Ray From Cleveland
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2015
- 97,215
- 37,440
- 2,290
Problem is timing. Give a responsible person 18k at the start of the year and perhaps he'll budget accordingly, assuming his health remains stable. Someone else on the other hand may buy a big screen tv, fancy computer, video games and run out of money before the year ends. Crime will escalate at the end of the year as more and more people run dry on funds. First feeding off their own who held on to their money but can't defend themselves, then when they run dry hitting the better off folk. Better to have a monthly stipend.Turn the Government into the employer of the poor. Guarantee all American citizens a minimum income for life. And if employers want to hire an American who is paid welfare for doing nothing then they better come prepared to pay what the job is actually worth doing instead of the way it is now paying the least amount as you can get away with. To pay for it you tax automation.
Tax automation to pay all Americans a minimum income for life? Do you have any idea how much money that would cost? I don't think you have thought this through, everybody gets free money whether they work or not? We've got what, like 320 million Americans, how much are you going to give each one of them? Knowing you Lefties, I assume there will be a threshhold above which you get nothing, right? So let's knock off 20 million of the top earners, that still leaves 300 million folks, are you going to give them each what amounts to minimum wage?
Let's see, $15/hr times 40 hours a week, that's $600 a week. Times 52 weeks a year, that's a bit over $30,000 a year. So how much is $30k times 300 million? We're talking $9 trillion a year to pay all that money I think; say you wipe out our current UE and SSA and other payments except for HealthCare, that's about what $2 trillion? Where's the other $7 trillion going to come from? Are you seriously going to tell me you think you can tax automation that much? It's a nice dream, but it ain't even close to reality.
Well.....he may be on to something here. I read an article about Basic Income that they were tossing around for parts of Switzerland. Here's how it works:
Every adult gets 18K a year from the government. It doesn't matter if you work, how much money you do or don't make, what you do with that annual check. You get 18K a year.
The catch to that is there are no more social programs: no more Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Food stamps, HUD, nothing. You get 18K a year and figure it out for yourself.
Running the numbers, they concluded that it would actually save the country money. Not only that, but it would eliminate the discrepancies between the working and the non-working.
For instance, I have these HUD people next door to me. I don't know if they work or not, but whatever they do, they come home all hours of the night waking me and my tenants up. I reject the idea that my tax dollars are supporting non-working lowlifes to live in the suburbs next door to me when I have to work to live in the same area.
Basic income would eliminate all that. If they got 18K a year (or combined 36K a year for mother and father) they would not be able to afford to live here with their three kids. They would have to seek lower income housing in order to support their kids who are no longer on food stamps and can't get Free Lunch in school.
If you are a hard worker, you can use that extra money to pump up your retirement plan since there would be no Social Security. You can work and use those checks to pay for your children's college which is another issue liberals bring up. Healthcare? No longer a problem. We would not have to debate between government and private healthcare since you can use your check to get a great healthcare plan if you don't have one with your job.
With our social programs, they are a deterrent for people bettering themselves. If you are on food stamps and want to remain there, you must keep your income under X amount per month, otherwise your increased earnings will be deducted from you stipend. Basic income eliminates all that because you are going to get your 18K no matter if you work 20 hours or 60 hours per week. I believe it would encourage people to try harder.
People will no longer be forced to work just to survive. Those who want to do more than just survive will work harder. Special hostels will be set up by entrepreneurs for folks who just want to survive. Group homes where they can live in misery waiting for the next check. Problem once in hard to get out again.
There will be rough patches.
It may create some problems but I think more would be solved. One of the problems with our social programs the way they are now is they teach irresponsibility. If taxpayers are going to have to pay for it anyway, our program might as well teach people how to be more responsible and plan ahead of time.
When I see these 300 lbs women in the grocery store with four kids and a SNAP's card, I get so pissed off, especially when I see their late model SUV they load the heaping cart of groceries into. The left try to make excuses for those people claiming this pig might have been able to support those four kids at one time, but just fell on hard times. I say BS. She could never afford one of those kids yet alone four, but no matter how many kids you have, the taxpayer will pay for them.
If we paid out only 18K, you'd see how fast those women would learn to keep their legs closed. That would reduce poverty in the US since the apple usually doesn't fall far from the tree.
Okay, first of all we ain't Switzerland. What might work there or elsewhere does not mean it would or would not work here.
Second, Switzerland shot down the UBI proposal big time, 77% voted against it.
Third, they were proposing only about $2500 per adult and approx 1/4 of that for each child. If you going to up the money for each kid then there goes that incentive to keep your legs together. In this country $2500 ain't going to get you very far.
Fourth, that $7-9 trillion was based on Sly's state proposal to give the UBI to every American, which I assumed meant kids too. Obviously the price tag goes down if you cut the amount for each child and let's say cap it at 2 per household.
Fifth, I believe we spend around $2.5 trillion/year on our SSA/Education/Medicare/etc benefits at the federal level. Which still leaves a heckuva lot of money to pay for the UBI that we ain't got.
We better be damned sure we can make this work before making a change that is this big with as much of an impact as this could have.
Actually it’s just food for thought. If we did try it, there should be no extras for kids. 18K and you decide how many kids you want. You get the same if you have six kids or none.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com