We should have a Guaranteed Minimum Income in the USA, would solve crime, etc.

Pathetic. Just pathetic. Guaranteed? So sad that people have this mentality.

There are no guarantees in life. Oh wait; death. And also with a mind-set like this it is pretty much guaranteed a life full of disappointment. And most likely unhappiness. And oh yeah poverty.

really?????? wrote:

Why? Because they work hard?

LOL!!!!

shutta wrote:

No. Inequality provides incentives for people to work and create.

BUT

there SHOULD be a strong safety net to give people security for when they don't succeed.

Basically I agree with the Rawlsian position on distributive justice, the difference principle, which states that inequality should exist to the extent that its beneficial to society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_as_Fairness

The Equality Principle is the component of Justice as Fairness establishing distributive justice.

Rawls presents it as follows in A Theory of Justice:

"Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both:

(a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just savings principle, and

(b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity."[6]"

yep, there should be some inequality in income and asset accumulation in order to motivate people to do better, but there should also be a strong (stronger in the US) redistribution mechanism when the gap between the rich and the other classes widens.

Have you ever played monopoly? Wealth accumulates wealth. A wealthy person could do nothing and get richer by naturally observed phenomena.

This idea was supported by Huey Long and maybe Father Coughlin(?), a radio preacher, back in the 1930s. What would be a good idea to get our economy going again and building it for the future, as was done in the 1930s, would be a major public works administration, rebuilding our roads, bridges, and tunnels, our crumbling water systems, building high speed train lines, and broadband universalization. Add Manhattan Project style projects to create new technologies, all of which in the 20th century was as much as a 50% contributor to total GDP, and you would simultaneously reduce the unemployment rate dramatically, reduce crime, grow the economy now, and raise GDP growth and equality for the future. How do you pay for it all? There's no doubt that you need to raise taxes on the rich and corporations, add a financial transactions tax, and borrow more money at the current historically low interest rates. We need a New New Deal. The constituency of the gov't should not only be the rich and corporations.

Silly uneducated notion. Of course Norway and Sweden are tiny countries and it doesn't work for them to think that it would work in the U.S is just. . .

Even if it was a smart idea it would NEVER work.

Do you know how much taxes the actually working people in these countries pay? American citizens would revolt if asked to pay 50 percent and more of their HARD EARNED money to people who have opted out.

Not a Sloth wrote:

Silly uneducated notion. Of course Norway and Sweden are tiny countries and it doesn't work for them to think that it would work in the U.S is just. . .

Even if it was a smart idea it would NEVER work.

Do you know how much taxes the actually working people in these countries pay? American citizens would revolt if asked to pay 50 percent and more of their HARD EARNED money to people who have opted out.

I LOVE your all caps. Really COOL stuff.

RECONIZER OF HILARITY WROTE:

I LOVE your all caps. Really COOL stuff

Read more:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=4676724&page=1#ixzz2099VYG3A

And I love your contribution to the forum AND (just for you:)) your eloquent use of language and descriptive terms "really cool stuff". You must be a really COOL person, in person!

Not a Sloth wrote:

RECONIZER OF HILARITY WROTE:

I LOVE your all caps. Really COOL stuff

Read more:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=4676724&page=1#ixzz2099VYG3A

And I love your contribution to the forum AND (just for you:)) your eloquent use of language and descriptive terms "really cool stuff". You must be a really COOL person, in person!

Good STUFF, Sloth Man.

Hilarity Man wrote: Good STUFF, Sloth Man

It's prefectly OK HillyMAN I completely understand how threatened and upset people of your mindset become when they think someone doesn't agree with the whole distrubution of wealth plan.

Not a Sloth wrote:

Hilarity Man wrote: Good STUFF, Sloth Man

It's prefectly OK HillyMAN I completely understand how threatened and upset people of your mindset become when they think someone doesn't agree with the whole distrubution of wealth plan.

Tactical BLUNDER there Sloth Man. Never assume anything ABOUT someone else' mindset.

Why does Nobody, NOBODY speak up for the idea of having people simply keep their hard earned wage income up to a certain amount. If you earn $50,000 you take home $50,000. But no, its all about "guaranteed" income that is taxed, inflating housing prices, cutting investment income. The major parties are both radically insane. They really are.

I don't think its as simple as that. No one can make it alone on a single minimum wage job anyway. Let alone raise a family of two or three. Raising the minimum wage would have little impact and inflation would simply wipe out any gains between a 7.50 dollar and hour job and a 10 dollar an hour job. Nothing would be gained for those at that pay level.

What we should have is a concentrated focus in training and education starting at a young age to get the motivated to plan for a job that pays more than minimum age. The rest that can't keep up will have federal food and housing assistance to survive on.

We should have a guaranteed minimum GPA as well. I mean, I don't want a 4.0 just for showing up, but why can't I be guaranteed at least, say, a 3.1? Socioeconomic factors have prevented me from getting a GPA over 2.8, but I really think that everyone deserves a GPA over 3.

same logic wrote:

We should have a guaranteed minimum GPA as well. I mean, I don't want a 4.0 just for showing up, but why can't I be guaranteed at least, say, a 3.1? Socioeconomic factors have prevented me from getting a GPA over 2.8, but I really think that everyone deserves a GPA over 3.

Distribution of wealth and distrubution of grades. Utopia for the underachievers :)

break it up wrote:

I don't think its as simple as that. No one can make it alone on a single minimum wage job anyway. Let alone raise a family of two or three. Raising the minimum wage would have little impact and inflation would simply wipe out any gains between a 7.50 dollar and hour job and a 10 dollar an hour job. Nothing would be gained for those at that pay level.

Minimum wage is definitely enough to make it alone. Well balanced meals can cost less than $1000 per year. And good housing can be easily found for less than $500 per month. With that budget, you could even work part time and live above poverty. And you'd have plenty of leisure time, exercise time, and study time (if you wanted a better job).

Toughen up.

You think WORK somehow magically creates money??

Hint, the Central Banks just print it up (they don't even really do that anymore), they just create it from the Nether and it turns into money on their computers. They create money out of thin air from DEBT, but that is another story.

Money is an illusion. The only reason they don't have a Minimum Income is they are already having a hard enough time getting Cannon Fodder to sign up for the military.

I know several government employees who do next to NOTHING and are taking home 80K a year if you add in their benefits.

They literally do NOTHING. They might have to send out a couple emails but for the most part they sit there day after day, year after year collecting a check.

I see nothing wrong with giving everyone in the USA a check for say $12,000 to $20,000 a year depending on the cost of living in that area.. All Welfare is eliminated. That is all you get, if you want more you will have to WORK to get a fancy car, etc.

Interesting so basically you are saying much like everyone will soon be guaranteed healthcare, everyone would get enough so they don't have to starve to death, steal, or live 12 to an apartment.

Seems like that would jump start the economy a whole lot more than giving billions to Billionaires so it would TRICKLE DOWN... Those plans failed miserably because the greedy b*stards just cut even more jobs or sent them overseas to make profits higher.

What did you think I meant when I said hope and change? I'm already giving 40% of the peeps free phones and more than 20k for just voting for me.