Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Women should be given free money Watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:

    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Women, men, everyone. Yeah. It is an interesting idea and it has been working!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    It's an interesting idea, but I have a few questions:

    "We replace the welfare system we currently have, almost entirely, with a regular wage for each person at poverty level. We pay for it all with the money saved from the current system of welfare, combined with an aggressive tax on the rich (some also propose a rollback of military spending)."

    A1) How does one define "poverty level"? Are we talking absolute poverty, or relative poverty?
    A2) If Google is to be believed, then the UK defines poverty as anyone earning less than 60% of the median income of the average citizen. So does that mean that people who are in part-time work and earning below that 60% will get all of the basic income, or will they get the basic income minus what they already earn?

    Suppose the person in part-time work only wants to work part-time (ie; they simply don't want more hours and have made their choice in that matter). Do they deserve the basic income supplied by the government considering that it's their decision to not take on more hours?

    B) With regard to the whole "mothers should get paid" stuff, would the basic income be a set amount regardless of how many children they have (effectively doing away with child benefits/child tax credits), or would they get the basic income plus a % based on how many kids they have? If it's the latter, then the playing field will barely go through a noticeable difference seeing as you've got people now having kids so they can get "free money" and a council house. Giving them money via the basic income route wouldn't change that mentality.

    I also can't see many people taking kindly to an aggressive tax on the rich simply so that people whose only hobby consists of reproduction have enough money to spend on luxuries (unless the basic income makes the welfare system irrelevant, thus ensuring that the money raised via the taxes can only be spent on necessities and not a second 50" tv).

    C) Something doesn't feel right about rewarding people's decision to get pregnant. On one hand, I do think it's kinda unfair that stay-at-home parents don't get financially rewarded for their sacrifices. On the other hand, getting pregnant is still a choice. It's like the whole tax cuts thing with regard to being married; why should someone's personal choices grant them access to money that other people aren't?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Neostigmine)
    Women, men, everyone. Yeah. It is an interesting idea and it has been working!
    what exactly do you mean by "working"? torture and the death penalty might technically "work" regarding their functions but is that all that matters? the fact is that the concept of a "basic income" regardless of work done is not justifiable or based on a matter of deserveness or what is owed - it's just a matter of "let's give people money because meh why not"
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Literally the most selfish argument I've ever heard not to mention absolutely pointless. Industry is massively privatised, the only way the government could raise money to give everyone cash just for existing is by taxing more which - given their affinity to big business - will hit the very people advocating this hardest. You'll pay more tax to give money to those who cant earn enough to prop up the welfare black hole you created and thereby come off worse. Government doesnt make money, it takes some and theoretically puts it into keeping society cohesive and functional. If it printed more, the country would collapse - the inflation of Wiemar Germany shows what happens when a country in debt tries to solve its problems by printing currency.

    As for the selfish element unsurprisingly its the 'nobody respects or admires me enough for choosing to have a child which - because in some unspecific way will later contribute to society i am the best and build future generations. Education, peer group influence, self growth? Nope, never heard of it. All me'. How many times will it be proposed the state further prop up those who choose to stay at home with their kid before people realise the economics are unworkable and the very idea this statement



    can be made without irony should tell you everything you need to know about the people advocating this position. To actually factually disagree however society has to pay welfare, child support, has to give them a pension, grants if they go to uni, grants if they do apprenticeships, training if they join any governmental organisation, cash if they cant get employed, a house if they lose theirs, council workers and a house if you cant take care of them, abortion clinics and assorted doctors if you choose not to have them etc and so forth so the argument could be applied in reverse that your child may be a drain on the economy so we should fine you just in case. Its no less logically legitimate, but nobody argues that as its patently stupid. So is this suggestion that a personal choice deserves unconditional reward because it contributes. Well i didnt punch a really rude bus driver today so crime statistics are better so more people feel safer to become bus drivers and thus contribute to society, can i have £2000 please?

    As for the this 'radical theory is being tested' (despite the sample size being pathetic), the result will unsurprisingly be, nothing will change except for the quality of TV. No hardship is required for free cash so no discipline is acquired in obtaining it and therefore nothing will change in all likelihood.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I imagine the same people who bash this will be the same people banging on about closing borders so Muslims don't infiltrate and take over Europe with their birth rates.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    Literally the most selfish argument I've ever heard not to mention absolutely pointless. Industry is massively privatised, the only way the government could raise money to give everyone cash just for existing is by taxing more which - given their affinity to big business - will hit the very people advocating this hardest. You'll pay more tax to give money to those who cant earn enough to prop up the welfare black hole you created and thereby come off worse. Government doesnt make money, it takes some and theoretically puts it into keeping society cohesive and functional. If it printed more, the country would collapse - the inflation of Wiemar Germany shows what happens when a country in debt tries to solve its problems by printing currency.

    As for the selfish element unsurprisingly its the 'nobody respects or admires me enough for choosing to have a child which - because in some unspecific way will later contribute to society i am the best and build future generations. Education, peer group influence, self growth? Nope, never heard of it. All me'. How many times will it be proposed the state further prop up those who choose to stay at home with their kid before people realise the economics are unworkable and the very idea this statement



    can be made without irony should tell you everything you need to know about the people advocating this position. To actually factually disagree however society has to pay welfare, child support, has to give them a pension, grants if they go to uni, grants if they do apprenticeships, training if they join any governmental organisation, cash if they cant get employed, a house if they lose theirs, council workers and a house if you cant take care of them, abortion clinics and assorted doctors if you choose not to have them etc and so forth so the argument could be applied in reverse that your child may be a drain on the economy so we should fine you just in case. Its no less logically legitimate, but nobody argues that as its patently stupid. So is this suggestion that a personal choice deserves unconditional reward because it contributes. Well i didnt punch a really rude bus driver today so crime statistics are better so more people feel safer to become bus drivers and thus contribute to society, can i have £2000 please?

    As for the this 'radical theory is being tested' (despite the sample size being pathetic), the result will unsurprisingly be, nothing will change except for the quality of TV. No hardship is required for free cash so no discipline is acquired in obtaining it and therefore nothing will change in all likelihood.
    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...income/375600/
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    The point of quoting that to me was what? Its a bunch of pseudo economic nonsense with no idea what point it wants to make
    Offline

    16
    It's funny how some of them only 'care' about the plight of women when it's in relation to violent migrants. Otherwise they really couldn't give a ****.

    (Original post by Ethereal World)
    I imagine the same people who bash this will be the same people banging on about closing borders so Muslims don't infiltrate and take over Europe with their birth rates.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    They can. It's called "child benefits and feeding your kids the cheapest food you can find".
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    The point of quoting that to me was what? Its a bunch of pseudo economic nonsense with no idea what point it wants to make
    Alright. It wasn't me that pissed on your chips. Chill out. Sheesh.

    I was just pointing out how pro private, pro market types like Mitlten Freedman advocated it. You know. The guy who is a bid deal in establishing the current economic orthodoxies in the west. If all his theories are just pseudo economic nonsense then we are all ****ed and you can start wagging your finger at pretty much everyone in power.

    I don't particularly support basic income or negative income tax from their angle since one of the reason those right wing lib support it is to undermine the welfare state. But I don't know how the concept can be fundamentally contradictory to the idea of "heavily privatized" industry when free market ideologues support it.

    Maybe go have a lie down.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StrawbAri)
    It's funny how some of them only 'care' about the plight of women when it's in relation to violent migrants. Otherwise they really couldn't give a ****.
    Hahaha so true.

    Protect our women from the external threat...

    Spoiler:
    Show
    so we can keep abusing them insidiously on the inside
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ethereal World)
    I imagine the same people who bash this will be the same people banging on about closing borders so Muslims don't infiltrate and take over Europe with their birth rates.
    I don't see the connection.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ethereal World)
    Hahaha so true.

    Protect our women from the external threat...
    Spoiler:
    Show
    so we can keep abusing them insidiously on the inside
    It's true, we like to gather and assault hundreds of women simultaneously.

    :rolleyes:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Alright. It wasn't me that pissed on your chips. Chill out. Sheesh.

    I was just pointing out how pro private, pro market types like Mitlten Freedman advocated it. You know. The guy who is a bid deal in establishing the current economic orthodoxies in the west. If all his theories are just pseudo economic nonsense then we are all ****ed and you can start wagging your finger at pretty much everyone in power.

    I don't particularly support basic income or negative income tax from their angle since one of the reason those right wing lib support it is to undermine the welfare state. But I don't know how the concept can be fundamentally contradictory to the idea of "heavily privatized" industry when free market ideologues support it.

    I'll ask permission next time I want to raise an idea :-/
    *sigh*

    My point was you directed me to an article at best tangentially related to my actual point so it had no real contextual point to make. Have whatever opinion you like, my point isnt bringing to bear on your rights its questioning the meaningfulness of referring to something not entirely related to the question.

    It being advocated by a pro market person makes no difference, the theory is poor. Its not dismissing his opinions its saying that whilst we can guess it may help economically the actual social effect will be far beyond simply market forces which he does not deal with in his assertions. Also the article was called names derisively because it jumps between economic theories and thinkers rushing towards a point it never makes, for example it brings up cancelling general benefits without even reflecting what the consequences of that would be. It isnt particularly in depth so has a limited contribution to the discussion.

    As for finger wagging at everyone in power, skepticism is healthy. There is no reason to accept what people say - especially those with positions to maintain - just because they say it. If our wellbeing was forefront there would be no scandals.

    Its not contradictory to the free market, its contradictory to justice. Paying the wage as stipulated by government is the opposite of market forces, if market forces decided it would be paid by private institutions. If you mean it would affect the free market then not really, it would affect the social spheres. The government giving out money isnt relevant to the market except in how its used and this is the tiniest proportion of the discussion.

    Of course you dont need permission, ardent opposition is not inherently diminishing your right to speak, dont be childish.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    I don't see the connection.
    I wouldn't expect you to
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    It's true, we like to gather and assault hundreds of women simultaneously.

    :rolleyes:
    Do you understand the meaning of insidious?

    :rolleyes:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ethereal World)
    I wouldn't expect you to
    Can you explain it to my weaker brains?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ethereal World)
    Do you understand the meaning of insidious?

    :rolleyes:
    So it means we are better than Muslim immigrants.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Beats bailing out failing banks and policies such as help-to-buy which fuel more debt rather than solving the issues.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Break up or unrequited love?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.