What objection can there be to solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner?

[Papageorgio]

I didn’t ignore it, you did. An average one bedroom apartment in Seattle is $1933 a month. Portland $1500, Los Angeles $2400, San Francisco is 2998, New York City $3011, Washinton DC $2063. Minimum wage at $15 per hour is $2600 per month, take out taxes, food, electric, sewer, water and other expenses, you would be unable to afford the apartment, so how did you plan solve homelessness?

Splitting costs with a roommate can help.

That’s what a person wants, to live with someone in a one bedroom apartment.

Imagine if women believed more in equality and fiscal forms of responsibility.

I'm not sure what you are saying, are you saying women aren't equal and are not fiscally responsible?

 

[Papageorgio]

I just ran the numbers again on the website: Income Tax Calculator 2021 - USA - Salary After Tax

It shows that the federal income tax paid by someone with a gross yearly income of 15,080 pays 268 dollars, and that someone making a gross yearly income of 31,200 pays 2,059 dollars; more than seven times more.

Let me help you with some numbers to show the fallacy of your claim that tax payers would be paying for this.

I ignored the 2020 unemployment numbers, because the pandemic situation skews everything.

In 2019 there were 5.9 million people who were unemployed. (actually more, but this is the documented ones)

If we give every one of them an annual income of $31,200.00, it would cost $184,080,000,000.00.

If every person who collects UC pays $2,059.00 in taxes, that would provide $12,148,100,000.00.

Leaving a difference of $171,931,900,000.00 to be paid by the working tax payer. Every single year.

Adding $171 Billion dollars to our tax burden will mean we all pay significantly more taxes.

With a multiplier of two, the amount spent would generate twice that amount in economic activity. In other words, indirect taxes would be raised on 386 billion dollars worth of economic activity. And, those persons would be paying some taxes and creating more demand, unlike what happens now.

In addition, since that program would be simpler, less people would want to apply for more expensive means tested welfare. So we would see a corresponding cost reduction in that program along with a corresponding increase in economic activity which would be generating more indirect tax revenue.

If we use your numbers for a similar amount of people on means tested welfare now, spending 184 billion on means tested welfare now only generates a multiplier of .8 or 147 billion dollars worth of economic activity to be taxed on; a difference of 239 billion dollars worth of economic activity that is not generating tax revenue now.

And, employers would also see cost reductions which may be passed on to consumers since they would no longer need to keep track of unemployment compensation accounts for individuals.

And, with that upward pressure on wages, higher paid labor would be creating more in demand and generating more in tax revenue.

If you really believe that then why do you want to restrict a persons unemployment when it comes to person's simple passive unearned income?

 

[danielpalos]

Again, you are not simplifying you are adding conditions and as already shown, it does not solve poverty, it just creates more layers of government and switching responsibility from one agency to another.

Yes, it is a simplification. And, it costs time and money to adjudicate any appeals. Also, people would litigate less if they could simply quit on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States. Employees will also be less likely to become disgruntled.

We aren’t talking a few extra dollars here. Unhappy workers cost the U.S. between $450 and $550 billion in lost productivity each year, according to a 2013 report on the state of the U.S. workplace conducted by research and polling company Gallup.--https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/246036#:~:text=Infographics-,Unhappy%20Workers%20Cost%20the%20U.S.,%24550%20Billion%20a%20Year%20(Infographic)&text=Your%20employees'%20happiness%20can%20make,And%20that's%20expensive%20for%20you.

 

[danielpalos]

You keep quoting that multiplier effect. You assume after making the fundamental changes to UC that is will still bring the same multiplier effect.

My opinion is that the multiplier would be even higher because even the currently homeless would be contributing to our market economy, in addition to savings from less market participation in means tested welfare, and less crime and property damage to businesses.

 

[danielpalos]

What? Why do you think women don't believe in equality or fiscal responsibility?

They could even more than they do now with recourse to an income.

 

[danielpalos]

I'm not sure what you are saying, are you saying women aren't equal and are not fiscally responsible?

No. I am saying I won't complain if women try to addict me to their crack and insist it is because she wants to be more fiscally responsible.

 

[danielpalos]

If you really believe that then why do you want to restrict a persons unemployment when it comes to person's simple passive unearned income?

I am only claiming that any income reported tends to reduce benefits.

Why would you need income from unemployment compensation when according to the right wing it is so easy to become gainfully employed, or rebalance your portfolio to earn more passive income. Simply earning enough passive income would be the equivalent to being self-employed.

 

[Papageorgio]

Again, you are not simplifying you are adding conditions and as already shown, it does not solve poverty, it just creates more layers of government and switching responsibility from one agency to another.

Yes, it is a simplification. And, it costs time and money to adjudicate any appeals. Also, people would litigate less if they could simply quit on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States. Employees will also be less likely to become disgruntled.

We aren’t talking a few extra dollars here. Unhappy workers cost the U.S. between $450 and $550 billion in lost productivity each year, according to a 2013 report on the state of the U.S. workplace conducted by research and polling company Gallup.--https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/246036#:~:text=Infographics-,Unhappy%20Workers%20Cost%20the%20U.S.,%24550%20Billion%20a%20Year%20(Infographic)&text=Your%20employees'%20happiness%20can%20make,And%20that's%20expensive%20for%20you.

It isn't simplifying, you want to add conditions, please stop lying. It isn't going to solve homelessness as we have seen in many large liberal cities the cost of a one bedroom apartment is very costly and beyond anyone making $15 per hour.

 

[Papageorgio]

If you really believe that then why do you want to restrict a persons unemployment when it comes to person's simple passive unearned income?

I am only claiming that any income reported tends to reduce benefits.

Why would you need income from unemployment compensation when according to the right wing it is so easy to become gainfully employed, or rebalance your portfolio to earn more passive income. Simply earning enough passive income would be the equivalent to being self-employed.

Don't try to lay this off on anyone's feet but your own. I am not using any other scenario but yours. So, why do you now want to add further restrictions when you claim the simple unemployment should be paid for simply not being employed? You are adding restrictions that are not currently in place, thus complicating the program, one that you claim you are trying to simplify. Why are you being dishonest?

 

[Papageorgio]

I'm not sure what you are saying, are you saying women aren't equal and are not fiscally responsible?

No. I am saying I won't complain if women try to addict me to their crack and insist it is because she wants to be more fiscally responsible.

That has nothing to do with the topic.

 

[hadit]

No, they are not. But employers hire people every day. Aside from the pandemic lockdown, the employers in the US hire the overwhelming majority of the population.

In order to get a job, especially a better job, you try to curry the favor of the employer. Not being a suckup, but by doing what they need to make their business better.

Capitalism still has a natural rate of unemployment and why is there any homelessness in Right to Work States?

There will always be homelessness.

The point is, it can be reduced to the extent it is due to simple poverty.

Are you talking about temporary or long term homelessness? Short term homelessness can be alleviated by programs that provide basic shelter for those who, for example, simply hit on hard times and can't find work. Chronic homelessness, however, is much more intractable. Emotional and mental disability can cause people to isolate themselves from the rest of society and they can refuse to stay in any place. Sometimes people just prefer being outside on their own. They may not have a place to live, but carry what supplies they need in a backpack. IOW, there will always be homelessness because people are different.

 

[hadit]

That is only if the program will continue to be the same, you are changing it fundamentally and that changes the fundamentals of the program. Pretty easy to see through your fallacy.

No fundamental change only faithful execution of existing law and using the same physical infrastructure.

Changing the source of funding, the qualifications for, and the length of time benefits can be drawn, is fundamental change.

Not at all. It is merely faithful execution of the law.

The reason for making the change is irrelevant to the reality that you ARE making fundamental changes to the program. Right now, it's self-sustaining because there are enough employers paying taxes into the program that it can support the relatively small number of employees who temporarily draw from it. What you want to do is massively increase the number of recipients to far beyond the pool of employees and include those who never worked and never have any intention of working, ie those who have no relation to the employers. Therefore, you would HAVE to make the tax a general one, and HAVE to move distribution of the benefits to a general model whereby everybody in the country could be getting a check. IOW, you have created a massive new welfare program. No, you do not get to claim you would get a multiplier of 2 and you do not get to claim you can use the existing infrastructure and, as I have pointed out to you repeatedly, you would HAVE to change the law, because existing law does NOT allow for UC to cover everybody and his dog. It just doesn't.

 

[Billiejeens]

I agree to disagree. Anecdotal evidence can make it seem that way, but it does not tell the whole economic story. People who want to be poor have no incentive to commit crime. Our alleged, War on Crime, is proof that many people don't want to be poor by choice.

I laugh

 

[hadit]

I just ran the numbers again on the website: Income Tax Calculator 2021 - USA - Salary After Tax

It shows that the federal income tax paid by someone with a gross yearly income of 15,080 pays 268 dollars, and that someone making a gross yearly income of 31,200 pays 2,059 dollars; more than seven times more.

Let me help you with some numbers to show the fallacy of your claim that tax payers would be paying for this.

I ignored the 2020 unemployment numbers, because the pandemic situation skews everything.

In 2019 there were 5.9 million people who were unemployed. (actually more, but this is the documented ones)

If we give every one of them an annual income of $31,200.00, it would cost $184,080,000,000.00.

If every person who collects UC pays $2,059.00 in taxes, that would provide $12,148,100,000.00.

Leaving a difference of $171,931,900,000.00 to be paid by the working tax payer. Every single year.

Adding $171 Billion dollars to our tax burden will mean we all pay significantly more taxes.

With a multiplier of two, the amount spent would generate twice that amount in economic activity. In other words, indirect taxes would be raised on 386 billion dollars worth of economic activity. And, those persons would be paying some taxes and creating more demand, unlike what happens now.

In addition, since that program would be simpler, less people would want to apply for more expensive means tested welfare. So we would see a corresponding cost reduction in that program along with a corresponding increase in economic activity which would be generating more indirect tax revenue.

If we use your numbers for a similar amount of people on means tested welfare now, spending 184 billion on means tested welfare now only generates a multiplier of .8 or 147 billion dollars worth of economic activity to be taxed on; a difference of 239 billion dollars worth of economic activity that is not generating tax revenue now.

And, employers would also see cost reductions which may be passed on to consumers since they would no longer need to keep track of unemployment compensation accounts for individuals.

And, with that upward pressure on wages, higher paid labor would be creating more in demand and generating more in tax revenue.

Okay, this is hilarious. You actually believe that a program with means testing is more expensive than that same program without means testing. Do you really have no idea why means testing is done in the first place? I'll tell you, because it's obvious you don't.

We do means testing because we specifically do NOT want anyone and everyone showing up for free money. Are you TRYING to be dense at this point?

 

[Billiejeens]

The last thing people dealing with obesity — let alone the one-two punch of poverty and obesity — need is to be told is that it’s their fault. But think about it this way. The people engineering the food that’s all around us are doing it with the specific intention to override ordinary human willpower. (Read Michael Moss’s excellent book, “Salt Sugar Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us,” on that subject.) They’ve been spending billions of dollars on it. Is it any surprise that they succeed?

People become obese because they eat an excess of calories not because of some plot hatched by big business

Have you seen the commercials for cake?
(I'm weak)

 

[hadit]

I'm not sure what you are saying, are you saying women aren't equal and are not fiscally responsible?

No. I am saying I won't complain if women try to addict me to their crack and insist it is because she wants to be more fiscally responsible.

That has nothing to do with the topic.

Daniel has some very disrespectful things to say about women. Clearly, he is no conservative.

 

[Papageorgio]

No, they are not. But employers hire people every day. Aside from the pandemic lockdown, the employers in the US hire the overwhelming majority of the population.

In order to get a job, especially a better job, you try to curry the favor of the employer. Not being a suckup, but by doing what they need to make their business better.

Capitalism still has a natural rate of unemployment and why is there any homelessness in Right to Work States?

There will always be homelessness.

The point is, it can be reduced to the extent it is due to simple poverty.

Are you talking about temporary or long term homelessness? Short term homelessness can be alleviated by programs that provide basic shelter for those who, for example, simply hit on hard times and can't find work. Chronic homelessness, however, is much more intractable. Emotional and mental disability can cause people to isolate themselves from the rest of society and they can refuse to stay in any place. Sometimes people just prefer being outside on their own. They may not have a place to live, but carry what supplies they need in a backpack. IOW, there will always be homelessness because people are different.

He doesn't know what he is talking about. He is so damned uninformed about homelessness, he just spews nonsense about it. Housing costs are so high in many liberal cities because of building restrictions, codes and regulation that it drives up the cost to build and maintain, he is clueless of it all. He also doesn't understand the mental health aspects of homelessness. He is stuck in his moronic mentality that one solution fits all and it all revolves around money. Money is not always the answer.

 

[hadit]

Again, you are not simplifying you are adding conditions and as already shown, it does not solve poverty, it just creates more layers of government and switching responsibility from one agency to another.

Yes, it is a simplification. And, it costs time and money to adjudicate any appeals. Also, people would litigate less if they could simply quit on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States. Employees will also be less likely to become disgruntled.

We aren’t talking a few extra dollars here. Unhappy workers cost the U.S. between $450 and $550 billion in lost productivity each year, according to a 2013 report on the state of the U.S. workplace conducted by research and polling company Gallup.--https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/246036#:~:text=Infographics-,Unhappy%20Workers%20Cost%20the%20U.S.,%24550%20Billion%20a%20Year%20(Infographic)&text=Your%20employees'%20happiness%20can%20make,And%20that's%20expensive%20for%20you.

And you think paying people who are staying in jobs they don't like because the jobs pay them well $14/hr to quit is going to make them happy?

 

[hadit]

No, they are not. But employers hire people every day. Aside from the pandemic lockdown, the employers in the US hire the overwhelming majority of the population.

In order to get a job, especially a better job, you try to curry the favor of the employer. Not being a suckup, but by doing what they need to make their business better.

Capitalism still has a natural rate of unemployment and why is there any homelessness in Right to Work States?

There will always be homelessness.

The point is, it can be reduced to the extent it is due to simple poverty.

Are you talking about temporary or long term homelessness? Short term homelessness can be alleviated by programs that provide basic shelter for those who, for example, simply hit on hard times and can't find work. Chronic homelessness, however, is much more intractable. Emotional and mental disability can cause people to isolate themselves from the rest of society and they can refuse to stay in any place. Sometimes people just prefer being outside on their own. They may not have a place to live, but carry what supplies they need in a backpack. IOW, there will always be homelessness because people are different.

He doesn't know what he is talking about. He is so damned uninformed about homelessness, he just spews nonsense about it. Housing costs are so high in many liberal cities because of building restrictions, codes and regulation that it drives up the cost to build and maintain, he is clueless of it all. He also doesn't understand the mental health aspects of homelessness. He is stuck in his moronic mentality that one solution fits all and it all revolves around money. Money is not always the answer.

Combine deliberate ignorance with dogmatic adherence to simple slogans and imperviousness to fact, logic an reason and you get, well, him.

 

[hadit]

What? Why do you think women don't believe in equality or fiscal responsibility?

They could even more than they do now with recourse to an income.

Women have recourse to an income. It's called work, There is literally no legal barrier preventing them from earning an income. Clearly yet another fallacy on your part. You've racked up a bunch of them.