Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrTickle
Who is Michael Angelo? do you mean Michelangelo? it's just is first nameQuote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
I only post from my phone, and one night while I was drunk my phone spelled out Michael Angelo instead of Michelangelo, these guys being art fags, they lambasted me about the typo, they turned it into some kinda boys in the hall nerd bit....
I love the current excuse they're peddling about this.
First they tried to claim that conservatives were doctoring the page, and they never wrote that.
Now that the doctoring claim has been disproven, they are now claiming they just accidentally left that part in, when it was part of a larger statement regarding retired people not wanting to work anymore.
Bullshit.
There's no chance this was a retirement statement which was completely removed except those 3 words.
How stupid do they think everyone is?
They should just admit that a staffer wrote this in a draft without AOC's permission, that she doesn't support it, and they apologize for any confusion.
Instead, they're grasping at BS excuse after BS excuse in order to make it look like nobody ever meant to write that.
BTW, the "support those unwilling to work" isn't an obvious mistake or typo.
This is actually a far-left talking point.
It's known as "universal basic income", and it exists in Finland. You get money every month (only if unemployed) for simply existing. The belief is that it gives everyone the bare minimum to get by, and then they can work if they wish to have more money than that.
Simply put, the far left believes that you are still entitled to some form of government support, even if you're able-bodied and simply don't want to work.
Not surprisingly, those on the universal basic income in Finland reported being "happier", but very few of them wanted to get jobs: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/f...y-mark-n969211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
That’s beyond a reach. UBI is a concept that I find personally nonsensical as far as the US as a whole presently, but it’s genesis as a talking point in politics in the US is in relation to automation and robotics replacing workers.
It’s only US real world application is the Alaska Permanent Fund set up by Republicans in Alaska to just give money to Alaskan citizens for existing because of the oil $ surplus. Some countries or states may able to fade it economically because of natural resources and low population. Finland and Alaska would both fit that category.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Also, you have people who somehow believe that people who receive a universal basic income will somehow just dedicate their time to the arts (lol), or doing something they love instead of being at a job they hate. The people propagating this idea have a romanticized idea of people who are working at dead end jobs or poor people in general.
Coming from a lower socioeconomic level, and growing up in the ghetto, I can give you a first hand account of people who would benefit from universal basic income. A large percentage of these people have PTSD of some kind and continuing a vicious cycle of some kind. Giving them a paycheck and free time might not be the best thing for everyone.
I'm for social programs that actually will have results for society, giving someone a paycheck to do nothing is only detrimental to the security of this country and more importantly, to the individual, in the long run.
There is no "universal basic income" in Finland. There never has been. There was a 2 year experiment that involved a few thousand randomly selected individuals, but that study wasn't about viability of UBI.
Oh and regarding AOC there actually exists thing called drafts. They often have mistakes and inconsistencies. That's kinda why they are called drafts. It's fairly helpful especially with large bodies of text that involve work from several individuals. Usually criticizing drafts as if they are the finished product is considered mildly retarded.
ergo it being a talking point on this alt right shithole.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatineergo it being a talking point on this alt right shithole.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
How is this an alt right shithole unless ur basically admitting that I overpower all the libtards that bad it just seems like it
Long ago, Texas got smart with its oil wealth and set up a higher education fund from the state’s share of oil revenues. The smart part was that moneys from the fund can only be spent on equipment or buildings to be used in higher ed. That has allowed Texas to plow huge sums of money into developing the infrastructure of state colleges and universities, and included in that infrastructure are licenses for use of research databases and lab equipment. That has helped the Texas state universities become research powerhouses, with the benefits of such research capability spurring on the development of high tech industries in Texas in a variety of fronts.Quote:
Originally Posted by BCRQuote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
That’s beyond a reach. UBI is a concept that I find personally nonsensical as far as the US as a whole presently, but it’s genesis as a talking point in politics in the US is in relation to automation and robotics replacing workers.
It’s only US real world application is the Alaska Permanent Fund set up by Republicans in Alaska to just give money to Alaskan citizens for existing because of the oil $ surplus. Some countries or states may able to fade it economically because of natural resources and low population. Finland and Alaska would both fit that category.
Meanwhile, individual Alaskans annually getting their personal share of oil revenues probably results in the kind of disincentivation of self-sufficiency, coupled with annual binge drinking/partying episodes when the annual oil royalty checks arrive.
https://youtu.be/s7FoZ7HW0EU
(Thank you, Alaskan GOP!)
So why was there an "experiment", then? Clearly it was headed toward an eventual attempt to fully implement it.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
How do you feel about Universal Basic Income?
Regarding AOC and the "draft", you seem to be missing the point.
No one was expecting the draft to be perfect, or for all of the ideas presented in it to be viable. After all, it's just a draft.
However. someone in her camp actually advocated government support for those "unwilling to work" -- enough to write it into the draft as something to possibly include in the final version.
The fact that anyone working with her thought that was a good idea shows how out-of-touch her people really are. Supporting those "unwilling to work" shouldn't be written into any kind of political document -- draft or otherwise.
That's why people are so alarmed by it. How was such a ludicrous idea even up for consideration?
Even worse, though, was the sad attempt at a cover up.
First they blamed it on a right-wing conspiracy to distribute fake versions of her proposal.
Then, after that was disproved, they claimed that they were referring to retired people not wanting to work anymore, they decided to delete it, and it just so happened that only the words "unwilling to work" remained from that portion.
I mean, at least own up to the fact that someone wrote it and then they thought better of it.
Here they're just outright lying to people and pretending that it's just mean, nasty right wingers trying to frame them and make them look bad.
How come when Trump is caught lying, these same people cry bloody murder, yet they peddle such obvious fibs to the public when caught acting stupid?
Most people thought the same of a 2000 mile wall that Mexico was going to pay for and locking Hilary up even though she was charged with nothing, but here we are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffSo why was there an "experiment", then? Clearly it was headed toward an eventual attempt to fully implement it.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
How do you feel about Universal Basic Income?
Regarding AOC and the "draft", you seem to be missing the point.
No one was expecting the draft to be perfect, or for all of the ideas presented in it to be viable. After all, it's just a draft.
However. someone in her camp actually advocated government support for those "unwilling to work" -- enough to write it into the draft as something to possibly include in the final version.
The fact that anyone working with her thought that was a good idea shows how out-of-touch her people really are. Supporting those "unwilling to work" shouldn't be written into any kind of political document -- draft or otherwise.
That's why people are so alarmed by it. How was such a ludicrous idea even up for consideration?
Even worse, though, was the sad attempt at a cover up.
First they blamed it on a right-wing conspiracy to distribute fake versions of her proposal.
Then, after that was disproved, they claimed that they were referring to retired people not wanting to work anymore, they decided to delete it, and it just so happened that only the words "unwilling to work" remained from that portion.
I mean, at least own up to the fact that someone wrote it and then they thought better of it.
Here they're just outright lying to people and pretending that it's just mean, nasty right wingers trying to frame them and make them look bad.
How come when Trump is caught lying, these same people cry bloody murder, yet they peddle such obvious fibs to the public when caught acting stupid?
I assume the "experiment" happened because reasons. Why i know it wasn't about UBI was because the dude that supervised it said so. If it had been about UBI it would have gathered different information, structured differently and that type of stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffSo why was there an "experiment", then? Clearly it was headed toward an eventual attempt to fully implement it.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
How do you feel about Universal Basic Income?
Regarding AOC and the "draft", you seem to be missing the point.
No one was expecting the draft to be perfect, or for all of the ideas presented in it to be viable. After all, it's just a draft.
However. someone in her camp actually advocated government support for those "unwilling to work" -- enough to write it into the draft as something to possibly include in the final version.
The fact that anyone working with her thought that was a good idea shows how out-of-touch her people really are. Supporting those "unwilling to work" shouldn't be written into any kind of political document -- draft or otherwise.
That's why people are so alarmed by it. How was such a ludicrous idea even up for consideration?
Even worse, though, was the sad attempt at a cover up.
First they blamed it on a right-wing conspiracy to distribute fake versions of her proposal.
Then, after that was disproved, they claimed that they were referring to retired people not wanting to work anymore, they decided to delete it, and it just so happened that only the words "unwilling to work" remained from that portion.
I mean, at least own up to the fact that someone wrote it and then they thought better of it.
Here they're just outright lying to people and pretending that it's just mean, nasty right wingers trying to frame them and make them look bad.
How come when Trump is caught lying, these same people cry bloody murder, yet they peddle such obvious fibs to the public when caught acting stupid?
It was "sold" as UBI because at the time when UBI was in the headlines for other reasons, it was the only experiment/study that gave away "free money". Sometimes journalists are lazy. We also don't vacuum our forests.
What i think about UBI depends. It's very wide subject and devil is almost exclusively in the details. In general i'm in favor of anything that's cheaper to society. There are UBI models that very likely are cheaper than current models in Northern Europe. It's not really a new idea to provide your citizens with bread and circus entertainment. In case you're not aware your government already "pays" to those unwilling to work.
Oh and i very much get the point with AOC. You want this to be something it may or may not be. I don't quite recollect when Trump (or any of his relatives/employees) said my bad i was wrong and fix that shit the next day. Because that's what AOCs staffer did. That's what responsible people do.
I don't know why pro-business conservatives don't support UBI.
- Destroys the inefficiencies of the welfare state if nobody has to qualify for certain things. Everyone just gets the same. (saves money, paperwork)
- Given to everyone equally (fair)
- Most people will spend every single penny of their UBI because they need the cash (helps the economy)
- Businesses like small shops will be able to survive with new customers
- Restaurants and other businesses who suffer in financial crisis will have more business as people aren't counting pennies and choosing whether to feed or clothe their kids.
- The poor will spend it all (goes back into economy), the middle class will use it for things like occasionally affording to go out to eat/theatre/cinema (goes into businesses)
It's excellent as most money goes back into the system (and is taxed!). It's great for the poor, for business and for efficiency of public spending.
Should be supported by left and right alike.
This isn't really a political talking point, more an aspect of human psychology. For whatever reason when you "give people" stuff they abuse it and are miserable, and when someone is "working for something" they feel good about it and their lives feel more fulfilled. If you don't account for human psychology all those talking points you brought up are potentially valid. But when you do consider human psychology there is real concern UBI could make society, especially the poorer segments, much more dysfunctional. I think it is pretty obvious generational welfare has absolutely destroyed the happiness and productivity of a significant % of our society, and poorly implemented UBI (even if well meaning) could exasperate this situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrTickle
I think in designing a future functional society we need serious, honest psychologists to consider these factors. Unfortunately, psychology (especially at the research level) is currently corrupted by political activism, and there is nothing honest coming out of it, so this can't really happen in today's political climate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MintjewlipsQuote:
Originally Posted by MrTickle
I only post from my phone, and one night while I was drunk my phone spelled out Michael Angelo instead of Michelangelo, these guys being art fags, they lambasted me about the typo, they turned it into some kinda boys in the hall nerd bit....
a typo huh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MintjewlipsQuote:
Originally Posted by blake
look, i never claimed to be the Leo Nardo of mathematics but at least there were news articles saying that romney got more votes than trump, which you can google right now. and i will not have my intelligence questioned by you, even if you're living the good life working for a company with $5 billion in profits
Just say you're wrong jfc, i don't need a long winded explanation.
I spelled michelangelo wrong because im not a sophisticated art fag, and you foolishly thought mitt romney got more popular votes then trump, it's ok life goes on.
We get it.....you're an obsessed art fag.......move along....
https://youtu.be/_2laB4L0z5I
That's why UBI should be at a level where it doesnt make anyone comfortable but means you dont have to worry about being homeless.Quote:
Originally Posted by verminaardThis isn't really a political talking point, more an aspect of human psychology. For whatever reason when you "give people" stuff they abuse it and are miserable, and when someone is "working for something" they feel good about it and their lives feel more fulfilled. If you don't account for human psychology all those talking points you brought up are potentially valid. But when you do consider human psychology there is real concern UBI could make society, especially the poorer segments, much more dysfunctional. I think it is pretty obvious generational welfare has absolutely destroyed the happiness and productivity of a significant % of our society, and poorly implemented UBI (even if well meaning) could exasperate this situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrTickle
I think in designing a future functional society we need serious, honest psychologists to consider these factors. Unfortunately, psychology (especially at the research level) is currently corrupted by political activism, and there is nothing honest coming out of it, so this can't really happen in today's political climate.
While I agree that the money will go back into the economy, LOL at saying restaurants will benefit from this. Someone receiving UBI shouldn't be able to afford to go out to restaurants!Quote:
Originally Posted by MrTickle
But that aside, I'll tell you why the right (and the mainstream American public, for that matter) doesn't support UBI.
First off, it's using tax dollars to pay people unwilling to work. That's honestly what it's doing. That's not where our tax dollars should be going.
But past the moral objection to this, it creates a problem that many on the left don't want to acknowledge.
We can all agree that most minimum wage jobs suck. They're unpleasant, they're boring, there's little satisfaction in doing them, the rules are rigid, and you don't tend to be treated with respect by either your employer or the customers. Suffice to say that people take these type of jobs out of necessity and usually hate being there.
If you give someone UBI, even if they're not receiving the equivalent of minimum wage, they're close enough to where their life is honestly better to forego the difference in money and have the extra 40+ hours per week to themselves.
Furthermore, when the difference in money IS needed, they can always take under-the-table cash jobs, and work for fewer hours.
This already happens in the US all the time when people are on other forms of government assistance. It also occurred in 2009 during the financial crisis, when 99 weeks of unemployment pay was authorized. I personally knew people who purposely chose not to work for that entire 99 week span, rather than look for a job, because the difference between their unemployment pay and expected pay at a new job wasn't large enough to justify working full time.
I don't even blame these people. I would do the exact same in their shoes. It's easy to say, "Let's provide for the less fortunate" and feel good about yourself, but if you don't do it correctly, you're both wasting tax dollars and entering them into a cycle of dependence (or alternatively, susbistence through abusing the system).
In general, it's a big mistake for the government to provide for anyone who is making a conscious choice not to work, and that shouldn't require much of an explanation.
UBI is for every adult rich or poor, employed or unemployed that is why mr. tickles 2nd point was "- Given to everyone equally (fair)"Quote:
Someone receiving UBI shouldn't be able to afford to go out to restaurants!
Druff do you understand that UBI means universal? So it’s for everyone.
For example a school teacher on 25k who only just makes ends meet now can afford once a month to take the family out for a meal or a weekend trip away. Is that a bad thing?
Saying that someone who receivs UBI shouldn’t go to a restaurant is the same as saying nobody should go to a restaurant. It’s universal.
I had read that it was only for unemployed people. Maybe what I read was incorrect.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrTickle
If it's true that everyone gets it, that's even dumber.
So if this were implemented in the US, I'd be paying my tax dollars to give Jeff Bezos free money every month?
LOL
You guys realize the same thing could be accomplished by simply cutting taxes across the board, right?
Better known as cutting out the middleman.
You're mostly just criticizing a poorly implemented UBI. In general UBI is to just provide a safety net/minimal financial security while cutting down bureaucracy. Most western countries already provide this in some form to their citizens. Some versions of UBI could make the system less rigid, less laggy and less paper/work intensive. All that is especially important if we don't find replacements for jobs that become obsolete due to automatization or globalization.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffWhile I agree that the money will go back into the economy, LOL at saying restaurants will benefit from this. Someone receiving UBI shouldn't be able to afford to go out to restaurants!Quote:
Originally Posted by MrTickle
But that aside, I'll tell you why the right (and the mainstream American public, for that matter) doesn't support UBI.
First off, it's using tax dollars to pay people unwilling to work. That's honestly what it's doing. That's not where our tax dollars should be going.
But past the moral objection to this, it creates a problem that many on the left don't want to acknowledge.
We can all agree that most minimum wage jobs suck. They're unpleasant, they're boring, there's little satisfaction in doing them, the rules are rigid, and you don't tend to be treated with respect by either your employer or the customers. Suffice to say that people take these type of jobs out of necessity and usually hate being there.
If you give someone UBI, even if they're not receiving the equivalent of minimum wage, they're close enough to where their life is honestly better to forego the difference in money and have the extra 40+ hours per week to themselves.
Furthermore, when the difference in money IS needed, they can always take under-the-table cash jobs, and work for fewer hours.
This already happens in the US all the time when people are on other forms of government assistance. It also occurred in 2009 during the financial crisis, when 99 weeks of unemployment pay was authorized. I personally knew people who purposely chose not to work for that entire 99 week span, rather than look for a job, because the difference between their unemployment pay and expected pay at a new job wasn't large enough to justify working full time.
I don't even blame these people. I would do the exact same in their shoes. It's easy to say, "Let's provide for the less fortunate" and feel good about yourself, but if you don't do it correctly, you're both wasting tax dollars and entering them into a cycle of dependence (or alternatively, susbistence through abusing the system).
In general, it's a big mistake for the government to provide for anyone who is making a conscious choice not to work, and that shouldn't require much of an explanation.
Some current welfare programs incentivize a variety of futile non paying busy work or "maintenance" (to keep their welfare checks running) while disincentivizing actual paying work (usually part-time or gig oriented).
There are also states of economy where conscious choice not to work is either negligible or preferred. This happens relation to natural levels of unemployment (using real numbers not the usual mildly doctored statistics). There is no inherent benefit to a game of musical chairs. The participants cannot create additional chairs for themselves. If they could, they wouldn't be playing.
Oh and in all likelihood UBI would be leveled by taxation. Everyone would still get their monthly checks for the same amount, but the more income you would get the more of it would be taxed to offset UBI. It would be doubtful that upper middle class be net beneficiaries, but there's no necessity they would be taxed more than they are now either.
There are very few parents that work towards their children's financial insecurity. It's as if they've concluded that isn't beneficial for their future success and wellbeing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mintjewlips
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qACxfKB3iP4
Yeah, you've got a war machine to fund so there's that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffWhile I agree that the money will go back into the economy, LOL at saying restaurants will benefit from this. Someone receiving UBI shouldn't be able to afford to go out to restaurants!Quote:
Originally Posted by MrTickle
But that aside, I'll tell you why the right (and the mainstream American public, for that matter) doesn't support UBI.
First off, it's using tax dollars to pay people unwilling to work. That's honestly what it's doing. That's not where our tax dollars should be going.
But past the moral objection to this, it creates a problem that many on the left don't want to acknowledge.
We can all agree that most minimum wage jobs suck. They're unpleasant, they're boring, there's little satisfaction in doing them, the rules are rigid, and you don't tend to be treated with respect by either your employer or the customers. Suffice to say that people take these type of jobs out of necessity and usually hate being there.
If you give someone UBI, even if they're not receiving the equivalent of minimum wage, they're close enough to where their life is honestly better to forego the difference in money and have the extra 40+ hours per week to themselves.
Furthermore, when the difference in money IS needed, they can always take under-the-table cash jobs, and work for fewer hours.
This already happens in the US all the time when people are on other forms of government assistance. It also occurred in 2009 during the financial crisis, when 99 weeks of unemployment pay was authorized. I personally knew people who purposely chose not to work for that entire 99 week span, rather than look for a job, because the difference between their unemployment pay and expected pay at a new job wasn't large enough to justify working full time.
I don't even blame these people. I would do the exact same in their shoes. It's easy to say, "Let's provide for the less fortunate" and feel good about yourself, but if you don't do it correctly, you're both wasting tax dollars and entering them into a cycle of dependence (or alternatively, susbistence through abusing the system).
In general, it's a big mistake for the government to provide for anyone who is making a conscious choice not to work, and that shouldn't require much of an explanation.
Instead of UBI, maybe the States should consider UBE(education) because it's clear
your school system is not working
i prefer the current system where bezos pays thousands of people shit wages and the taxpayer pays for their food stamps
This whole post is best translated to “I am ignorant”Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffI had read that it was only for unemployed people. Maybe what I read was incorrect.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrTickle
If it's true that everyone gets it, that's even dumber.
So if this were implemented in the US, I'd be paying my tax dollars to give Jeff Bezos free money every month?
LOL
You guys realize the same thing could be accomplished by simply cutting taxes across the board, right?
Better known as cutting out the middleman.
UBI would be a right of being a citizen
Bezos would get it, but he’d be taxed a lot more so overall would lose out
No, cutting taxes across the board wouldn’t have even remotely the same effect. Not only would the rich contribute less to the pot but also governments would have less money and cuts would have to happen to essential services. How is this the same as the rich paying extra and the poor having a life safety net? Exactly what gimmick said
Why do you just ignore logic and reason and reply with basic hyperbole and made up shit?
first interview with AOC regarding green new deal:
"Are you prepared to put on the table that, yes, actually they’re right. What this requires is massive Government intervention — ” asked NPR morning podcast host Steve Inskeep, when the young Democratic congresswoman interjected affirmatively:
“It does. It does, yeah. I have no problem saying that.”
subsequent interview with AOC:
“I think one way that the right does try to mischaracterize what we’re doing, as though it’s like some kind of massive Government takeover,” she told MSNBC’s Chuck Todd in an exclusive interview.
A cult of personalityQuote:
Originally Posted by blake
(It’s not just her though)
You already do do this, you just either dont realize this or refuse to acknowledge it. Our entire system is rigged so that for all functional purposes the super wealthy are on welfare, payed by the rest of us. That is actually how pure capitalism is designed to work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffI had read that it was only for unemployed people. Maybe what I read was incorrect.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrTickle
If it's true that everyone gets it, that's even dumber.
So if this were implemented in the US, I'd be paying my tax dollars to give Jeff Bezos free money every month?
LOL
You guys realize the same thing could be accomplished by simply cutting taxes across the board, right?
Better known as cutting out the middleman.
This is where I run into problems with conservatives like Carola and Druff. They are so reticent to have the government assist the poor, whilst not acknowledging how the whole system is completely rigged to assist the super rich.
A few years ago we had a banking crisis where poor people couldn't pay their predatory loans to rich banks, so the "solution" was for the government to directly pay off the banks, while making the poor people hold onto their predatory loans. Seriously, if you step back and really examine what happened that is so fucked up it blows the mind, and yet here we are and nothing has changed.
To me, she comes across on the Chuck Todd interview as someone that is not very smart, that doesn't know what she's talking about, trying way too hard to sound very smart:
https://youtu.be/wypN0PChAtg
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeD
She's very knowledgeable......about.....yoga....n shit.....
You don't know what you're talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrTickleThis whole post is best translated to “I am ignorant”Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
UBI would be a right of being a citizen
Bezos would get it, but he’d be taxed a lot more so overall would lose out
No, cutting taxes across the board wouldn’t have even remotely the same effect. Not only would the rich contribute less to the pot but also governments would have less money and cuts would have to happen to essential services. How is this the same as the rich paying extra and the poor having a life safety net? Exactly what gimmick said
Why do you just ignore logic and reason and reply with basic hyperbole and made up shit?
Let's say the US had a UBI of $700 per month.
The population is 325 million.
That would be 227.5 billion per month, or 2.73 trilion per year -- enough money to build 136 Trump walls even if we take the highest estimate figure for that to be done.
Obviously that money would have to come from somewhere, right?
Well, obviously it would have to come from a big tax increase. Yes, the tax increase could be disproportionately aimed at the upper classes, but that's not important here. The important thing is that money would have to be taxed FROM the people, then cycled through government channels, then sent back out TO the people.
Sound a bit pointless and inefficient?
Why cycle all that money through the government, forcing people to be taxed extra and then get the money returned, when the same can be accomplished by simply setting up programs to help the less fortunate?
That's what i don't understand about the UBI concept.
It's as stupid as the people who choose to have money over-withheld from their paychecks so they can get a big tax refund in January.
And if you say, "Well, the rich people disproportionately pay into it, so most citizens will gain from it", then it sounds like what you really want is forced wealth redistribution, which is disturbing,
There's also the huge flaw to where UBI discourages work and leaves people in a cycle of dependence, if it's enough to just squeeze by (or close enough to where they can work a few days per month under-the-table to supplement it).
The last thing you ever want to do for the broke and unemployed is say, "Here, we'll give you a little bit of money for the rest of your life to get by."
Rich people have been taking advantage of poor people since the dawn of humanity. Ofcourse, when the rich get out of hand, they always regret it.
We can talk about logical ways to correct the imbalance.....or just continue to debate for tha sake of debating.
What we have in the US isn't capitalism as it was intended, more or less it has morphed into a fascist corporate environment, and the baby boomers let it all happen, now we're stuck trying to fix this crap....yada yada yada.....I'm just hoping the Warriors hit the over..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mintjewlips
Poor people shouldn't be taken advantage of, and there should be laws in place to prevent that.
For example, despite being a conservative and generally pro-business, I'm very happy to see when big companies are punished for labor law violations.
I even got to personally experience some of those violations when I worked a minimum wage job at 18. It was a shitty experience, but I'm glad I had it, because I always think back to it when I think of the plight of the low-wage worker, and how they are often abused.
However, what we are seeing today is class warfare.
People want to take from the rich simply because they're doing really well, and it's "not fair" to the rest of us that we're not doing as well.
I always like to say that the left's solution to the unfairness of a certain segment of the population being miserable is to make everyone miserable.
What many people often miss is that being super-rich doesn't just happen due to luck. Sure, you can be born into it, or you can win the lottery, but aside from that, it usually requires risk, innovation, and hard work. For every Jeff Bezos, there are millions of people who sunk everything into a dream business idea and lost it all. There are others who had great ideas which would have worked, but they didn't wish to take the risk nor commit the time to developing it.
We shouldn't punish success with confiscatory taxes.
I find it absurd that a healthy percentage of people today support taking 70% of every dollar someone earns beyond $10 million. How is that possibly morally correct?
As I've asked before, where does it stop? Why is 70% the right number? If you're for something as crazy high as 70%, shouldn't you also be for a 90% tax rate, or perhaps even 99%?
You also have to keep in mind that there are good and bad rich people AND good and bad poor people. And you need to legislate being aware of both.
The movies usually depict rich guys as cold-hearted and evil, while all poor people are good-hearted and suffering through no fault of their own.. The reality is quite different.
There are good, generous, big-hearted rich people, and there are cold, greedy asshole rich guys who will exploit anyone or anything to make extra money.
There are good, honest, hardworking poor people, and there are shady, lazy ones who game the government assistance system and subsist between that and petty crime.
There really should be an effort to help the poor who actually want to help themselves, as well as those who are honestly physically or mentally unable to do so.
However, we shouldn't start to gravitate toward a culture of soaking the rich and then handing everything out for free, because it will backfire spectacularly.
On the flip side very wealthy people and corporations pay tax attorneys millions of dollars to find creative (mostly legal) ways to not have to pay taxes. Let that sink in. We live in a system where it is actually fiscally responsible to pay millions to hire people to find creative ways to dodge taxes, which obviously means the taxes being dodged total way more than the millions being payed. And this is somehow ok. Try to step out of the box for a second and think how absurd that is.
What makes you think I have no idea what I’m talking about? All of my opinions come from real economics (in theory and practice) and I can cite evidence or a paper about everything I’ve said. Everything you say is right wing bollocks.
You’ve made it clear you don’t want any wealth redistribution so why are we even having this debate.
So why isn't the left looking to get control of that, rather than punishing all rich people and trying to redistribute wealth?Quote:
Originally Posted by verminaard
I guess it's obvious if you're an idiot or don't really know anything about the subject. It's not magic money that's being thrown on top of everything. You know the kind that apparently pays all your amazing tax cuts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffYou don't know what you're talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrTickle
Let's say the US had a UBI of $700 per month.
The population is 325 million.
That would be 227.5 billion per month, or 2.73 trilion per year -- enough money to build 136 Trump walls even if we take the highest estimate figure for that to be done.
Obviously that money would have to come from somewhere, right?
Well, obviously it would have to come from a big tax increase. Yes, the tax increase could be disproportionately aimed at the upper classes, but that's not important here. The important thing is that money would have to be taxed FROM the people, then cycled through government channels, then sent back out TO the people.
There's also the huge flaw to where UBI discourages work and leaves people in a cycle of dependence, if it's enough to just squeeze by (or close enough to where they can work a few days per month under-the-table to supplement it).
The last thing you ever want to do for the broke and unemployed is say, "Here, we'll give you a little bit of money for the rest of your life to get by."
It replaces existing welfare programs. Do i need to explain what replace means? Now if you wouldn't be getting any of that sweet sweet welfare money in current systems it's also likely that taxation will offset your monthly UBI check. In other words nothing changes in that department.
UBI didn't invent welfare. It's retarded to assign current (highly exaggerated) issues with welfare as something to do with UBI. Among other things UBI didn't invent the grey market.
Oh i also didn't know US has a huge problem with millions of perfectly fine jobs that no one wants. Have you thought about migrating workforce from other countries. I've heard good things about that.