Universal Basic Income

[Fau Teixeira]

This idea has been circulating for a few years and is being actively piloted in Canada.

The concept is that every adult resident receives a monthly check. Allowing for basic needs to be met. If you make minimum wage, you receive just as much as Warren Buffet. A recent poll suggests that 48% of Americans support this idea, up from just 12% 10 years ago.

I don't have a firm stance on it either way, I can see how it would be a huge economic boon, paying for it would be the issue.

Money aside, I think it would be good for society. As Utah found, the easiest and cheapest way to eliminate homelessness was to give people homes. I'm going to bet that the easiest and cheapest way to eliminate poverty is to give people a basic income.

How do you feel about exploring universal basic income across the US?

[Dolphster]

As someone much brighter than me once said, "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."   

[fyo]

I don't have a problem with expanding support for people who can't find a job (but ARE trying),  but I don't see how universal basic income would improve anything in the long run.

[Spider-Dan]

Why doesn't capitalism "run out of other people's money"?  I mean, it's the same pool of money.

The gross domestic product of the United States of America is more than enough to provide every person in this country with a livable income.  There are certainly logical and practical arguments against UBI, but "we will run out of money" is not one of them.

I don't have a problem with expanding support for people who can't find a job (but ARE trying),  but I don't see how universal basic income would improve anything in the long run.

What about the people who can't work?  Our current system shames and degrades people who find themselves unable to work.
What about people whose "work" is unpaid, like those who take care of family members?

[DaLittle B]

I've seen a few videos,articles,documentary things about other countries,that have it.I'd be ok with it,but realize it's almost a zero possibility nation wide...IMO in the U.S. Greed>>>>>>>> Human life 100% of the time.

[fyo]

^ Define "can't". I don't have a problem with disability benefits.

Thereb are issues with the "taking care of family members"  that I'm not sure how to solve. On the one hand, it feels all kinds of wrong to pay people to take care of their parents (or kids). On the other hand, if a parent / sibling / child is disabled or sick, it would seem reasonable that we as a society made sure there was a minimum of care provided (i.e. money).

[fyo]

I've seen a few videos,articles,documentary things about other countries,that have it.I'd be ok with it,but realize it's almost a zero possibility nation wide...IMO in the U.S. Greed>>>>>>>> Human life 100% of the time.

Do any democratic, capitalist countries have anything like universal basic income? Or are we taking about OPEC countries?

[DaLittle B]

^I'm pretty sure it was in Finland,or Norway Vice did a story on it,then a video...

I'm not up on there whole economic,system of Finland,Norway I also saw we're sort using it in Alaska,based on oil and gas.

I'm not blind to the fact that Automation,and computers taking over,most jobs....That time is approaching sooner than some would like to admit.

IMO it's much easier to pick apart the idea here in the U.S.,than get behind it.A lot of other countries,already have better education,welfare,and healthcare systems than the U.S.,and are willing to pay for those things.In the U.S. we call that money err we spend it on Military...The Military hires people,so it's jobs,and welfare system.The Military then hands out huge contracts to buy stuff from different American companies to supply it,and creates other jobs.

That's just my take..don't like Oh well...

[Phishfan]

The concept is interesting. I'm just curious how many companies would reduce pay to account for that extra income people would receive? I also wonder how this would get paid for. As a working class tax payer, would it benefit me or would my tax increases negate the positives?

[Dolphster]

Why doesn't capitalism "run out of other people's money"?  I mean, it's the same pool of money.

I suppose that theoretically, "capitalism" could run out of other people's money.  But I respectfully disagree that it is the same pool of money.  Businesses generate money, government spends money.  If government is going to have the money to essentially give money to everyone whether they are a productive part of society or not, then they need very high levels of tax funding from businesses.  If the government increases corporate tax rates high enough to pay for putting everyone on the dole, then the corporations funding that endeavor will no longer be making enough profit to pay the taxes and eventually the idea collapses upon itself. Also, a huge number of large corporations would just move their operations to more tax friendly countries which would remove the tax source that the government needs in order to put people on the dole.  Not to mention the very concept of "rewarding" those who don't do anything to earn the money (I'm excluding those too old or sick, etc. to earn money) while raising the taxes on the people and entities that earn the money is a huge disincentive.  A few middle eastern countries who have huge oil profits get away with it but their oil makes them statistical outliers.  Having spent some time in Kuwait, their citizens are essentially salaried for doing nothing and most of their blue collar employees are imported from other countries.  For the most part, Kuwaiti citizens are some of the laziest people I've ever been around.  Money for nothing will do that to a society.

[pondwater]

I suppose that theoretically, "capitalism" could run out of other people's money.  But I respectfully disagree that it is the same pool of money.  Businesses generate money, government spends money.  If government is going to have the money to essentially give money to everyone whether they are a productive part of society or not, then they need very high levels of tax funding from businesses.  If the government increases corporate tax rates high enough to pay for putting everyone on the dole, then the corporations funding that endeavor will no longer be making enough profit to pay the taxes and eventually the idea collapses upon itself. Also, a huge number of large corporations would just move their operations to more tax friendly countries which would remove the tax source that the government needs in order to put people on the dole.  Not to mention the very concept of "rewarding" those who don't do anything to earn the money (I'm excluding those too old or sick, etc. to earn money) while raising the taxes on the people and entities that earn the money is a huge disincentive.  A few middle eastern countries who have huge oil profits get away with it but their oil makes them statistical outliers.  Having spent some time in Kuwait, their citizens are essentially salaried for doing nothing and most of their blue collar employees are imported from other countries.  For the most part, Kuwaiti citizens are some of the laziest people I've ever been around.  Money for nothing will do that to a society.

Not only would taxes go up, prices on everything would go up also. Not to mention, if everyone is getting "free" money, businesses are naturally going to lower wages. Then after a while, everything will eventually equalize and everyone will be in the same place they started.

[CF DolFan]

We had an African pastor come to our church and tell us to quit sending them stuff. He said his people need to learn to take care of themselves and that they were actually worse off because they just kept waiting for things to arrive. encouraged us to come and spengd time with them instead of giving them free things.

I think this is the lesson many people need to learn as the more we enable people the more they regress and expect it. Temporary help should be just that ... to allow you to get back on your feet and not support you for life.

[BuccaneerBrad]

As someone much brighter than me once said, "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."   

Bingo.  Giving everyone basic income isn't free.  Somebody's got to pay for it.  If you have a job, that somebody is you.

[Dave Gray]

This is a discussion that happens in the Star Trek community a bit, believe it or not.  There becomes a point, where technology takes over, that there just aren't enough jobs for people to do.  Period.

In fact, the basis of Star Trek is that society has grown past the need for things like money and life isn't any longer about working for money to buy things.  World War 3 was fought over that struggle, and what was left over became Starfleet.

[pondwater]

This is a discussion that happens in the Star Trek community a bit, believe it or not.  There becomes a point, where technology takes over, that there just aren't enough jobs for people to do.  Period.

In fact, the basis of Star Trek is that society has grown past the need for things like money and life isn't any longer about working for money to buy things.  World War 3 was fought over that struggle, and what was left over became Starfleet.

That will never happen. People need and want attention. And one way to get that is to have MORE stuff than other people. For some people, "stuff" makes them not hate themselves as much.