From the Economist: Sighing for paradise to come

[SocialD]

The only thing that irks me about basic income proposals (besides crazy high benefits under some proposals such as per the Swiss variant) is that everyone typically gets it to the last, even those who are living more than comfortably at six figures plus; I have always been of the opinion that there should be a basic means testing component to it, such that more money is saved by denying benefits to those for whom the economic benefits (both for themselves and society in terms of the demand and economic activity increase) and need are minimal than lost paying for the bureaucracy to feature it.

As to criticisms that it would disincentivize work, such disincentives have largely proven minimal: Guaranteed Annual Income

In some cases where basic income was attempted, economic activity actually increased due to a consequent expanded demand base from people having money to spend and utilize to productive ends, and the resulting formation of small businesses: Basic Income Grant Coalition - Namibia

Meanwhile work disincentives per existing welfare schemes may be even stronger given that welfare benefits are lost in direct proportion to income earned, creating a poverty trap.

There would have to be something because the cost of such a program would be massive. we are approaching 324 million people. how much would we give people? will it be just to adults?
last year government spend about 3.76 trillion in total. Social program spending was a little over 2 trillion of that and that includes medicare/Medicaid, social security and other programs but not including aca costs.
So if we ended all those programs and used the money we could give about 680 to 700 a month is all. and that would be to adults only.

 

[James972]

There would have to be something because the cost of such a program would be massive. we are approaching 324 million people. how much would we give people? will it be just to adults?
last year government spend about 3.76 trillion in total. Social program spending was a little over 2 trillion of that and that includes medicare/Medicaid, social security and other programs but not including aca costs.
So if we ended all those programs and used the money we could give about 680 to 700 a month is all. and that would be to adults only.

Why consider another massive program when we have already implimented several massive programs. Govt programs are the problem. The more welfare libturds give the more welfare people need. 1+1=2

 

[Frank Apisa]

EVERYONE should have sufficient.

We have more than enough for EVERYONE to have MUCH MORE than sufficient...for EVERYONE to live a life free from worry about food, clothing, shelter, education, healthcare, and the basic comforts of life.

MUCH, MUCH MORE THAN ENOUGH TO GO AROUND.

The problem is distribution...which even dumb people should be able to solve.

As for "using the money to buy drugs"...Jesus H. Christ...RECREATIONAL DRUGS are the cheapest thing to produce in that entire continuum. THE CHEAPEST.

Pot has the intrinsic value of lawn clippings. Heroin, opium, and cocaine have the intrinsic value of road lilies or forsythia. GIVE as much of that crap to anyone stupid enough to want to use them...and GIVE them as much help staying away from or conquering a need for them.

EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE SUFFICIENT; EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE MUCH MORE THAN SUFFICIENT.

I personally am much less concerned with the impact of drug addicts on society...than I am with the impact of the scum that is so anxious to be sure the poor remain as poor as possible. The trash that wants to see people in fear of catastrophic financial ruin are more a problem for humanity than the supposed trash they are so anxious to subjugate and deprive.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Hummm...after posting that tirade and reading it as posted, I realized I got a bit heated.

Good for me.

I'm happy I did.

 

[James972]

EVERYONE should have sufficient.

We have more than enough for EVERYONE to have MUCH MORE than sufficient...for EVERYONE to live a life free from worry about food, clothing, shelter, education, healthcare, and the basic comforts of life.

That's exactly how 120 million were slowly starved to death. LibNazis destroyed the incentive for both productive and non productive to work. Do you understand Frank? How many more millions need to slowly starve to death before you learn.

 

[Casper]

Socialism is Great, Until you run out of other peoples money.

 

[Frank Apisa]

That's exactly how 120 million were slowly starved to death. LibNazis destroyed the incentive for both productive and non productive to work. Do you understand Frank? How many more millions need to slowly starve to death before you learn.

None.

And it is not I who has to learn. You do.

We do not need more people working in order to produce everything we need, James. That is not the problem right now.

Open your mind, if you can...and you will see it.

 

[James972]

We do not need more people working in order to produce everything we need, James. That is not the problem right now.

We are free and we don't want libNazis telling us at gun point what we need! A free person can decide for himself what he needs.

 

[Frank Apisa]

We are free and we don't want libNazis telling us at gun point what we need! A free person can decide for himself what he needs.

What does that have to do with what I said?

 

[James972]

What does that have to do with what I said?

you're a violent liberal and so you want liberal govt to reorder society at the point of a gun!! IF not give significant liberal policy where this is not true.

 

[Frank Apisa]

you're a violent liberal and so you want liberal govt to reorder society at the point of a gun!! IF not give significant liberal policy where this is not true.

Perhaps you did not understand my question:

What does that have to do with what I said?

The "that" in my sentence refers to your "comment:"

We are free and we don't want libNazis telling us at gun point what we need! A free person can decide for himself what he needs.

 

[James972]

Perhaps you did not understand my question:

What does that have to do with what I said?

The "that" in my sentence refers to your "comment:"

third time: you're a typical violence based liberal and so you want liberal govt to reorder society at the point of a gun!! IF not give significant liberal policy where this is not true.

 

[Frank Apisa]

third time: you're a typical violence based liberal and so you want liberal govt to reorder society at the point of a gun!! IF not give significant liberal policy where this is not true.

James...I am NOT EVEN A LIBERAL...let alone a typical violence based liberal.

Get with the program.

 

[James972]

James...I am NOT EVEN A LIBERAL...let alone a typical violence based liberal.

Get with the program.

so then why so afraid to tell us what you are and what non violent policies you prefer??????

 

[Frank Apisa]

so then why so afraid to tell us what you are and what non violent policies you prefer??????

What???

 

[James972]

What???

you said you are not a liberal but you are afraid to tell us what you are???

you said you do not support violent liberal programs but you are afraid to tell us what programs you do support.

A liberal is actually afraid of his own ignorance so prefers to avoid it and merely cling to his liberal feelings. Its so comforting -right?