Secretary Clinton almost ran for president on universal basic income

[Ray From Cleveland]

Clinton is more dumb as we thought.

Not really, she may be on to something.

Her idea isn't bad, it's just how she would have wanted to fund it that's anti-capitalist.

I read an article (and started a topic) on universal income some time ago and I forget the name of the country that was going to put it to a vote. However unlike Hillary, their universal income was going to be funded by the elimination of all social programs. Here is what they came up with:

First eliminate all social programs including Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare, SNAP's, SCHIP's, Food Stamps, WIC, HUD, Unemployment, all of them. Next, use that money to pay every adult $18,000 a year if I remember the figure correctly.

So now you have a tax free check of 18K every year. From that point on, it's all up to you what you want to do with it. If you can live on 18K a year plus a part-time job, go for it. Or perhaps you are married, you and your wife will receive 36K per year combined and retire. If you are younger, you can work full-time if desired and just use that money to repay a mortgage or invest. You do whatever you want with it.

If you want to have children or have more children, fine, but don't look to government for any money. You get 18K a year and that's it.

After they ran the numbers, they found it would cost the government much less money than maintaining their social programs. Plus nobody would have any reason to complain about the poor. The poor get the same as you do. If they want to have five kids, they have to support them--not us. If they want to get fat on that 18K a year instead of food stamps, fine, it's their money. They have no reason to complain about the middle-class or wealthy either. They will use their 18K checks for investments or perhaps an IRA account.

Such a system could eliminate the homeless. It would make the poor much more responsible since they would not be rewarded for irresponsible behavior as they are now. Nobody rich, poor or anything in between would have any right to complain about another social class. Every kid has a chance to attend college. We could eliminate thousands of government jobs who push paperwork and write the checks. We would save a ton of money too.

That's all well and good except for the inflation that would result.

I don't understand how inflation would play a part in this.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Clinton is more dumb as we thought.

Not really, she may be on to something.

Her idea isn't bad, it's just how she would have wanted to fund it that's anti-capitalist.

I read an article (and started a topic) on universal income some time ago and I forget the name of the country that was going to put it to a vote. However unlike Hillary, their universal income was going to be funded by the elimination of all social programs. Here is what they came up with:

First eliminate all social programs including Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare, SNAP's, SCHIP's, Food Stamps, WIC, HUD, Unemployment, all of them. Next, use that money to pay every adult $18,000 a year if I remember the figure correctly.

So now you have a tax free check of 18K every year. From that point on, it's all up to you what you want to do with it. If you can live on 18K a year plus a part-time job, go for it. Or perhaps you are married, you and your wife will receive 36K per year combined and retire. If you are younger, you can work full-time if desired and just use that money to repay a mortgage or invest. You do whatever you want with it.

If you want to have children or have more children, fine, but don't look to government for any money. You get 18K a year and that's it.

After they ran the numbers, they found it would cost the government much less money than maintaining their social programs. Plus nobody would have any reason to complain about the poor. The poor get the same as you do. If they want to have five kids, they have to support them--not us. If they want to get fat on that 18K a year instead of food stamps, fine, it's their money. They have no reason to complain about the middle-class or wealthy either. They will use their 18K checks for investments or perhaps an IRA account.

Such a system could eliminate the homeless. It would make the poor much more responsible since they would not be rewarded for irresponsible behavior as they are now. Nobody rich, poor or anything in between would have any right to complain about another social class. Every kid has a chance to attend college. We could eliminate thousands of government jobs who push paperwork and write the checks. We would save a ton of money too.

That's all well and good except for the inflation that would result.

I don't understand how inflation would play a part in this.

Too much money chasing too few goods, and the added increased unemployment it would cause.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Too much money chasing too few goods, and the added increased unemployment it would cause.

The corporations will be making plenty of goods, but without a UBI in this scenario, no one would be able to buy them.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Clinton is more dumb as we thought.

Not really, she may be on to something.

Her idea isn't bad, it's just how she would have wanted to fund it that's anti-capitalist.

I read an article (and started a topic) on universal income some time ago and I forget the name of the country that was going to put it to a vote. However unlike Hillary, their universal income was going to be funded by the elimination of all social programs. Here is what they came up with:

First eliminate all social programs including Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare, SNAP's, SCHIP's, Food Stamps, WIC, HUD, Unemployment, all of them. Next, use that money to pay every adult $18,000 a year if I remember the figure correctly.

So now you have a tax free check of 18K every year. From that point on, it's all up to you what you want to do with it. If you can live on 18K a year plus a part-time job, go for it. Or perhaps you are married, you and your wife will receive 36K per year combined and retire. If you are younger, you can work full-time if desired and just use that money to repay a mortgage or invest. You do whatever you want with it.

If you want to have children or have more children, fine, but don't look to government for any money. You get 18K a year and that's it.

After they ran the numbers, they found it would cost the government much less money than maintaining their social programs. Plus nobody would have any reason to complain about the poor. The poor get the same as you do. If they want to have five kids, they have to support them--not us. If they want to get fat on that 18K a year instead of food stamps, fine, it's their money. They have no reason to complain about the middle-class or wealthy either. They will use their 18K checks for investments or perhaps an IRA account.

Such a system could eliminate the homeless. It would make the poor much more responsible since they would not be rewarded for irresponsible behavior as they are now. Nobody rich, poor or anything in between would have any right to complain about another social class. Every kid has a chance to attend college. We could eliminate thousands of government jobs who push paperwork and write the checks. We would save a ton of money too.

That's all well and good except for the inflation that would result.

I don't understand how inflation would play a part in this.

Too much money chasing too few goods, and the added increased unemployment it would cause.

That's assuming that people would quit working for 18K a year? Maybe some, but I don't think most.

Our welfare benefits at times pays just as much as a median income earner. 18K a year would be a serious reduction of income for them. They would have little choice but to get a job.

From a personal point of view, I would get a health insurance plan which I don't have now thanks to CommieCare. If I had one already, I would use that extra money to payoff loans such as credit cards or mortgages. Paying an extra 18K a year on a mortgage year after year would be a huge savings for many people. College for your children? I wouldn't quit my job if it was a choice between that or providing an advanced education for my kids.

I believe that most working people would continue to work and use that money to advance their situation. After all, who doesn't want a bigger house, a newer car, perhaps a vacation home somewhere?

 

[Muhammed]

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!

Bullshit. Her plan was based on a carbon tax scheme espoused by climategate fraudster and anti-science zealot James Hansen that would fuck the US economy in general and obliterate the middle class in particular, forcing millions into abject poverty while she and her cronies get richer.

Working Americans simply do not want to be subjected to a crushing tax burden.

 

[FA_Q2]

That would have tripled unemployment.

That is somewhat the point.

There is a real problem when efficiency starts to make human labor a relic of the past. As more and more compete for fewer and fewer jobs the compensation for that work becomes pitiful and people are left with little to no power in deciding their own lives. Universal income is supposed to help address that reality by shifting the demand for labor.


What I find truly laughable about this thread is that the idea of a universal income comes out of the RIGHT WING, not the left. It is inherently against the left mantra of dividing and choosing who gets what - a universal income is truly universal and flat no matter who or how successful you are.


One more instance of Hillary actually showing that she was likely further right than Trump...

Simply reserving labor from that market should not hamper gains in efficiency as capital will have to seek gains from efficiency, rather than simply, "make it on the back of cheap labor."

?

Who said anything about hampering efficiency? What removing labor does, as it does for all commodities, is make what remains more valuable.

Awash with the surplus of labor that efficiency brings, that labor becomes less valuable.

 

[FA_Q2]

Clinton is more dumb as we thought.

Not really, she may be on to something.

Her idea isn't bad, it's just how she would have wanted to fund it that's anti-capitalist.

I read an article (and started a topic) on universal income some time ago and I forget the name of the country that was going to put it to a vote. However unlike Hillary, their universal income was going to be funded by the elimination of all social programs. Here is what they came up with:

First eliminate all social programs including Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare, SNAP's, SCHIP's, Food Stamps, WIC, HUD, Unemployment, all of them. Next, use that money to pay every adult $18,000 a year if I remember the figure correctly.

So now you have a tax free check of 18K every year. From that point on, it's all up to you what you want to do with it. If you can live on 18K a year plus a part-time job, go for it. Or perhaps you are married, you and your wife will receive 36K per year combined and retire. If you are younger, you can work full-time if desired and just use that money to repay a mortgage or invest. You do whatever you want with it.

If you want to have children or have more children, fine, but don't look to government for any money. You get 18K a year and that's it.

After they ran the numbers, they found it would cost the government much less money than maintaining their social programs. Plus nobody would have any reason to complain about the poor. The poor get the same as you do. If they want to have five kids, they have to support them--not us. If they want to get fat on that 18K a year instead of food stamps, fine, it's their money. They have no reason to complain about the middle-class or wealthy either. They will use their 18K checks for investments or perhaps an IRA account.

Such a system could eliminate the homeless. It would make the poor much more responsible since they would not be rewarded for irresponsible behavior as they are now. Nobody rich, poor or anything in between would have any right to complain about another social class. Every kid has a chance to attend college. We could eliminate thousands of government jobs who push paperwork and write the checks. We would save a ton of money too.

That's all well and good except for the inflation that would result.

I don't understand how inflation would play a part in this.

Too much money chasing too few goods, and the added increased unemployment it would cause.

A UBI only works in a system that is not going to have a large problem sith scarcity of essential goods - a situation that we have right now.

There is not going to be to many pursuing to few goods. A UBI would naturally be below any poverty line or any form of standard comfort (no matter what the actual amount was set at due to the concept that you are pointing out) and would certainly not cause some massive amount of inflation. This essentially takes LESS money from the system and distributes it.

How would that cause inflation in a general sense?

 

[Muhammed]

Clinton is more dumb as we thought.

Not really, she may be on to something.

Her idea isn't bad, it's just how she would have wanted to fund it that's anti-capitalist.

I read an article (and started a topic) on universal income some time ago and I forget the name of the country that was going to put it to a vote. However unlike Hillary, their universal income was going to be funded by the elimination of all social programs. Here is what they came up with:

First eliminate all social programs including Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare, SNAP's, SCHIP's, Food Stamps, WIC, HUD, Unemployment, all of them. Next, use that money to pay every adult $18,000 a year if I remember the figure correctly.

So now you have a tax free check of 18K every year. From that point on, it's all up to you what you want to do with it. If you can live on 18K a year plus a part-time job, go for it. Or perhaps you are married, you and your wife will receive 36K per year combined and retire. If you are younger, you can work full-time if desired and just use that money to repay a mortgage or invest. You do whatever you want with it.

If you want to have children or have more children, fine, but don't look to government for any money. You get 18K a year and that's it.

After they ran the numbers, they found it would cost the government much less money than maintaining their social programs. Plus nobody would have any reason to complain about the poor. The poor get the same as you do. If they want to have five kids, they have to support them--not us. If they want to get fat on that 18K a year instead of food stamps, fine, it's their money. They have no reason to complain about the middle-class or wealthy either. They will use their 18K checks for investments or perhaps an IRA account.

Such a system could eliminate the homeless. It would make the poor much more responsible since they would not be rewarded for irresponsible behavior as they are now. Nobody rich, poor or anything in between would have any right to complain about another social class. Every kid has a chance to attend college. We could eliminate thousands of government jobs who push paperwork and write the checks. We would save a ton of money too.

That's all well and good except for the inflation that would result.

I don't understand how inflation would play a part in this.

Too much money chasing too few goods, and the added increased unemployment it would cause.

A UBI only works in a system that is not going to have a large problem sith scarcity of essential goods - a situation that we have right now.

There is not going to be to many pursuing to few goods. A UBI would naturally be below any poverty line or any form of standard comfort (no matter what the actual amount was set at due to the concept that you are pointing out) and would certainly not cause some massive amount of inflation. This essentially takes LESS money from the system and distributes it.

How would that cause inflation in a general sense?

It's not a hard concept to understand. A carbon tax is a tax on energy, especially fuel. Practically all of the goods people need to survive such as food, clothing and shelter is delivered by trains and trucks which consume fuel. It you raise the price of fuel, you raise the price of everything.

Seriously. Are you actually that dense or are you just playing stupid to defend that crooked piece of shit?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Clinton is more dumb as we thought.

Not really, she may be on to something.

Her idea isn't bad, it's just how she would have wanted to fund it that's anti-capitalist.

I read an article (and started a topic) on universal income some time ago and I forget the name of the country that was going to put it to a vote. However unlike Hillary, their universal income was going to be funded by the elimination of all social programs. Here is what they came up with:

First eliminate all social programs including Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare, SNAP's, SCHIP's, Food Stamps, WIC, HUD, Unemployment, all of them. Next, use that money to pay every adult $18,000 a year if I remember the figure correctly.

So now you have a tax free check of 18K every year. From that point on, it's all up to you what you want to do with it. If you can live on 18K a year plus a part-time job, go for it. Or perhaps you are married, you and your wife will receive 36K per year combined and retire. If you are younger, you can work full-time if desired and just use that money to repay a mortgage or invest. You do whatever you want with it.

If you want to have children or have more children, fine, but don't look to government for any money. You get 18K a year and that's it.

After they ran the numbers, they found it would cost the government much less money than maintaining their social programs. Plus nobody would have any reason to complain about the poor. The poor get the same as you do. If they want to have five kids, they have to support them--not us. If they want to get fat on that 18K a year instead of food stamps, fine, it's their money. They have no reason to complain about the middle-class or wealthy either. They will use their 18K checks for investments or perhaps an IRA account.

Such a system could eliminate the homeless. It would make the poor much more responsible since they would not be rewarded for irresponsible behavior as they are now. Nobody rich, poor or anything in between would have any right to complain about another social class. Every kid has a chance to attend college. We could eliminate thousands of government jobs who push paperwork and write the checks. We would save a ton of money too.

That's all well and good except for the inflation that would result.

I don't understand how inflation would play a part in this.

Too much money chasing too few goods, and the added increased unemployment it would cause.

That's assuming that people would quit working for 18K a year? Maybe some, but I don't think most.

Our welfare benefits at times pays just as much as a median income earner. 18K a year would be a serious reduction of income for them. They would have little choice but to get a job.

From a personal point of view, I would get a health insurance plan which I don't have now thanks to CommieCare. If I had one already, I would use that extra money to payoff loans such as credit cards or mortgages. Paying an extra 18K a year on a mortgage year after year would be a huge savings for many people. College for your children? I wouldn't quit my job if it was a choice between that or providing an advanced education for my kids.

I believe that most working people would continue to work and use that money to advance their situation. After all, who doesn't want a bigger house, a newer car, perhaps a vacation home somewhere?

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!

 

[JimBowie1958]

Not really, she may be on to something.

Her idea isn't bad, it's just how she would have wanted to fund it that's anti-capitalist.

I read an article (and started a topic) on universal income some time ago and I forget the name of the country that was going to put it to a vote. However unlike Hillary, their universal income was going to be funded by the elimination of all social programs. Here is what they came up with:

First eliminate all social programs including Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare, SNAP's, SCHIP's, Food Stamps, WIC, HUD, Unemployment, all of them. Next, use that money to pay every adult $18,000 a year if I remember the figure correctly.

So now you have a tax free check of 18K every year. From that point on, it's all up to you what you want to do with it. If you can live on 18K a year plus a part-time job, go for it. Or perhaps you are married, you and your wife will receive 36K per year combined and retire. If you are younger, you can work full-time if desired and just use that money to repay a mortgage or invest. You do whatever you want with it.

If you want to have children or have more children, fine, but don't look to government for any money. You get 18K a year and that's it.

After they ran the numbers, they found it would cost the government much less money than maintaining their social programs. Plus nobody would have any reason to complain about the poor. The poor get the same as you do. If they want to have five kids, they have to support them--not us. If they want to get fat on that 18K a year instead of food stamps, fine, it's their money. They have no reason to complain about the middle-class or wealthy either. They will use their 18K checks for investments or perhaps an IRA account.

Such a system could eliminate the homeless. It would make the poor much more responsible since they would not be rewarded for irresponsible behavior as they are now. Nobody rich, poor or anything in between would have any right to complain about another social class. Every kid has a chance to attend college. We could eliminate thousands of government jobs who push paperwork and write the checks. We would save a ton of money too.

That's all well and good except for the inflation that would result.

I don't understand how inflation would play a part in this.

Too much money chasing too few goods, and the added increased unemployment it would cause.

A UBI only works in a system that is not going to have a large problem sith scarcity of essential goods - a situation that we have right now.

There is not going to be to many pursuing to few goods. A UBI would naturally be below any poverty line or any form of standard comfort (no matter what the actual amount was set at due to the concept that you are pointing out) and would certainly not cause some massive amount of inflation. This essentially takes LESS money from the system and distributes it.

How would that cause inflation in a general sense?

It's not a hard concept to understand. A carbon tax is a tax on energy, especially fuel. Practically all of the goods people need to survive such as food, clothing and shelter is delivered by trains and trucks which consume fuel. It you raise the price of fuel, you raise the price of everything.

Seriously. Are you actually that dense or are you just playing stupid to defend that crooked piece of shit?

A UBI isnot necessarily funded by a carbon tax, though Hillary may have entertained that idea; it wouldnt work.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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!

A UBI would for the eventual scenario where PEOPLE CANNOT FIND WORK IF THEY WANTED IT

Jeebus, why do so many of you fixate on the few who dont want to work?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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!

A UBI would for the eventual scenario where PEOPLE CANNOT FIND WORK IF THEY WANTED IT

Jeebus, why do so many of you fixate on the few who dont want to work?

It is more than a few.

 

[Muhammed]

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!

A UBI would for the eventual scenario where PEOPLE CANNOT FIND WORK IF THEY WANTED IT

Jeebus, why do so many of you fixate on the few who dont want to work?

It is more than a few.

I know more than a few myself. I swear some of them work so hard at avoiding work that they would be very successful if they put that much effort into a real job. It's like they are vampires who have a compulsive need to leech off of others. And I'm not talking about merely government assistance, they leech off of family and friends and try to con everyone they meet.

But those people are a very small percentage of the people who receive government assistance.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Not really, she may be on to something.

Her idea isn't bad, it's just how she would have wanted to fund it that's anti-capitalist.

I read an article (and started a topic) on universal income some time ago and I forget the name of the country that was going to put it to a vote. However unlike Hillary, their universal income was going to be funded by the elimination of all social programs. Here is what they came up with:

First eliminate all social programs including Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare, SNAP's, SCHIP's, Food Stamps, WIC, HUD, Unemployment, all of them. Next, use that money to pay every adult $18,000 a year if I remember the figure correctly.

So now you have a tax free check of 18K every year. From that point on, it's all up to you what you want to do with it. If you can live on 18K a year plus a part-time job, go for it. Or perhaps you are married, you and your wife will receive 36K per year combined and retire. If you are younger, you can work full-time if desired and just use that money to repay a mortgage or invest. You do whatever you want with it.

If you want to have children or have more children, fine, but don't look to government for any money. You get 18K a year and that's it.

After they ran the numbers, they found it would cost the government much less money than maintaining their social programs. Plus nobody would have any reason to complain about the poor. The poor get the same as you do. If they want to have five kids, they have to support them--not us. If they want to get fat on that 18K a year instead of food stamps, fine, it's their money. They have no reason to complain about the middle-class or wealthy either. They will use their 18K checks for investments or perhaps an IRA account.

Such a system could eliminate the homeless. It would make the poor much more responsible since they would not be rewarded for irresponsible behavior as they are now. Nobody rich, poor or anything in between would have any right to complain about another social class. Every kid has a chance to attend college. We could eliminate thousands of government jobs who push paperwork and write the checks. We would save a ton of money too.

That's all well and good except for the inflation that would result.

I don't understand how inflation would play a part in this.

Too much money chasing too few goods, and the added increased unemployment it would cause.

That's assuming that people would quit working for 18K a year? Maybe some, but I don't think most.

Our welfare benefits at times pays just as much as a median income earner. 18K a year would be a serious reduction of income for them. They would have little choice but to get a job.

From a personal point of view, I would get a health insurance plan which I don't have now thanks to CommieCare. If I had one already, I would use that extra money to payoff loans such as credit cards or mortgages. Paying an extra 18K a year on a mortgage year after year would be a huge savings for many people. College for your children? I wouldn't quit my job if it was a choice between that or providing an advanced education for my kids.

I believe that most working people would continue to work and use that money to advance their situation. After all, who doesn't want a bigger house, a newer car, perhaps a vacation home somewhere?

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.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

That's all well and good except for the inflation that would result.

I don't understand how inflation would play a part in this.

Too much money chasing too few goods, and the added increased unemployment it would cause.

That's assuming that people would quit working for 18K a year? Maybe some, but I don't think most.

Our welfare benefits at times pays just as much as a median income earner. 18K a year would be a serious reduction of income for them. They would have little choice but to get a job.

From a personal point of view, I would get a health insurance plan which I don't have now thanks to CommieCare. If I had one already, I would use that extra money to payoff loans such as credit cards or mortgages. Paying an extra 18K a year on a mortgage year after year would be a huge savings for many people. College for your children? I wouldn't quit my job if it was a choice between that or providing an advanced education for my kids.

I believe that most working people would continue to work and use that money to advance their situation. After all, who doesn't want a bigger house, a newer car, perhaps a vacation home somewhere?

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!

 

[FA_Q2]

Not really, she may be on to something.

Her idea isn't bad, it's just how she would have wanted to fund it that's anti-capitalist.

I read an article (and started a topic) on universal income some time ago and I forget the name of the country that was going to put it to a vote. However unlike Hillary, their universal income was going to be funded by the elimination of all social programs. Here is what they came up with:

First eliminate all social programs including Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare, SNAP's, SCHIP's, Food Stamps, WIC, HUD, Unemployment, all of them. Next, use that money to pay every adult $18,000 a year if I remember the figure correctly.

So now you have a tax free check of 18K every year. From that point on, it's all up to you what you want to do with it. If you can live on 18K a year plus a part-time job, go for it. Or perhaps you are married, you and your wife will receive 36K per year combined and retire. If you are younger, you can work full-time if desired and just use that money to repay a mortgage or invest. You do whatever you want with it.

If you want to have children or have more children, fine, but don't look to government for any money. You get 18K a year and that's it.

After they ran the numbers, they found it would cost the government much less money than maintaining their social programs. Plus nobody would have any reason to complain about the poor. The poor get the same as you do. If they want to have five kids, they have to support them--not us. If they want to get fat on that 18K a year instead of food stamps, fine, it's their money. They have no reason to complain about the middle-class or wealthy either. They will use their 18K checks for investments or perhaps an IRA account.

Such a system could eliminate the homeless. It would make the poor much more responsible since they would not be rewarded for irresponsible behavior as they are now. Nobody rich, poor or anything in between would have any right to complain about another social class. Every kid has a chance to attend college. We could eliminate thousands of government jobs who push paperwork and write the checks. We would save a ton of money too.

That's all well and good except for the inflation that would result.

I don't understand how inflation would play a part in this.

Too much money chasing too few goods, and the added increased unemployment it would cause.

A UBI only works in a system that is not going to have a large problem sith scarcity of essential goods - a situation that we have right now.

There is not going to be to many pursuing to few goods. A UBI would naturally be below any poverty line or any form of standard comfort (no matter what the actual amount was set at due to the concept that you are pointing out) and would certainly not cause some massive amount of inflation. This essentially takes LESS money from the system and distributes it.

How would that cause inflation in a general sense?

It's not a hard concept to understand. A carbon tax is a tax on energy, especially fuel. Practically all of the goods people need to survive such as food, clothing and shelter is delivered by trains and trucks which consume fuel. It you raise the price of fuel, you raise the price of everything.

Seriously. Are you actually that dense or are you just playing stupid to defend that crooked piece of shit?

What are you babbling about? No one in that chain was referring or talking about a carbon tax.

 

[FA_Q2]

Not really, she may be on to something.

Her idea isn't bad, it's just how she would have wanted to fund it that's anti-capitalist.

I read an article (and started a topic) on universal income some time ago and I forget the name of the country that was going to put it to a vote. However unlike Hillary, their universal income was going to be funded by the elimination of all social programs. Here is what they came up with:

First eliminate all social programs including Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare, SNAP's, SCHIP's, Food Stamps, WIC, HUD, Unemployment, all of them. Next, use that money to pay every adult $18,000 a year if I remember the figure correctly.

So now you have a tax free check of 18K every year. From that point on, it's all up to you what you want to do with it. If you can live on 18K a year plus a part-time job, go for it. Or perhaps you are married, you and your wife will receive 36K per year combined and retire. If you are younger, you can work full-time if desired and just use that money to repay a mortgage or invest. You do whatever you want with it.

If you want to have children or have more children, fine, but don't look to government for any money. You get 18K a year and that's it.

After they ran the numbers, they found it would cost the government much less money than maintaining their social programs. Plus nobody would have any reason to complain about the poor. The poor get the same as you do. If they want to have five kids, they have to support them--not us. If they want to get fat on that 18K a year instead of food stamps, fine, it's their money. They have no reason to complain about the middle-class or wealthy either. They will use their 18K checks for investments or perhaps an IRA account.

Such a system could eliminate the homeless. It would make the poor much more responsible since they would not be rewarded for irresponsible behavior as they are now. Nobody rich, poor or anything in between would have any right to complain about another social class. Every kid has a chance to attend college. We could eliminate thousands of government jobs who push paperwork and write the checks. We would save a ton of money too.

That's all well and good except for the inflation that would result.

I don't understand how inflation would play a part in this.

Too much money chasing too few goods, and the added increased unemployment it would cause.

That's assuming that people would quit working for 18K a year? Maybe some, but I don't think most.

Our welfare benefits at times pays just as much as a median income earner. 18K a year would be a serious reduction of income for them. They would have little choice but to get a job.

From a personal point of view, I would get a health insurance plan which I don't have now thanks to CommieCare. If I had one already, I would use that extra money to payoff loans such as credit cards or mortgages. Paying an extra 18K a year on a mortgage year after year would be a huge savings for many people. College for your children? I wouldn't quit my job if it was a choice between that or providing an advanced education for my kids.

I believe that most working people would continue to work and use that money to advance their situation. After all, who doesn't want a bigger house, a newer car, perhaps a vacation home somewhere?

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!

Then it is not a UBI.

Means testing is inherently against the concept of a UBI.

 

[FA_Q2]

I don't understand how inflation would play a part in this.

Too much money chasing too few goods, and the added increased unemployment it would cause.

That's assuming that people would quit working for 18K a year? Maybe some, but I don't think most.

Our welfare benefits at times pays just as much as a median income earner. 18K a year would be a serious reduction of income for them. They would have little choice but to get a job.

From a personal point of view, I would get a health insurance plan which I don't have now thanks to CommieCare. If I had one already, I would use that extra money to payoff loans such as credit cards or mortgages. Paying an extra 18K a year on a mortgage year after year would be a huge savings for many people. College for your children? I wouldn't quit my job if it was a choice between that or providing an advanced education for my kids.

I believe that most working people would continue to work and use that money to advance their situation. After all, who doesn't want a bigger house, a newer car, perhaps a vacation home somewhere?

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.

 

[FA_Q2]

Too much money chasing too few goods, and the added increased unemployment it would cause.

That's assuming that people would quit working for 18K a year? Maybe some, but I don't think most.

Our welfare benefits at times pays just as much as a median income earner. 18K a year would be a serious reduction of income for them. They would have little choice but to get a job.

From a personal point of view, I would get a health insurance plan which I don't have now thanks to CommieCare. If I had one already, I would use that extra money to payoff loans such as credit cards or mortgages. Paying an extra 18K a year on a mortgage year after year would be a huge savings for many people. College for your children? I wouldn't quit my job if it was a choice between that or providing an advanced education for my kids.

I believe that most working people would continue to work and use that money to advance their situation. After all, who doesn't want a bigger house, a newer car, perhaps a vacation home somewhere?

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.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's assuming that people would quit working for 18K a year? Maybe some, but I don't think most.

Our welfare benefits at times pays just as much as a median income earner. 18K a year would be a serious reduction of income for them. They would have little choice but to get a job.

From a personal point of view, I would get a health insurance plan which I don't have now thanks to CommieCare. If I had one already, I would use that extra money to payoff loans such as credit cards or mortgages. Paying an extra 18K a year on a mortgage year after year would be a huge savings for many people. College for your children? I wouldn't quit my job if it was a choice between that or providing an advanced education for my kids.

I believe that most working people would continue to work and use that money to advance their situation. After all, who doesn't want a bigger house, a newer car, perhaps a vacation home somewhere?

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?