|
down with slavery posted:Again, read about the New Deal, you are mistaken if you think it happened because business was informed enough. The only incentive the 1% will listen to is a majority of the population telling them "we do this or you don't get our vote" More accurately : "We do this or you get put up against a wall and shot." I am more and more of the opinion that major socioeconomic change in America is going to come due to violent conflict. Not because it is necessary, but because it will break out before the nonviolent means manage to get off the ground. Liquid Communism fucked around with this message at 19:42 on Nov 4, 2014 |
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 07:17 |
|
|
One question that I haven't seen properly addressed is how do we prevent landlords from jacking up rents when they realize that every renter now has, let's say, $15,000/yr extra income. Not to mention things like Obamacare, which have an income-based component where you pay less if your income is lower. Basically, how do we prevent the cost of everything else increasing to compensate for the increase in everyone's income?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:One question that I haven't seen properly addressed is how do we prevent landlords from jacking up rents when they realize that every renter now has, let's say, $15,000/yr extra income. Not to mention things like Obamacare, which have an income-based component where you pay less if your income is lower. I think the first thing you should do is show why this is a position that needs to be refuted. Do you have any proof that such a redistribution scheme causes inflation to the point of wiping out the gains, or is this just "common sense" that needs no supporting evidence?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
TwoQuestions posted:How the hell are you going to sell GMI to a bunch of hateful fuckers like us? Appeal to greed and hierarchical gut-level thinking? With basic income, everyone gets a check. You could call it a 'Citizen's Income.' Tie it to citizenship & permanent residency and it'll automatically elevate them above foreigners and especially illegal immigrants. Rhetoric which rings of nationalist ideology and economic pragmatism would probably be a good pitch for your average American.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
I don't think it would be such a hard sell, at least as far as the whole receiving money bit goes. The Alaska Permanent Fund is fairly similar in practice, and it's distinctly popular. There's even an analysis on the basis of that comparison.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:One question that I haven't seen properly addressed is how do we prevent landlords from jacking up rents when they realize that every renter now has, let's say, $15,000/yr extra income. Not to mention things like Obamacare, which have an income-based component where you pay less if your income is lower. Why does any person on Earth have any disposable income if landlords can just jack up rent?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
it's true, i gave my prospective landlord my income information and the next day he changed the rent to match my income
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
It's unlikely that real estate prices would increase in exactly the proportion necessary to eliminate the gains enjoyed by working class people. Anyway the solution there is probably a mixture of greater public housing construction and rent control.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
Soviet Space Dog posted:Why does any person on Earth have any disposable income if landlords can just jack up rent? slogsdon posted:it's true, i gave my prospective landlord my income information and the next day he changed the rent to match my income The situation here is a bit different. I sure as hell don't tell my landlord when I get raises and bonuses. In fact, the only information he has about how much I make is whatever percentage of my income I choose to disclose on the rental application before I move in. It is in my best interest that he doesn't find out about any positive changes to my income, because the uncertainty of whether I would move out if he raises the rent works in my favor (it can be expensive to replace tenants and most landlords prefer stability, especially with good tenants). When he starts to think about whether to raise the rent, he has to carefully weigh the benefits (more rental income in his pocket) with an unknown amount of risk that some tenants may decide to move out. But if he had perfect information about the risks (which would be close to zero since most people wouldn't mind paying a few hundred bucks extra every month with their new paychecks from the government), then it becomes a hell of a lot more likely that he will raise the rent. In fact, considering that housing is not an elastic good (especially in parts of the country where the alternative, buying, is too expensive), he would be a fool not to raise it to the point where rent is once again the same percentage of the tenants' (now higher) income. This is important because an unconditional basic income would be good only if cost of living didn't rise to compensate for it. Proof of this is Silicon Valley where people are considered middle class despite making six figures. Before you say this is an unlikely scenario, think about a similar scenario where this type of thing has indeed been happening. One of the primary causes of skyrocketing college tuitions is the ready availability of student loans. So the colleges are thinking, "hmm, if students have all these loans readily available, we might as well grab a piece of the pie." My purely-speculative-but-in-my-opinion-not-completely-unfounded assertion is that landlords would be in the exact same mindset if everyone in the country suddenly started making $XX,XXX more per year. Slow News Day fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Nov 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
slogsdon posted:it's true, i gave my prospective landlord my income information and the next day he changed the rent to match my income That's why they ask for your monthly gross income, so they can copy-paste it into the "montly rent" blank on the lease.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:The situation here is a bit different. I sure as hell don't tell my landlord when I get raises and bonuses. In fact, the only information he has about how much I make is whatever percentage of my income I choose to disclose on the rental application before I move in. It is in my best interest that he doesn't find out about any positive changes to my income, because the uncertainty of whether I would move out if he raises the rent works in my favor (it can be expensive to replace tenants and most landlords prefer stability, especially with good tenants). When he starts to think about whether to raise the rent, he has to carefully weigh the benefits (more rental income in his pocket) with an unknown amount of risk that some tenants may decide to move out. You negotiate next year's rent by downplaying your income? Have you considered the strange and wacky negotiating tactic of going "Hey I need you to come down to $X or I won't renew my lease"? I think the name for this tactic is some arcane term, I believe the term is: "negotiating" quote:Before you say this is an unlikely scenario, think about a similar scenario where this type of thing has indeed been happening. One of the primary causes of skyrocketing college tuitions is the ready availability of student loans. So the colleges are thinking, "hmm, if students have all these loans readily available, we might as well grab a piece of the pie." My purely-speculative-but-in-my-opinion-not-completely-unfounded assertion is that landlords would be in the exact same mindset if everyone in the country suddenly started making $XX,XXX more per year. Apartments aren't generally sold using a promise of an extra $million in lifetime earnings if you rent their unit though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Before you say this is an unlikely scenario, think about a similar scenario where this type of thing has indeed been happening. One of the primary causes of skyrocketing college tuitions is the ready availability of student loans. So the colleges are thinking, "hmm, if students have all these loans readily available, we might as well grab a piece of the pie." My purely-speculative-but-in-my-opinion-not-completely-unfounded assertion is that landlords would be in the exact same mindset if everyone in the country suddenly started making $XX,XXX more per year. Everyone looking for an apartment will have at least another $XX,XXX to spend. Families at least twice that. Rents going up, along with pretty much everything else, is a given.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Everyone looking for an apartment will have at least another $XX,XXX to spend. Families at least twice that. Rents going up, along with pretty much everything else, is a given. Are you claiming that wealth transfers from rich to poor will create inflation and raise the price of "pretty much everything" without creating new money? How does such a miracle occur? Do goods and land start spontaneously vanishing? Edit: People live in homes and apartments now, right? Demand for shelter is already pretty much at the maximum it's going to be, since the only new shelter-seekers are the homeless and it's a questionable claim that housing the homeless will require all rents to rise by $15,000 annually. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 23:53 on Nov 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
quote:My purely-speculative-but-in-my-opinion-not-completely-unfounded assertion is that landlords would be in the exact same mindset if everyone in the country suddenly started making $XX,XXX more per year. There are plenty of countries that have redistributive wealth transfer policies, surely you can pick any one of them and show how the redistribution lead to no change or a decrease in quality of life for the poor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Everyone looking for an apartment will have at least another $XX,XXX to spend. Families at least twice that. Rents going up, along with pretty much everything else, is a given. That's not how things work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:That's not how things work. Supply and demand only work for price discovery when it's something like the poor getting paid starvation wages. When it comes to the poor getting money, supply and demand go out the window and all rents instantly convert to $however-many-obamabucks-you-got. It's just basic econ101, libtard.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
I mean, people might be willing to pay a bit more for higher quality living spaces, so the amount people pay in rent overall might increase, but so too would QoL. The idea that it would just be a complete wash flies in the face of every single observed instance of redistribution ever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:I mean, people might be willing to pay a bit more for higher quality living spaces, so the amount people pay in rent overall might increase, but so too would QoL. The idea that it would just be a complete wash flies in the face of every single observed instance of redistribution ever. Yeah, but those people moving into nicer apartments are also reducing demand for lower-end housing. So either that's a benefit to the poor who enjoy lower prices for that housing, or that housing is so execrable that it's no longer profitable at any marketable price and will have to be upgraded or replaced thus raising QoL as you said. But then it's not really the inflationary wash conservatives are claiming if prices go up because quality increases. Edit: Cue the complaining that spending on quality is only good for the economy when a rich guy is creating jobs by ordering a new yacht, but obviously not if it's a dirty poor creating maintenance jobs by paying for a well-maintained apartment. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 00:19 on Nov 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Having a MGI would also bump up all earnings to higher tax brackets and out of exemptions. Could increase overall tax revenue and pay for itself. I've been asking for numbers to see if this occurs. I don't have all the numbers, but last I checked, every $1.00 spent on the food stamp program $1.72 is created in revenue. It's one of the better if not the best return on investment for the government. The way I see it, food is necessary. We're got a bit more than just food, water and shelter as necessities these days, so a GMI has a pretty good shot at being revenue positive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
The secret to becoming rich is to find a close friend, and then just trade money back and forth until your yearly income is appropriately high. You can probably retire safely after you've traded the same dollar back and forth 10 million times.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
in a world where mincome happens and rents rise so much that they eat up all of mincome, the voting population that voted for mincome in the first place goes "gently caress you, that's not ok" and regulates landlords into oblivion
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:I don't have all the numbers, but last I checked, every $1.00 spent on the food stamp program $1.72 is created in revenue. It's one of the better if not the best return on investment for the government. Not to nitpick but that's GDP, not revenue. For example, this 2010 report (PDF) has the ratio at $1 : $1.79.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
slogsdon posted:in a world where mincome happens and rents rise so much that they eat up all of mincome, the voting population that voted for mincome in the first place goes "gently caress you, that's not ok" and regulates landlords into oblivion Yes, the population will simply vote away all the bad effects of their misguided policies. To see this sort of strategy in action, look to Venezuela or Cuba for a colorful example.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
on the left posted:Yes, the population will simply vote away all the bad effects of their misguided policies. To see this sort of strategy in action, look to Venezuela or Cuba for a colorful example. Wow so now you claim Venezuela and Cuba have free and open elections? You usually say otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
on the left posted:The secret to becoming rich is to find a close friend, and then just trade money back and forth until your yearly income is appropriately high. You can probably retire safely after you've traded the same dollar back and forth 10 million times. Dumbdumb liberals. Your plan to take $15,000 from the rich and give it to the poor, then take that same $15,000 away from the poor one minute later and give it right back to the rich will never help the poor. Why are you so dumb?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
Helsing posted:It's unlikely that real estate prices would increase in exactly the proportion necessary to eliminate the gains enjoyed by working class people. Anyway the solution there is probably a mixture of greater public housing construction and rent control. It's not unlikely it's impossible. Some inflation is likely but it's impossible for it to erase the gains entirely. You literally can't construct better wealth transfer policy than taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor. So there are no questions as to whether this would work at transferring wealth. asdf32 fucked around with this message at 06:01 on Nov 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
So did anyone ever find a professional cost analysis / white paper / working paper for a proposed GMI in America, or are we still just circlejerking and throwing numbers up into the air and pretending it's a debate? Don't get me wrong I support the concept but in order to sell it we need a professional analysis that says it's feasible and gives hard numbers as to exactly what kind of taxes it would require.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 06:06
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:You literally can't construct better wealth transfer policy than taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor. Well, you could always change the relations of production.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:So did anyone ever find a professional cost analysis / white paper / working paper for a proposed GMI in America, or are we still just circlejerking and throwing numbers up into the air and pretending it's a debate? goons can't even make a videogame and you expect them to produce a policy paper?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 06:13
|
|
|
Anyone have insight into hiring Frank Luntz types? As in, hypothetically, how much would it cost to get some ~words that work~ on Basic Income?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 06:21
|
|
|
Liberal organizations have their own versions of Frank Luntz, such as George Lakoff. But the problem isn't about messaging, the problem is that the oligarchs and elites who currently control the United States don't have much of an appetite for any form of wealth redistribution. Now in the past reforms have been pushed through against the objections of powerful vested interests, but that requires a populist movement pushing up from below. Right now no such movement really exists at the national level. And that is probably a much bigger hurdle than finding the right buzzwords or anecdotes or narrative for selling this thing to the public. There has to be some actual constituency demanding it, and building infrastructure to support that demand. That's the real missing link here as far as implementing something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 06:32
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Anyone have insight into hiring Frank Luntz types? As in, hypothetically, how much would it cost to get some ~words that work~ on Basic Income? Luntz's insight works because it trades on the fundamental selfishness and wickedness of Americans. It doesn't work in the other direction.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 06:39
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Liberal organizations have their own versions of Frank Luntz, such as George Lakoff. But the problem isn't about messaging, the problem is that the oligarchs and elites who currently control the United States don't have much of an appetite for any form of wealth redistribution. Yeah, in my head I've got the issue split into three parts:
Thus advocacy requires white papers, propaganda and agitation. But I know the least about PR. Edit: poo poo, I need to split consideration of 'the system' from 'the elites.' I wonder if pre-existing elite support would be enough if combined with having the above three items on lock? SedanChair posted:Luntz's insight works because it trades on the fundamental selfishness and wickedness of Americans. It doesn't work in the other direction. It's a bit more complex than that. There's a lot of psychology in it these days. I read a book from George Lakoff years ago where he discusses the role of framing in modern propaganda. The most operationalized definition of framing I've come across is something like 'a psychological device offering perspective and manipulating salience in order to affect subsequent judgement.' Here's a couple excerpts from an interview with Cognitive Linguist George Lakoff: quote:You've written a lot about "tax relief" as a frame. How does it work? It's less about targeting selfishness and wickedness than it is about manipulating hearts and minds in a target group through exploitation of psychology. Propaganda techniques generalize and they can be used for good. Accretionist fucked around with this message at 07:02 on Nov 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 06:57
|
|
|
Yeah but there you go, it's in the service of "tax relief." It's an idea that only selfish, thieving people would see as beneficial. I don't really think there's an example of appealing to people's fundamental decency with this kind of rhetorical gaming.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 07:15
|
|
|
.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Yeah but there you go, it's in the service of "tax relief." It's an idea that only selfish, thieving people would see as beneficial. I don't really think there's an example of appealing to people's fundamental decency with this kind of rhetorical gaming. That's just what the GOP chooses to target. You could use happy framing to sell cupcakes to children who like happy things (like tiny cupcakes and your framing). Some examples of more benign, accepting frame-manipulation would be:
If you're interested, I just found a poo poo ton of material at Cognitive Policy Works. Accretionist fucked around with this message at 07:48 on Nov 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 07:32
|
|
|
Yeah, rents will go up as much the market will bear if they increase their rent by 15k a year they will simply put themselves out of business since those people have other expenses than rent. Ultimately, it is the same argument people make against a minimum wage (prices will match the new wage level) but it has been proven not to be the case. I guess also something something about Cuba, the commies and rent-controlled GULAG.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 08:55
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Yeah, rents will go up as much the market will bear if they increase their rent by 15k a year they will simply put themselves out of business since those people have other expenses than rent. Even if we were to start accepting such arguments as worth countering, once you are talking extreme social policies like UBI, then dealing with scarcity of basic resources is easily discussed as part of a comprehensive and sweeping social reform.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 09:00
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Even if we were to start accepting such arguments as worth countering, once you are talking extreme social policies like UBI, then dealing with scarcity of basic resources is easily discussed as part of a comprehensive and sweeping social reform. Granted, a GMI is sort of a half step in that sense in my opinion, I would say a evolved cradle to grave social safety net ala Sweden would be a bigger change. I see the argument for a GMI in a sense it is more politically possible as a "tax credit" than the more substantial infrastructure changes that go into a Scandinavian style system. Ideally you would figure out a mix between the two by creating a welfare state (public housing, public medical care, expansive mass transit, high minimum wages, public utilities) with a GMI on top of it. The reasoning is there are certain goods that are necessary, and while a GMI could pay for some of them, there is still the necessity of price efficiency. Housing for example in many cities can be extremely expensive and eat up a GMI in no time, medical care in the US could eat up a GMI within the blink of an eye. Mass transit just makes sense in terms of efficiency for a city. Also, a minimum wage would still be most likely needed as both an incentive but also because if your GMI is at the poverty line, you probably want a living wage to be higher. Granted, you could always just raise the GMI but there are going to be budget constrains at some point. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 09:23 on Nov 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 09:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 07:17 |
|
|
I honestly don't see why it is morally right to literally pay people to do nothing. At least tie it to trivially easy volunteer work like a few hours a week helping in nursing homes or something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 09:38
|
|
