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

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.

$65K is what the average single mother of two can get in Connecticut by the time you add up all the various subsidies for things like housing, daycare, health insurance, SNAP, TANF, utility help, etc.

And if some get more than others, it isn't a basic income because some are more equal than others aren't they?

originally posted by: Stormdancer777

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?

Yes exactly.

Look at Venezuela,
thelibertarianrepublic.com...
Venezuela is Teetering on the Edge of Societal Collapse and Socialism is Absolutely to Blame

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
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,

Oh I know. I am not saying for me I just wish it would be discussed how we can get over some real economic disasters coming.

Personally I am a carpenter, musician, guitar maker, sound engineer. I think I can weather the storm. I also teach judo and wrestling.

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
Look at Venezuela,
thelibertarianrepublic.com...
Venezuela is Teetering on the Edge of Societal Collapse and Socialism is Absolutely to Blame

Well I hate socialism myself but I don't think it's absolutely to blame. I think the brics built up to fast and their political system is corrupt. It doesn't need to be socialist for a collapse under those constraints.

a reply to: ketsuko
Are you sure as that sounds remarkably high (about £45k in real money).
Is that typical across the states?

It is the the same amount for all healthy Adults. Depending on what version used additional payments may be made for things such as children or disabilities.

a reply to: avgguy

I think it would be more like 243 million adults receiving $20,000 a year which is only marginally better at the low low cost of just under $5 trillion.

Currently, Social Security payments total about $900 billion a year and all other social welfare programs total about $360 billion (SNAP, housing assistance, etc) for a grand total of about one and a quarter trillion. Deduct that from from the $4.8 trillion above and you get a difference of about three and a half trillion.

The thinking is that all of the money paid out would trickle back up through the economy to be collected as taxes which would account for the additional requirements in tax revenue.

a reply to: luthier

In other words, it wasn't the socialism; it was the people who ran it which is a variation of the old, socialism would work if we could just find the right people to run it argument.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: avgguy

I think it would be more like 243 million adults receiving $20,000 a year which is only marginally better at the low low cost of just under $5 trillion.

Currently, Social Security payments total about $900 billion a year and all other social welfare programs total about $360 billion (SNAP, housing assistance, etc) for a grand total of about one and a quarter trillion. Deduct that from from the $4.8 trillion above and you get a difference of about three and a half trillion.

The thinking is that all of the money paid out would trickle back up through the economy to be collected as taxes which would account for the additional requirements in tax revenue.

Yes. Also no tax exemptions that is the payout.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Are you multiplying that by the roughly 350 million people in the US. Remember, in order to be a true base income, it would have to go to everyone, not just the ones judged in need like it does now.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: ketsuko
Are you sure as that sounds remarkably high (about £45k in real money).
Is that typical across the states?

It is the the same amount for all healthy Adults. Depending on what version used additional payments may be made for things such as children or disabilities.

That was numbers provided by a guy who worked inside the government in Connecticut.

But the problem you will run into here in the states is that every state has a different economy with a different cost of living. So you might think that sounds high, and for a state like Kansas or Missouri or Nebraska, it might be, but in order to have a true base income, wouldn't the pay out have to be equal? So it seems to me that you either short change those who live in high cost of living states or you have to make your basic income reflect the states with the highest costs of living.

a reply to: ketsuko

Uh no I wasn't making an arguement for socialism.

Do you think socialist countries are the only ones with economic trouble? The world could very well have said the US is in the way to a collapse because of capitalism during the great depression.

Plenty of socialist countries are doing as well as anyone else. Or as bad. You pick a country that was never that strong to begin with and it's a bad arguement. Now if Germany goes down sure.

It's not just a philosophies issue in a vaccum.

a reply to: ketsuko

You make a very good point about cost of living. This applies even in smaller countries. In the UK it costs far far more to live in London/south east than virtually anywhere else.
If you start making geographical adjustments you lose the one big advantage which is simplicity.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: Kali74

So how does paying people for nothing solve that? And doesn't that put a higher tax burden on the few with jobs? I seriously don't get it.

Because your converting all the programs and their beauracracies to one tax return that everyone gets the same (accept the very rich).

People continue consuming etc. No complicate gov beauracracies telling you what you qualify for.

Lots of different models but I semi support the most basic model. Just a tax return you get monthly.

Don't forget spending is also what keeps the market going. If there aren't consumers you cn kiss that 401k goodbye.

That's is how it's normally proposed. Usually, they propose doing away with welfare, food stamps, unemployment benefits, disability checks, and a lot of other social programs in return for giving the population a set amount of "basic income" in return.

In theory, it actually saves money because the different govt agencies and their expensive workforces are no longer needed to administer these programs. It should also dramatically reduce the taxpayer costs for IT, maintenance, procurement, and technology upgrades at each of the agencies involved in the overhaul, as well as govt pension and healthcare costs (because of the constant reduction in the number of govt workers).

So ironically, you'd think the "small government" crowd would love this. It could drastically reduce the size and costs of governments at the federal, State, and local levels. Unfortunately, many of them are also in the "compete over crumbs then die off if you can't keep up" crowd. So that's the part I keep seeing people protest over.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

A lot of the small government economists do actually support it even if while holding there nose.

I first heard of it from a libertarian economist. He also said it will result in people knowing you have the means to support yourself possibly letting families know there may be issues like addiction or mental illness. Theoretically you should even with 1200 a month have the ability to either work part time or get roommates to live. If they can't then the issues rise to the top faster than saying I don't qualify and nobody will help me I need money.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: enlightenedservant

A lot of the small government economists do actually support it even if while holding there nose.

I first heard of it from a libertarian economist. He also said it will result in people knowing you have the means to support yourself possibly letting families know there may be issues like addiction or mental illness. Theoretically you should even with 1200 a month have the ability to either work part time or get roommates to live. If they can't then the issues rise to the top faster than saying I don't qualify and nobody will help me I need money.

Hayek I believe was in favour so there an Austrian/libertarian pedigree to the concept.

a reply to: Davg80

www.theprovince.com...

a reply to: luthier

I agree. I've actually been a little cautious of it because of this lol. The 2 major things I worry about are cost controls and healthcare. It the basic income doesn't increase with inflation, recipients will be screwed if when the economy goes through its cyclical crashes. And will the proposed "basic income" programs still allow for govt healthcare programs? Because if not, Medicare, the VA, and a lot of other government healthcare programs could be abolished too. And there's no way the basic income would be enough to cover health care costs at American prices.

Of course, there are a lot of different versions of this being proposed. So it's kind of hard to debate the details without knowing which versions we're talking about. Either way, it would definitely be a constant boost for the local and national economies. Even if citizens saved the money, it would dramatically boost reserves at banks and the amounts of money being funneled into long term investments.

a reply to: Stormdancer777

If we ignore the problems of using unqualified descriptors, what is responsible for the collapse of "capitalist" economies then?

a reply to: theantediluvian

I just think that it's a beyond stupid idea to put people already working on the hook for more handouts. Not to mention I think it would destroy the economy and effectively make businesses discontinue any wage increases.