Does your country have Value added tax/ UBI?

How would giving 330 million people 1000 bucks a month work? I did the math and there isn't that much money in circulation.

GST is a value added tax. The term GST is probably more intuitive to consumers (taxes levied on consumption) while VAT is more intuitive to suppliers, because the tax is levied at every time value is added to a product in the supply chain.

here's the kicker, they print more money and then they print even more to battle inflation until money is worthless

>I did the math and there isn't that much money in circulation.
Money in circulation makes up a relatively small amount of overall monetary value.

Watching those morons will be entertaining.

how would you generate the revenue in taxes when there isn't enough money to tax to pay for it?

Go to sleep boomer. Money supply hasn't had an effect on inflation since 1971. It’s all about interest rates, coupled with business cycle fluctuations. In fact we won’t ever have an inflation problem again in the USA.

We should have crazy inflation right now btw, but we don’t, in part because investments in EM, startups, and capital markets. And in part because real economy output is priced on the basis of fed reserve rate, not the “market rate” for money.

Interest is the price of money. Interest rates are at zero.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Yang is just saying let the common people join the party. Whereas Sanders has this whole ideology he wants to realize. Yang is pragmatic whereas Sanders isn’t.

>Pple function based on incentives
No they don't. People work because if they don't, they'll starve. Most of the actual benefit to society in terms of technological progress (which makes everything else easier, cheaper, etc.) comes from people who are given the freedom to think, research and experiment without having to work a 9 to 5 (which is really a 7 to 4:30).
Right now the only people who are working that society actually needs working are those maintaining infrastructure and human services. All of those office drones and factory slaves helping billionaires produce shit used to trap people in the debt cycle add no value to humanity aside from enriching the already filthy rich. Capitalism does not incentivise or reward progress. Progress is merely the byproduct of human enterprise, of which has existed in various forms stretching back long before the concept of society existed.

You could kill off the billionaire class, liquidate their wealth into funding public utilities and sharing their land with citizens to provide housing and everyone but the richest small handful of people would benefit greatly from it.

How does your government afford to give billionaires trillions in tax breaks, trillions in corporate bailouts to people who crashed the economy, all the while funding war all around the world?
How do they generate the required revenue for those programs?

Increase in supply of money would not outpace increase in demand for money ... which Yang knows because he’s an Econ major.

People would spend their 1000 bucks. Producing aggregate demand increase that boosts production and GDP and tax base... the Keynesian cycle accelerated 330,000,000 times.

just wait until the petro dollar dies, we are not invincible.

>How does your government afford to give billionaires trillions in tax breaks
81% of people got a tax cut.

Profoundly based, good explanation batko

You got a tax break of 1500 bucks. A billionaire got 150,000,000 dollars.
So what? People exaggerate the petro dollar, it’s frankly more of a fixture on the european’s consciousness than a real economic factor. Even if you trade in national currencies, there will always be a reserve currency or currency valued by both parties. If it’s the USD, that means we have a stronger dollar because of higher demand. If it’s not the USD, it won’t be any other currency except as a political gimmick in isolated cases. It’s like the English language— only seething frogs bitch about it.

Based
I don't really support ubi just yet, mostly the way yang is selling it but that's a good argument

Normal people got a much smaller tax break.
Billionaires got huge cuts that you're paying for.

*McSamson Option intensifies*

No, they received temporary tax cuts resulting in trivial revenue, while the rich received permanent tax cuts which they used to buy back a stock, injecting a trillion dollars into the stock market. It resulted in a small bump in the economy that quickly flattened, the rich even further expanding their already insane wealth and a over 300 billion dollars in the deficit for that month alone.

>batko
Had to look that up, lol.

He is stealing support form Trump. :( Lazy neets always end up useless.

Even worse

>stealing
kys
it's democracy
or as near as you get to it in america anyway

kys MAGApede

>injecting a trillion into the stock market
What do you mean, user? The tax breaks helped much more. They invested the money back into themselves. The money from tax breaks trickl-

>The money from tax breaks trickl-
ワロタ

Attached: what is love？.png (920x6500, 2.14M)

Is this really true? Have I been a kool-aid drinker the whole time?

t. lazy neets
It's not they are even going to be motivated to vote again lmao.

I reckon stealing is a pretty accurate word, desu.
reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump/figures-show-trump-spent-66-million-of-his-own-cash-on-election-campaign-idUSKBN13Y0AE
>Figures show Trump spent $66 million of his own cash on election campaign
>In total, Trump raised $339 million and spent $322 million - a far cry from the $565 million spent by Clinton, according to the latest Federal Election Commission disclosure reports. Trump spent $94 million in the final days of the campaign, compared with the $132 million spent by Clinton.
Democracy ain't cheap, man.

Kool aid taste pretty good, doesn't it? I could go for some of that grape drink right about now.

And she STILL lost. Lmao.

Attached: 1561128178962.png (415x416, 6K)

I voted for him in 16 but you have to be a brain dead southerner or a zionist to still support him

She won the popular vote, which is where most of that money would have gone towards in the form of advertisements, etc. If the corporate Democrats get their wish, they'll have another Hilary of their own in the form of Biden. Though I doubt he would manage to win the popular vote against someone like Trump.

No way Biden wins against trump desu. Why are the democrats so fucking stupid. Fuck I hate the two party system and hate politics in general

No one who actually follows politics is going to vote for biden
But sadly most people don't.
Currently im for warren but my mind can be changed in the year and change we have before elections.

>Why are the democrats so fucking stupid
Their corporate backers matter more than the people they are supposed to represent, which is why they are so desperate to get rid of the justice Democrats who don't take corporate money.
>Fuck I hate the two party system and hate politics in general
It's a pretty cancerous system, I reckon. Politics in Australia is the same in a lot of ways but even worse: a battle between rich corporate bootlickers and incompetent pollies who at least pander to the rest of the population but can't get shit done because they are either blocked at every opportunity or don't know how to promote themselves to save their lives.

It pisses me off, my dad is typical Christian boomer, he always just says shit like "Well you know now the democrats are finally getting found out for all the horrible stuff they've done"
Something like that. It's amazing how low we've fallen, where we totally demonize the other side just because their interests differ. No progress can ever be made, everyone thinks the other team is trying to literally ruin the country
Everyone at the top of both parties is a piece of shit. Politics is a business now, and the democracy pendulum swings in the direction of who has the most money at the moment

Could you please tell me a single point in history where a political party did not demonize its opposition?

every civilised nation ever, perpetual civil war is not normal

>cut existing benefits for ubi
That's literally the only way UBI can be made viable. Even then, it's just swapping one questionable program for another.

What do you mean by viable?
Surely you don't mean economically viable, because politicans only care about cost when it's something that'll help the normal people.
The 7 trillion dollar "war on terror"? No one cared about the cost
The " war on drugs" that funneled money into the rich owners of private prisons? No one cared about money
The tax cuts for the rich that you have to take the bill for? Didn't care about economic viability then
The locking up of thousands of migrants at 750 a day per head? No one cares about the cost
But the moment it's "help the people out" the excuses of cost and "how are we gonna pay for it :c" come up.

Don't give me that excuse

>The 7 trillion dollar "war on terror"? No one cared about the cost
The military only costs the US about 3% of its total GDP, whereas healthcare and pensions amount for about half. It is also a cost the US can't really afford to cut back on, if it wants to maintain its role as the global policeman of course. Of course American can always seclude itself into isolationism and purely focus on national defense, but then you'll have the exact same people whining about military overspending crying that China and Russia are spooky and scary.

>The " war on drugs" that funneled money into the rich owners of private prisons? No one cared about money
Yeah, that's retarded. America could do with at the same time a looser drug policy and tighter border control. Though the entire war on drugs is schizophrenia on a governmental scale, considering the CIA allowed Central American Contra's to smuggle drugs into the United States in the first place in order to finance their wars against the commies.

>The tax cuts for the rich that you have to take the bill for?
insidesources.com/tax-day-payers-vs-takers/
>Accounting for both taxes and transfers, only 40 percent of households are net payers in the end, which is why every proposed tax cut is met with the charge that it is one more “tax cut for the rich.” When only the richest 40 percent of households are net payers, by definition, every tax cut is a tax cut for the rich.

>The locking up of thousands of migrants at 750 a day per head? No one cares about the cost
What alternative do you propose then? Every other alternative is either too expensive (just let them in and exploit America's infrastructure and social services without meaningfully contributing to its taxes) or inhumane (just shooting them).

>But the moment it's "help the people out" the excuses of cost and "how are we gonna pay for it :c" come up.
Das rite, brotha. It's like AOC said: you don't ask how you pay for it, you just pay for it.

If America decided to switch to a better healthcare system we'd save a lot of money, but money speaks and no one will ever pass it because insurance lobbyists will threaten to stop giving them money.

>60% are takers
Really shows the state of our country.

>what alternative do you propose
Not splitting up the families into different facilities and making said facilities government owned instead of private so we'd pay the actual cost it takes to care for them instead of whatever number the camp owner says it'll cost.