Author Topic: Billionaire Richard Branson: America should give out free cash to fix income inequality  (Read 4023 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 80,206
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
That is only what they agreed to return.  They kept far more in gifts they claimed were to them, not to the white house.

They returned the ones the donors of which came forward and said, "I donated that to the White House, not to the Clintons."  Knowing what we do about the Clintons willingness to destroy (or kill) people who cross them, that's probably only a fraction of what they stole.
For unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death — if you’re unvaccinated — for themselves, their families, and the hospitals they’ll soon overwhelm. Sloe Joe Biteme 12/16
I will NOT comply.
 
Castillo del Cyber Autonomous Zone ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline LMAO

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,753
  • Gender: Male
Finland tried this.

Found they couldn't afford this. And, as another poster, to do this you would have to devalue the currency which would exacerbate the "income inequality."

I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them.

Barry Goldwater

http://www.usdebtclock.org

My Avatar is my adult autistic son Tommy

Offline GrouchoTex

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,382
  • Gender: Male
Exactly. There would be a very few changes in the lineup, but for the most part, by the third generation the asset disparities would be like they are now.
@Smokin Joe @darroll
Y'all or right on target here.
Recently, there was a company in the west (Seattle?, Portland?) that gave all the employees equal pay.
Decent wages, I seem to recall 75k.
It went bankrupt.

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56,738
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
@Smokin Joe @darroll
Y'all or right on target here.
Recently, there was a company in the west (Seattle?, Portland?) that gave all the employees equal pay.
Decent wages, I seem to recall 75k.
It went bankrupt.
Years ago I turned down a job from a local businessman which was not oil patch related. I told him, simply, I doubt I can be worth as much to him as I was already making where I was.

Every employee is an investment, and the employer should be able to make a return on that investment. !/3 wages, 1/3 overhead/materials, and 1/3 profit (some or all of which gets rolled back in in improvements or expansion). is a good rule of thumb.
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Offline Weird Tolkienish Figure

  • Technical
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,173
This isn't a bad idea, if it would replace all other forms of welfare. Nobody ever asks them about this.

Online Gefn

  • "And though she be but little she is fierce"-Shakespeare
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,370
  • Gender: Female
  • Quos Deus Vult Perdere Prius Dementat
I’m broke. Sir Richard can give me a couple of quid.
G-d bless America. G-d bless us all                                 

Adopt a puppy or kitty from your local shelter
Or an older dog or cat. They're true love❤️

Offline ABX

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 900
  • Words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
This isn't a bad idea, if it would replace all other forms of welfare. Nobody ever asks them about this.

That is actually the point this pushes, why the Communist Party in the US has been pushing this idea  for almost a century.

It is one giant welfare program where everyone is on it and everyone is dependent on the government.

It is the end goal of 'Cloward Piven' collapse the current welfare system under it's own weight and replace it with this type of program.

It is a horrid and dangerous idea.

Offline Weird Tolkienish Figure

  • Technical
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,173
That is actually the point this pushes, why the Communist Party in the US has been pushing this idea  for almost a century.

It is one giant welfare program where everyone is on it and everyone is dependent on the government.

It is the end goal of 'Cloward Piven' collapse the current welfare system under it's own weight and replace it with this type of program.

It is a horrid and dangerous idea.

I don't see much difference between this and like, disability? We all know disability is heavily abused in the US, for example.

Offline Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 80,206
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
That is actually the point this pushes, why the Communist Party in the US has been pushing this idea  for almost a century.

It is one giant welfare program where everyone is on it and everyone is dependent on the government.

It is the end goal of 'Cloward Piven' collapse the current welfare system under it's own weight and replace it with this type of program.

It is a horrid and dangerous idea.

It's how you end up with everybody living in assigned unpainted, cast-concrete houses and pretending to work at jobs.
For unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death — if you’re unvaccinated — for themselves, their families, and the hospitals they’ll soon overwhelm. Sloe Joe Biteme 12/16
I will NOT comply.
 
Castillo del Cyber Autonomous Zone ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline ABX

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 900
  • Words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
I don't see much difference between this and like, disability? We all know disability is heavily abused in the US, for example.

Currently 19% of the population is on some sort of disability.

How is making that 100% an improvement?

Offline Weird Tolkienish Figure

  • Technical
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,173
Branson has always cared about the poor. Here he is providing a lift for a needy person who couldn't even afford clothing.



This is probably our future, we will be too poor to afford clothing, and will have to wear naked women to survive the winter.

Online The_Reader_David

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,303
Branson is right.  Charles Murray has run the numbers and a universal basic income program as a replacement for all other poverty alleviation and income transfer programs (including Social Security) would be cheaper than what we do now (his proposal was $10K per year plus $3K for catastrophic health insurance) -- see his book In Our Hands: A plan to replace the welfare state.

Unlike needs-based income transfer programs, this scheme removes the disincentive to work created by what is functionally a confiscatory tax rate on the first dollars earned -- loss of benefits not being made up for by income from work -- an effect which has created the permanent underclass in America.  The savings come from the abolition of the massive bureaucracies that exist at the federal and state levels to determine eligibility for needs-based benefits.  Nor is the cost equal to the amount paid times the number of recipients (under Murray's proposal all legal residents 21 years of age or older) since the money is taxable income -- the money is recouped at the top-marginal rate for the recipient.

This proposal will become more and more urgent as we approach the point where all jobs that can be reliably and enjoyably done by persons of average intelligence or below (including picking soft fruit and prostitution) can be more reliably and economically done by AI-driven robots, along with a fair number that require a good deal more intelligence (radiology is already better done by AI than by a board-certified radiologist, and a lot of routine legal work can readily be automated, though the bar will surely get Luddite measures through all the state legislatures to forbid lawyer-bots,...).  No, there will not be new jobs for those of below average intelligence created by the new economy, what's worse the amount of intelligence required to do the new jobs created by AI displacing human brain-power will increase until eventually only people with IQs of 120, then 135, then 150,... will be able to find work for which their efforts produce enough value to pay a meaningful wage. 

Take your pick:  the vast majority of humanity even in the developed world out of work and in grinding poverty, a UBI,  or the "Butlerian jihad" from the Dune novels ("thou shalt not make a graven image of the human mind" and smashing all AI-driven devices to implement the new commandment.)  Somehow I like the UBI.
And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know what this was all about.

Oceander

  • Guest
Branson is right.  Charles Murray has run the numbers and a universal basic income program as a replacement for all other poverty alleviation and income transfer programs (including Social Security) would be cheaper than what we do now (his proposal was $10K per year plus $3K for catastrophic health insurance) -- see his book In Our Hands: A plan to replace the welfare state.

Unlike needs-based income transfer programs, this scheme removes the disincentive to work created by what is functionally a confiscatory tax rate on the first dollars earned -- loss of benefits not being made up for by income from work -- an effect which has created the permanent underclass in America.  The savings come from the abolition of the massive bureaucracies that exist at the federal and state levels to determine eligibility for needs-based benefits.  Nor is the cost equal to the amount paid times the number of recipients (under Murray's proposal all legal residents 21 years of age or older) since the money is taxable income -- the money is recouped at the top-marginal rate for the recipient.

This proposal will become more and more urgent as we approach the point where all jobs that can be reliably and enjoyably done by persons of average intelligence or below (including picking soft fruit and prostitution) can be more reliably and economically done by AI-driven robots, along with a fair number that require a good deal more intelligence (radiology is already better done by AI than by a board-certified radiologist, and a lot of routine legal work can readily be automated, though the bar will surely get Luddite measures through all the state legislatures to forbid lawyer-bots,...).  No, there will not be new jobs for those of below average intelligence created by the new economy, what's worse the amount of intelligence required to do the new jobs created by AI displacing human brain-power will increase until eventually only people with IQs of 120, then 135, then 150,... will be able to find work for which their efforts produce enough value to pay a meaningful wage. 

Take your pick:  the vast majority of humanity even in the developed world out of work and in grinding poverty, a UBI,  or the "Butlerian jihad" from the Dune novels ("thou shalt not make a graven image of the human mind" and smashing all AI-driven devices to implement the new commandment.)  Somehow I like the UBI.

Unless the AI and robots you worry over are costless, this will never come to pass for the simple reason that if everyone were unemployed, only a few people - the wealthy - could afford to buy all these wonderful robot-provided goods and services, with the result that by and large, the investment in such AI and robots will never pay for itself. 

Will AI and Robots take on some work?  Sure.  Will they end up with most work?  No. 

Offline GrouchoTex

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,382
  • Gender: Male
Years ago I turned down a job from a local businessman which was not oil patch related. I told him, simply, I doubt I can be worth as much to him as I was already making where I was.

Every employee is an investment, and the employer should be able to make a return on that investment. !/3 wages, 1/3 overhead/materials, and 1/3 profit (some or all of which gets rolled back in in improvements or expansion). is a good rule of thumb.

Exactly, which the 1/3 rule is what makes sense.

Offline Weird Tolkienish Figure

  • Technical
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,173
People forget something about the "robots take our jerbs" arguments: the same robots that take "muh jerbs" will also be available for home purchase. So you won't really have a need to work, as your AI robot will do anything anyway. Everything you spend money on today will be done by a robot.


Offline IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,746
Currently 19% of the population is on some sort of disability.

How is making that 100% an improvement?
Where did that number come from?  that would equate to 61 million people.

Here's what the govt says about those receiving SS disability.  It is 10.4 million (workers + dependents).

https://www.ssa.gov/news/press/factsheets/basicfact-alt.pdf
No punishment, in my opinion, is too great, for the man who can build his greatness upon his country's ruin~  George Washington

Offline dfwgator

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,490
People forget something about the "robots take our jerbs" arguments: the same robots that take "muh jerbs" will also be available for home purchase. So you won't really have a need to work, as your AI robot will do anything anyway. Everything you spend money on today will be done by a robot.

In the year 5555
Your arms hanging limp at your sides
Your legs got nothing to do
Some machine is doing that for you