Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You don't like the basketball court example? Then I've got a better one. The Child Tax Credit has been in effect for over two decades. It results in direct cash payments to individuals. As I recall, your objection was that a UBI is giving tax money to individuals.
By that logic, any and all social welfare programs are immoral. If you accept that some are okay, then you can't use the argument against UBI.
UBI doesn't work that way.
OP, line1:
Sorry, I guess this is a bit clearer:
Hard work won't even get you by sometimes. We have special programs for specific kinds of "not getting by", such as social security disability, unemployment, etc. But each of these has its own complicated qualification protocol and hoops you have to jump through to get approved, and these programs do not cover all types of "not getting by". A UBI would be simple to administer.
Not hardly true. And those programs are only for those who need them. Realistically only less than 10% of people need those programs. A UBI is a waste of money because 90% of people don't need it.
(1) Programs that benefit only people struggling to get by encourage people to stay in that category so as not to lose the benefits. A UBI does not have this problem because if someone is getting by with the help of the UBI and they have an opportunity to get a good paying job, their is no fear of losing their benefits if they get the good job, and so they are more likely to get that good job, making a UBI more effective for lifting people out of poverty than programs that cut off as soon as you reach a certain threshold of income.
(2) Expanding programs that benefit only those in desperate need is not popular among conservatives. That is why Social Security was passed as a universal program and not a means-tested program. Conservatives only tolerated the passage of Social Security if it was universal.
If you didn’t have sponges to rail against, who would you rail against?That was yesterday's conservatives. Just like liberals were really today's conservatives. Things have changed. It's something those on the left now struggle with.
Today's conservatives are more for giving welfare only to those that need it. Not for everyone. AND we are for only giving it for only for a period if time. People need to get off welfare if they are able bodied and able to work. There is no excuse for sponging off others.
People should be able to support themselves with a job without the help of welfare, but that would mean raising wages, and we can’t have that.That was yesterday's conservatives. Just like liberals were really today's conservatives. Things have changed. It's something those on the left now struggle with.
Today's conservatives are more for giving welfare only to those that need it. Not for everyone. AND we are for only giving it for only for a period if time. People need to get off welfare if they are able bodied and able to work. There is no excuse for sponging off others.
Then I would suggest framing your arguments better. Because if you argue that what makes a UBI immoral is the fact that it takes money from those who earned it and gives it to those who did not, then that would constitute an argument against all tax-funded social welfare programs.We are talking UBI not all social welfare programs.
People should be able to support themselves with a job without the help of welfare, but that would mean raising wages, and we can’t have that.
Then I would suggest framing your arguments better. Because if you argue that what makes a UBI immoral is the fact that it takes money from those who earned it and gives it to those who did not, then that would constitute an argument against all tax-funded social welfare programs.
If you didn’t have sponges to rail against, who would you rail against?
Ah, I see.Liberals, progressives, socialists I could go on.
Ah, I see.
You’re someone who loves his country but doesn’t “love” like 45% of the people who inhabit it. Okay. Good to know!
Then welfare is by and large a non-issue. Why dedicate so much energy towards removing it from such a small sliver of the population?By and large people do.
No one is trying to remove it.Then welfare is by and large a non-issue. Why dedicate so much energy towards removing it from such a small sliver of the population?
I don't see how that changes your claim that taking money from those who earned it and giving it to those who have not is immoral.No because as a compassionate society we are willing to lend a hand when necessary. Not for years on end. Unless of course they are unable to work. It shouldn't be a lifetime thing for most people.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?