Secretary Clinton almost ran for president on universal basic income

[FA_Q2]

You don't think people would quit working for $18,000?

The maximum unemployment benefit in my state is $410 a week before taxes. Hardly anyone qualifies for that amount except the top end of the pay scale. A quick look at the calculator says that is slightly more than $21,000.

Would it be worth not having to get up and have to find a job every day for a difference of a little over $3,000, and especially when that benefit runs out in 6 months?

Why would anyone work a minimum wage job if they are making less than the benefit?

I think you have a major misconception of how this would work. Everything I have read on this topic is that it is a guaranteed minimum. If you make more than your $18,000 figure, you don't get anything!

I didn't read every detail of Hillary's plan. The one I was referencing is another country that proposed it, or as one poster said, Sweden.

Their plan was everybody gets 18K no matter what. If you make a million dollars a year, you get your 18K check. If you don't work, you get your 18K check. If you are middle-class, you get your 18K check.

If you are penalized for working (like our social programs do) then you are correct, many will not work, particularly those who don't make any kind of real money. Either that or they would find work under the table.

However if we had a universal income plan like Sweden's, I don't think that would happen. I think it would solve a lot of problems as I listed such as healthcare insurance, college for your children, paying off your home, or even eliminating other debts.

Plus I think it would be an economic boom at least for the first couple of years.

I wish some of you would have paid attention on math class. 77% of Americans are adults. That means about 245 million people. At $18,000 per person per year, that works out to 45 trillion dollars.

Where are you getting that kind of money out a GDP of only $18.6 trillion?

There's dumb and then there is REALLY fucking dumb!

....

Perhaps you should have paid attention. You added a digit - it is 4.4 trillion (assuming 245 million is accurate). Admittedly that is a large increase over current spending - 2016 seen an outlay of around 2.6 T on social programs. A revenue neutral plan would come out just above 10K. That is likely a number that is below the mark required to make a UBI reasonable.

Edit: of note, the above does not factor in local and state spending on social programs. That could have a very large impact on the numbers.

Then you need to look forward as this country is eliminating millions of jobs through automation. What are we going to do with all these blue collar workers in the future? Not to mention our ever expanding welfare state.

Universal income is experimental right now, and several countries are trying it out. So what happens if those experiments turn out to be a success? Are we going to ignore the results and rely on speculation if we tried it here?

I would hope not.

I am still on the fence about a UBI. On one hand I deplore governmental control and this represents a very large amount of control over people. It also has the massive likelihood that those using it as a main source of income will incessantly demand its increase leading to the class warfare in politics that we currently deal with day in and day out.

On the other hand, I do not see a better idea yet as to how to deal with the economy of the future - an economy not based on manufacturing anymore like the current one but one based on information. As you said, jobs are going away through automation. It used to be that the intellectual fields were where those automated workers could go in order to maintain economic relevance but even those fields are being hit with new technologies that make them obsolete.

Most of what your doctor does, a robot can do better

The arts were seen as the last refuge but how can an economy survive solely on artists. Well, we don't have to fret about that - such vocations are not safe either:

Google's art machine just wrote its first song

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I didn't read every detail of Hillary's plan. The one I was referencing is another country that proposed it, or as one poster said, Sweden.

Their plan was everybody gets 18K no matter what. If you make a million dollars a year, you get your 18K check. If you don't work, you get your 18K check. If you are middle-class, you get your 18K check.

If you are penalized for working (like our social programs do) then you are correct, many will not work, particularly those who don't make any kind of real money. Either that or they would find work under the table.

However if we had a universal income plan like Sweden's, I don't think that would happen. I think it would solve a lot of problems as I listed such as healthcare insurance, college for your children, paying off your home, or even eliminating other debts.

Plus I think it would be an economic boom at least for the first couple of years.

I wish some of you would have paid attention on math class. 77% of Americans are adults. That means about 245 million people. At $18,000 per person per year, that works out to 45 trillion dollars.

Where are you getting that kind of money out a GDP of only $18.6 trillion?

There's dumb and then there is REALLY fucking dumb!

....

Perhaps you should have paid attention. You added a digit - it is 4.4 trillion (assuming 245 million is accurate). Admittedly that is a large increase over current spending - 2016 seen an outlay of around 2.6 T on social programs. A revenue neutral plan would come out just above 10K. That is likely a number that is below the mark required to make a UBI reasonable.

Edit: of note, the above does not factor in local and state spending on social programs. That could have a very large impact on the numbers.

Then you need to look forward as this country is eliminating millions of jobs through automation. What are we going to do with all these blue collar workers in the future? Not to mention our ever expanding welfare state.

Universal income is experimental right now, and several countries are trying it out. So what happens if those experiments turn out to be a success? Are we going to ignore the results and rely on speculation if we tried it here?

I would hope not.

I am still on the fence about a UBI. On one hand I deplore governmental control and this represents a very large amount of control over people. It also has the massive likelihood that those using it as a main source of income will incessantly demand its increase leading to the class warfare in politics that we currently deal with day in and day out.

On the other hand, I do not see a better idea yet as to how to deal with the economy of the future - an economy not based on manufacturing anymore like the current one but one based on information. As you said, jobs are going away through automation. It used to be that the intellectual fields were where those automated workers could go in order to maintain economic relevance but even those fields are being hit with new technologies that make them obsolete.

Most of what your doctor does, a robot can do better

The arts were seen as the last refuge but how can an economy survive solely on artists. Well, we don't have to fret about that - such vocations are not safe either:

Google's art machine just wrote its first song

Like other countries, I wouldn't mind seeing the outcome if we tried Universal Income in one state. Maybe for a period between one and three years. No welfare of any kind to that state, only the yearly check. No food stamps, no HUD, no welfare check, no unemployment checks, no workman's compensation, no disability, no school lunch, nothing. Then study what people did with that money and examine the statistics.

 

[FA_Q2]

I wish some of you would have paid attention on math class. 77% of Americans are adults. That means about 245 million people. At $18,000 per person per year, that works out to 45 trillion dollars.

Where are you getting that kind of money out a GDP of only $18.6 trillion?

There's dumb and then there is REALLY fucking dumb!

....

Perhaps you should have paid attention. You added a digit - it is 4.4 trillion (assuming 245 million is accurate). Admittedly that is a large increase over current spending - 2016 seen an outlay of around 2.6 T on social programs. A revenue neutral plan would come out just above 10K. That is likely a number that is below the mark required to make a UBI reasonable.

Edit: of note, the above does not factor in local and state spending on social programs. That could have a very large impact on the numbers.

Then you need to look forward as this country is eliminating millions of jobs through automation. What are we going to do with all these blue collar workers in the future? Not to mention our ever expanding welfare state.

Universal income is experimental right now, and several countries are trying it out. So what happens if those experiments turn out to be a success? Are we going to ignore the results and rely on speculation if we tried it here?

I would hope not.

I am still on the fence about a UBI. On one hand I deplore governmental control and this represents a very large amount of control over people. It also has the massive likelihood that those using it as a main source of income will incessantly demand its increase leading to the class warfare in politics that we currently deal with day in and day out.

On the other hand, I do not see a better idea yet as to how to deal with the economy of the future - an economy not based on manufacturing anymore like the current one but one based on information. As you said, jobs are going away through automation. It used to be that the intellectual fields were where those automated workers could go in order to maintain economic relevance but even those fields are being hit with new technologies that make them obsolete.

Most of what your doctor does, a robot can do better

The arts were seen as the last refuge but how can an economy survive solely on artists. Well, we don't have to fret about that - such vocations are not safe either:

Google's art machine just wrote its first song

Like other countries, I wouldn't mind seeing the outcome if we tried Universal Income in one state. Maybe for a period between one and three years. No welfare of any kind to that state, only the yearly check. No food stamps, no HUD, no welfare check, no unemployment checks, no workman's compensation, no disability, no school lunch, nothing. Then study what people did with that money and examine the statistics.

That would be immensely difficult to pull off with the current federal framework. It would require that the feds exempted that particular state from all the ancillary taxes that it currently pulls from them and as a result would end up ending much of the federal power over that state - something that I really do not see happening. Another problem is that a UBI requires a tight control on immigration - in the case of a single state that would mean immigration from other states as well.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

....

Perhaps you should have paid attention. You added a digit - it is 4.4 trillion (assuming 245 million is accurate). Admittedly that is a large increase over current spending - 2016 seen an outlay of around 2.6 T on social programs. A revenue neutral plan would come out just above 10K. That is likely a number that is below the mark required to make a UBI reasonable.

Edit: of note, the above does not factor in local and state spending on social programs. That could have a very large impact on the numbers.

Then you need to look forward as this country is eliminating millions of jobs through automation. What are we going to do with all these blue collar workers in the future? Not to mention our ever expanding welfare state.

Universal income is experimental right now, and several countries are trying it out. So what happens if those experiments turn out to be a success? Are we going to ignore the results and rely on speculation if we tried it here?

I would hope not.

I am still on the fence about a UBI. On one hand I deplore governmental control and this represents a very large amount of control over people. It also has the massive likelihood that those using it as a main source of income will incessantly demand its increase leading to the class warfare in politics that we currently deal with day in and day out.

On the other hand, I do not see a better idea yet as to how to deal with the economy of the future - an economy not based on manufacturing anymore like the current one but one based on information. As you said, jobs are going away through automation. It used to be that the intellectual fields were where those automated workers could go in order to maintain economic relevance but even those fields are being hit with new technologies that make them obsolete.

Most of what your doctor does, a robot can do better

The arts were seen as the last refuge but how can an economy survive solely on artists. Well, we don't have to fret about that - such vocations are not safe either:

Google's art machine just wrote its first song

Like other countries, I wouldn't mind seeing the outcome if we tried Universal Income in one state. Maybe for a period between one and three years. No welfare of any kind to that state, only the yearly check. No food stamps, no HUD, no welfare check, no unemployment checks, no workman's compensation, no disability, no school lunch, nothing. Then study what people did with that money and examine the statistics.

That would be immensely difficult to pull off with the current federal framework. It would require that the feds exempted that particular state from all the ancillary taxes that it currently pulls from them and as a result would end up ending much of the federal power over that state - something that I really do not see happening. Another problem is that a UBI requires a tight control on immigration - in the case of a single state that would mean immigration from other states as well.

Agreed, but anybody going to that state would have to understand there would be no benefits for them if they needed federal benefits. They would have to agree that the program doesn't apply to them. I think the federal government can do without having control over one state for a couple of years. As for illegals, they shouldn't be getting any government benefits in the first place.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Let's be honest here. Anyone without a job just doesn't want to work.

Dems don't mind, though...they just promise them money for nothing in exchange for votes.

Minorities are victims that shouldn't have to work. The evil white man should pay all their bills.

 

[basquebromance]

Crazy Joe Biden recently came out against a universal basic income. it's not a popular idea.

 

[NYcarbineer]

she didn't do it because the numbers didn't add up. thoughts?

Hillary Clinton almost ran for president on a universal basic income

The more Secretary Clinton goes on TV and promotes her wonderful election loss, people in the middle say: "Oh wow, thats why I voted Trump"

Her plan was based on a certain red state's Permanent Fund: Permanent Fund Division > Home

You betcha!

Yes it was a Sarah Palin initiative in Alaska, effectively a windfall profits tax on oil.

Something the RWnuts conveniently forgot, or ignored, or denied once they went on their mission to convert Palin from a moderate Republican into Queen of the Rightwing Nuts.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why not distribute the revenues from US natural resource sales to the American people?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why not distribute the revenues from US natural resource sales to the American people?

I would rather the proceeds go towards paying off our national debt.

 

[danielpalos]

Crazy Joe Biden recently came out against a universal basic income. it's not a popular idea.

Some data suggests more women would have voted for former Secretary Clinton.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Why not just cut out the middle man and not collect the taxes that funds the $18K a year? That way the economy would boom and if anybody was poor it would be their own fault.

Might be a good idea but the people on the dole would scream bloody murder since they don't work or create wealth; only the working would benefit.

With universal income, everybody benefits working or not. Nobody could ever complain.

I don't really care if the welfare queens complain. The cost of government in this country is too much and we need to cut out all welfare, subsidies, entitlements and bailouts.

Agreed, but do you think that's even a remote possibility?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Of course not. We will never do the right thing and do away with the welfare state.

Agreed, so this idea of universal income might not be too bad of an idea if we could use it to replace all social programs.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

it is cheaper in the long run

 

[basquebromance]

Guaranteeing a minimum income to the poor is better than our current system of welfare.