#8mars #Grenoble #lgbtq #antifa
Uncategorized
1
Posts
1
Posters
0
Views
-
undefined oblomov@sociale.network shared this topic
Feed RSS
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
@kiaun very cool
-
@codinghorror @illogical_me Italy
-
@swetland I used to have the job title "Robot Psychologist" at a past job, but in retrospect that may have hurt my career as my next two jobs had me start at their "junior programmer" rung equivalents. I do wonder sometimes how things might have gone different if I picked "Principle Engineer" instead.
-
@codinghorror We can and have taxed the wealthy before. It was highly successful. We do not do so today, but have several proposals (improved capital gains tax, for example) that address this. We also have states beginning to implement additional taxes on those with high income. (See Washington State's "Millionair Tax")
The challenge is that it's a political fight to get these established - more so since Citizens United.
Also... the programs being crap is not because they need to be complex. If it were, we would not be having a social security crisis. They are crap because we give poor people crap.
If you have ever sampled procucts across the spectrum, you might notice how anything directed at poor people is full of advertisements, scams and upselling. This is considered lucrative, even though we are selling services to individuals who cannot afford the bells and whistles.
We specifically design benches to be uncomfortable. There was even a toilet designed to be uncomfortable.
But this is about government services, not just what we find acceptable.
So to bring us back, I need to call out how much scruteny poor people are under to prove their poorness is not a moral failing instead of the fact they are paid less than enough to meet the poverty line - a line chosen to describe not "Who has enough", but instead "Who is literally starving".
And why? Because of the "Welfare Queen Myth".
So no. I do not trust us with any means testing. I will not until we fix existing means testing.
-
@delegatevoid oh another thing people have been pointing out. all of these companies are burning obscene amounts of money to offer these services way way way way way below the cost of operating them. my understanding is investors generally want to eventually see a return on investment.
-
Lack of stigma and universality are two good reasons supporting UBI vs GMI... *but* in my humble opinion everything else supports GMI vs UBI. Social services should strive to find everyone in need of support and request GMI for them. Payment should be in plain money, not coupons or a "poor man's card".
Does it leave room for cheating? Sure, like every policy does. Far smaller room than building a road or purchasing jet fighters, anyway.
-
@aeva A coworker of mine who worked on VM stuff had "Virtual Machinist" as the title on his business cards back in the day, which I always thought was brilliant.
-
FWIW - "finalistic" policies do cause clear inflation (i.e., there are examples on how giving 200€/month to help pay rent to everyone under a minimum income ends up raising avg housing prices by 200€/mo).
GMI should not have the same effect... to an extent, as in many markets, housing takes most family income and any additional income would go towards paying rent.(I am not an economist. Nor do I want to)
