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)

'moleculo said:
'Jutz said:
'bostonfred said:
'cstu said:
'bostonfred said:
'Joe T said:
'cstu said:
I set the amount at 15,600 a year.
Click to expand...
Why would people work for $8 a hour if you did this?
Click to expand...
:goodposting:
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Hold on - the plan is to give $15k a year to all 225M adult Americans? That's 3.375 TRILLION per year.
Click to expand...
How can this be your twentieth post in this thread? Yes, that's the plan weve been discussing in a thread where you are the leading poster. You now seem to be on the road to understaanding the plan you have been so vocal and opinionated about. If you go back and read some of the earlier posts, you will see this and other points addressed.
Click to expand...
In all honesty, as you can see from my earlier posts, I didn't really get this either. The only problem is, I don't see how this fact makes the idea any better. IMO, it would make it worse.When I read that it would essentially replace our current welfare system, I thought it only involved those that currently collect government benefits... but giving it to everyone sounds kind of ridiculous to me, and I don't think it really negates any arguement against it.
Click to expand...
You are missing the other bit - it also replaces most loopholes in the tax code (itemized deductions). So the FBG pulling in a sweet $150k/year who has $15k in deductions - those deductions are gone but you get the $15k guarantee.
Click to expand...
Where is this $3.375 Trillion going to come from? It seems like no one advocating this is actually looking at the numbers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
One thing I will say is I think you could get a lot more political will behind cutting/eliminating entitlements if this was in place. I am a Liberal and here I am willing to say let's let them go and do something else instead.

We are on course to spend nearly 3 trillion this year on entitlements. That is pretty close to the cost of doing this. If we could dump all or most of those along with the elimination of the loopholes I don't think this is a budget killer.

 
'NCCommish said:
It is certainly one of the details to work out. I do think we could seriously reduce our entitlements. I think we could even eliminate a lot of them. I think we could also get some skin in the game from a lot of people who do use those programs that are left. We would probably still have food assistance but we would have less of it. We would probably have some housing assistance but we could get more from the residents rent wise. Again these are the discussions we would have to have before we did anything.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I can see both "sides" (conservative/liberal) getting behind a BIG (if they give the concept a fair shake), but they certainly wouldn't agree on the details. I'm more conservative, so I would insist on whatever BIG we implemented, it was paid for by eliminating other programs/closing loopholes/reducing expenditures elsewhere. I would also tend to want to eliminate most, if not all, other entitlements to play along. Certainly not really close to what you would probably want.But I certainly think there is a middle ground somewhere in there. I'm just playing pro-BIG in this thread as a general concept. The details are another thread, and it would be more contentious, I'm sure ;)
 
'cstu said:
Where is this $3.375 Trillion going to come from? It seems like no one advocating this is actually looking at the numbers.
Click to expand...
That can be printed and shipped out in about a week. We may need to bring a couple extra printing presses on line but that might even employ more people.
 
'NCCommish said:
'Black Box said:
'Soonerman said:
'Black Box said:
'Joe T said:
Seriously, please pass this. I will pay off my house in two years and retire.Someone who is good with their money can do a lot with 15k per year.
Click to expand...
'Black Box said:
Hint: don't get hung up on the $15K amount. Just think through the general idea of a BIG versus the system we have now.
Click to expand...
$15K is an example. Pick a different number you like better: one that provides some sort of safety net (so we can get rid of all our other safety net programs), but that still provides a strong enough incentive to work. Waa-laa!
Click to expand...
You are hopelessly naive if you think we will get rid of all other safety net programs. You might initially, but they will come back because there will still be plenty of irresponsible people, plenty of kids going hungry, and plenty of media-driven sob stories.
Click to expand...
I already said I agree with you. That is a huge problem. Probably my biggest hang up with the BIG as a concept.
Click to expand...
It is certainly one of the details to work out. I do think we could seriously reduce our entitlements. I think we could even eliminate a lot of them. I think we could also get some skin in the game from a lot of people who do use those programs that are left. We would probably still have food assistance but we would have less of it. We would probably have some housing assistance but we could get more from the residents rent wise. Again these are the discussions we would have to have before we did anything.
Click to expand...
Now you've lost me. Isn't the BIG supposed to be for food, housing, etc? I'm in favor of this in place of our current programs, not in addition to.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'St. Louis Bob said:
'bostonfred said:
'St. Louis Bob said:
If only there were a way to make everybody work really hard for the exact same wages. Ah Nirvana, will we ever obtain you?!
Click to expand...
If you are seriously interested in this thread - and i dont blame you if you arent - then the question should be, if only there were a way to eliminate welfare, social security, and other programs, and actually encourage everyone to work by eliminating the primary disincentive in these outdated, and arguably failed, programs. And knowing your political bent, I would think that really is nirvana for you.
Click to expand...
OLRY? If you are saying my "political bent" is that healthy people that would rather do nothing (see my little sister) and mooch off of others than work for themselves. Yeah, sure. I'm all for some kind of safety net although SS is just a giant pyramid scheme and you know it.
Click to expand...
Im saying that I've heard you voice your frustration with things like your sister in the past and I agree that it is frustrating.But does she mooch right now? Yes

would she continue to mooch? Yes

How does this program change anything for her? Well, it probably doesn't. She will keep mooching, as will a lot of other people. The difference is that if she chose to work, even a part time job at a liquor store or selling beads at some chicky craft store or whatever floats her boat, then she could pocket that money and not lose her moochy benefits. And that might actually appeal to her enough to contribute in some way some day. If not, then hey, she was mooching before, she keeps mooching, no harm no foul

 
'bostonfred said:
'St. Louis Bob said:
'bostonfred said:
'St. Louis Bob said:
If only there were a way to make everybody work really hard for the exact same wages. Ah Nirvana, will we ever obtain you?!
Click to expand...
If you are seriously interested in this thread - and i dont blame you if you arent - then the question should be, if only there were a way to eliminate welfare, social security, and other programs, and actually encourage everyone to work by eliminating the primary disincentive in these outdated, and arguably failed, programs. And knowing your political bent, I would think that really is nirvana for you.
Click to expand...
OLRY? If you are saying my "political bent" is that healthy people that would rather do nothing (see my little sister) and mooch off of others than work for themselves. Yeah, sure. I'm all for some kind of safety net although SS is just a giant pyramid scheme and you know it.
Click to expand...
Im saying that I've heard you voice your frustration with things like your sister in the past and I agree that it is frustrating.But does she mooch right now? Yes

would she continue to mooch? Yes

How does this program change anything for her? Well, it probably doesn't. She will keep mooching, as will a lot of other people. The difference is that if she chose to work, even a part time job at a liquor store or selling beads at some chicky craft store or whatever floats her boat, then she could pocket that money and not lose her moochy benefits. And that might actually appeal to her enough to contribute in some way some day. If not, then hey, she was mooching before, she keeps mooching, no harm no foul
Click to expand...
Fair point GB.
 
I feel like the people opposed to this idea primarily are angry at the idea of people getting something for nothing. Some other posters have tried to point out that if you step back and look at the logic of how government aid will or should be doled out, that this is likely equal or better, largely due to its simplicity. But many cannot seem to get past the image of the lump-sum check arriving, despite the fact that if you added up all of the smaller, "hidden" ways that aid is being given to citizens, it could exceed the amount given by the BIG and often has detrimental consequences.

I also think that many people are misguided about human motivation. Overall, the desire to strive has far less to do with things like incrementally increasing one's salary than with the need for creativity, approval and other less tangible goods that humans find rewarding.

Icon adamantly stated that he would never be content taking someone else's money and sitting around all day, as if there is no one else like him. I would wager that the majority people would feel similar to this and there would still be plenty of drive to keep society going. Plenty of people already game the system and some people will continue to do so, regardless of what system is set up.

But Joe T could do whatever it is that he plans to do with his $15K (or whatever number), give it to the bank or invest, and that would put the money back into the economy.

The primary argument that I could see that would be against BIG would be ending government benefits altogether, but I haven't seen many people do that. I've mostly seen "my facebook friend did this" or "a guy outside of a liquor store did that" or a number of points related far more to emotion and anecdote, than reason or statistics.

 
'cstu said:
How can you be advocating a program that is nearly equal to the entire 2013 budget ($3.54T)? SS, Medicare and Medicaid all add up to $1.65T, about half of what is being proposed here.
Click to expand...
So then maybe the BIG should only be $7,500? :wall: You're getting too caught up in that one number. No one has argued that that has to be the number or that it is even close to right for any particular reason. It just helps make the concept more concrete.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'cstu said:
'moleculo said:
'Jutz said:
'bostonfred said:
'cstu said:
'bostonfred said:
'Joe T said:
'cstu said:
I set the amount at 15,600 a year.
Click to expand...
Why would people work for $8 a hour if you did this?
Click to expand...
:goodposting:
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Hold on - the plan is to give $15k a year to all 225M adult Americans? That's 3.375 TRILLION per year.
Click to expand...
How can this be your twentieth post in this thread? Yes, that's the plan weve been discussing in a thread where you are the leading poster. You now seem to be on the road to understaanding the plan you have been so vocal and opinionated about. If you go back and read some of the earlier posts, you will see this and other points addressed.
Click to expand...
In all honesty, as you can see from my earlier posts, I didn't really get this either. The only problem is, I don't see how this fact makes the idea any better. IMO, it would make it worse.When I read that it would essentially replace our current welfare system, I thought it only involved those that currently collect government benefits... but giving it to everyone sounds kind of ridiculous to me, and I don't think it really negates any arguement against it.
Click to expand...
You are missing the other bit - it also replaces most loopholes in the tax code (itemized deductions). So the FBG pulling in a sweet $150k/year who has $15k in deductions - those deductions are gone but you get the $15k guarantee.
Click to expand...
Where is this $3.375 Trillion going to come from? It seems like no one advocating this is actually looking at the numbers.
Click to expand...
for a good chunk of the population, the $15k is the same as the tax loopholes they already have. Essentially you are increasing their taxes by $15k to give them back $15k in cash.for another chunk of the population, they are receiving $15k in subsidies/assistance as is.Everyone else is probably in between.Maybe $15k isn't the right number. What we are advocating (I think), is count up the amount all entitlement programs cost, including social security. add in all tax loopholes. divide that amount by the US population, and there you go. If you need to adjust the tax brackets to make this dollar amount slightly higher than the US poverty rate, so be it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry but you just can't give the majority of these losers a lump sum of cash. The lotto proves that. A small sample but the bigger loser at life you are the faster you blow your winnings. These people are dumb, can't manage money, have no interest in working and would spend the money on stupid ####.

However, if I get that same amount of $, count me in. :P

 
'Please See Mine said:
'cstu said:
How can you be advocating a program that is nearly equal to the entire 2013 budget ($3.54T)? SS, Medicare and Medicaid all add up to $1.65T, about half of what is being proposed here.
Click to expand...
So then maybe the BIG should only be $7,500? :wall: You're getting too caught up in that one number. No one has argued that that has to be the number or that it is even close to right for any particular reason. It just helps make the concept more concrete.
Click to expand...
Yeah I pulled that number out of thin air. But keep in mind we already give people what a 12k instant tax deduction? Remember the 47% that don't pay federal income tax? That is part of why. In my scenario they pay starting with the first dollar they earn outside of the BIG. That means a much broader base of payers which means more revenues and means it's reasonable to cut rates again.
 
'Please See Mine said:
'cstu said:
How can you be advocating a program that is nearly equal to the entire 2013 budget ($3.54T)? SS, Medicare and Medicaid all add up to $1.65T, about half of what is being proposed here.
Click to expand...
So then maybe the BIG should only be $7,500? :wall: You're getting too caught up in that one number. No one has argued that that has to be the number or that it is even close to right for any particular reason. It just helps make the concept more concrete.
Click to expand...
It IS about the numbers. Let's say you make it $7500...how are the elderly going to afford to live and buy health care with this? It would be great for 18 yo's but old people would be getting ####ed.
 
'lod01 said:
Sorry but you just can't give the majority of these losers a lump sum of cash. The lotto proves that. A small sample but the bigger loser at life you are the faster you blow your winnings. These people are dumb, can't manage money, have no interest in working and would spend the money on stupid ####. However, if I get that same amount of $, count me in. :P
Click to expand...
These "losers" will be "losers" no matter the welfare system we have in place. Would you rather the government hold their hand with program after program after program, or just cut them a lump sum check and tell them to be on their way?And if they come back with no money, just simply ask, "What did you do with your $15K?" You can't do that now because you have no idea what they are receiving from the government. BIG = personal responsibility. Catch it!And yes, you get the same amount of $$. That's one of the points: everyone does.
 
'NCCommish said:
'Please See Mine said:
'cstu said:
How can you be advocating a program that is nearly equal to the entire 2013 budget ($3.54T)? SS, Medicare and Medicaid all add up to $1.65T, about half of what is being proposed here.
Click to expand...
So then maybe the BIG should only be $7,500? :wall:

You're getting too caught up in that one number. No one has argued that that has to be the number or that it is even close to right for any particular reason. It just helps make the concept more concrete.
Click to expand...
Yeah I pulled that number out of thin air. But keep in mind we already give people what a 12k instant tax deduction? Remember the 47% that don't pay federal income tax? That is part of why. In my scenario they pay starting with the first dollar they earn outside of the BIG. That means a much broader base of payers which means more revenues and means it's reasonable to cut rates again.
Click to expand...
A $12k deduction at the 15% tax rate works out to $1800 in actual savings.
 
'cstu said:
'NCCommish said:
'Please See Mine said:
'cstu said:
How can you be advocating a program that is nearly equal to the entire 2013 budget ($3.54T)? SS, Medicare and Medicaid all add up to $1.65T, about half of what is being proposed here.
Click to expand...
So then maybe the BIG should only be $7,500? :wall:

You're getting too caught up in that one number. No one has argued that that has to be the number or that it is even close to right for any particular reason. It just helps make the concept more concrete.
Click to expand...
Yeah I pulled that number out of thin air. But keep in mind we already give people what a 12k instant tax deduction? Remember the 47% that don't pay federal income tax? That is part of why. In my scenario they pay starting with the first dollar they earn outside of the BIG. That means a much broader base of payers which means more revenues and means it's reasonable to cut rates again.
Click to expand...
A $12k deduction at the 15% tax rate works out to $1800 in actual savings.
Click to expand...
And yet combined with all the other stuff we have a large swath of people that legally owe nothing. We would be collecting something from a lot of those people under this scenario.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Black Box said:
And if they come back with no money, just simply ask, "What did you do with your $15K?"
Click to expand...
And the single mother will say "my boyfriend this month took it and ran off after beating me up and my children are cold and hungry". Whammo, WIC and food stamps and heating assistance will all come back.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Black Box said:
'lod01 said:
Sorry but you just can't give the majority of these losers a lump sum of cash. The lotto proves that. A small sample but the bigger loser at life you are the faster you blow your winnings. These people are dumb, can't manage money, have no interest in working and would spend the money on stupid ####. However, if I get that same amount of $, count me in. :P
Click to expand...
These "losers" will be "losers" no matter the welfare system we have in place. Would you rather the government hold their hand with program after program after program, or just cut them a lump sum check and tell them to be on their way?And if they come back with no money, just simply ask, "What did you do with your $15K?" You can't do that now because you have no idea what they are receiving from the government. BIG = personal responsibility. Catch it!And yes, you get the same amount of $$. That's one of the points: everyone does.
Click to expand...
How about this. A one time extra $3000 for sterilization. Or maybe just require the sterilization for anyone without a job. We can't allow the losers to reproduce. If we stop them, and eliminate them, the program could be just a temporary one that only last until the losers are eliminated. Worst case, the # of losers drops substantially and cost of the program drops. Currenlty with thier mass reproduction, the cost will only increase in time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Soonerman said:
'Black Box said:
And if they come back with no money, just simply ask, "What did you do with your $15K?"
Click to expand...
And the single mother will say "my boyfriend this month took it and ran off after beating me up and my children are cold and hungry". Whammo, WIC and food stamps and heating assistance will all come back.
Click to expand...
For the third time, I get it. It's a problem. Maybe I'll only agree to a BIG if there's a constitutional amendment that there can be no other government assistance outside of the BIG program ;)
 
'lod01 said:
'Black Box said:
'lod01 said:
Sorry but you just can't give the majority of these losers a lump sum of cash. The lotto proves that. A small sample but the bigger loser at life you are the faster you blow your winnings. These people are dumb, can't manage money, have no interest in working and would spend the money on stupid ####. However, if I get that same amount of $, count me in. :P
Click to expand...
These "losers" will be "losers" no matter the welfare system we have in place. Would you rather the government hold their hand with program after program after program, or just cut them a lump sum check and tell them to be on their way?And if they come back with no money, just simply ask, "What did you do with your $15K?" You can't do that now because you have no idea what they are receiving from the government. BIG = personal responsibility. Catch it!And yes, you get the same amount of $$. That's one of the points: everyone does.
Click to expand...
How about this. A one time extra $3000 for sterilization. Or maybe just require the sterilization for anyone without a job. We can't allow the losers to reproduce. If we stop them, and eliminate them, the program could be just a temporary one that only last until the losers are eliminated. Worst case, the # of losers drops substantially and cost of the program drops. Currenlty with thier mass reproduction, the cost will only increase in time.
Click to expand...
evidence A as to why this can never happen...too many folks are incapable of understanding the basic premise.
 
'lod01 said:
'Black Box said:
'lod01 said:
Sorry but you just can't give the majority of these losers a lump sum of cash. The lotto proves that. A small sample but the bigger loser at life you are the faster you blow your winnings. These people are dumb, can't manage money, have no interest in working and would spend the money on stupid ####. However, if I get that same amount of $, count me in. :P
Click to expand...
These "losers" will be "losers" no matter the welfare system we have in place. Would you rather the government hold their hand with program after program after program, or just cut them a lump sum check and tell them to be on their way?And if they come back with no money, just simply ask, "What did you do with your $15K?" You can't do that now because you have no idea what they are receiving from the government. BIG = personal responsibility. Catch it!And yes, you get the same amount of $$. That's one of the points: everyone does.
Click to expand...
How about this. A one time extra $3000 for sterilization. Or maybe just require the sterilization for anyone without a job. We can't allow the losers to reproduce. If we stop them, and eliminate them, the program could be just a temporary one that only last until the losers are eliminated. Worst case, the # of losers drops substantially and cost of the program drops. Currenlty with thier mass reproduction, the cost will only increase in time.
Click to expand...
Not even needed. Right now, we have programs in place that encourage moms to have kids (in an economic sense), because then they receive more benefits. With a BIG program, that incentive goes away.
 
'Black Box said:
'lod01 said:
'Black Box said:
'lod01 said:
Sorry but you just can't give the majority of these losers a lump sum of cash. The lotto proves that. A small sample but the bigger loser at life you are the faster you blow your winnings. These people are dumb, can't manage money, have no interest in working and would spend the money on stupid ####. However, if I get that same amount of $, count me in. :P
Click to expand...
These "losers" will be "losers" no matter the welfare system we have in place. Would you rather the government hold their hand with program after program after program, or just cut them a lump sum check and tell them to be on their way?And if they come back with no money, just simply ask, "What did you do with your $15K?" You can't do that now because you have no idea what they are receiving from the government. BIG = personal responsibility. Catch it!And yes, you get the same amount of $$. That's one of the points: everyone does.
Click to expand...
How about this. A one time extra $3000 for sterilization. Or maybe just require the sterilization for anyone without a job. We can't allow the losers to reproduce. If we stop them, and eliminate them, the program could be just a temporary one that only last until the losers are eliminated. Worst case, the # of losers drops substantially and cost of the program drops. Currenlty with thier mass reproduction, the cost will only increase in time.
Click to expand...
Not even needed. Right now, we have programs in place that encourage moms to have kids (in an economic sense), because then they receive more benefits. With a BIG program, that incentive goes away.
Click to expand...
That will not stop them from sitting at home and spreading their legs for every #### that walks in the door.
 
'cstu said:
'Please See Mine said:
'cstu said:
How can you be advocating a program that is nearly equal to the entire 2013 budget ($3.54T)? SS, Medicare and Medicaid all add up to $1.65T, about half of what is being proposed here.
Click to expand...
So then maybe the BIG should only be $7,500? :wall: You're getting too caught up in that one number. No one has argued that that has to be the number or that it is even close to right for any particular reason. It just helps make the concept more concrete.
Click to expand...
It IS about the numbers. Let's say you make it $7500...how are the elderly going to afford to live and buy health care with this? It would be great for 18 yo's but old people would be getting ####ed.
Click to expand...
Ok, that's a different (better) question. I certainly don't have the answer to it.Perhaps the BIG should be reserved for those 18 and over and those not above a certain age? This could help with some of the other issues raised about protecting children? I suppose that this is more of a logistical question than whether the theory has merit.
 
'Black Box said:
'lod01 said:
'Black Box said:
'lod01 said:
Sorry but you just can't give the majority of these losers a lump sum of cash. The lotto proves that. A small sample but the bigger loser at life you are the faster you blow your winnings. These people are dumb, can't manage money, have no interest in working and would spend the money on stupid ####. However, if I get that same amount of $, count me in. :P
Click to expand...
These "losers" will be "losers" no matter the welfare system we have in place. Would you rather the government hold their hand with program after program after program, or just cut them a lump sum check and tell them to be on their way?And if they come back with no money, just simply ask, "What did you do with your $15K?" You can't do that now because you have no idea what they are receiving from the government. BIG = personal responsibility. Catch it!And yes, you get the same amount of $$. That's one of the points: everyone does.
Click to expand...
How about this. A one time extra $3000 for sterilization. Or maybe just require the sterilization for anyone without a job. We can't allow the losers to reproduce. If we stop them, and eliminate them, the program could be just a temporary one that only last until the losers are eliminated. Worst case, the # of losers drops substantially and cost of the program drops. Currenlty with thier mass reproduction, the cost will only increase in time.
Click to expand...
Not even needed. Right now, we have programs in place that encourage moms to have kids (in an economic sense), because then they receive more benefits. With a BIG program, that incentive goes away.
Click to expand...
Yet another reason this would never fly- I believe in the BFS thread, he had a BIG for children as well (smaller amount I believe). There's no chance we don't include something to take care of children as well, which makes the numbers even more difficult.
 
'humpback said:
Yet another reason this would never fly- I believe in the BFS thread, he had a BIG for children as well (smaller amount I believe). There's no chance we don't include something to take care of children as well, which makes the numbers even more difficult.
Click to expand...
I linked to his thread earlier: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=543749He gives a portion to the family for each child and puts the rest in a trust fund for disbursement later. He also started with 10K for each individual. And his plan is basically an entire system of government so it has a much bigger scope (along with the positives and negatives that go along with that).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Please See Mine said:
'cstu said:
'Please See Mine said:
'cstu said:
How can you be advocating a program that is nearly equal to the entire 2013 budget ($3.54T)? SS, Medicare and Medicaid all add up to $1.65T, about half of what is being proposed here.
Click to expand...
So then maybe the BIG should only be $7,500? :wall: You're getting too caught up in that one number. No one has argued that that has to be the number or that it is even close to right for any particular reason. It just helps make the concept more concrete.
Click to expand...
It IS about the numbers. Let's say you make it $7500...how are the elderly going to afford to live and buy health care with this? It would be great for 18 yo's but old people would be getting ####ed.
Click to expand...
Ok, that's a different (better) question. I certainly don't have the answer to it.Perhaps the BIG should be reserved for those 18 and over and those not above a certain age? This could help with some of the other issues raised about protecting children? I suppose that this is more of a logistical question than whether the theory has merit.
Click to expand...
Understand that many state programs would presumably be replaced as well.
 
'NCCommish said:
One thing I will say is I think you could get a lot more political will behind cutting/eliminating entitlements if this was in place. I am a Liberal and here I am willing to say let's let them go and do something else instead. We are on course to spend nearly 3 trillion this year on entitlements. That is pretty close to the cost of doing this. If we could dump all or most of those along with the elimination of the loopholes I don't think this is a budget killer.
Click to expand...
Double the entitlements so we can get support to cut them in half!!!
 
'bostonfred said:
'Jutz said:
In all honesty, as you can see from my earlier posts, I didn't really get this either. The only problem is, I don't see how this fact makes the idea any better. IMO, it would make it worse.When I read that it would essentially replace our current welfare system, I thought it only involved those that currently collect government benefits... but giving it to everyone sounds kind of ridiculous to me, and I don't think it really negates any arguement against it.
Click to expand...
The idea is simple. There is no more gaming of the system. if you make 100k now, your taxes would go up, and your net income would ultimately stay the same. If you make 0 now, but get welfare, your welfare would go away, and you would get thousands per year in BIG, and your net income would ultimately stay the same. The reason this is better is that right now, if you make 100k, you cant get welfare. If you make 0, you can. But what happens when you make 10k/yr in a part time job? In the current system, your welfare benefit goes down. So now instead of making 10k/year more by working, you pay taxes on your check (you get them back at the end of the year, but that's cold comfort right now) , and your benefits go down, and you may even lose access to state or federal programs that offer health or other benefits. But with the BIG, you get a check. No matter what. You get the same amount whether you take that part time job or not, so every after tax dollar you earn is yours to keep. No worries about your benefits getting slashed because you earn more. And you know what? Let's get rid of that minimum wage, too, since people who make 5 bucks an hour are still getting the BIG. These are things conservatives are supposed to like.Will people abuse this? Sure. They abuse welfare and unemployment and social security now, too. This just gives the abusers an incentive to work.
Click to expand...
Well, I gotta hand it to you. I am definitely a lot closer to acceptance then I was at any point earlier. I think that maybe I somehow mentally blocked out the idea of giving everyone 15K because it goes aginst the thread of my every being so maybe I could't actually believe that anyone would suggest such a thing. I don't know, but I definitely understand the concept much better now. Thank you.The only thing I'm not too sure about is the part where you said if you make 100K now, your taxes would go up and the net impact would remain the same. I mean, just like Joe T I was about to get all fired up about that 15K I was going to get, but then you sort of took it away from me with that statement. So are you going to show me the :moneybag: or just give me a few :2cents: haha.
 
'Please See Mine said:
I feel like the people opposed to this idea primarily are angry at the idea of people getting something for nothing. Some other posters have tried to point out that if you step back and look at the logic of how government aid will or should be doled out, that this is likely equal or better, largely due to its simplicity. But many cannot seem to get past the image of the lump-sum check arriving, despite the fact that if you added up all of the smaller, "hidden" ways that aid is being given to citizens, it could exceed the amount given by the BIG and often has detrimental consequences.
Click to expand...
What happens when people, and there will be plenty, take their guaranteed income and blow it all on large screen TVs, speakers for their car, and things of the sort? Then they have no money left for the remainder of the year, and they can't get employed because the idiocy that caused them to blow their income is the same idiocy making emploeyrs question whether this person can do the job. These people will invariably start complaining that they're broke, destitute, and need assistance. That'll tug on some people's heart strings so much that they demand that government do something more to save these poor people. Bam, presto, the entitlements that the $15K was supposed to take the place of will be reimplemented to help those that can't help themselves, and soon we'll have a $15K guaranteed income and entitlements.

 
'Black Box said:
'humpback said:
Yet another reason this would never fly- I believe in the BFS thread, he had a BIG for children as well (smaller amount I believe). There's no chance we don't include something to take care of children as well, which makes the numbers even more difficult.
Click to expand...
I linked to his thread earlier: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=543749He gives a portion to the family for each child and puts the rest in a trust fund for disbursement later. He also started with 10K for each individual. And his plan is basically an entire system of government so it has a much bigger scope (along with the positives and negatives that go along with that).
Click to expand...
Yeah, I didn't want to get into it much and confuse the two, but I can't see any way we'd not give any money for children. So, there would still be a financial incentive for people who we'd rather not reproduce to do so.
 
'Jewell said:
What happens when people, and there will be plenty, take their guaranteed income and blow it all on large screen TVs, speakers for their car, and things of the sort? Then they have no money left for the remainder of the year, and they can't get employed because the idiocy that caused them to blow their income is the same idiocy making emploeyrs question whether this person can do the job.
Click to expand...
a simple answer is pay people in weekly installments of $288 instead of $15k/year.
 
'Jewell said:
'Please See Mine said:
I feel like the people opposed to this idea primarily are angry at the idea of people getting something for nothing. Some other posters have tried to point out that if you step back and look at the logic of how government aid will or should be doled out, that this is likely equal or better, largely due to its simplicity. But many cannot seem to get past the image of the lump-sum check arriving, despite the fact that if you added up all of the smaller, "hidden" ways that aid is being given to citizens, it could exceed the amount given by the BIG and often has detrimental consequences.
Click to expand...
What happens when people, and there will be plenty, take their guaranteed income and blow it all on large screen TVs, speakers for their car, and things of the sort? Then they have no money left for the remainder of the year, and they can't get employed because the idiocy that caused them to blow their income is the same idiocy making emploeyrs question whether this person can do the job. These people will invariably start complaining that they're broke, destitute, and need assistance. That'll tug on some people's heart strings so much that they demand that government do something more to save these poor people. Bam, presto, the entitlements that the $15K was supposed to take the place of will be reimplemented to help those that can't help themselves, and soon we'll have a $15K guaranteed income and entitlements.
Click to expand...
Yes, several people have acknowledged this, and it's why this idea is a non-starter for many IMO.However, in theory you could lessen the chances of blowing it all early by spreading it out to quarterly, monthly, maybe even weekly payments. It would take more administration, and it still wouldn't solve the problem completely, but it would help some.

 
'humpback said:
'Black Box said:
'humpback said:
Yet another reason this would never fly- I believe in the BFS thread, he had a BIG for children as well (smaller amount I believe). There's no chance we don't include something to take care of children as well, which makes the numbers even more difficult.
Click to expand...
I linked to his thread earlier: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=543749He gives a portion to the family for each child and puts the rest in a trust fund for disbursement later. He also started with 10K for each individual. And his plan is basically an entire system of government so it has a much bigger scope (along with the positives and negatives that go along with that).
Click to expand...
Yeah, I didn't want to get into it much and confuse the two, but I can't see any way we'd not give any money for children. So, there would still be a financial incentive for people who we'd rather not reproduce to do so.
Click to expand...
Yes, you are probably right. But there is no reason a BIG has to give money for children. lod01 can support a BIG in theory, but be against that aspect of a plan. I'm advocating for the big picture here. Pun intended. *groan*
 
'moleculo said:
'Jewell said:
What happens when people, and there will be plenty, take their guaranteed income and blow it all on large screen TVs, speakers for their car, and things of the sort? Then they have no money left for the remainder of the year, and they can't get employed because the idiocy that caused them to blow their income is the same idiocy making emploeyrs question whether this person can do the job.
Click to expand...
a simple answer is pay people in weekly installments of $288 instead of $15k/year.
Click to expand...
Which is what I envisioned
 
'Black Box said:
'humpback said:
'Black Box said:
'humpback said:
Yet another reason this would never fly- I believe in the BFS thread, he had a BIG for children as well (smaller amount I believe). There's no chance we don't include something to take care of children as well, which makes the numbers even more difficult.
Click to expand...
I linked to his thread earlier: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=543749He gives a portion to the family for each child and puts the rest in a trust fund for disbursement later. He also started with 10K for each individual. And his plan is basically an entire system of government so it has a much bigger scope (along with the positives and negatives that go along with that).
Click to expand...
Yeah, I didn't want to get into it much and confuse the two, but I can't see any way we'd not give any money for children. So, there would still be a financial incentive for people who we'd rather not reproduce to do so.
Click to expand...
Yes, you are probably right. But there is no reason a BIG has to give money for children. lod01 can support a BIG in theory, but be against that aspect of a plan. I'm advocating for the big picture here. Pun intended. *groan*
Click to expand...
Of course, but I'm just saying what I think is likely- children will be included.It's kind of a separate issue- I think we have our incentives mixed up when it comes to having children. We can/should change that IMO no matter what plan we use, but I don't think that's likely to happen either.

 
'NCCommish said:
'moleculo said:
'Jewell said:
What happens when people, and there will be plenty, take their guaranteed income and blow it all on large screen TVs, speakers for their car, and things of the sort? Then they have no money left for the remainder of the year, and they can't get employed because the idiocy that caused them to blow their income is the same idiocy making emploeyrs question whether this person can do the job.
Click to expand...
a simple answer is pay people in weekly installments of $288 instead of $15k/year.
Click to expand...
Which is what I envisioned
Click to expand...
Same idea applies. $288 per week is paycheck-to- paycheck living with the forethought of setting some aside each week to pay for monthly expenses like rent, utilities, etc. What if they regularly blow there $288 and can't afford to eat for a few days at the end of the week? What if they set nothing aside each week and get their utilities turned off or they get evicted? Still no entitlements in these likely situations?
 
'Jewell said:
'NCCommish said:
'moleculo said:
'Jewell said:
What happens when people, and there will be plenty, take their guaranteed income and blow it all on large screen TVs, speakers for their car, and things of the sort? Then they have no money left for the remainder of the year, and they can't get employed because the idiocy that caused them to blow their income is the same idiocy making emploeyrs question whether this person can do the job.
Click to expand...
a simple answer is pay people in weekly installments of $288 instead of $15k/year.
Click to expand...
Which is what I envisioned
Click to expand...
Same idea applies. $288 per week is paycheck-to- paycheck living with the forethought of setting some aside each week to pay for monthly expenses like rent, utilities, etc. What if they regularly blow there $288 and can't afford to eat for a few days at the end of the week? What if they set nothing aside each week and get their utilities turned off or they get evicted? Still no entitlements in these likely situations?
Click to expand...
Yes it is. But then this isn't really meant to be your total income under normal conditions. It would have to be much more to be that. It should only be that in emergency situations. And as far as running out of money before the end of the week goes I know fully employed people that happens to every week.
 
'NCCommish said:
'moleculo said:
'Jewell said:
What happens when people, and there will be plenty, take their guaranteed income and blow it all on large screen TVs, speakers for their car, and things of the sort? Then they have no money left for the remainder of the year, and they can't get employed because the idiocy that caused them to blow their income is the same idiocy making emploeyrs question whether this person can do the job.
Click to expand...
a simple answer is pay people in weekly installments of $288 instead of $15k/year.
Click to expand...
Which is what I envisioned
Click to expand...
Yes, but what would Bone Thugs and Harmony do? You would pretty much destroy any relevance to their one hit song:Wake up Wake up Wake upIt's the first of the weekGet up Get up Get upCash your checks and (something that rhymes with week)
 
'Jutz said:
'NCCommish said:
'moleculo said:
'Jewell said:
What happens when people, and there will be plenty, take their guaranteed income and blow it all on large screen TVs, speakers for their car, and things of the sort? Then they have no money left for the remainder of the year, and they can't get employed because the idiocy that caused them to blow their income is the same idiocy making emploeyrs question whether this person can do the job.
Click to expand...
a simple answer is pay people in weekly installments of $288 instead of $15k/year.
Click to expand...
Which is what I envisioned
Click to expand...
Yes, but what would Bone Thugs and Harmony do? You would pretty much destroy any relevance to their one hit song:Wake up Wake up Wake upIt's the first of the weekGet up Get up Get upCash your checks and (something that rhymes with week)
Click to expand...
I hadn't considered the impact on songwriters. I'll have to get back to you.
 
Can we get a list of everything that might be replaced by the BIG? And then perhaps we can get a good dollar figure on each?

Medicare

Food Stamps

SSI

Tax Deductions/Credits

Medicaid?

SS?

State Level Programs?

 
'Please See Mine said:
Can we get a list of everything that might be replaced by the BIG? And then perhaps we can get a good dollar figure on each?MedicareFood StampsSSITax Deductions/CreditsMedicaid?SS?State Level Programs?
Click to expand...
Well I think Medicare and Medicaid stay but people pay more for using them.Food stamps could probably be largely phased out but we may need to have food assistance for kids.All tax deductions/credits are gone.SS stays because you pay for it it doesn't use borrowed money. It isn't allowed to by law.An awful lot of state programs could go away if not all, including unemployment. Which not only helps the state it helps the employers who pay for it.
 
How much assistance would a typical loser at life, with say 2 dependent (future) losers at life, receive currently?

 
'lod01 said:
How much assistance would a typical loser at life, with say 2 dependent (future) losers at life, receive currently?
Click to expand...
Depends on the state, but roughly:Food stamps (SNAP) - $500Welfare (TANF) - $500 (supposed to have a 5 year limit)Medicaid - not sure what that costs
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

djmich
Guns, Murder, Race & Income
8 9 10
Replies
479
Views
10K
Stealthycat
Stealthycat
The Z Machine
California's $100b budget surplus
Replies
21
Views
769
the moops
the moops
GordonGekko
VP Kamala Harris Claims US Government Hurricane Ian Relief Will PRIORITIZE "Communities Of Color" (10/3/22 14:07 PST)
Replies
34
Views
860
FairWarning
FairWarning

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top