Universal Basic Income (UBI)
Poll
 | 6 votes (21.42%) | ||
| | 1 vote (3.57%) | ||
| | 9 votes (32.14%) | ||
| | 12 votes (42.85%) |
28 members have voted
Quote: TumblingBones
p.s. kudos to AZ for starting this thread.
YW, but thank Wiz also, his (firm :-) ) suggestion. FWIW we need to broaden the political discussions here.
Quote: TumblingBonesI don't think the tool vs automation divide is that clear. I used to pay 2 accountants: one for personal and one for my business. Now I pay zero and buy a new copy of Turbo Tax every year.
Technology always does this. I can imagine before my time how long it took to plot parcels of land, then compare them. I do it in minutes. .pdf files have killed bicycle couriers who used to be in every city delivering all over.
But I still do not see the autonomous car thing having the disruption the media says it will. If the entire media is so in lockstep, they must be wrong. As I see it, we have a huge case of too many too smart people missing what the average guy can see. For example, I again have to take temp work as a courier between gigs. This time mostly medical stuff. Do such a job a week and it is easy to see how many small things have to be taken into account before the car delivers on its own.
The people designing and talking it all up have usually never spend a day in their life "in the field." So they miss it.
Things will last my time at least.
Its usually seen as "the lower rungs" type thing, but without any investigation or incentive to force recipients to climb the ladder. Alaska gives an annual award to all residents rich or poor. Universal Basic Income will give a payment "floor" to all who apply for it, irrespective of whether the condition is permanent or temporary. So a woman with a young child can just take the income or not; she does not have to prove she is looking for work, or taking classes, or bring in the kid's birth certificate or anything else.Quote: billryanIs the idea to give every citizen or resident a basic living allowance or only the lowest rung on the economic ladder?
It basically removes the administrative burden of welfare qualification and rule enforcement and allows whatever "welfare money" that is legislated to be actually paid to the needy, not the social workers or investigators.
Parks benefit communities but they do indeed benefit the adjacent landlords the most. Same with roads, golf courses, etc.
Some jurisdictions had no funds to investigate welfare frauds but later audits showed there was rather little of it. Just as various grants seem to largely benefit grant writers, we can alter tax spending wisely.
A pragmatic alternative would be to decentralize the welfare programs and push the money down to the local level where different localities could try a bunch of different systems like UBI or whatever the people want.
If you look hard enough, you can find cheap places to rent, some include everything.
If you have a GF/Wife/ partner who gets the same amount, you would be just fine.
Quote: AxelWolfI could easily live on 1500 a month and maintain a car if I wanted to here in Vegas.
If you look hard enough, you can find cheap places to rent, some include everything.
If you have a GF/Wife/ partner who gets the same amount, you would be just fine.
Sure, as LV is the home of free buffets and the like. Let's see you do it in LA or most urban areas.
Quote: TomGThe collective good is the goal of all government spending. Some are forced to pay much more than others to be a part of this collective good; and some people people get much more value out of this collective good than others. Given those two inequalities. there must always be some sort of redistributing effect
I see what you and Babs are saying, but I don't agree that disproportionate benefit or funding of "available to all" types of government spending is a significant wealth transfer as the term is commonly used. In fact, I would guess that even fiscal conservatives don't object to government spending on these types of "most citizens gain some benefit" type of items.
This type of government spending is very different from the direct wealth transfers that arise is when the government takes from the many and writes a check or transfers goods directly to an individual. Why would anyone supporting a capitalistic economic model be in favor of a long term program that provides for this type of direct wealth transfer?
As far as jobs going away with technology...it doesn't seem to be happening now. We have the lowest unemployment in America since 2000 based on today's jobs report. There have huge technological advancements and automation since 2000, yet a smaller percentage of the population is unemployed. How do you reconcile that with a need for UBI as a result of automation/technological advances?
Quote: ParadigmI see what you and Babs are saying, but I don't agree that disproportionate benefit or funding of "available to all" types of government spending is a significant wealth transfer as the term is commonly used. In fact, I would guess that even fiscal conservatives don't object to government spending on these types of "most citizens gain some benefit" type of items.
This type of government spending is very different from the direct wealth transfers that arise is when the government takes from the many and writes a check or transfers goods directly to an individual. Why would anyone supporting a capitalistic economic model be in favor of a long term program that provides for this type of direct wealth transfer?
As far as jobs going away with technology...it doesn't seem to be happening now. We have the lowest unemployment in America since 2000 based on today's jobs report. There have huge technological advancements and automation since 2000, yet a smaller percentage of the population is unemployed. How do you reconcile that with a need for UBI as a result of automation/technological advances?
As i said before, I think it might be possible that other sectors of the economy grow as old ones become automated.
However, unemployment figures can be misleading. They don't include those who stop looking for work. They also don't measure unemployment. My understanding is that more jobs are part time and/ or low wage and low security than in the past.
Quote: billryanSure, as LV is the home of free buffets and the like. Let's see you do it in LA or most urban areas.
If said UBI recipient can't afford to pay their own bills to live in LA, UBI starts after the recipient uses the one way bus ticket to Yuma, AZ. UBI isn't designed to pay for the recipient to live in LA. UBI/Welfare should be calculated using a subsistence income level based on the lowest 20% cost regions of the country...time to move if you need the government to pay your long term living expenses.
Quote: RigondeauxAs i said before, I think it might be possible that other sectors of the economy grow as old ones become automated.
However, unemployment figures can be misleading. They don't include those who stop looking for work. They also don't measure unemployment. My understanding is that more jobs are part time and/ or low wage and low security than in the past.
Is technology the reason behind the "part time/low wage/low security" jobs of today vs. the past? You would think that part-time/low wage/low skill jobs would be the first to be eliminated by technology (e.g. self ordering kiosks in McDonalds).
Quote: AZDuffmanBut I still do not see the autonomous car thing having the disruption the media says it will. If the entire media is so in lockstep, they must be wrong.
I disagree. Autonomous cars will bring these changes:
1. Universal compliance with speed limits
2. Eventually, road use tolls -this is what municipalities will use to bail themselves out of their financial holes. They know exactly when a car is using any given road and some toll payment will be automatically transferred from the user's account to a City/Town/State account.
3. Eventually, no more traffic lights.
4. Insurance companies will be SOL - because auto insurance will become a thing of the past. This is why so many insurance companies are trying to diversify into "financial management."
5. Eventually there will be no private ownership of cars. Autonomous cars will be housed in big parking lots/facilities. You will call for a car with your phone, it will pick you up at your home and drive you to your destination.
- No more worrying about car payments, automotive maintenance, buying gas, replacing tires,
- Homes will eventually have no garages and no driveways. This will make homes cheaper.
Negatives
6. Mobility (by automotive vehicle) will become more expensive
7. Your movements (except walking) will no longer be private/
You can buy and do so much online that the cultural advantages of NYC, LA, Chicago etc. vs somewhere like Vegas or Boise are tiny compared to what they once were.
Ideas spread way more rapidly. It's not going to take 25 years for things like restaurant trends to spread. You can also fulfill a lot of your social needs onlne.
You can easily aford to visit family or help them visit you with the savings.
But yes, i agree. If you can't afford a city, deal with it or move.
Quote: ParadigmIf said UBI recipient can't afford to pay their own bills to live in LA, UBI starts after the recipient uses the one way bus ticket to Yuma, AZ. UBI isn't designed to pay for the recipient to live in LA. UBI/Welfare should be calculated using a subsistence income level based on the lowest 20% cost regions of the country...time to move if you need the government to pay your long term living expenses.
My primary reason for not accepting an invitation to work at the NY TRACON in 2004 was the cost of living in NYC vs. ANYWHERE else I had worked. And they were offering me a base salary of $135k, probably real earnings around $170k. Which would not go far at all for a decent house and living expenses there, and yet is a FORTUNE outside the NE corridor and California.
(I'm sure I could have found SOMETHING, but to seriously degrade my standard of living in order to work at the hardest facility in the world, would have been purely ego. At that, it was close. Bragging rights matter.)
I just don't understand why there's such a disparity. I also don't understand how people do it. Unless they are already there, dealing with it on a daily basis from childhood.
Quote: ParadigmI see what you and Babs are saying, but I don't agree that disproportionate benefit or funding of "available to all" types of government spending is a significant wealth transfer as the term is commonly used. In fact, I would guess that even fiscal conservatives don't object to government spending on these types of "most citizens gain some benefit" type of items.
Spending on this proposal is called "Universal" because it would be a benefit provided to everyone. Which is just one reason why so many fiscal conservatives prefer this type of spending over other government spending.
Quote: ParadigmThis type of government spending is very different from the direct wealth transfers that arise is when the government takes from the many and writes a check or transfers goods directly to an individual. Why would anyone supporting a capitalistic economic model be in favor of a long term program that provides for this type of direct wealth transfer?
One other major reason fiscal conservatives support this wealth transfer because it is far more efficient and less wasteful than our current system.
Quote: beachbumbabsMy primary reason for not accepting an invitation to work at the NY TRACON in 2004 was the cost of living in NYC vs. ANYWHERE else I had worked. And they were offering me a base salary of $135k, probably real earnings around $170k. Which would not go far at all for a decent house and living expenses there, and yet is a FORTUNE outside the NE corridor and California.
(I'm sure I could have found SOMETHING, but to seriously degrade my standard of living in order to work at the hardest facility in the world, would have been purely ego. At that, it was close. Bragging rights matter.)
I just don't understand why there's such a disparity. I also don't understand how people do it. Unless they are already there, dealing with it on a daily basis from childhood.
And yet California has one of the highest populations of illegal immigration of low skilled workers in the country...they come here with very little resources and somehow can afford to live in one of the highest cost states in the nation...I wonder how that is possible?
Quote: ParadigmBig assumption that will never hold is that post a UBI implementation, we wouldn't re-start pieces of the current system and be spending more money overall.
It would be done on the state level.
Quote: ParadigmI just don't buy the math
$800 x 12 months x 150 million = one-third of federal government spending this year ($600 would be only one-quarter)
Quote: gordonm888I disagree. Autonomous cars will bring these changes:
1. Universal compliance with speed limits
2. Eventually, road use tolls -this is what municipalities will use to bail themselves out of their financial holes. They know exactly when a car is using any given road and some toll payment will be automatically transferred from the user's account to a City/Town/State account.
3. Eventually, no more traffic lights.
4. Insurance companies will be SOL - because auto insurance will become a thing of the past. This is why so many insurance companies are trying to diversify into "financial management."
5. Eventually there will be no private ownership of cars. Autonomous cars will be housed in big parking lots/facilities. You will call for a car with your phone, it will pick you up at your home and drive you to your destination.
- No more worrying about car payments, automotive maintenance, buying gas, replacing tires,
- Homes will eventually have no garages and no driveways. This will make homes cheaper.
Negatives
6. Mobility (by automotive vehicle) will become more expensive
7. Your movements (except walking) will no longer be private/
There may be someone out there with a vast vision, but right now I see a less complicated view. All major car companies at the very least don't want find out a competitor got way ahead of them. It's likely, if you're not in the game now, it will be difficult to catch up with the company which succeeds unless you have your own system. This is true, even if the public shows only low interest in ultimately buying into it. But that comes later.
The cynical me says, companies develop complexity in part to lock customers into a product. Not only can I not easily make a self-driving car, I probably never will be able to figure out how to fix one.
Quote: RomesThis would never work because as soon as everyone in the country received an extra $1500 per month, the base cost of living everywhere would just go up another $1500 per month.
Why?
What's the difference between a $1500 a month UBI and everyone having a job paying at least $1500 a month?
If everyone in the U.S. suddenly had a job that paid (at least) minimum wage, would prices of everything go up accordingly? Why or why not, and how would that be different from a UBI?
I'm not arguing, just asking.
Quote: ParadigmAnd yet California has one of the highest populations of illegal immigration of low skilled workers in the country...they come here with very little resources and somehow can afford to live in one of the highest cost states in the nation...I wonder how that is possible?
They live 15 people in a single wide trailer
1. Electricity would be free or nearly free.
2. Automation would reduce labor needs by 50% or so. In other words, the average worker would work about 20 hours a week.
So forgive me if I'm skeptical about they predictions we'll be all automated out of jobs soon. Any hotel/casino manager in Vegas will sing the blues that it is hard to fill menial labor jobs. A casino manager I knew in Laughlin said the only condition needed to work at his property was a heartbeat. There is a shortage of millions of jobs in health care. Most public schools have a shortage of teachers. My prediction is there will more demand than supply of labor for the next 50 years.
BedSty and Fort Green in Brooklyn used to be combat zones. Social workers only went on home visits with police escorts. Now they are upscale areas where brownstones went from being hard to give away to being worth three million dollars and up. There is a vibrant commercial life and the streets are relatively safe. Perhaps the best example is Los Angeles and skid row that is now a very upscale area filled with bars, restaurants, high rent apartments and upscale condominiums.
A good many areas have wage incentives. In Los Angeles billets that would normally be filled by Lieutenants are filled by Captains because Los Angeles on a Lieutenants salary is impossible. Housing in resort cities is often too expensive for fast food workers or bank tellers or other "working stiffs".
Quote: ParadigmAnd yet California has one of the highest populations of illegal immigration of low skilled workers in the country...they come here with very little resources and somehow can afford to live in one of the highest cost states in the nation...I wonder how that is possible?
Roommates.
I lived in L.A. and NYC on $10/hr in the mid-2000's with no problems. When I got a raise to $12/hr I was even able put a little money away into savings every month. A decent job, 1-2 roommates paying equal share, and you're golden.
San Francisco might be a different story, though...
Automation? eliminates a lot of pencil pushing middle managers. Sure computers increased jobs but only at the printing/bursting/decollating level. Created an army of permanent entry-level workers in the sixties and seventies.
Foreign cultures will allow workers to "buy" their replacement robots and keep the worker's income stream. American culture is to fire the workers and buy robots.
Companies in America that tell their workers robots may take your work assignment but they won't take away your paycheck are often foreign owned.
Automation? eliminates a lot of pencil pushing middle managers. Sure computers increased jobs but only at the printing/bursting/decollating level. Created an army of permanent entry-level workers in the sixties and seventies.
Foreign cultures will allow workers to "buy" their replacement robots and keep the worker's income stream. American culture is to fire the workers and buy robots.
Companies in America that tell their workers robots may take your work assignment but they won't take away your paycheck are often foreign owned.
Quote: gordonm888
4. Insurance companies will be SOL - because auto insurance will become a thing of the past.
Not going to happen. We already see accidents. The "perfect world" would mean no accidents. It is not a perfect world. Suppose someone walks in front of an autonomous car with not enough room to stop?
Quote:5. Eventually there will be no private ownership of cars. Autonomous cars will be housed in big parking lots/facilities. You will call for a car with your phone, it will pick you up at your home and drive you to your destination.
- No more worrying about car payments, automotive maintenance, buying gas, replacing tires,
- Homes will eventually have no garages and no driveways. This will make homes cheaper.
Also not happening. Do you really think people are going to accept taking just whatever car shows up? Who knows how much garbage left in it? Smelling of smoke? Do you think the average family with kids is going to keep installing and removing car seats?
As to "no more driveways," we already have hundreds of millions of homes. They will not be retrofit.
Then you have to say where all these cars will be parked? Who is going to maintain them?
It is not so easy.
Quote: WizardI was in high school in the early 80's. When predictions for the near future was discussed, everybody seemed to agree on the following two:
Not sure how many predictions are wrong, but plenty are wrong on the timeline. Our space exploration predictions have been slow to be realized, but there is still progress. Some things will never be realized, but others may just have a different implementation.
Quote: AZDuffmanNot going to happen. We already see accidents. The "perfect world" would mean no accidents. It is not a perfect world. Suppose someone walks in front of an autonomous car with not enough room to stop?
And whose liability would that be? Maybe the pedestrian, in your example.
In any case, accident rates will be much much lower. And if you are not driving and the infrastructure system routes your car down B Street because A street is congested, and your car's computer screws up and runs you into a road construction barrier whose fault is that? If you don't drive a car, why should you be the one paying insurance? And if the insurance companies aren't selling auto insurance to individuals, but instead to car manufacturers, then the money-mint that is the insurance business is over.
Quote: gordonm888And whose liability would that be? Maybe the pedestrian, in your example.
Peds pretty much always have the right of way over cars.
Quote:In any case, accident rates will be much much lower.
So they say. In a perfect world of dry roads properly marked. But here is the thing, autonomous cars will not work in the snow and probably in the rain. Same as you should never use cruise control in the rain. It is why I say we may see glorified cruise control, but full autonomy is a generation or more away.
Quote: WizardI was in high school in the early 80's. When predictions for the near future was discussed, everybody seemed to agree on the following two:
1. Electricity would be free or nearly free.
2. Automation would reduce labor needs by 50% or so. In other words, the average worker would work about 20 hours a week.
When America first became a country, over 70% of the population were farmers. It's now only about 1%. That doesn't mean 70% of us no longer needed to help run the countries workforce, it means we replaced 1700s jobs with 20th and 21st century jobs. It is possible that the labor needs to run 1980s America has dropped by that much, but simply been replaced by new demands. A payment to all citizens shouldn't be done to make up for how our jobs are changing, it should be done to help accelerate how our jobs are changing.
Quote: rxwineNot sure how many predictions are wrong, but plenty are wrong on the timeline. Our space exploration predictions have been slow to be realized, but there is still progress. Some things will never be realized, but others may just have a different implementation.
In 1996 I was on a DoD panel tasked to predict where technologies relevant to the military would be in 20 years. A couple of years ago on the 20th anniversary of the study I dug out a copy of the report to check how we did. I would score it maybe a 5 on a 1 to 10 scale but I'm not the most objective grader in this case :)
Quote: WizardSo forgive me if I'm skeptical about they predictions we'll be all automated out of jobs soon. Any hotel/casino manager in Vegas will sing the blues that it is hard to fill menial labor jobs. A casino manager I knew in Laughlin said the only condition needed to work at his property was a heartbeat. There is a shortage of millions of jobs in health care. Most public schools have a shortage of teachers. My prediction is there will more demand than supply of labor for the next 50 years.
You may be right but I think you will agree that automation shifts the job market. One type of job goes away and another (hopefully) appears. Lots of economists and pundits have been saying this and lots of politicians have been counting on this. The problem is that there are many sources of "friction" that prevent people from changing jobs. The obvious one is lack of skill but non-portability of health care is also a major factor. Ditto inability to change location due to family (e.g. a spouse with a job). One result is that even tho the unemployment rate is low, the participation rate has been steadily dropping since 2000. The only other post-war drop was between 1956 and 1965 and that was much smaller (~ 1.5% vs 5%).
The fact that this drop started in 2000 is to me a major point. Both Wiz and AZ have pointed out that we've been hearing since the 1980s (at least) about the robots coming to take our jobs. The 1980s and 1990s are referred to in the history of AI as the "AI Winter". Wikipedia describes it as "a chain reaction that begins with pessimism in the AI community, followed by pessimism in the press, followed by a severe cutback in funding, followed by the end of serious research." In 2005 however the [NYT wrote about the end of the AI winter. Ever since, buckets of money have been thrown at AI researchers and projects. There has been orders of magnitude improvements in the capability of AI/ML systems in the last 20 years and nobody is expecting it to slow down.
We all know that correlation is not causation. Nevertheless consider the following chart:
I don't think we are faced with a black-or-white situation where technology erases all jobs but I do think it is drastically changing society. UBI has been proposed as one way to reduce the impact.
Farm labor? It took fifty hours of labor a YEAR to bring in an acre of corn which provided food, liquor, currency, torches and pipes.
Free buffets and such are not a factor in my thinking, I think it all comes down to how much rental rates are.Quote: billryanSure, as LV is the home of free buffets and the like. Let's see you do it in LA or most urban areas.
I have a feeling one could find a Studio in LA for under 900.
And no one said if you wanted to not work and just live free you had to live in an expensive area. They can move there ass to Toledo, Ohio. Bullhead City, AZ or whatver.
I’m still not seeing why we should provide for someone entirely, like $1500/mo for doing nothing. I don’t want to live somewhere where people are striving just to do nothing and to get by like that. Sounds like a miserable environment. At least make it so people who are making below $X/month get something like $300/mo. But giving people $1500/month for doing nothing? I can’t even wrap my head around it. Sorry, but I can’t.
I still say — cut welfare and all that s*** by 95%. Give everyone on it 6 months notice and in 6 months it’s gone. You can reapply, but unless you’re either mentally retarded, have severe disabilities, or something like that, don’t expect it.
For those without a job, they can apply for welfare/etc. and get UP TO 2 months of it — afterwords, it’s gone. This would serve for the type of people who get laid off out of nowhere who were making very little money and barely getting by, without any savings since they can’t afford to save. A safety net, as they say.
The government shouldn’t be “providing” for the citizens. The government should be responsible for foreign affairs, justice/jail/prison, generic regulations, the type of stuff the private sector can’t really take care of (like fire department, police, etc.), and other stuff the actual government should be doing. Why isn’t social security taken care of by the private sector? Mail?
Mail is in the US Constitution as a government duty to its people. However, it's not funded with tax dollars. It's a quasi-corporation that answers to the US Government, but it pays for itself.
Quote: TumblingBonesOne type of job goes away and another (hopefully) appears.
I absolutely agree with that. The market basket of goods and services we all consume is always changing and with that the types of jobs in the economy.
But just imagine what YOU and other motivated people could do with an extra guaranteed $1500 free a month.Quote: RS
I’m still not seeing why we should provide for someone entirely, like $1500/mo for doing nothing. I don’t want to live somewhere where people are striving just to do nothing and to get by like that. Sounds like a miserable environment. At least make it so people who are making below $X/month get something like $300/mo. But giving people $1500/month for doing nothing? I can’t even wrap my head around it. Sorry, but I can’t.
Quote: AxelWolfBut just imagine what YOU and other motivated people could do with an extra guaranteed $1500 free a month.
It’d hurt me because I wouldn’t be getting that $1500. It’d cost me $1600 or $1700 or $2000 a month just to get that $1500 back. So I’d be shilling out money so my neighbor or whoever can smoke weed on his couch all day long or whatever some people aspire to do.
Social Security has many components but it was supposed to be for those in NEED. A safety net, not an entitlement simply because people had paid into the system.
It used to be possible to go to the local Seminole casino and figure out who had just received a check on the fourth day of the month, then the government started staggering the dates they made the deposits.
Locally some assistance recipients were ordered to apply for employment in order to continue receiving benefits. They wanted to apply to Lowe's via an online application as they were instructed to do but none of them had an email address and no one was there to help them get one. They simply could not understand the Hotmail directtions for a free account. Do you think Lowe's will hire them? Do you think they will make good employees? Do you think anyone gained anything from that futility?
Quote: RSI don’t want to live somewhere where people are striving just to do nothing and to get by like that. Sounds like a miserable environment.
The number of people with those values is not going to change based on government spending. Lots of people are going to be like that whether they get their government check or not. And lots of people will aim higher than that no matter what the government does. Snowflakes who get offended by other peoples values shouldn't be what drives a multi-trillion dollar per year operation
I don't know much about this and it's not somthing I'm all that interested in since I doubt that it will happen in my lifetime, if ever.Quote: RSIt’d hurt me because I wouldn’t be getting that $1500. It’d cost me $1600 or $1700 or $2000 a month just to get that $1500 back. So I’d be shilling out money so my neighbor or whoever can smoke weed on his couch all day long or whatever some people aspire to do.
But, I assumed the premise was that the cost wouldn't be passed on to us. I was under the impression they would get rid of all the government workers it takes to run the current welfare system.
That sounds like a fairytale to me, but if it was possible I don't think I would be opposed to it. People are already getting free money on welfare programs, and you are already paying for it, you mise well get some too. Assuming $1500 was the cap no matter what, certain people wouldn't feel the need to pump out more kids so they can get more government money.
I guess I'm saying if it doesn't affect me negatively, but adds a guaranteed extra $1500 to my pocket each month, I'm all for it. I'm fairly certain I could live on $1500 a month, add another $1500 for the wife and it would be a breeze. Off the top of my head, our bills are less than $900 a month(NOT including food, pets or entertainment) I could cut that down at least by an extra $100 a month if I really wanted to.
Quote: RS
I still say — cut welfare and all that s*** by 95%. Give everyone on it 6 months notice and in 6 months it’s gone. You can reapply, but unless you’re mentally retarded, don’t expect it.
Always looking out for number one, ain't ya?
Quote: FleaStiff
Social Security has many components but it was supposed to be for those in NEED. A safety net, not an entitlement simply because people had paid into the system.
Incorrect. SS has never been means tested.
True. Some people just want beer and cigarettes at their bedside, others want books. The lazy druggies are not going to be changed by government inspired paperwork hurdles.Quote: TomGThe number of people with those values is not going to change based on government spending. Lots of people are going to be like that whether they get their government check or not. And lots of people will aim higher than that no matter what the government does.
UBI is simply a more efficient way of spending the money.
Think of the Red Ball Express that kept fuel and ammunition moving as Patton's tanks raced across France. It was a fast moving and very leaky pipeline. Privates making sixty dollars a month driving trucks filled with gasoline could make fifty dollars in two minutes selling five gallons of gas on the black market. Some officers were sending home fifty grand. Yet there were no bills of lading, invoices or receipts. It was get the job done.
Eliminating paperwork and qualification hurdles makes for greater efficiency and seems not to increase the fraud level significantly.
Quote: AZDuffmanIncorrect. SS has never been means testes.
But it's ALWAYS been a scam, con job, rip off, government theft of your property, etc.
Quote: AZDuffmanIncorrect. SS has never been means testes.
You're absolutely right.
Quote: AZDuffmanIncorrect. SS has never been means testes.
That's not correct. For at least the last 30 years (because it affected my father at that time, and is affecting me now, so it's been at least that long), once a person begins receiving SS, their earnings are severely restricted.
From the SSA.gov :
Quote:If you're younger than full retirement age, there is a limit to how much you can earn and still receive full Page 3 2 Social Security benefits. If you're younger than full retirement age during all of 2018, we must deduct $1 from your benefits for each $2 you earn above $17,040.
This makes a huge difference to me, as I retired before full retirement age. I have to avoid earnings, INCLUDING W2Gs I can't offset with losses, and other sources, above this amount. The effective taxation rate on winnings beyond that threshold is above 84% (34% federal tax rate, 50% loss of SSI, plus any state taxes withheld at jackpot time). And they check closely.
This only applies to earnings, not pension plans, IRA disbursements, or other income. There are many retirement jobs designed around and expecting this ceiling, where people work every year until say, March or April, then resign when they get close to the ceiling, and other people get their hours, or come in behind. January next year, rinse and repeat.
Which is the very definition of means testing. (testes? Really AZD? Your spellchecker defaults to that? Lol)
Quote: IbeatyouracesBut it's ALWAYS been a scam, con job, rip off, government theft of your property, etc.
I don't see it as any of that. I paid extra so I could retire early, I have 162 quarters on the books (minimum is 40 quarters), now I'm being paid back a bit every month.
I'd be interested in hearing why you think it's a scam/theft/ripoff.
Quote: beachbumbabsI don't see it as any of that. I paid extra so I could retire early, I have 162 quarters on the books (minimum is 40 quarters), now I'm being paid back a bit every month.
I'd be interested in hearing why you think it's a scam/theft/ripoff.
Nobody will ever get nearly the amount they pay into it. Jist like any other form of insurance, it's a scam.
