Some policy things lot of us would think are good?

[Anon1787]

Anon: that's why I specified an income level ceiling. Is there no maximum level you'd agree to?

My preferred amount would be far too low to be politically palatable and the very simplicity of UBI would seem to make it too easy to keep increasing.

[ergative]

I'm for the Pissoir. 

That will solve most of the payment controversy.

There's a gender disparity there. So, totally illegal.

That's just plumbing. Make some of these free to all, and the problem is solved.

[marshwiggle]

Anon: that's why I specified an income level ceiling. Is there no maximum level you'd agree to?

My preferred amount would be far too low to be politically palatable and the very simplicity of UBI would seem to make it too easy to keep increasing.

It shouldn't have a ceiling, because then that threshold causes problems. As someone said, it should be administered like a negative income tax, so there's no cliff to fall off above a certain income, the tax would just reach zero. That would also mean that the tax would become positive for higher incomes, so it could be set up to be overall revenue-neutral for the government. (That would also make it easy to keep it from getting out of whack; if it was set up to be revenue neutral, increasing the amount would mean shifting the break-even point and/or raising it for higher incomes, so taxpayers (i.e. voters) would be very aware of it.)

[Wahoo Redux]

I'm for the Pissoir. 

That will solve most of the payment controversy.

There's a gender disparity there. So, totally illegal.

Crap.  Good point.  I guess only guys pee in France.

[mahagonny]

Nuclear family, good. Obesity, not good.

[Anon1787]

It shouldn't have a ceiling, because then that threshold causes problems. As someone said, it should be administered like a negative income tax, so there's no cliff to fall off above a certain income, the tax would just reach zero. That would also mean that the tax would become positive for higher incomes, so it could be set up to be overall revenue-neutral for the government. (That would also make it easy to keep it from getting out of whack; if it was set up to be revenue neutral, increasing the amount would mean shifting the break-even point and/or raising it for higher incomes, so taxpayers (i.e. voters) would be very aware of it.)

You're much more hopeful than I am that it could be kept revenue neutral.

Nuclear family, good. Obesity, not good.

But which policies? Make everyone eat a lot of broccoli?

[mahagonny]

Nuclear family, good. Obesity, not good.

But which policies? Make everyone eat a lot of broccoli?

Maybe someone can take it from here. I am less familiar with the forum conversations of late, but it seems to be society itself lacks the consensus about basic values that it once had.

[jimbogumbo]

Nuclear family, good. Obesity, not good.

But which policies? Make everyone eat a lot of broccoli?

Maybe someone can take it from here. I am less familiar with the forum conversations of late, but it seems to be society itself lacks the consensus about basic values that it once had.

Okay, I'll bite. Switch crop subsidies from corn and grain to vegetable production (I know, dismalist would probably prefer none at all, but I'm assuming they'll be here in some form). Bring the price of produce down compared to grains. Definitely no need to subsidize high fructose corn syrup, and corn ethanol is way overrated as a fuel source.

[dismalist]

Nuclear family, good. Obesity, not good.

But which policies? Make everyone eat a lot of broccoli?

Maybe someone can take it from here. I am less familiar with the forum conversations of late, but it seems to be society itself lacks the consensus about basic values that it once had.

Okay, I'll bite. Switch crop subsidies from corn and grain to vegetable production (I know, dismalist would probably prefer none at all, but I'm assuming they'll be here in some form). Bring the price of produce down compared to grains. Definitely no need to subsidize high fructose corn syrup, and corn ethanol is way overrated as a fuel source.

Absolutely, jimbo: US requirements to use ethanol [here, from corn] means the world price of corn is higher than otherwise, and poor people in the rest-of-the-world who depend on corn go hungry.

This policy is made the same way as all the other policies made by the baptists and the bootleggers. The baptists, here the climate worry warts, start off by claiming to do something for an apparently  morally good cause, preventing global warming. The bootleggers, here the corn growers, support this political move, cause it gets them money. Then, the baptists move on to another cause, I don't know, there are so many, say "buying local". The bootleggers stay in the political fights and keep collecting.

[marshwiggle]

It shouldn't have a ceiling, because then that threshold causes problems. As someone said, it should be administered like a negative income tax, so there's no cliff to fall off above a certain income, the tax would just reach zero. That would also mean that the tax would become positive for higher incomes, so it could be set up to be overall revenue-neutral for the government. (That would also make it easy to keep it from getting out of whack; if it was set up to be revenue neutral, increasing the amount would mean shifting the break-even point and/or raising it for higher incomes, so taxpayers (i.e. voters) would be very aware of it.)

You're much more hopeful than I am that it could be kept revenue neutral.

Actually, I think a lot of programs would be made sustainable by being required to be revenue-neutral and/or with funding tied to something like the median income, so that changes over time are predictable and aren't set up to be manipulated by whatever government of the day to buy votes by either increasing or cutting funding.

So in the case of UBI, being *revenue-neutral means it's a one-time shift in the tax system. Also, by making the amount based on the median income, then it would rise and fall with the rest of the economy.

(*Of course one of the biggest challenges with setting it up would be that it would replace a whole bunch of programs that are provided by different levels of government, so negotiating that would be a huge undertaking.)

[Wahoo Redux]

it seems to be society itself lacks the consensus about basic values that it once had.

Such as widespread overt institutional racism?

[marshwiggle]

it seems to be society itself lacks the consensus about basic values that it once had.

Such as widespread overt institutional racism?

Wahoo, you accuse me of exaggeration. Overt institutional racism???? Overt racism is illegal, and "institutional" (or "systemic") discrimination is, by definition, subtle and indirect. So to be both "overt" and "institutional" it would seem to have to be indirect, but with some sort of stated goal (to be overt) of racial discrimination.
Got an example?

[Katrina Gulliver]

All posted prices must include all taxes.

Stiffer penalties for littering.

[Wahoo Redux]

it seems to be society itself lacks the consensus about basic values that it once had.

Such as widespread overt institutional racism?

Wahoo, you accuse me of exaggeration. Overt institutional racism???? Overt racism is illegal, and "institutional" (or "systemic") discrimination is, by definition, subtle and indirect. So to be both "overt" and "institutional" it would seem to have to be indirect, but with some sort of stated goal (to be overt) of racial discrimination.
Got an example?

"Overt: done or shown openly; plainly or readily apparent, not secret or hidden."

Redlining.

Segregated military units. 

Segregated education.  Brown vs. BoE was 1954.

Jim Crow laws were enforced until 1965.

Do you really not know all this stuff?  These are what made widespread overt institutional racism illegal---although it has still been an uphill battle.

Look up why we needed a Civil Rights Act in 1964.  One of the ways we study ancient cultures is to see what laws they have enacted----that tells us what they were dealing with.  What were we dealing with in 1964?

Unless the "generations" with "basic values" you refer to are those since 1965 or thereabouts----or our late-Boomer / early Gen X generation----at which point I chuckle dismissively in your direction and ignore you from here on out.  We are the generation which largely rejected a great many of the "basic values" that stunted our country for so long.  We then invented others of our own...

Whatever you have been doing for the last three months has not made you more rational about politics, I see.

[marshwiggle]

Unless the "generations" with "basic values" you refer to are those since 1965 or thereabouts----or our late-Boomer / early Gen X generation----at which point I chuckle dismissively in your direction and ignore you from here on out.  We are the generation which largely rejected a great many of the "basic values" that stunted our country for so long.  We then invented others of our own...

As John McWhorter said, I'd like to go back to about 1992, where the laws and social attitudes were generally focused on peoples' common humanity. Things regressed in the 2000's with the rise of the social justice cult and identity politics.

So that was after "overt institutional racism" was gone, for a generation or so.