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.
Why should it be your concern if somebody uses their money for whatever they want? BI is given to each citizen. What they do with it is their choice. It's nobody else's business what they do with it.
Um, why do they put usage restrictions on food stamps like oh....you can't use them to buy liquor etc?
Why do you get housing vouchers instead of just giving you a check and having you pay the rent?
Really, you don't have any friends or relatives that are in the trenches social workers or work for DCFS etc?
By giving BI and removing other programs, you'd have parents blowing the entire amount on drugs\casino etc. within days of getting it and then what do you do when the kid shows up for school and has no lunch money because you cut the free school lunch program because now they get "basic income"?
I mean, I can see the on paper concept but in terms of the real world I think you are either quite young or have just been sheltered in life.
Now for how inflation would show up.
So, everyone gets 30k of basic income for arguments sake....for doing nothing.
How do you get someone to show up to make Sandwiches at Subway? Clean hotel rooms? Stock grocery shelves? Work at the cattle yards?
You have to offer them more than the 30k, a lot more to make it worth the time and effort. Thus the prices of goods and services go up due to higher wages that need to be paid to incent people to work instead of not work.
No, government spending does not come from taxpayers.
The government issues an order to the commercial banks to credit your account with the specified amount. Poof!
really? you mean then that the government can then eliminate taxation completely? do you even have a basic understanding of accounting, and economics?
Quote:
Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey
How can the government collect taxes without money being in circulation?
I swear getting dropped on the head repeatedly as babies make people become conservatives.
wait you claim that the money comes from the fed, you didnt say anything about taxes what so ever. you make it seem like, along with opim yunated, that money just magically appears when ever the government wants it. so when you suggest that this "basic income" plan gets it money form the fed, and hte government is the one that distributes the money to the people, you completely forget that it has to be paid for, and that means taxation. and that means that the people are going to be paying for their own "basic income". but that means the government is going to have to have a 100% taxation rate for everyone to pay for this program, or we are going to see deficits far beyond what they are today, and that also means the debt is going to be climbing faster than the enterprise at warp ten.
you two need to get an education in economics and accounting, a real one not the garbage you two got in elementary school last week.
You seem to have all the answers, go ahead and give your explanation.
I already told you mine. The government instructs the bank to credit the account of the party in question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haakon
Proof liberals think money is created out of thin air and are absolutely out of touch with reality. You make statements like this and then expect people to take anything you say seriously?
Why bother collecting taxes at all if that isn't where government money comes from? Why isn't the tax rate 0%, after all government spending doesn't come from taxpayers and The Fed can just print more.
The tax rate could indeed be 0%. The fact is, no taxation pays for any Federal spending. Taxation was never meant to "pay" for services at the Federal level. It is a lie perpetuated by the elites to keep people ignorant. Taxation destroys currency to reduce inflation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicet4
Because when some deadbeat blows the money for drugs and his kids end up hungry and on the street liberals like you will scream how society owes it to take care of the kids.
Why do you care so much about being the moral police? People are going to do what they want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo
I could care less if a woman and her kids end up hungry and homeless because she spent her money foolishly. The idiots who watch MSNBC will care however and argue for another government program to support this woman and her kids.
Cool. You're irrationally angry about imposing morality on others.
Funny thing is, a basic income is a "personal responsibility" idea. Those who spend their money foolishly really would stave, as the basic income is supposed to cover basic needs and nothing more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crossfire600
Another liberal wanting a hand out thread. Nice!!
How about an education, pants that are around your waist and not your ankles and a hat that sits straight? While I'm asking Yo Dude is not an acceptable way to introduce yourself in an interview.
I don't care if we had 17 trillion in savings, it's not the governments job to provide you income. You people just don't get it do you?
It has been the government's job since its inception. It's the government's job today. It will be the government's job tomorrow.
FACT: No person or business in America has any income without the government.
Are you kidding me? That's the only problem conservatives have with it.
Got link?
Straw Man Your reasoning contains the straw man fallacy whenever you attribute an easily refuted position to your opponent, one that the opponent wouldn’t endorse, and then proceed to attack the easily refuted position (the straw man) believing you have undermined the opponent’s actual position. If the misrepresentation is on purpose, then the straw man fallacy is caused by lying.
What? Now you're moving the goal-posts because you've been soundly beaten down so badly?
I don't recall anyone with a modicum of knowledge of economics who leans conservative claiming it would cause Inflation.
I certainly didn't say that.
I hope you got link, otherwise your Straw Man will be set afire and dumped on you.
Quote:
Here in 2014, we are operating in the US at about 79 percent of our current total industrial capacity
.
That is not relevant.
In case you didn't get the memo, Rajiv in India making a very comfortable minimum wage of $0.28/hour and isn't going to buy from you, but he will buy from Double Chin in China.
Quote:
If demand shot up across the board tomorrow, prices would only need to rise if our utilization jumped to 100 percent.
That's wrong.
See if you can figure out why. Here's a big hint:
Quote:
However, another caveat is that usually businesses invest revenues to increase capacity when they hit their supply ceiling, so that they can obtain even more revenue by meeting increased demand with increased supply. So as capacity tops out, it gets increased wherever possible. To not increase capacity where possible would be bad business, essentially leaving money on the table. In this way price increases due to lack of capacity tend to be temporary with the exception of very limited goods and services.
Also wrong.
Look at the Supply Curve. It requires price increases. Too bad the idiot has no clue about Price Elasticity or Diminishing Returns.
If you want knowledge, why don't you try a university or a library instead of Useless Tube video.
I dont think we're at the point where it would be correct to implement it however, but the discussion and push should begin now.
No, you just need to start educating people to live within their means....it's free.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
Income inequality is not a meme; it's a fact. It is at its highest level since before the Great Depression.
Misrepresentation If the misrepresentation occurs on purpose, then it is an example of lying. If the misrepresentation occurs during a debate in which there is misrepresentation of the opponent’s claim, then it would be the cause of a straw man fallacy.
With the skill of Josef Göbbels, you continue with the
Equivocation Equivocation is the illegitimate switching of the meaning of a term during the reasoning.
So, are you trolling or do you admit to being unable to understand the difference between Wealth and Income?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
Why would you want more income inequality?
Prove 100% of the "Income" (snicker) comes from the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey
Why should it be your concern if somebody uses their money for whatever they want?
What they do with it is their choice. It's nobody else's business what they do with it.
Because I'm paying for it, and so long as I'm footing the bill, I make the rules.
If you don't like it, then pay for it yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey
BI is given to each citizen.
By whom?
The Basic Income Fairy?
For those people who live on coastal areas, does the Basic Income Mermaid give them the money?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm Eagle
If you did not want to but it would not give you a great life all it would provide enough for basics food transportation,....
We already know that according to you, the "basics" include beer, lottery tickets, gambling, drugs, NetFlix, cable/satellite, designer fashion-wear.
really? you mean then that the government can then eliminate taxation completely? do you even have a basic understanding of accounting, and economics?
I do. It's called double-entry accounting. Every debt for the government is an asset for the private sector.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm
r
wait you claim that the money comes from the fed, you didnt say anything about taxes what so ever. you make it seem like, along with opim yunated, that money just magically appears when ever the government wants it. so when you suggest that this "basic income" plan gets it money form the fed, and hte government is the one that distributes the money to the people, you completely forget that it has to be paid for, and that means taxation. and that means that the people are going to be paying for their own "basic income". but that means the government is going to have to have a 100% taxation rate for everyone to pay for this program, or we are going to see deficits far beyond what they are today, and that also means the debt is going to be climbing faster than the enterprise at warp ten.
I get so sick and tired of spoonfeeding people with no understanding of modern money. Money is created through deficit spending as a debt. The money does not "have to be paid for." All federal government spending is as simple as the government issuing an order to credit bank accounts. No government checks have ever or will ever bounce.
A 100% taxation rate is ****ing absurd. If the government taxes every dollar, the private sector has no dollars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm
you two need to get an education in economics and accounting, a real one not the garbage you two got in elementary school last week.
No, you seriously need some critical thinking skills.
So, are you trolling or do you admit to being unable to understand the difference between Wealth and Income?
So, are you trolling or do you need help comprehending the argument taking place between other posters?
That post was referring to 'income inequality meme' and was addressed as such. But, continue on your irrelevant tangent. An ad hominem is probably next.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Prove 100% of the "Income" (snicker) comes from the US.
So if it's barley enough for one person to live on, but you did say that it would be enough to provide all the basics, my girlfriend and I could live pretty good without having to work?
And we do get free medical care too, right? I mean it's a basic human right, right?
And it i ever want a little extra cash I could work under the table so I don't have to pay taxes!
Anything that isn't earned; isn't really income ;its entitlements because its not earned. The closest thing is unearned income because its never earned but returned by IRS because of low income and qualifying. basically anything comes out of GDP of the nation .Entitlements come from taxes and contributions by person such as SS :medicare. The rest come purely from general fund. All are wealth transfers for no increase in GDP. Its enriches some and takes from others.The problem comes in as others decide to earn less as why work for someone else getting the reward. More on entitlements and less work producing. Eventually the GDP drops and can't fund them. Then countries borrow to fund such as we see in Greece. Greece finally couldn't pay debt most of which was borrowed from banks. That left banks holding bad debt;and they began to fail. Then you have bondholders and even money deposited taken as we saw.
If I divorce her she would have no income and would qualify for basic income. The extra grand a month she would receive will pay for the Mercedes.
I thought you said you would support basic income now you are complaining about it? I do not know what this has anything to do with the thread discussion it seems you are just making scenarios up.
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.
