Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't see why this isn't a good idea. The poor would be better off getting money in their pocket instead of leeching off the welfare state. This idea is gaining traction. Some prominent conservatives are actually entertaining the idea.
Gaining traction? Finland actually tried it, the failure was obvious so quickly that the experiment was terminated.
I don't see why this isn't a good idea. The poor would be better off getting money in their pocket instead of leeching off the welfare state. This idea is gaining traction. Some prominent conservatives are actually entertaining the idea.
Dream on knowledgeiskey. Finland tried it and pulled the plug already.
Since the beginning of last year, 2000 Finns are getting money from the government each month – and they are not expected to do anything in return. The participants, aged 25–58, are all unemployed, and were selected at random by Kela, Finland’s social-security institution. While the project is praised internationally for being at the cutting edge of social welfare, back in Finland, decision makers are quietly pulling the brakes, making a U-turn that is taking the project in a whole new direction.”Right now, the government is making changes that are taking the system further away from a basic income,
When people find out they can have their safety and survival taken care of without any input labor on their part, normal distribution alone would suggest that at least half of them decide that works just fine and never do any labor again, since there is literally no need.
As those who work increasingly see/hear about those who do not work living comfortably, again, simple normal distribution says at least half will find resentment at the fact they work to provide their own safety and survival, and also get taxed to provide those who do not work with safety and survival, and that resentment will lead to those people ceasing their input labor.
When people find out they can have their safety and survival taken care of without any input labor on their part, normal distribution alone would suggest that at least half of them decide that works just fine and never do any labor again, since there is literally no need.
As those who work increasingly see/hear about those who do not work living comfortably, again, simple normal distribution says at least half will find resentment at the fact they work to provide their own safety and survival, and also get taxed to provide those who do not work with safety and survival, and that resentment will lead to those people ceasing their input labor.
Welcome to how adverse selection works.
What a dim view of humanity you have is everyone you know really so incredibly lazy that they would cease work if the poor had some level of dignity?
They don't want to pay for infrastructure and services that they use or have access to
Well any working adult or tax victim of some sort no doubt will uave contributed to existing infrastructure or services , so why shouldn't they have the same access you do? Regardless, no ancap on this thread is advocating they get something for nothing, they want to pay for what they use and they want the free market to provide it (ideally with multiple choices).
However I see your comment as fitting your m.o. to a T. Pay as little tax as possible while advocating others pay more so you can get the services you want without paying.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.