epic
Enlightened
- Aug 9, 2019
- 1,813
Do you support Universal Basic Income? Why or Why not?
Last edited:
Only problems, taxation eventually impoverishes the poorest people, that money is not free. It had to be stolen from someone else. You might think oh they're rich, they will barely notice but the producers quit producing as the taxation increases, because most of their earnings will be taken by the gov to give to the unproductive. It's not sustainable because ignores human nature. Human beings do not do well under slavery. When people start having their earnings taxed at like 60% they aren't goin to work very hard or much because why would u? If 60% of the time u are working to support other people not even related to u who u don't even know and u never agreed to this confiscation of your earnings to top it off. It's not like most people pay taxes because they want to, it's because they are forced at gun point. Threat of jail if u don't is the only reason people pay taxes. Of course some people don't understand that taxation is theft and immoral bc we are brainwashed in school to think it's normal.They did an experiment on that in Finland.
For two years they paid about 650€ per month to people who lacked income due to various reasons. The results, after the test period ended, showed that people scored higher on self evaluation questions related to psychological well-being. The test subjects were, however, nowhere closer to getting a job, which, if I understood correctly was the primary goal of the experiment. So, no citizen salary in Finland.
But to answer your question: I would vote yes. I vote yes to anything that improves people's mental health. Don't care if I have to pay higher taxes.
60% taxes sounds outrages, for sure, it would never work. That I agree with.
I do not have a clear cut solution to the problem, but since I have met people on disability who live in constant fear of losing their income, I am all for exploring other means of helping them, citizen salary being one of them.
Besides, here's a thought: monetary problems are known to cause a lot of stress/anxiety, so maybe a measly part of the tax money we pay could be redirected towards citizen salaries, instead of healthcare.
This is all very simplified, of course.
Basic income targetted for people with ailments.What do you think about that?Who's gonna pay for it is the question? The rich sure aren't as they can hide and minimize the theft of their wealth by the government. Someone has to produce and create wealth and if u disincentivize people from working hard to create wealth for themselves than everyone eventually ends up poor. This is why socialism ends up hurting the poorest people especially as the money runs out to support them through the redistribution of income from the more well off to the less well off. Government does not actually produce anything it only plunders your earnings through all sorts of taxes many hidden like inflation, and then gives some of it to the lower classes to keep them at a bare minimal existence and to bribe them to vote for the democrats who are not for helping the working class or the poor.
That's actually the party that does not care about the poor despite what they claim. Leftists have this fantasy that u can make everything equal and theft is moral. The only way to help the poor is to not forcefully confiscate the wealth of more well off and rich people since these people create the opportunity and raised living standards for the less well off people to potentially become well off too. Normally u would see voluntary charity step in more to help the poor if u removed the welfare system and it would be more humane than the state run charity system because it would permanently end dependency on gov handouts in many cases. It would also go back to families being a lot nicer to each other because intact homes and strong family protects u from poverty as u age or if u are unfortunate or going through temporary tough times. The protective factor of intact close families has been damaged by gov policies and incentives that alter how people normally behave.
Lol! Private charity would be the way to help the unfortunate in a voluntary sustainable way because then there's no free riding or people abusing the system. Stealing the earnings of others by force cannot be sustained because people change their behavior if they are being stolen from. They will just stop producing so there's nothing to steal. It doesn't matter what the reason for the theft because theft is always wrong. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I understand sometimes a person might steal something small bc they are starving for example, but universal basic income is theft on a grand scale from the productive so it cannot be sustained for long.Basic income targetted for people with ailments.What do you think about that?
Nope. I'm American, have no clue what that is and am fighting Trump who is destroying our economy. Carry on. ;)
I like Yang. The same way I like Marianne Williamson. They are fun and don't stand a chance.Andrew Yang for Mayor of NYC
Join Andrew Yang to fight for a future New York City that we can all be proud of.www.yang2020.com
This is why gov is inefficient at charity. They determine how much money u need or can get, or how much assets u can have what u can earn. They control the amount of charity u can get which is a problem because some people need a lot more help and charity than others, some people need less, some people can actually be helped off assistance with the right help, but gov limits your ability to access therapy or other alternatives that might get u off assistance.In countries with good wellfare systems in place, this falls under the state run Social Insurance. It is the Social Insurance that pays income to sick people.
The problem is that the Social Insurance must first asess your health problems, and then base their decision on that assessment. This is highly problematic for people with "invisible" illnesses such as chronic pain or psychological disorders. If you can't "prove" you suffer, you don't get money. Furthermore, you have to keep proving you suffer, in order for company to keep making the payments.
Such an inhumane system!
So, yeah, I am all for a targeted scheme for people with ailmemts, but I wonder how you could solve the big conundrum involving the burden of proof. There are virtually no means of objectivly quantifying a person's sufferring, so, how can we decide who qualifies for the payments and who doesn't?
I thought this was a serious post, do you realize the Soviet Union didn't have universal basic income ?I said No. First 20 years of my live I lived in Soviet Union, now in Russia. Everybody had job, medicine and education (included higher) - all of this was guaranteed by the communist government. Moreover was banned to be unemployed, earn a living with rental costs or interest rate or entrepreneurship, to be self-employed was banned as well. Job, medicine and higher education were real suck. Russian engineers and doctors were glad to work in MacDonald's and gas-stations if they could escaped to West from the communist heaven. There was only employer - the government. You could go to work and do nothing, nobody couldn't be fired. Government has guaranteed a salary for everybody. In faсt that was UBI. For example trashy russian bicycle weighing 40 pounds cost like half of month doctors salary, color-TV costs 5 salaries, compact sedan auto - 40 salaries. Food, meds, clothes, services - everything was terrible, and people didn't have enough to eat. That was our price for UBI. Thank you, but never more!
Well, but what do you call other than UBI when everybody can take money for nothing, for example reading a newspaper at work and when charges for housing are few dollars per month? We all know what happened with SU in the end, I think you wouldn't like same for you country.I thought this was a serious post, do you realize the Soviet Union didn't have universal basic income ?
I said No. First 20 years of my live I lived in Soviet Union, now in Russia. Everybody had job, medicine and education (included higher) - all of this was guaranteed by the communist government. Moreover was banned to be unemployed, earn a living with rental costs or interest rate or entrepreneurship, to be self-employed was banned as well. Job, medicine and higher education were real suck. Russian engineers and doctors were glad to work in MacDonald's and gas-stations if they could escaped to West from the communist heaven. There was only employer - the government. You could go to work and do nothing, nobody couldn't be fired. Government has guaranteed a salary for everybody. In faсt that was UBI. For example trashy russian bicycle weighing 40 pounds cost like half of month doctors salary, color-TV costs 5 salaries, compact sedan auto - 40 salaries. Food, meds, clothes, services - everything was terrible, and people didn't have enough to eat. That was our price for UBI. Thank you, but never more!