Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article
-
Or the GBI number would be lower if you did it in a different way. Either way, you are double dipping in the numbers.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
@penguinwrangler said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
Not mentioning any other expenses the Federal government has Military, personnel, etc. which would be:
Military: $866,000,000,000
Other: $766,000,000,000You have overlapping costs here. Most of the cost of military is in salaries. So you are counting all of that twice.
No I am not look here Defense then all other spending:
-
@penguinwrangler said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
So let's say because of GBI you can now live on $25,000.00 a year. plus $500.00 for each child (That is what I pay in child support).
So total cost for GBI for adults and children added together would be $6,336,827,689,000.00
That number makes no sense. You are assuming that the entire population will stop working and go to minimum income. That's not how it works. If that happened, there would be no doctors, no military, like you have in your budgets. No government, even.
In reality, the number would be tiny compared to this. Most people would keep working. Loads would not, no one knows exactly how many, but tons and tons of people would keep working because they want more than the minimum income level.
And the people most likely to stop working are the ones early lesser amounts. So the impact on income tax would be far less than it seems, possibly nominal.
-
@penguinwrangler said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
@scottalanmiller said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
@penguinwrangler said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
Not mentioning any other expenses the Federal government has Military, personnel, etc. which would be:
Military: $866,000,000,000
Other: $766,000,000,000You have overlapping costs here. Most of the cost of military is in salaries. So you are counting all of that twice.
No I am not look here Defense then all other spending:
right, that's double dipping. The defense budget you show here includes the salaries of the military. But your GBI numbers ALSO include their salaries. You are counting the need to pay all those people, twice.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
@penguinwrangler said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
So let's say because of GBI you can now live on $25,000.00 a year. plus $500.00 for each child (That is what I pay in child support).
So total cost for GBI for adults and children added together would be $6,336,827,689,000.00
That number makes no sense. You are assuming that the entire population will stop working and go to minimum income. That's not how it works. If that happened, there would be no doctors, no military, like you have in your budgets. No government, even.
In reality, the number would be tiny compared to this. Most people would keep working. Loads would not, no one knows exactly how many, but tons and tons of people would keep working because they want more than the minimum income level.
And the people most likely to stop working are the ones early lesser amounts. So the impact on income tax would be far less than it seems, possibly nominal.
So only people who stop working get GBI? Why in the hell should the people working pay for the slackers?
-
Bottom line, you are looking at GBI in completely the wrong way. This isn't how you rationalize it. You are trying to use a non-GBI budget and figure out how to pay for it with the existing system. That doesn't make sense. GBI is part of whatever system it becomes.
How GBI pays for itself is simple - it doesn't really need to. It increases the size of the economy, while lowering the overhead. That is, literally, all you need to know. Now you can not believe that, that's different. But the theory of GBI is that is makes businesses make more money, and the country cost less to run. There is more money for each person. More for everyone. The only thing that the government has to work out is how to handle the distribution of it, that's the hard parts. But the underlying "how do we pay for it" is so simple that it's all done for us.
The money "comes" from everywhere. And we need far less of it than imagined.
-
@penguinwrangler said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
So only people who stop working get GBI? Why in the hell should the people working pay for the slackers?
And BOOM, exactly why it won't work in America. Because the "fair" ethics come out. It's not "fair" for people to get paid and we are willing to LOSE money, to stop other people from getting perceived benefits.
This is exactly why I explained that American ethic effect earlier, because this is always, in the end, why Americans dislike this plan. Even though they would get more out of it, they aren't willing to do so because they perceive people on GBI as slackers and will hurt themselves before they let everyone benefit.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
The problem is, especially with American ethics, useless jobs are seen as WAY better than GBI. American ethics prefers "fair" treatment. "You work, you get paid. "
European ethics prefers overall well being. "Whatever is best for everyone."
American ethics sound great, because we grew up here. Fair sounds nice. It is nice. But it means we are all willing to lose a few dollars to keep someone else for getting a hundred dollars we don't feel that he deserves. It's not logical, it's spiteful in the end. But that's why useless jobs are SO popular in the US.
Not that they dont' exist in Europe, I've seen them a lot. But the US seems passionate about keeping them while Europe seems to want to fight them.
Here is the post where I explained that this would come out from the "fair" perception.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
@penguinwrangler said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
So only people who stop working get GBI? Why in the hell should the people working pay for the slackers?
And BOOM, exactly why it won't work in America. Because the "fair" ethics come out. It's not "fair" for people to get paid and we are willing to LOSE money, to stop other people from getting perceived benefits.
This is exactly why I explained that American ethic effect earlier, because this is always, in the end, why Americans dislike this plan. Even though they would get more out of it, they aren't willing to do so because they perceive people on GBI as slackers and will hurt themselves before they let everyone benefit.
And BOOM exactly why I don't think our country can exist much longer together. We have people that are too ideologically divergent to coexist together much longer.
-
@penguinwrangler said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
@scottalanmiller said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
@penguinwrangler said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
So only people who stop working get GBI? Why in the hell should the people working pay for the slackers?
And BOOM, exactly why it won't work in America. Because the "fair" ethics come out. It's not "fair" for people to get paid and we are willing to LOSE money, to stop other people from getting perceived benefits.
This is exactly why I explained that American ethic effect earlier, because this is always, in the end, why Americans dislike this plan. Even though they would get more out of it, they aren't willing to do so because they perceive people on GBI as slackers and will hurt themselves before they let everyone benefit.
And BOOM exactly why I don't think our country can exist much longer together. We have people that are too ideologically divergent to coexist together much longer.
So we should force people to move to a different part of the world? How about camps, I know at least one guy who did this and it didn't end up so well for him. . .
-
As long as we call people on GBI slackers, we are actually stating that we want useless work for no purpose other than punishing those people so that we don't perceive them as receiving benefits.
Honestly, I already see everyone in useless jobs this way, as just riding the system to get welfare from adding no value, but getting paid anyway. LIke most university employees... all just part of a hidden welfare system. But one that is inefficient and costing us way more than it should.
The one benefit to the current system is that it artificially taxes the "stupid" rather than the "rich". It uses a lot of somewhat obvious trickery to make people voluntarily "tax themselves" rather than taxing people who stop and think about things.
It's like the lotto. It's not a tax on the poor, but on the stupid. Helping to make stupid people poor and smart people rich, rather than poor people stupid and rich people smart, as some countries attempt to do.
-
@penguinwrangler said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
@scottalanmiller said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
@penguinwrangler said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
So only people who stop working get GBI? Why in the hell should the people working pay for the slackers?
And BOOM, exactly why it won't work in America. Because the "fair" ethics come out. It's not "fair" for people to get paid and we are willing to LOSE money, to stop other people from getting perceived benefits.
This is exactly why I explained that American ethic effect earlier, because this is always, in the end, why Americans dislike this plan. Even though they would get more out of it, they aren't willing to do so because they perceive people on GBI as slackers and will hurt themselves before they let everyone benefit.
And BOOM exactly why I don't think our country can exist much longer together. We have people that are too ideologically divergent to coexist together much longer.
Not really, America is highly homogeneous. Moreso than most places I know. It's famous globally for its uniform culture and lack of diversity.
The problem in the US for thing is that essentially ALL Americans feel this way, not just some. And the rare ones of us who don't feel this way, try to leave.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
@penguinwrangler said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
@scottalanmiller said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
@penguinwrangler said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
So only people who stop working get GBI? Why in the hell should the people working pay for the slackers?
And BOOM, exactly why it won't work in America. Because the "fair" ethics come out. It's not "fair" for people to get paid and we are willing to LOSE money, to stop other people from getting perceived benefits.
This is exactly why I explained that American ethic effect earlier, because this is always, in the end, why Americans dislike this plan. Even though they would get more out of it, they aren't willing to do so because they perceive people on GBI as slackers and will hurt themselves before they let everyone benefit.
And BOOM exactly why I don't think our country can exist much longer together. We have people that are too ideologically divergent to coexist together much longer.
So we should force people to move to a different part of the world? How about camps, I know at least one guy who did this and it didn't end up so well for him. . .
I think he's just supporting the "divided America" theory. Which I agree with as well. As a Texan now seeing the feds no longer see us as clearly citizens, our need to leave is stronger than ever.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
@dustinb3403 said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
@penguinwrangler said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
@scottalanmiller said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
@penguinwrangler said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
So only people who stop working get GBI? Why in the hell should the people working pay for the slackers?
And BOOM, exactly why it won't work in America. Because the "fair" ethics come out. It's not "fair" for people to get paid and we are willing to LOSE money, to stop other people from getting perceived benefits.
This is exactly why I explained that American ethic effect earlier, because this is always, in the end, why Americans dislike this plan. Even though they would get more out of it, they aren't willing to do so because they perceive people on GBI as slackers and will hurt themselves before they let everyone benefit.
And BOOM exactly why I don't think our country can exist much longer together. We have people that are too ideologically divergent to coexist together much longer.
So we should force people to move to a different part of the world? How about camps, I know at least one guy who did this and it didn't end up so well for him. . .
I think he's just supporting the "divided America" theory. Which I agree with as well. As a Texan now seeing the feds no longer see us as clearly citizens, our need to leave is stronger than ever.
That won't ever happen, not with the money I'm spending for that stupid wall. Sorry Texas, you're as much mine as any other state. . .
-
The original, infamous source of America's unique "fairness ethic" comes from the Jamestown colony. It was the "you work, you eat" thing. Which made sense with 50 people trying not to starve collectively.
Today, it makes no sense. But it has been drilled into us through systematic education programs. To a degree that Americans have no idea that no other country in the world thinks of "fair" with the priority that we do. It's uniquely American.
-
Which the wall is why I'm such a proponent of the US Texan Canal that would go from the east to west coasts.
It would actually be way more efficient in the long run.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
@scottalanmiller said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
@dustinb3403 said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
@penguinwrangler said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
@scottalanmiller said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
@penguinwrangler said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
So only people who stop working get GBI? Why in the hell should the people working pay for the slackers?
And BOOM, exactly why it won't work in America. Because the "fair" ethics come out. It's not "fair" for people to get paid and we are willing to LOSE money, to stop other people from getting perceived benefits.
This is exactly why I explained that American ethic effect earlier, because this is always, in the end, why Americans dislike this plan. Even though they would get more out of it, they aren't willing to do so because they perceive people on GBI as slackers and will hurt themselves before they let everyone benefit.
And BOOM exactly why I don't think our country can exist much longer together. We have people that are too ideologically divergent to coexist together much longer.
So we should force people to move to a different part of the world? How about camps, I know at least one guy who did this and it didn't end up so well for him. . .
I think he's just supporting the "divided America" theory. Which I agree with as well. As a Texan now seeing the feds no longer see us as clearly citizens, our need to leave is stronger than ever.
That won't ever happen, not with the money I'm spending for that stupid wall. Sorry Texas, you're as much mine as any other state. . .
We'll just build one on the Red River.
-
@penguinwrangler said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
My Dad, with only a high school education, started cleaning businesses and eventually turned it into a business where he made over $100,000 a year during the 1980s
The book "The Millionaire Next Door" says this is primarily the way 1st generation millionaires are made. Their children often earn six figures, but are effectively broke. The book explains that the blue collar parents want to provide for their kids things that they didn't have, such as an education. The problem is the kids don't learn to live within their means, and because they are making lots of money, spend even more money...
-
@mike-davis said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
@penguinwrangler said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
My Dad, with only a high school education, started cleaning businesses and eventually turned it into a business where he made over $100,000 a year during the 1980s
The book "The Millionaire Next Door" says this is primarily the way 1st generation millionaires are made. Their children often earn six figures, but are effectively broke. The book explains that the blue collar parents want to provide for their kids things that they didn't have, such as an education. The problem is the kids don't learn to live within their means, and because they are making lots of money, spend even more money...
TL:DR
Don't be stupid with your money.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
The original, infamous source of America's unique "fairness ethic" comes from the Jamestown colony. It was the "you work, you eat" thing. Which made sense with 50 people trying not to starve collectively.
Today, it makes no sense. But it has been drilled into us through systematic education programs. To a degree that Americans have no idea that no other country in the world thinks of "fair" with the priority that we do. It's uniquely American.
I think you're thinking of the Plymouth colony where they worked "collectively" for two years and collectively starved. Then a change in policy gave each family a plot of land to work for themselves. That year they had an abundance.
I'm not sure I follow you though. Are you saying that it's unfair to work for your food? Should some able bodied people be able to eat for no effort on their part?
