Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom - A Lifetime Subscription of PureVPN at 88% off. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Which religion is most dangerous. (Score 1) 120

Which, as I pointed out several times by now, was not the question. To know what *religion* is most dangerous, it has to be done in name of that religion *OBVIOUSLY*. If it's for other reasons, then it follows it was not from religion, and therefor, it has no bearings on what religion is most dangerous.

It seems you are incapable of comprehending this.

The stance you make makes no sense, and isn't pertaining to the question. First of all, the Iraq war started in 2003, and that's when the most deaths caused by the US fell - 2003 is outside the 'last decade' as I asked. So your counter wasn't even to the point there neither, but I let it slip because you didn't make sense anyway. But let's say we take 'in modern times' to mean the last 50 years, then. It still doesn't make sense, then. This is because, obviously, if you take it that a 'dangerous religion' means the perpetrators doing it are of that particular belief (and not: are doing it IN NAME OF that belief), then, as I've explained earlier, one has also to look at ALL DEATHS that ALL MUSLIMS have ever done too, *even* if it wasn't in name of their religion. And in that case, you'll note that during the Iran-Iraq war alone, they made 1,66 million deaths: far more than the Iraq war. And that's only two Muslim countries. If you take deaths caused by Muslims as a whole since 1950, you'll end up with far more: they approximately killed 14 million others (https://www.facebook.com/notes/knowledge-is-power/290-million-victims-of-islamic-terror/416083148469556/). Christians don't even come close, for the past half century.

But of course, those were also not religious wars. Point is, you're not making it any easier for yourself by interpreting 'the most dangerous religion' in the context of 'deaths made by believers of that religion, for whatever (even non-religious) reasons'. Because in that case, you also have to count all the deaths of all Muslims, whether it was religiously inspired or not. And in that case, it's even more doubtful Muslims come out as the best.

Btw, I didn't attack anyone. If I ask: "In what name of which religion is done the most attacks this last decade?" I'm only asking for a rational response based on facts, not bigotry. My secondary question thus remains: why did you think it was Muslims, and not, say, Buddhists, or Jainists? You're reluctance to answer that, is purely derived from your own knowledge about the matter, so even *you* are well aware what the answer is. Otherwise, you'd searched it up, to know if it weren't Buddhism or Jainism. But no, we actually both know the answer to that question. You make an emo-response to it, shouting 'bigotry' like any good political correct SJW would do, but it does not alter the facts.

You can turn it as you want, but that is undeniable. That you feel offended by that fact, is not my problem. Most terrorist attacks ARE done in the name of Islam, and that since 2004; look at the hard data from datagraver, if you don't believe it. That you only find your question legitimate is not my problem, since it wasn't *my* question, and *you* responded to *my* question, not vice versa. And, as said - but you fail to realise, apparently - even if you take it that to mean 'done by believers of a religion', than for the past half century, Muslims still would have killed more than Christians.

I've repeated this several times now, and you never actually discuss anything let alone try to refute anything of the arguments I provided, but only reiterate the same thing over and over, like a mantra. Maybe you should start reading comprehensively? Or is your only point trolling?

Comment Re:A very good more basic question (Score 1) 720

You are overlooking the fact that the same people being paid that money are also being taxed to pay for it, so it cancels out for more people near the mean income.

That $12k/year is close to 25% the mean income, so a 25% tax per person to pay for it would mean someone at the mean income pays nothing and gets nothing, someone at half the mean income gets only 12.5% the mean income (around $500/mo) in UBI-minus-tax, etc. It doesn't take 25% of the GDP away; it just shuffles it around some. To places where it will get spent more quickly actually, effectively taking less out of circulation than would have been if you had done nothing.

Comment Re:Is it a payment method or isn't it? (Score 3, Insightful) 141

They mean, don't mischaracterise Paypal, not that calling it a payment method is a mischaracterisation.

I think they just don't want you to say Paypal is shit and doesn't do this or that, or gives the seller some disadvantage. I guess even if those things are true, they're claiming it as 'mischaracterisation'.

Comment Re:Color me skeptical (Score 1) 398

My goal would to be paid more for the same amount of time

Which will still take some kind of effort or sacrifice or expenditure of something on your part, if nothing else then whatever it takes to learn the skills to warrant better compensation. Why would you possibly want to put in effort like that if you've already got enough to live off of? (That's sarcasm).

Who is paying the taxes?

Everybody, but for people below the mean income (i.e. about 75% of people with how incomes are distributed today) the basic income payment more than cancels out the tax (so they see a net gain), and for most of the (25%) of people above the mean income, the basic income cancels out most of the tax, so only the very few people people at the very top end up paying much of anything of note, just like only the poorest of people actually see much benefit of note. (But most people still see some small benefit).

Where are the sales or corporate taxes on all the things these wonderful factories are making for free?

Who said anyone is making anything for free? In a full-automation scenario (which is not part and parcel with basic income, the two are separate things though one can address the other's problems), the people who own the factories get free labor from their robots, but they're still going to charge as much as they can get away with for their products. Which is exactly what creates the problem of all the money flowing into the hands of those who own the factories/robots, leaving everyone else destitute. Basic income can help with that problem, but that's not the only reason why basic income is a good idea.

That's a utopian view of the system. In reality, there will be far fewer "way above it" than "hand out" people. If there is just three to one, you need to tax every worker THREE TIMES THE UBI just to break even. That means you take the entire UBI away from them, plus twice the UBI. Why would ANYONE work when they would be subject to such ridiculous levels of taxation?

As it happens, there actually are around exactly three people below the mean income per person above the mean income, because the mean income is around the 75th percentile right now.

However, it's not a simple linear curve, and it's not like you hit that mean income threshold and then WHAM you're out of the free-money camp and into the taxed-to-death camp. If you give everyone some amount that is x% of the GDP per capita, and then fund that with a x% tax (which exactly works out because that's what averages do), the net result is that everyone's take-home after UBI and tax is x% closer to the mean income. Right now, incomes are distributed such that there is a long slow growth from zero income to the mean income at around the 75th percentile, and then slightly less slow growth upward away from it accelerating exponentially into an incredibly steep peak at the top few percent or fractions thereof.

An UBI has the effect of scaling that curve in the y axis, centered on the mean income value. So everyone below the mean income gets bumped up a little closer to it, with people at the very bottom seeing the most absolute movement, and most people along the way seeing lesser degrees of movement. Most of that 25% of people above it see a small absolute movement downward, because they're already just a little bit above the mean income anyway. Only that incredibly steep peak of the top few percent see any significant actual loss. And you know what? They can afford to absorb that.

If you're familiar with that study of how Americans on average think income should be distributed vs how they think it is distributed vs how it is distributed, an UBI could easily have no more effect than shifting the "how it is" curve to more closely resemble the "how we think it already is" curve, or maybe, if we really feel like it, to the "how we think it should be" curve, which still has plenty of difference between the people at the bottom and the people at the top and a gradual slope between them, not a sudden "you're in the top 25%, now you have to fully support three people in the bottom 75%" thing like you think it is.

Here's an exercise for you. Let's say the UBI is around $1000/mo. That's close to 25% of the mean personal income of around $50,000 -- let's call the UBI $12,500/year just to make the math a little simpler -- so it would take a 25% tax to fund it. A person's income post UBI and tax would thus be $(income*0.75+12500), and the UBI's net effect on them a loss of $(income*0.25-12500), or that over 2080 an hour less for a full time employee. Plug in some numbers for "income" and see what results you get and tell me if it's really that awful. I'll start you out with one: someone making $75,000/year, which puts them around the 11th percentile, would see an effective loss of about $3/hr. To end poverty for everyone in America.

There is nobody making below UBI.

The "it" in my sentence was mean income, not UBI.

Slashdot Top Deals

The longer the title, the less important the job.