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.
Have you ever thought that most people would spend or invest that money? So the economy would improve to where more tax revenue would be collected, therefore rates wouldn't have to be jacked too severely
If you give UBI to everyone, you have to pay for it with a tax mechanism. That mechanism would have to disproportionately impact higher earners because otherwise it's like handing someone $1000 and then asking for it back immediately.
So, yes the UBI is essentially going to be means tested via the tax collection system.
Depending upon how that is structured it could definitely drive people to work cash jobs or at least benefit those that do.
Denmark doesn't have UBI but they have a lot of social benefits, their tax rate can reach up over 55% on the highest earners.
That's pretty much what you'd have to put into place in Canada.
If this happens you're going to see a host of Canadians in the entertainment, sports and other high-paying fields find a way to avoid it so you're going to need some laws around that too.
Why on Earth would I get a job if I can make $8.25/hr sitting at home playing on my iPad?
Aside from the fact an iPad is an expensive piece of computerized equipment that most people paying rent and living off of $1,300 a month would have trouble acquiring, how about the motivation you want more?
Or are you speaking about the short reach of your grasp and small level of personal motivation in your own life?
Quote:
Is basic income eligibility determined by family income or household income? If it's just family income that would be a huge disincentive to get married.
Conniving women are already a huge disincentive to get married. Not that Americans aren't known for their divorce rate already.
Why on Earth would I get a job if I can make $8.25/hr sitting at home playing on my iPad? Is basic income eligibility determined by family income or household income? If it's just family income that would be a huge disincentive to get married.
I fully support the basic income but I think it should come with the following conditions for people on the basic income:
1. They not allowed to vote. Why should people receiving welfare be able to vote to fund their own pocket?
2. They are not allowed to have children.
3. They are required to maintain certain health standards such as no smoking, excessive drinking or abusing drugs.
4. If they commit crime, they get double the sentence without parole.
5. They get priority when being drafted to war.
Contrary to popular belief, money doesn't end poverty.
If it did, let us wave our legislative wand, and deposit in EVERYONE'S Account, 22 billion billion quatloos - a substantial sum. Everyone is equally wealthy. Now, that everyone is "Set for Life," what happens next?
Everyone has "enough" money - so no one bothers to work, transport, trade, etc, etc, and civilization collapses.
The problem is not money, but money madness - as well as inflation (debasement) and usury.
Prosperity is based on production, equitable trade and enjoyment of surplus usable goods and services.
It has no relation to money, or acquisition of surplus money.
Unfortunately, the world is indoctrinated to believe in the abstraction of money ("get rich") instead of the reality ("Let's be more productive").
Frankly, people have to wake up to that fact, and stop limiting themselves by money madness, and start getting productive.
And the worst madness is giving the power to "create money" to those who are not the producers (laborers or businesses) but parasites (governments and bankers).
If this happens you're going to see a host of Canadians in the entertainment, sports and other high-paying fields find a way to avoid it so you're going to need some laws around that too.
As if some greedy rich people don't already find ways to hide their wealthy and avoid paying taxes.
I agree the lower rich pay to high of taxes on their incomes. Medical doctors and surgeons for example. But these upper rich people can just be greedy. Like Mexican Cartel that need to kill more people and expand their empire further because their personal $80 million a year is not enough for them. So, of course some dude or woman earning $17 million a year if they end up earning $5 million or so after taxes is going to feel like they are only living off of $12 thousand a year. It's in their mind. Psychiatrist already know human beings--usually--are more mentally stressed out winning $10 million if they find out they could have won $20 million, than if they didn't win any money at all and had to keep flipping burgers for a living. Their mental stress is in their mind frim regret of what they could have had more of and not from a proportionality based reality that they have plenty even realities to most around them in their own city, state, or country.
Contrary to popular belief, money doesn't end poverty.
Eh, no, money is a tool and money in fact can be used to reduce or eliminate what economist term absolute poverty. Those living on LA's Skid Row with zero income, in hazardous health conditions, with inadequate nutrition and shelter and safety live in absolute poverty.
What money does not eliminate is a wealth inequality which consequently results in a kind of poverty economics jargon terms relative poverty. So, the Brazilian in a favela with brick shelter, adequate nutrition food to consume, flat screen TV, video games, and a smartphone they use daily live in relative poverty.
Too much of something can potentially sap a person motivation to reach for more. Potentially but not always. Some people are driven by pure competition, some by insecurities, some by pure intellectual curiosities etc. There are probably many more motivations to be listed. But it is possible some will have their motivation sapped by too much of some thing. But too little of something (or too much of being without) can sap a person's motivation too. Despair and dejection set in. It would happen to Navy SEALs if they kept loosing when guerilla fighters ambushed them and then disappeared into the jungles. The only reason a Navy SEAL is any good anyways is because the government throws so much money at them, invests so much money into building them into killing machines. They don't turn themselves into super-predators by their own financing and sheer desires. They are government financed.
Despair and dejection is enough to drive some successful businessmen to jump off a roof to kill themselves. People gain confidence from winning. And not everyone that wins frequently has developed the mental fortitude to survive years and decades of severe loss and reduction in status. There are plenty of mentally tough poor people. As Napoleon himself acknowledged this when he said the best school for a soldier is poverty. He meant by that that those reared in poverty make the best soldiers.
As if some greedy rich people don't already find ways to hide their wealthy and avoid paying taxes.
I agree the lower rich pay to high of taxes on their incomes. Medical doctors and surgeons for example. But these upper rich people can just be greedy. Like Mexican Cartel that need to kill more people and expand their empire further because their personal $80 million a year is not enough for them. So, of course some dude or woman earning $17 million a year if they end up earning $5 million or so after taxes is going to feel like they are only living off of $12 thousand a year. It's in their mind. Psychiatrist already know human beings--usually--are more mentally stressed out winning $10 million if they find out they could have won $20 million, than if they didn't win any money at all and had to keep flipping burgers for a living. Their mental stress is in their mind frim regret of what they could have had more of and not from a proportionality based reality that they have plenty even realities to most around them in their own city, state, or country.
Man, I was already thinking "the statism is strong with this one" based on your last post, but the first line of this one really cemented it.
Since most in the U.S. are far wealthier than the poor in a 3rd world nation, I'm picturing them trying to take your money and they're like "this greedy rich guy is trying to hide his wealth from us" as if it's a bad thing to not let them rob you.
Why on Earth would I get a job if I can make $8.25/hr sitting at home playing on my iPad? Is basic income eligibility determined by family income or household income? If it's just family income that would be a huge disincentive to get married.
maybe because you want to make more than $8.25 an hour?
not sure why people act like living off the system is a luxury.
If you believe that massive technological unemployment is coming - should our immigration policies be reformed to not accept millions of low skill people?
Excellent point I'm sure most of the lefties would avoid this question.
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.
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.
