JJ Husker

Are you saying those with gender identity issues are not sane? How small-minded of you. Are you aware it could be physiological and not simply a mental disorder or a whim? Are you sure there's room in there for them?I will assume you were attempting to be funny but since so many in this discussion are saying some rather strange things in a serious manner, I'll answer just to be safe. I'm saying I don't use public restrooms unless I absolutely have to. Generally they are filthy, stinky places, and I'm never quite sure exactly what that "fluid" is on the floor. Since I'm the most sane person I know, I would call it sane behavior to avoid public restrooms all together. And, yes, there is always more room in my mind for more penis'....err or something like that. Surely somebody can make use of this in OoCT.

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.I think that's more of a reflection of the people you associate with than the greater population. They're not weird, they're not "fringes" (sorry- surprise! They're everywhere!) They have ZERO identity problems. You have a problem with their identity. Your problem not theirs.L O L.Thanks for that, I hadn't laughed out loud like that at all yet today. And btw, I'm not the hater you think I am (not that I particularly care what anyone thinks). I have zero problem with people who have identity issues. I have zero problem with people who choose to undergo sex change procedures. What I have a problem with is people who are actually men using women's restrooms in non-emergency situations. If some trans man or woman or it wants to come take crap next to me in Target, I don't give a flying rip. I might let lose a flying rip though. Hey - I don't think you're a hater ... just think that certain topics make some uncomfortable, and this is one. Really the problem people have is with creepy people being in bathrooms that may be looking at you or your children or your family members in a way that's in appropriate. I guess where I get frustrated is folks that think a transgender person fits that bill. There are far more issues with creeps that 'have the right plumbing" going into a bathroom for the wrong reasons than any transgender doing so. It's fair to be worried about safety - it's unfair to say it's one particular type of person that is the one to worry about. To be honest, the real, honest to goodness trans people are not the ones that concern me at all. But this opens the door to all the sexual deviants and criminals to get through that door by simply claiming they have "identity issues". If this gets widely adopted and accepted, how do you stop those people? I realize pedophile men can share a public restroom with young boys right now but at least we are aware of it and it is at least a little limited in scope. But if we throw the doors open in both rooms for anyone, I think it is just begging for more problems than exist now. This is exactly the issue that "progressives" stick their head in the sand and refuse to face. They are so bumfuzzled that a trans person is going to feel uncomfortable in the "wrong" bathroom. Out of one side of their mouth they state that women, who risk being abused or even freaked out by a man dressed as a woman who is only there to peep or worse, is already protected by the law so we need not worry. The they will say that TGs people can be abused if they are forced to use a bathroom with people of their birth gender. Well guess what ....there is a law for that as well protecting them from abuse. It's called assault and battery. Show me the logic of putting half the population at further risk when a much smaller % of the population can make do by looking for unisex or gender neutral bathrooms if they insist they are that uncomfortable. Spend your time encouraging businesses and governments to remodel bathrooms to be more accommodating if you must. Thank you! Another island of sanity. If we pick up a few more we could call them the Sane Chain Islands or Keys or something like that.

What "rights" of these trans people are being trampled now? They can use public restrooms, no? Or, they can choose to largely avoid public restrooms in most cases, just like most sane people do. Call me crazy, a person with a penis is a man in my mind. Is it really discriminatory to expect them to use the same facilities as all other people with penis'? Really, that's discrimination? This actually makes me look forward to the day I'll be 6 feet under. People cra cra nowadays. We're just inventing ridiculous ways to create special interests anx to label thinges as discriminitory. Objective truth just doesn't seem to matter anymore. People with vaginas aren't women I guess, they're simply whatever sex they feel like identifying with on any particular day. Unbelievable this is something that needs attention. Someone please post some articles of how these people are being harmed by using the restroom their birth sex indicates. If it's not supposed to be a big deal for the majority of society to accept members of the opposite sex in the restroom with them, why/how is it such a big problem for the few to "feel out of place"? I'm pretty sure trans people have much bigger problems to deal with than which restroom they use in public. Besides that, who is patrolling restroom use anyway. If you're a man abut look, dress and act like woman, go ahead and use the damn women's room. Nobody is gonna know anyway....unless you're going to pee standing up but that sure isn't very lady like behavior now is it? Oops, was that politically incorrect to say?

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.I think that's more of a reflection of the people you associate with than the greater population. They're not weird, they're not "fringes" (sorry- surprise! They're everywhere!) They have ZERO identity problems. You have a problem with their identity. Your problem not theirs.L O L.Thanks for that, I hadn't laughed out loud like that at all yet today. And btw, I'm not the hater you think I am (not that I particularly care what anyone thinks). I have zero problem with people who have identity issues. I have zero problem with people who choose to undergo sex change procedures. What I have a problem with is people who are actually men using women's restrooms in non-emergency situations. If some trans man or woman or it wants to come take crap next to me in Target, I don't give a flying rip. I might let lose a flying rip though. Hey - I don't think you're a hater ... just think that certain topics make some uncomfortable, and this is one. Really the problem people have is with creepy people being in bathrooms that may be looking at you or your children or your family members in a way that's in appropriate. I guess where I get frustrated is folks that think a transgender person fits that bill. There are far more issues with creeps that 'have the right plumbing" going into a bathroom for the wrong reasons than any transgender doing so. It's fair to be worried about safety - it's unfair to say it's one particular type of person that is the one to worry about.To be honest, the real, honest to goodness trans people are not the ones that concern me at all. But this opens the door to all the sexual deviants and criminals to get through that door by simply claiming they have "identity issues". If this gets widely adopted and accepted, how do you stop those people? I realize pedophile men can share a public restroom with young boys right now but at least we are aware of it and it is at least a little limited in scope. But if we throw the doors open in both rooms for anyone, I think it is just begging for more problems than exist now.Do we have any evidence that pedophiles frequently target young boys in public bathrooms? I have yet to see any statistics to suggest that this is a frequent problem.Didn't claim it was frequent. Are you claiming it never, ever happens? What's your point? My point was that it doesn't make sense to try and fix a nearly nonexistent problem. Exactly! Thank you. I don't believe there is a problem now or, a couple months ago, before Target introduced this.

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.I think that's more of a reflection of the people you associate with than the greater population. They're not weird, they're not "fringes" (sorry- surprise! They're everywhere!) They have ZERO identity problems. You have a problem with their identity. Your problem not theirs.L O L.Thanks for that, I hadn't laughed out loud like that at all yet today. And btw, I'm not the hater you think I am (not that I particularly care what anyone thinks). I have zero problem with people who have identity issues. I have zero problem with people who choose to undergo sex change procedures. What I have a problem with is people who are actually men using women's restrooms in non-emergency situations. If some trans man or woman or it wants to come take crap next to me in Target, I don't give a flying rip. I might let lose a flying rip though. Hey - I don't think you're a hater ... just think that certain topics make some uncomfortable, and this is one. Really the problem people have is with creepy people being in bathrooms that may be looking at you or your children or your family members in a way that's in appropriate. I guess where I get frustrated is folks that think a transgender person fits that bill. There are far more issues with creeps that 'have the right plumbing" going into a bathroom for the wrong reasons than any transgender doing so. It's fair to be worried about safety - it's unfair to say it's one particular type of person that is the one to worry about. To be honest, the real, honest to goodness trans people are not the ones that concern me at all. But this opens the door to all the sexual deviants and criminals to get through that door by simply claiming they have "identity issues". If this gets widely adopted and accepted, how do you stop those people? I realize pedophile men can share a public restroom with young boys right now but at least we are aware of it and it is at least a little limited in scope. But if we throw the doors open in both rooms for anyone, I think it is just begging for more problems than exist now. That's fair - I'm not yet a parent, so I am asking this as a sincere question (don't want it to be misinterpreted as sarcasm). Is there ever a time that you allow your daughter to go into a Target (or other public bathroom) by herself? I think most parents that are expressing concern about this, are also the sort of involved parent that are cautious and careful and likely not allowing that anyway. I think many uneducated people who are not exposed to much socially are using the "it's a risk to our children" alarm is a distraction for their own lack of comfort. (BTW, I am a woman, so the whole man, woman safety thing is one that I live with daily - I live around, work with and have been in bathrooms with transgendered folks and it simply isn't an issue that deserves this much attention). Well my daughter is 16, almost 17, so yeah (he he) I'm not going in there with her now. That stopped quite awhile ago. And, like I said, the real trans people are not the ones that concern me. I may feel they have some problems but I don't think being sexual perverts or deviants is typically one of them. I am much more concerned about men without identity problems, but rather much more disturbing tendencies, using women's restrooms. And yes I realize these types of people can now target boys in men's rooms and women perverts (although we don't hear about them often) could target girls in women's rooms. Like I said a whole bunch of posts ago, I don't think it's a huge problem either way, but simple math tells us this new way opens the door for more possibilities. IMO, society should keep public restrooms as safe as possible. This new way is less safe than the way it has been forever.

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.I think that's more of a reflection of the people you associate with than the greater population. They're not weird, they're not "fringes" (sorry- surprise! They're everywhere!) They have ZERO identity problems. You have a problem with their identity. Your problem not theirs.L O L.Thanks for that, I hadn't laughed out loud like that at all yet today. And btw, I'm not the hater you think I am (not that I particularly care what anyone thinks). I have zero problem with people who have identity issues. I have zero problem with people who choose to undergo sex change procedures. What I have a problem with is people who are actually men using women's restrooms in non-emergency situations. If some trans man or woman or it wants to come take crap next to me in Target, I don't give a flying rip. I might let lose a flying rip though. Hey - I don't think you're a hater ... just think that certain topics make some uncomfortable, and this is one. Really the problem people have is with creepy people being in bathrooms that may be looking at you or your children or your family members in a way that's in appropriate. I guess where I get frustrated is folks that think a transgender person fits that bill. There are far more issues with creeps that 'have the right plumbing" going into a bathroom for the wrong reasons than any transgender doing so. It's fair to be worried about safety - it's unfair to say it's one particular type of person that is the one to worry about. To be honest, the real, honest to goodness trans people are not the ones that concern me at all. But this opens the door to all the sexual deviants and criminals to get through that door by simply claiming they have "identity issues". If this gets widely adopted and accepted, how do you stop those people? I realize pedophile men can share a public restroom with young boys right now but at least we are aware of it and it is at least a little limited in scope. But if we throw the doors open in both rooms for anyone, I think it is just begging for more problems than exist now. Do we have any evidence that pedophiles frequently target young boys in public bathrooms? I have yet to see any statistics to suggest that this is a frequent problem. Didn't claim it was frequent. Are you claiming it never, ever happens? What's your point?

No. Blonde haired people should be able to use gendered public restrooms according to how they identify, same as you. And same as transgendered people. No matter how many other people have a problem with it. Equal protection under the law. Where is the equal protection for my wife and daughter to not be subjected to using a restroom with a man? I guess they dont count. Wouldn't it be karma if your daughter tells you she doesn't really feel like a girl when she gets older? Does that change things in your head at all? She does count. As a girl now, as a woman later, as a woman who might genetically be a man whenever. Everybody counts and should be protected. Everybody. Not karma at all and not a problem at all. I will love her no matter what. But, I still would tell her she needs to use the ladies room in public because she was born a girl, is a girl, and she should not make other people uncomfortable because of her issues. I'm pretty darned sure she would agree with me. In fact I'll ask her here in a bit and get a direct answer.

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.I think that's more of a reflection of the people you associate with than the greater population. They're not weird, they're not "fringes" (sorry- surprise! They're everywhere!) They have ZERO identity problems. You have a problem with their identity. Your problem not theirs.L O L.Thanks for that, I hadn't laughed out loud like that at all yet today. And btw, I'm not the hater you think I am (not that I particularly care what anyone thinks). I have zero problem with people who have identity issues. I have zero problem with people who choose to undergo sex change procedures. What I have a problem with is people who are actually men using women's restrooms in non-emergency situations. If some trans man or woman or it wants to come take crap next to me in Target, I don't give a flying rip. I might let lose a flying rip though. Hey - I don't think you're a hater ... just think that certain topics make some uncomfortable, and this is one. Really the problem people have is with creepy people being in bathrooms that may be looking at you or your children or your family members in a way that's in appropriate. I guess where I get frustrated is folks that think a transgender person fits that bill. There are far more issues with creeps that 'have the right plumbing" going into a bathroom for the wrong reasons than any transgender doing so. It's fair to be worried about safety - it's unfair to say it's one particular type of person that is the one to worry about. To be honest, the real, honest to goodness trans people are not the ones that concern me at all. But this opens the door to all the sexual deviants and criminals to get through that door by simply claiming they have "identity issues". If this gets widely adopted and accepted, how do you stop those people? I realize pedophile men can share a public restroom with young boys right now but at least we are aware of it and it is at least a little limited in scope. But if we throw the doors open in both rooms for anyone, I think it is just begging for more problems than exist now.

No. Blonde haired people should be able to use gendered public restrooms according to how they identify, same as you. And same as transgendered people. No matter how many other people have a problem with it. Equal protection under the law. Where is the equal protection for my wife and daughter to not be subjected to using a restroom with a man? I guess they dont count.

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. I think that's more of a reflection of the people you associate with than the greater population. They're not weird, they're not "fringes" (sorry- surprise! They're everywhere!) They have ZERO identity problems. You have a problem with their identity. Your problem not theirs. L O L.Thanks for that, I hadn't laughed out loud like that at all yet today. And btw, I'm not the hater you think I am (not that I particularly care what anyone thinks). I have zero problem with people who have identity issues. I have zero problem with people who choose to undergo sex change procedures. What I have a problem with is people who are actually men using women's restrooms in non-emergency situations. If some trans man or woman or it wants to come take crap next to me in Target, I don't give a flying rip. I might let lose a flying rip though.

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.