Why the world should adopt a basic income

born into a hell created by their parents, a hell passed on to the kids. Survival of the fittest demands they suffer for their sins not be rewarded for them in order to create more dependency and greater tragedies in future generations.

 

very easy, let trump deport 30 million stop Pelosifrom importing another 30 million of them. Do you understand?

 

So, you're saying you were kinda-sorta stoopid to hire them?

Higher qualification jobs are filled by higher-qualified individuals and that most often means at the very least a Bachelor's Post-secondary Degree ...

 

Enough of the rabbiting on.

VERY boring ...

 

Problems justify spending programs, so problems are good for any ruling political class. A crisis is even better.
Government has a strong bias against actually solving problems.

“Politics in modern America has become a lucrative business, an industry that has less to do with policy and a lot more to do with accessing money and favors. … bills and regulations are often introduced not to affect policy change, but as vehicles for shaking down people for … money and favors. Indeed, the motive on both sides often has nothing to do with creating a “correct” policy but instead is often about maximizing profits.” EXTORTION, "How Politicians Extract Your money, Buy Votes, And Line Their Own Pockets, Peter Schweizer, HMO, NY, NY, 2013, p. 4.

Redirecting transferred wealth from government programs to individual productive workers is not an ideal solution. It is just a far better one.

 

Dead easy. A country introduces a Universal Basic Income that is the equivalent to the average wage of the Poverty Threshold ($25K in the US) for a family of four. (Or however large a family might be.)

This takes the onus off having to buy food and shelter ...

 

Though your intentions are noble, they are also unrealistic. I didn't realize we were talking about a basic income for the world.

The problem is, it's emotionally driven ideological at best. These countries that are in extreme poverty also reproduce at an alarming rate. The desire here is to take from the wealthy nations to support unsustainable reproduction and demand on necessary resources to facilitate those lives?

Additionally, giving money to these countries doesn't solve anything. They often live in geographic environments that are poor of resources to sustain life and gain wealth. They would find more value in burning the paper money for warmth, as where would they spend it to increase their standard of living.

Lastly, explain to me why im obligated, based on your ideological perspectives to support a family of 12 in the Sudan? What benefit do I recieve? What's the point considering the points above?

Many people on this forum are openly advocates of the Robin Hood fallacy.

It's easy to solve all the world's problems with other people's money. Thank god we don't live in a dictatorship where some of you could actually force this ideological non-sense.

 

No, I'm saying a degree is not necessarily indicative of intelligence... which sadly I believe im experiencing in this conversation.

Those qualifications are much deeper than a paper representing a degree.

They include:

- commonsense
- soft skills
- problem solving
- leadership
- work ethic
And many more.

None of which is represented by a degree program most of which is simply testing against memorization.

 

sure would!! then there would be no incentive to work hard enough to pay for you own food and shelter,you could just depend on some sucker working hard enough to pay for his and yours.

How far can liberalism go? Recently a California legislator was looking for a new way to be good. She said, "do you know there is no program to help poor people take care of their pets".

 

You probably don't realise, or comprehend that history is progressing toward a global, human civilisation, moving on from the many competing civilisations of the past. (!n 1946-8, for the first time ever, this was succinctly envisioned in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.).

H G. Well's dictum is significant in this discussion: "Civilisation is a race between education and catastrophe"

What's realistic, or achievable?

Emotionally driven? (I'll pass on that assertion).

Fact: as nations become more prosperous, their birth rate falls.

Those "observations" don't deserve consideration, except to say they naturally follow from your own conceptions about what is achievable, and "realistic". (In the 19th century the South claimed their economy required slavery to function).

Addressed above, in addition noting that you also need to consider (out of healthy self-interest) the poverty in your own nation.

.

.....I'm sure you have a well-developed economic theory to prove it's a fallacy......

As an ideologue you have entirely ignored, as expected, my comments about the difference between 'money' and real resources,

If you are not interested in addressing that issue, say so, and I'll move on.

 

Thankfully, most intelligent people would disagree with you.

Intelligence is a verifiable attribute of any individual.

It is no wonder that, in general, intelligent people have higher salaries - especially in a world that that has transformed from the Industrial Age to the Information Age ....

 

No we weren't. The notion is ridiculous for the entire world.

Not for developed countries however ...

 

How would you know? Did you do a study in the matter with the "most intelligent people"?

Blah, blah, blah ...

 

Wrong!

One should not obtain a post-secondary degree just by showing up for classes.

There are exams to be taken - the consequence of which most degree-holders at least know how to read and write and ... THINK!

Aptitude for a job does depend often upon post-graduate study specialization. But these are in the area of specialization degrees, like for medicine or law.

Individual aptitudes also come into play. There are, I have noticed, some particular people who have an aptitude for sales. Their degree makes them specialists as regards the content, that is, the ability to understand products/services that they are selling.

Not all people, if you put a "sales-person" sticker on them will succeed. And this holds also for a number of other jobs where one's "natural qualities" will assure that they succeed at the work they undertake.

It is the mix of education and inborn aptitudes that determine the final outcome of any occupation ...

 

Anyone who despises Basic Income as a social mechanism will be pleased to read the review of subject on a country-by-country basis.

The notion is being debated but nationally "it is going nowhere". See here:
Basic income around the world

'Tis a shame, 'tis a shame, 'tis a shame - because it will:
*Eradicate poverty and thus reduce crime-rates, and
*Allow more people to undertake a post-secondary education that will offer them a decent job.

Period.

 

I think the notion is ridiculous anywhere.

What you are essentially saying is that you EXPECT that people are afforded a basic minimum standard of living because:

1. Other people are wealthy
2. They were simply born into a wealthy company

This is entitlement at its worst in my opinion. The expectation, and entitlement, of something for nothing. You also want to provide free healthcare and education. For what reason, because people should be entitled to these things.

With all respect, I am not hearing of any reasoning that validates the desire. I think people should be afforded exactly what they work to earn. I support social safety nets that protect the most dire of situations, and these programs should be enough to sustain somebody while still encouraging them to sustain themselves.

The something for nothing crowd is bankrupting most westernized nations and creating a society in which people feel entitled. It needs to stop.

 

No. Memorize.

Aptitude for a job does depend often upon post-graduate study specialization. But these are in the area of specialization degrees, like for medicine or law.

Individual aptitudes also come into play. There are, I have noticed, some particular people who have an aptitude for sales. Their degree makes them specialists as regards the content, that is, the ability to understand products/services that they are selling.

Not all people, if you put a "sales-person" sticker on them will succeed. And this holds also for a number of other jobs where one's "natural qualities" will assure that they succeed at the work they undertake.

It is the mix of education and inborn aptitudes that determine the final outcome of any occupation ...
[/QUOTE]

Ok, good. We agree on that.

 

BEWARE THE DAY

Wrong and dead wrong.

Specialization typically starts at the graduate-school level. And is very broad indeed.

You've got that notion very wrong ...

Only in terms of the academic results, which can have an effect upon first-jobs. In time, it is on-the-job success (or failure or mediocrity) that determines a person's rise in terms of salary.

The US is infatuated by numbers - whether in sports or career achievement defined by revenue. The nation as a whole would be far better off if Individual Financial Achievement took second or even third place to "Intellectual Achievement and or Relevant Experience in a Given Domain.

(There would be far less Income Disparity, which is THE DEFINING FAILURE OF THE UNITED STATES. See here: Where are the world's most unequal countries.)

We've got (in the US) all the wrong the "key attributes of success" because of salary, which we bump-with-a-trumpet. Salary is purely a market derived phenomenon, whilst individual success is better recognized by intellectual or qualification achievement!

And finally, what matters most is the lack of fairness as regards those entrapped in poverty unable to exit. Beware the day that particular time-bomb explodes ...

 

It is commentary like this that makes me despair.

You've understood nothing.

Moving right along ...

 

Thomas Paine was one of the USA's Founding Fathers and he believed in a basic income system:


http://thomaspaine.org/paine-on-basic-income-and-human-rights.html



''One of these roles that government should take on is economic support of all citizens when they are the most vulnerable, especially the young, the elderly, and the infirm ... Paine thinks government can do better, and go beyond just paying fair wages to its own representatives. He argues in favor of publicly funded welfare for all citizens, especially at the beginning and at end of life, and he outlines a concrete plan for its implementation.''



While right wingers believe this is socialism that began with Marx, it actually began a generation before he was born and it was created by our own Founding Fathers.

 

I have personally recognized on this site the general lack of historical comprehension of the seeds of the American nation that were planted at the end of the 18th century.

I live in France. When visiting Paris, I always manage to go to a restaurant called "Le Procope". In this restaurant Franklin, ... first met with the French who plotted the overthrow of their own King. It is in this restaurant that the seeds of the both the French and American revolution were planted.

At the very basis of both revolutions was the patent unfairness of both the French and the English kingdoms. The French king was overthrown and lost his head, whilst the British king was simply kicked out of the US.

But behind both "revolutions" were desires to overthrow monarchies that were bleeding the riches of their countries for their own monarchic purposes.

Has anything really changed is we allow a tiny fraction of our population to bleed the economy of immense riches simply by reducing Upper-Income Taxation rates? What can they possibly do with their immense riches when they die? Build a hospital? Give it to their children.

It would be far, far better were those riches taxed away and employment for the betterment of the lives of America's poor. By means of a permanent Minimum Income provided by the government that is greater than the Poverty Threshold (which is presently $24K for a family of four).

And I'll bet Washington would have signed that bill had he been given the opportunity ...

 

@LafayetteBis


Unfortunately, a great many Americans, especially those from the far right, are just too ignorant about this nation's history and the reasons why it was created by our Founders.

Over and over again these deluded pundits continually pretend that building the infrastructure and government intervention in the economy constitutes a form of communism, a series if ideas that began with Marx or Lenin or some other leftist. But patriots like me continually post link after link which clearly and unequivocally prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that they began with our Founders - DECADES before Marx was born. It was not the socialists who influenced FDR and other progressives to improve upon our society. Rather it was our Founders who influenced the socialists. On this, history cannot be more clear.


Several times your critics above claim that such reform constitute "something for nothing" and that it bankrupt society. In fact it is the precise opposite - the current welfarism for the wealthy is what bankrupts and destroys society. The reforms you propose (those initially demanded by our Founding Fathers) would greatly improve upon and enrich society.

 

You think people are entitled to free money earned by others. I'm sorry that's an inconvenient fact to you agenda.

 

The Leftist Notions of societal fairness were the root-cause of socialist thinking in the 19th century. Yes, it was a bit fanatical - and Russia's revolution that brought Communism was unfortunate.

It took another 60 years for Europe to do away with socialism per se and institute a Social Democracy. What's that? (Because evidently you do not know.)

It is this (from here):

Get it?

I doubt you do ...

 

Well, yes, it IS something for nothing. Meaning, we pay taxes (which is NOT NOTHING!) but when more than half the Discretionary Federal Budget goes to the DoD (see here) we have the right to question whether that is right and proper. (It aint!)

There are far more important societal-services that are functionally key to our standard-of-living. And both exorbitantly costly Healthcare and Post-secondary Education are NOT what the country needs to prosper. Both should be funded by the US government by reducing the grossly bloated DoD-budget ... !