What objection can there be to solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner?

[danielpalos]

IOW, inflation. Do it too fast and you cost a lot of jobs in a short period of time that the market cannot absorb.

Why would it matter if Labor could simply quit on an at-will basis in an at-will employment State?

Because you need a lot of tax revenue coming in to pay for the ones who refuse to work, and the more that quit, the fewer there are generating that revenue. Besides, inflation would eat up the boost from the higher payouts. In short order we would be right back where we started with you guys complaining that $15/hr isn't enough to buy weed any more.

Yes, a lot of tax money would be coming in and a lot of that taxed money would be going out and generating an already measured multiplier of two.

 

[danielpalos]

GG, the unemployment would not return a multiplier of two if people are using it permanently as income, it would become like welfare and the multiplier would diminish because you are fundamentally changing the program into something it wasn't meant to be.

It would average a multiplier of 2; and, those individuals would not be "doing nothing" as alleged by the right wing but doing something with those funds in a market friendly manner. Some of the socioeconomic effects would be less crime since some people would not want to work hard to be criminals if they could be moral and faithful to our own laws regarding employment at the will of either party in our at-will employment States.

What source do you cite that claims you will get a multiplier of 2? And don't just recite what it does now, because you're changing it.

Page iv:
Combining all UI components, we find that, overall, the UI program closed 0.183 of the gap in real GDP caused by the recession. There is reason to believe, however, that for this particular recession, the UI program provided stronger stabilization of real output than in many past recessions because extended benefits responded strongly. Multiplier effects in real GDP were estimated to average 2.0 for regular UI benefits and also 2.0 for extended benefits.

https://wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/ETAOP2010-10.pdf

You cited what it does now. I told you not to do that, because you're changing it fundamentally. Again, you can't soup up a Honda engine to Ferrari horsepower and expect to get the same gas mileage. You failed again.

The point is, the multiplier would higher not lower since more people would be circulating more capital in our economy and in a more market friendly manner. All of the homeless, for example would be able to contribute to the multiplier in that case where they cannot contribute as much now.

The cost of taking the money out of the economy would outweigh any benefits. And once again, you won't get the same multiplier because the program would change. It would become another massive welfare program.

No, that is just You appealing to ignorance of economics.

 

[WinterBorn]

Part of your "Great Plan" is to pay unemployment compensation equal to at least $14 an hour. You have said this clearly.

So what? You make it seem like right wingers don't really understand how free market Capitalism works and merely parrot right wing dogma.
Capitalism, What is That sayeth the right wing.

Unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour means what to a Capitalist who needs to attract Labor to achieve their profit goals?

First of all, it means more than $14 an hour was taken from the tax paying worker who earned it. The system used to take the money from the one who earned it and give it to the one who did nothing for it costs dollars to operate. So you have one group with X amount of dollars to add to the local economy, and one group with X plus expenses amount taken from their income (less to spend).

 

[WinterBorn]

And then the employers will fire the liars and hypocrites. Then you can get hired, unless you are a liar or a hypocrite. Should state pay for liars lying or for hypocrites?

Maybe in right wing fantasy. In reality, cronies curry favor.

So in reality, you are talking about lying cronies and hypocrites?

Perhaps you could get a job and curry a little favor for yourself. Better than demanding people work hard for the money you get for free.

 

[WinterBorn]

The two programs ARE completely different. That people will not report other income does not change that. In fact, it proves that people will cheat to get more money.

Yes, they are two completely different programs for two completely different purposes. Thanks for admitting it and ceding that point.

Most people will report income. Some don't report income now due to the limited nature of the current regime for unemployment compensation since it usually ends regardless of whether or not the unemployed person has a job or not. The have to repay the State if and when that form of fraud gets discovered. We could be reducing fraud by being more realistic regarding simple poverty. And, only illegals don't care about the law. Why complain about less fortunate illegals.

I have been saying it all along.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes, they would be paid by lowering my net income, which I earned. You keep bouncing back and forth between what helps the poor and what helps the economy.

You miss the point that your net income would be higher even with any potential taxes taken out. And, even those on unemployment compensation pay general taxes which reduces their net income.

My net income would not be higher by taking taxes out to give to someone else who refuses to work.

Yes, it would be higher than it is now since unemployment compensation could be providing an upward pressure wages. Simply doubling the minimum wage is sufficient proof. An employee making fifteen dollars an hour simply makes more money that at the current minimum wage and need not complain about taxes.

I have not been paid minimum wage in 40 years. If you raise minimum wages, the entire country's pay does not go up by that amount.

But my taxes go up to cover the lazy asses who want to sit at home and collect my tax dollars for doing nothing.

 

[WinterBorn]

He keeps getting himself caught on that one. Bottom line, he doesn't want anyone else applying means testing, just him.

Earned income from gainful employment usually has to be reported for unemployment compensation purposes and is current practice now.

And if people do not report their income from gainful employment, such as those who are paid cash? What happens to them in the new plan of yours?

Why would they bother working if they could be lazy, and do nothing? And, it would depend on whether or not they get caught eventually. Fraud is still illegal and only hypocritical illegals whine about less fortunate illegals.

It bothers me because I am working hard and I am separated from my family to earn the money they get handed for free.

 

[WinterBorn]

For some. For far too many, though, free money leads to indolence. In your case, did you have incentive to find work or did you just give up?

I started getting into the stock market. Unfortunately, I had practiced with fifty thousand dollar practice accounts and it makes a huge capital difference for margin purposes. I found myself getting toe emotional and maybe even too greedy for my own good even under our form of Capitalism due to my low numbers and lack of constant practice. On the flip side, I probably would have only bragged if I had gotten it right the first time and maybe even just blown the (easy) money anyway instead of practice better money management.

That is a nice answer. Pity it isn't an answer to the actual question he asked. Playing the stock market with practice accounts is not finding work.

It depends. If I had gotten it right the first time, I would have ended up making more than unemployment compensation and would have become self-employed and no longer needed unemployment benefits.

No you wouldn't have. You would have made money with practice accounts, which pays you zero dollars. You would have had to get a job and earn the $50,000 to put into the market in order to have made anything. And you would have had to make far more than minimum wage to be able to save $50k.

 

[WinterBorn]

There are no rules that say you can't have other income coming in if you become unemployed. So you are wanting to add rules.

Earned income reduces the benefit amount.

In other words, means testing.

 

[danielpalos]

Part of your "Great Plan" is to pay unemployment compensation equal to at least $14 an hour. You have said this clearly.

So what? You make it seem like right wingers don't really understand how free market Capitalism works and merely parrot right wing dogma.
Capitalism, What is That sayeth the right wing.

Unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour means what to a Capitalist who needs to attract Labor to achieve their profit goals?

First of all, it means more than $14 an hour was taken from the tax paying worker who earned it. The system used to take the money from the one who earned it and give it to the one who did nothing for it costs dollars to operate. So you have one group with X amount of dollars to add to the local economy, and one group with X plus expenses amount taken from their income (less to spend).

You omit that anyone circulating capital even those on unemployment compensation pay general taxes and contribute the multiplier, which is two in the case of unemployment compensation. That means, that for every one dollar spent on unemployment compensation two dollars of economic activity are generated. Somebody has to make a profit.

 

[danielpalos]

And then the employers will fire the liars and hypocrites. Then you can get hired, unless you are a liar or a hypocrite. Should state pay for liars lying or for hypocrites?

Maybe in right wing fantasy. In reality, cronies curry favor.

So in reality, you are talking about lying cronies and hypocrites?

Perhaps you could get a job and curry a little favor for yourself. Better than demanding people work hard for the money you get for free.

No employer is required to hire anyone not even in a Right to Work State.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, they would be paid by lowering my net income, which I earned. You keep bouncing back and forth between what helps the poor and what helps the economy.

You miss the point that your net income would be higher even with any potential taxes taken out. And, even those on unemployment compensation pay general taxes which reduces their net income.

My net income would not be higher by taking taxes out to give to someone else who refuses to work.

Yes, it would be higher than it is now since unemployment compensation could be providing an upward pressure wages. Simply doubling the minimum wage is sufficient proof. An employee making fifteen dollars an hour simply makes more money that at the current minimum wage and need not complain about taxes.

I have not been paid minimum wage in 40 years. If you raise minimum wages, the entire country's pay does not go up by that amount.

But my taxes go up to cover the lazy asses who want to sit at home and collect my tax dollars for doing nothing.

Wages will have an upward pressure since labor will be using those metrics to consider participation in the market for labor.
Your taxes will not go up since even those on unemployment compensation will be paying taxes not just you.

 

[danielpalos]

He keeps getting himself caught on that one. Bottom line, he doesn't want anyone else applying means testing, just him.

Earned income from gainful employment usually has to be reported for unemployment compensation purposes and is current practice now.

And if people do not report their income from gainful employment, such as those who are paid cash? What happens to them in the new plan of yours?

Why would they bother working if they could be lazy, and do nothing? And, it would depend on whether or not they get caught eventually. Fraud is still illegal and only hypocritical illegals whine about less fortunate illegals.

It bothers me because I am working hard and I am separated from my family to earn the money they get handed for free.

Simply quit and go on unemployment. No one is making you work. Stop creating problems for others due to Your lack of moral fortitude. I am sure there are plenty of other people who would love to make what you make and complain less about taxes.

 

[danielpalos]

No you wouldn't have. You would have made money with practice accounts, which pays you zero dollars. You would have had to get a job and earn the $50,000 to put into the market in order to have made anything. And you would have had to make far more than minimum wage to be able to save $50k.

That is why I don't take you very seriously in our arguments. I was using real money but did not have deep (margin) pockets and did not get it right the first time.

It is a lot more simple with even just fifty thousand dollars. Why does anyone with enough money even bother to complain about taxes when it is relative simply to make more money?

 

[danielpalos]

There are no rules that say you can't have other income coming in if you become unemployed. So you are wanting to add rules.

Earned income reduces the benefit amount.

In other words, means testing.

Not for the program only for benefit amounts to provide that market friendly metric for anyone to easily understand. It would be analogous to the earned income tax credit.

 

[Grumblenuts]

You appealing to ignorance of economics.

You're an illiterate broken record. There's no such thing as "appealing to ignorance of" yada, yada. It's "Appeal to Ignorance" period.

This fallacy occurs when you argue that your conclusion must be true, because there is no evidence against it.

"I guess I didn't get the job. They never called me back."
I guess I can just compare apples to oranges forever. They haven't stopped me yet.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Part of your "Great Plan" is to pay unemployment compensation equal to at least $14 an hour. You have said this clearly.

So what? You make it seem like right wingers don't really understand how free market Capitalism works and merely parrot right wing dogma.
Capitalism, What is That sayeth the right wing.

Unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour means what to a Capitalist who needs to attract Labor to achieve their profit goals?

First of all, it means more than $14 an hour was taken from the tax paying worker who earned it. The system used to take the money from the one who earned it and give it to the one who did nothing for it costs dollars to operate. So you have one group with X amount of dollars to add to the local economy, and one group with X plus expenses amount taken from their income (less to spend).

You omit that anyone circulating capital even those on unemployment compensation pay general taxes and contribute the multiplier, which is two in the case of unemployment compensation. That means, that for every one dollar spent on unemployment compensation two dollars of economic activity are generated. Somebody has to make a profit.

which is two in the case of unemployment compensation.

Which is less than one in the case of paying unlimited unemployment compensation to people who'll never work.

 

[danielpalos]

Part of your "Great Plan" is to pay unemployment compensation equal to at least $14 an hour. You have said this clearly.

So what? You make it seem like right wingers don't really understand how free market Capitalism works and merely parrot right wing dogma.
Capitalism, What is That sayeth the right wing.

Unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour means what to a Capitalist who needs to attract Labor to achieve their profit goals?

First of all, it means more than $14 an hour was taken from the tax paying worker who earned it. The system used to take the money from the one who earned it and give it to the one who did nothing for it costs dollars to operate. So you have one group with X amount of dollars to add to the local economy, and one group with X plus expenses amount taken from their income (less to spend).

You omit that anyone circulating capital even those on unemployment compensation pay general taxes and contribute the multiplier, which is two in the case of unemployment compensation. That means, that for every one dollar spent on unemployment compensation two dollars of economic activity are generated. Somebody has to make a profit.

which is two in the case of unemployment compensation.

Which is less than one in the case of paying unlimited unemployment compensation to people who'll never work.

Typical right wingers simply making up their own facts. Show us any study which claims it. Link or it is just a right winger typing on the Internet, like usual.

 

[Papageorgio]

No, it is not the point. The natural rate of unemployment is around 4%. So 96% of the working population has a job, despite there being no requirement for an employer to hire them.

You have to make yourself attractive to the employer.

We are still talking about millions of persons. We would not need an endless war on poverty if what you claim is true. Why do we have any homeless problems or right wingers complaining about taxes if it is so easy to lift yourselves up from low wage jobs that make you complain about taxes?

Why can't the left wingers solve homelessness in their own states? Why is homelessness more prominent in left winger states?

That topic was actually covered in this thread in prior pages. First, States can't print their own money and second, red States simply change the way poverty and homelessness are counted to make it seem like they have lower numbers of homeless.

You are incorrect on how the count, the homeless issue is greater in California, Oregon and Washington. Please keep up, you just like to avoid the hard cold facts because they hurt you ideology.

Not at all. Right wingers have no facts and merely believe they are Right, because in right wing fantasy y'all can Always be Right. You need a link. I provided a link that claims what I stated.

You and your right BS is getting old, your blanket statements are moronic at best. It doesn’t advance anything. As far as your homeless BS, 8 of the top 9 areas in homelessness are heavy blue states.
Homelessness in the US: These 9 states have the worst crises. These are numbers from the fed, not by state agencies. Spare me your BS.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Part of your "Great Plan" is to pay unemployment compensation equal to at least $14 an hour. You have said this clearly.

So what? You make it seem like right wingers don't really understand how free market Capitalism works and merely parrot right wing dogma.
Capitalism, What is That sayeth the right wing.

Unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour means what to a Capitalist who needs to attract Labor to achieve their profit goals?

First of all, it means more than $14 an hour was taken from the tax paying worker who earned it. The system used to take the money from the one who earned it and give it to the one who did nothing for it costs dollars to operate. So you have one group with X amount of dollars to add to the local economy, and one group with X plus expenses amount taken from their income (less to spend).

You omit that anyone circulating capital even those on unemployment compensation pay general taxes and contribute the multiplier, which is two in the case of unemployment compensation. That means, that for every one dollar spent on unemployment compensation two dollars of economic activity are generated. Somebody has to make a profit.

which is two in the case of unemployment compensation.

Which is less than one in the case of paying unlimited unemployment compensation to people who'll never work.

Typical right wingers simply making up their own facts. Show us any study which claims it. Link or it is just a right winger typing on the Internet, like usual.

You're a right winger? I never would have guessed.