NAACP issues travel advisory for Florida...

[Kfox]

My edited post addressed that somewhat....
"It's just a proposal for a simple system that's
analogous to single payer free health care.
For high income earners, much of it would
be recouped by taxation, thus reducing their
benefit automatically."

To your post, sure, the UBI could phase out
as income rises. I could live with that.

How about this:
Instead of giving them money, give them health insurance, food, shelter, but only give it to those who can't afford it. Higher income and middle income who don't need anything don't get anything. Do you have a problem with that?

 

[Stevicus]

Presidents typically don't use their own ideas.
They have a massive staff providing ideas &
support, from which the Prez culls policies.
(Same for us engineers....we generally build
upon the ideas of others. Standing on the
shoulders of giants, eh.)

As for knowing what he was doing, that's
pretty well established in behind the scenes
goings on, eg, the change in policy towards
the USSR. He initiated that after extensive
consultation with Suzanne Massey.

Many conspiracists say that Presidents are merely
puppets. We hear it all the time from RF posters
about Biden. We heard it about Obama. And
Gary Trudeau (Doonesbury) popularized it about
Reagan.
Tis odd, isn't it...many people get their political
views from cartoons, SNL, The Daily Show, etc.

Well, he just didn't appear to be all that bright.

 

[Revoltingest]

How about this:
Instead of giving them money, give them health insurance, food, shelter, but only give it to those who can't afford it. Higher income and middle income who don't need anything don't get anything. Do you have a problem with that?

I prefer to let them have fewer defined services,
but more money to spend as they see fit, ie,
balancing competing desires, eg, rent, food,
entertainment, sports, charitable donations.
Higher income people will also see less pressure
to work so much, & to be able to retire earlier.
High income people are a fraction of the populace
anyway.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, he just didn't appear to be all that bright.

Democrats created that view because it serves them.
They also said it about Nixon ("low potential high achiever),
& both Bushes (especially GW). It's just what they tell
each other until they believe it as gospel. And what do
they do....they elect people like Biden.

Reagan was more able to think on his feet as a public
speaker than your vaunted Obama, who tripped over
his own tongue when a teleprompter didn't tell him
exactly what to say.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The UBI would allow coping with wage changes.
You assume wages would drop based upon workers
needing less. But businesses don't pay based upon
the employee's need. Some people might work less,
which could drive wages up because of competition
for less labor in the market.

I just don't see that being a norm. It might be for some industries but most people would probably see less pay for the same amount of work done.
And also as we've seen, Uncle Sam isn't good at making adjustments to payments for things like SSDI.

 

[Revoltingest]

I just don't see that being a norm. It might be for some industries but most people would probably see less pay for the same amount of work done.

What incentive would be created by the UBI for
employees & employers to drive wages down.

And also as we've seen, Uncle Sam isn't good at making adjustments to payments for things like SSDI.

Details, details, details.

 

[Stevicus]

Democrats created that view because it serves them.
They also said it about Nixon ("low potential high achiever),
& both Bushes (especially GW). It's just what they tell
each other until they believe it as gospel. And what do
they do....they elect people like Biden.

Reagan was more able to think on his feet as a public
speaker than your vaunted Obama, who tripped over
his own tongue when a teleprompter didn't tell him
exactly what to say.

What do you mean "Democrats created that view"? How did they do that? It sounds close to an admission that the public might be manipulated into a certain point of view and that they don't actually come to their own decisions and perceptions of their own free will.

 

[Kfox]

I prefer to let them have fewer defined services,
but more money to spend as they see fit, ie,
balancing competing desires, eg, rent, food,
entertainment, sports, charitable donations.

And what happens if they spend the money on lottery tickets, the Casino, or other such foolishness? Do we allow their children to just go hungry?

Higher income people will also see less pressure
to work so much, & to be able to retire earlier.

No, because they would be too busy paying taxes to support poor people throwing their money away on lottery tickets and the Casino; so they will have to work longer to pay those taxes

High income people are a fraction of the populace
anyway.

Approx 15% of the US population are millionaires. As far as I am concerned, if you are a part of that 15%, you don’t deserve free stuff. Why does this idea not sit well with you?

 

[Revoltingest]

What do you mean "Democrats created that view"? How did they do that?

Repetition in various venues, eg, entertainment.

It sounds close to an admission that the public might be manipulated into a certain point of view and that they don't actually come to their own decisions and perceptions of their own free will.

The public just might could possibly be
manipulated by mischievous talking heads.
"Free will" doesn't mean intelligence &
freedom from undue influences.

 

[Revoltingest]

And what happens if they spend the money on lottery tickets, the Casino, or other such foolishness? Do we allow their children to just go hungry?

I believe people have the right to fail.
As for not taking care of children, CPS
can remove the children.
This is better than having government
provide food, housing, & everything
for them, thereby making them effectively
wards of the state.

No, because they would be too busy paying taxes to support poor people throwing their money away on lottery tickets and the Casino; so they will have to work longer to pay those taxes

I don't buy your worst case
scenario becoming writ large.

Approx 15% of the US population are millionaires. As far as I am concerned, if you are a part of that 15%, you don’t deserve free stuff. Why does this idea not sit well with you?

I already get free stuff, eg, Social Security.
But I pay income tax on it.
Do you oppose millionaires getting this
benefit too?

 

[Stevicus]

Repetition in various venues, eg, entertainment.

The public just might could possibly be
manipulated by mischievous talking heads.
"Free will" doesn't mean intelligence &
freedom from undue influences.

Naah, that could never happen. That's all just crazy "conspiracy talk," isn't it?

 

[Revoltingest]

Naah, that could never happen. That's all just crazy "conspiracy talk," isn't it?

No conspiracy theory is needed to explain
people trying to manipulate others. Of course,
this doesn't prevent actual conspiracies from
also existing.

 

[Kfox]

I believe people have the right to fail.
As for not taking care of children, CPS
can remove the children

If you felt people should have the right to fail, you wouldn't advocate throwing free money at them.

This is better than having government
provide food, housing, & everything
for them, thereby making them effectively
wards of the state.

If you don't want them to be wards of the state, you shouldn't advocate throwing free money at them!

I don't buy your worst case
scenario becoming writ large.

It is the middle income who will mostly be financing this money give-away, whatever benefit they gain from the give-away will be taken away via higher taxes. So for the middle income there will likely be no benefit at all meaning they will not be able to retire early.

I already get free stuff, eg, Social Security.
But I pay income tax on it.
Do you oppose millionaires getting this
benefit too?

Yes. Social Security is already broke; if they quit giving it to rich people, perhaps it wouldn't be broke anymore.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What incentive would be created by the UBI for
employees & employers to drive wages down.

The incentive for employers is saving on labor. There is no benefit for workers, but unless you plan on this being a substantial payment to everyone there will still be those who need a job. There will probably also still be those who just want to work a regular job.

Details, details, details.

They are needed for something like this. Like how much would actually plan/estimate a payment being? How often? How do address the shortages that would be worse than today with even more people in mass quitting work altogether?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes. Social Security is already broke; if they quit giving it to rich people, perhaps it wouldn't be broke anymore.

What's wrong with generosity and assistance programs including everyone? For many rich people, that extra sum of money would become more that charities receive (which would likely be many who aren't even rich).

 

[Revoltingest]

If you felt people should have the right to fail, you wouldn't advocate throwing free money at them.

I'll try again....

Government will be throwing something at the poor
somehow. Whether it's public housing, welfare, or
some other subsidy, taxpayer money will be spent,
lots of it.
Current programs are dysfunctional, eg, disincentive
to work, byzantine procedures, loss of privacy,
trapping them in a cycle of poverty, shabby public
housing, restrictions on living relationships.

Is there a better way, than these bureaucratic
problematic programs?
My criteria are...
- More bang per buck in benefit provided.
- Increase liberty & privacy.

The UBI would allow...
- More liberty to choose food.
- More liberty in living arrangements (unlike Section 8 housing),
eg, choosing where to live & with whom to live.
- Earning wages wouldn't result in loss of benefits.
- More privacy by not divulging so much info to government.
- Elimination of the stigma of being "on the dole".
- Ability to take low wage jobs, eg, training for something better,
yet still have a reasonable quality of life.

 

[Revoltingest]

The incentive for employers is saving on labor.

This is the case now, as always.
Why would the UBI cause the employee/employer
relationship result in lower wages?

There is no benefit for workers....

The UBI is the benefit.

...but unless you plan on this being a substantial payment to everyone there will still be those who need a job.

It would apply to everyone, although a
minimum age would be appropriate.
If someone still needs a job, they should
get one. If they're unable to work, the UBI
would support them for a very basic lifestyle.

There will probably also still be those who just want to work a regular job.

Good.
No doubt many would want supplemental
income for the better things in life.

They are needed for something like this. Like how much would actually plan/estimate a payment being? How often? How do address the shortages that would be worse than today with even more people in mass quitting work altogether?

Setting the amount would be an involved process
to optimize the results. I can't determine that.
There wouldn't necessarily be shortages. In a
market economy things adjust, eg, if many people
quit working, wages would rise for the employed.
Prices would rise. Non-workers would want more
income, & return to work.
There are complexities, but the market does function.

Also this is far far better than the ridiculous
proposal to require employers to pay each
employee what they want/need. What a
crotchelfester of unintended bad consequences
that would unleash.

 

[Stevicus]

No conspiracy theory is needed to explain
people trying to manipulate others.

Except for those who believe that politicians never lie and that the MIC is just some crazy conspiracy.

 

[Kfox]

What's wrong with generosity and assistance programs including everyone?

Because such programs should only be for the poor. Most people are not poor.

For many rich people, that extra sum of money would become more that charities receive (which would likely be many who aren't even rich).

Instead of raising their taxes so you can afford to give them a UBI, how about if you just leave them alone, and they will be able to give the same amount to charity.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Instead of raising their taxes so you can afford to give them a UBI, how about if you just leave them alone, and they will be able to give the same amount to charity.

What Rev is proposing I don't really see it as coming with a tax hike. He'd scrap a lot of programs for it.