hisich wrote: OK, so you want me to accept that a massive welfare programs involving 100,000,000's (or possibly BILLIONS) of people, run by a central ruling authority, is an example of 'decentralization'...but you did use the words "democratize" & "democracy", so I guess that squares this particular circle!
Who says it can't be administered locally? It would only seem natural to have the Post Office do it.
hisich wrote: This doesn't even pretend to address the 'small' problem of the extant 10's of TRILLION$ involving previous promises of 'free' shit on the part of govt...but I guess in the world of UBI rainbows & unicorns, answering tough Q's (or Q's of any kind apparently) isn't considered relevant!
Nothing to do with people not paying taxes by exploiting loopholes, tax schemes, or shell companies in the Seychelles? The bottom half of America live on a sliver of savings like a razor's edge.
shamangineer wrote: Who says it can't be administered locally? It would only seem natural to have the Post Office do it.
I'm sorry, but there just isn't any way for you to square the circle of a nat'l welfare program involving 100,000,000's centrally-run from DC being a system of 'decentralization'. Just give it up, man!
shamangineer wrote: Nothing to do with people not paying taxes by exploiting loopholes, tax schemes, or shell companies in the Seychelles? The bottom half of America live on a sliver of savings like a razor's edge.
You keep dodging the question of how to deal w/the existing TRILLION$ in unfunded liabilities (prior promises of 'free' stuff).
You also neglect the fact that income inequality (something that seems to be a naturally occurring phenomenon regardless of the political/economic system in place--Socialist hero Castro amassed a gigantic fortune while his Subjects lived in abject poverty) has increased during an era of extreme 'Progressivism' (i.e., having the govt. re-distribute vast sums of wealth & otherwise act as a Nanny for society).
I care more about my quality of life rather than greedily obsessing over what "the other guy has"...although I do agree that the Oligarchy has used the State & the naive/ignorant nature of the masses to unjustly accumulate wealth.
And you want to talk about income inequality? How about the imbalance between 100,000,000's of individual citizens (most in the low-to-middle income range) VS. an organization controlled by a few 100 people (Govt.) which has TRILLION$? Didn't think of that, did ya'...?
signature
signature
"Cost estimates that consider the difference between upfront and real cost are a fraction of inflated gross cost estimates. For instance, economist and philosopher Karl Widerquist has shown that to fund a UBI of $12,000 per adult and $6,000 per child every year (while keeping all other spending the same) the US would have to raise an additional $539 billion a year—less than 3% of its GDP. This is a small fraction of the figures that get thrown around of over $3 trillion(the gross cost of this policy.) Karl’s simplified scheme has people slowly start contributing back their UBI in taxes to the common pot as they earn, with net beneficiaries being anyone individually earning less than $24,000 a year."
https://qz.com/1355729/universal-basic-income-ubi-costs-far-less-than-you-think/
This will definitely blow your mind, but eliminating private health insurance and moving people to a medicare for all system would probably be able to offset the funding from your wallet by increased efficiency and reduced cost. Not by a little, but enough to fund the above Yang-style concept six times over. So if that were expanded to say 40-55k depending on the area it should be doable. That's just back of the envelope, but entirely within the realm of possibility and with a buffer.
https://www.businessinsider.com/bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all-plan-cost-save-money-2018-7
shamangineer wrote: "Cost estimates that consider the difference between upfront and real cost are a fraction of inflated gross cost estimates. For instance, economist and philosopher Karl Widerquist has shown that to fund a UBI of $12,000 per adult and $6,000 per child every year (while keeping all other spending the same) the US would have to raise an additional $539 billion a year—less than 3% of its GDP. This is a small fraction of the figures that get thrown around of over $3 trillion(the gross cost of this policy.) Karl’s simplified scheme has people slowly start contributing back their UBI in taxes to the common pot as they earn, with net beneficiaries being anyone individually earning less than $24,000 a year."
https://qz.com/1355729/universal-basic-income-ubi-costs-far-less-than-you-think/This will definitely blow your mind, but eliminating private health insurance and moving people to a medicare for all system would probably be able to offset the funding from your wallet by increased efficiency and reduced cost. Not by a little, but enough to fund this six times over. So that.
https://www.businessinsider.com/bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all-plan-cost-save-money-2018-7
I wonder if Karl has figured out what to do about the existing $50-200 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities the FedGov. alone has wracked up? Or what to do about all of the troubled state/local pension plans which are already starting to become unsustainable? Or what kind of consequences will occur when attempting a scheme of this sort in a nation of 100,000,000's?
There is no such thing as private health insurance...govts. (nat'l & state) have interfered so much in that market that it can no longer be referred to as "private". Medicare is already bankrupt, but why let that get in the way of a good story, eh?
Economic reality will put an end to these kind of fever-dream delusions, just like it did in the USSR...
signature
Unfunded liabilities are hornswoggle:
http://itsthepeoplesmoney.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-myth-of-unfunded-liabilities.html?m=1
No private healthcare?? You must be joking, or utterly clueless. The rest of the industrial world has public healthcare. It is not as unattainable as you, Trump, or Hillary Clinton would contend, despite somehow thinking we have it already.
shamangineer wrote: Unfunded liabilities are hornswoggle:
http://itsthepeoplesmoney.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-myth-of-unfunded-liabilities.html?m=1
shamangineer wrote: No private healthcare?? You must be joking, or utterly clueless. The rest of the industrial world has public healthcare. It is not as unattainable as you, Trump, or Hillary Clinton would contend, despite somehow thinking we have it already.
No, there isn't, really...govts. essentially run 'private' insurance via massive regulation. You keep pretending that the USA's HC system is an example of free-market capitalism when the truth is that its already largely govt.-run. You don't even understand what's going on in the USA, let alone "the rest of the industrial world" (your arrogance is showing again!).
Now about those Debtor's Prisons you want to set-up...
signature
signature
The last word doesn't make the best word.
signature
