Too much "fuck you, got mine" for me to be comfortable with. I mean if we're going to go with that why aren't we giving euthanasia to people on their death beds? I mean, we're trying to marginalize costs right?
I think there's something else there, you don't feel right supporting freeloaders, no matter what their problem is. Medical bills, too bad dig a ditch, crippled, too bad dig a ditch, downturned economy, too bad dig a ditch, can only get a part time job, too bad dig a ditch.
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
+3
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
On this forum I frequently see arguments to drastically increase the taxes on rich people. Often, these arguments come with some form of “they have so much money they don’t need any more to live a luxurious lifestyle” comment.
I would just like to point out that this is either a really stupid idea, or a poor phrasing of the actual common argument, which is: "Since we need money for our government to function, and the money has to come from somewhere, it's better to take it from those who are better able to contribute without noticing a significant change in their lifestyles." Which is quite distinct from "We'll just take it because they don't need it."
Both positions are pretty common around here.
Tangentially, they are one in the same.
Yes, the "they don't need it" argument is basically shorthand for "tax so as to minimize the total economic damage, taking into account the diminishing marginal utility of money". Surely we don't need to write it out in long form every time?
There is a distinct difference between "the money has to come from somewhere, and taking it from here is least problematic" and "we're just taking this money because you don't need it". Under the latter, you would be justified in taking the money from rich people and using it to throw a giant kegger for everyone, because after all, the rich don't need it.
I think the distinction underscores a difference in philosophy surrounding who has moral claim to income. Is all money inherently the property of the government, and they are being nice by letting you keep some? Is it all the property of those who earn it, and the government has no claim at all? I think the answer is somewhere in the middle, and the distinction we're discussing determines how far to one side or the other you might be. The implication of the argument I was criticizing above is basically that the government could take 10% of your money or 100% and you have no moral authority to complain about it. I don't like that.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I've come to notice that the real entitlement comes from a subset of people who are marginally successful and had to work at even that. It's the root of "fuck you, got mine" - if I had to bust my ass to even get to where I am, how dare anyone suffer less than I?
We've come to think of suffering as its own form of currency. If someone is poor and is having a hard time not remaining that way, they have not yet suffered sufficiently on the way up, or are too lazy, and are thus suffering too little.
I've come to notice that the real entitlement comes from a subset of people who are marginally successful and had to work at even that. It's the root of "fuck you, got mine" - if I had to bust my ass to even get to where I am, how dare anyone suffer less than I?
We've come to think of suffering as its own form of currency. If someone is poor and is having a hard time not remaining that way, they have not yet suffered sufficiently on the way up, or are too lazy, and are thus suffering too little.
I think I've found the best way to have a reasonable discussion is to stereotype those that disagree with you in the worst possible light, then you can safely ignore all arguments they make.
It is much easier than actually thinking about your position and how different points of view might have some validity.
0
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
On this forum I frequently see arguments to drastically increase the taxes on rich people. Often, these arguments come with some form of “they have so much money they don’t need any more to live a luxurious lifestyle” comment.
I would just like to point out that this is either a really stupid idea, or a poor phrasing of the actual common argument, which is: "Since we need money for our government to function, and the money has to come from somewhere, it's better to take it from those who are better able to contribute without noticing a significant change in their lifestyles." Which is quite distinct from "We'll just take it because they don't need it."
The problem that I have with this idea as it relates to the discussion of the BIG, is that this money is not necessary for the Government to function. We are basically saying that just by being alive someone has an automatic right to a wage for doing nothing but breathing.
On the one hand, you could make an argument that you had no part in deciding whether or not you were here in the first place. Various components of society made that determination for you, including but not limited to your parents. Just as parents have a responsibility to see you clothed and cared for through childhood, society has a responsibility to see you (to an extent) clothed and cared for throughout the remainder of your life. (Note: if your response to this is HURR JUST KILL YOURSELF THEN, you lose the thread.)
On the other hand, it's arguable that that's all beside the point. A lot of discussion here has been based on the notion that, morality aside, the economy might function better and more efficiently if everyone was guaranteed a basic income. So you either need to argue against the BI from a practical stance - ie, why do you think it would be inferior to the status quo, and how do you support this argument? - or from a moral stance - ie, it doesn't matter if it would make everything better, it would be wrong, and here is why I think so...
The latter is going to be challenging at best, so I would recommend the former.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I guess I can just sum up my feelings very succinctly then: I don't believe everyone is entitled to a wage for just being alive.
Are they entitled to continue being alive, or is that also an overreach?
No, we should shoot them on the spot and just get it over with.
I wasn't aware that making someone go through the hoops of getting currently available assistance was akin to a death sentence.
Then you have no idea what life is like. You are literally one broken bone away from being one of these people. Have you ever been maimed? My girlfriend can't lift more than 10-15 lbs because of surgery on her arms.
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
The whole argument is really circling the key point of the basic income guarantee. It's nothing to do with recessions or desire to work or jobs being desired or not desired. It's simply, 100%, to do with the fact that technology has made our economy too efficient at providing goods and services. All those wonderful breakthroughs which have made our lives easier have made people obselete and we are now at the point where we can no longer support full employment. There is a limit to the number of goods and services people can consume. It's like an anti-malthusian problem. We will end up in a situation where there is LITERALLY nothing for X% of the population to do. We have no need for them to labor. But we do need them to consume. Since if they just die, then X% of the remaining people are now not needed anymore.
As such, with every single technological breakthrough we get more and more pressure to provide income to everyone no matter what they do. We aren't feeling this because we are obliged to care for the poor, but because the economy just won't work unless you create artificial labor inneficiency.
An alternative would be to mandate 30 hour maximum workweeks.
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
0
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
I've come to notice that the real entitlement comes from a subset of people who are marginally successful and had to work at even that. It's the root of "fuck you, got mine" - if I had to bust my ass to even get to where I am, how dare anyone suffer less than I?
We've come to think of suffering as its own form of currency. If someone is poor and is having a hard time not remaining that way, they have not yet suffered sufficiently on the way up, or are too lazy, and are thus suffering too little.
I think I've found the best way to have a reasonable discussion is to stereotype those that disagree with you in the worst possible light, then you can safely ignore all arguments they make.
It is much easier than actually thinking about your position and how different points of view might have some validity.
In his defense, there are people - not necessarily in this thread - who think exactly that, and who probably wouldn't even much object to the above characterization.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I've come to notice that the real entitlement comes from a subset of people who are marginally successful and had to work at even that. It's the root of "fuck you, got mine" - if I had to bust my ass to even get to where I am, how dare anyone suffer less than I?
We've come to think of suffering as its own form of currency. If someone is poor and is having a hard time not remaining that way, they have not yet suffered sufficiently on the way up, or are too lazy, and are thus suffering too little.
I think I've found the best way to have a reasonable discussion is to stereotype those that disagree with you in the worst possible light, then you can safely ignore all arguments they make.
It is much easier than actually thinking about your position and how different points of view might have some validity.
If I was responding directly to you, or anyone else, I would have quoted you. As it is, I'm trying to offer "different points of view" that "might have some validity" by hopefully putting some pressure on how central the idea of suffering is to the morality that underpins most economic models.
I'll agree with you edd, that it seems to be the portion of Americans that struggled and succeed the perpetuate that. But it's the rich people with their whole boot straps and you too can be a millionaire like me, that really reinforces the behavior. Upward mobility is a laugh. You'll be lucky if you break the median income in the US in your lifetime without a masters degree.
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
On this forum I frequently see arguments to drastically increase the taxes on rich people. Often, these arguments come with some form of “they have so much money they don’t need any more to live a luxurious lifestyle” comment.
I would just like to point out that this is either a really stupid idea, or a poor phrasing of the actual common argument, which is: "Since we need money for our government to function, and the money has to come from somewhere, it's better to take it from those who are better able to contribute without noticing a significant change in their lifestyles." Which is quite distinct from "We'll just take it because they don't need it."
The problem that I have with this idea as it relates to the discussion of the BIG, is that this money is not necessary for the Government to function. We are basically saying that just by being alive someone has an automatic right to a wage for doing nothing but breathing.
On the one hand, you could make an argument that you had no part in deciding whether or not you were here in the first place. Various components of society made that determination for you, including but not limited to your parents. Just as parents have a responsibility to see you clothed and cared for through childhood, society has a responsibility to see you (to an extent) clothed and cared for throughout the remainder of your life. (Note: if your response to this is HURR JUST KILL YOURSELF THEN, you lose the thread.)
On the other hand, it's arguable that that's all beside the point. A lot of discussion here has been based on the notion that, morality aside, the economy might function better and more efficiently if everyone was guaranteed a basic income. So you either need to argue against the BI from a practical stance - ie, why do you think it would be inferior to the status quo, and how do you support this argument? - or from a moral stance - ie, it doesn't matter if it would make everything better, it would be wrong, and here is why I think so...
The latter is going to be challenging at best, so I would recommend the former.
The problem with making some kind of practical argument against this is that it's all just theory. Is there any country that currently does this? We can sit here all day and say that we believe that people would want more than just this basic income and so we would always have people to do all of the things that need to be done. But do we really know that people wouldn't just say "Who gives a shit, I got my government check for this month."
On this forum I frequently see arguments to drastically increase the taxes on rich people. Often, these arguments come with some form of “they have so much money they don’t need any more to live a luxurious lifestyle” comment.
I would just like to point out that this is either a really stupid idea, or a poor phrasing of the actual common argument, which is: "Since we need money for our government to function, and the money has to come from somewhere, it's better to take it from those who are better able to contribute without noticing a significant change in their lifestyles." Which is quite distinct from "We'll just take it because they don't need it."
Both positions are pretty common around here.
Tangentially, they are one in the same.
Yes, the "they don't need it" argument is basically shorthand for "tax so as to minimize the total economic damage, taking into account the diminishing marginal utility of money". Surely we don't need to write it out in long form every time?
There is a distinct difference between "the money has to come from somewhere, and taking it from here is least problematic" and "we're just taking this money because you don't need it". Under the latter, you would be justified in taking the money from rich people and using it to throw a giant kegger for everyone, because after all, the rich don't need it.
I think the distinction underscores a difference in philosophy surrounding who has moral claim to income. Is all money inherently the property of the government, and they are being nice by letting you keep some? Is it all the property of those who earn it, and the government has no claim at all? I think the answer is somewhere in the middle, and the distinction we're discussing determines how far to one side or the other you might be. The implication of the argument I was criticizing above is basically that the government could take 10% of your money or 100% and you have no moral authority to complain about it. I don't like that.
Then we're talking about three different arguments/phrasings: Your original "money has to come from somewhere", which appears rather uncontroversial, and the two interpretations of "they don't need it": @bowen and I interpret it as a restatement of the former, and @spool32 and you appear to interpret it as "Kegger time", which I haven't seen anyone here seriously advocate.
I guess I can just sum up my feelings very succinctly then: I don't believe everyone is entitled to a wage for just being alive.
Are they entitled to continue being alive, or is that also an overreach?
No, we should shoot them on the spot and just get it over with.
I wasn't aware that making someone go through the hoops of getting currently available assistance was akin to a death sentence.
You're making conflicting statements here. Temporary or conditional assistance is by definition not going to cover everybody. At some point you get a conflict between "right to life" and "no entitlement". Either:
1) Everyone is entitled to the necessities of life, provided at taxpayer expense if they can't afford them, even if they're lazy and want to life on the dole forever.
2) Nobody has the right to a wage for being alive, and if the support system cuts them off at a certain point, that's OK, even if they starve to death.
On this forum I frequently see arguments to drastically increase the taxes on rich people. Often, these arguments come with some form of “they have so much money they don’t need any more to live a luxurious lifestyle” comment.
I would just like to point out that this is either a really stupid idea, or a poor phrasing of the actual common argument, which is: "Since we need money for our government to function, and the money has to come from somewhere, it's better to take it from those who are better able to contribute without noticing a significant change in their lifestyles." Which is quite distinct from "We'll just take it because they don't need it."
Both positions are pretty common around here.
Tangentially, they are one in the same.
Yes, the "they don't need it" argument is basically shorthand for "tax so as to minimize the total economic damage, taking into account the diminishing marginal utility of money". Surely we don't need to write it out in long form every time?
There is a distinct difference between "the money has to come from somewhere, and taking it from here is least problematic" and "we're just taking this money because you don't need it". Under the latter, you would be justified in taking the money from rich people and using it to throw a giant kegger for everyone, because after all, the rich don't need it.
I think the distinction underscores a difference in philosophy surrounding who has moral claim to income. Is all money inherently the property of the government, and they are being nice by letting you keep some? Is it all the property of those who earn it, and the government has no claim at all? I think the answer is somewhere in the middle, and the distinction we're discussing determines how far to one side or the other you might be. The implication of the argument I was criticizing above is basically that the government could take 10% of your money or 100% and you have no moral authority to complain about it. I don't like that.
Then we're talking about three different arguments/phrasings: Your original "money has to come from somewhere", which appears rather uncontroversial, and the two interpretations of "they don't need it": @bowen and I interpret it as a restatement of the former, and @spool32 and you appear to interpret it as "Kegger time", which I haven't seen anyone here seriously advocate.
I guess I can just sum up my feelings very succinctly then: I don't believe everyone is entitled to a wage for just being alive.
Are they entitled to continue being alive, or is that also an overreach?
No, we should shoot them on the spot and just get it over with.
I wasn't aware that making someone go through the hoops of getting currently available assistance was akin to a death sentence.
You're making conflicting statements here. Temporary or conditional assistance is by definition not going to cover everybody. At some point you get a conflict between "right to life" and "no entitlement". Either:
1) Everyone is entitled to the necessities of life, provided at taxpayer expense if they can't afford them, even if they're lazy and want to life on the dole forever.
2) Nobody has the right to a wage for being alive, and if the support system cuts them off at a certain point, that's OK, even if they starve to death.
Pick one.
That's right, there would never be an option to make sure that the people that are currently on assistance are actually trying to do something (if able) to better their situation. We couldn't try to create work programs for those who are unable to currently find employment. We either have to let everyone die or just give everyone money for nothing.
The problem with making some kind of practical argument against this is that it's all just theory. Is there any country that currently does this? We can sit here all day and say that we believe that people would want more than just this basic income and so we would always have people to do all of the things that need to be done. But do we really know that people wouldn't just say "Who gives a shit, I got my government check for this month."
Really?
How do we know people wouldn't just be satisfied living on the bare necessities? This is a serious question?
I'll agree with you edd, that it seems to be the portion of Americans that struggled and succeed the perpetuate that. But it's the rich people with their whole boot straps and you too can be a millionaire like me, that really reinforces the behavior. Upward mobility is a laugh. You'll be lucky if you break the median income in the US in your lifetime without a masters degree.
You'll be lucky if breaking the median income even means an increase in discretionary income, considering the $130k for undergrad+professional school which begins accruing interest the day you graduate. (undergrad immediately, professional school one year later.)
Aaaand with that, back to law school reading.
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
0
Options
LibrarianThe face of liberal fascismRegistered Userregular
So what's your solution for people like my girlfriend who can't do physical labor, then?
Government housing and some grocery stamps apparently.
Which is much closer to the reality of a communist state than the BIG is btw.
And once more, because I get the feeling some people in this discussion did not understand that point: Everyone would get BIG, not just poor and unemployed people and noone would take away "your" tax dollars to pay all dem damn freeloaders.
The problem with making some kind of practical argument against this is that it's all just theory. Is there any country that currently does this? We can sit here all day and say that we believe that people would want more than just this basic income and so we would always have people to do all of the things that need to be done. But do we really know that people wouldn't just say "Who gives a shit, I got my government check for this month."
Really?
How do we know people wouldn't just be satisfied living on the bare necessities? This is a serious question?
So what's your solution for people like my girlfriend who can't do physical labor, then?
I guess people think because I referenced my own situation of working my way through various physical labor jobs as being what I believe everyone should do. I would say that government assistance should be given to those who cannot secure a job because of long term disability (and I am not calling out anyone here) as long as they are actually disabled.
I have never once said I don't think people that need assistance shouldn't get it, I just don't think people who are completely able to work should be given money just because we could find the surplus somewhere.
My girlfriend isn't disabled so much as the government as it is keeps her in her position. Encouraging free loaders. A system like BIG would discourage freeloaders in general. Coupled with UHC, I mean, forget about it, you've fixed almost everything that's wrong with the united states with two laws right there.
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
The whole argument is really circling the key point of the basic income guarantee. It's nothing to do with recessions or desire to work or jobs being desired or not desired. It's simply, 100%, to do with the fact that technology has made our economy too efficient at providing goods and services. All those wonderful breakthroughs which have made our lives easier have made people obselete and we are now at the point where we can no longer support full employment. There is a limit to the number of goods and services people can consume. It's like an anti-malthusian problem. We will end up in a situation where there is LITERALLY nothing for X% of the population to do. We have no need for them to labor. But we do need them to consume. Since if they just die, then X% of the remaining people are now not needed anymore.
As such, with every single technological breakthrough we get more and more pressure to provide income to everyone no matter what they do. We aren't feeling this because we are obliged to care for the poor, but because the economy just won't work unless you create artificial labor inneficiency.
An alternative would be to mandate 30 hour maximum workweeks.
I don't think we are where you think we are, but we have certainly moved closer.
We no longer work from dawn to dusk, have kids as cheep labor, and die before 50.
Now we educate until mid twenties, work 40 hours a week until 65-70 and live for another 20 years.
However, at the end of the day, we still need ditch diggers.
Seriously though, a recession is not the same as "We just don't need people to work anymore".
You're making conflicting statements here. Temporary or conditional assistance is by definition not going to cover everybody. At some point you get a conflict between "right to life" and "no entitlement". Either:
1) Everyone is entitled to the necessities of life, provided at taxpayer expense if they can't afford them, even if they're lazy and want to life on the dole forever.
2) Nobody has the right to a wage for being alive, and if the support system cuts them off at a certain point, that's OK, even if they starve to death.
Pick one.
That's right, there would never be an option to make sure that the people that are currently on assistance are actually trying to do something (if able) to better their situation. We couldn't try to create work programs for those who are unable to currently find employment. We either have to let everyone die or just give everyone money for nothing.
That's not a solution to the dilemma. You keep bringing in various temporary or conditional support programs. At some point, someone is going to run out of time. We''ll say that person is me. I am unemployed, I am living off the government largesse. I have exhausted my very last month of benefits. The employment program didn't find me a job. Or maybe I just can't be bothered. What do you do?
1) Cut me off, even if it kills me
2) Keep providing support, just because I am alive
3) Extend the benefit window - note, this is the same as option #2, because we've already stated that it's my last month. Extending the temporary window forever means it's not temporary.
This isn't about everybody. It's about the really inconvenient people who force you to choose between two of your values.
The problem with making some kind of practical argument against this is that it's all just theory. Is there any country that currently does this? We can sit here all day and say that we believe that people would want more than just this basic income and so we would always have people to do all of the things that need to be done. But do we really know that people wouldn't just say "Who gives a shit, I got my government check for this month."
Really?
How do we know people wouldn't just be satisfied living on the bare necessities? This is a serious question?
How do you know they won't?
Because the vast, vast majority never stop working ten or twenty years in because they've saved up enough that they can live in a mediocre apartment and live a minimalist existence.
You think they will? Prove it.
+1
Options
LibrarianThe face of liberal fascismRegistered Userregular
The problem with making some kind of practical argument against this is that it's all just theory. Is there any country that currently does this? We can sit here all day and say that we believe that people would want more than just this basic income and so we would always have people to do all of the things that need to be done. But do we really know that people wouldn't just say "Who gives a shit, I got my government check for this month."
Really?
How do we know people wouldn't just be satisfied living on the bare necessities? This is a serious question?
Actually Canada tried BIG as an experiment in the 70s. The result?
COMMUNISM!
No, the result was, that the only people that stopped working were mothers with very young children and teenagers that had to work to support their family.
I am going to quote the whole wikipedia entry, because it is really short:
Mincome is the name of an experimental Canadian Basic income project that was held in Dauphin, Manitoba during the 1970s. The project, funded jointly by the Manitoba provincial government and the Canadian federal government, began with a news release on February 22, 1974, and was closed down in 1979. The purpose of this experiment was to determine whether a guaranteed, unconditional annual income actually caused disincentive to work for the recipients, and how great such a disincentive would be. A final report was never issued, but Dr. Evelyn Forget [for-ZHAY] has conducted analysis of the research. She found that only new mothers and teenagers worked less. Mothers with newborns stopped working because they wanted to stay at home longer with their babies, and teenagers worked less because they weren't under as much pressure to support their families, which resulted in more teenagers graduating. In addition, those who continued to work were given more opportunities to choose what type of work they did. In addition, Forget finds that in the period that Mincome was administered, hospital visits dropped 8.5 per cent, with fewer incidences of work-related injuries, and fewer emergency room visits from car accidents and domestic abuse.
More highschool graduates?Less dometic abuse? That's some damn fine communism.
You're making conflicting statements here. Temporary or conditional assistance is by definition not going to cover everybody. At some point you get a conflict between "right to life" and "no entitlement". Either:
1) Everyone is entitled to the necessities of life, provided at taxpayer expense if they can't afford them, even if they're lazy and want to life on the dole forever.
2) Nobody has the right to a wage for being alive, and if the support system cuts them off at a certain point, that's OK, even if they starve to death.
Pick one.
That's right, there would never be an option to make sure that the people that are currently on assistance are actually trying to do something (if able) to better their situation. We couldn't try to create work programs for those who are unable to currently find employment. We either have to let everyone die or just give everyone money for nothing.
That's not a solution to the dilemma. You keep bringing in various temporary or conditional support programs. At some point, someone is going to run out of time. We''ll say that person is me. I am unemployed, I am living off the government largesse. I have exhausted my very last month of benefits. The employment program didn't find me a job. Or maybe I just can't be bothered. What do you do?
1) Cut me off
2) Keep providing support
3) Extend the benefit window - note, this is the same as option #2, because we've already stated that it's my last month. Extending the temporary window forever means it's not temporary.
This isn't about everybody. It's about the really inconvenient people who force you to choose between two of your values.
That isn't what the BIG is about. None of these have any relevance when discussing the BIG, you wouldn't have to give a damn you just have to collect your money.
The whole argument is really circling the key point of the basic income guarantee. It's nothing to do with recessions or desire to work or jobs being desired or not desired. It's simply, 100%, to do with the fact that technology has made our economy too efficient at providing goods and services. All those wonderful breakthroughs which have made our lives easier have made people obselete and we are now at the point where we can no longer support full employment. There is a limit to the number of goods and services people can consume. It's like an anti-malthusian problem. We will end up in a situation where there is LITERALLY nothing for X% of the population to do. We have no need for them to labor. But we do need them to consume. Since if they just die, then X% of the remaining people are now not needed anymore.
As such, with every single technological breakthrough we get more and more pressure to provide income to everyone no matter what they do. We aren't feeling this because we are obliged to care for the poor, but because the economy just won't work unless you create artificial labor inneficiency.
An alternative would be to mandate 30 hour maximum workweeks.
I don't think we are where you think we are, but we have certainly moved closer.
We no longer work from dawn to dusk, have kids as cheep labor, and die before 50.
Now we educate until mid twenties, work 40 hours a week until 65-70 and live for another 20 years.
However, at the end of the day, we still need ditch diggers.
Seriously though, a recession is not the same as "We just don't need people to work anymore".
8->
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
The problem with making some kind of practical argument against this is that it's all just theory. Is there any country that currently does this? We can sit here all day and say that we believe that people would want more than just this basic income and so we would always have people to do all of the things that need to be done. But do we really know that people wouldn't just say "Who gives a shit, I got my government check for this month."
Really?
How do we know people wouldn't just be satisfied living on the bare necessities? This is a serious question?
Actually Canada tried BIG as an experiment in the 70s. The result?
COMMUNISM!
No, the result was, that the only people that stopped working were mothers with very young children and teenagers that had to work to support their family.
I am going to quote the whole wikipedia entry, because it is really short:
Mincome is the name of an experimental Canadian Basic income project that was held in Dauphin, Manitoba during the 1970s. The project, funded jointly by the Manitoba provincial government and the Canadian federal government, began with a news release on February 22, 1974, and was closed down in 1979. The purpose of this experiment was to determine whether a guaranteed, unconditional annual income actually caused disincentive to work for the recipients, and how great such a disincentive would be. A final report was never issued, but Dr. Evelyn Forget [for-ZHAY] has conducted analysis of the research. She found that only new mothers and teenagers worked less. Mothers with newborns stopped working because they wanted to stay at home longer with their babies, and teenagers worked less because they weren't under as much pressure to support their families, which resulted in more teenagers graduating. In addition, those who continued to work were given more opportunities to choose what type of work they did. In addition, Forget finds that in the period that Mincome was administered, hospital visits dropped 8.5 per cent, with fewer incidences of work-related injuries, and fewer emergency room visits from car accidents and domestic abuse.
More highschool graduates?Less dometic abuse? That's some damn fine communism.
I'm sure they shut it down because it was too awesome to exist too.
You're making conflicting statements here. Temporary or conditional assistance is by definition not going to cover everybody. At some point you get a conflict between "right to life" and "no entitlement". Either:
1) Everyone is entitled to the necessities of life, provided at taxpayer expense if they can't afford them, even if they're lazy and want to life on the dole forever.
2) Nobody has the right to a wage for being alive, and if the support system cuts them off at a certain point, that's OK, even if they starve to death.
Pick one.
That's right, there would never be an option to make sure that the people that are currently on assistance are actually trying to do something (if able) to better their situation. We couldn't try to create work programs for those who are unable to currently find employment. We either have to let everyone die or just give everyone money for nothing.
That's not a solution to the dilemma. You keep bringing in various temporary or conditional support programs. At some point, someone is going to run out of time. We''ll say that person is me. I am unemployed, I am living off the government largesse. I have exhausted my very last month of benefits. The employment program didn't find me a job. Or maybe I just can't be bothered. What do you do?
1) Cut me off
2) Keep providing support
3) Extend the benefit window - note, this is the same as option #2, because we've already stated that it's my last month. Extending the temporary window forever means it's not temporary.
This isn't about everybody. It's about the really inconvenient people who force you to choose between two of your values.
That isn't what the BIG is about. None of these have any relevance when discussing the BIG, you wouldn't have to give a damn you just have to collect your money.
Um.
If you extend unemployment benefits forever you have nearly the same thing.
If you don't, people who can't find a job starve in the street.
You're making conflicting statements here. Temporary or conditional assistance is by definition not going to cover everybody. At some point you get a conflict between "right to life" and "no entitlement". Either:
1) Everyone is entitled to the necessities of life, provided at taxpayer expense if they can't afford them, even if they're lazy and want to life on the dole forever.
2) Nobody has the right to a wage for being alive, and if the support system cuts them off at a certain point, that's OK, even if they starve to death.
Pick one.
That's right, there would never be an option to make sure that the people that are currently on assistance are actually trying to do something (if able) to better their situation. We couldn't try to create work programs for those who are unable to currently find employment. We either have to let everyone die or just give everyone money for nothing.
That's not a solution to the dilemma. You keep bringing in various temporary or conditional support programs. At some point, someone is going to run out of time. We''ll say that person is me. I am unemployed, I am living off the government largesse. I have exhausted my very last month of benefits. The employment program didn't find me a job. Or maybe I just can't be bothered. What do you do?
1) Cut me off
2) Keep providing support
3) Extend the benefit window - note, this is the same as option #2, because we've already stated that it's my last month. Extending the temporary window forever means it's not temporary.
This isn't about everybody. It's about the really inconvenient people who force you to choose between two of your values.
That isn't what the BIG is about. None of these have any relevance when discussing the BIG, you wouldn't have to give a damn you just have to collect your money.
Um.
If you extend unemployment benefits forever you have nearly the same thing.
If you don't, people who can't find a job starve in the street.
So...
Actually, there is a modicum of work that you have to do to secure those benefits. I don't like the idea of not having to do anything to have this income guaranteed to you.
So as long as I check in to the government and say I sent in some resumes, I'm kosher with you then?
Yep, fine with me. If someone will actually make that effort I am fine with it. I just can't reconcile the idea of wage just because everyone should have some money regardless of whether or not they need it. Being on Government assistance at least takes an amount of initiative to get going.
It just doesn't sit well that I'm going to prop up some bureaucracy and the waste that goes with it because I'm worried someone is going to live like a pauper on $30 a day. Plus the whole subset of people that really can't expand what they can, and all the people in between. Better to just not, saves more money.
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
On this forum I frequently see arguments to drastically increase the taxes on rich people. Often, these arguments come with some form of “they have so much money they don’t need any more to live a luxurious lifestyle” comment.
I would just like to point out that this is either a really stupid idea, or a poor phrasing of the actual common argument, which is: "Since we need money for our government to function, and the money has to come from somewhere, it's better to take it from those who are better able to contribute without noticing a significant change in their lifestyles." Which is quite distinct from "We'll just take it because they don't need it."
The problem that I have with this idea as it relates to the discussion of the BIG, is that this money is not necessary for the Government to function. We are basically saying that just by being alive someone has an automatic right to a wage for doing nothing but breathing.
On the one hand, you could make an argument that you had no part in deciding whether or not you were here in the first place. Various components of society made that determination for you, including but not limited to your parents. Just as parents have a responsibility to see you clothed and cared for through childhood, society has a responsibility to see you (to an extent) clothed and cared for throughout the remainder of your life. (Note: if your response to this is HURR JUST KILL YOURSELF THEN, you lose the thread.)
On the other hand, it's arguable that that's all beside the point. A lot of discussion here has been based on the notion that, morality aside, the economy might function better and more efficiently if everyone was guaranteed a basic income. So you either need to argue against the BI from a practical stance - ie, why do you think it would be inferior to the status quo, and how do you support this argument? - or from a moral stance - ie, it doesn't matter if it would make everything better, it would be wrong, and here is why I think so...
The latter is going to be challenging at best, so I would recommend the former.
The problem with making some kind of practical argument against this is that it's all just theory. Is there any country that currently does this? We can sit here all day and say that we believe that people would want more than just this basic income and so we would always have people to do all of the things that need to be done. But do we really know that people wouldn't just say "Who gives a shit, I got my government check for this month."
Our current form of government was, at one point in time, just a theory.
"Has a constitutional Republic ever been tried before? Do we have any evidence that it will work? No? Better stick with what we know then, and not discuss potential improvements."
"Has a monarchy ever been tried before? Is there a country with a King or Queen we could point to as evidence that it's a good idea? We could sit here all day and discuss the pros and cons of having one but at the end of the day it's all just theorycrafting."
"UGG THINK HAVING CHIEF OF TRIBE STUPID. UGG WON'T TALK CHIEF UNLESS CHIEF ALREADY EXIST SOMEWHERE ELSE. UGG WORKED HARD CLUBBING SABRE-TOOTH TIGER FOR HIS OWN CAVE."
You're making conflicting statements here. Temporary or conditional assistance is by definition not going to cover everybody. At some point you get a conflict between "right to life" and "no entitlement". Either:
1) Everyone is entitled to the necessities of life, provided at taxpayer expense if they can't afford them, even if they're lazy and want to life on the dole forever.
2) Nobody has the right to a wage for being alive, and if the support system cuts them off at a certain point, that's OK, even if they starve to death.
Pick one.
You're oversimplifying things. There's also:
3) Everyone is expected to both have access to the necessities of life and provide labor. Those who do not have a job or whose job is considered to be unproductive should be enslaved and forced to work.
So as long as I check in to the government and say I sent in some resumes, I'm kosher with you then?
Yep, fine with me. If someone will actually make that effort I am fine with it. I just can't reconcile the idea of wage just because everyone should have some money regardless of whether or not they need it. Being on Government assistance at least takes an amount of initiative to get going.
You do realize it costs tax dollars to do this right?
Every time a public aid program like food stamps has invested money into the bureaucracy to catch people who are gaming the system and sitting around stealing a few bucks a day from the government, it has cost the state more money than those people take out of the system, furthermore for every moocher you end up catching you delay benefits to real people who need that safety net
Meanwhile, GE collected enough corporate welfare last year to pay millions of people's food stamps
You're making conflicting statements here. Temporary or conditional assistance is by definition not going to cover everybody. At some point you get a conflict between "right to life" and "no entitlement". Either:
1) Everyone is entitled to the necessities of life, provided at taxpayer expense if they can't afford them, even if they're lazy and want to life on the dole forever.
2) Nobody has the right to a wage for being alive, and if the support system cuts them off at a certain point, that's OK, even if they starve to death.
Pick one.
You're oversimplifying things. There's also:
3) Everyone is expected to both have access to the necessities of life and provide labor. Those who do not have a job or whose job is considered to be unproductive should be enslaved and forced to work.
Don't forget that only certain people get to decide what jobs are considered unproductive.
So as long as I check in to the government and say I sent in some resumes, I'm kosher with you then?
Yep, fine with me. If someone will actually make that effort I am fine with it. I just can't reconcile the idea of wage just because everyone should have some money regardless of whether or not they need it. Being on Government assistance at least takes an amount of initiative to get going.
You do realize it costs tax dollars to do this right?
Every time a public aid program like food stamps has invested money into the bureaucracy to catch people who are gaming the system and sitting around stealing a few bucks a day from the government, it has cost the state more money than those people take out of the system, furthermore for every moocher you end up catching you delay benefits to real people who need that safety net
Meanwhile, GE collected enough corporate welfare last year to pay millions of people's food stamps
Of course I realize taxes pay for government assistance. I still don't like the idea of a guaranteed wage for everyone regardless of circumstance.
So as long as I check in to the government and say I sent in some resumes, I'm kosher with you then?
Yep, fine with me. If someone will actually make that effort I am fine with it. I just can't reconcile the idea of wage just because everyone should have some money regardless of whether or not they need it. Being on Government assistance at least takes an amount of initiative to get going.
You do realize it costs tax dollars to do this right?
Every time a public aid program like food stamps has invested money into the bureaucracy to catch people who are gaming the system and sitting around stealing a few bucks a day from the government, it has cost the state more money than those people take out of the system, furthermore for every moocher you end up catching you delay benefits to real people who need that safety net
Meanwhile, GE collected enough corporate welfare last year to pay millions of people's food stamps
I agree in general with this sentiment, and I'm not trying to discourage the thought process here, but keep in mind (and the point has already been made earlier in this thread) that no matter the system, somebody will try to game it. With a BIG I can easily see unscrupulous individuals creating fictitious people or burying dead people before they get reported as such to the government and stealing their identity for their BIG or whatever. There will pretty much always have to be some sort of bureaucracy to keep that sort of thing from happening, because if it's obvious that you can do it and get away with it scot free...
Posts
I think there's something else there, you don't feel right supporting freeloaders, no matter what their problem is. Medical bills, too bad dig a ditch, crippled, too bad dig a ditch, downturned economy, too bad dig a ditch, can only get a part time job, too bad dig a ditch.
There is a distinct difference between "the money has to come from somewhere, and taking it from here is least problematic" and "we're just taking this money because you don't need it". Under the latter, you would be justified in taking the money from rich people and using it to throw a giant kegger for everyone, because after all, the rich don't need it.
I think the distinction underscores a difference in philosophy surrounding who has moral claim to income. Is all money inherently the property of the government, and they are being nice by letting you keep some? Is it all the property of those who earn it, and the government has no claim at all? I think the answer is somewhere in the middle, and the distinction we're discussing determines how far to one side or the other you might be. The implication of the argument I was criticizing above is basically that the government could take 10% of your money or 100% and you have no moral authority to complain about it. I don't like that.
We've come to think of suffering as its own form of currency. If someone is poor and is having a hard time not remaining that way, they have not yet suffered sufficiently on the way up, or are too lazy, and are thus suffering too little.
No, we should shoot them on the spot and just get it over with.
I wasn't aware that making someone go through the hoops of getting currently available assistance was akin to a death sentence.
I think I've found the best way to have a reasonable discussion is to stereotype those that disagree with you in the worst possible light, then you can safely ignore all arguments they make.
It is much easier than actually thinking about your position and how different points of view might have some validity.
On the one hand, you could make an argument that you had no part in deciding whether or not you were here in the first place. Various components of society made that determination for you, including but not limited to your parents. Just as parents have a responsibility to see you clothed and cared for through childhood, society has a responsibility to see you (to an extent) clothed and cared for throughout the remainder of your life. (Note: if your response to this is HURR JUST KILL YOURSELF THEN, you lose the thread.)
On the other hand, it's arguable that that's all beside the point. A lot of discussion here has been based on the notion that, morality aside, the economy might function better and more efficiently if everyone was guaranteed a basic income. So you either need to argue against the BI from a practical stance - ie, why do you think it would be inferior to the status quo, and how do you support this argument? - or from a moral stance - ie, it doesn't matter if it would make everything better, it would be wrong, and here is why I think so...
The latter is going to be challenging at best, so I would recommend the former.
Then you have no idea what life is like. You are literally one broken bone away from being one of these people. Have you ever been maimed? My girlfriend can't lift more than 10-15 lbs because of surgery on her arms.
As such, with every single technological breakthrough we get more and more pressure to provide income to everyone no matter what they do. We aren't feeling this because we are obliged to care for the poor, but because the economy just won't work unless you create artificial labor inneficiency.
An alternative would be to mandate 30 hour maximum workweeks.
In his defense, there are people - not necessarily in this thread - who think exactly that, and who probably wouldn't even much object to the above characterization.
If I was responding directly to you, or anyone else, I would have quoted you. As it is, I'm trying to offer "different points of view" that "might have some validity" by hopefully putting some pressure on how central the idea of suffering is to the morality that underpins most economic models.
The problem with making some kind of practical argument against this is that it's all just theory. Is there any country that currently does this? We can sit here all day and say that we believe that people would want more than just this basic income and so we would always have people to do all of the things that need to be done. But do we really know that people wouldn't just say "Who gives a shit, I got my government check for this month."
Then we're talking about three different arguments/phrasings: Your original "money has to come from somewhere", which appears rather uncontroversial, and the two interpretations of "they don't need it": @bowen and I interpret it as a restatement of the former, and @spool32 and you appear to interpret it as "Kegger time", which I haven't seen anyone here seriously advocate.
You're making conflicting statements here. Temporary or conditional assistance is by definition not going to cover everybody. At some point you get a conflict between "right to life" and "no entitlement". Either:
1) Everyone is entitled to the necessities of life, provided at taxpayer expense if they can't afford them, even if they're lazy and want to life on the dole forever.
2) Nobody has the right to a wage for being alive, and if the support system cuts them off at a certain point, that's OK, even if they starve to death.
Pick one.
That's right, there would never be an option to make sure that the people that are currently on assistance are actually trying to do something (if able) to better their situation. We couldn't try to create work programs for those who are unable to currently find employment. We either have to let everyone die or just give everyone money for nothing.
Really?
How do we know people wouldn't just be satisfied living on the bare necessities? This is a serious question?
You'll be lucky if breaking the median income even means an increase in discretionary income, considering the $130k for undergrad+professional school which begins accruing interest the day you graduate. (undergrad immediately, professional school one year later.)
Aaaand with that, back to law school reading.
Government housing and some grocery stamps apparently.
Which is much closer to the reality of a communist state than the BIG is btw.
And once more, because I get the feeling some people in this discussion did not understand that point: Everyone would get BIG, not just poor and unemployed people and noone would take away "your" tax dollars to pay all dem damn freeloaders.
How do you know they won't?
I guess people think because I referenced my own situation of working my way through various physical labor jobs as being what I believe everyone should do. I would say that government assistance should be given to those who cannot secure a job because of long term disability (and I am not calling out anyone here) as long as they are actually disabled.
I have never once said I don't think people that need assistance shouldn't get it, I just don't think people who are completely able to work should be given money just because we could find the surplus somewhere.
I don't think we are where you think we are, but we have certainly moved closer.
We no longer work from dawn to dusk, have kids as cheep labor, and die before 50.
Now we educate until mid twenties, work 40 hours a week until 65-70 and live for another 20 years.
However, at the end of the day, we still need ditch diggers.
Seriously though, a recession is not the same as "We just don't need people to work anymore".
That's not a solution to the dilemma. You keep bringing in various temporary or conditional support programs. At some point, someone is going to run out of time. We''ll say that person is me. I am unemployed, I am living off the government largesse. I have exhausted my very last month of benefits. The employment program didn't find me a job. Or maybe I just can't be bothered. What do you do?
1) Cut me off, even if it kills me
2) Keep providing support, just because I am alive
3) Extend the benefit window - note, this is the same as option #2, because we've already stated that it's my last month. Extending the temporary window forever means it's not temporary.
This isn't about everybody. It's about the really inconvenient people who force you to choose between two of your values.
Because the vast, vast majority never stop working ten or twenty years in because they've saved up enough that they can live in a mediocre apartment and live a minimalist existence.
You think they will? Prove it.
Actually Canada tried BIG as an experiment in the 70s. The result?
COMMUNISM!
No, the result was, that the only people that stopped working were mothers with very young children and teenagers that had to work to support their family.
I am going to quote the whole wikipedia entry, because it is really short:
More highschool graduates?Less dometic abuse? That's some damn fine communism.
That isn't what the BIG is about. None of these have any relevance when discussing the BIG, you wouldn't have to give a damn you just have to collect your money.
8->
I'm sure they shut it down because it was too awesome to exist too.
Um.
If you extend unemployment benefits forever you have nearly the same thing.
If you don't, people who can't find a job starve in the street.
So...
Actually, there is a modicum of work that you have to do to secure those benefits. I don't like the idea of not having to do anything to have this income guaranteed to you.
Yep, fine with me. If someone will actually make that effort I am fine with it. I just can't reconcile the idea of wage just because everyone should have some money regardless of whether or not they need it. Being on Government assistance at least takes an amount of initiative to get going.
Our current form of government was, at one point in time, just a theory.
"Has a constitutional Republic ever been tried before? Do we have any evidence that it will work? No? Better stick with what we know then, and not discuss potential improvements."
"Has a monarchy ever been tried before? Is there a country with a King or Queen we could point to as evidence that it's a good idea? We could sit here all day and discuss the pros and cons of having one but at the end of the day it's all just theorycrafting."
"UGG THINK HAVING CHIEF OF TRIBE STUPID. UGG WON'T TALK CHIEF UNLESS CHIEF ALREADY EXIST SOMEWHERE ELSE. UGG WORKED HARD CLUBBING SABRE-TOOTH TIGER FOR HIS OWN CAVE."
You're oversimplifying things. There's also:
3) Everyone is expected to both have access to the necessities of life and provide labor. Those who do not have a job or whose job is considered to be unproductive should be enslaved and forced to work.
You do realize it costs tax dollars to do this right?
Every time a public aid program like food stamps has invested money into the bureaucracy to catch people who are gaming the system and sitting around stealing a few bucks a day from the government, it has cost the state more money than those people take out of the system, furthermore for every moocher you end up catching you delay benefits to real people who need that safety net
Meanwhile, GE collected enough corporate welfare last year to pay millions of people's food stamps
Don't forget that only certain people get to decide what jobs are considered unproductive.
Of course I realize taxes pay for government assistance. I still don't like the idea of a guaranteed wage for everyone regardless of circumstance.
I agree in general with this sentiment, and I'm not trying to discourage the thought process here, but keep in mind (and the point has already been made earlier in this thread) that no matter the system, somebody will try to game it. With a BIG I can easily see unscrupulous individuals creating fictitious people or burying dead people before they get reported as such to the government and stealing their identity for their BIG or whatever. There will pretty much always have to be some sort of bureaucracy to keep that sort of thing from happening, because if it's obvious that you can do it and get away with it scot free...