Honestly, if they really wanted to move money around, basic income would be direct and more efficient than both tax cuts and some welfare. Automation aside.
Honestly, if they really wanted to move money around, basic income would be direct and more efficient than both tax cuts and some welfare. Automation aside.
I guess a similar question as before, but if human beings are wired in such a way that we want to stop working if we have "just enough" money to live a comfortable life, then why does anyone pursue higher-paying jobs? There's evidence to suggest that a UBI would actually stimulate the jobs market, because rather than feeling the pressure of trying to make rent every month, people would be free to quit their low-paying jobs, potentially go back to school, and then search for higher-paying jobs that are much more in line with their interestsBasic income isn't really encouraging people to actually generate money though. We're in enough debt as is without giving free money to everyone.
I guess a similar question as before, but if human beings are wired in such a way that we want to stop working if we have "just enough" money to live a comfortable life, then why does anyone pursue higher-paying jobs? There's evidence to suggest that a UBI would actually stimulate the jobs market, because rather than feeling the pressure of trying to make rent every month, people would be free to quit their low-paying jobs, potentially go back to school, and then search for higher-paying jobs that are much more in line with their interests
Yeah, the American for-profit healthcare industry. Ignore the obvious bias for a second and just focus on the text of this opinion article for a second, because it raises some very crucial points: https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/why-markets-cant-cure-healthcare/
Edit: And something that said article doesn't address is that there's just... no profit in curing people. For profit hospitals make the most money out of an individual from end-of-life care, and that's just the cold, hard truth. No matter how cheap it is to produce a drug and how high they subsequently mark it up, it's just so much cheaper to charge families for keeping a loved one comfortable on a cot and morphine rather than curing them of the illness and just seeing them in a year or two for a physical, should they choose to come back
Wow, you're right, every country other than us spends so much on healthcarehttps://mises.org/wire/how-government-regulations-made-healthcare-so-expensive
haha oops I think I dropped this
But tax cuts for the already rich is?Basic income isn't really encouraging people to actually generate money though. We're in enough debt as is without giving free money to everyone.
I guess you mean by itself? We already have examples of it working and working better than we have now.But by the same token neither will single-payer/free-healthcare.
SIt's not socialized vs privatized that's the issue, it's literally just that our healthcare system takes advantage of the people that it's supposed to be helping; obviously people are being treated, but not at NEARLY the cost they should be
Source
I... Uh... Hm... I really don't think that there's any evidence outside of anecdotes that supports that that's the case. Again, look at the social spending of virtually every other country vs private spending. Most of those countries have just as good, if not more comprehensive healthcare for the lower and middle class at a significantly lower price. There's nothing to suggest that privatizing the healthcare industry would do anything other than raise the upfront cost, especially for people with poor or no insurance coverage. The reason being, there is no guaranteed funding anymore, so either there would have to be specialty centers built to treat conditions requiring special equipment, or individual hospitals would have to pay for it with money that is no longer guaranteed. Plus, given how high of a markup many hospitals make vs what the cost of treatment actually is, I see no evidence to support that they'd do anything other than try to increase that gap given the opportunity, either by doing the bare minimum treatment or by charging to hell and backIf the government cut all public funding to health care, that little private bar on the graph would stay the same size. Here's why.
But tax cuts for the already rich is?
Yeah, but our healthcare system is such a botched mess of compromises that literally anything is better. It's like saying you're better at running then the guy who lost his legs.I guess you mean by itself? We already have examples of it working and working better than we have now.
Measuring how good the economy is doing by how much money corporations are making is extremely problematic. The economy doing well means absolutely nothing if we don't use the opportunity to raise wages and pay down national debts.No matter how much you dislike the principal of it, tax cuts for the rich are enormously helpful for the economy, to an extent.
Measuring how good the economy is doing by how much money corporations are making is extremely problematic. The economy doing well means absolutely nothing if we don't use the opportunity to raise wages and pay down national debts.
How? You mean other than the obvious increase in minimum wage to keep pace with inflation? Currently we have to subsidize Wal-Mart and McDonald's employees because those corporations refuse to pay their workers a living wage, so the taxpayers foot the bill.How exactly would you raise wages? Genuinely curious.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve#ReaganomicsWikipedia said:During Reagan's presidency, the national debt grew from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion. This led to the U.S. moving from the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation.
How? You mean other than the obvious increase in minimum wage to keep pace with inflation? Currently we have to subsidize Wal-Mart and McDonald's employees because those corporations refuse to pay their workers a living wage, so the taxpayers foot the bill.
As for Reagan's national debt:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve#Reaganomics
Trickle-down fucked us hard.
Putting aside how helpful "trickle down" economies is, how is giving free money to the rich helpful, but not giving enough free money directly to the people that actually need it not? If the already rich people can possibly make more money with free money, so could everyone else.Well... Yeah.
Jens Arnold, Bert Brys, Christopher Heady, Åsa Johansson, Cyrille Schwellnus, & Laura Vartia, Tax Policy For Economic Recovery and Growth, 121 Economic Journal F59-F80 (2011).
Robert Barro & C.J. Redlick, Macroeconomic Effects of Government Purchases and Taxes, 126 Quarterly Journal of Economics 51-102 (2011).
Christina Romer & David Romer, The macroeconomic effects of tax changes: estimates based on a new measure of fiscal shocks, 100 American Economic Review 763-801 (2010).
These all say that raising taxes hurts the economy, while cutting them helps.
No matter how much you dislike the principal of it, tax cuts for the rich are enormously helpful for the economy, to an extent.
If we are going to fix it, which we should, it would be best to model it after the better healthcare, such as the Nordic countries or even Canada. Just because the person without legs isn't doing so hot right now, doesn't mean they shouldn't eventually get bionic legs.Yeah, but our healthcare system is such a botched mess of compromises that literally anything is better. It's like saying you're better at running then the guy who lost his legs.
Putting aside how helpful "trickle down" economies is, how is giving free money to the rich helpful, but not giving enough free money directly to the people that actually need it not? If the already rich people can possibly make more money with free money, so could everyone else.
If we are going to fix it, which we should, it would be best to model it after the better healthcare, such as the Nordic countries or even Canada. Just because the person without legs isn't doing so hot right now, doesn't mean they shouldn't eventually get bionic legs.
National minimum wage has been raised several times already. It "worked" just fine every time. Localized minimum wage increases are something different entirely.I agree with the sentiment, but it's not gonna work.
Clearly not enough tax revenue to offset economic policies which put us much further into debt.What exactly does trickle-down have to do with debt? The policy worked. We were gaining tons of tax revenue.
Just a good reason the 1% need 99% of the tax burden.quite frankly i am a middle class person making a decent wage. If the extra 100 buckos im getting per paycheck (and i am not saying this to be an ass) is gonna make the debt go up 1 trillion, yeah hell no.
I know why some people are happy. they are hurting. However its like these people were given so little and others will make out a ton due to the cuts.
Minimum wage has been raised several times already. It "worked" just fine every time.
Clearly not enough tax revenue to offset economic policies which put us much further into debt.