UBI is for every adult rich or poor, employed or unemployed that is why mr. tickles 2nd point was "- Given to everyone equally (fair)"Someone receiving UBI shouldn't be able to afford to go out to restaurants!
UBI is for every adult rich or poor, employed or unemployed that is why mr. tickles 2nd point was "- Given to everyone equally (fair)"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.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.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!
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.
"Birds born in a cage think flying is an illness." - Alejandro Jodorowsky
"America is not so much a nightmare as a non-dream. The American non-dream is precisely a move to wipe the dream out of existence. The dream is a spontaneous happening and therefore dangerous to a control system set up by the non-dreamers." -- William S. Burroughs
Yeah, you've got a war machine to fund so there's that.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!
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”I had read that it was only for unemployed people. Maybe what I read was incorrect.
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 personality
(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.I had read that it was only for unemployed people. Maybe what I read was incorrect.
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:
She's very knowledgeable......about.....yoga....n shit.....
"Druff would suck his own dick if it were long enough"- Brandon "drexel" Gerson
"ann coulter literally has more common sense than pfa."-Sonatine
"Real grinders supports poker fraud"- Ray Davis
"DRILLED HER GOOD"- HONGKONGER
You don't know what you're talking about.This whole post is best translated to “I am ignorant”
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..
"Druff would suck his own dick if it were long enough"- Brandon "drexel" Gerson
"ann coulter literally has more common sense than pfa."-Sonatine
"Real grinders supports poker fraud"- Ray Davis
"DRILLED HER GOOD"- HONGKONGER
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?
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.You don't know what you're talking about.
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.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Reply With Quote
