Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Basic Income - The first step to end poverty?

page: 3
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by toolgal462
reply to post by mrMasterJoe
 




! I would never be proud of something that should in fact make every single American ashamed of his country forever.


This is particularly hypocritical coming from a German. Are you ashamed of your country? After all, it was your country that perpetrated one of the biggest genocides known to mankind in the history of the world....
Just curious....


Of course I am ashamed for what happened then and what Germany's military forces did!! And of course we are a different generation and we were never involved in these things. But we shall never forget them.
Also we should not distort facts because although Germany performed one (if not THE) biggest war crimes ever in history the US did not do any better by destroying wide areas of Europe and by dropping two atomic bombs on Japan - these are not justifiable measures!!

I don't want a confrontation of countries at all because I am NOT proud of ANY country - they have all done horrific things in the past. What I wanted to stress is that the US had the best start after the two world wars because they could produce and sell their goods undisturbed everywhere almost without any competition because they COULD do that as other countries first had to rebuild their infrastructure due to massive war damages in which the US HAS played a major role. Until this very day the US is the biggest warmonger in the world. That's a sad fact.
Having said that I do NOT make every single American responsible for what your corrupt government (shadow government) does. However you are the ones to stop them any time soon. And you have every reason to do so. Therefore when I read about how great the US would be - that's not true. That a fairy tale and a brain washed dreaming fantasy because reality tells a totally different story.

We all should try to make this a better world for everyone. Therefore capitalism cannot be the final answer. Nor any derivate of it. We can do better. And we MUST do better for the sake of this planet and future generations.




posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slave NO MORE

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Slave NO MORE
 





If a company has an idea for innovation, they then can request the government for funding their reasearch etc.


Again, repeat after me: government is often incompetent and corrupt.

The research approved by government is not the same, it is COMPLEMENTARY to research and development done by private entities. Plenty of good ideas will be rejected by stupid bureacrats in your system, and a lot of unproductive BS will be funded.

As for the idea of basic income, I am all for it, I think it is very sad that there are people who lack basic necessities that everyone should have. But this applies mostly to third world, most developed countries already have "basic income" in the form of various welfare systems. When we realize this, it becomes evident that basic income would not even cost that much, because living costs are on the order of few dollars a day in these countries. It is completely doable, only our own apathy and greed keeps us from eliminating poverty.


That's why i would like to see a new form of government. The way most governments nowadays work is like this:
The population is able to choose a few people to be a representative of the country. And then these representatives have the power to make decisions for all of the population. There should be some kind of "poll" site where the population can democraticly vote for laws, improvements, innovations and so on. When for example a company has the idea for an innovation, they can request the government which in turn will post this request on a website. Then the people can decide if this innovation has some value. This way you also can exclude double research etc by multiple companies. If we start to share knowledge with eachother, this will save money. I agree that less smart people shouldn't be able to vote for things like innovations in heartsurgery. but you can make different leveled vote rights. Someone with no education can make votes for normal day to day laws. And someone with a economic Phd. can make votes for economic innovations and laws etc.

`
I also support the direct democracy, there is simply no advantage to having representative middlemen. Direct democratic republic is better than representative republic.

But the whole point regarding your private innovation funding vote is, why? Why should we add unnecessary bureucratic step to hamper private innovation? Its pointless, and there is no benefit. People should only vote about laws and government spending, leave private capital to fund whatever it wants. If a company need money from the government, then yes, people should vote about it. But if it does not, there is no reason to involve the public.

Your double research argument is the only remotely good point, but how often this happens? Is it worth the increased bureucracy, when there are far better solutions (liberalisation of the patent laws, better coordination)? Not to mention that two independent teams researching the same thing could often be useful, as independent confirmation is an integral part of science.

Direct democracy + Basic Income welfare system is a good idea.
Wealth cap + Public vote about private innovations is not.
edit on 16/8/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)
edit on 16/8/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 04:05 AM
link   
I skimmed the site. Basically they want to give each person 10 dollars a month in a house. A family of 5 would get 50 a month.

Is that even enough to cover gas for 3 days anymore?



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 05:36 AM
link   
reply to post by sarra1833
 


i spend 100 weekly for gas ,50.00 a week would be great if i lived in a box.
as long as i can still eat out of my faverite back dumpster.
give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach him how to fish he has food for life..
if you like fish,lol



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 08:36 AM
link   
Right, its not much per person, but its an obscene amount overall. See my post on page 2, I did a little math, hopefully it was correct.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by bjax9er
 


If everyone made a minimum of $60,000 per year, then the poverty line would simply rise to that amount. The economy would adjust itself so that the dollar would be worthless.

I disagree with the notion that every person has a right to be paid a certain amount. I think that every person does have a right to survive, provided that they have the will. As well as a right to EARN whatever pay they should happen to be paid. Handouts are ruining this country as it stands now, this would only expedite it.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slave NO MORE

Originally posted by Maslo
I disagree with the maximum income very much. Big private capital is important for the advancement of humanity. Billionaires often invest into things that noone else will. This is one of the reasons why communist countries were a failure.

Ordinary high income tax for the wealthy is much better solution than any ad-hoc artificial cut-off.


I also believe that a company needs to be semi owned by the government.
So that means that every person can start a business but the government is 50% owner of it.
If there is a complaint by the public / other companies then the government can step in to force changes / improvements as demanded by other peoples / companies.

Besides if the government is in control of the cash, then we don't need the big corps to invest in innovation.
People could demand the government to invest / research some areas which has interest to us all.
Like for example the farma industry it's unbelievable that they have a monopoly position. besides if it was owned by the gov. it would mean that the distribution of meds can be free for everyone.
and this is the part where you get screwed by encouraging corruption in gov't. You've got way too much misplaced trust in gov't.

the system is hopelessly broken that's why it's broke. you can't fix it. it needs replacing. real social & political experts need to restructure gov't. it must be DESIGNED to deter corruption; part of which would be enacting some kind of Damocles' Sword Law that would encompass not just the person but also immediate family members as well: siblings, spouse, children, and parents.

And because of the global environment today, all countries of the world must adopt this new structure of gov't. They will still be sovereign countries but with IDENTICAL structure of gov't for everything to be in sync and avoid conflict and misunderstanding.

Its hard but for now just a whole lot more clean soup kitchens where anyone can eat in safety and with dignity would be a step in the right direction.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   
I like your thinking
I'm not to sure about your one world government tho. The idea kind of scares me a little... Would there be the same representation for a small country say Luxenbourg as the would for say the U.S.A???
I want my own country to make it's own rules but I think they should have to answer to the people for the things they have put in place.....At the moment the best we have over here is P.M's question time where they sit in parliament and each party slings mud at each other for an hour or so and then go back to scratching each others back once the cameras go off
Now why cant the government set up a forum board just like this one where people can post up the arguments and problems and the treads that people get behind or relate too can then be put to the P.M on an hour show where he has to answer to the host of the show and people in the audience or on the phone rather then to his public school boy buddies???

I think the overall problem is the corporations. I have worked for a few big ones in my time and some smaller ones too they all take the same approach.
You ask why you only get an hour break on a twelve hour shift and they tell you "That's the minimum your entitled too" You ask why you only have this many days holiday a year again you get "That's the minimum your entitled to"
you ask why you only get basic wage .....Yep you guessed it "That's the minimum we can get away with paying you"
What sicken's me is that you then get forced into attending quarterly meetings where they boast of profits of hundreds of million's while screwing you down to the bare minimum in wages ....Like the last company I worked for they made over 500 million in profits over one year then made everyone redundant and moved the company oversea's to save 5 million a year ....When is enough enough????

We keep getting told we need to spend more to stimulate the economy But the only people who have any money to spend is the big corporations If we got paid more we could spend more at the moment were only just getting enough to keep a roof over our heads and pay for the petrol to get back to work each week.
I think they could pay the workers over double what there getting now and still make profits each year. That way your mortgage could be paid off in 10 years not 25 You would have extra money to buy a new car every 4/5 years
You could have that holiday and the luxuries you want there would be money going back into the economy and people wouldn't have to work till there 75 plus. meaning there would be more new jobs opening up to the younger population... What's the point in retirement if your too old to enjoy it???

All this outsourcing to poor counties for cheap labour has to stop too the nations need to get together and sign an agreement that if your company is not producing goods and employing people from your country then they cant trade there simple as .....It's only the people on the bottom rungs of the ladder that are getting screwed!!!



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 10:08 AM
link   
Hmm, well, guess I'm a naysayer, but here's my thoughts:
-Poverty will never end. As Jesus said, "The poor will always be with you." You don't have to be a Christian to understand that he was correct; the rich are dirt poor next to the richer. I mean, shoot, the emperor of Rome didn't have the living standard an unemployed American may enjoy today.
-You propose a global system that caps the maximum amount of weath a person can possess. Question: what right do you (or any other person or group of persons) have to tell anyone how money they can have?
-The same goes for the very idea of a global system itself; plenty of people hate the idea. How are you going to force them to comply? Shoot them?

-Finally, how do you prevent this global system from becoming corrupted like every other human institution? Governments, churches, financial systems-they all succumb to human's innate evil. And if the worldwide system fails, where do we have to run, to hide? In the past, other nations have served to shelter abused citizens fleeing from a corrupted state. If the worldwide government becomes evil, what then shall we do?

Just my thoughts!



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Slave NO MORE
 


I agree. Every person should be provided with a minimum of decent housing, healthcare and food. 60,000.00 maybe a little steep, but I'm sure some simple math with the correct numbers could give us some idea of what is doable. The problem with any public welfare (I know that word is really charged) program is they always include disincentives to apply one's self to increase income. The minute anyone on the program starts to make money. the base support is removed. This is very counter productive. A minimum income is problematic with many pitfalls and creates distortions in the current system of capital concentration and growth, our holy grail of economics. Also I believe a more basic equality is contrary to human behavior. It's not enough to have a lot of money and power, there needs to be folks who have neither to make the experience complete. It's a shame because we live in a time where technology and productivity have created an abundance that could very well provide these basics for everyone on this planet. I wouldn't count on it though.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 10:35 AM
link   
nonononono you want 1 leader, you have lost all my faith.

you cannot rely on 1 man 1 person to do things for you. Corruption and ignorance on your part will make a long term joke out of you.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Slave NO MORE
 


I would love Roddenberry’s vision of the future to be a reality. That is, the Earth utopia of the 24th century (without having to go through a third world war, of course). I don’t buy into the New World Order conspiracies. I think they’re far reaching and lack any logical progression of its own self-declared motivations. But I digress. I do think we should have greater unity in some form of world government in order to evolve. I found this blog post on creating Roddenberry’s Earth (link below) if you want to check it out. Here is an excerpt of the post, the blogger's conclusion:

"So, in the end, could our present Earth ever be like Star Trek earth? Yep, but we need:

a) relatively unlimited manufacturing capacity (e.g., with replicators).

b) relatively low population on Earth, and a land-distribution system.

c) an effective world democracy, working on a federated level, with varieties of local democracy.

d) slowly, a more intelligent populace at large, which would naturally tend to reach for more abstract, long-term goals.

If we could do this, oh, and also

e) get rid of a lot of institutions which right now are not very nice (e.g., parasitic corporations),

f) and parasitic, exploitative governments,

g) and anti-rational, anti-humanist dogmas which cause people to value themselves over others – i.e., which teach them not to be empathetic (e.g., Fox News, Ayn Rand enthusiasts, religious fundamentalists),

Then yes, we could see Gene Roddenberry’s vision of an ideal, Utopian Star Trek Earth become a reality!" - trivium

triviumquadrivium.wordpress.com... 7cd5f6fa2
edit on 16-8-2012 by kisharninmah because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   
how about adjusting caps for programs like SNAP for example...the $2000 cap was put in place in 1984 when the program started and has never increased with inflation. If you adjust the SNAP cap for inflation it would be about $5500 .... that in its self would go the helping the poor move out of being poor and being kept poor.....

and that is using the governments own inflation numbers which are about half of what real inflation is!



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 11:13 AM
link   
I wanted to throw in my two cents after reading through the first page,

I agree with the OP.

I think some people in here believe that government and people are two different things.

But WE ARE the government. The only reason the government is doing the stupid Stuff they're doing now is because we let them.

"Government of the people, by the people, for the people."
Sound familiar anyone?



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Really how oldcome from the are you people? Look at history, hell, look in todays newspaper. How well is Europe really doing? how well are the communist and socialist really doing. Crap the neatherland utopia described is a crock as well. What is their current tax rate? What wonderful achievement has come from the people of the Neatherlands in the last 50 yrs that has changed our lifestyle? Go play with your ideals somewhere else we have a living to make and a real life to lead. Hypotheticals don't work in life because life happens. People are going to disagree. People are going to want to be free. not evryone wants a bland equal utopia and they are willing to fight for it. But as you say make anothr law and force people to be happy in their uniform base job. Not for me . Never will be. And i will fight to my death to keep it that way. [And yes even here that may be sooner than I would like to think}

RP



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kushaholic
nonononono you want 1 leader, you have lost all my faith.

you cannot rely on 1 man 1 person to do things for you. Corruption and ignorance on your part will make a long term joke out of you.


I never said that 1 person should be the dictator.
What i mean is the following: every country has his representative like for example a prime minister.
On top of all the prime ministers there wil be a president. The president has no right to make laws etc. Neither the Prime ministers. The people should have the cards in their hands. To achieve this the gov should make a website with good authentication like internetbanking sites so that every person 18+ orso has the right to login there and make a vote / devote about existing / new laws. More like a poll website. If a prime minister of a country has a request for a law for his country or even all countries, he can adress it in the meetings with all the prime ministers. If the majority of these prime ministers think that it's a good law, then this request for the law come's on the poll website. Then the voters can give a yes / no to this law. If the majority of the voters are for the law, then the government can put this law in place. Else sorry for the leaders but the people spoke a No. This can also be the other way arround. There should be a list on the site with all existing laws. If the people discredit the law for example 90.000 voted yes for this law to take palce then let's say if 30% (3000) devote the law again. then the law should be scrapped. (offcourse all the numbers i use is just a suggestion. let the economics calculate reasonable values.).

So to make it clear the president will be just the face of the politics who give's news etc on tv just a puppet of the people who informs the progress of economy etc.. The people should have the right to do a referendum for firing / hiring a politician. If all the countries apply this system then we need no large army. A police force with a SWAT is enough to keep the world secure. And if everybody has a home and food. I'm sure that there will allmost be no rebels.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by reluctantpawn
Really how oldcome from the are you people? Look at history, hell, look in todays newspaper. How well is Europe really doing? how well are the communist and socialist really doing. Crap the neatherland utopia described is a crock as well. What is their current tax rate? What wonderful achievement has come from the people of the Neatherlands in the last 50 yrs that has changed our lifestyle? Go play with your ideals somewhere else we have a living to make and a real life to lead. Hypotheticals don't work in life because life happens. People are going to disagree. People are going to want to be free. not evryone wants a bland equal utopia and they are willing to fight for it. But as you say make anothr law and force people to be happy in their uniform base job. Not for me . Never will be. And i will fight to my death to keep it that way. [And yes even here that may be sooner than I would like to think}

RP


Okay…disgruntled much? (yeah I saw your mood description) Relax, dude. It’s just that – hypothetical. As in not real, not happening, what if, etc. You can put away your aka 47s. Nothing is going to happen. We are allowed to discuss whatever we want. If you don’t like it, don’t read it.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Honestly, did anyone (other myself and two others) visit the link and see how much they are talking about? Its not 60k a year. Its $10 a month per person, and $1 per day by 2014. This plan wont solve anything in developed countries.


$10 per month per person, $1 per day by 2014!
edit on 16-8-2012 by coop039 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Giving people equal pay won't make everyone equal. It'll actually make things worse. You will no longer strive to be the best in your field - there would be no benefit. People would just do the bare minimum to get by in their jobs. Quality of work would suffer.

Giving people handout monies will just make things increase in cost. Look at the current virtual worlds - once a big portion of the virtual population are able to get free currencies, prices for virtual goods rise exponentially. We could put a cap on what things cost, but then why would companies want to research newer things? They won't get more money, everything is capped. It would be the start of a technological dark age.

I would imagine that you want to end the stock market. How would the smaller businesses get a chance to grow - with govt aid? You'd be left with a hand full of corporations.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wildbob77
My humanitarian side agrees with what you are saying.

My practical side says that we should discourage poor people from having children.

We cannot, as race of people, continue to have unchecked population growth. We especially need to curtail the lower end of the economic spectrum from reproducing. They contribute less to society then they consume.


Are you #ting me? Being poor doesn't always determine what type of person will be born. I mean seriously? Look at many rich children, they are just as badly behaved as any "poor person".

It makes more sense to stop those that have a serious criminal record having children. We should be helping the poor, not making it worse. Many poor people given the chance bring a lot to society, sadly only a few ever get the chance.





new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join


Help ATS Recover with your Donation.
read more: Help ATS Recover With Your Contribution