Is Basic income a good idea.

[JohnD]

that's funny. Despite your frantic search for something to back up your earlier reckless claim, you haven't shown any examples of cost.

not even from the trials you earlier claimed didn't exist.

Your "read more" is no help.

 

[SirGalahad]

Ah bless Kankerot returning to form. You dont like being wrong do you.

Alaska payment is not universal income is it?

Your rebuttal based on payment levels is a blatant strawman........emphasising the lack of any argument you have.

Payments from oil revenue and tied to the markets are a dividend payment not universal income. Surely a form of universal income would need to be both related to need and stable in its level. What use would a universal income be to a person reliant on that to live on if its value was determined by oil revenue.

What about the amount, its seems to be in the region of $800 -$1500 pa. Or lets say under £100 per month. That amount isnt enough to be defined as a form universal income. It wouldnt be enough to support somebody not working, its closer in value to tax credits.

Bless you Notch. Try, Try and Try again.

By the way I didn't make the claim of there being no trials - you did.

As to a definition of what is a basic income -

"A basic income, also called basic income guarantee, universal basic income, basic living stipend, or universal demogrant, is a type of program in which citizens of a country, or any other region, may receive a regular sum of money from a source such as the government."

"It is transferred from public to private accounts throughout an entire lifetime, from birth to death, without any application or preconditions to be fulfilled by the beneficiary. It is supposed to cover the socio-cultural subsistence minimum. However, the determination of this minimum level of subsistence is a political and not an economic decision"

So your point that rebuttal on payment levels doesn't stand goes straight of the window with your not been tried before.

Again the amount that it is set at depends on numerous issues such as will it be used to offset other payments or used as a top up - so you are arguing against yourself at every turn.

I admire your stubbornness but on this you are dead wrong.

 

[SirGalahad]

that's funny. Despite your frantic search for something to back up your earlier reckless claim, you haven't shown any examples of cost.

not even from the trials you earlier claimed didn't exist.

Your "read more" is no help.

He's a tryer. I'll give him that.

Is this one of those is a PCB a computer moment for Notch. lol

 

[Notch7]

that's funny. Despite your frantic search for something to back up your earlier reckless claim, you haven't shown any examples of cost.

not even from the trials you earlier claimed didn't exist.

Your "read more" is no help.

Yes I have, its expensive.

Stop lying, I said universal income has never been tried.

A trial is something different.

 

[JohnD]

poor old notch keeps digging.

 

[transam]

Yes I have, its expensive.

Stop lying, I said universal income has never been tried.

A trial is something different.

Yep that is what he said

 

[Notch7]

y the way I didn't make the claim of there being no trials - you did

I did not.

I said universal income has never been tried.

JohnD then gave examples of trials.

Amount: you need to read what you quoted before patting yourself on the back:

is supposed to cover the socio-cultural subsistence minimum

By that definition, an amount determined by oil revenue doesnt count.

It matters not whether the amount set is decided by political or economic, the fact is, a subsistence minimum is still the criteria.

According to you, a payment of 10 pence a year would qualify as your definition of universal income.

 

[JohnD]

more nonsense from notch.

 

[Bodd]

I did not.

I said universal income has never been tried.

JohnD then gave examples of trials.

Amount: you need to read what you quoted before patting yourself on the back:



By that definition, an amount determined by oil revenue doesnt count.

It matters not whether the amount set is decided by political or economic, the fact is, a subsistence minimum is still the criteria.

According to you, a payment of 10 pence a year would qualify as your definition of universal income.

Stop feeding the trolls....

We all no the lies

 

[SirGalahad]

I did not.

I said universal income has never been tried.

JohnD then gave examples of trials.

Amount: you need to read what you quoted before patting yourself on the back:



By that definition, an amount determined by oil revenue doesnt count.

It matters not whether the amount set is decided by political or economic, the fact is, a subsistence minimum is still the criteria.

According to you, a payment of 10 pence a year would qualify as your definition of universal income.

Try Try Try again.

Try is in the past tense. Has ubi been tried, yes it has.

What I suspect you meant is has it been implemented to which ubi has not.

Now your arguing on the amount which then obliterates your original point of it being expensive.

Try harder notch or is it trial harder.

 

[durhamplumber]

Bless you Notch. Try, Try and Try again.

By the way I didn't make the claim of there being no trials - you did.

As to a definition of what is a basic income -

"A basic income, also called basic income guarantee, universal basic income, basic living stipend, or universal demogrant, is a type of program in which citizens of a country, or any other region, may receive a regular sum of money from a source such as the government."

"It is transferred from public to private accounts throughout an entire lifetime, from birth to death, without any application or preconditions to be fulfilled by the beneficiary. It is supposed to cover the socio-cultural subsistence minimum. However, the determination of this minimum level of subsistence is a political and not an economic decision"

So your point that rebuttal on payment levels doesn't stand goes straight of the window with your not been tried before.

Again the amount that it is set at depends on numerous issues such as will it be used to offset other payments or used as a top up - so you are arguing against yourself at every turn.

I admire your stubbornness but on this you are dead wrong.

Incase you did not notice,we already have a cradle to grave benefits systems,,, exploited by many.They live quite happily on "basic income"reproduce,own home,50" tv,car,knock off dvd's to watch,and an allotment to keep horses in for when they are bored fartless off sitting doing sweet fa for 30 years.

 

[Notch7]

Try is in the past tense. Has ubi been tried, yes it has.

No it has not.
Trials have been done, not the same thing
End of...... Simples

Since neither you nor JohnD have come up with an example of where UBI has been actually tried, I can take it that it has not.

Now your arguing on the amount which then obliterates your original point of it being expensive.

Another strawman

I am not arguing on the amount.
I am saying you have given me an example of what you claim is universal income, which does not meet the criteria for universal income -as determined by the quote you include in your post.

Criteria as posted by you:
It is supposed to cover the socio-cultural subsistence minimum

If you can show that by some miracle, a dividend whose amount is set by oil revenue prices, IE market forces, can be deemed to match 'socio-economic minimum' -then you have a case.

Until then you don't.

 

[Notch7]

more nonsense from notch.

Oh look -stock answer from JohnD when he has nothing useful to add.

I expect we will see a post with loads of pictures now to break up the thread, thats usually his next strategy when losing

Oh and since JohnD seems to like the idea of universal credit, perhaps he could explain how he would like to promote a non means tested payment. Im sure he would be keen for multi millionaires to receive it -they can spend it on their drinks bill at their skiing jolly .

 

[durhamplumber]

France tried it in the 80s,,went tits up, many countries trying it apparently,,jury still seems to be out...Means tested,,,they seem to be trying to reinvent the wheel.

 

[Brigadier]

Now your arguing on the amount which then obliterates your original point of it being expensive.

No he's not; he's making the point that your supplied definition of UBI does not exclude the payment of a pittance, which rendered your supplied example of UBI correct only if certain market conditions existed (which could not be relied upon).