What percent of GDP should be devoted to a universal minimum income

[Anathema]

So, a thief should be allowed to keep what he has stolen, and never be compelled to give any of it back to the rightful owners thereof?

It is not stealing to take back what was always rightfully yours.

Unfortunately when the thief is not inly protected by the Government, but tbe Government itself, there's little thst can be done about it.

Our only true option is to stop the Government from being involved in these social issues to begin with.

 

[CultureCitizen]

The concept of needing humans to break their backs for 50 years doing hard labor is probably going bye bye in the next 20 years. AI and Robotics will take over.

We will need a UBI for all humans.....I say 10% to keep people wanting to find some kind of improvement through work.

Your own motive is obvious enough. You don't want to work, you don't want to contribute anything to society, and you want to live at the expense of others, rather than carry your own fair share of the load. You want to exist as a worthless parasite on society.

Society has no need for your kind.

2 Thessalonians 3:10: “For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.”​

'Does the Thesalonians 3:10 apply to royalty and shareholders too ?

 

[frigidweirdo]

I made a similar poll in absolute terms, this time it is relative to gdp.
Now, some restrictions:
1) assume al other social security programs disappear( medicare , medicaid, government pensions, food stamps)
2) Public schools will still exists ( the budget for education is less than 1% of gdp )
3) The tax rate will be 35% flat, but the minimum income will work as a tax return for everyonew with an income. Hence if someone earns 50,000 a year and the UMI is 10,000 that person will only pay 7,500 in taxes instead of 17,500.
4) The minimum income only applies to people over who are 20 year or older ( to avoid people using extra kids as a way to increase their income)
5) I have not included percentages above 30% because even without social programs some money is required to run the government and build infrastructure; it is unlikely the government will be able to raise more than 40% of gdp in taxes.

Minimum wage and unemployment should both be a state by state issue.

It should be based on local cost of living.

The Feds should stay out of this. They are already too deep in deficits.

Medicare and medicaid are already too expensive. Why not give the money directly to the people and let them choose where to get the money .

You mean where to get the healthcare??

Sory Ed, I meant "put their money" ... I'd better stop making posts when I am falling asleep.

That's not what I said. If you work and you pay into the system, then there is a safety net for when you can't work.

What you're coming up with is money for nothing. It's ridiculous. It encourages people not to work.

Exactly. You just wind up creating more worthless parasites, such as Matthew, who think that society owes them a living, and are unwilling and unable to contribute anything back to society.

Ahhh. Well, exactly , at some point people start getting desperate and start searching for alternative sources of income: drug and human trafficking, prostitution, kidnaping, extortion or simple robbery and keeping people incarcerated is not exactly cheap.
Free people consume products.

Does this mean people wouldn't go looking for these sources of income if they had money thrown at them for doing nothing? People don't stop trying to make money simply because they have a little.

It is not that people will stop looking for sources of income , it will most likely be the case that such sources are rare and or require a very high level of specialization and skill. The minimum income will help them achieve such level.

Yes, it will. But it doesn't stop drugs, prostitution and other such things in any way at all.

 

[CultureCitizen]

I made a similar poll in absolute terms, this time it is relative to gdp.
Now, some restrictions:
1) assume al other social security programs disappear( medicare , medicaid, government pensions, food stamps)
2) Public schools will still exists ( the budget for education is less than 1% of gdp )
3) The tax rate will be 35% flat, but the minimum income will work as a tax return for everyonew with an income. Hence if someone earns 50,000 a year and the UMI is 10,000 that person will only pay 7,500 in taxes instead of 17,500.
4) The minimum income only applies to people over who are 20 year or older ( to avoid people using extra kids as a way to increase their income)
5) I have not included percentages above 30% because even without social programs some money is required to run the government and build infrastructure; it is unlikely the government will be able to raise more than 40% of gdp in taxes.

Minimum wage and unemployment should both be a state by state issue.

It should be based on local cost of living.

The Feds should stay out of this. They are already too deep in deficits.

Medicare and medicaid are already too expensive. Why not give the money directly to the people and let them choose where to get the money .

You mean where to get the healthcare??

Sory Ed, I meant "put their money" ... I'd better stop making posts when I am falling asleep.

That's not what I said. If you work and you pay into the system, then there is a safety net for when you can't work.

What you're coming up with is money for nothing. It's ridiculous. It encourages people not to work.

Exactly. You just wind up creating more worthless parasites, such as Matthew, who think that society owes them a living, and are unwilling and unable to contribute anything back to society.

Ahhh. Well, exactly , at some point people start getting desperate and start searching for alternative sources of income: drug and human trafficking, prostitution, kidnaping, extortion or simple robbery and keeping people incarcerated is not exactly cheap.
Free people consume products.

Does this mean people wouldn't go looking for these sources of income if they had money thrown at them for doing nothing? People don't stop trying to make money simply because they have a little.

It is not that people will stop looking for sources of income , it will most likely be the case that such sources are rare and or require a very high level of specialization and skill. The minimum income will help them achieve such level.

Yes, it will. But it doesn't stop drugs, prostitution and other such things in any way at all.

No , it won't it will just decrease them. When people are better off crime tends to decline.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Minimum wage and unemployment should both be a state by state issue.

It should be based on local cost of living.

The Feds should stay out of this. They are already too deep in deficits.

Medicare and medicaid are already too expensive. Why not give the money directly to the people and let them choose where to get the money .

You mean where to get the healthcare??

Sory Ed, I meant "put their money" ... I'd better stop making posts when I am falling asleep.

Exactly. You just wind up creating more worthless parasites, such as Matthew, who think that society owes them a living, and are unwilling and unable to contribute anything back to society.

Ahhh. Well, exactly , at some point people start getting desperate and start searching for alternative sources of income: drug and human trafficking, prostitution, kidnaping, extortion or simple robbery and keeping people incarcerated is not exactly cheap.
Free people consume products.

Does this mean people wouldn't go looking for these sources of income if they had money thrown at them for doing nothing? People don't stop trying to make money simply because they have a little.

It is not that people will stop looking for sources of income , it will most likely be the case that such sources are rare and or require a very high level of specialization and skill. The minimum income will help them achieve such level.

Yes, it will. But it doesn't stop drugs, prostitution and other such things in any way at all.

No , it won't it will just decrease them. When people are better off crime tends to decline.

Yes, crime is lower in countries with people who are better off. The problem is you're not making them that much better off.

Switzerland has a low crime rate because it has a high GDP. You're not making a higher level of GDP, the GDP will stay the same.

Now, what happens to people who decide they no longer need to work any more because they'll get a minimum income whether they get up in the morning or not? Well, it will mean that places that currently employ people who earn lower than this wage will have to pay more. So they pay more for their workers, they're going to have to charge more for their products. They charge more for their products then food prices increase, which means that those people who earn more will be less well off. And then they'll start demanding a pay rise. So then the minimum amount that is being paid to the low paid workers suddenly isn't enough to let them live because the food prices have just increased, and everyone else is earning more than them again and you're back where you started.

What would be better would be to make people good workers. Give them skills to do a job. Give them opportunities to do that job. Encourage them to work. The best way to encourage people to work is to not hand out free cash to them.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Medicare and medicaid are already too expensive. Why not give the money directly to the people and let them choose where to get the money .

You mean where to get the healthcare??

Sory Ed, I meant "put their money" ... I'd better stop making posts when I am falling asleep.

Ahhh. Well, exactly , at some point people start getting desperate and start searching for alternative sources of income: drug and human trafficking, prostitution, kidnaping, extortion or simple robbery and keeping people incarcerated is not exactly cheap.
Free people consume products.

Does this mean people wouldn't go looking for these sources of income if they had money thrown at them for doing nothing? People don't stop trying to make money simply because they have a little.

It is not that people will stop looking for sources of income , it will most likely be the case that such sources are rare and or require a very high level of specialization and skill. The minimum income will help them achieve such level.

Yes, it will. But it doesn't stop drugs, prostitution and other such things in any way at all.

No , it won't it will just decrease them. When people are better off crime tends to decline.

Yes, crime is lower in countries with people who are better off. The problem is you're not making them that much better off.

Switzerland has a low crime rate because it has a high GDP. You're not making a higher level of GDP, the GDP will stay the same.

Now, what happens to people who decide they no longer need to work any more because they'll get a minimum income whether they get up in the morning or not? Well, it will mean that places that currently employ people who earn lower than this wage will have to pay more. So they pay more for their workers, they're going to have to charge more for their products. They charge more for their products then food prices increase, which means that those people who earn more will be less well off. And then they'll start demanding a pay rise. So then the minimum amount that is being paid to the low paid workers suddenly isn't enough to let them live because the food prices have just increased, and everyone else is earning more than them again and you're back where you started.

What would be better would be to make people good workers. Give them skills to do a job. Give them opportunities to do that job. Encourage them to work. The best way to encourage people to work is to not hand out free cash to them.

Encourage them to work ... what exactly do you think happened in the rust belt ? Is it full of lazy people ? Are Mexicans doing all the work for pennies ? Well , no exactly.
After the crisis industrial production recovered, but jobs didn't ( see chart) . I assume those 3 million workers have to retool their skills and find a new job or move somewhere else. How long will that take 3? years maybe ?

Second
Well, it will mean that places that currently employ people who earn lower than this wage will have to pay more.

No , why ? I get a UMI of $1,000 and I can get an extra $500 with a part time job? Why would the employers have to pay more. In fact if the UMI is above the minimum then the minimum wage can disappear. In any case the problem is a lack of jobs, not that there are too many jobs right now.

My point: changes are going to happen really fast in the next two decades, and it is better to start discussing how to mitigate the problems that a rapid change in technology will bring.

 

[danielpalos]

The concept of needing humans to break their backs for 50 years doing hard labor is probably going bye bye in the next 20 years. AI and Robotics will take over.

We will need a UBI for all humans.....I say 10% to keep people wanting to find some kind of improvement through work.

Your own motive is obvious enough. You don't want to work, you don't want to contribute anything to society, and you want to live at the expense of others, rather than carry your own fair share of the load. You want to exist as a worthless parasite on society.

Society has no need for your kind.

2 Thessalonians 3:10: “For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.”​

Job 34:30 Let the hypocrite reign not, lest the People be ensnared.

 

[martybegan]

I made a similar poll in absolute terms, this time it is relative to gdp.
Now, some restrictions:
1) assume al other social security programs disappear( medicare , medicaid, government pensions, food stamps)
2) Public schools will still exists ( the budget for education is less than 1% of gdp )
3) The tax rate will be 35% flat, but the minimum income will work as a tax return for everyonew with an income. Hence if someone earns 50,000 a year and the UMI is 10,000 that person will only pay 7,500 in taxes instead of 17,500.
4) The minimum income only applies to people over who are 20 year or older ( to avoid people using extra kids as a way to increase their income)
5) I have not included percentages above 30% because even without social programs some money is required to run the government and build infrastructure; it is unlikely the government will be able to raise more than 40% of gdp in taxes.

Universal minimum income is a silly idea. People should work for their money.

So no safety net huh ??

John Birch Society, n'est pas ?!

That's not what I said. If you work and you pay into the system, then there is a safety net for when you can't work.

What you're coming up with is money for nothing. It's ridiculous. It encourages people not to work.

if they throw in some Chicks for Free, I might be interested.

 

[martybegan]

Zero, get a ******* job





.

No fear for automation at all ?

Paying people to do nothing is not the answer to unemployment caused by automation. All you do is create a restless idle underclass.

People (most people) need to be kept busy and given a purpose, even if that purpose is handing out French fries or digging a ditch.

 

[Votto]

I voted for 15%, but only to get rid of all the other crap we are taxed for.

That would be a deal.

Of course, Dims will never go for it. They campaign on free everything.

 

[martybegan]

I voted for 15%, but only to get rid of all the other crap we are taxed for.

That would be a deal.

Of course, Dims will never go for it. They campaign on free everything.

Within 5 years of this being implemented the other programs would creep back in.

It would be like immigration amnesty cycles on steroids.

 

[Votto]

I voted for 15%, but only to get rid of all the other crap we are taxed for.

That would be a deal.

Of course, Dims will never go for it. They campaign on free everything.

Within 5 years of this being implemented the other programs would creep back in.

It would be like immigration amnesty cycles on steroids.

As it stands now, the debt will spiral out of control until taxes eat up everything, which I think is the plan.

It would at least be worth a try. With the GOP in power how are they reigning in debt? Their not and never will.

 

[danielpalos]

Medicare and medicaid are already too expensive. Why not give the money directly to the people and let them choose where to get the money .

You mean where to get the healthcare??

Sory Ed, I meant "put their money" ... I'd better stop making posts when I am falling asleep.

Ahhh. Well, exactly , at some point people start getting desperate and start searching for alternative sources of income: drug and human trafficking, prostitution, kidnaping, extortion or simple robbery and keeping people incarcerated is not exactly cheap.
Free people consume products.

Does this mean people wouldn't go looking for these sources of income if they had money thrown at them for doing nothing? People don't stop trying to make money simply because they have a little.

It is not that people will stop looking for sources of income , it will most likely be the case that such sources are rare and or require a very high level of specialization and skill. The minimum income will help them achieve such level.

Yes, it will. But it doesn't stop drugs, prostitution and other such things in any way at all.

No , it won't it will just decrease them. When people are better off crime tends to decline.

Yes, crime is lower in countries with people who are better off. The problem is you're not making them that much better off.

Switzerland has a low crime rate because it has a high GDP. You're not making a higher level of GDP, the GDP will stay the same.

Now, what happens to people who decide they no longer need to work any more because they'll get a minimum income whether they get up in the morning or not? Well, it will mean that places that currently employ people who earn lower than this wage will have to pay more. So they pay more for their workers, they're going to have to charge more for their products. They charge more for their products then food prices increase, which means that those people who earn more will be less well off. And then they'll start demanding a pay rise. So then the minimum amount that is being paid to the low paid workers suddenly isn't enough to let them live because the food prices have just increased, and everyone else is earning more than them again and you're back where you started.

What would be better would be to make people good workers. Give them skills to do a job. Give them opportunities to do that job. Encourage them to work. The best way to encourage people to work is to not hand out free cash to them.

There is no unemployment under Capitalism, only underpayment.

 

[danielpalos]

Zero, get a ******* job





.

No fear for automation at all ?

Paying people to do nothing is not the answer to unemployment caused by automation. All you do is create a restless idle underclass.

People (most people) need to be kept busy and given a purpose, even if that purpose is handing out French fries or digging a ditch.

Employment is at-will in most US States.

 

[Votto]

You mean where to get the healthcare??

Sory Ed, I meant "put their money" ... I'd better stop making posts when I am falling asleep.

Does this mean people wouldn't go looking for these sources of income if they had money thrown at them for doing nothing? People don't stop trying to make money simply because they have a little.

It is not that people will stop looking for sources of income , it will most likely be the case that such sources are rare and or require a very high level of specialization and skill. The minimum income will help them achieve such level.

Yes, it will. But it doesn't stop drugs, prostitution and other such things in any way at all.

No , it won't it will just decrease them. When people are better off crime tends to decline.

Yes, crime is lower in countries with people who are better off. The problem is you're not making them that much better off.

Switzerland has a low crime rate because it has a high GDP. You're not making a higher level of GDP, the GDP will stay the same.

Now, what happens to people who decide they no longer need to work any more because they'll get a minimum income whether they get up in the morning or not? Well, it will mean that places that currently employ people who earn lower than this wage will have to pay more. So they pay more for their workers, they're going to have to charge more for their products. They charge more for their products then food prices increase, which means that those people who earn more will be less well off. And then they'll start demanding a pay rise. So then the minimum amount that is being paid to the low paid workers suddenly isn't enough to let them live because the food prices have just increased, and everyone else is earning more than them again and you're back where you started.

What would be better would be to make people good workers. Give them skills to do a job. Give them opportunities to do that job. Encourage them to work. The best way to encourage people to work is to not hand out free cash to them.

There is no unemployment under Capitalism, only underpayment.

You sound like someone on entitlements. It's never enough, is it?

If you don't want someone telling you what you are worth, then start your own business. It's the only way you are ever paid what you are worth.

 

[danielpalos]

Sory Ed, I meant "put their money" ... I'd better stop making posts when I am falling asleep.
It is not that people will stop looking for sources of income , it will most likely be the case that such sources are rare and or require a very high level of specialization and skill. The minimum income will help them achieve such level.

Yes, it will. But it doesn't stop drugs, prostitution and other such things in any way at all.

No , it won't it will just decrease them. When people are better off crime tends to decline.

Yes, crime is lower in countries with people who are better off. The problem is you're not making them that much better off.

Switzerland has a low crime rate because it has a high GDP. You're not making a higher level of GDP, the GDP will stay the same.

Now, what happens to people who decide they no longer need to work any more because they'll get a minimum income whether they get up in the morning or not? Well, it will mean that places that currently employ people who earn lower than this wage will have to pay more. So they pay more for their workers, they're going to have to charge more for their products. They charge more for their products then food prices increase, which means that those people who earn more will be less well off. And then they'll start demanding a pay rise. So then the minimum amount that is being paid to the low paid workers suddenly isn't enough to let them live because the food prices have just increased, and everyone else is earning more than them again and you're back where you started.

What would be better would be to make people good workers. Give them skills to do a job. Give them opportunities to do that job. Encourage them to work. The best way to encourage people to work is to not hand out free cash to them.

There is no unemployment under Capitalism, only underpayment.

You sound like someone on entitlements. It's never enough, is it?

If you don't want someone telling you what you are worth, then start your own business. It's the only way you are ever paid what you are worth.

I am advocating for ending my "entitlement" to a "War on Drugs".

 

[Votto]

Yes, it will. But it doesn't stop drugs, prostitution and other such things in any way at all.

No , it won't it will just decrease them. When people are better off crime tends to decline.

Yes, crime is lower in countries with people who are better off. The problem is you're not making them that much better off.

Switzerland has a low crime rate because it has a high GDP. You're not making a higher level of GDP, the GDP will stay the same.

Now, what happens to people who decide they no longer need to work any more because they'll get a minimum income whether they get up in the morning or not? Well, it will mean that places that currently employ people who earn lower than this wage will have to pay more. So they pay more for their workers, they're going to have to charge more for their products. They charge more for their products then food prices increase, which means that those people who earn more will be less well off. And then they'll start demanding a pay rise. So then the minimum amount that is being paid to the low paid workers suddenly isn't enough to let them live because the food prices have just increased, and everyone else is earning more than them again and you're back where you started.

What would be better would be to make people good workers. Give them skills to do a job. Give them opportunities to do that job. Encourage them to work. The best way to encourage people to work is to not hand out free cash to them.

There is no unemployment under Capitalism, only underpayment.

You sound like someone on entitlements. It's never enough, is it?

If you don't want someone telling you what you are worth, then start your own business. It's the only way you are ever paid what you are worth.

I am advocating for ending my "entitlement" to a "War on Drugs".

Right, people are making too much selling illegal drugs, so the state must destroy it.

 

[martybegan]

I voted for 15%, but only to get rid of all the other crap we are taxed for.

That would be a deal.

Of course, Dims will never go for it. They campaign on free everything.

Within 5 years of this being implemented the other programs would creep back in.

It would be like immigration amnesty cycles on steroids.

As it stands now, the debt will spiral out of control until taxes eat up everything, which I think is the plan.

It would at least be worth a try. With the GOP in power how are they reigning in debt? Their not and never will.

It would create an army of people making bad decisions, which will require more government programs to correct. It would just add another entitlement we cannot get rid of.

 

[martybegan]

Zero, get a ******* job





.

No fear for automation at all ?

Paying people to do nothing is not the answer to unemployment caused by automation. All you do is create a restless idle underclass.

People (most people) need to be kept busy and given a purpose, even if that purpose is handing out French fries or digging a ditch.

Employment is at-will in most US States.

And your point is? Do you want to return to some form of serfdom?

 

[Votto]

I voted for 15%, but only to get rid of all the other crap we are taxed for.

That would be a deal.

Of course, Dims will never go for it. They campaign on free everything.

Within 5 years of this being implemented the other programs would creep back in.

It would be like immigration amnesty cycles on steroids.

As it stands now, the debt will spiral out of control until taxes eat up everything, which I think is the plan.

It would at least be worth a try. With the GOP in power how are they reigning in debt? Their not and never will.

It would create an army of people making bad decisions, which will require more government programs to correct. It would just add another entitlement we cannot get rid of.

So what is your plan to reduce debt?

Do you really believe voting "R" will do anything?