Universal Basic Income thread

[pErvinalia]

Yes, and it's TAXED above that. You said "Taxing it has no point". You can't hold both positions and make sense, dipshit.

[pErvinalia]

Just did some random(ish) calculations and by these, if they reflect reality, a UBI + flat tax is not only worse off for everyone (who pays tax), but also less progressive than a regular progressive taxation system.

[Svartalf]

Taxing it has no point. It should be the zero point of taxation and everything above should taxed progressively.

Your two sentences are incompatible. It can't be both not taxed and taxed. What you describe in your last sentence is what I just proposed. It's a pity you seem so fucking woeful at reading what is clearly written.

It is not taxed. It's a pity you seem so fucking woeful at reading what is clearly written.

"... and everything above should taxed progressively."

You can't even read what you wrote yourself.

You cant even read what I wrote.

You can't tax a bar survival income, doing so takes in to insufficient income.

[Svartalf]

Yes, and it's TAXED above that. You said "Taxing it has no point". You can't hold both positions and make sense, dipshit.

bare survival income is ALREADY taxed by the VAT the people receiving it pay when buying anything.

[pErvinalia]

You can't tax a bar survival income, doing so takes in to insufficient income.

You can tax it with progressive taxation. That is, no tax below a threshold (at the level of the UBI or higher), and then increasing tax rates as you earn more in addition to your UBI.

[pErvinalia]

Yes, and it's TAXED above that. You said "Taxing it has no point". You can't hold both positions and make sense, dipshit.

bare survival income is ALREADY taxed by the VAT the people receiving it pay when buying anything.

This has nothing to do with anything I said.

[Svartalf]

dunno, you called somebody dipshit, so I felt I had to give my 2 cents, if you feel that's irrelevant, the probem is yours, not mine.

[pErvinalia]

Well he was engaging in dipshitism. He said that there's no point taxing it, and then went on to explain that it should be taxed, and then in his next post said it wouldn't be taxed. I quoted his words back at him showing where he said all this incongruous shit, and he still refused to accept he was talking nonsense. He's basically the left version of the love-child of 42 and MM.

[pErvinalia]

dunno, you called somebody dipshit, so I felt I had to give my 2 cents, if you feel that's irrelevant, the probem is yours, not mine.

It was irrelevant to the quote chain you included, but it's a valid point. VAT taxes are regressive, and they should probably not be considered for a UBI unless it can be shown that total tax take will be higher with them (as rich cunts can't avoid a VAT as easily as they can avoid income taxes) and that the majority of people won't be worse off. It's like the flat tax idea. If it could be wangled in a way to make it more progressive (with the inclusion of a UBI), then there's no reason not to go for it. Particularly as it would simplify the tax system.

[Svartalf]

VAT is the most unfair tax of all, as it taxes more those who have to use most of their income on the necessities. and it HAS to be considered for a UBI, as some of the UBI is going to go back to the state by way of it.

[pErvinalia]

I don't follow that last sentence. What do you mean?

[Svartalf]

that part of the income will serve to pay VAT tax and come back to the state

[JimC]

VAT is the most unfair tax of all, as it taxes more those who have to use most of their income on the necessities. and it HAS to be considered for a UBI, as some of the UBI is going to go back to the state by way of it.

In our equivalent (the GST), unprocessed food such as meat, fruit and vegies, flour etc. doesn't get taxed, which at least is an incentive of sorts to eat healthily...

[NineBerry]

Eating unprocessed meat is not very healthy.

[pErvinalia]

that part of the income will serve to pay VAT tax and come back to the state

That's only the case if you have a VAT.