{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
12/18/2013 2:45:02 PM
45
So, welfare for everybody?
That is definitely going to deincentivize working hard. The only reason people work hard for money is because they know they need it to live. If you can have this awesome safety net to fall back on, you have no reason to work very hard.
English
-
That's about 33K a year. That could support a single person, so yea. Basically people don't have to work.
-
[quote]That could support a single person[/quote] [quote]That could support a [b]single person[/b][/quote]
-
Edited by MoReCoWbELLx2x1: 12/18/2013 10:25:42 PMNow you have two people that get married. Double the salary input. Give them some exemption on taxes for being married Now TWO people can live on it. With a little extra. [spoiler]I can do math and basic knowledge, surprised?[/spoiler]
-
Well if random guy on the internet can come to this shocking conclusion, I'm sure it can't be that hard to bar married couples from qualifying.
-
So you now want to remove almost half of the population for this? That will go over greatly with everyone. /sarcasm
-
Wouldn't that be a good thing by your logic?
-
It would save money, but the point is, if you only give it to non married people, tons of people will be incredible pissed. And it wouldn't go over well,
-
Married couples generally don't need that kind of financial assistance.
-
Go to the inner city and tell that to people and see what happens. That doesn't mean anything, just because some don't need it doesn't mean all don't need it.
-
Not like you can monitor financial situations on an individual basis or anything.
-
Apparently the cost of living in Switzerland is far more expensive than America. Even so, Delta did some calculations for me and and the average Swiss citizen would have $1,000 dollars extra a month, if they lived modesty.
-
I know that it cost more in Swiss, but that doesn't change the fact that's it's still enough
-
As the article hints at, we are effectively in a situation of wage slavery anyway. This simply means that working becomes less of a must and that there is less pressure on people simply trying to get by in life. If you ask me, the entire situation we find ourselves in with the ultimate goal of accumulating personal wealth is beyond absurd and it leaves most people with rather shit lives. To quote you: "That is definitely going to deincentivize working hard. The only reason people work hard for money is because they know they need it to live" Why work hard? To make money. Why make money? We need it to live. This minimum income is not that much (about $35k) when you consider how expensive it is to live in Switzerland. This guarantees that nobody is struggling to pay their rent or put food on the table but does not come close to an income that offers people luxuries they'd get whilst working. It disincentivises working in order to survive but it does nothing to disincentivise working for greed, which is fine. If you want nice things you can go out and earn them. If you don't want to work a low wage job and barely be able to live anything resembling a nice life, and instead choose to not work and do something you enjoy instead....you have that option. It might even mean that wages and working conditions have to go up, which is something I'm very in favour of simply because the accumulation of wealth by companies for the sake of growth is nonsensical - there should be a social purpose to your endeavour; to make your employees and your society happier and more comfortable. Simply making more and more money for a corporate entity has no value at all to the world.
-
You didn't read a single part did you?
-
The fact that I replied with a direct counter-point to an argument in the article should suggest otherwise. You can either sit there and cry or actually address my point.
-
Edited by lonepaul2441: 12/18/2013 2:57:21 PMA quote was in the article from a guy saying he would still need to work even with that income. If you want more money to do more things then you work for it. If you are a lazy bum who wants to party all week and go on holidays or something then you won't be able too because the money you receive will not cover it. That's the intensive to work. If something like this works far better than the welfare system then why not do it?
-
And I'm telling you as a single adult male, I would not need to work on an monthly income like that. It would easily support my lifestyle amd I could live easily without working. I can currently live off 1,500 a month paying for rent, insurance, phone, and internet. My family of four is already living off $3,000 a month. So that number quoted of $2,800 could support us easily with only minimal hours a week. It's a major deincentive for a single male or female to work, having a bunch of free cash to use however.
-
Again the price would change per country, clearly things would be a little more expensive in Switzerland if a family of 3 still needs to work a bit to get enough money to survive.
-
It would become an unecessary and abused system in America.
-
Well then it's a social problem not an implementation problem. The Swiss have asked for this because their society will allow it to work.
-
And America doesn't need it, which is my views on the matter.
-
Says the country that has 50 million people who cannot afford healthcare and is increasing and lost their jobs so they need to sell everything they own and live on the streets while visiting a food bank. Yea sounds like you don't need something like this. All I am hearing from you is "i don't need it so nobody else does". That's selfish and no wonder humanity is going into the gutter if people like you continue to think about themselves. "I am well off not my fault the guy on the street is a lazy bum and doesn't work" even though that guy could be a army veteran.
-
There is a lot wrong with this so I'm going to very carefully and slowly deconstruct your argument. [quote]Says the country that has 50 million people who cannot afford healthcare and is increasing and lost their jobs so they need to sell everything they own and live on the streets while visiting a food bank.[/quote]Where do you get that number? And I don't understand what you are saying. [quote]Yea sounds like you don't need something like this.[/quote]We really don't. We already have a broken welfare system, we don't need another social program. American citizens would view this as socialism. The rich folk's taxes and the successful people will be carrying the poor and impoverished. That is exactly how it will be seen, and that is not something we need. [quote]All I am hearing from you is "i don't need it so nobody else does". That's selfish and no wonder humanity is going into the gutter if people like you continue to think about themselves.[/quote]You aren't listening if this is what you hear. My argument was that on the amount of money being given to Swiss folk would more than comfortably allow Americans to live without working a day in their life. I used my own family's income as an example. [quote]"I am well off not my fault the guy on the street is a lazy bum and doesn't work" even though that guy could be a army veteran.[/quote]This is misdirected and has literally nothing to do with the topic at hand.
-
Edited by Icy Wind: 12/18/2013 3:35:16 PMBut...this isn't about America. It's about an entirely different country.
-
[quote] It's something I feel the USA and Europe could easily do if they got their act together and stopped allowing major corporations to have massive bonuses while firing people left and right. [/quote]
