• 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.

A public option would be all but a guarantee at this point.

This may or may not be true, but it's not what the OP suggested. Nor would it really matter when talking about long-term costs of OP's suggested plan. Health insurance costs go up as you get older because your healthcare costs go up as you get older. This would be as true for a public option as it would for private insurance.

That is 24.2% of current gross domestic product.
Using your estimation, and not considering additional provisions, a program like this is about 25% of total output. IMO, tax and monetary policy would have to be tweaked to accommodate such a program. It couldn't just appear out of thin air, as the economy would have to be transitioned in order to reduce potential systemic shocks. Within a span of 10 - 15 years though???

That's current GDP though. I suspect GDP would drop significantly if this plan were introduced, because it discourages people from working. With this plan in place, someone who is currently working has to do $17364 per year less work to maintain their current standard of living. No doubt some people will want to keep up their current amount of work and have a higher standard of living, but others would be perfectly happy to remain where they are now and work less.
 
This is a discussion/debate forum. Excuse me for mistaking your intentions.

I'm well aware of what this forum is all about. I'm not interested in debating someone who is trolling for an argument. It's very clear this country was not founded on the principle that people could be guaranteed an automatic life, all needs paid for. That is what the proposal in the OP is suggesting. We don't give people automatic incomes here. It's not what this country is about. My statement to that fact is very clear. Cast your line for some other fish if you're just looking to flex your muscles.
 
I would not vary the amount of the checks. They would have the ability to move were their money would go farther. People would be able to get out of bad situations and into better ones. That is a good thing. I would just have a national health basic insurance plan that covers everyone regardless. People would then get supplementary coverage like Medicare does today. I would not have additional money for children. One check to anyone 18 over with one amount. A married couple would have two checks. Same with and unmarried couple. They have children its on them.

Any plan like this would need a constitutional amendment. JMOH.

Exactly. Why should we subsidize someone who chooses to live in an expensive area more than someone who chooses to live in an area that is lower in costs.

Regardless, I think that the "citizens dividend" or "guaranteed income" may one day be sensible and needed, when we get to the point that we have little if any need for human labor, but we are no where near that point yet. I also don't understand how this could happen in anything other than a socialist country. Even if government didn't own the means of production, the taxes on businesses and high income earners would have to be so high that the government might as well own our businesses.
 
This may or may not be true, but it's not what the OP suggested. Nor would it really matter when talking about long-term costs of OP's suggested plan. Health insurance costs go up as you get older because your healthcare costs go up as you get older. This would be as true for a public option as it would for private insurance.

A public option is necessary for a basic income guarantee to have the appropriate traction. Otherwise such a program, with a removal of S.S. and Medicare, diminishes the premise of the policy's goal.

That's current GDP though. I suspect GDP would drop significantly if this plan were introduced, because it discourages people from working.

I disagree. IMO, output would increase as it would encompass a considerable transfer payment to millions who are facing poverty, at which the money would be spent into the economy with very little, if any, saving. Talk about one hell of a multiplier! For the overwhelming majority of Americans, any extra income would improve their standard of living. If you would like to continue this discussion in depth, i am more than willing to participate.

With this plan in place, someone who is currently working has to do $17364 per year less work to maintain their current standard of living. No doubt some people will want to keep up their current amount of work and have a higher standard of living, but others would be perfectly happy to remain where they are now and work less.

The question remains, would this result in less overall economic activity? We can continue this conversation in depth if you are willing?.?.?. I am not going to claim such a policy initiative would eliminate poverty. What it would accomplish, is a common platform for all Americans who value earning income.
 
Last edited:
The significant pay wall is a direct result of government subsidizing, thereby increasing demand and hence educational institutions could charge whatever they like. The counter to that is to decrease the demand by making state university courses available for free online and have an ability to educate oneself though technology. By making education instead of rare, but ubiquitous the demand is satiated and the pay wall is dropped for those who wish to attend traditional brick and mortar school. We have the ability to make free education absolutely ubiquitous very little money compared to just paying more tuition for students.


That's the standard conservative argument, but it doesn't hold water.

Long prior to student loans, pell grants, etc, only the rich could afford for their kids to go to college.

At the college my son attends, students were actually allowed to bring their own slaves to school for a few years. Eventually, the college stopped allowing that, and started it's own "rent-a-slave" service.

Today, college is much more accessible for every qualified student than ever before - regardless of government subsidies.
 
It's very clear this country was not founded on the principle that people could be guaranteed an automatic life, all needs paid for.

This country was founded upon the principle that all men are created equal.

We don't give people automatic incomes here.

There isn't a single nation that provides automatic incomes. The idea is rather new, to that i will admit.

It's not what this country is about. My statement to that fact is very clear. Cast your line for some other fish if you're just looking to flex your muscles.

This is an opinion, to which you are engaging a most appropriate platform to express and support it. Whether or not you chose to is entirely up to you.
 
Sorry to prick the ideological myth bubble, but most people aren't content just to exist. They want cars, big screen TVs, and pro ball game tickets. And for those they have to contribute.

The idea that work, contributing to society in exchange for an income, should become optional unless one wants "extras" is a very strange goal. 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?
 
Let's see if I can call your bluff here. I'll base this on where I live since it's the easiest.

A quick search shows that rent for a one-bedroom apartment ranges from $550-$700, so I'll go with $600/month for that.
The IRS national standard for food is $325/month for one person.
Utilities. The one-bedroom apartment my wife and I lived in when we first got married was about the same size as the $600/month ones I used earlier, and wasn't far from where I live now. Our utilities came out to around $120/month (mainly because the place wasn't well insulated, as cheap apartments tend to be).
A check of healthcare.gov shows a basic health insurance plan for me would cost $150/month.
Apparel and personal care from the IRS are $122/month.
And 40% of the grocery allowance is $130/month.

The total monthly check I would receive is $1447. That's $17364/year.

The estimated adult population in the US is 242,470,819.

If we assume each of those people only receives $17364/year, that's $4.2 trillion for every adult in America. That's half a trillion more than the entire federal budget for 2014.

And that's probably an underestimate of what it would cost, since I think there are probably more people that live in areas with a higher cost of living than mine than there are in areas with a lower cost of living. Plus I didn't include the increase for being head of household, and healthcare costs rise dramatically as one gets older (I'm 30, if you use someone age 55 for the healthcare cost, it's $300/month instead of $150).

As you pointed out, social security and medicare are $1.3 trillion. This site lists total state and federal welfare spending, including unemployment, at ~$0.5 trillion. That's only $1.8 trillion. You're still $2.4 trillion short of the low-end estimate of $4.2 trillion I calculated earlier.

In fact, total federal, state, and local government spending for the entire US from the site I linked above is only $6.3 trillion. Your proposal would increase that by close to 70% at least. So explain to me again how there's plenty of money for this suggestion?



No more so than living on minimum wage is now. And I think you underestimate how many lazy people there are out there. I'm sure plenty would be happy to not have to work and live frugally on their government check every month.

As far as fixing welfare, unemployment, and social security goes, there are better ways to do it.

Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid could be fixed quickly and easily by simply raising the age of eligibility.

For welfare, I'd like to see programs that encourage people to work. Instead of just handing out money, give the people jobs doing unskilled labor. And maybe offer people pay matching. For every dollar they make working, they get 50 cents from the government. This would help support people who are working, but are underemployed, and encourage them to work more. And do more to help unemployed people get the skills they need to get a job.

7500 is what I was thinking. 17000 no way in hell. The idea would be that you would have the ability to survive. That would be absolutely it. Nothing beyond. You would have basic catastrophic health insurance and a basic income or citizens dividend. If your not a citizen you don't get it. Everybody is taxed at the same rate and given the same dividend check. It puts in a real safety net without the strings or obligations or more importantly most of the overhead of the other programs. I would eliminate the minimum wage as well.

For those who are mentally ill or have serious physical disabilities I would institute a jury type system of say 21 people to evaluate their conditions and if they should be wards of the state or not. People who truly cannot fend for themselves should be taken care of. The rest should be left to their own devices.
 
That's the standard conservative argument, but it doesn't hold water.

Long prior to student loans, pell grants, etc, only the rich could afford for their kids to go to college.

At the college my son attends, students were actually allowed to bring their own slaves to school for a few years. Eventually, the college stopped allowing that, and started it's own "rent-a-slave" service.

Today, college is much more accessible for every qualified student than ever before - regardless of government subsidies.

Excuse me regardless of conflicting history of pricing of schools, the fact remains that schooling does not have to be near as expensive as it is. Considering there are a great many publically funded institutions, I would say that perhaps it is high time that the information they provide and the degrees offered be much more widely disseminated and available though online course study. One way would be to offer the classes for free or very inexpensively online, then if someone wishes to have an accredited degree they would then take the final exam for the coarse for a nominal fee. If they pass the exam they would earn those course credits to be applied against a eventual degree which upon completion of the coarse requirements would be given again for a nominal fee. If they need lab work or the like they could go to their local college that offers said course and complete it for credit toward their degree. The are other ways to do this but in the end ubiquitous higher education benefits everyone.
 
That's the standard conservative argument, but it doesn't hold water.

Long prior to student loans, pell grants, etc, only the rich could afford for their kids to go to college.

At the college my son attends, students were actually allowed to bring their own slaves to school for a few years. Eventually, the college stopped allowing that, and started it's own "rent-a-slave" service.

Today, college is much more accessible for every qualified student than ever before - regardless of government subsidies.

Where the maximum Pell Grant once covered the entire cost of obtaining a two-year degree and 77 percent of the cost at a public university in 1980, it now covers only 62 percent of the cost of a two-year degree and 36 percent towards a public four-year degree.
8/29/2012 by Pell Grants Cover Smallest Portion Of College Costs In History As GOP Calls For Cuts

I don't know that any adjust for inflation, but just about any search of education costs in 1965 versus today will put the increase in the 400-500% range. Education debt has never been higher.
 
i'd prefer guaranteed access to college or job training, and tweaking some of the labor laws to give workers more rights and more access to promotion.


People don't have access to promotions?

I give them to people who have earned them...not those who just want them

Please tell me how else promotions need to be given
 
People don't have access to promotions?

I give them to people who have earned them...not those who just want them

Please tell me how else promotions need to be given

i would support a tax break for companies with low turnover. that would be an incentive to treat employees well and to promote.
 
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?

If we can shrink government to improve our country, why can't we eliminate the government completely?
 
Excuse me regardless of conflicting history of pricing of schools, the fact remains that schooling does not have to be near as expensive as it is. Considering there are a great many publically funded institutions, I would say that perhaps it is high time that the information they provide and the degrees offered be much more widely disseminated and available though online course study. One way would be to offer the classes for free or very inexpensively online, then if someone wishes to have an accredited degree they would then take the final exam for the coarse for a nominal fee. If they pass the exam they would earn those course credits to be applied against a eventual degree which upon completion of the coarse requirements would be given again for a nominal fee. If they need lab work or the like they could go to their local college that offers said course and complete it for credit toward their degree. The are other ways to do this but in the end ubiquitous higher education benefits everyone.

I totally agree. More and more colleges seem to be getting into the online education field, yet most of them charge the same for online courses as they do classroom courses. It's a ripoff, plain and simple.

And sure, there are some online classes that are free - but you don't get actual transferable college credit that leads to a degree.
 
8/29/2012 by Pell Grants Cover Smallest Portion Of College Costs In History As GOP Calls For Cuts

I don't know that any adjust for inflation, but just about any search of education costs in 1965 versus today will put the increase in the 400-500% range. Education debt has never been higher.

We've also added a lot of fluff to college. At my son's college their fitness center looks like a country club.

47f991b8f72a84421bf446d6cc2fab18.jpg
 
We've also added a lot of fluff to college. At my son's college their fitness center looks like a country club.

47f991b8f72a84421bf446d6cc2fab18.jpg

They can afford to do that with all the extra money they're getting.
 
This country was founded upon the principle that all men are created equal.



There isn't a single nation that provides automatic incomes. The idea is rather new, to that i will admit.



This is an opinion, to which you are engaging a most appropriate platform to express and support it. Whether or not you chose to is entirely up to you.

I think if you check, you'll find that this nation was founded with a few more principles than just "all men are created equal". As to automatic incomes, that was not my point. If you notice, I referenced the concept of not having to do anything to be able to obtain food, shelter, etc. There are a number of countries around the world that provide it's citizens these basic needs without requiring any reciprocal contribution or effort from them. I'll leave you that assignment to locate them.

Thank you for your opinions, as interesting as they are. The "schooling" parts were great. It's always interesting to see inflated ego demonstrated in words.
 
I think if you check, you'll find that this nation was founded with a few more principles than just "all men are created equal".

If i check? It would be helpful if you provided anything other than a condensed version of your opinions.

As to automatic incomes, that was not my point. If you notice, I referenced the concept of not having to do anything to be able to obtain food, shelter, etc.

In the U.S., some people who don't have to do anything to be able to obtain food, shelter, etc.... Nobody is able to choose which family or economic circle they are born into.

There are a number of countries around the world that provide it's citizens these basic needs without requiring any reciprocal contribution or effort from them. I'll leave you that assignment to locate them.

Do you have so much trouble supporting your opinions, that you assign others the task of doing it for you? Rather ironic, given the topic and your position.

The "schooling" parts were great.

WTF are you talking about?

It's always interesting to see inflated ego demonstrated in words.

It seems you always end your responses with a personal attack.
 
So you're proposing a program that allows people to just exist, and contribute nothing?

Wrong country. That principle is not why people fought and died to establish the United States. Best people who think this way go to Cuba, or Venezuela. Some place like that.

Funny, first person I heard propose minimum basic income for citizens was Thomas Paine.
 
If i check? It would be helpful if you provided anything other than a condensed version of your opinions.



In the U.S., some people who don't have to do anything to be able to obtain food, shelter, etc.... Nobody is able to choose which family or economic circle they are born into.



Do you have so much trouble supporting your opinions, that you assign others the task of doing it for you? Rather ironic, given the topic and your position.



WTF are you talking about?



It seems you always end your responses with a personal attack.

LOL. If you say so. Thanks for your insights. Have a good day. Please find another fish.
 
Ok. Thanks for that. It's important because?

I thought the significance of his statement was rather apparent. I leave it for you to figure out!
 
i would support a tax break for companies with low turnover. that would be an incentive to treat employees well and to promote.

do you really believe owners/managers dont want long term employees?

they dont want to promote from within?

In my 30+ years of management, i have seen just the opposite

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

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....
 
Back
Top Bottom