Didn’t say that, just saying that it’s a tired argument that the average struggling American is over taxed. That’s an argument used by the wealthy to cut their taxes.
But they’re eligible for tax credits that end up reimbursing or paying them more than what the total liability was anyways. Not to mention the benefits they’re eligible for being under poverty levels.
Look, I’m not sure of anything about you, but I grew up poor. I’ve worked in banking for 7 years. When people of poverty come in to money, the vast majority don’t save it for essentials, they go out and spend it on luxuries.
You could drop 10k in their accounts every year, it’s going to be spent on tvs, cars, clothes, iPhones, whatever.
The real solution is lowering the cost of essentials.
You say they spend it on TVs, cars, clothes, iPhones, whatever, like it’s a bad thing. A good tv is only a few hundred so 3% of your 10,000. If someone is trying to improve their employment they will need new clothes, reliable transportation, and reliable communication. 10,000 for a car is not a good car, but enough to get to work on time. I agree that
lowering the cost of essentials is good, but incredibly hard in a free market. It’s easier to raise wages through legislation
Oh, or you’re one of those people who think they know what other people should consider “essential”, and think anything that isn’t good voting and shelter is a luxury with no value to a human? I guess in that situation the UBI results wouldn’t impact your opinion.
Exactly. Only the rich should get a say in the use of federal funds.
Didn’t say that, just saying that it’s a tired argument that the average struggling American is over taxed. That’s an argument used by the wealthy to cut their taxes.
The average struggling American IS over taxed. Because the average wage is under poverty.
You’re using “taxed” in a different sense here. Clever, but not helpful
Tax = monetary exchange between government and an entity. They can be negative. The money doesn’t flow just one way. Just ask amazon.
But they’re eligible for tax credits that end up reimbursing or paying them more than what the total liability was anyways. Not to mention the benefits they’re eligible for being under poverty levels.
Should be more, is my point, until it covers the cost of surviving.
Look, I’m not sure of anything about you, but I grew up poor. I’ve worked in banking for 7 years. When people of poverty come in to money, the vast majority don’t save it for essentials, they go out and spend it on luxuries.
You could drop 10k in their accounts every year, it’s going to be spent on tvs, cars, clothes, iPhones, whatever.
The real solution is lowering the cost of essentials.
Literally every test of UBI has results that go counter to your anecdote.
You say they spend it on TVs, cars, clothes, iPhones, whatever, like it’s a bad thing. A good tv is only a few hundred so 3% of your 10,000. If someone is trying to improve their employment they will need new clothes, reliable transportation, and reliable communication. 10,000 for a car is not a good car, but enough to get to work on time. I agree that lowering the cost of essentials is good, but incredibly hard in a free market. It’s easier to raise wages through legislation
Oh, or you’re one of those people who think they know what other people should consider “essential”, and think anything that isn’t good voting and shelter is a luxury with no value to a human? I guess in that situation the UBI results wouldn’t impact your opinion.
Amen.
Sarcasm?
Sarcasm?? Not on my Internet!