Secretary Clinton almost ran for president on universal basic income

[BulletProof]

How long were the studies? It takes time to learn how to merely use capital, for all of its worth.

Don't be an idiot. It doesn't matter how long a study lasted, people work less when they're given more, especially when they're given more for not working. Millions of Americans would refuse to work if they had a guaranteed minimum income, even if that income was a dollar below minimum wage. Millions of Americans already refuse to work.

Even worse, when human trash doesn't work, it spends its time littering the streets and causing trouble.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

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.

I think the country is Sweden if I am correct...

 

[BulletProof]

The best argument for universal income is that it doesn't punish work and responsibility, as welfare programs do.

But, we can improve welfare programs without a universal income. E.g. replace Earned Income Credit with a $2000 child tax credit limited to 20% of earned income refundable.

But, you people are morons, so life will always suck.

 

[Freewill]

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.

would work really great if people were responsible. Or if people had the guts to let someone die who spent their 18000 on drugs. I am not sure where you live but to pay for health care and a living space would cost much more then 18000. That said, the idea has some merit but I am thinking it might spawn a new generation of couch potatoes.

Why? Anyone with any income would be better able to participate in our markets.

One thing about this, whatever they are GIVEN it is someone else's money.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The best argument for universal income is that it doesn't punish work and responsibility, as welfare programs do.

But, we can improve welfare programs without a universal income. E.g. replace Earned Income Credit with a $2000 child tax credit limited to 20% of earned income refundable.

But, you people are morons, so life will always suck.

The thing about UI is that it applies to everybody, not just those who work, who don't work, who are disabled, who are retired, it applies to everybody equally.

By replacing all social programs with Universal Income, nobody can complain about what their neighbor is getting, their situation, their circumstance.

For instance I have a full time job and I'm a landlord to boot. I work a lot, but it's okay because I can afford to live in the suburbs. My HUD neighbors next door don't work (or work very little) and they are coming in and out of that driveway all hours of the working night. My complaint is, how is it I work like this to live in the burbs and they just walked on in and live next door to me?

Universal Income would solve that problem because they would get the same amount of money that I do from the government. It's likely (since they would have to pay their own rent with that money) they would not choose to live in the suburbs. They would choose to live in lower income areas where they belong.

 

[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.

would work really great if people were responsible. Or if people had the guts to let someone die who spent their 18000 on drugs. I am not sure where you live but to pay for health care and a living space would cost much more then 18000. That said, the idea has some merit but I am thinking it might spawn a new generation of couch potatoes.

True, but it could also work in reverse. It just may make workers out of those couch potatoes.

As you stated, 18K isn't enough to live on.......at least not comfortably. But the current way we distribute social goodies deters people from working. That is to say, if they make more than X amount of money per month, the government takes it out of their social program(s) and it's like working for free for them.

I have two tenants on disability; one full disability and one partial. Both can make money doing low paying jobs, but they restrict their income because any money they make over X amount per month gets deducted from their disability check. It works the same way with food stamps, with child care, with Medicaid, with all of it. If you want freebies, you need to limit your income.

 

[Freewill]

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.

would work really great if people were responsible. Or if people had the guts to let someone die who spent their 18000 on drugs. I am not sure where you live but to pay for health care and a living space would cost much more then 18000. That said, the idea has some merit but I am thinking it might spawn a new generation of couch potatoes.

True, but it could also work in reverse. It just may make workers out of those couch potatoes.

As you stated, 18K isn't enough to live on.......at least not comfortably. But the current way we distribute social goodies deters people from working. That is to say, if they make more than X amount of money per month, the government takes it out of their social program(s) and it's like working for free for them.

I have two tenants on disability; one full disability and one partial. Both can make money doing low paying jobs, but they restrict their income because any money they make over X amount per month gets deducted from their disability check. It works the same way with food stamps, with child care, with Medicaid, with all of it. If you want freebies, you need to limit your income.

That is the same for everyone. Being as I am a wage earner I am not eligible for any of the give always, any more so then those who could work and don't. Another solution, if they could work, and don't, then take away their benefits as if they did work. And maybe increase the EITC.

 

[JimBowie1958]

One thing about this, whatever they are GIVEN it is someone else's money.

In this case it would be corporate money taken from their excessive profits due to replacing human workers with machines.

It is also in their own interest so that there is still a consumer market to buy their shit.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Hillary Clinton almost ran for president on a universal basic income

From that link:

Before I ran for President, I read a book called With Liberty and Dividends for All: How to Save Our Middle Class When Jobs Don’t Pay Enough, by Peter Barnes, which explored the idea of creating a new fund that would use revenue from shared national resources to pay a dividend to every citizen, much like how the Alaska Permanent Fund distributes the state’s oil royalties every year.

Anyone want to take a guess what favorite psuedocon MILF slapped an excess profits tax on her state’s oil companies in 2008 and redistributed it as a universal basic income while she was running for Vice President?

Anyone?

Bueller?...Bueller?...Bueller?

So does all this 'student of Palin economics' make Hillary a better or worse candidate?...what royalties was Hillary going to use? or was she just going to rename taxes as royalties?...she's a shrewed one

 

[JimBowie1958]

That is the same for everyone. Being as I am a wage earner I am not eligible for any of the give always, any more so then those who could work and don't. Another solution, if they could work, and don't, then take away their benefits as if they did work. And maybe increase the EITC.

But the UBI would be the same amount for evereyone so that people can feel like they have some economic stability in an oncoming age of high unemployment (90% perhaps).

There is no means testing.

 

[JimBowie1958]

So does all this 'student of Palin economics' make Hillary a better or worse candidate?...what royalties was Hillary going to use? or was she just going to rename taxes as royalties?...she's a shrewed one

It is anybodies guess what Hillary is thinking.

My guess is that she wanted to outdo Bernie Sanders.

 

[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.

would work really great if people were responsible. Or if people had the guts to let someone die who spent their 18000 on drugs. I am not sure where you live but to pay for health care and a living space would cost much more then 18000. That said, the idea has some merit but I am thinking it might spawn a new generation of couch potatoes.

True, but it could also work in reverse. It just may make workers out of those couch potatoes.

As you stated, 18K isn't enough to live on.......at least not comfortably. But the current way we distribute social goodies deters people from working. That is to say, if they make more than X amount of money per month, the government takes it out of their social program(s) and it's like working for free for them.

I have two tenants on disability; one full disability and one partial. Both can make money doing low paying jobs, but they restrict their income because any money they make over X amount per month gets deducted from their disability check. It works the same way with food stamps, with child care, with Medicaid, with all of it. If you want freebies, you need to limit your income.

That is the same for everyone. Being as I am a wage earner I am not eligible for any of the give always, any more so then those who could work and don't. Another solution, if they could work, and don't, then take away their benefits as if they did work. And maybe increase the EITC.

If it were only that easy. You know how the political game goes. Take away government gifts and the Democrats would be screaming from the highest mountain. Bernie and Hillary both ran on giving even more gifts.

You and I both work, and we pay for others who don't work. Wouldn't it be nice if we--the productive in society got something back instead of just giving all the time?

Why is it we can't solve poverty? Because the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, and the way our social programs are setup, the more kids you have, the larger government payout, so we are paying poor people to create more poor people. In the meantime, working people can only afford to have one or two children if they can afford any at all.

So the entire social safety net package is all politics. Democrats want to create more government dependents and Republicans want to see less of them. Universal Income would be a solution to that. People who only got X amount from the government every year regardless of their circumstance would maybe invest some of that money into condoms or birth control pills. No more rewards for having more kids on the dole.

 

[Cellblock2429]

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"

/----/ @RealDonaldTrump After allowing North Korea to research and build Nukes while Secretary of State (Bill C also), Crooked Hillary now criticizes.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

would work really great if people were responsible. Or if people had the guts to let someone die who spent their 18000 on drugs. I am not sure where you live but to pay for health care and a living space would cost much more then 18000. That said, the idea has some merit but I am thinking it might spawn a new generation of couch potatoes.

Why? Anyone with any income would be better able to participate in our markets.

One thing about this, whatever they are GIVEN it is someone else's money.

So what. Taxes are always about, "someone else's' money."

 

[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.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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

Right now we are in a deflationary situation.

The Federal Reserve would be all giggly if it could kick off a little inflation.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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

Right now we are in a deflationary situation.

The Federal Reserve would be all giggly if it could kick off a little inflation.

Would that be solved by all of the unemployment this plan would cause?

 

[JimBowie1958]

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

Right now we are in a deflationary situation.

The Federal Reserve would be all giggly if it could kick off a little inflation.

Would that be solved by all of the unemployment this plan would cause?

The UBI would be in response to a high unemployment scenario due to robotics taking jobs.

So I dont think UBI would cause unemployment so much as be a response to it.

This would be a HUGELY deflationary scenario we are talking about, so no worries about inflation if it came to pass.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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

Right now we are in a deflationary situation.

The Federal Reserve would be all giggly if it could kick off a little inflation.

Would that be solved by all of the unemployment this plan would cause?

The UBI would be in response to a high unemployment scenario due to robotics taking jobs.

So I dont think UBI would cause unemployment so much as be a response to it.

This would be a HUGELY deflationary scenario we are talking about, so no worries about inflation if it came to pass.

With all due respect, I don't think you understand the difference in inflation and deflation. All of this extra fluid income would simply cause inflation.

 

[JimBowie1958]

This would be a HUGELY deflationary scenario we are talking about, so no worries about inflation if it came to pass.

With all due respect, I don't think you understand the difference in inflation and deflation. All of this extra fluid income would simply cause inflation.

But it would be in response to a huge deletion of incomes. The UBI would be only a fraction of what people had once earned while employed.

So we would be in a deflationary scenario, if not a full blown depression, and the UBI would help to stimulate the economy, but not nearly replace the lost incomes that had put far more currency into circulation prior to that.