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.
Namibia did with their basic income experiment.
They said crime went down, education went up and the economy improved.
But they also refused to allow anyone access to the data that supported their "findings".
There are no jobs and no economic development has happened.
People are not any better off.
Namibia did with their basic income experiment.
They said crime went down, education went up and the economy improved.
But they also refused to allow anyone access to the data that supported their "findings".
There are no jobs and no economic development has happened.
People are not any better off.
Nobody here has ever presented any evidence that income inequality causes problems with society or with the economy.
Saying this shows a glaring willingness to ignore the political, economic, and cultural conditions in countries with high inequality...compared to the stronger economies, lower crime rates, and better education rates in countries countries with lower inequality.
The correlations deserve recognition...whether you like the significance of the correlation or not. In any other situation, I feel that people would acknowledge this a too strong a correlation to be merely coincidence but that is the funny thing about politics...It makes normally reasonable people completely unreasonable to bolster whatever their ideology is.
And by the way, this two year project was an attempt to help people in poverty, not to reduce the income gap.
Pulling people out of poverty increases the lowest income levels....therefore the income gap is reduced. Addressing income inequality doesn't HAVE to come from a higher tax rate.
Pulling people out of poverty increases the lowest income levels....therefore the income gap is reduced. Addressing income inequality doesn't HAVE to come from a higher tax rate.
People have to pull themselves out of poverty.
You can only provide opportunity for them to do so.
The US bends over backwards with opportunity.
Yet we have increasing poverty numbers.
Most of the means tested programs promote dependency.
Make $1 over the income eligibility and you are kicked out.
There's no transition..no weaning off the government program.
$1 too much and you can lose up to $600 in food stamps and be kicked out of HUD.
People have to pull themselves out of poverty. You can only provide opportunity for them to do so. The US bends over backwards with opportunity. Yet we have increasing poverty numbers.
Most of the means tested programs promote dependency. Make $1 over the income eligibility and you are kicked out. There's no transition..no weaning off the government program. $1 too much and you can lose up to $600 in food stamps and be kicked out of HUD.
I agree entirely. I believe it is the mark of a decent and moral government to provide an opportunity for people to get out of poverty...but people must be willing to take the hand up and then move on. Means tested programs in this country are almost designed these days to hinder growth it seems and it needs to be reformed very badly...not only for the wellbeing of the recipients but also the solvency of the programs themselves so that we may continue to give a hand to those who need it.
I'll agree with you there all day long, my friend.
"The Supreme Court, in its recent Citizens United case, has enshrined [b]the right of corporations to buy [/B]government, by removing limitations on campaign spending. The personal and the political are today in perfect alignment. Virtually all U.S. senators, and most of the representatives in the House, are members of the top 1 percent when they arrive, are kept in office by money from the top 1 percent, and know that if they serve the top 1 percent well they will be rewarded by the top 1 percent when they leave office. By and large, the key executive-branch policymakers on trade and economic policy also come from the top 1 percent. When pharmaceutical companies receive a trillion-dollar gift—through legislation prohibiting the government, the largest buyer of drugs, from bargaining over price—it should not come as cause for wonder. "
What makes you think conservatives don't support the right of the poor (and low wage earners) to own property? Anyone has a right to own property, and everyone does own property (not necessarily real estate, but that's only one form of property).
Intellectual property
Material things, such as an automobile
Collectibles
The products of ones labor created for sale
Other property (things that one owns)
Please explain your view that conservatives don't support the right of the poor to own property.
As it relates to that poster and issue.....
Zoning laws in some communities require a minimum lot size and prevent parcels of land from being broken into plots smaller than the minimum. So, for example, if the zoning requirement is a minimum of 1/4 acre, the owner of such a lot is not going to be allowed to break it into 1/8th acre lots. That poster views zoning as discrimination against the poor who cannot afford the standard lot size.
It's a variation of an argument against zoning laws that prevent mobile homes from being placed on lots in many communities.
Zoning laws in some communities require a minimum lot size and prevent parcels of land from being broken into plots smaller than the minimum. So, for example, if the zoning requirement is a minimum of 1/4 acre, the owner of such a lot is not going to be allowed to break it into 1/8th acre lots. That poster views zoning as discrimination against the poor who cannot afford the standard lot size.
It's a variation of an argument against zoning laws that prevent mobile homes from being placed on lots in many communities.
And the minute a developer comes in with a plan to put a trailer park the entire community shows up voicing their "concerns".
I saw it first hand when the sprawl hit Austin.
They scrambled to annex land stop these developers right off the bat.
And the community was 100% behind them.
You also have that same "voice of concern" from the community when they start talking "Affordable Housing" and issuing bonds.
At the local level it is the voice of the people...it's pure NIMBY.
Wealth inequalitists are basing arguments on their own jealousy and greed.
Don't tell this to the class warfare warriors.
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.
