|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 15 2016 05:35 Dan HH wrote:+ Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/pewinternet/status/786956480167628801 Not gone far enough? How much more are people willing to give up to reduce an already infinitesimal chance?
People are very bad at assessing risk in general, due to how we evolved (being wrong about rustle in the grass may result in get eaten). This is where we need a political system that is not controlled by populism and make sound decisions, however it is nearly impossible when people trust government as less as they do now.
|
On October 15 2016 05:35 Dan HH wrote:
Not gone far enough? How much more are people willing to give up to reduce an already infinitesimal chance?
I thought republicans were for small government, civil liberties, and butting out, interesting. The constant ISIS fear mongering from the giant orange toddler certainly doesn't help anything. Acting like its the most pressing concern, like they're hiding in your basement and just waiting to come upstairs and murder your family, its nuts. I don't understand how any reasonable person thinks its that big of an issue and we need to curtail some more rights to deal with it. Some people never learn.
|
On October 15 2016 05:39 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 05:37 Piledriver wrote:
You missed the part where they report back to Hillary Clinton like faithful lapdogs - "Hammer Dropped". You missed the part where neither one of those men are a part of the DNC.
You all missed the part where it's casually glossed over that she couldn't endorse Sanders without resigning from the DNC (aka the establishment that was allegedly improperly biased against Sanders).
|
On October 15 2016 05:40 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 05:34 zlefin wrote:On October 15 2016 04:53 IgnE wrote:On October 15 2016 04:07 zlefin wrote:On October 15 2016 03:38 IgnE wrote:On October 15 2016 03:19 Nyxisto wrote:On October 15 2016 03:12 IgnE wrote:On October 15 2016 03:09 Nyxisto wrote:On October 15 2016 03:05 IgnE wrote:On October 15 2016 02:53 Nyxisto wrote:
[quote]
The idea is that if we transfer cash from one guy to another we ought to have at least some say in how it's spend, like with most other shared social resources.
I don't mind paying for someone's healthcare or food, I do mind paying for homeopathy and booze. If we socialise something we have a collective interest that it's being used responsibly. and you are the one that gets to decide what a "responsible" use is? why do you immediately jump to the conclusion that people will be using their meagre guaranteed income on homeopathy? but really i object to the idea that "you are paying" for someone else, like it's charity rather than social obligation. you are only fine with UBI when it's used to further the ends of a productivist technocracy that will increase your material well being. you are only for UBI when it is the only means around the barrier to capital reproduction that increasing inequality and consequent lack of aggregate demand presents. edit: even the pro-market liberal above me agrees that your german ordoliberalism is ridiculous I think you have it the wrong way around, if you're going to look where the support for universal income is largest it's going to be a college campus, not the Midwest. The people that bring the responsibility argument forward are almost always people who aren't that well off. "Our taxes aren't spent well" is an argument that you're not going to hear often in liberal technocratic circles. The people that will block your generous UBI without conditions are going to be the people that need it the most if you're framing it in a way that looks like a gift. Those people like responsibility, they don't want sharing without conditions, has this really not gotten into people's heads after this whole election? so are you saying that you personally are fine with UBI without restrictions you just don't think that the republicans would go for it? i was speaking to you, not debating trumpkins I don't like the idea of 'helicopter money' in principle (I honestly haven't read many studies whether it makes a big practical difference if we're just talking about a bare minimum UBI) but I'm not sure the distinction makes sense or is that interesting. I'm more interested in how we can get more social welfare to people and an important part of that is taking into account that especially in the US, but also in a lot of other places, unconditional redistribution will be perceived as a form of charity handouts and that is not going to be supported even by the poor. I think it's very ironic that you accuse me of being the aloof technocrat and then go on to brush off the Trumpkins, which are after all the people for which UBI is most relevant. It's what tanked Bernie's primaries, his whole talk about 'making the system work for the poor' was very far removed from the mindset that the people had he wanted to win over. That's why Clinton, the aloof technocrat, wins 90% of the black vote. so you personally are opposed to UBI because you are opposed to charity handouts but value keynesian stimulation as long as you get to decide how its spent. so in other words my criticism was dead on. im not the one trying to tell the trumpkins how to spend their share of society's bounty. i am just pointing out that a discussion with you about your pseudofascist ordoliberal welfare schemes opposed to UBI is going to be different than one with a conservative mid westerner who opposed welfare all together. @zlefin it would be helpful if you provided the guaranteed UBI number you are using instead of just saying 3-7x as wealthy. most UBI schemes propose numbers at or below the poverty threshold. it's also interesting that you round down (people might work less) instead of rounding up (increase in demand and the unleashing of the worker bees in a cognitive capital regime would increase material wealth). I'm not using any specific number, but am considering an approximate vague range. It hadn't seemed necessary to go into details before. let me look up some numbers: US poverty threshold guideline for a single individual: 11770; though it notes that additional individuals in the same household add far less, so there appears to be a considerable base cost; each extra individual in the household increases the threshold by 4160. alot would depend on which of those you focus on for setting UBI. based on http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-goit looks like around 1.25 trillion spend on non-medical welfare programs. with US pop around 320 million, that amounts to ~3900/person. state and local welfare programs surely add some, but are in general much smaller in size compared to the federal ones, so it should still be no more than ~4500/person. Of course current spending levels are in part due to deficit spending, they'd be around 15% lower without that. And if one were to shift all welfare programs to UBI, the money would be less focused on the elderly/disabled, so they'd be getting less than they currently do. (and it might not be enough, they tend to have higher needs than younger, healthier people who can do more of their own work) The food support systems generally assume around $6.00/day/person to feed a person decently (it can be done for less, if you have good stores nearby and do your own cooking, not sure how the amortization of basic kitchen supplies works). Housing costs are considerable, some places in the country have quite high housing costs. Rents from 500-1000/month depending on location, for basic housing. add a bit more for utilities (depending on whether utilities were covered under the rent) I round down because I prefer to be conservative in fiscal projections, so that there is a safety margin in case the programs consequences are worse than estimates indicated; there's always some uncertainty in such things. It's easy to handle a surplus gracefully, it's much harder to handle a deficit well. So, there are some numbers of things, provided as requested. so what happens when you raise taxes on persons that can pay more and reduce military spending? seems like you get pretty close to say $9k a year in UBI. you're talking about an awfully big tax increase. 9k/year per person, runs around 3 trillion total. So you'd need to raise revenue by some 1.75 trillion, or about 9% of gdp iirc. halving military spending would get you .3 trillion (and is obviously politically infeasible). so you'd still need 1.45 trillion; so a tax increase of say 7% on EVERYONE, with no exceptions or deductions reducing it. Or you'd run a tax increase of 10% on some people; which pushes the net brackets quite high, they're already high enough that diminishing returns effects hamper them. 7% tax on people making middle class income now is not that big a deal when they are getting $9k back in UBI. your vague assertions about diminishing returns are unconvincing
i'm providing information for those who ask it. I'm not interested in people being needlessly argumentative.
You're also not doing a full accounting about the money they'd be getting back, and the net changes to how various distributions would affect each group, and what the actual change in net distributions is.
You're more than welcome to do a full look at the numbers if you're not satisfied with mine, and make your own vague claims about them; or do a full work-up of the feasibility of various approaches.
|
On October 15 2016 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 05:20 ImFromPortugal wrote:"Rebels" in Aleppo is not a single group, it is multiple different groups each with their own biases and issues. That you think there is a united rebel force shows you know about as much about what's happening as Bernie and Johnson does. Its a complicated mess. I can bet that i know much more than you will ever know about this matter, the rebels in Aleppo have their hands tied because they need the support of Alqaeda and other extremist groups, the latest offensive to break the siege paved way to the unification of many of the rebels forces there and also prompted the re branding of Alnusra into Jabhat Fateh Al-Sham. I could name the majority of rebels forces present on all the major offensives, can you do the same? Now back to my question, why would the americans arm the rebels in Aleppo thus helping Alqaeda achieve their goals in Syria? Take into consideration that i have been against the regime and the russian intervention from the beginning, as you can attest by checking my posts back in 2011 when the civil war started. Right now your presidential candidate openly says that she wants to arm Alqaeda and you americans are still whiling to vote for her, that i cannot understand. If you are unwilling to think of Syrian rebels as anything but Alqaeda terrorists, then we should just end this discussion right now.
I'm not but nice straw man i have been siding with the rebels for the majority of the civil war, but right now Alqaeda is the main force behind the offensive operations in Aleppo.. those are the facts.
|
On October 15 2016 05:42 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 05:39 Rebs wrote:On October 15 2016 05:37 Piledriver wrote:
You missed the part where they report back to Hillary Clinton like faithful lapdogs - "Hammer Dropped". You missed the part where neither one of those men are a part of the DNC. You all missed the part where it's casually glossed over that she couldn't endorse Sanders without resigning from the DNC (aka the establishment that was allegedly improperly biased against Sanders).
You are just pulling it out of your arse now. Where the heck does it suggest she couldn't endorse sanders without resigning? There are plenty people who endorsed Sanders.
|
On October 15 2016 05:37 LegalLord wrote:
Candidate A has a foreign policy that will involve a lot of poorly considered ventures that will cost the nation a lot of money and damage its reputation abroad and with the voter base, while having enough hubris not to realize the folly of all this.
Candidate B wonders why we can't use nuclear weapons in battle, has little to no understanding of actual foreign policy issues and often parrots conspiracy theories about FP events, and has a temperament so volatile that said candidate bends over backwards to support a foreign leader who offers up a compliment, and starts grudge wars over minor slights of his character.
Which candidate do you want in charge if those are your two options?
So you support the candidate that wants to arm Alqaeda? Let me know what you think when the next 911 happens in america.
|
On October 15 2016 05:46 ragz_gt wrote:
You are just pulling it out of your arse now. Where the heck does it suggest she couldn't endorse sanders without resigning? There are plenty people who endorsed Sanders.
"We were very disappointed to hear that you would resign your position with the DNC so you could endorse Bernie Sanders"
|
On October 15 2016 05:42 Buckyman wrote:
You all missed the part where it's casually glossed over that she couldn't endorse Sanders without resigning from the DNC (aka the establishment that was allegedly improperly biased against Sanders).
So a third party fundraisers withdrew their support of her because they disagree with each other. I dont see where the DNC is pulling her funding ? I mean why should competing interests finance each other?
Also this feels moronic to point out so I wont tell you why she resigned to endorse Sanders, figure it out.
|
That sounds like a personal choice rather than a forced choice no?
It's like saying "I'm leaving now so I can pick up my laundry", but that doesn't mean if I don't leave now my laundry will be lost forever.
|
On October 15 2016 05:19 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 05:11 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 15 2016 04:47 LegalLord wrote:On October 15 2016 04:36 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On October 15 2016 04:20 LegalLord wrote:On October 15 2016 04:14 Gorsameth wrote:On October 15 2016 04:08 LegalLord wrote:
The biggest favoritism was probably simply the massive superdelegate advantage Hillary started with. That basically crowded out all other viable establishment opposition, leaving Bernie Sanders as the only possible viable opposition. He also suffered strongly from poor exposure early on in the campaign, probably also because of Hillary's superdelegate advantage. And people really do have a tendency to just fall in line with the party line option, which in this case was Hillary without a doubt. If he had more exposure earlier in the campaign, he may well have managed to edge Hillary out. Judging by the fact that there have been quite a few people who said they chose Hillary but now wonder if Sanders might have been better, while most Sanders people still think they were right to make that choice, timing might have made a substantial difference. Yeah that sounds right. I wouldn't call that favoritism tho. Hillary is a Democrat who has worked with Democrat super delegates for years. Bernie was an outsider coming in. The super delegates favoring Hillary early on makes perfect sense. Well they also favored Hillary over all other possible establishment candidates which didn't give them any chance of victory. I saw not that much of O'Malley, but he seemed like a pretty good, principled candidate with some oratorical prowess. But no one cared about him because he didn't have a chance because Hillary took the establishment vote by having all the superdelegates support her from the start. The most likely result was decided before any votes were even cast. How much of that is (1) HRC's strength and lifelong network building in Democratic party circles and (2) Democrats colluding for HRC. I think it is a lot more (1). Yeah, HRC did clear the field of any real challengers ahead of time by using her network power and loyalty. But that is because she really is that strong in Democratic circles. I also would have liked to see O'Malley get farther. But he just didn't have the donors or decades of connections. EDIT: Obama level talent did beat the Clinton machine in 2008, but I didn't see anyone with Obama's skills this year. Bernie organizational skills were simply inferior to community-organizer-Obama. Hillary built a truly impressive coalition in her favor this election, nowhere near what anyone else had before. In fact Nate Silver called her the "most establishment favored candidate in history" based on endorsements. She really did crowd out all the establishment opposition. All that connection building is, of course, a big ugly game of political favor trading, especially over the past eight years. There are worse things that could be done, but the notion that establishment favoritism got Hillary a primary win is perfectly valid. I think favoritism is a rather reductive/ narrow way of putting it. It's just how the world works. Let's say a company has a C-suite position open. They put an application on the job boards, but also notify their employees. Clinton has been with the company for 20 years, she's a hardworking SVP who has a great record at the company, and she was passed over for promotion a couple times. She applies, and a bunch of the people involved with the hiring process are like "yeah we know Hillary she's a great candidate". On the other hand, Bernie is an external consultant who has a history with the company, but people don't know him all that much. He's got a solid record of delivering what he's been asked to do, but the relationship is somewhat transactional. Moreover, Clinton has a better record - all the times she delivered projects ahead of schedule under budget and ahead of time already make her more qualified. The great office holiday party she planned or the fact she brought cookies when her team worked late are just gravy. If the entire company votes for the C-suite position and no other candidates but Hillary from within the company are given a fair shot at being considered, the analogy might be more apt.
O'Malley didn't win because he was a mid level ops manager with a slightly above average record that no one outside ops had actually heard of. Webb was that weirdo from accounting who always told the story about how he killed a man in Vietnam. Chaffee was that guy who had been a VP of like 10 different departments but was never going to get higher than that.
Biden was the COO to the last President, but he decided he didn't want to deal with all the crap.
Analogies are fun. 
|
On October 15 2016 05:11 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 04:38 IgnE wrote:On October 15 2016 04:16 WhiteDog wrote:On October 15 2016 04:11 LegalLord wrote:On October 15 2016 04:08 WhiteDog wrote:On October 15 2016 03:56 IgnE wrote:On October 15 2016 03:45 Nyxisto wrote:On October 15 2016 03:38 IgnE wrote:
so you personally are opposed to UBI because you are opposed to charity handouts but value keynesian stimulation as long as you get to decide how its spent. so in other words my criticism was dead on.
im not the one trying to tell the trumpkins how to spend their share of society's bounty. i am just pointing out that a discussion with you about your pseudofascist ordoliberal welfare schemes oppose UBI is going to be different than one with a conservative mid westerner who opposed welfare all together.
I still don't see what's fascist about it, it seems like a basic idea of fairness that if we redistribute money we don't do so unconditionally, this is already true for almost all tax redistribution. We don't just hand you your healthcare benefits in cash, we pay for your medical bills. Is this fascist? Should we just send you a syringe and and a bonesaw and you can have at it? Is paid childcare authoritarian? Almost all form of social benefits are supplied in the form of goods, institutions or assistance why is this offensive all of the sudden? I'd rather see that expanded because it is a material benefit for the poor rather than reducing it and handing you bitcoin because that's much less 'technocratic'. because the real affliction for those in poverty is not the material deprivation, it's the lack of autonomy. the assertion that almost all forms of social benefits are supplied in the form of goods, institutions or assistance is incoherent on its own terms (what is "assistance"?) but is also clearly wrong. social security is a cash payment that is a significant portion of the budget. disability and unemployment are cash payment with strings attached. @whitedog i don't see why you can't have both. jobs need doing. UBI is not the same as enforcing completely egalitarian incomes. provide a base level of UBI w no strings and jobs. Don't you think ot will be used as such ? In europe, most UBI i've learned about goes with the end of social security. It's an individualization of welfare. I saw it more as a "making a good socialized program is hard so let's just hand out a lump sum of money instead!" system in most UBI proposals I saw. Buy dem Nikez or pay for insurance. What you do ? this facile critique is the opposite of "stalinist commune or gulag? what do you do?" how about college is free and there are plenty of valuable jobs that you might wish to take but you are also going to be provided with a minor stipend to spend as you see fit to create a less deprived space for you to pursue yur own goals rather than living where we tell you to live, working where we tell you to work, and consuming what we tell you to consume. the danger in having a welfare system determined by the state is falling into the productivist trap that destroyed 20th century socialism 20th century socialism failed for various reasons. You misunderstand the role of social security ; it was not, at its origin, a state program. It was built as a secondary form of payment, taken on wage and used by collective associations (in France called les caisses de sécurité sociale) managed by elected workers. It was not a state program, but a socialized pay. This is the essence of socialism. My point is, the UBI, much like the poor laws, will put the poor in a state of complete dependancy, deplete them of their collective power, individualized without any social value aside from their consuming power.
yes this is true in a world where the means of production continue to not be owned by the workers. combine UBI with worker-owned and operated enterprises. i don't understand an opposition to UBI on the basis of its atomizing character without criticizing a state that dictates to a heterogeneous nation a homogenizing welfare solution. if your critique is that we have to bolster citizens' stake in the socius then we have to reevaluate everything, not just UBI in a vacuum. inthink for example that cutting everything and instituting a flat UBI like some kind of anarcho-capitalist compromise would be a disaster
|
On October 15 2016 05:37 LegalLord wrote:
Candidate A has a foreign policy that will involve a lot of poorly considered ventures that will cost the nation a lot of money and damage its reputation abroad and with the voter base, while having enough hubris not to realize the folly of all this.
Candidate B wonders why we can't use nuclear weapons in battle, has little to no understanding of actual foreign policy issues and often parrots conspiracy theories about FP events, and has a temperament so volatile that said candidate bends over backwards to support a foreign leader who offers up a compliment, and starts grudge wars over minor slights of his character.
Which candidate do you want in charge if those are your two options?
Yep and Ouch for choosing between the two. ISIS and the refugee problem would be one I'd add to this because there are better differences you can vote for or against on that topic.
|
Donald Trump on Friday seemed to appraise Hillary Clinton's physical appearance at a rally, telling supporters that when he saw her walk in front of him during Sunday’s presidential debate he “wasn’t impressed.”
“I’m standing at my podium and she walks in front of me, right,” Trump said during a rally in Greensboro, North Carolina. “She walks in front of me, you know. And when she walked in front of me, believe me, I wasn’t impressed.”
www.politico.com
|
On October 15 2016 05:44 ImFromPortugal wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 15 2016 05:20 ImFromPortugal wrote:"Rebels" in Aleppo is not a single group, it is multiple different groups each with their own biases and issues. That you think there is a united rebel force shows you know about as much about what's happening as Bernie and Johnson does. Its a complicated mess. I can bet that i know much more than you will ever know about this matter, the rebels in Aleppo have their hands tied because they need the support of Alqaeda and other extremist groups, the latest offensive to break the siege paved way to the unification of many of the rebels forces there and also prompted the re branding of Alnusra into Jabhat Fateh Al-Sham. I could name the majority of rebels forces present on all the major offensives, can you do the same? Now back to my question, why would the americans arm the rebels in Aleppo thus helping Alqaeda achieve their goals in Syria? Take into consideration that i have been against the regime and the russian intervention from the beginning, as you can attest by checking my posts back in 2011 when the civil war started. Right now your presidential candidate openly says that she wants to arm Alqaeda and you americans are still whiling to vote for her, that i cannot understand. If you are unwilling to think of Syrian rebels as anything but Alqaeda terrorists, then we should just end this discussion right now. I'm not but nice straw man i have been siding with the rebels for the majority of the civil war, but right now Alqaeda is the main force behind the offensive operations in Aleppo.. those are the facts.
Oh really? Because you said:
arm the rebels in Aleppo thus helping Alqaeda
And you also said:
she wants to arm Alqaeda
So tell me how you are not equating the rebels as being Alqaeda? And once you figured out what that argument is, convince yourself of it so you don't contradict yourself so embarrassingly.
Rebels are getting support from whoever is giving said support. They are dying, en mass, they will take help from anyone. Providing support to those asking for it is not the same as giving support to the previous suppliers of it.
A,B => A,C is not A,B => B,C
|
Webb is the future of the republican party. Or so I hope.
|
On October 15 2016 05:43 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 05:40 IgnE wrote:On October 15 2016 05:34 zlefin wrote:On October 15 2016 04:53 IgnE wrote:On October 15 2016 04:07 zlefin wrote:On October 15 2016 03:38 IgnE wrote:On October 15 2016 03:19 Nyxisto wrote:On October 15 2016 03:12 IgnE wrote:On October 15 2016 03:09 Nyxisto wrote:On October 15 2016 03:05 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
and you are the one that gets to decide what a "responsible" use is? why do you immediately jump to the conclusion that people will be using their meagre guaranteed income on homeopathy?
but really i object to the idea that "you are paying" for someone else, like it's charity rather than social obligation. you are only fine with UBI when it's used to further the ends of a productivist technocracy that will increase your material well being. you are only for UBI when it is the only means around the barrier to capital reproduction that increasing inequality and consequent lack of aggregate demand presents.
edit: even the pro-market liberal above me agrees that your german ordoliberalism is ridiculous I think you have it the wrong way around, if you're going to look where the support for universal income is largest it's going to be a college campus, not the Midwest. The people that bring the responsibility argument forward are almost always people who aren't that well off. "Our taxes aren't spent well" is an argument that you're not going to hear often in liberal technocratic circles. The people that will block your generous UBI without conditions are going to be the people that need it the most if you're framing it in a way that looks like a gift. Those people like responsibility, they don't want sharing without conditions, has this really not gotten into people's heads after this whole election? so are you saying that you personally are fine with UBI without restrictions you just don't think that the republicans would go for it? i was speaking to you, not debating trumpkins I don't like the idea of 'helicopter money' in principle (I honestly haven't read many studies whether it makes a big practical difference if we're just talking about a bare minimum UBI) but I'm not sure the distinction makes sense or is that interesting. I'm more interested in how we can get more social welfare to people and an important part of that is taking into account that especially in the US, but also in a lot of other places, unconditional redistribution will be perceived as a form of charity handouts and that is not going to be supported even by the poor. I think it's very ironic that you accuse me of being the aloof technocrat and then go on to brush off the Trumpkins, which are after all the people for which UBI is most relevant. It's what tanked Bernie's primaries, his whole talk about 'making the system work for the poor' was very far removed from the mindset that the people had he wanted to win over. That's why Clinton, the aloof technocrat, wins 90% of the black vote. so you personally are opposed to UBI because you are opposed to charity handouts but value keynesian stimulation as long as you get to decide how its spent. so in other words my criticism was dead on. im not the one trying to tell the trumpkins how to spend their share of society's bounty. i am just pointing out that a discussion with you about your pseudofascist ordoliberal welfare schemes opposed to UBI is going to be different than one with a conservative mid westerner who opposed welfare all together. @zlefin it would be helpful if you provided the guaranteed UBI number you are using instead of just saying 3-7x as wealthy. most UBI schemes propose numbers at or below the poverty threshold. it's also interesting that you round down (people might work less) instead of rounding up (increase in demand and the unleashing of the worker bees in a cognitive capital regime would increase material wealth). I'm not using any specific number, but am considering an approximate vague range. It hadn't seemed necessary to go into details before. let me look up some numbers: US poverty threshold guideline for a single individual: 11770; though it notes that additional individuals in the same household add far less, so there appears to be a considerable base cost; each extra individual in the household increases the threshold by 4160. alot would depend on which of those you focus on for setting UBI. based on http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-goit looks like around 1.25 trillion spend on non-medical welfare programs. with US pop around 320 million, that amounts to ~3900/person. state and local welfare programs surely add some, but are in general much smaller in size compared to the federal ones, so it should still be no more than ~4500/person. Of course current spending levels are in part due to deficit spending, they'd be around 15% lower without that. And if one were to shift all welfare programs to UBI, the money would be less focused on the elderly/disabled, so they'd be getting less than they currently do. (and it might not be enough, they tend to have higher needs than younger, healthier people who can do more of their own work) The food support systems generally assume around $6.00/day/person to feed a person decently (it can be done for less, if you have good stores nearby and do your own cooking, not sure how the amortization of basic kitchen supplies works). Housing costs are considerable, some places in the country have quite high housing costs. Rents from 500-1000/month depending on location, for basic housing. add a bit more for utilities (depending on whether utilities were covered under the rent) I round down because I prefer to be conservative in fiscal projections, so that there is a safety margin in case the programs consequences are worse than estimates indicated; there's always some uncertainty in such things. It's easy to handle a surplus gracefully, it's much harder to handle a deficit well. So, there are some numbers of things, provided as requested. so what happens when you raise taxes on persons that can pay more and reduce military spending? seems like you get pretty close to say $9k a year in UBI. you're talking about an awfully big tax increase. 9k/year per person, runs around 3 trillion total. So you'd need to raise revenue by some 1.75 trillion, or about 9% of gdp iirc. halving military spending would get you .3 trillion (and is obviously politically infeasible). so you'd still need 1.45 trillion; so a tax increase of say 7% on EVERYONE, with no exceptions or deductions reducing it. Or you'd run a tax increase of 10% on some people; which pushes the net brackets quite high, they're already high enough that diminishing returns effects hamper them. 7% tax on people making middle class income now is not that big a deal when they are getting $9k back in UBI. your vague assertions about diminishing returns are unconvincing i'm providing information for those who ask it. I'm not interested in people being needlessly argumentative. You're also not doing a full accounting about the money they'd be getting back, and the net changes to how various distributions would affect each group, and what the actual change in net distributions is. You're more than welcome to do a full look at the numbers if you're not satisfied with mine, and make your own vague claims about them; or do a full work-up of the feasibility of various approaches.
im responding to your complete dismissal of the idea based on incomplete back of the envelope calculation. yeah i did'nt do a full accounting but i think ive established that its far more plausible than you make it out. its always rich to hear you call me argumentative while acting like an impartial arbiter just taking note of objective "facts".
|
On October 15 2016 05:34 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 04:53 IgnE wrote:On October 15 2016 04:07 zlefin wrote:On October 15 2016 03:38 IgnE wrote:On October 15 2016 03:19 Nyxisto wrote:On October 15 2016 03:12 IgnE wrote:On October 15 2016 03:09 Nyxisto wrote:On October 15 2016 03:05 IgnE wrote:On October 15 2016 02:53 Nyxisto wrote:On October 15 2016 02:52 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
and this is based on what? studies of cash transfers in war torn african countries? The idea is that if we transfer cash from one guy to another we ought to have at least some say in how it's spend, like with most other shared social resources. I don't mind paying for someone's healthcare or food, I do mind paying for homeopathy and booze. If we socialise something we have a collective interest that it's being used responsibly. and you are the one that gets to decide what a "responsible" use is? why do you immediately jump to the conclusion that people will be using their meagre guaranteed income on homeopathy? but really i object to the idea that "you are paying" for someone else, like it's charity rather than social obligation. you are only fine with UBI when it's used to further the ends of a productivist technocracy that will increase your material well being. you are only for UBI when it is the only means around the barrier to capital reproduction that increasing inequality and consequent lack of aggregate demand presents. edit: even the pro-market liberal above me agrees that your german ordoliberalism is ridiculous I think you have it the wrong way around, if you're going to look where the support for universal income is largest it's going to be a college campus, not the Midwest. The people that bring the responsibility argument forward are almost always people who aren't that well off. "Our taxes aren't spent well" is an argument that you're not going to hear often in liberal technocratic circles. The people that will block your generous UBI without conditions are going to be the people that need it the most if you're framing it in a way that looks like a gift. Those people like responsibility, they don't want sharing without conditions, has this really not gotten into people's heads after this whole election? so are you saying that you personally are fine with UBI without restrictions you just don't think that the republicans would go for it? i was speaking to you, not debating trumpkins I don't like the idea of 'helicopter money' in principle (I honestly haven't read many studies whether it makes a big practical difference if we're just talking about a bare minimum UBI) but I'm not sure the distinction makes sense or is that interesting. I'm more interested in how we can get more social welfare to people and an important part of that is taking into account that especially in the US, but also in a lot of other places, unconditional redistribution will be perceived as a form of charity handouts and that is not going to be supported even by the poor. I think it's very ironic that you accuse me of being the aloof technocrat and then go on to brush off the Trumpkins, which are after all the people for which UBI is most relevant. It's what tanked Bernie's primaries, his whole talk about 'making the system work for the poor' was very far removed from the mindset that the people had he wanted to win over. That's why Clinton, the aloof technocrat, wins 90% of the black vote. so you personally are opposed to UBI because you are opposed to charity handouts but value keynesian stimulation as long as you get to decide how its spent. so in other words my criticism was dead on. im not the one trying to tell the trumpkins how to spend their share of society's bounty. i am just pointing out that a discussion with you about your pseudofascist ordoliberal welfare schemes opposed to UBI is going to be different than one with a conservative mid westerner who opposed welfare all together. @zlefin it would be helpful if you provided the guaranteed UBI number you are using instead of just saying 3-7x as wealthy. most UBI schemes propose numbers at or below the poverty threshold. it's also interesting that you round down (people might work less) instead of rounding up (increase in demand and the unleashing of the worker bees in a cognitive capital regime would increase material wealth). I'm not using any specific number, but am considering an approximate vague range. It hadn't seemed necessary to go into details before. let me look up some numbers: US poverty threshold guideline for a single individual: 11770; though it notes that additional individuals in the same household add far less, so there appears to be a considerable base cost; each extra individual in the household increases the threshold by 4160. alot would depend on which of those you focus on for setting UBI. based on http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-goit looks like around 1.25 trillion spend on non-medical welfare programs. with US pop around 320 million, that amounts to ~3900/person. state and local welfare programs surely add some, but are in general much smaller in size compared to the federal ones, so it should still be no more than ~4500/person. Of course current spending levels are in part due to deficit spending, they'd be around 15% lower without that. And if one were to shift all welfare programs to UBI, the money would be less focused on the elderly/disabled, so they'd be getting less than they currently do. (and it might not be enough, they tend to have higher needs than younger, healthier people who can do more of their own work) The food support systems generally assume around $6.00/day/person to feed a person decently (it can be done for less, if you have good stores nearby and do your own cooking, not sure how the amortization of basic kitchen supplies works). Housing costs are considerable, some places in the country have quite high housing costs. Rents from 500-1000/month depending on location, for basic housing. add a bit more for utilities (depending on whether utilities were covered under the rent) I round down because I prefer to be conservative in fiscal projections, so that there is a safety margin in case the programs consequences are worse than estimates indicated; there's always some uncertainty in such things. It's easy to handle a surplus gracefully, it's much harder to handle a deficit well. So, there are some numbers of things, provided as requested. so what happens when you raise taxes on persons that can pay more and reduce military spending? seems like you get pretty close to say $9k a year in UBI. you're talking about an awfully big tax increase. 9k/year per person, runs around 3 trillion total. So you'd need to raise revenue by some 1.75 trillion, or about 9% of gdp iirc. halving military spending would get you .3 trillion (and is obviously politically infeasible). so you'd still need 1.45 trillion; so a tax increase of say 7% on EVERYONE, with no exceptions or deductions reducing it. Or you'd run a tax increase of 10% on some people; which pushes the net brackets quite high, they're already high enough that diminishing returns effects hamper them.
I like the idea of UBI removing inefficient distribution of social programs but I'm ideologically conflicted. Free movement of people and capital would make a UBI hard to hash out details.
|
On October 15 2016 05:52 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 05:44 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 15 2016 05:20 ImFromPortugal wrote:"Rebels" in Aleppo is not a single group, it is multiple different groups each with their own biases and issues. That you think there is a united rebel force shows you know about as much about what's happening as Bernie and Johnson does. Its a complicated mess. I can bet that i know much more than you will ever know about this matter, the rebels in Aleppo have their hands tied because they need the support of Alqaeda and other extremist groups, the latest offensive to break the siege paved way to the unification of many of the rebels forces there and also prompted the re branding of Alnusra into Jabhat Fateh Al-Sham. I could name the majority of rebels forces present on all the major offensives, can you do the same? Now back to my question, why would the americans arm the rebels in Aleppo thus helping Alqaeda achieve their goals in Syria? Take into consideration that i have been against the regime and the russian intervention from the beginning, as you can attest by checking my posts back in 2011 when the civil war started. Right now your presidential candidate openly says that she wants to arm Alqaeda and you americans are still whiling to vote for her, that i cannot understand. If you are unwilling to think of Syrian rebels as anything but Alqaeda terrorists, then we should just end this discussion right now. I'm not but nice straw man i have been siding with the rebels for the majority of the civil war, but right now Alqaeda is the main force behind the offensive operations in Aleppo.. those are the facts. Oh really? Because you said: And you also said: So tell me how you are not equating the rebels as being Alqaeda? And once you figured out what that argument is, convince yourself of it so you don't contradict yourself so embarrassingly. Rebels are getting support from whoever is giving said support. They are dying, en mass, they will take help from anyone. Providing support to those asking for it is not the same as giving support to the previous suppliers of it. A,B => A,C is not A,B => B,C
It seems you are not that smart,
The rebels depend on Alqaeda to be successful, if they depended on isis instead would you still want to help them? When you give the weapons to those rebels in Aleppo knowing that they will be used by Alqaeda, because they are the brunt of the attack forces would equal to supporting them thus helping Alqaeda achive their goals in Syria, do you understand now or you need me to paint it for you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
