America’s first step towards UBI proposed by Senator Sanders, oops, I mean Romney.

Ah, of course. I was wondering why Mitt "Fuck the 47%" Romney suddenly cared about child poverty.

Oh shit I'm way behind the curve!

We like our metonyms.

Not to mention there’s a strict rule that you should give to the poor and not question what they do with the money.

Here’s a strange concept for taxation. The government lets me keep all of my wages, I spend that money as I see fit and we let the chips fall where they may. Crazy concept I know.

That doesn't work unless you want no government at all. If you have government, it needs to be funded and taxes are a simple, obvious way to do it.

Sure, eliminate the income tax and replace it with a fair tax. We’ve talked about this.

JHC, I didn't post fast enough! I knew he was going to haul this out. "Fair tax" translation: The guy trying to feed a family on minimum wage should pay JUST AS MUCH FOR EVERY CONSUMER GOOD as the Trust Fund Babies.

Kerist, kid, would you get a new shtick?

Nope. We’ve talked about this as well. If you live below the poverty line, you don’t pay.

You don't pay sales tax? Really?

OMG, I’m talking about a theoretical tax plan, try and keep up.

So, what's the "poverty line" in your world? And how do you kill the tax shelters and offshore accounts that are mother's milk to the 1%? Convince me.

Careful you might become a socialist after you visit..

Economic populism (ie, socialism) has a future among social conservatives. Trump proved that in 2016, although he failed to deliver at all, instead governing in lockstep with the libertarian corporatists.

Just make sure you avoid calling it socialism and slap on a jingoistic title like "Freedom Dividend." The @Lanzman s of the world are a shallow but easily-led bunch.

@Lanzman is an old fart working for a subcontractor for the Gubmint he pretends to despise, but he'll happily take his Gubmint pension in a few years, TYVM.

Nah, but I might wind up surrendering a lot.

I work for the government. I'm a GS employee. I am not a contractor. If you're going to mock me, at least do it correctly.

Hokay, so you work for the Gubmint you despise. Much clearer.

And anyway, despising the government is only a subset of despising all of humanity, so . . .

In all fairness, I don't think there is a conflict between enjoying one's pension, earned in compensation for labor, and his libertarian views on social welfare.

The conflict is where people feel they've "earned" their benefits (I'm thinking specifically of @Paladin who, apparently, only works for companies where Daddy Corporation provides healthcare) and those who don't have that privilege.

And, yes, in the U.S. of Merika, it's a privilege. Prove me wrong.

Sounds like a good plan. But having a sudden jump from no tax to paying full tax seems like it could be very abrupt and reduce incentives for people to earn more. Perhaps it would be better to stagger in the tax amounts? Like the less you earn the less of a percentage you pay, and the more you earn the closer to that upper limit percentage you pay? Imagine such a system!

I'm gonna be honest and say that the families that will benefit the most from this won't give much of a shit where it comes from.

LBJ was a racist, as @gturner was so fond of spamming the board to remind us of, but the Civil Rights Act has done marginalized people a fair amount of good.

In the end, I don't care so much who gets it done, as long as it gets done. Would I like minorities to lead the charge and shape these things with their own inputs? Yes, but if I waited for that, a whole lotta kids will starve. To quote from my more religious family, I'm not so heavenly bound that I'm of no earthly good. Kids gotta eat.

Whaddyagunnado?

Who said anything about a sudden jump?

You mean the first administration Reagan tax structure? Before he decided to tax Social Security to compensate his rich friends?

Stop talking nonsense!

If the government didn't have any money to spend on roads, where would you drunk drive? Although, I guess the government wouldn't have any money to spend on police, so I'm sure the fReE mArKeT would punish you somehow.

I assume the Fair Tax you refer to (let's put aside the questionable naming for now) is the proposal that all taxes are replaced with a single tax rate on goods and services.

If that is the case, then someone moving from the excluded to non-excluded category seems like it would involve a sudden jump in the amount of tax paid.

Yeah, imagine if the poverty line is $20K/yr. Below that, you live tax-free, above that, you have to start paying taxes. If you made $21K/yr and had to pay $2K/yr in taxes, you're worse off than you were before you moved above the poverty line. The only way you could come out ahead is if you made at least $23K/yr and still only paid $2K in taxes. Would you, however, be able to figure out in advance how much you'd owe in taxes, so you'd know for certain that you'd be able to come out ahead? Or would it all be a crap shoot as to how much you owed?

You assume too much.

Most people pay about 25% in taxes overall. With a fair tax, most people pay less, overall.