@Pat We have gotten tot he point where the semantics are just too polluted.. You are still calling it a UBI and arguing that it avoids administrative costs, but then effectively not implementing a UBI at all and only giving it to the 20% lowest class of society, which means you havent avoided the administrative costs at all, your back to needing a means test and all the administration of traditional ways. So right off the bat you destroyed the one argument for UBI you could have had."

Second redefining tax as being on all money passing hands and increasing the taxable number figure 10 fold only serves to make the percentage appear lower when in fact its still costing the average american in dollars and cents the same amount in taxes as if 10% were taxed witht he current system.. .so while it create a nice small number by the sound of it in reality it changed nothing. You are still talking about taking 10% out of everyones income to support it, 5% if you dont do UBI at all and just target the 20% poor but then that 5% goes back up since its not a UBI and you have admin costs so its probably closer to 7% or 8% of everyones entire income to pay for it. Getting the tax from other means doesnt lower the amount of tax coming out of peoples pockets so that is a moot and confusing distortion of the situation.

@freemo
>only giving it to the 20% lowest class of society, which means you havent avoided the administrative costs at all, your back to needing a means test and all the administration of traditional ways.

No, you don't need admin. Just set the income/wealth figure and tell people they can only apply if they are below that. You don't have to actually check each one, or even any of them for that matter.

>Second redefining tax as being on all money passing hands and increasing the taxable number figure 10 fold only serves to make the percentage appear lower when in fact its still costing the average american in dollars and cents the same amount in taxes as if 10% were taxed with the current system...

We could collect all taxes that way. Make it .5% or .6% of all dollars that change hands. That would cover the entire budget. Wouldn't you want a tax rate that was .5% or .6%? That would be great!

@Pat If you arnt checking a persons income level yet setting it below 20% then how are you ensureing the people who are actually below 20% are the ones getting it? Someone who is middle class would be more than happy to get $1000 free a month if they are just handing them out.

For that matter if there is no administration how do you even ensure a single person can collect a check multiple times.

collecting taxes that way doesnt change the numbers at all.. It still means they would have to pay upwards of 10% of their total income to support it. It just means your getting that money from their income but rather sales tax or whatever else you get it from. Your taking the same amount of money out of their pocket (10% of their income) regardless of how you play with the numbers.

So the fact is your still reducing everyones effective income by 10%.

Sorry but worst idea ever.. 10% is huge to support a system that ultimately only enables the poor and does nothing to get them out of poverty.

@freemo
>For that matter if there is no administration how do you even ensure a single person can collect a check multiple times.

They can send the checks using the Treasury's system as they did with the COVID checks. They did an income check for those. They could do a random check when they perform their regular audits and if the cheating gets too high, they just turn a few over to the AG and have a few do a perp walk and scare everybody back into compliance.

>collecting taxes that way doesnt change the numbers at all.. It still means they would have to pay upwards of 10% of their total income to support it. It just means your getting that money from their income but rather sales tax or whatever else you get it from. Your taking the same amount of money out of their pocket (10% of their income) regardless of how you play with the numbers.

No, most people will pay less, and there is no sales tax. It's an income tax, just it's on all income, all revenue, stock trades, all loans, everything, but not a sales tax, that's different.

>So the fact is your still reducing everyones effective income by 10%.

No, it's in place of the current tax system. So everybody, including businesses, banks, etc. pays just .5% or .6% of all income. I know I'd want to have a tax rate that was only .6%.

>Sorry but worst idea ever.. 10% is huge to support a system that ultimately only enables the poor and does nothing to get them out of poverty.

It's not an extra 10%, it could replace the current entitlements and tax system. Yeah, I know, it will never happen, but it's a good idea.

A .6% tax rate. Who wouldn't want that?

@Pat if they are sending checks through the tresury system then that is administrative costs. Someone needs to manage that system, send out the checks, handle cases for appeal, etc.

Also keep in mind the 20% poorest people usually dont need to file taxes at all. so the vast majority of those people wont be in the system.

@freemo

We wouldn't need all the IRS bureaucracy, so that's a savings.

Yes, there'd be some admin, but much less than the current system.

@Pat People in poverty do not file taxes and owe no money in tax. Therefore they are not in the IRS system. So it cant work for your intended purpose.

@freemo

Yeah, that would need to change, too. The poor folks would need to actually apply for the AUBI (Almost Universal Basic Income).

@Pat yea so now youve ruined the advantges of a UBI to the point it doesnt resemble one at all. You now need administration since there is a means test in place , and it isnt universal either more generally.

Plus the cost is just off the charts anyway... i cant support anything about a UBI even when its an actual UBI, let alone this.