The Case for Unions to Support a Universal Basic Income

**fxstc07** · 06-28-2016, 07:22 PM

Originally Posted by ABFwife

I would personally much rather see money going to job creation.

Can't have job creation until you remove the corporations, their political influence and the elitists that control the banks.

**slavenomore** · 06-28-2016, 11:00 PM

Tariffs are the ultimate job creater and reversal of corporate /union power structure.

No more running away whilst making more profits and still selling here.

If they want to sell here they will build here and not run away.

**driver77** · 06-29-2016, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by slavenomore

Tariffs are the ultimate job creater and reversal of corporate /union power structure.

No more running away whilst making more profits and still selling here.

If they want to sell here they will build here and not run away.

From 1963 to 65 I was station in Munich Gr.
tariffs on US cars was equal to the price.

**fxstc07** · 06-29-2016, 02:57 PM

Originally Posted by driver77

From 1963 to 65 I was station in Munich Gr.
tariffs on US cars was equal to the price.

There is a current VAT tax equal to about 19% of the cost of the new car.
Hasn't stopped anyone from buying a new car in Europe yet.

**x475** · 06-29-2016, 09:24 PM

Originally Posted by fxstc07

There is a current VAT tax equal to about 19% of the cost of the new car.
Hasn't stopped anyone from buying a new car in Europe yet.

According to the UN, there were 740 million people in Europe in 2010. And you say with
certainty that out of 740 million people, None of them did not buy a new car because they could not afford the extra 19% ?

Or to put it another way, not one more car would have been purchased, if the price had been 19% less?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogr..._of_Europe#Age

**fxstc07** · 06-30-2016, 10:07 AM

Originally Posted by x475

According to the UN, there were 740 million people in Europe in 2010. And you say with
certainty that out of 740 million people, None of them did not buy a new car because they could not afford the extra 19% ?

Or to put it another way, not one more car would have been purchased, if the price had been 19% less?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogr..._of_Europe#Age

No, that's not what I said.
I said it hasn't stopped anyone that wanted to purchase a car from getting one ... not anymore then it has here in the USA.
If a person wants ( or needs ) a new car and can afford it, they usually purchase it.
A tax hasn't stopped sales in Europe, or the USA.

New car sales rose again in Europe last month, close to levels last seen in March 2007, before the financial and economic crisis hit the car industry.

https://www.theguardian.com/business...-uk-volkswagen

**crazy** · 06-30-2016, 11:21 AM

Universal Basic Income has been floated around for over fifty years and they talked about on TV and it was mentioned it was first mentioned by President Eisenhower {Yup!! A Republican}
Then it was brought up again during Nixons presidency.. Whole idea was to get people off the welfare roles and the money would go back into the economy .. Never passed the house then and would never pass the house today..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...come-a-primer/

**driver77** · 06-30-2016, 01:06 PM

I think there is a big difference between a tariff and vat.

**fxstc07** · 06-30-2016, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by driver77

I think there is a big difference between a tariff and vat.

Not really. They are both put in place to tax a commodity or goods.
The big difference is a tarriff taxes the country were the item is produced, for the purposes to regulate trade, while the VAT taxes it at the point of consumption, as a type of local tax.
Either way, it's a tax on the product you want, passed on the the end consumer.
Different yes, but we the consumer still pay in the end.

strappy should jump in at any moment to tell us that is why we shouldn't tax corporations.

**strapdrager** · 06-30-2016, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by fxstc07

Not really. They are both put in place to tax a commodity or goods.
The big difference is a tarriff taxes the country were the item is produced, for the purposes to regulate trade, while the VAT taxes it at the point of consumption, as a type of local tax.
Either way, it's a tax on the product you want, passed on the the end consumer.
Different yes, but we the consumer still pay in the end.

strappy should jump in at any moment to tell us that is why we shouldn't tax corporations.

I would but you already answered it

Either way, it's a tax on the product you want, passed on the the end consumer.
Different yes, but we the consumer still pay in the end.

But I'll add this, a tariff would be a tax on a country and the consumer would then buy a cheaper national brand and avoid the tax in the first place. Wars have been started on such a thing.