Why the world should adopt a basic income

Certainly streamlining health & safety wasn't a cunning idea. See Grenfell!

Notice the difference. They hate bureaucracy when its about profiteering; they love it when its just for the sake of it...

 

I think you're getting lost in red tape fixation.
Missing the point of it being pointless to give it to the rich people, since there'd be less per share to go around.
If you means test it, it means the people who need get, and not giving to those who don't need (should) mean there's more to go around for those who do need.

It's not about wanting streamlined or red tape with me, it's about not wanting families with a decent income getting it/taking it from the needy, and again, we touch on this 'not everyone being equal' reality that treating people the same means those who need get less and those who already have, have even more luck, because you're giving them money for free, only, they might not even value £200/£300 as much as someone who's poor will, so it'll be a waste of money in my eyes giving it to them, and if not giving it to the rich means poor people get £500/£600 - then so be it.

 

No, I'm merely referring to good ole reality. Thatcherism led to Grenfell. Deaths created by profiteering right wingers. They deliberately eliminated 'good' bureaucracy. And then you poo poo the elimination of mechanism designed only to reduce bureaucracy costs of welfare. Get your priorities and your logic straight!

Talking to Daily Mail types is difficult...

 

It's not about Thatcher (for me).
It's really about decent income families not needing benefits so shouldn't have benefits, coupled with this desire for fairness over equality (for me).

 

I just don't think it's fair giving rich people benefits.
And I don't think rich people even care about/depend on any benefit like that.
Poor people however, those struggling, do care about a couple of hundred/depend on it, and believe (to my core) that if we focus our efforts to help them, then, they'd get a better deal instead of wasting it on the rich who don't need or care about a couple of hundred.

 

You've shown otherwise. Bleating about the saving of bureaucratic costs? Check! Failure to refer to where bureaucratic cost savings were falsely used to allow manslaughter? Check!

Thatcherism.

 

Why? So that those with no money, who want to change the world, can use us like cattle and do away with monetary standards once and for all. They will take care of us. Just trust them.

 

Talking to you is like talking to a sponge in the sea with learning difficulties.

I just told you (at least twice now), I might not even sound like I did earlier this year, it doesn't matter...
I told you why, you don't tell me why I say things, I tell you why I say what I say if you ask me why I say what I say.

Don't even assume whatever you're thinking since you're married to this perception of me and, it seems to be blinding you from what I just typed.

 

The orthodoxy of the basic income guarantee can't be disputed. The OP is also an Economist copy and paster; a publication recognised for its neoliberalism and maintaining the status quo. Perhaps take that into account?

 

Only in the past 75 years or so. Otherwise, the orthodoxy of going out and doing work that is desperately needed that few can copy with efficiency and quality has been the catalyst for a powerful nation. and wealthy, too. and, one that folks are thinking about crawling over and through razor wire to get into, but you keep telling yourself they just come here because they want to make it the proudest socialist country second to Venezuela, in the world.

 

You're the one celebrating bureaucracy costs, despite voting for those that used bureaucracy costs to allow Grenfell. Did you ever think "oops"?

Saving bureaucracy costs, without creating manslaughter, is a jolly thing.

 

Weird comment as Adam Smith also thought that you're talking simplistic toss.

 

Shut up about bureaucracy costs of means testing *please*, it's a necessary evil when it stops The Haves from taking from The Havenots.

Not paying for means testing is stupid if it means giving EVERYBODY (rich and poor a like) a few hundred pounds - That's just wasting money on the Rich instead of spending money on the Poor.

 

Yeah, and that's what most think who don't offer any tangible products for sale.

 

Gosh, you're attacking Adam Smith now? God bless!

 

I love the lack of sentence structure. Given you essentially brought it up in your whine, it neatly advertises the vacuous sneer of the right.

 

I didn't sneeze, but thank you anyway.

 

It's the holiday and folks are hoping to soak up all the tequila before the border closes. lol

 

I hate how you miss the point.

 

Fair enough! Reminds me of a comment I read over why we don't have Thanksgiving: "In all fairness Brits probably don't do Thanksgiving because if we had to take a day off for the anniversary of us f*** over a native people and ruining their country we'd never have to go to work"

 

Debate is useless.

 

This made me laugh! Did you do the basics? Research issue. Construct argument around valid political economy. Consider critique that would be observed through theoretical and empirical error.

Or did you just whine?

 

I know giving everybody the same is literally The Haves taking from The Have Nots.
Not wanting to spend on means testing but waste money instead is stupid IMO.

 

Not having Haves take from Have Nots is why I don't think the world should adopt a basic income.

Not spending money on means testing to protect against the money going to those who don't need or care about the money, is petty, petty mixed with a dose of equality and Communism when really, peoples needs and circumstances are different. Equality with none of the fairness is wrong IMO.

 

Basic error. Its just a transfer payment. Without means testing, there is less waste. You should know this already, so stop annoying me.