361–370 of 761 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, take from everyone and give to everyone. In a non-biased way. Hey, the rich get their $1k check every month too.
But that's only getting back part of the $1000+ that was taken from them
I think if you could see close-up how these systems work now, you'd be convinced that it's completely not worth the cost in practice to try and figure out who "deserves" each of the many, many special benefits/allowances/exemptions available (plus it's incredibly difficult for potential recipients to figure out what they're eligible for, plus it imposes those costs on the people who aren't eligible, but end up having…
> So since this is HN... is there any way to get to an MVP without having a sovereign state to experiment with? Or is this solely in the realm of public policy? Scale it down? Seems pretty obvious to me. If you can make it happen in one city, you have a foothold.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
+misery = +violence -misery = -violence +people participating in the economy = +business, +salaries better society = better society for everyone You still can't seem to think outside your box it seems. Misery breeds violence, there's no "or else", there's no "they", it's reality, I could resort to violence to survive and so could you.
By that logic (extending it a bit), we could fire all the cops, and just give our money over to criminals who ask for it. There's a point at which I draw the line, and prefer to fight instead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course it's acceptable. Depending on the circumstances, killing can be acceptable, eating human flesh can be acceptable, why wouldn't stealing be? It's not taken from you, if everybody receives basic income, how can it be taking from you? You're missing the point.
> Depending on the circumstances, killing can be acceptable, eating human flesh can be acceptable, why wouldn't stealing be? Maybe you find those acceptable, but I find all of them horrible. Killing someone is only acceptable in self defense (in which case someone else is trying to kill you first), while cannibalism is just sick.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm opposed to rewarding those who sit around and do nothing period, including the current system. So what's wrong with a system that still rewards laziness (because it can't be stopped no matter what system is in place) but benefits the country a lot more? > All I'm hearing is excuses. Excuses from someone who's started a number of companies (successful and failed), been through acquisitions, all without going to…
The problem with rewarding laziness is that you get more laziness. Rewards by definition are meant to encourage behavior. I disagree that it can't be stopped. Don't give them money. Stopped. I'm not arguing that it isn't hard. You don't need to work 16 hours a day to provide for themselves. But you do need to work more than 8 hours a day if you don't have resources and want to get ahead. Once you start having some re…
How would you go about doing this? Who gets money and who doesn't? Is a single mother raising 3 kids lazy? Is an artist who works night and day and gets pennies in return lazy? There's a lot of overhead in deciding this. A lot.
> That fact that other people won't buy their work is not a problem of other people. It's their problem.
So, my point that art is only worth it's value to the general population stands. That makes it more entertainment than art. Please note the distinction.
> Just because someone can't support themselves doing whatever they find the most interesting or the easiest path doesn't mean others should be forced to provide them that opportunity.
Valid point. However, I do think there's something to be said for giving people more of an opportunity to do what they like. After all, we all tend to do better work when we're doing something we want to be doing =].
I'm reading the comments, and surprised at what's missing. What happened to the business approach? The US government is delivering a large number of products with wildly varying costs, efficiencies, and price points. e.g. unemployment, welfare, food stamps, etc. There is a proposal is to replace those products with only one. The new product fills (mostly) the same need as the existing ones. It will do so at less cost…
Most European nations ( and Canada, Australia & New Zealand ) are great at dispensing - what can be termed as - "subsistence medicine." Most ailments, procedures and surgeries are handled quite well, although - it has to be said - a tad frugally. ( It is not uncommon for the doctor to under-prescribe medications or opt for a less cost-prohibitive option over another even when the situation could be better dealt with, with a more exhaustive course of prophylaxis)
Plenty of Canadians including the Premier of New Foundland have opted and continue to opt for minimally invasive procedures ( as well as convoluted surgeries ) to be done in the United States, simply because the U.S. is better equipped with the resources and the doctors to deal with such cases.
"This is my heart, it's my health, it's my choice."
With these words, Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams
defended his decision to hop the border and go under the
knife for heart surgery in Florida.
The minimally invasive mitral valve surgery he needed is not
available in Newfoundland, he told his province's NTV News channel
in the first part of an interview aired last night.[1]
For instance, some Canadian patients who are tired of waiting
for procedures in their country's national health system come
to Michigan hospitals. [2]
The king (Abdullah of Saudi Arabia), who is 86 years old, was in town
for surgery at New York Presbyterian Hospital on Nov. 24.[3]
[2] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/reverse-medical-tourism-points-u...
[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/business/14road.html?_r=0
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, I was arguing against the idea that society is punishing people who can't find a job. Personally, I'd love to get BI. That would free me to work only on what I like, or not work at all when I don't want to.
But what's stopping you from just working hard, saving your money, and then taking extended time off of work to do what you want to? Why does that money need to come from other people? Maybe if the government just let you keep the majority of your earnings you could use that money to "work on what (you) like or not work at all when (you) don't want to".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By that logic (extending it a bit), we could fire all the cops, and just give our money over to criminals who ask for it. There's a point at which I draw the line, and prefer to fight instead.
You still can't seem to think outside your box it seems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...it's become increasingly clear to all of us that the implementation of well-meaning policies intended to separate the deserving from the undeserving ends up adding an incredible amount of complexity and overhead,... Unless the overhead is truly massive (read: 5x more than the actual benefits), it doesn't matter. It's still vastly cheaper to pay only a small set of deserving people than to pay everyone. Consider a…
Only about 200m people are over the age of 18 and 20k per person seems high. 200M at 10k per year is around 2 trillion. Seems doable if we are willing to scrap things like social security.
Note that the current level of welfare is $20k/person so you are advocating a massive reduction of consumption for the welfare class. (I don't object, just pointing it out.)
I just spent a year living in South Western France which is the most socialist part of France. (I'm a US citizen based here most of the time and I'm a CEO). If you want to see the result of wealth redistribution, go check it out yourself. You'll meet young men and women in the prime of their lives who spend their entire day in a coffee shop and later a bar, sipping a beverage discussing art, culture, poetry, how busi…
Can you give more details? What are rates of childhood malnutrition like? How hard is it for the sub-middle-class (or, God forbid, the unemployed) to get medical care?