06-29-2016, 08:59 AM
The difference between us is that you define what is or is not "progressive" by how a given proposal impacts the rich, while I define it by how a given proposal impacts the poor - and my proposal gives everyone a guaranteed annual income. The rest of my proposal recognizes the reality that in today's highly polarized, red-blue America - for whose very existence I place the blame squarely on the 2T counterculture and the backlash it so justifiably provoked - each side has to give to get.
But analyzing my plan in a practical light: Say someone making only the GAI would like to get cable TV. Chances are s/he would be willing to take a part-time job at $3 or $4 an hour to accomplish that goal - and everyone wins: S/he gets that cable subscription, and the employer gets an easy, cheap hire. In fact unemployment as we know it would likely disappear.
Then there is also the Malthusian implications of the plan - in that it would abolish all tax credits and deductions for dependent children en passant, thus encouraging a lower birth rate.
But analyzing my plan in a practical light: Say someone making only the GAI would like to get cable TV. Chances are s/he would be willing to take a part-time job at $3 or $4 an hour to accomplish that goal - and everyone wins: S/he gets that cable subscription, and the employer gets an easy, cheap hire. In fact unemployment as we know it would likely disappear.
Then there is also the Malthusian implications of the plan - in that it would abolish all tax credits and deductions for dependent children en passant, thus encouraging a lower birth rate.
"These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation" - Justice David Brewer, Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 1892