Swiss to vote on basic income of $33,000 for all citizens!

10 years ago

Well, when I looked at what it took for an outsider to become a swiss citizen, it included being there 20 years, learning german, and proof that you had income over like $60K.

HERE is what a site says today:

Foreigners with no direct blood ties to Switzerland through either birth or marriage must live in the country for at least 12 years before they can apply for citizenship. (Years spent in the country between age ten and 20 count double). The person must be well integrated, familiar with customs and traditions, law abiding, and pose no threat to internal or external security.

The Federal Migration Office will then “green light” an applicant’s request to begin the naturalisation process but that does not mean citizenship is certain. Rather, cantons and municipalities have their own requirements that must be met. One canton, for example, might require applicants to live for two years in the region while another might require a decade. For more on the process, please visit the Federal Migration Office.

So they are BETTER with their laws and sovereignty than the US, even if the US DID force them to break some.

Milton Friedman did NOT say simply pay the poor. He said they must apply, and could be paid a portion in relation to their assets and need, and dictate what it is to be spent on. It is very different. For the beach guy I spoke of earlier, he may have some trouble. It also takes into account the first tier, so one being paid a negative tax would NOT make more than the lowest that DON'T! Milton gave an example with tiers starting at $3000. With miltons plan, and the current tax law, I guess it would be less than $3900/year.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM

FURTHER, if they DID have a windfall, as the beach guy supposedly plans, they would have to pay that much MORE tax in that year!

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9112384].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

Well, when I looked at what it took for an outsider to become a swiss citizen, it included being there 20 years, learning german, and proof that you had income over like $60K.

HERE is what a site says today:

So they are BETTER with their laws and sovereignty than the US, even if the US DID force them to break some.

That has nothing to do with the topic of course, except it's the same country. Focus Steve. You can do it.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9112642].message }}

seasoned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

That has nothing to do with the topic of course, except it's the same country. Focus Steve. You can do it.

It DOES if someone from here wants to go there! It DOES if you figure in the effects of migration and foreign taxes!

HERE, we spend a FORTUNE on illegals, and any amount taken in doesn't pay for it, so CITIZENS do!

THERE, they spend virtually NOTHING on illegals, and all amounts taken in pay for the CITIZENS.

Now YOU can focus on THAT!

Steve
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9112669].message }}

hardraysnight

10 years ago

it would be nice to live in a country whereby personal taxation started at 33,000, and those under would be supplemented up to 33,000

much better use of my taxation dollars than sending troops to afghanistan and iraq

[ 5 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

These guys helped me with the feedback for my site

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9112428].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by hardraysnight

it would be nice to live in a country whereby personal taxation started at 33,000, and those under would be supplemented up to 33,000

much better use of my taxation dollars than sending troops to afghanistan and iraq

Don't worry, such a system would mean NO ARMY!
NO GUNS!
NO SHOES!
etc....

Unless of course inflation comes in and makes the $33,000 worthless. That would mean they $33,000 wouldn't look like anything though.

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9112492].message }}

hardraysnight

10 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

Don't worry, such a system would mean NO ARMY!
NO GUNS!
NO SHOES!
etc....

Unless of course inflation comes in and makes the $33,000 worthless. That would mean they $33,000 wouldn't look like anything though.

Steve

but there will always be the swiss navy

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

These guys helped me with the feedback for my site

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9115957].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by hardraysnight

but there will always be the swiss navy

WHO'S going to pay them, or pay for the boats, etc.....?

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9116225].message }}

hardraysnight

10 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

WHO'S going to pay them, or pay for the boats, etc.....?

Steve

citizens or seikos?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

These guys helped me with the feedback for my site

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9116626].message }}

Kay King

10 years ago

In a college class years ago we were assigned to choose a famous person we would like to sit and talk to for an hour - and to explain why. My choice was Gaddafi. Power corrupted Gaddafi over the years but early on he was a charismatic man with interesting social views and a great intellect.

Gaddafi's legend may be greater than his reality. The Libyan benefits list above is published on a lot of sites but the numbers ($$$) vary. It paints a rosy picture - and truly under Gaddafi Libya became a prosperous country.

It doesn't explain why the Libyan people turned against Gaddafi one tribe after another. The social theory is if people are well taken care of - they are content. What went wrong?

Gaddafi was a skilled political manipulator, playing off different tribes against each other and against state institutions or constituencies. He also developed a strong personality cult.

More and more, his rule became characterised by patronage and the tight control of a police state.

The worst period for Libyans was probably the 1980s, when Col Gaddafi experimented on his people with his social theories.

As part of his "cultural revolution" he banned all private enterprise and unsound books were burned.

He also had dissidents based abroad murdered. Freedom of speech and association were absolutely squashed and acts of violent repression were numerous.

The "patronage" comment is interesting. It's not the same as social justice when 'patronage' is at the whim of the person in control.

BBC News - Gaddafi's quixotic and brutal rule

Intimidated no more, Libyans end Gaddafi's rule | Reuters

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9117411].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

Gaddafi's legend may be greater than his reality. The Libyan benefits list above is published on a lot of sites but the numbers ($$$) vary. It paints a rosy picture - and truly under Gaddafi Libya became a prosperous country.

It doesn't explain why the Libyan people turned against Gaddafi one tribe after another. The social theory is if people are well taken care of - they are content. What went wrong?

Well, people ALWAYS want more. And if a currency has no INTRINSIC value or can't maintain a stable relationship to foreign currencies, inflation occurs, and the perceived value drops about as fast. It is BETTER to have 30% be in poverty, with stable currency, than to have 100% billionares with currency under hyperinflation.

BESIDES, under the FIRST scenario, the poor have a chance, and may become rich. Under the second scenario, even the richest may find themselves trying to work for the ret of their lives with NO retirement in sight.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9120340].message }}

garyv

10 years ago

I'd never vote for that, and I'm so glad we're not yet like that. If someone doesn't figure out and work their own way to prosperity, then they don't deserve it. Why should others work harder to give their money away to those that can't figure it out? Helping out the elderly and crippled is fine - all others should get off their lazy arses and make their own way.

I've been without a job and money before - and there's no way I'd be selfish enough to sit on my bum and wait for others to make me comfortable.

The Swiss economy will probably go through a period of hyper inflation if such a bill ever passes. Money becomes worth a lot less when you start giving it to everyone. Combine that with the incredible tax rate they'll have to pay to keep that up, and you'll have inflation through the roof.

People forget that the money has to come from somewhere - if that burden is spread out, then every person would have a tax bill of at least 33,000 just to pay for that program. Not sustainable.

Thanks
3 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9112730].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Originally Posted by garyv

Combine that with the incredible tax rate they'll have to pay to keep that up, and you'll have inflation through the roof.

People forget that the money has to come from somewhere - if that burden is spread out, then every person would have a tax bill of at least 33,000 just to pay for that program. Not sustainable.

It seems a good portion would already be paid for. Interestingly enough, most of the new revenue that would have to be raised through a new tax would likely end up going to the middle class and wealthy. Ironic huh? Hey, they already have welfare, unemployment and subsidies for the poor, so what would change most it seems is the money that would go to others.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9112749].message }}

garyv

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

It seems a good portion would already be paid for.

Paid for how? I seriously doubt they have enough surplus to do such a program.

This is a lazy person's dream - sorry it's never going to happen. - But I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

But for now I'm bowing out of this thread. Have fun with it.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9112773].message }}

Joe Mobley 10 years ago

Wisdom speaks.

Originally Posted by garyv

This is a lazy person's dream -

Joe Mobley
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature

.
Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9113273].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Originally Posted by garyv

Paid for how? I seriously doubt they have enough surplus to do such a program.

According to one of the people behind it they would take most of the money currently spent on social programs to pay for about 1/3 of it. A second large chuck would come from part of current salaries. I'm not sure how that would work out as I haven't seen their proposal, but from what they say it seems those two sources would comprise more than 50% of the money needed. The rest would have to be new income and they propose a combination of a consumption tax, tarrifs and estate taxes.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9114770].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

According to one of the people behind it they would take most of the money currently spent on social programs to pay for about 1/3 of it. A second large chuck would come from part of current salaries. I'm not sure how that would work out as I haven't seen their proposal, but from what they say it seems those two sources would comprise more than 50% of the money needed. The rest would have to be new income and they propose a combination of a consumption tax, tarrifs and estate taxes.

Tim doesn't that sound like they are taking money from the people and then giving it back to them?
Aren't their social programs paid for with the peoples taxes?
Taking part of their current salaries, just to give it back?
The only thing I see that isn't from the people they are giving it back to is the tariffs.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9114845].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Tim doesn't that sound like they are taking money from the people and then giving it back to them?
Aren't their social programs paid for with the peoples taxes?
Taking part of their current salaries, just to give it back?
The only thing I see that isn't from the people they are giving it back to is the tariffs.

Yeah, so the current taxes would remain the same whatever they are. I'm assuming they are progressive. I personally would want the the new taxes to be more progressive than a consumption tax but having a consumption tax might help get the referendum passed.

I think they are referring to a part of public employess salaries.

It seems to be a form of income redistribution in reaction to what they see as income inequality.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9114892].message }}

Kay King

10 years ago

It is a form of income redistribution but it doesn't carry the "us against them" attitude that seems to be growing in the US.

A big plus is it's a system that would be hard to game or cheat - and would be rather inexpensive to administrate. It wouldn't be open to political intrigue or special interests.

So often, people in need fall through cracks in our system in the US because they don't know how to game the system or navigate it. They don't know that "no" means "maybe" - or "come up with a better excuse". At the same time there are those who know the ins and out and pass them on to friends and relatives - they know what answers to give and don't much care about truth.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9114942].message }}

Kay King

10 years ago

The equivalent in the US would be someone earning $19k and getting an additional 16k. You're right - it would make a big difference.

have more of a problem giving $33,000 to the wealthy here than about giving it to the poor.

But that makes it work - the fairness of the distribution makes it seem like taking care of everyone rather than taking from one person to hand out to someone else.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9114980].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

But that makes it work - the fairness of the distribution makes it seem like taking care of everyone rather than taking from one person to hand out to someone else.

I agree. I was just kind of joking and responding to others who had a problem with it mostly because of idea of giving it to the poor who don't want to work, like the surfer dude.

Thanks

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9115031].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

It is a form of income redistribution but it doesn't carry the "us against them" attitude that seems to be growing in the US.

Great point! When I saw this a while back I thought about looking at it as if the citizens were part of a large business and each citizen's income could be looked at as dividends. It would be the one time all were equal as far as income. The Swiss just defeated a proposal to limit executives pay, so they want the ability to become rich. That motivation would still be there I think.

A big plus is it's a system that would be hard to game or cheat - and would be rather inexpensive to administrate. It wouldn't be open to political intrigue or special interests.

So often, people in need fall through cracks in our system in the US because they don't know how to game the system or navigate it. They don't know that "no" means "maybe" - or "come up with a better excuse". At the same time there are those who know the ins and out and pass them on to friends and relatives - they know what answers to give and don't much care about truth.

Two more good points!

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9115017].message }}

Kay King 10 years ago

Two things:

The cost of living in Switzerland is considerably higher than in the US so the $34k discussed is not the equivalent of $34k income in the US when considering purchasing power. Look through the table below - including at the bottom where average salaries are listed.

Cost Of Living Comparison Between United States And Switzerland

$34k sounds great to us - but it is the equivalent of about $17k annually in the US. In Switzerland the monthly income guarantee proposed is 42% of the average monthly salary after taxes.

Adjusted for the difference in cost of living and income - that would be the equivalent of a full time U.S. job with minimum wage of about $8.20. The Swiss aren't providing a "good income" to everyone - but a subsistence income that can provide basics - if the citizen wants more they have to work for it.

Also - the guaranteed salary in Switzerland would be to every citizen - whether they work or not - and would be paid to all...rich and poor alike. It sounds like a fair system so will be interesting to see where and how it goes.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
***
One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
what it is instead of what you think it should be.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9114880].message }}
- TimPhelan 10 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Kay King
  
  Also - the guaranteed salary in Switzerland would be to every citizen - whether they work or not - and would be paid to all...rich and poor alike.
  
  Right. I actually would probably have more of a problem giving $33,000 to the wealthy here than about giving it to the poor.
  
  I would think the biggest impact might be on the working middle class. To someone making $40,000 a year and just squeaking by for whatever reason that $33,000 would make a huge difference.
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  Over 50 Dating
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9114906].message }}

ThomM 10 years ago

Don't worry, such a system would mean NO ARMY!

That reminds me a a story I heard.
I man from Switzerland was talking to a German.
He said "We don't have an army but every male over 18 has a rifle and is trained to use it. All 50,000 of them"
The German replied "We have an army of 100,000. What would you do if we attacked?"
"Shoot twice and go home." He replied.

Tim if they can pull it off that's good for them.
I think the Netherlands does something very similar.
- [ 4 ] Thanks
Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9112768].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by garyv

[b]The Swiss economy will probably go through a period of hyper inflation if such a bill ever passes.]/b] Money becomes worth a lot less when you start giving it to everyone. Combine that with the incredible tax rate they'll have to pay to keep that up, and you'll have inflation through the roof.

People forget that the money has to come from somewhere - if that burden is spread out, then every person would have a tax bill of at least 33,000 just to pay for that program. Not sustainable.

What a COINCIDENCE! The Swiss Franc recently became a FIAT currency! So that will FACILITATE the hyper inflation you spoke about. STILL, they have laws and a native culture that makes them LESS likely to have such a problem than WE are.

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9112787].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Here's what Thomas Paine had to say on the subject of income inequality in his article called Agrarian Justice from 1795. It's some of the most thought provoking and interesting ideas on the subject of poverty, civilization, property etc...

To preserve the benefits of what is called civilized life, and to remedy at the same time the evil which it has produced, ought to considered as one of the first objects of reformed legislation.

Whether that state that is proudly, perhaps erroneously, called civilization, has most promoted or most injured the general happiness of man is a question that may be strongly contested. On one side, the spectator is dazzled by splendid appearances; on the other, he is shocked by extremes of wretchedness; both of which it has erected. The most affluent and the most miserable of the human race are to be found in the countries that are called civilized.

To understand what the state of society ought to be, it is necessary to have some idea of the natural and primitive state of man; such as it is at this day among the Indians of North America. There is not, in that state, any of those spectacles of human misery which poverty and want present to our eyes in all the towns and streets in Europe.

Poverty, therefore, is a thing created by that which is called civilized life. It exists not in the natural state. On the other hand, the natural state is without those advantages which flow from agriculture, arts, science and manufactures.

The life of an Indian is a continual holiday, compared with the poor of Europe; and, on the other hand it appears to be abject when compared to the rich.

Civilization, therefore, or that which is so-called, has operated two ways: to make one part of society more affluent, and the other more wretched, than would have been the lot of either in a natural state.

It is always possible to go from the natural to the civilized state, but it is never possible to go from the civilized to the natural state. The reason is that man in a natural state, subsisting by hunting, requires ten times the quantity of land to range over to procure himself sustenance, than would support him in a civilized state, where the earth is cultivated.

When, therefore, a country becomes populous by the additional aids of cultivation, art and science, there is a necessity of preserving things in that state; because without it there cannot be sustenance for more, perhaps, than a tenth part of its inhabitants. The thing, therefore, now to be done is to remedy the evils and preserve the benefits that have arisen to society by passing from the natural to that which is called the civilized state.

In taking the matter upon this ground, the first principle of civilization ought to have been, and ought still to be, that the condition of every person born into the world, after a state of civilization commences, ought not to be worse than if he had been born before that period...

It is a position not to be controverted that the earth, in its natural, cultivated state was, and ever would have continued to be, the common property of the human race. In that state every man would have been born to property. He would have been a joint life proprietor with rest in the property of the soil, and in all its natural productions, vegetable and animal...

Every proprietor, therefore, of cultivated lands, owes to the community ground-rent (for I know of no better term to express the idea) for the land which he holds; and it is from this ground-rent that the fund prod in this plan is to issue.

It is deducible, as well from the nature of the thing as from all the stories transmitted to us, that the idea of landed property commenced with cultivation, and that there was no such thing, as landed property before that time. It could not exist in the first state of man, that of hunters. It did not exist in the second state, that of shepherds: neither Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, nor Job, so far as the history of the Bible may credited in probable things, were owners of land.

Their property consisted, as is always enumerated in flocks and herds, they traveled with them from place to place. The frequent contentions at that time about the use of a well in the dry country of Arabia, where those people lived, also show that there was no landed property. It was not admitted that land could be claimed as property.

There could be no such thing as landed property originally. Man did not make the earth, and, though he had a natural right to occupy it, he had no right to locate as his property in perpetuity any part of it; neither did the Creator of the earth open a land-office, from whence the first title-deeds should issue. Whence then, arose the idea of landed property? I answer as before, that when cultivation began the idea of landed property began with it, from the impossibility of separating the improvement made by cultivation from the earth itself, upon which that improvement was made...

It has dispossessed more than half the inhabitants of every nation of their natural inheritance, without providing for them, as ought to have been done, an indemnification for that loss, and has thereby created a species of poverty and wretchedness that did not exist before.

In advocating the case of the persons thus dispossessed, it is a right, and not a charity, that I am pleading for. But it is that kind of right which, being neglected at first, could not be brought forward afterwards till heaven had opened the way by a revolution in the system of government. Let us then do honor to revolutions by justice, and give currency to their principles by blessings.

Having thus in a few words, opened the merits of the case, I shall now proceed to the plan I have to propose, which is,

To create a national fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property:

And also, the sum of ten pounds per annum, during life, to every person now living, of the age of fifty years, and to all others as they shall arrive at that age.

http://www.constitution.org/tp/agjustice.htm

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9112812].message }}

SteveJohnson

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Here's what Thomas Paine had to say on the subject of income inequality in his article called Agrarian Justice from 1795. It's some of the most thought provoking and interesting ideas on the subject of poverty, civilization, property etc...

Paine had nothing 'to say on the subject of income inequality'. You might want to read the pamphlet a little more carefully. You're attempting to distort what he wrote to fit your own favoritism of a socialistic society, so you can say, "Look! See? A founding father agrees with us!"

I wonder why you emphasized that portion that deals with the origins of private property? Is it because you think he is saying that the 'public' - the government - should take ownership of the land? He is not. Sorry to disappoint.

Paine suggested paying £10 per year to those over 50, 50 years being the average life expectancy at the time. £10 per year was less than half (actually 43.5%) of the yearly wage of the average agricultural worker at the time, £23.

So let's use modern numbers. The average life expectancy in the US in 2011 was 78.64 years. We'll use 150% of the minimum wage as the base wage of the 'average agricultural worker'. Fair? That's $22,620 a year ($7.25 x 40 x 52 x 1.5, if you want to do the math).

You'd be up in arms at offering the elderly - after they reach 78 years old - the princely sum of $9,831 per year (43.5% of $22,620).

Shall we talk also about a couple of Paine's thoughts on government?

It is the nature and intention of a constitution to prevent governing by party, by establishing a common principle that shall limit and control the power and impulse of party, and that says to all parties, thus far shalt thou go and no further. But in the absence of a constitution, men look entirely to party; and instead of principle governing party, party governs principle.

The progressive left would have us believe that the Constitution is a 'living document', changeable with the times according to the wishes of the party in power, instead of a set of principles that constrain the actions of government.

When the rich plunder the poor of his rights, it becomes an example of the poor to plunder the rich of his property, for the rights of the one are as much property to him as wealth is property to the other and the little all is as dear as the much. It is only by setting out on just principles that men are trained to be just to each other; and it will always be found, that when the rich protect the rights of the poor, the poor will protect the property of the rich. But the guarantee, to be effectual, must be parliamentarily reciprocal.

'Rights' and 'wealth' are, to Paine, both property, and to be protected equally. Tell me, with a straight face, that progressives defend wealth as property as aggressively as they defend the 'rights of the poor'.

Do you actually think Thomas Paine would be an advocate of the type of socialism that is being proposed? LOL

[ 4 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9114487].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Originally Posted by SteveJohnson

Paine had nothing 'to say on the subject of income inequality'.

Sure he did. He of course didn't use that term but he certainly was talking about how civilization created those with great wealth and also terrible poverty. Did you miss that part?

I wonder why you emphasized that portion that deals with the origins of private property? Is it because you think he is saying that the 'public' - the government - should take ownership of the land? He is not.

Nope. He was clearly in favor of owning property but was saying there should be some sort of "rent" for the owner. He suggests a form of property tax and inheritance tax.

You'd be up in arms at offering the elderly - after they reach 78 years old - the princely sum of $9,831 per year.

Paine was presenting a form of income security for the elderly to help fight the poverty he talked about. Just as SS did 140 or so years later. Just as SS wasn't meant to be the sole source of income hopefully for most seniors, I don't think he envisioned his plan to be the only source of income either. The point is, here was one of the most important of our founding fathers envisioning a system that became a reality so many years later. Yes, a "socialistic" system for sure.

'Rights' and 'wealth' are, to Paine, both property, and to be protected equally. Tell me, with a straight face, that progressives defend wealth as property as aggressively as they defend the 'rights of the poor'.

Some of the most progressive people I know personally are doing really well for themselves. Being wealthy and progressive are not mutually exclusive.

Do you actually think Thomas Paine would be an advocate of the type of socialism that is being proposed?

Of course he would and he would detest the run away capitalism and yes, income inequality, that is rampant these days. He would absolutely be at the forefront of the progressive cause and I bet would be over in Switzerland right now trying to get that referendum passed.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9114735].message }}

SteveJohnson

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Of course he would and he would detest the run away capitalism and yes, income inequality, that is rampant these days. He would absolutely be at the forefront of the progressive cause and I bet would be over in Switzerland right now trying to get that referendum passed.

LOL, whatever you say

Thanks

Signature

The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9114905].message }}

HeySal

10 years ago

We could do that easily here - all we have to do is stop subsidizing corporations, then put in what we already pay into welfare and food stamps. Viola - we have a country of people who have the money to live decently........or to screw up and be completely out of luck if they do. Of course, here, the gov would want to tell us how we were allowed to spend every cent instead of leaving it to individuals to decide whether to live well or blow it and starve. At that point, too - if you blew it and landed in a ditch it would be nobody's fault but your own........nobody left to blame it on.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9112776].message }}

Kay King

10 years ago

No - we couldn't do that easily here. Switzerland has 8 million people - no big defense system - doesn't donate billions a year to the rest of the world, has little debt.

Interesting that Greece is similar in size - offered increasing benefits and look at the result. ON its face seems to show how debt and bad policy creates a different outcome but that's just a guess.

Why Switzerland Has Some Of The Happiest, Healthiest Citizens In The World

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9112801].message }}

whateverpedia

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

Interesting that Greece is similar in size - offered increasing benefits and look at the result.

The Greek collapse was caused by three things, not just the one you quoted.

The first was a severe lack of any viable industries apart from tourism.

The second was a lax system for collecting taxes. Apparently paying tax in Greece was considered "optional".

The third was an (overly) generous "welfare" system.

To blame the collapse on just the third without taking into account the first two is somewhat disingenuous.

All that aside, I don't know if they'd taken care of the first two as they should've done in the first place, would've prevented a collapse. In all likelihood, it probably wouldn't have.

However it certainly wouldn't have been as severe as it turned out to be.

[ 2 ] Thanks
3 replies

Signature

Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?

So that blind people can hate them as well.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9112934].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

[quote=whateverpedia;9112934]The Greek collapse was caused by three things, not just the one you quoted.

The first was a severe lack of any viable industries apart from tourism.

I guess not TOO much! I knew a person once and was told his father is paying him an WEEKLY ALLOWANCE! OK, OK, I know! That doesn't sound too special. OK, he was in his 40s or so. STILL not impressed? It was $5000 USD PER WEEK! So he was getting $260000/year from his GREEK FATHER doing business in GREECE! There ARE some industries. I don't know how profitable they are, etc... But if you get over a quarter million from your father as an allowance, I guess they couldn't be doing THAT bad.

The second was a lax system for collecting taxes. Apparently paying tax in Greece was considered "optional".

You can NEVER count on others! If they didn't have enough, they should have cut back on expenses. That's what I did!

The third was an (overly) generous "welfare" system.

That kind of WAS the point!

To blame the collapse on just the third without taking into account the first two is somewhat disingenuous.

Not really! As I said, you should NOT count on what you MIGHT get. Businesses like that, in the US, are, IRONICALLY, ILLEGAL! They are called PONZI SCHEMES!

They all have a few things....
1. Don't do any meaningful business to get money, though they sometimes claim they do
2. Accept money, and try to make it look like they are doing fantastic.
3. Encourage all to let it ride. To those that won't, they use money from newer people.
4. Most money goes to the owners. Those that put money in LOSE.

Look at social security in the US....
1. Don't do any meaningful business, they originally said it was in treasury bonds.
2. Accept money, and try to say they are fine.
3. They limit exchanges and if you start early you must continue, and the amount paid out is lower. THEY decide how much you are paid, and what times you can collect.
4. If they determine they have enough for this year, they declare the rest to be surplus and freely use it as such.

SO, they are doing LOTS of things to reduce payouts, and start later.

All that aside, I don't know if they'd taken care of the first two as they should've done in the first place, would've prevented a collapse. In all likelihood, it probably wouldn't have.

It wouldn't have prevented a collapse. At BEST, it would DELAY it.

However it certainly wouldn't have been as severe as it turned out to be.

WHO KNOWS?

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9112997].message }}

Joe Mobley 10 years ago

Tim,

So I take it that you are in favor of a government imposed minimum annual income?

Joe Mobley
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

.
Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9113020].message }}
- TimPhelan 10 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Joe Mobley
  
  Tim,
  
  So I take it that you are in favor of a government imposed minimum annual income?
  
  Joe Mobley
  
  I'm interested in the idea behind it Joe. What I am in favor of is the national vote on the referendum. One of the backers says it wouldn't stand a chance if the vote was today but they have two to three years to make their case. I know the idea wouldn't stand a chance here in the US for the foreseeable future. If the Swiss people passes it I will be watching for next several years to see what happens.
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  Over 50 Dating
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9114816].message }}

Floyd Fisher

10 years ago

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

The Greek collapse was caused by three things, not just the one you quoted.

The first was a severe lack of any viable industries apart from tourism.

The second was a lax system for collecting taxes. Apparently paying tax in Greece was considered "optional".

The third was an (overly) generous "welfare" system.

To blame the collapse on just the third without taking into account the first two is somewhat disingenuous.

All that aside, I don't know if they'd taken care of the first two as they should've done in the first place, would've prevented a collapse. In all likelihood, it probably wouldn't have.

However it certainly wouldn't have been as severe as it turned out to be.

Well, how can a country develop a viable industry if there is zero incentive for people to strive for excellence?

And if taxes are higher than people are able to pay, how is it even remotely possible to enforce such without inciting revolt?

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9113315].message }}

NewParadigm

10 years ago

so overall taxes will continue and go up with a consumption tax, because you cannot pay for ongoing benefits with one time reductions in spending.

Thanks

Signature

In a moment of decision the best thing you can do is the right thing. The worst thing you can do is nothing. ~ Theodore Roosevelt

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9112895].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Tim,

the first principle of civilization ought to have been, and ought still to be, that the condition of every person born into the world, after a state of civilization commences, ought not to be worse than if he had been born before that period...

I AGREE!!!!!! OK, let me pay NO tax, like they did, and have FULL benefit of the constitution, like THEY did.
If I get even $10 for doing NOTHING, can you really say that is worse off than THEY were? THEY got NOTHING!

There could be no such thing as landed property originally. Man did not make the earth, and, though he had a natural right to occupy it, he had no right to locate as his property in perpetuity any part of it; neither did the Creator of the earth open a land-office, from whence the first title-deeds should issue. Whence then, arose the idea of landed property? I answer as before, that when cultivation began the idea of landed property began with it, from the impossibility of separating the improvement made by cultivation from the earth itself, upon which that improvement was made...

OK, Let me use some property in a national park! Weren't YOU AGAINST bundy? HERE, Thomas says that bundy has MORE right to the land as he has used it, and likely improved it. The federal government has NO right! Thomas makes the argument that a person that has improved the property has an unfortunate right because they have put fixtures in the land that can not be moved. These are things like water, sewer, electric, phone, homes, etc....

To create a national fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property:

Have you READ this? Technically, I should benefit here. I don't know if I should benefit in the most literal sense, but it is likely. In the LITERAL sense, it is likely FEW here would benefit! In the literal sense, NO people here can benefit unless they can trace their family back to a time before the concept, and they owned the property then.

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9113028].message }}

Kay King

10 years ago

income inequality

I heard this several times today on various news networks and I was struck by how quickly a simple 2-3 word phrase becomes commonly used. To say "I am against...whatever" supposes there are others who are FOR the same thing. Is any FOR income inequality? But how equal should it be?

Is there anyone who thinks a maid should earn the same as a doctor? Or an office worker the same as Warren Buffet? Should the person who cleans the halls of Congress be paid the same as a Congressman (well, ok, that one is debatable)?

In the end, fairness isn’t the issue. The issue is justifying policies — government intervention, higher taxes, spending and redistribution — that can’t otherwise be easily sold. How about this for a midterm catchphrase, reflective of true circumstances — the need for a higher-skilled labor force that pits no American against another and qualifies people for jobs that are actually available: “Learning for earning.”

Kathleen Parker: Inequality of language muddies debate - The Washington Post

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9113187].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

Is there anyone who thinks a maid should earn the same as a doctor? Or an office worker the same as Warren Buffet? Should the person who cleans the halls of Congress be paid the same as a Congressman?

Apparently, many DO!

well, ok, that one is debatable?

Many that believe others should be paid the SAME, are OK with congress getting paid so much!

They ALSO believe that title should be the SOLE determinant for how much one is paid, if there is ANY difference. I saw that at only ONE company and I left feeling that I was cheated out of the time for the interview. I got the job, but told them "NO THANKS!"!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9114205].message }}

Karen Blundell

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

Is there anyone who thinks a maid should earn the same as a doctor? Or an office worker the same as Warren Buffet? Should the person who cleans the halls of Congress be paid the same as a Congressman (well, ok, that one is debatable)?

exactly! - there is no way that a maid should make the same money as a doctor

I think this minimum income idea is flawed - I personally don`t like the idea of my hard-earned money going to some lazy person who doesn`t want to lift a finger to better himself/or herself.

what I think should happen instead is reduce or eliminate the cost of post-secondary education - so that everybody has access to cheap or free education to become whatever it is they want to become. Those who don`t want the education have no one but themselves to blame if they lack the skills to get ahead. If they don't get an education - then they don't get a free handout either.

In my opinion, the only people who should be cared for by the state are the elderly and the sick/crippled. The poor man's life can be improved with the proper educational programs - (kind of the idea of giving the man a fishing pole rather than the fish scenario)

I believe extreme socialism/nanny state-ism is destructive - as it exists in its current form. I also think poverty is destructive and should never happen if access to education is unlimited.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

---------------

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9473720].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Karen Blundell

what I think should happen instead is reduce or eliminate the cost of post-secondary education - so that everybody has access to cheap or free education to become whatever it is they want to become.

I like the idea, but that would be/is socialism also.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9473892].message }}

seasoned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

I like the idea, but that would be/is socialism also.

NOT REALLY! We could do it in a veritable blink of an eye NOW! The cost is INCREDIBLY LOW! The thing is that the "NEA" doesn't want it, etc... Did you know that MAJOR companies, industries, etc.... have been doing this at a FANTASTIC HANDICAP!? Microsoft, NASD, INSURANCE, REAL ESTATE, Oracle, Redhat, Cisco, Novell, FCC Licenses, etc....

For COLLEGE? Check out CLEP! NOW, as to that fantastic handicap? Well, that is now HISTORY!

Even many teachers say they are glorified baby sitters. The guts of most real courses really haven't changed much. HECK, I took a HIGHSCHOOL class in computers in the 70s that would STILL be relevant TODAY! I bet it would run CIRCLES around most highschool, or lower courses TODAY. I can tell you it ran circles around some COLLEGE courses in the 1980s.

Steve
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9474116].message }}
Karen Blundell 10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

I like the idea, but that would be/is socialism also.

yes it is - but I think everyone should have a shot at a decent life. That makes me compassionate - not taking any political sides here because it could go there -
I guess giving everyone a tool to make money to me is better than actually handing over the money for nothing -
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature
---------------
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9474156].message }}

taskemann

10 years ago

This won't work in practice. Just as communism never will work.

Sitting on your arch without doing anything and receiving $33,000 a year because you don't want to work doesn't actually encourage the country's workforce to work. But of course if you're disabled and can't work, it's another story.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9113610].message }}

Floyd Fisher

10 years ago

Originally Posted by taskemann

This won't work in practice. Just as communism never will work.

Sitting on your arch without doing anything and receiving $33,000 a year because you don't want to work doesn't actually encourage the country's workforce to work. But of course if you're disabled and can't work, it's another story.

Oh it will work all right......it's just that after implementation, prices are going to rise to a point where that $33,000 guaranteed is going to be equivalent to about $.05 USD.

Look people, if you really are interested in helping out the middle class, and not just growing a huge government bureaucracy, then teach people not to hand all of their money over to rich people, and put aside a portion of it (like 10% or so) for the purpose of investment...a practice commonly called 'saving'.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9113988].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Floyd Fisher

Oh it will work all right......it's just that after implementation, prices are going to rise to a point where that $33,000 guaranteed is going to be equivalent to about $.05 USD.

Look people, if you really are interested in helping out the middle class, and not just growing a huge government bureaucracy, then teach people not to hand all of their money over to rich people, and put aside a portion of it (like 10% or so) for the purpose of investment...a practice commonly called 'saving'.

Like I said, it is now a fiat currency. So switzerland can now have hyper inflation! The way things are going, things are going to be pretty bad for the world for the foreseeable future.

A lot of the ones that had all the hedonism ran up huge debts which has put THEM in a bad situation. Others are struggling and taking some damage to try to set things right. And the WORLD(including the US), is doing the OPPOSITE of what the US did at its founding and 1933, so the damage is easily done, and can be total.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9114246].message }}

trustedmarketer

10 years ago

You have to admire the Swiss. They have style, great chocolates, great beer, great brandy, and now great income for their citizens. What more could a person want? I can imagine Homer Simpson making himself at home there.

Thanks

Signature

Contact me for the most Powerful Business Programs that will give you Daily Profit and the predicted huge price appreciation from Bitcoin

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9114254].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

This referendum will be voted on in two or three years and if it passes it would give a guaranteed minimum income of 30,000 swiss Francs ( $33,000 ) to all citizens whether they work or not. It's an idea which dates back centuries actually to one of my favorite founding fathers Thomas Paine. More recently noble prize winning economist Milton Friedman proposed the negative income tax which is somewhat similar. What the Swiss will be voting on is something that goes further than what either proposed though.

Inequality Fight: Swiss Will Vote on Minimum Income - Businessweek

It's an interesting idea in many ways. It can be argued that it wouldn't discourage a desire to work and achieve because you would keep the money whether you work or not and most people will want more money to live a better life. As the article points out it would likely dramatically change the labor market among other aspects of society.

How would it be paid for? About a 1/3 of it would come from existing social programs. Another large part would be "recouped by cuts in salaries, because the payments would replace part of existing paychecks." The remaining amount would be paid for by a consumption tax ( equally applied to all citizens usually ) and estate tax and/or tariifs.

Very interesting, let's see what happens.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9114363].message }}

Sumit Menon

10 years ago

The Swiss had just recently rejected the 1:12 pay cap for CEOs. This is more outrageous than that. Such an initiative is better than minimum wage laws which cause unnecessary interference in the market, but $33,000 is a lot of money to just give out! The Swiss are pretty fiscally conservative and I don't see them voting for this proposal. But, I've been wrong before.

I don't see how this is sustainable without higher taxation at least in the long run and the country is going to go through a rough face of inflation if this passes. The money given out should be enough to live on (housing + food + bills) and not something that'd have you quit your job and do nothing all day.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9114505].message }}

travlinguy

10 years ago

If forced "sharing" was a viable form of government the USSR wouldn't have disbanded and embraced capitalism.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9114572].message }}

thunderbird

10 years ago

If they vote yes, I suspect a lot of people will be trying to marry Swiss citizens.

Thanks

Signature

Project HERE.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9115973].message }}

MikeAmbrosio

10 years ago

What I think is interesting is the notion that in THIS country, if you start people off at $33,000 (or whatever number) that suddenly those who talk about "income inequality" will suddenly have nothing to complain about.

We're a complaint driven society. People will always want what those more fortunate have. There will STILL be that inequality. Just because some would be able to afford a bigger apartment and more food doesn't mean they'll stop complaining. That's because those who have more now will still have more.

On the other side of that coin are those who will continue to complain about "giving" money to those who have no desire to contribute.

I also find the notion that A) there's a belief that things COULD be "fair" and B) things SHOULD be "fair" comical. There will always be those more fortunate than others, those who deserve more, those who will refuse to lift a finger, and so on. Moving the monetary starting line won't help as much as you might think - not with today's mentalities on both sides of this issue.

[ 3 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9115995].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio

We're a complaint driven society. People will always want what those more fortunate have. There will STILL be that inequality. Just because some would be able to afford a bigger apartment and more food doesn't mean they'll stop complaining. That's because those who have more now will still have more.

We sure do like to complain. Heck, even the multi billionaires complain and whine. It's crazy.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9116063].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio

What I think is interesting is the notion that in THIS country, if you start people off at $33,000 (or whatever number) that suddenly those who talk about "income inequality" will suddenly have nothing to complain about.

We're a complaint driven society. People will always want what those more fortunate have. There will STILL be that inequality. Just because some would be able to afford a bigger apartment and more food doesn't mean they'll stop complaining. That's because those who have more now will still have more.

On the other side of that coin are those who will continue to complain about "giving" money to those who have no desire to contribute.

I also find the notion that A) there's a belief that things COULD be "fair" and B) things SHOULD be "fair" comical. There will always be those more fortunate than others, those who deserve more, those who will refuse to lift a finger, and so on. Moving the monetary starting line won't help as much as you might think - not with today's mentalities on both sides of this issue.

Say people HERE were paid $33000 for doing NOTHING! If the economy survived and WITHOUT inflation, which is IMPOSSIBLE, a couple could EASILY stay home, have kids, homeschool, and just have fun. Do you think ANYONE would work for less than say $70,000? That would be an average of $33.65/hour. Suppose you didn't pay it? WHAT house would you stay in? Nobody would be in grocery stores, or banks! But seriously, MOST people won't work! A lot of people in the US have SAID they haven't been working because they can make enough to make it worth their while in the market.

And if you could flip hamburgers for so much, I would probably ask for about $785K/year. Somewhere around 377/hour. That is OVER my usual bill rate, so everything else would have to go up. Don't pay me, and I'll flip hamburgers, and start my own company!

Steve

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9116309].message }}

Kay King

10 years ago

Steve - That's not equal to what the Swiss are considering. Their cost of living is so much higher than the US, you have to adjust the numbers to a percentage. In a previous post I used the percentage and it showed in the US that would equal about $16-17k per year.

In Switzerland the proposal of $33000 is about 42% of the average income. The average income there is about double that in the US so it's not apples for apples.

It's an interesting proposal for a small country that has the financial acumen Switzerland has shown. The biggest complaint there from bankers is "there isn't enough debt". We should have that problem!

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9116451].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

Steve - That's not equal to what the Swiss are considering. Their cost of living is so much higher than the US, you have to adjust the numbers to a percentage. In a previous post I used the percentage and it showed in the US that would equal about $16-17k per year.

In Switzerland the proposal of $33000 is about 42% of the average income. The average income there is about double that in the US so it's not apples for apples.

It's an interesting proposal for a small country that has the financial acumen Switzerland has shown. The biggest complaint there from bankers is "there isn't enough debt". We should have that problem!

Doesn't matter! It is STILL a FIAT currency and they STILL need jobs and they STILL have risks/expenses! This means that a substantial raise in one area means they must raise further down. This means that if a basic cost goes up that all things made using that product or service will COST more to make. Eventually, that means their PRICE will go up. THAT starts the cycle ALL OVER AGAIN!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9117404].message }}

JohnTellez1965

10 years ago

What happened to the satisfaction of earning your own money!

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9277145].message }}

Joe Mobley

10 years ago

Originally Posted by JohnTellez1965

What happened to the satisfaction of earning your own money!

Apparently it moved to Switzerland.

Swiss voters have rejected a proposal to create what would have been the world's highest minimum wage after siding with the government and business leaders in a referendum.

In the US the mayor of Seattle unveiled a plan for a city-wide minimum wage of $15 (£8.91) earlier this month, more than double the federal rate.

Swiss voters reject plan to establish world's highest minimum wage | World news | The Guardian

Joe Mobley

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

.

Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9278642].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Joe Mobley

Apparently it moved to Switzerland.

Swiss voters reject plan to establish world's highest minimum wage | World news | The Guardian

Joe Mobley

Good grief! I see you are stll having trouble grasping that there are two different issues the Swiss proposed, one a minimum wage and the other the minimum income, which was what this thread is about. They haven't voted on the later yet. Perhaps by the time they do, sometime in the next year or two, you will understand the difference.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9278813].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Good grief! I see you are stll having trouble grasping that there are two different issues the Swiss proposed, one a minimum wage and the other the minimum income, which was what this thread is about. They haven't voted on the later yet. Perhaps by the time they do, sometime in the next year or two, you will understand the difference.

Maybe you should explain it to the Swiss.
From the article Joe posted.

Swiss voters reject plan to establish world's highest minimum wage

Voters side with ministers who say raising basic annual salary for 35-hour week to £27,000 would harm small businesses

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9278878].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Maybe you should explain it to the Swiss.
From the article Joe posted.

Tim said there are TWO measures. One is the minimum wage, per hour. Which is this one. At least THIS can be tied to work, The OTHER is a set fee everyone gets paid for the YEAR, That is SO rife with problems, and he laughs at US if we ignore it!?!?!?!?

SERIOUSLY tim, maybe you should go to russia, become a russian citizen, and propose your idea to Putin!

Steve

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9278899].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

Tim said there are TWO measures. One is the minimum wage, per hour. Which is this one. At least THIS can be tied to work, The OTHER is a set fee everyone gets paid for the YEAR, That is SO rife with problems, and he laughs at US if we ignore it!?!?!?!?

SERIOUSLY tim, maybe you should go to russia, become a russian citizen, and propose your idea to Putin!

Steve

I know Steve. If EVERYONE works then you have to have a min. wage to have a min. salary (what Joe's article was about).
The other requires a min. number of workers to support the rest of the citizenry. In that scenario if you happen to be a worker, you give all your pay to the govt. and they give you an allowance. The rest of your money goes towards the allowances of those who don't work.

So in reality you can only say a min. salary is tied to a min. wage if you have 100% employment.
If you have less then 100% employment then it's basically just welfare. As we both know welfare is just forcing someone who works to pay for someone who doesn't.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9278935].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

I know Steve. If EVERYONE works then you have to have a min. wage to have a min. salary (what Joe's article was about).
The other requires a min. number of workers to support the rest of the citizenry. In that scenario if you happen to be a worker, you give all your pay to the govt. and they give you an allowance. The rest of your money goes towards the allowances of those who don't work.

So in reality you can only say a min. salary is tied to a min. wage if you have 100% employment.
If you have less then 100% employment then it's basically just welfare. As we both know welfare is just forcing someone who works to pay for someone who doesn't.

YEAH, but welfare is *****SUPPOSED TO BE***** a BARE SUBSISTANCE level of income! That means NO cell phone. NO unlimited whatever. NO CABLE. NO TV! NO internet! NO college! NO cigarettes, etc.... You want THOSE things? Then YOU PAY! And if some bleeding heart says "What about the kids, boo hoo", GREAT! TIE IT TO WIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THAT is what WIC is for! Cell phones are currently tied to SNAP! SNAP is basically ALL on welfare. WIC is SUPPOSED to be "Women with Infants and Children". And hours should be LIMITED! So WIC is a subset of those on SNAP.

BTW you think I NEVER had to call my parents? I DID! I had to find a business, MAYBE a payphone, or a neighbor and use THEIR phone. Sometimes it was very important. Sometimes I SUFFERED! We didn't even have widely available answering machines when I was a kid. It was a LONG time before the phone companies internalized the feature and called it voice mail. When I was a kid, MOST people would NEVER know you even called if they didn't have an answering machine. HECK, when I was REALLY young, I don't even think they sold answering machines!

Hey, when I was a kid, society DID have remote access public international computers! Society DID have cell phones in the 1980s. Society DID have computers! Society DID have CABLE! Did I have any of that? NOPE!

I didn't have access to those international computers until LATER, as they were TOO EXPENSIVE! I didn't get a cellphone until like 1998 because they were too expensive! I practically FOUGHT to get a computer, and didn't get one I considered usable by today's standards until 1994 or so. I didn't get cable until the late 80s, and really only got basic cable.

HECK, even PROGRAMMING! I #$%^& to get my first compilers. I was ECSTATIC when I could get borland pascal for $99! I paid close to $500 for every compiler after that until Linux! Borland pascal cost $99 when it came out, but the later graphic versions cost MUCH more.

Anyway, minimum wage is supposed to be just that! MINIMUM!!!!! It should be ABOVE welfare, and below others. But paid BY THE HOUR OF WORK!

When will people realize that minimum wage hurts EVERYONE to benefit the few for a brief period of time? If minimum wage earners are saving for retirement, a home, school, etc.... The increased wage won't help. Their savings will be eaten away.

BTW I FINALLY found out where I stand with insurance to a degree. EVERYONE in my group must pay a 50% higher premium to keep it!

Steve

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9279283].message }}

petermei 10 years ago

The memebers of goverment voted against...
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9279765].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

YEAH, but welfare is *****SUPPOSED TO BE***** a BARE SUBSISTANCE level of income! That means NO cell phone. NO unlimited whatever. NO CABLE. NO TV! NO internet! NO college! NO cigarettes, etc.... You want THOSE things? Then YOU PAY! And if some bleeding heart says "What about the kids, boo hoo", GREAT! TIE IT TO WIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THAT is what WIC is for! Cell phones are currently tied to SNAP! SNAP is basically ALL on welfare. WIC is SUPPOSED to be "Women with Infants and Children". And hours should be LIMITED! So WIC is a subset of those on SNAP.

BTW you think I NEVER had to call my parents? I DID! I had to find a business, MAYBE a payphone, or a neighbor and use THEIR phone. Sometimes it was very important. Sometimes I SUFFERED! We didn't even have widely available answering machines when I was a kid. It was a LONG time before the phone companies internalized the feature and called it voice mail. When I was a kid, MOST people would NEVER know you even called if they didn't have an answering machine. HECK, when I was REALLY young, I don't even think they sold answering machines!

Hey, when I was a kid, society DID have remote access public international computers! Society DID have cell phones in the 1980s. Society DID have computers! Society DID have CABLE! Did I have any of that? NOPE!

I didn't have access to those international computers until LATER, as they were TOO EXPENSIVE! I didn't get a cellphone until like 1998 because they were too expensive! I practically FOUGHT to get a computer, and didn't get one I considered usable by today's standards until 1994 or so. I didn't get cable until the late 80s, and really only got basic cable.

HECK, even PROGRAMMING! I #$%^& to get my first compilers. I was ECSTATIC when I could get borland pascal for $99! I paid close to $500 for every compiler after that until Linux! Borland pascal cost $99 when it came out, but the later graphic versions cost MUCH more.

Anyway, minimum wage is supposed to be just that! MINIMUM!!!!! It should be ABOVE welfare, and below others. But paid BY THE HOUR OF WORK!

When will people realize that minimum wage hurts EVERYONE to benefit the few for a brief period of time? If minimum wage earners are saving for retirement, a home, school, etc.... The increased wage won't help. Their savings will be eaten away.

BTW I FINALLY found out where I stand with insurance to a degree. EVERYONE in my group must pay a 50% higher premium to keep it!

Steve

Steve there was a show on PBS last night about the projects (remember those) and welfare.
It was mostly made up of interviews and comments from the people who first lived in them.
A family couldn't move in to the projects if the husband was able bodied. The women where actually told by the welfare departments to leave their husbands and just bring their children. They also had agents that would go into the projects at different times of the night and search the apartments, questioning the children, looking for the husbands and fathers.
At first the people who moved in where not allowed to have phones or TV's.
After the projects where built the govt. decided it couldn't afford the maintenance and upkeep so the buildings ended up with garbage all over, broken water pipes, no heat, etc.
The people where eventually allowed to have TV's and phones, but by that time the projects where a disgrace.
The interviews where with people from many different cities, so it wasn't just one place but all of them.
I remember the projects in Troy that where like that.
The whole idea was really about keeping a group of people contained in one place and under govt. control.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9280066].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Steve there was a show on PBS last night about the projects (remember those) and welfare.
It was mostly made up of interviews and comments from the people who first lived in them.
A family couldn't move in to the projects if the husband was able bodied. The women where actually told by the welfare departments to leave their husbands and just bring their children. They also had agents that would go into the projects at different times of the night and search the apartments, questioning the children, looking for the husbands and fathers.
At first the people who moved in where not allowed to have phones or TV's.
After the projects where built the govt. decided it couldn't afford the maintenance and upkeep so the buildings ended up with garbage all over, broken water pipes, no heat, etc.
The people where eventually allowed to have TV's and phones, but by that time the projects where a disgrace.
The interviews where with people from many different cities, so it wasn't just one place but all of them.
I remember the projects in Troy that where like that.
The whole idea was really about keeping a group of people contained in one place and under govt. control.

I wasn't saying that they shouldn't have TV,phones, etc... In fact, they SHOULD have a basic land line. I was merely saying that the US taxpayer shouldn't pay for it. The desires of the non workers do NOT justify the enslavement and burglary of the workers.

As for garbage all over, broken water pipes, etc? I have been in MANY places, and NEVER saw a broken pipe! The CLOSEST I have even HEARD of such a thing was in Virginia(IIRC) because some idiot in the GOVERNMENT decided to trust polybutylene! They found out a few years ago that it DEGRADES!!!!!!!
So HOW did the garbage and broken pipes come to be? I was in South Central LA once and the person we were visiting asked us to LEAVE! WHY? She showed us the BULLET HOLES around her door, and simply said it wasn't safe. The people that LIVED there did that sort of thing.

So what should we have? A 365/7/24 maid and janitorial service?

As for what they told the women? The men HAVE been expected to work. I don't believe men are allowed under WIC. It seems men are the only ones SPECIFICALLY excluded. What should we say? That if he doesn't want to work that all should pay for it? And YOU talk to ME about control? I could tell you stories of what I am doing now to get to work.

OK, I want $20,000,000 in CURRENT dollars! By that, I mean if inflation goes up to 1000%, you owe me another $200,000,000! OK, where do I collect what I desire? BTW! This *******WAS******* declared a basic right in 1935! I only want my due! OK, OK, you can pay me in monthly installments, as agreed! Currently, that would be about $111111.11/month! Of course this is based on my OLD projection of what will be needed. By then, it COULD be well over a million A MONTH! Still, the current estimate is 100 times what they generally pay. The HIGHEST they claim to pay is a fraction of what I make.

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9280254].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

I wasn't saying that they shouldn't have TV,phones, etc... In fact, they SHOULD have a basic land line. I was merely saying that the US taxpayer shouldn't pay for it. The desires of the non workers do NOT justify the enslavement and burglary of the workers.

As for garbage all over, broken water pipes, etc? I have been in MANY places, and NEVER saw a broken pipe! The CLOSEST I have even HEARD of such a thing was in Virginia(IIRC) because some idiot in the GOVERNMENT decided to trust polybutylene! They found out a few years ago that it DEGRADES!!!!!!!
So HOW did the garbage and broken pipes come to be? I was in South Central LA once and the person we were visiting asked us to LEAVE! WHY? She showed us the BULLET HOLES around her door, and simply said it wasn't safe. The people that LIVED there did that sort of thing.

So what should we have? A 365/7/24 maid and janitorial service?

As for what they told the women? The men HAVE been expected to work. I don't believe men are allowed under WIC. It seems men are the only ones SPECIFICALLY excluded. What should we say? That if he doesn't want to work that all should pay for it? And YOU talk to ME about control? I could tell you stories of what I am doing now to get to work.

OK, I want $20,000,000 in CURRENT dollars! By that, I mean if inflation goes up to 1000%, you owe me another $200,000,000! OK, where do I collect what I desire? BTW! This *******WAS******* declared a basic right in 1935! I only want my due! OK, OK, you can pay me in monthly installments, as agreed! Currently, that would be about $111111.11/month! Of course this is based on my OLD projection of what will be needed. By then, it COULD be well over a million A MONTH! Still, the current estimate is 100 times what they generally pay. The HIGHEST they claim to pay is a fraction of what I make.

Steve

No Steve the govt. wouldn't allow them to have TV's or phones. When they where finally allowed they had to pay for them themselves.
The other problems where caused from lack of maintenance personal. At first they had people doing the job, but soon decided the money was needed else where and simply didn't put any money in the budgets for them.
We're talking about St. Louis, Chicago, Detroit, NYC, etc. This is also back in the 60's. We had three or four of those high rise "projects in Troy that the same things happened to. They got so bad they where torn down and the people relocated. We have a couple "projects left in Troy that are built like apartment complexes, both are high crime areas.
They also did a peace not long ago on the depression and the first min. wage laws of the 30's. At that time whites where under employed compared to blacks. The min' wage law was an attempt to reverse that.

The first federal minimum-wage laws were created with the specific intent to prevent blacks from breaking into the labor market and obtaining better opportunities for themselves. New raises in the minimum wage may not carry the same intent, but they will undoubtedly have the same effect.Minimum Wage Hurts Unskilled Black Workers

Not much has really changed in that regard. You look at the real unemployment rate today or U6 as the Bureau of labor statistics calls it and we are still over 12%. Chart: The real unemployment rate?
Then look at the unemployment rate for teens, blacks, and Hispanics (not U6 numbers).

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (5.9 percent), adult women (5.7 percent), teenagers (19.2 percent), whites (5.4 percent), blacks (11.5 percent), and Hispanics (7.7 percent) showed little or no change in May. The jobless rate for Asians was 5.3 percent (not seasonally adjusted), little changed from a year earlier.Employment Situation Summary

Now looking back at history who will raising the min. wage really help.

Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9281046].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

...and he laughs at US if we ignore it!?!?!?!?

Well, I don't know who the "us" are in your post, but I must admit I do find myself laughing at many of your futile attempts at intelligent conversation. However, because of your frequently incoherant, long winded, mistake ridden and off topic rants, I usually don't read your posts at all. I am not a glutton for punishment.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9280456].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Well, I don't know who the "us" are in your post, but I must admit I do find myself laughing at many of your futile attempts at intelligent conversation. However, because of your frequently incoherant, long winded, mistake ridden and off topic rants, I usually don't read your posts at all. I am not a glutton for punishment.

Thanks for the compliment! Seriously though. Russia has had many ideas like yours, and Putin WAS in the KGB! He may LOVE your ideas! You can go THERE and live! Arianna may ALSO want to go there!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9280996].message }}

Joe Mobley

10 years ago

I fully understand the (very little) difference. I also understand that, whether minimum wage or minimum income, they both come from the same entitlement mentality.

I also understand that those with an entitlement mentality often refuse to pay the price for their own liberty, which is to exercise their own personal responsibility.

Joe Mobley

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Good grief! I see you are stll having trouble grasping that there are two different issues the Swiss proposed, one a minimum wage and the other the minimum income, which was what this thread is about. They haven't voted on the later yet. Perhaps by the time they do, sometime in the next year or two, you will understand the difference.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

.

Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9278960].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Joe Mobley

I fully understand the (very little) difference. I also understand that, whether minimum wage or minimum income, they both come from the same entitlement mentality.

I also understand that those with an entitlement mentality often refuse to pay the price for their own liberty, which is to exercise their own personal responsibility.

Joe Mobley

I really don't think you do understand, otherwise why would you reply to John's post, which was clearly about the minumum income idea the Swiss are proposing, with a link to the minumum wage proposal already defeated?

John's post was "What happened to the satisfaction of earning your own money!" People who work for a minimum wage earn their own money. I bet even you Joe, at one time worked for minimum wage. Did that mean you didn't earn your own money and had an entitlement mentality? Of course not. That's just ridiculous. You are taking your fixation with this "entitlement mentality" cliche/meme too far and using it for absurd reasoning.

People who work for minimum wage and who would like their income to at least stay up with the cost of living are not refusing to pay the price for their own liberty or shirking personal responsibility and they do not possess an entitlement mentality! Geesh. That kind of thinking is ludicrous, narrow minded and just plain lazy.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9280445].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

John's post was "What happened to the satisfaction of earning your own money!" People who work for a minimum wage earn their own money.

NOPE, they DON'T!

I bet even you Joe, at one time worked for minimum wage.

Possibly! I did TOO! But I NEVER expected to LIVE on it!

Did that mean you didn't earn your own money and had an entitlement mentality?

NOPE! I KNEW I was a KID working for a KIDS WAGES!

You are taking your fixation with this "entitlement mentality" cliche/meme too far and using it for absurd reasoning.

You say it is absurd, but the fact that you are even discussing it now PROVES it ISN'T! If raising the rate is the answer, why didn't it work DECADES ago?

People who work for minimum wage and who would like their income to at least stay up with the cost of living are ... refusing to pay the price for their own liberty ... shirking personal responsibility and they ....... possess an entitlement mentality! ....... That kind of thinking is ludicrous, narrow minded and just plain lazy.

There, I corrected that for you. At the current rate, viable work will just get harder to get, ESPECIALLY for younger people.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9474140].message }}

Hopeless Bromantic 10 years ago

Originally Posted by JohnTellez1965

What happened to the satisfaction of earning your own money!

Nothing whatsoever.

If you want anything beyond the basic necessities, as most people do, you have to earn the extra money to cover it. There's certainly nothing wrong with that idea.

And if you have bad luck, at least you'll have enough money for the basic necessities while you get back on your feet.
- Thanks
Signature

Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
_______________________________________________
"It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9281648].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

I guess everyone wants to follow greece down the sewer!

Swiss to vote on world's highest minimum wage. A proposed minimum wage of 22 francs an hour ($24.80) would have a damaging effect on Switzerland's job market, says Swiss economics minister Johann Schneider-Ammann, as voters prepare to decide.
Swiss to vote on world's highest minimum wage - The Local

First of all, this means you would have to work 1364 hours just to break even. That is about 26 hours per week. The maximum hours per week is 45 hours! That means a person earning minimum wage working the maximum hours every day would make only 73 percent more than the laziest person in town. Of course you likely can't do that because of all the holidays. HECK, you COULD lose 270 or more hours!

I wonder what they will have to charge for a rolex NOW!

As for ME? Maybe I will try to see if can line up a gig there. If I made the same there relative to the market here, AND THE CURRENCY STAYED AT THE SAME VALUE(which IS likely unlikely), then could work 3 years and get a million dollars! 3-6 years, and maybe I could retire.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9116291].message }}

candoit2

10 years ago

The Swiss had nothing on Libya before we of course had to put a stop to that.(Sarcasm)

How the life in Libya was under Gaddafi's rule:

1. There is no electricity bill in Libya; electricity is free for all its citizens.

2. There is no interest on loans, banks in Libya are state-owned and loans given to all its citizens at 0% interest by law.

3. All newlyweds in Libya receive US$ 64,000 from the government to buy their first apartment so to help start up the family.

4. Education and medical treatments are free in Libya. Before Qaddafi only 25% of Libyans are literate. Today the figure is 83%.

5. Should Libyans want to take up farming career, they would receive farming land, a farming house, equipment, seeds and livestock to kick- start their farms – all for free.

6. If Libyans cannot find the education or medical facilities they need in Libya, the government funds them to go abroad for it – not only free but they get US $2, 300/mth accommodation and car allowance.

7. If a Libyan buys a car, the government subsidized 50% of the price.

8. The price of petrol in Libya was $0. 14 per liter. which made it cheaper than water!

9. If a Libyan is unable to get employment after graduation the state would pay the average salary of the profession as if he or she is employed until employment is found.

10. A portion of Libyan oil sale is, credited directly to the bank accounts of all Libyan citizens.

11. A mother who gave birth to a child receive US $5,000.

12. 40 loaves of bread in Libya costs $ 0.15.

13. Qaddafi carried out the world’s largest irrigation project, known as the Great Man-Made River project, to make water readily available throughout the desert country. (Bombed and destroyed by NATO)

Good for the Swiss if it's citizens get that $33,000, but they and our Gov'ts should be capable of this or more if Libya was doing all it was.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9116455].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by AaronJones

The Swiss had nothing on Libya before we of course had to put a stop to that.(Sarcasm)

How the life in Libya was under Gaddafi's rule:

1. There is no electricity bill in Libya; electricity is free for all its citizens.

2. There is no interest on loans, banks in Libya are state-owned and loans given to all its citizens at 0% interest by law.

So a person could take out a loan, buy a store, and run everything in the store full bore? Hard to believe they could do that for long.

3. All newlyweds in Libya receive US$ 64,000 from the government to buy their first apartment so to help start up the family.

$64,000 for an APARTMENT? YIKES! Why is the APARTMENT so expensive!

4. Education and medical treatments are free in Libya. Before Qaddafi only 25% of Libyans are literate. Today the figure is 83%.

OK, why is the figure only 83%? Are both counted on the same basis? SOME such countries wouldn't educate or count females.

5. Should Libyans want to take up farming career, they would receive farming land, a farming house, equipment, seeds and livestock to kick- start their farms - all for free.

They probably did something similar at one time in the US. They DID actually have a policy of giving indentured servants 50 acres at the end of their term.

6. If Libyans cannot find the education or medical facilities they need in Libya, the government funds them to go abroad for it - not only free but they get US $2, 300/mth accommodation and car allowance.

YIKES! Why didn't more libyans go abroad? WHY are they so angry?

7. If a Libyan buys a car, the government subsidized 50% of the price.

How much of that is what THEY put in?

8. The price of petrol in Libya was $0. 14 per liter. which made it cheaper than water!

Understandable. Gas in the US STILL only costs a little more than a dollar per gallon! That is maybe $.27 per liter. and that is AFTER all the shipping, etc....

OH YEAH, people may balk with my claims, etc... You may search and find gas costs more. But HALF of that is DIRECT TAXES! NOBODY could figure how all the indirect taxes add to the other half.

10. A portion of Libyan oil sale is, credited directly to the bank accounts of all Libyan citizens.

Is this in addition to the other things? I know another country in the middle east did this ALSO.

Good for the Swiss if it's citizens get that $33,000, but they and our Gov'ts should be capable of this or more if Libya was doing all it was.

Well, Libya IS an OIL nation getting a lot of money from that. The US COULD get money in the same way, but current laws FORBID it, and we have FAR more people.

Bear in mind, libya is NOT peaceful. As for NATO bombing that waterway? That is AGAINST NATOS policies *******UNLESS******* it is an enemy nation or stealing from member nations or destabilizing the region in which case such a thing should be a PRIMARY TARGET!

As for switzerland? Wait for a decade after it passes, THEN we can talk.

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9117468].message }}

TimPhelan 10 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

As for switzerland? Wait for a decade after it passes, THEN we can talk.

Steve

Knowing how the US is these days, if it passes in Switzerland, is hugely successful and all other advanced countries adopt the same idea and are also successful, the US would still wait another 6 decades or so to even start talking about trying it.
- Thanks
Signature
Over 50 Dating
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9117915].message }}

rwbovee

10 years ago

This is a good idea here. It should be that.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Lottery Winner University Makes You A Lottery Winner...Teaches You How To Win The Lottery

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9117688].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Here's an interview with one of the people behind this referendum. He actually says it isn't about class struggle, left or right, etc...

A Basic Income is Not a Crazy Idea - YouTube

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9117791].message }}

Joe Mobley

10 years ago

Tim,

Why do you think a government imposed minimum salary is a good idea?

Joe Mobley

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

.

Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9117902].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Joe Mobley

Tim,

Why do you think a government imposed minimum salary is a good idea?

Joe Mobley

It's not a minimum salary Joe. It's a minimum income. Big difference.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9118118].message }}

Joe Mobley 10 years ago

Originally Posted by Joe Mobley

Tim,

Why do you think a government imposed minimum salary is a good idea?

Joe Mobley

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

It's not a minimum salary Joe. It's a minimum income. Big difference.

Why do you think a government imposed minimum income is a good idea?

Joe Mobley
- Thanks
Signature

.
Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9118241].message }}

MikeAmbrosio

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

It's not a minimum salary Joe. It's a minimum income. Big difference.

Tim - you avoided the basic question though

Why DO you think it's a good idea? I'd like to hear more arguments for this.

Economically speaking, I couldn't say if I like the idea or not, since I don't know what it will do or why it's good. My hesitation would be for the same reason as universal health care - I simply don't trust our government to do it right. We're too politicized. Things tend to be more about party than right or wrong, etc. THAT'S why it wouldn't even get to the discussion phase after 6 decades, like you said.

Anyway - shoot...

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9118250].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio

Tim - you avoided the basic question though

Why DO you think it's a good idea? I'd like to hear more arguments for this.

Economically speaking, I couldn't say if I like the idea or not, since I don't know what it will do or why it's good. My hesitation would be for the same reason as universal health care - I simply don't trust our government to do it right. We're too politicized. Things tend to be more about party than right or wrong, etc. THAT'S why it wouldn't even get to the discussion phase after 6 decades, like you said.

Anyway - shoot...

Joe basically asked the same question as before. I just wanted to get him to ask it again.

As I said before, the idea is interesting to me for several reasons. Kay and I have pointed out a few reasons why it may make sense already. The Thomas Paine quotes should give you an idea of why this appeals to me also. Poverty, income inequality, social security ( not the retirement system ), a desire to improve society, a dissatifaction with the way things are going now with the US looking more and more like an Oligarchy, etc... all make this idea interesting and compelling to me.

However, I'm all for Switzerland testing the waters, so to speak, with this referendum. Let them see how it works first hand. God knows we in the US wouldn't ever be a leader in doing anything like this any more.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9118293].message }}

MikeAmbrosio

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Joe basically asked the same question as before. I just wanted to get him to ask it again.

As I said before, the idea is interesting to me for several reasons. Kay and I have pointed out a few reasons why it may make sense already. The Thomas Paine quotes should give you an idea of why this appeals to me also. Poverty, income inequality, social security ( not the retirement system ), a desire to improve society, a dissatifaction with the way things are going now with the US looking more and more like an Oligarchy, etc... all make this idea interesting and compelling to me.

However, I'm all for Switzerland testing the waters, so to speak, with this referendum. Let them see how it works first hand. God knows we in the US wouldn't ever be a leader in doing anything like this any more.

I can see your points to a point. On the issue of "income inequality" I responded above as to why having a starting minimum would not eradicate people claiming inequality. There will ALWAYS be an equality so even adding that to the mix is pointless. Or rather it's simply used as something for one side to point to about the other.

The dissatisfaction - that may or may not be as bad as it's made out. Depends on who you talk to (opinions) so that should be left out of the argument as well.

If there's an argument to be made, it should be about verifiable facts. Me personally, I have not a care in the world that there are people out there who make more than me and many who make less than me. Fairness is a point of view, not a fact. Things will never be fair. Even if everyone made the same amount of money, there will always be those who work harder than others - so THEY will complain about fairness and inequality.

Thomas Paine - I'd have to go back and read more of his writings, but I think you really can't know what he would be like today since the circumstances and society are radically different today than they were when he was alive. I have radically different ideas at 49 than I did at 19, 29, etc.

So for me, this has to make economic sense all by iteself. Save the emotional and opinionated arguments because you'd never get a consensus based on that. At least, I don't think you can.

Switzerland testing is a good idea, but it still wouldn't tell us one bit how it would work here. We are different societies, much larger population, government, ideologies...you get the idea. Again - look at the health care debate. If it COULD work here we'd have the same kind of health care as Canada, France, etc.

Perhaps my outlook is cynical to a degree - but really, I think it's just our reality.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9118336].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

I was saying why I am interested in this idea Mike. I don't think this one idea would solve what I perceive to be a problem with income inequality. The same thing with my dissatisfaction with the direction the US and the world are going. These are reasons I am interested in the idea though.

Regarding verifiable facts, I don't think we will know those until one country or state tries something like this. That's why I say go for it Switzerland!

Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio

I can see your points to a point. On the issue of "income inequality" I responded above as to why having a starting minimum would not eradicate people claiming inequality. There will ALWAYS be an equality so even adding that to the mix is pointless. Or rather it's simply used as something for one side to point to about the other.

The dissatisfaction - that may or may not be as bad as it's made out. Depends on who you talk to (opinions) so that should be left out of the argument as well.

If there's an argument to be made, it should be about verifiable facts. Me personally, I have not a care in the world that there are people out there who make more than me and many who make less than me. Fairness is a point of view, not a fact. Things will never be fair. Even if everyone made the same amount of money, there will always be those who work harder than others - so THEY will complain about fairness and inequality.

Thomas Paine - I'd have to go back and read more of his writings, but I think you really can't know what he would be like today since the circumstances and society are radically different today than they were when he was alive. I have radically different ideas at 49 than I did at 19, 29, etc.

So for me, this has to make economic sense all by iteself. Save the emotional and opinionated arguments because you'd never get a consensus based on that. At least, I don't think you can.

Switzerland testing is a good idea, but it still wouldn't tell us one bit how it would work here. We are different societies, much larger population, government, ideologies...you get the idea. Again - look at the health care debate. If it COULD work here we'd have the same kind of health care as Canada, France, etc.

Perhaps my outlook is cynical to a degree - but really, I think it's just our reality.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9118401].message }}

Joe Mobley

10 years ago

Just for a point of clarity, you favor replacing the US democracy, or Oligarchy with a Socialist form of government?

Joe Mobley

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

a dissatifaction with the way things are going now with the US looking more and more like an Oligarchy, etc... all make this idea interesting and compelling to me.

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

The same thing with my dissatisfaction with the direction the US and the world are going. These are reasons I am interested in the idea though.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

.

Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9118559].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Joe Mobley

Just for a point of clarity, you favor replacing the US democracy, or Oligarchy with a Socialist form of government?

Joe Mobley

Socialism isn't a form of government.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9118575].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Socialism isn't a form of government.

Sure it is.

a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies

any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

Socialism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9118594].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Sure it is.

Socialism is generally considered an economic system. The two main types of economic systems are socialism and capitalism, however almost all countries have a mixture of the two, including all democratic countries that I can think of.

Joe inferred that if this referendum in Switzerland was passed that somehow they wouldn't be a democracy anymore which just isn't true. If they passed it and it didn't work out like they thought it would they could use their form of government, which is a direct democracy in the instance of these referendums, and remove it from their constitution.

The US has many socialistic parts of it's economic system such as social security, medicare, the military etc... but it's form of government is a constitutional republic.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9118654].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Socialism is generally considered an economic system. The two main types of economic systems are socialism and capitalism, however almost all countries have a mixture of the two, including all democratic countries that I can think of.

Joe inferred that if this referendum in Switzerland was passed that somehow they wouldn't be a democracy anymore which just isn't true. If they passed it and it didn't work out like they thought it would they could use their form of government, which is a direct democracy in the instance of these referendums, and remove it from their constitution.

The US has many socialistic parts of it's economic system such as social security, medicare, the military etc... but it's form of government is a constitutional republic.

I don't look at it as an economic system myself, but that all doesn't matter.
I'd say with the exception of the military that those programs you listed are more social programs then socialistic. They are in reality subsidies to the American people.
Government run industries (Socialistic) simply replace whoever is running the industry with government officials.

Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9118786].message }}

garyv

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Socialism is generally considered an economic system. The two main types of economic systems are socialism and capitalism, however almost all countries have a mixture of the two, including all democratic countries that I can think of.

Socialism is an economic - "government" system. Who do you think controls goods and services in a socialist system? - So there's no way you can say that it's not a form of government. Of course it is. Why do you think we're having such a hard time accepting it here?

Yes it's an economic system, but you're misinformed if you really think it's not also a government system. - In our form of Republic, the people control the government. That ceases to exist in a socialist economy.

Of course as you and several others here have said - and I agree with - the people haven't controlled the government for some time now.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9120135].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by garyv

Socialism is an economic - "government" system. Who do you think controls goods and services in a socialist system? - So there's no way you can say that it's not a form of government. Of course it is. Why do you think we're having such a hard time accepting it here?

Yes it's an economic system, but you're misinformed if you really think it's not also a government system. - In our form of Republic, the people control the government. That ceases to exist in a socialist economy.

Of course as you and several others here have said - and I agree with - the people haven't controlled the government for some time now.

The problem with a socialist government running everything in an industry is that they think everything i only 1 level deep! Employees want more money? PAY THEM! OH, we don't have enough? RAISE TAXES! OH, we STILL don't have enough? BORROW!

They NEVER realize that the first leads to the second, which affects the 1st, and it leads to the third which can destroy the nation, along with the first 2.

It isn't even a simple theory! It happened over 1000 years ago, over 100 years ago, and even within the past year. The US is simply isolated by a few tricks and lies, but the tricks are drying up, and there is a court case on the FEDERAL supreme courts schedule that ay remove some of the lies.

If the socialist government merely sets unrealistic parameters, the effects can be similar and most can lie while stating "honestly" that they know nothing about it!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9120357].message }}

whateverpedia

10 years ago

Originally Posted by garyv

In our form of Republic, the people control the government. That ceases to exist in a socialist economy.

It doesn't cease to exist in Sweden, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Germany France, New Zealand, or any other country with a "socialist economic system", so why would the American system implode if they brought in a similar economic model.

What happens to your democracy, if the overwhelming majority of people vote for a more "socialist economic model"?

Will you accept that the "people have spoken", or would you plot the overthrow of the government?

It never ceases to amaze me that people who blame government (left or right, doesn't matter), don't move to Somalia where there is no government at all. Sounds like it might be these people's paradise.

Since Dennis pointed out that the US ceased to be a democracy a long time ago and transformed into an oligarchy, why wouldn't you try something different to put "we the people" back in control.

Why not try a new economic model based on those countries which have better outcomes for its citizenry on just about every area of life, health, education, etc..

It seems to me that the oligarchy rose because of this aversion to "socialism", not in retaliation to it.

Three decades of "tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts" are putting the US on a path to third world status.

Cast your mind to when America was placed highly on the social outcomes mentioned before. Americans paid a lot more in taxes then in exchange for those outcomes. Slashing taxes has reduced America's standings in just about every aspect of the lives of its citizenry.

An example is education. The public system has been starved of funding over the decades and America's standing for educational outcomes has slipped correspondingly. It's not a coincidence.

Neo-Liberalism (ie let the market determine what outcomes are achieved) is a failure. It has proven to be as much a myth as "reducing taxes produces more revenue", and the "trickle down effect".

The only outcome from putting these myths into practice is that an oligarchy of the "one per centers" develops.

[ 1 ] Thanks
5 replies

Signature

Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?

So that blind people can hate them as well.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9120903].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

It doesn't cease to exist in Sweden, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Germany France, New Zealand, or any other country with a "socialist economic system", so why would the American system implode if they brought in a similar economic model.

What happens to your democracy, if the overwhelming majority of people vote for a more "socialist economic model"?

Will you accept that the "people have spoken", or would you plot the overthrow of the government?

It never ceases to amaze me that people who blame government (left or right, doesn't matter), don't move to Somalia where there is no government at all. Sounds like it might be these people's paradise.

Since Dennis pointed out that the US ceased to be a democracy a long time ago and transformed into an oligarchy, why wouldn't you try something different to put "we the people" back in control.

Why not try a new economic model based on those countries which have better outcomes for its citizenry on just about every area of life, health, education, etc..

It seems to me that the oligarchy rose because of this aversion to "socialism", not in retaliation to it.

Three decades of "tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts" are putting the US on a path to third world status.

Cast your mind to when America was placed highly on the social outcomes mentioned before. Americans paid a lot more in taxes then in exchange for those outcomes. Slashing taxes has reduced America's standings in just about every aspect of the lives of its citizenry.

An example is education. The public system has been starved of funding over the decades and America's standing for educational outcomes has slipped correspondingly. It's not a coincidence.

Neo-Liberalism (ie let the market determine what outcomes are achieved) is a failure. It has proven to be as much a myth as "reducing taxes produces more revenue", and the "trickle down effect".

The only outcome from putting these myths into practice is that an oligarchy of the "one per centers" develops.

You might want to read this article on Sweden.

It was not socialist policies that turned Sweden into one of the world's richest countries. When Sweden got rich, it had one of the most open and deregulated economies in the world, and taxes were lower than in the United States and most other western countries. The Social Democrats kept most of those policies intact until the 1970s, when they thought that those excellent foundations--unprecedented wealth, a strong work ethic, an educated work force, world-class exports industries, and a relatively honest bureaucracy--were so stable that the government could tax and spend and build a generous cradle-to-grave welfare state on them.
They couldn't. At least not without costs. Because that welfare state began to erode the conditions that had made the model viable in the first place. And the fourth richest country became the 14th richest within three decades.http://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/how-laissez-faire-made-sweden-rich

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9120945].message }}

whateverpedia

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

You might want to read this article on Sweden.

From a site called libertarianism.org, no thanks.

I can probably tell you exactly what it contains without ever having to look at it.

Some valid points wrapped up in a whole lot of discredited Randian ideology.

As I said, no thanks.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?

So that blind people can hate them as well.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9121052].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

From a site called libertarianism.org, no thanks.

I can probably tell you exactly what it contains without ever having to look at it.

Some valid points wrapped up in a whole lot of discredited Randian ideology.

As I said, no thanks.

Typical.
Actually it's just the history of the Swedish govt. over the last 200 years.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9121066].message }}

whateverpedia

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Typical.
Actually it's just the history of the Swedish govt. over the last 200 years.

Actually it's a libertarian site cherry picking facts to push its own agenda, you know just like FoxNews and MSNBC do.

To blame the "fall" of Sweden on its welfare system is at best, part of the truth.

The main reason it has fallen is that countries who weren't in the running previously have risen dramatically over the last two decades. (ie Brazil, Russia, China, India, Indonesia, etc.).

To give another example. Australia used to be the 8th biggest economy in the world. Now it is 15th. Is that because of Australia's "socialist" policies?

No, as Australia was one of the few countries not to be affected by the Financial meltdown of 2008 onwards. Our economy actually grew during that period.

It's because of the growing middle class of developing countries with much bigger populations than Australia causing their economies to grow faster than Australia's.

But, back to the question I raised earlier:

Was Sweden's fall from 4th to 14th place caused by it implementing "socialist policies", or the rapid rise of developing nations economies?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?

So that blind people can hate them as well.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9121239].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

Actually it's a libertarian site cherry picking facts to push its own agenda, you know just like FoxNews and MSNBC do.

To blame the "fall" of Sweden on its welfare system is at best, part of the truth.

The main reason it has fallen is that countries who weren't in the running previously have risen dramatically over the last two decades. (ie Brazil, Russia, China, India, Indonesia, etc.).

To give another example. Australia used to be the 8th biggest economy in the world. Now it is 15th. Is that because of Australia's "socialist" policies?

No, as Australia was one of the few countries not to be affected by the Financial meltdown of 2008 onwards. Our economy actually grew during that period.

It's because of the growing middle class of developing countries with much bigger populations than Australia causing their economies to grow faster than Australia's.

But, back to the question I raised earlier:

Was Sweden's fall from 4th to 14th place caused by it implementing "socialist policies", or the rapid rise of developing nations economies?

So you still haven't read the article.
Get back to me when you do.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9121247].message }}

whateverpedia

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Get back to me when you do.

I have now read it. Sweden's rise was due to industrialisation, and a set of policies which allowed that.

What works to establish an industrialised economy doesn't necessarily work once the economy has become industrialised.

Or to put it in a simpler way, what works to get a house built is different to what's needed to maintain it. Different, although aligned, skills and policies are required.

We also need to understand why the "Welfare State" was allowed to flourish, particularly after World War II.

Government's around the world were shit scared of the types of extreme politics that developed in the build up to WWII. As extremes on both ends (right AND left) of the spectrum flourish in places with huge discrepancies of wealth between the haves and have-nots, those governments introduced systems that enabled even those at the bottom of the pile to enjoy some sort of quality of life. The money to provide those at the bottom with this was obviously taken from the those at the top of the tree.

We can see the outcome of destroying that "safety-net" is having with extremists from both ends beginning to rise again.

Anyway, now that I've read your article, can you answer the question I posed?

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?

So that blind people can hate them as well.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9121299].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

I have now read it. Sweden's rise was due to industrialisation, and a set of policies which allowed that.

What works to establish an industrialised economy doesn't necessarily work once the economy has become industrialised.

Or to put it in a simpler way, what works to get a house built is different to what's needed to maintain it. Different, although aligned, skills and policies are required.

We also need to understand why the "Welfare State" was allowed to flourish, particularly after World War II.

Government's around the world were shit scared of the types of extreme politics that developed in the build up to WWII. As extremes on both ends (right AND left) of the spectrum flourish in places with huge discrepancies of wealth between the haves and have-nots, those governments introduced systems that enabled even those at the bottom of the pile to enjoy some sort of quality of life. The money to provide those at the bottom with this was obviously taken from the those at the top of the tree.

We can see the outcome of destroying that "safety-net" is having with extremists from both ends beginning to rise again.

Anyway, now that I've read your article, can you answer the question I posed?

I think eliminating what made them strong and going to a tax and spend welfare state had more to do with their decline then anything else.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9122061].message }}

whateverpedia

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

I think eliminating what made them strong and going to a tax and spend welfare state had more to do with their decline then anything else.

So, still nothing to do with the rise of other nations pushing them down the rankings then?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?

So that blind people can hate them as well.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9122778].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

So, still nothing to do with the rise of other nations pushing them down the rankings then?

Not really. But since you think that was the cause, why did the other countries rise in rankings?
Why did Sweden slip after they changed the way they did things that put them in the number 4 spot?
If you make a cake with all the right ingredients and it is the best cake and you then change the ingredients and it sucks, is it because you changed the ingredients or because other bakers suddenly became better cake makers?
Same goes for countries. If you build a strong country on a certain set of principles and then change those principles causing a weaker country, is it because suddenly other countries became stronger or because your new principles made yours weaker.
It's easy to blame it on others then to except the consequences of your actions.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9122796].message }}

whateverpedia

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Not really. But since you think that was the cause, why did the other countries rise in rankings?

Because developed nations, especially America, outsourced their labour to the developing nations, enabling a middle class to develop in those nations.

I'd be interested to hear your views on what I posted about people who are working and STILL need a handout in order to eat.

Is that right? Is it wrong? Is it their fault? Is it the employers fault? Is it the governments fault? Is it just an inevitable outcome of laissez faire economics?

I'd like to read your views on that if you can spare the time.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?

So that blind people can hate them as well.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9122838].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

Because developed nations, especially America, outsourced their labour to the developing nations, enabling a middle class to develop in those nations.

I'd be interested to hear your views on what I posted about people who are working and STILL need a handout in order to eat.

Is that right? Is it wrong? Is it their fault? Is it the employers fault? Is it the governments fault? Is it just an inevitable outcome of laissez faire economics?

I'd like to read your views on that if you can spare the time.

I don't think it's right at all. But I believe high taxes and government interference have a lot to do with the problem.
For an example. I have a friend who runs his own landscaping company. He isn't trying to become rich, he just wants a comfortable living and to be able to help out his friends who need work.
This year his federal taxes are so high he can't afford to keep the same number of workers he usually does and he's thinking of giving up the business and get a job.
Another friend owns a restaurant, because of his tax increase and other fees it's either no raises for his staff or close the doors.
I could go on all day with this kind of stuff.
High taxes and stiff regulations don't create jobs and they don't improve the standard of living.
Now I'm not saying there should be no taxes or regulations. Just that the regulations should benefit people and business. If a business is spewing out pollution, regulate against that. But when you come up with regulations that do more harm then good, you don't need those regulations.
Like the new one the FDA has come up with that would require breweries to package their spent grains before they give them to farmers.
When a business has to choose between paying exorbitant taxes or give their employees a raise, maybe taxes are to high.
Bottom line is the more business has to spend on taxes and regulations the less it has for the employees.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9122915].message }}

whateverpedia

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Bottom line is the more business has to spend on taxes and regulations the less it has for the employees.

If the taxes and regulations were brought in after the business was started, then I thoroughly agree with you.

If they were in place before the business was started, then I disagree profusely.

Before you start any business, you need to do a serious budget taking into account all the relevant costs. If someone starts out and then complains about laws that are already in place, the business owner is an idiot who should never have started a business in the first place.

Anyway, this has been a fascinating discussion and I thank you for your input, and allowing me to respond in a similar fashion. If these kind of discussions were all conducted in a similar respectful fashion, the mods job would be made so much easier

.

Anyway, back to the OP. It's up to the people of Switzerland to determine how they live. If it doesn't do any damage to the Swiss economy or society as a whole, and has no impact on other nations, then I say go for it.

It's up to the Swiss people to decide what works for them, not an American or Australian.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?

So that blind people can hate them as well.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9122991].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

If the taxes and regulations were brought in after the business was started, then I thoroughly agree with you.

If they were in place before the business was started, then I disagree profusely.

Before you start any business, you need to do a serious budget taking into account all the relevant costs. If someone starts out and then complains about laws that are already in place, the business owner is an idiot who should never have started a business in the first place.

Anyway, this has been a fascinating discussion and I thank you for your input, and allowing me to respond in a similar fashion. If these kind of discussions were all conducted in a similar respectful fashion, the mods job would be made so much easier

.

Anyway, back to the OP. It's up to the people of Switzerland to determine how they live. If it doesn't do any damage to the Swiss economy or society as a whole, and has no impact on other nations, then I say go for it.

It's up to the Swiss people to decide what works for them, not an American or Australian.

No I agree with that. I've started a couple of businesses in the past and decided not to start others.The ones I didn't start had to do with a few factors including existing regulations.
If I had problems with existing regulations I'd ask myself if I really wanted that business and I'd try to have the regulations changed before starting it.
I think we are over regulated, but instead of just ending them all they need to be looked at one by one.
I agree 1,000% with your comment on Switzerland, it's up to them not us.
If they do it and it works, good for them.
If they do it and it doesn't, at least they gave it a try.

[ 2 ] Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9123019].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

If the taxes and regulations were brought in after the business was started, then I thoroughly agree with you.

If they were in place before the business was started, then I disagree profusely.

Before you start any business, you need to do a serious budget taking into account all the relevant costs. If someone starts out and then complains about laws that are already in place, the business owner is an idiot who should never have started a business in the first place.

Well, there was NO law here. You used to be able to feed animals ANYTHING apparently, WITHOUT REGULATION! They changed that several years ago so some ANIMAL parts could not be in feed, because of the Mad Cow scare. But THE chances of THIS coming under that problem is actually LOWER than about anything else! I mean it was VEGETATION that was cleaned, scanned, heated, soaked, exposed to alcohol, and then pressed. Of course it COULD have those prions, but the chances are LOWER than the soil the cows walk on, and they haven't yet created a new tax for THAT!

BUT, if one follows the LETTER of the idea you discuss, then you shouldn't start ANY business! If I started a business that every year sold a few pencils, and I didn't do it under my name, I would need a DBA. In some cities, I would need a business license. I would likely need a sales/use tax permit. Right NOW, the costs are generally low, but they may one day charge DOZENS of percent. But YOU said that I must account for the FUTURE! Since that is impossible, I must not have ANY business!

It's up to the Swiss people to decide what works for them, not an American or Australian.

I wonder if the guy discussing this IS swiss. You know, HITLER was actually from AUSTRIA! Just saying!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9123067].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

From a site called libertarianism.org, no thanks.

I can probably tell you exactly what it contains without ever having to look at it.

Some valid points wrapped up in a whole lot of discredited Randian ideology.

As I said, no thanks.

NIC OPEN MIND THERE!

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9121069].message }}

whateverpedia

10 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

NIC OPEN MIND THERE!

Steve

I had to open my mind to that kind of ideology to decide (of my own free will) to reject it. Not completely mind you, it does have some valid points. I try to find the point where opposing ideologies intersect. Equilibrium in other words.

In the quote Thom posted it stated that Sweden has gone from "4th wealthiest nation to 14th". Is that because of Sweden, or is it just that other nations have risen faster.

I'd imagine China is one of the countries that was below Sweden, but is now above it. Is that Sweden's fault, or China's?

India, Brazil, and Indonesia are all countries that have risen in wealth since the original survey was taken. Can you blame their rise on the Swedish system? Of course you can't. It's probable that the rise of these countries is due to them adapting a fairly Swedish model of government/markets/society. In other words, spreading the wealth from the oligarchs to the rest of the population. Or to put it another way, allowing a middle class to flourish.

That's what having an open mind does for you.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?

So that blind people can hate them as well.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9121107].message }}

ThomM 10 years ago

In the quote Thom posted it stated that Sweden has gone from "4th wealthiest nation to 14th". Is that because of Sweden, or is it just that other nations have risen faster.

The quote explained it and the article explained it in depth.
- Thanks
Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9121141].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

I had to open my mind to that kind of ideology to decide (of my own free will) to reject it. Not completely mind you, it does have some valid points. I try to find the point where opposing ideologies intersect. Equilibrium in other words.

In the quote Thom posted it stated that Sweden has gone from "4th wealthiest nation to 14th". Is that because of Sweden, or is it just that other nations have risen faster.

I'd imagine China is one of the countries that was below Sweden, but is now above it. Is that Sweden's fault, or China's?

India, Brazil, and Indonesia are all countries that have risen in wealth since the original survey was taken. Can you blame their rise on the Swedish system? Of course you can't. It's probable that the rise of these countries is due to them adapting a fairly Swedish model of government/markets/society. In other words, spreading the wealth from the oligarchs to the rest of the population. Or to put it another way, allowing a middle class to flourish.

That's what having an open mind does for you.

Outside of currency, relative debt, or perhaps industry,etc... it is hard to compare the economies of various nations. You are right about that. But I was saying you can't discount a source solely because of a relationship. At least try to get the gist.

I haven't done much research on this aspect of sweden, but Brazil, India, and Indonesia have obviously greatly increased trade In fact Brazil and India are part of a group that increased so much that they named the group, BRIC BRIC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . It says Indonesia is one that COULD soon be added to the group.

A BIG reason for the BRIC success though IS inflation, and a transfer of technology and employment. This allowed countries that were highly subsidized to compete with economies that had less labor and higher costs. Look at APPLE! An AMERICAN company run by Americans using AMERICAN technology, and they import the products from CHINA!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9121219].message }}

Joe Mobley

10 years ago

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

It doesn't cease to exist in Sweden, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Germany France, New Zealand, or any other country with a "socialist economic system", so why would the American system implode if they brought in a similar economic model.

Item #1: 17 Trillion dollars in on-book deficits. 90 trillion dollars of combined on and off book deficits.

Item #2: Over 1/3 of a billion people in the US. (Thanks Kay)

Item #3: The track record of the wonderful US political system.

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

What happens to your democracy, if the overwhelming majority of people vote for a more "socialist economic model"?

You have a more socialist form of government with less democracy.

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

Will you accept that the "people have spoken", or would you plot the overthrow of the government?

Your question implies that these are the only choices. They are not.

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

It never ceases to amaze me that people who blame government (left or right, doesn't matter), don't move to Somalia where there is no government at all. Sounds like it might be these people's paradise.

I ceased being amazed a long time ago by the number of people that think unlimited government and unlimited amounts of money will fix everything.

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

Since Dennis pointed out that the US ceased to be a democracy a long time ago and transformed into an oligarchy, why wouldn't you try something different to put "we the people" back in control.

And not let the people enjoy this political sh..crap-sandwich they created? Not on your life.

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

Why not try a new economic model based on those countries which have better outcomes for its citizenry on just about every area of life, health, education, etc..

Let me point you to the 3 Items above.

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

Three decades of "tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts" are putting the US on a path to third world status.

More than 3 decades of incompetent and sometimes unconstitutional leadership are the primary cause of the current US status.

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

Slashing taxes has reduced America's standings in just about every aspect of the lives of its citizenry.

Misuse of taxes has reduced America's standings in just about every aspect of the lives of its citizenry.

Thought I'd fix that for you.

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

An example is education. The public system has been starved of funding over the decades and America's standing for educational outcomes has slipped correspondingly. It's not a coincidence.

Interestingly, it's also not a fact.

U.S. education spending tops global list, study shows - CBS News

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

Neo-Liberalism (ie let the market determine what outcomes are achieved) is a failure. It has proven to be as much a myth as "reducing taxes produces more revenue", and the "trickle down effect".

Though less of a myth than your post.

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

The only outcome from putting these myths into practice is that an oligarchy of the "one per centers" develops.

And the outcome of putting socialist ideas into practice can be seen in North Korea and East Germany before the Berlin Wall fell.

Joe Mobley

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

.

Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9121198].message }}

whateverpedia 10 years ago

Originally Posted by Joe Mobley

And the outcome of putting socialist ideas into practice can be seen in North Korea and East Germany before the Berlin Wall fell.

Actually, neither of those countries are/were socialist. They are communist and/or totalitarian. They may pay lip service to "socialism", but neither of them practice it.

I see that the rest of your post implies you are not for smaller government, but better government. On that we can both agree.

See, we have more in common than you think.
- Thanks
Signature

Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
So that blind people can hate them as well.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9121212].message }}

garyv

10 years ago

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

It never ceases to amaze me that people who blame government (left or right, doesn't matter), don't move to Somalia where there is no government at all. Sounds like it might be these people's paradise.

It never ceases to amaze me that those who love the government running everything don't move to one of these other Socialist countries they so brag about. There's a reason we moved here and formed our Republic. We believe in individual freedoms, and even fought a revolutionary war to keep it that way.

Many here don't like a socialist type of economy, because we don't like giving up the freedoms you'd have to relinquish to make a socialist type of economy work. We like to work hard - make our own way - and love the freedoms that come along with taking care of ourselves.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9121241].message }}

whateverpedia 10 years ago

Originally Posted by garyv

It never ceases to amaze me that those who love the government running everything don't move to one of these other Socialist countries they so brag about.

At no point here or anywhere else for that matter have I said I love the government running everything. Never. Ever.

As you can see from my reply to Joe, I am all for better government, not more government. Big difference.
- Thanks
Signature

Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
So that blind people can hate them as well.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9121255].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by garyv

It never ceases to amaze me that those who love the government running everything don't move to one of these other Socialist countries they so brag about. There's a reason we moved here and formed our Republic. We believe in individual freedoms, and even fought a revolutionary war to keep it that way.

Many here don't like a socialist type of economy, because we don't like giving up the freedoms you'd have to relinquish to make a socialist type of economy work. We like to work hard - make our own way - and love the freedoms that come along with taking care of ourselves.

YEAH! They EVEN reference Russian references! HEY, russia at one point DID offer ALL this stuff! HOW could THEY? THEY COULDN'T! Stores were near empty! Construction was POOR! Wait lines were LONG! Freedoms were limited, but only about as much as they try to limit freedoms HERE! Things like what Bundy experienced weren't uncommon.

THEN, a MIRACLE happened! They decided to make it capitalistic, and gave EVERYONE a piece of the country. OH, it was a SMALL piece, because there were a lot of people. You know what happened? Some BOUGHT the pieces, and took over russia. Eventually, they got Putin elected, and Putin kicked them out.

Want something MORE recent? How about something that started last november Venezuela congress grants President Maduro sweeping new powers | News | DW.DE | 20.11.2013 This was only the START! He lowered profit levels, cut prices on products, etc.... The result? New supplies dried up, old supplies were horded! OK, let's forward to late last month! More deaths in Venezuela amid pro and anti-Maduro rallies | News | DW.DE | 22.03.2014

Three people have been reported dead in Venezuela, as demonstrators rallied for and against President Nicolas Maduro. More than 30 people have now been killed in unrest over the past five weeks.
Anti-government activists protest against Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, in Caracas, on March 20, 2014. Demonstrators clashed with riot police in Caracas on Thursday after a march against the arrest of two opposition mayors accused of failing to stop violence in protests that have rocked Venezuela. Some 3,000 people had rallied against the socialist government of Maduro before a subgroup of protesters threw rocks at police who responded with tear gas and water cannons.

There were further reports of deaths on Saturday as protesters rallied in the Venezuelan capital, Caracas and beyond.
"In the name of freedom, put an end to the dictatorship now," read one of the banners that were held aloft in the capital.
Opposition demonstrators have vowed they will stay on the streets until Maduro stands down, amid public anger over hyper inflation, goods shortages and soaring crime.

OK, OK, let's jump to 10 days ago!

Venezuela's main opposition group and President Nicolas Maduro's government have agreed to begin talks to end months of unrest. South American foreign ministers and the Vatican will mediate.
Venezuela Antiregierungsproteste 31.3.14
Key leaders of Venezuela's opposition agreed to enter mediated talks with President Maduro. This follows two months of anti-government protests which claimed 39 lives.
Leaders of the broad Democratic Unity alliance agreed to take part after receiving assurances from diplomats of Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador and the Vatican late on Tuesday, local time.
Another opposition party Popular Will led by jailed hardliner Leopold Lopez rejected the talks as a "political show" and called for the release of detained activists.
Flanked by the foreign diplomats, Venezuelan Vice President Jorge Arreaza said breakthrough came at cordial talks.
The full consultations, tentatively scheduled to begin on Thursday, are to be overseen by UNASUR, a regional South American group.
Maduro: Socialism to remain
Maduro, the successor to the deceased populist Hugo Chavez, cautioned however that there would be no change to Venezuela's socialist model of government.
"I would be a traitor if I embarked on negotiating the revolution," Maduro said.

OH YEAH, this has a GREAT track record!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9121278].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

It doesn't cease to exist in Sweden, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Germany France, New Zealand, or any other country with a "socialist economic system", so why would the American system implode if they brought in a similar economic model.

What happens to your democracy, if the overwhelming majority of people vote for a more "socialist economic model"?

Will you accept that the "people have spoken", or would you plot the overthrow of the government?

It never ceases to amaze me that people who blame government (left or right, doesn't matter), don't move to Somalia where there is no government at all. Sounds like it might be these people's paradise.

Since Dennis pointed out that the US ceased to be a democracy a long time ago and transformed into an oligarchy, why wouldn't you try something different to put "we the people" back in control.

Why not try a new economic model based on those countries which have better outcomes for its citizenry on just about every area of life, health, education, etc..

It seems to me that the oligarchy rose because of this aversion to "socialism", not in retaliation to it.

Three decades of "tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts" are putting the US on a path to third world status.

Cast your mind to when America was placed highly on the social outcomes mentioned before. Americans paid a lot more in taxes then in exchange for those outcomes. Slashing taxes has reduced America's standings in just about every aspect of the lives of its citizenry.

An example is education. The public system has been starved of funding over the decades and America's standing for educational outcomes has slipped correspondingly. It's not a coincidence.

Neo-Liberalism (ie let the market determine what outcomes are achieved) is a failure. It has proven to be as much a myth as "reducing taxes produces more revenue", and the "trickle down effect".

The only outcome from putting these myths into practice is that an oligarchy of the "one per centers" develops.

And now thanks to two recent Supreme Court rulings the wealthy can spend even more of their money to influence our elections.

One guy (Sheldon Adelson) spent over 100 million bucks in a losing cause because IMHO he's trying to quash an investigation into his activities.

Since the major tax cuts on the top rates of the 1980s (from about 70% to around 35%), ...

... the nation has been engulfed in national debt and the standard of living has slowly gone downhill while also exploding income inequality - which doesn't have a lot to do with should a janitor make as much as a doctor.

Check out this chart...

In 2007, the top 1 percent share of national income peaked at 23.5 percent.

In the only other year since 1913 that the wealthy had claimed such a large share of national income: 1928, when the top 1 percent share was 23.9 percent.

The following year, 1929, the stock market crashed, and the Great Depression began.

And then...

After peaking again in 2007, the U.S. stock market crashed the following year - in 2008, leading to the Great Recession and its aftermath.

What a coincidence.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9121293].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

And now thanks to Supreme Court rulings the wealthy can spend even more of their money to influence our elections.

One guy (Sheldon Adelson) spent over 100 million bucks in a losing cause because he's trying to quash an investigation into his activities.

Since the major tax cuts on the top rates of the 1980s (from about 70% to around 35%), ...

... the nation has been engulfed in national debt and the standard of living has slowly gone downhill while exploding income inequality - which doesn't have a lot to do with should a janitor make as much as a doctor.

Check out this chart...

In 2007, the top 1 percent share of national income peaked at 23.5 percent.

In the only other year since 1913 that the wealthy had claimed such a large share of national income: 1928, when the top 1 percent share was 23.9 percent.

The following year, 1929, the stock market crashed, and the Great Depression began.

And...

After peaking again in 2007, the U.S. stock market crashed in 2008, leading to the Great Recession and its aftermath.

What a coincidence.

HMMM. I WONDER! Do you think all those BILLIONS of people over the centuries are right and the rich invest some money in securities? Do you FURTHER think that MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, the government, after creating havok in the markets and forcing people to sell, declares the increased price(some of which is INFLATION) to be INCOME, lists it as income and taxes it? Just MAYBE!?!?!?!? Do you think?

So THAT is why when I entered the 1099 from one of my brokers that my refund dropped $3000! And maybe THAT is why so many say that Warren buffet pays less tax because he has so much DIVIDEND INCOME, and CAPITAL GAINS(from INVESTMENTS).

Do you think? If not, PLEASE let the IRS know! They are making some TERRIBLE mistakes!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9121318].message }}

SteveJohnson

10 years ago

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

...What happens to your democracy, if the overwhelming majority of people vote for a more "socialist economic model"?

Will you accept that the "people have spoken", or would you plot the overthrow of the government?

Thankfully, our system of government - a representative republic - guards against, at least to some degree, the 'overwhelming majority'.

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

It never ceases to amaze me that people who blame government (left or right, doesn't matter), don't move to Somalia where there is no government at all. Sounds like it might be these people's paradise.

There is a vast difference, and I think you know this but choose to resort to exaggeration regardless, between limited government and no government at all. No one here has advocated for anarchy that I know of. If you can't make a point without resorting to hyperbole, maybe you shouldn't try to make one at all.

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

Since Dennis pointed out that the US ceased to be a democracy a long time ago and transformed into an oligarchy, why wouldn't you try something different to put "we the people" back in control.

Why not try a new economic model based on those countries which have better outcomes for its citizenry on just about every area of life, health, education, etc...

Term limits would do wonders for controlling an oligarchical government. We saw fit to limit the president to two terms, why not the Congress?

Why not loosen the regulatory grip of the government on the economic model that built this country into the most successful example of self-government ever recorded?

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

It seems to me that the oligarchy rose because of this aversion to "socialism", not in retaliation to it.

Three decades of "tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts" are putting the US on a path to third world status.

Cast your mind to when America was placed highly on the social outcomes mentioned before. Americans paid a lot more in taxes then in exchange for those outcomes. Slashing taxes has reduced America's standings in just about every aspect of the lives of its citizenry.

Maybe we could cast our minds to the success of the US before the advent of the income tax?

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

An example is education. The public system has been starved of funding over the decades and America's standing for educational outcomes has slipped correspondingly. It's not a coincidence.

Why don't we get the unions and the administrators out of the way of the educators, and allow results-driven performance evaluations?

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

Neo-Liberalism (ie let the market determine what outcomes are achieved) is a failure. It has proven to be as much a myth as "reducing taxes produces more revenue", and the "trickle down effect".

The only outcome from putting these myths into practice is that an oligarchy of the "one per centers" develops.

Again, in different terms, I would hardly classify the success of the US as a 'failure', nor would any honest person.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9121404].message }}

whateverpedia

10 years ago

Originally Posted by SteveJohnson

There is a vast difference, and I think you know this but choose to resort to exaggeration regardless, between limited government and no government at all. No one here has advocated for anarchy that I know of. If you can't make a point without resorting to hyperbole, maybe you shouldn't try to make one at all.

OK I apologise for that, but you'll see in a subsequent post I am, have always done so, and always will, advocate for better government. So, we agree with the end result, we just look at it from different angles. All good.

Maybe we could cast our minds to the success of the US before the advent of the income tax?

I'm not sure when that was, but I think it was 1917. America was successful before then?

At that stage America was an "emerging market". It had no middle class to speak of. This is what is generally accepted as the sign of a developed nation - a burgening middle class with spending power. That is, what powers a nation's economy, a middle class with money to spare.

Not tax cuts, not deregulation - a strong middle class. No amount of tax cuts to a businesses owners are going to improve your bottom line if no-one can afford to buy your product, end of story.

Why don't we get the unions and the administrators out of the way of the educators, and allow results-driven performance evaluations?

How do you define "results" though? Is it just being able to read and write? Is it fostering an imagination that can dream of a better way of doing things? Is it scientific achievement?

We all know of people with limited "results" who've gone on to be hugely successful. On the other side of the coin, we both know people who have a long list of academic achievements, but are in essence as dumb as a doorknob.

How would you design a system that allows for, and indeed encourage's both of these outcomes? That's a serious question by the way, not having a go.

Again, in different terms, I would hardly classify the success of the US as a 'failure', nor would any honest person.

Failing and being a failure are not the same thing. The US isn't a failure, in the same way that Britain, which once commanded the greatest empire in world history, but is now in decline, is a failure. Neither of them will ever become failed states (the people won't let them get that bad), but that doesn't mean they aren't failing their peoples.

Change that, it's not the government per se that is letting its people down. It's the oligarchical corporate masters who control your government which is failing the people.

When someone works 40 hours a week, and still needs welfare (in the form of food stamps) in order to eat, that isn't social welfare, its corporate welfare.

Allowing corporations to pay less than starvation wages where the government (read that as other taxpayers) has to subsidise the worker's income so he or she can eat, is a handout to the corporation, not to the people receiving the food stamps.

The worker working harder so they get paid more is another myth. If someone is so good they have to be paid a decent wage, the employer may well get rid of them in favour of someone who may not do as good a job, but will work for a low wage.

Don't say that doesn't happen, because it does. When you've got the only source of employment in a town, you decide what people get paid, not the diligence of the worker. Why should they pay above average rates to any individual, when there's a mine of unemployed people you can replace them with for a much cheaper rate.

Anyway, this is a fascinating discussion, and I'm glad to see that it has been conducted in a very civilised manner from all points of view so far.

Let's hope it stays that way.

Thanks

Signature

Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?

So that blind people can hate them as well.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9121554].message }}

Joe Mobley

10 years ago

Just for a point of clarity, what form of government do you favor replacing the US democracy, or Oligarchy?

Joe Mobley

Just for a point of clarity, you favor replacing the US democracy, or Oligarchy with a Socialist form of government?

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Socialism isn't a form of government.

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

a dissatifaction with the way things are going now with the US looking more and more like an Oligarchy, etc... all make this idea interesting and compelling to me.

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

The same thing with my dissatisfaction with the direction the US and the world are going. These are reasons I am interested in the idea though.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

.

Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9118614].message }}

TimPhelan 10 years ago

Originally Posted by Joe Mobley

Just for a point of clarity, what form of government do you favor replacing the US democracy, or Oligarchy?

Joe Mobley

That's just as nonsensical as your last question Joe. I'm not suggesting replacing our form of government. I sure hope you reach that clarity you are trying to find though. Good grief!
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature
Over 50 Dating
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9118663].message }}
- Joe Mobley 10 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by TimPhelan
  
  I'm not suggesting replacing our form of government.
  
  Your post here on the Warrior Forum would not support that statement.
  
  Originally Posted by TimPhelan
  
  I sure hope you reach that clarity you are trying to find though.
  
  I appreciate that.
  
  Joe Mobley
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  .
  Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9118882].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio

I can see your points to a point. On the issue of "income inequality" I responded above as to why having a starting minimum would not eradicate people claiming inequality. There will ALWAYS be an equality so even adding that to the mix is pointless. Or rather it's simply used as something for one side to point to about the other.

The dissatisfaction - that may or may not be as bad as it's made out. Depends on who you talk to (opinions) so that should be left out of the argument as well.

If there's an argument to be made, it should be about verifiable facts. Me personally, I have not a care in the world that there are people out there who make more than me and many who make less than me. Fairness is a point of view, not a fact. Things will never be fair. Even if everyone made the same amount of money, there will always be those who work harder than others - so THEY will complain about fairness and inequality.

Thomas Paine - I'd have to go back and read more of his writings, but I think you really can't know what he would be like today since the circumstances and society are radically different today than they were when he was alive. I have radically different ideas at 49 than I did at 19, 29, etc.

So for me, this has to make economic sense all by iteself. Save the emotional and opinionated arguments because you'd never get a consensus based on that. At least, I don't think you can.

Switzerland testing is a good idea, but it still wouldn't tell us one bit how it would work here. We are different societies, much larger population, government, ideologies...you get the idea. Again - look at the health care debate. If it COULD work here we'd have the same kind of health care as Canada, France, etc.

Perhaps my outlook is cynical to a degree - but really, I think it's just our reality.

You said...

look at the health care debate. If it COULD work here we'd have the same kind of health care as Canada, France, etc.

I say...

I say the reason we haven't tried single payer here in the U.S. is a lack of political will.

That is to say the house OK'd it, but the senate could not muster up more than 45 senate votes (by one party) of the 60 votes needed.

If we would have gotten the 60 votes we'd be on our way to trying a single payer system right now.

Single payer advocates simply couldn't gets the votes necessary and whether it would/could have worked or not - had/has nothing to do with it.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9118460].message }}

Dennis Gaskill

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

... a dissatifaction with the way things are going now with the US looking more and more like an Oligarchy...

Interesting that you bring that up now, because Princeton and Northwestern Universities published a new study that concludes the US is now an oligarchy.

Study concludes: The US is an oligarchy, not a democracy - UPI.com

There's a link to the study for anyone that cares to read it.

"The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence,"

And before anyone starts going into liberal/conservative mode, realize that the economic elite belong to both major parties.

[ 6 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9118340].message }}

travlinguy 10 years ago

We've been an oligarchy for going on 30 years.
- [ 3 ] Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9118382].message }}
- Dennis Gaskill 10 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by travlinguy
  
  We've been an oligarchy for going on 30 years.
  
  But now that a study has been done, it's official.
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9118390].message }}
TimPhelan 10 years ago

Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill

Interesting that you bring that up now, because Princeton and Northwestern Universities published a new study that concludes the US is now an oligarchy.

A good argument can be made that the US has always been an oligarchy to some degree, and it started out at a higher degree than at other times in our history. Only white male landowners could vote at first.
- Thanks
Signature
Over 50 Dating
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9118596].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Here's an interview with one of the people behind this referendum. He actually says it isn't about class struggle, left or right, etc...

A Basic Income is Not a Crazy Idea - YouTube

Actually, he DOES say it is class struggle!

2:31 He states a MORONIC idea that somehow prices will drop if you raise the base pay, because companies won't have to pay it. Never mind that the money comes from taxes, and that if taxes dropped the potential to pay that money would ALSO drop. Think of it! If 50% of te people worked, they woud pay an average or $66,000 to support them, and the others, and be paid back $33,000.
2:51 TRANSFER (TO THE POOR)!
3:35 RICH PAY MORE!
4:21 PEOPLE DON'T WORK [just] FOR THE MONEY!
5:07 He basically says that things like a garbage collector should be paid FAR MORE because of the damage his plan will do.

He ALSO doubts that many would simply do nothing, though we have some in the US, and Danish studies ALSO prove him wrong.

So it IS a poor idea, and IS based on class warfare. BTW if the lowest level "dirty jobs" paid SO much more, the price of just about everything will go up. Basel is a nice area, I would hate to see the whole thing run down.

BTW 100K signatures is only 1.2% of the country, and a lot of things could make it an even lower number, so it STILL could lose miserably.

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9121251].message }}

TimPhelan 10 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

Actually, he DOES say it is class struggle!

Oh. That IS good. I was kind of disappointed when he said it wasn't. It SHOULD be!
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature
Over 50 Dating
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9121414].message }}
- seasoned 10 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by TimPhelan
  
  Oh. That IS good. I was kind of disappointed when he said it wasn't. It SHOULD be!
  
  Yep! FIRST he made it clear it was, THEN he said it wasn't, and then he drove the point home that it was.
  
  Steve
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9122000].message }}

Kishokv

10 years ago

they got minimal mothily salary about 4000 franks?

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9119623].message }}

Joe Mobley

10 years ago

I turn on the tube and what do I see
A whole lotta people cryin' "Don't blame me"
They point their crooked little fingers at everbody else
Spend all their time feelin' sorry for themselves
Victim of this, victim of that
Your momma's too thin; your daddy's too fat

Get over it
Get over it
All this whinin' and cryin' and pitchin' a fit
Get over it, get over it

You say you haven't been the same since you had your little crash
But you might feel better if they gave you some cash
The more I think about it, Old Billy was right
Let's kill all the lawyers - kill 'em tonight
You don't want to work; you want to live like a king
But the big, bad world doesn't owe you a thing

Get over it
Get over it
If you don't want to play, then you might as well split
Get over it, get over it

It's like going to confession every time I hear you speak
You're makin' the most of your losin' streak
Some call it sick, but I call it weak

You drag it around like a ball and chain
You wallow in the guilt; you wallow in the pain
You wave it like a flag, you wear it like a crown
Got your mind in the gutter, bringin' everybody down
Complain about the present and blame it on the past
I'd like to find your inner child and kick it's little ass

Get over it
Get over it
All this bitchin' and moanin' and pitchin' a fit
Get over it, get over it

Get over it
Get over it
It's gotta stop sometime, so why don't you quit
Get over it, get over it

Get over it

Eagles - Get Over It (With Lyrics) - YouTube

Joe Mobley

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

.

Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9119909].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Joe Mobley

You don't want to work; you want to live like a king
But the big, bad world doesn't owe you a thing

Get over it

Complain about the present and blame it on the past
I'd like to find your inner child and kick it's little ass

Get over it

Not Don Henley's best writing in my opinion, but it must mean something to you Joe. What should we get over? Or is it you who needs to get over something? Do you feel like kicking someone's ass? Sounds like you are angry Joe. What does this have to do with Switzerland? More importantly, why do you have your full name, Joe Mobley, as your avatar when the avatar is right under your username which is also Joe Mobley and then also sign every single post you make Joe Mobley?

Thanks

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9121410].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

BTW Julie only talks about TWO problems with raising the minimum wage, but look at the text when she discusses that there are cons:

Real Talk with Julie Borowski: Raising the...

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9120368].message }}

msdobe

10 years ago

This is an interesting referendum!

I really love Switzerland and the Swiss. I lived in Geneva for a year in the early 70's, and the one thing I must say about that is... there are no more honest people in the world than the Swiss! I can tell you stories that you absolutely would not believe about their honesty. They're definitely one of a kind.

Don't know if that's still true today, but I have the highest regards for the Swiss!

They're an amazing people and amazing country and all I can say is... Good for them!
Jenny

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

If you can read this.... thank a teacher.
If you can read this in English... thank a vet!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9120947].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by msdobe

This is an interesting referendum!

I really love Switzerland and the Swiss. I lived in Geneva for a year in the early 70's, and the one thing I must say about that is... there are no more honest people in the world than the Swiss! I can tell you stories that you absolutely would not believe about their honesty. They're definitely one of a kind.

Don't know if that's still true today, but I have the highest regards for the Swiss!

They're an amazing people and amazing country and all I can say is... Good for them!
Jenny

Yeah, I really respected them TOO until they CAVED on their banking laws and recently CAVED on their backed money. Only maybe ONE thing remains that keeps them special, and I bet THAT gets wiped out soon. With the loss of their backed money though, I almost expected something like THIS. The other may may soon ALSO disappear. The ONLY nation to be close is Israel.

STILL, with all that has happened, someone could destroy switzerland without firing a shot. SAD!

ANOTHER thing! Switzerland USED to be like the US used to be! Citizen army, guns welcome, safe, an asylum for the unjustly persecuted, currency backed by gold, great work ethic, private, strictly followed constitution, and BOTH are federations of a sort. The US now has 50 states, Switzerland now has 26 states(they call them cantons). In BOTH cases, the states have their own flag, things they are proud of, their own laws, within the confines of the federal constitution, etc.... AND a unifying language even though some states had their own language. In switzerland, it isn't as popular as English in the US, but they prefer High German, which is the local language of about 85% of the country. They still speak French, Italian, and Rhetto romansche as well. In the US, some states had a strong spanish and french influence. Louisiana STILL has many that speak some french and some dishes are named accordingly, and they celebrate carnival! It is even called Mardi Gras(French for Fat Tuesday). Of course, on a smaller scale, many states had other languages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_Swiss_cantons

BUT the US is gone, and I guess Switzerland is dying also.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9121021].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Originally Posted by msdobe

This is an interesting referendum!

I really love Switzerland and the Swiss. I lived in Geneva for a year in the early 70's, and the one thing I must say about that is... there are no more honest people in the world than the Swiss! I can tell you stories that you absolutely would not believe about their honesty. They're definitely one of a kind.

Don't know if that's still true today, but I have the highest regards for the Swiss!

They're an amazing people and amazing country and all I can say is... Good for them!
Jenny

I agree Jenny. It is an interesting referendum! Thanks for your input.

Thanks

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9121430].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

ThomM,

The way I heard it, there will have to be registration and, I believe, a new tax. Apparently the two industries have been cooperating like this a LONG time! The ranchers pay less for feed, and the brewers get rid of what is basically garbage. The cows probably don't notice, and they DO have ways to get every last bit of nutrition out of the grain, so they probably get benefit.

So it is win/win/win. The government plans are disliked by BOTH the breweries and the ranchers. And what should the government care!?!!??!!? J.R. simplot, for example, PRIDES themselves on doing all sorts of things with byproducts from potato processing. They actually have a DOCUMENTARY on it! Will the government pull THEM apart?

Steve

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9122949].message }}

RickCopy

10 years ago

this is the biggest joke ive ever heard of.

maybe im just one of those "heartless conservatives" (I dont subscribe to any political party) but I think it makes pretty good sense for people to just take care of themselves..I really dont see the point of taking money from people, giving it to the government, and then the government giving it back to us after taking their "administration costs" cut.

we dont need a smarter government, a cool government or a helpful government... we need people to understand what government actually is and to decide if, as a republic (US), we really need to be outsourcing as much stuff to them as we do. If you guys havent paid attention, .gov doesnt have the greatest track record as far as managing responsibilities, and yet year after year, more and more people want to the government to regulate this, tax this, criminalize this...and yet very few people seem to realize that they're just giving more and more money to an untrustworthy partner to do things they could do themselves better. That, and people nowadays simply think their opinion should somehow be considered for things they have absolutely nothing to do with.

They're nothing more than the overpriced designer on oDesk... unfortunately, we dont get to work with anyone else.

outsourcing, in its most effective form doesnt rely on the creativity or "smarts" of the person doing the work. You give them a specific task, with specific instructions and say "go". That's it. If I outsourced work to someone and they wanted to tinker with my project because they think its better "their way" theyd be fired on the spot.

If more people actually took responsibility for their lives, and we worked together to solve actual societal problems voluntarily instead of just outsourcing every bitch and whine we can think of to the government we probably wouldn't be facing the worst economical disaster of human history.

[ 4 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9150172].message }}

Joe Mobley 10 years ago

Originally Posted by RickCopy

If more people actually took responsibility for their lives,

As a Silver Bullet is to a Werewolf, so is Personal Responsibility to a socialist.
Joe Mobley
- [ 2 ] Thanks
Signature

.
Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9153126].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

I heard just this morning about an AMERICAN company that is SHUTTING DOWN!!!!!!!!!!! They are moving to the UK! WHY? Because, IRONICALLY, the UK will charge them 22% less in tax! The US government will take that extra 6% off the profit margin, and try to make ALL that buy through the US MAD at the "health care" industry!

Because of that 6% less profit, they have to provide less or CHARGE MORE just to break EVEN! And if THEY charge 6% more, that means the DISTRIBUTORS must charge still MORE! And if THEY pay more, the first buyer must pay more. That COULD go to ANOTHER buyer to increase yet AGAIN! And THEN, the final consumer must pay more! IMAGINE, you may pay 30% more because of TAXES!!!!!!!

Oh, and did I mention? This means you are LESS likely to buy, which means they make LESS profit and the US gets LESS "revenue"?

But the government wants you to think of lower taxes as SUBSIDIES and "CORPORATE WELFARE"! They want to make you think the TAX PAYERS are paying for it! News for you, companies almost NEVER pay, since it gets passed to the CONSUMERS!

As shakespeare once wrote.... "that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." So call it a tax, or a high price, you STILL pay it!

Anyway, that company, and all those American jobs are going BYE BYE! Pfizer, we hardly knew yee. Parting is such a sorrow. I only wish I could say it was sweet and hope we will last....

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9150396].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Interesting recent article here about the Swiss referendum:

Similar results were observed when North Carolina's Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians began distributing casino revenue as cash payments to all members of the tribe. After five years, by which time the yearly profits per person amounted to $6,000, the number in poverty declined by half, youth crime and mental illness decreased, and high school graduation rates increased.

According to an OpEd by science writer Moises Velasquez-Manoff in The New York Times, "5 to 10 years after age 19, the savings incurred by the Cherokee income supplements surpass the initial costs -- the payments to parents while the children were minors."

This suggests an answer to those who see guaranteed income only in terms of its cost to taxpayers: Everyone benefits from having reduced crime and health care expenditures and more educated and productive citizens. And there seems not to have been a substantial work disincentive, even though the payments had risen by 2006 to $9,000 per person.

Guaranteed income for every adult? It

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9152529].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Interesting recent article here about the Swiss referendum:

Similar results were observed when North Carolina's Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians began distributing casino revenue as cash payments to all members of the tribe. After five years, by which time the yearly profits per person amounted to $6,000, the number in poverty declined by half, youth crime and mental illness decreased, and high school graduation rates increased.

According to an OpEd by science writer Moises Velasquez-Manoff in The New York Times, "5 to 10 years after age 19, the savings incurred by the Cherokee income supplements surpass the initial costs -- the payments to parents while the children were minors."

This suggests an answer to those who see guaranteed income only in terms of its cost to taxpayers: Everyone benefits from having reduced crime and health care expenditures and more educated and productive citizens. And there seems not to have been a substantial work disincentive, even though the payments had risen by 2006 to $9,000 per person.

Guaranteed income for every adult? It

There's a big difference between sharing revenue from Indian casinos that are on Indian land that in fact all the Indians there own and redistributing taxes.
For one thing they're not taking a portion of someones earnings and giving it to someone else.
The casino money is more like profit sharing.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9152610].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

There's a big difference between sharing revenue from Indian casinos that are on Indian land that in fact all the Indians there own and redistributing taxes.
For one thing they're not taking a portion of someones earnings and giving it to someone else.
The casino money is more like profit sharing.

Sure, there's a difference but this provides a small case study on the effects of a minimum income. The results were interesting to me: lower crime rates, lower poverty rates, increased graduation rates, lower mental illness and a savings to the community that surpassed the initial costs! Don't you find that interesting also?

By the way Thom, I found an article about this topic titled "The Libertarian Case for a Basic Income". In it the author gives three libertarian arguments in support of a Basic Income Guarantee. #2 is especially compelling to me and brings to mind the reason I quoted Thomas Paine earlier.

1) A Basic Income Guarantee would be much better than the current welfare state...

Each one of those anti-poverty programs comes with its own bureaucracy and its own Byzantine set of rules. If you want to shrink the size and scope of government, eliminating those departments and replacing them with a program so simple it could virtually be administered by a computer seems like a good place to start. Eliminating bloated bureaucracies means more money in the hands of the poor and lower costs to the taxpayer. Win/Win...

2) A Basic Income Guarantee might be required on libertarian grounds as reparation for past injustice...

However attractive libertarianism might be in theory, “Libertarianism…Starting Now!” has the ring of special pleading, especially when it comes from the mouths of people who have by and large emerged at the top of the bloody and murderous mess that is our collective history...

In a world in which all property was acquired by peaceful processes of labor-mixing and voluntary trade, a tax-funded Basic Income Guarantee might plausibly be held to violate libertarian rights. But our world is not that world. And since we do not have the information that would be necessary to engage in a precise rectification of past injustices, and since simply ignoring those injustices seems unfair, perhaps something like a Basic Income Guarantee can be justified as an approximate rectification?

3. A Basic Income Guarantee might be required to meet the basic needs of the poor.

Both Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek advocated for something like a Basic Income Guarantee as a proper function of government, though on somewhat different grounds...

"The assurance of a certain minimum income for everyone, or a sort of floor below which nobody need fall even when he is unable to provide for himself, appears not only to be wholly legitimate protection against a risk common to all, but a necessary part of the Great Society in which the individual no longer has specific claims on the members of the particular small group into which he was born. "...

...a basic income is not merely a permissible option but a mandatory requirement of democratic legitimacy - a policy that must be instituted in order to justify the coercive power that even a Hayekian state would exercise over its citizens...

The Libertarian Case for a Basic Income | Libertarianism.org

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9152863].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Sure, there's a difference but this provides a small case study on the effects of a minimum income. The results were interesting to me: lower crime rates, lower poverty rates, increased graduation rates, lower mental illness and a savings to the community that surpassed the initial costs! Don't you find that interesting also?

By the way Thom, I found an article about this topic titled "The Libertarian Case for a Basic Income". In it the author gives three libertarian arguments in support of a Basic Income Guarantee. #2 is especially compelling to me and brings to mind the reason I quoted Thomas Paine earlier.

The Libertarian Case for a Basic Income | Libertarianism.org

As Artie Johnson of Laugh-In fame would say...

Very interesting.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9152925].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Sure, there's a difference but this provides a small case study on the effects of a minimum income. The results were interesting to me: lower crime rates, lower poverty rates, increased graduation rates, lower mental illness and a savings to the community that surpassed the initial costs! Don't you find that interesting also?

By the way Thom, I found an article about this topic titled "The Libertarian Case for a Basic Income". In it the author gives three libertarian arguments in support of a Basic Income Guarantee. #2 is especially compelling to me and brings to mind the reason I quoted Thomas Paine earlier.

The Libertarian Case for a Basic Income | Libertarianism.org

Again Tim, it's not a min. income it's profit sharing. It's not funded by other peoples tax money but by the casino profits. You don't think if profits go down the amount shared will also go down?
As for the Libertarian Case for basic income. I agree with #1, the rest not so much.
Implementing the rest could lead to a big bureaucracy again as people get greedy and demand more.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9152988].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Again Tim, it's not a min. income it's profit sharing. It's not funded by other peoples tax money but by the casino profits. You don't think if profits go down the amount shared will also go down?

I got that the first time you said it. You're right though. I worded my last response wrong. I should have said "Sure, there's a difference but this provides a small case study on the effects of an equal income provided to a community which could be useful to those contemplating the idea of a minimum income."

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9153632].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

I got that the first time you said it. You're right though. I worded my last response wrong. I should have said "Sure, there's a difference but this provides a small case study on the effects of an equal income provided to a community which could be useful to those contemplating the idea of a minimum income."

Yep it does, as long as the people live on a reservation. For that matter you could say the same about Alaska. Don't they all get a check from the oil companies?
If the government wants to abolish income taxes and give me a share of their profits I'm all for it.
Heck if they want to start a bunch of casinos and give me a share of the profits, I'm for that also.
I'm what you would call greedy. I would rather keep my money and decide who and how to help instead of giving it to the government. I don't get the logic of the government taking my money so they can give some of it back to me and crow about how they are helping me.
Look at all the taxes we have now. You get taxed when you make money and you get taxed when you spend money, pretty good racket they have

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9153673].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Yep it does, as long as the people live on a reservation. For that matter you could say the same about Alaska. Don't they all get a check from the oil companies?

Thom, the checks the citizens in Alaska get are about $900 a year which breaks down to $75 a month. The Cherokee tribe members get about $3500 to $4000 a month. One amount is similar to the amount the Swiss are proposing and the other is about 1/50th. Surely you can see why one would be used as an example for the Swiss proposal and the other wouldn't? I know where the money comes from is different, but to me the comparison makes sense. Of course that is just my opinion, and I think you disagree.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9155225].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Thom, the checks the citizens in Alaska get are about $900 a year which breaks down to $75 a month. The Cherokee tribe members get about $3500 to $4000 a month. One amount is similar to the amount the Swiss are proposing and the other is about 1/50th. Surely you can see why one would be used as an example for the Swiss proposal and the other wouldn't? I know where the money comes from is different, but to me the comparison makes sense. Of course that is just my opinion, and I think you disagree.

Of course you think the comparison makes sense.
If we both worked for the same company you as VP and me on the assembly line and we each got a % of their profit that is like what the Indians are doing.
If we both worked for the same company and I took a portion of your earnings because I felt I should make what you're making, that's what the Swiss want to do.
Big difference and you can't compare one to the other.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9155810].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Of course you think the comparison makes sense.
If we both worked for the same company you as VP and me on the assembly line and we each got a % of their profit that is like what the Indians are doing.
If we both worked for the same company and I took a portion of your earnings because I felt I should make what you're making, that's what the Swiss want to do.
Big difference and you can't compare one to the other.

Again, I understand they are different situations and how the money is obtained is also different. Geesh. What we are talking about are the results. In my opinion they can be compared. I don't see how the results of the community I posted earlier can be much different just by where the money comes from.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9155841].message }}

MikeAmbrosio

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Again, I understand they are different situations and how the money is obtained is also different. Geesh. What we are talking about are the results. In my opinion they can be compared. I don't see how the results of the community I posted earlier can be much different just by where the money comes from.

I can guess Thom's comments revolve around your seeming opinion that the ends justify the means.

I think the idea might have some merit, but how to achieve it is the sticking point.

But I could be wrong...

Thanks

Signature

Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9155901].message }}

seasoned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Interesting recent article here about the Swiss referendum:

Guaranteed income for every adult? It

You guys DO NOT GET IT!!!!!! The US is basically a CLOSED SYSTEM! SURE, there is money from other countries, but it is relatively minor and helps keep the value up normally. Besides, if we export something, we get a higher value in the other currency. But AGAIN, it is for products or services.

One idiot recently spoke of a $%^&* paradise claiming it was an example of such a system running successfully. FREE HEALTH CARE! FREE EDUCATION! MINIMUM INCOME for all, PENSIONS, etc..... Actually, it is an ABYSMAL FAILURE! WHY? Because it loses money ALL OVER THE PLACE! At times, it loses 100s of billions in ONE SHOT!

So HOW COME it has run"successfully" for a bit over 100 years or so? HOW can it pay all that money and keep going even though it loses money left and right? WELL, as the US ARMY, the US pays for it! Because it is an ABYSMAL failure as a closed economy, the US is paying EVEN TO THIS DAY! And what about the people that get the free income? WELL, if they start vacationing on the beach, or just don't go to work, they will likely be THROWN IN JAIL and/or discharged! They are either paid for someone that is working or has worked, or to be there and prepared in case they are called to do a given type of task.

But HEY, it was never meant to make money. IMAGINE if we had to make money on every war! What would they do in peace time?

About that indian group? It IS the LEAST they can do. Indians were given all those rights not so THEY could benefit, but so their SOCIETY and PEOPLE could. And SOME even go there just to support that. But you have a relatively large number of people risking who knows what to help a relatively small number of people. If indians ever dropped to practically nill, the government may not even view them as worthy. One could make a claim they aren't even indians, and it wouldn't be the first time a treaty was broken.

But to say a country could support all in it if all wanted to surf all day? YIKES! You have middle east countries that do it through the land rights and oil extracted from it. You have the militaries paid for by the countries, and the indians paid by special rights and land rights. They often offer gambling, tobacco products, and probably even guided tours, hiking, etc.... Even the UK with the pensions and "free health care", etc.... NEEDS people to work there. Heck, the indians and arabs do ALSO.

Steve
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9152631].message }}

Hopeless Bromantic

10 years ago

I'm having a very hard time buying the claim that most people who receive only a basic income will be content to sit around all day doing nothing.

Basic incomes let you survive, but don't offer much else. Wouldn't everyone would prefer to work so that they can live more decently?

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
_______________________________________________
"It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9152921].message }}

garyv

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic

I'm having a very hard time buying the claim that most people who receive only a basic income will be content to sit around all day doing nothing.

Basic incomes let you survive, but don't offer much else. Wouldn't everyone would prefer to work so that they can live more decently?

Come visit me near Chicago - I'll show you entire neighborhoods of people doing that for less than a basic income.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9153024].message }}

Hopeless Bromantic

10 years ago

Originally Posted by garyv

Come visit me near Chicago - I'll show you entire neighborhoods of people doing that for less than a basic income.

And you're sure it's all by choice on their parts? :rolleyes:

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
_______________________________________________
"It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9153135].message }}

whateverpedia

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic

And you're sure it's all by choice on their parts? :rolleyes:

Of course it is. After all, there are sooooo many jobs available. [/sarcasm]

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?

So that blind people can hate them as well.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9153577].message }}

garyv

10 years ago

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

Of course it is. After all, there are sooooo many jobs available. [/sarcasm]

And yet a minimum income is going to bring in some jobs for them to do? LOL - good luck with that.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9153641].message }}

whateverpedia

10 years ago

Originally Posted by garyv

And yet a minimum income is going to bring in some jobs for them to do? LOL - good luck with that.

I see, I see. The Swiss are having a referendum on bringing a minimum income to Chicago are they?

LOL back at ya. Twice, nay thrice.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?

So that blind people can hate them as well.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9153710].message }}

garyv

10 years ago

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

I see, I see. The Swiss are having a referendum on bringing a minimum income to Chicago are they?

LOL back at ya. Twice, nay thrice.

Minimum income is what this whole thread is about... Wow, this is like talking to a brick wall.

Never mind, carry on... I'm beginning to figure out the problem.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9154741].message }}

Hopeless Bromantic

10 years ago

Originally Posted by garyv

Minimum income what this whole thread is about... Wow, this is like talking to a brick wall.

Never mind, carry on... I'm beginning to figure out the problem.

So have we. Fraud in the welfare system and a minimum income - which doesn't change based on the number of kids you have - are not the same thing at all.

Outliers like Hasidic Jews and people who have more kids for "free money" ... anything to distract from the big picture. (sigh)

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
_______________________________________________
"It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9155174].message }}

MikeAmbrosio

10 years ago

So now go ahead - minimize the problem.

Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic

So have we. Fraud in the welfare system and a minimum income - which doesn't change based on the number of kids you have - are not the same thing at all.

Outliers like Hasidic Jews and people who have more kids for "free money" ... anything to distract from the big picture. (sigh)

I rest my case

[ 3 ] Thanks

Signature

Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9155202].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

I see, I see. The Swiss are having a referendum on bringing a minimum income to Chicago are they?

LOL back at ya. Twice, nay thrice.

NOPE! YKW is! It was JUST voted down, but they are going to push it through somehow.

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9154894].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

NOPE! YKW is! It was JUST voted down, but they are going to push it through somehow.

Steve

You are again getting minimum wage and minimum income mixed up. There hasn't been any minimum income bill in the US voted down or that will be pushed through somehow.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9155488].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

You are again getting minimum wage and minimum income mixed up. There hasn't been any minimum income bill in the US voted down or that will be pushed through somehow.

Whatever! OK, MINIMUM WAGE! STILL, ironically, the REAL minimum income, given a standard minimum wage work week, for 52 weeks will only go up about 1%. People like YOU don't see that as dumb and hypocritical, and a clear example of what ALWAYS happens, but I certainly do. USUALLY, the supposed increase drops in value because of inflation. HERE it dropped even BEFORE the minimum wage increase due to red tape and a STUPID change that, though it seems SIMPLE, triggers TONS of rules. Just those that I could rattle off from memory is STAGGERING, but it may only be a fraction of the ones that actually exist.

Oh well, I am happy it dropped when it did so people could maybe see that things like the rise in the minimum wage didn't start the whole thing.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9155673].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic

And you're sure it's all by choice on their parts? :rolleyes:

Of course Gary has this unique ability to drive by neighborhoods and determine the entire neighborhood is on welfare. :/ However, even if that was true it doesn't counter your point because people on welfare and people on a minimum income are different. For one thing, people can't work and get welfare usually, but they can work and receive a minimum income.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9153638].message }}

MikeAmbrosio

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Of course Gary has this unique ability to drive by neighborhoods and determine the entire neighborhood is on welfare. :/ However, even if that was true it doesn't counter your point because people on welfare and people on a minimum income are different. For one thing, people can't work and get welfare usually, but they can work and receive a minimum income.

Actually, I do. Not more than a mile from where I live.

There is a rapidly growing community of Hasidic Jews that a few years back was called the "poorest" town in the country (in towns with a population of I believe 20k or more). They determined them to be the poorest due to the high level of welfare.

So let me explain how it works and how they game the system...

First, when they marry, they only marry in their religion - NOT through the state. Next, they tend to have VERY large families. 6, 8, even 12 kids is not uncommon.

Now, because they are not "technically" married, the mothers are all considered "single mothers", who are of course, entitled to welfare of all kinds. And the more kids, the bigger the checks

Additionally, the men in the community tend to focus more on religion than education and work. And many of those who DO work, work in the diamond district in NYC as well as the garment district. And guess what? They work for a LOT of cash - which kind of blows your theory of people on welfare can't work. They simply work for cash

Unreported cash, I assure you.

Now let's talk about how they game the system more.

Come election time (local elections) they choose a candidate (NOT form their own community) who is sympathetic to their "causes" - which means the ones whose votes they can buy by assuring their election win. They do this by block voting - ALL eligible voters get on buses and go to the polls and vote as they are directed to.

Once they have these elected officials in their pocket, they run to the state for "aid" for SOME cause or need - then promptly use this PUBLIC money to build private schools, "affordable" housing that while CALLED public is nowhere NEAR public, houses of worship, an underground 10 mile water line to tap in to the NYC aqueduct (for unlimited expansion)...you name it.

And they get away with all of this.

Now, I do realize that this is just a small group, comparatively speaking. But they are responsible for taking our county budget from something like 60 million to over 180 million with MUCH of that spent on welfare for these "poor" people. And there's an even bigger community of them one county from us, and an even larger still community in Brooklyn.

It's tiring listening to people talk about "welfare cheaters" who don't want to work as a small problem. It's not and people need to open their eyes.

Yes, we have bigger issues. I get that. But people love to minimize this issue in the name of MORE public assistance programs (which we like to call enabling programs). The problem is real.

No matter how much you try to help people, a percentage (getting larger every day I would suspect) take advantage of those helping them.

So now go ahead - minimize the problem. Make some reason why it's not their fault, or the fault of the right - whatever. I have watched this BS for the past 25 years. The problem is real and in THIS state will continue to get worse.

[ 2 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9153695].message }}

ThomM 10 years ago

The problem is real and in THIS state will continue to get worse.

Mike if you drive by the "welfare" building in Troy you'll see some pretty expensive cars parked outside. Wait awhile and you'll see people coming out with a bunch of kids getting into those cars and driving away.
I used to do the grounds maintenance there and it was disgusting listening to those people talking outside while they had a smoke.They had the attitude of if they needed more money, they'd have another kid.
I'm not saying all welfare recipients are like that, but there sure are alot who think they are entitled to what they call free money.
- [ 5 ] Thanks
Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9153713].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio

Actually, I do.... welfare rant.....problem is real and in THIS state will continue to get worse.

That really does sound like a problem in your state Mike. I'm not sure why you think I would want to defend welfare fraud, if that is what is actually happening in your example. I also don't see the relevance to a minimum wage proposal. Well, actually maybe I do. It was stated in this thread earlier that the minimum income, if enacted along with eliminating all other social welfare programs, would make gaming the welfare system much harder, so perhaps you are presenting a good case in favor of the minimum income??

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9155253].message }}

MikeAmbrosio

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

That really does sound like a problem in your state Mike. I'm not sure why you think I would want to defend welfare fraud, if that is what is actually happening in your example. I also don't see the relevance to a minimum wage proposal. Well, actually maybe I do. It was stated in this thread earlier that the minimum income, if ennacted along with eliminating all other social welfare programs, would make gaming the welfare system much harder, so perhaps you are presenting a good case in favor of the minimum income??

My post was in response to the comment to Gary about being able to drive by a community and tell that the entire neighborhood is on welfare.

This is a live and real example of one that is. Just one - of which I know there's more.

And if a minimum income could - in the long run - keep people from gaming a welfare system, which in turn could save me and other tax PAYERS a few bucks, then yes. I am for it.

But call me jaded - I still don't believe in Utopia

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9155263].message }}

garyv

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

It was stated in this thread earlier that the minimum income, if enacted along with eliminating all other social welfare programs, would make gaming the welfare system much harder, so perhaps you are presenting a good case in favor of the minimum income??

Making a system larger, does not make it harder to game - quite the opposite.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9155302].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Originally Posted by garyv

Making a system larger, does not make it harder to game - quite the opposite.

Well, actually it wouldn't make the welfare system larger. It would eliminate it. How would someone game a minimum income? I can think of forging a citizenship perhaps, but what other ways would it be gamed?

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9155480].message }}

SteveJohnson

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Well, actually it wouldn't make the welfare system larger. It would eliminate it. How would someone game a minimum income? I can think of forging a citizenship perhaps, but what other ways would it be gamed?

Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio

I can guess Thom's comments revolve around your seeming opinion that the ends justify the means.

I think the idea might have some merit, but how to achieve it is the sticking point.

But I could be wrong...

One thing that would have to change in the US is the open borders, 'look the other way', immigration policy of the last few administrations.

Instead of being known for the 'American Dream' (whether that's realistic now is another discussion) we'd be known for the 'American Handout'.

I don't see it ever happening.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9156021].message }}

Hopeless Bromantic

10 years ago

Originally Posted by SteveJohnson

One thing that would have to change in the US is the open borders, 'look the other way', immigration policy of the last few administrations.

Instead of being known for the 'American Dream' (whether that's realistic now is another discussion) we'd be known for the 'American Handout'.

I don't see it ever happening.

Stopping that kind of immigration, or even putting a major dent in it, is impossible without sealing off - and militarizing - the land border with Mexico. Just out of curiosity, is that something you'd be in favor of?

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
_______________________________________________
"It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9156209].message }}

MikeAmbrosio

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic

Stopping that kind of immigration, or even putting a major dent in it, is impossible without sealing off - and militarizing - the land border with Mexico. Just out of curiosity, is that something you'd be in favor of?

I don't see where he said anything about stopping it. He said it has to change. I love when people think in extreme's this way just to prove some point

But Steve is right. While I agree that stopping is impossible, we CAN tighten it up. And more importantly, we can stop saying "gee, yes they're here illegally, but they just want to work" (or some such) then hand them a SS card, drivers licenses and free health care.

If they want to come here, make them go through channels.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9156231].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio

I don't see where he said anything about stopping it. He said it has to change. I love when people think in extreme's this way just to prove some point

Well, we COULD treat everyone the way the law USED to work. If companies can't account for paid money, they should pay taxes on it. If they are ever caught paying an illegal, have them pay fines, etc...

But Steve is right. While I agree that stopping is impossible, we CAN tighten it up. And more importantly, we can stop saying "gee, yes they're here illegally, but they just want to work" (or some such) then hand them a SS card, drivers licenses and free health care.

HERE'S a thought! How about....

SS CARD? Apply! Follow all the laws! STUDY! Learn English! Pass the citizenship test, etc... THEN we'll talk!

Drivers License? You need what you can't have, so NO LICENSE, and treat driving without a license more harshly. WHY should I have to pay more for being hit by an unlicensed driver? There should be a tax on those people encouraging them to come here to pay for such garbage.

Free health care? GO HOME!!!!!!

If they want to come here, make them go through channels.

EXACTLY!

So they want to work. BIG DEAL! US citizens are complaining THEY can't get work. US citizens should come first in the US! I'm not going to OTHER countries illegally and requesting to work THERE! HECK, I even balk at the idea of them paying taxes. Let's say that all jobs paid the same.

An ILLEGAL presents a net benefit to the government of TAX-UNEMPLOYMENT! They take a job a US citizen could have. ALSO, money is likely moved out of the country.
A US Citizen presents a net benefit to the government of TAX.

And there are taxes an illegal would never dare to pay.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9156305].message }}

SteveJohnson

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic

Stopping that kind of immigration, or even putting a major dent in it, is impossible without sealing off - and militarizing - the land border with Mexico. Just out of curiosity, is that something you'd be in favor of?

The fence that was by law supposed to be built would have put a 'major dent' in the level of illegal immigration from Mexico.

And as far as militarization goes, have you tried to cross a US border at one of the official crossings lately? The not-so-breaking news is the crossings are already 'militarized'

Just so there's no question, I am TOTALLY in favor of more effective border control. Absolutely. If that means flying drones to patrol the border, then do it. If building a fence will help, then get on it.

You seem - correct me if I'm wrong, I could very well be - to have said in regard to Obamacare something to the effect that "It's the law, get over it."

There are laws in place governing immigration into this country. Do they not mean anything to you? Or do you think the executive of the country - whomever it may be - should be able to selectively enforce our laws?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9156317].message }}

Hopeless Bromantic

10 years ago

Originally Posted by SteveJohnson

You seem - correct me if I'm wrong, I could very well be - to have said in regard to Obamacare something to the effect that "It's the law, get over it."

There are laws in place governing immigration into this country. Do they not mean anything to you? Or do you think the executive of the country - whomever it may be - should be able to selectively enforce our laws?

Fair question. For the record, I'm extremely disappointed with how porous the borders are (and always have been). From the perspective of someone who's done a fair amount of international traveling, I have no problem with the immigration laws themselves, and the executive branch should be enforcing all laws, regardless of who runs it. Hope that was clear enough.

Thanks

Signature

Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
_______________________________________________
"It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9157524].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Originally Posted by SteveJohnson

One thing that would have to change in the US is the open borders, 'look the other way', immigration policy of the last few administrations.

Instead of being known for the 'American Dream' (whether that's realistic now is another discussion) we'd be known for the 'American Handout'.

I don't see it ever happening.

I thought people coming in illegally was at an all-time low and people being deported was at an all time high.

The vast majority of those type of people already here are not leaving - so what happens next?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9160074].message }}

Kay King

10 years ago

It's a bit of a joke no matter who is in power. We've never finished a wall. Look at Israel - I don't approve of the walls built there...but they are plain HIGH walls and they work pretty well to keep people in or out.

Want to "create jobs"? Put people to work on the border building a real wall. Build temp housing for them to live in (more jobs) and then turn that housing into low cost housing after the wall is built in that area. Pay them govt contractor salaries and provide mess tents so they can eat on site.

Or - Instead of releasing thousands of military personal into an economy where jobs are scarce - why not put them on the border and get it under control once and for all?

We've been counting those turned back while trying to get across our border as "deported" so the numbers looked better than they were for several years.

We can close our border if we have the will to do it. So far we don't. That could change overnight if a terrorist attack happens that can be traced to an illegal border crossing.

[ 1 ] Thanks
3 replies

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9160216].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

It's a bit of a joke no matter who is in power. We've never finished a wall. Look at Israel - I don't approve of the walls built there...but they are plain HIGH walls and they work pretty well to keep people in or out.

Want to "create jobs"? Put people to work on the border building a real wall. Build temp housing for them to live in (more jobs) and then turn that housing into low cost housing after the wall is built in that area. Pay them govt contractor salaries and provide mess tents so they can eat on site.

Or - Instead of releasing thousands of military personal into an economy where jobs are scarce - why not put them on the border and get it under control once and for all?

We've been counting those turned back while trying to get across our border as "deported" so the numbers looked better than they were for several years.

We can close our border if we have the will to do it. So far we don't. That could change overnight if a terrorist attack happens that can be traced to an illegal border crossing.

Ironically, just this morning, I heard a story.... Amarine made a wrong turn, ended up in mexico, and was JAILED! He has been there a MONTH so far!

Marine jailed for driving into Mexico with guns | Military.com

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9160493].message }}

Hopeless Bromantic

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

It's a bit of a joke no matter who is in power. We've never finished a wall. Look at Israel - I don't approve of the walls built there...but they are plain HIGH walls and they work pretty well to keep people in or out.
...
We can close our border if we have the will to do it. So far we don't. That could change overnight if a terrorist attack happens that can be traced to an illegal border crossing.

The Swiss are much luckier: it's extremely hard to cross the terrain on their borders - which is why they maintained independence for so long.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
_______________________________________________
"It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9160545].message }}

seasoned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic

The Swiss are much luckier: it's extremely hard to cross the terrain on their borders - which is why they maintained independence for so long.

I toured a few countries in the late 80s. Switzerland was the ONLY one that asked to seemy passport. THEY noticed that denmark stamped it wrong!
- Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9160666].message }}
- Joe Mobley 10 years ago
  
  Instead of a vote on a minimum income of $33,000 for all US citizens,
  
  How about a vote by US citizens for a MAXIMUM income of $33,000 for all US Congress(wo)men?
  
  Retirement pay to be adjusted (down) accordingly.
  
  That pay can not be raised until ALL on-book and off-book deficits of the Federal Government are paid in full.
  
  Joe Mobley
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  .
  Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9160970].message }}

Kurt

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

It's a bit of a joke no matter who is in power. We've never finished a wall. Look at Israel - I don't approve of the walls built there...but they are plain HIGH walls and they work pretty well to keep people in or out.

Israel is much, much smaller than the US, with a much, much bigger danger from its neighbors.

Want to "create jobs"? Put people to work on the border building a real wall. Build temp housing for them to live in (more jobs) and then turn that housing into low cost housing after the wall is built in that area. Pay them govt contractor salaries and provide mess tents so they can eat on site.

Or - Instead of releasing thousands of military personal into an economy where jobs are scarce - why not put them on the border and get it under control once and for all?

Or, create and enforce laws that penalize the people that employ illegals and use the wall building resources to build renewable green energy.

I would seriously consider using military on the border to help with the drug cartel problems though.

We can close our border if we have the will to do it. So far we don't. That could change overnight if a terrorist attack happens that can be traced to an illegal border crossing.

It already happened with 9/11, but I guess we didn't think building a wall across the Canadian/US border was worth it.

BTW, when speaking of walls, does anyone consider the impact on nature and environment? Walls keep wildlife in and out, too. Wildlife in the desert SW is already under enough stress. Now people want to place walls between them and maybe their only source of water in many areas.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9161011].message }}

Kay King 10 years ago

Kurt - My wall comments are half tongue in cheek.

I've been hearing pols on both sides talk about "a wall" since the 80's.
That was going to happen right after 3 million illegals were given amnesty. Then had more millions given amnesty and a wall was going to be built. If we're going to build a wall - let's finish a wall and get it over with. If we aren't, let's admit it and move on.
- Thanks
Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
***
One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
what it is instead of what you think it should be.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9161167].message }}

garyv

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Well, actually it wouldn't make the welfare system larger. It would eliminate it. How would someone game a minimum income? I can think of forging a citizenship perhaps, but what other ways would it be gamed?

Ok - I must admit I may have been looking at this wrong. Are you saying that this minimum income would only be for those that are working? Or is this income for everyone?

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9156198].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Originally Posted by garyv

Ok - I must admit I may have been looking at this wrong. Are you saying that this minimum income would only be for those that are working? Or is this income for everyone?

It would be for everyone Gary.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9156470].message }}

garyv 10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

It would be for everyone Gary.

So I guess I wasn't looking at this wrong. This is like welfare on steroids.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9157412].message }}

ForumGuru

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

For one thing, people can't work and get welfare usually, but they can work and receive a minimum income.

#1) The fact is tons of people work under the table AND receive welfare benefits. Seriously, if you don't realize this fact you have your head stuck in the sand, or you have not known very many people that have collected welfare benefits.

#2 Another fact is you can work, and make a substantial amount of money, and still collect some benefits from state welfare departments and federal anti-poverty programs.

Check the Pennsylvania SNAP Income Limit Eligibility Table for example...

SNAP Income Limits

Checkout the amount of income you can earn in Iowa and still apply for Section 8 housing..

https://www.dmgov.org/Departments/Ho.../section8.aspx

And we know earn some cash working and still get a big discount on Obamacare:

http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/21/news...are-subsidies/

Talk about minimum income??? OK...let's talk about Welfare paying more than teachers, secretaries, and even computer programmers earn.

The state-by-state estimates are based on a hypothetical family participating in about seven of the 126 federal anti-poverty programs: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; the Women, Infants and Children program; Medicaid; Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; and receiving help on housing and utilities.

In Hawaii, that translates into a 2013 package of $49,175 — up $7,265 from an inflation-adjusted $41,910 in 1995. Rounding out the top five areas for welfare benefits, along with their 2013 amounts, were: the District of Columbia ($43,099), Massachusetts ($42,515), Connecticut ($38,761) and New Jersey ($38,728).

The authors found that in 11 states, “welfare pays more than the average pretax first-year wage for a teacher [in those states]. In 39 states, it pays more than the starting wage for a secretary. And, in the three most generous states a person on welfare can take home more money than an entry-level computer programmer."

Work or Welfare: What Pays More? - Real Time Economics - WSJ

Cheers

-don

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9477143].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic

I'm having a very hard time buying the claim that most people who receive only a basic income will be content to sit around all day doing nothing.

Basic incomes let you survive, but don't offer much else. Wouldn't everyone would prefer to work so that they can live more decently?

Sorry, you CAN'T argue FACT! Denmark did studies and found it was true! HERE people have been interviewed, etc... that are DOING IT.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9153140].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Heck, I one time volunteered for a charity. One WOMAN called a work application a RESUME, and seemed to indicate that it was the first job she applied for. As I recall, she had a child, but she wasn't some young kid. But she was applying for a minimum wage job! HECK, you hear things like the minimum wage now. Last I heard, it lost by 6 votes.

YKW is talking about how it will do all these fantastic things. He DOESN'T talk about how he recently cut the REAL minimum wage by 27.5%! He ALSO cut per capita productivity by an average of 27.5%! Coincidentally, the minimum HOURLY wage will raise raise the REAL minimum wage by a little less than 28.22%! This means that in terms of REAL INCOME, the average VERY lucky minimum wage worker will get a 0.72% raise! SURE, they may get an average extra 11 extra hours free time, but that is only the LUCKY ones!

He ALSO didn't mention how the CBO said:

What Effects Would Those Options Have?
The $10.10 option would have substantially larger effects on employment and income than the $9.00 option would—because more workers would see their wages rise; the change in their wages would be greater; and, CBO expects, employment would be more responsive to a minimum-wage increase that was larger and was subsequently adjusted for inflation. The net effect of either option on the federal budget would probably be small.

Effects of the $10.10 Option on Employment and Income
Once fully implemented in the second half of 2016, the $10.10 option would reduce total employment by about 500,000 workers, or 0.3 percent, CBO projects (see the table below). As with any such estimates, however, the actual losses could be smaller or larger; in CBO’s assessment, there is about a two-thirds chance that the effect would be in the range between a very slight reduction in employment and a reduction in employment of 1.0 million workers.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44995

Frankly, I don't think they are figuring that right. Things will be WORSE! You can't just keep raising the wage, and it has gone up a LOT this year! The only difference HERE is that the employees may actually get a few of the things called dollars. I hesitate to call them dollars, as the value WILL drop, making the whole thing a WASH, as it always does!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9153172].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_r_v9cYBPY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pCOTlYPn0U

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9154914].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

What I don't understand is that this has been tried perhaps EVERYWHERE! It has been tried in the US about 29 times since 1938(inclusive). And the success rate is obviously ZERO! But people aways seem to think the NEXT time it will lead to some kind of paradise for all.

EVENTUALLY, everyone will be a millionaire. Why don't we pay everyone $663.13 an hour? HEY, everyone will be a millionare! Never mind that milk might cost $660 per gallon? Never mind that all the pensions will be TOAST! The poor will all be MILLIONARES! I mean it will happen ANYWAY! We will just speed it up some.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9156173].message }}

tj

10 years ago

Minimum Income for every citizen would not work out at all because their is no need for the citizen to produce an equal amount of useable productivity.

Timo

Thanks

Signature

BIG BRAND Copywriting - Sales Letters + Bonuses for Warriors. $97 - Guaranteed! | OFFER NOT CONVERTING ? Need People to take action NOW?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9156705].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

I'll settle for a decent min wage slowly but surely integrated into the economy.

Its a fact that growth in income along with the growth of the economy has not happened for the average American.

The income line is flat for the last 30 odd years - when compared to inflation and income inequality has mushroomed and non wealthy Americans share of the income generated in the economy has gone way down from the glory days of 1945 to about 1980.

Yes, 1980 IMHO, is a clearly demarcation point in the prosperity and standard of living of average earning Americans.

For one, the top tax rates were cut from about 70% to about 35% and that's a big cut enabling the wealthy to keep more of what they earned coupled with the passive income tax rates being cut at the same time or so, so its no wonder wealthy Americans have made out handsomely over the last 30 years.

The federal gov moved away from working for the middle class and began working for the wealthy and large corporations.

IMHO...

- The top rates need to go up to at least 45% and it needs to be actually collected.

- The gravy giveaways in the tax code for the already wealthy and large corporations need to be rescinded.

- Passive income needs to be taxed the same as ordinary income.

My question is why should investment/passive income not be taxed the same as ordinary income when the rational for doing so had long been shedded - thanks to the fact that most investment income these days has nothing to do with helping the economy in general?

The income the feds receive from these "revenue enhancements" (that won't affect 95% of the American people)...

... can be used to invest in the country and the people of the country and will help usher in a new American golden age.

BTW Tim,

There's a new book out that says that capitalism in its natural state - that is without heavy regulation etc. and fairly high top tax rates will...

... naturally produce a society in which the lives of most of the population is financially precarious - mostly treading water, and also characterized by a much smaller middle class than America had in the post WW2 boom and a much larger poor class. In short IMHO, a feudal society.

Unfettered capitalism is bad for the vast majority of Americans but great for the already wealthy and large corporations.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9157126].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

I settle for a decent min wage slowly but surely integrated with the economy.

Right now, the average person getting a minimum wage is making a veritable FORTUNE today by measures as recent as 1975!!!!!!! A year ago, They made only $10 less per year than the average american in 1979!

Its a fact that growth in income along with the growth of the economy has not happened for the average American.

WOW! OK, this year you are saying that the minimum wage should have gone up by maybe 0.00725/hour! OK, NOW, that means the YEARLY income should have gone up $10.93 That is the full amount they should have gotten THIS YEAR! But what happens when it is revised down? Should they have to give it back? If computers do well, does that mean baggers should get a raise?

The income line is flat for the last 30 odd years - when compared to inflation and income inequality has mushroomed and non wealthy Americans share of the income generated in the economy has gone way down from the glory days of 1945 to about 1980.

Yeah, NASTY thing that inflation! So why do you want to play both sides of the street? PICK A SIDE! You can make the poor RICH in number and low in value, or recognize that pay is supposed to be based on supply and contribution, and there will ALWAYS be "inequality". HEY, I never wanted to be a billionare. Those that got there honestly I have NOTHING against.

Yes, 1980 IMHO, is a clearly demarcation point in the prosperity and standard of living of average earning Americans.

For one, the top tax rates were cut from about 70% to about 35% and that's a big cut enabling the wealthy to keep more of what they earned coupled with the passive income tax rates being cut at the same time or so, so its no wonder wealthy Americans have made out handsomely over the last 30 years.

Looking at merely the tax rates doesn't cut it! I mean I can look at 2%, and say HEY, they got to keep ******AT LEAST****** 98%! But you can NOT look at 70% and say they paid the government 70%.

HEY, I LIVED through the 80s! They got rid of a LOT of deductions! They ALSO added maximums. They ALSO started classing income, and charging tax there. When they made those changes, my taxes went UP! GRANTED, I was not one that paid 70% earlier, but things that hit me hit many of the rich.

IMHO...

- The top rates need to go up to at least 45% and it needs to be actually collected.

WHY? And you want this in ADDITION to the minimum wage and healthcare? NOT going to happen! People will leave left and right.

- The gravy giveaways in the tax code for the already wealthy and large corporations need to be rescinded.

I wonder! have you EVER looked at those "giveaways"?

- Passive income needs to be taxed the same as ordinary income.

OK, a lot of retirees are going to hate your guts, as they will have to go back to work, etc....

My question is why should investment/passive income not be taxed the same as ordinary income when the rational for doing so had long been shedded - thanks to the fact that most investment income these days has nothing to do with helping the economy in general?

The government would have to SHUT DOWN FOR GOOD if "passive income" stopped! You know those mortgages paid for by BONDS, and the US savings BONDS, MUNICIPAL BONDS and the Treasury BONDS!? And how do you think facebook and google got to be able to do so much? STOCK! Doesn't do much? Yeah right!

BTW you will HATE this! Municipal bonds are often free of ALL city and state tax! Federal bonds are free of city, state, AND federal tax!

The income the feds receive from these revenue enhancements (that won't affect 95% of the American people)...

ACTUALLY, it WILL affect about 95% of the american people!

... can be used to invest in the country and the people of the country and help usher in a new American golden age.

You REALLY don't think the "public sector" won't want "their cut"? DREAM ON!

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9157471].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

Right now, the average person getting a minimum wage is making a veritable FORTUNE today by measures as recent as 1975!!!!!!! A year ago, They made only $10 less per year than the average american in 1979!

WOW! OK, this year you are saying that the minimum wage should have gone up by maybe 0.00725/hour! OK, NOW, that means the YEARLY income should have gone up $10.93 That is the full amount they should have gotten THIS YEAR! But what happens when it is revised down? Should they have to give it back? If computers do well, does that mean baggers should get a raise?

Yeah, NASTY thing that inflation! So why do you want to play both sides of the street? PICK A SIDE! You can make the poor RICH in number and low in value, or recognize that pay is supposed to be based on supply and contribution, and there will ALWAYS be "inequality". HEY, I never wanted to be a billionare. Those that got there honestly I have NOTHING against.

Looking at merely the tax rates doesn't cut it! I mean I can look at 2%, and say HEY, they got to keep ******AT LEAST****** 98%! But you can NOT look at 70% and say they paid the government 70%.

HEY, I LIVED through the 80s! They got rid of a LOT of deductions! They ALSO added maximums. They ALSO started classing income, and charging tax there. When they made those changes, my taxes went UP! GRANTED, I was not one that paid 70% earlier, but things that hit me hit many of the rich.

WHY? And you want this in ADDITION to the minimum wage and healthcare? NOT going to happen! People will leave left and right.

I wonder! have you EVER looked at those "giveaways"?

OK, a lot of retirees are going to hate your guts, as they will have to go back to work, etc....

The government would have to SHUT DOWN FOR GOOD if "passive income" stopped! You know those mortgages paid for by BONDS, and the US savings BONDS, MUNICIPAL BONDS and the Treasury BONDS!? And how do you think facebook and google got to be able to do so much? STOCK! Doesn't do much? Yeah right!

ACTUALLY, it WILL affect about 95% of the american people!

You REALLY don't think the "public sector" won't want "their cut"? DREAM ON!

Steve

Say what you will but...

Those tax related policies I endorsed above just happened to coincide with average Americans having a very high standard of living - in fact the envy of the world.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9157486].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

Say what you will but...

Those tax related policies I endorsed above just happened to coincide with average Americans having a very high standard of living in fact the envy of the world.

OK, this tax rate or higher was from 1936 to 1981

They ALSO had LOTS of deductions. And the actual tax RATE, and the number of people in higher tax brackets kept going up! In 1936, MOST paid 4%. In 1981, MOST paid 21%.

But HEY! Discussing this is dumb. Just go in withdraw ALL YOUR MONEY, and BURN IT! Take the ashes, and throw them down a sewer drain.

Are you better off? If so, GLAD TO HEAR IT! Ask all the poor to do the same, and we can live in peace. If I want to suffer, that is MY problem! Are you NOT better off? If not, what are you advocating?

1. The supreme court is mostly to harass people and, SUPPOSEDLY, balance out the others. Of course, they are ALSO supposed to be limited by the constitution.
2. The Executive branch is to let the public know about the state of the union, harass people, start wars and, SUPPOSEDLY, balance out the others. Of course, they are ALSO supposed to be limited by the constitution.
3. Congress is SUPPOSEDLY to lay out a budget, get financing, harass people, and balance out the others! Of course, they are ALSO supposed to be restricted by Section 8!

FIRST of all, CONGRESS hasn't laid out a reasonable budget in about a CENTURY! They decided that the taxpayers should pay for ALL, and figure a law is a law, and so they can do ANYTHING they want!

Among that is collecting taxpayers money so THEY can spend it as THEY see fit!

And things like Education are being made WORSE, and they are paying MORE to do so. I guess that DOES help publishing, building, teachers, and tutors. But WHY get more books to make things worse? WHY build new buildings to make things worse? WHY pay teachers to dumb things down? WHY pay tutors to do the teachers jobs after paying the teachers to NOT work?

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9157590].message }}

Joe Mobley

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

Unfettered capitalism is bad for the vast majority of Americans but great for the already wealthy and large corporations.

Let's have a look...

First, I'll toss out "unfettered" as it is just an emotion charged word meant to vilify any form of capitalism. Now, let's see what we have,

capitalism is bad for the vast majority of Americans but great for the already wealthy and large corporations.

Hmm... I wonder if there might be a reasonable example of capitalism at work that most people could understand?

Could the answer be right in front of your face?! The laptop I am typing on has over 100 times the specs of my first computer at about 1/6 the cost.

I, like many of you, have a cell-phone (smart-phone?) with better specs than most computers of just a few years ago.

I have a less-than-$200 tablet that I can video call a virtual assistant in the Philippines or pretty much anywhere in the world.

Yea, capitalism has certainly been a huge kick in the butt to the vast majority of Americans.

Who the hell needs that new Telegraph-thing when we have the Pony Express? What we need are faster horses!

Joe Capitalist Mobley

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

.

Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9171535].message }}

Hopeless Bromantic

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Joe Mobley

Let's have a look...

First, I'll toss out "unfettered" as it is just an emotion charged word meant to vilify any form of capitalism.

Nope. "Unfettered" in this context means "unregulated." As a result, the rest of what you said misses the point.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
_______________________________________________
"It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9171675].message }}

TLTheLiberator 10 years ago

Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic

Nope. "Unfettered" in this context means "unregulated." As a result, the rest of what you said misses the point.

Totally. -------------------------------------------
- Thanks
Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9171694].message }}

Joe Mobley

10 years ago

Nope!

The computer / cell phone / technology market in general is a good (though not perfect) example of a reasonably regulated capitalist market. That market has benefited both the "great and the small" for decades.

Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic

Nope. "Unfettered" in this context means "unregulated." As a result, the rest of what you said misses the point.

I see facts, logic and reason are not high priorities to you.

Joe Mobley

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

.

Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9171724].message }}

Hopeless Bromantic

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Joe Mobley

Nope!

The computer / cell phone / technology market in general is a good (though not perfect) example of a reasonably regulated capitalist market. That market has benefited both the "great and the small" for decades.

I see facts, logic and reason are not high priorities to you.

Joe Mobley

When all else fails, you try to get the thread closed, I see.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
_______________________________________________
"It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9171858].message }}

whateverpedia

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Joe Mobley

Let's have a look...

First, I'll toss out "unfettered" as it is just an emotion charged word meant to vilify any form of capitalism. Now, let's see what we have,

Hmm... I wonder if there might be a reasonable example of capitalism at work that most people could understand?

Could the answer be right in front of your face?! The laptop I am typing on has over 100 times the specs of my first computer at about 1/6 the cost.

I, like many of you, have a cell-phone (smart-phone?) with better specs than most computers of just a few years ago.

I have a less-than-$200 tablet that I can video call a virtual assistant in the Philippines or pretty much anywhere in the world.

Yea, capitalism has certainly been a huge kick in the butt to the vast majority of Americans.

Who the hell needs that new Telegraph-thing when we have the Pony Express? What we need are faster horses!

Joe Capitalist Mobley

How much of this new technology is manufactured in your country?

The technology you describe has made a variety of tasks easier to perform.

They have also destroyed the manufacturing base of yours and other countries.

It all depends on which you value more. Would you like to see more of your fellow countrymen in decent jobs, or would you like to "outsource" everything to boost the Phillipino economy?

The inherent flaw in "unfettered" (I don't have a problem with using that word) capitalism is that nothing else matters except money. Which is of course why you would rather pay someone in the Phillipines than one of your fellow countrymen.

Yea, capitalism has certainly been a huge kick in the butt to the vast majority of Americans.

Especially those who used to make a living making stuff. You know the ones who used to work in all those empty factories that fill your country.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?

So that blind people can hate them as well.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9172096].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

How much of this new technology is manufactured in your country?

A lot of it USED to be, and was created here! Much of the rest is based on things that were developed here.

The technology you describe has made a variety of tasks easier to perform.

YEP, including OTHERS! HECK, they have robotic harvesters for crops!

They have also destroyed the manufacturing base of yours and other countries.

That is because of the GOVERNMENT! There is an international conspiracy. I COULD say it started one place, and others do it simply to compete, but there are LOTS of similarities, so the rules are coming from the SAME place. Countries that I KNOW are affected include canada, the UK, and germany, as well as the US.

It all depends on which you value more. Would you like to see more of your fellow countrymen in decent jobs, or would you like to "outsource" everything to boost the Phillipino economy?

If we outsourced EVERYTHING, we would REALLY have problems.

The inherent flaw in "unfettered" (I don't have a problem with using that word) capitalism is that nothing else matters except money. Which is of course why you would rather pay someone in the Phillipines than one of your fellow countrymen.

Are you saying we should pay a million dollars for a computer? PROFIT MATTERS! The government gives subsidies and special consideration for such things. Companies have to do all this to compete. I could tell you a few other things, alas....

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9172114].message }}

brunski57

10 years ago

This is NOT a New idea! It has been tried thought-out history with devastating results.

It is very stupid, but there are enough stupid people in the world, who will keep trying to make it work. But it never will... because it goes against human nature.

It attracts the lowest common dominator of humans... who are basically parasites. Eventually the host and the parasite die!

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9165906].message }}

TimPhelan 10 years ago

Originally Posted by brunski57

This is NOT a New idea! It has been tried thought-out history with devastating results.

Nope. Hasn't been done before. We're talking about a minimum income in a democratic country that is top ranked for economic freedom. Switzerland is #4 according to the Heritage foundation. Name one other time something like this has been done. USSR? China? Not the same thing at all.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature
Over 50 Dating
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9169213].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Millionaires Support Raising the Minimum Wage And Higher Taxes On The Rich | ThinkProgress

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9170114].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

Millionaires Support Raising the Minimum Wage And Higher Taxes On The Rich | ThinkProgress

Let's dispense with all emotion here. Let's DISPENSE with the idea that you are talking about 1/2 of "the 1%". Let's even not both with the question of why they don't pay more.

WHY should perhaps 50% of the US pay more taxes at the request of 0.5%? I know you might be dyslexic, or not see clearly. THAT is why I always try to prefix a decimal point with at least one digit. But 0.5%is, ironically, ONE PERCENT of 50%! So WHY do I claim 50%? Because I found out quickly when I was a kid that anyone that appears to have money seems rich to MANY claiming to have less. ALSO, taxes are NEVER levied just on the rich.

FURTHER, WHY pay more anyway? If you pay more, they think they have more, and they SPEND more! Paying them money is like giving a young kid a credit card!

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9170264].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

Let's dispense with all emotion here. Let's DISPENSE with the idea that you are talking about 1/2 of "the 1%". Let's even not both with the question of why they don't pay more.

WHY should perhaps 50% of the US pay more taxes at the request of 0.5%? I know you might be dyslexic, or not see clearly. THAT is why I always try to prefix a decimal point with at least one digit. But 0.5%is, ironically, ONE PERCENT of 50%! So WHY do I claim 50%? Because I found out quickly when I was a kid that anyone that appears to have money seems rich to MANY claiming to have less. ALSO, taxes are NEVER levied just on the rich.

FURTHER, WHY pay more anyway? If you pay more, they think they have more, and they SPEND more! Paying them money is like giving a young kid a credit card!

Steve

Not sure what you're talking about but I'm pretty sure your economic attitudes won't help this country become a nation in which there is plenty of opportunity and prosperity for anyone who wants it.

There's really no use of getting into an economic discussion with you since we can't seem to agree on basic statistics.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9170740].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

Not sure what you're talking about but I'm pretty sure your economic attitudes won't help this country become a nation in which there is plenty of opportunity and prosperity for anyone who wants it.

There's really no use of getting into an economic discussion with you since we can't seem to agree on basic statistics.

The fact that we even have a platform to agree proves there WOULD be plenty of opportunity and prosperity, because there HAS been.

And of course everyone wants it! Who wouldn't like to be able to go anywhere in piece and be the sole user of anything.

SOME say they want it ABSOLUTELY! Some of them even work to that goal in the only feasible way, and become DICTATORS! Of course SOME forgo the personal peace part and become CRIMINALS within another society!

SOME try to APPEAR reasonable, and claim some as a right, where they can sit back and not worry about, some "baseline" existence. This is what the governments are moving towards now. BTW that baseline almost ALWAYS moves up! There WAS a time when heated homes, electricity, gas, running water, computers, tv, etc... didn't exist, but they are now ALL in that baseline!

And SOME try to work towards something BETWEEN those goals by providing something of value to others. THIS is what we had and THIS is what I want!

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9170822].message }}

Hopeless Bromantic 10 years ago

"0.5% is one percent of 50%??!!"

Wow. Just, wow. I'm going to have to save that one.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
_______________________________________________
"It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9170883].message }}
- seasoned 10 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic
  
  "0.5% is one percent of 50%??!!"
  
  Wow. Just, wow. I'm going to have to save that one.
  
  I think you know.... 50/100=.5
  
  But YEAH, numerically....
  
  100*50%=50
  100*.5%=0.5
  
  Steve
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9170959].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

It IS ironic! A person spends NOTHING to get where they are, LEARNS nothing to get where they are, RISKS nothing to be where they are, and they want a minimum wage. That SAME person does business with someone that SPENT a LOT and/or LEARNED a lot, and/or RISKS a lot, and complains about even some of the lowest prices being to high.

And what do KIDS do now? Minimum wage jobs were supposed to be ENTRY LEVEL! One college said that they allow various students to work for minimum wage, 8.25/hour. If they show they are good workers, their pay is bumped up to 15.75/hour! They said that, at 10,10, fewer students will get the opportunity!

THEY want regulation to make THEIR wage as high as possible, but regulation to LOWER the other guys wage.

YEAH, that computer got to where it is because of CAPITALISM!!!!!!!

OH YEAH, it must have been HORRIBLE! In 1969, a JAPANESE company asked for 12 chips for a new calculator. Yeah, those capiltalist pig idiots in the US said effectively, NAW!!!!! We're too lazy! Will give you FOUR! *****BUT***** ONE could be PROGRAMMED for whatever you want! A little 16 pin IC. But HEY, it was the first time a CPU had ever been put onto an IC. The company was probably a virtual UNKNOWN! It was known as INTEL! In a couple years, it became world famous!

And YEAH, NASTY CAPITALISM! A company DARED to create another CPU, MOTOROLA! INTEL HAD COMPETITION! OOOPS! They had to up their game. Every time they did, the price went down as the power went up. But WAIT, ANOTHER company popped up, and they had to worry MORE, EXXON of all companies! They created a subsidiary called ZILOG!

So INTEL made a mistake! It was a DISASTER! Competitors were nipping at their heels, but the public wanted SOMETHING! Intel ran out of resources! So they made a deal with some companies. Once they succeeded, they ran a huge campaign trying to KILL their earlier failure. ALAS, nearly EVERY company that helped them out merely upgraded the design! OH, they sued ALL the companies until they cried uncle, or went out of business. One in its near final gasp uttered, when they lost the final suit,.... "TOO LATE!

" They redesigned the chip! So a competitor existed, just as they thought they won. THAT was AMD.

OH, there have been others that have come and gone, but they spread the technology, and intel made it that much better. One, for example, came out with low power technology. I think intel bought them, but about that time, INTEL started using low power technology.

ONE decided they should probably do only what intel did with the 80286(That failure I mentioned earlier), so they are. THEY are ARM. Although perhaps 100% intel instruction set incompatible, they have become a viable competitor to intel. Even APPLE, and GOOGLE, uses them.

Now intel COULD have stopped with the 4004. People could have been happy. But capitalism FORCED innovation. Oh, and some DID get rich!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9171619].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

The whole idea of capitalism is that it IS regulated!

If a price is too high, people won't buy it! The government is now even FORCING people to buy what they can't afford!

If the public won't buy it at the lowest reasonable price, the product will CEASE to be offered! The government NOW may NEVER discontinue such a product!

If a product has some failing, it will eventually likely be fixed to keep the product profitable. The government now may NEVER fix a problem!

Of course, risks and regulations fall into this as well. Tryptophan, for example, is a REQUIRED nutrient and was sold for over a decade or so, but ONE foreign company came up with a stupid untested theory and about 20 deaths, out of MILLIONS, caused a scare that caused the FDA to BAN it. They stopped selling it during that ban.

Take that processor, that I spoke of earlier. INTEL had to make all those chips and sell this chip, that birthed an entire industry, for about what a company was willing to pay for a chip that could only do basic math! If they failed to hit that mark, the company would likely go ELSEWHERE! HP, TI, and likely a few other companies were likely offering these chips around that time, and could certainly produce such chips. And that is just in the US! There were a LOT of other companies capable of fabricating such chips.

As for monopolies? There IS the Sherman Anti Trust act! And many of these companies fear competition SO much, that they will quickly patent or trademark an aspect. One company recently(only a couple months ago) had an ENTIRE SHIPMENT of product SEIZED!!!!!!!! WHY? Was it contraband? NO! Was it harmful? NO! Did it violate any trademarks? Not really. Was it deceptive? NOPE! It was seized because it was the WRONG COLOR!!!!!!

A competitor had a special kind of trademark on case and panel color, and the government seized all such products with that color scheme. Luckily, the owner of the other devices made a special exception and gave the company thedollar value of their product, and the company got the color scheme changed to avoid it in the future.

But HEY, INTEL patented a lot of THEIR CPU. They sued the pants off of companies they had no right to do so to. The manufacturing agreement included the right to use the technology, and to sell the finished product. Intel just figured that, when they killed the 286, that agreement would be worthless! They were WRONG!

But AMD reworked the product, and ended up being a competitor. NOW, apparently, Intel is ahead. But AMD could pull ahead soon again. If they do, you can bet INTEL will. But AMD can't charge much more for their processor. If INTEL charged much more, they would QUICKLY lose market share.

My new computer is an INTEL i5! If I were offered an i3 at the same price, AMD would get my business! If this computer cost $100 more, AMD would get my business. TRUE STORY!

Yeah, capitalism, properly done, DOES limit ITSELF!

HEY, Let's lookathow the US government regulates EDUCATION, ok?

It costs a LOT, but people are forced to PAY!

Since we are FORCED to pay the GOVERNMENT, we have to consider that money GONE if we use a private school. Private schools DO often cost LESS! VOUCHERS are an answer, but the unions are AGAINST it!

We must ACCEPT what they do! A father recently(only DAYS ago) found that a school was leading his daughter through a perverted and pornographic book. He went to the schools meeting to discuss it, and was ARRESTED! http://www.cbsnews.com/news/dad-arre...ol-assignment/

They are constantly making it WORSE!

The government never worries about risks.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9172083].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

BTW I don't know if there are really a lot of empty factories...

HERE is an ugly epitaph to a GM plant that was in van nuys for a good chunk of my life:

The Plant – A shopping center built on the site of the old Van Nuys General Motors plant, stores include Home Depot, Babies "R" Us, Ross Dress for Less, Michael's, Party City, Regency Theatres, Spice Club (also known as The Hello Kitty Store), and a Golden Dragon multiplex. Living Spaces recently opened its third store in this shopping center.

Don't you love that! It USED tobe a GM plant, and now it is a MALL called "THE PLANT".

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9172122].message }}

SteveJohnson

10 years ago

How much of this new technology is manufactured in your country?

The technology you describe has made a variety of tasks easier to perform.

They have also destroyed the manufacturing base of yours and other countries.

It all depends on which you value more. Would you like to see more of your fellow countrymen in decent jobs, or would you like to "outsource" everything to boost the Phillipino economy?

The inherent flaw in "unfettered" (I don't have a problem with using that word) capitalism is that nothing else matters except money. Which is of course why you would rather pay someone in the Phillipines than one of your fellow countrymen.

Quote:
Yea, capitalism has certainly been a huge kick in the butt to the vast majority of Americans.
Especially those who used to make a living making stuff. You know the ones who used to work in all those empty factories that fill your country.

I don't think anyone here has argued for 'unfettered' capitalism. We all recognize that human nature makes unfettered anything a bad proposition (including government). It's more than a little disingenuous that some of you keep trying to throw this into the mix by falsely equating 'less regulation' to 'no regulation.'

It seems to me that a good many industries have gone by the wayside over the years. We have always seemed to adapt, somehow. People who hung on too long had a rough time of it, I suppose.

Some of the industries fell from progress, others from regulation or lawsuits.

'Unfettered' lawsuits decimated the private aircraft industry. 'Unfettered' liability lawsuits shut down Blitz USA, throwing over 100 people out of work.

The advent of petroleum and electricity wiped out the whaling industry (well, that and the shortage of whales).

Henry Ford almost single-handedly destroyed countless buggy manufacturers and liveries.

Even now, newspapers are seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. The smart owners recognize that it's the headlight of the electronic train.

But the one thing that is constant through all of this, and that drives the progress that has allowed new industries to thrive and cut others off at the knees - the possibility of profit, of growing wealth. Henry Ford didn't dream up the automation of building his cars just as an after-dinner exercise. Sam Walton didn't revamp his distribution system just for something to do.

[ 2 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9172185].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by SteveJohnson

But the one thing that is constant through all of this, and that drives the progress that has allowed new industries to thrive and cut others off at the knees - the possibility of profit, of growing wealth. Henry Ford didn't dream up the automation of building his cars just as an after-dinner exercise. Sam Walton didn't revamp his distribution system just for something to do.

Not only this, but there was an organization that actually managed to get PAID to HURT the car industry, limit innovation, and limit competition. For one, they tried to get all to use their obsolete, EVEN FOR THE TIME, plans. Ford wanted to build cars in an area with a big competitor,so it was a major mark against ford. The organization *****WAS***** called ALAM! Ford started everything designed the car, etc... went to ALAM, and ALAM said ****NO****! Ford was NOT to sell cars! Anyway, he COULD have given up, and laid off his workers, but he didn't. He kept manufacturing, and contesting the lawsuit. ALAMs lawsuit was baseless on every count, but they figured this was their only job, so it ran for 8 years!!!!!

Ford eventually won, with stock on hand. They provided a better vehicle that was easier to use and at a LOW COST! With ALAMs patent expiring, and other manufacturers having to update their products, just to COMPETE, ALAM is GONE now!

I thought this garbage was relatively new, but ALAM tried to argue that a steerable 4 wheel self powered device was patented by them, and thus could be controlled by them. Never mind that such devices were made earlier and obvious. Never mind that ford's car didn't look or work the same. Even the TYPE of engine and fuel were different.

And look at walmart! They pay some people VERY well just to find realestate, and figure out how to fit into the culture. OH, it can vary in the US, but they are all over the world.
Still, they have pretty low prices.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9172981].message }}

whateverpedia

10 years ago

Originally Posted by SteveJohnson

Henry Ford almost single-handedly destroyed countless buggy manufacturers and liveries.

Agreed. However the buggy manufacturers were able to get jobs at Ford. One skilled, well paid occupation was replaced by another.

The skilled, well paid jobs that are being "creatively destroyed" now aren't being replaced. What is replacing them are low/no skill jobs for minimum wage and on a "zero hour" basis.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?

So that blind people can hate them as well.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9173023].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Getting back to the minimum income idea, a recent poll suprisingly showed more people in Canada favored a guaranteed minimum income than oppose it. Canada is another country that ranks high in the economic freedom country ranking by the Heritage Foundation. It ranks #6.

The poll found 46 per cent of Canadians strongly (19 per cent) or somewhat (27 per cent) favour such a policy. Another 42 per cent said they strongly (25 per cent) or somewhat (17 per cent) oppose the idea. About 10 per cent said it would depend on how such a program was actually implemented or had no opinion.

A guaranteed annual income is a single, cash payment that would replace all current social programs, such as welfare and employment insurance...

It would create a minimum income below which no Canadian would fall. Statistics Canada now sets a "low-income line" at about $22,200 for a single person and $47,000 for a family with three children.

New poll shows surprising support for anti-poverty plan: Hepburn | Toronto Star

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9173406].message }}

Max Anderson

10 years ago

There are some political parties in Germany who propose the same...

However I think this will just result in a massive price increase and inflation.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9172645].message }}

Hopeless Bromantic 10 years ago

Originally Posted by Max Anderson

There are some political parties in Germany who propose the same...

However I think this will just result in a massive price increase and inflation.

Very unlikely, if all the employers cut their annual salaries by $33k And why shouldn't they? It would be nothing but good for their profits.
- Thanks
- 2 replies
Signature

Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
_______________________________________________
"It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9173688].message }}
- SteveJohnson 10 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic
  
  Very unlikely, if all the employers cut their annual salaries by $33k And why shouldn't they? It would be nothing but good for their profits.
  
  They'll have to, because after the taxes to pay the minimum income for everyone else, they won't have the money anyway
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  Signature
  
  The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.
  
  Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9173825].message }}
  
  Hopeless Bromantic 10 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by SteveJohnson
  
  They'll have to, because after the taxes to pay the minimum income for everyone else, they won't have the money anyway
  
  Also keeping inflation in check. I rest my case.
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  Signature
  
  Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
  _______________________________________________
  "It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9173915].message }}
  
  seasoned 10 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic
  
  Also keeping inflation in check. I rest my case.
  
  Fewer people will work, making the money worth less and there will be less product, but it will be at a HIGHER COST!
  
  Steve
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9474119].message }}
- seasoned 10 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic
  
  Very unlikely, if all the employers cut their annual salaries by $33k And why shouldn't they? It would be nothing but good for their profits.
  
  In OTHER WORDS, current workers would get an automatic pay CUT! If someone made $33K, and had it cut $33K, would they still work? NO WAY!!!!!!!!
  
  AND, suppose it hit that magic number so that NOBODY was paying taxes? WHERE would the $33K come from?
  
  HECK, after a certain point, being a doctor or some such would not seem worth it. Working at ALL would not be worth it. Of course, this assumes an ABSENCE of INFLATION!
  
  If inflation happened, as expected, the $33K would be practically WORTHLESS!!!!!!
  
  HEY! They german mark has often been considered a strong currency. YET, between 1919 and 1933 the currency became virtually WORTHLESS! The average pay was on the order of BILLIONS of marks! Let's put that in perspective.... Today, 1billion marks would be worth $711,886,000 USD! In 1923 a loaf of bread cost 200 BILLION marks!!!!!! It has happened before, including the us and other countries, and there is NOTHING to stop it from happening again in the US. And imagine how this will affect those that saved for college or are retired.
  
  SORRY, you can NOT wish inflation away like that! It is a ratio of expenses to income, and is INTERNATIONAL! To do what you want, the money would always have to be equal and controlled country wide,ideally with other countries so tied. They ARE trying that and it is so far FAILING. It is called COMMUNISM! It IS interesting how they CLAIM it is to help the average citizen and yet they have the BIGGEST discrepancies of ALL!
  
  Steve
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9173973].message }}

socialentry

Banned 10 years ago

Hm. This thread only has two stars.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9281591].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Originally Posted by socialentry

Hm. This thread only has two stars.

It's a vast right wing conspiracy I tell ya.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9281784].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

So, lately there has been a few interesting articles about the Basic Income idea. Interesting because the articles show that this idea has people from all sides talking about it and it might be surprising which sides are for it and which against.

From the left.
July 8:
The Case for a Guaranteed Minimum Income*|*David Vognar

Income redistribution in the form of guaranteed income is a much smarter solution. Whereas government control over the day-to-day working of the economy has come under criticism from most economists since the days of Adam Smith's invisible hand argument, modern economists, such as Ostry, Berg and Tsangarides, are finding that income redistribution as an alternative can enhance growth in certain cases.

From the right.
Aug 4:
The Pragmatic Libertarian Case for a Basic Income Guarantee | Cato Unbound

In what follows, I will make the case for a Basic Income Guarantee (BIG) as a replacement for the current welfare state. There are a number of distinct ways of arguing from libertarian premises to a BIG, some of which I have discussed in the past. In this essay, however, I will focus on what I take to be the strongest and most persuasive libertarian argument. I will argue that a BIG, even if it is not ideal from a libertarian perspective, is significantly better on libertarian grounds than our current welfare state, and has a much higher likelihood of being achieved in a world in which most people reject libertarian views.

Aug 6:
The Conservative Case for a Guaranteed Basic Income - The Atlantic

Apart from lifting millions out of poverty, the plans promote efficiency and a shrinking of the federal bureaucracy.

From Paul Krugman:

the currently trendy idea among libertarians that we can make things much better by replacing the welfare state with a basic guaranteed income.".

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...ian-fantasies/

Aug 26:
Money for nothing: Mincome experiment could pay dividends 40 years on | Al Jazeera America

For those on the left, basic income represents a chance to strengthen the social safety net and more evenly redistribute wealth, while some American libertarians view it as a way to cut back on bureaucracy and provide individuals with greater personal choice...

Karl Widerquist, an academic and vocal supporter of basic income, suggested its rising popularity in the U.S. springs from concern over income inequality spurred by the Great Recession. "It's really incredible how much it's grown so fast, and there's no telling where it will go," he said.

Thanks
3 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9473236].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

So, lately there has been a few interesting articles about the Basic Income idea. Interesting because the articles show that this idea has people from all sides talking about it and it might be surprising which sides are for it and which against.

From the left.
July 8:
The Case for a Guaranteed Minimum Income*|*David Vognar

From the right.
Aug 4:
The Pragmatic Libertarian Case for a Basic Income Guarantee | Cato Unbound

Aug 6:
The Conservative Case for a Guaranteed Basic Income - The Atlantic

From Paul Krugman:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...ian-fantasies/

Aug 26:
Money for nothing: Mincome experiment could pay dividends 40 years on | Al Jazeera America

Doesn't it make more sense to stop printing money at will and restore the value of the dollar?
The Rising Price Of the Falling Dollar - Forbes

The real cause of inflation becomes apparent once we use the correct definition of inflation. In a nutshell: Inflation is a decline in the value of money. The decline in a currency's value will eventually become apparent as a general rise in the the prices of goods, services and labor. However, these price changes occur simply as a reaction to the fall in the currency's value (or sometimes in anticipation of that fall).

Don't Let Me Stop You: The Real Cause of Inflation

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9473327].message }}

Alexa Smith Banned 10 years ago

Thanks for the updates/links.

Can't remember whether I mentioned this before (and am not really proposing to read 5 pages to check) but this idea has always interested me. Partly because they do say it appeals to people on both the left and the right, and as the saying goes, "sometimes there's truth at both ends but never in the middle".

.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9473438].message }}
- Kay King 10 years ago
  
  I always thought the truth was somewhere in the middle and totally distorted at both ends.
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
  ***
  One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
  what it is instead of what you think it should be.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9473505].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Doesn't it make more sense to stop printing money at will and restore the value of the dollar?
The Rising Price Of the Falling Dollar - Forbes
Don't Let Me Stop You: The Real Cause of Inflation

Different subject I think. Plus, those articles are little dated. The dollar isn't really falling now and inflation is pretty much at normal historical levels.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9473880].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Different subject I think. Plus, those articles are little dated. The dollar isn't really falling now and inflation is pretty much at normal historical levels.

How is it a different subject?
The value is still falling. Something purchased in 2013 for $20 would cost 20.45 today.Inflation Calculator | Find US Dollar's Value from 1913-2014
On that same page it shows the inflation rate rose slightly in July but is still showing a 2% inflation rate for the year.

Inflation is caused by the value of the dollar falling, higher gas, food, and utility prices (among others) is the result.
Simply giving people money like the ideas you support devalues the dollar more causing more inflation.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9473999].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

How is it a different subject?
The value is still falling. Something purchased in 2013 for $20 would cost 20.45 today.Inflation Calculator | Find US Dollar's Value from 1913-2014
On that same page it shows the inflation rate rose slightly in July but is still showing a 2% inflation rate for the year.

Inflation is caused by the value of the dollar falling, higher gas, food, and utility prices (among others) is the result.
Simply giving people money like the ideas you support devalues the dollar more causing more inflation.

About my earlier statement of the value of $10000 100 years ago? That site says the $10,000 would be like $238,260.00 today!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9474248].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

So, lately there has been a few interesting articles about the Basic Income idea. Interesting because the articles show that this idea has people from all sides talking about it and it might be surprising which sides are for it and which against.

From the left.
July 8:
The Case for a Guaranteed Minimum Income*|*David Vognar

From the right.
Aug 4:
The Pragmatic Libertarian Case for a Basic Income Guarantee | Cato Unbound

Aug 6:
The Conservative Case for a Guaranteed Basic Income - The Atlantic

From Paul Krugman:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...ian-fantasies/

Aug 26:
Money for nothing: Mincome experiment could pay dividends 40 years on | Al Jazeera America

It really IS an INCREDIBLY STUPID IDEA!

They ALUDE to how STUPID it is without even realizing it!

Murray estimates a $10,000 flat cash payment would suffice; I think $30,000 is more like it to make it in today's world.

Only 100 years ago, $10,000 was a veritable FORTUNE!!!!!!!!!!!!! So WHAT happened?

If they are SO sure of themselves, why not give everyone $100,000 credit? HEY, we don't even have to print it! HEY WAIT A SECOND!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They DID give a number of people $100,000+ credit! You know what happened? Housing Finance and the 2008 Financial Crisis | Downsizing the Federal Government

Don't you guys realize that we keep doing all these STUPID ideas, and all that happens is the GOAL changes! So WHO gets hurt? The older people that have been saving all their lives! They may have saved a FORTUNE, but you guys do your plans that make you like moth larva and their money is like WOOL! The fortune becomes a veritable PITTANCE!!!!!!!!! It happens ALL THE TIME, and you NEVER see it! THEN, one day, you go WAAAAAAAAAAA WAAAAAAAAA WAAAAAAAA You march like crying babies on the street once again talking about how *******YOU******* ********FINALLY******** feel the pain! Do you say you are sorry? NOPE! Do you make up for it? NOPE! Do you LEARN? NOPE! You just SAY WAAAAAAA PAY *****US***** MORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9474092].message }}

SteveJohnson

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

So, lately there has been a few interesting articles about the Basic Income idea. Interesting because the articles show that this idea has people from all sides talking about it and it might be surprising which sides are for it and which against.

From the left.
July 8:
The Case for a Guaranteed Minimum Income*|*David Vognar

From the right.
Aug 4:
The Pragmatic Libertarian Case for a Basic Income Guarantee | Cato Unbound

Aug 6:
The Conservative Case for a Guaranteed Basic Income - The Atlantic

From Paul Krugman:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...ian-fantasies/

Aug 26:
Money for nothing: Mincome experiment could pay dividends 40 years on | Al Jazeera America

You try so hard to paint this idea as something other than pure socialism, in much the same fashion as your trying to lay off Obamacare as being embraced by conservatives at the Heritage Institute. True social conservatives and libertarians don't agree with the idea of a basic income - they see embracing it as a means to an end, the end being the dismantling of the welfare state that the US has become. They believe at the core that taking something from one man by force and giving it to another - redistribution of income - is fundamentally wrong.

The right-leaning voices that are giving support to the idea - perhaps 'support' is a strong word - are doing it from a pragmatic standpoint. They see this scheme as less damaging than the one that is in place now, and a move toward smaller and less intrusive government in general.

Don't think for a minute that anyone other than statists - and of course the Pauls to whom Peter's confiscated/stolen money is being given to - are in love with the idea of a basic income.

[ 2 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9474421].message }}

Kay King

10 years ago

I think everyone should have a shot at a decent life

I don't think anyone would disagree with that. However, when you "give a tool" to one person....someone else must provide that tool.

There will always be a segment of society that needs help to survive - and it's our responsibility to help them. Today we have a significant segment of society that want "more and more" without much effort on their part.

Public education is a "shot at a decent life". Forget the arguments over global standing, etc. In school a child can learn as much as he is willing to learn. He has the tools of a classroom and textbooks and a library.

Help with higher education? I'm all for that - but only for those students who prepare to take advantage of it. You want help with school costs - then work in high school and graduate in the top 10% of your class.

We have the most spoiled group of young people any society has seen. They are uneducated - but "it's not their fault". We blame the govt and the teachers and the administrators and racism and sexism and being geographically undesirable...we hand out excuses like candy.

High dropout rate? Not the student's fault and, you must understand, their parents are trying their best....it's society's fault, it's the fault of the rich or...

You shouldn't get a trophy in life for showing up! If you are born in a country where you have food/water/shelter provided that will keep you alive....you've already won the damned life lottery.

It's time we started expecting people to live up to their potential instead of providing excuses for them when they don't.

We toss out words like communism and socialism but the meanings have been *******ized. In a commune everyone contributes in order to support the whole community. Socialism only refers to the community as a whole determining production and exchange of goods.

The model so many seem to want is to take from Person A who has worked hard to educate himself and move ahead in life (or inherited weath from ancestor who moved ahead in life)....and give to Person B who dropped out of school, doesn't want to work but feels he "deserves" something.

What is that - the "leech model" of society?

Personally - I'd love a guaranteed income. I have simple needs and have never been high maintenance. I'd simplify life to the point where I could live on my "stipend" and I'd enjoy it immensely.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9475910].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

IPersonally - I'd love a guaranteed income. I have simple needs and have never been high maintenance. I'd simplify life to the point where I could live on my "stipend" and I'd enjoy it immensely.

There you go. I won you over.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9476264].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

There you go. I won you over.

*****BULL*****! Who WOULDN'T like it!?!?!?!?!? THAT is why those STUPID ideas keep coming up! HEY, I would love it TOO! Have you won ME over? NOPE! Look at the fairy tales, etc.... The appreciation of the good in this idea is TENS of MILLENIA old! YEP, it is in the Bible! It was ANCIENT when your great great great great great great great grandfathers families probably hadn't even started yet.

The reason why people like me hate this is because we realize it is unsustainable. Besides, it amounts to THEFT! As I said, the biggest losers are the retirees.

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9477359].message }}

ForumGuru

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

*****BULL*****! Who WOULDN'T like it!?!?!?!?!? THAT is why those STUPID ideas keep coming up! HEY, I would love it TOO! Have you won ME over? NOPE! Look at the fairy tales, etc.... The appreciation of the good in this idea is TENS of MILLENIA old! YEP, it is in the Bible! It was ANCIENT when your great great great great great great great grandfathers families probably hadn't even started yet.

The reason why people like me hate this is because we realize it is unsustainable. Besides, it amounts to THEFT! As I said, the biggest losers are the retirees.

Steve

Yeah, and we can't forget the prophet Mohammad's father-in-law, the first Muslim Caliph Abu Bakr who went beyond zakat and introduced a guaranteed standard of income during his tenure in 632-634 CE. Maybe his model is sustainable today? Just kidding....

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9477387].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Steve, first of all thank you for managing to post a coherent and fairly well reasoned response without having to use 300 exclamation points, a few dozen aterisks and shouting with caps. ( Some defend Seasoned's habit of posting this way saying it's only his "style" and he's not shouting. BS. It's rude, offensive, boorish and boring. Plus, when you don't add anything of value to the conversation except for incoherent nonsense... well, I'd just prefer him to stay out of the conversation.)

Originally Posted by SteveJohnson

You try so hard to paint this idea as something other than pure socialism,

Of course it's socialism. Where am I denying that?

in much the same fashion as your trying to lay off Obamacare as being embraced by conservatives at the Heritage Institute.

We probably shouldn't get into this issue but I stand by my past comments about Obamcare which were: The individual mandate as opposed to an employer mandate was a conservative idea that the Heritage Foundation also proposed as an alternative to Clinton's universal health care plan. It was also used first by a conservative governor. I never said Obamacare was embraced by conservatives at the Heritage Foundation.

True social conservatives and libertarians don't agree with the idea of a basic income - they see embracing it as a means to an end, the end being the dismantling of the welfare state that the US has become.

When I hear the word "true" before conservative or libertarian I am skeptical because I have heard many, many use that term to describe what they perceive to be a "true" whatever. There is traditionalist conservatism, Christian conservatism, limited government conservatism, neoconservatism, paleoconservatism, libertarian conservatism, etc... Then you can break down libertarianism into different types also.

I'm also not buying the idea that someone would want to pass a basic income law into place as a way to end the welfare state. It would replace the welfare state as most envision it, but I don't see how logically one could look at it as a way to ending the welfare state.

The right-leaning voices that are giving support to the idea - perhaps 'support' is a strong word - are doing it from a pragmatic standpoint. They see this scheme as less damaging than the one that is in place now, and a move toward smaller and less intrusive government in general.

Right, as the title in one of the article I posted says "The Pragmatic Libertarian Case for a Basic Income Guarantee"

Don't think for a minute that anyone other than statists - and of course the Pauls to whom Peter's confiscated/stolen money is being given to - are in love with the idea of a basic income.

Using words and phrases like "confiscated", "stolen" and "taken by force" to describe taxation just seems like over the top rhetoric that doesn't help your argument imo.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9476180].message }}

Dan Riffle

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

I'm also not buying the idea that someone would want to pass a basic income law into place as a way to end the welfare state. It would replace the welfare state as most envision it, but I don't see how logically one could look at it as a way to ending the welfare state.

Tim, would you mind expanding on your thought in bold? If everyone is receiving $33,000, who's left to receive welfare?

This isn't a "gotcha", this is a legitimate question.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Raising a child is akin to knowing you're getting fired in 18 years and having to train your replacement without actively sabotaging them.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9476212].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Dan Riffle

Tim, would you mind expanding on your thought in bold? If everyone is receiving $33,000, who's left to receive welfare?

This isn't a "gotcha", this is a legitimate question.

Dan, I am not completely clear as to what Steve was saying. The implication I got from his statement was that some want to have a basic income as a way to ultimately ending the welfare state. Well, as you say, if everyone received a certain basic income nobody would need welfare. Most of the basic income proposals I have seen use the basic income to replace welfare programs, so what I took Steve's statement to mean was that some of the right's supporters are only doing this as a first step, to pass a basic income, because it would be easier to dismantle in the future than the current welfare state? Which doesn't make sense to me because most basic income proposals I see would expand those who receive the income to include all adult citizens. So, making it larger to ultimately dismantle it seems illogical.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9476283].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Using words and phrases like "confiscated", "stolen" and "taken by force" to describe taxation just seems like over the top rhetoric that doesn't help your argument imo.

Or the truth. If you don't pay your income tax you are threatened with force to either pay or go to prison.
Try to buy anything and not pay the sales tax. What happens? You are forced to pay the tax in order to purchase the item.
So no it's not over the top rhetoric, but the truth.

So tell me Tim where would the money come from for you basic income ideas? Raising taxes on corporation to fund it would just force more corporations (and jobs) out of the country. The only way you could tax the people who receive it would be to tax them the amount you give them. Printing more money to give them just further decreases the value of that money and causes a high rate of inflation. So where does the money come from?

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9476347].message }}

Kay King

10 years ago

Tim and I are going to live in side by side tiny houses in the woods with solar power and no expenses....so there.

I finally figured it out - the people on the dole don't care where the money comes from as long as it comes to them. They are in the 50% that don't pay fed income taxes so they don't worry about that, either. I want to be on the "don't worry" side.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9476387].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

Tim and I are going to live in side by side tiny houses in the woods with solar power and no expenses....so there.

I finally figured it out - the people on the dole don't care where the money comes from as long as it comes to them. They are in the 50% that don't pay fed income taxes so they don't worry about that, either. I want to be on the "don't worry" side.

Won't the woods shade the panels?

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9476399].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Won't the woods shade the panels?

That's PART of her point! THEY DON'T CARE! If THEY want to stay in the woods, and need 10 times as many solar panels because of it, the government simply steals ten times as much, and gets them the panels, fully installed!

NOBODY cares about the CO2! It is a TAX/power GAME! Don't believe me? Look at all the INCREDIBLY expensive and extravagant vacations that EACH pump MORE CO2 into the air than ANY of our immediate families could HOPE to generate in a YEAR! Look at AL GORE'S MAIN home that EASILY creates 7times the waste of any other persons home on this site! HECK, look at the CASE on his book "ERTH N THE BLNC"(INTENTIONALLY MISPELLED TO HURT GOOGLE QUERIES.).

SERIOUSLY! I am sensitive to some things, and don't want to even BE NEAR plastic like that used in Al Gores book case.

Steve

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9477374].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

For example in 2008, when the dividend reached it's peak, a family of five would have received $16,345. It went down after the financial crisis but the fund has grown to a new high since and dividends should be higher in the future.

For one person in 2008 the payout was $2,069.00 + $1,200 Alaska Resource Rebate.
2009 $1,305.00
2010 $1,281.00
2011 $1,174.00
2012 $878.00
2013 $900.00

So except for going up $22 from 2012 to 2013 it's been declining since 2008.
Where's this new high you say it's grown to and where's even the slightest proof it will be higher in the future?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9477392].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Where's this new high you say it's grown to and where's even the slightest proof it will be higher in the future?

The fund itself is at a record high at an estimated $53 billion.

The Alaska Permanent Fund Corp. predicts the size of the annual dividend check that qualifying Alaskans will receive this year will be considerably more than the $900 checks distributed in 2013, and may approach the all-time record...

The reason for the big bump in money Alaskans will get this fall: The 2009 fiscal year has dropped out of the five-year rolling average used to calculate the amount of money going toward dividends. The Alaska Permanent Fund Corp. -- the state agency that runs and manages the fund, now estimated at about $53 billion -- uses fiscal years, which run from July 1 to June 30, in its calculations.

In 2009, much of the nation was still in a deep recession. That year marked the only time that the permanent fund, which has issued checks to Alaskans every year since 1982, showed a net statutory loss. Burns said in fiscal year 2009, the fund lost about $2.5 billion. With that year now out of the picture, Burns said, the dividend calculation jumped.

Size of 2014 Permanent Fund dividend checks may double from 2013 | Alaska Dispatch

Someone better tell those dumb Alaskans that what they are doing is wrong, stupid, unsustainable, not truely conservative, totalitarianism, socialistic, was done in the bible, etc... lol.

By the way, we should find out what the dividend checks are going to be soon because they are going to mailed out on Oct 2.

Thanks

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9477576].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

That's PART of her point! THEY DON'T CARE! If THEY want to stay in the woods, and need 10 times as many solar panels because of it, the government simply steals ten times as much, and gets them the panels, fully installed!

NOBODY cares about the CO2! It is a TAX/power GAME! Don't believe me? Look at all the INCREDIBLY expensive and extravagant vacations that EACH pump MORE CO2 into the air than ANY of our immediate families could HOPE to generate in a YEAR! Look at AL GORE'S MAIN home that EASILY creates 7times the waste of any other persons home on this site! HECK, look at the CASE on his book "ERTH N THE BLNC"(INTENTIONALLY MISPELLED TO HURT GOOGLE QUERIES.).

SERIOUSLY! I am sensitive to some things, and don't want to even BE NEAR plastic like that used in Al Gores book case.

Steve

Steve I know that. When the government is promoting and subsidizing agricultural practices that are far more hazardous to the climate and environment then the things they apply a carbon tax to, it's pretty obvious.

Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9477397].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Or the truth. If you don't pay your income tax you are threatened with force to either pay or go to prison.
Try to buy anything and not pay the sales tax. What happens? You are forced to pay the tax in order to purchase the item.
So no it's not over the top rhetoric, but the truth.

Sure, and taxes are implemented in every country in the world. Taxes are a price to pay to live in a civilized society even if we disagree with what that society does with those taxes.

So tell me Tim where would the money come from for you basic income ideas? Raising taxes on corporation to fund it would just force more corporations (and jobs) out of the country. The only way you could tax the people who receive it would be to tax them the amount you give them. Printing more money to give them just further decreases the value of that money and causes a high rate of inflation. So where does the money come from?

These aren't my ideas Thom. Like I said earlier in this thread, I find the idea intriguing and wouldn't mind having Switzerland experiment with it before the US does. Actually, I can't see the US ever trying something like this first. Not any more anyways.

There are different ways to fund the basic income also. As I pointed out earlier in the thread, the group behind the Swiss basic income believes 2/3rds of the needed money could come from existing sources such as current welfare programs. The last 3rd they say they would like to see come from a new consumption tax. If the referendum passes then the funding part would have to be worked out in their legislature.

Edit: In regards to the US trying this first, I should say on a national level. Alaska has had a citizen dividend for over 30 years now since the Alaskan Permanent Fund was established and started paying dividends to all citizens in 1982. Those dividends can be pretty substantial also. For example in 2008, when the dividend reached it's peak, a family of five would have received $16,345. It went down after the financial crisis but the fund has grown to a new high since and dividends should be higher in the future.

This Alaskan dividend was put into place by a GOP governor and is extremely popular to the public as one can imagine. Polls put it's popularity at 90%.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9476445].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Sure, and taxes are implemented in every country in the world. Taxes are a price to pay to live in a civilized society even if we disagree with what that society does with those taxes.

Tim not really.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. Mark Skousen, Economist

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9476568].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Tim not really.

OK, when that totally voluntary society comes around we can talk about it, but I don't think it exits Thom. That's more utopian than a basic income, by a long shot.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9476575].message }}

Kay King 10 years ago

Won't the woods shade the panels?

No - because in the woods you mount the solar panels up in the trees. I thought everyone knew that
- Thanks
Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
***
One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
what it is instead of what you think it should be.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9476587].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

OK, when that totally voluntary society comes around we can talk about it, but I don't think it exits Thom. That's more utopian than a basic income, by a long shot.

That's not the point there Tim. The point was you say taxes are necessary for a civilized society as a way to justify taxes. I'm pointing out that the opposite is true. Taxes are required for a totalitarian society, not a civilized one.
I also don't see a basic income as being even closely related to a Utopian society, but it is closely related to a totalitarian one. In a Utopian society you would have the same opportunity as anyone else to make anything out of your life that you wanted without someone else being forced to finance your endeavors.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9476612].message }}

Kay King

10 years ago

Utopia on FOX

I think this show MIGHT be interesting - or could be a dud.

No cameras - no prizes - no rules

Utopia - News - UTOPIA: Unlike Any Other Show

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9476651].message }}

ForumGuru

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

I think this show MIGHT be interesting - or could be a dud.

No cameras - no prizes - no rules

Yeah, I've been looking forward to Utopia. Did you happen to watch the Kid Nation series? It was a bit different but a pretty cool concept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kid_Nation

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1039921/

KID NATION - CBS.com Trailer - YouTube

I loved it but they ended up taking a lot of child labor flack.

Cheers

-don

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9476661].message }}

Kay King

10 years ago

ended up taking a lot of child labor flack

I didn't watch that but read something about the "labor" - god forbid a kid should have to DO anything productive.

Guess for kids they should had a guaranteed income?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9476741].message }}

ForumGuru

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

I didn't watch that but read something about the "labor" - god forbid a kid should have to DO anything productive.

Guess for kids they should had a guaranteed income?

They all got paid 5K for participating, but a bunch of the flack they received was over working hours, conditions etc. I guess everything did not go smoothly behind the scenes but the show and concept was quite interesting.

According to the NY Times bigger problems existed than CBS let on...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/22/us/22kid.html?_r=0

Cheers

-don

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9476753].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Taxes are required for a totalitarian society, not a civilized one.

So every country in the world is totalitarian? :/

I also don't see a basic income as being even closely related to a Utopian society, but it is closely related to a totalitarian one. In a Utopian society you would have the same opportunity as anyone else to make anything out of your life that you wanted without someone else being forced to finance your endeavors.

I don't see your logic here Thom. Are you telling me you can't do what you want in Alaska because of their dividends? :/ I see no connection at all to a basic income and a totalitarian government. Zero.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9476759].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

So every country in the world is totalitarian? :/

I don't see your logic here Thom. Are you telling me you can't do what you want in Alaska because of their dividends? :/ I see no connection at all to a basic income and a totalitarian government. Zero.

Who controls their dividends and doles them out? Who decides how much they get? Who can take them away whenever they want? Who can decide to put restrictions on them? By the way the Alaska permanent fund flocculates from year to year averaging roughly $900 a year.
The only way you can have a basic income is through the government under their conditions, and yes there are conditions in Alaska.
So where does the revenue come from to support a min. income?
Another corporation left the country recently going to Canada to escape the high corporate taxes so that's out. Again if the govt. just prints more money (or the federal reserve to be exact) then that just continues to put the country further in debt and decreases the value of the dollar even further. You can't take that much in tax from the people who are getting the money.

Almost forgot, yes most countries in the world are totalitarian if they demand payments (taxes) from their citizens under threat of force.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9477035].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

yes most countries in the world are totalitarian if they demand payments (taxes) from their citizens under threat of force.

That's pretty cool how you can just make up your own definition like that. I think I'm going to have to try that. Yes, I am now a billionaire because a billionaire is someone who has less than a billion dollars.

Who controls their dividends and doles them out? Who decides how much they get? Who can take them away whenever they want? Who can decide to put restrictions on them? By the way the Alaska permanent fund flocculates from year to year averaging roughly $900 a year.
The only way you can have a basic income is through the government under their conditions, and yes there are conditions in Alaska.

Right. The government, which is elected by the people, runs the Alaskan Permanent Fund. Your point?

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9477526].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

That's pretty cool how you can just make up your own definition like that. I think I'm going to have to try that. Yes, I am now a billionaire because a billionaire is someone who has less than a billion dollars.

You do it ALL THE TIME! I'm seriously thinking of starting a list of words you guys redefined. I bet it goes into the THOUSANDS of words! gay, good, color*, rac*, phobic, good, bad, you, our, immigrant, alien, fair, equitable, equal, rights, left, right, tax, revenue, percent, insult, offensive, legal, oath, pledge, solemn, automatic, assault, criminal, felon, justice, reduction, increase.. MAN, this could get LONG! Have you guys gotten to the flintstones yet? DECK THE HALLS is now changing because YOU guys changed the language!!!!!!!! That song is over 100 years old! Hallmark changed the words to 'Don we now our fun apparel' And homosexuals havethe AUDACITY to get offended at the change,and claim ownership? Homosexuals Angry Over Non-"Gay" Hallmark Christmas Ornament It is an OLD english word meaning happy, colorful, cheerful. I mean WHO could believe that the theme song to a young kids cartoon says "we'll have a homosexual old time"? NO, it says "We'll have a cheerful and colorful old time. Old is kind of an intensifier, like REALLY So REALLY cheerful. GRANTED it started as a kind of intermission clip, but it certainly ended up with kids. But PICK YOUR BATTLES! If you are going to claim thatthe word gay always meant homosexual, then people were happy about it and ECSTATICALLY PRO homosexual. I'm not saying they were, but claiming that word always meant homosexual IS!!!!!

HECK! Even the title in that piece is a LIE! The article says: Hallmark's 2013 "Holiday Sweater" keepsake ornament (shown) is colorful and bright, That soundspretty GAY(IN THE OLD SENSE) to ME! I mean it is for a FESTIVE occasion, and is colorful and bright. HEY, just like the apparel the people that wrote deck the halls said we would wear!

The flintstones is only about 54 years old. MY GOD! I was talking to a coworker about languages and mentioned gaelic(American pronunciation is gaylik). He said.....And I am NOT kidding.....They have their own language too? I was like "WHAT!?!?!??!?"?

Right. The government, which is elected by the people, runs the Alaskan Permanent Fund. Your point?

I don't know WHY people are even talking about the alaskan deal. It is VERY different! They own land!!!!!! Really, they can't own it, the PUBLIC is supposed to! They MAKE MONEY by selling the USE of the land they technically can't own. SO, they pay their CITIZENS a rebate of sorts. It OBVIOUSLY fluctuates,and that is likely due to what they make.

That is INCREDIBLY DIFFERENT from paying money that comes from nothing, instead of something! It is VERY different from paying a high fixed amount, instead of a low variable amount. It is very different from paying ALL rather than only the citizens there.

Steve

[ 2 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9478440].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

That's pretty cool how you can just make up your own definition like that. I think I'm going to have to try that. Yes, I am now a billionaire because a billionaire is someone who has less than a billion dollars.

Coming from someone who thinks forced payments to a government is a civilized society

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Right. The government, which is elected by the people, runs the Alaskan Permanent Fund. Your point?

Yep a govt. that keeps the majority of the money the comes from the oil companies.

It was designed to be an investment where at least 25% of the oil money would be put into a dedicated fund for future generations, who would no longer have oil as a resource. This does not mean the fund is solely funded by oil revenue. The Fund includes neither property taxes on oil company property nor income tax from oil corporations, so the minimum 25% deposit is closer to 11% if those sources were also considered.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9478490].message }}

ForumGuru

Banned 10 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9476610].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ForumGuru

Last time I checked --> no corporate tax, no individual income tax, no payroll tax...

Quatar
Bahrain
UAE
Bermuda
and a few others.

They have some sort of tax however. Let's look at Bahrain for example: 70% of their government's revenue comes from taxing the oil and gas companies at a 46% rate. Employers pay 10% of wages in social insurance taxes. Employees pay 5%. There's also a 2% unemplyment tax rate for employers.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9476747].message }}

ForumGuru

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Sure, and taxes are implemented in every country in the world. Taxes are a price to pay to live in a civilized society even if we disagree with what that society does with those taxes.

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

They have some sort of tax however. Let's look at Bahrain for example: 70% of their government's revenue comes from taxing the oil and gas companies at a 46% rate. Employers pay 10% of wages in social insurance taxes. Employees pay 5%. There's also a 2% unemplyment tax rate for employers.

I actually deleted that post but I will put it back now that you have quoted it. My point is tons of countries don't have many taxes at all, and in many countries tons of highly productive citizens don't get taxed much at all because the income they earn is not taxed.

Last time I checked --> no corporate tax, no individual income tax, no payroll tax...(yes some will tax oil companies)

Quatar
Bahrain
UAE
Bermuda
and a few others.

Want to talk just no income tax? Ok...15 countries with no income tax:

Hate All This Talk About Raising Tax Rates? Here Are 15 Countries with No Income Taxes Whatsoever | TheBlaze.com

10 countries with no income tax:

Countries With Zero Income Taxes

I have been to this one --> The Maldives (8-15% corporate tax rate)

The Maldives has no income, sales, property, or capital-gains taxes, and has been considered to have the simplest tax code in the world.

Economy of the Maldives - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oil or not....

No form of personal, corporate, withholding or value added tax is applicable In Bahrain. There is no personal tax except municipal tax of 10% on the monthly rental of residential and business property. In addition, a 5% government levy on gross turnover is imposed on hotel services and entertainment.

http://www.pkf.com/media/1954293/bah...ide%202013.pdf

Gas-rich Qatar is the world's richest country with GDP per capita of $102,800, according to the CIA World Factbook.

Qatar relies on its natural gas reserves — which are the world's third largest — for revenue. It has invested heavily in infrastructure to liquefy and export the commodity. Businesses involved in oil and gas operations face a 35 percent tax rate. The country levies no taxes on personal incomes, dividends, royalties, profits, capital gains and property. Qatar nationals, however, have to pay 5 percent of their income for social security benefits, while employers contribute 10 percent for the fund.

Countries With Zero Income Taxes

Cheers

-don

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9476762].message }}

ForumGuru

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

In regards to the US trying this first, I should say on a national level. Alaska has had a citizen dividend for over 30 years now since the Alaskan Permanent Fund was established and started paying dividends to all citizens in 1982. Those dividends can be pretty substantial also. For example in 2008, when the dividend reached it's peak, a family of five would have received $16,345. It went down after the financial crisis but the fund has grown to a new high since and dividends should be higher in the future.

This Alaskan dividend was put into place by a GOP governor and is extremely popular to the public as one can imagine. Polls put it's popularity at 90%.

Pay for it with citizen dividends, eh? $33,000 for me and $33,000 for my wife totals $66,000.

Alaska dividend payouts the past 5 years:

2013 $900.00 x 2 = $1800
2012 $878.00 x 2 - $1756
2011 $1,174.00 x 2 = $2348
2010 $1,281.00 x 2 = $2562
2009 $1,305.00 x 2 = $ $1610

The best you can do is come up $63,438 dollars short on a single family of two. Yeah, that citizen dividend will cover it. I mean it will cover less than 4% of it.

Cheers

-don

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9477257].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

I just came up with a TERRIFIC IDEA!!!!!!!!!
It would help limit CO2!
It would help limit the population!
It would make land and housing LESS expensive!
It would help the US debt!
It Would help to limit unwanted pregnancy!
It would help limit infidelity!
It would help kids get a start on life!
It would limit dropouts of highschool!
It would help limit a LOT of bad things!
It may actually HELP the currency's value.
It would get support from many conservatives!

OK, so what is it?

NO MINIMUM INCOME. That is just dumb. But it SHOULD appear similar!

OK, HERE it is!

Each parent(mother or father of any type, or rapist) should be REQUIRED to put $1000 each year into an account until their role is replaced(though a rapist should pay for the entire 19 years) to be accessed by the child when they are 19, and have graduated highschool!

HEY, PROBLEM SOLVED! They will have $38,000 or more for college, or to start living, or go on a trip through europe, and the tax payers don't have to pay a penny.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9173482].message }}

ForumGuru

Banned 10 years ago

Tim ---> so are you trying to say citizens in the US should be paid $33,000 or some similar amount as a basic income? How about illegals? $33,000 too? If not, what exactly are you trying to say? Or are you agreeing with ol' "drill, baby, drill"?

Cheers

-don

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9476844].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ForumGuru

Tim ---> so are you trying to say citizens in the US should be paid $33,000

I believe I answered that a few times in this thread, Don. Just a few posts ago in fact.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9477530].message }}

ForumGuru

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

I believe I answered that a few times in this thread, Don. Just a couple posts ago in fact.

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Like I said earlier in this thread, I find the idea intriguing and wouldn't mind having Switzerland experiment with it before the US does.

intriguing - arousing one's curiosity or interest; fascinating.

fascinating - extremely interesting.

Yeah, we get it, Tim...you love the idea. Now start answering some of the more difficult questions instead of skipping over them like you usually do. No generalizations please, tell us how this could possibly work given our current economic status, outstanding obligations and history of capitalism. No pie-in-the-sky stuff...please break the numbers down for us, Tim.

Or is this just a socialist style program that you dream of?

utopia - an imagined place or state of things in which everything is perfect.

Cheers

-don

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9477547].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ForumGuru

Now start answering some of the more difficult questions...

Your questions were pretty repeticious and not difficult at all, Don. Plus, I have already answered most, if not all, of them in this thread.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9477587].message }}

ForumGuru

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Your questions were pretty repeticious and not difficult at all, Don. Plus, I have already answered most, if not all, of them in this thread.

Seriously dude, your forum posts are good for not much more than a laugh when it comes right down to it. Open your threads and then laugh at the pie-in-the-sky nonsense you have written.

Basically, you have not answered anything --> Same old Tim, you like to ask the tough questions and put people in a box, but you yourself ignore most of the tough questions because it blows your utopian nonsense to the moon. You don't have the answers, and answers don't exist that support your outlandish theories and that's exactly why you can't answer the tough questions.

You keep bringing up this lame idea that somehow the Alaska oil fund can pay for for your utopia...but it's so far from reality it should have never crossed you mind.

So we double that $900 to $1800 next year in Alaska and that brings us to $3600 for a couple.

33,000 x 2 = $66,000

3600 / 66000 = 5.45%

So the Alaska fund provides 5.45% of your utopia in Alaska. Who provides the other 94.55%? At what cost to the taxpayers?

How are you going to squeeze oil dividends 20 times higher than Alaska's out of the other 49 states?

Who does pay 100% of the costs the other states incur for your utopia?

How does the $117 trillion in federal unfunded liabilities get funded?

How do the states come up with money for your utopia when they are 5 trillion in the hole?

We already have $1,000,000 in unfunded liability per US taxpayer...how does that figure get reduced?

How much more tax revenue do you need to collect?

How do you get around the fact that 72% of federal revenue already goes to paying the people benefits directly and debt service?

How high would you need to set the tax rates? 80%, 85%, 90%? Break the numbers down for us.

You are off to a heck of a start coming up with that 5.45% of $66,000 for Alaskan couples...you really are off and running!

Since you are pushing the state collected oil fund in Alaska to fund your utopia then you support the UAE tax model even though US oil revenue is only 7-8% of GDP?

So do you want to charge the oil companies, the gas companies, the nuclear power companies, the hyrdro power companies, and green energy companies the brunt of the tax burden? What tax rate would you impose on the these companies to make your utopia work?

80%? 85% 90%?

You won't mind paying $30 for a gallon for gas?

How about a $1000 monthly electric bill on your one bedroom apartment?

How about an $800 gas bill on your one bedroom apartment?

How about paying 7 times what you pay now for items made from plastic?

How about the cost of all goods tripling or quadrupling due to increased cost of production and distribution?

Do you want to charge different companies 80%, 85%, 90% instead of the energy companies to fund your utopia?

Apple?
Microsoft?

What happens when people stop working to collect Tim's utopia stipends?

What will keep everyone that makes less than say $40,000 grand from laying on the beach collecting your utopia stipend?

What is your projected unemployment rate in utopia?

So you don't want a complete Swiss style utopia?

I am hearing a giant sucking sound but I am seeing no numbers. C'mon, Tim. Show us some of your math and economics skills by breaking these numbers down for us.

I'll start ---> we have roughly 320 million citizens and Tim's going to tell us how he can convert our capitalist society into his utopia with real numbers.

Cheers

-don

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9477627].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ForumGuru

Seriously dude, ...

Whatever. If you can't read that's not my problem. You bore me. Good night.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9477663].message }}

ForumGuru

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Whatever. If you can't read that's not my problem. You bore me. Good night.

Evidently it is you that may be having reading difficulties... Yeah, people often get bored when they have no idea how to answer difficult questions. Let me pose an easier one for you.

Let us assume that 59% of the employment population is actually working which leaves us with 41% eligible for employment that are not working.

41% is roughly 82,000,000 Americans so let us do 82,000,000 x 33,000 = $2,706,000,000,000

OK, Tim...unless I have completely blown the math on this exercise it looks like we need to come up with roughly 2.7 trillion a year to pay for 41% of the population that could be working but are not working.

I am guessing maybe another $1,000,000,000,000 to bring the underemployed up to 33K per year.

Now we have to account for the utopian attrition rate which would be the people that bail from the workforce to lay on the beach... Let's put that number at $500,000,000,000 for the first couple of years.

Ok man, that's only 4.2 trillion per year to get this utopia party started! Now all you need to do is tell us how you are going to cover that 4.2 trillion per year without turning this exercise in capitalism on it's head and/or bankrupting the country.

Cheers

-don

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9477701].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Good grief you are slow. The $33,000 is what the Swiss came up with. That isn't my number. I haven't given any number so you are wasting your time with these endless, useless boring questions.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9477724].message }}

ForumGuru

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Good grief you are slow. The $33,000 is what the Swiss came up with. That isn't my number. I haven't given any number so you are wasting your time with these endless, useless boring questions.

You are a verified junkballer, Tim.

Wowza, you have given us the answer to end all answers. Evidently you have no numbers, Tim. If you think my questions on this topic are useless you never will have any numbers. Slow? You basically just posted 5 or 6 replies of pure unadulterated nothingness.

Great one and two sentence nothing posts...my cats can do better walking across my keyboard.

Have fun coming up with your number...

Cheers

-don

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9477742].message }}

SteveJohnson

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ForumGuru

Yeah, and we can't forget the prophet Mohammad's father-in-law...

I can, easily.

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Someone better tell those dumb Alaskans that what they are doing is wrong, stupid, unsustainable, not truely conservative, totalitarianism, socialistic, was done in the bible, etc... lol.

By the way, we should find out what the dividend checks are going to be soon because they are going to mailed out on Oct 2.

The Alaska fund doesn't aim to provide every Alaskan with a sustenance-or-better income.
The tax that sustains the fund is on the state's natural resources, not its human resources.
No Alaskan is taxed to pay into the fund.
When resource production slows as it did in the recessionary years, the payouts shrink.

Do you see the fundamental differences here between what Alaska is doing and what is proposed for the Swiss?

Originally Posted by ForumGuru

...Wowza, you have given us the answer to end all answers....
-don

I think I need to send you a care package of some chill pills.

Tim and a couple of others are hard-core statist big-government liberals. As with most people on the far left, having a conversation with them that remotely touches on philosophical subjects is akin to trying to break through a brick wall with your head. There is nothing you can do or say that will change their mind to any great degree. Your getting as incensed as you do will only give you a heart attack. The graphics and statistics you keep posting - over and over again, sometimes - are just wasted effort on your part.

Don't take them seriously enough to get personal. Trust me, they don't take you that seriously. If what they say twists your knickers that hard, take a break from the thread for a while and gain some perspective

[ 2 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9478391].message }}

Kay King

10 years ago

The Alaska fund doesn't aim to provide every Alaskan with a sustenance-or-better income.
The tax that sustains the fund is on the state's natural resources, not its human resources.
No Alaskan is taxed to pay into the fund.
When resource production slows as it did in the recessionary years, the payouts shrink.

Do you see the fundamental differences here between what Alaska is doing and what is proposed for the Swiss?

Exactly!

There is nothing you can do or say that will change their mind

That is the case whenever you talk to someone totally dedicated to "a side" or "a certain viewpoint". They aren't debating you. As they read what you say they are only digging into their memory banks for talking points to refute what you say.

An American former Marine held in Mexico for over 4 months now - and WH can't find time to call to demand his release.

Two star General killed in Afghanistan this summer - no WH delegation sent to the funeral. Both top and second banana were on the links that day.

American beheaded by ISIS - no WH representatives sent to the memorial service.

18 yr old robs store - separate confrontation with cop - is shot. WH appoints Sharpton as its 'delegate' to Ferguson (are we paying for that?) - sends three WH aides to the funeral.

When we get this far down the rabbit hole - there is no debate to be found.

Don't take them seriously enough to get personal. Trust me, they don't take you that seriously.

Believe it!

[ 3 ] Thanks

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9478437].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9479137].message }}

SteveJohnson

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Good grief. Looks like a few people don't want to discuss this subject like adults and perhaps their main aim is to shut down the thread? ( In Don's case I believe so. He's real good at going off the deep end and getting threads closed or deleted. Quite a talent there Don. I won't resort to childishly calling you Donnie boy as you seem to like to do. lol )

The level of contempt you seem to hold for everyone who doesn't share your point of view is astounding.

I tried to be reasonable earlier on this page and point out the differences between Alaska and the Swiss idea, and attempted to tone down Don (didn't work, obviously).

Then you come up with this crap.

You ARE a big-government socialistic statist, look up the definitions. Wear the badges proudly, if they reflect what you believe.

I called TL an asshole and posted the video because he was acting like it at the time and deserved it. That, and I like the song.

You are as much of a parrot for the left party line as you accuse others of being for the right. Bush and Cheney war criminals? Straight from the discredited Richard Clarke's mouth to the pages of the Huffington Post. A credible source if ever there was one. If that's true, then so is every other US president who ever prosecuted a war, including Clinton and Obama. Please.

There was no call to say the things you did about Kay. None at all.

[ 2 ] Thanks

Signature

The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9479345].message }}

ForumGuru

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by SteveJohnson

I can, easily.

Yeah, we get your drift. lol

Originally Posted by SteveJohnson

I think I need to send you a care package of some chill pills.

Hahaha...nah, my first post to this thread was last night and I was already in chill mode. Just poking ol' Timmy a few times to see what sort of blather I could invoke from him --> but evidently the cat had his tongue last night.

Originally Posted by SteveJohnson

Tim and a couple of others are hard-core statist big-government liberals. As with most people on the far left, having a conversation with them that remotely touches on philosophical subjects is akin to trying to break through a brick wall with your head. There is nothing you can do or say that will change their mind to any great degree.

Yeah, this is obvious.

Originally Posted by SteveJohnson

Your getting as incensed as you do will only give you a heart attack.

You got this one wrong...nobody is incensed. Just having a little fun with Tim last night as it was a pretty slow night here.

Originally Posted by SteveJohnson

The graphics and statistics you keep posting - over and over again, sometimes - are just wasted effort on your part.

I don't remember posting any duplicate graphics on this thread. If I have repeated a graphic on another thread it's probably because someone kept repeating the same silly point. Effort wasted? Well maybe...

Originally Posted by SteveJohnson

Don't take them seriously enough to get personal. Trust me, they don't take you that seriously. If what they say twists your knickers that hard, take a break from the thread for a while and gain some perspective

LoL.... I did not participate in this thread at all until last night, nobody twisted my knickers, it's nothing personal, just having a little fun with Tim.

You call Tim a hard-core statist big-government liberal and you say having a conversation that remotely touches on philosophical subjects with him is akin to trying to break a brick wall with your head. Yeah, while I agree with all of that, the apolitical term I used last night to describe he and his philosophy was junkballer. Nothing personal about it, only an observation derived in a similar manner as your observations are. You don't have to be a political science major or government hack to see where Timmy is coming from.

As far as perspective goes, no need, I consider the majority of Tim's posts comedy relief. Like I said above, I just popped into this thread for the first time last night to have a little fun with, as you call him, the hard-core statist big-government liberal.

No big deal, just having a little fun with ol' Timmy last night.

Cheers

-don

[ 2 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9478524].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Good grief you are slow. The $33,000 is what the Swiss came up with. That isn't my number. I haven't given any number so you are wasting your time with these endless, useless boring questions.

There is little I can add to what Don did, but QUIT saying this is a SWISS idea! It ISN'T! They haven't operated in this way. A foreign agency probably brought this out. Saying this is a swiss idea is like saying OC was a republican one. If it was simply a copy, then WHY is it missing features? WHY does it have things the other doesn't? HOW can you take a copy, spend over a year changing it, and STILL have a copy? WHY did they tell that one state to change forcing FIFTY states to switch to something BRAND NEW as opposed to 49 switching to something tried and true?

Of course I only saw how that original MA plan affected me. It forced the doctor and pharmacy to save me money in EVERY STATE! The NEW plan forces doctors and pharmacies to KEEP such ripoffs, and encourage them. I'm told that a number in MA didn't like that OLD plan, and I, for one, certainly hate the new one. It was ALSO the first time I was asked to PAY UP FRONT! The hospital said I had to pay my portion, which was HUGE, UP FRONT, or they would charge me almost 50% MORE! OK, OK, they REALLY called and said they wanted the money within 5hours(about 19hours before my appointment), and would give me a 30% discount if I did. SAME THING THOUGH! I have NEVER had that happen before! And I NEVER paid this much for that test before.

Long story short, some people want to destroy the culture and reputation of switzerland so they can literally get paid for doing NOTHING!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9478596].message }}

ForumGuru

Banned 10 years ago

The UAE is an interesting model with oil accounting for only 30-33% of GDP.

Oil price impact on the economy will be limited as oil accounts for 30-33 per cent of the country’s GDP. The UAE has already set into motion a strategy to further reduce the dependence on oil to 10 per cent in future, the minister pointed out.

UAE's economy growth momentum set to pick up - Khaleej Times

A. Taxes payable

There are no taxes levied by the Federal Government on income or wealth of
companies and individuals.

However, most emirates have issued tax decrees of general application. These
impose income tax of up to 50% on taxable income of ‘bodies corporate,
wheresoever incorporated’. In practice, however, the enforcement of the decrees is
limited to oil exporting companies and foreign banks.

Corporate income tax is imposed on foreign oil companies, i.e. companies dealing
in oil or oil exploration rights. Although the tax rate applicable to oil companies
is generally 55% of operating profits, the amount of tax actually paid by the oil
companies is calculated on the basis of a rate agreed mutually on the basis of
specific individual concessions between the company and the respective Emirate. The
tax rate may range between 55% and 85%.

The tax of foreign banks is not enforced in all the emirates. Branches of foreign
banks are taxed at 20% of their taxable income in the Emirates of Abu Dhabi, Dubai,
Sharjah and Fujairah. The basis of taxation does not differ significantly between the
various Emirates. Dubai, Sharjah and Fujairah have issued specific tax legislation for
branches of foreign banks, while Abu Dhabi does not have a specific decree.

Special arrangements also exist for major government-controlled joint venture
companies and some foreign banks. No tax returns are requested or required of
other businesses operating in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Further, there are no
withholding taxes on outward remittance, whether of dividends, interest, royalties or
fees for technical services, etc from the other businesses operating in the UAE.
In view of the above, detailed consideration is not given to the income tax decrees.

Companies establishing major ventures in the UAE might, however, be well advised
to seek formal tax exemptions from the respective Ruler in order to avoid future
assessments. Arrangements may also, on occasion, be made by foreign companies
wishing to pay tax (for example, where profits from foreign branches are not subject
to home state taxation if foreign taxes are paid) for tax to be paid at less than the tax
decree rates.

UAE free zones, which permit 100% foreign ownership, grant specific tax exemptions
ranging from 15 to 50 years to companies operating in the free zones.

http://www.pkf.com/media/1959029/uni...ide%202013.pdf

Cheers

-don

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9476903].message }}

ForumGuru

Banned 10 years ago

Hey Tim....if the US were to institute a minimum income of $33,000 per citizen how exactly are you going to pay for it?

Policy Basics: Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go? — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Notice how much of the budget is already spent on SS, Medicare, Medicade, CHIP, Safety Net Programs, Benefits for Vets and Federal Retirees and Interest on the Debt? Yeah, it's 72% of the budget that is already being spent on benefits for the people and interest on the debt.

The 17 trillion dollar debt seems like a puny figure when you compare it to the federal unfunded liabilities number.

Federal unfunded liabilities already exceed $117 trillion...this could be absolutely catastrophic for future taxpayers and economic growth. That's roughly $1,000,000 per taxpayer.

So what do you propose? Or are you just posting the Swiss proposal because you think's it's cool for them and not for us?

Do you think it's plausable to institute here in the US? If so, how high will you need to raise taxes to pay for it?

Cheers

-don

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9477223].message }}

ForumGuru

Banned 10 years ago

Hey Tim, do you think we will be able to squeeze large citizen dividends out of the rest of the states?

State Budget Solutions' (SBS) fourth annual State Debt Study reveals that state governments face a combined $5.1 trillion in debt. This total equals roughly $16,178 per capita, or 33 percent of annual gross state product. Another telling way to view the problem - state debt is equal to 469% of all fiscal year state general and other fund expenditures.

State Budget Solutions' Fourth Annual State Debt Report > Publications > State Budget Solutions

State Debt Report - January 8, 2014

Alabama $68,343,597
Alaska $29,780,396
Arizona $61,082,635
Arkansas $37,704,936
California $777,918,403
Colorado $86,879,414
Connecticut $112,372,072
Delaware $15,991,093
Florida $197,871,611
Georgia $115,193,862
Hawaii $46,100,856
Idaho $15,094,322
Illinois $321,354,115
Indiana $46,377,635
Iowa $37,783,060
Kansas $39,025,693
Kentucky $86,245,730
Louisiana $83,280,815
Maine $16,717,250
Maryland $94,211,004
Massachusetts $129,550,263
Michigan $142,668,026
Minnesota $85,879,526
Mississippi $54,686,815
Missouri $76,489,010
Montana $15,769,183 0
Nebraska $13,139,045
Nevada $52,838,629
New Hampshire $18,425,567
New Jersey $213,933,875
New Mexico $50,137,504
New York $387,465,667
North Carolina $107,580,297
North Dakota $9,263,742
Ohio $321,340,764
Oklahoma $44,151,947
Oregon $86,678,268
Pennsylvania $184,903,767
Rhode Island $18,863,153
South Carolina $71,105,557
South Dakota $7,707,458
Tennessee $41,049,738
Texas $340,944,239
Utah $35,727,752
Vermont $7,866,666
Virginia $91,339,102
Washington $89,579,477
West Virginia $24,972,461
Wisconsin $45,026,643
Wyoming $9,951,523

Total $5,068,364,163

What do you have to say about those numbers? The states can't even afford to pay the pensions of the people that have actually earned pensions. If you ask me, I think Phelan may be short for "pie in the sky".

Cheers

-don

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9477298].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

I think I may have figured out how to pay for this! It has been starring us in the face all this time! OK, here it goes!

1. We DON'T want to create more inflation.
2. They hope this will make the US into a utopia where nobody has to work.
3. Those controlling this have funds of $3,051,199,808(fed) to spend! The unions can contribute 100% as well. So let's figure they have about 15trillion total.

We can *****ALL***** get about one 2 billionth of that. You have to allow for those that roll off, etc... SHOOT. That is only $7500! What about the lobbyists and the like? How about their SUPPORTERS? SOROS has a lot of money HE can chip in! All those actors that would support this can chip in! Tom Hanks has plenty! OPRAH does also! Chris Matthews! Maybe we can get it up to $15,000. But, it IS sustainable! We just do the same thing next year! If half the people quit, the money will drop to half as much. And it shouldn't cause inflation. If things drop too much, people will be encouraged to come back to work. We DON'T even have to raise the minimum wage! We can simply get rid of the OC mandate, and minimum wage would amount to over $30,000 a year!(Assuming weget up to $15,000 for non workers).

YEAH! And ******NOBODY****** can ever complain! I mean if they wanted it, and figured it would end poverty, WHY do they need COLA or even a PENSION? They get what they ask for. The others would LOVE the extra "free" money! OK, OK, it ISN'T free to us, we have been paying for it for DECADES with higher costs, inflation, and taxes. The unions and government should fight for THIS plan, or JUST BUT OUT!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9478656].message }}

SteveJohnson

10 years ago

By the way, just for clarification, what facts did I get wrong in this thread?

Thanks

Signature

The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9479348].message }}

Swiss to vote on basic income of $33,000 for all citizens!

Trending Topics

Best AI for spell checking & grammar (2024)?

Google Ads, landing pages, and Clickbank links

Carry out better target audience research

A Very Strange Internet Problem

YouTube gets shopping display tools and affiliate partnership updates