Try to like-only separate full sentences...that was a little eye straining parse through. -.- Considering everything, a preemptive apology feels out of place. But I genuinely tried to use as minimal snark as possible. <.<' [quote=@Pepperm1nts] Healthcare is debatable, but the belief that public education is a bad thing is ridiculous. [/quote] Not quite what I said. I said the education system isn't a free-market and it's not doing well. Are you really going to disagree that public education is doing awfully in America? (Or at the very least, is poor compared to how much we already spend on it.) [quote=@Pepperm1nts] Aight, let's just take away people's social security, then. No one will complain. [/quote] Remove that tax, and most of them in general, and let people save/invest the money themselves. I think you'd be surprised how many people would be better off... [quote=@Pepperm1nts] Are you sitting down right now? Tax the rich. [/quote] Neat. Whose 'The Rich'? [quote=@Pepperm1nts] Dawg, I've given you examples of exactly what it is I mean multiple times. I've repeated myself so many times that I was honestly becoming self-conscious and beginning to wonder if maybe I was repeating myself too much. I have explained what it is and what is isn't, multiple times. Anything political and economic is debatable. As for refutable... well, you've yet to refute anything soo... [/quote] You have literally not done that. I want you/or something else providing actual numbers/and a list of what you consider 'basic items you need to live with comfortable and dignity'. Because we're clearly not talking about food, water, shelter, emergency healthcare. Because you made the distinction that is can't just be 'barely getting by' so you must have money left over, after you can afford all of those things. You argued the phone was essential, I literally refuted that, it is not needed for survival. Do I -need- a laundry list of evidence that a man can live without Snapchat? [quote=@Pepperm1nts] Uh, no. This would be a set minimum wage, essentially. Maybe, sure. What's the problem? A living wage would be different in the UK, because living standards are different country to country. In the US, we can calculate what an appropriate living wage is state-by-state. [/quote] Just for starters, No, it won't possibly be like a 'minimum wage' at all. That's not what wage means. Because you have to work for a 'wage'. You'd be getting a social safety income. Second. You just contradicted yourself... 1. No, it won't change because it's a flat wage. 2. Yes, of course it will change. So what? If you change wages based on location, which wouldn't be decided by states likely, but by the government. The government is inept. If you go on vacation or travel or move. You'd be able to change you live somewhere else and reap the rewards of the most expensive place...(also all of the illegals in the country would drain the country dry even faster, if all you needed was an address to rake in "The Rich's" aka American's tax dollars.) You haven't given me any specifics whatsoever. To the point where I'm unsure how many times I have to say "give me data/numbers/statistical guesstimates please." Where's age? What age do you get this universal income? Even if you just said, "I took my points straight from Sanders." I'd currently have more information, despite him also constantly contradicting/changing his own numbers. (If people can't get more or less money based on what person they are...are we assuming pregnant woman are going to use/need the same resources as someone whose not?) *I guess never mind, the next clarification is even more widespread* [quote=@Pepperm1nts] ??? No. A living wage would account for the cost of utilities, transport, food, child care, ect, but it would not be based on how many people live in the house. Unless we're talking about children the person might have, in which case that falls under child care. If you have an adult living in your house who doesn't have a job, I don't think that's something that's going to count towards what the living wage should be. [/quote] I'll just cut to the chase. You cannot, in anyway, pay for this. At all. Especially, by only just 'taxing' the rich. So the living wage, won't stop adversity and struggle. But it pays for a house, electricity, sewer, gas, internet, phone bill, water, heating, air conditioning, car, gas, any other mode of transportation, train tickets, bike, air travel, (some need it for work after all.) You've not specified, so I only assume you mean broadly. Which I know you'll say 'No, I didn't say that.' But you literally do, when you leave it that vague... It's also a contradiction, because you said you weren't going to have the government pay for cars. You didn't even clarify, 'public transportation", which I'm sure we both know what that is...the fact you neglected to specify that, I think it says a lot...this is a Christmas Wish List...not an actual thought-out proposal. And I'd be finer with that if you didn't seem so self-assured that all the numbers and data are on your side and somehow you've been providing such, when you most certainly haven't. [quote=@Pepperm1nts] A pet would be something you chose personally to get and care for on the side. This is like saying that the living wage would be different based on how many TVs you have. [/quote] If it was guaranteed to cover utilities, not only would the wage literally fluctuate, every single, gosh darn, day. Yes, have 6 T.V's, 4 microwaves and 3 fridges? You will use more electricity and thus need more 'living wage', so it literally matters how many T.V's you have. Could always put a limit/restriction on that. ^-^ [quote=@Pepperm1nts] Literally wat. We absolutely know what a person needs to live. Food, shelter, utilities. In some places that might extend to healthcare, as well, but not here because we're still busy debating whether or not we should let poor people die when they get sick. I'm not going to reply to the rest of what you wrote because it's basically you completely refusing to understand basic concepts and pretending like it's me that doesn't understand. Should have listened to myself when I thought about just not bothering to reply. [/quote] Yes, you only replied to what truly matters. I know 'literally wat' is such a thorough and thought-out addition, frankly seems like you covered just about all your bases's... [quote=@Pepperm1nts] But for the record, no, I'm not an expert in economics and I never said I was or pretended to be. Thing is, neither are you, so I'd appreciate it if you stopped pretending like you know what you're talking about anymore than I do. I think we both have strong opinions on what we think would work. I don't agree with you and you don't agree with me, and that's fine. But these are nothing more than our opinions and our own personal defense of what we think works or would work. [/quote] That's fair. If you would have stated that from the start, this probably wouldn't have gone such a way. But I wish you'd do the same, because you stated so many times how you explained everything when you keep changing your own vague statements, without numbers, stats or basically any (much needed) clarifications. It's probably better to cut this 'living wage' conversation off. Because if the next reply is the same as the others, it will just be a waste of both of our times, into more circular logic... I appreciate the conversation, if you can manage to stomach me for something else you may like to talk about. Feel free to change topics.