It's not arbitrary at all, given that I asked you about giving 1000 to another random person. You tried to weasel your way out of giving 1000 by getting 1000 meaning you net don't pay and don't get, so I just reset the scenario to the one I asked about where you're paying someone else's 1000 a month.
There's no free lunch. For each net tax consumer getting 1000 a month net, you need a net tax provider or providers paying 1000 a month net. You can say you're going to pull the money from "elsewhere", but there isn't that much "elsewhere". In Australia, many of these 1000/mo will be coming from some poor miner risking his life working in sweltering heat in the outback to bring home enough pay to support their family.
Because we need to ask someone to give up the money they earned with their own time and effort to pay people, we need to make sure it's at least reasonably deserved or we shouldn't ask people to make the sacrifice. That's why welfare programs are means tested, so we make sure we aren't paying people who are otherwise perfectly capable of working on their own, or otherwise taken care of such that they don't need someone else paying them.
The fact that it's convenient to get the money opens lots of pandoras boxes. Especially if it helps encourage people not to be productive members of society en masse because taxes rose massively and a bunch of people can live a degenerate life with 15 other people in one apartment playing WoW all day long on someone else's dime.
There's no free lunch. For each net tax consumer getting 1000 a month net, you need a net tax provider or providers paying 1000 a month net. You can say you're going to pull the money from "elsewhere", but there isn't that much "elsewhere". In Australia, many of these 1000/mo will be coming from some poor miner risking his life working in sweltering heat in the outback to bring home enough pay to support their family.
Because we need to ask someone to give up the money they earned with their own time and effort to pay people, we need to make sure it's at least reasonably deserved or we shouldn't ask people to make the sacrifice. That's why welfare programs are means tested, so we make sure we aren't paying people who are otherwise perfectly capable of working on their own, or otherwise taken care of such that they don't need someone else paying them.
The fact that it's convenient to get the money opens lots of pandoras boxes. Especially if it helps encourage people not to be productive members of society en masse because taxes rose massively and a bunch of people can live a degenerate life with 15 other people in one apartment playing WoW all day long on someone else's dime.
The key here is net tax consumer vs. net tax provider. Breaking even would make you neither.
If you get $1000 but your taxes go up $2000, you're not getting $1000, you're losing $1000.
Compared to means tested unemployment programs, you'd be giving this benefit to a lot more people. If we're just doing this by taxes, then presumably Elon Musk could marry someone and his wife would be the one getting your $1000 if she wasn't employed because technically her income is 0 because her husband is elon musk and she doesn't have to work.
If you get $1000 but your taxes go up $2000, you're not getting $1000, you're losing $1000.
Compared to means tested unemployment programs, you'd be giving this benefit to a lot more people. If we're just doing this by taxes, then presumably Elon Musk could marry someone and his wife would be the one getting your $1000 if she wasn't employed because technically her income is 0 because her husband is elon musk and she doesn't have to work.
If $1000 a month is an unreasonable burden in the abstract, how about once it's embodied?
If instead of "someone" paying $1000/mo to a random person, what if it's you paying $1000/mo to a random person? Or worse, multiple $1000/mos to multiple people, since a minority of people will be net tax providers and will likely have to pay disproportionately for the benefits paid to a large pool of net tax consumers.
If instead of "someone" paying $1000/mo to a random person, what if it's you paying $1000/mo to a random person? Or worse, multiple $1000/mos to multiple people, since a minority of people will be net tax providers and will likely have to pay disproportionately for the benefits paid to a large pool of net tax consumers.
Politicians wouldn't want to make something they're going to be caught doing illegal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jinqC67U3LE
If a politician is telling you something is good in 2024, it isn't and you should probably run away in terror.
If a politician is telling you something is good in 2024, it isn't and you should probably run away in terror.
Now how is O'Keefe supposed to get unimaginably powerful people to say the most retarded things imaginable?
Here in Canada when you lobby for basic human rights they just seize your bank account and call you a nazi.
The number of $1000/mo is hardly arbitrary in terms of what's being proposed by others. It was what Andrew Yang proposed during his presidential campaign, it was the dollar value proposed in the study cited in the news story I linked to, and it's also the number used in the study cited in the LA times article that started all this. If the number is unreasonable, it's not because I picked an arbitrary number to be unreasonable, it's because the proposed number is unreasonable.
No matter how you slice it, if the government gives $1000/mo to everyone, they need to get that money somehow. Usually the proposal I see is "progressive taxation", which I've factored into my argument. You could create a federal sales tax, but that would need to be extremely high and would greatly increase cost of living. You could tax large businesses, but most people don't realize how little money is actually there -- in my example of Canada, the entire TSX stock exchange has a market cap of only 3,529 billion, so an annual cost of 360 billion(again just using the numbers the others suggested) would take 10% of the value of all publicly traded companies in the country and would completely use up that money in a single decade.
No matter how you slice it, if the government gives $1000/mo to everyone, they need to get that money somehow. Usually the proposal I see is "progressive taxation", which I've factored into my argument. You could create a federal sales tax, but that would need to be extremely high and would greatly increase cost of living. You could tax large businesses, but most people don't realize how little money is actually there -- in my example of Canada, the entire TSX stock exchange has a market cap of only 3,529 billion, so an annual cost of 360 billion(again just using the numbers the others suggested) would take 10% of the value of all publicly traded companies in the country and would completely use up that money in a single decade.
The only thing socialists hate more than productivity and food is other, slightly different socialists.
A centrist said to me "at least Kamala Harris didn't engage in a coup" and I was like "uh, you mean like the one that just occurred?"
if object oriented programming is so great then explain this
Hey.... Uh... I'm not trying to be rude or anything, science reporting is just really bad these days.... But I read the paper the articles are talking about this and it was actually about using ferric chloride as an insecticide. They suggested instead using the ferric chloride as an etchant of copper, titrating out the resulting ferrous chloride using sodium hydroxide, and using the remaining copper chloride instead or alternatively just leave our some sugar cubes because spiders love sugar cubes and a happy spider isn't a bitey spider