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

[hadit]

1. It would not be simple. You would still need means testing. You would, for example, have to prove you are of age, and not over retirement age (have you considered that?). You would have to prove you are a citizen. You would have to prove you are not otherwise employed. All of these require bureaucracy to be enforced.
2. Simply being able to declare you're unemployed and them take you at your word most certainly means MORE incentive to cheat the system, not less, because you could be working a job or jobs and attempt to collect this new welfare payment in addition to the other payments you get.
3. Removing the time limit merely opens to door for those who would stay on it permanently.

Basically, you're creating a brand new, massive welfare program that would have all the same problems and inefficiencies current welfare programs have. You seem to think people are noble and will only take these payments until they are able to work again, but at the same time you destroy your premise by stating that you want to give payments to people who have never worked and never intend to work. You want to pretend a program that temporarily helps industrious people can permanently support non-industrious people with the same efficiencies.

THAT is why your fantasy is only a fantasy.

Most of that already happens. And there are already income reporting requirements. For example, if you already make the equivalent or more than the minimum wage through passive income you could be considered self-employed. A minor would need to petition for emancipation to be considered an adult. And, there is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution. We have a naturalization clause and that means all foreign nationals in the US should be known to the general Government and federally identified for civil purposes.

EDD could receive employment information from people who are employed with an employer for simple verification purposes. Additional metadata for the general welfare should be a good thing. That process would be simpler than employers having to actually maintain individual accounts for their employees or having to litigate unemployment benefits, which also cost time and money for the employer.

Removing the time limit means we should have no one falling through the cracks and homeless since there is no time limit for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.

There should only be time limits on our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

It's a brand new, massive welfare program. Do you still maintain the fantasy that current UC law supports your assertion that it should pay every person the MW for not only not working but never working, forever?

Not brand new since it can use existing legal and physical infrastructure through equal protection of the laws. Why would anyone want to be poor forever under Capitalism when they could learn how to do something that could make them rich enough to not need unemployment compensation. And, people circulating capital is a good thing under Capitalism since Capital must circulate to achieve a multiplier effect. Even if it were as You claim, unemployment compensation would still be better than means tested welfare due to a higher multiplier and greater convenience to market participants in our economy.

I knew you wouldn't get it. Existing UC is not set up to and cannot possibly handle paying out to the millions who would jump on the system and stay there, sucking it dry. The program would have to have new taxes imposed on the general public, new bureaucracies to manage the millions more that would be on the program, and new enforcement. Hint, that means it's a brand new welfare program because it's not UC any more. UC couldn't handle it, and it simply doesn't matter how many times you stomp your feet and repeat that it will. It just won't. As for why anyone would be poor, there are those who stay in MW jobs or refuse to work now and take whatever they can get because they'd rather not have the responsibility that comes with supporting themselves. That's human nature for many people. As for circulation, first you are cutting circulation because you're going to have to impose a new general tax, then you're not going to get the same multiplier as UC because it's not UC any more. You don't seem to realize that taking a trillion out of the economy to get back a few billion in new taxes is not a good trade.

 

[hadit]

This is where you're pretending things. UC law, as currently written, most certainly does NOT support your assertion. First, you're mixing two things up. We were talking about the law of large numbers and now you're talking about anyone and his dog being able to collect welfare payments. Second, UC law, as currently written, most certainly does NOT support your assertion that "anyone who is unemployed in an at-will employment State could qualify for unemployment compensation", and do you know how I know that to be true? I know it to be true because it clearly lays out the criteria you have to meet in order to collect, and nowhere does it indicate that "anyone who is unemployed in an at-will employment State could qualify for unemployment compensation" as you wish it would. IF it did, the whole thing would have gone broke a long time ago trying to support all the current welfare recipients and everyone who decided they just didn't want to work. So no, your idea doesn't have support in current law.

A plain reading and understanding of the federal doctrine supports my assertion. Employment is at the will of either party. Show me where any form of employment is not assumed to be at-will in an at-will employment State.

Denying and disparaging our privileges and immunities is what right wingers love to do while alleging to be for Individual Liberty and natural rights according to free market Capitalism ideals, in socialism threads.

And you've never cited any court case that affirms that understanding. Every time you cite the text of a law it doesn't apply. You invent relationships between laws that are not there. No one takes you seriously about the law.

Right wingers merely insist on appealing to ignorance of the law.

At-will means that an employer can terminate an employee at any time for any reason, except an illegal one, or for no reason without incurring legal liability. Likewise, an employee is free to leave a job at any time for any or no reason with no adverse legal consequences.

Absolutely correct, that is what the law states. Also absolutely correct is you cannot find any legal language anywhere that links that law with UC. You've tried stating generalities and your opinion, but you can't state any law that links the two. You're allowed to quit your job whether you get paid to do it or not, that's the bottom line.

 

[justinacolmena]

there is nothing "simple" about poverty. It is
NOT a simple "lack of money"

Gun control blacklists. Brady Bill NICS shitlists, gun registration databases used for corporate employment and human resources purposes beyond originally intended.

Public employee labor-union blackballing practices, political party pranks, money offered to murder job applicants, pro-organized-crime working cops on the beat.

Pro-prostitution mainstream news media.

Civil Commitments which the Democrats refuse to give up. The usual mental health lies and slander on the permanent record. Cops pandering mental health medications on the street.

 

[danielpalos]

I knew you wouldn't get it. Existing UC is not set up to and cannot possibly handle paying out to the millions who would jump on the system and stay there, sucking it dry. The program would have to have new taxes imposed on the general public, new bureaucracies to manage the millions more that would be on the program, and new enforcement. Hint, that means it's a brand new welfare program because it's not UC any more. UC couldn't handle it, and it simply doesn't matter how many times you stomp your feet and repeat that it will. It just won't. As for why anyone would be poor, there are those who stay in MW jobs or refuse to work now and take whatever they can get because they'd rather not have the responsibility that comes with supporting themselves. That's human nature for many people. As for circulation, first you are cutting circulation because you're going to have to impose a new general tax, then you're not going to get the same multiplier as UC because it's not UC any more. You don't seem to realize that taking a trillion out of the economy to get back a few billion in new taxes is not a good trade.

That is just You. The existing program could be funded like our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror which have a worse multiplier. People on unemployment compensation would be spending that money in their local economies and generating local general taxes while doing it. We could end our alleged wars on crime, drugs and terror and use that money to fund unemployment compensation.

Any "new" taxes could be general taxes not direct taxes and less burdensome as a result. And, that also means capital has to circulate and engender a multiplier to collect that revenue. With a multiplier of two, it means that for every one hundred dollars spent, two hundred dollars of economic activity is generated. General taxes would come from that additional economic activity.

Funding could also come from financial instruments such as bond sales. There is no reason why people could not make money funding that program under Capitalism. Enough people on unemployment compensation could easily generate enough in general taxes to cover the interest payments.

How would local small businesses be worse off with more people spending money?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I knew you wouldn't get it. Existing UC is not set up to and cannot possibly handle paying out to the millions who would jump on the system and stay there, sucking it dry. The program would have to have new taxes imposed on the general public, new bureaucracies to manage the millions more that would be on the program, and new enforcement. Hint, that means it's a brand new welfare program because it's not UC any more. UC couldn't handle it, and it simply doesn't matter how many times you stomp your feet and repeat that it will. It just won't. As for why anyone would be poor, there are those who stay in MW jobs or refuse to work now and take whatever they can get because they'd rather not have the responsibility that comes with supporting themselves. That's human nature for many people. As for circulation, first you are cutting circulation because you're going to have to impose a new general tax, then you're not going to get the same multiplier as UC because it's not UC any more. You don't seem to realize that taking a trillion out of the economy to get back a few billion in new taxes is not a good trade.

That is just You. The existing program could be funded like our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror which have a worse multiplier. People on unemployment compensation would be spending that money in their local economies and generating local general taxes while doing it. We could end our alleged wars on crime, drugs and terror and use that money to fund unemployment compensation.

Any "new" taxes could be general taxes not direct taxes and less burdensome as a result. And, that also means capital has to circulate and engender a multiplier to collect that revenue. With a multiplier of two, it means that for every one hundred dollars spent, two hundred dollars of economic activity is generated. General taxes would come from that additional economic activity.

Funding could also come from financial instruments such as bond sales. There is no reason why people could not make money funding that program under Capitalism. Enough people on unemployment compensation could easily generate enough in general taxes to cover the interest payments.

How would local small businesses be worse off with more people spending money?

Quick question? Why do you care so much? What is your dog in this fight?

 

[danielpalos]

This is where you're pretending things. UC law, as currently written, most certainly does NOT support your assertion. First, you're mixing two things up. We were talking about the law of large numbers and now you're talking about anyone and his dog being able to collect welfare payments. Second, UC law, as currently written, most certainly does NOT support your assertion that "anyone who is unemployed in an at-will employment State could qualify for unemployment compensation", and do you know how I know that to be true? I know it to be true because it clearly lays out the criteria you have to meet in order to collect, and nowhere does it indicate that "anyone who is unemployed in an at-will employment State could qualify for unemployment compensation" as you wish it would. IF it did, the whole thing would have gone broke a long time ago trying to support all the current welfare recipients and everyone who decided they just didn't want to work. So no, your idea doesn't have support in current law.

A plain reading and understanding of the federal doctrine supports my assertion. Employment is at the will of either party. Show me where any form of employment is not assumed to be at-will in an at-will employment State.

Denying and disparaging our privileges and immunities is what right wingers love to do while alleging to be for Individual Liberty and natural rights according to free market Capitalism ideals, in socialism threads.

And you've never cited any court case that affirms that understanding. Every time you cite the text of a law it doesn't apply. You invent relationships between laws that are not there. No one takes you seriously about the law.

Right wingers merely insist on appealing to ignorance of the law.

At-will means that an employer can terminate an employee at any time for any reason, except an illegal one, or for no reason without incurring legal liability. Likewise, an employee is free to leave a job at any time for any or no reason with no adverse legal consequences.

Absolutely correct, that is what the law states. Also absolutely correct is you cannot find any legal language anywhere that links that law with UC. You've tried stating generalities and your opinion, but you can't state any law that links the two. You're allowed to quit your job whether you get paid to do it or not, that's the bottom line.

EDD merely creating a rule or regulation that denies or disparages at-will employment law is repugnant to equal protection of the law.

 

[danielpalos]

I knew you wouldn't get it. Existing UC is not set up to and cannot possibly handle paying out to the millions who would jump on the system and stay there, sucking it dry. The program would have to have new taxes imposed on the general public, new bureaucracies to manage the millions more that would be on the program, and new enforcement. Hint, that means it's a brand new welfare program because it's not UC any more. UC couldn't handle it, and it simply doesn't matter how many times you stomp your feet and repeat that it will. It just won't. As for why anyone would be poor, there are those who stay in MW jobs or refuse to work now and take whatever they can get because they'd rather not have the responsibility that comes with supporting themselves. That's human nature for many people. As for circulation, first you are cutting circulation because you're going to have to impose a new general tax, then you're not going to get the same multiplier as UC because it's not UC any more. You don't seem to realize that taking a trillion out of the economy to get back a few billion in new taxes is not a good trade.

That is just You. The existing program could be funded like our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror which have a worse multiplier. People on unemployment compensation would be spending that money in their local economies and generating local general taxes while doing it. We could end our alleged wars on crime, drugs and terror and use that money to fund unemployment compensation.

Any "new" taxes could be general taxes not direct taxes and less burdensome as a result. And, that also means capital has to circulate and engender a multiplier to collect that revenue. With a multiplier of two, it means that for every one hundred dollars spent, two hundred dollars of economic activity is generated. General taxes would come from that additional economic activity.

Funding could also come from financial instruments such as bond sales. There is no reason why people could not make money funding that program under Capitalism. Enough people on unemployment compensation could easily generate enough in general taxes to cover the interest payments.

How would local small businesses be worse off with more people spending money?

Quick question? Why do you care so much? What is your dog in this fight?

I am on the left. This is what we are supposed to be doing with our form of federal Government:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I knew you wouldn't get it. Existing UC is not set up to and cannot possibly handle paying out to the millions who would jump on the system and stay there, sucking it dry. The program would have to have new taxes imposed on the general public, new bureaucracies to manage the millions more that would be on the program, and new enforcement. Hint, that means it's a brand new welfare program because it's not UC any more. UC couldn't handle it, and it simply doesn't matter how many times you stomp your feet and repeat that it will. It just won't. As for why anyone would be poor, there are those who stay in MW jobs or refuse to work now and take whatever they can get because they'd rather not have the responsibility that comes with supporting themselves. That's human nature for many people. As for circulation, first you are cutting circulation because you're going to have to impose a new general tax, then you're not going to get the same multiplier as UC because it's not UC any more. You don't seem to realize that taking a trillion out of the economy to get back a few billion in new taxes is not a good trade.

That is just You. The existing program could be funded like our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror which have a worse multiplier. People on unemployment compensation would be spending that money in their local economies and generating local general taxes while doing it. We could end our alleged wars on crime, drugs and terror and use that money to fund unemployment compensation.

Any "new" taxes could be general taxes not direct taxes and less burdensome as a result. And, that also means capital has to circulate and engender a multiplier to collect that revenue. With a multiplier of two, it means that for every one hundred dollars spent, two hundred dollars of economic activity is generated. General taxes would come from that additional economic activity.

Funding could also come from financial instruments such as bond sales. There is no reason why people could not make money funding that program under Capitalism. Enough people on unemployment compensation could easily generate enough in general taxes to cover the interest payments.

How would local small businesses be worse off with more people spending money?

Quick question? Why do you care so much? What is your dog in this fight?

I am on the left. This is what we are supposed to be doing with our form of federal Government:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

But you're not even an American? Why do you care about American poverty?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I knew you wouldn't get it. Existing UC is not set up to and cannot possibly handle paying out to the millions who would jump on the system and stay there, sucking it dry. The program would have to have new taxes imposed on the general public, new bureaucracies to manage the millions more that would be on the program, and new enforcement. Hint, that means it's a brand new welfare program because it's not UC any more. UC couldn't handle it, and it simply doesn't matter how many times you stomp your feet and repeat that it will. It just won't. As for why anyone would be poor, there are those who stay in MW jobs or refuse to work now and take whatever they can get because they'd rather not have the responsibility that comes with supporting themselves. That's human nature for many people. As for circulation, first you are cutting circulation because you're going to have to impose a new general tax, then you're not going to get the same multiplier as UC because it's not UC any more. You don't seem to realize that taking a trillion out of the economy to get back a few billion in new taxes is not a good trade.

That is just You. The existing program could be funded like our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror which have a worse multiplier. People on unemployment compensation would be spending that money in their local economies and generating local general taxes while doing it. We could end our alleged wars on crime, drugs and terror and use that money to fund unemployment compensation.

Any "new" taxes could be general taxes not direct taxes and less burdensome as a result. And, that also means capital has to circulate and engender a multiplier to collect that revenue. With a multiplier of two, it means that for every one hundred dollars spent, two hundred dollars of economic activity is generated. General taxes would come from that additional economic activity.

Funding could also come from financial instruments such as bond sales. There is no reason why people could not make money funding that program under Capitalism. Enough people on unemployment compensation could easily generate enough in general taxes to cover the interest payments.

How would local small businesses be worse off with more people spending money?

Quick question? Why do you care so much? What is your dog in this fight?

I am on the left. This is what we are supposed to be doing with our form of federal Government:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Kevin O'Leary on stimulus checks: Stop 'sending everybody free money'

President Joe Biden has proposed sending $1,400 checks to every eligible American, as part of his massive $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package.

finance.yahoo.com

You should read this

 

[danielpalos]

I knew you wouldn't get it. Existing UC is not set up to and cannot possibly handle paying out to the millions who would jump on the system and stay there, sucking it dry. The program would have to have new taxes imposed on the general public, new bureaucracies to manage the millions more that would be on the program, and new enforcement. Hint, that means it's a brand new welfare program because it's not UC any more. UC couldn't handle it, and it simply doesn't matter how many times you stomp your feet and repeat that it will. It just won't. As for why anyone would be poor, there are those who stay in MW jobs or refuse to work now and take whatever they can get because they'd rather not have the responsibility that comes with supporting themselves. That's human nature for many people. As for circulation, first you are cutting circulation because you're going to have to impose a new general tax, then you're not going to get the same multiplier as UC because it's not UC any more. You don't seem to realize that taking a trillion out of the economy to get back a few billion in new taxes is not a good trade.

That is just You. The existing program could be funded like our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror which have a worse multiplier. People on unemployment compensation would be spending that money in their local economies and generating local general taxes while doing it. We could end our alleged wars on crime, drugs and terror and use that money to fund unemployment compensation.

Any "new" taxes could be general taxes not direct taxes and less burdensome as a result. And, that also means capital has to circulate and engender a multiplier to collect that revenue. With a multiplier of two, it means that for every one hundred dollars spent, two hundred dollars of economic activity is generated. General taxes would come from that additional economic activity.

Funding could also come from financial instruments such as bond sales. There is no reason why people could not make money funding that program under Capitalism. Enough people on unemployment compensation could easily generate enough in general taxes to cover the interest payments.

How would local small businesses be worse off with more people spending money?

Quick question? Why do you care so much? What is your dog in this fight?

I am on the left. This is what we are supposed to be doing with our form of federal Government:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

But you're not even an American? Why do you care about American poverty?

Are you on the right wing? I am more American than You.

 

[danielpalos]

I knew you wouldn't get it. Existing UC is not set up to and cannot possibly handle paying out to the millions who would jump on the system and stay there, sucking it dry. The program would have to have new taxes imposed on the general public, new bureaucracies to manage the millions more that would be on the program, and new enforcement. Hint, that means it's a brand new welfare program because it's not UC any more. UC couldn't handle it, and it simply doesn't matter how many times you stomp your feet and repeat that it will. It just won't. As for why anyone would be poor, there are those who stay in MW jobs or refuse to work now and take whatever they can get because they'd rather not have the responsibility that comes with supporting themselves. That's human nature for many people. As for circulation, first you are cutting circulation because you're going to have to impose a new general tax, then you're not going to get the same multiplier as UC because it's not UC any more. You don't seem to realize that taking a trillion out of the economy to get back a few billion in new taxes is not a good trade.

That is just You. The existing program could be funded like our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror which have a worse multiplier. People on unemployment compensation would be spending that money in their local economies and generating local general taxes while doing it. We could end our alleged wars on crime, drugs and terror and use that money to fund unemployment compensation.

Any "new" taxes could be general taxes not direct taxes and less burdensome as a result. And, that also means capital has to circulate and engender a multiplier to collect that revenue. With a multiplier of two, it means that for every one hundred dollars spent, two hundred dollars of economic activity is generated. General taxes would come from that additional economic activity.

Funding could also come from financial instruments such as bond sales. There is no reason why people could not make money funding that program under Capitalism. Enough people on unemployment compensation could easily generate enough in general taxes to cover the interest payments.

How would local small businesses be worse off with more people spending money?

Quick question? Why do you care so much? What is your dog in this fight?

I am on the left. This is what we are supposed to be doing with our form of federal Government:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Kevin O'Leary on stimulus checks: Stop 'sending everybody free money'

President Joe Biden has proposed sending $1,400 checks to every eligible American, as part of his massive $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package.

finance.yahoo.com

You should read this

Equal protection of the law for our at-will employment laws would enable the unemployed to collect unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States. We should have no homeless problem and all those persons should be participating in our market economy.

We need to wait for the study to see what the extra fourteen hundred dollars will do for our economy. I agree that a consistent income, even if only from unemployment compensation, does more for our economy than more arbitrary, single payment amounts.

 

[hadit]

This is where you're pretending things. UC law, as currently written, most certainly does NOT support your assertion. First, you're mixing two things up. We were talking about the law of large numbers and now you're talking about anyone and his dog being able to collect welfare payments. Second, UC law, as currently written, most certainly does NOT support your assertion that "anyone who is unemployed in an at-will employment State could qualify for unemployment compensation", and do you know how I know that to be true? I know it to be true because it clearly lays out the criteria you have to meet in order to collect, and nowhere does it indicate that "anyone who is unemployed in an at-will employment State could qualify for unemployment compensation" as you wish it would. IF it did, the whole thing would have gone broke a long time ago trying to support all the current welfare recipients and everyone who decided they just didn't want to work. So no, your idea doesn't have support in current law.

A plain reading and understanding of the federal doctrine supports my assertion. Employment is at the will of either party. Show me where any form of employment is not assumed to be at-will in an at-will employment State.

Denying and disparaging our privileges and immunities is what right wingers love to do while alleging to be for Individual Liberty and natural rights according to free market Capitalism ideals, in socialism threads.

And you've never cited any court case that affirms that understanding. Every time you cite the text of a law it doesn't apply. You invent relationships between laws that are not there. No one takes you seriously about the law.

Right wingers merely insist on appealing to ignorance of the law.

At-will means that an employer can terminate an employee at any time for any reason, except an illegal one, or for no reason without incurring legal liability. Likewise, an employee is free to leave a job at any time for any or no reason with no adverse legal consequences.

Absolutely correct, that is what the law states. Also absolutely correct is you cannot find any legal language anywhere that links that law with UC. You've tried stating generalities and your opinion, but you can't state any law that links the two. You're allowed to quit your job whether you get paid to do it or not, that's the bottom line.

EDD merely creating a rule or regulation that denies or disparages at-will employment law is repugnant to equal protection of the law.

Only in your mind. No one else agrees with you. No legal scholar agrees with you. No court agrees with you. No lawyer agrees with you. This is something you've made up in your own mind simply because you want to be paid if you quit your job, but that's not how it works. You haven't cited a single legal opinion that agrees with you, none, zip, zero, nada. You've quoted the same two sentences from the laws until you're blue in the face, but no court has ever ruled that they establish a linkage that must not be broken because you say so. This is pure leftwing ignorance of the law.

You can claim the law of gravity is unfair, that heavy people are penalized too much when they fall down, and you can rant on and on that the law of big numbers proves that gravity should be repealed and you should be allowed to jump off the roof without falling to your death, but every single time you jump off the roof you will fall to the ground. Likewise, no matter how many times you claim otherwise, every time you quit a job and try to collect UC you will be denied. Have you tried making your legal argument to your local UC office? Maybe they would let you finish before kicking you out, but only because they have to be polite.

 

[hadit]

I knew you wouldn't get it. Existing UC is not set up to and cannot possibly handle paying out to the millions who would jump on the system and stay there, sucking it dry. The program would have to have new taxes imposed on the general public, new bureaucracies to manage the millions more that would be on the program, and new enforcement. Hint, that means it's a brand new welfare program because it's not UC any more. UC couldn't handle it, and it simply doesn't matter how many times you stomp your feet and repeat that it will. It just won't. As for why anyone would be poor, there are those who stay in MW jobs or refuse to work now and take whatever they can get because they'd rather not have the responsibility that comes with supporting themselves. That's human nature for many people. As for circulation, first you are cutting circulation because you're going to have to impose a new general tax, then you're not going to get the same multiplier as UC because it's not UC any more. You don't seem to realize that taking a trillion out of the economy to get back a few billion in new taxes is not a good trade.

That is just You. The existing program could be funded like our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror which have a worse multiplier. People on unemployment compensation would be spending that money in their local economies and generating local general taxes while doing it. We could end our alleged wars on crime, drugs and terror and use that money to fund unemployment compensation.

Any "new" taxes could be general taxes not direct taxes and less burdensome as a result. And, that also means capital has to circulate and engender a multiplier to collect that revenue. With a multiplier of two, it means that for every one hundred dollars spent, two hundred dollars of economic activity is generated. General taxes would come from that additional economic activity.

Funding could also come from financial instruments such as bond sales. There is no reason why people could not make money funding that program under Capitalism. Enough people on unemployment compensation could easily generate enough in general taxes to cover the interest payments.

How would local small businesses be worse off with more people spending money?

Until you're honest enough to call this what it is instead of pretending it's UC, you won't get anywhere. It's welfare, get used to it, and such a program would have all the problems existing welfare programs have. You won't get a multiplier of two because you're changing the program. You won't even address that, just keep robotically repeating over and over again that you will get it. You won't. You're the only one saying this and can't point to a single legal or economic expert that believes you. You're done, you just don't realize it, and that's sad.

 

[danielpalos]

Only in your mind. No one else agrees with you. No legal scholar agrees with you. No court agrees with you. No lawyer agrees with you.

Simply because You say so? I haven't met anyone but right wingers who disagree with me. Anyone who knows anything about this is also wondering why this was never implemented before. It really is that simple.

 

[danielpalos]

I knew you wouldn't get it. Existing UC is not set up to and cannot possibly handle paying out to the millions who would jump on the system and stay there, sucking it dry. The program would have to have new taxes imposed on the general public, new bureaucracies to manage the millions more that would be on the program, and new enforcement. Hint, that means it's a brand new welfare program because it's not UC any more. UC couldn't handle it, and it simply doesn't matter how many times you stomp your feet and repeat that it will. It just won't. As for why anyone would be poor, there are those who stay in MW jobs or refuse to work now and take whatever they can get because they'd rather not have the responsibility that comes with supporting themselves. That's human nature for many people. As for circulation, first you are cutting circulation because you're going to have to impose a new general tax, then you're not going to get the same multiplier as UC because it's not UC any more. You don't seem to realize that taking a trillion out of the economy to get back a few billion in new taxes is not a good trade.

That is just You. The existing program could be funded like our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror which have a worse multiplier. People on unemployment compensation would be spending that money in their local economies and generating local general taxes while doing it. We could end our alleged wars on crime, drugs and terror and use that money to fund unemployment compensation.

Any "new" taxes could be general taxes not direct taxes and less burdensome as a result. And, that also means capital has to circulate and engender a multiplier to collect that revenue. With a multiplier of two, it means that for every one hundred dollars spent, two hundred dollars of economic activity is generated. General taxes would come from that additional economic activity.

Funding could also come from financial instruments such as bond sales. There is no reason why people could not make money funding that program under Capitalism. Enough people on unemployment compensation could easily generate enough in general taxes to cover the interest payments.

How would local small businesses be worse off with more people spending money?

Until you're honest enough to call this what it is instead of pretending it's UC, you won't get anywhere. It's welfare, get used to it, and such a program would have all the problems existing welfare programs have. You won't get a multiplier of two because you're changing the program. You won't even address that, just keep robotically repeating over and over again that you will get it. You won't. You're the only one saying this and can't point to a single legal or economic expert that believes you. You're done, you just don't realize it, and that's sad.

Why do you want to confuse it with welfare? So you can "hate on the Poor". How can you have a problem with a simple solution to simple poverty when you don't seem to have any problem at all with the wasteful spending on our endless and alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror. Shouldn't there be a time limit on that since it is not general welfare spending.

 

[irosie91]

there is nothing "simple" about poverty. It is
NOT a simple "lack of money"

Gun control blacklists. Brady Bill NICS shitlists, gun registration databases used for corporate employment and human resources purposes beyond originally intended.

Public employee labor-union blackballing practices, political party pranks, money offered to murder job applicants, pro-organized-crime working cops on the beat.

Pro-prostitution mainstream news media.

Civil Commitments which the Democrats refuse to give up. The usual mental health lies and slander on the permanent record. Cops pandering mental health medications on the street.

"cops pandering mental health medications on the
street"???? "permanent record"? --------you need
a vacation

 

[hadit]

Only in your mind. No one else agrees with you. No legal scholar agrees with you. No court agrees with you. No lawyer agrees with you.

Simply because You say so? I haven't met anyone but right wingers who disagree with me. Anyone who knows anything about this is also wondering why this was never implemented before. It really is that simple.

Name the lawyer that agrees with you. Name the court that agrees with you. Name the legal scholar that agrees with you. Name them.

 

[danielpalos]

I don't know any attorneys who disagree with my legal position either.

 

[hadit]

I knew you wouldn't get it. Existing UC is not set up to and cannot possibly handle paying out to the millions who would jump on the system and stay there, sucking it dry. The program would have to have new taxes imposed on the general public, new bureaucracies to manage the millions more that would be on the program, and new enforcement. Hint, that means it's a brand new welfare program because it's not UC any more. UC couldn't handle it, and it simply doesn't matter how many times you stomp your feet and repeat that it will. It just won't. As for why anyone would be poor, there are those who stay in MW jobs or refuse to work now and take whatever they can get because they'd rather not have the responsibility that comes with supporting themselves. That's human nature for many people. As for circulation, first you are cutting circulation because you're going to have to impose a new general tax, then you're not going to get the same multiplier as UC because it's not UC any more. You don't seem to realize that taking a trillion out of the economy to get back a few billion in new taxes is not a good trade.

That is just You. The existing program could be funded like our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror which have a worse multiplier. People on unemployment compensation would be spending that money in their local economies and generating local general taxes while doing it. We could end our alleged wars on crime, drugs and terror and use that money to fund unemployment compensation.

Any "new" taxes could be general taxes not direct taxes and less burdensome as a result. And, that also means capital has to circulate and engender a multiplier to collect that revenue. With a multiplier of two, it means that for every one hundred dollars spent, two hundred dollars of economic activity is generated. General taxes would come from that additional economic activity.

Funding could also come from financial instruments such as bond sales. There is no reason why people could not make money funding that program under Capitalism. Enough people on unemployment compensation could easily generate enough in general taxes to cover the interest payments.

How would local small businesses be worse off with more people spending money?

Until you're honest enough to call this what it is instead of pretending it's UC, you won't get anywhere. It's welfare, get used to it, and such a program would have all the problems existing welfare programs have. You won't get a multiplier of two because you're changing the program. You won't even address that, just keep robotically repeating over and over again that you will get it. You won't. You're the only one saying this and can't point to a single legal or economic expert that believes you. You're done, you just don't realize it, and that's sad.

Why do you want to confuse it with welfare? So you can "hate on the Poor". How can you have a problem with a simple solution to simple poverty when you don't seem to have any problem at all with the wasteful spending on our endless and alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror. Shouldn't there be a time limit on that since it is not general welfare spending.

It IS welfare, that's the bottom line, because you want to support a bunch of people who COULD work but choose not to. That's the bottom line, it's not UC, which supports people temporarily laid off from their job. You want to change an insurance program that sustains itself by loading it up with a bunch more recipients that don't meet the criteria of workers. You complaining about extra stuff like wars on this or that is meaningless. Your approach is not a "simple solution to simple poverty", it is a new welfare program and we already know that welfare doesn't solve poverty. We already know that welfare programs have a lot of problems. You WON'T get your multiplier because the new program WON'T be UC, no matter how many times you close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and repeat your mantra. Like I've said several times, point to a court case that supports your assertion. You can't. Point to a legal scholar who supports your assertion. You can't. All you have is what you want to have happen and you're making up a whole bunch of nonsense to pretend you're supporting it. You're not supporting it. The law is the law and you cannot make it something it is not.

 

[hadit]

I don't know any attorneys who disagree with my legal position either.

You don't know any attorneys. Ask a few if UC qualifications are unequal protection under the law and are a legal barrier to you quitting your job. Do some research on the subject beyond quoting again and again your favorite sentences that don't prove anything.