/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>16878314
Neets deserve the rope

>>16878314
Nice pic fren. Do you might if I save it?

>>16878314
It basically means that goverment is going to pay the salaries instead of companies

>>16878314

>>16878314
Works in Alaska. They tax the oil. Yang says you can scale that up to a national level by taxing Amazon/Facebook/Google/ etc.
I haven't done the math but if it's true, fuck yeah do it, I don't give two shits about those companies.

It's a nice idea but won't be much of a practical help for those who need it the most

>>16878569
If you decide to tax these companies extra, why would these companies stay in the United States? Why would a company choose to pay more taxes (especially one of that size) when they could move office to somewhere else with less invasive tax laws

>>16878569
The fact that people like you are permitted to vote is a grave error that will only be corrected once copious amounts of blood have been spilled to reboot Western civilization

>>16878314
The idea stinks but arguably UBI already exists in the form of neetbucks? We live in a society that has already decided it doesnt have the stomach to watch people starve in the streets.

Has to be combined with rent control and price control to work. Don’t go to McDonald’s for a while if Yang gets in, though; everyone will quit right away unless it’s staffed entirely by boomers with nothing better to do

It's a good idea, the only "arguments" against it are stupid shit like "zomg socialism" and "zomg black people don't deserve ubi!!!! (Even though they currently get welfare)"

Master degree on the matter here, anon. AMA.

Also: UBI = Plebian QE. Pretty much sums it up.

>>16879072
The fact that you think your vote matters, or that you even vote, proves I'm smarter than you.

>>16879042
Because we will ban them from the US market if they do that. Nobody will be spending UBI dollars on their products.

>>16879042
If you don't understand all the advantages companies like google enjoy by operating in the US, then you are too stupid for this conversation. Paying a little extra tax is not a good enough reason for them to uproot.

>>16879042
You don't know anything. You are FUCKING STUPID. Do you know that? Think about it. You are fucking stupid.

Ok. Time to each you.

>Why would these companies stay in the USA
Do you have ANY idea how much it would cost to move a SP500 company AWAY from USA?

Do you have ANY idea how risky it would also be? The whole soul of the company might not work at all in another country. You could lose the majority of your customer base. You could lose majority of your employees. You could lose the majority of your property and intellectual property rights.

HOW FUCKING STUPID ARE YOU? COMPANIES CANT JUST MOVE BETWEEN COUNTRIES YOU FUCKING IDIOT.

Your idea of "capitalism" between countries is SERIOUSLY FLAWED. You CAN buy a different flavor of ice cream if you didnt like it. But you cant just change country because you didnt like law number #1235001.

>>16878569
Alaska doesn't come from taxes on production, but on natural resources. I would support it in that context, as a i believe land is the common property of mankind, and the producer's surplus of land should belong to everyone equally.

However, if you're just adding a fucking new tax on production like gay ass Yang you're going to fuck everything up worse and add to the maddening federal bureacracy, and doing nothing to address the completely insane 8000 page tax code.

The government has no right to your labor, and by extension, capital. It literally is theft. However, monopolization of natural resources is also theft, and this can only be remediated by taxing land at its full market value and making people choose between UBI or shitty government services.

>>16879191
Shut up you retarded libertarian sperg

>>16878314
UBI is a more egalitarian and easily administered replacement for niche welfare programs that, as it stands, often incenivize the poor to stay poor so as not to lose their bennies.

The fact that the government has already bailed out massive financial institutions (among businesses from other industries) means that the "omg socialism" angle from ideological capitalists has no leg to stand on. I'd rather loot the treasury to pay the public than put TARPs on too-big-to-fail businesses.

If you gave me a Freedom Dividend of $1k a month, I'd reinvest it into dividend stocks, meaning the corporates are getting the funds back indirectly anyways.

>>16879103
To get on disability you have to start a years long application process, hire a lawyer, and make that your full time job basically. Only the most dedicated succeed at getting that government money.

With UBI at least everyone gets it, not just those people. You aren't getting any welfare, you would get UBI.

I haven't really been paying attention to the whole UBI thing, and haven't gotten to properly hear either side's argument. So hopefully we can have a good wholesome discussion here and actually debate ideas instead of throwing feces at each other like most threads.

First of all, before we dive deeper into this topic, we need to ask the question: What is the actual purpose of our government? What responsibilities and obligations does our government owe its people?

UBI is inevitable. Yang will stop the gibs to a few individuals but in return will give a fair treatment to everyone

>>16879191
based

>>16879289
UBI would be fine if it came at the expense of other social programs... but that will never happen. You will end up paying VAT (making everything more expensive) and eating the deadweight loss and giving the federal government more power.

We don't need a new tax. The government needs to fucking spend less, which they will literally never do barring collapse.

>>16878314
The basic premise is that the oncoming IR is fundamentally different from previous iterations, and that the resultant lost jobs won't be replaced. Ever seen 1900? Now imagine if new jobs didn't come around.
If you think these premises are true, it's the only way to prevent social calamity. If you don't, then it's merely a solidly left-wing social policy.
I don't see the downside either way.

>>16878314
UBI is just slave wages to you dummies to vote away your freedoms. You stupid fucks have no idea how much worse your lives are going to get once shit like this starts. They want everyone poor and hopeless. Then they are going to start harvesting

>>16878314
Go back to your containment board, pls.

>>16879183
Country of registration, not country of operation, you dunce.

>>16879136
based

>>16879338
Makes sense. I agree that there should be no new tax. So what's the argument for UBI?

>>16879404
Post source for this claim?

>>16879191
>I would support [tax on natural resources] in that context, as a i believe land is the common property of mankind
based

>doing nothing to address the completely insane 8000 page tax code.
based, fix this mess

>The government has no right to your labor, and by extension, capital. It literally is theft.
based

> taxing land at its full market value
if you mean full market land value not including value of improvements, then based, and redpilled

There are structural, compounding problems with the monetary system that cause the inefficiencies we’re seeing now. Shuffling around who has the money isn’t going to solve those problems. It’s not a matter of possession like so many seem to think

>>16878314
It's good if it replaces all other welfare.
If it's just another program, it's shit.

>>16879338
this, UBI as the only government handout is a good idea and allows everyone a baseline with which to 'vote with their wallet'. the fact that Yang has said that he'd keep the other welfare programs means this won't work as many will choose to stay sucking on the gibs teat

>>16879110
>rent control and price control
literal brainlet policy. read basic economics please just anything to get you to think

>>16879117
This

>>16879531
>UBI as the only government handout is a good idea and allows everyone a baseline with which to 'vote with their wallet'
This seems like a good idea. If everyone gets the same gibs, it’s more fair. But how do you establish that baseline? They can’t be giving out a full living wage, because then no one would need a job. Too little, and people will still be homeless and in extreme poverty. And how do you deal with the fact that living costs vary by region?

Would it really be fair to give a healthy 20 year old person the same amount of gibs as a 75 year old with chronic heath issues who would literally die without expensive medicines and a house?

UBI is anti-Semitic. Ergo I support it.

No.
>b-but
No.

>>16879618
>But how do you establish that baseline
trial and error i guess. $1000 a month is a nice round number.

What I could see happening is property developers can now start to cater to low income families better. Build some high density but decent location apartments and a high tenancy rate is almost guaranteed as rent is covered.

>Would it really be fair to give a healthy 20 year old person the same amount of gibs as a 75 year old with chronic heath issues who would literally die without expensive medicines and a house?
asking whats fair is a subjective question. I would say expecting others to work for you and provide services without compensation isn't fair, so complaining about needing medical care & housing is entitled.

>>16878569
>works in alaska

dude we get 1600 bucks once a year and the politicians are trying to take it for social programs ie. gibs

>>16878314
I'm past the point of caring or having principles. I just want some money now. Fuck all of you
>b-buh muh economy muh inflation
Don't give a shit, it can burn for all I care

>>16879776
>What I could see happening is property developers can now start to cater to low income families better. Build some high density but decent location apartments and a high tenancy rate is almost guaranteed as rent is covered.
This seems like a pretty likely scenario. Would solve the homeless issue, at least to an extent. Drug users will still be drug users and choose a hit of heroin over a house to sleep in. But regular lower class people would certainly benefit from this.

Only thing I'd be worried about would be the UBI-tier housing complexes quickly turning into shitholes full of crime, drugs, and prostitution. When you provide a free place for all the low lifes of society to come and live in one location together, it wont be pretty

>>16879072
wow you're so smart and cool anon tell us more

>>16878569
This will just get passed to consumers

I think UBI ends up paying for itself and ends up almost neutral through things like above. If you tax corporations, consumers pay

The concept of over taxing citizens to give everyone money back is stupid. Welfare should be a safety net for those at the bottom, not something that everyone should be in.

It also cannot work in the US, which has over 50 million illegals, Wich is more than the total population of Scandinavian countries. The US has more unemployed people than most of those countries. It will do nothing but create a one party government and create hyperinflation.

>>16880176
this shitty country needs to have massive reforms which can only happen during some sort of major collapse

that's my honest argument for UBI

>>16879460
I do mean exactly that. Ricardian rent.

>>16879424
Ubi is good if it replaces inefficient government spending. People are better at choosing what services they like more than having the government dictating it to them. The trouble is people are niggers and will spend all their money on fucking scratch offs and then complain about not having food to eat so you inevitably get UBI plus welfare.

>>16879255
>dividend stocks

That’s a funny way to say BTC/LINK

>everyone suddenly has $1k/month more
>prices raise to reflect this
>???
>profit

>>16878314
UBI is just a temporary idea until Peter Joseph's robo-communism is implemented.

>>16880014
>shitholes full of crime, drugs, and prostitution.
yeah thats true. I guess body corp fees could go towards security, obviously kick out people if they break the law. idk yeah its difficult

>>16880176
>Welfare should be a safety net for those at the bottom, not something that everyone should be in.
if welfare is only for 'the bottom' it creates an incentive for someone to not increase their income. "hey ok so currently we give you 400 bucks a week, why dont you get a job for 40 hours a weekat minimum wage so you can make 500 bucks a week? hows that sound?"

>It also cannot work in the US, which has over 50 million illegals,
dont pay the illegals duh

>>16878314
>pay niggers to exist
no thanks anon

>>16879297
>Yang will stop the gibs to a few individuals but in return will give a fair treatment to everyone
Wut? No he's doing both. He refuses to end welfare, affirmative action, food stamps, etc.

Will increase the velocity of money and thereby drastically increase inflation.

>>16882733

The incentive is that the majority of people won't want to be on the bare minimum for survival.

You're completely correct about the way working works with welfare. The way welfare is handled is one of the biggest issues. Welfare actually punishes you for getting a job. Lots of people don't work simply because working a McJob usually doesn't even make more than the welfare. It should be a gradual taper off as an individual moves upward, not a hard stop at one dollar over the poverty line. The government does it in the most ineffective way possible because it prefers those people to be in welfare permanently because it guarantees their loyalty.

UBI really isn't needed. We have so many significantly cheaper and easier ways by just cleaning up the current system. Massive amounts of government retardation is the problem

>Don't pay the illegals
That simply won't be an option.

Anyone saying that UBI will remove all the current welfare is just retarded. Too many people make way more than the 1k a month on their gibs programs

>>16879132
QE = Trickle down economics of 2020

UBI used to be called communism.