Why is $1,000 a month any different then just raising middle wage?

Taxation is forced. Interest is agreed upon.

too bad bloomberg bought the dnc.

Deduct more faggot

society chose taxes to keep a standard as to not burden the individual.
banks choose 26%apr because shareholders demand and government regulates the most they can charge.
you can own nothing and not have taxes same argument for interest.
taxes benefit everyone.
interest benefits the shareholders.

nice quads Cred Forumsro

quads have spoken, deduct urself u fag

1k/m would be a +$6 min wage increase,

$15 min wage increase would kill small business aka fuck u rural america.

where do you think you live, in a cave? You use public services, you pay tax, fucking moron

from the suppression of all other aides

that why in civilised country you either have lower ticket but an easier suspension of your driver license or the amount of money you're required to pay is indexed on your income.

The $1000 a month would go to every single american, including those who cant work. Minimum wage being increased is good for those who are in the workforce, but for those who arent in the workforce or those who can't work $1k a month would make a world of difference.

>from the suppression of all other aides
Why not just cut those off and cut commensurate taxes?

i own several. I'd just increase the price of services to the consumer. literally not my problem.

i like it, don't get me wrong, but i love how poor whites suck the dick of small businesses. i'd pay you in moldy bread if i could. thanks? lolol

Raising the minimum wage effectively prices all the people whose work isn't worth the minimum wage out of the market. That means higher unemployment, and also has hurts the groups with the least skills the most, like minority and marginal groups. The young are particularly hurt, because since they can't get jobs, they're unable to learn to the basic skills that would let them get a minimum wage job, and then move up the ladder further as they age and develop experience. They'll never recover.

It's just another variation on price fixing, and no serious economists dispute these effects.

A UBI is not as a horribly destructive, though it's still a stupid idea.

having to submit your income taxes just to pay a speeding ticket sounds like a stupid fucking idea.

cite some sources. the cities that went to $15 an hour are flourishing. is it lunch or dinner time in moscow?

No, they're not. Seattle is becoming more and more overrun by homeless and businesses are closing up.

if someone isn't worth minimum wage, fuck em. make america great again. i vote republican specifically to fuck over poor whites. working well so far.

>>taxes benefit everyone
Keep licking those boots

yeah, I don't bother shoving rusty carts around a dirty 1970's fallout shelter.
I just use amazon.
or whatever is cheapest.
when boomers die so will your profits.

Attached: 1576911579235.jpg (400x505, 133K)

which flyover state are you from, and where are you getting your news? did a scary fox news story shape your whole opinion? god I wish repubs were strong again instead of tv watching dolts. ugh.

>Raising the minimum wage
just enforce anti-trust laws (aka monopoly laws.)

Literally any basic economics text, by anyone from Sowell to Frank/Bernanke.

>moon landing was a hoax.
keep hoarding silver.

If someone isn't worth the minimum and they want to work, let them. They're making the choice that working for less than minimum wage is worth more to them than staying home.

if you think the poor whites haven't raised another generation of waterheads, i don't know what to tell you. nobody goes into the trades anymore. easy money. call a plumber. see if you can afford it.

Interesting...

I live 45 minutes away from Seattle, asshole.

enjoy being poor.

I've never understood why someone choosing to work for less than "minimum" is a horrible thing. It's their choice.

Spend a week on a reservation where people are used to getting free money once a month with no strings attached & watch them spend the entire amount on drugs and alcohol in under an hour then resort to begging for the next 29 days and still tell me it isn't destructive

literally slavery. i'm on your side. as a small business owner i absolutely want to provide housing and no pay for employees. 3 hots and a cot. please, i'm beggin you. might be some rape too.

Not sure that helps much. There are very few natural monopolies, and and the incentive to get more sales by undercutting their competitors in some secret way tend to break up cartels. Where monopolies and cartels persist, it's because they're protected by government laws that heavily regulate and put up barriers to entry, thus creating government supported monopolies. And the anti-trust laws don't handle that.

>call a plumber
I literally just type "plumber" into youtube and diy it.
I can't afford it.
I'm a poor white flyover state.
trades are the next scam to be out if I reflec any aspect of my generation.

it's one of the final steps in a 'passive' totalitarian government. They've finally realized pharms like weed w/some of their most mind numbing prescription meds creates a more docile society. Giving money like that is creating a dependency culture. Of course they are still working out the kinks, with the shooters and stuff but you take the good you take the bad you take the hat and all you have is the facts of life the facks of life

if you had a skillset that anyone wanted, you wouldn't be on Cred Forums at 2:30am. enjoy sucking retired boomer cock.

>>literally slavery
I hate this generation

voluntary free choice is slavery?
you've got that backwards, user

it isn't 230 am everywhere on this flat earth, coomer

learn some basic economics

This is how you get inflation

Seethe harder, faggot.

it's taking away options from people with the least options, because paternalism

Don't you know, user? Anything short of their utopia is slavery.

slavery of being trapped in a high risk low benefit trade with living squares costing 92% of said income per month thus creating a cage. You get fired your quit your ass is homeless in 2 weeks

I literally said it was a stupid idea.

You need to work on reading comprehension.

do you major in economics?

nobody's trapped, there are other jobs
and if housing is 92% of your income, move

>this generation
my grandfather
a boomer military mechanic
makes more in retirement than my father
a gen x military scientist

my grandfather updates his bathrooms every other year and buys new cars every 3 years, etc.

my father has just paid off his school loans, owns a 10 year old vehicle, and updated his bathroom once from the 100+ year old one.

I work in the health industry.
I serve boomers for a living.
I make less than my father with a similar education.

No, inflation is caused by increasing the money supply. A UBI paid for by taxes wouldn't cause inflation, but one paid for by printing money would.

based user is based & smart

Attached: 26719350.gif (350x350, 29K)

All territories with force used at all (or all of them) will end up in constant violence or one entity with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. It is best if this wasn’t required but it will always arise. It is best for us to have a democratically accountable entity which has this monopoly. It also needs to have funding. Voluntary funding would be nice but it also cannot sustain the state. The only option left is theft. Unless you can come up with another option that won’t necessarily lead to massive barbarism, no one cares if taxation is theft based on first principles but contrarian nerds who don’t wanna pay taxes.

>lets take money out of the economy with taxes
>to put it back in with UBI

Attached: 1576903676776.jpg (1200x1392, 136K)

And it's the government's fault.

nah probably the gays

At best, the State is a necessary evil. But we should recognize it as evil and restrict it heavily.

A UBI paid for with taxes is socialism, which absolutely causes inflation. The scariest thing about the current age is that people like you with such an infantile grasp on basic economics have just as much voting power as me. Democracy was a fucking mistake.

It's a stupid idea. But you're a moron for thinking that I supposed it just because I corrected your error about inflation.

No socialism does not cause inflation. Nor does a welfare state, which is what you're really trying to talk about. You're just a fucking idiot with no understanding of supply, demand, or monetary or fiscal policy.

Remembering taxation is theft is important, because it reminds people that it's not just free money, and thus must be strongly justified and restricted to necessary services. This "free" shit is toxic.

It allows businesses to exploit desperate people
Businesses will stop hiring and wait for somebody that will do the job for almost nothing, because having money for 4 meals a week is better than being hungry every day.

>Democracy was a fucking mistake
Go to China than.

Name one person who starved to death in the US in the last 50 years, and it wasn't related to mental illness or a crime like locking someone in a basement.

You can't. because it doesn't happen. This whole argument that the poor are starving is a fucking lie from people who have never been more, have never worked with the poor, and don't understand the poor. Obesity, not Holodomor-like gauntness is one of the bigges problems among the poor. There are plenty of calories.

And that's not even touching your infantile grasp of economics. Learn about supply, demand, equilibrium, and marginal value.

>taking money from people who have it and giving it to people who dont isnt socialism because you give it a fancy name
>socialism doesnt cause inflation
Holy fuck kid just stop posting. Please never vote.

You're right, businesses never pay more than minimum wage. This argument is so stupid.

Price levels were steady for 200 years in the US, and then started rising once they gave the the Fed the power to print money without backing by gold. That's what causes inflation, not socialism. Inflation can also be caused by loss of productivity, and deflation can be caused by an increase in productivity, but those are much smaller effects.

Socialism is distinguished by seizing the means of productions, i.e. putting all industry or capital goods in the hands of some kind of government. Direct governmental control.

Rediistributionist polices, sometimes called social democracy, or more correctly the welfare state, involving paying for social programs via taxation. The government doesn't own any of the companies, there is still free enterprise.

Learn what the words you throw around actually mean.

>suppression of all other aides
Hahahahaha! How long do you ghink that will last? Exactly one election cycle before "supplements" or "adjustments" appear. "Housing supplement" for cities, food supplement, communications supplement, etc.
IT NEVER ENDS.
UNTIL YOU END IT.

>when everything you know about economics is taken from Marx
Yikes

>Marx
you read marx?
commie scum

Literally none of that is from Marx. Read Bastiat, or Hazlett's Economics in One Lesson, or Hayek's Road to Serfdom. You'll find the exact same ideas, and they're all ardent opponents of socialism and Marxism.

Your understanding of even the most basic principles of economics is zero.

here
social democracy /= commie

>I've known people that run businesses that just cant afford to keep paying the rising rates so they have to fire people.
If they couldn't afford to pay their human employees enough to stay alive and healthy enough to do the job and went out of business because of that then the minimum wage is doing exactly what it was designed to. If you want to allow any business to pay a full time worker less than it costs to live you are an ass.

its 1000 a month for 10 family's

It was an example
Rage more faggot
Allowing businesses to pay anything they like leads to businesses all paging equally low so workers have no choice

The difference is, that with a universal basic income, everyone would profit from it, not just people who are actually middle class.
Just an example I am a programmer, if I would get a UBI I'd quit my job and start working on my own projects. I currently don't find any time to work on.
People who are now forced to work shitty jobs would become the opportunity to do what they always wanted to do without fearing to stave in the first two months until business is running.

So you're arguing that businesses should be allowed to pay workers any low amount they agree on, and the government should cover the difference in welfare?
So give businesses more profit and we pay from our taxes?

There are more unemployed people than there are jobs available. So if you do the maths, you will find that raising wages can not effect every american, UBI can.

The thing is if the workers aren't forced to take any job offered because of fear of starving, business owners are forced to pay better for less attractive work.

>Name one person who starved to death in the US in the last 50 years, and it wasn't related to mental illness or a crime like locking someone in a basement.

Starving is a weirdly precise restriction. Why don't you talk about malunutrition, which can lead to several health problems and people, while not directly starving, are actually dying because their immune system is to weak, vitamine deficiency or other related issues, because they can only afford shit food.

Fact is only around 89% of american households are food secure. 10% of americans experience hunger on a daily basis. The death rate due to malnutrition (per 100k) in the US is with 0.64 higher than in egypt (0.63) and 6 to 8 times as high as in comparable nations as germany (0.1) or the UK (0.8).

>UK (0.8).
Uk is 0.08... my bad

Rent and bills don't exist
Children cost nothing to raise
You're an idiot

Ok boomer

As far as I'm aware he wants to tax large tech companies like Amazon and Google, who get away with paying almost no taxes because they claim no profit, because they "re-invest" everything, or claim their headquarters are in a different country.

In the end it wouldn't even hurt them, because more people with more money are just going to buy more things from them.

get it through your thick fucking brain. no company, EVER has paid taxes on revenue, like ever. businesses and companies are taxed on INCOME like individuals.

Attached: 1387450644124.jpg (278x282, 51K)

explain the difference between income and revenue

You can't say the Millennium Falcon is an example of USAF fighter jet. It wasn't an example, it was a fiction unrelated to reality.

And allowing businesses to pay what they like means there's always another businesses willing to pay a little more to get workers to work for them, instead of their competitors.

Once again, we someone whose understanding of economics isn't just absent, but negative.

jfc, why are you commenting on accounting related subjects if you don't know the difference?

seriously, this is the simplest shit ever in business accounting

Attached: 1567601771639.jpg (222x225, 7K)

Sell item for $10. All $10 is revenue. Out of that $10 i might have actually made $3 out if costs to produce it. Anything that i put in in the bank from that $3 (thats not reinvested), say $1.5 is income.

They will raise the prices to match. You brainlet.

Attached: 54B9C2CD-A1F9-438B-B7FB-4003F7663EAB.jpg (720x454, 21K)

I talked about starvation because people keep using this lie about the poor starving, which has no basis in reality. I could have used malnutrition as a counter example, but I decided to use obesity instead because it countered the point better. Note malnutrition deaths are usually due to poor personal choices, not lack of food. It's not an availability problem, it's an education/breaking bad habits problem.

But your food security standard is nonsense, it's like the "living wage" that has no real meaning. Your 10% of people in the US are hungry every day is complete bullshit.

no wonder Bernie Sanders is so popular, if voters are as ignorant and uneducated as you with business, it makes total sense why he is popular.

I’m just wasting your time. I’m not political

And that's why people in India and China get paid so well
You're retarded

>Anything that i put in in the bank from that $3 (thats not reinvested), say $1.5 is income.
Which also explains why Amazon pays so little in taxes, because they typically reinvest that $3, and end up with $0 income.

Hi Slade

People in India and China earn less money because they're less productive.

You're a socialist. Which is the same as saying you're retarded.

you don't deserve to have the same value vote as me

Dubs proves 90% of people don't know the difference between taxable income and total revenue

I can't believe the
A B S O L U T E S T A T E
of the people autistically screeching and voting in elections

And that doesn't even account for the millions and millions of dollars of income tax that gets paid because Amazon employs people

i don’t care about revenue or profit or income I just care about bernie

Bernie cares about you
r money

You're seriously delusional if you believe that

source? he’s not even jewish

>source?
The wallets of all his donors

You should take a course on economics sometime. You know less than nothing, because everything you say is completely wrong.

Because you get it without work

I am going to assume in your retarded fit you meant minimum and not middle wage. The real reason is to avoid raising costs for buisnesses. But in reality most corporate entities could pay people more but theyre too busy shoveling money into ceos accounts to realize that.

What a retard
They are given quotas, and don't get paid anything if they don't hit the quota
You really believe that they get paid poorly because they don't work productively enough...
It's because there's no regulation and businesses can pay whatever they want, and that is what you are arguing in favor of for America
Keep posting user, you're hilarious

>I talked about starvation because people keep using this lie about the poor starving,
But malnutrition is mostly what people mean by saying starving. At least I will say "people are starving" rather than "people are suffering from malnutrition" simply because it's shorter and sounds better

>Note malnutrition deaths are usually due to poor personal choices, not lack of food. It's not an availability problem, it's an education/breaking bad habits problem.

Well... no, thats simply not true. Fact is, that trash food is cheaper than eating healthy. The reason poor people eat so much mac and cheese is not because they don't know any better, but because it's much cheaper than a healthy diet.

To quote the study: Neighborhood Impact on Healthy Food Availability and Pricing in Food Stores

>Even among a sample of largely chain supermarkets, availability of healthier foods may present an obstacle to consuming a healthy diet in certain neighborhoods, particularly low-income neighborhoods, consistent with findings from previous research [8, 9].

In poorer neighborhoods healthy foods are most often less available and more expensive than "junk food".

This is also related to obesity. It's not that the people aren't educated enough to buy better food, it's that they can't. It's a systematic problem not an individual one

...because robot niggers don't need a minimum wage

Attached: Untitled.jpg (832x784, 107K)

wrong

> hurr, lets interfere in the free market
> 10+ year old busibess die
> hurr, it is the owbers fault, not our meddling

How does it feel to be a brainlet?

can you explain how taxes benefit me?

If Chinese workers produce as much as American workers, but cost only $2/day or something like what, why does anybody in the US have a job? Even with tariffs, it would make sense for companies to outsource literally everything.

But that hasn't happened. What's been outsourced are the low-wage, low-skill jobs, while many high skill jobs remain.

American workers are more productive.

This isnt' even Economics 101. This is Economics 0, what you'd learn in the first week if you actually took a course on the subject.

It's even worse my dude

No, malnutrition is not what people mean when say starving. If that what they meant, they'd use the word malnutrition, not a word that means something completely different. It's an attempt to appeal to emotions by blatantly lying, as you just admitted you do.

Trash food is cheap, that's true. But potatoes and basic produce aren't that expensive. It's personal choice that has led to the obesity epidemic.

Note that most talk about food deserts doesn't measure the availability of nutrients, it's all about organic food from local farmers and that kind of nonsense. If they really cared about nutrition, they'd be checking how many foods are available that provide a sufficient quantity of vitamin C, but they're not. It's a moral crusade where they're trying to evangelize for their own purity standards which are unrelated to actual nutrition.

Taxation really is theft. If I built a road would you dumbasses give me 25% of your paycheck because you kind of thought I would put it to good use?

Also, the lack of supermarkets in certain poor areas is usually caused by local politicians and activists. Those areas are usually high crime, and thus have a lot of additional costs that ultimately have to be passed to the customer. The activists then start screaming about how the companies are gouging their customers, which is false. The prices are higher because their costs are higher, not because they're making more money.

The other argument is that it's not fair that poor people have to pay more than the rich folk in other neighborhoods. Which I agree with, but what happens? The activists scream, the politicians force the company to keep prices low by threatening them with sanctions, their profits already low profit margin vanishes, they go out of business, any future groceries are discouraged from moving into the area, and locals have to buy food at convenience stores.

Which is 100% of the fault of politics, and a failure to understand basic economics.

The government is very inefficient with money. Look at our debt and look at what we have to show for it. It doesn't take a genius to understand that taxation is parasitic

Lol you're quoting "studies" to a segement of the population that thinks education is a libhurul conspiracy. Don't bother. The only thing these people believe are other blowhard morons like them, hence their worship of Trump, Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones, and the like.

Your complete lack of education is showing.

Because raising the minimum wage means nothing to someone whose job has been automated

>Note that most talk about food deserts doesn't measure the availability of nutrients, it's all about organic food from local farmers and that kind of nonsense
Maybe "most" talk about that, who cares, I showed you a study concerned with obesity and they say about healthy food:
>of a healthier (e.g., higher fiber, lower fat, lower sugar) and a regular food
If you think that fat and sugar aren't a good indicator for food furthering obesity I don't know what is...
Maybe, if you are trying to argue against a position which has cited a paper... READ THE FUCKING PAPER BEFORE YOU CRITICIZE IT. It is freely available and easiely findable via google

>Trash food is cheap, that's true. But potatoes and basic produce aren't that expensive. It's personal choice that has led to the obesity epidemic.
There are sure healthy diets that are cheap, and I've also seen studies showing healthy diets. But the fact that you have to be a medical researcher to find these diets because they are so rare between all the junk food, doesn't help your point either. Or do you think these people should search on PubMed for paper about healthy diets, when you lazy fuck doesn't even read the paper I provided to you?

False most small businesses pay more than those companies already you corporatist fuck

You're so dumb it's funny
Love how you're so insecure that you keep having to imply you've had education in economics, when it's clear that you're not even out of highschool yet

Most small businesses pay more already dumb fuck think about a towing company or plumber or electrician all small businesses which getting paid minimum wage

It wouldn't make sense to outsource everything even if labor was free. Example: fast food chef. There are logistics and timing factors beyond labor that affect what can and can't be outsourced so your premise itself is wrong. Not to mention the rest of the retardation you spewed in that reply.

Your Cred Forums wokeness is showing.

Because gibsmedat

You didn't show me anything, you made an oblique reference with no link.

Did you look at how they define health outcomes? I can guarantee you they're not measuring nutrition.

And if you want to complain about other people not reading, then you really should read other people's posts. I said nothing about fat or sugar being unrelated to obesity. In fact, there's no rational way you could have drawn that conclusion from anything I said, because it's the opposite of what I've been saying and completel counter to reason. To make that claim, you not only have to assume someone who has been making well argued points is utterly incapable of reason, but you also have to just make up nonsense and pretending i said it (which I didn't). Saying that's a dishonest scumbag technique is being exquisitely polite.

And you don't have to be a medical researcher to know how to eat well. Stop eating sugar and MdD's, and eat some damn veggies and fruits. Stop patronizing people with low incomes, they're not the brain-dead morons you're pretending they are.

If wages had increased in line with the dollars value decreasing as it is supposed to, minimum wage would be around $15 an hour.
For yoyr.claim to be true, then businesses could not have afforded to operate 30-50 years ago, but they did

I've been talking about Economics 101. If you think a reference to the most basic of all possible courses in a field of study is an "education in economics", I weep for any children to whom you might pass on any genes.

You must have missed the many times he subtley implied he was an economics genius user. Surely he isn't just repeating what he's been told

Your idiocy and inability to predict or explain anything correctly continues to astound.

At least show why he is dumb rather than just saying that he is. He might not learn anything from it but the five other morons like him getting their econ lesson from Cred Forums might benefit from it.

Yes, there are a few cases that would hard to outsource. So? You're ignoring the elephant in the room, i.e. explain why for instance all the tech jobs haven't gone overseas, or why they still make cars in the US, or the 90% of jobs where at doesn't apply.

Stop being a retard.

I swoon in the light of your intellect oh grand fedora
Continue to let us bathe in the light of your faultless wisdom

I never implied anything of the sort. You're just so economically illiterate you confuse what you should have learned in grade school with deep learning.

Makes sense considering you're still in highschool
Explain why most of what you say is ignorant nonsense based on misunderstanding

He can't, he's the economic moron. And so are you.

Most tech production IS done overseas you retard

And once again, all you can do is throw around ad hominems.

He just keeps going...
No brakes on the potato train

You might have me confused with some other user. I'm just here to watch neo-con retards seethe about socialism while driving on their socially funded roads and shitting into their socially funded sewage system.

Thats not ad hominem

Says the economics moron

You abysmally stupid idiot.

If someone's talking about a US domestic tech industry, why would you assume they're talking about a chip manufacturing plant in bumfuckistan, and not say AWS or Google?

And you just keep going...
no brakes on your potato train

You should learn what socialism means.

No. Taxation is just one of the costs of living in a society.

No, I'm not you.

Calling people children isn't an ad hominem? Once again, you prove you don't know what terms mean.

Getting so desperate he resorts to "no u"

If I thought this rice-nigger would follow through I would vote for him. You don't get something for nothing in this world.

>doesn't understand difference between inflation and hyper inflation.

REEEEEEEE
I only meant the tech jobs that haven't gone overseas
Ignore all the tech jobs that already moved there

Taxation is agreed upon. That's what voting is all about.

If you cant afford to pay your workers a living wage then your business has already failed and you need to exploit their labor to prop it up.

No, it wasn't an attack on the person, it was an attack at the level of understanding they displayed in regards to the topic the are arguing about
Not ad hominem

- Everyone gets it so no need for other benefits
- Just print money doesn’t need to come from taxes
-Will create inflation but that’s ok all those hoarding cash will be less well off
- Eventually the £1000 will be like £50 today
- Totally wipes out the benefits system
- poor people will starve
- just fixed poverty and homelessness
- hero

>You didn't show me anything, you made an oblique reference with no link.
I provided you the name of the study... If you don't know how to use google, pubmed, or even fucking scihub it's not my problem.

>Did you look at how they define health outcomes? I can guarantee you they're not measuring nutrition.
You really love to make a fool out of yourself do you? They didn't measured fucking health outcome, they measured the availability of healthy foods in poor neighborhoods

>then you really should read other people's posts.
You claimed:
>Note that most talk about food deserts doesn't measure the availability of nutrients, it's all about organic food from local farmers and that kind of nonsense. If they really cared about nutrition, they'd be checking how many foods are available that provide a sufficient quantity of vitamin C, but they're not. It's a moral crusade where they're trying to evangelize for their own purity standards which are unrelated to actual nutrition.
So I have given you a study, which specifically looked at obesity and the availability and prices of healthy foods by comparing it to similar alternatives. Healthy defined as low-fat low-sugar and low-fiber. They found that the availability of such foods is low (physical availability as well as availability by affordability) in poorer neighborhoods (and is thereby compatible with prior research in that area), and concluded that this may be an obstacle to a healthy diet for many poor people.
So I commented that your little rant about
>most talk about food deserts doesn't measure the availability of nutrients,
doesn't apply to the discussion at hand, because I gave you a study that looked into the availability of healthy food with respect to obesity (because you started with obesity and there are more studies available for obesity, at least in the US, about malnutrition I was only able to find stuff about the developing world in my quick search)

Potato.

It was clearly an attack on the person.

Taxation is not forced if it's a VAT.
Taxation on income IS forced, and that's why VAT is clearly superior to income tax.
And if the VAT is only on online goods on the back end, that would mean it will grow along with the economy.

>- Just print money doesn’t need to come from taxes
Are you retarded? He want's to pay UBI with an increase in Sales tax.

You could argue if this is a good Idea, but no one proposes to simply print money

Did you go to school? Have you driven on roads or bridges? Have you or a loved one ever required help from the police or fire departments? Did you ever use water at home for drinking/cooking/cleaning/bathing?

Have you ever eaten something, and didn't shit yourself to death?
That's most likely because of food safety standards and oversights - paid for by taxes.

And where's the other 98% go?

Clearly an attack on the limited highschool level understanding of the topic

If you're not going to go to the almost non-existent effort of providing a link, why would you expect anyone to go to the considerable effort of reading it? That's just hypocrisy and deflection. If you had a point, you could state it.

And once again, you completely fail at basic reading comprehension. I never said a thing about health outcomes, so you're the one making a fool out of yourself.

Nothing else you said actually makes a point, or relates to anything I said.

Again with personal attacks, along with that smug satisfied sense of self-superiority that comes with ignorance.

Em... I just proposed it for one. Better to bail out the people directly than business and banks.

Taxation is absolutely forced, whether or not it's a VAT. What do you think happens if someone doesn't pay? The government just decides that their choice, and does nothing?

The aspects of those jobs that CAN be outsourced HAVE been outsourced. A lot of the grunt data entry aspect of tech jobs have been outsourced to india. A lot of the car parts are manufactured in china and shipped to the states for assembly. What does or doesn't get outsourced depends on cost, logistics, availability of skill, and I'm sure a bunch more factors that econ 101 noobs like you and me can't even imagine.

Your whole point about Americans getting paid more because they're more "productive" is wrong. Without the labor laws that we have you can bet americans would be getting paid the same $2/day wages in China and India. And our standard of living would also be just as poor.

It's not a personal attack
Its an attack on your limited understanding of the points you're arguing

I have nothing to add so I'll just type ok boomer and feel clever

Printing money is a horrible idea. It causes inflation, which causes bubbles because of malinvestment, leading to later crashes.

It's also highly regressive, because it's a flat tax. Actually, it's a worse than that, because the effects spread out in ripples, with the banks and investment houses getting to use the money before prices rises, while the end consumers are stuck with money with reduced value.

It also taxes not just spending, but savings.

It's also a hidden tax.

It's 100% a personal attack, and you just keep repeating it.

Because as technology progresses, more and more jobs will be permanently eliminated. There's going to come a day when you cannot hold people's basic needs hostage in exchange for labor because there is no labor left. UBI is the stepping stone to a post-scarcity society.

Tell that to a fireman or cop, or anyone that likes paved roads. Now STFU.

If ya wanna move the goalpost.
Do you have electricity running to your house? How about phone lines? Sewage system? Postal Service? I assume you dont speak Niponese or German?

I haven't been paying attention to this guy. Where is he going to get the money to give everyone $1k?

Attached: 1275448749868.jpg (256x256, 20K)

Into the pockets of the american war machine and the politicians who are keeping it running by convincing you that killing brown people half a world away is your patriotic American duty.

$1000 a month is literally nothing.
Yet, it'd make a huge difference in a majority of the population that lives paycheck to paycheck.
Will there be inflation? Of course, a standard 2-3% but we don't worry about inflation when we printed a trillion dollars off during the bail out, or the trillion dollars that went missing in Iraq. But the second we consider a UBI suddenly people are concerned about "inflation" no wonder people are considered so easily lead and fooled.

Raising minimum wage to stay paced with living costs is nice, but what about the disabled, the elderly, and the stay at home moms?

I believe women should be encouraged to stay home while the man works. Statistically this produces the most wholesome societies and family units.

I think the biggest benefit of $1,000 over minimum wage increase would be to LOCAL small businesses. The business owner would have a small amount of extra income while the business gets through the red years. The local town population will have more spending power. The business could pay some part timer an appropriate high-school hourly rate, and a full time hourly rate to another. (Say 10 / hour and 20 / hour respectively instead of both 15/ hour)

No, they haven't. The low-value less productive jobs are what has been outsourced. The US is the center of an incredible amount of skill and innovation, which is why the US is more productive than countries like India or China. Comparative advantage means country produce what is most valuable for them to produce, and the US has a very high value per worker. But that does mean a continual shift to new jobs, as other countries take over the less productive jobs because it's more valuable to use the American workers in high value jobs.

Also, your claim about labor laws is false. The huge increase in economic output in the west was chugging along for more than century before any of those laws were put in place, and wages had risen dramatically.

Seriously, pick up Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson or if you want a more left-leaning book, Bernanke's Principles. Look up trade, comparative advantage, and wages.

I hope they get rid of the minimum wage. Trump's right about that, even though I don't like him.
You do what you can to handcuff the middle class's arms, they become your slaves. Moreover, you feed them the right propaganda, and they'll vote for you every time. that's what the GOP gets right, over and over.

The DNC was never that smart. They went for the educated voters, which was their mistake. They should've gone for dumbed down white voters, AND intelligent upper class people. they could've had the Presidency forever.

regardless, trump's got the middle class slaves right in his back pocket, it's ingenius. you take away the minimum wage, I'll pay my workers a dollar an hour and exploit the fuck out of em

apnews.com/c2cd46e2cf5f4291aa75af3c2a07aed4

GO GOP!!! I'm a new Lib for Trump!!!

Attached: I Love America.png (214x112, 7K)

Amazon, Microsoft, and Google.
He doesn't believe in income tax, wants to do an online goods VAT. People end up spending 6-8% more monthly, but then get $1k a month. Decent trade off, and it's optional if you purchase things locally.

The problem with that view is that the rich already don't pay their taxes as it is. They use every trick in the book (that their ancestors' accountants wrote) to pay as little as possible. You make taxes optional, suddenly they're paying NOTHING and society has no recourse. Roads crumble, bridges collapse, power lines fail, and the rich get richer.

>Amazon, Microsoft, and Google.
Oh. What happens if they move their companies to another country?

No, you're just repeating yourself which is just reinforcing the point of your limited understanding.
Say it again though. Maybe 9 repetitions will.make it true
It's ok to be wrong user, as long as you learn from it

because some people are physically or mentally disabled and can't work. Some people are artists and work but don't get paid. Some companies can't afford to pay their workers more. Some people are too old to find a job and are broke from medical bills.

Nothing, it's not an income tax. They would still need to pay VAT to do business in the US.
Sure, they could refuse to do business in the US, but then some other company would come in. It's a globalized world, no one cares where the headquarters is.

I'm Yang gang 100% till death

Attached: gladiator.jpg (2500x1667, 320K)

Why is then any different than than?

Yang Gang reporting in

Attached: yang.png (576x534, 142K)

because raising the minimum wage would fuck small businesses in the ass. $1000/mo is taken via a non dogeable Value Added Tax on technology, and will give the people disposable income to start a business themselves, put more money into the local community, etc.

Attached: IMG_20191209_071822_924.jpg (750x850, 138K)

YANGGANG2020!!
Wooo~

>some other company would come in
>Amazon, Microsoft, and Google
I'm sorry, read this again.

Attached: 1468424759139.jpg (365x450, 19K)

based and Yang-pilled

Andrew Ping Yang from China is likely an China spy.
Moreover he didn't even PLACE in Iowa. He lost THAT BAD.

Think he has chance in 2020? THINK AGAIN.

Attached: Patriot.jpg (480x480, 27K)

That picture is fucking awful. Sure it would move you out of the "rental class", but housing prices would increase. This shit isn't hard.

>I don't know how to conceive a notion that's outside my current paradigm!!
>These three companies always existed, and will always exist. They didn't replace anything, and nothing will replace them!!

Attached: crane.gif (267x267, 58K)

Why do people think either will do anything? That 1000 dollars will be pulled out of other peoples wages, or prices will increase accross the board to offset either. And if They give you a 1000, they had to take 1200 to begin with because bureaucracy is expensive. The system is broken. Until it's fixed, anything they claim to do for you is another way to steal your money

>Doubt
How can you be that dumb if you're not just trolling?

so.... you admit it would move you out of the renting class.

but are still whining. you realize that as of right now, MOST Americans can't buy their own homes, and will never have equity in real estate.

Because it's literally free money from sitting on your ass. Aside from the fuck ton of inflation it'll cause, where do you think the money is going to come from you massive fucking retard?

>Housing prices will increase.
As a homeowner, I see no downside to this.
Either rent gets cheaper or I can sell my house for more.

can can argue even with me. see try to but are stuck to try to conjure elegant argument designated liberal. decadence betray you, defeat await you

>If you're not going to go to the almost non-existent effort of providing a link
Maybe, just maybe because links are recognized by Cred Forums as spam posts, so including one in this posts does not let me be able to post...

> I never said a thing about health outcomes
>Did you look at how they define health outcomes?
Sure you never said a thing about heath outcomes... except the thing you said about health outcomes...

Seriously how stupid are you?

You know there is shit else to do in those reservations except drugs and alcohol.

>US is more productive than countries like India or China
Trillions in debt
Still operates in deficit

>trump spends 2.2T on the military + 7T on "expendatures" in 3 years
>or yang spends 7T on The People

I think the people could use a little boost about now, the inflation we're seeing now is about what we'd see under yang.

you're having a tantrum about something you don't even understand.

Hit that vodka harder Vlad, maybe you'll start to make sense.

>Seriously how stupid are you?
Pretty rich coming from somebody too stupid to remove a few dots from a link

Yes, the military takes money to run. It employees many people, research, and actually has a purpose. You sitting on your fat ass serves no purpose, you don't produce anything other than the shit that comes out of your ass and your face.
People are doing just fine and the economy is good, why shoot yourself in the foot like an autistic retard if you can walk just fine?
Tell me how flooding the open market with free money is going to do any good? It'll just devalue the currency you moron.

google an an entire entity makes around 150 billion per year. paying $1000 per month to (under a specific ruleset) 160ish million adults per month would require 160 billion USD per month. you're expecting to paying google's annual revenue (every month) to (+/-) 160 million people. is it feasible?

Freedom Dividend is superior.
Yang is the best candidate in the field.
Democrats are too stupid to realize this.

>The huge increase in economic output in the west was chugging along for more than century before any of those laws were put in place
That tends to happen when you can force people to pick your cotton and build your railroads for free.

It's more economical to use Americans for high value work because paying them $10 minimum wage for something that can be done for $2 in China is a quick way to price yourself out of the market. It's a bit of a chicken and egg scenario. Are American workers "high value" because of the labor laws setting a higher floor on the market or are labor laws setting a higher floor because american workers are inherently high value.

it doesn't take 2.2T per annum.
that money comes from blue states btw, red states NEVER pay their share.

your kind don't work. red state welfare gets tiresome. we've been giving your kind money for so long, republican white trash and their failed states keep making excuses for their failed economies, maybe we ought to start making decisions for you. why should you vote when you don't work or own property?

Attached: white trash.jpg (600x604, 90K)

>Gut shitty and bloated welfare state.
>Roll back spending on military industrial complex
>VAT on online and technological goods
>Economy and GDP grow with much more consumer spending
Yeah, it's pretty easy, if you do the MATH.

You still haven't explained how paying people 1k for sitting on their ass every month is going to improve the economy or the country.
Blue states have more homeless and literal feces on their streets than the red ones, clean up your own messes before you talk shit.

I do work and I do own land, try again faggot.

But Yang's family is from Taiwan... one of the most anti-Chinese countries in the world...

BINGO

consumer spending = ecnomic growth. that money's invariably pumped right back into the ecomony (however I'd invest mine).

I doubt you'll ever learn that lesson, tho.

you don't even have the most cursory knowledge of economics. again that money will pumped right back into the economy to stimulate it via consumer spending, my drooling Cro-Magnon friend.

god I hate the poor.

>Pretty rich coming from somebody too stupid to remove a few dots from a link
Nice dodge so you don't have to admit that your brain capacity is so low that you can't even remember what you typed a few minutes ago

Also, simply replacing the dots and slashes with with spaces or (dot) and (slash) doesn't work (trust me i have tried multiple permutations). It even filters out the doi identifier (not that you would have the education to know what to do with this anyway). And sorry, but I have better things to do than to reverse engineer the Cred Forums spam filter.

I still didn't say anything about health outcomes. I talked about nutrition.

Seriously, read a book on economics. Just one.

Yeah but how would you invest?
Would you invest in a small business? Would you get some ETFs, and put it in stocks?
Then you'd also be pumping money right back into the economy through investing.

Got me with the old NO U...
how can I ever recover

I say vitriol rapidly descends thine capitolistic empire into devolving chaotic socialism when vote for china spy gloriously collapsing democratic republic tremendous quickly Trump best patriot for America MAGA 2020!

Dude... you literally typed
>Did you look at how they define health outcomes?
if you than say
>I still didn't say anything about health outcomes
I must conclude that you are either lying or stupid. tbh I think it's both

When English is your second language, I don't think your vote actually matters.

>Seriously, read a book on economics. Just one.

>Talking about a matter of international health
>Recommends reading an economics book
U what mate?

I'm not the person you got angry at, and it is that simple the post links.
Go cry somewhere else

>muh handouts
Working hard is core to American values, and Andrew Yang’s Freedom Dividend would only strengthen that value. First reactions to basic income can sometimes be that it might discourage people from working, but the data shows that increased spending ability actually increases the demand for more workers. Because of basic income, these workers can demand higher wages and better working conditions -- a powerful cycle for the economy and our country. You might enjoy this article: forbes.com/sites/adigaskell/2018/03/05/does-a-universal-basic-income-discourage-work

Decades of research have found that the only people who work fewer hours when given direct cash transfers are new mothers and kids in school. In several studies, high school graduation rates rose. In our plan, each adult would receive only $12,000 a year. This is barely enough to live on in many places, and certainly not enough to afford much in the way of experiences or advancement. To get ahead meaningfully, people will still need to

>Muh small business
94% of jobs created since 2005 were temp or contractor jobs without benefits. Andrew proposes we take the burden off small businesses by putting money directly in the hands of consumers. The Freedom Dividend is an injection into Main Street economies since most of it will be spent locally!
Allowing big companies like Amazon to continue paying zero in taxes hurts small businesses in a massive way. A mild tax on those companies would instead boost Americans’ spending power, resulting in the biggest small-business stimulus in history!

>B-but Companies would leave the US
Because a VAT is charged on every transaction, if a company sells to consumers in the U.S., it cannot avoid paying the VAT. Further, a VAT is currently used by 160 out of 193 countries, including every developed nation except ours. Andrew is proposing a rate of 10%, only half the European rate of 20%. Companies who seek to leave face a VAT in nearly every country.

>(not that you would have the education to know what to do with this anyway)
Cringe overload

Blue states make more money hence bigger cities, more people, more jobs...which brings more crime, more homelessness, and all the other problems that come with more population. A homeless guy isn't going to Bumfuck, Idaho to survive no matter how many cows there are to fuck in fly-over meth infested red states. The only successful red states are the ones with enough natural resources (texas, alaska) to make up for the low skilled meth addict high school dropout trump voting retard of population

There are no services being rendered for the money, that makes the money worth less then it otherwise would have been. Not to mention, you're going to disincentivize people who work for minimum wage. Why work when you can just sit on your ass?
I don't think you know how currency works. Why not just raise minimum wage like a fucking retard, you idiot, that clearly goes over super well.
God I hate the incompetent.

Why would they settle for a mere 1k, when they could have their wage and the extra 1k? who can live on 1k?
Perhaps in your wretched wastelands, I know no one who can afford rent for less than 2k, much less a car, mortgage, food et al.

So no, at least insofar as blue states go, the working class in America will be all systems go.

You kind, as has been, will continue being the welfare class. Nothing's going to change that until we get rid of entitlements for the unemployed in red states, and starve your kind out. Work or starve. Republicans' choice.

>Strengthen that value
Literally handing out money devalues money. If I hand out shiny rocks to everyone, they're not all that special or worth much anymore, are they?
That's the same thing as raising minimum wages, that doesn't really help the local economy.

What research? Show me where giving people lots of free money every month works on a state wide scale.

What hurts small businesses are restrictions and laws which inhibit them from paying the necessary about of money to jump through the legal loopholes in order to operate.
You're full of shit, it's just socialism-light, you're taking money through taxes and re-distributing it to people who sit ont heir asses all day.
How about fuck raising taxes, how about we lower them, way the hell down, and just let people keep more of their own money so they'll have more money? That way the fat asses who would otherwise be jerking off under yang, will have to work and contribute to society and be productive.

So we both agree your states are filled with homeless people and your streets are filled with literal human shit. Not only that, but you have no plans to do anything about it.
Oh, it's funny you mention meth addicts and high school drop outs, because your streets are filled with both, we can tell because the fucking used needles are everywhere.
Get your shit together before you go trying to sling it around at others, you ape.

You can easily live on 1k. See, putting down other places, really isn't going to earn you Yang faggots and points, your attitude is shit and you just want free money. You don't really give a flying fuck about anything or anyone else.
"My kind", are already set. I own land, own my own house, and I can save tons of money by growing my own food.
Maybe Yang can buy more votes next go around in 2024 and you'll learn how to survive without your NEET bux.

Attached: 1477329200401.jpg (826x743, 343K)

>Literally handing out money devalues money. If I hand out shiny rocks to everyone, they're not all that special or worth much anymore, are they?
This might be shocking, but money is not shining rocks.
You know, wine gets its value from aging. Does that mean money gets more valuable by lying around in a cellar?

I don't need any money, I want to see the middle class revitalized in America, because that benefits the upper 10%. Even if Wall Street will keep my kind solvent for generations to come.

The Middle Class is an absolutely vital part of America, and you're killing your own kind off through ignorance, propaganda, disinformation and by being uneducated and undereducated. At some point we're going to have to separate your kind (the anti-progress crowd) from the rest of the herd and deport you.

Attached: wooooooooooo turrmp.jpg (500x547, 45K)

See, when you age wine, it's aging wine. The equivalent of that would be investing your money so it grows over time.

Lets see, maybe this will help you understand.
Say you own a wine seller and you sell wine. That wine has value because it took you time to make it and people want it, yeah? Well what're you gonna do when I go and hand everyone 100 bottles of wine? Your shit is worthless, congrats on all your work now being worth less than it was before.

Um, everyone gets it no matter what and it has nothing to do with employers, employment, or hours worked.
Also where the money is coming from.
It’s completely different.

>See, when you age wine, it's aging wine. The equivalent of that would be investing your money so it grows over time.

No. When you age whine it lies around in a cellar. If money lies around in a cellar it doesn't get more valuable.

I mean it's nice that you want to construct an analogy where no one is, but fact of the matter is, money and whine are two fundamentally different things, as is money and shiny rocks, or money and physical labour.

The only thing these things have in common is that they have a value. But everything has a value, that doesn't mean all other properties (even only those regarding value) are the same.
It is a fallacy to say because A and B share a property X (in this case value), they must also share property Y (in this case the change of value via distribution or aging).

Thread

If money lies around in a savings account, it goes more value, literally. Both are types of interest accrued over time.

You could use wine, shiny rocks, or pieces of paper as currency. Money is a medium of exchanging your time and effort that is widely agreed upon.

That's right, things have different value, it's why some people get paid more for doing different work. But you can break these things down to roughly how much they're worth through currency. 1 dollar is equal to so much value, value is derived by time and effort spent. It's what we do instead of a bartering system.

Hence, flooding anywhere with currency that wasn't earned, isn't a good thing and devalues the currency in that area. It's why printing more money doesn't actually make you more wealthy.

>If money lies around in a savings account, it goes more value, literally. Both are types of interest accrued over time.
No it doesn't, your money looses worth due to inflation, but due to interest you get more money. If you have wine lying around in your cellar, it's worth increases but the amount of wine doesn't.

Why are you so desprate to equate two inherently different things?

>You could use wine, shiny rocks, or pieces of paper as currency. Money is a medium of exchanging your time and effort that is widely agreed upon.
Yes this is property X, each of those things has value. But this does not logically imply that they also share property Y, the accumulation of value. This is a fallacy

>Hence, flooding anywhere with currency that wasn't earned, isn't a good thing and devalues the currency in that area. It's why printing more money doesn't actually make you more wealthy.

What does having being earned anything todo with this? Take Stafan Quandt, he inherited a bunch of BMW stocks, and gets a dividend of yearly around 500 million euros. He hasn't earned it, because he literally did nothing to get this. But his 500 million are still worth 500 million. If this money would have been given to the BMW engineers, the value wouldn't have changed, it would have just distributed to those who earned it

The amount of wine you have becomes worth less, when I flood your town with tons of wine. That's the point.

We could use any medium that you want for the analogy. Something that is worth something, becomes worth less with a bunch more of it being artificially introduced. I'm sorry analogies go above your head.

If I were to give 5 million of those shares to everyone, it wouldn't be worth 5 million euros any more, now would it?

>The amount of wine you have becomes worth less, when I flood your town with tons of wine. That's the point.
Nope, it depends on the grape, the year, etc.
This is not the case with money, five one dollar bills are exactly as much worth as one five dollar bill.

>We could use any medium that you want for the analogy.
I know, the point is that the fucking analogy doesn't work

Let me explain. Physical labor has a value (this is litteraly what wage labor is), but if you increase the amount of physical labor, it's value does not decrease, because the overall productivity will be increased, new markets will be created (The workers need to eat during their lunch breaks, need working cloths and so on), etc.

>Something that is worth something, becomes worth less with a bunch more of it being artificially introduced. I'm sorry analogies go above your head.
>f it being artificially introduced.
>artificially
UBI redistributes money, it does not artifically create new one. So even if you analogy wouldn't fall flat on it's face, it doesn't apply to this context... at all. And you know this, otherwise you wouldn't have used the word artificial. The question now is, if you either believe that redistribution is the same as printing money, or you think UBI will be implemented by simply printing more money, or your are deliberatly misleading people.
In the first two cases you are retared, in the last case you are an asshole.

>If I were to give 5 million of those shares to everyone, it wouldn't be worth 5 million euros any more, now would it?
Yes it would. The price of bread in the store wouldn't increase because 100 people got 5 million more in their banks. Unless you are going to imply that the money comes from no where, in that case sure, this is called inflation. But the money was already there, it just gets redistributed

None of this incoherent babbling proven my drunken comment last night wrong. Taxation is theft and is fiscally idiotic.

Dissolve the government. Infrastructure wouldn't fail. You would still end up paying for things you value like roads, plumbing, etc. You'd just be able to decide which service you want instead of letting the government decide what you spend your money on.

Anarchy Capitalism is the way. Welcome to Ancapistan.

>You'd just be able to decide which service you want instead of letting the government decide what you spend your money on.
And how does this work?
Would there than be 10 companies building 10 roads besides one another, so i can than pay one and take their road?

Attached: PicsArt_12-27-11.34.00.jpg (1440x2559, 628K)

Companies and corporations would end up paying for them. Odds are there would be a fee to use them or you could help fund it giving you rights to use it. Companies would be inclined to provide public Access to their roads because the public is their consumer base.

yeah, those high qualuty roads, or that high quality schoolingsystem. My country just released data that the students are getting dumber and dumber. But lets not forget the tax that is needed to pay politicians "waiting money". They get 6* average wage for just looking for a new job after they quit being a politician.

Nahh, taxes are theft, free market would have given better schools. O wait, they do!

I've given everyone in your town 100 of the exact type that you have, there, does that make it easier to understand?

Yes, but you're not increasing the amount of physical labor. You're letting people get the benefit of doing the labor without actually doing the labor.

If you take money from one place and give it to another, you are artificially flooding that area with currency and artificially decreasing it from the place you took it from. That already sounds like a completely unfair and fucked up thing to do in the first place, but there are reasons why minimum wage is lower or higher in certain areas, along with the cost of living.
You're screwing over the local economy by shoveling in the economic production of somewhere else. You're diluting the economic structure that's being held up by people that put work into their community.

Guess what, countries like Denmark, Germany or Belgium have much higher taxes and much bigger governments than the US, but have much better roads and schools and generally beat the US in nearly every quality of life measure.

But keep running down that cliff. Im sitting here, over the pond and watching your country gradually going down

Everyone believes that our government is based off of liberty. You need to ask yourself what liberty is to you.

To me, it is the ability to do as I please how I please.

The United States government is based on restricting more and more of our rights. Restrictions are never lifted. Taxes are never going down. Their is a constant flow of more laws and the implementation of new taxes that pay for things our "society" needs.

Break free from the indoctrination. We don't need the government.

There's the ignorant bastard again.

No, it wouldn't, because the worth of the shares would drop, because there would be so many more of them.
If what you're saying is true, why don't companies just give out billions of shares to every one and make us all rich as hell?

The value of a share is based on how many there are and what percentage of the stock it represents.

He types this crap every day on multiple threads. It's the only thing he's ever posted. Complete idiot.

Exactly. Since Yang doesn't plan to print this money he needs to distribute, it's not a problem. The money is just being moved. Whether it sits in some rich dude's bank account or is spread around, it still has the same power

What gives you or anyone else the right to anyone else's money or property? We're all afforded equal opportunities to succeed or fail. Your logic is that because someone worked harder than you when you were dropping acid watching Rick and Morty that you deserve their money? Wrong.

I'm against socialism and I swear to God if you need me to explain why socialism is bad...

Attached: 428.jpg (734x520, 77K)

>>it'd make a huge difference in a majority of the population that lives paycheck to paycheck

And here lies the crux of the problem. People who get free money aren't going to use it to pay of debt or invest. They're going to use it to buy more junk they don't need. Yes there are plenty of people who live paycheck to paycheck, but for every one with a low paying job and medical bills there's another in that situation just because they don't know how to budget. If you have to have the $80k car rather than the $20 car. If you need went for the 8 bedroom McMansion when a 3 bedroom would have sufficed, when you buy nothing but designer brands, and vacation in Maui every winter, you don't deserve sympathy.

At the core of Yang's plan is the idea that people will use the money responsibly

You want to actually help people you need to address the real culprit: interest. Never ending, high percentage compounding interest is the thing that really buries people. Now if you borrow money, sure, you need to pay it back. But its is ridiculous that even fiscally responsible people pay more in interest than the value of what they bought. Take mortgages. Most people will pay as much or more in interest as they do for the actual value of the property. .But nobody wants to touch usury, because, ((you know)))

why is a nigger different from a negro?

ooh...I would subscribe to your blog, but I don't want to be on another watch list

Interest is by choice! You decide to use that credit card and take that loan.

Interest is what motivates companies to allow people to borrow their money. Taking away the accountability (interest) will only make the problem worse. What would stop someone from racking up a huge credit card bill and to pay it when they feel like it if there is no threat of having to pay more. Stop enabling idiots with idiotic logic.

ITT: Idiots who think they know something because they read a book but were too busy playing with the dicks in school to learn the basics.

I really don’t understand how people don’t see UBI will backfire, as long as capitalism exists private businesses will just bump prices to reflect that everyone has at least $1000 a month, it’s the same reason simply raising the minimum wage makes everything more expensive, nobody wants to do the hard work of reigning in the greedy assholes

>Where the money comes from.
like all socialist programs, from other peoples pockets.

>Yes, but you're not increasing the amount of physical labor. You're letting people get the benefit of doing the labor without actually doing the labor.
You really don't see the fallacy you are commiting here do you? You just added labor as an exception. Shall we continue the game? Whats about movies? the value of a movie directly correlates with the amount of copies available. For example a new hope today on DVD costs much more than a DVD of roots (i just took the first film i found from the same year), even though there are much more copies of a new hope available and out there.

Your analogy completely fails because you are trying to extrapolate properties from two things that aren't comparable.

This is a logical fallacy, just because two things have value, doesn't mean they share other properties. I could do this all day long, listing things that have value which does not scale negative with their availability. why are you insisting on a fallacy?

>If you take money from one place and give it to another, you are artificially flooding that area with currency and artificially decreasing it from the place you took it from. [...], but there are reasons why minimum wage is lower or higher in certain areas, along with the cost of living.

This is actually not wrong, but that doesn't make your analogy not fallacious. But this is only a very tiny piece of the puzzle. First it goes both ways, meaning if you earn more money, you will actually pay into it. Second if you have a base income, you can be much more picky about jobs you want to take, meaning the employers need to make the jobs more appealing, e.g. by raises or better healthcare coverage, or whatever. This in turn will also have an impact on the value of money.

Saying money will loose worth because there is a way to narrow view on this. Economics is not that easy, and there are a tone of factors going into the worth of money.

>>all that it is, is pandering by politicians to gain support. Yang was no where to be seen on the radar until he mentioned this stupid UBI policy.

>What gives you or anyone else the right to anyone else's money or property?
What gives that person the right to have that money in the first place?

There is no god given right for property! The notion that property is something you can have is only there because we as a sociaty have deemed that to be the case. If we as a society decide to redistribute that money there is nothing wrong with that.

So if you want to say that no one has the right to take away property, first you need to argue why you should have the right to have property in the first place.

I don't believe in any kind of God, nor any meaning of life, or something. Tell me, why you have any rights at all...

Also this started of by a discussion about money Stefan Quandt got for literally just being born (inherited stock dividends). IMHO he shouldn't get half a million each year without working a day in his life for that company

>They're going to use it to buy more junk they don't need.
And thats bad why?

I mean our neoliberal economic system is completely dependend on people spending money for stuff that they don't need. This will grow the economy.
On the other hand, if the money lays on the bank of some millionaire, it won't be used at all, basically being useless (for the economy).

So yeah, UBI is the perfect patch for capitalism, it allows money to flow, when it otherwise would stand still because those who could spend dont have money and those who have money don't spend it

I'm assuming you work. Are you not entitled to that paycheck? No matter how much money someone inherited someone out worked out smarted or out earned someone else enabling that. That person that earned that money to give his or her predecessor that ability. In my honest opinion, good on them.

That's because that DVD has a value that some people are willing to pay that the stores can charge you for. If I hand out 100's of those dvds to everyone for free, the value of them will drop.

Having more of one thing, inherently decreases it's value, the abundance of something drives down it's worth, what about that are you not getting?

Name something that will not decrease in value if you hand thousands of it out to everyone. No one is going to value something as much as they did before, if suddenly everyone has thousands more of it.

What if employers can't afford to make those jobs more appealing? They won't be getting any more money, unless they raise the price of their products. That's why I believe everything would cost more if you did that. If you have to pay your employees more because they refuse to work for such low wages, since they get free money every month, then you will have to raise the prices to cover the cost of paying for those employees.
Why wouldn't raising minimum wage by 500% have the same outcome as giving people 1k a month?

Don't be stupid, it's rent.

Here's another Seattlite with a recent Seattle newspaper article about a study done at a Seattle university for you. Try not living under a rock if you're going to spout bullshit.

seattletimes.com/business/uw-study-finds-seattles-minimum-wage-is-costing-jobs/

>Are you not entitled to that paycheck?
I am, because our society has created a system in which work is payed for with money.
If we as a society (e.g. through democratic means) would decide that the system should be switched up in a way that you get what you want as long as you work as a productive member of society, i wouldn't be entitled to a paycheck.

>That person that earned that money to give his or her predecessor that ability.
It's not about money, it's about company shares, which generate money. And with generate I mean they get it from taking it away from those who actually have worked for them.

If a company earns money, this dollar is made with some kind of product. Let's take a car company sold a car. This car was assembled by mechanics, designed by engineers and marketed by PR (there is more to a company but let's stick with this). Their work created the value of the money. Now each of them gets their pay, and than there is profit. By definition, in order to have profit, these people who worked on this got less money as their pay than their work was worth (pay + profit = worth). If this money now goes to someone like Stefan Quandt, he gets money others have worked for, without having to work for it anyway, because his grandfarther once worked for that company.

Pretty unfair don't you think

No, I pay my mortgage already. Its paying for some lazy bastards rent.

Seattle is doing fine. Unemployment is down, and that is a fact. Here are the BLS figures.

Attached: latest_numbers_LAUMT534266000000004_2009_2019_all_period_M12_data_unemployment+rate.gif (600x300, 5K)

I'd be okay with a UBI if its at the expense of other social welfare programs. I trust myself with those dollars more than I trust the government.

But fuck it if its in addition to welfare and foodstamps.

From trumps back taxes.

>voting for someone who may lose and can still raise my taxes at any time without my consent
>the same as me signing an agreement to pay extra
How much spraypaint do you huff on an average day? Be honest.

Attached: 1579150407666.jpg (590x933, 137K)

No, it's not.

International law is not like national law. Ownership in national law is an agreement between you and the state. International law is determined by the range of your guns. In short: if you cannot defend a place with military might, then it's not yours. That's international law. You cannot defend your plot of land from other countries, so it is by definition not yours. Whatever country you belong to though can in fact defend the plot of land your house is on, which makes it THEIR land. They have made an agreement with you saying you have the right to own the land which they have claimed. In return, you pay them a portion of whatever profit you generate while using their land.

If you think it is otherwise, then go claim no man's land between two countries at war, see how long it lasts. Not understanding that rights and laws are ultimately backed by raw violence will only do you disservice.

>That's because that DVD has a value that some people are willing to pay that the stores can charge you for. If I hand out 100's of those dvds to everyone for free, the value of them will drop.
Yes only if you give this DVD to literally everyone. Let's say you give out a DVD to 100 people, who haven't seen the movie. They all tell their friends about how great the movie is, now they also buy the DVD, and the price goes up.

Let me tell you why: you are arguing that by increasing the supply will decrease the value. But this is only true if (and only if) the demand is fixed. If the demand grows by the same amount as the supply, nothing will change.

I mean you are litterally to stupid to consider supply and demand and only focus on supply. Thats why all you analogies fail so fucking hard

>then you will have to raise the prices to cover the cost of paying for those employees.
Yes, exactly. You got this. Economy is much more complicatet than: "more money => higher prices". Thats all of my Argument

>Why wouldn't raising minimum wage by 500% have the same outcome as giving people 1k a month?
Thats really simple. There are less jobs than unemployed people in the US. meaning that not everyone can have a job, even if they would try. Meaning by increasing the minimum wage, there would be a few million people who would simply not get anything from it.

UBI only makes sense if it's paid to people who lose jobs due to automation or outsourcing, and the fee is paid by companies who automate and outsource.

Don't we want to lower the price of products to make them more affordable to everyone?

No, I'm arguing that you will be artificially increasing the demand, driving the price up. It's why gas prices go up when there is less gas, companies can only viably produce so much of their product. Resources are finite, they're not endless, you can't just increase productivity by 1000% because people started buying the shit out of your product. Not unless you charge more for the product to increase your output anyway, because you're not stimulating the employers and owners of the companies, just the consumers.

So what will be the point of giving out tons of free money if it drives up the cost of everything to the point where that free money doesn't really get you shit and you have to get a job and work anyway to actually get anything? It's like you just want the numbers themselves of how much people get paid and how much things cost, for the sake of just wanting the numbers bigger. The fuck is the point of that? Who do you expect this to impact and what good do you expect it to do? Homeless people won't be able to suddenly rent rooms because there will be limited space and the price of rooms will go up. Those same homeless people will buy food, leaving to a shortage of that as well, making prices have to go up to compensate. There's not an endless supply of labor and resources, it's limited by the amount of people you have working and the amount of the resource available.

Some of us are above minimum wage or whatever you consider a reasonable new cap.
Part of his point is a lot of jobs are becoming irrelevant with the use of technology. $1000 could be put towards training into new field, all while people's income may be decreased due to hour cuts or worse, being let go.
He suggests that that guaranteed income could supplement someone, or a family of 2; gaining double, so they wouldn't have to work as much and actually spend more time with their family. That could be a monetary gain as child care during work hours is typically over 1000. A lot of people got the jobs they have for basic survival and not because they enjoyed it. The money could help people diversify, do what they'd rather do, and best case spark innovation.

It's a net benefit as the money is from taxes. This time people get to choose what they use it for instead of government having a decision which may not impact everyone evenly or at all. Other countries have this and it's a bipartisan topic that's idiotic to be against. Don't you want to be able to be happier?