Slashdot Mirror
Ontario Launches Universal Basic Income Pilot (www.cbc.ca)
Reader epiphani writes: The Ontario Government will pilot universal basic income in a $50M program supporting 4,000 households over a 3 year period. While Slashdot has vigorously debated universal basic income in the past, and even Elon Musk has predicted it's necessity, experts continue to debate and gather data on the approach in the face of increasing automation. Ontario's plan will study three communities over three years, with participants receiving up to $17,000 annually if single, and $24,000 for families.
$11.40 General Workers
$9.90 Liquor Servers
$10.70 Student Under 18 (less than 28 HRs/wk)
Over 300 billion in debt, double the debt of California with only a third of the population....
id watch doctor who and smoke weed all day
captcha: mellow
Automation has been going on since the industrial revolution, yet new jobs seem to keep on being created. My current job didn't really exist twenty years ago.
People keep predicting the obsolescence of humans but unemployment these days in most rich world economies is not that high. That said, it would be good if we had better ways of measuring employment beyond the binary employed/unemployed states. If someone's not claiming unemployment benefit and working then it's assumed that they're doing okay, but they might be working three minimum wage jobs and barely getting by. That should be as worrying to policy-makers as someone not working at all. Then we might be in a better position to see if we're at the point where we need a universal basic income.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
i'd be mad as hell if i lived in one of these places and was subsidizing experiements to give people money without them contributing in any way
I am pretty sure that penalizing people for becoming a "family" will have consequences.
With that said, if they do this pilot correctly it will yield very interesting data.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Exactly. It's a nice utopian idea, but alas, the earth is not a utopia. The money has to come from somewhere. Welfare is never the answer and is NOT the same thing as wealth distribution. It is sadly more complex than its proponents imply.
So? Does this put the state further in debt?
Assume that the person or family just "lives" on the money provided for three years. How will they merge back into the job market after three years of no work experience?
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
That's where the welfare shoppers...er, refugees have been showing up.
start by lowering full time hours / making OT cost alot.
Why should jay have to work 60-80+ hours a week doing the work of 3 people for the pay of 1?
When we can fill that job with 3 people working about 30 hours each?
"with participants receiving up to $17,000 annually if single, and $24,000 for families."
Q: So why are you filing for divorce?
A: Irreconcilable financial differences.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
... and the parasitic class to expand. Depending on the how generous the UBI is and how onerous the additional tax burden is, they could get a vicious spiral with fewer and fewer people choosing to work. And, as with all redistribution programs, a sizable chunk of wealth will be lost to the overhead of running the program.
The rich pay accountants and lawyers to dodge taxes, the poor now get UBI and those in the middle, those that did the right thing, went to school didn't cheat and work hard in our professions get to pay the taxes to support all of the handouts on both ends, to the rich and poor.
It seems as if it's all about destroying the middle class and returning to a system with serfs and lords.
Just go to kickstarter and make a crowdfunding.
I've seen more vigorous debates amongst kids on tee-ball teams. Hoping for a vigorous debate on an issue like UBI in the conservative echo chamber that this place has become is as logical as picking up a crow feather on the street and hoping to use it to fly to the moon. There are so few commenters left here - and so little variation in thought and opinion - that I'm not sure we can even have a meaningful debate on emacs vs vi any more.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
The math for this doesn't work out.
Even assuming 4,000 single households at 17,000 a year that means 68,000,000 for a single year. Even if that 50,000,000 is per year rather than total they're still a minimum of 18,000,000 short if they were targeting single households.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
I think that countries, states, or whatever geographic boundaries you prefer deciding to do something about massive unemployment/underemployment before chaos ensues is a good plan. Society falls apart around 20% unemployment and we're headed towards way more than that. I know some people are predicting that another massive shift will happen that allows people to continue to be employed, but I don't see it. The first time we didn't have something readily available to take up the slack that automation produced was the early 90s. During that time in the US, all the big companies went on a massive downsizing spree, dumping all the low-skilled clerical workers onto unemployment. We managed to get through this change, but now the pace of technology change that allows for fewer human workers is getting much faster. Now it's not just low-skill work, but mid-level knowledge work as well. After being told they'd never amount to anything unless they went to college, millions of corporate employees are going to be out on the street with no way to make money.
I think implementing basic income buys us time to let the age groups who've had to build their lives around wealth accumulation and a career ladder age out. The work-for-money-for-stuff way to run your life has been around for ages and I don't think most people know of any way to meaningfully contribute to society outside of that. Unless you want to propose how we kill money and wealth as a measure of success and buying power, this is the best way to solve a very difficult problem. If we don't do it, the divide between rich and poor is going to get to an unsustainable level, possibly at levels seen around the Gilded Age or French Revolution timeframes. That won't end well for anyone.
None of these studies really seem to study true universal basic income, in which everybody, rich or poor, regardless of how much money they make, receives the same basic amount.
All the current trials going on seem to be focused on giving money to people who have no jobs or make very little. We already have program in place that do this kind of thing already, so they probably won't find a whole lot of difference with the systems that we already have. They are basically making small changes to the welfare system in order to not cut off benefits as soon as you find a job. But other than that, there isn't much difference.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
I wonder how this will affect their crime rates
Therefore the data collected and the conclusions drawn from this scheme (and all the other UBI pilots that have come and gone) is incomplete. We need to gauge the effect it will have on populations not for a few years, but how will it affect generations? Will a child growing up in a UBI household have a different attitude towards the need to get a job or attend school? Is there even any point in getting an education if you know that the state will provide everything - and that there probably won't be any jobs for you anyway?
A three year experiment won't tell you about the long-term consequences.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
divorce in the eyes of the state only?
I there may be some discrimination clams based on religion.
And uneducated.
I am talking about workers. Most of them anyway.
Liberals are desperate to buy votes any possible way.
They know the middle class will vote them out, so now they're bribing the low income/unemployed.
...make idle minds. Work will set you free!
You are right, the money has to come from somewhere, maybe the same place the the loan on housing comes from.
Ever since Bretton Woods was abandoned, money is created out of thin air constantly!
Every other time in history when we had excess young men we had large scale warfare which soaked up the excess. Now with automation there are few casualties in war so the traditional way of dealing with automation is not going to work. We need laws banning the use of machines in war. if people want to kill people from other countries they should have to risk their own lives as well. Air strikes, drones and missiles should be outlawed like Chemical weapons. People should have to put their own lives at risks. Thats the way to soak up the excess who cannot adapt to the new technologies. Otherwise you will have rioting and the poor killing and eating the rich for food.
**Life is too short to be serious**
People are afraid of a society where everybody is retired and robots are doing most if not all of the work. I mean we had that before, with slavery. Heck, Dubai is doing that today. Most Dubai citizens don't work. They get $100K for being born on top of an underground oil lake. Dubai isn't so bad, I mean other than religion related stupidity. In general, if they were a secular atheist country it would be good. Just because people aren't working it doesn't mean it's bad for society.
Exactly. It's a nice utopian idea, but alas, the earth is not a utopia. The money has to come from somewhere.
You print it. Those who sit on money pay for the new money through inflation. Most economies in the world now depend on inflation.
A better way to handle it might be to divide the funding so that some of it is general use, but some can only be used for shelter and basic utilities.
Most economists agree that basic minimum income should be no strings attached, as the various costs of living can vary greatly from area to area, even within the same city. In some areas food costs less, in some areas housing costs less, in some areas transportation is very expensive, etc...
I agree with subsidizing children, but there should be a cap. If you don't have any means of supporting yourself, we shouldn't be subsidizing you having a half dozen more people you can't support, either.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
With that said, if they do this pilot correctly it will yield very interesting data.
I very much doubt it will because it is implemented in a way which directly undermines the arguments for universal basic income which is normally taken to mean that everyone gets a fixed income regardless of circumstances. Instead this project reduces that income at the rate of $1 for every $2 earned. Unlike the real deal this provides a reasonably strong motivation NOT to take low paying jobs since you only get a benefit of half the wage you earn. It also means that you now have to start means testing people to see how much they earn which requires bureaucracy and officials and incurs expense.
The whole point of basic income is to cut the administration expense because everyone gets it regardless while also preventing the disincentive to work of typical unemployment schemes by clawing back money when people get even a low paying job. The Ontario scheme fails to achieve either aim and so seems unlikely to work or provide any data about whether such type of schemes could work.
Seconded.
I've been on this site since about 2001. The 'This site has gone to shit' arguments have been around that long too. However, in the past 2 years (since around the /. Beta fiasco it seems) most of the quality comments have all but left. 'Conservative echo chamber' kinda hits the nail on the head. The libertarian dog whistle / talking points get trotted out so often it's just boring now to read. Arm-chair economists with such deep insights as 'Don't like your job, move and get another one, dummy!' seem to be about the best the site has to offer now.
Why am I still here then? Habit mostly, I gave it up (and read Soylent) for a good while, and now I come back, thought not as often as before. As for reading comments, I guess I still do out of some hope that they might get better again...though my tolerance is lower I spend only a fraction of the time trying to sift through the Randian garbage.
Finally, civilization is coming to society
Wealth is an abstract concept. In nature noone owns anything. Its society which gives rise to law which gives rise to property and money which gives rise to wealth. if its not working for most people society has the right to decide to try another way. Given that more and more economic value is being created by machines whose income accrues only to the owners of the machines and not to entire society (though without society we would still be hunting and wearing skins so no machines would have been invented); we may need a new system. A star trek kind of society where people's basic needs are taken care of by the output created by machines (which are owned by society as a whole) and people work for prestige and luxuries. This can work in a society where 90% of the economic output can be provided by machines and you only need humans for 10% of the creative jobs. For such jobs a human who doesnt have to work but wants to do the work will be much more productive. The humans who dont want to work will be bored and eventually stop reproducing so the problem will solve itself over 5-10 generations in a humane manner.
**Life is too short to be serious**
Gotta love how "up to" results in totally meaningless numbers.
So? Does this put the state further in debt?
In figures, quite likely.
In value, not necessarily. Inflation might make the value of the overall debt less.
Your problems are twofold.
1. You think libertarian is a synonym for conservative,
2. You believe that now that leftist voices don't drown out all others, that Slashdot is now a "conservative echo chamber." This is the response of people who are not used to having their ideas challenged.
Slashdot has always leaned left. Now it's centrist. And that bothers you. Ars Technica is leaning further left these days, so go hang there. They have a user moderation system that's dumber than Slashdot's, but at least you won't get the banhammer for irking any of the hired moderators on the articles anymore.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
The idea of a UBI is something streamlined that will treat everyone equally.
So the idiot Wynne's idea is $17,000 for individuals, $24,000 for families. That's a huge penalty for being married, those she always has been very much against marriage.
And a $6,000 bonus for having a disability. That spits in the face of UBI and in Ontario everyone is disabled. Get a doctor to say you have an anxiety about being on a bus and the government gives you enough for a car. It is not streamlined if everyone is a special case with a doctor's note saying why they need more. Then you have a huge bureaucracy looking at all the special cases.
I don't think there is a single thing this government is able to do right. But everything they do leads to money funnelled to their cronies.
BR And it's not $50M like tfs says, its $50M/year for a 3 year commitment. $150M. For 4,000 randomly selected families in 3 towns. Fucking brilliant.
Of course not! vi is the One True Editor (tm)
Except Ontario doesn't have control of the monetary supply so CAN'T print it.
As such, it DOES have to come from somewhere.
That's not a good thing. In fact, it's a form of theft that's much more dishonest than taxation. Taxes and budgets get voted on. Printing money is something that happens in smoke-filled back rooms by People Who Know Best. Disgusting. Wars have been fought over that sort of thing.
Umm... you think "bored" humans will stop reproducing? I don't think you know very many humans.
Once a country rolls this out permanently, plenty of illegals will try to sneak into the country to cash in on that free money. They will have to roll out a government-issued ID system of some sort. A card won't be good enough, since they are too easy to steal.
Probably need something like an identifying tattoo on the forehead. Or maybe the wrist.
How do you figure that one Einstein? If you're money is worth less you're going to pay more. Always.
Welfare is a necessary evil because even the laziest people will start committing crimes if they become desperate. So duh the money has to come from somewhere, but we had better find it.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
You have to read down just a bit, and then you see:
"Jaczek said that people in the program will be randomly contacted from each region's low-income population and invited to apply."
Basic income, in any iteration I've seen seriously applied, isn't just for poor people. Money for poor people is fucking welfare. We have that already. Welfare is the "provision of a minimal level of well-being and social support for citizens WITHOUT CURRENT MEANS to support basic needs" (capsemphasis mine).
The idea of basic income is that everyone gets it baseline, no drama, no forms, no qualifications, with the obvious caveat that this money has to come from somewhere, so one assumes a relatively large increase in income tax. The supposed benefits and risks of this are numerous, but what is definitely known is that to actually test this, you need to not JUST be giving the money to poor people. The big question about basic income is, what effects will it have on society. You can make economic models all day long, the whole point about doing a test is to figure this out.
You want to know: are people less motivated to work? Are they healthier? Are they happier? What does it do to families? (the model being tested, where two single people living together get 2*17,000 = 34,000 a year, while if they marry they get 24,000 a year, has a pretty obvious and glaring bias as regards marriage)... and these questions aren't just relevant for poor people. They are relevant for middle class, and rich people.
All of these tests seem to be set up to give a certain set of results. They are carefully crafted to avoid asking the questions that need to be asked. I really don't know what to think about this.
Wars have been fought over a magical sky being who only exists in stories, and over the decayed slime of plants and animals that lived before humans existed. Humans will find any reason at all to go about and kill one another en masse.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
On the contrary, reproduction becomes a huge problem when sex is the only form of entertainment that people can afford.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
If Elon Musk agrees with this then we should tax his wealth more, a LOT more. At the moment Elon Musk wants people much poorer than himself (the middle class) to pay for his virtual signalling while he keeps his wealth. Any of the 'elites' who state they like this scheme should be made to pay for it - stop the economic rape of the middle class just so these poseurs can talk about a scheme they are unwilling to put their own wealth behind. Until then, Musk is just another hypocrite !
That's pretty much the dumbest statement I've heard all month.
Not only will the taxpayer end up paying more but they will pay interest on borrowed money. So $1 becomes $0.97 w inflation but then you must pay interest $0.20.
It's called taxes. We can debate which taxes would be best, but presumably if someone is making something, whether it be with human beings, robots or some combination, they also have sales, which means there are any number of financial transactions which can be taxed. Pick your poison; corporate taxes, capital gains taxes, excise taxes, etc. etc. etc. In the end, money is just a means of counting value.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It's really hard to tell if UBI is a great idea, or a horrible one, but the biggest issue is that it's impossible to trial in this manner.
To actually test UBI, several things need to happen:
1) you make it truly universal, no means testing, no targeting to certain demographics, everyone gets it, from the millionaires, to the homeless.
2) you cover everyone in a reasonably large geographic area, no exceptions.
3) You also need to turn off all the other services it's supposed to replace (welfare, employment insurance, disability amounts, etc)
This is important because without 1 and 2 you end up with a distorted system. You don't get to see if everyone having extra money simply drives all prices up by that amount making it useless (if the poverty line moves up by the exact amount of the UBI, have you really helped anyone?), or if it actually allows people to live. You end up with simply a lottery where some lucky people have more money, while everyone else has the same.
While 3 also helps make sure you're looking at an undistorted system, it is also about being able to afford to do this at all. UBI can only be affordable if you use it to cut out massive amounts of government bureaucracy, if all the bureaucracy is left in place, you'll never find enough money to make it work.
These trials will be a success or a failure depending on what the agenda of the study really is, but neither outcome tells you anything at all about how the system would actually work if rolled out universally.
It's been tried, and it doesn't work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy
It's not a test of UBI if the participants are all selected from low-income populations. The pilot program as described is just a streamlined welfare system. The challenge of UBI will be whether people in productive jobs will work less if they have a basic income to fall back on. Would someone with a $32k/year (or more) job give work up and play video games for $17k/year? That is question that will determine if UBI succeeds or fails.
I think you're missing the point. The government has to pay anyway. Whether it's UBI or welfare it's the same.
If a person is on welfare (in Ontario) and they get a job, they lose their welfare payment. That low wage job they might be able to get pays the same or less than welfare. So of course they don't want that job. With the money in their pocket the same either way, there is no incentive for that person to get a job. My understanding of UBI is that it is supposed to be a constant. So if that person wants to earn more, they can go out and get a job, without losing their UBI. This gives them an incentive to get a job. At the same time their basic needs are met, so (in theory) they don't turn to crime to get by, saving the gov't (you and I) the costs of increased policing and law enforcement. Cost wise, it's a wash. One benefit to society is less crime. In theory.
tl;dr; They're not going to be any more in debt by paying UBI as opposed to welfare.
The Soviets had a basic income. Everyone got 70 rubles a month no matter what they did. The result of this genius idea was a fundamentally demonetized society where money served the function of a ration ticket because when any surplus over and above the amount needed to cover basics like housing and food was eaten by food because the market (in the Soviet case -- the black market) knew exactly how much money everyone had to pay for that brick of cheese and raised the price accordingly until you had nothing left. There is no opportunity for arbitrage when a supplier knows exactly how much money is in your pocket. He's going to demand all of it. This is the same reason why student loans only serve to raise tuition every single year. The market knows just how much you are able to borrow and raises the cost to that exact amount every single year. Capitalism depends on a level of opacity in information to work. When producers know everyone is starting off not at $0 but at $17,000 they will adjust their prices to eat the whole $17k. The only thing a basic income will create is inflation and about 5 minutes of surplus for the first lucky bastards to cash in on it.
>where 90% of the economic output can be provided by machines
It'd be nice if we could simplify it like this, but instead it's going to happen steadily as the capabilities of automation increase.
Though, macro aside, the increments will be distinct. Notably stages where we come out with a significant cheapen-er, a modular build, or a more adaptive AI approach (eg "just show it and it learns it's super easy folks!"), all the miniature breakthroughs. Each "raspberry PI of autolabor".
They already did a basic income experiment back when Prime Minister Trudeau was called Pierre.
In short... Most everyone kept working or didn't start working as early but stayed in school longer.
Also, hospitalizations went down, particularly for mental health problems.
But if you want a real Twilight Zone mindfuck - look up Nixon's basic income experiment.
Run by Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney.
Granted... they saw it as a way to eliminate social programs instead of to expand them. But even they found that there was no change to "work ethic" - everyone still kept working.
Apparently, being "at or just above the poverty line" is simply not enough for most people.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
If that bothers you, then you better hope Trump fails very obviously as president. Because if he succeeds, then the whole country will turn into a bunch of yuppies, looking like this crap.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
"A single person could receive up to about $17,000 a year, minus half of any income he or she earns"
UBI is a sum of money unconditionally given to all citizens. This is a grant that comes with a 50% effective tax rate on your first earnings, massively disincentivising people from finding jobs.
foo mane padme hum
Are you me? :-)
Because that's essentially the story I'd put my signature on. (Don't mind my high ID -- I've been lurking for years and/or posting as AC before I actually made an account.)
It's essentially just muscle memory now that drives me to /. every once in a while.
If different people get different amounts based on disabilities or marital status then it's not universal.
If you get less depending on how much you make then it's not basic.
This is welfare. Try again, Canada.
Real programmers use "copy con program.exe"
No it's not. The money supply has to grow somehow as economic activity and population increase. If you do no use debt-backed instruments, then direct emission is perfectly acceptable and does not debase a currency, provided it stays within bounds.
set income tax levels to a point where there is Basically an forced opt out for wealthy people.
At least Canadian health care that covers all. Unlike the us welfare system where some people in the usa did not want to get off disability as they where risking losing there health care just to have maybe get one at job. And if they lost there job have nothing to fall back on while waiting for a long time / fighting it out to get back on disability
Exactly. You have to either make it simple for people to come off of welfare or stop complaining about people on welfare. You can't both punish them for leaving it and being on it. Pick one.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
there are other options, but seems its not appropriate to simply put them down
False, in nature, you own whatever you possess as long as nobody has the ability to take it from you at the time. If both criteria are not present, then you do not own it... the second point can sometimes be hard to meet, but it is definitely not impossible in many cases. It is entirely possible to own something in nature at one time and not at another if circumstances surrounding either possession or the ability to take it from you ever change.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Correct. In the US, and I suspect in Canada, there is no mechanism to keep it in bounds beyond "trust me."
Yeah. Like getting their bank accounts emptied out and being told that it's for their own good.
Umm... you think "bored" humans will stop reproducing?
Yes. The premise of TFA is that in the future we will have robots that can do anything that humans can do. I don't know how much an anatomically functional interactive sexbot will cost, but it will likely be way cheaper than alimony and child support, and it won't get headaches. If it has a "mute" button and can make sandwiches, that is even better.
Generally not... do you know how little welfare is Ontario? Even minimum wage jobs will tend to be more worthwhile.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
> However, in the past 2 years (since around the /. Beta fiasco it seems) most of the quality comments have all but left.
Yeah. I've been reading /. from one of the better aggregators for (dear god) more than ten years now. /. has never been a beacon of High Discourse, but the sheer volume of absolute garbage (from completely flat-out wrong to rabid conspiracy theory to flaming anti-intellectual to obvious shills spouting anti-Google or anti-Signal sentiment) that gets modded +5 Insightful or +5 Informative breaks my heart. Ever since a year or so after the Big Sale the meta-moderators started being exclusively sourced from the Tumblr and Facebook Knee-Jerk-Reactionary Anti-Tech Brigades.
The "Good Old Days" weren't great, but holy shit are things bad now. I guess that the blinkered, bile-vomiting crowd that hangs around here is the target audience for /.'s current Lifestyle Blogging Overlords?
Since every single civilized country has a national debt, to whom is all this money owed?
You are welcome on my lawn.
I probably shouldn't post this, but go to Hacker News. The conversations seem to involve more earnest discussion, and the articles seem to cover more technical depth.
-1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
with participants receiving up to $17,000 annually if single, and $24,000 for families.
Discourage people from actually getting married by essentially paying them not to! Can't have those pesky independent families, with their ability to depend on each other rather than the state can we. Can't have people loyal to each other rather than our glorious government.
This is a seriously distressing policy.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
You think libertarian is a synonym for conservative,
In many of the important ways, it is. Both want to let corporations to have the ultimate power over the people by destroying the parts of the government that interfere.
1) It only takes one farmer to grow food for one hundred (?) people. Figure a few more people for food and shelter, education, etc. For the sake of argument, figure we only need N people, where N 20, people to take care of 100. What do the other 80 people do?
2) We don't have to force 80/100 people into meaningless, soul-deadening, junk producing, environment draining pointless jobs.
3) Less pollution since there is less need for pointing production.
4) If everyone has UBI, no need for welfare, unemployment, etc.
5) It unleashes creativity for the not employed. It makes it much easier to fund startups, research, art, etc.
6) More time to spend caring for children; less money spent on child care.
7) It will stimulate the travel business sector, as people have more time to travel.
8) It makes it easier for business to let go of non-productive or otherwise surplus employees.
I've always liked this idea. It's not popular with employers because they take a pretty big hit with that approach. Fluctuating business when dividing up hours between extra staff mean having to pay unemployment to the extra staff when times get slow. They also have to contend with recruitment and on-boarding costs when business picks up again. On top of that, benefits cost the employer about 25% of the employee's wage so the math isn't an even split.
Anyway I support the idea but it's a hard sell.
"Jay" should get off his ass and go find another job instead of being abused by his employer.. "Jay" is allowing himself to be subjected to that level of work and stress... "Jay" is a moron.
>...I spend only a fraction of the time trying to sift through the Randian garbage.
BROTHER! First, congrats on the Soylent move. But as far as sifting through stuff- have you considered alterslash.org? It's a summary page of /. without having to comb through the site itself. :D
I've found the IT world (since I've worked full-time in it, about 1990) has always veered slightly libertarian, but not usually hard-core, more freedom oriented than dystopian libertarian.
Slashdot comments have degraded, but it's been years in the making, not a particularly recent phenomenon. IMHO there's too many politically oriented stories and maybe not enough real technology, but on the other hand I also think that real technology has been kind of idling over the last few years, too.
"conservative echo chamber"
Personally I think Slashdot has become a liberal cesspool in more recent times.
If you want the "realistic view", wait for the test trial of killing people who no longer needed to labor for the benefit of others. It will start with the old and powerless as usual.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
I would add - the comments section of typical left-leaning news sites have become absolutely fanatical if even one dissenting opinion is expressed. If you agree with 90% of a topic/idea and provide criticism of the other 10%, you are dismissed as a racist nazi and shunned from the group. Try it some time as an experiment, they swarm like flies to honey. With that type of environment you simply will never see disagreement, people have better things to do than shout at a wall. Since Slashdot has people with higher average IQ, and a marginally better moderation system, dissenting thought isn't punished and can be debated on it's merits (to a point).
There's also the simple fact that a percentage of people will naturally shift right as they get older. So, if slashdot's reader base has good retention without much "new blood" being injected into it, this change could manifest as a result.
I've seen the results of basic income. There is a Native American tribe in my area that chooses to pay their members monthly dividends roughly in range of this proposed UBI. When you contrast that with a different tribe in my area that chooses to channel the majority of profits into education, healthcare and social services the difference becomes clear. The latter provides much greater incentive to succeed. Unemployment is drastically higher in the community that distributes "free money".
Taxes and budgets get voted on.
In theory.
Printing money is something that happens in smoke-filled back rooms by People Who Know Best.
Strictly speaking, this isn't necessarily true.
If one were to implement a wealth tax, intentional inflation would be a great mechanism for it. Low administrative overhead, no enforcement issues. So, if people voted to implement a wealth tax this way, it would alleviate your stated issues, and you'd be fine with it? Or are you merely seeking to rationalize your own anti-wealth-tax ideology without having to outright state it?
Small businesses like convenience stores use the mentality that 7 or 8 part time minimum wage workers can cover 24 hrs a day 7 days a week and none of them will make overtime and they don't need to pay any benefits.
Do you own any government bonds? Well, there's your tiny slice of the national debt. It's money the government owes you.
If slashdot was a conservative echo chamber, neither post above this one would have been modded up. Yet here they are, damn my lying eyes.
Taxes are always regressive. The rich can avoid them, move to where they are lowest. The Poor and middle class pay them, because they can't avoid them.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
All of the posts above yours that have been modded up basically support this UBI experiment and go further to encourage outright Marxism.
Why should jay have to work 60-80+ hours a week doing the work of 3 people for the pay of 1?
Why should you be taking hours Jay needs away, to give to people who won't work nearly as hard as Jay? Who says your view is best for Jay or even the three other people supposedly gaining a job? Have you never worked in a job where someone was paid to fill a position no longer needed (see Oregon Gas Pumpers)? If it wasn't for a state law, there would be no gas pump jockeys AND people would pay less for gas.
Make work jobs don't provide anything valuable to society, The solution isn't more government regulation and market manipulation, it is less. Otherwise, we're slowly moving to "centralized economic management" which was tried and failed in Soviet Union (and others).
Yeah, the feel good ideas of the socialist left have all be tried, and failed. Why do we keep trying? We're insane!
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
UBI is not considered good economic policy by any credible economist. - TL;DR it's just a way of giving people money, and while that's not necessarily a bad thing, all evidence suggests that a UBI style program won't be very effective at improving economic welfare. There are better ways the money can be spent. - Even if you want to do literally the same thing you can just issue people tax credits because it's literally the same thing. Only cheaper because you already have a tax regime in place. (For a more nuanced explanation google the economist slang 'helicopter drops')
Libertarians will say the above will cause inflationary spirals (Or deflationary spirals. Or some kind of spiral. It's always spirals) but Libertarians are only correct on economic policy rarely. And even then it's by accident. - Hint: The above is functionally similar to QE and QE has brought us nothing but steady economic recovery. (The predicted spirals have not come. Surprise surprise)
Libertarians have a wierd love for the rather socialist sounding UBI because some famous Libertarian said something nice about it one time. - And the premise is that UBI comes in exchange for the gutting of all government and social services because government is bad.. Which oddly is not completely out of line with what real evidence based economists feel.. That it's generally better just to give people money with no strings attached (and let natural forces decide how money is spent) rather than funnel it through a program with restrictions.
Apply for their UBI and then keep on committing the crimes that were their "job" before the UBI? You're just handing people free money, sure they're gonna take it.
I'm sure there is some non-zero fraction of less-driven criminals who will forego a further life of crime once they get the UBI, but I fail to see how a UBI has any significant impact on crime at all.
have you ever known people who are unemployed but have a family propping them up? Even with monetary support, a life of no purpose breeds bigger issues. Not reproducing is certainly not one of them...
Plus, you fell back on the two saddest options there are:
1- "but in Star Trek..."
2- "In nature...."
I get habituiated to things fairly quickly, bit I'm still amazed at what my colleagues think is going to go on forever. A while ago it included falling temperatures and more people from Canada spending time in Florida. We even went and visited some friends down there who were going to stay, or did stay. Oddly enough, that's _not_ what Environment Canada was worried about at the time. They seemed to think it was getting hotter, not colder (;-))
One year is probably enough for 99% of the people involved to think of it as "normal".
davecb@spamcop.net
The right-leaning ones are just as bad. It happens whenever people commit their loyalty to any political ideology.
The rich can avoid them because taxation systems have loopholes. If you tax capital gains and remove loopholes and corporate resource rent, as well as financial transactions and the like, it becomes a lot more difficult to evade taxes.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
>Nobody owes you anything. Get a job or work for yourself, hippie.
And if you're having trouble finding a decent job you could always vote for a guy who tells you the jobs that were automated away were actually taken by those darned foreigners but he knows a magic way to bring them back by building a wall that those same foreigners will pay for.
Because once a whole lot of under-employed, disaffected voters start grasping at straws, everybody wins.
Before anybody tries UBI, I'd like to see trapless welfare. I don't know how bad this is in Canada, but the USA has a lot of "welfare traps". That's a situation where people remain on public assistance rather than work because their real income falls when they start working. We do so many stupid things such as labeling people "low income" and making them wait a long time for "low income housing". Then their "low income status" actually becomes an asset!
Fix that first, then get back to us.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
... is not sustainable.
How is this any different?
--
Apostle Paul, noun, Murderer of Stephen, Corruptor of The Way, Attempted Murderer of James
Corporations - or at least, the limited liability aspect - are antithetic to libertarian thinking. You cannot have individual responsibility, and all of the systems in place to make sure that you are held accountable for your actions sail out the window when you have immunity. In addition, while many libertarians take the view that "property" is an inherent right, this is not universal. Personally, I align with libertarians pretty closely in the political realm, but find that the ideology is pretty mismatched with the commercial/economic realm in many important ways.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
dollar bills in a wallet
Money isn't wealth.
China... a somewhat civilized nation.
What do we do with people when there's no work for them?
Not going to be a rhetorical question for much longer. Driving, for example, is the single largest job category in North America....what happens when autonomous vehicles take over? Not going to be a market for that skill. Do we let those people starve? Think about it....lots of economic displacement is on the way.
"Truth is what works" -- William James "It works!!" -- o-dark-AM comment
China will buy Canadian debt, like its bought 'murkin debt. Won't be long before they own Mexico too, than they'll have paid for North America.
Profit!
I'm not sure unregulated lemonade vendors that end up killing dozens of people would be a good idea. It's what happened with food sales in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries without regulation, with the poor more likely to be the victims.
Wealth is _not_ kept in cash. So other than being completely wrong, you have a point. Wear a hat and nobody will see it.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
If the rate of inflation is higher than the interest rate, but taxes increase in line with inflation then the debt can be inflated away. Currently interest rates on government debt tends to be a little less than inflation.
Even minimum wage jobs will tend to be more worthwhile.
Maybe...run the numbers!
If its full time.
And you don't have to pay for transportation to get there.
And you don't have to pay for daycare services.
Meanwhile lots of employers go out of their way not to let you be full time so that you aren't eligible for stat holiday pay, etc. Walmart, etc... while lots of other jobs like mcjobs and retail etc really often just need people for 4-6 hour shifts...
A mall that's open from 10am to 9pm for example, might, on the off season or slow day, only have 2 'shifts'... one from 10 to 4 and one from 4-9. with that half hour overlap for a bank deposit etc. Even working 6 days a week your still only at 36 hours, and odds are you are lucky to 4-5 shifts, and you are getting 24-30 hours. 24 hrs minimum wage plus transit fare... and welfare starts looking
In ontario a single person on welfare gets 656/mo. Contrast that with working an average of 30hrs a week, at 11/hr -> 1320. less $220 for transit. call it 1100. So worth working... kind of... you are ahead $100 per week... big deal. 30 hours a week work for $100 more than welfare. When it's put it like that its not that much incentive.
Same person has a child? Your employer doesn't give a shit. You get the same shifts and wages as if you were single. So they now get $941/mo from welfare vs $1100 working after transit; so that's even LESS worth it. That's a whopping $38 bucks a week in extra income... but they haven't paid for daycare yet. Good luck finding daycare for under $38 bucks a week.You'd be hard pressed to find daycare that cheap per DAY. Nope, if you have a child, you are actually better off, much better off on welfare unless you can not only land a proper full time job... but one considerably above minimum wage. Good luck landing a full time job with decent pay applying from welfare.
While most species tend to reproduce until they reach the exhaustion point of available natural resources, recent data indicate that this isn't the case for humans with sufficiently advanced living conditions. Specifically, in every country with even moderately advanced living standards, the birth rate has fallen to below replacement levels. It's proven pretty much universal in fact, and while culture may alter it somewhat, there is yet to be a country/culture that has proven to be different.
In many cases, some of these countries are going to face a crisis of not having enough people, rather than the opposite. So, yes, if you give them access to modern things like birth control and family planning, then the problem solves itself (and your problem is the reverse, potentially, of not having enough people).
That's one problem with the logic. A floor needs to be set on average dollars per worked day, not hourly rate. Some people get 2-4 hour shifts. If you're making $20/hr and work 2 hours a day, then you're making less than a full-time employee at minimum wage. Another problem is that while you might get 2 hours, you need to be "available" to work any opened hour that changes randomly. That forces people not to get the 4 "jobs" they'd need to make ends meet.
It is very wise to anticipate the need and establish and test it before it must become a mainstream standard. There are people who feel they are safe who will in no way be safe from unemployment in the very near future. The Boy Scout motto "Be prepared" is a wise way to live.
True story:
My SO, Deb, and I were laying about in bed one lazy afternoon; she seemed to be dozing lightly.
Me: "Hey, baby?"
Her: "Mmmm?"
Me: "When {unspoken:sex} robots come out, can we get a French maid?"
...a few seconds pass...
She: "Sure."
She: "We'll call him 'Pierre.'"
I made a photo-toon of this
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
A part of me feels that every Canadian, or even every human is born with the right to a part of the global resources. In a manner of speaking... its our god given right. Since we cannot just find an unused plot of land and build a house and grow our own food ect, without a large amount of money up front. What we are left with is the streets and poverty.
[($)]
What do we do with people when there's no work for them?
If everyone has a sexbot, then after a generation or so, the "surplus worker problem" will be solved.
Think about it....lots of economic displacement is on the way.
It will be far smaller than the displacement caused by farm automation, and that happened during a time when the population was growing rapidly.
during the industrial revolution. Go read up on the Luddites. The term has more meaning that just an insult. It takes a long time for an economy to catch up to these kinds of changes. To the people who live through that phrase life is hell. We see it coming this time. We have education & telecommunications & democracy. There is zero reason why we should have to go through that again.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Not in a republic, it's not. If it's anyone's business, it's that of your representative. You know, the one you had/have a fractional millionth of an effect in selecting, and essentially none in influencing — that power has been purchased by the corporations.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
On the contrary, reproduction becomes a huge problem when sex is the only form of entertainment that people can afford.
They are getting an UBI. They can afford video games and internet (free unlimited porn). In most countries where porn is freely available the birth rate goes down. The standards become too high and the real thing just does not compare.
**Life is too short to be serious**
But they're not doing that. This is a means-tested, graduated scale welfare mechanism.
This is not UBI, it doesn't even vaguely resemble UBI, and as a test of UBI, it's worthless, because its results are completely unrelated. To any degree the results are used to make any decisions at all about actual UBI, the decisions will be nonsensical. Garbage in, garbage out.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Is the sum enough to live in Ontario? If not, then you must have a job, any paying job, and your employer will be able to pay you less because you already have UBI. A too low UBI is just taxpayer subsiding corporation's labor costs.
Ownership through tooth and claw is limited to what you can hold on to at the moment and not too different from true communism as nobody owns much and the common goods are owned by everyone. Its society and law which allows you to own stuff you are not sitting on or holding in your hand else someody picks it up and uses it. The reason we need ownership is if someone cant own it they wont work to create it. But if robots are creating everything we dont need to have ownership. Robots can produce everything and you can just grab it as you feel like.
**Life is too short to be serious**
Over 300 billion in debt, double the debt of California with only a third of the population....
I'm sorry but have you looked at the debt of the neighboring province in the east?
Wealth is an abstract concept.
Is it? I'm pretty sure that things like swimming pools, mansions, beach front property, houses, cars, and dollar bills in a wallet are all pretty concrete and tangible.
If there are no cops and lawyers and judges and property deeds well anyone can enter your beach front property and swim in your pool as long as you are not sitting there with a gun guarding it. And if you are sitting there someone else can use your ski property .
In nature noone owns anything.
1. Why should we value "the way that nature does it"? Nature also doesn't do science.
2. You're wrong anyway: animals routinely fight over control of territory, mates, and food.
Animals can hold onto only one territory not many differnt territories spread across the world. So yeah you get to hold to one house (as long as you work from home and never leave the house)
Its society which gives rise to law which gives rise to property and money which gives rise to wealth.
It's society which gives rise to law which safeguards property and money and wealth. You can still have stuff in the absence of a government or a society.
Not much. Even Somalia has money and Society. If we truly have a non ownership society where machines provide whatever you need very few people will sign up to be your private security guards and of course such a society has no police to enforce civil crimes against property. Police will only care about murder or assault. Not that a squatter is sitting in your multi million mansion and swimming in your pool
if its not working for most people society has the right to decide to try another way.
Nobody owes you anything. Get a job or work for yourself, hippie.
Agree. Noone owes the rich to continue living in a society where money has meaning
Given that more and more economic value is being created by machines whose income accrues only to the owners of the machines and not to entire society (though without society we would still be hunting and wearing skins so no machines would have been invented); we may need a new system.
Careful, your jealousy and greed are showing. I would hate for you to lose your self-righteous moral high ground.
There is no jealousy. I may be one of the few who would end up owning machines which produce the wealth. Doesnt mean I want to live my entire life in gated communities fending off the murderous poor
A star trek kind of society where people's basic needs are taken care of by the output created by machines (which are owned by society as a whole) and people work for prestige and luxuries.
1. I, for one, am going to need more than an "attaboy" for showing up to a day job no matter how lax the rules are.
People have a pyramid of needs. Once basic needs are met people mostly do work for attaboys. You might be the type who sit at home playing video games and watching porn till you die. The proposed society has a place for people like you
2. You know that Star Trek isn't real, right? If you want some kind of a system such as that depicted then you need to prove that such a system is possible in the first place. You go do the science and the economics and then get back to us with the results. In the mean time I won't vote for your cockamamie schemes being forced down our throats.
Its an example and a concept. Neither does Adam Smith's invisible hand. Its a concept.
Also, as far as I can tell, it's the exact opposite in this country: the lazy and indolent are having children by the dozens while the intelligent and productive members of society (middle class and higher) are having fewer and fewer children.
With free videogames and unlimited porn people without the drive to work are definitely not going to go out and find partners. They will watch porn till they die of old age.
**Life is too short to be serious**
"Those who sit on money pay for the new money through inflation."
Nobody sits on money. Most "money" is in investments. Thats how the "rich" protect themselves against inflation.
"Wars have been fought over a magical sky being who only exists in stories, "
That is a big lie. Wars are fought over resources. Religion is just one of the "things" used to make it easier to kill those who are "not us" and have what we want. Different shaped eyes, color of skin, and language are a few others.
what happens when autonomous vehicles take over? Not going to be a market for that skill. Do we let those people starve?
Probably. More realistically it would benefit the Democratic party to offer social services to unemployed, otherwise unskilled drivers. They would garner their vote and come into great power relative to Republicans.
For the Republican's part they will denounce the extra taxes those social programs would create and offer pride in self-sufficiency and lower taxes, gaining more support from people that desire those things.
In the end both parties will see it advantageous to see millions of people "starve". Conveniently this outcome is backed up by political momentum and the status quo. So that is what the future will be.
"Do we let those people starve?"
What is cheaper, a "robot" to drive a car or a human who will work for free?
If we're (the state) going to have to take care of the human displaced by a robot anyway -- why not make "working" part of the deal of getting your "check" from the state?
start by lowering full time hours / making OT cost alot.
Why should jay have to work 60-80+ hours a week doing the work of 3 people for the pay of 1?
When we can fill that job with 3 people working about 30 hours each?
Jay wants to work extra hours for extra money. If Jay didn't do the job the company would pay more money for more people to do the work. Or perhaps not, perhaps they would continue to hire more and more Jays failing each time. Maybe they would hire Jay back at a higher rate with better benefits because he's a good worker. No matter what way, the Market should handle the circumstance and reward workers and companies who take care of workers. The answer is not having Government agencies regulating Joe out of a job.
Socialism and Communism don't promote or incentivize job performance. Hence why even Russia and China went to a partial market economy.
Overall UBI won't work. The only way to pay people to do nothing is to take money from people who do. You see how well that's working for Venezuela right now right? Some places can play games for a while to make things appear better, but ask France, Greece, Spain, Italy, etc.. how that is working out for them. Before you say "but.. Germany" remember that Germany is not only a Market economy, but collecting shit-tons of interest from all of the nations in the EU who had to take out loans. (See the list of countries in the previous sentence).
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
So the alternative is to let governments have ultimate power over people? Walmart is a shitty place to do business so I don't do business there, but I'm basically stuck with the DMV. If your argument is that big power structures are bad for people because they will seek to dominate individuals, then you'd want power to be as distributed as possible, and while the political right in the U.S. often tends to be just as statist as the left (merely over different things) at least there's some recognition that it's bad. Really though I think Republicans just run on the message and then typically proceed to do the opposite.
I'm not advocating anarchism, but I can't see how allowing more government interference in my life could possibly be a good thing. All it does is attract petty moral tyrants who want to impose rules on me that I neither need or want. The religious right wanted to tell me who I could or couldn't have sex with or marry, and that I couldn't make choices about what to put in my body. And just when I thought that those moral busy bodies had been overcome the regressive left reared its ugly head demanding I use made up pronouns and that one person's opinion can matter more than another's based on their race, sexual orientation, or gender.
Both of these groups of people are fucking terrifying and while you or I might consider ourselves wise enough to handle the reins of a government that holds ultimate power over people, I wouldn't care to live in such a government run by either of those psychotic groups. We can see how religious fundamentalism turns out by looking at Saudi Arabia or other Islamic states and I can't imagine anyone in a Western democracy wanting to live in those polices unless they have become divorced of their rational thought. I don't think the world has seen a government of the loony left yet, but that's probably because Marxism tends to fail too quickly or collapse into authoritarian dictatorships for that group to hold power for any longer than a sub-faction to take power and purge the former group as a part of consolidating power.
you watch way too much TV.
Convicted felon, here.
I disagree with almost everything you said.
I didn't rob a bank until I was 40 years old. Was I a moral person for the first 39 years, and then an immoral one after? Pretty simplistic. I postulate that you will abide by your morality right up until your kid says "Daddy, I'm hungry" and you have nothing to feed her. (I'm not saying this is what happened to me, but to a lot of bank robbers I met inside.) Maybe you're different. Kudos to you, if so, I guess.
The biggest cause of poverty is not government regulation, that's ridiculous. I suspect it's poor understanding of money by parents and peers, causing poor behavior modeling. There's a reason college graduates' kids go to college and the working class poors' kids go to the payday loan shop when things go south. Did your parents launch you on a positive trajectory? How did they know how to? Maybe they didn't. Again, maybe you're different. Kudos to you.
Mine wanted to, but didn't know how.
Sure, socialism is always doomed to failure, if you reduce everything down to a false dichotomy. Look how much better the outcomes were in the 1800s for the robber barons. Not so much for normal people.
Anyway, they're TRYING it. Let's at least wait and see.
They are getting an UBI. They can afford video games and internet
If they can afford video games and the Internet, then it isn't a UBI.
So the alternative is to let governments have ultimate power over people?
Ideally, the government is "We the people." That's what needs fixed, not putting businesses in charge of the markets.
This isn't centralized economic management any more than social security is communism. This isn't a make work job. This is limiting the normal work hours in order to make it more attractive to hire more people to cover the job than to hire fewer people. If they want to work overtime, they will be duely compensated for that time.
What is cheaper, a "robot" to drive a car or a human who will work for free?
The robot. It can run 24/7, rather than the DOT requirement of 11/24 for humans, thus doubling the utilization of the vehicle. It will also (likely) be much cheaper to insure, it will require less safety equipment, it is less likely to pilfer the cargo, etc.
Businesses have to respond to the needs of people or they go out of business.
Right, because up until now the government has done nothing to offer 'social services' to the unemployed?
Ever heard of:
Unemployment benefits
Welfare
SNAP benefits
Section 8 Housing subsidies
Aid to women with dependent children
Free cellphones
Free broadband internet
Free healthcare
Etc...
Ken
So you think Trump won after the previous democrat administration left some 60 million Americans as under-employed, disaffected voters? I am SHOCKED that the democrat candidate (HRC) lost the election after such a (as Charlie Sheen would say) "Winning!" job!
Ken
So I suppose it's all the rich kids that go to poor neighborhoods to cause the additional violent crime. The average mugger is a one percenter?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Only in the case where contraceptives are unavailable.
Sorry, no they don't - 1/3rd of all US tax filers in 2014 paid no or negative federal income taxes (negative means they received a refund in excess of all monies paid the previous year)... are THOSE the poor and middle class that you claim pay the brunt of US taxes?
Oh wait, now tell me about how the poor pay taxes on gasoline, car tires, etc.! Because a poor person obviously buys more gasoline, car tires, than the rich that can - what - buy their gas and car tires overseas?
Ken
..or unaffordable.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
I'm afraid they're not very good at math: 4,000 people at $17K - $24K per year for 3 years is anywhere from $204M to $288M. So it's going to cost roughly 5X the $50M they claim. And is there any chance at all that they're going to be able to stop the program 3 years from now???
I saw Sweeney Todd, I saw what happens when food sales are unregulated...
Perhaps people that suffer ill effects from eating somewhere could earn others via Yelp?
I think the average person's understanding of basic hygenie has changed since the 18th century.
Ken
how about a fair tax. all men are created equal. all men should pay an equal tax.
They can respond to the needs by creating an oligopoly and dictating most of the terms, without much chance for the consumer to have any way to opt out.
I've been coming to /. for about 11 years and it has always been very hard right-wing. At least by Canadian standards. I suppose by American standards it's more central/slightly-right. But by Canadian and European measurements, SlashDot has always been so far right that it's not even on the map anymore.
I'd like to see trapless welfare.
That's a good idea.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Competition tends to win out in the end.
No. China also has a national debt.
You are welcome on my lawn.
OK, so the government owes us money. So what's the problem?
You are welcome on my lawn.
It really doesn't.
Hyperloop *cough*
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
I would add - the comments section of typical left-leaning news sites have become absolutely fanatical if even one dissenting opinion is expressed. If you agree with 90% of a topic/idea and provide criticism of the other 10%, you are dismissed as a racist nazi and shunned from the group. Try it some time as an experiment.
You are wrong.
I've expressed quite a few dissenting opinions on Slate.com (as typical a left-leaning news site as there is), mainly objecting to various criticisms of Trump. For instance on the first travel ban I said the numbers showed that you couldn't call it "targeted at Muslims" for what the phrase "targeted" usually means. There has been disagreement, sure, but I was never once dismissed as a racist or a nazi, and I wasn't shunned. Here are my posts so you can verify it yourself. (On Slate, you have to click the speech bubble to view the comments, and wait a few seconds while it loads).
Why haven't I been dismissed as a racist nazi? or shunned? I think it's because I am mostly polite, rational and fact-based in my posts, and people see this and respond positively to it. Usually not *agree* with it, but at least respect me for it. I think you generally get out what you put in.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/fut...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the...
http://www.slate.com/articles/...
http://www.slate.com/articles/...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/out...
http://www.slate.com/articles/...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/mon...
http://www.slate.com/articles/...
It really does.
incentives not to work?
You are missing the point. The site is here to promote the views of its owner and clients. Your view are irrelevant. Duplicate articles are expected, and the same clickbait proposals are the bread and butter. The shills are as obvious as the bias because the audience is largely oblivious.
Video games and the internet are way cheaper than a lot of basic amenities that an UBI would have to provide enough to cover. (Also, internet is basically a necessary utility in the modern age).
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
"it's necessary" or "its necessity".
It's - like I'm, I'd, you're - missing letter
Its - like his, hers, theirs - possession
Too bad, Ontario's Liberal Party under Wynne has decided that "blue collar" work is bad. That the service industry is fine. High electricity prices are great, and they're fine without having any industry at all. The liberals over the last 15 years have fucked up this province more then any party before it, and fucked it up so badly that if the NDP and Progressive Conservatives ran pet rocks as leaders of their parties, they would win, and the Liberal Party would be a non-party at the end of the election.
At this point, I'm not sure what the hell their game plan is besides fucking everything up so badly that the entire province crashes.
Om, nomnomnom...
Right, so just Apple Inc then.
Another anonymous coward.
UBI is kind of an insane idea. Instead of people surviving on sub standard wages through their Social Security years, we are to be expected to trade Social Security for a likely worse wage for our whole lives.
This is economic fallacy and you're retarded for debating it like it's a real viable philosophy. Do you smell Rothschilds yet?
Please move to where you truly belong, Africa!
Not enough currency to pay off all debts.
...so you've seen the movie 'Cherry 2000'?
I have a paycheck right now, but if I was reduced to hunger, I'd gladly steal to get food. Maybe more people are "immoral" then you think, and only the paycheck is keeping them from showing this.
I think this summary clearly shows the necessity for the US to invest in basic education.
It's "its", not "it's".
Well it takes between 4 and 9 years to get into low income housing in most of Canada. It's around 4-5 years here in Ontario, programs like section 8 don't exist in Canada in the same general terms either. There are "generational welfare" families in Canada without a doubt, but then there's also the people who don't want anything to do with it. You'll see a lot of seasonal people who work in eastern canada(fisheries/crab/lobster/etc), who work the other half year in Alberta's oil patch or in the potash mines in SK or MB. ~10-20 years ago before the war on coal was kicked into high gear, those people would work seasonally in the eastern canada coal mines. Lot of people would spend half a year or more on welfare because of that, it actually got worse and crime exploded in eastern canada when those mines shut down. Then it was compounded when the paper mills shut down because of environmental groups throwing a hissyfit. Huge drug abuse explosion from all of this as well. People like to think that solutions for this stuff is simple, but when you throw 10k people out of work things get desperate quick.
Om, nomnomnom...
You think they havr a huge watehoise full of cash somwhere? You don't think maybe that by "cash" what is meant is safe inflation hedged assets?
" you own whatever you possess as long as nobody has the ability to take it from you at the time."
Define possession, how are you possessing the air, or the cells falling away from your body towards the ground? you never hold anything permanently. Possession is largely an illusion of people who share your worldview, if you claim some chunk of land as your property you can only do so by power not by any other means and even that power is limited by distance of what a human animal can reasonably defend, aka it's mostly totally temporary and limited, not some law of nature.
"dissenting thought isn't punished"
Bwahahah, please. Just try to point to the actual, very real drawbacks of nuclear power when the nuke-huggers are out in force, or any opinion indicating that people actually have a value beyond their economically measurable output, or anything else that might be considered being a "bleeding heart liberal". I'm not saying you always will get punished for it, but to saying you aren't is just not true.
Because three was 100% employment before the previous administration. Right? The country wasn't run into the ditch before the previous administration Right? Everything was just perfect before the previous administration RIGHT?
Not really. Wife knows someone on welfare who has two kids. Yeah she made some bad choices earlier in life. She can go get a min wage job but then she can't afford daycare for the two kids. What does she do with her time? Volunteers with a local victim services. Hopefully by the time her kids are old enough for full day school she may be able to look at a job that her years of volunteering will help. That's the plan anyways. One if the things not mentioned here is that with UBI you reduce the amount of money spent on making sure people are honest and not abusing the system
Because all men don't have equal access to money.
You simply don't understand the conservative mind.
Are you really that much of a fucking moron?
Yeah the democrats did that. Oh wait we had a Recession caused by RICH ASSHOLES that played the market and crashed it.
We have a rift in the country. we have normals that are republican and democrat, then we have the raving dipshits that are trumpeters.
Why is is the lowest of the IQ types like you that have no education or even the ability for any real cognitive function always seem to have the loudest mouths?
Do I think that Obama was a saint? Nope far from it in fact he backpedaled more than trump has on his promises. But then all politicians are greasy turds.
But at least we don't fucking come up with delusions like you people.
Socialism did not create the Regulations and taxation under the guise of "permits".... "democracy" did.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
They are the ones snorting coke and buying it from drug dealers.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
That has all the answers you need
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Trump supporters want it both ways.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
"receiving up to"
That is the MAXIMUM amount of money they can get. Presumably they can get much less money also, depending on their situation. Just like those sales you see where it says SAVE up to 80%.... where 2 items are 80% off and everything else is 15% off...
Genuine question: so why do you stay at such a job? You're not in the army, you're not going to be imprisoned for desertion if you quit, are you?
Answer that question, and that's pretty much the same reason why the company enjoys you working 60-80 hours a week.
-Styopa
Well there are already benefits to which that happens to. Also they never say "married", it says families. While each province in Canada has a slightly different definition of what "common law" is, the Federal Government in terms of taxes considers it anyone you have lived with for one year more less romantically. There is no "its complicated" on your tax form. There are certain benefits for very low income groups that go away as soon as that happens, presumably because they have additional support, shared bills, etc.... I know because it happened to my girlfriend, who looks at me like it is my fault (never mind that I spend way more that the couple hundred dollars should would have received).
Anyway would be interesting as to what their actual definition of "family" is (perhaps it means with kids). Regardless, this isn't really universal or basic, but it is an attempt to collect some data I guess. Governments have spent 50M on much stupider things. One of the communities is Lindsay, to which I went to school eons ago, however I remember that I was blown away by the place apparently being the single mother capitol of Canada... I know the school I attended was something like 30 guys to 1 girl, so it wasn't that, they were all local. Could be they are targeting those "families", where it isn't really all that reasonable for the mother to work in the first place, and may not have the supports to do so anyway. That would be my guess. So it isn't like two people are getting less money, it is more aimed at a "single" person with a baby gets a bit more because well they have a baby to take care of... I think other than some in favorable situations, one of the larger groups of welfare recipients would be single mothers, it also is one that isn't about to resolve itself very quickly, and further it is likely to have more beneficial results of support (i.e. the child gets a decent chance in life to succeed),
No - the majority gives up and goes along with whatever comes out of a company's anus, and people wanting an alternative never get it. This is not competition winning. There is no competition in an oligopoly. There is collusion and several nearly-identical alternatives.
The "Intelligence Squared US" show (NPR and a Podcast) had a debate on this recently.
After hearing all the arguments the (probably mostly liberal) audience swing from positive towards the idea to significantly against.
The general message that came across was that a flat basic income (which includes giving $15k to Bill Gates each year) that is affordable overall necessarily reduces targeted interventions meant to help the poor specifically.
Having been on both ends of the employment spectrum from working for call centres for years to height of my career so far as a programmer for a Telco, I can say that we don't have any simple solutions for this issue. It's not a new issue either and one that's been discussed for years. The problem is that in any society where everyone begins as equals some will rise far above the rest. Some morally / legitimately earned and some not so much. It's natural and if you compare it to nature it forms something similar to a food web pyramid. In any pyramid there's very few at the top and lot of everyone else at the bottom. As technology advances, our ability to make more of our essentials and "stuff" to fill our needs increases meaning we need fewer and fewer workers with time. The ones that remain become more and more skilled and probably more wealthy as well. The only way this is sustainable is to have the entire population "consume" ever more goods to ensure that everyone stays employed. This actually worked for a while as we definitely consume more goods and resources than generations a few centuries back. The problem is at some point you run out of resources so you can't keep doing this forever. If at some point the wealth imbalance reaches a breaking point then the entire system will attempt to re-balance with force resulting in collapse of society and a period of violence which is never good for anyone. If you have all the food and everyone else is starving, you're going to need to learn to share regardless of whether you got it legitimately or not or you'll find yourself at the short end of the stick. So that's what this is, an attempt to see if we can re-balance the wealth peacefully. It's logical, moral and an attempt to starve off impending doom for all of us.
More in dollars ? No. More as percentage of income - hell yes, and that makes it extremely regressive. Sales taxes are the most regressive form there is. It punishes the poor while the rich barely notice.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Unless you do it so sales taxes do not apply to clothing and food like in Minnesota.
There are always some essentials being left out - exactly to make it less regressive, but nothing makes it "not regressive at all" - even a fuel tax is regressive, even on people who don't drive or use public transport. Food and clothes have to be transported to as well - a fuel tax makes those things more expensive too.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
1. Mainly that's because over the last 8 years the Republicans, pretending to be conservative, have pandered to libertarian ideals and co-opted the mainstream libertarian organizations.
2. You obviously believe that Slashdot is centrist now that your viewpoint is able to drown out all others, ignoring the fact that your libertarian viewpoint is generally associated with fringe right rather than centrist, particularly where economics are concerned.
Anonymous because I'm Lazy.
Slate is definitely left-leaning, but I'd hardly call it typical. Slate is well known for the congenial atmosphere of the comment boards. There are several regulars of Liberal, Conservative, even specifically Libertarian persuasions who participate in reasoned polite discourse.
If the system is simple to run and replaces 8-12 other programs (food stamps, heating assistance, etc) and saves a lot of paperwork (means testing, income reporting) the cost might actually be less!
If people are able to afford basic shelter and don't get beaten up living on the street or needing a trip to the ER because they have frostbite, it will cost society less (and maybe the government too)
If an addict can be at a place consistently so they can get counseling and treatment to beat their habit and address the underlying causes that lead them to addiction and get them to be a productive member of society it costs society less.
If it gets a single mom from working 3 part time jobs to 1 part time job, society benefits.
Yes I do think there will be people that will be totally shitty people spending it on totally stupid thing.
There were industrial jobs awaiting those who had been displaced from farms. Right now, it looks as though there is no new business sector providing employment....that's the difference. IT isn't it - we all know people who are displaced workers who would be downright scary in IT work.
So what do we do with those workers?
"Truth is what works" -- William James "It works!!" -- o-dark-AM comment
Companies rise and fall all the time. Do you think the two party system is somehow better at meeting the needs of the people?
Companies rise and fall all the time
And new businesses offering a better way are undercut by established businesses operating at a loss until the nuisance is gone.
Do you think the two party system is somehow better at meeting the needs of the people?
False dichotomy. Two-party system vs. companies is not the only choice here.
"Jay" should get off his ass and go find another job instead of being abused by his employer.. "Jay" is allowing himself to be subjected to that level of work and stress... "Jay" is a moron.
And? If your economic system doesn't account for morons, than it is unfit for human use.
Your pessimism is overblown. If you actually look at the business landscape, they are always changing and serving different needs, usually because the needs and wants of people change.
If it has a "mute" button and can make sandwiches, that is even better.
The deluxe version will squirt beer.
Very well said.
UBI is such an obvious logical conclusion of productivity growth I can't really understand the debate. Of course it will happen, lets talk about how and when, those are the only questions.
So you're saying that if the EPA released all of their restrictions on everything, that competition would maintain the status quo? Or would we have dirty air and water?
No. That is a very simplistic and childish view. Congratulations ðYZ.
Wars are fought over resources. Since written history. A robbery is a fight over resources. This is human nature. We try to curb it with laws of the land. Its not effective in other land without law.
Wars are fought over threats. Someone attacks or invades. Its war. Today, its very complicated to figure out why exactly. The mechanisms do not and never will change.
America fights wars to defend itself. To defend other countries. To demonstrate power to a country to prevent a larger war.
Like South Korea. A real threat now. 10 years ago -- not such a threat. Socialists cowards waited until they got nuclear weapons. Really really stupid. The conventional war could be contained. The nuke war can not be.
So we wait until they have more nukes? Are do it while damage can be minimized. While the dictator is having public executions of entire family lines for stealing rope to feed the starving family.
Yeah. You socialists are so righteous. So good. For no one but yourselves.
Video games and the internet are way cheaper than a lot of basic amenities that an UBI would have to provide enough to cover.
If people have to give up basic amenities to pay for video games, then they cannot really afford the video games. And if they don't have to give up the basic amenities to pay for video games, then it isn't a BASIC income.
(Also, internet is basically a necessary utility in the modern age).
Not to people living on UBI, and not to a very large number of people today. You find it useful, I find it useful, but like is not need.
In nature, there is a limit to the amount of food and shinies you can stash in your cave. In capitalism, there is essentially no limit. You can stash your "cave" with enough capital to feed or house thousands of people. Punishing tax rates on the rich are the only way I see to re-establish the natural ceiling on wealth accumulation, short of full-out Communism, which either wouldn't work or would be a bloodbath during the transition phase.
We it comes to externalities like pollution, I believe in government agencies like the EPA serve a useful role. I believe in limited government, not no government.
I'm not so sure. Practically everybody likes sex, but raising children has a much narrower appeal and comes with much greater long-term opportunity costs. And we're getting increasingly good at making sure the second only happens on purpose.
Also, one possible solution if you want to provide a further reproductive disincentive in the face of a UBI - only provide a UBI to adults. The cost of raising a child to adulthood then comes out of what would have otherwise gone to luxuries and investments.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
So going back to the original comment that started this thread offshoot.
In many of the important ways, [libertarianism] is the same as [republicans]. Both want to let corporations to have the ultimate power over the people by destroying the parts of the government that interfere.
I think you're agreeing with my main premise. There are a lot of wolves in sheep's clothing under the umbrella of libertarianism, too. But as there's no true Scotsman, I just have to accept that they are what they say they are.
And so if you're offering a UBI, it would be rather foolish not to offer free birth control as well, don't you think? Heck, I could even see an argument in favor of getting some long-term form installed being a mandatory precondition before you can start collecting an adult UBI - no accidental reproduction by young people just starting out, and they can get it reversed later if and when they decide they want to have kids.
And if you want active disincentives to reproduction, only give a UBI to adults - sufficient to support children as well, but the expense will come out of your luxury and investment income.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
OK, so the government owes us money. So what's the problem?
The problem is that any repayment you receive on that loan will be coming from the taxpayers, i.e. from you. That's great (for you) if you happen to hold an exceedingly large portfolio of government bonds, so that the net interest you receive fully offsets your taxes. Otherwise it's a net loss. From the average taxpayer's point of view it's simply bad debt, along the lines of buying consumer goods with a credit card and continually applying for more credit rather than paying it off each month.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Socialism did not create the Regulations and taxation under the guise of "permits".... "democracy" did.
"Democracy" applied to regulation and taxation is exactly socialism—"society" deciding how individuals' private property should be used, rather than the owner of the property.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
I think you're agreeing with my main premise.
The details matter. I have a libertarian bent, so what I responded to was when you said this: "That's what needs fixed, not putting businesses in charge of the markets."
That's a Big Government idea. Also, Republicans, traditionally, have not been very libertarian. Neither have Democrats. It's just that now the "progressive" left has won so many battles that they've gone batshit crazy with their authoritarian identity politics that they make Republicans look libertarian even on social issues.
Funny, I could make an entire population violent, regardless of their morals or poverty, not hard. Also, those "barriers' were created after some fool took advantage of the lack of them and usually got people killed, and in the extreme cases, many people killed.
Pay me and the kids $24000/yr.
Then pay my single partner her $17000/yr.
Not bad for unemployment. Now I have time and resources to start a biz, or complete my entrepreneurial endeavors!
Now I can remain a functional, contributing part of society!
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
You'd have to actually live apart for that to be true, if you live together for 6 months (I think?) you are considered common law partners and would thus not qualify as separate. Also neither 17k nor 24k is a lot of money for anyone in Canada, remember these are Canadian dollars and things are much more expensive than in the US. I suspect this study would have much different results in Vancouver or Toronto where rents and cost of living are insane.
I wish I had a lawn.
OK, I'm convinced. Kill all the bankers and we're in good shape.
You are welcome on my lawn.
If people have to give up basic amenities to pay for video games, then they cannot really afford the video games. And if they don't have to give up the basic amenities to pay for video games, then it isn't a BASIC income.
The point is that the cost of a video game is noise lost in the cost of something like rent. Basic amenities don't cost a strict fixed amount that's exactly the same for every person at all times that a basic income can pay out exactly. It needs to pay out something in the ballpark of around what basic amenities cost with enough margin for error that people aren't constantly finding themselves one of today's unlucky fraction who end up not eating or out on the street, and the cost of a video game is a mere blade of grass on the edge of that ballpark, easily covered within the other end of that margin. You're doing the equivalent of complaining that they can afford to put salt on their food, the luxury! when the cost of salt is absolutely trivial next to the cost of the food.
Not to people living on UBI, and not to a very large number of people today. You find it useful, I find it useful, but like is not need.
Unless you want people living on UBI to be trapped forever living on UBI, they need to be able to apply for jobs and otherwise avail themselves of various forms of communication that are increasingly done over the internet. The point of an UBI is not to have a terrafoam box that you stuff all the world's poor into and wait for them to die off, it's a safety net to keep anyone from falling completely through the cracks, and for it to function as such, people caught in the net need the means to start climbing out of it if they try. If you only pay enough for burlap sacks of dry rice and beans and the sacks also have to double as their clothes, you're going to have a perpetual underclass with no hope of ever making something of their lives, completely opposite the point of an UBI.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
That is basically what this is, you get the basic amount and it is not affected by you working or not working, so there is no disincentive to work. The part where you don't get your full salary if you get a job is where this scheme falls apart. But it should at least give less of a disincentive to work, and save administrative costs vs the current system as the people who will receive this are currently receiving some other kind of assistance.
I wish I had a lawn.
god damn you are a fucking idiot
Nothing, if it's managed well. It's essentially a very carefully orchestrated pyramid scheme, but one which is made to work by using the government's near-limitless ability to generate currency to back it up.The risk is that you are trusting in Congress not to do something stupid with their power to borrow, and... well, Congress. Would you trust them?
If the bond scheme is over-used it becomes unstable, as an increasing portion of government income is diverted to servicing the debt. Then it can easily be pushed over the edge and lead to currency devaluation on a massive scale. This is a Very Bad Thing. So far this has not happened in the US (though it has in other countries), but the greater the national debt grows the greater the risk of such a disaster.
@alvinrod: Dude, you GET IT. In reality, it's not about left or right, liberal or conservative, it's about authoritarianism vs freedom. UBI isn't freedom. It's a step above slavery, where you are leashed to the state by the invisible tether of income, but it might as well be slavery in practice. It's the ultimate expression of authority OVER the individual. You control their income, you control THEM. Ideology of the ruling class be damned. It's still slavery.
Umm... you think "bored" humans will stop reproducing? I don't think you know very many humans.
Well, to be fair, the parent IS a ghoul. He may have simply lived in his undead state for too long and have forgotten.
"I know, this time it will work, because you've worked out all the bugs. Yawn"
This is still the first run of the first world mixed model of socialism and capitalism. Also, no economic system or government has ever lasted forever. Maybe book up a bit before you start throwing blatently false claims about.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Let's not stop there. Let's extend it to school grades. A minimum grade of C. No matter if you are a fuckup, bully, etc... you still get a C. To help we'll deduct from the A students, so they have a C as well. Fair is fair after all.
Dumbasses.
And the lawyers. Dont forget the lawyers.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
You possess whatever you physically have... you cannot really physically possess territory, although you can occupy it which is a form of possession, but only to the extent that you cannot be removed from it by someone or something else. In nature, the number of things that we truly own is typically quite small. Ownership is slightly more persistent encompassing anything that we possess as well as anything that we *can* possess, but only to the extent that others cannot alter that.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Genuine question: so why do you stay at such a job? You're not in the army, you're not going to be imprisoned for desertion if you quit, are you?
Answer that question, and that's pretty much the same reason why the company enjoys you working 60-80 hours a week.
For most of the population that is the only kind of job available, the new job will be no better than the current one, anything that is better will either be asking impossible job requirements or be out in the middle of nowhere and eat large sums of time and money on transport, daycare, if you are a single parent this also decreases both you and your child's overall health having to resort to more fast meals and results in worse grades for the child as you are not there to help them as they need it or are able to participate in extra curricular activities. On top of that you greatly increase risk of accident in any area that gets snow or has deer as you will be traveling longer distances under the same fatigue.
Halving the hours needed to work to bring home the same total wage improves everything across the board for the worker and actually increases worker productivity as they are more well rested and even decreases the cost of healthcare for the employer as the employees will not be wearing their bodies down as much and will have more free time in the day to go seek medical attention before any ailment gets bad enough to bring them out of commission.
A sore or sick employee is not as productive, if the workers are worn out they are more apt to get sick, if they come to work sick they will spread it other employees further reducing production.
If you actually read the comments here on this site you would know that what you have said is simply not true. For every comment from a liberal - or "collectivist" as you call them - there are 5 comments from a free market fascist such as yourself. Ever stop to think about why your karma is in the shitter? I can see your comment history, and it's all right there in front of us. You have shit karma not because of what you say - which would generally be moderated up on this site - but because of how you say it. When you expend more energy into attacking other people personally than on actually expressing an opinion (or even better yet putting out facts to support an opinion) you will see your karma here take a corresponding nose-dive.
But if this site is not conservative enough for you, I'm sure the folks over at townhall, breitbart, powerline, foxnews, and pajamas would love to hear from you. You could go whine to them about how "oppressed" you are here and they'll offer you sympathy.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Good luck. You are absolutely correct, but to fix the welfare system in the states is to give explicit support of it.
Republicans won't do this because they've spent 30 years making poor people to be villains (and if they could actually be lifted out of poverty thanks to a sliding welfare scale people might figure out they were never The Bad Guys). Also trying to just end welfare altogether.
Democrats won't do this because it will likely require some tax modifications (not necessarily increases, but maybe deflating military spending a fraction of a percent which will still wrinkle feathers) and Americans are generally anti-tax-anything; plus, Democrats have been spending the last 30 years shifting hard right to play to the fiscally-conservative (but not socially-conservative) crowd. And tax increases might hurt their friends in Hollywood or Wall Street.
(Any other party is just pissing in the wind.)
Are federal income taxes - the only taxes I mentioned, btw - intended to 'punish' taxfilers equally, or fund the operation of the government? I thought it was the latter...
Reminds me of then-candidate Obama saying he refused to lower taxes "even if it will help the economy" because it didn't seem 'fair'. This from the candidate that wanted to put science in it's rightful place - I guess that didn't include 'economics' as a science.
Ken
Both AND Neither and oh so much more. Taxes are supposed to fund the government AND punish behaviour that is unwanted because it imposes a cost on other citizens AND redistribute wealth by punishing the rich MORE than the poor AND internalize the cost of externalities and, and, and...
Taxes are a very flexible tool that can be applied to quite a few different kinds of problems - with just minor adaptations to specific requirements of the goal you are seeking to achieve.
But the one golden rule that you're doing it wrong ? Is when taxes punish a poor man more than it punishes his boss. If that is happening, your tax system is fucked up - and completely unsustainable.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *