Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
in order for every person to get 1700.00 a month from the government, it would require those working to pay more than 1700.00 a month in taxes to do it. Someone has to pay for those that dont contribute. Its a non workable proposal.The assumption is that the government will save enough money from eliminating social programs to write a check for $1,700 to every person every month. Surely you jest. Once a social program is in place there ain't a way in hell it would be eliminated no matter what the promise might be. Why would a couple making a joint income of $40,800 per year even want to wok? Teenage kids living in their parents basement making $20,400 per year for sitting on their asses would love it. The marijuana industry would skyrocket. Illegal aliens would be standing in line at the border. Sure the Swiss could swing it since their total population is half of the freaking illegal aliens the U.S. supports and some Swiss banks are probably still hoarding booty stolen from the Jews in WW2.
I'm sure taxes would have to go up for the working. But I think most people that do work would continue working anyway. Remember, you still get your paycheck on top of the $1,700 per month from the government. Would you quit working if government gave you that check every month? I doubt it. Think of the economic stimulus that would take place.
Please...thats how it will work....BTW you didnt pay a living wage......try to keep up on your own bs
I agree opposition is a good ideaPlease...thats how it will work....BTW you didnt pay a living wage......try to keep up on your own bs
The OP has a good idea.
It's not for teenagers living in the basement. It's 21 and older.The assumption is that the government will save enough money from eliminating social programs to write a check for $1,700 to every person every month. Surely you jest. Once a social program is in place there ain't a way in hell it would be eliminated no matter what the promise might be. Why would a couple making a joint income of $40,800 per year even want to wok? Teenage kids living in their parents basement making $20,400 per year for sitting on their asses would love it. The marijuana industry would skyrocket. Illegal aliens would be standing in line at the border. Sure the Swiss could swing it since their total population is half of the freaking illegal aliens the U.S. supports and some Swiss banks are probably still hoarding booty stolen from the Jews in WW2.
The oroblem with a "basic income" is that it unrealisticalky sugfests that every individual is wirth something. A LARGE percentage of American lives are worth nothing, but we are already forced to treat them as if they have value. This would only make that worse.
It's not for teenagers living in the basement. It's 21 and older.The assumption is that the government will save enough money from eliminating social programs to write a check for $1,700 to every person every month. Surely you jest. Once a social program is in place there ain't a way in hell it would be eliminated no matter what the promise might be. Why would a couple making a joint income of $40,800 per year even want to wok? Teenage kids living in their parents basement making $20,400 per year for sitting on their asses would love it. The marijuana industry would skyrocket. Illegal aliens would be standing in line at the border. Sure the Swiss could swing it since their total population is half of the freaking illegal aliens the U.S. supports and some Swiss banks are probably still hoarding booty stolen from the Jews in WW2.
The OP said 21. I assume he got that from somewhere.It's not for teenagers living in the basement. It's 21 and older.The assumption is that the government will save enough money from eliminating social programs to write a check for $1,700 to every person every month. Surely you jest. Once a social program is in place there ain't a way in hell it would be eliminated no matter what the promise might be. Why would a couple making a joint income of $40,800 per year even want to wok? Teenage kids living in their parents basement making $20,400 per year for sitting on their asses would love it. The marijuana industry would skyrocket. Illegal aliens would be standing in line at the border. Sure the Swiss could swing it since their total population is half of the freaking illegal aliens the U.S. supports and some Swiss banks are probably still hoarding booty stolen from the Jews in WW2.
Why 21 and not 18?
The OP said 21. I assume he got that from somewhere.It's not for teenagers living in the basement. It's 21 and older.The assumption is that the government will save enough money from eliminating social programs to write a check for $1,700 to every person every month. Surely you jest. Once a social program is in place there ain't a way in hell it would be eliminated no matter what the promise might be. Why would a couple making a joint income of $40,800 per year even want to wok? Teenage kids living in their parents basement making $20,400 per year for sitting on their asses would love it. The marijuana industry would skyrocket. Illegal aliens would be standing in line at the border. Sure the Swiss could swing it since their total population is half of the freaking illegal aliens the U.S. supports and some Swiss banks are probably still hoarding booty stolen from the Jews in WW2.
Why 21 and not 18?
You raise an excellent point. We should modify the proposal to reflect those who lack any value. Therefore there will be a basic income for everyone, except you.
in order for every person to get 1700.00 a month from the government, it would require those working to pay more than 1700.00 a month in taxes to do it. Someone has to pay for those that dont contribute. Its a non workable proposal.The assumption is that the government will save enough money from eliminating social programs to write a check for $1,700 to every person every month. Surely you jest. Once a social program is in place there ain't a way in hell it would be eliminated no matter what the promise might be. Why would a couple making a joint income of $40,800 per year even want to wok? Teenage kids living in their parents basement making $20,400 per year for sitting on their asses would love it. The marijuana industry would skyrocket. Illegal aliens would be standing in line at the border. Sure the Swiss could swing it since their total population is half of the freaking illegal aliens the U.S. supports and some Swiss banks are probably still hoarding booty stolen from the Jews in WW2.
I'm sure taxes would have to go up for the working. But I think most people that do work would continue working anyway. Remember, you still get your paycheck on top of the $1,700 per month from the government. Would you quit working if government gave you that check every month? I doubt it. Think of the economic stimulus that would take place.
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
Yes, you would. You have absolutely no morals.
but when you say eliminate the welfare, thats something that the taxpayer is already funding.in order for every person to get 1700.00 a month from the government, it would require those working to pay more than 1700.00 a month in taxes to do it. Someone has to pay for those that dont contribute. Its a non workable proposal.The assumption is that the government will save enough money from eliminating social programs to write a check for $1,700 to every person every month. Surely you jest. Once a social program is in place there ain't a way in hell it would be eliminated no matter what the promise might be. Why would a couple making a joint income of $40,800 per year even want to wok? Teenage kids living in their parents basement making $20,400 per year for sitting on their asses would love it. The marijuana industry would skyrocket. Illegal aliens would be standing in line at the border. Sure the Swiss could swing it since their total population is half of the freaking illegal aliens the U.S. supports and some Swiss banks are probably still hoarding booty stolen from the Jews in WW2.
I'm sure taxes would have to go up for the working. But I think most people that do work would continue working anyway. Remember, you still get your paycheck on top of the $1,700 per month from the government. Would you quit working if government gave you that check every month? I doubt it. Think of the economic stimulus that would take place.
Not really. When you eliminate all welfare programs, that's a pretty good sum of money from the start. And as I stated, you eliminate the paper pushers and all the bureaucracy which would be thousands of people.
Then of course you do have higher taxes on wages than we do now. I think most people would continue working.
but when you say eliminate the welfare, thats something that the taxpayer is already funding.in order for every person to get 1700.00 a month from the government, it would require those working to pay more than 1700.00 a month in taxes to do it. Someone has to pay for those that dont contribute. Its a non workable proposal.The assumption is that the government will save enough money from eliminating social programs to write a check for $1,700 to every person every month. Surely you jest. Once a social program is in place there ain't a way in hell it would be eliminated no matter what the promise might be. Why would a couple making a joint income of $40,800 per year even want to wok? Teenage kids living in their parents basement making $20,400 per year for sitting on their asses would love it. The marijuana industry would skyrocket. Illegal aliens would be standing in line at the border. Sure the Swiss could swing it since their total population is half of the freaking illegal aliens the U.S. supports and some Swiss banks are probably still hoarding booty stolen from the Jews in WW2.
I'm sure taxes would have to go up for the working. But I think most people that do work would continue working anyway. Remember, you still get your paycheck on top of the $1,700 per month from the government. Would you quit working if government gave you that check every month? I doubt it. Think of the economic stimulus that would take place.
Not really. When you eliminate all welfare programs, that's a pretty good sum of money from the start. And as I stated, you eliminate the paper pushers and all the bureaucracy which would be thousands of people.
Then of course you do have higher taxes on wages than we do now. I think most people would continue working.
there is no way for those that dont contribute to receive money if someone else that does contribute is not paying for it.
So if the two of us are collecting a check for 1700 a month, you work and I dont. You essentially have to pay 3400 a month for me to get my 1700. You get 1700 also, but you still end up paying me 1700 a month out of your income. Your 1700 is not really money you are getting, its just a check that you already paid for.
you still have to pay more than you end up getting.but when you say eliminate the welfare, thats something that the taxpayer is already funding.in order for every person to get 1700.00 a month from the government, it would require those working to pay more than 1700.00 a month in taxes to do it. Someone has to pay for those that dont contribute. Its a non workable proposal.The assumption is that the government will save enough money from eliminating social programs to write a check for $1,700 to every person every month. Surely you jest. Once a social program is in place there ain't a way in hell it would be eliminated no matter what the promise might be. Why would a couple making a joint income of $40,800 per year even want to wok? Teenage kids living in their parents basement making $20,400 per year for sitting on their asses would love it. The marijuana industry would skyrocket. Illegal aliens would be standing in line at the border. Sure the Swiss could swing it since their total population is half of the freaking illegal aliens the U.S. supports and some Swiss banks are probably still hoarding booty stolen from the Jews in WW2.
I'm sure taxes would have to go up for the working. But I think most people that do work would continue working anyway. Remember, you still get your paycheck on top of the $1,700 per month from the government. Would you quit working if government gave you that check every month? I doubt it. Think of the economic stimulus that would take place.
Not really. When you eliminate all welfare programs, that's a pretty good sum of money from the start. And as I stated, you eliminate the paper pushers and all the bureaucracy which would be thousands of people.
Then of course you do have higher taxes on wages than we do now. I think most people would continue working.
there is no way for those that dont contribute to receive money if someone else that does contribute is not paying for it.
So if the two of us are collecting a check for 1700 a month, you work and I dont. You essentially have to pay 3400 a month for me to get my 1700. You get 1700 also, but you still end up paying me 1700 a month out of your income. Your 1700 is not really money you are getting, its just a check that you already paid for.
Correct, that would be if we kept welfare programs the way they are now. But the idea is to eliminate all welfare and instead, just have this one check.
So what they would do is take all the money we currently spend on welfare checks, all the money we currently spend on SNAP's, all the money we spend on TANF, all the money we spend on energy assistance and HUD and more, and we combine all that money and use it to pay these $1,700 checks.
Now of course that wouldn't be enough money to fund all these checks, so we would also be taxing the people who continue working. Assuming that most of the people working will continue to work, it may be enough to fund this system.
If you have to pay a couple hundred dollars more a month in tax, it's a net gain when you consider that government check. Those who don't want to work will pay nothing into the system and just live on that $1,700, but they are currently not working anyway. We have over 93 million Americans of working age that are not working nor looking for work. That's almost 1/3 of our entire population, and if you figure in the children, probably close to half of adults of working age are not working.
FWIW, I'm retired and living on a combined SSA and SSI monthly stipend of about $910 a month for the last four years. Retirement is wasted on the old in the sense that leisure allows the independence to to pursue self-development that would be far more useful to the young and middle-aged.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.
No, I don't think parents can detect the problems with those programs. If they could, they would not use them. Maybe it is because I teach math, but I have has very few student tell me that their parents actually helped them with their assignment. Considering the thousands of students I have taught, that is truly sad. If they do get help, it is usually from a sibling or cousin, and probably more than half of the time the instruction is wrong.
To me, math is a talent more than a subject.That's probably why you don't get a lot of parental help with it. Years ago my company sent me to electronics school, and electronics is all math. Much of it I got, but there were parts that left me sitting there with my mouth open.
You are completely mistaken. Math is a subject as any, but definitely being intelligent also plays a role.
Anyway, college classes could easily be computerized. It could be a robot talking and no one would notice - that's the level of interaction that generally takes place.
You are seeing more online colleges these days, and no indication that it's going to stop anytime soon. College is a business and like all businesses, tries to maximize profit. I don't know anything other than what I read, but the way I understand it, the more online college you have, the less an employer values your education.
Bingo! Daughter-in-law was a surrogate mother and took her classes on-line and received a degree in criminal justice. She is a shift manager at McDonald's because no one will give her the time of day, much less a job. The only reason she has that job is prior experience in high school.
Yeah but that too is a rough field to get into because so many are interested in it.
My friends son wanted to be in law enforcement. He went to college for a couple of years because he wanted to work for the federal government. They wouldn't give him the time of day. So he went out for a police officer and it was a rough struggle. He finally made it, but it took years to get what he wanted. He even went to the police academy and paid for it himself to try and have an edge on other applicants. Apparently it worked.
