Basic Income - Page 1

A great way to streamline government?

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/universal-basic-income/

Hmm...

Sounds radical but worthy of study.

You would see a lot of innovation and less burden on the health system....and less street crime.

Bold idea for sure.

Where's the money coming from ( monopoly money?) I see the creation of global society full of gimmees, no self worth because everything free, no motivation to be innovative....sort of like the people currently allowed to pour through the borders.

But for sure, it would create tons more 'consumers' .... that's what makes the world go round anymore. 'Consumers' is the true goal of 'guaranteed income'; to stoke the global markets.

It doesn't mean everyone will stop working. Far from it.

I'm aware of that. However, when one considers the numbers of people in third world countries who don't work or who probly don't make even $1700 a year never mind per week. that population I would think far outnumbers the people who get paid at least $2000 a month. That minority, they are the ones who will be forced to work harder to provide the 'guaranteed saleries'. So it becomes clear where the 'guaranteed salaries' will come from. From those who have to those who dont have....global communism.
And it's about creating 'consumers', and not giving the world population a better lifestyle. But if it comes to pass, one thing is certain... every one will be impoverished except the world corporations behind this idea.

While I'd beware of the notion of equating Communism
with Consumerism, I basically agree with Joan. There
were similar objections to the Feminist idea of "Wages
For Housework". But the even bigger problem with such
payments ideas - while well noble in initial intent, probably -
is this stumbling block: as soon as you get an equal national
living payment established, the purveyors and providers of
goods and services, such as housing, would (unless artificially
and heavily prevented) start raising prices and rents etc , on
the grounds that "well everyone's got a basic income now, so
they can afford it". This in turn means a static base payment
does not remain adequate, so as the cost of living rises, some
percentage of people get left behind, again, and the old spiral
reasserts itself.

If everyone who has a PAYING JOB must provide the funding for 'guaranteed salaries' for the population without PAYING JOBS, that is communism. The only thing that can result is complete failure of societies globally. What is going to motivate the 'workers' to continuing to work to provide and support the non-workers? Especially if everything as in healthcare is 'free', housing would naturally need to be provided 'free' for impoverished....how can they be 'consumers' with no place to put their 'stuff' they've bought as new consumers? This isn't just proposed as 'national' but would be 'global'...that's a huge population for job holders to provide guaranteed salaries to.
It's insanity... this New World Order crap is insanity.

A lot of the money will come from money already spent on every social program. Then you add in all the salaries and admin costs of running every program and you come up with most of the money. This isn't the new world order, lmao. Who cares about the stresses of those trying to get by, who cares about the children trying to cope with poverty because we are afraid to try something that may lift them out of poverty, right Joan? Who cares that it will cut down on crime and the need for the fearful to carry guns. Communism, lol.

You missed the point. There are charities for impoverished. Most people in this country are trying to get by, now, without being forced to pay families in another third world country a salary. Guns have nothing to do with guaranteed salary, unless the 'salary' for a family in Cambodia comes from a gunship owner.
NWO.