Everything I have read about Electric cars that's not treating the technology and it's future as a magick box points to the non-sustainability of rare-earth minerals and the nature of the tech degrading over time.
Quick question. What rare earth materials are used in electric cars? Which ones are essential? Which ones replaceable?
I won't even get started on how woefully inadequate our current electrical infrastructure is to the task of charging two or three Electric cars in all homes in America.
Okay, so some upgrades will be necessary sometime in the next 2 decades, maybe?
Lets figure out the cost each owner is going to have to pony up to bring charging stumps up and down their driveway, then pay to protect them from people stealing power for their own cars.
charging stumps? Why not just long extension cords? Still, you're probably looking at around $1k if you don't do it yourself like I would. As for preventing stealing, there are numerous ways to do that, starting with a $5 padlock.
But wait, there's more! Quick charges are good for a quick hope but for every 3 hours on the road you're going to be charging for an hour. Good luck on your next cross country trip!
1. More like once every 4 hours with the increased ranges coming out. Oh, and you're supposed to stop for breaks, remember? 2. Rent a bloody ICE vehicle for the occasional cross country trip. Or fly. It's often cheaper these days.
If you're going to disparage EVs, you might want to keep up to date on the actual abilities of the technology.
Most people keep "best" and "worst" case scenarios within about a standard deviation of the middle, not looking at lottery winning levels of improbability.
Why expect to be able to predict battery prices in five years?
Because battery prices depend upon factors that are much easier to track than the weather?
Keep in mind that I wasn't predicting battery prices down to the cent, but more like two significant digits. That's less predicting that it will snow on a given day and more that it will snow in a given month.
A battery, even a big one, isn't a magic box though.
I posted actual links to actual performance. The batteries are lasting longer than 5 years - very few Teslas have needed a battery replacement, and the oldest are hitting 7 years. Given deterioration rates, 10 years isn't a big stretch. Prices are still dropping, making $10k more likely than $20k. Inflation just increases prices for everything, Including wages, it is treading water. Scarcity of materials? Lithium is all over the place, and iron is possible for the anodes. Some of the cost is merely to ramp up production.
A Tesla doesn't actually use rare materials in its drivetrain.
they're so cheap that it makes more sense to replace a motor than taking the time to re-wind the coils.
I'm not sure that you could practically rewind the coils in a Tesla motor anyways. It's my understanding that while it is physically a standard AC induction motor, it is a very optimized and specialized induction motor.
It'd be like rebuilding an engine and because you can't match factory specs exactly enough you end up with an engine with no more power, but 1/3rd higher fuel usage.
And the coils are unlikely to go bad as well - you're more likely to see issues with the electronics or even shaft if you manage to wear it out.
In short, yeah, replacement cheaper than rebuilding outside of the factory.
Meanwhile Tesla owners seems to have a lot of warranty claims for door handles (WTF? How can these break?) and "Drive Units" (AKA complete powertrain). Teslas actually have a poor reliability rating.
My brother's wife's car has had 4 door handles break on it. We think it is down to a combination of that particular model having weak/cheap handles, and my brother having kids that yank with all their strength on the door handle, like they think that that will overwhelm the door being locked before mom has the chance to hit the unlock all button.
Given that unless you have really unusual circumstances you're probably buying a car from a dealer no more often than once every two years, and that worst case you could buy your car from out of state to avoid giving money to the local dealers, I'd say that moving out isn't the right option.
Writing your state representatives to urge them to remove the liberal union-supporting anti-freedom laws(remember, Texas lawmakers, gotta hit their hot buttons) along with a generous donation to their campaign funds(because the dealers are making them too, you have to counter that) would be a better option. Change the law, don't just move out.
Encountered that at my work. Maybe not life saving, but they transitioned our network/computer help desk to VOIP. What happens when the network goes down?
I mean, we were aware of the issue, but we couldn't reach out to our higher level/vendor supports for assistance, or to our lower level customers to let them know that we were aware of the issue and working on it.
Infrastructure may NOT be fine, actually, it is a disaster zone, after all. Half the towers might have been knocked out, but you have a massive call increase for people checking out that their relatives and such are okay.
That's why temporary throttling during a disaster may be necessary to provide minimum service to all.
There is no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services.
Never said that there is. As I specifically said, in private businesses where payment happens first or simultaneous with the exchange, they an indeed refuse cash.
However, if I go to a business that provides a non-refundable service, such as a hair cut or a meal, the issue is more complicated. If I incur the debt by ordering and eating the food, for example, then offer to settle by paying cash, they may refuse my payment, but the net result is likely going to be them being forced to write off the debt. If it hits the court, the court will tell them to take the bloody money, and you'll have spent more than the bill trying to collect.
You need to talk to is either a forensic accountant (those who liquidate companies and thus have typically spent equal parts of their degree studying financial law) or better still straight up lawyers specialising in finance.
Why should we need to do this for something as basic as whether a debt has occured?
DEBT, contracts. A sum of money due by certain and express agreement. 3 Bl. Com. 154. In a less technical sense, as in the "act to regulate arbitrations and proceedings in courts of justice" of Pennsylvania, passed the 21st of March, 1806, s. 5, it means an claim for money. In a still more enlarged sense, it denotes any kind of a just demand; as, the debts of a bankrupt. 4 S. & R. 506.
2. Debts arise or are proved by matter of record, as judgment debts; by bonds or specialties; and by simple contracts, where the quantity is fixed and specific, and does not depend upon any future valuation to settle it. 3 Bl. Com. 154; 2 Hill. R. 220.
3. According to the civilians, debts are divided into active and passive. By the former is meant what is due to us, by the latter, what we owe. By liquid debt, they understand one, the payment of which may be immediately enforced, and not one which is due at a future time, or is subject to a condition; by hypothecary debt is meant, one which is a lien over an estate and a doubtful debt, is one the payment of which is uncertain. Clef des Lois Rom. h.t.
4. Debts are discharged in various ways, but principally by payment. See Accord and Satisfaction; Bankruptcy; Confusion Compensation; Delegation; Defeasance; Discharge of a contract; Extinction; Extinguishment; Former recovery; Lapse of time; Novation; Payment; Release; Rescission; Set off.
5. In payment of debts, some are to be paid before others, in cases of insolvent estates first, in consequence of the character of the creditor, as debts due to the United States are generally to be first paid; and secondly, in consequence of the nature of the debt, as funeral expenses and servants' wages, which are generally paid in preference to other debts. See Preference; Privilege; Priority.
Nothing in this says that eating at a restaurant where you eat before paying doesn't constitute incurring a debt. If you fail to pay, the restaurant can sue you for the cost of the meal. How could they do this if it isn't a debt?
No, not debt. Look up the *legal* definition of debt from a financial law reference. Not the dictionary definition. You have no incurred debt.
Looked it up, my definition works. You want to provide a citation that says otherwise? Debt: A sum of money that is owed or due to be paid because of an express agreement; a specified sum of money that one person is obligated to pay and that another has the legal right to collect or receive. A fixed and certain obligation to pay money or some other valuable thing or things, either in the present or in the future. In a still more general sense, that which is due from one person to another, whether money, goods, or services. In a broad sense, any duty to respond to another in money, labor, or service; it may even mean a moral or honorary obligation, unenforceable by legal action. Also, sometimes an aggregate of separate debts, or the total sum of the existing claims against a person or company. Thus we speak of the "national debt," the "bonded debt" of a corporation, and so on.
Ordering off the menu, which comes with prices and terms, constitutes the express agreement.
I never said that anybody is obligated to pay in cash. The question of the thread is whether the business is obligated to accept cash.
And accepting cash may not be legally mandated, but let us follow the theoretical chain of events.
I eat at a nice sit down restaurant, noting that they don't take cash. That is fine, I have a credit card. Now, personally I have several, but for this I only have one.
I finish eating and go to pay the bill. My card is declined. I call the company, and find out that my card was shut off because somebody in California tried to buy gas with it. Actually happened to me, and no, I have never stepped foot into that state. They're mailing me a new card, but won't reactivate the one in my pocket. It will be around a week. Googling, the normal response to this is to take your information for you to return later and pay.
Fortunately, I have cash sufficient to cover the bill, and offer that instead, because I don't want to come back. Most places will take this even against policy because, well, cash in hand is better than credit in the bush.
Because a serious effort to pay has been made, it isn't theft or robbery, it is a civil issue. Worst case they sue me for payment, but the judge won't be happy to hear that they refused to take legit currency that is in normal denominations, not befouled, and in generally good condition.
Your 'debt as a commoner thinks of it' line is spectacularly unuseful, by the way. It is an ad hominem attack. It also makes me think that you don't understand debt. Me, I'm not an accountant, but my parents are and I've had classes.
You are right, refusing to take cash won't cancel the debt. However, it does carry consequences. All of this depends upon exact jurisdiction, of course.
1. By offering payment that is refused, criminal charges are off the table. They aren't stealing, they attempted to pay. Thus, contract violation, civil, rather than criminal theft. 2. In many areas it stops the clock on fees and penalties for not paying immediately. 3. You may have to take them to court to be paid. However, the odds are good, especially for petty amounts and not dickhead things like bags of pennies, that the court will simply order you to take the cash.
He works at a gas station. Want to know what else doesnt work without power? Gas pumps. Unless he has backup power his station can't pump gas when the power goes out.
That said, they can also spring for an UPS or a low power system. Also, there are ways to do cards by hand. Remember imprint machines? Ker-chunk chunk?
If not, you don't owe debt, and when you walk out of the bar you're not going to have lawyers come after you for your failure to close out your contractually obligated debt, you'll have the police coming after you for stealing.
Tricky, but I'll try to explain. In the scenario you mention, where you just walk out, that shows you never had the intent to pay, which is indeed theft.
But let us say that you attempt to pay by card and it is declined. Now, believe it or not, unless they can prove that you knew it was shut down, it isn't theft, but a contract violation, not criminal at all.
Same deal with trying to pay with cash and them refusing. Contract violation, not criminal. At least in most areas.
Go to a sitdown restaurant and have a meal before the bill is presented? Debt. Get a haircut without paying first? Debt. Have a plumber fix your toilet then get the bill? Debt.
Sure, it is short term, but is still debt. And there is actually a contract, just a verbal one constrained by customs and traditional conventions.
Where isn't it debt? Where you pay first or the exchange is effectively simultaneous. Buying food at a fast food joint. You pay, then get food. Grocery stores, Walmart, etc...
Make an attempt to pay your debt using cash and the store refuses moves it from attempted theft to a contract dispute. From watching judge shows, I'm picturing Judge Judy telling the plaintiff to take the damn money.
The cops, keeping in mind that they have done shit like arrested a guy for attempting to pay with a $2 bill, probably won't arrest somebody who attempted to pay with cash and continues to offer to pay in front of the cops.
Lastly, what happens if there is a problem with the plastic? Like shut off for suspected fraud and the customer didn't know?
Oh, forgot a couple points: A: We are currently spending somewhere over $50k per family under the poverty line in welfare. We could literally eliminate poverty by just giving them the money we're already spending. The overhead is insane. B: Current welfare schemes end up creating "welfare cliffs", where the family unit in question can be penalized, have lower total income, by earning more money. IE earn $1 more and lose $10k in benefits. A large part of my support for UBI is eliminating that. C: I would prefer to pay for this via a sovereign wealth fund. Basically, a smallish amount of taxes goes into the fund. The UBI is paid for out of the fund, like what Alaska is doing. It'd take years, but would create a self-balancing situation. D: Payouts should be "managed" similar to how interest rates are managed by the Fed. If you're seeing excessive wage inflation due to not enough workers(at the lower end), keep the UBI payment low. If you're seeing plenty of employment but wages are stagnant or dropping at the low end, increase the UBI some.
Most proposals for UBI would fund it by dramatically reducing current entitlements. So someone getting a $1500 social security check, would see it reduced to the "universal" $500 or so. That chance of this being politically feasible: 0%.
An interesting problem indeed. I'll note that as it is an earned entitlement, I don't consider social security to be "welfare". So my default thought is that those on social security would get both payments. Same with disability(though that should maybe be private insurance).
Now, given that SS is heading for insolvency anyways, it needs fixing. So here's my general thoughts, even if they're nasty. 1. Social security payments would need to be reduced. This is to maintain solvency. No more, no less, and is independent of a UBI, it is for the protection of the program itself. 2. SS payments would be taxable under my system. So if you're getting massive income from it, the UBI would be taxed back, as with a regular earner. If you're getting the minimum SS payments, the UBI will help out.
You could take all the billionaires and millionaires and hand all their money to the rest of the population and still not even come close to funding universal basic income.
Which is why you wouldn't do that. Here, I'll use my libertarian influenced UBI scheme. Keep in mind that I don't have the resources to make more than a gross whack at it.
1. Amount is around $6k per person, per year. Yes, people will complain that this isn't enough for a single person to live on. Tough shit. It's the poverty line for a household of 4, so if you're solely dependent upon the UBI, you don't get to live alone. 2. Almost all other forms of non-medical welfare are eliminated. We'll still need some programs for orphans and such. 3. It worked out better before Trump's tax reforms, but eliminate the first two tax brackets, and increase the third by 1-2%. The system remains heavily progressive because of the UBI. People effectively end up not paying taxes until they're earning more than ~$24k. Equality with the old total tax burden within a few hundred was around $36k(this was where the UBI was completely taxed back and the recipient was paying the same amount they were before to the fed),These types are typically not paying significant federal income tax anyways. 4. Now, this sounds like we're giving a lot of money away, because we aren't making as much from those under $36k, but the funding for this comes from the elimination of all the other welfare programs, just more equitably distributed.
In any case, I'd need to get ahold of some relatively very detailed information, or perhaps some sort of modeling system, to figure out just how badly the tax system would need to be tweaked, who the general winners are(intact working families, I'd think), and who the general losers are(unemployed single people).
That's not even starvation income. No one can live on that, since you're also proposing cutting off all non-medical assistance. Hell, that won't even cover the rent alone in most places.
Sure they can. Plenty do in the USA. Household size of 4, that is the poverty line.
Learn reading comprehension. I wasn't talking about the UBI being the amount of a minimum wage job, but replacing the need for it, as it provides the floor.
Fuel and such isn't required because I'm not paying you to keep a vehicle. Want one? Get a job.
6. How to keep people from borrowing money against the future basic income benefit?
Impossible to stop them from doing that now with regular welfare payments. Don't even try to stop it, however you can keep the lenders from loaning money under such if you make such debt easy to discharge in bankruptcy.
They have to be able to anticipate being paid back, after all, and if the UBI is only just enough to live on...
7. How to provide UBI concurrently with single payer health care, or concurrently paying a lot more for the people who now use government assistance for health care?
I support UBI with single payer. One of the sick jokes is that between state and federal governments we already spend more than enough money to provide single payer for the whole nation without the government spending an extra dime, completely eliminating private healthcare spending, if we could get our costs down to the median of western europe.
8. How to justify UBI in light of entitlement programs? (for example people who paid a portion of their income their whole life and now rightfully expect to get that money back from social security)
For programs like social security, my thought is to pay it out. Treat it like military retirement though - cash payments are taxable unless you're disabled, then it's taxable. Payments are on top of the UBI, but generally taxed.
9. How to keep druggies from taking that whole first basic income check and overdosing?
I'm back to being mean. This seems to be a self-solving problem to me. On a kinder note, how do you keep them from doing it now? In my program the payment would only be around $500, hard to fund much of a drug habit with that.
More seriously, I don't view drug addicts as a UBI problem, but as a medical problem(should be covered by single payer). If they've overdosed, time to get them into treatment. Up to and including just issuing them the drug if necessary. Heroin is actually damn cheap without all the scheduling restrictions, and pills are generally safer. Put the dealers out of business by prescribing it to addicts. Then, when they're ready, put them into treatment programs to wean them off.
Slashdot Mirror
Everything I have read about Electric cars that's not treating the technology and it's future as a magick box points to the non-sustainability of rare-earth minerals and the nature of the tech degrading over time.
Quick question. What rare earth materials are used in electric cars? Which ones are essential? Which ones replaceable?
I won't even get started on how woefully inadequate our current electrical infrastructure is to the task of charging two or three Electric cars in all homes in America.
Okay, so some upgrades will be necessary sometime in the next 2 decades, maybe?
Lets figure out the cost each owner is going to have to pony up to bring charging stumps up and down their driveway, then pay to protect them from people stealing power for their own cars.
charging stumps? Why not just long extension cords? Still, you're probably looking at around $1k if you don't do it yourself like I would. As for preventing stealing, there are numerous ways to do that, starting with a $5 padlock.
But wait, there's more! Quick charges are good for a quick hope but for every 3 hours on the road you're going to be charging for an hour. Good luck on your next cross country trip!
1. More like once every 4 hours with the increased ranges coming out. Oh, and you're supposed to stop for breaks, remember?
2. Rent a bloody ICE vehicle for the occasional cross country trip. Or fly. It's often cheaper these days.
If you're going to disparage EVs, you might want to keep up to date on the actual abilities of the technology.
Most people keep "best" and "worst" case scenarios within about a standard deviation of the middle, not looking at lottery winning levels of improbability.
Why expect to be able to predict battery prices in five years?
Because battery prices depend upon factors that are much easier to track than the weather?
Keep in mind that I wasn't predicting battery prices down to the cent, but more like two significant digits. That's less predicting that it will snow on a given day and more that it will snow in a given month.
A battery, even a big one, isn't a magic box though.
I posted actual links to actual performance. The batteries are lasting longer than 5 years - very few Teslas have needed a battery replacement, and the oldest are hitting 7 years. Given deterioration rates, 10 years isn't a big stretch. Prices are still dropping, making $10k more likely than $20k. Inflation just increases prices for everything, Including wages, it is treading water. Scarcity of materials? Lithium is all over the place, and iron is possible for the anodes. Some of the cost is merely to ramp up production.
A Tesla doesn't actually use rare materials in its drivetrain.
they're so cheap that it makes more sense to replace a motor than taking the time to re-wind the coils.
I'm not sure that you could practically rewind the coils in a Tesla motor anyways. It's my understanding that while it is physically a standard AC induction motor, it is a very optimized and specialized induction motor.
It'd be like rebuilding an engine and because you can't match factory specs exactly enough you end up with an engine with no more power, but 1/3rd higher fuel usage.
And the coils are unlikely to go bad as well - you're more likely to see issues with the electronics or even shaft if you manage to wear it out.
In short, yeah, replacement cheaper than rebuilding outside of the factory.
Meanwhile Tesla owners seems to have a lot of warranty claims for door handles (WTF? How can these break?) and "Drive Units" (AKA complete powertrain). Teslas actually have a poor reliability rating.
My brother's wife's car has had 4 door handles break on it. We think it is down to a combination of that particular model having weak/cheap handles, and my brother having kids that yank with all their strength on the door handle, like they think that that will overwhelm the door being locked before mom has the chance to hit the unlock all button.
And no, it isn't a Tesla.
Given that unless you have really unusual circumstances you're probably buying a car from a dealer no more often than once every two years, and that worst case you could buy your car from out of state to avoid giving money to the local dealers, I'd say that moving out isn't the right option.
Writing your state representatives to urge them to remove the liberal union-supporting anti-freedom laws(remember, Texas lawmakers, gotta hit their hot buttons) along with a generous donation to their campaign funds(because the dealers are making them too, you have to counter that) would be a better option. Change the law, don't just move out.
Except that rather than $20k every 5 years, we're on track for $10k every 15. An amortized $1k/year is less than what I spend on gasoline.
https://www.plugincars.com/tes...
https://cleantechnica.com/2018...
Encountered that at my work. Maybe not life saving, but they transitioned our network/computer help desk to VOIP. What happens when the network goes down?
I mean, we were aware of the issue, but we couldn't reach out to our higher level/vendor supports for assistance, or to our lower level customers to let them know that we were aware of the issue and working on it.
You might be, but I was looking at the thread topic and proposed law, which were specifically for disaster areas.
Infrastructure may NOT be fine, actually, it is a disaster zone, after all. Half the towers might have been knocked out, but you have a massive call increase for people checking out that their relatives and such are okay.
That's why temporary throttling during a disaster may be necessary to provide minimum service to all.
There is no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services.
Never said that there is. As I specifically said, in private businesses where payment happens first or simultaneous with the exchange, they an indeed refuse cash.
However, if I go to a business that provides a non-refundable service, such as a hair cut or a meal, the issue is more complicated. If I incur the debt by ordering and eating the food, for example, then offer to settle by paying cash, they may refuse my payment, but the net result is likely going to be them being forced to write off the debt. If it hits the court, the court will tell them to take the bloody money, and you'll have spent more than the bill trying to collect.
You need to talk to is either a forensic accountant (those who liquidate companies and thus have typically spent equal parts of their degree studying financial law) or better still straight up lawyers specialising in finance.
Why should we need to do this for something as basic as whether a debt has occured?
https://legal-dictionary.thefr...
DEBT, contracts. A sum of money due by certain and express agreement. 3 Bl. Com. 154. In a less technical sense, as in the "act to regulate arbitrations and proceedings in courts of justice" of Pennsylvania, passed the 21st of March, 1806, s. 5, it means an claim for money. In a still more enlarged sense, it denotes any kind of a just demand; as, the debts of a bankrupt. 4 S. & R. 506.
2. Debts arise or are proved by matter of record, as judgment debts; by bonds or specialties; and by simple contracts, where the quantity is fixed and specific, and does not depend upon any future valuation to settle it. 3 Bl. Com. 154; 2 Hill. R. 220.
3. According to the civilians, debts are divided into active and passive. By the former is meant what is due to us, by the latter, what we owe. By liquid debt, they understand one, the payment of which may be immediately enforced, and not one which is due at a future time, or is subject to a condition; by hypothecary debt is meant, one which is a lien over an estate and a doubtful debt, is one the payment of which is uncertain. Clef des Lois Rom. h.t.
4. Debts are discharged in various ways, but principally by payment. See Accord and Satisfaction; Bankruptcy; Confusion Compensation; Delegation; Defeasance; Discharge of a contract; Extinction; Extinguishment; Former recovery; Lapse of time; Novation; Payment; Release; Rescission; Set off.
5. In payment of debts, some are to be paid before others, in cases of insolvent estates first, in consequence of the character of the creditor, as debts due to the United States are generally to be first paid; and secondly, in consequence of the nature of the debt, as funeral expenses and servants' wages, which are generally paid in preference to other debts. See Preference; Privilege; Priority.
Nothing in this says that eating at a restaurant where you eat before paying doesn't constitute incurring a debt. If you fail to pay, the restaurant can sue you for the cost of the meal. How could they do this if it isn't a debt?
No, not debt. Look up the *legal* definition of debt from a financial law reference. Not the dictionary definition. You have no incurred debt.
Looked it up, my definition works. You want to provide a citation that says otherwise?
Debt:
A sum of money that is owed or due to be paid because of an express agreement; a specified sum of money that one person is obligated to pay and that another has the legal right to collect or receive. A fixed and certain obligation to pay money or some other valuable thing or things, either in the present or in the future. In a still more general sense, that which is due from one person to another, whether money, goods, or services. In a broad sense, any duty to respond to another in money, labor, or service; it may even mean a moral or honorary obligation, unenforceable by legal action. Also, sometimes an aggregate of separate debts, or the total sum of the existing claims against a person or company. Thus we speak of the "national debt," the "bonded debt" of a corporation, and so on.
Ordering off the menu, which comes with prices and terms, constitutes the express agreement.
I never said that anybody is obligated to pay in cash. The question of the thread is whether the business is obligated to accept cash.
And accepting cash may not be legally mandated, but let us follow the theoretical chain of events.
I eat at a nice sit down restaurant, noting that they don't take cash. That is fine, I have a credit card. Now, personally I have several, but for this I only have one.
I finish eating and go to pay the bill. My card is declined. I call the company, and find out that my card was shut off because somebody in California tried to buy gas with it. Actually happened to me, and no, I have never stepped foot into that state. They're mailing me a new card, but won't reactivate the one in my pocket. It will be around a week. Googling, the normal response to this is to take your information for you to return later and pay.
Fortunately, I have cash sufficient to cover the bill, and offer that instead, because I don't want to come back. Most places will take this even against policy because, well, cash in hand is better than credit in the bush.
Because a serious effort to pay has been made, it isn't theft or robbery, it is a civil issue. Worst case they sue me for payment, but the judge won't be happy to hear that they refused to take legit currency that is in normal denominations, not befouled, and in generally good condition.
Your 'debt as a commoner thinks of it' line is spectacularly unuseful, by the way. It is an ad hominem attack. It also makes me think that you don't understand debt. Me, I'm not an accountant, but my parents are and I've had classes.
You are right, refusing to take cash won't cancel the debt. However, it does carry consequences. All of this depends upon exact jurisdiction, of course.
1. By offering payment that is refused, criminal charges are off the table. They aren't stealing, they attempted to pay. Thus, contract violation, civil, rather than criminal theft.
2. In many areas it stops the clock on fees and penalties for not paying immediately.
3. You may have to take them to court to be paid. However, the odds are good, especially for petty amounts and not dickhead things like bags of pennies, that the court will simply order you to take the cash.
He works at a gas station. Want to know what else doesnt work without power? Gas pumps. Unless he has backup power his station can't pump gas when the power goes out.
That said, they can also spring for an UPS or a low power system. Also, there are ways to do cards by hand. Remember imprint machines? Ker-chunk chunk?
Note, Starbucks is a pay first, then get your drink/food place. As such, there is no dent that they have to accept cash for.
If not, you don't owe debt, and when you walk out of the bar you're not going to have lawyers come after you for your failure to close out your contractually obligated debt, you'll have the police coming after you for stealing.
Tricky, but I'll try to explain. In the scenario you mention, where you just walk out, that shows you never had the intent to pay, which is indeed theft.
But let us say that you attempt to pay by card and it is declined. Now, believe it or not, unless they can prove that you knew it was shut down, it isn't theft, but a contract violation, not criminal at all.
Same deal with trying to pay with cash and them refusing. Contract violation, not criminal. At least in most areas.
You can't incur debt buying a product or service.
Yes, you absolutely can.
Go to a sitdown restaurant and have a meal before the bill is presented? Debt. Get a haircut without paying first? Debt. Have a plumber fix your toilet then get the bill? Debt.
Sure, it is short term, but is still debt. And there is actually a contract, just a verbal one constrained by customs and traditional conventions.
Where isn't it debt? Where you pay first or the exchange is effectively simultaneous. Buying food at a fast food joint. You pay, then get food. Grocery stores, Walmart, etc...
Make an attempt to pay your debt using cash and the store refuses moves it from attempted theft to a contract dispute. From watching judge shows, I'm picturing Judge Judy telling the plaintiff to take the damn money.
The cops, keeping in mind that they have done shit like arrested a guy for attempting to pay with a $2 bill, probably won't arrest somebody who attempted to pay with cash and continues to offer to pay in front of the cops.
Lastly, what happens if there is a problem with the plastic? Like shut off for suspected fraud and the customer didn't know?
Unlimited cynicism isn't an answer, though, it is avoiding an answer.
And yes, they do disappear, just fairly rarely.
Oh, forgot a couple points:
A: We are currently spending somewhere over $50k per family under the poverty line in welfare. We could literally eliminate poverty by just giving them the money we're already spending. The overhead is insane.
B: Current welfare schemes end up creating "welfare cliffs", where the family unit in question can be penalized, have lower total income, by earning more money. IE earn $1 more and lose $10k in benefits. A large part of my support for UBI is eliminating that.
C: I would prefer to pay for this via a sovereign wealth fund. Basically, a smallish amount of taxes goes into the fund. The UBI is paid for out of the fund, like what Alaska is doing. It'd take years, but would create a self-balancing situation.
D: Payouts should be "managed" similar to how interest rates are managed by the Fed. If you're seeing excessive wage inflation due to not enough workers(at the lower end), keep the UBI payment low. If you're seeing plenty of employment but wages are stagnant or dropping at the low end, increase the UBI some.
Most proposals for UBI would fund it by dramatically reducing current entitlements. So someone getting a $1500 social security check, would see it reduced to the "universal" $500 or so. That chance of this being politically feasible: 0%.
My UBI proposal
An interesting problem indeed. I'll note that as it is an earned entitlement, I don't consider social security to be "welfare". So my default thought is that those on social security would get both payments. Same with disability(though that should maybe be private insurance).
Now, given that SS is heading for insolvency anyways, it needs fixing. So here's my general thoughts, even if they're nasty.
1. Social security payments would need to be reduced. This is to maintain solvency. No more, no less, and is independent of a UBI, it is for the protection of the program itself.
2. SS payments would be taxable under my system. So if you're getting massive income from it, the UBI would be taxed back, as with a regular earner. If you're getting the minimum SS payments, the UBI will help out.
You could take all the billionaires and millionaires and hand all their money to the rest of the population and still not even come close to funding universal basic income.
Which is why you wouldn't do that. Here, I'll use my libertarian influenced UBI scheme. Keep in mind that I don't have the resources to make more than a gross whack at it.
1. Amount is around $6k per person, per year. Yes, people will complain that this isn't enough for a single person to live on. Tough shit. It's the poverty line for a household of 4, so if you're solely dependent upon the UBI, you don't get to live alone.
2. Almost all other forms of non-medical welfare are eliminated. We'll still need some programs for orphans and such.
3. It worked out better before Trump's tax reforms, but eliminate the first two tax brackets, and increase the third by 1-2%. The system remains heavily progressive because of the UBI. People effectively end up not paying taxes until they're earning more than ~$24k. Equality with the old total tax burden within a few hundred was around $36k(this was where the UBI was completely taxed back and the recipient was paying the same amount they were before to the fed),These types are typically not paying significant federal income tax anyways.
4. Now, this sounds like we're giving a lot of money away, because we aren't making as much from those under $36k, but the funding for this comes from the elimination of all the other welfare programs, just more equitably distributed.
In any case, I'd need to get ahold of some relatively very detailed information, or perhaps some sort of modeling system, to figure out just how badly the tax system would need to be tweaked, who the general winners are(intact working families, I'd think), and who the general losers are(unemployed single people).
That's not even starvation income. No one can live on that, since you're also proposing cutting off all non-medical assistance. Hell, that won't even cover the rent alone in most places.
Sure they can. Plenty do in the USA. Household size of 4, that is the poverty line.
Learn reading comprehension. I wasn't talking about the UBI being the amount of a minimum wage job, but replacing the need for it, as it provides the floor.
Fuel and such isn't required because I'm not paying you to keep a vehicle. Want one? Get a job.
6. How to keep people from borrowing money against the future basic income benefit?
Impossible to stop them from doing that now with regular welfare payments. Don't even try to stop it, however you can keep the lenders from loaning money under such if you make such debt easy to discharge in bankruptcy.
They have to be able to anticipate being paid back, after all, and if the UBI is only just enough to live on...
7. How to provide UBI concurrently with single payer health care, or concurrently paying a lot more for the people who now use government assistance for health care?
I support UBI with single payer. One of the sick jokes is that between state and federal governments we already spend more than enough money to provide single payer for the whole nation without the government spending an extra dime, completely eliminating private healthcare spending, if we could get our costs down to the median of western europe.
8. How to justify UBI in light of entitlement programs? (for example people who paid a portion of their income their whole life and now rightfully expect to get that money back from social security)
For programs like social security, my thought is to pay it out. Treat it like military retirement though - cash payments are taxable unless you're disabled, then it's taxable. Payments are on top of the UBI, but generally taxed.
9. How to keep druggies from taking that whole first basic income check and overdosing?
I'm back to being mean. This seems to be a self-solving problem to me. On a kinder note, how do you keep them from doing it now? In my program the payment would only be around $500, hard to fund much of a drug habit with that.
More seriously, I don't view drug addicts as a UBI problem, but as a medical problem(should be covered by single payer). If they've overdosed, time to get them into treatment. Up to and including just issuing them the drug if necessary. Heroin is actually damn cheap without all the scheduling restrictions, and pills are generally safer. Put the dealers out of business by prescribing it to addicts. Then, when they're ready, put them into treatment programs to wean them off.