Since you condone the killing of Japanese civilians by America you have no moral high ground to claim over Japanese killers of civilians in China . <| sep |> Christian groups don ' t have much say over policy in India . I expect some Hindu groups may complain , but on the grounds of how the government is imposing British culture on Indian students . <| sep |> Optic winning xgames on ghosts <| sep |> answer the questionYou ' ll get almost a different answer from everybody you ask , but there ' s an obvious simple solution take all the existing welfare programs , and cancel them , then however much money you ' re not spending on funding and running those programs , divide it by the number of recipients and write them a check . This method has a number of consequences that depending on your world view , you might or might not like . It ' s revenue neutral . No new taxes required because that money is already being spent right now anyway . It shrinks government and reduces bureaucracy because not only are you consolidating all of those programs under a single banner , you ' re eliminating all the welfare offices and means testing programs that exist to determine who does and doesn ' t qualify . You don ' t need to put a case manager sitting in a building with a computer to interview and evaluate applicants locally . The thousands of offices and tens of thousands of government employees running these programs can be mostly eliminated in favor of a single office in Washington DC that unconditionally disburses funds electrically to all recipients . This results in significant savings . Finally , it also reduces the actual payout amounts . Why ? Because more or less the same amount of money yes it ' s more because of the savings from elimination of bureaucracy , but it ' s not a whole lot more is being divided up among more recipients . 21 % of the US populationstatistics is receiving some sort of welfare money . 76 % of the US p o p u l a t ionpercentofadultsintheUS is age 18 or over . So if you take the money going to 21 % and divide it up over 76 %, those current 21 % only 27 % as much money overall as they ' re receiving right now . This part tends to be controversial . A lot of UBI advocates are uncomfortable with this . But it is a revenueneutral option , and it eliminates all of your concerns . the people who will be taxed are the same people are are already being taxed right now , and they won ' t be taxes any more than they already are . Companies aren ' t going to leave because they ' re not being taxed to fund it . And the system doesn ' t self destruct , because those people making six figure salaries you ' re concerned about leaving the country because of tax increases . have no reason to leave because they ' re not being taxed any more than they already are .