Guaranteed/Basic Income

[cm husker]

In all those words, you've missed the point.

 

 

And your numbers are still off. GDP is something like $17 trillion a year.

 

My fed tax bill was apparently more 3x the average you quote, so don't think of this as some self interest argument. Well, I take that back. It is self interested. A "guaranteed income" would reduce my tax bill by $20k, less the deductions and credits I'd like to see eliminated.

 

Couple that with real reform that decrease the differences in effective income tax rates for equal earners (eg, Bernie sanders paying do little on such a relatively high income), and we can cut marginal income taxes too while not losing revenue (and while gaining efficiencies).

[JJ Husker]

Quite possibly the stupidest f'ing idea I've ever heard of. If you think this is a good idea, I'm afraid there is no help available for your particular lack of understanding basic economic concepts. And yes, I read the whole article. A few of the important questions that nobody supporting this seems to address;

 

1- where does the money come from to fund it?

2- If it the intent is to put more disposable income in everyone's hands, what pray tell do you think will happen to the cost of living?

 

Let's close our eyes and ignore the obvious and pretend that this is not an extreme form of socialism. Everyone gets the same amount and we eliminate all kinds of inefficient government management of existing social welfare programs. Where do those people go for jobs when theirs are eliminated? How do the current poor (have nots) catch up to the current rich (haves)? The answer the income gap is not reduced, it simply grows and would then just be at a larger scale. The only effect would be moving the poverty line up to a higher income bracket. This has zero chance of working in an open market system of capitalism. It's only chance would be in a socialist/communist system and then you would just have the inherent problems associated with that type of system. Pretty sure that economic system has already been shown through history to fail 100% of the time.

 

Where does the money come from to fund it. It has to come from somewher, some people. If you think it would not cause rampant inflation you are an idiot.

 

Hey, I realize our current system leaves a lot to be desired. Government management of it is inefficient and it is not fairly administered. People game the system. Some truly needy people don't get the assistance they really need. Trust me, I get it. But this solution is so stupid it is laughable. Talk about out of the frying pan and into fire. If you really think this sounds good, please seek help for mental shortcomings and complete lack of understanding of basic economic principles. And for God's sake, please don't vote. You're already doing more than your share of damage.

[JJ Husker]

I'm with cm on this one.

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.

[JJ Husker]

There are no free lunches. None. Anywhere.

 

Our whole economy can be thought of as one pool of water. You can't take a bucket full out of one end of the pool without replacing it with water from the same pool. That "other" pool of water where some of you think water magically appears from simply doesn't exist. Once you grasp this concept fully you will realize the futility of this asinine idea.

[cm husker]

I'm going to do my best to not reply to your post in the tone you used (usually when people throw out accusations of idiocy against libertarian nobel prize winners in economics, I'd be fairly scathing in my response).

 

1. The money comes from reducing and/or eliminating the investments in the existing welfare systems.

 

2. The intent is not to put more disposable income in people's hands. Nor would it necessarily have that effect (especially in terms of disposable income). The fact you conflate disposable income with cost of living means you probably need to take a step back and think about this for a moment.

 

JJ, you really need to understand the difference between redistributive policies and socialism. Although they have been treated hand in hand, they are quite different. And the distinction is important. This is not a matter of "printing more money" and driving the COL up for everyone through inflation (see my statement in the post to 84). What also needs to be understood is that this redistribution and "insertion of money into the system" is already occurring, albeit in crazily inefficient and unfair ways.

 

The idea is that a guaranteed income would REPLACE, not supplement, the current system of redistribution.

 

Very few (no one?) believes that the less significant gap income and more significant gap in wealth can (or should) be entirely eliminated. That's not even the goal of this system. Because EVERYONE gets the income (i.e., nothing different than a rebate).

 

I guess we need to level set on some things:

 

1. Are you for programs like the EITC and others that encourage increased production among all people?

 

2. Are you for programs that reduce special-interest handouts, whether among the poor or the wealthy, in the form of welfare, subsidies, tax breaks and protectionist economic policies?

 

Continuing with a system that everyone here seems to agree is broken is rally what is "so stupid it is laughable."

 

The idea of a "social safety net" isn't going away. Neither is the notion that our taxation system should be progressive.

 

Let's get onboard with those realities and then figure out how we eliminate inefficiencies.

[cm husker]

 

I'm with cm on this one.

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

[JJ Husker]

I'm going to do my best to not reply to your post in the tone you used (usually when people throw out accusations of idiocy against libertarian nobel prize winners in economics, I'd be fairly scathing in my response).

 

1. The money comes from reducing the investments in the existing welfare systems

 

2. The intent is not to put more disposable income in people's hands. Nor would it necessarily have that effect (especially in terms of disposable income). The fact you conflate disposable income with cost of living means you probably need to take a step back and think about this for a moment.

 

JJ, you really need to understand the difference between redistributive policies and socialism. Although they have been treated hand in hand, they are quite different. And the distinction is important. This is not a matter of "printing more money" and driving the COL up for everyone through inflation (see my statement in the post to 84). What also needs to be understood is that this redistribution and "insertion of money into the system" is already occurring, albeit in crazily inefficient and unfair ways.

 

The idea is that a guaranteed income would REPLACE, not supplement, the current system of redistribution.

 

Very few (no one?) believes that the less significant gap income and more significant gap in wealth can (or should) be entirely eliminated. That's not even the goal of this system. Because EVERYONE gets the income (i.e., nothing different than a rebate).

 

I guess we need to level set on some things:

 

1. Are you for programs like the EITC and others that encourage increased production among all people?

 

2. Are you for programs that reduce special-interest handouts, whether among the poor or the wealthy, in the form of welfare, subsidies, tax breaks and protectionist economic policies?

 

Continuing with a system that everyone here seems to agree is broken is rally what is "so stupid it is laughable."[/size]

 

The idea of a "social safety net" isn't going away. Neither is the notion that our taxation system should be progressive.

 

Let's get onboard with those realities and then figure out how we eliminate inefficiencies.

 

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.

[JJ Husker]

 

 

I'm with cm on this one.

 

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.

[Moiraine]

I'm not against having a stipend and having it replace many of the welfare programs.

 

However I don't see why it would be $30,000. It's not hard to live on $30,000. Are people given this $30,000 for doing nothing really going to go out and benefit society? If it was me, I'd sit in my apartment all day playing video games and occasionally going on bike rides. Maybe I'd work a part time job to build a retirement fund.

 

I believe giving this amount to everyone would cause lots of prices to raise. If everyone had a free $30,000, businesses would know they could charge more, because the people getting that $30,000 AND working would have a lot more money.

 

When I think of stipend and "good idea" together I'm thinking it has to be less than what you'd make working 40 hours a week at minimum wage, so people still need to try to get jobs.

[JJ Husker]

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.

[cm husker]

First, $30k is obviously too high.

 

Second, thank you for pointing out that the number one fear associated with a basic income is basically unfounded (i.e., it does not destroy an incentive to be productive).

[Moiraine]

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.

 

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. I've calculated and I basically need $24k per year to feel comfortable if I give up my dream of traveling a lot and having any money after I retire. Luckily I don't have to do that.

 

Therefore it would almost be worth it for me to sit around doing nothing if I was making $30k for it. Bump it to $40k and I wouldn't work at all and I'd put $10k per year into retirement. It wouldn't be a great retirement but, hey, I'd still be making $30k/year until death. Not bad.

 

My guess is you're thinking of having $30k plus kids and/or a spouse that doesn't make that much, but I dunno. I can't imagine thinking $30k is dirt poor when you don't have to do any work for it, heh. It's not what I make now but it's enough to live on.

[JJ Husker]

 

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.

 

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.

[cm husker]

No problem, JJ. Thanks for apologizing. No need to in the future; totally understand the venting that can happen here and don't take it personally (and hope no one takes it personally when I'm engaged in it).

[cm husker]

JJ, there was a thread a bit ago, probably not too far down the page, about sander's relatively low effective tax rate.

 

Can you take a look at it? I'd be interested in your thoughts re the inequities around placing the tax burden on high income, low wealth people versus those who have the same income but more wealth.

 

To sum up, I paid 3x as much federal taxes compared to Sanders even though I made on 1/3 more in income. Sounds like you might be in a similar situation.