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.
The answer is: the source of the funding. If Daddy Warbucks wants to give Little Orphan Annie a huge trust fund, it's his money and his choice. If the unlucky peasant lives off a stipend, it's funded with even more unlucky taxpayer's money and not by their choice, but by government mandate.
The taxpayer money is already going into paying for welfare and other programs and is not working to well since there are still poor. That money would be better spent on giving people freedom of not having to worry about not having enough money to live on. Wither it is from a rich daddy or the taxpayers someone is still paying for it I think it is better to give it to people who for the most part want to work instead of a spoiled rich kid who does nothing.
Even if people were not dumb irresponsible or lazy we would still have poor because we still need people to do these low wage jobs.
But people who already have their needs met are not likely to be motivated to do these jobs. However, there are usually plenty of hard-working immigrants happy to have them. Then people like my neighbors can sit in their air-conditioned trailers and talk about how they can't get work because of the immigrants.
Would they take the jobs if offered? Maybe, maybe not. Would they take the jobs if they needed them in order to buy food and tobacco? Oh, yes.
The American premise is that IF YOU WORK, you can succeed....if you give folks handouts, they stop working altogether.....tried it...it doesn't work.
Can you imagine what would happen to PRICES if businesses were FORCED to pay a higher wage than they do now? Guess what....it would become a vicious circle. Prices would rise, and the "unmotivated" wouldn't be able to buy the things they want/need once again. SOMEONE has to pay those salaries....the business owner cannot take a loss, or there's no reason to be in business at all!
A basic income is discussed a lot here in Germany. One of the major proponents is the billionaire founder of a large drug store chain.
Basic premises:
· Combined with universal free healthcare.
· In a world where automation replaces the need for large number workers there is not enough work for everyone.
· A civilized nation needs to look after its population.
· A portion of every population cannot or will not work for whatever reason and these people need to be taken care of.
· Most people want to have more and will work.
· Employers would be taxed a bit more but as they are not paying as much for their human capital it will still benefit them
· By completely eliminating unemployment, health insurance and other social services which are hugely wasteful a lot of money is saved.
· It gives a security to the population and would encourage entrepreneurs, artists and other creative people as they can do their thing with less risk.
· Population would not be so desperate, crime reduced.
This is being proposed in Switzerland, as well. The US is a long way away from being able to consider something like this, due to a dysfunctional tax structure. The US can't even institute universal health care, as a basic starting point, let alone "basic income". There's already so much hostility about welfare (what is welfare, if not a form of basic income?), and time limits have been placed on that, any discussion of basic income will have to wait until the US solves not only its economic problems but also its political gridlock.
But people who already have their needs met are not likely to be motivated to do these jobs. However, there are usually plenty of hard-working immigrants happy to have them. Then people like my neighbors can sit in their air-conditioned trailers and talk about how they can't get work because of the immigrants.
Would they take the jobs if offered? Maybe, maybe not. Would they take the jobs if they needed them in order to buy food and tobacco? Oh, yes.
Again I do not think this will be the case will there be people who do not want to work sure but that has always been the case. If you give enough only for food, shelter, transportation then people will want to work so they can afford things like T.V., going out to eat, going to the movies, shopping and other things like that. We are a consumer society and people want to have money to spend.
The American premise is that IF YOU WORK, you can succeed....if you give folks handouts, they stop working altogether.....tried it...it doesn't work.
Can you imagine what would happen to PRICES if businesses were FORCED to pay a higher wage than they do now? Guess what....it would become a vicious circle. Prices would rise, and the "unmotivated" wouldn't be able to buy the things they want/need once again. SOMEONE has to pay those salaries....the business owner cannot take a loss, or there's no reason to be in business at all!
If there was a basic income then businesses would not have to pay a higher wage since people's basic needs are already paid for. This would give business better chances at success and make it easier for people to open a business. It would also help business since people do not have to pay for things like food and housing people will have more disposable income to spend on business thus increasing their profit.
This idea and called it a negative income tax. The savings would come by giving people that qualified a single check for all the different welfare programs like food stamps, medicaid, section 8 etc...and that is it. The savings would come from elimination of all the government agencies that administer the different programs. It was tested in the USA from 68-79 and the test concluded people quit working as much because they got a check from the taxpayers.
Currently, the Earned Income Credit is the best example of a negative income tax and that program. Nixon actually almost got a negative income tax through congress. All the hate the left directs towards Nixon he was actually a pretty Liberal guy at times.
Again I do not think this will be the case will there be people who do not want to work sure but that has always been the case. If you give enough only for food, shelter, transportation then people will want to work so they can afford things like T.V., going out to eat, going to the movies, shopping and other things like that. We are a consumer society and people want to have money to spend.
Not everyone wants the things you mentioned. Some people are perfectly content to sit on the porch and enjoy a smoke and each other's company.
And if they did, how would it be managed? Would you give money or vouchers of some sort? If it's money, much of it will be spent on beer and cigarettes before food and transportation. If vouchers (like food stamps), some of it will be sold at a discount. Would you give it only to citizens? Legal residents? Anyone who showed up?
Matt, have you ever spent much time living among the poor? Had good conversations, had them in your home for dinner, tutored their children (free, of course), loaned/given them money? Your ideas seem to come from idealism, but you don't seem to have much real experience.
This idea and called it a negative income tax. The savings would come by giving people that qualified a single check for all the different welfare programs like food stamps, medicaid, section 8 etc...and that is it. The savings would come from elimination of all the government agencies that administer the different programs. It was tested in the USA from 68-79 and the test concluded people quit working as much because they got a check from the taxpayers.
Currently, the Earned Income Credit is the best example of a negative income tax and that program. Nixon actually almost got a negative income tax through congress. All the hate the left directs towards Nixon he was actually a pretty Liberal guy at times.
I can not count the savings we would get from giving everyone without a job $150 or so a week*.
There was talk earlier in this topic about it being easier to steal than work. It is a lot cheaper to just pay the unemployed. We save on our property that we get to keep (because it is now not stolen), we save on the cost of housing prisoners in jail ($60/day is the average across the nation, that doesn't count the cost of the jails and prisons ... just their annual budgets), we get to tax the money that was given them (so they are paying for it too), society benefits from more turnover of the money, and the list goes on and on and on.
Nazi Germany proved it works well (one of the few things they got right).
Money is just a means of exchange. Money is the lifeblood of every nation. To have a section of our society cut off from money is like having a toe cut off from blood. It will die and affects the whole foot which will and does affects the whole nation.
*$150/week was based on being about half the minimum wage. However, I am not sure what the minimum wage is so adjust accordingly. Getting double would be enough motivation to keep most people working.
Not everyone wants the things you mentioned. Some people are perfectly content to sit on the porch and enjoy a smoke and each other's company. Then if thats what they want to do with there life wasting it like so be it. Why is the lazy who are poor always scrutinized but never the rich kids who get there parents money who do nothing?
And if they did, how would it be managed? Would you give money or vouchers of some sort? If it's money, much of it will be spent on beer and cigarettes before food and transportation. If vouchers (like food stamps), some of it will be sold at a discount. Would you give it only to citizens? Legal residents? Anyone who showed up? It would not have to be managed people would do what they want with it. If they choose to buy cigarettes instead of food they will suffer by going hungry or instead of rent they will become homeless there are still consequences to their actions
Matt, have you ever spent much time living among the poor? Had good conversations, had them in your home for dinner, tutored their children (free, of course), loaned/given them money? Your ideas seem to come from idealism, but you don't seem to have much real experience.
Yes unlike some people on here who make generalizations about the poor I have known and been friends with poor people what experience do you have with the poor?
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.
