CDZ Zuckerberg Calls for a Universal Basic Income

[JimBowie1958]

/----/ UBI is just another scam designed by Democrats to cripple the US economy.

Lol, no, it has been around for a very long time in various forms going back to Saint Thomas Moore.

 

[task0778]

So, how much money do you want to give everyone? And, where do you think all that money is going to come from? That is my biggest problem with UBI, I take it that everyone gets a check but only those who have a job and actually earn money would pay taxes?

I dont know where the UBI should be by set amount. I think it should be set to some kind of relationship to the poverty rate, like twice the poverty rate, or something similar.

As to where it would come from that would be:
1) corporate taxes (15% is fine)
2) tariffs and fees
3) Robotics taxes that would replace the lost income taxes from the jobs replaced by robots and to pay for the costs of regulating the robotics industry.

The corporations would still be making a windfall not having to pay full costs for their labor and society would have some economic stability.

There would also be the profits from plundering Third World nations....no, just kidding. But we might be heading in that direction if we dont do something.

Okay, let's talk. According to the Census Bureau, the poverty line in the US in 2014 was approx $24,000. If you give that much to every person in the US (about 320 mil), you're talking somewhere in the neighborhood of $7.7 trillion bucks. The Tax Policy Center estimates the tax revenue from corporate taxes in 2016 to be between $300 and $350 billion dollars, with another $300 billion or so from excise taxes and other sources. That's one hell of a jump, and you're still some $7 trillion dollars short. I haven't seen any estimates of how much revenue that could be received from a robotics tax, but 2 things are obvious:

1. However much your robotics tax ends up being gets paid by the customers. I know the Left just hates corporations, but the truth is they give us cheaper prices just from economies of scale. And the simple fact is that if a corporation is not reasonably profitable, it will find ways to become more profitable or it will close up it's business. Maybe fewer corporations sounds good but trust me, it ain't. Because fewer corporations means less competition and higher prices.

2. A robotics tax disincentivizes robotics, which can drive up prices due to higher labor costs if you're not using robots. There's no free lunch here, somebody has to pay for higher wages if there's fewer or no robots, or the higher prices resulting from your robotics tax if we employ more robots and fewer people.

And finally, you said earlier your UBI would replace welfare. Certainly a very big chunk of our gov't spending goes to the social welfare programs if we want to call it that, somewhere in the neighborhood of what, $3 trillion dollars or so? So that's good and helps pay for almost half of the UBI cost, BUT how well are many people going to live on $24,000 without the welfare programs? Food stamps, healthcare, housing, education, etc. Whatever you add back into the budget means less money paying for the UBI. I'm not seeing it as a good deal for the poor. And how much of that UBI money will end up going for smokes, booze, and drugs or gambling?

Bottom line, a UBI is not feasible. The numbers do not add up.

 

[task0778]

First off, corporate taxes ALWAYS come from the consumer. Secondly, these types of proposals ALWAYS end up on the back of the middle class. Witness Obama's fascist care as a prime example.

Not all tax increases are paid for by the consumer. Corporations can actually reduce their profit margins to pay for it as well, and they do or else the capitalist competitive market model is a fraud.

In the scenario where corporations have replaced expensive human labor with robots, they are making HUGE profits and could easily afford to fund UBI while still having higher taxes from use of robots.

With respect, taxes are a cost of doing business and it always gets figured into the price of the product or service. ALWAYS. Your comment about the capitalist competitive market model makes no sense, corporations are in business to make money for themselves and their shareholders. They can cut their profit margins if they want to, but investors will move their money to another corporation if they do that. Money flows to where it finds the greatest return, and THAT is how the capitalist competitive market model works.

 

[Uncensored2008]

First off, corporate taxes ALWAYS come from the consumer. Secondly, these types of proposals ALWAYS end up on the back of the middle class. Witness Obama's fascist care as a prime example.

Not all tax increases are paid for by the consumer. Corporations can actually reduce their profit margins to pay for it as well, and they do or else the capitalist competitive market model is a fraud.

In the scenario where corporations have replaced expensive human labor with robots, they are making HUGE profits and could easily afford to fund UBI while still having higher taxes from use of robots.

Not at all true.

The first reality of the left is that y'all have no grasp of how economics works.

Jose and Miguel both make widgets. Both want a 7% net profit from their products. Jose has 7 employees who make the widgets and are paid an average wage of $20 Per hour. With overhead, material costs and G&A, figuring for taxes and depreciation costs, Jose prices the widgets at $10 each to make his 7% net.

Miguel has the same material, overhead, and G&A costs, but he buys a 5 axis mill for $600,000 which allows him to produce the same amount of widgets with just one direct labor employee. Miguel also needs a 7% return. After amortizing the mill over 10 years, Miguel finds he can sell the widgets for $9 each, providing him a competitive advantage. Notice that Miguel, not being stupid, does not sell for $10 and try to gain more unit margin, but instead lowers his price to expand his market and make vastly more money in the long run.

This isn't a cartoon, in real life business determines the needed return on the manufacturing process and prices goods accordingly. The most efficient business is able to undercut the competition and gain market share.

There are no ducks swimming in pools filled with gold coins.

 

[Spare_change]

Zuckerberg Calls for a Universal Basic Income...This idea is gaining steam from people familiar with the coming Robotics Revolution.

Well, as someone who is content with the earned income I have and that I've made available to my kids, I will wait until I find out how much it'll cost me/them to be a contributor to/supporter of the provision of a UBI in the U.S. The concept of the thing is reasonable enough. It's the implementation details -- foremost among them at the moment the fact that there are no such details -- extant in any proposals for providing a UBI to American citizens.

The "concept of it" is anathema to human, social, and national growth.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The first reality of the left is that y'all have no grasp of how economics works.

Jose and Miguel both make widgets. Both want a 7% net profit from their products. Jose has 7 employees who make the widgets and are paid an average wage of $20 Per hour. With overhead, material costs and G&A, figuring for taxes and depreciation costs, Jose prices the widgets at $10 each to make his 7% net.

Miguel has the same material, overhead, and G&A costs, but he buys a 5 axis mill for $600,000 which allows him to produce the same amount of widgets with just one direct labor employee. Miguel also needs a 7% return. After amortizing the mill over 10 years, Miguel finds he can sell the widgets for $9 each, providing him a competitive advantage. Notice that Miguel, not being stupid, does not sell for $10 and try to gain more unit margin, but instead lowers his price to expand his market and make vastly more money in the long run.

This isn't a cartoon, in real life business determines the needed return on the manufacturing process and prices goods accordingly. The most efficient business is able to undercut the competition and gain market share.

There are no ducks swimming in pools filled with gold coins.

And in RL Jose would cut his profit margin from 7% or whatever he needs to have in order to stay competitive with Miguel and also sell at $9, with less profit per unit but maintaining market share.

With robots available $2000 per unit, there is no huge $600k up front cost or interest on the loan. Miguel simply has replaced his need for 7 employees with four robots who work double 10 hour shifts at no labor costs at all. He can sell his widgets for $8 and still make huge profits and is willing to let some of that go to get more market share. So Jose lets his human workers go and buys the same robots in order to stay competitive with Miguel.

Now both are making huge profits.

But there are seven people who have lost their jobs and more who were not hired over time.

They toss their hat in with Marxist revolutionaries, overthrow the government in a revolt and now squeeze the wealthy for every dime till the gravy train crashes.

I like a UBI better.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The first reality of the left is that y'all have no grasp of how economics works.

Jose and Miguel both make widgets. Both want a 7% net profit from their products. Jose has 7 employees who make the widgets and are paid an average wage of $20 Per hour. With overhead, material costs and G&A, figuring for taxes and depreciation costs, Jose prices the widgets at $10 each to make his 7% net.

Miguel has the same material, overhead, and G&A costs, but he buys a 5 axis mill for $600,000 which allows him to produce the same amount of widgets with just one direct labor employee. Miguel also needs a 7% return. After amortizing the mill over 10 years, Miguel finds he can sell the widgets for $9 each, providing him a competitive advantage. Notice that Miguel, not being stupid, does not sell for $10 and try to gain more unit margin, but instead lowers his price to expand his market and make vastly more money in the long run.

This isn't a cartoon, in real life business determines the needed return on the manufacturing process and prices goods accordingly. The most efficient business is able to undercut the competition and gain market share.

There are no ducks swimming in pools filled with gold coins.

And in RL Jose would cut his profit margin from 7% or whatever he needs to have in order to stay competitive with Miguel and also sell at $9, with less profit per unit but maintaining market share.

With robots available $2000 per unit, there is no huge $600k up front cost or interest on the loan. Miguel simply has replaced his need for 7 employees with four robots who work double 10 hour shifts at no labor costs at all. He can sell his widgets for $8 and still make huge profits and is willing to let some of that go to get more market share. So Jose lets his human workers go and buys the same robots in order to stay competitive with Miguel.

Now both are making huge profits.

But there are seven people who have lost their jobs and more who were not hired over time.

They toss their hat in with Marxist revolutionaries, overthrow the government in a revolt and now squeeze the wealthy for every dime till the gravy train crashes.

I like a UBI better.

Again, this simply isn't how business works. Fist off, there is no $2,000 "robot." I'm not even sure what you mean by robots, Automation involves specialized machinery and equipment, I just paid $300,000 for a machine to mark uneven surfaces. This is single purpose automation, which most is. Numerical Control or NC is the term used for most of the automation, though in reality these machines work off of solid model files from CAD systems. A good 3D printer with metal printing abilities will set you back a couple of million.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Some content that may be useful for perspective in this thread's discussion.

• Robots vs. CNC Machine Tools: The Software Edge - Industry Market Trends - ThomasNet News
  
• Types of Automation

​

Something on the order of the Metal X 3D can be had for ~$100K. Not cheap, but far from prohibitively expensive.

​

Are we at the point of needing to implement UBI? Right this instant, no; however, some of the more aggressive scenarios place less than ten years out the point at which "what are people supposed to do for work" will become a real concern. Aggressive or moderate rates of advancement in the realm of automation notwithstanding, we are, however, without question at the point where prescient, profit-seeking and/or innovative individuals -- scientists/engineers, economists, businesspeople, computer scientists, etc. -- are, as I like to say, "nihil obstat-ing" their way toward a fully automated world where they are at the forefront of the money-making potentiality of that world. In other words, it's clear that we are at the "when" rather than "whether" point for the primacy of automation technology.

The consequence of that is that "regular people" must at least "read the writing on the wall" and "get over" making the matter into a political one. One thing's certain, the people overcoming the challenges described in the attached documents and those availing themselves of what's presently available don't care about "liberal and conservative." They care about how to prepare for what's coming so that they aren't among the masses who may find themselves depending to greater or lesser extents on a UBI or similar largesse.

I know I wouldn't hold out rosey prospects for folks who have limited skills, limited quantities of advanced technical education, and no significant store of income-producing wealth (something that can in 2030 and beyond reliably provide ~$250K/year income).


Andecdote:

Recognizing the uncertainty and the range of currently plausible and foreseeable outcomes as they pertain to my kids -- I don't imagine I'll live long after it really comes to matter, so I'm not concerned for myself -- I might, no matter how capable they are, be the last person who can crate the economic "nest egg" they may need not to be dependent on something like UBI or other programs. That is why I and my partners were content to sell our firm; short of the lottery, we just weren't going to come into that much cash all at once so we could make sure there's some sort of "buffer" for our descendents.

Back we started our company, we didn't have visions of selling it. We figured we'd grow it and pass it on to subsequent partners. Then we saw that while we could probably continue on that path, unlike a public company, ours wasn't something we could pass on to our kids. We decided that providing for our kids and grandkids was the better choice, so we sold and let the firm be absorbed into a far larger one. So while it wasn't enough to make my kids "rich," it was enough that they'll each be able to enjoy a "decent" lifestyle regardless of whether automation prevails human labor and no matter what "solutions" the government implements when that happens.
​

Now, the solution approach I took isn't the only one, but I know too that thinking about the coming economy using paradigmatic models that involve snide "buried head" notions like "yeah, pay people not to work" is no solution approach at all.

The Obama Administration issued a report that attempted to give citizens some sense of what's coming. While much of that report projects optimism that automation technology will create demand for jobs that aren't currently in high demand (relatively speaking), it also gives credence to the possibility that automation may result in there being very few jobs for humans.

AI-driven technological change could lead to even larger disparities in income between capital owners and labor. For example, Brynjolfsson and McAfee argue that current trends in the labor market, such as declining wages in the face of rising productivity, are indicative of a more drastic change in the distribution of economic benefits to come. Rather than everyone receiving at least some of the benefit, the vast majority of that value will go to a very small portion of the population: “superstar-biased technological change.” Superstar-biased technological change is somewhat similar to skill-biased technological change, but the benefits of technology accrue to an even smaller portion of society than just the highly-skilled workers. The winner-take-most and winner-take-all nature of the information technology market means that the fortunate few are likely to emerge as victors of the market. This would exacerbate the current trend in the rising fraction of total income going to the top 0.01 percent
​

Now I don't care what one thinks about Obama and his Administration. The fact remains that as goes the potential impact of AI on labor and income should not be estimated. Far better to "read the writing on the wall" and today lay the groundwork -- if not for oneself, for one's kids -- to be part of the "fortunate few" rather than "everyone else," but to do that one must "get real" and "get over" the politics of matter.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Some content that may be useful for perspective in this thread's discussion.

• Robots vs. CNC Machine Tools: The Software Edge - Industry Market Trends - ThomasNet News
  
• Types of Automation

​

Something on the order of the Metal X 3D can be had for ~$100K. Not cheap, but far from prohibitively expensive.

​

Are we at the point of needing to implement UBI? Right this instant, no; however, some of the more aggressive scenarios place less than ten years out the point at which "what are people supposed to do for work" will become a real concern. Aggressive or moderate rates of advancement in the realm of automation notwithstanding, we are, however, without question at the point where prescient, profit-seeking and/or innovative individuals -- scientists/engineers, economists, businesspeople, computer scientists, etc. -- are, as I like to say, "nihil obstat-ing" their way toward a fully automated world where they are at the forefront of the money-making potentiality of that world. In other words, it's clear that we are at the "when" rather than "whether" point for the primacy of automation technology.

The consequence of that is that "regular people" must at least "read the writing on the wall" and "get over" making the matter into a political one. One thing's certain, the people overcoming the challenges described in the attached documents and those availing themselves of what's presently available don't care about "liberal and conservative." They care about how to prepare for what's coming so that they aren't among the masses who may find themselves depending to greater or lesser extents on a UBI or similar largesse.

I know I wouldn't hold out rosey prospects for folks who have limited skills, limited quantities of advanced technical education, and no significant store of income-producing wealth (something that can in 2030 and beyond reliably provide ~$250K/year income).


Andecdote:

Recognizing the uncertainty and the range of currently plausible and foreseeable outcomes as they pertain to my kids -- I don't imagine I'll live long after it really comes to matter, so I'm not concerned for myself -- I might, no matter how capable they are, be the last person who can crate the economic "nest egg" they may need not to be dependent on something like UBI or other programs. That is why I and my partners were content to sell our firm; short of the lottery, we just weren't going to come into that much cash all at once so we could make sure there's some sort of "buffer" for our descendents.

Back we started our company, we didn't have visions of selling it. We figured we'd grow it and pass it on to subsequent partners. Then we saw that while we could probably continue on that path, unlike a public company, ours wasn't something we could pass on to our kids. We decided that providing for our kids and grandkids was the better choice, so we sold and let the firm be absorbed into a far larger one. So while it wasn't enough to make my kids "rich," it was enough that they'll each be able to enjoy a "decent" lifestyle regardless of whether automation prevails human labor and no matter what "solutions" the government implements when that happens.
​

Now, the solution approach I took isn't the only one, but I know too that thinking about the coming economy using paradigmatic models that involve snide "buried head" notions like "yeah, pay people not to work" is no solution approach at all.

The Obama Administration issued a report that attempted to give citizens some sense of what's coming. While much of that report projects optimism that automation technology will create demand for jobs that aren't currently in high demand (relatively speaking), it also gives credence to the possibility that automation may result in there being very few jobs for humans.

AI-driven technological change could lead to even larger disparities in income between capital owners and labor. For example, Brynjolfsson and McAfee argue that current trends in the labor market, such as declining wages in the face of rising productivity, are indicative of a more drastic change in the distribution of economic benefits to come. Rather than everyone receiving at least some of the benefit, the vast majority of that value will go to a very small portion of the population: “superstar-biased technological change.” Superstar-biased technological change is somewhat similar to skill-biased technological change, but the benefits of technology accrue to an even smaller portion of society than just the highly-skilled workers. The winner-take-most and winner-take-all nature of the information technology market means that the fortunate few are likely to emerge as victors of the market. This would exacerbate the current trend in the rising fraction of total income going to the top 0.01 percent
​

Now I don't care what one thinks about Obama and his Administration. The fact remains that as goes the potential impact of AI on labor and income should not be estimated. Far better to "read the writing on the wall" and today lay the groundwork -- if not for oneself, for one's kids -- to be part of the "fortunate few" rather than "everyone else," but to do that one must "get real" and "get over" the politics of matter.

Uh dude, you're own link claims this is a "breakthrough printer that costs less than 1/10th of what most printers cost."

This is a lowball. It might be fine using some new method, but probably is crap. A good 3D Systems metal printer will set you back a couple of million, fact.

Actual CNC died 20 years ago, virtually ALL modern mills fit your definition of "robotics" in that they are decision making and self-correcting

 

[danielpalos]

Zuckerberg has a good idea.

Let's just get rid of money and make everything free.

I don't mind using money. How about, everything costs a dollar at a dollar store?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Zuckerberg has a good idea.

Let's just get rid of money and make everything free.

I don't mind using money. How about, everything costs a dollar at a dollar store?

Such as a house, or a pound of dope?

 

[danielpalos]

For me this is the Ultimate argument on ehy we need to look at the Moral implications of technology even moreso than the technological implications.

I have no use for a UBI. I have no use for anyone who would take a UBI. I hate my job. Id love to not have to go there every day, but I know it is my obligation.... moral snd financial to go there and earn a,living fir myself and my fsmily.

Why? Capitalists get "rewarded" for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on their bottom line.

Employment is at-will in any at-will employment State.

 

[danielpalos]

Money represents a unit of work reward.

So what. Capital gains is rewarded more than a work ethic from the Age of Iron.

 

[danielpalos]

Not interested in your right wing cult memes than I am left wing memes. Heard them all decades ago, and nothing new about them. Snivel to your buddies about them.

If most jobs get automated, then some method will be necessary to allow people to make discretionary choices and have some input into what is made and how much, it's that simple. Whether some twit wants to run around trying to bullshit everybody into believing he's 'super productive n stuff' and 'everybody else is lazy and deserves to die n stuff' they can go play in the flame zone or something. You can all wet yourselves there to your lil hearts content. Try the Free Republic board; that's all the dorks there do 24/7.

Well, I guess we can see how interested you are in intelligent discussion.

I feel really bad that you are so badly abused by the MAN -

Let me see if we can figure how just how you plan to create this dystopian society. Everybody gets a basic income, whether they contribute to society or not. Where does this magical funding come from? Well - from those who produce, of course! So, tell us - what is the incentive to produce? Getting paid for our work, right? But, if you're going to take my money, why would I want to work? Why don't I just sit around and do nothing, kinda like you're doing?

Let's combine your proposal of a UBI with your demands for an increase in minimum wage. Today, a UBI equal to the poverty level might be acceptable. Tomorrow - not so much. Just like minimum wage, you have not increased your production in order to fund the wage increase. You simply want a bigger piece of somebody else's pie.

Then, God forbid --- there is an income disparity. Why should you have to survive on UBI, while those rich bastards working long hours and producing wealth, get all the money? Let's take more!

Face it .... UBI is simply a step to a socialist economy - and not a very disguised step at that.

You just want what somebody else has got - and you're not willing to work for it.

As for all those poor little "victims" who lose their jobs to automation - get another job. Figure out another way to create wealth. Quit whining about "poor little me" and get your ass to work.

Oh wah wah wah cry us all a river over your fantasy economics and BS, all of which is nonsense. You wouldn't be around today if it weren't for what dumbass right wingers like to keep calling 'socialist policies', so go find some illiterates to peddle those ridiculous propaganda 'talking points' to.

None are so blind as those who will not see; none are so deaf as those who will not listen; none are so dumb as those who will not learn.

I really, really --and I mean, REALLY - appreciate the intelligence and forethought you put into your response!

Settle down; nobody's impressed with your Emily Letella Moments here.

That's the best you can do? Why did I assume you actually wanted to discuss the issue?

Why do you object to solving simple poverty under Any form of Capitalism, but especially in our Republic, with our federal Constitution?

 

[danielpalos]

"Important: Do not penalize people for working."

Even more important: Do not reward people for not working.

Here's what I think, every person who puts out a utopian idea of free money or everything for everybody without also explaining how to pay for it should be ignored. How would it work, some people work cuz they want to but most don't? Do the workers get extra for working? Gonna be some pissed off people if some fat slob lives just as well as you do but you work and he doesn't. Human nature fellas, let's not forget who we are. Does everybody get a check, or just those under a certain threshhold? How'd you like to be the guy juuussst over the max, no check for you bub. I'm thinking most people are going to make sure they're either well over the cut or not over at all. Which doesn't bode well for income inequality, does it? A whole lot of people getting free money and a few people making big bucks.

Somebody needs to show me the plan, where's the money come from and who is going to get it? And don't waste your time or mine telling me we'll raise taxes the rich to pay for it, they're gonna be long gone on an island somewhere with no extradition. Maybe a yacht or bigass houseboat or something. And they ain't got that much money anyway.

Capitalism has a Natural Rate of Unemployment on a for-profit basis.

Reward people for circulating money, even if they don't work.

 

[danielpalos]

"Important: Do not penalize people for working."

Even more important: Do not reward people for not working.

What I meant was that, if a basic income plan replaced all other welfare programs, that benefit should not be reduced for people who are earning additional income. Government welfare programs already "reward" people for not working; I just think we should not penalize people for working by reducing their benefits, since this devalues their work.

I would rather see an EITC type program that augments income below a certain threshhold for a certain time period, say 2 or 3 years, after which you need to be moving up the income ladder. And as a society we need to be taking steps to ensure that upward mobility is possible, and THAT means a business environment that is conducive to new businesses starting up and existing businesses expanding. And THAT means lower taxes and lower costs of compliance with gov't regulations at every level. Anything that makes it more lucrative to operate a business.

Solve for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment, then we can discuss time limits.

 

[danielpalos]

Put everyone on an income of 52,000 dollars. You must use all of the income during the year.
No one is to have a net worth of more than 52,000 dollars, paid weekly...not politicians, not Mark Zuckerberg, not Elon Musk, not Harry Reid, not Barrack Obama.
No one is to work. You just collect your 1,000 dollars a week and if it is gone before the next paycheck, you do without. No credit cards, no credit, no "I'll pay you on Tuesday for a hamburger today".
No lawyer can have a personal wealth worth more than 52,000 dollars.

No business is to hold more than 52,000 dollars in profit. Anything above and beyond is to be forfeited to the government for the upkeep of the citizens. Business will have to replace equipment from the 52,000 per year. They will also have to pay for any product upgrade or research out of those monies.

No company can be sued. They have the right to the same income as the individual.
No doctor can be sued for malpractice. He won't' have the money for it and you cannot touch his income.

Everyone gets the same income. What is fairer than that?

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

Hmmm --- where have I heard that before?

A book on the morals of "children of a God", called a Bible?

 

[danielpalos]

Zuckerberg has a good idea.

Let's just get rid of money and make everything free.

I don't mind using money. How about, everything costs a dollar at a dollar store?

Such as a house, or a pound of dope?

Sure, or a car or a girlfriend.

 

[Spare_change]

Well, I guess we can see how interested you are in intelligent discussion.

I feel really bad that you are so badly abused by the MAN -

Let me see if we can figure how just how you plan to create this dystopian society. Everybody gets a basic income, whether they contribute to society or not. Where does this magical funding come from? Well - from those who produce, of course! So, tell us - what is the incentive to produce? Getting paid for our work, right? But, if you're going to take my money, why would I want to work? Why don't I just sit around and do nothing, kinda like you're doing?

Let's combine your proposal of a UBI with your demands for an increase in minimum wage. Today, a UBI equal to the poverty level might be acceptable. Tomorrow - not so much. Just like minimum wage, you have not increased your production in order to fund the wage increase. You simply want a bigger piece of somebody else's pie.

Then, God forbid --- there is an income disparity. Why should you have to survive on UBI, while those rich bastards working long hours and producing wealth, get all the money? Let's take more!

Face it .... UBI is simply a step to a socialist economy - and not a very disguised step at that.

You just want what somebody else has got - and you're not willing to work for it.

As for all those poor little "victims" who lose their jobs to automation - get another job. Figure out another way to create wealth. Quit whining about "poor little me" and get your ass to work.

Oh wah wah wah cry us all a river over your fantasy economics and BS, all of which is nonsense. You wouldn't be around today if it weren't for what dumbass right wingers like to keep calling 'socialist policies', so go find some illiterates to peddle those ridiculous propaganda 'talking points' to.

None are so blind as those who will not see; none are so deaf as those who will not listen; none are so dumb as those who will not learn.

I really, really --and I mean, REALLY - appreciate the intelligence and forethought you put into your response!

Settle down; nobody's impressed with your Emily Letella Moments here.

That's the best you can do? Why did I assume you actually wanted to discuss the issue?

Why do you object to solving simple poverty under Any form of Capitalism, but especially in our Republic, with our federal Constitution?

Since "poverty" is a relative term, it is impossible to "solve simple poverty".

You are disconnected from reality.

 

[Spare_change]

Put everyone on an income of 52,000 dollars. You must use all of the income during the year.
No one is to have a net worth of more than 52,000 dollars, paid weekly...not politicians, not Mark Zuckerberg, not Elon Musk, not Harry Reid, not Barrack Obama.
No one is to work. You just collect your 1,000 dollars a week and if it is gone before the next paycheck, you do without. No credit cards, no credit, no "I'll pay you on Tuesday for a hamburger today".
No lawyer can have a personal wealth worth more than 52,000 dollars.

No business is to hold more than 52,000 dollars in profit. Anything above and beyond is to be forfeited to the government for the upkeep of the citizens. Business will have to replace equipment from the 52,000 per year. They will also have to pay for any product upgrade or research out of those monies.

No company can be sued. They have the right to the same income as the individual.
No doctor can be sued for malpractice. He won't' have the money for it and you cannot touch his income.

Everyone gets the same income. What is fairer than that?

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

Hmmm --- where have I heard that before?

A book on the morals of "children of a God", called a Bible?

Put everyone on an income of 52,000 dollars. You must use all of the income during the year.
No one is to have a net worth of more than 52,000 dollars, paid weekly...not politicians, not Mark Zuckerberg, not Elon Musk, not Harry Reid, not Barrack Obama.
No one is to work. You just collect your 1,000 dollars a week and if it is gone before the next paycheck, you do without. No credit cards, no credit, no "I'll pay you on Tuesday for a hamburger today".
No lawyer can have a personal wealth worth more than 52,000 dollars.

No business is to hold more than 52,000 dollars in profit. Anything above and beyond is to be forfeited to the government for the upkeep of the citizens. Business will have to replace equipment from the 52,000 per year. They will also have to pay for any product upgrade or research out of those monies.

No company can be sued. They have the right to the same income as the individual.
No doctor can be sued for malpractice. He won't' have the money for it and you cannot touch his income.

Everyone gets the same income. What is fairer than that?

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

Hmmm --- where have I heard that before?

A book on the morals of "children of a God", called a Bible?

Sorry --- you're letting your ignorance show.

Good luck with trying to prove THAT point!