(03-19-2020 01:39 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  Seeing the government stepping in and taking care of the citizens like this is exactly what she and her ilk want to happen on a permanent basis. She'd be his biggest supporter if these nanny state processes were made a full time endeavor. Don't get me wrong, the steps being taken are much needed at this critical juncture but the prog filth Marxists are ecstatic over it, seeing it as just one step closer to their vision for the country.

they figure they will be screaming that trump took away your free money in the fall, and of course, many dumb lefty water-carriers will believe it. They'll use this as their wedge to say people have a 'right" to govt payments, just like all their other unconstitutional, invented "rights" that have crippled the country and killed millions upon millions over the years. The Dems care not for the poor or middle classes- they want to enslave them and destroy them, but slowly so they can milk them first.

(03-20-2020 05:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-20-2020 03:26 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Explain exactly where a government that is already $23 trillion in debt is going to get the funding to provide a basic income to 327 million people.

Oh that's right.....they are going to steal it away from the 55.6% of us who are already footing the bill for the other 44.4%.

Well, let's start with this...

Anyone who makes more than 'x' would get that money, and then have to pay it back 100% at tax time... an interest free loan... so on a net basis, you're only really providing it to people who make less than 'x'.

How many people that is depends on where we set 'x'... but it's not remotely 300+mm people.... and you're already providing support to all of them right now.

Quote: Providing each and every American with a UBI isn't going to make the cliff disappear, the same income disparity is still going to be there.

You're not understanding the term.

In simplest form, someone making 7.25/hr earns around 15k per year. Depending on the specifics, this person may easily get $1,000 per month (or a whole lot more) in food, tanf. child tax credits, housing allowances etc etc etc... 12k per year.... so they have $27k to spend.

If they get a raise to say $10/hr, they would then earn $20,800... If they lose their $600/mo housing credit because they now earn more than 20k... then they have only $25,600 to spend. They got a 25% raise and end up losing ground. The $10/hr job obviously comes with more responsibility etc... it's a 'harder' job, and they take home less.

What person with a brain would not at least consider NOT taking that 'harder' job?

Quote: Most importantly is this: IT IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO PROVIDE AN INCOME. UNI OR OTHERWISE, NOR HEALTHCARE TO IT'S CITIZENS.

Well, Medicare and the ACA would disagree with you about healthcare, as would all of the various Federal financial support systems that we have about income... that courts have upheld since their inception. The government clearly has the power to tax, and to 'promote the general welfare' which is precisely why these programs are called, welfare.

Again, if you want to make a philosophical argument, we can do that... and I would agree with a lot of what you're saying... but the reality on the ground in 2020 is that the Federal government provides SIGNIFICANT financial assistance to low income people. Because of all of the various programs and their conflicting and confusing rules and spotty enforcement, there is a lot of waste... with the biggest example being the 'black' market worth billions of dollars for things like food stamps where people use money intended for specific purposes, for other purposes... with the 'black market' taking a MUCH larger percentage than any corporation ever could.

If we're going to spend money this way.... and we're probably about 45 votes in the senate and hundreds away in the house from eliminating these programs... It would be far more financially efficient to offer a fixed amount of money to everyone, and then effectively put a 100% tax on that portion (did you get the credit? Did you earn more than 'x'? If yes, then you owe us the amount of the credit back) for anyone who makes enough such that they would not otherwise qualify for support.

This way, when the guy gets a 6k raise, he only loses perhaps 3k in support so he is still 3k ahead. Because he takes 'this' job, he is in line to perhaps get promoted again and make $15/hr and now he takes more home and gets no support.... and now his children don't grow up learning how to milk the system, but instead how to get OUT of the system. In addition to being far easier to administer and far harder to 'cheat'... you eliminate the black market because (using a poor example, but it makes sense) someone who lives where he needs a car to get to work because there isn't a good transit system can now use money given to him for transit towards that car as opposed to having to 'sell' his benefits for 75 cents on the dollar. Now if they blow their money on crap, that's on them.

I would support the states doing the same, even the counties. The Feds should give the same money to everyone... because you don't pay 'less' in Federal taxes if you live in an expensive city than you do if you live in a cheap one... and if California wants to give its citizens more in San Fran (based on property values and thus the high rents that would make you need more money to live there) then that's for them to decide.

So those of us who already are going to be ****** paying taxes are going to be even more ****** because of your beliefs.

Explain to me why it's my responsibility to provide for the existence of anyone else. Every penny stolen from me is a penny stolen away from my family.

(03-21-2020 12:54 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-20-2020 05:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-20-2020 03:26 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Explain exactly where a government that is already $23 trillion in debt is going to get the funding to provide a basic income to 327 million people.

Oh that's right.....they are going to steal it away from the 55.6% of us who are already footing the bill for the other 44.4%.

Well, let's start with this...

Anyone who makes more than 'x' would get that money, and then have to pay it back 100% at tax time... an interest free loan... so on a net basis, you're only really providing it to people who make less than 'x'.

How many people that is depends on where we set 'x'... but it's not remotely 300+mm people.... and you're already providing support to all of them right now.

Quote: Providing each and every American with a UBI isn't going to make the cliff disappear, the same income disparity is still going to be there.

You're not understanding the term.

In simplest form, someone making 7.25/hr earns around 15k per year. Depending on the specifics, this person may easily get $1,000 per month (or a whole lot more) in food, tanf. child tax credits, housing allowances etc etc etc... 12k per year.... so they have $27k to spend.

If they get a raise to say $10/hr, they would then earn $20,800... If they lose their $600/mo housing credit because they now earn more than 20k... then they have only $25,600 to spend. They got a 25% raise and end up losing ground. The $10/hr job obviously comes with more responsibility etc... it's a 'harder' job, and they take home less.

What person with a brain would not at least consider NOT taking that 'harder' job?

Quote: Most importantly is this: IT IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO PROVIDE AN INCOME. UNI OR OTHERWISE, NOR HEALTHCARE TO IT'S CITIZENS.

Well, Medicare and the ACA would disagree with you about healthcare, as would all of the various Federal financial support systems that we have about income... that courts have upheld since their inception. The government clearly has the power to tax, and to 'promote the general welfare' which is precisely why these programs are called, welfare.

Again, if you want to make a philosophical argument, we can do that... and I would agree with a lot of what you're saying... but the reality on the ground in 2020 is that the Federal government provides SIGNIFICANT financial assistance to low income people. Because of all of the various programs and their conflicting and confusing rules and spotty enforcement, there is a lot of waste... with the biggest example being the 'black' market worth billions of dollars for things like food stamps where people use money intended for specific purposes, for other purposes... with the 'black market' taking a MUCH larger percentage than any corporation ever could.

If we're going to spend money this way.... and we're probably about 45 votes in the senate and hundreds away in the house from eliminating these programs... It would be far more financially efficient to offer a fixed amount of money to everyone, and then effectively put a 100% tax on that portion (did you get the credit? Did you earn more than 'x'? If yes, then you owe us the amount of the credit back) for anyone who makes enough such that they would not otherwise qualify for support.

This way, when the guy gets a 6k raise, he only loses perhaps 3k in support so he is still 3k ahead. Because he takes 'this' job, he is in line to perhaps get promoted again and make $15/hr and now he takes more home and gets no support.... and now his children don't grow up learning how to milk the system, but instead how to get OUT of the system. In addition to being far easier to administer and far harder to 'cheat'... you eliminate the black market because (using a poor example, but it makes sense) someone who lives where he needs a car to get to work because there isn't a good transit system can now use money given to him for transit towards that car as opposed to having to 'sell' his benefits for 75 cents on the dollar. Now if they blow their money on crap, that's on them.

I would support the states doing the same, even the counties. The Feds should give the same money to everyone... because you don't pay 'less' in Federal taxes if you live in an expensive city than you do if you live in a cheap one... and if California wants to give its citizens more in San Fran (based on property values and thus the high rents that would make you need more money to live there) then that's for them to decide.

So those of us who already are going to be ****** paying taxes are going to be even more ****** because of your beliefs.

Explain to me why it's my responsibility to provide for the existence of anyone else. Every penny stolen from me is a penny stolen away from my family.

^^^^ every single fk'n bit of what you stated, Kap!!!!

(03-21-2020 08:33 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-21-2020 12:54 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  So those of us who already are going to be ****** paying taxes are going to be even more ****** because of your beliefs.

Explain to me why it's my responsibility to provide for the existence of anyone else. Every penny stolen from me is a penny stolen away from my family.

^^^^ every single fk'n bit of what you stated, Kap!!!!

Either of you please explain to me how spending perhaps 80% of what we're spending now for a 'better' outcome that reduces the permanent welfare state causes you to pay more in taxes? And don't come in with a lot of... this or that or the other COULD happen, because all of those things can already happen. Nothing I've suggested makes that more likely, in fact the elimination of the permanent under-class could easily lead to fewer people pushing for those things.

I don't know about you, but my experience is that many of the most vocal people against things like permanent welfare and illegal immigration are those who fought their way out of it and worked through, not around the system