Again, the discussion of trying to use this to remove "harmful" corporations is ultimately obscuring the discussion of whether or not a government should provide basic needs to its citizens, what those needs are, and the best way to provide them.
But it's pretty clear that social engineering is the goal here, at least in part.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
I used to love getting a drive-thru burger once I was done the gym. It was my little reward that made the experience plesant.
Guess I can't really do that under your scheme..
Indeed. Instead of poisoning youself with E. Coli, carcinogens, massive amounts of salt and sugar, and ruining the environment with bad farming practicies, you'd have to pay a buck extra and get a burger which tastes better, instead. How horrible that would be. Or, even more horrible, you could quit your job, and have extra time to cook it yourself.
Who the fuck do you think you are that you know what's best for me?
Do you really think that a McDonald's hamburger is good for you? It might taste good, but don't you think other burgers taste better?
My body, my choice. Your attempt to manage my life is disgusting.
Also you're brainwashed to believe that Gourmet Burger would be healthier. It's the same meat, same coke, same cheese, same toppings.
I used to love getting a drive-thru burger once I was done the gym. It was my little reward that made the experience plesant.
Guess I can't really do that under your scheme..
Indeed. Instead of poisoning youself with E. Coli, carcinogens, massive amounts of salt and sugar, and ruining the environment with bad farming practicies, you'd have to pay a buck extra and get a burger which tastes better, instead. How horrible that would be. Or, even more horrible, you could quit your job, and have extra time to cook it yourself.
Who the fuck do you think you are that you know what's best for me?
Do you really think that a McDonald's hamburger is good for you? It might taste good, but don't you think other burgers taste better?
Just because something isn't optimal doesn't mean you have the right to take it away. I have my own right to choose this burger regardless of its negative effects on the economy or myself or whatever. I am an American, and I have the freedom to choose McDonald's over anything else.
Who are you to tell me what to buy? What to think? What to spend money on?
Are you really trying to socially engineer so that only the most socially positive things survive? Because then you'll probably want to eliminate your own $10,000 citizen's income, since it breeds such negative consequences.
I'm really not trying to tell you what to buy. I'm just trying to give the workers more of a choice about where they work, because most McD's employees wouldn't work there if they had a real choice.
In my opinion, you'd have better options under this system. However, you'd still be able to go McD's if you really wanted to, and some people would still work there because it would still give them extra money.
Again, the discussion of trying to use this to remove "harmful" corporations is ultimately obscuring the discussion of whether or not a government should provide basic needs to its citizens, what those needs are, and the best way to provide them.
But it's pretty clear that social engineering is the goal here, at least in part.
It should not be- and I think that if you remove that aim from the equation, that would change how you personally feel about this proposal.
Just because something isn't optimal doesn't mean you have the right to take it away. I have my own right to choose this burger regardless of its negative effects on the economy or myself or whatever. I am an American, and I have the freedom to choose McDonald's over anything else.
Who are you to tell me what to buy? What to think? What to spend money on?
Whether it's e. coli tainted meat, meth, diet pills with dexadrine, or weapons-grade plutonium; yes the government absolutely has the right (and responsibility) to restrict or ban entirely the sale & purchase of goods that are deleterious to public welfare.
If you wish to argue that fast food hamburgers in particular aren't sufficiently harmful to require government intervention, that's fine. If you wish to argue that it's not the government's role to ban the sale of sufficiently harmful goods... well, that's retarded.
Again, the discussion of trying to use this to remove "harmful" corporations is ultimately obscuring the discussion of whether or not a government should provide basic needs to its citizens, what those needs are, and the best way to provide them.
But it's pretty clear that social engineering is the goal here, at least in part.
So? You say that like it's a bad thing.
Incentivizing beneficial behaviors and disincentivizing undesirable behaviors is the primary function of government. A society that doesn't engage in social engineering is like a bus with no driver and a brick on the gas pedal.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I don't have any experience with Gourmet Burger, but I don't think it's the same meat. The meat in fast food joints like BK and McDs is... it's something else. I'd describe it more as a beef wafer than anything else.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Just because something isn't optimal doesn't mean you have the right to take it away. I have my own right to choose this burger regardless of its negative effects on the economy or myself or whatever. I am an American, and I have the freedom to choose McDonald's over anything else.
Who are you to tell me what to buy? What to think? What to spend money on?
Whether it's e. coli tainted meat, meth, diet pills with dexadrine, or weapons-grade plutonium; yes the government absolutely has the right (and responsibility) to regulate or ban entirely the sale & purchase of goods that are deleterious to public welfare.
If you wish to argue that fast food hamburgers in particular aren't sufficiently harmful to require government intervention, that's fine. If you wish to argue that it's not the government's role to ban the sale of sufficiently harmful goods... well, that's retarded.
I am not arguing that it's not the govt's role to ban the sale of a sufficiently harmful good. I'm just saying that his hamburger argument is sounding more and more like regulation for the sake of regulation. God forbid we eat fatty hamburgers every once in a while.
Eddy on
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
I used to love getting a drive-thru burger once I was done the gym. It was my little reward that made the experience plesant.
Guess I can't really do that under your scheme..
Indeed. Instead of poisoning youself with E. Coli, carcinogens, massive amounts of salt and sugar, and ruining the environment with bad farming practicies, you'd have to pay a buck extra and get a burger which tastes better, instead. How horrible that would be. Or, even more horrible, you could quit your job, and have extra time to cook it yourself.
Who the fuck do you think you are that you know what's best for me?
Do you really think that a McDonald's hamburger is good for you? It might taste good, but don't you think other burgers taste better?
Just because something isn't optimal doesn't mean you have the right to take it away. I have my own right to choose this burger regardless of its negative effects on the economy or myself or whatever. I am an American, and I have the freedom to choose McDonald's over anything else.
Who are you to tell me what to buy? What to think? What to spend money on?
Are you really trying to socially engineer so that only the most socially positive things survive? Because then you'll probably want to eliminate your own $10,000 citizen's income, since it breeds such negative consequences.
I'm really not trying to tell you what to buy. I'm just trying to give the workers more of a choice about where they work, because most McD's employees wouldn't work there if they had a real choice.
In my opinion, you'd have better options under this system. However, you'd still be able to go McD's if you really wanted to, and some people would still work there because it would still give them extra money.
Giving a McD's employee $10K extra won't suddenly make him more employable. It might make him quit his job or start working part-time. But the reason he's working at McD's is because he probably doesn't have the skills or education for a better job.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
I don't have any experience with Gourmet Burger, but I don't think it's the same meat. The meat in fast food joints like BK and McDs is... it's something else. I'd describe it more as a beef wafer than anything else.
At my city's gourmet burger restaurant, all the meat is guaranteed to be from local, organic farms with a humane environment. The cows that McDonald's meat comes from are covered in feces, before being mixed together into a sludge and dumped in an acid bath.
I find it interesting that Modern Man and myself have some of the same criticisms of Pi-r8's OP, yet we come from wildly different political backgrounds.
Pi-r8's OP is one of those posts that takes a relatively sane idea (help the poor! employment for employment's sake not always a healthy thing!) and just runs with it full tilt into crazytown.
There's a good discussion in here somewhere, though!
QUOTE] Giving a McD's employee $10K extra won't suddenly make him more employable. It might make him quit his job or start working part-time. But the reason he's working at McD's is because he probably doesn't have the skills or education for a better job.
This is another point I wanted to address- what is the cause of unemployment right now? Is it because unemployeed workers just don't have the right kinds of skills, or is it because there really aren't any jobs for them to do? In other words Is it cyclical, or structural? Paul Krugman explains that it is, in fact, cyclical. So no, lack of skills and education really isn't the problem right now.
And like I said before, I wouldn't really mind if some of the really low level, part time employees stayed home.
Pi-r8's OP is one of those posts that takes a relatively sane idea (help the poor! employment for employment's sake not always a healthy thing!) and just runs with it full tilt into crazytown.
There's a good discussion in here somewhere, though!
this from someone named "Psycho Internet Hawk" lol. OK, so how would you argue for this idea?
I find it interesting that Modern Man and myself have some of the same criticisms of Pi-r8's OP, yet we come from wildly different political backgrounds.
For instance, I am a quasi-socialist.
My opinion is, if the goal is to lift people out of poverty, there are targeted government programs that can do so more efficiently than throwing money at poor people (thereby discouraging them from working, which is really the best way to become not-poor). If you're going to spend $10K on a poor person, job training is a much, much better long-term investment than cutting them a check.
If we need to subsidize the life needs of some poor people, well so be it. But government policy towards the poor should be to encourage them to become self-sufficent members of society, to the greatest extent possible. A program of free cash is the exact opposite of this goal.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
It would be a scaling benefit. This is from Friedman's "On Eliminating Poverty:"
We need the scale. As it stands, the proposal is "we need a negative income tax, with a max of $10K." If OP gives us the rate, we can at least discuss the merits thereof.
For reference, here's the current negative income tax in effect in the US.
Yeah. The goal here should be that there is always incentive to work.
BTW, one of the ideas that sometimes gets proposed alongside a NIT is the phasing out of the minimum wage. The idea is pretty simple: right now, if your choice is between making $0 and making whatever an employer offers you, then you'll take the latter, even if it's a clearly exploitative wage. But if you're guaranteed a minimum level of income, then you'd be disinclined to accept a job at a yearly salary lower than the NIT. For a $10k NIT, this comes out to about $4.80 per hour for a 40-hour week. But there would still be some jobs below that hourly rate, as there would be some people who are willing to work a job for less tangible benefits (getting on-the-job experience or training, for instance).
It's an idea that I'm cautiously sympathetic towards.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I find it interesting that Modern Man and myself have some of the same criticisms of Pi-r8's OP, yet we come from wildly different political backgrounds.
For instance, I am a quasi-socialist.
My opinion is, if the goal is to lift people out of poverty, there are targeted government programs that can do so more efficiently than throwing money at poor people (thereby discouraging them from working, which is really the best way to become not-poor). If you're going to spend $10K on a poor person, job training is a much, much better long-term investment than cutting them a check.
If we need to subsidize the life needs of some poor people, well so be it. But government policy towards the poor should be to encourage them to become self-sufficent members of society, to the greatest extent possible. A program of free cash is the exact opposite of this goal.
I like how I agree with both Modern Man and Arch and I'm just straight up out of the rich and comfy NoVA suburbs.
Eddy on
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
0
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
I find it interesting that Modern Man and myself have some of the same criticisms of Pi-r8's OP, yet we come from wildly different political backgrounds.
For instance, I am a quasi-socialist.
I suspect that you are pretty much an actual socialist who calls himself a quai-socialist because socialism is a dirty word in this country.
I find it interesting that Modern Man and myself have some of the same criticisms of Pi-r8's OP, yet we come from wildly different political backgrounds.
For instance, I am a quasi-socialist.
My opinion is, if the goal is to lift people out of poverty, there are targeted government programs that can do so more efficiently than throwing money at poor people (thereby discouraging them from working, which is really the best way to become not-poor). If you're going to spend $10K on a poor person, job training is a much, much better long-term investment than cutting them a check.
If we need to subsidize the life needs of some poor people, well so be it. But government policy towards the poor should be to encourage them to become self-sufficent members of society, to the greatest extent possible. A program of free cash is the exact opposite of this goal.
I agree with the last part- handing out a lump sum of dollar bills is the worst way to accomplish the chosen goal of "provide basic life needs for as many people that need it". Eddy and yourself (and others) have discussed the inherent problems here vis a vis inflation.
I do disagree that working is the best way to become not-poor, but I think it is a matter of you are over generalizing. Working a low-income job 80 hours a week is working, but I don't think you will ever be "not-poor" doing that.
What I am more thinking about is changing the definition of "poor". What is "poor" right now? Someone without much money. In essence, the status of "poor" is only a negative in that money is required to survive. If surviving is no longer something to worry about, the definition of "poor" becomes much different.
Pi-r8's OP is one of those posts that takes a relatively sane idea (help the poor! employment for employment's sake not always a healthy thing!) and just runs with it full tilt into crazytown.
There's a good discussion in here somewhere, though!
this from someone named "Psycho Internet Hawk" lol. OK, so how would you argue for this idea?
Arguing that "work" as a concept needs to be eliminated is rather extreme. I'm also not sure if it's entirely fair (both in a unequal-work-amount way and a people-who-still-work-have-all-the-power way) or sustainable, since it relies a lot on automation and luxury goods.
I would argue that promoting a healthier relationship with one's employment is a better solution.
We need the scale. As it stands, the proposal is "we need a negative income tax, with a max of $10K." If OP gives us the rate, we can at least discuss the merits thereof.
For reference, here's the current negative income tax in effect in the US.
That's the EIC though, right? If so, welfare/government benefits/alimony/etc aren't counted. Feral is more talking about people on the really, really low end of the spectrum, who are probably not making enough in earned income (if any) to get much from the credit.
If you have several kids and are working, yeah, you'd get a hefty credit, but the societal benefit is obvious, I'd think.
Yes, EIC is the name of the negative income tax in the US. I'm referencing the current table, because it contains the decisions everyone proposing a different negative income tax needs to make. Specifically:
1. Max benefit? (OP mentions $10K)
2. Phase-in, if any? (OP mentions there should be no phase-in)
3. Phase-out income level, if any? (OP has failed to provide so far)
4. Phase-out rate, if any? (OP has failed to provide so far)
5. How are children counted? (OP has failed to provide so far)
We really need OP to provide his proposals for 3, 4, and 5.
I am a quasi-socialist because I don't believe the government should completely control all of the industry or resources, but should only provide its citizens with security safety and the necessities they need to survive.
It should definitely be coupled with a separate market economy for luxury goods or slightly different "needs".
Hence quasi-socialist, or rather socio-capitalist.
Yeah. The goal here should be that there is always incentive to work.
BTW, one of the ideas that sometimes gets proposed alongside a NIT is the phasing out of the minimum wage. The idea is pretty simple: right now, if your choice is between making $0 and making whatever an employer offers you, then you'll take the latter, even if it's a clearly exploitative wage. But if you're guaranteed a minimum level of income, then you'd be disinclined to accept a job at a yearly salary lower than the NIT. For a $10k NIT, this comes out to about $4.80 per hour for a 40-hour week. But there would still be some jobs below that hourly rate, as there would be some people who are willing to work a job for less tangible benefits (getting on-the-job experience or training, for instance).
It's an idea that I'm cautiously sympathetic towards.
What's the benefit of experience if it is unsustainable? You'd be opening the market to be exploited by rich people that don't really need money, or, people who live in communal housing of some sort. Which would drive down the standard wages as there will always being someone who will work for less.
That is a road I do not want to head down. Knowing businesses like I do. It'd probably essentially be like what the mining towns of old did. Print their own money you could only use there, and own the whole town or something stupid like that. Or offer discount coupons at store XYZ owned by the company so that you could afford to live off the pennies you get.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I find it interesting that Modern Man and myself have some of the same criticisms of Pi-r8's OP, yet we come from wildly different political backgrounds.
For instance, I am a quasi-socialist.
My opinion is, if the goal is to lift people out of poverty, there are targeted government programs that can do so more efficiently than throwing money at poor people (thereby discouraging them from working, which is really the best way to become not-poor). If you're going to spend $10K on a poor person, job training is a much, much better long-term investment than cutting them a check.
If we need to subsidize the life needs of some poor people, well so be it. But government policy towards the poor should be to encourage them to become self-sufficent members of society, to the greatest extent possible. A program of free cash is the exact opposite of this goal.
More or less this. Of course government should provide a basic level of sustenance to those in need. No one should be dying of exposure or hunger in a country as wealthy as ours, but cutting a check every month and calling it a done deal is a poor solution.
Here's a better one. Free higher education. Smaller class sizes. etc...
I think the best way of solving that 80-hrs-a-week-but-treading-water conundrum is best achieved by providing skills training or education either directly from the government, via programs, or the government giving corporations incentives to provide training or education, via tax breaks or agencies.
edit: I guess people are generally reaching the same conclusions?
double edit: this is more or less what we're moving to do in the country, with obvious backlashes by old school libertarians and Tea Partiers
Eddy on
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
We need the scale. As it stands, the proposal is "we need a negative income tax, with a max of $10K." If OP gives us the rate, we can at least discuss the merits thereof.
For reference, here's the current negative income tax in effect in the US.
That's the EIC though, right? If so, welfare/government benefits/alimony/etc aren't counted. Feral is more talking about people on the really, really low end of the spectrum, who are probably not making enough in earned income (if any) to get much from the credit.
If you have several kids and are working, yeah, you'd get a hefty credit, but the societal benefit is obvious, I'd think.
Yes, EIC is the name of the negative income tax in the US. I'm referencing the current table, because it contains the decisions everyone proposing a different negative income tax needs to make. Specifically:
1. Max benefit? (OP mentions $10K)
2. Phase-in, if any? (OP mentions there should be no phase-in)
3. Phase-out income level, if any? (OP has failed to provide so far)
4. Phase-out rate, if any? (OP has failed to provide so far)
5. How are children counted? (OP has failed to provide so far)
We really need OP to provide his proposals for 3, 4, and 5.
You keep badgering me to provide specific numbers, and I really don't want to do that because I feel like it would just drag the conversation down into nitpicking about details. Like if I say it will phase-out at $30,000, someone will come along and say no, that's much too high, make it $25,000 instead, then I don't really have an argument for that because I just don't care very much what numbers are used. This isn't a real government proposal, I'm just some guy on the internet arguing for a basic idea. Does your opinion of this idea hinge on what specific numbers I use? If it does, then we can find some professional economists to weigh in.
More or less this. Of course government should provide a basic level of sustenance to those in need. No one should be dying of exposure or hunger in a country as wealthy as ours, but cutting a check every month and calling it a done deal is a poor solution.
Here's a better one. Free higher education. Smaller class sizes. etc...
More funding for substance abuse and mental health programs. Decriminalizing or legalizing many drugs so that you don't have a large pool of (predominantly minority) people with a criminal record that makes them effectively unemployable.
There's a demographic of people for whom free cash might end up being lethal if you don't address their mental and substance abuse issues first.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
I think the best way of solving that 80-hrs-a-week-but-treading-water conundrum is best achieved by providing skills training or education either directly from the government, via programs, or the government giving corporations incentives to provide training or education, via tax breaks or agencies.
This.... is not a libertarian position.
This means the government is picking what "skills" the economy will need. It's a managed system, and manages the economy. This has actually contributed to inflated university costs, and a glut of people with questionably-useful degrees. Because the government doesn't distinguish between the various degrees the same way the market would.
I have nothing against History, but we don't need that many history majors in our society. A handful will do. But now that we have so many people with degrees, it's become a requirement for unrelated mid-management jobs. It's become the new highschool.
It would be a scaling benefit. This is from Friedman's "On Eliminating Poverty:"
We need the scale. As it stands, the proposal is "we need a negative income tax, with a max of $10K." If OP gives us the rate, we can at least discuss the merits thereof.
For reference, here's the current negative income tax in effect in the US.
Yeah. The goal here should be that there is always incentive to work.
BTW, one of the ideas that sometimes gets proposed alongside a NIT is the phasing out of the minimum wage. The idea is pretty simple: right now, if your choice is between making $0 and making whatever an employer offers you, then you'll take the latter, even if it's a clearly exploitative wage. But if you're guaranteed a minimum level of income, then you'd be disinclined to accept a job at a yearly salary lower than the NIT. For a $10k NIT, this comes out to about $4.80 per hour for a 40-hour week. But there would still be some jobs below that hourly rate, as there would be some people who are willing to work a job for less tangible benefits (getting on-the-job experience or training, for instance).
It's an idea that I'm cautiously sympathetic towards.
You shouldn't be. Look at how unpaid internships have been abused.
It would be a scaling benefit. This is from Friedman's "On Eliminating Poverty:"
We need the scale. As it stands, the proposal is "we need a negative income tax, with a max of $10K." If OP gives us the rate, we can at least discuss the merits thereof.
For reference, here's the current negative income tax in effect in the US.
Yeah. The goal here should be that there is always incentive to work.
I would argue that there's always going to be an incentive to work, even if it doesn't pay at all. People like to work, they like to brag about how important their job is, and people with no job are regarded as the dregs of society.
But if you didn't have to worry about where your next meal was coming from, or providing for your family, or paying your rent, suddenly it isn't such a bad thing to work in a low-paying service job ad infinitum.
Of course there will be people who would rather do something else, but some people just can't be bothered and would prefer to coast. I mean that is something that I think everyone accepts. My idea* would just keep those who don't really want more than clocking in at mcdonalds or whatever from harming themselves and their families.
*I admit, it is slightly naive and in many cases is a "perfect world" scenario what I am proposing. However, I am definitely interested in establishing something similar to my "ideal" society. But I think the same can be said about all political philosophies.
You keep badgering me to provide specific numbers, and I really don't want to do that because I feel like it would just drag the conversation down into nitpicking about details. Like if I say it will phase-out at $30,000, someone will come along and say no, that's much too high, make it $25,000 instead, then I don't really have an argument for that because I just don't care very much what numbers are used. This isn't a real government proposal, I'm just some guy on the internet arguing for a basic idea. Does your opinion of this idea hinge on what specific numbers I use? If it does, then we can find some professional economists to weigh in.
I am an economist for a living, and everyone's support or opposition to the proposal should depend on those specific numbers. They make all the difference.
It's like saying "I propose an income tax." Whether that's a good or bad idea depends entirely on the numbers.
More or less this. Of course government should provide a basic level of sustenance to those in need. No one should be dying of exposure or hunger in a country as wealthy as ours, but cutting a check every month and calling it a done deal is a poor solution.
Here's a better one. Free higher education. Smaller class sizes. etc...
More funding for substance abuse and mental health programs. Decriminalizing or legalizing many drugs so that you don't have a large pool of (predominantly minority) people with a criminal record that makes them effectively unemployable.
There's a demographic of people for whom free cash might end up being lethal if you don't address their mental and substance abuse issues first.
I'm not libertarian, I just pretend to be. I'm really just a blue dog democrat; welcome to Virginia I suppose
And um, this system I'm promoting is already more or less in place. Massive educational grants, loans and scholarships? Business incentives for additional training?
edit: didn't see your above post arch, I'm responding more generally
Eddy on
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
Yes, EIC is the name of the negative income tax in the US. I'm referencing the current table, because it contains the decisions everyone proposing a different negative income tax needs to make. Specifically:
1. Max benefit? (OP mentions $10K)
2. Phase-in, if any? (OP mentions there should be no phase-in)
3. Phase-out income level, if any? (OP has failed to provide so far)
4. Phase-out rate, if any? (OP has failed to provide so far)
5. How are children counted? (OP has failed to provide so far)
We really need OP to provide his proposals for 3, 4, and 5.
I don't really want to hammer our particular numbers right now, but wouldn't including benefits received from the Gov in one's income level help to include that unemployed population? You could make it like dependency filing status, where flat earned income, flat unearned income, or a lesser earned+unearned income will determine your status (in this case, your bracket).
*edit* looking at how EIC is now, I think the logical phase-out point would be something like:
(single) $13, 460 earned, $2000 unearned, gross more than earned (up to $11, 460) + $2000 unearned
(1 kid) $35, 535 earned, $4000 unearned, gross more than earned (up to $31, 535) + $4000 unearned
(2kid) $40, 363 earned, $5000 unearned, gross more than earned (up to $35, 535) + $5000 unearned
and then have the credit be (% unearned income is of total income) x unearned income, or something, so if you make $35k and have 5k unearned with 2 kids, you get %14 of that 5k as a credit, whereas if you just made (somehow) $5k unearned with 2 kids you get the whole $5k as credit
More or less this. Of course government should provide a basic level of sustenance to those in need. No one should be dying of exposure or hunger in a country as wealthy as ours, but cutting a check every month and calling it a done deal is a poor solution.
Here's a better one. Free higher education. Smaller class sizes. etc...
More funding for substance abuse and mental health programs. Decriminalizing or legalizing many drugs so that you don't have a large pool of (predominantly minority) people with a criminal record that makes them effectively unemployable.
There's a demographic of people for whom free cash might end up being lethal if you don't address their mental and substance abuse issues first.
I agree! Would a program of "free food" or "free housing" be as lethal?
I don't think so.
You can argue we already have those, but I would counter that I feel they need to be expanded and become universally available to everyone, regardless of income level.
If you make 90k/year and want to live in a government house and eat government food?
Posts
Yeah, well it won't be once all the restaurants become Taco Bell and everything that isn't good for you is judged to be bad, hence "illegal".
And since we've already established that disposable diapers are a luxury, yall might as well start practicing pooping with the three seashells now.
Rigorous Scholarship
My body, my choice. Your attempt to manage my life is disgusting.
Also you're brainwashed to believe that Gourmet Burger would be healthier. It's the same meat, same coke, same cheese, same toppings.
I'm really not trying to tell you what to buy. I'm just trying to give the workers more of a choice about where they work, because most McD's employees wouldn't work there if they had a real choice.
In my opinion, you'd have better options under this system. However, you'd still be able to go McD's if you really wanted to, and some people would still work there because it would still give them extra money.
It should not be- and I think that if you remove that aim from the equation, that would change how you personally feel about this proposal.
Whether it's e. coli tainted meat, meth, diet pills with dexadrine, or weapons-grade plutonium; yes the government absolutely has the right (and responsibility) to restrict or ban entirely the sale & purchase of goods that are deleterious to public welfare.
If you wish to argue that fast food hamburgers in particular aren't sufficiently harmful to require government intervention, that's fine. If you wish to argue that it's not the government's role to ban the sale of sufficiently harmful goods... well, that's retarded.
So? You say that like it's a bad thing.
Incentivizing beneficial behaviors and disincentivizing undesirable behaviors is the primary function of government. A society that doesn't engage in social engineering is like a bus with no driver and a brick on the gas pedal.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I am not arguing that it's not the govt's role to ban the sale of a sufficiently harmful good. I'm just saying that his hamburger argument is sounding more and more like regulation for the sake of regulation. God forbid we eat fatty hamburgers every once in a while.
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
Rigorous Scholarship
At my city's gourmet burger restaurant, all the meat is guaranteed to be from local, organic farms with a humane environment. The cows that McDonald's meat comes from are covered in feces, before being mixed together into a sludge and dumped in an acid bath.
But yes, this is off topic.
For instance, I am a quasi-socialist.
There's a good discussion in here somewhere, though!
This is another point I wanted to address- what is the cause of unemployment right now? Is it because unemployeed workers just don't have the right kinds of skills, or is it because there really aren't any jobs for them to do? In other words Is it cyclical, or structural? Paul Krugman explains that it is, in fact, cyclical. So no, lack of skills and education really isn't the problem right now.
And like I said before, I wouldn't really mind if some of the really low level, part time employees stayed home.
this from someone named "Psycho Internet Hawk" lol. OK, so how would you argue for this idea?
If we need to subsidize the life needs of some poor people, well so be it. But government policy towards the poor should be to encourage them to become self-sufficent members of society, to the greatest extent possible. A program of free cash is the exact opposite of this goal.
Rigorous Scholarship
Yeah. The goal here should be that there is always incentive to work.
BTW, one of the ideas that sometimes gets proposed alongside a NIT is the phasing out of the minimum wage. The idea is pretty simple: right now, if your choice is between making $0 and making whatever an employer offers you, then you'll take the latter, even if it's a clearly exploitative wage. But if you're guaranteed a minimum level of income, then you'd be disinclined to accept a job at a yearly salary lower than the NIT. For a $10k NIT, this comes out to about $4.80 per hour for a 40-hour week. But there would still be some jobs below that hourly rate, as there would be some people who are willing to work a job for less tangible benefits (getting on-the-job experience or training, for instance).
It's an idea that I'm cautiously sympathetic towards.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I like how I agree with both Modern Man and Arch and I'm just straight up out of the rich and comfy NoVA suburbs.
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
I suspect that you are pretty much an actual socialist who calls himself a quai-socialist because socialism is a dirty word in this country.
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
I agree with the last part- handing out a lump sum of dollar bills is the worst way to accomplish the chosen goal of "provide basic life needs for as many people that need it". Eddy and yourself (and others) have discussed the inherent problems here vis a vis inflation.
I do disagree that working is the best way to become not-poor, but I think it is a matter of you are over generalizing. Working a low-income job 80 hours a week is working, but I don't think you will ever be "not-poor" doing that.
What I am more thinking about is changing the definition of "poor". What is "poor" right now? Someone without much money. In essence, the status of "poor" is only a negative in that money is required to survive. If surviving is no longer something to worry about, the definition of "poor" becomes much different.
Oh yeah, well then you're a quasi-murderer!
Edit: before I get infracted for that
http://pkarchive.org/economy/TimRussert080704.html
wait, is that like a bad thing? I guess that's like, involuntary manslaughter
that coo that coo that just establishes my street cred
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
Arguing that "work" as a concept needs to be eliminated is rather extreme. I'm also not sure if it's entirely fair (both in a unequal-work-amount way and a people-who-still-work-have-all-the-power way) or sustainable, since it relies a lot on automation and luxury goods.
I would argue that promoting a healthier relationship with one's employment is a better solution.
Yes, EIC is the name of the negative income tax in the US. I'm referencing the current table, because it contains the decisions everyone proposing a different negative income tax needs to make. Specifically:
1. Max benefit? (OP mentions $10K)
2. Phase-in, if any? (OP mentions there should be no phase-in)
3. Phase-out income level, if any? (OP has failed to provide so far)
4. Phase-out rate, if any? (OP has failed to provide so far)
5. How are children counted? (OP has failed to provide so far)
We really need OP to provide his proposals for 3, 4, and 5.
I am a quasi-socialist because I don't believe the government should completely control all of the industry or resources, but should only provide its citizens with security safety and the necessities they need to survive.
It should definitely be coupled with a separate market economy for luxury goods or slightly different "needs".
Hence quasi-socialist, or rather socio-capitalist.
What's the benefit of experience if it is unsustainable? You'd be opening the market to be exploited by rich people that don't really need money, or, people who live in communal housing of some sort. Which would drive down the standard wages as there will always being someone who will work for less.
That is a road I do not want to head down. Knowing businesses like I do. It'd probably essentially be like what the mining towns of old did. Print their own money you could only use there, and own the whole town or something stupid like that. Or offer discount coupons at store XYZ owned by the company so that you could afford to live off the pennies you get.
More or less this. Of course government should provide a basic level of sustenance to those in need. No one should be dying of exposure or hunger in a country as wealthy as ours, but cutting a check every month and calling it a done deal is a poor solution.
Here's a better one. Free higher education. Smaller class sizes. etc...
I think the best way of solving that 80-hrs-a-week-but-treading-water conundrum is best achieved by providing skills training or education either directly from the government, via programs, or the government giving corporations incentives to provide training or education, via tax breaks or agencies.
edit: I guess people are generally reaching the same conclusions?
double edit: this is more or less what we're moving to do in the country, with obvious backlashes by old school libertarians and Tea Partiers
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
You keep badgering me to provide specific numbers, and I really don't want to do that because I feel like it would just drag the conversation down into nitpicking about details. Like if I say it will phase-out at $30,000, someone will come along and say no, that's much too high, make it $25,000 instead, then I don't really have an argument for that because I just don't care very much what numbers are used. This isn't a real government proposal, I'm just some guy on the internet arguing for a basic idea. Does your opinion of this idea hinge on what specific numbers I use? If it does, then we can find some professional economists to weigh in.
There's a demographic of people for whom free cash might end up being lethal if you don't address their mental and substance abuse issues first.
Rigorous Scholarship
This.... is not a libertarian position.
This means the government is picking what "skills" the economy will need. It's a managed system, and manages the economy. This has actually contributed to inflated university costs, and a glut of people with questionably-useful degrees. Because the government doesn't distinguish between the various degrees the same way the market would.
I have nothing against History, but we don't need that many history majors in our society. A handful will do. But now that we have so many people with degrees, it's become a requirement for unrelated mid-management jobs. It's become the new highschool.
I would argue that there's always going to be an incentive to work, even if it doesn't pay at all. People like to work, they like to brag about how important their job is, and people with no job are regarded as the dregs of society.
But if you didn't have to worry about where your next meal was coming from, or providing for your family, or paying your rent, suddenly it isn't such a bad thing to work in a low-paying service job ad infinitum.
Of course there will be people who would rather do something else, but some people just can't be bothered and would prefer to coast. I mean that is something that I think everyone accepts. My idea* would just keep those who don't really want more than clocking in at mcdonalds or whatever from harming themselves and their families.
*I admit, it is slightly naive and in many cases is a "perfect world" scenario what I am proposing. However, I am definitely interested in establishing something similar to my "ideal" society. But I think the same can be said about all political philosophies.
I am an economist for a living, and everyone's support or opposition to the proposal should depend on those specific numbers. They make all the difference.
It's like saying "I propose an income tax." Whether that's a good or bad idea depends entirely on the numbers.
Limed so hard.
And um, this system I'm promoting is already more or less in place. Massive educational grants, loans and scholarships? Business incentives for additional training?
edit: didn't see your above post arch, I'm responding more generally
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
I don't really want to hammer our particular numbers right now, but wouldn't including benefits received from the Gov in one's income level help to include that unemployed population? You could make it like dependency filing status, where flat earned income, flat unearned income, or a lesser earned+unearned income will determine your status (in this case, your bracket).
*edit* looking at how EIC is now, I think the logical phase-out point would be something like:
(single) $13, 460 earned, $2000 unearned, gross more than earned (up to $11, 460) + $2000 unearned
(1 kid) $35, 535 earned, $4000 unearned, gross more than earned (up to $31, 535) + $4000 unearned
(2kid) $40, 363 earned, $5000 unearned, gross more than earned (up to $35, 535) + $5000 unearned
and then have the credit be (% unearned income is of total income) x unearned income, or something, so if you make $35k and have 5k unearned with 2 kids, you get %14 of that 5k as a credit, whereas if you just made (somehow) $5k unearned with 2 kids you get the whole $5k as credit
I agree! Would a program of "free food" or "free housing" be as lethal?
I don't think so.
You can argue we already have those, but I would counter that I feel they need to be expanded and become universally available to everyone, regardless of income level.
If you make 90k/year and want to live in a government house and eat government food?
Sure why not, if you are paying your taxes.