this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024
307 points (92.1% liked)

Showerthoughts

35707 readers
1218 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.

Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. No politics
    • If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
    • A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS

If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.

Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Those seem incompatible to me.

(UBI means Universal Basic Income, giving everyone a basic income, for free)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] snooggums@kbin.social 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

It has been massively successful in a bunch of locations. Where are you seeing reports that it failed?

[–] ZahzenEclipse@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Maybe it was related to pandemic stuff: https://www.kqed.org/news/11946467/study-shows-limits-of-stocktons-guaranteed-income-program-during-pandemic

It's been awhile since I've looked into specifically anything UBI related so I could be misrembering.

[–] snooggums@kbin.social 5 points 2 years ago

Stockton’s experiment in guaranteed income — which paid more than 100 residents $500 a month with no strings attached — likely improved the recipients’ financial stability and health, but those effects were much less pronounced during the pandemic, researchers found.

“We were able to say definitively that there are certain changes in terms of mental health and physical health and well-being that are directly attributed to the cash,” Castro told CalMatters on Tuesday. “Year 2 (2020) showed us some of those limits, where $500 a month is not a panacea for all social ills.”

Being less pronounced is not the same thing as failing and the whole article supported the program being effective. Looks like maybe you misremembered this article?

[–] ZahzenEclipse@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

"One glaring problem with allowing this program to exist for any extended period of time is that, unless it is privately funded, it would be too expensive to maintain and would require substantial tax increases across the board.

The group’s page even admits that, saying, “there’s a number of ways to pay for guaranteed income, from a sovereign wealth fund in which citizens benefit from shard national resources like the Alaska Permanent Fund, to bringing tax rates on the wealthiest Americans to their 20th century historical averages.”

I think it part of it may have been related to how high taxes might have to be made and it would be damn near impossible to pass those level of taxes. It couldn't be done souly city by city I don't think otherwise wealthy would flee the city to avoid the taxes levied - at least that woulf be a concern of mine.

[–] snooggums@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

What does that blatantly misleading quote come from?

[–] ZahzenEclipse@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] snooggums@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

It starts with the assumption that raising taxes is unreasonable.

Bringing taxes up to their 20th century averages is completely reasonable, as they were highest during the time period where actual business growth was the highest.

[–] ZahzenEclipse@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Do you think the majority of US citizens want higher taxes? There's alot of de-programming that has to be done. Democrats, who are generally better than Republicans when it comes to this stuff (due to the low bar they've erected) aren't necessarily full on board with tax increases.

[–] snooggums@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago

Taxed at a flat percentage of income or progressively without caps, 75% of people UBI will be a net increase in income over what their taxes would increase. It should be an easy sell unless there is a lot of misinformation or demonizing of low income people.

Of course people also don't understand how single payer would save most people thousands per year by cutting out all the for profit companies, since misinformation is such a problem.