|
^^^ There's also not a single good reason to provide mincome to every single person, even if you did implement it. Literally the only reasons I can think of are "to appease the rich" or "out of some very misguided sense of fairness." Like, why in the world wouldn't you just provide mincome to people with income (or better, liquid wealth) above a certain reasonable threshold (something pretty high just to be risk averse, like 50k a year per person or 100k per household).Nevvy Z posted:Mincome. I disagree with the idea of a mincome. It seems like a much better idea to directly provide necessary services, like shelter, food, etc (and maybe some much smaller level of mincome on top of that). Here's a question - what do you do with the people who still end up destitute even after receiving their mincome? Unless you want a bunch of people to literally starve to death because they hosed up and mismanaged their money (which is very likely; many people do not have good money management skills), you're still going to need to provide some level of "regular" welfare. I mean, I guess it would be better than the status quo, but I think it's definitely a lesser solution. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Feb 17, 2016 |
#
¿
Feb 17, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 20:21 |
|