‘Basic income’ poll: 64% of Europeans would vote in favor!

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
If you live in a fixed income, then everything from food to utilities must be fixed, what are you going to do when prices go up?

Or I just don't get it.

This is in combination with your income from working. It's basically everyone gets wellfare therefor cutting out the beauracracy of deciding who to give what.

In the US for instance we could replace snap and all the programs ssi included and give people a basic income. On top of their savings, take-home money, retirement etc.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
If you live in a fixed income, then everything from food to utilities must be fixed, what are you going to do when prices go up?

Or I just don't get it.

When you live on an income that the government decides, then the government is also deciding where you live, how you live, what you eat, how you entertain yourself. . . etc.

Sounds like slavery to me, so every person regardless what they do will get the same pay? Even the leaders of the country?

It wont ever work.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
If you live in a fixed income, then everything from food to utilities must be fixed, what are you going to do when prices go up?

Or I just don't get it.

This is in combination with your income from working. It's basically everyone gets wellfare therefor cutting out the beauracracy of deciding who to give what.

In the US for instance we could replace snap and all the programs ssi included and give people a basic income. On top of their savings, take-home money, retirement etc.

I see so if you choose not to work, you just get the basic grant?

And if you are making 50,000 a year you get a grant also?

a reply to: luthier

Where do you get the money to distribute a basic income to everyone regardless of whether or not they work and when do they start receiving it?

Basically, if someone starts getting their grant at birth, is that money held in trust for them in an account or is it disbursed to their parent or guardian? If it is disbursed to their parent or guardian, what prevents a person from popping out six or seven kids and using and abusing their basic income for their personal gain while they abuse the kids?

a reply to: Stormdancer777

It dosent say everyone gets the same pay. It is simply a payment everyone gets regardless of circumstance that would replace most current benefits. People would still work and earn over and above this.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Given that you can pull in around $65,000K in benefits in some states ... why would you work? Why would you go to higher ed and go into debt when $65K from basic would give you a pretty decent life?

Minus our college loans, we could be living a good life on that even with a mortgage.

a reply to: Aazadan

Well, I don't really see the relationship between capitalism and Darwinism in the first place. I see how people think there's a relationship because of the competition aspect but competition isn't exclusive to capitalism.

Agreed.

To answer your question though, I think that economic systems are largely exempt because they operate on too slow a scale, by the time people figure out something is a bad idea and cease trying it, conditions and attitudes are completely different and someone will want to try things again.

I agree to that too but I would add that I believe that irrational attachments prevent people from recognizing that a system is failing because of its inherent flaws and instead, look for external forces to blame.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Stormdancer777

It dosent say everyone gets the same pay. It is simply a payment everyone gets regardless of circumstance that would replace most current benefits. People would still work and earn over and above this.

Oh replace benefits? So they are assuming this would be enough, and assuming no one would take advantage of this, That's a lot of money, they will need those immigrants.

a reply to: ketsuko

What circumstances do you have to have to get 65k in benefits?

I don't think anyone is proposing that that UBI is paid at the level of the current highest level of benefits.

The idea is that rather than an array different benefits everyone gets a set payment with only a few exceptional higher payments.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: ketsuko

What circumstances do you have to have to get 65k in benefits?

I don't think anyone is proposing that that UBI is paid at the level of the current highest level of benefits.

The idea is that rather than an array different benefits everyone gets a set payment with only a few exceptional higher payments.

Then it is not set.

It would cost $10,500,000,000,000 to give every American $2,500 a month.

That's 10.5 Trillion dollars a year. Every year. That doesn't even include healthcare. that's not realistic.

originally posted by: Stormdancer777

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Stormdancer777

It dosent say everyone gets the same pay. It is simply a payment everyone gets regardless of circumstance that would replace most current benefits. People would still work and earn over and above this.

Oh replace benefits? So they are assuming this would be enough, and assuming no one would take advantage of this, That's a lot of money, they will need those immigrants.

No the theory is people will take advantage of it. But it won't matter. It's human nature for some. They do it with wellfare now.

Basically it's replacing benefits so your just getting like a tax return every month. It cuts out the beuracracy. Models in the US seem to show it would be pretty much the same cost as it is now accept everyone gets wellfare.


So you work part time you have this extra cash you can exist. You get three roommates whatever.

For an entrepreneur it would be pretty helpful too however.

I am moderately interested just because we are about to have a train wreck in a decade or so and it's one solution for a lack of future job growth.

a reply to: Stormdancer777

Part of the idea is that it is harder to scam as everyone gets the same (with a few exceptions) so less room for fraudulent claims to boost benefits.

originally posted by: avgguy
It would cost $10,500,000,000,000 to give every American $2,500 a month.

That's 10.5 Trillion dollars a year. Every year. That doesn't even include healthcare. that's not realistic.

Adults only. No gov healthcare.

trump already solved this problem, you just print more money !!


heeeeyoooooooo

a reply to: luthier

Ok, there are 242,470,820 American Adults as of this year. So that only makes it $7,274,124,600,000
Or 7.3ish Trillion dollars a year.

originally posted by: avgguy
It would cost $10,500,000,000,000 to give every American $2,500 a month.

That's 10.5 Trillion dollars a year. Every year. That doesn't even include healthcare. that's not realistic.

There is no way it would work here

a reply to: luthier

That train wreck may happen sooner, there might be bread lines but I wouldn't count on government money, you better have a plan, be self sufficient,

a reply to: avgguy

Yes but you would effectively tax it back off higher income earners. It is possible to design it so it is pretty much revenue neutral if that is what is wanted.
Just to state I don't agree with UBI schemes, just pointing out how they could work.

a reply to: ketsuko

Universal basic income schemes aren't anything new and there have been more than a few variants proposed. If I'm not mistaken, what you're asking is how wouldn't a basic income scheme deincentivize people from working.

I'll start by saying, I'm not entirely sold on basic income schemes.

The gist of the argument is that basic income provides just enough to meet the most basic needs and that people will still be motivated to work by their desires for more.

It runs into similar issues as simply trying to increase the minimum wage to a "living wage" in that everything is still relative to the bottom. In other words, it may simply promote inflation.