Then what are you even doing in this thread?
Like it or not but your demands are ridiculous.
I've made no demands, and you're entirely within your rights to refuse me. But that just leads back to the question: "what are you even doing in this thread?"
Clearly, you're not here to talk up UBI.
If you haven't already done the research then what exactly are you basing your claims on?
I’m not your professor, I’m not your friend.
And you're not an effective advocate for UBI.
Obviously because of your "reread the thread" comment.
That's not the response of someone who wants a meaningful discussion. That's the response of someone who wants to end the discussion.
You've already wasted more time making excuses for why you can't show me the data then it would have taken to actually show me to the data.
And if you think I'm out of line for asking, if you think my questions are too pointed, then you were never serious about achieving UBI in the first place.
I think you're neither serious nor sincere about making UBI work.
But Great Barrington Police Chief Paul Storti said in a statement, “Because this complaint was made directly to the police department, we are obligated and have a duty to examine the complaint further."
I call bullshit, and would like to see the law and/or court rulings that support this assertion.
Because if cops have no duty to protect the public, then in what sense do they have a duty to take this complaint seriously?
It's not "BI" that needs to be demonstrated. It's "U".
Plus, these experiments do in fact ask questions about recipients' income. Just like regular welfare programs.
Let me know if you find any of those academic papers.
this clearly demonstrates that replacing existing welfare with straight up cash, and changing how that cash scales down as people approach a “normal minimum” income, is vastly superior to our current system
These experiments aren't even trying to demonstrate that. And they don't.
So it's paid for by the savings from not having all that inefficient wasteful overhead of the modern welfare state. That's the grand plan?
OK, where can I find this math you speak of?
I still don't see how literally looking at how much money you earned to determine your UBI benefit isn't means testing, but it's not really central to my point. Yes, the IRS could plausibly do this, but where is the money actually coming from?
These experiments are always small groups within a much larger economic system and the money comes from that larger system. It seems obvious to me that the recipients in such an experiment will thrive more. And even if it wasn't, there have been a number of these experiments around the world and they all proved people thrived more already anyway.
What's not obvious to me is what replaces the larger system if UBI becomes the system. Can UBI be a self-sustained system?
You: UBI has been mathematically demonstrated to work!
Me: Can I see the math?
You: OMG HOW RUDE!