If you base it on what people already have, you essentially give them and incentive to spend everything they get to keep their wealth low so they get more basic income. If you base it on what people earn, you given them incentive to keep work less so they get more basic income. Even raising it to support children doesn't make sense because some people will exploit it by having a lot of children for the wrong reasons.
I like the idea of basic income but I think it has to be a flat amount regardless of other factors. It's already a hard sell, particularly among the right and among the libertarians and even among moderates, so it has to be well thought-out in order to prevent abuse or it will never gain traction. IMO we're a long way off from being able to do something like that in the US.
When I said "by definition" I meant it -- 1% of approx. 7.2 billion is approx. 72 million. Obviously that varies based on what you use as estimated world population, but the point is still the same. Anyway, you're right, you don't have to be a 1%er to be able to afford this. You just have to have your priorities set in such a way that this is what you'd want to spend your money on. Even working class people here in the US could "afford" this watch, at least as well as they can afford the crazy TVs, cars, and other crap they buy all the time. For that matter, many people with smoking addictions spend far more on cigarettes than what this watch costs.
Why not? People making less than that find ways to buy $1,500 TVs and other devices all the time. Why not a watch? Besides, what I said is that it's easy to believe that 100k of that 72,000,000 people are willing to throw that kind of money out on a watch, not that all 72,000,000 would be doing it.
Seems like a big number off the cuff, but by definition there are roughly 72 million 1%-ers in the world. This 100k equates to 0.14% of the 1%, or 0.000014% of the world's population. If you put it in those terms, it's pretty easy to believe there are that many suckers with money to burn in the world.
Keeping two or more accounts is good advice for keeping yourself out of trouble if a cyber attack happens, but I don't think this beats them. They still managed to steal your money and disrupt your life.
I call it the sports team mentality. Red vs. Blue. Republicans vs. Democrats -- pick your team and root for them to win the championship every four years. It's our greatest sports rivalry ever!
There are a ton of new auction sites (Quibids, Swoopo, etc) where you actually pay for each *bid* you make, and in return you get a chance at buying the product for insanely small prices -- so for example they do penny auctions where it price for a $1,000 TV starts at $0.01 and each bid increment is a penny. The bids cost $0.60 so by the time the price reaches $100.00, the company has already made $6,000 on that TV. I'm trying to understand how fantasy sports could be considered worse than these auction sites.
I actually agree that fantasy sports are gambling, I just don't understand why some forms of gambling are banned and others are allowed.
Well, your car still has a dashboard even though nothing is being dashed at you. In fact, we use "dashboards" all over in technology now, to mean a set of gauges and readouts, which has nothing to do with its original meaning.
It seems to me that by doing this, the people of the UK are literally trading security for security. Or perhaps trading BOTH freedom and security for security. Not a good deal.
Slashdot Mirror
Evidence, yes. Proof, no.
If you base it on what people already have, you essentially give them and incentive to spend everything they get to keep their wealth low so they get more basic income. If you base it on what people earn, you given them incentive to keep work less so they get more basic income. Even raising it to support children doesn't make sense because some people will exploit it by having a lot of children for the wrong reasons.
I like the idea of basic income but I think it has to be a flat amount regardless of other factors. It's already a hard sell, particularly among the right and among the libertarians and even among moderates, so it has to be well thought-out in order to prevent abuse or it will never gain traction. IMO we're a long way off from being able to do something like that in the US.
Nevermind, that was stupid.
Does this mean his practice is named "Godwin's Law" then?
When I said "by definition" I meant it -- 1% of approx. 7.2 billion is approx. 72 million. Obviously that varies based on what you use as estimated world population, but the point is still the same. Anyway, you're right, you don't have to be a 1%er to be able to afford this. You just have to have your priorities set in such a way that this is what you'd want to spend your money on. Even working class people here in the US could "afford" this watch, at least as well as they can afford the crazy TVs, cars, and other crap they buy all the time. For that matter, many people with smoking addictions spend far more on cigarettes than what this watch costs.
Why not? People making less than that find ways to buy $1,500 TVs and other devices all the time. Why not a watch? Besides, what I said is that it's easy to believe that 100k of that 72,000,000 people are willing to throw that kind of money out on a watch, not that all 72,000,000 would be doing it.
Seems like a big number off the cuff, but by definition there are roughly 72 million 1%-ers in the world. This 100k equates to 0.14% of the 1%, or 0.000014% of the world's population. If you put it in those terms, it's pretty easy to believe there are that many suckers with money to burn in the world.
So you're saying the north pole is a US territory? It's not even land...
So what you're saying is that in the Dog vs. Cat battle, you choose Ferrets.
Keeping two or more accounts is good advice for keeping yourself out of trouble if a cyber attack happens, but I don't think this beats them. They still managed to steal your money and disrupt your life.
Is that a typo and you actually meant "Dual" or are you actually suggesting we have banks fight each other to the death? Because I'm OK with either.
Ya, we have the Lions -- I think we feel similar pain.
I call it the sports team mentality. Red vs. Blue. Republicans vs. Democrats -- pick your team and root for them to win the championship every four years. It's our greatest sports rivalry ever!
e.g. this thread.
Yup, one man with a bomb has more political sway than 10,000 citizens with ballots (and probably far more than that).
I totally agree on both types of sites, and did not realize that the auction sites are under legal review.
Psh, everyone knows fantasy football is "skill based" ;-)
There are a ton of new auction sites (Quibids, Swoopo, etc) where you actually pay for each *bid* you make, and in return you get a chance at buying the product for insanely small prices -- so for example they do penny auctions where it price for a $1,000 TV starts at $0.01 and each bid increment is a penny. The bids cost $0.60 so by the time the price reaches $100.00, the company has already made $6,000 on that TV. I'm trying to understand how fantasy sports could be considered worse than these auction sites.
I actually agree that fantasy sports are gambling, I just don't understand why some forms of gambling are banned and others are allowed.
FTFY
Well, your car still has a dashboard even though nothing is being dashed at you. In fact, we use "dashboards" all over in technology now, to mean a set of gauges and readouts, which has nothing to do with its original meaning.
It seems to me that by doing this, the people of the UK are literally trading security for security. Or perhaps trading BOTH freedom and security for security. Not a good deal.
I hear the death rate there is 100% over time.
I hear the death rate there is 100% given enough time.
Ya, I would second sending Trump. Oh, you said Putin? Same diff.
Wow, nothing personal, right?