2020 dem pres pick

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

People in the position to help do not have the luxury to save it. California in particular will suck it out of you in a heart beat. It will not change their lifestyle. All in the same post you hate the idea of cutting taxes (which is money earned from the private party and is NOT the governments money), yet want to turn around and give the same people $1000. Why don't you just let them keep it instead of creating even more government departments that would be responsible for handing out that money month after month. It would be a net drain.

I think you are misunderstanding the concept. The "thems" who would keep the money are not the thems who would receive it, at least under Yang's plan. As I understand it, It's a progressive tax on households who spend (not make) more than $250K per year. In that case, the 10% VAT is greater than the $12k x 2 UBI. (Pay $25K to get $24k). But for households spending (again spending, not making) $100K per year, you'd get $24K but pay 10K. Spend a million? Pay $100K to get $24K.

In the end this is a wealth redistribution scheme to spread the wealth around.

IMHO, the weak point in the idea is that the payments ($12K per person) continue even if the economy tanks, people spend less, and collections fall. And as bcd suggests, increasing the cost of most goods by 10% overnight (through the VAT) is probably going to slow the economy down.

From a policy perspective, I do really like the idea of taxing consumption through a VAT vs taxing earnings through income tax, because it doesn't penalize savers, it penalizes spenders. But I do wonder about feasibility given our dependence on no-money-down-same-as-cash-72-month-car-loan freewheeling easy spending to buoy the economy. If everyone starts behaving responsibly with their money, the economy will definitely contract.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

I think you are misunderstanding the concept. The "thems" who would keep the money are not the thems who would receive it, at least under Yang's plan. As I understand it, It's a progressive tax on households who spend (not make) more than $250K per year. In that case, the 10% VAT is greater than the $12k x 2 UBI. (Pay $25K to get $24k). But for households spending (again spending, not making) $100K per year, you'd get $24K but pay 10K. Spend a million? Pay $100K to get $24K.

In the end this is a wealth redistribution scheme to spread the wealth around.

IMHO, the weak point in the idea is that the payments ($12K per person) continue even if the economy tanks, people spend less, and collections fall. And as bcd suggests, increasing the cost of most goods by 10% overnight (through the VAT) is probably going to slow the economy down.

From a policy perspective, I do really like the idea of taxing consumption through a VAT vs taxing earnings through income tax, because it doesn't penalize savers, it penalizes spenders. But I do wonder about feasibility given our dependence on no-money-down-same-as-cash-72-month-car-loan freewheeling easy spending to buoy the economy. If everyone starts behaving responsibly with their money, the economy will definitely contract.

Sounds like a 10% tax on every house being brought. Only the ultra wealthy are spending that kind of money. Usually the ultra wealthy new money crowd who have to have the new million dollar car, however the vast majority of that 10% would be from the middle class who purchase homes.

The other irony is to eco what you just said, saving money will actually tank the economy.