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.
And clothing. Apparently water there is free as well. and no renters insurance.
What gets me is the "whats the incentive".
Really? Because the VAST majority of people want to live better then that.
By your figures....I should just sell my house and live off of it until I hit social security age. Thats the smart plan...why don't I do that? In fact, why doesn't everyone run off and live off $600/month?
Theres an assumption that humans want to live as poor as they can-cause thats where happiness is.
Perhaps the better question is.....why do you assume everyone wants to be poor? That happiness is having the bare minimum in life, and doing nothing? Whats wrong with you that makes you think this way?
Happiness? Accomplishing things, making a difference, having money to have fun with.
Water is part of the rent, so there's not an extra payment for the water outside of the rental price.
Not everyone gets rental insurance, and okay, I had it when I lived in Miami Beach...hurricanes, on the beach...yeah, it's going to be higher than here. It was around $50 a year.
YOU may not be satisfied with just living, but plenty of people ARE, that is what you do not understand.
And that VAST majority when offered a job took it.
You're making a assumption that everyone is like some small portion. The ones that get talked about. No one on the work and employment forum talks about "lost my job, got offered a new one and took it"....Oh wait...go read, LOTS of people talk about it. They ask if they should work for less (heres a clue the VAST majority of responses say yes).
I answered you perfectly, the incentive is the same, the vast majority want something better then poor. I'm sorry you don't seem to be willing to accept it. You seem to believe that given the opportunity we will all quit and accept being poor.
Would YOU quit your job and live off $1,200 a month? And NOT work? Really? If so then maybe the question you should ask yourself is why are you that way.
I'm sorry that you are unwilling to accept that there's a good chunk of people out there who would be perfectly happy to sit on their butts at home, watch t.v. all day, when you give them what they need to pay their bills, and have something extra left over.
That you can't face that is exactly why we have the welfare problem that we have today. Until you liberals accept that, NOTHING that you propose will ever work.
I never said that I would do it. I never said that YOU would do it. I said that there are, indeed, plenty of people out there who most certainly would. You really have no idea just how many people would.
Soo...$75 a month buys you 25 gallons of gas. Your "driving to and from constantly" is apparently a fairly short trip.
You really are underestimating the cost of living. Fairly badly.
The problem isn't that we aren't giving people money to meet the cost of living. The problem is we continue to give people money that is raising the cost of living.
And that VAST majority when offered a job took it.
You're making a assumption that everyone is like some small portion. The ones that get talked about. No one on the work and employment forum talks about "lost my job, got offered a new one and took it"....Oh wait...go read, LOTS of people talk about it. They ask if they should work for less (heres a clue the VAST majority of responses say yes).
I answered you perfectly, the incentive is the same, the vast majority want something better then poor. I'm sorry you don't seem to be willing to accept it. You seem to believe that given the opportunity we will all quit and accept being poor.
Would YOU quit your job and live off $1,200 a month? And NOT work? Really? If so then maybe the question you should ask yourself is why are you that way.
When you make it easier to not work there are many who will take advantage of doing just that.
No one is suggesting sending you and your wife $3,000 per month-especially not each. The numbers generally suggested range from $1,000 to $1,500, with $1,000 being the most common. And adjusted to inflation.
Now I don't know about you folks, but $2-3K for me and my wife doesn't represent a ton of money. I'd still be working.
There are roughly 318 million people in the country. Giving each person $1k a month would be $3.8 trillion over the course of a year. $1.5k per month would be $5.7 trillion. The total US budget for 2013 was $3.5 trillion. You'd either have to stop almost every government program except social security, or double the income taxes to provide $1k a month to every person.
There are roughly 318 million people in the country. Giving each person $1k a month would be $3.8 trillion over the course of a year. $1.5k per month would be $5.7 trillion. The total US budget for 2013 was $3.5 trillion. You'd either have to stop almost every government program except social security, or double the income taxes to provide $1k a month to every person.
The negative income tax is an entirely different animal than what the original post proposed:
Quote:
Originally Posted by nep321
All around the world, people are talking about a basic minimum income, and what they're saying makes a lot of economic sense. Regardless of whether you want to fight poverty, stimulate the economy, shrink the size of government, or simply ensure everyone has a sense of human dignity – you should be calling for a no-strings-attached basic income for all. Since it's inception, Social Security has been incredibly successful at fighting poverty. So rather than slashing it, or means-testing it, we should expand it to every American. In addition to helping low-income workers, a basic income would provide a huge boost to our economy. When people have money to spend, demand increases, and businesses see faster growth and higher profits. Even those who believe that the size of government is our biggest problem should be all-in-favor of a minimum income for all Americans. Rather than administering a huge patchwork of overlapping social programs, our nation could save time and money by simply issuing every citizen a monthly check.
The specific post I quoted also implied that working people would receive the benefit, with no mention of means testing based on income.
Listen to all the lazy leeches here wanting money for nothing. You are some sad, sad people. I hope you get nothing and starve until you figure out you have to have a skill and WORK. ****ing bums...
I'm sorry that you are unwilling to accept that there's a good chunk of people out there who would be perfectly happy to sit on their butts at home, watch t.v. all day, when you give them what they need to pay their bills, and have something extra left over.
That you can't face that is exactly why we have the welfare problem that we have today. Until you liberals accept that, NOTHING that you propose will ever work.
I never said that I would do it. I never said that YOU would do it. I said that there are, indeed, plenty of people out there who most certainly would. You really have no idea just how many people would.
That's exactly what they want to do. Sit home and play while receiving free money. They want free money for legal MJ so they can just sit home and get high and sleep all day.
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.
