Why a mixed basic income and negative income tax might be a better choice (suspect, Kennedy)

[shiftymh]

Haven't seen that big of a one-sided ass kicking since the Germany-Brazil game.

[greywar]

Originally Posted by Mircea

And half of it went over your head, and the other half went way, way over.

Ah yes, what Mircea response would be complete without a personal attack, because of course your point is made with fact so much that you must resort to personal attacks first! Sad.

Friedman recanted.

And the reasons he originally suggested it for apply towards what we are discussing.

It's sort of like the Einstein thing.

Einstein commenting with Charles Hapgood claimed that a Polar Crustal Shift had taken place, where the Antarctic Continent -- formerly in the North Polar Region -- shifted to its present position due to the massive weight of ice that had formed on Antarctic Continent.

The Pole Shift Pukes seize on that, but --- just like you -- they suppress evidence: Einstein made his comments before Tectonic Plate Theory...once Einstein was exposed to tectonic theory, he realized he was wrong about the crustal pole shift nonsense and recanted in light of new evidence.

Friedman did the same after Basic/Negative Income was tested and failed.

Ahh yes the false equivalency fallacy.

Never is the best time.

Fallacy of authority

Then you need to learn Economics and stop suppressing evidence.

Provide links to the failed studies in the US.

Your cohort in special-silliness Hidingknowledgeiskey refused to provide links to the studies and instead tried to convince people that because Basic Income works in Kenya, it'll work in the US.

Ahh yes point to someone else and assign the discussion to them. I could list the fallacies here, but that fallcy stuff is more your thing. So lets get to this.

You do so if you wish to discuss them. I will feel free to tear them apart one by one as I have in the past. Are you referring to the ones Rumsfield worked on?

Except the immutable Laws of Economics.

Ahh yes the "laws of economics". Ohhh sorry I didnt capitalize them.
Referencing “the laws of economics” as a way to refute arguments or criticize ideas has the patina of clarity and certainty. Unfortunately the reality is that referencing such laws is simply another way to justify beliefs and inclinations. Economic theories are guides not "laws", ones that have substantial utility. But onceelevated to the realm of laws, they fall short and do us no good

Too bad you disingenuously refuse to define Standard of Living objectively in no uncertain terms, just like you refuse to define Food Insecurity and Wealth Inequality and Income Inequality and a host of other pie-in-the-sky-fairy-tale-fantasies.

What foolishness. Im saying defining the standard of living is PART of the discussion that should happen. You of course instantly come back and say "the whole discussion is void because you havent defined them". Uhmmmmm...OK. Thats kind of insane.
Food insecurity has a pretty solid definition from the USDA. Maybe you should go look it up.
Wealth and income inequality are pretty specific terms that refer to a scale of comparisons. Im sorry if you cant wrap your head around that. That doesn't mean you suddenly shouldn't discuss them. Its like saying you should never go to a Dr for pain if you cant give a very specific pain valuation. not just on a scale of 1-10, because thats very subjective.

Oh, yeah....Living Wage...that's another Orwellian buzz-term that you refused to define objectively in no uncertain terms, so that every single person can know it when they see it, and more importantly, know when it no longer exists.

Again see prior response. your attacks on this are borderline insane.

You wanna discuss things? Then you need to define the terms objectively.

Sure, and when we do you then go after the definition, and look for exceptions. You avoid the topic. Been there, done that.

Massive Economics and Reality Fail.

Says the man that claims there is no such thing as income inequality.

You refuse to accept the fact there are 1,539 separate economies in the US....even though your own government says so.

A woman in Cincinnati earns $54,000 annually. Another woman in White Plains (NJ) earns $100,000 annually.

Which one makes more money?

The woman in Cincinnati, who makes sightly more money than the woman in White Plains.

You don't understand that because you're only looking at numbers: 54 & 100.

You don't understand what the numbers actually mean. You refuse to accept that there are 1,539 separate economies in the US, and you don't understand Inflation and you don't understand the reason $54,000 Cincinnati US Dollars is greater than $100,000 White Plains US Dollars is due to Demand-pull Inflation and Cost-push Inflation --- and the Federal Reserve has nothing to do with either.

The woman in White Plains would drink your Kool-Aid® and turn down a job in Cincinnati for $55,000 because she wrongfully believes she taking a massive pay cut.

She's actually getting a slight pay-raise.

She can take a $45,000 pay cut and still have the exact same Standard of Living and Life-Style all the way down to do the number of condoms she buys each month. The only difference here is that she would be pleasantly surprised to find another extra $110 every month in her pocket-book.

Conversely, if you live in Cincinnati earning $42,000 and you're moving to White Plains, your new job had best pay $88,000 annually or you'll be in a world of butt-hurt.

It's just like the Liberals and the idiot pseudo-conservative Fascist wannabes that scream "Slave Wages!" They're too dumb to understand that $14,000 in some foreign States is a 6-figure Life-Style in the US.

And the whole point?

You're giving away $400/month in Food Stamps to people who live in areas of the US where it only buys $150 worth of food. Simultaneously, you're giving away $400/month in Food Stamps to people who live in other areas and it buys $600 worth of food.

That is stupid....not only are you wasting precious tax-payer money, you're not even solving the problem.

Same with Social Security COLA. Does it make sense to give COLA increases to people who have seen their Cost-of-Living decline for 8 consecutive years?

How economically efficient is it to give COLA increases to people who don't need it, while giving COLA increase to people who are getting buried?

Cost-of-Living increases 8% and you get a 1.5% COLA; and the year before that, you got a 1.7% COLA which is unfortunate since the Cost-of-Living in creased 7% and the year before that, you got a 3.5% COLA increase but Cost-of-Living for you actually increase 11%.

So people are permanently behind the curve, because nothing federal works, and you're blinded by ideology and unable to understand Economics.

You'll be giving $1,500 to some people and it will only be worth $700 while you'll be giving $1,500 to others and it will buy $6,000 worth of goods and services.

How freaking stupid is that?

You're wasting valuable tax-payer dollars and not even solving the problem.



Generational Welfare.

I guess you're going to deny it exists, in spite of the fact your government admits it.

See if you can actually present fact-based arguments instead of fantastical hallucinations...

Mircea

And then you go on your massive rants that have little or nothing to do with the topic. Mircea, you need to present fact based arguments, instead of these insane rants, with unrealistic requirements to even HAVE a discussion, and personal attacks.

[Mr. Mon]

Originally Posted by Mircea

And half of it went over your head, and the other half went way, way over.



Friedman recanted.

It's sort of like the Einstein thing.

Einstein commenting with Charles Hapgood claimed that a Polar Crustal Shift had taken place, where the Antarctic Continent -- formerly in the North Polar Region -- shifted to its present position due to the massive weight of ice that had formed on Antarctic Continent.

The Pole Shift Pukes seize on that, but --- just like you -- they suppress evidence: Einstein made his comments before Tectonic Plate Theory...once Einstein was exposed to tectonic theory, he realized he was wrong about the crustal pole shift nonsense and recanted in light of new evidence.

Friedman did the same after Basic/Negative Income was tested and failed.



Never is the best time.



Then you need to learn Economics and stop suppressing evidence.

Provide links to the failed studies in the US.

Your cohort in special-silliness Hidingknowledgeiskey refused to provide links to the studies and instead tried to convince people that because Basic Income works in Kenya, it'll work in the US.



Except the immutable Laws of Economics.



Too bad you disingenuously refuse to define Standard of Living objectively in no uncertain terms, just like you refuse to define Food Insecurity and Wealth Inequality and Income Inequality and a host of other pie-in-the-sky-fairy-tale-fantasies.

Oh, yeah....Living Wage...that's another Orwellian buzz-term that you refused to define objectively in no uncertain terms, so that every single person can know it when they see it, and more importantly, know when it no longer exists.

You wanna discuss things? Then you need to define the terms objectively.



Massive Economics and Reality Fail.

You refuse to accept the fact there are 1,539 separate economies in the US....even though your own government says so.

A woman in Cincinnati earns $54,000 annually. Another woman in White Plains (NJ) earns $100,000 annually.

Which one makes more money?

The woman in Cincinnati, who makes sightly more money than the woman in White Plains.

You don't understand that because you're only looking at numbers: 54 & 100.

You don't understand what the numbers actually mean. You refuse to accept that there are 1,539 separate economies in the US, and you don't understand Inflation and you don't understand the reason $54,000 Cincinnati US Dollars is greater than $100,000 White Plains US Dollars is due to Demand-pull Inflation and Cost-push Inflation --- and the Federal Reserve has nothing to do with either.

The woman in White Plains would drink your Kool-Aid® and turn down a job in Cincinnati for $55,000 because she wrongfully believes she taking a massive pay cut.

She's actually getting a slight pay-raise.

She can take a $45,000 pay cut and still have the exact same Standard of Living and Life-Style all the way down to do the number of condoms she buys each month. The only difference here is that she would be pleasantly surprised to find another extra $110 every month in her pocket-book.

Conversely, if you live in Cincinnati earning $42,000 and you're moving to White Plains, your new job had best pay $88,000 annually or you'll be in a world of butt-hurt.

It's just like the Liberals and the idiot pseudo-conservative Fascist wannabes that scream "Slave Wages!" They're too dumb to understand that $14,000 in some foreign States is a 6-figure Life-Style in the US.

And the whole point?

You're giving away $400/month in Food Stamps to people who live in areas of the US where it only buys $150 worth of food. Simultaneously, you're giving away $400/month in Food Stamps to people who live in other areas and it buys $600 worth of food.

That is stupid....not only are you wasting precious tax-payer money, you're not even solving the problem.

Same with Social Security COLA. Does it make sense to give COLA increases to people who have seen their Cost-of-Living decline for 8 consecutive years?

How economically efficient is it to give COLA increases to people who don't need it, while giving COLA increase to people who are getting buried?

Cost-of-Living increases 8% and you get a 1.5% COLA; and the year before that, you got a 1.7% COLA which is unfortunate since the Cost-of-Living in creased 7% and the year before that, you got a 3.5% COLA increase but Cost-of-Living for you actually increase 11%.

So people are permanently behind the curve, because nothing federal works, and you're blinded by ideology and unable to understand Economics.

You'll be giving $1,500 to some people and it will only be worth $700 while you'll be giving $1,500 to others and it will buy $6,000 worth of goods and services.

How freaking stupid is that?

You're wasting valuable tax-payer dollars and not even solving the problem.



Generational Welfare.

I guess you're going to deny it exists, in spite of the fact your government admits it.

See if you can actually present fact-based arguments instead of fantastical hallucinations...

Mircea

That's an awful lot of words for stating the obvious fact that the current system doesn't account for differences in regional cost of living and that any sort of universal guaranteed income wouldn't work if it didn't account for those differences.

That read like it was written by Dennis Miller after he hooked up with Ayn Rand and they shared a paper bag filled with pipe glue.

[greywar]

Originally Posted by shiftymh

Haven't seen that big of a one-sided ass kicking since the Germany-Brazil game.

Sorry cheer leading someone who is using pedantic arguments to change the topic of discussion into how bad exactly something is, is like cheer leading a dr who says "Im sorry, we cant treat your broken leg until you can define for me exactly, not subjectively, but exactly how much it hurts" while watching the patient die from blood loss.

[greywar]

Originally Posted by Mr. Mon

That's an awful lot of words for stating the obvious fact that the current system doesn't account for differences in regional cost of living and that any sort of universal guaranteed income wouldn't work if it didn't account for those differences.

That read like it was written by Dennis Miller after he hooked up with Ayn Rand and they shared a paper bag filled with pipe glue.

Actually if he had read my post he would have realized that the variations in the regional cost of living are irrelevant. If you can't afford to live in a specific locale, then you either move to a cheaper one, or move in with others in order to afford it. I don't see a reason to pay a basic income thats higher in a separate locale.

He just uses that argument as a common "gotcha" thing. Sad part is he didn't even realize that the regional costs of living shouldn't be addressed.

[pnwmdk]

Originally Posted by greywar

1. the basic income is pegged to a very specific standard of living. That is insufficient to make it in most desirable places. People could manage it by living with multiple other people in a small home. So basically you define a group of what it takes to survive items, and peg it to that.

2. Please note that I DON'T think now is the time for the very reason you specify, its a massive new tax! This is the time to talk about it, and the time to implement it is when the benefits of doing it are very clearly better then the pain being felt from technological unemployment.

I cannot begin to find words to describe the stupidity in this reply.

1. Differences in local economies means that a universal income means massive migration to places that are and remain cheap, while the producers get;

2.... Abused to the point they stop producing.

At which time, the story of Atlas Shrugged changes from a novel into real life.

[pnwmdk]

Originally Posted by greywar

That incentive has not existed in this country for over 50 years. We're working fine. The incentive for work should be (and currently is) "life is better working". Not "work or die"

"Work or starve" is a great motto.....if you run a slave based economy. Or you have an economy that cannot afford any slack at all. We're a long long way from that today.

I'm sorry, the very idea that "working to better yourself" has failed because it's easier to NOT work, and you wish to ramp the incentive to not work up 50 times.

And yes, go hungry or work is the ONLY sure fire mechanism to motivate people to get off their duffs and do something. Giving them a right to an ever larger share of those of us who DO work is stupid beyond all comprehension.

[pnwmdk]

Originally Posted by Mr. Mon

We basically have three choices as a society:
1) Keep increasing spending on disparate welfare programs. But that doesn't address program effectiveness or cost of living.
2) Increase the minimum wage to a livable level but that only works for people who actually have jobs or can get he childcare that allows them to get to work.
3) Go full on feudal and wait for the pitchforks and torches from the starving masses. Which worked so well before.

Frankly a guaranteed basic income would allow for us to drop most other other other welfare and subsidy programs, would put more money into our consumer economy. The impact on the housing market could go either way so I'm interested in learning more about that. Regardless, the cost of living isn't getting less and the number of jobs available to lower skilled workers isn't increasing, so we need to do something.

And it wouldn't distinctive working one bit. If anything the current income caps for housing assistance does more to disincentive people from working than guaranteed income ever wold

Oh, look, a communist. Isn't that quaint.

One would have thought today's technological world, and all the ability to gain knowledge it inherently possesses, and yet, here we have someone so willfully blind, they actually still believe in state-run economies.

[greywar]

ets combine the two posts into one....

Originally Posted by pnwmdk

I'm sorry, the very idea that "working to better yourself" has failed because it's easier to NOT work, and you wish to ramp the incentive to not work up 50 times.

Actually as has been said many times, those on welfare etc receive FAR more then what I am suggesting. So comparatively I am suggesting the opposite.

And yes, go hungry or work is the ONLY sure fire mechanism to motivate people to get off their duffs and do something. Giving them a right to an ever larger share of those of us who DO work is stupid beyond all comprehension.

No one is America is starving. The whole work or starve thing went away a long long time ago.

I cannot begin to find words to describe the stupidity in this reply.

So why did you keep typing?

1. Differences in local economies means that a universal income means massive migration to places that are and remain cheap, while the producers get;

Think about this. Your argument is that we should fund someone to live in the most expensive areas, where mine is that they should live where its cheaper if they are dependent upon handouts. Have you turned into some sort of liberal?

2.... Abused to the point they stop producing.

At which time, the story of Atlas Shrugged changes from a novel into real life.

The producers are abused because they are no longer paying for people to live in more expensive areas?

What the heck are you talking about? The producers are all the people WORKING. And I got to tell you the VAST majority of the "producers" are not the rich folks. Its the middle and working lower class folks. Those are "producers". And they benefit the MOST. They get the basic income, AND the negative income tax. Producers would be loving it. The leeches on the lower end and upper end....not so much. But even then....it wouldnt be bad for them either because of WHEN I say we should do this. (hint-not now)

[pnwmdk]

Originally Posted by Mr. Mon

We basically have three choices as a society:
1) Keep increasing spending on disparate welfare programs. But that doesn't address program effectiveness or cost of living.
2) Increase the minimum wage to a livable level but that only works for people who actually have jobs or can get he childcare that allows them to get to work.
3) Go full on feudal and wait for the pitchforks and torches from the starving masses. Which worked so well before.

Frankly a guaranteed basic income would allow for us to drop most other other other welfare and subsidy programs, would put more money into our consumer economy. The impact on the housing market could go either way so I'm interested in learning more about that. Regardless, the cost of living isn't getting less and the number of jobs available to lower skilled workers isn't increasing, so we need to do something.

And it wouldn't distinctive working one bit. If anything the current income caps for housing assistance does more to disincentive people from working than guaranteed income ever wold

Oh, look, a communist. Isn't that quaint.

One would have thought today's technological world, and all the ability to gain knowledge it inherently possesses, and yet, here we have someone so willfully blind, they actually still believe in state-run economies.

What was that urban legend about PT Barnum? Let's paraphrase it... No liberal ever lost his party by underestimating the intelligence of the Democrat voter...