The Coronavirus thread

Quote: Mission146

I'll agree with the importance of independent thinking. Unfortunately, without being able to conduct statistically meaningful research into some matters solo, sooner or later, you've got to trust someone.

DA' FAR RIGHT: Hydroxycholoroquine, Ivermectin, no Vaccines, some of the most vocal proponents literally dying of Covid.

DA' LEFT: Vaccines with significant data (and, again, I cannot counter this data working solo or be in any position to dispute it) pertaining to hospitalizations, fatalities and critical case rates. Most doctors and medical professionals backing them. Immunologists.

Going to have to go with DA' LEFT on this issue.

However, I do agree with the Right that they should have the choice not to get the vaccine if they don't want it...but then free association comes into play when it comes to employers demanding it, and what have you.

There's some things I consider unresolved. Duffman brings up UBI to me. If it's designed as a replacement for the system of payouts, we already use, I'm still not necessarily convinced it wouldn't be better than what we have without the bureaucracy addition. But it all depends on the form of the idea, not just saying UBI, but what exactly they want to do. It could be worse than what we're already doing, than what we're already doing. So, I've never claimed to know one way or the other.

His statement on gender is akin to saying, he sees plastic and metal and claiming it must be a car and that only a cars are will be produced. No admission of physical variations in sex, gene expression, chromosome variations, or cell development. Even biological clones don't develop exactly the same because of the same things. I didn't even include environmental effects. What they eat, or chemicals exposed to, etc., I've already argued with him on this. If I want to argue with Marjory Taylor Green, I'll just go directly to her from now on.

What is a fact, if you can't measure it yourself? All I know there is, at best we measure the reliability of information we think we can know regarding the source in multiple areas around that information. How many reliability factors you can add up generally makes something more believable.

Got a better idea? Other than believing a very limited amount of information you can test, not sure what other answer there is.

Quote: rxwine

There's some things I consider unresolved. Duffman brings up UBI to me. If it's designed as a replacement for the system of payouts, we already use, I'm still not necessarily convinced it wouldn't be better than what we have without the bureaucracy addition. But it all depends on the form of the idea, not just saying UBI, but what exactly they want to do. It could be worse than what we're already doing, than what we're already doing. So, I've never claimed to know one way or the other.

When you can explain how we can give everyone $1000 without taking more than $1000 per person you can explain how UBI is going to work. Until then I listen to all these mathheads claiming this and that and they sound like Enron execs who just kept saying if you did not understand it you were too stupid to understand. I look at all the UBI explanations and shout, "BUT HE ISN'T WEARING ANY CLOTHES!"

Quote:

His statement on gender is akin to saying, he sees plastic and metal and claiming it must be a car and that only a cars are will be produced. No admission of physical variations in sex, gene expression, chromosome variations, or cell development. Even biological clones don't develop exactly the same because of the same things. I didn't even include environmental effects. What they eat, or chemicals exposed to, etc., I've already argued with him on this. If I want to argue with Marjory Taylor Green, I'll just go directly to her from now on.

No, but to use your example plastic cannot one day decide to be metal. Metal cannot decide to be plastic. Plastic can be made to look like metal, but there are no metal elements in it.

Quote: rxwine

There's some things I consider unresolved. Duffman brings up UBI to me. If it's designed as a replacement for the system of payouts, we already use, I'm still not necessarily convinced it wouldn't be better than what we have without the bureaucracy addition. But it all depends on the form of the idea, not just saying UBI, but what exactly they want to do. It could be worse than what we're already doing, than what we're already doing. So, I've never claimed to know one way or the other.

His statement on gender is akin to saying, he sees plastic and metal and claiming it must be a car and that only a cars are will be produced. No admission of physical variations in sex, gene expression, chromosome variations, or cell development. Even biological clones don't develop exactly the same because of the same things. I didn't even include environmental effects. What they eat, or chemicals exposed to, etc., I've already argued with him on this. If I want to argue with Marjory Taylor Green, I'll just go directly to her from now on.

What is a fact, if you can't measure it yourself? All I know there is, at best we measure the reliability of information we think we can know regarding the source in multiple areas around that information. How many reliability factors you can add up generally makes something more believable.

Got a better idea? Other than believing a very limited amount of information you can test, not sure what other answer there is.

I agree with you completely on the concept of UBI, and have said so, but only if literally every other, 'Safety net,' is completely eliminated. People will get the money, there are cost savings in the long run and what they do with it (and the consequences of those choices) will be entirely their lookout.

I don't really need to have a scientific or psychological position on gender, other than for the purpose of athletics, because I just don't see a fundamental problem with people being allowed to claim whatever they want to claim vis-a-vis gender. Basically, I don't really care about the issue of someone, 'Choosing,' to be a particular gender and don't see why anyone else should.

Of course, some folks would take umbrage with the use of my word, "Choosing." That's just the way that I see it. If you feel that you were born into the wrong, 'Physical,' gender, then you are choosing to comport yourself as if you had been born into the, 'Right,' one...which sometimes can entail, 'Corrective,' surgery. Should insurance companies cover it? Sure, I think so. Offering insurance is all about understanding the risks of incurring medical expenses on behalf of the insured and innately knowing that not all insured customers are going to be profitable, anyway. Should Medicare/Medicaid cover it? I don't think so, but I would just as soon Medicare/Medicaid not exist anyway...that would result in price reductions for everyone as the Government would not be artificially adding to the demand side of the medical care market.

Should transgenders have employment equality (athletics aside)? Absolutely. The only form of workplace discrimination that should be allowed to exist is to not hire people who cannot perform a job even with reasonable accommodation.

The restroom thing? Don't care. Make all restrooms unisex and have a, "Family restroom," for people with children for all the difference it makes to me. The religious right (and many religions, in general) have a tendency to seemingly consider any form of nudity inherently sexual, which is a nonsensical position.

The only thing I'm sure of is that co-existence could be much more peaceably done if people stopped caring what the hell other people are doing so much.

Quote: AZDuffman

When you can explain how we can give everyone $1000 without taking more than $1000 per person you can explain how UBI is going to work. Until then I listen to all these mathheads claiming this and that and they sound like Enron execs who just kept saying if you did not understand it you were too stupid to understand. I look at all the UBI explanations and shout, "BUT HE ISN'T WEARING ANY CLOTHES!"



No, but to use your example plastic cannot one day decide to be metal. Metal cannot decide to be plastic. Plastic can be made to look like metal, but there are no metal elements in it.

For 1k a month eliminating all entitlement programs and funneling it into UBI would make up about 600 dollars of this (60 or so percent). So its already more than half there. You can argue that some more (perhaps quite a bit) would be saved in streamlining (one program, probably SS or IRS mailing out the checks or whatever the means of deposit) instead of dozens of different programs processing hundreds of forms and not communicating well.

So you can have a UBI of 600+ by doing nothing more than reforming the entitlement system without any change to the deficit or budget. Of course this is not quite enough for people who are losing their benefits to be compensated.

To get to the full 1k there are some other options. For one you can have an income cap, (not issue checks to people who make over 500K or some cutoff), of course this would not technically be UBI anymore. The other that is commonly brought up is a VAT tax though this will likely be effective it will also increase the cost of goods so it would harm lower income people the most. The other popular option is a national sales tax.

I think most people agree that UBI would benefit the middle class the most, people who are below the poverty line would lose money (in increased cost of goods and less benefits) and the ultra rich would pay more. I forget the cutoff, but I think Americans who make below 15K or above 1mil a year will be harmed by UBI, the rest will be helped even in the "worse case scenario" (the aggressive VAT tax route).
If I recall correctly the Wizard's analysis of Yang's plan (or similar proposals, I think using VAT tax model) came to this conclusion, that it would be a boost to the middle class, but the ultra poor and ultra rich would lose value (if I am recalling that incorrectly I apologize).

All of these numbers I picked from my head, I think they are about right, but if you are going to nitpick the amounts you can probably "get me", I am too lazy to do any serious looking right now. I am just giving the general overview.

Quote: Gandler

For 1k a month eliminating all entitlement programs and funneling it into UBI would make up about 600 dollars of this (60 or so percent). So its already more than half there. You can argue that some more (perhaps quite a bit) would be saved in streamlining (one program, probably SS or IRS mailing out the checks or whatever the means of deposit) instead of dozens of different programs processing hundreds of forms and not communicating well.

So you can have a UBI of 600+ by doing nothing more than reforming the entitlement system without any change to the deficit or budget. Of course this is not quite enough for people who are losing their benefits to be compensated.

To get to the full 1k there are some other options. For one you can have an income cap, (not issue checks to people who make over 500K or some cutoff), of course this would not technically be UBI anymore. The other that is commonly brought up is a VAT tax though this will likely be effective it will also increase the cost of goods so it would harm lower income people the most. The other popular option is a national sales tax.

I think most people agree that UBI would benefit the middle class the most, people who are below the poverty line would lose money (in increased cost of goods and less benefits) and the ultra rich would pay more. I forget the cutoff, but I think Americans who make below 15K or above 1mil a year will be harmed by UBI, the rest will be helped even in the "worse case scenario" (the aggressive VAT tax route).
If I recall correctly the Wizard's analysis of Yang's plan (or similar proposals, I think using VAT tax model) came to this conclusion, that it would be a boost to the middle class, but the ultra poor and ultra rich would lose value (if I am recalling that incorrectly I apologize).

All of these numbers I picked from my head, I think they are about right, but if you are going to nitpick the amounts you can probably "get me", I am too lazy to do any serious looking right now. I am just giving the general overview.

You mentioned it in there, UBI means EVERYONE gets their check. And at that point stop doing the math because the simple math is everyone must pay more in than comes out to account for admin costs. Math about adding a VAT to make things better is little different than the Monorail salesman telling the citizens of Moundsville, WV how a monorail will be great for their city.

Quote: Gandler

For 1k a month eliminating all entitlement programs and funneling it into UBI would make up about 600 dollars of this (60 or so percent). So its already more than half there. You can argue that some more (perhaps quite a bit) would be saved in streamlining (one program, probably SS or IRS mailing out the checks or whatever the means of deposit) instead of dozens of different programs processing hundreds of forms and not communicating well.

So you can have a UBI of 600+ by doing nothing more than reforming the entitlement system without any change to the deficit or budget. Of course this is not quite enough for people who are losing their benefits to be compensated.

To get to the full 1k there are some other options. For one you can have an income cap, (not issue checks to people who make over 500K or some cutoff), of course this would not technically be UBI anymore. The other that is commonly brought up is a VAT tax though this will likely be effective it will also increase the cost of goods so it would harm lower income people the most. The other popular option is a national sales tax.

$25,000, problem solved. Make $25,000, you don't need the UBI safety net at this time.

National sales tax would be great. Just get rid of every other Federal-level tax, but have a wide range of what constitutes a, "Sale." Stock trade...that's a sale. Insurance premium...that's a sale. Basically, most financial transactions would constitute sales.

It would also stabilize the stock market as day trading would be much harder to do. Not only would you have to make good trades, but you would also have to make trades with the expectation that you are going to cover the sales tax on the entire transaction, as well as commissions, if any. There would be more of a move, almost by necessity, to long-term investing.

Quote:

I think most people agree that UBI would benefit the middle class the most, people who are below the poverty line would lose money (in increased cost of goods and less benefits) and the ultra rich would pay more. I forget the cutoff, but I think Americans who make below 15K or above 1mil a year will be harmed by UBI, the rest will be helped even in the "worse case scenario" (the aggressive VAT tax route).
If I recall correctly the Wizard's analysis of Yang's plan (or similar proposals, I think using VAT tax model) came to this conclusion, that it would be a boost to the middle class, but the ultra poor and ultra rich would lose value (if I am recalling that incorrectly I apologize).

All of these numbers I picked from my head, I think they are about right, but if you are going to nitpick the amounts you can probably "get me", I am too lazy to do any serious looking right now. I am just giving the general overview.

Where do you get increased cost of goods? Is milk going to go up because someone is using cash instead of food stamps?

Quote: Mission146

$25,000, problem solved. Make $25,000, you don't need the UBI safety net at this time.

National sales tax would be great. Just get rid of every other Federal-level tax, but have a wide range of what constitutes a, "Sale." Stock trade...that's a sale. Insurance premium...that's a sale. Basically, most financial transactions would constitute sales.

It would also stabilize the stock market as day trading would be much harder to do. Not only would you have to make good trades, but you would also have to make trades with the expectation that you are going to cover the sales tax on the entire transaction, as well as commissions, if any. There would be more of a move, almost by necessity, to long-term investing.



Where do you get increased cost of goods? Is milk going to go up because someone is using cash instead of food stamps?

Sorry if I was unclear, that would be assuming an increased cost of most goods because of a VAT or sales tax. Not due to payment method.

Quote: Mission146

It would also stabilize the stock market as day trading would be much harder to do.

How would that be a good thing?

Quote: AZDuffman

How would that be a good thing?

If you're a day trader, it wouldn't. If you're anyone else, it reduces the volatility of the stock market and places an emphasis on long-term investment over short-term gain. Less variance, more predictability.

Quote: Gandler

Sorry if I was unclear, that would be assuming an increased cost of most goods because of a VAT or sales tax. Not due to payment method.

I think that's actually debatable. Keep in mind, having totally abolished income taxes, the employers would no longer be paying the Social Security and Medicare tax rates...so whatever you were paying the employees before, you're now paying them 7.65% less, all else equal.*

*It's not exactly 7.65% less, but you're no longer paying 7.65% on top of wages. For example, if you have $1,000 in wages and pay $1,076.50, in total, after the employer-matched taxes, you'd actually be paying out 7.1064% (rounded) less overall.

Another thing, if you didn't get rid of Unemployment completely, then certainly a person could begin to receive UBI as of whenever they became unemployed, so right there, you can knock $1,000 (I actually like $1,200/month UBI) per month off of whatever Unemployment would otherwise have to pay. As a consequence, payments from employers into the unemployment system should also be able to be drastically reduced.

I'd hope that at least some of those cost savings would be passed down to consumers, but I guess it's possible they wouldn't.