Thread Rating:

Poll

6 votes (21.42%)
1 vote (3.57%)
9 votes (32.14%)
12 votes (42.85%)

28 members have voted

AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 229
  • Posts: 12671
May 31st, 2018 at 8:16:37 AM permalink
Split per request of management.

For those who never heard of it, UBI = Universal Basic Income. An idea that everyone in a society deserves a floor level of subsistence income. So you would get a check, say $1,500 per month. As would I. As would Mark Zuckerberg, who is a major supporter.

The trade-off is that all other welfare programs would end. Presumably even social security and unemployment benefits. No section 8, no food stamps, no WIC, nothing. Spend it wrong, too bad.

Some say this would let more people start a business or go to school since they would have their very basic needs met. Some say it would make a nation of layabouts spending all day on the couch and all evening in the bar. It would absolutely be *simpler* that the current welfare system. And it would get rid of the serf class of welfare dependents we now have, those that will not work because they lose benefits so why bother.

DISCUSS.
Last edited by: AZDuffman on May 31, 2018
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
terapined
terapined
Joined: Dec 1, 2012
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 5898
May 31st, 2018 at 8:27:16 AM permalink
I lean left and I don't support this.
No way Jose
wont work
What's there to discuss?
WOV supports censorship. Bring back free speech challenging lies.
FleaStiff
FleaStiff
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
  • Threads: 265
  • Posts: 14484
May 31st, 2018 at 8:34:45 AM permalink
Actually that is not quite what the proposals are.

Its simply that instead of having to qualify for specific assistance programs and demonstrate need for certain types of assistance, all the social worker paper pushers and all the investigators would have to find productive work. A few cheats might get some money they don't deserve and a few people might be unwise but in general it is a recognition that low paying jobs do not pay a living wages and that excessive time and money is spent on a qualification system.

Scandinavian countries have tried this.

A few jurisdictions in the US have had it on a de-facto basis.

One figure bandied about was 798.00 off everyone's tax bill if everyone just gets the handouts without having to qualify and renew and all that junk.
darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 266
  • Posts: 9074
May 31st, 2018 at 8:40:07 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

Split per request of management.

For those who never heard of it, UBI = Universal Basic Income. An idea that everyone in a society deserves a floor level of subsistence income. So you would get a check, say $1,500 per month. As would I. As would Mark Zuckerberg, who is a major supporter.

The trade-off is that all other welfare programs would end. Presumably even social security and unemployment benefits. No section 9, no food stamps, no WIC, nothing. Spend it wrong, too bad.

Some say this would let more people start a business or go to school since they would have their very basic needs met. Some say it would make a nation of layabouts spending all day on the couch and all evening in the bar. It would absolutely be *simpler* that the current welfare system. And it would get rid of the serf class of welfare dependents we now have, those that will not work because they lose benefits so why bother.

DISCUSS.



Its section 8 :) not section 9

Also welfare recipients have to work

Food stamp recipients have to work

You are still living in the 80s
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 229
  • Posts: 12671
May 31st, 2018 at 8:49:47 AM permalink
Quote: darkoz

Its section 8 :) not section 9



Fat fingers. But funny because my realtor and I were talking rentals and said "Section 9" so I asked. He described section 8. I said "how is that different from section 8?" He asked what he said and I told him. He couldn't believe he mixed it up.

Quote:

Also welfare recipients have to work

Food stamp recipients have to work



Sometimes yes, sometimes no. IIRC Obama cut the work requirement back for a few years. I do remember some crazy woman saying having to work for benefits was "slavery."
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 266
  • Posts: 9074
May 31st, 2018 at 8:56:58 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

Fat fingers. But funny because my realtor and I were talking rentals and said "Section 9" so I asked. He described section 8. I said "how is that different from section 8?" He asked what he said and I told him. He couldn't believe he mixed it up.



Sometimes yes, sometimes no. IIRC Obama cut the work requirement back for a few years. I do remember some crazy woman saying having to work for benefits was "slavery."



The work requirement ia not commensurate with income expectation

I.E. the benefits allowance remains the same regardless of how many hours you work or type of work

So work 10 hours get $350(average per month cash in nyc)

Work 20 hours sweeping up subway platforms get same $350

Work 36 hours receive same $350

Some people are working for $2 or $3 an hour.

It was challenged in court as the state getting around its own minimum wage laws but state prevailed. Welfare recipients dont have same minimum wage protections when subsidies come from the state

So yeah I agree its somewhat akin to slave labor in a metaphorical sense
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
Romes
Romes
Joined: Jul 22, 2014
  • Threads: 28
  • Posts: 5534
Thanks for this post from:
troopscottaceofspades
May 31st, 2018 at 9:10:31 AM permalink
This 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. It's the same argument with wanting to give fast food employees $15/hour... then the prices would just go up and the owners would automate to get rid of the employees. There's just no point. Why not just give everyone $100 million? Because then we would be Zimbabwe and have a 100 trillion dollar bill that you could use to buy a loaf of bread.

The only way injecting cash would work is if you had gov controls on businesses to not raise prices... but then you're going down another rabbit hole I'm sure you don't like and would consider straight communist. Shocking or not to you, I actually hate gov control and want the gov to play a MINUTE role in my life. I swear I'd be considered a bleeding heart republican in the 70's and 80's...
Playing it correctly means you've already won.
darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 266
  • Posts: 9074
May 31st, 2018 at 9:22:55 AM permalink
Quote: Romes

This 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. It's the same argument with wanting to give fast food employees $15/hour... then the prices would just go up and the owners would automate to get rid of the employees. There's just no point. Why not just give everyone $100 million? Because then we would be Zimbabwe and have a 100 trillion dollar bill that you could use to buy a loaf of bread.

The only way injecting cash would work is if you had gov controls on businesses to not raise prices... but then you're going down another rabbit hole I'm sure you don't like and would consider straight communist. Shocking or not to you, I actually hate gov control and want the gov to play a MINUTE role in my life. I swear I'd be considered a bleeding heart republican in the 70's and 80's...



Another problem

Basic living costs... for where?

Big city people have higher basic living requirements. Rents transportation food costs are all higher

It would lead to income inequality by trying to make everyone equal

I could see a mass influx to cities (or people claiming to live with their city slicker relatives) in order to qualify for UBI city levels

I dont see this working. Leftie here!
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
troopscott
troopscott
Joined: Apr 3, 2017
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 394
Thanks for this post from:
SOOPOO
May 31st, 2018 at 9:58:41 AM permalink
Quote: darkoz

Its section 8 :) not section 9

Also welfare recipients have to work

Food stamp recipients have to work

You are still living in the 80s



and you are wrong my fat ass cousin who is older than me has not worked since she dropped her second illegitimate kid at 22 lives in a 5 bedroom house (for her and her 7 illegitimate kids) and pays like $100. She gets plenty of food stamps and a big check every month
TomG
TomG
Joined: Sep 26, 2010
  • Threads: 16
  • Posts: 2373
May 31st, 2018 at 10:07:11 AM permalink
Strongly support this. In my mind we could introduce it at $600 per month. Either stay there with only cost of living increases, or slowly increase it to the $1,500 AZD brought up. It would be phased out for people with over $360,000 in liquid assets (or whatever number we decide is double the amount it would take to earn that much just on interest). Enforcement would be very weak. If someone earning $1 million per year really wants to take all the time and effort to keep their money hidden, let them grab the same check that goes to the part-time single mother.

Keep social security because people are still going to get too old to work -- collect a little bit more, begin paying out small amounts earlier that now, but the bulk much later and there it can become self-sustaingin tomorrow if we wanted to. Increase the Earned Income Credit. All other of the traditional welfare programs at the state level.

Eliminate virtually all non-cash benefits to government employees, then use that to provide minimum levels of health care to everyone.

This would essentially eliminate the underclass and allow the part-time single mother earning just $15,000 from the workforce to join the contributing class. In fact, that $15,000 would provide as much as someone currently earning $50,000, without increasing government spending. If the libertarian position is that people should be allowed to do whatever they want without interference, this allows even the poorest people to do what they want with the comfort and security of a staying off the streets and knowing they can afford their next meal.

Any government spending is always going to be a redistribution of wealth, so the target should always be to do it as efficiently as possibly, while providing the most benefit to the most people. This is so far better than how we currently redistribute wealth to fight wars and support a welfare state that it is absolutely insane it doesn't have near universal support.

  • Jump to: