2020 U.S. Presidential Candidate Andrew Yang just declared he opposes routine infant circumcision!

[–]auMatech 171 points172 points173 points 7 years ago (84 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 121 points122 points123 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]edward414 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Throwawayingaccount 84 points85 points86 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Omz-bomz 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]reeeren 36 points37 points38 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pacmatt27 16 points17 points18 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]LokisDawn 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

They can. Or at least they can be heavily supported so as to require less employees. I'm a teacher, and while it will be a while until we are completely replaced (100yrs or so is my guess), teaching assistance through IT solutions will increase heavily. I'm not sure what schools will look like in 20-30 years, but I would wager it would require less staff.

Japan is heavily involved in nursing robots, as another example, I'm sure at some point that will transition over to the west as well. Currently, in my country, Switzerland, many nursing staff are immigrant workers, as they are considerably cheaper. Robots are, ultimately, cheaper than people, so they will be replaced.

I'm not trying to make the point that women are victims, just that technological advancements will ultimately phase out most human jobs.

Even psychology robots will be better than human psychologists in fifty years, I'd bet.

[–]notacrackheadofficer 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

2030 goals state that every child will have a World Core Curriculum by then.

https://en.unesco.org/education2030-sdg4

''Incheon Declaration: Education 2030: Towards inclusive and equitable quality education and lifelong learning for all

UNESCO together with UNICEF, the World Bank, UNFPA, UNDP, UN Women and UNHCR organized the World Education Forum 2015 in Incheon, Republic of Korea, from 19 – 22 May 2015, hosted by the Republic of Korea. Over 1,600 participants from 160 countries, including over 120 Ministers, heads and members of delegations, heads of agencies and officials of multilateral and bilateral organizations, and representatives of civil society, the teaching profession, youth and the private sector, adopted the Incheon Declaration for Education 2030, which sets out a new vision for education for the next fifteen years.''
....We recall the Muscat Agreement developed through broad consultations and adopted at the Global Education for All (EFA) Meeting.''

https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000233813

[–]pacmatt27 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I did want to edit my comment to say fully automated but too late now.

It's incredibly unrealistic to say full automation is possible at all in most of those fields. I also don't think you'll ever see a robot surpass a human psychologist. There are way too many very small things that a robot couldn't account for. Twitches of the eye, hesitations, uncomfortable seating shifts that will often tell you that something is wrong. Your own leaps in reasoning because your empathy has led you to the answer faster. I can't see programming advancing to the level that it is beyond human skill, there. At least, not for a very long time.

Regardless, these jobs are at far less risk than any other. To say women will face the most hardship is ridiculous. Their jobs will be last to be replaced and, by then, we will have solved the problem.

[+]GrassCandle1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

I’m not sure about psychologist robots part. Having just met with a psych for the first time in my life, I don’t feel like the human connection, compassion and understanding can be replaced by robots. A computer can be programmed with good advice, but I can’t really see a scenario in which it would feel cold and sterile.

[–]LokisDawn 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]GrassCandle1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

“Except if we find out AI isn’t possible”

....So not 100%?

[–]LokisDawn 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JellyfishRave 15 points16 points17 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]_DeadPoolJr_ 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]DownrightCaterpillar 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rumpadunk 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dave_the_Chemist 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Rumpadunk 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Chernoobyl 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DignifiedAlpaca 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]a-man-from-earth 14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago (60 children) | Copy Link

[–]FruitierGnome 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]_Random_Username_ 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]FruitierGnome 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]a-man-from-earth -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]FruitierGnome 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[+]HAWAll1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (9 children) | Copy Link

Hobby

Grow up. Some things are more important, Billy Bob.

[–]FruitierGnome 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+]HAWAll1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

You can use the word auhoritarian all you like, but without offering specific examples with sources your comment is meaningless. Only the uneducated stop at a buzzword like "authoritarian" without questioning it whatsoever.

Yall can downvote me, but you are doing yourselves a disservice by taking every single comment as fact, at face value. I don't care how you feel about guns (and btw, the right to bear arms does not mean what you think it means - perhaps study the amendment itself), what I do care is men not asking for proof of a claim - any claim. We shall not blindly follow others, we are better than that. We need to better ourselves by looking deeper into claims, and need to help better each other by providing sources for ours.

Sorry, this is the age of readily accessible information, nothing anyone claims means shit without sources.

[–]Kinesquared -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]sneakpeekbot 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]notacrackheadofficer 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Chernoobyl 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]Lagkiller -6 points-5 points-4 points 7 years ago (44 children) | Copy Link

[–]a-man-from-earth 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (43 children) | Copy Link

[+]Lagkiller -10 points-9 points-8 points 7 years ago* (42 children) | Copy Link

[–]a-man-from-earth 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lagkiller 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Raffaele1617 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Lagkiller 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]auMatech 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Universal basic income is not a new thing, and in theory it **could** potentially work. There hasn't been enough practical testing on this theory to see if it would pan out in the long run.

The biggest issue most people face when listening to the argument of UBI is that the government seems like it's throwing money at people which is then never seen again.

This money actually almost completely goes back into society in forms of goods and services/fees which can then be taxed, going back in part to the government.

The idea of it is to encourage growth of the economy.

Whether or not it will actually work the way the theorists intend, is another matter.

A few negatives that come to mind are, that with the additional surplus income, the prices of said goods and services are likely to increase, thereby not actually giving anyone a benefit of this plan.

Another is that people who choose to send this money overseas will in turn cause the money to go missing from the domestic UBI tax/spend cycle.

Long story short, I don't think it's likely that this will go through congress and become a reality at the end of the day, but it's rarely ever a bad idea at least to discuss things with an open mind.

[–]ThisOctopus 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]auMatech 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This was my initial thought too. Introducing a well thought out tax break system, or increasing the general tax threshold might have a more beneficial effect compared to UBI, especially since it foregoes the incredibly likely risk of inflation.

For me it seems more about political traction with stay-at-home parents, or the unemployed as they would likely see more of a benefit for themselves without having weighed the consequences of the system.

His reasoning to implement UBI is to counterbalance the effects of automation causing unemployment. My first thought was that putting more of a focus on offering alternate education options would be more effective, as it would keep people in the workforce rather than just letting them be dumped into unemployment after losing their jobs to automation.

[–]ThisOctopus 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Losing jobs to automation is simply a boogeyman the left uses as a premise for UBI. What people don’t seem to put together is that the heightening minimum wage only increases the rate at which employers seek to automate their business. It’s a downward spiral of destruction and we’re the manufacturers. Proponents of UBI think that a fully automatized workforce is right around the corner. But it doesn’t have to be.

Spez: furthermore, unemployment as a result of automation is not a new thing. Technological advancements have always scared those who work in the same field the advancement is in. We’re seriously jumping the gun even talking about UBI. There ARE jobs out there. People just don’t want to work and prefer a reliance on power hungry big brother. This topic is for votes and nothing else.

[–]Lagkiller 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Universal basic income is not a new thing, and in theory it could potentially work

No, it simply cannot. There is no economical way that it can.

The biggest issue most people face when listening to the argument of UBI is that the government seems like it's throwing money at people which is then never seen again.

No, the biggest argument is that you are massively increasing inflation.

This money actually almost completely goes back into society in forms of goods and services/fees which can then be taxed, going back in part to the government.

If you take $1,000 from person A to give to person B, you haven't created new money. In fact, you have to take more than $1,000 to pay government employees to run it (would you be surprised to learn that most programs of this nature like social security and other programs are hugely inefficient). All you've done is remove money from the economy. The idea that you are increasing spending is silly. That money was already being spent by one person.

The idea of it is to encourage growth of the economy.

Which it fails on at every level.

[–]Raffaele1617 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

No, it simply cannot. There is no economical way that it can.

Just because you're using the word "economical", it doesn't mean you actually understand the economics of the proposal. You're just plain wrong.

No, the biggest argument is that you are massively increasing inflation.

Andrew Yang repeatedly debunks this argument when he is presented with it, which you would understand if you watched any of his interviews.

If you take $1,000 from person A to give to person B, you haven't created new money. In fact, you have to take more than $1,000 to pay government employees to run it (would you be surprised to learn that most programs of this nature like social security and other programs are hugely inefficient). All you've done is remove money from the economy. The idea that you are increasing spending is silly. That money was already being spent by one person.

You just fundamentally don't get where the money is coming from lol, so this argument really has nothing whatsoever to do with the proposal.

Which it fails on at every level.

Your straw man fails at every level, but the actual policy that you are too lazy to investigate is sound.

[–]Lagkiller 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Grimstar- -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lagkiller 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]Grimstar- -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago* (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lagkiller 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

Watch him actually talk about it in an interview. He goes into more detail

There is literally zero more detail. He isn't an economist. He hasn't looked at any of the places that tried this or did basic work.

You honestly don't think an extra $1000 would not cause extra spending?

It literally cannot. Taking over $1000 from person A (who already was using that money) and moving it to person B doesn't simply make more spending. It actually makes less because we've taken more from one person to give less to another. Where are you making additional spending?

You can't just right off stuff like welfare savings and alleviation of homeless shelters either.

Neither of which are federal problems, so he's not saving any money there. He wants to claim that he's going to reduce crime, of which none is a federal problem, so he can't claim savings on it.

[–]Grimstar- 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Raffaele1617 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

There is literally zero more detail.

There is, actually. He demonstrates in numerous interviews how the numbers add up. You took ten seconds to read a bit of his website and saw that PART of the plan is $800b from VAT, but that is unequivocally not the only component of the plan.

He isn't an economist.

He has a degree in economics, and UBI has been supported by numerous economists for decades.

He hasn't looked at any of the places that tried this or did basic work.

False, he consistently cites numerous studies and real world examples. Which, once again, you would understand if you took half an hour to listen to what he's actually saying instead of straw manning him.

It literally cannot.

Of course it can.

Taking over $1000 from person A (who already was using that money) and moving it to person B doesn't simply make more spending.

Buddy, this is so utterly divorced from the proposal that it barely deserves a response, but even IF this were an accurate description of what was being proposed, it would still be utterly wrong. People who are rich tend to hoard wealth. People who are poor tend to spend money out of necessity. That is why trickledown economics doesn't work, and why giving money to poor people absolutely will increase spending.

Neither of which are federal problems, so he's not saving any money there.

Err.. what? Yes, they are. Watch the damn interviews, all of this gets explained. In UBI, everyone who's not already receiving more than 1k in benefits a month would take the UBI over their benefits, which would save well over a trillion dollars in addition to the massive amount saved from eliminating all of that bureaucracy.

He wants to claim that he's going to reduce crime, of which none is a federal problem, so he can't claim savings on it

I see, you live in a fantasy land in which there are no federal prisons, no money being transferred between the federal and state governments, no positive impact on society from not sinking hundreds of billions of dollars into keeping people imprisoned and not contributing to the economy, etc.

For all your talk of "basic economics", you just fundamentally don't get how a country works lol.

[–]WallyWiff 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]L3tum 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]xdmbx 592 points593 points594 points 7 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]LastStr8YtMale 149 points150 points151 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]brokedown 111 points112 points113 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]omegaphallic 44 points45 points46 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ElRedditor3 17 points18 points19 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]RaptorsCdwoods 17 points18 points19 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]rustytrombonetown 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DeadEskimo 34 points35 points36 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]gbBaku 24 points25 points26 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]L3tum 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]gbBaku 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Byroms 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ShaidarHaran2 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CodyFromMemphis 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]notacrackheadofficer 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Akesgeroth 138 points139 points140 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]A_one_legged_man 113 points114 points115 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]disayle32 82 points83 points84 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]crab90000 20 points21 points22 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]notacrackheadofficer 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BernieSandersgirl101 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FemaleIsEasyMode 79 points80 points81 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]ThornZeus21 points 7 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

He also says he wants to fine gun manufacturers $1,000,000 for each person murdered with one of their weapons.

[–]Key_Lime 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]angelobrown 59 points60 points61 points 7 years ago (104 children) | Copy Link

[–]Godspiral 20 points21 points22 points 7 years ago (66 children) | Copy Link

[–]Drew1231 17 points18 points19 points 7 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lagkiller 16 points17 points18 points 7 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]thomthoms3 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]a-man-from-earth -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lagkiller 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]Godspiral 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lagkiller 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]Godspiral 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

$3B headline cost from 250M adult Americans each receiving $12k/year.
Reduced by $1.2B because UBI is not on top of existing social programs. Opt-in that allows individuals to choose whichever amount is higher.
$400B in new tax receipts as a result of growing economy. This implies with a payroll and income tax rate of 33%, a $3T economic growth which is credible with $1.8T democratic cash injection + new employment income related to collecting that $1.8T in new spending. Middle and upper classes can spend more and save less with UBI as their financial security is also enhanced, including children's future education and income security.
$200B in savings from less crime (directly less incarceration), no homelessness (less police and health "homeless management services"), and sickness (mental and physical stress related to income security causes consumption of health services)
Productivity increases and higher educational attainment created directly from lower financial stress of parents leads to another $400B in revenue/savings. If all of this were in the private sector, it would imply another $3T in economic growth. While the previous 2 items are conservative estimates, this one will take time to translate into growth and revenue. But it is in total,a t most $100B-$200B optimistic. Pentagon budget is over $800B, so there is money to find in the couch cushions and banana stand.

$100B or so short still has miscellaneous other benefits such as a higher spending rate caused by not having to save for children's education, or incapacity.

[–]Drew1231 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

$3B headline cost from 250M adult Americans each receiving $12k/year.

Not 3B, $3T.

Reduced by $1.2B because UBI is not on top of existing social programs. Opt-in that allows individuals to choose whichever amount is higher.

I beleive that this is also in trillion. It's a bit more complicated though. Let's assume that only 30% of people are making more off of SS and that those people remaining on SS in leui of UBI reduces the cost of SS by 90%.

Okay,so let's subtract 900M. We're now at 2.1T. but we're now giving everyone 1k/month. There will inevitably be inflation if the middle and upper class is given 12k of blowing money/year. You would have to increase the allowance for people who do not have another income and we're right where we started.

Other major entitlements are Medicare and Medicaid, which will not be replaced by UBI.

So, maybe you're right that we could scrape together 300B between food stamps, housing assistance and other programs. This number is probably a bit high considering that food stamps costs only $68B. We would also have to assume total elimination of these programs to count them as savings. That means rent, food, transport, bills, and spending all under $1k/month in an inflated economy.

I'll grant you the 1.2T in reduced entitlements just for argument sake.

So we're down to a price of $1.8T

$400B in new tax receipts as a result of growing economy. This implies with a payroll and income tax rate of 33%, a $3T economic growth which is credible with $1.8T democratic cash injection + new employment income related to collecting that $1.8T in new spending. Middle and upper classes can spend more and save less with UBI as their financial security is also enhanced, including children's future education and income security.

Wait, so he wants an across the board 33% income tax rate? I thought he was going to lay for this with a strong progressive tax. Why would you hit the lower classes with a high income tax like this? It seems like a poorly constructed plan if you want to fix income inequality.

Anyways, 1.8T in a cash injection really just means that he's going to print money. When you do this, the result is again, inflation. Money has no intrinsic value and when you just make more of it, the value of the rest decreases.

The idea of printing money, giving it away, then using tax income on the money that previously didn't exist to pay for something is asinine.

This also precariously rests on the assumption that the economy will grow and remain grown. We don't really have good data on what UBI would do. It could very well cause a decline in the economy.

$200B in savings from less crime (directly less incarceration), no homelessness (less police and health "homeless management services"), and sickness (mental and physical stress related to income security causes consumption of health services)

I seriously doubt that there would be 200B in savings here. The whole federal prison system costs around 7B/year. The FBI costs 9B. You would really have to assume that a lot of major organizations would be completely closed to reach 200B in savings. And I'd hate to break it to you, but people will still have mental and physical stress.

Let's assume a reduced cost here of 200B again for argument sake.

Were down to $1.6T.

Productivity increases and higher educational attainment created directly from lower financial stress of parents leads to another $400B in revenue/savings. If all of this were in the private sector, it would imply another $3T in economic growth. While the previous 2 items are conservative estimates, this one will take time to translate into growth and revenue. But it is in total,a t most $100B-$200B optimistic. Pentagon budget is over $800B, so there is money to find in the couch cushions and banana stand.

Higher education attainment doesn't translate into higher income unless there are high income jobs avaliable.

I think you are also seriously wrong that productivity will just magically increase because people are getting 1k/month. I would assume the opposite. A strong safety net reduces the need for great workplace performance.

Anyways, again for argument sake, let's assume that the 1k/month supercharges the workforce and causes children to chase higher education at high rates without a choke point at admissions or the (now saturated) labor market. I'll give you 200B in new tax income.

Let's also reduce the pentagon by half. We'll lay off soldiers and auction a few aircraft carriers. We're imperialistic bastards anyways, right?

Being very very optimistic. Over a trillion in optimism imo:

That still leaves a bill of $1T.

~~$100B~~ [One Trillion dollars] or so short still has miscellaneous other benefits such as a higher spending rate caused by not having to save for children's education, or incapacity.

People will still have to save for children's education. You can't pay for school with 1k/month. You're really assuming that people will be great at budgeting their extra income. It almost seems like this plan is being sold as two thing simultaneously.

It will replace the plans that the poor are already barely subsisting on.
It will give the middle and upper classes a little bit of free money which they will somehow leverage into incredibly things and nobody will just blow the money.

Anyways, I don't think the math adds up here.

[–]Godspiral 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Wait, so he wants an across the board 33% income tax rate?

No. That is current tax rates including 15.3% from payroll taxes (including employer contributions)

Higher education attainment doesn't translate into higher income unless there are high income jobs avaliable.

The absolute best part of UBI is that it empowers people to create their own job. To pool together talent to pursue opportunities that take longer than weeks or months to pay off. Many such opportunities just require "home" computers to create.

People will still have to save for children's education. You can't pay for school with 1k/month.

The kids will be able to pay for their own education. It means $48000 less in loans over 4 years. There are definitely state colleges that would permit no loans at all, and full time attendance.

When I went to university, my summer job paid for my tuition and books and beer money, living at home.

It will replace the plans that the poor are already barely subsisting on.

Replace them with a higher amount that is not taken away if they escape poverty. Current conditional programs only pay if you stay poor.

will give the middle and upper classes a little bit of free money which they will somehow leverage into incredibly things and nobody will just blow the money.

Gives them a little too much, IMO. Though room to pay for M4A.

That still leaves a bill of $1T.

Our only difference is that I say it leaves $900B. But $800B in VAT revenue is Yang's proposal.

[–]Drew1231 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

No. That is current tax rates including 15.3% from payroll taxes (including employer contributions)

So this is predicated entirely on expected economic growth and no new taxes? I explained the issues that I have with that.

The absolute best part of UBI is that it empowers people to create their own job. To pool together talent to pursue opportunities that take longer than weeks or months to pay off. Many such opportunities just require "home" computers to create.

Most people in the United States have home computers.

If you can create a successful business, you can get a loan, then use that to create a business which becomes profitable. Under the UBI system, this business would be hit with VAT, making it harder to grow by eating up 20% of your gross margins.

The kids will be able to pay for their own education. It means $48000 less in loans over 4 years. There are definitely state colleges that would permit no loans at all, and full time attendance.

It certainly would help with school costs, but this is one of my problems with the way he wants to implement UBI.

Students are a case where giving them money definitely creates good and fulfills a need. Instead of targeting these demographics, the UBI plan will give 1k/month to people who already make great money in established careers. Instead of using money to target the maximal possible good, it is squandered.

Replace them with a higher amount that is not taken away if they escape poverty. Current conditional programs only pay if you stay poor.

The problem isnt that people want to stay poor and they live on welfare because they like it. There is a certain subset of welfare queens, but that is mostly a republican talking point.

And again, my issue is that people who could be targeted with government help are not targeted. They're lumped into a system that seems to propose some sort of trickle down effect if we give rich people 1k/month.

Gives them a little too much, IMO. Though room to pay for M4A.

You cant really use money from one program to pay for another program. This is the same thing he's proposed with using a stimulus to pay for UBI. It sounds almost like a ponzi scheme where one program pays off another and we just keep printing money to make up the difference.

Our only difference is that I say it leaves $900B. But $800B in VAT revenue is Yang's proposal.

And again, a regressive tax that will hurt and complicate small business.

This plan will cost the poor and middle class more, relatively speaking, and give them the exact same benefits as the ultra-rich.

[–]Godspiral 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

a regressive tax that will hurt and complicate small business.

A regressive tax is ok if a progressive flat freedom dividend is given out. Overall progressive, and net tax cut if you spend under $10k/month in VAT-impacted items.

Doesn't hurt small business with a tax increase as it is on top of existing prices. People having more money will let them pay 10% more.

If you can create a successful business, you can get a loan, then use that to create a business which becomes profitable.

Loans will still exist, but there are plenty of business opportunities that are viable if you are not forced to get permission to start/try them. The permission to survive is an inherent systemic block that forces employment labour.

Instead of targeting these demographics, the UBI plan will give 1k/month to people who already make great money in established careers. Instead of using money to target the maximal possible good, it is squandered.

The targetting is the problem with every social program. Its worse for the poverty programs because those trap people into poverty, but education support programs are responsible for runnaway education costs. Free cash lets people consider the value proposition of structured education compared to alternatives.

The problem isnt that people want to stay poor and they live on welfare because they like it.

50% income clawbacks + regular taxes + the cost of going to work/interviews is a strong disincentive to seeking alternatives. The poor aren't too lazy to work. They are not paid enough to work.

Though room to pay for M4A.

By room, I meant other taxes for middle+ classes to pay for M4A considering that UBI is a huge tax cut for them.

This plan will cost the poor and middle class more

It costs those who get more than $1000/month in public aid, currently. Your point that it can take more from middle/upper classes is fair

stay tune to /r/BasicIncome and /r/YangForPresidentHQ for a specific proposal on those fronts.

[–]angelobrown 23 points24 points25 points 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]trumpean 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lagkiller 24 points25 points26 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]lmpressivePlayer 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lagkiller -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]needletothebar1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

nobody's saying to stop spending money on the military, but we could easily cut our spending in half or more.

[–]Lagkiller 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not without violating our international defense agreements and our NATO commitments. We would need to massively restructure these treaties in which we are supporting most of the force of the UN and NATO to other countries.

Cutting our spending in half would violate at the very least our NATO funding commitment, if not many of our overseas bases.

But coming back around to the idea that we could cut military funding, even in half, that's only 325 billion, there is another 1.8 trillion to cover the money for everyone plan then. Given that the US annually collects 3.4 trillion annually, this means we'd need to increase taxes over 30% more (as increasing tax rates don't scale evenly and you see reduced collection the higher the rate). This means scaling taxes down into tax brackets that haven't traditionally seen taxes, the working poor. The people that can't afford those taxes. If you are going to start taxing the poor but then giving them a pittance of that back while increasing the cost of goods and services, at what point are you helping them?

[–]quagley 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]angelobrown 15 points16 points17 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]trumpean 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

You're seriously misrepresenting the Finnish experiment (and an experiment ending is very different than "giving up;" that's inherent to the nature of an experiment). For example: "The single greatest problem with the design of Finland’s basic income experiment is that the treatment group continued receiving 83.3% of the conditional benefits as the control group" https://medium.com/basic-income/what-is-there-to-learn-from-finlands-basic-income-experiment-did-it-succeed-or-fail-54b8e5051f60 . In other words, the folks getting UBI faced a powerful disincentive to take up employment: their financial status would decrease rather than increase. The whole point of UBI is to incentivize work; the Finnish study is not an accurate predictor. Better to look at one of the multitude of other studies: https://basicincome.org/research/

[–]angelobrown 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alkiaris 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kravego 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PacoBedejo 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]butthurtberniebro 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PacoBedejo 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]functionalsociopathy -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Because as we all know "True socialism has never been tried" so if we just expand the existing welfare state a little bit more it definitely won't lead to increased inflation rates. And $800B totally adds up to an annual income for everyone he advertises as planning to cover. It definitely doesn't come up as 1/6th of the amount needed. Oh wait, it does.

Now if we stick with the VAT it's going to need to be 50% to 60% and would include things like restaurants and most retailer products. The restaurants would see bankrupting reductions in patronage since they would have to increase prices to the point of pricing themselves out of the market just to break even. Retailers would have to deal with the reality that the VAT goes all the way back to the manufacturer so their prices would be going up 100% to 200% which would put even the largest retailers, like Walmart, on the brink of collapse. The end result is that anyone who can afford to flee the country will, and everyone who can't will be eating zoo animals to survive in a few years. And people like you will once again claim "but it wasn't real socialism" as they try to push the newest socialism campaign to people who have forgotten the 'rewards' of socialism.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Godspiral 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

the math does add up with 10% VAT: https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/b0rcgx/2020_us_presidential_candidate_andrew_yang_just/eii6xce/

Retailers would have to deal with the reality that the VAT goes all the way back to the manufacturer so their prices would be going up 100% to 200%

VAT accounting does not amplify prices through the supply chain. Retailers get full cash credit for any VAT they pay suppliers.

"True socialism has never been tried"

UBI is not socialism. Its capitalism without starting at 0. Its not giving the government a discretionary pile of money that they can corruptly use.

Subhuman filth such as yourself that only support kleptocratic theft for the rich, destroying America in the process, inflicting misery and crime as a way to deliver desperate slaves so the rich might outcompete third world child labour, are either retarded or dependent on the trickled down piss they receive from shitposting for their koch sucking masters.

[–]functionalsociopathy 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

TL:DR the numbers don't add up.

$3B headline cost from 250M adult Americans each receiving $12k/year.

Okay, let's assume that 75M is the number of non-adults in the US to give us a total of 250M. 3B divided by 250M is 12, not 12,000. 3T would be the headline cost with zero administration costs.

Reduced by $1.2B because UBI is not on top of existing social programs. Opt-in that allows individuals to choose whichever amount is higher.

Reduced to 2.9T (2,998,200,000,000). Since the current welfare system is in the billions and not the trillions.

400B in new tax receipts as a result of growing economy. This implies with a payroll and income tax rate of 33%, a $3T economic growth which is credible with $1.8T democratic cash injection + new employment income related to collecting that $1.8T in new spending. Middle and upper classes can spend more and save less with UBI as their financial security is also enhanced, including children's future education and income security.

These spending numbers are all over the place. Again, it's 3T for 12K for 250M people without administration costs. This point doesn't understand how inflation works. Basically, increase of demand and limited supply increases prices whereas increase of supply and less supply decreases prices. This is also being extremely generous with how well the US working population would take an income tax of 33%. That would more than double what most people in the US pay in income taxes and it's assuming that it would incentivise rather than disincentivize working. But let's entertain the idea that financially punishing more work will result in people doing more work and add 400B to the pot. That's 2.5T (2,598,200,000,000).

$200B in savings from less crime (directly less incarceration), no homelessness (less police and health "homeless management services"), and sickness (mental and physical stress related to income security causes consumption of health services)

Okay, let's assume that this doesn't result in hyperinflation and drastically increase the amount of crime. Places like Venezuela are just Capitalist myths. Let's be generous and say that $200B is saved in this fairy tale. That's 2.3T (2,398,200,000,000).

Productivity increases and higher educational attainment created directly from lower financial stress of parents leads to another $400B in revenue/savings. If all of this were in the private sector, it would imply another $3T in economic growth. While the previous 2 items are conservative estimates, this one will take time to translate into growth and revenue. But it is in total,a t most $100B-$200B optimistic. Pentagon budget is over $800B, so there is money to find in the couch cushions and banana stand.

Productivity increases

How? What possible incentive do people have to be more productive when they are being subsidized? How the actual fuck is this supposed to cause a dramatic increase in productivity to the tune of $400B taxpayer dollars? Look I don't know how this notion got into your head, but an increase in college degrees does not cause an increase in productivity. A college degree is basically a bargaining chip that people get to compete for the top jobs available, no increase in productivity occurs.

If all of this were in the private sector, it would imply another $3T in economic growth.

Again, how? Please elaborate where these numbers are coming from because it really seems like you just saw an extra $2.3T at the end of your "hail komrade" explanation and couldn't come up with any more bullshit to throw at it.

This explanation is the same kind of "let us ignore history and attempt socialism once more" that gets trotted out everytime a politician tries peddling free stuff to the lazy and unintuitive.

[–]Godspiral 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Reduced to 2.9T (2,998,200,000,000

Meant to say reduced by $1.2T. B was typo. Yes $3T original cost, but without typos reduced to $1.8T

This is also being extremely generous with how well the US working population would take an income tax of 33%.

That is current revenue taken from people. Including employer contributions, payroll taxes are 15.3%. So this is just with an average 17.7% of income taxes = 33%.

Your inflation rant was incoherent, and the syphlitic delusions of a piece of shit that hates Americans.

an increase in college degrees does not cause an increase in productivity.

Yes it does. College grads are paid more because their contributions result in higher sales. If you pay a marketing grad $100k to increase contribution by $2M, the productivity (measured as sales/employees) increases. Similarly CAD design operators might be able to create more output/sales with robotic production than many machinists can.

But, this specific savings/boost is based on home life not being shitty, and so less health/stress related absences, and better child attainment levels from getting fewer beatings, or other stress dumps from parents.

These are Yang's numbers, and balance without the typos.

[–]functionalsociopathy 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Meant to say reduced by $1.2T. B was typo. Yes $3T original cost, but without typos reduced to $1.8T

This would require completely stopping all welfare and replacing it with UBI. That means no section 8 housing, no Medicare/Medicaid, no anything other than the $12K a year in government handouts.

That is current revenue taken from people. Including employer contributions, payroll taxes are 15.3%. So this is just with an average 17.7% of income taxes = 33%.

Do you just not understand how numbers work? Payroll taxes are income tax, you're basically saying here "you have to add the income tax to the income tax to get the total income tax". Income tax is the amount that the government takes away from your gross income and is currently at around 10% for federal and 5% for state for most people. Let's use an annual income of 58k for this: at our current rate of 15% 8.7K would be paid in taxes, leaving the individual with 49.3K in net income. At 33% 19.1K would be paid in taxes, leaving 38.9K (actually 38,860) in net income. Adding the additional 12K would bring us to $50.9K which means that this household will come out ahead by about $1500. People above this amount will come out worse and people below this amount will come out better. This is all at the cost of every existing welfare program, so people below this that use welfare benefits will no longer have access to those services and subsidies, resulting in people being worse off overall in the working poor class and lower. The only group that will really benefit from this would be upper-middle class college students who already have their parents paying for their college but don't have much of their own money to spend.

Yes it does. College grads are paid more because their contributions result in higher sales. If you pay a marketing grad $100k to increase contribution by $2M, the productivity (measured as sales/employees) increases.

... Say we have a company that produces 100 units of product a day. Now let's say that 20% of that company's employees get a college education and all apply for the engineering, hr, and executive teams. The structure of the company is unchanged, and the number of jobs it can offer remains the same. Will these newly college educated employees increase productivity of the company or simply distract the administration while they reject 200 applications for department transfers?

The US economy is a collection of companies paying into a larger administrative company. The amount of product produced doesn't magically increase because an institution of higher education certified an increased number of people to perform a certain function.

You strike me as a person who never learned how money actually works because you've had everything handed to you in life. If you really can't take my word for economic dynamics then look at history whenever policies like these have been implemented. Venezuela, Italy, Russia, Colonial US, and endless more. They don't always fail at the same rate, but they do always end in widespread starvation.

[–]Godspiral 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

This would require completely stopping all welfare and replacing it with UBI. That means no section 8 housing, no Medicare/Medicaid, no anything other than the $12K a year in government handouts.

Medicare not affected, but SS, disability, welfare are not on top of UBI. People receive whichever is higher, which is how those large savings occur.

Payroll taxes are income tax

payroll taxes are separate from income taxes. They are the SS and medicare deductions off your paycheck. Income taxes vary by income. But an average of 17% is a fair approximation.

people below this that use welfare benefits will no longer have access to those services and subsidies, resulting in people being worse off overall in the working poor class and lower.

Extremely few people receive over $1000/mo in welfare/disability. So, they would be better off, and importantly not have their benefits reduced/eliminated (at tax/clawback rates 70%+) if they earn income.

The amount of product produced doesn't magically increase because an institution of higher education certified an increased number of people to perform a certain function.

They do. Consider a population only qualified to do farm work. The amount of food produced only increases with a larger population to feed. Under cutthroat capitalism/slavery, only increases with the number of people able to afford the food, but fortunately, some retards like this because they can get jobs as police and get to beat up niggers, and get free/paid food despite not doing any farming.

An issue occurs if tractors suddenly make 9 out of 10 unemployable in food.

What education does is enable creating your own job, and creating higher value added products and services. Your phone supposedly improves your life, even though its unrelated to the food and shelter necessities you understand. UBI improves lives, empowers people to make the world, including the rich, richer with such new constructive production.

They don't always fail at the same rate, but they do always end in widespread starvation.

Just idiotic. Venezuella, USSR failed due to US pressure/sanctions. Starvation can occur due to price controls, which can be socialist mismanagement. But Irish potato famine occurred because Ireland sold its potatoes to Europeans who would pay more. Not because they couldn't grow enough to feed Ireland.

Has nothing whatsoever to do with UBI, and you are either retarded or a lying piece of shit that hates Americans for implying that some additional sharing of the prosperity of this country with Americans threatens starvation.

[–]angelobrown -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Godspiral 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Brusanan -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Godspiral 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Brusanan -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Godspiral 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kravego 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]trumpean 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DenseMahatma 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]angelobrown 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]a-man-from-earth 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kravego -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]angelobrown -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kravego -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]angelobrown 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lagkiller 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]ooga_chaka 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lagkiller 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The VAT isn't the inflationary effect. It's not factored into inflation numbers.

The inflationary part of Yang's proposal is multi faceted. First, in order to pay for this he'll need 3 trillion in total funds. His own website only lists one income source of 800 billion. The other things he lists are "savings" from other sources. Things like "less crime" which aren't federal savings, they're savings for state or local governments meaning that the federal government isn't employing less prison guards, or less FBI agents because neither of those deal with petty crimes. So we have to make up that 2.2 trillion somewhere else. There is two ways the federal government can do that - print money or borrow money. Both of which cause big levels of inflation for that much cash. That's every year they need to do it.

Now lets also examine how this kind of money impacts consumer prices. Have you ever looked at the housing market in California? There are some political reasons that their housing is more expensive, but not as much as they are. The big effect is that the demographics of California is that there is more money. An average house in Sacramento, not even a silicon valley suburb, still costs over double versus comparable houses elsewhere in the US. This is because California has a higher income average than elsewhere in the US. If you pumped 12k per person into the whole the of the US, California wouldn't see a huge increase, but a lot of the US would see rent and housing prices increase due to the new purchasing power.

This same concept applies to consumer goods too. When I lived in California it amazed me that a frozen pizza, on super sale, was $5. Normally they were $10+. Again, there are some issues that push that price up outside ability to purchase, but a lot of it is that there simply is the money available.

But let's not stop with this - when you add a VAT to ALL consumer products, as Yang wants to do, this also means that businesses are going to pay the VAT as well. This means that their costs are going to increase. Meaning the notepad that they use and the computers they use, the vehicles they purchase, the paper, the ink and tone for their computers.....all of it is now 10% increased in costs. What does this mean for the consumer? Well, those companies can't just ignore a huge increase in input costs, they have to increase their prices to make up for this new increase. So in order to increase purchasing power for everyone, we will eventually massively decrease purchasing power.

Simply put, there is no way that prices won't increase and this is the dirty secret of Yangs proposal.

[–]AGreenTejada 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

In defense of Yang, inflation concerns assume that everyone is proportionally affected the same by Yang's proposal. i.e everyone consumes around the same amount of goods. This really isn't true. Consumption increases linearly across social classes, with poor people usually skimping out the most on necessary goods, then the middle class pay a median amount for many necessity goods, followed by the 1% producing and consuming nearly all luxury goods. Of course, corporations like Amazon and Google, consume WAY more material than any individual person, and would be taxed the most. Adding a VAT to all consumer goods, and maybe adjusting the percentages for common goods like food and water would be far more preferable than an income tax system, which companies constant exploit for financial gain.

Economically, controlling inflation is a much better problem to have to forcing growth. We have several monetary mechanisms (interest rates, quantitative tightening, price controls) to curb price increases. Even if we feel the full brunt of inflation, the bottom 80% of the country would still benefit highly from such a program. Let's assume that every person uses 100% of their post-tax income into consumption, and 100% of VAT taxes are accounted into consumption. On a 10% VAT, for tax costs to exceed $12,000 a year, you'd need a post-tax income of $120,000, so a real income of around 160-170k. Considering that median HOUSEHOLD income in the US hovers around 60,000, that's incredibly fair.

[–]Lagkiller 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In defense of Yang, inflation concerns assume that everyone is proportionally affected the same by Yang's proposal. i.e everyone consumes around the same amount of goods.

No, that isn't assumed at all. The simple fact that there is more money floating around will increase prices. We see this time and time again when things like minimum wage increases happen.

Adding a VAT to all consumer goods, and maybe adjusting the percentages for common goods like food and water would be far more preferable than an income tax system

I can agree to that.

which companies constant exploit for financial gain.

This is nonsense.

Economically, controlling inflation is a much better problem to have to forcing growth. We have several monetary mechanisms (interest rates, quantitative tightening, price controls) to curb price increases.

This plan does neither, so I'm unsure what benefit this statement adds to the discussion.

Even if we feel the full brunt of inflation, the bottom 80% of the country would still benefit highly from such a program.

This assumes that basic goods would not increase in price, but are usually the first to increase in price, so this statement is outright false.

Even if we feel the full brunt of inflation, the bottom 80% of the country would still benefit highly from such a program. Let's assume that every person uses 100% of their post-tax income into consumption, and 100% of VAT taxes are accounted into consumption. On a 10% VAT, for tax costs to exceed $12,000 a year, you'd need a post-tax income of $120,000, so a real income of around 160-170k. Considering that median HOUSEHOLD income in the US hovers around 60,000, that's incredibly fair.

This is so incredibly missing the point I don't know if you are honest right now or trolling. VAT is not inflation.

[–]butthurtberniebro 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lagkiller 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]butthurtberniebro 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lagkiller 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

How often is the response to climate change “I can’t even take care of my family, fuck the penguins?” I know I’ve said that myself.

This really has no analogy to this situation.

Making earth friendly consumer choices often requires more disposable income.

Ok, this still has no bearing on anything I've said.

I’m enthused by lab grown meat as a solution to bovine sources of methane. It could be adopted faster with a UBI.

I mean, I know you intend well, but you clearly haven't read anything I wrote. Simply injecting money into the economy like Yang is proposing doesn't work. First and foremost it will create a huge amount of inflation. When everyone has more money, prices go up. It's an econ 101 principle.

But further than that, he is proposing doing so with a VAT, basically a tax on everything that you buy. But remember that it isn't just a tax on your purchases, but a tax on all purchases. Meaning that those eco friendly products now cost more. As well as the company that supplies those has to pay more for their supplies to make those products. The retailer has to pay more to stock those products. You are simply compounding bad money. In the end, it will make everything LESS affordable, not more.

Since you seem to be big on global warming, let me draw an analogy for you. What Yang is proposing would be like saying "Carbon emissions are killing us, so we need to switch to methane gasses as quickly as possible and dump them at twice the rate so we can neutralize the carbon emissions."

There is no scenario in which giving out 1k per month to everyone doesn't involve a large burst of inflation.

This doesn't even go into the detail of how his proposals on his website don't even cover half of the spending to make this happen, nor does his proposal have any studies that show it would work. However, economists have very well said that a massive payout on this scale would result in rampant inflation, increasing costs across the board.

[–]butthurtberniebro -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

When everyone has more money, prices go up. It's an econ 101 principle.

Except Alaska has had a yearly basic income since the 1970’s and its rate of inflation have been lower than the national average ever since.

Econ 101 also explains this will only happen if supply and demand is inelastic. Most modern economists agree that $1,000 across the board would not be able to create an amount of demand that our economies of scale could not supply. Some more inelastic good may experience a short term price increase until the industry adjusts.

What you’re saying doesn’t make sense. It assumes that the dollar will collapse then closer we get to full unemployment. It also suggests a “maximum consumer population”, but massive economies like India and China show that you can have a consumer base larger than 350 million.

he is proposing doing so with a VAT, basically a tax on everything that you buy.

A 10% VAT, half of the European rate. Because most consumer goods are <$1,000, purchasing power has been lifted tremendously. And the VAT is not applied to necessities like housing and such. So considering citizens are receiving $12,000 more a year, they’d need to spend $120,000 on VAT goods for the 10% tax to have effectively washed their increase in purchase power. As such, it is a transfer from big spenders to small spenders. He also hasn’t specific exactly what the VAT is applied to.

The retailer has to pay more to stock those products. You are simply compounding bad money. In the end, it will make everything LESS affordable, not more.

“At each stage of the production, the seller collects a tax on behalf of the government and the buyer pays for the tax by paying a higher price. The buyer can then be reimbursed for paying the tax, but only by successfully selling the value-added product to the buyer or consumer in the next stage.”

Again, the idea here is that the VAT is not so “regressive” because personal income has risen in junction with the VAT. A 20% VAT hasnt tanked the Euro, there’s no reason to believe a 10% VAT would tank the dollar.

This doesn't even go into the detail of how his proposals on his website don't even cover half of the spending to make this happen, nor does his proposal have any studies that show it would work. However, economists have very well said that a massive payout on this scale would result in rampant inflation, increasing costs across the board.

Assuming the dividend is $2.3T in gross cost for 18-64 year olds, we currently spend $600B in administrative welfare costs. For every individual that switches to the freedom dividend, there’s a net savings in cost. So that’s 1.7T.

Economists predict a revenue of $800B from a vat at half the European rate, so cost is now at $900B.

Outside of existing revenue, the point of the UBI is to stimulate growth for thousands of economies across the hollowed out Midwest.

From his website “New revenue. Putting money into the hands of American consumers would grow the economy. The Roosevelt Institute projected that the economy would grow by approximately $2.5 trillion and create 4.6 million new jobs. This would generate approximately $500 – 600 billion in new revenue from economic growth and activity.”

And the of course lastly, the savings overall from having a less fucked up society

“We currently spend over one trillion dollars on health care, incarceration, homelessness services and the like. We would save $100 – 200 billion as people would take better care of themselves and avoid the emergency room, jail, and the street and would generally be more functional. Universal Basic Income would pay for itself by helping people avoid our institutions, which is when our costs shoot up. Some studies have shown that $1 to a poor parent will result in as much as $7 in cost-savings and economic growth.”

I link this article that supports the calculations for a net economy increase of $.8T, although the Roosevelt Institute is left leaning so take what you will.

I’m interested in sources you can give that point to $1,000 causing unsustainable inflation. I’ve been studying this for years and have found no evidence to support this claim.

[–]Lagkiller 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Except Alaska has had a yearly basic income since the 1970’s and its rate of inflation have been lower than the national average ever since.

Alaska doesn't have a UBI - it's literally a sale for what the mining companies have bought from them. That's a fair bit different especially considering that the total payment is quite low. It's also completely dishonest to say that Alaska has the lowest inflation, because the cost of living in Alaska is leaps and bounds above the cost of nearly anywhere else, getting even more expensive as you get into more rural sections of Alaska.

What you’re saying doesn’t make sense. It assumes that the dollar will collapse then closer we get to full unemployment. It also suggests a “maximum consumer population”, but massive economies like India and China show that you can have a consumer base larger than 350 million.

No, it doesn't assume that. You seem to like making strawman arguments.

A 10% VAT, half of the European rate.

That's cool and all, but does nothing to what I've said. Perhaps you've noticed that the cost of living in Europe is quite a bit higher than the US?

Because most consumer goods are <$1,000, purchasing power has been lifted tremendously. And the VAT is not applied to necessities like housing and such.

Uh what. That has nothing to do with purchasing power. Nor does the taxes rate not impact other goods. I feel like you've never seen a business purchase goods with which to do business before, which was the entire point. The VAT isn't just applied to individuals purchases but to business purchases too which increase costs across the board.

Again, the idea here is that the VAT is not so “regressive” because personal income has risen in junction with the VAT. A 20% VAT hasnt tanked the Euro, there’s no reason to believe a 10% VAT would tank the dollar.

I mean, you read some of what I wrote, but ignored the parts you don't like so I don't know what point you're trying to make here that I didn't already address.

Assuming the dividend is $2.3T in gross cost for 18-64 year olds

Which is a terrible assumption, it's actually about 3 trillion.

we currently spend $600B in administrative welfare costs.

The states spend that money, the federal government has no hand in administrative costs of welfare.

For every individual that switches to the freedom dividend, there’s a net savings in cost. So that’s 1.7T.

This would be incorrect, the federal government would have a net savings of 0.

Economists predict a revenue of $800B from a vat at half the European rate, so cost is now at $900B.

Economists didn't predict that, his "people" did which includes no economists. Also, because there is no federal cost on welfare administration the cost is now 2.2 trillion. I should also add that you want to claim that administration of welfare costs 600 billion, do you think that this program would have no administrative costs? How can you deduct entirely the cost of another program while creating a new one?

Outside of existing revenue, the point of the UBI is to stimulate growth for thousands of economies across the hollowed out Midwest.

That doesn't follow in any way shape or form. The money that they collect would already have been spent somewhere else. All you're doing is shifting economic activity from one place to another.

From his website

Is not a credible source.

New revenue. Putting money into the hands of American consumers would grow the economy.

Except it's not being "put into the hands" it is being moved from one set of hands to another.

The Roosevelt Institute projected that the economy would grow by approximately $2.5 trillion and create 4.6 million new jobs. This would generate approximately $500 – 600 billion in new revenue from economic growth and activity

Which is exactly how economics doesn't work.

And the of course lastly, the savings overall from having a less fucked up society

This should be hilarious.

We currently spend over one trillion dollars on health care, incarceration, homelessness services and the like. We would save $100 – 200 billion as people would take better care of themselves and avoid the emergency room, jail, and the street and would generally be more functional.

Again, like the welfare part, the federal government has no part in homelessness services or low level incarcerations. You want to claim 200 billion in savings for something the federal government has no part in. There are no federal jails housing the low level criminals or federal homeless shelters. So now we are sitting at 2.2 trillion in unpaid spending.

I link this article that supports the calculations for a net economy increase of $.8T, although the Roosevelt Institute is left leaning so take what you will.

It also has no economists on staff that wrote that report so....The closest you get is a guy who got a degree in economics that describes himself as a "former economist" and who laments the "new bourgeois". I can link any number of actual economists who would tell you that UBI has net negatives, but since you seem to put belief in fictional writing over reality, I don't know that it's worth the effort. Also given that you create straw man arguments out of everything I saw, there really isn't a point now is there?

I’m interested in sources you can give

No you're not. You literally misrepresented most of the things I said and haven't even taken a basic look at the proposal with a critical eye. You literally wanted to claim that a savings for states is a savings for the federal government.

[–]butthurtberniebro -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Alaska doesn't have a UBI - it's literally a sale for what the mining companies have bought from them. That's a fair bit different especially considering that the total payment is quite low. It's also completely dishonest to say that Alaska has the lowest inflation, because the cost of living in Alaska is leaps and bounds above the cost of nearly anywhere else, getting even more expensive as you get into more rural sections of Alaska.

Regardless of the mechanics of their UBI, the result is more money in the hands of all citizens. That’s just some amount of data I’m providing to back up my assertion that concerns about inflation are unfounded.

That's cool and all, but does nothing to what I've said. Perhaps you've noticed that the cost of living in Europe is quite a bit higher than the US?

What do I care if a $10 hamburger costs $11 if I have $1,000 more a month?

Uh what. That has nothing to do with purchasing power. Nor does the taxes rate not impact other goods. I feel like you've never seen a business purchase goods with which to do business before, which was the entire point. The VAT isn't just applied to individuals purchases but to business purchases too which increase costs across the board.

I meant an increase in personal income.

“Costs across the board” end up the same as a sales tax at the end of chain, as buyers are reimbursed at sale. If your criticism is a VAT alongside a current sales tax, make that criticism instead.

The states spend that money, the federal government has no hand in administrative costs of welfare

It’s still funded by the federal government. That distinction has no effect on the base fact that the cost of the policy is UBI - current welfare expenditure.

This would be incorrect, the federal government would have a net savings of 0.

Yes, excuse me. Gross savings on the cost of the policy.

Economists didn't predict that, his "people" did which includes no economists. Also, because there is no federal cost on welfare administration the cost is now 2.2 trillion. I should also add that you want to claim that administration of welfare costs 600 billion, do you think that this program would have no administrative costs? How can you deduct entirely the cost of another program while creating a new one?

He’s referencing the Roosevelt institution, study was done before he announced.

The administrative cost of sending a check through the mail compared to funding a SNAP administration is undeniable. The database for welfare recipients already exists, so assuming none of them switch to the freedom dividend, you can deduct the entire program.

The point I made earlier is that for every welfare recipient that switches to the UBI, there’s gross savings in administrative cost.

That doesn't follow in any way shape or form. The money that they collect would already have been spent somewhere else. All you're doing is shifting economic activity from one place to another.

Yes, like shifting it from stock buybacks to Americans.

Increased consumer demand creates jobs and grows the economy. 68% of our current GDP is consumer spending.

Which is exactly how economics doesn't work.

I guess we might just disagree here. I personally think an economy cannot run if consumers don’t have money to spend but maybe there’s some missing magic puzzle piece I’m missing.

This should be hilarious.

Yes, I do imagine there we be much laughter once poverty is eliminated.

Again, like the welfare part, the federal government has no part in homelessness services or low level incarcerations. You want to claim 200 billion in savings for something the federal government has no part in. There are no federal jails housing the low level criminals or federal homeless shelters. So now we are sitting at 2.2 trillion in unpaid spending.

It’s bigger picture than that. There exists societal cost to the predatory poverty trap some industries thrive on. Federal funds are spent on some of these programs. But if state funded costs are reduced as well, that’s still more money that can be spent elsewhere.

I can link any number of actual economists who would tell you that UBI has net negatives, but since you seem to put belief in fictional writing over reality, I don't know that it's worth the effort. Also given that you create straw man arguments out of everything I saw, there really isn't a point now is there?

Please do, I want to continue to work through this policy, as I think it’s the only thing that can help us transition through mass automation into the new economy.

No you're not. You literally misrepresented most of the things I said and haven't even taken a basic look at the proposal with a critical eye. You literally wanted to claim that a savings for states is a savings for the federal government.

I apologize if I’ve come off as being in bad faith. I have been looking at this with a critical eye, and I pride myself on my ability to adhere to logic.

I’ll admit I’m uncertain on how an individual on foodstamps —-> funded by a federal government —> administered by a state government

Does not lead to him leaving the program —-> reflected in state report —-> less spent through the federal allocation.

I’m willing to learn though and will spend the next couple hours looking at how these programs function.

[–]Drew1231 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Kravego 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Grimstar- -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]PacoBedejo 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Grimstar- -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]PacoBedejo 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]angelobrown -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Grimstar- -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Darkling5499 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JellyfishRave 217 points218 points219 points 7 years ago (72 children) | Copy Link

[–]Wheream_I 124 points125 points126 points 7 years ago (70 children) | Copy Link

[–]FountainLettus 93 points94 points95 points 7 years ago* (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]Wheream_I 53 points54 points55 points 7 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]UnalignedRando 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]SwiggityStag -9 points-8 points-7 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Papasmurf345 24 points25 points26 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[+]SwiggityStag -10 points-9 points-8 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Papasmurf345 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SwiggityStag -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Mcquiz1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

They would've gone and killed those kids at Sandy Hook thrmselves if it meant keeping their guns.

[–]44th_King 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain 21 points22 points23 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Wheream_I 38 points39 points40 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[+]SgtLionCobra1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes, because cars are made for running into crowds.

[–]Chernoobyl 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]pacmatt27 -14 points-13 points-12 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]F1unk 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]pacmatt27 -5 points-4 points-3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Chernoobyl 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]pacmatt27 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MillennialDan 25 points26 points27 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]grahm03 29 points30 points31 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ricwulf 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]sup3r_hero -10 points-9 points-8 points 7 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]PacoBedejo 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]Grimstar- -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]PacoBedejo 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Grimstar- -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]PacoBedejo 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]a-man-from-earth -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Grimstar- -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -11 points-10 points-9 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]44th_King 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]stbacon100 27 points28 points29 points 7 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]Grimstar- -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]Chernoobyl 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Grimstar- -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PacoBedejo 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[+]Grimstar- -6 points-5 points-4 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]PacoBedejo 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+]Grimstar- -6 points-5 points-4 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]PacoBedejo 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Grimstar- 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]PacoBedejo 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Paying a willing employee a wage that they agree to can be discussed. But, it's definitely not worse than the outright theft of taxation. In fact, without government theft, Amazon's employees wouldn't be caught in the social -edistribution / crony-capitalism schemes you're referring to.

$300 a month is still more than $0. You're literally proving my point that even accounting for inflation most Americans will come out on top with a UBI.

...at a cost of 70% overhead (numbers pulled from my ass). I suppose you're a big supporter of the American Red Cross, given your taste for bureaucratic waste.

Lazy welfare recipients are going to be lazy and wasteful regardless, that shouldn't stop something that benefits the majority.

How, precisely, do you suppose it would benefit the majority? It's theft. Are you saying that stealing from people is a net benefit?

[–]Grimstar- 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]NScorpion 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Grimstar- 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]NScorpion 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Grimstar- 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]stbacon100 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Grimstar- 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]stbacon100 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Grimstar- 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -7 points-6 points-5 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]HAWAll1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Well, that's Republicans. No government involved in economic issues but hella government in moral issues like preventing gays from getting married, ensuring policies mirror their religious beliefs, etc.

I'm not just spitballing here, that is the template of Republicans. Essentially, they don't want to spend money but want to tell everyone what they can and cannot do.

[–]DignifiedAlpaca 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]afunnierusername 24 points25 points26 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points20 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Grimstar- 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]NScorpion 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]a-man-from-earth -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]PacoBedejo 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]An_Orange_Steel 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points20 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain 19 points20 points21 points 7 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]chinawinsworlds 31 points32 points33 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]trumpean 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]trumpean 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PacoBedejo 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]huntersnipern 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points19 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]trumpean 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NScorpion -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]MyOldNameSucked 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]trumpean 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nBob20 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]44th_King 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bigbossman123 14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]GingerRazz 74 points75 points76 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]omegaphallic 22 points23 points24 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]LastStr8YtMale 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]omegaphallic 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Goo-Goo-GJoob 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

the left has gone so far left

Eisenhower was staunchly pro-union, called those who would abolish the social safety net "stupid", and warned against the influence of the military-industrial complex.
Nixon proposed and promoted a universal healthcare system, in concert with Ted Kennedy, that would have been more comprehensive than Obamacare. He also created the EPA and OSHA.
Reagan signed the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. Reagan backed a $3.3 billion gasoline tax and increased the Social Security tax rate. In 1986 he granted amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. He raised the debt ceiling 18 times, and no one tried to shut down the government.
Bush 41 proposed the cap and trade system that resulted in the Clear Air act amendments of 1990, which successfully reduced acid rain.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/02/this-astonishing-chart-shows-how-republicans-are-an-endangered-species/

In what ways have the left gone left? Seems to me the opposite is true.

[–]SwiggityStag 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Goo-Goo-GJoob -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SwiggityStag 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PacoBedejo 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Goo-Goo-GJoob 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]PacoBedejo 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bigbossman123 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]GingerRazz 21 points22 points23 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]a-man-from-earth 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]GingerRazz 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SwiggityStag 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NScorpion 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HowardBunnyColvin 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]r3duced2ash 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PacoBedejo 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]omegaphallic 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (42 children) | Copy Link

[+]dre7021 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (16 children) | Copy Link

Oh god. I hope he stays away from those things.

[–]trumpean 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]PacoBedejo -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]azazelcrowley 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Salty_Cnidarian 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]azazelcrowley 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Universal basic income. Wang is proposing 12,000. Scrap all welfare and the government departments to manage the beaurocracy of It, and just do 12,000 per person.

Usually it's proposed this be paid for by land value taxation. (Land is created by nobody, draws its value primarily through other people being close to it and from roads, utilities, and so on, and the tax does not produce economic inefficiency and may incentivize it according to most economists on both the left and the right.).

LVT is a progressive tax because if you own land you're probably well off.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax

On the right wing they call UBI a "Citizen dividend."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_dividend

Alaska already does something similar, and has the lowest rates of poverty and inequality in the US.

[–]Salty_Cnidarian 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]azazelcrowley 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Salty_Cnidarian 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]eddy159357[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Salty_Cnidarian 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]PacoBedejo -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]azazelcrowley 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]PacoBedejo 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm an anarcho-capitalist (better named "Voluntaryist"). I'll only accept import/export fees on the basis that the docks and international trade are protected and bolstered by federal diplomatic and military activities. Therefore, the only legitimate federal expenditures are in the realm of diplomatic and LEGITIMATE military activities, both inter-national and inter-state.

All else requires perverse readings of the federal charter and leads to crony capitalism and federal lobbying.

At the "state" level, I can get on board with a macro-highway system between what I'd call city-states in addition to a loose facilitation of militia efforts.

My mantra is: If you want to pervert the economy, add disinterested bureaucrats and perverse incentives. If you want to break a man, give him everything he needs. IMO, both are evil.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]omegaphallic 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]trumpean 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]omegaphallic 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]trumpean 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PM-ME-YOUR-MEMEZ -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]Thuggled1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

What ever is given to you can be taken away.

[–]DenseMahatma 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MGMStopTheChop -5 points-4 points-3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]hauntedskin 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]a-man-from-earth 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BernieSandersgirl101 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]omegaphallic 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]BernieSandersgirl101 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]omegaphallic 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BernieSandersgirl101 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]a-man-from-earth -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]omegaphallic 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]a-man-from-earth -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Godspiral 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]omegaphallic 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NScorpion -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]omegaphallic -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]NScorpion 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]omegaphallic -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MACS5952 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[+]SwiggityStag -8 points-7 points-6 points 7 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]PacoBedejo 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NScorpion 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]SwiggityStag 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]NScorpion 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]SwiggityStag -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]NScorpion 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]SwiggityStag 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]RolfMjau 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]SwiggityStag 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ConnorGracie 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]NScorpion -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BernieSandersgirl101 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]hauntedskin 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BernieSandersgirl101 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SuhhSsilenced 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tytygh1010 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]goat_nebula 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DopeMeme_Deficiency 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DocsDelorean 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DenseMahatma -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]a-man-from-earth 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MattMeduri 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]thomthoms3 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedBeard357 -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

I understand why people would be concerned about automation being the economic boogeyman and that it may even completely destroy the human role in bureaucratic labor but the reality is that its not even close to being as dire as we like to make it out to be. Ill explain this in three points 1) The jobs at highest risk are those in retail, fast food, sorting, lifting, etc... But like with the scare at the turn of the century and the scare that existed entering into the computer age people are still working doing things that weren't foreseeable at the time. for instance in the 70's no one would foresee that high school kids could design websites for pocket money. 2) Ultimately high skill jobs will still be around for a very very long time. there is no feasible way in the foreseeable future that we can design a welding machine that can come close to operating in the domain of a human being and the same goes for any other machine that does a rudimentary task. and 3) UBI wont save you. wont even come close to saving you. when there is no one (or few people) working because of machines there is no one to tax, and when there is no one to tax there's no tax money for UBI, and when there's no tax money for UBI then there's no money to spend on goods, and when there's no money to spend on goods, no goods are made. Any companies and or people that have any skills that are still working that have any common sense will leave and you will be left with no source of revenue and no industry period. The good news is however, that ultimately if all goods are produced in an automated fashion and the cost of the machine labor is lower than the cost of a worker than the cost of those goods will drop proportionally to meet market competition. if no competition exists then they will need to drop anyway because if overall income with the public had dropped (as you fear) due to automation the cost will need to fall so a product can be sold.

[–]ThePigmanAgain 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedBeard357 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

so how will the rich make money to pay your taxes if you don't have money to buy their goods to make them money to pay your taxes? so whats a good welfare dependent to non-dependent ratio? 30/70? 40/60? 50/50? 80/20? at what point do you break the laffer curve? You will be able to find a job trust me. when the amount of deployed technology becomes more complex it requires more people to maintain because the only way to really cover the spectrum of needs and specialties to maintain it is to delegate to further specialty positions. The only way to make it TOTALLY independent of human intervention would be via full blown AI (or immulate near sapience) and that is up there with interstellar travel. Here's another question what do you believe is a reasonable skill level to have a job that pays the median income in today's market?

[–]ThePigmanAgain 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

so how will the rich make money to pay your taxes if you don't have money to buy their goods to make them money to pay your taxes?

They will sell to one another, presumably.

so whats a good welfare dependent to non-dependent ratio?

Irrelevant, since we won't have control over that ratio. Those in need of welfare will continue to grow in number whether we want them to or not.

The only way to make it TOTALLY independent of human intervention

There's that same mistake again. Nobody needs to make it TOTALLY independent of human intervention. As i said before, making and maintaining these things won't create anywhere as many work hours as will be taken. For example, a self driving taxi will take, say, 20 hours of work per day from humans. Will it require 20 hours a day of maintenance BY humans? Clearly not.

[–]Lagkiller -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Jobs have been disappearing for the last 300+ years as technology improves. This isn't something that we haven't seen in the past.

Yes, but not at the same rate as today, and not without a massive amount of jobs to replace those lost.

to say that new jobs aren't popping up all over the place is stupid.

LOL! Given that i did not make that claim, you appear to be responding to the wrong guy.

But there's still a lot we have to do by hand that you can't automate, like physical hardware.

Hardware? Already there are robots putting together the main parts of cars, as well as the tiny electronics. Hell, Fanuc has a factory where its manufacturing robots are put together -- by manufacturing robots!

Data security is becoming huge and isn't something we can automate. We need people to verify data and protect it. Classify it and store it properly.

Huge enough to gainfully employ all the drivers, checkout chicks, and factory workers who will lose their jobs? I doubt it.

[–]Lagkiller 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Yes, but not at the same rate as today

Yes, at the same rate as today. Or do you think that somehow the stabling, care, and workers associated with horses were somehow less effected by automobiles?

not without a massive amount of jobs to replace those lost.

We are replacing those jobs. They are always more skilled jobs that require knowledge or education.

LOL! Given that i did not make that claim

not without a massive amount of jobs to replace those lost.

Uh huh.....sure you didn't.

Hardware? Already there are robots putting together the main parts of cars, as well as the tiny electronics.

You're not going to get a robot that can rack a server. Or install a computer in a restaurant. They're not going to be able to look over the hardware and determine which memory module needs to be replaced, unscrewing and removing it, or swapping a dead hard drive.

You seem to think that when I talk about working in technology, I'm talking about working an assembly line.

Huge enough to gainfully employ all the drivers, checkout chicks, and factory workers who will lose their jobs? I doubt it.

If they study and learn the technology, yes, there are a lot of jobs out there. US companies are flying in H1B visas all the time, and could easily replace those with US workers if some of the more new tech had workers that were able to do so.

[–]ThePigmanAgain 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

LOL! Given that i did not make that claim not without a massive amount of jobs to replace those lost.

Uh huh.....sure you didn't.

LOL! Nice, try but i said that AFTER you made your comment, not after! You are not an honest person.

You're not going to get a robot that can rack a server. Or install a computer in a restaurant. They're not going to be able to look over the hardware and determine which memory module needs to be replaced, unscrewing and removing it, or swapping a dead hard drive.

LOL! Not GOING to get it? Already there are robots that can put together tiny electronics, and the future ones won't be able to replace a memory module? And robots can "see", you know. They have sensors that allow them to "see" parts even in the dark! There are also robots that pick fruit without damaging it. And this is NOW, to claim they won't be able to do much more in the future is dishonest. For a while, there will be jobs that only humans can do, but those jobs will not provide the same amount of work that the machines are taking from us.

You seem to think that when I talk about working in technology, I'm talking about working an assembly line.

I doubt you could work an assembly line, much less a server!

Huge enough to gainfully employ all the drivers, checkout chicks, and factory workers who will lose their jobs? I doubt it.

If they study and learn the technology, yes, there are a lot of jobs out there.

LOL! "A lot" is not the same as "Huge enough to gainfully employ all the drivers, checkout chicks, and factory workers who will lose their jobs..."

You are either very stupid or very dishonest. Either way, daddy has better things to do with his time -- like racking a server! LOL!

[–]Lagkiller 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

LOL! Nice, try but i said that AFTER you made your comment, not after! You are not an honest person.

So you do realize that you did say it and want to ignore it? I mean you could just look at your own words where you said it before:

The jobs are already disappearing and the new jobs do not provide anywhere near the same work hours. No way are there as many kids designing websites as there are men who have lost their manufacturing jobs. And no way do the self checkouts require as many hours to maintain as were lost by the checkout chicks.

LOL Nice try, but you said it first.

LOL! Not GOING to get it? Already there are robots that can put together tiny electronics

LOL! Not GOING to get it? Look man, I literally spelled out for you what I am talking about and you ignored it. I'm not talking about manufacturing.

I doubt you could work an assembly line, much less a server!

I work in IT buddy, have for the last two decades. I am trying to tell you about the real world in which we live and how we're making more jobs than we've ever had before. Being rude and dishonest does no one any benefit here.

LOL! "A lot" is not the same as "Huge enough to gainfully employ all the drivers, checkout chicks, and factory workers who will lose their jobs..."

LOL! It is. Sorry you don't look at news about this kind of thing but it's not like we don't have a growing computing industry.

You are either very stupid or very dishonest.

No, that's just you.

[–]a-man-from-earth -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Lagkiller -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NScorpion -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Evildl17 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]NScorpion 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Naters11 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]NScorpion 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ifelsedowhile 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]darkcrimsonx -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]Applejaxc 37 points38 points39 points 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]bright_yellow_vest 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]orcscorper -17 points-16 points-15 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points17 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Evildl17 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Evildl17 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Applejaxc 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+]orcscorper -9 points-8 points-7 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Applejaxc 16 points17 points18 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Alphapanc02 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lagkiller 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Alphapanc02 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Drew1231 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Drew1231 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]weekly_burner 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]weekly_burner 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]trumpean 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]weekly_burner -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]trumpean 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PacoBedejo -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]weekly_burner -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]carbot117[S] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]carbot117[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]carbot117[S] 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Razorbladekandyfan 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tilfordkage 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Brusanan 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SimonShrimp 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Luchadorgreen 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SimonShrimp 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rogocraft 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]condorama -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]PacoBedejo 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]condorama 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]PacoBedejo 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]condorama 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]trumpean 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DJ-Roukan 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]A_one_legged_man -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]A_one_legged_man 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nzalog 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MGMStopTheChop -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]YourOwnGrandmother 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]DavidCo23 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MGMStopTheChop -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]YourOwnGrandmother 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]MGMStopTheChop 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]YourOwnGrandmother 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]MGMStopTheChop 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]YourOwnGrandmother 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]MGMStopTheChop 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]YourOwnGrandmother 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Ricwulf 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

Then you're still an idiot.

If all it takes is a single issue to get you to swing your vote, then by that logic you could justify voting for the second coming of Hitler, so long as he was against circumcision.

It's great that you're passionate about stopping the tragedy that is routine infant mutilation, but being blind to what's going on around a situation and voting in utterly terrible policies just because a single other policy is good is not smart.

And it wouldn't matter who it is. If they've got 1 great policy surrounded by bad policies, you have to really ask whether it's worth it. Because right now, it isn't.

And frankly, with your 3 month old account, I'm not even sure that you really believe any of this shit. It's known that shills are a common thing now, and I wouldn't be surprised if Yang is in on it all considering how much he's trying to ride that "meme magic" wave.

[–]MGMStopTheChop 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ricwulf 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]MGMStopTheChop 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ricwulf 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]MGMStopTheChop 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ricwulf 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[+]Harleeliru1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

If I was lived in the US he would have my vote

[–]YourOwnGrandmother 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PoonOnTheMoon314 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dank_galv 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AFellowCanadianGuy 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Better_Call_Salsa -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JackFisherBooks 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Godspiral -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points 7 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]trumpean 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ocaptainmyadversary -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]angelobrown -8 points-7 points-6 points 7 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]trumpean 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]angelobrown -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]trumpean 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]angelobrown -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Personally, I think you just solidified my statement. We are talking about Western Civ, more importantly, American politics and polices. Defunct of the stats that are indicative of what you'd call "damaging" are so small to me that, to be quite honest, I'd be concerned of far more for my child. Could we say that that procedure is done so often that any complications and or neglect would be more hyperbolic than probable. Yes, it's scary. However, I don't think non-consensual is the phrase we could honestly say. You're their parent and primary caregiver. I wouldn't do something that I know for a fact personally will have a negative impact (in the current AMERICA). Relationships with girls are already difficult. As a loving father why would I put my kid in that situation?

As for your, hyperbole on rape. No. Due Process is what our country is founded on. Rape is bad, that is in no question here. False rape, happens, whether is uncommon or not. It shouldn't determine the laws enforced on actual rape victims? I'm confused by your correlation.

[–]Ricwulf -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

should the minority of things dictate the policy of the majority? Honestly, I don't think so.

Oh, so you don't agree with circumcision then? Because the vast majority of the world, hell, even just of the developed nations, don't circumcise on a routine basis.

In fact, as far as I'm aware, the US is the only developed nation that does in fact perform routine circumcision.

What about those stigma's that are inherit now in Western Civilization.

Only really within the US, and it's rather barbaric. In fact, all you're really arguing here is that straying from tradition receives comments, like that's somehow justification for child mutilation. Tell me, are you going to sit there and say that female genital mutilation would be fine if men preferred it? Because that's your current argument reversed. MGM is fine because otherwise some women might comment on an intact penis.

Utterly fucking ridiculous.

[–]angelobrown -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ricwulf 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

It is by definition of the word 'mutilation'. If you're going to complain because that's not comfortable with your sensibilities, that's up to you. There is no subjective matter on what constitutes mutilation.

I don't care if you want to apply it selectively, you said Western Civilisation, and now you want to back out of that because it doesn't support your defense of barbarism.

And lastly, it was started within America to try and discourage men from masturbation, popularised by Dr Kellogg. He also promoted the same for women, but it didn't catch on. However, YOU just tried to defend mutilation because women might make some commentary on a guys genitals, along with an appeal to emotion of how that might be difficult to explain to some hypothetical son.

You have no arguments, but it's pretty clear you're trying to justify it due to sunk "costs", either on yourself, or possibly on your son, and you need to convince yourself so you don't feel bad for your decision.

[–]angelobrown -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Mutilation or maiming (from the Latin: mutilus) is cutting off or injury to a body part of a person so that the part of the body is permanently damaged, detached or disfigured.

Unfortunately, you will not find anything that has been said above as complaining. OP directly says, "I don't understand the issue." Regarding the push of non-circumsion. You must also consider ear piercing as mutilation? Something that is very normal in AMERICAN culture. And, let it be known! We are only talking about America. I have not once stated anything that remotely comes close to inferring anything outside of America. I'm american. I'm talking about american policies and civilities.

Your "arguments" definitively are what? I can tell you without a doubt that my PENIS isn't damaged. Nor, would I ever consider it be disfigured. Whatever your gripe with your gentiles may be isn't enough to say something so arrogantly brash. You haven't once spoke of hyigene. You havent once spoke of social stigma's. This is are actual issues that people "ACTUALLY" deal with.

[–]Ricwulf 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Thanks for the definition. Removal of any organ is mutilation. It's a disfigurement. Just because you're used to that state doesn't change the fact.

I do consider ear piercing mutilation. Amazingly, we don't perform that as a routine practice on infants. And I am still against that when it does happen on infants, regardless of how rare that might be.

Hygiene? You do realise that there is no discernible different in genital health between Western nations? And really, cleaning isn't hard. If you can't clean there, then you should be advocating for the removal of ears at birth considering children rarely clean them. Consistent standards.

And your social stigmas argument is fucking stupid. It's an appeal to tradition/the status quo. Just because there are some shallow fucks out there who would treat others differently doesn't mean it justifies a verifiably harmful practice. There is no benefits from circumcision.

You're objecting because you don't want to see yourself differently, when you don't have to. If you're fine with yourself, fine. But others deserve the choice when they can consent.

[–]angelobrown -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]angelobrown 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]boringcarpets 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]NScorpion 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]boringcarpets 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]NScorpion 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]boringcarpets -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]angelobrown -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]RolfMjau 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]angelobrown -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]qwest98 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]angelobrown -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]qwest98 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Yes, half or more:

The mean length of prepuce in this sample was 6.4 cm (range 4.8-9.2) and covered 93% of the mean penile shaft (6.9 cm). Ten prepuces were as long as or longer than the shaft of the penis to which they belonged; three of them were > 10% longer than the shaft and glans combined. Circumcision of these subjects, allowing for a 3 cm mucosal cuff, would have removed a mean of 3.4 cm (range 1.8-6.2) of (strictly) preputial skin and mucosa, or 51% of the length of the mean adult penile shaft, or more from nearly half the penises.

Source: Taylor, J.R., A.P. Lockwood, and A.J. Taylor. 1996. The Prepuce: Specialized Mucosa of the Penis and its Loss to Circumcision. British Journal of Urology 77(2):291–295.

This picture visualises the situation [NSFW]: https://www.slideshare.net/tpbhatia/circumcision-3562840#18 There is more inner + outer foreskin than shaft skin.

[–]angelobrown 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]boringcarpets 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NScorpion 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]angelobrown 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]NScorpion 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Dagannoth_Supreme -15 points-14 points-13 points 7 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mgtowolf 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RaptorsCdwoods 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ihateuallverymuch 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]carbot117[S] 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dagannoth_Supreme -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]omegaphallic -7 points-6 points-5 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]omegaphallic -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]omegaphallic -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]omegaphallic 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]omegaphallic 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]scoobifucka -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	2020 U.S. Presidential Candidate Andrew Yang just declared he opposes routine infant circumcision!
Author	carbot117
Upvotes	2560
Comments	480
Date	March 13, 2019 9:05 PM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/b0rcgx/2020_us_presidential_candidate_andrew_yang_just/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/2020-us-presidential-candidate-andrew-yang-just.881731 https://theredarchive.com/post/881731

Comments