• 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!

How a Minimum Income program could replace most others in the U.S.

imagep said:
The reason why the government became involved in the first place is because the private sector wasn't handling this. If the private sector was doing it, then the government would have had no reason to become involved. That's the reason that I say the "invisible hand" often doesn't work correctly.

It's easy to forget why we have regulations, because after we regulate, if done properly, the issue goes away.

I'm all for good private sector regulation, but in the absence of it, which is what we often have, it only makes sense for the government to become involved.
Click to expand...

I don't know where you got the idea that Consumer Reports and United Labs wasn't working. Surely I don't have to site the examples, at least for the former.

Politicians will stick their pompous noses wherever they can. They would tell us that they are experts on everything and that they are so much smarter and all knowing that its their duty to make more and more decisions for us.

"I'm all for good private sector regulation, but in the absence of it, which is what we often have, it only makes sense for the government to become involved."

I remember United Labs labels on about everything until the government got involved. They can't compete with taxpayer funded bureaucrats.
 
Stoney said:
I don't know where you got the idea that Consumer Reports and United Labs wasn't working....
Click to expand...

I didn't say that Consumer Reports or UL wasn't working. I said that at the time we established the food inspection regulations and system, there was no similar private sector system getting the job done.
 
imagep said:
I didn't say that Consumer Reports or UL wasn't working. I said that at the time we established the food inspection regulations and system, there was no similar private sector system getting the job done.
Click to expand...

I can't say there was, but now that government has taken up the cause there won't be. But there was the local butcher shop where people shopped at stores they trusted. I see so many complaints about Walmart putting mom and pop stores out of business, but it was government's portrayal as keeping everyone honest and making everything safe that allowed people to shop at large corporations with some idea that they would be protected as well as they would be by a neighbor who lived in the community and was responsible to his/her local customers for his livelihood.
 
ocean515 said:
I'm not interested in debating someone who is trolling for an argument.
Click to expand...

Then leave the forum if you feel so oppressed!

Stand your ground with cogent statements. Some mistakenly call it "trolling" ...

Reminder: dabate = a formal discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward and which usually ends with a vote.

All that is missing here is the voting. A great shame for the Yanks who think that "winning" is the base-purpose of life.

The rest of us are here to develop thoughts, understand different points-of-view ...
 
Lafayette said:
Then leave the forum if you feel so oppressed!

Stand your ground with cogent statements. Some mistakenly call it "trolling" ...

Reminder: dabate = a formal discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward and which usually ends with a vote.

All that is missing here is the voting. A great shame for the Yanks who think that "winning" is the base-purpose of life.

The rest of us are here to develop thoughts, understand different points-of-view ...
Click to expand...

So you've cast your net back to 2014 to demand I meet YOUR requirements? Perhaps you need to reevaluate your reason for being here, and what constitutes cogent statements. Clearly there is room for improvement.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
The amount of the check would vary, and be based on:
Rent for a studio or 1-bedroom apartment, based on market rate for the zip code the recipient lives in
  1. Groceries (based on the allowance cited in the IRS National Standards)
  2. Utilities, varying by season and average temperature in the zip code the recipient lives in.
  3. Health Insurance Premium, which will vary with age and other fair market rates. All insurers will be required to accept any citizen for full coverage, regardless of age or condition.
  4. Costs of Apparel and Personal Care (also based on IRS National Standards)
  5. Miscellaneous expenses totaling 40% of the grocery allowance
  6. If the recipient files taxes as the head of a household, the total amount would increase by 20% of the base amount for each dependent up to 2. (Parents with more than 2 children must pay all expenses for each dependent child.)
Click to expand...

Why stop there? Why not add a stipend for a bag of hippie lettuce a month? Why not a video game allowance? Why not pay their cable bill for free? God knows, those lazy bastards need to see who's going to win the next American Idiot TV show. How about let's just coddle every single freakin' person so that they don't have to roll out of bed, or leave their house? The Democrats can say it's to "cut down on crime," if they never have to leave their parents' basements.

The problem with this is the same problem Democrats have with virtually everything. In order to coddl..err.."help" one group of people, they have to bend another over the table. To prop up the "poor, poor pitiful poor," you have to punish the successful. To give the favored constituency a little more freedom, you have to oppress another. "Fair share" my donkey.

We've gone from "I wanna be successful when I grow up" to "I just want to eat Cheetos and smoke a fatty every day when I grow up."
 
Velvet Elvis said:
Why stop there? Why not add a stipend for a bag of hippie lettuce a month? Why not a video game allowance? Why not pay their cable bill for free? God knows, those lazy bastards need to see who's going to win the next American Idiot TV show. How about let's just coddle every single freakin' person so that they don't have to roll out of bed, or leave their house? The Democrats can say it's to "cut down on crime," if they never have to leave their parents' basements.

The problem with this is the same problem Democrats have with virtually everything. In order to coddl..err.."help" one group of people, they have to bend another over the table. To prop up the "poor, poor pitiful poor," you have to punish the successful. To give the favored constituency a little more freedom, you have to oppress another. "Fair share" my donkey.

We've gone from "I wanna be successful when I grow up" to "I just want to eat Cheetos and smoke a fatty every day when I grow up."
Click to expand...

Right, why the hell do those losers and teat suckers need anything from the government? That's what begging is for!!

See, poeple can be just as pissy and sarcastic about the blithertarians' "plan."
 
DifferentDrummr said:
And what exactly is the connection between wanting to commit food stamp fraud and being willing to live very modestly and bleakly? That doesn't make a lick of sense, I'm afraid.
Click to expand...

Sure it does as it reflects the general attitude of food stamp recipients. Namely getting something for nothing. A free ride. Again, not saying all SNAP folks are crooked...but a lot are.

Not to mention the whole SSI 'disability' scam.

http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Here's a possible framework for establishing a minimum income (not tied to wages) in the U.S.:

ALL citizens over the age of 18 would receive a minimum income check each month.

The amount of the check would vary, and be based on:
Rent for a studio or 1-bedroom apartment, based on market rate for the zip code the recipient lives in
  1. Groceries (based on the allowance cited in the IRS National Standards)
  2. Utilities, varying by season and average temperature in the zip code the recipient lives in.
  3. Health Insurance Premium, which will vary with age and other fair market rates. All insurers will be required to accept any citizen for full coverage, regardless of age or condition.
  4. Costs of Apparel and Personal Care (also based on IRS National Standards)
  5. Miscellaneous expenses totaling 40% of the grocery allowance
  6. If the recipient files taxes as the head of a household, the total amount would increase by 20% of the base amount for each dependent up to 2. (Parents with more than 2 children must pay all expenses for each dependent child.)
—
Minimum incomes would be adjusted annually for inflation and other consumer market prices; they would not be taxable. Non-citizens would not receive any minimum income.

Supporting rules:
* Minimum income checks would not depend on whether a person has other income or assets. Those who can support themselves without the checks can return them to the Treasury if they so choose. All such checks will be used to pay down the national debt.
* Minimum income amounts are not affected by marriage or domestic partnership.
* If a citizen is imprisoned, minimum income payments would be suspended until he or she is released.
* If a court rules that a citizen is unable to handle his or her finances, the minimum income would be set up in a trust fund, with that person as the beneficiary. If no family member is available or willing to administer the trust and handle the person’s expenses, the court will appoint an administrator to do so.
* Minimum income payments would continue for life or until citizenship is forfeited.

Funding for the program would come from it replacing the following programs:
  • Social Security
  • Welfare
  • Medicare
  • Unemployment Insurance

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I certainly support Basic Income Guarantees.... but your specific plan is not something I could support... you've placed too many conditions on it to be supportable.

my personal position is that a BIG should be enacted at 125% of the federal poverty rate, with cost of living increases pegged to inflation.... the income/check/negative tax would be issued to every citizen... man, woman, or child.
the rate would be exactly uniform for every region, and every individual.....
there would be exactly 2 conditions on this BIG.. citizenship, and residency.
ya gotta be a citizen, and ya gotta be under US jurisdiction ( living in the US, a US territory, or military base, etc)

in the case of prisoners, I wouldn't suspend the income, but I would allocate it to pay fines, fees, and restitution to victims.... all other money can be held in an account pending release from prison, or death.. which ever comes first.

is it "affordable"?... absolutely.... there is no such thing as " unaffordable" pertaining to the federal government.
 
Thrilla said:
I certainly support Basic Income Guarantees.... but your specific plan is not something I could support... you've placed too many conditions on it to be supportable.

my personal position is that a BIG should be enacted at 125% of the federal poverty rate, with cost of living increases pegged to inflation.... the income/check/negative tax would be issued to every citizen... man, woman, or child.
the rate would be exactly uniform for every region, and every individual.....
there would be exactly 2 conditions on this BIG.. citizenship, and residency.
ya gotta be a citizen, and ya gotta be under US jurisdiction ( living in the US, a US territory, or military base, etc)

in the case of prisoners, I wouldn't suspend the income, but I would allocate it to pay fines, fees, and restitution to victims.... all other money can be held in an account pending release from prison, or death.. which ever comes first.

is it "affordable"?... absolutely.... there is no such thing as " unaffordable" pertaining to the federal government.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't have a problem with any of those changes, actually. However, there are definitely people who are disable enough to require a trustee to handle their finances - wouldn't want to leave that out.
 
Howler63 said:
Sure it does as it reflects the general attitude of food stamp recipients. Namely getting something for nothing. A free ride. Again, not saying all SNAP folks are crooked...but a lot are.

Not to mention the whole SSI 'disability' scam.

http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/
Click to expand...

Clearly you missed the point. I'll put it more simply:

People who are content to live modestly aren't interested in perpetrating scams.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
I wouldn't have a problem with any of those changes, actually. However, there are definitely people who are disable enough to require a trustee to handle their finances - wouldn't want to leave that out.
Click to expand...

that's a solid point about the disabled/infirm... i'm sure current statutes on custodial duties would suffice, but it might not be a bad idea to include those specific items into statute

the thing about this idea is... it is wholly necessary for it to be enacted at hte federal level.... it's doomed to failure if attempted at the state or municipal level ( where, unlike the federal government, revenue is necessary to pay for budget items)
it's truly an " all or nothing" deal.... and might even require a constitutional amendment to pull it off legitimately.
 
Thrilla said:
that's a solid point about the disabled/infirm... i'm sure current statutes on custodial duties would suffice, but it might not be a bad idea to include those specific items into statute

the thing about this idea is... it is wholly necessary for it to be enacted at hte federal level.... it's doomed to failure if attempted at the state or municipal level ( where, unlike the federal government, revenue is necessary to pay for budget items)
it's truly an " all or nothing" deal.... and might even require a constitutional amendment to pull it off legitimately.
Click to expand...

True, it would absolutely have to be federal. What makes you think there could be constitutionality issues?
 
Lutherf said:
You can already get as much education as you want....as long as you pay for it.

I'm noticing more and more that people seem to want a lot of **** but don't want to pay for any of it.
Click to expand...

That system isn't working. Today, young people are forced to borrow for their education so they can compete in the workforce and earn enough to pay for it. Meanwhile, they are saddled with debt and interest that seriously hampers long-term wealth accumulation. They can't save. They can't advance. We're asking young people to run the race, and then we're shackling their ankles before they even get to the starting line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom