We already have an income floor in the US paid for by taxes - it's for people over 65 and the disabled and it's called Social Security. I don't see how Social Security and the concept of a universal basic income differ all that much.

It seems we're in denial about how much automation is going to take over jobs done by humans in the next few decades. Machines are often much cheaper, they don't get sick or take vacations and they don't file costly worker's compensation claims.

If there are fewer jobs with a decent wage than there are able-bodied people, you're going to have a crap economy, there's no two ways about it. My spending is your income and your spending is my income.

I'm interested to see how it goes in some of these localities that are trying out universal basic income. Although I doubt it will come to the US as the wealthy would never allow it and they run the show here, sadly.

-Teresa

(May 5, 2017 at 4:55 pm)Grandizer Wrote:

(May 5, 2017 at 12:07 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: What do you mean, that they functionally pay no taxes?  They pay in, but get it all back?  While they may have a year with a bad loss, I would be willing to bet that overall, they contributed to society quite abbot more than you. I would give up my salary, to have what my boss pays in taxes.

Now if there are loop holes, that allow people to sideskirt the spirit of the tax laws, there is nothing wrong with discussing or fixing that. However I don't agree at all, that just because one has money, that they should be paying higher, just because of that. .

For some reason, I remember something about the widow's offering in the Gospels.

Are you saying the poor should pay more???

I think that has more meaning, when it is voluntary;  Taxes (the tithe) in the Old Testament where still 10%

One area, that I'm surprised I've never seen brought up, is to make fine's and penalties a percentage of income.  Make a speeding ticket hurt Drew Breeze, as much as it does, the guy who works for minimum wage.

(May 5, 2017 at 9:18 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(May 5, 2017 at 4:55 pm)Grandizer Wrote: For some reason, I remember something about the widow's offering in the Gospels.

Are you saying the poor should pay more???

I think that has more meaning, when it is voluntary;  Taxes (the tithe) in the Old Testament where still 10%

One area, that I'm surprised I've never seen brought up, is to make fine's and penalties a percentage of income.  Make a speeding ticket hurt Drew Breeze, as much as it does, the guy who works for minimum wage.

No, what I meant was that a wealthy person contributing more to society does not necessarily mean they are contributing much relative to the amount of money they possess, compared to a less wealthy who may also be contributing to society.

(May 5, 2017 at 6:55 pm)Orochi Wrote:

(May 4, 2017 at 12:03 am)Chad32 Wrote: I don't really think it's a good idea for people to just receive hundreds or thousands of dollars by default. Or if we're talking about it being small amounts, it really shouldn't be hard to scrounge up some money from a menial task like .

Two big problems with your counter plan

1. If you mean they should do jobs for the money . That would undercut the people doing those jobs

2. You can't live on raking leaves, mowing a lawn, or washing a cars . And what's the point of said requirement.

---

Were already experimenting with this in Ontario

Like I said before, it's either going to be a small amount, which one could get just as easily by doing simple jobs that always need done, or it's going to be a large amount, meaning what's the point of busting my ass making $450 a week at a factory, when the government's going to send me a check for that or more for nothing?

(May 5, 2017 at 9:30 pm)Chad32 Wrote:

(May 5, 2017 at 6:55 pm)Orochi Wrote: Two big problems with your counter plan

1. If you mean they should do jobs for the money . That would undercut the people doing those jobs

2. You can't live on raking leaves, mowing a lawn, or washing a cars . And what's the point of said requirement.

---

Were already experimenting with this in Ontario

Like I said before, it's either going to be a small amount, which one could get just as easily by doing simple jobs that always need done, or it's going to be a large amount, meaning what's the point of busting my ass making $450 a week at a factory, when the government's going to send me a check for that or more for nothing?

One, factory jobs suck, so unless you enjoy the work, leave it to the machines, lol. Better to do something you enjoy doing instead and that would contribute to society in some way. Nothing about this whole scheme necessitates that one stay idle and do nothing in life.

(May 5, 2017 at 7:50 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:

(May 5, 2017 at 6:55 pm)Orochi Wrote: Two big problems with your counter plan

1. If you mean they should do jobs for the money . That would undercut the people doing those jobs

2. You can't live on raking leaves, mowing a lawn, or washing a cars . And what's the point of said requirement.

---

Were already experimenting with this in Ontario

We have people who survive on mowing lawns, I employ one of them. The car wash down the street employs many, year round.

Can survive or want to survive

---

Quote:or it's going to be a large amount, meaning what's the point of busting my ass making $450 a week at a factory, when the government's going to send me a check for that or more for nothing?

Holy crap your cynical

Quote:And what percent, for what ever reason, intentionally choose that life style?

Define "intentionally" MH.  Does intentional include people who live in shitty neighborhoods, with shitty schools, and cops who think it is their job to act as an army of occupation?  People who are crushed by pervasive poverty?  People who have no useful skills because society threw them under a bus during the fucking Nixon administration?

(May 5, 2017 at 11:07 pm)Orochi Wrote: Holy crap your cynical

Cynical or realistic?

And to remain on topic, I believe there should be a universal basic income.

Some thought 500 dollars a week was too much. I agree.

Yet they proposed 200 dollars a week. I disagree.

200 dollars a week is basically paycheck to paycheck.

I would suggest at least 300-350 dollars a week per individual.

(May 5, 2017 at 11:07 pm)Orochi Wrote:

(May 5, 2017 at 7:50 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: We have people who survive on mowing lawns, I employ one of them. The car wash down the street employs many, year round.

Can survive or want to survive

---

Quote:or it's going to be a large amount, meaning what's the point of busting my ass making $450 a week at a factory, when the government's going to send me a check for that or more for nothing?

Holy crap your cynical

The world seems determined to force me to be cynical.

(May 5, 2017 at 11:24 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:And what percent, for what ever reason, intentionally choose that life style?

Define "intentionally" MH.  Does intentional include people who live in shitty neighborhoods, with shitty schools, and cops who think it is their job to act as an army of occupation?  People who are crushed by pervasive poverty?  People who have no useful skills because society threw them under a bus during the fucking Nixon administration?

First google definition: deliberately; on purpose.


I rode the Nixon bus. You probably did also. How you doin?