Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Video & Multimedia

Bernardo de La Paz

(60,320 posts)

16. Yes. It is a fundamental way to reduce the society-busting levels of income & wealth inequalty.

Reply to yallerdawg (Reply #14)

Sun Oct 15, 2017, 02:34 PM

Oct 2017

There will be violent revolution if it gets much worse than it is now. I don't know how much worse it would have to get first. But it needs to be fixed and will be peacefully or violently. It is a choice a democratic society must make (peacefully) or the alternative is a mess for everybody.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

20 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Universal Basic Income vs Negative Income Tax [View all] LongTomH Oct 2017 OP

I don't understand the reasoning behind it. wasupaloopa Oct 2017 #1

I'll let someone with more of an understanding of basic economics reply. LongTomH Oct 2017 #2

The other basic economic theory is wasupaloopa Oct 2017 #3

You are right, basic income is a massive transfer from capital to labor DBoon Oct 2017 #4

The problem is only the producers are contributing. wasupaloopa Oct 2017 #5

Wrong. yallerdawg Oct 2017 #7

I am not wrong, you just leave out the inconvenient factors. wasupaloopa Oct 2017 #9

The capitalists are pocketing labor cost savings and more efficient productivity increase as profit. yallerdawg Oct 2017 #10

Here is the thing. Unskilled labor and many skilled jobs are gone never wasupaloopa Oct 2017 #12

It's coming. yallerdawg Oct 2017 #14

Yes. It is a fundamental way to reduce the society-busting levels of income & wealth inequalty. Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2017 #16

Wrong. Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2017 #15

You're confused about basic economic theory. Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2017 #13

Your steps go off the rails with "cost of living X + $5000". That violates the definition. Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2017 #11

You are putting money into circulation that wasn't there. You are creating more demand. wasupaloopa Oct 2017 #17

You're still not clear. If you want to argue from your initial set of steps you have to clarify them Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2017 #18

It seems to me that you start with the premise that everyone deserves a certain, basic Stonepounder Oct 2017 #6

They will not produce if you are going to take it away. wasupaloopa Oct 2017 #8

You do realize that during the Eisenhower years, the top marginal tax bracket was 92% Stonepounder Oct 2017 #19

Basic economic theories based on capitalism fail when you no longer need human workers. tclambert Oct 2017 #20