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 (Standard Income tax deductions) and many of those are using "Tax Credits" (EIC) as well, but they don't call those subsidies. Finally, the most interesting thing about "Big Oil" isn't that they get subsidies, credits and what not, opposed by the left. No, the most interesting thing about Big Oil is how much taxes are paid to government, direct and indirectly, by Big Oil. The government makes way more money on Big Oil than Big Oil does.
It is like all the taxes already paid doesn't count or something. Get a real grip on taxes, and you'll realize that Big Government is out biggest problem, not Big Oil or Big Pharma, or Big Agra or....
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
Have you done a study of loopholes and who proposed them? I suspect you'll find them proposed all over the political spectrum. Or what income "government" (which ones?) gets from Big Oil?
That aside, a "subsidy" may be viewed as a tax break that similar entities don't get. The Standard Deduction isn't a subsidy, because everybody gets it who doesn't have more deductions. The mortgage interest deduction might be regarded as a subsidy of homeowners. If Big Oil doesn't pay the taxes that you'd expect be
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:Opinion On Basic Income (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 (Standard Income tax deductions) and many of those are using "Tax Credits" (EIC) as well, but they don't call those subsidies. Finally, the most interesting thing about "Big Oil" isn't that they get subsidies, credits and what not, opposed by the left. No, the most interesting thing about Big Oil is how much taxes are paid to government, direct and indirectly, by Big Oil. The government makes way more money on Big Oil than Big Oil does.
It is like all the taxes already paid doesn't count or something. Get a real grip on taxes, and you'll realize that Big Government is out biggest problem, not Big Oil or Big Pharma, or Big Agra or ....
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
Re: (Score:2)
Have you done a study of loopholes and who proposed them? I suspect you'll find them proposed all over the political spectrum. Or what income "government" (which ones?) gets from Big Oil?
That aside, a "subsidy" may be viewed as a tax break that similar entities don't get. The Standard Deduction isn't a subsidy, because everybody gets it who doesn't have more deductions. The mortgage interest deduction might be regarded as a subsidy of homeowners. If Big Oil doesn't pay the taxes that you'd expect be