Universal Income.

lionking said:
More telling me what to do.
Click to expand...

I get that you don't like people telling you what you should do in order to have any credibility, but that doesn't make my post "wrong. On more levels than one.". So now in fact you can't explain what was wrong, so I can only assume there was nothing wrong with it except telling you what you should do in order to have any credibility.

I have been addressing his points. That you (or he) don’t agree is of no consequence to me.
Click to expand...

In other words you have no purpose in this discussion but to be a contrarian. Why did you even come to this thread, then, if not to discuss the topic and strive to understand it?
 
We should NOT be giving UBI to employed people, as employers will just use this as an excuse to pay their workers less, since Uncle Sam will fill in the gaps.

I guess we could give UBI to unemployed people so they can pay for food, housing, clothes, fuel, etc. But we shouldn't give them more than the bear minimum. If they want to live the good life, with a big apartment and an extra car and yearly vacations, get a ******* job!!!
 
lionking said:
Another person declaring a UBI “good” no doubt by definition.

Covid stimulus packages went out into the economy and jobs and businesses were saved. But of the money going from government into the economy, only a small amount comes back through taxes. Governments around the world (Australia included) are facing massive deficits which could take decades to pay off. The UBI will worsen this.

Yes large tax rises will help offset the deficit, but I don’t see too many governments with the appetite for that. Most developed nations seek to reduce tax and spending.

Never ending and growing trillion dollar deficits are not a good thing in my view.
Click to expand...

Wow. I wonder if proponents of UBI have ever thought of how it could be funded.

I mean the stimulus was clearly not proposed as fully funded in the moment because the speed of deployment was more critical, but a systemic change such as UBI would really need more thought.

I guess we will never know because I, for one, completely refuse to read anything that talks about how UBI could be funded. Well except noting that statements about how portions of it could be covered by savings clearly wouldn’t cover the whole thing.
 
Hercules56 said:
We should NOT be giving UBI to employed people, as employers will just use this as an excuse to pay their workers less, since Uncle Sam will fill in the gaps.

I guess we could give UBI to unemployed people so they can pay for food, housing, clothes, fuel, etc. But we shouldn't give them more than the bear minimum. If they want to live the good life, with a big apartment and an extra car and yearly vacations, get a ******* job!!!
Click to expand...

Then it's not universal. That's like saying we shouldn't give universal health care to everyone.
 
Hercules56 said:
We should NOT be giving UBI to employed people, as employers will just use this as an excuse to pay their workers less, since Uncle Sam will fill in the gaps.

I guess we could give UBI to unemployed people so they can pay for food, housing, clothes, fuel, etc. But we shouldn't give them more than the bear minimum. If they want to live the good life, with a big apartment and an extra car and yearly vacations, get a ******* job!!!
Click to expand...

I feel like you should have to at least look up what UBI means before talking about what it should be.

This reads like: We should not be selling any tuna that were caught in highland lakes and the grass fed sharks should be reserved for people who can afford glitter free strippers.
 
Belz... said:
Then it's not universal. That's like saying we shouldn't give universal health care to everyone.
Click to expand...

We clearly should not be giving UBI to people who do NOT need it.

If you're making $200,000+ a year, you don't need UBI.


And for the record, I know of only two people who are big supporters of UBI.

One of them is perpetually unemployed and feels he should not have to work to have a nice home, car etc. He feels society should simply give him money, and he will do what he wants with his life. He refuses to complete his college degree, he refuses to take courses to get more skills. Just wants to demand the govt. give him stuff.

The other guy has a job, but keeps refusing to increase his skills, apply for promotions, take civil service tests, etc. He's constantly whining about the world, capitalism, the "woke", etc etc. Thinks the world sucks and secretly wishes for its demise.
 
Hercules56 said:
We clearly should not be giving UBI to people who do NOT need it.

If you're making $200,000+ a year, you don't need UBI.


And for the record, I know of only two people who are big supporters of UBI.

One of them is perpetually unemployed and feels he should not have to work to have a nice home, car etc. He feels society should simply give him money, and he will do what he wants with his life. He refuses to complete his college degree, he refuses to take courses to get more skills. Just wants to demand the govt. give him stuff.

The other guy has a job, but keeps refusing to increase his skills, apply for promotions, take civil service tests, etc. He's constantly whining about the world, capitalism, the "woke", etc etc. Thinks the world sucks and secretly wishes for its demise.
Click to expand...

Prob discussed upthread, but I think advocates are just sickened by the idea of poverty in a wealthy country that can literally afford to damn near eradicate it without breaking a sweat. Its not an issue of handouts, just having poor countrymen not suffering if doable.

Some poor can't get a better paying job with ease. "Just make more money" is not really a workable solution. UBI, as counterintuitive as it miggt seem, might be viable and benefit all.
 
Thermal said:
Prob discussed upthread, but I think advocates are just sickened by the idea of poverty in a wealthy country that can literally afford to damn near eradicate it without breaking a sweat. Its not an issue of handouts, just having poor countrymen not suffering if doable.

Some poor can't get a better paying job with ease. "Just make more money" is not really a workable solution. UBI, as counterintuitive as it miggt seem, might be viable and benefit all.
Click to expand...

I too hate that we have such poverty and yet lots of money.

But I also don't like the idea of just giving money to people who dont need it, or dont want to work.

There should be a better way, like just having a good minimum wage and mandating profit sharing with workers.
 
Hercules56 said:
We should NOT be giving UBI to employed people, as employers will just use this as an excuse to pay their workers less, since Uncle Sam will fill in the gaps.
Click to expand...
Why do opponents insist on describing UBI as free gifts? For employed people UBI is just part of their tax rebate (effectively) and they are not getting anything extra.

The people who benefit are those who do some casual work without risking any government handouts that they currently receive.
 
psionl0 said:
Why do opponents insist on describing UBI as free gifts? For employed people UBI is just part of their tax rebate (effectively) and they are not getting anything extra.
Click to expand...

If you don't pay any Federal income tax, UBI would be a free gift. 47% of Americans pay no Federal income tax.
 
Hercules56 said:
I too hate that we have such poverty and yet lots of money.

But I also don't like the idea of just giving money to people who dont need it, or dont want to work.

There should be a better way, like just having a good minimum wage and mandating profit sharing with workers.
Click to expand...

I agree, but that would logistically be tougher. The appeal of UBI (I think) is that it is relatively easy to implement and should kinda sorta work, even if widely abused.

I mean, we already have a variety of welfare programs in place, but are complicated. The simplicity is the charm here.
 
Thermal said:
I agree, but that would logistically be tougher. The appeal of UBI (I think) is that it is relatively easy to implement and should kinda sorta work, even if widely abused.

I mean, we already have a variety of welfare programs in place, but are complicated. The simplicity is the charm here.
Click to expand...

Defining who doesn’t need support but just wants luxuries and who is simply lazy versus in need requires systems and employees and judgements that will inevitably cost a lot of money and make a lot of mistakes.

Simple is better. No morality clauses. No value judgements. No paternalistic claptrap. Just reduce poverty by paying citizens a dividend based on the profitability of the society they have inherited.

Unless you hate capitalism.
 
psionl0 said:
Your claim that tax scales would remain the same with UBI is the exact opposite of what has been argued in this thread.
Click to expand...

That’s the best argument against UBI: misrepresent it completely so that it is obviously stupid.
 
Hercules56 said:
We clearly should not be giving UBI to people who do NOT need it.

If you're making $200,000+ a year, you don't need UBI.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand the point. Giving a small amount of money to rich people is a drop in the bucket compared to tax cuts. The point is to reduce administrative weight by just giving the amount to everyone and let the tax brackets deal with the costs.


And for the record, I know of only two people who are big supporters of UBI.
Click to expand...

Congratulations. I'm sure you feel great about it. Now that we've dealt with this irrelevancy, we can move on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom