It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Fortunately, there is a way to reconcile the needs of people to earn a living with the desire of greed-centric corporations not to pay higher wages. It is to provide everyone with a basic income. The state takes in tax money; everyone is granted a certain sum to provide for their basic needs; and everyone can then work without feeling that they must beg a faceless corporate monster for enough income to cover rent and food and child care. And what do you know: the idea of providing a minimum income is catching on. It is somewhere near the realm of reality in Canada; it’s been instituted in a Dutch city; it’s being tried in Germany; it’s popular in Finland and Switzerland. In other words, the most civilized nations in the world, with the highest standards of living and strongest social safety nets, are leading the way on the minimum income issue.
A minimum basic income would allow us to dismantle vast bureaucracies that exist to police welfare recipients, and just cut everyone a check. And it would take a great deal of pressure off the movement to raise the minimum wage, because everyone’s income would have a floor already, meaning even low-paid workers would be less vulnerable to financial disaster. It’s a large-scale way to smooth out some of the inequality that plagues our nation. And it would allow fast food CEOs to stop bitching.
How would we pay for it? Partly by redirecting money we already spend, and partly by taxing the rich, like fast food CEOs, and by taxing corporations, like fast food corporations. Well. At least they could bitch about something novel.
originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: nullafides
Can't help but wonder if he realizes that to utilize tax money for that, one must have tax money to use? As in either cut funding to something (and you know good and well it won't be the "scientific" study on the sperm count of penguins after mating season or something equally ridiculous) or to raise taxes across the board.
Do we get to take both our paycheck and the free money given simply for existence? Does that mean now corporate America can actually LOWER workers' pay because they're already getting a livable amount of money?
So many logic holes you could run a train through.
originally posted by: nullafides
a reply to: forkedtongue
Yeah, you're right.
It could be done a number of ways.
But my point was....WHY?
originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: forkedtongue
Can you point me to where I said pay billionaires? Genuine question, as I don't recall typing that at all.
All the poor people you know, less than 5% don't work. Cool story. And has what to do with what I said? I know several people who don't make what would be considered a "living wage". Which is whom I'm referring to in my question. If they suddenly start getting a living wage, can their employer now pay them less since they're getting a freebie the government says is enough to live on? If no, why shouldn't the employer be able to cut wages? They don't need the money to "make a living." If it's a job requiring little to no skill, why bother even pretending to pay them something approaching a living wage anymore?
A living wage for all is a living wage for all, which is what I was addressing. All you're doing is calling welfare by another name and telling me I'm wrong because only some people should get a living wage, not everybody. There are already plenty of people who make getting welfare their "career" so I really don't think your grand idea of calling welfare by another name will change that.
originally posted by: forkedtongue
Ya $50,000 goes really fast today
...
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: forkedtongue
Ya $50,000 goes really fast today
...
Wow. $50,000? That jacks it up to around $7,500,000,000,000.
Why not make it $100,000 per person and I can take everyone shopping with me at Versace.