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
I was going to learn to sing and dance and act and tell jokes, but I'm not going to bother now, if you young people riff-raff will just expect a share of my vast earnings. $:o)Quote: NathanMany Entertainers get 50 million dollars to sing, dance, act, tell jokes. Why not take some of those millions from the Entertainers and give it to the general public? ie, Lower class and middle class?
Quote: NathanMany Entertainers get 50 million dollars to sing, dance, act, tell jokes. Why not take some of those millions from the Entertainers and give it to the general public? ie, Lower class and middle class?
Why do you keep suggesting that money be stolen from someone who earned it just because you think someone else should have it?
Even at Walgreens, you are probably in the top-10% of income earners worldwide. Why not take 1/10 of your income and sent it to lower and middle class folks in the Third World?
Quote: TumblingBonesThe reason is the different motivations.
Many people would vote for this simply to stop any system that encourages planned children for the purpose of additional aid. You lose a minimum of 20% of people who might vote for this thing if there’s any increase for children under working age I think.
Quote: AZDuffmanWhy do you keep suggesting that money be stolen from someone who earned it just because you think someone else should have it?
Even at Walgreens, you are probably in the top-10% of income earners worldwide. Why not take 1/10 of your income and sent it to lower and middle class folks in the Third World?
I'm just saying a lot of those millions that Entertainers get from singing, dancing, acting, telling jokes could be used to help the general public. On a side note, I don't make millions of dollars at Walgreens. My pay is just enough to support my low key lifestyle. ;)
And you think it's easy to support yourself on $50M as an entertainer. Let me tell you, it ain't cheap living on Beverley Hills, having to retain a staff of hundreds and being expected to fly the private jet to get to the next job. Let alone maybe being out of work between gigs, not knowing where the next banquet is coming from. Why do you think so many entertainers die young.Quote: NathanI'm just saying a lot of those millions that Entertainers get from singing, dancing, acting, telling jokes could be used to help the general public. On a side note, I don't make millions of dollars at Walgreens. My pay is just enough to support my low key lifestyle. ;)
Quote: OnceDearAnd you think it's easy to support yourself on $50M as an entertainer. Let me tell you, it ain't cheap living on Beverley Hills, having to retain a staff of hundreds and being expected to fly the private jet to get to the next job. Let alone maybe being out of work between gigs, not knowing where the next banquet is coming from. Why do you think so many entertainers die young.
If you want to see how many need money, just check who is playing the off-strip casinos.
Quote: NathanI'm just saying a lot of those millions that Entertainers get from singing, dancing, acting, telling jokes could be used to help the general public. On a side note, I don't make millions of dollars at Walgreens. My pay is just enough to support my low key lifestyle. ;)
And many of them are very generous people. But the "general public" has no right to it.
Quote: NathanI'm just saying a lot of those millions that Entertainers get from singing, dancing, acting, telling jokes could be used to help the general public. On a side note, I don't make millions of dollars at Walgreens. My pay is just enough to support my low key lifestyle. ;)
Those millions that entertainers get from singing, dancing, acting, telling jokes are already taxed for their singing, dancing, acting, telling jokes so why should people that make millions from singing, dancing, acting, telling jokes be required to give more than say someone who makes millions from running a business that isn't singing, dancing, acting, or telling jokes?
There are also very few entertainers that get millions from singing, dancing, acting, telling jokes so there isn't that much money available but there are millions of people who make a decent amount of money stocking goods, facing products, helping guests and running the cashier in a retail store. You would get far more money if you just took a small portion of those who are stocking goods, facing products, helping guests and running the cashier in a retail store, and it would only have to be a small amount like a dollar a day because there are so many more people who are stocking goods, facing products, helping guests and running the cashier in a retail store than there are who are making millions from singing, dancing, acting, and telling jokes.
Yeah. Take just $1 a month from all the 241 million or so general public and create a fund to help out those helpless few singers, dancers, actors and joke tellers.Quote: HullabalooThose millions that entertainers get from singing, dancing, acting, telling jokes are already taxed for their singing, dancing, acting, telling jokes so why should people that make millions from singing, dancing, acting, telling jokes be required to give more than say someone who makes millions from running a business that isn't singing, dancing, acting, or telling jokes?
There are also very few entertainers that get millions from singing, dancing, acting, telling jokes so there isn't that much money available but there are millions of people who make a decent amount of money stocking goods, facing products, helping guests and running the cashier in a retail store. You would get far more money if you just took a small portion of those who are stocking goods, facing products, helping guests and running the cashier in a retail store, and it would only have to be a small amount like a dollar a day because there are so many more people who are stocking goods, facing products, helping guests and running the cashier in a retail store than there are who are making millions from singing, dancing, acting, and telling jokes.
Those entertainers have already proved they deserve help. Poor lost souls.
Quote: Hullabaloo
There are also very few entertainers that get millions from singing, dancing, acting, telling jokes so there isn't that much money available but there are millions of people who make a decent amount of money stocking goods, facing products, helping guests and running the cashier in a retail store. You would get far more money if you just took a small portion of those who are stocking goods, facing products, helping guests and running the cashier in a retail store, and it would only have to be a small amount like a dollar a day because there are so many more people who are stocking goods, facing products, helping guests and running the cashier in a retail store than there are who are making millions from singing, dancing, acting, and telling jokes.
I have an idea. Take that $1 from people who are stocking goods, facing products, helping guests and running the cashier in a retail store. Put them all in a pool. Then maybe get some ping pong balls and put numbers on them. Put em all in a big drum, then draw the ping pong balls to see who gets all dem $1s from people who are stocking goods, facing products, helping guests and running the cashier in a retail store.
But that's not fair! The entertainers would be able to buy 50 million tickets each. They'd be sure to win. Would participating be voluntary? Surely only fools would hand over their single dollar.Quote: AZDuffmanI have an idea. Take that $1 from people who are stocking goods, facing products, helping guests and running the cashier in a retail store. Put them all in a pool. Then maybe get some ping pong balls and put numbers on them. Put em all in a big drum, then draw the ping pong balls to see who gets all dem $1s from people who are stocking goods, facing products, helping guests and running the cashier in a retail store.
Quote: mcallister3200Many people would vote for this simply to stop any system that encourages planned children for the purpose of additional aid. You lose a minimum of 20% of people who might vote for this thing if there’s any increase for children under working age I think.
I wonder how many of those folks would also vote to eliminate the standard deduction for dependent children from the US Tax code
Why don't Poe folk just tell their own jokes and learn to sing and dance?Quote: NathanTo be fair, I wasn't talking about taking millions away from the money the Entertainers already HAVE NOW! I was talking about paying them LESS money in the first place. For example, a singer let's say Starla Starlight has been a singer for 3 years. Each of Starla Starlight hit singles have roughly 100 million views on YouTube. She has many adoring fans. Starla Starlight's net worth is $10 million now and her starting net worth was $1 million. Another 40 million that she does not have a net worth of could go to give the general public a good life. ;)
Quote: OnceDearAnd you think it's easy to support yourself on $50M as an entertainer. Let me tell you, it ain't cheap living on Beverley Hills, having to retain a staff of hundreds and being expected to fly the private jet to get to the next job. Let alone maybe being out of work between gigs, not knowing where the next banquet is coming from. Why do you think so many entertainers die young.
I know you are being sarcastic but one of the items I picked up at the Reynolds/ Fisher Estate was a ledger by her Vegas estate manager. Debbie Reynolds had three houses that I know of, and a NYC apartment. The nut on these was over a million, plus her staff. Fulltime make up people, an agent, a manager, several FT drivers, a small fleet of cars, assistants for her and Carrie in each of the cities, publicity people, lawyers, accountants, security, ect, ect.
Its little wonder why many of these people don't retire. Too many people depend on them.
We don't need wonderful birth memories, we need PTSD experiences for the good of the country.
Quote: beachbumbabsWhich is the very definition of means testing. (testes? Really AZD? Your spellchecker defaults to that? Lol)
Personally, I'm against both the earnings test and taxation of benefits. These were my areas of expertise as a Social Security actuary. You're right in what you say about the rules.
In response, I would say that Social Security isn't means tested but earnings tested. It was meant to replace earnings lost due to not working/earning. So, if you're still working it is viewed by the program you don't need the benefits.
Also, when you apply early and then don't get those benefits for any reason, your future benefits go up. In other words, a month where you didn't get paid is not counted as a month you applied early.
Let me repeat, for emphasis, I'm against those rules. When the program began they were trying to get people to retire early to give jobs to younger people. Now there is plenty of work to go around so the rules should be changed to encourage work, not punish it.
Quote: rxwineTo reduce the pregnancy rate, we need to ban cute kids on TV, and start showing bloody real life childbirth films..
The fertility rate in the US, currently at 1.8 (source) is not high enough to sustain the population. The result of a fertility rate below 2.0, without immigration to make up the difference, is a country with a glut of old people and a shortage of young ones to support them. A recipe for economic disaster.
More information: The U.S. fertility rate just hit a historic low. Why some demographers are freaking out.
Quote: WizardThe fertility rate in the US, currently at 1.8 (source) is not high enough to sustain the population. The result of a fertility rate below 2.0, without immigration to make up the difference, is a country with a glut of old people and a shortage of young ones to support them. A recipe for economic disaster.
More information: The U.S. fertility rate just hit a historic low. Why some demographers are freaking out.
I'm easy. Cancel that idea until further notice.
Quote: TumblingBonesThe 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.
Healthcare, they do subsidize as a benefit (but you have to may significantly more for every dependent that you add). But, benefits aside, speaking strictly in terms of income (salary), employers pay you based on the individual, they do not give you a raise every-time your life circumstance changes. There is not reason UBI should be different.
On site day care is a rarity (and also often requires costs, granted very cheap compared to going somewhere). And, maternity leave, is a paid leave, you still keep your salary, you do not get a paid more because it is giving birth to a child.
As for high unemployment rates, UBI is a baseline supplement which would allow people to take more jobs. If you are already making 1500 a month, you may be willing to work at a fast food chain for 9bucks an hour, because that would put you at a living wage. The reason that many people stay unemployed is because, they will only take a job making as much or more as before, even if that is not a reasonable expectation.
I wasn't. I really wasn't.Quote: billryanI know you are being sarcastic ...
Its little wonder why many of these people don't retire. Too many people depend on them.
My tongue was a little bit in my cheek, but I was stating my true belief that 'rich entertainers' have expensive support costs. Whether those costs are reasonable or justified is a debate for another day.
I think half this thread is "debate for another day".Quote: OnceDearWhether those costs are reasonable or justified is a debate for another day.
Let's get real.
Nobody, absolutely nobody, cares one whit for the US National Birth Rate.
I'm white skinned, blond haired, blue eyed, right handed, heterosexual. That is the only birth rate I care about.
Somewhere upthread someone mentioned about the whole world's poor. So again: let's get real. Only Bill Gates cares about all those African kids who instead of dying as infants will grow up to die as teenaged soldiers in some warlord's rag tag army fighting over donated American food or cockroaches/rats/copper/oil.
Wealthy? Some Scandinavian countries impose traffic fines so an unsignaled lane change can cost a million dollars to a rock star. This can make screeching into a microphone a necessity for another year or two, but it does not guarantee that those screeches will continue to be on the hit parade.
Ain't no one really trying to cure social ills (real or imagined) by the Universal Basic Income. Its merely a scheme to insure that money allocated to a problem gets to those people who have the problem rather than to an army of bureaucrats who administer the social program with tests, hurdles, paperwork and other bloated organizations that do nothing but suck tax funds away from the needy and give it to the truly greedy. Think of vehicle license plates. There is no need to issue new plates every few years. There is no need to issue new stickers each year. In most states it costs more to process the checks than the amount on the check. Sure some truck trailers get taxed forty grand but they do well over two hundred grand's worth of damage each year.
Quote: NathanTo be fair, I wasn't talking about taking millions away from the money the Entertainers already HAVE NOW! I was talking about paying them LESS money in the first place. For example, a singer let's say Starla Starlight has been a singer for 3 years. Each of Starla Starlight hit singles have roughly 100 million views on YouTube. She has many adoring fans. Starla Starlight's net worth is $10 million now and her starting net worth was $1 million. Another 40 million that she does not have a net worth of could go to give the general public a good life. ;)
Are you kind of saying that those with ability should use it but for the good of society we should give to people based on their needs? Just to even things out? Sort of like, "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs?"
Quote: WizardThe fertility rate in the US, currently at 1.8 (source) is not high enough to sustain the population. The result of a fertility rate below 2.0, without immigration to make up the difference, is a country with a glut of old people and a shortage of young ones to support them. A recipe for economic disaster.
I was hoping to get some discussion on this as it is big and interesting. I heard numbers as low as 1.76, though I do not know how much difference a few hundreth points makes. This is big, folks. The rate always drops in recessions, but this time it never recovered. This indicates attitudes are shifting on having kids. The only group of women having more is women over 40.
This will hit everything. An early one IMHO will be colleges. By 2030, looks for many to have to close. The USA has joined the rest of the Euro-heritage nations in long-term decline of population. Enjoy the ride.
The interesting point raised by the Wiz is the role of immigration when the fertility rate drops below replacement rate. If anything, the US has been an outlier compared to other G-20 countries due to our (until recently) more open immigration policies combined with the melting-pot ethos. Eastern Europe has a real problem in this regard. Japan too.
Quote: NathanMany Entertainers get 50 million dollars to sing, dance, act, tell jokes. Why not take some of those millions from the Entertainers and give it to the general public? ie, Lower class and middle class?
Are you kidding me!!! THEY DO!!!! It's called TAXES!!!!! Are you seriously unaware that a singer making 50 million will pay 18 Million or so in taxes? YOU WANT TO TAKE MORE?????? Are you actually unaware that the Federal Government TAXES the income of entertainers????????????? Help me!!!!!!!
Quote: TumblingBonesMy understanding is that the drop in US birth rate is a pretty typical phenomenon. When a country's mortality rate drops and its per-capita income rises, there is an associated drop in fertility rate. It can happen for other reasons as (look at Russia for example) but this tends to be the norm.
The interesting point raised by the Wiz is the role of immigration when the fertility rate drops below replacement rate. If anything, the US has been an outlier compared to other G-20 countries due to our (until recently) more open immigration policies combined with the melting-pot ethos. Eastern Europe has a real problem in this regard. Japan too.
Not exactly. The rate drops with increasing incomes to be sure. The USA was different in that we always stayed right around that 2.1 birth per woman to keep a stable population. Not much more, but more. The rate crashed in the late 1960s when the pill came out, to where it is today. It popped back up in the 1980s, staying up until the 2008 recession.
Americans have tended to want children more than Europeans. Our families were always bigger. It is just a bred-in thing. Even bred-in things change over time. Attitudes change. Not wanting kids is now more acceptable. Folks without kids still drive many women crazy, ("HOPE YOU ARE ENJOYING YOUR CHILD FREE LIFE!) but it is now accepted. This breeds more people to not give-in and have kids because "that is what you do." Conformity is powerful.
From what I read, this drop is mainly on hispanic women. Everyone knows hispanics tend to have larger families. Today, though, many hispanic women have been here a generation or more. The see the number of kids their White and Black female counterparts are having. They have started imitating, homogenizing.
I look for the rate to remain stable here for now but with a drift to 1.5 over the next 20 years.
Bottom line is I think your statement
is an over-simplification. Too bad we don't know a statistician who has worked in the area of population demographics who mighty be willing to explain this to us. :)Quote:Americans have tended to want children more than Europeans. Our families were always bigger. It is just a bred-in thing
The larger issue by far has to be the flattening, in real dollars, of wages while cost of living rises. Wages and cost of living rose pretty much in proportion to each other from the 50s thru the 70s, then col kept going up while wages went flat ever since.
Directly, many couples are not having additional children because it costs so much to raise them.
Indirectly, the stagnation has forced many couples to both work to have the same standard of living, or do with much less if one stays home.
Indirectly, the cost of child care has risen precipitously compared to the wages of those (particularly women) who would use those wages to pay for the child care so they can work.
Living as middle-class on one 40hr job is pretty rare these days. My childhood in the 60s, it was standard. I would guess at least 80% of the kids i knew, dad worked, mom didnt, probably more. Now, I bet it's less than 10% of families.
Family of 4 or more, it's just not enough for the cost of things here (in US) for 1 full time job between them.
Quote: NathanTo be fair, I wasn't talking about taking millions away from the money the Entertainers already HAVE NOW! I was talking about paying them LESS money in the first place. For example, a singer let's say Starla Starlight has been a singer for 3 years. Each of Starla Starlight hit singles have roughly 100 million views on YouTube. She has many adoring fans. Starla Starlight's net worth is $10 million now and her starting net worth was $1 million. Another 40 million that she does not have a net worth of could go to give the general public a good life. ;)
The money to pay those entertainers comes from the general public in the first place. There's no reason to give it back to them if they were happy to part with it to begin with.
The reason Robert Downey, Jr. makes $50 million a movie is because the studios have that money to pay him. The studios have that money to pay him because they made a $1 billion from the last movie he was in. They made a billion from the last movie he was in because millions of people paid $10-$15 to see it. Millions of people paid $10-$15 to see it because they had enough disposable income to afford it, and they deemed $10-$15 a fair price to pay for the studio's product. That's how economics works. If people didn't think $10-$15 was a fair price, they wouldn't pay it, the studios wouldn't have the money, and RDJ wouldn't make $50 million a picture.
Quote: beachbumbabs
Living as middle-class on one 40hr job is pretty rare these days. My childhood in the 60s, it was standard. I would guess at least 80% of the kids i knew, dad worked, mom didnt, probably more. Now, I bet it's less than 10% of families.
Family of 4 or more, it's just not enough for the cost of things here (in US) for 1 full time job between them.
You also have a lot of women deferring having kids because now, unlike in the 50s and 60s, they have the option of having a professional career. From The Statistics Portal (emphsis added by me):
Quote:In developed countries, fertility rates and birth rates are usually much lower, as birth control is easier to obtain and women often choose a career before becoming a mother. Additionally, if the number of women of child-bearing age declines, so does the fertility rate of a country. As can be seen above, countries like Hong Kong are a good example for women leaving the patriarchal structures and focusing on their own career instead of becoming a mother at a young age, causing a decline of the country’s fertility rate.
Quote: beachbumbabsI don't think birth control accounts directly for the decrease, though it has to be a factor of some sort.
Today, no. When the pill first came out, it was a total factor.
Most low income women who work barely make enough to pay child care expenses.
Quote: TumblingBonesI agree the pill had a big impact but that's pretty much available in most countries so I didn't factor it in as a differentiator. As to family size in US vs Europe, your comment made me curious so I checked out the UN stats (they have a clickable map with nice graphics). The situation seems far from clear-cut. There seems to be a strong correlation between household size and (1) the percentage of the population that is Catholic and (2) population density. On the other hand, family size (i.e., number of kids in households with children) seems to be a different story. The stats show that the US, Canada, Britain, France and Netherlands have pretty much the same number of kids per family ( ~1.7). It also shows that the predominately Catholic countries in Western Europe have larger households than the Protestant countries but fewer kids in households with kids.
Bottom line is I think your statement
is an over-simplification. Too bad we don't know a statistician who has worked in the area of population demographics who mighty be willing to explain this to us. :)
Half the people would dismiss it as fake news.
Quote: TigerWuThe money to pay those entertainers comes from the general public in the first place. There's no reason to give it back to them if they were happy to part with it to begin with.
The reason Robert Downey, Jr. makes $50 million a movie is because the studios have that money to pay him. The studios have that money to pay him because they made a $1 billion from the last movie he was in. They made a billion from the last movie he was in because millions of people paid $10-$15 to see it. Millions of people paid $10-$15 to see it because they had enough disposable income to afford it, and they deemed $10-$15 a fair price to pay for the studio's product. That's how economics works. If people didn't think $10-$15 was a fair price, they wouldn't pay it, the studios wouldn't have the money, and RDJ wouldn't make $50 million a picture.
Yet, somehow, when it comes to paying shareholders and taxes, that billion dollar film turns into a book keeping disaster. History is filled with actors who had a share of the profits getting shafted as studios claim a long running show like The Rockford Files is a long term loser. Jim Starlin, the man who created characters like Thanos, Drax and many others recently got a royalty check that was under a thousand dollars for a film that is doing billion dollar box office. He figures if every living person on the planet sees the film three times, he can buy a new car.
Quote: billryanYet, somehow, when it comes to paying shareholders and taxes, that billion dollar film turns into a book keeping disaster. History is filled with actors who had a share of the profits getting shafted as studios claim a long running show like The Rockford Files is a long term loser. Jim Starlin, the man who created characters like Thanos, Drax and many others recently got a royalty check that was under a thousand dollars for a film that is doing billion dollar box office. He figures if every living person on the planet sees the film three times, he can buy a new car.
Henry Hill said he did not get any back-end from "Goodfellas." He said Hollywood was so crooked he did better dealing with the mafia.
Studios usually have at least fifteen sets of books and that is on the expense side, on the revenue side they always do pooling which means funds are commingled and the people who should be receiving those funds have no right to inspect the books on a separate commingling deal with other entities.
Quote: FleaStiffDid the studio make the billion dollars because Robert Downey Jr. was in the movie or because they hyped the fact that Robert Downey jr. was in the movie?
Well, for the first Iron Man movie, he was still considered a big risk, so was "only" paid $500,000. Then when the movie was a big hit, it kind of snowballed his comeback.
Quote: TigerWuWell, for the first Iron Man movie, he was still considered a big risk, so was "only" paid $500,000. Then when the movie was a big hit, it kind of snowballed his comeback.
Robert Downey, Jr is one famous former trainwreck who changed his life for the better. :)
Stockton, California to begin a UBI for 100 residents in 2019 as a test run.
Quote: SM777https://money.cnn.com/2018/07/09/technology/stockton-california-basic-income-experiment/index.html
Stockton, California to begin a UBI for 100 residents in 2019 as a test run.
I bet it fails.
But I don't think the problem is UBI itself.... The problem is people are generally really effing dumb with money.
Those people are going to get $500 extra every month and spend it all on drugs or iphones or extra soda and cigarettes or big screen TVs and still be poor and unhealthy and uneducated and all the critics are going to say, "See? Here's proof UBI doesn't work!!!"
No, that's not proof UBI doesn't work, it's proof that people are stupid. You can't just throw money at people and say "here ya go" and turn them loose and hope they'll live a better life when they have zero financial education.
Quote: TigerWuI bet it fails.
But I don't think the problem is UBI itself.... The problem is people are generally really effing dumb with money.
Those people are going to get $500 extra every month and spend it all on drugs or iphones or extra soda and cigarettes or big screen TVs and still be poor and unhealthy and uneducated and all the critics are going to say, "See? Here's proof UBI doesn't work!!!"
No, that's not proof UBI doesn't work, it's proof that people are stupid. You can't just throw money at people and say "here ya go" and turn them loose and hope they'll live a better life when they have zero financial education.
I agree with this. There's an extremely high percentage of dumb people on this planet.
Yes and making those dumb jerks jump thru hoops while taxpayers support an endless army of paper shuffling social workers is a waste of money. Granting the agreed upon benefits without massive scrutiny saves the average taxpayer a considerable amount of money.Quote: SM777I agree with this. There's an extremely high percentage of dumb people on this planet.
The real problem in Stockton is the unfunded public pensions burden of cops, teachers, nurses, etc. While the press cried 'high crime' in a ultra low crime area, the taxes mushroomed. the press doesn't have to pay them though, only the people who own houses there and can't afford to flee.
Quote: TigerWuI bet it fails.
But I don't think the problem is UBI itself.... The problem is people are generally really effing dumb with money.
Those people are going to get $500 extra every month and spend it all on drugs or iphones or extra soda and cigarettes or big screen TVs and still be poor and unhealthy and uneducated and all the critics are going to say, "See? Here's proof UBI doesn't work!!!"
No, that's not proof UBI doesn't work, it's proof that people are stupid. You can't just throw money at people and say "here ya go" and turn them loose and hope they'll live a better life when they have zero financial education.
And this is why income redistribution does not work. Why there is the thought that if we magically redistributed all wealth evenly that "the rich" would be back where they were and the broke again broke.
Could you please explain this to liberals?
Quote: TigerWuI bet it fails.
But I don't think the problem is UBI itself.... The problem is people are generally really effing dumb with money.
Those people are going to get $500 extra every month and spend it all on drugs or iphones or extra soda and cigarettes or big screen TVs and still be poor and unhealthy and uneducated and all the critics are going to say, "See? Here's proof UBI doesn't work!!!"
No, that's not proof UBI doesn't work, it's proof that people are stupid. You can't just throw money at people and say "here ya go" and turn them loose and hope they'll live a better life when they have zero financial education.
So you’re against UBI too, right?
Actually it was his friends and supporters who got him out of the high priced and low quality world of drugs in prison and put him on an island where there were no drugs and no one knew where he was. I wonder what his tax payments have been like since then. Suppose the judge had kept him jugged in the prison instead of sending him for his island cure?Quote: NathanRobert Downey, Jr is one famous former trainwreck who changed his life for the better. :)
Quote: AZDuffmanAnd this is why income redistribution does not work. Why there is the thought that if we magically redistributed all wealth evenly that "the rich" would be back where they were and the broke again broke.
Could you please explain this to liberals?
That's not the liberal view. It's the more equitable distribution of income not the equal distribution of income.
It usually asks why the workers pay hasn't risen at the same rate upper level pay has risen by percentages. The reason why $15 minimum seems so outrageous, is probably because it should have already started rising years ago, not just a big boost these last couple years.
I don't think small experiments of a couple hundred people would prove anything. Perhaps offer it to all honorably discharged service members for two or three years. See who uses it as a crutch and who uses it as a stepping stone.
I'm sure many will slack off but some will use it to advance themselves and society.
It's not something I think will be implemented in the USofA as a whole in my lifetime.
