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."
...in a better world, but not in this one, where the very wealthy have purchased the conservative party and packed it full of people who believe that their primary goal is to keep the wealthy and their money together (new form of family values eh) while the rest of the population have been downgraded to 'excess population' that might be suitable for organ donation
No, there's fundamental differences in philosophy behind those who want their lives dependent on the government and those that don't.
So, if I can get my wife to squeeze out another baby, I can quit my job because mincome will be more than I earn.
All you childless suckers can go get fucked, I'm going to use the government to take what's yours and it will be mine! Suckers!
Zuck just loves the idea of Basic Income so long as he doesn't have to pay any Taxes.
If your only criteria for being bipartisan is that the plan conforms to both conservative and liberal ideals, then this wouldn't a problem. But when Obama basically copied previous conservative proposals in order to reach a bipartisan deal, he met with resistance just because it was proposed by a Democrat.
As long as liberals think Universal Basic Income is a good idea, they are going to need strong super majorities to get it through the legislative process because the other side will block literally anything that even smells liberal in origin.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
That's what this idiotic 'UBI' crap is. Aside from bankrupting the country it'll lock people into a cycle of poverty that they'll NEVER ESCAPE FROM. You'll have ENTIRE GENERATIONS of people growing up having NO IDEA what 'work' is and no hope of ever earning their own living. Remember Hunger Games? That's what America would look like. You idiots and your ridiculous 'Universal Basic Income' would complete the job of destroying the Middle Class, creating a gulf of POVERTY between the Poor and the Rich that no one will ever be able to traverse! WHY CAN'T YOU ALL SEE THIS!?
If he went first and would reduce his gross earnings each year to what the mean salary in the U.S. is each year. Then maybe and thats a very doubtful maybe I might support what he is spouting.
Passionately Indifferent
Someone on UBI won't be able afford to live somewhere and their children are suffering and only if the government would just give a little bit more...and the UBI (taxes) will be increased in a never ending cycle or they will add back in welfare (assuming it even goes away) or some other government program. And the taxes will keep going up. And if you are suggest we stop this you are racist/sexist/hate the kids/whatever.
And the Republicans support slavery.
Don't have three or more kids, especially if you don't have the means to support them. It's hard enough to make concepts like minimum wage and UBI work for individuals alone. It seems that a lot of these efforts are being viewed through the lens of normalizing and accepting situations caused by, in part, irresponsible breeding, rather than affecting the root causes.
So-called 'UBI' is a recipe for disaster, plain and simple, and should be discouraged and fought against at ALL COSTS.
I'm a conservative and OK with this. He can donate all of his shares so that dividends can be evenly split among the US population. It seems like a good idea.
I am not sure which of Zuckerber'gs two ideas is more ridiculous:
1. A state-owned corporation sharing it's money equally among its citizens is a bi-partisan capitalist conservative idea.
2. A state with <1 million people but a single enormous natural resource is a good stable economic model for the rest of the world.
Zuckerberg should take a look at Venezuela, Russia, much of Africa, and the Middle East. They too subscribe to the idea that state-run oil companies should share their wealth and create a wonderful paradise for everyone. Except that most of those nations are either in decline, starving, or embroiled in war. This is not a good model for a stable economy.
In truth, I fear Zuckerberg. In addition to trying to label communism as capitalism, he believes that privacy is an obsolete concept. Combined, this presents an extreme version of communism that has repeatedly failed throughout the world. He is trying to sell that this is a bipartisan capitalistic idea, when it is about the furthest thing from it. But in today's political climate, someone with a lot of money seems to be able to sell anything to about 48% of the US population. I fear this is Trump 2.0 in the making.
taught to do things by rote with an 80K-120K loan that hard to get rid of even with disability. Hell even with an va disability 100% unemployable student loans still don't get wiped away with out having to fight it out in court.
Which history proves doesn't work, at least for very long. Eventually you run out of other people's money, have to tax at high rates or print money and live with the inflation that produces. Nobody want's to go out and produce stuff they cannot keep (Either because it's taxed away or taken by inflation) so everybody starves until some kind of change restores capitalism and the productivity it brings.
Need proof? What happened in Venezuela of late? Greece? Spain? Argentina? Any idea how much the poor suffered though all that mess? Sure, they got $$ at first, but eventually things fell apart and freedom was squandered away while the poor suffered the most.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Sure Mark, why don't you share some of the ad revenue from your site with the users that are contributing to it... let's see what your stockholders say.
love is just extroverted narcissism
We need to get rid of benefit cliffs and have healthcare for all!
There are people on the disability bench who don't want to take the risk of working to much and losing there healthcare for say a part time mc job that only has high cost (for what you get cost about $1000/year for a max payout of $2000/year) min med plans. This was before ACA but if that is taken away people may just go back to doing that.
However the State has tried many times to stop or limit how much they pay the citizens. The current Governor did cap the amount that they paid for last years dividend and the State is currently trying to impose an income tax.
http://www.newsminer.com/news/...
https://www.usnews.com/news/bu...
The people love the PFD but the State would love nothing more than to spend every damn penny of it.
You just want to play video games. Mommy's basement gamer clicking "like!" "like!" "like!" on UBI stories. She's on board as well; no hope of getting rid of you otherwise.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
The US already has a very successful UBI. It's called Social Security. Right now, it only applies to older people and those with disabilities.
Social Security has done a remarkable job of eliminating poverty among the elderly. It gives them enough money to afford basic necessities of food and shelter. Everyone gets a basic income with no requirement to work and no "means test".
Don't know why the same system wouldn't work for everyone. Just increase the SS tax and give everyone a basic income.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Obama didn't get resistance because of who proposed it, he received resistance because this is, and was, a massive government power grab which is unconstitutional.
I realize it's easy to get lost in the MSM rhetoric where both sides are progressives, but that is _STILL_ the issue.
Society and the Government can surely have some responsibility for helping those in need, but the ACA and it's proposals coming after that are not about helping those in need. It's about removing control from those who pay into the system as a method of wealth distribution.
If all you hear is the same old crap, try finding some different sources for the debate. MSM is not honest, and has no interest in promoting Constitutional arguments!
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
As we automate more and more people out of work, as ownership of those automated facilities concentrates more and more, we MUST switch to UBI or admit we're making almost the entire population redundant. This isn't weavers destroying Jacquard looms - computers and robots are on the threshold of obliterating general labor as a way to make even a subsistence living.
And if we decide the general population is redundant, how long until someone who is in the 'have' group decides the 'have nots' need to starve to death or be killed off before they storm the gates looking for their share?
The problem is that while much of the rest of the world is at least slightly socialist already, the USA is still paranoid about communism and resists social programs even if they're dying as a result - the Republican support for repealing socialized healthcare being a textbook example.
So UBI may not fly in the USA until past the time when its needed, and then we will get to see if the masses die off before they revolt.
During a Marc Andreesen twitter thread, UBI came up. He noted that it would apply to the income levels of upper middle class and higher, and that would be wasted money as they don't need the extra UBI. For that reason against it. Someone had suggested a 'negative income tax,' which he retweeted, and this one made a bit more sense.
If you make less than, say 30K a year, your tax rate would be negative and you'd get money back instead of paying into it. This would help with people who are on minimum wage, and it couldn't be exploited by those who don't need it.
One way or the other, the government will pay for the poor, this way seems more regimented and fair than the others.
"Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
Zuckerberg seems to conveniently ignore the fact that the dividends paid on oil in Alaska are a pretty unique scenario in the USA. That was implemented long before anyone was running around praising the virtues of a UBI for all citizens. Everyone has understood that the money paid out for being an Alaska citizen is well balanced out by some huge downsides of choosing Alaska as your place of residence.
If this wasn't the case, you'd have a disproportionately large number of people moving to Alaska with their families, hoping to collect that $5,000 - $6,000 per month of zero effort income. Heck, one might ask why Zuck didn't start Facebook from Alaska, given how great those monthly government payouts are?
The frustrating thing about UBI is you've got people from all political affiliations discussing it as a potentially viable (even inevitable) outcome, but they're really talking about two COMPLETELY different things. The people trying to push for implementing it today are just pushing socialism under a different name. If the economy is based on Capitalism, a UBI won't ever do anything except create inflation. The economy will adjust to the assumption that everyone suddenly has this "baseline income" they can spend, even if they do nothing at all to try to earn more.
The types discussing UBI as a long term possibility are more interested in a hypothetical post-Capitalist economy where automation and technology has advanced so far, it made human labor obsolete. Machines are fixing other machines that do all manner of work required. In this scenario, people would be essentially free to pursue anything that interested them. Money would still change hands, but you'd only use it for "extras". Perhaps hand-made furniture would become a luxury that many people appreciated as a type of art, despite anyone being able to obtain all the basic furniture they needed at little or no cost, given out by a government in charge of the operation of the robots and machines that assemble the rest of it? So if you WANTED to do it, you could build your own furniture and sell it at a premium. But you would have no NEED to work to survive. But this is more like the "Star Trek" universe than reality any time in the near future.
Like I pointed out on another forum recently .... after 6 or 7 generations of them, you still can't even buy a Roomba that reliably cleans your house with no human intervention. They break regularly, need new batteries, brushes and other parts, get stuck under furniture, can't clean stairs, and have dust bins that are so small they need regular assistance emptying them out. All the hype about robots taking all the jobs? We're a LONG way from that reality still.
1 All other forms of welfare and social programs are shut down the moment this program goes live. This includes Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and public school programs.
2 All gov't employees are immediate fired from all the now closed programs.
3 Anyone that has been in prison 3 or more times is automatically banned from the program.
4 1st generation immigrants will never qualify for this program.
5. No one is exempt from paying into this program and the tax rate is a flat rate that applies to all forms of "income" as in any money that come from another person or entity to you. Get a paycheck you pay, sell your house, you pay, make money on stock you pay. You get the idea
6. All gov't employee health and pay perks benefits are canceled.
The Alaska Permanent Fund was established in 1976 as the Alaska pipeline construction neared completion
So what will happen to this when the wells go empty?
If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
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
To consume what we can produce to ensure low unemployment. But I would first spend money to make education and healthcare free. After that if I have money left over I would do basic income.
Yes, it's easy to be compassionate, even generous when life is good. It doesn't work nowadays because 'keeping up with the Jones's', isn't about the husband's/wife's boss anymore, it's about the Kardashian, Versace or Trump family. Many inhabitants of the "land of opportunity" will never have the opportunity to own such obscene wealth but still want the dream.
The USA has a particular neurosis of "I deserve more". Such as; I worked 40 hours a week, I deserve more than someone who worked 30 hours a week (Yet corporate board members work an hour a week and are paid millions.) That leads to the other uniquely US neurosis of "Fuck you, I got mine". Such as; I worked for a nice house, why should my taxes put a roof over your head? (Homeless people don't vanish because you've got a nice house.)
When did a US politician last say "corporations are directly responsible to the community" or "the government needs to share revenue with the people"? Now I think about it, the Alaska Permanent Fund, likely, was the last time.
When we start having serious layoffs in the millions due automation, people will begin insisting on UBI. If it doesn't happen then there is no need to panic.
It will be too late for a lot of people but you can't help those who refuse your help. :(
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
seek professional medical help.
I suggest a CT scan of the head
The people always ranting about Putin or the Koch brothers remind me very much of the old Birchers. Next thing you know, the Koch brothers and Putin meme will add-in the Queen of England, the Rothschilds, the Free Masons, and the Pope and/or Illuminati.
This is where people of low intellect go when the big scary world does things they do not like and cannot understand (like electing Trump).... they run to the comfort zone that there is a simple explanation for what has confused and terrified them: some grand and shodowy conspiracy. Rather than accepting that large forces are at play as a sum result of the small actions of millions of people individually responding to annoyances, inconveniences, intrusions, offenses and such by a big government and the general culture, the mentally fragile run to the idea that there is a grand evil scheme deliberately designed by a handful of conspiritors/manipulators; it's easier to assume design than accept natural organic consequence.
If Trump is the result of conspiracy, then the left has clean hands and he is illegitimate and the liberal/progressive world view is intact... but if Trump is an organic push-back by the population, then Trump is a consequence of Obama and his policies and Hillary and her incompetence/offensiveness and the left then is partially to blame and their models are broken (an unthinkable idea). Obviously, therefore, there is a Koch-Putin-Trump consiracy...
Sad [Facepalm]
its both communist and socialist.. wtf mark lets see you give away 95% of your Facebook stock.. get yourself down to the median income of about $54k a year .. then start telling everyone that they should pay for that woman on welfare that started taking it when she was 16 and emancipated from her parents because she was having her third child.. sorry mark.. but HERE IS A REAL IDEA.. since you depend so much on technology how about you start a hardware company in the USA that employs the 64+ million people now on assistance.. just pay them $25 an hour to build android phones or solar panels or some other job that children in china do... if children in china can make iPhones there is no reason a unemployed 26 year old american with a masters in electrical engineering can't make android phones ... DO THAT WITH ALL YOUR MONEY.. MAYBE.. MAYBE... MAYBE IT WILL MAKE YOU MORE MONEY... and it will help unemployed Americans...
The old Hitler-era NAZI collaborator (who has declared his pride in those actions and said that time of his life was a happy time) is to this very day using his billions of dollars to fund nearly every liberal/progressive/leftist entity in the USA (and even some left-leaning Republican establishment fools like John McCain).... and many of those actual-NAZI-collaborator-funded outlets run around calling Soros opponents NAZIS. Soros is using his cash to tear-down the traditional America that won WWII, tear down the traditional UK, and convert Europe into a Germany-dominated superstate (seemingly advancing much of the agenda of his old mustach-wearing boss).
Tell me again: How many Jews did the Koch brothers help into the gas chambers??? hmmmm???
The Soros meme will fade when the old jack booted dirtbag is dead, his money is gone,and his kids are no longer using his tainted evil money to try to destory the United States and help Germany dominate Europe.
$65billion/320million people = ~$200 per person.
I look forward to his contribution to my welfare.
I think, in principal, this might work since I do agree that if most people have the basic's, one's view of the world is much different. Meaning, when someone has nothing left to loose, then they will do anything to survive. To me, why not turn everything upside down. Don't do hand outs, don't do programs. Why not reward people based on "good" rather than trying to cheat the system? More people, put more effort into trying to cheat the system that if they just put that same effort into working with the system, they would be better off. The problem is that our civilization never rewards people who help their community, help their businesses, help other people. It rewards the popular/or the greedy. Sure everyone will call me a libtard but there are a lot of hard working people doing dangerous jobs all over this country/world and yet get paid squat. They show up each day and try to earn a buck to get by and yet rich dudes (more specifically rich, white, anglo-saxon) who already have a ton of money continue to get richer and richer. They wouldn't be rich if these hard working people didn't show up day after day. So to me, if you show up, do your job, help you fellow man in some way, pay your taxes, don't break laws, etc - you should be rewarded way more than those CEO's who treat employee's like crap, cheat/beat their wives, and just waste money on hookers, blow, and cars. I think most of the country would get around this type of idea. There is no other excuse than being greedy/power hungry that people can't live a great life on less that 30 million in their lifetime easy. You don't need 7 yachts or 300 cars. That is not living, that is just trying to fill emptiness inside.
What Zuck proposes is nothing more or less than LBJ's plan. Get as many people as possible converted into state dependents, and you can count on them voting to expand the state. Bread and Circuses brought down the Romans, too.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
See Venezuela for REAL WORLD examples of how socialism plays out... Similar to Communism, it creates POOR, DESTITUTE populations, and crime SKYROCKETS! Socialism is a MENTAL Disorder. One that makes people feel like the world OWES them a living... Newsflash... It Doesn't, and NEVER will. :-D
Seeing Zuckerberg getting involved in politics makes me cringe for some mysterious reason. Anybody else?
... oh, wait.
Freeman says, many homeless people come to Anchorage from a village for one reason or another, and get stuck here.
Around 70 percent of the 700 or so homeless people surveyed say they’re Alaska Native. Many are from rural villages.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
There are better ideas than UBI, and they're still difficult. Most of the developed world has universal healthcare, and it's still difficult--there are shortages, and complaints. Some people from those countries come to the USA when they really need help. That's not to say that the USA is perfect; but the reason I'm bringing up universal healthcare is that it's a better idea than UBI. Why?
It's a better idea because it targets an essential service. By targeting essential goods and services (food, shelter, clothing, healthcare) you avoid the fundamental problem of UBI to some extent.
What's the problem? Inflation. No matter how you slice it, UBI pumps more money into the economy and that's inflationary. To be fair, it's better than the way the Fed has been pumping money into the economy--into the banks. That's inflationary and goes to the top income tiers. UBI is inflationary and goes to all tiers, which sounds progressive; but any UBI big enough to have a major impact will be inflationary, and inflation is... regressive, in that the rich are able to survive it better than the poor.
So. Instead of tampering with the monetary system (which is all you're really doing with UBI) why not try a few targeted universal benefits first? How about universal clothing vouchers? Everybody gets $20/month EBT cards for clothing regardless of income. You can use it for a cheap T-shirt this month, or save up for a really nice pair of shoes; but it's all free. Let's see what that does to the clothing industry. It's just one industry, and if it gets disrupted a bit and we need to pull back then it won't be too big a tragedy. If it goes OK, then let's try food--EBT groceries for everybody, but maybe you have to use that one by the end of the month. Oh, these also have to be non-transferable.
This way, if UBI is the future we can do it for essential goods first and achieve that "not worrying too much" goal, while simultaneously not ruining the more innovative sectors of the economy.
I live in Canada and I most certainly would not call it outright socialist.
While really basic health care is provided to the entire population, things like medication, dental, eyes, ears are not covered unless it's a medical emergency.
We have Welfare programs for the very poor, some help for families with young children (called Canada Child Benefit), but we still have problems with poverty just like the US despite our "high" taxes (though if your household income is less than $35,000 you don't pay taxes).
Personally I welcome the idea of UBI, but that's my opinion, and certainly is not the opinion of the majority of Canadians (otherwise we'd have it by now).
I also live in one of the most natural resource rich provinces, but we're also in massive debt because our provincial government is a bunch of idiots. I have no idea how they won the most recent election.
I think the USA leaves them all in the dust. In 200 years we went from barely being able to fend off the half hearted nearly bankrupt British with the help of the French to being able to outclass the world in industrial production and are second to none in military power, so much in that we have assumed the majority of the policing of the world. During the same time we expanded from 13 small states to 50 and multiple territories that filled the land from one sea to the other while fighting one civil war and at least one war with a neighbor that invaded our country where we TOTALLY defeated them, then returned the majority of their lands. In spite of this, capitalism in the USA grew both the USA and the cause of freedom.
We were pivotal in establishment of the free world MULTIPLE times by winning war after war (Two world wars we attempted to stay out of). For WW2 alone, we helped destroy then rebuild Europe at large, while also defeating Japan, then rebuilding their economy. We were/are the center of technical innovation in medicine, technologies including communications, aviation, Construction, petrochemicals and many other things that benefit the world at large. We learned how to mas produce goods, food and services and have produced wealth that has raised the standard of living world wide. As a country we donate more food and supplies than any other, then deliver them to people in need world wide. The world would starve without out vast food production and export.
What makes all this possible? Capitalism. NOT socialism, Capitalism. It may not be perfect, but it's the best thing going out there. Socialism fails, history proves it. History provides only ONE example that works long term, capitalism. Nothing else could do this.. End of debate..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I'm curious how UBI supporters seem to think this should work.
A person on UBI may or may not have enough to get by (hint: if history is any judge, they wont), but will they be able to hire anyone or afford the robots that are supposed to take our jobs? Where do they envision new industry to spring up from?
Even more troubling in UBI is the complete divorce of the idea of currency and work/value.
To go back to basics, before money if you wanted a chicken, you traded an arrowhead you made for it. It took roughly the same amount of effort, so the deal was accepted by both parties, and a trade was made. Money was invented to monetize effort because it was too problematic to find someone who both has what you want, and needs what you can provide. Currency was invented as a IOU from society for services rendered, that was redeemable anywhere.
The result of this, is that the total value of currency is determined by the GDP. If your country produces nothing, you can print as many bank notes as you want and it wont make you rich because no one will want your money - they have no use for it. The only thing printing more banknotes will achieve is inflation
Under UBI, if everyone is paid for doing nothing and everyone does nothing, it doesn't matter how many banknotes everyone gets, nothing is being produced - the currency has no value (regardless of whether the banknote has $10 or $100,000 printed on it, it still wont buy you a hot dog). Thus UBI cannot work without enough people actually doing something. Why would people work 16h/day on a farm though if there was no financial benefit? And if there is a financial benefit, isn't it reasonable to assume that the reward will have to be substantial enough for people to be able to separate themselves from those who don't work (e.g. getting 100,000x more)? But if that is the case, then it's not UBI anymore - you have "the poor" who don't work and "the rich" who do, where the poor wont be able to afford a $100,000 banana, and the rich for whom it is pocket change.
If UBI provides a decent wage, where is the value to back up the currency being created? By necessity, it's from the people who work. The only way to get that cash is through insane taxation. But if a working person is taxed such that their long toil earns them basically the same amount as the those who can sleep all day, the quickly ask themselves "why work" (spending time with family is almost always preferable to being at work)? The country's productivity goes to shit as a result as more and more people adopt this approach, and drags the GDP with it. The currency becomes valueless, and imports start costing more than an arm and a leg (month's pay for what we would call trival items now). Any value that is produced, is sent to sent out for export (since this is profitable), and as a result, shortages develop everywhere (up to the point of famines in extreme cases). At least this has been the problem in all societies that have tried variations on this system. Until we get star trek style replicators that can make value out of thin air, I'm afraid any such system has a hope in hell of working. My parents emigrated from such a place, and I don't care much to experience for it firsthand for myself.
the downside is that they'd get a single payout once a year vs an actually usable increase every month.
Not arguing for or against a UBI, just pointing out that a one time payment each year won't make a big impact. How many folks do you know that get their tax return and blow it on something luxury vs putting it in savings?
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.
Can't tell if being serious...
Assuming that an UBI will be paid for by taxes, it is equivalent to a negative income tax. Paying the UBI as a tax credit would make it explicitly a negative income tax. Nothing really changes but the name, the effect is exactly the same.
That is how I advocate an UBI should be done:
First, in preparation, make tax refunds paid out in monthly installments instead of in one lump sum (and to be fair and symmetrical, allow tax payments still due after filing to be paid in monthly installments too). Most people, who already get at least some small tax refund, will thus get a small payment from the government every month right away with just this change.
Then, give everyone the same tax credit of some (initially small) fraction of the mean income, and fund that by an additional flat tax of that same fraction of their own income. (So e.g. if you start with a 1% mean income tax credit, it's funded with a 1% flat tax). That is automatically completely revenue-neutral (because that's how averages work), but reduces the tax burden / increases the tax refund of low-income people, shifting it to high-income people, with people near the mean income seeing almost no change. (Because 1% of the mean income minus 1% of your income is greater than zero the further below the mean your income is, exactly zero when your income is the mean, and less than zero the further above the mean your income is).
Then, slowly increase that percent until the tax credit being given is at least equal to a poverty-line income. Et voila, you now have a tax-funded basic income. Make the tax credit received from this program count as "income" for the purpose of means-tested welfare programs, and watch people gradually fall off the rolls of those means-tested programs as the percent is increased, until most of them can be shuttered entirely, reducing everyone's taxes in the process.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The countries you gave as examples are homogenous societies. Also look at the populations of some of these countries, Texas or California have populations that are larger than most of these countries. It is easier for a country with a large number of people who think the same to make group decisions.
Yeah, and those little fuckers should have voted with their wallets and not been born, or at least chosen better parents. Anyway they should certainly suffer to serve as an example.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Ireland
All of which are socialist, all of which are quite successful, even with relatively high tax rates.
Not if you're Apple.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
This is why Bill Gates suggested we tax robot workers.
When the welfare system in the USA was signed into law, during the FDR days, it was MAINLY for poor families with dependent children. In the 60's LBJ and government really expanded it with the advent of medicare/medicade. People, when they are "given" anything, will work LESS. People can be lazy if they don't have to get up off their butts and work for a LIVING. Who really wants to work? Some do. It gives them purpose in life. "GIVING" people anything, at times, most don't appreciate it but will end up thinking they are "entitled" to something.
Unlike what most people apparently believe, the market price for something has almost nothing to do with the actual cost of producing it. It is actually entirely based on supply and demand. The price for things fluctuates accordingly.
So assuming everyone gets say $10k/yr just for being alive, the average cost of living will just very quickly go up by $10k/yr, leaving a net benefit of exactly 0 even possibly a negative benefit because we will have to pay more income tax because of our "free" income. For the rest of us, the higher cost of living just means everything is more expensive and the really poor will just suffer more.
SS is a Pyramid scheme plain and simple. It REQUIRES future generations to work enough to pay for those who worked, retired and now expect their SS payments. If future generations don't work or work less (as is happening now) those who payed into it - won't get their "guaranteed" payments. My current SS statement alone already says that with current work force I will only get %79 of what is shown on my statement. If the Millennials and snowflakes don't work or don't work enough I and many others won't get our SS we paid into. So SS is ALREADY running out of money. I would expect it to last MAYBE 20 more years TOPS. I'm not expecting ANYTHING from SS at this point. I've been investing and putting my own money away to cover myself. NO ONE should be relying on or expecting SS to be there when they retire at this point. It's a dieing horse..... This alone shows UBI is an EXTREMELY bad idea!
The Truth is a Virus!!!
Government actuaries disagree with you and they have actually done the math.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Giving people things just for existing, rewarding people without direction for having no direction, is sabotaging those people.
A very few people who are self motivated will benefit, but for the vast majority, 'UBI' is intended to flush them all down the toilet. Our society purposely tries to divert peoples' efforts to pointless activity en masse. People will retreat into the internet, not living their lives, not creating anything, not reproducing, and they will all die out.
The media bombardment is just beginning. You think poor people will sit around and fuck and make babies all day? They won't. They will become absorbed in their echo chambers, lose social skills, and when they do fuck, it will be with contraception provided for free by the government.
That is the plan here. Welfare and 'UBI' are meant to be a magic solution to the liabilities the masses present.
The government gives everybody $1000/month
but to fund this, since they are not 100% efficient they also have to take $1100/month on average.
The collection might be taxes, inflation, pyramids, or stealing from your kids, but it will come from somewhere.
So, on average, the house wins $100 and everybody else looses $100/month. Vegas has better odds.
To make a working system, you have to decide who has the income to pay.
If 50% of the people are deemed to be payers, then to get their $1000, they will have to pay $2200 per month.
That's a net cost of $14400 per year or $7.20/hour for a 2000 hour year.
That amount would likely push the percentage smaller so maybe 30% would pay more.
Basically, UBI is a wealth re-distribution plan where the house wins.
To propose UBI, one needs to show a non-fictional plan for income versus net UBI cash flow curve.
Without that, it's just fictional magic money from heaven.
Dear Mr. Z: If you think UBI is a great idea, then quit throwing curves and show me your curve.
Consider your list of nations. Smaller groups of well educated citizens in closed wealthy nations with a set rules for gov help after 1945 or around the 1920's or 1980's.
Citizens got looked after to prevent communist parties from winning elections sometime in the 20th century or other political parties from offering more help to a set of voters.
The nations has success in the past as they only looked after their own citizens. Good health care, good education for each generation of their own citizens.
So some got some health care, dental care, old age pensions and educational support.
Good education produced productive hard working citizens that then paid into the tax system for health care or a later old age pension.
Support for not working was limited and most people could expect to find work again given a good economy and exports. Good jobs existed or people found work and wanted to work. They could afford homes, holidays , savings or just stay out of poverty. Happy, productive citizens who paid taxes been looked after by their gov.
People worked hard in the private sector and paid real taxes most of their working life. Pension systems only ever expected a set amount of their own nations older workers to ever need and be granted a full pension. Private or a company pension plans also got promoted and supported. Private health care was also an option.
A given rate of citizens growing up, working hard and getting the old age pension could be predicted and supported. The maths worked if the number of real citizens paying into the system could be understood an old age pension was only for an old age.
Citizenship was the legal test for all the free good things from the government and many support services also needed to proof of been poor or not been able to work.
The USA totally lost control of its citizenship tests. Millions of illegal migrants are wondering around cities and states using local and federal services only intended for the very poor citizens of USA.
To be like the list of the above nations the USA would to secure its paperwork for the first time in every city and state.
Only eligible US citizens would get support after showing real US photo ID or having someone help them with getting their US ID ready.
That would at least get support back to the US working poor or poor and help with spending issues in every state and city.
Would a UBI work in the USA? Only if it was means tested and for citizens looking for work, been educated full time or unable to work.
A very limited safety net for US citizens only that gets fully repaid by workers paying taxes.
What to do about very wealthy areas in the USA that need low skilled workers to clean and look after services everyday?
The working poor cant afford rent in the wealthy areas and have to get to low wage jobs in the most wealthy areas of the USA?
Why is a UBI been requested? For the poor? Or to cover a local wage gap so wealthy people don't have to pay poor workers extra?
Should all US tax payers have to support the working poor in CA so that can they work for the wealthy to enjoy support services in a few very wealthy areas?
If the wealthy in the USA want workers in expensive areas, pay real private sector wages in that state.
Technician or scientist wages for all support services?
Requesting the rest of the USA pays a UBI to cover for low wages in one state is not going to work with the US tax rates.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
If Silicon Valley really wants to put the fears at bay, they can always use their own income to fund UBI, versus mandating it. That is, give all theirs to fund something that concerns them so much.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
He's such a genius, I'm sure he will get more for us.
If it takes the government to get the money from him, so be it.
None of the countries you list aren't 'socialist'.
Most of them have pretty good social security systems in place, but calling it 'socialist' is an incredibly retarded American way of looking at it.
The same government that says people will only get a percentage of what their SS statements say - right gotcha! it's that public school math....
The Truth is a Virus!!!
Give them money so they are OK with not participating in society so you and your buddies Zuckerburg can reduce competition.
Insuring people stay at home stuck to the fake news TV screen stay out of your way.
The whole thing smacks of Eugenics with the worst sort of 1984 overtones.
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
The fundamental approach to UBI is that automation will remove the majority of low skill employment opportunities in most industrial and transportation categories, with some openings left in the service industry, all of which cater to the lower half of the population in terms of intelligence/agency/wealth. UBI when initially implemented will then effectively be subsidizing the lifestyles of these jobless. Which then requires providing enough to live mostly comfortably (a place to live, so-so food, and endless entertainment consumption via the internet), because as a society we don't advocate self-inflicted direct genocide of humans who still have productive years in their life.
But here's the thing. Implementing UBI is a terribly large project requiring extensive commercial cooperation, aka rich folks. Rich folks will assume the odds of UBI as just mostly comfortable life guarantees being a sustainable policy are low and cause self collapse (not necessarily true, but is a substantial possible outcome). But there is a way out, while keeping the rich in power. Commit to guarantee the lifestyles of the initial UBI recipients, which is a calculable sum. Assume this is a sunk cost for UBI. Now, that extensive commercial cooperation segues into a criminal conspiracy in the industries that provide the low cost food affordable for UBI recipients, to lace them with contraceptives and libido inhibitors. You are not killing, or even maiming the UBI population, but you are effectively reducing if not preventing procreation, so you are killing future UBI recipients by proxy. How would the recipients even know this occuring? The government is part of the conspiracy, using law enforcement intimidation and threats of force to hold down the information in the interest of national security. Social media companies are complicit censors, holding down the spread of even rumors of such things. Not much different from current chinese great firewall activities and their former one-child policy (though that was overt).
So people live happy UBI lives, playing video games and chatting away, with few kids (what a pain anyways!) living happy single lives, maybe occasionally getting married. Due to drug lacing distribution irregularities and diet particulars, some people are successful at having kids but most are not. UBI effectively ushers in the end of the "undesirables" over a 60 year span, while the rich are catered by their few live servants and personal robot swarms. Things end not with a bang, but with a whimper.
So, if the rich conspire to cover the UBI initial implementation cost in exchange for future economic control, they achieve most of their goals and political aims. It's a pretty rational cost analysis from their viewpoint, assuming life extension will allow them to enjoy the benefits of population reduction. Their children will be protected and nurtured as much as their money can, while the poor effectively cease to exist. People who play the long game tend to win.
So, if you could live your current lifestyle without working, would you submit to this form of UBI, knowing the consequences for humanity? It's a very seductive offer when you only think about yourself. Pretty similar to the bad end in the "Manna" story by Marshal Brain. Is living in your parent's basement trolling memes much different from living in a Terrafoam apartment?
Let's fund it with Facebook. They seem to be doing well enough and should share their profits with the poor.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
So, based on the Alaska model, we just need every state to drill a bunch of oil and sell it to fund UBI in that state. Taken to its conclusion... if you oppose drilling, you oppose UBI and want to starve children.
Oh, that wasn't his point?
When these billionaires let go of all of their wealth and try to live by the means that they encourage everyone else to live by, then I'll start to listen to them.
They're mostly smart people, but they seem to think that that means that they know how to solve every problem. News flash: it doesn't.
Taxing robot "workers" is dumb. They're not people. Tax the people who own the robots, but not because they own the robots, just tax them like everyone else, and fund a basic income with that tax. Then if robots make their owners super rich and make a lot of other people unemployable, those owners will end up paying a higher share of the taxes and the newly-unemployables will keep a bigger share of their basic income, automatically. The whole system can be robot-agnostic and perfectly address the potential robot problem just as well as any of a myriad of similar problems that we've already got.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
How about don't have *one* if you can't afford to support it.
. . . who thinks that because he succeeded at one thing he is suddenly an expert on areas that are outside his circle of competence.
Mitt Romney got hurt in the 2008 Republican Primary for his 'Romneycare'. Romney was criticized as a liberal from Massachusetts. Some other plan was proposed in the early Clinton years as a distraction from Hillary's health care plan. Hell, W was criticised heavily for Medicare Part D.
Zuck, should take his brilliant ideas of his and put it somewhere they will see no daylight. In this country, thanks to the legislation liberal governments passed, we have the do-nothing-collect-paycheck crowd already. We need to find a way to convert those good-for-nothing people into a semi-productive members of society, not to increase the numbers of them. But of course, universal income receiving lazy-ass mo-fo's will spend their every waking moments on social networking sites, mainly facebook. Of course this will butter the bread, zuck has been holding and feeling there is no more butter coming. He needs more people with a lot of time in their hands and nothing else to do in life. What is better than universal income receiving lazy people ? Absolutely nothing. Self serving anyone ?
__________
The more I know people, the more I love animals
It makes sense that Zuckerberg would think this, since money basically falls out of the sky into his lap because of the popularity of his creation.
BUT when you start giving away money to EVERYONE, the math just doesn't work out. You can't manufacture money out of nothing. Well, technically, the Fed can, but even this has the consequence of devaluing currency. This is exactly what would happen with UBI...that money would become worth less.
We have forgotten a basic principle of trade. Money is nothing on its own, its just a medium of trade. Instead of bartering actual things, we barter or work for money, then use it to buy things. If you don't have to do anything or sell anything to get it, it loses its value.
Bi-partisan my eye!
Don't have three or more kids, especially if you don't have the means to support them.
I agree, but unfortunately for us, some people have been raised to believe that they have the right to have the state (society) pay for their choice to have children without the means or intention to be able to financially support them. It's an insane thought to me, but I know that people believe this.
The USA will probably be one of the last to catch up. They already are unable to solve simple problems so it's naive to think they'd lead the world in anything other than another example of how to fall into despotism quickly despite being (formerly) at the top of the world.
One transition to the future would be to remove income taxes and replace them with corporate taxes and capital gains taxes and use this to fund UBI. Forget about a serious discussion in the USA on such things even if you describe it in terms of Star Trek.
Automation will replace most jobs as it has already done for many jobs... since WW2 the USA pioneered the consumer economy but that is no longer sustainable for them and never was for most the planet (not that they cared... they still don't really. )
There are nowhere near enough meaningful jobs and it will continue to decline. Only when the problem is unavoidable will the USA start to admit there is a problem. Look at global warming for example. Or look at how bridges collapsing still has most people upset at the suggestion of raising the gas tax (which funds bridge upkeep and has been cut because it's impossible to peg funding to inflation when you don't understand math or money.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
He also just went to Idaho to hang with truckers. ÃOE think he's getting ready to try to be president.
If this wasn't the case, you'd have a disproportionately large number of people moving to Alaska with their families, hoping to collect that $5,000 - $6,000 per month of zero effort income.
Per Year.
I'm not good at making signatures...
Not sure a guy who can afford to buy an island in Hawaii should be giving economic advice. Concentrating so much wealth into the hands of a few people is unkind, manipulative, and I daresay Evil.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
Many are from rural villages
Villages are, by definition, rural.
Catalin Braescu
Ofaly.com
He just want more people to be able to spend it on Fecesbook. That is all. There is no true altruism here.
... our provincial government is a bunch of idiots. I have no idea how they won the most recent election.
The idiots didn't come out of nowhere. Your whole province must be filled with idiots.
This is why Bill Gates suggested we tax robot workers.
How do you tax a robot that usually earns no money for its job? :->
Sounds like a cheap version of the wealth-sharing program that awful Gaddafi allowed Libyans to benefit from:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/l...
Here's what got him killed (thanks to central bankers):
https://www.rt.com/news/econom...
To Zuckerburg:
You first.
You make some reasonable points, but forget one of the big tenets of Capitalism. It's the quest for the allmighty dollar, and due to individual (or corporate) greed, it quickly becomes a "Screw you, I got mine and need more" mentality. Just look at the news regarding off-shoring corporate taxes. The Apples and Googles of the world make billions a year, yet pay minimal taxes and in some cases get paid instead. How exactly is that looking after your fellow man? How is that fair and even taxation?
If you want another counter-example of just how great the U.S. is, take a look at our debts and where we borrow from. We owe billions, if not trillions, to China yet we send billions in foreign aide to places like Israel. That's right, we cut funding for our own education, increased spending on standardized testing (now ~10% of the school year), cut after-school programs, and still give borrowed money to other nations. Capitalism is a great way to make money, but it's not a great way to boost a nation. The middle class has been slowly disappearing, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. The government doesn't step in to level the playing field because they are bought and paid for by the rich.
We already have this, under a different name. Refundable Tax Credits.
This includes the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), Additional Child Tax Credit ($1,000 per kid, last I checked), and others.
The IRS code has for many years been a sneaky back door to additional welfare/subsidies/credits/what have you.
Yet another reason to reform & simplify the tax code, and be honest about what we're doing.
Universal Basic Income is Communism pure and simple. It has killed more people than any other political system in history.
If you make less than, say 30K a year, your tax rate would be negative and you'd get money back instead of paying into it. This would help with people who are on minimum wage, and it couldn't be exploited by those who don't need it.
The problem with a negative income tax is that you now have to make tax time come every month (or more!) in order for people to get their payments. Converting the Social Security office to the MGI office and having it make flat payments to everyone and then taxing it away from people who don't need it at the end of the year is not only probably significantly cheaper to administer than having tax time twelve times a year (even with a simplified tax code that we never seem to get) but also means that if someone's financial situation changes partway through the tax year and they go broke, they don't have to wait long for an MGI payment to cover their basic needs.
A big part of the argument for MGI is that it simplifies administration. If you're making a counter-proposal, you need to be certain that it simplifies the system if you want it to be taken seriously.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Sweden was successful, then the muslims came
Do my imaginary kids count?
That's the breaks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heXlCbrVzcc
By assuming it replaced a human worker and going off the salary that they would have received, adjusted for inflation YoY.
Just like the human worker there might be sick days (maintenance), holidays (overhaul / repair) and occassionally upgrade/repalcemenet (stress, ma/paturnity, burn out).
I also live in Canada. Though I always thought it silly that dental and eyes are not covered (haven't had to worry about ears yet). If you look at the market, those are also where people get gouged, largely because of monopolistic professional organizations. My glasses are about 800$, and there isn't much I can do about it, even shopping around. Ditto with dental, you pay what they tell you to pay and you have little choice but to go without. Some employers have benefits for those which help, but many people do not. I always like the example that someone could come punch me in the face and knock out a tooth, and I'm on hook for paying for it, while if he broke his hand doing so, it would be covered by universal health care. Just using as an example, and I know you could sue the guy for for the cost, however at the same time the idiots that would likely do something like that are not going to have any assets to sue for anyway making it moot. Of course rather than including them in the universal system they could fix the problem and regulate it more, but then again is that more or less difficult/expensive.
My other beef with the system is medication. Not so much that it isn't free, but more so that it isn't universal. It is managed at the provincial level which is silly. I know there have been various federal politicians that have promised to do something about it by doing national bulk purchasing from suppliers, but so far it hasn't happened. There are plenty of instances where a particular drug is available in one province, but not another, meaning you either have to use something different, more expensive, or move someplace that has it. Case in point my sister required medication in our home province, but the inexpensive version wasn't available. My parents figured out that the a University covered it under their student plan, and it was cheaper to enroll my sister in university so she could get the drug (with the spin off of additional education I suppose) than to simply pay for it, so she was a professional student for a time. Anyway how medications are handled in Canada could really use some standardization and modernization, particularly with much of our population aging and going to require more in the way of medications in the foreseeable future.
Also on the whole poverty issue (and UBI really), is that I'd say if Canada did a better job addressing addiction and mental health that would probably account for 2/3 of the issue. For the remaining 1/3 (of non-addicted, mentally well people), things like a better back to work/education opportunities/business growth policies would probably solve half of those again. For the rest, there is probably little anyone is going to do about it... might as well UBI, as a society we'll be paying for it one way or another anyway. For me one the saddest part of our society is that so many mentally ill folks without strong family support structures get left behind it seems.
Alaska is successful in it's dividends since it makes money of profits from oil leases. Now that the price of oil is less than $55 a barrel, Alaskan citizens aren't makingmuch at all. As far as the entire concept, wherever it's been tried in real life it's utterly failed .
So, Zuck is fine with exploiting natural resources to fund a UBI?
Let's start drilling!
Medicare / Medicaid have to stay as health needs it's own system to fix it and even 20K / year UBI will only cover 1 night in the ER.
Rand is just one of numerous Philosophers who believed that the individual is more important than the State. Natural Law predates the US Declaration of Independence and Constitution by thousands of years. Socrates, Cicero, Luther, Locke, much later Rand, and countless others in between.
Many of the ideas like UBI sound like new Utopian ideas, but they are regressive. Same stuff we see from Hegel, Marx, and others who promote a State over the individual.
The US is known as the great experiment because it was the first nation to promote the individual over the Government, not the Government over the individual. The Government being untrustworthy if given too much power has been played out over and over since, and it never works out well for the individual.
GP is correct, there is a difference between two schools of thought in Philosophy. It is very distinct. By your own statement, somehow marked informative, your answer is "That's a simplistic, Carl Marx view of the world that a 13 year old would have. Life ain't that simple, kiddo."
Oh how the masters would love to have complete power to take money from some and give to others under the guise of "helping" society. Seems quite strange that the people promoting these policies are consistently the richest people in the world doesn't it? Would Gates, Zuckerberg, and Musk be worth many tens of billions by themselves if they were so worried about the poor lowly commoner? Think very hard about that answer.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
You have enough of it.
So are we going to have COL for UBI? I like how the east/west coast progressives tout this as some great idea, but what happens when all the UBI recipients figure out they can live on a cot in SF or NY and get more money for drugs/alcohol/personal spending/whatever in those cities?
Surely we cant have a federal UBI, it costs way less to live in Georgia than New York, so what will the elitists do when they are overran in their wealthy little enclaves? Is this why Zuck is building his wall?
Wow. 300 comments and none touch on the fact that Alaska is a special case, as it's very sparsely populated, few people want to actually live there as it's freezing cold all the time and there's nothing to do.
Alaska pays people to live there. That is all. That would definitely be counterproductive in most other parts of the country.
Getting an education (it's free for you low-income types) and getting a real job is the bipartisan issue. Free money to people who refuse to better themselves is just killing the middle class with higher taxes. Zuck can be the first to provide basic income by giving away his billions to the poor. See how fast they bitch when he runs out.
And you wonder why liberal bullshit is falling on more and more deaf ears. You're all stupid and insane.
Pax Vobiscum
Found the American.
None of these countries are socialist, they just have high taxes, which they take from the free market.
And you forgot my country which has higher taxes than many of your list.
This should not be called "Basic Income", but "Citizen's Dividend". After all all citizens own the resources of the country so they should receive a dividend.
...richie - It is a good day to code.
Clearly, Schmuckerberg doesn't understand that the money Alaskans get comes from the sale of oil. Furthermore, he doesn't understand how much money people spend to essentially rent they entire daily life. You rent your living space either by renting a home or apartment or by paying a mortgage and property tax. You rent your healthcare by paying a ridiculously high insurance premium and no, your employer doesn't really pay for it. You rent your car by getting a new one every three years. You rent your telecommunications and your utilities particularly when you don't use them in the form of "service fees". You rent your entertainment. Everything. There are fewer and fewer things that you own outright.
All a universal basic income does it disguise the fact that you're renting more and more of your life in exactly the same way that income tax withholding fools people into thinking that they get a tax refund every year and that government spending doesn't affect them. Full time employees are also fooled into thinking that their employer pays their healthcare and social security. No, they don't. You just get a smaller paycheck every other week.
When the actual dollars don't pass through an individual's hands, the person has no appreciation for it.
Unfortunately most individuals of child-bearing age can't really afford to have a kid. If you wait until you can afford a kid you get a situation like Japan is in where your population is shrinking and consequently the economy stagnates.
#BiologySucks
I never called capitalism perfect... I'm only claiming that historically it's the only system that works consistently that we've come up with.
Also, you assume that people who are rich must have somehow broken some moral, legal or ethical rules to get where they are. While *some* may have, I'm positive that the majority of the super rich folks didn't cheat to get what they have. For those who did lie, cheat or steal their way to riches, that's why we have laws about fraud, unfair business deals and theft for the government to enforce. If the government fails to enforce those laws, why do we take it out on all rich people?
Personally, I know a couple of *really* rich folks who I've known for decades who where not that well to do when I met them. I know how hard they worked, how many hours they put in growing their business to what it is today. I don't begrudge them their wealth or envy their ability to buy expensive things, take expensive trips or live in expensive houses. They have been passing all this on to their kids, who won't have to work a day in their lives if they didn't want to. They didn't lie, cheat or steal what they have, why should we assume that the rich generally have?
What it boils down to here is plain old class warfare... "Tax the Rich" because they don't pay their fair share!
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
... he wants that. More time for everyone to look at facebook/instagram/whatsapp, increased ad revenue, etc...
Whats not for him to like here? And of course he can pass off as the good guy, like when he offered "free internet" to Indians.
The United States is, historically, a social democracy as well.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Every citizen should have the income to afford an internet connection and computer to access Facebook. Every citizen should have the means to purchase the products they see advertised to them on Facebook.
In other shocking news, Mark Z. is a proponent of an unhindered H1-B programs and open immigration in general (really). He sponsors propaganda on the subject.
at how the incredibly , ridiculously, absurdly wealthy have fantastic, wide reaching plans for spending someone else's money.
I would encourage people to have more children. We need more people so we'll have more great thinkers and doers to solve the big problems and lead into the future. That means it would be a very good idea to encourage breeding. The planet can easily sustainably support 50 billion humans. The key is not to over use. It's not hard. And you don't have to go vegetarian either.
Your post reads like a shill, but on the off chance you are simply ignorant..
Coming from Texas where there's not a whole lot of federal government representation (outside of the federal court system)
If you are really from Texas you have much more than just courts. DEA, ICE, FBI, and shit tons of military. I served in the US Army and spent most of my permanent duty station in Texas.
it always stuns me to hear this great hatred of the federal government
Expressing distrust in the accumulated powers is not "hatred". The Federal Government has a purpose, and is restricted in its purpose by Law. The name for that Law is the US Constitution.
and I've not understood why a "power grab" that is represented as better health care for everyone.
Well, then you don't even bother to try. The only way to pay for "health care for everyone" is to take money from those of us who already pay into the system. More than 50% of my income goes to taxes, 28% of which is Federal (not including extra Federal like SS, Medicaid, etc...) I don't make enough money to have shit tons of write offs like a millionaire, but like most Middle class people can't get very far ahead because of taxes. The claim that this money all comes from the top 1% is simply bullshit, because there are not enough of those people to pay the budget. In fact, we are 20Trillion dollars in debt even with all of the billionaires, millionaires, and people like me who pay taxes.
Is this a states' rights issue or who exactly are they stealing power from, and why are you so opposed to it?
With even cursory knowledge of the US Constitution you would understand that any power not expressly defined for the Federal Government is a State issue. If NY wants to overtly tax people and give their money away, that is their power. What would happen is what we see happening already, where people from NY and CA are moving to States who don't tax the shit out of them to redistribute their income.
So when CA and NY go broke (I can't say much about NY but CA is already broke and will be bankrupt in 5 years by the best estimates) people will vote in new leadership who will change the laws and make taxes fair.
Perhaps you have heard the phrase "No taxation without representation!", but then again you could be a product of public schools. Time to do some homework.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Ah.... per year. Ok... that makes much more sense. For some reason, I thought he was talking about a monthly payment, but no clue what made me think he alluded to that in the original article now that I look back at it.
It just further reinforces my original points though. Even if Alaska was offering me potentially $1,000-$2,000 per MONTH to move there, I wouldn't consider it enough justification to do it.
before we rush to mod comments like this as insightful (which it is)...
can we at least agree that strong sarcastic language like this should end with a tag? Remember, not everyone is as smart or as old as you are.
Plus, I'm not even sure this guy is being sarcastic!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
The only reason the ER is so expensive is because only the people that can afford to pay for it are billed NOT because there is anything particularly expensive about the ER. Here is a typical ER/Urgent Care situation, a kid falls down and needs stitches.
Stitches in the ER $1500-2500.
Stitches in Urgent Care $200-300.
Why is it that much different? Because urgent care can legally tell the 1 bum, 3 welfare moms, 2 illegals who came in before you who wanted free service to take a hike. The ER legally cannot reject anyone, which is why now there are very few private/commercial ERs anywhere not attached to a Local, State, or Federally run hospital.
When I was a kid in the 70's ERs were all the rage, they were rapidly becoming the McDonald's of the medical world. It was affordable, it was fast, and the service and quality was pretty decent and in some cases was beating doctor office visits on all three categories. Then the progressives got the wild idea that it should take care of everyone, not just those that can pay. Now the ER is slow, very expensive, over regulated, and the last place you want to go for treatment if you can help it.
All of which are socialist, all of which are quite successful, even with relatively high tax rates.
Tax rates in Canada are only slightly higher than the US for the average person. I think maybe 2% higher for the average person, and I feel like we get a lot of value for that minimal tax increase. Other countries on your list I don't know.
I wish I had a lawn.
Indeed. I did not vote for our current Government.
My family and I are planning to move across the country if things don't improve here.
I agree with all of your points. We're definitely on the same page for all of them, and that gives me some hope for the future of our country.
My 7 year old son has an auto-immune disease, and requires ~$600/month in prescriptions just to keep him alive. Thankfully we do have some personal coverage, but there are limits that can be inconvenient. The entire idea that we have to pay for life sustaining therapy for a child is absolutely ludicrous to me.
It is not curable, and will be with him his whole life. National average cost for people with his condition cost is over 1/2 million in their lifetime just spent on prescriptions for life sustaining therapy.
We need more people so we'll have more great thinkers and doers to solve the big problems and lead into the future.
And for every thinker and doer we'll get a dozen non-thinking non-doers, making the problems that much worse.
The key is not to over use.
What the hell does that mean?
Yes, and we need lots of non-thinkers to support the thinkers. Not everyone can be a researcher, a rocket scientist, etc. We also need farmers, plumbers, mechanics, clerks, etc.
>"The key is not to over use."
>What the hell does that mean?
Don't overuse resources.
Live lightly.