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 they can afford it, could we? Might it be cheaper than the current system?
This has zero chance of passing, this is a bunch of refugees/minorities and youthful/liberal morons that watch American's pillage their own people for money without doing anything.
The Swiss will never go for this, these people will be publicly shamed and will go away.
Go away UBI supporters, you have ruined 95% of the countries on this planet and CH is probably the best country on the planet as of 2013.
No. We are not an oil exporting nation. We're an oil importing nation. As of 2009, Sweden was exporting almost a quarter of a million barrels of oil a day. When we are meeting our own oil needs and exporting a quarter of a million barrels of oil a day, then we can talk. We're keeping OPEC in business.
No, how could guaranteeing a family of four almost $130K/year in income be cheaper than our current system?
Sweden does not have any oil, and neither does Swizerland.
I imagine a ton of government agencies would be put out of business which would probably pay for a lot of this "free money" right off the bat. Think about it, no fraud, or cheating, no red tape or bloated agencies, etc. Not saying it's a good idea but it makes me wonder what kind of money we'd be talking about in the USA, and what it would work out to per adult.
I don't think it would put min wage jobs out either, people would always be looking for something to do to make extra $ to afford things they want. Having enough to squeak by isn't the life most people strive for, we want MORE and BETTER. It might cause a population redistribution however, with people who are willing to setting for doing nothing taking their check and moving somewhere with a really cheap COL.
If it worked, I could see it improving people's quality of life though. We tend to live to work in this country and most people hate what they do. They just put up with the 9-5 miserable cubicle life to pay for what they want/support a family. Having a guaranteed income per month might open more options for people to do things they wouldn't otherwise do.
For example, if I won the lottery, I wouldn't quite working, I would just use the interest from the winnings to subsidize my living expenses so I can pursue something meaningful/fun.
There are roughly 23,000,000 households in the United States who earn less than $20,000/year. If we assume we set a minimum standard living wage of $20,000/household/year in the United States, this means that we would immediately start paying more money to those households now than we have in the past. Adjusting those 23,000,000 households income up to $20,000/year, that creates $207,386,621,000 in funds that need to be raised annually simply to pay for the salary increases. This assumes income buckets from $0-$4,999, $5,000 to $9,999, $10,000 to $14,999 and $15,000 to $19,999 from the US Census data, averaging income within those buckets.
What is the plan to raise those new funds without simply causing even more inflation? How is this different from what the fed tried to do under William Miller and Arthur Burns?
It should be just enough for basic essentials. Most people here in America would still work because we are a consumerist and materialist people.
Sent from my SPH-D710VMUB using Tapatalk 4
Have you done the math? $2700/person is almost $130k/year for a family of four. I don't know about where you live, but that's way above what the average family of four lives on here. Even if you just give it to adults, the income for a couple would be over the average income for a family of four here. I could see a lot of people retiring. If they offered me $2700 a month, I would.
There are roughly 23,000,000 households in the United States who earn less than $20,000/year. If we assume we set a minimum standard living wage of $20,000/household/year in the United States, this means that we would immediately start paying more money to those households now than we have in the past. Adjusting those 23,000,000 households income up to $20,000/year, that creates $207,386,621,000 in funds that need to be raised annually simply to pay for the salary increases. This assumes income buckets from $0-$4,999, $5,000 to $9,999, $10,000 to $14,999 and $15,000 to $19,999 from the US Census data, averaging income within those buckets.
What is the plan to raise those new funds without simply causing even more inflation? How is this different from what the fed tried to do under William Miller and Arthur Burns?
We already subsidize them with WIC, Welfare, Food Stamps, educational grants, free school lunches and tax credits.
If it worked, I could see it improving people's quality of life though. We tend to live to work in this country and most people hate what they do. They just put up with the 9-5 miserable cubicle life to pay for what they want/support a family. Having a guaranteed income per month might open more options for people to do things they wouldn't otherwise do.
For example, if I won the lottery, I wouldn't quite working, I would just use the interest from the winnings to subsidize my living expenses so I can pursue something meaningful/fun.
Considering you have no idea how economics work, the inflation would crush the people just as fast as they received the money to spend 'freely'.
Furthermore, the only people that would benefit would be the people who hoard the cash and already are living comfortable.
Thirdly, subsidizing people's unproductive jobs is not moral or rational. If the market doesn't support your job/fantasy then it because of the most basic reasons - it isn't important or desired.
So assuming you hate your cubicle job, and make a modest living why would you contradict yourself saying you wouldn't quit your perceived-to-be horrible job with millions in the bank and not pursue a life as an amateur artist or basket weaver?
There are roughly 23,000,000 households in the United States who earn less than $20,000/year. If we assume we set a minimum standard living wage of $20,000/household/year in the United States, this means that we would immediately start paying more money to those households now than we have in the past. Adjusting those 23,000,000 households income up to $20,000/year, that creates $207,386,621,000 in funds that need to be raised annually simply to pay for the salary increases. This assumes income buckets from $0-$4,999, $5,000 to $9,999, $10,000 to $14,999 and $15,000 to $19,999 from the US Census data, averaging income within those buckets.
What is the plan to raise those new funds without simply causing even more inflation? How is this different from what the fed tried to do under William Miller and Arthur Burns?
That's alot less than what I came up with. I took everyone that was between 18 and 65 and gave them a $12,000 negative tax credit and came up with $2.3 trillion. Canada implemented a plan similar to yours, they just topped off everyone's income that was below the min and had pretty good results. Less crime, more people stayed in school, etc.
We spent more than $500,000,000,000 in welfare last year, so if your numbers are right we could definitely do this. No SNAP, no TANF, no EIC, no child credits, and no government workers to administer those programs. The problem I see is the 14th amendment - anyone born on US soil is an American citizen and eligible for all the rights and privileges that come with it. All the countries with generous safety nets don't have the birthright problem we do.
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.
Canada implemented a plan similar to yours, they just topped off everyone's income that was below the min and had pretty good results. Less crime, more people stayed in school, etc.
