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.
Gee, that sounds messy And there has been a 25% increase within a year, right?
Here it's simple, being a freelancer I pay the same fixed amount every month into the country's social security account, that's it.
But, since it is a system where what is paid in today is paid out just a few days later, contributions will rise as the country is getting older and older Higher pensions will even be cut, which I find OK, though.
If you were guaranteed an income whether you worked or not... why would you work?
And, how many others do you think would just go on the dole?
People will always do things for themselves and others.
Being guaranteed an income doesn't mean you wouldn't need to work for income either. Expenses matter.
Governments give tokens to people to keep the system going. Without people govt has nothing. Not to mention their wealth is made from investments. They require smucks to create and fund their investments.
Gee, that sounds messy And there has been a 25% increase within a year, right?
No, because income share didn't shift back to the top 1%. As I've already explained, that's why relying disproportionately on higher income earners for tax revenue is a mistake. Any decline in their share of the income causes an amplified drop in income tax revenue. Remember, it's in the government's best interest to keep the incomes of the higher earners as high as possible so they can collect as much tax revenue as possible. When their share of the income declines, it amplifies the government's loss of tax revenue.
If you were guaranteed an income whether you worked or not... why would you work?
And, how many others do you think would just go on the dole?
I wouldn't. I'm not much better off than the minimum they're talking about after taxes, union dues, buying supplies for my classroom, paying for a car, insurance on a car and gas to get back and forth to work.
Money for all is what's done in the US. If you work hard, the government confiscates much of your earnings. If you don't work, you will live quite well with free housing, free healthcare, food stamps, even free cell phones and free service.
I wouldn't. I'm not much better off than the minimum they're talking about after taxes, union dues, buying supplies for my classroom, paying for a car, insurance on a car and gas to get back and forth to work.
That's pretty stupid. Why not make it $20,000 per month? I couldn't live on $2700 per month. Could you?
Well, you'd have zero work related expenses. You wouldn't need a car. You could cook all your meals from scratch. You'd have time to work out so you'd be healthier. You could grow a garden. You could make your own clothes....the list of things you can do yourself because you now have the time would be long.
I'd buy a fixer upper house and I'd have the time to fix it up. I'd sell my car because I really don't need one if I don't have a job (I'm in a semi urban area where I could take the bus to the mall or ride a bike or walk where I needed to go).
No. Around the minimum guaranteed income they're talking about. For many people it would not be worth it to work.
I don't think this would work though because what would happen is pay would have to increase to get people to work instead of take the monthly check and that would drive prices up and that would make those checks worth less.
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.