Typical Pubbie posted:You're right. It has value because people pay for it. Means testing is a hellscape of bureaucratic cruelty in actual practice. Why endorse it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 08:16 |
|
|
That is what welfare is for?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Means testing is a hellscape of bureaucratic cruelty in actual practice. Why endorse it? It doesn't need to be that way. To implement a mincome you would have to first get rid of the people that make means testing into such a farce, so...
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 15:51
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:A lot of people in this thread that are extremely passionate about sucking the labor of the middle class to pay for a blanket entitlement program with no real advantage over means tested welfare. Yo, the OP of this thread got probated for this weak poo poo FYI.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 15:51
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Yo, the OP of this thread got probated for this weak poo poo FYI. Oh for real? How about accusing people of hating the poor because they support a strong social safety net?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:Oh for real? How about accusing people of hating the poor because they support a strong social safety net? Do you or do you not think human beings have an intrinsic right to food and shelter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
Yes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 15:54
|
|
|
Again there's nothing to suggest that mincome needs to be mutually exclusive with things like means-tested welfare or minimum wages. You can absolutely guarantee a minimum income as well as extra money to pay for a necessarily more expensive cost of living (if you need specialist medical equipment or something) and you can also require companies to pay a living wage for work. I also really don't at all see why the "middle class" would be paying for it unless the "middle class" is actually significantly more wealthy than the majority, in which case, yes, they should be paying to support the less wealthy, from each according to their ability, to each according to their need. The extremely wealthy should be returning their wealth to the many, as should the moderately wealthy, until everyone has as much as we can give them. The specific amount of wealth redistribution should be pegged to that goal. What you seem to be trying to suggest is the idea that somehow we would be taking from the majority of society and giving to the minority, apparently without then making that minority extremely wealthy and thus qualifying them to be taken from. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 15:57 on Jan 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 15:54
|
|
|
Then loving act like it, shithead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 15:54
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Then loving act like it, shithead. In what way am I failing to espouse my love for the poor? Because even with a basic income/mincome you will still need means tested welfare programs, so it fails in that regard.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:Oh for real? How about accusing people of hating the poor because they support a strong social safety net? I'm not doing that so I don't feel the need to answer for anyone who does. But I am in the class of people supposedly "passionate about sucking the labor of the middle class to pay for a blanket entitlement program with no real advantage over means tested welfare" so I will tell you to gently caress off with that poo poo. Just because you see a downside with program that its supporters do not does not make its supporters advocates of that downside. By the way, still interested in hearing why this supposed problem you have with basic income is worth caring about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:I'm not doing that so I don't feel the need to answer for anyone who does. But I am in the class of people supposedly "passionate about sucking the labor of the middle class to pay for a blanket entitlement program with no real advantage over means tested welfare" so I will tell you to gently caress off with that poo poo. Because that is the only practical difference between a basic income and a strong safety net + work subsidies like a NIT or the EITC. The basic income benefits people who are capable of working but choose not to. That is its main distinguishing feature. And it's so expensive that it must be paid for in part by the middle class.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 16:00
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:It doesn't need to be that way. To implement a mincome you would have to first get rid of the people that make means testing into such a farce, so... To implement a humane means-testing system, you need to eliminate the set of beliefs about the iniquity of the poor and desperate that stand in the way of basic income.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
The whole point of mincome was to avoid the bureaucracy necessary to means test. For example, if you require people to look for work to qualify, you need a small army of people looking over logs and such, all of which have to be paid a wage. With mincome, your overhead costs are the same as any anti-identity theft stuff you have to do anyway. Mincome also removes stuff like welfare traps, so you'll always have incentive to work if you can find it. The only people who will drop or are those immune to luxuries in any way, all of which are expensive. So your equivalent to medieval priests, I guess? What percentage of the population is that going to be exactly?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:Because that is the only practical difference between a basic income and a strong safety net + work subsidies like a NIT or the EITC. The basic income benefits people who are capable of working but choose not to. That is its main distinguishing feature. And it's so expensive that it must be paid for in part by the middle class. Explain to me a) what you mean by "the middle class" and b) how means-based taxation combined with universal wealth redistributon can possiby result in people below the median income becoming net contributors, if that's what you're trying to suggest?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:Because that is the only practical difference between a basic income and a strong safety net + work subsidies like a NIT or the EITC. The basic income benefits people who are capable of working but choose not to. That is its main distinguishing feature. And it's so expensive that it must be paid for in part by the middle class. This is not actually responsive to my post. Again: the people you are arguing with do not agree with your concern here for various reasons. You cannot be passionate about causing a problem that you do not think exists.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:In what way am I failing to espouse my love for the poor? Because even with a basic income/mincome you will still need means tested welfare programs, so it fails in that regard. Oh shut the gently caress up, I'm not playing the "rehash my every post so I can win by endurance" game. You have plenty of criticism of your godawful neocon opinions already. Quit dogwhistling about "the middle class" and muh tax dollars and jizzing about employers exploiting the desperate. "Collective bargaining" isn't a magic phrase that makes everyone here suddenly see you as supporting poor people. It's obvious you're only prepared to defend your opinions to idiots, so you'll just have to wait for one to show up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
Taxes don't actually pay for things, in any case. Money is both created and destroyed on the authority of the government.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
You want to know who the big winners of mincome are gonna be? Empolyers of part timers and casual staff, who will get away with paying less and still being able to reasonably demand flexibility in shifts and response when calling. Which honestly seems to be the way a lot of jobs are going, stability in employment is now essentially at a premium.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
rudatron posted:The whole point of mincome was to avoid the bureaucracy necessary to means test. For example, if you require people to look for work to qualify, you need a small army of people looking over logs and such, all of which have to be paid a wage. With mincome, your overhead costs are the same as any anti-identity theft stuff you have to do anyway. Well it fails at that point because unless you're a healthy young adult sharing an apartment the mincome won't go far in a lot of places. You will still need means tested welfare programs to supplement mincome. And we already have a small army of people to check that people are working. It's called the IRS. OwlFancier posted:Explain to me a) what you mean by "the middle class" and b) how means-based taxation combined with universal wealth redistributon can possiby result in people below the median income becoming net contributors, if that's what you're trying to suggest? a) Whatever portion of the middle class earns enough money such that they pay more in taxes than they receive in mincome. b) It's not about poor people paying for their own mincome. It's about the unique economic benefit of EITC or a NIT: You get to have "cheap" labor while simultaneously paying low wage workers a living income. And since the system isn't as expensive as a mincome the taxes to pay for it can be targeted further up the pay scale.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 16:10
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:Well it fails at that point because unless you're a healthy young adult sharing an apartment the mincome won't go far in a lot of places. You will still need means tested welfare programs to supplement mincome. And we already have a small army of people to check that people are working. It's called the IRS. "Mincome" doesn't refer to a specific numerical level inherently. You seem to be confused.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:"Mincome" doesn't refer to a specific numerical level inherently. You seem to be confused. I mean you can have cost of living adjustments but that only makes it that much more expensive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:Well it fails at that point because unless you're a healthy young adult sharing an apartment the mincome won't go far in a lot of places. You will still need means tested welfare programs to supplement mincome. And we already have a small army of people to check that people are working. It's called the IRS. I know neocons aren't strong readers, but are you intentionally skipping over the multiple discussions of who would drop out of the labor market with mincome and why? You know, parents, students, caretakers, artists, the exploited? These people don't get to do that with EITC. Like can you read words or do you just stop looking at any discussion of human suffering once you reach completion?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
rudatron posted:You want to know who the big winners of mincome are gonna be? Empolyers of part timers and casual staff, who will get away with paying less and still being able to reasonably demand flexibility in shifts and response when calling. Which honestly seems to be the way a lot of jobs are going, stability in employment is now essentially at a premium. I think in as much as they might be able to reasonably demand things, they might not because those demands can be more easily rebuffed if workers don't need those employers anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 16:15
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:I mean you can have cost of living adjustments but that only makes it that much more expensive. Can you lay out this reasoning, or are we to chase shadows as we try to figure out why exactly transfers ate supposed to trigger an inflationary spiral?
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:I know neocons aren't strong readers, but are you intentionally skipping over the multiple discussions of who would drop out of the labor market with mincome and why? You know, parents, students, caretakers, artists, the exploited? These people don't get to do that with EITC. Like can you read words or do you just stop looking at any discussion of human suffering once you reach completion? I support literally every social program including paid parental leave, free daycare, socialized medicine, and free education. But I'm not convinced that artists need to be unemployed to create, so I'm a neocon. Effectronica posted:Can you lay out this reasoning, or are we to chase shadows as we try to figure out why exactly transfers ate supposed to trigger an inflationary spiral? I assume that when you say mincome won't be set at a "specific numerical level inherently" you mean there will be a cost-of-living component to it, which would add to the cost of the program.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:Well it fails at that point because unless you're a healthy young adult sharing an apartment the mincome won't go far in a lot of places. You will still need means tested welfare programs to supplement mincome. And we already have a small army of people to check that people are working. It's called the IRS. Edit: GunnerJ posted:I think in as much as they might be able to reasonably demand things, they might not because those demands can be more easily rebuffed if workers don't need those employers anymore. rudatron fucked around with this message at 16:25 on Jan 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:But I'm not convinced that artists need to be unemployed to create, so I'm a neocon. In what sense are artists actively producing art "unemployed?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:In what sense are artists actively producing art "unemployed?" That's a hobby.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:That's a hobby. Are you of the opinion that productive human activity only counts when it is done in exchange for wages, all else being a "hobby," which is presumably worse for some reason?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 16:31
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:That's a hobby. So all art is a hobby until you're paid by a corporation for doing it 9-5? gently caress, man.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Well the proposal is that it should go far enough, at least for the basics, such that you can scrap the other means tested programs, or at least most of them. I used to support a basic income until I was shown this problem. To make a basic income into a living income for everyone you would end up paying able bodied adults multiple tens of thousands of dollars a year. But that would be ridiculous, so you would have to include certain requirements be met to receive the full benefit. Now you're back to square one with means testing and most of your savings on bureaucracy (that were pretty negligible to begin with) go out the window. So you pretty much have to accept that you're advocating paying able bodied people not to work. Which may become necessary in the not too far future or during an economic downturn but I don't think it is necessary or good now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
The lengths that people are going to in this thread to strawman Typical Pubbie as an Ebeneezer Scrooge caricature are pretty loving embarrassing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
rudatron posted:But the need is still there, you just not threatening literal starvation. Which is kind of a dick move anyway, and really loving stressful to have to suffer through. Stress is a killer itself after all, never mind the mental health issues. Not sure what you mean by "the need is there," but if the idea is that they need the things they demand (flex scheduling for example), then if they need these things more than employees need them I think it will work out in a way that is not disadvantageous to workers so I am tentatively unconcerned about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:I used to support a basic income until I was shown this problem. To make a basic income into a living income for everyone you would end up paying able bodied adults multiple tens of thousands of dollars a year. But that would be ridiculous, so you would have to include certain requirements be met to receive the full benefit. Now you're back to square one with means testing and most of your savings on bureaucracy (that were pretty negligible to begin with) go out the window. So you pretty much have to accept that you're advocating paying able bodied people not to work. Which may become necessary in the not too far future or during an economic downturn but I don't think it is necessary or good now. Well to be more accurate, you "had to" accept this conclusion in as much as you believed in the premises of this line of argument.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:a) Whatever portion of the middle class earns enough money such that they pay more in taxes than they receive in mincome. If you pay more in taxes than you receive by universally distributed income/social services then you are wealthy, and can afford it, and should be paying to support those who are not, because your wealth originates from the underpaying of those people. Mincome does the same thing? It's just less complex. People need to be paid enough to live, if mincome is going to be more expensive than targeted welfare then you can raise taxes on the higher paid. If it needs to be significantly more expensive then perhaps that is because your EITC system is not good enough and not actually creating livable conditions? Either way you're taking money from the wealthy to give to the not-wealthy. Unless you're arguing that there just flat out isn't enough money to make all the poor have livable conditions there should be no problem with funding a universal income. Typical Pubbie posted:I used to support a basic income until I was shown this problem. To make a basic income into a living income for everyone you would end up paying able bodied adults multiple tens of thousands of dollars a year. But that would be ridiculous, Why would that be ridiculous?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Why would that be ridiculous? Obviously because he just doesn't want to do it. Some college student might drop out to make films instead of becoming a bank teller and providing great value to society.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:I support literally every social program including paid parental leave, free daycare, socialized medicine, and free education. But I'm not convinced that artists need to be unemployed to create, so I'm a neocon. No you're a neocon because you say dogwhistle poo poo like "entitlements" and cum yourself over employer abuse, jackass. Again, you are not fooling anybody. Figure out how to construct arguments that work on smart people or go home. Typical Pubbie posted:That's a hobby. I thought things had value when people paid for them? Are you aware you're painting yourself into a corner where you'll have to claim you've never paid for a single artistic product? Typical Pubbie posted:I used to support a basic income until I was shown this problem. To make a basic income into a living income for everyone you would end up paying able bodied adults multiple tens of thousands of dollars a year. But that would be ridiculous, so you would have to include certain requirements be met to receive the full benefit. Now you're back to square one with means testing and most of your savings on bureaucracy (that were pretty negligible to begin with) go out the window. So you pretty much have to accept that you're advocating paying able bodied people not to work. Which may become necessary in the not too far future or during an economic downturn but I don't think it is necessary or good now. Oh yes how RIDICULOUS. Multiple TENS of thousands. I'm sure your hate-filled existence is worth every penny you get paid, however. Tiny Brontosaurus fucked around with this message at 17:01 on Jan 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:I used to support a basic income until I was shown this problem. To make a basic income into a living income for everyone you would end up paying able bodied adults multiple tens of thousands of dollars a year. But that would be ridiculous, so you would have to include certain requirements be met to receive the full benefit. Now you're back to square one with means testing and most of your savings on bureaucracy (that were pretty negligible to begin with) go out the window. So you pretty much have to accept that you're advocating paying able bodied people not to work. Which may become necessary in the not too far future or during an economic downturn but I don't think it is necessary or good now. Why is it ridiculous to pay each adult thirty thousand dollars a year, exactly? Money is an abstraction layer over real resources, capital, and labor. It's impossible for America to run out of money, only the goods and services money can be used to purchase. Money is only a barrier when politicians want it to be. No resource barriers stops everyone having access to medicine, food, and shelter. Medicine is almost completely free to make, 50% of food gets thrown out, and houses stand empty all the time. There is no reason for poverty to exist, except that it benefits the rich. Also, note that "unemployment" is paying able bodied people not to work, not minimum income. When unemployed, you are paid to constantly send out job applications; achieving literally nothing in the case of the long term unemployed. With minimum income you are being paid to do whatever you think is best. Again: Money is an abstraction layer over real resources, capital and labor. Sovereign governments can't run out of money. Rob Filter fucked around with this message at 17:17 on Jan 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 08:16 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If you pay more in taxes than you receive by universally distributed income/social services then you are wealthy, and can afford it, and should be paying to support those who are not, because your wealth originates from the underpaying of those people. If I missed it I apologize: Where is the study showing where the tax burden for a mincome would fall? And no, the wealth of the comfortably middle class generally does not originate from the unemployed. OwlFancier posted:Mincome does the same thing? It's just less complex. I don't think simplicity is a virtue if the money goes to people who don't need it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 16:59
|
|