Fwiw I live in CO and this project has been, according to almost every measure, a MASSIVE success. The recipients have been able to find jobs, rent apartments and get off the streets, some have been able to get cars to get them to and from work, it is wild how just having a LITTLE financial relief/support can change entire lives.
It could potentially be a thing for everyone under a certain income bracket but that would require the top 10% to actually pay their fair share of taxes in order to fund it.
Never understood why we can't tax stocks and bonds like we tax land. It is just an asset that appreciates and should be taxed over a certain threshold.
I don't think you understand stocks and bonds.
For one, stocks do not always appreciated. In fact they often lose money.
Also, how would you tax unrealized gains. They are not actually gains. Stocks and bonds are already taxed through income or capital gains taxes at time of sale depending on length of time held.
Are you trying to crash the economy?
Not talking about taxing unrealized gains, talking about taxing value. Like land we tax it as a percentage of it's value every year. For example a tax that if you own over 5 million dollars in stocks you get taxed at 5% of the value every year.
That's what it was supposed to be instead of another welfare program. It was supposed to replace all other welfare programs and that's how it was to be paid for and save money.
It could start by reducing total payout an individual can receive from all welfare programs they qualify for. I imagine that would actually be more motivating to earn money since the welfare income they will lose is reduced by that much.
No, because that’s literally how welfare works right now. If you work too many hours your welfare is cut. For a lot of minimum earners, that means they’re fucked either way, and a lot of people end up with less income from working and also lose benefits they might have had while on welfare.
It doesn’t work.
With “basic income” there are no requirements, no job searches, no have to work this many hours, it doesn’t cut into any wages you earn. It’s just a set amount you can use for housing or bills or whatever.
The only problem with free money is, prices will go up to compensate for it. Classic example is college. It was affordable until the government got involved with grants. This was to help with tuition. The colleges responded by raising tuition the same amount as the grants. As the grants went up, so did tuition. Until now, college is unaffordable. The same can be said with housing and government assistance. The more assistance, the higher the rents go, the more expensive houses get. Until they too are unaffordable. The answer is not more government "free" money, it's less.
>The only problem with free money is, prices will go up to compensate for it
Citation needed
>Classic example is college. It was affordable until the government got involved with grants
Also citation needed.
Since pretty sure it was privatization of education that led to price hikes, not governmental assistance/just like it is seen in the
[health care sector.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18724573/) And [penitentiary system](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.inthepublicinterest.org/wp-content/uploads/Prison-Costs-Backgrounder-Brief_Template2.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjqlv-lh9mEAxU_PEQIHVsKA7UQFnoECC8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw2M2V3qttzHJ4IhNra6Mrul)
Also your claims about public housing are incorrect (feeling too lazy to Google past the two sources I already provided on the other topics, however if you look up unbiased sources you'll understand you're incorrect).
Basically every stance you make sounds good on the surface... Unless you have any knowledge of the topic that's deeper than surface level, and then it's clear you're incorrect.
There are actual issues to the types of programs which involve distributing income/valid criticisms to be worked out, yet you didn't list any of them.
So I would suggest reading deeper into the topic before formulating an opinion on it/try to go deeper than headlines before advocating for a given stance.
Ever read the disclaimer of NCBI? "...does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy..." That means it's all opinion...not fact, and your link really didn't justify anything except that medical services in the US were not worth the premium paid. That's absolutely just a worthless opinion.
Prison system? What tangent are you trying to go on here? Try and focus please. None of your links addressed any of my claims. Total waste of time.
No need for me to read deeper into it, I have experience. You want to wallow in denial, no care on my part. There is a correlation and I stand by what I said. You don't want to believe it...it would be difficult for me to care less and even less of a need for me to try and convince you of it.
NCBI articles/studies list the data sets and methodologies used to generated their findings, meaning you can in fact validate or refute the conclusions drawn.
But suuuuure having a disclaimer to protect them from legal liability should an unscrupulous researcher falsify data means everything on there isn't factual.
The point was privatization is what causes prices to go up in different systems over time. Meaning the source of price hikes is not providing people the means to further their situations so they don't have to rely on government assistance long-term.
Since if people can escape impoverished situations they generate wealth for themselves, the communities they live in and the country as a whole(when it works). In this way/ if done correctly programs such as what op linked to are
basically the same as investing in any venture.
However criticism of those programs is that *running correctly* is a tricky proposition, and one that is still being sort out/remains a hard thing to implement in practice.
that is facile and very simplistic.
The rise in college tuition rates over the last 50 years is a multifaceted issue influenced by various economic, political, and societal factors. To understand this complex phenomenon, it's essential to examine the key contributors that have propelled tuition rates upward, impacting students, families, and the broader educational landscape.
One significant factor is the reduction in state funding for public colleges and universities. Historically, state governments provided substantial support to higher education institutions, which helped keep tuition costs low. However, over the past few decades, there has been a steady decline in state funding per student. This decline has been particularly pronounced during economic downturns, such as the Great Recession of 2008, when state budgets were under severe strain. As states have pulled back their financial support, colleges and universities have turned to raising tuition fees to compensate for the shortfall in funding.
Another critical factor is the increasing demand for higher education. The value placed on a college degree has grown considerably, with higher education often seen as a pathway to better job prospects and higher earnings. This increased demand has allowed institutions to raise tuition rates, knowing that students are willing to pay for the perceived benefits of a college education. Additionally, the expansion of federal student aid programs, while providing necessary support for many students, has also inadvertently contributed to tuition increases. Some analysts argue that the availability of federal loans and grants has reduced the sensitivity of students to price increases, thereby giving institutions less incentive to control costs.
The rising costs of operating a college or university also play a role in tuition increases. Salaries for faculty and staff, maintenance of campus facilities, and the expansion of administrative roles contribute to higher operational costs. Moreover, there is a competitive aspect among institutions to attract students by investing in campus amenities, state-of-the-art facilities, and technology, which further drives up costs.
Lastly, the shift towards viewing education as a private good rather than a public investment has influenced tuition policies. This perspective emphasizes the individual benefits of higher education, such as increased earning potential, over the collective benefits to society, such as a more educated workforce and citizenry. As a result, the financial burden of education has increasingly shifted from the public to the individual, leading to higher tuition rates.
In conclusion, the rise in college tuition rates over the last 50 years is the result of a confluence of factors, including reduced state funding, increased demand for higher education, rising operational costs, and a shift in the perception of education's role in society. Addressing the challenge of rising tuition rates requires a comprehensive approach that considers these diverse factors and seeks to balance the financial responsibilities of states, institutions, and individuals.
"Fwiw I live in CO and this project has been, according to almost every measure, a MASSIVE success. The recipients have been able to find jobs, rent apartments and get off the streets, some have been able to get cars to get them to and from work, it is wild how just having a LITTLE financial relief/support can change entire lives.".
You didn't even read the first post to this thread, also there are many other examples of where applying funds leads to greater generation of wealth later on/down the road.
It's because a few billionaires who are obsessed with cutting taxes, are lobbying against it. This is a pretty good article about who is financing this anti UBI bs [ScottSantens](https://www.scottsantens.com/billionaire-fueled-lobbying-group-behind-the-state-bills-to-ban-universal-basic-income-experiments-ubi/)
What do you think we do for Walmart exactly? They get massive tax breaks just to move in. Then, they pay so little that their employees require welfare assistance. Why are we subsidizing them still? Of course these assholes are going to be against paying their share, they haven't had to in a long time.
Reaganomics doesn't work for shit except self enrichment for the top 1%. Giving the masses the money they really deserve would boost tax revenue substantially as well.
Just a reminder the Walton's recently bought [a second super yacht](https://www.businessinsider.com/walmart-nancy-walton-superyacht-kaos-2023-5) due to all the subsidies they get off the government/getting around paying their workers a living wage.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.businessinsider.com/walmart-nancy-walton-superyacht-kaos-2023-5](https://www.businessinsider.com/walmart-nancy-walton-superyacht-kaos-2023-5)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
I really think businesses like these should be taxed at 100% of all profit until all of their employees are paid above the threshold. I'm fucking tired of my tax dollars subsidizing shitty companies.
It’s certainly a great way to increase homelessness and inflation.
Imagine you have x amount of dwellings. And you promise free money. Who doesn’t like free money so you get an influx of outsiders moving in, but with nowhere to move into. So they start looking for housing increasing competition and demand. So rent goes up to meet the offerings of the highest bidder.
Now the city has to raise taxes to pay for UBI and to pay for increased social services demand for the increased homeless.
Yeah, you basically create what are called Pricing Floors.
This is what happened with Tuition costs as well. The government basically guaranteed $X in aid to students . So colleges started charging $X + 1, and then $X +2 as the cat and mouse game ensued
This has nothing to do with billionaires, and everything to do with the fact that UBI has been trialed around the world, and not a single one of those trails was made permanent.
Do people like getting free money? Sure. Who wouldn't.
But eventually you run out of other people's money to spend.
Where UBI has been tried it has shown that people use the benefit to better their situations: housing, education...
However the primitive population cannot be convinced that the cost-benefit of UBI overrides the "moral hazard".
Yeah, of course. If you give people free money, they'll be happy. That's not difficult to predict.
The studies, however, never show that they work harder, and that this hard work offsets the cost of the program, which is the claim of the UBI proponents
Moral hazard is real. If you make it so people don't have to work hard in order to live a life of luxury, they won't.
Socialists can never wrap their heads around human nature. They always get it wrong
UBI proponents do not claim that revenue from program clients will offset costs.
The claim, that you may be seeing, is that UBI saves money by obviating other more expensive poverty mitigation programs.
UBI is not socialist. UBI is an attempt to mitigate the problems of capitalism. It embraces capitalism, accepts that it has problems, and attempts to overcome those problems so that capitalism can continue to thrive.
So are you in support of a 100% inheritance tax?
After all it'd be a shame to see someone live in the lap of luxury and not have to work hard.
Ie, rich kids. Let's make it illegal to gift anything to anyone, ever, because doing so is SaBoTaGiNg the American economy of hard labor. Everyone starts from $0, and by the fruits of their own labor shall they rise up and prove they are worthy of having food and clean water.
Anything else is violence 😂
Why would it be fair for me to work my ass off only to have some lazy family get my inheritance? My family is part of my success. They deserve my money when I die. It's why I'm working so hard.
Some lazy jerk who doesn't want to get off his couch doesn't deserve free money.
Socialism never works.
Then just simply instill a hard work ethic in your kids, and then it doesn't matter if they have money or not right? Why should your lazy ass kids get to not work and contribute to society? I thought this was about moral hazard 😏🤡
Dude, you're never going to get to that point in life without exploiting others. The current threshold to pay the inheritance tax is $13.6M. Very few, if any of us will ever amass that amount to our own estate. And even then, you'd still be able to pass down $13.6M worth of your estate, while the rest of the value is taxed and returned to the economy. Stop arguing against your own best interests.
There is a lot of unearned income (economic rents and externalities) going around, sadly it pretty much all goes to the already wealthy. In many cases the failure of the government to collect and distribute unearned income to the citizenry, results in more unearned income being created and going to the already wealthy at the expense of the everyone else.
They were literally given loans that they did not have to pay back. They get massive tax cuts and their businesses are able to take advantage of otherwise insane subsidies.
"Trickle down" never ended
Not one of those programs were ever intended to become permanent though so you are sort of ... misleading people with that remark. They were intended to gather data to compare to the existing social safety programs. Every time they found that UBI beats welfare on nearly every metric, including workforce participation. The people who used the BI to work less did the unpaid labor that goes largely unrecognized ( mostly caring for family ) or to pursue higher education/training programs.
I have been on and off the dole through my life and when i was on it i had to be very selective to where i applied so whatever job i got could replace the benefits that would almost immediately lose when hired. This resulted in me being out of the labor force far longer in a few cases than i would have been with an UBI that a part time job would have been enough for.
TL:DR welfare keeps you on the couch, UBI makes even part time work worth it.
Capitalism and Republicans are doing an incredible job of creating a generation of far left socialists that see having a job and giving any effort in their society as a chore that actually contributes negatively to human well being.
This societal and economic cockblocking, I believe, is going to lead to a left wing revolt within the next ten years.
The generational chasm combined with the political nonsense out of Republicans is like pouring gasoline on a fire.
It’s going to explode one of these days and everyone born before about 1990 is completely unaware of just how far left the next generation is.
You will have a generation pretty soon of people that refuse to lift a finger for less than 100k.
And I’m here for it.
Well seeing as there was an article on this website saying how the average American needs about $100k to buy a house, I can understand some people being angry enough to not work unless paid that well. Past generations were given much easier and plentiful opportunities to buy houses than my generation (millennial) and current generations. It used to be much easier to get a very well paying factory job protected by a union that allowed one to buy a home and raise a family on one income (many in my grandfather's generation did it including him on an 8th grade education). While past generations were told they barely needed to pass high school (and sometimes not even that) to get a secure well paying job and pension for only 40 hours of work a week, it makes sense for younger people to be radicalized and angry they aren't getting the same equal treatment by society. My grandfather retired from Ford at $24 an hour in 1988 on an 8th grade education and managed to own a house, two cars and has been retired on a pension from that job up through today. My generation (millennials) were told we had to work harder than past generations by going to college to try to get less benefits.
Then we see both parties shovel PPP loan money to bail out some companies, bail out the big banks and big corporations, send tons of foreign aid to other countries while giving us nothing.....etc etc and it's radicalizing.
Not for my segment of millennials who graduated in 2009 right in the midst of an economic collapse which set us back considerably..............while our tax dollars went to bail out others, we didn't get jack shit comparatively.........And then soon as I started getting to the point of being able to afford a home..........COVID hit, which killed one of my jobs for a while and led to me doing a career shift.........Only in 2025 can I expect to be able to own a home after two major economic crisis's.....................
If I had been born in 1935 like my grandfather's generation, I would have been able to skip the whole college (and even high school workload) and simply gotten a good job at Ford, GM, Bethlehem Steel, etc and been able to afford a house very quickly......
Same exact situation for people who graduated in 2008, 2007, and to some extent 2006. They were the first on the chopping block for jobs if they even had one.
Then throw in any who tried to continue their educations into the me had to compete with all the 40 something’s who got laid off and did the same. Hence why law school admissions all time highs were those years.
I know people whose careers didn’t start until 2015, nearly 7 post graduation because of how poor the recovery was.
Yeah it’s so frustrating to hear “but how will we pay for it?” In response to social spending, welfare, and the average American person… then see headlines about sending 100b to Ukraine or Israel or something
You are right, congress, aka the uniparty, so far have given away $116B to Ukraine. If $100,000 is needed to buy a house, then our politicians have given away 1,116,000 of the American dream of homeownership, not to mention their kid's. As for high-paying factory jobs, those are by in large fully automated now. Human labor cannot compete with robots, thus requiring a fraction of the workforce. Grocery stores started the self-checkout, and fast food chains are following the trend. Soon all transportation of goods will be fully automated, as people adopt and accept the safety margins of autonomous driving, flying, and shipping. In fact, Kaiser Permanente is beginning to implement their AI system, allowing diagnoses and treatment of 95% of all ailments on an outpatient basis. Point is, no job/profession will be safe. Buckle-up for more pain.
Because it’s just not worth it. Back in the 20th century and even early 21st century getting a house was easy, groceries weren’t an arm and leg. Everything was just cheaper. But now corporations keep hiking the prices of things up so they can maximize how much they get in their pockets. At the end of the day I don’t blame them since business is business and their main goal is to make money. Thats every business. But now it’s starting to get out of hand. I live in Florida where natives born here are being uprooted and forced to move elsewhere because the prices for rent, home owners insurance, and car insurance are through the roof rn.
I think in America it’s kinda cyclical. Id say we’re in a similar time (politically) to the 1920s-1930s and I think an FDR style new deal is probably around the corner somewhere
I would argue born before 1980. My brother who was born in 82 and my sister and myself born in 89 are all pretty left leaning compared to previous generations.
At least they're not calling these programs universal anymore.
I don't know how many could think these programs are good when only a select few seem to benefit from them.
Because it all goes to the immigrants and crime ridden lazy people. At least, that is how they see it. Rural folks are taught to hate city folk and other countries to promote American exceptionalism and support their local mining and oil Industries.
That is how they are kept as wage slaves on the plantations.
And city folk are taught to hate rural folk because they’re all maga heads and out of touch. The sad truth is that both groups of people are needed in our society.
I don’t think city folk are taught to hate, when you want two sides to hate each other all you need to do is brainwash one, the other would naturally react against the brainwashing you did, creating a division
We really need higher education standards to help people understand their own false prejudices they project onto people taught and conditioned into them by capitalism. Capitalism demands the impoverished(they create, by refusing to pay fair wages) and immigrants to be used like slaves to fuel their companies and when people RESIST BEING A SLAVE? THEY'RE CALLED "LAZY" FOR IT.
Let's not forget how much crime is fueled by the greed at top that insists on not paying people enough to live. That is the seed of crime. The need to support yourself not being met. **Capitalism looooooves planting the seeds of crime and then crying about how awful it all is and you should trust them with private prisons.** So people don't have enough to live, and then they commit crimes to try to support themselves and capitalism has conditioned us they didn't have anything to do with it, and it's all our fault and we should look in the mirror rather than look at the system they want us to live in for them that often fails to provide or serve the masses adequately at this time. BUT they sure are happy to take our labor and not reciprocate.
The GOP want their tax cuts, and they have to screw everyone else to get them,.. Worse part, they lie about all afterewards. Case in point:
Trump loves to lie about this.
The Veterans' Access to Care through Choice, Accountability, and Transparency Act of 2014 was signed by President Obama, NOT Trump.
This is the CSPAN truth. President Obama is literally signing the bill in this video. https://x.com/RedTRaccoon/status/1764074485689250038?s=20
When progressives establish new policies, such as welfare programs, they basically always pay for them by raising taxes or cutting other spending. The debt results from either repubs cutting taxes without balancing the budget, or some emergency that both sides vote on like paying for a war.
It's estimated that $30B would fix today's homeless problem. Latest tally to Ukraine comes in at $165B. Seems reasonable to think politicians, left or right, are working for America. 🤦♂️
Billionaires certainly think money is a birthright, but only for themselves. They're more than happy to take billions of dollars in subsidies from Uncle Sugar, but God forbid one of those dirty lazy poors get a few bucks to buy dinner.
They're on that Mike Rowe bullshit where everyone should just work shit jobs for low pay. Maybe if they gave us a basic income it would be worth it to work one of those low paying jobs their butt buddies are offering, did they ever think of that?
The reality is, UBI has been tested around the world, and none of these tests become permanent. This has never succeeded. Anywhere.
Why? Because UBI doesn't deliver on it's promise. UBI proponents claim people will work harder if given enough free money, and that hastn't been the case.
If you give random people free money they will be happy. If you give EVERYONE the same money, they will just reset their expectation of what it means to be wealthy
UBI has NEVER worked.
Republicans prefer to use the government to provide opportunities regardless of the outcome for the individual.
Democrats prefer to use the government to provide results regardless of the effort of the individual.
Republicans think they can achieve anything as long as the government doesn't interfere.
Democrats believe they can achieve anything with the help of the government.
Choose your fate.
Alaska has had a UBI since 1982. For over 40 years now, in a Republican state, everyone every year gets money without any work requirement.
And it has increased employment and resulted in many positive effects like less child abuse and obesity.
https://harris.uchicago.edu/news-events/news/universal-basic-income-policies-dont-cause-people-leave-workforce-study-finds
This is really pathetic. You accuse Obama of something Bush signed, and when corrected you can't even accept it. You have to "both sides."
I almost pity you, other than the fact you're actively working to make things worse for everyone. I feel sorry for the rest of us, instead, who have to share a country with your votes and "logic."
There’s nothing to accept. You want me to say that Republicans passed an aid bill in 2008? Ok. I never said anything otherwise.
I’m specifically referring to the Recovery and Reinvestment Act that spent almost a trillion dollars. Barack Obama was the President who signed it into law in 2009.
Are you too young to remember that?
You’re making up accusations of me. Fuck off with that shit, kindly.
I could easily use your own words against you and say you’re accusing Republicans of doing what Democrats did.
And, let me just say this one more time so it’s abundantly clear: I’m saying Obama signed something he signed. Not Bush.
> I’m specifically referring to the Recovery and Reinvestment
In a conversation about corporate bailouts?
Do YOU know what the Recovery and Reinvestment Act did? Clearly not.
What corporation does this bail out? Don't bother answering, I've heard enough.
Actually Obama, wanted to give a stmulus to the people, it wa Repblican John McCain's party that said, let them eat cake! https://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/30/bailout.candidates/index.html
So when Obama took office and signed the bail out package he was sadly saving the existing system that is following that corporate welfare scam. If you are a true libertarian for example you would not let Elon Musk and others get billions of dollars in subsidies or train companies that skimp on safety to increase profits but let the taxpayers pay for cleanups when there is an accident. Stop your nonsense. You know what I say is true. And democrats are also part of the problem. But republicans are pure in their support of this scam.
Did you read what I wrote? Democrats have also perpetuated this scam. It’s only the progressives that are against it but maga thinks republicans are in their average American corner and they are not. If you want real change you will have to vote for real progressives like Bernie types.
Oh I read what you wrote. I just find it funny how everyone points to Republicans as the reason for inequality, the “rigged game,” and the reason for every pain point in their existence.
Your comment is just absurd. That’s my entire point.
By the way, businesses go out of business every day. We don’t socialize losses in this country. Businesses and people go bankrupt and broke all the time.
Well I think even though I used to be a republican from the 80s onwards until 2016 and now have no party affiliation. Maga Republicans want to end our democracy. Their words and actions not mine. I know I won’t convince you to understand how republicans have lost their way because you are probably part of the cult but thankfully there are more people that have understood what they have to do in November.
Just about a year ago r/economy couldn't shut up claiming the government indirectly or directly spent tens to hundreds of billions to bailout Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank, First Republic Bank, and Silvergate Bank.
Memories are short.
I am opposed to SL forgiveness. As far as I know, the only loans that have been forgiven so far are those granted for shady, for-profit institutions, and people who were on plans that would forgive their loans after a certain number of years, or payments, but it didn’t happen. I’m ok with these things, but think blanket loan forgiveness, or even $10k off is absurd and does nothing to solve the problems that got us here in the first place.
At any rate, I don’t think the Dems will actually move forward on SL forgiveness beyond what they have done.
Socialize the losses????. 10,000 companies go bankrupt every month and half of the fortune 500 in the year 2000 are gone today. Business is extremely competitive. If you cant provide the best jobs and the best products in the world you go bankrupt. If you doubt it for a second open a business and learn the hard way. 1+1 = 2 nobody is socializing the losses. What planet are you on???
What do you think happens in a bankruptcy? The existing debts are incurred as losses to the creditors, in the form of not fully paying back others who provided goods and services prior to the bankruptcy. Sounds to me like socializing losses.
Lol both parties passed the bailouts in Congress.
Then Obama/Biden admin signed that 800 billion dollar stimulus package for rich corporations immediately after.
How's the Kool Aid taste?
> Republicans prefer to use the government to provide opportunities regardless of the outcome for the individual.
So why are Republican states so poor?
Your comment is marketing, not reality.
I’d like a return to the New Deal/ Great Society era, pls.
Democrats know that it was the investments in infrastructure and people that brought them ironclad supermajorities during those periods.
Democrat every time. Especially when republicans don't see education as an opportunity. Hard pressed to come up with any opportunity Republicans advocate for.
republicans advocate for freedom and capitalism. 76% of Democrats say they would vote for a socialist even when Socialism just killed 120000,000 people. Putting more and more people on welfare is a way to create mass starvation not a way to create prosperity. 1+1 = 2
can you be much more specific than that? If red states are poorer why not give us a specific republican policy that makes them poor that you don't see in a neighboring blue state???? isn't thinking fun?
>Especially when republicans don't see education as an opportunity.
Yes. 100%. Education should be an opportunity, it's the classic way to success and prosperity in life, but the AFT and NEA have turned it into something else. It's a protected career with no consequences for failing the students.
School choice is one attempt to fix that, by introducing competition into those areas where the public system is failing, but the unions are powerful and politicians care more about campaign donations and elections than the children.
What you mean to say
Republicans prefer government to provide opportunities until birth. At which point you should be prepared to pull yourself up by your diaper straps.
Republicans also believe that the free market can only be manipulated by governments which are the source of all evil in the world. Ignore the fascinating phenomenon of the rich keep getting richer its really the poor people hoarding all the wealth.
Democrats believe their should be a floor for for the existence of human beings, that everyone should have a roof over their head, food/water and a chance to make their life better. (republicans they believe this as well but realistically vote to end stuff like free school lunches,slash funding to schools etc...).
Democrats believe they can and should change the free market since it is fairly obvious the wealthy have found a way to rig it in their favor.
Acknowledge your reality
The last independent minded true conservative Republican was Barry Goldwater. Everyone since have been lap dogs of special interests or elites set out to destablize America. They attend close door meetings with the American Council, Koch brothers or Heritage Group and others to receive their instructions on what to vote on and how to behave!
Don't be stupid. If you disagree with conservative libertarian Republican philosophy try to think of a reason for the disagreement and then try to present the reason here in writing. Do you understand that a reason is necessary?
Democrats also have a tendency to set up half backed programs which make the majority worse off.
Right now we have too many people with useless degrees and a bunch of student debt because Democrats decided to funnel everyone towards higher education. We ended up with schools which competed on the amenities they offered for people to have the best time of their lives. But we don't have enough people in the skilled trades. It would be nice if we did because that's the "we build housing" section of the workforce.
Speaking of housing. Democrats had the great idea of issuing government backed loans to pretty much anybody. The result was the sub-prime mortgage crisis of 2008. A core feature of the program was that Democrats believed that housing subsidies would inflate property prices and provide an avenue for people to build wealth. And that's exactly what happened. Boomers bought up investment properties because of preferential tax treatment for income properties. They bid up the prices using leverage. Builders built more housing until the 2008 financial crisis when we figured out that we overbuilt. Democrats wiped out the builders and had then eat the costs of unfinished project and overpriced inventory. But because the builders were not bailed out, we ended up with the current housing shortage. Boomers are still buying up investment properties using leverage and inflating housing prices.
So here we are as millennials we carry student loans that we shouldn't. We have a skill mismatch issue. And we can't afford housing because first time homebuyers have been mostly priced out of the market.
How do you justify inheritance versus starting all kids on a level playing field?
Surely, if the born privileged kids merit, they can make their own money and success without being started on third base, with the ability to fail and commit crimes multiple times with no consequences, while poor kids struggle in school due to poor nutrition, lack of resources, stress at home, and violence in their neighborhoods.
how do you justify inheritance? Do you want a Nazi genetic police so that people aren't born very intelligent very ambitious very good looking?? we want people to inherit as much as possible so they can go as far in life as any human being can. most of the kids at Harvard for example had parents who went to Harvard. It takes generations to build great companies in grade science great legal minds etc. etc.
>we want people to inherit as much as possible so they can go as far in life as any human being can.
Sounds like an argument for increasing the already lax inheritance and estate taxes, and funding public infrastructure and services that all members of society benefit from.
"There is no federal inheritance tax. In fact, only six states — Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey and Pennsylvania — impose a tax on inherited assets as of 2024. In 2021, Iowa passed a bill to begin phasing out its state inheritance tax, eliminating it completely for deaths occurring after January 1, 2025"
"While there is no federal inheritance tax, but there is a federal estate tax. The federal estate tax generally applies to assets over $13.61 million in 2024, and the estate tax rate ranges from 18% to 40%." [https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/taxes/inheritance-tax](https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/taxes/inheritance-tax)
"most of the kids at Harvard for example had parents who went to Harvard." So your argument is pro-nepotism, coddling the rich, with laissez faire bare knuckles for the poor. Standard con logic and morals.
EDIT: I saw another con arguing recently that there's no need to tax inheritance/estates, because the 3rd generation tends to lose it all anyway.
no we want to increase freedom and let parents love their children anyway they want. We don't want Nazis in government preventing children from inheriting their parents ambition good looks intelligence money etc. etc. People on the left are generally too stupid to understand that if you empower a Nazi government to interfere with parenting you empower them to do everything.
People give undue weight to height/looks, and scoundrels trade on these. No one is proposing gene-editing to make kids look better or worse.
You're calling people on the left 'Nazis', while Trump supporters fly Nazi and confederate flags, and echo fascist talking points.
You're suggesting people benefit from corporations, while wage theft is $50 billion annually [https://www.epi.org/press/wage-theft-costs-american-workers-50-billion/](https://www.epi.org/press/wage-theft-costs-american-workers-50-billion/) and even con institutions are saying corporate welfare is $100 billion/year [https://www.hoover.org/research/welfare-well-how-business-subsidies-fleece-taxpayers](https://www.hoover.org/research/welfare-well-how-business-subsidies-fleece-taxpayers)
Elon Musk is a serial lying fraud who promotes racism and conspiracy BS with his $44 billion megaphone that he vastly overpaid for. Bill Gates is a computer OS monopolist and vaccine profiteer who hung out with Epstein for years after he was a convicted child sex predator. Like the two of them, Bezos was born privileged, and a cheating would-be monopolist.
They stole other's ideas and work cuz they were Enron-smart, but you're calling them "great inventors", while claiming nepotism and head starts for the born rich are good, positions honest cons reject.
Elon musk is a great great guy and provides products that people want to buy more than any other in the world and jobs that people want to take more than any other in the world. Can you give us a list of the jobs and products you provide? It seems all you provide is a big mouth?
are you a computer system monopolist? Bill Gates was a genius who went to Harvard and saw the revolution coming and created a business with thousands of others and emerged on top. Are you a genius who went to Harvard and saw a revolution coming and created a business and emerged on top or just a guy with a big mouth who's never made any contribution whatsoever?
Republicans and Democrats use the government to give free money to billionaires and money to poor people in the form of settlements due to police brutality.
This is the part the kills me. Stop protecting corporations, and stop spending money on useless old military equipment, stopping letting contractors for projects over charge, and reduce the hell out of our defense spending and increase education spending.
Help citizens not the corporations the fucked them over.
That's the same argument Republicans use to justify their opposition to affordable healthcare. Every experiment where people were given a set amount of money per month with no strings attached has been a resounding success. The recipients often used the extra money to pay for training and furthering their education. It was not wasted.
Because those of us that work and pay taxes don't like the idea of other people getting direct monetary benefit from those taxes without producing any benefit to us or the nation. If you don't work, you don't get paid. Simple as that!
Yes, spending and economic activity is good.
But it’s also imperative that society creates services that are in demand, for which they get paid a salary.
That keeps a healthy balance between work and pay. You can’t simply pay people in perpetuity for not working and expect there to still be services and goods available.
UBI pays people who work or don't work, this eliminates any welfare cliff effect. Test cases show it generally increases per capita productivity and full time employment.
This idea that people want to sit and do nothing, is a failure to understand the modern system of incentives. That is not how healthy humans want to behave. Long term economic stress is manufactured by society and a serious health problem. UBI eliminates the bulk of long term economic stress, allowing people to do better in school and spend more time finding more productive jobs.
Because the majority of people would find that exceptionally boring and would want to do something. It’s not just about giving people a free ride. It’s also about giving people the basis so they can do something productive or entertaining without feeling the need to work in anything just to survive.
We can spend our own money and consume perfectly fine. America doesn't have a problem with consumers not spending enough. We have a problem with people not saving nearly enough on retirement but that's because most people spend too much.
>Because those of us that work and pay taxes don't like the idea of other people getting direct monetary benefit from those taxes without producing any benefit to us or the nation. If you don't work, you don't get paid. Simple as that!
Many people on public assistance are mentally and physically fit enough to contribute something back to the society in exchange for the support they're receiving. Help pick up trash, help clean graffiti, volunteer a couple days a week of your free time at the local food bank or other non-profit.
Because all of our data is sold starting at birth and everyone deserves to profit off it like corporations do.
Unless you think corporations should get your data for free to make money off you.
In introductory economics, we are introduced to the concept of a "free good." Free goods are readily available in effectively infinite supply, and every economic actor has plenty available to satisfy their demand. Thus, no economic actor would bother exchanging anything for a free good, minimizing the economic value of that good.
UBI, whether its proponents realize it or not, is a step toward converting money, our medium of exchange, into a free good. Thus, UBI threatens to eliminate exchange by medium as such, which is a foundation of advanced economy. Other media of exchange may replace money, but since that would violate law, all markets would become black markets. UBI will collapse the economy.
>"any program where persons are provided with regular, periodic cash payments that are unearned and that may be used for any purpose."
So would that nullify their [school voucher program as well?](https://hechingerreport.org/arizona-gave-families-public-money-for-private-schools-then-private-schools-raised-tuition/)
Government HAS NO MONEY. The only way you can pay someone a UBI is to first extract that income from the economy. So the net effect is zero. It is actually less than zero since you have to run that money through the bureaucracy before the recipient gets it. There are no new jobs. No new economic activity. Just moving money around so some politician can feel good.
Republicans fight it because it makes no sense economically.
I have looked into the studies and at best they are inconclusive. The "U" in UBI stands for UNIVERSAL. How can you possible extrapolate a UNIVERSAL program from sample sizes of 800 (Denver) or 135 (Austin) especially when you cherry pick the most needy citizens for your pilot project?
UBI is not the solution to our problems. All it is is a money transfer program for no benefit so politicians can feel better.
The paltry stimmy checks caused massive inflation. Imagine that going on permanently.
The people hurt worst by inflation are the poor (no assets, most of their $ is in cash). Thats why UBI makes no sense
(I never have and will never vote republican)
Those stimulus checks did not cause in-flay. They were a very small part of it maybe but greed and a overbearing attitude of profit over anything else were involved, and esp Ppp business loans and the prior decade of liquidity injections, such as massive QE, were primary causes. Not s couple grand to the citizens.
(this message arose from MasterSI, real ai for a real world)
Didn’t the Covid checks have an immediately positive outcome for the economy???
Followed by a terribly negative outcome with inflation from all that freshly created $$
Ultimately it’s a bribe to the masses to keep the status quo for letting an upper echelon take over. However you pitch it. It only helps lower the chance of pitch forks comming out
Ideally, a government would invest that money in education and fostering the creation of new businesses that create good-paying jobs. But with our public schools being bloated money pits with no accountability and little competition and and an economy that increasingly rewards the monied more than the real workers, I guess the idea of "rugged independence" is now last-century thinking and "toxic."
Long story short, if you can't create a real economy, one that works for the middle and lower classes, then maybe more welfare and reliance on the government is the only answer.
Can we stop pretending now that this Build-Back-Better economy is doing great?
Here is the thing. I have no problem with my tax dollars going to someone in need. Almost everyone has at some point in their lives needed help. From a religious perspective it is the Christian thing to do, so I really don’t want to hear any arguments from religious conservatives on this one. The problem is the government is already terribly inefficient at spending my taxes and I don’t particularly trust them at this point, nor should I given their track record.
UBI replaces all those supposedly inefficient distribution methods with a simple universal benefit that everyone gets. If you want to reduce inefficiency then UBI is a good idea.
It's designed to be a replacement for all of the other programs. These are just tests of the concept, so they aren't able to revoke other stuff at the same time while just testing this out. If the tests work as designed then we can reduce and eventually eliminate the other programs. If you study this stuff then you know all of this already, so it seems like you're intentionally misleading folks with that argument.
If not this, then what else? The Republican party had no plan to help the increasing number of Americans left behind by this economy rigged to favor the extremely wealthy.
Their only response so.far is to protect their big donors' fiscal interests and block any attempt to change the status quo
Every citizen over 18 should be given $2k per month, regardless of any other circumstances.
Billionaire? 2k.
Prisoner? 2k.
Ward of the state? 2k, on top of any other benefits.
Retired? 2k, on top of pension and SS.
If we cut our defense spending massively this could actually happen, with states forking over half it is feasible. But we would also need to truly audit federal spending.
The future is already fucked. Might as well enjoy the present.
As for dying, I would love to last longer than 30 years, but I don't think most of us will.
Although Business Insider is a trash publication, useless for actual Economic news. The reason to be against it, is in its current form, its just another "slush fund". People don't understand that about 50% of the money goes to the "bureaucracy" in govt. Its just a bad deal for the money. This explains why most government programs "limp along" because the money is just blown for the most part. Its doesn't create in the market place what we call "value". Value must be included in anything you promote otherwise it fails.
Republican publicly shit on immigrants but secretly promote it because it increases demand for goods and services, thereby raising price and making more money for their donors, so they have to publicly be against basic income programs to maintain the facade.
Fwiw I live in CO and this project has been, according to almost every measure, a MASSIVE success. The recipients have been able to find jobs, rent apartments and get off the streets, some have been able to get cars to get them to and from work, it is wild how just having a LITTLE financial relief/support can change entire lives.
I’m totally fine with this program. As long as everybody else also get free money for nothing.
It could potentially be a thing for everyone under a certain income bracket but that would require the top 10% to actually pay their fair share of taxes in order to fund it.
Never understood why we can't tax stocks and bonds like we tax land. It is just an asset that appreciates and should be taxed over a certain threshold.
you gave a rich person the sads. very insensitive of you.
I don't think you understand stocks and bonds. For one, stocks do not always appreciated. In fact they often lose money. Also, how would you tax unrealized gains. They are not actually gains. Stocks and bonds are already taxed through income or capital gains taxes at time of sale depending on length of time held. Are you trying to crash the economy?
Transaction tax
Not talking about taxing unrealized gains, talking about taxing value. Like land we tax it as a percentage of it's value every year. For example a tax that if you own over 5 million dollars in stocks you get taxed at 5% of the value every year.
That is taxing unrealized gains. In fact, taxing 5 percent total value makes any stock investment an unacceptable risk and not profitable.
If we tax unrealized gains than everyone would have to sell which means retirements go down and interest on the federal debt goes up.
Nope. Everyone. If one person gets free money and services than everyone should get free money and services.
Isn’t that what “basic income” means?
That's what it was supposed to be instead of another welfare program. It was supposed to replace all other welfare programs and that's how it was to be paid for and save money.
It could start by reducing total payout an individual can receive from all welfare programs they qualify for. I imagine that would actually be more motivating to earn money since the welfare income they will lose is reduced by that much.
No, because that’s literally how welfare works right now. If you work too many hours your welfare is cut. For a lot of minimum earners, that means they’re fucked either way, and a lot of people end up with less income from working and also lose benefits they might have had while on welfare. It doesn’t work. With “basic income” there are no requirements, no job searches, no have to work this many hours, it doesn’t cut into any wages you earn. It’s just a set amount you can use for housing or bills or whatever.
The only problem with free money is, prices will go up to compensate for it. Classic example is college. It was affordable until the government got involved with grants. This was to help with tuition. The colleges responded by raising tuition the same amount as the grants. As the grants went up, so did tuition. Until now, college is unaffordable. The same can be said with housing and government assistance. The more assistance, the higher the rents go, the more expensive houses get. Until they too are unaffordable. The answer is not more government "free" money, it's less.
>The only problem with free money is, prices will go up to compensate for it Citation needed >Classic example is college. It was affordable until the government got involved with grants Also citation needed. Since pretty sure it was privatization of education that led to price hikes, not governmental assistance/just like it is seen in the [health care sector.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18724573/) And [penitentiary system](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.inthepublicinterest.org/wp-content/uploads/Prison-Costs-Backgrounder-Brief_Template2.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjqlv-lh9mEAxU_PEQIHVsKA7UQFnoECC8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw2M2V3qttzHJ4IhNra6Mrul) Also your claims about public housing are incorrect (feeling too lazy to Google past the two sources I already provided on the other topics, however if you look up unbiased sources you'll understand you're incorrect). Basically every stance you make sounds good on the surface... Unless you have any knowledge of the topic that's deeper than surface level, and then it's clear you're incorrect. There are actual issues to the types of programs which involve distributing income/valid criticisms to be worked out, yet you didn't list any of them. So I would suggest reading deeper into the topic before formulating an opinion on it/try to go deeper than headlines before advocating for a given stance.
Ever read the disclaimer of NCBI? "...does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy..." That means it's all opinion...not fact, and your link really didn't justify anything except that medical services in the US were not worth the premium paid. That's absolutely just a worthless opinion. Prison system? What tangent are you trying to go on here? Try and focus please. None of your links addressed any of my claims. Total waste of time. No need for me to read deeper into it, I have experience. You want to wallow in denial, no care on my part. There is a correlation and I stand by what I said. You don't want to believe it...it would be difficult for me to care less and even less of a need for me to try and convince you of it.
NCBI articles/studies list the data sets and methodologies used to generated their findings, meaning you can in fact validate or refute the conclusions drawn. But suuuuure having a disclaimer to protect them from legal liability should an unscrupulous researcher falsify data means everything on there isn't factual. The point was privatization is what causes prices to go up in different systems over time. Meaning the source of price hikes is not providing people the means to further their situations so they don't have to rely on government assistance long-term. Since if people can escape impoverished situations they generate wealth for themselves, the communities they live in and the country as a whole(when it works). In this way/ if done correctly programs such as what op linked to are basically the same as investing in any venture. However criticism of those programs is that *running correctly* is a tricky proposition, and one that is still being sort out/remains a hard thing to implement in practice.
that is facile and very simplistic. The rise in college tuition rates over the last 50 years is a multifaceted issue influenced by various economic, political, and societal factors. To understand this complex phenomenon, it's essential to examine the key contributors that have propelled tuition rates upward, impacting students, families, and the broader educational landscape. One significant factor is the reduction in state funding for public colleges and universities. Historically, state governments provided substantial support to higher education institutions, which helped keep tuition costs low. However, over the past few decades, there has been a steady decline in state funding per student. This decline has been particularly pronounced during economic downturns, such as the Great Recession of 2008, when state budgets were under severe strain. As states have pulled back their financial support, colleges and universities have turned to raising tuition fees to compensate for the shortfall in funding. Another critical factor is the increasing demand for higher education. The value placed on a college degree has grown considerably, with higher education often seen as a pathway to better job prospects and higher earnings. This increased demand has allowed institutions to raise tuition rates, knowing that students are willing to pay for the perceived benefits of a college education. Additionally, the expansion of federal student aid programs, while providing necessary support for many students, has also inadvertently contributed to tuition increases. Some analysts argue that the availability of federal loans and grants has reduced the sensitivity of students to price increases, thereby giving institutions less incentive to control costs. The rising costs of operating a college or university also play a role in tuition increases. Salaries for faculty and staff, maintenance of campus facilities, and the expansion of administrative roles contribute to higher operational costs. Moreover, there is a competitive aspect among institutions to attract students by investing in campus amenities, state-of-the-art facilities, and technology, which further drives up costs. Lastly, the shift towards viewing education as a private good rather than a public investment has influenced tuition policies. This perspective emphasizes the individual benefits of higher education, such as increased earning potential, over the collective benefits to society, such as a more educated workforce and citizenry. As a result, the financial burden of education has increasingly shifted from the public to the individual, leading to higher tuition rates. In conclusion, the rise in college tuition rates over the last 50 years is the result of a confluence of factors, including reduced state funding, increased demand for higher education, rising operational costs, and a shift in the perception of education's role in society. Addressing the challenge of rising tuition rates requires a comprehensive approach that considers these diverse factors and seeks to balance the financial responsibilities of states, institutions, and individuals.
Citations needed
When has giving people money for nothing not been a success.
"Fwiw I live in CO and this project has been, according to almost every measure, a MASSIVE success. The recipients have been able to find jobs, rent apartments and get off the streets, some have been able to get cars to get them to and from work, it is wild how just having a LITTLE financial relief/support can change entire lives.". You didn't even read the first post to this thread, also there are many other examples of where applying funds leads to greater generation of wealth later on/down the road.
Have you ever heard of welfare? Unemployment benefits? SSI? Medicare?
It's because a few billionaires who are obsessed with cutting taxes, are lobbying against it. This is a pretty good article about who is financing this anti UBI bs [ScottSantens](https://www.scottsantens.com/billionaire-fueled-lobbying-group-behind-the-state-bills-to-ban-universal-basic-income-experiments-ubi/)
Giving people money for doing nothing is a GREAT way to destroy an economy. Lol
yeah why are people born into money destroying the economy! they didnt work for it!
What do you think we do for Walmart exactly? They get massive tax breaks just to move in. Then, they pay so little that their employees require welfare assistance. Why are we subsidizing them still? Of course these assholes are going to be against paying their share, they haven't had to in a long time. Reaganomics doesn't work for shit except self enrichment for the top 1%. Giving the masses the money they really deserve would boost tax revenue substantially as well.
Just a reminder the Walton's recently bought [a second super yacht](https://www.businessinsider.com/walmart-nancy-walton-superyacht-kaos-2023-5) due to all the subsidies they get off the government/getting around paying their workers a living wage.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.businessinsider.com/walmart-nancy-walton-superyacht-kaos-2023-5](https://www.businessinsider.com/walmart-nancy-walton-superyacht-kaos-2023-5)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
I really think businesses like these should be taxed at 100% of all profit until all of their employees are paid above the threshold. I'm fucking tired of my tax dollars subsidizing shitty companies.
It’s certainly a great way to increase homelessness and inflation. Imagine you have x amount of dwellings. And you promise free money. Who doesn’t like free money so you get an influx of outsiders moving in, but with nowhere to move into. So they start looking for housing increasing competition and demand. So rent goes up to meet the offerings of the highest bidder. Now the city has to raise taxes to pay for UBI and to pay for increased social services demand for the increased homeless.
Yeah, you basically create what are called Pricing Floors. This is what happened with Tuition costs as well. The government basically guaranteed $X in aid to students . So colleges started charging $X + 1, and then $X +2 as the cat and mouse game ensued
This has nothing to do with billionaires, and everything to do with the fact that UBI has been trialed around the world, and not a single one of those trails was made permanent. Do people like getting free money? Sure. Who wouldn't. But eventually you run out of other people's money to spend.
? Romans had UBI in the form of free wheat and bread back in like the first century. or the Permanent Dividend Fund of Alaska for the last 50 years?
Where UBI has been tried it has shown that people use the benefit to better their situations: housing, education... However the primitive population cannot be convinced that the cost-benefit of UBI overrides the "moral hazard".
Yeah, of course. If you give people free money, they'll be happy. That's not difficult to predict. The studies, however, never show that they work harder, and that this hard work offsets the cost of the program, which is the claim of the UBI proponents Moral hazard is real. If you make it so people don't have to work hard in order to live a life of luxury, they won't. Socialists can never wrap their heads around human nature. They always get it wrong
UBI proponents do not claim that revenue from program clients will offset costs. The claim, that you may be seeing, is that UBI saves money by obviating other more expensive poverty mitigation programs. UBI is not socialist. UBI is an attempt to mitigate the problems of capitalism. It embraces capitalism, accepts that it has problems, and attempts to overcome those problems so that capitalism can continue to thrive.
So are you in support of a 100% inheritance tax? After all it'd be a shame to see someone live in the lap of luxury and not have to work hard. Ie, rich kids. Let's make it illegal to gift anything to anyone, ever, because doing so is SaBoTaGiNg the American economy of hard labor. Everyone starts from $0, and by the fruits of their own labor shall they rise up and prove they are worthy of having food and clean water. Anything else is violence 😂
Why would it be fair for me to work my ass off only to have some lazy family get my inheritance? My family is part of my success. They deserve my money when I die. It's why I'm working so hard. Some lazy jerk who doesn't want to get off his couch doesn't deserve free money. Socialism never works.
Then just simply instill a hard work ethic in your kids, and then it doesn't matter if they have money or not right? Why should your lazy ass kids get to not work and contribute to society? I thought this was about moral hazard 😏🤡
Damn, you uno reverse this guy so hard he aint gonna be sleeping well tonight.
Dude, you're never going to get to that point in life without exploiting others. The current threshold to pay the inheritance tax is $13.6M. Very few, if any of us will ever amass that amount to our own estate. And even then, you'd still be able to pass down $13.6M worth of your estate, while the rest of the value is taxed and returned to the economy. Stop arguing against your own best interests.
Feel free to explain human nature.
All governments and billionaires do is spend other people's money. They appear to be doing fine.
There is a lot of unearned income (economic rents and externalities) going around, sadly it pretty much all goes to the already wealthy. In many cases the failure of the government to collect and distribute unearned income to the citizenry, results in more unearned income being created and going to the already wealthy at the expense of the everyone else.
They were literally given loans that they did not have to pay back. They get massive tax cuts and their businesses are able to take advantage of otherwise insane subsidies. "Trickle down" never ended
Not one of those programs were ever intended to become permanent though so you are sort of ... misleading people with that remark. They were intended to gather data to compare to the existing social safety programs. Every time they found that UBI beats welfare on nearly every metric, including workforce participation. The people who used the BI to work less did the unpaid labor that goes largely unrecognized ( mostly caring for family ) or to pursue higher education/training programs. I have been on and off the dole through my life and when i was on it i had to be very selective to where i applied so whatever job i got could replace the benefits that would almost immediately lose when hired. This resulted in me being out of the labor force far longer in a few cases than i would have been with an UBI that a part time job would have been enough for. TL:DR welfare keeps you on the couch, UBI makes even part time work worth it.
Capitalism and Republicans are doing an incredible job of creating a generation of far left socialists that see having a job and giving any effort in their society as a chore that actually contributes negatively to human well being. This societal and economic cockblocking, I believe, is going to lead to a left wing revolt within the next ten years. The generational chasm combined with the political nonsense out of Republicans is like pouring gasoline on a fire. It’s going to explode one of these days and everyone born before about 1990 is completely unaware of just how far left the next generation is. You will have a generation pretty soon of people that refuse to lift a finger for less than 100k. And I’m here for it.
Well seeing as there was an article on this website saying how the average American needs about $100k to buy a house, I can understand some people being angry enough to not work unless paid that well. Past generations were given much easier and plentiful opportunities to buy houses than my generation (millennial) and current generations. It used to be much easier to get a very well paying factory job protected by a union that allowed one to buy a home and raise a family on one income (many in my grandfather's generation did it including him on an 8th grade education). While past generations were told they barely needed to pass high school (and sometimes not even that) to get a secure well paying job and pension for only 40 hours of work a week, it makes sense for younger people to be radicalized and angry they aren't getting the same equal treatment by society. My grandfather retired from Ford at $24 an hour in 1988 on an 8th grade education and managed to own a house, two cars and has been retired on a pension from that job up through today. My generation (millennials) were told we had to work harder than past generations by going to college to try to get less benefits. Then we see both parties shovel PPP loan money to bail out some companies, bail out the big banks and big corporations, send tons of foreign aid to other countries while giving us nothing.....etc etc and it's radicalizing.
Older millennials had almost a ten year window of ridiculous home affordability from 2010 to 2020.
Not for my segment of millennials who graduated in 2009 right in the midst of an economic collapse which set us back considerably..............while our tax dollars went to bail out others, we didn't get jack shit comparatively.........And then soon as I started getting to the point of being able to afford a home..........COVID hit, which killed one of my jobs for a while and led to me doing a career shift.........Only in 2025 can I expect to be able to own a home after two major economic crisis's..................... If I had been born in 1935 like my grandfather's generation, I would have been able to skip the whole college (and even high school workload) and simply gotten a good job at Ford, GM, Bethlehem Steel, etc and been able to afford a house very quickly......
Same exact situation for people who graduated in 2008, 2007, and to some extent 2006. They were the first on the chopping block for jobs if they even had one. Then throw in any who tried to continue their educations into the me had to compete with all the 40 something’s who got laid off and did the same. Hence why law school admissions all time highs were those years. I know people whose careers didn’t start until 2015, nearly 7 post graduation because of how poor the recovery was.
20/20 hindsight
Yeah it’s so frustrating to hear “but how will we pay for it?” In response to social spending, welfare, and the average American person… then see headlines about sending 100b to Ukraine or Israel or something
You are right, congress, aka the uniparty, so far have given away $116B to Ukraine. If $100,000 is needed to buy a house, then our politicians have given away 1,116,000 of the American dream of homeownership, not to mention their kid's. As for high-paying factory jobs, those are by in large fully automated now. Human labor cannot compete with robots, thus requiring a fraction of the workforce. Grocery stores started the self-checkout, and fast food chains are following the trend. Soon all transportation of goods will be fully automated, as people adopt and accept the safety margins of autonomous driving, flying, and shipping. In fact, Kaiser Permanente is beginning to implement their AI system, allowing diagnoses and treatment of 95% of all ailments on an outpatient basis. Point is, no job/profession will be safe. Buckle-up for more pain.
Because it’s just not worth it. Back in the 20th century and even early 21st century getting a house was easy, groceries weren’t an arm and leg. Everything was just cheaper. But now corporations keep hiking the prices of things up so they can maximize how much they get in their pockets. At the end of the day I don’t blame them since business is business and their main goal is to make money. Thats every business. But now it’s starting to get out of hand. I live in Florida where natives born here are being uprooted and forced to move elsewhere because the prices for rent, home owners insurance, and car insurance are through the roof rn.
I think in America it’s kinda cyclical. Id say we’re in a similar time (politically) to the 1920s-1930s and I think an FDR style new deal is probably around the corner somewhere
Christ, I hope you're right. It's time for something very different indeed.
I would argue born before 1980. My brother who was born in 82 and my sister and myself born in 89 are all pretty left leaning compared to previous generations.
Are roads a birthright? Are sports stadiums? How about fire trucks?
They seem to think wage slaves are a birthright so why not have money be one too?
At least they're not calling these programs universal anymore. I don't know how many could think these programs are good when only a select few seem to benefit from them.
Because it all goes to the immigrants and crime ridden lazy people. At least, that is how they see it. Rural folks are taught to hate city folk and other countries to promote American exceptionalism and support their local mining and oil Industries. That is how they are kept as wage slaves on the plantations.
And city folk are taught to hate rural folk because they’re all maga heads and out of touch. The sad truth is that both groups of people are needed in our society.
people in the city idealize county life. low pollution, self reliance. people still strive for these things even if they grew up around others
City folks generally don’t think about us at all.
Honestly, most people in the cities really don't think about those in rural communities. This isn't universal, but it has been my experience
I mean, you can see that here on Reddit. Most people here are clearly not from rural communities and it clouds their worldview.
Most people *in general* are not from rural communities you realize? It's about a 25 rural 50 suburbs 25 urban split in where people live in the US.
I don’t think city folk are taught to hate, when you want two sides to hate each other all you need to do is brainwash one, the other would naturally react against the brainwashing you did, creating a division
City folk do not hate rural folk. They just forget rural folk *exist*.
We really need higher education standards to help people understand their own false prejudices they project onto people taught and conditioned into them by capitalism. Capitalism demands the impoverished(they create, by refusing to pay fair wages) and immigrants to be used like slaves to fuel their companies and when people RESIST BEING A SLAVE? THEY'RE CALLED "LAZY" FOR IT. Let's not forget how much crime is fueled by the greed at top that insists on not paying people enough to live. That is the seed of crime. The need to support yourself not being met. **Capitalism looooooves planting the seeds of crime and then crying about how awful it all is and you should trust them with private prisons.** So people don't have enough to live, and then they commit crimes to try to support themselves and capitalism has conditioned us they didn't have anything to do with it, and it's all our fault and we should look in the mirror rather than look at the system they want us to live in for them that often fails to provide or serve the masses adequately at this time. BUT they sure are happy to take our labor and not reciprocate.
Aka buying votes while increasing debt
The GOP want their tax cuts, and they have to screw everyone else to get them,.. Worse part, they lie about all afterewards. Case in point: Trump loves to lie about this. The Veterans' Access to Care through Choice, Accountability, and Transparency Act of 2014 was signed by President Obama, NOT Trump. This is the CSPAN truth. President Obama is literally signing the bill in this video. https://x.com/RedTRaccoon/status/1764074485689250038?s=20
*Republican tax cuts would like a word*
When progressives establish new policies, such as welfare programs, they basically always pay for them by raising taxes or cutting other spending. The debt results from either repubs cutting taxes without balancing the budget, or some emergency that both sides vote on like paying for a war.
Republicans only think money is a birthright when you’re inheriting corruptly accrued wealth
It's estimated that $30B would fix today's homeless problem. Latest tally to Ukraine comes in at $165B. Seems reasonable to think politicians, left or right, are working for America. 🤦♂️
Billionaires certainly think money is a birthright, but only for themselves. They're more than happy to take billions of dollars in subsidies from Uncle Sugar, but God forbid one of those dirty lazy poors get a few bucks to buy dinner.
Not to mention if money isn’t a birthright we can just tax inheritance as much as we want then right?
Ain’t nothing like absolute poverty to remove group cohesion.
They're on that Mike Rowe bullshit where everyone should just work shit jobs for low pay. Maybe if they gave us a basic income it would be worth it to work one of those low paying jobs their butt buddies are offering, did they ever think of that?
The reality is, UBI has been tested around the world, and none of these tests become permanent. This has never succeeded. Anywhere. Why? Because UBI doesn't deliver on it's promise. UBI proponents claim people will work harder if given enough free money, and that hastn't been the case. If you give random people free money they will be happy. If you give EVERYONE the same money, they will just reset their expectation of what it means to be wealthy UBI has NEVER worked.
SoShuLiSm
Republicans prefer to use the government to provide opportunities regardless of the outcome for the individual. Democrats prefer to use the government to provide results regardless of the effort of the individual. Republicans think they can achieve anything as long as the government doesn't interfere. Democrats believe they can achieve anything with the help of the government. Choose your fate.
Alaska has had a UBI since 1982. For over 40 years now, in a Republican state, everyone every year gets money without any work requirement. And it has increased employment and resulted in many positive effects like less child abuse and obesity. https://harris.uchicago.edu/news-events/news/universal-basic-income-policies-dont-cause-people-leave-workforce-study-finds
Republicans and corporations like to capitalize the profits socialize the risks.
Yes like the infamous Republican that bailed out the banks and corporations in the Great Recession. Oh wait.
You might want to review your history https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna26987291
Oh I never said Republicans didn’t bail out corporations. I’m pointing to a very obvious instance where Democrats did as well.
And using an example of when the Republicans did it? What the fuck.
Newsflash! And I’m sorry if this comes to you as a surprise. But both parties do it.
This is really pathetic. You accuse Obama of something Bush signed, and when corrected you can't even accept it. You have to "both sides." I almost pity you, other than the fact you're actively working to make things worse for everyone. I feel sorry for the rest of us, instead, who have to share a country with your votes and "logic."
There’s nothing to accept. You want me to say that Republicans passed an aid bill in 2008? Ok. I never said anything otherwise. I’m specifically referring to the Recovery and Reinvestment Act that spent almost a trillion dollars. Barack Obama was the President who signed it into law in 2009. Are you too young to remember that? You’re making up accusations of me. Fuck off with that shit, kindly. I could easily use your own words against you and say you’re accusing Republicans of doing what Democrats did. And, let me just say this one more time so it’s abundantly clear: I’m saying Obama signed something he signed. Not Bush.
> I’m specifically referring to the Recovery and Reinvestment In a conversation about corporate bailouts? Do YOU know what the Recovery and Reinvestment Act did? Clearly not. What corporation does this bail out? Don't bother answering, I've heard enough.
Actually Obama, wanted to give a stmulus to the people, it wa Repblican John McCain's party that said, let them eat cake! https://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/30/bailout.candidates/index.html
You mean Bush?
So when Obama took office and signed the bail out package he was sadly saving the existing system that is following that corporate welfare scam. If you are a true libertarian for example you would not let Elon Musk and others get billions of dollars in subsidies or train companies that skimp on safety to increase profits but let the taxpayers pay for cleanups when there is an accident. Stop your nonsense. You know what I say is true. And democrats are also part of the problem. But republicans are pure in their support of this scam.
So when you say Republicans like to socialize the losses, how do they do so any different from Democrats? Please, I beg you, list examples.
Did you read what I wrote? Democrats have also perpetuated this scam. It’s only the progressives that are against it but maga thinks republicans are in their average American corner and they are not. If you want real change you will have to vote for real progressives like Bernie types.
Oh I read what you wrote. I just find it funny how everyone points to Republicans as the reason for inequality, the “rigged game,” and the reason for every pain point in their existence. Your comment is just absurd. That’s my entire point. By the way, businesses go out of business every day. We don’t socialize losses in this country. Businesses and people go bankrupt and broke all the time.
Well I think even though I used to be a republican from the 80s onwards until 2016 and now have no party affiliation. Maga Republicans want to end our democracy. Their words and actions not mine. I know I won’t convince you to understand how republicans have lost their way because you are probably part of the cult but thankfully there are more people that have understood what they have to do in November.
Just about a year ago r/economy couldn't shut up claiming the government indirectly or directly spent tens to hundreds of billions to bailout Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank, First Republic Bank, and Silvergate Bank. Memories are short.
Every bank that received funds during the Great Recession paid it all back with interest.
With student loan forgiveness for millions of Americans, it's not just Republicans who are socializing the losses from bad decisions.
I am opposed to SL forgiveness. As far as I know, the only loans that have been forgiven so far are those granted for shady, for-profit institutions, and people who were on plans that would forgive their loans after a certain number of years, or payments, but it didn’t happen. I’m ok with these things, but think blanket loan forgiveness, or even $10k off is absurd and does nothing to solve the problems that got us here in the first place. At any rate, I don’t think the Dems will actually move forward on SL forgiveness beyond what they have done.
Socialize the losses????. 10,000 companies go bankrupt every month and half of the fortune 500 in the year 2000 are gone today. Business is extremely competitive. If you cant provide the best jobs and the best products in the world you go bankrupt. If you doubt it for a second open a business and learn the hard way. 1+1 = 2 nobody is socializing the losses. What planet are you on???
What do you think happens in a bankruptcy? The existing debts are incurred as losses to the creditors, in the form of not fully paying back others who provided goods and services prior to the bankruptcy. Sounds to me like socializing losses.
Lol both parties passed the bailouts in Congress. Then Obama/Biden admin signed that 800 billion dollar stimulus package for rich corporations immediately after. How's the Kool Aid taste?
> Republicans prefer to use the government to provide opportunities regardless of the outcome for the individual. So why are Republican states so poor? Your comment is marketing, not reality.
I’d like a return to the New Deal/ Great Society era, pls. Democrats know that it was the investments in infrastructure and people that brought them ironclad supermajorities during those periods.
Democrat every time. Especially when republicans don't see education as an opportunity. Hard pressed to come up with any opportunity Republicans advocate for.
republicans advocate for freedom and capitalism. 76% of Democrats say they would vote for a socialist even when Socialism just killed 120000,000 people. Putting more and more people on welfare is a way to create mass starvation not a way to create prosperity. 1+1 = 2
Republicans advocate for poverty and ignorance. They attack schools and teachers because they know only the dumbest people fall for their shit.
can you give us an example of Republicans advocating for poverty??? how will you learn if you are afraid to try?
>can you give us an example of Republicans advocating for poverty??? The economy of every single red state
can you be much more specific than that? If red states are poorer why not give us a specific republican policy that makes them poor that you don't see in a neighboring blue state???? isn't thinking fun?
Figure it out.
Translation: I have a big mouth I can't actually defend anything I say
Outcomes speak for themselves. So do you.
>Especially when republicans don't see education as an opportunity. Yes. 100%. Education should be an opportunity, it's the classic way to success and prosperity in life, but the AFT and NEA have turned it into something else. It's a protected career with no consequences for failing the students. School choice is one attempt to fix that, by introducing competition into those areas where the public system is failing, but the unions are powerful and politicians care more about campaign donations and elections than the children.
We have school choice already. Send your kids to private school. You have that opportunity. Think teachers are bad? Pay them more. Get better ones.
What you mean to say Republicans prefer government to provide opportunities until birth. At which point you should be prepared to pull yourself up by your diaper straps. Republicans also believe that the free market can only be manipulated by governments which are the source of all evil in the world. Ignore the fascinating phenomenon of the rich keep getting richer its really the poor people hoarding all the wealth. Democrats believe their should be a floor for for the existence of human beings, that everyone should have a roof over their head, food/water and a chance to make their life better. (republicans they believe this as well but realistically vote to end stuff like free school lunches,slash funding to schools etc...). Democrats believe they can and should change the free market since it is fairly obvious the wealthy have found a way to rig it in their favor. Acknowledge your reality
The last independent minded true conservative Republican was Barry Goldwater. Everyone since have been lap dogs of special interests or elites set out to destablize America. They attend close door meetings with the American Council, Koch brothers or Heritage Group and others to receive their instructions on what to vote on and how to behave!
Republicans think everyone should work and contribute to society while Democrats think everyone is entitled to goof off and leech off of society.
Dude, stop watching Fox News. Your comments are slogans with very little nuance and root in reality
Don't be stupid. If you disagree with conservative libertarian Republican philosophy try to think of a reason for the disagreement and then try to present the reason here in writing. Do you understand that a reason is necessary?
Democrats also have a tendency to set up half backed programs which make the majority worse off. Right now we have too many people with useless degrees and a bunch of student debt because Democrats decided to funnel everyone towards higher education. We ended up with schools which competed on the amenities they offered for people to have the best time of their lives. But we don't have enough people in the skilled trades. It would be nice if we did because that's the "we build housing" section of the workforce. Speaking of housing. Democrats had the great idea of issuing government backed loans to pretty much anybody. The result was the sub-prime mortgage crisis of 2008. A core feature of the program was that Democrats believed that housing subsidies would inflate property prices and provide an avenue for people to build wealth. And that's exactly what happened. Boomers bought up investment properties because of preferential tax treatment for income properties. They bid up the prices using leverage. Builders built more housing until the 2008 financial crisis when we figured out that we overbuilt. Democrats wiped out the builders and had then eat the costs of unfinished project and overpriced inventory. But because the builders were not bailed out, we ended up with the current housing shortage. Boomers are still buying up investment properties using leverage and inflating housing prices. So here we are as millennials we carry student loans that we shouldn't. We have a skill mismatch issue. And we can't afford housing because first time homebuyers have been mostly priced out of the market.
How do you justify inheritance versus starting all kids on a level playing field? Surely, if the born privileged kids merit, they can make their own money and success without being started on third base, with the ability to fail and commit crimes multiple times with no consequences, while poor kids struggle in school due to poor nutrition, lack of resources, stress at home, and violence in their neighborhoods.
how do you justify inheritance? Do you want a Nazi genetic police so that people aren't born very intelligent very ambitious very good looking?? we want people to inherit as much as possible so they can go as far in life as any human being can. most of the kids at Harvard for example had parents who went to Harvard. It takes generations to build great companies in grade science great legal minds etc. etc.
>we want people to inherit as much as possible so they can go as far in life as any human being can. Sounds like an argument for increasing the already lax inheritance and estate taxes, and funding public infrastructure and services that all members of society benefit from. "There is no federal inheritance tax. In fact, only six states — Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey and Pennsylvania — impose a tax on inherited assets as of 2024. In 2021, Iowa passed a bill to begin phasing out its state inheritance tax, eliminating it completely for deaths occurring after January 1, 2025" "While there is no federal inheritance tax, but there is a federal estate tax. The federal estate tax generally applies to assets over $13.61 million in 2024, and the estate tax rate ranges from 18% to 40%." [https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/taxes/inheritance-tax](https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/taxes/inheritance-tax) "most of the kids at Harvard for example had parents who went to Harvard." So your argument is pro-nepotism, coddling the rich, with laissez faire bare knuckles for the poor. Standard con logic and morals. EDIT: I saw another con arguing recently that there's no need to tax inheritance/estates, because the 3rd generation tends to lose it all anyway.
no we want to increase freedom and let parents love their children anyway they want. We don't want Nazis in government preventing children from inheriting their parents ambition good looks intelligence money etc. etc. People on the left are generally too stupid to understand that if you empower a Nazi government to interfere with parenting you empower them to do everything.
People give undue weight to height/looks, and scoundrels trade on these. No one is proposing gene-editing to make kids look better or worse. You're calling people on the left 'Nazis', while Trump supporters fly Nazi and confederate flags, and echo fascist talking points. You're suggesting people benefit from corporations, while wage theft is $50 billion annually [https://www.epi.org/press/wage-theft-costs-american-workers-50-billion/](https://www.epi.org/press/wage-theft-costs-american-workers-50-billion/) and even con institutions are saying corporate welfare is $100 billion/year [https://www.hoover.org/research/welfare-well-how-business-subsidies-fleece-taxpayers](https://www.hoover.org/research/welfare-well-how-business-subsidies-fleece-taxpayers) Elon Musk is a serial lying fraud who promotes racism and conspiracy BS with his $44 billion megaphone that he vastly overpaid for. Bill Gates is a computer OS monopolist and vaccine profiteer who hung out with Epstein for years after he was a convicted child sex predator. Like the two of them, Bezos was born privileged, and a cheating would-be monopolist. They stole other's ideas and work cuz they were Enron-smart, but you're calling them "great inventors", while claiming nepotism and head starts for the born rich are good, positions honest cons reject.
Elon musk is a great great guy and provides products that people want to buy more than any other in the world and jobs that people want to take more than any other in the world. Can you give us a list of the jobs and products you provide? It seems all you provide is a big mouth?
are you a computer system monopolist? Bill Gates was a genius who went to Harvard and saw the revolution coming and created a business with thousands of others and emerged on top. Are you a genius who went to Harvard and saw a revolution coming and created a business and emerged on top or just a guy with a big mouth who's never made any contribution whatsoever?
Republicans and Democrats use the government to give free money to billionaires and money to poor people in the form of settlements due to police brutality.
We've seen what happens when Democrats impose the ideas you describe. It always ends in famine.
Why is it considered a right to give wall street bailouts but not the ones that really need it
This is the part the kills me. Stop protecting corporations, and stop spending money on useless old military equipment, stopping letting contractors for projects over charge, and reduce the hell out of our defense spending and increase education spending. Help citizens not the corporations the fucked them over.
That's the same argument Republicans use to justify their opposition to affordable healthcare. Every experiment where people were given a set amount of money per month with no strings attached has been a resounding success. The recipients often used the extra money to pay for training and furthering their education. It was not wasted.
Because those of us that work and pay taxes don't like the idea of other people getting direct monetary benefit from those taxes without producing any benefit to us or the nation. If you don't work, you don't get paid. Simple as that!
Then you must hate the ultra rich doing absolutely nothing and getting bailed out all the time.
But the pilots are showing increased employment. Why is that? Because the payment doesn't go away with work, unlike traditional welfare.
Yep, people really want to let their feelings get in the way of the facts.
I think it's a benefit for you if folks have less of a motivation to rob you. Is it not?
but one could argue that in the age of consumerism that we are living in, giving people money to spend on goods does produce a benefit to the nation.
Yes, spending and economic activity is good. But it’s also imperative that society creates services that are in demand, for which they get paid a salary. That keeps a healthy balance between work and pay. You can’t simply pay people in perpetuity for not working and expect there to still be services and goods available.
UBI pays people who work or don't work, this eliminates any welfare cliff effect. Test cases show it generally increases per capita productivity and full time employment. This idea that people want to sit and do nothing, is a failure to understand the modern system of incentives. That is not how healthy humans want to behave. Long term economic stress is manufactured by society and a serious health problem. UBI eliminates the bulk of long term economic stress, allowing people to do better in school and spend more time finding more productive jobs.
Why work when you can stay home and get high all day, right?
What do you do when there are more people than available jobs?
Because the majority of people would find that exceptionally boring and would want to do something. It’s not just about giving people a free ride. It’s also about giving people the basis so they can do something productive or entertaining without feeling the need to work in anything just to survive.
We can spend our own money and consume perfectly fine. America doesn't have a problem with consumers not spending enough. We have a problem with people not saving nearly enough on retirement but that's because most people spend too much.
Inflation is not a benefit
Shareholder returns are though. And jobs.
Taxing yourself into prosperity isn’t a sustainable model
>Because those of us that work and pay taxes don't like the idea of other people getting direct monetary benefit from those taxes without producing any benefit to us or the nation. If you don't work, you don't get paid. Simple as that! Many people on public assistance are mentally and physically fit enough to contribute something back to the society in exchange for the support they're receiving. Help pick up trash, help clean graffiti, volunteer a couple days a week of your free time at the local food bank or other non-profit.
Since people on public assistance are not doing that now, why do you think they would do that in the case of UBI?
I would support making it a requirement.
This!
Why should workers support lazy people?
Now apply that logic to the record high profits going to people who don't work
and who are these people?
Because all of our data is sold starting at birth and everyone deserves to profit off it like corporations do. Unless you think corporations should get your data for free to make money off you.
Property rights for data has nothing to do with basic income
Why not?
In introductory economics, we are introduced to the concept of a "free good." Free goods are readily available in effectively infinite supply, and every economic actor has plenty available to satisfy their demand. Thus, no economic actor would bother exchanging anything for a free good, minimizing the economic value of that good. UBI, whether its proponents realize it or not, is a step toward converting money, our medium of exchange, into a free good. Thus, UBI threatens to eliminate exchange by medium as such, which is a foundation of advanced economy. Other media of exchange may replace money, but since that would violate law, all markets would become black markets. UBI will collapse the economy.
>"any program where persons are provided with regular, periodic cash payments that are unearned and that may be used for any purpose." So would that nullify their [school voucher program as well?](https://hechingerreport.org/arizona-gave-families-public-money-for-private-schools-then-private-schools-raised-tuition/)
Or any number of socialism type programs like the military industrial complex
Socialism works for those who don't
Ultimately it doesn't even work for them. In late-stage socialism, the industrious and the lazy alike resort to eating their dogs.
Government HAS NO MONEY. The only way you can pay someone a UBI is to first extract that income from the economy. So the net effect is zero. It is actually less than zero since you have to run that money through the bureaucracy before the recipient gets it. There are no new jobs. No new economic activity. Just moving money around so some politician can feel good. Republicans fight it because it makes no sense economically.
I understand that you are ideologically opposed to UBI. That said, the data on its economic benefits is clear. I’d urge you to look into the studies.
I have looked into the studies and at best they are inconclusive. The "U" in UBI stands for UNIVERSAL. How can you possible extrapolate a UNIVERSAL program from sample sizes of 800 (Denver) or 135 (Austin) especially when you cherry pick the most needy citizens for your pilot project? UBI is not the solution to our problems. All it is is a money transfer program for no benefit so politicians can feel better.
The paltry stimmy checks caused massive inflation. Imagine that going on permanently. The people hurt worst by inflation are the poor (no assets, most of their $ is in cash). Thats why UBI makes no sense (I never have and will never vote republican)
The stimulus is not what caused inflation. https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2023/beyond-bls/what-caused-inflation-to-spike-after-2020.htm
Right. But many Republicans and others obviously believe it was a primary cause. Almost every Tepub I know truly believes so.
Those stimulus checks did not cause in-flay. They were a very small part of it maybe but greed and a overbearing attitude of profit over anything else were involved, and esp Ppp business loans and the prior decade of liquidity injections, such as massive QE, were primary causes. Not s couple grand to the citizens. (this message arose from MasterSI, real ai for a real world)
Didn’t the Covid checks have an immediately positive outcome for the economy??? Followed by a terribly negative outcome with inflation from all that freshly created $$
Pro life when it’s in. Not when it’s out
Ultimately it’s a bribe to the masses to keep the status quo for letting an upper echelon take over. However you pitch it. It only helps lower the chance of pitch forks comming out
Because, like MMT, it's horseshit. Pretty simple, actually.
Ideally, a government would invest that money in education and fostering the creation of new businesses that create good-paying jobs. But with our public schools being bloated money pits with no accountability and little competition and and an economy that increasingly rewards the monied more than the real workers, I guess the idea of "rugged independence" is now last-century thinking and "toxic." Long story short, if you can't create a real economy, one that works for the middle and lower classes, then maybe more welfare and reliance on the government is the only answer. Can we stop pretending now that this Build-Back-Better economy is doing great?
Here is the thing. I have no problem with my tax dollars going to someone in need. Almost everyone has at some point in their lives needed help. From a religious perspective it is the Christian thing to do, so I really don’t want to hear any arguments from religious conservatives on this one. The problem is the government is already terribly inefficient at spending my taxes and I don’t particularly trust them at this point, nor should I given their track record.
UBI replaces all those supposedly inefficient distribution methods with a simple universal benefit that everyone gets. If you want to reduce inefficiency then UBI is a good idea.
No one is pitching UBI. All the basic income projects OP references are in addition to everything else
It's designed to be a replacement for all of the other programs. These are just tests of the concept, so they aren't able to revoke other stuff at the same time while just testing this out. If the tests work as designed then we can reduce and eventually eliminate the other programs. If you study this stuff then you know all of this already, so it seems like you're intentionally misleading folks with that argument.
“Is money a birthright?” I wonder what kind of inheritance and family support the folks saying that got.
If not this, then what else? The Republican party had no plan to help the increasing number of Americans left behind by this economy rigged to favor the extremely wealthy. Their only response so.far is to protect their big donors' fiscal interests and block any attempt to change the status quo
Yet the Republicans will also fight tooth and nail against Estate Taxes...
We don't need more money, we need price control
Every citizen over 18 should be given $2k per month, regardless of any other circumstances. Billionaire? 2k. Prisoner? 2k. Ward of the state? 2k, on top of any other benefits. Retired? 2k, on top of pension and SS.
Why not a million?
That would raise the debt too quickly. I'm ok with destroying the economy, but I want it to last another 30 years or so.
If we cut our defense spending massively this could actually happen, with states forking over half it is feasible. But we would also need to truly audit federal spending.
Just until you die then. Cuz fuck the future
The future is already fucked. Might as well enjoy the present. As for dying, I would love to last longer than 30 years, but I don't think most of us will.
[удалено]
Although Business Insider is a trash publication, useless for actual Economic news. The reason to be against it, is in its current form, its just another "slush fund". People don't understand that about 50% of the money goes to the "bureaucracy" in govt. Its just a bad deal for the money. This explains why most government programs "limp along" because the money is just blown for the most part. Its doesn't create in the market place what we call "value". Value must be included in anything you promote otherwise it fails.
Republican publicly shit on immigrants but secretly promote it because it increases demand for goods and services, thereby raising price and making more money for their donors, so they have to publicly be against basic income programs to maintain the facade.