< Wspomóż Petroskowo
>
I should hear back either today or Monday and find out whether everything is wonderful bliss or horrible doom and death.
I just want to say, the world shouldn't work this way. It's fine and good if there's an incentive to work, but the ability to feed your children should not depend on the whims of the job market. Whether I am making $200k/yr or $0k/yr, I will feel the same. We need to stop screwing around and implement a UBI.
Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦 reshared this.
8Petros [Signal: Petros.63]
in reply to Aaron • •Aaron likes this.
Stan Wonn 🏳️🌈 🌹
in reply to Aaron • • •Aaron reshared this.
AKingsbury
in reply to Aaron • • •Okay, you want a UBI.
Should I be forced to pay taxes so that donald trump gets an extra $1000/month (or whatever amount) for the rest of his life?
8Petros [Signal: Petros.63]
in reply to AKingsbury • •AKingsbury
in reply to 8Petros [Signal: Petros.63] • • •@8petros
Really? That seems like a fair use of government force to you?
Would you force me at gunpoint to give money to donald trump?
8Petros [Signal: Petros.63]
in reply to AKingsbury • •You obviously care about him much more than about a whole lot of other citizens, who really need UBI. So why not.
Dealing with the state, you already are at the gunpoint. You pay taxes under the threat of violence and you have no influence on the way they are spent. And they trickle up to DJT et consortes already, in much bigger amounts than UBI would cause.
Aaron likes this.
AKingsbury
in reply to 8Petros [Signal: Petros.63] • • •I absolutely don't care about him more than others, so you obviously feel the need to fall back on baseless accusations in order to make your nonsense narrative work. Please let me know if that ever changes.
8Petros [Signal: Petros.63]
in reply to AKingsbury • •Aaron likes this.
Aaron
in reply to AKingsbury • • •8Petros [Signal: Petros.63] likes this.
AKingsbury
in reply to Aaron • • •8Petros [Signal: Petros.63]
in reply to AKingsbury • •Aaron likes this.
Aaron
in reply to AKingsbury • • •@AlexanderKingsbury Okay. My answer is no, you should not be forced to pay money so Trump gets an extra income. Good thing that's not how it works anyway. The money comes from somewhere, remember? More is paid in by the wealthy, one way or another, than is divvied out among everyone. If that's not the case, it isn't UBI. If you are wealthy enough, you pay in more than you get back. If you aren't, you get back more than you pay in. In strictly monetary terms, UBI will be a net negative for people with large incomes, and a net positive for everyone with sufficiently small incomes. Trump would lose money, not gain any.
It was framed the way you put it to make it more palatable to rich people, which led to a lot of confusion. The reason well off people should support it isn't because they'll get more money, because they won't. They should support it because it it helps people down on their luck. It's a safety net for themselves, too, if their luck turns.
AKingsbury
in reply to Aaron • • •"My answer is no, you should not be forced to pay money so Trump gets an extra income."
Then you don't support UBI. I would pay in, he would get paid.
As to your question, I do in fact pay a little when I'm doing well so I land safely on my feet when and if my luck turns. It's called "insurance", "a savings accounts", etc.
Eric
in reply to AKingsbury • • •Um ..... No. Trump should be forced to pay taxes so you can get $1000/month.
Should billionaires be allowed to dodge taxes while people go without food, shelter, and healthcare?
AKingsbury
in reply to Eric • • •@eric
"Um ..... No. Trump should be forced to pay taxes so you can get $1000/month."
So he doesn't get it? Not really "universal", then, is it?
As to "dodging" taxes; I don't think ANYONE should be allowed to dodge fair and just taxes, billionaire or otherwise.
Aaron
in reply to AKingsbury • • •@AlexanderKingsbury @eric UBI is identical to negative income tax. The only difference is semantics. The numbers come out the same. There's a threshold of income. Below that threshold, you get more money back than you put in. Above it you put in more than you get back. The further you are from that threshold, the bigger the difference is, positive or negative.
The thing that makes UBI better than other ways to implement this is there is no sudden bump where things abruptly change, which avoids perverse incentives you might see in existing systems, such as getting less *total* income when you start actually *earning* more.
AKingsbury
in reply to Aaron • • •@eric
"UBI is identical to negative income tax. "
Pure nonsense.
Aaron
in reply to AKingsbury • • •Aaron
in reply to Aaron • • •Aaron
Unknown parent • • •lori
Unknown parent • • •Aaron reshared this.
Cassi
Unknown parent • • •nellie-m
in reply to Aaron • • •Aaron
in reply to nellie-m • • •@nellie_m We are super anxious. We were supposed to find out today if I got the job, but they moved the meeting to tomorrow. That's after we were supposed to find out Friday but it got delayed to today. Teetering on the edge of a cliff and waiting to see if we'll fall...
Other than that, we are doing well, all things considered. People have been super kind and haven't let us go hungry or without utilities just yet.
nellie-m
in reply to Aaron • • •Fingers firmly crossed!!!
And do keep us updated. 💛
Aaron
in reply to nellie-m • • •8Petros [Signal: Petros.63] likes this.
Susan60
in reply to Aaron • • •🤞🏼🤞🏼🤞🏼🤞🏼🤞🏼🤞🏼🤞🏼🤞🏼
Aaron
in reply to Susan60 • • •Aaron
in reply to Aaron • • •Lydia Schoch
in reply to Aaron • • •Aaron
in reply to Lydia Schoch • • •