General / Off-Topic The universal income

[We Are Groot]

The way I see it is most of the money goes to the rich and the 1%. The 1% that owns all the companies that everyone works for are always looking for ways to increase profits and remain competitive. That means setting up their companies offshore to avoid taxes as well as hiring in other countries for lower wages. Isn't the end result people getting paid less while there are less and less jobs because of a greed based economy?

It used to take about 5 years to save up for your first house in some parts of the world. Now it is 12 years and many relying on their parents to help them get over this hurdle? If people have less to spend companies are pulling in less profits because the money is just not there to go around.

You setup large companies in communities that sell good for cheaper prices causing smaller businesses to close up and shut down, eventually these large companies pull out leaving ghost towns in places etc. Not that this happens everywhere but have heard of this happening. Many jobs are being replaced by machines or where the customer now does the work that employees used to do saving these companies even more money. There was just something on television about it today.

Promising future with how the economy is currently setup? I don't know. The good thing is this is all figured out and run by experts who do know what they are talking about and use terms like "the trickle down effect" etc.

 

[Patrick_68000]

It's cannot be forced.

And here is a thing about the equality nonsense of the reds. We must be equal in the face of law, but we are not equal in any other terms, abilities, luck, wealth, birthright, ects ects ects...
Now tell me, how just is to take something away from the others what is rightfully theirs? So, no you can't take it away from the others what they have just like that! All you can do, is the iron out the problems from the economical system, like the one what i mentioned.

You have a part of the reply below. And no difficulty to get back by the law the thousands of billion of $, stolen by all these thieves and parasites of multinational, big bosses, bankers, speculators, tax evaders (google, apple, amazon ect), panama papers, etc ... etc .. etc ... Do a great cleaning at world level

I'd vote yes. I'm not gonna get into the economics of it all because everyone says something different and I don't know who to believe - besides, I can't be bothered getting into an argument...but I think you've gotta look after your neighbour if you want a healthy world. Give everyone food, a home and medical care...and if you want more, try to contribute to the world that's keeping you at the very least, alive and healthy.

Technology changes everything.

Things I think should be free for everyone, regardless of how much of a lazy bum they are:
- Food and water
- Housing
- Heating
- Electricity
- Communications (phone/internet)
- Medical care
- Mass transit systems (bus or train)
- Basically stuff to keep you alive and reasonably sane/happy/healthy
etc

Things I think are fair that you should work for:
- Consumer electronics (TVs, computers, etc)
- Luxury goods (designer clothes or whatever)
- Luxury transport (planes and boats)
- Personal vehicle and fuel
- Holidays
- Fancy house
- Alcohol and party goods
- Basically things which make life fun and interesting
etc

Now, I don't think we're actually too far from this situation at the moment. The two main changes that would make this possible are first of all, we take all of the billions and billions and billions of dollars which are in the bank accounts of the stupidly rich (where it's just sitting there not doing anyone any good) and redistribute it back into circulation...and secondly, we just don't threaten a person's survival if they're unable to find a job (by providing them with their basic needs).

One other thing, I also wonder whether some of the less desirable, crappy or stressful jobs should pay significantly more. After all, having a nice, comfortable job is kinda a reward in itself.

 

[Minonian]

Technology changes everything.

Not the human nature.

The two main changes that would make this possible are first of all, we take all of the billions and billions and billions of dollars which are in the bank accounts of the stupidly rich (where it's just sitting there not doing anyone any good) and redistribute it back into circulation...

Well, the problem is its not yours to take.
And if you clearly and openly talking about taking it away, than sure as hell its not your intention to get it back to circulation, Either one, or the another! And its not your intentions to create workplaces and such you simply think if its out of the bank and in the people hands than its in the good place. How is that??? How the ones hands who unable to get money can be a good place? I had already talked about this one. The nearly 100 years history of communism is enough to prove the redistribution of wealth is not works! Its not creates equality, its not makes everybody life bearable, its not makes everybody rich but its destroying all the wealth what a nation have, and make it the poorest. Take a good look into venezuela this is where this kind of thinking is leads.

 

[Surfinjo]

I'd vote yes. I'm not gonna get into the economics of it all because everyone says something different and I don't know who to believe - besides, I can't be bothered getting into an argument...but I think you've gotta look after your neighbour if you want a healthy world. Give everyone food, a home and medical care...and if you want more, try to contribute to the world that's keeping you at the very least, alive and healthy.

And interestingly, as well as being more healthy, well fed people are more productive, secure and produce fewer babies.

Such a simple and very workable solution. But sadly, there too much profit to be made from poverty.

In a way, its a bit like the old slavery argument. Slave owners understood the argument, but resented that only they were being asked to give up their property.

 

[Minonian]

Poverty is good for no one, especially for the companies and the banks. You are mistaken if you think they are trying to take all your money away.
A poor man can't pay, and can't place his money on the bank. A poor man can't pay taxes. It's no one interests. You are sadly mistaken if you think in communist terms, like in 100 years ago or more. The age of marx and that society created this kind of thinking is long passed in west. Social inequality? You really think it can be destroyed? Another mistake. Distribute the wealth equally and what you got? yeah it's works for a while, but after, the whole process is starts again. because you see? wealth and power also have its inertia and just like mass its also have its gravity, so sooner or later both starts to accumulate in the right places. the hands of the strongest and smartest the most cunning. and just like any body, its goal to reach the less energic state. The pit, between the hills. these are banks... What you can do, to keep it moving.

Edit!
That's right! Banks, and state coffins are sinkholes of wealth. Literally! Because wealth can't move at his own. So when its reaches a place where it can sit idly, than this is what going to happen.

 

[glynie]

Sorry Minonian, I remember you from other threads, you seem pretty cool but I disagree with a number of the things you've said here. For example, when you said if everyone gets everything for free they become an unviable sloth - well, I don't think anyone suggested that everyone gets everything for free - and even if they did get all things free, I'm still not convinced that would necessarily turn everyone lazy...and the thing you said about:

Well, the problem is its not yours to take.

Well, who's is it to take?

[video=youtube;QPKKQnijnsM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM[/video]

 

[Minonian]

Well, who's is it to take?

No one. What you talking about is the core tenets of communism, what proven to be a failed experiment. 100 year are more than enough to decide this. And as i pointed out, what really is its jealousy. You taking away the others. Well, as the the experiment shows you don't make everybody life bearable, you make everybody poor. And now you just repeating yourself. you can put a chart on my face about something proven a mis concept.

Because you thinking i did not get what you meant. And this is where are you wrong. I heard you at the first time. And i will tell how this going to goes down if we continue this debate you boys are became more and more aggressive, in attempt to beat something in my head what i did not understand.

Your mistake? I do!
I just don't agree with you.
And no amount of repeat can change that.

 

[glynie]

No one. What you talking about is the core tenets of communism, what proven to be a failed experiment. 100 year are more than enough to decide this. And as i pointed out, what really is its jealousy. You taking away the others. Well, as the the experiment shows you don't make everybody life bearable, you make everybody poor. And now you just repeating yourself. you can put a chart on my face about something proven a mis concept.

Because you thinking i did not get what you meant. And this is where are you wrong. I heard you at the first time. And i will tell how this going to goes down if we continue this debate you boys are became more and more aggressive, in attempt to beat something in my head what i did not understand.

Your mistake? I do!
I just don't agree with you.
And no amount of repeat can change that.

Steady on buddy, I'm not being aggressive at all.

I'm not saying go communist. As the guy says at the end of the video: "I don't think we need to go all the way to socialism to find something that is fair." Just look at how badly skewed that distribution is.

What do you propose the solution is? Or is everything fine at the moment? (I'm not being sarcastic, it's a genuine question for you.) ...and if you really do think everything should stay as it is now, that's okay. I'm not going to disregard what you're saying or become aggressive simply because I may disagree with it.

Personally I think an individual just shouldn't be allowed to accumulate more than a few million pounds or dollars. Perhaps anything more should be given away (to whomever or whatever they want)? After all, what's the point of having billions in the bank?

I'm okay with millionaires. It's billionaires that bother me.

 

[Minonian]

Steady on buddy, I'm not being aggressive at all.

I'm not saying go communist. As the guy says at the end of the video: "I don't think we need to go all the way to socialism to find something that is fair." Just look at how badly skewed that distribution is.

What do you propose the solution is? Or is everything fine at the moment? (I'm not being sarcastic, it's a genuine question for you.)

America is a wild capitalist nation. with little or no social system. So tell me yourself, what is the resolution there? Company intrest's must be fighted off, and the social system must be normalized. This is the beginning. + what i stated previously, the money must be made move again instead to sit where it is.

Personally I think an individual just shouldn't be allowed to accumulate more than a few million pounds or dollars. Perhaps anything more should be given away (to whomever or whatever they want)? After all, what's the point of having billions in the bank?

And how you want to do that? It is fair? It's fair to say the best runner, you must race with a 500LBS fatty and it's forbidden to you outrun him?! this is right?

About taxing? The multi key tax system have the same problem. It's punishes effort. Think it over! You have more you must pay more! tell me? this is really fair? You ready to give effort, you try to rise up, if they they are beating you down because of it? What is fair is flat tax. A richer man still paying more, than a poorer, because he have more. Yeah i know the richer man this means less. because he in proportion use less to maintain his life level. The resolution in there is not aid for the poorer, i consider this a mistake, I said my reasons about this one already. the resolution is tax write off. this actually stimulate effort.

And here is why communism punishment the richer the best won't work. It's cannot create eqality, and good society because its the reign of the dumbest, the stupidest the poorest who is alway jealous, who is always afraid.

This is what communism and socialism do.

 

[glynie]

Minonian, I feel I'm being misquoted here and my words taken out of context. You're asking me, but I was actually asking you that question. I'm not coming from a place of absolute certitude, I'm coming from a place of curiosity and a desire to learn.

Consider what you said here:

Company intrest's must be fighted off, and the social system must be normalized. This is the beginning. + what i stated previously, the money must be made move again instead to sit where it is.

That sounds similar to the way I'm thinking. Consider that we may actually be on the same page about some things.

...but when you say something like:

"you must race with a 500LBS fatty and it's forbidden to you outrun him?! this is right?

That's not a fair reply or suitable analogy to what I just said at all. The issue isn't that you can't get ahead. The issue is we're talking about people whom have so much wealth that you cannot draw a graph that can clearly represent it. So much wealth that they're worth more than a country. So much wealth that I literally for the sake of me cannot imagine how one could possibly even begin to spend it all. It's insane. Besides, I'm not sure competing all the time is a healthy attitude or analogy either.

 

[Minonian]

The issue isn't that you can't get ahead. The issue is we're talking about people whom have so much wealth that you cannot draw a graph that can clearly represent itSo much wealth that they're worth more than a country. So much wealth that I literally for the sake of me cannot imagine how one could possibly even begin to spend it all. It's insane. Besides, I'm not sure competing all the time is a healthy attitude or analogy either.

It is a good analogy and this is why. the amount of difference between the poorest and riches are makes no difference about this. I talked about a runner and a fatty, and now you talking about a wheel chair man against a rocket car. But in the core these 2 issue are the same.

And i already told you how to deal with it.
Take a look to my first quote, on your previous post. and add up, tax description.

The companies of America are just too damn greedy. this is a fact. and thats also a fact American government do nothing to keep them in bay. because this is capitalism baby!
The second thing about tax description? its even better than tax reallocation, (aid) because you leave the money where its needed, and when you take the tax, than you also decreases effectiveness, because of system losses. think it over, corruption, office and system maintenance, Yadda yadda... the point is you can only hand out less money, than what you taking away.

 

[Surfinjo]

Poverty is good for no one, especially for the companies and the banks. You are mistaken if you think they are trying to take all your money away.
A poor man can't pay, and can't place his money on the bank. A poor man can't pay taxes. It's no one interests. You are sadly mistaken if you think in communist terms, like in 100 years ago or more. The age of marx and that society created this kind of thinking is long passed in west. Social inequality? You really think it can be destroyed? Another mistake. Distribute the wealth equally and what you got? yeah it's works for a while, but after, the whole process is starts again. because you see? wealth and power also have its inertia and just like mass its also have its gravity, so sooner or later both starts to accumulate in the right places. the hands of the strongest and smartest the most cunning. and just like any body, its goal to reach the less energic state. The pit, between the hills. these are banks... What you can do, to keep it moving.

Edit!
That's right! Banks, and state coffins are sinkholes of wealth. Literally! Because wealth can't move at his own. So when its reaches a place where it can sit idly, than this is what going to happen.

That isn't what was meant.

Activity that destroys the lives and environments of others is destructive to us all.

But incentives should be the reward of better things, not the threat of starvation and homelessness. As you rightly point out, such poverty serves no-one's interests. It is also totally unnecessary.

 

[vernonator]

Economically, it's a excellent idea.

Politically........................?

How is it economically good? Do some research on modern failed states (here is a hint - they are ALL socialist). Give a person money for nothing and what do you get? Nothing. Where did the money come from? Someone who did something, and now has been incentivised to do nothing.....Venezuela anyone?

 

[Surfinjo]

How is it economically good? Do some research on modern failed states (here is a hint - they are ALL socialist). Give a person money for nothing and what do you get? Nothing. Where did the money come from? Someone who did something, and now has been incentivised to do nothing.....Venezuela anyone?

Most western societies give money to those is need, unemployed, chronically disables and so on. So, sorry, but your point is not accurate.

But more importantly the issue isn't handing out something for nothing, it is eliminating absolute poverty and the penalty for failure.

As has been observed, such poverty serves no-one. Those in absolute poverty cannot pay taxes and cannot contribute the the circulation of the money supply.

As for failed states, I think you're find that those claiming to be socialist fail as much as those claiming to be capitalist or religious.

Socialism works just fine.

 

[Minonian]

How is it economically good? Do some research on modern failed states (here is a hint - they are ALL socialist). Give a person money for nothing and what do you get? Nothing. Where did the money come from? Someone who did something, and now has been incentivised to do nothing.....Venezuela anyone?

And that's it! Socialism and communism is a disease OR disaster (pick your choice both is true! ) waiting to be happen. it had 100 years to prove it's worth but it was unable to prove his economical worth, his theories rightness. about social matters? How we can threat each others? It have some points. But as i said earlier it's the reign of the worst... Take this away, and we maybe able to create a better society.

 

[glynie]

This is worth a read.

Mincome was an experimental Canadian guaranteed annual income project that was held in Manitoba, during the 1970s.
A Canadian City Once Eliminated Poverty And Nearly Everyone Forgot About It

 

[Patrick_68000]

This evening on the second national chain at the French tv, there was a reportage on the evening news. The subject was the salaries of  the bosses of investment funds. I hallucinated. -----

Jim Simons, boss of investment fund "Renaissance Technologies" receives a remuneration of ... 1.5 billion euros / year, yes 1.500 000 000 euros / year).
Ken Griffin of the investment fund "Citadel" receives the same thing.

1.5 billion euros of salary per year is 4 000 000 euros / day (yes 4 million euros by day) or 170 000 euros / hour.

At the end of reportage, a french économist indicates that "An boss of a investment fund, produces nothing, manufactures nothing, brings nothing to the society.

He is a speculator who speculates with other people's money." ---- And the economist concludes that "this is an example of the bankruptcy of the economic system liberal capitalist."

And many morons criticize the unemployed and the working poor who are lazy. Let me vomit

 

[Surfinjo]

And that's it! Socialism and communism is a disease OR disaster (pick your choice both is true! ) waiting to be happen. it had 100 years to prove it's worth but it was unable to prove his economical worth, his theories rightness. about social matters? How we can threat each others? It have some points. But as i said earlier it's the reign of the worst... Take this away, and we maybe able to create a better society.

Nice didactic.

Some evidence might be interesting.

 

[SeeZaa]

Steady on buddy, I'm not being aggressive at all.

I'm not saying go communist. As the guy says at the end of the video: "I don't think we need to go all the way to socialism to find something that is fair." Just look at how badly skewed that distribution is.

What do you propose the solution is? Or is everything fine at the moment? (I'm not being sarcastic, it's a genuine question for you.) ...and if you really do think everything should stay as it is now, that's okay. I'm not going to disregard what you're saying or become aggressive simply because I may disagree with it.

Personally I think an individual just shouldn't be allowed to accumulate more than a few million pounds or dollars. Perhaps anything more should be given away (to whomever or whatever they want)? After all, what's the point of having billions in the bank?

I'm okay with millionaires. It's billionaires that bother me.

very interesting ted talk by Nick Hanauer on inequality

it was controversial enough that it wasn't actually aired on ted.. suitable for the forum, possibly an upsetting concept for wealthy republicans though.. i think ted used the expression 'too partisan' its a really good talk, a very sensible perspective, and i think the only real argument against it comes from a place of greed.

 

[We Are Groot]

And how you want to do that? It is fair? It's fair to say the best runner, you must race with a 500LBS fatty and it's forbidden to you outrun him?! this is right?

About taxing? The multi key tax system have the same problem. It's punishes effort. Think it over! You have more you must pay more! tell me? this is really fair? You ready to give effort, you try to rise up, if they they are beating you down because of it? What is fair is flat tax. A richer man still paying more, than a poorer, because he have more. Yeah i know the richer man this means less. because he in proportion use less to maintain his life level. The resolution in there is not aid for the poorer, i consider this a mistake, I said my reasons about this one already. the resolution is tax write off. this actually stimulate effort.

And here is why communism punishment the richer the best won't work. It's cannot create eqality, and good society because its the reign of the dumbest, the stupidest the poorest who is alway jealous, who is always afraid.

This is what communism and socialism do.

Do you really want to take about fair? Do you even understand the meaning of the word? You know what the wealthy do? They create laws and loopholes that allow them to hide their money or send the entire world economy into a tail spin. Is that fair where the very few can effect the world? This is right?

The tax system punishes effort does it? A tax system that allows 1% to amass billions? Oh yes that really sounds punishing. It punishes the 99% not the 1%.

How do you think the 1% spend their money? Do you think so very few can cause an economic boom? Is that what you see them doing with their money? Do they create jobs? Or do they hire those in other countries to work for lower wages? What happens if you keep removing jobs? What happens if you do not pay employees adequately? What happens when the 99% can not pump money into the economy? What do you think happens to jobs? If no one is buying your products you have to cuts costs in whatever way you can which often results in jobs losses and worse.

Now what if the 99% have money to spend? They are buying good and services. What happens when there is lots of money being spent? Do you think there is any chance of that creating jobs? Creating products? Leading to innovations? Dropping stress rates? Leading to better health and lifestyles? Leading to less strain on the health care system?

What do these people who have billions do to earn their money? Have they made the world a better place? Do they work harder than others? How much should a doctor earn for saving a life? Does it depend on whether it is a rich or poor person? I think it is common sense that the majority of the population is what drives an economy but if there are laws and loopholes that prevent that from happening to benefit just a few then I can't see how that system will ever work. Sure it might continue running but at sooner or later it might reach tipping point? Any chance of that happening? Nah. That is probably pretty unlikely.