Universal basic income or something

Author: Outplayz ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 22
  • Outplayz
    Outplayz avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,127
    2
    3
    4
    Outplayz avatar
    Outplayz
    So... i'm a centrist and one thing that leans me left is the idea of universal basic income (UBI). If not UBI, i would say minimum wages need to increase. And if not that, some kind of living wages needs to be implemented. Now i don't know how it would work. Maybe we can have higher taxes on corporations and top earners. In any case, i believe out of all the issues the left is preaching, this is the only one that is doable and should be done. I do not find the right's argument of stealing money from wealthy people is immoral. I actually think it is immoral that wealthy people don't redistribute their wealth back to the bottom earners. It's the people making them rich. It is people working harder than any executive making them rich. At this point, the higher brackets are stealing money from their workers. I've never found the right's argument that they "worked hard to get there" "it would be stealing money" "you can get there too" (no you can't). The system is rigged to be like a pyramid scheme. There is only so many allowed at the top... therefore, i would say luck had more to do with it than hard work. The higher earners are stealing from the people making them rich/wealthy. Now... i haven't defined higher earners and what tax rate they should be hit with bc i think there needs to be a discussion on who these people are. But as it stands... i honestly think these higher earners are not only stealing from people under them, this theft also makes them even closer to being their slaves. UBI or some kind of living wage needs to happen.    
  • DBlaze
    DBlaze avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 318
    1
    1
    2
    DBlaze avatar
    DBlaze
    --> @Outplayz
    How many of these top earners do you know?  And how do you know how hard they work or have worked for their money?

    Did you know that 1400 people in the US paid for about 50% of all taxes in 2016?  You think they should pay more than that?  Also, you do know that to balance out a UBI like that would raise prices for everything, and we would still be in the same situation.


  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,800
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    Minimum wage is a much much worse idea than UBI for 3 time worn reasons.

    1) Not everyone Can work.
    2) Minimum wage reduces the number of available jobs even if you could work...and
    3) Not everyone can qualify for the increased requirements of the few jobs left after price controls are applied to wages.

    It's the same reason price controls on goods and services hurts the poor more than the rich, as the supply of goods are restricted to people in the know as well as illegal channels to get the few goods that are available an increased price. Ever tried to get an apartment in a rent controlled city? Good luck. Hope you have a tent.
  • Outplayz
    Outplayz avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,127
    2
    3
    4
    Outplayz avatar
    Outplayz
    --> @Greyparrot
    Yeah, minimum wage is my least favorite bc it doesn't address some other important areas or does it have the effect i hope for some kind of living wages to have. However, i don't think it is as detrimental as you paint it. Yeah, some may loss a job bc companies have to have less people but they'll make it work. If a company goes bankrupt bc they can't pay the increase... i am very curious when they were going down. It doesn't seem that company was doing very well to begin with. Of course it would have some negative effects, but it will also have positive effects. I do not think the negative effects are more. 

    It's the same thing as rent control. It will have negative effects but it really depends on how the city implements it. I would rather it pass in California so that it's up to the cities to mess up or not. Plus, if it is implemented state wide... worrying about getting an apartment is gone. Rent control isn't going to get rid of competition. It may have an effect on supply, it may have an effect on what kind of buildings are being built, but people will find a way to make money, and others will find a way to find a home. I think that will happen more than not. And if something positively effects more people than not especially when implemented correctly... i think it's a good idea. 
  • Outplayz
    Outplayz avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,127
    2
    3
    4
    Outplayz avatar
    Outplayz
    --> @DBlaze
    How many of these top earners do you know?  And how do you know how hard they work or have worked for their money?
    I haven't done the math... but, i do know quite a bit of top earners since most of my family is rich. They all worked hard to get to their level... especially the doctors in my family. 

    Did you know that 1400 people in the US paid for about 50% of all taxes in 2016?  You think they should pay more than that?  Also, you do know that to balance out a UBI like that would raise prices for everything, and we would still be in the same situation.
    Well it's really complicated and depends on each individual. I would have to know how much these 1400 people make. If they are still rich for 1000s of  generations, then yeah... maybe they should pay more. But i don't know the exact numbers so i can't make a blind call. Especially if other factors come into play. 

    Like this factor you mentioned next. Prices going up bc our wages are up. If prices are going to go back up and put us in the same place before the raise then we must think about regulating these business' or giving them incentive not to do this raise. I haven't figured it out... but, i think we can figure this one issue out. 
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,800
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot

  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,800
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @Outplayz
    Your feelings about why companies eliminate jobs or why construction companies won't build new low income housing are irrelevant.

    The end result is the same. Less supply of apartments and jobs with more demand for both. The end result is the poor get the shaft. End of discussion.

    Unless, you want government red tape makers to "create" housing and jobs, of course...and you know how well most communist centrally planned economies end up competitively on the global market....(hint: they are pretty inefficient)


  • Outplayz
    Outplayz avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,127
    2
    3
    4
    Outplayz avatar
    Outplayz
    --> @Greyparrot
    The end result is the same. Less supply of apartments and jobs with more demand for both. The end result is the poor get the shaft. End of discussion.
    I'm acknowledging these negatives. I just don't believe it is as profound as you are making it out to be. People still want to make money. It may not be as much as they were making before, but they will still make money. Supply isn't going to just magically stop. Same with jobs. They are in the business of making money. They may hire less people, but they still need people to run the business and will continue on... it's not just going to stop. In regards to poor people, yeah rent control will hurt them... in my opinion they shouldn't be renting a house or apartment if they can't afford it anyways. There should be other types of housing for the poor that come with programs to rehabilitate, get them working, then they can rent when they are on their feet and have a strong job. I care more about people that have a strong job but still can't make their way... those are the one's i care about more, not the poor. 

  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,800
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @Outplayz
    No you are right...supply won't magically stop...but supply for poor people WILL stop because it's not profitable, and the only new construction will be supplying wealthy homes that will make a profit.

    We would have to have the government give out massive subsidies to create housing for the poor, and we all know how government housing turns out...
  • Outplayz
    Outplayz avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,127
    2
    3
    4
    Outplayz avatar
    Outplayz
    --> @Greyparrot
    Come on man, supply for the poor won't completely stop. There will always be people willing to help the poor. I live in the OC in California. The new construction already is nothing but wealthy homes that mainly rich Chinese people are buying up. Look... housing is already broken. Even though there are detriments to rent control... it is much better to have that as the base line and work to make it better than do nothing and let these overlords screw all of us every chance they get. When you have rent control as it is now... in very few places, the negatives are exacerbated. But if you have it state wide it will balance itself out. I can't be sure of that, but i'd rather see where that goes. As it stands, the housing in California is ridiculous. Something needs to be done and the only way i can see forcing people's hands in the matter is through regulation... they won't do it from the kindness of their hearts. Maybe if 50% of the country didn't make less than 30k a year i wouldn't be worrying about rent control... but the fact is this is reality. Something needs to give. 
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,800
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @Outplayz
    I mean, I can see how passionate you are about price controls, and you probably really haven't seen the effect of a stoppage of new construction for the poor because it takes decades for old buildings to crumble... but I am old enough to tell you that I lived through a time where Jimmy Carter imposed price controls on gasoline, and the effects were immediate. You couldn't get gas anywhere, and the few places that WOULD sell gas had lines you would have to wait hours idling in, or pushing your car when you had no gas to idle that long.

    Those price controls did NOT last long, believe it.


    This article explains how artificial prices create artificial shortages, and no amount of demand can rectify the shortage problem, because basic economics will always tell you that supply is dictated by price and price is dictated by demand. There is no bypass where demand creates supply without a change in price.

  • Outplayz
    Outplayz avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,127
    2
    3
    4
    Outplayz avatar
    Outplayz
    --> @Greyparrot
    I'm sure your experience should be heeded, but i don't buy into the logic that since it didn't work years ago, there isn't a way to do it for it to work. How it's done i am open to discuss. I personally don't like the rent control prop for California. But we need somewhere to start. My hands are tied, it's almost the same as picking bw two evils. On one hand, nothing will get better if we don't... on the other, we risk negatives. I guess i'm just a risk taker in that i am willing to risk it. Especially since it is up to the cities to implement it... i think that gives it better chance in one doing it right and the others follow. Plus, if it is truly a detriment we can just toss the law. That is one thing about conservatism i personally don't like... the leave it alone type of mentality. The world is growing and we must grow with it. Maybe we will fail, but not trying will get us nowhere. In any case, from the polls, it doesn't look like it will pass anyways. I'll vote for it, so i guess we'll just have to wait and see. 

    This article explains how artificial prices create artificial shortages, and no amount of demand can rectify the shortage problem, because basic economics will always tell you that supply is dictated by price and price is dictated by demand. There is no bypass where demand creates supply without a change in price.
    I hear what you are talking about but it is up to the price. Just bc we have price control or increase in wages doesn't mean the price will be in a spot where it creates no incentive. I'm not the type to say i don't want anyone to be rich anymore... i'm just of the opinion that very few people are getting too rich. In which case, it has turned into them stealing from us. I am against stealing from them... but that's just not the case. People are taking too much for housing and wages bc they can. Human nature is always towards greed... you don't care about anyone not in your circle. I mean you might, but a vast majority don't. That's why i don't see any other way to force their hands to give back than regulation. Maybe you can convince me of an alternative, but i am pretty sure the alternatives are what we already have. 
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,800
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @Outplayz
    2 quick replies.

    1) please don't say things like "It's a good system it just wasn't implemented correctly"...there is a reason the system fails multiple times over hundreds of years, and it's not due to implementation.

    2) There is no such thing as "too rich." There is no rational reason why you should put a cap on the productivity of anyone in a free market economy. None of these producers are swimming in vaults of gold like Scrooge McDuck. Nearly all the wealth is invested in the community. We have laws to incarcerate people from abusing government power to steal wealth from people, so we don't need additional laws to punish people who never stole a dime from anyone while accumulating wealth from their productivity in a free market where people can choose to buy or not to buy.




  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,758
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    The rent is too damn high!
  • mustardness
    mustardness avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,029
    2
    1
    3
    mustardness avatar
    mustardness
    --> @Greyparrot
    A good systems is all inclusive.  Otherwise humanity is doomed to collapse in on itself.

    1} all for one and one for all moral/spiritual standard, ergo,

    2} protection of the ecological environment that sustains us all.

    It is obvious to those who have moral integrity and actually paying attention on global scales, that, neither of the two above arehumanities #1 priority.

    Taking from rich to give to poor only goes so far and is often very violent process to gain parity and will never work in the long run.

    Humanity has to desire #1 and #2 above from the get-go, otherwise it is curtains for humanity.

    We too many people on Earth for the systems we have in place to provide for the standard of living were attempting to have. 

    This is a complex problem that will take comprehensively complex ways of thinking to solve these problems.  Brute force violence has often be used to unite peoples in the past.  That is a not a win/win process.

  • Outplayz
    Outplayz avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,127
    2
    3
    4
    Outplayz avatar
    Outplayz
    --> @Greyparrot
    1) please don't say things like "It's a good system it just wasn't implemented correctly"...there is a reason the system fails multiple times over hundreds of years, and it's not due to implementation.
    Implementation is important though. The way you set something up to try and minimize as much negative as possible. Maybe we haven't done it right, all i'm saying is there most likely can be a way to do things a little better... always. I'm not of the belief concepts always lead to the same outcome. I'm sure i can look up certain things that worked in one place and failed in another. But i'm not bc the concept of rent control has never been done statewide. So... we really don't know what will happen. I imagine the negatives of having it in certain places is way different. You can't really compare localized vs. statewide. The supply and demand will be worlds different. 

    There is no such thing as "too rich." There is no rational reason why you should put a cap on the productivity of anyone in a free market economy. None of these producers are swimming in vaults of gold like Scrooge McDuck. Nearly all the wealth is invested in the community. We have laws to incarcerate people from abusing government power to steal wealth from people, so we don't need additional laws to punish people who never stole a dime from anyone while accumulating wealth from their productivity in a free market where people can choose to buy or not to buy.

    There is no such thing? There most def. are people that could be categorized as too rich. When you have enough wealth that 100 generations in your family are going to be rich for there entire lives...i'd call that too rich. Look i have no problem with people being rich. There just needs to be a balance (however you get that and keep people rich). But.. 50% of our population makes less than 30K a year. That's just bs. I don't care about people that are rich and are good people. There are a lot of them. But i think there are a lot more bad people. You know at one time humans actually enjoyed watching other humans die... get tortured, get raped. That's humanity. People aren't kind... to me it sounds like you're defending these people, which is why i just don't agree with that. There are way too many sick people in this world that don't give two craps if someone is dying bc they can't pay their bills. That's what the governments for... to speak for every citizen, especially the ones that can't do it themselves. If there is one issue government should be involved in is this. 

    "People that never stole a dime from anyone" Lol really... i don't get why you see it like that. Not everyone obviously... but when 50% are making less than 30k a year.. that is theft (a good portion of it)... i don't get why you are defending the ones that are stacking their pockets without an inch of empathy for the people making them that money. Human nature is dark man. It's just not going to fix itself.

    Edit: Oh, and i forgot to mention (i sorta did with the 'good portion of it' comment) i'm not talking about the poor. That's a different issue. Minimum wage earners are sorta part of it bc i think they can get paid a little more... but mainly it's people that are trying to have careers, have degrees, are doing something, that i am talking about.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,800
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    There is no such thing? There most def. are people that could be categorized as too rich. When you have enough wealth that 100 generations in your family are going to be rich for there entire lives...i'd call that too rich.
    The Khmer Rouge believed that too... that exceptional people should be punished.

    Setting aside feelings of jealousy: culling or punishing productive people in society on the basis of being "too rich" is disastrous for a nation's economy. Rich people in a free market enrich others. Imagine if Amazon decided to only service one town instead of the nation because they did not want to be "too rich" That's hundreds of millions of people that would never have had the enriching experience of Amazon. When a productive person creates wealth in a free economy, he also enriches ALL the people in a small way who gladly choose their products over the alternatives. There is no such thing as enriching a country with too much production. It's the only reason why we import human capital rather than export and also the reason why America has the fattest poor anywhere on the planet at any time in history.

    If you want to argue the merits of living like the Luddites or the Amish, go for it.


  • Outplayz
    Outplayz avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,127
    2
    3
    4
    Outplayz avatar
    Outplayz
    --> @Greyparrot
    Setting aside feelings of jealousy: culling or punishing productive people in society on the basis of being "too rich" is disastrous for a nation's economy.
    Common man... you're better than the deflection talking point from the right vs. left debates. I'm not talking about punishing anyone. I still want people to be rich... filthy rich even. You are putting too much stock into humanity. This line of thinking is what the filthy rich hope for which is why they make it seem they deserve it. Yeah... we all benefit from the fruits of creativity. And there is an incentive to do so which i am not talking about taking away. 

    The key word here is balance. There needs to be balance. This balance i don't see happening from competition. I don't see it happening through charity. I don't see it happening through more jobs. Nothing will fix human greed. And the problem with greed is even good people are greedy. Therefore, they'll take in 10 million a year and still pay their staff 20k a year. That's the free market right? Anyone can do it so apply yourself and get there... i call bs on that too. It isn't an upside triangle market. It's essentially a pyramid scheme... it's a pyramid. There are only so many people that can get to the top (and yeah luck has a lot to do with it). What i'm saying is good... let people get to that top, keep the pyramid scheme for all i care. But, if the people on the top of that pyramid are not going to help the people under them willingly... then yes, they're stealing from them, enslaving them basically, and someone needs to force that to stop... that someone is government in this case. If you can tell me any other thing that can fix this issue other than the government i'm willing to listen. Bc i do find this issue to be theft, i do find this issue to be enslaving people just bc you can, and i don't see it fixing itself.   

  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,800
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @Outplayz
    Like I said, if you want to argue the merits of living like the Luddites and the Amish who put caps on social production, I am all ears.
  • Outplayz
    Outplayz avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,127
    2
    3
    4
    Outplayz avatar
    Outplayz
    --> @Greyparrot
    That's an extreme example. I'm not talking about anything that would amount to living like the Amish. 
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,800
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @Outplayz
    It's not extreme at all...I'm talking about living with a cap (it's an arbitrary cap) like the Amish have.
  • Outplayz
    Outplayz avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,127
    2
    3
    4
    Outplayz avatar
    Outplayz
    --> @Greyparrot
    I'm not talking about a cap at all. A cap wouldn't be the answer and it does punish successful people and i am against that. Then i would agree it's stealing from them. I think the answer would be more in redistribution. How exactly i'm not sure bc i would have to crunch numbers. But in my example above... if someone is making 10 million a year and only pays its workers 20k a year, shave off a million and give the workers that are qualified a 20k raise (more or less depending on where they live). I imagine this system would work if one figures out what the ratio should be. If x employer makes y amount the qualified workers should be making z amount. You know what does this kind of system best... video games. You know if you put in x amount of time you will get that time rewarded. So i mean, this is one idea and of course it has a lot of caveats that i'm looking over... but it explains the idea i think is better than a straight up cap. A cap would be unfair and very detrimental to our progress.