Basic Income - Page 2

You missed the point. The basic income would not be paid for by us to a third world country and if you had read the article you would know that, right? Instead you come on this thread spouting communism when you never even read the article, as proven by your total misunderstanding of the issue. Criminals use guns, right? It is one of the reasons you have given here over and over why you carry a gun. Ya know all those criminals have them so why not you. The whole point is most people will not have to resort to crime to eat. If that takes some guns out of the hands of criminals, wouldn't that be a good thing. Wouldn't less crime also save money? So, when you include less program admin costs plus the cost of all these programs and take away a big % of the cost of crime - wouldn't that pay for most of a basic wage? I certainly believe it would or could.

Actually, I did read it.

Have a nice day:-)

Well then you really missed the point, now didn't you.

I don't think I have enough faith in the nature of humans for this utopian scheme to be able to sustain itself. The fact it can only exist in the first place with a Capitalist economy of earned surplus, or banked wealth, just screams "ponzi" to me. Once the bureaucratic overload and their cost savings from being cut are used up, how does it keep itself going? 

What happens when the big spender types blow through their wad in the first two weeks of every month? And then never bother to save anything for retirement? 

They are the same ones that will probably spend it on some guns and ammo at the shooting range! Or, a fast, flashy new car. Italian made lizard skin shoes. A Carribean vacation cruise. Champagne and cigars! Nothing to stop them if that's what they choose. People treat their finances all so very differently based on their personality. And spending other peoples money, (OPM-thanky you Danny DeVito!) well, that just makes spending frivolously that much easier!

Just think of all those lottery winners who are cursed by their free and sudden wealth and end up miserable, broke or dead.  

None of the so called "experiments" with giving away money as a basic income, and there were quite a few, survived or bore any sort of meaningful data for one reason, or another.

Sure these guys who are promoting this would like to set up something like this for their generation. It will take at least one generation to prove it will fail miserably, but by then, all these great guys who think it is a wonderful idea, will have got their free handouts and then be dead.

The next generation will be the ones who will have to work ten hours a day, six days a week, trying to rebuild to a decent standard of living— no thanks to the previous freeloader generation.

I don't accept that any sort of futuristic robot society is going to make human work, obsolete, and free everyone up for artistic pursuits. We all can't be artists! Some will just want to play Smash Bros. all day, and maybe if they spend enough hours with a controller in their hands, they will win some cash in a tournament. That's what my teen boys like to do! 

Computers were supposed to make paper obsolete, too. It didn't happen. Basic Income, coming from the government isn't going to happen, either. Best to set up that private Trust Fund for your kids and grandkids, if you want to free their lives up from the mundane pursuits of survival in the coming modern age. 

 

 

 

The money is for basic survival not enough for Caribbean cruises. I enjoy work, this idea wouldn't change that.

It's called wellfare state.History of welfare states...https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state

 

Historian Robert Paxton observes that on the European continent the provisions of the welfare state were originally enacted by conservatives in the late nineteenth century and by fascists in the twentieth in order to distract workers from unions and socialism, and were opposed by leftists and radicals. He recalls that the German welfare state was set up in the 1880s by Chancellor Bismarck, who had just closed 45 newspapers and passed laws banning the German Socialist Party and other meetings by trade unionists and socialists.[17] A similar version was set up by Count Eduard von Taaffe in the Austro-Hungarian Empire a few years later. "All the modern twentieth-century European dictatorships of the right, both fascist and authoritarian, were welfare states", he writes. "They all provided medical care, pensions, affordable housing, and mass transport as a matter of course, in order to maintain productivity, national unity, and social peace."[18]

 

Continental European Marxists opposed piecemeal welfare measures as likely to dilute worker militancy without changing anything fundamental about the distribution of wealth and power. It was only after World War II, when they abandoned Marxism (in 1959 in West Germany, for example), that continental European socialist parties and unions fully accepted the welfare state as their ultimate goal.[19]

 

Oh sure, no doubt all the type A personalities would keep working, their motivation is not mere survival. It is those other ones, that will take this gravy train off the tracks. And it isn't just a survival handout, the article says everyone gets the same handout, from Bill Gates to the drug dealer living in the hood. I guess that means babies, too? Not sure about that one! Those Mormans will make a tidy monthly stipend, I imagine? It won't matter if you live alone or bunk up in a commune, then, now will it? Some will be able save more and accumulate. There doesn't seem to be a spending requirement mentioned?

Even so, the work ethic decreased about 5 percent in at most 5 years given the sparse data.. I would hypothesize that as time goes by, the work ethic of capitalism rewards will be further forgotten and productivity will drop even more, and only keep spiraling down. Surely any excess earnings by you, the type A, will be needed by the slackers or the infirm, or the disabled or any number of the population that just is incapable of stacking up next to your personal best.

The future being prepared for, removes monotonous and repetitious work for people. Imagination will rule because innovation will be the only worthy work left, that the robots can't do.

The USA..."In 2013, according to the Census Bureau, there were 105,862,000 full-time year-round workers in the United States -- including 16,685,000 full-time government workers. These full-time workers were outnumbered by the 109,631,000 whom the Census Bureau says were getting benefits from means-tested federal programs -- e.g. welfare -- as of the fourth quarter of 2012. "Every American family that pays its own way -- and takes care of its own children whether with one or two incomes -- must subsidize the 109,631,000 on welfare."

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jan/28/terry-jeffrey/are-there-more-welfare-recipients-us-full-time-wor/

 

The deal now, in the usa i think, is that welfare recipients have two years and they must get off dependency...to stop the generations on welfare.

 

Btw, I don't 'carry a gun'. the reason i have guns is to protect against rabid animals ( i've shot three positive tested rabid coons trying to get through fences at my dogs while living here)

And to shoot animals to butcher for food for humans and dogs. 

However, if needed against an intruder i'd have no qualms about defending myself and mine with a gun...but i don't 'carry' a gun around with me, pfff.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/09/poverty-and-the-social-welfare-state-in-the-united-states-and-other-nations

You do carry a gun because you related a story on this board about an officer and your gun. I don't remember the exact story or words but I remember it so you at least carried that one time.

Yeah we shouldn't do this because those billionaires need to put more money in their bank accounts while paying very little in taxes. Hell most of them keep it overseas so we never see a penny of the taxes. Scoff all you want and keep talking out the other side by saying how big banks and businesses are controlling the government. Yep keep right on talking because what we are doing now is obviously NOT working. If you blow the money - tough shit. If you don't save tough shit you only get what you get. But you get it for life. Yes, taxes will go up but if you still work it will even out. People will still be motivated to work because we like to work. I will give you an example of why the current system doesn't work - my wife who is a homemaker and has been for years doesn't qualify to get disability because she hasn't worked enough in the last so many quarters. So, now she is disabled and not able to get disability. Even though she did work for years and paid into the system she can only collect off of me when I retire. Is that really fair?

 

And Joan your link is a very unbiased look at poverty. SMH. You link to a conservative site and according to the conservatives there is no poverty. Here is a little more unbiased opinion. http://npc.umich.edu/poverty/

These are our poverty levels, I dare anyone to live off this type of money and see how far ahead you get. lmao. Food alone will set you back 6,000 a year.