Ten oz

If money and messaging in politics didn't have an impact campaigns wouldn't spend billions. Of course it had an impact. We will never empirically know how big but I don;t see any successful campaigns forgoing money because they don't think it helps.

From what I have read Russia is believed to have help bankrolled the push for the referendum.

"No matter what" - regardless whether one is rich, poor, disabled, young, old, etc. Absolutely everyone. "Flat rate" - taxes and benefits

You cut my post short enough to keep your response ambiguous. If you don't want to discuss it with me just stop qouting me. If you don't understand the question ask for clarification.

Hard sell, what sell? I am asking you if this is what you are suggesting.

A proposal of a govt program. One that would impact other programs and taxes. I down understand your answer. Not being argumentative but I honestly don't understand. Are you saying to provide for and tax everyone, no matter what, the exact same way per some universal flat rate?

The issue is bigger than the Republican party. Russia is using pro conservatives pro nationalism propaganda to shift right leaning people toward authoritarianism in the western world. We saw it with Brexit, see it with Trump, and we see people like Assad and Jong-un being accepted as leaders globally when just a couple years ago it was the united opinion of the U.S. & EU that both had to go.

I struggle to see how this is useful? We are literally discussing govt programs. Are you proposing that everyone in the country do everything (pay taxes and receive all benefits) per a flat universal rate. A billionaire pay the same tax as a part-time fast food employee or a millionaire receive the same food stamps as a single mother of three? Those aren't insincere questions either. I am literally asking if that is what you are implying.

Non verbal communication plays a major role in human interaction. Human are able to emote a wide variety of feelings suggestions visually both purposefully and unknowingly. In society as more and more people prefer text based forms of communication over face to face interaction what are the long term implications?.

What percentage of the population do you feel needs, should have, or would benefit society at large if they received assistance?

That is a Florida State tax issue. That would have no impact on a federal program. Who is or not not a farmer or working in the agriculture industry would be determined by production of a Agricultural Product ad not by State tax policy.

I am fine with that being a farm provided those horses meet the legal definition of an Agricultural product. That said unless the the Horses are being used as or to produce something I don't think their presence alone meets the legal define of an "Agricultural Product". Can you provided a link illustrating the loophole you are referencing? Agriculture Product has a legal definition. It is possible the tax loophole you are referencing falls under some tax law. If that is the case it would have no impact on who would or would not qualify.

Anyone with a registered business which produces for sale any agriculture product is a Farmer and would receive a guaranteed salary. Anyone who is employed by a Farmer would also receive a guaranteed salary. How much is produced and sold doesn't matter. Farmers would keep the different. BUI is an entitlement everyone would receive as a benefit of citizenship. With such entitlements the type of citizen one is always becomes a sticking point. A guaranteed salary for agriculture would be an earned benefit and those traditionally do not come with the same sticking points. For example a felon can receive Soc Sec. Nothing controversial about it. Yet a felon can not receive food stamps in several states and some states have rules requiring minimum levels of employment and/or drug testing for food stamps. The difference is Soc Sec is an earned benefit and food stamps are not. Likewise a military member with a good tour of service receives the GI Bill even if they are eventually kicked out of the service for criminal acts. The GI Bill is an earned benefit. Yet a Felon can not receive Federal Pell Grants or Federal Student Loans. Those are not earned benefits. To be clear I am not saying I personally feel a person should have to "earn" a benefit via some sort of conditional quid pro qou. Rather I am identifying that in society at large there is a difference. Providing an earn benefit to groups of people vs a free entitlement generally elevates debate about origin and background, it just does.

The military is America's biggest jobs program. The number employed and money pushed out into industry is unmatched. Implying money should be taken away from DOD to pay for an infrastructure jobs program isn't that crazy of a concept. The below articles discussion the numbers employed and impacts on the economy of the Military. I think much of that should reallocated. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/americas-biggest-jobs-pro_b_679426.html https://www.wired.com/2011/10/defense-industry-cuts-economy/ I think you are ignore the agriculture part of what I has said. People working in agriculture are among the most exploited in the country. Guaranteeing them a salary would accomplish aiding a large number of one of the groups I am concerned BUI would leave behind, immigrants. I am saying everyone in agriculture, even a guy who just sells tomatoes at a farmers market, should receive a salary. That salary would be attached to the industry itself and not to citizenship, background, level of distribution, or etc. Doing that would also help the many independent farmers attempting to have self sustaining farm but can't compete. Agricultural products are commodities and the prices for individual products are often set by the industry at large. That screws over independent farmers and forces them to either lose money on their products or become de facto franchises of large scale producers. Also I said "might be a good thing". I am not saying this is exactly what must be done. The military is America's biggest jobs program. The number employed and money pushed out into industry is unmatched. Implying money should be taken away from DOD to pay for an infrastructure jobs program isn't that crazy of a concept. The below articles discussion the numbers employed and impacts on the economy of the Military. I think much of that should reallocated. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/americas-biggest-jobs-pro_b_679426.html https://www.wired.com/2011/10/defense-industry-cuts-economy/ I think you are ignore the agriculture part of what I has said. People working in agriculture are among the most exploited in the country. Guaranteeing them a salary would accomplish aiding a large number of one of the groups I am concerned BUI would leave behind, immigrants. I am saying everyone in agriculture, even a guy who just sells tomatoes at a farmers market, should receive a salary. That salary would be attached to the industry itself and not to citizenship, background, level of distribution, or etc. Doing that would also help the many independent farmers attempting to have self sustaining farm but can't compete. Agricultural products are commodities and the prices for individual products are often set by the industry at large. That screws over independent farmers and forces them to either lose money on their products or become de facto franchises of large scale producers. Also I said "might be a good thing". I am not saying this is exactly what must be done. Also as an extra thing not previously discussed all prisoner work should be paid at the minimum federal wage standards and law should protect prisons, cities, counties, or states from charging inmates fees as a way to re-coup or take advantage of that money.

DOD spending isn't safety net spending. Currently between military members and civilians DOD employees millions of people many of whom already have advanced degrees and valuable skill sets. Redirecting those resources on infastructure wouldn't disinfranchise anyone. Likewise an universal income applied to a specific industry like agriculture would be a realocation of existing funds rather than a cut to existing safety nets. The agriculture industry is already federally supported. A universal salary across the board would create parity within the industry. If anything it may save small farms from have to work for the monopolies. It is a shame that the govt currently subsidies the ag industry yet does nothing to guarantee legal and fair wages industry wide. I think it can do better.

I made a point early about wanting to see large portions of the money spent on defense directed towards infrastructure as a guaranteed jobs program. I also think type universal income might be a good thing for specific industries, like agriculture, which are already heavily subsidizes but where people are being under paid or paid off the books. Today in the U.S. kids know that they can join the military and get a guaranteed income and college paid for but everyone doesn't want to carry a gun and potentially have to go to war and kill people. A program offering similar benefits to sign up and work building railways, bridges, repairing dams, and etc would be a great option.

The tend I see is one where the citizens eligible for benefits enjoy highly mobility and flexible lifestyles which is made possible on the backs of thus forced to be their servant. I agree with this. I feel like a lot of people are frustrated by all the corruption and greed and are just throwing their hands up and looking to start over. Problem is that simply giving everyone $10,000 or whatever doesn't actually fix any of the underlining problems. Giving everyone money would hardly put a dent is our looming student loan crisis, does nothing about predatory lending, doesn't make housing anymore affordable, doesn't provide Universal Healthcare (arguably more valuable), and etc, etc, etc. Unfortunately the way forward will be a long hard slog and require numerous individual course corrects. Not just here in the U.S. but around the world. The E.U. has their own issues to deal with are they struggle to find agreement regarding refugees for example. Education and Healthcare costs have some people underwater hundreds of thousand of dollars. Getting education and healthcare for all squared away would be worth more to people in the long run than a cash in hand income in my opinion.

It should be about freedom but on a philosophical level I feel money as a mechanism to manage resources restricts freedom. Giving people money doesn't make them free. Banks, or high overlords, can always manipulate policy to devalue or inflate money. That is a conversation for another thread though. For me, I would like solutions which best deliver. Depending on the mental and physical help of an individual homeless person I suspect being provided a home and food would be best initially with the option to trade it in for cash once they felt ready might work better than just cash up front. I don't think any such programs are possible until taxes are increased and significant immigration and criminal justice reform are passed.

This is not what I got from Phi for All's post at all. As it relates to programs like housing they are asking if it is better to give the person the money or give the person a house. I don't read any sort of statement that it is better for a person to work for a house. For example, would it be better to give homeless people UBI in the from of cash or would it better to give that money to cities earmarked specifically to provide the homeless with housing and food?

I agree with this. I have no objection to Universal Income on principled grounds provided it were truly Universal. I just free that it wouldn't be Universal and that it takes attention away from the real problem which is we let the wrong people to lead. I rather see a focus on the items you listed (basic aid for housing, nutrition, education, health, and training) than complete shift to something else. Risk vs reward is all relative. Provided the global market has parity international companies have adequate motivation to invest. Likewise within individual localities so long of the taxes are fair among all in the market place the do not add any additional burden to potential success. The problem is what some must pay more than others which creates advantages.

Reagan passed 2 tax cuts, Bush passed 2 Tax cuts, Trump has already passed one tax cut. Between all those cuts there weren't any meaningful tax increases. During this same time the number of police officers per capita has increased. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/nsleed.pdf Democrats also continue to be laughably under represented as a share of the votes they receive. As it applies to economic issues, criminal justice, and immigration I do not feel Democrats have made any progress at all in my entire lifetime. Much less incremental progress. It is Republicans who consistently eke out elections without popular support and turn them in to more tax cuts. Where Democrats have had success is with social issues but social issues aren't what UBI seeks to make reforms to. I am more than happy to read about things other countries have tried or are considering trying. The poster I was responding to is also in the U.S. as I am so for the sake of specificity in application I posted about challenges here in the U.S. .

Now that the summit has happened and Trump already made his victory round it seems nothing that North Korea does matters any more.

In my opinion, yes. Because those 10 million who would be disenfranchised are the ones who would need it most. Separately Soc Sec and medicare already covers a sizable portion of that 100 million who would benefit. So for me I see it as making life even better, currently it isn't bad, for 60 million in exchange for total oppression of 10 million. It isn't the sort of devils bargain I am interested in. I suppose it comes down to where one sees the current state of economy. I think there is wealth inequality but I also think the majority in this country has it pretty good. It is only the bottom 20% or so I think needs change/reform. Obviously there are many in middle class who wish they were doing better but better is all relative at the end of the day they are doing fine. In envisioning UBI It is hard for me to imagine that bottom 20% not being the ones most frozen out the benefits. In which case I see not point to it. 3 reasons: - The value of money is not constant. Giving everyone a Universal Income and raising wages would result is the Federal Reserve compensating with huge interest rate hikes which would make borrowing (home, auto, business, etc) extremely more expensive. Because so many people already make more than minimum wage and increase to minimum wage wouldn't impact the whole economy universally. It would only impact the bottom 20% or so of wage earnings. That wouldn't have as dramatic of an impact on inflation. - Obama was about as good as it get in terms Democratic Presidents. He was an excellent orator, patient, pragmatic, and had 2 scandal free tenures in office. What progressive policies did he accomplish? He couldn't get criminal justice reform, a Immigration deal, didn't raise taxes, and etc. He couldn't even get Gitmo closed. Then in 2016 many progressives apathetically held it against Democrats. Everything is fought tooth and nail. No progressive is ever going to get anything easy or in full. Obama was the Michael Jordan of Presidents and he barely was able to improve Healthcare and now that is already being stripped apart. The way forward is one step at a time and all hands must be on deck. I do not believe a "lets try everything at the same time" approach will work. We need focus policies that builds upon each other a step at a time. - The system we have can work. I see no reason to trade it in. The problem is who we have empowered to lead and not the system itself. We can switch to any other system out there but it too will be crap if we continue to empower people like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell to oversee it. Such people will screw UBI just as bad.

Like any policies UBI would need to be negotiated and passed by Congress. No proposal, especially progressive ones, remain totally unchanged in Congress. So whatever the best people proposal one has in their mind at this moment it is fair to say what would be delivered would be worse. So my concern is that groups citing religious, moral, ethical, and etc concerns would craft rules making millions ineligible to receive UBI. It is easy for me to imagine Conservatives demanding that felons or registered sex offenders not be eligible. As it exists today there have been rumblings about changing our law defining citizenship. Of course the anti immigrant right wouldn't make an argument against Naturalized citizens and Green Card holders receiving the entitlement. Then there is the argument about abortion....will a person be allow to spend their income on anything they want: alcohol, cigarettes, abortions? We could potentially end up with tens of millions of working age people, primarily minorities, ineligible for UBI. The relative average median income would increased for those receiving UBI but the disenfranchised groups would fall further behind and be forced into undesirable labor markets those who receive UBI we simply refuse to consider. We would basically be lifting up the middle class on the backs of the poor. I understand the appeal among middle class younger people. UBI for any young person born into a comfortable suburb would be enough for them to just roommate up with their bros and pursue college, starting a business, finding the ideal job, or whatever. I am concerned that the cost of that flexibility and mobility for middle class kids will come at the price of faux indentured servitude for others. Lets not forget that there are people alive today who grew up sitting in the back of buses. Hell, we have immigrant families being separated at out borders today and officials using bible verse to justify it. I struggle to wrap my head around a version of UBI which actually includes every without exception. The right would 100% demand certain groups be disqualified and I do not believe the left has the strength to refuse concessions. Many of the left are actually apathetic to race issues or even any issue which isn't there own. It is why I feel things like raising the minimum wage is a better way to achieve a similar goal. A federal minimum wage would absolutely apply to everyone across the board without caveats. Everyone who works would earn at least that minimum regardless if they are a green card holder, on probation, or whatever. The analogy I used before was an Immigrant working at McDonald's. A green card or work visa holder or undocumented immigrant McDonald's employee has income parity to their peers. If some of their peers were receiving UBI that would no longer be true. They would be poorer than their peers besides having the same job and working just as hard. It would be an ugly situation in my opinion. Increasing minimum wage, reforming criminal justice, and immigration reform are the things I rather see. I do not feel that middle class suburban young adults need anything to be honest. They have it pretty good in my opinion. They are not on my radar and yet that is who I believe would benefit the most from UBI. *I grew up in a middle class suburb.

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/115225-is-automation-taking-our-jobs/ The Soc Sec I know is the single best reducer of poverty in the U.S. there is or has been. Before Soc Sec back in the late 20's early 30's over have of all elderly people lived in poverty.