Universal Basic Income

[Natural Citizen]

We lost our way somewhere back in time.

Somewhere between Santa Clara County vs Pacific Railroad and 1913.

 

[para bellum]

I guess a universal basic dividend is different, somehow.

When the Alyeska Pipeline was built and the North Slope was developed, it was decided that all Alaskans should share in the oil royalties. The Permanent Fund was setup for that purpose.

It differs from a UBI in that it's not money that comes from a general fund of taxpayer dollars, and it is not a guaranteed amount. It comes from the oil royalties, which are invested and the dividends are distributed to the residents of the State. The dividend depends on how the fund did that year, just like any other dividend.

Every State is free to do the same thing with their natural resources, be it timber or mining or whatever. Alaska just happens to be the State that did it...

 

[SeaMajor7]

I have read all, or almost all, of Thomas Paine's writings. I think we have a user on this forum who has adopted Paine's name.

Thomas Paine is perhaps most well-known to Americans as being the author of Common Sense, a pamphlet which inspired every patriot to independence.

He also published a series of pamphlets under the title American Crisis. The most famous line most of us have heard from that series is, "These are the times which try men's souls."

Lesser known today, but quite famous during its time, was The Age of Reason. In this three part tome written after we gained independence, Paine completely deconstructed the Christian Bible. He ripped it to pieces.

Paine was an advocate of Deism.

The Age of Reason was a huge bestseller in the US. and led to a revival of deism here.

Not so well known today is Paine's Agrarian Justice.

Like most of our Founders, Paine believe in Natural Rights. He believed "landed property" was an inevitable violation of Natural Rights that needed to be mitigated as the poor were worse off under such a system than when humans had lived in a state of nature.

Paine's solution was for America to provide a tidy sum to every American who reached the age of 21, and to provide an annual sum to everyone who arrived at the age of 50.

The latter half is Social Security. The former is a precursor to a universal basic income, though Paine intended it to be a one time payment so the poor could buy cows or other means to support themselves.

What? Social Security proposed way back in 1797? And UBI, too?!?

It's a very fascinating piece to read, so here it is: http://www.piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/Paine1795.pdf

Just as an aside, Thomas Jefferson also felt the same about the landed class violating Natural Rights, and he proposed a progressive tax on the wealthy, with most Americans being exempt from taxation. (Editing note: I originally posted it was James Madison, but I got the recipient and the sender reversed. See letter in post 4 below. My apologies.)

Our Founders were proto-commies!


Kamala Harris proposed a universal basic income when she was a US Senator in 2018, which puts here squarely in the Liberal column.

More in my next post.

Get a job and develope a career.

 

[g5000]

Get a job and develope a career.

I have a very productive and rewarding career.

I also have free time, which apparently has not occurred to you.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

When the Alyeska Pipeline was built and the North Slope was developed, it was decided that all Alaskans should share in the oil royalties. The Permanent Fund was setup for that purpose.

It differs from a UBI in that it's not money that comes from a general fund of taxpayer dollars, and it is not a guaranteed amount. It comes from the oil royalties, which are invested and the dividends are distributed to the residents of the State. The dividend depends on how the fund did that year, just like any other dividend.

Every State is free to do the same thing with their natural resources, be it timber or mining or whatever. Alaska just happens to be the State that did it...

All true, except maybe for the implication of any State being able to do it now. Since they have sold and relinquished control of land and mineral rights, it would require government seizure of those assets to attempt what Alaska is now doing. So I think this ship has probably sailed, as a model for UBI. Unless you just want to write up a tax. Then we should just engineer a UBI tax that pulls funds from all industries.

As I understand it, Alaska maintains a share of ownership of the lands and rights, on the non-federal lands. So they take their slice right off the top, instead of making it a tax.

 

[SeaMajor7]

I have a very productive and rewarding career.

I also have free time, which apparently has not occurred to you.

So you're anti-capitalist why?

 

[para bellum]

All true, except maybe for the implication of any State being able to do it now. Since they have sold and relinquished control of land and mineral rights, it would require government seizure of those assets to attempt what Alaska is now doing. So I think this ship has probably sailed, as a model for UBI. Unless you just want to write up a tax. Then we should just engineer a UBI tax that pulls funds from all industries.

As I understand it, Alaska maintains a share of ownership of the lands and rights, on the non-federal lands. So they take their slice right off the top, instead of making it a tax.

Most States retain some State public lands, and most of the States that became States after the civil war have large percentages that are Federal lands. That is a whole 'nuther conversation that I don't want to get into, but States are free to be as creative as they want.

The Western States have State lands that are used for timber harvest, but the States don't share the wealth. It used to be that money was used to fund schools, but the environmental movement put an end to that revenue stream.

There are quite a few States that have mining and gas/oil resources that could do the same thing as Alaska.

California's proposals were just taxes that were redistributed...

 

[g5000]

So you're anti-capitalist why?

I am as pro-capitalist as it gets.

Man, you are making a fool of yourself.

 

[g5000]

These poor tards. They are butt hurt I am far better read than they are. Especially when it comes to our early history.

All they can do is press buttons to express their futility.

 

[BackAgain]

If you receive UBI do you pay income tax?

 

[jbander]

Largest study ever shows UBI has disastrous results.

Basically, UBI allows people more time to be lazy.

Details here...

The Largest Study Ever on UBI Was Just Conducted—The Results Are Disappointing for Advocates - FEE

In the 2020 election, an interesting candidate made his way onto the scene for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination: Andrew Yang. Yang made a splash

fee.org

How in the hell can you do a study of UBI without UBI ever existing. Where in the hell could the stats come from.

 

[Lesh]

We lost our way somewhere back in time.

Through legislation used to tilt the playing field in their favor, the rich and powerful have managed to concentrate wealth into a few hands once again, at the expense of the middle class and poor.

I do not disagree with JD Vance when he says we have a corporate oligarchy.

Unfortunately Vance has made himself part of that Oligarchy

 

[bendog]

It's all personal to maga. lol And that's the irony

But early America rested partially on the belief that Calvin and Locke were correct that people would want to emulate the most successful. And I think we see that today, although the progs are giving handouts and maga believes wages will increase if we don't trade. (oversimplification) But nothing seems remotely admirable about either, imo.

But to work, a universal income would have to be a pretty low level of consumerism, or everyone would quit working. So conceptually, I can't really get my head around it. The truly needy are needy because they lack the skills/health to do better, and often times they need MORE not less assistance, through no fault of their own. ANd the worst of us abandon our children. So, while a UI would have less overhead that our current social programs, but how to sift the malingers from the needy .... I can't see it.

 

[jbander]

c

Unfortunately Vance has made himself part of that Oligarchy

everything about any republican , our 2024 conservative and MAGA is they exist for one reason and that is to move every dollar of new wealth in this country to the golden few at the top, anyone who wants can look this up, look at the numbers or any chart from Reagan's tickle down lie till now and you will find out since then, they have almost received every new dollar of increased new wealth in this country. This is the only way that capitalism can be destroyed in this country. Take away the ability of the possibility to get ahead for the masses and the people will look in other directions to be fair. Its been 45 years of the golden few getting almost every new dollar of wealth. Seems logical that for the next 45 years we should set it up for everyone but the golden few at the top , gain all the new wealth of this country. Seems fair to me. Lets make this straight , the conservative voice in this country is as important as the liberal voice is in this country, that's not the voice of any part of the right wing in 2024. IT is nothing but a hate group at this point. They may die on the vine and boy will they have deserved it. But for one I would do anything possible to help real conservatives put together a party/voice that will support them. They do any bullshit like they are doing now and I'll dump them just as fast.

 

[jbander]

It's all personal to maga. lol And that's the irony

But early America rested partially on the belief that Calvin and Locke were correct that people would want to emulate the most successful. And I think we see that today, although the progs are giving handouts and maga believes wages will increase if we don't trade. (oversimplification) But nothing seems remotely admirable about either, imo.

But to work, a universal income would have to be a pretty low level of consumerism, or everyone would quit working. So conceptually, I can't really get my head around it. The truly needy are needy because they lack the skills/health to do better, and often times they need MORE not less assistance, through no fault of their own. ANd the worst of us abandon our children. So, while a UI would have less overhead that our current social programs, but how to sift the malingers from the needy .... I can't see it.

Simpler then that, let no corporation pay a amount where their workers need assistance from the government to survive and feed their family .The number one users of welfare and food stamps are wall mart workers in this country. Tell me why I should have to give money to anyone because the corporation they work for get the profits and enhance their bottom line with my money.

 

[jbander]

The biggest threat to capitalism in this country is the right wing.