You're president, what do you do?

[Cherry 1,302]

I don't think you get the idea behind basic universal income. The idea behind it is that eliminating more welfare programs and substituting it with a single basic income for all prevents welfare abusers from being able to add programs to the point of being better off than full-time workers. My negative income tax argument works in a similar way, although it doesn't result in everyone receiving an income from the government. Cut the fat of the federal welfare programs and replace it with simple redistribution to balance out income. Someone who makes $10,000 a year will get lets say $5,000 from negative income tax. Someone who makes $50,000 a year will pay $10,000 a year for income tax. But the person who makes $10,000 won't ever make more than someone who works for an overall better income.

[blotsfan 2,112]

For bware, its not about how much he makes. Its about making sure there are people who are worse off than him so it give him a rationale for why he's a superior person.

[seanbrock 1,684]

I deserve to make more money than many professions, and many other professions deserve more money than me.

 

I don't want the government having more authority than they already do over my money.

 

Last but not least, standard income that goes to leeches and system abusers too? Fuck offffff

A lot of those people have children who are blameless and deserve to have food and shelter and warmth in the winter. Most welfare recipients actually have jobs too. I believe the unemployment rate is 4.5 which is good but many big companies pass off the cost of their staffing to the tax payer by manipulating people's hours so they don't have to pay for their insurance and paying them as little as possible. Maybe you think people at McDonald's don't deserve anything because they're unskilled and that's fine but do you think a company that's worth billions should be able to get away with stealing from the government? I don't.

Edited September 10, 2017 by seanbrock

[oochymp 2,393]

You are being facetious, right? My skill set is worth more money than others, and less than others. Pay everybody what they're worth.

I'm absolutely not being facetious and it doesn't seem like you understand what I mean by universal basic income, it has nothing to do with what people are doing for work. The idea is that there's a basic human dignity and everyone should have the essentials, which to me means housing, clothing, and food. UBI would provide everyone with a monthly stipend that's enough to cover those three things, but no more than that. If you want anything other than the bare essentials, like to live in a non-shitty apartment, have nice clothes, or not live off ramen and hot dogs then you're gonna need to work, but you'll have enough to survive even if you're not working. The idea is not to make everyone comfortable, but to make sure that nobody's suffering for lack of housing or food.

 

Your comment about leeches and system abusers shows a lack of understand because with UBI there's no way to game the system. Everyone gets the monthly stipend (okay, it would likely correlate to people's income and wealth, so not everyone) so there's no question as to whether someone deserves the money (which, again, is not supposed to be a lot) so there's no faking qualification, there's little to no oversight, because again, there's no qualification process, so you save a lot in operation costs, and we don't have people starving or dying from exposure in one of the wealthiest nations in the world. I really don't see a downside.

[Thanatos 2,847]

I don't think you get the idea behind basic universal income. The idea behind it is that eliminating more welfare programs and substituting it with a single basic income for all prevents welfare abusers from being able to add programs to the point of being better off than full-time workers. My negative income tax argument works in a similar way, although it doesn't result in everyone receiving an income from the government. Cut the fat of the federal welfare programs and replace it with simple redistribution to balance out income. Someone who makes $10,000 a year will get lets say $5,000 from negative income tax. Someone who makes $50,000 a year will pay $10,000 a year for income tax. But the person who makes $10,000 won't ever make more than someone who works for an overall better income.

 

I'm honestly astonished that we're talking about this in here like its a legit idea.

 

Don't get me wrong- I like the idea. But my gf has been bringing this up all the time, (she's subbed to the subreddit that discusses it), and honestly it sounded like a complete pipe dream.

 

So as someone who is unsure on this one, where is the money coming from? If you scrap all the welfare, (assuming you could get that through), does that cover a basic stipend?

[Cherry 1,302]

 

I'm honestly astonished that we're talking about this in here like its a legit idea.

 

Don't get me wrong- I like the idea. But my gf has been bringing this up all the time, (she's subbed to the subreddit that discusses it), and honestly it sounded like a complete pipe dream.

 

So as someone who is unsure on this one, where is the money coming from? If you scrap all the welfare, (assuming you could get that through), does that cover a basic stipend?

 

The entire point of it is eliminating administrative clutter that allows for welfare abusers and overspending by the government. It also eliminates the gaps between being on programs and being off programs, and the qualifiers that result in people who earn less money at a job having a higher net income than those who earn more.

 

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/files/2015/06/taxandtransfer.png&w=1484

 

Here's a video that explains it to an extent.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM

Edited September 11, 2017 by Chernobyl426

[BJORN 679]

Tell China & Japan to handle North Korea and leave it alone.

[Thanatos 2,847]

I feel like we should rebrand it as "negative income tax". Universal basic income will get too many people up in arms like Bware, who just don't understand the law.

[blotsfan 2,112]

You know, I've never thought of it like that but you're 100% right. If that was its name it'd probably get huge support.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

It will cultivate a culture of a bunch of lazy do-nothing bitches... I am all for it.

[Thanatos 2,847]

We already have that, according to Faux News and the right, a bunch of people sitting on welfare and doing nothing to change it. So why not save money and cut your losses with this?

[Omerta+ 1,206]

I meant it when I said I am all for it.

[Cherry 1,302]

Ironically enough while there will still be some moochers (no matter what system) the elimination of the gap between benefits claimed vs wages will give more incentive to work. Net income will rise for society as a whole.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Ironically enough while there will still be some moochers (no matter what system) the elimination of the gap between benefits claimed vs wages will give more incentive to work. Net income will rise for society as a whole.

You have more faith in the citizenry of this country than I. I wish I shared your optimism. Like I said though it would benefit me so I am fine with it.

[oochymp 2,393]

I think you'd end up with a lot of people working part time. I should probably add that for this to work we'll need to separate health care from employment.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

I think you'd end up with a lot of people working part time. I should probably add that for this to work we'll need to separate health care from employment.

Ok I am glad you mentioned that. That is exactly what I think will happen. The problem with that is would people take the longview here? I don't know, but what I do know is companies would love part time workers because they can fuck them on benefits.

 

Now if we separate healthcare what would the taxes look like to pay for that ? Would it just undermine the point of a guaranteed income ? Wpuld it just become unsustainable. I also feel that it is the employer's job to cover insurance, and I am saying this as a business owner. If one of my guys gets hurt, it is probably because I sent them on a job and they got hurt at work, thus the onus should be on me.

[seanbrock 1,684]

Insurance is way too high too. There is no excuse for the big guys like Walmart and others who but a lot of small businesses can't afford the price of insuring their workers because of pharma and all kinds of other shit.

[oochymp 2,393]

If one of my guys gets hurt, it is probably because I sent them on a job and they got hurt at work, thus the onus should be on me.

Well that would fall under workman's comp, which I agree should absolutely be covered by employers. I'm talking about medical costs for illnesses and shit that has nothing to do with work.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Insurance is way too high too. There is no excuse for the big guys like Walmart and others who but a lot of small businesses can't afford the price of insuring their workers because of pharma and all kinds of other shit.

Its true it is high depending on which company/network you provide to your employees. I am a union contractor so a journeyman working for me makes $81 an hour, $47 on his check. I pay $13 an hour for his insurance, $12 an hour for his pension, $6 an hour for his vacation fund, and $3 an hour into his annuity. We provide blue cross blue shield. At the end of the day though the cost shoukd be covered by the employer imo. I pay my guys $1.35 a minute, but they make me money and my family and I are still very comfortable in the end, so I can't bitch.

 

Its the corporate subsidies and tax shelters from the big guys that irritate the fuck out of me.

[seanbrock 1,684]

I'm still in the single payer camp. Maybe employers can still at least help cover the cost through tax. Health insurance is a vile industry and I think the heads of pharma companies should be executed. How the fuck do you sleep at night gouging prices on drugs that save lives? Maybe profit % caps would be a better solution though lol.

[Cherry 1,302]

You have more faith in the citizenry of this country than I. I wish I shared your optimism. Like I said though it would benefit me so I am fine with it.

 

It's not faith. It's a fact. If you eliminate the incentive to be on welfare (making it less financially lucrative than working) then more people will work. Right now we provide incentives for being on welfare by having no gap between welfare with maxed out benefits and working full-time with no benefits.

[BwareDWare94 723]

I wish there was a way to actually eliminate welfare leeches. Maybe one day government programs will only assist people who actually need it, which would drastically reduce recipients of aid from many programs.

 

It's the definition of inhumane to want to get rid of the programs, but it is financial suicide to not actively vet beneficiaries for the sake of saving countless dollars in the long. Yes, it would cost a lot of money in employee wages to start vetting people, but with the crazy amount of folks thrown off the goverment's dime, years from now we'd see results that would make it more than worth it.

Edited September 12, 2017 by BwareDWare94

[Omerta+ 1,206]

 

It's not faith. It's a fact. If you eliminate the incentive to be on welfare (making it less financially lucrative than working) then more people will work. Right now we provide incentives for being on welfare by having no gap between welfare with maxed out benefits and working full-time with no benefits.

 

How can something that has not happened or been tested be a fact? Come one. I dont see the people who dont want to work now suddenly developing a work ethic if they know they will be taken care of forever with no effort.

[seanbrock 1,684]

MOST PEOPLE ON WELFARE HAVE JOBS. IF YOU DON'T LIKE WELFARE THEN MAYBE YOU SHOULD SUPPORT A LIVING WAGE SO COMPANIES AREN'T ALLOWED TO DUCK TAXES AND STEAL FROM THE TAX PAYER BY NOT PAYING PEOPLE ENOUGH TO LIVE.

[blotsfan 2,112]

MOST PEOPLE ON WELFARE HAVE JOBS. IF YOU DON'T LIKE WELFARE THEN MAYBE YOU SHOULD SUPPORT A LIVING WAGE SO COMPANIES AREN'T ALLOWED TO DUCK TAXES AND STEAL FROM THE TAX PAYER BY NOT PAYING PEOPLE ENOUGH TO LIVE.

 

Again, its not about helping people. Its about making sure the people that you deem inferior to yourself are suffering.