hisich wrote: You literally support Debtor's Prisons...
A debtor's prison is for people who are unable to pay debt where their stay is tied to paying off the debt through manual labor. People who don't pay taxes go to regular prison or get a refund depending on if they can afford a good accountant and lawyer fees to secure loopholes.
shamangineer wrote: A debtor's prison is for people who are unable to pay debt where their stay is tied to paying off the debt through manual labor. People who don't pay taxes go to regular prison or get a refund depending on if they can afford a good accountant and lawyer fees to secure loopholes.
LMFAO...man you're dishonest! You tried pulling the same BS by asserting that a centrally-run welfare program was an example of "democratic decentralization"! You LITERALLY want people to be put in prison for not paying their tax debts...I guess you're relying on the Nazi logic of "The Holocaust wasn't murder because it was legal & done by the govt"...
Who would've guessed that the exciting, new, revolutionary idea of UBI clowns was to bring back Debtor's Prisons!!!
signature
signature
signature
shamangineer wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAkzzoQGifE
What I've taken away from our convos about this insane idea:
1. You want the Ruling Class to be 100% in control of our economic lives.
2. You want the Ruling Class to have the power to throw people into Debtor's Prisons (which you dishonestly refuse to acknowledge are, indeed, Debtor's Prisons) if they refuse to comply.
3. The many trillion$ in existing unfunded liabilities (USA)--according to you--have either magically disappeared or are somehow irrelevant.
You failed to answer most of my 7 very straight-forward questions.
In some circumstances, like Alaska where a tiny population hit the lotto by sitting on large oil deposits, I could see a version of UBI working for a while. Places like Canada and Australia also come to mind. Other places that aren't blessed w/such an imbalance between natural-resources VS population density or which haven't had the benefit of priorly very free-markets (like the West), it has no chance of working.
Enough for EVERYONE to get a significant allowance from their Rulers? After the oil (or other natural resources) run out or are replaced? After the populace becomes too lazy to be bothered w/maintaining the infrastructure, economy, and borders (look at Europe now, being invaded by hostile immigrants who also want some 'free' shit)? Sounds like a disaster in the making to me.
The extreme short-sightedness, arrogance (wanting to mass-experiment on humanity w/this scheme), naiveté (failing to see the danger of handing this much power to the Ruling Class) & misunderstanding of human-nature on the part of Ubistas is remarkable.
signature
hisich wrote: What I've taken away from our convos about this insane idea:
1. You want the Ruling Class to be 100% in control of our economic lives.
2. You want the Ruling Class to have the power to throw people into Debtor's Prisons (which you dishonestly refuse to acknowledge are, indeed, Debtor's Prisons) if they refuse to comply.
3. The many trillion$ in existing unfunded liabilities (USA)--according to you--have either magically disappeared or are somehow irrelevant.
1.The ruling class meaning a bunch of mealy-mouthed politicians with pockets full of corporate donations? Fuck that!
In a properly operating democracy, the people are the ruling class, and yes I want the people to have control of their economic lives.
2. This isn't even a real argument. Tax isn't debt.
3. Ugh. See below:
"When there is a difference between the total amount of benefits owed to ALL current employees & retirees and the value of the financial assets the pension plan manages, then there is an “unfunded liability.” This means that at a specific point in time, the pension plan does not have the full amount of money it will need to pay out ALL of the retirement benefits it will owe in the future to ALL of its current and former employees. But the system never needs all that money at one time. Here’s how it really works.
An employee working today who will retire and begin collecting her pension benefit in twenty years won’t collect her entire benefit all at once. She will receive her pension benefit paid out in monthly installments over the course of her retirement, which could be another twenty years. So, for our public employee working today, the pension plan in which she participates has twenty years to earn investment returns on the contributions to her pension and may then have another twenty years over which to pay out those benefits. If the pension fund today only has 85 percent of what it will owe her, that does not mean there is a pension crisis because the fund has a long time to earn investment returns and then pay out its obligations. Those pension critics wailing about unfunded liabilities either don’t understand or are being intentionally misleading about this very basic fact.
The reality of financial markets means that as the value of financial assets goes up and down, a pension plan can be more or less well-funded at a certain point in time. Some states, like Wisconsin, that do have fully funded pension plans have specifically designed their pension plans with certain features to guarantee that the plan remains fully funded. Other plans, like those in New York and North Carolina, are funded somewhere between 90 and 100 percent, meaning they may not currently have every dollar they will ever owe, but they are pretty close. Some states, like Illinois and New Jersey, do have real, legitimate problems with their public pension plans, but those problems are not caused by the nature of defined benefit pensions themselves. They are directly caused by political malfeasance, when governors and state legislatures- of both political parties- have neglected their pension obligations, often for decades."
https://protectpensions.org/2017/07/17/pension-crisis-myth-part-two/
shamangineer wrote: 1.The ruling class meaning a bunch of mealy-mouthed politicians with pockets full of corporate donations? Fuck that!
In a properly operating democracy, the people are the ruling class, and yes I want the people to have control of their economic lives.
2. This isn't even a real argument. Tax isn't debt.
3. Ugh. See below:
"When there is a difference between the total amount of benefits owed to ALL current employees & retirees and the value of the financial assets the pension plan manages, then there is an “unfunded liability.” This means that at a specific point in time, the pension plan does not have the full amount of money it will need to pay out ALL of the retirement benefits it will owe in the future to ALL of its current and former employees. But the system never needs all that money at one time. Here’s how it really works.An employee working today who will retire and begin collecting her pension benefit in twenty years won’t collect her entire benefit all at once. She will receive her pension benefit paid out in monthly installments over the course of her retirement, which could be another twenty years. So, for our public employee working today, the pension plan in which she participates has twenty years to earn investment returns on the contributions to her pension and may then have another twenty years over which to pay out those benefits. If the pension fund today only has 85 percent of what it will owe her, that does not mean there is a pension crisis because the fund has a long time to earn investment returns and then pay out its obligations. Those pension critics wailing about unfunded liabilities either don’t understand or are being intentionally misleading about this very basic fact.
The reality of financial markets means that as the value of financial assets goes up and down, a pension plan can be more or less well-funded at a certain point in time. Some states, like Wisconsin, that do have fully funded pension plans have specifically designed their pension plans with certain features to guarantee that the plan remains fully funded. Other plans, like those in New York and North Carolina, are funded somewhere between 90 and 100 percent, meaning they may not currently have every dollar they will ever owe, but they are pretty close. Some states, like Illinois and New Jersey, do have real, legitimate problems with their public pension plans, but those problems are not caused by the nature of defined benefit pensions themselves. They are directly caused by political malfeasance, when governors and state legislatures- of both political parties- have neglected their pension obligations, often for decades."
https://protectpensions.org/2017/07/17/pension-crisis-myth-part-two/
1. There are only individuals, not "people", so democracy--even in a theoretically "properly operating democracy" (which just means an authoritarian system which imposes YOUR ideas on everyone else!)--is really just a never-ending war of everyone VS everyone competing for the Ring Of Power.
2. You want to toss people in cages for not paying their tax debts/bills. I don't know that it gets more greedy than wanting to imprison people over money.
3. So what we saw happen to Detroit (or the USSR) was just a figment of the imagination and the current official Nat'l Debt (app. $23 TRILLION) is also imaginary? Not "if", but WHEN we see Counties, Cities, Towns, States and eventually the Federal Govt. fall apart (really, we're ALREADY in a slow-motion collapse--esp. big cities run by Democrats/'Progressives' like you!) because of inability to pay off fiscal obligations/liabilities, I wonder what your take will be...?
signature
shamangineer wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsutNKH7KiE
Great link ShamanG, Bergman talks some sense in that interview from 2017. Even though I don’t agree with all his points, I do think he’s a canary in the coal mine. The lowering of IQ affected by low-income is something Yang talks about too, and should have us worried in the long-term.
I’d love to hear a better idea to tackle that specific problem, I just don’t see it.
Opening borders to everyone is not something I’m a fan of (and I’m speaking as immigrant myself), and I see the worry.
But Greg and Scott mentioned something new at the time in the interview that I hadn’t heard of before, which was a sort of tax (or fee) imposed on immigration application fees, which would go towards the UBI cash pool. That way, you come to see immigrants as valuable, contributors, as well as encouraging them to follow through the rules to become eventually a Permanent Resident or citizen, and to get access to UBI.
PS: the same logic applies to me for people serving their sentence in jail. From a rehabilitative justice perspective, I think it would increase a sense of belonging to community; opportunities to succeed upon getting out of jail, and thus potentially lowering recidivism. (I can hear people screaming “youre giving free money to child molesters?!”.. its a tough question, but I do think it needs to be asked)
enjoypolo wrote: Great link ShamanG, Bergman talks some sense in that interview from 2017. Even though I don’t agree with all his points, I do think he’s a canary in the coal mine. The lowering of IQ affected by low-income is something Yang talks about too, and should have us worried in the long-term.
I’d love to hear a better idea to tackle that specific problem, I just don’t see it.
Opening borders to everyone is not something I’m a fan of (and I’m speaking as immigrant myself), and I see the worry.But Greg and Scott mentioned something new at the time in the interview that I hadn’t heard of before, which was a sort of tax (or fee) imposed on immigration application fees, which would go towards the UBI cash pool. That way, you come to see immigrants as valuable, contributors, as well as encouraging them to follow through the rules to become eventually a Permanent Resident or citizen, and to get access to UBI.
PS: the same logic applies to me for people serving their sentence in jail. From a rehabilitative justice perspective, I think it would increase a sense of belonging to community; opportunities to succeed upon getting out of jail, and thus potentially lowering recidivism. (I can hear people screaming “youre giving free money to child molesters?!”.. its a tough question, but I do think it needs to be asked)
I think there are three main sources of immigration: opportunists, idealists, and refugees. The refugees are largely a result of US and NATO foriegn policy while the opportunists are largely a result of the financial interests of the same nations, with the two feeding each other. If the "shithole" countries had a more equitable distribution of wealth, economic autonomy, and weren't being played as pawns on the global chessboard these places would be livable, and their cultures could thrive rather than be traumatized. In essence if the world were a better place immigration would be largely a product of finding a culture or work that you loved rather than having to run from something or a lack of necessities.
shamangineer wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsutNKH7KiE
The State Capitalism (Fascism) we have now (thanks to 'Progressivism') promotes cartels/crony-ism/waste...but not entire industries of BS jobs like the more socialistic aspects of the current system...public schools/teachers, cops/prison-guards, tax-collectors, regulators, the military-industrial-complex, lawyers (who thrive off of the insanely complex/non-sensical socialist legal system we have) to name some of the worst.
That said, I don't see you or very many others opting-out of the 'capitalist' system you bash so much. Nor do I see you or your fellow Ubistas being able to answer 7 very simple Q's...
signature
enjoypolo wrote: The lowering of IQ affected by low-income is something Yang talks about too, and should have us worried in the long-term.
Well, importing vast numbers of Low-IQ people from culturally-incompatible (even hostile) 3rd World Shit-holes--who promptly become a drain on the Western host nation--isn't helping.
Subsidizing Low-IQ people with 'free' welfare goodies (i.e., taking resources from High-IQ people & transferring them to Low-IQ people) doesn't help either. How stupid is it to re-direct resources AWAY from intelligent, capable, motivated individuals who make good decisions to dumb, incapable, unmotivated individuals who make bad decisions?
Encouraging High-IQ women to pursue careers rather than family is no good either.
Penalizing success w/high taxes & social disapproval is pretty moronic as well.
What you Do-Gooders can't get through your heads is that your short-sighted good intentions, in the long-term, pave the way to hell. Socialistic ideas are essentially creating an Idiocracy where dumb people out-breed and overwhelm smart people. Look at places like Rhodesia & South Africa (once the Jewels of Africa) to see where unrestrained democracy (i.e., allowing Stupid People to vote) & socialism leads to.
signature
