JJ Husker

This drives up inflation.

Here's my concern. My example is based on very rough numbers that I am sure are far from accurate but I will use some that have already been tossed around and I think it will show why I feel one of the results would be inflation. Of course I'm no Milton Friedman.... Current welfare spending $1T. If that currently equates to about $20K per person, that would be 50M people already on the dole. The population of the USA is about 320M. So, 50M on the dole, 270M not on it currently. Now we give everyone (all 320M) $20K per year, that would be a total outlay of $6.4T minus the existing $1T = an additional $5.4T being paid out by our government and thus ending up as additional disposable income, Yearly. So my questions remain the same: Where does that yearly $5.4T come from and how does that infusion of disposable income not drive up the cost of living? Sure it may drive some economic expansion to help offset some of it but I really need it explained where it comes from first so I can entertain that thought. Are we talking about increasing the taxes on the 270M to fund this? There isn't $5.4T of efficiency savings in a $1T system (well there might be the way our government works ) I get the feeling I'm missing something very important, and I might very well be, but cm sure hasn't spread any light on it yet. Maybe you can. I'm simply applying math and common sense and some basic understanding of economics. If that can't get me any closer to making it work than $5.4T I really have the feeling I'm mostly correct.

So, in summary, you cannot explain why this program will work (you can only repeatedly say "see the video" or "read this thing that somebody else said about it" and they explain it no better than you) and you refuse to acknowledge the consequences of glaringly obvious issues, chief among them being that hundreds of thousands of people just received an additional $20,000 that is apparently not more disposable income and that it magically materialized out of thin air. Yeah, you're right, leave me to my own devices, please. I'm not sure I like the way your devices seem to malfunction.

Wow. I can understand a player not being bright enough to keep evidence like that off social media, but a coach.....? I have no words for the stupidity here.

Thanks for acknowledging there will be inflationary pressure. As I'm sure a person of your advanced learned state realizes, it doesn't matter if I get a 20k tax cut or simply a check for 20k, my disposable income just increased by 20k, as did everyone else's who was not already getting that 20k from some preexisting government assistance program. I think we now agree that only a fool would not see the inherent inflationary pressures and/or the fact that extremely rich people will simply become richer. Of course, as you obviously even know better than me, that this will increase the cost of living and put the poor folk further behind the curve once again. Whew, I'm glad we finally got that settled. I am confused though, because obviously fully realizing all that, you still seem to think this will work. Odd. And of course there's still that ole bugaboo question of where does the money come from that is boosting my and hundreds of thousands others disposable income. Hmmm maybe you need to do a little more reading and a have a little less blind faith in some snake oil salesmen.

I wasn't going to state my actual income down to the nearest dollar. Happy? Besides that, it bounces around wildly from year to year anyway.

And your Alaskan oil dividend example is not anywhere near the same thing. That money is created by oil production, or more specifically, it comes from a naural resource. What creating activity funds the scenario we are talking about? And if you think that the Alaskan deal has no impact on the economy, primarily the one in Alaska, you are crazy. There is more than one state that has its citizens benefit from either lower taxes or dividend payments on natural resources. Florida's state income tax is subsidized down to nothing due to tourism. How do those situations apply even slightly to this discussion?

I eagerly await your enlightening words. In the mean time, here is a direct real life situation (even if I have used somewhat hypothetical numbers) you can address this when you get back to learning us up. Let's say I make $150,000 now and receive no government assistance funds. This plan goes into effect next year with me receiving a $20k stipend from the government. A few questions; 1- How does my income not increase from 150 to 170? Or, more precisely, how does my disposal let income not increase by 20k? 2- Assuming it does increase to $170k or simply by $20k... A) Do I spend any of that additional 20?, or B) Do I put it in savings or my retirement?, or C) Do I light it on fire and pretend I never got it? [hint it is not C] 3- Bonus question, where/who does my extra 20 come from since I'm not preexisting on the dole? 4- Double extra credit bonus question; Could there be a whole bunch of people in my same situation. I mean like hundreds of thousands, even millions, of people in that same situation? Essay question; Now explain again how there would be no inflationary pressures or hording of money or likely some of each. Maybe I have thrown you off by saying the words "more money in circulation". I guess that is not technically correct as money supposedly will not be printed. The more correct way to put it is "more disposable income in the hands of consumers". Please explain how that minor difference doesn't still create inflationary pressure.

cm, I don't believe I have called this socialist. I've used that word a few times but not in describing g this policy. So don't worry about any inability to make progress. And sure, I could be wrong. Could you also be wrong? You're going to have to quit moving the goalposts in this discussion however if we hope to make progress. Simple question; You have claimed that this only replaces the current welfare system and you have also claimed the only way it works is if everyone (I assume that includes current non-welfare recipients) is paid the basic income. So, if people who are not on the dole now all of a sudden start collecting these payments, how does that not put more money into circulation and not cost more than the existing welfare system? That is where I believe the extra money in circulation will come from. Or ddid I miss some major component of the plan like somehow people will immediately be getting paid less from their current source of income. How do I start collecting say a $20k stipend from the government without that increasing my overall income? Please show me what I missing and why you think I'm such an idiot for having inflationary concerns. And further, you aren't concerned about a glut of former government employees trying to find new jobs. Where are those jobs now? Do we have unemployment or not? Is there an endless supply of jobs and I just shouldn't worry about it? The more efficient system you are hoping for has to eliminate a bunch of current jobs, or it doesn't get more efficient. So please explain why those people not finding new gainful employment is not a concern. Also, please list all your illustrious credentials as pertains to economic policy. Kind of getting fed up with your I'm smarter than you, you only understand business accounting bullsh#t. What makes you so f'ing smart?

Damn! He really needs some "me" time at the beach.

But if it is paid to everyone, in effect giving people who aren't already on the dole additional income and the only visible benefit being making our welfare system more efficient and, due to that administrative efficiency, eliminating many current government jobs, what do you think the effects of that would be? I think it causes; 1- Inflation due to more disposable income being in circulation. 2- Raises the poverty level so the needy people will still be a day late and dollar short on their buying power. 3- Many extremely rich people won't put their fair share back in to circulation so the rich just become richer. 4- Many of a whole bunch of former government employees, who used to be part of the inefficient system, will now be transferred to the government dole, in effect off setting much of any benefit. I'm not going to blindly follow the recommendation of a guy like Milton Friedman, no matter his name or supposed credentials, when it is so glaringly obvious that these things will happen as a consequence. I'm all for revamping or fixing our current system but I fail to see where this accomplishes anything meaningful and I can see all kinds of pitfalls that would likely make things worse than they are now. Fixing something by making it worse than it was is no solution. And to answer your question from a prior post, I learned about economics in high school and at DONU and mostly through my life which includes being a consumer and business owner. Milton Friedman doesn't mean sh#t to me. And wouldn't he be considered one of the guys who has helped shape our current system? Why did you assume it was not at a university? Just because I disagree with you or because I am not a fan of socialist policies or because I'm not all over Friedman's jock strap or...why?

Now what else can we do to piss off Saban?

In other words, I would come about the figure by looking at what level of help someone in this situation is already getting from the government to sustain themselves. Maybe that figure is $20,000. I have no idea, I just threw out the $30,000 figure for discussion purposes.We are already spending that money. It's not a new expenditure that all of a sudden goes on the budget. Then, we can eliminate the huge infrastructure of systems in our government put in place to supply the poor these services. I believe that would be a huge savings. Now, I don't know the exact numbers behind this and that's why I have said I would be interested in seeing how it all would work. I am all for reducing government and making it more efficient. That isn't being a socialist....that's just being smart about governing. This entire issue is caught up in a paradigm that people just can't get around. I wouldn't have a problem revamping our current system to make it more efficient. Reducing administrative costs by going to a form of lump sum payment could make sense if it was done right and targeted to only deserving people. Heck it would still be better even if the current undeserving people continued to live on the dole. BUT....that is not the program as explained in the linked article. Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't they proposing to give everyone, not just current aid recipients, the minimum income payment. I'm sorry but that would accomplish absolutely nothing good. It may seem more acceptable or tolerable to people who aren't on the dole and who have no understanding of economic principles but surely that is no reason for any sane person to seriously entertain this fantasy.

Another excellent synopsis of where we really are. +1

+1 to you sir. That may be the best summary of this list of POS candidates I have seen yet. Pretty much nails them all perfectly.

And please refresh my memory....BTN's prime time slot is NOT 11:00AM, right?

Might as well be Satan vs Hitler as far as I'm concerned. I just cannot develope a genuine interest in this election cycle. Any of the choices are so sad it is just plain pathetic that we as a country are in this position. I find it extremely annoying when the news coverage has been interrupting tv programs to give us updates on which liar/cheat/criminal/douchebag/poor excuse for a human being won a particular states primary. I don't care at all. They all suck terribly and it just seems an absolute waste of time to spend one minute more than necessary being reminded how futile this election cycle is.

I don't blame anyone for using every deduction and loophole to their advantage and trying to pay as little as possible in taxes. But yeah, it does highlight how messed up our current system is. I don't think that particular point makes him a hypocrite, it just shows how screwed up the tax code is. I will say that someone of his income, wealth and position should probably be giving more to charity than it looks like he did/does but I'm not going to crucify him for it. There is plenty to dislike about his socialist policies without creating things of which we don't know the whole story.

I read through that topic...again. I had previously given up on it because it contained way too many (read as more than one) posts by cornholiographical. I typically feel myself getting stupider when I read his posts so I usually avoid any topic ghat he has a lot of posts in. But in summary, I have absolutely no respect for any of the top 5 presidential hopefuls. Can't stand Hillary, Cruz or Kasich and Trump and Sanders are both downright dangerous. As far as Bernie's tax plan and desired expansion of our already too socialistic system, I can't imagine a worse choice for president and that statement is made fully realizing how absurd Trump is.

I'm not sure if you're reading my post correctly. I have a full time job. What I'm saying is 30k is more than enough to live on for one person. It would be enough for me if I wasn't thinking about having $ when I retire and if I wasn't getting married soon. Therefore if it was given to me for free I wouldn't need to work except to make money for retirement. I lived on a lot less than 30k for 5 years while getting my B.S. and M.S., and I didn't find it difficult nor did I feel poor. Sorry. I understand better now. I kind of had rough day and came into this thread like a wrecking ball looking to take out some frustrations in an anonymous manner. I apologize for that. And I was being a bit arrogant too. I sure wouldn't sneeze at an additional $30k but it also wouldn't really change anything for me. I sent about twice that much into the feds and state about 2 weeks ago and still am wondering what I got out of the deal. And while I am at it, I want to apologize to cm and zoogs. I was a douche and there was no call for me to question anyone's intelligence simply because they recognize, as I do, that our current system has serious flaws. So, I'm sorry zoogs and cm.

I could've used that $30,000 last week to help pay my income tax bill. Yes, I said help. Basically 30k would not move my needle one inch. I can't imagine someone thinking they could sit around or work only part time on only 30k per year.

That is extremely disappointing. Please enroll in some economics classes. Start with a basic class, Supply and Demand, and then maybe a mid level class of "What causes inflation and how inflation cannot reduce the income gap". If you think this wild proposal would solve our problems and would have no harmful unintended consequences, you're wrong, but I would be interested (read as comically entertained) to see your reasoning on it. Where did you learn about supply and demand, by the way? I'm going to assume not a university. Here's a discussion by Milton Friedman on a related/very similar topic - the negative income tax. I don't think anyone can fairly accuse him of idiocy or socialist leanings: Some reading if you're actually interested in understanding the concepts rather than just attacking people for "idiocy." https://medium.com/basic-income/why-milton-friedman-supported-a-guaranteed-income-5-reasons-da6e628f6070#.nmjc9ms0z http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/23/business/23scene.html?_r=0 To be clear, I am not saying it is necessarily socialist. I am saying the only system it would have chance in hell of working in would be a completely socialist system. No way, no way in hell this works in capitalist system not with giving the basic income to everyone. And if we're only talking about replacing current welfare programs with this new more efficient system well, that is not the program that was described in the linked article.

You must not have read the same article from the link you posted. The proposal is not to just revamp welfare programs and only replace the current inefficient unfair system with a new highly efficient system. At least that isn't what that article was proposing. Now if you are saying that is what should be done, then I might tend to be more in agreement with you and would likely ease to call the idea stupid and to question people's intelligence over it. However, there are still unintended consequences to be addresed even if all we'really talking about is removing government inefficiencies. For sake of argument, let's say the current system is 30% inefficient and those inefficiencies are tied to jobs. We solve them by eliminating those jobs. Consequence? Now we have those 30% of people out of work. We made the system more efficient but we also created a whole new class of pepole that will need to be on the government dole. Basically they were on it before by being paid to do their job and now they would still be on it by not having a job. What got fixed? But back to the reason for the tone of my prior comments. The article I read and the way it described "minimum income" or basic income or whatever you want to call it, was a basic stipend for all persons. I'll stick by my comments that would do nothing other than cause inflation and raise the poverty level. It is no solution whatsoever and that is why I would question the intelligence of anyone who thinks it would do any good at all.