• We will be taking the server down at approximately 3:30 AM ET on Wednesday, 10/8/25. We have a hard drive that is in the early stages of failure and this is necessary to prevent data loss. We hope to be back up and running quickly, however this process could take some time.
  • 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.

gdgyva said:
do you really believe owners/managers dont want long term employees?
Click to expand...

yes. that's why so many jobs are becoming fixed duration or "independent contractors." an employer wants you as long as you are needed, and then wants an easy way to get rid of you. i have experienced this myself. granted, i live in a heavily Republican, "right to work," fire at will state, so my experience may be different than someone in another state.

gdgyva said:
they dont want to promote from within?
Click to expand...

sometimes. whatever is cheaper and can get the job done. well, up until you get into levels of management where the real money is.

gdgyva said:
In my 30+ years of management, i have seen just the opposite
Click to expand...

see above.

so let's be clear, you don't support a tax break for companies with low turnover?

gdgyva said:
Owners go out of their way to try and give someone a shot, who maybe didnt have the education, but had the desire and a good track history
Click to expand...

our anecdotal experiences have been quite different, apparently.

gdgyva said:
It is ALWAYS better to try that first....they know the organization, they know the people, they know the mission, and most importantly they know what the owner wants

Be interested in hearing companies that dont do that.....

Just bringing in people from outside is a really fast way to piss employee off....
Click to expand...

i'm very glad that you feel that way. it seems that your particular company is doing it right.
 
Helix said:
yes. that's why so many jobs are becoming fixed duration or "independent contractors." an employer wants you as long as you are needed, and then wants an easy way to get rid of you. i have experienced this myself. granted, i live in a heavily Republican, "right to work," fire at will state, so my experience may be different than someone in another state.



sometimes. whatever is cheaper and can get the job done. well, up until you get into levels of management where the real money is.



see above.

so let's be clear, you don't support a tax break for companies with low turnover?



our anecdotal experiences have been quite different, apparently.



i'm very glad that you feel that way. it seems that your particular company is doing it right.
Click to expand...


no i dont support tax breaks for low turnover....

it isnt something the government should get involved in

contract employees are very prominent in my area....washington dc

they go with the defense contracts, and the terms usually are the same

those and tech companies are the only ones i have seen use contract employees in mass

we had our 2 tech guys on contract for the first few years, and then moved them to regular employees about 8-10 years ago

dont know your field, or your experience, but yes it sounds like ours are very different

here...we have very low unemployment.....good employees are worth their weight in gold

any manager in his/her right mind does everything within reason to hold onto them once they get them

and here...other companies will try and steal them out from under you
 
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...

Speaking on behalf of Thomas Jefferson:

"If your government is big enough to give you everything you want, it is big enough to take away everything you have."

/end thread.
 
gdgyva said:
no i dont support tax breaks for low turnover....

it isnt something the government should get involved in
Click to expand...

i don't agree.

gdgyva said:
contract employees are very prominent in my area....washington dc
Click to expand...

work a couple of those jobs for a while, and see what you think of it. my experience with it can basically be summed up as "great job. you're fired."

they make verbal promises the whole time that you'll be brought into the fold, don't worry, your job is safe, blah, blah, blah. they promote you to committees and give you leadership positions. you get flawless reviews. then management a couple steps above gets moved around, and you're out on your ass at the end of the contract. **** that. i don't want that to be the labor reality that i have to navigate, and i sure as **** don't want my kids treated like that.

gdgyva said:
they go with the defense contracts, and the terms usually are the same

those and tech companies are the only ones i have seen use contract employees in mass

we had our 2 tech guys on contract for the first few years, and then moved them to regular employees about 8-10 years ago
Click to expand...

good. smart move. i would have been a loyal employee to that place for life, and i was even using my spare time at work to try to innovate a better product when they canned me.

gdgyva said:
dont know your field, or your experience, but yes it sounds like ours are very different

here...we have very low unemployment.....good employees are worth their weight in gold

any manager in his/her right mind does everything within reason to hold onto them once they get them

and here...other companies will try and steal them out from under you
Click to expand...

i work in biotech, a non-union labor sector, and in an area with lax labor laws. predictably, there's not much job security.
 
cpgrad08 said:
Speaking on behalf of Thomas Jefferson:

"If your government is big enough to give you everything you want, it is big enough to take away everything you have."
Click to expand...

Which is why a minimum income wouldn't come close to giving everything that most people want.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The idea that work, contributing to society in exchange for an income, should become optional unless one wants "extras" is a very strange goal.
Click to expand...
What's even more strange is this Puritan idea that people are supposed to suffer and toil just for the privilege of existing.

If one does away with SS/Medicare taxation then that reduces the personal income tax burden considerably (15.3%?) and yet increases the burden on taxpayers to provide "allowances" to all age 18 and above (whether they work a little, a lot or not at all) - precisely, how would the funds be raised for such a program without taxing wages at a rate of at least 15% (or perhaps twice that) more than they now are?
Click to expand...
Even going with that figure, it's hardly "oppressive" if the only income being taxed is what's above the minimum level.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
What's even more strange is this Puritan idea that people are supposed to suffer and toil just for the privilege of existing.
Click to expand...
Puritan idea? Who is supposed to pay for others existence? Me? Why am I required to suffer and toil for others to have the privilege to not suffer and toil???


DifferentDrummr said:
Even going with that figure, it's hardly "oppressive" if the only income being taxed is what's above the minimum level.
Click to expand...

So, you agree that anyone making more than the minimal amount, should be punished for doing so, leading to the majority of people that can do basic math and do not want to toil and suffer (as you say above) to be content with doing nothing but cashing a check?
 
DifferentDrummr said:
What's even more strange is this Puritan idea that people are supposed to suffer and toil just for the privilege of existing.


Even going with that figure, it's hardly "oppressive" if the only income being taxed is what's above the minimum level.
Click to expand...

Really? The expectation that a minimal contribution (of your choice) to society is expected to help pay your own way is not exactly the same as suffering and toiling for a slave master. The opposite is true under your system; those that choose to work more must forego a larger share of their paycheck to cover he expenses of those that elect to work less (or not at all).
 
Helix said:
i don't agree.



work a couple of those jobs for a while, and see what you think of it. my experience with it can basically be summed up as "great job. you're fired."

they make verbal promises the whole time that you'll be brought into the fold, don't worry, your job is safe, blah, blah, blah. they promote you to committees and give you leadership positions. you get flawless reviews. then management a couple steps above gets moved around, and you're out on your ass at the end of the contract. **** that. i don't want that to be the labor reality that i have to navigate, and i sure as **** don't want my kids treated like that.



good. smart move. i would have been a loyal employee to that place for life, and i was even using my spare time at work to try to innovate a better product when they canned me.



i work in biotech, a non-union labor sector, and in an area with lax labor laws. predictably, there's not much job security.
Click to expand...

i dont know anything about that field

what i think i know is that the best employees make their own job security

they become indispensable (or as close as one can get)

out of my 140 employees, i have 4 that fit that mold

they always go above and beyond....always can be counted on....and they are the first to be there when i need them

the others are good employees....but those 4 are a cut above

their salaries show it....as does their benefits

and imo it is much better to work in a non union shop

when you shine, you can be treated differently
 
gdgyva said:
i dont know anything about that field

what i think i know is that the best employees make their own job security

they become indispensable (or as close as one can get)

out of my 140 employees, i have 4 that fit that mold

they always go above and beyond....always can be counted on....and they are the first to be there when i need them

the others are good employees....but those 4 are a cut above

their salaries show it....as does their benefits

and imo it is much better to work in a non union shop

when you shine, you can be treated differently
Click to expand...

depends. i did plenty of shining there, and did everything i could to become indispensable. didn't matter. couldn't overcome some business idiot two levels above me getting that job and then canning me because he didn't know me. but not before downsizing me to a "guest" cubicle from my regular one, to add insult to injury.

you don't want your kids working in this state or in this kind of labor environment. trust me.

that being said, something simple like rewarding low turnover with a preferential rate is a good idea, and it would do at least a little good. everybody wins.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Puritan idea? Who is supposed to pay for others existence? Me? Why am I required to suffer and toil for others to have the privilege to not suffer and toil???




So, you agree that anyone making more than the minimal amount, should be punished for doing so, leading to the majority of people that can do basic math and do not want to toil and suffer (as you say above) to be content with doing nothing but cashing a check?
Click to expand...

This "punishment" idea has to be one of the silliest talking points ever.

No one in this day and age is ever taxed for doing something bad. So let's put that nonsense to bed, shall we?

The social conservatives' love affair with suffering and toiling is not quite as silly, but it's at least 300 years behind the times. It's just not necessary in a post-industrial economy. If you're doing it, you're in the wrong job.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Really? The expectation that a minimal contribution (of your choice) to society is expected to help pay your own way is not exactly the same as suffering and toiling for a slave master. The opposite is true under your system; those that choose to work more must forego a larger share of their paycheck to cover he expenses of those that elect to work less (or not at all).
Click to expand...

Not accurate at all. Those who make more forego a larger share, which is nothing more than progressive taxation.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
This "punishment" idea has to be one of the silliest talking points ever.

No one in this day and age is ever taxed for doing something bad. So let's put that nonsense to bed, shall we?

The social conservatives' love affair with suffering and toiling is not quite as silly, but it's at least 300 years behind the times. It's just not necessary in a post-industrial economy. If you're doing it, you're in the wrong job.
Click to expand...

Dismissing my questions is not an answer. Stating that my position is nonsense is not as argument against it.
 
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...

Since my break is almost over I will have to read it over when I'm free again. But I like the idea of a minimum income for everyone. Thomas Paine proposed the idea as the Citizen's Dividend. They basic idea is that the natural world is common property so a fee/tax should be issued for exclusive access. That money would then be distributed evenly to the citizens. Alaska does this with their oil. I, too, believe this would shrink the bureaucracy while ensuring a more level playing field.
 
Geoist said:
Since my break is almost over I will have to read it over when I'm free again. But I like the idea of a minimum income for everyone. Thomas Paine proposed the idea as the Citizen's Dividend. They basic idea is that the natural world is common property so a fee/tax should be issued for exclusive access. That money would then be distributed evenly to the citizens. Alaska does this with their oil. I, too, believe this would shrink the bureaucracy while ensuring a more level playing field.
Click to expand...

Not exactly the same, but along the same lines -

In Belize, native born citizens are granted land, by the government, on their 18th birthday. They can do what they wish to with this land, they can farm it, live on it, start a business on it, rent it, sell it, or just let it sit as a speculative investment.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Not accurate at all. Those who make more forego a larger share, which is nothing more than progressive taxation.
Click to expand...

But the taxation is based only upon income (an option needed only to secure 'luxuries") yet the benefits are based on consumption which will increase the cost of all labor needed to produce those "necessities". What use is a free sandwich ticket if nobody will make the sandwiches?
 
Respecthelect 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 million-dollar income check each month.

If we can write checks for everyone, why can't we write big checks for everyone?
Click to expand...

Yes, we all understand how inflation works. Most BIGs, though, do not seek to increase the money supply only redistribute what we have.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
But the taxation is based only upon income (an option needed only to secure 'luxuries") yet the benefits are based on consumption which will increase the cost of all labor needed to produce those "necessities". What use is a free sandwich ticket if nobody will make the sandwiches?
Click to expand...

Apparently you missed the part about non-citizens getting no minimum income.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Dismissing my questions is not an answer. Stating that my position is nonsense is not as argument against it.
Click to expand...

So you want an answer to the asinine question "Am I supposed to pay for someone else's benefit?" Of course you are: you already do. And you will continue to pay for other people's benefits for as long as taxes exist. Every nation in the world will force you to. That's life.
 
Gaius46 said:
Why would anyone work? And why should anyone who does support those that don't?

I'd much prefer that education be made available to anyone who wants it. I'd even allow for tax dollars to pay for it via state universities. But to give money to people instead of demanding they work for it is a recipe for failure.
Click to expand...

Alaskans have the Permanent Fund. I guess they're pretty lazy slobs?
$1,884: The amount of the 2014 Alaska Permanent Fund dividend - Fairbanks Daily News-Miner: Local News
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Apparently you missed the part about non-citizens getting no minimum income.
Click to expand...

I see - then the new master economic plan relies upon non-citizen labor to make it work. That sounds wonderful - we, the mighty US citizens, will rely on an endless influx of imported labor as they increase our population with their birthright citizen offspring.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That (maybe) covers rent for a month or two - hardly sufficient to make working optional.
Click to expand...

Those two months can be a big deal for a lot of struggling families.

But keep in mind, this is just from oil. If it can expanded to the rest of the natural world as Paine suggested that check would be a lot larger and the wealth gap would be a lot smaller.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom