/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>14247806
>thinking the organization that brought us the legendary Department of Motor Vehicles could simply confiscate a billionaire's business ventures and they'd perform as good or better as they did
>unironically suggesting nationalizing retail

LOL

>CEO makes a hundred dollars per year per employee through a voluntary employment contract that pays this generic employee tens of thousands of dollars a year

Theft! Abuse! Outrage! Inequity!

>Government takes tens of thousands of dollars per year from those same generic employees at gunpoint through an unspoken contract they signed the moment they squeezed past their mom's fat pussy lips

Based! Gotta pay our fair share! Muh roads!

>>14247950
You're wrong and fucking retarded, Yang already admitted that UBI (i.e. allotting the government 2.7 trillion in additional spending each year up from roughly 3.1 at current-all while imposing an additional federal sales tax) would not take the place of conventional benefits except in cases where it'd be lower. So Jamal the SNAP recipient will go from $300 a month to $1000 in benefits, but Janice the social security senior will still get her $1,2000 a month in SS; the bureaucracy goes nowhere and simply adds 100 million hands into the pot. It is almost identical to the idea of giving "free money" and guaranteed loans to college students like they started in the 60s, and will lead in the very short term to the complete destruction of the US dollar, OBVIOUSLY, you fucking menthol smoking dark skinned bonobo

>>12834128
Okay but you didn't answer the question. UBI would cost the government (i.e. taxpayers) an additional 3 trillion (250 million x $12,000) each year, the current federal budget is 3.3 trillion alone and that's counting every single service the federal government right now performs. A 10% additional sales tax (that's basically what VAT is with the distinction that it affects unsold merchandise as well iirc) is not going to pay for it, it will increase costs though as Yang admits himself.

https://www.yang2020.com/what-is-ubi/

>Our UBI plan has no changes in the supply of money because it is funded by a Value-added Tax.

Sales tax revenue in the U.S. is under 600 billion at an average of 7.9%. There is no way that a 10% VAT fills that gap

>It is likely that some companies will increase their prices in response to people having more buying power, and a VAT would also increase prices marginally

>some companies
>marginally

No shit, dude.

>However, there will still be competition between firms that will keep prices in check

As happened with every other universal government program (like forcing banks to honor loans hedged against dubious and ludicrously expensive college degrees) and even more selective ones like Medicare, the price floor itself will expand rapidly against inflation.

>>12831656
>no it's not the same, but if you look at what easily accessible student loans did to the cost of education over the years in the us, you get the idea.

This. It's the same shit but instead of healthcare and education specifically it's for every single good and service.

The butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker, all they're going to know that EVERYONE is walking around with $2,000 a month they received "gratis" from the government and they will price their goods and services accordingly and that's in no small part because it's coming out of their bottom line-if they'll even have one by that point-just like the deans of admissions at U.S.colleges have been doing over the decades but multiplied thousandfold as it will apply for every single business that exists.

I don't know why the fuck these people are called progressives when their ideas for how economics works are entirely dependent on a market that stays in stasis forever.

>all this hungarianposting, on my /biz/

smelly, dumb, magyar scum