And your second article is all about adding $trillions in new taxes. Why would we need to add $trillions in taxes for a plan that doesn't require $trillions in new spending?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
And your second article is all about adding $trillions in new taxes. Why would we need to add $trillions in taxes for a plan that doesn't require $trillions in new spending?
The funding avenues determine the net distributive outcome. Adding trillions in new taxes wouldn't matter in the least if they were matched with refunds of equivalent size. Of course, that would be pointless. What isn't pointless is reforming the tax code in a way that simplifies it, and lowers the effective tax burdens of 8 out of 10 households and increases the tax burden of 2 out of 10 households, which are currently the only ones benefiting in the American economy.
The overwhelming majority of the US has not seen their incomes increase since the 1970s, despite increasing productivity the entire time. This is because technology is only benefiting the top, at the cost of pushing down on everyone else. That's unsustainable, and a very bad idea.
If your taxes go up $4,000 to pay for basic income, and you receive $12,000 of basic income in return, you are $8,000 better off. You can also look at that as paying $8,000 less in taxes. It's a giant tax cut.
as history shows, tax and spend does not work... sorry, I regard UBI as another keneysian miracle that cannot become true.
Taxation is utterly coercive because it make people pay for things they do not want, such as war. And with world govs pouring billions into AI weaponry, it clearly tell us that taxation is lethal.