Guaranteed Income in the news...

[beenherebeforeagain]

Two items in the News: Wall Street Journal column pushing for a guaranteed income for Americans; and Switzerland referendum for such an arrangement fails...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-guaranteed-income-for-every-american-1464969586
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/05/free-money-no-thanks-say-swiss-voters/

So what do you think? Should we or shouldn't we? Why or why not?

 

[Revoltingest]

Two items in the News: Wall Street Journal column pushing for a guaranteed income for Americans; and Switzerland referendum for such an arrangement fails...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-guaranteed-income-for-every-american-1464969586
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/05/free-money-no-thanks-say-swiss-voters/

So what do you think? Should we or shouldn't we? Why or why not?

The idea here dates at least as far back as when The Cato Institute (the Koch Bros) proposed it.
It looks more efficient than welfare & other assistance programs.

 

[Mindmaster]

Yea, when the Koch brother's get into supporting it you KNOW we shouldn't be doing it. Just sayin'...

 

[Revoltingest]

Yea, when the Koch brother's get into supporting it you KNOW we shouldn't be doing it. Just sayin'...

I know!
They were behind gay marriage & other abominations too.

 

[Mindmaster]

I know!
They were behind gay marriage & other abominations too.

Gay marriage is such a joke. I know absolutely no monogamous gay people (though many pretend), and if the marriage is open what is the point. But, I honestly don't think it matters in the long run whether they are allowed to marry or not. It doesn't involve a third party.

This does. This is your money getting mailed to a bunch of people who don't work, do anything else, and will no longer have an incentive to do anything productive with their life. They are going to become serfs and lose their freedom eventually. Why doesn't anyone see that? It baffles me, he who controls the money makes the rules. Your freedom ends when a universal handout starts.

The stress of having to earn makes people creative and feeds innovation as well, so yea. Get ready for the dark ages.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

The stress of having to earn makes people creative...

Been there , done that, and it didn't work for me. That's why I gave it up after 22 years.

 

[BSM1]

Gay marriage is such a joke. I know absolutely no monogamous gay people (though many pretend), and if the marriage is open what is the point. But, I honestly don't think it matters in the long run whether they are allowed to marry or not. It doesn't involve a third party.

This does. This is your money getting mailed to a bunch of people who don't work, do anything else, and will no longer have an incentive to do anything productive with their life. They are going to become serfs and lose their freedom eventually. Why doesn't anyone see that? It baffles me, he who controls the money makes the rules. Your freedom ends when a universal handout starts.

The stress of having to earn makes people creative and feeds innovation as well, so yea. Get ready for the dark ages.

How is this different from the welfare class we have created since the sixties? We now have 3rd and even 4th generation welfare recipients that have absolutely no concept of getting up every morning and going to a job. These types are already getting our money.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

This is your money getting mailed to a bunch of people who don't work, do anything else, and will no longer have an incentive to do anything productive with their life. They are going to become serfs and lose their freedom eventually. Why doesn't anyone see that? It baffles me, he who controls the money makes the rules. Your freedom ends when a universal handout starts.

That is true; a government that possesses all the wealth of a nation turns everyone but a small ruling elite (about 10-15 percent of the population) into serfs.

But, people also become serfs when about 10 percent of the population possesses 80 percent of the wealth (and the next 10 percent control almost all the remaining wealth)--the government becomes owned by those with wealth, and implements policies to protect those with wealth. Why doesn't anyone see that? It baffles me that people don't see that, because those who own the wealth make the rules because they control the government; in no sense does the government control the wealth--although the wealthy might approve of policies that allow the government to control the 80-90 percent of the population.

 

[Revoltingest]

Gay marriage is such a joke. I know absolutely no monogamous gay people (though many pretend), and if the marriage is open what is the point. But, I honestly don't think it matters in the long run whether they are allowed to marry or not. It doesn't involve a third party.

You must run with a more libertine crowd than I.
The gay couples I know are pretty dull.

This does. This is your money getting mailed to a bunch of people who don't work, do anything else, and will no longer have an incentive to do anything productive with their life. They are going to become serfs and lose their freedom eventually. Why doesn't anyone see that? It baffles me, he who controls the money makes the rules. Your freedom ends when a universal handout starts.
The stress of having to earn makes people creative and feeds innovation as well, so yea. Get ready for the dark ages.

Under the Cato proposal I recall, the money would be not so much as to disincentivize work.
We already have expensive aid programs where the government decides what people get.
There are advantages to guaranteed income.....
- Less management overhead.
- No loss of this benefit when getting a job (which incentivizes work).
- Recipients manage their own affairs.

 

[Mindmaster]

You must run with a more libertine crowd than I.
The gay couples I know are pretty dull.

It doesn't affect me, so what does it matter? I don't care if they get the tax and whatever benefits everyone else does.

Under the Cato proposal I recall, the money would be not so much as to disincentivize work.
We already have expensive aid programs where the government decides what people get.
There are advantages to guaranteed income.....
- Less management overhead.
- No loss of this benefit when getting a job incentivizes work.
- Recipients manage their own affairs.

This doesn't stand to reason. This will be a new bureaucracy, with new staff and a limitless budget as the population grows. Managing their own affairs? Nah, that goes away once you are on the dole. You can't vote against the people making sure you get the money even if they are doing something you despise. You won't be able to live without the money. This is exactly the opposite of freedom in every single stinking way.

Look, I know it sounds good and I know people suffer but becoming a slave is not the way. All this does is gives the puppet masters full control.

 

[Revoltingest]

It doesn't affect me, so what does it matter?

Exactly!

This doesn't stand to reason.

Yuh huh!

This will be a new bureaucracy, with new staff and a limitless budget as the population grows.

Au contraire, to merely hand out income is a low overhead operation.
It would replace unemployment insurance, welfare, Section 8, WIC, & a whole host of other programs which need armies of government aparatchiks to vet the beneficiaries & ensure compliance with requirements.

Managing their own affairs? Nah, that goes away once you are on the dole.

They'd spend money on themselves, instead of the government spending it for them.
So yes, they'd be managing their own affairs.

You can't vote against the people making sure you get the money even if they are doing something you despise. You won't be able to live without the money. This is exactly the opposite of freedom in every single stinking way.
Look, I know it sounds good and I know people suffer but becoming a slave is not the way. All this does is gives the puppet masters full control.

We already spend a fortune on our social safety net.
This is simply a better (IMO) alternative.
I what can't be eliminated should be improved.

 

[Acim]

Gay marriage is such a joke. I know absolutely no monogamous gay people (though many pretend), and if the marriage is open what is the point. But, I honestly don't think it matters in the long run whether they are allowed to marry or not. It doesn't involve a third party.

Not touching this one, for I'd eat this argument for lunch and spit out the righteousness around monogamy in disgust.

This does. This is your money getting mailed to a bunch of people who don't work, do anything else, and will no longer have an incentive to do anything productive with their life. They are going to become serfs and lose their freedom eventually. Why doesn't anyone see that? It baffles me, he who controls the money makes the rules. Your freedom ends when a universal handout starts.

And this is different than what we currently have, how?

The proposal gets rid of need for welfare, social security, and perhaps all other government-run social service program. That would be enormously huge political change. One of the parties that currently makes the rules would have to find other avenues to maintain constituency. IOW, it would be free-market people putting progressives in check. Possibly, check-mate. I imagine the scenario would play out with a) suggestions that the old (current) way was much better, b) the minimal guarantee be argued for being higher and c) dealing with whatever ways the new system could be abused (not sure how that is, but if money is being directed electronically to an account, I can see that being ripe for abuse).

The stress of having to earn makes people creative and feeds innovation as well, so yea. Get ready for the dark ages.

This is debatable, and/or is central to the larger debate. If people are guaranteed an income and incentivized to earn more (for pure profit, not having to pay much on certain taxes that take up to 40% and are ripe with abuse), then it's challenging to see how this would be worse than what we have now.

 

[Acim]

The things I don't see working so easily under the UBI, or at least not mentioned in the article are:

- guaranteed income rate increases. $10,000 strikes me as low. Not drastically low, but low enough that I think it appears more like a place to start, bargain from. I think anything over $20K would de-incentivize people to work. Had it started at $15K or higher, I'm not sure if I'd be making this point, other than to say $15K say 10 years from now, might be unrealistic.
- healthcare. $3K a year for some people in today's healthcare market is extremely low. It's obviously the one thing that UBI can't get around and so is keeping that type of expenditure as mostly socialistic. But the next point helps bring this into perspective.
- what happens if someone has to declare bankruptcy one year? Say, I'm on UBI and am actually working, but still under the threshold for being surtaxed, and I owe someone $150,000 for some medical procedure (as an example among many). Logically, I would declare bankruptcy to forgive that debt. But would knowing I'm guaranteed an income in subsequent years make it so my entire income in future years would go to paying that debt? Or that I have that debt (any debt) be reason to not work, realizing it could take my entire life to pay off some debts? While all this is possibly a severe drawback, it's not like this problem doesn't exist under the current system. If someone owed me $150,000 and they aren't going to pay it / can't afford it, that will affect my overall wealth regardless of how you set things up.

Essentially scams and unpayable debts aren't going to be helped under this scenario, and yet, thus far critics in this thread (from what I've read up to point of starting this post) aren't seemingly realizing all their criticisms apply to current set up.

 

[YmirGF]

A dumb idea that needs to die the death it so rightfully deserves.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

- guaranteed income rate increases. $10,000 strikes me as low. Not drastically low, but low enough that I think it appears more like a place to start, bargain from. I think anything over $20K would de-incentivize people to work. Had it started at $15K or higher, I'm not sure if I'd be making this point, other than to say $15K say 10 years from now, might be unrealistic.

It's kind of like minimum wage. Here, $15 an hour would have unpredictable results as $10 is really hard to find around here and really good money once you find it. $10,000 a year would significantly help people, but $20,000, though probably suitable (or maybe not) for places like New York and California, would be enough to have a comfortable living here.

- healthcare. $3K a year for some people in today's healthcare market is extremely low. It's obviously the one thing that UBI can't get around and so is keeping that type of expenditure as mostly socialistic. But the next point helps bring this into perspective.

That is one area were such an idea falls short. The cost of my health care is going to be higher just because I was born with bad knees - I've been told I'll be lucky to make it to my 40s without needing knee replacement. And even though my knee woes are chronic, they don't require frequent trips to the doctor for expensive treatments and medications.

This does. This is your money getting mailed to a bunch of people who don't work, do anything else, and will no longer have an incentive to do anything productive with their life. They are going to become serfs and lose their freedom eventually. Why doesn't anyone see that? It baffles me, he who controls the money makes the rules. Your freedom ends when a universal handout starts.

It's probably because not that many people want to be jobless bums living on handouts. Most welfare recipients work, and of those that don't most are students or seniors. Also, white people receive more, so I don't even see why race is being brought up.
And this "he who controls the money" can be applied to those like the Koch brothers. Only a few control the majority of the money, and they do have a very strong presence and hand in politics.

The stress of having to earn makes people creative and feeds innovation as well, so yea. Get ready for the dark ages.

That's what they say, but we've been creating and inventing since before we had money or livings to make.

 

[Revoltingest]

A dumb idea that needs to die the death it so rightfully deserves.

But what if it can replace an even dumber idea?

I'm thinking of our current system, wherein 2 gals I know applied for benefits when they were working single moms.
The government social worker types told'm both to quit their jobs because they'ed get even more by being unemployed.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Two items in the News: Wall Street Journal column pushing for a guaranteed income for Americans; and Switzerland referendum for such an arrangement fails...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-guaranteed-income-for-every-american-1464969586
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/05/free-money-no-thanks-say-swiss-voters/

So what do you think? Should we or shouldn't we? Why or why not?

Good way to turn into another Greece.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I really fail to grasp how the right wing talks against government power like they are being enslaved and gets angry about people who don't work but then go worship rich people who haven't worked in their lives and praise corporate control.

That's what I really don't get. They don't want the state controlling things, yet they have no problems with a corporation who is accountable to no one running the show. At least with a participatory state the citizens have some power, and far more than they do when they can't eject a board member. They talk like this "free market" is freedom, yet all they are is an expendable number to those who will profit from the "freedom" to take a job and through their own labor make someone else rich.

 

[Mindmaster]

It's foolish talking economic freedom when we have capitalism. A "Free market" is just a corporate master's market.

I really fail to grasp how the right wing talks against government power like they are being enslaved and gets angry about people who don't work but then go worship rich people who haven't worked in their lives and praise corporate control.

[deleted a bunch of crap]

Anyway, no... A free market is a meritocracy where the most useful, creative, and beneficial are rewarded. It's the best system there is, and if you don't think so please go find a communist system that works better. You know, where the people have free speech and aren't getting shot at once in awhile because they feel some dissent with policies. Just remember, when they start killing they start with the old, disabled, and freaks first. I guess we could use a few random purges just to lighten up the dead weight. (extreme sarcasm lol)

I'm no right-winger, or anything else you'd feel like straw manning me into, but you know that and are just ejecting fart-smelling sophistry. What any of it has to do with the OP is beyond me. Capitalism isn't without problems, but it keeps the worthless bags of meat at the bottom where they belong.

 

[Mindmaster]

But what if it can replace an even dumber idea?

I'm thinking of our current system, wherein 2 gals I know applied for benefits when they were working single moms.
The government social worker types told'm both to quit their jobs because they'ed get even more by being unemployed.

They might be right, and I've seen it before. Sometimes the cash+benefits you lose are worth more than any time you could spend working. No system is perfect, but it doesn't mean we have to keep spreading the plague. We know this doesn't work in the long run, not even on an "advancement of humanity" basis. Having our best minds and workers sitting on the bench doesn't allow us to compete globally.