I don't know if I agree with your logic regarding inflation, Ronya, as I think it inhabits too much of a vacuum. If we implement a GBI, those products which are disproportionately the majority of purchases by the poor, will inevitably ratchet up in cost because "there's money to be made." Especially considering the fact that the people who will receive the GBI are far more likely to spend the money than save/invest. As these goods are already considered necessary goods by the poor, they will continue to be bought, and I think most every company will take advantage of the extra cash in the market by raising their prices in order to maximize their profits.
But what about that one business who doesn't raise their prices and gets all the customer base because these people can no longer afford their competitors?
Please provide me with your budget, then, because I need some help.
But I thought it was the point? As pointed out, we already have negative income taxes for low income workers, and tons of programs in place to help those that can't work. If the only thing we're doing is suggesting increasing the funding for those programs and reducing the means testing then, well, I don't think it'll help much.
I'd honestly rather see a "Trade your credit cards in for debt repayment program" where you can turn over your credit cards if you sign an agreement never to use one again, ever. I think that would have a better effect overall, and only be a one time thing.
That is unless there is a shit ton of people who would go homeless without their CCs or something.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I'm still looking for an explanation how handing out 10 grand to someone who didn't earn it can come with a guarantee they actually use the money for said purpose of the program: to not starve or be homeless.
Who said it needed one?
Gotcha, so the purpose of the program is to just hand out money, not actually help the poor.
That's basically what the OP is suggesting, yes.
Eddy on
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
I'm still looking for an explanation how handing out 10 grand to someone who didn't earn it can come with a guarantee they actually use the money for said purpose of the program: to not starve or be homeless.
Who said it needed one?
Gotcha, so the purpose of the program is to just hand out money, not actually help the poor.
Of course it is! Why would a government program actually aim to solve a problem?
Thats not it at all.
The implication is that some waste is inevitable and acceptable.
I'm still looking for an explanation how handing out 10 grand to someone who didn't earn it can come with a guarantee they actually use the money for said purpose of the program: to not starve or be homeless.
Who said it needed one?
Gotcha, so the purpose of the program is to just hand out money, not actually help the poor.
Of course it is! Why would a government program actually aim to solve a problem?
Thats not it at all.
The implication is that some waste is inevitable and acceptable.
OK so we hand out 10 grand to morons. Said morons spend the money at Best Buy on Plasma televisions and Stereo systems. They are still broke and in debt, can't feed their families and have no prospects short of a very nice television.
So now they require assistance, but we got rid of all that because this GBI is supposed to replace all other forms of welfare.
So we're back to square one with starving, homeless impoverished people only this time they have some nice electronics to their name.
I'm still looking for an explanation how handing out 10 grand to someone who didn't earn it can come with a guarantee they actually use the money for said purpose of the program: to not starve or be homeless.
Who said it needed one?
Gotcha, so the purpose of the program is to just hand out money, not actually help the poor.
Of course it is! Why would a government program actually aim to solve a problem?
You're a funny duck. The question is, why does it need a guarantee? Surely the desire to eat food and not be rained on is sufficient for most. If you're worried about hobos and their fortified wine, that's laudable, but this isn't intended as a substance abuse program.
Please provide me with your budget, then, because I need some help.
Tangent- there are many single bedroom apartments near me that cost 500/month which leaves about 4k/yr for food and utilities.
No internet, most likely no video games/entertainment, just strictly necessary purchases and I could most definitely do this.
but again, the point here is to supplement the funds I would be making while working- assume that I work $8/hr 80 hours a week and make 15k/yr before taxes.
Again, would have to seriously pinch pennies to make it...but if I have a GBI of, say, 10k/yr (which is not, as ronya argued, the best amount but I am using it as an example) suddenly I am playing with a much easier budget to manage, and can now invest in the economy as well as providing necessities for myself.
I don't know if I agree with your logic regarding inflation, Ronya, as I think it inhabits too much of a vacuum. If we implement a GBI, those products which are disproportionately the majority of purchases by the poor, will inevitably ratchet up in cost because "there's money to be made." Especially considering the fact that the people who will receive the GBI are far more likely to spend the money than save/invest. As these goods are already considered necessary goods by the poor, they will continue to be bought, and I think most every company will take advantage of the extra cash in the market by raising their prices in order to maximize their profits.
But what about that one business who doesn't raise their prices and gets all the customer base because these people can no longer afford their competitors?
True, but I reckon it would occur more amongst the manufacturers than the stores, e.g., Nabisco raises the prices on their products across the board. While there are knockoffs to their products, are the generics really as good as the genuine Oreo?
Kevin, I know you're a libertarian and all and poor people are some sort of great deep mysterious force to your ideology and represent some sort of incarnation of the sin of Sloth, but they're not fucking morons who will kill themselves from starvation because they spent all their money on a plasma screen tv.
I'm still looking for an explanation how handing out 10 grand to someone who didn't earn it can come with a guarantee they actually use the money for said purpose of the program: to not starve or be homeless.
Who said it needed one?
Gotcha, so the purpose of the program is to just hand out money, not actually help the poor.
Of course it is! Why would a government program actually aim to solve a problem?
Thats not it at all.
The implication is that some waste is inevitable and acceptable.
OK so we hand out 10 grand to morons. Said morons spend the money at Best Buy on Plasma televisions and Stereo systems. They are still broke and in debt, can't feed their families and have no prospects short of a very nice television.
So now they require assistance, but we got rid of all that because this GBI is supposed to replace all other forms of welfare.
So we're back to square one with starving, homeless impoverished people only this time they have some nice electronics to their name.
That is program fail.
Nobody is suggesting that we eliminate residential programs for the severely mentally disabled.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I don't know if I agree with your logic regarding inflation, Ronya, as I think it inhabits too much of a vacuum. If we implement a GBI, those products which are disproportionately the majority of purchases by the poor, will inevitably ratchet up in cost because "there's money to be made." Especially considering the fact that the people who will receive the GBI are far more likely to spend the money than save/invest. As these goods are already considered necessary goods by the poor, they will continue to be bought, and I think most every company will take advantage of the extra cash in the market by raising their prices in order to maximize their profits.
But what about that one business who doesn't raise their prices and gets all the customer base because these people can no longer afford their competitors?
True, but I reckon it would occur more amongst the manufacturers than the stores, e.g., Nabisco raises the prices on their products across the board. While there are knockoffs to their products, are the generics really as good as the genuine Oreo?
Who cares? The argument not really applicable anymore if we are discussing the fact that there will inevitably be a more affordable alternative in a market-driven economy.
(apologies to ronya if I am really butchering this argument)
I'd honestly rather see a "Trade your credit cards in for debt repayment program" where you can turn over your credit cards if you sign an agreement never to use one again, ever. I think that would have a better effect overall, and only be a one time thing.
That is unless there is a shit ton of people who would go homeless without their CCs or something.
What would most likely happen is that poorer people would rely even more heavily on pay-day loan type places.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Kevin, I know you're a libertarian and all and poor people are some sort of great deep mysterious force to your ideology and represent some sort of incarnation of the sin of Sloth, but they're not fucking morons who will kill themselves from starvation because they spent all their money on a plasma screen tv.
I always have to keep my mouth shut on these issues, because yes, I know what the statistics are, and you are absolutely right Sammich. But my extended (and some of my immediate) family fits the definition of "fucking morons who will kill themselves from starvation because they spent all their money on a plasma screen tv."
I'm still looking for an explanation how handing out 10 grand to someone who didn't earn it can come with a guarantee they actually use the money for said purpose of the program: to not starve or be homeless.
Who said it needed one?
Gotcha, so the purpose of the program is to just hand out money, not actually help the poor.
Of course it is! Why would a government program actually aim to solve a problem?
Thats not it at all.
The implication is that some waste is inevitable and acceptable.
OK so we hand out 10 grand to morons. Said morons spend the money at Best Buy on Plasma televisions and Stereo systems. They are still broke and in debt, can't feed their families and have no prospects short of a very nice television.
So now they require assistance, but we got rid of all that because this GBI is supposed to replace all other forms of welfare.
So we're back to square one with starving, homeless impoverished people only this time they have some nice electronics to their name.
That is program fail.
Nobody is suggesting that we eliminate residential programs for the severely mentally disabled.
How else can you pay $10,000 to every person without completely eliminating the budget for every other form of welfare (and defense spending, and education spending, et. al.).
You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't just magically double the entire budget without some kind of massive new revenue stream or massive budget reallocation.
Eddy on
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
Who cares? The argument not really applicable anymore if we are discussing the fact that there will inevitably be a more affordable alternative in a market-driven economy.
(apologies to ronya if I am really butchering this argument)
But this assumes a rational consumer that will accept the more affordable alternative, and consumers are rarely rational creatures.
Kevin, I know you're a libertarian and all and poor people are some sort of great deep mysterious force to your ideology and represent some sort of incarnation of the sin of Sloth, but they're not fucking morons who will kill themselves from starvation because they spent all their money on a plasma screen tv.
I always have to keep my mouth shut on these issues, because yes, I know what the statistics are, and you are absolutely right Sammich. But my extended (and some of my immediate) family fits the definition of "fucking morons who will kill themselves from starvation because they spent all their money on a plasma screen tv."
I've got an uncle who refuses to drink tap water because of fluoride. Though his area doesn't fluoridate. He makes probably close to 100k a year.
Kevin, I know you're a libertarian and all and poor people are some sort of great deep mysterious force to your ideology and represent some sort of incarnation of the sin of Sloth, but they're not fucking morons who will kill themselves from starvation because they spent all their money on a plasma screen tv.
I always have to keep my mouth shut on these issues, because yes, I know what the statistics are, and you are absolutely right Sammich. But my extended (and some of my immediate) family fits the definition of "fucking morons who will kill themselves from starvation because they spent all their money on a plasma screen tv."
yep
i mean, it's ridiculous (and usually hateful) to ascribe all impoverished people as x, y, and z but i think it's silly to recoil so strongly against welfare-queen-republicans as to pretend fraudsters and morons don't exist
Kevin, I know you're a libertarian and all and poor people are some sort of great deep mysterious force to your ideology and represent some sort of incarnation of the sin of Sloth, but they're not fucking morons who will kill themselves from starvation because they spent all their money on a plasma screen tv.
Honestly you're giving these people way too much fucking credit. People who don't earn money don't tend to spend said money wisely. How many more lotto millionaires going broke do we have to witness to accept this?
I'm all for helping the poor and giving them food or shelter or whatever is deemed necessary, but if you give them cold hard cash sometimes it's not going to end well. And for THOSE people what then? There are no programs left so how do we help them?
Do we then just add yet another entitlement? Because if we do that's where this idea goes off the rails completely. There is no more money.
I'd honestly rather see a "Trade your credit cards in for debt repayment program" where you can turn over your credit cards if you sign an agreement never to use one again, ever. I think that would have a better effect overall, and only be a one time thing.
That is unless there is a shit ton of people who would go homeless without their CCs or something.
What would most likely happen is that poorer people would rely even more heavily on pay-day loan type places.
This is what I was worried about. Is there a better solution? Maybe a law that says banks have to wait 2-4 weeks before they can charge overdrafts in cases of long drag time on checks or something? This would help the poorer people with what amounts to a pay-day loan without the loan part. Maybe even people who bring paystubs in get a special account where they can cash advance themselves for the month based on their income(if they go over, charge overdraft fees after the month)? Seems like good alternatives though I don't know how that would actually play out.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Kevin, I know you're a libertarian and all and poor people are some sort of great deep mysterious force to your ideology and represent some sort of incarnation of the sin of Sloth, but they're not fucking morons who will kill themselves from starvation because they spent all their money on a plasma screen tv.
I always have to keep my mouth shut on these issues, because yes, I know what the statistics are, and you are absolutely right Sammich. But my extended (and some of my immediate) family fits the definition of "fucking morons who will kill themselves from starvation because they spent all their money on a plasma screen tv."
Put more neutrally: I think it's unrealistic to expect poor people (who don't make the best financial decisions to begin with, typically) to use found money in the most efficient manner to alleviate their poverty.
You'd probably end up with a lot of otherwise poor and uneducated people who now have a few more toys.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
I don't know where you guys live, but I know that I could survive on a flat 10k a year as a single dude, but that isn't the point of the GBI.
The implication is that this GBI is used as a baseline to help those already making a low-level income to survive. Unless I am completely wrong about ronya's post....
No, you're right. Ideally most people who are currently working do not stop or substantially reduce working; if they did, that would be a serious blow against the empirical success of the program. A lot hinges on 60s-era empirical studies on what tentative basic-income programs that existed during the antipoverty policy enthusiasm of the decade.
(you can see a lot of its 60s background coming through, actually, right down to conceptualizing poverty in a somewhat different way than we typically do today. No focus on special needs there, just a undercurrent of murky class conflict. The focus is on the numerous low-income earners as a class rather than comparatively small group of special-needs circumstances that we tend to be more aware about)
I reiterate that, at current levels the US govt. cannot afford a $10k GBI program unless it raises taxes or cuts way more programs than merely just the existing broadly redistributive ones, in which case special-needs will suffer.
Who cares? The argument not really applicable anymore if we are discussing the fact that there will inevitably be a more affordable alternative in a market-driven economy.
(apologies to ronya if I am really butchering this argument)
But this assumes a rational consumer that will accept the more affordable alternative, and consumers are rarely rational creatures.
Again the assumption is irrelevant if there is an alternative to the expensive product.
If you put a regulation preventing homes from being built that will cause the price of rent to increase. But that isn't "inflation" it's just a rising price.
Giving 10,000 dollars to poor people to buy homes will cause the price of land to go up or supply to go up (but you can't really increase the supply of land easily).
Honestly you're giving these people way too much fucking credit. People who don't earn money don't tend to spend said money wisely. How many more lotto millionaires going broke do we have to witness to accept this?
Lots of people don't spend money wisely.
The lotto does that to people because it makes people millionaires over night. It isn't applicable here.
If you put a regulation preventing homes from being built that will cause the price of rent to increase. But that isn't "inflation" it's just a rising price.
Giving 10,000 dollars to poor people to buy homes will cause the price of land to go up or supply to go up (but you can't really increase the supply of land easily).
Honestly you're giving these people way too much fucking credit. People who don't earn money don't tend to spend said money wisely. How many more lotto millionaires going broke do we have to witness to accept this?
I'm all for helping the poor and giving them food or shelter or whatever is deemed necessary, but if you give them cold hard cash sometimes it's not going to end well. And for THOSE people what then? There are no programs left so how do we help them?
Do we then just add yet another entitlement? Because if we do that's where this idea goes off the rails completely. There is no more money.
You're talking about 2 things previously discussed and that were high on my list as well. I have an idea that a more... foolproof? way of doing things would be for the government to provide shoeboxes and cheese free of charge. I don't think this would be a bad idea... but I do think it would be fantastically inefficient. I would happen to err on the side of efficiency given:
Yes, if something like this was instated, we as a society would have to grow some balls and be willing to say, "We already gave you enough to live on. If you didn't make it, enjoy starving to death."
Kevin, I know you're a libertarian and all and poor people are some sort of great deep mysterious force to your ideology and represent some sort of incarnation of the sin of Sloth, but they're not fucking morons who will kill themselves from starvation because they spent all their money on a plasma screen tv.
i have tenants in my building who were evicted cause they didnt pay rent but own enormous plasma tvs. i am not making this up.
dont underestimate how badly people can fuck themselves over.
this is usually the argument i make against libertarians. wtf.
Who cares? The argument not really applicable anymore if we are discussing the fact that there will inevitably be a more affordable alternative in a market-driven economy.
(apologies to ronya if I am really butchering this argument)
But this assumes a rational consumer that will accept the more affordable alternative, and consumers are rarely rational creatures.
Again the assumption is irrelevant if there is an alternative to the expensive product.
I am really not getting your point mayhaps.
Could you possibly restate?
Hmmmm...even if there is an alternative to an expensive product, consumers are not likely to buy the less expensive product if they have already established a brand familiarity with a favored brand. Raising prices wouldn't work against generic products, because there will always be competition. But it could, and would work when companies hold a brand monopoly, because people have got to have their freaking Oreos, and they'll cut someone to get them.
I reiterate that, at current levels the US govt. cannot afford a $10k GBI program unless it raises taxes or cuts way more programs than merely just the existing broadly redistributive ones, in which case special-needs will suffer.
Raising taxes likely won't help either. It will just cut into GDP, higher rates will still translate into the same amount of dollars.
The only way to do it is drastically cut spending elsewhere.
It's interesting to read such a wide variety of responses to this proposal. I guess that's to be expected since I gave a wide variety of arguments in favor of it, and left the details pretty vague. At least almost everyone seems to agree on the basic moral principle that we shouldn't let people starve to death just because they're poor. Well, everyone except Kevin Nash, but that's expected.
The economic part of it seems to be what people are criticizing the most. Unfortunately my own knowledge of economics isn't good enough to really address all the issues. One question that keeps coming up is revenue- how can the government pay for all this? I'll try to adress that one, at least.
The way I'm imagining it would totally change the way the economy works. Almost everyone who works a low paying job would just quit, and do other things instead. So yes, we might lose some tax revenue from those people, although they don't really pay a lot of taxes anyway. In the short term, we can pay for it by deficit spending, and closing tax loopholes- from what I've read, our economy could benefit greatly from deficit spending right now.
In the long term, government expenses would fall, in all sorts of ways. I talked a lot about McDonald's at the beginning- if people weren't working there and eating there, it would reduce the number of costly visits to the ER that are paid for by medicaid. With less people commuting to work, we don't need as many highways. Fewer business means fewer government agencies to oversee them. We can also eliminate the foodstamps and subsidized housing programs, since the basic income should cover food and shelter. (medicare will remain, but hopefully decrease in cost with fewer workplaces related injuries).
It might hurt the GDP growth, yes. But then, I don't think that GDP is really the best way to measure the progress of a society. Who really lives better- a man with a $100,000 income, but $90,000 in expenses and no time off? Or the man with $30,000 in income, but only $10,000 in expenses and a lot of time off? The basic income would give us all some time off, when we need it.
Who cares? The argument not really applicable anymore if we are discussing the fact that there will inevitably be a more affordable alternative in a market-driven economy.
(apologies to ronya if I am really butchering this argument)
But this assumes a rational consumer that will accept the more affordable alternative, and consumers are rarely rational creatures.
Again the assumption is irrelevant if there is an alternative to the expensive product.
I am really not getting your point mayhaps.
Could you possibly restate?
Hmmmm...even if there is an alternative to an expensive product, consumers are not likely to buy the less expensive product if they have already established a brand familiarity with a favored brand. Raising prices wouldn't work against generic products, because there will always be competition. But it could, and would work when companies hold a brand monopoly, because people have got to have their freaking Oreos, and they'll cut someone to get them.
And while price increases aren't inflation per se, they are what the general public considers when talking about "inflation." It relates to them because the costs of goods have gone up. This is reflected in the consumer price index being a valid indicator.
It does seem to be the best solution to the Type I vs. Type II error problem.
I am going to be 100% honest and cite ignorance here.
What exactly do you mean?
The problem of deciding whether to help all those that need while simultaneously trying not to help free-loaders.
Shoeboxes and cheese for everyone solves problem 1. Problem 2 is solved hopefully because no-one wants to live in a shoebox or eat cheese, and even if they do, all we're providing people is basic necessities, no one is using their GBI for drugs, etc.
Edit: But again, I'm not sure there's an efficient way for a government to do this. There's likely no politically viable way...
Posts
But what about that one business who doesn't raise their prices and gets all the customer base because these people can no longer afford their competitors?
I don't think that's a foregone conclusion.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
But I thought it was the point? As pointed out, we already have negative income taxes for low income workers, and tons of programs in place to help those that can't work. If the only thing we're doing is suggesting increasing the funding for those programs and reducing the means testing then, well, I don't think it'll help much.
That is unless there is a shit ton of people who would go homeless without their CCs or something.
That's basically what the OP is suggesting, yes.
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
Thats not it at all.
The implication is that some waste is inevitable and acceptable.
OK so we hand out 10 grand to morons. Said morons spend the money at Best Buy on Plasma televisions and Stereo systems. They are still broke and in debt, can't feed their families and have no prospects short of a very nice television.
So now they require assistance, but we got rid of all that because this GBI is supposed to replace all other forms of welfare.
So we're back to square one with starving, homeless impoverished people only this time they have some nice electronics to their name.
That is program fail.
You're a funny duck. The question is, why does it need a guarantee? Surely the desire to eat food and not be rained on is sufficient for most. If you're worried about hobos and their fortified wine, that's laudable, but this isn't intended as a substance abuse program.
Tangent- there are many single bedroom apartments near me that cost 500/month which leaves about 4k/yr for food and utilities.
No internet, most likely no video games/entertainment, just strictly necessary purchases and I could most definitely do this.
but again, the point here is to supplement the funds I would be making while working- assume that I work $8/hr 80 hours a week and make 15k/yr before taxes.
Again, would have to seriously pinch pennies to make it...but if I have a GBI of, say, 10k/yr (which is not, as ronya argued, the best amount but I am using it as an example) suddenly I am playing with a much easier budget to manage, and can now invest in the economy as well as providing necessities for myself.
True, but I reckon it would occur more amongst the manufacturers than the stores, e.g., Nabisco raises the prices on their products across the board. While there are knockoffs to their products, are the generics really as good as the genuine Oreo?
I never mentioned inflation, I talked about rising prices on specific goods. Not all goods.
Nobody is suggesting that we eliminate residential programs for the severely mentally disabled.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Who cares? The argument not really applicable anymore if we are discussing the fact that there will inevitably be a more affordable alternative in a market-driven economy.
(apologies to ronya if I am really butchering this argument)
Rigorous Scholarship
I always have to keep my mouth shut on these issues, because yes, I know what the statistics are, and you are absolutely right Sammich. But my extended (and some of my immediate) family fits the definition of "fucking morons who will kill themselves from starvation because they spent all their money on a plasma screen tv."
How else can you pay $10,000 to every person without completely eliminating the budget for every other form of welfare (and defense spending, and education spending, et. al.).
You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't just magically double the entire budget without some kind of massive new revenue stream or massive budget reallocation.
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
But this assumes a rational consumer that will accept the more affordable alternative, and consumers are rarely rational creatures.
I've got an uncle who refuses to drink tap water because of fluoride. Though his area doesn't fluoridate. He makes probably close to 100k a year.
There are nuts and idiots everywhere.
yep
i mean, it's ridiculous (and usually hateful) to ascribe all impoverished people as x, y, and z but i think it's silly to recoil so strongly against welfare-queen-republicans as to pretend fraudsters and morons don't exist
Honestly you're giving these people way too much fucking credit. People who don't earn money don't tend to spend said money wisely. How many more lotto millionaires going broke do we have to witness to accept this?
I'm all for helping the poor and giving them food or shelter or whatever is deemed necessary, but if you give them cold hard cash sometimes it's not going to end well. And for THOSE people what then? There are no programs left so how do we help them?
Do we then just add yet another entitlement? Because if we do that's where this idea goes off the rails completely. There is no more money.
This is what I was worried about. Is there a better solution? Maybe a law that says banks have to wait 2-4 weeks before they can charge overdrafts in cases of long drag time on checks or something? This would help the poorer people with what amounts to a pay-day loan without the loan part. Maybe even people who bring paystubs in get a special account where they can cash advance themselves for the month based on their income(if they go over, charge overdraft fees after the month)? Seems like good alternatives though I don't know how that would actually play out.
You'd probably end up with a lot of otherwise poor and uneducated people who now have a few more toys.
Rigorous Scholarship
No, you're right. Ideally most people who are currently working do not stop or substantially reduce working; if they did, that would be a serious blow against the empirical success of the program. A lot hinges on 60s-era empirical studies on what tentative basic-income programs that existed during the antipoverty policy enthusiasm of the decade.
(you can see a lot of its 60s background coming through, actually, right down to conceptualizing poverty in a somewhat different way than we typically do today. No focus on special needs there, just a undercurrent of murky class conflict. The focus is on the numerous low-income earners as a class rather than comparatively small group of special-needs circumstances that we tend to be more aware about)
I reiterate that, at current levels the US govt. cannot afford a $10k GBI program unless it raises taxes or cuts way more programs than merely just the existing broadly redistributive ones, in which case special-needs will suffer.
Again the assumption is irrelevant if there is an alternative to the expensive product.
I am really not getting your point mayhaps.
Could you possibly restate?
Not all price increases are inflaiton.
If you put a regulation preventing homes from being built that will cause the price of rent to increase. But that isn't "inflation" it's just a rising price.
Giving 10,000 dollars to poor people to buy homes will cause the price of land to go up or supply to go up (but you can't really increase the supply of land easily).
Lots of people don't spend money wisely.
The lotto does that to people because it makes people millionaires over night. It isn't applicable here.
I think this is kind of my argument?
You're talking about 2 things previously discussed and that were high on my list as well. I have an idea that a more... foolproof? way of doing things would be for the government to provide shoeboxes and cheese free of charge. I don't think this would be a bad idea... but I do think it would be fantastically inefficient. I would happen to err on the side of efficiency given:
Yes, if something like this was instated, we as a society would have to grow some balls and be willing to say, "We already gave you enough to live on. If you didn't make it, enjoy starving to death."
i have tenants in my building who were evicted cause they didnt pay rent but own enormous plasma tvs. i am not making this up.
dont underestimate how badly people can fuck themselves over.
this is usually the argument i make against libertarians. wtf.
Hmmmm...even if there is an alternative to an expensive product, consumers are not likely to buy the less expensive product if they have already established a brand familiarity with a favored brand. Raising prices wouldn't work against generic products, because there will always be competition. But it could, and would work when companies hold a brand monopoly, because people have got to have their freaking Oreos, and they'll cut someone to get them.
Raising taxes likely won't help either. It will just cut into GDP, higher rates will still translate into the same amount of dollars.
The only way to do it is drastically cut spending elsewhere.
The economic part of it seems to be what people are criticizing the most. Unfortunately my own knowledge of economics isn't good enough to really address all the issues. One question that keeps coming up is revenue- how can the government pay for all this? I'll try to adress that one, at least.
The way I'm imagining it would totally change the way the economy works. Almost everyone who works a low paying job would just quit, and do other things instead. So yes, we might lose some tax revenue from those people, although they don't really pay a lot of taxes anyway. In the short term, we can pay for it by deficit spending, and closing tax loopholes- from what I've read, our economy could benefit greatly from deficit spending right now.
In the long term, government expenses would fall, in all sorts of ways. I talked a lot about McDonald's at the beginning- if people weren't working there and eating there, it would reduce the number of costly visits to the ER that are paid for by medicaid. With less people commuting to work, we don't need as many highways. Fewer business means fewer government agencies to oversee them. We can also eliminate the foodstamps and subsidized housing programs, since the basic income should cover food and shelter. (medicare will remain, but hopefully decrease in cost with fewer workplaces related injuries).
It might hurt the GDP growth, yes. But then, I don't think that GDP is really the best way to measure the progress of a society. Who really lives better- a man with a $100,000 income, but $90,000 in expenses and no time off? Or the man with $30,000 in income, but only $10,000 in expenses and a lot of time off? The basic income would give us all some time off, when we need it.
I still don't see what the problem is?
I am going to be 100% honest and cite ignorance here.
What exactly do you mean?
The problem of deciding whether to help all those that need while simultaneously trying not to help free-loaders.
Shoeboxes and cheese for everyone solves problem 1. Problem 2 is solved hopefully because no-one wants to live in a shoebox or eat cheese, and even if they do, all we're providing people is basic necessities, no one is using their GBI for drugs, etc.
Edit: But again, I'm not sure there's an efficient way for a government to do this. There's likely no politically viable way...