Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you are getting a ton of gov help then you aren't living on $2400/yr.
$8k/yr is all you get. Guess what, you might need to buy a bus ticket and move, if the place where you are living is too expensive and you can't get a job. There are plenty of places where rent is cheap enough to get by on that, and yes you can even find a job as well!
I spent a few months with homeless people in CA. Maybe they qualified for subsidized housing and just didn't bother. But I doubt it. All they got was foodstamps, no healthcare or anything else. It seemed that only women with dependents got more, and they got a lot more.
You haven't done your math.
You have to at least replace the cost of welfare programs if they are going to end.
Obamacare alone for a single person would be $10K a year to replace the free medicaid.
The standard deduction and personal exemption should be set appropriately so that significant income cannot be shielded from taxation. Is this your point?
Name ONE civilized society that thrives without providing anything to the helpless members (including children?)
Only if the safety net is set up in such a way that it fails to incentivize work. This is why the point about removing the cliff effect and providing only the bare necessities (plus resources to find work) is part of it.
Only if you get there in time and have control of it.
Nope. Everyone who uses the services provided by the society should pay the same taxes. That's my point.
But you knew that.....
You keep speaking of the cliff effect, but that only applies to families with children. The safety net for people that continue to have children they cannot afford will ALWAYS fail to incentivize work. To remove the cliff effect means that those people stop getting aid for children they cannot afford.
It is the nature of wealthy people to accumulate wealth. If they do this by taking the wealth from those beneath them then that needs to be limited and reversed. We need the growth in the economy to be happening on the bottom for the next 50 years and then the top and bottom to be stabilized so that neither grows at the expense of the other.
That's not how the free market works. There's nobody "taking" anything. Rather, it's an agreement between and employer and employee, based on the needs of both.
If there's any taking being done, it's by the bottom that takes from the top, when taxes are taken from the top and given to the bottom.
Um, dude. I was just told that BI was going to everyone, regardless of income. That means you'd be getting it too. So it's not YOUR money. And as 74% of people on welfare are working now, they're also paying taxes and would supposedly keep paying taxes towards BI. Chill.
Um, I'm not a dude.
BI is just a pipe dream, and will never happen, so whoever "told you" that everyone was getting it is wrong.
Do you not see the ridiculousness of the BI argument? If folks get back what they put in, why not just let them keep it in the first place? Well, unless you're a lazy millennial that thinks you can live on a pittance and strum your guitar all day while smoking weed. Then, you'd think it's a brilliant idea, I'm guessing?
"Incentivize Work" is just another way to say coerce. How can you have a really free society if most people are forced to work? Our society is composed of wage slaves working to support a wealthy elite that never work for their income. That is economic feudalism.
"Incentivize Work" is just another way to say coerce. How can you have a really free society if most people are forced to work? Our society is composed of wage slaves working to support a wealthy elite that never work for their income. That is economic feudalism.
If anyone who has to work in order to pay the bills is "enslaved", we should require EVERYONE who currently works for a paycheck quit. After all, they are "enslaved" and we can't have that.
Then let's institute a basic income. But, exactly who is going to fund that if everyone quits their jobs? Oh yeah, the wealthy elite who never lift a finger and never work for a dime. Like that Warren Buffet dude or Bill Gates or Oprah Winfrey. Wait... don't they actually work? Yep they do so I guess we're down to the types that live off their trust funds and investments and don't hold any sort of job. I'm sure there are TONS of those type people we can "incentivize" to pay for the rest of us.
Ok, new plan: basic income for all and those who actually want to work can so they can help the trust fund crowd pay for basic income. We can incentivize them by letting them keep a few extra shekels. Perfect! A subset of people work so others don't have to. Wait..... now we're back to "enslaving" people.
Don't tell me the difference is choice. People have the exact same choice now. Public assistance and a basic lifestyle or a job and a hopefully better lifestyle. "Basic income" is nothing but semantics.
Yeah..that's it. Just have the Fed print money and hand it out to people.
Well you wouldn't just give it to them. Of course not. That would upset the so-called "fiscal conservatives."
You'd do with individuals, in smaller amounts, what the Fed does already with banks in bigger amounts. Make loans at below-market cost of capital. Then the borrower invests in something with a higher yield, and keeps the difference in interest. The interest , in this case, is what forms the BI.
Or, for extra fun, have the central bank lend at X% to the American people individually, and then require the American people to lend back to the central bank at X+N%, with N% being basic income. I mean that's basically what we did with the bank bailouts, so it isn't as if there is not a precedent. Call it a "Bailout of the American household"
Nope. Everyone who uses the services provided by the society should pay the same taxes. That's my point.
But you knew that.....
You keep speaking of the cliff effect, but that only applies to families with children. The safety net for people that continue to have children they cannot afford will ALWAYS fail to incentivize work. To remove the cliff effect means that those people stop getting aid for children they cannot afford.
So how do you propose to avoid having a large segment of the population in crushing poverty?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
