Universal Basic Income: Biden's Best Bet?

[Orangecat]

I didn't get the memorandum. Stealing is stealing. Thou shalt not steal.
Extortion, robbery, blackmail, and sabotage are no better than stealing, either.

I like to collect things, it's one of my quirks. So I started a collection of $100 bills. It's going well so far.

 

[Andylusion]

So many people tie themselves up in a cage of their own creation, and then complain they don't make enough money.

We all create our own cages, for sure. Hence the phrases "house poor" and "college loan debt".

..and "married with kids",

Well, I found a house (condo) that was barely $50,000, and fixed it up.

I got through college, and barely had $2,000 in debt, because I worked continuously through college.

As for married with kids... Unless you are an idiot, that shouldn't be a problem.

The people who end up poor, are the ones who don't marry. Universally, being married is a huge economic boast for men.

Married people earn more in general than unmarried. But specifically for men, they earn nearly double what unmarried men do. Routinely. It's one of the most consistent predictors of higher wages.

And even at age 20.... a married 20 year old man, will earn almost double a single 20 year old man.

And of course there are other benefits, like married men are happier, and having children generally speaking results in people being happier.

Provided you are a decent parent, which some are not.

So I don't consider being married with children, to be enslavement. There are some that do, and that's sad, but it's more of a them problem, than a marriage problem.

 

[Andylusion]

It is dumb! I don't care how much you love cars. If you put yourself in bondage over a car, and then cry about how you need more money and how unfair life is.... that's a YOU problem, not a society problem.

When I own a car free and clear, paid cash for it, title in my name, etc., I would like to be able to keep it.

I'm the same. I paid cash for the last 4 cars I've owned. I haven't had a car payment in... since the late 1990s? Somewhere around there.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Alaska's revenue comes from oil royalties, moron. Where is the revenue for this giant swindle supposed to come from?

The revenue will come from every American's share of their national commons; feel free to donate your share to the billionaire parasite of your choice.

A Big, Simple, Winning Issue for Biden

"Bring 20 of the Trumpiest-looking Alaskans to a press conference. Unveil a plan whereby every man, woman, and child gets a $1,000 check every month from the government.

"Finance it with taxes on large wealth, fossil fuels, financial transactions, and intellectual property resulting from taxpayer-funded public research.

"Invite the Alaskans to describe the joy of getting their checks: no middleman, no means tests, no government forms to fill out—just free money as everyone’s share of the American commons."

The revenue will come from every American's share of their national commons

Never works. High sounded statements... but it never works.

Anytime you own something "in common" the result is that it is destroyed.

Let's take a look at some of the results of "share of their national commons" in action today.

View attachment 419738

This is a picture from the 1980s, of Haiti and the DR.

View attachment 419739

This is a picture from the 2010s.

View attachment 419740

This is a closer look at the border between Haiti and DR.

Now let's ask the question "Why?" Why is it this way?

The reason is simple. On the DR side, they have a concept that is fundamental to all Capitalism, called "Private Property".

On the Haiti side, they have government owned land, that is "held in common". So that all people can benefit from the natural resources of the country equally... and thus... there are none.

See with private property, the owner of the property has a profit-based incentive to maintain the property. Land that is ruined, has no value to the owner. Can't sell lumber, if you cut down every single tree, and no longer have any trees.

No one is going to spend money building wells, or aqueducts to water the land, or maintain irrigation on land held in common. Why would I spend money, to benefit other people, and not myself?

This is why all the trees were cut down entirely from the Haiti common land. After all, if I need lumber, and the only trees left are saplings, I still going to cut them down and get what little lumber I can, because if I don't someone else will. There is no benefit to me to leave the saplings, because someone else will take them.

Thus the trees are gone, the soil erodes, and the land decays into ruins.

That's what holding natural resources in common, does.

And by the way, Alaska is not holding resources in common.

• BP Alaska.
• Caelus Energy.
• ConocoPhillips Alaska.
• ExxonMobil.

These are for profit, capitalist companies, operating the oil fields in Alaska. They are not government run, they are for-profit. They are not 'held in common'.

Unless you want to claim that ConocoPhilips and Exxon and BP are all nationalized not-for-profit companies run by the government..... and good luck making that case.

Massive amounts of forest land in the North West is owned by Boise Cascade. And it’s pristine. That land doesn’t burn out of control because they take care of it.

 

[Orangecat]

So many people tie themselves up in a cage of their own creation, and then complain they don't make enough money.

We all create our own cages, for sure. Hence the phrases "house poor" and "college loan debt".

..and "married with kids",

Well, I found a house (condo) that was barely $50,000, and fixed it up.

I got through college, and barely had $2,000 in debt, because I worked continuously through college.

As for married with kids... Unless you are an idiot, that shouldn't be a problem.

The people who end up poor, are the ones who don't marry. Universally, being married is a huge economic boast for men.

View attachment 419748

Married people earn more in general than unmarried. But specifically for men, they earn nearly double what unmarried men do. Routinely. It's one of the most consistent predictors of higher wages.

And even at age 20.... a married 20 year old man, will earn almost double a single 20 year old man.

And of course there are other benefits, like married men are happier, and having children generally speaking results in people being happier.

Provided you are a decent parent, which some are not.

So I don't consider being married with children, to be enslavement. There are some that do, and that's sad, but it's more of a them problem, than a marriage problem.

Of course men who are married with kids earn more. They have to. I prefer a low overhead lifestyle with plenty of toys and vacations.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

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.

Without a doubt for some, yes it would. We all know people like your former coworker.

I have an old GF I've stayed in contact with for many years. We even lived together for one of those years. She ended up on disability and lost her house. Before being thrown out, she had two choices: get her own apartment, or live with her mother. She and her mother don't get along very well. The problem was that she couldn't afford an apartment. At the time I had an apartment open up and told her I'd give it to her at a little bit of a discount.

She looked at the place (even though she seen it many times before) and later declined my offer stating that even with lower rent, she still couldn't afford to live there. She started to give me a rundown of her expenses. I stopped her when she got to the car payment part. $600.00 a month. I screamed at her "Are you Fn crazy, 600 bucks a month for a car???" I went on to suggest she get rid of a car and buy something used at least near a reasonable payment. She refused.

She moved in with her mother, they fought night and day, she was so aggravated she said she couldn't stand it any longer. I offered her a nice apartment for less than her car payment was. Extremely irresponsible. She bought the car when she was working and making pretty good money. When she lost the house, that stupid car payment was likely the reason why. She was more concerned about keeping the car than keeping a roof over her head.

But I don't think most people are like our friends. If UI turned out to be a great deal for our government and country, it would be a shame to not consider it because of irresponsible people. They are going to be irresponsible whether they get UI or not, just like our friends. For more responsible people, or those who just need a little push to go in the right direction, it could solve a lot of problems and perhaps change a lot of lives.

I have to admit, that the car things is one of the most baffling aspects of American self-imprisonment.

Years and years ago, I had an old 1990 Chevy Lumina 2-door. It was 10 years old, and I figured it was time to get something better. Shopped around, until I found a Monte Carlo 1998. Got the car from the dealer, drove it home.

The next Monday, got up, drove to work, worked, drove home... I got to my apartment and parked.... and I remember sitting in that car thinking...... "that's it?..... that's it." Here was I expecting this euphoric experience, and instead it was just.... drive to work.... drive home... go to bed. Nothing changed, except I had a huge car payment each month.

You spend a whooping one hour of your entire life per work day, in your car (30 minutes to work and back), and then the rest of the time, the car is outside by itself, while you are in your work place, or at home sleeping.... and the average American pays $35,000 for a car today.

Why....? I returned that car to the dealer, and drove the old 1990 Lumina another 5 years I think before I bought another used car.

So many people tie themselves up in a cage of their own creation, and then complain they don't make enough money. Sell the car. You don't have a place to live, and your are stuck in a miserable situation, but you have a $600 a month car, that you spend just minutes a day in?

No where else in the world, do they do this. The reason French have those ridiculously terrible 3-wheeled cars, is because having a place to live is more important.

Not everyone is a car person. For now you can choose not to be and that’s fine. You can choose that. It’s not up to the government to push you out of that choice. How many French people would prefer a new Ford Raptor? Who knows. It’s not an option.

I would love to have a new car. I can think of a dozen cars I'd like to have. I'd love to have an RX-8. I'd love to have a Dodge Charger. I'd love to have a Mark IIV.

Of course I can think of a bunch I'd love to have.

That's not the point though. Americans, more than any other group of people, will tie themselves into slavery, to have a car. I won't.

If I ever get the money to own a nice car, then I'll own a nice car. But I'm not going to be a slave for the rest of my life, to car payments, and crying about how capitalism is so bad, and banks are evil, the rich have an unfair advantage, and we need to raise the minimum wage...... because I enslaved myself to a car payment.

It is dumb! I don't care how much you love cars. If you put yourself in bondage over a car, and then cry about how you need more money and how unfair life is.... that's a YOU problem, not a society problem.

That I can agree with. It’s not a car problem but a debt problem. Even there if you want to spend half your income on a car go for it. I wouldn’t but have at it. Freedom is a two way street. You can do things I think are dumb, I can do things you think are dumb. At least we get to choose.

 

[Orangecat]

I'm the same. I paid cash for the last 4 cars I've owned. I haven't had a car payment in... since the late 1990s? Somewhere around there.

Me, too. No "full coverage" BS. Instead, I just keep two cars in the stable. If one dies, I have a spare.

 

[justinacolmena]

Of course men who are married with kids earn more. They have to.

That's a trafficking situation where a man is suited and tied --- groomed --- for a white-collar occupation, and his wife, as a proper socialite and an adjunct to his career, is bargaining for pay in his name just as much as he is.

I prefer a low overhead lifestyle with plenty of toys and vacations.

Low debt lifestyle perhaps, but that is "discouraged" among white people by profiteering interests who moralize and preach to us from chruch pulpits and other related quarters. That sort of marriage contract is commonly "understood" to be conditional upon "the usual" 30-year home mortgage --- whence the word "husband" --- literally a "mortgagor" or a man bound to a house on a mortgage. Women are taught to desire that an indication of a man's stability and means to support her steady lifestyle. It is also desired by employers as a condition of employment, as well as a health history free of pre-existing conditions. That economic class has more or less recently begun to shun life insurance because of excess mortality among the insured and a concomitant "rich widow syndrome."

Vacation is often code speech for prison unless otherwise specified.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I have to admit, that the car things is one of the most baffling aspects of American self-imprisonment.

Years and years ago, I had an old 1990 Chevy Lumina 2-door. It was 10 years old, and I figured it was time to get something better. Shopped around, until I found a Monte Carlo 1998. Got the car from the dealer, drove it home.

The next Monday, got up, drove to work, worked, drove home... I got to my apartment and parked.... and I remember sitting in that car thinking...... "that's it?..... that's it." Here was I expecting this euphoric experience, and instead it was just.... drive to work.... drive home... go to bed. Nothing changed, except I had a huge car payment each month.

You spend a whooping one hour of your entire life per work day, in your car (30 minutes to work and back), and then the rest of the time, the car is outside by itself, while you are in your work place, or at home sleeping.... and the average American pays $35,000 for a car today.

Why....? I returned that car to the dealer, and drove the old 1990 Lumina another 5 years I think before I bought another used car.

So many people tie themselves up in a cage of their own creation, and then complain they don't make enough money. Sell the car. You don't have a place to live, and your are stuck in a miserable situation, but you have a $600 a month car, that you spend just minutes a day in?

No where else in the world, do they do this. The reason French have those ridiculously terrible 3-wheeled cars, is because having a place to live is more important.

There are just some things people don't understand. First she told me she has a friend she visits (probably about twice a year) in SC. I told her if she bought a used car for $200.00 a month, saved the $400.00 a month in car payments, when she went to see her friend, she'd have more than enough to fly there, rent a car, and still be ahead. Then she stated she would be stuck with multiple repair bills. I responded by telling her to get a nice Toyota Camry. I've had three in the last 20 years. Never broke down, none ever seen a tow truck, very few if any repairs. I ran them to over 100,000 miles.

Like you, I get no real kick out of cars. But still, we all get things we don't need but love to have. However if it's a choice of not having a roof over your head and driving a car you love, get rid of the Fn car. Having a place of your own and living in comfort brings you joy most hours of the day than a car does (as you explained) for an hour or so a day.

I bought my recent Camry a little over a year ago. It's a 2016 and had 20,000 miles when I purchased it. Between my trade-in and down payment, my car payments are $113.00 a month, and that includes an extended 7 year, 106,000 mile bumper to bumper warranty, whichever comes first. Like you, I'd love to own a new car, but we have priorities. Some people's priorities are just totally Fd up, and that's what's wrong with much of America these days.

 

[Orangecat]

Vacation is often code speech for prison unless otherwise specified.

Not for me. I like my life here and I also like to travel and see family and new places. Just got back from Florida a few weeks ago and am heading to Michigan on Friday.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

It is dumb! I don't care how much you love cars. If you put yourself in bondage over a car, and then cry about how you need more money and how unfair life is.... that's a YOU problem, not a society problem.

When I own a car free and clear, paid cash for it, title in my name, etc., I would like to be able to keep it.

I'm the same. I paid cash for the last 4 cars I've owned. I haven't had a car payment in... since the late 1990s? Somewhere around there.

I drive an ‘07 F-350 crew 4x4. Here’s why.
I bought it in ‘09, 10k miles, desperate seller and I paid cash. It now has 230k on it running great and I don’t have to buy DEF, and it’s paid for. It does everything I need a truck to do, and it’s paid for.. it cost me 120 bucks for two year of plates, and it’s paid for.

 

[dblack]

It is dumb! I don't care how much you love cars. If you put yourself in bondage over a car, and then cry about how you need more money and how unfair life is.... that's a YOU problem, not a society problem.

When I own a car free and clear, paid cash for it, title in my name, etc., I would like to be able to keep it.

I'm the same. I paid cash for the last 4 cars I've owned. I haven't had a car payment in... since the late 1990s? Somewhere around there.

I drive an ‘07 F-350 crew 4x4. Here’s why.
I bought it in ‘09, 10k miles, desperate seller and I paid cash. It now has 230k on it running great and I don’t have to buy DEF, and it’s paid for. It does everything I need a truck to do, and it’s paid for.. it cost me 120 bucks for two year of plates, and it’s paid for.

I hear that. I've never actually taken out a loan for a car.

 

[Andylusion]

Quit using economic terms that you don't understand.

How can we have an economy that isn't producing at full capacity and widespread unemployment AT THE SAME TIME?
View attachment 419678

So have you really thought about that? Because asking how you can have an economy not producing at full capacity, and have widespread unemployment at the same time.... isn't that hard to figure out.

The minimum wage for example, doesn't eliminate engineering jobs. The minimum wage drives out low-skill, no-skill jobs. Like burger flippers and cashiers.

So you can drive thousands of people into unemployment, and still have hundreds of jobs in engineering, or technical jobs, or nurses and doctors, or lawyers and accountants that all need filled.

You can even have jobs like carpenter, or electrician, or pipefitting, or any number of trade skill jobs that all need filled, and still have 10 million people unemployed.

Because the minimum wage wiping out a McJobs, doesn't mean that you have unemployed techs or trade-skillers looking for a job.

The people at McDonald's that lose their job because the minimum wage caused McDonald's to replace them with a Kiosk.... those people are not trained skilled labor. That's why they were at McJobs in the first place.

So no matter how many higher pay, higher skill jobs need filled.... it doesn't matter to unemployment, if the unemployment rolls are filled with Mc-job skilled people. The burger flipper at McDonald's laid off because of the minimum wage, isn't getting a job at Amazon Cloud services, that needs Info-Tech professionals.

We just had Amazon open a cloud services center here in Ohio. No one laid off from McDonald's is going there. They don't have those skills. They don't have any skills really. That's why they were flipping burgers before.

They need low-skilled jobs. That's why the minimum wage is so damaging. Those people need those jobs. You denying them those jobs, doesn't mean they'll just get a high tech job.

In fact, it means they are less likely to get those jobs in the future. Because it's hard to pay for training, when you don't have a job.

I knew a girl who got tuition reimbursement from Walmart. If you eliminate her job with high minimum wage requirements, she wouldn't have been able to get her degree in civil engineering.

So, if you just think about it, it's very possible to have high unemployment, and have large numbers of unfilled jobs.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I honestly can’t believe nobody thought of just taxing the shit out of everything would allow a nation to make everyone equal. Oh wait, that’s been socialism since day one and has a success rate of exactly zero.

The left constantly complains about guns, wealth inequity, not enough government goodies. What they don't realize is we do have places like that in the US already.

We have a place where everybody is equal; equally poor. There are no wealthy people to worry about because only the government has money. No guns except for people in the government. Free government healthcare. They decide what you are going to be served for breakfast, lunch and dinner. A place if you want to work, fine. If you don't want to work, that's fine too.

We call these places prisons. They are not hard to get into, and full of Democrats already. This is what the left wants to turn the entire country into--a prison.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

It is dumb! I don't care how much you love cars. If you put yourself in bondage over a car, and then cry about how you need more money and how unfair life is.... that's a YOU problem, not a society problem.

When I own a car free and clear, paid cash for it, title in my name, etc., I would like to be able to keep it.

I'm the same. I paid cash for the last 4 cars I've owned. I haven't had a car payment in... since the late 1990s? Somewhere around there.

I drive an ‘07 F-350 crew 4x4. Here’s why.
I bought it in ‘09, 10k miles, desperate seller and I paid cash. It now has 230k on it running great and I don’t have to buy DEF, and it’s paid for. It does everything I need a truck to do, and it’s paid for.. it cost me 120 bucks for two year of plates, and it’s paid for.

I hear that. I've never actually taken out a loan for a car.

I have and it really irritated me. Not just the paying but the demands on insurance and the rest. Decided that wasn’t good for me.

 

[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;

Yeah, so lets review what the founders and writers of the constitution said about that.

James Madison:

“But in the general Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it? – for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless…But the rhetoric of the gentleman has highly colored the dangers of giving the general government an indefinite power of providing for the general welfare. I contend that no such power is given.”​

He saying it has no power, except what is specifically enumerated. For them to claim the government had indefinite power to provide for the general welfare.... Madison says "I contend no such power is given."

You need more evidence? Let's ask Thomas Jefferson:

“provide for the general welfare," was an extension of the powers specifically enumerated to whatever would promote the general welfare; and this, you know, was the federal doctrine…that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money.”​

Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the 'general welfare', but were restrained to those specifically enumerated power.

It can't get much clearer than that. The General Welfare is limited to those power specifically enumerated in the US Constitution.

Do you see a power for free education? Or health care? Or retirement? Or anything else?

No you do not. Those things are unconstitutional violations of the enumerated powers of the government.

The same should hold for the common defense and there is no general warfare clause nor any common offense clause.

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."
The Federalist Number Forty-One

 

[danielpalos]

It is about General operation of the law for the General welfare.

Do you believe people should receive money from the government for doing nothing?

You are begging the question. I could say, only if CEOs have to work hard and with the sweat of their brow even in the summer time.

Prove they don't...

Prove the unemployed would be paid for doing nothing.

Prove the unemployed would be paid for doing nothing? WTF, do you fricken read what you write or you just spew out BS?

We may need to request Thinker 201 do your thinking for you.

It is about general operation of our general welfare clause.

 

[danielpalos]

It is about General operation of the law for the General welfare.

Do you believe people should receive money from the government for doing nothing?

You are begging the question. I could say, only if CEOs have to work hard and with the sweat of their brow even in the summer time.

Prove they don't...

Prove the unemployed would be paid for doing nothing.

Uncompassionate poor, proceed nothing to the rich common cause of being poor

I have no idea what you mean. Higher paid labor creates more in demand and generates more in tax revenue in every long run equilibrium.

 

[danielpalos]

It is about General operation of the law for the General welfare.

Do you believe people should receive money from the government for doing nothing?

You are begging the question. I could say, only if CEOs have to work hard and with the sweat of their brow even in the summer time.

You could say all manner of diversionary things. Or you could man-up and answer the question:
Do you believe people should receive money from the government for doing nothing?

You miss the point. Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment. Not Labor's fault. UC is merely Compensation for that (natural rate of) Unemployment.

 

[danielpalos]

They would be compensated for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in our at-will employment

IOW, they'd be paid for doing absolutely nothing, from taxes paid by working people.

lol. Employment is at the will of either party in our at-will employment States. Just quit your day job if you don't have the moral fortitude to help out and collect unemployment compensation; nobody is Requiring you to be Rich and not Poor only Greed under Capitalism.