Could Basic Income work in the US?

[kaz]

I ask this question because it was a discussion on the Michael Smerconish show on satellite radio. What basic income would do is eliminate all social programs we know as the safety net, and instead, just have government write every adult (21 and older) a check for $1,700 a month. It doesn't matter what you do with it, it's yours to spend as you like.

The savings from all these social programs would mostly fund the idea. It would eliminate tiers of bureaucracy and the hundreds if not thousands of government workers that oversee and operate these programs. There would be no food stamps, no HUD, no TANF, no welfare checks, unemployment checks, nothing. Anything you or your family needs comes out of that government check. Plus unlike our current system, it wouldn't discourage people from working. You get this check if you are Bill Gates or a homeless guy in the gutter. It would encourage people to work instead of discourage them. It would stop people from having unwanted children in order to get more goodies from the government. It would actually discourage poor people from procreating unlike our current system that rewards it. For those who could live solely on that $1,700 a month, they wouldn't have to work thus leaving open a job opportunity for those that may want it.

Switzerland is now putting it up for a vote as a trial program. If successful, it may the the law of the land. But the question I have is, who here would support such a program, and what party affiliation do you have?

Switzerland Will Hold The World's First Universal Basic Income Referendum

No, none

 

[iamwhatiseem]

The Math......

There are approximately 300,000,000 citizens over 18. (Does not count illegal aliens)

So...$1700 x 300 million = $510 Billion dollars a month, or $6.1 Trillion per year.
The annual cost of all social programs in the Unites States is roughly $1 trillion including federal dollars allocated to the states.

So.......not to mention $billions in loss tax revenues...

 

[kaz]

OP you can't fix stupid, it doesn't matter how much money you gift some people they will just blow it and not be able to pay their bills.

Yes, but with a flat check system, they have nothing to complain about and it would stop the Democrats from pandering to them by promising this to help them out or that to help them out.

I remember when I was a child back in the 60's and my father and I were driving through a rough area of town. I told my father I wish I had a million dollars (which was a lot of money at the time) to give to these people so they didn't have to live like that. My father smiled at my innocence and said, you can give each one of these people a million dollars, and within a couple years or less, they will be right back here where they are today.

Even if it didn't cost money overall, it has the insidious side effect that it makes everyone a dependent of a government check. For that reason, Social Security/Medicare and Obamacare are the most insidiously evil programs politicians have ever inflicted on the American people. They make everyone ultimately a government dependent.

And your claim that it would take away the ability of politicians to pander is preposterous. Social Security shows how wrong you are, talk about a program that enslaved so many Republicans to big government and even most Republicans staunchly support that dependency machine

 

[P@triot]

I ask this question because it was a discussion on the Michael Smerconish show on satellite radio. What basic income would do is eliminate all social programs we know as the safety net, and instead, just have government write every adult (21 and older) a check for $1,700 a month. It doesn't matter what you do with it, it's yours to spend as you like.

The savings from all these social programs would mostly fund the idea. It would eliminate tiers of bureaucracy and the hundreds if not thousands of government workers that oversee and operate these programs. There would be no food stamps, no HUD, no TANF, no welfare checks, unemployment checks, nothing. Anything you or your family needs comes out of that government check. Plus unlike our current system, it wouldn't discourage people from working. You get this check if you are Bill Gates or a homeless guy in the gutter. It would encourage people to work instead of discourage them. It would stop people from having unwanted children in order to get more goodies from the government. It would actually discourage poor people from procreating unlike our current system that rewards it. For those who could live solely on that $1,700 a month, they wouldn't have to work thus leaving open a job opportunity for those that may want it.

Switzerland is now putting it up for a vote as a trial program. If successful, it may the the law of the land. But the question I have is, who here would support such a program, and what party affiliation do you have?

Switzerland Will Hold The World's First Universal Basic Income Referendum

Sadly no (for several reasons). First of all, for Dumbocrats, the entire welfare state isn't about helping people (if it was, they would help people themselves and they don't). It's about power, control, and collapsing the U.S. (to blame capitalism and make a case for replacing it with communism).

Secondly, the left is full of irresponsible jerks. When they blow through their monthly guaranteed income on drugs, alcohol, and/or frivolous stuff, (and they will), then what? There will be people making a case that "we have to help them". That we can't leave these people hungry or without healthcare, etc.

Some people refuse to accept personal responsibility or accept that utopia doesn't exist. There will always be self-destructive idiots in the world and there is nothing that can be done about that.

 

[P@triot]

Why would a couple making a joint income of $40,800 per year even want to wok?

Because that don't buy much.

Some people don't want much. They just want to be able to mooch off of society and not contribute.

 

[kaz]

Why would a couple making a joint income of $40,800 per year even want to wok?

Because that don't buy much.

Some people don't want much. They just want to be able to mooch off of society and not contribute.

I'm only working until I figure out how to get in on that ...

 

[Manonthestreet]

Why would a couple making a joint income of $40,800 per year even want to wok?

Because that don't buy much.

What it doesnt buy you simply declare as a "right" such as healthcare food and shelter vacation......college...... and walla

 

[kaz]

Why would a couple making a joint income of $40,800 per year even want to wok?

Because that don't buy much.

What it doesnt buy you simply declare as a "right" such as healthcare food and shelter vacation......college...... and walla

Yes, work should only be for extra money to buy things you don't need

 

[P@triot]

Why would a couple making a joint income of $40,800 per year even want to wok?

Because that don't buy much.

Some people don't want much. They just want to be able to mooch off of society and not contribute.

I'm only working until I figure out how to get in on that ...

You and me both brother! To be able to spend all day, every day with my two little girls instead of going off to work would be a dream. Letting other people provide for me while I have fun all day.

Of course, I realize that kind of stupidity collapses society's.

 

[SwimExpert]

You don't know how to shop or a fat ass I can live off of $25 bucks a week in food if I wanted to

Did you not hear me when I said that I mostly live off of chicken and rice? Groceries are just fucking expensive where I live. Chicken can be more than $6 a pound a lot of times.

Who's fault is that? Stop voting for democrats .


Marie calender has chicken and rice T.V. dinners and it's still $2.50 around here at Walmart, I know how to shop

.

1 - Democrats don't set grocery prices. The grocery stores do. It's called a free market. Costs of living always vary.

2 - There is no Walmart nearby.

3 - I don't shop at Walmart. Fuck that trash.

4 - I don't eat boxed meals. I eat real food.

Well........Democrats do set prices in a sense.

When we started to burn up our food supply to create ethanol, that's when prices really started to rise. We continue to do so today and that's why prices are still high.

It doesn't matter to the environmentalists though. Even though ethanol is more polluting than oil, it's using less oil and that's all they care about.

I don't know. Corn seems pretty cheap to me. Well, maybe that's just because of my location.

 

[P@triot]

This is why it wouldn't work...

Americans Are Too Compassionate For A Universal Basic Income

 

[SwimExpert]

Why would a couple making a joint income of $40,800 per year even want to wok?

Because that don't buy much.

Some people don't want much. They just want to be able to mooch off of society and not contribute.

B-but, I thought welfare leeches were greedy?

 

[Dovahkiin]

I'd rather have a job guarantee.

 

[SwimExpert]

Why would a couple making a joint income of $40,800 per year even want to wok?

Because that don't buy much.

What it doesnt buy you simply declare as a "right" such as healthcare food and shelter vacation......college...... and walla

You're clearly in the wrong thread. We're not talking about how much you like some group of people you imagine in your mind.

 

[SwimExpert]

I'd rather have a job guarantee.

Wrong thread.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You don't know how to shop or a fat ass I can live off of $25 bucks a week in food if I wanted to

Did you not hear me when I said that I mostly live off of chicken and rice? Groceries are just fucking expensive where I live. Chicken can be more than $6 a pound a lot of times.

Who's fault is that? Stop voting for democrats .


Marie calender has chicken and rice T.V. dinners and it's still $2.50 around here at Walmart, I know how to shop

.

1 - Democrats don't set grocery prices. The grocery stores do. It's called a free market. Costs of living always vary.

2 - There is no Walmart nearby.

3 - I don't shop at Walmart. Fuck that trash.

4 - I don't eat boxed meals. I eat real food.

Well........Democrats do set prices in a sense.

When we started to burn up our food supply to create ethanol, that's when prices really started to rise. We continue to do so today and that's why prices are still high.

It doesn't matter to the environmentalists though. Even though ethanol is more polluting than oil, it's using less oil and that's all they care about.

I don't know. Corn seems pretty cheap to me. Well, maybe that's just because of my location.

It effects all food items. At first they used sugar cane, so farmers dropped what they were growing and went to sugar. That left a short supply of other grains like wheat, barley and soybeans. Eventually they started to use other crops too like soybean, so the price went up.

But these grains also produce feed for cattle, hogs, chickens and so on. When the cost of feed goes up for your livestock, you have to increase the price of your animals.

The US and Brazil produce over 80% of the worlds ethanol. That's how much food we are burning up to produce the stuff. Ethanol has been known to do engine damage in cars and lawn equipment, plus it pollutes the air more to produce ethanol than gasoline.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I ask this question because it was a discussion on the Michael Smerconish show on satellite radio. What basic income would do is eliminate all social programs we know as the safety net, and instead, just have government write every adult (21 and older) a check for $1,700 a month. It doesn't matter what you do with it, it's yours to spend as you like.

The savings from all these social programs would mostly fund the idea. It would eliminate tiers of bureaucracy and the hundreds if not thousands of government workers that oversee and operate these programs. There would be no food stamps, no HUD, no TANF, no welfare checks, unemployment checks, nothing. Anything you or your family needs comes out of that government check. Plus unlike our current system, it wouldn't discourage people from working. You get this check if you are Bill Gates or a homeless guy in the gutter. It would encourage people to work instead of discourage them. It would stop people from having unwanted children in order to get more goodies from the government. It would actually discourage poor people from procreating unlike our current system that rewards it. For those who could live solely on that $1,700 a month, they wouldn't have to work thus leaving open a job opportunity for those that may want it.

Switzerland is now putting it up for a vote as a trial program. If successful, it may the the law of the land. But the question I have is, who here would support such a program, and what party affiliation do you have?

Switzerland Will Hold The World's First Universal Basic Income Referendum

Sadly no (for several reasons). First of all, for Dumbocrats, the entire welfare state isn't about helping people (if it was, they would help people themselves and they don't). It's about power, control, and collapsing the U.S. (to blame capitalism and make a case for replacing it with communism).

Secondly, the left is full of irresponsible jerks. When they blow through their monthly guaranteed income on drugs, alcohol, and/or frivolous stuff, (and they will), then what? There will be people making a case that "we have to help them". That we can't leave these people hungry or without healthcare, etc.

Some people refuse to accept personal responsibility or accept that utopia doesn't exist. There will always be self-destructive idiots in the world and there is nothing that can be done about that.

True, but they won't have much of an excuse this time. Everybody is treated the same so what you do with your money is your responsibility.

I know liberals might say we need more for X people, but if we all decide on this system, that $1,700 is all you get.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

OP you can't fix stupid, it doesn't matter how much money you gift some people they will just blow it and not be able to pay their bills.

Yes, but with a flat check system, they have nothing to complain about and it would stop the Democrats from pandering to them by promising this to help them out or that to help them out.

I remember when I was a child back in the 60's and my father and I were driving through a rough area of town. I told my father I wish I had a million dollars (which was a lot of money at the time) to give to these people so they didn't have to live like that. My father smiled at my innocence and said, you can give each one of these people a million dollars, and within a couple years or less, they will be right back here where they are today.

Even if it didn't cost money overall, it has the insidious side effect that it makes everyone a dependent of a government check. For that reason, Social Security/Medicare and Obamacare are the most insidiously evil programs politicians have ever inflicted on the American people. They make everyone ultimately a government dependent.

And your claim that it would take away the ability of politicians to pander is preposterous. Social Security shows how wrong you are, talk about a program that enslaved so many Republicans to big government and even most Republicans staunchly support that dependency machine

Only because they and their employers paid into the program all these years or decades. If you include the employer contribution, SS is the second highest deduction out of your paycheck, and that's next to the largest which is FICA--a different word for Social Security, but the very same thing.

Who would want to pay dearly into something all of their life and not get anything back? That's why Republicans are against the idea of getting rid of SS.

As for politics, we will hear the same thing this presidential election as all others: The Republicans want to take X away from you; the Republicans want to see poor people starve; the Republicans want your children to go hungry and so on and so on. If we had the $1,700 check and eliminated all welfare programs, Democrats wouldn't be able to do that any longer.

 

[kaz]

OP you can't fix stupid, it doesn't matter how much money you gift some people they will just blow it and not be able to pay their bills.

Yes, but with a flat check system, they have nothing to complain about and it would stop the Democrats from pandering to them by promising this to help them out or that to help them out.

I remember when I was a child back in the 60's and my father and I were driving through a rough area of town. I told my father I wish I had a million dollars (which was a lot of money at the time) to give to these people so they didn't have to live like that. My father smiled at my innocence and said, you can give each one of these people a million dollars, and within a couple years or less, they will be right back here where they are today.

Even if it didn't cost money overall, it has the insidious side effect that it makes everyone a dependent of a government check. For that reason, Social Security/Medicare and Obamacare are the most insidiously evil programs politicians have ever inflicted on the American people. They make everyone ultimately a government dependent.

And your claim that it would take away the ability of politicians to pander is preposterous. Social Security shows how wrong you are, talk about a program that enslaved so many Republicans to big government and even most Republicans staunchly support that dependency machine

Only because they and their employers paid into the program all these years or decades. If you include the employer contribution, SS is the second highest deduction out of your paycheck, and that's next to the largest which is FICA--a different word for Social Security, but the very same thing.

Who would want to pay dearly into something all of their life and not get anything back? That's why Republicans are against the idea of getting rid of SS.

First of all, you realize you just made my point for me, right? Government got everyone invested in a massive tax and spend scheme by making them recipients of government checks.

Second of all, they saved nothing, government spent the money as it came in, it's a scam. One that works ... for the reason you pointed out. They want checks ...

As for politics, we will hear the same thing this presidential election as all others: The Republicans want to take X away from you; the Republicans want to see poor people starve; the Republicans want your children to go hungry and so on and so on. If we had the $1,700 check and eliminated all welfare programs, Democrats wouldn't be able to do that any longer.

So Democrats couldn't go to the people and say Republicans are after your $1,700 check. Social Security and now Obamacare belie that claim

 

[Manonthestreet]

Why would a couple making a joint income of $40,800 per year even want to wok?

Because that don't buy much.

What it doesnt buy you simply declare as a "right" such as healthcare food and shelter vacation......college...... and walla

You're clearly in the wrong thread. We're not talking about how much you like some group of people you imagine in your mind.

Please...thats how it will work....BTW you didnt pay a living wage......try to keep up on your own bs