JJ Husker

Why don't we simply let them use the bathroom that they are most comfortable with? Running into a trans man in the restroom is really such a big issue for you? No, but running into a trans man in the restroom IS a problem for my wife and daughter and most every woman I have talked to about this. I'm just tired of 99% of the people being hammered into submission by the weird fringes of society. They are the ones with the identity problems. I say we let them continue dealing with it without impacting our lives. If this is the biggest of their problems, I would say it's not that big of a problem anyway. What makes more sense? Expecting 319,000,000 people to change and feel uncomfortable or expecting 900,000 to still maybe feel a little out of place? My bet is they feel a little strange no matter which restroom they use. Ugh!!!! How close minded. That's not inclusive at alllllllllllllll!!! Ughhhhhhhhhhh! Yeah, I'm a real bastard....probably the king of them.

One question; If this isn't supposed to bother any of the 319,000,000 of people without these identity problems, why is it supposedly a much bigger problem for the ones that have identity problems? Maybe I feel uncomfortable sharing a restroom with blonde haired people. Should I expect things to be changed to cater to my quirks? Like I've already said, it's ridiculous..... borderline lunacy actually.

[/size] :-(

Why don't we simply let them use the bathroom that they are most comfortable with? Running into a trans man in the restroom is really such a big issue for you? No, but running into a trans man in the restroom IS a problem for my wife and daughter and most every woman I have talked to about this. I'm just tired of 99% of the people being hammered into submission by the weird fringes of society. They are the ones with the identity problems. I say we let them continue dealing with it without impacting our lives. If this is the biggest of their problems, I would say it's not that big of a problem anyway. What makes more sense? Expecting 319,000,000 people to change and feel uncomfortable or expecting 900,000 to still maybe feel a little out of place? My bet is they feel a little strange no matter which restroom they use.

This is funny. People trying to solve a problem, that really isn't a problem, by coming up with all kinds of strange and expensive ideas. Is there really a problem in telling everyone, trans people included, that they are to use the restroom indicated by the plumbing they were born with? It has worked well for a long, long time, doesn't cost anything extra, and doesn't make the vast majority of people uncomfortable. Do we really need to cater to, what is it, something like .3% of the population? I say we make this just another one of "their" issues that they have to learn to deal with. Really, it's getting just plain ridiculous at this point.

Had a crowler (that's right, crowler, a 32 oz. can, not growler) of Weldwerks (a local micro brewer) Juicy Bits IPA tonight. Feeling pleasantly loopy. Good beer.

I'll be honest, I don't follow Husker baseball hardly at all. Just want to throw out there that Mike Anderson is a good guy and a good coach. He was actually my next door (technically in the house directly behind me) neighbor for quite awhile directly before taking the job at Nebraska. I was sad that things didn't pan out for him at DONU. Good guy.

whether you structure it as a negative income tax or a basic income, in principle it's essentially the same thing, and Friendman discusses as much. It's just a small variant in how you calculate it. But whether you write someone a check, give them a subsidy, or give them a tax break, that is a form of income from the government. The 2 plans as presented are not the same thing. Friedman directly said his negative income tax would not work at the 100% rate. That is what simply giving everyone an amount, say $20K, would be the equivalent of. He said it would destroy incentive to work. He then went on to use a 50% negative tax rate as an example. The other issue is, we already have EITC which is a form of a rebate to those who work. It fails to address those who don't/can't work. So, I guess my question would be, does this new mincome plan replace preexisting EITC credits and all forms of tax deductions or not? Because, if it does replace them, then many of my inflationary concerns get tempered very quickly. However, the OP plan as I interpreted it, was a totally new thing that did not necessarily have to replace existing tax code issues. The only thing it was mentioned that it would replace was the highly inefficient welfare type programs. There is a huge difference in considering this based on what all is and isn't affected. Another thing to consider that makes a big difference is where is it funded from. It matters if it is handled with dollars already in the system somewhere or where those dollars come from if they aren't already in the system. If we're going to start (or more accurately, continue to on a much larger scale) redistributing more income through the taxation system, I believe it is important to address who and how that is done. That OP article really provided no details other than a general idea. Call me a sticky wicket but I don't take too well to grandiose ideas with no details. As an idea it is interesting. But it is severely lacking any amount of detail where I could say I think it is good or support it. I guess when an idea is as poorly presented as that one is, my default position is it is bad until it can be shown to work. I really do like the negative tax idea though. Like really like it. Am I less of a dick now? It's ok, you can say no. Yes, I know what he said. But if he set his minimum income level at $30k, then it's really no different than setting a guaranteed income at $15k. The principles are exactly the same, but he has added a nuance that he hopes will diminish disincentives to "live off of the guaranteed income). On the flipside, his approach still disincentivizes in some ways work that takes you to his minimum income threshold. The advantage of the basic income is everyone partakes, either in the form of a check from the government or a credit again income tax owed. That said, I"ve long argued that a NIT is preferable to the current system (if we refuse to go to "a consumption + rebate" tax model, which is my favorite approach). I dont' recall if the OP article addresses tax reform directly, but through out the thread, I've stated that this would have to be coupled with replacing the bureaucracy of the current system, including IRS inefficiencies. It would also replace the EITC, the home mortgage deduction, food stamps, social security, medicare/medicaid, etc. That's why many libertarians love it. Instead of the government directing money for you, it is put into your hands to spend in the market where you please (that's also another example of why this is NOT inflationary). I agree that a lot of detail is required, particularly around funding. I think it's reasonably likely that I personally wouldn't see a decrease in my tax bill, for example. But, I do think that it would be ideal if we could stop treating one person who make $200,000 much differently from another person who make $200,000, or one person who makes $35,000 from another person who makes $32,000 (and qualifies for benefits via a means test), which is exactly what happens today. I think there's a political reality in every developed country where productivity is concentrated in the hands of a minority of people that dictates we need to "share" the fruits of that productivity, if for no other reason than to avoid a "workers revolution." There are already a bunch of unwieldy, inefficient policies in place to address this reality. My only position is that this guaranteed income (with tax reform) seems like a far more efficient means of achieving what is widely considered a necessary goal (even if it's an undesirable one). So, simply put; figure out how much is required and then ask everyone to pitch in based on their means - not based on their means, minus whatever special tax breaks that can be taken advantage of. Transparency, transparency, transparency should be the theme in approaching these reforms. What drives toward a transparent evaluation of dollars actually spent and by whom. I agree with all of this. I also would prefer to see the NIT with a consumption tax. However, I still maintain that the mincome plan in the OP could be a very different animal. The devil is in the details and it didn't have any. See, we aren't that far apart (think I was the first to actually introduce NIT as an approach in this thread). But just to confirm that we aren't too far apart, you acknowledge and agree that a person earning $0 in a NIT scheme would be provided a "guaranteed income" of 50% of whatever the minimum threshold is, right? So if the threshold is $30k, the $0 earner receives $15k. The problem I have with MF's version of the negative income tax is that if I make $30k, I don't think I get any bump. Granted, I'm not losing anything (as I would be in today's system), but it does diminish some amount of incentive to go from say $25k (which means I have a total income of $27.5k under the NIT) to $30k, if the marginal effort required to reach $30k isn't worth the $2,500 I'd be getting in extra pay. That's not a huge deal because we aren't losing out that much on productivity, but it's why I'm more supportive of a basic income tax for everyone (essentially a stipend or rebate), which would be more fair in application. Yes, I agree that a $0 income person should be bumped up to half of the minimum threshold, 15k in a 30k system. I think it could work even bumping extremely low income people to almost a livable wage aND 15k probably doesnt get them there. Besides that, if they can't live on it, the whole plan kind of falls apart. And I think we also both agree there could be better blending just above and below that 30k demarcation point. The people between 15k and 30k would be the ones I would be most concerned with introducing any disincentive to work. It could be graduated to alleviate that concern I believe. Otherwise we would get the situation, as in Moiraine example, of going a few dollars over some threshold and losing out on a bigger amount. Even though it would likely work and still be better without that graduated blending, I believe it would have to be implemented to make it politically acceptable. Many people less conservative than me just wouldn't stand for a plan that caused even a few people to opt out of work if they are physically and mentally able. I could live with it if t helped fix our current broken system. Going to a consumption tax also would help address many of those types of concerns.

whether you structure it as a negative income tax or a basic income, in principle it's essentially the same thing, and Friendman discusses as much. It's just a small variant in how you calculate it. But whether you write someone a check, give them a subsidy, or give them a tax break, that is a form of income from the government. The 2 plans as presented are not the same thing. Friedman directly said his negative income tax would not work at the 100% rate. That is what simply giving everyone an amount, say $20K, would be the equivalent of. He said it would destroy incentive to work. He then went on to use a 50% negative tax rate as an example. The other issue is, we already have EITC which is a form of a rebate to those who work. It fails to address those who don't/can't work. So, I guess my question would be, does this new mincome plan replace preexisting EITC credits and all forms of tax deductions or not? Because, if it does replace them, then many of my inflationary concerns get tempered very quickly. However, the OP plan as I interpreted it, was a totally new thing that did not necessarily have to replace existing tax code issues. The only thing it was mentioned that it would replace was the highly inefficient welfare type programs. There is a huge difference in considering this based on what all is and isn't affected. Another thing to consider that makes a big difference is where is it funded from. It matters if it is handled with dollars already in the system somewhere or where those dollars come from if they aren't already in the system. If we're going to start (or more accurately, continue to on a much larger scale) redistributing more income through the taxation system, I believe it is important to address who and how that is done. That OP article really provided no details other than a general idea. Call me a sticky wicket but I don't take too well to grandiose ideas with no details. As an idea it is interesting. But it is severely lacking any amount of detail where I could say I think it is good or support it. I guess when an idea is as poorly presented as that one is, my default position is it is bad until it can be shown to work. I really do like the negative tax idea though. Like really like it. Am I less of a dick now? It's ok, you can say no. Yes, I know what he said. But if he set his minimum income level at $30k, then it's really no different than setting a guaranteed income at $15k. The principles are exactly the same, but he has added a nuance that he hopes will diminish disincentives to "live off of the guaranteed income). On the flipside, his approach still disincentivizes in some ways work that takes you to his minimum income threshold. The advantage of the basic income is everyone partakes, either in the form of a check from the government or a credit again income tax owed. That said, I"ve long argued that a NIT is preferable to the current system (if we refuse to go to "a consumption + rebate" tax model, which is my favorite approach). I dont' recall if the OP article addresses tax reform directly, but through out the thread, I've stated that this would have to be coupled with replacing the bureaucracy of the current system, including IRS inefficiencies. It would also replace the EITC, the home mortgage deduction, food stamps, social security, medicare/medicaid, etc. That's why many libertarians love it. Instead of the government directing money for you, it is put into your hands to spend in the market where you please (that's also another example of why this is NOT inflationary). I agree that a lot of detail is required, particularly around funding. I think it's reasonably likely that I personally wouldn't see a decrease in my tax bill, for example. But, I do think that it would be ideal if we could stop treating one person who make $200,000 much differently from another person who make $200,000, or one person who makes $35,000 from another person who makes $32,000 (and qualifies for benefits via a means test), which is exactly what happens today. I think there's a political reality in every developed country where productivity is concentrated in the hands of a minority of people that dictates we need to "share" the fruits of that productivity, if for no other reason than to avoid a "workers revolution." There are already a bunch of unwieldy, inefficient policies in place to address this reality. My only position is that this guaranteed income (with tax reform) seems like a far more efficient means of achieving what is widely considered a necessary goal (even if it's an undesirable one). So, simply put; figure out how much is required and then ask everyone to pitch in based on their means - not based on their means, minus whatever special tax breaks that can be taken advantage of. Transparency, transparency, transparency should be the theme in approaching these reforms. What drives toward a transparent evaluation of dollars actually spent and by whom. I agree with all of this. I also would prefer to see the NIT with a consumption tax. However, I still maintain that the mincome plan in the OP could be a very different animal. The devil is in the details and it didn't have any.

I understand that and don't really have a problem with it. The problem I had was somebody was promoting it like there were no unaddressed issues and falsely representing another related but different plan as being one in the same. I tend to be a stickler for details when that starts happening.

I see 2 issues in this case. Unfortunately, it is difficult to satisfactorily reconcile the issues with one another. Issue number 1 and the one of primary importance, a girl was raped. There should not be any policies that discourage her reporting the rape and there should be no retribution for her being open and honest about how it occurred. BYU's system is messed up if they then turn around and punish her for things learned in the rape discovery process. Issue number 2, can or should a religious institution like BYU have a moral code of conduct that actually gets enforced? She freely signed that code and agreed to abide by it. If she didn't want to, she didn't have to go to BYU. I believe it is BYU's right to have that code and expect it to be followed with punishment for those who don't. But, with the needed exception of cases like this. The easy solution is to have an amnesty clause that ignores the moral code of conduct violations when something of this magnitude happens. Maybe not ideal if anyone really believes in a moral conduct code but necessary for the greater good. Ironically, if she had followed the code of conduct she had agreed to and signed, she likely would not have been raped in this situation. I won't even go into her going back a 2nd time after she had apparently already been assaulted a 1st time. I think we can rightly question her contribution to the 2nd rape in this situation without being accused of coldly blaming her for the rape. It is still the rapist's fault even if she did something extremely stupid and against all logic. It's just a tragic and unfortunate situation all the way around and one that BYU needs to adjust to deal with much better than they did.

whether you structure it as a negative income tax or a basic income, in principle it's essentially the same thing, and Friendman discusses as much. It's just a small variant in how you calculate it. But whether you write someone a check, give them a subsidy, or give them a tax break, that is a form of income from the government. The 2 plans as presented are not the same thing. Friedman directly said his negative income tax would not work at the 100% rate. That is what simply giving everyone an amount, say $20K, would be the equivalent of. He said it would destroy incentive to work. He then went on to use a 50% negative tax rate as an example. The other issue is, we already have EITC which is a form of a rebate to those who work. It fails to address those who don't/can't work. So, I guess my question would be, does this new mincome plan replace preexisting EITC credits and all forms of tax deductions or not? Because, if it does replace them, then many of my inflationary concerns get tempered very quickly. However, the OP plan as I interpreted it, was a totally new thing that did not necessarily have to replace existing tax code issues. The only thing it was mentioned that it would replace was the highly inefficient welfare type programs. There is a huge difference in considering this based on what all is and isn't affected. Another thing to consider that makes a big difference is where is it funded from. It matters if it is handled with dollars already in the system somewhere or where those dollars come from if they aren't already in the system. If we're going to start (or more accurately, continue to on a much larger scale) redistributing more income through the taxation system, I believe it is important to address who and how that is done. That OP article really provided no details other than a general idea. Call me a sticky wicket but I don't take too well to grandiose ideas with no details. As an idea it is interesting. But it is severely lacking any amount of detail where I could say I think it is good or support it. I guess when an idea is as poorly presented as that one is, my default position is it is bad until it can be shown to work. I really do like the negative tax idea though. Like really like it. Am I less of a dick now? It's ok, you can say no.

Well, I guess I'm not quite done because I need to say this. I like what Friedman had to say on his plan of a negative income tax and agree with it. It also appears that he was the architect behind the EITC and I also think that is an effective tool. But someone here misrepresented his support of the program "basic minimum income" as outlined in the linked OP. MF did not support this thought of simply giving everyone a minimum income. He says as much in the 1968 video with William F Buckley. All of his comments in the video and in the linked article pertain to his negative income tax plan and the ideals of the EITC. I wholeheartedly agree with him on those things. He flat out said just giving people the minimum income won't work because it would destroy incentive to work. He supported a 50% (at least the example he used) negative income tax, he did not support the plan as presented in the OP. All of the linked videos and articles seem to be in support of Friedman's negative tax plan. None of them support the "give everyone a minimum income" plan outlined in the OP linked article. I thought that was the plan being discussed here. Am I wrong about that? cm has repeatedly said "see the video" "read the linked articles", "they will address your concerns about inflation" he represented that they were in support of the mincome plan. They are not and the other articles do not mention inflationary concerns at all. The reason they don't mention inflationary concerns is because those comments are about Friedman's negative tax plan (which I like) and they are not about the "give everybody $20K or $30K" plan that keeps getting bantered about. That is the plan I don't think will work. This whole f'ing deal has been caused by somebody claiming Friedman supports it, which he doesn't, and by claiming this litany of articles debunk any inflationary concerns, which they don't. So, which plan is it that you cm and you BRB seem to think is a good idea now? The mincome plan presented in the OP or Friedman's negative income tax plan dealt with in all the articles and video? It would vastly help the discussion if everyone was talking about the same thing.

You're right, I did come in to the discussion with both barrels blazing and convinced it was idiocy. But then I apologized for that, backed off and tried to consider it more reasonably. But I still don't see where the numbers add up, and he pretty much continued to treat it like none of my concerns (which he largely failed to address) were valid. And he questioned my understanding of economics, my education, and has made numerous assumptions based on my political leanings which really are not affecting my thoughts on it in the least. But I guess that only makes me the dick here. Whatever man. You guys keep discussing it. I'm done. PM me when it goes absolutely anywhere in the real world and I'll come back and say I was wrong.

I think it's an interesting idea. I know the existing system needs to be fixed and I'm all for exploring all possibilities, even much wilder ones than this. But somebody has been saying much more than "it's an interesting idea and we would like to see the numbers". Somebody has been acting like it is a proven system and that there are no possible pitfalls or unintended consequences. If that causes my comments to come off as "all in a dither" well, so be it. I'll keep acting in that manner until somebody shows me where the numbers even come close to adding up but, I'll probably give up on the topic all together first because I find the discussion quite frustrating and unhelpful.

This drives up inflation.

Here's my concern. My example is based on very rough numbers that I am sure are far from accurate but I will use some that have already been tossed around and I think it will show why I feel one of the results would be inflation. Of course I'm no Milton Friedman.... Current welfare spending $1T. If that currently equates to about $20K per person, that would be 50M people already on the dole. The population of the USA is about 320M. So, 50M on the dole, 270M not on it currently. Now we give everyone (all 320M) $20K per year, that would be a total outlay of $6.4T minus the existing $1T = an additional $5.4T being paid out by our government and thus ending up as additional disposable income, Yearly. So my questions remain the same: Where does that yearly $5.4T come from and how does that infusion of disposable income not drive up the cost of living? Sure it may drive some economic expansion to help offset some of it but I really need it explained where it comes from first so I can entertain that thought. Are we talking about increasing the taxes on the 270M to fund this? There isn't $5.4T of efficiency savings in a $1T system (well there might be the way our government works ) I get the feeling I'm missing something very important, and I might very well be, but cm sure hasn't spread any light on it yet. Maybe you can. I'm simply applying math and common sense and some basic understanding of economics. If that can't get me any closer to making it work than $5.4T I really have the feeling I'm mostly correct.

So, in summary, you cannot explain why this program will work (you can only repeatedly say "see the video" or "read this thing that somebody else said about it" and they explain it no better than you) and you refuse to acknowledge the consequences of glaringly obvious issues, chief among them being that hundreds of thousands of people just received an additional $20,000 that is apparently not more disposable income and that it magically materialized out of thin air. Yeah, you're right, leave me to my own devices, please. I'm not sure I like the way your devices seem to malfunction.

Wow. I can understand a player not being bright enough to keep evidence like that off social media, but a coach.....? I have no words for the stupidity here.

Thanks for acknowledging there will be inflationary pressure. As I'm sure a person of your advanced learned state realizes, it doesn't matter if I get a 20k tax cut or simply a check for 20k, my disposable income just increased by 20k, as did everyone else's who was not already getting that 20k from some preexisting government assistance program. I think we now agree that only a fool would not see the inherent inflationary pressures and/or the fact that extremely rich people will simply become richer. Of course, as you obviously even know better than me, that this will increase the cost of living and put the poor folk further behind the curve once again. Whew, I'm glad we finally got that settled. I am confused though, because obviously fully realizing all that, you still seem to think this will work. Odd. And of course there's still that ole bugaboo question of where does the money come from that is boosting my and hundreds of thousands others disposable income. Hmmm maybe you need to do a little more reading and a have a little less blind faith in some snake oil salesmen.

I wasn't going to state my actual income down to the nearest dollar. Happy? Besides that, it bounces around wildly from year to year anyway.

And your Alaskan oil dividend example is not anywhere near the same thing. That money is created by oil production, or more specifically, it comes from a naural resource. What creating activity funds the scenario we are talking about? And if you think that the Alaskan deal has no impact on the economy, primarily the one in Alaska, you are crazy. There is more than one state that has its citizens benefit from either lower taxes or dividend payments on natural resources. Florida's state income tax is subsidized down to nothing due to tourism. How do those situations apply even slightly to this discussion?

I eagerly await your enlightening words. In the mean time, here is a direct real life situation (even if I have used somewhat hypothetical numbers) you can address this when you get back to learning us up. Let's say I make $150,000 now and receive no government assistance funds. This plan goes into effect next year with me receiving a $20k stipend from the government. A few questions; 1- How does my income not increase from 150 to 170? Or, more precisely, how does my disposal let income not increase by 20k? 2- Assuming it does increase to $170k or simply by $20k... A) Do I spend any of that additional 20?, or B) Do I put it in savings or my retirement?, or C) Do I light it on fire and pretend I never got it? [hint it is not C] 3- Bonus question, where/who does my extra 20 come from since I'm not preexisting on the dole? 4- Double extra credit bonus question; Could there be a whole bunch of people in my same situation. I mean like hundreds of thousands, even millions, of people in that same situation? Essay question; Now explain again how there would be no inflationary pressures or hording of money or likely some of each. Maybe I have thrown you off by saying the words "more money in circulation". I guess that is not technically correct as money supposedly will not be printed. The more correct way to put it is "more disposable income in the hands of consumers". Please explain how that minor difference doesn't still create inflationary pressure.

cm, I don't believe I have called this socialist. I've used that word a few times but not in describing g this policy. So don't worry about any inability to make progress. And sure, I could be wrong. Could you also be wrong? You're going to have to quit moving the goalposts in this discussion however if we hope to make progress. Simple question; You have claimed that this only replaces the current welfare system and you have also claimed the only way it works is if everyone (I assume that includes current non-welfare recipients) is paid the basic income. So, if people who are not on the dole now all of a sudden start collecting these payments, how does that not put more money into circulation and not cost more than the existing welfare system? That is where I believe the extra money in circulation will come from. Or ddid I miss some major component of the plan like somehow people will immediately be getting paid less from their current source of income. How do I start collecting say a $20k stipend from the government without that increasing my overall income? Please show me what I missing and why you think I'm such an idiot for having inflationary concerns. And further, you aren't concerned about a glut of former government employees trying to find new jobs. Where are those jobs now? Do we have unemployment or not? Is there an endless supply of jobs and I just shouldn't worry about it? The more efficient system you are hoping for has to eliminate a bunch of current jobs, or it doesn't get more efficient. So please explain why those people not finding new gainful employment is not a concern. Also, please list all your illustrious credentials as pertains to economic policy. Kind of getting fed up with your I'm smarter than you, you only understand business accounting bullsh#t. What makes you so f'ing smart?