Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[RDCanecutter 26404]

A UBI question or two, and some observations.

Observation: I am looking forward to my UBI check. I am even more looking forward to other peoples' UBI checks, because I am an artist and I sell artsy widgets that people don't really need, but they buy them as gifts and stuff when they have some spare cash. Poor people are especially impulsive, so I think I could double or triple my widget sales to them. All good.

Question: Given that university costs multiplied much faster than inflation when easy money came into the system, while at the same time the accountants drive hiring part-timers instead of full-time faculty, what would stop some sort of inflationary spiral in the general economy if we dumped more Dollars into it? The dollar isn't based on anything. I have seen lots of coins of once-proud currencies. They start out silver or gold and end up as small aluminum disks with lots of zeroes. The common theme is that Really Smart People started fiddling with them. I think Really Smart People would be involved with UBI too, so I could see lots of zeroes on my bill to eat a SoylentBurger one day.

Observation: When everybody gets vouchers for goods, they will still figure out how to turn those into money. If UBI includes a clothing voucher, I am going to market fewer art prints, and more art tshirts. (Actually, I do both and more, but my new "Frameable Tshirt" line will have tiny vestigial sleeves and a "clothing tag", whatever you make me do to qualify as clothes.) To grab the food voucher, I'll put a sachet of ChexMix inside the 3' square (hangable wall art) canvas wrapper. What I'm sayin, just give folks some cash, if they're conniving in nature that's where it will end up anyway.

[GSU&UT 1798]

Jesus, are some of you really bitching that rich get taxed enough or too much in this country? When wealth inequality is at an all-time high and continuing to become even worse, while wage growth continues to remain stagnant? We're not talking about people bringing home six figures, but those beyond that. They are earning so much of that money on the backs of others, I don't want to hear about how they "worked hard and deserved it" when so many people have extremely low purchasing power because of wage stagnation and only will continue to be able to not afford basic necessities.

[Anastasis 23464]

2 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

We're not talking about people bringing home six figures, but those beyond that.

Any tax plan that does not impact people making low six figures will have no meaningful impact on revenues. 

[Huckleberry 32850]

Just so we're all on the same page, what are we talking about with low six figures? That's a big range if we're not specific. $100,000 gross income? $500,000 gross income? Six figures goes from 100,000 to 999,999 of course so 500,000 is below the midway point.

[GSU&UT 1798]

Fine, how about a house of five or fewer bringing in over $450,000 annually? I'm not even talking about generating revenue honestly, just the whole "it's not fair!!!!!" aspect of it all.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

11 hours ago, Orca of Peace said:

i'm a middle class lifelong wage slave and I know for a fact that CEOs don't work 500x harder than me or are 100x smarter but make 300x.  I've worked at places where big chunks of staff got laid off while the 5 or 6 decision makers killed the company and took $400k-$2mil from the company for their own bonuses (per SEC? filings) as the company went down. It is a form of wage slavery and aristocracy. So they "earned it" as you said, but off the back of hundreds or tens of thousands of very hard working dudes like you and me. They have the legal power to control things but in a moral sense it's wrong. 

Theres something to this too, and this is largely why we have a massive income gap in this country. However, American companies didnt use to have such drastic disparities in compensation, and other advanced industrialized nations still dont. 

Germany's pay gap is still high, but half ours. The big difference is that their corps have executive and non-executive boards, so that workers get a seat at the table. They also have stronger collective bargaining rights while we have completely gutted ours even in the most liberal states. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

South Carolina Rep. Jim Clyburn sent a warning shot on Wednesday toward a likely incoming freshman who beat one of Clyburn’s fellow members of House leadership in a primary, suggesting she may have a long wait before she has a chance at leadership.

Clyburn, who is the number three Democrat in the House of Representatives, directed the comments at Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the New York candidate who beat Rep. Joe Crowley last month in an upset.

“I would ask her to remember how long I had to wait to get here,” Clyburn said on BuzzFeed News' AM to DM on Wednesday morning when asked if Ocasio-Cortez would have to wait for her turn at seniority.

“Let’s not forget the history of all of this," said Clyburn. "And I think that all of the folks who have that mentality seem not to give much respect to those of us who sat in jails, as I did, so that they would have the kind of activities or the kinds of rights that they have today.”

“So do I get any credit for being on the cutting edge of all of that? Or should the credit go to my children and grandchildren who are the beneficiaries of it? I think that we have to balance this out.”

His comments come a day after Ocasio-Cortez made a visit to Capitol Hill to meet with fellow progressives.

But they also come in the context of a broader conversation about the leadership of the House. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, and Clyburn have served in leadership for more than a decade, and there have been growing calls to see a generational change at the helm of the Democratic caucus.

Clyburn demurred when asked whether it’s time for them to step aside for younger members, but he’s previously made comments that if Democrats do not win the House back in this year’s midterms, that all of leadership should “go.”

“If I begin to show some senility, my wife would be the first one to tell me. And my children would second those emotions very forcefully,” Clyburn said.

In answer to a question about whether he thinks a compromising video tape of President Donald Trump described in the Steele dossier exists, Clyburn said, “yes I do.”

“I’ve not seen anything that would make me come to any different conclusion. And I just think ... whenever you see smoke, you need to investigate to see whether or not there’s a fire causing it, how big the fire is, whether or not you’re going to put it out or let it burn."

"There’s a lot of smoke here, I mean you see this much smoke, there’s a fire somewhere, and we gotta put it out. ”

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/lissandravilla/a-top-democrat-says-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-would-need-to

[Anastasis 23464]

I'd say 100-250k household income would cover the low six figures range.

[Js1 85299]

Wait you mean we aren't going to elevate a 28 year old first term Rep to Speaker?????

Ugh, lame.

[Huckleberry 32850]

So what's the napkin math on total taxable income of American households over 250K?

Top marginal rate went from 70% down to 28% up to 39.6%  and now it's back down to 37%. Obviously moving around. At one time it was 92% IIRC.

Did the United States economy grind to a halt when it was higher than 40%? Were businesses not being formed, not innovating, or not producing? I hear the horror stories of how a higher tax rate will totally stop all innovation and hard work in the American economy. That doesn't seem very persuasive given historical top marginal tax rates. In 1960 with a top bracket rate of 91% (and it had been that high or higher for over a decade, of course) the United States GDP was 40% of global GDP. 

On the other hand the drop from 70% to 28% appears to have created a temporary uptick in strength of the American economy. But then there was another uptick after Clinton oversaw an increase in the top rate from 31% to 39.6%. Obviously there's a lot more at play over the years, but I'm looking for someone to explain why 40% in the top rate has to be a hard ceiling for the economy to remain strong.

And this doesn't even get into the fact that there's no reason there can't be more brackets. There have been as many as thirty brackets in the past if I'm not mistaken. Just because the tax rate on billionaires goes up to a certain level doesn't mean it has to go up the same amount on the small business owners making $600,001 as a family.

Edited July 25, 2018 by Huckleberry

[Hank Scorpio 17729]

We need to tax people who make more money than I do at a much higher rate. Until I start making more money. Then we'll need to readjust. 

[seven 1367]

1 minute ago, Hank Scorpio said:

We need to tax people who make more money than I do at a much higher rate. Until I start making more money. Then we'll need to readjust. 

A reasonable proposition 

[Anastasis 23464]

Just now, Huckleberry said:

So what's the napkin math on total taxable income of American households over 250K?

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2016-update/

 

Somewhere in the $3T range as of 2014. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

42 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I'd say 100-250k household income would cover the low six figures range.

If we do basic income right, the additional tax should mostly be a passthrough for people with middle income.  And for basic income to be done right, it has to replace all other forms of welfare.  It should provide all necessities in their entirety, and there should be no need for additional welfare on top of it.  And given the number of welfare programs that we have already, much of it can be done by simply unifying those programs that your current tax burden already pays for while increasing your tax to "pay your own basic income".  And there will certainly be reductions in administrative costs because we don't have to worry about means testing and fraud, or filing paperwork with 10 different federal, state, and municipal agencies.

Also, basic income should only be for adult US citizens, for legal residents who vest into the program over 5 years, and for all children regardless of their citizenship or legal status.

The numbers now:

Social Security: $991,000,000 in $941,500,000 out / 67,000,000 recipients/$1,200 per month average.

Section 8: (old numbers): Intake part of FIT  ~$4 billion out 4.8 million families/$650 per month average.

SNAP: Intake part of FIT $70.9 billion out / 44.2 million people / $125 per month average

Public Housing: Hard to quantify as it varies drastically by state and municipality, but 1.2 million families live there.

Utility subsidies: Also local, so hard to quantify.

So Medians to calculate needed basic income: (I can't find nationwide medians, so here's Pittsburgh since its just about middle of the road)

Housing: Median 1 bdrm $991

Utilities: Median $160

Food: $150

Clothing: $200

Transit: $100

Basic Income Per Adult ($1,050): (It should not provide for the median)

Housing (Polish Hill/Pittsburgh-cheap/safe): $650

Utilities: $100

Food:$150

Clothing:$50

Transit:$100

Basic Income Per Child or Adult Dependant ($550):

Housing: $300

Food: $100

Clothing: $100

Transit:$50

Additional Items Outside Basic Income:

Single Payer Health Insurance taxed under Medicare with premiums/copays scaled by income.

Add nursery and pre-school to public elementary schools, as well as after school day care.

[Incredulity 11660]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

So what's the napkin math on total taxable income of American households over 250K?

Top marginal rate went from 70% down to 28% up to 39.6%  and now it's back down to 37%. Obviously moving around. At one time it was 92% IIRC.

Did the United States economy grind to a halt when it was higher than 40%? Were businesses not being formed, not innovating, or not producing? I hear the horror stories of how a higher tax rate will totally stop all innovation and hard work in the American economy. That doesn't seem very persuasive given historical top marginal tax rates. In 1960 with a top bracket rate of 91% (and it had been that high or higher for over a decade, of course) the United States GDP was 40% of global GDP. 

On the other hand the drop from 70% to 28% appears to have created a temporary uptick in strength of the American economy. But then there was another uptick after Clinton oversaw an increase in the top rate from 31% to 39.6%. Obviously there's a lot more at play over the years, but I'm looking for someone to explain why 40% in the top rate has to be a hard ceiling for the economy to remain strong.

And this doesn't even get into the fact that there's no reason there can't be more brackets. There have been as many as thirty brackets in the past if I'm not mistaken. Just because the tax rate on billionaires goes up to a certain level doesn't mean it has to go up the same amount on the small business owners making $600,001 as a family.

The marginal rate isn't the end all be all.  The effective rate is what matters.

 

[GSU&UT 1798]

21 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

Yeah.  I bet none of those people work hard or have valuable skills.  Probably only Warren Buffett and the Walton trust fund babies making that kind of coin, anyway.  Fuck them!  It’s not fair!  

To avoid confusion about the tone, please read the above paragraph while imagining me pantomime playing a violin as I say it.

I know right! It's almost like I said that they shouldn't have any money whatsoever, not that they don't deserve to whine about having to pay a higher tax rate than the poors.

[this 107]

2 hours ago, GSU&UT said:

Jesus, are some of you really bitching that rich get taxed enough or too much in this country? When wealth inequality is at an all-time high and continuing to become even worse, while wage growth continues to remain stagnant? We're not talking about people bringing home six figures, but those beyond that. They are earning so much of that money on the backs of others, I don't want to hear about how they "worked hard and deserved it" when so many people have extremely low purchasing power because of wage stagnation and only will continue to be able to not afford basic necessities.

On the backs of others? Are these others not getting paid? Do they not come to work willingly? Are they not free to work elsewhere? 

[bad_teammate 13193]

16 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

No.  Voucher amounts would  be flexible according to the cost of living.  I don't believe in price controls.  At the end of the day, in every city, basic income should get you close enough to work in the CBD, but it shouldn't give you enough to live in the most desirable neighborhoods.  I see UBI from a democratic socialist perspective.  We should be provided with everything we need, but when it comes to what we want, we should have to work for it.

All right, so the UBI you're talking about is very different animal from the one I'm talking about, which helps me understand what you're getting at.

The bolded sentence is really the key point and it is something you and I agree on.

[Incredulity 11660]

Yeah, but I REALLY, REALLY need a half-caf skinny soy grande mocha with extra cream every morning.  Will that be included?

[Incredulity 11660]

I would wager that statistical life expectancy would increase measureably with the implementation of cash payment UBI.

[bad_teammate 13193]

6 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Yeah, but I REALLY, REALLY need a half-caf skinny soy grande mocha with extra cream every morning.  Will that be included?

Yes, but you have to reach for it through a black curtain and OOOOPS you got tricked it's a guillotine skinny is for overfed bourgeoise you're dead now.

[Js1 85299]

 

[bad_teammate 13193]

22 minutes ago, Js1 said:

 

nice meltdown lol

[RDCanecutter 26404]

23 minutes ago, Js1 said:

 

She can keep all her damn money, just do the world a favor and drop the vocal fry.

[bad_teammate 13193]

When you get very calmly owned by Joy Behar you should take a nap and say a few prayers.

[Js1 85299]

Eat shit and get violently ill please you Swam troll 

 

I know you’ll cry if you’re told to die 

Edited July 25, 2018 by Js1

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Is there a difference between the DSA's who advocate for free things like bad_teammate who is allegedly a good/mid-to-high earner and doesn't need or obviously stand to gain in the short term and those like js1 who are poor and frustrated with being poor and feel entitled to not being poor by virtue of whatever it is they feel makes them special (could be college degree in something or another or a desire/interest in something or another)? I feel like there is and I take more serious the B_t's of the "give away free stuff" world because the js1's just seem like they are entitled to things because life is too hard and they aren't quite cutting the mustard...which is always disingenuous considering it's not like they are starving or can't afford rent, they just can't afford to do a lot of cool stuff or wealth-building stuff that generations before them had the luxury to do wah.

I don't give a shit about anyone's personal business but claims on personal circumstances of anonymous internet folks are meaningless in regards to credence to an endorsed position (e.g. "I'm black and but I think affirmative action..." or "I'm rich but I think increased taxes for the rich are fantastic...").  People lie when anonymous on the internet; regardless, even if they are telling the truth it doesn't matter.      

[RandomIdoit 655]

1 minute ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

I'm just saying, there are givers and takers. I don't pretend to know their or anyone else's hearts, but there are outwardly signs that people can imperfectly pick up that inform motivations and incentives. The b_t's of the world strike me more as the "givers" and the, let's just say "other guys" so Js1 doesn't feel targeted as I don't mean him to take it personally, seem more like "takers". And it's pretty universally a bad emotional feeling when people feel like they are being taken advantage of or people are being takers whether that be in real life, where people are less likely to get away with lying, or online where they are more likely.

Out of all the advocates for democratic socialism, what percentage of them do you suppose are takers? I would guess the overwhelming majority are people who are on government assistance a.k.a "takers". Then you have the small percentage who are "givers" that are philanthropic like bad_teammate.

[David Dennison 18851]

Just now, RandomIdoit said:

Out of all the advocates for democratic socialism, what percentage of them do you suppose are takers? I would guess the overwhelming majority are people who are on government assistance a.k.a "takers". Then you have the small percentage who are "givers" that are philanthropic like bad_teammate.

Define government assistance, because a whole shitload of middle class Americans can be defined as takers when you add up all of the federal subsidies that go into supporting their way of life.

[RayDog 682]

Where is the AOC thread?

[David Dennison 18851]

2 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

I think he means direct assistance, as opposed to indirect and ethereal magic government benefits that are sewn into the fabric of the tax code or regular people life.

Ah. Subsidies for me, welfare for thee.

[XR4ticlone 122]

On ‎7‎/‎22‎/‎2018 at 9:35 PM, FondrenRoad said:

Of course I'm more left than you. You're just a bigger asshole.  I realize what it takes to get things done. You don't. So when you're crying to me in 10 years about how we still dont have progressive legislation while you sit in a center right district, you need to look in the fucking mirror, be a man, and finally work with moderates to move your district center left.  

That's nothing to brag about.  

[Post Oak 20209]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

 

All that hard earned money. Classic case of someone born on 3rd base and think they hit a triple

[RandomIdoit 655]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Define government assistance, because a whole shitload of middle class Americans can be defined as takers when you add up all of the federal subsidies that go into supporting their way of life.

What I am referring to is SNAP, Medicaid, TANF, etc. Of course the people needing the help are going to advocate for it. But of the people that are going to be providing the funds via taxes, very few are actually in favor of these policies in my opinion.

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

I'm just saying, there are givers and takers. I don't pretend to know their or anyone else's hearts, but there are outwardly signs that people can imperfectly pick up that inform motivations and incentives. The b_t's of the world strike me more as the "givers" and the, let's just say "other guys" so Js1 doesn't feel targeted as I don't mean him to take it personally, seem more like "takers". And it's pretty universally a bad emotional feeling when people feel like they are being taken advantage of or people are being takers whether that be in real life, where people are less likely to get away with lying, or online where they are more likely.

I understand your point and think it is valid.  I don't know either of these posters well enough to comment, but let's assume two types of posters in the abstract who endorse communism/socialism/extreme wealth redistribution &c: the first who claims to be upper middle class & doesn't need the money and ostensibly cares about the poor and the second who claims to be poor.  It's seems at first glance that the first type is arguing from a superior position, but I don't think this is the case.  For one, they may simply be lying about their position.  But more importantly, it doesn't really matter - neither for the sake of the merits of their proposed plan nor for their moral position.  It is often the case that they hate the rich more than they care about the poor.  In most of the proposed plans (which seldom have worked out numbers for the costs and revenues generated or if the plan has any chance of actually working) the important point is that we take from the rich; that we take as much as we can from the rich and bring down the aristocracy and billionaires and those who made their fortune on the backs of you and I is really what drives them.  If you point out that doing this won't solve the problems of the poor, they will respond with something along the lines of "why do you care so much about the plight of the billionaires?"  Their position is one driven more by envy than concern for the poor.  The first thing the Bolsheviks did was kill the leading aristocrats; they never did get around to doing very much for the poor, mostly because they didn't give a shit about them.   

Edited July 25, 2018 by Guest

[bad_teammate 13193]

33 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Is there a difference between the DSA's who advocate for free things like bad_teammate who is allegedly a good/mid-to-high earner and doesn't need or obviously stand to gain in the short term and those like js1 who are poor and frustrated with being poor and feel entitled to not being poor by virtue of whatever it is they feel makes them special (could be college degree in something or another or a desire/interest in something or another)?

My ox would absolutely be gored in the fulfillment of the vision of America I think would be the best next step in our experiment, but as Aphelion says, it is beyond useless to reduce the discussion to that point because none of our actual lives matter in the least in the discussion. All you're really doing is managing your feelings and trying to fit the arguments in the pre-existing worldview that makes you comfortable.

The entire concept of "givers" and "takers" is a classist retelling of our economic national story and it's complete bullshit.

[RDCanecutter 26404]

1 minute ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

So there is a difference between a bunch of crunchy kids drowning in debt with crappy jobs crying for student loan forgiveness and a bunch of old people with sympathy saying, tax me a bit more this year and let's forgive the crunchy kid's student loans?

If they're posting on Surly, they're all assholes.

[bad_teammate 13193]

37 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

So there is a difference between a bunch of crunchy kids drowning in debt with crappy jobs crying for student loan forgiveness and a bunch of old people with sympathy saying, tax me a bit more this year and let's forgive the crunchy kid's student loans?

maybe? What the hell is this question?

Older generations got a much better deal economically than the kids are getting right now. You used to be able to get a middle-class income off ONE full-time worker with no college or special skills.

"sympathy" is a weird concept in that context.

If there is any such thing as a "giver", it's someone who gives away their labor for fucking peanuts so others can get rich "managing" in luxury.

Edited July 26, 2018 by bad_teammate

[EuroHorn 3259]

https://mobile.twitter.com/conservmillen/status/1021530947387310080/video/1

 

[EuroHorn 3259]

[RandomIdoit 655]

15 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

If there is any such thing as a "giver", it's someone who gives away their labor for fucking peanuts so others can get rich "managing" in luxury.

Who is forced to work for peanuts? 

Edited July 26, 2018 by RandomIdoit

[FondrenRoad 4378]

21 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

Who is forced to work for peanuts? 

Circus elephants. 

[RandomIdoit 655]

4 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Circus elephants. 

Dumbos?

[bad_teammate 13193]

1 hour ago, RandomIdoit said:

Who is forced to work for peanuts? 

People who want to eat food and have a place to live in a place where they can't find work for more.

[bad_teammate 13193]

"Good jobs are out there if you work hard enough like me."

*statistics showing wage stagnation*

"Good jobs are out there if you work hard enough like me."

*statistics showing constant rise in the income gap*

"Good jobs are out there if you work hard enough like me."

*the heat death of the universe envelops all that we know and love*

"Good jobs are out there if you work hard enough like me."

[RandomIdoit 655]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

People who want to eat food and have a place to live in a place where they can't find work for more.

But no one is forcing them to live where there are no better jobs. Yes it sucks and would require effort to move somewhere else, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. It's also not impossible to improve your job prospects. Maybe they should educate themselves or learn a trade. Maybe they should join the military. There are options out there.

[bad_teammate 13193]

2 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

But no one is forcing them to live where there are no better jobs.

Everyone, quick, move to Jobsville, America! Where the jobs are! It's that easy!

Yes, you'll have to leave all your family and friends. I hope none of your family members or friends depend on you for anything! I hope you have no important leadership roles in the community!

Fuck off, grandma, I'm moving to Jobsville!

Anyone else noticing an increasing social and familial isolation as people cannot nail down a career and establish roots in one place? Is that a problem?

Fuck that! Come to Jobsville!

Edited July 26, 2018 by bad_teammate

[FondrenRoad 4378]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

People who want to eat food and have a place to live in a place where they can't find work for more.

The Hazlehurst MS Walmart has multiple full time job openings at 8 dollars an hour right now. Crystal Springs, MS has houses for rent for 300 a month right now.  Affordable. 

NYC has a minimum wage of 13 an hour, and 100s of entry level job openings that pay more than that. Apartments are available in eastern queens, the bronx, and staten island for less than 800 a month. Affordable. 

At some point, the desire to live in an exact location plays a small role dont you think?  It's true that you cant live in a neighborhood with 3k+ rents on minimum wage in NYC. But you can live in NYC, and you can eat, and you have free services available to you if you have children. But Manhattan though. It needs to be cheaper!

 

[RandomIdoit 655]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Everyone, quick, move to Jobsville, America! Where the jobs are! It's that easy!

Yes, you'll have to leave all your family and friends. I hope none of your family members or friends depend on you for anything! I hope you have no important leadership roles in the community!

Fuck off, grandma, I'm moving to Jobsville!

Anyone else noticing an increasing social and familial isolation as people cannot nail down a career and establish roots in one place? Is that a problem?

Fuck that! Come to Jobsville!

Once again, they are not FORCED to live there. They want to live there or they feel obligated to live there to care for someone else that cannot or will not move with them. That's fine. In that case, they should educate themselves, learn a trade, or join the military. There are plenty of options for financial aid if they are poor and have dependents. 

[David Dennison 18851]

3 hours ago, RandomIdoit said:

What I am referring to is SNAP, Medicaid, TANF, etc. Of course the people needing the help are going to advocate for it. But of the people that are going to be providing the funds via taxes, very few are actually in favor of these policies in my opinion.

I'd venture to say at least half of them are. That's why they vote for Democrats.