Actually I believe that a guaranteed minimum livable income is not a bad idea at all. In the last democratic debate (USA) between the candidates that were debating to become who was to be in the place of current winner Joe Biden, Candidate <u><em>Andrew Yang</em></u> made a proposal of a Universal Basic Income plan that consisted of small increments of taxes on every sale big corporate businesses like amazon make, and this is a tax under a dollar. If we tax all of these corporations on their sales, we can make trillions of dollars to give at least 1,000 dollars to EVERYONE every month. And he meant everyone, ranging from the homeless, poor, to rich, to even corporations themselves. Andrew Yang also wanted to tax companies that took advantage of robots to manufacture products, as people are losing jobs because of the automation surge that no one is paying any attention to.
People will end up spending that money at stores which anyway, and the money will circulate and create a trickle up economy that makes so much sense and it's such a simple idea.
So the money is basically given to everyone, and a portion will be given back to corporations. Everyone is a winner without anyone sucking in too much from corporations, as that is what their (the corporations and people in favor for them )argument in defense is.
So that would be the base argument by people who believe minimum livable income is not a good idea. It would be that "<em>taking money from the rich isn't fair because the rich has earned that themselves, and the people that it is being given to don't deserve it."</em>
It's not a very great argument to really be honest though as that is only a believe that is formed by an ideology. That specific <em>"They've earned it themselves, so they do not need to share at all"</em> is a dangerous belief even in a liberalistic capitalist society. Although, Capitalism is a pretty successful ideology but it has its flaws just like Socialism/Communism has.
<u>Explanation:</u>
Compared to other communist countries in the Asian region, Japan is relatively better in terms of the overall level of rights and freedoms it grants its citizens.
For example, its constitution recognizes and grants citizens the following rights/freedoms:
- freedom of religion
- freedom of speech and of the press
- freedom of peaceful assembly and association
If we consider its stands on freedom of religion, Japan's constitution (article 20) explicitly stated that its citizens should not be "compelled to take part in any religious act, celebration, rite or practice."
I believe the answer should be D.
The equal protection law was made so everyone would be treated equally and prohibits discrimination based on race, gender, religion, etc.
pls vote brainliest :)
Bailiff, prosecutor, ranger, forensic scientist
