Basic income: the world's simplest plan to end poverty, explained (long read--worth it)

[tru_m.a.c]

This is a very complex issue and Im not necessarily sure what my stance is but I just wanted to post this because I coincidentally came across this thread while reading this. A thread on reddit asking racists people why they're racist and here's a response about Native Americans.



Idk if that article addresses it or not but, how do you deal with complacency?

The fact that he establishes a distance between himself and those he grew up with shows he grew up with a unique awareness of his social mobility.

Look at the entire paragraph. He consistently uses "them" and "they." I'm pretty sure he always grew up with the idea that he was different. As a result I'm pretty sure he always grew up with the idea that he was acceptable outside of his community.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

"No longer would the federal and state governments maintain the sprawling multiple agencies necessary to distribute food stamps, public housing, Medicaid, cash welfare, and a myriad of community development programs. Nor would they need to pay the salaries and enormous future pensions of the public employees who run all these programs."

I don't get this point. The application of a basic income would not get rid of these government agencies. It would just shift their responsibilities.

By the way, I hate people that complain about public employees who are employed to work with the community through government agencies while they themselves just write papers and theorize about shyt.

 

[Truth200]

http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/#tab:overall

^The Top 100 Billionaires on this list have hoarded all the money needed to end world poverty.

 

[rantanamo]

The only real reasons you don't have something like this are , a)Protestant work ethic BS, b)greed, c)whites simply have trust issues because of their Protestant Work Ethic brainwashing and the greed of the most wealthy and lastly d) the notion of money = moral superiority.

Let's examine this with a short summary. The greedy wealthy spends significant resources convincing the rest of us that our menial work is not only necessary, but morally superior to a happy life. Of course they want this because it allows them to control the amount of work and allocate just enough resources so that the system can survive. They create just enough of a meritocracy to complete the notion that those that work even harder will get more and those that don't participate in their system will get nothing. This meritocracy is only to their benefit but they have totally convinced the rest of us, this is the way to go through material gains and media distraction. It basically creates class and race warfare. Why does this work? Well, the greedy wealthy's most successful creation is the idea that money = moral superiority. This is historically a new notion as rulers have never historically shown any type of moral judgement that the public cared about. Now, a system has been created where those with better jobs think they know better how to use monies and allocate behaviors better than the poor. Laws are created to back up this system. Money allocations reinforce this issue. So you basically have corrupt lawyers that could afford to run for office telling poor people how to care for children or what medical needs should be addressed.

The same funds could be simply allocated to families to make these judgements about life themselves, but instead the notion that low income = moral inferiority and bad judgement that we as a society think we should tell these people, like children what choices should be made. You would think that no one making over $50,000 ever committed a moral impropriety or a crime.

 

[OsO]

i think everybody should get it though, even the billionaires. i think one should get it simply by being born, starting at age 1. And we'd just have a establish a system of guidelines for when a young person could claim their money.

Imagine getting $2000 a year from birth, then when you turn 18 you get 36 racks like

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/#tab:overall

^The Top 100 Billionaires on this list have hoarded all the money needed to end world poverty.

Money/wealth/income is not a zero sum game

Trillions of dollars are created and destroyed out of and into thin air every day.

Rich people having money does not make poor people poor. A failing economic system does.

 

[No1]

IF by no brainer...

you mean a fantasy... more sci-fi than Starwars.... would never happen in a million years. They'd exterminate half of Earths population before something like this would even be considered................type of no brainer.

Bro, you really need to start reading threads. Point number 5 shows where it almost happened. The biggest mistake a man makes is to be so absolutely certain of his opinions that he balks at evidence to the contrary.

 

[acri1]

Am I the only person who doesn't like this idea?

Disregarding the fact that it might give people less incentive to work, I just don't trust people not to waste the money. Sure, not everybody would but a good percentage of people would probably just waste the money on BS.

My concern is making sure people have food, shelter, access to healthcare, etc. Just giving people money and hoping they spend it appropriately seems like a bad move, and I feel like taxpayers should directly fund the things that we're interested in publicly providing.


I like the example in the article. Supposed we have a basic income for somebody, but for whatever reason, a person getting this income doesn't bother to buy health insurance. Then he gets, let's say, cancer and needs expensive treatment to survive. How is society to handle that kind of situation?

Do we let him die on some "too bad, you should've been more responsible" shyt? Do the taxpayers pay for his treatment anyway? Well, if we have a basic income then it'd be even harder to pass any sort of universal healthcare, since the govt is unlikely to be able to afford both a basic income AND universal healthcare, at least without raping taxpayers.

The point is that I feel that it's preferable to directly fund the benefits that we as a society are interested in publicly providing as opposed to giving people money to buy them individually and hoping that they actually used the money for that (and probably having to bail them out if they don't. Rather than making sure everyone has a certain amount of money, we should focus on making sure certain human needs are met (food, healthcare, etc.) and a basic income would not do a good job of that.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Bond Villain? This isn't about comic books or fantasy movies. This is about the genetic legacy of the human race.


Evolution has accelerated since the neothilic era began, it has not Stopped.

We know in the cases such as lactose tolerance that those Lactose tolerance genes simply out-bred those without this genes in Germany and other areas.

Any policy that allows people with bad traits to outbreed those with good traits will have a devastating effect on the global human population.

We don't need to identify them. Process of misery and poverty has already identified them.


Let fate do on to them what it has done to all life for the last 4 billion years on this spinning rock.

This dude literally sounds like Apocalypse.

 

[Camile.Bidan]

This dude literally sounds like Apocalypse.

I am not the one who feels compelled to control the lives of others. I am not the one who sees humans as pawns to be manipulated. That is your stance on the issue. You feel the need to take MY property, violate my rights, appropriate my assets, and hand them over to people that YOU feel deserve them based on YOUR morals that I don't agree with.

and the objective of your policy suggestions are unproven, and will never work.


The only sin that I even remotely commit is inaction.

 

[Takerstani]

How much would this income be? We have to understand everything else isn't going to remain static just because a basic income level is set. This basic income level will become the bottom. We already don't judge "poverty" objectively but relatively now (which is ridiculous), so these people will "have" just like many "poor" people have now but they darn sure wont have as much, so they'll be considered poor/disadvantaged, still, and the income gap will not close. In addition, the built in penalty for doing better will rope some people in, so those people will not have as good outcomes.

 

[Truth200]

Money/wealth/income is not a zero sum game

Trillions of dollars are created and destroyed out of and into thin air every day.

Rich people having money does not make poor people poor. A failing economic system does.

That's like saying everyone can be rich and there is plenty of extra money just floating around for everyone.

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

That's like saying everyone can be rich and there is plenty of extra money just floating around for everyone.

No, what I said is what I said.

Rich people having money does not prevent anyone else from getting it. If it does, explain the mechanism/show proof.

 

[Truth200]

No, what I said is what I said.

Rich people having money does not prevent anyone else from getting it. If it does, explain the mechanism/show proof.

I disagree, there is only so much money out there to go around.

The richer some people are the poorer others will be.

It's cause and effect.

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

I disagree, there is only so much money out there to go around.

You're wrong and don't understand how money works