My Lil Parachute posted:tbh I was actually picturing a fat lazy white guy (hence the name 'Bob') but I guess any issue can be a racial issue if you look hard enough. It's not so much that the idea is racist as it is that racists are known for thinking in the ludicrous way you are.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 15:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 07:42 |
|
|
My Lil Parachute posted:tbh I was actually picturing a fat lazy white guy (hence the name 'Bob') but I guess any issue can be a racial issue if you look hard enough. Sooooo I was right, freep then? This isn't how you play, you're supposed to link the original post so we can see which site the crazy is coming from.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
My Lil Parachute posted:I really hope a country tries it. A complete, closed loop, long-term attempt will be a glorious trainwreck. It's actually been tried and worked quite well. I hope this helps.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
Anyway no, price increases can't cancel out any gains because of basic economics. The reason is that if prices increase to the point where the burden on poor people is the same, the burden on relatively richer people will be higher because the basic income is a lower proportion of their income. That means lower demand, and inevitably lower prices. It's the same reason why minimum wage increases are effective.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
Really? Got a link? Because every trial I've seen has either been short and/or subsidized by the rest of the economy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
Why don't you pick one of those trials that you think is a good representative example, tell us where you got your information, and then explain how it was merely subsidized by the rest of the economy?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
The trouble with any kind if income security is the firm belief of the majority of the American population that if you can't provide for yourself, you deserve to die. Even if there were massive economic gains and better quality of life all around from this policy, how would you sell it to the vast majority who needs to see people be homeless and starving beneath them? After all, you haven't made it if there's other people who haven't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
My Lil Parachute posted:So humor me. What exactly is wrong with my scenario? Yeah, everything. You made up numbers with no basis in reality. GMI will probably create some inflation due to dis employment, and/or at least in the specific areas where people will inevitably compete to spend their "new" money (like housing). But there is no reason to assume that this effect will be that large, unless you literally think everyone will quit their jobs to live off 15k. GMI is absolutely effective as wealth transfer policy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 16:17
|
|
My Lil Parachute posted:Really? Got a link? Because every trial I've seen has either been short and/or subsidized by the rest of the economy. More like made up in your head
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:More like made up in your head Feel free to point to an example of a substantial state-wide minimum income.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 16:59
|
|
on the left posted:Feel free to point to an example of a substantial state-wide minimum income. I'm not sure one exists, hence the "made up in your head" in reference to the trials he's seen. Come on AE, you can troll better than this. Go back to talking about how expatriates are a minority moron.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:I'm not sure one exists, hence the "made up in your head" in reference to the trials he's seen. The trials that have been done were done with small groups, up to about town sized and with a definite ending point, as he mentioned. down with slavery posted:Go back to talking about how expatriates are a minority moron. Please stop with the personal attacks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 17:04
|
|
on the left posted:The trials that have been done were done with small groups, up to about town sized and with a definite ending point, as he mentioned. What is your point? Those "trials" or minimum wage increases, etc have nothing to do with a mincome. I'm not opposed to rolling out a mincome region by region to please idiots like yourself. I've never seen a trial mincome program tried in the US. on the left posted:Please stop with the personal attacks. No? Please stop posting offensive and offensively stupid ideas. Or even better, shut the gently caress up because you have nothing worthwhile to add. down with slavery fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Nov 3, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:What is your point? Those "trials" or minimum wage increases, etc have nothing to do with a mincome. I'm not opposed to rolling out a mincome region by region to please idiots like yourself. Haven't you seen the studies that always get posted in these threads? Mincomes have been tried before down with slavery posted:No? Please stop posting offensive and stupid ideas. Welcome to Debate and Discussion, where you might occasionally be exposed to ideas that you disagree with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 17:11
|
|
on the left posted:Haven't you seen the studies that always get posted in these threads? Mincomes have been tried before Why don't you post one. quote:Welcome to Debate and Discussion, where you might occasionally be exposed to ideas that you disagree with. Welcome to Something Awful, where you might get called an idiot if you are one.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 17:12
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Why don't you post one. The Manitoba Mincome was analyzed after the fact by looking at healthcare outcomes http://public.econ.duke.edu/~erw/197/forget-cea%20(2).pdf http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/1970s-manitoba-poverty-experiment-called-a-success-1.868562
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 17:17
|
|
on the left posted:The Manitoba Mincome was analyzed after the fact by looking at healthcare outcomes Canada is not the US, but we can learn a lot from Canada's trial, which was incredibly successful. Try again. Maybe if you attempted to post a coherent thought instead of meaningless one liner troll posts you'd have better luck having a discussion instead of just riding another username to the "most ignored users" list.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
My Lil Parachute posted:You sell Hot Dogs. The Government gives you an extra $30 a day, then ups your Taxes by $40 a day. Your suppliers all raise their prices (because they are getting taxed more and their suppliers are charging more). At the same time, your customers now have extra money and can therefore afford to pay more for hot dogs. I think you missed the point where your hot dog seller who's going to be ruined by $10 a day wouldn't be paying any more in taxes in the first place. As has been pointed out earlier, the theory here is to fund this by increasing the top marginal tax rates so that the people in the very top income brackets are having that income redistributed to where it will make a much larger economic impact than their usual strategy of sitting on it like a dragon nesting on its horde.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
~117 trillion dollars in hoarded wealth by the wealthy in the US alone, by the way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:I'm not sure one exists, hence the "made up in your head" in reference to the trials he's seen. Come on AE, you can troll better than this. Actually several countries have policies that are indistinguishable from minimum income http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_minimum_income But to properly caveat this, minimum income and negative income taxes are different from a universal basic income; this is mostly due to administration though, and should not have significant economic effect (negative income tax, for instance, means that some will still not receive benefit). Edit: At its core, Basic Income is pure and simple wealth transfer using simple dollars rather than indirect benefit or subsidy. The idea that it would have any economic effects distinct from other existing forms of wealth transfer is pure ideological fear of the poor getting money. archangelwar fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Nov 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:The idea that it would have any economic effects distinct from other existing forms of wealth transfer is pure ideological fear of the poor getting money. This shouldn't be too surprising, since one of the beneficial side effects of any form of guaranteed income (along with other social programs like universal healthcare) is to equalize worker bargaining power. There are fewer reasons to put up with bad pay or a poor working environment if you know that you won't starve to death or end up homeless if you're forced into a period of extended unemployment while looking for something better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:This shouldn't be too surprising, since one of the beneficial side effects of any form of guaranteed income (along with other social programs like universal healthcare) is to equalize worker bargaining power. There are fewer reasons to put up with bad pay or a poor working environment if you know that you won't starve to death or end up homeless if you're forced into a period of extended unemployment while looking for something better. Yes the sentence should read 'pure ideological fear of the poor getting money through any means except wage labour.' The Enclosure Acts in England and various other Poor laws were all means to make independant existance outside of industry (either as an owner or a worker) either illegal, unpleasant or outright impossible. Various papers by the rising industrialists and Enlightenment philisophers criticise the regular person for their 'idleness' (read: unwillingness to work in a factory for poverty wages) and demanded conditions to be changed to force them into the capitalist system. The tragic part is how deep this mentality has sunk into our society. I do hope that the psychological principle of reciprocity can eventually be turned into support for unconditional basic incomes and such but that requires a rather clear ideological position which unfortunately is generally lacking. namesake fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Nov 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:This shouldn't be too surprising, since one of the beneficial side effects of any form of guaranteed income (along with other social programs like universal healthcare) is to equalize worker bargaining power. There are fewer reasons to put up with bad pay or a poor working environment if you know that you won't starve to death or end up homeless if you're forced into a period of extended unemployment while looking for something better. Also, once your basic necessities are taken care of (healthcare, housing, food, minimum entertainment budget), you don't need a large minimum wage in order to drastically improve your quality of life. At 15k, you can nearly double your income at $7.50 an hour. So the idea that wages will have to rise dramatically to make work dignified is only fueled by the fact that currently a large portion of wage among the working poor is mandatory for basic survival.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
namesake posted:The tragic part is how deep this mentality has sunk into our society. I do hope that the psychological principle of reciprocity can eventually be turned into support for unconditional basic incomes and such but that requires a rather clear ideological position which unfortunately is generally lacking. This is the problem with minimum incomes or negative income taxes versus a basic income, and I hope one day we can wash this cultural mindset away from our collective conscience in much the same way it was forcibly implanted. The idea that this was some natural order was the product of the most insidious of propaganda schemes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:"Why wouldn't a foreign national, raised and indoctrinated overseas outside of established and respected American institutions, by two culturally non-American and non-western individuals, be able to register for selective service and have their registration accepted?" Just FYI all Americans living overseas have to file a tax return like anyone living in the United States. Living outside the U.S. is not a tax dodge for American citizens and all earned income, even that which comes 100% from foreign sources is taxable. I file my taxes every year with the federal government pretty much exactly the same as if I still lived there. Nice anti-Chinese bigotry though. EasternBronze fucked around with this message at 22:13 on Nov 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
EasternBronze posted:Just FYI all Americans living overseas have to file a tax return like anyone living in the United States. Living outside the U.S. is not a tax dodge for American citizens and all earned income, even that which comes 100% from foreign sources is taxable. I file my taxes every year with the federal government pretty much exactly the same as if I still lived there. Nice anti-Chinese bigotry though. This is only partially true. It is true you must file a tax return, it is not true that all of your foreign earnings are taxable, depending on how you file and any specific tax treaties we have with the country where you reside. If you are paying US taxes without taking any deductions then you are simply not doing it right. Edit: Also, unless the foreign sources report your earnings to Uncle Sam, there is no way for the IRS to know unless you try and repatriate the money. archangelwar fucked around with this message at 22:38 on Nov 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:This is only partially true. It is true you must file a tax return, it is not true that all of your foreign earnings are taxable, depending on how you file and any specific tax treaties we have with the country where you reside. If you are paying US taxes without taking any deductions then you are simply not doing it right. A single person gets iirc a 105k exemption and credits for some things like housing. Whether that means you get a sweet tax dodge depends on whether your country of residence is taking a share. Many countries have signed on to FACTA so I would not bet on skating by not reporting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 00:01
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:This is only partially true. It is true you must file a tax return, it is not true that all of your foreign earnings are taxable, depending on how you file and any specific tax treaties we have with the country where you reside. If you are paying US taxes without taking any deductions then you are simply not doing it right. I'm well aware of the deductions available, I guess it depends on how you want to define "nontaxable income" which by my interpretation is income which is by law not subject to tax, period (Child support payments etc.) Foreign income is subject to taxes, its just that after all of the deductions offered, as you said, you defacto pay nothing below a certain threshold. Yes, you can decide to commit a federal crime by hiding your foreign income and you'll probably get away with it but I can't see how that's a good idea. Either you're making a modest amount, in which case all you're risking jailtime and\or late penalties for is saving a few hours getting a return together, or you're making gobs of money in which case its alot more difficult to hide. All it takes is one IRS agent scratching his head and saying "Hey how can this 30 year old have lived in China for seven years on no income whatsoever but according to his linkedin he's worked at XYZ English Learners that whole thime?" With the new reporting requirements for banking institutions I'm frankly skeptical of the claim that you can easily live overseas without leaving enough evidence for the IRS to gently caress you over. Of course you might not be worth it to go after but I wouldn't suggest taking the risk. Granted if you are only ever paid in cash and you never do anything to make anyone at the IRS look into why you had no reported income for eight years (such as landing a high-paying job back in the states which is what happened to one of my friends.) you might get by but I don't really think its a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
i am harry posted:Grow vegetables in the United States on federal land by federal farms paying federal wages and we'd send the $2 red bell pepper into the annals of history. We don't need to grow more for that. Are you not aware that most crops in the US have price supports to subsidize farmers by trying to ensure a certain minimum floor?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:We don't need to grow more for that. Are you not aware that most crops in the US have price supports to subsidize farmers by trying to ensure a certain minimum floor? Are you saying that the federal government keeps the price of a single red bell pepper at ~$2? I was under the impression that the only possible explanation for it is *Production in South America -> Transportation to USA -> Price of transportation applied to price of vegetable* and if that isn't the case I have a new opinion about poverty/health/nutritional supplement assistance... i am harry fucked around with this message at 00:51 on Nov 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
I don't see why people are still debating this since it was answered on the first page. Just from a moral perspective alone we should have basic income and disagreeing is pretty hosed up considering the current state of wealth inequality and the fact that there are millions of people in the year 2014 with food insecurity in the US alone. Also why do we care if there are people who aren't employed? There currently not enough jobs to employ everyone in the country and this problem will likely get worse as more jobs are automated. Also why are people assuming that production won't increase? Manufacturing in the US is already heavily automated so production could easily increase while unemployment remains the same or increases as long as there is increased demand for the products.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
Cnidaria posted:I don't see why people are still debating this since it was answered on the first page. Just from a moral perspective alone we should have basic income and disagreeing is pretty hosed up considering the current state of wealth inequality and the fact that there are millions of people in the year 2014 with food insecurity in the US alone. Hate to break it to you but "moral perspectives" won't win this debate. There are plenty of people in this country who don't have any moral problems with inequality and in fact happily justify it using Just World Theory. Heck, we can't even convince people that free healthcare is a human right. What makes you think we can get them on board with minimum income?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Hate to break it to you but "moral perspectives" won't win this debate. There are plenty of people in this country who don't have any moral problems with inequality and in fact happily justify it using Just World Theory. I keep saying make it about domestic entitlement elimination, and you've got an economic issue that is sellable to the base. I don't get why people keep ignoring this fact to focus on  our expats
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Hate to break it to you but "moral perspectives" won't win this debate. There are plenty of people in this country who don't have any moral problems with inequality and in fact happily justify it using Just World Theory. I am well aware of this. I was just hoping that D&D would at least not have many or any of these people but I guess that's just wishful thinking.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
People mention the morality of basic income and sure, yeah, there is an argument to be made there. What I am more interested in is how this moral argument would resonate with the average person in the United States, given the common appeal for hard work seemingly for its own sake and a mistrust bordering on hatred of the state (not entirely consistent here since a bunch of people love the military but hate big government). No matter how moral it is, I am wondering if these appeals would run into a wall due to the general attitudes of many Americans.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:I keep saying make it about domestic entitlement elimination, and you've got an economic issue that is sellable to the base. I don't get why people keep ignoring this fact to focus on American citizens overseas is a big issue if you want to replace the entitlement system, since the largest entitlement (social security) is collectible overseas. Additionally, the 14th amendment guarantees that the number of overseas citizens would jump drastically if we were writing checks to every citizen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:an economic issue that is sellable to the base. enraged_camel posted:There are plenty of people in this country who don't have any moral problems with inequality and in fact happily justify it using Just World Theory. TwoQuestions posted:The trouble with any kind if income security is the firm belief of the majority of the American population that if you can't provide for yourself, you deserve to die. The problem seems to be the base... 
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:I keep saying make it about domestic entitlement elimination, and you've got an economic issue that is sellable to the base. I don't get why people keep ignoring this fact to focus on I'm with you here. If a candidate ran on abolishing social security, unemployment, welfare, and food stamps only to roll them into one glorious minimum income package I'd applaud the subterfuge.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 01:13
|
|
on the left posted:American citizens overseas is a big issue if you want to replace the entitlement system, since the largest entitlement (social security) is collectible overseas. Additionally, the 14th amendment guarantees that the number of overseas citizens would jump drastically if we were writing checks to every citizen. Continuing to post this idiocy isn't doing you any favors. Props on playing the anti-immigration card again, real classy. Go back to page 4 if you're confused.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 07:42 |
|
|
People arguing against minimum income based on various possible economic affects are essentially arguing that capitalism is a bad system. If capitalism can't support everyone being given enough money to survive and live comfortably than it's obviously a broken system so those people should be providing alternative solutions instead of wasting time trying to argue against basic income.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 01:17
|
|