Lol yeah and they keep moving the goalposts for that. Don't count on having it by the time you get old
Actuaries have predicted that SS may run short in 20 years or so but they have also proposed that this would be easy to fix by eliminating the current income cap of SS tax (currently about $100,000). As soon as the idiots in Congress get their act together, this can be easily fixed without reducing benefits.
Expanding SS to everyone will obviously require additional sources of funding. UBI by definition is payments to everyone (universal) but says noting about the source of the funding. The article points out some likely savings in other areas as well as additional sources of funding. It doesn't matter where the money comes from to still be UBI. As far as the amount of money per person. This is BASIC income designed to provide a minimum level of support so you don't starve. There are people who do get by on a very small income and it can be adequate especially when you consider that each member of a household can receive the income. It also does not limit other income so a person could easily supplement the income with a part time minimum wage job.
You will be eligible for SS. That makes it income for you. It is universal since (nearly) everyone will be eligible for it. The source of the funds is irrelevant. It is paid for by employer and employee tax but it could be any other kind of tax.
Just wrong. Here's an article from Forbes (that bastion of left, liberal, socialist thinking) which explains how it would cost $200 billion LESS each year than the current system: https://www.forbes.com/sites/t...
Yes, there is a minimal work requirement but it's so low that everyone has qualified (or has a spouse or parent who makes them eligible). The benefit does increase if you have more years of credit but the difference between the minimum benefit and maximum is small. It's not a large amount of money but lots of people do live solely on their SS benefit. It's a basic income. It's really a good model for a UBI and shows how beneficial such a program could be.
The US already has a very successful UBI. It's called Social Security. Right now, it only applies to older people and those with disabilities. Social Security has done a remarkable job of eliminating poverty among the elderly. It gives them enough money to afford basic necessities of food and shelter. Everyone gets a basic income with no requirement to work and no "means test". Don't know why the same system wouldn't work for everyone. Just increase the SS tax and give everyone a basic income.
I'm dependent on the government for my safety when driving a car, clean water, fire and police protection, military protection against terrorist states, pure food and drugs, financial predators... (and a whole lot of other things). What protections do you want to give up? What is your philosophy? Mine is that I want to be safe.
Don't know which Corvette you have but Teslas are faster than your Corvette. Fastest Corvette is 3.8 0-60 Fastest Tesla is 3..2 Even my "non-performance" Tesla is 4.2 which is faster than most Corvettes.
You would need to count all of the people working for less than a "living wage" ($15/hr) to get a more accurate picture of the number of people who are underpaid. Someone earning $0.15 more than minimum wage is above minimum wage but still not going to be able to support themselves or their family.
Yes. It's called a living wage. And yes, even summer jobs should pay a living wage. (BTW, most minimum wage jobs are held by adults struggling to support their families, not teens on summer break.)
The discussion is about giving people enough money to afford food and shelter, not limiting their potential earnings. However, I could see that this suggestion might be good for corporate executives to limit their pay. Several countries/jurisdictions have actually implemented rules that limit executive pay to some multiple of the lowest wage their company pays. Usually it's a factor of less than 100.
The problem is that these are not "entry positions". They are the only jobs available for people trying to support a family. They don't pay enough for one person to live on and certainly not enough to support a family. Funny... "simply look for the next job and find one that pays more"
So, you are saying that people should be "free" to work for low wages where they can't afford food or shelter? "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose..."
There is no such thing as a GE free organism. Every organism has been bred and altered to meet commercial production requirements. Even "organic" and "GE free" organisms have had centuries of selective breeding (and prior to that, natural selection) so that nothing is free of genetic manipulation. That's just nature.
I've never understood the push for labeling GE foods (beyond the politics). Virtually every plant (and animal) in commercial production today has been engineered for yield, appearance, etc. This has been done for centuries by selective breeding. Modern GE techniques are just a more efficient method of altering the genetic makeup of organisms but fundamentally no different than what Gregor Mendel did hundreds of years ago. (Modern GE techniques also allow cross organism genetic manipulation, again, very targeted but the same thing that nature does randomly millions of times a day.)
Slashdot Mirror
Lol yeah and they keep moving the goalposts for that. Don't count on having it by the time you get old
Actuaries have predicted that SS may run short in 20 years or so but they have also proposed that this would be easy to fix by eliminating the current income cap of SS tax (currently about $100,000). As soon as the idiots in Congress get their act together, this can be easily fixed without reducing benefits.
Expanding SS to everyone will obviously require additional sources of funding. UBI by definition is payments to everyone (universal) but says noting about the source of the funding. The article points out some likely savings in other areas as well as additional sources of funding. It doesn't matter where the money comes from to still be UBI.
As far as the amount of money per person. This is BASIC income designed to provide a minimum level of support so you don't starve. There are people who do get by on a very small income and it can be adequate especially when you consider that each member of a household can receive the income. It also does not limit other income so a person could easily supplement the income with a part time minimum wage job.
You will be eligible for SS. That makes it income for you. It is universal since (nearly) everyone will be eligible for it.
The source of the funds is irrelevant. It is paid for by employer and employee tax but it could be any other kind of tax.
Government actuaries disagree with you and they have actually done the math.
Just wrong.
Here's an article from Forbes (that bastion of left, liberal, socialist thinking) which explains how it would cost $200 billion LESS each year than the current system:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/t...
Another from Quartz:
https://qz.com/611644/we-talke...
Yes, there is a minimal work requirement but it's so low that everyone has qualified (or has a spouse or parent who makes them eligible).
The benefit does increase if you have more years of credit but the difference between the minimum benefit and maximum is small.
It's not a large amount of money but lots of people do live solely on their SS benefit. It's a basic income.
It's really a good model for a UBI and shows how beneficial such a program could be.
So... It's ok for a drug company to sell me ineffective, dangerous or contaminated drugs?
How would I know (before I died)?
The US already has a very successful UBI. It's called Social Security. Right now, it only applies to older people and those with disabilities.
Social Security has done a remarkable job of eliminating poverty among the elderly. It gives them enough money to afford basic necessities of food and shelter. Everyone gets a basic income with no requirement to work and no "means test".
Don't know why the same system wouldn't work for everyone. Just increase the SS tax and give everyone a basic income.
Because it's not true.
I'm dependent on the government for my safety when driving a car, clean water, fire and police protection, military protection against terrorist states, pure food and drugs, financial predators... (and a whole lot of other things).
What protections do you want to give up?
What is your philosophy? Mine is that I want to be safe.
Don't know which Corvette you have but Teslas are faster than your Corvette.
Fastest Corvette is 3.8 0-60
Fastest Tesla is 3..2
Even my "non-performance" Tesla is 4.2 which is faster than most Corvettes.
You would need to count all of the people working for less than a "living wage" ($15/hr) to get a more accurate picture of the number of people who are underpaid. Someone earning $0.15 more than minimum wage is above minimum wage but still not going to be able to support themselves or their family.
Starbucks?
You should get out more. You clearly live in a bubble.
So... What's your point?
Yes. It's called a living wage.
And yes, even summer jobs should pay a living wage. (BTW, most minimum wage jobs are held by adults struggling to support their families, not teens on summer break.)
The discussion is about giving people enough money to afford food and shelter, not limiting their potential earnings.
However, I could see that this suggestion might be good for corporate executives to limit their pay. Several countries/jurisdictions have actually implemented rules that limit executive pay to some multiple of the lowest wage their company pays. Usually it's a factor of less than 100.
The problem is that these are not "entry positions". They are the only jobs available for people trying to support a family. They don't pay enough for one person to live on and certainly not enough to support a family.
Funny... "simply look for the next job and find one that pays more"
So, you are saying that people should be "free" to work for low wages where they can't afford food or shelter?
"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose..."
28 July 2017
Patents are evil since they lock up ideas so only people who can pay benefit from them. They prevent innovation and the progress of science.
I agree. Patents are evil.
Most real scientists are very reluctant to make absolute claims. You are right to be skeptical about any absolute claim.
There is no such thing as a GE free organism. Every organism has been bred and altered to meet commercial production requirements. Even "organic" and "GE free" organisms have had centuries of selective breeding (and prior to that, natural selection) so that nothing is free of genetic manipulation. That's just nature.
I've never understood the push for labeling GE foods (beyond the politics). Virtually every plant (and animal) in commercial production today has been engineered for yield, appearance, etc. This has been done for centuries by selective breeding. Modern GE techniques are just a more efficient method of altering the genetic makeup of organisms but fundamentally no different than what Gregor Mendel did hundreds of years ago. (Modern GE techniques also allow cross organism genetic manipulation, again, very targeted but the same thing that nature does randomly millions of times a day.)
You can't be trusted with the phone. It's not really yours.Apple just licenses it to you.They own you.