What is UBI? How would free money change our lives.
4.6
Average: 4.6(5 votes)
Comments
Ozmen (Long Spike)
Finland has one of the first limited scale UBI experiments. It'll be interesting to see how it turns out.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Fullauto223cal (Old Spike)
Finland doesn't need to spend money on a military since they're security is provided by the United States.
+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Ozmen (Long Spike)
That is such a load of horseshit rubbish that I haven't seen you pull a bigger one out of your ass yet.
We aren't a NATO member and currently it's not a viable option in any way or form to move NATO forces into our land. Unless we as a global society want to move that much closer towards all out nuclear war. Nor will any such agreements ever exist if our politicians want to keep Finland independent and in peace.
And as far as actual diplomatic agreements between Finland and the United States of America goes in regards of military aid during a war, none of the kind exists.
+1
+2
-1
Vote comment up/down
Grothesk (Long Spike)
I'm absolutely shocked that FullAutoGal would misrepresent information.
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Fullauto223cal (Old Spike)
OK let's do some basic math to cut through this bullshit. In the video they propose a UBI for $12,000 per US adult.
There were an estimated 249,485,228 US adults over 18 in 2016.
The Federal Budget for 2016 was ($3.999 trillion dollars).
Now they say everything would balance out because welfare programs would be pointless. Welfare spending ammounts to $443 billion, that's not just the money that goes to poor people, that's everything.
The bottom line is, UBI would not break even compared to the current system.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sato (Old Spike)
your basic math is lacking factors. a person currently on say $30,000 is paid that entire sum by the company they work for. with universal income, that'd still be $30,000, but the first $12,000 would be from the government and untaxable, and the company would pay $18,000 more for your services. their costs would be severely reduced, so some of that saving they'd be paying in taxes rather than direct to employees.
also your numbers for welfare spending are way off. there are 79 welfare programs currently in the US, which cost about $2.3 trillion. social security alone is $780 billion a year, so i can't understand where your $443 billion comes from?
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Fullauto223cal (Old Spike)
Well now you're changing what the video said. Of course the entire $30,000 is paid by the employer. Why would the first $12,000 be paid by the government? Why are you trying to mix earned wages with free handouts. Someone who isn't working gets that money regardless if they worked. According to the video that $12,000 is suppose to be inaddition to what I earn. But here you are telling me that I have to work off that $12,000 before I actually get paid for what I'm doing.
The first part of my income is already untaxed, it's called a "standard deduction".
Social Security is not a welfare program, at least it wasn't designed to be a welfare program.
I think it's your math that is lacking. UBI is nothing more than repackaged soclist horse shit. You want to raid people out of poverty? You don't do it by throwing them free cash, you do it by making sure they can get a fucking job.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Grothesk (Long Spike)
Are you actively defending welfare, FullAutoGal?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Fullauto223cal (Old Spike)
No, but every day I am actively defending myself from the words you so enjoy putting into my mouth to avoid real arguments.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sato (Old Spike)
it has to happen eventually for capitalism to stand a chance. a consumer economy needs consumers, and with jobs disappearing due to automation and other streamlining, eventually there won't be enough people earning salaries to buy enough for the economy to continue. the same thing happened early last century, and it was largely solved by eliminating child labour, which also cut the workforce by close to a half (one of the reasons families back then had so many kids was so they could work), and pushed up salaries and spending power. introducing the 8 hour day also helped a lot.
basically an oversupply of labour leads to an undersupply of consumer spending, so you have to either reduce the workforce (which is another option, instead of a UBI you legislate reduced working hours), or make sure all those people currently doing unpaid work (housework, caring for a sick relative, volunteer work, etc) also have money to spend into the economy.
+1
+2
-1
Vote comment up/down
Grothesk (Long Spike)
The most compelling argument against UBI presented in this video is found at 5:09: "The second way, higher taxes especially for the very wealthy." Republicans have their noses so far up rich people's assholes this one way of paying for UBI puts it dead in the water already. Until we can erase the scourge of Republican brown-nosing the current minset of "keep everyone else poor" will dominate the world.
I mean, look how powerful they are...they even have FullAutoGal in here with his nose 3 inches up some corporate billionaire's asshole as he defends welfare.
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Fullauto223cal (Old Spike)
That some good ol' Communist Class Warfare you got there Mr. Fudd. No easier way to win people over to your side than to appeal to their jealousy and greed. Those evil Republican with their ill gotten gains. You learn all that from Communist professors when you wasted your fathers money at college?
Mr. Fudd, do you think everyone who disagrees with your politics stole what they have and those that agree simply earned it by hard work and dedication? Fuck it, let us confiscate their property and ship them off to the gulag. It's for the greater good after all. Why should people be able to keep what they made for themselves when it makes you feel so much better to take it from them and give to other people who couldn't be bothered to live responsibly.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Grothesk (Long Spike)
Comical note: Literally adding up each and every single one of those doesn't add up to Trump's supposed bank account.
You literally can't even sum up EIGHT Leftist's net worth, INCLUDING four people who aren't even politicians, to equal the net worth of the current leader of the Rpublican party. Man, really great argument you got there, FullAutoGal. I don't type this very often, but I really can't stop myself: LOL.
Not only that, my argument isn't that there are no rich Leftists (although if half of your list requires people who aren't even politicians then your argument is dead in the water already) but that it is quite clear that Republicans would staunchly stand against UBI due to the path of payment which includes potentially increasing taxes upon the very rich. Is that really so controversial of a statement that you had to laughably throw together a list of rich Leftists, two of whom aren't even relevant anymore?
Let's make it simple. Here is my claim: Republicans don't like raising taxes on the rich. Do you wish to debate me upon this point?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Fullauto223cal (Old Spike)
Comical note: Literally adding up each and every single one of those doesn't add up to Trump's supposed bank account.
Why is that comical? I'll tell you. Because it's a completely irrelevant point. Trump isn't one of your hero's running their mouth about how we need the Government steal an ever larger chuck of other people's property because you think it's fucking unfair that they have more than you do. Trump isn't one of your hero's demonizing "the rich" while they themselves are multi-millionaires. Tell me, how does a Senator with a salary of $174,000 a year become worth 26.43 million? How does a President end up with a net worth of 11.8 million on a $400,000 a year salary? You think they did that honestly? Give me a fucking break.
Your claim is bullshit. Republicans don't like raising taxes PERIOD. When they cut taxes of course the rich pay less because they are the ones paying the most under your left wing "progressive" tax system.
Republicans are half way to where we need to be, which is lower taxes AND an overall reduction in the Government spending. As opposed to the Democrats who have never seen a tax increase they cum in their pants over and have no self-control when it comes to spending other people's money.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Grothesk (Long Spike)
FullAutoGal said: "Why is that comical? I'll tell you. Because it's a completely irrelevant point."
Grothesk asks: Then why the fuck did you bring it up?
FullAutoGal said: "Trump isn't one of your hero's demonizing "the rich" while they themselves are multi-millionaires."
Grothesk says: But isn't that the entire fucking point of your ultra-sourced list of ultra-rich Lefists above? Wasn't the entire purpose you shat out that list was to show me how there are wealthy Democrats that would also be torn down? Be honest with me: are you fucking having a stroke right now? Because you're defining the term "babbling".
FullAutoGal said: "Republicans are half way to where we need to be, which is lower taxes AND an overall reduction in the Government spending."
Grothesk says: Yeah, that's why they just lowered the deficit by a trillion dollars. Oopsy, nevermind. What I mean to say is that out of one side of their two faces they say that they need to lower the deficit while the other side screams for increasing it by literally a trillion dollars while cutting taxes for the rich. You may choose to drink as deep as you can from the trickle down upon your head, but I have eyes to see and I see how it has affected this country. My eyes also see a blind sheep going to sleep to the rhythm of the war drums of Republican dogma and it very much makes me appreciate the difference between animals and humans.
Comments
(Long Spike)
Finland has one of the first limited scale UBI experiments. It'll be interesting to see how it turns out.
(Old Spike)
Finland doesn't need to spend money on a military since they're security is provided by the United States.
(Long Spike)
That is such a load of horseshit rubbish that I haven't seen you pull a bigger one out of your ass yet.
We aren't a NATO member and currently it's not a viable option in any way or form to move NATO forces into our land. Unless we as a global society want to move that much closer towards all out nuclear war. Nor will any such agreements ever exist if our politicians want to keep Finland independent and in peace.
And as far as actual diplomatic agreements between Finland and the United States of America goes in regards of military aid during a war, none of the kind exists.
(Long Spike)
I'm absolutely shocked that FullAutoGal would misrepresent information.
(Old Spike)
OK let's do some basic math to cut through this bullshit. In the video they propose a UBI for $12,000 per US adult.
There were an estimated 249,485,228 US adults over 18 in 2016.
$12,000 + 249,485,228 = $2,993,822,736,000 (2.9 Trillion dollars).
The Federal Budget for 2016 was ($3.999 trillion dollars).
Now they say everything would balance out because welfare programs would be pointless. Welfare spending ammounts to $443 billion, that's not just the money that goes to poor people, that's everything.
The bottom line is, UBI would not break even compared to the current system.
(Old Spike)
your basic math is lacking factors. a person currently on say $30,000 is paid that entire sum by the company they work for. with universal income, that'd still be $30,000, but the first $12,000 would be from the government and untaxable, and the company would pay $18,000 more for your services. their costs would be severely reduced, so some of that saving they'd be paying in taxes rather than direct to employees.
also your numbers for welfare spending are way off. there are 79 welfare programs currently in the US, which cost about $2.3 trillion. social security alone is $780 billion a year, so i can't understand where your $443 billion comes from?
(Old Spike)
Well now you're changing what the video said. Of course the entire $30,000 is paid by the employer. Why would the first $12,000 be paid by the government? Why are you trying to mix earned wages with free handouts. Someone who isn't working gets that money regardless if they worked. According to the video that $12,000 is suppose to be inaddition to what I earn. But here you are telling me that I have to work off that $12,000 before I actually get paid for what I'm doing.
The first part of my income is already untaxed, it's called a "standard deduction".
Social Security is not a welfare program, at least it wasn't designed to be a welfare program.
I think it's your math that is lacking. UBI is nothing more than repackaged soclist horse shit. You want to raid people out of poverty? You don't do it by throwing them free cash, you do it by making sure they can get a fucking job.
(Long Spike)
Are you actively defending welfare, FullAutoGal?
(Old Spike)
No, but every day I am actively defending myself from the words you so enjoy putting into my mouth to avoid real arguments.
(Old Spike)
it has to happen eventually for capitalism to stand a chance. a consumer economy needs consumers, and with jobs disappearing due to automation and other streamlining, eventually there won't be enough people earning salaries to buy enough for the economy to continue. the same thing happened early last century, and it was largely solved by eliminating child labour, which also cut the workforce by close to a half (one of the reasons families back then had so many kids was so they could work), and pushed up salaries and spending power. introducing the 8 hour day also helped a lot.
basically an oversupply of labour leads to an undersupply of consumer spending, so you have to either reduce the workforce (which is another option, instead of a UBI you legislate reduced working hours), or make sure all those people currently doing unpaid work (housework, caring for a sick relative, volunteer work, etc) also have money to spend into the economy.
(Long Spike)
The most compelling argument against UBI presented in this video is found at 5:09: "The second way, higher taxes especially for the very wealthy." Republicans have their noses so far up rich people's assholes this one way of paying for UBI puts it dead in the water already. Until we can erase the scourge of Republican brown-nosing the current minset of "keep everyone else poor" will dominate the world.
I mean, look how powerful they are...they even have FullAutoGal in here with his nose 3 inches up some corporate billionaire's asshole as he defends welfare.
(Old Spike)
That some good ol' Communist Class Warfare you got there Mr. Fudd. No easier way to win people over to your side than to appeal to their jealousy and greed. Those evil Republican with their ill gotten gains. You learn all that from Communist professors when you wasted your fathers money at college?
Elizabeth Warren. Net Worth: 14.5 million
Barack Obama. Net Worth: 11.8 million
Harry Reid from the senate floor. Net worth: 5 million
Nancy Pelosi. Net worth: 26.43 million
Jon Stewart. Net worth: 80 million
Michael Moore. Net Worth: 50 Million
Harvey Weinstein. Net worth 150 Million
Rachel Maddow. Net worth 20 million
Mr. Fudd, do you think everyone who disagrees with your politics stole what they have and those that agree simply earned it by hard work and dedication? Fuck it, let us confiscate their property and ship them off to the gulag. It's for the greater good after all. Why should people be able to keep what they made for themselves when it makes you feel so much better to take it from them and give to other people who couldn't be bothered to live responsibly.
(Long Spike)
Comical note: Literally adding up each and every single one of those doesn't add up to Trump's supposed bank account.
You literally can't even sum up EIGHT Leftist's net worth, INCLUDING four people who aren't even politicians, to equal the net worth of the current leader of the Rpublican party. Man, really great argument you got there, FullAutoGal. I don't type this very often, but I really can't stop myself: LOL.
Not only that, my argument isn't that there are no rich Leftists (although if half of your list requires people who aren't even politicians then your argument is dead in the water already) but that it is quite clear that Republicans would staunchly stand against UBI due to the path of payment which includes potentially increasing taxes upon the very rich. Is that really so controversial of a statement that you had to laughably throw together a list of rich Leftists, two of whom aren't even relevant anymore?
Let's make it simple. Here is my claim: Republicans don't like raising taxes on the rich. Do you wish to debate me upon this point?
(Old Spike)
Comical note: Literally adding up each and every single one of those doesn't add up to Trump's supposed bank account.
Why is that comical? I'll tell you. Because it's a completely irrelevant point. Trump isn't one of your hero's running their mouth about how we need the Government steal an ever larger chuck of other people's property because you think it's fucking unfair that they have more than you do. Trump isn't one of your hero's demonizing "the rich" while they themselves are multi-millionaires. Tell me, how does a Senator with a salary of $174,000 a year become worth 26.43 million? How does a President end up with a net worth of 11.8 million on a $400,000 a year salary? You think they did that honestly? Give me a fucking break.
Your claim is bullshit. Republicans don't like raising taxes PERIOD. When they cut taxes of course the rich pay less because they are the ones paying the most under your left wing "progressive" tax system.
Republicans are half way to where we need to be, which is lower taxes AND an overall reduction in the Government spending. As opposed to the Democrats who have never seen a tax increase they cum in their pants over and have no self-control when it comes to spending other people's money.
(Long Spike)
FullAutoGal said: "Why is that comical? I'll tell you. Because it's a completely irrelevant point."
Grothesk asks: Then why the fuck did you bring it up?
FullAutoGal said: "Trump isn't one of your hero's demonizing "the rich" while they themselves are multi-millionaires."
Grothesk says: But isn't that the entire fucking point of your ultra-sourced list of ultra-rich Lefists above? Wasn't the entire purpose you shat out that list was to show me how there are wealthy Democrats that would also be torn down? Be honest with me: are you fucking having a stroke right now? Because you're defining the term "babbling".
FullAutoGal said: "Republicans are half way to where we need to be, which is lower taxes AND an overall reduction in the Government spending."
Grothesk says: Yeah, that's why they just lowered the deficit by a trillion dollars. Oopsy, nevermind. What I mean to say is that out of one side of their two faces they say that they need to lower the deficit while the other side screams for increasing it by literally a trillion dollars while cutting taxes for the rich. You may choose to drink as deep as you can from the trickle down upon your head, but I have eyes to see and I see how it has affected this country. My eyes also see a blind sheep going to sleep to the rhythm of the war drums of Republican dogma and it very much makes me appreciate the difference between animals and humans.