"It's not like we're going to be digging further into debt any more quickly." This is true, I was just stating that UBI and the current welfare bureaucracy machine would be equal in costs. It's also a given that the payments of UBI don't increase (beyond inflation) -- if this were to occur by some politicians who increase the 13,000 to a different number (though this is the same risk which is present with all welfare programs, you can't stop politicians from increasing the benefits to please / sway some section of voters) So I don't feel eliminating a safety net regulation such as minimum wage would benefit the system as a whole; because the UBI amount would likely be relying on a national average of minimum wages. I don't know if I can agree with this. I do know that Theymos was trying to get at the fact that if everyone is now getting government assistance (UBI) then maybe minimum wage hikes shouldn't be so prevalent across the nation. Maybe we should stick with the national minimum wage (which is a lot lower then some states -- in the US of course) rather then trying to hike the minimum wage. Some people may think that minimum wage hikes help the economy -- but they don't, they screw small businesses the hardest and all that ends up happening is bussineses are really only left with three options (see this article as well - https://www.businessinsider.com/minimum-wage-leads-to-job-losses-2017-3?IR=T) - Cut margins of your business (this may be possible for some, but not all businesses may have this option)
- Raise prices (also, mostly impossible for businesses in a culture which is VERY price sensitive)
- Reducing employees. (this is the most possible one companies may further look into robots / automated machines to remove the lowest skilled labor)
So if UBI were to replace all health care related social assistance, I would expect the average cost of insurance be factored into this. Not just the average cost of the currently insured, but also those that currently chose other necessities over insurance. That's something which is a really tough issue to dive into, I'm going to admit I would like to research the issue before I comment on healthcare at all. I'll make another comment in the thread relating to UBI and healthcare at some point. Just wanted you to know I wasn't avoiding the question. What about people with disabilities, for example? Wouldn't that be considered welfare? I mean, what about people who literally can't make more money themselves? I feel like healthcare is a separate issue. $10,000 a year is not going to cover your healthcare if you go to the hospital a couple times. That's actually a really good question and I've never read anything relating to disabled people and UBI -- I'm going to read into that a little bit as well and post that part into the healthcare post I'm planning for this thread. |
|
|
|
This is incompatible with lax or unrestricted immigration of course. I know you restricted it to US citizens, just saying. Of course. I may have used the wrong wording when I said, then we enter a world of more production -- I meant this as in only talking about the United States. But a fundamental rule of government is that no programs are allowed to be considered which are not capable of supporting graft, corruption and political favoritism.
This is one of the main reasons that I think UBI is necessary, I beleive that the current welfare programs ARE capable of supporting graft, corruption, AND political favoritism. UBI is a system which is just mailing out checks to American citizens, nothing more and nothing less. However, I only consider it acceptable if it replaces all other welfare, including heath-care-related welfare, and I suspect that this will never be politically possible. I'd also like it to result in an elimination of all work-related regulations such as minimum wage, since with UBI there should be no excuse that people are being forced to work and therefore the government needs to protect them. I may not have listed out all of the programs that I wanted to be removed, but I was pointing the finger at all welfare related programs -- some even say that Social Security should be replaced as well. I tend to agree with that personally. I've never seen any research relating to work-related regulation (such as min wage) but I do think that is an interesting point and I'm probably going to research it further. I'll also address the political possibility of this. I know that if something like this was ever enacted, not all other welfare systems would be removed -- there would be no way that a conservative vision like this would get through both chambers of congress and signed by the president unscathed by moderates or dems. So, I don't think I would ever support another version of UBI - I fully agree with you that it's only acceptable if ALL other welfare programs are removed. I would much rather see the various welfare programs be eliminated and/or reformed over time then see some kind of UBI system be enacted that would likely only grow and expand over time. This type of goal faces a larger issue of political impossibility, while I may support something like this as well -- I do think that UBI is a much better system than the thousands of welfare systems with a wasteful amount of staff and money being used on this staff and other resources. The only instance in which I would support UBI in any form would be in places like AK where government income far exceeds expenditures, and the government can pay their citizens some amount every year from the income their assets generates. As theymos quoted before, 13,000 per year would be cheaper than all of the current welfare systems which are present in the United States. So it's not like we're going to be digging further into debt. |
|
|
|
Before I respond to you Glum, I do want to let you know that it is kind of frowned upon to quote an entire post when you're responding to me -- all it creates is more of an annoyance when people are reading through responses. I know you're new to the forum, so this is just for next time and so you don't bother anyone! But onto the topic here It seems like a no brainer that it's better to "stay down" sometimes. This is exactly what the current welfare system does, it makes people stay below some limits -- sometimes these limits are income related, but they are sometimes based on marital status and so on. -- in order to retain their valuable benefits. This sort of system, in my opinion, is un-American. This will make society more productive as a whole. Exactly. I think that these limits do nothing but make people double think working hard if you remove these limits and just give EVERYONE benefits -- then you're going to enter a world which is more productive as they have the reason to be more productive. As they're not going to lose out if they attempt to progress. |
|
|
|
|
This is going to be a long one, and I want people to be involved with this issue so I can hear all sides of the argument.
In the recent years, there has been a push from the right and the left to introduce a Universal Basic Income (UBI) -- which in short, is a set amount of income (pegged to inflation) which is provided to you if you're a US citizen. This money is given to you with no strings attached. I'm going to use an example and say that every American is given $10,000 a year regardless of the income that they have their marital status, and so on.
This in and so of itself removes the cliff dive which is apart of the welfare system we have now. As the welfare system, we have now may give a large number of benefits to someone who makes under $35,000 -- but won't give a dime to someone who is married and makes $36,000 a year. This practically means that the current system does not incentivize growth, it incentivizes you to stay under the imposed income (and other barriers) to get your benefits.
This new UBI system would give you money either way and then you'd be allowed to go work as hard as you want or as little as you want. I think (alongside some economists) that this is going to spur growth as it incentivizes people to go ahead and work hard to continue to succeed as they aren't held down by welfare limits.
I also want to say that with this system, some conservatives and libertarians think that the entire welfare system should be removed -- which includes, Medicare, Medicaid, and then the various federal and state programs which go alongside with it. To them (which I agree with), this plan is a substitute for every single other program that is currently present in the US relating to welfare. I'm not going to go into detail about what the left thinks the right thing to do with UBI is, but I do think they want to remove some programs and then add this on to the current welfare system -- but I think some of the liberal-leaning people who post here can chime in with that side of things.
I do want to stress that I don't know if $10,000 per year is the right number, it may be different based on research. I was JUST using an example.
I do think that UBI can work as a way to remove the hundreds of state and federal programs which aren't necessary when the benefits can come from one central source -- which only has to vet if you're a US citizen or not -- This is a way to remove the massive bureaucracy, and then introduce a program which will have the same effect to the people who need welfare.
|
|
|
|
|
Username: Squatz1
Post Count: 2238 (with this one)
BTC Address (must be SegWit):34BRUJJE2ctHv4PRVVnndkCc8iT6gyVVAv
Trying my luck here again, will change my stuff if accepted. Thanks for the chance!
|
|
|
|
Okay, but just need to be more clear about your work. You have to be precise and concrete, then we do not have to ask you any further questions and You will not have misunderstandings like with @ WaffleMaster
You decide who will be accepted, but also you need to inform all other interested people that do not comply with your standards.
As you say, you always can learn something new here and improve your campaign management work. I think you may also miss the fact that it does really take some time to go through some peoples post history. So while the campaign manager may have just went through the first persons post and said that they are of the quality to join his campaign, maybe he hasn't gone through the rest of the people -- this all takes a good bit of time to ensure that they keep up high quality that this forum deserves. But the standard rule of thumb when it comes to campaigns is that if the campaign manager doesn't accept you, then you're denied. It's pretty simple. This is a waiting game, and you have to be patient in order to get anywhere in this world. Just wait, and you'll see -- as will the rest of us. |
|
|
|
|
Would you be willing to provide a test order to someone who is a trusted member of the community to ensure that you're not going to screw them out of this large sum of money.
You're asking for a lot of money here, and a big red flag has already come up -- cutting your price enough in an attempt to get people to pay you for your service that no one knows AS OF YET, if you're able to perform.
I'd provide this for free to a trusted member, who'd be able to vouch for the service. That'd do wonders -- alongside using a trusted escrow for future orders.
|
|
|
|
|
I guess it depends on their reasoning for not paying taxes. If they're not paying taxes because they don't have the income to be able to qualify to even pay the lowest level of taxes (pretty much like having a 0 percent income tax level) Then I think that these people should be allowed to vote, or people that don't have income, or something along those lines. You're still a citizen even if you don't pay taxes.
Though if you AVOID paying taxes and end up paying nothing on your income in an attempt to defraud services that need your tax dollars to function -- then you shouldn't be able to vote for that year. That's my view on it, and I know that's a tough issue.
|
|
|
|
|
Btctalk name: Squatz1✅
Rank:Hero✅
Bitcoin Wallet Address:34BRUJJE2ctHv4PRVVnndkCc8iT6gyVVAv
Wear Appropriate Signature ✅
Wear Personal Text: One of the world's leading Bitcoin-powered casinos✅
Wear Avatar: ✅
Hope I can join this campaign and be apart of the team, I hope to be an asset to the team! Thanks.
--This is, of course, for next week as I know that the campaign is full at the moment--
|
|
|
|
Hey Lauda,
Are we allowed to change the signature?
Just to be safe, I'd wait on the official end of the campaign from the word from Lauda. Wouldn't want to throw all of this effort away at this point, eh? |
|
|
|
Username: jerzzz
Post Count: 425
BTC Address (must be SegWit): 3LtDRhgk25hjL8p3UqPq2YYRNP62muUJ3x
I hope you've noticed that the spots have been filled, all you'd have to do is read a couple of lines up to see this though. Remove this quick..... Thanks for the chance Dark and congrats to the people that did make it. I hope I'll get in next time!!!!!! |
|
|
|
Iran's economy is currently collapsing and in crisis similar to venezuela and other nations. I doubt there will be a war. The USA can do nothing and iran will likely crumble on its own.
Iran's economic and recent social upheavel are not being widely reported. There could be a serious independence movement there similar to #brexit, the arab spring, catalan independence and similar trends.
It helps to know there was a deal made years ago where the united states would supply iran with billions of dollars and resources. All of which could help iran to build nuclear weapons faster. Trump recently cancelled that deal. That is where the recent conflict between iran and the USA comes from.
This right here, if the US really wants to bring some BIG issues to Iran they'll continue their push for sanctions (from the US, and from other allied countries -- mostly Europe as this is going to hurt Iran the most) Then they'll go support some other democratic candidate, fund some opposition, and then boom -- the entire country is crumbling without even having to put boots on the ground. There is a lot governments can do to avoid war, isn't it crazy that they won't sometimes?  -- HINT HINT |
|
|
|
I would also like to see more discussions about the internal strife in some countries, but I'm not sure if that is a dangerous path for the forum to take. Bring it on mate! The sub is there to talk about ANYTHING political or world event in nature. You will not offend me I promise, it will not be deleted (or censored) unless it breaks forum rules! Lets get some honest discussion going on anything not illegal and Political that touches a country or very large cross section of society! FH, I don't think he was referring to dangerous for the moderators. I think he was trying to get to the point that if you push an anti-government narrative (in some countries ) you're going to punished, and these governments will try to punish the website(s) in question. -- Just wanted to clarify this. Though, I don't think we cause enough dissidence/issues to have authoritarian governments trying to shut us down. So we should be fine. |
|
|
|
|
Username: Squatz1
Post Count: 2226
BTC Address (must be SegWit):34BRUJJE2ctHv4PRVVnndkCc8iT6gyVVAv
Hopefully this is still within the deadline time, I hope I'll get the chance to be a part of this amazing campaign.
Edit: Just wanted to let you know DarkStar, that I do know that P&S posts don't count for this campaign. I'll be posting there, alongside my regular bitcoin discussion posts which will be counting for this campaign. I'll change my signature and stuff if accepted!
|
|
|
|
|
You're not able to simply avoid tax payments or anything along those lines. You're able to use creative accounting, which is a fine thing to use if you have the resources, and you're also able to lobby Congress to change the tax code.
The problem doesn't lie in the accounting or anything like that, the problem lies in the lobbying of Congress to change the tax code to benefit the higher earners in society. That is where the disparity lies, as the middle and lower class don't have the resources to change the laws which are holding them down. While the high earners do.
Who knows the best way to change this though.
|
|
|
|
|
I'd change some of the wording from your first post and say that the reasons for war have come from money, debt, business interests, and so on and so forth. Even during the times of religion filled wars, I do think that the controlling of an areas religion was also a conquest of money -- as religions are able to collect de facto taxes from the people that are following their religion (or are forced to be following their religion)
This world is one which is filled with greed, it always has been and it always will be filled with greed. You can't change that, sadly.
|
|
|
|
You do understand that practically every government has been borrowing money, including the more socialist leaning countries and even the countries that are far right. Borrowing money is something which has happened and will continue to happen until the end of time for countries. I also don't understand the fact that people will always blame the President in power during debt periods, as the President has little to no power when it comes to the budget negoiations -- as this is something that the Congress has a LARGE amount of power on. Check out the world debt clock -- http://www.usdebtclock.org/world-debt-clock.html -- you'd see that even though America has the largest amount of debt, we're not the largest amount in debt when comparing our debt to our GDP. So our debt doesn't worry me as much as let's just say, Japan. I am sorry but bad answer ..in all of history obama borrowed more money in 8 years in all of usa histories debt..only 10 trillion in all of usa history .. he added 10 trillion more and was peoples lives better NO so what a joke .. He and his cronies robbed everyone of the life's blood and he will say well you robbed Africa no but many black yanks now are in debt so are now slaves all over again thanks to your black slave seller.. I don't know how you're able to read through my actual educated response and go 'bad answer' but so be it with that. You're not able to blame the President for everything that ends up happening with the debt, the budget, and so on and so forth. While I personally am not a fan of Obama, nor was I a fan of him during his presidency -- I don't think it's fair to fully put the blame on him for congresses decisions. They should be held accountable as well. Debt is a part of a capitalist society, it's not a horrid part.. God I don't know what you're trying to do here. |
|
|
|
As Winston Churchill once said -- “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” So it's not like Democracy is a bad system, nor is having a two-party system something that is bad. This is the best political governmental system which is currently being used to this day. I do think that the two-party system has its flaws, but even in countries where there are multiple political parties -- there is still two parties ( in theory) in the end when multiple parties form together to create an opposition government or a coalition government. |
|
|
|
|
It really matters on what you mean when you're talking about this redefinition of money, I (personally) don't think that Bitcoin is going to end up being the currency of the world as so many would like to think it's going to be. But I DO THINK, that Bitcoin is going to bring innovation to the world currency stage -- be it with blockchain tech, and so on and so forth.
So even if Bitcoin does die, I do think that the world is going to gain the knowledge that a decentralized currency is possible. This is the most amazing part in my mind.
|
|
|
|
Seems to be some pretty big news out of Washington. I do think that this is the right course to take, as it has allowed the door to open to further discussions and it will allow the farmers in the United States to not be killed by retailiatory tariffs during a time where only negoiations are occuring. I don't take this as a loss, I take this as a time out to allow for the country to focus on countries that are really commiting some real trade issues -- such as China -- I'd like to hear what others think about this. WASHINGTON—President Donald Trump and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker turned down the heat on a trade dispute between two of the world’s largest economic powers, suggesting Wednesday they would hold off on further tariffs while they talk through their differences.
Speaking in a joint news conference in the Rose Garden on Wednesday, the two leaders agreed to begin discussions on eliminating the tariffs and subsidies that hamper trade across the Atlantic, and to resolve the steel and aluminum tariffs the Trump administration had imposed this year as well as the retaliatory tariffs the European Union imposed in response.
The package of measures announced by Messrs. Trump and Juncker would have the EU buying more liquefied natural gas and soybeans from the U.S., and the two sides would begin a “dialogue to reduce differences on regulatory standards between the two economies,” Mr. Trump said. The two sides also suggested they would hold off on further tariffs—a nod to Mr. Trump’s threats to apply tariffs on imported cars.
While the two sides said the deal was contingent on negotiating in good faith, there was no schedule set to complete the talks, meaning that what amounted to a temporary truce could turn into a permanent one—or fall apart if one side accuses the other of lagging behind. To complete a deal, the EU would also face the difficult task of forging a consensus among all its 28 members, including both France and Germany, who often have divergent trade priorities.
Through the deal, the Trump administration seeks to reduce trade barriers to lower the $152 billion U.S. deficit in merchandise trade with the EU, while European counterparts want an end to repeated threats of new tariffs and other measures to restrict access to the U.S. market.
View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Obviously the European Union, as represented by @JunckerEU and the United States, as represented by yours truly, love each other!
1:49 AM - Jul 26, 2018
23.7K
10.5K people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
The proposed pact comes a day after the Trump administration faced criticism on Capitol Hill for its use of tariffs. The GOP-controlled Congress in recent days has spoken out against the prospect that the Trump administration could apply new tariffs on imported autos on top of aluminum and steel tariffs, with lawmakers considering legislation to counter the president’s initiatives.
Before the Oval Office meeting, EU trade representatives had paid visits to Capitol Hill in an effort to recruit allies to pressure Mr. Trump to cut a deal. EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström also came to Washington to meet with U.S. lawmakers, trying to gauge the chances that the Republican-led Congress would advance legislation, according to a person familiar with the conversation.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R., Utah), who last week sent a letter to Mr. Trump warning of legislation if he didn’t pull back from his threats to apply more tariffs, told Ms. Malmström that senators were evaluating their options, the person said. A spokeswoman for Mr. Hatch said he encouraged the commissioner to work with Mr. Trump, taking steps including the reduction of tariffs.
Mr. Trump had been scheduled to meet with lawmakers from farming states after his talks with the European delegation. Instead, a hastily planned Rose Garden event was announced following the talks, with podiums and flags rushed outside the Oval Office for the announcement.
Lawmakers were also asked to attend the event, Mr. Trump specifically calling each of them out by name and declaring his love for American farmers.
News of a deal was welcomed in Congress. “This is an important first step,” said House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady (R., Texas), who was part of a group that met with Mr. Trump at the White House immediately after the president’s meeting with the EU chief wrapped up. “This could lead to exempting Europe from steel and aluminum tariffs.”
Mr. Juncker, meanwhile, came bearing gifts for Mr. Trump, offering to engage in extensive reviews of barriers for U.S. goods to reach European markets. Mr. Juncker also gave Mr. Trump a picture of the military cemetery in his native Luxembourg where U.S. Gen. George Patton, who led U.S. troops in France and Germany at the end of World War II, is buried.
On the picture, Mr. Juncker wrote “Dear Donald, let’s remember our common history,” the EU official said later Wednesday during a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank.
The effort to set aside the trade fight with the EU would help the U.S. focus its economic firepower more specifically on China, which Mr. Trump and his advisers see as the bigger trade priority.
The EU also has concerns about China, and had expressed hopes, earlier in the Trump administration, that it could join forces with the U.S. for a unified front in addressing Chinese trade practices. The U.S. alleges that China pressures U.S. companies to transfer technology to their Chinese partners and unfairly subsidizes its companies, leading to a massive U.S. trade deficit.
Before the Trump-Juncker meeting, Qualcomm Inc. said it planned to scrap its $44 billion purchase of Dutch chip maker NXP Semiconductors NV because it couldn’t get approval in China, adding yet another irritant to the U.S-China trade fight.
China and the EU have retaliated against U.S. tariffs with their own levies on U.S. farmers, a core Republican constituency. The U.S.-EU deal specifically calls for the EU to import more soybeans, a crop targeted by Chinese tariffs.
The U.S. and the EU, as part of their agreement, agreed to try to use the World Trade Organization to deal with issues of intellectual-property theft, government pressure on companies to transfer technology to local partners, and excess capacity in many industries—the heart of the U.S. concerns about China. That would be a big change in tactics for the U.S., which has relied mainly on unilateral actions—including tariffs on $34 billion in Chinese goods—to get Beijing to change course.
Five years ago, then-President Barack Obama formally launched similar broad trade talks with the EU under Mr. Juncker’s predecessor. The talks made little progress, and the Obama administration subsequently focused on the Trans-Pacific Partnership with Asian countries. Mr. Trump blocked the pact immediately after taking office last year.
Under the previous negotiations with the EU to form a Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or TTIP, many European officials were unwilling to change rules that limit U.S. agricultural exports to the bloc, while the Obama administration declined Brussels’ requests to align its financial regulations with Europe’s. Still, the Trump administration never formally rejected TTIP.
Newsletter Sign-up
Ms. Malmström, in a meeting with Mr. Hatch, Sen. John Cornyn (R., Texas) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D., Ore.), the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, also floated the idea of reaching an industrial bilateral agreement, the person familiar with the matter said. The term generally refers to cutting tariffs on manufactured goods. The senators didn’t have an immediate reaction, the person said, in part because she didn’t provide details.
Whether the deal with the EU goes further and will result in zero tariffs on autos and trucks is an open question. The joint statement put out by the EU and U.S. said that zero-tariff initiative involved “non-auto industrial goods.”
Mr. Brady said that before the White House meeting, he had urged Ms. Malmström to agree to zero tariffs on automobiles, saying such a concession would be “a big step forward.” But lowering auto tariffs to zero faces political hurdles both in the U.S., which has its own 25% tariff on imported light trucks, and in the EU, which imposes 10% tariffs on auto and light-truck imports.
After the announcement with Mr. Juncker, the president arrived to a closed-door meeting with GOP lawmakers, said Rep. Mike Conaway (R., Texas), who attended.
Lawmakers told the president they were worried about retaliatory tariffs on farmers back home. “He seemed legitimately concerned,” said Mr. Conaway, chairman of the House Agriculture Committee. “He will keep negotiating.” |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
