831–840 of 840 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
WE NEED TO LOWER THE COST OF LIVING Its unacceptable that food in the US is 2x the cost of that of china, for instance. http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_countries_resul...
Regulating food safety costs money. I'm happy to pay.
There needs to be solid evidence to justify a 2x increase in the cost of food.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
WE NEED TO LOWER THE COST OF LIVING Its unacceptable that food in the US is 2x the cost of that of china, for instance. http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_countries_resul...
You'll have to reduce the value of productivity. Many have tried, but no one has ever pulled it off successfully because it only takes one asshole who realizes the whole scheme is trivially exploitable just by working harder to ruin it for everyone.
Productivity decreases costs, not the other way around.
Did you mean to say the value of unskilled labor?
I think the reason for huge support behind Basic Income is failure of government in efficient allocation of its resources. The current generation with its experience with public education, spending on unnecessary wars and other poorly run government programs no longer trusts government to effectively deliver services. Thus Basic Income seems like a natural solution. I honestly would prefer a smaller government that r…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I perceive the income tax as helping the rich roll rocks on the upper-middle labor class while getting the poor to cheer them on. Most rich don't want competition or independent power bases to develop from bourgeois power bases. Also how is taxing labor in any way liberal?
What specifically makes you perceive that? And for your last question: 1. What is your working definition of liberal(positive vs. Negative freedoms)? 2. Income tax taxes... Income. Not labour. Ideally not discriminating between capital and labour income.
The rates for long-run capital returns and dividends are such that they are very beneficial to owners of capital, and they like to keep it that way. The upper-middle class folks who are working have their labor and ordinary income taxed at increasingly higher marginal rates. The rich often fund demagogues who talk about handouts for the poor while ensuring that "progressive" tax rates remain high on their potential rivals who pay high labor taxes.
>1. What is your working definition of liberal(positive vs. Negative freedoms)?
Today, I think the word "liberal" means "someone who thinks that the poor should benefit at the expense of the rich, through government coercion"
>2. Income tax taxes... Income. Not labour. Ideally not discriminating between capital and labour income
Why tax income? Why not your bodyweight? Or height? Why not tax consumption? If the answer is "to punish those with high _incomes_" you are in violent agreement with the ultra-rich.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here again is another place where we need a lot more government regulation. People who don't work should not be getting $100/month or whatever for internet access. Instead, they should be able to afford a $15/month plan. Over in Europe, they have stuff like that, because they have real regulation, so internet service is much, much cheaper (of course, their internet and telecom companies aren't as profitable as ours;…
I've never seen a $100 internet bill that wasn't bundled with other kinds of services. A more normal number, I think is $50. If you couple that with the fact that people with out income most likely need to share housing and might as well share in internet connection too, you're already down to $17 per month for broadband.
Also, you're assuming someone has internet service where they live and a stable enough situation to sign up for long-term service. I was thinking more like mobile internet service, which is how people in developing countries use the internet (and they don't pay the ridiculous monthly rates we do either).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aren't you assuming that leisure time is worthless there? Suppose country A consists of 99 peasants and 1 plutocrat. The peasants work full-time and the plutocrat consumes their entire economic output living a life of fabulous luxury. Country B consists of 100 people who work part-time and live simple lives that they can afford. Country A produces more goods and services and has a higher GDP than country B - let's sa…
In some ways, yes, country A2 is better off. I personally would much rather work hard and take vacations by airplane to experience other parts of the planet than to work half as hard and have my only leisure options be within a walking/biking radius of where I was born, lived, and died.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In some ways, yes, country A2 is better off. I personally would much rather work hard and take vacations by airplane to experience other parts of the planet than to work half as hard and have my only leisure options be within a walking/biking radius of where I was born, lived, and died.
Interesting. I've never really got why people enjoy travelling so much - I've done a fair bit but as I get older I'm spending more and more of my holidays in my home country or nearby, and would far rather have a 2-week holiday close to home than a 1-week holiday far across the world.
The blue waters and great snorkeling of the Caribbean, the rugged landscape and Northern Lights of Iceland, the various cultures and climates across Europe, the stark differences between rain forest and desert. There's a massive variety in the world and I'd much rather experience that (and share that with my wife and kids) than to stay in my ultra-luxe Cambridge/Rt 128 bubble world.
Negative. Those with money will fight like hell to keep from giving it up. However if by some chance/miracle a guaranteed income is ever instituted, it will become a political football, as politicians and advocacy groups seek to continuously push it higher and higher. Instead of a money handout, I would rather support money in exchange for public works and service. I don't believe handouts without some kind of exchan…
The primary problem with a guaranteed employment program is the proliferation of edge cases: - I want a job, but I have no transportation - I want a job, but I have no skills - I want the money from a job, and I'm willing to show up to a job, but I never actually do the work. If you fire me, I will go get another guaranteed job. - I show up to the job and do the work, but my manager hates me and fires me. I guess I w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or instead, give it universally to children, but require a certain percentage be saved in some sort of fund that they are given full control of when they turn 18. That way the parents don't have to shoulder all of the expense of a child, but the child isn't screwed over by irresponsible parents either.
When they turn 18 they are already going to have access to the BI. I'm not sure of the benefit of a fund rather than directing it to school funding. Prior to school it would allow parents to pay for daycare, diapers, food and subsidize paternity/maternity leave.
A universal basic income is inferior to a job guarantee: http://www.economonitor.com/lrwray/2013/07/09/how-big-is-big... http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2014/01/16-reasons-matt-y... https://www.reddit.com/r/BasicIncome/comments/3ne2iu/randall... ? http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=13025
A job guarantee like they had it in the the former https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Bloc ?
That was 100% government employment to the exclusion of the private purpose.
It was a centrally planned economy where the government determined what everyone should do at all times.
A Job Guarantee, on the other hand (which I'll explain because you obviously didn't look at any of the links I posted in my initial comment, but rather went off your pre-existing opinions) is a guarantee by the government that if the private sector will not or can not employ someone, they will be given a good job by the government.
I won't bother providing additional links, you're obviously only interested in dealing with straw men.