https://finance.yahoo.com/news/warren-buffett-eitc-150619498.html
lol earned incoem tax credit is only for dirt poor people. these policies alienates slight higher income people from profiting which is why people hate the idea of welfare etc . if we just apply ubi to everyone, then most would be in favor. the rich obviously wouldnt since ultimately they pay the taxes and they want to pay the least amount, and helping only those in need makes the most sense.
imo. it is the rich’s job to make the world more productive. if they cant figure out how to make people productive, then it should be taxed away from them and be given as a handout.
also just to be clear. unless ur racking 24k in taxes per person in ur family hosuehold. you are taking advatnage of the rich and u are a negative cost to govt.
its for ppl who actually work
I mean, I’m all for effectively lowering the taxes for some workers, but where does the money come from in the first place?
We could: Take it from wall street by changing long-term cap gains, introduce a tax on all financial transactions, or higher fees when they break laws. Take it from the wealthy by undoing Trump and Bush’s tax cuts, increasing wealth taxes Take it from the budget by no longer engaging in unending wars in the middle east
There’s a couple of trillion dollars to pay for stuff. Or these would arguably pay for themselves as workers become more productive.
EITC is a bigger subsidy to low wage employers than it is to low wage earners. the EITC is a way to subsidize $7/hr minimum wage and bring it closer to a living wage without affecting the market economy for wage labour. it is a silly device and is one of the main reasons why the US remains one of the larger employers of near slave wage labour while the rest of the West has moved on to just raising the minimum wage and providing basic income.
a much more robust unemployment insurance should be introduced far before an enhancement of the EITC. unemployment is much more destructive at the household and societal level than a low wage and reaches far beyond the working poor. unemployment insurance isn’t even about welfare. it is about building a society that acknowledges that layoffs are a natural part of our economy and nobody should be penalized severely for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. it is pretty difficult to take advantage of unemployment insurance in most countries relative to other social programs.
This isn’t an issue with the EITC or a NIT, this is the issue that a corporations main goal is to maximize shareholder value. Corporate welfare is bigger beast. There’s a few solutions, again, none that have anything to do with EITC
From Bernie/Rubio (lol @ that duo):
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/20/18225086/marco-rubio-stock-buybacks-tax-plan
Other solutions: Raise the minimum wage
Make corporations pay for any benefits their employees receive
Slave wage labor in the us? That’s just ridiculous. A fucking burger flipper makes 10 bucks an hr minimum. In the Philippines it’s like 1.5 an hr. Honestly if us is slave labor wth is Philippines. Imo minimum wage laws should not exist. Pay these blue collar workers what they are worth. If we could flood the country then they would be worth even far less than current minimum wage. Anyways low skilled Americans are lucky and should be grateful that there are protections for them.
manila minimum wage is about US$28/day PPP.
philly minimum wage is about US$58/day PPP.
manchester minimum wage is about US$120/day PPP.
hamilton, canada minimum wage is about US$160/day PPP.
*PPP benchmark is Philly
sure there are places that have lower and higher minimum wages but i’d say philly looks a hell of a lot closer to manila than the rest of the West, especially considering the rest of the West has social programs which further vault the daily wage when incorporated.
The point that I am making is that legislation like this should be considered as a package of revenue and spending. Almost all spending proposals sound good until you mention their cost, and often result in either uncontrolled overruns or stalling in legislature. For instance, how would you propose to end spending on middle eastern military presence? All attempts to pull out have met with bipartisan resistance. Other than that, we fall back to “taxing the rich” or wealthy corporations, which is an unending argument. Worker productivity increase is just theoretical and it’s probably really unlikely to pay for these subsidies.
I think it’s reasonable to say that if someone can’t support themself without govt assistance they shouldn’t have any more kids. I may consider a deal (it has to be the best deal in the history of deals, something negotiated by Mr. art of the deal himself) but I don’t want to support a policy that will allow these people to have more kids than me that will grow up to vote to takeaway whatever I leave my kid(s)
Actually came up with a brilliant idea. If you’re on the receiving end of this kind of program, you don’t get to vote.
Bush tax cuts have cost 5.6 trillion from 2001-2018: https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/the-legacy-of-the-2001-and-2003-bush-tax-cuts Trump tax cuts are a little more mixed, since they’re still new. Estimates range from 500 billion to 1 trillion over 10 years.:https://www.thebalance.com/cost-of-trump-tax-cuts-4586645
I just came up with 6 trillion to spend on stuff.
I’m not going to comment on withdrawing from the middle east – i have a feeling you’ll straw man a small part of it instead of addressing the underlying part. You don’t disagree with the premise that we shouldn’t be in there, which is enough for me.
The issue is our dysfunctional government. The reality is you could put an Ohai and a Schoop in a room for a month and I’m 100% certain they could hash out a good step forward they both agree on.
then 95% of households prolly wouldnt get to vote. we would essentially be ruled by the nobles of the country.
anyways i agree with ohai but we will have a debt crisis if we dont do something esp if rates were to rise. if we are to increase taxation, then we should have equal budget cuts. so both sides feel pain. also we should never have a budget deficit. we can easily increase taxes to wipe out the deficit. then once the increase is made, we need to trim the government budget to chip away the debt. it should placate both sides. deficits should never exist. teh young should not subsidize the old. it should be the other way around.
We already are, it would just be more transparent.
haha thats actually kind of interesting. as you give away benefits. you take away their votes.
as they contribute more to the government, you give them more power. the idea isnt too bad.
i am of the opinion that the poor shouldnt really have an opinion as well since they dont really know what they are doing.
but its kind of against american principles. but i think the principles arent all that great.
anyways taxation without representation.
no taxation. great benefits. but no representation. haha! thatd be awesome!
anyways the us has too many benefits. and yet the people still complain.
I agree…poor people here live in the best country, run by the best leader, possibly in the history of the world. People sneak over here illegally and make enough to send money back to where they are from. Yet people complain and want the govt to steal from those who work hard and give to them, gtfo!
its not the illegals receiving the money. prolly your grandparents who are prolly useless already with disesases. the illegals are actually productive right now, but will become a future liability if they are legalized and grow old here. a better way is if we can gather all the old people and send them to a cheaper place to take care of them. like mexico or costa rica.
there is actually a wsj article that is anticipating the costs of social security exceeding the income by 2020. and it will only get worse as the baby boomers start retiring. they will prolyl increase your fica taxes soon to make up for the shortfall. maybe eliminating the caps on it.
although remittances are a serioius issue. i nthe philippines it represetns maybe 10% of gdp. lol its kind of ridic. but you can make the argument that they provided a service and should be compensated. aka “they are paid what they are due”. imo illegals should not have minimum wage rights.