Why do poor communities exist in America?

[WinterBorn]

Yet, we can allegedly afford the general warfare and common offense? Besides, you omit the multiplier effect those "equivalent to stimulus payments" would have on our economy. At least one study has shown a multiplier of two; meaning that for every one dollar spent, two dollars worth of economic activity is generated. General taxes on that amount would be considerable; and income taxes could still be levied since those persons would have a consistent income.

Capitalists still need to make a profit. And, our economy would be more efficient with that form of full employment of capital resources and adjust to a new equilibrium via market friendly and market recognizable means. And, we would still incur savings since unemployment compensation is more efficient as an automatic stabilizer than any form of means tested social services.

Besides, we are discussing the "socialism of the law". There is no excuse for unequal protection of the laws under our Constitutional form of Government; only illegals do that.

The tax increases that would be necessary to support your "new & improved" UC would be devastating to many people.

And, as I said, it would likely not result in you getting a check for nothing. It would result in the death of a program that has kept people afloat between jobs and has not been a drain on our taxes.

With the huge deficits we are currently carrying, to add $400 billion to our budget just so people could get paid for nothing is completely irresponsible.

But, if you insist on making UC available for anyone who is not working, let it be for 6 months (like UC is now) and after that you cannot draw again until you work for 6 months.

 

[danielpalos]

The tax increases that would be necessary to support your "new & improved" UC would be devastating to many people.

More people would be paying taxes and we would be reducing the cost of more expensive welfare. And, the poor still pay less in taxes as a percentage of income than the Rich.

 

[WinterBorn]

More people would be paying taxes and we would be reducing the cost of more expensive welfare. And, the poor still pay less in taxes as a percentage of income than the Rich.

So you think adding $400 billion to our budget is worth it?

Also, the tax on $31,200 is 12%. So for an expenditure of $400 billion, there would be $48 billion in tax revenue.


Yes, more people would be paying taxes. But not $400 billion in taxes. It would see the UC cancelled altogether if it was forced to become what you propose.

I notice you made no comment on allowing any unemployed person to draw UC, but limiting it to 26 weeks, as UC is currently done. After that you have to work for 6 months to be able to draw it again.

 

[danielpalos]

So you think adding $400 billion to our budget is worth it?

Yes, because of the multiplier. It means $800 billion worth of economic activity that can be taxed. Capitalists need to make their Profit!

 

[WinterBorn]

In CA the maximum UC benefit is $450 a week. How about we make that available for anyone without a job. You can draw that for 26 weeks, and then the benefit ends until you work for 6 months.

Sound good?

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes, because of the multiplier. It means $800 billion worth of economic activity that can be taxed. Capitalists need to make their Profit!

Well then why don't we give every person in the US $100,000 a year from the tax coffers? That would mean $330 trillion going out. And, by your reckoning, it would be $660 trillion in economic activity that could be taxed.

 

[danielpalos]

In CA the maximum UC benefit is $450 a week. How about we make that available for anyone without a job. You can draw that for 26 weeks, and then the benefit ends until you work for 6 months.

Sound good?

Only if you only believe in spending money but not solving the actual problem. That is what we have now and why we need more efficient public policies.

 

[danielpalos]

Well then why don't we give every person in the US $100,000 a year from the tax coffers? That would mean $330 trillion going out. And, by your reckoning, it would be $660 trillion in economic activity that could be taxed.

Then maybe we can afford the general warfare and common offense?

 

[WinterBorn]

Only if you only believe in spending money but not solving the actual problem. That is what we have now and why we need more efficient public policies.

It has been a solution since it was originated.

The problem is unemployment. You can find a job in 6 months, surely.

 

[danielpalos]

It has been a solution since it was originated.

The problem is unemployment. You can find a job in 6 months, surely.

Why do you insist on being illegal to at-will employment laws?

 

[WinterBorn]

Why do you insist on being illegal to at-will employment laws?

I am not. Your complaint is that people who quit a job or are fired are treated differently than those who lose their job through not fault of there own.

This would solve that problem without wrecking UC. Every person gets Unemployment Compensation, whether they quit, are fired or are laid-off. In CA it would be a maximum of $450 a week for 26 weeks. That would be the easiest way to make it equal protection under the law.

 

[danielpalos]

I am not.

Yes, you are. Employment is at the will of Either party; no strings attached.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes, you are. Employment is at the will of Either party; no strings attached.

And my plan removes any strings or inequalities from the system.

If any person without a job were allowed to draw the same UC that those who qualify now, how would there be any lack of equal protection under the law?

 

[danielpalos]

And my plan removes any strings or inequalities from the system.

This is the (at-will employment) Law system you need to be Legal to:

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

 

[WinterBorn]

This is the (at-will employment) Law system you need to be Legal to:

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

Right. And there is no longer any lack of equal protection under the law if everyone who is unemployed gets the same benefits as those who lose their job through no fault of their own.

 

[danielpalos]

Right. And there is no longer any lack of equal protection under the law if everyone who is unemployed gets the same benefits as those who lose their job through no fault of their own.

Did you forget the concept so soon?

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

 

[WinterBorn]

Did you forget the concept so soon?

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

I did not forget the concept. But the basis for your argument has been the lack of equal protection under the law. My solution solves that without completely reworking UC.

If equal protection under the law is really your complaint, my solution is perfect.

 

[danielpalos]

I did not forget the concept. But the basis for your argument has been the lack of equal protection under the law. My solution solves that without completely reworking UC.

If equal protection under the law is really your complaint, my solution is perfect.

Only if you resort to special pleading and ignore at-will employment law.

 

[WinterBorn]

Only if you resort to special pleading and ignore at-will employment law.

No, not special pleading and certainly not ignoring the at-will employment.

What is wrong with my suggestion? It makes everything right under the equal protection of the law.

 

[danielpalos]

No, not special pleading and certainly not ignoring the at-will employment.

What is wrong with my suggestion? It makes everything right under the equal protection of the law.

You indulge in special pleading and ignore at-will employment law.