Would you support a GUARANTEED BASIC INCOME for all Americans?
 

The unconditional basic income (UBI) is supposed to fix the following problems

If you're liberal, you might like this because:

Lifts 50M Americans out of poverty overnight
Standardizes all government welfare

If you're conservative, you might like this because:

Eliminates tons of bureaucracy, waste, corruption, and BS rent-seeking
Resets all class-based grievances
Probably MUCH CHEAPER than current system
Caps spending and boosts purchasing power in some segments of the population and this can spur parts of the economy

Read more about this idea before you post a response to the question of this post http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ...d-basic-income

So everyone regardless of income gets a check?

I was reading a piece the other day that said if they guaranteed every American an income of at least 22K per year using a system where you would get less government money the more you made it would actually be cheaper for the government than the current welfare system that we have in place.

Supposedly there are economist who say it would not hurt our economy nor would it have a big impact on inflation. I'm not so sure about that, but it sounded like an interesting potential solution to some problems.

I think Switzerland is about to do this, or vote on it. $2500 for each citizen per month or something like that.

I think the USA could do this with no problem if they cut back on policing the world and wasteful spending. I would support it.

At what age would this guaranteed income kick in?

would this replace the other government subsidized programs like welfare, food stamps, etc?

I strongly support Universal/Unconditional/Guaranteed Basic Income:







:stoned

ADG

I think it's great, but would end up limiting the government so they will never vote it in, they wouldn't be able to lie and take claim for the great things they think they have done!!!

Eh. It'd be nice if you could refuse it in exchange for a discount on your taxes.

Just take it and call it a down payment on your tax bill.

I would support it, IF it was actually cheaper than the current system and left out ALL illegal aliens. 100% US Citizens only.

The story I read said it would. If you made less than a certain amount of money you would be guaranteed a certain amount per month. That amount would go as much as $22,000 per year. If you had a job you could still qualify to get money. How much you would get would be determined by how much you made.

This would replace food stamps, welfare checks etc.

I think this is horrible. We cannot reward people for not trying.

I have a friend who has been disability for twenty years - both the US Army and the US Post Office. Oddly enough he can't work, but he can cut his own grass. Bullshit, he's milking the system. And if you offer up $22k for doing nothing, a lot more people will take advantage of it.

When Rothschild Magazine tells you something, they tell you for a reason, they have their own agenda, normally it's not for your own benefit.

Perhaps they want countries to take out loans from them to pay for this :2 cents:

There are people that game every system. To suggest more people would game this system than the current system with no stats to back it up is pointless. I have a friend that was on welfare, worked hard and got off it. Does that mean because I have a friend that did not game the system it would work? Its safe to say the current system has flaws. If this works in Switzerland it could get some legs.

The idea is that many people who are milking the system are getting more than $22K each year. Also, it would pay out even when you started working so you could earn more and in theory give you an incentive to work even more.

Here is the breakdown I found of one suggested way it could be paid out.

Personal Income Total Income Taxpayer Cost
0 22,000 22,000
5,000 24,500 19,500
10,000 27,000 17,000
15,000 29,500 14,500
22,000 33,000 11,000
30,000 37,000 7,000
40,000 42,000 2,000
44,000 44,000 0

My chart is all messed up so it is a little hard to read.

This way if you got a job working full time for minimum wage you would make around $15K per year before taxes. This system, instead of also giving you food stamps, child care help, housing help and other benefits would just give you another $14.5K so you would have an income level that allowed you to live better and it would cost the government less.

That article the OP posted said that it didn't change over the range of income. The poorest would receive the same check a billionaire would.

Right. There are a lot of different options out there.

Some say you get the same amount no matter who you are. Others suggest it will work better if you guarantee a certain level of income, but ween it off as a person gets a job and has more personal income.

You could make the argument that the combination of various welfare programs and the minimum wage already allow employers to pay substandard wages. Obviously, this doesn't happen in every business, but the stats show that the average Wal Mart store costs the tax payers $900K per year because many of the people that work there also get food stamps, housing assistance, child are assistance etc. The same goes for most fast food places, many retail and service jobs etc.

Sure, many of these jobs are not meant to raise a family on and are intended for people just starting out, but in reality there are a lot people working those jobs who are older and are trying to take care of families.

With welfare systems in place a person can work for a low wage and they have little incentive to try to make more because they will end up in that bubble where making more means less welfare benefits so it actually makes more financial sense for them to stay at the lower paying job. If there were no welfare programs it could force companies to pay more because people would demand a livable wage since there would be no other option.

Give the lazy money so they do not do crime, do it.

A single working age person should have to do SOMETHING to get it. I'm guessing there is only so much trash or sidewalks to sweep though and then you start adding administration costs into the picture again to employ people to manage trash cleaning crews and the paperwork involved. It would also no doubt clash with the prison industrial system where that kind of busy work is income for them. If the economics worked then sure, you can't argue with a factual outcome should it work out that way.. but you'd want people to have to do SOMETHING and the incentivization structure has to ensure that it's still far more beneficial to take on a 15k minimum wage job than do nothing at all. If you can do nothing at all for 22k and work full time for 30k it's not really incentivizing people to work.

But there is no incentive to do better. People will just coast on $22k a year.

My friend does this, which is why he is no longer my friend. He has a serious medical condition but it hasn't affected him in fifteen years. There is no reason why he can't work, but why bother - He makes $30k a year and that's barely enough for him to live off of. But there is no inncentive for him to get a job and make money because he's getting by and doesn't have to work.

Might be cheaper for us, but it will create an entire class of people who said "Fuck it, I don't want to work and I don't have to".

Cool, be lazy, you would get guaranteed income anyway. That should definitely motivate people... Not. the less motivated and forward going people the less forward going country.

Another idea of moronic liberals?

what would be the incentive for working?

Oh and OP advocated 20$ per hour wage for mcdonalds workers. Makes sense now.

Shit playa, we can't even get real health care up in bis bitch!!!!

Yeah, but then it's INCOME .. which gets taxed. :winkwink:

11.19.13 This is a date to remember. I agree with Rochard!

LOL quoted for truth

I personally have a lot of reservations as to whether it would work or not. There is a chance that you are correct and many people would just say fuck it and collect their $22K a year and do nothing. I think we would see many young people who get out of high school just saying fuck it. At that age $22K seems like a lot of money and you could just hang out with your friends and do whatever you wanted.

All that said, $22K isn't that much in most areas of the country so the quality of your life would not be very good. Most people would be motivated to at least put some effort into things and better themselves. As things are right now there is a segment of the population that has figured out how to game the system and just lives off of it because they are too lazy to work. Those people would continue to exist. The real question is how many more would choose to live off the system? I don't know that number.

I personally think it would motivate a decent number of people. Right now if you are making minimum wage and getting welfare help you have very little incentive to better yourself because it isn't going to be easy. You will quickly find yourself in the welfare bubble where you make too much to get welfare, but not enough to live well. Many people making $15K-$18K per year can't imagine how they can get to $40K per year without getting a degree or getting lucky. So they just don't try. With this system they could actually see a path and maybe getting some success early on would spur them to work harder and achieve more.

Maybe I am dead wrong, I don't know. I just like thinking outside the box when it comes to some solutions. The number of people on welfare and government assistance is just going up and up and up. Clearly the current system isn't working to well.

It needs to be a sliding scale, base each states minimum income level based on it's productivity or GDP. This will help keep income viable and keep corporation from skinning the poor. That means that minimum wage can go up or down but it's a much fairer system.

I'd argue we already have that class of people.
So maybe this would add to this class of people.
The net benefit is it ends up costing the rest of us less money than we're already spending now.

These grand schemes always work on paper.. When has the US government ever done anything under budget or on schedule?

There's always a carrot for not doing so, and no stick for screwing it up. It's engineered to attract incompetent, corrupt scumbags who can then enrich themselves at the expense of their foolish constituents. But I'm not telling you anything you don't already know.

no..........

I'd consider myself heavily liberal, and I wouldn't support a guaranteed income for all Americans. How does a system like that foster innovation?

Sound like a dumb idea.

not to be a dick. but with the exception of the genetically stupid/mentally ill, the vast majority of people have the income they strive for, whether they realize it or not.

guaranteeing people a minimum standard of living will not improve the life of a person incapable of managing or saving money. Casinos & bodegas & pawn shops & drug dealers would only get even richer.

this would simply create one thing, massive inflation.

A loaf of bread will cost about 25 $ really really soon.

Horrible Idea, almost as bad as all the current programs.

yes, this would be insane! shit would cost a fortune!

there is no easy solution... other than to spay and neuter your kids :1orglaugh