Basic income for everyone?

[Parodite]

An old but favorite horse of mine, some good stuff in this article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-san ... 57850.html

Minimum wage has a lot of detrimental effects on the economy and labor market, and so do all kinds of social welfare programs. To SMs earlier questions like who decides what is enough I will say: the people via democratic vote. Helped of course, if they inform themselves first, using a calculator and read the news, investigate. There has been an experiment in the past to test the effects of a basic income and it boosted people out of the poverty trap and joblessness and the results were very positive.

The reason I'd not vote for Sanders is that despite he is rightly berning about whats wrong i.e. the symptoms, he is all about minimum wage which IMO is an expired concept and fake solution and does not address the causes.

Will say though that basic income (mincome) is not for people who don't feel being part of the society they are part of, who are in denial they operate in a bigger system from which they benefit or suffer respectively, that give them rights but also responsibilities. There is a brand of anti-social libertarianism immune to reason, people who freeze the moment they hear or read the word government and believe it should be always their own choice if, when and how much taxes should be payed. Especially mil-billionaire banksters and corporate pranksters like such a concept, truly believing it is only thanks to their own hard and intelligent work they are that rich as "self-made man". That hundreds and thousands of hard working poor-to-middle class people all over the world are actually creating that wealth they choose to remain blind to... and no basic income, not even minimum wage should disturb their dream.

Mincome for citizens only also has a nice side effect: it is virtually impossible for immigrant workers (without a mincome) to compete with citizens with mincome.

Recommended: https://thecorrespondent.com/utopia-for-realists/

[Simple Minded]

An old but favorite horse of mine, some good stuff in this article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-san ... 57850.html

Minimum wage has a lot of detrimental effects on the economy and labor market, and so do all kinds of social welfare programs. To SMs earlier questions like who decides what is enough I will say: the people via democratic vote. Helped of course, if they inform themselves first, using a calculator and read the news, investigate. There has been an experiment in the past to test the effects of a basic income and it boosted people out of the poverty trap and joblessness and the results were very positive.

The reason I'd not vote for Sanders is that despite he is rightly berning about whats wrong i.e. the symptoms, he is all about minimum wage which IMO is an expired concept and fake solution and does not address the causes.

Will say though that basic income (mincome) is not for people who don't feel being part of the society they are part of, who are in denial they operate in a bigger system from which they benefit or suffer respectively, that give them rights but also responsibilities. There is a brand of anti-social libertarianism immune to reason, people who freeze the moment they hear or read the word government and believe it should be always their own choice if, when and how much taxes should be payed. Especially mil-billionaire banksters and corporate pranksters like such a concept, truly believing it is only thanks to their own hard and intelligent work they are that rich as "self-made man". That hundreds and thousands of hard working poor-to-middle class people all over the world are actually creating that wealth they choose to remain blind to... and no basic income, not even minimum wage should disturb their dream.

Mincome for citizens only also has a nice side effect: it is virtually impossible for immigrant workers (without a mincome) to compete with citizens with mincome.

Recommended: https://thecorrespondent.com/utopia-for-realists/

It seems easy enough. Everyone agrees that "the rich should pay their fair share." The trick seems to be to get "the people via democratic vote" to agree on the definitions of "rich," "fair," and "we."

In a small jurisdiction, with shared culture and values, it seems entirely workable and easily implementable. People tithe to belong to a church for example. One does not like the church, or thinks the tithe is too much, one leaves. People often move from one city or county to another based on available services or costs of those services.

The problem always remains what "we" should do to "them" who don't share "our" values to either force compliance, or present the right sales pitch to convince "them" that "they' should desire to become part of "us" of their own volition.

I think of my rich left leaning friends who preach "the rich should pay their fair share," but don't want to admit they are rich (easily proven mathematically) for fear of having the mob's definition of "fair" (how to determine mathematically) imposed upon them by rule of law.

Even the question of how often "the people" should be allowed to determine the definition of "fair" would be very interesting. Should "we" vote every year or every 5 years to see if Fred now wishes to "give" a higher of lower percentage of his income than he decided upon the last time he voted? Not to do so would be to deny the input of those who are young, and to force old choices upon those whose fortunes have changed. How to build an enduring institution with ever changing income based on the flux of "fair?"

It would be a fascinating discussion without the ubiquitous name calling or promising of free lunches and square circles, and an actual honest discussion of costs and benefits. I don't think I have ever heard it attempted to be discussed in that manner.

Could OTNOTistan be the first? I think "we" should do it. After YMix and Typhoon seal the virtual borders, "we" can put it up for vote. I will donate 1% of income to this new charity, while maintaining my existing tax and charity payments.

After we decide on income, we can vote to select who will collect and distribute.

"Good idea! You're in charge!" - Best wet blanket phrase ever invented!

[noddy]

i love the concept of actually using the socialist tax intake for socialism rather than feeding another corporate beast demanding middle class wages for some who are lucky enough to get government jobs.

still cant see anyone on the right (fear of entitlement and demotivation) or the left (fear of losing cushy gubmint funding) or the conservative (fear of indulgent lazyness) buying into it, which is why its not on the agenda in most places.

so far, its only being floated in the loony libetarian circles.

[Simple Minded]

Bummer. If one reads one of the supporting articles Parodite posted:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/12/23 ... 35682.html

One find this nugget:

"In 1973, Manitoba and the federal government signed a cost-sharing agreement: 75 per cent of the $17-million budget would be paid for by the feds; the rest by the province."

So it wasn't an example of the people of Dauphin, Manitoba figuring out a way to make "taking care of their own" actually work via a sustainable method on a small scale. It was simply another example of Big Brother taking milk from Peter's cow, giving it to Paul and Paul thinking (in his willful ignorance?) that a new form of utopia had been created. Sounds like after 5 years, either Peter or his cow got tired of the deal.

Bastiat: "the state is the great fiction by which everyone can live at the expense of someone else." timeless problem.

Still, it is a workable concept. Saudi Arabia has done it for decades now. Spain could do it by charging access to the Mediterranean. New Orleans or Louisiana could do it by charging access to the Mississippi. Obviously the locals cant pay for all their "freebies" with a surcharge on stuff they buy....., but if the population of "others" is much bigger than the population of "us" they can pay.

As long as you don't charge "too much," your customers won't find a new vendor, a new transport route, or field an army to harvest your assets! Customers determining price rather than producers! Thou speaketh heresy knave!

Oooh ooh, merging threads, Panama should be at least as great a region of "everyone lives at the expense of someone else" as Saudi Arabia.

Still, the first problem remains of forming the coalition of "we." Secondly, we need a "them" to pay for "our stuff."

Paging Madison Avenue......

[noddy]

the small matter of sacking enough government workers to claw back a big enough budget to make it workable is a trivial exercise left to the readers imagination

we can all imagine bits of government we want to be defunded, its easy!

(lets not worry about all the different agenda groups that created those departments and the multicultural democratic framework that stops any one individual from forcing such decisions through)

[Simple Minded]

Still seems entirely workable to me. But honesty in marketing would be of primary importance. I suspect most marketeers suspect or know that the willfully ignorant, mentally incapable, and intentionally deceitful are a much bigger market share than those who would appreciate not being lied to.

Once one abandons the concepts of free lunches and square circles, and allows that personal freedom requires responsibility and sacrifice, anything can be done. Finding or forming the people who want to buy in to the group of "we" (especially if one screws up and utters the word "responsibility" during the sales pitch) is the real trick.

Seems easier to sell magic. As the old quote goes "You can't con an honest man."

As always, many aspects of reality will never be as interesting as the interpretations one chooses or the marketing one finds appealing.

It is either my fault/our fault or your fault/their fault. Guess which one sells quicker....

Shame on people.

[Parodite]

It seems easy enough. Everyone agrees that "the rich should pay their fair share." The trick seems to be to get "the people via democratic vote" to agree on the definitions of "rich," "fair," and "we."

I would not call it a trick and neither say that people should agree. More importantly.. they never will all agree anyways which is a given. Which is why a system like democracy evolved where these differences (of opinion and interest) are discussed, negotiated and voted upon. This doesn't produce an utopian sort of society but one that is felt to be preferable over the alternatives where power and money is in the hands of only a few.

As for what is fair: that is a normal and healthy question that people will always ask themselves and each other in any society. When 200 workers in a factory work their asses off every day barely able to buy food for their families and not enough to cover basic healthcare costs... while the owner of the factory lives in a mansion and driving around three Porsches... the workers will feel that that is not fair, and the owner will feel it is not in his interest to pay them more.
To me the question what is/should be objectively "fair" or "enough" has no meaning whatsoever, just that it is a fact of life that people who feel they don't have enough will fight for more and those that love what they have do everything to keep it. Any person can be in any position and behave the same in that position.

In reality, when those "haves"and "have-nots" are in a a socioeconomic relationship that is characterized by a strong interdependence (like employers and employees) they will negotiate not using sentimentalism or moral-philosophical considerations but the powers available to them. Workers form unions and use the power of strike and push for law reform in politics, owners use existing laws like property ownership and will move their business to low-wage countries if they can when labot becomes too expensive. I suspect in Heaven things are completely different but that is just a fantasy. In reality everything competes with everything. More competing parts and more diverse competition is always good.

In a small jurisdiction, with shared culture and values, it seems entirely workable and easily implementable. People tithe to belong to a church for example. One does not like the church, or thinks the tithe is too much, one leaves. People often move from one city or county to another based on available services or costs of those services.

Although size matters, small and local is not a guarantee that things are suddenly hunky-dory. Small communities with shared values and culture can be as corrupt, criminal, cruel as any with its own minority victims, oppressed, abused weak ones eaten by stronger ones. A family unit, or even a 2p relationship can be dysfunctional with its own bullies and victims. Hell, even as individuals we are the outcomes of competing urges, thoughts, ideas.

The problem always remains what "we" should do to "them" who don't share "our" values to either force compliance, or present the right sales pitch to convince "them" that "they' should desire to become part of "us" of their own volition.

I don't think the function of politics in a society (whatever the size) is to convince or convert others and that peace and harmony will break through once we all agree, but as a platform to negotiate interests and information exchange.

I think of my rich left leaning friends who preach "the rich should pay their fair share," but don't want to admit they are rich (easily proven mathematically) for fear of having the mob's definition of "fair" (how to determine mathematically) imposed upon them by rule of law.

A case where reality supervenes ideas and feelings of yesterday. Ideas and dogma can be very inert. Loads of examples available.

Even the question of how often "the people" should be allowed to determine the definition of "fair" would be very interesting. Should "we" vote every year or every 5 years to see if Fred now wishes to "give" a higher of lower percentage of his income than he decided upon the last time he voted? Not to do so would be to deny the input of those who are young, and to force old choices upon those whose fortunes have changed. How to build an enduring institution with ever changing income based on the flux of "fair?"

These things are decided during fierce competition and the outcome is always "right".

It would be a fascinating discussion without the ubiquitous name calling or promising of free lunches and square circles, and an actual honest discussion of costs and benefits. I don't think I have ever heard it attempted to be discussed in that manner.

The basic-income discussion is all about cost-benefit.

People associate basic-income with free lunches: I don't and rather associate it with saving money and having a more productive work force, wealthier society that is also better for myself to be part of.

I like the free-lunch approach: who is paying or working for other people's free lunches?

Let's start a free-lunch list:

1. People baling out failed banks and the bank's management. Much more than just a free lunch: a free mil-billionaire life style as a reward for mismanagement and even criminal behavior.

2. Tax payers paying off federal debt and interest on that debt. Government workers, from top to bottom, create federal debts by overspending and a system to "solve" these problems, but actually making sure their gvt jobs and even more gvt jobs are create and secured while others pay for them.

Those 2 IMO are the biggest free-lunch scams in history.

In this context it is of interest what happens with all the taxes we pay to our national gvts. In the USA case:

Policy Basics: Where Do Federal Tax Revenues Come From?

Most of your taxes go to far away Americans and things unrelated to your life and personal needs. You pay for wars you didn't start, for roads you don't drive, for sick people whose name you don't know, for childcare that goes to other people's kids, programs that support jobless, homeless people in other states and cities, for people who do scientific research that you may not consider yourself a priority, who waste money on global warming policies, who fly to the moon while you may be struggling to just get enough food on the table. In sum total a tax system that one might as well call socialist to the bone where free lunches are created distributed all over the place already. Add the 2 biggest free-lunch scams mentioned... and there you go.

[Parodite]

Bummer. If one reads one of the supporting articles Parodite posted:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/12/23 ... 35682.html

One find this nugget:

"In 1973, Manitoba and the federal government signed a cost-sharing agreement: 75 per cent of the $17-million budget would be paid for by the feds; the rest by the province."

It was socioeconomic experiment, in my view worth the money. More such experiments were done, more recently in London. People choose to pay for experiments and tend to see them as an investment given the information they produce which can be used in future decisions.

An important, long and still running experiment is: making drugs illegal. It got a bit out of control unfortunately, too much vested interests grew around it. Hundreds thousands of people in law enforcement, in courts, working in jail facilities are making money on it now, depending on it to pay for their bills every day. Illegal drugs can be added to the free-lunch list too. This particular experiment can be called: "How to create criminals and have tax payers pay for your job in chasing them and throwing them in jail." If that were the goal of the experiment it has been proven immensely successful.

[Simple Minded]

All good points Parodite. Thanks for making the effort. That is what makes these discussions interesting and informative.

Still we are left with subjective, and hugely personal interpretations and definitions of terms. Add to that, that all is flux, and the discussion becomes endless.

Self adjusting feedback mechanisms are everywhere. Most humans seem to prefer them to be voluntary, rather than mandatory.

You say the experiments are "worth it," but unless you lived in Canada in the 1970s, it did not cost you even a lousy baloney sandwich a month. The experiment was discontinued after a few years, so perhaps those who actually funded the experiment felt their money was better used elsewhere. ie: to them, "it wasn't worth it." Since "we" don't have that data, "we" cant make any evaluation that "our" ideals in the distant present are superior to "their" then current ideals, needs, and method of evaluation. You and I is both ignant.

The only person who gets to decide if something is "worth it," is the person who actually pays. As they say, "Talk is cheap."

As we have both noted, humans are loaded with hypocrisy. Endless examples abound.

The "trick" still remains one of salesmanship. How to convince enough Joes, to form a democratic "society" majority (50%+1 up to 100%) that believe they are better off paying up their money, rather than hanging on to it. ie: "You" are better off as "one of us," rather than as "one of them" who disagrees with "us."

Size matters, as does geography, as I noted in the above examples. Remember the recent experiment to convince your people that all y'all is Europeans with common interests, and not a bunch of crazy nationalists with selfish interests?

The next obstacle to overcome is what level of force the majority will deploy to collect the tax from the minority that decided paying the tax costs "too much." Make the penalty harsh enough, and painful enough, and Joe will view paying the tax as a "fair" price to avoiding the penalty. ie: It becomes "worth it."

You did make an excellent point, "right" in a collective with common definition of ideals, is determined by majority consent. Lacking that, force also "works."

Me personally, I think talk is cheap. The percentage of one's income one voluntarily donates to charity is an indicator of personal morality and responsibility than should be weighted infinitely more than what ones preaches, IMSMO.

Fun to discuss. Tough to implement. And for those who do not wish to discuss or consider deployment of force to ensure compliance, it is truly utopia.

Oddly enough, the people I know who are very charitable, do so for selfish reasons. They either want to live in a better world, or they get a great sense of personal satisfaction from voluntarily (not having a gun pointed at their heads) helping others. Its almost like they think helping others is in their own self-interest.

How to resolve this conundrum?

[Parodite]

Thanks SM. Small communities (extended families, tribes, villages) where individuals are never forced to pay (charities included) anything to people in- or outside that community do not exist and have never existed. There always are circumstances and societal pressures, traditions...

We are all born into big-huge societies, nation states where things are not any different other than scale. However in all size societies charity, both enforced and totally voluntary, are of all times. Hence.. a mixed bag that is never either or.

Just saying that size matters much less than you suggest and that fantasizing about societies where everything is only voluntarily is more utopian than basic-income.

To me the question who pays how much for what is just business as usual in modern politics. You mentioned you are willing to pay 1% taxes for social security (which is what basic income is all about) and the rest to taxes as they are configured. But the taxes as they are configured now are rife with free lunches for far away others... so it seems to me that basic income is not the first thing for you to worry about because you are in big lavender already

[noddy]

i just did crude maths for australia based on a 200 per week survival money which is akin to what our social security pays.

it would cost 260 billion out of the governements 400 billion income and current social security costs about 150 billion.

thats a whole lot of special interests, minority groups and government workers getting changed from middle class to base survivalists.

good luck with that

which isnt to say i dont love the idea hah.

[Parodite]

Dutch city plans to pay citizens a ‘basic income’, and Greens say it could work in the UK

[Parodite]

i just did crude maths for australia based on a 200 per week survival money which is akin to what our social security pays.

it would cost 260 billion out of the governements 400 billion income and current social security costs about 150 billion.

thats a whole lot of special interests, minority groups and government workers getting changed from middle class to base survivalists.

good luck with that

which isnt to say i dont love the idea hah.

There are just too many benefits in it I agree! To slash away a huge chunk of gvt overhead already.. who doesn't love it.

Extra savings come from the fact that for people on basic income it becomes easier to take part-time and temp jobs, i.e. the right incentive... a flexibility business really needs these days. It also gives you a stronger negotiation position as employee.

Errr..but if the survival money amount stays the same for every survivor..and the only difference would be that gvt workers become survivers too.. then still money is saved in total. Those savings can be distributed among all survivors.. and get 215/week instead of 200/week. For survivors that's progress!

[Simple Minded]

Thanks SM. Small communities (extended families, tribes, villages) where individuals are never forced to pay (charities included) anything to people in- or outside that community do not exist and have never existed. There always are circumstances and societal pressures, traditions...

We are all born into big-huge societies, nation states where things are not any different other than scale. However in all size societies charity, both enforced and totally voluntary, are of all times. Hence.. a mixed bag that is never either or.

Just saying that size matters much less than you suggest and that fantasizing about societies where everything is only voluntarily is more utopian than basic-income.

To me the question who pays how much for what is just business as usual in modern politics. You mentioned you are willing to pay 1% taxes for social security (which is what basic income is all about) and the rest to taxes as they are configured. But the taxes as they are configured now are rife with free lunches for far away others... so it seems to me that basic income is not the first thing for you to worry about because you are in big lavender already

You are welcome bro. I'm not at all worried about it. it's a great idea. Now show me the numbers that
a. Make it work
b. the sales pitch that make 50%+1 up to 100%-1 buy into it
c. the preferred methods of enforcement that "society" (50%+1 up to 100%-1) will deploy against the < 50%-1 who don't voluntarily buy into it.

Until that plan is presented, it is just a great idea. Once the numbers are on the table (especially who really pays!), then the problem of administration can be seriously discussed.

The problem remains salesmanship, how to build bigger we's out of far away strangers, rather the little we's built from those people we actually know that people seem to prefer. Brussels civilizing the European barbarians, DC saddling the American incorrigibles, immigrants that don't adopt the culture of their new homeland, Boston Redsox fans, etc......

theory vs. practice, intent vs. results.

right now you have a bridge built out of clouds. you just have to find clouds that have sufficient load carrying capability.

[Simple Minded]

i just did crude maths for australia based on a 200 per week survival money which is akin to what our social security pays.

it would cost 260 billion out of the governements 400 billion income and current social security costs about 150 billion.

thats a whole lot of special interests, minority groups and government workers getting changed from middle class to base survivalists.

good luck with that

which isnt to say i dont love the idea hah.

I think it is "worth it." Don't let the fact that I'm not participating influence your opinion of my opinion.

Like I tell my rich leftie friends, I support Bernie cause I want him to take money from them and give to me. If Bernie decides to take money from me and give it to someone else, I will withdraw my support.

Bastiat pointed out the base problem. So far all we have done is create a perpetual flux of "we's."

I'm still not riding Alex's R1 or drinking Zack's titmilk....... but give me a gun, their address and a badge......

[Parodite]

You are welcome bro. I'm not at all worried about it. it's a great idea. Now show me the numbers that
a. Make it work

Basic income saves money because the social security system is simplified, less gvt workers needed to sustain the current gvt overhead. Numbers of savings depend how high the basic income level is positioned. That is a political process and choice, may differ per country.

b. the sales pitch that make 50%+1 up to 100%-1 buy into it

Enough for (and against) arguments and for you to read on the web.

c. the preferred methods of enforcement that "society" will use against the < 50%-1 who don't voluntarily buy into it.

Tell ya a secret: there exist democratic processes, parliaments and gvts who make decisions on matters like these.

Until that plan is presented, it is just a great idea.;

True enough. Plans to implement/experiment exist in the Netherlands, Finland and Canada so all we have to do is wait and see.

Then the problem of administration can be seriously discussed.

Administration, how/what by who is always an operating issue in politics. Nothing new in this case.

right now you have bridge built out of clouds. you just have to find clouds that have sufficient load carrying capability.

The problem with basic income is that most people associate it with with free lunches and therefor don't even investigate. But ask 1000 random people if a basic income guarantee of say 800 dollars/months would make them wanna stop working and pick their nose all day... 90+% would say of course not. If however you ask the same 1000 people if they believe other people would stop working... they believe/suspect that most probably will.

As Noddy noted, left wingers won't like the idea because basic income removes the state looking over your shoulder and playing Nanny for the disadvantaged. Conservatives won't like the idea because they see work as necessary evil and that most people just want to be lazy, and right wingers/employers would see individuals / employees with better negotiating positions. Or a mix of these objections. I say they are irrational.

[Simple Minded]

Parodite,

I agree with your intents.

Now, show me the numbers. I'm an engineer.

Right now you, and everyone on the web is telling me a 1/2" bolt will fit into a 3/8" hole. Prove it!

Numbers don't care bout feelings. That's why people ignore them so often.

[Parodite]

SM... you pay your taxes I'm sure, so much you said. To know that they use it for loads of titty milk for others.. must be hard for you! Without asking you first they just decided to grab your titties, suck 'm and give your titty milk to bailed-out banksters, other peoples kids, jobless people in other states you don't even know, roads you don't drive on, the cost of wars you didn't choose to make... how you keep your sanity??

[Simple Minded]

SM... you pay your taxes I'm sure, so much you said. To know that they use it for loads of titty milk for others.. must be hard for you! Without asking you first they just decided to grab your titties, suck 'm and give your titty milk to bailed-out banksters, other peoples kids, jobless people in other states you don't even know, roads you don't drive on, the cost of wars you didn't choose to make... how you keep your sanity??

Very easily. I'm not the person you imagine.

Now ask yourself why do you have this mental construction?

I'm not attacking your opinions. Just asking you to quantify them.

[Parodite]

Parodite,

I agree with your intents.

Now, show me the numbers. I'm an engineer.

Right now you, and everyone on the web is telling me a 1/2" bolt will fit into a 3/8" hole. Prove it!

Numbers don't care bout feelings. That's why people ignore them so often.

Complex socio-economic systems are trial-error systems where numbers do not guarantee nor do they have complete predictive value. People make estimates, predictions based on incomplete information all the time and just try things out. And as you said..all is in flux. But I'm sure you can show me numbers used in economics that were predictive and totally right in the end - if you want to make that a hard requirement for basic-income enthusiasts.

[Parodite]

SM... you pay your taxes I'm sure, so much you said. To know that they use it for loads of titty milk for others.. must be hard for you! Without asking you first they just decided to grab your titties, suck 'm and give your titty milk to bailed-out banksters, other peoples kids, jobless people in other states you don't even know, roads you don't drive on, the cost of wars you didn't choose to make... how you keep your sanity??

Very easily. I'm not the person you imagine.

Now ask yourself why do you have this mental construction?

I'm not attacking your opinions. Just asking you to quantify them.

Ok, was just worried you lived on a cloud unaware of the reality on the ground, of your life there. In the USA while you pay your taxes.

[noddy]

in my example above i neglected to mention that my 260 billion is based on every single person getting this survival income, including newborns and the filthy rich.

also, the 150 billion that goes to social security, only about 50 billion of that actually leaves government as payments, the rest is admin costs.

this is with no adjustment to tax rate and assuming we keep army,hospital,schools going, we just need to cull the rest to make it work.

not sure how the feedback effect of all that extra money goes in terms of stimulus or inflation, those numbers are always plucked from the back passage no matter who does them.

[Simple Minded]

SM... you pay your taxes I'm sure, so much you said. To know that they use it for loads of titty milk for others.. must be hard for you! Without asking you first they just decided to grab your titties, suck 'm and give your titty milk to bailed-out banksters, other peoples kids, jobless people in other states you don't even know, roads you don't drive on, the cost of wars you didn't choose to make... how you keep your sanity??

Very easily. I'm not the person you imagine.

Now ask yourself why do you have this mental construction?

I'm not attacking your opinions. Just asking you to quantify them.

Ok, was just worried you lived on a cloud unaware of the reality on the ground, of your life there. In the USA while you pay your taxes.

No problemo. I appreciate your concern. As Alex noted, no two people ever climb the same mountain. Or even, Hilary's humps!

In the Canadian example, for five years, the people on the receiving end thought it worked, it appears the people on the paying end did not agree. The bigger "we" won! Yea Democracy!

Democracy without salespeople ain't gonna happen. If you want to sell the plan to me, show me the numbers. And don't forget to ID payers and receivers. that's all.

I wonder whether you or I voluntarily give a higher percentage of income to charity?

Maybe your imagination of me is "Trumped" by your imagination of the US?

[Simple Minded]

in my example above i neglected to mention that my 260 billion is based on every single person getting this survival income, including newborns and the filthy rich.

also, the 150 billion that goes to social security, only about 50 billion of that actually leaves government as payments, the rest is admin costs.

this is with no adjustment to tax rate and assuming we keep army,hospital,schools going, we just need to cull the rest to make it work.

not sure how the feedback effect of all that extra money goes in terms of stimulus or inflation, those numbers are always plucked from the back passage no matter who does them.

I still think it is "worth it." I'm just not payin!

[noddy]

in my example above i neglected to mention that my 260 billion is based on every single person getting this survival income, including newborns and the filthy rich.

also, the 150 billion that goes to social security, only about 50 billion of that actually leaves government as payments, the rest is admin costs.

this is with no adjustment to tax rate and assuming we keep army,hospital,schools going, we just need to cull the rest to make it work.

not sure how the feedback effect of all that extra money goes in terms of stimulus or inflation, those numbers are always plucked from the back passage no matter who does them.

I still think it is "worth it." I'm just not payin!

this theory is based off you payin already, just tweeking the way that payin gets distributed.