Senate Bill Proposes $10,000 per Month UBI

[BADecker]

Now we can look forward to $10,000 UBI a month, if we have enough family members. This should help the new baby boom to get going... along with the lockdown baby boom.


Senate Bill Proposes $10,000 per Month UBI TAY6

In this video Tim and Yoshi cover a few areas they forgot to cover the previous night and expand upon a few topics, such as the German Stock Market and unemployment numbers.

Tim also goes over reasons why polling doesn't matter and why he thinks Trump will lose.

Lastly, Tim covers the new plan to give families of 5 up to $10,000 per month. Yes you heard that correctly.... $10,000 per month!!!!

Senate Bill Proposes $10,000 per Month UBI TAY6

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIKbfAkeHvE

[20kevin20]

Oh man, I thought you were initially completely ironic until I looked this up and apparently it's legit.. CNBC link is here, but I can't read it (Tor) so I'll reply based on what I read from StraightBusinessNews..

But the plan calls for providing the financial relief for only as long as the pandemic lasts.

Well, most were hoping it's going to stop now but.. looks like they have other plans for us in mind! And I thought the COVID relief check was inflationary, well - check this out now! I HIGHLY doubt these are plans done in vain. You can't "reopen" the country and make plans for UBI at the same time "for until the virus lasts" considering we're supposedly at the end of it - makes no sense unless.. something else's planned completely unrelated to the plandemic.

The average guy probably doesn't even realize that, with the $10k monthly payment (or inflation), you'll probably sooner or later have a bread loaf cost 5x more than it used to. What's funny is that most are contemplating unemployment because it obviously sounds way better not to work at all and make money sitting at home, lol. Crazy times we're living.

And just "out of pure coincidence", EU is taking UBI into account as well but first wants to propose an Universal Minimum Wage. How much of a coincidence it is that everything now happens at global scale at the same time..

[franky1]

what not said is this $2k a person is going to be the equivalent value of $1k of millennium value. due to inflation
where historic social security benefits have not been rising to counter inflation to curb poverty


so yes for like ~1-2 years it might feel like its inflation beating where the 2020 inflation is about ~$1860 equivalent of millennium $1k so $2k is 140 'extra'
but by 2023 it will feel just the same as giving someone $1k at the millennium and then feel like even less there after

yep if you could only buy 1k loaves of bread in 2000 using $1k. soon 1k loaves of bread will cost you $2k

think about it.. 3% a year (yes some years are 2 and some are 4. but for simple maths demo lets use 3)
2000:$1.00, 2001:$1.03, 2002:$1.06, 2003:$1.09, 2004:$1.12, 2005:$1.16, 2006:$1.19, 2007:$1.23
2008:$1.26, 2009:$1.30, 2010:$1.34, 2011:$1.38, 2012:$1.42, 2013:$1.47, 2014:$1.51, 2015:$1.56
2016:$1.60, 2017:$1.65, 2018:$1.70, 2019:$1.75, 2020:$1.86, 2021:$1.91, 2022:$1.97, 2023:$2.03

so when people got UPTO $1k a month per person is the exact same as 2022 people getting $2k
but then after 2022 it will feel like they are getting to buy less things again

remember inflation is the hidden tax no one see's
if your getting $1k in 2000 your able to buy less bread each year even though the income has not changed

yep millenniums &.50 minimum wage should be $15 by 2022 just to BREAK EVEN
but we all know that inflation is going to be higher in 2021+ so would need to be ~$20 an hour minimum wage just to have a 5 year buffer of 'prosperity' of people earning an income of good value

inflation is not to help people. its so that if government have a $1trillion loaf of bread value debt at the millennium they only have to hand back 500billion loaves of bread in 2020 to pay it back

its about shortening the government debt but increasing its treasury deposits

[Cnut237]

I'm not sure why so many people are dead-set against UBI. It is a great way to rein in some of the worst excesses of untrammeled capitalism, and reduce inequality. UBI grants power to the poor, not only by boosting their income but also by disincentivising wage-slavery and other exploitation by powerful employers. Also it removes the huge state burden of maintaining the welfare system. Post-COVID, we are looking at struggling economies and much-diminished job opportunities, with whole industries on the brink of failure. UBI helps to ensure that money circulates in the economy in a much fairer way than we've seen in the past with QE, and also reduces the 'too many people not enough jobs' aspect by making it that even a part-time job is sufficient to keep someone above the breadline. Employing 5 people on a 3-day week or 3 people on a 5-day week is the same $ outlay for the company, but under UBI a 3-day week can be sufficient for the employee, and we get more people into work.
I for one am sick of my tax payments just being used to supplement the already swelling coffers of the rich. It's time for a fairer approach.

[KingScorpio]

Now we can look forward to $10,000 UBI a month, if we have enough family members. This should help the new baby boom to get going... along with the lockdown baby boom.


Senate Bill Proposes $10,000 per Month UBI TAY6

In this video Tim and Yoshi cover a few areas they forgot to cover the previous night and expand upon a few topics, such as the German Stock Market and unemployment numbers.

Tim also goes over reasons why polling doesn't matter and why he thinks Trump will lose.

Lastly, Tim covers the new plan to give families of 5 up to $10,000 per month. Yes you heard that correctly.... $10,000 per month!!!!

Senate Bill Proposes $10,000 per Month UBI TAY6

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIKbfAkeHvE

you can look forward to the end of the USD and the usa, ending up as an agricultural society

[Tash]

Pigs also have UBI
Free food
Free vaccines
Roof over the head
Nice comrades to hang out with
A true paradise, what more would anyone want…

[BADecker]

^^^ Some people are content to have non-contentment.     

[Cnut237]

Pigs also have UBI
Free food
Free vaccines
Roof over the head
Nice comrades to hang out with
A true paradise, what more would anyone want…

A more pertinent analogy might be nice.

[Spendulus]

I'm not sure why so many people are dead-set against UBI. It is a great way to rein in some of the worst excesses of untrammeled capitalism, and reduce inequality. UBI grants power to the poor, not only by boosting their income but also by disincentivising wage-slavery and other exploitation by powerful employers. Also it removes the huge state burden of maintaining the welfare system. Post-COVID, we are looking at struggling economies and much-diminished job opportunities, with whole industries on the brink of failure. UBI helps to ensure that money circulates in the economy in a much fairer way than we've seen in the past with QE, and also reduces the 'too many people not enough jobs' aspect by making it that even a part-time job is sufficient to keep someone above the breadline. Employing 5 people on a 3-day week or 3 people on a 5-day week is the same $ outlay for the company, but under UBI a 3-day week can be sufficient for the employee, and we get more people into work.
I for one am sick of my tax payments just being used to supplement the already swelling coffers of the rich. It's time for a fairer approach.

Because the results won't turn out like your fairy tale ideas.

You see, any proposal to spend will first require the collection of huge amounts of taxes. These will go t Washington DC. There, they will be filtered through Washington DC's vast network of lobbyists and special interests. They'll take all they want before handing you or I one dime.

A recent set of events that illustrate this very well was Obama's "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan." Compare results to promises.

The results will turn out ugly, nasty, and brutish.

[hornetsnest]

Now we can look forward to $10,000 UBI a month, if we have enough family members. This should help the new baby boom to get going... along with the lockdown baby boom.


Senate Bill Proposes $10,000 per Month UBI TAY6

In this video Tim and Yoshi cover a few areas they forgot to cover the previous night and expand upon a few topics, such as the German Stock Market and unemployment numbers.

Tim also goes over reasons why polling doesn't matter and why he thinks Trump will lose.

Lastly, Tim covers the new plan to give families of 5 up to $10,000 per month. Yes you heard that correctly.... $10,000 per month!!!!

Senate Bill Proposes $10,000 per Month UBI TAY6

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIKbfAkeHvE

Yes this will provide a real incentive for the unproductive people to become more productive to society and add value to our culture and civilization ....NOT   MOAR free beer n drug money..yay!!

[Spendulus]

.....
Yes this will provide a real incentive for the unproductive people to become more productive to society and add value to our culture and civilization ....NOT   MOAR free beer n drug money..yay!!

Wait, free beer and drug money?

But it requires conning over 50% of the population, getting them to buy into a giant lie like Obamacare?

Where do I sign up?

[Cnut237]

~

I'll concede that UBI is at present more a theory than anything else, and that pilot schemes have been limited in scope. No doubt any UBI system would require considerable tuning and would differ in its implementation, jurisdiction by jurisdiction.

I'm interested in whether we - and other posters here - are agreed on any or all of the following points?
1) The current system benefits the rich more than it benefits anyone else, and this works to increase inequality within societies (as a feature, not a bug),
2) A system of ever-increasing inequality is unfair and unsustainable in the long-term, and we need an alternative,
3) UBI in theory works to reduce inequality, and
4) An economic recovery from CV19 will not happen by itself through light-touch global market capitalism, and will instead require some degree of state support.

If we agree on #4, then what is a better alternative to trialling UBI? I'm by no means a UBI-zealot, I'm genuinely interested in learning about other ideas.

[KingScorpio]

Now we can look forward to $10,000 UBI a month, if we have enough family members. This should help the new baby boom to get going... along with the lockdown baby boom.


Senate Bill Proposes $10,000 per Month UBI TAY6

In this video Tim and Yoshi cover a few areas they forgot to cover the previous night and expand upon a few topics, such as the German Stock Market and unemployment numbers.

Tim also goes over reasons why polling doesn't matter and why he thinks Trump will lose.

Lastly, Tim covers the new plan to give families of 5 up to $10,000 per month. Yes you heard that correctly.... $10,000 per month!!!!

Senate Bill Proposes $10,000 per Month UBI TAY6

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIKbfAkeHvE

Yes this will provide a real incentive for the unproductive people to become more productive to society and add value to our culture and civilization ....NOT   MOAR free beer n drug money..yay!!

this will end american economy and make usa a venezuela but maybe thats the only way to end racism, americans have to starve to understand and realise their stupidity.

americans might be so stupid that even in famine they will kill each other over systemic racism in wheat and rice distribution

[Spendulus]

~

I'll concede that UBI is at present more a theory than anything else, and that pilot schemes have been limited in scope. No doubt any UBI system would require considerable tuning and would differ in its implementation, jurisdiction by jurisdiction.

I'm interested in whether we - and other posters here - are agreed on any or all of the following points?
1) The current system benefits the rich more than it benefits anyone else, and this works to increase inequality within societies (as a feature, not a bug),
2) A system of ever-increasing inequality is unfair and unsustainable in the long-term, and we need an alternative,
3) UBI in theory works to reduce inequality, and
4) An economic recovery from CV19 will not happen by itself through light-touch global market capitalism, and will instead require some degree of state support.

If we agree on #4, then what is a better alternative to trialling UBI? I'm by no means a UBI-zealot, I'm genuinely interested in learning about other ideas.

One big advantage (I think) is that in the USA, we have these things called states, who can individually experiment with such theories, and who. Note there's ALWAYS some shmook who will argue "Oh, XYZ Utopia will not work unless ALL THE PEOPLE buy in, ALL THE StATES, blah-blah-BLAH."

#4 is exactly, perfectly wrong, by the way. Who suggested such a thing might be true?

[Cnut237]

#4 is exactly, perfectly wrong, by the way. Who suggested such a thing might be true?

As far as I'm aware, every government that has implemented a lockdown. And not just suggested, they have put it into practice; they have been throwing billions of dollars around desperately trying to prop up their economies, because GDP has plummeted everywhere. Have you really not noticed that? What do you think might have been the consequences of no state intervention?

It's nice having the discussion anyway, even though I'm fairly confident that we'll never agree on anything

[BADecker]

In the USA, court proof for Covid-19 is lacking.

Further, in the USA, court proof for death by the actual Covid=-19 virus is lacking.

When you check the ways that the CDC accepts cause of death on death certificates, there is very little proof for the death cause in almost any death.

In essentially all deaths, we are trusting what someone else says.

When we see that most of the Covid-19 deaths were the elderly with other diseases that were going to kill anyway, and that they were called Covid-19 deaths without doing an autopsy to be sure, there's no way to tell if any of them were Covid-19 deaths.

The whole thing is blab and sensationalism, exaggerated by the media.

Right now, the Federal Government and Trump, are trying to figure out ways to get the people to stop panicking over the fake Covid, without letting the people realize how they, the Government, were duped by the medical.

Probably, that's what all the "... Lives Matter" riots are all about, Government using riots to get people to forget how they goofed so badly with a fake Covid pandemic.

[Cnut237]

~

If you don't trust the reasons, then why not just look at the figures for excess deaths instead? What is killing these huge numbers of extra people?

[BADecker]

~

If you don't trust the reasons, then why not just look at the figures for excess deaths instead? What is killing these huge numbers of extra people?

No proof for excess deaths. There's no way to take all the cause-of-death people to court to see if there were any deaths. However, if there are excess deaths, it could be a bad flu year.

If they are willing to scare you with a bunch of deaths that they said Covid did, and later we found that these people had heart disease, cancer, diabetes, pneumonia, etc., that they were in the process of dying from, but they called it Covid, why wouldn't they be willing to deceive you about the numbers in general?

[Spendulus]

#4 is exactly, perfectly wrong, by the way. Who suggested such a thing might be true?

As far as I'm aware, every government that has implemented a lockdown. And not just suggested, they have put it into practice; they have been throwing billions of dollars around desperately trying to prop up their economies, because GDP has plummeted everywhere. Have you really not noticed that? What do you think might have been the consequences of no state intervention?

It's nice having the discussion anyway, even though I'm fairly confident that we'll never agree on anything

Regardless, this question has been variously posed throughout history. Notably as the effects of "government intervention" during the Great Depression of the 1930s in the USA, where a lot of historians concur that government policy LENGTHENED the depression, and made it worse. Also much discussed is Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" initiative, intended to lift minorities up out of poverty.

By comparison, the 1893 depression was very short lived, and may be considered a model case in which there was no government massive aid program.

https://eh.net/encyclopedia/the-depression-of-1893/

You've got to agree that the fact that "every government" having embarked on a course provides ZERO PROOF that it is the correct action. Regardless, what will determine the recovery is the extent to which peoples' behavior has been changed or modified. In simple terms, will they go back to spending exactly the same as in 2019? If so, businesses and jobs will exist in similar amounts. If not, businesses and employment will be altered to suit the new conditions.

As one example, I do not think peoples' vacations will included ocean cruises in the future. So that's history, and those jobs and that spending is gone. That alone has many repercussions.

All that having been said, in the USA we have states, and we can experiment with things like UBI to a fair extent. I'm not at all opposed to that. What I'm opposed to is attempts to put such schemes on an entire country based on any type of philosophical construct (marxist, socialist, libertarian, anarchist, and yes capitalist).

[Cnut237]

I'm fairly confident that we'll never agree on anything

I stand corrected, we do sort of agree on several points!

You've got to agree that the fact that "every government" having embarked on a course provides ZERO PROOF that it is the correct action.

Yes, agreed on principle on the lack of proof. What is happening is that governments are giving huge handouts to prop up businesses and individuals to cover their losses during the lockdown, with the assumption that if they did not do so, then businesses would either collapse or else be forced to lay off huge numbers of employees. Governments are trying to keep the current system going. I agree that there is no proof that this is the best approach, given that (AFAIK) no other approaches have been attempted - but if the aim is to minimise economic damage, then can you suggest any better approaches? Does the current approach work to prevent catastrophic economic damage? Would 'do nothing' result in less damage?

in the USA we have states, and we can experiment with things like UBI to a fair extent. I'm not at all opposed to that. What I'm opposed to is attempts to put such schemes on an entire country based on any type of philosophical construct (marxist, socialist, libertarian, anarchist, and yes capitalist).

Agreed again. I'm not suggesting that everyone should be forced to adopt UBI, merely that a) the current response replicated around the world, of handouts to businesses and individuals, is UBI in all but name, and that b) given the first point, governments would be remiss not to look at implementing UBI trials as a possible route out of the coming economic storm, and a possible route to a more egalitarian future.