U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-10-2012, 03:15 PM
 
Location: South Carolina
2,800 posts, read 1,770,745 times
Reputation: 1732

Advertisements

I tend to think if we installed a basic income that our country would be a lot better off. It would help with homeless, the poor. So you say what will that cover then just the basics like housing, food, car gas and insurance. It would give the employee power that they could choose the job they want instead of just doing whatever job comes first even if it is not a good fit for them. It would mean business would not have to worry about going out of business or raising prices due to having to pay employees more so that would be good for them. I know one of the arguments against it will be that people will not work but I do not see that happening. People love having money to shop, eat and do other things so they would work so they could afford to have and do those things.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-10-2012, 03:37 PM
 
31,385 posts, read 32,111,440 times
Reputation: 14896
Thomas Paine first suggested the idea of a basic income guarantee in 1795;

http://www.truthfordummies.com/docs/...an_justice.pdf

Nixon of all people proposed such a program in 1969;

http://www.truthfordummies.com/docs/...an_justice.pdf

And Milton Freedman proposed a restructuring of the tax structure to pay for it.

Negative income tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2012, 05:37 PM
 
Location: Kansas
19,185 posts, read 15,038,047 times
Reputation: 18249
I don't understand how this would help the homeless and the poor. The poor, not working already get a government check, free health care etc. so I am not sure what incentive they would have to work. If you give people money for basics, they don't buy basics but buy other things and go without basics or find someone providing those free of charge. I think a fair share of the homeless have addictions and mental health issues. Poverty is much more complicated and throwing money at it would not be a solution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2012, 06:59 PM
 
31,385 posts, read 32,111,440 times
Reputation: 14896
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnywhereElse View Post
The poor, not working already get a government check, free health care etc. so I am not sure what incentive they would have to work.
The "poor" (as living below the poverty line) includes 10.5 million people are employed a minimum of 27 weeks per year, 4.2% of whom are working full time.

Quote:
If you give people money for basics, they don't buy basics but buy other things and go without basics or find someone providing those free of charge.
And I assume that this is based upon the copious amount of anecdotal evidence of "my cousin", "my cousin's friend" or the "lady that I saw in line at the grocery store..."

Anyway, since Friedman's idea of a Negative Income Tax would provide a yearly income based upon a filers annual tax return, there is hardly much incentive to sit at home with no income or other form of subsidy until the end of the year when they would receive the tax return. In short there is a ton of incentive for getting a job, any job, because there wouldn't be food stamps or any other income from the government (I would except Medicaid, and unemployment compensation from that formula) until the end of the year. Now if someone wants to blow their yearly return in one fell swoop, well that's freedom. It will make for hell for the rest of the year, but that's what freedom is all about.


Freidman's worthy argument is that instead of money going to the bureaucracy required to administer the various programs that money would go directly to the those who needed or back into the Treasury.

SOoooo:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/23/business/23scene.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2012, 03:24 PM
 
Location: Kansas
19,185 posts, read 15,038,047 times
Reputation: 18249
Where I am and thankfully leaving, almost 20% of the population live below the poverty level so I kind of know a little about their habits. Many cannot pass a drug test which means they can't work or they have other addiction problems. When they blow the check in approximately 16 days, they show up at the food pantry. As the prices go up, yards are being stripped of metal objects and other thefts are taking place. They shoplift from Wal-Mart and return the items for cash although without a receipt, there is a limit to how many items can be returned. I acknowledge that the working poor probably have it the worst since they see the bums and baby machines getting about the same amount of "income" as they do. You have to live among the "poor" to really understand it and for 50 years, I did not understand it and now as I see the dynamics, my sympathy has greatly faded.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2012, 07:26 AM
 
Location: South Portland, ME
889 posts, read 1,016,064 times
Reputation: 889
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume a "basic income" is basically a minimum wage - the proposal is that if someone works ANYWHERE then they will be guaranteed a certain salary regardless of the work that they do. Right?

That's a terrible idea. In a global economy, you can't artificially raise the wage of low paying jobs - this is what causes companies to take those jobs overseas (off-shoring) and it also drives up prices locally since stores see that everyone is making more money, so they raise the prices accordingly.

And it should be obvious, rising prices + less jobs does not equal a good situation, and woulc probably make things even worse.

As much as everyone hates to say/hear it - the real "solution" to get rid of poverty is to take away the benefits of living in poverty. Stop handing out free money, stop giving out free housing, stop making it sustainable to live in poverty. This will force the people who currently are in poverty to adapt and get out, otherwise natural selection will take over.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2012, 09:28 AM
 
7,099 posts, read 24,507,586 times
Reputation: 7302
Why work when it is easier to steal?

It doesn't take as long, you can do it when you want to and there is no one telling you how to do it.

A couple of good break-ins in the right section of town, and you are set for months!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2012, 10:59 AM
 
Location: South Carolina
2,800 posts, read 1,770,745 times
Reputation: 1732
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoulesMSU View Post
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume a "basic income" is basically a minimum wage - the proposal is that if someone works ANYWHERE then they will be guaranteed a certain salary regardless of the work that they do. Right?

That's a terrible idea. In a global economy, you can't artificially raise the wage of low paying jobs - this is what causes companies to take those jobs overseas (off-shoring) and it also drives up prices locally since stores see that everyone is making more money, so they raise the prices accordingly.

And it should be obvious, rising prices + less jobs does not equal a good situation, and woulc probably make things even worse.

As much as everyone hates to say/hear it - the real "solution" to get rid of poverty is to take away the benefits of living in poverty. Stop handing out free money, stop giving out free housing, stop making it sustainable to live in poverty. This will force the people who currently are in poverty to adapt and get out, otherwise natural selection will take over.
No it is an income paid before any work is done that provides basic needs. Whatever job you do would be additional income. what caused jobs to go overseas was not that it was greedy business owners who found out you can get cheaper labor overseas and thus make more money. How would taking away benefits help? All that is going to do is create worse poverty and cause people to start relying on stealing to get what they need. It is not that easy for people in poverty to just get out we have a system in place where only x amount of people can make good wages by getting education, getting promoted. Natural selection is just another word for I got mine who cares about anyone else typical selfish response by selfish people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2012, 01:19 PM
 
9,444 posts, read 10,198,692 times
Reputation: 7185
Isn't that antithetical to capitalism? Each worker is rewarded accordingly to his abilities. Basic income sounds like communism and would breed contempt and strife within the labor class. Even Slaves who could out work other slaves were allowed extra privileges even though their owner capitalized on their productivity. I can see how providing a basic income to everyone would encourage thrift ,but thrift is advantageous under any economic system.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2012, 01:23 PM
 
Location: Kansas
19,185 posts, read 15,038,047 times
Reputation: 18249
Quote:
Originally Posted by matt1984 View Post
No it is an income paid before any work is done that provides basic needs. Whatever job you do would be additional income. what caused jobs to go overseas was not that it was greedy business owners who found out you can get cheaper labor overseas and thus make more money. How would taking away benefits help? All that is going to do is create worse poverty and cause people to start relying on stealing to get what they need. It is not that easy for people in poverty to just get out we have a system in place where only x amount of people can make good wages by getting education, getting promoted. Natural selection is just another word for I got mine who cares about anyone else typical selfish response by selfish people.
We already have an income paid before any work is done and it is called "welfare" and although it is supposed to provide for basic needs, they squander it since they don't have that feeling you get of the value of money when you earn it. They then rely on social and religious organizations to carry them when the money is gone. Taking benefits away would make the working poor not give up and I agree they should be given a helping hand because while they are working 40 hours at minimum wage, the welfare recipient, meaning those that do not earn, is staying in bed until 10:00 am when they take off for McDonald's and then cruise until the money for gas runs out (they come to your door asking for $5.00 or some gas and one suggested that I should have gas if I have a lawn mower - I have electric and I kept darn $5.00)! So, you are supposing that if someone can't make a "good" wage they have no obligation to work. Retail workers would love your support. Not everyone will ever be capable of making good money. They whine here because the jobs aren't good but they don't have the education and skills and really have no desire to have them. Educational programs are offered but they require commitment and, well, a certain amount of intelligence and ambition. Take away "free" and make it fair for the working poor. Again, I have great admiration for those working minimum wage jobs because really, they are the backbone of America. I am tired of the deadbeats if you haven't already guessed that. Fastest selling commodity on "welfare weekend" is crack, meth and alcohol then they use whatever is left over for "necessities", oh, wait, those items mentioned are considered "necessities". Too much free. They take the things charity gives their children in for refunds. I have seen too many people work really, really hard and put up with all kinds of crap to have sympathy for the able-bodied that won't get off their butts. I have seen and been one of those that went into the military to have a stable income and try to get ahead. I worked on an assembly line where I was so dizzy I could hardly stand but it kept me off of assistance and the woman next to me kept telling me I would do as well financially if I quit and went on welfare. I worked in a kitchen with high humidity and temps of 120 degrees. Sorry but you either have integrity or you don't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:11 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top