Basic Income Guarantee (2 Viewers)

[(HULK)]

Cost of goods will almost always rise with any free money (Min Wage, govt handouts, whatever). You give everone in the country $15k free to start off and you're looking at inflation to reflect that.... bringing everything back down to level (except deflating everyone's EARNED wage. #### that.

False, demand will rise. Price has demand as a dependent variable, but it is not the only factor.

 

[cstu]

Honestly, I think a plan of this ilk will be adopted at some point in this country's future. It is inevitible.I say this mostly because of the massive shift in work looming on the horizon: automation.Within the next 20 to 30 years, I expect the vast majority of unskilled labor to be automated, as well as a fair ammount of mid-skilled labor. You can already see the beginings of this today, as automatic checkout machines are reducing cashier jobs, ATMs reducing teller jobs, etc. Within 10 years I doubt we'll have many truck driver or taxi driver jobs as self driving vehicles grow into a mature state. Even some higher end jobs, like doctors and lawyers, are going to have a drastically changing reality when hyper enabling tools like IBM's Watson get rolled in to medicine and law.In the past, when technology makes a job obsolete, it also usually creates a new job as well. Maybe not a full replacement, but some jobs. Imagine an assembly line of workers replaced by robots. The line jobs are gone, but we can add in robot maintanence and programming jobs as a replacement. The thing is, the advance of technology is accelerating. Jobs are being eliminated more rapidly than new jobs can replace them at an increasing pace. Even with a full economic recovery in the US, I don't think we'll ever see 4% unemployment again. 6% is my estimate of the best we can do, and I expect that % will creep higher and higher in the next few decades.Every one of us can pull a level. But only so many of use are capable of higher end jobs. So, what do we do about the folks who cannot find low skill work because it doesn't exist? The options are to institute something like a basic garunteed income, or to continue doing what we do now, which is very little combined with looking at them with disdain and calling them lazy. While today's option hasn't crumbled our society yet, I think moving forward this will become a greater and greater problem. At some point, we'll either find a way to support people who do not work (either by choice or because they're skills/intelligence is not enough to enable them to contribute) or we'll have a revolution. I prefer the former to the latter.

This is exactly what I'm concerned about and why education needs to be our primary focus. Obviously there are a lot of people who can't be doctors and engineers, but they can receive training to do jobs that are needed. Paying people to give up is not the answer.

 

[Slapdash]

I apologize for stepping on Bottomfeeders deal.

It is a good thing to bring up more discussion. Plus, that thread is a PITA to find.

 

[NCCommish]

It's the attitude of those in poverty that needs to be changed, not the cash flow. Any time someone is more willing to collect an unemployment check then work at McDonalds, there's a problem. Stop the free hand-outs. There's plenty of jobs that need to be done. There's trash to be picked up by the roadside. There's something for everyone on unemployment to do to benefit society.

One of the main benefits of the BIG is that it eliminates the disincentive to work. Whats the fastest way to lose unemployment benefits? Get another job. Same thing with welfare, social security disability, etc. - make enough and they cut your benefits. what's worse is, for some people, if they get a job, they will not only get screwed on money (they still make money by working, but their benefits are often decreased by enough that they no longer earn "minimum wage" per hour above what they were making before), but they risk losing other benefits, especially state sponsored health care. Add in a kid, and you have to find someone to watch them while you go to work and take home a couple bucks an hour more than you would have if you just collected a welfare check. And before you say that its their fault for having a kid, keep in mind that nobody is proposing that we legislate against #######. The rules are written in such a way that there is often little reason to work for a lot of people.Enter the basic I come guarantee. Now, if you make more money, you keep it. Now we dont need minimum wage laws, which reduce the availability of low income jobs and hamper growth (but are arguably a necessary evil without a BIG). Now people who are out of work still have some small safety net, but have an immediate incentive to get back to work. Now illegals have a harder time gaming the system because you cant collect money without a ss#. Now we can change a ton of flawed areas in the tax code. And with a universal health care plan - properly implemented - people no longer have to fear going to work and losing their medical benefits, which is a serious issue for the partially disabled and mentally ill. There's a lot of good involved in the BIG, when you think it through. There are some concerns though. One of the biggest is inflation. At some point, if everyone has more money, everyones money is worth less. The BIG has the potential to put a lot more money into circulation, if there aren't corresponding tax code changes, which amounts to a fairly regressive wealth transfer. There's also a lot of effort involved in keeping track of every citizen and sending them a check - and some privacy questions, too. And the tax code would need to be changed all over the place, which inevitably creates new and interesting ways to game the system, no matter how well intentioned. But these seem like beatable hurdles. I am a fan.

Good points. I could see dropping the minimum wage and the need for employers to pay into unemployment.

 

[bostonfred]

The person bequeathing that money was already taxed. Why should it be taxed again? BS IMO.

Because as a society we choose to do so. I have no problem with you doing what you want with your money once you've paid taxes on it, however it was earned. If you choose to buy a car, you might pay sales or excise taxes. If you buy and sell stocks, you might pay capital gains. If you employ someone, you might pay a payroll tax. those are all valid decisions on what to do with your money that incur a secondary taxation.But of all the taxes, the idea of an estate tax is one where we basically say, look, if you want to hand a business down from generation to generation, that's fine. If you want to set up a college fund and a trust fund to make sure your kid has a leg up in life, more power to you. But if you want to pass on your multi million dollar estate to a kid who has not intention of providing value to society, and just wants to consume our resources on your dime after you're gone, then your little paris hilton is going to have to pony up a pain in the ### tax to the rest of us working folks. If you don't like it, send your kid out of america because we don't want them.

 

[cstu]

I was thinking it would make it easier for couples to have someone stay home with the kids.

Once again something that "conservatives" have been ranting on for years, that one parent or latchkey kids are a problem with modern society. Of course they would never go for something that would actually address that issue.

I've always thought it was moronic to give welfare to unmarried women but take it away if they got married. Perhaps we could only give BIG to married women with children and take away child tax credits.

 

[B-Deep]

I know there are the exceptions...I know that a lot of these people depend on this money in hard times...but I think the majority of them depend on it because they are lazy and not educated on HOW to get out from under that support.

I simply disagree with this

Do you disagree with the "majority" comment or the "lazy" part? Or something else?

those two combined i would sayi most definitely think that most poor people are not poor simply because they are lazy. I am not saying none are, but I do not think it is a majority. Almost no one wants to live in poverty, even if the government is assisting them with the basics. There's always the crazy examples, and I am sure there are some.Quite frankly, I think people with money in this country tend to believe in the idealized concept that in America you get what you deserve. The circumstances of your birth are by far the largest determining factor in where you end up. It's not set in stone, people can overcome, but it is the largest determining factor.The not educated on how to get out is probably a part of your comment I agree with.I don't have any answers to the problems, so perhaps none of this matters. I will not, however, just patently agree that the majority of those in poverty are there because they are lazy.

 

[cstu]

The person bequeathing that money was already taxed. Why should it be taxed again? BS IMO.

Because as a society we choose to do so. I have no problem with you doing what you want with your money once you've paid taxes on it, however it was earned. If you choose to buy a car, you might pay sales or excise taxes. If you buy and sell stocks, you might pay capital gains. If you employ someone, you might pay a payroll tax. those are all valid decisions on what to do with your money that incur a secondary taxation.But of all the taxes, the idea of an estate tax is one where we basically say, look, if you want to hand a business down from generation to generation, that's fine. If you want to set up a college fund and a trust fund to make sure your kid has a leg up in life, more power to you. But if you want to pass on your multi million dollar estate to a kid who has not intention of providing value to society, and just wants to consume our resources on your dime after you're gone, then your little paris hilton is going to have to pony up a pain in the ### tax to the rest of us working folks. If you don't like it, send your kid out of america because we don't want them.

 

[Jutz]

You know I get it's fashionable to hate on a certain segment of society. And yes there will always be lazy people. But really I know more than a few people who are income challenged. By and large they want what you do. A place of their own, a little money in the bank, a better life for their kids and chance to retire with some dignity. I think we do ourselves a disservice when we forget that.

I agree that it is fashionable to hate on a certian segment of society, however; when I read this I was thinking how fashionabl it is to hate people that work in upper management in large corporations.I absoloutely agree that the income challenged want what I want. I guarantee if they did the things that I did, they could get what I have... but I've never met anyone that is income challenged that has done what I have done, or is willing to do what I do, in order to get what I have. They just want it... end of story.

 

[Fat Nick]

It's the attitude of those in poverty that needs to be changed, not the cash flow. Any time someone is more willing to collect an unemployment check then work at McDonalds, there's a problem. Stop the free hand-outs. There's plenty of jobs that need to be done. There's trash to be picked up by the roadside. There's something for everyone on unemployment to do to benefit society.

One of the main benefits of the BIG is that it eliminates the disincentive to work. Whats the fastest way to lose unemployment benefits? Get another job. Same thing with welfare, social security disability, etc. - make enough and they cut your benefits. what's worse is, for some people, if they get a job, they will not only get screwed on money (they still make money by working, but their benefits are often decreased by enough that they no longer earn "minimum wage" per hour above what they were making before), but they risk losing other benefits, especially state sponsored health care. Add in a kid, and you have to find someone to watch them while you go to work and take home a couple bucks an hour more than you would have if you just collected a welfare check. And before you say that its their fault for having a kid, keep in mind that nobody is proposing that we legislate against #######. The rules are written in such a way that there is often little reason to work for a lot of people.Enter the basic I come guarantee. Now, if you make more money, you keep it. Now we dont need minimum wage laws, which reduce the availability of low income jobs and hamper growth (but are arguably a necessary evil without a BIG). Now people who are out of work still have some small safety net, but have an immediate incentive to get back to work. Now illegals have a harder time gaming the system because you cant collect money without a ss#. Now we can change a ton of flawed areas in the tax code. And with a universal health care plan - properly implemented - people no longer have to fear going to work and losing their medical benefits, which is a serious issue for the partially disabled and mentally ill. There's a lot of good involved in the BIG, when you think it through. There are some concerns though. One of the biggest is inflation. At some point, if everyone has more money, everyones money is worth less. The BIG has the potential to put a lot more money into circulation, if there aren't corresponding tax code changes, which amounts to a fairly regressive wealth transfer. There's also a lot of effort involved in keeping track of every citizen and sending them a check - and some privacy questions, too. And the tax code would need to be changed all over the place, which inevitably creates new and interesting ways to game the system, no matter how well intentioned. But these seem like beatable hurdles. I am a fan.

Good stuff here. Thanks.I never thought about the economical disincentives of actually getting a job. That really seems like an issue that needs to be addressed regardless of the system, and I can see how the OP's suggestion would deal with at least some of the issue. Basically, this is incremental to whatever you make, no matter what your income. No more issue with making more making you less. It does seem that your healthcare point means that in some ways, the BIG should come paired with basic healthcare. Either incremental, or as a mandatory deduction from the BIG amount for those who do not have healthcare from other means.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Could you make it so this income could only be spent on certain things like necessities?

EBT fraud is a huge issue... people sell $500 EBT cards for $200 cash all day long. Liquor stores fraudulently accept them. etc.... There is a whole cottage industry around it. I wouldn't expect this to work any better.

I know it is because nothing is set in place to track the benefit to the user.Technology is cool. I'm thinking you could link the benefit to the person somehow so that these cards (or whatever they would be) would be non-transferrable.It likely would be like a debit card rather than a pre-loaded gift card like the current EBT setup.

 

[humpback]

I'm on board. I think it solves a lot of problems and cleans up a lot of issues. Of course, this only works as a replacement safety net - not as an additional safety net. if you do this and get rid of food stamps, for example, I'm on board.I make a good living and have a nice house, but there's always that risk looming in the background - what happens if my employer goes belly up? How would I pay the mortgage? Of course, I have savings and investments I could tap into, but I could pay my whole mortgage with $15k/year untaxed and from then on, it's only worrying about food/utilities/etc. To me, that's a safety net people of all incomes could feel good about.

I believe it was Bottom Feeder Sports that brought this up earlier - he had a lot of really great points, and I'm pretty sure there is a thread on it somewhere. Here is another great point - a BIG would allow some folks the freedom from working low-paying jobs just to make ends meet, and that could help foster innovation and/or the arts. In theory, someone like me could quit my job and spend all of my time in my garage tinkering on the next great invention. A struggling artist wouldn't struggle so much, if his basic needs could be more easily met. Not everyone out there is a lazy d-bag, there are some legit hard working people who struggle to make ends meet.Here's the problem - there are tons of people who will blow that entire $15k/year on drugs. Of this, I have no doubt. These people will have essentially burned through the safety net, and all of a sudden, the bleeding-hart softies will want a safety net for them, and we end up doubling down, costing our society 2x what we do now. I suppose that's the slippery slope argument.

Agreed, which is why this is a pipe dream. BFS suggested that this would replace our social programs for the poor, which is essentially the only way it could work financially, but that would never happen.

 

[Sarnoff]

Are we giving the money to illegal immigrants too?

 

[Jutz]

Has icon always been such a disgruntled, dooshy, hate on the less fortunate type?

I'm a realist. Between living in Memphis, and having GF who's brother in law's entire family lives on Govt checks (and uses them to buy kids iPads, flat screen TV's, Xbox 360s, drink cases of name brand sodas, etc)... i'm jaded.

If that makes me a doosh in some folks' eyes, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

I'm Libertarian and the idea of the Government issuing $15k checks to every citizen is absurd to me... SMaller government. Less nanny state. Less people suckling from the teat.

This crap all sounds fantastic in theory.... but the problem is angle shooters destroy it when it's deployed.

Exactly on the bolded... good point.

 

[Slapdash]

The (Hulk) and bostonfred arguements highlight a lot of the strengths of the B.I.G. I'm very worried about the long term effects of globalization and technology on wages and employment. This seems like a good way to spur entreprenuership and innovation too. It is important to remember, the US workforce is more dependent on employment by large corporations than any other developed country (I don't have this link handy, but I've seen it before). Changing the welfare structure in this way would lessen that dependency.

 

[Fat Nick]

I know there are the exceptions...I know that a lot of these people depend on this money in hard times...but I think the majority of them depend on it because they are lazy and not educated on HOW to get out from under that support.

I simply disagree with this

Do you disagree with the "majority" comment or the "lazy" part? Or something else?

those two combined i would sayi most definitely think that most poor people are not poor simply because they are lazy. I am not saying none are, but I do not think it is a majority. Almost no one wants to live in poverty, even if the government is assisting them with the basics. There's always the crazy examples, and I am sure there are some.Quite frankly, I think people with money in this country tend to believe in the idealized concept that in America you get what you deserve. The circumstances of your birth are by far the largest determining factor in where you end up. It's not set in stone, people can overcome, but it is the largest determining factor.The not educated on how to get out is probably a part of your comment I agree with.I don't have any answers to the problems, so perhaps none of this matters. I will not, however, just patently agree that the majority of those in poverty are there because they are lazy.

Fair. Admittedly, I guess it's an impossible statistic to know really as nobody will admit to being lazy. We can agree to disagree. I don't know that I'm right or wrong. I just base this on the fact that most of the people that I know in my life that I would classify as lazy are also the same people making poor financial decisions and needing help from social programs (One friend said to me one time "I don't know why these credit card companies keep sending me free money." He just got a new CC, and promptly added that card's balance to his already growing debt). I guess the distinction needs to be made between lazy and financially uneducated, but it's a very fine line there as well. What you consider "OK" is very much a factor of your childhood.I agree no one wants to live in poverty, but I guess we disagree on how many of those not wanting to live in poverty are willing to start at the bottom and work their way up and how many expect things handed to them. Additionally, I still say that many of those at the bottom don't posses the basic skills TO work their way up...be it because of the socioeconomic class they were born into, or what. I 100% agree that a child born to parents who are in poverty has the deck stacked against them. The biggest reason is 2 fold - They are less likely to get a solid foundation of financial principals at home, and they are less likely to have access to education beyond what is provided (K-12). I'll be the first to admit that my father taught me at a very young age the value of a dollar, the value of savings, and the importance of not only working hard, but also having the skills TO work hard. I know there are many who are not as fortunate at home...but we can overcome the non-parental education part, which will, over time, address the parental one as those people become parents.

 

[St. Louis Bob]

The person bequeathing that money was already taxed. Why should it be taxed again? BS IMO.

Because as a society we choose to do so. I have no problem with you doing what you want with your money once you've paid taxes on it, however it was earned. If you choose to buy a car, you might pay sales or excise taxes. If you buy and sell stocks, you might pay capital gains. If you employ someone, you might pay a payroll tax. those are all valid decisions on what to do with your money that incur a secondary taxation.But of all the taxes, the idea of an estate tax is one where we basically say, look, if you want to hand a business down from generation to generation, that's fine. If you want to set up a college fund and a trust fund to make sure your kid has a leg up in life, more power to you. But if you want to pass on your multi million dollar estate to a kid who has not intention of providing value to society, and just wants to consume our resources on your dime after you're gone, then your little paris hilton is going to have to pony up a pain in the ### tax to the rest of us working folks. If you don't like it, send your kid out of america because we don't want them.

Give me a break. Who determines this "value"? Why not just have the State take it all then when you die?

 

[(HULK)]

Honestly, I think a plan of this ilk will be adopted at some point in this country's future. It is inevitible.I say this mostly because of the massive shift in work looming on the horizon: automation.Within the next 20 to 30 years, I expect the vast majority of unskilled labor to be automated, as well as a fair ammount of mid-skilled labor. You can already see the beginings of this today, as automatic checkout machines are reducing cashier jobs, ATMs reducing teller jobs, etc. Within 10 years I doubt we'll have many truck driver or taxi driver jobs as self driving vehicles grow into a mature state. Even some higher end jobs, like doctors and lawyers, are going to have a drastically changing reality when hyper enabling tools like IBM's Watson get rolled in to medicine and law.In the past, when technology makes a job obsolete, it also usually creates a new job as well. Maybe not a full replacement, but some jobs. Imagine an assembly line of workers replaced by robots. The line jobs are gone, but we can add in robot maintanence and programming jobs as a replacement. The thing is, the advance of technology is accelerating. Jobs are being eliminated more rapidly than new jobs can replace them at an increasing pace. Even with a full economic recovery in the US, I don't think we'll ever see 4% unemployment again. 6% is my estimate of the best we can do, and I expect that % will creep higher and higher in the next few decades.Every one of us can pull a level. But only so many of use are capable of higher end jobs. So, what do we do about the folks who cannot find low skill work because it doesn't exist? The options are to institute something like a basic garunteed income, or to continue doing what we do now, which is very little combined with looking at them with disdain and calling them lazy. While today's option hasn't crumbled our society yet, I think moving forward this will become a greater and greater problem. At some point, we'll either find a way to support people who do not work (either by choice or because they're skills/intelligence is not enough to enable them to contribute) or we'll have a revolution. I prefer the former to the latter.

This is exactly what I'm concerned about and why education needs to be our primary focus. Obviously there are a lot of people who can't be doctors and engineers, but they can receive training to do jobs that are needed. Paying people to give up is not the answer.

I'm all for free education. It will probably be necessary in the future.In my mind, this isn't paying people to give up, its paying people to be able to care for themselves and to be able to continue to participate as a consumer.As long as there are roughly enough jobs for people, then yes, this system isn't one I really favor. However, once it gets to a point where there simply are not enough jobs to employee everyone, something like this will be necessary. Automation, 3-d printing, and who knows what else is coming, and it is going to stand our current economy up on its head. We should be planning for this now, as I see it as inevitible. Corporations are beholden to their shareholders, and their only law is to increase shareholder value. As such, the drive for efficiency is eternal and unending. Once a machine can perform a task more cheaply than a human, the machine will rapidly replace that human in the economy.

 

[Jutz]

I know there are the exceptions...I know that a lot of these people depend on this money in hard times...but I think the majority of them depend on it because they are lazy and not educated on HOW to get out from under that support.

I simply disagree with this

Do you disagree with the "majority" comment or the "lazy" part? Or something else?

those two combined i would sayi most definitely think that most poor people are not poor simply because they are lazy. I am not saying none are, but I do not think it is a majority. Almost no one wants to live in poverty, even if the government is assisting them with the basics. There's always the crazy examples, and I am sure there are some.Quite frankly, I think people with money in this country tend to believe in the idealized concept that in America you get what you deserve. The circumstances of your birth are by far the largest determining factor in where you end up. It's not set in stone, people can overcome, but it is the largest determining factor.The not educated on how to get out is probably a part of your comment I agree with.I don't have any answers to the problems, so perhaps none of this matters. I will not, however, just patently agree that the majority of those in poverty are there because they are lazy.

Fair. Admittedly, I guess it's an impossible statistic to know really as nobody will admit to being lazy. We can agree to disagree. I don't know that I'm right or wrong. I just base this on the fact that most of the people that I know in my life that I would classify as lazy are also the same people making poor financial decisions and needing help from social programs (One friend said to me one time "I don't know why these credit card companies keep sending me free money." He just got a new CC, and promptly added that card's balance to his already growing debt). I guess the distinction needs to be made between lazy and financially uneducated, but it's a very fine line there as well. What you consider "OK" is very much a factor of your childhood.I agree no one wants to live in poverty, but I guess we disagree on how many of those not wanting to live in poverty are willing to start at the bottom and work their way up and how many expect things handed to them. Additionally, I still say that many of those at the bottom don't posses the basic skills TO work their way up...be it because of the socioeconomic class they were born into, or what. I 100% agree that a child born to parents who are in poverty has the deck stacked against them. The biggest reason is 2 fold - They are less likely to get a solid foundation of financial principals at home, and they are less likely to have access to education beyond what is provided (K-12). I'll be the first to admit that my father taught me at a very young age the value of a dollar, the value of savings, and the importance of not only working hard, but also having the skills TO work hard. I know there are many who are not as fortunate at home...but we can overcome the non-parental education part, which will, over time, address the parental one as those people become parents.

 

[bostonfred]

Agreed, which is why this is a pipe dream. BFS suggested that this would replace our social programs for the poor, which is essentially the only way it could work financially, but that would never happen.

Sure it could. The people who defend the social programs for the poor are the ones most in favor of this. This is the safety net. If people sell their food stamps for drugs and spend their welfare check on more drugs, there is nothing stopping them right now. Same with this. There are still programs for drug rehab and homeless shelters and section 8 housing, but the income programs are entirely replaced by this. Even social security, to some extent, could be replaced by the BIG. We simply don't need a dozen similar programs to give money to people who don't/can't/can no longer work. And people who do work can afford to take crappy jobs for relatively low pay because they will take it all home in addition to the BIG.

 

[St. Louis Bob]

Are we giving the money to illegal immigrants too?

Only after taking it from them if they've worked hard and have been successful. Every generation has to start from dirt poor. It's only fair.

 

[cstu]

I guess the distinction needs to be made between lazy and financially uneducated, but it's a very fine line there as well. What you consider "OK" is very much a factor of your childhood.

Good point. I would say that many so-called 'lazy' people have worked much harder than I ever have. I don't know if it's really that people are lazy but that they have poor decision-making skills.

 

[St. Louis Bob]

I know there are the exceptions...I know that a lot of these people depend on this money in hard times...but I think the majority of them depend on it because they are lazy and not educated on HOW to get out from under that support.

I simply disagree with this

Do you disagree with the "majority" comment or the "lazy" part? Or something else?

those two combined i would sayi most definitely think that most poor people are not poor simply because they are lazy. I am not saying none are, but I do not think it is a majority. Almost no one wants to live in poverty, even if the government is assisting them with the basics. There's always the crazy examples, and I am sure there are some.

Quite frankly, I think people with money in this country tend to believe in the idealized concept that in America you get what you deserve. The circumstances of your birth are by far the largest determining factor in where you end up. It's not set in stone, people can overcome, but it is the largest determining factor.

The not educated on how to get out is probably a part of your comment I agree with.

I don't have any answers to the problems, so perhaps none of this matters. I will not, however, just patently agree that the majority of those in poverty are there because they are lazy.

Fair. Admittedly, I guess it's an impossible statistic to know really as nobody will admit to being lazy. We can agree to disagree. I don't know that I'm right or wrong. I just base this on the fact that most of the people that I know in my life that I would classify as lazy are also the same people making poor financial decisions and needing help from social programs (One friend said to me one time "I don't know why these credit card companies keep sending me free money." He just got a new CC, and promptly added that card's balance to his already growing debt). I guess the distinction needs to be made between lazy and financially uneducated, but it's a very fine line there as well. What you consider "OK" is very much a factor of your childhood.I agree no one wants to live in poverty, but I guess we disagree on how many of those not wanting to live in poverty are willing to start at the bottom and work their way up and how many expect things handed to them. Additionally, I still say that many of those at the bottom don't posses the basic skills TO work their way up...be it because of the socioeconomic class they were born into, or what. I 100% agree that a child born to parents who are in poverty has the deck stacked against them. The biggest reason is 2 fold - They are less likely to get a solid foundation of financial principals at home, and they are less likely to have access to education beyond what is provided (K-12). I'll be the first to admit that my father taught me at a very young age the value of a dollar, the value of savings, and the importance of not only working hard, but also having the skills TO work hard. I know there are many who are not as fortunate at home...but we can overcome the non-parental education part, which will, over time, address the parental one as those people become parents.

The war on drugs taught me a lot.

 

[cstu]

Agreed, which is why this is a pipe dream. BFS suggested that this would replace our social programs for the poor, which is essentially the only way it could work financially, but that would never happen.

Sure it could. The people who defend the social programs for the poor are the ones most in favor of this. This is the safety net. If people sell their food stamps for drugs and spend their welfare check on more drugs, there is nothing stopping them right now. Same with this. There are still programs for drug rehab and homeless shelters and section 8 housing, but the income programs are entirely replaced by this. Even social security, to some extent, could be replaced by the BIG. We simply don't need a dozen similar programs to give money to people who don't/can't/can no longer work. And people who do work can afford to take crappy jobs for relatively low pay because they will take it all home in addition to the BIG.

You want to give homeless people and drug users $15k a year?Right now I have a lot of family members making not a whole lot more than that. The idea of giving people who aren't contributing anything to society $15k is simply mind-bogging to me.

 

[moleculo]

there are some real reasons this can't happen. first of all, it takes away the government's ability to influence society. An example is the mortgage credit. At some point, the federal gov't decided it would be noble if all Americans owned a house. Towards that end, they came up with some measures to guide society towards home ownership, including incentives in the tax code. Other examples might be education credits, energy credits, etc. Everything we call a "loophole" or a "deduction" is a result of someone in Washington trying to steer societal behavior in one direction or another. BIG goes hand-in-hand with eliminating a good part of this, it takes power away from Washington. therefore, it can never happen.

further, it would lead to the elimination of a ton of bureaucratic entities - the folks that currently oversee the safety net. all of these entities have advocates that will frame the elimination of welfare as a "War on the poor". Basically, I have zero faith in Washington DC being able to get over it's own bureaucratic inefficiencies for the greater good.

 

[Slapdash]

I'm on board. I think it solves a lot of problems and cleans up a lot of issues. Of course, this only works as a replacement safety net - not as an additional safety net. if you do this and get rid of food stamps, for example, I'm on board.I make a good living and have a nice house, but there's always that risk looming in the background - what happens if my employer goes belly up? How would I pay the mortgage? Of course, I have savings and investments I could tap into, but I could pay my whole mortgage with $15k/year untaxed and from then on, it's only worrying about food/utilities/etc. To me, that's a safety net people of all incomes could feel good about.

I believe it was Bottom Feeder Sports that brought this up earlier - he had a lot of really great points, and I'm pretty sure there is a thread on it somewhere. Here is another great point - a BIG would allow some folks the freedom from working low-paying jobs just to make ends meet, and that could help foster innovation and/or the arts. In theory, someone like me could quit my job and spend all of my time in my garage tinkering on the next great invention. A struggling artist wouldn't struggle so much, if his basic needs could be more easily met. Not everyone out there is a lazy d-bag, there are some legit hard working people who struggle to make ends meet.Here's the problem - there are tons of people who will blow that entire $15k/year on drugs. Of this, I have no doubt. These people will have essentially burned through the safety net, and all of a sudden, the bleeding-hart softies will want a safety net for them, and we end up doubling down, costing our society 2x what we do now. I suppose that's the slippery slope argument.

Agreed, which is why this is a pipe dream. BFS suggested that this would replace our social programs for the poor, which is essentially the only way it could work financially, but that would never happen.

It would be a big barrier, but replacing all our current social programs for the poor is perhaps the best argument for it. I'm not very optimistic that something like this could ever pass here. In our dream world, it does a lot to appeal to a common ground between liberals and conservatives. Bringing together the desire to help people in need and have it done as efficiently and waste-free as possible.

 

[lod01]

So I have been toying with this idea. Talk of the minimum wage and how much people should make have come up in other threads so I thought I'd throw this out there and see what people think.So too commie or what?

Not nearly as good this: At age 18, (everyone over 18 gets one immediately) giving everyone a US currency printing press capped at $1 million. We could just add it to the US debt. Once you use up the $1 mil, you are done. You get nothing more ever. If you have no skills to get a job, you are sent for final processing because the country doesn't need you.

 

[cstu]

The person bequeathing that money was already taxed. Why should it be taxed again? BS IMO.

Because as a society we choose to do so. I have no problem with you doing what you want with your money once you've paid taxes on it, however it was earned. If you choose to buy a car, you might pay sales or excise taxes. If you buy and sell stocks, you might pay capital gains. If you employ someone, you might pay a payroll tax. those are all valid decisions on what to do with your money that incur a secondary taxation.But of all the taxes, the idea of an estate tax is one where we basically say, look, if you want to hand a business down from generation to generation, that's fine. If you want to set up a college fund and a trust fund to make sure your kid has a leg up in life, more power to you. But if you want to pass on your multi million dollar estate to a kid who has not intention of providing value to society, and just wants to consume our resources on your dime after you're gone, then your little paris hilton is going to have to pony up a pain in the ### tax to the rest of us working folks. If you don't like it, send your kid out of america because we don't want them.

Give me a break. Who determines this "value"? Why not just have the State take it all then when you die?

The estate tax is the one tax where the person literally doesn't lose anything by paying it.

 

[Jutz]

I guess the distinction needs to be made between lazy and financially uneducated, but it's a very fine line there as well. What you consider "OK" is very much a factor of your childhood.

Good point. I would say that many so-called 'lazy' people have worked much harder than I ever have. I don't know if it's really that people are lazy but that they have poor decision-making skills.

A facebook freind of mine recently posted a rather lengthy update essentially praising the working poor for being hard workers, and happy people, and some of the best that he knows. He was taking exception to corporate greed, and making a case that these good people deserve more.I made a comment to his update saying 'how would you rate their decision making skills?'.

He didn't like that comment. He basically said that if these poor people had access to the same college education he and I had, he thought their situation would be better. I basically replied that I wasn't talking about decision making as it relates to things you learn from taking college classes. I was talking about basic 'life' decisions that you learn outside the classroom. I have often pointed to poor decision making as the biggest problem among the working poor. With an emphasis on poor financial decision making as Fat Nick is pointing to. I honestly think good parenting (or poor parenting) is the biggist factor, but at the same time I have no clue how to convince people to become better parents, or force them to do so.

 

[humpback]

The person bequeathing that money was already taxed. Why should it be taxed again? BS IMO.

Because as a society we choose to do so. I have no problem with you doing what you want with your money once you've paid taxes on it, however it was earned. If you choose to buy a car, you might pay sales or excise taxes. If you buy and sell stocks, you might pay capital gains. If you employ someone, you might pay a payroll tax. those are all valid decisions on what to do with your money that incur a secondary taxation.But of all the taxes, the idea of an estate tax is one where we basically say, look, if you want to hand a business down from generation to generation, that's fine. If you want to set up a college fund and a trust fund to make sure your kid has a leg up in life, more power to you. But if you want to pass on your multi million dollar estate to a kid who has not intention of providing value to society, and just wants to consume our resources on your dime after you're gone, then your little paris hilton is going to have to pony up a pain in the ### tax to the rest of us working folks. If you don't like it, send your kid out of america because we don't want them.

Even if we go with your hyperbole and assume all of these richy rich's have no intention on being "productive", the Paris Hilton's have contributed quite a lot of "value to society" in terms of boosting our (flawed) economy. The argument for an estate tax is essentially the same as why people rob banks.

 

[Socrates11]

I'm on board only if there is a population control component, otherwise too commie

 

[cstu]

It would be a big barrier, but replacing all our current social programs for the poor is perhaps the best argument for it. I'm not very optimistic that something like this could ever pass here. In our dream world, it does a lot to appeal to a common ground between liberals and conservatives. Bringing together the desire to help people in need and have it done as efficiently and waste-free as possible.

Why do people want to get rid of our social programs to replace it with this? All it would do is put all the people working in the bureaucracies out of a job so we can pay then $15k not to work.

 

[cstu]

The person bequeathing that money was already taxed. Why should it be taxed again? BS IMO.

Because as a society we choose to do so. I have no problem with you doing what you want with your money once you've paid taxes on it, however it was earned. If you choose to buy a car, you might pay sales or excise taxes. If you buy and sell stocks, you might pay capital gains. If you employ someone, you might pay a payroll tax. those are all valid decisions on what to do with your money that incur a secondary taxation.But of all the taxes, the idea of an estate tax is one where we basically say, look, if you want to hand a business down from generation to generation, that's fine. If you want to set up a college fund and a trust fund to make sure your kid has a leg up in life, more power to you. But if you want to pass on your multi million dollar estate to a kid who has not intention of providing value to society, and just wants to consume our resources on your dime after you're gone, then your little paris hilton is going to have to pony up a pain in the ### tax to the rest of us working folks. If you don't like it, send your kid out of america because we don't want them.

Even if we go with your hyperbole and assume all of these richy rich's have no intention on being "productive", the Paris Hilton's have contributed quite a lot of "value to society" in terms of boosting our (flawed) economy. The argument for an estate tax is essentially the same as why people rob banks.

 

[bostonfred]

The person bequeathing that money was already taxed. Why should it be taxed again? BS IMO.

Because as a society we choose to do so. I have no problem with you doing what you want with your money once you've paid taxes on it, however it was earned. If you choose to buy a car, you might pay sales or excise taxes. If you buy and sell stocks, you might pay capital gains. If you employ someone, you might pay a payroll tax. those are all valid decisions on what to do with your money that incur a secondary taxation.But of all the taxes, the idea of an estate tax is one where we basically say, look, if you want to hand a business down from generation to generation, that's fine. If you want to set up a college fund and a trust fund to make sure your kid has a leg up in life, more power to you. But if you want to pass on your multi million dollar estate to a kid who has not intention of providing value to society, and just wants to consume our resources on your dime after you're gone, then your little paris hilton is going to have to pony up a pain in the ### tax to the rest of us working folks. If you don't like it, send your kid out of america because we don't want them.

Give me a break. Who determines this "value"? Why not just have the State take it all then when you die?

If we lived in a true capitalistic meritocray, we would do exactly that. The markets would dictate your value, and you would earn what the free market was willing to pay. Each person, regardless of their parents, would have a level playing field on which to maximize their own potential. But as a society, we don't want that. Because it turns out that if I do a good job and make a lot of money, I can and should be able to spend that money on whatever I want. And for a lot of people, the number one thing they want to spend their money on is their kids happiness. and not only does a free society need to allow that, but a meritocracy needs that brass ring for the truly talented people to have an incentive to keep working after they've earned enough money to be comfortable for the rest of their own lives. Which leaves us in a dilly of a pickle. Either we allow some people, by virtue of their birth, to step onto an unlevel playing field on day one, or we don't, and we disincent our best people from earning as much as possible. Enter the estate tax, which says, look, for most of you, you can just keep whatever your folks pass on to you. But if youve earned enough that you can pass on so much money that your kids will never provide value to society, and will be net consumers their entire lives, then they should pay tax on that "income" as if it were money they earned - since they may never actually earn anything in their lives. After that, if the kid earns anything or not, they can go on just like anyone else. As for who decides it, I do, and I would vote for the estate tax ten times out of ten, and work to get more people to vote for it. I believe in that tax more than almost any other we have because it fits my vision for america to a t.

 

[moleculo]

It would be a big barrier, but replacing all our current social programs for the poor is perhaps the best argument for it. I'm not very optimistic that something like this could ever pass here. In our dream world, it does a lot to appeal to a common ground between liberals and conservatives. Bringing together the desire to help people in need and have it done as efficiently and waste-free as possible.

Why do people want to get rid of our social programs to replace it with this? All it would do is put all the people working in the bureaucracies out of a job so we can pay then $15k not to work.

you would rather pay them $50k to do inefficient work that ultimately may do more harm than good?

 

[lod01]

I'm on board only if there is a population control component, otherwise too commie

We need that regardless. The stupid and poor breed the fastest. They need to be stopped.

 

[Slapdash]

It would be a big barrier, but replacing all our current social programs for the poor is perhaps the best argument for it. I'm not very optimistic that something like this could ever pass here. In our dream world, it does a lot to appeal to a common ground between liberals and conservatives. Bringing together the desire to help people in need and have it done as efficiently and waste-free as possible.

Why do people want to get rid of our social programs to replace it with this? All it would do is put all the people working in the bureaucracies out of a job so we can pay then $15k not to work.

Outside of the disincentives to work the current program has in place, there is the angle that it would free up people in these wasteful bureaucracies to do more productive tasks for the economy. It isn't like these people are getting the same salary.

 

[humpback]

Sure it could. The people who defend the social programs for the poor are the ones most in favor of this. This is the safety net. If people sell their food stamps for drugs and spend their welfare check on more drugs, there is nothing stopping them right now. Same with this. There are still programs for drug rehab and homeless shelters and section 8 housing, but the income programs are entirely replaced by this. Even social security, to some extent, could be replaced by the BIG. We simply don't need a dozen similar programs to give money to people who don't/can't/can no longer work. And people who do work can afford to take crappy jobs for relatively low pay because they will take it all home in addition to the BIG.

It would be a big barrier, but replacing all our current social programs for the poor is perhaps the best argument for it. I'm not very optimistic that something like this could ever pass here. In our dream world, it does a lot to appeal to a common ground between liberals and conservatives. Bringing together the desire to help people in need and have it done as efficiently and waste-free as possible.

I'm in favor (pending details of course), but I just think there are several reasons why it'll never happen. A major one is agreeing to let people die in the streets if they blow through their money.

 

[[icon]]

To those people who simply feel "Education" is the answer... I've got to both Agree and disagree.

I agree because American HUGELY benefits from an educated workforce. Educated citizens earn more, they make better decisions, and overall experience a better quality of life. In a perfect world this would be a fantastic place to spend some cash.

HOWEVER

In reality...these kids want nothing to do with this education and you can't FORCE them to learn. HS dropout rates are close to 70% in some cities and are around 50% as a national average (in inner cities). This is a massive problem that no amount of fairy tale dust spending will fix. Again... you can't help those who don't want to help themselves.

They start of lazy as kids and once they get a taste of that government money, and realize their earning potential with a 6th grade education isn't much higher than free money, you're stuck supporting these people for life. Offering up "Education" in it's current state will do NO good until we fix the core problem... laziness.

 

[humpback]

The person bequeathing that money was already taxed. Why should it be taxed again? BS IMO.

Because as a society we choose to do so. I have no problem with you doing what you want with your money once you've paid taxes on it, however it was earned. If you choose to buy a car, you might pay sales or excise taxes. If you buy and sell stocks, you might pay capital gains. If you employ someone, you might pay a payroll tax. those are all valid decisions on what to do with your money that incur a secondary taxation.But of all the taxes, the idea of an estate tax is one where we basically say, look, if you want to hand a business down from generation to generation, that's fine. If you want to set up a college fund and a trust fund to make sure your kid has a leg up in life, more power to you. But if you want to pass on your multi million dollar estate to a kid who has not intention of providing value to society, and just wants to consume our resources on your dime after you're gone, then your little paris hilton is going to have to pony up a pain in the ### tax to the rest of us working folks. If you don't like it, send your kid out of america because we don't want them.

Even if we go with your hyperbole and assume all of these richy rich's have no intention on being "productive", the Paris Hilton's have contributed quite a lot of "value to society" in terms of boosting our (flawed) economy. The argument for an estate tax is essentially the same as why people rob banks.

What is it then?

 

[Jutz]

I'm on board only if there is a population control component, otherwise too commie

We need that regardless. The stupid and poor breed the fastest. They need to be stopped.

I think if you honestly break down the benefit of offering free contraception to those that can't afford it... it really does come down to population control. It's not 'unhealthy' for a woman to get pregnant... so it's not abuot women's health. The only thing it does is prevent those that can't afford birth control from getting pregnant... hence population control.So, for the most part, that request is pretty much taking place right now.

 

[moleculo]

To those people who simply feel "Education" is the answer... I've got to both Agree and disagree. I agree because American HUGELY benefits from an educated workforce. Educated citizens earn more, they make better decisions, and overall experience a better quality of life. In a perfect world this would be a fantastic place to spend some cash. HOWEVERIn reality...these kids want nothing to do with this education and you can't FORCE them to learn. HS dropout rates are close to 70% in some cities and are around 50% as a national average (in inner cities). This is a massive problem that no amount of fairy tale dust spending will fix. Again... you can't help those who don't want to help themselves. They start of lazy as kids and once they get a taste of that government money, and realize their earning potential with a 6th grade education isn't much higher than free money, you're stuck supporting these people for life. Offering up "Education" in it's current state will do NO good until we fix the core problem... laziness.

don't we already pay those who don't want to work, in the form of welfare, housing assistance, food stamps, etc? All we are talking about is changing the form of assistance from a convoluted web of agencies to a single monthly check.The lazy will stay lazy. The unambitious will stay on their couch or in their trailer park. That's really no different than it is now - in fact, BIG could improve things because IMO there would be fewer agencies to defraud.

 

[Socrates11]

I'm on board only if there is a population control component, otherwise too commie

We need that regardless. The stupid and poor breed the fastest. They need to be stopped.

I think if you honestly break down the benefit of offering free contraception to those that can't afford it... it really does come down to population control. It's not 'unhealthy' for a woman to get pregnant... so it's not abuot women's health. The only thing it does is prevent those that can't afford birth control from getting pregnant... hence population control.So, for the most part, that request is pretty much taking place right now.

You misunderstand. This isn't "offering". You want to live off the government teat, you will have birth control. Period.

 

[(HULK)]

$15,000.00 x 311,591,917 US citizens = $4,673,878,755,000.00

So, 4.6 trillion a year. Would need to kill a lot of programs to make room for this one imo.

 

[Jutz]

To those people who simply feel "Education" is the answer... I've got to both Agree and disagree. I agree because American HUGELY benefits from an educated workforce. Educated citizens earn more, they make better decisions, and overall experience a better quality of life. In a perfect world this would be a fantastic place to spend some cash. HOWEVERIn reality...these kids want nothing to do with this education and you can't FORCE them to learn. HS dropout rates are close to 70% in some cities and are around 50% as a national average (in inner cities). This is a massive problem that no amount of fairy tale dust spending will fix. Again... you can't help those who don't want to help themselves. They start of lazy as kids and once they get a taste of that government money, and realize their earning potential with a 6th grade education isn't much higher than free money, you're stuck supporting these people for life. Offering up "Education" in it's current state will do NO good until we fix the core problem... laziness.

Reminds me of the Dennis Miller quote:

I want to help the helpless... I could give a rat's ### about the clueless

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

This seems like it would be an interesting thread but it's already getting pretty ugly.

 

[lod01]

I'm on board only if there is a population control component, otherwise too commie

We need that regardless. The stupid and poor breed the fastest. They need to be stopped.

I think if you honestly break down the benefit of offering free contraception to those that can't afford it... it really does come down to population control. It's not 'unhealthy' for a woman to get pregnant... so it's not abuot women's health. The only thing it does is prevent those that can't afford birth control from getting pregnant... hence population control.So, for the most part, that request is pretty much taking place right now.

They aren't being stopped They are breeding. They are too stupid to even know how to use a contraceptive.

 

[Jutz]

I'm on board only if there is a population control component, otherwise too commie

We need that regardless. The stupid and poor breed the fastest. They need to be stopped.

I think if you honestly break down the benefit of offering free contraception to those that can't afford it... it really does come down to population control. It's not 'unhealthy' for a woman to get pregnant... so it's not abuot women's health. The only thing it does is prevent those that can't afford birth control from getting pregnant... hence population control.So, for the most part, that request is pretty much taking place right now.

You misunderstand. This isn't "offering". You want to live off the government teat, you will have birth control. Period.

That is waaayyy commie... and I am normally against things that are this commie... but I could be pursuaded to get behind this idea.

 

[Slapdash]

Sure it could. The people who defend the social programs for the poor are the ones most in favor of this. This is the safety net. If people sell their food stamps for drugs and spend their welfare check on more drugs, there is nothing stopping them right now. Same with this. There are still programs for drug rehab and homeless shelters and section 8 housing, but the income programs are entirely replaced by this. Even social security, to some extent, could be replaced by the BIG. We simply don't need a dozen similar programs to give money to people who don't/can't/can no longer work. And people who do work can afford to take crappy jobs for relatively low pay because they will take it all home in addition to the BIG.

It would be a big barrier, but replacing all our current social programs for the poor is perhaps the best argument for it. I'm not very optimistic that something like this could ever pass here. In our dream world, it does a lot to appeal to a common ground between liberals and conservatives. Bringing together the desire to help people in need and have it done as efficiently and waste-free as possible.

I'm in favor (pending details of course), but I just think there are several reasons why it'll never happen. A major one is agreeing to let people die on the streets if they blow through their money.

I agree with you. Part of that is why I think health care is a special case in the social programs to get rid of. I actually think single payer would go well with this just as a guard against that happening since it would be some help for people that really #### it up. I guess Medicaid or any type of universal catestrophic schemes could work too. Even if we did an HSA or said some of this BIG is for health care, I'd be worried that a small fraction people would mess it up. Better to pre-empt it IMO. Of course, that just feeds into your point about how hard it is get rid of these programs. Someone will try to make an arguement for everything I suppose.

 

[lod01]

$15,000.00 x 311,591,917 US citizens = $4,673,878,755,000.00So, 4.6 trillion a year. Would need to kill a lot of programs to make room for this one imo.

Why? We are just adding to the debt. It will grow with or without this idea so who cares if we tack on another $4.6 B a year.