hey democrats ! are yall ready for 5 dollar a gallon gasoline ?

[danielpalos]

No, I do not. If you have skills that are in demand, you are paid more. If you have nothing to offer, not even a willingness to work, you will not be compensated.

There can be no lawful requirement to work in an at-will employment State. States cannot arbitrarily change that.

True. And there can be no lawful requirement to provide UC for someone who does not qualify and is not seeking employment.

Equal application and protection of the laws can solve simple poverty on an at-will basis to promote and provide for the general welfare.

How so?

UC on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

But you are not asking for equality. In your version, employers have to continue to pay after you cease to provide your labor. That is not equality.

I am not claiming that. I am claiming the State has to fund UC not employers.

You want tax dollars to be paid to people who refuse to work. And that this be done without them having to show they need the money. You could have a million dollars in the bank, but not be working and you demand pay from tax payers?

Employment is at the will of either party. Why would someone with a million dollars in the bank not learn how to invest instead of applying for UC?

Why would someone object to showing a need before tax dollars were spent providing them an income?

That is what means tested welfare is for, not more market friendly UC.

There is nothing market friendly about forcing others to pay you and income and you refusing to show you need it.

This is not means tested welfare. UC solves simple poverty instead of having to waste money indefinitely on a fake war on poverty.

Oh, so having the applicant fill out a form is wasting money, but giving tax dollars to people who do not need it is not?

We have wasted enough time on derailing this topic.

The law is the law. Employment is at the will of either party.

I never denied it was. But the income is based on trading your labor for their money. You want the money without providing the labor. That is inequality.

UC can solve for simple poverty as that form of insurance. Why do you insist on wasting money on a program that has not solved poverty for over thirty years?

 

[danielpalos]

Daniel, once again you disagree without disputing anything I posted. Sad.

Not at all. Demand and supply is what makes capitalism do what it does.

That is absolutely right. If there is a demand for your labor, you will be properly compensated. If you offer nothing of value, you will not.

Thanks for agreeing with me. UC is about compensating for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment to ensure more efficient market based arbitrage.

And yet, you insist on changing UC into welfare.

You keep missing the capital point. UC actually solves for economic phenomena under our form of Capitalism,unlike means tested welfare.

If the changes were made to UC that you want, there would be means tests added. If you want to have an income from tax dollars, you have to prove you need them.

Not in our at-will employment States. That is the Whole and Entire Point.

Yes, it does. If you have the money to live, why would you receive our tax dollars? Tax dollars are monies that have been forcibly taken from workers and consumers.

Employment is at the will of either party. We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy.

Yeah, you have tried this before. Most homelessness is due to drug or alcohol problems or mental health issues. Sending them a check (to what address?) when they have no way of cashing it is ridiculous!

UC for simply being unemployed means they can then afford rehab in a market friendly manner.

And you make that claim without addressing where the check is mailed, where the check is cashed, and how their money will be protected. And they will not go into rehab if they can continue to drink and do drugs on the tax payer's dime.

They will be able to afford market friendly solutions once they can obtain UC for simply being unemployed.

Again, where do we mail the check?
Where do they get it cashed?

And as for the security of their income, you want $14 an hour. At 40 hours a week, that is $560.00. It comes to a little over $29,000 per year. So we mail them a check every month for $2,426.67. And you expect them to keep this in their pockets? Living on the street?

They can qualify for welfare and get medical benefits that will pay for their rehab and housing.

They can hold them at the office or get direct deposit. Any simple market based solutions may do.

Direct deposit? At what bank? What bank will let you open an account without an address or an ID?

EDD could hold the check at their office. Some charities offer mailbox services.

Yes, and the same could be done with welfare. But until you deal with their mental health issues and addictions, giving them $2,400 a month is a death sentence.

You confuse simple poverty with conditions better addressed with means testing. Why would you rather use the more expensive option instead of a more cost effective option that is simpler and more cost effective?

 

[WinterBorn]

No, I do not. If you have skills that are in demand, you are paid more. If you have nothing to offer, not even a willingness to work, you will not be compensated.

There can be no lawful requirement to work in an at-will employment State. States cannot arbitrarily change that.

True. And there can be no lawful requirement to provide UC for someone who does not qualify and is not seeking employment.

Equal application and protection of the laws can solve simple poverty on an at-will basis to promote and provide for the general welfare.

How so?

UC on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

But you are not asking for equality. In your version, employers have to continue to pay after you cease to provide your labor. That is not equality.

I am not claiming that. I am claiming the State has to fund UC not employers.

You want tax dollars to be paid to people who refuse to work. And that this be done without them having to show they need the money. You could have a million dollars in the bank, but not be working and you demand pay from tax payers?

Employment is at the will of either party. Why would someone with a million dollars in the bank not learn how to invest instead of applying for UC?

Why would someone object to showing a need before tax dollars were spent providing them an income?

That is what means tested welfare is for, not more market friendly UC.

There is nothing market friendly about forcing others to pay you and income and you refusing to show you need it.

This is not means tested welfare. UC solves simple poverty instead of having to waste money indefinitely on a fake war on poverty.

Oh, so having the applicant fill out a form is wasting money, but giving tax dollars to people who do not need it is not?

We have wasted enough time on derailing this topic.

The law is the law. Employment is at the will of either party.

I never denied it was. But the income is based on trading your labor for their money. You want the money without providing the labor. That is inequality.

UC can solve for simple poverty as that form of insurance. Why do you insist on wasting money on a program that has not solved poverty for over thirty years?

Because money is not the only problem where poverty is concerned. Giving a drug addict a paycheck does not solve their addiction.

And means testing is not why welfare has not solved simple poverty. It is simply why you cannot get a check for doing nothing.

 

[WinterBorn]

Daniel, once again you disagree without disputing anything I posted. Sad.

Not at all. Demand and supply is what makes capitalism do what it does.

That is absolutely right. If there is a demand for your labor, you will be properly compensated. If you offer nothing of value, you will not.

Thanks for agreeing with me. UC is about compensating for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment to ensure more efficient market based arbitrage.

And yet, you insist on changing UC into welfare.

You keep missing the capital point. UC actually solves for economic phenomena under our form of Capitalism,unlike means tested welfare.

If the changes were made to UC that you want, there would be means tests added. If you want to have an income from tax dollars, you have to prove you need them.

Not in our at-will employment States. That is the Whole and Entire Point.

Yes, it does. If you have the money to live, why would you receive our tax dollars? Tax dollars are monies that have been forcibly taken from workers and consumers.

Employment is at the will of either party. We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy.

Yeah, you have tried this before. Most homelessness is due to drug or alcohol problems or mental health issues. Sending them a check (to what address?) when they have no way of cashing it is ridiculous!

UC for simply being unemployed means they can then afford rehab in a market friendly manner.

And you make that claim without addressing where the check is mailed, where the check is cashed, and how their money will be protected. And they will not go into rehab if they can continue to drink and do drugs on the tax payer's dime.

They will be able to afford market friendly solutions once they can obtain UC for simply being unemployed.

Again, where do we mail the check?
Where do they get it cashed?

And as for the security of their income, you want $14 an hour. At 40 hours a week, that is $560.00. It comes to a little over $29,000 per year. So we mail them a check every month for $2,426.67. And you expect them to keep this in their pockets? Living on the street?

They can qualify for welfare and get medical benefits that will pay for their rehab and housing.

They can hold them at the office or get direct deposit. Any simple market based solutions may do.

Direct deposit? At what bank? What bank will let you open an account without an address or an ID?

EDD could hold the check at their office. Some charities offer mailbox services.

Yes, and the same could be done with welfare. But until you deal with their mental health issues and addictions, giving them $2,400 a month is a death sentence.

You confuse simple poverty with conditions better addressed with means testing. Why would you rather use the more expensive option instead of a more cost effective option that is simpler and more cost effective?

Means testing is not as expensive as verifying prior employment. Means testing is just an applicant filling out a few forms. Those forms cost very little. Verification is only done on a small percentage.

 

[WinterBorn]

Daniel, once again you disagree without disputing anything I posted. Sad.

Not at all. Demand and supply is what makes capitalism do what it does.

That is absolutely right. If there is a demand for your labor, you will be properly compensated. If you offer nothing of value, you will not.

Thanks for agreeing with me. UC is about compensating for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment to ensure more efficient market based arbitrage.

And yet, you insist on changing UC into welfare.

You keep missing the capital point. UC actually solves for economic phenomena under our form of Capitalism,unlike means tested welfare.

If the changes were made to UC that you want, there would be means tests added. If you want to have an income from tax dollars, you have to prove you need them.

Not in our at-will employment States. That is the Whole and Entire Point.

Yes, it does. If you have the money to live, why would you receive our tax dollars? Tax dollars are monies that have been forcibly taken from workers and consumers.

Employment is at the will of either party. We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy.

Yeah, you have tried this before. Most homelessness is due to drug or alcohol problems or mental health issues. Sending them a check (to what address?) when they have no way of cashing it is ridiculous!

UC for simply being unemployed means they can then afford rehab in a market friendly manner.

And you make that claim without addressing where the check is mailed, where the check is cashed, and how their money will be protected. And they will not go into rehab if they can continue to drink and do drugs on the tax payer's dime.

They will be able to afford market friendly solutions once they can obtain UC for simply being unemployed.

Again, where do we mail the check?
Where do they get it cashed?

And as for the security of their income, you want $14 an hour. At 40 hours a week, that is $560.00. It comes to a little over $29,000 per year. So we mail them a check every month for $2,426.67. And you expect them to keep this in their pockets? Living on the street?

They can qualify for welfare and get medical benefits that will pay for their rehab and housing.

They can hold them at the office or get direct deposit. Any simple market based solutions may do.

Direct deposit? At what bank? What bank will let you open an account without an address or an ID?

You are the one claiming that. EDD can also hold the check at the office.

They can hold the check? What about the money after the check is cashed? Will they do that too? What about limiting the access to the money so they don't simply feed their addictions?

 

[danielpalos]

No, I do not. If you have skills that are in demand, you are paid more. If you have nothing to offer, not even a willingness to work, you will not be compensated.

There can be no lawful requirement to work in an at-will employment State. States cannot arbitrarily change that.

True. And there can be no lawful requirement to provide UC for someone who does not qualify and is not seeking employment.

Equal application and protection of the laws can solve simple poverty on an at-will basis to promote and provide for the general welfare.

How so?

UC on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

But you are not asking for equality. In your version, employers have to continue to pay after you cease to provide your labor. That is not equality.

I am not claiming that. I am claiming the State has to fund UC not employers.

You want tax dollars to be paid to people who refuse to work. And that this be done without them having to show they need the money. You could have a million dollars in the bank, but not be working and you demand pay from tax payers?

Employment is at the will of either party. Why would someone with a million dollars in the bank not learn how to invest instead of applying for UC?

Why would someone object to showing a need before tax dollars were spent providing them an income?

That is what means tested welfare is for, not more market friendly UC.

There is nothing market friendly about forcing others to pay you and income and you refusing to show you need it.

This is not means tested welfare. UC solves simple poverty instead of having to waste money indefinitely on a fake war on poverty.

Oh, so having the applicant fill out a form is wasting money, but giving tax dollars to people who do not need it is not?

We have wasted enough time on derailing this topic.

The law is the law. Employment is at the will of either party.

I never denied it was. But the income is based on trading your labor for their money. You want the money without providing the labor. That is inequality.

UC can solve for simple poverty as that form of insurance. Why do you insist on wasting money on a program that has not solved poverty for over thirty years?

Because money is not the only problem where poverty is concerned. Giving a drug addict a paycheck does not solve their addiction.

And means testing is not why welfare has not solved simple poverty. It is simply why you cannot get a check for doing nothing.

Yes, under Capitalism a lack of capital is the only problem. Giving persons a paycheck means they should be able to get rehab assistance in a market friendly manner.

Means testing is supposed to be about helping those for whom solving for a simple poverty of Capital may not be enough.

 

[danielpalos]

Daniel, once again you disagree without disputing anything I posted. Sad.

Not at all. Demand and supply is what makes capitalism do what it does.

That is absolutely right. If there is a demand for your labor, you will be properly compensated. If you offer nothing of value, you will not.

Thanks for agreeing with me. UC is about compensating for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment to ensure more efficient market based arbitrage.

And yet, you insist on changing UC into welfare.

You keep missing the capital point. UC actually solves for economic phenomena under our form of Capitalism,unlike means tested welfare.

If the changes were made to UC that you want, there would be means tests added. If you want to have an income from tax dollars, you have to prove you need them.

Not in our at-will employment States. That is the Whole and Entire Point.

Yes, it does. If you have the money to live, why would you receive our tax dollars? Tax dollars are monies that have been forcibly taken from workers and consumers.

Employment is at the will of either party. We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy.

Yeah, you have tried this before. Most homelessness is due to drug or alcohol problems or mental health issues. Sending them a check (to what address?) when they have no way of cashing it is ridiculous!

UC for simply being unemployed means they can then afford rehab in a market friendly manner.

And you make that claim without addressing where the check is mailed, where the check is cashed, and how their money will be protected. And they will not go into rehab if they can continue to drink and do drugs on the tax payer's dime.

They will be able to afford market friendly solutions once they can obtain UC for simply being unemployed.

Again, where do we mail the check?
Where do they get it cashed?

And as for the security of their income, you want $14 an hour. At 40 hours a week, that is $560.00. It comes to a little over $29,000 per year. So we mail them a check every month for $2,426.67. And you expect them to keep this in their pockets? Living on the street?

They can qualify for welfare and get medical benefits that will pay for their rehab and housing.

They can hold them at the office or get direct deposit. Any simple market based solutions may do.

Direct deposit? At what bank? What bank will let you open an account without an address or an ID?

EDD could hold the check at their office. Some charities offer mailbox services.

Yes, and the same could be done with welfare. But until you deal with their mental health issues and addictions, giving them $2,400 a month is a death sentence.

You confuse simple poverty with conditions better addressed with means testing. Why would you rather use the more expensive option instead of a more cost effective option that is simpler and more cost effective?

Means testing is not as expensive as verifying prior employment. Means testing is just an applicant filling out a few forms. Those forms cost very little. Verification is only done on a small percentage.

Filling all those forms is expensive and time consuming. UC is more cost effective and generates a higher multiplier.

 

[danielpalos]

Daniel, once again you disagree without disputing anything I posted. Sad.

Not at all. Demand and supply is what makes capitalism do what it does.

That is absolutely right. If there is a demand for your labor, you will be properly compensated. If you offer nothing of value, you will not.

Thanks for agreeing with me. UC is about compensating for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment to ensure more efficient market based arbitrage.

And yet, you insist on changing UC into welfare.

You keep missing the capital point. UC actually solves for economic phenomena under our form of Capitalism,unlike means tested welfare.

If the changes were made to UC that you want, there would be means tests added. If you want to have an income from tax dollars, you have to prove you need them.

Not in our at-will employment States. That is the Whole and Entire Point.

Yes, it does. If you have the money to live, why would you receive our tax dollars? Tax dollars are monies that have been forcibly taken from workers and consumers.

Employment is at the will of either party. We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy.

Yeah, you have tried this before. Most homelessness is due to drug or alcohol problems or mental health issues. Sending them a check (to what address?) when they have no way of cashing it is ridiculous!

UC for simply being unemployed means they can then afford rehab in a market friendly manner.

And you make that claim without addressing where the check is mailed, where the check is cashed, and how their money will be protected. And they will not go into rehab if they can continue to drink and do drugs on the tax payer's dime.

They will be able to afford market friendly solutions once they can obtain UC for simply being unemployed.

Again, where do we mail the check?
Where do they get it cashed?

And as for the security of their income, you want $14 an hour. At 40 hours a week, that is $560.00. It comes to a little over $29,000 per year. So we mail them a check every month for $2,426.67. And you expect them to keep this in their pockets? Living on the street?

They can qualify for welfare and get medical benefits that will pay for their rehab and housing.

They can hold them at the office or get direct deposit. Any simple market based solutions may do.

Direct deposit? At what bank? What bank will let you open an account without an address or an ID?

You are the one claiming that. EDD can also hold the check at the office.

They can hold the check? What about the money after the check is cashed? Will they do that too? What about limiting the access to the money so they don't simply feed their addictions?

They can afford rehab.

 

[WinterBorn]

Daniel, once again you disagree without disputing anything I posted. Sad.

Not at all. Demand and supply is what makes capitalism do what it does.

That is absolutely right. If there is a demand for your labor, you will be properly compensated. If you offer nothing of value, you will not.

Thanks for agreeing with me. UC is about compensating for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment to ensure more efficient market based arbitrage.

And yet, you insist on changing UC into welfare.

You keep missing the capital point. UC actually solves for economic phenomena under our form of Capitalism,unlike means tested welfare.

If the changes were made to UC that you want, there would be means tests added. If you want to have an income from tax dollars, you have to prove you need them.

Not in our at-will employment States. That is the Whole and Entire Point.

Yes, it does. If you have the money to live, why would you receive our tax dollars? Tax dollars are monies that have been forcibly taken from workers and consumers.

Employment is at the will of either party. We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy.

Yeah, you have tried this before. Most homelessness is due to drug or alcohol problems or mental health issues. Sending them a check (to what address?) when they have no way of cashing it is ridiculous!

UC for simply being unemployed means they can then afford rehab in a market friendly manner.

And you make that claim without addressing where the check is mailed, where the check is cashed, and how their money will be protected. And they will not go into rehab if they can continue to drink and do drugs on the tax payer's dime.

They will be able to afford market friendly solutions once they can obtain UC for simply being unemployed.

Again, where do we mail the check?
Where do they get it cashed?

And as for the security of their income, you want $14 an hour. At 40 hours a week, that is $560.00. It comes to a little over $29,000 per year. So we mail them a check every month for $2,426.67. And you expect them to keep this in their pockets? Living on the street?

They can qualify for welfare and get medical benefits that will pay for their rehab and housing.

They can hold them at the office or get direct deposit. Any simple market based solutions may do.

Direct deposit? At what bank? What bank will let you open an account without an address or an ID?

EDD could hold the check at their office. Some charities offer mailbox services.

Yes, and the same could be done with welfare. But until you deal with their mental health issues and addictions, giving them $2,400 a month is a death sentence.

You confuse simple poverty with conditions better addressed with means testing. Why would you rather use the more expensive option instead of a more cost effective option that is simpler and more cost effective?

Means testing is not as expensive as verifying prior employment. Means testing is just an applicant filling out a few forms. Those forms cost very little. Verification is only done on a small percentage.

Filling all those forms is expensive and time consuming. UC is more cost effective and generates a higher multiplier.

It is not expensive for the state. It is what you do if you want tax payer funds.

No, it does not generate a higher multiplier and it is NOT more cost effective.

 

[WinterBorn]

No, I do not. If you have skills that are in demand, you are paid more. If you have nothing to offer, not even a willingness to work, you will not be compensated.

There can be no lawful requirement to work in an at-will employment State. States cannot arbitrarily change that.

True. And there can be no lawful requirement to provide UC for someone who does not qualify and is not seeking employment.

Equal application and protection of the laws can solve simple poverty on an at-will basis to promote and provide for the general welfare.

How so?

UC on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

But you are not asking for equality. In your version, employers have to continue to pay after you cease to provide your labor. That is not equality.

I am not claiming that. I am claiming the State has to fund UC not employers.

You want tax dollars to be paid to people who refuse to work. And that this be done without them having to show they need the money. You could have a million dollars in the bank, but not be working and you demand pay from tax payers?

Employment is at the will of either party. Why would someone with a million dollars in the bank not learn how to invest instead of applying for UC?

Why would someone object to showing a need before tax dollars were spent providing them an income?

That is what means tested welfare is for, not more market friendly UC.

There is nothing market friendly about forcing others to pay you and income and you refusing to show you need it.

This is not means tested welfare. UC solves simple poverty instead of having to waste money indefinitely on a fake war on poverty.

Oh, so having the applicant fill out a form is wasting money, but giving tax dollars to people who do not need it is not?

We have wasted enough time on derailing this topic.

The law is the law. Employment is at the will of either party.

I never denied it was. But the income is based on trading your labor for their money. You want the money without providing the labor. That is inequality.

UC can solve for simple poverty as that form of insurance. Why do you insist on wasting money on a program that has not solved poverty for over thirty years?

Because money is not the only problem where poverty is concerned. Giving a drug addict a paycheck does not solve their addiction.

And means testing is not why welfare has not solved simple poverty. It is simply why you cannot get a check for doing nothing.

Yes, under Capitalism a lack of capital is the only problem. Giving persons a paycheck means they should be able to get rehab assistance in a market friendly manner.

Means testing is supposed to be about helping those for whom solving for a simple poverty of Capital may not be enough.

No, it is not. Most homeless are not where they are strictly because of lack money. Many other factors come into play, with addiction and mental illness at the top of the list.

 

[WinterBorn]

Daniel, once again you disagree without disputing anything I posted. Sad.

Not at all. Demand and supply is what makes capitalism do what it does.

That is absolutely right. If there is a demand for your labor, you will be properly compensated. If you offer nothing of value, you will not.

Thanks for agreeing with me. UC is about compensating for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment to ensure more efficient market based arbitrage.

And yet, you insist on changing UC into welfare.

You keep missing the capital point. UC actually solves for economic phenomena under our form of Capitalism,unlike means tested welfare.

If the changes were made to UC that you want, there would be means tests added. If you want to have an income from tax dollars, you have to prove you need them.

Not in our at-will employment States. That is the Whole and Entire Point.

Yes, it does. If you have the money to live, why would you receive our tax dollars? Tax dollars are monies that have been forcibly taken from workers and consumers.

Employment is at the will of either party. We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy.

Yeah, you have tried this before. Most homelessness is due to drug or alcohol problems or mental health issues. Sending them a check (to what address?) when they have no way of cashing it is ridiculous!

UC for simply being unemployed means they can then afford rehab in a market friendly manner.

And you make that claim without addressing where the check is mailed, where the check is cashed, and how their money will be protected. And they will not go into rehab if they can continue to drink and do drugs on the tax payer's dime.

They will be able to afford market friendly solutions once they can obtain UC for simply being unemployed.

Again, where do we mail the check?
Where do they get it cashed?

And as for the security of their income, you want $14 an hour. At 40 hours a week, that is $560.00. It comes to a little over $29,000 per year. So we mail them a check every month for $2,426.67. And you expect them to keep this in their pockets? Living on the street?

They can qualify for welfare and get medical benefits that will pay for their rehab and housing.

They can hold them at the office or get direct deposit. Any simple market based solutions may do.

Direct deposit? At what bank? What bank will let you open an account without an address or an ID?

You are the one claiming that. EDD can also hold the check at the office.

They can hold the check? What about the money after the check is cashed? Will they do that too? What about limiting the access to the money so they don't simply feed their addictions?

They can afford rehab.

Until they finish rehab, supplying them with ample funds will just be killing them.

 

[danielpalos]

Daniel, once again you disagree without disputing anything I posted. Sad.

Not at all. Demand and supply is what makes capitalism do what it does.

That is absolutely right. If there is a demand for your labor, you will be properly compensated. If you offer nothing of value, you will not.

Thanks for agreeing with me. UC is about compensating for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment to ensure more efficient market based arbitrage.

And yet, you insist on changing UC into welfare.

You keep missing the capital point. UC actually solves for economic phenomena under our form of Capitalism,unlike means tested welfare.

If the changes were made to UC that you want, there would be means tests added. If you want to have an income from tax dollars, you have to prove you need them.

Not in our at-will employment States. That is the Whole and Entire Point.

Yes, it does. If you have the money to live, why would you receive our tax dollars? Tax dollars are monies that have been forcibly taken from workers and consumers.

Employment is at the will of either party. We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy.

Yeah, you have tried this before. Most homelessness is due to drug or alcohol problems or mental health issues. Sending them a check (to what address?) when they have no way of cashing it is ridiculous!

UC for simply being unemployed means they can then afford rehab in a market friendly manner.

And you make that claim without addressing where the check is mailed, where the check is cashed, and how their money will be protected. And they will not go into rehab if they can continue to drink and do drugs on the tax payer's dime.

They will be able to afford market friendly solutions once they can obtain UC for simply being unemployed.

Again, where do we mail the check?
Where do they get it cashed?

And as for the security of their income, you want $14 an hour. At 40 hours a week, that is $560.00. It comes to a little over $29,000 per year. So we mail them a check every month for $2,426.67. And you expect them to keep this in their pockets? Living on the street?

They can qualify for welfare and get medical benefits that will pay for their rehab and housing.

They can hold them at the office or get direct deposit. Any simple market based solutions may do.

Direct deposit? At what bank? What bank will let you open an account without an address or an ID?

EDD could hold the check at their office. Some charities offer mailbox services.

Yes, and the same could be done with welfare. But until you deal with their mental health issues and addictions, giving them $2,400 a month is a death sentence.

You confuse simple poverty with conditions better addressed with means testing. Why would you rather use the more expensive option instead of a more cost effective option that is simpler and more cost effective?

Means testing is not as expensive as verifying prior employment. Means testing is just an applicant filling out a few forms. Those forms cost very little. Verification is only done on a small percentage.

Filling all those forms is expensive and time consuming. UC is more cost effective and generates a higher multiplier.

It is not expensive for the state. It is what you do if you want tax payer funds.

No, it does not generate a higher multiplier and it is NOT more cost effective.

Yes, means testing is much more expensive. The multiplier for means tested welfare is .08, the multiplier for UC has been measured at 2.

 

[danielpalos]

No, I do not. If you have skills that are in demand, you are paid more. If you have nothing to offer, not even a willingness to work, you will not be compensated.

There can be no lawful requirement to work in an at-will employment State. States cannot arbitrarily change that.

True. And there can be no lawful requirement to provide UC for someone who does not qualify and is not seeking employment.

Equal application and protection of the laws can solve simple poverty on an at-will basis to promote and provide for the general welfare.

How so?

UC on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

But you are not asking for equality. In your version, employers have to continue to pay after you cease to provide your labor. That is not equality.

I am not claiming that. I am claiming the State has to fund UC not employers.

You want tax dollars to be paid to people who refuse to work. And that this be done without them having to show they need the money. You could have a million dollars in the bank, but not be working and you demand pay from tax payers?

Employment is at the will of either party. Why would someone with a million dollars in the bank not learn how to invest instead of applying for UC?

Why would someone object to showing a need before tax dollars were spent providing them an income?

That is what means tested welfare is for, not more market friendly UC.

There is nothing market friendly about forcing others to pay you and income and you refusing to show you need it.

This is not means tested welfare. UC solves simple poverty instead of having to waste money indefinitely on a fake war on poverty.

Oh, so having the applicant fill out a form is wasting money, but giving tax dollars to people who do not need it is not?

We have wasted enough time on derailing this topic.

The law is the law. Employment is at the will of either party.

I never denied it was. But the income is based on trading your labor for their money. You want the money without providing the labor. That is inequality.

UC can solve for simple poverty as that form of insurance. Why do you insist on wasting money on a program that has not solved poverty for over thirty years?

Because money is not the only problem where poverty is concerned. Giving a drug addict a paycheck does not solve their addiction.

And means testing is not why welfare has not solved simple poverty. It is simply why you cannot get a check for doing nothing.

Yes, under Capitalism a lack of capital is the only problem. Giving persons a paycheck means they should be able to get rehab assistance in a market friendly manner.

Means testing is supposed to be about helping those for whom solving for a simple poverty of Capital may not be enough.

No, it is not. Most homeless are not where they are strictly because of lack money. Many other factors come into play, with addiction and mental illness at the top of the list.

Only because they didn't have enough money to get into rehab under our form of Capitalism.

 

[danielpalos]

Daniel, once again you disagree without disputing anything I posted. Sad.

Not at all. Demand and supply is what makes capitalism do what it does.

That is absolutely right. If there is a demand for your labor, you will be properly compensated. If you offer nothing of value, you will not.

Thanks for agreeing with me. UC is about compensating for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment to ensure more efficient market based arbitrage.

And yet, you insist on changing UC into welfare.

You keep missing the capital point. UC actually solves for economic phenomena under our form of Capitalism,unlike means tested welfare.

If the changes were made to UC that you want, there would be means tests added. If you want to have an income from tax dollars, you have to prove you need them.

Not in our at-will employment States. That is the Whole and Entire Point.

Yes, it does. If you have the money to live, why would you receive our tax dollars? Tax dollars are monies that have been forcibly taken from workers and consumers.

Employment is at the will of either party. We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy.

Yeah, you have tried this before. Most homelessness is due to drug or alcohol problems or mental health issues. Sending them a check (to what address?) when they have no way of cashing it is ridiculous!

UC for simply being unemployed means they can then afford rehab in a market friendly manner.

And you make that claim without addressing where the check is mailed, where the check is cashed, and how their money will be protected. And they will not go into rehab if they can continue to drink and do drugs on the tax payer's dime.

They will be able to afford market friendly solutions once they can obtain UC for simply being unemployed.

Again, where do we mail the check?
Where do they get it cashed?

And as for the security of their income, you want $14 an hour. At 40 hours a week, that is $560.00. It comes to a little over $29,000 per year. So we mail them a check every month for $2,426.67. And you expect them to keep this in their pockets? Living on the street?

They can qualify for welfare and get medical benefits that will pay for their rehab and housing.

They can hold them at the office or get direct deposit. Any simple market based solutions may do.

Direct deposit? At what bank? What bank will let you open an account without an address or an ID?

You are the one claiming that. EDD can also hold the check at the office.

They can hold the check? What about the money after the check is cashed? Will they do that too? What about limiting the access to the money so they don't simply feed their addictions?

They can afford rehab.

Until they finish rehab, supplying them with ample funds will just be killing them.

Is Capitalism Bad, according to You?

 

[WinterBorn]

Daniel, once again you disagree without disputing anything I posted. Sad.

Not at all. Demand and supply is what makes capitalism do what it does.

That is absolutely right. If there is a demand for your labor, you will be properly compensated. If you offer nothing of value, you will not.

Thanks for agreeing with me. UC is about compensating for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment to ensure more efficient market based arbitrage.

And yet, you insist on changing UC into welfare.

You keep missing the capital point. UC actually solves for economic phenomena under our form of Capitalism,unlike means tested welfare.

If the changes were made to UC that you want, there would be means tests added. If you want to have an income from tax dollars, you have to prove you need them.

Not in our at-will employment States. That is the Whole and Entire Point.

Yes, it does. If you have the money to live, why would you receive our tax dollars? Tax dollars are monies that have been forcibly taken from workers and consumers.

Employment is at the will of either party. We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy.

Yeah, you have tried this before. Most homelessness is due to drug or alcohol problems or mental health issues. Sending them a check (to what address?) when they have no way of cashing it is ridiculous!

UC for simply being unemployed means they can then afford rehab in a market friendly manner.

And you make that claim without addressing where the check is mailed, where the check is cashed, and how their money will be protected. And they will not go into rehab if they can continue to drink and do drugs on the tax payer's dime.

They will be able to afford market friendly solutions once they can obtain UC for simply being unemployed.

Again, where do we mail the check?
Where do they get it cashed?

And as for the security of their income, you want $14 an hour. At 40 hours a week, that is $560.00. It comes to a little over $29,000 per year. So we mail them a check every month for $2,426.67. And you expect them to keep this in their pockets? Living on the street?

They can qualify for welfare and get medical benefits that will pay for their rehab and housing.

They can hold them at the office or get direct deposit. Any simple market based solutions may do.

Direct deposit? At what bank? What bank will let you open an account without an address or an ID?

EDD could hold the check at their office. Some charities offer mailbox services.

Yes, and the same could be done with welfare. But until you deal with their mental health issues and addictions, giving them $2,400 a month is a death sentence.

You confuse simple poverty with conditions better addressed with means testing. Why would you rather use the more expensive option instead of a more cost effective option that is simpler and more cost effective?

Means testing is not as expensive as verifying prior employment. Means testing is just an applicant filling out a few forms. Those forms cost very little. Verification is only done on a small percentage.

Filling all those forms is expensive and time consuming. UC is more cost effective and generates a higher multiplier.

It is not expensive for the state. It is what you do if you want tax payer funds.

No, it does not generate a higher multiplier and it is NOT more cost effective.

Yes, means testing is much more expensive. The multiplier for means tested welfare is .08, the multiplier for UC has been measured at 2.

Yes, when it is structured as it currently is. But take away the employer's contribution, the time limits on drawing it, and the requirement to prove you are unemployed through no fault of your own, and you have welfare.

And no, the means testing is not more expensive. It costs nothing to have the applicant fill out forms.

It is truly amazing that you are saying the most cost effective way to "solve poverty" is to hand out tax money with no questions asked. Truly idiotic.

 

[WinterBorn]

No, I do not. If you have skills that are in demand, you are paid more. If you have nothing to offer, not even a willingness to work, you will not be compensated.

There can be no lawful requirement to work in an at-will employment State. States cannot arbitrarily change that.

True. And there can be no lawful requirement to provide UC for someone who does not qualify and is not seeking employment.

Equal application and protection of the laws can solve simple poverty on an at-will basis to promote and provide for the general welfare.

How so?

UC on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

But you are not asking for equality. In your version, employers have to continue to pay after you cease to provide your labor. That is not equality.

I am not claiming that. I am claiming the State has to fund UC not employers.

You want tax dollars to be paid to people who refuse to work. And that this be done without them having to show they need the money. You could have a million dollars in the bank, but not be working and you demand pay from tax payers?

Employment is at the will of either party. Why would someone with a million dollars in the bank not learn how to invest instead of applying for UC?

Why would someone object to showing a need before tax dollars were spent providing them an income?

That is what means tested welfare is for, not more market friendly UC.

There is nothing market friendly about forcing others to pay you and income and you refusing to show you need it.

This is not means tested welfare. UC solves simple poverty instead of having to waste money indefinitely on a fake war on poverty.

Oh, so having the applicant fill out a form is wasting money, but giving tax dollars to people who do not need it is not?

We have wasted enough time on derailing this topic.

The law is the law. Employment is at the will of either party.

I never denied it was. But the income is based on trading your labor for their money. You want the money without providing the labor. That is inequality.

UC can solve for simple poverty as that form of insurance. Why do you insist on wasting money on a program that has not solved poverty for over thirty years?

Because money is not the only problem where poverty is concerned. Giving a drug addict a paycheck does not solve their addiction.

And means testing is not why welfare has not solved simple poverty. It is simply why you cannot get a check for doing nothing.

Yes, under Capitalism a lack of capital is the only problem. Giving persons a paycheck means they should be able to get rehab assistance in a market friendly manner.

Means testing is supposed to be about helping those for whom solving for a simple poverty of Capital may not be enough.

No, it is not. Most homeless are not where they are strictly because of lack money. Many other factors come into play, with addiction and mental illness at the top of the list.

Only because they didn't have enough money to get into rehab under our form of Capitalism.

Couldn't afford it or didn't want it? You'll have to show a link to prove your claim.

And you are assuming that when you send out these $2,400.00 monthly checks, they very first thing the addicts will do is go into rehab. You obviously haven't spent time around addicts.

 

[WinterBorn]

Daniel, once again you disagree without disputing anything I posted. Sad.

Not at all. Demand and supply is what makes capitalism do what it does.

That is absolutely right. If there is a demand for your labor, you will be properly compensated. If you offer nothing of value, you will not.

Thanks for agreeing with me. UC is about compensating for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment to ensure more efficient market based arbitrage.

And yet, you insist on changing UC into welfare.

You keep missing the capital point. UC actually solves for economic phenomena under our form of Capitalism,unlike means tested welfare.

If the changes were made to UC that you want, there would be means tests added. If you want to have an income from tax dollars, you have to prove you need them.

Not in our at-will employment States. That is the Whole and Entire Point.

Yes, it does. If you have the money to live, why would you receive our tax dollars? Tax dollars are monies that have been forcibly taken from workers and consumers.

Employment is at the will of either party. We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy.

Yeah, you have tried this before. Most homelessness is due to drug or alcohol problems or mental health issues. Sending them a check (to what address?) when they have no way of cashing it is ridiculous!

UC for simply being unemployed means they can then afford rehab in a market friendly manner.

And you make that claim without addressing where the check is mailed, where the check is cashed, and how their money will be protected. And they will not go into rehab if they can continue to drink and do drugs on the tax payer's dime.

They will be able to afford market friendly solutions once they can obtain UC for simply being unemployed.

Again, where do we mail the check?
Where do they get it cashed?

And as for the security of their income, you want $14 an hour. At 40 hours a week, that is $560.00. It comes to a little over $29,000 per year. So we mail them a check every month for $2,426.67. And you expect them to keep this in their pockets? Living on the street?

They can qualify for welfare and get medical benefits that will pay for their rehab and housing.

They can hold them at the office or get direct deposit. Any simple market based solutions may do.

Direct deposit? At what bank? What bank will let you open an account without an address or an ID?

You are the one claiming that. EDD can also hold the check at the office.

They can hold the check? What about the money after the check is cashed? Will they do that too? What about limiting the access to the money so they don't simply feed their addictions?

They can afford rehab.

Until they finish rehab, supplying them with ample funds will just be killing them.

Is Capitalism Bad, according to You?

Don't be daft. I said no such thing.

 

[danielpalos]

Daniel, once again you disagree without disputing anything I posted. Sad.

Not at all. Demand and supply is what makes capitalism do what it does.

That is absolutely right. If there is a demand for your labor, you will be properly compensated. If you offer nothing of value, you will not.

Thanks for agreeing with me. UC is about compensating for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment to ensure more efficient market based arbitrage.

And yet, you insist on changing UC into welfare.

You keep missing the capital point. UC actually solves for economic phenomena under our form of Capitalism,unlike means tested welfare.

If the changes were made to UC that you want, there would be means tests added. If you want to have an income from tax dollars, you have to prove you need them.

Not in our at-will employment States. That is the Whole and Entire Point.

Yes, it does. If you have the money to live, why would you receive our tax dollars? Tax dollars are monies that have been forcibly taken from workers and consumers.

Employment is at the will of either party. We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy.

Yeah, you have tried this before. Most homelessness is due to drug or alcohol problems or mental health issues. Sending them a check (to what address?) when they have no way of cashing it is ridiculous!

UC for simply being unemployed means they can then afford rehab in a market friendly manner.

And you make that claim without addressing where the check is mailed, where the check is cashed, and how their money will be protected. And they will not go into rehab if they can continue to drink and do drugs on the tax payer's dime.

They will be able to afford market friendly solutions once they can obtain UC for simply being unemployed.

Again, where do we mail the check?
Where do they get it cashed?

And as for the security of their income, you want $14 an hour. At 40 hours a week, that is $560.00. It comes to a little over $29,000 per year. So we mail them a check every month for $2,426.67. And you expect them to keep this in their pockets? Living on the street?

They can qualify for welfare and get medical benefits that will pay for their rehab and housing.

They can hold them at the office or get direct deposit. Any simple market based solutions may do.

Direct deposit? At what bank? What bank will let you open an account without an address or an ID?

EDD could hold the check at their office. Some charities offer mailbox services.

Yes, and the same could be done with welfare. But until you deal with their mental health issues and addictions, giving them $2,400 a month is a death sentence.

You confuse simple poverty with conditions better addressed with means testing. Why would you rather use the more expensive option instead of a more cost effective option that is simpler and more cost effective?

Means testing is not as expensive as verifying prior employment. Means testing is just an applicant filling out a few forms. Those forms cost very little. Verification is only done on a small percentage.

Filling all those forms is expensive and time consuming. UC is more cost effective and generates a higher multiplier.

It is not expensive for the state. It is what you do if you want tax payer funds.

No, it does not generate a higher multiplier and it is NOT more cost effective.

Yes, means testing is much more expensive. The multiplier for means tested welfare is .08, the multiplier for UC has been measured at 2.

Yes, when it is structured as it currently is. But take away the employer's contribution, the time limits on drawing it, and the requirement to prove you are unemployed through no fault of your own, and you have welfare.

And no, the means testing is not more expensive. It costs nothing to have the applicant fill out forms.

It is truly amazing that you are saying the most cost effective way to "solve poverty" is to hand out tax money with no questions asked. Truly idiotic.

Not welfare. UC actually solves for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment and helps automatically stabilize our economy on an at-will basis.

 

[WinterBorn]

Daniel, this entire conversation about sidestepping means testing and getting a check for nothing is off topic.

Get back to the topic.

 

[danielpalos]

No, I do not. If you have skills that are in demand, you are paid more. If you have nothing to offer, not even a willingness to work, you will not be compensated.

There can be no lawful requirement to work in an at-will employment State. States cannot arbitrarily change that.

True. And there can be no lawful requirement to provide UC for someone who does not qualify and is not seeking employment.

Equal application and protection of the laws can solve simple poverty on an at-will basis to promote and provide for the general welfare.

How so?

UC on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

But you are not asking for equality. In your version, employers have to continue to pay after you cease to provide your labor. That is not equality.

I am not claiming that. I am claiming the State has to fund UC not employers.

You want tax dollars to be paid to people who refuse to work. And that this be done without them having to show they need the money. You could have a million dollars in the bank, but not be working and you demand pay from tax payers?

Employment is at the will of either party. Why would someone with a million dollars in the bank not learn how to invest instead of applying for UC?

Why would someone object to showing a need before tax dollars were spent providing them an income?

That is what means tested welfare is for, not more market friendly UC.

There is nothing market friendly about forcing others to pay you and income and you refusing to show you need it.

This is not means tested welfare. UC solves simple poverty instead of having to waste money indefinitely on a fake war on poverty.

Oh, so having the applicant fill out a form is wasting money, but giving tax dollars to people who do not need it is not?

We have wasted enough time on derailing this topic.

The law is the law. Employment is at the will of either party.

I never denied it was. But the income is based on trading your labor for their money. You want the money without providing the labor. That is inequality.

UC can solve for simple poverty as that form of insurance. Why do you insist on wasting money on a program that has not solved poverty for over thirty years?

Because money is not the only problem where poverty is concerned. Giving a drug addict a paycheck does not solve their addiction.

And means testing is not why welfare has not solved simple poverty. It is simply why you cannot get a check for doing nothing.

Yes, under Capitalism a lack of capital is the only problem. Giving persons a paycheck means they should be able to get rehab assistance in a market friendly manner.

Means testing is supposed to be about helping those for whom solving for a simple poverty of Capital may not be enough.

No, it is not. Most homeless are not where they are strictly because of lack money. Many other factors come into play, with addiction and mental illness at the top of the list.

Only because they didn't have enough money to get into rehab under our form of Capitalism.

Couldn't afford it or didn't want it? You'll have to show a link to prove your claim.

And you are assuming that when you send out these $2,400.00 monthly checks, they very first thing the addicts will do is go into rehab. You obviously haven't spent time around addicts.

We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy.