http://www.universalbasicincome.org/


Thoughts?

No.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

No.

/thread

No.
Earn it.

I'm reading this as each person gets $5500/month? Or is there certain people getting that?

only, and I repeat ONLY, if EVERY form of gov't assistance is eliminated could I get behind this. Then it would only be enough to cover the bare necessities. if they spend it on drugs and booze? tough ****, no food for you.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

No

Hood Rich makes a point. If each person gets $5500 including children that's $66k per person. There should be no HUD housing, welfare, EBT, disability, etc.

No

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using CSNbbs mobile app

The idea of "government program" should be twofold, help those in need until they can get back on their feet and also to "encourage" those in need to indeed help themselves.

This fails the encouragement part - and make no mistake, we will have a segment of society that is happy sitting on the porch and collecting their basic income. Paying someone just for existing does nothing for encouraging people to take care of themselves.

An across the board 25% tax - and as the author say, only a trillion dollar per deficit. What a winner! SMH.

You think people wouldn't look for work and stop popping out kids?

If you give people a government provided income good enough to live on…
pretty soon you will have more people taking that government income and not working,
therefore paying no taxes,
leading to not having enough people actually working and paying taxes (takers outnumber makers),
to be able to pay the "income" of those receiving the government provided income
= death spiral.

And for the really irresponsible among us...
they will spend their government provided income stupidly rather than paying their bills and will still run out of money for food, rent, medical care...
so we'll still end up needing to provide them charity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

(02-28-2017 09:27 PM)Crebman Wrote:  The idea of "government program" should be twofold, help those in need until they can get back on their feet and also to "encourage" those in need to indeed help themselves.

This fails the encouragement part - and make no mistake, we will have a segment of society that is happy sitting on the porch and collecting their basic income. Paying someone just for existing does nothing for encouraging people to take care of themselves.

An across the board 25% tax - and as the author say, only a trillion dollar per deficit. What a winner! SMH.

Not everybody in need could not be able to help themselves if they are disabled enough where they can not work.

Or, government could hire disabled people who were born that way to work with our wounded warriors and police officers on how to cope with disabilities. I am surprise that there is no such programs like that because disabled people born that way could actually help the vets to get themselves moving. Exercise together and all that.

If it meant getting rid of all welfare programs and it cost the same or less as those programs I'm all for it, Norway and some African countries are trying this out now but at a far less size.

Quote:In 2012, the Federal Government of the United States spent $773 billion on Social Security and $695 billion on means tested welfare programs, excluding health and education. State and local governments in the United States spent an additional $250 billion on means tested welfare programs, excluding health and education. That is a total of $1.718 trillion dollars.

We should divert the income from those taxes whose proceeds fund these programs to provide an equal, unconditional, and bi-weekly income to the 316 million citizens of the United States. Annually, this would give each American citizen an income of around $5,500.

As a senior in high school, I did a paper on a country that did this. A few years later, despite all of their wealth, another country came in, took them over, raped their woman and children, and they required the assistance of the US to help them out.

So, no, I dont want that.

(02-28-2017 10:46 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  As a senior in high school, I did a paper on a country that did this. A few years later, despite all of their wealth, another country came in, took them over, raped their woman and children, and they required the assistance of the US to help them out.

So, no, I dont want that.

Cause we're going to get invaded and our woman and children will be raped if we implement UBI...

(02-28-2017 09:27 PM)Crebman Wrote:  The idea of "government program" should be twofold, help those in need until they can get back on their feet and also to "encourage" those in need to indeed help themselves.

This fails the encouragement part - and make no mistake, we will have a segment of society that is happy sitting on the porch and collecting their basic income. Paying someone just for existing does nothing for encouraging people to take care of themselves.

I would go with a lower UBI, combined with a minimum wage set high enough to provide an incentive for those who want to work to seek such work.

If the figures are accurate (I didn't check them), a UBI of even a generous $2K/month would save enormous amounts of money by slashing the bureaucracy that administers them and enforces eligibility standards.

As for lowering the tax base, just how much is the meth-head lying on his couch in a battered trailer patched with sheet plastic going to contribute anyway? Engineers are still going to want to engineer, singers will sing and rappers will rap regardless of their minimum income check. Or they can take a chance on something innovative and still eat.

I simply have little confidence that the minimally productive will ever produce. Trying to make people work who don't want to work is mind-numbing and soul-destroying. Fire their worthless asses and leave them on the couch eating Cheetos and watching Fox News and ranting on the internet and staying the hell out of the way of the productive.

I would go with what worked in the 90's. Cut the people off. Amazingly, many of them found work, and their kids and families were all the better for it.

And how about handing $5500 back to people who are paying more than that in taxes.

Why is it liberals want people to pay their fair share, and then keep coming up with reasons why a certain group is exempted from that?