Guaranteed/Basic Income

[JJ Husker]

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?

[cm husker]

This discussion is downright depressing. I urge all of us, to once again, study up on the basics of economics 101 (Macro Economics course). Some of you clearly do not understand supply and demand. It is actually simpler than I think some of you are thinking: as the supply of a given thing increases, its market value/price decreases and conversely, as the supply decreases, the market value/price will increase. The fundamental economic principle is applicable to most any thing such as bbls of crude oil, bushels of corn, McDonald's hamburgers, Nike tennis shoes, gallons of house paint, able bodied workers who need money and are therefore looking for employment, and of course, the most elemental economic commodity (MONEY) - being the very medium of exchange used in modern economies in lieu of direct exchanges of physical good and services).

 

Therefore, it is not complicated really - if you dramatically increase the supply of money (exactly what you are doing if you one day give $30,000 or $20,000 or just $5,000), you absolutely WILL cause immense inflationary pressures. Even put more simply, flood the economy with money by giving everbody a bunch of cash and they will certainly go out and spend a fairly large portion of it to make purchases of goods and services. Inflation (see economics text books everywhere) is by definition TOO MUCH MONEY CHASING TOO FEW GOODS! This is just not even debatable. As you decrease the amount of money involved, you would of course decrease the inflationary pressures so that if you gave out a $1,000, one would find inflationary uptick in the .25% or something small. But giving everyone 20,000 a year in perpetuity, much like the consequences of massive new healthcare spending under Obamacare, you will see dramatic price inflation across the economy. The poor will remain poor as their purchasing power will simply be reduced by dramatic rises in prices of everything they want to buy.

You're flat wrong because you're conflating money supply with supply of goods and services.

 

You're also missing the fundamental component, which is that we are NOT increasing the supply of money in the system. The amount of money in the system remains unimpacted by this proposal.

 

Again, this is not a form QE and it does not entail "printing of currency."

 

Going back to supply and demand, though, one of the articles specifically addressed your concern: the issue is not that people would buy more milk with their basic income, it's that they would buy the same amount of milk with dollars rather than food stamps.

 

And, as a constant pressure on inflation of certain goods and services, production would amp up as people begin to spend said dollars on said products.

 

Similarly, if there were more dollars to be spent on housing, you'd see the supply of housing expand, as it became productive to offer housing to market participants who were previously excluded from the market.

 

I have to laugh when two of you continue to call the rest of us idiots who need to take basic income when each of you have missed fundamental economic truths when making your arguments.

[cm husker]

The increAsed costs in healthcare isn't a result of too many dollars for it, but rather it's mainly the result of artificial restrictions on the production of supply. If we had less restrictive barriers to entry (looking at you AMA), the cost of healthcare would fall.

 

But again, I semi-agree that specific directed subsidies, whether in health or education for example, can drive up costs but that same issue diminished to the point of non-existence when a person can take their modest basic income and spend it on whatever good or service they please.

 

We have real evidence of this in Alaska, for example, where its citizens receive an oil dividend. The horrors your parading simply haven't materialized there.

[cm husker]

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?

I'll respond more fully later, but please do listen to the video I posted. Most, if not all, of the questions/concerns you raised are addressed directly in it.

[JJ Husker]

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 husker]

A real life situation that's a hypo.

 

Interesting.

[JJ Husker]

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?

[JJ Husker]

A real life situation that's a hypo.

Interesting.

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.

[cm husker]

Watch the video. And as I've said numerous times, the basic income would be applied as a credit against your tax bill.

 

So, you make $150k. You file your taxes based on your pre-guaranteed income. Therefore your tax bill before guaranteed income is $30k (let's say). Now apply the $20k guaranteed income as a credit to your tax bill. End result: you send a check in for $10k.

 

In terms of how do you spend the savings? Well, a lot of ways. But I've never heard a conservative argue against a tax cut because he wouldn't know how to spend the money.

 

It may be easier if you imagine this as a big pot of productivity (represent by currency) that is dumped into treasury - in other words, no printing of cash. This isn't hard to imagine because that's what currently happens to our regular tax dollars.

 

Now, that pot is divided up and income distributed. Of course as I described above, a person who needs to dump into the pile would simply withhold the guaranteed back amount and send in the rest (to save the extra trouble of sending the money in just to have it sent back as a check).

 

We actually know how many people are in your situation. What's your point?

 

JJ, I've posted my explanation, links to explanations and even videos of explanations. Why won't you address why those explanations are specifically wrong rather than asking me to repeat myself?

 

And again, this is pretty incredible to me. I assume you're a republican and/or conservative and you're actually arguing that we shouldn't be giving people their money back.

[JJ Husker]

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.

[cm husker]

There's not inflationary pressure... Not sure how you got that from my post.

[cm husker]

Because of your general tone and unwillingness to even consider the mountains of evidence and opinions running contrary to your unfounded and misguided one, I'll leave you to your devices.

 

 

And just take away the fact that you think tax breaks lead to inflation and are therefore a bad thing. Bernie Sanders loves you.

[JJ Husker]

Because of your general tone and unwillingness to even consider the mountains of evidence and opinions running contrary to your unfounded and misguided one, I'll leave you to your devices.

And just take away the fact that you think tax breaks lead to inflation and are therefore a bad thing. Bernie Sanders loves you.

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.

[cm husker]

Yep, everyone is an idiot and needs to take econ, except you (and maybe 84).

 

 

Like I said, I get it. You're against tax cuts "because they increase the amount of money in the system."

 

I hear you. I just look forward to seeing how you reconcile that with your conservative Republican dogma.

[huskerhill]

Couple of thoughts....

 

Please forgive me, as I am no expert in the field (I did take one Macro class in college, though), but I fail to see how this would cause inflation. If the $1 trillion (estimate I saw for welfare payments - people seem to debate the legitimacy of that value) is already in the system and being spent by those on welfare, I don't see how how shifting the money to a larger group of people to spend would cause problems, other than we'd be cutting the benefit to those currently receiving them by approx. 50%. Maybe that isn't a problem as I would imagine there are a lot of people just milking the system... but there are some that truly need it...

 

Also, I don't know why considering their economic beliefs are polar opposites, but for some reason I began reading 84's posts with Bernie Sanders/Larry David voice in my head and it was it quite enjoyable.... plan on doing it in the 'Crootin Forum.