Fauxcahontas on the War Path

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

Rack

Federal Marshal
Oct 13, 2004
19,229
8,706
1,743
Earth
#41
A national UBI would also be revenue sharing. That is why Yang is calling it a Freedom Dividend. It is a dividend to the American people for creating the society in which these companies were allowed to become what they are. Amazon made billions last year and paid zero taxes because technology has advanced more rapidly than US taxation and they are able to shift and shuttle to avoid our current tax system. That money wasn't made in Seatttle, it was made everywhere. Same with google, FB etc. Wait until these companies get automation to the point where we don't need truckers or drivers or radiologists etc. They obtain the entire economic gain while we foot the bill. We need to look at how to make capitalism work during this 4th revolution to stave off the calls for socialism, which isn't effective, and is gonna happen if we cling to last centuries economic ideals.

The same national UBI would be perfect to improve those distinct differences in economy. Right now, it is crazy expensive to live in Silicon Valley. But, people do it because there is no life/economy/income in say, Appalachia. But, if everyone in Appalachia had $1000 a month with the lower cost of living, think about how much that would spur on the economy there. Think about a small town in Oklahoma with 5,000 residents all the sudden having $5,000,000 a month injected into the local economy. Meanwhile, in Silicon Valley, an extra $1000 is nice, but it isn't going to spur the local economy to the same effect because $1000 means far less there.

Face it, the areas that most need a UBI would have a very difficult time implementing a UBI. Maybe Oklahoma could do a small one with oil revenues but most rural poor states cannot. While on the other hand, areas that have money and high cost of living would be able to easily implement it but it would only increase the differences you are talking about. When an Oklahoman looks at Facebook, he would be funding a Washington state or California UBI. Not the way forward in my opinion.
This is going to sound a little negative, but I actually think that if you give some Oklahomans and Appalachians an extra $1,000 a month it's just going to cause local inflation and an increase of business in Marijuana dispensaries, liquor stores, and Indian casinos. If you give folks who don't currently know how to handle money extra money it really doesn't fix their problem, many times it even exacerbates the issue...Lack of funds is rarely the issue but self control? yep. I hate that and I want people to have what they need in order to fix their problems, but I honestly don't think money will do that, for me that's faith (but one cannot force that, thus the dilemma)...

However giving a bonus to people who live in a state where great companies are making life easier for many will help those who have a shot and are left behind in your 4th revolution that you and many others believe is coming. Btw, we are actually seeing a lot of influx of people from California and other states (Texas) who are moving here to cash out of their overly inflated real estate and live a cheaper "good" life in Oklahoma. Sorry to sidetrack. Carry on, I actually don't have a major opinion on this as long as it could be done without too much taxation or hurting of the economy in other ways (inflation)...I just think the feds are ill prepared to handle such a task as they have proven time and again they are not able and politically are in a total blood bath with each other.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,703
32,069
1,743
oklahoma city
#42
This is going to sound a little negative, but I actually think that if you give some Oklahomans and Appalachians an extra $1,000 a month it's just going to cause local inflation and an increase of business in Marijuana dispensaries, liquor stores, and Indian casinos. If you give folks who don't currently know how to handle money extra money it really doesn't fix their problem, many times it even exacerbates the issue...Lack of funds is rarely the issue but self control? yep. I hate that and I want people to have what they need in order to fix their problems, but I honestly don't think money will do that, for me that's faith (but one cannot force that, thus the dilemma)...

However giving a bonus to people who live in a state where great companies are making life easier for many will help those who have a shot and are left behind in your 4th revolution that you and many others believe is coming. Btw, we are actually seeing a lot of influx of people from California and other states (Texas) who are moving here to cash out of their overly inflated real estate and live a cheaper "good" life in Oklahoma. Sorry to sidetrack. Carry on, I actually don't have a major opinion on this as long as it could be done without too much taxation or hurting of the economy in other ways (inflation)...I just think the feds are ill prepared to handle such a task as they have proven time and again they are not able and politically are in a total blood bath with each other.
It sounds not only negative, but it also goes completely against what has been shown in studies of this very issue. In the studies that have occurred, that is not what has happened.

And watch this regarding your "it exacerbates the problem" comment. Lack of funds is the issue.

I really hope instead of "I don't have an opinion" that you look into this with an open mind and consider that those preconceived notions may not be correct. Many conservatives are getting behind this and realizing it is a way forward in a conservative way that preserves capitalism and markets while helping those that have been left behind.
 

NotOnTV

BRB -- Taking an okie leak
Sep 14, 2010
8,364
6,332
743
Gondor
#43
This is going to sound a little negative, but I actually think that if you give some Oklahomans and Appalachians an extra $1,000 a month it's just going to cause local inflation and an increase of business in Marijuana dispensaries, liquor stores, and Indian casinos. .
You say that like it's a bad thing.
 

Jostate

CPTNQUIRK called me a greenhorn
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
18,411
13,721
1,743
#44
1. Yes, many conservatives support/have supported a UBI.
2. If you are going to make an authoritative statement, show the evidence. Not, "here is what I think will happen" but actual evidence that it would not improve poverty.
3. EVERYONE wants to get rid of fraud waste abuse etc. If you create means-tested programs, there will forever be someone trying to get it fraudulently. And same with dependency. If you create a program that forces someone to live below a certain means to get it, you incentivize people to live that way. That is dependency. A UBI is given to every citizen. The only way to get it fraudulently is to fraudulently claim citizenship. That is far easier to monitor than preventing someone from claiming they make $9872 a year while they work under the table for $40K more. And, this IS the solution to dependency. If everyone gets it, it is the baseline so it is not dependency. Nobody says we are "dependent" on free police or free fire department or free defense. It is the baseline in this country but not others. So, if you want to make more than the UBI, you can. If you want to hire more security, you can. You don't lose the UBI just like you don't lose the police. No dependency.
Saying UBI from means-tested welfare is simply a name change shows ignorance of how these things function. That is like saying that universal health care is just a name change from Medicaid. It is a factually incorrect statement.

This is a far more libertarian idea than the system that you are defending. The true libertarian way would be no government welfare at all. But, you, and many, find that unpalatable. But, a UBI would be the least government invasive and controlling way to ensure basic welfare. After many decades of creating fraud, waste, abuse and dependency with this system, it is hilarious to hear, "I just want the welfare system without fraud waste, abuse and dependency." That is like saying, "I don't want these football rule changes. I want football to be played exactly like we have always played it, just without the concussions happening." It just doesn't work that way.
Good theoretical points. You don't believe for a second do you that the powers that be would ever give up on the programs they love so much? How can you bribe someone to vote for your party if you don't promise a specific entitlement that suits their situation? In other words, "everyone gets the same free money" isn't as exciting as "people whose screen name begins with an S" get free money. Then you get the votes of Steross and others. Then next week you promise people whose screen name begins with some other letter to entice some more votes. I mean do you really ever see a world where the powers that be allow such a paradigm shift?

My biggest concern is we would end up with both, your free money for breathing and the existing entitlements at the same time. Also, I don't remember how you addressed this before but is it relative to # of kids? In other words, do moms of 5 kids try to get by on the same as moms with 1 kid, or do we incentivize more kids?
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,703
32,069
1,743
oklahoma city
#45
Good theoretical points. You don't believe for a second do you that the powers that be would ever give up on the programs they love so much? How can you bribe someone to vote for your party if you don't promise a specific entitlement that suits their situation? In other words, "everyone gets the same free money" isn't as exciting as "people whose screen name begins with an S" get free money. Then you get the votes of Steross and others. Then next week you promise people whose screen name begins with some other letter to entice some more votes. I mean do you really ever see a world where the powers that be allow such a paradigm shift?

My biggest concern is we would end up with both, your free money for breathing and the existing entitlements at the same time. Also, I don't remember how you addressed this before but is it relative to # of kids? In other words, do moms of 5 kids try to get by on the same as moms with 1 kid, or do we incentivize more kids?
What you are saying is that they are so incompetent that they are going to do the wrong thing, so we might as well just stay with the wrong thing.
If everytime we have a good idea for an improvement in government the response is, "They will just screw up the good idea" then what is the point of having elections etc anyway? With that logic, we are forever stuck at the current plan with no way to change it. I think it is a fallacy argument. If there is nothing stopping them from adding means-tested programs to the UBI, there is nothing stopping them from adding means-tested programs to the means-tested programs. So, now that we have determined that in your world means-tested programs are simply a thing we have no control over and will be added at will, can we simply ignore that and discuss how the UBI is a good idea?

No, it is for adults 18 and up.
And, the candidate is also proposing that all new laws have KPIs and automatically sunsetting old laws that do not meet the KPIs https://www.yang2020.com/policies/automatically-sunsetting-old-laws/
 

Jostate

CPTNQUIRK called me a greenhorn
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
18,411
13,721
1,743
#46
What you are saying is that they are so incompetent that they are going to do the wrong thing, so we might as well just stay with the wrong thing.
If everytime we have a good idea for an improvement in government the response is, "They will just screw up the good idea" then what is the point of having elections etc anyway? With that logic, we are forever stuck at the current plan with no way to change it. I think it is a fallacy argument. If there is nothing stopping them from adding means-tested programs to the UBI, there is nothing stopping them from adding means-tested programs to the means-tested programs. So, now that we have determined that in your world means-tested programs are simply a thing we have no control over and will be added at will, can we simply ignore that and discuss how the UBI is a good idea?

No, it is for adults 18 and up.
And, the candidate is also proposing that all new laws have KPIs and automatically sunsetting old laws that do not meet the KPIs https://www.yang2020.com/policies/automatically-sunsetting-old-laws/
I'm not saying they will screw it up anyway, which they probably would, I'm saying it's very unlikely to ever really happen anyway.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,813
24,061
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#47
If everytime we have a good idea for an improvement in government the response is, "They will just screw up the good idea" then what is the point of having elections etc anyway?
You answered your question IN the question. Voting against government growth because you think they will screw it up IS the point of having elections.
 
Sep 29, 2011
588
112
593
59
Breckenridge, CO
#49
Alaska has Oil revenue sharing...Oklahoma should as well...but it's not 'really' UBI as most think of it, however, I agree that we should implement this exact same policy in Oklahoma...In fact it ought to be mentioned to the Governor if he really wants to make us a top 10 state he needs to outlaw the state income tax and implement revenue sharing by the energy companies...It would be a win/win for everyone in Oklahoma IMHO. Energy companies can attract employees with no state income tax and with our revenue sharing and low real estate prices we can help the less fortunate.

Honestly, I'm not sure a national UBI would work considering the distinct differences in our economy and cost of living by regions...I think it might be better to do it by region based on politics and economics being regional and thus making programs easier to pass and more diverse state to state. Then each state can pick and choose what's right for them from the choices they see in other states (i.e. the Alaska model fits Oklahoma and Texas well).
A national UBI would also be revenue sharing. That is why Yang is calling it a Freedom Dividend. It is a dividend to the American people for creating the society in which these companies were allowed to become what they are. Amazon made billions last year and paid zero taxes because technology has advanced more rapidly than US taxation and they are able to shift and shuttle to avoid our current tax system. That money wasn't made in Seatttle, it was made everywhere. Same with google, FB etc. Wait until these companies get automation to the point where we don't need truckers or drivers or radiologists etc. They obtain the entire economic gain while we foot the bill. We need to look at how to make capitalism work during this 4th revolution to stave off the calls for socialism, which isn't effective, and is gonna happen if we cling to last centuries economic ideals.

The same national UBI would be perfect to improve those distinct differences in economy. Right now, it is crazy expensive to live in Silicon Valley. But, people do it because there is no life/economy/income in say, Appalachia. But, if everyone in Appalachia had $1000 a month with the lower cost of living, think about how much that would spur on the economy there. Think about a small town in Oklahoma with 5,000 residents all the sudden having $5,000,000 a month injected into the local economy. Meanwhile, in Silicon Valley, an extra $1000 is nice, but it isn't going to spur the local economy to the same effect because $1000 means far less there.

Face it, the areas that most need a UBI would have a very difficult time implementing a UBI. Maybe Oklahoma could do a small one with oil revenues but most rural poor states cannot. While on the other hand, areas that have money and high cost of living would be able to easily implement it but it would only increase the differences you are talking about. When an Oklahoman looks at Facebook, he would be funding a Washington state or California UBI. Not the way forward in my opinion.
Typical liberal group (moron) think - giving money away will create more wealth for everyone. If you believe that, why not give everyone an amount that raises their net wealth to $100k? Think of the boost to the economy! Everyone would quickly become a gozillionaire!

Do us all a favor and just call it (UBI) what it is. A socialist program to redistribute wealth.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

Rack

Federal Marshal
Oct 13, 2004
19,229
8,706
1,743
Earth
#51
It sounds not only negative, but it also goes completely against what has been shown in studies of this very issue. In the studies that have occurred, that is not what has happened.

And watch this regarding your "it exacerbates the problem" comment. Lack of funds is the issue.

I really hope instead of "I don't have an opinion" that you look into this with an open mind and consider that those preconceived notions may not be correct. Many conservatives are getting behind this and realizing it is a way forward in a conservative way that preserves capitalism and markets while helping those that have been left behind.
I watched the entire YouTube and took notes...A few questions I felt Princess Bride Guy (sorry couldn't help it) didn't answer in his talk...

1.) Inflation, IMHO, is inevitable locally when you inject money into everyone's pockets and you will always have to inject more money to keep up with it. It's simple economics...the more we have the more we spend on things and the price of those things goes up the more easily we buy them especially as they become more scarce. It why eating out is more expensive than in was in 1970, gas, housing, everything an so on, we consume more and it cost more all the time. If everyone has extra money everything increases in cost and we consume more...but, IMHO, we don't really fix anything.
2.) Also how does one continue to keep his/her motivation at an all time high when one has ALL their "basic needs" met?" Despite his rhetoric (and "studies") I do think that motivation to get out of poverty is a driving factor to achieve greatness...there are 1,000's if not millions of examples of people who started in poverty and overcame it and even credit the stress that was placed on them as a motivation to achieve greatness. For me a job loss 25 years ago was the best thing that ever happened to me...it created great stress financially but motivated me to action and change...without that stress pushing me to faith I'm still stuck in a dead end job, I'm poor, likely divorced and with too much debt.
3.) Fair / fairness and value are not a right granted just for living they have to be earned. Equal pay for all work is not a good concept and creates stagnant society's down the line (we see it with communism and socialism all over the world). Some production has more value to society than other production, and fairness is when one is paid the proper wage based on the value we bring to society not just our existence. There is an inequality in value on this Earth and that is just how it is until things are fixed by the only one who can fix it (sorry faith can fix it but nothing else can IMHO). So taking away incentive to provide more value than others (i.e. removing competition) is vastly unfair and profoundly unwise.

While I do think programs like Social Security which is basically this exact same concept, have merit, I also KNOW that they reduce the private savings of individuals like myself who can always point to SS as a "safety net" in case I don't save enough...While I do, hopefully, benefit from SS, it does reduce my motivation to save ever so slightly and it's removal would definitely increase my motivation to get serious.

I think it's a general "copout" to count on our government when each of us is capable of making changes that that help the poor personally. I also think it folly to have the government attempt this even more than they already do because it's filled with corrupt power hungry individuals that don't CARE AT ALL about the poor...only the votes they can garner from them and those who don't want to lift their own fingers to help instead touting their rhetoric and complaint, which is false charity. Once again, I do think this is a worthwhile concept to explore and it is our responsibility to take care of the poor...However, I think it's FAR more important that we each individually do our part to help the poor personally and through our local church's and charities than to count on the government to be the savior of the poor (I'm not preaching as I don't do enough of that myself and need to up my game).
 
Last edited:
Nov 16, 2013
3,395
2,030
743
33
tractor
#52
Alaska has Oil revenue sharing...Oklahoma should as well...but it's not 'really' UBI as most think of it, however, I agree that we should implement this exact same policy in Oklahoma...In fact it ought to be mentioned to the Governor if he really wants to make us a top 10 state he needs to outlaw the state income tax and implement revenue sharing by the energy companies...It would be a win/win for everyone in Oklahoma IMHO. Energy companies can attract employees with no state income tax and with our revenue sharing and low real estate prices we can help the less fortunate.

Honestly, I'm not sure a national UBI would work considering the distinct differences in our economy and cost of living by regions...I think it might be better to do it by region based on politics and economics being regional and thus making programs easier to pass and more diverse state to state. Then each state can pick and choose what's right for them from the choices they see in other states (i.e. the Alaska model fits Oklahoma and Texas well).
So where will this revenue sharing come from? Some of us already receive revenue from mineral rights and leases, do you propose to take those away from the people that own them? Alaska is different due to the way it was settled and the amount of federal and state land in Alaska. Oklahoma was settled and the mineral rights went with the land that was proved up on.
 

Rack

Federal Marshal
Oct 13, 2004
19,229
8,706
1,743
Earth
#53
So where will this revenue sharing come from? Some of us already receive revenue from mineral rights and leases, do you propose to take those away from the people that own them? Alaska is different due to the way it was settled and the amount of federal and state land in Alaska. Oklahoma was settled and the mineral rights went with the land that was proved up on.
That's above my pay grade and NO you can't take away peoples mineral rights...I certainly don't believe in the redistribution only distribution of possible excess revenue creation that doesn't yet exist. Perhaps as companies increase their revenues they could work with the state on a program that would pay residents a kickback based on the state granting all citizens no income tax...enabling big producers like energy companies to attract better employees to the state without an income tax thus increasing their production and value...then passing part of that increased revenue along to residents. It get's rid of income tax in Oklahoma AND creates a income just for living here and doesn't reduce anything from anyone only based on gains. Now, if those gains don't continue the kick backs would cease as well.
 
Last edited:
Jul 22, 2011
1,697
2,328
743
#54
I watched the entire YouTube and took notes...A few questions I felt Princess Bride Guy (sorry couldn't help it) didn't answer in his talk...

1.) Inflation, IMHO, is inevitable locally when you inject money into everyone's pockets and you will always have to inject more money to keep up with it. It's simple economics...the more we have the more we spend on things and the price of those things goes up the more easily we buy them especially as they become more scarce. It why eating out is more expensive than in was in 1970, gas, housing, everything an so on, we consume more and it cost more all the time. If everyone has extra money everything increases in cost and we consume more...but, IMHO, we don't really fix anything.
2.) Also how does one continue to keep his/her motivation at an all time high when one has ALL their "basic needs" met?" Despite his rhetoric (and "studies") I do think that motivation to get out of poverty is a driving factor to achieve greatness...there are 1,000's if not millions of examples of people who started in poverty and overcame it and even credit the stress that was placed on them as a motivation to achieve greatness. For me a job loss 25 years ago was the best thing that ever happened to me...it created great stress financially but motivated me to action and change...without that stress pushing me to faith I'm still stuck in a dead end job, I'm poor, likely divorced and with too much debt.
3.) Fair / fairness and value are not a right granted just for living they have to be earned. Equal pay for all work is not a good concept and creates stagnant society's down the line (we see it with communism and socialism all over the world). Some production has more value to society than other production, and fairness is when one is paid the proper wage based on the value we bring to society not just our existence. There is an inequality in value on this Earth and that is just how it is until things are fixed by the only one who can fix it (sorry faith can fix it but nothing else can IMHO). So taking away incentive to provide more value than others (i.e. removing competition) is vastly unfair and profoundly unwise.

While I do think programs like Social Security which is basically this exact same concept, have merit, I also KNOW that they reduce the private savings of individuals like myself who can always point to SS as a "safety net" in case I don't save enough...While I do, hopefully, benefit from SS, it does reduce my motivation to save ever so slightly and it's removal would definitely increase my motivation to get serious.

I think it's a general "copout" to count on our government when each of us is capable of making changes that that help the poor personally. I also think it folly to have the government attempt this even more than they already do because it's filled with corrupt power hungry individuals that don't CARE AT ALL about the poor...only the votes they can garner from them and those who don't want to lift their own fingers to help instead touting their rhetoric and complaint, which is false charity. Once again, I do think this is a worthwhile concept to explore and it is our responsibility to take care of the poor...However, I think it's FAR more important that we each individually do our part to help the poor personally and through our local church's and charities than to count on the government to be the savior of the poor (I'm not preaching as I don't do enough of that myself and need to up my game).
1.) Price controls

2.)Chinese style "Social Credit System"

3.)Re-education for dissenters
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,703
32,069
1,743
oklahoma city
#55
Typical liberal group (moron) think - giving money away will create more wealth for everyone. If you believe that, why not give everyone an amount that raises their net wealth to $100k? Think of the boost to the economy! Everyone would quickly become a gozillionaire!

Do us all a favor and just call it (UBI) what it is. A socialist program to redistribute wealth.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hey, if you don't understand the definition of words, don't ask me to join. Look up "socialism." While clueless people think it means "any government I don't like" it doesn't.

If you think Thomas Paine and Milton Friedman are liberals, then your claim to know what a moron is comes from experience.

And that reductio ad absurdum argument comes from someone that obviously is completely clueless about things like money supply. Anyone with a basic understanding of that would be able to answer their own question. I'm not going to take the time to teach you as you do not seem teachable.

This will be my last post to you on the subject. Arrogance and stupidity are a horrible combination for a conversation. You have no desire to consider something other than that you are right and demeaning others with a differing opinion cements your clueless beliefs.

You are a typical person with some money (would not surprise me if from Daddy) who thinks they protect it by keeping others down. The classic "I've got a huge piece of pie so I'm smart and those that don't are stupid so I'm gonna protect my pie." So very simplistic and wrong but very hard to overcome.

Enjoy your cars.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,703
32,069
1,743
oklahoma city
#56
I watched the entire YouTube and took notes...A few questions I felt Princess Bride Guy (sorry couldn't help it) didn't answer in his talk...

1.) Inflation, IMHO, is inevitable locally when you inject money into everyone's pockets and you will always have to inject more money to keep up with it. It's simple economics...the more we have the more we spend on things and the price of those things goes up the more easily we buy them especially as they become more scarce. It why eating out is more expensive than in was in 1970, gas, housing, everything an so on, we consume more and it cost more all the time. If everyone has extra money everything increases in cost and we consume more...but, IMHO, we don't really fix anything.
Your simple economics are incorrect. Gas, eating out, and those things are far less expensive than in the 1970s relative to the money that people have. And why do people have more money? Because the money supply has increased. Money supply is what causes inflation, not people buying different things with the same money. And, if economic output increased as it would, that would fight inflation even if the Fed increased money supply.

“Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon in the sense that it is and can be produced only by a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than in output.

Friedman (1970) The Counter-Revolution in Monetary Theory.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,703
32,069
1,743
oklahoma city
#57
I watched the entire YouTube and took notes...A few questions I felt Princess Bride Guy (sorry couldn't help it) didn't answer in his talk...

2.) Also how does one continue to keep his/her motivation at an all time high when one has ALL their "basic needs" met?" Despite his rhetoric (and "studies") I do think that motivation to get out of poverty is a driving factor to achieve greatness...there are 1,000's if not millions of examples of people who started in poverty and overcame it and even credit the stress that was placed on them as a motivation to achieve greatness. For me a job loss 25 years ago was the best thing that ever happened to me...it created great stress financially but motivated me to action and change...without that stress pushing me to faith I'm still stuck in a dead end job, I'm poor, likely divorced and with too much debt.
Wait a minute, we are talking about $12k a year here. And, for those currently on food stamps, welfare etc, this would be $12K instead of those not on top of those. Do you really think a huge number of motivated people would go, WOOOHOOOO! I am making $12K a year I don't have to raise a single finger to do anything!!!"
OF course not. Look at military retirees. They make 4-8X that amount when they retire. I know many and do not know of a single one that at the age of 45 when they retired said, "I'm just gonna live on my $35K a year retirement." All of them got a job or did something. NOW, if that retirement was reduced if they worked like current means-tested welfare, you betcha there would be many military retirees that would not work. But, that is the beauty of this. It does not hold you in poverty, it is simply a base.
Of course when talking about $350 million people, there are always some. But, when creating programs, you look for the most benefit. There are billionaires that don't give much to charity. But, the majority do. You don't design tax breaks around the fact that a few don't give.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,703
32,069
1,743
oklahoma city
#58
3.) Fair / fairness and value are not a right granted just for living they have to be earned. Equal pay for all work is not a good concept and creates stagnant society's down the line (we see it with communism and socialism all over the world). Some production has more value to society than other production, and fairness is when one is paid the proper wage based on the value we bring to society not just our existence. There is an inequality in value on this Earth and that is just how it is until things are fixed by the only one who can fix it (sorry faith can fix it but nothing else can IMHO). So taking away incentive to provide more value than others (i.e. removing competition) is vastly unfair and profoundly unwise.
.
This proposal has nothing to do with any of what you are talking about. I think you are talking about equal pay for women and minimum wage proposals. This is not that. In fact, with a UBI the worker is empowered and would not have to take a crappy job out of sheer desperation at a wage below their self-worth. Which puts that negotiation on a more reasonable level, and should lead to the government getting out of the wage contract. We would not necessarily need a min wage if every man can contract while not starving to death.

Do not understand what you mean by removing competition. Honestly, it sounds like you are at the point of pulling out talking points there. This would increase competition. Just think how many more people would be willing to start a small business if not fearing their kids starving while they are getting started. Or, how many more people would take a part-time job knowing it doesn't kill food stamps/welfare etc because those are gone and they now get a UBI and can work if they want.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,703
32,069
1,743
oklahoma city
#59
While I do think programs like Social Security which is basically this exact same concept, have merit, I also KNOW that they reduce the private savings of individuals like myself who can always point to SS as a "safety net" in case I don't save enough...While I do, hopefully, benefit from SS, it does reduce my motivation to save ever so slightly and it's removal would definitely increase my motivation to get serious.

I think it's a general "copout" to count on our government when each of us is capable of making changes that that help the poor personally. I also think it folly to have the government attempt this even more than they already do because it's filled with corrupt power hungry individuals that don't CARE AT ALL about the poor...only the votes they can garner from them and those who don't want to lift their own fingers to help instead touting their rhetoric and complaint, which is false charity. Once again, I do think this is a worthwhile concept to explore and it is our responsibility to take care of the poor...However, I think it's FAR more important that we each individually do our part to help the poor personally and through our local church's and charities than to count on the government to be the savior of the poor (I'm not preaching as I don't do enough of that myself and need to up my game).
This is nothing like social security at all.

As far as your second paragraph. Claiming something should happen despite the fact that it has not happened in forever as an argument against someone trying to do something beneficial is simply a poor argument.

"Doctor, will you save my husband, he is having a heart attack." Said the distraught wife. "Well, I could, but see, that is a 'copout.' You see, he should have not smoked. And, he ate a ton of fast food instead of healthy vegetables and lean meats. And, that stressful lifestyle of his. It is far more important that he lived better toward the health of his heart than me giving him medications and removing that plaque. Look at me for example. I don't smoke and my heart is fine. And, when I do these things people claim I am only doing it for money and power. So, I'm just not going to do this to help something when there was a different way that should have been done."
Is that really your argument?
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,703
32,069
1,743
oklahoma city
#60
You answered your question IN the question. Voting against government growth because you think they will screw it up IS the point of having elections.
Replacing means-tested welfare with a change to a better way is "growth" toward a better way. The idea that they will add welfare on top as if they could not add welfare either way is not logical.

Are you saying that you want the government to remain status quo in all ways other than shrinking? Think about that. Never improve because even improvement can be screwed up.