Basic income for everyone?

Now, what news on the Rialto?
Post Reply
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5641
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Basic income for everyone?

Post by Parodite »

I find this an interesting idea that can solve a lot of problems, a sensible reform of the welfare state and cutting down loads of governmental administrative and bureaucratic overhead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

The reason that it is not very popular seems to be that:

1) right wing dogma has a very negative view on human nature claiming that such a thing would remove the incentive to work, and
2) left wing dogma doesn't like it when the state can no longer meddle in peoples private affairs as much as they would like.

See also:

https://decorrespondent.nl/541/why-we-s ... 5-cb9fbb39
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Nonc Hilaire »

Just an idea, but it might be better to have all businesses required to fund jobs at a certain percentage of their gross income, with a salary cap based on mean compensation.
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
Simple Minded

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Simple Minded »

an idea that has timeless appeal, because it seems entirely work able in theory. at least in an organization like a family or an organization of less than 5 people.

Surprisingly, even in the free market, where buyer and seller determine a price that both find agreeable, so many are dissatisfied. recently my friend P sold a motorcycle to my friend F. they both claim they got screwed! :o :lol: :lol: both are adults who have owned at least 40 motorcycles each.

I explained this to a third friend R as "that's when you know both parties are professional horse traders." :lol:

in practice, the difficulty goes far beyond any objections of the right & left.

it runs smackdab into the problem of who gets to decide the meaning of "problems", "sensible", "certain percentage", "gross income", "mean compensation"........ "need", "ability", etc.

try to get a couple dozen OTNOT posters to agree on what defines "right" and "left" or "fair", or "justice" :(

everyone gets paid a minimum wage each month with bonuses paid the next month (after profits are calculated) determined by voting on who was the most valuable group member last month?

you could vote the slackers and the greedy off the organizational (corporate or cooperative) island, but how do you vote someone off the island of NY, the US, Europe, etc.

what about the guy who holds the weapons to ensure the rule are followed correctly?

We continue to search for angelic administrators from among the poll of human applicants..... ;)
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5641
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Parodite »

Nonc Hilaire wrote:Just an idea, but it might be better to have all businesses required to fund jobs at a certain percentage of their gross income, with a salary cap based on mean compensation.
Haven't given it all much thought yet, maybe you are right. ;)
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Doc »

Nonc Hilaire wrote:Just an idea, but it might be better to have all businesses required to fund jobs at a certain percentage of their gross income, with a salary cap based on mean compensation.
Ok To build a semiconductor fab to make truly economical solar cells is estimated to cost $100 billion dollars. If the investment is made there is no guarantee that some new technology would come along to make cheaper solar cells. Thus there is a great risk that the $100 billion would be completely lost. SO on top of that you require that a fixed amount of income be set aside for the workers. Which in turn would certainly put off the building of the Semi fab since it would raise the risks even higher. Thus putting off the date in which cheap solar energy is a reality. Something that would be to the deteriment of society as a whole.

On the flip side the big compensation of big corporate executives is from stock option more than anything else. The law should require stock option to be exercised exactly two years (Or some date close to that) after the executive has left the company. So as they are encouraged to do the right thing and leave the company is good shape after they are gone. That would do wonders.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5641
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Parodite »

Simple Minded wrote:an idea that has timeless appeal, because it seems entirely work able in theory. at least in an organization like a family or an organization of less than 5 people.
The second link I gave mentions an experiment to test the theory, with seriously more people involved than just a few.
Surprisingly, even in the free market, where buyer and seller determine a price that both find agreeable, so many are dissatisfied. recently my friend P sold a motorcycle to my friend F. they both claim they got screwed! :o :lol: :lol: both are adults who have owned at least 40 motorcycles each.

I explained this to a third friend R as "that's when you know both parties are professional horse traders." :lol:

in practice, the difficulty goes far beyond any objections of the right & left.

it runs smackdab into the problem of who gets to decide the meaning of "problems", "sensible", "certain percentage", "gross income", "mean compensation"........ "need", "ability", etc.
The initial appeal this idea has to me (without having giving it much thought and reading I admit), is related to the newly arising situation where due to technological development many types of jobs disappear rapidly without enough new types of jobs emerging to replace them. Less people will be needed to keep things up and running. Now very poor people anywhere in the world will be forced and willing to do the dirty and tough jobs for very little money... but in richer/rich countries structural and systemic un(der)employment seems to become permanent. There is simply not enough work for everybody.
try to get a couple dozen OTNOT posters to agree on what defines "right" and "left" or "fair", or "justice" :(
I think it is much easier than you suggest or fear. ;)
everyone gets paid a minimum wage each month with bonuses paid the next month (after profits are calculated) determined by voting on who was the most valuable group member last month?
Basic income is something entirely different from minimum wages.
you could vote the slackers and the greedy off the organizational (corporate or cooperative) island, but how do you vote someone off the island of NY, the US, Europe, etc.

what about the guy who holds the weapons to ensure the rule are followed correctly?

We continue to search for angelic administrators from among the poll of human applicants..... ;)
I think you complicate things unnecessarily.

Just try equate a nation state with a family business. USA Inc. Holland Ltd. You make money by producing goods and services, you trade with other family businesses. Just good old bartering but you use currencies to exchange goods and services. Now it turns out that all those family businesses that participate in the same open market are doing extremely well lately. Technology and science have made it possible that much less time is needed to spend on work. The question is really very simple: do you decide together that all the sweets, goods and power go to those who do have work... leaving the rest collecting crumbs from the floor and sleeping in the shed.. or do you want every family member enjoy a minimum standard of the family cake.

It seems to me that the problems you see only apply to people who wrongly believe they are part of a certain family business. Or in other words, the "society" they assume they belong to is not a society at all.

It may be that the nation state, as an extended tribal society within territorial borders, is quickly losing its psycho-social and cultural coherence. From what you and some other Americans write in this forum, it seems to me that the USA is rather rapidly becoming a Disjointed States of America. :P
Simple Minded

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Simple Minded »

Parodite wrote:
Simple Minded wrote:an idea that has timeless appeal, because it seems entirely work able in theory. at least in an organization like a family or an organization of less than 5 people.
The second link I gave mentions an experiment to test the theory, with seriously more people involved than just a few.
Surprisingly, even in the free market, where buyer and seller determine a price that both find agreeable, so many are dissatisfied. recently my friend P sold a motorcycle to my friend F. they both claim they got screwed! :o :lol: :lol: both are adults who have owned at least 40 motorcycles each.

I explained this to a third friend R as "that's when you know both parties are professional horse traders." :lol:

in practice, the difficulty goes far beyond any objections of the right & left.

it runs smackdab into the problem of who gets to decide the meaning of "problems", "sensible", "certain percentage", "gross income", "mean compensation"........ "need", "ability", etc.
The initial appeal this idea has to me (without having giving it much thought and reading I admit), is related to the newly arising situation where due to technological development many types of jobs disappear rapidly without enough new types of jobs emerging to replace them. Less people will be needed to keep things up and running. Now very poor people anywhere in the world will be forced and willing to do the dirty and tough jobs for very little money... but in richer/rich countries structural and systemic un(der)employment seems to become permanent. There is simply not enough work for everybody.
try to get a couple dozen OTNOT posters to agree on what defines "right" and "left" or "fair", or "justice" :(
I think it is much easier than you suggest or fear. ;)
everyone gets paid a minimum wage each month with bonuses paid the next month (after profits are calculated) determined by voting on who was the most valuable group member last month?
Basic income is something entirely different from minimum wages. me bad. rather than the federal minimum wage, here I meant the base wage that was determined by group consensus and vote.

you could vote the slackers and the greedy off the organizational (corporate or cooperative) island, but how do you vote someone off the island of NY, the US, Europe, etc.

what about the guy who holds the weapons to ensure the rule are followed correctly?

We continue to search for angelic administrators from among the poll of human applicants..... ;)
I think you complicate things unnecessarily.

Just try equate a nation state with a family business. USA Inc. Holland Ltd. You make money by producing goods and services, you trade with other family businesses. Just good old bartering but you use currencies to exchange goods and services. Now it turns out that all those family businesses that participate in the same open market are doing extremely well lately. Technology and science have made it possible that much less time is needed to spend on work. The question is really very simple: do you decide together that all the sweets, goods and power go to those who do have work... leaving the rest collecting crumbs from the floor and sleeping in the shed.. or do you want every family member enjoy a minimum standard of the family cake.

It seems to me that the problems you see only apply to people who wrongly believe they are part of a certain family business. Or in other words, the "society" they assume they belong to is not a society at all.

It may be that the nation state, as an extended tribal society within territorial borders, is quickly losing its psycho-social and cultural coherence. From what you and some other Americans write in this forum, it seems to me that the USA is rather rapidly becoming a Disjointed States of America. :P
I agree with you 100% that on a small scale it is doable. Distance insulates. Lots of corporations, communities, charities, volunteer organizations, etc. function exactly in that manner currently. the number 5 above was an anal extraction. on the scale of a population of even a couple million, difficulty increases.

Scale will be key. One size fits all always get more difficult as the group gets bigger. Even in terms of definition of group identity. How to get individual Europeans (or Americans) to define themselves as European (or American) rather than by nation (in Europe), state (in the US), skin color, religion, occupation, preferred activity, income, NFL or AFL fan, Fred, Mohammed, Shamus, Saab driver, Harley rider, etc. Hell, lets skip to the end, we're all Earthlings! Right? Why don't we all currently define ourselves as such? The balancing of group identity and individual identity is a fascinating dynamic endeavor.

I think this statement may very well be true: "It may be that the nation state, as an extended tribal society within territorial borders, is quickly losing its psycho-social and cultural coherence." This reminds me of book The Sovereign Individual. Is it due to any actual changes, or was the extended tribal society always a myth in the minds of those who could not easily communicate or meet with their distant tribal members? Those who claimed in the 1970s that info tech would make the world a smaller place and bring us all together once we could all communicate instantaneously.... seemed to overlook the fact that Fred could tweet "Screw you!" to several million people he would never meet face to face! :lol: Getting upset over Fred tweeting "Screw you!" or being comforted because Nigel tweets "I love you!" is something that neither Fred nor Nigel can control.

regarding this statement: "From what you and some other Americans write in this forum, it seems to me that the USA is rather rapidly becoming a Disjointed States of America." I don't think America ever was homogenous, at least not based on my travels and experience. Depending on one's definition of culture, it seems to change about every 50 miles or so. People in Charlottesville VA or Lynchburg, VA think themselves superior to the other. I read the complaints of other Americans who post on this forum and often think "Wow! I'm glad I don't live within 100 miles of you! The area I live in is loaded with "the community spirit and sense of co-operation" other Merikans claim doesn't exist in "America" anymore (or ever, depending upon the poster). I always wonder why they don't move. Of course, people don't react to reality, but to their perceptions of reality. Me or them could both be delusional.

Me: try to get a couple dozen OTNOT posters to agree on what defines "right" and "left" or "fair", or "justice"

Parodite: I think it is much easier than you suggest or fear. ;)

in my experience, when the parties are in close physical proximity, where quantities and qualities can be defined, agreement is very easy to achieve on almost everything. Distance seems to contribute greatly to the concept of the "other" and the notion of "unfair." Interestingly enough, it is usually the outsiders that are the harshest judges of the participants. "Those people" over there are not behaving up to "our ideals."

In cyberspace, where imagination dominates over anything that can be defined or measured, not so much agreement exists. Perhaps because there is no reality in cyberspace to define our ideas, but only subjective and personal perception?

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, in practice, there is. Personal cost always determines perspective.
User avatar
Zack Morris
Posts: 2837
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
Location: Bayside High School

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Zack Morris »

If everyone is given a guaranteed annual income, won't the costs of housing and staples, which everyone consumes, adjust accordingly?
Simple Minded

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Simple Minded »

Zack Morris wrote:If everyone is given a guaranteed annual income, won't the costs of housing and staples, which everyone consumes, adjust accordingly?
Excellent observation Zack.

The other unintended consequence of giving the poor more money is when they spend that money, it will increase their carbon footprint! :shock: :(
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by noddy »

Of course inflation would adjust to the new normal.

The upside of it is the mass sacking of gubmint officials and them being on minimum wage with the plebs instead of (n) times minimum wage.
ultracrepidarian
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5641
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Parodite »

Simple Minded wrote:

It may be that the nation state, as an extended tribal society within territorial borders, is quickly losing its psycho-social and cultural coherence. From what you and some other Americans write in this forum, it seems to me that the USA is rather rapidly becoming a Disjointed States of America. :P
I agree with you 100% that on a small scale it is doable. Distance insulates. Lots of corporations, communities, charities, volunteer organizations, etc. function exactly in that manner currently. the number 5 above was an anal extraction. on the scale of a population of even a couple million, difficulty increases.

Scale will be key. One size fits all always get more difficult as the group gets bigger. Even in terms of definition of group identity. How to get individual Europeans (or Americans) to define themselves as European (or American) rather than by nation (in Europe), state (in the US), skin color, religion, occupation, preferred activity, income, NFL or AFL fan, Fred, Mohammed, Shamus, Saab driver, Harley rider, etc. Hell, lets skip to the end, we're all Earthlings! Right? Why don't we all currently define ourselves as such? The balancing of group identity and individual identity is a fascinating dynamic endeavor.
Indeed size matters. But the fact that a small society can fail miserably while a society a million times bigger can be very functional - or vice versa - begs the question. What are the most successful and happy bigger societies where real poverty is absent, where everybody is assured of a high level minimum supply medicare, and where people who do not work are not rotting in the gutter? A good place to start take a look, damnit, is our neighbor Germany. You can add the Netherlands, Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland. These countries can afford to draw comfortable "socialist" lines below which nobody is allowed to suffer, perish. Why can they afford it? Because they are industrious, modern, developed, educated democracies that produce wealth non stop.There are endless subcultures, clubs, charity and volunteer organizations here as well, as of course many skin colors, religious hobbies to pick from, but that does not impede in any way the basics here. They could easily afford a basic income system to guarantee the same comfortable social minimum, and if indeed it would in fact make a lot of government bureaucracy redundant, things would even get better. :P
I think this statement may very well be true: "It may be that the nation state, as an extended tribal society within territorial borders, is quickly losing its psycho-social and cultural coherence." This reminds me of book The Sovereign Individual. Is it due to any actual changes, or was the extended tribal society always a myth in the minds of those who could not easily communicate or meet with their distant tribal members? Those who claimed in the 1970s that info tech would make the world a smaller place and bring us all together once we could all communicate instantaneously.... seemed to overlook the fact that Fred could tweet "Screw you!" to several million people he would never meet face to face! :lol: Getting upset over Fred tweeting "Screw you!" or being comforted because Nigel tweets "I love you!" is something that neither Fred nor Nigel can control.
Well, maybe a pragmatic approach is to just wait and see; some nation states may disintegrate, others may still thrive on for a considerable amount of time. It should then not be too complicated to analyze and identify failing and successful survival strategies. Maybe size matters much less!
regarding this statement: "From what you and some other Americans write in this forum, it seems to me that the USA is rather rapidly becoming a Disjointed States of America." I don't think America ever was homogenous, at least not based on my travels and experience. Depending on one's definition of culture, it seems to change about every 50 miles or so. People in Charlottesville VA or Lynchburg, VA think themselves superior to the other. I read the complaints of other Americans who post on this forum and often think "Wow! I'm glad I don't live within 100 miles of you! The area I live in is loaded with "the community spirit and sense of co-operation" other Merikans claim doesn't exist in "America" anymore (or ever, depending upon the poster). I always wonder why they don't move. Of course, people don't react to reality, but to their perceptions of reality. Me or them could both be delusional.
Maybe the US states need more autonomy? How much? Are Mericans willing to give up the POTUS? Maybe the POTUS should just concern himself with being the Army Chief... :?
in my experience, when the parties are in close physical proximity, where quantities and qualities can be defined, agreement is very easy to achieve on almost everything. Distance seems to contribute greatly to the concept of the "other" and the notion of "unfair." Interestingly enough, it is usually the outsiders that are the harshest judges of the participants. "Those people" over there are not behaving up to "our ideals."

In cyberspace, where imagination dominates over anything that can be defined or measured, not so much agreement exists. Perhaps because there is no reality in cyberspace to define our ideas, but only subjective and personal perception?

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, in practice, there is. Personal cost always determines perspective.
A poor quality of the democratic process (in all its aspects) also creates distance, disconnection, alianation, distrust. If Obama's USG were transplanted into Luxembourg... no guarantee that the people would not feel like experiencing a dissociative personality disorder.
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Enki »

I love the idea, but a living wage for every American would exceed the GDP of the United States.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5641
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Parodite »

Enki wrote:I love the idea, but a living wage for every American would exceed the GDP of the United States.
But maybe richer states could afford it?
User avatar
Miss_Faucie_Fishtits
Posts: 2152
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:58 pm

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Miss_Faucie_Fishtits »

Why do I think property reform and not guaranteed minimum wage is the way out of this dilemma?...........
She irons her jeans, she's evil.........
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5641
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Parodite »

Miss_Faucie_Fishtits wrote:Why do I think property reform and not guaranteed minimum wage is the way out of this dilemma?...........
Guaranteed minimum wage for those who work and those who don't work? Basic income here is not a form of minimum wage, it is just a guaranteed minimum income whether you work or not. Basic income makes therefore minimum wage a non-issue because there is no minimum wage anymore. Just free market wages and competition.
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by noddy »

Miss_Faucie_Fishtits wrote:Why do I think property reform and not guaranteed minimum wage is the way out of this dilemma?...........
this has been my stance for quite some time... you cant "fix" all the inequality but the number one cost of living that eats the poor and young alive is housing and the insanity of the worldview that houseflipping ever more expensive dog boxes is the path to riches for all.

compulsory services/fees/licenses are the other big target but we all know how that conversation goes.
ultracrepidarian
Simple Minded

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Simple Minded »

Parodite wrote:I find this an interesting idea that can solve a lot of problems, a sensible reform of the welfare state and cutting down loads of governmental administrative and bureaucratic overhead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

The reason that it is not very popular seems to be that:

1) right wing dogma has a very negative view on human nature claiming that such a thing would remove the incentive to work, and
2) left wing dogma doesn't like it when the state can no longer meddle in peoples private affairs as much as they would like.

See also:

https://decorrespondent.nl/541/why-we-s ... 5-cb9fbb39

Parodite,

I may have misinterpreted your intent, when you mentioned right & left I assumed you were talking govt. If simply voluntary association and charity, it happens all the time everywhere.

Seems often and easily doable in the short term, alliances and projects come and go.

If we are talking govt, the problem that goes beyond left and right is how to pay. Some blame the left, others blame the right, IMSMO, customers and competitors cap wages more often than the Commies or the Evil Corporatists combined.

I would like to write computer code for $100/hr. The problem I have is Tinker and Noddy are probably 1000 times more efficient and are my competition. If they are willing to work for $80/hr, they and the customer will cap my wage at 8 cents an hour. Their competition and customers are also capping their wages. The Koch brothers and George Soros are nowhere in sight.

The Land of Satisfaction (LOS), ruled by the Just Council (JC) decides everyone over the age of 15 with a pulse gets $30k per year. Since the JC is only 50% efficient, they need to raise $60k per person-year to fund the program.

Taxes on consumer items or wages are counterproductive. Import/export tariffs might work, if LOS is more efficient than their competitors. Taxing the rich might work, up until the point they decide to take their brains, capital, energy and organizational skills elsewhere.

The other problem is once everyone makes $30k for breathing, price appreciation will result.

Would people still work? Maybe so, with no need for money, a lot of people would still work for recreation, as a hobby, and a sense of fulfilment. Maybe for $1 per hour. Supply and demand and relative skill level will still establish pay scales, especially for nasty jobs and jobs requiring high skill.

If only we can enslave the robots. Robots smart enough to do our jobs, but not smart enough to realize they don’t need us might be the answer.

Continual flux and evolution of everything (including alliances and ideals) will probably continue to frustrate people who wish for static ideals. Most want better and that definition is always changing.
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Nonc Hilaire »

Passing out currency or currency equivalents is an inflationary problem. There is a way to use excess commodities, soup kitchens and unused buildings to provide for basic needs that not reduce the incentive for people to improve their economic status.

The reason we use currency and equivalents (Food Stamps) is for the benefit of business. The U.S. gives a small percentage free rent and food vouchers, while millions sleep under highway overpasses and scrounge for food from restaurant dumpsters.

The unemployed are now rising to outstrip even basic needs on a currency basis, and Food Stamps are inflating grocery costs worse than a raise in the minimum wage could ever could. There is an immediate need for a drastic way to support the basic needs of the poor. The methods developed during the roaring 80's are insufficient.
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Governments across the developed world are going bankrupt. The time for these schemes is decades past.

Basic food growing is the future, if you can call it that.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Miss_Faucie_Fishtits
Posts: 2152
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:58 pm

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Miss_Faucie_Fishtits »

noddy wrote:
Miss_Faucie_Fishtits wrote:Why do I think property reform and not guaranteed minimum wage is the way out of this dilemma?...........
this has been my stance for quite some time... you cant "fix" all the inequality but the number one cost of living that eats the poor and young alive is housing and the insanity of the worldview that houseflipping ever more expensive dog boxes is the path to riches for all.

compulsory services/fees/licenses are the other big target but we all know how that conversation goes.

Yes, yes......... when you can't raise the ceiling, you can lower the floor....'>...........
She irons her jeans, she's evil.........
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Nonc Hilaire wrote:Just an idea, but it might be better to have all businesses required to fund jobs at a certain percentage of their gross income, with a salary cap based on mean compensation.
This would directly and completely contradict your other statements that material wealth is bad and the everyone should depend on God for their sustenance.

And it sounds about as likely to succeed as a Soviet 5 year plan. No unintended consequences lurking there.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Nonc Hilaire »

Mr. Perfect wrote:
Nonc Hilaire wrote:Just an idea, but it might be better to have all businesses required to fund jobs at a certain percentage of their gross income, with a salary cap based on mean compensation.
This would directly and completely contradict your other statements that material wealth is bad and the everyone should depend on God for their sustenance.
Where did I say that?
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Nonc Hilaire »

Mr. Perfect wrote:Right here.

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2493#p66736
Part right and part wrong. Wealth is not bad, because you can give it away. Hoarding wealth for your own satisfaction is sinful. Using it to obtain power over others or to cause others suffering is inexcusable.
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Nonc Hilaire wrote: Part right and part wrong. Wealth is not bad, because you can give it away. Hoarding wealth for your own satisfaction is sinful. Using it to obtain power over others or to cause others suffering is inexcusable.
But if it is only good because it can be given away surely it must then be bad if you don't give it away. Why would you want to give something bad to someone else, and then consider it to be good.

How much wealth qualifies as "hoarding". Why do so many Democrats hoard wealth.

What are real world examples of using wealth to make other people suffer. Real world stuff, not crazy koch Bros stuff.

How could David be beloved of the Lord with all the munny.
Censorship isn't necessary
Post Reply