Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
easysauce wrote: right, so 300 million people pay themselves 11k a year,
to pay for that 11k a year per person, each person has to pay 11k a year into the system, or there has to be some other way to earn the 11k per person.
not suprisingly,
some people dont see the obvious problem with this.
heck, why not end poverty, AND wealth inequality, and just pay everyone a million dollars a year...
I guess the idea is that the rich and the corporations' taxes will cover the cost. Because you know, those two groups NEVER weasel out of taxes
still doesnt account for where the money comes from...
giving away free money, is not actually giving away free money.
It is TAKING money away from one person, and giving it to another.
and while you can most certainly CAN (not should) rob paul to pay peter, (or as you suggest, "rob" the rich corporations people, to pay the poor)
you cannot rob peter to pay peter, and expect peter to actually have more money then he started with...
Biggest takeway is that People responds to INCENTIVES.
Canadian Test Shows Income Guarantees Don't Work
A follow-up on this morning’s post on guaranteed incomes: I’m reminded that Jim Manzi wrote two excellent pieces outlining the data we have on experiments with a guaranteed income. Here’s his summary of a Canadian experiment that topped off the incomes of folks who worked so that they retained more of their benefits and income than they otherwise would have:
People respond to incentives. During the period of the reduced marginal tax rate, reported work earnings and reported income rose for the test group versus the control during the experimental period. Score one for the supply-siders (and common sense).
Marginal is not average. At the peak effect of the program (16 months after random assignment), about 30 percent of the treatment group were employed full-time versus 15 percent of the control group. Anecdotes about X heroic poor person, or your self-analysis of your likely response to a change in marginal rates, or your speculations about what you would do if you were an entrepreneur, doctor or dockworker don’t mean much. The whole effect here is driven by 15 percent of the treatment population -- the vast majority did very little different than they would have done otherwise, yet the aggregate effects are material. The same thing applies to discussion higher up the income scale.
This costs taxpayers more money, not less. In round numbers, as compared with the control, the treatment increased total reported take-home earnings by about $200 CD (about $190) per month, about $100 CD of which was greater reported wage income, and about $100 CD of which was the supplemental cash transfer from the government (i.e. all the people in Canada who pay taxes) used to reduce the effective tax rate for the welfare recipients in the program.
The effect disappeared after the program ended. After the program period (for complicated reasons, about five years after program entry), the treatment group had about the same level of reported employment and income as the control group. On one hand, this is further evidence that marginal tax rates matter for people in this situation, but on the other, it also indicates that the program failed to achieve its stated goal of “lift off” into self-sufficiency -- that is, transition off the dole and into the workforce. This implies that applying this program as an operational policy would result in a perpetual increase in the welfare cost per family, in return for more work.
And here’s Jim on the results of studies of a Negative Income Tax in the U.S. Takeaway: It reduced work hours, rather than increasing them.
Overall, I will be very interested to see what will happen if Switzerland passes a law to guarantee a substantial income to every Swiss citizen. But it seems reasonable to expect one of the results to be less work output.
And even if it works in Switzerland, it doesn’t mean that we can import it. As a number of commenters noted in the post on Switzerland, a substantial basic income is simply and obviously incompatible with making it relatively easy for people from poor countries to become citizens. A path to citizenship for legal immigrants is one of the foundational values of American society; we are Americans because we are born here or we choose to come here, not because of some ethnic heritage. We couldn’t get rid of it even if we wanted to; the idea that anyone born on American soil is an American is enshrined in our constitution.
And of course, if you had to choose between a basic income, and relatively easy immigration, the choice is obvious -- at least if you’re interested in improving human welfare. The benefit that poor Guatemalans get by coming here is far greater than the benefits poor Americans would get from a basic income. It’s an experiment we’ve been running pretty successfully for well over 200 years.
Biggest takeway is that People responds to INCENTIVES.
What does a study into the benefit of marginal tax rates have to do with a guaranteed basic income? I linked to a relevant study on the previous page which showed the opposite of what you are implying, that a guaranteed basic income does not disincentivise work except in the cases of young mothers (who stay at home to look after children for longer) and young people (who stay in education for longer).
SilverMK2 wrote: But peter is not paying peter in that senario...
he is when EVERYONE is getting the cheque,
you dont see the difference between a system with LIMITED payees, and limited payers,
and EVERYONE as a payee and a payer?
if your arguement is that it should just be the rich/corporations paying, then that isnt sustainable either... corporations/rich peopel, do not have unlimited $, nor do they have enough to pay everyone else,
NOR WILL THEY,
the rich/corporations will just say feth it, and take the free money option... so now we have more payees then payers, if we didnt already.
you cannot have a system where everyone gets $ for nothing....
only dire straights gest money for nothing and chicks for free,
you have to instal microwave ovens, you have to load those color tv's
Also what happens to people that waste all their money and don't have any left for food? Do we take the "Sucks for you approach" or do we need a special government program for those people?
"So, do please come along when we're promoting something new and need photos for the facebook page or to send to our regional manager, do please engage in our gaming when we're pushing something specific hard and need to get the little kiddies drifting past to want to come in an see what all the fuss is about. But otherwise, stay the feth out, you smelly, antisocial bastards, because we're scared you are going to say something that goes against our mantra of absolute devotion to the corporate motherland and we actually perceive any of you who've been gaming more than a year to be a hostile entity as you've been exposed to the internet and 'dangerous ideas'. " - MeanGreenStompa
"Then someone mentions Infinity and everyone ignores it because no one really plays it." - nkelsch
I think any measure designed to close the poverty gap should be given a serious and open minded look. Though I have a feeling that if everyone's income suddenly went up by $11,000 a year, it wouldn't be long before everyone's rent would suddenly go up by $11,000 a year, as well as a lot of other things. You might actually see poor people getting poorer.
I personally think renting is one of the great evils of the world. It's wrong that someone should have to work a whole month and then hand most of their money over to their landowner, who we still refer to as a 'landlord'. If you can afford your own home, but you're just renting because you don't want the bother and responsibility of buying, then fair enough. But if you renting because you are poor and can't afford to live anywhere else, than it's practically serfdom.
EDIT: typo.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/11/18 20:55:34
This is most likely a bad idea based on my own experience. Upon graduating university I was living at home and not eligible for welfare or EI. My only option was to work my ass off at crummy temp positions until I found a full-time job at a good company.
Had I been receiving 11k a year then there would have been less motivation to bust my ass looking for a job. A part time job in addition to this monthly government payment would have provided a decent income. Eventually I'd go looking for something better, but the urgency wouldn't be there - in the meantime I'd be paying less taxes and be much less productive.
Too many people would become accustomed to making due with the basics and simply not progress in life.
I'm not really sure how that it is related to what I said. But if we are going to get into fallacious strawmen... Are you saying that you agree with Peter Brabeck the CEO of nestle who wants to take away people's right to water in drought ridden Africa, so he can monopolize it and sell it for huge corporate profit. If you can't afford it then "sorry you and you're family just has to die". What's next charging people for oxygen? And who gets to decide who owns all the oxygen anyway? Will we just be told one day that it isn't us, and we have to pay for it or die? I don't see how that is different from extortion.
But that's all fine is it? Because you can't just have air without paying for it? Is that what YOU are saying KalashnikovMarine?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/11/18 19:29:03
Smacks wrote: I think any measure designed to close the poverty gap should be given a serious and open minded look. Though I have a feeling that if everyone's income suddenly went up by $11,000 a year, it wouldn't be long before everyone's rent would suddenly go up by $11,000 a year, as well as a lot of other things. You might actually see poor people getting poorer.
I personally think renting is one of the great evils of the world. It's wrong that someone should have to work a whole month and then hand most of their money over to their landowner, who we still refer to as a 'landlord'. If you can afford your own home, but you're just renting because you don't want the bother and responsibility of buying, then fair enough. But if you renting because you are poor and can't afford to live anywhere else, than it's practically surfdom.
How is renting Evil? Where do you expect these houses to come from? Trees? The ground? Hell renting is great, yeah you cant control how you treat your apartment, but a broke heater Isnt your problem to fix, nor is a water heater
I personally think renting is one of the great evils of the world. It's wrong that someone should have to work a whole month and then hand most of their money over to their landowner, who we still refer to as a 'landlord'. If you can afford your own home, but you're just renting because you don't want the bother and responsibility of buying, then fair enough. But if you renting because you are poor and can't afford to live anywhere else, than it's practically surfdom.
Alfndrate wrote: Would I get this 11,000 dollar income in addition to what I get for working? I might not mind that, as it would free me up to pay off my student loans quick (Hell I could have my federals paid off in no time!), but I don't see this as a good thing...
Take over Canada. Seize the maple reserves = PROFIT!
Either the article is poor or people reading comprehension is poor, not sure which. The idea of a basic income guarantee is as follows (provided some knucklehead somewhere in Congress didn't screw up the concept, my guess is the reporter in question just didn't know what they were talking about).
IF you are working, you continue on as normal, you do not collect an $11,000 check from the government.
IF you are NOT working, you have certain obligations to fill, either volunteer work, community service, attending school, etc. You do NOT receive any sort of welfare benefits whatsoever, no more EBT, no more handouts, etc. Instead, the federal government pays you $11,000 dollars a year for whatever services you render (if you're rendering any service at all), which is LESS than the amount of money you would make working 40 hrs/week at a minimum wage of $8. This $11,000 is expected to provide you with housing, clothing, food, etc. for the entire year.
It's actually a VERY good idea, because the fact of the matter is that there will NEVER be enough jobs for every American to be gainfully employed simultaneously. Currently, we have a whole host of welfare programs that are chewing up a huge part of the budget. The idea is to eliminate all that to save the aforementioned 1.2 trillion. Handing out checks to the roughly 30 million unemployed or underemployed Americans only costs $330 billion (for a savings of $870 billion dollars), its hard to argue with that sort of basic economic math....
This provides a safety net to all Americans mind you, the question of "How am I going to survive and care for my family if I lose my job" is no longer a looming question, because the answer is you will have a basic income to try to make ends meet with in the event that things go south. Becoming a freeloader, while theoretically possible, is probably going to be less likely than it is now, because that $11,000 or so check actually works out to being LESS than the current amount of benefits received annually per person, and as it is technically below minimum wage for a 40 hour work week, simply picking up a job will improve your quality of living tremendously.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
cincydooley wrote: Anyone that is still renting when they have the means and ability to own is foolish, IMO.
what if you have to move fairly often for work? It would be really stupid to buy a house if you're only going to be there for a few months or a year.
'I've played Guard for years, and the best piece of advice is to always utilize the Guard's best special rule: "we roll more dice than you" ' - stormleader
"Sector Imperialis: 25mm and 40mm Round Bases (40+20) 26€ (Including 32 skulls for basing) " GW design philosophy in a nutshell
Right. Who was the head coach that let the prostitute stay in his hotel room when he went to play a round of golf the next morning and she racked up $2000 in charges to the room??? That's funny gak, right there.
hotsauceman1 wrote: How is renting Evil? Where do you expect these houses to come from? Trees? The ground? Hell renting is great, yeah you cant control how you treat your apartment, but a broke heater Isnt your problem to fix, nor is a water heater
I agree that renting can be great, and convenient. Just like a hotel can be great. But it depends. I grew up in London, and there is nowhere around that is especially cheap. To rent or to buy. Not even outside the city. if you want a roof over your head, you have to pay through the nose. Rent is always the biggest expenditure. And there are plenty of people who have remedial jobs, they already live out of town in the highest crime area, in a flat share with 3 other people, and they are still broke. They work all week to pay someone else's mortgage. To my mind that isn't offering a service, it is exploitation.
The place where I used to live, there was a house next door which just sat empty for years, it didn't need building it was already there. I don't know why it was empty for so long. But I do know the guy who owned it also owned many of the houses in the area, and rented them out. Why does one man need so many houses? He can't live in them all. So obviously he just has them to make money. And he's not alone it is big business in the city, and probably in every other city. I know for a fact that while that house sat empty there was a homeless man sleeping rough in the park not more that a few hundred feet away.
Houses are peoples homes, and means of sheltering, not just a commodity for corporations and business men to suck dry.
This topic was about free money. I was just pointing out that people don't need free money. They would already have an extra $11,000 a year, if they weren't bleeding out money on rent all the time.
Did you think of that yourself? Or do you just blurt out the first obvious thing that comes into your head, hoping it will be funny? "Haha smacks sounds like smack, most people wouldn't see that because they only share every friggin letter! Hi my name is kronk and I'm a comedy genius".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/11/18 22:04:55
I know for a fact that while that house sat empty there was a homeless man sleeping rough in the park not more that a few hundred feet away.
I own a ~$200,000 home in Houston, Texas that I'm trying to sell after I moved to Chicago. You know what would be a great idea? Let me find some random fething homeless guy to crash in it while it's on the fething market. That will help it sell faster!
(I've literally never read an idea that was that fething stupid. Ever. And I've read all of hotsauceman1's posts... )
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2013/11/18 22:01:09
Necros wrote: Don't they give you free money if you live in Alaska? Maybe we can all just move there.
Yeah. But then your stuck living in Alaska. 10 to 1 male to females, dude. Sausage fest. Not that there's anything wrong with that if it's what you're looking for...
kronk wrote: Yeah. But then your stuck living in Alaska. 10 to 1 male to females, dude. Sausage fest. Not that there's anything wrong with that if it's what you're looking for...
Sounds like paradise compared to six months on the boat. I'm sold.
kronk wrote: Yeah. But then your stuck living in Alaska. 10 to 1 male to females, dude. Sausage fest. Not that there's anything wrong with that if it's what you're looking for...
Sounds like paradise compared to six months on the boat. I'm sold.
5000pts 
6000pts 
3000pts
)
