Universal Basic Income is a scam. - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15190891
Truth To Power wrote:
Maybe you have, maybe you haven't. Country and dates?

Of course there is a small minority of deluded people who lived under socialism and liked it just fine. No doubt you can find North Koreans who are fully on board with the Kim regime.



Ahh, the standard, fully brain dead, Right wing lie.

You are conflating the old meaning of socialism with the new. They are entirely different, as different as Denmark is from the former Soviet Union. Which is like the difference between night and day...

In the West, socialism simply means robust social programs.

You can go back to your brain dead lies now.
#15190899
Pants-of-dog wrote:So you now seem to be changing your mind and saying that the lived experiences are not necessarily true or universal.

I said they were reported and effectively universal, not necessarily true or universal.
So you now agree with my criticism. Thanks. Bye.

:lol:
#15190900
late wrote:You are conflating the old meaning of socialism with the new.

You mean I am using the clear, honest and accurate meaning rather than the inaccurate, vague and deceitful one.
They are entirely different, as different as Denmark is from the former Soviet Union. Which is like the difference between night and day...

Denmark is not socialist. The Soviet union was. If you remove the meaning from the term, "socialist," how do you distinguish between the USSR and Denmark?
In the West, socialism simply means robust social programs.

Then the USA is socialist??
You can go back to your brain dead lies now.
#15190901
Truth To Power wrote:I said they were reported and effectively universal, not necessarily true or universal.

:lol:


That wording does not change the fact that you believe one person’s lived experiences when it suits your argument and dismiss another’s when it does not. This is not logical, but instead is arbitrary and inconsistent.

Do you have anything to say about UBI?

The most recent set of results from the latest tests all seem to point to benefits.
#15190904
Pants-of-dog wrote:That wording does not change the fact that you believe one person’s lived experiences when it suits your argument and dismiss another’s when it does not.

You simply made that up. I haven't dismissed your experience. I'm just skeptical that you ever actually lived in a socialist country. IIRC, you are Canadian. Canada is not now and has never been a socialist country.
This is not logical, but instead is arbitrary and inconsistent.

No, I am very logical, consistent and precise in how I express myself. You simply made something up and falsely attributed it to me.
Do you have anything to say about UBI?

I've been saying it.
The most recent set of results from the latest tests all seem to point to benefits.

Of course UBI is a good second-best form of compensation for the removal of people's rights by privilege; but actual restoration of their rights -- and in-kind compensation where that is not possible -- would be better.
#15190905
Truth To Power wrote:You simply made that up. I haven't dismissed your experience. I'm just skeptical that you ever actually lived in a socialist country. IIRC, you are Canadian. Canada is not now and has never been a socialist country.

No, I am very logical, consistent and precise in how I express myself. You simply made something up and falsely attributed it to me.

I've been saying it.


I live in Canada. I was not born here.

Again, since you claim that people who have lived under socialism are authorities on socialism, then from now on, please respect my authority. And if you and I ever disagree about socialism, I accept your concession.

Of course UBI is a good second-best form of compensation for the removal of people's rights by privilege; but actual restoration of their rights -- and in-kind compensation where that is not possible -- would be better.


Since you have no commentary concerning UBI, there is no point addressing your posts any more.
#15190917
Truth To Power wrote:$1K/month should be ample. Half a dozen people can share a nice house for $500/month each or less. But a better solution would be to provide every resident citizen with an equal individual property tax exemption similar to the universal individual income tax exemption, and raise property tax rates on land value to make it revenue neutral. Of course this would have to be done by the states, as a federal property tax would have to be apportioned among the states by population.

If you just give people money, their landlords will just take it all. That's why increasing the tax on land value and giving all resident citizens an equal exemption would work much better: landlords of desirable locations would have to compete for tenants to avoid losing money to the tax, instead of tenants competing for the desirable locations by bidding higher rents.

Taxing land rent could raise that much money and create very large economic benefits.


OK, giving each 2/3 of my suggested amount reduces the yearly cost of the UBI to about $3.2Trillion.

Then you suggest a new tax that will pay for (AFAIK, half of) it. OK, that's fine.
However, you implied that this tax would apply to houses owned by families in the upper middle class.
They would not be happy at all.

OTOH, I don't grok the "giving all resident citizens an equal exemption" part of your idea.

You would also have to have a law that forces landlords to let 6 unrelated adults live in one house. Many places now limit this to 3. This law is doable, though.

Because of ACC, I even like the idea that people will share some of the huge houses we have been building.
#15191000
Truth To Power wrote:
You mean I am using the clear, honest and accurate meaning rather than the inaccurate, vague and deceitful one.

Denmark is not socialist. The Soviet union was. If you remove the meaning from the term, "socialist," how do you distinguish between the USSR and Denmark?

Then the USA is socialist??



The Right was calling countries like Denmark Socialist before you were born. Even now, American Right wing kooks call what Biden is doing Socialist.

It's a truly brain dead lie.

And when you used North Korea in a thread about what social programs would be best, you did it too.
#15191173
Igor Antunov wrote:
Turn the clock back over 30 years. Little old me, a denizen of Syndicalist, Market socialist Yugoslavia accompanied little old dad to a certain little old shop situated across a little old bridge spanning a little old river just behind our free state mandated housing complex. My dad made the equivalent of ~$50 a month in today's terms, barely working for the public sector. Nobody worked in communist yugo. At most 2-3 days a week, max.

It didn't matter because milk, flour for bread, electricity, housing, etc were all free. Used yugo's were cheap so cars weren't a problem. But anything beyond the most basic of goods produced abroad still cost real actual money. And with everybody getting a cut of the pie prices for the goodest of goods (eg VCR players) were astronomical. So there was I, with dad, at the back of this shop, buying a STOLEN 6 head VCR player for $200. That's months of savings. For a fucking stolen VCR recorder that retailed for $500 but we got it cheaper.


Most people who lived under the Soviet Union say they preferred it to what has replaced it:

Ever since the fall of the USSR and the Eastern Bloc, annual polling by the Levada Center has shown that over 50 percent of Russia's population lamented its collapse, with the only exception to this being in the year 2012 when support for the Soviet Union dipped below 50 percent. A 2018 poll showed that 66% of Russians regretted the fall of the Soviet Union, setting a 15-year record, and the majority of these regretting opinions came from people older than 55.[4][5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nostalgia ... on#Polling


OK, they never got the 'Western' social democracies that existed alongside the Soviet Union.

But those social democracies have declined in quality for most people since the fall of the Soviet Union. They -we- aren't absolutely worse off, but worse off than we would have been if growth and distribution had continued at pre-fall-of-Soviet-Union levels.

Perhaps the Soviet Union did kinda work.. for people in the Western social democracies. Because there was political pressure to ensure something better.

This is what happens when you begin handing out gibs and base your entire society around gibs. This isn't star trek. So fuck off with your universal basic income. It won't work. Get a job.

I don't know what "gibs" are but didn't the Soviet Union promote an almost insane work ethic? The workers from former Eastern Bloc countries now in EU countries are anything but lazy or workshy.
#15191177
SueDeNîmes wrote:Most people who lived under the Soviet Union say they preferred it to what has replaced it:



OK, they never got the 'Western' social democracies that existed alongside the Soviet Union.

But those social democracies have declined in quality for most people since the fall of the Soviet Union. They -we- aren't absolutely worse off, but worse off than we would have been if growth and distribution had continued at pre-fall-of-Soviet-Union levels.

Perhaps the Soviet Union did kinda work.. for people in the Western social democracies. Because there was political pressure to ensure something better.


I don't know what "gibs" are but didn't the Soviet Union promote an almost insane work ethic? The workers from former Eastern Bloc countries now in EU countries are anything but lazy or workshy.


It heavily depends on the country and age. The countries who were able to build prosperous non-corrupt and democratic systems obviously don't lament about the SU. Those who are still ruled by corruption and autocrats or have severe problems with economy and corruption are obviously might not agree since that makes it no different from the SU just with more stuff in the stores perhaps.

Image
#15191180
Giving people free income should come with conditions, like a clear incentive to find a job. I think UBI would have too many freeloaders. The money you save on gov administration would go out the door to freeloaders, so whats the point?

The far-left and far-right should stay away from economic matters, and most other matters for that matter.
#15191181
@ John Rawls

Yeah, I said as much. But it's telling that people who actually lived it preferred it. No doubt there's some element of viewing the past through rose-tinted glasses. That's universal.

But the OP view certainly isn't universal.

And the idea that the Soviet Union was all about freebies and work-dodging ("gibs"..?) is wrong enough that one might question the veracity and motivation of the OP.
#15191198
Unthinking Majority wrote:Giving people free income should come with conditions, like a clear incentive to find a job. I think UBI would have too many freeloaders. The money you save on gov administration would go out the door to freeloaders, so whats the point?

The far-left and far-right should stay away from economic matters, and most other matters for that matter.

Sir, Obviously, you don't grok the point of a UBI.
1] It can't depend on having a job, because it is mainly intended to support people who's jobs are being done cheaper by AI or robots.
2] In the now, the point is to give everyone more money to spend to provide more demand in the economy. More demand would supposedly lead to investment to make more stuff to meet the demand and so lead to more jobs. Or just lead to restaurants, for example, using their current "assets" more efficiently by hiring more workers to serve more customers.

In my much modified UBIS system (that also includes a MMT-style-Job Guarantee Program), the point is to give the Fed. a fiscal lever to move each month, or quarter, to fine tune the economy to let it have full employment and still have low inflation.
. . . This lever would be more responsive than Congress changing tax rates or reduce fiscal spending.
. . . This is necessary because, contrary to MS Econ. claims, monetary policy is so indirect & delayed, that there is no econ. history to support the assertion that it works at all, let along, fine.
#15191249
Unthinking Majority wrote:Giving people free income should come with conditions, like a clear incentive to find a job. I think UBI would have too many freeloaders. The money you save on gov administration would go out the door to freeloaders, so whats the point?

The far-left and far-right should stay away from economic matters, and most other matters for that matter.


And if they “freeload”, why is that a problem?

It causes no problems for anyone else. I am assuming you mean that they simply live off the money and do not work at a job.
#15191296
late wrote:The Right was calling countries like Denmark Socialist before you were born.

Maybe. I was born quite a while ago.
Even now, American Right wing kooks call what Biden is doing Socialist.

It's a truly brain dead lie.

And when you used North Korea in a thread about what social programs would be best, you did it too.

Quote? I think you may have mistaken me for someone else.
#15191309
Truth To Power wrote:
Quote? I think you may have mistaken me for someone else.



"Of course there is a small minority of deluded people who lived under socialism and liked it just fine. No doubt you can find North Koreans who are fully on board with the Kim regime."

That was you...
#15191330
late wrote:"Of course there is a small minority of deluded people who lived under socialism and liked it just fine. No doubt you can find North Koreans who are fully on board with the Kim regime."

That was you...

That's about socialism not social programs. Has the war on clarity rendered you unable to tell the difference?
#15191331
Truth To Power wrote:
That's about socialism not social programs. Has the war on clarity rendered you unable to tell the difference?



The OP said UBI was a socialist scam. When you talked about North Korea, you joined his point...

My take is you didn't notice you were conflating socialism and social programs, until I called you on it.
#15191336
Steve_American wrote:OK, giving each 2/3 of my suggested amount reduces the yearly cost of the UBI to about $3.2Trillion.

The full reform I propose -- LSR + UIE -- would make UBI effectively unnecessary, as almost everyone would be able to earn a decent living, and those who couldn't on account of physical, intellectual or psychological disability should be living in supervised situations anyway, not getting free money they don't know how to use and will mostly be lost, stolen or squandered.
Then you suggest a new tax that will pay for (AFAIK, half of) it. OK, that's fine.
However, you implied that this tax would apply to houses owned by families in the upper middle class.
They would not be happy at all.

The more advantageous the location, the more people should be able to access its advantages.
#15191339
late wrote:The OP said UBI was a socialist scam. When you talked about North Korea, you joined his point...

No, I stated that he was invalidly conflating UBI with socialism, and the post you cited was an explicit rejoinder to a claim by PoD specifically about socialism, not social programs or UBI.
My take is you didn't notice you were conflating socialism and social programs,

Huh?? I am the one who pointed out that is what the OP did!
until I called you on it.

Garbage. Read the thread. I called the OP on his conflation of UBI with socialism, and when PoD changed the subject to socialism, I responded to that.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8

The GOP is the world's stupidest death cult. I gen[…]

"Whether we like it or not"

Anyone can see for themselves that such "evi[…]

I bet the Russians are regretting the Devil's bar[…]

City design is important

Casually joking about breaking transit law, com[…]