View Poll Results: Where do you stand?

Voters
95. You may not vote on this poll
  • I don't support Andrew Yang's UBI

    33 34.74%
  • I support Andrew Yang's UBI

    62 65.26%
Page 21 of 26 FirstFirst ...
11
19
20
21
22
23
... LastLast
  1. #401
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    61,919
    Quote Originally Posted by BeepBoo View Post
    And why SHOULD they be contributing more than they already do? Because that's how you'd stop poor people from dying of preventable crap? Who cares?
    Anyone who's not literally a sociopath, or some other mental illness damaging their capacity to empathize with others.

    Seriously, lacking empathy is a symptom of mental illness. All by itself. It's not something you should be bragging about as the basis of your viewpoint.

    You're going to have a hard time convincing me the discrepancy between humans shouldn't be accurately represented in their earnings as well. We're not all similarly capable. On the contrary, we're hugely disproportionately capable in basically every regard. Ergo, if what society desires from a services standpoint also has that huge disproportion in results and capability, why should lifestyles not reflect that?
    That's not what anyone's talking about. It's a straw man, because you'd rather not deal with the actual point.

    We're not arguing against wage stratification. We're arguing against a system that's so wildly separated on that front that lower-income earners are suffering hardship. Set that income floor at a living wage and we can talk, otherwise your viewpoint necessitates and encourages human suffering as a desired outcome.

  2. #402
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    I dunno...put a wealthy man in the same Thunderdome that most of us have to fight in.
    Most people are not in a Thunderdome even in a competitive economy. Most Americans have insanely easy lives comparative to most of the world and people, especially Americans, historically. The denial of that simple fact leads people to endorse some strange, radical policies that are grounded in the false perception that the average American is becoming destitute.

  3. #403
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Set that income floor at a living wage and we can talk, otherwise your viewpoint necessitates and encourages human suffering as a desired outcome.
    Not every human is deserving of the life they have if sustaining it comes at the expense of someone else's life and efforts. Suffering of the weak is a desired outcome because it encourages people to not want to be weak.

  4. #404
    Quote Originally Posted by BeepBoo View Post
    Not every human is deserving of the life they have if sustaining it comes at the expense of someone else's life and efforts. Suffering of the weak is a desired outcome because it encourages people to not want to be weak.
    This guy took the Social Darwinism pill.

  5. #405
    I recall an amazingly ignorant letter written almost 10ys ago by "Joe Wall Street" about the possibility of jobs being lost on Wall Street;
    but essentially, some banker/trader/finance type took time of out his very busy day to warn Main Street of his imminent arrival into the ranks of the working class.

    The letter cautioned that because of our unwarranted meddling in his industry, we're going to lose our cushy "$85k a year" jobs to him and all his financial friends. We'll lose our "4 month" vacation privileges, the superfluous bathroom breaks that we take, and our swollen, blue-collar benefit packages. Naturally, Wall Street folk don't require such frivolities, he says, but they'll gladly take them (or assist in their elimination) if they're forced to work our jobs.

    In jest or not, if this tirade is at all representative of what bankers think of their fellow countrymen, it's quite clear why there is such a gaping intellectual divide between Wall Street and Main Street.

    Dear Joe Wall Street:
    Allow me to be the first person to welcome you to the Proletariat! Let me bring you up to speed.

    To start, what planet do you come from? A job with an $85,000 salary and pension, four months of paid time off, and all the other blue-collar perks that you claim exist sounds great, but you're so far off from the life of the average American that I have to question your sobriety.

    I know $85,000 doesn't sound like much to you. After all, last year, the average employee at Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS) pulled in over $235,000 a year, at JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: JPM) $380,000, and at Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) more than $498,000. But the typical American family -- husband and wife combined -- actually survives on just $50,000, according to the most recent Census data. And that number hasn't changed much since 1999, even while average bonuses rose 10-fold between 1985 and 2006, according to the New York State Comptroller's Office. Lower pay is part of life in America these days -- for everyone except you, that is.

    Next, do you really think we won't fight back when you try to take our jobs, as you suggest? Years of off-shoring has forced us to become quite accustomed to competition. Recent surveys suggest that between 10% and 20% of American workers maintain more than one job to pay the bills. Only two-thirds even take all of the paltry 10 work days of vacation allotted to them. Plus, down here, there's no expense account, corporate car, free meals, or slush funds to tap.

    Next, you operate under the bizarre assumption that the normal world relies on your seven-figure "bonuses" to function normally. But just how many of our nation's "cushy middle-class jobs" do you think are dedicated toward popping the corks of your champagne bottles, sweeping the floors of your Hamptons estates, and holding the mirror while you gel your hair in the morning?

    The reality is that no one here relies on your munificence. Our nation's stagnant per capita income and growing wealth divide should make that obvious. In fact, when this country's collective wealth was at its greatest, bankers had little more responsibility than to hold onto our money until we wanted it. Since then, you've grown like an aggressive cancer feeding off our prosperity. It's high time you realize that whether or not it hurts your feelings, you will no longer have that kind of unchecked autonomy.

    Which leads me to my last point: What makes you think you could even survive in the real world? What exactly do you do well? Your own people acknowledge your uselessness. Jeremy Grantham believes that you "add nothing but costs." Paul Volcker believes that the best thing your business has produced in the last 25 years is the ATM machine. Jack Bogle ... well, you don't want to know what Jack Bogle thinks. Even in the best of times, 85% of professional money managers still can't beat a simple market index. Your business has a long and well-documented history of failing to provide value.

    Honestly, I'm not sure I even want you doing something as complex as mowing my lawn. With the seemingly perverse attitude with which you view the world, I certainly don't want you within 500 yards of my kids' schools, let alone teaching at them. Your arrogance, your lack of a moral compass, and your incompetence spell out only one thing to me: You're unemployable.

    Here's an idea to consider: Rather than infiltrate our lowly jobs, why don't you take that huge brain of yours and that renowned work ethic and become an engineer or a scientist or a doctor and actually create something of value? It would probably be more fun, potentially more lucrative, and you'd finally develop something that you could be proud of. We might even respect you for it.
    Acquittal doesn't mean exoneration


  6. #406
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    61,919
    Quote Originally Posted by BeepBoo View Post
    Not every human is deserving of the life they have if sustaining it comes at the expense of someone else's life and efforts. Suffering of the weak is a desired outcome because it encourages people to not want to be weak.
    Then, do you agree with these quotes? Trying to get a handle on your views, here.
    The struggle for the daily livelihood leaves behind in the ruck everything that is weak or diseased or wavering; while the fight of the male to possess the female gives to the strongest the right, or at least, the possibility to propagate its kind. And this struggle is a means of furthering the health and powers of resistance in the species. Thus it is one of the causes underlying the process of development towards a higher quality of being.


    This whole edifice of civilization is in its foundations and in all its stones nothing else than the result of the creative capacity, the achievement, the intelligence, the industry, of individuals: in its greatest triumphs it represents the great crowning achievement of individual God-favored geniuses, in its average accomplishment the achievement of men of average capacity, and in its sum doubtless the result of the use of human labor-force in order to turn to account the creations of genius and of talent. So it is only natural that when the capable intelligences of a nation, which are always in a minority, are regarded only as of the same value as all the rest, then genius, capacity, the value of personality are slowly subjected to the majority and this process is then falsely named the rule of the people. For this is not rule of the people, but in reality the rule of stupidity, of mediocrity, of half-heartedness, of cowardice, of weakness, and of inadequacy

    Simple question, really. Both quotes are fairly clearly written, so there shouldn't be room for confusion about what they're saying. Not necessarily every specific detail, just the general gist.
    Last edited by Endus; 2019-12-21 at 02:27 AM.

  7. #407
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Simple question, really. Both quotes are fairly clearly written, so there shouldn't be room for confusion about what they're saying. Not necessarily every specific detail, just the general gist.
    The only way I'm discussing anything around mein kampf is if you can first acknowledge the theories and the methods employed are two completely separate things, and that his ideas about what make someone weak (such as the asinine fact that just because someone has a particular religious or cultural upbringing predisposes them to UNEQUIVOCALLY BE something) are incredibly logically flawed.

    I'm not making any suppositions as to WHO society should let slip. I'm just saying society should be free to let people slip.

  8. #408
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    61,919
    Quote Originally Posted by BeepBoo View Post
    The only way I'm discussing anything around mein kampf is if you can first acknowledge the theories and the methods employed are two completely separate things, and that his ideas about what make someone weak (such as the asinine fact that just because someone has a particular religious or cultural upbringing predisposes them to UNEQUIVOCALLY BE something) are incredibly logically flawed.

    I'm not making any suppositions as to WHO society should let slip. I'm just saying society should be free to let people slip.
    And the point, which you're skipping over, is that this was a core part of Hitler's viewpoint, too. And not the pseudo-socialist dressing he used to gussy it up for the masses; the underlying core parts that made Nazism so execrable a worldview in the first place.

    Saying "I want to achieve the same goals as Hitler, but I'm not going to put Jews in ovens" really isn't the big win for you that you seem to think.

  9. #409
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    And the point, which you're skipping over, is that this was a core part of Hitler's viewpoint, too. And not the pseudo-socialist dressing he used to gussy it up for the masses; the underlying core parts that made Nazism so execrable a worldview in the first place.

    Saying "I want to achieve the same goals as Hitler, but I'm not going to put Jews in ovens" really isn't the big win for you that you seem to think.
    Look at it like this: The concept of putting people to death for crimes is something I agree with. Putting someone to death because they murdered 100 people is vastly different from putting someone to death because they're gay in my books. One I condone, the other is something I define as inhumane. The concept of "putting someone to death" is no less valuable. It's the lines drawn in the sand.

    Also, I'm not and will never be about HUNTING people down because I think they deserve to die. I don't presume to know when someone should or shouldn't die. I presume society can tell when it's had enough and no longer wants to support someone, though. If they die as a result of that support withdrawal, that's not society's fault or problem. That was always that person's problem and they were just lucky to get as much support as they did up until they no longer got it and should be thankful for the extra days they got tacked onto their life. "Not helping" is not "hurting" or being responsible for the thing causing the hurt in the first place.

  10. #410
    Old God Vash The Stampede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Better part of NJ
    Posts
    10,566
    Quote Originally Posted by BeepBoo View Post
    And why SHOULD they be contributing more than they already do? Because that's how you'd stop poor people from dying of preventable crap? Who cares?
    Because the world is made of love and peace, and when you break this ideology then it'll backfire onto you. Historically when the rich get too greedy the people with pitchforks and fire come after them, which at that point no amount of money will save them. If you read the book "The Good Earth" this is what inevitably happens.
    You're going to have a hard time convincing me the discrepancy between humans shouldn't be accurately represented in their earnings as well. We're not all similarly capable. On the contrary, we're hugely disproportionately capable in basically every regard. Ergo, if what society desires from a services standpoint also has that huge disproportion in results and capability, why should lifestyles not reflect that?
    Usually those with great wealth aren't exactly contributing to society. Jeff Bezos does nothing now except accumulate more wealth by just existing, and Paris Hilton is literally born into money. Even Bill Gates hasn't gotten involved in any actual coding at Microsoft in decades, and as we all know he bought DOS for a few thousand dollars from some sucker. Most banks subsist over subsides from the government.

    Those who actually work hard and create the products you use aren't the ones benefiting from the profits they generate. Music artists tend to get the shaft when it comes to selling their music. You don't even know the name of the people who created the hardware in your iPhone, but everyone knows Tim Cooks name like it matters.

    If you want to promote creativity and better living standards then a UBI is currently the best answer. That and public housing, free healthcare, and etc.

  11. #411
    yeah...

    "Not helping " isn't "hurting?"

    Acquittal doesn't mean exoneration


  12. #412
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    61,919
    Quote Originally Posted by BeepBoo View Post
    Look at it like this: The concept of putting people to death for crimes is something I agree with. Putting someone to death because they murdered 100 people is vastly different from putting someone to death because they're gay in my books. One I condone, the other is something I define as inhumane. The concept of "putting someone to death" is no less valuable. It's the lines drawn in the sand.

    Also, I'm not and will never be about HUNTING people down because I think they deserve to die. I don't presume to know when someone should or shouldn't die. I presume society can tell when it's had enough and no longer wants to support someone, though. If they die as a result of that support withdrawal, that's not society's fault or problem. That was always that person's problem and they were just lucky to get as much support as they did up until they no longer got it and should be thankful for the extra days they got tacked onto their life. "Not helping" is not "hurting" or being responsible for the thing causing the hurt in the first place.
    You're still perfectly happy to encourage and continue human suffering. You're just stating you personally won't sully your hands, directly.

    That's not really an improvement worth talking about.

  13. #413
    Quote Originally Posted by Vash The Stampede View Post
    Because the world is made of love and peace, and when you break this ideology then it'll backfire onto you. Historically when the rich get too greedy the people with pitchforks and fire come after them
    The farther along we get in warfare capability, the less of a risk there is from this type of backlash. It is what it is. One gun in vegas took out 58 people and wounded 400+. Tell me again about how pitchfork people will take back their "birthright."

    Usually those with great wealth aren't exactly contributing to society. /snip
    A few things to this point:

    1) if they have that much money, that just means they did something so valuable to society they earned a near infinite amount of lifetimes of repayment. Nothing wrong here. I'd say the fact that microsoft is so ubiquitous has certainly earned the OG owner a place for his family to get taken care of for the rest of forever, even if they never lift another finger.

    Also, apparently "just existing and participating in the econ by buying things" is enough to justify your existence accd to Endus.

    2) Getting to the point where your wealth is so high that you are valuable simply by allowing your assets to get used, on loan, by other people so they can attempt to fulfill THEIR desires is still doing work and enabling someone else to get something they want with something you have. The actual labor part isn't important in the least to me.

    Those who actually work hard and create the products you use aren't the ones benefiting from the profits they generate. Music artists tend to get the shaft when it comes to selling their music. You don't even know the name of the people who created the hardware in your iPhone, but everyone knows Tim Cooks name like it matters.
    I've filed a number of patents that my company owns and reaps probably more benefit than I do simply because I signed a contract saying any idea I come up with is theirs and it's literally my job. Am I being treated unfairly? I don't think so. I would have left or not gone with the job if I felt slighted. They give me things in return I value. I'd hope everyone was in the same boat. Don't fucking do something if you're not okay with it. Being wishy washy or partially committed but still doing the thing is ultimately still you saying you're actually fine with it, even if you aren't 100% happy.

    If you want to promote creativity and better living standards then a UBI is currently the best answer. That and public housing, free healthcare, and etc.
    I don't care to promote creativity or better standards of living. I only care that society gets to make the choices for what it thinks are the best goals for humanity without gov't interfering on the home front.

  14. #414
    Old God Vash The Stampede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Better part of NJ
    Posts
    10,566
    Quote Originally Posted by BeepBoo View Post
    The farther along we get in warfare capability, the less of a risk there is from this type of backlash. It is what it is. One gun in vegas took out 58 people and wounded 400+. Tell me again about how pitchfork people will take back their "birthright."
    So you're saying that because we have deadlier guns then uprisings aren't an issue? I guess the phrase blind and toothless doesn't resonate with you?

    1) if they have that much money, that just means they did something so valuable to society they earned a near infinite amount of lifetimes of repayment.
    That is rarely the case. Winning the lottery doesn't mean you did something valuable to society, just as much as Jeff Bezos did with Amazon that originally shipped discounted overpriced textbooks. Amazon is so big now they can just buy their way into a market they have no business in.
    Nothing wrong here. I'd say the fact that microsoft is so ubiquitous has certainly earned the OG owner a place for his family to get taken care of for the rest of forever, even if they never lift another finger.
    So Bill Gates who hardly wrote any of the code for Windows and bought DOS for peanuts has the right to have billions of dollars? He's like what, the second or third richest person in the world? Microsoft is a company that should have been broken up long ago, because of a practice they use known as Embrace, extend, and extinguish.

    2) Getting to the point where your wealth is so high that you are valuable simply by allowing your assets to get used, on loan, by other people so they can attempt to fulfill THEIR desires is still doing work and enabling someone else to get something they want with something you have. The actual labor part isn't important in the least to me.
    Acting like a bank matters to you but not the act in of itself? We don't need rich people acting like banks, we need them to invest their overwhelming wealth back into the economy as jobs, or as taxes. If they're automating the crap out of jobs then we'll tax them so that our society doesn't crumble due to a lack of consumption. I don't know if you heard but the Federal Reserve just gave up $4 Trillion since September to banks because the repo market is crashing. They literally printed out money to give to rich people and we act like it was no big deal. How's that fair, or good for the economy?

    I've filed a number of patents that my company owns and reaps probably more benefit than I do simply because I signed a contract saying any idea I come up with is theirs and it's literally my job. Am I being treated unfairly?
    Having a pile of money to invest, doesn't make you valuable. It makes you an unnecessary forced middle man. This is why more people are using KickStarter like services to have others invest in their ideas so they benefit directly from them, and not some giant mega corporation.

    I don't care to promote creativity or better standards of living. I only care that society gets to make the choices for what it thinks are the best goals for humanity without gov't interfering on the home front.
    So what do you care for anyway? Yourself? Me, Myself, and I?

  15. #415
    Quote Originally Posted by js3915 View Post
    Yeah but who is paying for this...
    It would be easier than you might think. Andrew proposes funding the Freedom Dividend by consolidating some welfare programs and implementing a Value Added Tax of 10 percent. Current welfare and social program beneficiaries would be given a choice between their current benefits or $1,000 cash unconditionally – most would prefer cash with no restriction.

    A Value Added Tax (VAT) is a tax on the production of goods or services a business produces. It is a fair tax and it makes it much harder for large corporations, who are experts at hiding profits and income, to avoid paying their fair share. A VAT is nothing new. 160 out of 193 countries in the world already have a Value Added Tax or something similar, including all of Europe which has an average VAT of 20 percent.

    The means to pay for the basic income will come from four sources:

    1. Current spending: We currently spend between $500 and $600 billion a year on welfare programs, food stamps, disability and the like. This reduces the cost of the Freedom Dividend because people already receiving benefits would have a choice between keeping their current benefits and the $1,000, and would not receive both.

    Additionally, we currently spend over 1 trillion dollars on health care, incarceration, homelessness services and the like. We would save $100 – 200+ billion as people would be able to take better care of themselves and avoid the emergency room, jail, and the street and would generally be more functional. The Freedom Dividend would pay for itself by helping people avoid our institutions, which is when our costs shoot up. Some studies have shown that $1 to a poor parent will result in as much as $7 in cost-savings and economic growth.

    2. A VAT: Our economy is now incredibly vast at $19 trillion, up $4 trillion in the last 10 years alone. A VAT at half the European level would generate $800 billion in new revenue. A VAT will become more and more important as technology improves because you cannot collect income tax from robots or software.

    3. New revenue: Putting money into the hands of American consumers would grow the economy. The Roosevelt Institute projected that the economy will grow by approximately $2.5 trillion and create 4.6 million new jobs. This would generate approximately $800 – 900 billion in new revenue from economic growth.

    4. Taxes on top earners and pollution: By removing the Social Security cap, implementing a financial transactions tax, and ending the favorable tax treatment for capital gains/carried interest, we can decrease financial speculation while also funding the Freedom Dividend. We can add to that a carbon fee that will be partially dedicated to funding the Freedom Dividend, making up the remaining balance required to cover the cost of this program.

    https://www.yang2020.com/what-is-freedom-dividend-faq/
    Unreason and anti-intellectualism abominate thought. Thinking implies disagreement; and disagreement implies nonconformity; and nonconformity implies heresy; and heresy implies disloyalty — so, obviously, thinking must be stopped. But shouting is not a substitute for thinking and reason is not the subversion but the salvation of freedom. - Adlai Stevenson

  16. #416
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Anyone who's not literally a sociopath, or some other mental illness damaging their capacity to empathize with others.

    Seriously, lacking empathy is a symptom of mental illness. All by itself. It's not something you should be bragging about as the basis of your viewpoint.



    That's not what anyone's talking about. It's a straw man, because you'd rather not deal with the actual point.

    We're not arguing against wage stratification. We're arguing against a system that's so wildly separated on that front that lower-income earners are suffering hardship. Set that income floor at a living wage and we can talk, otherwise your viewpoint necessitates and encourages human suffering as a desired outcome.
    Hell me and the wife make about $60k combined and we would have no issue paying an extra 5-10% if we knew it would help the poor. Why? Because I'm not a fuck you got mine selfish sociopath.

  17. #417
    The sky is blue.
    Water is wet.
    If you subsidise undesirable behaviour and choices, you will only receive more undesirable behaviour and choices.

  18. #418
    Old God Vash The Stampede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Better part of NJ
    Posts
    10,566
    Quote Originally Posted by Frenegade42 View Post
    The sky is blue.
    Water is wet.
    If you subsidise undesirable behaviour and choices, you will only receive more undesirable behaviour and choices.
    He's right you know. We should totally take the undesirable wealthiest money and redistribute it to the poor. Lets see their behavior when they actually have to pay taxes for once.

  19. #419
    How about a "maybe" option for that poll. I think it's worth considering even if I am not sold it's a good idea to follow through on it.
    "Life is one long series of problems to solve. The more you solve, the better a man you become.... Tribulations spawn in life and over and over again we must stand our ground and face them."

    Retired <Dreamstate> Gehennas

  20. #420
    The Insane PC2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    California
    Posts
    17,557
    No country is crazy enough to give people $12k per year on 2019 budgets...

    Edit: Except maybe the oil rich states.
    Last edited by PC2; 2019-12-26 at 04:52 PM.
    -------
    Quote of the month:
    Most predictions are not in any way a reflection of the future, they are a reflection of the fears of the person making the prediction.
    Logical Fallacies: Ad hominem, Generalizing history to pre-determine the future.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •