Universal income leads to greater employment

[icanhelp1]

And if people need more? JUST PRINT IT!!!

It's just perfect, I can't believe nobody has ever thought of "Free everything for everyone!!" before so that everyone can just go all in on hedonism.....I mean what could possibly go wrong with that??

When you argue with the progressive left, they argue from the point of view that the federal government is responsible for the care and welfare of its citizens, a 180 cultural shift from what the constitution's guidance is on how to govern ourselves. The constitution is quite clear that our government is responsible to provide for equal opportunity under the law and the right to the pursuit of happiness. It gives both state and federal governments the legal framework to legislate social programs and other safety nets that help the poor or the less fortunate.

 

[Adre]

It's just computer keystrokes.

We can eliminate the debt with just a few keyclicks...

The world would go on as if nothing happened.

 

[Adre]

Besides, I’m pretty sure the debt is almost gone.


“Several months before the 2016 election, Trump pledged he would be able to eliminate the national debt – then around $19 trillion – “over a period of eight years.”

In an interview with the Washington Post, the future president said that his plan to renegotiate trade deals with foreign countries would create surpluses that would help draw down the debt.”

-USA Today

 

[CornusKousa]

The more limits and regulation you put into a system to ensure it is only a "Safety Net" the more people suffer because they don't know how to manipulate the system. More important to you is the fact that it costs you more money because everyone monitoring and policing the system has to be paid by the taxpayer.

Depends on the system.

And denying people the ability to manipulate the system is the point.

Now that leaves me puzzled because it was recently revealed that your president payed only $750 tax in the two years prior to his being elected. That's less than the average plumber would pay. Now if it is true that Rich people pay 45% of their income as tax (as you stated earlier) He was either able to negotiate his tax bill down or he is not the rich man he claims to be.

Yes that's his income taxes in state of NY I believe.

If you think that means he negotiates his tax bill or isn't rich you're oversimplifying taxes in the US to a comical level.

His companies no doubt pay more to NY in property taxes each year than most wage slaves will earn in a decade.

Net worth =/= "income"
Property =/="income"
Capital gains=/= "income"

Who is to say that you are being punished for anything? Ever since the banking crisis our countries have been taking tax dollars and giving them to the banks in a system called quantitative easing. The only people who have benefitted from that have been the bankers who have taken huge bonuses

Taking more of my shit and restricting me arbitrarily the more I try to do...seems like a negative re-enforcement, or punishment.

And I disagree with that too, I don't think it's the federal governments place to prop up failed/corrupt banks anymore than any other business.

Bad businesses should be allowed to fail.

Now imagine that money being given to the people to spend and see what a difference that makes to everyone.

It wouldn't last a month and we'd all be right back here with the left crying for MOAR FREE SHIT!!!

Just look at some 80~ish% of lotto winners within just 2 years!! Lose it all.

Go to 5 years and it starts looking like a western liberal capitalist economy....just a couple %

Entertainment sports/celebrities make tens if not hundreds of millions, fall off at age 27 or get injured and boom....damn near every one of them wind up broke within just a few years.

Poor people are poor because they are shit with money and generally undisciplined about their hustle vs spending habits. There is no amount of money you can throw at that problem...it's literally giving junkies heroine.

Yes you already have prisons and in some states they spend more money on prisons than on schools. However, if you reduce crime you reduce your need for prisons and they so you'll need less and therefore spend less. Until you are close enough to those who struggle to put a roof over their heads and food on the table, you will probably not accept that honesty is a luxury but sadly it is. Ask yourself what you would do if for whatever reason you were unable to work and all your savings were used up. Desperate people do desperate things. What Universal Basic Income does is that it removes the desperation.

Yes and if you resort to criminal acts in that desperation? You suffer the consequences.

I think the biggest and most effective way to reduce prison populations would be to stop incarcerating folks for non-violent crimes, leave the cages for people who commit acts of violence.

OK turn the argument around. Since they use more of the facilities provided by the taxpayer why shouldn't they pay more? That surely is capitalism. If you use the airspace more than Joe Public surely you should pay a greater share of the cost of providing air traffic control. The same argument applies to policing and roads etc.

LOL...They do.

That's why a cement trucks license plates cost thousands of dollars and a privately owned Honda Civic only pays 60-150 bucks depending on the state.

Who do you think pays more in property taxes Trump Tower in NYC or Joe the wage slave in his 45,000 dollar shit box in Ohio??

Who do you think pays more for air traffic control, Delta Airlines or me and my little privately owned kit plane?? It's so astronomically much more than my pissant fees it's laughable you would suggest they don't pay as much as I do.

IDK where you got the idea that rich people and major companies don't pay? But it's wrong.

Now that's where you've got it all wrong Universal Basic Income does nothing to inhibit the private market

Your rose colored glasses blind you to the other edge of that sword.

Despite the positives of encouraging entrepreneurs to take more risks....it's much harder for them to get the capital together to take said risk when most of their income is taken and redistributed.

Also I was talking about the "progressive" and other socialist in general desire to eliminate private commerce/property.

I have lived in an ex-communist country and believe me Universal Basic Income is something they would hate.

Yea, probably because communism was so fucking horrible it scared them away from that level of collectivism for generations to come didn't it??

It takes away one of the ways that the state used to control the people.

You think putting the state in charge of everyone's money flow takes away the states power to control people?? Really??

I think quote the opposite....I think it's the ultimate control mechanism. "Do what we say or you lose your UBI".

There system for healthcare was similar to yours. Instead of having to prove you have insurance they had to prove that they were in legitimate employment and paying taxes before they would treat you.

You don't have to prove you have insurance here. Which is a whole other thread.

Yea because the socialist sales job of "Godlike state authority = free shit for everyone!" doesn't actually work and in the real world anyone not pulling their "fair share"?? Becomes "nonessential" and doesn't get the gubbmint cheese that was and always is quickly used to force people to submit to it's authority.

Once the state consolidates control over the money, energy and most importantly food? It's just a matter of time before another Stalin, Mao, Adolf, Kim, Castro etc. comes to power and abuses that authority.

And that's how half a billion folks were put to death by authoritarianism in the last century and are arguably the best argument for decentralized power/control.

 

[CornusKousa]

When you argue with the progressive left, they argue from the point of view that the federal government is responsible for the care and welfare of its citizens, a 180 cultural shift from what the constitution's guidance is on how to govern ourselves. The constitution is quite clear that our government is responsible to provide for equal opportunity under the law and the right to the pursuit of happiness. It gives both state and federal governments the legal framework to legislate social programs and other safety nets that help the poor or the less fortunate.

The progressive left doesn't like the idea of statehood or decentralized power....makes the "progressive" brand of authoritarianism impossible to execute. It also makes them do their own thing of their own accord. Which they REALLY don't like...having to actually do it for themselves is antithetical to EVERYTHING they stand for.

If it was really about progress towards getting the poor people in their community the HC they are entitled to then CA if not several other nearly totally progressive controlled states would already have a no ID needed, anyone who shows up with their hands out gets any HC they need, at the explicit expense of their states taxpayers of course

AND I WISH THEY WOULD!!! God damn proggies stop talking about it and start being about it!! Walk the walk for all that talk and fucking DO IT already.

But they won't...they're trying to take control over the entire industry nationwide at the federal level instead, hmmmmm....I wonder why that is??

We know why

 

[YDB95]

Exactly who are these "loads of motherfuckers" who are in prison for trying to "negotiate with the taxman"? If there are so many of them, you ought to be able to cough up a few examples.

When you argue with the progressive left, they argue from the point of view that the federal government is responsible for the care and welfare of its citizens, a 180 cultural shift from what the constitution's guidance is on how to govern ourselves. The constitution is quite clear that our government is responsible to provide for equal opportunity under the law and the right to the pursuit of happiness. It gives both state and federal governments the legal framework to legislate social programs and other safety nets that help the poor or the less fortunate.

Your argument is contradictory. You say providing a safety net is "a 180 cultural shift from what the Constitution's guidance is on how to govern ourselves," yet you also acknowledge that the Constitution provides for both the federal and state governments to legislate social programs and safety nets. Both can't be true.

You're also ignoring the fact that the Constitution is a living document, and that to some degree the framers were intentionally vague because they recognised things would change. In 1787 we were a primarily agrarian society where most people lived in small towns where everyone knew everyone else and it was easy to foresee people lending a hand when their neighbours needed it. The sheer degree of need for public assistance that we see nowadays was incomprehensible then. What the framers DID comprehend was that things would change - they just didn't know how exactly. So even to the extent that today's progressives represent a cultural shift from 230 years ago...well, first of all, duh! The same could be said of the fact that we no longer have slavery and women can vote. Secondly, it's not really a shift in perspectives on how to help those in need, as it's a fundamental change in what those needs are. The Constitution couldn't have provided for exactly what we need today, because its writers had no way of knowing what those needs would be. But they did recognise that there would be changes, and that the Constitution would need to encompass those changes.

 

[icanhelp1]

Exactly who are these "loads of motherfuckers" who are in prison for trying to "negotiate with the taxman"? If there are so many of them, you ought to be able to cough up a few examples.

Your argument is contradictory. You say providing a safety net is "a 180 cultural shift from what the Constitution's guidance is on how to govern ourselves," yet you also acknowledge that the Constitution provides for both the federal and state governments to legislate social programs and safety nets. Both can't be true.

The constitution grants the federal government enumerated powers to govern states for things that are common to all states, things like currency, military, interstate commerce an interstate road network. The constitution also grants each state this thing called states rights where most of the governance should happen, a more decentralized form of governance where 50 states unitary in governance form our republic of states.

People like AOC, Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley, Bernie Sanders, Ilhan Omar are all pushing hard for a more centralized form of government and diminish states rights, i.e. eliminate for profit healthcare and replace with a federal healthcare system where one size fits all. States are better equipped to manage their constituent better than a huge inefficient federal bureaucracy. The states need to take back authority they surrendered to the Feds

You're also ignoring the fact that the Constitution is a living document, and that to some degree the framers were intentionally vague because they recognised things would change.

Is a dog whistle used by progressives, socialist attempting to disregard the constitution when the constitution stands in the way of progressive agendas.

In 1787 we were a primarily agrarian society where most people lived in small towns where everyone knew everyone else and it was easy to foresee people lending a hand when their neighbours needed it.

Which still goes on to this day.

The sheer degree of need for public assistance that we see nowadays was incomprehensible then.

The states are better equipped to handle public assistance than an oversized federal bureaucracy. A one size fits all is not cost effective and leads to more federal programs that once formed are never disbanded and have a tendency to justify their existence even when they become ineffective, leading to more big government and more excessive spending

What the framers DID comprehend was that things would change - they just didn't know how exactly.

The framers included in the constitution a mechanism to make changes, there is a way to amend the constitution, and was made purposely difficult for a reason. Ad hoc changes to the constitution is subjected to strict guidance. In order to pass an amendment it requires 2/3rds majority vote in both houses and sent to the states for ratification and not because AOC thinks we need it.

So even to the extent that today's progressives represent a cultural shift from 230 years ago...well, first of all, duh!

The cultural shift is trying to bi-pass the constitution if it gets in the way.

The same could be said of the fact that we no longer have slavery and women can vote. Secondly, it's not really a shift in perspectives on how to help those in need, as it's a fundamental change in what those needs are.

All those changes happened within the parameters of the constitution and made into law.

Most needs can be addressed through state legislatures. When needs become a republic wide issue then no doubt the federal government should work with the states to remedy the situation in the least intrusive manner.

The Constitution couldn't have provided for exactly what we need today, because its writers had no way of knowing what those needs would be. But they did recognise that there would be changes, and that the Constitution would need to encompass those changes.

The constitution doesn't provide for needs. it provides a mechanism to address needs.

Legislators are appointed to respond to the needs of it's people, that's the living part of our constitution. Time stops for no one, technologies change all the time. Our framers understood that what doesn't change is human nature and we craft our laws accordingly.

 

[CornusKousa]

Is a dog whistle used by progressives, socialist attempting to disregard the constitution when the constitution stands in the way of progressive agendas.

Yup.....that's how they figure there is NOTHING un-American about totalitarian communist state they fantasize about bringing to the USA.

 

[CornusKousa]

Exactly who are these "loads of motherfuckers" who are in prison for trying to "negotiate with the taxman"? If there are so many of them, you ought to be able to cough up a few examples.

Only a "progressive" would need examples and citation that tax evasion/fraud of every kind imaginable and then some that you'd have a hard time believing were true.....is a crime that people commit, get busted and prosecuted for on a fairly regular basis. Looks like about 2 people a day actually.

Your argument is contradictory. You say providing a safety net is "a 180 cultural shift from what the Constitution's guidance is on how to govern ourselves," yet you also acknowledge that the Constitution provides for both the federal and state governments to legislate social programs and safety nets. Both can't be true.

LOL...no it's not contradictory, you just don't seem to understand we're talking about very different things.

Having social services and a "safety net" from a social liberal the other right wingers is VERY different than the federal totalitarian nanny for all 50 states that progressives and a number of other lefties want.

 

[Tim2run]

The world would go on as if nothing happened.

Yeah.
Because no one in the world invests in buying US debt...

 

[YDB95]

The constitution grants the federal government enumerated powers to govern states for things that are common to all states, things like currency, military, interstate commerce an interstate road network. The constitution also grants each state this thing called states rights where most of the governance should happen, a more decentralized form of governance where 50 states unitary in governance form our republic of states.

It is not as cut-and-dry as you're suggesting here. Again, that is intentional, in part because even the framers themselves couldn't agree on where to draw the line.

People like AOC, Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley, Bernie Sanders, Ilhan Omar are all pushing hard for a more centralized form of government and diminish states rights, i.e. eliminate for profit healthcare and replace with a federal healthcare system where one size fits all. States are better equipped to manage their constituent better than a huge inefficient federal bureaucracy.

How do you figure states are better equipped to manage anything? When it comes to health care, one size does fit all: no one deserves to die prematurely because there's treatment available but they can't afford it. What you're really saying here is the states ought to be allowed to decide that maybe, yes they do.

And one hardly even needs to mention that the term "states' rights" itself was dogwhistle for preserving slavery and then Jim Crow for a very, very long time.

Is a dog whistle used by progressives, socialist attempting to disregard the constitution when the constitution stands in the way of progressive agendas.

Nope. The term "living document" is from Thomas Jefferson himself. And he also wrote:
“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”

Which still goes on to this day.

And that's great when and where it's an option. But in this day and age, sometimes it isn't. Nor should people have to be responsible for their neighbours' well being.

The states are better equipped to handle public assistance than an oversized federal bureaucracy.

That exact argument, down to the word except for "public assistance", was used in favour of leaving civil rights reform up to the states in the 1960s. You know, the states that had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 20th century. THAT is what this is really about: leaving it up to the states mostly just ensures that no reform at all will be taken in far too many places.

The framers included in the constitution a mechanism to make changes, there is a way to amend the constitution, and was made purposely difficult for a reason. Ad hoc changes to the constitution is subjected to strict guidance. In order to pass an amendment it requires 2/3rds majority vote in both houses and sent to the states for ratification and not because AOC thinks we need it.

First of all, you really need to re-read the Constitution (I'm wondering if I should say "read" rather than "re-read") if you believe it prohibits federal safety net legislation. Secondly, we've been pushing for better safety-net legislation since before AOC was born. But I understand how it gets under your skin to see a young woman of color speaking her mind, so have at, I guess.

The cultural shift is trying to bi-pass the constitution if it gets in the way.

The cultural shift is perfectly constitutional.

Most needs can be addressed through state legislatures.

In well-off states like California, sure. In places like Mississippi? Even if the state legislature were willing to help the poor, they can't afford anything approaching a suitable remedy. With a federal program, that's not an issue.

When needs become a republic wide issue then no doubt the federal government should work with the states to remedy the situation in the least intrusive manner.

We are at that point, and have been for a very long time now.

The constitution doesn't provide for needs. it provides a mechanism to address needs.

It also doesn't prohibit the federal government from being that mechanism.

Legislators are appointed to respond to the needs of it's people, that's the living part of our constitution. Time stops for no one, technologies change all the time. Our framers understood that what doesn't change is human nature and we craft our laws accordingly.

How very right you are. One thing that hasn't changed since 1787 is that far too many people simply don't want the government to work right.

 

[CornusKousa]

It also doesn't prohibit the federal government from being that mechanism.

No but all the checks and balances do.

You don't have the majority needed to do a 1 size fits all 50 states public HC program.....states that are totally (D) controlled like California can't even agree on how to do public HC.

Our system makes it VERY difficult to do shit like that federally.

It's going to be up to the blue states to show everyone how it's done before you'll get enough red states on your side to go national and ram it down everyone's throats at the federal level like the totalitarian control freaks are desperate to do.

 

[Tim2run]

"How do you figure states are better equipped to manage anything? When it comes to health care, one size does fit all: no one deserves to die prematurely because there's treatment available but they can't afford it. What you're really saying here is the states ought to be allowed to decide that maybe, yes they do."
YD


The last attempt to nationalize health care, did, in fact, take ability to pay into consideration and rationed health care, deciding who would get to die based on cost-benefit analysis, i.e, just make them comfortable.

In a world of limited resources, there is no possible way for everyone to have full measure, as they see it, of those limited resources and this is why it is best left at the State level, a fundamental concept of the Founders as the closer government is to the people, the more responsive it is to the people.

Now, it is fashionable with many here to blast BIG [fill-in-the-blank] for bribing and corrupting government to gain market share and increase profits. If this is one of your underlying fears, then this too is a great argument for decentralization for if your chicanery is a one-stop shop, it makes your efforts easier that if you had to operated on 50 different political fronts in order to profit.

 

[CornusKousa]

When it comes to health care, one size does fit all

The wholesale denial of reality of the left....a prerequisite to persist in their pursuit of totalitarianism.

 

[WillJ8787]

I know many of you guys don't like science and real results so here is a study you can deny

Finlands experiment with Guaranteed Universal Income does not discourage people from working. In fact the opposite is true. The experiment has resulted in More Fins working not less and improved well being.

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...e-seems-to-improve-employment-and-well-being/

This is correct.

Usually, the nay-sayers are projecting what it is they would do...if someone gave them money they would indeed work less hard. The nay-sayers don't know how to live Large

The number of people I've known in my life here in the USA who worked so very hard who were low paid or where doing volunteer work(work for free in addition to their normal employment) is beyond a count.

 

[EmptyTank]

really
beyond count sounds like exaggeration

 

[WillJ8787]

really
beyond count sounds like exaggeration

Yes....have you seen all the folks handing out food with those huge lines of cars all over the country? None of them are doing it for money or are getting paid...it's volunteer work.

How about the thousands of poll workers during the election, thousands, they don't get pay for that, it's volunteer work. Both, Repubs and Dems and others side by side.

This is just off the top of my head....please take some time to look around and see all the good in the world and all the folks who do it for nothing monetary in return.

There are some here who would lead you to believe that doing things for free is evil...I do not agree with them.

 

[CornusKousa]

Yes....have you seen all the folks handing out food with those huge lines of cars all over the country?

Thanks lockdowns!! Thanks government!!

This is just off the top of my head....please take some time to look around and see all the good in the world and all the folks who do it for nothing monetary in return.

And without the totalitarian god state putting a gun to their head??

Without the "Progressive" party in total control of every aspect of a citizens life to ensure equity???

Say it isn't so COMRADE!! You sound like an alt-reich Nazi fascist racist misogyinst.

There are some here who would lead you to believe that doing things for free is evil...I do not agree with them.

I bet you can't find a single post deriding charity or volunteer work.

It's not "free" that they find evil..... it's putting a gun to peoples head, taking their money and calling what you did with it "free" that is evil.

You see it is the violence and dishonesty to gain power and control that is the difference between charity/volunteering and "progress" here that makes "progress" evil and charity not.

 

[YDB95]

The last attempt to nationalize health care, did, in fact, take ability to pay into consideration and rationed health care, deciding who would get to die based on cost-benefit analysis, i.e, just make them comfortable.

Not only is that not true, but it's also essentially what we had pre-Obamacare with HMOs effectively in charge. What you are describing here is simply the scare tactics used by the right to defeat Clinton's health care proposals in 1994.

 

[Tim2run]

No, it's completely true.

Have you so quickly forgotten President Obama's remarks about his grandmother?
Relieving her pain would not be cost-effective; a burden on the health-care system.

At least when the private sector rations care, the overly sensitive and attuned crocodile tears crowd can step up and charitably help alleviate the financial shortfall created by rational limits on insurance (but they never do, they'd rather turn to government).

When government decides to limit your health care, who do you appeal to? Those overtaxed (limiting discretionary income which affects the ability to charitable donation) to already pay for your health care? Will they be as sympathetic when government cuts you off like they are (clearly from the comments here) if private insurance cuts you off?

The goal of Universal Health Care is to make health care free and easily available to all, a laudable goal, but when you think about it, knowing that the private sector is always more efficient than government, then government is going to have to make the same damned decisions, but only amplified because government oversight always results in inefficiencies of spending. It's better to keep it private and for those who agitate for UHC to simply step up their charitable contributions.

 

[Tim2run]

On an ancillary note, once you surrender your health care to the government, then you surrender your life for you yield to them the right to regulate every activity in the name of health care affordability and if you stray from government guideline you give them cause to deny you health care, or you might just simply get denied because the treatment for your condition is determined not to be economically efficacious, e.g., like President Obama's Granny: you're at the end of life, you really don't need that procedure, here are some free opiates. ENJOY!

 

[Tim2run]

It would be pretty much the same thing with Universal Income.

 

[WillJ8787]

"It's not "free" that they find evil..... it's putting a gun to peoples head, taking their money and calling what you did with it "free" that is evil.

You see it is the violence and dishonesty to gain power and control that is the difference between charity/volunteering and "progress" here that makes "progress" evil and charity not."

This is why we all know your crazy and need a therapist to work this stuff out of your head.

I'm talking about volunteering that goes on 24/7 in this Country before, during and after the pandemic that offers a road to proof that people are not just motivated by money and this volunteerism doesn't make them evil. This is how one knows a minimum income or Universal Healthcare will work...people are willing to go above and beyond FREELY!

There is no gun to anyone's head. This is crazy talk that isn't in touch with reality. Just like your thinking that the election was stolen. It's crazy thinking and it is why so many will not debate you...you can't debate ungrounded, non-factual crazy talk. I do hope you get some help.

 

[WillJ8787]

On an ancillary note, once you surrender your health care to the government, then you surrender your life for you yield to them the right to regulate every activity in the name of health care affordability and if you stray from government guideline you give them cause to deny you health care, or you might just simply get denied because the treatment for your condition is determined not to be economically efficacious, e.g., like President Obama's Granny: you're at the end of life, you really don't need that procedure, here are some free opiates. ENJOY!

Please point to where the govt regulates every activity and where citizens lives have been surrendered to universal healthcare in:

Canada
New Zealand
France
Germany
Great Britain
Finland
Sweden
Norway
Belgium
Netherlands
Luxembourg
Spain
Portugal
Hungry
And many more Countries.

Please, explain to me how they are so oppressed by Universal Healthcare?

 

[WillJ8787]

Ten Countries with Universal Healthcare that do it way better than anyone including us and donut with more economic freedom...

Source:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapo...nomically-freer-than-the-u-s/?sh=eaf5415137e6