What percent of GDP should be devoted to a universal minimum income

[CultureCitizen]

I made a similar poll in absolute terms, this time it is relative to gdp.
Now, some restrictions:
1) assume al other social security programs disappear( medicare , medicaid, government pensions, food stamps)
2) Public schools will still exists ( the budget for education is less than 1% of gdp )
3) The tax rate will be 35% flat, but the minimum income will work as a tax return for everyonew with an income. Hence if someone earns 50,000 a year and the UMI is 10,000 that person will only pay 7,500 in taxes instead of 17,500.
4) The minimum income only applies to people over who are 20 year or older ( to avoid people using extra kids as a way to increase their income)
5) I have not included percentages above 30% because even without social programs some money is required to run the government and build infrastructure; it is unlikely the government will be able to raise more than 40% of gdp in taxes.

Minimum wage and unemployment should both be a state by state issue.

It should be based on local cost of living.

The Feds should stay out of this. They are already too deep in deficits.

Medicare and medicaid are already too expensive. Why not give the money directly to the people and let them choose where to get the money .

 

[CultureCitizen]

That's not what I said. If you work and you pay into the system, then there is a safety net for when you can't work.

What you're coming up with is money for nothing. It's ridiculous. It encourages people not to work.

Exactly. You just wind up creating more worthless parasites, such as Matthew, who think that society owes them a living, and are unwilling and unable to contribute anything back to society.

better yet why not have a parasite tax like most of the communist countries had so that everyone is encouraged to get a job and contribute to the system!!

So this time you are not going to defend Friedman Ed? Or are you just acting as a contrarian because I started the OP.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

That's not what I said. If you work and you pay into the system, then there is a safety net for when you can't work.

What you're coming up with is money for nothing. It's ridiculous. It encourages people not to work.

Exactly. You just wind up creating more worthless parasites, such as Matthew, who think that society owes them a living, and are unwilling and unable to contribute anything back to society.

better yet why not have a parasite tax like most of the communist countries had so that everyone is encouraged to get a job and contribute to the system!!

So this time you are not going to defend Friedman Ed? Or are you just acting as a contrarian because I started the OP.

Do you favor a parasite tax??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

That's not what I said. If you work and you pay into the system, then there is a safety net for when you can't work.

What you're coming up with is money for nothing. It's ridiculous. It encourages people not to work.

Exactly. You just wind up creating more worthless parasites, such as Matthew, who think that society owes them a living, and are unwilling and unable to contribute anything back to society.

better yet why not have a parasite tax like most of the communist countries had so that everyone is encouraged to get a job and contribute to the system!!

So this time you are not going to defend Friedman Ed? Or are you just acting as a contrarian because I started the OP.

I always defend Friedman !!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I made a similar poll in absolute terms, this time it is relative to gdp.
Now, some restrictions:
1) assume al other social security programs disappear( medicare , medicaid, government pensions, food stamps)
2) Public schools will still exists ( the budget for education is less than 1% of gdp )
3) The tax rate will be 35% flat, but the minimum income will work as a tax return for everyonew with an income. Hence if someone earns 50,000 a year and the UMI is 10,000 that person will only pay 7,500 in taxes instead of 17,500.
4) The minimum income only applies to people over who are 20 year or older ( to avoid people using extra kids as a way to increase their income)
5) I have not included percentages above 30% because even without social programs some money is required to run the government and build infrastructure; it is unlikely the government will be able to raise more than 40% of gdp in taxes.

Minimum wage and unemployment should both be a state by state issue.

It should be based on local cost of living.

The Feds should stay out of this. They are already too deep in deficits.

Medicare and medicaid are already too expensive. Why not give the money directly to the people and let them choose where to get the money .

You mean where to get the healthcare??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I made a similar poll in absolute terms, this time it is relative to gdp.
Now, some restrictions:
1) assume al other social security programs disappear( medicare , medicaid, government pensions, food stamps)
2) Public schools will still exists ( the budget for education is less than 1% of gdp )
3) The tax rate will be 35% flat, but the minimum income will work as a tax return for everyonew with an income. Hence if someone earns 50,000 a year and the UMI is 10,000 that person will only pay 7,500 in taxes instead of 17,500.
4) The minimum income only applies to people over who are 20 year or older ( to avoid people using extra kids as a way to increase their income)
5) I have not included percentages above 30% because even without social programs some money is required to run the government and build infrastructure; it is unlikely the government will be able to raise more than 40% of gdp in taxes.

Universal minimum income is a silly idea. People should work for their money.

Milton Friedman and Friederich Hayek would disagree with you.

Replacing all the welfare health social safety net entitlement programs etc with a simple cash payment would eliminate all that bureaucracy and cost far less plus it would help make people responsible. You'd n need a work requirement and a disincentive to have more children so it could never be a positive lifestyle choice.

 

[IsaacNewton]

I made a similar poll in absolute terms, this time it is relative to gdp.
Now, some restrictions:
1) assume al other social security programs disappear( medicare , medicaid, government pensions, food stamps)
2) Public schools will still exists ( the budget for education is less than 1% of gdp )
3) The tax rate will be 35% flat, but the minimum income will work as a tax return for everyonew with an income. Hence if someone earns 50,000 a year and the UMI is 10,000 that person will only pay 7,500 in taxes instead of 17,500.
4) The minimum income only applies to people over who are 20 year or older ( to avoid people using extra kids as a way to increase their income)
5) I have not included percentages above 30% because even without social programs some money is required to run the government and build infrastructure; it is unlikely the government will be able to raise more than 40% of gdp in taxes.

It is something that will be happening because automation is going to make employing all these millions of people impossible. And the only thing that comes from 20 million people out of work and no chance for a job or future is revolution. Once the society doesn't even try to be fair to all human beings then the society ends. All these rules and laws we have are just smoke in the wind once the societal contract breaks down. Human beings never just lie down in the street and die. They never have and never will. So a solution will have to be found.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I made a similar poll in absolute terms, this time it is relative to gdp.
Now, some restrictions:
1) assume al other social security programs disappear( medicare , medicaid, government pensions, food stamps)
2) Public schools will still exists ( the budget for education is less than 1% of gdp )
3) The tax rate will be 35% flat, but the minimum income will work as a tax return for everyonew with an income. Hence if someone earns 50,000 a year and the UMI is 10,000 that person will only pay 7,500 in taxes instead of 17,500.
4) The minimum income only applies to people over who are 20 year or older ( to avoid people using extra kids as a way to increase their income)
5) I have not included percentages above 30% because even without social programs some money is required to run the government and build infrastructure; it is unlikely the government will be able to raise more than 40% of gdp in taxes.

Universal minimum income is a silly idea. People should work for their money.

Milton Friedman and Friederich Hayek would disagree with you.

Good for them, they're allowed to be wrong, no matter how dead they might be.

 

[frigidweirdo]

That's not what I said. If you work and you pay into the system, then there is a safety net for when you can't work.

What you're coming up with is money for nothing. It's ridiculous. It encourages people not to work.

Exactly. You just wind up creating more worthless parasites, such as Matthew, who think that society owes them a living, and are unwilling and unable to contribute anything back to society.

Ahhh. Well, exactly , at some point people start getting desperate and start searching for alternative sources of income: drug and human trafficking, prostitution, kidnaping, extortion or simple robbery and keeping people incarcerated is not exactly cheap.
Free people consume products.

Does this mean people wouldn't go looking for these sources of income if they had money thrown at them for doing nothing? People don't stop trying to make money simply because they have a little.

 

[danielpalos]

As automation and artificial intelligence take over many more of the jobs/occupations of people, a minimum income may have more widespread acceptance.

It already has wide spread acceptance now...it's called the 47%

.

Whose fault is that? There is a capital gains preference to help create Jobs Booms.

 

[danielpalos]

I made a similar poll in absolute terms, this time it is relative to gdp.
Now, some restrictions:
1) assume al other social security programs disappear( medicare , medicaid, government pensions, food stamps)
2) Public schools will still exists ( the budget for education is less than 1% of gdp )
3) The tax rate will be 35% flat, but the minimum income will work as a tax return for everyonew with an income. Hence if someone earns 50,000 a year and the UMI is 10,000 that person will only pay 7,500 in taxes instead of 17,500.
4) The minimum income only applies to people over who are 20 year or older ( to avoid people using extra kids as a way to increase their income)
5) I have not included percentages above 30% because even without social programs some money is required to run the government and build infrastructure; it is unlikely the government will be able to raise more than 40% of gdp in taxes.

Universal minimum income is a silly idea. People should work for their money.

So no safety net huh ??

John Birch Society, n'est pas ?!

That's not what I said. If you work and you pay into the system, then there is a safety net for when you can't work.

What you're coming up with is money for nothing. It's ridiculous. It encourages people not to work.

lol. there is no unemployment only underpayment.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I made a similar poll in absolute terms, this time it is relative to gdp.
Now, some restrictions:
1) assume al other social security programs disappear( medicare , medicaid, government pensions, food stamps)
2) Public schools will still exists ( the budget for education is less than 1% of gdp )
3) The tax rate will be 35% flat, but the minimum income will work as a tax return for everyonew with an income. Hence if someone earns 50,000 a year and the UMI is 10,000 that person will only pay 7,500 in taxes instead of 17,500.
4) The minimum income only applies to people over who are 20 year or older ( to avoid people using extra kids as a way to increase their income)
5) I have not included percentages above 30% because even without social programs some money is required to run the government and build infrastructure; it is unlikely the government will be able to raise more than 40% of gdp in taxes.

It is something that will be happening because automation is going to make employing all these millions of people impossible. And the only thing that comes from 20 million people out of work and no chance for a job or future is revolution. Once the society doesn't even try to be fair to all human beings then the society ends. All these rules and laws we have are just smoke in the wind once the societal contract breaks down. Human beings never just lie down in the street and die. They never have and never will. So a solution will have to be found.

This is economics 101 we've had 5000 years of new invention that has unemployed the entire population of the earth 50 times and employment in the United States is 96.4% so there is no indication whatsoever after 5000 years that Isaac newtons theory above makes the tiniest bit of sense this is something like a rumor that liberals heard and now they Parrot it endlessly the matter how utterly idiotic it is. It's a perfect example of the liberal IQ

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I made a similar poll in absolute terms, this time it is relative to gdp.
Now, some restrictions:
1) assume al other social security programs disappear( medicare , medicaid, government pensions, food stamps)
2) Public schools will still exists ( the budget for education is less than 1% of gdp )
3) The tax rate will be 35% flat, but the minimum income will work as a tax return for everyonew with an income. Hence if someone earns 50,000 a year and the UMI is 10,000 that person will only pay 7,500 in taxes instead of 17,500.
4) The minimum income only applies to people over who are 20 year or older ( to avoid people using extra kids as a way to increase their income)
5) I have not included percentages above 30% because even without social programs some money is required to run the government and build infrastructure; it is unlikely the government will be able to raise more than 40% of gdp in taxes.

It is something that will be happening because automation is going to make employing all these millions of people impossible. And the only thing that comes from 20 million people out of work and no chance for a job or future is revolution. Once the society doesn't even try to be fair to all human beings then the society ends. All these rules and laws we have are just smoke in the wind once the societal contract breaks down. Human beings never just lie down in the street and die. They never have and never will. So a solution will have to be found.

This is economics 101 we've had 5000 years of new inventions that have unemployed the entire population of the earth 50 times and employment in the United States is 96.4% so there is no indication whatsoever after 5000 years that Isaac newtons theory above makes the tiniest bit of sense. this is something like a rumor that childlike liberals heard and now they Parrot it endlessly no matter how utterly idiotic it is. It's a perfect example of the liberal IQ

 

[Anathema]

As automation and artificial intelligence take over many more of the jobs/occupations of people, a minimum income may have more widespread acceptance.

Lobg before that point it's time to turn the machines off.

 

[Anathema]

None. There is no power in the US Constitution to even consjder such a concept.

No Work = No Pay - No Exceptions

 

[Anathema]

None. There is no power in the US Constitution to even consjder such a concept.

No Work = No Pay - No Exceptions

 

[CultureCitizen]

I made a similar poll in absolute terms, this time it is relative to gdp.
Now, some restrictions:
1) assume al other social security programs disappear( medicare , medicaid, government pensions, food stamps)
2) Public schools will still exists ( the budget for education is less than 1% of gdp )
3) The tax rate will be 35% flat, but the minimum income will work as a tax return for everyonew with an income. Hence if someone earns 50,000 a year and the UMI is 10,000 that person will only pay 7,500 in taxes instead of 17,500.
4) The minimum income only applies to people over who are 20 year or older ( to avoid people using extra kids as a way to increase their income)
5) I have not included percentages above 30% because even without social programs some money is required to run the government and build infrastructure; it is unlikely the government will be able to raise more than 40% of gdp in taxes.

Minimum wage and unemployment should both be a state by state issue.

It should be based on local cost of living.

The Feds should stay out of this. They are already too deep in deficits.

Medicare and medicaid are already too expensive. Why not give the money directly to the people and let them choose where to get the money .

You mean where to get the healthcare??

Sory Ed, I meant "put their money" ... I'd better stop making posts when I am falling asleep.

 

[CultureCitizen]

I made a similar poll in absolute terms, this time it is relative to gdp.
Now, some restrictions:
1) assume al other social security programs disappear( medicare , medicaid, government pensions, food stamps)
2) Public schools will still exists ( the budget for education is less than 1% of gdp )
3) The tax rate will be 35% flat, but the minimum income will work as a tax return for everyonew with an income. Hence if someone earns 50,000 a year and the UMI is 10,000 that person will only pay 7,500 in taxes instead of 17,500.
4) The minimum income only applies to people over who are 20 year or older ( to avoid people using extra kids as a way to increase their income)
5) I have not included percentages above 30% because even without social programs some money is required to run the government and build infrastructure; it is unlikely the government will be able to raise more than 40% of gdp in taxes.

Minimum wage and unemployment should both be a state by state issue.

It should be based on local cost of living.

The Feds should stay out of this. They are already too deep in deficits.

Medicare and medicaid are already too expensive. Why not give the money directly to the people and let them choose where to get the money .

You mean where to get the healthcare??

Sory Ed, I meant "put their money" ... I'd better stop making posts when I am falling asleep.

That's not what I said. If you work and you pay into the system, then there is a safety net for when you can't work.

What you're coming up with is money for nothing. It's ridiculous. It encourages people not to work.

Exactly. You just wind up creating more worthless parasites, such as Matthew, who think that society owes them a living, and are unwilling and unable to contribute anything back to society.

Ahhh. Well, exactly , at some point people start getting desperate and start searching for alternative sources of income: drug and human trafficking, prostitution, kidnaping, extortion or simple robbery and keeping people incarcerated is not exactly cheap.
Free people consume products.

Does this mean people wouldn't go looking for these sources of income if they had money thrown at them for doing nothing? People don't stop trying to make money simply because they have a little.

It is not that people will stop looking for sources of income , it will most likely be the case that such sources are rare and or require a very high level of specialization and skill. The minimum income will help them achieve such level.

 

[CultureCitizen]

I made a similar poll in absolute terms, this time it is relative to gdp.
Now, some restrictions:
1) assume al other social security programs disappear( medicare , medicaid, government pensions, food stamps)
2) Public schools will still exists ( the budget for education is less than 1% of gdp )
3) The tax rate will be 35% flat, but the minimum income will work as a tax return for everyonew with an income. Hence if someone earns 50,000 a year and the UMI is 10,000 that person will only pay 7,500 in taxes instead of 17,500.
4) The minimum income only applies to people over who are 20 year or older ( to avoid people using extra kids as a way to increase their income)
5) I have not included percentages above 30% because even without social programs some money is required to run the government and build infrastructure; it is unlikely the government will be able to raise more than 40% of gdp in taxes.

Minimum wage and unemployment should both be a state by state issue.

It should be based on local cost of living.

The Feds should stay out of this. They are already too deep in deficits.

Medicare and medicaid are already too expensive. Why not give the money directly to the people and let them choose where to get the money .

You mean where to get the healthcare??

Sory Ed, I meant "put their money" ... I'd better stop making posts when I am falling asleep.

That's not what I said. If you work and you pay into the system, then there is a safety net for when you can't work.

What you're coming up with is money for nothing. It's ridiculous. It encourages people not to work.

Exactly. You just wind up creating more worthless parasites, such as Matthew, who think that society owes them a living, and are unwilling and unable to contribute anything back to society.

Ahhh. Well, exactly , at some point people start getting desperate and start searching for alternative sources of income: drug and human trafficking, prostitution, kidnaping, extortion or simple robbery and keeping people incarcerated is not exactly cheap.
Free people consume products.

Does this mean people wouldn't go looking for these sources of income if they had money thrown at them for doing nothing? People don't stop trying to make money simply because they have a little.

It is not that people will stop looking for sources of income , it will most likely be the case that such sources are rare and or require a very high level of specialization and skill. The minimum income will help them achieve such level.

I made a similar poll in absolute terms, this time it is relative to gdp.
Now, some restrictions:
1) assume al other social security programs disappear( medicare , medicaid, government pensions, food stamps)
2) Public schools will still exists ( the budget for education is less than 1% of gdp )
3) The tax rate will be 35% flat, but the minimum income will work as a tax return for everyonew with an income. Hence if someone earns 50,000 a year and the UMI is 10,000 that person will only pay 7,500 in taxes instead of 17,500.
4) The minimum income only applies to people over who are 20 year or older ( to avoid people using extra kids as a way to increase their income)
5) I have not included percentages above 30% because even without social programs some money is required to run the government and build infrastructure; it is unlikely the government will be able to raise more than 40% of gdp in taxes.

Universal minimum income is a silly idea. People should work for their money.

Milton Friedman and Friederich Hayek would disagree with you.

Good for them, they're allowed to be wrong, no matter how dead they might be.

And Steeve Keen and Elon Musk and most importantly Ray Kurzweil.

 

[CultureCitizen]

I made a similar poll in absolute terms, this time it is relative to gdp.
Now, some restrictions:
1) assume al other social security programs disappear( medicare , medicaid, government pensions, food stamps)
2) Public schools will still exists ( the budget for education is less than 1% of gdp )
3) The tax rate will be 35% flat, but the minimum income will work as a tax return for everyonew with an income. Hence if someone earns 50,000 a year and the UMI is 10,000 that person will only pay 7,500 in taxes instead of 17,500.
4) The minimum income only applies to people over who are 20 year or older ( to avoid people using extra kids as a way to increase their income)
5) I have not included percentages above 30% because even without social programs some money is required to run the government and build infrastructure; it is unlikely the government will be able to raise more than 40% of gdp in taxes.

Minimum wage and unemployment should both be a state by state issue.

It should be based on local cost of living.

The Feds should stay out of this. They are already too deep in deficits.

Medicare and medicaid are already too expensive. Why not give the money directly to the people and let them choose where to get the money .

You mean where to get the healthcare??

Sory Ed, I meant "put their money" ... I'd better stop making posts when I am falling asleep.

That's not what I said. If you work and you pay into the system, then there is a safety net for when you can't work.

What you're coming up with is money for nothing. It's ridiculous. It encourages people not to work.

Exactly. You just wind up creating more worthless parasites, such as Matthew, who think that society owes them a living, and are unwilling and unable to contribute anything back to society.

Ahhh. Well, exactly , at some point people start getting desperate and start searching for alternative sources of income: drug and human trafficking, prostitution, kidnaping, extortion or simple robbery and keeping people incarcerated is not exactly cheap.
Free people consume products.

Does this mean people wouldn't go looking for these sources of income if they had money thrown at them for doing nothing? People don't stop trying to make money simply because they have a little.

It is not that people will stop looking for sources of income , it will most likely be the case that such sources are rare and or require a very high level of specialization and skill. The minimum income will help them achieve such level.

I made a similar poll in absolute terms, this time it is relative to gdp.
Now, some restrictions:
1) assume al other social security programs disappear( medicare , medicaid, government pensions, food stamps)
2) Public schools will still exists ( the budget for education is less than 1% of gdp )
3) The tax rate will be 35% flat, but the minimum income will work as a tax return for everyonew with an income. Hence if someone earns 50,000 a year and the UMI is 10,000 that person will only pay 7,500 in taxes instead of 17,500.
4) The minimum income only applies to people over who are 20 year or older ( to avoid people using extra kids as a way to increase their income)
5) I have not included percentages above 30% because even without social programs some money is required to run the government and build infrastructure; it is unlikely the government will be able to raise more than 40% of gdp in taxes.

Universal minimum income is a silly idea. People should work for their money.

Milton Friedman and Friederich Hayek would disagree with you.

Good for them, they're allowed to be wrong, no matter how dead they might be.

And Steeve Keen and Elon Musk and most importantly Ray Kurzweil.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I made a similar poll in absolute terms, this time it is relative to gdp.
Now, some restrictions:
1) assume al other social security programs disappear( medicare , medicaid, government pensions, food stamps)
2) Public schools will still exists ( the budget for education is less than 1% of gdp )
3) The tax rate will be 35% flat, but the minimum income will work as a tax return for everyonew with an income. Hence if someone earns 50,000 a year and the UMI is 10,000 that person will only pay 7,500 in taxes instead of 17,500.
4) The minimum income only applies to people over who are 20 year or older ( to avoid people using extra kids as a way to increase their income)
5) I have not included percentages above 30% because even without social programs some money is required to run the government and build infrastructure; it is unlikely the government will be able to raise more than 40% of gdp in taxes.

Minimum wage and unemployment should both be a state by state issue.

It should be based on local cost of living.

The Feds should stay out of this. They are already too deep in deficits.

Medicare and medicaid are already too expensive. Why not give the money directly to the people and let them choose where to get the money .

You mean where to get the healthcare??

Sory Ed, I meant "put their money" ... I'd better stop making posts when I am falling asleep.

Yes Medicare for all capitalism would be a good idea to reduce the cost of our healthcare by 80% and add 10 to 20 years to our life expectancys