Universal Basic Income

[Sarge]

Just read an article about this. Apparently it is gaining more and more support in the US. Apparently, they are looking to fund this by punishing companies that use robots and AI rather than human labor through higher taxes. That won't fund all of it. So, who is in favor of higher taxes?

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/26/roughly-half-of-americans-now-support-universal-basic-income.html

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Actually Libertarian economist Milton Friedman came up with that idea long ago. He called it a "negative income tax". If you earned less than a certain amount, say $36,000 a year, then you'd get a government subsidy to bring you up to that. If you earned more than $36,000 then you would pay income tax on the amount over that.

 

[Steelr4evr]

Anytime I think of words like universal. I think of socialism. When I think of socialism I think of communism. When I think of communism I think of oppression, no liberty or freedom and death. It's just a nasty little chain of events. You will find a great many of the youth in this country who are ok with socialism and even communism. They have no idea. None at all. So let's have free healthcare, free college,free housing, free food,free clothes and now a guaranteed free income. **** why even work. This crap is ingrained in the entire school system with commie pinko instructors who are also clueless. Maybe they burned their history books or got the super revised addition no.6. Yeah this grand idea that was America has a cancer eating it from the inside out. I don't see anything stopping it.

 

[oneforthebus]

Would it replace that we are already paying for other people's food, their health insurance, their retirements, their school taxes, and their kids' college educations? I'd be all for it in that case. But I suspect they're going to get the money in addition to all of that.

Seriously, why work? Why not just be one of the people who sits on their *** and has everything paid for? Below a very high income level, working will just not be worth it at all.

 

[Steelr4evr]

Actually Libertarian economist Milton Friedman came up with that idea long ago. He called it a "negative income tax". If you earned less than a certain amount, say $36,000 a year, then you'd get a government subsidy to bring you up to that. If you earned more than $36,000 then you would pay income tax on the amount over that.

I have agreed with him on many things.That isn't one of them. We are so overtaxed across the board in this land it's not even funny. They have a program for everything. They have so many useless chunks of government that it's amazing they can still operate at 20 trillion in the red. The idea is we have too much as it is and can be taxed more. We could cut 25% of our federal government out and be just fine.

 

[Steelr4evr]

Would it replace that we are already paying for other people's food, their health insurance, their retirements, their school taxes, and their kids' college educations? I'd be all for it in that case. But I suspect they're going to get the money in addition to all of that.

Seriously, why work? Why not just be one of the people who sits on their *** and has everything paid for? Below a very high income level, working will just not be worth it at all.

At some point it will be better to not work for most and make less than to make more. The fruits of your talent and labor are taken from you and given to another. Screw that.

 

[IndySteel]

**** that ****. It punishes success and rewards failure. Only the criminal politicians end up being rich on our tax dollars.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Elftard approves of this plan.

 

[Superman]

Would it replace that we are already paying for other people's food, their health insurance, their retirements, their school taxes, and their kids' college educations? I'd be all for it in that case. But I suspect they're going to get the money in addition to all of that.

Seriously, why work? Why not just be one of the people who sits on their *** and has everything paid for? Below a very high income level, working will just not be worth it at all.

it's called being a trophy spouse. ark has one.

 

[Stewey]

Actually Libertarian economist Milton Friedman came up with that idea long ago. He called it a "negative income tax". If you earned less than a certain amount, say $36,000 a year, then you'd get a government subsidy to bring you up to that. If you earned more than $36,000 then you would pay income tax on the amount over that.

Big fan of Friedman, never imagined he was a proponent of that however.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Thing is, over the last few decades the demand for unskilled labor has steadily decreased while the supply of unskilled labor has remained steady or even increased with immigration. So a lot of folks are in the position where they can't find a decent-paying job even if they want.

Hell, I have an MBA and just finished mortuary school and got my funeral director license and can't find a job. Right now I'm driving a cab for a private transportation company which oddly pays a lot more than I would have thought.

 

[BLITZ]

Over the last 15 or so years, I have chosen to work 6 days a week most weeks to be at the top in my field. Yes that has come with good pay. I want to keep as much of my money as possible. I certainly dont want to be taxed for being more successful than my neighbors

 

[IndySteel]

Over the last 15 or so years, I have chosen to work 6 days a week most weeks to be at the top in my field. Yes that has come with good pay. I want to keep as much of my money as possible. I certainly dont want to be taxed for being more successful than my neighbors

You need to pay your fair share. And, you didn't build that. / Libtards.

 

[deljzc]

Social "safety net" programs are always going to be a tough subject to adjudicate and find the correct "line".

I'm growing to believe we need socialized medicine. I would probably phase in the ability to buy Medicare for those 55-65. Then I would create a plan for all of Americans that cover costs/expenses over $10,000 (single)/$20,000 (family) or something like that. The extraordinary stuff.

Then you leave everything else to private health insurance plans and employer/employee paid systems.

But social programs are always going to be discussed as "how much is too much?". How much do you help the poor without having them WANT TO REMAIN poor? How do you create incentive to leave the social welfare state but still be compassionate and give resources to allow escape from their plight? Can you create a social welfare system that doesn't tear apart the family unit, encourage single-parent households and erode personal responsibility? Can you create a social welfare system that encourages moral behavior?

Those are really tough things to balance. I mean REALLY tough because no two people will accept their handout quite the same way. For every person you put forward that abuses the system (in all the ways possible), I can show you someone that used it for good.

I don't agree we get rid of social safety nets. Our country is much better than 1900. Children are much better off. But there does have to be a balance and the well isn't infinite.

 

[DBS1970]

Like Ron said fewer semi-skilled jobs than before with an influx of low-skilled immigrants. The manufacturing jobs that are automated are usually using robots to do things that are to fidly for people to do well quickly or dangerous for people to do. I argue with the open borders An-Cap crowd about this all the time. You are selling your time to your employer and if there are a ton of people willing to work for cheap it drives the wage structure down.

 

[Steelr4evr]

Thing is, over the last few decades the demand for unskilled labor has steadily decreased while the supply of unskilled labor has remained steady or even increased with immigration. So a lot of folks are in the position where they can't find a decent-paying job even if they want.

Hell, I have an MBA and just finished mortuary school and got my funeral director license and can't find a job. Right now I'm driving a cab for a private transportation company which oddly pays a lot more than I would have thought.

You may have to leave PA. My entire extended family left western pa over the last 35 years. In my hometown during the 1980's people fought to get jobs at McDonald's at $3.35hr. You would have hundreds of applicants many with advanced degrees. My own mother was one of those. She never got hired. Overqualified. She went from making $4.00 hr maybe 25 hours a week working with drug,alcohol and mental illness patients in rehabilitation to a six figure salary in Florida 8 years later. My father had the same path after his company he worked for 18 years folded. That guy was making nuclear fuel rods for reactors and heart pacers prior to that. He got stuck with making **** or unemployed until they left.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

You may have to leave PA. My entire extended family left western pa over the last 35 years. In my hometown during the 1980's people fought to get jobs at McDonald's at $3.35hr. You would have hundreds of applicants many with advanced degrees. My own mother was one of those. She never got hired. Overqualified. She went from making $4.00 hr maybe 25 hours a week working with drug,alcohol and mental illness patients in rehabilitation to a six figure salary in Florida 8 years later. My father had the same path after his company he worked for 18 years folded. That guy was making nuclear fuel rods for reactors and heart pacers prior to that. He got stuck with making **** or unemployed until they left.

That's a big reason why I went to mortuary school. I wanted to have a marketable skill in order to find a job in Florida. I often say that the biggest mistake I ever made in life was not moving south in the 80's. Instead I managed to find a few sucky jobs here that paid me enough to get by. Then started my own company, a franchise of a national company, and the recession hit in 2008 just after I finally started to make a decent buck.

 

[Steelin]

Actually Libertarian economist Milton Friedman came up with that idea long ago. He called it a "negative income tax". If you earned less than a certain amount, say $36,000 a year, then you'd get a government subsidy to bring you up to that. If you earned more than $36,000 then you would pay income tax on the amount over that.

Holy ****. Count me out.

 

[Steelerfan]

The problem with social safety nets is that they become hammocks.

 

[CharlesDavenport]

AI will succeed global warming as the new Malthusian mustering point for the useful idiots of the globalists.

 

[ark steel]

While not in favor of what is proposed, i would like to see SS reformed to incorporate something like a minimum amount, plus a benefit based upon your contributions.

Instead of the current whacked out formula, have a minimum benefit of $X/month , plus some Y% of your contributions, accumulated with interest converted to a monthly annuity. Backsolve for X and Y to determine what those would be based upon current contribution deductions percentages, This gives you a sustainable program where the contributions are actually funding the benefits being paid out.

Once X and Y are determined, get into the political process of determining if $X is too low and, really, the only way to increase it is that the payroll deduction has to be increased. Not in favor of this, BTW, just should be talked about. Want higher benefits, they cost you.

In addition, on 1/1/2019, every Employer is required to give every employee a 6.2% raise. There is no longer an "Employer" contribution to your SS. Your payroll withholding is now 12.4% rather than 6.2% from you and 6.2% "from your employer".

 

[deljzc]

Here's a pretty good analysis of all the federal government's welfare state programs:

http://federalsafetynet.com/safety-net-programs.html

The first thing you see (at least I did) is the cost of health care for those in poverty (Medicaid) is more money that all other social safety net programs combined.

Second we already have EITC program exactly that works very similar to a Universal Basic Income (it's just done on a once/year check back on your taxes).

Third, approximately 10% of all welfare state federal expenses are fraudulent. That's $71 billions per year.

Fourth... when you look at all the graphs, Obama increased social welfare payments like a mother ****** his first term (2008-2012). Just look at each graph to see how much. Much of that was written into the stimulus package. Since 2012-2015, costs have been declining.

In conclusion, I have some thoughts on this. First, I don't think the TOTAL amount of money is all that outrageous (in round numbers $350 billion in Medicaid, $350 billion in everything else). This is about 20% of our total federal revenue. That seems fair to me. I would like to see all these programs re-done with the intent to make them better (and avoid fraud) with the promise that the TOTAL spent would stay the same.

 

[fedderone]

That's the problem with "free" education, healthcare, etc.
Ask someone in Denmark how "free" those things are.
They're taxed right around 55% on their income and then pay 25% in sales tax.

Now imagine that here.
Imagine losing more than 1/2 your current pay and then bumping up your sales tax another 15% or so on the things you purchase.
How's your family doing now?

It's absurd to think we should be forced to support everyone.
If a tree falls on my house, I don't expect a handout from all of my neighbors for repairs.
If I get in a car accident because I'm high and drunk, I don't expect everyone else to pay for it.
Life is about PERSONAL CHOICES and the consequences of those choices. Sometimes they're good. Sometimes they're bad. Sometimes stuff happens to me that are out of my control.
Everyone dies at some point. Some make it to over 100. Some die at birth. Sometimes life takes people earlier than we'd like. Sometimes it's random, sometimes a personal choice was the culprit, sometimes someone else's foolishness was the cause. But this randomness is universal globe wide. It doesn't discriminate. We should feel compelled to help the less fortunate in their time of need, not feel obligated like we're being held at gunpoint.

A flat tax should be implemented.
It would be non-discriminatory.
If you make $50,000.00, hypothetically at 10%, you're on the hook for $5,000.00.
If you make $5,000,000.00, you're on the hook for $500,000.00.
The "richer" person pays substantially more than the average household guy, but they both contribute to their local/state/federal government.
As people receive raises, then they're also taxed more, too
No loopholes, credits, breaks, line itemizations, no lobbyists, etc.
It's jacked by the government right from your paycheck, and your employer reports directly to government to say it's been taken out.
No end of the year returns. No paperwork. No wasted time. And probably dramatically reduces the 100,000+ employees needed at the IRS right now.
Our elected crooks would then have work within their budget and couldn't pass scam tax grabs for the companies that line their pockets.

It would fix a LOT of our woes.
Not all, but it'd be a good start.

 

[Confluence]

When you frame the issues differently, like delivering healthcare/taxreporting/welfare/water/electricity, you can try to find the most efficient (long term lowest cost) to society.

When you attach politics and normative judgments to same, inefficient solutions to delivery issues will happen. Look at the IRS, its complexity and irrelevance of much of what it does for society.

Simple standards, which is probably what drove Friedman to his suggestion, are probably more efficient in the long term than solutions with a bunch of configurations/special interests that distort over time.

 

[oneforthebus]

it's called being a trophy spouse. ark has one.

I am one. LOL.

Actually I do help my husband make money. Somewhat.