Quote:

---

Originally posted by WISHIMAY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:


WISHY: If you really think that you don't have any say in anything, then just STFU and stay home and don't bother to vote.

---

Thanks, I don't anyway. But I like to play the "who could win if this country WASN'T run by a shadow government". There is too much money and other things at stake to just hand over power. It's all a puppet show.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

I like to play it too. That's why I like to discuss...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Easy. A lot of people won't work if they don't have to, and they will sacrifice a sh*t ton of creature comforts to own their own time.

---

Prove it.

---

You

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
"why do YOU feel that anybody who had enough money to live comfortably would choose not to work?"



I've spent 6 of my working years not doing any work. I can tell you from experience that choosing not to work when I didn't need to is the worst decision of my life

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by WISHIMAY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
"why do YOU feel that anybody who had enough money to live comfortably would choose not to work?"



I've spent 6 of my working years not doing any work. I can tell you from experience that choosing not to work when I didn't need to is the worst decision of my life

---

I can answer that one....

Because working just about ANY job as one of the plebs in this country absolutely BLOWS. Every job hubbs has had he's hated within two years of starting it.

A quarter of people in a group work setting don't pull their weight or have health issues and are no longer capable but still manage to stay on long past when they should've. You end up holding up THEIR end of the job, every time.

Then a quarter of the people are pure and simple asshats, or narcissists, or psychopaths that making dealing with them soul destroying.

Then there's a work week that isn't five days and hasn't been for a while now. A great many people work 6 days a week/10-12 hr days and can't afford to take off vacation days. You NEVER get enough rest.

Then you have corporations that push whole novels full of bullshit like calling an employee a "member" or any one of a number of humiliating or belittling jargon that they know is meaningless.

Then realize after taxes and healthcare deductions you will probably NEVER retire...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
UBI isn't either of my priorities. I haven't thought about it much, so I don't have much to say.

But Jack, you're not a good example of how UBI would or wouldn't work because: you're a 40 year old childless single male outright homeowner. You're a serious deviation from the vast majority. Most people are supporting a spouse and / or (a) child(ren) and / or a mortgage or rent and / or maybe even (a) parent(s). And a significant fraction of the population are beyond normal working age.


So I think I would learn more from people discussing the topic from a more representative perspective, with a higher budgetary demand.

---

Quote:

---

No, it's more than clear that you "discuss" things because you are only wanting people to think like YOU. That only YOUR topics are important. Your topics are THE MOST IMPORTANT THING EVER AND THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT CAN BE DISCUSSED AT ALL TIMES. See what you look like???

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I've spent 6 of my working years not doing any work.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

No, it's more than clear that you "discuss" things because you are only wanting people to think like YOU. That only YOUR topics are important. Your topics are THE MOST IMPORTANT THING EVER AND THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT CAN BE DISCUSSED AT ALL TIMES. See what you look like???

---

Oh, bullshit, WISHY.

The reason why I can't have a decent discussion WITH YOU and half of the people on this board is because most of you don't know how to THINK, much less discuss!

I propose an idea and what do I get?

REAVERBOT and THUGR name-calling, SECOND holding an endless one-sided rant about Trump, YOU endlessly harping about why I should never post ... anything that I post, GSTRING weaseling, ... lies about what I posted, who I am and what I "really" mean ...

I was willing to discuss Booker. He's not my favorite candidate but I would have been happy to bird-dog what you knew of him, what "I" knew of him, what that meant for his overall approach and whether or not there was merit in the ideas that I originally disagreed with.

I learned about Buttigieg. Interesting dude, I think his view of the Presidency ... where politicians come together for the sake of good government ... is a little naive ... and so far I don't know how he feels about issues that are important to me, but hey. I'm willing to discuss.

I think I took the idea of UBI about as far as it could go. I compared its cost to the total budget, its payouts compared to Social Security, it's probable effects on balance of trade and inflation, and so far it doesn't sound workable. But if someone comes up with some back-of-the envelope calcs of taxation changes that are supposed to come with it, then I'll have another look at it.

What I find is that some people have a few pretty shallow ideas about what they think our problems are and how they think they should be solved, but I never even get to ask people ... Why do you think that? How is that supposed to work? What do you think will happen a a result? Instead, I get people like you.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I've spent 6 of my working years not doing any work.

---

You crack me up - you must be a comedian. Seriously. You are incapable of learning a single thing. You aren't that special, bra. Why did you spend 6 years not working? Like Wish said, like you go bleating on about your current sh*t job - working a job sucks. You even answered your own question, "I've spent 6 of my working years not doing any work." You can't even agree with yourself - what a freaking doorknob.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Once again, taking a single sentence of many paragraphs out of context.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Why don't you try putting your response here while quoting the entire thing?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Obviously, my point was to illustrate the terrible depths that people can let themselves slide into, such as depression, poor decision making and self-destructive behavior when they choose not to do any work.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
This reply from you is just one more piece of evidence of what a small-minded asshole you truly are.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

No, it's more than clear that you "discuss" things because you are only wanting people to think like YOU. That only YOUR topics are important. Your topics are THE MOST IMPORTANT THING EVER AND THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT CAN BE DISCUSSED AT ALL TIMES. See what you look like???

---

Oh, bullshit, WISHY.

The reason why I can't have a decent discussion WITH YOU and half of the people on this board is because most of you don't know how to THINK, much less discuss!

I propose an idea and what do I get?

REAVERBOT and THUGR name-calling, SECOND holding an endless one-sided rant about Trump, YOU endlessly harping about why I should never post ... anything that I post, GSTRING weaseling, ... lies about what I posted, who I am and what I "really" mean ...

I was willing to discuss Booker. He's not my favorite candidate but I would have been happy to bird-dog what you knew of him, what "I" knew of him, what that meant for his overall approach and whether or not there was merit in the ideas that I originally disagreed with.

I learned about Buttigieg. Interesting dude, I think his view of the Presidency ... where politicians come together for the sake of good government ... is a little naive ... and so far I don't know how he feels about issues that are important to me, but hey. I'm willing to discuss.

I think I took the idea of UBI about as far as it could go. I compared its cost to the total budget, its payouts compared to Social Security, it's probable effects on balance of trade and inflation, and so far it doesn't sound workable. But if someone comes up with some back-of-the envelope calcs of taxation changes that are supposed to come with it, then I'll have another look at it.

What I find is that some people have a few pretty shallow ideas about what they think our problems are and how they think they should be solved, but I never even get to ask people ... Why do you think that? How is that supposed to work? What do you think will happen a a result? Instead, I get people like you.

---

Huh, you seem to have a lot of issues with a lot of people on this forum... curious... perhaps telling even.

---

Quote:

---

The main argument I'm hearing in this thread is that most people would choose not to work if they got a free $1,000 per month.

---

Quote:

---

Whether the argument is that most people could somehow afford to live off of only that when there are zero other social safety nets, or that most people are predisposed to not work, I find these arguments ridiculous.

---

Quote:

---

My main argument in favor of the UBI is that it will replace other forms of social safety nets that exist that actively dis-incentivize people to work, and also promote bad and self destructive behaviors (ie: having too many kids, sitting around doing nothing which often leads to substance abuse, easy credit for everybody that allows them to enslave themselves perpetually to the system, etc.)

---

Quote:

---

I also feel that people aren't considering the other things that I am saying would be necessary to happen in order for the UBI to be feesable and even worthwhile to pursue.

Maybe I should summarize these things here again?

1. EIC (Earned Income Credit), TANF (free money for non-working parents), SNAP (Food Stamps), Energy Assistance are all eliminated.

---

Quote:

---

2. Social Security for truly disabled adults is left intact, although there should be steps taken to remove people who don't belong on it.

---

Quote:

---

3. Given that all adults would get $1,000/mo. UBI, Social SecurityMedicare for the elderly needs to be revised. This is an entirely different topic that I welcome discussion on because I don't have all the answers. I'm NOT suggesting that it should be eliminated.

---

Quote:

---

4. Limits on Social Security/Medicare/UBI taxes on income should be removed completely, in leiu most other higher tax proposals on high earners.

---

Quote:

---

5. Social Security/Medicare/UBI taxes should also be added to Capitol Gains after a high enough yearly amount that does not hurt the middle-class investors.

---

Quote:

---

4. Credit cards are revoked for anybody not working for more than a 3 month period, and they are unable to acquire another one unless they have been working at least a part time job for a full year. Credit limits would be reasonable based off of their Income+UBI. (Any existing debt, meanwhile, is not forgiven. Bankruptcy options are eliminated entirely.)

---

Quote:

---

5. Military budget reduced significantly (down to pre-911 levels) would fund anywhere from a quarter of this to half of it.

---

Quote:

---

6. Employers wouldn't have as much leverage to abuse their lowest earning work force.

---

Quote:

---

7. A good chunk of the "NEEDs" could be taken care of for most people under this plan, and for those maxing out things like EIC and food stamps, it would be about a wash. If you want the "WANTs", get a job.

---

Quote:

---

8. Most people will choose to work, even the very small amount of people who actually wouldn't need to. Reasons range from boredom to a need for some sort of purpose, however trivial.

---

Quote:

---

9. If combined with a consumption tax, this makes it even more likely for the least fortunate to pay the bills with it, while also raising more state and local taxes through sales of consumer goods. When the lowest earning singles, for example, get their $12,000 UBI and don't have to pay FED taxes on the first $12,000 of income, this means that more tax revenue goes to local things like schools, infrastructure projects, police & firemen, etc. The same is true even if a consumption tax isn't implemented, although it makes things harder for the lowest earners.

---

Quote:

---

10. All figures, once set in place, are adjusted every year for inflation from now until perpetuity.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
UBI isn't either of my priorities. I haven't thought about it much, so I don't have much to say.

But Jack, you're not a good example of how UBI would or wouldn't work because: you're a 40 year old childless single male outright homeowner. You're a serious deviation from the vast majority. Most people are supporting a spouse and / or (a) child(ren) and / or a mortgage or rent and / or maybe even (a) parent(s). And a significant fraction of the population are beyond normal working age.

So I think I would learn more from people discussing the topic from a more representative perspective, with a higher budgetary demand.


But in a way, you might think of me as an example of the non-working (retired). Maybe ask me in 2 years when I've gotten a lot more 'idle' time under my belt, but at the moment I have no problem not having a 'job' to do.

---

Well... yes and no.

The main argument I'm hearing in this thread is that most people would choose not to work if they got a free $1,000 per month.

Whether the argument is that most people could somehow afford to live off of only that when there are zero other social safety nets, or that most people are predisposed to not work, I find these arguments ridiculous.


But you are right. I'm not a good example of why it would work. I've said so many times in this thread that I'm an extreme outlier, and that I fully recognize that.




My main argument in favor of the UBI is that it will replace other forms of social safety nets that exist that actively dis-incentivize people to work, and also promote bad and self destructive behaviors (ie: having too many kids, sitting around doing nothing which often leads to substance abuse, easy credit for everybody that allows them to enslave themselves perpetually to the system, etc.)

I feel this argument is being derailed intentionally by people here from all sides.

I also feel that people aren't considering the other things that I am saying would be necessary to happen in order for the UBI to be feesable and even worthwhile to pursue.

Maybe I should summarize these things here again?

1. EIC (Earned Income Credit), TANF (free money for non-working parents), SNAP (Food Stamps), Energy Assistance are all eliminated.

2. Social Security for truly disabled adults is left intact, although there should be steps taken to remove people who don't belong on it.

3. Given that all adults would get $1,000/mo. UBI, Social SecurityMedicare for the elderly needs to be revised. This is an entirely different topic that I welcome discussion on because I don't have all the answers. I'm NOT suggesting that it should be eliminated.

4. Limits on Social Security/Medicare/UBI taxes on income should be removed completely, in leiu most other higher tax proposals on high earners.

5. Social Security/Medicare/UBI taxes should also be added to Capitol Gains after a high enough yearly amount that does not hurt the middle-class investors.

4. Credit cards are revoked for anybody not working for more than a 3 month period, and they are unable to acquire another one unless they have been working at least a part time job for a full year. Credit limits would be reasonable based off of their Income+UBI. (Any existing debt, meanwhile, is not forgiven. Bankruptcy options are eliminated entirely.)

5. Military budget reduced significantly (down to pre-911 levels) would fund anywhere from a quarter of this to half of it.

6. Employers wouldn't have as much leverage to abuse their lowest earning work force.

7. A good chunk of the "NEEDs" could be taken care of for most people under this plan, and for those maxing out things like EIC and food stamps, it would be about a wash. If you want the "WANTs", get a job.

8. Most people will choose to work, even the very small amount of people who actually wouldn't need to. Reasons range from boredom to a need for some sort of purpose, however trivial.

9. If combined with a consumption tax, this makes it even more likely for the least fortunate to pay the bills with it, while also raising more state and local taxes through sales of consumer goods. When the lowest earning singles, for example, get their $12,000 UBI and don't have to pay FED taxes on the first $12,000 of income, this means that more tax revenue goes to local things like schools, infrastructure projects, police & firemen, etc. The same is true even if a consumption tax isn't implemented, although it makes things harder for the lowest earners.

10. All figures, once set in place, are adjusted every year for inflation from now until perpetuity.


I'm sure there's more. I'll revise this as we discuss it further.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

The main argument I'm hearing in this thread is that most people would choose not to work if they got a free $1,000 per month.

---

Quote:

---

But that's not MY main arguemtn. I have several, which I will post, again.

---

Quote:

---

Whether the argument is that most people could somehow afford to live off of only that when there are zero other social safety nets, or that most people are predisposed to not work, I find these arguments ridiculous.

---

Quote:

---

Me too, so lest's not discuss that.

---

Quote:

---

My main argument in favor of the UBI is that it will replace other forms of social safety nets that exist that actively dis-incentivize people to work, and also promote bad and self destructive behaviors (ie: having too many kids, sitting around doing nothing which often leads to substance abuse, easy credit for everybody that allows them to enslave themselves perpetually to the system, etc.)

---

Quote:

---

Yes, the "law of unintended consequences" at work. Generally, if you want to promote a particular behavior, you reward it, so if you "reward" poverty with "assistance" you will promote poverty.

---

Quote:

---

I also feel that people aren't considering the other things that I am saying would be necessary to happen in order for the UBI to be feesable and even worthwhile to pursue.

Maybe I should summarize these things here again?

1. EIC (Earned Income Credit), TANF (free money for non-working parents), SNAP (Food Stamps), Energy Assistance are all eliminated.

---

Quote:

---

What about Federal unemployment insurance? During the last downturn, when many people lost their jobs, unemployment saved a lot of people. I bring this up because "not working" isn't always an individual choice, sometimes people can't find jobs.

---

Quote:

---

2. Social Security for truly disabled adults is left intact, although there should be steps taken to remove people who don't belong on it.

---

Quote:

---

There ARE steps to remove people who don't belong. People are re-evaluated every fix to seven years, or more often if "they" feel that the recipient's condition may improve.

---

Quote:

---

3. Given that all adults would get $1,000/mo. UBI, Social SecurityMedicare for the elderly needs to be revised. This is an entirely different topic that I welcome discussion on because I don't have all the answers. I'm NOT suggesting that it should be eliminated.

---

Quote:

---

I suggested coordinating Social Security with UBI, or simply making people receiving Social Security ineligible for UBI.

---

Quote:

---

4. Limits on Social Security/Medicare/UBI taxes on income should be removed completely, in leiu most other higher tax proposals on high earners.

---

Quote:

---

Removing the limit on Social Security is estimated to collect and extra $100 billion per year.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/what-impact-would-eliminating

---

Quote:

---

THERE IS NO UPPER WAGE LIMIT FOR MEDICARE TAXES. In fact, currently employers are mandated to charge EXTRA on incomes over $200,000, so no additional income would arise from Medicare taxes.
https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc751

---

Quote:

---

There is currently no UBI tax, and its amount would have to be calculated.

---

Quote:

---

5. Social Security/Medicare/UBI taxes should also be added to Capitol Gains after a high enough yearly amount that does not hurt the middle-class investors.

---

Quote:

---

Short-term capitl gains are already taxed, and they're taxed as "ordinary income". Since most people who claim short-term capitla gains are probably high income earners (somewhere above the 15% tax bracket) it's likely that taxing short-term capital gains at Social Security and Medicare tax rates would lead to a REUCTION in taxes, not an increase. UBI taxes? TBD.

---

Quote:

---

4. Credit cards are revoked for anybody not working for more than a 3 month period, and they are unable to acquire another one unless they have been working at least a part time job for a full year. Credit limits would be reasonable based off of their Income+UBI. (Any existing debt, meanwhile, is not forgiven. Bankruptcy options are eliminated entirely.)

---

Quote:

---

The government doesn't have the authority to do this, and I don't think I'd want to extend government power into this realm,

---

Quote:

---

5. Military budget reduced significantly (down to pre-911 levels) would fund anywhere from a quarter of this to half of it.

---

Quote:

---

THE CURRENT on-the-books military budget is about a half-trillion dollars, and while that's a significant amount of money it would not come anywhere near funding UBI.

---

Quote:

---

6. Employers wouldn't have as much leverage to abuse their lowest earning work force.

---

Quote:

---

True, that. But OTOH if you start increasing "wages" by adding more taxes, employers would increasingly turn to automation.

---

Quote:

---

7. A good chunk of the "NEEDs" could be taken care of for most people under this plan, and for those maxing out things like EIC and food stamps, it would be about a wash. If you want the "WANTs", get a job.

---

Quote:

---

Depends on where you live.

---

Quote:

---

8. Most people will choose to work, even the very small amount of people who actually wouldn't need to. Reasons range from boredom to a need for some sort of purpose, however trivial.

---

Quote:

---

An argument was made that UBI could even allow under- and unemployed the freedom to find better jobs. As I understand it, it didn't work. Finland tried UBI for a randomly-selected 2000 unemployed people because they have high unemployment and a complex welfare system, but gave up on it after two years.
http://time.com/5252049/finland-to-end-universal-basic-income/
http://fortune.com/2018/04/19/finland-universal-basic-income-experimen
t-ending/

We should follow up with other UBI experiments to see how they fared.

---

Quote:

---

9. If combined with a consumption tax, this makes it even more likely for the least fortunate to pay the bills with it, while also raising more state and local taxes through sales of consumer goods. When the lowest earning singles, for example, get their $12,000 UBI and don't have to pay FED taxes on the first $12,000 of income, this means that more tax revenue goes to local things like schools, infrastructure projects, police & firemen, etc. The same is true even if a consumption tax isn't implemented, although it makes things harder for the lowest earners.

---

Quote:

---

I don't understand how consumption tax makes things better for lower earners.

---

Quote:

---

10. All figures, once set in place, are adjusted every year for inflation from now until perpetuity.

---

Quote:

---

All this has done is encourage the government to jigger the inflation figures (not to include housing and energy costs!!!)

---

Quote:

---

So ... The cost of UBI is somewhere in the realm of $260 trillion dollars per year.

UBI
$2.6 trillion cost
$0.2 trillion from the Pentagon.
$0.7 trillion from converting the entire federal "welfare" budget
$0.7 trillion coordinating with Social Security
$0.1 trillion eliminating the upper income limit on SS taxes

There is still about a trillion dollar shortfall

---

Quote:

---

My questios about UBI are two-fold

It's very expensive. I haven't identified funding to make up that almost-$1trillion shortfall.

It may not have the positive effect on "the economy" that you imagine. I tried to estimate how much of that $$$ would simply flow overseas, but the calculation is too difficult: The trade deficit is driven by consumer goods and is in the realm of about a half-trillion dollars per year, total consumer spending in the USA is about $13(?) trillion per year, so maybe 4% (?) of UBI money would go into the trade deficit if proportionate, which isn't huge. OTOH I think that UBI would be inflationary; it would create the problem of "too much money chasing too few goods". Landlords and utlities would receive a windfall; farmers might get a lifeline and foreign consumer goods manufacturers would get a boost. Except for money spent on food (which would go to the American farmer) I don't see UBI promoting more production at home.

It would be extremely beneficial in the short term for the low-income wage earner. Is there any way to retain the benefits of "not incentivising unemployment" without spending so much money? The only thing I can think of is that the government "make up" the difference between poverty level and income, but that would require yet another complex system.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Some places have linked eligibility for Government Handouts to regular drug testing. Even in places with legalized pot.

I haven't heard 6ix object to UBI being issued only to peeps who always pass their drug tests. That would save the UBI about 1/3 of its spending.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Some places have linked eligibility for Government Handouts to regular drug testing. Even in places with legalized pot.

I haven't heard 6ix object to UBI being issued only to peeps who always pass their drug tests. That would save the UBI about 1/3 of its spending.

---

I would never argue this, unless pot was excluded from the testing.

Current drug tests are all but worthless. You could go on a cocaine bender on a Friday night and pass a drug test Monday morning. Same with Meth, Heroin and a plethora of other hard-core, soul stealing drugs.

I would agree to the withholding of UBI benefits for anybody with hard core drugs in their system if there was a legitimate test put in place that could test for these substances after you have peed them out of your system.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Some places have linked eligibility for Government Handouts to regular drug testing. Even in places with legalized pot.

I haven't heard 6ix object to UBI being issued only to peeps who always pass their drug tests. That would save the UBI about 1/3 of its spending.

---

I would never argue this, unless pot was excluded from the testing.

Current drug tests are all but worthless. You could go on a cocaine bender on a Friday night and pass a drug test Monday morning. Same with Meth, Heroin and a plethora of other hard-core, soul stealing drugs.

I would agree to the withholding of UBI benefits for anybody with hard core drugs in their system if there was a legitimate test put in place that could test for these substances after you have peed them out of your system.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

---

Quote:

---

If I understand correctly, hair sample drug testing can show pot use for the time it took your hair to grow - so 3 months to a year or more. Or else everybody would know that the Potheads are the shaved heads.
Not sure how well hair holds historical record of use of other drugs.
But how many users of other drugs DO NOT use pot?

---

Quote:

---

Regarding the use of $1,000 as the UBI handout, let's also sort out the numbers if the handout was $500 instead. That would give a decent view of how the numbers would shake out, and how other numbers would trend in the UBI model.

---

Quote:

---

Also, I thought you guys had stated the UBI would be untaxed. Now you're changing the entire playing field?
Now you want to Tax people to produce Revenues into a turnstile to be spent as UBI? You Government Spendaholics are insane.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Some places have linked eligibility for Government Handouts to regular drug testing. Even in places with legalized pot.

I haven't heard 6ix object to UBI being issued only to peeps who always pass their drug tests. That would save the UBI about 1/3 of its spending.

---

I would never argue this, unless pot was excluded from the testing.

Current drug tests are all but worthless. You could go on a cocaine bender on a Friday night and pass a drug test Monday morning. Same with Meth, Heroin and a plethora of other hard-core, soul stealing drugs.

I would agree to the withholding of UBI benefits for anybody with hard core drugs in their system if there was a legitimate test put in place that could test for these substances after you have peed them out of your system.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

---

Quote:

---

If I understand correctly, hair sample drug testing can show pot use for the time it took your hair to grow - so 3 months to a year or more. Or else everybody would know that the Potheads are the shaved heads.
Not sure how well hair holds historical record of use of other drugs.
But how many users of other drugs DO NOT use pot?

---

The longer your hair is, the longer they can test for pot in your system via your hair. Shaving your head is not an acceptable solution. As far as I'm aware, the only entities that test hair follicles are Union jobs. If you don't have any hair on your head, they will get it elsewhere, and on every other part of your body with the hair being shorter and growing much slower, the concentration is greater and you're even more likely to fail. Unless you've got that crazy disease where you lost all of your body hair, you're just not going to get that cushy Union job if you walk into the doctor's office with no eyebrows.

Any local governments that I have known of don't do anything beyond urine testing when somebody has to "drop" for any type of probation. Hair testing is too cost prohibitive.

Quote:

---

Regarding the use of $1,000 as the UBI handout, let's also sort out the numbers if the handout was $500 instead. That would give a decent view of how the numbers would shake out, and how other numbers would trend in the UBI model.

---

Okay. Sounds good. I did throw out the $800 number in an earlier reply and stated that $1,000 isn't some magic number we have to go by. Don't see why $500 isn't an option either. I don't think there's any way that somebody in their right mind could claim that $500 per month would be enough for somebody to sit on and not do any work. The only issue here is that if we're eliminating all other forms of social safety nets for the UBI then there are going to be millions of people who have a much lower quality of life overnight at only $500 per month.

Quote:

---

Also, I thought you guys had stated the UBI would be untaxed. Now you're changing the entire playing field?
Now you want to Tax people to produce Revenues into a turnstile to be spent as UBI? You Government Spendaholics are insane.

---

You're right. Perhaps the answer lies in your consumption tax idea.



Look man...

All I know is that something needs to change. We're about two steps away from rioting on the streets, and all it's going to take is one domino to fall for the whole damn system to fall apart.

I don't know what the answer is. Maybe the UBI isn't. It's unlikely that an increase in the minimum wage is.

You're bringing nothing substantial to the table in the meantime.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Hair drug testing is too cost prohibitive for handing out $1,000 per month? You are insane.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

The reason why I can't have a decent discussion WITH YOU and half of the people on this board is because most of you don't know how to THINK, much less discuss!

I propose an idea and what do I get?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
An argument was made that UBI could even allow under- and unemployed the freedom to find better jobs. As I understand it, it didn't work. Finland tried UBI for a randomly-selected 2000 unemployed people because they have high unemployment and a complex welfare system, but gave up on it after two years.
http://time.com/5252049/finland-to-end-universal-basic-income/
http://fortune.com/2018/04/19/finland-universal-basic-income-experimen
t-ending/

---

Quote:

---

Utrecht is partnering with a local university to provide residents with a “basic income,” which is enough to cover living costs, The Independent reports. The idea is to see whether citizens dedicate more time to volunteering, studying and other forms of self and community improvement when they don’t have to worry about earning money to survive. People who participate in the experiment won’t have any restrictions placed on how they choose to spend the money they receive.

---

Quote:

---

While 70% of Finns supported the idea of basic income, surveys show that number drops to 35% when respondents are told that already-high income taxes would have to increase in order to cover the cost of the program.
Many participants reported lower stress levels shortly after the payments began, but researchers emphasize that the short duration of the program prevents them from drawing definitive conclusions about its effects. Kela will follow up with the Finns who participated for ten years, in order to identify the long-term effects of the program.

---

Quote:

---

The Finnish government has opted not to continue financing it past this year, a reflection of public discomfort with the idea of dispensing government largess free of requirements that its recipients seek work. …the Finnish government’s decision to halt the experiment at the end of 2018 highlights a challenge to basic income’s very conception. Many people in Finland—and in other lands—chafe at the idea of handing out cash without requiring that people work ...

---

Quote:

---

Instead, the Finnish government will wait for the results from this initial trial before making any decisions about a wider roll-out of the initiative. The results from the trial will be available by the end of 2019 or the beginning of 2020, Simanainen explains. Finland is only experimenting with a very narrow version of basic income that focuses on understanding whether giving monthly payments to people out of work changes their employment prospects. ... the aim of the austerity-focussed centre-right Finnish government is to reduce the country’s 8.5 per cent unemployment rate, and the basic income trial is just one way of attempting to do that.

---

Quote:

---

Finland has been forced to deny widespread media reports that its universal basic income experiment had fallen flat.

---

Quote:

---

The scheme – aimed primarily at seeing whether a guaranteed income might incentivise people to take up paid work by smoothing out gaps in the welfare system -

---

Quote:

---

– is strictly speaking not a universal basic income (UBI) trial, because the payments are made to a restricted group and are not enough to live on.

---

Quote:

---

“The eagerness of the government is evaporating,” Olli Kangas, one of the experiment's designers told the BBC. Professor Kangas said the government had turned down a request to expand the scheme to pay up to £61 million to fund the basic income for employed Finns rather than the group of 2,000 unemployed people.

---

Quote:

---

Finland's Nail-Biter Election Sets Stage for Tough Talks
Finland has had its closest election result in 60 years, Finland has had its closest election result in 60 years, handing victory to the Social Democrats with a margin of just 6,813 votes over the nationalist Finns Party. The conservative National Coalition came in a close third, while the Green League posted its best result ever.
The outcome sets the stage for tough talks on forming a viable coalition, with compromises necessary across the political spectrum.

---

Quote:

---

War is the ONLY "idea" you ever talk about- WISHY

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by WISHIMAY:

No, it's more than clear that you "discuss" things because you are only wanting people to think like YOU. That only YOUR topics are important. Your topics are THE MOST IMPORTANT THING EVER AND THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT CAN BE DISCUSSED AT ALL TIMES. See what you look like???

Your tactics are some of the most manipulative I've ever seen, and I have a Bi-polar Monster-in-law. I would pay money to get the two of you together in a room.
I think it could open a vortex of emotional vampirism that could lead to the destruction of the space-time continuum.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
So, to get back to 'how much money could we save by reducing the military budget' I assumed the lowest the US would want to go is the 2% GDP minimum NATO obligation.

I thought this was a good graphic to show, more or less, how far off the various NATO members are, including us.

---

Quote:

---

Wiki says that the US spent about 3.1% of its GDP on the military in 2017. I'm not sure I buy that - I think we're still paying off the bills for Iraq and Afghanistan, which were funded as emergency spending measures and kept out of the formal military budget. But that's a topic for another day and deeper digging.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditur
es

If we can save a maximum of 1.1% (2017 3.1% spent - 2.0% NATO minimum) and the 2017 GDP was $21,443B (by reverse calculation)(World Bank 2017 figure is $19,390B https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)) then we can save about $236B annually on military spending.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Is Germany's 1% satisfying the NATO obligation?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Otherwise we could shave another $200B.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
When discussing Military Spending, perhaps also consider the balance or trade-off with Foreign Aid or others funds considered "don't fight us" bribes.
Or do you just prefer to harangue Service members and encourage DC Suits to keep getting us into Wars, repeatedly?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Is Germany's 1% satisfying the NATO obligation?

---

No.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Otherwise we could shave another $200B.

---

The spending requirement is per each country, regardless of how much other countries do or don't spend.
I don't believe the US is spending more because other countries are spending less. US military spending got out of hand during the Col War, and now we're spending to maintain dominance around the globe - not because of national defense or treaty obligations.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
When discussing Military Spending, perhaps also consider the balance or trade-off with Foreign Aid or others funds considered "don't fight us" bribes.
Or do you just prefer to harangue Service members and encourage DC Suits to keep getting us into Wars, repeatedly?

---

I don't think Foreign Aid comes under the military budget! According to this website, these are the top 10 recipients of US foreign Aid (I reformatted and edited to make it easier https://borgenproject.org/top-10-recipients-of-u-s-foreign-aid/) But afaik, the only country we're bribing is Egypt, and it's so they don't attack Israel.

Israel – $3.1 billion

Egypt – $1.39 billion

Jordan – $1 billion

Afghanistan – $782.8 million

Kenya – $639.4 million

Tanzania – $535.3 million

Uganda – $436.4 million

Zambia – $428.9 million

Nigeria – $419.1 million

Iraq – $347.9 million

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Bullshit.

---

Quote:

---

[Originally posted by rue:
I think you resent people who discuss ....dead horse topics over and over for sympathy or inflationary psycho-babble manipulation.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
WISHY, as usual, providing "thughtful" "discussion" of the topic.

Do I mention "war" twice as much as I mention anything else? Even IF I did ... and I don't know of that's true, or not (Did you tally the "mentions?" Because, of the eight threads that I started currently visible on this page, only two of them have anything to do with deep state/regime change, and none of them with war per se)... SO WHAT?

I know war must seem a long ways away from Cranialrectalinversion, IN, but I tell you that we will never get our government finances OR our economy in working order until we stop trying to control the entire globe.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I mean, really, controlling the entire globe ... isn't that just a ridiculous idea?

So I have an idea WISHY. Instead of harping and bitching (as usual) about my chosen topics, why don't you PROVE to me that war, war spending, the causes of war, and the effects of war, are not important topics?

---

Yeah, I mean, it is ridiculous to have to compete with the Russians and today has proven conclusively RUSSIANS SUUUUCK. Lying, backstabbing, cheats.

They are important topics, just not important topics to discuss with YOU. You've made it clear your position is traitorous to this country.


Let me make things a step clearer. As much as Trump and his family are truly despicable, Putin is Satan. In fact, as much as a pacifist as I normally am...If Russia were to invade or attack, I would have no problem being shipped to Russia and murdering little Russian babies in their sleep with my bare hands. As screwed up as this country is right now, if Hitler were the actual president I would take IT over Russia.

FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA
FUCK RUSSIA

With Love, Wishy.

Clear enough??

Quote:

---

Originally posted by WISHIMAY:
Yeah, I mean, it is ridiculous to have to compete with the Russians and today has proven conclusively RUSSIANS SUUUUCK. Lying, backstabbing, cheats.

They are important topics, just not important topics to discuss with YOU. You've made it clear your position is traitorous to this country.


Let me make things a step clearer. As much as Trump and his family are truly despicable, Putin is Satan. In fact, as much as a pacifist as I normally am...If Russia were to invade or attack, I would have no problem being shipped to Russia and murdering little Russian babies in their sleep with my bare hands. As screwed up as this country is right now, if Hitler were the actual president I would take IT over Russia.

FUCK RUSSIA (x100)

With Love, Wishy.

Clear enough??

---

Quote:

---

I mean, really, controlling the entire globe ... isn't that just a ridiculous idea?
So I have an idea WISHY. Instead of harping and bitching (as usual) about my chosen topics, why don't you PROVE to me that war, war spending, the causes of war, and the effects of war, are not important topics? SIGNY


Yeah, I mean, it is ridiculous to have to compete with the Russians and today has proven conclusively RUSSIANS SUUUUCK. Lying, backstabbing, cheats. -WISHY

---

Quote:

---

They are important topics, just not important topics to discuss with YOU. You've made it clear your position is traitorous to this country. -WISHY

---

Quote:

---

et me make things a step clearer. As much as Trump and his family are truly despicabe blah blah blah .... If Russia were to invade or attack

---

Quote:

---

FUCK RUSSIA ...blah blah blah

---

Quote:

---

Clear enough??WIHSY

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:



Hey T. Remember what I was saying before about the "friends" you've made here?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

You think I'm a traitor because I don't advocate destabilizing and invading every gorram nation on the planet?? WTF is WRONG with you???

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Dems, Dem-lites and Independents, who ya backing at this point and why?

Still Tulsi Gabbard

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by WISHIMAY:

Now you're going to pretend that you and Kiki DIDN'T advocate that the US should give up it's nukes TO RUSSIA and just roll over to avoid some imaginary threat of nuclear war??

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by WISHIMAY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:



Hey T. Remember what I was saying before about the "friends" you've made here?

---

I'm pretty sure THG would be smart enough to know the REAL threat Russians pose, but you are just dumb enough to become a sympathizer.

Gotta keep your "mind open" right, moron?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by WISHIMAY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

You think I'm a traitor because I don't advocate destabilizing and invading every gorram nation on the planet?? WTF is WRONG with you???

---

Now you're going to pretend that you and Kiki DIDN'T advocate that the US should give up it's nukes TO RUSSIA and just roll over to avoid some imaginary threat of nuclear war??

Realized how bad that sounded and switched to "give up the quest for world domination".... in other words "get out of Russia's way", huh??

Never. NOT FOR ONE SECOND.

I repeat.... FUCK RUSSIA.


PS, How you gonna defend the Motherland after the Mueller report now? If the report made anything clear it's that Russians are giant sacks of crap. Gonna be hard to sell those tickets to Commieland to the public now, right?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:


You've apparently got the most open mind on this board, baby killer.

---