341–350 of 413 posts
I hate being "that guy" but am I the only one who expects this particular brand of communism to not be any better than previous attempts? Somebody's going to have to pay for this...
It isn't a brand of communism. It doesn't involve any nationalization. Also, no communists have ever implemented basic income. It isn't even an exclusively left wing idea. Milton Friedman supported it, Charles Murray supports it.
I feel like we're creating a new government program to counter the failures of an existing one: education. If people had marketable skills, it would be a lot easier to find work. Perhaps tax revenue should go to education and training, instead. I think we're a long way off from total automation of most industries.
Or perhaps we should drastically reduce government's role in education altogether. After all, we were doing fine before the Department of Education opened in the seventies!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alas same effect, the TAX by owners will be passed onto renters with rents going up. Now if excess of housing that will eventually catch up and if a shortage then this will only exacerbate the divide. So much that can go wrong and equally right, hence they are testing this. Though a small test will be isolated from all global country impact and bias towards a false positive due to small impact. If that is projected t…
Rents go down when demand goes down. I've lived in the bay area through two booms and busts now and rent was higher in 2000 than it was in 2003, and higher in 2007 than it was in 2009. When you project a local experiment to an entire country, don't forget that a concept similar to UBI known as "communism" has been tried before in the USSR, China, Cuba, and a few other countries, with limited success and many downside…
If its only going to jobless people, not UBI. This is not a meaningless distinction -- one of the features of UBI is that it is universal . If this just goes to unemployed people we cannot see the change in behavior with people who are earning close to their reservation wage. Do they stop working? This is streamlined rebranded welfare. Not a paradigm shift.
If its only going to jobless people, not UBI. This is not a meaningless distinction -- one of the features of UBI is that it is universal . If this just goes to unemployed people we cannot see the change in behavior with people who are earning close to their reservation wage. Do they stop working? This is streamlined rebranded welfare. Not a paradigm shift.
I'm from Poland, where recently the government introduced a "500+" program, which means that every family in the country receives 500PLN per month, per child, from the day they are born to the time when they are 18 year old. Now, my parents run a company which mostly has physical workers - and for a physical worker, in the "poorer" part of the country, 1500PLN/per month(after taxes) is an ok salary. The day the 500+…
If its only going to jobless people, not UBI. This is not a meaningless distinction -- one of the features of UBI is that it is universal . If this just goes to unemployed people we cannot see the change in behavior with people who are earning close to their reservation wage. Do they stop working? This is streamlined rebranded welfare. Not a paradigm shift.
how pissed would everyone be if one of these people became a millionaire through working on some business while using Finland's cash handout to finance it. even though the taxes from that is exactly what would make the whole program absolutely free - and is the basic point behind a UBI. It really is "free" for the country. A proper test of UBI has to make it available to everyone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They now have free time to pursue another career, further their own education, or put more time and energy into the next generation. The interesting question is what would happen if it was for everyone and not just those with children. Do you think this would be a bad thing?
My guess is that many of them will use their free time to make another couple of kids and raise their income with another 1000.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am reminded of an article I read years ago (sorry, no reference) about a low income family in Chicago (I think) during the Reagan era. The family had saved up a bit of money to send their kid to college, but some bureaucratic org found out. It was responsible for handling their benefits and because the total amount of assets the family had was over an acceptable limit, they cut out _all_ benefits to the family. Til…
Explain to me why my tax dollars should pay for other people again? I am not sure I understand why my labor must pay for others against my wishes. If I want to donate to charity, I will. Taxes should be used to pay for shared resources (roads, police, military,) but paying other people's living expenses? No thanks. America has poor and unemployed, yet Democrats seem to have no problem with illegal immigration which r…
I'm pretty sure all the business owners who take advantage of illegal immigrants to violate labor laws, pay them pennies compared to what they'd have to pay those 'poor and unemployed' Americans, and generally abuse the heck out them... --all-- vote Republican.
If Trump actually builds a wall that works, a bunch of scummy Republican business owners are going to be screaming bloody murder. Illegal immigration is a problem, but there is a demand side to it and no one ever seems to bring that side up in discussions.
If its only going to jobless people, not UBI. This is not a meaningless distinction -- one of the features of UBI is that it is universal . If this just goes to unemployed people we cannot see the change in behavior with people who are earning close to their reservation wage. Do they stop working? This is streamlined rebranded welfare. Not a paradigm shift.
I'm from Poland, where recently the government introduced a "500+" program, which means that every family in the country receives 500PLN per month, per child, from the day they are born to the time when they are 18 year old. Now, my parents run a company which mostly has physical workers - and for a physical worker, in the "poorer" part of the country, 1500PLN/per month(after taxes) is an ok salary. The day the 500+…
Looks like this isn't quite correct:
"The new, universal child-raising benefit of PLN 500 (EUR 114) monthly is granted for every second child under 18, and for the first child if the family income is below PLN 800 (EUR 182) per capita per month (PLN 1,200/EUR 273 in the case of child disability)."[0]
[0] http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=16077&langId=en [PDF]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They now have free time to pursue another career, further their own education, or put more time and energy into the next generation. The interesting question is what would happen if it was for everyone and not just those with children. Do you think this would be a bad thing?
My guess is that many of them will use their free time to make another couple of kids and raise their income with another 1000.