"the math doesn’t really work out without substantial taxation and wealth redistribution" - I mean, you've answered your own question there. The math works with substantial taxation and wealth distribution. We can start by taxing Sam Altman & Elon Musk 🤷🏽♀️
A key ingredient to happiness is to have meaningful work, aka a life purpose. It builds self esteem and propels one to strive in life. The problem is the lack of jobs with a good enough income to build on to buy a house, raise a family, etc. Coming up with solutions that only increase taxation and further reduces a person's net income doesn't work.we all know stories from our parents and grandparents and the "American" dream accomplished through hard work, that has been eroded everywhere. I understand why the globalists want it, they end up with indentured servants who are easy to control, that's their dream.
It's important to help people who fall on hard times for various reasons to get back on their feet, with the goal of getting them back to personal independence. Another to strip away the ability to succeed and end up with a depressed populace that turns to drugs, and other self destructive behavior.
This is why “they” the WEF etc, want to bring in UBI that will be linked to a centralised social credit system. This will monitor every thing you do , eat and spend …so if you do not conform to their prescribed rules, $ will be deducted and access to amenities refused.
Appreciate you examining this concept and loved the Namibian example, where they place a high value on sharing. Thank You
Regarding poverty: Poor people are poor because they make poor choices. At the same time, you can’t fix stupid nor should it be facilitated.
The only explanation or excuse for poverty is ignorance of proper personal finance management. If “The Richest Man In Babylon” was required reading in school then poverty as we know it would become a fairy tale that future generations would not believe. The power of a personal budget is immense. It is the key that unlocks personal prosperity which is the basis for national prosperity.
UBI will never work with OPM just as you can’t tax your way to prosperity.
The only way I can think of how it could work is if the [privately owned non governmental] Federal Reserve were to issue it directly to every citizen. I would call it a “living stipend” grant. Trickle up economics works. If I recall correctly $1.00 of consumer spending stimulates $1.67 of economic activity as it “trickles up” through the economy, or something like that. This could be a good way for the Fed to use their counterfeiting machine for the greater good.
Idk why they dont focus on instead changing the way we do capital allocation to labor instead, so everyone still has to do stuff, but they dont get to have free money for themselves, only allocated to others who do some sort of work. Is this still fraught with potential problems? Yes. But is it better than just blank check UBI? I cant imagine it wouldnt be worth investigating. Usually such proposals are referred to as subsidized labor, for those interested in learning more. Generally access to labor that is subsidized is only for individuals or small companies or whatever, and it phases out as pay goes up, and minimum wage is abolished or set at $1/hr or something.
On another note, I would be interested to know about the outliers in these studies. There have to have been some.
I don't know that it wouldn't be better to provide a UBI than what we are doing right now. We have already have around 20% of the population receiving benefits. On top of that we have an army of people that administer those benefits. If people are working, instead of direct benefits, offset their taxes to compensate them.
As more industrialization and automation removes jobs, we will eventually be forced into something of this sort. Some people are incapable of doing work besides the basic work that can be replaced by automation.
Then we get to the issue of substance abuse. As sad as it is, a lot of the people who cannot work is due to substance abuse. Pragmatically, we cannot afford to incarcerate them all. It costs about $30K a year to incarcerate each person. That is not counting the societal costs of crime to support their addictions. The cost to policing, courts, insurance, and much more are added to that.
Incarceration as a solution to substance abuse is a very bad idea. How is handing out free money better though? And if the only people earning money are drug dealers who fall outside of the tax system, who is going to pay for all the free money?
I am not saying it is a good idea. I am saying that we are already doing it in at an insane level and would be cheaper to just give the money directly. Besides the benefits, we are also supporting the huge infrastructure that supports the current system.
We are not just talking about the people doing the work of distributing the benefits to people but a myriad of administration and related support for the administration of the benefits all the way up the food chain. It is the worker and administrator salaries and benefits, office space, electricity, computers, air conditioning, telephone service, IT services, and HR services along with fraud investigators, and report writers, The list goes on and on. They are all bloated to an insane level. One place I worked, we had a full time administrator and their staff overseeing a $35K/budget. It cost over triple for the administration than the money that they were overseeing.
It is like when I was teaching, they stopped having a payment system for the school lunches. The few that didn't qualify for the free lunches did not pay enough to support the expense of paying people to be there taking the money, doing the accounting, managing the staff, and transporting the money to the bank.
That doesn't even include the way that the benefits and jobs are creating a means for swaying voters to keep the different agencies sustaining themselves and growing.
"the math doesn’t really work out without substantial taxation and wealth redistribution" - I mean, you've answered your own question there. The math works with substantial taxation and wealth distribution. We can start by taxing Sam Altman & Elon Musk 🤷🏽♀️
A key ingredient to happiness is to have meaningful work, aka a life purpose. It builds self esteem and propels one to strive in life. The problem is the lack of jobs with a good enough income to build on to buy a house, raise a family, etc. Coming up with solutions that only increase taxation and further reduces a person's net income doesn't work.we all know stories from our parents and grandparents and the "American" dream accomplished through hard work, that has been eroded everywhere. I understand why the globalists want it, they end up with indentured servants who are easy to control, that's their dream.
It's important to help people who fall on hard times for various reasons to get back on their feet, with the goal of getting them back to personal independence. Another to strip away the ability to succeed and end up with a depressed populace that turns to drugs, and other self destructive behavior.
Totally agree with this!
This is why “they” the WEF etc, want to bring in UBI that will be linked to a centralised social credit system. This will monitor every thing you do , eat and spend …so if you do not conform to their prescribed rules, $ will be deducted and access to amenities refused.
Appreciate you examining this concept and loved the Namibian example, where they place a high value on sharing. Thank You
Regarding poverty: Poor people are poor because they make poor choices. At the same time, you can’t fix stupid nor should it be facilitated.
The only explanation or excuse for poverty is ignorance of proper personal finance management. If “The Richest Man In Babylon” was required reading in school then poverty as we know it would become a fairy tale that future generations would not believe. The power of a personal budget is immense. It is the key that unlocks personal prosperity which is the basis for national prosperity.
UBI will never work with OPM just as you can’t tax your way to prosperity.
The only way I can think of how it could work is if the [privately owned non governmental] Federal Reserve were to issue it directly to every citizen. I would call it a “living stipend” grant. Trickle up economics works. If I recall correctly $1.00 of consumer spending stimulates $1.67 of economic activity as it “trickles up” through the economy, or something like that. This could be a good way for the Fed to use their counterfeiting machine for the greater good.
Idk why they dont focus on instead changing the way we do capital allocation to labor instead, so everyone still has to do stuff, but they dont get to have free money for themselves, only allocated to others who do some sort of work. Is this still fraught with potential problems? Yes. But is it better than just blank check UBI? I cant imagine it wouldnt be worth investigating. Usually such proposals are referred to as subsidized labor, for those interested in learning more. Generally access to labor that is subsidized is only for individuals or small companies or whatever, and it phases out as pay goes up, and minimum wage is abolished or set at $1/hr or something.
On another note, I would be interested to know about the outliers in these studies. There have to have been some.
I don't know that it wouldn't be better to provide a UBI than what we are doing right now. We have already have around 20% of the population receiving benefits. On top of that we have an army of people that administer those benefits. If people are working, instead of direct benefits, offset their taxes to compensate them.
As more industrialization and automation removes jobs, we will eventually be forced into something of this sort. Some people are incapable of doing work besides the basic work that can be replaced by automation.
Then we get to the issue of substance abuse. As sad as it is, a lot of the people who cannot work is due to substance abuse. Pragmatically, we cannot afford to incarcerate them all. It costs about $30K a year to incarcerate each person. That is not counting the societal costs of crime to support their addictions. The cost to policing, courts, insurance, and much more are added to that.
Incarceration as a solution to substance abuse is a very bad idea. How is handing out free money better though? And if the only people earning money are drug dealers who fall outside of the tax system, who is going to pay for all the free money?
I am not saying it is a good idea. I am saying that we are already doing it in at an insane level and would be cheaper to just give the money directly. Besides the benefits, we are also supporting the huge infrastructure that supports the current system.
We are not just talking about the people doing the work of distributing the benefits to people but a myriad of administration and related support for the administration of the benefits all the way up the food chain. It is the worker and administrator salaries and benefits, office space, electricity, computers, air conditioning, telephone service, IT services, and HR services along with fraud investigators, and report writers, The list goes on and on. They are all bloated to an insane level. One place I worked, we had a full time administrator and their staff overseeing a $35K/budget. It cost over triple for the administration than the money that they were overseeing.
It is like when I was teaching, they stopped having a payment system for the school lunches. The few that didn't qualify for the free lunches did not pay enough to support the expense of paying people to be there taking the money, doing the accounting, managing the staff, and transporting the money to the bank.
That doesn't even include the way that the benefits and jobs are creating a means for swaying voters to keep the different agencies sustaining themselves and growing.