this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2023
93 points (95.1% liked)

Interesting Global News

2588 readers
232 users here now

What is global news?

Something that happened or was uncovered recently anywhere in the world. It doesn't have to have global implications. Just has to be informative in some way.


Post guidelines

Title formatPost title should mirror the news source title.
URL formatPost URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
[Opinion] prefixOpinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.


Rules

1. English onlyTitle and associated content has to be in English.
2. No social media postsAvoid all social media posts. Try searching for a source that has a written article or transcription on the subject.
3. Respectful communicationAll communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. InclusivityEveryone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacksAny kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangentsStay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may applyIf something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.


Companion communities

Icon attribution | Banner attribution

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] wombatula@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How are they advocating for giving rich people money exactly?

[–] Bonehead@kbin.social -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

By complaining that this will be means tested and therefore not actually UBI.

[–] wombatula@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But that is literally the definition of UBI, that's what the Universal part is, if there is means testing it's just welfare, and that would significantly raise the cost and lessen the impact.

Oversight costs money, every dollar that's being spent on bureaucracy and every layer of bureaucracy that gets between the people and the income costs money and prevents people that need it from accessing it. That's the point of UBI, and some "rich people" getting money is better than "poor people" or people on the edge of being poor being refused or given a lesser amount because we are paying for an entire agency to decide who gets it. That's the biggest failure of welfare, have you ever tried to access EI? It's a total clusterfuck and mostly serves to stop people that actually need it from accessing it in a timely fashion. The one time I tried to access EI, I literally got evicted and ended up on the streets, found a new job, and had moved into my new house before they ever gave me a penny... because of means testing.

I feel like you have a very weird take on this if your first thought is that they are "advocating for giving rich people money" when they are just pointing out basic facts.

[–] Bonehead@kbin.social -5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Complaining about the costs of means testing is just an excuse to give money to everyone regardless of their situation. Rich people don't need more money. We can base this on tax returns and anyone that didn't make enough money is qualified. It can really be that simple, if we want it to be.

Seriously, just let poor people have some security. Let's just allow this to start, and maybe you can have some money later on. Right now, let's focus on the people that really need help.

[–] wombatula@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

No, it is not an excuse to give money to everyone, it's a literal fact.

Basing it on tax returns costs money, paying someone to approve or deny claims costs money, paying for a system that checks tax returns costs money, figuring out what exact amount of money constitutes "poor" costs money, EVERYTHING COSTS MONEY. Do you not understand how much money bureaucracy costs?

Your only concern here is keeping money away from rich people, and you are ignoring basic facts and making things up to obscure that. I am not a fan of rich people myself, but you are literally twisting the truth to justify not letting rich people get money and it's really quite silly.

Also it's hilarious that you think I am rich, and very telling that you think that's why I am saying this. Just because you will twist facts to support what you want doesn't mean everyone does.

[–] Bonehead@kbin.social -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Again, we can make it work any way we want. It doesn't have to be difficult. There doesn't need to be a lot of bureaucracy. We can just give poor people money. That's it. Just give poor people money. It shouldn't be this difficult. It shouldn't require giving everyone money just because a few poor people were given money. We can really make it work if we truly want to. But it'll never work as long as people want to make sure everyone gets money. Not everyone needs money.

All this talk about the cost of bureaucracy is simply a distraction. Just give poor people money...

[–] wombatula@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ok so you say it's not difficult, please enlighten me and explain the system you would use.

Please, you're the expert here apparently, detail the simple system without bureaucracy that you would use to give ONLY poor people money.

[–] Bonehead@kbin.social -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We aren't the ones that need to design the system. There are people already in government who are responsible for that. We just need to support the ones that are willing to create a fair system that just gives poor people money without the need to jump through a million hoops and without the need to give people that already have money even more money. That's it. That's our responsibility. Sitting here complaining that bureaucracy costs money and we can't do it unless we give money to rich people too isn't helping.

[–] wombatula@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I am literally quoting experts whose job it is to design the system, if you did even the most basic research into UBI you would realize the reason it works is BECAUSE it cuts out the bureaucracy, that is the greatest cost of any welfare system (like I already said!) and because there are more poor people than there are rich people, it's pretty simple math to understand that it's cheaper and more efficient to just give EVERYONE money with minimal oversight. More efficiency = more money to poor people, faster.

I am not "sitting here complaining" I am stating the most basic facts about UBI, while you just keep saying "give poor people money, don't give rich people money" over and over with no understanding of the actual mechanisms involved. You literally said in your post "gives poor people money without the need to jump through a million hoops" THAT IS THE BUREAUCRACY! You are so dedicated to not letting "rich people" (whatever the fuck that means to you) money that you are against the most efficient system ever devised to give poor people money, do you not understand how ridiculous that is? Ever heard the term "cutting off the nose to spite the face"?

You just said you want to create a fair system, UBI is that fair system, but you refuse to accept it because oh no some rich people might get an amount of money that is meaningless to them. You have allowed your hatred to consume you, and blind you to everything you want to happen.

Your responsibility is to be informed about things that you discuss, and not to spout useless drivel and argue without any idea what you are arguing for.

My responsibility is to combat disinformation from people like you, and having done so I will stop trying to engage an unarmed opponent in a battle of wits.

[–] Bonehead@kbin.social -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you're just going to insult me, I'm not obligated to continue this. Have a nice day.

[–] wombatula@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You refuse to listen, have no idea what you're talking about, and keep repeating the same drivel over and over.

Then when I put actual logic in front of you, you cry about being insulted and run away? Pathetic.

[–] Bonehead@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

If you want to try again, present your arguments without insulting my intelligence. I'm not obligated to interact with you. No one is obligated to interact with you.