• 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!

Why the world should adopt a basic income (1 Viewer)

jdog21 said:
Im starting to see some benefits of giving everyone a set amount of money every month. Doesn't matter if your poor, rich, women, man, black, white, have kids, or don't.
You get the set amount of cash and you can do with it as you please. But there will no longer be housing assistance, food stamps, medicare, Medicaid, WIC, or any other type of government assistance. You stand on your own merits of what you use that money for.
I also think Socal Security should be like a 401k. You and your employer must pay into it and then you get what you pay in. If you run out, then you run out. No more hopping onto the younger generations back.
Also taxes should have zero right offs, except the standard deduction for your Basic government funded Income.
But that's just the libertarian in me.
Click to expand...

Some sort of reasonable compromise, like you just stated, will probably be our best bet in the future.
 
PleasantValley said:
or until someone decides they want something nicer than burlap bags for underwear.
Then once someone sees another person with something nicer than what they have, the system falls apart.
Click to expand...

Uh, no. That's not the plan. If the BIG isn't enough for to meet their desired lifestyle, they would need to find a job.
 
jonny5 said:
Thats not enough. Each person needs $1000 a month just to get above minimum poverty. So make that 5 trillion. About 25% of every dollar produced in the US. Then figure it needs to be more because certain areas cost more. And you still have to collect SS and pay it out, so thats another trillion. And thas just social programs. We still need to collect a couple more trillion to fund the rest of the govt. Then you have state taxes. Which means we're closely approaching 50% of every dollar you earn going to the govt to give to someone else (or yourself). I assume itll still be progressive taxed, so figure on the top 10% paying most of the bill. While half pay nothing and do nothing but live off basic income.

Thats a recipe for disaster.
Click to expand...

It is certainly a recipe for disaster today, but with more automation, computerization and virtual products, it may very well be the way to avert disaster in the future. We may eventuallly get to the point where there are not enough living wage jobs for every family to have at least one. As this job shortage grows, more and more families will be forced to go on means tested public assistance - not because they are lazy or stupid, but because the need for human labor is being replaced by technology.

So imagine a world where you can afford to either work or not work, it's your choice. Lot's of people will still chose to work and they will only be able to find jobs because others chose not to work.
 
imagep said:
Ever consider the possibility that upper income tax payers may actually make more money because of it? Higher levels of demand me more sales, and more profits.
Click to expand...

See Frances soak the rich tax it was a failure.

And as far as a medium earning individual, if your going to given them an extra $10k or $20k a year, then they can afford a pretty good size tax increase and still come out to the better.
Click to expand...
That is what we call Indian giving. There is no point to it is you are just going to hammer them with heavy taxes.
it kinda defeats the purpose. There is no point in giving it to them.

You also have to remember that a lot of the BIG would be paid for by eliminating all means tested benefits, so much of it is already paid for before we even start.
Click to expand...

The 500-1k a month comes no where close to replacing BIG.
And, with a BIG established, a darned good argument for eliminating the min wage would be made. Min wage would probably go "by-by" as part of the negotiations to establish a BIG.

It's really a BIG picture type of thing (pun intended).
Click to expand...

Paying people not to work is a bad idea.
There is no benefit and a lot of downside.
 
imagep said:
Yea, we should cut off all benefits to the exceptionally handicapped. Need to get rid of disability also. And stop educating kids for free, those little slackers should have to pay for their schooling. Screw people who can't take care of themselves.
Click to expand...

Your hyperbole is noted and dismissed for what it is.
 
imagep said:
It "awards" you the exact same amount of money. So basically you are saying that you are jealous.

Maybe if you hate your job so much (because you work so many hours or whatever it is you are complaining about), you should find a new one.
Click to expand...

Not jealous at all. Why should they work and make more money for half the amount of time that I do?
No I wouldn't get the same money.

I never said I hated my job. You need To stop assuming.
You have no clue what you are talking about.

Once again someone wants to create a system that screws people working people like me.
 
imagep said:
that depends on how we design it. We can design a BIG to be whatever we want it to be.

So maybe we only tax rentier income to pay for it, or we only increase taxes on people who make over a half million dollars a year (and only increase it on the income that is in excess of a half million a year).

Or maybe we make the corporate income tax much more progressive.

Or we could have a flat rate income tax, and exempt the first $X (maybe $50k or $100k).
Click to expand...
No matter how you slice it your penalizing success instead of encouraging people to work for it.
 
jonny5 said:
Thats not enough. Each person needs $1000 a month just to get above minimum poverty. So make that 5 trillion. About 25% of every dollar produced in the US. Then figure it needs to be more because certain areas cost more. And you still have to collect SS and pay it out, so thats another trillion. And thas just social programs. We still need to collect a couple more trillion to fund the rest of the govt. Then you have state taxes. Which means we're closely approaching 50% of every dollar you earn going to the govt to give to someone else (or yourself). I assume itll still be progressive taxed, so figure on the top 10% paying most of the bill. While half pay nothing and do nothing but live off basic income.

Thats a recipe for disaster.
Click to expand...

The whole idea is to not increase taxes at all, and take what the government is currently spending on welfare and consolidate it into a Basic Federal Income for all. Look at what it gives you and how it increases independence and gets people off of poverty and probably ends up stimulating the economy as well. And make adjustments later to taxes and benefits if they're needed and if the public approves.
Which means if you exclude Social Security you end up with $4,620 per person a year from the federal government.
And just for fun for antidotal evidence we can look at two states and see what they may contribute as well ease the burden of cost of living in those geo locations.
California spends in Housing, Cash assistance, and welfare, excluding Unemployment and health care. $834 per person living in the state.
Wisconsin spends in Housing, Cash assistance, and welfare, excluding Unemployment and health care. $535 per person living in there state.

The census report sets a poverty rate for the US at,
Single= $12,486
2 Adults= $14,507
2 Adults w/ 2 kids= $24,339
50% of the above values is considered extreme poverty, fyi

Also looking at median household incomes and using a percentage of that to determine poverty is what the EU does set at 60%. The OECD and Luxembourg Income Study sets poverty rates at 50% of the national median household income. The US median household income is $59,039 with an average size of 2.54 people per household. California median household income is $64,500 with an average household size of 2.90. Wisconsin median household income is $53,000 with an average household size of 2.43.

Under my proposal a single person in would get CA=$5,454 and in WI=$5,155. For WI this would be 41% mark for the Censes poverty rate and 20% mark for OECD mark.
Under my proposal a married couple or a single person with 1 kid would get CA=$10,908 an in WI=$10,310. For WI this would be 71% mark for the Censes poverty rate (which is out of extreme poverty) and 39% mark for OECD mark.
Under my proposal a married couple with 2 kids would get CA=21816 and in WI=$20,620. For WI this would be 85% mark for the Censes poverty rate and 78% mark for OECD mark.

So the proposed system gets any married couples (or just two people that live together) out of extreme poverty and helps even greater if they kids. In the US 19 million people live in extreme poverty. So the system works so kids don't grow up in extreme poverty but doesn't do so well if your just a single person trying live by your self. And it incentives single people to group together to share resources like rent.
Ways to increases can then be discussed like moving some money from different budgets like military spending to go to this income as well as things like raising taxes or eliminating loop holes or eliminating tax write offs. As well as penalities like you don't earn Basic government funded Income during the time you our incarcerated.

But this system gives money to everyone even doctors, lawyers, politicians, and even to Trump. As long as they are citizen. And its a system that I favor do to the simplicity and fairness. One alternative is to make it a means test program based along the mean income. Which in the US is $55,000. This is the half way point for 50% of the population. What this does is exclude the earners that make more then $55,000 and allows the lower 50% to get double the amount of money. I dislike this cause it over incentives having kids and living together but being single and decentives married couples. Also it would have to be progressive making the process more difficult and decentives people moving out of the lower brackets of earner to strive for the higher income bracket. Cuz every step up in your career and wages is a step back in government funded basic income.
 
jonny5 said:
.
Click to expand...

If you wanted to make it means tested then make it progressive. This gives an over boost to the lower end of earners based on a percentage of population compare to higher end earners but the average would stay the same. So the average or WI would be $5,155.
The amount of people that make less then the federal minimum wage of $15,000 is about 12% The amount of people that make more then $150,000 a year are about 12%. You can give the lower bracket double that way.
Under 15K gets $10,310 12% of the population
Over 15K but under 55k gets $7,732 38% of the population
Over 55K but under 150k gets $2,578 38% of the population
Over 150k gets $0. 12% of the population
You can make more brackets to make it more fare but you get the jest of it
 
jdog21 said:
If you wanted to make it means tested then make it progressive. This gives an over boost to the lower end of earners based on a percentage of population compare to higher end earners but the average would stay the same. So the average or WI would be $5,155.
The amount of people that make less then the federal minimum wage of $15,000 is about 12% The amount of people that make more then $150,000 a year are about 12%. You can give the lower bracket double that way.
Under 15K gets $10,310 12% of the population
Over 15K but under 55k gets $7,732 38% of the population
Over 55K but under 150k gets $2,578 38% of the population
Over 150k gets $0. 12% of the population
You can make more brackets to make it more fare but you get the jest of it
Click to expand...

It has to be means tested. What would be the point of taking 15k from a person and then giving them 15k? We would have the pay bureaucrats 15k just to make the transfer. Really all this math just proves the point that basic income is a dumb idea. Capitalism however, WORKS and is self running.
 
jonny5 said:
It has to be means tested. What would be the point of taking 15k from a person and then giving them 15k? We would have the pay bureaucrats 15k just to make the transfer. Really all this math just proves the point that basic income is a dumb idea. Capitalism however, WORKS and is self running.
Click to expand...
[emphasis added by bubba]

show us the math you used which then tells us a reverse income tax is a bad idea
 
imagep said:
Yup. Because with a BIG, anything else they made would be gravy. Under our current means tested welfare system, the fact that their freebe benefits are reduced or eliminated if they make too much money tends to lock people into poverty.
Click to expand...

Except for the variable of handout programs being notoriously draining on the average taxpayer and if a large chunk of my income(that I need to live comfortably or at least reasonably) is taken away and given to someone else, then what's my motivation for working harder to make more money? And that just illustrates the point of government's ineffectiveness and bloated bureaucracy. They can't even get a basic welfare system figured out right now, you really think I'm gonna trust them to try again on a larger scale?
 
jonny5 said:
It has to be means tested. What would be the point of taking 15k from a person and then giving them 15k? We would have the pay bureaucrats 15k just to make the transfer. Really all this math just proves the point that basic income is a dumb idea. Capitalism however, WORKS and is self running.
Click to expand...

I think the point is you take 1k from someone who doesn't make very much but give him 15k and you take 40k from someone who makes a lot but yet give back to him 15k. Its a redistribution of wealth. But so is our current forms of welfare. Its taken in the form of taxes from people who make a lot and given to the people who don't make much. The basic income levels the playing field and reduces the size government, reduces wasted spending on bureaucrats, and reduces fraud. Plus it gives some money back from the people that it got taken from. A change in the welfare system that doesn't effect the taxes that people already pay I would think would be fare. Not to mention the money in which people receive doesn't have to be delegated by the government on what you have to spend it on. It allows people to be free with their money and use it as they see fit.

I don't like means tested at all. That's why its called universal basic income because it universal no matter if you are rich or poor.
 
jdog21 said:
I think the point is you take 1k from someone who doesn't make very much but give him 15k and you take 40k from someone who makes a lot but yet give back to him 15k. Its a redistribution of wealth. But so is our current forms of welfare. Its taken in the form of taxes from people who make a lot and given to the people who don't make much. The basic income levels the playing field and reduces the size government, reduces wasted spending on bureaucrats, and reduces fraud. Plus it gives some money back from the people that it got taken from. A change in the welfare system that doesn't effect the taxes that people already pay I would think would be fare. Not to mention the money in which people receive doesn't have to be delegated by the government on what you have to spend it on. It allows people to be free with their money and use it as they see fit.

I don't like means tested at all. That's why its called universal basic income because it universal no matter if you are rich or poor.
Click to expand...

Taking money from someone then giving them back still sounds like a waste. And we have to have a massive buracracy to support it, which adds on tens of billions of overhead. More waste. Meanwhile Capitalism already 'redistributes' wealth in the most just way. You work and you get paid, according to your value.
 
jonny5 said:
Taking money from someone then giving them back still sounds like a waste. And we have to have a massive buracracy to support it, which adds on tens of billions of overhead. More waste. Meanwhile Capitalism already 'redistributes' wealth in the most just way. You work and you get paid, according to your value.
Click to expand...

yes capitalism is the best social safety net ever devised!
 
jdog21 said:
I think the point is you take 1k from someone who doesn't make very much but give him 15k and you take 40k from someone who makes a lot but yet give back to him 15k. Its a redistribution of wealth. But so is our current forms of welfare. Its taken in the form of taxes from people who make a lot and given to the people who don't make much. The basic income levels the playing field and reduces the size government, reduces wasted spending on bureaucrats, and reduces fraud. Plus it gives some money back from the people that it got taken from. A change in the welfare system that doesn't effect the taxes that people already pay I would think would be fare. Not to mention the money in which people receive doesn't have to be delegated by the government on what you have to spend it on. It allows people to be free with their money and use it as they see fit.

I don't like means tested at all. That's why its called universal basic income because it universal no matter if you are rich or poor.
Click to expand...

it would be more far far more efficient, good for recipients, and excellent for transparency, if 100% of redistribution was done with cash payments. Imagine the hue and cry if liberal govt was sending many poor families $70,000 cash to pay for education, health care, housing, food, infrastructure, military etc
 
jonny5 said:
Taking money from someone then giving them back still sounds like a waste. And we have to have a massive buracracy to support it, which adds on tens of billions of overhead. More waste. Meanwhile Capitalism already 'redistributes' wealth in the most just way. You work and you get paid, according to your value.
Click to expand...

You are forgetting that we already have 'redistributions' of wealth under our current system. This would eliminate most of those to favor a singular one. And it reduces bureaucracy.
 
Robotics will make a universal income necessary. Robotics will cause massive unemployment. 50% and upward. Not just for truck and taxi cab drivers, but smart people too. China is developing AI to make up for a drastic physician shortage.

Truth is that would be quite easy to do. Modern automobiles are almost as complex has a human body and all you have to do is plug in a diagnostic computer. A human body runs by a similar set of physical rules as a car.

I digress, Massive unemployment means 50% of the country desperate enough to kill and steal in order to survive.

To prevent social chaos we will go to a universal basic income or something similar.

To pay for it, instead of taxing human workers, we will tax robots.

The time is not quite right, but soon ---- it depends on the speed of the robotic revolution. Maybe 10-15 years.

BTW: want to get rich - start a rent a robot company. They already have robot lawn mowers.
 
JONRID said:
Robotics will make a universal income necessary. Robotics will cause massive unemployment.
Click to expand...


pure lunacy of course every major invention from the stone age forward has caused massive unemployment yet today we have 96% employment. Imagine how much unemployment farm equipment caused? Probably 98% of all employment was rendered unemployed!!
 
jdog21 said:
You are forgetting that we already have 'redistributions' of wealth under our current system. This would eliminate most of those to favor a singular one. And it reduces bureaucracy.
Click to expand...

And that current system is a failure and inefficient. We should just eliminate them period. Let the federal govt get back to its actual purpose, to secure our rights. Local govts can handle welfare if they want to.
 
James972 said:
yes capitalism is the best social safety net ever devised!
Click to expand...

Its not a safety net. Its a system for converting time and effort into the things people need to survive. And its more efficient and just than socialism
 
jonny5 said:
And that current system is a failure and inefficient. We should just eliminate them period. Let the federal govt get back to its actual purpose, to secure our rights. Local govts can handle welfare if they want to.
Click to expand...

I don't believe there is much we can do about. The majority of people as well as congress arnt willing to do that. So your just dreaming. But there is an appetite for change. There is a need to control spending. Socialists have hijacked the democratic party and almost half the nation is wanting a universal income. Smart libertarians can use that sentiment to provide a more fair and equal system that is easier to manage and grow and shrink in the future. If the amount of social welfare and redistribution of wealth that this country already has on a scale of 1 to 10. 1 being very heavily socialist like some Scandinavian countries and 10 being your ideal system of government and we currently are sitting at a 5. And we have the option to change it up that puts it at a 6. Then I am for it. Any moving of up of the scale towards a society and government that you are talking about should be welcomed by you.
 
jdog21 said:
And we have the option to change it up that puts it at a 6. Then I am for it. Any moving of up of the scale towards a society and government that you are talking about should be welcomed by you.
Click to expand...
problem is the clamor for more crippling welfare had been going steadily up for 100 years and the clamor for even more is louder now than ever because it does not work. So we should be reducing the number of crippled people not increasing it to get liberals an always larger dependent voting population. Do you understand?
 
jonny5 said:
Its not a safety net. Its a system for converting time and effort into the things people need to survive. And its more efficient and just than socialism
Click to expand...

capitalism is a safety net in that it catches you before you die unlike socialism which recently was powerless to stop 120 million as the were falling to their deaths.
 
jonny5 said:
T. You work and you get paid, according to your[free market] value.
Click to expand...

yes millions of people are freely agreeing on your value every day with intimate personal knowledge, as opposed to a few socialist bureaucrats guessing from 2000 miles away with no particular knowledge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom