Page 2 of 2 [ 20 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2


Life isn't fair so one should, sit down, shut the f**k up and pay your taxes?
Yes 54%  54%  [ 7 ]
No 31%  31%  [ 4 ]
I don't Know 15%  15%  [ 2 ]
Total votes : 13

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

25 Mar 2016, 6:47 pm

luan78zao wrote:
Life is not fair, so shut the f*** up and pick that f***ing cotton. And smile! Master likes happy slaves!

That's the message of Murika's corporate masters.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

25 Mar 2016, 7:29 pm

marshall wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Saying 'life isn't fair' isn't fair shouldn't be a mantra, what you are saying tho is just a natural byproduct of means tested benifets that cannot be avoided. Means testing I think creates a poverty trap that encourages fraud, abuse, and dependency while erecting a huge inefficient bureaucracy to manage it all. It would be better just to make this assistance available to everybody, Milton Friedman's idea of a guaranteed basic income is much better than our current welfare system. It's kind of funny since nobody is going to accuse Friedman of being a communist, it is something that is more in line with the free market than what we're currently doing.

I means testing is a big part of the reason why our minority communities have made so little progress and in a lot of regards regressed over the last 50 years because of this poverty trap. There isn't a lot of opportunity for someone to rise out of poverty and once you're on public assistance, it's pretty hard to get off since it's not worth it to work 40 hours a week + lose all your benefits and not come out any better for it.

I say we should have a universal basic income, but require those who aren't working put in some hours of job training, volunteering, or community service (I think we can basically "make work" for everyone) in order to receive the payment. Of course there will have to be exemptions for people to ill to do anything, but I don't think that kind of means testing is the same as the system we have now. There would also be some bureaucracy to prevent companies from abusing the existence of free-work / training programs. I'd also only have people pay back a third of what they make towards the basic income, that way there is no strict cutoff (you'd have to make three times the basic income before you'd receive none).


Why? I see it as kind of washing our hands of people's moral behavior, people shouldn't be treated like children. Leave them to their own devices and I think most people will want do something more with their lives rather than sit around and do nothing if they're capable of it. No more excuses, allow people to take control of their own destinies.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

25 Mar 2016, 7:33 pm

Most people will.....but some people (still a significant quantity) might just want to sit around and do nothing.

I've had that sort of inclination in the past.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

26 Mar 2016, 8:12 am

Jacoby wrote:
marshall wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Saying 'life isn't fair' isn't fair shouldn't be a mantra, what you are saying tho is just a natural byproduct of means tested benifets that cannot be avoided. Means testing I think creates a poverty trap that encourages fraud, abuse, and dependency while erecting a huge inefficient bureaucracy to manage it all. It would be better just to make this assistance available to everybody, Milton Friedman's idea of a guaranteed basic income is much better than our current welfare system. It's kind of funny since nobody is going to accuse Friedman of being a communist, it is something that is more in line with the free market than what we're currently doing.

I means testing is a big part of the reason why our minority communities have made so little progress and in a lot of regards regressed over the last 50 years because of this poverty trap. There isn't a lot of opportunity for someone to rise out of poverty and once you're on public assistance, it's pretty hard to get off since it's not worth it to work 40 hours a week + lose all your benefits and not come out any better for it.

I say we should have a universal basic income, but require those who aren't working put in some hours of job training, volunteering, or community service (I think we can basically "make work" for everyone) in order to receive the payment. Of course there will have to be exemptions for people to ill to do anything, but I don't think that kind of means testing is the same as the system we have now. There would also be some bureaucracy to prevent companies from abusing the existence of free-work / training programs. I'd also only have people pay back a third of what they make towards the basic income, that way there is no strict cutoff (you'd have to make three times the basic income before you'd receive none).


Why? I see it as kind of washing our hands of people's moral behavior, people shouldn't be treated like children. Leave them to their own devices and I think most people will want do something more with their lives rather than sit around and do nothing if they're capable of it. No more excuses, allow people to take control of their own destinies.

I don't personally have a huge problem with some people doing nothing. I just think the majority won't agree with it (and I can understand why). It won't ever be politically popular.