What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Basic Income Guarantee (1 Viewer)

Dr J, I'm having trouble following you- have you backed off your "this would be a huge disincentive to work and would crush the global economy" and are now saying "doesn't seem like it would be much better than our current system"?
The collapsing of the global economy and terminator stuff is more a bit of tongue in cheek nonsense related to the idea that we're all getting automated out of jobs.

My original post regarding this actual idea itself was this:

We need to address the root problem rather than just treat the symptoms. The idea that you select a career at age 18, get an entry level job, and then reap ever increasing rewards as your experience in this area increases is becoming antiquated. Careers are now going to be fluid and we need a population that can adapt readily. Training and re training is now a continual process. Making sure that people can continue to survive no matter how little they're willing to adapt is kind of counterproductive.
There's a giant skill gap in this country. Our current systems have been horrible at addressing this and it is continuing to widen. I don't really see how this system is any better since it is pretty much a lot of the same with maybe a few minor tweaks that might make it slightly less bad.
It's coming and relatively quickly in a historical context. We ignore it at our own risk.
Just not seeing it. No matter how much we automate in the IT world, all it ever amounts to is people demanding stuff more frequently.

 
Thanks to all the contributors for a very informative thread. :thumbup:

I always love the discussion on this topic. I could easily see myself supporting it, it just makes a lot of sense.
:goodposting: This thread has really been a great eye-opener. Totally like the idea in which at first glance, I wouldn't have. Y23's cost breakdown had me wondering though. I know it is extremely important that EVERYONE get this so there is no disincentive to earn. However, there has to be a level (500k?, 1 mil? Location dependent?) where 20 grand isn't going make a difference...especially in earning more. Should there be a tapering off at some high level to further help Y23's costs? Politically it could be too hot though because we've now given millionaires something to grumble about. Just thinking about helping program costs to better sell this as a savings over current entitlements....and get more people supporting on board.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks to all the contributors for a very informative thread. :thumbup:

I always love the discussion on this topic. I could easily see myself supporting it, it just makes a lot of sense.
:goodposting: This thread has really been a great eye-opener. Totally like the idea in which at first glance, I wouldn't have. Y23's cost breakdown had me wondering though. I know it is extremely important that EVERYONE get this so there is no disincentive to earn. However, there has to be a level (500k?, 1 mil? Location dependent?) where 20 grand isn't going make a difference...especially in earning more. Should there be a tapering off at some high level to further help Y23's costs? Politically it could be too hot though because we've now given millionaires something to grumble about. Just thinking about costs....
No.

First, it creates additional bureaucracy. People have to track income, gives incentive to minimize income, will different types count more against the cap than others and so on.

Second, it's guaranteed. Not guaranteed if you make more than X.

Third, the heavy earners will still bear a disproportional tax share. There would be 0 reason to disincentivize them by not including a certain income level in the BIG.

 
Thanks to all the contributors for a very informative thread. :thumbup:

I always love the discussion on this topic. I could easily see myself supporting it, it just makes a lot of sense.
:goodposting: This thread has really been a great eye-opener. Totally like the idea in which at first glance, I wouldn't have. Y23's cost breakdown had me wondering though. I know it is extremely important that EVERYONE get this so there is no disincentive to earn. However, there has to be a level (500k?, 1 mil? Location dependent?) where 20 grand isn't going make a difference...especially in earning more. Should there be a tapering off at some high level to further help Y23's costs? Politically it could be too hot though because we've now given millionaires something to grumble about. Just thinking about helping program costs to better sell this as a savings over current entitlements....and get more people supporting on board.
You tax it away, I think.

 
Thanks to all the contributors for a very informative thread. :thumbup:

I always love the discussion on this topic. I could easily see myself supporting it, it just makes a lot of sense.
:goodposting: This thread has really been a great eye-opener. Totally like the idea in which at first glance, I wouldn't have. Y23's cost breakdown had me wondering though. I know it is extremely important that EVERYONE get this so there is no disincentive to earn. However, there has to be a level (500k?, 1 mil? Location dependent?) where 20 grand isn't going make a difference...especially in earning more. Should there be a tapering off at some high level to further help Y23's costs? Politically it could be too hot though because we've now given millionaires something to grumble about. Just thinking about costs....
No.

First, it creates additional bureaucracy. People have to track income, gives incentive to minimize income, will different types count more against the cap than others and so on.

Second, it's guaranteed. Not guaranteed if you make more than X.

Third, the heavy earners will still bear a disproportional tax share. There would be 0 reason to disincentivize them by not including a certain income level in the BIG.
Yeah...this is a good reply. Gotta have it across the board despite it initially seeming counterintuitive.

I'm in.

 
Thanks to all the contributors for a very informative thread. :thumbup:

I always love the discussion on this topic. I could easily see myself supporting it, it just makes a lot of sense.
:goodposting: This thread has really been a great eye-opener. Totally like the idea in which at first glance, I wouldn't have. Y23's cost breakdown had me wondering though. I know it is extremely important that EVERYONE get this so there is no disincentive to earn. However, there has to be a level (500k?, 1 mil? Location dependent?) where 20 grand isn't going make a difference...especially in earning more. Should there be a tapering off at some high level to further help Y23's costs? Politically it could be too hot though because we've now given millionaires something to grumble about. Just thinking about helping program costs to better sell this as a savings over current entitlements....and get more people supporting on board.
I've thought about a high cutoff for cost saving but as pointed out the high earners taxes are probably going up to pay for this at least some percentage. So probably best to just shoot it out to everyone and not worry about qualifiers. Well other than being here legally and being of the appropriate age to receive it.

 
Dr J, I'm having trouble following you- have you backed off your "this would be a huge disincentive to work and would crush the global economy" and are now saying "doesn't seem like it would be much better than our current system"?
The collapsing of the global economy and terminator stuff is more a bit of tongue in cheek nonsense related to the idea that we're all getting automated out of jobs.

My original post regarding this actual idea itself was this:

We need to address the root problem rather than just treat the symptoms. The idea that you select a career at age 18, get an entry level job, and then reap ever increasing rewards as your experience in this area increases is becoming antiquated. Careers are now going to be fluid and we need a population that can adapt readily. Training and re training is now a continual process. Making sure that people can continue to survive no matter how little they're willing to adapt is kind of counterproductive.
There's a giant skill gap in this country. Our current systems have been horrible at addressing this and it is continuing to widen. I don't really see how this system is any better since it is pretty much a lot of the same with maybe a few minor tweaks that might make it slightly less bad.
It's been pointed out several times now that it isn't the same thing. Right now there is a clear disincentive for some people to work- in some instances you can be worse off by getting a job. That wouldn't be the case with a BIG- if you earn more, you get more, in every single case. It's also been pointed out that this may lead to more people receiving training, since they won't be forced to take a minimum wage job, or work multiple jobs, to survive.

It's certainly not going to solve every problem, but it's clearly better in several ways than our current system.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, sounds like it'll just promote laziness. I don't like it. Being poor or jobless can be a very needed wake up call to many people.
I think we should have more poor people. Think of all the people we could jolt awake! Besides, Iron Sheik always needs more fuel for his car.

 
I think you guys are kidding yourself if you don't think the government won't pervert this into a self serving train wreck.

 
Dr J, I'm having trouble following you- have you backed off your "this would be a huge disincentive to work and would crush the global economy" and are now saying "doesn't seem like it would be much better than our current system"?
The collapsing of the global economy and terminator stuff is more a bit of tongue in cheek nonsense related to the idea that we're all getting automated out of jobs.

My original post regarding this actual idea itself was this:

We need to address the root problem rather than just treat the symptoms. The idea that you select a career at age 18, get an entry level job, and then reap ever increasing rewards as your experience in this area increases is becoming antiquated. Careers are now going to be fluid and we need a population that can adapt readily. Training and re training is now a continual process. Making sure that people can continue to survive no matter how little they're willing to adapt is kind of counterproductive.
There's a giant skill gap in this country. Our current systems have been horrible at addressing this and it is continuing to widen. I don't really see how this system is any better since it is pretty much a lot of the same with maybe a few minor tweaks that might make it slightly less bad.
there is no skill gap. Employers complaining they can't find enough employees are simply not offering enough pay to attract the right workers.
 
Dr J, I'm having trouble following you- have you backed off your "this would be a huge disincentive to work and would crush the global economy" and are now saying "doesn't seem like it would be much better than our current system"?
The collapsing of the global economy and terminator stuff is more a bit of tongue in cheek nonsense related to the idea that we're all getting automated out of jobs.

My original post regarding this actual idea itself was this:

We need to address the root problem rather than just treat the symptoms. The idea that you select a career at age 18, get an entry level job, and then reap ever increasing rewards as your experience in this area increases is becoming antiquated. Careers are now going to be fluid and we need a population that can adapt readily. Training and re training is now a continual process. Making sure that people can continue to survive no matter how little they're willing to adapt is kind of counterproductive.
There's a giant skill gap in this country. Our current systems have been horrible at addressing this and it is continuing to widen. I don't really see how this system is any better since it is pretty much a lot of the same with maybe a few minor tweaks that might make it slightly less bad.
It's been pointed out several times now that it isn't the same thing. Right now there is a clear disincentive for some people to work- in some instances you can be worse off by getting a job. That wouldn't be the case with a BIG- if you earn more, you get more, in every single case. It's also been pointed out that this may lead to more people receiving training, since they won't be forced to take a minimum wage job, or work multiple jobs, to survive.

It's certainly not going to solve every problem, but it's clearly better in several ways than our current system.
But as I've pointed out several times now, it is the same basic concept. I give you a couple bucks to give you a chance, and I hope that you're going to use this money to get yourself ahead so you really don't need the money all that much anymore in the future. This is a bit of a restructure, but the premise is the same - I give you a couple of bucks and I hope that you're going to use this money to get yourself ahead so you don't really need the money anymore. To me the goal is to make it so people don't need this money anymore, because in an ideal world the program doesn't even exist and people just provide for themselves without the government getting involved.

Programs based on this premise have proven to be unsuccessful IMO. In a variety of different formats since states all have some degree of autonomy in how they manage this. And no one has really given much explanation on why this is some magic formula that really gets us a heck of a lot more. I get that you get $20K in scenario 1 and you get $21K in scenario 2. I don't see how any of this makes you any less likely to need the original 20K to begin with just to survive.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
DrJ said:
I give you a couple of bucks and I hope that you're going to use this money to get yourself ahead so you don't really need the money anymore.
Who said anything about using the money to get oneself ahead? Or getting to the point of not needing it anymore? Neither "need" not "getting ahead" are part of the equation. You're still tjhinking of this in terms of "program for the poor".

To me the goal is to make it so people don't need this money anymore, because in an ideal world the program doesn't even exist and people just provide for themselves without the government getting involved
No advanced human society has ever even sniffed this ideal. It's an impossibility. Might as well plan for what human societies actually exist.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
DrJ said:
I give you a couple of bucks and I hope that you're going to use this money to get yourself ahead so you don't really need the money anymore.
Who said anything about using the money to get oneself ahead? Or getting to the point of not needing it anymore? Neither "need" not "getting ahead" are part of the equation. You're still tjhinking of this in terms of "program for the poor".

To me the goal is to make it so people don't need this money anymore, because in an ideal world the program doesn't even exist and people just provide for themselves without the government getting involved
No advanced human society has ever even sniffed this ideal It's an impossibility. Might as well plan for what human societies actually exist.
Again - what's the point of the program if it isn't to alleviate poverty. It would be a lot more efficient, less costly, and entirely fair for the government to eliminate all of the programs and give nothing to anyone. If we're not worrying about alleviating poverty, that's my preference.

 
Doug B said:
DrJ said:
What's the point of the program if it's not to alleviate poverty? The government could give nothing to anyone, it would be a lot more efficient, cost nothing, and be entirely fair.
The point is to change personal economic decision'-making at several levels, not just at the level of the poverty-stricken.

One big effect is that the underemployment parameters change. If the US economy can only support a million middle managers, and you are Middle Manager 1,000,0001 ... it doesn't wreck you financially to discover that you enjoyed working at the local bookstore (poster shop / silkscreener / etc.) and would like to stay there.

I'd expect that even entrepreneurship gets a boost, as the fall to the bottom is not so precipitous. The lady who was working three jobs to get by might now be able to dedicate some time to making home-made pastries for sale.
 
On top of those benefits: for those people who don't need the BIG at all**, the BIG means that much more disposable income for those people. Some portion will get saved, sure ... but a lot of it will get distributed out into the larger economy as more consumer spending that keeps more people working.

** thinking middle-class and upper-middle-class folks with no more than easily-manageable consumer debt..

 
DrJ said:
I give you a couple of bucks and I hope that you're going to use this money to get yourself ahead so you don't really need the money anymore.
Who said anything about using the money to get oneself ahead? Or getting to the point of not needing it anymore? Neither "need" not "getting ahead" are part of the equation. You're still tjhinking of this in terms of "program for the poor".

To me the goal is to make it so people don't need this money anymore, because in an ideal world the program doesn't even exist and people just provide for themselves without the government getting involved
No advanced human society has ever even sniffed this ideal. It's an impossibility. Might as well plan for what human societies actually exist.
:confused: Every society that didn't have a government providing for them operated just like this.

 
Come someone please explain to me why the government has to provide for everyone?
This was my first reaction but honestly we are way beyond the pale on this as it is. Our govt is no longer simply about providing freedom, law-and-order and basic infrastructure. A BIG may be far more preferable to the convoluted system we have now.
 
On top of those benefits: for those people who don't need the BIG at all**, the BIG means that much more disposable income for those people. Some portion will get saved, sure ... but a lot of it will get distributed out into the larger economy as more consumer spending that keeps more people working.

** thinking middle-class and upper-middle-class folks with no more than easily-manageable consumer debt..
Wait so more people will be spending more money? I've been told repeatedly that wouldn't happen.

 
Come someone please explain to me why the government has to provide for everyone?
This was my first reaction but honestly we are way beyond the pale on this as it is. Our govt is no longer simply about providing freedom, law-and-order and basic infrastructure. A BIG may be far more preferable to the convoluted system we have now.
What we are talking about is expanding assistance when we should be talking about backing it out.

 
Just did the math from the 2014 tax tables:

If all deductions, exemptions and credits were eliminated it would take an income of about $96,000 for an individual and $192,000 before they would actually pay any taxes above the $20,000 BIG.

I'm sure that will have to be adjusted.

 
Also, how does corporate income tax figure into this?

Will there be no tax credits left to influence corporate behavior?

 
Come someone please explain to me why the government has to provide for everyone?
This was my first reaction but honestly we are way beyond the pale on this as it is. Our govt is no longer simply about providing freedom, law-and-order and basic infrastructure. A BIG may be far more preferable to the convoluted system we have now.
The BIG is consistent with providing all three of those goals

 
DrJ - You clearly don't like this concept and you clearly don't like where we are at today. So what is your solution?

 
Come someone please explain to me why the government has to provide for everyone?
Some of us believe that the province of the government in a nation as rich as our own is to do what it can to minimize the number of people sleeping and starving on the streets.

 
Come someone please explain to me why the government has to provide for everyone?
Some of us believe that the province of the government in a nation as rich as our own is to do what it can to minimize the number of people sleeping and starving on the streets.
Sure. The government should start by taking YOUR paycheck first.
Sorry to do this, but when does this all become "socialism," exactly?

 
DrJ said:
humpback said:
DrJ said:
Dr J, I'm having trouble following you- have you backed off your "this would be a huge disincentive to work and would crush the global economy" and are now saying "doesn't seem like it would be much better than our current system"?
The collapsing of the global economy and terminator stuff is more a bit of tongue in cheek nonsense related to the idea that we're all getting automated out of jobs.

My original post regarding this actual idea itself was this:

We need to address the root problem rather than just treat the symptoms. The idea that you select a career at age 18, get an entry level job, and then reap ever increasing rewards as your experience in this area increases is becoming antiquated. Careers are now going to be fluid and we need a population that can adapt readily. Training and re training is now a continual process. Making sure that people can continue to survive no matter how little they're willing to adapt is kind of counterproductive.
There's a giant skill gap in this country. Our current systems have been horrible at addressing this and it is continuing to widen. I don't really see how this system is any better since it is pretty much a lot of the same with maybe a few minor tweaks that might make it slightly less bad.
It's been pointed out several times now that it isn't the same thing. Right now there is a clear disincentive for some people to work- in some instances you can be worse off by getting a job. That wouldn't be the case with a BIG- if you earn more, you get more, in every single case. It's also been pointed out that this may lead to more people receiving training, since they won't be forced to take a minimum wage job, or work multiple jobs, to survive.

It's certainly not going to solve every problem, but it's clearly better in several ways than our current system.
But as I've pointed out several times now, it is the same basic concept. I give you a couple bucks to give you a chance, and I hope that you're going to use this money to get yourself ahead so you really don't need the money all that much anymore in the future. This is a bit of a restructure, but the premise is the same - I give you a couple of bucks and I hope that you're going to use this money to get yourself ahead so you don't really need the money anymore. To me the goal is to make it so people don't need this money anymore, because in an ideal world the program doesn't even exist and people just provide for themselves without the government getting involved.

Programs based on this premise have proven to be unsuccessful IMO. In a variety of different formats since states all have some degree of autonomy in how they manage this. And no one has really given much explanation on why this is some magic formula that really gets us a heck of a lot more. I get that you get $20K in scenario 1 and you get $21K in scenario 2. I don't see how any of this makes you any less likely to need the original 20K to begin with just to survive.
I'll agree to disagree, but let's go with your interpretation for a minute- if this would make the current system "slightly less bad", why are you against it?

 
Come someone please explain to me why the government has to provide for everyone?
Some of us believe that the province of the government in a nation as rich as our own is to do what it can to minimize the number of people sleeping and starving on the streets.
Sure. The government should start by taking YOUR paycheck first.
Sorry to do this, but when does this all become "socialism," exactly?
At 6:44pm, Thursday May 1st, 2014.

Seriously, though, I understand needing to take care of the downtrodden and those who really need the help.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Come someone please explain to me why the government has to provide for everyone?
Some of us believe that the province of the government in a nation as rich as our own is to do what it can to minimize the number of people sleeping and starving on the streets.
Sure. The government should start by taking YOUR paycheck first.
Sorry to do this, but when does this all become "socialism," exactly?
It's not one or the other. It never has been.

In some respects, we are capitalist. In others, we are socialist. It's all a matter of where on that spectrum we are and where we want to be.

 
Come someone please explain to me why the government has to provide for everyone?
Some of us believe that the province of the government in a nation as rich as our own is to do what it can to minimize the number of people sleeping and starving on the streets.
Sure. The government should start by taking YOUR paycheck first.
They do already. I'm no chet but I make damn good money and pay my share of taxes. I don't need any federal assistance and hope to never need it. I don't have any direct family that gets it either.

I know you and others like to think that everyone who supports social welfare is a taker. I'm not, and I don't suffer from 'white guilt' either. I'm simply a white Christian male that thinks that our poorest are in that position because our societal actions over the last generations have pushed them that way. So I support my government's intervention. I wish they did a better job, but I certainly don't think we should simply turn off the faucet because the system is flawed.

I also think that when we pull someone out of poverty, we all win. It's a sound financial investment.

 
Come someone please explain to me why the government has to provide for everyone?
Some of us believe that the province of the government in a nation as rich as our own is to do what it can to minimize the number of people sleeping and starving on the streets.
Sure. The government should start by taking YOUR paycheck first.
Sorry to do this, but when does this all become "socialism," exactly?
It's not one or the other. It never has been.

In some respects, we are capitalist. In others, we are socialist. It's all a matter of where on that spectrum we are and where we want to be.
Fair enough.

Maybe I should take a step back and read through the thread.

 
Come someone please explain to me why the government has to provide for everyone?
This was my first reaction but honestly we are way beyond the pale on this as it is. Our govt is no longer simply about providing freedom, law-and-order and basic infrastructure. A BIG may be far more preferable to the convoluted system we have now.
The BIG is consistent with providing all three of those goals
I really don't want to get into political philosophy, but not really. It goes far beyond those basic roles. Which is fine.
 
Come someone please explain to me why the government has to provide for everyone?
This was my first reaction but honestly we are way beyond the pale on this as it is. Our govt is no longer simply about providing freedom, law-and-order and basic infrastructure. A BIG may be far more preferable to the convoluted system we have now.
The BIG is consistent with providing all three of those goals
I really don't want to get into political philosophy, but not really. It goes far beyond those basic roles. Which is fine.
I won't press you down that route if you don't want, but I think the BIG clearly enhances freedom.

 
Come someone please explain to me why the government has to provide for everyone?
This was my first reaction but honestly we are way beyond the pale on this as it is. Our govt is no longer simply about providing freedom, law-and-order and basic infrastructure. A BIG may be far more preferable to the convoluted system we have now.
The BIG is consistent with providing all three of those goals
I really don't want to get into political philosophy, but not really. It goes far beyond those basic roles. Which is fine.
I won't press you down that route if you don't want, but I think the BIG clearly enhances freedom.
In a sense, absolutely. For people under the current welfare system (all the arguments listed above) that's very true. One of the most compelling reasons to support it IMO. What I'm talking about is property rights, freedom of religion, free markets, trade etc. This doesn't improve those freedoms not does it hinder them (except if you argue that it's a redistribution program that raises taxes).
 
Come someone please explain to me why the government has to provide for everyone?
Some of us believe that the province of the government in a nation as rich as our own is to do what it can to minimize the number of people sleeping and starving on the streets.
Sure. The government should start by taking YOUR paycheck first.
They do already. I'm no chet but I make damn good money and pay my share of taxes. I don't need any federal assistance and hope to never need it. I don't have any direct family that gets it either.

I know you and others like to think that everyone who supports social welfare is a taker. I'm not, and I don't suffer from 'white guilt' either. I'm simply a white Christian male that thinks that our poorest are in that position because our societal actions over the last generations have pushed them that way. So I support my government's intervention. I wish they did a better job, but I certainly don't think we should simply turn off the faucet because the system is flawed.

I also think that when we pull someone out of poverty, we all win. It's a sound financial investment.
And here is the issue I have with this whole line of thinking. I completely disagree with this assertion.
 
^Jayrod, I've always felt that way too. I'm a conservative guy, personal responsibility is key etc. Yet in our country, people with money make more money off their money. Banks loan to people that already have money. Generational wealth rules in many corners of our country. Generational poverty is a real problem.

This whole thread has me torn. I fundamentally don't believe that one of the government's primary duties is to ensure a basic level of living. And I believe that government is so inefficient and prone to abuse that it's not even any good at ensuring that.

But something has to give. We will be stronger as a nation of we can free up the poor and working poor to invest in their own future and the future of their families. Some will do nothing with that. We can't force people to care or strive or save or educate themselves. Yet somehow (govt, private charity, incentive programs) we should be able to provide a sliver of hope and opportunity for those that will take that sliver and maximize it.

I'm rambling here. My personal mission is to generate wealth to invest in local businesses and employ others, create opportunity. But I'm one person.

Bill and Melinda Gates and other mega Rich can do a lot, but many of them don't, and it's still not enough.

 
This is an interesting topic to me. So if it isn't our societal influences that have led to the mass of poor in our country, then what is it? What else is there?

It's basic nature vs. nurture argument. If you don't think our society is what has led to our current state, then it has to be intrinsic in people right? It has to be genetic, hard-wired into us. But I know that the huge majority of us on here and in our society in general don't actually believe that our poor are genetically inferior.

On top of that, no other wealthy countries have the amount of poor we do. Are they genetically superior to us? Is there something about Scandinavia, Germany, Australasia, Japan, S. Korea, etc. that makes all of those people superior in their genetics? Of course not. So you're left with nothing else but that it is the nurture aspect, our society.

We know that these other nations have less poor, better educated populace, longer lifespans, less income disparity, lower crime, etc. Why?

It can not be anything but our environment. It just can't.

 
I know I am late to the party, but the problem as I see it (and it has been touched on before) is BIG won't be enough. I mean it is great to talk about replacing all the other current programs, but it won't happen. There will still be large entitlement programs that will not be sacrificed because let's face it, there is a percentage of our population, that you could make the BIG $20,000 or $40,000 or even $100,000 and these people would still not budget properly and they would still be crying that they can't pay their rent or there is no food. And then some do gooder liberal would come along and say "For the sake of the children" we need to keep funding x-program or create y-program.

For a truly effective BIG program to work, we as a society would have to be prepared to turn a blind eye to people dying in the street. We would have to accept the fact that the people that refuse to budget, spend their money on drugs/alcohol, etc, will not get a government handout and, absent charity from a church or private institution, this person ultimately dies.

All these conversations that a BIG would allow people to not work as hard and they could explore additional career options are just sugar coating it. Think about it, at least with food stamps, we don't say, "Wow, look at these coupons for food. Now you don't have to work quite as hard." No we call a pig a pig and call it what it is--a handout.

This won't work with the current entitled state of people in this country. All a BIG would represent is a safety net for the safety net above it.

 
Come someone please explain to me why the government has to provide for everyone?
Some of us believe that the province of the government in a nation as rich as our own is to do what it can to minimize the number of people sleeping and starving on the streets.
Sure. The government should start by taking YOUR paycheck first.
Sorry to do this, but when does this all become "socialism," exactly?
NEVER!

 
Why did I bother opening this thread? <slaps self in face>
I think this has gone pretty well. What's wrong with it?
Same thing that's wrong with our politics in general. You could just cut out some of the previous discussions, paste them here, and you wouldn't miss a beat. It's kind of boring to keep recycling the same ideas and having the same discussions about them again and again. And it doesn't really solve much either.
It's not so much that the arguments are repetitive, it's more that public opinion keeps drifting leftward. These are not good times for repressives conservatives.
Lets not forget that DrJ won't be any near the road block with this as those that run the welfare industry.

 
This is an interesting topic to me. So if it isn't our societal influences that have led to the mass of poor in our country, then what is it? What else is there?

It's basic nature vs. nurture argument. If you don't think our society is what has led to our current state, then it has to be intrinsic in people right? It has to be genetic, hard-wired into us. But I know that the huge majority of us on here and in our society in general don't actually believe that our poor are genetically inferior.

On top of that, no other wealthy countries have the amount of poor we do. Are they genetically superior to us? Is there something about Scandinavia, Germany, Australasia, Japan, S. Korea, etc. that makes all of those people superior in their genetics? Of course not. So you're left with nothing else but that it is the nurture aspect, our society.

We know that these other nations have less poor, better educated populace, longer lifespans, less income disparity, lower crime, etc. Why?

It can not be anything but our environment. It just can't.
It isn't our environment, it is people using the freedoms that this country provides as a excuse to be lazy and flaunt their basic human responsibilities.

In 3rd/4th world countries, you work or you die--plain and simple. People in this country say, "Hey I am free and I have the right to do what I want." so they choose to do nothing but leach off the system because the system just won't let you die.

In countries with less freedoms, people adapt and fear their government because they know, you buck the system, it will let you die--heck, it may even help you down that road.

We live in a lazy entitled country.

But the opposite is true, with these freedoms, comes unfettered opportunities that I wouldn't trade for anything. So it is a double edged sword.

 
Eventually, like it or not, this is going to have to happen. With the onrush of technology and automation the job displacement we are facing down the road is tremendous. And it would be cheaper than the way we do it now. Also it is cheaper to give people housing than it is to fund homeless programs. Ask Utah. Another thing that will be coming to more and more places.
Pretty much what I came here to post.
We need to address the root problem rather than just treat the symptoms. The idea that you select a career at age 18, get an entry level job, and then reap ever increasing rewards as your experience in this area increases is becoming antiquated. Careers are now going to be fluid and we need a population that can adapt readily. Training and re training is now a continual process. Making sure that people can continue to survive no matter how little they're willing to adapt is kind of counterproductive.
What is the downside of getting minimally skilled, unmotivated workers out of the way of those that are productive?

 
...But these programs haven't really proven to be all that successful anywhere, which is why dealing with poverty is as big of a topic as it's always been.
There hasn't yet been an "all in" example of the BIG, but I don't believe that there has been a single test that has failed. The test in the US in the 70's were abandoned largely based on a rise in divorce rates, not because people only worked 91% of the hours, (Yes that is a real number.)

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top