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 I am understanding you correctly basic income would mean a butcher, baker, candlestick maker, as well as a neurosurgeon and rocket scientist would all earn the same income regardless of the education and skill level required to do their job ?? If that is the case, what incentive would there be for a bright high school student with the aptitude and willingness to choose the harder career path of becoming a neurosurgeon which entails dedicating 12 long hard years of intense study and clinical training to be able to master the skills needed to perform intricate brain surgery when they would end up with the same income as that of a butcher ?
Believe me, had I had the choice to either spend 4 years in college pursuing a nursing degree and continue working the next 40 + years in this far from easy career, or be a happy waver at Walmart for the same income I would choose the path of the happy waver!!
The butcher, baker and candlestick maker would all get 20K basic income from the government. They would not be penalized for working on top of that 20K. The 20 is their basic yearly income. If you want to be lazy and try to live on just 20K a year, be my guest. I would imagine most people would choose to work to supplant that income, I know I would. 20K added a year would be a god-send to my household.
They were free, required or not. Top medical students there too. How else do they get their training. My neighbors are both doctors and they complained when they were training in La Jolla, they didn't get their practice.
When my husband was in a hospital for a week, he shared it with a homeless guy. We had good insurance, but it makes no difference as in we were not treated differently, except we had the privilege of paying the bill, our portion, the other guy didn't. The guy told my husband when he checked out that he was homeless.
Many people are temporarily homeless. The husband kicked out for infidelities, the wife kicked out because she hasn't found a new apt yet (but will), etc. It doesn't necessarily mean he's without insurance, or doesn't qualify for Medicaid.
There is no requirement for hospitals to provide free care for those not on insurance or Medicaid. If someone gets cancer and is uninsured or not on Medicaid, they will not get treatment, unless there's some charity somewhere that will take him/her on. They do suffer and die. Happens more than people think.
I think one of the approaches we could make would be to raise the Social Security tax rate from its current 6.2% to let's say 10% for employees. In other words leave the employer tax right where it is.
Lots of people might not like that idea so make the increase voluntary starting it say age 30 if somebody starts putting into the system more money at age several things can be done.
We could lower the retirement age for those that have physically exhausting jobs in other words the extra tax they would pay would replace many of the pensions private companies are getting away from.
With the optional tax build it so that a worker can retire at age 62 or 63 with the exact same of money they would have received if he retired at age 68 paying the lower tax rate.
Social Security should not be torn down it should be made stronger.
I think one of the approaches we could make would be to raise the Social Security tax rate from its current 6.2% to let's say 10% for employees. In other words leave the employer tax right where it is.
Lots of people might not like that idea so make the increase voluntary starting it say age 30 if somebody starts putting into the system more money at age several things can be done.
We could lower the retirement age for those that have physically exhausting jobs in other words the extra tax they would pay would replace many of the pensions private companies are getting away from.
With the optional tax build it so that a worker can retire at age 62 or 63 with the exact same of money they would have received if he retired at age 68 paying the lower tax rate.
Social Security should not be torn down it should be made stronger.
Although many jobs can be physically exhausting if one is older with less energy or older with health problems which makes it difficult to carry out job duties, not just the jobs of laborers. The body of an older person is often different than a younger person's body. That's sometimes why people retire at age 62, or ages 63-65. For example, arthritis can make it difficult to stand or walk easily.
The butcher, baker and candlestick maker would all get 20K basic income from the government. They would not be penalized for working on top of that 20K. The 20 is their basic yearly income. If you want to be lazy and try to live on just 20K a year, be my guest. I would imagine most people would choose to work to supplant that income, I know I would. 20K added a year would be a god-send to my household.
If you've had health issues and not worked long, when you hit 65 and start recieving social security, you will get around a thousand a month, perhaps a few hundred more. A guarenteed income of 20k would make life a lot easier. It might also mean that less people need some kind of additional assistance as their 12/12 and a half hundred would be more than fundamental basics. And those with no fall back in case of disastor or emergency it would prevent the need for further assistance. It would also mean that those with only a sliver of financial security would be willing to take more chances as they would not have to risk everything.
I could do very well on 20k, and have some left over. I would even spend more on things which would make life more interesting, and do some work on my house, especially filling in the little cold air leaks. I'd take a trip away from home once in a while. I love my house, but would like to get away now and again. But only with a house sitter.
I'd take that extra money and fix the cold air leaks in my house, and have the electrical overhauled, and add a solid fence to the yard the dog couldn't get out of. I'd help the local economy. And I'd take a trip once in a while and come home refreshed. Not big things, but things most people just normally do. I'd figure out how to get around without driving (eye focusing problems with bad depth perception). But most of daily life wouldn't change at all.
Most who get or will get less than that 20k would end up spending it on better food, home repairs, better transportation, and the like. They'd eat out more often. They'd take a trip to see the kids. They'd not be living in eternal hidden worry of some huge expense they just don't have the money for. They'd maybe even live longer with a good diet and less strain and worry.
I'd say that for some, its not 'just 20k' but enough that a lot of the strain, worry and limited options would be gone and they'd do quite well without more. And if that is sufficent for what an individual or family considers their needs, it should not be classified as 'lazy'. If a quiet and undramatic daily life makes you happy, and you don't need to spend much to entertain yourself, then unless working is something which will be a positive addition to your day there are many other things which can make life good.
Last edited by nightbird47; 02-11-2018 at 06:13 PM..
If you've had health issues and not worked long, when you hit 65 and start recieving social security, you will get around a thousand a month, perhaps a few hundred more.
Not sure what you mean by the above. How long is 'not worked long'? I worked 38 years, and my social security check each month is $1300.
Are you talking about disability payments from social security?
Last edited by matisse12; 02-11-2018 at 06:16 PM..
If you've had health issues and not worked long, when you hit 65 and start recieving social security, you will get around a thousand a month, perhaps a few hundred more. A guarenteed income of 20k would make life a lot easier. It might also mean that less people need some kind of additional assistance as their 12/12 and a half hundred would be more than fundamental basics. And those with no fall back in case of disastor or emergency it would prevent the need for further assistance. It would also mean that those with only a sliver of financial security would be willing to take more chances as they would not have to risk everything.
I could do very well on 20k, and have some left over. I would even spend more on things which would make life more interesting, and do some work on my house, especially filling in the little cold air leaks. I'd take a trip away from home once in a while. I love my house, but would like to get away now and again. But only with a house sitter.
I'd take that extra money and fix the cold air leaks in my house, and have the electrical overhauled, and add a solid fence to the yard the dog couldn't get out of. I'd help the local economy. And I'd take a trip once in a while and come home refreshed. Not big things, but things most people just normally do. I'd figure out how to get around without driving (eye focusing problems with bad depth perception). But most of daily life wouldn't change at all.
Most who get or will get less than that 20k would end up spending it on better food, home repairs, better transportation, and the like. They'd eat out more often. They'd take a trip to see the kids. They'd not be living in eternal hidden worry of some huge expense they just don't have the money for. They'd maybe even live longer with a good diet and less strain and worry.
I'd say that for some, its not 'just 20k' but enough that a lot of the strain, worry and limited options would be gone and they'd do quite well without more. And if that is sufficent for what an individual or family considers their needs, it should not be classified as 'lazy'. If a quiet and undramatic daily life makes you happy, and you don't need to spend much to entertain yourself, then unless working is something which will be a positive addition to your day there are many other things which can make life good.
I think it'd be hard to make it comfortably or worry-free from expenses, on $20k a year. I've done a detailed budget, and there are more expenses than you think. After the cost of Medicare, for example, that $20k is now less than $15k (if you get Plan F, Medigap).
Electricity
Water & sanitation
Gas
Phone
Internet
Groceries
Household expenses
Property taxes
HO Ins
Car Ins
Car gas
Car taxes & registration
Car maintenance & repairs
House repairs
Medicare
Medicare supplemental (Plan F, etc.)
Medical costs in addn to Medicare premiums
Dental
Misc. (Christmas, other holidays, birthdays)
Lawn maintenance
Pet costs (heart preventive alone costs me about $80/yr; flea prevention costs over $100/yr; annual exam is about $200 with bloodwork; food & treats run $30-$50/mo.; occasional ER medical)
Sporadic pricey things, like a new roof, a new a/c system, etc.
Inflation often outpaces Social Security COL raises.
Of course, it depends on where you live and the cost of living there, too. But $20k doesn't leave room for vacations out of town or expensive hobbies.
I wouldn't be able to meet my basic, to the bone costs, on $20k. But I do have a dog, which is pricey. OTOH, I'm pretty frugal.
But the UK has free health care, which is the largest financial burden of seniors.
Best to compare the US with other industrialized nations who don't provide any health care to its citizens.
There are none.
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.
