Please keep the do-gooder central planning away from my bank account. Thanks.
This is the opposite of central planning. It lets everyone decide what to do with the money themselves.
Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income
671–680 of 681 posts
Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income
#672> - You get the basic income whether or not you’re employed, any wages you earn are additional. > > - The welfare bureaucracy is largely dismantled. No means testing, no signing on, no bullying young people into stacking shelves for free, no separate state pension. Self-contradiction.
Not in the slightest. It takes more bureaucracy to administer a system where decisions need to be made. If there's some other problem you're seeing, you'll need to use more than one word to convey it.
Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income
#673But then we'd all have to die at thirty.
... why?
Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income
#674If money is any object or record that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services and repayment of debts in a given socio-economic context or country,( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money ) then what are persons who receive this money paying? What changes hands? The state gives Chad cash and he gives them what in return? Is a minimum income even money anymore?
This is inane. So long as people in general are willing to accept it in exchange for goods and services and repayment of debts, it's money. Even if it somehow wasn't "money" per that definition but a money-like item that worked the same as "money" in all contexts but one, how is that an objection? Wikipedia's phrasing of the definition of "money" provides some kind of moral obligation?
Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income
#675How would a system like this scale to different regions? I can see this working in a smaller country, not the US. I would need a much larger subsistence wage to survive in the SF bay area than I would in most other places in the country. And if certain (already overcrowded) regions are allowed larger wages, you'd probably see people flocking there for the increased wages. I can also see this placing strain on the sys…
Scaling it by region such that the increased benefits are greater than the increased expense is an obviously horrible idea. I think that scaling it by region at all is a bad idea, but am receptive to the notion that a slight increase might work out better if someone wants to present numbers.
Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income
#676Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given 300 million people, it's prudent to consider the net impact and not sweat the details too much. Say a policy makes 200 million people better off in some virtuous manner but creates 10 million free loaders. Is that a horrible policy? Say the value of the virtuous benefit is 10x the cost of the free loading?
The other poster's concern is obviously punishing the undeserving poor. However, the point of the article here is to assume that millions will be "free loaders" no matter what we do because their labor is unnecessary.
> [M]illions will be "free loaders" no matter what we do because their labor is unnecessary.
Not if we kill them.
Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income
#677Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are again one of these people going with the notion that since you disagree with the other people's ideas you get to assume that the ideas are somehow bad. Notice that in no way did you explain why these ideas are inherently bad, you simply disagree with them. You are perpetuating the fallacy that they are bad simply because you say they are while ignoring the possibilities that they have good reasons to think th…
Yet again, I'm failing to see your explanation as to why the platform is bad. Nor do you even really attempt to counter the quote of my comment that you provide other than say "not at all". In fact, you ignore pretty much ignore everything I stated. You just continue with the snide comments that do not support your argument; they just stroke your ego and false sense of superiority. If your ability to win a debate tha…
I'm not going to debate why the republican's platform is bad, I'm just going to throw my opinion in that I believe it only serves a minority of the country.
I don't post here to stroke my ego. I could not care less what someone on Hacker News thinks of my ideas or perceptions, although I do enjoy quality discourse.
Go take a look at historical trends with regards to polling on gay marriage: http://www.gallup.com/poll/117328/marriage.aspx
You can CLEARLY see how public sentiment towards gay marriage has changed over the last 10-15 years. Either this occurred because of people changing their belief structure (doubtful) or because people with one mindset aged out of the population.
Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income
#678Earlier quoted context omitted.
This assumes an erroneous loadable funds model where loans are supply driven; loans have always been demand driven. It's the same reason why QE isn't inflationary, just because there's more reserves in the system doesn't magically make creditworthy borrowers show up.
Doesn't adding dollars to the economy (through payment rather than loan) increase the ability to repay loans of those paid, those paid by those paid, etc, and thus their corresponding creditworthiness? Also, if people have money to spend, companies will borrow to service their needs. It's not about the ability of the banks to loan the money out (which is part of why QE isn't very meaningful).
It depends entirely on where it's added.
If it is added where it will directly translate to demand (e.g. eliminating payroll tax) then you will get more spending, which will cause businesses to hire, take on loans to meet the new demand. At some point if you keep adding, you will surpass the ability of the market to absorb the demand and you will get inflation.
If it is added on top of already flush corporate balance sheets (e.g. eliminating corporate taxes), then you most likely won't see much difference in the current environment. They won't use it to hire more people because the demand isn't there.
Loans in and of themselves don't add net dollars to the private sector, as they create a liability for the exact amount of the loan (plus interest). For the domestic private sector to experience a net increase in financial assets, either the sovereign government (whoever's name is on the money) or the foreign sector must increase its deficit.