Jutz
Footballguy
EXACTLY! While I was against giving out free birth control, the population control was one aspect I felt was a positive... but the more I thought about it I realized it probably still wont help because of what you said.
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)
- Thread starter NCCommish
- Start date
Another thing that I honestly believe would be very beneficial, but will never happen for several reasons. Our incentives are pretty much backwards unfortunately.
![[icon]](/data/avatars/m/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}
[icon]
Insoxicated
How about this deal. We activate BIG... but every time you're caught spending it on something other than housing, food, medical..... you lose 33%. 3 Strikes and you get zero government assistance for the rest of your life. 
lod01
Footballguy
You mean like this 20 year POS that has asked me for a ride and for 50 cents in the last 2 weeks as he wanders around town? Seriously, this piece of trash needs to die. You can see it in his face that he has no interest in ever working a day of his life.
SacramentoBob
Footballguy
Shouldn't this be a poll?
bostonfred
Footballguy
Yes, that is precisely what we want to do. we already offer them welfare, ssd, etc. Let's end those programs and replace them with one that is designed to give homeless people enough money to get by so they don't have to be homeless, and that rewards them for seeking out work by giving them every dollar they make, without making them work under the table or forcing their employers to pay a higher wage than they are willing to. As for drug users, theres only so much that can be done. Programs exist today to help them and will continue to exist. Many but not all are tied to rehab. some are federal government, some are state or local, and still others are funded through charitable contributions. Those programs - not the welfare or ssd or other income programs - will continue to exist.
But there is no additional safety net above and beyond the BIG for these or other populations. This simply replaces those programs.
moleculo
Footballguy
gotta love government control
Long live big brother!
[icon]
Insoxicated
I think you're missing the sarcasm in my post.gotta love government control
The problem is, as long as you enable the stupid and lazy... they're going to continue to be stupid and lazy. They're going to continue to try to game the system. I want LESS government. Less reliance upon the nanny state.
The problem is these morons turn safety nets into hammocks.
#### them. Let them learn to work or let them die off.
Last edited by a moderator:
Again, I don't think it'll ever happen, but are you missing the part where they are saying we are getting rid of the existing safety net programs? Replacing them all with this one would be less government.I think you're missing the sarcasm in my post.gotta love government control
The problem is, as long as you enable the stupid and lazy... they're going to continue to be stupid and lazy. They're going to continue to try to game the system. I want LESS government. Less reliance upon the nanny state.
The problem is these morons turn safety nets into hammocks.
#### them. Let them learn to work or let them die off.
cstu
Footballguy
BIG would do far more harm then the collection of programs we have now. Look at the huge decrease in the number of long-term welfare recipients from the 70's compared to now, especially those on it longer than 5 years.
BIG is a plan to put everyone in the country on welfare for the rest of their lives.
lod01
Footballguy
They need stopped now. You can't let them exist or they breed more stupid and lazy slugs. They need exterminated.I think you're missing the sarcasm in my post.gotta love government control
The problem is, as long as you enable the stupid and lazy... they're going to continue to be stupid and lazy. They're going to continue to try to game the system. I want LESS government. Less reliance upon the nanny state.
The problem is these morons turn safety nets into hammocks.
#### them. Let them learn to work or let them die off.
cstu
Footballguy
Thia plan would cost 10x what our programs cost now. Paying people to sit on their ### so we can say "Look at our small government!" is a horrible idea.Again, I don't think it'll ever happen, but are you missing the part where they are saying we are getting rid of the existing safety net programs? Replacing them all with this one would be less government.I think you're missing the sarcasm in my post.gotta love government control
The problem is, as long as you enable the stupid and lazy... they're going to continue to be stupid and lazy. They're going to continue to try to game the system. I want LESS government. Less reliance upon the nanny state.
The problem is these morons turn safety nets into hammocks.
#### them. Let them learn to work or let them die off.
Bonzai
Footballguy
Isn't that the point? We want these people to blow all their money, don't we? As long as people are spending money, companies keep making stuff and hiring people.
the moops
Footballguy
moleculo
Footballguy
if there's sarcasm there, I missed it.that's what this does though. the stupid and lazy are already enabled. We all know all of the systems are scammed - you know it, I know it. My wife has family members that collect income tax returns despite not working. We all know food stamps are sold for cash, which is used to buy drugs. The system is abused left and right, inside and out.I think you're missing the sarcasm in my post.gotta love government control
The problem is, as long as you enable the stupid and lazy... they're going to continue to be stupid and lazy. They're going to continue to try to game the system. I want LESS government. Less reliance upon the nanny state.
The problem is these morons turn safety nets into hammocks.
#### them. Let them learn to work or let them die off.
Giving everyone $15k and being done with it - hard to game that, beyond pure identity theft. When you start placing restrictions on what you do with the money, the system becomes gamed... you would also need a bureaucracy to oversee the money, someone to penalize the cheaters, etc. The beauty of the BIG plan is the simplicity.
Fat Nick
Footballguy
I think this is all wrapped up in the same thing. Let me ask you...do you think an educated person understands the value of an education? Do you think an UNeducated person does?What's the difference? It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Kids that don't want an education come from families that didn't have an education, and didn't preach the importance of one. It's not just a coincidence that the high high-school drop out rates linger in certain areas. The parents didn't go to school, they don't teach their kids to want to go to school, and it just propagates. Find me a kid from a well-off, well-educated family that just wants to drop out of school. It doesn't happen nearly as often because they can SEE what education gets you, and their parents instill it in them. The same happens in reverse for uneducated. They don't value it, and they aren't smart enough to teach their kids to value it. The question is how do you fix it? In theory, you educate. Educate on the value of an education. Educate kids so that when they grow up, they have kids who then understand the value of an education. It's a cycle. I have NO clue how to break it...but it's a cycle. Your values come from your upbringing. It's very very hard to break that when it starts down the wrong path.
Jutz
Footballguy
Progressive Insurance is doing it... why not the government toogotta love government control
We activate BIG... but every time you're caught spending it on something other than housing, food, medical..... you lose 33%. 3 Strikes and you get zero government assistance for the rest of your life.
Fallerjw
Footballguy
What politician is going to vote for something that reduces their power? I see a lot of positives about the BIG, but it will never happen if politicians have to agree to it.
Last edited by a moderator:
That's where the "details" come in. He just threw out a number, obviously we'd have to come up with a way to make it not cost 10x as much as our current ones before taking it seriously, but I'm in favor of the general idea.Thia plan would cost 10x what our programs cost now. Paying people to sit on their ### so we can say "Look at our small government!" is a horrible idea.Again, I don't think it'll ever happen, but are you missing the part where they are saying we are getting rid of the existing safety net programs? Replacing them all with this one would be less government.I think you're missing the sarcasm in my post.gotta love government control
The problem is, as long as you enable the stupid and lazy... they're going to continue to be stupid and lazy. They're going to continue to try to game the system. I want LESS government. Less reliance upon the nanny state.
The problem is these morons turn safety nets into hammocks.
#### them. Let them learn to work or let them die off.
cstu
Footballguy
I think you're failing to understand the ramifications of this. If you told me at 18 that you would give me $15k a year to do nothing, that's exactly what I'd do.
Reepicheep
Footballguy
According to Wikipedia this was Hayek's practical hangup with the idea."It is obvious that for a long time to come it will be wholly impossible to secure an adequate and uniform minimum standard for all human beings everywhere, or at least that the wealthier countries would not be content to secure for their citizens no higher standards than can be secured for all men. But to confine to the citizens of particular countries provisions for a minimum standard higher than that universally applied makes it a privilege and necessitates certain limitations on the free movement of men across frontiers... we must face the fact that we here encounter a limit to the universal application of those liberal principles of policy which the existing facts of the present world make unavoidable."
cstu
Footballguy
It massively increases their power. All you have to be is the guy saying you'll increase the BIG amount 10% every year.
Fat Nick
Footballguy
Can you elaborate?
bostonfred, enlightening thoughts again. Seriously. Good stuff. I never thought about this from the angle of a person not contributing to the tax pool, just living off of their parents inheritance, etc.Two points though.1) Should a child not be allowed to live off of that income tax-free because their parents payed a correspondingly high amount in taxes when they initially earned the money? It seems like if you are punishing the child for not providing value to society, you should also reward someone for providing a disproportionally larger value to society, instead of taxing them more.2) I think one of my issues with this is that it provides a diminishing marginal return on success. Make more money, work harder, pay more taxes. If you start to overtax the super-successful via taxes while they're alive, and taxes that hinder their wishes when they die, there is less motivation to be super-successful. At some point, you lose the motivation to succeed. Darwinism dies off. People become OK with being just "OK." That's not how great things happen. What people often fail to realize, in my opinion, when pointing fingers at the rich, is that the success of the rich generates tons of income for others, beyond the paycheck that the guy at the top gets. Nobody would have a job were it not for the guy at the top who started the company to begin with, but that's never figured into their perceived obligation to society.
moleculo
Footballguy
probably, and you would have a good time doing it. I'd bet after a year of living a life exactly equivalent to the bottom rung of society, you would get bored and maybe a little ambitious and you might want to do better for yourself.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
I don't believe this is true of most people.
the moops
Footballguy
I guess the answer is sort of.I did find on wiki that there have been two places that have tried this.
[icon]
Insoxicated
Reepicheep
Footballguy
Great post.
Fallerjw
Footballguy
Good point. They can do that now, though. Not directly, but they still make changes to tax code, social security rates, etc. At least this would be more transparent.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
Well, this subject has certainly met with a lot less resistance than when Bottomfeeder first introduced it a couple of years ago. We must really be getting more comfortable with socialism, just like the Republicans have been charging all along.
I can't believe this thread is now three pages long without a BFS contribution. Maybe he's sitting back and reading it with the same satisfaction that Yankee gets when he sees a FairTax thread fire up.
I don't know if the numbers ultimately work but I like the concept of the BIG a lot.
I can't believe this thread is now three pages long without a BFS contribution. Maybe he's sitting back and reading it with the same satisfaction that Yankee gets when he sees a FairTax thread fire up.
I don't know if the numbers ultimately work but I like the concept of the BIG a lot.
Reepicheep
Footballguy
I don't know, man. Have you seen what video games are like these days? Is $15K a year enough to split rent with someone on a hole in the wall apartment, food, Internet, and a MMORPG subscription?
Last edited by a moderator:
moleculo
Footballguy
I hear ya and ordinarily don't disagree. We aren't coming from drastically different places here.I guess it comes down to your fundamental opinion of the population. I don't hold them in high regard either.
But, I know enough bright, hard working people to know that there are enough of us that don't want the absolute minimum that this can work.
consider this, [icon] - what is stopping you, right now, from quitting your job, moving into section 8 housing, and collecting food stamps?
Joe T
Footballguy
lod01
Footballguy
No. Wrong. They need to die. They add no value to society and only drain it like a blood sucking leech.
Last edited by a moderator:
moleculo
Footballguy
only one way to find out.
To make twice as much money?
Black Box
Footballguy
This is where I am at on this issue. But aren't the devil always in the details?Though I do think BFS ran some rough numbers whenever he was throwing around the idea.
[icon]
Insoxicated
I know i sound really bad in this thread... and part of it is schticking it up to get folks attention, but the problem is that I'd wager less than 50% of aid goes to people who are legitimately trying to better themselves and about 50% goes to folks just content to ride the wave of government support. I have NO basis of support for those numbers but it's a general feeling from what I see with my eyes. I genuinely want to help the former... I want to latter to suffer and either develop some work ethic and contribute to society... or go away. Me, I have a pride in the fact that I work for my money. At my fathers company there was a tradition of nepotism... his superiors all brought their kids in and let them work for kush jobs and fat paychecks that they simply didn't deserve. I could have followed that path but I didn't want to be handed a job by "daddy" when I graduated college. Part of being a man is making your own way (to a degree) and carving out a good life for yourself and your family.
I could never drop to that free standard because I would feel worthless knowing that I'm not earning that money... knowing that others have worked damn hard for the money and are now being forced to hand it to me so I can sit on my couch and watch TV all day. #### that.
Bonzai
Footballguy
Do you condemn such behavior because you'd jealously resent them, or because you think society would be harmed in some way by their lack of contribution?
Joe T
Footballguy
Exactly. After college move into a house with 4 or 5 of your buddies. Have a pool , ping pong , billiards, and have a great time .Sorry to bring common sense into this discussion, but you're saying that people would work 40 hours a week at a burger joint making $8 an hour when they could be making half that by sitting on their couches and eating doritos all day?
cstu
Footballguy
The person who earned the money is dead and can't use it anymore.Regarding your points:1) No they weren't the ones who earned the money and paid taxes on it. It is now income and should be taxed (I think the current $5M exemption is reasonable).2) People love to make money and the having the people who inherit it pay a tax doesn't change that.
bostonfred
Footballguy
I can't tell if you two are just totally missing the point of the BIG or if you have some other point you are trying to make here, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt. The reason they woud work for 8 bucks an hour is so they could make more money. They would gross 32000 per year instead of 16000, and only pay taxs on the eight bucks an hour. The BIG does not go down when you earn more money, everyone, including people who make much more than 16k/year, gets it. And you only pay taxes on the money you earned. This is in stark contrast to current programs like welfare and social security and unemloyment, which decrease or even eliminate benefits when you make money and provide a strong disincentive to work.
Politician Spock
Footballguy
True. And if you encourage laziness you will always have more lazy people. And if you discourage laziness you will always have less lazy people.
lod01
Footballguy
No. You one of those that we should exterminate? I can understand your frustration. I am talking common sense and you cannot comprehend it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Black Box
Footballguy
Probably.
cstu
Footballguy
I would resent them AND I think it would harm society.If you did this it would create a massive underground economy with people getting paid in cash to avoid taxes.
cstu
Footballguy
Hold on - the plan is to give $15k a year to all 225M adult Americans? That's 3.375 TRILLION per year.I can't tell if you two are just totally missing the point of the BIG or if you have some other point you are trying to make here, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt. The reason they woud work for 8 bucks an hour is so they could make more money. They would gross 32000 per year instead of 16000, and only pay taxs on the eight bucks an hour. The BIG does not go down when you earn more money, everyone, including people who make much more than 16k/year, gets it. And you only pay taxes on the money you earned. This is in stark contrast to current programs like welfare and social security and unemloyment, which decrease or even eliminate benefits when you make money and provide a strong disincentive to work.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Why would this be a bigger problem than it is now?
