Universal Basic Income: Biden's Best Bet?

[Orangecat]

You mean you believe in unequal protection of the laws for the Poor under Capitalism because we are simply not worth-it?

Laws don't need protecting, people's rights do. No one has a right to another person's labor or the wealth it generates. Are you poor?

 

[Orangecat]

Why should anyone take right wingers seriously? Hoax is all they usually have not Any valid arguments for rebuttal.

Why should anyone take LW nutters seriously? Virtue signaling is all they usually have not, any valid arguments for rebuttal.

 

[danielpalos]

You mean you believe in unequal protection of the laws for the Poor under Capitalism because we are simply not worth-it?

Laws don't need protecting, people's rights do. No one has a right to another person's labor or the wealth it generates. Are you poor?

You seem to not understand the concepts. Congress has the social Power to Tax to both promote and provide for the general welfare. The End justifies the Means.

 

[danielpalos]

Insist on a simple plan for a Commune of Heaven on Earth from any Communists!

The monkey eats its own tail when the August wind pontificates, too.

Why should anyone take right wingers seriously? Hoax is all they usually have not Any valid arguments for rebuttal.

Why should anyone take LW nutters seriously? Virtue signaling is all they usually have not Any valid arguments for rebuttal.

In right wing fantasy, You are Always Right simply for being on the right wing.

 

[Orangecat]

You seem to not understand the concepts. Congress has the social Power to Tax to both promote and provide for the general welfare. The End justifies the Means.

You seem to not understand that theft is both immoral and illegal.
Again, do you consider yourself to be poor? Why?

 

[Orangecat]

In right wing fantasy, You are Always Right simply for being on the right wing.

Do you consider yourself to be poor?

 

[danielpalos]

You seem to not understand the concepts. Congress has the social Power to Tax to both promote and provide for the general welfare. The End justifies the Means.

You seem to not understand that theft is both immoral and illegal.
Again, do you consider yourself to be poor? Why?

it is not theft, but a delegated social Power to Tax; do you understand bearing false witness and having nothing but Hoax is immoral and unethical?

 

[danielpalos]

In right wing fantasy, You are Always Right simply for being on the right wing.

Do you consider yourself to be poor?

Yes, under our form of Capitalism.

 

[Orangecat]

it is not theft, but a delegated social Power to Tax; do you understand bearing false witness and having nothing but Hoax is immoral and unethical?

You can gussy it up with all the weasel words you'd like, but taking wealth from another without consent is theft.

 

[Orangecat]

Yes, under our form of Capitalism.

Are you wealthy under some other form of capitalism?
Has our form of capitalism made you poor, or is it your own lack of motivation?
What do you consider the threshold for being poor? No job? No savings? Rent your home? No car?

 

[justinacolmena]

lol. Sure, we can "blame the right wing" for requiring a (manual) work ethic. Because of the Right Wing, I learned how to use not Only a Hammer, but also a Sickle.

The grim reaper has no place in such polite company with the hammer of the law.

 

[justinacolmena]

I fully support individuals who solve their poverty through self-improvement, perseverance, and smart work

That doesn't cut any ice around here. Whenever you presume to "fully support" other people, then ipso facto you are denying their means and ability to support themselves by their own work or trade.

 

[danielpalos]

it is not theft, but a delegated social Power to Tax; do you understand bearing false witness and having nothing but Hoax is immoral and unethical?

You can gussy it up with all the weasel words you'd like, but taking wealth from another without consent is theft.

Our Constitution expresses consent in Article 1, Section 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

 

[Andylusion]

Now.... no, not so much. Especially since I know of people who have spent most of their life living off the government, and never felt like they wanted to 'contribute to society'.

Perhaps, but I sense a strong conservative quality in you. I would believe the people you spoke with have no or few conservative values within them.

Without a doubt there are people who are happy living in a roach infested shack and satisfied because they don't have to work to live that way. But at least what you've said here, your income would double with UI. Then the choice you would have to make is whether you are satisfied living the way you are and not working, or use the opportunity to do much better, but only be able to accomplish that by continuing your employment.

Life is uncertain, that's for sure. Living paycheck to paycheck works for now, but may be a disaster for you in your later years. I know many people don't consider a time when they cannot work, government won't help, and you end up under a bridge somewhere. But if you have the slightest inclination of looking forward, you may opt to never be in that position if such an opportunity presented itself like UI.

I've heard that before. Because I've never met someone who said "I have enough". Everyone, everywhere, says they need more.

No one says, "nah I'm good.".

I've known people who have. I have several relatives in my family. Don't get me wrong, there is no such thing as enough money for most people, but there are enough people who do have enough to live comfortably and work anyway.

In my last job, we had several people who worked for government and earned them a nice early retirement with a great pension. When I asked them why they are still working for our place, they tell me they are board, or their wives still work and they feel guilty about them still working while they sit at home. They don't need the money, but the money certainly doesn't hurt.

Everyone says "if only I had a little more". and the reason they say that, is because every single time they get a little more, they spend more. They get a raise, and instead of having that savings, or using it to get those advancements they always wanted..... they instead get 3 big mack combos, and wonder why they are still poor.

I've known people who earned literally double my income, and had less cash on hand than I do. Which is mind blowing to me, because I can't even think of what I would spend it on.

That's why I'm skeptical that it would actually improve anything. I think people would just blow another $24,000 a year in crap, and still remain with no savings, living pay check to pay check, wondering why their lives suck, and blaming the rich.

This is true. Not everybody will be responsible with much more additional income. Books have been written about lottery winners who's luck ended up being the worst thing that ever happened in their life. They went from poor to rich, an to be even poorer, while losing a lot of lifelong friends along the way.

Small increments of additional income would be wasted because usually those pay increases only cover the cost of living they lost out on prior. However a huge increase in income would prove to be beneficial to a lot of other people. It would all depend on the individual.

But at least what you've said here, your income would double with UI. Then the choice you would have to make is whether you are satisfied living the way you are and not working, or use the opportunity to do much better, but only be able to accomplish that by continuing your employment.

I make about $30K right now. Obviously if I lived off UI, I cut down to $12K. But I would gladly take a huge pay cut to not have to go to work. Gladly.

Opportunity to do what much better? There is nothing worth doing.

However for the sake of argument, I suppose there could be someone who has something they wish to do.

Small increments of additional income would be wasted because usually those pay increases only cover the cost of living they lost out on prior. However a huge increase in income would prove to be beneficial to a lot of other people. It would all depend on the individual.

Then why do so many lottery winners end up bankrupt?

$10 Million Lottery Winner Broke And Catching The Bus To Work!

Sharon Tirabassi (pictured) hit the jackpot nine years ago by winning $10.5 million in the Canadian Lotto Super 7. Today, she has to catch a…

woldcnews.com

I wager the same would result from having UI. Because the problem is the heart. People don't want to make the choice to act wisely with money, and giving them more money just results in them being irresponsible with more.

I learned this the hard way. I had a co-worker that got laid off a few months after I was laid off. I heard through another party, that she was getting kicked out of her apartment.

I contacted her, and let her stay at my place. I only charged her $350 a month, which for a steal given it was a 900 sq ft place, and she had the entire first floor to herself. 300 sq ft studio apartments cost $350 a month, right?

Instead of using all this extra money she had, from having such a low rent, to save and use it to better herself.... she blew it. And I mean completely blew all the money. She would get paid on Friday, and be penny-less by Thursday. She did this week after week after week.

Every single time that an unplanned expense came up, she would call me, and ask me to help her. Even if she just ran out of gasoline for the car on Thursday, she wouldn't be able to buy gas until Friday.

What I discovered was that in my well intentioned efforts to help another person, all I had really done was be an enabler of her to be more irresponsible than she had been before.

She didn't save the money for when her car broke down. She didn't pay for training to get her skills to get a better job. She didn't use the money to do anything helpful, or even save for her retirement.

In fact, she said directly to me "I don't need to save, because I'll just get social security".

Which tells me, that just like how I enabled her be more irresponsible by providing her an extremely low rent..... society enabled her to be more irresponsible by let her intentionally spend everything she makes, so she can live on social security.

So I admire your optimistic outlook about Universal basic income, but I think it would simply allow people to be more irresponsible than they are now.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, under our form of Capitalism.

Are you wealthy under some other form of capitalism?
Has our form of capitalism made you poor, or is it your own lack of motivation?
What do you consider the threshold for being poor? No job? No savings? Rent your home? No car?

It is merely about equal protection of the laws. Socialism is also about equality.

 

[danielpalos]

I fully support individuals who solve their poverty through self-improvement, perseverance, and smart work

That doesn't cut any ice around here. Whenever you presume to "fully support" other people, then ipso facto you are denying their means and ability to support themselves by their own work or trade.

Sort of like black codes in the past?

 

[Orangecat]

I fully support individuals who solve their poverty through self-improvement, perseverance, and smart work

That doesn't cut any ice around here.

That "cuts the ice" every time its properly done.

Whenever you presume to "fully support" other people, then ipso facto you are denying their means and ability to support themselves by their own work or trade.

I don't presume to fully support anyone except myself and my family.

 

[Orangecat]

Our Constitution expresses consent in Article 1, Section 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

No mention of individual welfare there.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Constitution expresses consent in Article 1, Section 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

No mention of individual welfare there.

Our welfare clause is General not individual, common, or limited. It must cover any given contingency in a general, top down manner.

 

[Orangecat]

It is merely about equal protection of the laws.

What do laws need to be protected from?

Socialism is also about equality.

Equality of what? If you take from some people and give to others, that's not treating people equally.