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.
So how do you explain the failure for anyone else's politicians to make it work? Ever.
It's too complicated.
1. How can you convince one side that they are better off giving up all the social security benefits they currently receive from multiple programs by reducing that to just one payment?
2. How do you convince the other side that they'll save money by cutting out the bureaucracy and fraud?
Everyone is getting something for nothing! You are just not aware of it. You benefit far more from the work of all those who came before you than you will ever give back to the world. Do you thank the people who invented the zero so we could use math and science to make sense of our world? How about the person who invented the wheel? How about all those who came before you who worked out farming on an industrial scale so we are free from regular famines? How about the people who designed our roads and our vehicles so we can get around? How about all those who developed all the myriad varieties of antibiotics and other pharmaceuticals so we can expect to live into our 80’s? There are many, many others whose innovations we completely take for granted. None of us is self-sufficient and frankly most people’s jobs do not contribute that much to society. So great, you get a pay check. At the risk of redundancy, let me just say, that does not make you “self-sufficient.”
Since everyone is getting vast amounts of riches for essentially nothing (the luck of having been born in the right country in the right century) what do you care if someone else is given a measly $2000 per month or whatever is it just so they have some shred of dignity?
Because somebody has to pay for it, they may not want to, and we live in a free country where we have private property rights and individual liberty. I get to say whether you take my money. You don't just steal it and sit on your azz. So UBI is OUT. Forget it, it's never happening.
It was tried in several stupid countries and it proved to be the failure anyone with an ounce of brains would have predicted.
And no dignity for those who refuse to work. Dignity is EARNED, not taken.
Because somebody has to pay for it, they may not want to, and we live in a free country where we have private property rights and individual liberty. I get to say whether you take my money. You don't just steal it and sit on your azz. So UBI is OUT. Forget it, it's never happening.
What about all the current well fare programs? Our money is already being stolen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella
It was tried in several stupid countries and it proved to be the failure anyone with an ounce of brains would have predicted.
It was not tried. Every version of UBI to be tested in other countries has been the equivalent of someone saying they threw a pigskin around the backyard and that makes them an NFL QB.
I don't know that UBI will ever happen but it certainly won't happen anytime soon. And I'll never be for a UBI dressed in sheep's clothing.
The real underlying problem with UBI is that it ultimately accomplishes nothing. The average family neither gains or loses whether they are making 30,000 a year or 200,000. Inflation goes up. The bum on the street corner is now a bum on a street corner with a few hundred dollars in his pocket that are worth the same as the few bucks he had before UBI. The low income person that could barely make ends meet is still that low-income person. The buying power is the same across the board.
What about all the current well fare programs? Our money is already being stolen.
It was not tried. Every version of UBI to be tested in other countries has been the equivalent of someone saying they threw a pigskin around the backyard and that makes them an NFL QB.
I don't know that UBI will ever happen but it certainly won't happen anytime soon. And I'll never be for a UBI dressed in sheep's clothing.
The real underlying problem with UBI is that it ultimately accomplishes nothing. The average family neither gains or loses whether they are making 30,000 a year or 200,000. Inflation goes up. The bum on the street corner is now a bum on a street corner with a few hundred dollars in his pocket that are worth the same as the few bucks he had before UBI. The low income person that could barely make ends meet is still that low-income person. The buying power is the same across the board.
So the inflation argument kills it before I even have to kill it with the moral argument. As long as it’s dead, I’m happy. And yes, we should get rid of the racist welfare programs that have led to eternal poverty, rampant crime, and 70% fatherless households. Paying people unearned money is not moral or productive. Let’s stop.
And don’t treat UBI like the communists treat 5 year plans. “Oh no, the plan was just not implemented properly. It was flawed. The next 5-year plan will fix it”. UBI was tried in Finland and it failed. All these schemes that give people something for nothing are existentially flawed. It’s just the useless class ganging up on the productive class. Why? Because the mediocre outnumber the virtuous and just vote their bs into law with political zombie invasions.
UBI is a gross obscenity by design and execution, in theory and in practice. Let Eurotrashland give it 20 tries and have it fail completely every time. We can just watch and continue taking care of “basic income“ the right way. By earning it.
The real underlying problem with UBI is that it ultimately accomplishes nothing. The average family neither gains or loses whether they are making 30,000 a year or 200,000. Inflation goes up. The bum on the street corner is now a bum on a street corner with a few hundred dollars in his pocket that are worth the same as the few bucks he had before UBI. The low income person that could barely make ends meet is still that low-income person. The buying power is the same across the board.
It's a little more complex than that, but I see where you're coming from. It would also allow people to move to low COL/low employment areas. This, ironically may play a hand in solving the local inflation problem, where a large amount of jobs and income inflate COL and property values. It would increase efficiency of land use in the rural USA, as also distribute money to those areas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella
And yes, we should get rid of the racist welfare programs that have led to eternal poverty, rampant crime, and 70% fatherless households. Paying people unearned money is not moral or productive. Let’s stop.
I know you've disagreed with this possibility entirely. That anyone can just work hard and smart, and they will be fine. And that money can circulate between all people, and not just between the few.
But look at this hypothetically for a minute, if you can. What should we do if a certain percentage of people cannot, for the life of them, muster up enough labor, time, or investment, through no moral or willful fault of their own, to be productive enough in the current system?
Do you support a billionaire-tax-funded job guarantee? More government jobs? More high-level education and/or retraining? Throw them in prison? Human meat grinder? Let 'em roam? If I didn't list your option, please give it to me.
I'm mostly wondering if you support any taxpayer effort to help people become more productive in the marketplace.
1. How can you convince one side that they are better off giving up all the social security benefits they currently receive from multiple programs by reducing that to just one payment?
2. How do you convince the other side that they'll save money by cutting out the bureaucracy and fraud?
By demonstrating that it works on a small scale before asking society to implement it on a large scale. The problem is that every small scale experiement has failed to deliver the promise.
Everyone is getting something for nothing! You are just not aware of it. You benefit far more from the work of all those who came before you than you will ever give back to the world. Do you thank the people who invented the zero so we could use math and science to make sense of our world? How about the person who invented the wheel? How about all those who came before you who worked out farming on an industrial scale so we are free from regular famines? How about the people who designed our roads and our vehicles so we can get around? How about all those who developed all the myriad varieties of antibiotics and other pharmaceuticals so we can expect to live into our 80’s? There are many, many others whose innovations we completely take for granted. None of us is self-sufficient and frankly most people’s jobs do not contribute that much to society. So great, you get a pay check. At the risk of redundancy, let me just say, that does not make you “self-sufficient.”
Since everyone is getting vast amounts of riches for essentially nothing (the luck of having been born in the right country in the right century) what do you care if someone else is given a measly $2000 per month or whatever is it just so they have some shred of dignity?
That's silly. The people who contributed to previous accomplishments were paid for their efforts. The person who invented the wheel or built a road doesn't get to collect royalties forever, especially in death. There is no one to pay because there is no cost in the present. UBI would be a present cost and would have to be paid.
What should we do if a certain percentage of people cannot, for the life of them, muster up
enough labor, time, or investment, through no moral or willful fault of their own,
to be productive enough in the current system?
We're already there... have been for decades.
Too many warm bodies available to compete for crap jobs keep bottom end wages down.
As I see it.. Whatever we might decide to do for this population, generous, kind or otherwise,
is a conversation that can come ONLY after the one about not increasing their number is settled.
UBI, the worst aspect of it, is that it wants to ignore the ever rising numbers.
The conservatives, social conservatives especially, seem equally willing to ignore them.
Ironic huh?
The problem is that every small scale experiement has failed to deliver the promise.
The City of Stockton, Calif., a poor run-down industrial port, has been running a UBI experiment. They gave $500 a month to all residents. Critics said that people would just blow it on liquor or drugs. Instead what they found is that people spent it on necessities like food, utilities, clothing and car repairs. No one was incentivized to quit their jobs, $500 a month is not enough for that. Early indications are that this UBI experiment is a success, if you define success as helping relieve poverty and raising the standard of living.
I'd like to see more studies to see how much of that $500 per month boosted the local economy and came back to the City as increased tax revenue, i.e., to what degree did the UBI pay for itself? Many economists assert there is a "multiplier effect" when money is injected at the lower income levels because it gets spent, local businesses see more sales and profits, who in turn hire up to meet demand, and so on.
The City of Stockton, Calif., a poor run-down industrial port, has been running a UBI experiment. They gave $500 a month to all residents. Critics said that people would just blow it on liquor or drugs. Instead what they found is that people spent it on necessities like food, utilities, clothing and car repairs. No one was incentivized to quit their jobs, $500 a month is not enough for that. Early indications are that this UBI experiment is a success, if you define success as helping relieve poverty and raising the standard of living.
I'd like to see more studies to see how much of that $500 per month boosted the local economy and came back to the City as increased tax revenue, i.e., to what degree did the UBI pay for itself? Many economists assert there is a "multiplier effect" when money is injected at the lower income levels because it gets spent, local businesses see more sales and profits, who in turn hire up to meet demand, and so on.
Yes, and this is a charity project because no one is being taxed to pay for it. The money is not coming from involuntary servitude. It is also means tested, not universal. So it is basically a private welfare program. If someone wants to start a UBI program with their own private funds that they have earned and own, go for it! But involuntary appropriation of privately owned wealth for the unearned and undeserved benefit of others? That’s where we have a big problem.
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.
