CDZ Why not have a 'Universal Basic Income' to replace welfare?

[JimBowie1958]

How about you get out of the CDZ?

Lol, no, I want a reasonable discussion, which you have failed in completely, so why dont you leave the thread?

 

[saveliberty]

Government controls production through keeping workers under employed. That would have been the honest answer.

That is both ridiculous and NOT socialism

Because Jim says so, not because it is reality.

There is a definition for the economic system of socialism, and none of it matches UBI, despite your best wishes it do so.

So desperate to forward your concept you simply ignore the facts. Read the definition of socialism. It goes beyond production, although I have already shown how UBI fits that part too. You lose.

 

[jon_berzerk]

This idea has a lot to commend it economically as well as socially. Young Republicans may be surprised to learn that the idea was seriously proposed by President Richard Nixon. He called the plan a negative income tax. Of course, that was before the GOP was hijacked by anarchists and religious fanatics.

Nixon was a criminal-------something of a religious nut-----and negative income tax is----in the minds of most republicans----WELFARE

-and negative income tax is-

is the earned income credit

 

[saveliberty]

"Moving to a jobless economic system". Sounds like a political goal, which is government directed, you know, socialism.

 

[JimBowie1958]

So desperate to forward your concept you simply ignore the facts.

You have presented no facts.

Read the definition of socialism. It goes beyond production,

I am aquaitned with it and UBI is not socialism at all.

although I have already shown how UBI fits that part too.

You have shown nothing.

You lose.

Sure, Rocky, whatever you say.

 

[JimBowie1958]

"Moving to a jobless economic system". Sounds like a political goal, which is government directed, you know, socialism.

No, a jobless economy is not the goal of any government, but is the coming affect of full automation that any thinking person can see.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Nixon was a criminal-------something of a religious nut-----and negative income tax is----in the minds of most republicans----WELFARE

Letting people keep more of their own earned income is not welfare, but I understand what you mean.

 

[saveliberty]

Using denial is not a debate technique that wins. Ignoring facts is simply the act of the ignorant. You assume man is incapable of creating new products and services.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Using denial is not a debate technique that wins. Ignoring facts is simply the act of the ignorant.

You have presented no facts to ignore.

You assume man is incapable of creating new products and services.

I made no such assumption and had you read and retained what has been posted you would grasp that much.

Welcome to my ignore list.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Nixon was a criminal-------something of a religious nut-----and negative income tax is----in the minds of most republicans----WELFARE

Letting people keep more of their own earned income is not welfare, but I understand what you mean.

the earned income tax credit is a hand out

one gets more money back then they paid in

 

[Wry Catcher]

The OP opens a thought provoking look into the future. It brings to mind B.F Skinner's novel Walden Two, 18th Century Utopian experiments (Experiments with Utopia [ushistory.org],), the diverse nature of humanity and individualism v. collectivism.

Some random thoughts on the future, if we
Expand the work week for office workers to six days (Mon - Sat)
Reduce F/T employment to no more than 36 hours
Expand the work day to 14 hours (0600 - 2200)
Limit OT by creating job sharing

we might reduce gridlock by expanding the commute time;
create new weekends, expanding leisure time which will create jobs in leisure time activities;
Allow access to the courts, government services and private service providers without taking a vacation day or a day without pay
Create jobs catering to office workers working two different shifts (two lunches a day, one additional day per week for example)

 

[saveliberty]

Dishonest OP is dishonest.

 

[saveliberty]

so·cial·ism

NOUN

1. a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Welfare is a government program which provides financial aid to individuals or groups who cannot support themselves. Welfare programs are funded by taxpayers and allow people to cope with financial stress during rough periods of their lives.

Read more: Welfare Definition | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/welfare.asp#ixzz46Nd4a181
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

Basic income systems that are financed by the profits of publicly owned enterprises (often called social dividend or citizen's dividend) are major components in many proposed models of market socialism.[3] Basic income schemes have also been promoted within the context of capitalist systems, where they would be financed through various forms of taxation.[4]

Basic income - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oops! Looks like the facts just buried you.

 

[Never3ndr]

Yes, because building a simple database application encompasses what I was referring to when I used a broad term like "working programs." You cannot take a specific case of simple application development and even pretend it applies in a broader sense. You made the same mistake here you made with your previous assertions. You are taking some specific instance, in a vacuum, and generalizing it broadly.

I gave a specific example of how you are wrong about this. Analogy; you claimed that X does not proceed from Y, and I then showed you a case of Y coming out of X.

*poof* you're argument is disproven.

And what have you presented to support your claims that jobs are not going to become scarce?

Nothing more than speculation based on an antiquated data set.

Fine let me correct my statement from "working programs" to "the vast majority of working programs." You sure got me there.

You must have not been reading any of my arguments, I've pointed towards pretty much the entire human history as indicating that you are wrong since NEVER in history has what you are proclaiming will happen...has happened. YOU have never presented any support to your claims. You have failed to point towards any period of history where technology has led to less productivity or purpose...you have only named specific jobs or specific industries while IGNORING everything else. If you can't see how blind you are due to your heavy misunderstanding and bias...I'm not sure it is worth even attempting to debate in an intellectual fashion since you seem to be a bit immune to any evidence pointed to the contrary. You have failed to point towards how the industrial revolution led to mass lethargy and lack of production. You have failed to indicate how the Roman Empire hailed the time when people stopping doing anything noteworthy, you have even failed to show how, in today's job market, we now have extraordinarily high levels of unproductiveness or people now listlessly drifting through life. What you have done is ignore all historical precedent and just simply assert your opinion based off of a handful of specific instances of outdated jobs being replaced by tech...which I've never denied happens...in fact, I'll go one step further and agree! Every time there is technological advancement outdated jobs are replaced by tech. However, it doesn't follow that there are no jobs to move into, you have utterly failed to demonstrate that absurd connection.

 

[rdean]

We can't just pay people to exist. They need motivation.

Most people really dont need motivation to exist; they just do.

And for that we're supposed to pay them? I think not.

 

[JimBowie1958]

And for that we're supposed to pay them? I think not.

It will be cheaper than all the sum total welfare programs going into the future with their locked in annual growth.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You must have not been reading any of my arguments, I've pointed towards pretty much the entire human history as indicating that you are wrong since NEVER in history has what you are proclaiming will happen...has happened. YOU have never presented any support to your claims. You have failed to point towards any period of history where technology has led to less productivity or purpose...you have only named specific jobs or specific industries while IGNORING everything else. If you can't see how blind you are due to your heavy misunderstanding and bias...I'm not sure it is worth even attempting to debate in an intellectual fashion since you seem to be a bit immune to any evidence pointed to the contrary. You have failed to point towards how the industrial revolution led to mass lethargy and lack of production. You have failed to indicate how the Roman Empire hailed the time when people stopping doing anything noteworthy, you have even failed to show how, in today's job market, we now have extraordinarily high levels of unproductiveness or people now listlessly drifting through life. What you have done is ignore all historical precedent and just simply assert your opinion based off of a handful of specific instances of outdated jobs being replaced by tech...which I've never denied happens...in fact, I'll go one step further and agree! Every time there is technological advancement outdated jobs are replaced by tech. However, it doesn't follow that there are no jobs to move into, you have utterly failed to demonstrate that absurd connection.

What Ia m referring to is unique in human history and has never happened before today. Just like the previous two industrial revolutions were not expected and handling the fallout was difficult, this one will be very difficult as well and is totally unlike anything that happened to the ancient Romans, lol.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The OP opens a thought provoking look into the future. It brings to mind B.F Skinner's novel Walden Two, 18th Century Utopian experiments (Experiments with Utopia [ushistory.org],), the diverse nature of humanity and individualism v. collectivism.

Some random thoughts on the future, if we
Expand the work week for office workers to six days (Mon - Sat)
Reduce F/T employment to no more than 36 hours
Expand the work day to 14 hours (0600 - 2200)
Limit OT by creating job sharing

we might reduce gridlock by expanding the commute time;
create new weekends, expanding leisure time which will create jobs in leisure time activities;
Allow access to the courts, government services and private service providers without taking a vacation day or a day without pay
Create jobs catering to office workers working two different shifts (two lunches a day, one additional day per week for example)

Some interesting ideas there.

I think a major help in the transition period would be to redefine full time work as 30 hours or more and have people work 4 days a week.

Stagger start times on jobs to reduce traffic and commute times and give an incentive of some kind to get businesses to allow for telecommuting.

Giving corporations only one tax cut; 30% of their American citizens payroll.

End the H1-B visa program.

Expand immigration for industries that are provably short supplied and invest in training programs to get Americans up to speed.

That is all I have to contribute in this respect. IT isnt really directly related to UBI, but it is addressing transition period policies that could be helpful as we move to a jobless economy.

 

[Wry Catcher]

so·cial·ism

NOUN

1. a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Welfare is a government program which provides financial aid to individuals or groups who cannot support themselves. Welfare programs are funded by taxpayers and allow people to cope with financial stress during rough periods of their lives.

Read more: Welfare Definition | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/welfare.asp#ixzz46Nd4a181
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

Basic income systems that are financed by the profits of publicly owned enterprises (often called social dividend or citizen's dividend) are major components in many proposed models of market socialism.[3] Basic income schemes have also been promoted within the context of capitalist systems, where they would be financed through various forms of taxation.[4]

Basic income - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oops! Looks like the facts just buried you.

You really need to put the cork in that bottle of kool-aid you consume.

 

[JimBowie1958]

so·cial·ism

NOUN

1. a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Welfare is a government program which provides financial aid to individuals or groups who cannot support themselves. Welfare programs are funded by taxpayers and allow people to cope with financial stress during rough periods of their lives.

Read more: Welfare Definition | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/welfare.asp#ixzz46Nd4a181
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

Basic income systems that are financed by the profits of publicly owned enterprises (often called social dividend or citizen's dividend) are major components in many proposed models of market socialism.[3] Basic income schemes have also been promoted within the context of capitalist systems, where they would be financed through various forms of taxation.[4]

Basic income - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oops! Looks like the facts just buried you.

You really need to put the cork in that bottle of kool-aid you consume.

It's no use trying to ejumakate this fellow, but if it tickles your funny bone have at it.

He is on my ignore list now.