United States George Floyd Protests, Reactions and Riots

Terthna

Professional Lurker
One of the main reasons we have so much societal decay right now, is because we keep subsidizing bad decisions.
Which is one of the reasons I'm in favor of doing away with all welfare programs, and replacing them with a single Universal Basic Income for everyone; because it would completely avoid many of the perverse incentives our current systems have created.
 

CarlManvers2019

Writers Blocked Douchebag
Which is one of the reasons I'm in favor of doing away with all welfare programs, and replacing them with a single Universal Basic Income for everyone; because it would completely avoid many of the perverse incentives our current systems have created.

Problem is, I think some people will severely go against any any attempt to destroy said welfare systems and accuse whoever does as being an asshole and say that this UBI of yours is “not enough” and try to expand it afterwards

Some things can’t be replaced by another government institution or program, they need private individuals and not just corporations, to provide them of their own free will without coercion

Start with learning from the internet, then abolish the department of education across the world

Then do underground markets for things compromised businesses won’t provide
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
Which is one of the reasons I'm in favor of doing away with all welfare programs, and replacing them with a single Universal Basic Income for everyone; because it would completely avoid many of the perverse incentives our current systems have created.

And as I've said before, that won't work. You'd just end up with enormous numbers of people living off the UBI with little to no interest in getting a job. Let's not rehash this argument all over again on this thread though.
 

Certified_Heterosexual

The Falklands are Serbian, you cowards.
Which is one of the reasons I'm in favor of doing away with all welfare programs, and replacing them with a single Universal Basic Income for everyone; because it would completely avoid many of the perverse incentives our current systems have created.

The welfare system creates perverse incentives, so let's put the entire country on welfare, by way of even more perverse incentives! Brilliant!
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker
And as I've said before, that won't work. You'd just end up with enormous numbers of people living off the UBI with little to no interest in getting a job. Let's not rehash this argument all over again on this thread though.
This is one of those issues where my status as a leftist is really made clear, isn't it?



The welfare system creates perverse incentives, so let's put the entire country on welfare, by way of even more perverse incentives! Brilliant!
Yes, that's usually the first criticism levied against the idea; but suffice to say, I understand it to be woefully inaccurate. LordsFire is right however, in that this isn't the thread to get into that; and that we'd just be repeating ourselves anyways.
 
Last edited:

Morphic Tide

Well-known member
The welfare system creates perverse incentives, so let's put the entire country on welfare, by way of even more perverse incentives! Brilliant!
This is entirely incorrect. The entire point of unifying welfare into UBI is making it so there's one perverse incentive in the form of that minimum living standard, instead of the suite of rewarded and often detrimental behaviors like single motherhood. The two solutions for that I generally lean toward are having it as an unemployment benefit package and consequently on a time limit, and structuring it as making up for wages that corporations aren't up to paying to substitute for a hard minimum wage.

The latter means that low-margin, low liquidity business like local retail that flat-out don't have the money to spare for properly livable wages are still perfectly acceptable jobs, as the business isn't forced into spending money it doesn't have while the workers are still given proper income for the job, but the larger companies have a mix of PR and tax incentives to actually pay that out of pocket. Delay the government's share by a week, for example.

Because it's an incentive structure and welfare program instead of a minimum wage law, it can't be used to fuck up the economy anywhere near as badly, because if they raise it, the businesses that can't afford it just refuse and the money then comes out of the government coffers. This also means that starting up a business becomes easier because manpower is initially far cheaper, because you can lean on the government for wages to hold onto liquid assets for initial expansion to profitability.

The degenerate condition of that method of UBI can be dealt with by additionally having it be a proportion up to a certain total, so that, say, half of the "minimum" wage comes from the company and half from the government making lower amounts actually lower the pay, then the company paying a larger share translates to tax breaks on a dollars-per-dollar basis so it's a net gain in yearly profits to pay that full sum out of pocket. The more the taxes rise, the stronger an incentive it becomes.
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker
This is entirely incorrect. The entire point of unifying welfare into UBI is making it so there's one perverse incentive in the form of that minimum living standard, instead of the suite of rewarded and often detrimental behaviors like single motherhood. The two solutions for that I generally lean toward are having it as an unemployment benefit package and consequently on a time limit, and structuring it as making up for wages that corporations aren't up to paying to substitute for a hard minimum wage.

The latter means that low-margin, low liquidity business like local retail that flat-out don't have the money to spare for properly livable wages are still perfectly acceptable jobs, as the business isn't forced into spending money it doesn't have while the workers are still given proper income for the job, but the larger companies have a mix of PR and tax incentives to actually pay that out of pocket. Delay the government's share by a week, for example.

Because it's an incentive structure and welfare program instead of a minimum wage law, it can't be used to fuck up the economy anywhere near as badly, because if they raise it, the businesses that can't afford it just refuse and the money then comes out of the government coffers. This also means that starting up a business becomes easier because manpower is initially far cheaper, because you can lean on the government for wages to hold onto liquid assets for initial expansion to profitability.

The degenerate condition of that method of UBI can be dealt with by additionally having it be a proportion up to a certain total, so that, say, half of the "minimum" wage comes from the company and half from the government making lower amounts actually lower the pay, then the company paying a larger share translates to tax breaks on a dollars-per-dollar basis so it's a net gain in yearly profits to pay that full sum out of pocket. The more the taxes rise, the stronger an incentive it becomes.
If anyone wants to continue this discussion, I recommend taking it to this thread.
 

AnimalNoodles

Well-known member
This is essentially murder, the cops told said couple that they were on their own and have no desire to protect them or their property and now their the target of a violent mob.

In Jim Snow America, Whitey has to prove he didnt deserve to be robbed, beaten, assaulted or murdered.
 

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder

150 disability claims by the Minneapolis Police Department, many from the precinct that was burned by peaceful protestors, due to PTSD.

75 officers, almost ten percent of the force, are currently off duty due Doctor recommendations.

Meanwhile local government continues the process of moving through with defunding the police in the interest of public safety.


In unrelated news homicide rates and gun crime has increased dramatically across the board in Minneapolis
 

CarlManvers2019

Writers Blocked Douchebag
We might as well consider BLM/Antifa as government sponsored terrorists at this point

Worse, at some point they’ll be “government sponsored militias” and the replacement of law enforcement

They’ll be used as “evidence” that the 2nd Amendment is still around.....for “militias” and you can only be a “militia” if you are recognized by the governmeny
 

Urabrask Revealed

Let them go.
Founder
Worse, at some point they’ll be “government sponsored militias” and the replacement of law enforcement

They’ll be used as “evidence” that the 2nd Amendment is still around.....for “militias” and you can only be a “militia” if you are recognized by the governmeny
Convenient. Someone should ask the founding fathers if they got their militias recognized by the brits while they rebelled.
 

PsihoKekec

Swashbuckling Accountant
Money, money, money

EcESmP5UEAECRQf
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top