BlameThePeacock

joined 2 years ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] BlameThePeacock 34 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Labor is too expensive for US manufacturing without significant price increases, and given those price increases consumers are purchasing fewer total goods because they simply can't afford more. Too much of their income is going to housing and food costs, neither of which are highly reliant on manufacturing jobs. Consumer spending in dollars may be up, but total goods consumed has to be down at this point.

[–] BlameThePeacock 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

UBI is funded by taxes, it's actually not has hard as it seems because people always do the math in the "logical" way and it isn't actually the right way to consider the cost.

If you give a UBI of say $10,000 a year to everyone (let's just keep it simple) for every citizen in Canada (let's say 40 million people) you'd think that the total cost would be $400 Billion dollars a year, right?

Except that's not how it actually works, what you'd do at the same time is raise taxes (preferably on property, but stupid politicians gonna put it on income instead) so that it balances around a specific income level getting nothing, with people above that level paying in, and people below that amount receiving a benefit. So if you've got a family of 4 (2 adults, 2 kids) with a median family income of say $80k (again, just keeping it simple) you'd raise their taxes by $30,000 a year, and then give them $40,000 a year in basic income. Then you've got a well-to-do family making $150,000 a year that pays $60,000 more in taxes, and only gets $40,000 a year back.

The total "cost" of the program is actually only the net amount transferred. It's easy to understand this if you think through a situation, when you tax someone $40,000, then give them $40,000 the total cost of that transfer is zero.

If you tax one person $20,000, give them $10,000, tax another person $10,000, and give them $10,000, and tax a third person $0 (not working) and give them $10,000 then the ACTUAL cost for the whole program is only $10,000, despite total taxes being $30,000, and total payouts being $30,000. So instead of costing $400 Billion for all of Canada, depending on what number they balance the whole thing around, it could be a reasonable amount and still cost under $100 billion a year.

There's actually a study from the Parliamentary Budget Office of Canada that outlines the more realistic cost.

This would apply similarly to any other country attempting to implement such a policy.

[–] BlameThePeacock 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Gloss-ter-sher?

[–] BlameThePeacock 27 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Choosing to be happy is the most important thing you can do in life. Good for you, and lucky husband.

[–] BlameThePeacock 0 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

I found this, which lists their "first deploys"

https://pawpatrol.fandom.com/wiki/Skye/Appearances

https://pawpatrol.fandom.com/wiki/Chase/Appearances

each character has one, you could cross-reference for values

[–] BlameThePeacock 11 points 6 days ago

A) Fuck Amazon B) Fuck the US C) The deals are absolutely terrible, why the fuck would it encourage me to buy anything?

[–] BlameThePeacock 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Nobody said anything about removing them from police. I have no problem with police being armed.

It is technically possible to make every other gun illegal and force people to dispose of them. Again it's unrealistic but its not impossible.

It's also possible to eliminate all commercial ammo availability, and even most home production (by banning the sale of powder for reloading). Home powder products are inferior, and potentially even dangerous. Safe and functional casings are also extremely difficult to produce.

Would people try to get around these restrictions? Sure, but it would still dramatically reduce gun use.

[–] BlameThePeacock 15 points 6 days ago

Japan says otherwise. Gun crime is practically non-existent, despite a population of over a hundred million people.

It's unrealistic to apply this to the US given how many guns already exist, but it's not actually impossible.

[–] BlameThePeacock 23 points 1 week ago (13 children)

If you can get a gun to protect yourself, criminals are easily going to have guns too.

Simpler all around if nobody has guns.

Or, at the very least nobody should have a handgun. A full length rifle or shotgun is a lot harder to conceal when you are using it for nefarious purposes.

[–] BlameThePeacock -3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

"more leisure time"

That's not the only metric you should be looking at. In fact it's a pretty terrible metric.

[–] BlameThePeacock -1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The same things were/are said about the internet itself, and here you are typing into a webpage.

You aren't just fearmongering, but you are fearmongering.

[–] BlameThePeacock -2 points 1 week ago (4 children)

When hating becomes a team sport, it's a serious problem. There are benefits and negatives to this technology, like with most things, and anyone who can't recognize that is a complete moron.

10
submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by BlameThePeacock to c/[email protected]
 

MMO Game by one of the original creators of Star Wars Galaxies, game already playable for Alpha testers, Beta testing expected after Kickstarter for funders

 

A decent discussion to have.

 

Sizeable earthquake just off the coast.

 

The party of fiscal responsibility ya'll

They say it will be caught up to with growth, which they've predicted to be above 5% per year... no way that happens, major banks are predicting sub 2% growth.

 

He stands by the party member who made derogatory comments about indigenous and Muslim people.

Please judge him and find him wanting.

 

The title is a bit misleading and makes it sound like it's a one time payment. It's very different, he's promising to exempt up to $3000 a month towards your housing costs from income taxes. Starting at $1500 a month in 2026 and going up $500 a year for 3 more years. At the max, it would be a $36,000 a year tax deduction which is absolutely massive, that's half of the average family income.

Great idea? It's complicated, but probably not a good idea.

When you make something "cheaper" for everyone like this in a supply constrained market, all that does is drive up the prices of rents and housing sale prices since people can now use that freed up money to pay more for those.

Also, his plan to pay for this multi-billion dollar plan is:

“Obviously, we need to take a look at this reckless spending that David Eby has put in place in terms of how to sort of rein in some of that spending,” said Rustad.

So that's not really "fiscally conservative" at all.

 

This asshole is literally a conspiracy theorist. He says it was about controlling the population, not stopping the spread of the virus.

Which countries (and even provinces) had the fewest covid deaths per capita? Oh.. the ones with the highest vaccination rates.

Everyone with a brain knows vaccines reduce illness, that's why we have the fucking things.

 

Uber's reply to the new laws.

 

Surprise surprise, a Conservative who's got a past full of hate.

 

This is the true Canada, open to all ideas. Let's keep it this way.

 

Personally, it seems stupid not to have a liaison in high schools. This is where teens establish "bad" patterns, and every single one they manage to save early is one less problem for decades in the future.

view more: next ›