Basic Income - The first step to end poverty?

Originally posted by reluctantpawn
Really how oldcome from the are you people? Look at history, hell, look in todays newspaper. How well is Europe really doing? how well are the communist and socialist really doing. Crap the neatherland utopia described is a crock as well. What is their current tax rate? What wonderful achievement has come from the people of the Neatherlands in the last 50 yrs that has changed our lifestyle? Go play with your ideals somewhere else we have a living to make and a real life to lead. Hypotheticals don't work in life because life happens. People are going to disagree. People are going to want to be free. not evryone wants a bland equal utopia and they are willing to fight for it. But as you say make anothr law and force people to be happy in their uniform base job. Not for me . Never will be. And i will fight to my death to keep it that way. [And yes even here that may be sooner than I would like to think]

RP

Well, we dutchies did do wonderfull things that have impact on the world today. Here are a few examples. Use google if u want to find more.

- The Dutch East India Company was the first multinational corporation and the first megacorporation. It was also the first corporation to issue shares of stock and bonds. (We have a huge role in the beginning of global economy. Besides a lot of US citizens have European ancestors)
- Binoculars
- Fire hose
- Leyden jar (The Leyden jar was the original capacitor, developed by Pieter van Musschenbroek in the 18th century and used to conduct many early experiments in electricity.) This was before Thomas Edison.
- Artificial kidney
- Compact Cassette
- Laserdisc / Compact disc

You probably 2 lazy to google urself so here are some sites:
socyberty.com...
www.philips.nl...
en.wikipedia.org...
Multiple things by the University of Delft (Kind of the MIT in the US): tudelft.nl...

Originally posted by coop039
Honestly, did anyone (other myself and two others) visit the link and see how much they are talking about? Its not 60k a year. Its $10 a month per person, and $1 per day by 2014. This plan wont solve anything in developed countries.


$10 per month per person, $1 per day by 2014!

edit on 16-8-2012 by coop039 because: (no reason given)

I agree, it's not 60k but I imagine if this had more backing they would be able to offer more.

Originally posted by David291

Originally posted by Wildbob77
My humanitarian side agrees with what you are saying.

My practical side says that we should discourage poor people from having children.

We cannot, as race of people, continue to have unchecked population growth. We especially need to curtail the lower end of the economic spectrum from reproducing. They contribute less to society then they consume.

Are you #ting me? Being poor doesn't always determine what type of person will be born. I mean seriously? Look at many rich children, they are just as badly behaved as any "poor person".

It makes more sense to stop those that have a serious criminal record having children. We should be helping the poor, not making it worse. Many poor people given the chance bring a lot to society, sadly only a few ever get the chance.

Poor people need to be responsible. Having multiple kids and no way to feed them is not responsible. I saw nothing in the post to indicate poor children behave badly.

reply to post by mrMasterJoe


Fair enough. Thank you for your thoughtful and civilized answer. I was a bit on the defensive because of all the "hate on America" garbage I see so much on this website.

But you didn't do that, you made a fair criticism. Thanks for that, Sir.

reply to post by coop039


There was also nothing about responsibility in the post, he said they should NOT be allowed to have children but I do agree that the poor should be more responsible and so should the rich. A big majority of these billionaires also need to be responsible but they aren't. A lot of them would walk all over me and you to get what they want and that's proven time and time again.

So before we solve the problem of the poor being responsible with having children, we should talk about humanity as a whole being more responsible.

1) Stop the rich being so damn greedy, yes they earned it but come on, we have countless homeless people around the world, nations starving and fat cats filling their pockets. That's pure wrong.

Originally posted by Slave NO MORE

If all the countries apply this system then we need no large army. A police force with a SWAT is enough to keep the world secure. And if everybody has a home and food. I'm sure that there will allmost be no rebels.

Do you really think people are that shallow? (Or, I suppose, that sensible-depending on the circumstances and how you look at it.) A home and food? Throughout history, humans have constantly scorned bribes/offers of monetary gain/comfort/etc. in exchange for their freedom (even if it's their freedom to have their *own* dictator) or whatever it was they would have to give up. Instead, they lay down their lives for abstract concepts like love, fealty, honor, freedom, liberty, etc. For better or for worse, I doubt people will give up their ways of life in exchange for a house and food.

And direct democracy? How are you going to ensure minority's rights are not violated?

Originally posted by coop039

Originally posted by David291

Originally posted by Wildbob77
My humanitarian side agrees with what you are saying.

My practical side says that we should discourage poor people from having children.

We cannot, as race of people, continue to have unchecked population growth. We especially need to curtail the lower end of the economic spectrum from reproducing. They contribute less to society then they consume.

Are you #ting me? Being poor doesn't always determine what type of person will be born. I mean seriously? Look at many rich children, they are just as badly behaved as any "poor person".

It makes more sense to stop those that have a serious criminal record having children. We should be helping the poor, not making it worse. Many poor people given the chance bring a lot to society, sadly only a few ever get the chance.

Poor people need to be responsible. Having multiple kids and no way to feed them is not responsible. I saw nothing in the post to indicate poor children behave badly.

edit on 16-8-2012 by coop039 because: (no reason given)

Poor people tend to be uneducated. Uneducated people tend to have more babies. I don't think that makes poor people bad. I grew up poor, so I don't mean any disrespect. I pulled myself up "by my bootstraps" and it wasn't easy in any way, shape or form. And psychologically was the hardest. Most of the people I grew up with have had or ended in tragic circumstances. Many had or have a few children in the same circumstances. That is more common with those without than with those who have. That's because those that have are able to send their children to college, etc. Education does go a long way.

Originally posted by David291
reply to post by coop039

 

There was also nothing about responsibility in the post, he said they should NOT be allowed to have children but I do agree that the poor should be more responsible and so should the rich. A big majority of these billionaires also need to be responsible but they aren't. A lot of them would walk all over me and you to get what they want and that's proven time and time again.

So before we solve the problem of the poor being responsible with having children, we should talk about humanity as a whole being more responsible.

1) Stop the rich being so damn greedy, yes they earned it but come on, we have countless homeless people around the world, nations starving and fat cats filling their pockets. That's pure wrong.

edit on 16/8/12 by David291 because: (no reason given)

No, he said they should be DISCOURAGED from having children. Little bit of a difference there.

But yes, everyone needs to be more responsible.

Call it what you want, you're advocating communism.

A cap on income is a cap on productivity. If I am a brain surgeon [insert any vital profession here] and my income is limited to $100k/year, and I make that $100k by April, I will stop working until the next fiscal year. So nobody gets any brain surgery, anywhere, from April to January.

If you're going to tax my income, for example at 10%, so that everyone gets a minimum income (say, $30k), and my earning capacity working full time is $32k, why don't I just stay home, not work, and get the $30k instead of working and taking home $27k like a chump?

Meanwhile, that extra $2k you were expecting to steal from me is no longer in the coffers, so you'll need to raise the tax rate to make up for the shortfall, to, say, 15%.

That means that the "stay at home and do nothing" wage rises - say, to $34k. So if I make $34K and you're going to tax me 10%, I make the same amount staying at home doing nothing.

Etc.

Great idea.

Originally posted by coop039
Right, its not much per person, but its an obscene amount overall. See my post on page 2, I did a little math, hopefully it was correct.

Not really when you take into account that the gross world product is close to 79 trillion dollars. So it would be less than 2.5% of the gross world product.

Originally posted by kisharninmah

Originally posted by coop039

Originally posted by David291

Originally posted by Wildbob77
My humanitarian side agrees with what you are saying.

My practical side says that we should discourage poor people from having children.

We cannot, as race of people, continue to have unchecked population growth. We especially need to curtail the lower end of the economic spectrum from reproducing. They contribute less to society then they consume.

Are you #ting me? Being poor doesn't always determine what type of person will be born. I mean seriously? Look at many rich children, they are just as badly behaved as any "poor person".

It makes more sense to stop those that have a serious criminal record having children. We should be helping the poor, not making it worse. Many poor people given the chance bring a lot to society, sadly only a few ever get the chance.

Poor people need to be responsible. Having multiple kids and no way to feed them is not responsible. I saw nothing in the post to indicate poor children behave badly.

edit on 16-8-2012 by coop039 because: (no reason given)

Poor people tend to be uneducated. Uneducated people tend to have more babies. I don't think that makes poor people bad. I grew up poor, so I don't mean any disrespect. I pulled myself up "by my bootstraps" and it wasn't easy in any way, shape or form. And psychologically was the hardest. Most of the people I grew up with have had or ended in tragic circumstances. Many had or have a few children in the same circumstances. That is more common with those without than with those who have. That's because those that have are able to send their children to college, etc. Education does go a long way.

edit on 16-8-2012 by kisharninmah because: (no reason given)

Having lived in a poor part of town for 3 years just a little while back I can tell you this, they arent stupid or uneducated. They are very smart about how to work the system and get what they want.

Originally posted by coop039

Originally posted by kisharninmah

Originally posted by coop039

Originally posted by David291

Originally posted by Wildbob77
My humanitarian side agrees with what you are saying.

My practical side says that we should discourage poor people from having children.

We cannot, as race of people, continue to have unchecked population growth. We especially need to curtail the lower end of the economic spectrum from reproducing. They contribute less to society then they consume.

Are you #ting me? Being poor doesn't always determine what type of person will be born. I mean seriously? Look at many rich children, they are just as badly behaved as any "poor person".

It makes more sense to stop those that have a serious criminal record having children. We should be helping the poor, not making it worse. Many poor people given the chance bring a lot to society, sadly only a few ever get the chance.

Poor people need to be responsible. Having multiple kids and no way to feed them is not responsible. I saw nothing in the post to indicate poor children behave badly.

edit on 16-8-2012 by coop039 because: (no reason given)

Poor people tend to be uneducated. Uneducated people tend to have more babies. I don't think that makes poor people bad. I grew up poor, so I don't mean any disrespect. I pulled myself up "by my bootstraps" and it wasn't easy in any way, shape or form. And psychologically was the hardest. Most of the people I grew up with have had or ended in tragic circumstances. Many had or have a few children in the same circumstances. That is more common with those without than with those who have. That's because those that have are able to send their children to college, etc. Education does go a long way.

edit on 16-8-2012 by kisharninmah because: (no reason given)

Having lived in a poor part of town for 3 years just a little while back I can tell you this, they arent stupid or uneducated. They are very smart about how to work the system and get what they want.

Living there for three years doesn't make you enlightened about poor people and their lives. I was that poor person. What you're saying is just more proof of your own ignorance. What I have seen is people who are not poor pretending that they are, working the system. They are uneducated because they are unaware of how to go to school or that they even can. Don’t blame the poor for your own dissatisfaction with the life you created for yourself.

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by coop039
Right, its not much per person, but its an obscene amount overall. See my post on page 2, I did a little math, hopefully it was correct.

Not really when you take into account that the gross world product is close to 79 trillion dollars. So it would be less than 2.5% of the gross world product.

So over 2 trillion a year isnt that bad? And just who are we going to tax to get this money? And lets take into consideration not all of the worlds population works a job where they can be taxed to help pay for this. And, what if people in poorer countries STOP working once they know they could collect this? And hypothetically, what if everyone just stopped working to collect this basic income? Where would the money come from then?

This is basiclly Douglas Social Credit, he proposed a "National Dividend".

was hugely popular before WW2, afterwards it was labelled "anti semitic" by the banksters & government (quite how an economic theory can be anti-semitic is beyond me). Consequently no academic or economist will touch it, otherwise they'll never work again.

Very hard to get your head around, but basically everyone gets the same low basic income via the government - just enough to feed yourself and pay rent, if you want a better life for yourself, ie more money to buy more stuff, then you can work and earn more money.

Think about how it works today - loads of people get lots of money in benefits and don't have to lift a finger. Many (sadly there are some in my family) have never worked in their lives, and believe they are entitled not to.

Some of these people who don't work can afford to go on 2 holidays a year - I know one who's been on Caribbean cruises twice this year, and they drive a brand new BMW> this is crazy England after all, where those who don't work are better off than those who do.

That money would instead be spread across everyone, there would be no applying for this benefit and that benefit, and taking the mickey, you'd just get the same as everyone else.

The rest is up to you...

reply to post by coop039


Thank you. I was just going to post that it's NOT 60k a year. Where did people even get that idea?

The total one can get is 120 a year (that's one hundred and twenty dollars a year) or in 2014, 365 dollars. Not thousand. Hundred.

That would more be a slap in someone's face than help. Most rent alone is 1200 a month unless you live in the ghetto or a very very low income portion of your State. Country.

Though yes, in places like Ethiopia, a dollar a day would no doubt be equivalent to 200 a day in USA money and such. In the USA and the UK and Germany, Japan, China, NZ, AU, etc, a dollar a day is ..... well, let any company in those places pay that little for a normal entry level job be it fast food or secretary or etc and see how fast they'd go to jail for not paying a min wage. Even our waitresses and waiters here in the USA have a minimum hourly pay mandated between 2.07 and 3.25 an hour.

10 dollars a month at first then a dollar a day?

We'll still see massive homeless and no issues being solved what so ever. It's equivalent to showing someone who is poor and starving a whole roast - and giving them a 2 millimeter by 2 millimeter taste of it and saying they'll get the same amount tomorrow or next month. Heh. Nice.

Originally posted by coop039
So over 2 trillion a year isnt that bad?

Not when put into context.

And just who are we going to tax to get this money? And lets take into consideration not all of the worlds population works a job where they can be taxed to help pay for this. And, what if people in poorer countries STOP working once they know they could collect this? And hypothetically, what if everyone just stopped working to collect this basic income? Where would the money come from then?

I don't know and honestly don't care, I was just responding to the content in the post about the amount of 2 trillion.

Originally posted by LanceCorvette
Call it what you want, you're advocating communism.

A cap on income is a cap on productivity. If I am a brain surgeon [insert any vital profession here] and my income is limited to $100k/year, and I make that $100k by April, I will stop working until the next fiscal year. So nobody gets any brain surgery, anywhere, from April to January.

If you're going to tax my income, for example at 10%, so that everyone gets a minimum income (say, $30k), and my earning capacity working full time is $32k, why don't I just stay home, not work, and get the $30k instead of working and taking home $27k like a chump?

Meanwhile, that extra $2k you were expecting to steal from me is no longer in the coffers, so you'll need to raise the tax rate to make up for the shortfall, to, say, 15%.

That means that the "stay at home and do nothing" wage rises - say, to $34k. So if I make $34K and you're going to tax me 10%, I make the same amount staying at home doing nothing.

Etc.

Great idea.

I think that a brain surgeon should earn more then someone sitting at home.
So if someone doing nothing get's 32k. a surgeon should get 350k (let the economics calulate that).
But the economy must be so that the person who is doing nothing should pay more less 30k a year to pay for food, shelter, transportation and clothes. This way he / she has the basics for living but for extra's they need to contribute with work. besides with a cap on income you won't get the cap with a "normal" job. Since most multimillionairs don't have jobs. they have business / investments. (Except for actors and musicians and some other "proffesions" but they are overpaid in my opinion.) The cap should be for those who are earning a lot without work because if you think about it, those billionairs aren't working either. They have companies or people who work for them which earns them money. So thinking about that i'd think that the brainsurgeon should earn more then the billionair who is'nt doing anything.

reply to post by sarra1833

Thank you. I was just going to post that it's NOT 60k a year. Where did people even get that idea?

It was me who said that. Since i read somewhere that on an average a US household gets 45k a year.
So i was just taking that ammount and added a bit on top of it so that everybody can feel what it would be like when the extreme rich get's capped. I even read somewhere that if the rich 1%'s money gets divided over the globe that everyone will get more less 70million!!! We all could be millionairs lol but if we all are millionairs then there will be no one working anymore. If you just can pay the bills to live, then you are motivated enough to go to work for holidays, recreation and luxury

reply to post by Slave NO MORE


You get a S&F from me not because you are correct or that this will solve anything or could even be implemented, but because the world need more innovative thinkers. People who see things do not need to stay static but change!

reply to post by Slave NO MORE


I have to agree. I'm NOT for this global income just because if it WAS Enough, no one would work. And nothing would get done. I was more pointing out that 1 dollar a day/10 dollars a month is a worse slap in the face to a poor person than getting zero, you know? Or panhandling, etc.

I'm FOR everyone not starving, not worrying about where their next meal will come or if their electric will be cut off. I'm totally for that. Everyone deserves to eat, have shelter, clean clothing, and a sense of security and safety, warmth and such. But 10 a month/ one dollar a day is just...... horrific. It's a true slap in their face.