CDZ 5 Reasons Milton Freedman Supported Guaranteed Income for Families

[JimBowie1958]

This would replace welfare programs

1) freedom
2) reduces bureaucracy
3) work always pays off, no welfare lost for work
4) equality
5) it is NOT communism, profit motive remains intact.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I always preferred Mises myself. Never was a fan of Milton.

 

[shockedcanadian]

This would replace welfare programs

1) freedom
2) reduces bureaucracy
3) work always pays off, no welfare lost for work
4) equality
5) it is NOT communism, profit motive remains intact.

I've listened and been somewhat convinced, though certainly not entirely; that there is a way it could work, if it indeed, eliminated all bureaucracy and allowed some to opt out of it if they wanted to (and opt-in the future if needed) due to high net worth etc.

So instead of all the overhead, local welfare offices, interviews, paperwork etc, just have phone numbers, online interaction and a few offices. Get rid of all disability welfare, E.I and other programs. Those who would normally work these systems can find work elsewhere.

I'm still not sure how it works out though as many places have tried it in small doses and found that it took away ambition. Without human ambition, we become slow and stagnant as a nation. Also, what about women having 6-7 kids for the sake of getting her entire family on this program?

Friedman had some interesting ideas, he was wrong on China and I think he started to realize he was later in life when he didn't see improvements in their social system, political power structure. I'm not sure how this would work today, in an ever competitive global economy. It would certainly create inflation (at least initially) and the best would see increased wages. As we are seeing today in a deregulated, U.S First, Trump economy.

 

[JimBowie1958]

This would replace welfare programs

1) freedom
2) reduces bureaucracy
3) work always pays off, no welfare lost for work
4) equality
5) it is NOT communism, profit motive remains intact.

I've listened and been somewhat convinced, though certainly not entirely; that there is a way it could work, if it indeed, eliminated all bureaucracy and allowed some to opt out of it if they wanted to (and opt-in the future if needed) due to high net worth etc.

So instead of all the overhead, local welfare offices, interviews, paperwork etc, just have phone numbers, online interaction and a few offices. Get rid of all disability welfare, E.I and other programs. Those who would normally work these systems can find work elsewhere.

I'm still not sure how it works out though as many places have tried it in small doses and found that it took away ambition. Without human ambition, we become slow and stagnant as a nation. Also, what about women having 6-7 kids for the sake of getting her entire family on this program?

Friedman had some interesting ideas, he was wrong on China and I think he started to realize he was later in life when he didn't see improvements in their social system, political power structure. I'm not sure how this would work today, in an ever competitive global economy. It would certainly create inflation (at least initially) and the best would see increased wages. As we are seeing today in a deregulated, U.S First, Trump economy.

We have a population of 264 million adults.
We have $402 billion in nonfood retail sales monthly roughly two thirds is Medicaid (dont count that), and a 10% VAT tax would give us $32 billion which would fund $121/month
We spend $851 billion annually on Federal welfare, which comes to $71 billion monthly, or $269/month. Medicaid could be converted to a pay as you go pro-rated insurance program freeing up more money.
At the state and local level we spend $2.9 trillion on welfare. That comes to $241 billion/month which would be $912/month

So if we stopped welfare programs and used a universal income instead, we would be able to pay each adult $1302/month, well within existing welfare costs.

 

[Mac1958]

As technology, automation and productivity continue to increase, this becomes more and more inevitable.

Unfortunately, we'll no doubt wait too long to address it seriously, we'll allow partisan politics to completely pollute and distort the conversation, and we'll end up trying some under-thought panicked crap out of desperation because we screwed around too long.

Because that's how we roll now.
.

 

[Cassandro]

The $1 trillion Coronavirus "bailout" package now being floated may be the the first installment on a national guaranteed income. The problem with expanding this idea to everyone is that many people are unable to handle their own finances. As a result, there would still exist a bureaucracy to deal with the same social problems we already have. For example, what do you do with people who spend all their "income" on drugs and don't buy groceries for their children?

 

[Oddball]

I always preferred Mises myself. Never was a fan of Milton.

I lost a ton of respect for him when I discovered that he was the "brains" behind tax withholding.....A stealth Keynesian.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I lost a ton of respect for him when I discovered that he was the "brains" behind tax withholding.....A stealth Keynesian.

Pretty much the same here.

 

[Oddball]

This would replace welfare programs

1) freedom
2) reduces bureaucracy
3) work always pays off, no welfare lost for work
4) equality
5) it is NOT communism, profit motive remains intact.

Where do you expect to find the unicorn that shits money, without devaluing it to worthlessness?

 

[JimBowie1958]

This would replace welfare programs

1) freedom
2) reduces bureaucracy
3) work always pays off, no welfare lost for work
4) equality
5) it is NOT communism, profit motive remains intact.

Where do you expect to find the unicorn that shits money, without devaluing it to worthlessness?

Post #4

 

[Oddball]

This would replace welfare programs

1) freedom
2) reduces bureaucracy
3) work always pays off, no welfare lost for work
4) equality
5) it is NOT communism, profit motive remains intact.

Where do you expect to find the unicorn that shits money, without devaluing it to worthlessness?

Post #4

So basically Marxist wealth theft and redistribution....Complete with the standard progressive/socialist accounting that presumes that the model will remain static.....Which it won't

How long do you expect the producers to keep producing for those who aren't doing dick to earn what they get?

 

[TNHarley]

Of course, stealing from me to pay for thee is a blatant abuse of power and completely unconstitutional.
But we have statists that support it. Like this guy.
Gipper #2

 

[JimBowie1958]

Of course, stealing from me to pay for thee is a blatant abuse of power and completely unconstitutional.
But we have statists that support it. Like this guy.
Gipper #2

Taxation is not theft, Freeman.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Tom Cotton Floats Universal Basic Income for Coronavirus Crisis

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) is floating a plan to “get cash into the hands of affected workers and their families” due to national shutdowns of businesses in nearly every industry from the coronavirus outbreak.

In a series of posts online and in a Fox News Channel interview, Cotton said American workers who are being forced to stay home from their jobs due to shutdowns in the midst of the coronavirus crisis need immediate relief in the form of cash payments.

The monetary policy, known as Universal Basic Income (UBI), has made its way into the national spotlight over the last year thanks to businessman Andrew Yang. The policy could mean that American citizens affected by the coronavirus shutdowns would get $1,000 a month in cash.

Cotton suggested using existing social welfare agencies to put “cash in the hands of affected families.”

“We don’t want to see layoffs, we want to see people who are at home, if they have any reason to be at home, supported immediately,” Cotton said.​

 

[Oddball]

Of course, stealing from me to pay for thee is a blatant abuse of power and completely unconstitutional.
But we have statists that support it. Like this guy.
Gipper #2

Taxation is not theft, Freeman.

 

[Oddball]

Tom Cotton Floats Universal Basic Income for Coronavirus Crisis

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) is floating a plan to “get cash into the hands of affected workers and their families” due to national shutdowns of businesses in nearly every industry from the coronavirus outbreak.

In a series of posts online and in a Fox News Channel interview, Cotton said American workers who are being forced to stay home from their jobs due to shutdowns in the midst of the coronavirus crisis need immediate relief in the form of cash payments.

The monetary policy, known as Universal Basic Income (UBI), has made its way into the national spotlight over the last year thanks to businessman Andrew Yang. The policy could mean that American citizens affected by the coronavirus shutdowns would get $1,000 a month in cash.

Cotton suggested using existing social welfare agencies to put “cash in the hands of affected families.”

“We don’t want to see layoffs, we want to see people who are at home, if they have any reason to be at home, supported immediately,” Cotton said.​

 

[TNHarley]

Of course, stealing from me to pay for thee is a blatant abuse of power and completely unconstitutional.
But we have statists that support it. Like this guy.
Gipper #2

Taxation is not theft, Freeman.

Re read what I wrote

 

[JimBowie1958]

View attachment 313236

You cannot draw an analogy between interactions between individuals vrs citizens to government taxation.

Governments have rights of sovereignty, and domain while individuals do not.

 

[Oddball]

View attachment 313236

You cannot draw an analogy between interactions between individuals vrs citizens to government taxation.

Governments have rights of sovereignty, and domain while individuals do not.

Yes I can...Committing an act of force or fraud (and taxation relies upon the proactive use, or at least the threat of, of physical force) doesn't suddenly become moral because you're operating under the mythical strawman of "government".

And that crap about gubmint having a mythical "right of sovereignty" is just that.....crap.

 

[flacaltenn]

This would replace welfare programs

1) freedom
2) reduces bureaucracy
3) work always pays off, no welfare lost for work
4) equality
5) it is NOT communism, profit motive remains intact.

Milton is generally right. But might not have considered the awful unintended consequences.. The biggest I've thought of is the effect on young people who hate HS and can't wait to leave home... Dangle THOUSANDS of dollars in front of them and our PISSY HS Drop out rate will hit the roof....

And you'd need to KILL all those programs that Milton tells you are not needed.. Has a program EVER been killed dead with a stake in its heart in the HISTORY of Wash DC????

The actual IMPLEMENTATION would be diversity tested to death.. Whittled down to NOT include disabilities and such.. And what's we'd end up would be a monstrous HYBRID of welfare AND monthly income..

Ask the folks in Europe who were promised that a VAT tax would LOWER their OTHER taxes...