• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

From the Economist: Sighing for paradise to come

Lafayette

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
7,465
Reaction score
1,435
Location
France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Sighing for paradise to come

Excerpt:

Arguments for a state stipend payable to all citizens are being heard more widely

The idea (of a public stipend) has a long pedigree, endorsed by great figures of the enlightenment such as the Marquis de Condorcet and Thomas Paine. Three centuries on, a handful of governments around the world, mostly in rich countries, are launching experimental basic-income programmes, or at least considering the idea. Finland will roll out a trial programme next year, in which some citizens will receive unconditional cash grants of up to €800 ($900) per month. Similar programmes are being mulled in several Dutch cities.

Unsurprisingly, ... Silicon Valley is interested, too. This is not, though, simply faddishness. The idea of a universal basic income has long been tied up with worries about accelerating technological change. The basic income, or “social credit” ... was born of the worry that technology was opening up a gap between total output and the income earned by workers.

As well as offering the possibility of a simpler and perhaps fairer welfare state, supporters of a universal basic income say it answers fears that paid work will break down as a mechanism for distributing purchasing power. In recent years, across many rich economies, the wages earned by the typical worker have grown pitifully slowly—and by less than GDP per person.

When manufacturing jobs that were the keystone to a regional economy move abroad, for example, people with few prospects look for alternative means of support, such as disability benefits. In most age groups in Britain the share of population claiming disability benefits is systematically and substantially above the level of the 1980s, despite efforts to control growth in disability-benefit costs. Since 1988, America’s disability payments have risen from one in ten of every social-security dollar spent to one in five. Those unable to find work or get on such programmes sink deeper into poverty.

A universal basic income might solve these problems. As Tobin argued, a flat basic-income payment eliminates the poverty trap. Since the benefit would not phase out, there would be no reduced incentive to seek additional work hours or income. Because it would be paid to all citizens, its advocates hope that it would enjoy the political support of an entitlement programme, and come to be seen as a right of citizenship. And it would clearly benefit people with no prospect of work, and thus most of those in extreme poverty.

I am also convinced that the measure would have a very large impact upon crime-rates in the US since a Basic-Income would at least cover subsistence costs, which often motivate crime. Of course, if anyone below the Poverty Threshold thinks they "deserve" a Cadillac to impress their neighbors, then they'd best see a psychiatrist.

"Keeping up with the Joneses" promises to remain a key Societal Factor in the US - but I continue to believe that only higher educational attainment (throughout a workers lifetime) will really-'n-truly have any meaningful impact upon assuring long-term well-paying jobs.

The rest of the civilized world is rushing ahead with free Tertiary Education, and we in the US are not ...
__________________________
 
Last edited:

dimensionallava

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 12, 2015
Messages
6,414
Reaction score
1,524
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Communist
Sighing for paradise to come

Excerpt:



I am also convinced that the measure would have a very large impact upon crime-rates in the US since a Basic-Income would at least cover subsistence costs, which often motivate crime. Of course, if anyone below the Poverty Threshold thinks they "deserve" a Cadillac to impress their neighbors, then they'd best see a psychiatrist.

"Keeping up with the Joneses" promises to remain a key Societal Factor in the US - but I continue to believe that only higher educational attainment (throughout a workers lifetime) will really-'n-truly have any meaningful impact upon assuring long-term well-paying jobs.

The rest of the civilized world is rushing ahead with free Tertiary Education, and we in the US are not ...
__________________________

"keeping up with the joneses" syndrome isnt prevalent outside the middle class suburbs
 

Lafayette

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
7,465
Reaction score
1,435
Location
France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
A Universal National Subsidy would boost people out of the Poverty Threshold Trap allowing them, if they had the mind to do so, to obtain the training that will allow them better-paying jobs. Especially if the condition for obtaining the subsidy also entailed an apprenticeship program - one that blended both vocational schooling and OJT at some participating company.

We may think that the the Trap is made up of people who "don't want to work" and therefore "deserve to be there". Some of that is true; all societies - even hard working Germany - has its fundamentally unemployable individuals. But the stats show also that the reason why the 15% figure has remained constant since 1965 is that people are exiting the Poverty Trap as well as entering it. And some are re-entering it. The process seems repeatedly in-and-out for a great many, though I can't find the stats that indicate how many.

Meaning there is a dynamic to the process. Which means further that some (perhaps most) of us really do not want to live our lives below the Poverty Threshold. But we fall into the trap for reasons quite beyond our control. The situation then, for a great many below the Threshold, is semi-permanent.

But the Poverty Threshold at 15% of the population is permanent since 1965 ...
________________
 

Lafayette

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
7,465
Reaction score
1,435
Location
France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
"keeping up with the joneses" syndrome isnt prevalent outside the middle class suburbs

Maybe that social phenomenon is more concentrated in the cities. But that is where most people live and work.

For the US, we are 63% who live in an "urban environment" according to the Census Bureau ...
 
Last edited:

DA60

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
16,386
Reaction score
7,793
Location
Where I am now
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
First, paying this amount to all citizens is madness, IMO. Giving millionaires and billionaires free money from taxpayers is silly. Jeez, they already get gigantic sums - indirectly - from the Fed and pay low tax rates on capital gains...now people want tax payers to give them even more money? Have these people not seen how fast the income disparity in America is rising? Ridiculous.
If you are going to give it to people, give it ONLY to the poor as a welfare/food stamp/SS alternative. If you need it, you get it. If you don't, forget it.

Second, anyone who thinks this will not discourage people from working is dreaming. I have known lots of people on welfare. Most became lethargic. They were down about their finances and usually surrendered to inertia. They usually just did under the table jobs for beer/fun money (assuming welfare was taking care of the basics).
Also, most minimum wage jobs are crappy. If you already have more then enough to get by and are unskilled - why would you start working? You are probably going to only be able to get some lousy minimum wage job that is probably somewhat dehumanizing. So, you can either stay at home and watch tv/play video games/hang out with others like you and do the occasional, under-the-table odd job for partying/vacation/hobby money. Or, you can work at some lousy MW job and have an only slightly better economic life and WAY less free time.
I say most will - in that situation - choose the former.

Third, I think giving cash to healthy people for doing nothing is almost never a good idea. I say - once again - government shelters in regional centers where people are guaranteed a place to live, food and access to adequate health care in a safe, clean environment is a better alternative.
Provide the basics of life for all who need it - but not in a way that encourages people to want to stay on welfare.

Finally, cost.
The Swiss recently voted down a proposal to give every adult $2,500 (and every child an extra $625) per month. There are about 242 million adults and about 75 million children in America. My quick math says that would equal over $7.5 TRILLION dollars per year.
The entire U.S. federal budget is only about $4 trillion. That is nuts.
Heck, if you cut the payments in half, you are still looking at an amount almost equal to the entire federal budget. Again...nuts.
 
Last edited:

Lafayette

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
7,465
Reaction score
1,435
Location
France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
LIVING ON 2-DOLLARS A DAY

Reading the article further, excerpt:
Those unable to find work or get on such programmes sink deeper into poverty. In America many are slipping through the cracks of a conditional welfare system: the number of people living in extreme poverty rose sharply between 1996 and 2011, from 636,000 to 1.5m, according to Luke Shaefer of the University of Michigan and Kathryn Edin of Harvard University.

If true, that stat brings it up to 42% of all Americans nationally. It is difficult to believe that as a national average.

Looking further into the research of Luke Shaefer, his field work reports incidences of "living on 2-dollars a day". From here: Understanding the dynamics of $2 a day Poverty

Scroll down to "Results". Which are a series of case-studies.

Excerpt:
Monique, an African American mother of two, wears a secondhand pair of jeans and a well-worn sweatshirt. Hair pulled back in a tight ponytail, she keeps a bright expression on her aged thirty-three-year-old face and is prone to express gratitude for the fact that though she’s experienced so many trials, she has come through them. During those times over the past year when she’s had a place of her own, its living room has been furnished sparingly, with only a plastic milk crate and one vinyl hassock to sit on. During various spells among the $2-a-day poor, she and her two boys have found themselves in homeless shelters in Birmingham, Chattanooga, and Johnson City, Tennessee. She’s also had spells living with kin—or having kin live with her—in order to save on rent.

Despite her hardship, Monique is rarely without a job, usually maintaining some type of employment by registering at temp agencies when permanent work isn’t available. She gets SNAP benefits but hasn’t received cash assistance since shortly after her youngest son was born. Though she believes she may be eligible for disability insurance—a pinched nerve in her leg causes her quite a bit of pain—she refuses to apply. “People say, ‘Oh, girl, you get your disability,’ and I can think to myself and say, ‘Oh, you know it would be nice, but after a while, I’d get bored with just sitting in the house.’” Utility shutoffs are common in Monique’s home, she and the boys wear used clothing gleaned from the Goodwill in town, and she walks to work—sometimes for several miles—because she lacks money for public transportation.

It is heartless and cruel to disregard the magnitude of the problem - because poverty is real, tangible and infests this very rich nation of ours where Income Disparity is rampant. We can go to the moon, but can't feed far too many of our own people.

And poverty, like riches, transmits itself from generation to generation to generation.

We should be ashamed of it, but we aren't. Not nearly enough ...
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,550
Reaction score
15,755
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
First, paying this amount to all citizens is madness, IMO. Giving millionaires and billionaires free money from taxpayers is silly. Jeez, they already get gigantic sums - indirectly - from the Fed and pay low tax rates on capital gains...now people want tax payers to give them even more money? Have these people not seen how fast the income disparity in America is rising? Ridiculous.

The universal basic income would reduce income disparity, even though it involves giving more money to the 1%, because $20,000 a year makes a much bigger difference to a poor man than a rich one. It means the ability for 18 year olds without parental support to support themselves through post-secondary education. It means the ability for low wage workers to save money to buy a house or invest for their retirement. It means freeing millions of Americans from the welfare trap that keeps them in poverty.

If you are going to give it to people, give it ONLY to the poor as a welfare/food stamp/SS alternative. If you need it, you get it. If you don't, forget it.

The fact that universal basic income is not means-tested is what makes it a better alternative to welfare; means-tested welfare programs force people not to work unless they can find work that pays better than their benefits. It's a poverty trap. If the basic income is not means-tested, not only does it allow recipients to work, it encourages them to do so because working increases their total income.

Second, anyone who thinks this will not discourage people from working is dreaming. I have known lots of people on welfare. Most became lethargic. They were down about their finances and usually surrendered to inertia. They usually just did under the table jobs for beer/fun money (assuming welfare was taking care of the basics).

You just said they worked under the table jobs for extra money. With a universal basic income, they'd be working those jobs above board and paying taxes on them.

Also, most minimum wage jobs are crappy. If you already have more then enough to get by and are unskilled - why would you start working? You are probably going to only be able to get some lousy minimum wage job that is probably somewhat dehumanizing. So, you can either stay at home and watch tv/play video games/hang out with others like you and do the occasional, under-the-table odd job for partying/vacation/hobby money. Or, you can work at some lousy MW job and have an only slightly better economic life and WAY less free time.

Earning $15,000 a year to survive on isn't worth working full time when compared to welfare benefits. Earning $15,000 a year on top of your living expenses is easily worth working full time.

Third, I think giving cash to healthy people for doing nothing is almost never a good idea. I say - once again - government shelters in regional centers where people are guaranteed a place to live, food and access to adequate health care in a safe, clean environment is a better alternative.
Provide the basics of life for all who need it - but not in a way that encourages people to want to stay on welfare.

You are missing the point of universal basic income because you are thinking of it like a welfare program and trying to treat it like a welfare program.

It isn't a crutch for people who can't support themselves-- it is a guarantee that everyone can support themselves. Low wage earners can work legitimate jobs for their beer money and pay taxes, without worrying about where their necessities will come from. Middle-income workers will have the freedom to take or leave jobs as they please, allowing them to demand more favorable working conditions. And the richest people will still be paying more in taxes than they're collecting.
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,550
Reaction score
15,755
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Finally, cost.
The Swiss recently voted down a proposal to give every adult $2,500 (and every child an extra $625) per month. There are about 242 million adults and about 75 million children in America. My quick math says that would equal over $7.5 TRILLION dollars per year.
The entire U.S. federal budget is only about $4 trillion. That is nuts.
Heck, if you cut the payments in half, you are still looking at an amount almost equal to the entire federal budget. Again...nuts.

We're brainwashed into thinking that our tax rates are outrageous now, but during the most prosperous years of economic growth and a thriving middle class, they were much, much higher. The only reason we can't easily afford such a program is the right-wing ****ery of the last four decades. Cut the payments down to more reasonable figures-- $1500 a month and $200 child allowance-- remove the loopholes from the corporate tax, and raise tax rates-- remember, you're taxing all earned income now, including the first twelve grand-- and stop wasting so much money on the bloated military-industrial complex and prison-industrial complex, and we could dramatically improve the lives of every American citizen practically overnight.
 

Lafayette

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
7,465
Reaction score
1,435
Location
France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From the thread article: InfoGraphic titled Public Social Spending, excluding HealthCare

20160604_FBC574_0.png


What is amazing is that the US (at the bottom of the list) outspends Canada!

(France second from the top.)
_______________________
 

Lafayette

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
7,465
Reaction score
1,435
Location
France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The universal basic income would reduce income disparity, even though it involves giving more money to the 1%, because $20,000 a year makes a much bigger difference to a poor man than a rich one. It means the ability for 18 year olds without parental support to support themselves through post-secondary education. It means the ability for low wage workers to save money to buy a house or invest for their retirement. It means freeing millions of Americans from the welfare trap that keeps them in poverty.

The fact that universal basic income is not means-tested is what makes it a better alternative to welfare; means-tested welfare programs force people not to work unless they can find work that pays better than their benefits. It's a poverty trap. If the basic income is not means-tested, not only does it allow recipients to work, it encourages them to do so because working increases their total income.

Well put!

We could also arrange to have the Universal Income a bit less "universal". That is, in addition to a Minimum Wage ($12/15 and hour), also a Base Income of $24K per year, that diminishes as one approaches the individual mean-income nationally.

Any solution is not easy, because the base-unit of our society is the family. But if it is easy to define "family" on a tax-statement, it is very difficult to verify.

In Europe, all government subventions are based upon Minimum Family-Income, that is, for all the members housed under the same roof. All that is a bit more difficult to manage in the US, because there is no National Identification System with which "family membership" could be identifiable for tax-purposes. Note that Europeans are not so refractive of a National Identity Card as are Americans. (Every citizen carries an Identity Card here (which is not a drivers-license), and requests a passport for travel outside the EU)

Finally, since Income Disparity is worse (by definition) at the lower income level, the universality of the income perhaps should be restricted. But how? Income Disparity affects those mostly at the bottom of the Wage Structure, and that means principally both the younger and the elderly.

Only a better study of what sort of "family" constitutes those below the Poverty Threshold will allow us to better understand how a solution should be constructed. (Note that 1 person is a "family" of 1 with an individual residence.) The elderly at the other edge of the "age-continuum" are also highly affected by Income Disparity since not all have a good Retirement Pension.

Which is a damn good reason for making it "universal" in scope. That is, scrap all the present social-support systems and begin anew.

All of which is why "family-size" is only one determinant and not the only one necessary. It's complexity at present seems to indicate that we should wipe the board clean and start from scratch.

Which is not Mission Impossible as much as it is Mission Improbable with the current mind-set in the US ...

You are missing the point of universal basic income because you are thinking of it like a welfare program and trying to treat it like a welfare program.

It isn't a crutch for people who can't support themselves-- it is a guarantee that everyone can support themselves.

Despite the fact that this is an "Economics" forum, there are posters who are viscerally against anything that smells of "social welfare" - and their grab-bag for that term is vast .

It's best to ignore them and Move Right Along (M R A) ...
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
73,238
Reaction score
41,751
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
We're brainwashed into thinking that our tax rates are outrageous now, but during the most prosperous years of economic growth and a thriving middle class, they were much, much higher. The only reason we can't easily afford such a program is the right-wing ****ery of the last four decades. Cut the payments down to more reasonable figures-- $1500 a month and $200 child allowance-- remove the loopholes from the corporate tax, and raise tax rates-- remember, you're taxing all earned income now, including the first twelve grand-- and stop wasting so much money on the bloated military-industrial complex and prison-industrial complex, and we could dramatically improve the lives of every American citizen practically overnight.

Hmm... Every couple would then be eligible for $3K/month ($36/year) in (federal?) public assistance if they decided not to earn over the poverty level? BTW, why give two adults $3K and a single adult with two children only $1,900/month?
 

Lafayette

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
7,465
Reaction score
1,435
Location
France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The Swiss recently voted down a proposal to give every adult $2,500 (and every child an extra $625) per month.

Only 6.6% of the Swiss are considered below the poverty-line. (See here.) Compared to more than twice that in the US.

Which is why the Swiss thought that the proposal was not necessary.
____________________
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,550
Reaction score
15,755
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
We could also arrange to have the Universal Income a bit less "universal". That is, in addition to a Minimum Wage ($12/15 and hour), also a Base Income of $24K per year, that diminishes as one approaches the individual mean-income nationally.

That is feasible, but scaling down the benefits for people earning good incomes reduces the incentive to earn good incomes. Remember, they're still being taxed on everything they earn, so at some point the taxes they're paying are going to exceed their benefits.

Any solution is not easy, because the base-unit of our society is the family. But if it is easy to define "family" on a tax-statement, it is very difficult to verify.

Another of the advantages of universal basic income is that you no longer need to tax families; you can simply tax all individuals as individuals. Husband and wife and three children, both adults receive the tax-free UBI and one of them receives the child allowance. Husband works for a living, he pays taxes at the individual rate on all of his earned income. If the wife works, she pays taxes on her earned income. If the kids work, they pay taxes on their income. You don't need special rules to account for dependent spouses, because spouses are not dependent. You don't need to adjust tax rates for the number of children, because the children are paid for.

Hmm... Every couple would then be eligible for $3K/month ($36/year) in (federal?) public assistance if they decided not to earn over the poverty level? BTW, why give two adults $3K and a single adult with two children only $1,900/month?

Because it is assumed that each adult must be capable of their own support. Unlike current welfare programs, it encourages lower-income families to stay together.
 

eohrnberger

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
48,288
Reaction score
31,265
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
First, paying this amount to all citizens is madness, IMO. Giving millionaires and billionaires free money from taxpayers is silly. Jeez, they already get gigantic sums - indirectly - from the Fed and pay low tax rates on capital gains...now people want tax payers to give them even more money? Have these people not seen how fast the income disparity in America is rising? Ridiculous.
If you are going to give it to people, give it ONLY to the poor as a welfare/food stamp/SS alternative. If you need it, you get it. If you don't, forget it.

Second, anyone who thinks this will not discourage people from working is dreaming. I have known lots of people on welfare. Most became lethargic. They were down about their finances and usually surrendered to inertia. They usually just did under the table jobs for beer/fun money (assuming welfare was taking care of the basics).
Also, most minimum wage jobs are crappy. If you already have more then enough to get by and are unskilled - why would you start working? You are probably going to only be able to get some lousy minimum wage job that is probably somewhat dehumanizing. So, you can either stay at home and watch tv/play video games/hang out with others like you and do the occasional, under-the-table odd job for partying/vacation/hobby money. Or, you can work at some lousy MW job and have an only slightly better economic life and WAY less free time.
I say most will - in that situation - choose the former.

Third, I think giving cash to healthy people for doing nothing is almost never a good idea. I say - once again - government shelters in regional centers where people are guaranteed a place to live, food and access to adequate health care in a safe, clean environment is a better alternative.
Provide the basics of life for all who need it - but not in a way that encourages people to want to stay on welfare.

Finally, cost.
The Swiss recently voted down a proposal to give every adult $2,500 (and every child an extra $625) per month. There are about 242 million adults and about 75 million children in America. My quick math says that would equal over $7.5 TRILLION dollars per year.
The entire U.S. federal budget is only about $4 trillion. That is nuts.
Heck, if you cut the payments in half, you are still looking at an amount almost equal to the entire federal budget. Again...nuts.

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money [to spend]."
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Margaret_Thatcher#The_problem_with_socialism
Oh so typical.
 

DA60

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
16,386
Reaction score
7,793
Location
Where I am now
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
We're brainwashed into thinking that our tax rates are outrageous now, but during the most prosperous years of economic growth and a thriving middle class, they were much, much higher. The only reason we can't easily afford such a program is the right-wing ****ery of the last four decades. Cut the payments down to more reasonable figures-- $1500 a month and $200 child allowance-- remove the loopholes from the corporate tax, and raise tax rates-- remember, you're taxing all earned income now, including the first twelve grand-- and stop wasting so much money on the bloated military-industrial complex and prison-industrial complex, and we could dramatically improve the lives of every American citizen practically overnight.

A) I don't think $200 per child is enough money. I think you need at least $400 per.

B) Even by your numbers ($1,500 and $200, respectively), that totals over $4.5 Trillion - much more then the entire federal budget is now.
And this proposal is not included with tax/spending reforms. This is just a separate proposal. The increase in taxation would be gigantic...mostly just to give money to people that do not even need it.
It makes no sense to me to give 'free' government money to people who have no need for it.
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,550
Reaction score
15,755
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
It makes no sense to me to give 'free' government money to people who have no need for it.

I've explained why the universal basic income should not be means tested. If you still don't get it, that's on you.

Yes, the increase on taxation would have to be substantial, but we are talking about a system under which the vast majority of citizens would enjoy a substantially better quality of life. One of the benefits of the universal basic income is that it benefits everyone, not just people living under an arbitrary poverty line.
 

KevinKohler

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 4, 2011
Messages
24,664
Reaction score
11,613
Location
CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
"keeping up with the joneses" syndrome isnt prevalent outside the middle class suburbs

Yes it is. It's why everyone has the latest iPhone or droid. The latest Jordan's. Knock off ray bans, Ecco shirts, etc.
 

eohrnberger

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
48,288
Reaction score
31,265
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I've explained why the universal basic income should not be means tested. If you still don't get it, that's on you.

Yes, the increase on taxation would have to be substantial, but we are talking about a system under which the vast majority of citizens would enjoy a substantially better quality of life. One of the benefits of the universal basic income is that it benefits everyone, not just people living under an arbitrary poverty line.

If people want to have a substantially better quality of life they are free to go out and earn that for themselves.
These people should not be pushing socialist ideas which all end up depending on mandated government confiscation of wealth from the successful so they can get it for free.

If they want stuff, earn it.
 

jonny5

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Messages
22,622
Reaction score
3,357
Location
Republic of Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Sighing for paradise to come

Excerpt:



I am also convinced that the measure would have a very large impact upon crime-rates in the US since a Basic-Income would at least cover subsistence costs, which often motivate crime. Of course, if anyone below the Poverty Threshold thinks they "deserve" a Cadillac to impress their neighbors, then they'd best see a psychiatrist.

"Keeping up with the Joneses" promises to remain a key Societal Factor in the US - but I continue to believe that only higher educational attainment (throughout a workers lifetime) will really-'n-truly have any meaningful impact upon assuring long-term well-paying jobs.

The rest of the civilized world is rushing ahead with free Tertiary Education, and we in the US are not ...
__________________________

Sorry, since when are WE in the US? Arent you in France? You are welcome to do it in your country. In the US we prioritize freedom, not social services. Furthermore, its not FREE. Someone is paying for it. You just want someone ELSe to pay for it.
 
Last edited:

DA60

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
16,386
Reaction score
7,793
Location
Where I am now
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I've explained why the universal basic income should not be means tested. If you still don't get it, that's on you.
I read no such thing. I am replying to the OP - as I scanned it - referring to everyone getting the income. Exactly what level of income would people receive this money?

Yes, the increase on taxation would have to be substantial, but we are talking about a system under which the vast majority of citizens would enjoy a substantially better quality of life. One of the benefits of the universal basic income is that it benefits everyone, not just people living under an arbitrary poverty line.

There is far, FAR too much taxation as it is, IMO. Now you want substantially more? Nope...count me out. The only way I would ever remotely agree to this program would be if a) it was ONLY to people ho NEED it; b) it was instead of ALL welfare/SS; and c) the total tax burden to Americans went up not one penny.

I say government shelters in regional centers that provide everything people need (not want, need). If fulfilling basic needs is not enough for people, tough. Leave it up to the private sector/charities to give them more.
 
Last edited:

Lafayette

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
7,465
Reaction score
1,435
Location
France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
That is feasible, but scaling down the benefits for people earning good incomes reduces the incentive to earn good incomes. Remember, they're still being taxed on everything they earn, so at some point the taxes they're paying are going to exceed their benefits.

"Good Incomes" (in the US and for Households) start at about $69K (see here), because that is where a 30% flat-rate taxation kicks-in. That is, our taxation is progressive only up to and including the 4th Quintile, or 80% of all tax-payers. The very last quintile (remaining 20%) is flat-taxed - that is, all incomes above about $100K.)

There are damn-few modern economies that have such a low flat-rate taxation at all household incomes above $69K. (NB: That is our fourth quintile, out of five quintiles, each of 20% of the population.)

Here is a Truly Progressive Tax-Scheme that was done for Bernie's campaign. It is nowhere on Bernie's site, btw.

The upper-rate goes from the present less than 30% to 54.4%. That's not enough. It will not stop the rot, just make it a bit slower. We must put rates back up to where they were before LBJ started axing them - that is, above 90%. (See Historical Marginal Rate of Taxation, Highest & Lowest US Income Earners.)

My point:
*And how the hell Democrats should have let this happen with either LBJ or Reckless Ronnie is beyond a sane mind to comprehend.
*A confiscatory high taxation must exist, or we shall have a repeat of the Great Recession (GW) and in a surprisingly short time-span. That recession was due to the illicit fraud of Toxic-Waste Mortgaging, which was happening because some very smart Investment Banksters were looking to make a quick-megabuck. And they did!
*Moreover, the Dodd-Frank bill will not ever prevent a repeat GW2 ...
_____________________
 

Lafayette

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
7,465
Reaction score
1,435
Location
France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Arent you in France? You are welcome to do it in your country. In the US we prioritize freedom, not social services.

"We"? Is that the Royal We?

Because that is what the English Royalists used say in the 1770s.

And, we, the sheeple, have allowed history to bend itself around and come back to the starting-point. Where we need yet another revolution to "free ourselves" from the slavery of bondage to a dysfunctional tax-system.

Let's hope this revolution is at the ballot-box - but I would not dismiss entirely the dictionary-definition version either.

Things are that bad in the land of Uncle Sam, and they are getting worse ...
_____________________
 

jonny5

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Messages
22,622
Reaction score
3,357
Location
Republic of Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
"We"? Is that the Royal We?

Because that is what the English Royalists used say in the 1770s.

And, we, the sheeple, have allowed history to bend itself around and come back to the starting-point. Where we need yet another revolution to "free ourselves" from the slavery of bondage to a dysfunctional tax-system.

Let's hope this revolution is at the ballot-box - but I would not dismiss entirely the dictionary-definition version either.

Things are that bad in the land of Uncle Sam, and they are getting worse ...
_____________________

Again, who is this we you speak of? Are you a citizen or resident of the US? Your location says France.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
"We"? Is that the Royal We?

Because that is what the English Royalists used say in the 1770s.

And, we, the sheeple, have allowed history to bend itself around and come back to the starting-point. Where we need yet another revolution to "free ourselves" from the slavery of bondage to a dysfunctional tax-system.

Let's hope this revolution is at the ballot-box - but I would not dismiss entirely the dictionary-definition version either.

Things are that bad in the land of Uncle Sam, and they are getting worse ...
_____________________

Don't believe the myth. US spending on social programs of one type or another is extremely high.
 
Top Bottom