Universal Basic Income (UBI)
Poll
 | 6 votes (21.42%) | ||
| | 1 vote (3.57%) | ||
| | 9 votes (32.14%) | ||
| | 12 votes (42.85%) |
28 members have voted
Quote: rxwine
Every time someone substitutes stealing for taxes, they should announce they don't live in the real world, but in a world of fairy tales.
When someone takes something from another person at the point of a gun it is theft.
Quote: Rigondeaux
Several examples have been given but obviously there is a reason wealthy countries full of successful businesses have things like roads, scools, health and building inspectors, fire departments, courts, etc.
When Somalia takes over the global economy, give me a call
It does not matter if the money is used for something good, it is still theft. John Gotti put on fireworks shows with free food and donated all kinds of things to the neighborhood. The money was still stolen (probably the food he gave away was stolen, too.)
BTW: There is surely as much theft in Somalia in the form of "taxes" that just go to the local warlord. So that argument is, well, kind of invalid.
Are taxes necessary? Sure. However, I wish that more in the government took the attitude that they are working with stolen money, so treat it right. What we have is over half of our reps taking that attitude that it is all their money, and we get the crumbs they let us keep. If you doubt me, look at how many people say that "the rich" or "corporations" *got something" when they received a tax break.
All they "got" was to keep some more of their own money. No different than when Jack told his crew to let Walter keep one barrel of his own money. Jack did not give Walter $10 million, he just stole $10 million less.
And yes, taxes are taken at the point of a gun. Stop paying them, see what eventually happens.
Quote: AZDuffman
It does not matter if the money is used for something good, it is still theft. John Gotti put on fireworks shows with free food and donated all kinds of things to the neighborhood. The money was still stolen (probably the food he gave away was stolen, too.)
BTW: There is surely as much theft in Somalia in the form of "taxes" that just go to the local warlord. So that argument is, well, kind of invalid.
Are taxes necessary? Sure. However, I wish that more in the government took the attitude that they are working with stolen money, so treat it right. What we have is over half of our reps taking that attitude that it is all their money, and we get the crumbs they let us keep. If you doubt me, look at how many people say that "the rich" or "corporations" *got something" when they received a tax break.
All they "got" was to keep some more of their own money. No different than when Jack told his crew to let Walter keep one barrel of his own money. Jack did not give Walter $10 million, he just stole $10 million less.
And yes, taxes are taken at the point of a gun. Stop paying them, see what eventually happens.
You're stepping on your own position. If taxes are necessary it's hard for them to be theft. What other forms of theft are necessary for society to function?
Moreover, mandatory payment for services isn't theft just because it is mandatory and could boil down to coersion. It isn't theft when you go see a movie and have to pay for it. Even if you wind up getting arrested.
This is the same reasoning used to expand the definitions of rape and murder to things that are not rape and murder. I'm sure if you were an angry woman instead of an angry man, you'd think sex with verbal consent after 2 beers was rape.
Taxes are taxes and theft is theft. Words mean things.
Quote: OnceDearQuote: NathanI may be being naive but why not have the government take out some of the pay from say a 6 million winning Lottery ticket and add 43 percent tax? 33 percent standard tax, and 10 percent to help a lot of adults in the U.S? I put on my math hat and it seems that 10 percent of 6 million is roughly $600,000. So why not give 600,000 adults a $1,000 each?
Serious question from a UK user. I hope Nathan can answer....
In the UK, we use the period (.) as a decimal marker and a comma(,) as a thousands marker and for currency, when written with a decimal marker, we would usually have none or two digits to the right of the separator. Eg, I might write 'one thousand dollars' as $1,000 or $1,000.00 and rarely as $1,000.000
However, I understand that different countries have different conventions. I thought that in the US, you used comma for thousands, like we Brits do.
I do note that in the '600,000' part of the quote, Nathan has apparently used the comma as a thousands separator, unless he meant 600 people and no fractional people)
So, two questions for Nathan:
Did your post mean to suggest sending those six hundred thousand adults one thousand dollars each?
Or were you proposing to send them $1 each with no thousandths of a dollar.
Depending on the answer to that... What's the point of sending them one lousy dollar?
or
How would you get 600000 x 1000 out of a pot of money with 600000 in it?
Thanks in advance.
OD
I once again did the math wrong. To the almighty edit button! :D I should put $600,000 and divided it by 100 and get $6000. ;)
Quote: RigondeauxYou're stepping on your own position. If taxes are necessary it's hard for them to be theft.
Why? It is not mutually exclusive at all.
Quote:Moreover, mandatory payment for services isn't theft just because it is mandatory and could boil down to coersion. It isn't theft when you go see a movie and have to pay for it.
Last I checked, no movie theater makes it mandatory to see a movie.
Quote:Taxes are taxes and theft is theft. Words mean things.
Taking something by force is theft. Even the mafia uses the term "tax" to make it sound more palatable.
You are just conditioned to it. Ever see a young person who gets their first paycheck and the concept of taxes has not been explained? For some reason, this reaction is way worse with women. I have seen women go bonkers when they got a bonus that triggered extra withholdings. They looked at it as stolen money.
Taxes may be a fact of life. But they are theft.
Quote: Nathan-After much editing,I may be being naive but why not have the government take out some of the pay from say a 6 million winning Lottery ticket and add 43 percent tax? 33 percent standard tax, and 10 percent to help a lot of adults in the U.S? I put on my math hat and it seems that 10 percent of 6 million is roughly $600,000. So why not have the Government put $600,000 in a Charity for really needy families? Let's say give 100 needy families 60,000, the equivalent of about three adults incomes for a year. I know winners would be like,"I'm not having $600,000 taken from my winnings to help people I don't even know!" But it would help the United States a lot. And it would be mandatory in my hypothesis, so the winners would have no choice.
100 needy families : $60,000 each.
That's $6,000,000 by my very rough back of the envelope estimation. Impressive out of a budget of $600,000
In a later post, Nathan wrote...
Quote: nathanI once again did the math wrong. To the almighty edit button! :D I should put $600,000 and divided it by 100 and get $6000. ;)
Maybe Nathan, but this is flogging a dead horse. Shredding a lottery win with an extra 10% tax and enriching 100 families to the tune of $6,000
This is not going to make much of a dent in America's poverty problems, is it?
Nathan, are you really Steve Mnuchin or are you just angling to be his replacement?
Quote: OnceDearHere for posterity will remain Nathan's 'wisdom', out of reach of further editing by her.
Quote: Nathan-After much editing,I may be being naive but why not have the government take out some of the pay from say a 6 million winning Lottery ticket and add 43 percent tax? 33 percent standard tax, and 10 percent to help a lot of adults in the U.S? I put on my math hat and it seems that 10 percent of 6 million is roughly $600,000. So why not have the Government put $600,000 in a Charity for really needy families? Let's say give 100 needy families 60,000, the equivalent of about three adults incomes for a year. I know winners would be like,"I'm not having $600,000 taken from my winnings to help people I don't even know!" But it would help the United States a lot. And it would be mandatory in my hypothesis, so the winners would have no choice.
100 needy families : $60,000 each.
That's $6,000,000 by my very rough back of the envelope estimation. Impressive out of a budget of $600,000
In a later post, Nathan wrote...
Maybe Nathan, but this is flogging a dead horse. Shredding a lottery win with an extra 10% tax and enriching 100 families to the tune of $6,000
This is not going to make much of a dent in America's poverty problems, is it?
Nathan, are you really Steve Mnuchin or are you just angling to be his replacement?
I tried to edit my post once again when I realized that I should have said $600,000 goes to help 100 families at $6,000 each, not $60,000, but the edit button was gone when I planned to edit it again to the right amount this time. Drats! ;) Who is Steve Mnuchin? :/
Quote: AZDuffmanWhen someone takes something from another person at the point of a gun it is theft.
It does not matter if the money is used for something good, it is still theft. John Gotti put on fireworks shows with free food and donated all kinds of things to the neighborhood. The money was still stolen (probably the food he gave away was stolen, too.)
BTW: There is surely as much theft in Somalia in the form of "taxes" that just go to the local warlord. So that argument is, well, kind of invalid.
Are taxes necessary? Sure. However, I wish that more in the government took the attitude that they are working with stolen money, so treat it right. What we have is over half of our reps taking that attitude that it is all their money, and we get the crumbs they let us keep. If you doubt me, look at how many people say that "the rich" or "corporations" *got something" when they received a tax break.
All they "got" was to keep some more of their own money. No different than when Jack told his crew to let Walter keep one barrel of his own money. Jack did not give Walter $10 million, he just stole $10 million less.
And yes, taxes are taken at the point of a gun. Stop paying them, see what eventually happens.
Corporations do not pay taxes even if they send money to the feds.
They just add those payments to the price of the goods and services they sell you and me.
So when all you lefties complain about a corporate tax cut you are really saying you want to be charged more for things you buy from those evil corporations.
There really is no such thing as a free lunch.
Quote: AZDuffmanWhen someone takes something from another person at the point of a gun it is theft.
So what?
As soon as you know you've been benefitting from stolen money, but you don't return it, you're complicit and also a thief. You were certainly benefitting from taxes before you ever made a significant contribution/ roads police protection, etc. You were aware of it long after your innocent period when you were too young to know any better. So you're a pot calling the kettle black.
You're a thief, and no better. See how that works.
Wouldn't a better solution be to fix the loopholes in our current system? There are loopholes that allow higher income people to pay less taxes. And there are all these welfare type programs. If there is abuse in these safety net programs deal with that. Doesn't just start handling out money to everyone. Last I heard this country already has significant debt.
Quote: MrBoWouldn't a better solution be to fix the loopholes in our current system? There are loopholes that allow higher income people to pay less taxes.
Really? Where? I know several people who would like to know them as most are paying north of 40%.
Quote: AZDuffmanReally? Where? I know several people who would like to know them as most are paying north of 40%.
Really. Are you saying some rich people don't pay their fair share of taxes?
Go stand in the corner and chant MAGA for an hour or two.
Quote: NathanQuote: OnceDearNathan, are you really Steve Mnuchin or are you just angling to be his replacement?
Who is Steve Mnuchin? :/
Really?
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Who+is+Steve+Mnuchin%3F&oq=Who+is+Steve+Mnuchin
I am conservative and I love this idea.
The one thing that would probably stay is unemployment, since that is paid for by employers.
This would be the opposite of laziness. It would encourage people to work more to build additional income.
Quote: billryanReally. Are you saying some rich people don't pay their fair share of taxes?
Go stand in the corner and chant MAGA for an hour or two.
?
I am saying they pay far more than their fair share, and that they would love to hear about the "tax loopholes" MrBo suggested are available.
Quote: GandlerI agree with this. Cut off all Welfare and Housing programs, and UBI would pay for itself. If people cannot survive on 1500 a month, they were not meant to survive. And no increase, I dont care how many kids they have.
I am conservative and I love this idea.
The one thing that would probably stay is unemployment, since that is paid for by employers.
This would be the opposite of laziness. It would encourage people to work more to build additional income.
Why wouldn't the kids get their own basic allowance?
Are you really suggesting a woman with seven kids would get the same as one with a single child? Why punish the kids?
Quote: AZDuffmanThis is the Elizabeth Warren/Barack Obama "YOU DIDN'T BUILD THAT! SOMEONE ELSE DID!" argument.
And it is silly.
If the IHS system created wealth then everyone would have gotten equal wealth. That did not happen.
The "YOU DID NOT BUILD THAT" line was insulting when they said it and it is insulting now.
You are building a strawman to argue with, because I didn't say "YOU DID NOT BUILD THAT". I don't even know what you are referring to.
So I'll pose my question differently. How do you propose that large scale infrastructure projects, such as the IHS, get built and maintained without taxation?
Quote: billryanWhy wouldn't the kids get their own basic allowance?
Are you really suggesting a woman with seven kids would get the same as one with a single child? Why punish the kids?
They will get their income when they become working age. Otherwise it will go back to the issues with the current entitlement society. If you cant feed 7 kids, don't have them. If you could and some major life altering event (husband was killed and did not have life insurance, or you lost your job, both very rare), then put them into foster care.
Most single mothers that have never been married in their life have that many kids for one reason.... (and it is not because they like kids.....)
Quote: billryanWhy wouldn't the kids get their own basic allowance?
Are you really suggesting a woman with seven kids would get the same as one with a single child? Why punish the kids?
Kids are an interesting and somewhat difficult problem wherever you are on political spectrum. You probably get more out of them as member's of society, if you don't shortchange them, by punishing the parents for creating an unnecessary financial burden. OTOH, it's not good to reward adults for creating more financial burden than they can support either.
Quote: billryanWhy wouldn't the kids get their own basic allowance?
Are you really suggesting a woman with seven kids would get the same as one with a single child? Why punish the kids?
I would say that you do not get the $1500/mo basic income until you are 18, and a household would receive something like $400/mo extra for each child under 18. I'm just spitballing numbers.
I would tread carefully with any sort of rules/exceptions/additions like this, because any small complexity adds to the administrative overhead, which IMO is one of the major problems that UBI would solve.
Quote: gamerfreakYou are building a strawman to argue with, because I didn't say "YOU DID NOT BUILD THAT". I don't even know what you are referring to.
If you do not refer what I am talking about please google it. Warren and Obama famously said it. Your comment is taking the same stance they did,
Quote:So I'll pose my question differently. How do you propose that large scale infrastructure projects, such as the IHS, get built and maintained without taxation?
I never said we can have no taxation. I said taxes are theft. If more people realized this we would have less people crying to raise (other people's) taxes. Government would treat tax dollars better.
Quote: AZDuffmanWhy? It is not mutually exclusive at all.
Last I checked, no movie theater makes it mandatory to see a movie.
Taking something by force is theft. Even the mafia uses the term "tax" to make it sound more palatable.
You are just conditioned to it. Ever see a young person who gets their first paycheck and the concept of taxes has not been explained? For some reason, this reaction is way worse with women. I have seen women go bonkers when they got a bonus that triggered extra withholdings. They looked at it as stolen money.
Taxes may be a fact of life. But they are theft.
You don't have to see a movie. You don't have to live here and reap all the benifits.
"Taking something by force" is not the definition of theft. It's a definition you made up. If you want to create and use a language called Duffish I can't stop you. But i can point out that it's not english.
I'll also point out that if you hire someeone to paint your house, the money will eventually be "taken from you buy force" if you refuse to pay. There are countless other examples. Child support. Eviction and repossession. Traffic tickets. If you create or possess something illegal, like child porn, meth or anthrax. In all of these cases something will be taken from you be force.
If there were no taxes, people would take things from you all the time as there would be no prevention of it. But sometimes they would do it stealthily. I guess if someone takes your belongings as you sleep it is not theft, as no force is envolved.
English seems like the more effective language.
Quote: RigondeauxYou don't have to see a movie. You don't have to live here and reap all the benifits.
"Taking something by force" is not the definition of theft. It's a definition you made up. If you want to create and use a language called Duffish I can't stop you. But i can point out that it's not english.
I'll also point out that if you hire someeone to paint your house, the money will eventually be "taken from you buy force" if you refuse to pay. There are countless other examples. Child support. Eviction and repossession. Traffic tickets. If you create or possess something illegal, like child porn, meth or anthrax. In all of these cases something will be taken from you be force.
If there were no taxes, people would take things from you all the time as there would be no prevention of it. But sometimes they would do it stealthily. I guess if someone takes your belongings as you sleep it is not theft, as no force is envolved.
English seems like the more effective language.
English is the most effective language. But I cannot follow what you are trying to say. You made the movie example, then agree with me it is faulty. Then you go in circles from there. Sorry that you cannot see taxes are theft. Gentle theft, but theft. Government requires most people to have your view. I will stick with my more realistic one. Try to enjoy the rest of your weekend as I am done with this line of discussion for now as there are too many faulty points in your last reply.
Quote: AZDuffmanEnglish is the most effective language. But I cannot follow what you are trying to say. You made the movie example, then agree with me it is faulty. Then you go in circles from there. Sorry that you cannot see taxes are theft. Gentle theft, but theft. Government requires most people to have your view. I will stick with my more realistic one. Try to enjoy the rest of your weekend as I am done with this line of discussion for now as there are too many faulty points in your last reply.
I didn't agree that it's a faulty example. You choose to go to a movie. You coose to live in our society.
Nor did I go in circles. You provided the definition of theft that you made up. I provided some examples of why it doesn't make much sense, and the definition used in the english language is better.
Not hard to follow imo.
English definition of theft for reference.
1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the FELONIOUS taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it. b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property. 2 : a stolen base in baseball.
I guess you'll now say your made definitions of felonious and made up standard of who the rightful owner of taxes due is obtain and everyone who uses the english and legal meanings is wrong.
As someone said before, fairy tale land. Make up all the words and facts you like. Few will coose to join you.
Quote: RigondeauxI didn't agree that it's a faulty example. You choose to go to a movie. You coose to live in our society.
Nor did I go in circles. You provided the definition of theft that you made up. I provided some examples of why it doesn't make much sense, and the definition used in the english language is better.
Not hard to follow imo.
English definition of theft for reference.
1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the FELONIOUS taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it. b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property. 2 : a stolen base in baseball.
I guess you'll now say your made definitions of felonious and made up standard of who the rightful owner of taxes due is obtain and everyone who uses the english and legal meanings is wrong.
As someone said before, fairy tale land. Make up all the words and facts you like. Few will coose to join you.
Already said I am done here.
There's no arguing this. It's basic legal facts.
We, the People of the United States, are the government. Our parents and forebears built on the work of others and improved on it.
Government can't steal from us because it is us. Of the people. By the people. For the people.
Quote: AZDuffman
“In Alaska, each resident has long received an annual dividend check from oil revenues from the Alaska Permanent Fund”
Huh never knew that
Quote: gamerfreakQuote: AZDuffman
“In Alaska, each resident has long received an annual dividend check from oil revenues from the Alaska Permanent Fund”
Huh never knew that
It is true. I've known for years as I have seen it in my 1040 instructions. It is the citizen's share of the state's royalty interest from oil and gas production. It varies year to year. IIRC Sarah Palin ran on and won on getting the people a bigger slice.
Congress approved the plan to replace welfare with UBI, but the senate rejected it.
Even though the plan was his idea, Nixon ultimately turned against it after reading a 150 year old report on a mid-nineteenth century England UBI system.
“Not only did it incite the poor to even greater idleness, damping their productivity and wages. It threatened the very foundations of capitalism. “
Finland is ending their UBI experiment after they found it punished work and subsided sloth. It would also require a 30% tax increase to support it.
It also failed in San Francisco, where it fueled drug and alcohol, abuse.
Now, Stockton, a city that was still in bankruptcy three years ago, intends to try it.
Many people just hunt and fish in some small harbor area on an Alaskan island and buy several fractional shares in a variety of Community Supported Agriculture farms in Oregon or Washington State. They live a healthy outdoors physically active lifestyle and if anything happens to their cabin or their boat that annual check will give them a kickstart for a replacement.
Its written into Alaskan law that politicians can't dip into the fund for anything.
Quote: gamerfreakQuote: AZDuffman
“In Alaska, each resident has long received an annual dividend check from oil revenues from the Alaska Permanent Fund”
Huh never knew that
Yeah, 20-30 years anyway, probably longer. Thought everybody knew there was already a stipend in the US.
Native Hawaiians get one, too. And other breaks on state healthcare, land ownership, state school tuition, other stuff.
As do most state schools. They nearly all subsidize in-state tuition. It's not like out-of-state people pay more for university. They supposedly pay the true cost of their per-person education, and in-state either pays a negotiated, lower rate, or the state picks up the difference.
Quote: beachbumbabs
Yeah, 20-30 years anyway, probably longer. Thought everybody knew there was already a stipend in the US.
Native Hawaiians get one, too. And other breaks on state healthcare, land ownership, state school tuition, other stuff.
What do Hawaiians get?
I don't think it is the same. The AK fund is from oil royalties. Nothing taken from one group as a tax to give to another. A pure royalty interest, like the mineral owners I work abstracts for.
FWIW the AK fund was considered as a model after the Iraq War. Idea was give each Iraqi a direct check to avoid most of the graft and theft of oil states. IMHO, it would be a good idea for KSA to try. Their people hardly work now, and there are so many indirect subsidies. Give a direct check and maybe more would start local businesses. If the average citizen there would lift something heavier than money might still be a problem though.
Quote: AZDuffmanWhat do Hawaiians get?
I don't think it is the same. The AK fund is from oil royalties. Nothing taken from one group as a tax to give to another. A pure royalty interest, like the mineral owners I work abstracts for.
FWIW the AK fund was considered as a model after the Iraq War. Idea was give each Iraqi a direct check to avoid most of the graft and theft of oil states. IMHO, it would be a good idea for KSA to try. Their people hardly work now, and there are so many indirect subsidies. Give a direct check and maybe more would start local businesses. If the average citizen there would lift something heavier than money might still be a problem though.
It's not the same for Hawaiians as for Alaskans. AK is based on residency. HI on heritage. IDK how much actual cash they get; it's some small amount, might be based on blood percentage. It came up casually a few times while I was living there. Particularly one girl, Hawaiian, who married/divorced a Japanese, they had a kid, and that whole issue complicated their custody issues a lot.
Much more is spent on bennies, AFAICT. And a large amount of land, at least on the Big Island, can only be OWNED by Natives. Haole buyers have to get leases for the land under the houses they buy or build .
It's complicated, and I never really dug into it, because it didn't pertain to me. I did look into buying a small place there, but dropped it when I found out about the lease restriction.
Quote: beachbumbabs
Much more is spent on bennies, AFAICT. And a large amount of land, at least on the Big Island, can only be OWNED by Natives. Haole buyers have to get leases for the land under the houses they buy or build .
Hmmm, that is strange and I would say unconstitutional to limit who can own land. Land leases are around in other places, particularly Baltimore has a ton of them. I knew HI had them, just a wow to such restrictions. Have to wonder how they get away with that.
Quote: AZDuffmanHmmm, that is strange and I would say unconstitutional to limit who can own land. Land leases are around in other places, particularly Baltimore has a ton of them. I knew HI had them, just a wow to such restrictions. Have to wonder how they get away with that.
It's unique to Hawaii. Lots of special compacts with the natives, both in accepting statehood, and evolving since.
Might be similar stuff in Guam, Samoa, PR, other US Territories. Not sure. Somewhat analogous to NA compacts and treaties on CONUS soil, and I think somewhat based on that concept. Not an expert.
Quote: beachbumbabsIt's unique to Hawaii. Lots of special compacts with the natives, both in accepting statehood, and evolving since.
Might be similar stuff in Guam, Samoa, PR, other US Territories. Not sure. Somewhat analogous to NA compacts and treaties on CONUS soil, and I think somewhat based on that concept. Not an expert.
I was amazed that anyone can own land on the Navajo Res in Fee Simple. Had a roommate that knew about it. Know before you buy I guess.
CORRECTION: Oops, I meant 1893
Quote: TumblingBonesThe Alaskan thing started paying out in 1982. I moved to the lower 48 in 1980 so never got a dime. It's never been a big payment, IFAIK it goes up and down depending in the price of oil but usually averages around $1k. I don't recall if it includes kids. The Hawaiian payments are as Babs noted, heritage-based. I'm guessing the payments and land ownership restrictions have something to do with when the pineapple companies (i.e Dole) staged a revolution and overthrew the monarchy in 1983. This resulted in about half the land in Hawaii being taken over by the new government.
1883?
Makes sense on AK as the pipeline opened in what, 1980?
Quote: AZDuffman
Makes sense on AK as the pipeline opened in what, 1980?
It went on-line in 1977. I was up there when it was being built but didn't work on it. My girlfriend at the time did, however, spend a summer working at one of the base camps as a waitress/maid/cook. It was a crazy time up there. Lots of money getting thrown around, lots of corrupt politicians in bed with the oil companies, a real wild-west boomtown kind of vibe. Ahh, the pleasures of one's youth :)
Quote: TumblingBonesIt went on-line in 1977. I was up there when it was being built but didn't work on it. My girlfriend at the time did, however, spend a summer working at one of the base camps as a waitress/maid/cook. It was a crazy time up there. Lots of money getting thrown around, lots of corrupt politicians in bed with the oil companies, a real wild-west boomtown kind of vibe. Ahh, the pleasures of one's youth :)
I heard stories of welders making $120K per year then. Buying pickups trucks and other toys. Magnet for hookers. One of those once in a lifetime chances to make a fortune.
I am hoping ND fires up again and that they pay what I heard they did 5 years ago. I will for sure try to do a tour.
Worked as a cook for two years and came back and opened a bar. Flipped it and bought a bar in The Keyes in Florida. Three years later, he sold the bar and bought a big sail boat. Hired an experienced Captain and they started doing charters. Did a couple of special runs to Cuba and was a retired man of leisure not long after most of us were just getting out of college. He lives outside of Marathon and has fished nearly every day of his life.
Quote: GandlerThey will get their income when they become working age. Otherwise it will go back to the issues with the current entitlement society. If you cant feed 7 kids, don't have them. If you could and some major life altering event (husband was killed and did not have life insurance, or you lost your job, both very rare), then put them into foster care.
Most single mothers that have never been married in their life have that many kids for one reason.... (and it is not because they like kids.....)
Do employers double your income for having kids? Why Would UBI?
Quote: gamerfreakfesablen
Is fesablen a synonym for covfefe?
Quote: GandlerDo employers double your income for having kids? Why Would UBI?
The reason is the different motivations. The goal of the employer is to gain access to the worker's productivity. The goal of a government paying UBI is to stabilize a society subject to persistent high unemployment rates.
That said, I'll also point out that many employers these day do subsidize employees who have kids. They pay for their health insurance, provide paid maternity (or even paternity) leave, and may also offer on-site day care, The compensation is indirect but it still exists.
