Slashdot Mirror
Mark Zuckerberg Doubles Down On Universal Basic Income, Calls It a 'Bipartisan Issue' (cnbc.com)
Mark Zuckerberg praised the Alaska Permanent Fund and used it as another platform to lobby for universal basic income, as he did during his commencement address to Harvard in May. The Alaska Permanent Fund was established in 1976 as the Alaska pipeline construction neared completion. According to CNBC, the "goal was to share the oil riches with future generations." From the report: Zuckerberg says the state's cash handout program "provides some good lessons for the rest of the country." The dividend averages $1000 (or more) per person. "That can be especially meaningful if your family has five or six people," says Zuckerberg in a post he wrote about the payment. "This is a novel approach to basic income in a few ways. First, it's funded by natural resources rather than raising taxes. Second, it comes from conservative principles of smaller government, rather than progressive principles of a larger safety net," says Zuckerberg. "This shows basic income is a bipartisan idea." Fundamentally, Zuckerberg says people think and work differently when they have their basic needs met. "Seeing how Alaska put this dividend in place reminded me of a lesson I learned early at Facebook: organizations think profoundly differently when they're profitable than when they're in debt. When you're losing money, your mentality is largely about survival," says Zuckerberg. "But when you're profitable, you're confident about your future and you look for opportunities to invest and grow further. Alaska's economy has historically created this winning mentality, which has led to this basic income. That may be a lesson for the rest of the country as well."
Err....have you actually seen the massive number of high wealth people that are with the "progressive" democrat party these days...?
I'd dare say that the split between the parties is pretty equal, maybe even tipping towards the democrats somewhat.
A lot of BIG money was behind Hillary..she had a lot of the Big money and a lot of the no money....the lower middle to middle class is what seemed to propel the republicans into the white house.
I don't think the old class/wealth to party connection holds these days....in fact, it may have switched.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
No, there's fundamental differences in philosophy behind those who want their lives dependent on the government and those that don't.
That's a simplistic, Ayn Randian view of the world that a 13 year old would have. Life ain't that simple, kiddo.
I don't respond to AC's.
Not really
Look at the political activities of the Koch brothers
They have completely transformed the republican party from an economically conservative body to a well-trained attack dog who believes that their every single action must be focused on reducing taxes on their wealthy benefactors
Between them, Adelson and the owner of Hardee's, they pack more political punch than any number of liberal-wealthy who you may want to name
The janitor can be easily replaced by thousands of other people who have the skills to do his job. Despite what you think of CEOs, their responsibility puts dinner on the plates of every employee at the company. If they screw up, or quit, or get fired, a lot more is at stake than in the case of a janitor. Also, CEO's can be dragged into court for the failings of anyone in their employ, and since Sarbanes-Oxley they can even be held personally liable for malfeasance of their other employees. So, while a janitor expends much more physical effort doing his job than a CEO does, it doesn't matter to as many people. And by matter, I mean, literally put hundreds or thousands of people into successful homes or out of a job. There is a smaller talent pool for CEOs and if they want to keep the ones that handle that pressure the best, then they have to compete against other companies looking in the same pool.
What about:
Denmark
Finland
Netherlands
Canada
Sweden
Norway
Ireland
New Zealand
All of which are socialist, all of which are quite successful, even with relatively high tax rates.
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
No it's not a retirement fund, and the payouts are only very roughly correlated to what you put in, as opposed to investment funded pensions which are tightly correlated and accounted for.
There were non-working spouses who get SS based on their partner's income. And unlike a private retirement pension, the payouts to the primary are not reduced as a result.
Then SS Disability, and for people who have major biological defects and weren't ever going to be able to get a job.
And low income people in SS get more than they would otherwise, and high income pay more than they would get otherwise. Because once you're old and nobody wants to hire you, there was an essential risk about how well your life turned out. And the point of Social Security is written right in the name: Social Security. Not a savings account.
One has to define what one means by "socialism". The countries you list are "social democratic", in that they have adopted some socialist elements like unemployment benefits, public health care and a social safety net, but their economies are still largely capitalist and free enterprise.
Venezuela, on the other hand, was basically taken over by a pack of kleptocrats masquerading as a socialists, who quoted Marx and Guevara even as they have spent the better part of two decades looting the country. Sure, there was lots of money to go around while oil prices were sky high, but their base criminality has been exposed by the collapse in oil prices. I doubt the likes of Chavez and Maduro were ever really socialists at all. Chavez, in particular, was pretty much a populist nationalist, one might even say an imperialist as he siphoned off billions to try to build some sort of Bolivarian Empire. Whatever gains the poor made in Venezuela were simply funded by what amounts to the world's most profitable lottery; plentiful long-chain hydrocarbons.
The countries you list are by and large technocratic in nature, in that elected governments of any ideological stripe still rely on a professional civil service which creates a sort base continuity in state organs regardless of the party in power. While there is doubtless corruption to be found, sadly that is a part of human nature, by and large they are governed by responsible people who are bound and limited by democratic norms.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The permanent fund is managed by a state-controlled corporation. A certain amount of the income from oil production is paid into the fund each year, and the corporation is required to invest the fund. The fund pays out a dividend each year that's based on a rolling five year average of the profits that the fund has earned. The principal of the fund is constitutionally protected, and barring mismanagement or a massive change in political views around the fund, will always exist. Last year the permanent fund earned about $1.37 billion on a fund of about $55 billion.
Abbreviated for the stupid: US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States....
....To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
I wasn't ignoring everything else. Nothing about UBI can be said to apply to "common Defence" or to "general Welfare". Before you tell me that UBI falls under "general Welfare", please note that this is the definition of the word ":welfare" from Webster's 1828:
WELFARE, noun [well and fare, a good faring; G.]
1. Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness; applied to persons.
2. Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applied to states.
It is clear that the intended meaning was that "welfare" was adjunct to "defence". That is, protection from attack, and perhaps arguably assistance when natural disasters of outbreaks of disease strike. However, a system where the government pays every citizen an income is considerably outside of that scope.