Universal basic income trial in the US

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Ok. I think I understand.

I think the ideological obstacle for me to agree, though, is that the small-scale democracy model shares most (maybe all) of the same qualities that you're talking about.

The group, as a whole, decides what to plant, where to plant it, and who will tend to it. Only after that model reached a level of sustainability did the shift to private ownership even make sense.

Those competing human characteristics - greater good and desire for freedom - are what Marx described in his work. There is a fundamental tension there.

It is also why (IMHO) the movement toward socialism is so slow. So far, it hasn't appropriately struck that balance. People always want to be free. They only work together when there's a clear benefit to doing so.

Historically, socialism has not been able to establish any real upside.

Right. For socialism to work, it requires people to set aside their competing self interests. I must work for the greater good. I must surrender my desire to enjoy the fruits of my labor so that others that have failed (or failed to sufficiently try) can have them instead. But human nature always gets in the way.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Let's call a spade a spade instead of quibbling over whether if fits into an economic philosophy...

That's part of the problem. You are using words detached from their meaning, which means the conversation stalls or spins because you aren't saying what you think you are saying. I honestly don't care if people disagree with my opinions. I do care when bad information is used to prop up their opinions. Two people can look at the same thing and come to different conclusions, but rewriting history or distorting the facts is simply cheating everyone. Likewise, using words disconnected from their meaning makes the debate useless. That's what I mean that to call it socialism makes the word so broad as to be useless.

You can, of course, disagree with a UBI. I'm not certain it'll work, either, I just think it's an experiment worth trying. I was the same with legalization of marijuana. I don't know what all the affects will be, but I know what we're doing now isn't working that great, so let's try something different. I disagree that we let people be locked into what amounts to a caste system and that if we value a middle class, things will have to change long term. As the wage gap continues to widen and as automation and changes in the market reduce available man-hours of labor, this is one potential solution.

 

[Tombs]

Let's call a spade a spade instead of quibbling over whether if fits into an economic philosophy or not and I'll give you a lesson -- it's theft. It's using the government to take property of another that earned it to give to someone else that didn't. Using the government to do the same thing that you or I would go to jail for does not change the fact it's theft. You're just outsourcing it with your votes.

Taxation is theft by that metric.

All governments are immoral, all government programs are oppression and evil.

I'm not as radical as you are, sorry.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I'm personally in favor of UBI after exploring the various things it could achieve, as well as abolish.

1.) Implement it as an amendment, guaranteeing it to all, no exceptions except 18 years or older. Set the amount in concrete, can never be manipulated through legislation, and is always tied to inflation.
2.) Abolish every social safety net, as well as social security, medicare, etc. Abolish healthcare subsidies, and all these various benefit program subsidies.


What will this do? Well it'll cost the same amount except you'll have quite a bit more money in your pocket with no strings attached.

It'll also teach people responsibility, because if they refuse to use their UBI to buy health insurance, and they get sick, that's now their problem and not ours. We provided them enough money to cover it, it's not our responsibility to force them to spend it wisely.

It'll also open up the job market, so that it's much easier to find a job as you'll no longer be competing with people simply trying to survive.

It would also be the end of the cliff known as the welfare system, that punishes people for trying to get out of poverty.

There are several budget-neutral programs that do most of what you state. I'm not aware of any that attempt to lock in the rate, and actually there are some that give a percentage of an "adult portion" to those under 18. I'm not sure on the logistics there, I haven't dug that deep.

The issue I see with ditching medicare is unless you force insurance companies to take any customer and at a set rate, I'm not sure how that's viable for the elderly and disabled. UBI isn't remotely close enough to cover medical care, and affordable insurance (if there is such a thing) is tied to employment. The disabled or elderly then are either denied medical care or their unpaid-for medical care just burdens the system that has to treat them anyway. That's another system that'll have to change, but I've no idea what the right answer there is.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

That's part of the problem. You are using words detached from their meaning, which means the conversation stalls or spins because you aren't saying what you think you are saying. I honestly don't care if people disagree with my opinions. I do care when bad information is used to prop up their opinions. Two people can look at the same thing and come to different conclusions, but rewriting history or distorting the facts is simply cheating everyone. Likewise, using words disconnected from their meaning makes the debate useless. That's what I mean that to call it socialism makes the word so broad as to be useless.

You can, of course, disagree with a UBI. I'm not certain it'll work, either, I just think it's an experiment worth trying. I was the same with legalization of marijuana. I don't know what all the affects will be, but I know what we're doing now isn't working that great, so let's try something different. I disagree that we let people be locked into what amounts to a caste system and that if we value a middle class, things will have to change long term. As the wage gap continues to widen and as automation and changes in the market reduce available man-hours of labor, this is one potential solution.

And you're being pedantic. You knew the point I was making. My take on your arguments is that you're trying to diminish the effects of their socialism-like execution on their colony. That's ok. I know you tend to be more sympathetic to such ideas where I'm a hard liner and I tend to rail against them and do not want to even let the camel's nose under the tent. My world view sees that set up and execution as a key problem. You, not so much. That's ok. We disagree. I can live with it.

 

[Tombs]

There are several budget-neutral programs that do most of what you state. I'm not aware of any that attempt to lock in the rate, and actually there are some that give a percentage of an "adult portion" to those under 18. I'm not sure on the logistics there, I haven't dug that deep.

The issue I see with ditching medicare is unless you force insurance companies to take any customer and at a set rate, I'm not sure how that's viable for the elderly and disabled. UBI isn't remotely close enough to cover medical care, and affordable insurance (if there is such a thing) is tied to employment. The disabled or elderly then are either denied medical care or their unpaid-for medical care just burdens the system that has to treat them anyway. That's another system that'll have to change, but I've no idea what the right answer there is.

Let the "invisible hand" of the free market take care of the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions.

According to some here, the invisible hand will save them, so lets experiment.

And you're being pedantic. You knew the point I was making. My take on your arguments is that you're trying to diminish the effects of their socialism-like execution on their colony. That's ok. I know you tend to be more sympathetic to such ideas where I'm a hard liner and I tend to rail against them and do not want to even let the camel's nose under the tent. My world view sees that set up and execution as a key problem. You, not so much. That's ok. We disagree. I can live with it.

Use any word you like, but don't expect to be taken seriously when you don't even understand or accept what the first and most important qualifier is to call something socialism.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Let the "invisible hand" of the free market take care of the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions.

According to some here, the invisible hand will save them, so lets experiment.



Use any word you like, but don't expect to be taken seriously when you don't even understand or accept what the first and most important qualifier is to call something socialism.

So it's either the federal government takes care of the elderly and indigent or they die?

I don't need to be lectured to by you about understanding anything.

 

[Tombs]

So it's either the federal government takes care of the elderly and indigent or they die?

I don't need to be lectured to by you about understanding anything.

Tell me the economic incentive to cover a 70+ year old with cancer.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

And you're being pedantic. You knew the point I was making. You are simply trying to diminish the effects of their socialism-like execution on their colony. That's ok. I know you tend to be more sympathetic to such ideas where I'm a hard liner and I tend to rail against them and do not want to even let the camel's nose under the tent. My world view sees that set up and execution as a key problem. You, not so much. That's ok. We disagree. I can live with it.

No...I thought you believed the pilgrims were socialist. Especially when you say things like they all got equal shares regardless of work, HTF am I to know what you're thinking and respond to that vs what you are posting?

I'm obviously not the only one who didn't read your mind, either. Again, I have no problem with you having a different opinion. I know you don't know me in real life, but I am extremely literally minded. Words have meaning. I expect when someone uses a word, they know that meaning and are using it to represent that meaning.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

No...I thought you believed the pilgrims were socialist. Especially when you say things like they all got equal shares regardless of work, HTF am I to know what you're thinking and respond to that vs what you are posting?

I'm obviously not the only one who didn't read your mind, either. Again, I have no problem with you having a different opinion. I know you don't know me in real life, but I am extremely literally minded. Words have meaning. I expect when someone uses a word, they know that meaning and are using it to represent that meaning.

Right here on this continent. For example the pilgrims first started out their colony as a socialist endeavor. It wasn't until they found out human nature generally dictates that when you don't have to work to eat, people tend to not work, and a bunch of them died, they changed course and put people in charge of their own business.

I see where your misunderstanding originated. I was always talking about the effects of their socialist allocation of resources and the socializing of failures -- in the colony. You took it back to the founding of the corporation or whatever you called it. I was simply talking about how human nature affected their ideas for their early, pre-socialist, socialism. I wasn't using the word endeavor as a description of their financial backers and their agreement but of their time and work in the colony.

 

[Tombs]

Also I'd like to point out to people here, because socialism is thrown around WAY too often.

Socialism is the community (public) ownership of the means of production, yes it can be many other things, but that is the requirement to start calling something socialism. That factor must be satisfied before anything else matters. Capitalism is the polar opposite of socialism.

Welfare is taking things from one group to give to another group. This is the word you are looking for. Welfare is not socialism nor does it even have anything in common with socialism. It is an entirely different ordeal. Welfare almost requires a capitalist system to exist to support it, otherwise it would have almost no means of funding.

While they are not polar opposites, they have nothing in common.

(Socialism is almost unheard of and most economic majors will get pedantic over calling socialism in the world socialism. They prefer to call it state socialism, because the state generally owns the means of production in most countries where it is applicable. True community ownership of the means of production is not something I can readily point to in the real world. Generally you substitute community for the state. Sounds awfully similar to the US automotive industry, doesn't it?)

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I see where your misunderstanding originated. I was always talking about the effects of their socialist allocation of resources and the socializing of failures -- in the colony. You took it back to the founding of the corporation or whatever you called it. I was simply talking about how human nature affected their ideas for their early, pre-socialist, socialism. I wasn't using the word endeavor as a description of their financial backers and their agreement but of their time and work in the colony.

Ok, so now we can focus on that. If you'd like to reduce "allocation of resources" to "food" then I think we're mostly in agreement on the facts. There were a multitude of other resources that actually kept the colony afloat financially and as far as I can tell they were not allocated in the same fashion as food. Beaver pelts, IIRC, feeding the hat industry in Europe. I don't remember if they were one of the whaling colonies or not.

And again, I don't know if we can attribute that to human nature as much as the other factors. No matter how dedicated to work you are, if you're in the throes of malaria you aren't getting much done. I find it rather unlikely that people willing to take such risks and face such hardship got here and just decided to not work. Particularly since colonies funded by the Virginia Company, where indentured servants worked a set number of years (8, maybe?) and then got their own land if they performed their labor well, had the same issues with people new to the continent. Going from a near-slave to a landowner is pretty big motivation to work, especially given the lack of economic mobility they had "back home" in England, etc.

 

[actaeon277]

I'm personally in favor of UBI after exploring the various things it could achieve, as well as abolish.

1.) Implement it as an amendment, guaranteeing it to all, no exceptions except 18 years or older. Set the amount in concrete, can never be manipulated through legislation, and is always tied to inflation.
2.) Abolish every social safety net, as well as social security, medicare, etc. Abolish healthcare subsidies, and all these various benefit program subsidies.


What will this do? Well it'll cost the same amount except you'll have quite a bit more money in your pocket with no strings attached.

It'll also teach people responsibility, because if they refuse to use their UBI to buy health insurance, and they get sick, that's now their problem and not ours. We provided them enough money to cover it, it's not our responsibility to force them to spend it wisely.

It'll also open up the job market, so that it's much easier to find a job as you'll no longer be competing with people simply trying to survive.

It would also be the end of the cliff known as the welfare system, that punishes people for trying to get out of poverty.

Not sure I want to jump in, looks kinda mean in here.
But I would like to ask, how are you going to accomplish the bolded lines?
The 2nd amendment seems pretty set in concrete, and look at what's happening to it.
and ANYTHING can be changed or ignored.

 

[T.Lex]

So it's either the federal government takes care of the elderly and indigent or they die?

Wait.

There's a HUGE gap between those.

For instance, back a couple generations, multigenerational living arrangements were the norm. People took care of their own because there was a moral obligation.

Granted, that's probably not even in the top 5 of moral degradation, but it is still a thing.

On top of that, you have more affluent people charitably supporting hospitals and elder centers and orphanages. Don't see much of that, either.

 

[Tombs]

Not sure I want to jump in, looks kinda mean in here.
But I would like to ask, how are you going to accomplish the bolded lines?
The 2nd amendment seems pretty set in concrete, and look at what's happening to it.
and ANYTHING can be changed or ignored.

Legalese has evolved over the years, I think it's reasonably possible to make a number value set in stone.

 

[actaeon277]

Legalese has evolved over the years, I think it's reasonably possible to make a number value set in stone.

I don't think it is.

 

[Tombs]

I don't think it is.

You can add some legalese making it a felony to attempt to alter the amount on the grounds of bribery.

I'd say it's a lot easier to lock that down than firearms. People can argue over what arms means, it's kind of hard to argue what $1000(adjusted for inflation over time) means.

Once the optimal value was figured out, I doubt there'd be much desire to change it as the economic growth resulting from the system function correctly would be astonishing.

 

[T.Lex]

The dollar value can be indexed lots of ways. That's really not a difficult drafting proposition.

In our society, though, laws - even constitutional amendments are not written in stone. Thick sand, mostly.

There are governments that have tried to attach penalties to elected officials changing laws. It gets tricky.

 

[actaeon277]

When I was a munchkin, middle class families had 1 car, 1 TV, and a house phone.
No computer.
No cell.
No internet.
Families didn't eat out all the time.
etc.

then, people started getting more.
then, people started "needing" more.

Definitions of what is "needed" has changed, definitions of the minimum people need has changed.

So, when things change more, the media will cry and scream that families are being cheated because they can't get what they "need".
Something needs to be done.
What do you think is going to happen?
The law will be changed.
The new law will say the people changing the law can't be charged.

On and on.

Nothing is stagnant.
Except a dead entity.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

For instance, back a couple generations, multigenerational living arrangements were the norm. People took care of their own because there was a moral obligation.

Families were larger, people didn't live as long and a jar of leeches was cheaper than chemotherapy is.

People used to have pensions and retiree health care, too, but those obligations have mostly disappeared.

Very few people have the funds for access to modern healthcare on their own, even with a family.

[FONT=&quot]Second, access to effective cancer treatment, patented or otherwise, is limited in developing countries. Most patients pay out-of-pocket for most of their medicines, and high prices put drugs beyond their reach. Cancers that are preventable or treatable in wealthy countries are death sentences in the developing world. Cervical cancer is largely preventable in developed countries with the human papillomavirus vaccine; in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, it is the leading cause of cancer death among women. Ninety percent of children with leukemia in high-income countries will be cured, but 90 percent of those with that disease in low-income countries will die from it.[/FONT]

I'd rather we didn't see those numbers in the US.