LogFAQs > #907751583

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, Database 4 ( 07.23.2018-12.31.2018 ), DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear
Topic List
Page List: 1
TopicLooks like Basic Income failed again, this time in Canada.
Balrog0
08/29/18 11:49:56 AM
#155:


Sephiroth1288 posted...
Too bad the studies say nothing like that, huh?


They weren't designed to answer that question, which is why 1) the findings are suggestive and not definitive and 2) we should have done this experiment

Sephiroth1288 posted...
It didn't. All that study said was that it could lead to Healthcare savings. Not Healthcare savings that would offset the cost of UBI, just a possibility of an unspecific amount of savings in one segment of of the budget.

And, again, I'm not listening to one politician here, I'm listening to several politicians and economists who have come to the same conclusion every time a UBI pilot is attempted: it's not sustainable. Sorry people, turns out there really isn't such thing as a free lunch.


Yeah, that's true. Again, this is a research design question. You should understand that kind of thing if you want to get into hard science.

Go ahead and show me some economists who don't think a negative income tax is sustainable. You are too lazy to actually do your homework here, but too stubborn and ideological to just admit it.
---
But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List
Page List: 1