I don't see the problem with having 5 people living together and pooling their money under GBI. Some people are talking like this is a possible negative outcome but I don't see it as negative.
I feel like if the United States of the 1930s could afford to drop nearly $50,000,000,000 on the New Deal, the US of 2015 can afford to drop the same amount on a GBI for people who aren't working.
Even if it's in the trillions, $50 billion in 1938 is nearly a trillion itself today.
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
+5
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
You could even do BI in the same fashion as ACA, for those more locally inclined. You have the option for general Federal Basic Income, but if your state has a better alternative they develop you can opt for either or at your preference. I'm thinking states like Hawaii or California that might be inclined to use those federal funds as part of a more inclusive or increased package of benefits.
If you want basic income to be equivalent to a minimum wage 40 hour a week job - which most of us agree is at least often not sufficient in and of itself to cover living expenses - the cost in the United States of America would be
318.9million *40*52*7.25= 4,809,012,000,000 - almost 5 trillion dollars a year. The total annual expenditure of the US federal government is less than 3.7 billion.
For the purpose of discouraging work, which would almost certainly have a depressing effect on the economy.
Its not a feasible idea. Yeah we're the richest country in the world. Most of that is because people work. Its not a birthright.
This is absolutely the most inane way to approach this problem. You're literally just taking the current population total and multiplying by hours and min wage to reach that number. Then comparing to the US budget.
Firstly, 318,900,000 people won't qualify for a basic income. Many will be employed, earning greater than this basic income and thus not getting paid out. Others will be supported by existing social security programs, such as social security. So they wouldn't receive a basic income or would receive less of one. Persons earning pensions will reduce or eliminate their basic income burden. Children shouldn't require a full basic income, and are subsidized by other programs (school, free lunches, etc).
Once you take all those exclusions out, you're at least an order of magnitude down, so ball park it at $500B USD.
On the budget side, total is $3,818.8B with Healthcare and Welfare accounting for 36% of that. The defense budget is 21% of that, or $951B. So we are already spending around 1.5T on support programs, with another 1T on social security. As a country, we could rework our system to accommodate a basic income. We could make most of that up by eliminating various tax breaks for the rich and corporations.
But let's say I'm wrong. Let's say the actual cost will be twice my estimate, and for whatever reason we cannot repurpose ANY of the current funding spent on social plans or social security. So, how do we get one trillion dollars (dr. evil voice).
1) We start by doing things like taking away all of the tax breaks that you get for being rich. No more capital gains taxes. No more multi-million dollar offshore accounts.
2) We actually tax corporations. When a company like GE with a net worth of something like $250B USD, but paid no US taxes for three years running, you know the system is not working as intended.
3) We eliminate offshoring and tax holidays. In 2010, GE posted a profit of $14.2B globally, but actually received a tax benefit of $3.4B from the U.S. Goverment. Had they been taxed at 35% instead, we would have been able to $8.5B towards plans like the UBI or infrastructure development.
4) We place a small tax on trading stocks, like 0.1% of the stock value. If you read up on high speed trading, the people engaged in this activity are financial leeches who do nothing but game the way tech works in the market to gain an advantage, and force others to pay higher costs than needed.
These can easily add a trillion dollars in revenue that could be paid for the UBI.
Another way to look at things is that in 2014, the US GDP was $17,410B. So we're talking about using something like 6% of the GDP (or 3%, based on my original estimate) to fund this program.
The benefits to the economy will be enormous. You'll be giving money to those that have none, increasing spending in the economy, meaning we're increasing money turns (how many times it changes hands in a year). It will be a boom to producers of low and middle quality goods, as suddenly huge swaths of new audiences will open up.
And it's not a perfect plan. There are major challenges that have to be addressed that have not been discussed. For example, if labor costs rise too high in the U.S., what's to keep all the corporations from outsourcing everything? How would we keep large percentages of the UBI money from being spent on foreign goods, thus transferring to countries like China. How do we address illegal immigrants and fraud.
But these can be addressed once the idea takes root.
So your solution is take as a given that basic income would be means tested and to cut social welfare programs that would be more targeted, proven and effective in order to provide a vaguer and more generalized welfare system. And you think that's "universal basic income" instead of a mid 20th century Dole that has fallen out of favor in every developed country because its inferior to the systems currently being used.
In order to pay for this you say
1) "we do things like taking away all the tax breaks you get for being rich." That's not a funding scheme, that's a political talking point.
1a) "No more capital gains taxes" would cut taxes but let's be generous and rephrase this to something like "Tax capital gains like we do regular income." Now there are huge downsides to this because saving and investment should generally be promoted for many reasons but whatever. The CBO says this could result in up to 161 billion dollars a year in taxes per year, so let's use that.
1b) "No more multi0million dollar offshore accounts" this is nonsensical. Its like a Republican saying he'll cut federal spending by reducing waste.
2) "We actually tax corporations." How?
3) "We eliminate offshoring and tax holidays. In 2010, GE posted a profit of $14.2B globally, but actually received a tax benefit of $3.4B from the U.S. Goverment. Had they been taxed at 35% instead, we would have been able to $8.5B towards plans like the UBI or infrastructure development." Oh good actual numbers even if this is basically the same thing as 2). So +8 Billion, but no real explanation on how we'll force GE to report that profit in the US or how much total we'd gain
4) "We place a small tax on trading stocks, like 0.1% of the stock value. If you read up on high speed trading, the people engaged in this activity are financial leeches who do nothing but game the way tech works in the market to gain an advantage, and force others to pay higher costs than needed." I'm sure the monitoring and collection of this would not in any way incur additional costs.... how much exactly do you think this would gain? Or are you just using this space to rail against Wall Street?
"These can easily add a trillion dollars in revenue that could be paid for the UBI."
Where the fuck do you get that figure? Oh right you make it up in fantasy land. You've accounted for 161 billion. That's not "easily a trillion."
You say
Another way to look at things is that in 2014, the US GDP was $17,410B. So we're talking about using something like 6% of the GDP (or 3%, based on my original estimate) to fund this program.
Yes if we use your figures, which we've demonstrated you make up entirely, 1 trillion would be 6% of GDP. That's not a small amount This is basic fucking stuff but saying "Oh its just 6% of the largest economy in the world guys NBD" is the kind of stuff you should say sarcastically
I feel like if the United States of the 1930s could afford to drop nearly $50,000,000,000 on the New Deal, the US of 2015 can afford to drop the same amount on a GBI for people who aren't working.
Even if it's in the trillions, $50 billion in 1938 is nearly a trillion itself today.
First the US couldn't afford it in 1938. It wasn't about sustainability it was about global Depression and getting the economy working. The policies were growth and stability based as much as they were humanitarian. If you didn't have a job you could effectively join a militaristic organization to go build up national park infrastructure or pave roads etc. It was almost never a simple distribution of necessities or the money for necessities, it was about getting people earning a fair living again, or not letting those who couldn't work starve. Paying people to work creates increased productivity and spending, not just spending.
Also, the 1940 budget total outlays was 117 billion and the size of the total economy was 1.2 trillion. In 2015 the size of the US economy is 16.4 trillion and total government spending is 3.43 billion. We already have New Deal policies even if they can be improved. 50 billion in 1933-1940 would be somewhere between 850-950 billion today, so you're saying basic income would require a bigger spending increase than the New Deal.
We spend nearly 50% of our budget on "welfare" products. Our budget is what, nearly $4 trillion?
That means $2 trillion of it goes into medicare/medicaid/SSI/VA benefits/Welfare/foodstamps.
There's your funding.
No no no.
Jesus guys.
Social Securiy still makes money. If you cut that you have less money.
And yeah you could cut those programs but then you are worse off. Those are better than basic income. Way way way way way better. They're better for the economy, and they're better for the people who fucking need them.
$3.34 trillion in revenue.
$3.90 trillion in costs.
Isn't our GDP estimated to be 17.7 trillion this year? Either way, I'll err on the side of caution and go with 16.4 like you want.
There's some money that can be taken somewhere. Oh I know, let's raise the upper limit of taxation to 85% and reduce government inefficiencies and get rid of SSI and welfare. We can also get rid of capital gains tax and just tax it as income too.
There you go brother, I solved your money problems.
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
0
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Or, you know, not spend half of our federal income on broken planes that no one wants.
We spend nearly 50% of our budget on "welfare" products. Our budget is what, nearly $4 trillion?
That means $2 trillion of it goes into medicare/medicaid/SSI/VA benefits/Welfare/foodstamps.
There's your funding.
No no no.
Jesus guys.
Social Securiy still makes money. If you cut that you have less money.
And yeah you could cut those programs but then you are worse off. Those are better than basic income. Way way way way way better. They're better for the economy, and they're better for the people who fucking need them.
I don't think you quite get the point.
We're not cutting the money, we're reassigning it.
I also don't know what your issue is, either.
SSI is fucking GBI but for old people.
If one makes money the other will too. Seriously where the fuck is your logic.
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
We spend nearly 50% of our budget on "welfare" products. Our budget is what, nearly $4 trillion?
That means $2 trillion of it goes into medicare/medicaid/SSI/VA benefits/Welfare/foodstamps.
There's your funding.
No no no.
Jesus guys.
Social Securiy still makes money. If you cut that you have less money.
And yeah you could cut those programs but then you are worse off. Those are better than basic income. Way way way way way better. They're better for the economy, and they're better for the people who fucking need them.
I don't think you quite get the point.
We're not cutting the money, we're reassigning it.
I also don't know what your issue is, either.
SSI is fucking GBI but for old people.
If one makes money the other will too. Seriously where the fuck is your logic.
Every sentence above is wrong.
I do get the point, people want a world where work is optional. That's not this world.
You think cutting and reassigning are different things. They aren't in a budget. Also you wouldn't be doing that here.
I can't imagine you don't know what my issue is here since I've made it clear. There is no money for this program and its clearly and demonstrably worse than our existing social safety net programs and many other theoretical programs.
SSI is not guaranteed basic income for old people. Its payout is not guaranteed, but contingent on paying into the program.
Those programs don't make money. They exist for human empathy for those who are in a situation that doesn't allow them to work or who have paid into the system in some way to earn their benefits and/or in order to provide societal stability so people aren't literally starving to death. GBI does not achieve any of those goals as well as the existing programs and does so in a more expensive, more disruptive and less socially healthy manner
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
As part of GBI you roll into it something along the lines of a mandatory insurance package (base line) akin the medicare for those who qualify that doesn't cover a lot but covers enough to get reasonable healthcare coverage and roll social security payroll tax reciepts out and replace them with a progressive taxation system that gets higher as your make more to cover the bottom line. If you really wanted to get wild you slap additional taxes on capital gains or (for the rich loving) a non-essential sales purchases via a 2-5 cent sales tax (on everything not groceries, gas, or medicine) and you would have a solid tax base to cover the cost of the program out of the chute with little negative impacts. The harm of the sales tax would be clearly outweighed by 45 million purchasers hitting the market consistently that currently can't afford to do so.
BI isn't my pet project desire (I'd much rather see taxes ramp up to cover physical and digital infrastructure), but this seem certainly cromulent.
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
"People want a world where work is optional" is probably one of the goosiest interpretations of the proposed GBI.
We spend nearly 50% of our budget on "welfare" products. Our budget is what, nearly $4 trillion?
That means $2 trillion of it goes into medicare/medicaid/SSI/VA benefits/Welfare/foodstamps.
There's your funding.
No no no.
Jesus guys.
Social Securiy still makes money. If you cut that you have less money.
And yeah you could cut those programs but then you are worse off. Those are better than basic income. Way way way way way better. They're better for the economy, and they're better for the people who fucking need them.
I don't think you quite get the point.
We're not cutting the money, we're reassigning it.
I also don't know what your issue is, either.
SSI is fucking GBI but for old people.
If one makes money the other will too. Seriously where the fuck is your logic.
Every sentence above is wrong.
I do get the point, people want a world where work is optional. That's not this world.
You think cutting and reassigning are different things. They aren't in a budget. Also you wouldn't be doing that here.
I can't imagine you don't know what my issue is here since I've made it clear. There is no money for this program and its clearly and demonstrably worse than our existing social safety net programs and many other theoretical programs.
SSI is not guaranteed basic income for old people. Its payout is not guaranteed, but contingent on paying into the program.
Those programs don't make money. They exist for human empathy for those who are in a situation that doesn't allow them to work or who have paid into the system in some way to earn their benefits and/or in order to provide societal stability so people aren't literally starving to death. GBI does not achieve any of those goals as well as the existing programs and does so in a more expensive, more disruptive and less socially healthy manner
No you're not very clear.
You just said SSI made money. Which is it? Does it or doesn't it make money? Food stamps/EBT generates nearly $2 for every $1 spent (the actual # is something like for every $5 spent, $9 in economic activity is generated).
How is it clearly and demonstrably worse? All I see is a bunch of conservative huffing and puffing because it spends money. You're reducing waste, you're adding value to the economy, you've added more power to lowest tier of workers to improve their situation.
The first one alone is probably going to pay for this program. Don't tell me there's less waste in welfare and food stamps by employing thousands of people to make sure welfare queens can't eat a steak this month versus just cutting a check (those people don't really exist, but we sure do spend a lot of money combating that ghost).
Then the second one adds a bit more value and lowers the overall societal cost. That's my speculation, but minimum wage studies prove this again and again.
Then the third one? That one is a doosey. You've just improved your workforce. A smarter workforce is a better one. A better one is a stronger one. A stronger one means a better economy.
You don't even need human empathy for GBI to work, you just have to not be afraid someone's stealing your tax money. I would argue it's demonstrably better and much more in line with libertarian and conservative thinking than those "Empathy" programs. And it accomplishes more, and it's a better use of the money in general.
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
+7
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
I can't imagine you don't know what my issue is here since I've made it clear. There is no money for this program and its clearly and demonstrably worse than our existing social safety net programs and many other theoretical programs.
First off: calm down. This isn't the white house policy council, its the D&D debate topic for an interesting idea. Nothing here will impact if something goes forward or not, and we are all just armchair theorists here.
Second: demonstrably requires the ability to demonstrate how it would be worse. Show us! I'd like to see some actual data to support the anti-Basic Income stance rather than the usual whargarble and anger mongering used by that one guy in here.
What other theoretical programs would you suggest work better?
0
Options
Nbspshe laughs, like Godher mind's like a diamondRegistered Userregular
"People want a world where work is optional" is probably one of the goosiest interpretations of the proposed GBI.
It seems spot on to me. Two people living together under basic income have enough money to never work again unless you cut them off at some point, especially if we use the proposed 2k a month figure.
"People want a world where work is optional" is probably one of the goosiest interpretations of the proposed GBI.
It seems spot on to me. Two people living together under basic income have enough money to never work again unless you cut them off at some point, especially if we use the proposed 2k a month figure.
24k was for 4 people. 2 people is 12k.
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
0
Options
That_GuyI don't wanna be that guyRegistered Userregular
"People want a world where work is optional" is probably one of the goosiest interpretations of the proposed GBI.
It seems spot on to me. Two people living together under basic income have enough money to never work again unless you cut them off at some point, especially if we use the proposed 2k a month figure.
You are under the mistaken impression that people are fundamentally lazy and, if given the opportunity would literally sit home all day doing nothing productive. I am sick and tired of you people using that as the basis of your argument. Not only is that wrong, but it's offensive. People aren't robots. EVERYONE has hopes and dreams that don't revolve around money. I'll grant you that some people would abuse this but we are talking about a statistically insignificant portion of the population.
Your argument is bad and you should feel bad for using it.
I can't imagine you don't know what my issue is here since I've made it clear. There is no money for this program and its clearly and demonstrably worse than our existing social safety net programs and many other theoretical programs.
First off: calm down. This isn't the white house policy council, its the D&D debate topic for an interesting idea. Nothing here will impact if something goes forward or not, and we are all just armchair theorists here.
Second: demonstrably requires the ability to demonstrate how it would be worse. Show us! I'd like to see some actual data to support the anti-Basic Income stance rather than the usual whargarble and anger mongering used by that one guy in here.
What other theoretical programs would you suggest work better?
No one in this thread has been discussing Guaranteed Basic Income since page 1. Guaranteed Basic income is explicitly, by definition, not means tested. Its advantage is you just give everyone enough to live off of and don't have to worry about verifying income levels or any other means testing. However, that is fiscally not feasible in the US because of the US's huge size and high standard of living.
Instead, people are actually discussing Guaranteed Minimum Income that is means tested solely on income and possibly household size. This has been tried before and it has historically been far inferior to other methods of means testing. People in different situations require different amounts of money to reasonably live on. So you have to adjust benefits by family situation, health situation, location, and other factors. A simple payout doesn't cover health insurance, which is costly in terms of material and high skill labor costs. Food based programs specifically helps ensure that necessary benefits go to dependents.
Additionally, modern welfare programs from the Nordic countries to the Deep South generally involve programs that encourage work through training and education programs. If means testing is solely income based this isn't possible unless its completely decoupled.
A better program would go the opposite direction. More targeted benefits and programs like free child care, universal pre-K, free community colleges etc. This provides for a path towards individuals to reach the middle class where they don't require governmental assistance and their productivity benefits society as a whole.
The ones who sit home and do nothing might play video games.
Maybe they're the next pewdiepie.
Like it or not, the dude donates a lot of money.
Value added even with someone who stays home and plays video games.
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
+2
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
So for two people, together, making ~12k a year. The cheapest rental you can find in my city (which ranges pretty wildly) is a rent-control efficiency at about 290 a month (water and utilities not included). Assuming two people could live there effectively, you are likely looking at another $120 for utilities given the costs in my area for one bedrooms.
So out of your two person 1k a month check, you now have only 590 for the month to survive on. Assuming absolute minimum, you would need a bus fare to ensure you can get to groceries and health locations, so that's about another $25-75 depending on the type of farecard you buy for the month (lets assume the standard 30 day for $50 since we are assuming BI isn't just for seniors or children). Add in couples basic healthcare via the insurance exchanges and you have about another $100 of costs. So now you are looking at about $440 for the month.
That's surviving on $14 dollars a day for two people. Assuming that about a third of that will have to go to household necessities like cleaning agents, toilet paper, and other sundry supplies you are looking at probably ~$9 a day, or $4.50 per adult, to survive. That's enough to survive on short term, in addition to a part time job, or in a crisis, but not enough for people to throw their arms up and said "whelp! guess I'm done with working forever!" unless your ideal life is antenna-signal cable and ramen noodles.
Of course, Nspb knows this and will just reply with another moving goalpost, but for those posting in good faith here it's worth considering.
+4
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
"People want a world where work is optional" is probably one of the goosiest interpretations of the proposed GBI.
It seems spot on to me. Two people living together under basic income have enough money to never work again unless you cut them off at some point, especially if we use the proposed 2k a month figure.
You are under the mistaken impression that people are fundamentally lazy and, if given the opportunity would literally sit home all day doing nothing productive. I am sick and tired of you people using that as the basis of your argument. Not only is that wrong, but it's offensive. People aren't robots. EVERYONE has hopes and dreams that don't revolve around money. I'll grant you that some people would abuse this but we are talking about a statistically insignificant portion of the population.
Your argument is bad and you should feel bad for using it.
I've always felt that people who argue this position are secretly expressing what they would do in that situation.
+13
Options
That_GuyI don't wanna be that guyRegistered Userregular
"People want a world where work is optional" is probably one of the goosiest interpretations of the proposed GBI.
It seems spot on to me. Two people living together under basic income have enough money to never work again unless you cut them off at some point, especially if we use the proposed 2k a month figure.
You are under the mistaken impression that people are fundamentally lazy and, if given the opportunity would literally sit home all day doing nothing productive. I am sick and tired of you people using that as the basis of your argument. Not only is that wrong, but it's offensive. People aren't robots. EVERYONE has hopes and dreams that don't revolve around money. I'll grant you that some people would abuse this but we are talking about a statistically insignificant portion of the population.
Your argument is bad and you should feel bad for using it.
I've always felt that people who argue this position are secretly expressing what they would do in that situation.
Yeah, these people are doing some serious projecting.
If you want to take a 6 month sabbatical to discover yourself and you spend it playing video games, well, more power to you. Maybe you find out you want to make video games so you go work in that industry. Maybe you realize you were a lazy bum and want to do manual labor or get in shape.
I'm not very stalwart on the "definition of things" because definitions change.
If it's a mean's adjusted cost of living income and we're calling it basic income, then that's what basic income means to this thread.
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
Plus, realistically, taxes will have to be raised to pay for it, so even a basic income that everybody technically gets but ends up being taxed away pretty much entirely would still qualify even under that silly definition
Plus, realistically, taxes will have to be raised to pay for it, so even a basic income that everybody technically gets but ends up being taxed away pretty much entirely would still qualify even under that silly definition
Removal of capital gains as a special snowflake and the SSI income restrictions would be a good first step.
I can't even fathom just how much tax revenue those two alone would generate, but it would probably be substantial.
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
+2
Options
That_GuyI don't wanna be that guyRegistered Userregular
If we taxed the rich the same proportion of their income wealth as we tax the poor, mincome would be paid for a dozen times over.
"People want a world where work is optional" is probably one of the goosiest interpretations of the proposed GBI.
It seems spot on to me. Two people living together under basic income have enough money to never work again unless you cut them off at some point, especially if we use the proposed 2k a month figure.
So what you're saying is if you received the proposed GBI you'd just stay home and not work?
0
Options
Nbspshe laughs, like Godher mind's like a diamondRegistered Userregular
You are under the mistaken impression that people are fundamentally lazy and, if given the opportunity would literally sit home all day doing nothing productive. I am sick and tired of you people using that as the basis of your argument. Not only is that wrong, but it's offensive. People aren't robots. EVERYONE has hopes and dreams that don't revolve around money. I'll grant you that some people would abuse this but we are talking about a statistically insignificant portion of the population.
Your argument is bad and you should feel bad for using it.
This is the kind of high horse reply that feels good to read but falls apart under closer scrutiny.
I will agree with you that people today are not inherently lazy, but that doesn't mean they will stay that way their whole lives. People generally aren't born lazy, they become lazy.
You are under the mistaken impression that people are fundamentally lazy and, if given the opportunity would literally sit home all day doing nothing productive. I am sick and tired of you people using that as the basis of your argument. Not only is that wrong, but it's offensive. People aren't robots. EVERYONE has hopes and dreams that don't revolve around money. I'll grant you that some people would abuse this but we are talking about a statistically insignificant portion of the population.
Your argument is bad and you should feel bad for using it.
This is the kind of high horse reply that feels good to read but falls apart under closer scrutiny.
I will agree with you that people today are not inherently lazy, but that doesn't mean they will stay that way their whole lives. People generally aren't born lazy, they become lazy.
I destroyed your last argument with simple math.
It has nothing to do with lazy and everything to do with the wealth gap.
Those welfare queens and lazy people? Very rare. If I told everyone that was on welfare that we'd need them to come in to the office for 8 hours a day and push a pencil back and forth on their desk to get their check, the majority of them would be happy to oblige.
Of course that means they also aren't out searching for better opportunities or going to school. But you didn't think of that. You just want them in a seat doing busy work because it makes you feel better.
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
+3
Options
Nbspshe laughs, like Godher mind's like a diamondRegistered Userregular
"People want a world where work is optional" is probably one of the goosiest interpretations of the proposed GBI.
It seems spot on to me. Two people living together under basic income have enough money to never work again unless you cut them off at some point, especially if we use the proposed 2k a month figure.
So what you're saying is if you received the proposed GBI you'd just stay home and not work?
I could be doing that now, but that's not the reason why I work.
"People want a world where work is optional" is probably one of the goosiest interpretations of the proposed GBI.
It seems spot on to me. Two people living together under basic income have enough money to never work again unless you cut them off at some point, especially if we use the proposed 2k a month figure.
So what you're saying is if you received the proposed GBI you'd just stay home and not work?
I could be doing that now, but that's not the reason why I work.
Ah the meat and potatoes.
Why do you work?
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
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
"People want a world where work is optional" is probably one of the goosiest interpretations of the proposed GBI.
It seems spot on to me. Two people living together under basic income have enough money to never work again unless you cut them off at some point, especially if we use the proposed 2k a month figure.
So what you're saying is if you received the proposed GBI you'd just stay home and not work?
I could be doing that now, but that's not the reason why I work.
wait
you could be sitting at home playing video games while someone else guarantees your income
. . .do i smell a trust fund or
0
Options
Nbspshe laughs, like Godher mind's like a diamondRegistered Userregular
You are under the mistaken impression that people are fundamentally lazy and, if given the opportunity would literally sit home all day doing nothing productive. I am sick and tired of you people using that as the basis of your argument. Not only is that wrong, but it's offensive. People aren't robots. EVERYONE has hopes and dreams that don't revolve around money. I'll grant you that some people would abuse this but we are talking about a statistically insignificant portion of the population.
Your argument is bad and you should feel bad for using it.
This is the kind of high horse reply that feels good to read but falls apart under closer scrutiny.
I will agree with you that people today are not inherently lazy, but that doesn't mean they will stay that way their whole lives. People generally aren't born lazy, they become lazy.
I destroyed your last argument with simple math.
It has nothing to do with lazy and everything to do with the wealth gap.
Those welfare queens and lazy people? Very rare. If I told everyone that was on welfare that we'd need them to come in to the office for 8 hours a day and push a pencil back and forth on their desk to get their check, the majority of them would be happy to oblige.
Of course that means they also aren't out searching for better opportunities or going to school. But you didn't think of that. You just want them in a seat doing busy work because it makes you feel better.
The original statement I was backing up was "People want a world where work is optional", which I didn't even make myself.
I'm not convinced that is a false statement.
I didn't say I wanted them doing 'busy work', but not everyone is going to go push the boundaries of human potential either.
"People want a world where work is optional" is probably one of the goosiest interpretations of the proposed GBI.
It seems spot on to me. Two people living together under basic income have enough money to never work again unless you cut them off at some point, especially if we use the proposed 2k a month figure.
So what you're saying is if you received the proposed GBI you'd just stay home and not work?
I could be doing that now, but that's not the reason why I work.
wait
you could be sitting at home playing video games while someone else guarantees your income
. . .do i smell a trust fund or
He's probably got an extensive support network like boomer parents that make more than enough to support a household of 6.
He was talking about how shitty of a person you must be to not have those things, so it's safe to say he probably has a room at home that he can return too.
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
0
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
"People want a world where work is optional" is probably one of the goosiest interpretations of the proposed GBI.
It seems spot on to me. Two people living together under basic income have enough money to never work again unless you cut them off at some point, especially if we use the proposed 2k a month figure.
So what you're saying is if you received the proposed GBI you'd just stay home and not work?
I could be doing that now, but that's not the reason why I work.
Then why do you assume everyone else wouldn't work?
Or are you somehow special?
+1
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
You are under the mistaken impression that people are fundamentally lazy and, if given the opportunity would literally sit home all day doing nothing productive. I am sick and tired of you people using that as the basis of your argument. Not only is that wrong, but it's offensive. People aren't robots. EVERYONE has hopes and dreams that don't revolve around money. I'll grant you that some people would abuse this but we are talking about a statistically insignificant portion of the population.
Your argument is bad and you should feel bad for using it.
This is the kind of high horse reply that feels good to read but falls apart under closer scrutiny.
I will agree with you that people today are not inherently lazy, but that doesn't mean they will stay that way their whole lives. People generally aren't born lazy, they become lazy.
Candidate of the ironic post award, 2015.
+9
Options
Nbspshe laughs, like Godher mind's like a diamondRegistered Userregular
"People want a world where work is optional" is probably one of the goosiest interpretations of the proposed GBI.
It seems spot on to me. Two people living together under basic income have enough money to never work again unless you cut them off at some point, especially if we use the proposed 2k a month figure.
So what you're saying is if you received the proposed GBI you'd just stay home and not work?
I could be doing that now, but that's not the reason why I work.
wait
you could be sitting at home playing video games while someone else guarantees your income
. . .do i smell a trust fund or
Not a trust fund, a company I was with had a decent exit a few years back and I got a good amount of money from it. If I took a 3% withdrawal rate from my investment portfolio each year I could live on what would basically be the equivalent of GBI for a long time as long as the average ROI stays consistent and outpaces inflation.
"People want a world where work is optional" is probably one of the goosiest interpretations of the proposed GBI.
It seems spot on to me. Two people living together under basic income have enough money to never work again unless you cut them off at some point, especially if we use the proposed 2k a month figure.
So what you're saying is if you received the proposed GBI you'd just stay home and not work?
I could be doing that now, but that's not the reason why I work.
wait
you could be sitting at home playing video games while someone else guarantees your income
. . .do i smell a trust fund or
Not a trust fund, a company I was with had a decent exit a few years back and I got a good amount of money from it. If I took a 3% withdrawal rate from my investment portfolio each year I could live on what would basically be the equivalent of GBI for a long time as long as the average ROI stays consistent and outpaces inflation.
Luck is great isn't it?
My knees got fucked doing manual labor for UPS 15 years ago. Was I not a hard worker? Why do you get those investments?
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
Posts
Even if it's in the trillions, $50 billion in 1938 is nearly a trillion itself today.
So your solution is take as a given that basic income would be means tested and to cut social welfare programs that would be more targeted, proven and effective in order to provide a vaguer and more generalized welfare system. And you think that's "universal basic income" instead of a mid 20th century Dole that has fallen out of favor in every developed country because its inferior to the systems currently being used.
In order to pay for this you say
1) "we do things like taking away all the tax breaks you get for being rich." That's not a funding scheme, that's a political talking point.
1a) "No more capital gains taxes" would cut taxes but let's be generous and rephrase this to something like "Tax capital gains like we do regular income." Now there are huge downsides to this because saving and investment should generally be promoted for many reasons but whatever. The CBO says this could result in up to 161 billion dollars a year in taxes per year, so let's use that.
1b) "No more multi0million dollar offshore accounts" this is nonsensical. Its like a Republican saying he'll cut federal spending by reducing waste.
2) "We actually tax corporations." How?
3) "We eliminate offshoring and tax holidays. In 2010, GE posted a profit of $14.2B globally, but actually received a tax benefit of $3.4B from the U.S. Goverment. Had they been taxed at 35% instead, we would have been able to $8.5B towards plans like the UBI or infrastructure development." Oh good actual numbers even if this is basically the same thing as 2). So +8 Billion, but no real explanation on how we'll force GE to report that profit in the US or how much total we'd gain
4) "We place a small tax on trading stocks, like 0.1% of the stock value. If you read up on high speed trading, the people engaged in this activity are financial leeches who do nothing but game the way tech works in the market to gain an advantage, and force others to pay higher costs than needed." I'm sure the monitoring and collection of this would not in any way incur additional costs.... how much exactly do you think this would gain? Or are you just using this space to rail against Wall Street?
"These can easily add a trillion dollars in revenue that could be paid for the UBI."
Where the fuck do you get that figure? Oh right you make it up in fantasy land. You've accounted for 161 billion. That's not "easily a trillion."
You say Yes if we use your figures, which we've demonstrated you make up entirely, 1 trillion would be 6% of GDP. That's not a small amount This is basic fucking stuff but saying "Oh its just 6% of the largest economy in the world guys NBD" is the kind of stuff you should say sarcastically
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
That means $2 trillion of it goes into medicare/medicaid/SSI/VA benefits/Welfare/foodstamps.
There's your funding.
Also, the 1940 budget total outlays was 117 billion and the size of the total economy was 1.2 trillion. In 2015 the size of the US economy is 16.4 trillion and total government spending is 3.43 billion. We already have New Deal policies even if they can be improved. 50 billion in 1933-1940 would be somewhere between 850-950 billion today, so you're saying basic income would require a bigger spending increase than the New Deal.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
No no no.
Jesus guys.
Social Securiy still makes money. If you cut that you have less money.
And yeah you could cut those programs but then you are worse off. Those are better than basic income. Way way way way way better. They're better for the economy, and they're better for the people who fucking need them.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
$3.90 trillion in costs.
Isn't our GDP estimated to be 17.7 trillion this year? Either way, I'll err on the side of caution and go with 16.4 like you want.
There's some money that can be taken somewhere. Oh I know, let's raise the upper limit of taxation to 85% and reduce government inefficiencies and get rid of SSI and welfare. We can also get rid of capital gains tax and just tax it as income too.
There you go brother, I solved your money problems.
I don't think you quite get the point.
We're not cutting the money, we're reassigning it.
I also don't know what your issue is, either.
SSI is fucking GBI but for old people.
If one makes money the other will too. Seriously where the fuck is your logic.
Every sentence above is wrong.
I do get the point, people want a world where work is optional. That's not this world.
You think cutting and reassigning are different things. They aren't in a budget. Also you wouldn't be doing that here.
I can't imagine you don't know what my issue is here since I've made it clear. There is no money for this program and its clearly and demonstrably worse than our existing social safety net programs and many other theoretical programs.
SSI is not guaranteed basic income for old people. Its payout is not guaranteed, but contingent on paying into the program.
Those programs don't make money. They exist for human empathy for those who are in a situation that doesn't allow them to work or who have paid into the system in some way to earn their benefits and/or in order to provide societal stability so people aren't literally starving to death. GBI does not achieve any of those goals as well as the existing programs and does so in a more expensive, more disruptive and less socially healthy manner
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
BI isn't my pet project desire (I'd much rather see taxes ramp up to cover physical and digital infrastructure), but this seem certainly cromulent.
No you're not very clear.
You just said SSI made money. Which is it? Does it or doesn't it make money? Food stamps/EBT generates nearly $2 for every $1 spent (the actual # is something like for every $5 spent, $9 in economic activity is generated).
How is it clearly and demonstrably worse? All I see is a bunch of conservative huffing and puffing because it spends money. You're reducing waste, you're adding value to the economy, you've added more power to lowest tier of workers to improve their situation.
The first one alone is probably going to pay for this program. Don't tell me there's less waste in welfare and food stamps by employing thousands of people to make sure welfare queens can't eat a steak this month versus just cutting a check (those people don't really exist, but we sure do spend a lot of money combating that ghost).
Then the second one adds a bit more value and lowers the overall societal cost. That's my speculation, but minimum wage studies prove this again and again.
Then the third one? That one is a doosey. You've just improved your workforce. A smarter workforce is a better one. A better one is a stronger one. A stronger one means a better economy.
You don't even need human empathy for GBI to work, you just have to not be afraid someone's stealing your tax money. I would argue it's demonstrably better and much more in line with libertarian and conservative thinking than those "Empathy" programs. And it accomplishes more, and it's a better use of the money in general.
First off: calm down. This isn't the white house policy council, its the D&D debate topic for an interesting idea. Nothing here will impact if something goes forward or not, and we are all just armchair theorists here.
Second: demonstrably requires the ability to demonstrate how it would be worse. Show us! I'd like to see some actual data to support the anti-Basic Income stance rather than the usual whargarble and anger mongering used by that one guy in here.
What other theoretical programs would you suggest work better?
It seems spot on to me. Two people living together under basic income have enough money to never work again unless you cut them off at some point, especially if we use the proposed 2k a month figure.
24k was for 4 people. 2 people is 12k.
You are under the mistaken impression that people are fundamentally lazy and, if given the opportunity would literally sit home all day doing nothing productive. I am sick and tired of you people using that as the basis of your argument. Not only is that wrong, but it's offensive. People aren't robots. EVERYONE has hopes and dreams that don't revolve around money. I'll grant you that some people would abuse this but we are talking about a statistically insignificant portion of the population.
Your argument is bad and you should feel bad for using it.
No one in this thread has been discussing Guaranteed Basic Income since page 1. Guaranteed Basic income is explicitly, by definition, not means tested. Its advantage is you just give everyone enough to live off of and don't have to worry about verifying income levels or any other means testing. However, that is fiscally not feasible in the US because of the US's huge size and high standard of living.
Instead, people are actually discussing Guaranteed Minimum Income that is means tested solely on income and possibly household size. This has been tried before and it has historically been far inferior to other methods of means testing. People in different situations require different amounts of money to reasonably live on. So you have to adjust benefits by family situation, health situation, location, and other factors. A simple payout doesn't cover health insurance, which is costly in terms of material and high skill labor costs. Food based programs specifically helps ensure that necessary benefits go to dependents.
Additionally, modern welfare programs from the Nordic countries to the Deep South generally involve programs that encourage work through training and education programs. If means testing is solely income based this isn't possible unless its completely decoupled.
A better program would go the opposite direction. More targeted benefits and programs like free child care, universal pre-K, free community colleges etc. This provides for a path towards individuals to reach the middle class where they don't require governmental assistance and their productivity benefits society as a whole.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Maybe they're the next pewdiepie.
Like it or not, the dude donates a lot of money.
Value added even with someone who stays home and plays video games.
So out of your two person 1k a month check, you now have only 590 for the month to survive on. Assuming absolute minimum, you would need a bus fare to ensure you can get to groceries and health locations, so that's about another $25-75 depending on the type of farecard you buy for the month (lets assume the standard 30 day for $50 since we are assuming BI isn't just for seniors or children). Add in couples basic healthcare via the insurance exchanges and you have about another $100 of costs. So now you are looking at about $440 for the month.
That's surviving on $14 dollars a day for two people. Assuming that about a third of that will have to go to household necessities like cleaning agents, toilet paper, and other sundry supplies you are looking at probably ~$9 a day, or $4.50 per adult, to survive. That's enough to survive on short term, in addition to a part time job, or in a crisis, but not enough for people to throw their arms up and said "whelp! guess I'm done with working forever!" unless your ideal life is antenna-signal cable and ramen noodles.
Of course, Nspb knows this and will just reply with another moving goalpost, but for those posting in good faith here it's worth considering.
I've always felt that people who argue this position are secretly expressing what they would do in that situation.
Yeah, these people are doing some serious projecting.
If you want to take a 6 month sabbatical to discover yourself and you spend it playing video games, well, more power to you. Maybe you find out you want to make video games so you go work in that industry. Maybe you realize you were a lazy bum and want to do manual labor or get in shape.
I'm not very stalwart on the "definition of things" because definitions change.
If it's a mean's adjusted cost of living income and we're calling it basic income, then that's what basic income means to this thread.
Removal of capital gains as a special snowflake and the SSI income restrictions would be a good first step.
I can't even fathom just how much tax revenue those two alone would generate, but it would probably be substantial.
So what you're saying is if you received the proposed GBI you'd just stay home and not work?
This is the kind of high horse reply that feels good to read but falls apart under closer scrutiny.
I will agree with you that people today are not inherently lazy, but that doesn't mean they will stay that way their whole lives. People generally aren't born lazy, they become lazy.
I destroyed your last argument with simple math.
It has nothing to do with lazy and everything to do with the wealth gap.
Those welfare queens and lazy people? Very rare. If I told everyone that was on welfare that we'd need them to come in to the office for 8 hours a day and push a pencil back and forth on their desk to get their check, the majority of them would be happy to oblige.
Of course that means they also aren't out searching for better opportunities or going to school. But you didn't think of that. You just want them in a seat doing busy work because it makes you feel better.
I could be doing that now, but that's not the reason why I work.
Ah the meat and potatoes.
Why do you work?
wait
you could be sitting at home playing video games while someone else guarantees your income
. . .do i smell a trust fund or
The original statement I was backing up was "People want a world where work is optional", which I didn't even make myself.
I'm not convinced that is a false statement.
I didn't say I wanted them doing 'busy work', but not everyone is going to go push the boundaries of human potential either.
He's probably got an extensive support network like boomer parents that make more than enough to support a household of 6.
He was talking about how shitty of a person you must be to not have those things, so it's safe to say he probably has a room at home that he can return too.
Then why do you assume everyone else wouldn't work?
Or are you somehow special?
Candidate of the ironic post award, 2015.
Not a trust fund, a company I was with had a decent exit a few years back and I got a good amount of money from it. If I took a 3% withdrawal rate from my investment portfolio each year I could live on what would basically be the equivalent of GBI for a long time as long as the average ROI stays consistent and outpaces inflation.
Luck is great isn't it?
My knees got fucked doing manual labor for UPS 15 years ago. Was I not a hard worker? Why do you get those investments?