PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Anthony on May 26, 2017, 09:37:04 AM
-
First we had Universal Health Care, then calls for Universal College Tuition. Now we have a call for Universal Income.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has become the latest major tech figure to call for universal basic income as a solution for inequality, joining a growing chorus from Silicon Valley.
"Every generation expands its definition of equality. Now it's time for our generation to define a new social contract," Zuckerberg said during his commencement speech Thursday at Harvard University. "We should have a society that measures progress not by economic metrics like GDP but by how many of us have a role we find meaningful."
"We should explore ideas like universal basic income to give everyone a cushion to try new things," he said.
Zuckerberg told the class of 2017 that he was able to pursue his passion in Facebook because he knew he had a safety net to fall back on.
http://fortune.com/2017/05/26/mark-zuckerberg-universal-basic-income/
Michael Steele's response:
On Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg’s idea of a universal income, Steele said, “Why doesn’t he start with his own organization and put in a standard minimum income for all of his employees and see how that works for his shareholders.”
“It’s what you say when you want to sound like you’re with it and cool, you know, I’ve got this real progressive view on taxes and everybody owes everybody else,” Steele continued. “You do your thing, let me do mine and we’ll work it out. The government doesn’t need to be going around setting anybody’s minimum on anything,” he concluded.
Yes, little Marky, why don't you start providing Universal Income for all your employees whether they show up for work or not? Wouldn't that be the "fair" thing to do. I am sure your company will then be a veritable UTOPIA, huh?
http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2017/05/26/michael-steele-on-mark-zuckerbergs-universal-income-idea-why-doesnt-he-start-with-his-own-organization/
-
Zuckerberg is a punk college kid who got lucky. Nothing more.
-
I'll take universal income. But I get more than anyone else because I'm the special one. My parents told me so and they were always right..
-
I'll take universal income. But I get more than anyone else because I'm the special one. My parents told me so and they were always right..
"All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others."
-
He personally contributes more to wealth equality than just about anyone. He has more wealth than the least wealthy 1.3 billion people on the planet combined. (Yes, I pulled that number straight out of the air but it sounds about right. But when did facts matter to liberals anyway? It's the accusation that counts.)
-
I just don't understand why these "Masters of the Universe" don't just use their incredible wealth the way they see fit in helping people, but instead want to further degrade the standard of living of middle income America. Don't they know anything about human nature?
-
I'm going to go out on a limb here and explore the possibility that universal income might not be such a bad thing. Please bear with me before jumping down my throat.
Here are some random thoughts of the benefits of such an Idea
We could:
Eliminate the minimum wage.
Eliminate welfare, food stamps, WIC, section 8 housing etc.
Eliminate unemployment insurance.
Outlaw street corner begging.
I have known quite a few young people that really wanted to go to college, but couldn't afford it without taking out excessive student loans. Some of them wanted to improve themselves so badly they took two or three jobs, then found out they had no time or energy left to go to school.
I have known people that found themselves homeless through no fault of their own. When you are on the street, taking a shower and washing clothes to go on an interview just seems impossible. With a basic universal income, many of these people would be in a position to help themselves.
If people just want to exist on the basic universal income, that is their choice, but it wouldn't be easy or pretty, and there would be no social structure, except family, to support such a choice.
Ok, flame suit is on; fire away, (or come up with your own ideas of why it might be a good thing).
-
I'm going to go out on a limb here and explore the possibility that universal income might not be such a bad thing. Please bear with me before jumping down my throat.
Here are some random thoughts of the benefits of such an Idea
We could:
Eliminate the minimum wage.
Eliminate welfare, food stamps, WIC, section 8 housing etc.
Eliminate unemployment insurance.
Outlaw street corner begging.
Ok, flame suit is on; fire away, (or come up with your own ideas of why it might be a good thing).
Very interesting concept. It would be interesting to see the total cost of entitlements, on all levels of government, (Fed, State, Local) then spread that over adults 18 - 65, and see what each would get.
-
Very interesting concept. It would be interesting to see the total cost of entitlements, on all levels of government, (Fed, State, Local) then spread that over adults 18 - 65, and see what each would get.
I have no illusion that the savings from eliminating all entitlements would go very far toward funding universal income, even when you add in the savings from dismantling all of those bureaucracies. But I think there would be other offsetting benefits. Yes, of course there would be negatives attached too, like stupid lazy people that just suck up the money and blow it on booze and drugs, but hey, drug dealers have to earn a living too! It is just that I am starting to see more and more benefits to the idea.
Another thought I had was this could help with the impending problem of automation taking more and more jobs away. We are going to have to address that issue at some point and so far, I have not heard a single good solution.
-
I'm going to go out on a limb here and explore the possibility that universal income might not be such a bad thing. Please bear with me before jumping down my throat.
Here are some random thoughts of the benefits of such an Idea
We could:
Eliminate the minimum wage.
Eliminate welfare, food stamps, WIC, section 8 housing etc.
Eliminate unemployment insurance.
Outlaw street corner begging.
I have known quite a few young people that really wanted to go to college, but couldn't afford it without taking out excessive student loans. Some of them wanted to improve themselves so badly they took two or three jobs, then found out they had no time or energy left to go to school.
I have known people that found themselves homeless through no fault of their own. When you are on the street, taking a shower and washing clothes to go on an interview just seems impossible. With a basic universal income, many of these people would be in a position to help themselves.
If people just want to exist on the basic universal income, that is their choice, but it wouldn't be easy or pretty, and there would be no social structure, except family, to support such a choice.
Ok, flame suit is on; fire away, (or come up with your own ideas of why it might be a good thing).
You cannot give something to person B without first taking from person A. Person B is not entitled to what person A makes. A universal basic income is wealth redistribution at its finest.
It's also completely unconstitutional. We had to pass the 16th Amendment just to be able to tax people's incomes. There's no way you'll ever convince me that someone deserves even one cent of my money by virtue of being a citizen. This is why we have charities. Charities also address issues like the homeless, etc., though there are government programs for those people as well.
-
You cannot give something to person B without first taking from person A. Person B is not entitled to what person A makes. A universal basic income is wealth redistribution at its finest.
It's also completely unconstitutional. We had to pass the 16th Amendment just to be able to tax people's incomes. There's no way you'll ever convince me that someone deserves even one cent of my money by virtue of being a citizen. This is why we have charities. Charities also address issues like the homeless, etc., though there are government programs for those people as well.
Alright, now that you have given me all the emotional, idealistic reasons for not doing this (which is a very liberal way of thinking by the way), can you give me a good, logical (conservative thinking) reason why such a proposal would be worse than what we have now?
In what way would it be any more "unconstitutional" than the multitude of wealth re-distribution programs we have now?
One more thing to think about: One of the things I hate about our current wealth redistribution and welfare systems is that they completely remove the idea of self motivation. People on today's welfare programs are afraid to get a job because they will "lose their benefits". Under this plan, more people would be willing to work, and more employers would be able to hire more people without the minimum wage and unemployment insurance. And employers wouldn't constantly be told they owe their employees a "living wage". That would theoretically be taken care of.
The more I think about it, the more I like it. Otherwise, I see very little hope for this country.
-
Alright, now that you have given me all the emotional, idealistic reasons for not doing this (which is a very liberal way of thinking by the way), can you give me a good, logical (conservative thinking) reason why such a proposal would be worse than what we have now?
There is no emotional or idealistic arguments in my post. It's based strictly along moral and legal principles. You are no more deserving of any of my income than I am any of yours. In order to have a universal basic income the money must come from somewhere. Seeing as government doesn't inherently have money and any revenues it generates is from its people, that means it's my money that is going to someone else who didn't earn it. Why should I continue to work hard for money when I know that if I don't, I'll still get an income?
In what way would it be any more "unconstitutional" than the multitude of wealth re-distribution programs we have now?
That's a false equivalency argument. Current wealth redistribution programs are not legal, either.
One more thing to think about: One of the things I hate about our current wealth redistribution and welfare systems is that they completely remove the idea of self motivation. People on today's welfare programs are afraid to get a job because they will "lose their benefits". Under this plan, more people would be willing to work, and more employers would be able to hire more people without the minimum wage and unemployment insurance. And employers wouldn't constantly be told they owe their employees a "living wage". That would theoretically be taken care of.
I think fewer people would be motivated to work knowing that they won't need to because the government will provide them with an income. If you think the entitlement mentality in this country is bad now, add a universal basic income and watch what happens.
-
Even worse, it would probably be set up where you'd only get the universal income if you made below a certain dollar amount. Shoot, if I made $30k/yr and you told me I could quit work and you'd still give me $25K/yr do you think I'd show up for work tomorrow?
-
Even worse, it would probably be set up where you'd only get the universal income if you made below a certain dollar amount. Shoot, if I made $30k/yr and you told me I could quit work and you'd still give me $25K/yr do you think I'd show up for work tomorrow?
That's why it has to be "universal". Everyone gets (eg:) $25k. If you work and earn $30k, you have $55k.
If you earn $250k, you still get the $25k universal income. That way, nobody is getting more than anyone else and there is no incentive to NOT work for fear of losing benefits.
As an employer, I would have loved the idea.
Yes, the money has to come from somewhere and in this case, it would come from a more productive, better educated, happier society.
-
This isn't a new idea. More like three-day old fish. Zuck is new to get behind it, to my knowledge.
What Zuck has done is a completely rational response to living among the elite in this country. The only way to survive as among the truly wealthiest people in America is to advocate giving other people's money away. Like Buffett.
Not that it is the least bit effective. I live in NJ. A few years back, Zuck gave $100 MM dollars to the Newark school system. Results? He might as well have spent it on hookers and blow (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-newark-schools-partially-squandered-a-great-prize/2015/10/20/ffff660c-7743-11e5-a958-d889faf561dc_story.html?utm_term=.65773054fd81), except fewer public school unions and 'consultants' would have benefited directly.
Contrast what happened to Zuck's co-founder Saverin; he renounced his US citizenship to avoid paying more in taxes on his IPO cash out than a million of us plebes might pay in a lifetime (but not so much that the US government couldn't piss it away in a day or two) -- he was called out and pilloried on the floor of the Senate by Dem leader Chuckie Schumer as being "un-American".
-
I'm going to go out on a limb here and explore the possibility that universal income might not be such a bad thing. Please bear with me before jumping down my throat.
- snip-
Ok, flame suit is on; fire away, (or come up with your own ideas of why it might be a good thing).
No flaming... is worth some thought! ;D
-
Not that it is the least bit effective. I live in NJ. A few years back, Zuck gave $100 MM dollars to the Newark school system. Results? He might as well have spent it on hookers and blow (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-newark-schools-partially-squandered-a-great-prize/2015/10/20/ffff660c-7743-11e5-a958-d889faf561dc_story.html?utm_term=.65773054fd81), except fewer public school unions and 'consultants' would have benefited directly.
Yep, remember that fiasco! One of the reasons Cory Booker is on my "Not Favorites" list.
-
Little Joe, I wouldn't flame you for considering it. If Milton Friedman considered it, I certainly am reluctant to try to second guess him. He was one of my heros in my younger days, maybe my favorite economist of all time.
But something bothers me about it. It's that I think we have a sliding scale. If there are people living on zero right now (maybe street people), I feel like those people will still be with us and whatever minimum guaranteed income we get will equate what now is zero.
It's like trying to create something out of nothing. Trying to move everyone up a notch which of course is impossible; really you have to take from those with more to give to those who cannot earn it themselves. It is necessary to create wealth before you can redistribute it, and this scheme like all redistribution schemes would reduce overall incentive to create wealth.
Wealth is earned by generating value. If you pay people for doing nothing, then whatever they do with their time will not have value. In other words, if someone wants to write poetry, a guaranteed income will free them up to write poetry. But if their poems were worth anything, people would pay for them and they would earn their living that way. So if they cannot do that, and must resort to money given to them by the government, then their days are spent doing something that adds no value to society because their poems aren't good enough that anyone will pay for them. And on the other end, the rich people taxed to provide this universal income will have less incentive to produce because they are allowed to keep less of their money, so they too are producing less of value. And overall, the value of the economy will DECLINE. I see this declining until it meets the point where your minimum guaranteed income is worth exactly nothing and we end up where we started.
-
Essentially we are already doing it.
That's a big part of the problem.
-
Essentially we are already doing it.
That's a big part of the problem.
Exactly.
The way we are doing it now is inefficient, unfair, destroys personal motivation and encourages fathers to leave their families.
Universal income provides opportunity, and as a side benefit eases the burden on employers.
When people see that they actually have an opportunity to succeed, they will try harder. Of course, we are always going to have the lazy, non-motivated, and people that are just not able to improve themselves.
-
Exactly.
The way we are doing it now is inefficient, unfair, destroys personal motivation and encourages fathers to leave their families.
Universal income provides opportunity, and as a side benefit eases the burden on employers.
When people see that they actually have an opportunity to succeed, they will try harder. Of course, we are always going to have the lazy, non-motivated, and people that are just not able to improve themselves.
That's true. If we are already doing it, it might be done better that way by comparison, but still has all the problems inherent with redistribution of wealth. Why talk about a "better" way to do welfare entitlements as opposed to just allowing a true free market, and see how that lifts everyone? We haven't actually had that in a very long time. When you include all the hidden taxes, this country is at least 60% socialist, or rather, 60% of the work done by us collectively is not ours to keep, it's working for "the government". That is not motivation to create value in an economy.
-
That's true. If we are already doing it, it might be done better that way by comparison, but still has all the problems inherent with redistribution of wealth. Why talk about a "better" way to do welfare entitlements as opposed to just allowing a true free market, and see how that lifts everyone? We haven't actually had that in a very long time. When you include all the hidden taxes, this country is at least 60% socialist, or rather, 60% of the work done by us collectively is not ours to keep, it's working for "the government". That is not motivation to create value in an economy.
Talking about just allowing a true free market to work is a wonderful idea. I agree with that 100%. It is much better than my idea.
But without a civil war, and dividing the country into two or more separate nations, it just ain't going to happen. Talk about beating dead horses.
-
That's why it has to be "universal". Everyone gets (eg:) $25k. If you work and earn $30k, you have $55k.
If you earn $250k, you still get the $25k universal income. That way, nobody is getting more than anyone else and there is no incentive to NOT work for fear of losing benefits.
As an employer, I would have loved the idea.
Yes, the money has to come from somewhere and in this case, it would come from a more productive, better educated, happier society.
I have a better plan.
Eliminate ALL the agencies you claim would be unnecessary under your (and thee Zuckerberg) plan along with ALL the unnecessary taxing and spending that go along with them.
Reduce federal income tax to no more than ten percent, including corporate income tax.
Eliminate all fees and charges ginned up by the federal government.
Eliminate all unnecessary incursions into the private lives of citizens at taxpayer expense.
Take all the money 'saved' from such draconian measures and allow the free market to take care of all the problems you see in the country. With money freed up from the fucking liberals and their views of utopia, charities would be overwhelmed with contributions - given not stolen at gunpoint by the government - and without the burden of the federal pig on our backs people would be free to use their own money as they see fit.
If you are still worried about not factoring free college for everyone that wants to go to college, there is still the military and GI Bill to take care fo those poor, wretched, yearning, snowflakes that want an education and someone else to pay for it for them.
-
I have a better plan.
Eliminate ALL the agencies you claim would be unnecessary under your (and thee Zuckerberg) plan along with ALL the unnecessary taxing and spending that go along with them.
Reduce federal income tax to no more than ten percent, including corporate income tax.
Eliminate all fees and charges ginned up by the federal government.
Eliminate all unnecessary incursions into the private lives of citizens at taxpayer expense.
Take all the money 'saved' from such draconian measures and allow the free market to take care of all the problems you see in the country. With money freed up from the fucking liberals and their views of utopia, charities would be overwhelmed with contributions - given not stolen at gunpoint by the government - and without the burden of the federal pig on our backs people would be free to use their own money as they see fit.
If you are still worried about not factoring free college for everyone that wants to go to college, there is still the military and GI Bill to take care fo those poor, wretched, yearning, snowflakes that want an education and someone else to pay for it for them.
Aren't you one of the one's that accuse liberals of living in a fantasy world, or "Utopia"?
I agree that everything you say is the way we should do it. What do you think the odds are of successfully accomplishing ANY of that?
Eventually your skull will crush before the brick wall collapses.
And what is your plan for all the "unemployables" when machines take over manual labor? I guess we could just euthanize them or lock them up to keep them from committing crimes to exist. I prefer the euthanasia option.
-
Your outrage is blinding you to reality.
The burden of shouldering all the bullshit giveaways you endorse would COLLAPSE our economy faster than the speed of light and then EVERYONE would be unemployed.
Be honest with yourself for a moment. I know that's hard in the face of an idiotic fantasy like giving everyone everything, but try.
Our current snowflake community already think they deserve everything their moronic hearts desire, for free. If you give them more, they will react like the spoiled brats they are and demand more. Then they will march and riot to get it because pathetic liberals thought they could eternally buy them and their votes for what will amount to a few dollars in change, once inflation adjusts the minimum standard income, right back to to just below the poverty level.
I don't doubt you think you can cure the snowflake and lazy-ass problem with more money, just given from a different spigot, but that's pure fantasy. At least I offered genuinely productive fantasy. Yours is pure self-immolation.
-
Your outrage is blinding you to reality.
The burden of shouldering all the bullshit giveaways you endorse would COLLAPSE our economy faster than the speed of light and then EVERYONE would be unemployed.
Be honest with yourself for a moment. I know that's hard in the face of an idiotic fantasy like giving everyone everything, but try.
Our current snowflake community already think they deserve everything their moronic hearts desire, for free. If you give them more, they will react like the spoiled brats they are and demand more. Then they will march and riot to get it because pathetic liberals thought they could eternally buy them and their votes for what will amount to a few dollars in change, once inflation adjusts the minimum standard income, right back to to just below the poverty level.
I don't doubt you think you can cure the snowflake and lazy-ass problem with more money, just given from a different spigot, but that's pure fantasy. At least I offered genuinely productive fantasy. Yours is pure self-immolation.
Please name "all the give-aways" that I have endorsed.
Just how short is your attention span?
-
Please name "all the give-aways" that I have endorsed.
Just how short is your attention span?
MINIMUM INCOME???
Just how blind are you?
Putting the whole country on welfare guarantees that the parasites won't work and the working will pay LOTS more.
It is the way of the modern world.
If you actually wanted to cure the poverty problem you would endorse taking all free money off the table and implementing a rigid system that allows only truly needy to be able to collect public assistance.
-
Universal income is another idiotic progressive construct designed to separate producers from their assets so progressive politicians can stay permanently in office.
-
MINIMUM INCOME???
Just how blind are you?
Putting the whole country on welfare guarantees that the parasites won't work and the working will pay LOTS more.
It is the way of the modern world.
If you actually wanted to cure the poverty problem you would endorse taking all free money off the table and implementing a rigid system that allows only truly needy to be able to collect public assistance.
That's one. You said "all the bullshit give aways". Name some of the others.
Just the "truly needy" huh? You have just left a huge oil slick on that slippery slope.
I think a lot of our "Poverty" is due to the way we give the poor "free stuff" but threaten to take it away if they actually get a job and try to improve themselves. Or if the father elects to stay with the family. THAT is the bullshit in our giveaway programs.
-
Do you really think that a minimum standard income will solve any of your examples?
The lazy and greedy will still game the system and steal. Liberals will still find ways to broaden the definitions to buy votes and people like you will still point your fingers at those who refuse to drink the poison kool-aid.
Get a clue and stop wanting to burden everyone with your concept of charitable giving.
-
I don't think Universal Income is the answer either. However, if we put a work requirement for the able bodied attached to welfare, food stamps, etc, I think that would be a start. It would cut down on the fraud, and also help people to feel productive. Not government "make work" jobs, but real jobs in the private sector. It could be construction, maintenance, cleaning up, office work, whatever.
-
I don't think Universal Income is the answer either. However, if we put a work requirement for the able bodied attached to welfare, food stamps, etc, I think that would be a start. It would cut down on the fraud, and also help people to feel productive. Not government "make work" jobs, but real jobs in the private sector. It could be construction, maintenance, cleaning up, office work, whatever.
Then it isn't free and the dems will screa m that it is racist!!
-
Then it isn't free and the dems will screa m that it is racist!!
Well, it seems many states are re-instating the work requirements installed under the Clinton Admin.
States are moving to once again require able-bodied adults to put in work hours in exchange for food stamps, after the requirements largely were suspended by the Obama administration.
The slow-moving reversal follows the administration pulling back on Clinton-era changes that required recipients to work for government welfare benefits. Signing the reform bill in 1996 alongside then-Speaker Newt Gingrich, then-President Bill Clinton said the goal was to make welfare “a second chance, not a way of life.”
But during the last recession, President Obama allowed states to suspend a requirement that able-bodied adults without children work at least 20 hours per week or participate in a training program to receive benefits for more than three months.
He allowed recipients to stay on food stamps indefinitely, arguing the three-month maximum was unfair with unemployment at 10 percent.
"Food stamp recipients didn't cause the financial crisis, Wall Street did," said Obama at this past January’s State of the Union address.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/30/states-moving-to-restore-work-requirements-for-food-stamp-recipients.html