What is a hard truth you think liberals need to hear?

[CLAX1911]

Is it?

I would know better than you.

 

[eohrnberger]

'Most', but not all.

So play to the small seriously disabled few percent to make laws applicable to all? Yeah, that's founded in common sense </sarcasm>

The 'choosing' is "all the People", which is not 'choosing'. Everyone gets it, if they so choose. That's the idea. That's why it's called, 'Universal'.

Universally a bad idea, from my view.

I do, via my Church, which runs extensive social services (Catholic Charities).

These are the same people and the same organization which is enabling illegal immigrants to the point of record US law violations? Yeah, from my view that's a threat to the national security as well as the national interests and the interests of the electorate, rather than any sort of 'charity', regardless of being recognized as such. Opinions and view differencing.

But, that only goes so far.

Catholic Charities should simply stop supporting illegal immigration with their supposed 'charity'. From my view it is more an undermining of the majority of the US electorate.

Alright, I can fully respect this. While I was earlier presenting technical solutions & implementations, it is fair to debate the larger topic of the requirement and depth of our collective social obligation. That's a valid debate, and I suspect we won't agree on that.

I have yet to see them! At least, 'see them' working to a substantive degree.

How? They're given universally. There's no tests or specific qualifications to 'game'. That's the idea.

Do you really believe that giving away more, universally, isn't going to embolden gaming, such as duplicate / triplicate IDs? Seriously? UBI will be gamed to no extent to double and triple dip.

Again, fair enough.

 

[Integrityrespec]

that the embracement of change comes with a bullseye......

being a conservative is easy.....all one has to do is go along with status quo......being a liberal means endorsing and promoting change......and that's hard

liberals win out ultimately because change is the destiny of all men......

Yep, you called it, change for the sake of change. Change that harms the nation rather than protects it.

 

[eohrnberger]

Yep, you called it, change for the sake of change. Change that harms the nation rather than protects it.

Sorry, but I'm not in favor of 'Change that harms the nation rather than protects it'. Doesn't seem to make any common sense to me.

 

[element94]

I would know better than you.

You know how weak it looks to be so obvious about something but afraid to admit it. An admission would at least be respected.

 

[CLAX1911]

You know how weak it looks to be so obvious about something but afraid to admit it. An admission would at least be respected.

You can imply whatever you want. It won't work.

 

[Cope]

Honestly, when I first heard of UBI, I thought it was nuts! But as I examined it, and see the failures of means-tested systems, I came to see its merits. I also became enamored with the possibility of eliminating the current social programs. And yes, while we eliminate the negatives of means-tested disincentive, we do open-up the possibility of slacking on the UBI. But that would be discouraged by making it a very minimal number, and the fact that gainful employment improves one's lot without removing their UBI. I'd also argue that today even without the UBI, slackers are currently signing-up for the current programs anyway.

--

The big question is, will eliminating all social programs be able to finance a minimal UBI? And what tax increases, if any, would we incur? I have no idea how to even begin crunching the numbers on that.

First, let me say thanks for the compliments in your earlier post. I do try to be rational and polite in discussions, at times it is incredibly difficult with some of the posters here who seem, overzealous to say the least.

What I would want to see with UBI:

1. To stay away from means testing, you'd need first to provide for all in such a manner that it meets whatever minimum, while abolishing the other safety net handouts, you are trying to establish. THIS and promoting it as a savings instead of another black hole where money goes only for others to need more later.
2. A UBI could be seen as a boon to the middle class if it wasn't means tested as everyone gets it. Of course the rich wouldn't give a shit one way or the other. As long as it wasn't seen as a giveaway to only the poor and the middle class was also getting the benefit, i can see it passing easily.

 

[Chomsky]

So play to the small seriously disabled few percent to make laws applicable to all? Yeah, that's founded in common sense </sarcasm>

49.2% of Americans receive assistance from government programs:

Census: 49% of Americans Get Gov’t Benefits; 82M in Households on Medicaid

cnsnews.com

Universally a bad idea, from my view.

Point noted; however, I see worse with our current systems.

These are the same people and the same organization which is enabling illegal immigrants to the point of record US law violations? Yeah, from my view that's a threat to the national security as well as the national interests and the interests of the electorate, rather than any sort of 'charity', regardless of being recognized as such. Opinions and view differencing.

What violations?

I'm not aware of the Church acting illegally, in these regards.

Catholic Charities should simply stop supporting illegal immigration with their supposed 'charity'. From my view it is more an undermining of the majority of the US electorate.

The Church is not going to discriminate among those in the country, in terms of assistance. Citizen status does not affect a human need.

Do you really believe that giving away more, universally, isn't going to embolden gaming, such as duplicate / triplicate IDs? Seriously? UBI will be gamed to no extent to double and triple dip.

I'm ending means-testing fraud, and the underground economy and tax dodging that stems from that.

If there's identity fraud, prosecute it. We don't allow criminality to detract from the good, to let criminals determine our society.

 

[Chomsky]

First, let me say thanks for the compliments in your earlier post. I do try to be rational and polite in discussions, at times it is incredibly difficult with some of the posters here who seem, overzealous to say the least.

Not at all, buddy; I call 'em like I see 'em!

What I would want to see with UBI:

1. To stay away from means testing,

I abhor means testing. There's a plethora of negatives.

In general, I believe if a benefit is worth giving - it should be given to all - or not at all.

you'd need first to provide for all in such a manner that it meets whatever minimum, while abolishing the other safety net handouts, you are trying to establish.

Exactly. That's the theory. Provide UBI + Universal Health, and dump everything else.

But straight-up, I have no idea if the numbers can be made to work. It's too broad & complex a data-set for me too even try to tackle. So in this, we really don't know.

But keep in mind, I'm not being as generous as some of the current systems. I'm not advocating a benefit where one could live autonomously on their own. I'm talking bare minimal existence, enough for frugal eating, with a little left-over so one may be able to chip-in a coupla' bucks in a family or group living environment. No one's going to be renting an apartment on their own!

The whole idea is to alleviate our social-responsibility in an equitable and positively re-enforcing fashion, with as few negatives as possible, realizing there's no Utopia.

THIS and promoting it as a savings instead of another black hole where money goes only for others to need more later.

Since the 'income' is universal to everyone, the more fortunately employed could even apply it to their tax liability. It's fungible. I suspect tax offsets would be a very common use, for many. And yes, saving for retirement would be another excellent use, as similar to Social Security the UBI will not support a currently employed person's current life-style.

2. A UBI could be seen as a boon to the middle class if it wasn't means tested as everyone gets it. Of course the rich wouldn't give a shit one way or the other.

And the best part? One still has every incentive to better themselves. Every dollar earned legally, is kept by the wage-earner. Any personal unions formed, be they marital, familial, or otherwise, do not affect one's benefit. There's nothing to game, no social-engineering. All the general positive incentives of those not receiving our current means-tested systems remain. Every once of energy expended in bettering one-self will be fully rewarded.

As long as it wasn't seen as a giveaway to only the poor and the middle class was also getting the benefit, i can see it passing easily.

While I appreciate your optimism, I have no allusions to getting this passed.

I have no idea of the financial feasibility, much less the political feasibility. And getting rid of the current programs will be a political nightmare! It's not hard to do the universal healthcare component; simply decrease the age for Medicare in graduated steps over quite a few years, and massage it as needed in the process. But, how do we do the other programs? Marone!

--

At first glance, UBI appeared to be a crazy idea. But the more I looked at it, the more I decided to be open-minder towards it. There's a lot of positives to be had, I believe. It's been implemented on micro-scale occasionally, but there's been no substantive large-scale implementation I'm aware of, so it's uncharted waters. And that's the problem.

I have no idea if UBI is a workable solution. But, I'm now open-minded to exploring its feasibility.

--

Anyway, thanks for your interest.

 

[Cope]

Not at all, buddy; I call 'em like I see 'em!



I abhor means testing. There's a plethora of negatives.

In general, I believe if a benefit is worth giving - it should be given to all - or not at all.

Don't really feel this way with teh current programs but primarily because there are haves and have nots that game the system. If you make an ungameable system, then the need for means testing is gone.

Exactly. That's the theory. Provide UBI + Universal Health, and dump everything else.

But straight-up, I have no idea if the numbers can be made to work. It's too broad & complex a data-set for me too even try to tackle. So in this, we really don't know.

I don't either, but like you, i'm listening. Personally I don't think we have anyone smart enough in government that would need to promote this, who would understand where to start.

But keep in mind, I'm not being as generous as some of the current systems. I'm not advocating a benefit where one could live autonomously on their own. I'm talking bare minimal existence, enough for frugal eating, with a little left-over so one may be able to chip-in a coupla' bucks in a family or group living environment. No one's going to be renting an apartment on their own!

Wholeheartedly agree here. No more cliffs where benefits drop off that create not only dependence but the necessity of not taking more work to better yourself or you lose out on the benefit.

The whole idea is to alleviate our social-responsibility in an equitable and positively re-enforcing fashion, with as few negatives as possible, realizing there's no Utopia.



Since the 'income' is universal to everyone, the more fortunately employed could even apply it to their tax liability. It's fungible. I suspect tax offsets would be a very common use, for many. And yes, saving for retirement would be another excellent use, as similar to Social Security the UBI will not support a currently employed person's current life-style.

And the best part? One still has every incentive to better themselves. Every dollar earned legally, is kept by the wage-earner. Any personal unions formed, be they marital, familial, or otherwise, do not affect one's benefit. There's nothing to game, no social-engineering. All the general positive incentives of those not receiving our current means-tested systems remain. Every once of energy expended in bettering one-self will be fully rewarded.



While I appreciate your optimism, I have no allusions to getting this passed.

I have no idea of the financial feasibility, much less the political feasibility. And getting rid of the current programs will be a political nightmare! It's not hard to do the universal healthcare component; simply decrease the age for Medicare in graduated steps over quite a few years, and massage it as needed in the process. But, how do we do the other programs? Marone!

--

At first glance, UBI appeared to be a crazy idea. But the more I looked at it, the more I decided to be open-minder towards it. There's a lot of positives to be had, I believe. It's been implemented on micro-scale occasionally, but there's been no substantive large-scale implementation I'm aware of, so it's uncharted waters. And that's the problem.

I have no idea if UBI is a workable solution. But, I'm now open-minded to exploring its feasibility.

--

Anyway, thanks for your interest.

Don't disagree with any of it.
Politically I feel it would be feasible if it was a balanced deal with the other programs going the way of the DODO and just being replaced with this one. Tie it to inflation, like the minimum wage should have been, and "look ma, no hands"

But as usual, the devil is in the details.

 

[eohrnberger]

49.2% of Americans receive assistance from government programs:

Census: 49% of Americans Get Gov’t Benefits; 82M in Households on Medicaid

cnsnews.com

Point noted; however, I see worse with our current systems.

Forgetting the truism that 'You get more of what you subsidize', and in this case, UBI is subsidizing government dependence, exactly what the left wants.

What violations?

I'm not aware of the Church acting illegally, in these regards.

I'm not saying Catholic Charities is. I'm saying they are enabling, subsidizing in a way, illegal immigrants violating US immigration, border security laws and regulations which illegal immigrants are committing.

The Church is not going to discriminate among those in the country, in terms of assistance. Citizen status does not affect a human need.

Why can't Catholic Charities address that 'human need' at it's origin? Rather than waiting for that 'human need' to present itself at the border?

I'm ending means-testing fraud, and the underground economy and tax dodging that stems from that.

If there's identity fraud, prosecute it. We don't allow criminality to detract from the good, to let criminals determine our society.

'You get more of what you subsidize'.