Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[TheXFactor]

I find it absurd that a healthy percentage of people today support taking 70% of every dollar someone earns beyond $10 million. How is that possibly morally correct?

As I've asked before, where does it stop? Why is 70% the right number? If you're for something as crazy high as 70%, shouldn't you also be for a 90% tax rate, or perhaps even 99%?

There are good, generous, big-hearted rich people, and there are cold, greedy asshole rich guys who will exploit anyone or anything to make extra money.

There are way more cold, greedy rich assholes than good, generous, big-hearted rich people.

The US had a top rate that exceeded 90 percent through the 1950s and early 60s and a 70 percent top tax rate from 1971 through 1980. Then President Reagan got Congress to cut it to 50 percent starting in 1982.

[ErickAA]

On the flip side very wealthy people and corporations pay tax attorneys millions of dollars to find creative (mostly legal) ways to not have to pay taxes. Let that sink in. We live in a system where it is actually fiscally responsible to pay millions to hire people to find creative ways to dodge taxes, which obviously means the taxes being dodged total way more than the millions being payed. And this is somehow ok. Try to step out of the box for a second and think how absurd that is.

So why isn't the left looking to get control of that, rather than punishing all rich people and trying to redistribute wealth?

I don't think "the left" is trying to punish rich people and redistribute wealth. I think for the most part "the left" is part of the current system and ok with it. However, a small minority of the left have taken a page out of the Trump playbook and utilized social media to make themselves populist demagogues. Trump built his power base fear mongering against immigrants and AOC is building hers fear mongering against the rich. Whether AOC become so powerful the democratic party has to bend to her agenda the way Trump forced the Republican Party to bend to him remains to be seen.

When it comes to capitalism, morality or fairness doesn't have much to do with anything. It is simply a game where the capitalists take as much as the plebeians allow them too. And in some times that is more than others. The pendulum goes back and forth. We are currently in a period where the capitalists have done pretty well for themselves, but the pendulum may be swinging the other way. The trick is to not get too greedy or take too much, cause then the plebeians revolt and you lose the game.

As far as what amount is fair at any given point, there is no magic number. It depends on the totality of socioeconomic factors of the day. In some times maybe the rich could get away with having a top tax bracket of 40% and in other times they are forced to give 80%.

I will say that Eric Weinstein makes a very compelling argument that one of our main problems, that may in fact turn out to be a fatal flaw, is that all of our economic, political and social systems were designed during post WWII, when the country had unprecedented growth and prosperity. And that period of growth is over and isn't coming back, and we are still trying to make things work like it is, and as a result our whole economy is a House of Cards that may not survive the next big crisis.

[MrTickle]

That would be 227.5 billion per month, or 2.73 trilion per year -- enough money to build 136 Trump walls even if we take the highest estimate figure for that to be done.

Welfare in 2013 in the USA totalled AT LEAST 2.3 trillion. It's way more now too.

With UBI you get completely rid of welfare. That is 2.3 tril back in the coffers, plus all the expenses of means-testing people and all the paperwork. You have your 2.7 billion easy from that, plus extra.

You might add extra benefits on top of that (say for disabilties) but that would be a tiny amount.

Boom, there's your money.

It's not that difficult of a concept. I know you're not stupid so you must be being wilfully ignorant.

[TheXFactor]

[JACKDANIELS]

Old Man Todger hates poor people even more than he hates women lol

Someone receiving UBI shouldn't be able to afford to go out to restaurants!

[JACKDANIELS]

as for ubi i think its inevitable this will happen eventually but prob not for another 10-20 years once the robots take everyones jobs

[Dan Druff]

That would be 227.5 billion per month, or 2.73 trilion per year -- enough money to build 136 Trump walls even if we take the highest estimate figure for that to be done.

Welfare in 2013 in the USA totalled AT LEAST 2.3 trillion. It's way more now too.

With UBI you get completely rid of welfare. That is 2.3 tril back in the coffers, plus all the expenses of means-testing people and all the paperwork. You have your 2.7 billion easy from that, plus extra.

You might add extra benefits on top of that (say for disabilties) but that would be a tiny amount.

Boom, there's your money.

It's not that difficult of a concept. I know you're not stupid so you must be being wilfully ignorant.

I see.

So even though most of the money will go to non-needy people, and even though it's less spent overall on helping the needy, somehow existing welfare recipients will be better off.

Got it.

Makes a ton of sense.

[handicapme]

That would be 227.5 billion per month, or 2.73 trilion per year -- enough money to build 136 Trump walls even if we take the highest estimate figure for that to be done.

Welfare in 2013 in the USA totalled AT LEAST 2.3 trillion. It's way more now too.

With UBI you get completely rid of welfare. That is 2.3 tril back in the coffers, plus all the expenses of means-testing people and all the paperwork. You have your 2.7 billion easy from that, plus extra.

You might add extra benefits on top of that (say for disabilties) but that would be a tiny amount.

Boom, there's your money.

It's not that difficult of a concept. I know you're not stupid so you must be being wilfully ignorant.

You literally are so fucking retarded it is painful. This is on PAR with your Spanish queen saying "uhhh duh, you just pay for it" like if money grows on trees and shit.

[MrTickle]

Glad you all passed economics class over there in the grand old USA

[GrenadaRoger]

There are good, generous, big-hearted rich people, and there are cold, greedy asshole rich guys who will exploit anyone or anything to make extra money.

There are way more cold, greedy rich assholes than good, generous, big-hearted rich people.

The US had a top rate that exceeded 90 percent through the 1950s and early 60s and a 70 percent top tax rate from 1971 through 1980. Then President Reagan got Congress to cut it to 50 percent starting in 1982.

this chart is only one part of the story--there is nothing in the chart about allowable deductions, of which there were far more when rates were in the 90% range -- remember the three martini 100% tax deductible lunch? it was around in the 1950-1970's as well as a number of other "business related" deductions, no limits on "passive activity" losses, nor at risk non-recourse limitations on partnership investments. Really, the effective tax rate for the rich is a way more flat if you measure tax paid as a percentage of gross income

the idea with lowering tax rates is that at the same time deductions are eliminated, making the tax code simpler and easier for the government to enforce while keeping the tax paid/gross income ratio constant--the change is beneficial to the country as a whole....you see, CPA's and Tax Attorney's make out good when the code has lots of deductions available, thus college students who would be doing society better service by becoming engineers or medical people go into tax because the field is made more lucrative by the tax code.

[Tellafriend]

as for ubi i think its inevitable this will happen eventually but prob not for another 10-20 years once the robots take everyones jobs

So inevitable.

[Mintjewlips]

All I want to know from Mr tickle is, how firm is Vladimirs hand shake??....asking for a friend....

[gimmick]

How to UBI.

X-(A+B+C)=$0

X=UBI

A=existing welfare programs it replaces

B=taxes that offset the UBI for individuals that don't need it

C=savings from streamlining welfare

At my own peril i will take a gamble that most readers understand what A means.

B means that at some income level and circumstances X-B=$0 with regard to that individuals personal finances. Now the reason why that individual still gets UBI is because if their income level or circumstances changes they are guaranteed some level of financial security and very often more importantly they don't have to waste time and resources in applying for welfare. Instead they can get their shit together.

In all likelihood the most functional form for B is a progressive scale. So it supports working part time or taking gig oriented jobs. Considering US is the most materialistic society since the beginning man it seems unlikely that people need too much encouragement. In the macro level there has never been any evidence that welfare hinders peoples desire to work. Even shitty jobs get filled and wages are stagnant. Yay. If you understand how markets are supposed to work this is very telling about the non existing flaws of welfare.

C should also be self-evident. But in short it just condenses multiple levels of government support from various sources (with their own application processes) into one constant thing. It can't cover all but it should do a lot to help reduce the workload and simplify things. The current government support programs are especially ill-equipped in dealing with constantly changing life circumstances. Basically they are pretty ok at dealing with 1950s levels of job security/stability and family status.

[limitles]

as for ubi i think its inevitable this will happen eventually but prob not for another 10-20 years once the robots take everyones jobs

Your sons/daughters are not malnourished and have learned how to point for more food
good on you

[MumblesBadly]

That would be 227.5 billion per month, or 2.73 trilion per year -- enough money to build 136 Trump walls even if we take the highest estimate figure for that to be done.

Welfare in 2013 in the USA totalled AT LEAST 2.3 trillion. It's way more now too.

With UBI you get completely rid of welfare. That is 2.3 tril back in the coffers, plus all the expenses of means-testing people and all the paperwork. You have your 2.7 billion easy from that, plus extra.

You might add extra benefits on top of that (say for disabilties) but that would be a tiny amount.

Boom, there's your money.

It's not that difficult of a concept. I know you're not stupid so you must be being wilfully ignorant.

Please provide sources to back up this figure. And you can’t include Social Security or Medicare because those aren’t welfare programs; they are self-funded insurance programs separate from the welfare programs funded by federal income taxes. SocSec is a retirement/disability insurance program and Medicare is health care insurance program.

[Dan Druff]

How to UBI.

X-(A+B+C)=$0

X=UBI

A=existing welfare programs it replaces

B=taxes that offset the UBI for individuals that don't need it

C=savings from streamlining welfare

At my own peril i will take a gamble that most readers understand what A means.

B means that at some income level and circumstances X-B=$0 with regard to that individuals personal finances. Now the reason why that individual still gets UBI is because if their income level or circumstances changes they are guaranteed some level of financial security and very often more importantly they don't have to waste time and resources in applying for welfare. Instead they can get their shit together.

In all likelihood the most functional form for B is a progressive scale. So it supports working part time or taking gig oriented jobs. Considering US is the most materialistic society since the beginning man it seems unlikely that people need too much encouragement. In the macro level there has never been any evidence that welfare hinders peoples desire to work. Even shitty jobs get filled and wages are stagnant. Yay. If you understand how markets are supposed to work this is very telling about the non existing flaws of welfare.

C should also be self-evident. But in short it just condenses multiple levels of government support from various sources (with their own application processes) into one constant thing. It can't cover all but it should do a lot to help reduce the workload and simplify things. The current government support programs are especially ill-equipped in dealing with constantly changing life circumstances. Basically they are pretty ok at dealing with 1950s levels of job security/stability and family status.

Okay, I'll take a shot at this.

First off, the cost of distributing money back to people is not zero. It is absurd to collect taxes from people in the middle and upper classes and then return a potion of it monthly, by design.

Let's say you owed me $3000. Then I said, "gimmick, send me $5400, and then for the next twelve months, I'll send you $200. This will protect you in case you go broke and really need the money." You would laugh at me if I proposed this (even if you 100% believed I'd pay you the $200 for twelve months), and rightfully so.

Yet the UBI is basically the same thing.

Or, simply put, you're telling certain people, "Pay us $1000 per month extra in taxes, and we wlll send you back $700 per month, and this is for your protection in case you lose your job or have some crisis." Come on.

And then of course, as I mentioned, there's a certain cost to processing these UBI payments, so the government should not be paying to process for this absurd money exchange for those paying more into UBI than getting out of it.

If there's going to be a UBI, first off, it should be restricted to those truly in need, or otherwise it's incredibly wasteful. That's point #1.

Point #2 comes from the fact that you're full of crap that welfare doesn't prevent work. It most certainly does, and it makes sense as to why. Even in that little UBI experiment in Finland, it was acknowledged that it didn't encourage work.

If I'm making $9,000 per month at my job, lose it, and then get $2,000 per month in unemployment benefits, I'm probably going to work hard to find a new job, for obvious reasons.

If I'm making $1200 per month at my job, lose it, and then get $800 in unemployment benefits, I would be a fool to get a job until such benefits expire.

Now, I understand that UBI is not unemployment insurance. However, it's the same basic concept. People are being given free money every month simply for existing. For some people -- especially those used to living with little money -- that is enough, or close to enough. Rather than seek full time employment, they will either scrape by on UBI or get a few gig-type day jobs per month to bring them up to what they need. It seems like your diatribe even acknowledges this will happen.

However, it seems you don't have a problem with this, as you state that minimum wage type positions tend to get filled anyway. So you ask, "If certain poor people get UBI and supplement it with a few gig day jobs, and the necessary minimum wage positions will get filled anyway, what's the problem?"

First off, I dispute that the large number of minimum wage positions would be filled if everyone in the country got UBI. That might be a problem in itself, greatly harming businesses which count on such labor.

But let's even assume that the jobs do get filled.

There's a matter of fairness.

What you're advocating here is wealth redistribution not to help those in dire need, but rather to give an able-bodied segment of the population the ability to support themselves without working or barely working, all thanks to said wealth redistribution.

So when my taxes go up to pay for this, I can't say to myself, "Well, at least I know this is helping feed Joe Poorperson who is mentally/physically unable to work to feed himself". Instead, I would be saying to myself, "While I'm hard at work, some of my tax dollars are allowing able-bodied Mike Poorperson to sit at home and watch daytime TV, and not get a job."

That's simply not fair.

Government assistance should always be need-based, not desire-based. If you simply don't want to work, you shouldn't be entitled to my tax dollars.

If my tax dollars make it easy (by design) for certain people to sit home and suck at the government teet instead of working, that's a huge problem, and a criminal waste of tax dollars.


Point #3 is that wealth redistribution is simply wrong. It's theft. The entire concept of taxation is to keep a functioning government and to provide a means of support to those unable to take care of themselves. Taxation is NOT intended to directly take money from rich people and directly hand it to poor people, simply because some people are rich and some are poor. That's basically the government playing Robin Hood.

We are so far apart philosophically on this issue that I'm sure we will never agree with one another. I am an American conservative and you are a Scandinavian leftist. We couldn't be more opposite politically (well, I guess it could be slightly more opposite if I were alt-right).

Unfortunately, it seems you are so married to your thinking that wealth redistribution is good, I can't see how you will ever do anything but attempt to debunk what I wrote.

[monsterj]

How to UBI.

X-(A+B+C)=$0

X=UBI

A=existing welfare programs it replaces

B=taxes that offset the UBI for individuals that don't need it

C=savings from streamlining welfare

At my own peril i will take a gamble that most readers understand what A means.

B means that at some income level and circumstances X-B=$0 with regard to that individuals personal finances. Now the reason why that individual still gets UBI is because if their income level or circumstances changes they are guaranteed some level of financial security and very often more importantly they don't have to waste time and resources in applying for welfare. Instead they can get their shit together.

In all likelihood the most functional form for B is a progressive scale. So it supports working part time or taking gig oriented jobs. Considering US is the most materialistic society since the beginning man it seems unlikely that people need too much encouragement. In the macro level there has never been any evidence that welfare hinders peoples desire to work. Even shitty jobs get filled and wages are stagnant. Yay. If you understand how markets are supposed to work this is very telling about the non existing flaws of welfare.

C should also be self-evident. But in short it just condenses multiple levels of government support from various sources (with their own application processes) into one constant thing. It can't cover all but it should do a lot to help reduce the workload and simplify things. The current government support programs are especially ill-equipped in dealing with constantly changing life circumstances. Basically they are pretty ok at dealing with 1950s levels of job security/stability and family status.

Okay, I'll take a shot at this.

First off, the cost of distributing money back to people is not zero. It is absurd to collect taxes from people in the middle and upper classes and then return a potion of it monthly, by design.

Let's say you owed me $3000. Then I said, "gimmick, send me $5400, and then for the next twelve months, I'll send you $200. This will protect you in case you go broke and really need the money." You would laugh at me if I proposed this (even if you 100% believed I'd pay you the $200 for twelve months), and rightfully so.

Yet the UBI is basically the same thing.

Or, simply put, you're telling certain people, "Pay us $1000 per month extra in taxes, and we wlll send you back $700 per month, and this is for your protection in case you lose your job or have some crisis." Come on.

And then of course, as I mentioned, there's a certain cost to processing these UBI payments, so the government should not be paying to process for this absurd money exchange for those paying more into UBI than getting out of it.

If there's going to be a UBI, first off, it should be restricted to those truly in need, or otherwise it's incredibly wasteful. That's point #1.

Point #2 comes from the fact that you're full of crap that welfare doesn't prevent work. It most certainly does, and it makes sense as to why. Even in that little UBI experiment in Finland, it was acknowledged that it didn't encourage work.

If I'm making $9,000 per month at my job, lose it, and then get $2,000 per month in unemployment benefits, I'm probably going to work hard to find a new job, for obvious reasons.

If I'm making $1200 per month at my job, lose it, and then get $800 in unemployment benefits, I would be a fool to get a job until such benefits expire.

Now, I understand that UBI is not unemployment insurance. However, it's the same basic concept. People are being given free money every month simply for existing. For some people -- especially those used to living with little money -- that is enough, or close to enough. Rather than seek full time employment, they will either scrape by on UBI or get a few gig-type day jobs per month to bring them up to what they need. It seems like your diatribe even acknowledges this will happen.

However, it seems you don't have a problem with this, as you state that minimum wage type positions tend to get filled anyway. So you ask, "If certain poor people get UBI and supplement it with a few gig day jobs, and the necessary minimum wage positions will get filled anyway, what's the problem?"

First off, I dispute that the large number of minimum wage positions would be filled if everyone in the country got UBI. That might be a problem in itself, greatly harming businesses which count on such labor.

But let's even assume that the jobs do get filled.

There's a matter of fairness.

What you're advocating here is wealth redistribution not to help those in dire need, but rather to give an able-bodied segment of the population the ability to support themselves without working or barely working, all thanks to said wealth redistribution.

So when my taxes go up to pay for this, I can't say to myself, "Well, at least I know this is helping feed Joe Poorperson who is mentally/physically unable to work to feed himself". Instead, I would be saying to myself, "While I'm hard at work, some of my tax dollars are allowing able-bodied Mike Poorperson to sit at home and watch daytime TV, and not get a job."

That's simply not fair.

Government assistance should always be need-based, not desire-based. If you simply don't want to work, you shouldn't be entitled to my tax dollars.

If my tax dollars make it easy (by design) for certain people to sit home and suck at the government teet instead of working, that's a huge problem, and a criminal waste of tax dollars.


Point #3 is that wealth redistribution is simply wrong. It's theft. The entire concept of taxation is to keep a functioning government and to provide a means of support to those unable to take care of themselves. Taxation is NOT intended to directly take money from rich people and directly hand it to poor people, simply because some people are rich and some are poor. That's basically the government playing Robin Hood.

We are so far apart philosophically on this issue that I'm sure we will never agree with one another. I am an American conservative and you are a Scandinavian leftist. We couldn't be more opposite politically (well, I guess it could be slightly more opposite if I were alt-right).

Unfortunately, it seems you are so married to your thinking that wealth redistribution is good, I can't see how you will ever do anything but attempt to debunk what I wrote.

That's how the tax system works Druff. Have you never gotten a refund? Or, have you ever had to pay quarterly? It's like you haven't paid taxes in years or something...hmmm.

[gimmick]

How to UBI.

X-(A+B+C)=$0

X=UBI

A=existing welfare programs it replaces

B=taxes that offset the UBI for individuals that don't need it

C=savings from streamlining welfare

At my own peril i will take a gamble that most readers understand what A means.

B means that at some income level and circumstances X-B=$0 with regard to that individuals personal finances. Now the reason why that individual still gets UBI is because if their income level or circumstances changes they are guaranteed some level of financial security and very often more importantly they don't have to waste time and resources in applying for welfare. Instead they can get their shit together.

In all likelihood the most functional form for B is a progressive scale. So it supports working part time or taking gig oriented jobs. Considering US is the most materialistic society since the beginning man it seems unlikely that people need too much encouragement. In the macro level there has never been any evidence that welfare hinders peoples desire to work. Even shitty jobs get filled and wages are stagnant. Yay. If you understand how markets are supposed to work this is very telling about the non existing flaws of welfare.

C should also be self-evident. But in short it just condenses multiple levels of government support from various sources (with their own application processes) into one constant thing. It can't cover all but it should do a lot to help reduce the workload and simplify things. The current government support programs are especially ill-equipped in dealing with constantly changing life circumstances. Basically they are pretty ok at dealing with 1950s levels of job security/stability and family status.

Okay, I'll take a shot at this.

First off, the cost of distributing money back to people is not zero. It is absurd to collect taxes from people in the middle and upper classes and then return a potion of it monthly, by design.

Let's say you owed me $3000. Then I said, "gimmick, send me $5400, and then for the next twelve months, I'll send you $200. This will protect you in case you go broke and really need the money." You would laugh at me if I proposed this (even if you 100% believed I'd pay you the $200 for twelve months), and rightfully so.

Yet the UBI is basically the same thing.

Or, simply put, you're telling certain people, "Pay us $1000 per month extra in taxes, and we wlll send you back $700 per month, and this is for your protection in case you lose your job or have some crisis." Come on.

And then of course, as I mentioned, there's a certain cost to processing these UBI payments, so the government should not be paying to process for this absurd money exchange for those paying more into UBI than getting out of it.

If there's going to be a UBI, first off, it should be restricted to those truly in need, or otherwise it's incredibly wasteful. That's point #1.

Point #2 comes from the fact that you're full of crap that welfare doesn't prevent work. It most certainly does, and it makes sense as to why. Even in that little UBI experiment in Finland, it was acknowledged that it didn't encourage work.

If I'm making $9,000 per month at my job, lose it, and then get $2,000 per month in unemployment benefits, I'm probably going to work hard to find a new job, for obvious reasons.

If I'm making $1200 per month at my job, lose it, and then get $800 in unemployment benefits, I would be a fool to get a job until such benefits expire.

Now, I understand that UBI is not unemployment insurance. However, it's the same basic concept. People are being given free money every month simply for existing. For some people -- especially those used to living with little money -- that is enough, or close to enough. Rather than seek full time employment, they will either scrape by on UBI or get a few gig-type day jobs per month to bring them up to what they need. It seems like your diatribe even acknowledges this will happen.

However, it seems you don't have a problem with this, as you state that minimum wage type positions tend to get filled anyway. So you ask, "If certain poor people get UBI and supplement it with a few gig day jobs, and the necessary minimum wage positions will get filled anyway, what's the problem?"

First off, I dispute that the large number of minimum wage positions would be filled if everyone in the country got UBI. That might be a problem in itself, greatly harming businesses which count on such labor.

But let's even assume that the jobs do get filled.

There's a matter of fairness.

What you're advocating here is wealth redistribution not to help those in dire need, but rather to give an able-bodied segment of the population the ability to support themselves without working or barely working, all thanks to said wealth redistribution.

So when my taxes go up to pay for this, I can't say to myself, "Well, at least I know this is helping feed Joe Poorperson who is mentally/physically unable to work to feed himself". Instead, I would be saying to myself, "While I'm hard at work, some of my tax dollars are allowing able-bodied Mike Poorperson to sit at home and watch daytime TV, and not get a job."

That's simply not fair.

Government assistance should always be need-based, not desire-based. If you simply don't want to work, you shouldn't be entitled to my tax dollars.

If my tax dollars make it easy (by design) for certain people to sit home and suck at the government teet instead of working, that's a huge problem, and a criminal waste of tax dollars.


Point #3 is that wealth redistribution is simply wrong. It's theft. The entire concept of taxation is to keep a functioning government and to provide a means of support to those unable to take care of themselves. Taxation is NOT intended to directly take money from rich people and directly hand it to poor people, simply because some people are rich and some are poor. That's basically the government playing Robin Hood.

We are so far apart philosophically on this issue that I'm sure we will never agree with one another. I am an American conservative and you are a Scandinavian leftist. We couldn't be more opposite politically (well, I guess it could be slightly more opposite if I were alt-right).

Unfortunately, it seems you are so married to your thinking that wealth redistribution is good, I can't see how you will ever do anything but attempt to debunk what I wrote.

1. I'm not saying give me 1k and i'll send you 700 at any point. You will never pay more than you get. Pretty sure i've stated this a few times. You will never have to wait for your money at any point. Why would you?

The reason it's called Universal Basic Income comes from the fact that it's for everyone. There are other models that aren't for everyone. Pick one of those if you have issue with that.

2. Since you referred to that experiment in Finland it actually increased employment by a negligible amount for participants. They were also healthier and less stressed out (you can give this a monetary value if you feel like). So yea if you feel like using that as an example it's pretty clear it didn't hinder their employment in any way.

UBI never expires. The reason i mentioned a progressive tax was because of the welfare trap. Instead of crying about it you can do something about it. So no there never exists point where it would make sense not to work.

Do i need to keep mentioning that your taxes are not going up? The taxes going up to pay for this was your idea. There's no need for it.

Also fair. Really. lol

3. Lol. Yea the reason rich pay the poor is crime and civil uprising.

If there are 9 jobs and 10 eager workers, how do they all get a job?

[Dan Druff]

That's how the tax system works Druff. Have you never gotten a refund? Or, have you ever had to pay quarterly? It's like you haven't paid taxes in years or something...hmmm.

Refunds are not mandatory. You can elect for lesser withholdings to bring your refund down or make it nonexistent.

Quarterly estimated taxes are also not for overpaying by design. They are attempting to estimate what your income will be for that year, and then you pay quarterly based upon that, because otherwise self-employed individuals get away with delaying their tax payments for a full year.

There is no such thing in the US tax code which requires you to pay with the guarantee of a refund. If you owe to the IRS and they owe you back, you can always subtract one for the other.

Also, I'm totally shocked that monsterj the "conservative" is picking a petty point like this from my long, anti-UBI mesasge, and hasn't had one critical word about UBI itself.

Tell us more about your conservatism, monsterj.

[Dan Druff]

1. I'm not saying give me 1k and i'll send you 700 at any point. You will never pay more than you get. Pretty sure i've stated this a few times. You will never have to wait for your money at any point. Why would you?

The reason it's called Universal Basic Income comes from the fact that it's for everyone. There are other models that aren't for everyone. Pick one of those if you have issue with that.
.
.
.
Do i need to keep mentioning that your taxes are not going up? The taxes going up to pay for this was your idea. There's no need for it.

Taxes don't go up? Then how is it paid for?

Do you think the savings from "streamlining" welfare would be that large to cover a payment every month to every American?

Even if you're trying to say that those who don't need it will pay additional taxes exactly equal to what they receive, what's the point of that? Why not just eliminate it for those people?

I'm just not understanding where you're going with your advocacy of UBI, unless you actually want wealth redistribution.

Otherwise it is far more efficient to simply reform welfare.

Yea the reason rich pay the poor is crime and civil uprising.

If there are 9 jobs and 10 eager workers, how do they all get a job?

The rich "pay the poor" for their work, not out of fear of crime and civil uprising.

Regarding jobs, if there ever becomes a situation where the poor are seeking minimum wage jobs and there are not enough jobs for them, then I would support some kind of assistance for those people.

That's typically not the case, though. It is not at all difficult to get a minimum wage job, even during bad economic times. It's the middle and upper level jobs which become difficult to secure during periods of economic recession. In fact, sometimes you will hear the "McJobs" complaint from those questioning low unemployment numbers, stating that many people are taking jobs beneath their skill and education level, and thus low unemployment numbers can be misleading.

But rarely do you hear that vast numbers of people on welfare are attempting to find low-wage work, and are repeatedly failing to succeed.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make there, anyway.