Klingsor Posted December 4, 2016 Report Share Posted December 4, 2016 Nevermind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mts Posted December 4, 2016 Report Share Posted December 4, 2016 - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victimorthecrime Posted December 4, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 4, 2016 Behavioral health professionals, social workers and the like help create the guidelines from what I understand. Hopefully those professionals do their job and find a win-win balance. No system is ever going to be perfect but nearly always err on the side of the beneficiaries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mts Posted December 4, 2016 Report Share Posted December 4, 2016 - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klingsor Posted December 4, 2016 Report Share Posted December 4, 2016 Nevermind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victimorthecrime Posted December 4, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 4, 2016 Anyone that pays into Social Security gets Social Security. I never said that programs that help addicts are a waste. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mts Posted December 4, 2016 Report Share Posted December 4, 2016 - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mts Posted December 4, 2016 Report Share Posted December 4, 2016 - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victimorthecrime Posted December 4, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 4, 2016 Sorry to hear your disability benefit was stopped mts. Can you appeal the decision? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klingsor Posted December 4, 2016 Report Share Posted December 4, 2016 I'm not an economist and not smart enough to determine if it's sustainable, but a basic income legislation might be the best thing. No welfare, no SS, no distinctions, no bureaucracy. Those who want to work for more money are free to do so, and those who don't can do whatever they want within the scope of their income. The Swiss had a referendum on this but it was voted down. Who knows. mts 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mts Posted December 4, 2016 Report Share Posted December 4, 2016 - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resolute Posted December 4, 2016 Report Share Posted December 4, 2016 49 minutes ago, Pax said: I'm not an economist and not smart enough to determine if it's sustainable, but a basic income legislation might be the best thing. No welfare, no SS, no distinctions, no bureaucracy. Those who want to work for more money are free to do so, and those who don't can do whatever they want within the scope of their income. The Swiss had a referendum on this but it was voted down. Who knows. i was actually going to say something similar. wages (specially those below a certain amount) should be increased, while welfare and disability are merged into one category and increased (in most countries) at the same time. then it would simply be a matter of what group you "wish" to be in; the "enough income to get by" group or the "more money" group. the latter would require you to work, while the former has no requirements. also, people who choose to work would qualify for retirement income (aka social security) that is relative to their income prior to retirement. this category should also have the "option" of early retirement (no questions asked) but with two caveats in order to qualify for retirement benefits; 1. the person must put in a minimum of let's say 20 years (total) of work. 2. retirement benefits kick in after a certain age, let's say 60; so until reaching that age the person would only receive welfare/disability (after he/she stops working that is). this shouldn't be too difficult to implement in many countries. tho it would cut into the profits of the respective governments and big companies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klingsor Posted December 4, 2016 Report Share Posted December 4, 2016 The only problem I see is that it would reduce back to the same argument - elements of the basic income group would get pissed off at the working group when they see them earning more money and subsequently demand that the basic income line be raised to achieve parity. And, theoretically, an entire population could opt not to work at all, in which case I can't see how it would be sustainable. It would have to be such that people who opt to hold a job are not penalized for doing so, and that they are encouraged to do so - the caveats you mention sound like a reasonable cost-benefit model to offset any bitterness by the basic income group. It sounds good but I can see it falling right back into the haves vs. haves not with the haves being demonized because they are simply doing what they have the ability and desire to do. It's quite similar to the penis argument if you think about it. There is a peculiar logic to the idea that the have's, in whatever category they can be conceived, should just be destroyed. Haven't I, on occasion, expressed the desire that sexually privileged men choke on their own severed penis? The only truly equitable system is one in which there are no differences between individuals. Is this achievable? Perhaps, but we would all have to become clones, and the prototype would need to be someone who is disenfranchised in every possible way - not even I, Klingsor the Vile, can fulfill that role. Otherwise, someone will always be perceived as having an unfair advantage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resolute Posted December 4, 2016 Report Share Posted December 4, 2016 obviously the clone paradigm is unacceptable for numerous reasons. for one thing, it's extremely boring and dull. if you think about it, it's not even possible for a clone system to even function. so variances must exist if society/civilization is to exist (i'm a proponent of nonexistence but that's just me). the best conceivable model would be everyone being different but happy with who/what/where they are. as to the income concerns discussion, i'd say that your example (swiss model) and mine are quite practical and sustainable solutions. maybe not perfect, but no existing thing ever is. if i were in the non-working group, i might not be thrilled about not being rich but at least some of my basic needs are met. and if i'm unable to work i can't blame the government or the working people for my disability. and if i choose not to work then i always have the option of joining the working group for more money. i also wanted to add that full healthcare (including dental, counseling/therapy etc and even assisted suicide) and other services should be available to everyone, free of charge. needless to say, those who don't work and those who don't have high paying jobs would be exempt from income tax. i'd also submit that foreclosure laws (for banks and government) be changed completely, including emergency aid etc. and things like government foreclosures relating to property taxes be abolished. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victimorthecrime Posted December 5, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 5, 2016 The basic income subsidy sounds great and if folks a lot smarter than me can crunch the numbers and develop accurate forecasts then great I'd be all for it. But frankly I am skeptical that the money will be there to pay for it. Cut to the bottom line: the taxes that fund the program deter the very economic activity that needed for the tax revenues to occur. Businesses and consumers alike aren't stupid. They know all these freebies are going to come out of their pockets so they spend less and save more. Spending less and saving more is not a formula for economic growth and as a matter of fact is exactly what we have seen in the US the last few years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klingsor Posted December 5, 2016 Report Share Posted December 5, 2016 On December 4, 2016 at 6:01 PM, Victimorthecrime said: Cut to the bottom line: the taxes that fund the program deter the very economic activity that needed for the tax revenues to occur. Businesses and consumers alike aren't stupid. They know all these freebies are going to come out of their pockets so they spend less and save more. Spending less and saving more is not a formula for economic growth and as a matter of fact is exactly what we have seen in the US the last few years. Because the economy is not a closed system, if for no other reason than men and women will continue to have babies. And there are only two paths forward if this is the case: 1) nobody produces anything or everyone is self-sufficient on a local level in which case we're not even talking about a market economy anymore, or 2) a central authority decides that production levels must still be maintained for the good of society...in other words, take your blauschein, comrade, and get your ass to work. Victimorthecrime 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victimorthecrime Posted December 5, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 5, 2016 I bet on option 2 as the more likely. Increasingly Americans won't even get off their ass to go the grocery store or cook their own food. They want hot meals delivered to their door step. So much for self suffiency. Although there is a movement of new dropouts of society living way out in the country or out of their cars. I wonder if I would be legally allowed to rent my backyard to such folks, traveling gypsy types or those riding the wook train. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klingsor Posted December 5, 2016 Report Share Posted December 5, 2016 15 hours ago, Victimorthecrime said: I bet on option 2 as the more likely. Victimorthecrime 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrmaJean Posted December 6, 2016 Report Share Posted December 6, 2016 I haven't caught up on everything here just yet. I have my own thoughts and opinions, as most of us do, but I think what may be most important to finding workable solutions is a continuing honest, respectful, and open dialogue...even when there are dissenting views. I always have the hope that one day we can use our differences as a source to draw strength from. Despite our differences, ultimately we're all human. One way to draw people together is to find a common goal. I hope the parties can find some way to work together. Victimorthecrime and Klingsor 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klingsor Posted December 6, 2016 Report Share Posted December 6, 2016 I don't think it was getting heated, it's just a frustrating world we live in. Someone or some group will always be at a real or perceived disadvantage. It's just the nature of society unless we're all clones. Victimorthecrime 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrmaJean Posted December 7, 2016 Report Share Posted December 7, 2016 4 hours ago, Pax said: I don't think it was getting heated, it's just a frustrating world we live in. No, not heated....the discussion here has been open and respectful. I hope it has been helpful in some way to our members, including you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaLa Posted December 7, 2016 Report Share Posted December 7, 2016 15 hours ago, IrmaJean said: I haven't caught up on everything here just yet. I have my own thoughts and opinions, as most of us do, but I think what may be most important to finding workable solutions is a continuing honest, respectful, and open dialogue...even when there are dissenting views. I always have the hope that one day we can use our differences as a source to draw strength from. Despite our differences, ultimately we're all human. One way to draw people together is to find a common goal. I hope the parties can find some way to work together. This reminded me of this, already quite old, TED talk: https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind IrmaJean 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazz Posted December 7, 2016 Report Share Posted December 7, 2016 18 hours ago, LaLa said: This reminded me of this, already quite old, TED talk: https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind Lala, I had to smile when he was saying you could tell the difference between a liberal and conservative by what sort of pet dog they would choose Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaLa Posted December 7, 2016 Report Share Posted December 7, 2016 Does it mean, @jazz, that you know people with pets whose views you can "recognize" this way? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazz Posted December 7, 2016 Report Share Posted December 7, 2016 Yes, funnily enough I do Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.