Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:Soros? (Score 1) 1140

You have yet to explain why it can be supported, and I've been pretty clear in saying that taxes cannot do so. That's why it won't work. Why will it work? Where will the free money come from?

There is no free money. None. Nada. Questions like that are what piss me off most, because they imply nothing good about the person asking the question. Furthermore, the money that goes into the current, horribly inefficient, welfare system we have NOW isn't free either. So answer me this question: do you believe there is ANY welfare system that can prevent systemic poverty? Because the current one ensures the opposite happens.

Comment Re:Soros? (Score 1) 1140

Others have already admitted that "the vast majority" will see their taxes go up at least as much as their UBI payments would be.

If it goes up as much, then are they worse off? If it goes up more than as much, will the excess amount place them under actual financial duress?

To make that statement true, that means that people who pay zero income tax today will be handling ALL of their UBI back to the government as taxes.

Where are you getting this from? If you're making so little income that you don't even pay income tax, why would you be handing back all of your UBI back as taxes? That doesn't even make sense.

Comment Re:Soros? (Score 1) 1140

Congratulations on failing to notice - or deliberately ignoring - that my first sentence answered your facetious response to my second. The "collection method" is called taxes. Yes, we may have to alter taxation structures. Yes, this may possibly reduce the median income after tax. However, do feel free to propose an alternative that _unlike the existing system_ does not perpetuate (or worse exacerbate) poverty to further ease the lives of the rich.

Because I see a lot of selfish and/or ignorant assholes in this thread who are all too happy to bash UBI and claim society can't support it without even explaining why, but what I'm not seeing is anyone with a better idea - and no, "screw 'em, got mine" is not a better idea. I'll presume that you're positively contributing to society in at least some manner, but your own self-entitlement, confirmation bias and tunnel vision are neither appreciated nor desired.

Comment Re:Soros? (Score 1) 1140

GDP contains _everything_. It is not just salaries, it is also everything else in the economy. It is money that goes to roads, to education, to discovering new medicine, to maintenance, to production - everything. It isn't money lying on the table (and presumably grabbed by those evil, evil capitalists), it is the total sum of all economic activity in the country. And since it isn't an actual bank account you can plunder, you cannot simply 'divide it up' and give it to the poor.

Except for the bit where you claim capitalists are evil, that's entirely true. Completely misrepresents the argument, of course.

Here's something else that's true: GDP contains the taxes we pay. UBI is a distribution method for those taxes, not a collection method. The rest of your rant is about income before taxes, when the debate is about how to distribute those taxes.

Protip: a good rant about apples can be both cathartic and impress even a discerning listener, but achieving that is unlikely when the topic is oranges.

Comment Re:Moronic argument (Score 1) 1140

The claim that BI works is wrong, and it really should not take a whole lot of thought to make you realize it. Start by studying the current Government Welfare and see how it works. It does not move anyone out of poverty, and quite frankly it is abused by a massive amount of people.

Unsupported claim: "Current system X doesn't work, therefore different system Y will not work."

That is why all communist countries must be tyrannical.

Implies that UBI is communist. However, UBI is a method for distributing taxes to the populace. Ergo, for the implication to be true, all countries that distribute taxes to the populace must be communist. Are you claiming that the United States is communist?

If you want to see the experiment in action, go live in China and become a Chinese citizen.

False. China does not have a UBI.

Comment Re:Soros? (Score 1) 1140

_Bullshit_. GDP per capita in 2015 was $51486. Federal poverty level threshold in 2015 was $11770 for a single person household. UBI is affordable, QED.

The lack of a UBI has nothing to do with math and everything to do with the mentality of the established power structures. And the dominant mentality is this: screw you, got mine. Until that changes, the nation's rich will continue to live on the destitution of its poor. So much for the Pledge Of Allegiance.

Oh, and in before any asshole shouts "Communism!" Again, bullshit. A well-implemented UBI actually ensures _more_ people have non-negligible disposable income, not less. We already have taxes; deciding on the level of UBI is just haggling over the price.

Comment Re:Ohh what? wait a sec..! (Score 1) 216

You hear that whooshing sound? That's the sound of those myriad regulations keeping all those commercial aircraft flying safely over your head instead of into it, with literally orders of magnitude more reliability per passenger-mile than private aircraft.

Also, your attempt at parroting Franklin was awful.

Comment Re:Partial credit (Score 1) 72

A wiretap warrant involves government access to a public/regulated utility. A software warrant involves government access to a private residence. The former is a matter of "hi, we're the government, we have a warrant to tap line XYZ"; the latter is a matter of "let's sneak this into a citizen's private effects, on their private property, with only us in the know". And by "doesn't have root", I mean it can't create whatever false forensic trail you want within said citizen's private effects. If you insert your tap/backdoor/soldier in the middle, it can pretend to be one or the other or even both, but (1) if Ada and Bob are using proper encryption it can't fool both and might not fool either, and (2) encryption or no encryption, if a third party - e.g. a technical expert for the defence - audits Ada's and Bob's machines they'll figure out something fishy is going on. If you've got root on either person's machine, however, you can plant incriminating evidence that can be a lot harder or even impossible to show as fake no matter how good the defence's technical experts are, especially if you're a state actor with a state's resources to get the job done.

"More to the point, where you attach a tap has nothing to do with quartering soldiers in time of peace or war."

I do realise the Third isn't applicable for a number of technical legal reasons (and despite them all I'd argue it should be, but good luck with that, self) but please consider as a rhetorical exercise: /what/ is a soldier, and /why/ is it unconstitutional to quarter a soldier in any house?

Comment Re:Partial credit (Score 1) 72

"They had a warrant to install the software so it no different than a wiretap other than the point of collection."

The difference is that a wiretap on the line between Ada and Bob doesn't have root.

Or to use a Third Amendment analogy, it's the difference between sending a uniformed soldier up the telegraph pole to listen to someone's morse, and quartering an invisible soldier in that someone's house (where the soldier can easily forge the owner's morse).

Comment Re:A ban on invisibility? (Score 2) 222

It's poorly worded; specifically the paragraph ends with a conclusory phrase to which one is to agree or disagree: the "Dark Net" should be shut down.

People tend to instinctively associate formal surveys with an "authority figure" in their mental space, and feel inclination or pressure to conform to expectations, so when an "authority" asks someone to agree or disagree with a conclusory phrase...

Conducting a truly unbiased survey is difficult, even if that's what you're trying to accomplish.

Slashdot Top Deals

To iterate is human, to recurse, divine. -- Robert Heller