Do you support an UBI?

[betiko]

I didn't read the rest of your post.

Apology accepted.

Sorry, i haven t been reading the rest of this thread.
So does high taxes to the richest + high welfare prestations + free health care for all wins over UBI?

[saxitoxin]

I didn't read the rest of your post.

Apology accepted.

Sorry, i haven t been reading the rest of this thread.
So does high taxes to the richest + high welfare prestations + free health care for all wins over UBI?

Mets just saw School Ties on Amazon Prime. That's all.

[Metsfanmax]

I didn't read the rest of your post.

Apology accepted.

Sorry, i haven t been reading the rest of this thread.
So does high taxes to the richest + high welfare prestations + free health care for all wins over UBI?

I don't know, I'm not an economist. A UBI sounds nice in principle but I don't know what unforeseen consequences it would have. That's why I was hoping some country would try it and provide a test case, but no such luck yet.

I suspect that TGD was right though, that having lots of agencies trying to administer welfare separately and sometimes at cross-purposes is not as efficient or as helpful as just providing enough money for people to buy what they need, and let them making their own choices. The problem with, for example, "free health care for all" is that it doesn't give people the freedom to choose how to spend their money. I still vastly prefer it over the alternative of no health care and no UBI, but between the two of them it's not easy for me to say what is better.

[Lootifer]

I didn't read the rest of your post.

Apology accepted.

Sorry, i haven t been reading the rest of this thread.
So does high taxes to the richest + high welfare prestations + free health care for all wins over UBI?

High taxes and socialized healthcare are not muturally exclusive with the UBI.

The UBI is simply an alternative to no welfare or means tested welfare.

[Metsfanmax]

I didn't read the rest of your post.

Apology accepted.

Sorry, i haven t been reading the rest of this thread.
So does high taxes to the richest + high welfare prestations + free health care for all wins over UBI?

Mets just saw School Ties on Amazon Prime. That's all.

Oh right. I forgot that the soap opera producer who just got appointed as ambassador to Hungary had real qualifications for the job. It couldn't have been the money she donated to the president's campaign. I am sure she will do a wonderful job.

[saxitoxin]

I didn't read the rest of your post.

Apology accepted.

Sorry, i haven t been reading the rest of this thread.
So does high taxes to the richest + high welfare prestations + free health care for all wins over UBI?

Mets just saw School Ties on Amazon Prime. That's all.

Oh right. I forgot that the soap opera producer who just got appointed as ambassador to Hungary had real qualifications for the job. It couldn't have been the money she donated to the president's campaign. I am sure she will do a wonderful job.

Are her parents dead?

Your thesis in this thread is that you want an estate tax to stop old money. And yet your anecdotal evidence and gut feelings, which is thus far all you've cited, keeps giving examples of corruption bought by new money that would not be changed by the estate tax.

[Metsfanmax]

Are her parents dead?

Your thesis in this thread is that you want an estate tax to stop old money. And yet your anecdotal evidence and gut feelings, which is thus far all you've cited, keeps giving examples of corruption bought by new money that would not be changed by the estate tax.

My thesis in this thread was that there are some examples of old money that has political ramifications, and that an estate tax may help with that. Then you came in and basically implied that millionaires don't have individual political influence and that it is really big multinational corporations that run the show. At this point I responded to you by pointing out that millionaires do have political influence, and here's an example. You then responded by saying that in this particular case, the estate tax wouldn't help. That is fine, I admit that; there are also plenty of examples of old money affecting politics, and we can go through them in painstaking detail if you really want to. But I know you. You didn't come in here to say that my reason for supporting the estate tax is justifiable but also won't have that big of an effect. You came in here to mock my understanding of politics and make House of Cards references. Frankly, you're not adding anything to the conversation at this point.

[demonfork]

I agree with MFM on his main point (WTF!! I agree with MFM?!!)...

It is repugnant that a society that has access to unlimited wealth, technology & resources will allow the poorest of the poor to suffer and starve while at the same time foster an environment conducive to perpetuating mega wealthy dynasties.

The poor are allowed to suffer wile others are born into a legacy of wealth that will last 1000 lifetimes.


If we can't take care of the poor, especially when we have the ability to do so, then we have failed as a species.

[nietzsche]

The question remain though, do we really need to take the estates of the wealthy or stopping the starving can be done with a better allocation of the resources goverments already have, e.g., the money spent on wars?

[mrswdk]

Every night I go out for dinner, at which time I give money to a restaurant which uses that money to pay wages to its staff. Progressive income redistribution at its best.

I guess what I'm saying is that if people earn their UBI then the markets will see that they get it. No need for interference.

[_sabotage_]

What if the markets have no interest in a person earning their UBI?

Three profitable meat processing plants were bought up by the market leader and closed down. The jobs lost here might add a job or two to the market leaders employee base, but they certainly didn't pay vast sums to lose money.

The most toted economic plan for Nova Scotia, the shipbuilding project, promised to create hundreds of jobs. What we don't hear, is that the entire shipbuilding team was fired, some of whom may be rehired, and in fact it is creating almost no new jobs.

IBM for the third time in as many decades is being attracted to Nova Scotia. We provide them with facilities, with subsidies, with cash and tax breaks and with guaranteed profit. We are told that IBM will be hiring more than a hundred locals. What we don't hear is that the guaranteed profit part was actually being done by 50 locals and that they are merely being moved to IBM and the profit is being given to IBM.

None of this suggests that the markets have an interest in people earning a UBI. What it does suggest is that government is fully on board with globalization, centralization and welfare.

My stance of a capital forfeiture tax if the capital is not creating social benefit is actually happening. Gates, Buffet, Jack Lee and many other wealthy families have already apportioned the bulk of their capitals to "charities" upon their deaths, with only a stipend going to their offspring.

Whether social utility exists in doing this, or if they are merely furthering their personal ideology remains unseen. Their ideologies are at best questionable, but it's their money.

[mrswdk]

Three profitable meat processing plants were bought up by the market leader and closed down. The jobs lost here might add a job or two to the market leaders employee base, but they certainly didn't pay vast sums to lose money.

The demand for meat won’t go down as a result of this. People still want to buy just as much meat as before and it will still take just as much work to produce that meat. If the market leader doesn’t expand its operations in the wake of this then there is no reason why a newcomer can’t come along, set up a new plant and start selling to the people who used to buy meat from the plants that just got shut down.

IBM for the third time in as many decades is being attracted to Nova Scotia. We provide them with facilities, with subsidies, with cash and tax breaks and with guaranteed profit.

That is the opposite of a free market interaction. That is your government using people’s tax money to distort the market and give an advantage to one particular corporation. The problem is not that ‘the free market doesn’t care’, the problem is that the government is manipulating the market and making resource allocation less efficient.

My stance of a capital forfeiture tax if the capital is not creating social benefit is actually happening. Gates, Buffet, Jack Lee and many other wealthy families have already apportioned the bulk of their capitals to "charities" upon their deaths, with only a stipend going to their offspring.

Whether social utility exists in doing this, or if they are merely furthering their personal ideology remains unseen. Their ideologies are at best questionable, but it's their money.

So despite just days ago arguing that you are in favor of an estate tax because handing down my estate to my children has unknown and possibly very little social utility, and so I therefore should be relieved of the right to hand down my estate, you are now arguing that it is perfectly okay for these billionaires to plough their estates into projects of questionable social utility because ‘it’s their money’.

[saxitoxin]

Are her parents dead?

Your thesis in this thread is that you want an estate tax to stop old money. And yet your anecdotal evidence and gut feelings, which is thus far all you've cited, keeps giving examples of corruption bought by new money that would not be changed by the estate tax.

My thesis in this thread was that there are some examples of old money that has political ramifications, and that an estate tax may help with that. Then you came in and basically implied that millionaires don't have individual political influence and that it is really big multinational corporations that run the show. At this point I responded to you by pointing out that millionaires do have political influence, and here's an example. You then responded by saying that in this particular case, the estate tax wouldn't help. That is fine, I admit that; there are also plenty of examples of old money affecting politics, and we can go through them in painstaking detail if you really want to. But I know you. You didn't come in here to say that my reason for supporting the estate tax is justifiable but also won't have that big of an effect. You came in here to mock my understanding of politics and make House of Cards references. Frankly, you're not adding anything to the conversation at this point.

I'll take that as a no, her parents aren't dead.

[_sabotage_]

All good points Mrs, if you are an alien writing a report on humans based solely on Field of Dreams.

But I'm not an alien teacher whose bonus in part depends on your grade, so...

If the market leader is increasing production by 5%, it will not be incurring a 5% increase in its operating costs. It's admin team may not increase at all, plant workers may increase slightly.

They will be able to gouge the market and if a would be competitor rears it's head, they face the extensive initial capital investment to compete against a deep-pocketed, highly invested market leader that can afford to drop prices long enough to crush them.

That the market is being distorted isn't the issue. Since there has been a gross loss of jobs due to technical innovation, economies of scale, legislation and international trade, we have to have a way to compensate for greater market efficiency.

That a few hundred thousand factory workers in Dongguan can produce most of the worlds shoes is a matter of efficiency, but if we are not replacing the jobs for the hundreds of thousands who lost their jobs due to the greater efficiency, then we have merely found a way to compensate fewer people, then what we have done is created greater unemployment.

That people can innovate to create less work for greater resources is great up to the point where people no longer have a means of paying for the resources because they have no contribution required of them and therefore no means to offer the system.

We have passed the point where technology means no one needs to suffer. We are past the point where most of our labour is spent securing resources rather than developing them. Much more is spent by Bell making sure no one accesses their services for free, for billing, advertising, providing POSs then actually providing telecommunications.

We have become efficient to the point where we don't need people. Millions of acres of forests which had serviced an entire province for generations can be clear cut by a bus load of people. Fisheries which provided for all kinds of people is now done in pens by a hundredth the boats and workers. The workers often come from Asia with the sole purpose of sending every cent they can back home.

We just don't need as many people doing grunt work. Soon, we will need none and just have people allocating and protecting resources. Which is fine by me, but not fine when the allocating system is so skewed.

In many cases, the economy is artificially creating work merely so that the government has a tighter reign on its population. Under such circumstances, where its in the governments interest to maintain an engaged population, where resources are artificially made more expensive through keeping people away from them and charging for use, where some one not successful in the allotment is put in peril, then we can only foresee inequality in perpetuity.

If we said, the world will buy up the satellites and make telecommunication a universal gift, we would hear the familiar concept that suddenly millions of worldwide nerds would utterly lose interest in furthering telecommunication's technology. This is absolute drivel. Money is not the sole or even a very valid indicator of technological innovation. It actually serves as an obstacle to innovation. That the US receives hundreds of billions in oil tax as well as a boost from the petrodollar makes the likelihood of significant technological improvement less.

Unless you want a world where unmanned businesses own each other and all means of production, then we have to redefine the direction we are innovating towards.

I don't remember saying I support a UBI. I said I don't support it as it just further promulgates a system no longer compatible with human development. While producing efficiencies on a grand scale, it misses out on efficiencies on a local scale. It doesn't attempt to increase the size of the pot or make people more secure.

What I do support is already being done. But I don't support the way it's being done. People should be allowed to scrutinize and decry unfair practices, but the last conference these guys held had the theme of consolidating their message. They want everyone singing the same harmonious song to drown out any dissent.

If you look at their track records, they are intent on depopulating the world. In my view, that is not of social benefit.

To me, loot's quote is not only a valid way of judging a society, but should be the primary mover of society. We should reorganize our societies, build in the means of fulfilling our basic needs, incentivize through recognizing innovations, share them openly and specialize in a tradeable commodity with which we can secure the resources that are not as available to our community as others.

This should be highly platform based, shared grunt work, shared social benefit, with place of recognition constantly conceded.

Eventually, we will displace the grunt work, and with more resources allocated to producing stuff and with different communities vying for tradeable goods, we will see rapid improvement.

All that we need is to stop telling people that having a bit more than the other guy shows your worth and show instead that those who are most productive towards social benefit are most recognized by society.

[mrswdk]

lol. 'Field of Dreams', he mocks, before launching into a vague and detail-less thesis about a world in which cheery workers toil away for the collective good in return for 'recognition'. Talk about fantasy land.

I don't remember saying I support a UBI.

I never said you did. I said you expressed support for an estate tax.

[_sabotage_]

Detail-less thesis.

Do you really want me to talk about hempcrete?

[Metsfanmax]

What if the markets have no interest in a person earning their UBI?

That is not a particularly relevant question. The markets don't exist to maximize the social welfare function, so it is in principle acceptable to create inefficient market outcomes if it results in higher social utility.

[mrswdk]

Detail-less thesis.

Do you really want me to talk about hempcrete?

Not really