4 ms·

net result being an increase in taxes on many (or at least mid-to-high earners) with zero benefits to society, only a built-in voting block for those who enable

net result being an increase in taxes on many (or at least mid-to-high earners) with zero benefits to society, only a built-in voting block for those who enable this edit: if I wanted upvotes I'd jump on the socialism/communism bandwagon. I feel sorry for the future if this is the prevailing thought :(

uoaei 9y ago
Being able to eschew shitty soul-sucking jobs in favor of real personal development is "zero benefit"?
- maxerickson 9y ago
  They are arguing that access to the economy without the exchange of productivity will not create the opportunity for personal development, that the cost of basic goods and housing will rise to absorb any universal payment.
- imron 9y ago
  How many people will engage in real personal development, and how many people will just spend more time on Netflix and Facebook?
  - mistercow 9y ago
    There will be some of each, but either one results in more jobs for everybody else.
- mcbruiser3 9y ago
  who lives on $500 a month? and the economy will simply adjust to absorb this increase anyway, so hence my comment about zero benefits. also, for young people at least, "shitty" jobs build character, which seems ever more critical these days. after working a "shitty" job for a little while, a person may be motivated to better themselves, or at least get a better job.
  - freeone3000 9y ago
    9.8% of the USA lives on $6,000 a year or less, according to the IRS. So, about 10% of the population lives on $500 a month. This isn't targeted to young people, though it will benefit them. This is also targeted at displaced workers, low-skill workers, and the upcoming tens of thousands marginalized out of the workforce by increasing automation. There's not really a PATH for people to move from shitty job to non-shitty job anymore. There simply aren't enough good jobs for every adult.
    - greedo 9y ago
      B.S. They may "earn" $6k or less per year, but they're not living on that. There's EITC, welfare, disability, etc etc. When I was a student, I "lived" on $500/month, but that was because I was a damn student working part time waiting tables. Had I been fully employed, my annual income would have been much higher.

uoaei 9y ago

Being able to eschew shitty soul-sucking jobs in favor of real personal development is "zero benefit"?

maxerickson 9y ago
They are arguing that access to the economy without the exchange of productivity will not create the opportunity for personal development, that the cost of basic goods and housing will rise to absorb any universal payment.
imron 9y ago
How many people will engage in real personal development, and how many people will just spend more time on Netflix and Facebook?
- mistercow 9y ago
  There will be some of each, but either one results in more jobs for everybody else.
mcbruiser3 9y ago
who lives on $500 a month? and the economy will simply adjust to absorb this increase anyway, so hence my comment about zero benefits. also, for young people at least, "shitty" jobs build character, which seems ever more critical these days. after working a "shitty" job for a little while, a person may be motivated to better themselves, or at least get a better job.
- freeone3000 9y ago
  9.8% of the USA lives on $6,000 a year or less, according to the IRS. So, about 10% of the population lives on $500 a month. This isn't targeted to young people, though it will benefit them. This is also targeted at displaced workers, low-skill workers, and the upcoming tens of thousands marginalized out of the workforce by increasing automation. There's not really a PATH for people to move from shitty job to non-shitty job anymore. There simply aren't enough good jobs for every adult.
  - greedo 9y ago
    B.S. They may "earn" $6k or less per year, but they're not living on that. There's EITC, welfare, disability, etc etc. When I was a student, I "lived" on $500/month, but that was because I was a damn student working part time waiting tables. Had I been fully employed, my annual income would have been much higher.