Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8806 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-17-2017 2:58 AM
284 online now:
Dr Adequate, dwise1, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (4 members, 280 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,408 Year: 29,014/21,208 Month: 1,080/1,847 Week: 3/452 Day: 3/115 Hour: 1/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
45Next
Author Topic:   The 50-50-50-50-50 tax and economic plan.
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 75 (660269)
04-23-2012 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by RAZD
04-22-2012 9:50 PM


Re: what's the problem?
Are you saying that it is not possible to live comfortably on $50/day?

Or that you only get joy\happiness from work?

Is there any place where I said either of those things? Now who's poisoning the well?

I'm sorry, RAZD, but thinking of employment only as a mercenary exchange of your labor for money, with no personal meaning or fulfillment whatsoever, is an artifact of your generation, not mine. The notion that it's the culmination of a career to abandon it altogether is an absurdity. What was the point, then? Paying the bills? Why not just have had less bills?

Paint, write books, travel, take care of grandkids, volunteer to the peace corps, mentor at schools, walk from one side of the country to the other, or any number of thousands of other things.

Except that under your law you can't do any of those things, for pay or for free, because painting, writing, caretaking, international development, and mentoring are all jobs that someone young could (and frequently are) paid to do, so by the justification for forced retirement in the first place, we can't allow oldsters to do those jobs for free because they'll displace a young person who needs the money.

We pay people to write books, paint (my sister is a work-for-hire painter), and mentor, and if people in those fields are entitled to force 50-year-olds to make way for the new, that applies whether the 50-year-old is getting paid or not.

The rationale that justifies mandated retirement for 50-year-olds also justifies preventing old people from doing anything that someone else could be paid to do. In fact, the justification is even greater due to the wage disparity.

There are more rewarding things to do than just working for pay week after week.

Not everybody's job is just "working for pay week after week." If your own view of employment is that blinkered then it's no wonder you don't blanch at legally-mandated unemployment.

We can afford to lighten up the work load because there are more job seekers than jobs, we can afford to share the wealth of production improvements and an economy stimulated by increased spending.

By all means, let's share the wealth. Mandated unemployment doesn't do that - it didn't do that in France, and it won't do it here. Let's just send checks to people and let them do whatever the hell they want - including meaningful employment.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 04-22-2012 9:50 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Rahvin, posted 04-23-2012 11:42 AM crashfrog has responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 803 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


(2)
Message 32 of 75 (660276)
04-23-2012 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by crashfrog
04-23-2012 8:39 AM


Re: what's the problem?
Does "mandatory retirement" actually translate to "no more employment, ever?"

There are plenty of retirees who still work on occasion. Why should "mandatory retirement" mean something different from what it actually means today? My grandmother continued to work as a nurse part-time after officially retiring, both for money and because she found the work rewarding. My grandfather continued to work at a variety of jobs part-time after he retired. My other grandfather, a retired school principal, worked as a tutor.

I can see some very good arguments against a mandatory retirement age as low as 50, but I'm not so certain that "you're mean for forcing all these people to never do anything productive ever again" is one of them.

I'm more concerned that such a law would basically force the most skilled and experienced subset of the workforce into retirement. I'm not so sure that businesses can stand having that much knowledge and experience forcibly taken away.

Personally, I think the universal paycheck would work to encourage optional retirement at earlier ages to the degree that making retirement mandatory may not be necessary to achieve the goal of increased turnover to make room for new graduates. A lot of people continue to work because they need to ensure they have enough money to survive their retirement, especially with people living longer (my grandparents expected to be dead by now, and while we're all glad they're not, their retirement planning would have been different had they known they'd live past their 70s; I don't think that's an uncommon problem). With a guaranteed livable wage and government-paid universal healthcare, retirement savings wouldn't be nearly such a motivation to continue working.


The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers

A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. Albert Camus

"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by crashfrog, posted 04-23-2012 8:39 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by crashfrog, posted 04-23-2012 3:52 PM Rahvin has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 75 (660284)
04-23-2012 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Rahvin
04-23-2012 11:42 AM


Re: what's the problem?
Does "mandatory retirement" actually translate to "no more employment, ever?"

RAZD says that it means that after age 50, nobody can hire you to do something.

There are plenty of retirees who still work on occasion.

Sure; they retired out of one job and into another. Like my father-in-law. But RAZD's system means that since every job retires you out at 50, you're stuck in permanent joblessness because you can't legally be hired.

Part of the problem, here, is that RAZD is from a generation where life expectancies were about 70 years; age 50 retirement, to him, means roughly 20-30 years of leisure with rapidly declining capabilities setting in at about age 68. But a woman just entering the workforce now is liable to live to be over 100, perhaps with full mental and physical capacity up into her 80's. RAZD's proposal allows people to work gainfully and productively for less than one-fourth of their natural lives. I don't see how you build a tax basis on so few employed people. I bat nary an eye at redistributive taxation, but RAZD's system sacrifices the young to the old.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Rahvin, posted 04-23-2012 11:42 AM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Rahvin, posted 04-23-2012 4:21 PM crashfrog has not yet responded
 Message 39 by RAZD, posted 04-24-2012 8:34 AM crashfrog has responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 803 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 34 of 75 (660286)
04-23-2012 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by crashfrog
04-23-2012 3:52 PM


Re: what's the problem?
RAZD says that it means that after age 50, nobody can hire you to do something.

Can you point specifically to where you think he says that? Not that I don;t believe you, mind, I just don't feel like reading through the entire thread again to find it.

That would be a significant departure from retirement today, where one can become officially "retired" and receive "retirement benefits" and continue to work if desired.

Part of the problem, here, is that RAZD is from a generation where life expectancies were about 70 years; age 50 retirement, to him, means roughly 20-30 years of leisure with rapidly declining capabilities setting in at about age 68. But a woman just entering the workforce now is liable to live to be over 100, perhaps with full mental and physical capacity up into her 80's. RAZD's proposal allows people to work gainfully and productively for less than one-fourth of their natural lives. I don't see how you build a tax basis on so few employed people. I bat nary an eye at redistributive taxation, but RAZD's system sacrifices the young to the old.

I can agree with that, with my previous note that cutting out the most experienced employees does not seem to do a service to any business. If everyone over 50 retired tomorrow, I think my employer would lose something like 1/3rd of its employees, nearly all of them top-level.

I think RAZD is correctly identifying a problem (too many new people entering the workforce, not enough jobs for all of them) and believes that the best way to resolve the issue is to force the older folks out so that the new employees can begin working. I'm just not sure that's the best solution - and even if it is, I think it would be better handled by incentivising retirement rather than requiring it. After all, one of the primary reasons for not retiring is money to live on after retirement, and RAZD's universal paycheck and universal "free" healthcare both seem to address the largest hurdles to financial security post-retirement. Under those policies, without forced retirement, I'd expect to see more people retiring earlier than presently, which may be sufficient to address the problem RAZD seeks to solve without such draconian measures.

That said, many problems require more than one solution, and I think this is one of them. Fortunately, RAZD's proposal would allow for all of the new workers to also receive a universal paycheck and universal "free" healthcare, ensuring that all of them would be safe outside of employment if not necessarily happy, which attacks the problem of new-worker-unemployment from the social safety net end.

The missing leg of the tripod is a policy to encourage employers to hire and train new workers, but it's acceptable that a single policy not address every problem perfectly. There seems to be no Grand Unified Theory of Public Policy, unfortunately.


The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers

A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. Albert Camus

"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by crashfrog, posted 04-23-2012 3:52 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3506
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 35 of 75 (660291)
04-23-2012 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by RAZD
04-23-2012 3:49 AM


Re: Funding
Yay, numbers!

15 Trillion $US in the GDB subject to tax

50% = 7.5 Trillion $US

Your proposal calls only for 50% income tax, GDP is not equal to the total of everyone's income. You will need additional tax codes to achieve a tax take of 50% of GDP.

Worse, you've exempted the first $50k everyone earns; that will have a significant effect in reducing the total tax you're taking.

Could we start with $30/day/person ($10,950/year) and have a surplus? This is closer to the amount in the Canadian study.

The Canadian study was earlier in time, wasn't it? Are you accounting for inflation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by RAZD, posted 04-23-2012 3:49 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3506
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 36 of 75 (660292)
04-23-2012 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by RAZD
04-22-2012 5:44 PM


Re: early retirement helps reduce underemployment
Hi RAZD

LOL. Being told to get out and enjoy yourself is cruel?

Yes, it is. There's a barrel of psychological research that shows that performing useful work is vital to well-being. People have a deep seated need to be useful. Pissing about is all very well, but it gets old fast; especially if you're low on funds - which people certainly will with only a few years to save for retirement and relying on your citizens income for all their needs.

Moreover, 50 is damn young. 50-year olds are not in their dotage; without the over 50s, science has just lost all its professors, for example. And heaven help you if you've ever thought to change careers; there's just no time. I'll be just shy of 40 when I finish my PhD, forced retirement at 50 would mean just ten years in which to actually work in science. Forcing people out at 50 means taking a whole load of people at the peak of their careers and telling them, no, you can't carry on doing what you love, what gives you meaning in life and what you want to do.

There are also lots of advice websites on how to retire at 50 ... so how is that bonkers?

There are doubtless many people who would be happy to retire at 50; that doesn't mean that forcing the rest to do so is okay.

So? To me this is just more evidence that libertarian policies are bonkers ... .

Heh I meant libertarian in the old fashioned sense of freedom; not the howling crazies of the American right.

Remember that we have more job seekers than we have jobs, thus getting people to retire earlier is one way to allow everyone in the work force to benefit.

Sure, but it also places the burden of paying for everyone who has been forced out of work onto the young.

One way to initiate a debate is to take an extreme position ...

One way to mock a particular argument is to take it to an extreme position ...

Indeed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 04-22-2012 5:44 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by frako, posted 04-24-2012 5:10 AM Dr Jack has responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2716
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 37 of 75 (660297)
04-24-2012 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Dr Jack
04-23-2012 5:10 PM


Re: early retirement helps reduce underemployment
I'll be just shy of 40 when I finish my PhD,

Lol what the hell are you doing, my cousin has a doctorate as a veterinarian, so he is technically a double doctor hehe, and he went on 2 specialisations one in Japan, one in America and he is just over 30 years old. Forgot what he was doing in America, but in Japan it had something to do with the muscles of horses, and mice swimming in a barrel high the stuff that is in red bull. Ok sure he is a nut that had a grade average of 10, not 9,9 freaking 10 if the nut got a grade lower then 10 he retook the exam.


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

Click if you dare!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Dr Jack, posted 04-23-2012 5:10 PM Dr Jack has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Dr Jack, posted 04-24-2012 8:33 AM frako has responded

    
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3506
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 38 of 75 (660303)
04-24-2012 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by frako
04-24-2012 5:10 AM


Re: early retirement helps reduce underemployment
Writing computer games.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by frako, posted 04-24-2012 5:10 AM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by frako, posted 04-24-2012 10:08 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19320
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 39 of 75 (660304)
04-24-2012 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by crashfrog
04-23-2012 3:52 PM


what's retirement?
Come on crashfrog, you're being silly here

RAZD says that it means that after age 50, nobody can hire you to do something.

What I said was:

Message 10: It means you stop working for somebody else. It means executives step down and let the next generation take the reins.

It means that you work for yourself to do the things you want to do.

But RAZD's system means that since every job retires you out at 50, you're stuck in permanent joblessness because you can't legally be hired.

Which is a bs overstatement. I expanded on it later

Message 24: When the point is that it is possible to do other things you have wanted to do but put off because you were working

Paint, write books, travel, take care of grandkids, volunteer to the peace corps, mentor at schools, walk from one side of the country to the other, or any number of thousands of other things. There are more rewarding things to do than just working for pay week after week. Do it before you are too beat up by age and disease to be able to do it.

You could also start your own company. Grow flowers, help rebuild houses in New Orleans or rundown areas, join Volunteers of America, tutor children, assist immigrants in learning English as a Second Language. You can run for public office.

You can go back to school and learn more about the world and how it works. Build a boat and sail around the world. Climb Mt Everest. You can do a "walk about" ...

You can think about the value of things on another basis than just cost and consumerism based values.

You on the other hand seem to think that it is some kind of spiritually wonderful thing to be a prisoner of working for someone else.

The point is that you don't need to be working for pay week after week for someone else. You don't need to have a steady job.

It's curious that many people talk about doing things after retirement - including odd jobs they want to do - and they will tell you that they are retired, but you seem to think that this doesn't count. This is with the common understanding of the definition of retirement:

quote:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/retirement
retirement n
1.   a. the act of retiring from one's work, office, etc
      b. (as modifier) - retirement age
2. the period of being retired from work: she had many plans for her retirement

How do you define retired? Sitting in a one room windowless box day after day waiting to die?

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by crashfrog, posted 04-23-2012 3:52 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 04-24-2012 9:07 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 75 (660310)
04-24-2012 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by RAZD
04-24-2012 8:34 AM


Re: what's retirement?
Come on crashfrog, you're being silly here

I'm trying to understand what you mean by mandatory retirement. I understand the concept of retirement. I'm trying to understand what you mean by it being mandatory. Who decides if someone has actually retired and therefore met the requirement? What criteria are used?

It means that you work for yourself to do the things you want to do.

But what if you want to do things for someone else? Why do you insist that plus-50's aspire to everything but service?

You can run for public office.

Public servants are employees of local, state, and Federal governments. Are those positions exempted from your "no employment of plus-50's" law, or what? I don't see how anyone plus-50 can run for public office under your mandatory retirement system.

You on the other hand seem to think that it is some kind of spiritually wonderful thing to be a prisoner of working for someone else.

In every case? No, don't be an idiot. Most jobs suck, sure.

But professors and teachers do work for someone else, and the teachers and professors I've met have, for the most part, found that employment deeply meaningful. Yes, even spiritual. Even a mentor is someone who works for someone else, any position of service is, and you can't tell me that mentoring isn't a meaningful and spiritual activity, and appropriate for retirees. In fact you even list it as a potential activity for retirees.

One problem - a law mandating retirement at 50 means that plus-50's can't be mentors, because that's a job working for someone else. Again, we're getting hung up on a sweeping mandatory requirement to retire from whatever you're doing at age 50. The problem is, many things that retirees want to do are actually forms of employment.

The point is that you don't need to be working for pay week after week for someone else.

Sure, I get that. But what about the people who want to work for someone else when they retire? Or who simply don't want to retire from the job they have? Whose idea of retirement is actually continued employment?

How do you define retired?

How do you define it? That's why I asked you about your proposal. You're the one proposing a law that mandates retirement. How do you know when someone has met that requirement? What happens if they stubbornly refuse to quit their job when they turn 50? You're just being evasive. I'm not trying to trick you, I'm just asking what you could possibly mean by "mandated retirement at 50." What happens to me if, at age 50, I change absolutely nothing about my life or employment status and simply consider myself "retired"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by RAZD, posted 04-24-2012 8:34 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2716
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 41 of 75 (660314)
04-24-2012 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Dr Jack
04-24-2012 8:33 AM


Re: early retirement helps reduce underemployment
anything good that i might have herd of?

As to back on topic maybe there is a compromise to the whole retirement at 50.
To only being able to work part time after 50


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

Click if you dare!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Dr Jack, posted 04-24-2012 8:33 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by xongsmith, posted 04-24-2012 8:26 PM frako has not yet responded

    
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 1825
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 42 of 75 (660346)
04-24-2012 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by frako
04-24-2012 10:08 AM


Re: early retirement helps reduce underemployment
No. After 50, you become a Consultant!


- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by frako, posted 04-24-2012 10:08 AM frako has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by RAZD, posted 07-29-2012 12:34 PM xongsmith has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19320
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 43 of 75 (669358)
07-29-2012 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by xongsmith
04-24-2012 8:26 PM


resurection ?
Hi xongsmith,

No. After 50, you become a Consultant!

Curious that it seems the retirement component is the most controversial. You could make it after 50 years of work and it would be similar to what we currently have here in the US.

But it also seems that people are adversely disposed to retirement, and almost need to be forced into it, while retired people I know (including myself) are having more fun retired than they ever did working for a living.

Perhaps there should be a national referendum on taxes so that the people can decide how they want to be taxed ... not congress and not big business.

We could also do a national referendum on the budget so people could decide what they want to cut rather than just mouth slogans ...

And we could do a national referendum on amendments that are still pending and add new ones (like corporations are NOT people ... )

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by xongsmith, posted 04-24-2012 8:26 PM xongsmith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19320
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 44 of 75 (745841)
12-28-2014 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
03-01-2012 1:47 PM


News from the Pope and others ... Unconditional Basic Income
The Next Big Social Idea: Unconditional Basic Income

quote:
In 2014, serious voices from Pope Francis to Thomas Piketty, in his book Capital in the Twenty-First Century, have lamented ever-widening inequality. Others have expressed concern that "the second machine age" of digital technologies will entail the massive elimination of jobs.

Few, however, have proposed policy solutions equal to the scale of the problem. But there is one proposal -- perhaps the next big social idea -- that has emerged: Unconditional Basic Income.

The UBI is a monthly monetary income granted every month, unconditionally, by a political community to each of its members from birth. Depending on the nation, in Europe and the U.S. it would probably be $2,500 per adult and $1,500 per child. It must secure a minimum livelihood and enable a participation in society. It is unconditional because it constitutes a human, civil and legal right and shall be provided without proof of need and without obligation to work, search for work, or performing any services in return. Yes, you're being paid to live, work and participate as you please.

Some social movements have begun to promote the UBI, notably in Switzerland, where over 100,000 people have signed a petition that will put the idea forward in a national referendum in 2015 or 2016.

Ultimately, the UBI will enable us to rewrite and renegotiate our social contract with each other because with the unconditional basic income you are given access and opportunity to participate in the economy and society as you see fit. When everybody receives the same basic amount of money to secure a livelihood, the social and economic playing field will be leveled, making equal opportunity and access real, while unleashing incomprehensible amounts of human energy and potential.


You are paid to participate in the economy, with no minimum wage requirements, so you are free to negotiate far compensation for work done for others -- you no longer have to take a job just to live no matter how crummy, demeaning and disrespectful it is.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 03-01-2012 1:47 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by jar, posted 12-28-2014 12:42 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 46 by ringo, posted 12-28-2014 1:30 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 47 by Jon, posted 12-28-2014 7:18 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 48 by AZPaul3, posted 12-29-2014 9:53 PM RAZD has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29806
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 45 of 75 (745843)
12-28-2014 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by RAZD
12-28-2014 12:11 PM


Re: News from the Pope and others ... Unconditional Basic Income
The only problem I see with that would be if it were defined as a specific dollar amount rather then basing it on some multiple of a measured criteria, for example the prior years single person poverty level.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by RAZD, posted 12-28-2014 12:11 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Prev12
3
45Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017