A basic income for all
- Thread starter gore0bsessed
- Start date
Take your pick. Indian kids in the residential schools? Civilians in Korea, Iraq, and Afghanistan?
Yes. There's nothing hypocritical about it though I've never defended the Canadian government.
No, I'm saying that you cannot take a moral stand on any issue because you, being personally responsible for all actions of Canada, are a mass murderer.
It's the exact same standard you apply to Americans.
No I don't support the government nor am I willfully ignorant to their actions like most Americans.
You didn't say "Americans who support the government" or "most Americans." You said "Americans." Observe:
So, by the same standard, Canadians are murderers.
lmao... fat lazy commie rat.
T-Bones cornered you so easily and that was all you had in response. No wonder you are a miserable failure.
Quite so eh?
That's how the rest of the planet dose.
You ever see a market place in poor countries???
Everyone makes and sells something.
Pffft. He's never demonstrated any standards. He just likes to think he calls others out on theirs. It's the typical "open with an insult" style of debate.
two guys with autism^
lol .
wow i think i see the light now , the planet dose do these things
Rhetoric (pronounced /ˈrɛtərɪk/) is the art of discourse, an art that aims to improve the capability of writers or speakers to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations.[1] As a subject of formal study and a productive civic practice, rhetoric has played a central role in the European tradition.[2] Its best known definition comes from Aristotle, who considers it a counterpart of both logic and politics, and calls it "the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion.
What do you want me to give you-like i said earlier we are all dealing in 'rhetoric"do you want me to reply in polynomial equations?oops gotta sign off a little while...
Foraging is production. Most animals on earth still survive primarily on foraging.
I bet I could forage myself a whole lot of food to eat by simply walking to the local forest nearby. With a little knowledge gained from a quick stop to the library.
Oh wait!!! That would require effort & some intelligence ..... Sorry my bad.
I bet I could forage myself a whole lot of food to eat by simply walking to the local forest nearby. With a little knowledge gained from a quick stop to the library.
Oh wait!!! That would require effort & some intelligence ..... Sorry my bad.
Last edited:
nimrod; said:
A fair tax is a different subject. We are talking about the merits of a "basic income" which, again, in my opinion is not necessary in this country. Since I do not know the European systems all that well (except that their people have said they are generally more satisfied with their systems), I do not address them here. While a basic income is not needed for the reasons shown above, further tax reform is advisable and a matter I have addressed on other threads. The ending of tax shelters, fairer capital gains/losses reform, a limited graduated tax, closing of loopholes, etc will all improve the economy, finance the rebuilding of the infrastructure, end the debt, and may well end the need for an income tax. Of course, the cessation of our involvement in foreign wars will go a long way towards that as well but, again, is a different subject.
If i have "danced around"-i have a pretty good dance partner in you.You still never answered which one or two income levels you felt were being victimized.Your statement-"fair is fully subjective"-is a duuhh statement. the only answer to that is the ? Ok show me when it isn't?
Objective is when there are 1-2 or more parties with no interest in outcomes.I freely admit that i am not well versed-but i already said (in other posts here)i think economics is psuedo science because even the most prominent in the field cannot agree on it.
What i do know is the one statement you did make is a useless observation.Is the consumption tax on top of our system (as many fear)or is it a stand alone that some said would grow the economy(just as many say it won't)
Your addition of + % means nothing.What % and on who or what. I never intended to get into the nuts and bolts of minimum income so i attempted to generalize.Gopher is right that a fair tax is a different question but you, i think, were linking them as they are related in the real world.
My main point is many steeped in economic theory say Mincome could work and would make for savings to the public thru less govt administrative costs-a lessening of larcenous regional disparity schemes costs and removing some of the incentives`to cheat
.Example -a guy on EI moving in with his welfare receiving woman and then cherry on the top working the underground economy.
I agree with everything after minimum income is not needed.My reasons why it is needed have been partially addressed in previous posts.You seem reasonable and calm-not spoiling for a fight- so i would be interested as to why you think it is not needed in further detail.
Some reasons why it is needed-is EI runs out and it as well as welfare are not fully indexed.It would allow young families some stability by providing a stable`home base`for training-childcare etc.It has already been noted how many ``economic refugees`` keep gypsying to oil fields .That causes a lot of family stress-divorce etc.I could go on but with the already noted other posts i will now await your reply...
You may be right but damned if i know if it would work.It is all `voodoo economics to me`.We could do like the actual economists do-try it and adjust and if it doesn`t work - kill it-morph it into something else.If at first you don`t succeed...