Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Universal Basic Income (merged)

A forum for discussion of regional topics including oil depletion but also government, society, and the future.

Re: Universal Basic Income (merged)

Unread postby Ibon » Sun 08 Dec 2019, 09:43:20

NYT article today relevant to the discussion

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/07/opin ... alism.html

There is a paywall but you get 5 free views per month.
Patiently awaiting the pathogens. Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Ape
blog: http://blog.mounttotumas.com/
website: http://www.mounttotumas.com
User avatar
Ibon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 9575
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Volcan, Panama

Re: Universal Basic Income (merged)

Unread postby Newfie » Sun 08 Dec 2019, 11:19:04

User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 15972
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Universal Basic Income (merged)

Unread postby Ibon » Sun 08 Dec 2019, 19:26:13

America has to make up its mind. Do you want to be a 3rd World Country or a 1st world country. Both are viable options. And both can produce happy citizens. But what we have today in America is neither, in fact it is the worst of both options; 3rd world social services and 3rd world inefficiencies, 3rd world disparity of wealth and 3rd world politics. But with 1st world prices and expectations and regulations. Poor provincial Americans really do not have a clue how hard their lives have become compared to say with folks in Denmark or Panama.

You see in Denmark the public and private sector works efficiently, social services are cherished by the population, mass transit works, pregnancy leave, 4-6 weeks vacations. High standard of living and folks generally content.

In Panama food and goods and services and cell phones are cheap, 4 weeks vacation, basic health care coverage, tight communities of folks who work for a awhile and then take a break, nobody in debt, you do without a car but public transportation gets you anywhere. You can really survive and be happy earning $15 -$ 25 dollars a day because you have no debt, no car, no expenses, but friends and family and lots of festivities. This also provides a high standard of living. Lots of humility in the population.

Both Denmark, 1st world, and Panama, 3rd world, have functional societies with high levels of contentment.
America? Middle class indebted up to their nostrils, enslaved in jobs with just 2 weeks off a year, limited social services, divided polarized society, cable TV and cell phone plans rapacious in their costs, health care down right abusive in the cost and bureaucracy. In summary, 1st world prices and 3rd world services. And folks agitated and split.
I am so fucking happy to no longer live in the United States of America.
Patiently awaiting the pathogens. Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Ape
blog: http://blog.mounttotumas.com/
website: http://www.mounttotumas.com
User avatar
Ibon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 9575
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Volcan, Panama

Re: Universal Basic Income (merged)

Unread postby longpig » Mon 09 Dec 2019, 03:56:58

vtsnowedin wrote:
longpig wrote:UBI is a scheme to destroy the currency. 1933 government banned gold, made holding it illegal for US citizens, everyone had to turn their gold in for $20 an ounce and the next day after the government got everyone's gold they revalued it $35. 1971 US government borrowed so much other countries started converting their US dollars to Gold so US delinked the US dollar from gold. US went on a big debt spree for 40 years, Gov and consumers can't pay off their debt and keep the economy running. Gov institutes UBI, everyone has money and it becomes worthless along with all debts, so after UBI indebted consumers and government are free of their debt obligations, that is what UBI is.

Buy Gold, UBI won't work, it's intended to mass default on debt.

I doubt it is a scheme being deliberately put forward. After all who would benefit from destroying the currency? Of course scheme or not it has the potential of greatly weakening the currency through inflation if not destroying it all together. But instead of buying gold ,which you can't eat, why not just elect politicians smart enough to understand that UBI will not work? That has the potential to be positive on many levels.


Where is the money going to come from to pay for UBI. If a country was on a gold standard they would not institute UBI because they know it won't work, they can't print gold. UBI won't be funded through tax collections, it will be paid for by more deficit spending and hence more inflation, the currency won't be accepted, will be regarded as monopoly money.
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true - by the wise as false - and by the rulers as useful."
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
User avatar
longpig
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Fri 12 Jul 2013, 17:31:50

Re: Universal Basic Income (merged)

Unread postby Newfie » Mon 09 Dec 2019, 07:17:30

Where would the money come from? I can provide an answer but it is a theoretical, not saying it would happen. And I’ll answer health care for all as well.

In the USA everyone pretty much gets fed, maybe not quite enough or of the right type but nobody starves. And there are homeless folks, but they are a pretty small percentage of our population. Government stats say it is about 0.2%, even doubling that it would be well under 1%. Same kind of thing with medical. Eventually most everyone gets treated one way or the other. And by not treating folks we frequently make matters worse and create even bigger medical bills. Sure there are folks going bankrupt to pay for medical, but by and large they are getting medical. The percentage dying because of total lack of medical is small, probably well under the number killed by hospital induced infections, but I digress.

OTOH we have for both housing and medical extremely inefficient payment systems. The money that gets to end service provider starts in a workers paycheck deductions and is then routed through a myriad of bureaucrats, each nibbling their share. Same thing with medical, it starts as a reduction in your salary because your employer pays for the insurance. And that buying power is constantly eroded by the insurance company administration, the Drs. Billing clerks, and hospital staff. Hospitals routinely over charge so that they can get the maximum amount from your insurance so that they can cover losses on folks where they don’t get paid. We already have a single payer medical system, the tax payer. It’s just an extremely inefficient system.

So we have these HUGE inefficient wealth distribution systems in place. Suppose we ditched these systems, and the deadwood bureaucrats they support and came up with an efficient system, simple to administer. Still keep the same amount of money being withdrawn in taxes and through employer supplied insurance but Handel it wisely. Clearly there would be significant savings. Those savings could then be used to provide a far simpler to administer health care system and some form of basic income.

This could work and the trick would be to say that the net cost of the new system needs to be no more than the net cost of the old system.

There is a rub to this plan. What do we do with all the excess people, the insurance clerks, put out of work by this program? If they can find alternative employment then fine. But a lot won’t be able to and will end up living on the largess of the new system. But there is still money to be found because of excess salaries for mid and upper managers and profit now going to stock holders, some significant part is the 1%.

So ther you have it, it does not have to cost 1¢, you just have to limit the benefits to the savings.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 15972
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Universal Basic Income (merged)

Unread postby evilgenius » Wed 11 Dec 2019, 18:28:22

As far as medicine in the US goes, the first step is to make whatever an employee's plan costs taxable. Treat medical benefits the same as earnings. Let the employees decide if they like receiving more coverage, instead of getting an actual raise. If it gets too bad for them, they can vote with their feet. Right now, they have no apparent reason to vote with their feet, because they can't see the difference. The current system is rigged to drive medical prices up, and not provide anything more in return.

Another problem is that, in capitalist America, people don't treat each other as potential entrepreneurs. Instead, they always ask what people do, when they meet them, as if they were employees. Everything, from the school system to people's deeply ingrained attitudes, is about meeting the demand for labor.

Artificial intelligence will provide opportunities for ownership that people fail to mention. If there will be self-driving cars, for instance, the issue shouldn't be with how many will get put out of work, but rather with who will be able to own them. Will a small holder of a handful be able to lease their fleet out to a business that needs them? You could say the same thing about production robots, if they begin to become more mobile, as well. We shouldn't let only large corporations own the transport or technology of the future. It's a recipe for National Socialism.

People will need to be involved, as owners of the capital that will operate automatically and that can think for itself in work related situations. They'll need to be able to either borrow the money to put themselves into those ownership positions, or the government could help people get there. To do otherwise, to approach automation with the Amazon or Walmart model, is economic suicide. The money supply needs to expand and contract according to economic activity. People need to both borrow and pay off their debts. The whole thing works because, essentially, we take their word for it. The value of any currency is based upon the faith of the people.
User avatar
evilgenius
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3223
Joined: Tue 06 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Stopped at the border.

Re: Universal Basic Income (merged)

Unread postby Zarquon » Sat 28 Dec 2019, 20:32:52

Ibon wrote:NYT article today relevant to the discussion

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/07/opin ... alism.html

There is a paywall but you get 5 free views per month.


On many sites with paywalls like this you can read the article if you switch off CSS (style sheets; with Firefox it's the View/Page Style menu) in your browser. Works with the NYT, too.
Zarquon
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 319
Joined: Fri 06 May 2016, 20:53:46

Re: Universal Basic Income (merged)

Unread postby dissident » Sun 29 Dec 2019, 11:33:17

Newfie wrote:FYI relative to comments on USA military spending.

Image

https://ourworldindata.org/military-spending


Nominal currency exchange comparisons are meaningless. At the very least PPP based comparisons need to be made but the military sector is typically not evaluated for PPP factor determination. The focus tends to be on consumer goods and services. The effective military budget for Russia is not $70 billion but several times higher. Military prices in Russia are not grossly inflated like they are in the USA, Japan, etc. For example, a single Japanese Soryu class diesel-electric submarine goes for $2 billion when a Russian Project 636.3 submarine goes for just over $300 million. Some can pretend that one is just so much better than the other, but that is simply ignorant. Russia still hasn't caught up to the $7,000 toilet seat pricing seen in US military procurement. Eventually it will, but then its military budget will reflect that, so judging how much more the USA is spending based on nominal exchange rates is detached from reality.

A detail routinely missed in such comparisons is that expenditures are in local domestic currencies and not dollars. So when the forex drops by factor of two that does not translate into a factor of two reduction in expenditures. The forex rate is not a measure of the physical economy. It is a measure of the ignorance of currency traders. The vast majority of whom actually think that Russia's GDP depends 50% on oil and gas exports. These morons, swallowing the fake stream media yapping as hard fact, do not know that the whole oil and gas industry accounts for less than 8% of Russia's GDP and is falling every year and that even the consolidated budget of the federal government only depends at the 17% level on oil and gas export taxes. The World Bank must be a Russian front organization since anyone can check its estimates and they do not agree with the fake stream media spew.
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6318
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Universal Basic Income (merged)

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Sun 29 Dec 2019, 13:30:30

Newfie wrote:It’s just an extremely inefficient system.

So we have these HUGE inefficient wealth distribution systems in place. Suppose we ditched these systems, and the deadwood bureaucrats they support and came up with an efficient system, simple to administer. Still keep the same amount of money being withdrawn in taxes and through employer supplied insurance but Handel it wisely.

For the medical care part, wouldn't "Medicare for All" go a long way toward doing just that?

The one proposal by HRC I really liked was having an option to get onto Medicare for folks starting at age 55 (with people paying what it costs the system). For early retirees, that would have been fantastic, IMO.

I mean, at 60, surely my contribution wouldn't be higher than well over $1200 a month for one person who historically, has had minimal medical bills over time, and re things like diet, exercise, weight, not using drugs, not drinking, etc. takes reasonably good care of himself. Oh, and who knows how well the system will pay if disaster strikes before I'm 65? And it's not like I'm a phalanx of lawyers to fight them if/when they decide to screw me. The current system SUCKS.

And with Medicare, from what I know from helping my parents and from friends, there is no fighting with the insurer over paying for a needed procedure, etc. CMS (the Medicare administrator) handles all the paperwork, approvals, payments, etc. and does it much more efficiently than the current system.

So it seems to me that with a system like that, we'd be nearly half way there and the big thing would be working out the payment side. For example, if it's all done via taxes, who pays and how much. If there were a larger medicare tax (but no private insurance premiums) for life, that should be able to handle it just fine. And if needed, larger deductibles could be used for the small stuff.

It's not a $20 vs. $30 copay that bankrupts people. It's 100,000 for a broken arm with complications, once the system is done overcharging all over the place. So for starters, with a single payer, they could clamp down on outfits vastly overcharging, as I think medicare already does to a certain extent. For example, under medicare, if a hospital causes an infection (their fault) -- THEY pay to straighten it out, and they don't get reimbursed. We need that system for many system-induced common medical errors.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 9384
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 21:26:42
Location: Central KY

Re: Universal Basic Income (merged)

Unread postby Newfie » Sun 29 Dec 2019, 15:10:59

Outcast,

Exactly, we the people already pay for 100% of medical coverage in the USA. We just do in in a very inefficient manner.

The “problem” will be what to do with all those folks it puts out of work. But that’s still cheaper because the 0.1% don’t get to take off their share. Oh, the horror!
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 15972
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Universal Basic Income (merged)

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Mon 30 Dec 2019, 17:16:37

Newfie wrote:Outcast,

Exactly, we the people already pay for 100% of medical coverage in the USA. We just do in in a very inefficient manner.

The “problem” will be what to do with all those folks it puts out of work. But that’s still cheaper because the 0.1% don’t get to take off their share. Oh, the horror!

Yes, the folks it puts out of work is a real issue. That's almost always a concern with meaningful change.

I have a problem wrapping my head around how with all the obvious things that need to be done in many areas, we as a society seem to let "putting some people out of work" stop us from doing things like fixing the medical system, fixing the federal income tax system (it could be automated for a good 95% or more of returns, much as lawers and accountants would hate it).

Imagine, for example, if we transitioned making weapons systems the Pentagon doesn't even want to, say, infrastructure or clean energy programs, instead of the threat of laying off thousands. Hell, we could even call that part of defense, re "preparedness". (And I'm talking a gradual thing, not an "all in" and doing away with national defense, or anything crazy like that.)

Somehow, the incentive system (re doing the smart, vs. popular or current thing) is clearly broken, and I don't see how to fix that.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 9384
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 21:26:42
Location: Central KY

Re: Universal Basic Income (merged)

Unread postby Subjectivist » Tue 04 Aug 2020, 11:50:32

Why Andrew Yang’s push for a universal basic income is making a comeback

For months, lawmakers have been paying attention to and pushing for some form of a universal basic income as the coronavirus pandemic roiled the economy and forced millions of Americans out of a job.

It’s the main pillar that former presidential candidate Andrew Yang took up in his campaign, centered around the premise that a UBI could alleviate or resolve many American issues.

The gravity with which a UBI is now regarded is a complete reversal of the reaction Yang first got when unveiling his platform. Pundits and Democratic strategists didn’t take his campaign seriously, but suddenly the push for a UBI does not seem so far-fetched.

For months, lawmakers have been paying attention to and pushing for some form of a universal basic income as the coronavirus pandemic roiled the economy and forced millions of Americans out of a job.

It’s the main pillar that former presidential candidate Andrew Yang took up in his campaign, centered around the premise that a UBI could alleviate or resolve many American issues.

The gravity with which a UBI is now regarded is a complete reversal of the reaction Yang first got when unveiling his platform. Pundits and Democratic strategists didn’t take his campaign seriously, but suddenly the push for a UBI does not seem so far-fetched.

Just as the pandemic was taking full shape in the United States, progressives who’ve long criticized Yang’s UBI stance urged in March for direct payments to workers around the country. Among them was Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who in August of last year found fault with instituting a UBI.

Shortly after Sanders and other lawmakers spoke up, President Donald Trump signed into law a coronavirus stimulus package that offered a $1,200 payment to struggling Americans to offset any economic damage brought on by the virus. And now Congress is in discussions about the next round of stimulus relief, with the potential for another $1,200 direct payment.

As the conversation around UBI continues, CNBC spoke with Yang on the U.S. response to the pandemic, engaging the White House and how Americans can make a difference in the coming months.
The UBI push

For many Americans, the $1,200 payment is not enough to cover all their expenses. Still, a whopping 74% of respondents in a CNBC/Change Research poll from May said they supported federal relief payments to help Americans cope with the economic disaster brought on by the pandemic.

“If you think about it in 2020, 74% might as well be 98%,” Yang said in an interview Tuesday with CNBC ahead of a Verizon event centered around achieving social change. “It’s virtually unanimous.”

Since ending his presidential bid, Yang launched Humanity Forward, a nonprofit that bolsters UBI, offering endorsements to candidates in support of it up and down the ballot.

UBI is especially critical in these next coming months, Yang said, as health officials warn that the number of confirmed cases of the coronavirus is growing throughout the country.

“We believe that people need economic relief right now. So we were proud to have distributed $7 million in direct economic aid to folks who are struggling in increments of between $250 and $1,000,” Yang told CNBC.

“That $7 million is unfortunately just a sliver of the need,” he said. “We have a waiting list of over 100,000 people who have requested additional aid, but we’re certainly proud to take what we have and put it into people’s hands.”

Humanity Forward urges people to donate to its Covid-19 relief fund online, 100% of which goes to low-income people who are struggling to support themselves, according to the site.
The coronavirus response

But instituting a UBI at this point would not negate the damage already wreaked by the coronavirus.

Over a period of weeks in March, the coronavirus spread rapidly from state to state in the country, forcing businesses to shutter and plunging people into joblessness. The effects have continued for months, and dozens of states are experiencing spikes in the number of confirmed cases after apparently reopening their businesses prematurely.

Nearly 33 million people said they were collecting unemployment benefits as of June 20, according to statistics from the Labor Department.

As the coronavirus gained steam, the Trump administration downplayed it, in a move that ran counter to the message from health officials. Earlier this month, the White House also made an effort to block funding for testing in the upcoming stimulus relief bill. Trump previously suggested at a campaign rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma, that testing would be slowed down. Later, the White House said he was joking.

Yang did not mince words when he addressed the U.S. response to the pandemic: “It’s been tragic and heartbreaking to see us fail our people on so many levels. And even if you just fast forward to today, like we’re not even doing the things that we should be doing in terms of helping families manage this time and this crisis. We’ve been failing on multiple levels.”

The Trump administration has received blowback for its handling of the pandemic, with the president receiving the most dismal marks from voters.

A Quinnipiac University poll from earlier this month showed that only 35% of voters approved of his response, compared with 62% who indicated disapproval. This rating is the lowest he’s received since March, according to a press release from Quinnipiac University.

“Thirty percent or more of Americans couldn’t afford housing costs last month, and that’s with extended unemployment benefits and other measures,” Yang said, referring to a figure from online rental platform Apartment List. “So we need to think much bigger about how we can make this economy work for so many Americans. And to me, that starts with putting economic relief directly into their hands.”
2020 politics

Yang is adamant that Humanity Forward lend a hand wherever possible to make economic relief a reality for Americans.

So far, that looks like supporting candidates who believe in and advance the vision of UBI.

But that support may extend to the White House if former Vice President Joe Biden wins in November, Yang said.

“The coronavirus pandemic has accelerated the rate of change in our economy where we’ve seen 10 years worth of change in 10 weeks. And so if I have an opportunity to help address some of these problems in a new administration, I would strongly consider it,” Yang said.

Yang endorsed Biden for president in March, and since then he’s stumped for the 2020 presumptive Democratic nominee and has functioned as one of his surrogates on the campaign trail.

“I continue to make it clear that I think four more years of a Trump presidency would be an utter disaster and that Joe needs to win and become our next president,” Yang told CNBC.

But should the Trump administration approach Yang about providing input on how the U.S. should be addressing the crisis, “I’d be happy to advise,” he said, while adding that he believes “this administration only has another few months in office.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from CNBC asking whether that would be welcome or has ever been under consideration.

Yang did not answer whether he is weighing a bid for New York mayor, as many outlets have been reporting.

He also declined to say whether he’s thought about a presidential bid for 2024, saying instead that he’s focused on helping Biden succeed this year and putting his effort into alleviating the tensions brought on by the virus.
Moving forward

Perhaps those most suited to make a difference right now are businesses and corporations, Yang told CNBC, speaking ahead of his keynote address at an event called Citizen Verizon Assembly for advancing social change.

Large corporations especially have the resources right now to strengthen communities in need of assistance, he said. Many businesses have begun investing in organizations that are pushing for social change or investing in their own initiatives.

Yang encouraged companies to understand the difference between just “adopting messaging around social change versus when they make real commitments and investments.” Financial investment into employees and communities ultimately “helps move us in a better direction,” he said.

At the same, it’s understandably tough for businesses to make these investments as they navigate the effects of the pandemic, Yang added.

“We’ve put many businesses in an impossible situation where we want them to do the right thing by their workers, but they’re subject to economic pressures and reporting deadlines where if they show a downturn in revenue and profitability, then their stock is going to get punished if they’re a public company,” he said.

These investments would be part of a larger effort to change the way the economy works for Americans. The backbone of the U.S. economy hasn’t evolved to meet the needs of Americans, Yang said. “We’ve been pretending that our economy is still like it was in the 1970s or ’80s, where you had one job and you stayed at that job for decades,” he said. That job came with health insurance and benefits, things that are not as guaranteed today. Most jobs created today, he said, are gig, temp and contract jobs that don’t have security or benefits to them.

In this way, he said, businesses can offer solutions to help and change the scope of the American workforce.

And consumers will respond to their willingness to advance social change. “If a company were just to say, ‘Hey, I’m not in the business of doing good. I just want to operate my business just as if nothing has changed,’ I think that many consumers will probably be less excited about spending their dollars with those companies,” Yang said.


https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/29/why-and ... eback.html
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4652
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 07:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: THE Republican (general) Thread pt 4

Unread postby careinke » Sat 29 Aug 2020, 04:39:54

Ibon wrote:
careinke wrote:
Ibon wrote:
jedrider wrote: Trump is NOT the antiwar candidate by any means.


Hardly. Deploying the US military domestically to break up protesters.
I think you mean defending Federal Property.

You did however convince me to vote, just not for your criminal, pedophile, finger fucking rapist, traitor.


Wow, I wish I could muster so much passion over a candidate. My position is tepid at best. Question for you Careinke. Do you think the tribalism will get worse before it gets better in the US?


Yea and I didn't even mention his hair fetish. :P

In regards to more tribalism, I certainly hope so! Especially since it is counter globalism. Tribal societies are the most stable of societies and were around a long long time before agriculture. Tribalism is the antithesis of socialism, which has never worked for long.

Most of the people Living in the middle east are tribalists, with loyalty starting with the family, then to the tribe, then to their religious sect, and then to their country.


As an Agorist, the Democrats with their obsession for control, including the willful use of coercion, disgusts me. Using Federal agents to spy on the oppositions campaign also disgusts me. Finally, they have no platform to fix things.

People need to take care of themselves and their kids first, then expand outward from the family to extended family, neighbors and friends, after that consider helping others in areas you are skilled in or maybe trading with some one who is better skilled in certain things. Keeping things tight also quickly identifies the slackers and takers, who can be easily dealt with.

That said, I support a large UBI (Twice the poverty level) which is socialist, and I had been against. I changed my mind because it is the only way I can think of that will dampen the impact of the coming global depression. Folks, the robots and AI are here, and a lot of jobs are quickly going away. I feel the UBI could strengthen the family, raise wages for those who want to work, eliminate most if not all federal poverty programs downsizing government, and finally increase privacy.

I would also like to eliminate all corporate health plans. Corporate Health Plans act as a leash, preventing employees from leaving the company for fear of losing their health insurance. Your health insurance should not be tied to your job in a free society. Perhaps the government could offer very basic insurance. But allow other Insurance companies to offer their own plans. Having been a military brat, then a military officer, most of my life has been under socialized medicine. Except in the military, the doctors "Advice" is actually an order, so the results are much better. :lol:

Since I am on a roll... I would like to end racism by declaring there is only one race, HUMAN. Yes we all have genetic differences and all have specific risks and advantages based on our genes, but we are all human. I would ban hate crimes since you can't legislate emotions. Instead, it would just be a crime, no matter who was involved.

Finally, I would eliminate all crimes that did not have a victim. If there is not a victim, it's not a crime, and no, you can't be your own victim.

Did you notice none of my recommendations involved coercion against HUMANS? 8)
Cliff (Start a rEVOLution, grow a garden)
User avatar
careinke
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4121
Joined: Mon 01 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: THE Republican (general) Thread pt 4

Unread postby Plantagenet » Sun 30 Aug 2020, 18:24:11

careinke wrote: I support a large UBI (Twice the poverty level) which is socialist, and I had been against. I changed my mind because it is the only way I can think of that will dampen the impact of the coming global depression. Folks, the robots and AI are here, and a lot of jobs are quickly going away. I feel the UBI could strengthen the family, raise wages for those who want to work, eliminate most if not all federal poverty programs downsizing government, and finally increase privacy.


I also think a universal basic income (UBI) is a useful policy idea, but I have to offer a minor disagreement with your post.

I don't think that the UBI is a "socialist" idea. Socialism calls for government ownership of all businesses----this is not the same thing as a UBI and socialism has never proposed or support a UBI. There was no UBI in the USSR or North Korea or even in Sweden and Norway. The UBI is NOT part of the socialist program.

Please note also that a UBI isn't a liberal idea. Liberals are willing to support all kinds of poverty programs for poor people, but the whole point of a UBI is that it is UNIVERSAL. That means it would be paid to the wealthy as well as the poor----something liberals would choke on.

My own perspective on the UBI is that it is philosophically similar to the Permanent Fund Dividend we have here in Alaska, which is paid to every man, woman and child in Alaska no matter what their income level is.

The philosophy behind the Permanent Fund in Alaska is that our state is a commonwealth and the citizens of the state of Alaska own the resources of the state of Alaska. Once this philosphical viewpoint is accepted then it is very reasonable to disburse the assets of the commonwealth to its owners, i.e. the citizens of the state of Alaska. Please note this is not a "socialist" idea----no one is saying the state government owns the resources and is giving money to the people. The whole idea is that the PEOPLE own the resources and they are entitled to payments for their resources. Basically, at least as developed in Alaska, the idea of the permanent fund is that it is a CAPITALIST concept, where the owners of the resource own the profits from the development of those resources that are owned by the people of the state of Alaska, and because everyone is an owner everyone is entitled to the universal benefit from what they own. That is fundamentally a CAPITALIST idea.

Cheers!
250 million thousand people have died of covid---Joe Biden
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama

-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 24704
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: THE Republican (general) Thread pt 4

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Sun 30 Aug 2020, 18:41:26

The problem with a UBI is the math. Sooner or later the bill has to be paid for and if a majority is sitting at home smoking or drinking their UBI instead of going to work and paying the taxes that could support that UBI soon income will not meet the outgo.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 12023
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: THE Republican (general) Thread pt 4

Unread postby Newfie » Sun 30 Aug 2020, 20:34:13

My understanding was that UBI would be paid in lieu of any other benefits. So all the various FEDERAL housing and assistance and food programs would go away. That money would instead go to the UBI program putting thousands of Federal workers out of work, and saving their salary.

Is this not so?
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 15972
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: THE Republican (general) Thread pt 4

Unread postby yellowcanoe » Sun 30 Aug 2020, 21:09:47

vtsnowedin wrote:The problem with a UBI is the math. Sooner or later the bill has to be paid for and if a majority is sitting at home smoking or drinking their UBI instead of going to work and paying the taxes that could support that UBI soon income will not meet the outgo.


I'm more familiar with the Canadian context though I'm sure the same question applies to the US. We have the situation where someone transitioning from welfare to a minimum or slightly better than minimum wage job faces a higher effective marginal tax rate than high income earners when you factor in the loss of free benefits such as dental care, vision care, etc. provided to welfare recipients. We have a system of benefits that requires a fairly high level of taxation on middle class income earners -- we cannot generate enough revenue solely by taxing high income earners. The problem is how do you provide a meaningful UBI without also incurring fairly high marginal tax rates on additional income and discouraging people from working to increase their income.
yellowcanoe
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 717
Joined: Fri 15 Nov 2013, 14:42:27
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: THE Republican (general) Thread pt 4

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Sun 30 Aug 2020, 23:16:34

Newfie wrote:My understanding was that UBI would be paid in lieu of any other benefits. So all the various FEDERAL housing and assistance and food programs would go away. That money would instead go to the UBI program putting thousands of Federal workers out of work, and saving their salary.

Is this not so?

As Pelosi has been known to say "You have to pass the bill to find out what is in the bill". :o
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 12023
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: THE Republican (general) Thread pt 4

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Sun 30 Aug 2020, 23:22:44

yellowcanoe wrote:I'm more familiar with the Canadian context though I'm sure the same question applies to the US. We have the situation where someone transitioning from welfare to a minimum or slightly better than minimum wage job faces a higher effective marginal tax rate than high income earners when you factor in the loss of free benefits such as dental care, vision care, etc. provided to welfare recipients.

I have run into that here by exceeding the earnings limit for social security. For every dollar over the limit they take back fifty cents of your benefit and that income is still taxable so my tax rate on that excess income is on the order of 62.5 percent.
I wont have that problem this year :roll: .
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 12023
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: THE Republican (general) Thread pt 4

Unread postby careinke » Mon 31 Aug 2020, 02:26:05

vtsnowedin wrote:The problem with a UBI is the math. Sooner or later the bill has to be paid for and if a majority is sitting at home smoking or drinking their UBI instead of going to work and paying the taxes that could support that UBI soon income will not meet the outgo.


Yang suggests a VAT to pay for it. Although I think all taxes are theft, at least with consumption taxes you can mitigate them by not buying stuff. Good your pocket book and good for the planet.

Then we could pile on the Fair Tax and eliminate all other forms of taxes.
Cliff (Start a rEVOLution, grow a garden)
User avatar
careinke
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4121
Joined: Mon 01 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Pacific Northwest

PreviousNext

Return to North America Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests