He’s been asked the question directly on video and answered it. I don’t think it’s on the website… His response to the question was that not only was it not taxable but you couldn’t borrow against it/garnish it either.
I can’t remember which video anymore. It was a while back.
She’s not lying. She’s obviously posting in good faith. And the issue you’re calling her a liar about is trivial. Some sort of no true Medicare for All bullshit? What difference does it make. Which isn’t to say the differences in the various plans are trivial. So call Pete’s plan bad, say why it’s bad and why skydiver should support another candidate with a better plan. It’s not like she doesn’t acknowledge that Pete’s plan is different from Bernie’s plan. That’s the actual important distinction, not whatever Pete calls his plan, and for sure not what Medicare for All is and whose Medicare for All plan was called Medicare for All first.
He needs to put exactly how it would work in writing. I don’t trust it won’t be taxable, and that will make a large difference to a lot of people.
if you make $12,000 a year you’re not paying income tax anyway. I think it’s good that Ubi not be means tested, but that doesn’t mean it’s not income and shouldn’t be taxed at whatever rate you are normally subject to.
Then it’s not $12000.
It’s still $12,000 if that’s how you make or even a fair amount more than that. And no matter how much you make it’s still $12,000 of income the same way any of your income is income.
By “no means testing” are we saying that literally everyone gets $1k? Cause that seems bananas to me.
The lolbertarian “Fair Tax” is set up that way, remember that turd?
That’s the “u” part of UBI
Seems like a crucial part of it imo.
For everyone saying UBI should be means tested, should we means test Medicare for All as well?
It’s like how Bezos gets to drive on public road, use the library, send his kids to public school and get social security. It’s a right, not charity.
What would the impact of this $12,000 be on someone who makes $36,000 otherwise if the $12,000 is taxable? It would be sizable, and hardly anyone ‘plans’ for the kind of tax hit that would provide to a lot of people. That turns this idea into a disaster for a lot of people, sorry.
I’m saying that when you tell people they’re getting $12,000, you need to show them they’re ‘keeping’ $12,000. You can’t adjust it up to make it $12,000 after taxes, because that would be way way more than the theoretical cost of shelling out $12,000. If you want to piss people off in this country really badly, tell them ‘here’s $12,000, you’ll owe $3k or more in taxes on it at the end of the year, make sure to save it’. Or worse, automatically deduct taxes from it, and give them $750 a month.
This is very easy to see how it goes wrong. If BS’s statement is true, then it’s fine. If it’s not, it’s a problem. Yang needs to put what BS said he said in writing.
Means testing sucks and is humiliating. There’s essentially no extra cost to giving $1000/month to rich people. Means testing is just making people line up in the loser line to collect. It’s almost as if that’s the point.
Do you understand marginal tax rates?
Who cares about the details of Yang’s policy or messaging? He’s not going to be POTUS. The issue at hand is just UBI generally
Of course, I’m just letting you know that this is not a good idea if it’s taxable, and is more likely to piss a lot of people off than it is to make them happy.
??? What?
What would the tax hit be to the person making 36k? I don’t need exact numbers, but just explain how you think this can be a bad thing for them.
It surely wouldn’t piss me off if I got $750/month, even if $150 of it came from raising my taxes to pay for UBI.
And what? How? The same entity makes the payments and collects the taxes. It’s a net 12k out of government coffers either way.