What are your thoughts on unconditional basic income?

[op2]

This is a referendum in Switzerland in June. The idea is to simply give people a basic amount of income each month. On the surface that sounds nutty but part of the idea that goes along with it is that it will allow the welfare system and bureaucracy that comes with it to be left behind. (I don't know if Switzerland will pay enough to achieve that but I've read others that propose it for the US to argue it.)

It sounds like a thing the right would be against at first but upon examination, if it gets people off dependency of bureaucracy it might be good. And we wouldn't have to worry as much about jobs being low paying since people wouldn't be depending on jobs for all their income.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...a-national-wage-of-1700-a-month-a6843666.html

ETA: Another thing that might be good about this is, right now low earners don't pay income tax and in fact sometimes have a negative income tax and that is a disincentive to really care about where the tax dollars are spent. But if people have a basic income given to them unconditionally then their work can be taxed starting at Dollar #1.

 

[op2]

Here is a better although longer article about it.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/universal-basic-income/

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

This is a referendum in Switzerland in June. The idea is to simply give people a basic amount of income each month. On the surface that sounds nutty but part of the idea that goes along with it is that it will allow the welfare system and bureaucracy that comes with it to be left behind. (I don't know if Switzerland will pay enough to achieve that but I've read others that propose it for the US to argue it.)

It sounds like a thing the right would be against at first but upon examination, if it gets people off dependency of bureaucracy it might be good. And we wouldn't have to worry as much about jobs being low paying since people wouldn't be depending on jobs for all their income.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...a-national-wage-of-1700-a-month-a6843666.html

ETA: Another thing that might be good about this is, right now low earners don't pay income tax and in fact sometimes have a negative income tax and that is a disincentive to really care about where the tax dollars are spent. But if people have a basic income given to them unconditionally then their work can be taxed starting at Dollar #1.

So everyone (billionaires included) receive X amount of dollars which would theoretically be enough to live on. Then, anything over and above that that you would make in an occupation would be taxed, regardless of individual? How again does this get people off of being dependent on the Gov't?

 

[op2]

So everyone (billionaires included) receive X amount of dollars which would theoretically be enough to live on. Then, anything over and above that that you would make in an occupation would be taxed, regardless of individual? How again does this get people off of being dependent on the Gov't?

Although they'd still be getting money from the government it would eliminate the giant government bureaucracy that sustains it all and also would eliminate people having to navigate the system, which is often annoying and humiliating and whatever else. And it would give people more options when it came to jobs too because the way it is now people sometimes have to take a job or keep a job that they don't like because they need the money. People could instead do what they were inclined to do instead of what they have to do just to get a paycheck.

Of course, the flip side to that is that some people might just say, if I get a basic income for nothing why work? But then again the idea might be, yeah, don't work if you don't want anything more than a basic income, but if you want more you'll work for it, and you'll do what you want to do because you'll have that backup income and won't have to take just any job.

ETA: I doubt the economics if this would work right now. I mean, I doubt there is enough money to give to everyone to have a basic livable income. But as we get richer as a society it might be doable. About 1/3 way down the fivethirtyeight article is a link to a diagram of government programs that currently sustain the welfare system. I've linked to it below. Check out this mess. It would be nice to get rid of it.

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-co...WM-Welfare-Chart-AR-amendment-110215-jpeg.jpg

 

[Airport]

Although they'd still be getting money from the government it would eliminate the giant government bureaucracy that sustains it all and also would eliminate people having to navigate the system, which is often annoying and humiliating and whatever else. And it would give people more options when it came to jobs too because the way it is now people sometimes have to take a job or keep a job that they don't like because they need the money. People could instead do what they were inclined to do instead of what they have to do just to get a paycheck.

Of course, the flip side to that is that some people might just say, if I get a basic income for nothing why work? But then again the idea might be, yeah, don't work if you don't want anything more than a basic income, but if you want more you'll work for it, and you'll do what you want to do because you'll have that backup income and won't have to take just any job.

ETA: I doubt the economics if this would work right now. I mean, I doubt there is enough money to give to everyone to have a basic livable income. But as we get richer as a society it might be doable. About 1/3 way down the fivethirtyeight article is a link to a diagram of government programs that currently sustain the welfare system. I've linked to it below. Check out this mess. It would be nice to get rid of it.

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-co...WM-Welfare-Chart-AR-amendment-110215-jpeg.jpg

I would never hold my breathe to even think a govt would downsize. A govt gets more power the bigger it gets.

 

[WVUBRU]

On this board, I may be one of the bigger supporters of "entitlement" programs including welfare and food stamps. With that being said, I am 100% against something as "unconditional basic income" for the USA.

 

[Airport]

On this board, I may be one of the bigger supporters of "entitlement" programs including welfare and food stamps. With that being said, I am 100% against something as "unconditional basic income" for the USA.

I've told my children to be careful what they try to get into to make a living. There's no reason to take on a enormous debt of a professional school, the govt is going to continue to squeeze those that they can because those are the easy marks.

 

[WVUBRU]

I've told my children to be careful what they try to get into to make a living. There's no reason to take on a enormous debt of a professional school, the govt is going to continue to squeeze those that they can because those are the easy marks.

I don't support or agree with almost anything you say regarding government or politics or current affairs. This latest post is another example.

 

[op2]

I would never hold my breathe to even think a govt would downsize. A govt gets more power the bigger it gets.

If the government was going to just give people money then what would be the point of all these government agencies that do it all now? I think part of the idea is that the reason it might have a chance to pass someday is that it would lower direct government involvement in peoples lives and thus the right would like it. Of course, in terms of money it wouldn't reduce government because government would be the one doling out the money.

 

[Airport]

I don't support or agree with almost anything you say regarding government or politics or current affairs. This latest post is another example.

That's what makes the US a great country. The ability to disagree without getting thrown in jail for what you believe. Unless you happen to be a student on a university campus who is conservative and have to abide by safe zones where conservative ideas are a threat to a liberal's mental well being.

 

[Airport]

If the government was going to just give people money then what would be the point of all these government agencies that do it all now? I think part of the idea is that the reason it might have a chance to pass someday is that it would lower direct government involvement in peoples lives and thus the right would like it. Of course, in terms of money it wouldn't reduce government because government would be the one doling out the money.

Precisely, where do you suppose it would confiscate this money? From normal tax payers? Why would you continue to work if you knew that you would be quarenteed enough money to live. Sooner or later, there would be a move to take even more from the people who want to create wealth that would eventually make all of us the same and concentrate power in those who dole out the largess.

 

[op2]

That's what makes the US a great country. The ability to disagree without getting thrown in jail for what you believe. Unless you happen to be a student on a university campus who is conservative and have to abide by safe zones where conservative ideas are a threat to a liberal's mental well being.

Sadly, you are not exaggerating about college campuses these days. It is crazy. I think we are going to see some....um...interesting stuff during the campaign this fall.

It wouldn't surprise me that as a campaign tactic Trump speaks (or tries to speak) at a university where he knows the response will be people going crazy and on the news coverage as a result Trump will come across as reasonable and the people against him will come across at nuts.

 

[op2]

Precisely, where do you suppose it would confiscate this money? From normal tax payers? Why would you continue to work if you knew that you would be quarenteed enough money to live. Sooner or later, there would be a move to take even more from the people who want to create wealth that would eventually make all of us the same and concentrate power in those who dole out the largess.

The money would come from taxes but part of the idea is that the government already give people a lot of money while also spending a lot of money on a bureaucracy to support it all and the cost of that bureaucracy would go away.

Yes, it's a question whether people would sit around on their *** and do nothing or if instead they'd work. The amount they'd be given wouldn't be so much that they'd be living large but rather a minimum to get by. The hope is that they'd still have an incentive to work to get nicer stuff and that they wouldn't be desperate to take any job in the process but rather one they didn't hate.

Also, note that there is a disincentive to work now too since people can live off the system, which is chaotic and expensive to maintain.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

The money would come from taxes but part of the idea is that the government already give people a lot of money while also spending a lot of money on a bureaucracy to support it all and the cost of that bureaucracy would go away.

Yes, it's a question whether people would sit around on their *** and do nothing or if instead they'd work. The amount they'd be given wouldn't be so much that they'd be living large but rather a minimum to get by. The hope is that they'd still have an incentive to work to get nicer stuff and that they wouldn't be desperate to take any job in the process but rather one they didn't hate.

Also, note that there is a disincentive to work now too since people can live off the system, which is chaotic and expensive to maintain.

I understand the argument for it. I think this is one of those situations where you have an idea that sounds great in theory or the magical liberal utopia, but in reality you have a bunch of fat lazy *** Americans that would take advantage of it and continue to find ways to increase what they get.

I say if you want money, work for it unless you are truly disabled. I'm fine with some socialism. I say go back to the CCC's

 

[Airport]

I understand the argument for it. I think this is one of those situations where you have an idea that sounds great in theory or the magical liberal utopia, but in reality you have a bunch of fat lazy *** Americans that would take advantage of it and continue to find ways to increase what they get.

I say if you want money, work for it unless you are truly disabled. I'm fine with some socialism. I say go back to the CCC's

Or the WPA= we piddle around as my grandfather said it really stood for. When govt gets involved, there's no incentive because, you aren't getting fired for anything except killing somebody important. And then, you will still get paid until you have a trial and sentence. Isn't our govt wonderful?

 

[op2]

I understand the argument for it. I think this is one of those situations where you have an idea that sounds great in theory or the magical liberal utopia, but in reality you have a bunch of fat lazy *** Americans that would take advantage of it and continue to find ways to increase what they get.

I say if you want money, work for it unless you are truly disabled. I'm fine with some socialism. I say go back to the CCC's

Read at least some of the article (the 538 one). This isn't a liberal utopia idea and in fact a lot of liberals are against it because it would dismantle gov't apparatus that currently exists. Instead of forcing someone to kiss a bureaucrat's *** to get a benefit that is restricted in various ways it would put the power of choice on the person. I'm not saying I know it'd work, I'm just saying it's an interesting idea and not a liberal utopian idea. If it was a liberal utopian idea I wouldn't have bothered posting it.

 

[mneilmont]

The money would come from taxes but part of the idea is that the government already give people a lot of money while also spending a lot of money on a bureaucracy to support it all and the cost of that bureaucracy would go away.

Yes, it's a question whether people would sit around on their *** and do nothing or if instead they'd work. The amount they'd be given wouldn't be so much that they'd be living large but rather a minimum to get by. The hope is that they'd still have an incentive to work to get nicer stuff and that they wouldn't be desperate to take any job in the process but rather one they didn't hate.

Also, note that there is a disincentive to work now too since people can live off the system, which is chaotic and expensive to maintain.

How can you go down this road to imagine all would take employment in an attempt to take a better position in life? "The gov amount given would be a minimum amount to get by." Is that not the intent of the welfare system today? Then here comes the do good liberals that say they are only getting by and it would be so much easier if we give free housing for a short period of time and call it chapter 8 housing. And let the gov pay their utilities would make their life much easier, support advanced education, insurance, etc.

After all the add on's to the "get by" checks, they cannot afford to take a low paying job. Opie, can you not see the system you are describing is less than what the system now pays? You are using the wrong incentive to get them off the system. The incentive to get off the system is to shrink below subsistence to renew basic incentive of basic needs of food and shelter, and that will incentivize them to get away from being a gov drone.

 

[mneilmont]

I understand the argument for it. I think this is one of those situations where you have an idea that sounds great in theory or the magical liberal utopia, but in reality you have a bunch of fat lazy *** Americans that would take advantage of it and continue to find ways to increase what they get.

I say if you want money, work for it unless you are truly disabled. I'm fine with some socialism. I say go back to the CCC's

But, that was so embarrassing for recipients to have that stigma attached to their persona.

 

[TarHeelEer]

Read at least some of the article (the 538 one). This isn't a liberal utopia idea and in fact a lot of liberals are against it because it would dismantle gov't apparatus that currently exists. Instead of forcing someone to kiss a bureaucrat's *** to get a benefit that is restricted in various ways it would put the power of choice on the person. I'm not saying I know it'd work, I'm just saying it's an interesting idea and not a liberal utopian idea. If it was a liberal utopian idea I wouldn't have bothered posting it.

I think we're going to have to go to something like this in the future when we have few people actually working and most not, due to technology. It isn't that far away. And then Skynet takes over.

 

[op2]

I think we're going to have to go to something like this in the future when we have few people actually working and most not, due to technology. It isn't that far away. And then Skynet takes over.

I was thinking the same thing. New technology has always made some jobs obsolete but now technology is getting too good for that. It's so good it can do things only humans could do before, like drive. It's a real concern, although a good concern in the sense that it's one of wealth. But OTOH when we have so much wealth and robots can do so much we can't simultaneously have more and more poor people because they can't get jobs because there's nothing for people to do. It's just not feasible.

The nature of the new wealth being created is such that it goes to a smaller number of people. It's not a matter of laziness of the masses rather it's a matter of giant systems that work fantastically well, so well that a smaller and smaller percentage of people are required to develop and maintain them, and then to them flows the resulting wealth.

One remedy around low paying jobs not being a problem is if people have some kind of universal basic income to meet their basic needs and thus they're not relying on the low paying job to get money to survive.

I don't think this is coming anytime soon but eventually I think it'll get here.

 

[mule_eer]

I understand the argument for it. I think this is one of those situations where you have an idea that sounds great in theory or the magical liberal utopia, but in reality you have a bunch of fat lazy *** Americans that would take advantage of it and continue to find ways to increase what they get.

I say if you want money, work for it unless you are truly disabled. I'm fine with some socialism. I say go back to the CCC's

The way I understand it, this isn't needs based. This is a flat amount to every person. You can go out and get a job to supplement it. You have libertarians pushing the idea, and the cost is less than the overhead we spend on assistance programs. I'm not saying all of this because I think it's a good idea. I'm just pointing out the advantages. This replaces food stamps, welfare, unemployment, EITC, etc. It sounds horrible on the face of it, but it does make some sense from an accounting point of view.

 

[BigLickMountee]

The way I understand it, this isn't needs based. This is a flat amount to every person. You can go out and get a job to supplement it. You have libertarians pushing the idea, and the cost is less than the overhead we spend on assistance programs. I'm not saying all of this because I think it's a good idea. I'm just pointing out the advantages. This replaces food stamps, welfare, unemployment, EITC, etc. It sounds horrible on the face of it, but it does make some sense from an accounting point of view.

it won't make sense to the federal employee making a living off the agency serving the population receiving their services. They need the people receiving those entitlements to continue needing them. Changing the rules to give everyone money and closing down the agencies giving away money creates unemployment to a voting block not likely to support politicians wanting to shut down their jobs. How many federal jobs would be lost by this idea? That number of people believe their jobs are more important than saving the nation money. It may may make accounting sense but accountants or non-accountants who have no care about the savings to the nation would decline the sense it makes.

 

[dave]

it won't make sense to the federal employee making a living off the agency serving the population receiving their services. They need the people receiving those entitlements to continue needing them. Changing the rules to give everyone money and closing down the agencies giving away money creates unemployment to a voting block not likely to support politicians wanting to shut down their jobs. How many federal jobs would be lost by this idea? That number of people believe their jobs are more important than saving the nation money. It may may make accounting sense but accountants or non-accountants who have no care about the savings to the nation would decline the sense it makes.

Deep.

 

[mule_eer]

it won't make sense to the federal employee making a living off the agency serving the population receiving their services. They need the people receiving those entitlements to continue needing them. Changing the rules to give everyone money and closing down the agencies giving away money creates unemployment to a voting block not likely to support politicians wanting to shut down their jobs. How many federal jobs would be lost by this idea? That number of people believe their jobs are more important than saving the nation money. It may may make accounting sense but accountants or non-accountants who have no care about the savings to the nation would decline the sense it makes.

Jobs I'll be lost at the federal and state levels with this idea. It's a cost to consider for sure.

 

[Airport]

Jobs I'll be lost at the federal and state levels with this idea. It's a cost to consider for sure.

Govt will never ever cut itself. It will find someplace to add new employees. It's the liberal way.

 

[op2]

it won't make sense to the federal employee making a living off the agency serving the population receiving their services. They need the people receiving those entitlements to continue needing them. Changing the rules to give everyone money and closing down the agencies giving away money creates unemployment to a voting block not likely to support politicians wanting to shut down their jobs. How many federal jobs would be lost by this idea? That number of people believe their jobs are more important than saving the nation money. It may may make accounting sense but accountants or non-accountants who have no care about the savings to the nation would decline the sense it makes.

But that is a reason why the right would like the idea. The right says (correctly I think) that government is inherently inefficient. We have a welfare system and somebody has to work in it but because it's government the efforts of the workers aren't being used efficiently.

If those jobs went away then it'd suck in the short term for those people (although they too would receive the universal basic income as a solace) but in the longer run these people would (hopefully) get jobs in the private sector and as a result of being in the private sector instead of government they would be more productive, boosting the economy as a whole in the process.

The reason I think this idea has a chance of passing some day (not soon) is that it has elements both the left and right would like.

 

[Airport]

But that is a reason why the right would like the idea. The right says (correctly I think) that government is inherently inefficient. We have a welfare system and somebody has to work in it but because it's government the efforts of the workers aren't being used efficiently.

If those jobs went away then it'd suck in the short term for those people (although they too would receive the universal basic income as a solace) but in the longer run these people would (hopefully) get jobs in the private sector and as a result of being in the private sector instead of government they would be more productive, boosting the economy as a whole in the process.

The reason I think this idea has a chance of passing some day (not soon) is that it has elements both the left and right would like.

Who's going to monitor all this? Nobody? Govt will just switch employees from one job to another.

 

[op2]

Who's going to monitor all this? Nobody? Govt will just switch employees from one job to another.

I have no idea how the logistics of it would work. It's an idea. Implementing it is another story. Yeah, I can imagine all those people getting a new job would be a big thing. It wouldn't be easy but the point is whether it would be a good idea. It's not going to happen anytime soon.

Maybe it would be done in stages, with a gradual transition of phasing out various government agencies. In addition to the workers put out of work I imagine it would create a lot of unused building where those workers now work.

 

[Airport]

I have no idea how the logistics of it would work. It's an idea. Implementing it is another story. Yeah, I can imagine all those people getting a new job would be a big thing. It wouldn't be easy but the point is whether it would be a good idea. It's not going to happen anytime soon.

Maybe it would be done in stages, with a gradual transition of phasing out various government agencies. In addition to the workers put out of work I imagine it would create a lot of unused building where those workers now work.

Would you be willing to bet that our govt would downsize?

 

[bamaEER]

This is a referendum in Switzerland in June. The idea is to simply give people a basic amount of income each month. On the surface that sounds nutty but part of the idea that goes along with it is that it will allow the welfare system and bureaucracy that comes with it to be left behind. (I don't know if Switzerland will pay enough to achieve that but I've read others that propose it for the US to argue it.)

It sounds like a thing the right would be against at first but upon examination, if it gets people off dependency of bureaucracy it might be good. And we wouldn't have to worry as much about jobs being low paying since people wouldn't be depending on jobs for all their income.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...a-national-wage-of-1700-a-month-a6843666.html

ETA: Another thing that might be good about this is, right now low earners don't pay income tax and in fact sometimes have a negative income tax and that is a disincentive to really care about where the tax dollars are spent. But if people have a basic income given to them unconditionally then their work can be taxed starting at Dollar #1.

Hate the idea. We need to instill the fundamental need for a work ethic.

 

[Airport]

Hate the idea. We need to instill the fundamental need for a work ethic.

It's hard to argue that point. For years, people have been finding ways around it. Our govt has been making it easier and easier.