Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: A guarenteed paycheck for all?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: A guarenteed paycheck for all? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: A guarenteed paycheck for all? - 1/8/2017 5:57:23 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

Sure...let's give money to everyone who didn't earn it...from those folks who did.


Pay people to not work

What could possibly go wrong

I'm not saying this is a good idea. I'll wait and see how Finland does.

But giving someone $525/month isn't exactly easy street -- if you offered me $6300/year not to work, I'd tell you to fuck off. I earn over 10 times that much, and I'm not exactly Bill Gates here.

(in reply to BoscoX)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: A guarenteed paycheck for all? - 1/8/2017 5:58:32 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

Sure...let's give money to everyone who didn't earn it...from those folks who did.


Pay people to not work

What could possibly go wrong

Give drillers a resource depletion credit?

Pay farmers not to plant crops?

Targeted socialism or socialism for all??
Are they not doing any work at all? Not growing any crops? Not doing any drilling? Boss and workers sitting on their ass, watching T.V....gambling (with taxpayer money)...drinking?


Yeah, I'm not big on corporate welfare.

(in reply to CreativeDominant)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: A guarenteed paycheck for all? - 1/8/2017 6:52:32 PM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

Sure...let's give money to everyone who didn't earn it...from those folks who did.


Pay people to not work

What could possibly go wrong

Ask a farmer. They are paid not to plant or at least...to certainly farm less. It's a lot more than a small monthly stipend too.

_____________________________

You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
J K Galbraith

(in reply to BoscoX)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: A guarenteed paycheck for all? - 1/8/2017 6:55:03 PM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

Sure...let's give money to everyone who didn't earn it...from those folks who did.


Pay people to not work

What could possibly go wrong

Give drillers a resource depletion credit?

Pay farmers not to plant crops?

Targeted socialism or socialism for all??
Are they not doing any work at all? Not growing any crops? Not doing any drilling? Boss and workers sitting on their ass, watching T.V....gambling (with taxpayer money)...drinking?


Some are...some aren't.

_____________________________

You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
J K Galbraith

(in reply to CreativeDominant)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: A guarenteed paycheck for all? - 1/8/2017 9:59:19 PM   
heavyblinker


Posts: 3623
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
Of course you would. Better to steal from those you don't believe deserve what they've worked for than pay for things you personally disagree with even though you see nothing wrong with people having to pay for Obama policies they disagreed with because, you know...he's the President. And everybody pays taxes because, you know...policies. Oh wait...Trump will be President.


Who doesn't deserve what they've worked for?
What Obama policies?
I believe what?
When did I say any of this?

Fuck it, I'm just going to put every single RWNJ on this site on hide.

(in reply to CreativeDominant)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: A guarenteed paycheck for all? - 1/8/2017 10:41:25 PM   
ManOeuvre


Posts: 277
Joined: 3/2/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Everything depends on whether you're rich or you're poor, apparently. In the UK, the slightest percentage taken off an already enormously rich man will lead to the entire destruction of his morale and all will to work. Hence the last Tory/LibDem government getting rid of the 50% rate of tax on top incomes, for instance. On the other hand, taking money off the people at the bottom and on benefits will *encourage* them to find jobs. Because we're talking about two entirely different sorts of people, you see.

End of sarcasm.


No need to be sarcastic. You're also talking about two different kinds of transactions. In the first case, taking something away from someone's resources, property or labour. In the second, it seems to me (correct me if I'm wrong) that you're referring to the discontinuation of some unearned benefit or other.

Am I misunderstanding you?

If I'm not, while those transactions' expected values may be equivalent in some way, there is ample research which seems to indicate that people respond very differently to losses compared with foregone gains. Take a guess as to which is the experimentally adverse choice.

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: A guarenteed paycheck for all? - 1/8/2017 11:47:20 PM   
CreativeDominant


Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
Of course you would. Better to steal from those you don't believe deserve what they've worked for than pay for things you personally disagree with even though you see nothing wrong with people having to pay for Obama policies they disagreed with because, you know...he's the President. And everybody pays taxes because, you know...policies. Oh wait...Trump will be President.


Who doesn't deserve what they've worked for?
What Obama policies?
I believe what?
When did I say any of this?

Fuck it, I'm just going to put every single RWNJ on this site on hide.
"Beats giving money to people who want to stir up shit in the Middle East, restart a nuclear arms race or build a fucking wall between the US and Mexico.

In fact, I would rather pay people to be lazy and do nothing than pay for any of Trump's absolutely retarded fucking policies"

You said it...funny how you forgot that.

As for my being a RWNJ, that's laughable. You make fun of one poster who refers to everyone on the left as "alt-left" and yet, anyone from the right...especially anyone who dares disagree with you...is a RWNJ.

(in reply to heavyblinker)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: A guarenteed paycheck for all? - 1/9/2017 1:14:58 AM   
itsSIRtou


Posts: 836
Joined: 3/20/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

Sure...let's give money to everyone who didn't earn it...from those folks who did.


Beats giving money to people who want to stir up shit in the Middle East, restart a nuclear arms race or build a fucking wall between the US and Mexico.

In fact, I would rather pay people to be lazy and do nothing than pay for any of Trump's absolutely retarded fucking policies.

Of course you would. Better to steal from those you don't believe deserve what they've worked for than pay for things you personally disagree with even though you see nothing wrong with people having to pay for Obama policies they disagreed with because, you know...he's the President. And everybody pays taxes because, you know...policies. Oh wait...Trump will be President.


oh yea..... the orange guy who hasn't paid taxes in how many years???   20+ or so?
cant publish any of his returns because of possible discovery of multiple conflicts of interests??..... that (t)rump?
the "president" who isn't even in office yet and his parties already trying to block the ethics watchdogs from him??  ......that (t)rump?


< Message edited by itsSIRtou -- 1/9/2017 1:26:37 AM >

_____________________________

I will allways be a knight, instead of a prince.

What would the internet be like if we couldn't say trump is a moron?

The Republican party complains government doesnt work for people, and then makes darn sure it cannot.

(in reply to CreativeDominant)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: A guarenteed paycheck for all? - 1/9/2017 2:46:48 AM   
heavyblinker


Posts: 3623
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
Of course you would. Better to steal from those you don't believe deserve what they've worked for than pay for things you personally disagree with even though you see nothing wrong with people having to pay for Obama policies they disagreed with because, you know...he's the President. And everybody pays taxes because, you know...policies. Oh wait...Trump will be President.


Who doesn't deserve what they've worked for?
What Obama policies?
I believe what?
When did I say any of this?

Fuck it, I'm just going to put every single RWNJ on this site on hide.
"Beats giving money to people who want to stir up shit in the Middle East, restart a nuclear arms race or build a fucking wall between the US and Mexico.

In fact, I would rather pay people to be lazy and do nothing than pay for any of Trump's absolutely retarded fucking policies"

You said it...funny how you forgot that.

As for my being a RWNJ, that's laughable. You make fun of one poster who refers to everyone on the left as "alt-left" and yet, anyone from the right...especially anyone who dares disagree with you...is a RWNJ.


I was saying that personally, I would rather give money to people to be lazy than spend it on Trump's policies. I didn't say EVERYONE should support Obama and not support Trump... in fact, at this point I'm pretty sure that the solution is to simply decentralize everything and let the states do their own thing. It wouldn't be my first choice at this stage, but before this year I didn't think it would be possible for someone like Trump to even RUN, let alone win the presidency... so it looks like the US is actually in even more trouble than I thought.

I didn't say anything about anyone 'deserving' anything-- 'deserve' has no bearing whatsoever on wealth, so you can't say I do or don't think anyone deserves what they get-- it just IS that way.

RWNJ is an accurate term... abrasive, intolerant, guns, muh freedom, FOX, etc. Anyone who unironically supports Trump is at least 40% nutjob (or simply not that bright), throw in 'Obama is the worst president EVER' and you're up to 60%... throw in guns, 'murica, Muslims, Global warming conspiracy theories, etc... and yes, you're definitely a nutjob.

Simply the fact that you feel the need to trumpet yourself as 'creative' is a huge red flag... if you're so fucking creative, why is your username a generic self-description?? Odds are you see yourself that way precisely because you're NOT creative, but of course you need to go around finding new ways of telling everyone how awesome you think you are, because that's what creative people do!

'Alt-left' is something that the right came up with because they wanted to pretend that the left has a movement like the alt-right. If you want to use an epithet, why not stick to the classic RWNJ insults like 'libtard' or whatever? I mostly hate the term because it's so ignorant, but I guess I should just consider the source and accept it as par for the course. It's not like you or your ilk are capable of anything better.

I'm not really expecting a non-strawman reply... maybe some brilliantly creative argument about how I want to ban all yer guns or something.

(in reply to CreativeDominant)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: A guarenteed paycheck for all? - 1/9/2017 5:52:53 AM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Everything depends on whether you're rich or you're poor, apparently. In the UK, the slightest percentage taken off an already enormously rich man will lead to the entire destruction of his morale and all will to work. Hence the last Tory/LibDem government getting rid of the 50% rate of tax on top incomes, for instance. On the other hand, taking money off the people at the bottom and on benefits will *encourage* them to find jobs. Because we're talking about two entirely different sorts of people, you see.

End of sarcasm.


No need to be sarcastic. You're also talking about two different kinds of transactions. In the first case, taking something away from someone's resources, property or labour. In the second, it seems to me (correct me if I'm wrong) that you're referring to the discontinuation of some unearned benefit or other.

Am I misunderstanding you?



You got me right in that first question. I'm deliberately comparing the one with the other exactly because the standard strategy is to keep them separate. Understandable, not least because nobody likes to think that their having so much has anything to do with someone else having too little.

However, I'm not sure what you're implying with ...

quote:


If I'm not, while those transactions' expected values may be equivalent in some way, there is ample research which seems to indicate that people respond very differently to losses compared with foregone gains. Take a guess as to which is the experimentally adverse choice.


Over here, some thousands of people have been dying within a couple of months of being told that they're 'not disabled' therefore 'able to work', under the new, much harsher benefits regime brought in on the back of an overall austerity policy. People at the the top who may have once been disgruntled at the 50% tax rate on *some* of their income, which has now been reduced to 45%, compare with people at the bottom who have lost so much of their (already paltry) benefits that they've died as a result (by suicide or other means).


_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to ManOeuvre)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: A guarenteed paycheck for all? - 1/9/2017 9:15:37 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX
quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
Sure...let's give money to everyone who didn't earn it...from those folks who did.

Pay people to not work
What could possibly go wrong

Give drillers a resource depletion credit?
Pay farmers not to plant crops?
Targeted socialism or socialism for all??
Are they not doing any work at all? Not growing any crops? Not doing any drilling? Boss and workers sitting on their ass, watching T.V....gambling (with taxpayer money)...drinking?


"Farmers" can get paid to not plant crops on part or all of their land. So, some are working, and some aren't. There's a guy not too terribly far from me who owns 40 acres of farmland. He will pay an actual farmer to farm the land. That is, unless some Federal official decides it would be better if those 40 acres weren't planted with crop. The landowner gets paid to not plant foodcrops on his 40 acres, in an effort to maintain adequate price levels for the farmers.

So, sometimes those payments go to people who aren't even farmers.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to CreativeDominant)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: A guarenteed paycheck for all? - 1/9/2017 9:18:16 AM   
WhoreMods


Posts: 10691
Joined: 5/6/2016
Status: offline 		We get that a lot over here. It was pretty weird to see the farmers (notoriously high tory en masse) voting against the EU exit last year. Big subsidies not to over produce. I wonder if the term "slipper farmer" is on wiki?

_____________________________

On the level and looking for a square deal.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: A guarenteed paycheck for all? - 1/9/2017 2:56:41 PM   
YouInACage


Posts: 3
Joined: 6/21/2006
Status: offline 		The Alaska permanent fund was created from oil revenues that the state receives, so money is coming in from external sources. Not from taxpayers. It's from incoming revenues.

By and large UBI, that mathematically can't work in any meaningful way without stopping all the largest parts of government expenditure, which are social programs like Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, food stamps, etc. you'd be lucky to get a few hundred a year, not a month.

The whole "positive" aspects of UBI are "utopian" ideals which like socialist rhetoric focuses only on supposed positive things, rather than focusing on how you'd pay for it. Even if you get rid of every national social AND tax program (like EIC) you still can't divide that money among every citizen to do anything whatsoever if value. Do the math. Look at the entire U.S budget for social programs, eliminate them all, and divide that by 350 million people. It's nothing. You can't take limited money, and give to everyone. You could do it to just the "poor" but that's what we do now, but it's not universal.


UBI is just socialism under a brand new name. There isn't enough money to make it universal to everyone, by only for the poorest people, which you already have with welfare, Medicare, food stamps, etc.

This is no different than when teaching creationism in schools was renamed intelligent design.

UBI is more a propaganda piece to raise taxes on the rich, or the second you work you stop getting it. Or you'll have to pay taxes equal to it. All the test programs are in a small town or province, where they already have nationalized services, i.e., incoming revenue from an external source.

The whole point of progressive and means tested social welfare is that you have only so many dollars, and the do then most good with a small group of people who need it. So people with more pay a little bit more, to give to those that have less. A UBI system would try to take a tiny bit of money and give it to everyone, which doesn't really work. As a few bucks to a rich person does nothing, and a few bucks to a poor person isn't enough, which is why benefits are asymmetrical in the first place. You give poor people benefits and a negative tax rate.

There simply isn't enough money to go around in a meaningful way to everyone.

< Message edited by YouInACage -- 1/9/2017 3:55:42 PM >

(in reply to Greta75)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: A guarenteed paycheck for all? - 1/10/2017 7:47:52 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

The Alaska permanent fund was created from oil revenues that the state receives, so money is coming in from external sources. Not from taxpayers. It's from incoming revenues.

It is money from natural resources that belong to the state and its people, innit? Have a look at North Dakota. When the drillers pulled out recently the state was left with ground and air pollution, prostitution, and violent crime it had not known before.

quote:

The whole "positive" aspects of UBI are "utopian" ideals which like socialist rhetoric focuses only on supposed positive things, rather than focusing on how you'd pay for it. Even if you get rid of every national social AND tax program (like EIC) you still can't divide that money among every citizen to do anything whatsoever if value. Do the math.

Well, you may be right. However, I don't see why anyone under 18 years of age would be a recipient. Eliminating that large group would change the math.

quote:

The whole point of progressive and means tested social welfare is that you have only so many dollars, and the do then most good with a small group of people who need it. So people with more pay a little bit more, to give to those that have less.

Good point. As I understand the current trials they are aimed at people who are out of work.

_____________________________

vML

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ~ MLK Jr.

(in reply to YouInACage)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: A guarenteed paycheck for all? - 1/10/2017 10:33:10 AM   
ManOeuvre


Posts: 277
Joined: 3/2/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
You got me right in that first question. I'm deliberately comparing the one with the other exactly because the standard strategy is to keep them separate. Understandable, not least because nobody likes to think that their having so much has anything to do with someone else having too little.
However, I'm not sure what you're implying with ...
If I'm not, while those transactions' expected values may be equivalent in some way, there is ample research which seems to indicate that people respond very differently to losses compared with foregone gains. Take a guess as to which is the experimentally adverse choice.


I'll be happy the clarify the implication. Thank you also for pointing out with specificity where I understand you.

What I'm implying, which you seem to be helping me colour in, is that there is a very large difference between how people perceive losses of things they already own, versus forgone gains. These differences of consideration also extend towards gains and losses that the are observed rather than felt. The research I was referring to can be found in the scholarly appendix to the lay-friendly behavioural economics book by Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman Thinking Fast and Slow.

What I'm getting at is that there is a growing body of research which is uncovering genuine economic motivations and even dispositions by breaking them into their constituent parts. While there are some neat little idiosyncrasies and funny little contradictions, the general trend seems to follow the sentiment expressed by your Caledonian cousins: Possession is eleven points in the law, and they say there are but twelve.

There's no need to impute a motivation into economic behaviour when it is otherwise born out in the research. I don't think people's sympathies will change so long as capital, labour, resources, property, and their relatives scarcities are what move the economy. I also don't think it a wise decision to pretend that scarcity is over when it isn't. I (and I suspect you too) endeavour to hasten the day where material needs are met my machines, and I hope that that day accompanies an economic system where these functionally infinite resources are shared. I also want to say "Tea, Earl Grey, hot!" but I can't yet. Until then, free market or bust.

You can choose whether my perspective is less or more credible because I hammered and spannered my personal experience with poverty down to a size that could fit neatly into my first 18 years, and I'm deliberate in having no plans to invite any more into my life.

Also, please take my choice of quotation colour as a straight dig, and not as a suggestion that envy drove you to write it, since I can't, you know, read minds.

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: A guarenteed paycheck for all? - 1/10/2017 1:57:17 PM   
bounty44


Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline 		just a quick note to say that jean-luc picard is one of my top two favorite fictional characters.

(in reply to ManOeuvre)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: A guarenteed paycheck for all? - 1/10/2017 2:20:26 PM   
CreativeDominant


Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
Of course you would. Better to steal from those you don't believe deserve what they've worked for than pay for things you personally disagree with even though you see nothing wrong with people having to pay for Obama policies they disagreed with because, you know...he's the President. And everybody pays taxes because, you know...policies. Oh wait...Trump will be President.


Who doesn't deserve what they've worked for?
What Obama policies?
I believe what?
When did I say any of this?

Fuck it, I'm just going to put every single RWNJ on this site on hide.
"Beats giving money to people who want to stir up shit in the Middle East, restart a nuclear arms race or build a fucking wall between the US and Mexico.

In fact, I would rather pay people to be lazy and do nothing than pay for any of Trump's absolutely retarded fucking policies"

You said it...funny how you forgot that.

As for my being a RWNJ, that's laughable. You make fun of one poster who refers to everyone on the left as "alt-left" and yet, anyone from the right...especially anyone who dares disagree with you...is a RWNJ.


I was saying that personally, I would rather give money to people to be lazy than spend it on Trump's policies. I didn't say EVERYONE should support Obama and not support Trump... in fact, at this point I'm pretty sure that the solution is to simply decentralize everything and let the states do their own thing. It wouldn't be my first choice at this stage, but before this year I didn't think it would be possible for someone like Trump to even RUN, let alone win the presidency... so it looks like the US is actually in even more trouble than I thought.

I didn't say anything about anyone 'deserving' anything-- 'deserve' has no bearing whatsoever on wealth, so you can't say I do or don't think anyone deserves what they get-- it just IS that way.

RWNJ is an accurate term... abrasive, intolerant, guns, muh freedom, FOX, etc. Anyone who unironically supports Trump is at least 40% nutjob (or simply not that bright), throw in 'Obama is the worst president EVER' and you're up to 60%... throw in guns, 'murica, Muslims, Global warming conspiracy theories, etc... and yes, you're definitely a nutjob.

Simply the fact that you feel the need to trumpet yourself as 'creative' is a huge red flag... if you're so fucking creative, why is your username a generic self-description?? Odds are you see yourself that way precisely because you're NOT creative, but of course you need to go around finding new ways of telling everyone how awesome you think you are, because that's what creative people do!

'Alt-left' is something that the right came up with because they wanted to pretend that the left has a movement like the alt-right. If you want to use an epithet, why not stick to the classic RWNJ insults like 'libtard' or whatever? I mostly hate the term because it's so ignorant, but I guess I should just consider the source and accept it as par for the course. It's not like you or your ilk are capable of anything better.

I'm not really expecting a non-strawman reply... maybe some brilliantly creative argument about how I want to ban all yer guns or something.

Ah yes, a classic defense by some of those on the left. Talk about taking money from those who earn it and give it to those who don't and when someone calls you on it...change the goalposts, call names, explain your name-calling by giving what YOU see as valid reasons for the name calling.

Believing that Obama is the worst President ever is not nuttiness...it's someone's opinion. They have a right to that opinion and you have a right to prove them wrong or the right to just call names. When you choose the latter course, guess how valid other people see your other arguments as being?

By the way...find one post where I've used the term all-left and I'll refrain from stating the obvious here about your ironic use of the term "generic".

(in reply to heavyblinker)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: A guarenteed paycheck for all? - 1/10/2017 2:35:44 PM   
ManOeuvre


Posts: 277
Joined: 3/2/2013
Status: offline 		Thanks, bounty.

When your moniker is the rule rather than the exception, I'll have Majel Roddenberry fix the tea. Until then, I'll have to settle for having it brewed by raven-haired concubines. If you can manage sitting on tatami, you're welcome as a guest.

In this rare case, I'm happy to concede something of the negative of Peon's accusation:

On the contrary, I'm happy to think that my having so much has something to do with someone else having so little.

(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: A guarenteed paycheck for all? - 1/10/2017 8:53:03 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

just a quick note to say that jean-luc picard is one of my top two favorite fictional characters.

Make it so, Number One.

(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: A guarenteed paycheck for all? - 1/11/2017 3:52:11 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Everything depends on whether you're rich or you're poor, apparently. In the UK, the slightest percentage taken off an already enormously rich man will lead to the entire destruction of his morale and all will to work. Hence the last Tory/LibDem government getting rid of the 50% rate of tax on top incomes, for instance. On the other hand, taking money off the people at the bottom and on benefits will *encourage* them to find jobs. Because we're talking about two entirely different sorts of people, you see.

End of sarcasm.


You're also talking about two different kinds of transactions. In the first case, taking something away from someone's resources, property or labour. In the second, it seems to me (correct me if I'm wrong) that you're referring to the discontinuation of some unearned benefit or other.

I am unsure that the you are presenting a valid dichotomy when you contrast reducing one person's "resources, property or labour" and "the discontinuation of some unearned benefit or other".

It seems to me that one person's "resources, property or labour" could easily include large swathes of "unearned benefits". It seems churlish to claim that every single one of say, Bill Gates' 65 odd billion dollars is an "earned benefit", or to argue that stock market gains or market manipulations that might greatly increase one's "resources, property or labour" are 100% earned benefits. How much of the Walmart heirs' billions (inherited from their parents) can be said to be "earned income" and not an "unearned benefit"?

I think you have some work to do to establish that the dichotomy you present is a valid one.

_____________________________



(in reply to ManOeuvre)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: A guarenteed paycheck for all? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109