Guaranteed Basic Income
Comments
-
This should be entertaining.
-
Jeeze. Why don't you go move to Russia you dirty, rotten, commie.
-
I think you're unclear on the concept.doogie said:Every man woman and child on Earth should be guaranteed the same exact basic income
-
Well then jeaneous clue us in
-
I like to horrendously misunderstand a simple concept and then demand others inform me of how it works. I like to do that.doogie said:Well then jeaneous clue us in
If only there was some source of information right at your fingertips. -
His Google is broken.allpurpleallgold said:
I like to horrendously misunderstand a simple concept and then demand others inform me of how it works. I like to do that.doogie said:Well then jeaneous clue us in
If only there was some source of information right at your fingertips. -
Proving the point effeciently.
Thank you! -
Notable conservative thinkers are coming around to the idea- e.g., Charles Murray of Middlebury Anti Free Speech Riots fame: http://www.aei.org/publication/a-guaranteed-income-for-every-american/
Right now you have too many in our society choosing idle poverty over working poverty, because they don't see much of a difference in standard of living between the two. UBI is a way to motivate more people into the work force, even for low paying jobs. -
How is the rest of the world going to feel about Americans getting free money as the world continues to shift away from the dollar?
-
Following up on my rowboat enthusiast friend, GBI is also used in many models to substitute for other social welfare benefits, making certain programs, e.g. public housing, cash systems which can then be governed by market principles.
-
Market forces? Top down government allocations are now market forces?
Good one. -
This duck gets it. We already have massive wealth transfer to the poor and it's inefficient and creates disincentives for work. UBI addresses these issues. Viva la free market, socialist revolution!!AZDuck said:Following up on my rowboat enthusiast friend, GBI is also used in many models to substitute for other social welfare benefits, making certain programs, e.g. public housing, cash systems which can then be governed by market principles.
-
You see, you give people CASH which they use to buy goods and services. Then you stop providing some services like HOUSING for free, and let the people use their CASH to pay for it. The free housing gets incorporated into the MARKET for housing, which then competes on the MARKET for customers.doogie said:Market forces? Top down government allocations are now market forces?
Good one.
The best part is, everyone gets CASH from the government, rich, poor, and middle. But since most poor and middle class people spend most of their paychecks, the CASH continues to circulate through the economy, generating further GROWTH and new ECONOMIC ACTIVITY on the DEMAND side.
-
sure. Sounds like a fun classroom group project.
-
I just checked Hondo's source - wikipedia
If you want to streamline poverty programs and welfare to make one efficient program I am in. Just like in healthcare, it is cheaper to write checks than run all these bullshit programs that manage to keep most of the money out of the people who need it hands.
But poverty isn't caused by a lack of money. Its caused by poor choices and human nature. That won't change just because you hand someone money. It will make it worse.
But we? aren't going to let them starve so finding better ways to help the helpless makes sense. Getting generational families out of poverty should be the goal.
Somewhere in there has to be work. Maybe an income to build those aqueducts from Washington to So Cal. Or the Fresno Bullet Train
Keep in mind if we do eliminate programs we eliminate the jobs that go with them. Catch 22
I? pay 40-50% of my income in taxes already so having it used better is a good thing. Producers are still going to produce because of the freedom it brings. But there is a point at which income will be hid or sent off shore by the producers. You have to keep the suckers paying in to keep the ponzi scheme afloat -
In any UBI scenario you're are still going to have some unproductive people, well being unproductive, but we already have that at present with all the disincentives towards work- i.e., why go flip burgers when it pays basically the same as saying your back hurts and collecting disability? With UBI, they can keep the basic monthly cash stipend, and thus there is no disincentive towards going out to hustle some more bucks mowing lawns or changing sheets in a hotel.RaceBannon said:I just checked Hondo's source - wikipedia
If you want to streamline poverty programs and welfare to make one efficient program I am in. Just like in healthcare, it is cheaper to write checks than run all these bullshit programs that manage to keep most of the money out of the people who need it hands.
But poverty isn't caused by a lack of money. Its caused by poor choices and human nature. That won't change just because you hand someone money. It will make it worse.
But we? aren't going to let them starve so finding better ways to help the helpless makes sense. Getting generational families out of poverty should be the goal.
Somewhere in there has to be work. Maybe an income to build those aqueducts from Washington to So Cal. Or the Fresno Bullet Train
Keep in mind if we do eliminate programs we eliminate the jobs that go with them. Catch 22
I? pay 40-50% of my income in taxes already so having it used better is a good thing. Producers are still going to produce because of the freedom it brings. But there is a point at which income will be hid or sent off shore by the producers. You have to keep the suckers paying in to keep the ponzi scheme afloat -
2 trillion in dollar monetization so far this year!
-
And food stamps are like $70 billion. Get some perspective.doogie said:2 trillion in dollar monetization so far this year!
-
There is no disincentive for work. Lazy is going to be lazy. If want more of a behavior, subsidize it.YellowSnow said:
In any UBI scenario you're are still going to have some unproductive people, well being unproductive, but we already have that at present with all the disincentives towards work- i.e., why go flip burgers when it pays basically the same as saying your back hurts and collecting disability? With UBI, they can keep the basic monthly cash stipend, and thus there is no disincentive towards going out to hustle some more bucks mowing lawns or changing sheets in a hotel.RaceBannon said:I just checked Hondo's source - wikipedia
If you want to streamline poverty programs and welfare to make one efficient program I am in. Just like in healthcare, it is cheaper to write checks than run all these bullshit programs that manage to keep most of the money out of the people who need it hands.
But poverty isn't caused by a lack of money. Its caused by poor choices and human nature. That won't change just because you hand someone money. It will make it worse.
But we? aren't going to let them starve so finding better ways to help the helpless makes sense. Getting generational families out of poverty should be the goal.
Somewhere in there has to be work. Maybe an income to build those aqueducts from Washington to So Cal. Or the Fresno Bullet Train
Keep in mind if we do eliminate programs we eliminate the jobs that go with them. Catch 22
I? pay 40-50% of my income in taxes already so having it used better is a good thing. Producers are still going to produce because of the freedom it brings. But there is a point at which income will be hid or sent off shore by the producers. You have to keep the suckers paying in to keep the ponzi scheme afloat -
@RaceBannon "Lazy is going to be lazy" misses the point race. It's not the 1930's anymore and the Joads don't have to pack up the Hudson truck anymore to move to Cali-fornee to pick fruit vs staying in Oklahoma and starving to death. Now they can stay in the trailer in Oklahoma and live off disability, and why get a shitty job at the local Wallmart if the net is same as the disability. But how is the current model not a disincentive for work?
-
The silence of @MikeDamone speaks volumes
-
So guaranteeing a lazy asshole in Oklahoma an income will make him not be lazy.
Right -
Nothing's changed with him; he has that already.RaceBannon said:So guaranteeing a lazy asshole in Oklahoma an income will make him not be lazy.
Right -
RaceBannon said:
So guaranteeing a lazy asshole in
OklahomaSeattle an income will make him not be lazy.
Right -
And with your plantation mentality he won't change.YellowSnow said:
Nothing's changed with him; he has that already.RaceBannon said:So guaranteeing a lazy asshole in Oklahoma an income will make him not be lazy.
Right
-
So the point is that overall it would be cheaper and more efficient to provide a cash subsidy in lieu of the all the special program bullshit (housing, job training, health insurance, food stamps, etc) and let the free market dictate the outcomes? Eliminate a massive amount of bureaucracy / overhead and let market forces work? Even for the perennially unemployed? It does sound compellling.YellowSnow said:
Nothing's changed with him; he has that already.RaceBannon said:So guaranteeing a lazy asshole in Oklahoma an income will make him not be lazy.
Right -
Somebody failed economics 101.CirrhosisDawg said:
So the point is that overall it would be cheaper and more efficient to provide a cash subsidy in lieu of the all the special program bullshit (housing, job training, health insurance, food stamps, etc) and let the free market dictate the outcomes? Eliminate a massive amount of bureaucracy / overhead and let market forces work? Even for the perennially unemployed? It does sound compellling.YellowSnow said:
Nothing's changed with him; he has that already.RaceBannon said:So guaranteeing a lazy asshole in Oklahoma an income will make him not be lazy.
Right -
Yeah, right. You get to keep all your shit and lock yourself into a nice ride into the sunset.
You really think there are enough small thinkers willing to permanently surrender their futures to get this passed for you? -
Sure did. Ironic isn't it?TurdBuffer said:
Somebody failed economics 101.CirrhosisDawg said:
So the point is that overall it would be cheaper and more efficient to provide a cash subsidy in lieu of the all the special program bullshit (housing, job training, health insurance, food stamps, etc) and let the free market dictate the outcomes? Eliminate a massive amount of bureaucracy / overhead and let market forces work? Even for the perennially unemployed? It does sound compellling.YellowSnow said:
Nothing's changed with him; he has that already.RaceBannon said:So guaranteeing a lazy asshole in Oklahoma an income will make him not be lazy.
Right
