Dennis Tate Posted January 1, 2022 Author Share Posted January 1, 2022 4 hours ago, little2add said: Stupid survey unless your physically or me truly disabled in some way handing out minimum basic income for outright laziness is a dangerous soul sucking idea This is a very common belief but..... we are now facing a situation where robots and even A.I. can replace a high percentage of workers.... and since we don't want people starving to death...... we should discuss the option of giving a Basic Minimum Income that is comparable to welfare or social security to ALL LEGAL CITIZENS AND LEGAL RESIDETNS BUT..... this UNCONDITIONAL income supplement should be taxable........ and once we know the history of Central Banking Policies over these past three or four centuries...... we will know that we can do this at the same time that we actually reduce taxation to less than ten percent combined highest level income tax plus tax on consumption...... (you read me correctly...... COMBINED).... THE USA AND CANADIAN DOLLARS ARE BACKED UP THE PRODUCTIVITY OF CANADIANS AND AMERICANS...... AND A GOLD STANDARD IS A RELATIVELY SILLY IDEA...... that can be sold to an under informed population rather easily.... 4 hours ago, little2add said: personal wealth or the lack thereof is not a reason or an excuse for the slaughter of innocence. True..... the lack of wealth is no excuse for choosing to abort an unborn baby but...... on this third rock...... the eight thousand five hundred wealthiest people on earth have one million to ten million employees who are C.E.O's, Hollywood actors and actresses, BigMedia news anchors, elected political officials, BigPharma bureaucrats, etc., etc., etc., etc., and these one to ten million highly paid people are surprisingly selfish and predatory in what they promote as policies to the eight thousand five hundred mega-wealthy people...... so..... we are all faced with some challenging decisions that we must make.... www.BankingSystemFlaws.blogspot.ca/ and www.BankingSystemsFlaws.blogspot.ca/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Credo in Deum Posted January 1, 2022 Share Posted January 1, 2022 47 minutes ago, Dennis Tate said: This is a very common belief but..... we are now facing a situation where robots and even A.I. can replace a high percentage of workers.... and since we don't want people starving to death...... we should discuss the option of giving a Basic Minimum Income that is comparable to welfare or social security to ALL LEGAL CITIZENS AND LEGAL RESIDETNS BUT..... this UNCONDITIONAL income supplement should be taxable........ and once we know the history of Central Banking Policies over these past three or four centuries...... we will know that we can do this at the same time that we actually reduce taxation to less than ten percent combined highest level income tax plus tax on consumption...... (you read me correctly...... COMBINED).... THE USA AND CANADIAN DOLLARS ARE BACKED UP THE PRODUCTIVITY OF CANADIANS AND AMERICANS...... AND A GOLD STANDARD IS A RELATIVELY SILLY IDEA...... that can be sold to an under informed population rather easily.... True..... the lack of wealth is no excuse for choosing to abort an unborn baby but...... on this third rock...... the eight thousand five hundred wealthiest people on earth have one million to ten million employees who are C.E.O's, Hollywood actors and actresses, BigMedia news anchors, elected political officials, BigPharma bureaucrats, etc., etc., etc., etc., and these one to ten million highly paid people are surprisingly selfish and predatory in what they promote as policies to the eight thousand five hundred mega-wealthy people...... so..... we are all faced with some challenging decisions that we must make.... www.BankingSystemFlaws.blogspot.ca/ and www.BankingSystemsFlaws.blogspot.ca/ Why is the Gold Standard a silly idea? It’s purpose is to create a stable currency that would prevent Governments from printing their currency into extinction, like what we’re doing now! The Central Banks are moving to a digital currency system; this is part of the globalist plan for a one world government and slavery state. With digital currency, the government would have complete control of your money. If your argument is that we need a basic minimum income because robots threaten our livelihood then why not pass legislation that regulates/restricts the implementation of robots? Furthermore if AI/Robotics are going to cause us to not have jobs and require a basic minimum income then what makes you think such a government won’t try to restrict pregnancies in order to save money? The U.S. did have forced sterilization not to long ago, what makes you think they wouldn’t do forced abortions? From what it looks like, by advocating for a Basic Minimum Income you’re going to do nothing but further the growth of technocracy and help make the majority of people obsolete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis Tate Posted January 1, 2022 Author Share Posted January 1, 2022 (edited) 44 minutes ago, Credo in Deum said: Why is the Gold Standard a silly idea? It’s purpose is to create a stable currency that would prevent Governments from printing their currency into extinction, like what we’re doing now! The Central Banks are moving to a digital currency system; this is part of the globalist plan for a one world government and slavery state. With digital currency, the government would have complete control of your money. If your argument is that we need a basic minimum income because robots threaten our livelihood then why not pass legislation that regulates/restricts the implementation of robots? Furthermore if AI/Robotics are going to cause us to not have jobs and require a basic minimum income then what makes you think such a government won’t try to restrict pregnancies in order to save money? The U.S. did have forced sterilization not to long ago, what makes you think they wouldn’t do forced abortions? From what it looks like, by advocating for a Basic Minimum Income you’re going to do nothing but further the growth of technocracy and help make the majority of people obsolete. I have to admit that you have some good points...... but the obvious and simple truth that the USA dollars are backed up by the PRODUCTIVITY of Americans and the Canadian dollar is backed up by the productivity of Canadians.... is a better idea.... because GOLD is the world's best conductor of electricity and needs to be used in the off the scale powerful computer technology of the next fifty years....... as opposed to being relatively WASTED AS BEING MERE COINS OR TOKENS OF SOME TYPE! An important part of HOLLYWOOD will soon be transferred to the nation of Israel...... but a lot of indictments will happen at the same time.... the predators need to be dealt with. Edited January 1, 2022 by Dennis Tate ADD COMMENT.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
little2add Posted January 1, 2022 Share Posted January 1, 2022 2 hours ago, Dennis Tate said: mega-wealthy people..... But we all (in America) have: super markets, indoor plumbing, clean drinking water, freedom of religion, the best healthcare on the planet, cellphones, automobiles, electricity, and luxuries unimaginable just 100 years ago. so there’s mega wealthy or the so called 1%. (I don’t care) actually that’s there problem. i myself feel very blessed and the land of America is too. I (thank God) have my health, children and grandchildren and a good quality of life. No money in the bank and I’m fine with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis Tate Posted January 1, 2022 Author Share Posted January 1, 2022 13 minutes ago, little2add said: But we all (in America) have: super markets, indoor plumbing, clean drinking water, freedom of religion, the best healthcare on the planet, cellphones, automobiles, electricity, and luxuries unimaginable just 100 years ago. so there’s mega wealthy or the so called 1%. (I don’t care) actually that’s there problem. i myself feel very blessed and the land of America is too. I (thank God) have my health, children and grandchildren and a good quality of life. No money in the bank and I’m fine with that. Jesus has arranged that I own one hundred and ten acres of land in rural Nova Scotia..... plus my wife and I have our home on four acres nearly paid off..... On December twenty I began driving to near Toronto and I am off the scale blessed to be right now in a full house with children and grandchildren..... so I really do understand how you feel blessed......... I totally empathize....... Twenty years ago I could not have imagined being as blessed as I am right now...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralfy Posted January 1, 2022 Share Posted January 1, 2022 2 hours ago, Credo in Deum said: Why is the Gold Standard a silly idea? It’s purpose is to create a stable currency that would prevent Governments from printing their currency into extinction, like what we’re doing now! The Central Banks are moving to a digital currency system; this is part of the globalist plan for a one world government and slavery state. With digital currency, the government would have complete control of your money. If your argument is that we need a basic minimum income because robots threaten our livelihood then why not pass legislation that regulates/restricts the implementation of robots? Furthermore if AI/Robotics are going to cause us to not have jobs and require a basic minimum income then what makes you think such a government won’t try to restrict pregnancies in order to save money? The U.S. did have forced sterilization not to long ago, what makes you think they wouldn’t do forced abortions? From what it looks like, by advocating for a Basic Minimum Income you’re going to do nothing but further the growth of technocracy and help make the majority of people obsolete. If you take the total supply of gold and even silver worldwide and divide it by the world population, you end up with only a few troy ounces per person. Much of money supply has been digital or its equivalent for some time, with only a fraction consisting of cash and coins. That's because much of the world economy involves large transactions. Much of credit worldwide is controlled by commercial banks, and even central banks work for them. In the case of countries like the U.S., the central bank is actually a private consortium of Wall Street banks. About automation threatening jobs, the catch is that robots aren't consumers. That means businesses automate because they want more production, but to pay for that they need more consumers, and consumers can buy only using income from jobs. Thus, automation can only lead to shifts in types of jobs. It's one of those interesting ironies of capitalism, and can also be seen in light of technocracy: businesses want to maximize profits by decreasing labor costs through technology, but profits can only be made when what's produced is sold, and the buyers are the same laborers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted January 2, 2022 Share Posted January 2, 2022 (edited) On 12/31/2021 at 10:45 AM, Luigi said: Might, might, might, might. I do not want to spend tax money on "might." I want to know what taxpayers are getting for the money the government takes from their wages. Some people would use the money to raise their children. Some people would use the money for abortions. Some people would buy hair extensions. Some people would buy recreational marijuana. It would be a wash - equal amounts of good and bad spending (and I'm being optimistic here - my true expectation is that most of a BMI would be wasted). I cannot support wasting tax dollars on a proposal that would have no clear benefit to the nation or its people. I'm generally in favor of a universal basic income (specifically in the form of a negative income tax as advocated for by Friedman). The idea here, of course, is that you have to eliminate all of the current social programs like food stamps, public housing, medicare, etc, and the agencies that run them. With UBI you take $100 cash out of our paychecks and hand the $100 to someone in need, who uses it however he sees fit. With the current system out of the $100 the government takes, it gives $25 to employees of X welfare agency, $25 to employees of Y welfare agency, $25 to employees of Z welfare agency, and then there's a $15 housing allowance and $10 in food stamps left over the for person who actually needs the money. The idea with UBI is that you eliminate all of the agencies that remove so much money and efficiency out of the system. Sure, if you give people money, is some of it going to be put to unintended uses? Certainly. But that already happens now. When I grew up and we got food stamps, we sold some of them at 50 cents on the dollar to our neighbors, and then took the remaining money and spent it on other things that we wanted or needed. And even if you assume that recipients aren't going to try to work the system (which is unrealistic) you are going to end up with plenty of "bad spending" because the people running the agencies don't know how to properly allocate funds to reflect the real needs of people. Central planning failed miserably for communist Russia and any other country who has tried it, so I'm not sure why it makes sense here. The question is which is a better alternative, just giving people money and letting them use it as they see fit, or treating them essentially as "children" who need to be told exactly what their needs are and how they should spend. If you lost your job and needed help for a few months in between jobs, would you rather I give you cash, or would you want me to give you a $100 voucher for food, a $100 voucher for rent, a $100 voucher for your energy bill? Would you prefer that I just lend you some cash so that you can pay your bills, or would you want to me to require that you bring me a copy of your gas bill and electricity bill, so that I can pay them for you, because if I just gave you the cash there's a possibility that you would buy drugs with it? Obviously you'd rather get the money yourself because you best know what your own needs are. And you would not want to be demeaned and treated like a child, or someone who is not trustworthy. But when we look at other people, we tend to look at them as infants who are incapable of making the same choices for themselves that we deem ourselves capable of. I don't think that's right. Edited January 2, 2022 by Peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luigi Posted January 2, 2022 Share Posted January 2, 2022 Peace - I agree with a great deal of what you say. I know a good many people who are dependent on the government dole, and I've seen what a pain in the patoot it is for them. I know a grocery checker who developed the theory - I've read the same theory by academics recently, but I heard it from her first, and a long time ago - that it's expensive to be poor. I get all that. I also get that government administrative offices are wasteful. The taxpayer winds up spending a lot of tax dollars on the administrators, tax dollars that really should go directly to our fellow citizens in need. I'm not sure that a UBI would solve that problem, though. I fear that it would just be one bureaucracy replacing another, because everything the federal government does (or even thinks about!) is a bureaucratic nightmare. I also get that the government dole doesn't cover a whole lot of costs that need to be covered. The same grocery checker who developed "It's expensive to be poor" is of the opinion that "food stamps" should be converted to "necessity stamps." That would preclude the buying of a sheet cake with a photo sprayed onto the icing for a baby's first birthday party, but it would allow the purchase of tooth brushes, tooth paste, deodorant, cleaning supplies, pest control products, and other necessities that are not covered by any federal program. I know all about the black market in food stamps. Some people whom I respect a great deal engage in it. One even told me, "Well, you pretty much have to!" She's a church-going woman, runs a wonderful church-based program, she works, her husband works, and most of their children are grown, but she still participates in the food stamp black market. Eliminating that would be worthwhile, but again, my feeling is that a UBI would simple replace the current multi-system with a new, more efficient, centralized system that would soon develop its own black market. But really my biggest reason for opposing any kind of UBI is that poverty is not *only* a question of inadequate income. I know plenty of people who are economically middle class or higher, earn more-than-adequate income to live as they were raised (or better), are well educated, and are good at mathematics, but who are still in serious, serious debt. They have internalized the American marketing-and-advertising industry's ideal that "You need more, newer, bigger, better, and more expensive." These are people with graduate degrees - both husband and wife - declaring bankruptcy, or at least going to credit counseling so they don't have to declare bankruptcy. Being able to set realistic consumer goals has nothing to do with income. Being able to live on what you earn and still save a little for retirement has *some* to do with income, but once you've reached a critical threshold, it really doesn't make any additional difference if you are consumed by greed, if you're never happy with what you have, if you live for conspicuous consumption. By the same token, I know plenty of people who never had "enough" money (by federal definition) but who lived a reasonable life, never went hungry, raised their children, and the whole bit. Father of 15, welder, adult brother-in-law with Down's Syndrome lived with them - they gardened, they wore hand-me-downs, the older children helped out with the younger children. Father of 11, engineer, bought powdered milk in 50-pound sacks, bought 70 loaves of day-old bread per month, godparents helped out with Catholic school tuition. I could go on, but you probably know people in each of these categories, too. A further problem is that "Enough is never enough." If the government distributed a UBI, the recipients would think it too little, and most liberals (of my acquaintance) would also think it too little. And fellow citizens who are just above the cutoff point would want the cutoff point raised, and if the formula is based on dollars-for-butts then a good many people would have more children to get higher payment. Our current system needs reform, but I don't think an UBI would is the way to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted January 2, 2022 Share Posted January 2, 2022 10 hours ago, Luigi said: Peace - I agree with a great deal of what you say. I know a good many people who are dependent on the government dole, and I've seen what a pain in the patoot it is for them. I know a grocery checker who developed the theory - I've read the same theory by academics recently, but I heard it from her first, and a long time ago - that it's expensive to be poor. I get all that. I also get that government administrative offices are wasteful. The taxpayer winds up spending a lot of tax dollars on the administrators, tax dollars that really should go directly to our fellow citizens in need. I'm not sure that a UBI would solve that problem, though. I fear that it would just be one bureaucracy replacing another, because everything the federal government does (or even thinks about!) is a bureaucratic nightmare. I also get that the government dole doesn't cover a whole lot of costs that need to be covered. The same grocery checker who developed "It's expensive to be poor" is of the opinion that "food stamps" should be converted to "necessity stamps." That would preclude the buying of a sheet cake with a photo sprayed onto the icing for a baby's first birthday party, but it would allow the purchase of tooth brushes, tooth paste, deodorant, cleaning supplies, pest control products, and other necessities that are not covered by any federal program. I know all about the black market in food stamps. Some people whom I respect a great deal engage in it. One even told me, "Well, you pretty much have to!" She's a church-going woman, runs a wonderful church-based program, she works, her husband works, and most of their children are grown, but she still participates in the food stamp black market. Eliminating that would be worthwhile, but again, my feeling is that a UBI would simple replace the current multi-system with a new, more efficient, centralized system that would soon develop its own black market. But really my biggest reason for opposing any kind of UBI is that poverty is not *only* a question of inadequate income. I know plenty of people who are economically middle class or higher, earn more-than-adequate income to live as they were raised (or better), are well educated, and are good at mathematics, but who are still in serious, serious debt. They have internalized the American marketing-and-advertising industry's ideal that "You need more, newer, bigger, better, and more expensive." These are people with graduate degrees - both husband and wife - declaring bankruptcy, or at least going to credit counseling so they don't have to declare bankruptcy. Being able to set realistic consumer goals has nothing to do with income. Being able to live on what you earn and still save a little for retirement has *some* to do with income, but once you've reached a critical threshold, it really doesn't make any additional difference if you are consumed by greed, if you're never happy with what you have, if you live for conspicuous consumption. By the same token, I know plenty of people who never had "enough" money (by federal definition) but who lived a reasonable life, never went hungry, raised their children, and the whole bit. Father of 15, welder, adult brother-in-law with Down's Syndrome lived with them - they gardened, they wore hand-me-downs, the older children helped out with the younger children. Father of 11, engineer, bought powdered milk in 50-pound sacks, bought 70 loaves of day-old bread per month, godparents helped out with Catholic school tuition. I could go on, but you probably know people in each of these categories, too. A further problem is that "Enough is never enough." If the government distributed a UBI, the recipients would think it too little, and most liberals (of my acquaintance) would also think it too little. And fellow citizens who are just above the cutoff point would want the cutoff point raised, and if the formula is based on dollars-for-butts then a good many people would have more children to get higher payment. Our current system needs reform, but I don't think an UBI would is the way to go. Hmm. Do you take issue with the general concept of welfare? With all this talk about "people are living beyond their means" it sounds a bit as though you don't like the idea that the government is taking money out of your pocket and giving it to other people. Other people who don't really need it because they don't know how to live as thrifty as you suggest that they should. It kind of sounds as though you want all of the social welfare programs to be eliminated because they would be unnecessary if only people knew how to live within their means. Am I off base? Sure, UBI is not a panacea. It ain't going to solve all of the problems of the world, and the system can be abused like any other. But the problems you identified above aren't unique to UBI. "Enough is never enough" - sure. But people who live in public housing would rather have nicer, bigger public housing. People who receive food stamps would rather have more food stamps, etc. There is a cutoff point for welfare benefits just like there is a cutoff for UBI, and plenty of parent already look at their children as a "welfare check". If UBI is out and we have all of these identified problems with the current system, what is your alternative? I'm guessing that you are gonna say "Eliminate all social programs and let everybody fend for themselves. This will force people to be efficient." Is that the better alternative that you have in mind? If not, what is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luigi Posted January 2, 2022 Share Posted January 2, 2022 "I'm guessing that you are gonna say "Eliminate all social programs and let everybody fend for themselves. This will force people to be efficient." " I'm not gonna say anything. I'll just keep my mouth shut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Credo in Deum Posted January 2, 2022 Share Posted January 2, 2022 How is UBI going to pay for itself? In short, who or what are you gonna tax to get this miracle income without inflation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted January 2, 2022 Share Posted January 2, 2022 20 minutes ago, Credo in Deum said: How is UBI going to pay for itself? In short, who or what are you gonna tax to get this miracle income without inflation? You eliminate all the massive social programs like medicare, unemployment, food stamps, public housing, etc. I’d nix public education myself, too. Every person gets some amount of cash, but other than that no other government assistance for the most part. https://www.aei.org/economics/exploring-a-budget-neutral-ubi/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
little2add Posted January 2, 2022 Share Posted January 2, 2022 (edited) who's going to get this free lunch, everybody? rich or poor? If that's the case then why would you get out of bed in the morning? or just stay in your pajamas, all day ? asking for a friend Edited January 2, 2022 by little2add Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Credo in Deum Posted January 2, 2022 Share Posted January 2, 2022 1 hour ago, Peace said: You eliminate all the massive social programs like medicare, unemployment, food stamps, public housing, etc. I’d nix public education myself, too. Every person gets some amount of cash, but other than that no other government assistance for the most part. https://www.aei.org/economics/exploring-a-budget-neutral-ubi/ Sounds like a system that doesn’t favor the elderly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
little2add Posted January 2, 2022 Share Posted January 2, 2022 Sounds like a system that favors slothfulness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now