Most rockets eventually turn sideways in which case the 11.8 m/s^2 of the rocket doesn't cancel with the 9.8 m/s^2 gravitational pull.
Also keep in mind that the rocket increases its acceleration as it's going up. The 11.8 m/s^2 is only for the first seconds. By the time it's going sideways, acceleration is a lot higher.
I believe the Falcon 9 accelerates slower. I've estimates of 2 m/s^2. If that's correct, it would only be going 14 mph when the Tesla was already going 60.
I know. Butter is just an example of a substance that holds a lot of energy and is perfectly safe to handle. You could eat the butter, and use it to power a hand crank to run your mobile device. A trained athlete could generate hundreds of Watts Not very practical, I admit, but it shows the things that are theoretically possible with the right kind of chemicals. We're just barely scratching the surface.
In the example under the current system, they can pay $1100 to hire someone with a $1000 welfare check, which they will lose. In the new system, they'd pay $100 to hire the same person who gets to keep their $1000 check. For the employee, it makes no difference, so they'd be just as likely to take the job as they do now.
The point is that by removing the many 10s of thousands of conditions, requirements, different levels and outcomes, and purposes of welfare we cut down on departments that manage them, reduce overheads, and rather than waste taxpayer money on red tape give the money back to the taxpayers
You are arguing that it's cheaper to give welfare money to everybody, rather than checking who really needs it. That sounds very improbable. I'm pretty sure that one civil servant can check on more than 2 or 3 people per month.
The problem is that living just on the edge of poverty, as you suggested, requires a different amount of money for different persons living in different circumstances. You can't have universal and basic at the same time.
I want people to get as much good as possible. When you start asking questions about what is fair and what is equal, you pull people down, not raise them up.
You had me until the point where you expect me to pay for it.
The more money you give to people for free, the less work they'll do. Which means the trade balance with other countries will worsen, and more of your tax money will escape.
That's what I meant when I said "or you give everybody so much that the most needy person has enough"
That means you'll waste a lot of money giving UBI to people who are not in need of it, and who are not currently getting welfare. They'll end up with much more than a minimum basic income.
If you get the same lousy circumstances, there's the same humiliation. And because everybody has different needs and circumstances, you either get a bureaucracy to determine exactly what someone should get, or you give everybody so much that the most needy person has enough, which means that a lot of other people end up getting more than they need, wasting money.
Corporate tax can be easily avoided by moving to a different country that doesn't have UBI. Sales tax can be avoided by smuggling in stuff from the same country.
My example was not about someone choosing to live in a posh neighborhood, but rather someone trapped in a city that just happens to be more expensive. Or do you intend to force people out of LA, and move them to a small town in Iowa where it's cheaper to live ?
Similarly, two people living together in the same house saves resources, and it's only appropriate that they can spend the saved money elsewhere
You may consider it appropriate, but that's not how welfare programs work. If you don't have a job, but you're married to a spouse with a nice income, you don't get welfare benefits. So, getting rid of all the management and bureaucracies and giving everybody the same independent of circumstances means throwing away more money.
But not all the work is in a factory. Look at a job of cutting someone's hair. It involves talking to the customer to find out what they would like, make suggestions, chit-chat about their kids, and actually cutting and modelling the hair. And the extra resources that the human hairdresser needs compared to sitting on a couch is minimal. There's no way that a robot could do that cheaper.
I'm not talking about people that earn a lot. If one UBI is enough to rent a house, then two (or more) people living together in the same house will get more than they need.
Slashdot Mirror
Which doesn't necessarily mean the bus has to take a break too. Another driver could take over.
City buses do a lot of start/stop traffic, which makes diesel engines run really bad, but would be perfect for electric with regenerative braking.
Most rockets eventually turn sideways in which case the 11.8 m/s^2 of the rocket doesn't cancel with the 9.8 m/s^2 gravitational pull.
Also keep in mind that the rocket increases its acceleration as it's going up. The 11.8 m/s^2 is only for the first seconds. By the time it's going sideways, acceleration is a lot higher.
I believe the Falcon 9 accelerates slower. I've estimates of 2 m/s^2. If that's correct, it would only be going 14 mph when the Tesla was already going 60.
I know. Butter is just an example of a substance that holds a lot of energy and is perfectly safe to handle. You could eat the butter, and use it to power a hand crank to run your mobile device. A trained athlete could generate hundreds of Watts Not very practical, I admit, but it shows the things that are theoretically possible with the right kind of chemicals. We're just barely scratching the surface.
A stick of butter has enough energy to power a mobile device, without creating a boom when contents are spilled.
Liquid batteries sound like a much better idea for applications where you want to store a large amount of charge, such as grid backup.
Spider web... spider web... does whatever spider web does. Can it grab junk from space ? No it can't, it's too weak. Look out! It's a spider web!
In the example under the current system, they can pay $1100 to hire someone with a $1000 welfare check, which they will lose. In the new system, they'd pay $100 to hire the same person who gets to keep their $1000 check. For the employee, it makes no difference, so they'd be just as likely to take the job as they do now.
You don't need to start a business in order to get paid for doing valuable work.
A basic income also means that your renters will be able to afford renting your property
Until the prices go up, that is.
If you're already earning a basic living wage, why would you take a miserable job for peanuts?
For the same reason a person currently on welfare would get a miserable job that only pays a bit more.
The point is that by removing the many 10s of thousands of conditions, requirements, different levels and outcomes, and purposes of welfare we cut down on departments that manage them, reduce overheads, and rather than waste taxpayer money on red tape give the money back to the taxpayers
You are arguing that it's cheaper to give welfare money to everybody, rather than checking who really needs it. That sounds very improbable. I'm pretty sure that one civil servant can check on more than 2 or 3 people per month.
The problem is that living just on the edge of poverty, as you suggested, requires a different amount of money for different persons living in different circumstances. You can't have universal and basic at the same time.
I want people to get as much good as possible. When you start asking questions about what is fair and what is equal, you pull people down, not raise them up.
You had me until the point where you expect me to pay for it.
The more money you give to people for free, the less work they'll do. Which means the trade balance with other countries will worsen, and more of your tax money will escape.
That's what I meant when I said "or you give everybody so much that the most needy person has enough" That means you'll waste a lot of money giving UBI to people who are not in need of it, and who are not currently getting welfare. They'll end up with much more than a minimum basic income.
A flat tax would move a lot of money from the middle class to the people above.
If you get the same lousy circumstances, there's the same humiliation. And because everybody has different needs and circumstances, you either get a bureaucracy to determine exactly what someone should get, or you give everybody so much that the most needy person has enough, which means that a lot of other people end up getting more than they need, wasting money.
Corporate tax can be easily avoided by moving to a different country that doesn't have UBI. Sales tax can be avoided by smuggling in stuff from the same country.
Similarly, two people living together in the same house saves resources, and it's only appropriate that they can spend the saved money elsewhere
You may consider it appropriate, but that's not how welfare programs work. If you don't have a job, but you're married to a spouse with a nice income, you don't get welfare benefits. So, getting rid of all the management and bureaucracies and giving everybody the same independent of circumstances means throwing away more money.
But then the "huge amount of bureaucracy, management costs, corruption, and fraud" will come back.
And then natural selection kicks in. If you sit on your butt all day watching dumbing down tv while eating greasy food,
... and fucking all day, ending up with a dozen children that somebody else ends up paying for.
But not all the work is in a factory. Look at a job of cutting someone's hair. It involves talking to the customer to find out what they would like, make suggestions, chit-chat about their kids, and actually cutting and modelling the hair. And the extra resources that the human hairdresser needs compared to sitting on a couch is minimal. There's no way that a robot could do that cheaper.
I'm not talking about people that earn a lot. If one UBI is enough to rent a house, then two (or more) people living together in the same house will get more than they need.