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.
originally posted by: XAnarchistX
Didn't Nixon try to get a basic-income benefit passed through Congress unsuccessfully...
originally posted by: randyvs
Sounds like a distraction to buy time while
they consider a more permanent course of
action. I don't believe they consider supporting
a massive population at all. Why would they?
I think this is a very bad sign.
Bad indeed.
originally posted by: Puppylove
Ok BSL then. Basic standard of living. Instead of a universal basic income. Figure out something we can compromise on as basic living standard we believe in, provide that, and if people want more they work for it or something.
originally posted by: Nothin
originally posted by: Puppylove
Ok BSL then. Basic standard of living. Instead of a universal basic income. Figure out something we can compromise on as basic living standard we believe in, provide that, and if people want more they work for it or something.
Now there's some creative thinking! Good one PL.
Perhaps we could put basic human needs first and foremost, and do it in such a way that it is our highest priority?
Ahead of any money-talk that gets the greedy folks all riled-up.
originally posted by: DBCowboy
originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: DBCowboy
You have a Choice either go forward with a ubi or something similar or all those desperate hungry people will come to steal from you and yours... Which would you prefer ?
Class warfare and threats.
originally posted by: Edumakated
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
originally posted by: theantediluvian
To say that UBI is "far to the Left" is really inaccurate. It has support in right-wing circles too. Milton Friedman was a supporter for instance.
Friedman supported a negative income tax, not universal basic income. Negative income tax would be used to phase out welfare and bureaucracy, while using the surplus to give a basic income to those who used welfare.
And we have negative income taxes now in the form of earned income tax credit. In fact, when you look at the tax rolls, the very bottom already has negative tax rates meaning they are getting money back from government, not paying taxes.
originally posted by: TheLead
a reply to: DBCowboy
“It’s not just money that a job provides,” Obama said in a portion of his speech devoted to economic policy. “It provides dignity and structure and a sense of place and a sense of purpose. So we’re gonna have to consider new ways of thinking about these problems, like a universal income.”
WTF does that mean? A job provides confidence and purpose, so we need to think about giving people something for nothing to undermine that?
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
originally posted by: Edumakated
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
originally posted by: theantediluvian
To say that UBI is "far to the Left" is really inaccurate. It has support in right-wing circles too. Milton Friedman was a supporter for instance.
Friedman supported a negative income tax, not universal basic income. Negative income tax would be used to phase out welfare and bureaucracy, while using the surplus to give a basic income to those who used welfare.
And we have negative income taxes now in the form of earned income tax credit. In fact, when you look at the tax rolls, the very bottom already has negative tax rates meaning they are getting money back from government, not paying taxes.
Very interesting. I never knew that.
But isn’t an income tax credit a credit towards money owed? In Friedman’s idea, they wouldn’t owe any taxes.
originally posted by: ketsuko
originally posted by: Nothin
originally posted by: Puppylove
Ok BSL then. Basic standard of living. Instead of a universal basic income. Figure out something we can compromise on as basic living standard we believe in, provide that, and if people want more they work for it or something.
Now there's some creative thinking! Good one PL.
Perhaps we could put basic human needs first and foremost, and do it in such a way that it is our highest priority?
Ahead of any money-talk that gets the greedy folks all riled-up.
OK.
How do you provide things that take time, effort, etc., to produce without compensating those who must produce them for you?
I know it makes you feel better to believe this all being witheld over greed, but the truth is that all of this takes resources you don't have to produce. And as much as you think many of us who are better off than you are hiding our money away because we don't want to share it, that's a lie. We don't have anything to hide many of us.
We work hard to provide for our families, sometimes extended, and can't afford to provide for the entire world too no matter how much you want us to.
And none of that changes the fact that what you want needs to be produced by someone, lots of someones, and they deserve compensation for their efforts.
originally posted by: Nothin
originally posted by: ketsuko
originally posted by: Nothin
originally posted by: Puppylove
Ok BSL then. Basic standard of living. Instead of a universal basic income. Figure out something we can compromise on as basic living standard we believe in, provide that, and if people want more they work for it or something.
Now there's some creative thinking! Good one PL.
Perhaps we could put basic human needs first and foremost, and do it in such a way that it is our highest priority?
Ahead of any money-talk that gets the greedy folks all riled-up.
OK.
How do you provide things that take time, effort, etc., to produce without compensating those who must produce them for you?
I know it makes you feel better to believe this all being witheld over greed, but the truth is that all of this takes resources you don't have to produce. And as much as you think many of us who are better off than you are hiding our money away because we don't want to share it, that's a lie. We don't have anything to hide many of us.
We work hard to provide for our families, sometimes extended, and can't afford to provide for the entire world too no matter how much you want us to.
And none of that changes the fact that what you want needs to be produced by someone, lots of someones, and they deserve compensation for their efforts.
Your question is an excellent one, and fits right into the subject at hand.
There might not be an easy answer to that, and am not personally prepared to suggest anything.
What is the baseline here? The minimum needs required to provide a BSL for all, or what the material cost is?
Whether you agree or not: can you see how that baseline might alter the conversation?
Are we discussing what is best for all, or what is best for certain individual haves/have-nots?
If we slowly move towards a society that takes care of all, could we not find ways to do that without taking anything away from the haves?
Do you think that an angle like that, could ease the tensions all around?
It might require a paradigm shift, away from throwing money at our problems, which may make those that are extremely materialistic, a tad uneasy though.