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

[hadit]

If you really believe that then why do you want to restrict a persons unemployment when it comes to person's simple passive unearned income?

I am only claiming that any income reported tends to reduce benefits.

Why would you need income from unemployment compensation when according to the right wing it is so easy to become gainfully employed, or rebalance your portfolio to earn more passive income. Simply earning enough passive income would be the equivalent to being self-employed.

Don't try to lay this off on anyone's feet but your own. I am not using any other scenario but yours. So, why do you now want to add further restrictions when you claim the simple unemployment should be paid for simply not being employed? You are adding restrictions that are not currently in place, thus complicating the program, one that you claim you are trying to simplify. Why are you being dishonest?

He's being dishonest because you have forced him to dig deeper than he ever wanted to into his slogans and ideas. He starts with grand, simple ideas that he thinks are erudite and will fix everything, but never considers the details or consequences of what he's proposing. When you push him to do so he starts back-peddling but pretends he doesn't. Note that he immediately comes right back to where he started and pretends you never had him in the corner.

 

[danielpalos]

Again, you are not simplifying you are adding conditions and as already shown, it does not solve poverty, it just creates more layers of government and switching responsibility from one agency to another.

Yes, it is a simplification. And, it costs time and money to adjudicate any appeals. Also, people would litigate less if they could simply quit on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States. Employees will also be less likely to become disgruntled.

We aren’t talking a few extra dollars here. Unhappy workers cost the U.S. between $450 and $550 billion in lost productivity each year, according to a 2013 report on the state of the U.S. workplace conducted by research and polling company Gallup.--https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/246036#:~:text=Infographics-,Unhappy%20Workers%20Cost%20the%20U.S.,%24550%20Billion%20a%20Year%20(Infographic)&text=Your%20employees'%20happiness%20can%20make,And%20that's%20expensive%20for%20you.

It isn't simplifying, you want to add conditions, please stop lying. It isn't going to solve homelessness as we have seen in many large liberal cities the cost of a one bedroom apartment is very costly and beyond anyone making $15 per hour.

There are more conditions now and more potential and incentive for fraud now than there would be then.

 

[danielpalos]

Don't try to lay this off on anyone's feet but your own. I am not using any other scenario but yours. So, why do you now want to add further restrictions when you claim the simple unemployment should be paid for simply not being employed? You are adding restrictions that are not currently in place, thus complicating the program, one that you claim you are trying to simplify. Why are you being dishonest?

The requirements already exist now. If you make too much through income from any source you would be considered self-employed not merely unemployed. Benefits are currently reduced by income from any source.

 

[danielpalos]

Are you talking about temporary or long term homelessness? Short term homelessness can be alleviated by programs that provide basic shelter for those who, for example, simply hit on hard times and can't find work. Chronic homelessness, however, is much more intractable. Emotional and mental disability can cause people to isolate themselves from the rest of society and they can refuse to stay in any place. Sometimes people just prefer being outside on their own. They may not have a place to live, but carry what supplies they need in a backpack. IOW, there will always be homelessness because people are different.

A simple economic solution for solving simple poverty means we should have no homeless problem. Are you claiming capitalism has no solution for homelessness even with recourse to an income for simply being unemployed?

 

[danielpalos]

The reason for making the change is irrelevant to the reality that you ARE making fundamental changes to the program. Right now, it's self-sustaining because there are enough employers paying taxes into the program that it can support the relatively small number of employees who temporarily draw from it. What you want to do is massively increase the number of recipients to far beyond the pool of employees and include those who never worked and never have any intention of working, ie those who have no relation to the employers. Therefore, you would HAVE to make the tax a general one, and HAVE to move distribution of the benefits to a general model whereby everybody in the country could be getting a check. IOW, you have created a massive new welfare program. No, you do not get to claim you would get a multiplier of 2 and you do not get to claim you can use the existing infrastructure and, as I have pointed out to you repeatedly, you would HAVE to change the law, because existing law does NOT allow for UC to cover everybody and his dog. It just doesn't.

The current system does not solve for simple poverty and we would see cost savings from less need for our endless war on poverty, among other savings. The multiplier means any money spent on that program would generate twice the economic activity; in practice it would mean more people working since capitalists would have more profit to seek.

 

[danielpalos]

Okay, this is hilarious. You actually believe that a program with means testing is more expensive than that same program without means testing. Do you really have no idea why means testing is done in the first place? I'll tell you, because it's obvious you don't.

We do means testing because we specifically do NOT want anyone and everyone showing up for free money. Are you TRYING to be dense at this point?

You confuse the cost of means testing for our endless war on poverty with a simple solution to simple poverty through individual liberty in our at-will employment States.

 

[hadit]

Are you talking about temporary or long term homelessness? Short term homelessness can be alleviated by programs that provide basic shelter for those who, for example, simply hit on hard times and can't find work. Chronic homelessness, however, is much more intractable. Emotional and mental disability can cause people to isolate themselves from the rest of society and they can refuse to stay in any place. Sometimes people just prefer being outside on their own. They may not have a place to live, but carry what supplies they need in a backpack. IOW, there will always be homelessness because people are different.

A simple economic solution for solving simple poverty means we should have no homeless problem. Are you claiming capitalism has no solution for homelessness even with recourse to an income for simply being unemployed?

I'm saying that there will always be people who either prefer to live outside or have mental issues that drive them there. Poverty is not always the reason for homelessness. You could create a space for every person in the country and in short order some would be destroyed and others would be sitting vacant.

 

[danielpalos]

No, they are not. But employers hire people every day. Aside from the pandemic lockdown, the employers in the US hire the overwhelming majority of the population.

In order to get a job, especially a better job, you try to curry the favor of the employer. Not being a suckup, but by doing what they need to make their business better.

Capitalism still has a natural rate of unemployment and why is there any homelessness in Right to Work States?

There will always be homelessness.

The point is, it can be reduced to the extent it is due to simple poverty.

Are you talking about temporary or long term homelessness? Short term homelessness can be alleviated by programs that provide basic shelter for those who, for example, simply hit on hard times and can't find work. Chronic homelessness, however, is much more intractable. Emotional and mental disability can cause people to isolate themselves from the rest of society and they can refuse to stay in any place. Sometimes people just prefer being outside on their own. They may not have a place to live, but carry what supplies they need in a backpack. IOW, there will always be homelessness because people are different.

He doesn't know what he is talking about. He is so damned uninformed about homelessness, he just spews nonsense about it. Housing costs are so high in many liberal cities because of building restrictions, codes and regulation that it drives up the cost to build and maintain, he is clueless of it all. He also doesn't understand the mental health aspects of homelessness. He is stuck in his moronic mentality that one solution fits all and it all revolves around money. Money is not always the answer.

Money/capital must be the answer under Capitalism. You simply stereotype.

 

[hadit]

The reason for making the change is irrelevant to the reality that you ARE making fundamental changes to the program. Right now, it's self-sustaining because there are enough employers paying taxes into the program that it can support the relatively small number of employees who temporarily draw from it. What you want to do is massively increase the number of recipients to far beyond the pool of employees and include those who never worked and never have any intention of working, ie those who have no relation to the employers. Therefore, you would HAVE to make the tax a general one, and HAVE to move distribution of the benefits to a general model whereby everybody in the country could be getting a check. IOW, you have created a massive new welfare program. No, you do not get to claim you would get a multiplier of 2 and you do not get to claim you can use the existing infrastructure and, as I have pointed out to you repeatedly, you would HAVE to change the law, because existing law does NOT allow for UC to cover everybody and his dog. It just doesn't.

The current system does not solve for simple poverty and we would see cost savings from less need for our endless war on poverty, among other savings. The multiplier means any money spent on that program would generate twice the economic activity; in practice it would mean more people working since capitalists would have more profit to seek.

You can't claim a specific multiplier because you would be changing the very nature of the program and the group of people who would be using it. You do realize, don't you, that your mythical savings from the war on poverty would not materialize because your new welfare program would just be another part of the war, right?

 

[danielpalos]

And you think paying people who are staying in jobs they don't like because the jobs pay them well $14/hr to quit is going to make them happy?

Yes, because they would no longer be disgruntled employees who Have to work for that income. They could be going to school or learning new skills to eventually get a job they are more suited for or enjoy more or simply make enough to not whine about taxes.

 

[danielpalos]

Women have recourse to an income. It's called work, There is literally no legal barrier preventing them from earning an income. Clearly yet another fallacy on your part. You've racked up a bunch of them.

You miss the point about equality by merely having recourse to an income. Women experience higher rates of poverty than men, even with a legal right to work.

 

[hadit]

Okay, this is hilarious. You actually believe that a program with means testing is more expensive than that same program without means testing. Do you really have no idea why means testing is done in the first place? I'll tell you, because it's obvious you don't.

We do means testing because we specifically do NOT want anyone and everyone showing up for free money. Are you TRYING to be dense at this point?

You confuse the cost of means testing for our endless war on poverty with a simple solution to simple poverty through individual liberty in our at-will employment States.

And you're ignoring the reality that ANY program that does not have any qualifications is quickly overrun by those simply out for free money. Simple example, children. Right off the bat you have to have a way to know if the person applying for the program is a minor or an adult. Citizenship. You have to check. Are they already getting benefits from another program? Already you have to have a bureaucracy. So, no, you're not going to have a cheap, self-sustaining program. It WILL be another massive welfare program.

 

[hadit]

Women have recourse to an income. It's called work, There is literally no legal barrier preventing them from earning an income. Clearly yet another fallacy on your part. You've racked up a bunch of them.

You miss the point about equality by merely having recourse to an income. Women experience higher rates of poverty than men, even with a legal right to work.

That's not a concern for the law, which makes it illegal to discriminate against women in hiring.

 

[hadit]

And you think paying people who are staying in jobs they don't like because the jobs pay them well $14/hr to quit is going to make them happy?

Yes, because they would no longer be disgruntled employees who Have to work for that income. They could be going to school or learning new skills to eventually get a job they are more suited for or enjoy more or simply make enough to not whine about taxes.

When an employee is earning $40/hr at a job he doesn't like, offering him $14/hr to quit is not going to make him happy. Just not going to happen. And another fallacy on your part. The more you make, the more you pay in taxes. It is the guys on the lower rungs of the ladder that don't have to worry about taxes.

 

[Papageorgio]

Don't try to lay this off on anyone's feet but your own. I am not using any other scenario but yours. So, why do you now want to add further restrictions when you claim the simple unemployment should be paid for simply not being employed? You are adding restrictions that are not currently in place, thus complicating the program, one that you claim you are trying to simplify. Why are you being dishonest?

The requirements already exist now. If you make too much through income from any source you would be considered self-employed not merely unemployed. Benefits are currently reduced by income from any source.

No it doesn't, I have explained the difference between passive and earned income, we are going in circles because you hate to recognize facts or counterarguments.

 

[WinterBorn]

You are trying to prove your point by inventing money. You claim that by giving $182 billion in tax dollars the worker's tax burden will go down. That is pure fantasy.

 

[Papageorgio]

Again, you are not simplifying you are adding conditions and as already shown, it does not solve poverty, it just creates more layers of government and switching responsibility from one agency to another.

Yes, it is a simplification. And, it costs time and money to adjudicate any appeals. Also, people would litigate less if they could simply quit on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States. Employees will also be less likely to become disgruntled.

We aren’t talking a few extra dollars here. Unhappy workers cost the U.S. between $450 and $550 billion in lost productivity each year, according to a 2013 report on the state of the U.S. workplace conducted by research and polling company Gallup.--https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/246036#:~:text=Infographics-,Unhappy%20Workers%20Cost%20the%20U.S.,%24550%20Billion%20a%20Year%20(Infographic)&text=Your%20employees'%20happiness%20can%20make,And%20that's%20expensive%20for%20you.

It isn't simplifying, you want to add conditions, please stop lying. It isn't going to solve homelessness as we have seen in many large liberal cities the cost of a one bedroom apartment is very costly and beyond anyone making $15 per hour.

There are more conditions now and more potential and incentive for fraud now than there would be then.

You are full of BS, you are adding conditions, we have all explained it and your counterargument is no. That isn't an argument. You need to figure out what the hell you are talking about before you spew your BS because as bright as you must think you are, you have absolutely nothing.

 

[danielpalos]

And you're ignoring the reality that ANY program that does not have any qualifications is quickly overrun by those simply out for free money. Simple example, children. Right off the bat you have to have a way to know if the person applying for the program is a minor or an adult. Citizenship. You have to check. Are they already getting benefits from another program? Already you have to have a bureaucracy. So, no, you're not going to have a cheap, self-sustaining program. It WILL be another massive welfare program.

I am not advocating handing out one thousand dollars to everyone even those who don't need it. Solving for actual economic phenomena is the goal. Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment that could be solved as simply and as easily as the Individual Liberty of employment at the will of either party can make it. It doesn't get more automatically stabilizing than that.

 

[danielpalos]

That's not a concern for the law, which makes it illegal to discriminate against women in hiring.

The point is that there is a simple and market friendly solution available in our at-will employment States.

 

[hadit]

And you're ignoring the reality that ANY program that does not have any qualifications is quickly overrun by those simply out for free money. Simple example, children. Right off the bat you have to have a way to know if the person applying for the program is a minor or an adult. Citizenship. You have to check. Are they already getting benefits from another program? Already you have to have a bureaucracy. So, no, you're not going to have a cheap, self-sustaining program. It WILL be another massive welfare program.

I am not advocating handing out one thousand dollars to everyone even those who don't need it. Solving for actual economic phenomena is the goal. Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment that could be solved as simply and as easily as the Individual Liberty of employment at the will of either party can make it. It doesn't get more automatically stabilizing than that.

Now wait a minute. You ARE advocating handing out money to those who don't need it, because you want to pay people who can work and have available jobs, but refuse to take them. That's been the point all along, that we don't pay people who can work and provide for themselves. You have just contradicted your earlier position, one that you hold to extremely tightly.