I agree that it would get more attention. However, as far as I know, there isn't a major credible dispute on that metric.
Since we are talking about political viability, it's worth mentioning that UBI has a HUGE advantage over welfare due to being nondiscriminatory. It's relatively easy to chip at welfare and other such programs when they are only used by a small portion of the population. But the very nature of UBI is that it's money everyone receives, which puts it more in line with programs like Social Security and Medicare., which are very popular, and much harder to attack without facing consequences.
Listen, thief... explain why you are entitled to another man's labor?
Because social safety nets provide one of the best ROIs for government funds, and UBI is one of the most efficient means of providing a social safety net. It's the basics of the social contract. The people that would be paying the most into this are the very wealthy, and they tend to not work as much, and be less useful in the work that they do perform (best paid CEOs have worst performance). Plus, if you are objecting to the social contract, the people with wealth would be the first to end up on the business end of a pitchfork.
And yes, calling you a thief is the appropriate escalation given you decided to bring religion and morality into the matter with the Calvinist crack.
Calvinism is largely responsible for why Americans are so fucking stupid about thinking about labor. The dumbass I was replying to was attempting to ruin the administrative advantages that a UBI has by trying to have it be controlled, because he can't think outside of the dogma of the protestant work ethic. If you are to the right of Milton Fucking Friedman, you pretty much have to chalk it up to religion.
I don't think it's perfectly clear, but it's clear enough that the only people that complain about it are people who are distracting from their own widespread theft from the people by claiming that helping out the poor is a similar kind of abuse. As far as government metrics go, poverty line is on the less controversial side. There's way more gaming of unemployment metrics.
Which means more taxes. And who's going to bear the brunt of that? Those who actually work for a living, to support a bunch of people who're gaming the system and remaining idle.
People who actually work for a living will pay about as much as they get out. In fact, the people that work the hardest will probably see MORE income, beceause the most arduous jobs often have low pay. The people who might lose money are largely the people who are already overpaid leeches, although they'll likely see net gains due to the fact that the money in the economy is being distributed in a useful way.
When you give people an option to obtain money through their own labor, or just take a stipend and not work, you're going to have a percentage of the population who are just going to opt for the stipend and not work. We ALREADY have this with welfare. AND IT IS UNACCEPTABLE.
Why is that unacceptable? Work is an ends to a means, and is not valuable in and of itself. Pull your head out John Calvin's ass and actually provide a substantive argument.
You can continue lying about it being "cheaper than welfare". But it helps nothing.
I'm not lying. It has less overhead, which is why the very right-wing, free market advocate Milton Friedman was a fan of it. You can't be sane and be to the right of him, and he was an advocate of it because it was a 'small government' solution to poverty.
Fortunately, we have these things called 'records' that allow us to have data on lives that we haven't lived.
Please stop trying to barf up your sanitized history of how WONDERFUL things were when people were chattel.
I didn't say being a serf was good. Quite the opposite. You see, unlike your dimwitted ass, I have the mental capacity to judge different times by MULTIPLE criteria. We also have more AIDS than serfs did, but we beat them overall at hygiene. Specifically on the subject of days worked, I'm saying that despite all of our advances, we have less free time than those chattel.
Also, compared to hunter-gatherers, those serfs were working their asses off (and hunter gatherers had plenty of problems as well). But you and your warped perceptions of what a reasonable amount of work is came from the industrial revolution, not from human history in general.
Okay. Enjoy getting stabbed by a vagrant because you value staunch opposition to any collectivism over effective usage of resources that give us all effectie freedom.
No. Serfs had a fuckton of holidays. It tended to make them a lot less likely to turn their pitchforks on their owners. Granted, the work was more arduous, but the number of days worked was far less.
It comes from the same taxes that the welfare system does, and gets more done for less money.
And again, it isn't paying people not to work. it's just paying people, whether they work or not. Not giving a single fuck whether you work or not is how it's cheaper than welfare, because there's no means testing or anything like that to determine whether or not you 'deserve' the money.
But UBI is the most decentralized as power can get. Instead of letting either the government or businesses have control over the masses, individuals end up having the most freedom.
Jesus, you spent a long time figuring out how to calculate the poverty line, which is something we already do, along with a much more complicated process of trying to sort out the deserving. The thing to bash conservative skulls in with is that it actually COSTS MORE to try and stop free riders than the cost of the free riders themselves.
And if you aren't a Saudi prince, you're going to die because you can't afford it.
We also fund much of the research in the medical area, so other countries are essentially mooching off of us while not providing funding for research.
That's not an argument for keeping up our current system. We should cut our healthcare costs in half, and the other countries should pay the 7% more or whatever to offset it.
No, it's only sustainable if it's sold as option to tell your boss to fuck off without starving, because that's the real value. Fuck off with your Calvinist work ethic bullshit.
The point of a UBI is to give people freedom, because trying to control people like you are advocating is actually very expensive.
UBI is fine - however, the government should make able-bodied people work for it if they don't work elsewhere. Plenty of trash that can be picked up on the roads, in parks, etc, plus tons of other no-skills-needed jobs.
Actually, this is the point where it's pointed out that between the existing expenditures in social safety nets (welfare,unemployment, etc.)m the fact that most UBI systems involve tax rates that make middle class jobs essentially neutral, and the increase in the velocity of money, it likely costs more to NOT have UBI.
Furthermore, if rich people are rich because they are smart instead of just opportunistic bastards seeking power, they would probably prefer having the streets clear of dying people over having more money doing nothing in an offshore tax haven.
This isn't me wanting to spy on my neighbor, but not wanting my neighbor to spy on me. This is the relationship between a people and their government, which is by it's very nature, asymmetrical.
No, I agree with you, which is why the problem isn't being solved in an effective way. I'm just explaining how the problem would be handled if you actually wanted to solve the problem.
You are the one spouting propaganda. Make weed legal if you want to stop MS-13. It will also cut down on a lot of the need for the refugees. And if we end our dependence on terrorism juice, ISIS will go broke. The solutions are simple if you aren't paid to not see them.
Arguably, Apple played a somewhat similar role to MS. Not so much incompetent, but Apple positioned themselves in a way that they couldn't supplant MS in market share, while still occupying the #2 niche.
It's a meaningful label. If it's one of the handful of companies that own the majority of the media, it's MSM. It's just ignored by certain people who are unaware of actual alternatives.
It's simple, yet flawed logic. CNN/MSNBC spread bullshit. Fox/InfoWars/etc. are not CNN/MSNBC. Therefore, Fox/InfoWars/etc. are not bullshit. Switch the names for the "liberal" news viewers. That neither group realizes the hypocrisy is kind of the point.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that it would get more attention. However, as far as I know, there isn't a major credible dispute on that metric.
Since we are talking about political viability, it's worth mentioning that UBI has a HUGE advantage over welfare due to being nondiscriminatory. It's relatively easy to chip at welfare and other such programs when they are only used by a small portion of the population. But the very nature of UBI is that it's money everyone receives, which puts it more in line with programs like Social Security and Medicare., which are very popular, and much harder to attack without facing consequences.
Because social safety nets provide one of the best ROIs for government funds, and UBI is one of the most efficient means of providing a social safety net. It's the basics of the social contract. The people that would be paying the most into this are the very wealthy, and they tend to not work as much, and be less useful in the work that they do perform (best paid CEOs have worst performance). Plus, if you are objecting to the social contract, the people with wealth would be the first to end up on the business end of a pitchfork.
Calvinism is largely responsible for why Americans are so fucking stupid about thinking about labor. The dumbass I was replying to was attempting to ruin the administrative advantages that a UBI has by trying to have it be controlled, because he can't think outside of the dogma of the protestant work ethic. If you are to the right of Milton Fucking Friedman, you pretty much have to chalk it up to religion.
I don't think it's perfectly clear, but it's clear enough that the only people that complain about it are people who are distracting from their own widespread theft from the people by claiming that helping out the poor is a similar kind of abuse. As far as government metrics go, poverty line is on the less controversial side. There's way more gaming of unemployment metrics.
People who actually work for a living will pay about as much as they get out. In fact, the people that work the hardest will probably see MORE income, beceause the most arduous jobs often have low pay. The people who might lose money are largely the people who are already overpaid leeches, although they'll likely see net gains due to the fact that the money in the economy is being distributed in a useful way.
Why is that unacceptable? Work is an ends to a means, and is not valuable in and of itself. Pull your head out John Calvin's ass and actually provide a substantive argument.
I'm not lying. It has less overhead, which is why the very right-wing, free market advocate Milton Friedman was a fan of it. You can't be sane and be to the right of him, and he was an advocate of it because it was a 'small government' solution to poverty.
Fortunately, we have these things called 'records' that allow us to have data on lives that we haven't lived.
I didn't say being a serf was good. Quite the opposite. You see, unlike your dimwitted ass, I have the mental capacity to judge different times by MULTIPLE criteria. We also have more AIDS than serfs did, but we beat them overall at hygiene. Specifically on the subject of days worked, I'm saying that despite all of our advances, we have less free time than those chattel.
Also, compared to hunter-gatherers, those serfs were working their asses off (and hunter gatherers had plenty of problems as well). But you and your warped perceptions of what a reasonable amount of work is came from the industrial revolution, not from human history in general.
Okay. Enjoy getting stabbed by a vagrant because you value staunch opposition to any collectivism over effective usage of resources that give us all effectie freedom.
No. Serfs had a fuckton of holidays. It tended to make them a lot less likely to turn their pitchforks on their owners. Granted, the work was more arduous, but the number of days worked was far less.
It comes from the same taxes that the welfare system does, and gets more done for less money.
And again, it isn't paying people not to work. it's just paying people, whether they work or not. Not giving a single fuck whether you work or not is how it's cheaper than welfare, because there's no means testing or anything like that to determine whether or not you 'deserve' the money.
But UBI is the most decentralized as power can get. Instead of letting either the government or businesses have control over the masses, individuals end up having the most freedom.
You are arguing for laws on crimes, not on forcing people to do work in order to get the resources robots create.
Jesus, you spent a long time figuring out how to calculate the poverty line, which is something we already do, along with a much more complicated process of trying to sort out the deserving. The thing to bash conservative skulls in with is that it actually COSTS MORE to try and stop free riders than the cost of the free riders themselves.
That's not an argument for keeping up our current system. We should cut our healthcare costs in half, and the other countries should pay the 7% more or whatever to offset it.
No, it's only sustainable if it's sold as option to tell your boss to fuck off without starving, because that's the real value. Fuck off with your Calvinist work ethic bullshit.
And yet, the amount of days not working was far greater for serfs and hunter-gatherers.
But UBI is just paying people. They can work or not work, and the whole point is the choice.
HURR DURR HOW DO I QUACKULATE POVERTY?
The point of a UBI is to give people freedom, because trying to control people like you are advocating is actually very expensive.
Fuck off with your Calvinist bullshit.
Actually, this is the point where it's pointed out that between the existing expenditures in social safety nets (welfare,unemployment, etc.)m the fact that most UBI systems involve tax rates that make middle class jobs essentially neutral, and the increase in the velocity of money, it likely costs more to NOT have UBI.
Furthermore, if rich people are rich because they are smart instead of just opportunistic bastards seeking power, they would probably prefer having the streets clear of dying people over having more money doing nothing in an offshore tax haven.
This isn't me wanting to spy on my neighbor, but not wanting my neighbor to spy on me. This is the relationship between a people and their government, which is by it's very nature, asymmetrical.
No, I agree with you, which is why the problem isn't being solved in an effective way. I'm just explaining how the problem would be handled if you actually wanted to solve the problem.
FTFY
You are the one spouting propaganda. Make weed legal if you want to stop MS-13. It will also cut down on a lot of the need for the refugees. And if we end our dependence on terrorism juice, ISIS will go broke. The solutions are simple if you aren't paid to not see them.
Arguably, Apple played a somewhat similar role to MS. Not so much incompetent, but Apple positioned themselves in a way that they couldn't supplant MS in market share, while still occupying the #2 niche.
It's a meaningful label. If it's one of the handful of companies that own the majority of the media, it's MSM. It's just ignored by certain people who are unaware of actual alternatives.
Somebody loves licking boots...
It's simple, yet flawed logic. CNN/MSNBC spread bullshit. Fox/InfoWars/etc. are not CNN/MSNBC. Therefore, Fox/InfoWars/etc. are not bullshit. Switch the names for the "liberal" news viewers. That neither group realizes the hypocrisy is kind of the point.