this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2024
826 points (99.4% liked)

politics

19050 readers
3802 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
  • A Seattle basic income pilot gave low-income residents $500 a month, nearly doubling employment rates.
  • Some participants reported getting new housing, while others saw their employment incomes rise.
  • Basic income pilots nationwide have seen noteworthy success, despite conservative opposition.
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 11 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (17 children)

UBI saves capitalism from itself. Do we really want to save this shit system that empowers the worst of us?

Do you honestly believe capitalists will allow a liveable UBI to remain untouched? Look at the minimum wage if you'd like to see the future of UBI. $7.25 an hour fucking shameful.

load more comments (17 replies)
[–] [email protected] 93 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Basic income pilots nationwide have seen noteworthy success, despite conservative opposition.

I've learned that conservatives especially, certainly not exclusively, prefer if it people constantly had to worry about their livelihoods. Thus ensuring a steady supply of cheap labor to be exploited.

And the side benefit for those who sell God as a dog-eat-dog free market Capitalist is more people going to their houses of worship where they get reminded to endure because the afterlife will be great. Total win-win for money and the moneyed class who all the while eat really well.

It's amazing how they've convinced people to vote conservative, to vote against themselves.

[–] [email protected] 45 points 5 months ago

Look we designed the entire system so that peoples lives could rapidly spiral out of control if they lost their job and this undermines so much of the hard work of billions in corporate lobbying.

[–] [email protected] 65 points 6 months ago (8 children)

Brace for all of the explanations why we can't just do this...

[–] [email protected] 39 points 5 months ago (2 children)

because money for poor people is a waste, when we could funnel it all to the handful of giga-billionaires who need to add all money in circulation to their draconic horde, obviously.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 5 months ago

The first trillionaire ain't gonna make themself.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Even dragons don't hoard that much. 500,000 oz of gold is only around 1.04-1.1 billion dollars, and only the richest of ancient red wyrms roll that high. Most of those 10,000 year old dragons have less, cause that figure is rolling perfectly on the treasure table

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Pretty sure guys like Lofwyr could put that to shame.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Why just for low income people?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago (2 children)

What do you consider low income and what do you think the cut off should be? Most people aren't exactly in favor of giving rich people money so the line needs to be drawn somewhere.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 5 months ago (3 children)

I don't know the answer.

The universal part of Universal Basic Income has always had this sticking point with me. Will Gates, Bezos and Musk also receive UBI?

[–] [email protected] 14 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Absolutely they would. Everyone would.

Of course taxes would rise to cover it, so the average person would be absolutely no better off than they are now.

In return the really poor get some breathing room, and we can kill all the "money grabbing dolescum" discourse around claiming benefits. People with low outgoings who just want a break from the treadmill can take it.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 24 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yes, but only because it would cost more to exclude them. For no added cost we can just add it to their taxes so it comes out neutral.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Thanks. That makes sense. So you can so do the same tax trick with other levels of earning.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 27 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I don't mind if they get $500 a month but in exchange they need to actually pay their taxes.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 5 months ago

Lol right? Sure IDGAF if Jeff Bezos gets $500 with everyone else as long as he pays his millions upon millions of taxes. $500 is a drop in the bucket of what he should be paying. Also Amazon the company should undoubtedly be paying way more taxes than it does (if it even does).

[–] [email protected] 23 points 5 months ago

Most UBI models use exactly that model to save a lot of money on the program. They just tax it back from the rich people.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 23 points 6 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Don't you just love how a post-scarcety society is held up as the ultimate unreachable utopia but when it gets down to it, the vast majority of scarcity is either completely artificial or exacerbated to maximize profits? Profits that in turn only mean that much due to artificial scarcity.

Robber baron capitalism truly is as stupid as it's cruel.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›