Guaranteed/Basic Income

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

I'm all for a reform of our system, but not this one. Giving people without them earning it "so they can do the things they really want to do" not only would create a lot of problems, it would give no incentive for achievement. Doing the things you want to do is already attainable, just not with a job (just over broke).

As opposed to the current system which does a pretty good job of demotivating people from achievement?

I actually really agree with you on that. But if you're talking lesser of two evils, I'll take our current system over shelling out a bunch of money to everyone who didn't earn it.

 

What if it actually saves you money by doing this over the current system?

[84HuskerLaw]

I am sorry but this discussion is SCARY! I presume you socialists who are writing on this topic attended public schools and maybe a few even went on to college of some sort. Obviously you may not have been exposed to basic business, economics, political science, philosophy or logic courses. There are many naive and simplistic notions being espoused. I have little doubt that all are offered with the very best of intentions and some kind of 'utopian' ideal in mind. However, we have already FAR too much socialist and communist based policy and activity within our society today already. The consequence of government involvement in our economy has without question reduced productivity and lowered the standard of living of the great majority of people within America by a large amount. The ONLY economic system that allows for the improvement of the standard of living of its citizens is capitalism in its purest most unadulterated form (which America no longer has). Wealth and income improvement for all productive members of a society cannot be 'given' or simply declared or granted by government fiat. The compulsory transfer of wealth from one person to another is economically distructive and disruptive.

[HuskerShark]

 

 

Why not just pay a living wage in the 1st place, a healthy living wage? Then yeah, you wouldn't need so much gov't cheese. Problem solved. Maybe that's the "guaranteed income", I dunno.

 

 

Because believe it or not, there are jobs that can not afford to have a certain position paid $30,000. I know that's hard for some people to grasp. But, it's reality.

 

Heck, if we have the government pay everyone $30,000, could we do away with the minimum wage?

 

You're correct. It should go away and people should be hired to be however marginally more productive that they can be at whatever price they are willing to exchange for their productivity.

I'm with you. It's one more thing the government wouldn't have to monitor and have their hands in either.

[HuskerShark]

 

 

 

I'm all for a reform of our system, but not this one. Giving people without them earning it "so they can do the things they really want to do" not only would create a lot of problems, it would give no incentive for achievement. Doing the things you want to do is already attainable, just not with a job (just over broke).

 

As opposed to the current system which does a pretty good job of demotivating people from achievement?

I actually really agree with you on that. But if you're talking lesser of two evils, I'll take our current system over shelling out a bunch of money to everyone who didn't earn it.

What if it actually saves you money by doing this over the current system?

It's not the budget I'm worried about. We're talking about total collapse of our economy potentially.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

I'm all for a reform of our system, but not this one. Giving people without them earning it "so they can do the things they really want to do" not only would create a lot of problems, it would give no incentive for achievement. Doing the things you want to do is already attainable, just not with a job (just over broke).

As opposed to the current system which does a pretty good job of demotivating people from achievement?

I actually really agree with you on that. But if you're talking lesser of two evils, I'll take our current system over shelling out a bunch of money to everyone who didn't earn it.

What if it actually saves you money by doing this over the current system?

It's not the budget I'm worried about. We're talking about total collapse of our economy potentially.

 

That would have to be studied very carefully.

 

But....what if.....

 

The huge reduction in government budget allows for the drain taxes causes on our economy to be greatly reduced? What if we would be able to reduce taxes so much that it draws manufacturing jobs back to the US? Those people who get $30,000 can now take the time to get training and maybe go get a job that pays $60,000 or more. What if they can actually afford to start at an entry level job at $5 per hour and work their way up to making more?

 

What if a lot of those people realize that...hey....I could stay living on $30,000 per year but now I can make $60,000 per year working and it actually costs the company less when considering wages and taxes combined?

[BigRedBuster]

I am sorry but this discussion is SCARY! I presume you socialists who are writing on this topic........

You really didn't read the thread nor the article did you?

[cm husker]

I am sorry but this discussion is SCARY! I presume you socialists who are writing on this topic attended public schools and maybe a few even went on to college of some sort. Obviously you may not have been exposed to basic business, economics, political science, philosophy or logic courses. There are many naive and simplistic notions being espoused. I have little doubt that all are offered with the very best of intentions and some kind of 'utopian' ideal in mind. However, we have already FAR too much socialist and communist based policy and activity within our society today already. The consequence of government involvement in our economy has without question reduced productivity and lowered the standard of living of the great majority of people within America by a large amount. The ONLY economic system that allows for the improvement of the standard of living of its citizens is capitalism in its purest most unadulterated form (which America no longer has). Wealth and income improvement for all productive members of a society cannot be 'given' or simply declared or granted by government fiat. The compulsory transfer of wealth from one person to another is economically distructive and disruptive.

 

 

Did you read the article?

 

I'm thinking no, because you're raising some tropes that aren't actually true.

[zoogs]

I'm with cm on this one.

[cm husker]

 

 

 

 

I'm all for a reform of our system, but not this one. Giving people without them earning it "so they can do the things they really want to do" not only would create a lot of problems, it would give no incentive for achievement. Doing the things you want to do is already attainable, just not with a job (just over broke).

As opposed to the current system which does a pretty good job of demotivating people from achievement?

I actually really agree with you on that. But if you're talking lesser of two evils, I'll take our current system over shelling out a bunch of money to everyone who didn't earn it.

What if it actually saves you money by doing this over the current system?

It's not the budget I'm worried about. We're talking about total collapse of our economy potentially.

 

 

 

There's no evidence that such a basic income, which would replace other forms of welfare (and social security), would collapse our economy. I highly recommend reading the article.

[zoogs]

It kind of comes down to the principle of people know better how to use their own money than governments. We have this kind of punitive, clunky, "oh, you want welfare? Please, justify how you need it" system rather than one that allows people to freely invest in themselves (for better or for nothing).

 

This is actually really far from an 'out there' idea, and it was covered on the very mainstream public radio program Freakonomics Radio recently: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/mincome/

 

538 (from the OP) is also pretty mainstream. It's one of those things you look at in principle and in history and wonder why it hasn't been accomplished here yet.

[84HuskerLaw]

Guaranteed income would be to everyone. Not just the unemployed.

 

It's definitely not a form of socialism or communism and to refer to it that way is ignorant.

 

One of the main advocates for classical liberalism/libertarians, Milton Friedman, advocated for this or a similar system (i.e., the negative income tax).

 

Both encourage work while also simplifying the administrative costs associated with a welfare state that simply isn't (and probably shouldn't) go away.

Have you even done the simple math on your proposed guaranteed income for all idea? For example, somewhere someone mentioned a $30,000 per year number given to everyone as though somehow this would do anything to alleviate income disparity or poverty or help the poor or some such notion. Of course it would do nothing as the rampant inflation that would result almost instantaneously as a result of such scheme would be mind blowing for most people.

 

300 million people times 30,000 dollars each, annually presumably, equals 9 trillion dollars! That is nearly double the current Gross National Product of the entire country. We are already nearly 20 trillion in publicized national debt with another estimated 80 trillion in 'unfunded liablities' (the projected cost of all the current promises of federal government money on entitlement and other such programs in the future for which there is no apparent or dedicated revenue stream to pay from). This 'printing' of money is no different in economic terms than counterfeiters making $20 bills by the millions on their home laser printer/copier. There is no work or economic value behind the 'money' if you want to call it that. As a result, the economic effect is to devalue all the existing money in the economy by an amount sufficient to adjust the value of each dollar to reflect the true economic worth of the money in supply. In simple terms, if you double the amount of money in everybody's bank accounts, that money will not be worth anymore than it was before the doubling occured - the price of all products and services will simply double to reflect the worthless dollar bills chasing it.

 

Consider this.

[NUance]

Guaranteed income? Ha! I think Judge Smails said it best:

 

[84HuskerLaw]

 

 

 

 

 

I'm all for a reform of our system, but not this one. Giving people without them earning it "so they can do the things they really want to do" not only would create a lot of problems, it would give no incentive for achievement. Doing the things you want to do is already attainable, just not with a job (just over broke).

As opposed to the current system which does a pretty good job of demotivating people from achievement?

I actually really agree with you on that. But if you're talking lesser of two evils, I'll take our current system over shelling out a bunch of money to everyone who didn't earn it.

What if it actually saves you money by doing this over the current system?

It's not the budget I'm worried about. We're talking about total collapse of our economy potentially.

 

 

 

There's no evidence that such a basic income, which would replace other forms of welfare (and social security), would collapse our economy. I highly recommend reading the article.

 

There is a simple saying that has been used for many many years that is appropriate here: "There is no such thing as a free lunch!" Printing money giving everybody some, whether or not in equal amounts, is disasterous. You will set off massive inflationary spiral. For many of you who are not literate in basic economics and money and finance and business realities, please take the time to discuss these ideas you may have 'learned' in school or somewhere else. Read basic economics books. Take the time to sit down with a local college economics teacher. Heck, even a liberal one can surely explain basic principles such as supply and demand and so on.

 

Printing money, government fiats, laws such as the minimum wage, etc. are NOT economically sound or useful. Keynessian economics have practically all been debunked by modern economic thinking and analysis. Liberal economics are simply irrational, nonsensical and DO NOT WORK. Either doing nothing positive or more often doing more harm than good, especially for those supposedly intended to benefit.

 

I am serious, people: please take the time to learn basic economics, the principles, the policies and the practices of both liberals and conservatives across the political sphere. Fascists and Socialists and Communists on the one side of the circle and capitalists on the opposite. The gut response liberal mentality which exacerbates and worsens the poverty and inequality of the poor by institutionalizing it, creating generation after generation of poor and downtrodden, is almost evil in its effects. And, after literally a hundred years of real, large scale experience with socialist/fascist/communist (non free market capitalist) systems around the world, there is just NO reasonable way to support, defend or advocate for any of it anymore. Thinking with your heart instead of your brain brings entirely unintended consequences, repeatedly.

[cm husker]

 

Guaranteed income would be to everyone. Not just the unemployed.

 

It's definitely not a form of socialism or communism and to refer to it that way is ignorant.

 

One of the main advocates for classical liberalism/libertarians, Milton Friedman, advocated for this or a similar system (i.e., the negative income tax).

 

Both encourage work while also simplifying the administrative costs associated with a welfare state that simply isn't (and probably shouldn't) go away.

Have you even done the simple math on your proposed guaranteed income for all idea? For example, somewhere someone mentioned a $30,000 per year number given to everyone as though somehow this would do anything to alleviate income disparity or poverty or help the poor or some such notion. Of course it would do nothing as the rampant inflation that would result almost instantaneously as a result of such scheme would be mind blowing for most people.

 

300 million people times 30,000 dollars each, annually presumably, equals 9 trillion dollars! That is nearly double the current Gross National Product of the entire country. We are already nearly 20 trillion in publicized national debt with another estimated 80 trillion in 'unfunded liablities' (the projected cost of all the current promises of federal government money on entitlement and other such programs in the future for which there is no apparent or dedicated revenue stream to pay from). This 'printing' of money is no different in economic terms than counterfeiters making $20 bills by the millions on their home laser printer/copier. There is no work or economic value behind the 'money' if you want to call it that. As a result, the economic effect is to devalue all the existing money in the economy by an amount sufficient to adjust the value of each dollar to reflect the true economic worth of the money in supply. In simple terms, if you double the amount of money in everybody's bank accounts, that money will not be worth anymore than it was before the doubling occured - the price of all products and services will simply double to reflect the worthless dollar bills chasing it.

 

Consider this.

 

 

 

You want me to do math, but you won't even read the article?

 

There's a shocking amount of misunderstanding of how this would be funded and basic economic principles espoused in your post.

 

For one thing, your numbers are off because it wouldn't go to all people. It would go to all adults (and some proposals say all adults over 21 who are not in jail). But let's go with all adults (i.e., over 18) and not even deduct out the 2.5 millions jail. We can also round that number of to 250,000 people. Also, I'm not sure how you figure that the US GDP is only $4.5 trillion. It's actually significantly more and has historically grown faster than our population.

 

Now, if you use $30k, indeed, $7.5 trillion in annual spending. Currently, government direct spending is about $7 trillion per year. By reducing expenditures in government spending, which are grossly inefficient much of the time, we could fund a direct income initiatives (which, in large part, would be essentially a massive income tax cut for middle income people).

 

We would also be gaining additional productivity efficiencies by reducing the incentive to create anti-growth regulations and policies.

 

Second, we don't have to fixate on $30k. That's an extremely high number, even relative to what has been proposed in Switzerland, which is closer to $20k (adjusted for COL). $30k was simply an example thrown out by a declared socialist and any serious policy would likely be much less. I would also suggest some sort of COL adjustment based on where you live, especially since most high income earners who would be funding this aren't living in low income areas.

 

So, in actuality, you're actually looking at reduced government spending and more bang for your buck because people would use their dollars to signal to the market what is demanded rather than having a government program dictate demand (which is truly a form of socialism).

 

Your inflation fears are misplaced because it would not be funded by "counterfeiting money," which can cause inflation by increasing money supply without a corresponding increase in productivity Instead, it would be funded by the transfer of wealth (i.e., accumulated productivity) from one group to another. I know, this give you shivers. But it's already happening in all sorts of byzantine forms today and the fundamental premise of a "social safety net" certainly isn't going away (and for us capitalists who are in favor of unhindered, vibrant economies, it shouldn't). So, accepting that political fact, we should look for practical solutions.

 

 

 

Of course all of this should be coupled with an overall of the tax system, which is grossly unfair in favor of the wealthy over poor, high income earners.

[84HuskerLaw]

My point is (perhaps GNP is around 10 trillion (half of twenty which is what I was thinking, not that it is that important to the point) but which INCLUDES government spending. If you don't 'print' the money, then you must acquire it from someone else, in order to give it to your population. The point was offered up a number of times I thought in reading through many of the posts in this discussion that the 30,000 would be given to each and all and not targeted to the 'needy' however measured. Somehow this was to therefore magically change it from welfare to something else I guess.

 

You can't simply 'create' money. If you borrow it (government borrows what it does not get with taxes and printing), then government must borrow it from some one and pay them interest. At some point, in the future, things that are 'borrowed' must be returned. Otherwise, they are not really borrowed - they are taken. Obviously. This is what we are all calling "the national debt" of about 20 trillion. Currently there are about 100 million income tax returns filed annually (give or take a few million) and most of those reflect very little or no income tax obligations. There are about 40 million taxpayers who are paying in serious amounts of tax (over 25,000 per year roughly).

 

Unless you are going to ask all of your recipients of the 30,000 or 20,000 or whatever number you arrive at as being the amount needed to eliminate poverty and make the poor not so poor to simpy write the government a check for the amount the government gives them, then the money MUST come from somewhere or somebody else.

 

Per person, the federal national debt of 20 trillion equals about $60,000 for EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN THE NATION! So, if you and your spouse and two children are being honest with yourselves when you make out your own financial statement, you need to add into your indebtedness (things you owe) about $240,000 to the national debt. When people actually think about this, they would know it would be hopeless for about 90% of the households to begin the repayment of their small % share of the current federal debt. Certainly not any of the future unfunded liabilities. And of course, we all know that babies and senior citizens no longer able to work, have no real means to repay anything. In fact, they will need money from others who have incomes. Therefore, we would be right to say that the 'producers' of income are approximately one-third of our society. Those people have to pay all the taxes to fund current government programs, future government programs and past government programs paid for with debt). This means about 100 trillion of FEDERAL programs plus about that much more in state and local. 200 trillion divided by 120 million payers is so much money it will make you vomit. Enough facts and numbers already.

Government is basically broke and can't fix anyones problems with funy muny, real tax increases, government bonds, silly Presidential executive orders, etc.