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.
There are so many useless people globally at some point i think it should be implemented.
Let's give these folks some cash to burn
Automation is a strong trend.
Maybe by the next decade we won't need such a huge labor force
I like the idea of basic income , provided that it comes straight from the central bank, directly into pockets of U.S. citizens. I believe it would give us a different type of inflation, help combat 'stagflation,' and generally reduce the influence of U.S. financial institutions over U.S. economic planning.
Minor deviations from that formula -- say, taxing wages and using that as revenue for basic income -- would not really be a meaningful departure from how our system already works.
I like the idea of basic income , provided that it comes straight from the central bank, directly into pockets of U.S. citizens. I believe it would give us a different type of inflation, help combat 'stagflation,' and generally reduce the influence of U.S. financial institutions over U.S. economic planning.
Minor deviations from that formula -- say, taxing wages and using that as revenue for basic income -- would not really be a meaningful departure from how our system already works.
It can't. It would have to come from the Treasury, not the Fed.
Who do you think runs the Fed? Who do you think runs the Treasury ?
Turns out in the studies done on basic income, one of the selling points is that people can decide best how to spend their money, and that adding on bureaucracy to manage it to the point you want to is wasteful.
IE we're looking for a better solution, not a replication of our current system.
Yes but...
Just a small amount of money no strings attached. That is a really good idea. Then you get into trying to optimize the system for other things... bad idea. Cut the red tape, everyone just gets the same amount.
Turns out in the studies done on basic income, one of the selling points is that people can decide best how to spend their money, ...
Yes, on beer, tobacco, drugs, gambling, X-Box/Sega, more drugs, tattoos, toys, more tattoos, more gambling and the children get kicked to the curb and thrown under the bus.
Then the Left-Wing starts its tear campaign about children and food insecurity and children and being homeless and we're right back to Food Stamps and HUD.
Yes, on beer, tobacco, drugs, gambling, X-Box/Sega, more drugs, tattoos, toys, more tattoos, more gambling and the children get kicked to the curb and thrown under the bus.
Then the Left-Wing starts its tear campaign about children and food insecurity and children and being homeless and we're right back to Food Stamps and HUD.
Actually on things like "housing, food, water, clothing, etc etc etc"
Those are facts, not your dreamed up assumptions. Your argument is nonsense based upon false assumptions. I sometimes wonder if people make this assumption because thats what they think they would do, but mostly I think its a assumption that poor people ALWAYS deserve to be poor because they are not moral people.
I must admit, while I think a basic income is inevitable, countries are moving on it a LOT faster then I expected. I figured that it would be years before even limited experiments like this occurred.
Countries are a long ways from needing it, so this is surprising.
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.