But the taxes do go away if you get rid of the property. It's a tax on the property and not on the renter. But the purpose of a rental property is to rent it out, correct? And you wouldn't do so unless you could make a reasonable profit which is determined by rental income - cost (which includes taxes). So you'd only be willing to be a landlord if you expect that the rental income is high enough to cover your cost (including taxes) and give you the same or more profit you could make some other way (for example by buying shares). Of course there can be miscalculations (e.g. renters don't pay or you can't find renters) and it is harder to get rid of a house than of shares.

To me, there is a huge difference between the end of times (no need to prep - it's over) and some sort of major disaster (prepping might be a good idea). We live in a very safe area so I am not overly concerned with the second part (basically just some sort of pandemic or maybe major nuclear war). And if the first happens there isn't much to be done (other than going on a trip and spending all our money if we could know for sure). Either way, I am not worried about this Saturday or any time really. We all die eventually anyway.

I am not convinced that AI will take over like this (nor that it should). I do believe that many jobs will become obsolete and that automation will continue to increase. But there are still many other jobs that I think would be difficult to replace with robots etc. Maybe it COULD be done but people might not want it to be done. Also for some jobs humans will probably be cheaper than machines. I do think that new jobs will evolve (or more people will work in certain areas than now). If more people have more free time (and maybe money) there will be a need for more people in the leasure/hobby/vacation area. Also, I think there is quite a bit of risk with AI taking over everything so if some disasters did happen, people might cut down on it.

I thought the reference to FAFSA was just an example but I may remember incorrectly and can't seem to find that post. It is good to know that there is a way around this, just wanted to point out that it probably only helps a small bit as there are so many other factors. I do agree that you change public policy there will be all kinds of effects and I do agree that you have to take a bit of a chance. For my taste though UBI (which I really would like to see) is a very major change and quite untested so I would hesitate to implement it (or vote for it etc.) without a lot more information. To me it just seems to risky at this point. I'd feel more comfortable with a partial implementation (e.g. to replace welfare programs) and then see how it works. For me the difference to universal healthcare is that it seems a much bigger change. Also, universal health care has been around for a while (not sure if Canada has had it that long?) so at least at this point there are plenty of successful examples to build on. I personally do not think there is anything wrong in investing your money to get you the best return you can get as long as you do not cheat/lie etc. It is great if people make choices specifically to benefit the public but in my mind that is what taxes are for. I mean if I earn X amount I will pay x for taxes, insurance etc. and maybe give y to church/donations etc. but the rest is mine to spend or invest. And if I invest I want to make the most I can out of it. I would stay clear of things that I find morally reprehensible but investing in rental properties isn't to my mind (unless you are a slum lord or something). I do totally agree that policies need to support the housing market. But overall I think it is important to find the right balance between relying on market forces and investing in the public good. Messing too much with the market tends to have unpleasant results. I for example think communism sounds great in theory but it just doesn't seem to work (not saying that you are advocating communism just that care needs to be taken when influencing markets).

I don't think the problem is really one specific form though. Lots of young (and sometimes not so young) people still need some help. Maybe they made a mistake (say they didn't budget their money good during the first semester of college and run out), maybe they tend to "forget" unpleasant stuff, maybe something else. Young adults from stable homes usually still get help with this. Parents deliver a lecture and then give some extra money to tide them over (or maybe talk to a friend to get them a part-time job that will make up for it). Parents call and nag about stuff that needs to be done etc. All this is missing if you have no family (or at least not one that cares and/or can provide that sort of help). Yes, some will manage anyway because they have the smarts, drive etc. and that is absolutely great. But many more could succeed if they had been lucky enough to have a family that provides support but without it they are going to fall through the cracks. It takes quite a bit of drive/self-confidence etc. to even realize that you could have help and to ask for it. In my opinion that is one of the main reasons poverty is passed down through generations.

Depends on what you like. The zoo is very nice and I have heard great things about the US Midway (we never got around to it). There are several nice museums (again no personal experience as we ran out of time) in Balboa park which is quite pretty in itself. Old Town is very touristy but we actually really enjoyed it. Lots of cool little stores (but it depends on whether you enjoy that kind of stuff). I'd also vote for Seaport Village (more touristy shops), a ferry ride to Coronado, and some time looking at Coronado, the beach, and the hotel Del Coronado. If you aren't too much into museums/zoos and do enjoy touristy stuff I would probably do Old Town on Thursday and Seaport Village/Coronado on Friday.

It isn't so much that I think inflation/higher prices WOULD happen but that I don't know what would. Giving everyone a basic income must have some effects on the economy/market and they might be significant/detrimental. As far as housing is concerned, the number of units available wouldn't change right away. You won't ever have a perfect match. Saying that landlords might keep the market short to make a profit which makes them sound kind of mean. I think it is better to look at it like this: You have a certain amount of investment capital and you can use it different ways (e.g. spend it for fun, buy shares, buy/build housing etc.). It only makes sense for people to choose to invest in housing if the rewards (rent) are better than the cost (investment/work involved). UBI could mess with any of those (or not). Thanks for reposting - I did not see it earlier in the thread. While I do agree with your explanation I still feel uncertain about the effects. I think they would be a lot more for UBI than for a minimum wage as UBI would give everyone more money while minimum wage only applies for people who work but in a relatively low paying job. I wonder if there are any decent computer models trying to predict what would happen? Obviously computer models aren't perfect but they are getting pretty good in many areas and pose no actual risk. Model projects don't really work either unless you have a whole society (e.g. a small country) as the overall effect wouldn't be the same. I guess I would vote for a UBI that phases out with rising income. It is more unfair and discourages working more but would have less of a total effect (as it mostly replaces wellfare). It might also help to drive up minimum wage naturally (as people would take UBI instead of working for less). It would save administration cost so the overall cost might be manageable.

I absolutely agree - it is very sad and honestly I don't think there is a way to fix it in the short term. I think key for the long term is to a) prevent people from sliding down (e.g. by good health care, help in disaster situations etc.) and b) to slowly improve the situation generation by generation. Here again good free health care (e.g. prenatal, well baby visits, immunizations etc.) is important but also education. If we can manage to get people up just one step on the ladder it is already something even if it falls far short of the ideal.

You may be right but I am not convinced (but I wish I was as I would absolutely love having a UBI). I realize UBI wouldn't get people off drugs or fix any other issues. Still, I tend to think if the majority of the population had x amount more money it would create issues - not exactly sure which but inflation comes to mind. I guess what I am thinking is this: If I had an apartment to rent out I would obviously want to get as much money for it as I could. Many people buy houses so they would not be potential renters. But there is a group of people who would be interested in my imaginary apartment. Now, if they had X amount more money for the most part I could probably get more rent than before unless there is an oversupply of apartments. Obviously there would also be other effects as people would have more disposable income. It is hard though to tell exactly what would happen. And that is pretty risky if one wants to start an "experiment" in a country.

Well, I live in a country with universal health care and it isn't really like that here. Sure, some businesses might offer extra health benefits just like they might offer a company car etc. and of course if you are very rich you can get better care than others just like you can get most anything else better than others. But for the vast majority of people the regular health care works just fine. I would say the "some level of care" is mostly completely adequate. The fact that some can afford a private room and have the doctor in charge chat with them doesn't change that.

Of course, I am not saying that welfare covers everything or that prices aren't rising. But wouldn't there be an impact on prices if a large number of people suddenly had X amount more?

Okay, but what I am wondering is this: Let's say everyone gets a certain amount x from the government, no means tested and you can earn more money without losing it. Sounds good to me but I am wondering how it would affect different groups (just looking at the getting part here, not the giving): People that are now poor/on welfare etc.: They probably would have the same amount of money about as now (as I assume welfare provides enough to survive on and UBI would probably be similar). There would be less restrictions (compared to food stamps etc.) which may be good or bad depending on the individual recipient (and one's general world view). There would no longer be a need to patch together various sources of help, less need to check/administer, it would be less embarrassing/humiliating. So maybe overall a benefit (cost similar to now but less administration) aside of people making worse decisions with this money (don't think that would be much of a problem though). People with lower to middle incomes: They would either be able to reduce hours/work and keep their income more or less the same or they could work as before and have more money (they could also completely stop working but probably not that many would want to reduce their standard of living). So if prices stay the same both groups would be better off. The people working less likely would have more time for family, volunteering etc. which would be a public good. These people would either have the same money as now or up to x+previous People with fairly good to very high incomes: Some might reduce their hours etc. but probably not a lot as UBI won't make much of a difference to them. Generally, they would have x + previous or a little less money. Overall, it really wouldn't make a difference. So there would probably be a mostly emotinal benefit for the poorest group, actually more money or time for the middle and little changes for the top earners. But I do worry about the effect on prices. Wouldn't they increase? Generally, prices for housing, services etc. go up in areas with high salaries (or maybe the other way around?) And wouldn't the low income group that relies on UBI be the most disadvantaged by this? The rich would probably be fine as they are more likely to have rental income etc.

Of course. I did not mean to imply that you benefit more than others. Just that your taxes also supply a benefit to you, not just to others. I have no idea about Sweden or Finland, but as for European countries I have visited - there may be many homeless there but I have to say that generally I see a lot more in the US. Not sure how numbers compare. I think how many homeless we noticed is influenced by a lot of factors (e.g. how big a city is, climate etc.) so it would be difficult to compare based on appearances alone. I think a UBI would lead to less people working (not sure I would) but I do think the majority would still either work part-time or contribute in other ways (volunteering etc.). That part of the equation worries me a lot less than what would happen to prices if everyone had X amount more money.

Correct me if I am wrong but - if you are paying so much in taxes the reason must be that your pre-tax income is very high. Good for you! However, even though people with high incomes may pay a lot of taxes, they still keep a lot and of course they also profit from the things taxes pay for (infrastructure etc.). I still haven't had time to look more closely at how UBI works but the fact that everyone gets it in addition to what they earn does make me think it could lead to inflation/everything getting more expensive. If everyone has X amount more, people would be able to pay more for housing, food etc. and likely these things would get more expensive? I do like the idea of UBI so if someone could explain to me why that would not happen I would appreciate it. Not sure if I agree completely. I live overseas and we have a basic income that people get if they don't make at least that much (or anything) but are looking for a job. Now it is different from UBI as not everyone gets it (only people making less than the amount) but basically any individual could get it if they really wanted (by losing a job and not finding another one). Obviously, it would not work if everyone decided to do this but that hasn't happened. Now there may be some people who would otherwise work but now rely on the money but I think the vast majority is made up of people who really can't find a job or at least not a well-paying job for whatever reason. The danger of people just enjoying themselves with "free" money (I do find it kind of tempting) is mitigated because a) you can't up your total income by working a little bit (so if you are not okay with living with the basic amount there is no way to work say 10 hours per week and get to a more average income) and b) there is a certain amount of stigma/inconvenience involved (paperwork, they can assign a job to you etc.).

I don't have time right now to read every post but as to the "no strings attached". Where I live in Europe most public assistance money is paid without strings in as far as checking up on its use. There is loads of paperwork to fill out in order to be eligible and there are various different forms (e.g. housing assistance, basic living expenses if you could get a job but can't find one etc.) but any benefits you get are paid out in cash. There are no food stamps etc. Now, I am sure there is some abuse but I actually don't think it is much worse than it is in the US. People do make stupid choices, but as far as I can tell not significantly more.

I also have Billy bookcases and they are holding up really well - hardly any sagging even though they are loaded. We have different colors and various sizes. My couch needs to be replaced (I think it was Ektorp but they don't seem to make that any more as a pull-out), but I have had it for 18+ years. There has been a move and two kids and I sleep on it every night. I also have a couch table that seems fairly indestructible (aside from some scratching) and a very sturdy desk. Basically everything I have gotten from IKEA (including kitchen/bedroom stuff) has been at least pretty sturdy/durable.

Yep, that's what I came up with as well (but without the nifty notation).

My probability is quite rusty but I think the last step is wrong. I THINK you have to use the negative result (i.e. how likely is it that you did NOT bake both on any of the days) to get to the answer but I may be wrong.

Me too!

Like others have already said, there is a big difference between lax laws and lax enforcement of the laws. Actually, if the laws in the US were less stringent there would probably be less illegal immigration and the laws would probably be easier to enforce.

Not enforcing laws (for whatever reason) is not necessarily the same as lax immigration laws. I used to very much want to move to the US (not quite so much anymore) but there is little to no legal way to do so (other than having relatives there, winning a Noble price, investing millions, or marrying an American citizen). Now I don't think it is any easier to move to Europe but neither is it much harder.

I know nothing about UK immigration laws but pretty sure if you have many millions (and are willing to spend some of it in taxes/investment etc.) you can pretty much move anywhere.

There is a big difference between immigration and refugees. Many/most European countries feel that refugees need to be accepted for humanitarian reasons, the same doesn't apply for regular immigration. And given the large number of refugees, there is already quite a strain on countries as far as new people moving in is concerned. Also, traditionally in the past, the US was a nation of immigrants. The same is not true for Europe.

If money isn't a serious problem, I would go without them. It isn't even as if you were there completely alone (which can be a bit lonely) as you would spend some time with your daughter. Sharing a trip with others always means compromises and as you are comfortable on your own and have never been I think it will be nicer if you can just do whatever YOU want. And while a shared vacation can be great for relationships, it can also be VERY VERY bad. I'd say find a reasonable excuse and go alone.

You might want to look into HF walking holidays. I did one many years ago and have been meaning to go back. Haven't managed it yet but it is definitely on my to do list. Most weeks offer various day hikes, but there are also some that follow long distance hiking trails (I think they return to the same house every night though). I really like these because they give you a bit of "culture immersion" (at least when I went) with typical food, mostly British vacationers, country houses etc. And as far as I know there are no carcasses involved.