Barack Obama signals support for a universal basic income

a reply to: DBCowboy

Too big to fail anyone?

How about a 1% tax on derivates to pay back what is due with an UBI that ends poverty for good?

How is wealth redistribution (back to more humane levels) robbery when it hurts noone? The traders will keep trading cuz that's what they do to make a buck, this isn't about taking stuff from actual people.

Alright. You can call me Robin Hoodie if it helps.

originally posted by: peter_kandra

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: peter_kandra
a reply to: Puppylove

I don't think that's what generik is implying. The concept of UBL was brought up and that reply is simply stating the facts...that even what we would consider the poor in this country do have a decent standard of living. Is it a 3000 square foot house, no. Do they have a 50,000 car..no. Do they have shelter and food and other basic necessities...yes.

My bigger question is that generik also laid out an excellent reply on how the math for paying for UBI/UBL doesn't work that I haven't seen anyone address, so the question still remains...how will it be paid for?

A UBI can be revenue neutral.

If the payment is close to the average amount of benefit it replaces and the income tax rises by the equivalent amount for those not currently on benefits (so they are no better or worse off).

I get that. I don't think anyone is stating a UBI will replace anything though. My impression is this will be in addition to any current benefits, and no one has even addressed the inflation issue that will almost surely rear it's ugly head.

Pretty much every form of UBI proposed replaces some (generally most) benefits.

Its big selling point is the simplification of existing benefit systems.

There is nothing inherently inflationary about a UBI scheme.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: DBCowboy

Too big to fail anyone?

How about a 1% tax on derivates to pay back what is due with an UBI that ends poverty for good?

How is wealth redistribution (back to more humane levels) robbery when it hurts noone? The traders will keep trading cuz that's what they do to make a buck, this isn't about taking stuff from actual people.

Alright. You can call me Robin Hoodie if it helps.

It's hurts those who will be taxed more to pay for the "free money".

Why work and earn it when you can sit back and have it given to you?

a reply to: PublicOpinion

UBI won't end poverty... it may help some people, but it won't really end the generational poverty that is such a huge problem because poverty is largely a result of poor decision making.

Again, if you give people money, you just create inflation. After a while, the money you gave them is worthless because all the goods and services they need are more expensive. They are right back at zero.

It isn't possible to pay for UBI for all people.

Taxing investment just hurts all of us, not just the traders. Whose money do you think the traders are trading? Do you want your returns capped on your 401k or pension?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: peter_kandra

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: peter_kandra
a reply to: Puppylove

I don't think that's what generik is implying. The concept of UBL was brought up and that reply is simply stating the facts...that even what we would consider the poor in this country do have a decent standard of living. Is it a 3000 square foot house, no. Do they have a 50,000 car..no. Do they have shelter and food and other basic necessities...yes.

My bigger question is that generik also laid out an excellent reply on how the math for paying for UBI/UBL doesn't work that I haven't seen anyone address, so the question still remains...how will it be paid for?

A UBI can be revenue neutral.

If the payment is close to the average amount of benefit it replaces and the income tax rises by the equivalent amount for those not currently on benefits (so they are no better or worse off).

I get that. I don't think anyone is stating a UBI will replace anything though. My impression is this will be in addition to any current benefits, and no one has even addressed the inflation issue that will almost surely rear it's ugly head.

Pretty much every form of UBI proposed replaces some (generally most) benefits.

Its big selling point is the simplification of existing benefit systems.

There is nothing inherently inflationary about a UBI scheme.

Common sense tells us it won't work that way... Govt could say we are going to end all welfare and just give everyone $25,000/yr for life. What will happen is you will still have a huge number of people who cannot seem to make good decisions financially for whatever reason and they will still end up broke.

The same people will then start demanding more help. LIberals will come out crying about it is for the kids and we need to stop being so cruel while totally ignoring the issues that got the person in the predicament to begin with.

a reply to: Edumakated

People end up making bad decisions on current benefit systems. A UBI doesn't make that any worse or better.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Edumakated

People end up making bad decisions on current benefit systems. A UBI doesn't make that any worse or better.

UBI justifies an increase in taxation where none existed before.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: peter_kandra

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: peter_kandra
a reply to: Puppylove

I don't think that's what generik is implying. The concept of UBL was brought up and that reply is simply stating the facts...that even what we would consider the poor in this country do have a decent standard of living. Is it a 3000 square foot house, no. Do they have a 50,000 car..no. Do they have shelter and food and other basic necessities...yes.

My bigger question is that generik also laid out an excellent reply on how the math for paying for UBI/UBL doesn't work that I haven't seen anyone address, so the question still remains...how will it be paid for?

A UBI can be revenue neutral.

If the payment is close to the average amount of benefit it replaces and the income tax rises by the equivalent amount for those not currently on benefits (so they are no better or worse off).

I get that. I don't think anyone is stating a UBI will replace anything though. My impression is this will be in addition to any current benefits, and no one has even addressed the inflation issue that will almost surely rear it's ugly head.

Pretty much every form of UBI proposed replaces some (generally most) benefits.

Its big selling point is the simplification of existing benefit systems.

There is nothing inherently inflationary about a UBI scheme.

If it simplified things, that would be great. Years ago I owned a few rentals, and virtually all my tenants received section-8 benefits ($900 to $1000 per month), food stamps, subsidies for utilities and possibly other benefits I'm unaware of. Even with 2 kids, those benefits are more than $18,000 UBI would replace (3x the $6k figure mentioned).

If we could do away with the administrative costs associated with those multiple benefits, it may work. Unfortunately, you then have to rely upon people to be responsible with their UBI payment, or have to go the UBL route and pay for those services directly, but then you're back to having administrative costs.

There were some calculations in this post saying this would cost roughly $2 trillion dollars a year. Wouldn't it be better to spend a fraction of that on infrastructure and train people in the process? $100 billion a year would "pay" for 2.5 million $40,000 a year jobs. Add another $100 billion a year for materials, supplies, etc. and for $200 billion a year, you would start to fix our crumbling infrastructure, employ an additional 2.5 million people directly (plus the indirect jobs created from the materials and supplies needed) and hopefully train those people in current job skills...construction, project management, etc. That same $2 trillion would fund a program like this for 10 years.

How about just giving us back our Social Security we've been getting extorted out of , I want mine now in a lump sum not when I'm about to die at a few hundred a month. Biggest scam ever .

Sooner or later, UBI is going to have to happen. AI is exploding at a rapid rate, and eventually there aren't going to be enough jobs to accommodate every adult in the US. Rather than be incredibly cold-hearted and say "tough luck, try harder" to people who will literally have no job to "try harder" for, we should come up with a solution to fix the incoming issue. Eventually, that solution is going to have to be UBI.
However, I see a (admittedly somewhat temporary based on my previous paragraph) solution to this problem...
Estimate of total UBI to be given out if we went with the $6,000 per person idea: 2ish trillion
Total federal income tax revenue from the previous year: 2.3ish trillion (not counting social insurance taxes, ad valorem, business, etc)
source: www.usgovernmentrevenue.com...

Solution: do away with income tax, or use our current income tax revenue and redistribute it to the population. The math works almost perfectly in that scenario, in fact, the government would have 300ish billion left over, if they kept the .3 from the total income tax revenue.
Now, here's where I'm going to lose a lot of you. To replace the rest of the funds lost from income tax in order to keep the services going that income tax provides, we're going to have to slash spending in a lot of other places.
Most obvious? The Defense budget. There is absolutely zero reason to budget almost 700 billion to defense when, if we cut it by 50%, would still be almost 100 billion MORE than the spending of the next country. Especially when almost every country in the top 15 for defense spending is an ally, or at least not outwardly hostile to us.

All of this is obviously oversimplified, but it's at least a proof of concept.

a reply to: DBCowboy

It's hurts those who will be taxed more to pay for the "free money"

Yeah? And how many "robbed" traders will stop trading due to this horrific act of redundant peanuttery, none?

Do you know any or would it be that guy from your local bank, who visits your mother from time to time and has you cleaning up the basement for a better credit rating?

originally posted by: myselfaswell
a reply to: DBCowboy

To be sure I'm no supporter of Obama.

In the not too distant future there will be a choice;

UBI

or

Uncharted waters with respect to crime and poverty.

AI will bring this on, we have already been warned.

You really think UBI will prevent crime and poverty? Not a snowballs chance in hell...

originally posted by: peter_kandra

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: peter_kandra

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: peter_kandra
a reply to: Puppylove

I don't think that's what generik is implying. The concept of UBL was brought up and that reply is simply stating the facts...that even what we would consider the poor in this country do have a decent standard of living. Is it a 3000 square foot house, no. Do they have a 50,000 car..no. Do they have shelter and food and other basic necessities...yes.

My bigger question is that generik also laid out an excellent reply on how the math for paying for UBI/UBL doesn't work that I haven't seen anyone address, so the question still remains...how will it be paid for?

A UBI can be revenue neutral.

If the payment is close to the average amount of benefit it replaces and the income tax rises by the equivalent amount for those not currently on benefits (so they are no better or worse off).

I get that. I don't think anyone is stating a UBI will replace anything though. My impression is this will be in addition to any current benefits, and no one has even addressed the inflation issue that will almost surely rear it's ugly head.

Pretty much every form of UBI proposed replaces some (generally most) benefits.

Its big selling point is the simplification of existing benefit systems.

There is nothing inherently inflationary about a UBI scheme.

If it simplified things, that would be great. Years ago I owned a few rentals, and virtually all my tenants received section-8 benefits ($900 to $1000 per month), food stamps, subsidies for utilities and possibly other benefits I'm unaware of. Even with 2 kids, those benefits are more than $18,000 UBI would replace (3x the $6k figure mentioned).

If we could do away with the administrative costs associated with those multiple benefits, it may work. Unfortunately, you then have to rely upon people to be responsible with their UBI payment, or have to go the UBL route and pay for those services directly, but then you're back to having administrative costs.

There were some calculations in this post saying this would cost roughly $2 trillion dollars a year. Wouldn't it be better to spend a fraction of that on infrastructure and train people in the process? $100 billion a year would "pay" for 2.5 million $40,000 a year jobs. Add another $100 billion a year for materials, supplies, etc. and for $200 billion a year, you would start to fix our crumbling infrastructure, employ an additional 2.5 million people directly (plus the indirect jobs created from the materials and supplies needed) and hopefully train those people in current job skills...construction, project management, etc. That same $2 trillion would fund a program like this for 10 years.

I completely agree there are better alternatives than a UBI. A job guarantee scheme to improve infrastructure and social care would be a far better idea.

I think a UBI has some benefits over the current systems used by most countries and that much of the criticisms are misplaced. Doesn't mean I think its the best option.

a reply to: ScepticScot

A job guarantee scheme to improve infrastructure and social care would be a far better idea.

That was like... uhm... a century ago, but hey - let's implement those again to yield different results this time?

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: DBCowboy

It's hurts those who will be taxed more to pay for the "free money"

Yeah? And how many "robbed" traders will stop trading due to this horrific act of redundant peanuttery, none?

Do you know any or would it be that guy from your local bank, who visits your mother from time to time and has you cleaning up the basement for a better credit rating?

And that's how you justify an increase in taxes?

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: ScepticScot

A job guarantee scheme to improve infrastructure and social care would be a far better idea.

That was like... uhm... a century ago, but hey - let's implement those again to yield different results this time?

Lowering unemployment and better infrastructure, why would you want different results?

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: DBCowboy

It's hurts those who will be taxed more to pay for the "free money"

Yeah? And how many "robbed" traders will stop trading due to this horrific act of redundant peanuttery, none?

Do you know any or would it be that guy from your local bank, who visits your mother from time to time and has you cleaning up the basement for a better credit rating?

It isn't robbing the traders. It is taking money from the investors whose capital the traders are trading. Good grief, the economic ignorance of some of you is just crazy.

The big institutional traders are managing money from pension funds, 401ks, university endowments, etc. Do you want your grandma's pension paying less out because you thought it was a good idea to tax traders 1%?

a reply to: narrator

Inevitable ..... Really - Are there going to be price controls too ? Or is everything going to cost just enough to negate the "Free" money ?

Redistribute huh ? What a great idea ....never heard this before lol

You cant win a war on poverty by dropping pennies in a tin cup. And you cant win by exchanging the tin for silver and saying they cant touch it until they are 67 years old.

Worse yet, it doesn't matter how great a program you come up with. In places like Chicago corrupt politicians will run up each others backs and dance on their heads to be in a better position to rob the program blind.

The lottery was supposed to pay for education in Chicago. With thousands of agents statewide selling millions and millions of tickets each week schools are still closing because they are underfunded. By way of comparison, there is a VFW in Illinois that has a Queen of Hearts raffle. As it stands now, the VVFW knows it will receive over $900,000 from the raffle when someone wins and they know exactly where the money will go. Its going to improve the electrical system and renovate the kitchen at the VFW, and they are going to expand their summer programs. No mystery there. No on will ever look at that VFW and wonder where the money went.

The Tollways in Illinois are another sinkhole. They are constantly under repair. This is not because they need it, but because the criminals running the state need a place to launder millions of stolen toll money. Its funny, the toll roads are under constant repair, but the free interstates seem to do just fine. Sure, they get repaired when they need it, but you don't see a 50 mile long "construction zone" with one orange cone and a flag on a speed limit sign...

a reply to: PublicOpinion
Yes...bring back the democrats CCC!