Secretary Clinton almost ran for president on universal basic income

[miketx]

So welfare level income. Doesn't seem to be much point in that. I mean damn if you're going to have universal income it should be better than poverty level. So what do you think? Triple that amount?

Universal income is not supposed to be enough to live on. It is meant to supplement your income.

So it's not universal income. Sounds like a Ponzi scheme.

It is universal in that EVERYONE receives it.

So it is most certainly universal income.

Universal poverty and unemployment.

You have no evidence to support your assertions.

Sure I do. All one has to do is look where certain "wage guarantees" have been forced on the employers to see the mild folly of it.

 

[miketx]

How much would universal income be?

Here is what the federal government currently considers to be the poverty level:

• $12,060 for individuals
• $16,240 for a family of 2
• $20,420 for a family of 3
• $24,600 for a family of 4
• $28,780 for a family of 5
• $32,960 for a family of 6
• $37,140 for a family of 7
• $41,320 for a family of 8

Federal Poverty Level (FPL) - HealthCare.gov Glossary

Never mentioning where this magic money comes from. My God are people this delusional?

The money comes from the same place all the current welfare programs come from.

I see. using taxpayer money to pay people for free, thus guaranteeing some won't work, certainly won't have a negative impact on taxes will it Einstain? LOL!

 

[g5000]

 

[jc456]

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"

and the left haven't said shit to her about staying the fk out of the news. It will cost them again in the next election cycle. can't make this shit up.

 

[fncceo]

Clinton is more dumb as we thought.

No, she's exactly as dumb as I thought.

 

[g5000]

Universal income is not supposed to be enough to live on. It is meant to supplement your income.

So it's not universal income. Sounds like a Ponzi scheme.

It is universal in that EVERYONE receives it.

So it is most certainly universal income.

Universal poverty and unemployment.

You have no evidence to support your assertions.

Sure I do. All one has to do is look where certain "wage guarantees" have been forced on the employers to see the mild folly of it.

Apples and oranges.

 

[g5000]

How much would universal income be?

Here is what the federal government currently considers to be the poverty level:

• $12,060 for individuals
• $16,240 for a family of 2
• $20,420 for a family of 3
• $24,600 for a family of 4
• $28,780 for a family of 5
• $32,960 for a family of 6
• $37,140 for a family of 7
• $41,320 for a family of 8

Federal Poverty Level (FPL) - HealthCare.gov Glossary

Never mentioning where this magic money comes from. My God are people this delusional?

The money comes from the same place all the current welfare programs come from.

I see. using taxpayer money to pay people for free, thus guaranteeing some won't work, certainly won't have a negative impact on taxes will it Einstain? LOL!

Watch the Milton Friedman video I provided in post 43.

 

[g5000]

I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable, but the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree, is a politic measure and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right.

To James Madison Fontainebleau, Oct. 28, 1785 < The Letters of Thomas Jefferson

 

[g5000]

As I said, Thomas Paine invented the concept of a universal guaranteed income. He also invented Social Security:

In advocating the case of the persons thus dispossessed, it is a right,and not a charity, that I am pleading for. But it is that kind of right which, being neglected at first, could not be brought forward afterwards till heaven had opened the way by a revolution in the system of government. Let us then do honor to revolutions by justice, and give currency to their principles by blessings.

Having thus in a few words, opened the merits of the case, I shall now proceed to the plan I have to propose, which is,

To create a national fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property:

And also, the sum of ten pounds per annum, during life, to every person now living, of the age of fifty years, and to all others as they shall arrive at that age.

Agrarian Justice

 

[BluesLegend]

Liberals are delusional, they push this whack job socialist crap and think most of the country supports it then they are gobsmacked when they get wiped off the map in elections its hilarious.

\
Wut?

You mean health care, retirement, education, butt wipers, they should not all be free?

The hell you say.

The non-partisan Urban Institute estimates Bernie's free single payer healthcare would cost the federal government $32 trillion over 10 years, requiring an average annual tax increase of $24,000 per household.

 

[g5000]

Liberals are delusional, they push this whack job socialist crap and think most of the country supports it then they are gobsmacked when they get wiped off the map in elections its hilarious.

\
Wut?

You mean health care, retirement, education, butt wipers, they should not all be free?

The hell you say.

The non-partisan Urban Institute estimates Bernie's free single payer healthcare would cost the federal government $32 trillion over 10 years, requiring an average annual tax increase of $24,000 per household.

$32 trillion over ten years works out to $3.2 trillion a year, which is precisely how much we collectively spend on health care under the current system each year.

We spend an average of nearly $40,000 a year on the average household for health care/insurance.

If you did not have to spend $40,000 a year on health care/insurance, and had to pay an extra $24,000 in taxes, I think most people would take that trade.

$10,345 per person: U.S. health care spending reaches new peak

 

[NightFox]

Clinton is more dumb as we thought.

Actually she's smarter than "we thought" ...

Unfortunately, we couldn’t make the numbers work. To provide a meaningful dividend each year to every citizen, you’d have to raise enormous sums of money, and that would either mean a lot of new taxes or cannibalizing other important programs.

Her and her cronies actually worked the numbers and figured out that it was un-affordable which runs contrary to the normal lefty practice of completely ignoring the gargantuan costs of their idiotic ideas and mindless repeating "don't worry, we'll make 'the rich' pay for it!", which in reality translates into "we'll borrow and print and make the unborn pay for it!"

 

[Flash]

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

We are in agreement that we don't want a welfare state. I would like to accept you alternative plan but the idea of giving anybody money they didn't earn is too disgusting.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Nice theoretical application, but you know the idiots would blow their $$ on stupid shit, and will then look to government to bail them out. Then all those programs will return, one by one, until we are back where we are now, except with even more government control.

It's the same as trying to implement a national sales tax to replace the income tax. sooner or later they will want a new income tax ON TOP of the sales tax.

None of your doomsday predictions have come to pass in Alaska.

Alaska is the only place on Earth where universal basic income is a reality. It was started by Republicans in the 1970s and continues to this day.

In other countries where this concept has been tested, it has been a raging success.

In Namibia, it raised school attendance and reduced child malnutrition.

In Alaska it is not a guaranteed income, it is a dividend from a supposed fund financed by oil income. It is also nowhere near the basic income one would require under the national plans being bandied around.

 

[Flash]

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.

Nice theoretical application, but you know the idiots would blow their $$ on stupid shit, and will then look to government to bail them out. Then all those programs will return, one by one, until we are back where we are now, except with even more government control.

It's the same as trying to implement a national sales tax to replace the income tax. sooner or later they will want a new income tax ON TOP of the sales tax.

None of your doomsday predictions have come to pass in Alaska.

Alaska is the only place on Earth where universal basic income is a reality. It was started by Republicans in the 1970s and continues to this day.

In other countries where this concept has been tested, it has been a raging success.

In Namibia, it raised school attendance and reduced child malnutrition.

You are confused Moon Bat.

It is never a success to take money away from someone that earned it and give it to someone that didn't earn it. That is despicable.

In Alaska they are redistrbuting energy taxes that we all pay for. It was greedy thing for them to do.

 

[g5000]

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.

Nice theoretical application, but you know the idiots would blow their $$ on stupid shit, and will then look to government to bail them out. Then all those programs will return, one by one, until we are back where we are now, except with even more government control.

It's the same as trying to implement a national sales tax to replace the income tax. sooner or later they will want a new income tax ON TOP of the sales tax.

None of your doomsday predictions have come to pass in Alaska.

Alaska is the only place on Earth where universal basic income is a reality. It was started by Republicans in the 1970s and continues to this day.

In other countries where this concept has been tested, it has been a raging success.

In Namibia, it raised school attendance and reduced child malnutrition.

You are confused Moon Bat.

It is never a success to take money away from someone that earned it and give it to someone that didn't earn it. That is despicable.

In Alaska they are redistrbuting energy taxes that we all pay for. It was greedy thing for them to do.

Please watch the video I posted in post 43, dipshit.

"...energy taxes that we all pay for".

 

[Flash]

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.

Nice theoretical application, but you know the idiots would blow their $$ on stupid shit, and will then look to government to bail them out. Then all those programs will return, one by one, until we are back where we are now, except with even more government control.

It's the same as trying to implement a national sales tax to replace the income tax. sooner or later they will want a new income tax ON TOP of the sales tax.

None of your doomsday predictions have come to pass in Alaska.

Alaska is the only place on Earth where universal basic income is a reality. It was started by Republicans in the 1970s and continues to this day.

In other countries where this concept has been tested, it has been a raging success.

In Namibia, it raised school attendance and reduced child malnutrition.

You are confused Moon Bat.

It is never a success to take money away from someone that earned it and give it to someone that didn't earn it. That is despicable.

In Alaska they are redistrbuting energy taxes that we all pay for. It was greedy thing for them to do.

Please watch the video I posted in post 43, dipshit.

"...energy taxes that we all pay for".

You are confused Moon Bat. Alaska collects a ton of taxes from oil and gas and that is where the money comes from.

Taxes are an expense like anything else and is passed on to the consumer. In other words there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. A concept you stupid Moon Bats always fail to grasp. Of course you really don't care because you are greedy little bastards.

 

[basquebromance]

top democrats are begging Hillary to go away. DNC officials are afraid she'll cause dems to lose more seats in 2018

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

We are in agreement that we don't want a welfare state. I would like to accept you alternative plan but the idea of giving anybody money they didn't earn is too disgusting.

I understand, but for people like us who are the ones that are constantly giving and never taking, it's an idea that would finally work in our favor for a change.

For instance I have these MF HUD people living next door to me; been nothing but a pain in the ass since they moved in. We've called the cops about a half-dozen times already and they haven't even been here for a year yet.

So what are they doing in the suburbs? HUD put them here. HUD targets areas to destroy and then sets out to destroy them by moving their lowlifes there.

By replacing HUD with universal income, they would leave in a heartbeat. They would have to pay their rent on their own and move back to the ghetto where they belong where housing is half the price it is here.

Like I said, I can think of a lot of advantages to it.

 

[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.

Nice theoretical application, but you know the idiots would blow their $$ on stupid shit, and will then look to government to bail them out. Then all those programs will return, one by one, until we are back where we are now, except with even more government control.

It's the same as trying to implement a national sales tax to replace the income tax. sooner or later they will want a new income tax ON TOP of the sales tax.

I guess that could depend on how long we can keep Democrats out of power. But write the law that it's either universal income or back to the system we are currently under. I think if left to a vote of the people, most would choose universal income over what we have today.