dimreepr Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 2 minutes ago, Ten oz said: A lot of people have money and or access to the things money affords (housing, food, transportation, etc) yet do not and have not worked. And? Money for nothing, remember? What is work? 8 minutes ago, Ten oz said: Not everyone needs it and money doesn't come from a bottomless pit the govt can just draw from. Money is irrelevant if we have the resources to feed and house everyone; needs and wants are very different things... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ten oz Posted July 13, 2018 Author Share Posted July 13, 2018 30 minutes ago, dimreepr said: And? Money for nothing, remember? What is work? Read my comments in context to what I was responding to. 30 minutes ago, dimreepr said: Money is irrelevant if we have the resources to feed and house everyone; needs and wants are very different things... So we are doing away with the monetary system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 14 minutes ago, Ten oz said: So we are doing away with the monetary system? Do our exchanges have no value? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 1 hour ago, Ten oz said: Not everyone needs it... ... but will appreciate how it offsets at least part of the extra taxes they'll pay. 1 hour ago, Ten oz said: ... and money doesn't come from a bottomless pit the govt can just draw from. Don't focus only on one side of the equation. I think most reasonable folks agree that the uber wealthy need to pay more taxes than they currently do, and it needs to be structured to make investment more attractive than sitting on mounds of cash. I'm becoming convinced that much of the money we spend poorly on corrupted social and justice processes will be more effective in the hands of people with the power to affect their own economies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ten oz Posted July 13, 2018 Author Share Posted July 13, 2018 2 hours ago, Phi for All said: . but will appreciate how it offsets at least part of the extra taxes they'll pay. Everyone who would receive it doesn't pay taxes. 3 hours ago, Phi for All said: Don't focus only on one side of the equation. I think most reasonable folks agree that the uber wealthy need to pay more taxes than they currently do, and it needs to be structured to make investment more attractive than sitting on mounds of cash. I'm becoming convinced that much of the money we spend poorly on corrupted social and justice processes will be more effective in the hands of people with the power to affect their own economies. The value of money isn't a constant. The fed can adjust interest rates and limit borrowing. That is what determines whether it is better for those with money to sit on it or invest. That side of the economy it controlled by a small group of individuals. Their philosophy impacts economiea much as tax rates and social programs do in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 4 hours ago, Ten oz said: A lot of people have money and or access to the things money affords (housing, food, transportation, etc) yet do not and have not worked. And yet that money does not magically spring into existence. 4 hours ago, Ten oz said: Not everyone needs it and money doesn't come from a bottomless pit the govt can just draw from. Did you miss the part about taxation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bender Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 1 hour ago, Ten oz said: Everyone who would receive it doesn't pay taxes. What do you mean? Everyone receives it. Everyone pays taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 59 minutes ago, Ten oz said: Everyone who would receive it doesn't pay taxes. But you were talking about how there are folks who don't need it. How big a group is the folks who don't need it who also don't pay taxes? For me at least, the ultimate goals in a program like this are to raise everybody up a bit economically, like the rising tide analogy, and also to make sure more people have a fair chance at overcoming the circumstances of their birth and arm them with as much skill and information as their potential allows. There will be those who don't spend this income well. There will be those who will thrive solely because it was made available. More freedom would be made available. 1 hour ago, Ten oz said: That side of the economy it controlled by a small group of individuals. Their philosophy impacts economiea much as tax rates and social programs do in my opinion. It's up to us to get the tax rates to be as effective as any social program we experiment with. Folks need to get a bit more fired up than they have been about this. If the people remembered they're The People, that small group of individuals would feel the pressure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bender Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 5 hours ago, Ten oz said: If everyone with residency (regardless of citizenship status) received it that would go an extremely long way towards selling me. Now we're getting somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ten oz Posted July 13, 2018 Author Share Posted July 13, 2018 47 minutes ago, swansont said: Did you miss the part about taxation? Taxation as a solution in the absence of any sort of structure for what that taxation might be is a bit of a McGuffin. Since bibical times taxation has failed to be balanced, simplify bureaucracy, or consistently fund programs adequately. More taxation can be used as the proposed solution to any govt program. As such by itself it is not a strong justification or explanation for any program IMHO. The devil's in the details and taxation has a whole lot of details. As mentioned several pages ago I think different benefits would be most beneficial to different parts of the country. Some combination of free public transportation, free advanced education, free child care, free live in care, free educational/entrepreneurial supplies (internet, computer, 3D printers, office space, etc), and so on might better serve communities. I understand all things plus BUI can be accomplished but they would all have to build upon each other. IMO immigration, taxes, and criminal justice need to be reformed before any major improvements or additional can be made to social or safety net programs or send we run the high risk of making things worse. 9 minutes ago, Bender said: Now we're getting somewhere. I said this on the first page. I have made it clear all along one of my main sticking points was that I didn't trust that everyone actually meant everyone. 14 minutes ago, Phi for All said: But you were talking about how there are folks who don't need it. How big a group is the folks who don't need it who also don't pay taxes Honestly, I think over half the population of the country under 50yrs old. There are people in this country who could use it. Especially among older and imigrant communities but the majority of other communities are doing fine. A person feeling under employeed or wishing they could afford nicer things doesn't mean they need help. 23 minutes ago, Phi for All said: up to us to get the tax rates to be as effective as any social program we experiment with. Folks need to get a bit more fired up than they have been about this. If the people remembered they're The People, that small group of individuals would feel the pressure ...and then start a war. Power is seldom given up without a fight. I am not advocating violence. I am just making the observation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted July 14, 2018 Share Posted July 14, 2018 17 hours ago, Ten oz said: Taxation as a solution in the absence of any sort of structure for what that taxation might be is a bit of a McGuffin. Since bibical times taxation has failed to be balanced, simplify bureaucracy, or consistently fund programs adequately. More taxation can be used as the proposed solution to any govt program. As such by itself it is not a strong justification or explanation for any program IMHO. The devil's in the details and taxation has a whole lot of details. As mentioned several pages ago I think different benefits would be most beneficial to different parts of the country. Some combination of free public transportation, free advanced education, free child care, free live in care, free educational/entrepreneurial supplies (internet, computer, 3D printers, office space, etc), and so on might better serve communities. I understand all things plus BUI can be accomplished but they would all have to build upon each other. IMO immigration, taxes, and criminal justice need to be reformed before any major improvements or additional can be made to social or safety net programs or send we run the high risk of making things worse. I said this on the first page. I have made it clear all along one of my main sticking points was that I didn't trust that everyone actually meant everyone. Honestly, I think over half the population of the country under 50yrs old. There are people in this country who could use it. Especially among older and imigrant communities but the majority of other communities are doing fine. A person feeling under employeed or wishing they could afford nicer things doesn't mean they need help. ...and then start a war. Power is seldom given up without a fight. I am not advocating violence. I am just making the observation. An ideal husband? "Sooner or later," Wilde notes, "we shall all have to pay for what we do." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted July 14, 2018 Share Posted July 14, 2018 19 hours ago, Ten oz said: ...and then start a war. Power is seldom given up without a fight. I am not advocating violence. I am just making the observation. If they're as smart as I think they are, they'll realize they can make even more money if more people are capable of buying what they sell. If they fight too hard, the blowback could be much worse for them. I'm guessing the extremist money/power addicts are always going to scream about any tax or regulation, but if the People wake up angry, the addicts could be looking at Eisenhower-era graduated taxes instead of a modern compromise. We just have to make it more costly for them to stay with the present economic environment. IOW, if they want to fight the People, bring it on. We don't need violence to maintain our anger over the lack of representative leadership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ten oz Posted July 14, 2018 Author Share Posted July 14, 2018 1 hour ago, Phi for All said: . IOW, if they want to fight the People, bring it on. We don't need violence to maintain our anger over the lack of representative leadership They have. Trump is POTUS and has already further slashed regulations, taxes, and is moving to codify world power in cooperation with Russian oligarchs. They have brought it and we the people are rolling over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ten oz Posted February 17, 2019 Author Share Posted February 17, 2019 Andrew Yang is running for President and Basic Universal Income of $1,000 a month is a major part of his platform. He was on Joe Rogan's podcast recently speaking about it at length. Part of his pitch centers around the the money being used to help offset the coming loss of millions of truck driver and retail jobs from automation and AI. Yang presents his pitch in a logic way but I still can't get on board. I still feel the money would be better spent via large scale infrastructure projects which would create jobs those displaced by Automation could do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Ten oz said: Part of his pitch centers around the money being used to help offset the coming loss of millions of truck driver and retail jobs from automation and AI. Yang presents his pitch in a logic way but I still can't get on board. I still feel the money would be better spent via large scale infrastructure projects which would create jobs those displaced by Automation could do. Yet the productivity would rise and be shareable ... Edited February 17, 2019 by dimreepr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sensei Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 (edited) On 7/13/2018 at 9:17 PM, Ten oz said: The value of money isn't a constant. The fed can adjust interest rates and limit borrowing. That is what determines whether it is better for those with money to sit on it or invest. That side of the economy it controlled by a small group of individuals. Their philosophy impacts economiea much as tax rates and social programs do in my opinion. People with money (e.g. from past generations) rarely rely on FED controlled interest rates, because they are close to zero profit and simply not interesting for them, if they are smart. FED controlled interest rates hit more people without money (therefor they need to lend it in the first place) rather than rich man. Increase of interest rates can ruin their full-of-debts poor budget which was barely closing-up at lower rates.. We should distinguish investing in start-up new businesses, investing in stocks, investing in lands and buildings, investing in resources etc. etc. If rich man is investing in building new property for lease, somebody else still has to work harder, earn and pay him/her rent.. Tenant is pushed more, not property owner.. Pressing property owner by government (by increasing land and property taxes), will result in increase of rent for tenants, and again they are struck the most. Edited February 17, 2019 by Sensei Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ten oz Posted February 17, 2019 Author Share Posted February 17, 2019 22 minutes ago, dimreepr said: Yet the productivity would rise and be shareable ... There is not enough information in your response for me to discern what you mean. 9 minutes ago, Sensei said: People with money (e.g. from past generations) rarely rely on FED controlled interest rates, because they are close to zero profit and simply not interesting for them, if they are smart. FED controlled interest rates hit more people without money (therefor they need to lend it in the first place) rather than rich man. Increase of interest rates can ruin their full-of-debts poor budget which was barely closing-up at lower rates.. We should distinguish investing in start-up new businesses, investing in stocks, investing in lands and buildings, investing in resources etc. etc. If rich man is investing in building new property for lease, somebody else still has to work harder, earn and pay him/her rent.. Leaser is pushed more, not property owner.. Pressing property owner by government (by increasing land and property taxes), will result in increase of rent for leasers, and again they are struck the most. I don't disagree. As it applies to giving everyone a basic income my point was that different forces influence the buying power of money. The system is fluid and not constant. Simply giving everyone a thousand dollars wouldn't mean that everyone would have a thousand dollars (as it is valued today) in buying power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 4 minutes ago, Ten oz said: There is not enough information in your response for me to discern what you mean. not every truck driver is a builder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 The BUI experiment in Finland recently ended as being classed a failure. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47169549 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ten oz Posted February 17, 2019 Author Share Posted February 17, 2019 3 minutes ago, dimreepr said: not every truck driver is a builder. Not every infrastructure related job requires building experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 1 minute ago, Ten oz said: Not every infrastructure related job requires building experience. Not my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ten oz Posted February 17, 2019 Author Share Posted February 17, 2019 Just now, dimreepr said: Not my point. Please elaborate. As previously stated I cannot discern what you mean given your limited response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sensei Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 1 minute ago, studiot said: The BUI experiment in Finland recently ended as being classed a failure. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47169549 This experiment was a joke, to be honest. "From January 2017 until December 2018, 2,000 unemployed Finns got a monthly flat payment of €560 (£490; $634)."... BUI must be enough for paying the all costs required in given country to survive. I don't think so 560 euros is enough to survive in Finland... They have average wage 3900 euros or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 12 minutes ago, studiot said: The BUI experiment in Finland recently ended as being classed a failure. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47169549 Success or failure depends on what is being measured. “The aim was to see if a guaranteed safety net would help people find jobs” So it failed by that metric. But one can’t conclude it failed by other metrics, if they were not assessed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ten oz Posted February 17, 2019 Author Share Posted February 17, 2019 8 minutes ago, studiot said: The BUI experiment in Finland recently ended as being classed a failure. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47169549 While I am not for BUI I think grading limited trials like the in Finland is difficult. Your link points out that success is determined by the metric one is using. If the goal was for individuals to find jobs it was a failure. If the goal was to improve peoples quality of life it was a success. This is a point Andrew Yang hit on a bit both on Sam Harris's and Joe Rogan's podcasts. That our current economic metric is GDP. However by that metric everyone is inferior to automatic/AI. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now