Are you a hater?I’m sorry about that.
but don’t hate on people
Are you a hater?I’m sorry about that.
but don’t hate on people
Are you a hater?
I disagree. If tax is 22 percent it should be 22 percent. Why should one man pay more?If course. But if your friend earned 250 000 then I think it's fair for them to pay more tax after earning his first 100k. And that rises each 100k he earns.
It makes for a more balanced society if the extra money he pays goes towards better infrastructure, schools, hospitals for everyone.
I would happily pay more tax if I was earning that much.
Tax should be simple.
Going back to selling your ass crack??Might get back into the crack game and turn it into 5k.
The Spanish are stupid. They have been on their arse money wise for a few years now. It's a nice idea designed to paper over the cracks of unemployment in the country.Spain approves national minimum income scheme
‘Today this government is showing that its political choice is social justice,’ says deputy prime minister in announcing schemewww.independent.co.uk
Going back to selling your ass crack??
I thought you left that life behind
lol stockton is a pretty crappy example it is like a slightly less dystopian version of Detroit. im guessing the jobs these people found were all minimum wage jobs they could have gotten anyway with out this financial help. I could probably go to stockton now apply at a restaurant and have a job by tomorrow.When a California city gave people a guaranteed income, they worked more — not less
The results from the first year of the experiment, which spanned from February 2019 to February 2020, are now in. And they’re extremely encouraging for its participants, and for advocates who see unconditional cash transfers as an effective way to help people escape poverty.When a California city gave people a guaranteed income, they worked more — not less
Stockton’s experiment shows what $500 per month in "free money" can do for employment, mental health, and more.www.vox.com
The most eye-popping finding is that the people who received the cash managed to secure full-time jobs at more than twice the rate of people in a control group, who did not receive cash. Within a year, the proportion of cash recipients who had full-time jobs jumped from 28 percent to 40 percent. The control group saw only a 5 percent jump over the same period.
But they didn’t, yet they did after the basic income payments... why?lol stockton is a pretty crappy example it is like a slightly less dystopian version of Detroit. im guessing the jobs these people found were all minimum wage jobs they could have gotten anyway with out this financial help. I could probably go to stockton now apply at a restaurant and have a job by tomorrow.
Depends on who gathered the report data and what their objective was.But they didn’t, yet they did after the basic income payments... why?
No it doesn’t.Depends on who gathered the report data and what their objective was.
Either they are employed or not.Except it does.
Report results are about as reliable as poll data.Either they are employed or not.
More were employed post payments than pre payments... why?
Have you read the report or looked into the authors of the study?Report results are about as reliable as poll data.
These aren't being done in a vacuum.
I haven't.Have you read the report or looked into the authors of the study?
Or it’s just default to dismiss science and research that doesn’t fit the narrative?
If Covid and the additional unemployment dollars have taught us anything it's that many people are quite content to sit on their asses and live off a handout.Have you read the report or looked into the authors of the study?
Or it’s just default to dismiss science and research that doesn’t fit the narrative?
What are you basing your skepticism off?Any reliable sources saying it’s bias... if we are just going to skip reading the report or discussing the authors of it?
Willful ignorance is not knowledge.I haven't.
The only narrative I have is to automatically look at all "results" with skepticism. Anyone can manipulate results to get a desired result on either end of the spectrum.
I am on a conf call right now. Someone just mentioned dollars saved thanks to an initiative they recently rolled out. Significant dollars - but they completely ignored the additional labor expense to achieve those results. The truth is closer to a net zero gain.
I will circle back to my original question... why did more participants find work post payments vs those not receiving payments?There are very few companies here in the midwest that aren't struggling to find workers.