Let put one myth to rest - Largesse for the Rich

[MagisterCultuum]

I haven't looked into it lately, but I have read in the past that the administrative costs of all the strings we attach to welfare payments are so high that it would probably be cheaper simply to provide a basic income guarantee with no prerequisites other than citizenship.

(I'm thinking the source may have actually said that basic income would be somewhat more expensive if everyone claimed all the funds they legally could, but estimated that many would not. It was estimated that pride and bad publicity would stop most of the well off from claiming their entitlements if it was a mater of public record.)

Means testing can create significant perverse incentives, keeping the poor poor because they fear losing government benefits if they get a job that does pay well enough to be worth said loss. With a basic income guarantee, there is no reason not to work to supplement one's income even when the wages are poor. (There is not much reason to keep minimum wage laws in addition to a basic income guarantee.)


(As a Geo-Libertarian, I tend to favor replacing the entire system of wealth transfers and taxes with simpler and fairer citizens' dividends and taxes on pollution and the monopolization of land and other natural resources. )

 

[Chiteng]

Even if that was the case, what the hell do you have against Muslims? Why would I feel the need to reserve soil for a demographic not of a certain religion? It seems kind of bigoted to have anything against these supposed "colonies of Islam" to begin with in my eyes.

In the United States, a man is free to have ANY opinion he wishes. That includes
'I dont want them here'

I have need for any explanation beyond that. It is my right as a citizen to say this.

Anyone who posts on a public forum is a bigot. Look the word up, and try multiple dictionary, rather than settle for one that you like.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

You may be legally free to have any opinion you wish, but it is a really asinine move to insist on them without putting forth any rational explanation of why they should be supported and to act offended when others ask questions in order to try to make sense of them.

 

[Tee Kay]

You have a right to your opinion... and we have the right to point out how absurd and stupid your opinion is.

 

[peter grimes]

You have a right to your opinion... and we have the right to point out how absurd and stupid your opinion is.

Nay, a duty! There are kids on thus forum, afterall. It would be shameful if a kid came across an opinion like that and didn't see it challenged.

 

[Chiteng]

You may be legally free to have any opinion you wish, but it is a really asinine move to insist on them without putting forth any rational explanation of why they should be supported and to act offended when others ask questions in order to try to make sense of them.

Actually since I am NOT trying to convince anyone of anything, it is a great time saver.
To me the issues are obvious. If you have a self-serving bias, you should be ignored.

I am NOT on welfare, receive no food stamps or any form of largesse from the Gov.
So I can truthfully claim I have no self-serving bias.

I do not agree that bribing the poor to keep order is a public good.

 

[Cutlass]

I haven't looked into it lately, but I have read in the past that the administrative costs of all the strings we attach to welfare payments are so high that it would probably be cheaper simply to provide a basic income guarantee with no prerequisites other than citizenship.

(I'm thinking the source may have actually said that basic income would be somewhat more expensive if everyone claimed all the funds they legally could, but estimated that many would not. It was estimated that pride and bad publicity would stop most of the well off from claiming their entitlements if it was a mater of public record.)

Means testing can create significant perverse incentives, keeping the poor poor because they fear losing government benefits if they get a job that does pay well enough to be worth said loss. With a basic income guarantee, there is no reason not to work to supplement one's income even when the wages are poor. (There is not much reason to keep minimum wage laws in addition to a basic income guarantee.)


(As a Geo-Libertarian, I tend to favor replacing the entire system of wealth transfers and taxes with simpler and fairer citizens' dividends and taxes on pollution and the monopolization of land and other natural resources. )

Oddly, the Negative Income Tax proposal, which is probably the most generous, and certainly the easiest, welfare scheme out there is an idea by the right-libertarian economist Milton Friedman. And yet has no chance of being enacted in a country that has moved far to the right and claims to have become much more libertarian.

 

[Cutlass]

Actually since I am NOT trying to convince anyone of anything, it is a great time saver.
To me the issues are obvious. If you have a self-serving bias, you should be ignored.

I am NOT on welfare, receive no food stamps or any form of largesse from the Gov.
So I can truthfully claim I have no self-serving bias.

I do not agree that bribing the poor to keep order is a public good.

It's not "bribing the poor", anymore than it is "favors for the poor". You have an extremely perverse way of looking at the subject.

 

[Angst]

In the United States, a man is free to have ANY opinion he wishes. That includes
'I dont want them here'

I have need for any explanation beyond that. It is my right as a citizen to say this.

In Denmark, you're allowed to have the opinions you wish to have, with some exceptions: You're not allowed to publish and promote racist claims because it hurts people. (And what we legally define racist claims as isn't what racism means, but rather disallows bigoted positions against groups, nationalities or races.) And honestly, I'm happy people aren't able to target my group socially.

Anyone who posts on a public forum is a bigot. Look the word up, and try multiple dictionary, rather than settle for one that you like.

What? I know what the word means. Your definition is off.

 

[Lord of Elves]

I do not agree that bribing the poor to keep order is a public good.

The preferable option must be to beat them senseless?

 

[Chiteng]

The preferable option must be to beat them senseless?

If they refuse to conform to the laws of the society that they are part of. The society is not obligated to support insurrection

 

[Agarwaen]

If they refuse to conform to the laws of the society that they are part of. The society is not obligated to support insurrection

On the other hand, if your laws are constantly being responded with insurrection, we may not be obligated to support such laws.

 

[Glassfan]

You have a right to your opinion... and we have the right to point out how absurd and stupid your opinion is.

Carefull; Moboss got a three day suspension for this kind of language.

 

[Chiteng]

On the other hand, if your laws are constantly being responded with insurrection, we may not be obligated to support such laws.

They are not 'my' laws. I need not defend them. Only obey them

 

[peter grimes]

They are not 'my' laws. I need not defend them. Only obey them

Do you know what Jury Nullification is? I don't know if you're in the US, or if a parallel exists elsewhere, but the basic idea is that citizens are the ultimate arbiters of law: if a person is on trial for breaking a law, the jury may opt to refuse to convict even if they feel the evidence shows guilt beyond a reasonable doubt if they feel the law is unjust.

From what you've said it seems that you view laws as intrangressable monoliths, and therefore you'd be against Jury Nullification. Is that correct?

 

[Chiteng]

Do you know what Jury Nullification is? I don't know if you're in the US, or if a parallel exists elsewhere, but the basic idea is that citizens are the ultimate arbiters of law: if a person is on trial for breaking a law, the jury may opt to refuse to convict even if they feel the evidence shows guilt beyond a reasonable doubt if they feel the law is unjust.

From what you've said it seems that you view laws as intrangressable monoliths, and therefore you'd be against Jury Nullification. Is that correct?

I already stated my view.

We use the tools we have, to gains the ends we want. Like ALL living creatures.

 

[Agarwaen]

They are not 'my' laws. I need not defend them. Only obey them

If they are not your law, why should you have to obey them?

Are you a citizen, or a serf?

 

[Chiteng]

If they are not your law, why should you have to obey them?

Are you a citizen, or a serf?

The punishment for not obeying them is severe

 

[peter grimes]

Troll level = Viking

 

[Agarwaen]

The punishment for not obeying them is severe

You are both a lackey and a coward.
So everything is alright as long as you don't get caught? You seem to be confusing laws and cops with blackmail and criminals. Your concept of social order are no different from bullying by the powerful.