Do tell, what do you believe are the differences?

@JacksonNought For the sake of time, I will offer just a couple of representative examples.

"Dems: We'd like cops to stop killing minorities.
Reps: Dems hate police."

This makes it sound like there is a real problem with cops going around killing minorities and that only Democrats care about it. And it misses or mischaracterizes any objection that Republicans might have to this scenario as their simply thinking that Democrats "hate police." Also, it completely leaves out the fact that there are many -- although by no means all -- Democrats that have actually called for defunding police to some extent (some lesser and some greater) and who have wrongly spoken as though most police are a problem when it is actually very few. At any rate, this simplistic statement makes it sound as though Republicans really have no arguments at all and therefore simply revert to ad hominem attacks, but this in itself is a kind of ad hominem attack against Republicans. And, by the way, I know of no Republican who isn't appalled by any unwarranted killing of anyone by police, whether they are minorities or not.

"D's: Taxes should be used for the benefit of everyone.
R's: Dems want socialism."

This makes it sound as though only Democrats think that "taxes should be used for the benefit of everyone," but this simply isn't true. Of course Republicans think that taxes should be used for the benefit of everyone. The issue is how they should be used to this end. After all, taxes that fund the military, the interstate highway system, FEMA, etc, are all for the benefit of everyone, and no one, to my knowledge, objects to such taxes in principle. As for the charge that Republicans simply respond by saying that "Dems want socialism," well, the fact that the party seems to tolerate so many openly Socialist people within its ranks makes it kind of hard not to think that. However, I know of many Republicans who would be careful not to make the charge against all Democrats, but who would instead make the charge only against those who clearly assert their Socialist views or who openly allow these views without criticizing them. But, besides that, Republicans actually offer arguments for how they think taxes should be used for the benefit of everyone. So, once again, this simplistic statement makes it sound as though Republicans really have no arguments at all and therefore simply revert to ad hominem attacks, but this in itself is once again a kind of ad hominem attack against Republicans.

1. false
2. According to inflation minimum wage today should be closer to 20/hr. Also tax the rich more and working class less.
   Historically the progressive side is right so liberals who strive for this progress would in fact be closer to the truth.

tax the rich more and then reduce working class taxes to clarify-

@avan16 According to the principles of both Freedom and Economics, minimum wage today should be $0.00.

Imagine you want to work at a certain job to get into that industry, to gain experience, contacts, work-history, etc... whatever; and you were willing to do it for $5.00/hour because otherwise they just couldn't hire you and you'd just be out of luck.
Where does some third party get the right to tell you "No, avan16... I won't allow that."...?

@avan16 do you actually know what a living wage is? It isn't minimum pay awards.

@Lightman @avan16 minimum wage was and is never intended as a living wage - it is for those jobs in which the wage earner lacks the necessary skills, education and experience to accomplish even the most rudimentary tasks and must be trained to do so. It reflects the minimal contribution to delivering a product or service. As skills and experience increase, generally, so does the wage. However, if the job provides minimal contribution to the finished product or service, the wage it pays reflects THAT also.

This is basic economics and math - something the proponents of $15/hr or more minimum wages fail at.

@tracycoyle yep I pointed out there was a difference between a living wage and a minimum wage.

"Living wage advocates have defined a living wage as the wage equivalent to the poverty line for a family of four. The income would have to allow the family to 'secure food, shelter, clothing, health care, transportation and other necessities of living in modern society'."

There are also now calls for a Universal Basic Wage...
Finland ran a two-year universal basic income study in 2017 and 2018, during which the government gave 2000 unemployed people aged between 25 and 58 monthly payments with no strings attached.

@Lightman The UBW is a horrible idea - giving people something for nothing is the foundation of slavery because it MUST come from people that labored to provide it.

@Lightman minimum wage should be living wage

@tracycoyle
UBI and is more complex than that... and also more simple.
it has to do with the fact that we MUST have unemployment in order to control wage inflation (in a free market anyway).
The exact fraction you can argue but generally 2-4%.

Since we must have unemployment... it is harsh on those who are the 2-4%.

A UBI is NOT supposed to be a long term option to live on, but to temporarily help those that are between jobs and make up the 2-4%.
It is has be small, barely enough for essentials, it has to be universal so that any job is better then no job, and has low admin cost.

@Hanno That might apply if the 2-4% were the same people....and at least in the US, we have unemployment for that temporary period....which of course doesn't occur if you choose to leave employment without another job in the wings.

I don't accept the premise that we NEED such unemployment, it occurs because we have a mobile society and people change residences and jobs. It happens as a natural consequence.

@tracycoyle
Just like my views on climate change, I need to write a proper article on UBI to explain my views... it is not possible to properly explain on a forum like this...
So my apologies for not engaging properly with you.

I need to add that I see UBI as the best option from a list of poor ones. A bit like legalising marijuana to stop meth.

I need to start writing these things properly and will post it here once I have done so.

@Hanno I appreciate that. It was one of the reasons I wrote my work on rights. One of the reasons I wrote a lot of stuff and posted on my website.

Establishing your premise, defining the terms and extrapolating the ideas clarifies wonderfully, even if it is just for ourselves.

@Hanno That is not right... UBI is Universal... what you described is what we have here in Australia... Unemployment benefits which is below the poverty line deliberately to try and incentivise people to find work (even if none is available).
A UBI would be paid to all adult citizens regardless of need. ... It would be paid at the same rate regardless of a person's income or assets or the income and assets of other people in their household. These features make the UBI different to social assistance payments.
[aph.gov.au]

@Lightman
If you misunderstood my view of UBI it is because I did a poor job explaining it.
I know exactly what UBI is. My post was poor and I explained to Tracy that I need to write it out properly.
So yes, you may get the wrong impression, because I took short cuts in my explanation. I just don’t have the time to describe in accurately. Reading it again I can see why you would think Ive got UBI wrong.
Apologies. Like I said, it deserves a proper article and I am just too overworked to do it now.

@Hanno

One could say Alex Schiller schills?