This right here.

You're either going to get maxed out by the system (with something like a max bet) or you're going to be unable to continue as your bankroll (your personal betting money) now has no money left to play.

That's the way the gambling world works, it's a game of luck and NEVER a game of skill. If you understand that, then you're never going to want to gamble again.

You have to understand that the welfare fraud which is present now is probably a lot more prevalent then it could be if UBI is present. Because with the current welfare system, if you fake your income levels (or something along these lines) you're going to be allowed to get welfare.

UBI is a system which gives to all (maybe capped out a certain point, but still) and avoids the tediousness of having to screen mass amounts of people.

If it's not a word, it sure as shit should be.

I don't think politicians and people in government are dumb, I think they're just stalling progress in order to keep their voters happy -- or (on the other end of things) promising so much that they know none of it isn't going to happen in order to keep their voters happy.

We're a different country in the United States, it's something that people have failed to notice for generations.


There's only so much that a city can give, the federal government (or state governments) can give a good amount more.

Oh of course, this is always the case when it comes to quoting from the mainstream media. I'm not one to think that WSJ isn't AS BAD as other news companies, though I'm not going to sit here and say that they're this neutral party when it comes to news.

Though I don't think the points that I put forward are points that are open for so much bias. I think they're pretty straightforward in what they're trying to point to.

I do understand your points about the Koch brothers and everything like that, don't get me wrong I see it and such.

Got a couple interesting quotes from this article to show that other countries don't have the same amount of distributions as America does. Alongside this, the United States also has the most progressive income tax system out of the countries of its peers. It's peers also have some of the most regressive taxes in the world, which include the VAT system.





In all honesty, I probably didn't do the article much justice in my failure to explain everything -- though I do think this is a VERY interesting article and a good discussion.

Read an article today in the Wall Street Journal which pretty much laid out that even though people try to tarnish America's reputation by stating that America is more unequal than other countries (in regard to income distribution), this fact isn't true through some simple fact checking and data analysis. As the problem with the current model which is used to determine inequality by country is that it doesn't represent the United States' governmental program transfers to the people within these programs.

I'm going to assume that this is due to the fact that there are so many US welfare programs, which stretch from federal programs to local programs -- meaning that there could be hundreds of thousands of programs which are present in the United States -- leading to an issue of underreporting benefits

I'm going to quote the article below and then provide the picture I took, as the archive.is link doesn't provide the picture which is pretty vital to this talk.

ARTICLE LINK - http://archive.is/RpY40

PICTURE LINK - https://imgur.com/a/8jWBarA

I'd love to have a discussion with all of you regarding anything I've posted here, even on the grounds of how truthful the article is. Thanks for the debate, I really do enjoy being a member of P&S

To the first part, it would be the case that everyone does get 13,000 each -- it's not dependent on marital status. Though I would like to have it linked to if you're a dependent or age (or dependent status) As it does seem pretty hard to remove the abuse that may come forth when people are popping out kids just for the reason of getting 13,000 a year (if their children weren't listed as depents or something along these lines)

I don't really know how children would be treated, as this is the only area I can see that COULD be prone to abuse -- though I don't think the abuse is as catastrophic as the current welfare system.


The problem with all of the things that were listed that needs fixing -- such as Education -- is that it's not like we havn't tried to fix these. It's just that we can't agree (the people and government) on HOW to fix these issues in Education, Healthcare, etc. Many things have been tried, but nothing has stuck and worked (to a large extent in the last 10 or so years)


The difference between us debating on here, and governments is that the people in government need their constituents votes in order to stay in power while I'm just a guy on the internet. I can say the truth, and what I think should be done to fix systems.

Politicans must say what is best for them to stay in power, and I guess they've assumed that not supporting UBI is one of those things -- sadly.

My Healthcare writeup will come at some point, haven't gotten around to it yet. Sorry folks!

I'm just going to start off and say that it's only a matter of time before a bitcoin etf is accepted, as the SEC must find a good reason to deny it or they look like they're wrong in their quest to protect investors.

But people must understand that bitcoin WAS NEVER about waiting for the government to approve of it to thrive, Bitcoin is about working without the government and bypassing them in order to thrive as a currency. I don't think we should all be applauding about making Bitcoin an investment -- when we should really be trying to work on adoption.

Adoption is the only thing which is going to matter in the end, investments are just going to try to use the hype of bitcoin to make a couple bucks. We don't want volatility, we want a currency which people feel comfortable using.

We're not all going to sit here and think that Putin really cares about these two people, if anyone is trying to connect these two stories they're not someone who understands geopolitics.

Putin is going to sell them arms if they work with him in some way on policy of some sort. This is how geopolitics works,no country is just going to sell missiles for nothing -- they're going to do it to get a upper hand on a country and to cash in a favor. I'm not really up to date on the current politics of the two countries, but there must be something that putin wants from Turkey that can help him out in some way.

The thing about this topic is that it is inherently flawed by the fact that the people commenting here don't really know the tax code works. If you are a business (or incorporated in any sort) you're expected to pay ESTIMATED quarterly taxes if you expect to owe more then 1000 in taxes for the year. This means that you're going to have to send in taxes to the IRS every quarter on your profits.

If you own assets and you sell them for a gain, this is the ONLY TIME that taxes are put off until tax time.

Rich people get the benefit of putting taxes off until the end of the quarter, that's it. If they are paid through a company (through payroll) like every other everyday person then money is withheld for them too -- just like everyone else.

They don't get special treatment in any regard, this is done to have uniform policy for all businesses -- and it is the best thing that we have going as of right now.

If you want to talk about INFLUENCE over the tax code then that's one thing, but it makes no sense to complain about some random portion which isn't true in the least.

Well the thing is, these people are free to elect representatives who will change the laws into making these drugs legal. There is nothing wrong with the government enforcing the laws of its nation. There is something wrong with people attempting to take the law into their own hands, and ignore the laws of the nation. It would be an injustice for the police, DEA, and so on to ignore the drug laws which have been set -- that would set a horrible precedent for all laws.

Citizens have the ability to change the laws, and they should. This is how democracy works, and while it may not look too amazing -- it's the best system that has ever been tried.

I've never understood these types of posts at all. Bitcoin is free, and that is true. And there are decentralized marketplaces which you can visit to buy bitcoin on and not further these centralized fee paying banks. But these aren't used, and it's pretty simple on why these aren't used.

BECAUSE THERE IS NO VOLUME, and people would much rather have the safety of a brand and  a centralized exchange who is most likely regulated by the government. Bitcoin is always going to be free, but it's crazy to think that private enterprise is going to sell you bitcoin without making money on the sale.

They have the infrastructure, advertising, employees, and so on to employ. They have investors to please. They're not going to do anything for free and it's foolish to think this.

This 1000%

Our current political landscape isn't one which attracts the best people to the political lifestyle. It attracts the worst type of people, in my view at least, as I think the best people stay in the private sector to reap the rewards which are offered from being involved in the private sector.

In the 2016 election, any other Democratic candidate could have beaten Trump, without a doubt. The Democrats rigged it and picked Clinton, and failed horribly when their 'golden ticket' lost.

The entire Democratic party is dumb enough to pick someone who is exactly like her for 2020, an establishment candidate who is hated by the American people. They will do it, and they will lose to Trump.

I must say that if Trump does win the spin battle, and the regular battle on this trade war he's going to be the President until 2024. He tells people what they want to hear, and then does his best to enact on his promises. He's an entertainer, and people love that.

Well, the thing is that the current system isn't working it's a bureaucratic mess which isn't (in my view) helping people lift out of the welfare program anyway. UBI is what is needed to bring some real change to the system -- and this reformed system is one which is going to spur growth.

To your entire response as a whole I'd support capping the program out at a certain point, but it shouldn't be a point where the benefits discourage people to work harder.

I'd propose a change where people don't get an income if they earn above a certain point, for an examples sake I'm going to say 250k (adjusted for cost of living in certain areas, so it is the right number in rural areas and in big cities where things are more expensive) I'm open to debate on pretty much anything on here, I'm throwing out these numbers for examples sake.

So the whole 13,000 a year could potentially increase if you remove millions of people from receiving that. But this should never be a substitute for working, and that's something that I want to stress.

Honestly, this is the only way to ethically go about it. I don't think it's ethical at all to enforce a one child policy of anysort, nor do I think it's ethical to tell certain cultures that they're not going to be allowed to have kids.

Education though, may not do enough to be able to change peoples minds -- as there is a cultural layer to having more then one, or two, or three kids (and so on and so forth)

I think education will make strides in some cultures, and we may see some benefits of this. But I do think that we're going to grow too much for this earth, and we're going to have to get natural resources from other sources (maybe from fiquring out different ways of producing goods, new areas to find goods (space))

This is a good topic though, I will without a doubt be leaving this on notify and watching this.

This is the case with what I'm saying from my side here, some people may say that this isn't the right way to go about things but I feel it is so. I'm not advocating for removing welfare programs for those that are disabled from work -- but I don't think you should receive any other welfare if THIS is the way forward. It's also the only way to go forward while making this UBI system have a net zero on the governmental dollar.

withdrawn.

Bitcointalk Profile Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=738419
Current amount of Posts (Including this one): 2245
BTC Address for Payments: 34BRUJJE2ctHv4PRVVnndkCc8iT6gyVVAv
Did you follow @Cloudbet on Twitter? Yes/No: Yes

Thanks for the chance to join the campaign! I'm all ready to go and I do think that my post quality will be good enough to be an asset to the team. Thanks again!

Of course, there are a lot of things that must go into consideration, I don't know on the exact cost of living differences (based on studies) but I think that this would have to be much more fleshed out then giving everyone 13,000 a year and calling it a day. I do think there must be cost of living differences but on average what this SHOULD account for $13,000 for each American citizen -- this is what it would average out to with the differences in cost of living.


I have family which operates small businesses who rely on the low-skilled labor and have seen the hardships they've had to endure to ensure that they can keep their clients, maintain their profits, and tries to ensure that their businesses run smoothly while having to work with fewer employees. It's tough to see, and I don't think min wage ends up helping anyone when employment is being cut due to mandatory wage increases.

But back onto the topic, I do have good intentions with opening up the conversation to people on here-- and I really do enjoy seeing all of the differing opinions which are present on the topic.

I'll try to get back with a little write-up on healthcare and stuff along those lines, thanks all for being apart of this conversation.

I think that is ONLY true if the other welfare systems aren't removed alongside the addition of UBI. I would understand your point if the other welfare systems weren't removed as well. But in the current state of the welfare system, work is disincentivized as you aren't allowed to make more income then the set amount OR you will lose benefits.

That is the part that disincentivizes working, but it is a part of the current system which has a steep drop-off point for people who are trying to progress and grow. This isn't the case with UBI, as you're going to be getting your set amount of benefits and it doesn't matter if you a shit ton of money or you earn nothing.

I've seen report after report that says that if all other welfare programs (including welfare ones are removed) the UBI system would cost the same amount as the current welfare system. So an enormous tax burden wouldn't be coming alongside this addition of UBI.