Basic Income and ending poverty in the USA for $175bn

[chilon]

Its not a safety net. Thats a lie of a term. We are talking a permanent underclass. It has NOTHING to do with a social safety net and using that term is disingenuous.

You are the one being disingenuous suggesting that anyone that is poor is part of a permanent criminal underclass. You are just spouting your typical Rush Limbaugh nonsense with no evidence supporting your view.

You hold a ridiculously naive black and white view of the world. You actually believe the world consists only of good people that would never commit a crime no matter what and bad people that will always commit crime no matter what. That simply doesn't conform with reality or any evidence but hey go on with your ridiculous viewpoints not based on reality.

But you are Phier. You dont need evidence when you have your ideological biased opinions.

[Denny Crane!]

You are the one being disingenuous suggesting that anyone that is poor is part of a permanent criminal underclass. You are just spouting your typical Rush Limbaugh nonsense with no evidence supporting your view.

You hold a ridiculously naive black and white view of the world. You actually believe the world consists only of good people that would never commit a crime no matter what and bad people that will always commit crime no matter what. That simply doesn't conform with reality or any evidence but hey go on with your ridiculous viewpoints not based on reality.

But you are Phier. You dont need evidence when you have your ideological biased opinions.

It ruins these topics for the sake of an actual exploration of these ideas, you end up reverting to the base arguments that are non specific generalisations. Ugh, ruins my enthusiasm for a thread.

[O'Hea]

Its not a safety net. Thats a lie of a term. We are talking a permanent underclass. It has NOTHING to do with a social safety net and using that term is disingenuous.

Right, and I'm sure the major declines in poverty that came after passing reforms are pure coincidence and came only from unrelated bootstrap-pulling.

[Nietzsche]

Hey there Denny. You brought me out of lurking with this one. I'd be thrilled to see something like this happen, but on one condition. 50% reduction in spending (including and particularly military) across the board. I was reading a study conducted by the swiss about something like this; having a basic minimum income upon which you start and then work for more. Unfortunately, I can't recall the study. I would think of something like this was done on a per household basis or something, "waste" could be minimized and well-being maximized. There are likely to be second and third order effects, but one of the other pieces I would insist on with a system like this is decoupling health care from any "job" or "status." It pisses me off that in my country if you lose your job, your family loses their coverage, but that is not an argument here, more a tangent.

A household getting an extra $300 per member would certainly be beneficial, but given just the costs of healthcare alone, I don't know if it would be enough. However, recall the second and third order effects I mentioned, having more people actually paying for the system rather than being a net drain would bring costs down somewhat across the board. If my country were less litigious, that would be even more helpful. Unfortunately, my country's legal system is used like a lottery in many ways. I don't know how to stop that nor do I have any ideas.

In summation, the idea is a noble and perhaps workable one. The problems lie in the structures that support our current system and make the oligarchs more rich and happy. The poor as a constituency are exploited in a large number of ways and there are powerful people very interested in making sure that doesn't change.

-N

[chilon]

Hey there Denny. You brought me out of lurking with this one. I'd be thrilled to see something like this happen, but on one condition. 50% reduction in spending (including and particularly military) across the board. I was reading a study conducted by the swiss about something like this; having a basic minimum income upon which you start and then work for more.
-N

50% reduction in spending across the board?

You realize that would have catastrophic effects on some highly important agencies like CDC, SEC, FDA, EPA and NASA right?

[DarthShizNit]

Would be thrilled, though here in America it would have to be a far larger sum., unless we also couple it with free housing and universal state funded medial insurance. $300 wouldn't even cover half of my rent :p

My super Republican state, despite fighting all forms of welfare expansion and universal healthcare, has for a decade now been fully embracing giving homeless people free homes, no charge or strings attached. The result was drastic cost reduction and dramatic reduction in chronic homelessness.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/22/home-free

Lloyd Pendleton, the director of Utah’s Homeless Task Force, told me of one individual whose care one year cost nearly a million dollars, and said that, with the traditional approach, the average chronically homeless person used to cost Salt Lake City more than twenty thousand dollars a year. Putting someone into permanent housing costs the state just eight thousand dollars, and that’s after you include the cost of the case managers who work with the formerly homeless to help them adjust.

...

Housing First isn’t just cost-effective. It’s more effective, period. The old model assumed that before you could put people into permanent homes you had to deal with their underlying issues—get them to stop drinking, take their medication, and so on. Otherwise, it was thought, they’d end up back on the streets. But it’s ridiculously hard to get people to make such changes while they’re living in a shelter or on the street. “If you move people into permanent supportive housing first, and then give them help, it seems to work better,” Nan Roman, the president and C.E.O. of the National Alliance for Homelessness, told me. “It’s intuitive, in a way. People do better when they have stability.” Utah’s first pilot program placed seventeen people in homes scattered around Salt Lake City, and after twenty-two months not one of them was back on the streets. In the years since, the number of Utah’s chronically homeless has fallen by seventy-four per cent.

[conon394]

50% reduction in spending across the board?

You realize that would have catastrophic effects on some highly important agencies like CDC, SEC, FDA, EPA and NASA right?

Likely not and he probably thinks the Free Market will solve the problem. Sure cut the USDA by 50% and my wife still have a job but she get 3 times as much and that cost Monsanto is going to pass on to the farmer and the market unto the grocery store... so he can cry in his much more expensive beer.

[Denny Crane!]

Hey there Denny. You brought me out of lurking with this one. I'd be thrilled to see something like this happen, but on one condition. 50% reduction in spending (including and particularly military) across the board.

To be fair if it was say 175 billion being handed to the poor on top of what they have now you could take that straight out of the military budget as it is right now so it would be cost neutral.

I was reading a study conducted by the swiss about something like this; having a basic minimum income upon which you start and then work for more. Unfortunately, I can't recall the study.

I suspect they had a referendum on it recently though where my idea for a basic income is quite low (the exact same amount as Job seekers allowance in my country about 70 pounds a week) they were I think proposing a quite high amount of 1000 euros a month. Although hang on actually I haven't been quite honest about that figure...because I forget things like we have housing benefit and local government council tax exemption in there so realistically the total amount the government gives an unemployed person is about 740 GBP per month (240 cash, 400 housing and 100 average council tax exemption)

I would think of something like this was done on a per household basis or something, "waste" could be minimized and well-being maximized. There are likely to be second and third order effects, but one of the other pieces I would insist on with a system like this is decoupling health care from any "job" or "status." It pisses me off that in my country if you lose your job, your family loses their coverage, but that is not an argument here, more a tangent.

A household getting an extra $300 per member would certainly be beneficial, but given just the costs of healthcare alone, I don't know if it would be enough. However, recall the second and third order effects I mentioned, having more people actually paying for the system rather than being a net drain would bring costs down somewhat across the board. If my country were less litigious, that would be even more helpful. Unfortunately, my country's legal system is used like a lottery in many ways. I don't know how to stop that nor do I have any ideas.

In summation, the idea is a noble and perhaps workable one. The problems lie in the structures that support our current system and make the oligarchs more rich and happy. The poor as a constituency are exploited in a large number of ways and there are powerful people very interested in making sure that doesn't change.

-N

Well so much of a poor persons plight is represented by the crappy insurance system.

[conon394]

Hey Denny - since we have had a lot UK centric threads what the Hell is council tax - is that income, property, sales or what flat or graded etc? How is determined by direct vote like a US school millage (as a property tax) or just drafted in law by the council I presume.

[Denny Crane!]

Hey Denny - since we have had a lot UK centric threads what the Hell is council tax - is that income, property, sales or what flat or graded etc? How is determined by direct vote like a US school millage (as a property tax) or just drafted in law by the council I presume.

Well we don't have a property tax here except when buying or selling. Council tax is supposedly a local tax (though its paid locally it goes into a national pot for redistribution) and pays for police, schools, local roads and garbage collection amongst other services you use. It is based on how big the house is, something guestimated by a survey of people driving around local streets. So I pay 85 quid a month as I live in a flat and my folks pay 170 quid a month roughly as they have a larger than average house and the local authority you are in makes a difference too I think as they have all led council tax rate rises at different times and at different amounts. This has led to some truly odd distortions like you have a 2 million pound house paying 1000 less per year than a 200 thousand pound house in a different area. The least expensive council tax in the country is Band D at 678 a year and the most expensive in the country is 1768. Now you probably assume that this is the more expensive areas in London with higher costs that are charging more? Nope its up my end in the poorest areas like Northumberland or Middlesbrough with the most consistently left wing councils and government representatives meaning the poor jobless areas have the highest bills and on average the lowest wages.

It is an odd one but if you are interested you may either already have heard of or might in your travels on the topic of the Thatcher Poll Tax riots? Well her notion (that evil capitalist dog loving ) was that if you had a 5 person house but only one person living there but a 3 bedroom flat and 3 people living there that you would charge the 3 bedroom flat more as they are using more services, producing more garbage so it would turn into a genuine pay as you use service rather than a pretty random one as it is now. This caused mass riots on the streets, because of the evil.

FYI This is basically what you pay in total in the UK throughout your life.

You pay PAYE (Pay as you earn) income tax and national insurance on your job which they are on about combining interestingly (I think they should) which for most people amounts to 22% (after your tax deductable allowance of 10.5k) + 11% NI and 20% VAT on almost all products except some foods and other exemptions. There is inheritance tax of 40% on anything over 275k (I think without checking) and stamp duty of 2 or 3 percent on house selling. But basically in your ordinary life you pay your tax on your wages and your council tax and the VAT on your consumption and that is the bulk of our governments collections on peoples personal lives.

[conon394]

Well we don't have a property tax here except when buying or selling. Council tax is supposedly a local tax (though its paid locally it goes into a national pot for redistribution) and pays for police, schools, local roads and garbage collection amongst other services you use. It is based on how big the house is, something guestimated by a survey of people driving around local streets. So I pay 85 quid a month as I live in a flat and my folks pay 170 quid a month roughly as they have a larger than average house and the local authority you are in makes a difference too I think as they have all led council tax rate rises at different times and at different amounts. This has led to some truly odd distortions like you have a 2 million pound house paying 1000 less per year than a 200 thousand pound house in a different area. The least expensive council tax in the country is Band D at 678 a year and the most expensive in the country is 1768. Now you probably assume that this is the more expensive areas in London with higher costs that are charging more? Nope its up my end in the poorest areas like Northumberland or Middlesbrough with the most consistently left wing councils and government representatives meaning the poor jobless areas have the highest bills and on average the lowest wages.

It is an odd one but if you are interested you may either already have heard of or might in your travels on the topic of the Thatcher Poll Tax riots? Well her notion (that evil capitalist dog loving ) was that if you had a 5 person house but only one person living there but a 3 bedroom flat and 3 people living there that you would charge the 3 bedroom flat more as they are using more services, producing more garbage so it would turn into a genuine pay as you use service rather than a pretty random one as it is now. This caused mass riots on the streets, because of the evil.

FYI This is basically what you pay in total in the UK throughout your life.

You pay PAYE (Pay as you earn) income tax and national insurance on your job which they are on about combining interestingly (I think they should) which for most people amounts to 22% (after your tax deductable allowance of 10.5k) + 11% NI and 20% VAT on almost all products except some foods and other exemptions. There is inheritance tax of 40% on anything over 275k (I think without checking) and stamp duty of 2 or 3 percent on house selling. But basically in your ordinary life you pay your tax on your wages and your council tax and the VAT on your consumption and that is the bulk of our governments collections on peoples personal lives.

Thanks I feel rather at sea on UK taxes when they come up here, I just curious a bit more on the council tax so is it really based on just size a residence or its condition. Or on overall property value at the time based on comps? I mean my property in Washington State is going to appraise quite a bit more for taxes when the its clear we restored it to 25 or so working acres with fence, access, water and springs and wells, fixed the barn when they (County and City) reassess on sale. Even thought the house is the same size.

But the council tax does not stay local - that seems bit unfair. Who determines the tax?

[Denny Crane!]

Thanks I feel rather at sea on UK taxes when they come up here, I just curious a bit more on the council tax so is it really based on just size a residence or its condition. Or on overall property value at the time based on comps? I mean my property in Washington State is going to appraise quite a bit more for taxes when the its clear we restored it to 25 or so working acres with fence, access, water and springs and wells, fixed the barn when they (County and City) reassess on sale. Even thought the house is the same size.

But the council tax does not stay local - that seems bit unfair. Who determines the tax?

Well Value kind of, but the last proper evaluations were in 1991. They were supposed to be done in 2007 but it never happened. The local council determine the tax and whether it gets a yearly rise (though limitations on how big a rise can be have been recently put in place to stop the 11% yearly rises that were happening) but well I was a little disingenuous when I said it doesn't stay local, it gets siphoned off in part to larger agencies for the most part and then funding rolls in from central government, its terribly complex and I don't really understand it really.

As for re-evaluations well because you have to get planning permission locally here I guess that despite not doing revaluations on houses and property that may well get picked up and you would get a hike here too. But that wouldn't be based on the land it would be only if you changed the house significantly in size I guess.

In general though all our values are all based on the 1991 thing and the entire of middle class England would have immediate heart attacks if that was to be redone.

[Astaroth]

I watched the video a few days ago and there are several points I disagree with. In particular, here are the main reasons why I am opposed to the basic idea of a basic income:


1) Firstly, much of the argument in the video is based on the premise that a basic income for everyone would be cheaper than the amount of money we currently spend on the homeless etc. The problem is, I'm not sure if this is really true and I do not accept the validity of the argument. I'm not really sure which numbers he is referring to in particular, so it is hard to have a truly fact-based debate on this particular point, but is the amount we currently spend on e.g. the homeless really a given, i.e. a constant or axiom that serves as a comparison to the proposed basic income? The thing is, if much of the money currently spent on that issue is going to waste, then perhaps the solution would be to cut that particular program down to a more reasonable size.
Introducing the basic income as an alternative to the current system is by no means the logical next step; instead we should examine the current system and see if there is any wasteful spending first.


2) I don't think the experiments the speaker mentioned really prove anything. He essentially criticised established social practices of giving people such as the homeless food or shelter, instead suggesting that they be directly given money. The thing is, there is a reason that doesn't already happen. For one, why are these people on the streets in the first place? Sure, there are many reasons for that, but ultimately for many of them it boils down to them being unable to get their lives (back) under control, whatever the reason for that may be (disease, mental illness, loss of job, loss of family, drugs, alcoholism, lack of perspective or w/e).
In our society, lack of control often also means lack of control of your finances. If these people had a steady income - or really just the ability to manage their existing finances properly and to look forward to the future, trying to better their lot - they often wouldn't be on the streets anymore in the first place.

I doubt that giving these people money really makes sense. The very fact that they are on the streets is usually a sign of them being unable to handle money in their current state. This doesn't make them bad people by any means, but despite the lack of freedom it means it is generally preferable to give these people the basic necessities of life (food, shelter etc.) rather than the option to squander it all, particularly in the light of the fact that e.g. the homeless are on average much more likely to be drug addicts and such.

Of course you might now point to the experiments mentioned in the video. But the thing is, a) these are too small to be of any scientific value and b) the people involved knew that these were rare, one-off incidents -- simply by the fact that this is not happening all the time. What does that mean? Well, obviously you are going to be a lot more careful with money you receive if it is part of a rare, surprising, unexpected experiment. Even if you don't know it is an experiment, most people will quickly realise that this is not a common practice. The extraordinary nature of the experiment thus makes the results irrelevant for this discussion.

It is quite likely that people (e.g. the homeless) would on average treat "free money" much differently if it was a completely "normal" and commonplace thing to happen instead of the current social programs. Why should someone who is often on the streets due to his inability to handle his life and finances (obviously not necessarily due to his own fault!) suddenly treat "free money" he receives responsibly if he knows that it is part of a constant social program that will likely keep on handing out money forever? This situation simply cannot be compared to small experiments with a few dozen people and a limited duration.


3) The "people won't suddenly stop working" argument. I think this is a red herring. Obviously most people won't suddenly stop working altogether just because they receive 1000-15000 GBP "for free". There are too many reasons to keep working nonetheless: a) it's not that much money to begin with and you'll want to have a bit more than that, using it as a "base"; b) many people enjoy working on some level, even if they might not like their particular job that much/they'd get bored if they didn't work; c) some level of social pressure plays a role -- in the light of looking for potential mates or friends or maintaining your current relationship or friendship, who wants to be the good-for-nothing bum?

But that's still completely besides the point. The problem isn't so much that the majority of people will suddenly stop working overnight. The problems are a bit more complicated than that. For one, the pressure to work in a "productive" field will be lower. Right now, many people are very much influenced in their study and job choices by the amount of money they can potentially earn from that. Obviously that will still apply to many even in a system with basic income, but there'd arguably be a lot more people going with a bit less "safe" choices, instead following their "hopes and dreams", i.e. studying subjects without clear or obvious job prospects and so forth. This already happens, yeah, but the basic income would add to that trend.
It could be said to be a good thing if more people followed their passions rather than mindlessly working and studying "only to earn money", but you have to realise that this inevitably detracts from the strength of the overall economy. Quite simply, the economy (on average) benefits more from 100 engineers (even if 50 of these engineers might rather have become philosophers if they had at least a modicum of financial stability, i.e. the basic income) than from 50 engineers and 50 philosophers, the latter of which mostly earn little money and work as lowly paid assistants or even completely outside their field of study.

Secondly, not only would the incentive to choose "productive" fields be smaller, people also would have less pressure to be productive within their chosen field of study or work, regardless of what it might be. This too could be argued to be a good thing -- less pressure, less stress. However, it would again arguably detract from the economic prosperity of the country as a whole. There's simply less reason to always strive for that promotion, to always work hard and so on.

Again, don't get me wrong -- I'm not claiming that everyone works hard as it is or that the basic income would stop everyone from working hard. That'd be another red herring argument. But it would be silly to assume that the added financial security and stability would not at least on average somewhat decrease the need to "push" oneself, both in terms of choosing a particular career and in working hard within that career.

Additionally, I find the speaker's argument about people stating that "of course they would still work, even if there was a basic income" a bit dishonest. Not only is them "still working" not the problem as I outlined above (the problem being that they might not work as productively), but using someone's statements about himself as an argument to prove that people wouldn't just stop working is fairly silly.

Finally, there's the problem of low skilled jobs. Of course 1000 GBP is a drop in the bucket if you are a doctor or lawyer and make at least three or four times that per month already anyway. But there are many jobs that don't fall into that category. If I currently made 600 GBP and a basic income of 1500 GBP was introduced, I'm not sure if I could be bothered to get up in the morning anymore (even taking inflation into account). Sure, I'd have the chance to make 2100 GBP per month in total, but if I'd been living off the 600 GBP before and now suddenly got more than twice that "for free", then I don't think an additional less than 50% of that would be a big enough incentive to go to work tbh. Earning 2100 GBP is better than 1500 GBP, but I'm not sure investing say 35 hours per week for a measly 600 GBP increase would be worth it when I get 1500 GBP for zero hours of work. The proportions would simply be off.


4) The moral aspect. I also disagree with the basic income from a moral POV. What is money? Difficult question, but in really basic terms it is a means of measuring the worth of something, particularly of work. As stupid as it sounds, money doesn't grow on trees. Money spent on the basic income does not come "from the state" as some sort of corporate entity, but from every single taxpayer in the country.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't consider taxation theft. However, I don't think it is justified to take money away from people without good reason. The main reason I accept for taxation and the redistribution of money is essentially social necessity. It makes perfect sense for "the state" to a) provide the necessary infrastructure and b) to take care of those too weak (the elderly, children, sick people etc.) to manage for themselves.

I find it despicable when nations refuse to take care of their weak. My "right to my money" should always take second place to another person's right to live, not to starve and so on (within reason).

However, the basic income lacks a similar justification. It is simply a means of redistributing money from those who work (or at least inherited the fruits of someone else's labor - although I do think inheritance should be taxed a lot more) to those who do not work (as much) or at least do not earn as much money. Call me old fashioned, but I do not think anybody who is generally able to work has a "right" to the fruits of my labor when there is no direct need to prevent him from death or serious suffering. I simply cannot find a single good moral justification for it. Nobody should have to starve, I agree, but that is the extent of it with regards to those able to work.

And that's another reason why the "we currently spend X millions on this, the basic income would only cost X minus Y amount of money" argument doesn't convince me at all. There's an important difference between spending money on helping those who cannot manage for themselves (which is a noble goal and a necessity for any advanced society) and giving people money "just because".

I'm all for more equality and social justice. I'm in favour of abolishing the regressive VAT and increasing the inheritance tax. But I also believe that our society is a community in which everyone should contribute according to his or her abilities. If you don't want to despite being able to, fair enough, nobody should be forced to work. But in that case, you cannot expect the support of society, either.

Actually, what I might be in favour of is "the state" negatively taxing people in lower income brackets relative to the size of their income. However, this should be limited to those who do work. If you do not work, you should only receive as much assistance as you need as long as you are either unable to work or unable to find work despite serious attempts to do so (evidence needed).

[Raubritter]

Once more an topic that is as old as Men and that was already proofen many, many times in history to be a moronic failure


When Publius Clodius Pulcher run for Tribune in Rome he promised Free grain and meat, and people voted for him. When they got their free stuff, everyone became a lazy slop and the real labor was basicly just done by slaves anyway. Rome was a robbing society that needed always to find and conquer more people to feed itself. When you pay people a basic income, this is just what will happen. In Athens they payed people to vote and go to the theater, and the same thing happend there. Where are these empires now? They went down in flames.

Feeding people isn't the task of government. Government is force, government is military. Military is the only task a government should have.

But to give an example from the more recent history. When Kim Jong Ill tought he could stimulize the failed North Korean economy by paying everyone a bonus sume, they had inflation. And what did they do? They executed the finance minister.

The whole idea isn't just dumb, its dangerous.

[conon394]

In Athens they payed people to vote and go to the theater, and the same thing happend there. Where are these empires now? They went down in flames.

Indeed after being a remarkably egalitarian society for 200 years and loosing to what amounts to the Macedonian run Persian empire after a hard fight... quite and achievement really. And of course Rome did last quite a while and fancy that we are using their alphabet and a language that directly or indirectly uses what 1/3 or maybe 1/2 of their words? Yep real failures.

How to you propose to have people attend an assembly or a congress or any thing if they do not get paid? If John Adams is siting around in Philadelphia he is not practicing Law in Boston. Same for Athens you want a farmer to walk all the way to Athens to serve his jury duty he is not pulling weeds or tilling or whatever. In other words you want government of only the uber elite.

Feeding people isn't the task of government. Government is force, government is military. Military is the only task a government should have.

Rather not at least what the US Constitution says

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

A lot more than defense...

[Squiggle]

the economic considerations of this proposal, its entirely trivial. The actual question is Quo warranto. No ones got a right to redistribute anyones private property or income, not even in the name of alleviating poverty. Gross immoralities are not the way material (or any kind of) progress is made.

[O'Hea]

the economic considerations of this proposal, its entirely trivial. The actual question is Quo warranto. No ones got a right to redistribute anyones private property or income, not even in the name of alleviating poverty. Gross immoralities are not the way material (or any kind of) progress is made.

The very existence of a state is the redistribution of private resources for public use. How do you reconcile this attitude with any kind of political organization at all?

[Simon Cashmere]

You seem to have missed the point: a criminal underclass is created by taking away the benefits safety net and forcing them into crime in order to survive. I don't see how a basic minimum income could cause a rise in criminality amongst those who would be receiving it.

Because of course the only way one can survive is either on welfare or as a criminal. Getting a job? That sounds way to much like - actually working.

The idea is pretty much Soviet planning - everyone gets some money to survive, in the same way the Soviet system ensured everyone had an apartment. The problem is the whole thing collapses because the economy is miserable and inefficient.

So it's just a silly idea. Who would be paying all this free money to people? The taxpayer, borrowed from Chinese and Saudi bankers.

[Jom]

Because of course the only way one can survive is either on welfare or as a criminal. Getting a job? That sounds way to much like - actually working.

The idea is pretty much Soviet planning - everyone gets some money to survive, in the same way the Soviet system ensured everyone had an apartment. The problem is the whole thing collapses because the economy is miserable and inefficient.

So it's just a silly idea. Who would be paying all this free money to people? The taxpayer, borrowed from Chinese and Saudi bankers.

Because every job pays a living wage and people never lose their jobs.

The idea is that with this living wage, the money people receive goes back into the economy more easily through indirect taxation and direct taxation, as the flexibility afforded by it would allow for going back into education in order to get a better job, which would equal income tax for the state.

[Squiggle]

The very existence of a state is the redistribution of private resources for public use. How do you reconcile this attitude with any kind of political organization at all?

I dont. I'm an anarchist.