- Sep 23, 2012
- 915
- 458
Can someone explain how this is different from welfare? I hope that of the 100 families they select, not all would fall under the poverty line. It would be interesting to see how people in different tax brackets use the 2k.
- Aug 2, 2006
- 38,107
- 35,914
it would have the same effect but the primary difference is you would eliminate the beurocrasy required to distribute welfare.
Conservatives call it a negative income tax I think, but I'm sure wasn't liberals start liking Conservatives will start pretending to hate it.
Partisanship is a hell of a drug.
Last edited:
- Nov 6, 2012
- 4,757
- 1,409
THIS is what is wrong with the world
RustyShackleford
Supporter
- Jul 20, 2009
- 73,323
- 226,043
The conservative darling Milton Friedman even championed this
It is a much more efficient way to run your welfare state for the lower classes.
It is a much more efficient way to run your welfare state for the lower classes.
Last edited:
- Oct 14, 2005
- 1,950
- 168
It happens in the Scandinavian countries and they serve as the case in point, aren't they constantly ranked high for having the best quality of life all around ? The main take away is, the $ distribution give people the basic standards of living so that they can pursue something worthwhile and eventually they will become productive member of the population. The Government in-exchange gets a happier, healthier, educated, creative and a productive population. The selfish motive of capitalism aka "not on my dime" is technically what got us to our current situation. Those of us living in the far corner of the coasts are better off than the middle, yet we expect all to have equal appreciation for our system.
For every 4 single mothers this could benefit greatly, I am not worried about that one Opiate addict using this as a free ride. That is why we have policy makers and regulations.
For every 4 single mothers this could benefit greatly, I am not worried about that one Opiate addict using this as a free ride. That is why we have policy makers and regulations.
- Aug 2, 2006
- 38,107
- 35,914
13 year old me loved milton friedman.
- Apr 30, 2010
- 73,692
- 115,449
THIS is what is wrong with the world
Not sure if son was being sarcastic, but reported.
Basically. A cushion is all most people need to achieve great things, but they're always trying to catch up, treading water.
- Dec 1, 2011
- 4,330
- 4,730
Believe it or not, there have already been somewhat controversial programs that have piloted some form of UBI here in the states.
Can't wait for it to become a reality, just hope that happens before large scale automation does.
Can't wait for it to become a reality, just hope that happens before large scale automation does.
Last edited:
- Mar 2, 2010
- 1,764
- 319
I'm interested to see this too.
This idea makes sense to me but I can't imagine the struggle to get this implemented
- Mar 2, 2010
- 1,764
- 319
Richmond must be small as hell. How would this work in the larger cities like Chicago they mentioned? Break it down by area or something?
iDon’tRead
formerly winter91
- Sep 27, 2014
- 4,439
- 1,907
You two have no idea what you're running your mouths about.
Tons of free market loving libertarians love the idea of universal basic income.
And it gels very easily with capitalism
-And da irony of a person what relies on government wealth redistribution to make rent, looking down on the next man
I believe welfare is only available to low income families. I believe a basic income should be available to a much wider audience
it would have the same effect but the primary difference is you would eliminate the beurocrasy required to distribute welfare.
Conservatives call it a negative income tax I think, but I'm sure wasn't liberals start liking Conservatives will start pretending to hate it.
Partisanship is a hell of a drug.
There's a number of factors as to how it would benefit folks. Such as how much they already make. Size of the family. Age.
- Sep 23, 2012
- 915
- 458
Are there any published findings of this being done on a smaller scale that someone can point me to? I don't feel like going through the rabbit hole while I'm at work lol.
There aren't too many studies. Many countries are starting trial experiments 2017
Majorbread
formerly 40inchboost
- Jul 16, 2009
- 4,557
- 3,586
Makes sense with on coming automation everything, allegedly.
Sure some people will spend unnecessarily and void the benefit, but imagine a lot will use to cover basic bills and living expenses and increase their quality of life greatly
Sure some people will spend unnecessarily and void the benefit, but imagine a lot will use to cover basic bills and living expenses and increase their quality of life greatly
Agreed. I hate that kind of thinking. Akin to how someone ***** up in practice, now everybody else gotta run laps and suffer. Hated that **** lol
Top Boy
formerly jay patt
- Feb 5, 2013
- 8,403
- 5,630
By the time UBI gets serious attention whites won't have the power/numbers necessary to game politics anymore.
Today's youth are already majority color.
Last edited:
- Jun 17, 2006
- 44,532
- 2,902
Co-signing the bolded. It's just like welfare. People took advantage of it and didn't use it to get on their feet. People use welfare and aim to receive it as if it were a lifelong goal.
- May 20, 2006
- 6,408
- 11,683
Some of you are missing the key aspect here, that being "universal". How are people gonna take advantage when everyone gets it?
But like everything else, who pays for it? I dont see how this ends in anything but inflation, which eventually negates it. Might as well skip the bs and add a zero to the currency. We cant even pay our social security obligations, now we got checks for EVERYONE, TODAY?
But like everything else, who pays for it? I dont see how this ends in anything but inflation, which eventually negates it. Might as well skip the bs and add a zero to the currency. We cant even pay our social security obligations, now we got checks for EVERYONE, TODAY?
- Oct 23, 2012
- 83
- 37
Well everyone would pay for it with taxes, and if they just cut out all the welfare programs and gave everyone cash it would probably cost less in the long run than all the admin fees that come with running all the welfare programs.
- Jul 18, 2012
- 8,837
- 4,740
if you can have an hour to kill, here is a really good debate on automation, with the idea of UBI mentioned
- Jan 7, 2003
- 13,669
- 11,708
It's a great idea, and should happen. If this indeed happens, there will be no excuse for saying you have no money. Whether $2 or $2000, you would have to budget your money wisely.
Universal income WILL happen at some point.
Universal income WILL happen at some point.
- Jan 7, 2003
- 13,669
- 11,708
It's a great idea, and should happen. If this indeed happens, there will be no excuse for saying you have no money. Whether $2 or $2000, you would have to budget your money wisely.
Universal income WILL happen at some point.
Universal income WILL happen at some point.
RustyShackleford
Supporter
- Jul 20, 2009
- 73,323
- 226,043
-I don't get what the first question is asking. If people will get the money, they will spend it
-Taxpayers pay for it. All this is an upfront subsidy, that will be tax away from most people at the end of the year. People in the lower tax brackets that pay less income tax will get to keep the money, since they pay lil to no income taxes. And there are many ways we can making our tax code more progressive to pay for it, but yes, tax may have to increase depending how how many people you want to cover.
-It don't get the inflation argument, especially the hyperinflation argument. One, inflation is really low in America, and has been so for a while, even now we struggle to jump start it enough for the Fed to feel comfortable raising rates. If this is just used to cover the poor and working poor, then we would be paying out not that much more that we already give these people in benefits. Not only that, inflation is pretty easy to kill in the economy if we wanted too, we already did it before in the early 1980s.
-Yes we can pay our Social Security obligations. We are just reaching a point that without more revenue, we won't be able to make full benefit payments, but we will still be able to cover it like over 70% for decades to comes.
The economics of something like this is solid.
Last edited:
