I'm curious to know what your take is on a basic income for all US citizens versus our current 'conditional' welfare system. What do you think short term and long term outcome would be? Would the increased tax burden on the upper classes result in a total collapse rendering a basic income useless? My personal opinion is that it is necessary given the increasing rate of job automation coupled with our increasing population size (not to mention aging). Am I delusional? If so, why?
1) We have always been faced with "increasing automation" from the moment we first used animals to till soil rather than doing it ourselves. The increased automation frees us to do more interesting work.
2) Basic income? How defines how much is "basic"? The problem here, is that it is a slippery slope of incremental definitions. Poor used to mean selling your pee to earn money ("piss poor"), now it means ObamaPhones, $100 Nike Shoes and a flat screen TV.
3) What makes you think that anyone is entitled to some
3) What makes you think that anyone is entitled to someone else's money? The problem with Socialism is eventually, you run out of other people's money.
It's always funny when conservatives say that while giving welfare to big corporations. Are there any Republicans who don't support the current ubiquitous practice of forcing property owners to build more parking [pdf] [ucla.edu], which benefits Big Oil, than the market wants? Or who think the roads should pay for themselves 100% from gas taxes and user fees instead of
I am a libertarian. So most of what you say is meaningless in my case. However, the way the left uses terms like "Welfare to big corporations" I laugh. And when they say things like "GE didn't pay any taxes", I laugh harder. You see, it is the LEFT that creates "welfare" loopholes for things like Green Energy (Solyndra et al) used by big corporations like GE to avoid paying taxes.
Then they equate "Tax deductions" as "Subsidies", which would mean that almost all Americans are "Subsidized" by deductions (Stan
by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Tuesday November 18, 2014 @04:16PM (#48413111)
The government makes way more money on Big Oil than Big Oil does.
You're saying it's okay for the government to take our freedoms and property rights and build uneconomical roads at taxpayer expense all for the benefit of Big Oil, because Big Oil pays a lot of taxes in return.
No, what I am saying is if you kill off Big Oil, you kill off a huge source of revenue to Big Government. It is very much like the attacks on "Big Tobacco" from the 90's where we increased taxes to the point of impacting cigarette sales, and the sudden loss of revenue the taxes raised (see Laffer Curve) that were being used by Big Government for programs, that suddenly no longer have funds to drive them.
Liberals (and NeoCons) love big government, but don't have the guts to admit that the very enterprises th
Our policy is, when in doubt, do the right thing.
-- Roy L. Ash, ex-president, Litton Industries
Opinion On Basic Income (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm curious to know what your take is on a basic income for all US citizens versus our current 'conditional' welfare system. What do you think short term and long term outcome would be? Would the increased tax burden on the upper classes result in a total collapse rendering a basic income useless? My personal opinion is that it is necessary given the increasing rate of job automation coupled with our increasing population size (not to mention aging). Am I delusional? If so, why?
Re: (Score:1)
1) We have always been faced with "increasing automation" from the moment we first used animals to till soil rather than doing it ourselves. The increased automation frees us to do more interesting work.
2) Basic income? How defines how much is "basic"? The problem here, is that it is a slippery slope of incremental definitions. Poor used to mean selling your pee to earn money ("piss poor"), now it means ObamaPhones, $100 Nike Shoes and a flat screen TV.
3) What makes you think that anyone is entitled to some
Re: (Score:0)
It's always funny when conservatives say that while giving welfare to big corporations. Are there any Republicans who don't support the current ubiquitous practice of forcing property owners to build more parking [pdf] [ucla.edu], which benefits Big Oil, than the market wants? Or who think the roads should pay for themselves 100% from gas taxes and user fees instead of
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I am a libertarian. So most of what you say is meaningless in my case. However, the way the left uses terms like "Welfare to big corporations" I laugh. And when they say things like "GE didn't pay any taxes", I laugh harder. You see, it is the LEFT that creates "welfare" loopholes for things like Green Energy (Solyndra et al) used by big corporations like GE to avoid paying taxes.
Then they equate "Tax deductions" as "Subsidies", which would mean that almost all Americans are "Subsidized" by deductions (Stan
Re:Opinion On Basic Income (Score:0)
You're saying it's okay for the government to take our freedoms and property rights and build uneconomical roads at taxpayer expense all for the benefit of Big Oil, because Big Oil pays a lot of taxes in return.
Are you sure you're a Libertarian?
Re: (Score:3)
No, what I am saying is if you kill off Big Oil, you kill off a huge source of revenue to Big Government. It is very much like the attacks on "Big Tobacco" from the 90's where we increased taxes to the point of impacting cigarette sales, and the sudden loss of revenue the taxes raised (see Laffer Curve) that were being used by Big Government for programs, that suddenly no longer have funds to drive them.
Liberals (and NeoCons) love big government, but don't have the guts to admit that the very enterprises th