|
on the left posted:Somehow I have a feeling that expanding welfare is a lot easier than getting the government to sign off on yearly checks to every citizen. The 14th amendment guarantees that any mincome would be quickly broken by birth tourism.   Anchor babies!  How would this hurt the system? Babies don't get mincome their parents aren't going to receive it for their loving tourist visa. Presumably expats aren't going to be getting it either, so what are they going to pop out a kid in New Jersey, leave him at the orphanage, and fly home? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 05:06 on Nov 3, 2014 |
#
¿
Nov 3, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 12:09 |
|
|
on the left posted:Why wouldn't expats get mincome if it were truly for everyone with no real restrictions? No income restrictions. Presumably we'd require residency. You're arguing against something no one has proposed.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2014 05:18
|
|
|
on the left posted:It's pretty easy to switch your tax residency to the US. It's much harder to establish a tax residency outside of the US. Just rent a mailbox in the US and say you are traveling on an extended basis. Just to be clear, you're worried about 3-day-old infants doing this? quote:Birth tourism is a real thing that has taken off in recent times because customs has been ordered to stop asking pregnant mothers about it. It would probably be much bigger if US citizenship was worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in direct cash benefits. Help someone, the freep is coming from inside SA 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
on the left posted:I know couples who have done this, mainly to save on university costs in the future. Oh God it's getting worse 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
My Lil Parachute posted:
This isn't how you play "Freep or Stormfront". Eh fine, um Freep I guess. Stormfront wouldn't mince words when it comes to identifying Those People who are lazy long-term unemployed parasites upon the body of the people.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
on the left posted:Additionally, the 14th amendment guarantees that the number of overseas citizens would jump drastically if we were writing checks to every citizen. I love how conservatives are always trying to drag us back to the 18th Century by mounting an attack on the 14th Amendment. "Silly liberals, of course your social programs would work as intended, if only you'd repeal that dastardly 14th Amendment and let the country return to the glory days of the Dred Scott precedent, where only the Right Kind of Folk get citizenship and government services, and blackie isn't allowed to take our money and fiddle all day"
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
on the left posted:Works out pretty well for Europe, Canada, and pretty much every other first world nation! Ahahaha. Well if you hate the 14th Amendment, take it up with your ideological allies for making it necessary by refusing to let people who were born and lived here for generations enjoy the basic rights of citizenship. Y'all done hosed up there, you could have avoided this problem if you hadn't pissed off every decent person in the country. You should probably focus on less obviously racist policy because "Hey let's take citizenship away from those worthless blacks" hasn't been a winning issue for 150 years.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Why would you need to mail? Christ get some better stupid complaints. GMI is just a big government plan to redistribute wealth from working joes to the manufacturers of postage stamps. Don't fall for the lie.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:For gently caress's sake, we can have a transition period where we phase out old policy in favor of new. We don't have to flip the switch overnight. Once again, concern troll. No we have to posit a maximally ridiculous version of the policy and argue against that. What if the UBI checks were poisoned? That would obviously be bad, libtard. Geez, what a horrible plan UBI is for the metabolically active poor.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 03:44
|
|
|
on the left posted:"You have to support my ideas or you are a racist who hates poor people" When it comes to the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, this is literally true.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
Look we can't mail out millions of checks, that would bankrupt the country in envelope costs and postage fees. Pack it up everyone, shut down Social Security, shut down tax returns, and definitely don't ever try to do the census or hold an election.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Look, look at how stupid you are. Not only can you not post more than two sentences at a time, all the sentences you post are thinly veiled ftfy 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
on the left posted:The simple answer to this is that even when we had those tax rates, we still would not collect enough money to mail checks worth 25% of GDP: If this is true, then apparently no matter how much money we bring in it's a fixed percentage of GDP, and we should hike taxes immediately for the GDP benefits alone.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 04:18
|
|
|
Have I mentioned in this post how many languages I speak? I don't want to leave my bilingualism out of a single post.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
on the left posted:Voters will love to hear that their bank accounts will be taxed, and that government inspectors will come to their house to suss out hidden wealth. Be prepared to answer questions about the artwork on your wall citizen! The Austin Independent School District gestapo is oppressing me. My property taxes are an excuse for them to send government inspectors to interrogate me about my wood flooring
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:And then it runs out. Not a solution for an ongoing policy. Your problem with taxing wealth and redistributing it...is that it will work and then there won't be large collections of wealth to tax or poor people lacking capital to pay? Uh...okay... 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 05:25
|
|
|
No obviously we would pay out the lifetime UBI in one lump sum when you turn 16. This would clearly be a horrible idea and thus UBI is debunked.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 14:43
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:If the business community doesn't understand the clear argument behind Universal Healthcare, how do you expect to use that method to bring about GMI, a much more radical social policy. Yeah exactly. If the business community were motivated by the bottom line, we'd have had UHC for decades now as businesses would be only too happy to offload those liabilities onto a more cost-effective single-payer system. The top 1% are motivated by spite. Paradoxish posted:Since you're apparently being serious about this social darwinism stuff Whoa whoa. MIGF's posts might be entertaining, but don't take him too seriously about this social darwinism stuff. He roleplays as an ultra-nationalist corporatist technocrat war hawk. Banter if you like, but know that you're going to get back a hilarious Otto von Bismarck parody advocating the ruthless expansion of American political and business objectives by any means necessary in the German Empire vein. It is pretty funny that his persona is actually more rational about it than actual pro-business conservatives who are perfectly willing to hurt the economy in order to gently caress the poor.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
My Lil Parachute posted:Isn't that another way of saying "I will force other people will grow food for me, build the house I live in, and supply me with entertainment, even though I contribute nothing to them"? Why is it moral for some people to be born owning the land, resources, and factories, and others to be born as trespassers in a world already owned by a few with no choice but to sell their labor to those few on their terms? We don't live in a state of nature anymore where you can just carve your living out of the wilderness. Someone owns all the land, deer, and fruit trees now.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2014 13:00
|
|
|
My Lil Parachute posted:My job pays 8k, due to GMI I end up with 13k. I work harder to find a job paying 13k, due to GMI I end up with the same amount. Oh you don't get basic math. Well I don't know what to tell you, maybe we should have forced someone to build a school and pay for an education for you.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2014 13:02
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Jail is functionally paying a a lot of money so that somebody does just about nothing. Especially in max/supermax security prisons. But I get to know that they suffer so there's a positive contribution to society that far outweighs the societal problems of poverty and ill health.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:The prices of status goods that people with money compete for, like homes in neighborhoods with the best schools, have gone up as the rich have gotten richer. It's a thing that happens. They're not because we're funding UBI with steep progressive taxes, so the people bidding on these high status goods are less rich after getting UBI but subtracting taxes. So by your reasoning, prices in swank neighborhoods go down now that the ultrarich have less disposable income to waste in bidding wars. You're welcome! 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Like seriously, if all of the theories concerning prices in economics can be boiled down to "charge whatever the gently caress I want, I think these mooks can pay it" then why have prices dropped on anything ever? Why is gas now $3/gallon? I am pretty sure that people were still buying gas at $4/gallon. Supply and demand is the perfect godlike method of price discovery with no distortions or economic coercion possible...until the day you give $1 to a poor and then we're through the looking glass, price uncouples from supply, up is down, zebras are spotted, and Nazis once again ride on dinosaurs.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
Tax cuts can never help anything because if you give them more money, the rich will just outbid each other on status goods and inflate away all their gains. Fight inflation, republicans. Return the top tax rate to 90% and give us sound money and a balanced budget.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
on the left posted:A good campaign slogan for mincome: American citizens, heed the call of doubling or tripling your income tax burden so that a bunch of autistic shut-ins are freed from the burden of work. Funny how this reasoning never applies when yall want to drop a quarter of the annual GDP on pointless foreign wars.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:For reference assuming 40 trillion of "hoarded wealth" (first number I found) that's something like 2-5 years of GMI. Though you can't come close to taxing that much because as you force the liquidation of the assets underlying it you devalue them. So it's effectively less. Every time I pay my property taxes my land gets a little smaller. Soon it will be gone!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
You can't destory hoarded wealth by liquidating it anyway. A mine or a factory or a farm doesn't magically disappear when sold. If the wealth tax rate is too high such that productive investments still can't turn a profit, the market will react by depressing the price of it (and therefore the absolute amount owed in taxes) again until it's roughly equal to the net present value of expected future returns.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
on the left posted:No reason not to make the minimum income at least 500k, just so poor people can afford everything they need in life. Of course, some sort of money circulation effect will quickly bring our GDP in line with this high figure. There must be some way for the economy to reflect a higher money supply or velocity chasing a relatively fixed supply of energy-intensive goods. Liberals claim that drinking 8 glasses of water is good for you, so why don't you drink 8,000 glasses in a day if it's so good, huh libtards?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
on the left posted:If you have kids, this figure increases dramatically. Why don't you just make the case for full communism at this point. You know you want to, all you do is complain liberals are too stingy and we keep taxes too low.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2014 05:56
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I am thinking mostly of Canada and the US during World War II but I made my comment more open ended because I think that you can also draw lessons from the performances of other countries during the extended period from 1914 to 1945. Obviously, though, the situation is more complicated when your country is either being blockaded (as in the case of Britain or Germany) or physically destroyed (i.e. something that happened in varying degrees to most of Asia and Europe during this period). Of course in Britain even with the blockade, health and nutrition improved among the lower classes because it turned out there was enough food for everyone after all and the only stumbling block was economic. German subs were sinking tons and tons of shipping, and about 50% of the country's labor was entirely removed from productive endeavors and put to work manufacturing things that were just going to be blown up, and the food situation was still better than in the glory days of capitalism.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:It would be a waste I guess if you thought the US shouldn't be fighting/should have surrendered I guess. Right but the point is despite huge amounts of resources and at least half of the country's manpower being removed from domestic production and devoted to war industries, the government still did a better job feeding the populace than laissez-faire capitalism did in good conditions. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 01:22 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Beyond that, though, I think a fundamental tenant of a just society is that you fund your steam account through your own effort and not your neighbor's. 1 in 6 Americans is food insecure, but yeah okay just pretend that's not the case and those lazy poors just want video games, really makes you look Serious.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2014 15:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 12:09 |
|
|
My Lil Parachute posted:I would alter the wording to say - "Taking something from someone else, without their approval, is immoral". Really? Taxes are immoral? So we shouldn't have public education, police, courts, national defense, welfare, medical care for the poor, infrastructure or anything else funded by taking something without someone's direct approval? Okay so we should take everything back from the rich who built fortunes on conquest and slavery and exploitation of the rest of the world, right? My Lil Parachute posted:Additionally things obtained for free are not as valued as things worked for. Oh wait, hmmm, no this is going to be "the poors and orphans can pay for their own elementary school" isn't it? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 15:48 on Dec 17, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2014 15:45
|
|