As the saying goes...'If it sounds too good to be true...' well, you know.
But those who have been programmed to
a. think of themselves as victims
b. feel that life owes them
c. are will to steal from others
...i.e., reliable Democrat voters
...will be drooling when they read this simpleton's demands for redistribution of wealth.
1. "Mark Zuckerberg called for exploring universal basic income in his Harvard graduation speech.
“We should explore ideas like universal basic income to give everyone a cushion to try new things.”
...a proposal that the government provides every citizen a certain baseline amount of money, no strings attached.
2. ....universal basic income could address this looming issue by providing everyone a safety net of a certain amount of guaranteed money regardless of their employment status. And advocates argue a basic income would be generally more efficient than the current plethora of benefit programs the government currently administers to address poverty.
Mark Zuckerberg called for exploring universal basic income in his Harvard graduation speech. Here’s what that means.
"Explore it"?????
It has been done, and was a total disaster
3. Earlier Bolsheviks tried it....and had to kill over 100 million human beings to impose the idea...and it still failed.
4. The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were give a guaranteed income, a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for. Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given, low income recipients reduced their labor by 80 cents. http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/12794.pdf
[The results for husbands show that the combination of negative income tax plans tested in SIME/DIME — which, as already mentioned, represents on average a relatively generous cash transfer program with a guarantee of 115% of the poverty line and a tax rate of 50% — has a significant negative effect on hours worked per year. Overview of the Final Report of the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment]
a. Further results: dissolution of families: “This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax that would cover married couples, for two important reasons. First, increased marital breakups among the poor would increase the numbers on welfare and the amount of transfer payments, principally because the separated wife and children would receive higher transfer payments.
Second, marital dissolutions and the usual accompanying absence of fathers from households with children are generally considered unfavorable outcomes regardless of whether or not the welfare rolls increase.” http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf30/conf30c.pdf
b. “When families received guaranteed income at 90% of the poverty level, there was a 43% increase in black family dissolution and a 63% increase in white family dissolution. At 125% of the poverty levels, dissolutions were 75% and 40%.” Robert B. Carleson, “Government Is The Problem,” p. 57.
But....Democrats will hold out some fable and fools will buy it like it was on sale.
But those who have been programmed to
a. think of themselves as victims
b. feel that life owes them
c. are will to steal from others
...i.e., reliable Democrat voters
...will be drooling when they read this simpleton's demands for redistribution of wealth.
1. "Mark Zuckerberg called for exploring universal basic income in his Harvard graduation speech.
“We should explore ideas like universal basic income to give everyone a cushion to try new things.”
...a proposal that the government provides every citizen a certain baseline amount of money, no strings attached.
2. ....universal basic income could address this looming issue by providing everyone a safety net of a certain amount of guaranteed money regardless of their employment status. And advocates argue a basic income would be generally more efficient than the current plethora of benefit programs the government currently administers to address poverty.
Mark Zuckerberg called for exploring universal basic income in his Harvard graduation speech. Here’s what that means.
"Explore it"?????
It has been done, and was a total disaster
3. Earlier Bolsheviks tried it....and had to kill over 100 million human beings to impose the idea...and it still failed.
4. The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were give a guaranteed income, a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for. Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given, low income recipients reduced their labor by 80 cents. http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/12794.pdf
[The results for husbands show that the combination of negative income tax plans tested in SIME/DIME — which, as already mentioned, represents on average a relatively generous cash transfer program with a guarantee of 115% of the poverty line and a tax rate of 50% — has a significant negative effect on hours worked per year. Overview of the Final Report of the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment]
a. Further results: dissolution of families: “This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax that would cover married couples, for two important reasons. First, increased marital breakups among the poor would increase the numbers on welfare and the amount of transfer payments, principally because the separated wife and children would receive higher transfer payments.
Second, marital dissolutions and the usual accompanying absence of fathers from households with children are generally considered unfavorable outcomes regardless of whether or not the welfare rolls increase.” http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf30/conf30c.pdf
b. “When families received guaranteed income at 90% of the poverty level, there was a 43% increase in black family dissolution and a 63% increase in white family dissolution. At 125% of the poverty levels, dissolutions were 75% and 40%.” Robert B. Carleson, “Government Is The Problem,” p. 57.
But....Democrats will hold out some fable and fools will buy it like it was on sale.