,011
1,743
Earth
1. Every article I read about why it is a bad idea is opinion or misrepresentation of studies. So, of course, on the internet you can find people for and against everything. There are people who are convinced that the moon landing was faked. But, their "data" does not hold up.
2. The US middle class is now felt to be between $40K and $122K or so. That would be currently a tax bracket of 12% or 22%. IF a single person had the max middle-class income and took no deductions other than standard the effective tax rate would be around $18K. So, the government would have to raise taxes on the middle class 66% to make this not a net gain for even the highest of them.
The method of taxation proposed as the primary mechanism VAT is intended to hit the "tech giants" that pay little to no tax. It is not paid for with personal income tax increases. Do you think after years of not doing it tech companies are going to just start giving on their own good will? Maybe we could just ask politely that central Americans will just stop coming across the border, too. How many decades of requesting generosity of those that are making the gains because of the changed economy are going to be enough before you accept that it didn't work?
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I just don't trust the government to do this in the way that you and I would accept and tolerate because they haven't proven themselves to be trustworthy. The way you see it might certainly be helpful if it were to work out that way. I just don't think they are able to keep their hands off our money and do it right.