You are replying to the kind of person who believes that Y2K wasn't an issue because nothing happened. Only because companies payed millions of dollars to thousands of contractors and employees to make sure it would be a non-event, of course.
Compare the population of Alaska to the amount of wealth it has in the form of petroleum. Now do the same for the entire US. You might see the problem.
Your simplistic analysis leaves out a lot. It's really easy when you ignore 75% of the problems, right?
1) 1.8 trillion is a lot. Where are you going to get it from? 2) 10,000 barely pays for rent in many areas of the country. Are you going to relocate people (which will just drive up prices in different areas) or provide subsidized housing (which costs money)? 3) How do those barely paying rent afford education, or little things like food and cloths? That's right, you have to pay for those too.
And all that assumes no one has to pay salaries or maintain and build any infrastructure.
And what the fuck will happen to world politics when the US completely defunds its military? Sure, perhaps it spends more than it needs, but its needs are greater than zero.
It is immoral to allow shits like you to breath our air, but we do it anyway. Go crawl back under your rock and feel grateful we don't take that from you too.
(For those too stupid to understand, I will explain: morality is a social construct. If a society is built with the realization that taxes are necessary, they are not immoral. The US Constitution exists, in large part, because the previous Government was unable to tax.)
The first 10,000 or so of annual income is not taxed. (It's actually a bit closer to $15K, I think.) All UBI would do is give that money from everyone (through taxes), instead of from an employer who is trading you for productivity. The tax burden is the same.
Let's round your numbers to 85% and 15% to keep things simple. The premise is that 3,000,000,000,000 (3 trillion) is the total income of the Federal Government. A UBI of 10,000 for 300,000,000 (300 million) people will cost 3 trillion. If 85% are paying 100% of taxes and getting back 10,000 each, the net income of the Government is 450 billion. Of that, 450 billion will be going to the other 15%, leaving zero. Now the Government has to pay salaries, infrastructure maintenance, interest payments and all the other funding from zero. Without going deeper into debt.
Where do the X dollars come from for every citizen deemed eligible? How many Americans are you going to say don't count so you can still apply the term Universal to something that isn't?
You're missing the point that U stands for Universal -- as in we would be giving money to people who don't pay taxes. A lot of people. 10s of millions of people. The money has to come from somewhere, and no proponent has come up with a practical source. Instead, we get stupid statements on how we don't really mean UBI, we just mean restructuring welfare.
Unemployment shouldn't go away. The way that works is, you pay into an insurance plan. If you're fired, you get to collect. If you are earning, say $50K a year and you are fired, the UBI isn't going to do it for you, unless you were sticking 80%+ of your income away for the future.
I don't think UBI simplifies the tax code at all. If anything, the need to generate even more income to give away will make things worse.
Also, why are so many people missing the point that 3 trillion is roughly the yearly income of the Federal Government? The same government that spends money on lots of things that are not welfare? Where is the extra money going to come from the give a UBI and cover all the other expenses of a Government?
3 trillion is simple math: 300 million times 10 thousand. You can argue about UBI being truly Universal (cut off minors, and you drop a good portion of the 300 million), or you can argue that 10,000 is too much per person, but the numbers are not bogus. What you are proposing simply isn't UBI.
You seem to be missing the U in UBI. Current welfare programs cover a small fraction of the US population, taken individually, and there are very few, if any, people getting assistance from most or all welfare programs.
Einstein's day job was being a patent examiner. If you aren't contributing, it's because you're a lazy shit, and not because the Man is holding you down.
Who the fuck are you replying to, you stupid shit? So you're a landlord. Big fucking deal. How about you earn a few billion dollars and then come back and tell us how hard you have it. We're talking about people who could literally sit in an empty room and be fed regularly for every single second of the remainder of their lives and still not run out of money. They can literally do nothing and not run out of money. You are so far away from that, you may as well be a subsistence farmer for all the relevance you have to this conversation.
Slashdot Mirror
He's actually a thief. I would have turned him in.
You are replying to the kind of person who believes that Y2K wasn't an issue because nothing happened. Only because companies payed millions of dollars to thousands of contractors and employees to make sure it would be a non-event, of course.
Remove regulations on the hotels.
Compare the population of Alaska to the amount of wealth it has in the form of petroleum. Now do the same for the entire US. You might see the problem.
Your simplistic analysis leaves out a lot. It's really easy when you ignore 75% of the problems, right?
1) 1.8 trillion is a lot. Where are you going to get it from?
2) 10,000 barely pays for rent in many areas of the country. Are you going to relocate people (which will just drive up prices in different areas) or provide subsidized housing (which costs money)?
3) How do those barely paying rent afford education, or little things like food and cloths? That's right, you have to pay for those too.
And all that assumes no one has to pay salaries or maintain and build any infrastructure.
And what the fuck will happen to world politics when the US completely defunds its military? Sure, perhaps it spends more than it needs, but its needs are greater than zero.
It is immoral to allow shits like you to breath our air, but we do it anyway. Go crawl back under your rock and feel grateful we don't take that from you too.
(For those too stupid to understand, I will explain: morality is a social construct. If a society is built with the realization that taxes are necessary, they are not immoral. The US Constitution exists, in large part, because the previous Government was unable to tax.)
Go back to 3rd grade. You fail at basic arithmetic.
Breaking News: People good at basic arithmetic superior to the average shit posting on Slashdot.
The first 10,000 or so of annual income is not taxed. (It's actually a bit closer to $15K, I think.) All UBI would do is give that money from everyone (through taxes), instead of from an employer who is trading you for productivity. The tax burden is the same.
You're not really good at math, are you?
Let's round your numbers to 85% and 15% to keep things simple. The premise is that 3,000,000,000,000 (3 trillion) is the total income of the Federal Government. A UBI of 10,000 for 300,000,000 (300 million) people will cost 3 trillion. If 85% are paying 100% of taxes and getting back 10,000 each, the net income of the Government is 450 billion. Of that, 450 billion will be going to the other 15%, leaving zero. Now the Government has to pay salaries, infrastructure maintenance, interest payments and all the other funding from zero. Without going deeper into debt.
Good luck with that.
Where do the X dollars come from for every citizen deemed eligible? How many Americans are you going to say don't count so you can still apply the term Universal to something that isn't?
You're missing the point that U stands for Universal -- as in we would be giving money to people who don't pay taxes. A lot of people. 10s of millions of people. The money has to come from somewhere, and no proponent has come up with a practical source. Instead, we get stupid statements on how we don't really mean UBI, we just mean restructuring welfare.
Unemployment shouldn't go away. The way that works is, you pay into an insurance plan. If you're fired, you get to collect. If you are earning, say $50K a year and you are fired, the UBI isn't going to do it for you, unless you were sticking 80%+ of your income away for the future.
What part of Universal do people not understand?
Only idiots and the truly desperate equip their armies with foreign goods.
I don't think UBI simplifies the tax code at all. If anything, the need to generate even more income to give away will make things worse.
Also, why are so many people missing the point that 3 trillion is roughly the yearly income of the Federal Government? The same government that spends money on lots of things that are not welfare? Where is the extra money going to come from the give a UBI and cover all the other expenses of a Government?
3 trillion is simple math: 300 million times 10 thousand. You can argue about UBI being truly Universal (cut off minors, and you drop a good portion of the 300 million), or you can argue that 10,000 is too much per person, but the numbers are not bogus. What you are proposing simply isn't UBI.
You should have your head inserted into the nearest blast furnace.
Do you also believe that mechanics should be fired at similar rates because someone invented motorized tools?
You seem to be missing the U in UBI. Current welfare programs cover a small fraction of the US population, taken individually, and there are very few, if any, people getting assistance from most or all welfare programs.
It's funny how much of a rant you can generate by not even completing the very thought you quoted. What a fucking idiot you are.
Einstein's day job was being a patent examiner. If you aren't contributing, it's because you're a lazy shit, and not because the Man is holding you down.
Who the fuck are you replying to, you stupid shit? So you're a landlord. Big fucking deal. How about you earn a few billion dollars and then come back and tell us how hard you have it. We're talking about people who could literally sit in an empty room and be fed regularly for every single second of the remainder of their lives and still not run out of money. They can literally do nothing and not run out of money. You are so far away from that, you may as well be a subsistence farmer for all the relevance you have to this conversation.
Why do you think the Nazi party wasn't socialist?
I don't think your vote can be considered a big anything, much less an FU, if no one even notices you voted.
Yes, it's a poor choice. Snowden has no known qualifications for any cabinet position. Perhaps you expect Jill to create new position just for him?