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.
"In other words, earners above that level pay money to the state while earners below it receive money..."
What is the incentive for the "earners" to continue working then?
The best incentives are lower taxes for everyone so that you can keep more of what you earn to pay for the things you need. Obviously, we need some social safety nets for those who are truly unable to work. However, UBI, and other redistribution schemes, are bad ideas, especially when there are not enough people to fill the jobs required to keep our society functioning and thriving in a globally-competitive environment.
I don't think the bulk of the unemployed are unable to work. There's always some kind of work that can be done. I knew a disabled man who was sitting at home watching TV all day and was a very smart who was more than capable of working a remote online job, but chose not to. He would rather collect government assistance and sit around watching TV.
Right now my neighbor is sitting around doing nothing. He supposedly has some physical limitations so he's applying for government assistance because he can't do the same job he always did which involved physical labor but he could certainly do something else. He is not old, he is not bedridden. He still does physical work around his house and is young and vital. There are millions of this type of person in our country today who are living off others' hard work and not willing to work themselves. For example, he could deliver auto parts, drive a school bus, work in the parts department at a car dealership, even dog sit. And most people who aren't earning a lot of money aren't motivated to better themselves. They could get a second job delivering pizza or whatever. There are tons of jobs out there.
Even my 14 year old nephews are earning good money by dog sitting.
I don't think the bulk of the unemployed are unable to work. There's always some kind of work that can be done. I knew a disabled man who was sitting at home watching TV all day and was a very smart who was more than capable of working a remote online job, but chose not to. He would rather collect government assistance and sit around watching TV.
There are a large number of people with autism who would like to work and are capable of doing many important jobs. However, many need a highly structured and supervised environment with a coach or facilitator who understands the interpersonal challenges and frustrations that they deal with on a daily basis. There are many agencies and programs that claim to provide coaching and assistance programs but unfortunately the reality is that many of these are public programs that are often structured and staffed by people who are merely checking the boxes as opposed to actually providing any meaningful help. The result is that few clients are actually placed in a job where they can find appropriate and lasting employment.
This area is a huge opportunity and one that is truly in need of reform. There are many potential positive benefits for the individuals involved as well as society and our social welfare system.
"In other words, earners above that level pay money to the state while earners below it receive money..."
What is the incentive for the "earners" to continue working then?
Because whether we're talking about a UBI/GMI or NIT system or whatever, it would be a small amount of money. The point would be to keep more people from being homeless/hungry/without a change of clothes so that they can go to interviews and get jobs that would all pay a lot more than any UBI would pay. Lift everyone to the level of the floor, so that more people can lift themselves further than that.
If you received a guaranteed $1,000 per month (12k per year), would you quit your job/never seek employment? I sure as hell wouldn't. It would just be a nice supplement.
Basic survival is not at all the same thing as a desirable good life, and as always, you should have to work hard and earn the latter. I know I definitely couldn't live on that much.
Because whether we're talking about a UBI/GMI or NIT system or whatever, it would be a small amount of money. The point would be to keep more people from being homeless/hungry/without a change of clothes so that they can go to interviews and get jobs that would all pay a lot more than any UBI would pay. Lift everyone to the level of the floor, so that more people can lift themselves further than that.
If you received a guaranteed $1,000 per month (12k per year), would you quit your job/never seek employment? I sure as hell wouldn't. It would just be a nice supplement.
Basic survival is not at all the same thing as a desirable good life, and as always, you should have to work hard and earn the latter. I know I definitely couldn't live on that much.
We have Universal Income. It's called Social Security and after you work 40 to 60 years you will be eligible for it too.
There are programs that do what you are talking about that are being instituted as we speak. They are targeted to people that actually need them instead of the insane idea of sending every citizen more printed money (that would certainly only create more inflation making us all poorer still).
We have Universal Income. It's called Social Security and after you work 40 to 60 years you will be eligible for it too.
There are programs that do what you are talking about that are being instituted as we speak. They are targeted to people that actually need them instead of the insane idea of sending every citizen more printed money (that would certainly only create more inflation making us all poorer still).
Yeah, Social Security is an example of how the concept of universal income works great. Before they signed that into law, I believe something like half of the people above age 60 lived in poverty. And now, I'm sure it's somewhere around less than 10%. Shows that, yes, handing people checks, does in fact decrease poverty.
More people should receive Social Security, and Medicare. If not every adult. It would be a good thing for society as a whole. It would help a lot of people that need the assistance and boost, and it wouldn't really affect people that don't. And, again, we're not talking about anything more than a very basic, small income.
Yeah, Social Security is an example of how the concept of universal income works great. Before they signed that into law, I believe something like half of the people above age 60 lived in poverty. And now, I'm sure it's somewhere around less than 10%. Shows that, yes, handing people checks, does in fact decrease poverty.
More people should receive Social Security, and Medicare. If not every adult. It would be a good thing for society as a whole. It would help a lot of people that need the assistance and boost, and it wouldn't really affect people that don't. And, again, we're not talking about anything more than a very basic, small income.
Social security for young healthy working age persons is never going to pass. I know many old, physically ailing people who still work because they cannot really afford to retire even with social security. Most of us did struggle throughout our youth to earn and gain experience. That struggle never really ends for a lot of people. You may want social security when you are young (when did this even become a thing?); but, you will actually need it when you are old. Probably about 10% of the population don't actually "need" social security, but, they still cash the check and use it to offset the amount they owe in taxes. I do know a couple of young and fully disabled people on a full ride with SSDI or other disability insurance. They had absolutely disastrous health which I would not wish on anyone.
Probably about 10% of the population don't actually "need" social security, but, they still cash the check and use it to offset the amount they owe in taxes.
Yeah, and this would be even more so the case, if more people received a guaranteed $1,000 supplement per month, or some amount like that. Most would use it to help offset some things.
The average US household income is I think close to $70,000, and I'm sure that's higher in the blue states. So it's not like having a universal modest social security is going to cause most folks to hugely shift their lifestyle or cause most people to not seek employment or be productive.
We're not talking about some unworkable utopian socialism vision. We're talking about standard capitalist society like always, with just a bigger and better safety net. For the purposes of anti-poverty and anti-extreme wealth inequality/curve/distribution. Which in turn means a healthier market economy, because more people have more money and ability to participate in it.
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.
