thoughts on guaranteed minimum income (loan, small business, company, banks)

[Linda_d]

Originally Posted by mathjak107

personally i would pull all welfare and everyone able to work has to work or suffers the consequences.

humans are the only species on the planet that tries to sustain those that should have failed.

we reward failure far to much.

Maybe that's because humans are the only species on the planet that has the ability to think abstractly.

Originally Posted by mathjak107

oooh there will be plenty of jobs created once that welfare dough is freed up to create them and have things done that are needed .

the states and cities have been dropping lots of services and things they really need to maintain because of lack of funds.

Why do you think the savings from ending welfare programs would be spent providing jobs for the poor rather than on more tax breaks for the wealthy?

Originally Posted by mathjak107

well here in the welfare capital of nyc i think we could easily fill 1 million jobs with things we need done . the rest could be filled with required public service to get welfare if you are able to work but unable to find a job.

welfare here is a way of life passed on through generations.

So, instead of welfare, NYC circa 2020 could become London circa 1720.

Originally Posted by EugeneOnegin

They could be put to work doing menial jobs like picking up trash on highways, cleaning government buildings, working at shelters, and other similar things. Obviously those physically unable to work would be exempted. People who work X hours a week already would be exempted. There might not be enough stuff for everyone to do, but they could at least be put on a rotation.

It would probably shake out a lot of the lazy people. I used to live with a guy who worked at a restaurant and would give up his shifts to keep his income below a certain level so that it wouldn't prevent him from getting his benefits. He would work ~15-20 hours a week and then tell them that's all the hours he could get because business was slow, when in reality he was scheduled ~30+ hours a week and could have very easily picked up more shifts if he wanted.

I call BS on this. Single people who work have never been eligible for "welfare" AFAIK. They may be eligible for food stamps or Medicaid if their income is under a particular threshold, but not for welfare, and that's especially true since the last "welfare reform".

People who are unemployed can work one or two days and still collect partial unemployment benefits, but that's not welfare.

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

Most of the people who do all 4 of those things do NOT end up poor, and that is the point. Of course, life has no guarantees...but most of the poverty in America stems from our 41% out of wedlock birth rate.

NONSENSE. There was poverty in American long before there was a 41% out of wedlock birth rate or welfare. Try the Great Depression for starters.

Originally Posted by chuckmann

Well, the lazy we shall always have among us. But for those who DO want to work their way out of poverty, the current welfare structure essentially forbids that. Which is why Milton Friedman proposed what is now know as the negative income tax, and why the Reagan Administration was so proud of the EITC program they passed in the 80's.

Funny ... Roosevelt's idea of "menial" work was to build the US Highway system (the precursor to our Interstate Highway system)

Today we want people to pick up trash along the roadside. Amazing.

Well said.

If we want to enable people who can work to pull themselves out of poverty, then we need to give more incentives to people who do work rather than pulling out all their supports as they gain a few extra dollars. Medicaid is a good example, as most part-time and low paying jobs don't include health insurance, so people lose their health insurance if they take one of those jobs, so why would they? Hopefully, the ACA will remedy this.

RE Roosevelt. His New Deal jobs programs brought electricity and telephone service to rural America with the TVA in the South and with the rural electrific coops, especially in the Midwest. Many public buildings across America were built by the WPA. The CCC did major reforestation all over the country as well as building facilities in numerous state and national parks. The New Deal hired unemployed photographers and writers to document the American experience, and some of these works have become priceless artifacts of American history, such as the photo collections of the Dust Bowl migrants and the recorded recollections of ex-slaves.

[jtur88]

Even if you "give" everyone enough money to afford the basic needs of dignified living, a great majority of them will still seek ways to increase their income, increase their demand for what they "want" instead of need, and contribute the labor to produce what the marketplace is willing to buy.

Want proof? Look at all the people who work at jobs that pay well, even middle class income, who still volunteer for overtime, work a second job, do odd jobs, have yard sales and sell things on EBay in order to increase their income to afford more consumer goods and services. Why do you think they would suddenly lose their zeal to earn and consume, the minute you give them the barebones necessities?

Does an employer really want to hire a person who grudgingly shows up at the job site only to avoid starving to death? Or would the employer rather have just the people who possess good work habits and a desire to be productive, and not have to deal with workers who lack the physical, mental or emotional wherewithal to put in a decent day's work? Rather than have those kinds of workers on the payroll, I (as an employer) would rather (through taxes) pay them to stay home and keep them out of my shop.

[mathjak107]

Originally Posted by Linda_d

Maybe that's because humans are the only species on the planet that has the ability to think abstractly.



Why do you think the savings from ending welfare programs would be spent providing jobs for the poor rather than on more tax breaks for the wealthy?



So, instead of welfare, NYC circa 2020 could become London circa 1720.



I call BS on this. Single people who work have never been eligible for "welfare" AFAIK. They may be eligible for food stamps or Medicaid if their income is under a particular threshold, but not for welfare, and that's especially true since the last "welfare reform".

People who are unemployed can work one or two days and still collect partial unemployment benefits, but that's not welfare.



NONSENSE. There was poverty in American long before there was a 41% out of wedlock birth rate or welfare. Try the Great Depression for starters.



Well said.

If we want to enable people who can work to pull themselves out of poverty, then we need to give more incentives to people who do work rather than pulling out all their supports as they gain a few extra dollars. Medicaid is a good example, as most part-time and low paying jobs don't include health insurance, so people lose their health insurance if they take one of those jobs, so why would they? Hopefully, the ACA will remedy this.

RE Roosevelt. His New Deal jobs programs brought electricity and telephone service to rural America with the TVA in the South and with the rural electrific coops, especially in the Midwest. Many public buildings across America were built by the WPA. The CCC did major reforestation all over the country as well as building facilities in numerous state and national parks. The New Deal hired unemployed photographers and writers to document the American experience, and some of these works have become priceless artifacts of American history, such as the photo collections of the Dust Bowl migrants and the recorded recollections of ex-slaves.

Why do I think the savings from welfare wouldn't be given to the wealthy?

I don't but I will say this:

if all that money was freed up that was squandered on un-deserved welfare there is a good chance more jobs would be created. but with all that money going to welfare there is no chance of those jobs being created.

which logic seems more likely?

A company owner I worked for decades ago once said to me if you produce and business is good there is a pretty good chance you will see some of that money in your pay check. no guarantee though I WON'T BE A CRAPPY BOSS AND KEEP IT FOR MYSELF. .

but if you don't produce and business is bad you don't have a snow ball chance in hell of seeing a penny more.

that logic holds true for most of our life.

[texdav]

Originally Posted by Techtonics

Guaranteed minimum income:

Guaranteed minimum income (GMI) also called Citizen's Income, is a system[1] of social welfare provision that guarantees that all citizens or families have an income sufficient to live on, provided they meet certain conditions. Eligibility is typically determined by citizenship, a means test and either availability for the labour market or a willingness to perform community services. The primary goal of a guaranteed minimum income is to combat poverty. If citizenship is the only requirement, the system turns into a basic income guarantee.

a)

basic income or citizen’s income is a proposed system[1] of social security that regularly provides each citizen with a sum of money unconditionally. In contrast to income redistribution between nations themselves, the phrase basic income defines payments to individuals rather than households,[2] groups, or nations, in order to provide for individual basic human needs. Except for citizenship, a basic income is entirely unconditional. Furthermore, there is no means test or impact as a result of other income; the richest as well as the poorest citizens would receive it.

source: Guaranteed minimum income - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is basically the socialist and communist system. Its exactly what North korea has. Compare it to South Korea and decide what you want.

[EugeneOnegin]

Originally Posted by Linda_d

I call BS on this. Single people who work have never been eligible for "welfare" AFAIK. They may be eligible for food stamps or Medicaid if their income is under a particular threshold, but not for welfare, and that's especially true since the last "welfare reform".

I said purposefully said benefits, not welfare, since the term "welfare" is often construed as meaning only TANF (it is also commonly used to apply to all the programs as a whole). I know that he got food stamps and energy assistance, I'm not sure what else. I don't think he got TANF, but I don't know for sure. He wasn't married but he had a young kid. Single people with kids who have a job most definitely can receive TANF, though your income has to be under a certain amount per month, and that is pretty low (I think ~$300 a month in Indiana). Despite working 15 hours a week and not claiming most of his tips, it's highly unlikely that his claimed income was under that threshold.

He was always offering to take me to the grocery store and buy whatever I wanted with his EBT card in exchange for cash so that he could buy beer or xanax.

[greywar]

I've put some thought into this as of late.

Heres the issues:
1. we are seeing more and more structural unemployment. Its at the start.
2. This is unlikely to change as automation IS replacing people.
3. People cannot adjust to this as they have in the past as the new jobs available require significantly larger amounts of training and education. We cannot as a species adjust fast enough to the work dislocation coming.

What would it take?

Well lets run a scenario. there are 208 million adults in the united states. Providing them with a 1,500 a month income would take 3.7 trillion dollars. Now this looks bad. So lets increase our spending by 3.7 trillion. BUT we decrease it by removing a lot of safety net programs.

Social security-mostly gone, anyone getting over 1500 a month should receive that. But the vast majority is under that. call it 700 billion.

Welfare. Combined state and federal welfare which is food stamps, unemployment, housing, etc is....529 billion.

so call it 1.2 trillion say. So still we need an additional 2.5 trillion

Now....we bring in .9 trillion for social security...but we have already moved .7 trillion of that off leaving .2 trillion. Lets call half of that to cover the people owed more....so thats .1 trillion extra.

we need 2.4 trillion.
Which conveniently lines up very closely with the current federal revenue....

So all federal revenue would have to double. Tax rates-doubled

Now what happens? Well...inflation doesnt go nuts, we're not printing money here. But we have some huge disruptions. The poor people? Well..they're less poor. But what about the wealthy? Lets take someone making 100K/yr

Well that guys gonna get hosed right? Lets assume a 8% state tax rate, he currently takes home about 70K, losing 22.7K of it to federal. now we double that. He is taking home 47.3K. Oh my god how will he survive? Oh wait..but he gains...1,500 per month back. So...he then makes...65.3K take home. IE this guy making 6 figures would take home 5K less.....if he was single. Jesus wept that poor guy.....

OK how about the guy making 250K then?

he makes $9,615 every other WEEK. And takes home a mere $3,170 a week. But this tax..this is going to kill him right? His yearly take home drops from 166,553.14 to $103,106. Plus he also gets the 18K/yr guarenteed income. Making him take home 121K. he loses 40K in take home income. People making this much represent 3.1% of our population.

Now what about the average US citizen? Lets use someone at the 48.01% level. (because I have that number handy). That person makes $25,000 a year. Currently after taxes they take home 19,924 a year. Once we double their fed rate they take home 16,848....and get the 18K/yr like everyone else. Now they make $34,848 take home.

then we look at Joe the homeless bum. he spends most of his time in and out of jail for vagrancy. He gets some of his income mugging people, but thats all under the table. he has NO income. Now he has $18,000. He will most likely not remain homeless anymore. If he does end up that way again a argument could be made to manage his money for him. He stops mugging people as he has money to buy food with.

So thats the math side. But the bigger question in my mind is...what happens? Well do I quit my job and live off of $1,500 a month? Well...no. Hell no. Does my friend Jon who works for minimum wage for an abusive boss? Well..yeah. Does my friend Jen who works for minimum wage for a good boss? Probably not. Whats the difference? Well..quitting a bad abusive employer no longer involves becoming homeless or losing your kids. Suddenly its a lot less like slavery, and a lot more like choice.

Suddenly starting a business is not a risk of losing everything. Might I try it? I might. I have some ideas that I cant do because of the risk to my family.

what happens to consumer spending...turns out it goes up...a LOT. Businesses will boom as consumer spending rises.

The welfare mom? At $1,500 a month....she has enough to consider going back to school.

The bum that abuses welfare.....sadly probably remains a bum. we can hope someone runs him over with a car.

Government employment....goes down. we have one benefit program all ran by welfare. we let all the others go. Good news-its not the soul crushing being homeless problem.

Crimes motivated by poverty go away.

Divorce goes way down.

Abortions go down.

Education goes up.

Managers who are jerks to their employees because they can be....start earning 18K/yr.....off the guaranteed income. Because they suddenly have to be competitive for workers. Oh the horror!

People working at the chicken processing plant for minimum wage? Yeah...no. No one that wasn't forced to for fear of homelessness and abject poverty will work there. People doing jobs that bad will have to be paid more. Seriously. AND THEY SHOULD BE.

Suddenly there is a incentive for those who are poor to make more money. right now a LOT of them view making more money as bad as they lose their benefits. And in many cases that means making more money means being worse off financially. this is wrong, and changing things like this resolves it.

I'd love to see what the federal budget office would say as all of this is back of the envelop thinking.

After tax calculator used for those curious:
Take-Home-Pay Calculator

[Storm Eagle]

I think it is important we not only start thinking but start planning a basic income in this country before automation really starts taking off and we are losing jobs fast.

[MrRational]

Originally Posted by Storm Eagle

I think it is important we not only start thinking but start planning...

planning ways to align our population levels with our need for warm bodies?
Do that.

Absent the clamoring surplus those who actually have those crappy jobs would be
earning more because the market based reasons for doing so would be there.
It would have the next tiers up better paid and all of them paying some taxes too.

But rewarding the clamoring surplus for existence? No thank you.
Focus on solutions. On Cures. Not the treatment of symptoms.

[bigboibob]

The proponents of a higher minimum wage desire to close the gap between rich and poor.

The cause is altruistic but ineffective.

The best way to close the gap is remove the long term capital gains tax. Long term capital gains tax is 15% tax for any profits on securities held for more than a year. (Primary way billionaires can have a lower tax % than the common person)

Most empires have fallen because the lower/middle/upper-middle class revolted and over threw the ruling class due to a very high gap between the rich and poor.

[ncole1]

Originally Posted by bigboibob

The proponents of a higher minimum wage desire to close the gap between rich and poor.

The cause is altruistic but ineffective.

The best way to close the gap is remove the long term capital gains tax. Long term capital gains tax is 15% tax for any profits on securities held for more than a year. (Primary way billionaires can have a lower tax % than the common person)

Most empires have fallen because the lower/middle/upper-middle class revolted and over threw the ruling class due to a very high gap between the rich and poor.

Given that most long term capital gains are had by the upper classes, you are proposing something that would benefit the wealthy disproportionally. This smacks of Reaganomics (i.e. trickle down economic theory). What we see is that Reaganomics INCREASES the gap between the rich and poor. You are going to make the problem WORSE.