Andrew Yang for prez...

[Bat Guano 359]

Smart guy. Well thought out ideas. Good stuff.

It's interesting that ideas like UBI and other stuff considered wildly radical and too fringe to even be taken seriously, are now being taken seriously. Is this a crack in the corporate media propaganda bubble, or something else?

Edited February 19, 2019 by Bat Guano

[Nice Guy Eddie 13414]

I think many have been seriously talking about UBI for several years.  Not to a point that they think it will become US policy.  We're way too far away from that, but it doesn't mean that it can't be discussed. 

Alaska is a good example of a small UBI-type payout.  Believe it may be as high as $4K this year to catch up from some lean years.   And remember that most don't see UBI as a Living Wage by itself.  (I'm sure some want that.)  

 

[Incredulity 11555]

Alaska has a payment on the returns from sale of public assets.

Not really the same thing.

 

[Post Oak 20187]

Finally a politician with some forethought.  I like it. 

[Irwin F Fletcher 3550]

He's interesting but I can't shake this thought when I saw the thread.

 

[Post Oak 20187]

19 hours ago, SKJ said:

I took it a little differently in the college thing, and that he was circling it around to ubi in that if you had 1,000 a month guaranteed to live on you'd see more of that... More freedom to find apprenticeships, and etc... I don't think he was thinking that free college is a bad step, but moreso that many of the jobs people are getting out of school are going to be automated and that we need to move more people into trades that are not easily automated.

He also wants to destroy the fucking drug war, and pardon all the non violent offenders on a mass scale.

I think the ubi proposal is the incremental first step in reversing the most dangerous threat to our society that no one is even talking about, and that no one will be able to solve in 8-10 years... It'll already be too late. Like he said, we're already in the third inning.

I've donated to him, just $10.00, but I got an email from him that we need to get a bunch more individual donors for him to be in the debates. Just a $1 donation from more people. 

Whatever. It's a long shot, but we can sit here as a country and argue about stupid shit like abortion and a fucking wall, but can't see the decimation of our economy literally a decade away

 

I donated.  

We live in a predatory society and he's a breath of fresh air.  

[bad_teammate 13132]

1 hour ago, Post Oak said:

I donated.  

We live in a predatory society and he's a breath of fresh air.  

I threw $10 his way while I was listening to the Rogan interview. I'd already donated to 3 Dems before that (Harris, Buttigieg, Warren). Then Bernie today. Fuckin' Beto is going to make me donate more once he skateboards his way in.

God damnit, guys.

(Only Bernie will get my volunteer hours, though.)

[burntorangebongos 10681]

this guy wants the money to make it into the debates. I guess to make the stage. I am for that.

[Incredulity 11555]

Assuming he makes it the problem is he will get 20 seconds of airtime on the 16-18 person debate stage. 

[horncyclist 1386]

1 hour ago, Incredulity said:

Assuming he makes it the problem is he will get 20 seconds of airtime on the 16-18 person debate stage. 

Eh, he'll make the most of the 20 seconds and everyone will be in the same boat. Of the long shot candidates, I think he and Buttigieg will definitely make some waves. Autonomization is going to be a huge disruptor in the economy, and you need to have a plan to address it before truck drivers start committing mass suicide...or worse. Hopefully we have that discussion and it's easy to pair solutions with an appeal to people like former coal minors and manufacturing workers that got screwed when manufacturing was larger autnomized/off-shored. 

 

I also like the way Yang sells medicaid for all as benefiting small businesses by decoupling healthcare from employment. That's a huge drag for any employer, and isn't good for the employees anyway. I guess you could just shift to all individual markets, but that was part of Obamacare and look what republicans did to that. UBI and guaranteed medical care would make it a ton easier for people to take risks, which is what we want. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13414]

 Medicare for all is interesting but it could have dramatic negative effects on the med industry as reimbursement rates are lower than commercial plans.  A better initial move might be to lower the age someone can join Medicare.  Take it down to 60 or 55.  Some older workers are only working to have health insurance.  Or so some say. Give them Medicare by 55, and they might retire early.  Then a younger worker can move up in their job sooner. 

Of course the big downside is that taxes have to rise to cover the expanded Medicare bill.  And while covering the soon-to-old isn’t as expensive as covering old people, it isn’t cheap.

[Incredulity 11555]

Had a long drive yesterday so I listened to this pod.

Anyone who agrees with his UBI help me with this.  His UBI as I understand, everyone over 18 qualifies to opt in for $1000 per month cash REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF ASSISTANCE ALREADY BEING RECEIVED.  So how does that not put a huge damper on money being spent in poor communities that he portrays as being a great benefit?  What portion of society gets zero because they already recieve in excess of $1000 per month?

[bad_teammate 13132]

34 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Had a long drive yesterday so I listened to this pod.

Anyone who agrees with his UBI help me with this.  His UBI as I understand, everyone over 18 qualifies to opt in for $1000 per month cash REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF ASSISTANCE ALREADY BEING RECEIVED.  So how does that not put a huge damper on money being spent in poor communities that he portrays as being a great benefit?  What portion of society gets zero because they already recieve in excess of $1000 per month?

The people who it would most help.

There is a gene in the DNA sequence of the Democrat that screams for means testing and balancing.

[horncyclist 1386]

I think the idea is for a portion already receiving assistance, UBI could replace that assistance. I think part of his plan would be that the safety net would be replaced with the $1000 guaranteed income over time, saving in administrative costs. Milton Friedman supported this kind of welfare. The other potential criticism, which he discusses, is you would have really wealthy people also opting into UBI because he doesn't want a free $1000. His plan, as designed, is kind of regressive in that way. I think that's justified by the universal principle of the idea. It's guaranteed to everyone, because you're a citizen of the US. It's your dividend for being part of our society. 

I'm not saying his idea is perfect, but I like that he at least has some foresight with his policy priorities. Even if you believe the economy will eventually adapt to replace the jobs lost through automatization, it's not going to happen over night or in many's lifetimes. And a large segment of workers will never be able to transition. A 55 year old truck driver with a high school degree or GED is not going to go back to school to become a coder to program the self-driving truck. It's just not going to happen. His son or daughter might, but he won't. What do you in the mean time? This is what happened with manufacturing and coal, and instead of thought-out policy to address it, we got opioids and Trump. Yang offers UBI as a solution to soften the transition during this next transformation and avoid the same pitfalls. 

[Incredulity 11555]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

The people who it would most help.

There is a gene in the DNA sequence of the Democrat that screams for means testing and balancing.

Which makes it not UBI.

So it's means tested and everyone below XXXXX income gets $1000 cash. 

Then I am supposed to believe that the average person is going to spend that on housing and food as opposed to a weekend on vacation or a night at the strip club or whatever non-neccesity.  It doesn't add up.

[SKJ 1305]

2 hours ago, Incredulity said:

Which makes it not UBI.

So it's means tested and everyone below XXXXX income gets $1000 cash. 

Then I am supposed to believe that the average person is going to spend that on housing and food as opposed to a weekend on vacation or a night at the strip club or whatever non-neccesity.  It doesn't add up.

The point of it is, from a libertarian standpoint, is who gives a fuck what they spend it on?

The elderly, on a fixed income, may just save it all and will it to their grandkids. Who cares?

Means testing is fucking bullshit. 

[Incredulity 11555]

1 hour ago, SKJ said:

The point of it is, from a libertarian standpoint, is who gives a fuck what they spend it on?

The elderly, on a fixed income, may just save it all and will it to their grandkids. Who cares?

Means testing is fucking bullshit. 

I personally do not really care.  There are many who would though in short order, all it takes is a few "mommy and daddy spent UBI on crack cocaine" stories.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13414]

You also save a ridiculous amount of admin costs by just giving it to everyone.  Look at schools that just opt to give free lunches to every kid regardless of family income.  Part of it involves removing the stigma of free lunches but its also just easier to hand out lunches without worry of collecting money from some, and giving it away to others.

If you basically deleted the entire welfare system and replaced it with a check for that amount to everyone, how many millions or billions do you save in admin costs.  Then just offset it with increased taxes on the better-off, and then the IRS manages the enforcement.   The end result of money in people's pocket may not be that much different but you just eliminated many govt workers.

And if someone wants to buy food and education with their UBI check, or they want to buy video games with it, who cares.  If that's all the public money they can get, then their bad decisions are their problem.

Edited February 22, 2019 by Nice Guy Eddie

[Bat Guano 359]

7 hours ago, Incredulity said:

Had a long drive yesterday so I listened to this pod.

Anyone who agrees with his UBI help me with this.  His UBI as I understand, everyone over 18 qualifies to opt in for $1000 per month cash REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF ASSISTANCE ALREADY BEING RECEIVED.  So how does that not put a huge damper on money being spent in poor communities that he portrays as being a great benefit?  What portion of society gets zero because they already recieve in excess of $1000 per month?

I thought you said you listened to it. I only listened to the first 20 minutes of it and he answers this question.

You've got it backwards - the $1000/mo. isn't reduced by the amount someone is already receiving. Everyone gets at least 1000/mo. If they already get more than that from other benefits, they don't get reduced down to 1000/mo.; they still get the same amount they were getting before. They just don't get another 1000 on top of it.

 

Edited February 22, 2019 by Bat Guano

[Bat Guano 359]

5 hours ago, horncyclist said:

I think the idea is for a portion already receiving assistance, UBI could replace that assistance. I think part of his plan would be that the safety net would be replaced with the $1000 guaranteed income over time, saving in administrative costs. Milton Friedman supported this kind of welfare. The other potential criticism, which he discusses, is you would have really wealthy people also opting into UBI because he doesn't want a free $1000. His plan, as designed, is kind of regressive in that way. I think that's justified by the universal principle of the idea. It's guaranteed to everyone, because you're a citizen of the US. It's your dividend for being part of our society. 

I'm not saying his idea is perfect, but I like that he at least has some foresight with his policy priorities. Even if you believe the economy will eventually adapt to replace the jobs lost through automatization, it's not going to happen over night or in many's lifetimes. And a large segment of workers will never be able to transition. A 55 year old truck driver with a high school degree or GED is not going to go back to school to become a coder to program the self-driving truck. It's just not going to happen. His son or daughter might, but he won't. What do you in the mean time? This is what happened with manufacturing and coal, and instead of thought-out policy to address it, we got opioids and Trump. Yang offers UBI as a solution to soften the transition during this next transformation and avoid the same pitfalls. 

UBI has to be U(niversal) or it wouldn't fly politically. If it were only a benefit for 'those people' it would die with a quickness, if it ever gets born at all; that's why pushes to means-test SS and Medicare are misguided: once they become welfare programs for the poor they'll be killed. It's the same reason the Nordic countries' programs are so successful - they are not socialism in the sense of given on the basis of need - that is, mainly to the poor - but universal services: everyone gets the same benefits.

[Incredulity 11555]

7 minutes ago, Bat Guano said:

I thought you said you listened to it. I only listened to the first 20 minutes of it and he answers this question.

You've got it backwards - the $1000/mo. isn't reduced by the amount someone is already receiving. Everyone gets 1000/mo. If they already get more than that from other benefits, they don't get reduced down to 1000/mo.; they still get the same amount they were getting before. They just don't get another 1000 on top of it.

 

That wasn't what I was trying to say.  I agree with your summary. 

 

It is however unclear to me if someone, for example, getting $1300 of benefits would get:

A.) $1000 cash and $300 benefits.  However that would work.

or

B.) $0 cash and $1300 in benefits.

 

If B.) the cash infusion into the community benefit he touts will be greatly diminished.

[Bat Guano 359]

5 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

That wasn't what I was trying to say.  I agree with your summary. 

 

It is however unclear to me if someone, for example, getting $1300 of benefits would get:

A.) $1000 cash and $300 benefits.  However that would work.

or

B.) $0 cash and $1300 in benefits.

 

If B.) the cash infusion into the community benefit he touts will be greatly diminished.

OK, I don't know the answer to that. It does sound like he wants to keep all the existing programs going, which misses an opportunity for a great deal of savings on overhead if we were to get rid of those departments and go with straight cash instead.

[horncyclist 1386]

16 hours ago, Bat Guano said:

OK, I don't know the answer to that. It does sound like he wants to keep all the existing programs going, which misses an opportunity for a great deal of savings on overhead if we were to get rid of those departments and go with straight cash instead.

I understand it as it's an opt-in. "If you like your welfare, you can keep your welfare." So yeah, someone getting $1300 in benefits could keep getting the benefits instead of opting to take UBI. Someone getting $500 in benefits, could take UBI and just get $1000/month and no benefits. I think overtime you would see less reliance on the traditional safety net benefits as people going through hard times would just stick with UBI rather than deal with stigma of added benefits. 

Anyway, the details would obviously be sorted out. I think the biggest contribution Yang is making is "look, we've got a huge fucking problem coming and we need seemingly radical solutions to deal with it." While I think there's a chance over a generation or two the economy adapts back to full employment, in the short term you're going to have a ton of people without a way to earn an income who formerly worked for an income. It's going to be a huge mess at a time when GDP continues to soar. You can't have millions of people suddenly impoverished. I think his prediction of riots is dead on, though the riots might take different form than outward violence such as skyrocketing suicide, drug addiction, domestic violence etc. This isn't going to go well. 

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4968]

Realistically, the money saved in administration costs is going to be shifted elsewhere. There is no way Democrats would get away with laying off large amounts of government workers because they don't need them anymore. So while we might reduce expenditures in welfare administration costs, those workers will be reassigned to other areas and much of that money will just be spent on something else.

[ChiTownDoc 21102]

On 2/19/2019 at 1:12 AM, Bruh Man said:

How do you control inflation if you give everyone 1k a month? That's my main concern. 

I don’t think people like bad_teammate care.  If you want to kill capitalism that’s a good start.  

I don’t see any of these pie in the sky ideas coming to fruition but I do like this guy.  And if the R’s keep supporting asswipes like Trump I’ll keep voting against my wallet.  Not really a problem...

[SpiralOut 1809]

Finally a liberal who is actually, ya know, a liberal with some real policy ideas. 

The quicker the Dems dump the identity politics cancer and "HURR DURR DRUMPF!" and pivot to guys like this, the better.

Of course, I've seen this movie before with Ron Paul.  This dude will be lucky to make the debates.  When he does, he'll get next to no speaking time.  When he does get to speak the other bought and paid for corporate shills will do their best to ridicule anything he says.  Then the MSM who are also bought and paid for will shit all over him and then do their best to completely ignore the fact that he's in the race. 

[SKJ 1305]

7 minutes ago, the said:

So uh, give 200 million people X $12,000/year = $2.4 trillion today, every year so that the economy can grow by 2.5 trillion 5 years from now? And before you say well we gave the rich a trillion dollar tax cut. There is a difference,

- the govt is TAKING less from people's incomes which is quite different from govt GIVING 18 times the money to people that produce nothing or very little.

- we gave everyone a tax cut.

- Top one percent pays 40% of it, so they will get a larger share of it. 

- that 1.5 trillion dollars is over TEN years, your stupid policy is suggesting 2.4 trillion every year.

As usual, stupid progressive math is stupid. 

I can see you haven't bothered to inform yourself, so, you should shut the fuck up

[SKJ 1305]

Seriously, knock it the fuck off. Troll some other thread.

He explains his numbers, which make a lot of sense. 

And don't come in here with that progressive math bullshit. You motherfuckers are as conservative as a televangelist... You never practice what you preach.

Edited February 24, 2019 by SKJ

[SKJ 1305]

Let me put it to you this way.

You motherfuckers better do something, because if you don't, a lot of you are gonna die

 

[SKJ 1305]

48 minutes ago, the said:

So let me get this straight, I don't know how to succeed in the easiest nation in the history of the world so I'm just going to make shit up without a care for numbers. At all. Lulz, grow up child.

And no, these devoid of reality, video game binging, fast food eating fat motherfuckers aren't going to do shit. Unless they could do it on Snap or Facebook where all they're doing is clicking "like", they're too lazy to revolt. 

Ha  ha ha ha ha

Keep trolling

 

[SKJ 1305]

1 minute ago, the said:

So you still don't know where this magic $2.4 trillion is going to come from and yet its me who's trolling. Allow me to quote you: Ha  ha ha ha ha

You still haven't looked it up, or watched the podcast... Or read the rest of the thread?

Allow me to quote you...

[horncyclist 1386]

3 hours ago, the said:

VAT? Generating trillions? Without harming the economy? 

You like Trump do not understand that tariffs aren't charged to the nation we are imposing it on. Similarly VAT is passed on to consumers, so give people a $1,000 and then take most of it away via VAT. Like I said, stupid progressive math is stupid.

If it's pretty much a straight wealth transfer that will largely be spent, you'd probably see a net stimulus effect on the economy. 

[SKJ 1305]

14 hours ago, the said:

VAT? Generating trillions? Without harming the economy? 

You like Trump do not understand that tariffs aren't charged to the nation we are imposing it on. Similarly VAT is passed on to consumers, so give people a $1,000 and then take most of it away via VAT. Like I said, stupid progressive math is stupid.

You're sitting here trying to be insulting like a motherfucker, but you're simply trolling.

The VAT is going to be passed on to the consumer. This happens with pretty much every price increase of any sort, but let's take a look at why it matters, since you're so fucking smart.

Since this VAT is going to serve as a way for the government to recoup the huge shift in the labor pool that we'll see with the coming wave of automation, do you think that we should find a way to pay for and save about a third of the population through un-recouped government spending, or should we wait for the companies that are saving massive amounts on key inputs (labor) to voluntarily take care of the people displaced?

You're acting as if the fucking huge cost savings of automation will somehow be guaranteed to save the economy enough money to care for a large part of the population. We've seen the invisible hand and we know it doesn't work that way.

Honestly. Shut the fuck up

Edited February 25, 2019 by SKJ

[Parliament 14138]

A major problem with "tax and spend" is government is so inefficient at distributing the revenue. So much money just gets "lost."

[tucker 238]

1 hour ago, Parliament said:

A major problem with "tax and spend" is government is so inefficient at distributing the revenue. So much money just gets "lost."

You are talking about the current administration, right? The amount of graft and waste from the Republican party is mind boggling. 

[Parliament 14138]

I'm talking about the current administration and every preceding administration since at least Abraham Lincoln.  

Edited February 25, 2019 by Parliament

[tucker 238]

On 2/22/2019 at 1:15 PM, Nice Guy Eddie said:

You also save a ridiculous amount of admin costs by just giving it to everyone.

If you basically deleted the entire welfare system and replaced it with a check for that amount to everyone, how many millions or billions do you save in admin costs. 

 

Responding directly to this proposal. A lot of government programs are to prevent people from making dumb decisions. Let's take food stamps. Who knows how many people would be responsible if given the money instead of food stamps but the number will definitely be greater than 0%. I look at programs like food stamps as not just for the direct receipts but also their families. If the drug addict parent received money, the kids may not eat. We have to balance efficiencies with the potential resulting social cost.  

[Nice Guy Eddie 13414]

7 minutes ago, tucker said:

Responding directly to this proposal. A lot of government programs are to prevent people from making dumb decisions. Let's take food stamps. Who knows how many people would be responsible if given the money instead of food stamps but the number will definitely be greater than 0%. I look at programs like food stamps as not just for the direct receipts but also their families. If the drug addict parent received money, the kids may not eat. We have to balance efficiencies with the potential resulting social cost.  

I hear you, and yes some people would misuse the money and cause pain for their family.  However I don't think that it's the responsibility of every govt program to ensure people are living correctly and not causing that pain.  There are other law enforcement agencies that come into play to prevent abuse.   One of the most inefficient uses of govt is when multiple agencies start performing the exact same job.   

If we give the drug addict money, and their child is starving, then the police or other local social services should step in.  It's doubtful that the UBI income made the bad parent start abusing the child.  The abuse was already there.

Reminds me when welfare agencies want to drug test every recipient to ensure we stop funding the drug addicts even if the enforcement of that policy ends up costing more than then the actual savings of removal of the welfare funds.  Let the local law enforcement step in if someone is breaking the law in terms of using illegal drugs.

[tucker 238]

1 minute ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I hear you, and yes some people would misuse the money and cause pain for their family.  However I don't think that it's the responsibility of every govt program to ensure people are living correctly and not causing that pain.  There are other law enforcement agencies that come into play to prevent abuse.   One of the most inefficient uses of govt is when multiple agencies start performing the exact same job.   

If we give the drug addict money, and their child is starving, then the police or other local social services should step in.  It's doubtful that the UBI income made the bad parent start abusing the child.  The abuse was already there.

Reminds me when welfare agencies want to drug test every recipient to ensure we stop funding the drug addicts even if the enforcement of that policy ends up costing more than then the actual savings of removal of the welfare funds.  Let the local law enforcement step in if someone is breaking the law in terms of using illegal drugs.

Agree. I do believe UBI would be a more efficient use of funds but wouldn't go as extreme of eliminating all programs. It would be selective on which would not be included in UBI. 

[Incredulity 11555]

[Nice Guy Eddie 13414]

Are you saying that the bottom 50% has an effective tax rate of 3% because they pay 3% of all income taxes, or is it actually a 3% effective rate and it's only a coincidence that the numbers are the same?

 

 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13414]

10 minutes ago, the said:

Their average effective tax rate is 3.59%. And their contribution is at 2.83%. 

Here's the source: https://taxfoundation.org/summary-federal-income-tax-data-2017/

Does this include the FICA taxes?  Does Sweden have their own FICA taxes that are also removed?

And I don't care if you want to include FICA in your argument or not, but if you bring Sweden into the mix, you have to compare both countries total income-based taxes.

[TwiceHorn 31283]

UBI only really makes sense if it displaces other assistance programs.  And, yes, I think it does matter if it gets misspent.  We are trying to alleviate poverty and its ill effects with all of this stuff.  If it's ineffectual at that, then it's a loser.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13414]

20 minutes ago, the said:

It doesn't include FICA. But if we are going to credit the poor for paying them then we should also credit the corporations who pay the other half, shouldn't we? And if corporations are paying it then that means its the wealthy that are paying them because aren't all corporations owned by the wealthy? Wink wink?

You're being disingenuous with your stats so I will bow out of discussing it with you.   Maybe someone else will engage you.

[riloh05 107]

wtf is $1k gonna do?  can we opt out and pay less taxes? or is this just a free $12k to dump into the gambling/fun budget.

[Incredulity 11555]

5 minutes ago, riloh05 said:

wtf is $1k gonna do?  can we opt out and pay less taxes? or is this just a free $12k to dump into the gambling/fun budget.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=VALUE+ADDED+TAX

[Bat Guano 359]

54 minutes ago, the said:

Disingenuous how? You do realize that there are two parts to FICA don't you? The employee pays one portion and the employer pays the other. Where do you think the other half comes from? Its not just free money created out of thin air, it would otherwise be profit for the people paying it. 

 

Your misunderstanding of basic principles does not mean someone is being disingenuous, it just means you don't understand it. 

Disingenuous by not including all the taxes poor people pay - like FICA, which adds up to over 8% out of workers' paychecks, regardless of the employer contribution; sales tax; property tax; state income taxes. In many cases the effective tax rate comes out higher for the poors than for the accountanted class, who manage to take advantage of tax law idiosyncrasies that the less well off don't have access to.

If you're going to make an argument about the effective tax rate the bottom 50% pay, then make an honest argument about the actual rate they pay, not one that excludes most of their tax payments.

[Bat Guano 359]

9 minutes ago, the said:

At the same rate, to keep it even those same taxes are not included for employers/AkA the wealthy. Not only on their own income tax payments but also the payments they make for the poor and middle class through their corporations. A person employing 100 workers at 50,000/annual wage will pay $382,500 in FICA by himself which otherwise would've been profit for that corporation/wealthy guy/job creator/the evil wealth hoarder. That worker will pay $3,825. The burden again is exponentially higher for the wealthy here. 

And do the wealthy no pay sales taxes, property taxes, etc. etc.? 

And go ahead and tell me about the tax law idiosyncrasies when the highest wage tax rate is 39.6%, capital gains tax rate is 20% and the wealthy still pay an effective rate of 27%. If there were these magical loopholes, wouldn't they pay much lower rates. Like....3% that the poors pay? 

Stop being intentionally ignorant. 

I'll stop being ignorant as soon as you stop lying. You've been shown that the working poor pay more than 3%. Why are you still saying it? Are you afraid to make an honest argument based on what they actually pay?

Edited February 25, 2019 by Bat Guano

[Bat Guano 359]

4 minutes ago, the said:

No, they pay 3.6% in federal income taxes, which was my claim. If the question is whether the wealthy or poor that pay a higher effective tax rate if you include the FICA, the number again would be exponentially higher for the wealthy. Probably skewed even worse for the wealthy. 

Stop being intentionally ignorant. 

So why don't you make an honest argument about the effective rate the 1% pay, including all the various taxes, and the effective rate the bottom 50% pay, including all their taxes?

Yeah, I know why: it wouldn't be that big a difference. Apparently you don't know what 'exponentially' means.

Stop lying.

[Bat Guano 359]

16 minutes ago, the said:

Because I don't have a source, you know to avoid lying. Like you. 

I have a source that shows how much the wealthy are paying and it shows that they do it exponentially compared to the poor. Since you're disputing it, why don't you provide a source? 

Go ahead, until then STFU. 

I gave you the outline already. Let's see those formidable math skilz.

Federal income tax - 3.6%: your numbers, although you rounded it down to 3%. Lulz.

FICA - 6.2% on up to $128,000 for SS; 1.45% for Medicare. None deductible for the employee, employer's contribution IS deductible.

Sales tax - since poors spend most of their income on stuff, this is a pretty high percentage of the sales tax rate. Let's say 5%.

Property tax - Poors pay it if they own a house, and the cost gets passed on to renters also. Let's say a conservative estimate of 3%.

State income tax - in some states this will be a factor. Variable and usually progressive, so let's say a very conservative 2%.

Total: 21.25%. Your figure for the 1% effective rate is 27%. Not such a big difference, is it?

Feel free to dispute any of my figures; some of them are just estimates, and if you can find better information, let's see it.

And in the mean time, stop lying.

Edited February 25, 2019 by Bat Guano