No, it is a basic income. It's purpose is to provide an income adequate to meet basic needs. I don't see any reason to complicate it.
As for the overhead, if you start setting rules and restrictions, you need people to decide what those are, people to explain it all to basically everyone, people to police it, and people to prosecute mis-uses. To make it more complicated, different regions will have different costs of various things, so now you're making decisions on a regional basis. Then you have people arguing that this, that, or the other is/is not an appropriate use of this/that/the other category and on and on.
And then there's the most common case by a wide margin, people who already have some income of their own. What happens if I don't use all of the dairy slot this month? Do I, in fact have 6 or seven seperate cards with different cumulative balances on them so I can roll it over? Who enforces that? Do I have to fill out a form detailing my life situation in painful detail to set the divisions or do we assume a single 20 something undergrad has the same needs as a 35 year old married father of two or a widowed 70 year old?
So why not just provide a basic income (just what it says on the tin) and leave it at that? Is it really that painful to for once have the government be helpful without over-complicating everything?
If you believe people are worthy of respect, you'll show it by respecting them at least enough to let them make their own adult decisions about money until they show that they can't.
I base that on your apparent reluctance in the process. There was a time when the right was more moderate than it is today. Compared to today, those Republicans (and you) are chairman Mao. I guess that would make me ultramao:-)
But my question is valid, why assume that people who are unemployed are somehow incapable of managing finances (and unworthy of respect) while assuming that you and I are?Just give each person their due amount and let them manage it as they see fit? Why assume they love their kids less? Are they really monsters? Why bring big brother in and double or triple the overhead of the program?
I don't recall claiming there can be no forgiveness or that they should be marked for life (either overtly or covertly) and I certainly have not suggested stoning.
All of that is quite distinct from them reaping what they have sown.
You yourself said you would not enjoy getting a limited use debit card, and here you are advocating for it.
I'm guessing you lean to the right. Funny how the right is all for the goventment keeping it's nose out of people's business unless it involved entitlements of reproduction and suddenly it's super nanny to the rescue!
You DO realize that the topic at hand is the basic income, to be given to each and every citizen? That would include you. That means you are advocating for your own insult and belittlement. (yes, I realize that at this time it is only hypothetical).
I presume you and most other people would also work so they can live better than the bare minimum. In fact, with the trap removed, many people on welfare now would be able to afford to start working even if it's just odd jobs.
And every single citizen will be rightly insulted if their home finances are micro-managed.
Will you enjoy getting a restricted use debit card? The implicit statement that you cannot be trusted to feed your kids?
I would hope not.
What if you are trying to teach your child about budgeting and saving?> He can have his favorite food every night (let's assume nutritious) or he can have nutritious and filling meals every night and a special treat on Sunday? Sorry, your big brother card doesn't seem to have that option.
Just give each citizen their allotment and hope for the best. Treat the people who actually have to survive on it with dignity and respect.
Sure, parent B is a bad parent, but what's your alternative? Have Big Brother micro-manage everyone? Are you prepared for your visit from the social worker to make sure you're not misallocating your income? If not, we'll just have to accept that some people do behave better than others.
It was also at the tail end of the lobotomy craze. That included people having their relatives (sometimes their own children) lobotomized for 'being disruptive'. Meanwhile, it was known that in the Soviet Union, you could easily get diagnosed with 'sluggish schizophrenia' if you spoke against the party.
It's hard to see why he WOULDN"T be skeptical of psychiatry.
Of course it is. But it's tailored for the Canadian government. If you want to know what your government is REALLY up to, always look at other country's news.
This is not puritanism. This is looking down on people who make commitments they don't keep. There exists a way for a married person to declare that they no longer intend to maintain fidelity, it's called divorce. There is also swinging for couples that mutually choose that. AM is instead dedicated to people who vowed fidelity and unilaterally choose not to honor that vow.
Given that this is a BASIC income, there's not likely to be a whole lot left over after properly taking care of a child. By the time you account for the inevitable breakage, it would probably be a net loss financially.
Why does that follow? If everyone gets enough to live on, it's their choice to live on it or not. In the case of kids, there are a few deranged middle class parents who still fail to adequately support their kids. We call that child abuse and act accordingly.
If the social contract is work or starve, the natural ethical flip side is that work must be available in sufficient quantities to provide the necessities. Otherwise, the contract constructively becomes just starve.
I think you'd be surprised how many would not be content with that. You might also be surprised how many jobs would magically become more desirable once managers realized that the people working there had a real choice.
Fast food (and UPS) likely are suffering an acute case of irony. When the manager is a condescending jerk barking out unnecessary orders, people naturally lose their motivation to work.
I have seen fast food run by the 'other' theory where the employees were highly motivated and the managers barely had to say a word for the store to run like clockwork. Even when the manager did need to take action, it wasn't barking out orders. If he called out "The floor is dirty" someone would mop it.
In other words, micro-managing and riding employees is a self-fulfilling condition.
Much of that is because welfare and disability are set up to be a trap (intentionally or not is debatable). That is, you just scrape by on disability, so you find that you have about enough energy to work two days a week or so. Suddenly bureaucrats descend on you like monsters in a bad horror movie and decide if you can just manage 15 hours a week, you aren't disabled at all, so POOF, you are now starving in the streets. What a great reward for doing as much as you can. The rules are generally made by people who have never faced a significant disability, temporary or permanent.
Welfare is the same deal. There are way too many ways you can find yourself out in the cold for daring to try to improve your situation. You must somehow go from total dependence to total independence in a single quantum step or stay where you are. Meanwhile, don't dare save up money to try to improve things, too much savings will disqualify you. The savings will run out well before you can re-qualify,
The basic income removes the trap. If 8 hours a week is all you can manage, so be it. Work 8 hours. If you build up to 16 hours later, even better. No worries. Perhaps given time and nowhere to go but up, you may surprise everyone and become fully rehabilitated.
Well, since I doubt that sitting down and starving to death in an orderly fashion is in the cards, what's your alternative? Rob a bank? Shoplift at the grocery store?
So what you're saying is that Gates, Buffet, the Waltons, etc all quit work years ago since they have more than they will ever need? That nobody would consider writing Free software without being paid for it. That nobody will ever want more than their basic income check will pay for? That people never get bored and want to be productive?
That's a lot of unsupported assumptions you have there. Several of which are trivially disproven
Slashdot Mirror
No, it is a basic income. It's purpose is to provide an income adequate to meet basic needs. I don't see any reason to complicate it.
As for the overhead, if you start setting rules and restrictions, you need people to decide what those are, people to explain it all to basically everyone, people to police it, and people to prosecute mis-uses. To make it more complicated, different regions will have different costs of various things, so now you're making decisions on a regional basis. Then you have people arguing that this, that, or the other is/is not an appropriate use of this/that/the other category and on and on.
And then there's the most common case by a wide margin, people who already have some income of their own. What happens if I don't use all of the dairy slot this month? Do I, in fact have 6 or seven seperate cards with different cumulative balances on them so I can roll it over? Who enforces that? Do I have to fill out a form detailing my life situation in painful detail to set the divisions or do we assume a single 20 something undergrad has the same needs as a 35 year old married father of two or a widowed 70 year old?
So why not just provide a basic income (just what it says on the tin) and leave it at that? Is it really that painful to for once have the government be helpful without over-complicating everything?
If you believe people are worthy of respect, you'll show it by respecting them at least enough to let them make their own adult decisions about money until they show that they can't.
I base that on your apparent reluctance in the process. There was a time when the right was more moderate than it is today. Compared to today, those Republicans (and you) are chairman Mao. I guess that would make me ultramao :-)
But my question is valid, why assume that people who are unemployed are somehow incapable of managing finances (and unworthy of respect) while assuming that you and I are?Just give each person their due amount and let them manage it as they see fit? Why assume they love their kids less? Are they really monsters? Why bring big brother in and double or triple the overhead of the program?
I don't recall claiming there can be no forgiveness or that they should be marked for life (either overtly or covertly) and I certainly have not suggested stoning.
All of that is quite distinct from them reaping what they have sown.
You yourself said you would not enjoy getting a limited use debit card, and here you are advocating for it.
I'm guessing you lean to the right. Funny how the right is all for the goventment keeping it's nose out of people's business unless it involved entitlements of reproduction and suddenly it's super nanny to the rescue!
So you support people who renege on their agreements? That must make business difficult as well.
You DO realize that the topic at hand is the basic income, to be given to each and every citizen? That would include you. That means you are advocating for your own insult and belittlement. (yes, I realize that at this time it is only hypothetical).
I presume you and most other people would also work so they can live better than the bare minimum. In fact, with the trap removed, many people on welfare now would be able to afford to start working even if it's just odd jobs.
And every single citizen will be rightly insulted if their home finances are micro-managed.
Will you enjoy getting a restricted use debit card? The implicit statement that you cannot be trusted to feed your kids?
I would hope not.
What if you are trying to teach your child about budgeting and saving?> He can have his favorite food every night (let's assume nutritious) or he can have nutritious and filling meals every night and a special treat on Sunday? Sorry, your big brother card doesn't seem to have that option.
Just give each citizen their allotment and hope for the best. Treat the people who actually have to survive on it with dignity and respect.
Actually, I offered two alternatives. One that many puritans wouldn't find acceptable either and one that would make a puritan's head explode.
There may well be a gray area somewhere in fidelity, but having an affair is sufficiently distant from fidelity that it will be well past that region.
Sure, parent B is a bad parent, but what's your alternative? Have Big Brother micro-manage everyone? Are you prepared for your visit from the social worker to make sure you're not misallocating your income? If not, we'll just have to accept that some people do behave better than others.
It was also at the tail end of the lobotomy craze. That included people having their relatives (sometimes their own children) lobotomized for 'being disruptive'. Meanwhile, it was known that in the Soviet Union, you could easily get diagnosed with 'sluggish schizophrenia' if you spoke against the party.
It's hard to see why he WOULDN"T be skeptical of psychiatry.
Of course it is. But it's tailored for the Canadian government. If you want to know what your government is REALLY up to, always look at other country's news.
This is not puritanism. This is looking down on people who make commitments they don't keep. There exists a way for a married person to declare that they no longer intend to maintain fidelity, it's called divorce. There is also swinging for couples that mutually choose that. AM is instead dedicated to people who vowed fidelity and unilaterally choose not to honor that vow.
Given that this is a BASIC income, there's not likely to be a whole lot left over after properly taking care of a child. By the time you account for the inevitable breakage, it would probably be a net loss financially.
The basic income isn't that sort of socialism. It leaves the free market in place to keep the planning nice and decentralized.
That's because it was an experiment. It showed the system had substantial benefits.
Why does that follow? If everyone gets enough to live on, it's their choice to live on it or not. In the case of kids, there are a few deranged middle class parents who still fail to adequately support their kids. We call that child abuse and act accordingly.
If the social contract is work or starve, the natural ethical flip side is that work must be available in sufficient quantities to provide the necessities. Otherwise, the contract constructively becomes just starve.
Interestingly, Friedman was a supporter of the basic income.
I think you'd be surprised how many would not be content with that. You might also be surprised how many jobs would magically become more desirable once managers realized that the people working there had a real choice.
Fast food (and UPS) likely are suffering an acute case of irony. When the manager is a condescending jerk barking out unnecessary orders, people naturally lose their motivation to work.
I have seen fast food run by the 'other' theory where the employees were highly motivated and the managers barely had to say a word for the store to run like clockwork. Even when the manager did need to take action, it wasn't barking out orders. If he called out "The floor is dirty" someone would mop it.
In other words, micro-managing and riding employees is a self-fulfilling condition.
Part of that is probably because you had to find a JOB and you would have to stay there. OTOH, you might well have found work or ended up doing work.
Perhaps some older person who was no longer working might have even coached you on how to find work if he/she wasn't too busy scratching to get by.
Much of that is because welfare and disability are set up to be a trap (intentionally or not is debatable). That is, you just scrape by on disability, so you find that you have about enough energy to work two days a week or so. Suddenly bureaucrats descend on you like monsters in a bad horror movie and decide if you can just manage 15 hours a week, you aren't disabled at all, so POOF, you are now starving in the streets. What a great reward for doing as much as you can. The rules are generally made by people who have never faced a significant disability, temporary or permanent.
Welfare is the same deal. There are way too many ways you can find yourself out in the cold for daring to try to improve your situation. You must somehow go from total dependence to total independence in a single quantum step or stay where you are. Meanwhile, don't dare save up money to try to improve things, too much savings will disqualify you. The savings will run out well before you can re-qualify,
The basic income removes the trap. If 8 hours a week is all you can manage, so be it. Work 8 hours. If you build up to 16 hours later, even better. No worries. Perhaps given time and nowhere to go but up, you may surprise everyone and become fully rehabilitated.
Well, since I doubt that sitting down and starving to death in an orderly fashion is in the cards, what's your alternative? Rob a bank? Shoplift at the grocery store?
So what you're saying is that Gates, Buffet, the Waltons, etc all quit work years ago since they have more than they will ever need? That nobody would consider writing Free software without being paid for it. That nobody will ever want more than their basic income check will pay for? That people never get bored and want to be productive?
That's a lot of unsupported assumptions you have there. Several of which are trivially disproven
No need to insist, look at the box the woman is holding in their picture.