Jump to content

Would a Basic Minimum Income dramatically reduce abortions?


Dennis Tate

Would a Basic Minimum Income dramatically reduce abortions?  

10 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, little2add said:

who's going to get this free lunch, everybody? rich or poor?

Everyone gets it. Hence “Universal” basic income.

1 hour ago, little2add said:

  If that's the case then why would you get out of bed in the morning?   or just stay in your pajamas, all day ?

asking for a friend

For the same reason that I get out of bed today. I’d much rather work and make $25, $50 or $100 than not work and receive only $10.

52 minutes ago, Credo in Deum said:

Sounds like a system that doesn’t favor the elderly. 

I suppose you could work that into the system. The allocation for elderly people could be greater, to take into account average increased expenses for healthcare, for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, little2add said:

Sounds like a system that favors slothfulness 

I don’t see why, especially if it’s implemented as a negative income tax, under which people who work always make more than those who don’t.

Anytime you give anyone anything that they have not worked for you can say it  “favors slothfulness”. Should kids whose parents do not pay taxes not be allowed to work? Should we eliminate food assistance programs? Medicare? If you don’t pay taxes should you be prevented from driving your car down a publicly funded road?

Over the course of a lifetime I would guess that for most Americans the net benefits that they recoup from the government outweighs the amount that they pay in taxes. It’s likely that only the wealthy, say those making 200k or more, pay more in taxes over a lifetime than what they receive. I’d guess that most of us are in fact being subsidized by the wealthy and the super wealthy, so should the government cut our social security, our Medicare, our unemployment, etc. because we are too lazy to have made the same amount of money as the wealthy people who subsidize us? Shouldn’t wealthy people look at you and say your benefits should get cut, because you haven’t earned them and they don’t want to encourage you to be lazy?

https://taxfoundation.org/rich-pay-their-fair-share-of-taxes/

As we can see in Table 1, in 2017, households in the lowest quintile received $67.67 in direct federal benefits for every $1 they paid in federal taxes.[4] Households in the second quintile received $4.60 in benefits for every $1 of taxes they paid, while households in the middle quintile received $1.60 in total direct benefits for every $1 of taxes they paid.

By contrast, households in the fourth quintile received $0.71 in direct federal benefits for every $1 they paid in taxes while households in the highest quintile received just $0.15 in direct federal benefits for every $1 they paid in federal taxes. For households in the top 1 percent, their return on every $1 of federal taxes paid was just $0.02. These figures demonstrate how progressive tax and spending policies have become.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Peace said:

cut our social security,

you do understand that social security is 100% paid for by the individual , not from  government subsidies in any way, right?

1 hour ago, Peace said:

people who work always make more than those who don’t.

no conundrum here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, little2add said:

you do understand that social security is 100% paid for by the individual , not from  government subsidies in any way, right?

Not really. Some people will get more than what they paid in, and others will get less than what they paid in.

For example, two unmarried people who paid in the same amount, one dies on his 62nd birthday and does not receive a dime, the other lives until his 100th birthday and receives $1000 a month for 38 years. The person who dies young effectively subsidizes the person who lives long.

It used to be the case that the average person got many times more in benefits than what they actually paid into the system, but I think the ratio has gotten worse and worse over the years as the system has become bankrupt. I think the ratio may even be negative for most people in my generation,

And if you look at the actual cash flow of the system, I think you’ll see that it actually structured a bit more like a Ponzi scheme nowadays. The money that is used to pay social security for the current group of retirees is paid for by people who are currently working today. The money that the current group of retirees paid into the system- the government has already spent most of that money. It’s gone. So I don’t think what you are saying is true in any sense, really. I think if you research the system you’ll see that this is the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SS is fully funded by involuntary contributions by the eventual benefactor, over his or her lifetime.   Your Social Security number is essentially your bank account number.  Every contribution you made your whole life is credited to your account.

Needless to say, It is true that some of the money is skimmed off to top to pay for other things.  

when Social Security started out, 10 people paid in for every 1 payout, today it's quite the opposite for every 1 person who pays in,  20 persons receive benefits.

 so-called experts have been saying for years that the SS fund will run out of money,  very soon

it is what it is :idontknow:, I guess

Edited by little2add
Link to comment
Share on other sites

abortion has dramatically altered the equation because younger replacements (newborns) percentage has dramatically decreased and the general population ratio of retirees has increased.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, little2add said:

SS is fully funded by involuntary contributions by the eventual benefactor, over his or her lifetime.   Your Social Security number is essentially your bank account number.  Every contribution you made your whole life is credited to your account.

I'm not sure what you mean. Let's say that a person (Mr. Smith) makes $40,000 a year and works for 40 years. He pays 6.2% on the $40,0000 x 40  years = $99,200. Let's say he lives a very long life, and receives say $1000 a month in social security benefits x 40 years = $480,000.

Do you think that the full amount he receives in benefits $480,000 was generated from the $99,200 that he paid into the system? The amount that he paid in certainly isn't going to generate enough interest to turn the $99k into $480k.

That's not really how the system works. How it works is that the money taken out from my paycheck today as "my" social security tax (and also many other working people like me, and employers who also pay into the system) is used to make up the difference between what Mr. Smith actually paid into the system, and what he actually receives. In his case, he is subsidized by others. Its not as if there is a something like an "individual bank account" for Mr. Smith and the government gives back to him exactly what he has paid in, and nothing more. He is subsidized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, little2add said:

     :deadhorse:

Well I suppose you are right. Enjoy the rest of your day, and your government subsidies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, little2add said:

SS is fully funded by involuntary contributions by the eventual benefactor, over his or her lifetime.   Your Social Security number is essentially your bank account number.  Every contribution you made your whole life is credited to your account.

Needless to say, It is true that some of the money is skimmed off to top to pay for other things.  

when Social Security started out, 10 people paid in for every 1 payout, today it's quite the opposite for every 1 person who pays in,  20 persons receive benefits.

 so-called experts have been saying for years that the SS fund will run out of money,  very soon

it is what it is :idontknow:, I guess

No it doesn't work that way. Those who now receive social security are not receiving money they paid into the system as if it were put away with their name on a bank account. That money was spent on retirees at that time. It is totally funded by what is now being collected and is not tied to the exact amount that was paid in. 

There are 2.7 workers for each social security recipient. It's a huge and unfair burden on young workers and it will get worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 1/1/2022 at 5:21 PM, Dennis Tate said:

own one hundred and ten acres of land in rural Nova Scotia.....

plus my wife and I have our home on four acres nearly paid off.....

 

Nice 

:lol3: Why beesh about the mega wealthy?   You don’t have anything to complain about as far as finances are concerned.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, little2add said:

Nice 

:lol3: Why beesh about the mega wealthy?   You don’t have anything to complain about as far as finances are concerned.  

That is an excellent point.....

technically... my wife and I are probably somewhere in the top five percent of the world's population for relative wealth.........

Probably in the top twenty percent of Canadians?????  But that is just a guess off the top of my head.....
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/11/2022 at 1:57 PM, little2add said:

Look at you go

My hobby is losing elections while simultaneously teaching English to my readers. I campaigned in 2004, 2006, 2008 and 2016. Joe Rogan is hereby CHALLENGED to consider playing the role of me, Dennis Tate, in a semi-reality science fiction film series set in an alternative universe 2012 to 2022!

.... This will give him something to think about.....

PREDICTION.....People with an accent from India and / or Nepal and / or Bangladesh are going to play an instrumental role in bringing the world to the application of "Unified Field Theory of Modern World Problems!"

I say this because if a considerable amount of cracking and sliding of ice were to occur on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet........ twenty to a hundred million climate change refugees could be created in Bangladesh.......... and it is likely that at least ten percent of them will go to India....... which gives the nation of India and everybody with relatives in India an incentive to be willing to promote the Carl Cantrell theory on stabilization of the climate .....

This may be the most effective way to defeat the Bill Gates "Innovatio to zero" theory that is founded squarely on top of the Al Gore Carbon Tax Theory that he put forward in his film An Inconvenient Truth.

The Abraham Peace Accords that President Donald J. Trump and his team set up set the stage for this to take place over the coming years and decades.Carl Cantrell.....  

Quote

 

"So how is our problem of continental drying causing global warming? It all has to do with vegetation and sunlight. When sun light hits a plant, it causes a process which we call photosynthesis where the energy from the sun light creates oxygen for us to breath, water for us to drink, and is stored as sugar for plants and animals to use. When the same sun light hits the soil, all of its energy turns into heat and is radiated back into the atmosphere, carried away by running surface water such as rain fall, is carried away to other areas by our winds, and diffuses down into the soil towards the earth's crust. All of this warms our planet increasing its average temperature.

Therefore, the less vegetation you have on the planet, the more sunlight is being turned into heat and the warmer the planet becomes. This is very critical because warmer and dryer winds dry out other land areas faster decreasing the vegetation on those land areas. Less humidity in the air also reflects less sun light back out into space so that more sun light strikes the earth and more heat is generated.

The truth is that you can do more to decrease global warming by just reducing the average temperature for the Sahara Desert by one or two degrees than if we humans completely quit using fossil fuels and returned to the cave.

So, how would you start working to resolve this problem? Easy, cool the deserts and get some vegetation growing on them as soon as possible. But the method is much more complex than that. You have to use the prevailing trade winds in relation to the deserts to get the best results as quickly as possible and it will be extremely expensive.

Then we build desalination plants along the coast near these water sheds and pipe water to the tops or ridges of the water sheds

This will do a number of things. First, it will increase the moisture in the desert soil so that it will develop water tables and water will begin to run in the streams. This water will increase the amount of vegetation in the area and decrease the amount of heat being generated by sun light cooling the watered area and all areas down wind of the watered area. As more available water evaporates, it will cool the air and reflect more sun light back out into space cooling the area even more. Cooler and more humid air will have less of a heating effect on areas down wind and will reflect more sun light back into space in those areas cooling areas we won't be watering yet. Cooler and more humid air will also have less of a warming effect on our seas and oceans.

Rain water running off of cooler soil will decrease the heating effect on our oceans and our planet crusts which will decrease catastrophic storm activities for other areas and seismic activity for the entire planet. Also, returning more ocean water to the surface and aquifers of our continents will lower the sea levels providing more usable land for us to farm and build on.

With cooler desert areas and increasing vegetation, less water will evaporate from our deserts increasing the amount of surface water even more and increasing the amount of vegetation and animal life by huge amounts because deserts currently take up more than 20% of our land surface. Populations will be able to spread out and there will be less competition for existing land areas.

This strategy has to be done in steps with the first step being to begin slowing the rate at which our global warming is increasing. We need to focus on that until we have brought it to a point to where the temperature is not increasing any more and is reasonably stable. While we are doing this, we need to come to a global consensus of just how cool we want to cool our planet down to. If we cool it down too much, we will begin to have devastatingly harsh winters in large populated areas and even cause an ice age to set in.

Then we begin cooling the planet down to a point which will be most beneficial for all countries or the planet as a whole. We need to gradually bring the temperature down because there may be a lag effect in which the planet will continue cooling after we stop increasing our efforts to cool it off more. We may even want to stop cooling the planet once or twice before we reach our targeted temperatures to see if there is a lag effect

We need to start working on this as soon as possible because, if the planet reaches a point to where it is warming faster than our technology can possibly stop or reverse this warming trend, then our planet is lost and all life will cease to exist on this planet within a relatively short period of time. We will need to start with the largest and hottest deserts because cooling them will have the greatest benefit in the least time. (Global Warming II by biologist Carl Cantrell)

 

I am just getting started at sixty two.......   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...