CDZ Why not have a 'Universal Basic Income' to replace welfare?

[saveliberty]

so·cial·ism

NOUN

1. a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Welfare is a government program which provides financial aid to individuals or groups who cannot support themselves. Welfare programs are funded by taxpayers and allow people to cope with financial stress during rough periods of their lives.

Read more: Welfare Definition | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/welfare.asp#ixzz46Nd4a181
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

Basic income systems that are financed by the profits of publicly owned enterprises (often called social dividend or citizen's dividend) are major components in many proposed models of market socialism.[3] Basic income schemes have also been promoted within the context of capitalist systems, where they would be financed through various forms of taxation.[4]

Basic income - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oops! Looks like the facts just buried you.

You really need to put the cork in that bottle of kool-aid you consume.

It is Webster's Dictionary.

 

[Fishlore]

If you want a Universal Basic Income do some universal basic work.

That is a quite reasonable suggestion and one which, when properly explained and implemented, would doubtless have the support of lots of people. What is "universal, basic work"? The universal part is pretty easy: universal work is work that is available to everyone. "Basic work"? Work that anyone can perform satisfactorily.

Put the two together and you come up with a solution to unemployment: the government as employer of last resort. Anyone who can't find a job can get one from the government. What kind of job? A job that fits the skills and abilities of the individual worker. Workers with little or no job skills should receive training as part of the job. How much pay and what benefits? That's something that should e adjusted on a quarterly basis. Federal minimum wage, obviously, eligibility for workman's comp, and ACA as well.

Providing uivesal basic work instead of mailing out cash has real benefits for the recipients as well as the larger society. Good idea! Thanks.

 

[Picaro]

Universal Basic Income versus welfare? Because you just gave something a new term? Universal Basic Income seems to infer people have some economic value without any type of production or services rendered. Simply a lie wrapped up neatly in a PC term. Welfare is undeserved funds distributed by the government.

The Marxists like to value humans based on their 'economic value' too; it's a popular notion with most sociopaths.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The Marxists like to value humans based on their 'economic value' too; it's a popular notion with most sociopaths.

Well, the Corporate Crony Networks value us even less. They see us as cattle to milk and then send to the slaughter house when they dont find the milk to their taste any more.

We will have huge social instability coming that will increase year by year as we evolve into a Third Industrial Revolution or Digital Revolution form of 'jobless economy'.

People that have been conditioned to think of their net worth as being related to the job they can hold are going to be doing much, much more than merely begging for a hand out. This cuts to their sense of self-worth and well being as well as economic security. This is the core 'anger well' that will flood our political system. The Dems will likely go to more Socialism, as Sanders seems to indicate, but the GOP could evolve toward things that circumvent more socialism and still provide a sense of well being and economic security without incurring new and greater costs, depending on how UBI is set up.

See post 55 and 56 for the details I was tossing around for discussion if you are interested.

 

[Wry Catcher]

If you want a Universal Basic Income do some universal basic work.

That is a quite reasonable suggestion and one which, when properly explained and implemented, would doubtless have the support of lots of people. What is "universal, basic work"? The universal part is pretty easy: universal work is work that is available to everyone. "Basic work"? Work that anyone can perform satisfactorily.

Put the two together and you come up with a solution to unemployment: the government as employer of last resort. Anyone who can't find a job can get one from the government. What kind of job? A job that fits the skills and abilities of the individual worker. Workers with little or no job skills should receive training as part of the job. How much pay and what benefits? That's something that should e adjusted on a quarterly basis. Federal minimum wage, obviously, eligibility for workman's comp, and ACA as well.

Providing uivesal basic work instead of mailing out cash has real benefits for the recipients as well as the larger society. Good idea! Thanks.

The problem with basic work is too many lack the necessary skills even for "basic work". I support two-year universal service by every citizen between the age of 16 and 36; payback to the form of government which provides them freedom and security. For those who lack basic skills a period of training on skills needed for the most basic of jobs our society provides, for others who excel in training or have skills they bring to the party, training on supervision and management of the work being down in service to America.

Think of it, a massive bureaucracy of mostly volunteers working to make America's roads, rivers, lakes and sea shores trash free, pollution free (lead free) and restored, allowing fish to spawn in our rivers, working undersupervision to repair levees and reduce flooding and providing recreation for our citizens; youngsters with a dim future learning skills in carpentry, electricity, plumbing, painting and the installation of solar on government buildings, not only protecting government buildings and the homes of seniors, the disabled and non profits, reducing their costs.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

If you want a Universal Basic Income do some universal basic work.

That is a quite reasonable suggestion and one which, when properly explained and implemented, would doubtless have the support of lots of people. What is "universal, basic work"? The universal part is pretty easy: universal work is work that is available to everyone. "Basic work"? Work that anyone can perform satisfactorily.

Put the two together and you come up with a solution to unemployment: the government as employer of last resort. Anyone who can't find a job can get one from the government. What kind of job? A job that fits the skills and abilities of the individual worker. Workers with little or no job skills should receive training as part of the job. How much pay and what benefits? That's something that should e adjusted on a quarterly basis. Federal minimum wage, obviously, eligibility for workman's comp, and ACA as well.

Providing uivesal basic work instead of mailing out cash has real benefits for the recipients as well as the larger society. Good idea! Thanks.

The problem with basic work is too many lack the necessary skills even for "basic work". I support two-year universal service by every citizen between the age of 16 and 36; payback to the form of government which provides them freedom and security. For those who lack basic skills a period of training on skills needed for the most basic of jobs our society provides, for others who excel in training or have skills they bring to the party, training on supervision and management of the work being down in service to America.

Think of it, a massive bureaucracy of mostly volunteers working to make America's roads, rivers, lakes and sea shores trash free, pollution free (lead free) and restored, allowing fish to spawn in our rivers, working undersupervision to repair levees and reduce flooding and providing recreation for our citizens; youngsters with a dim future learning skills in carpentry, electricity, plumbing, painting and the installation of solar on government buildings, not only protecting government buildings and the homes of seniors, the disabled and non profits, reducing their costs.

Sarcasm can really make a point sometimes. Hopefully the intended audience knows it when they see it.

 

[Never3ndr]

You must have not been reading any of my arguments, I've pointed towards pretty much the entire human history as indicating that you are wrong since NEVER in history has what you are proclaiming will happen...has happened. YOU have never presented any support to your claims. You have failed to point towards any period of history where technology has led to less productivity or purpose...you have only named specific jobs or specific industries while IGNORING everything else. If you can't see how blind you are due to your heavy misunderstanding and bias...I'm not sure it is worth even attempting to debate in an intellectual fashion since you seem to be a bit immune to any evidence pointed to the contrary. You have failed to point towards how the industrial revolution led to mass lethargy and lack of production. You have failed to indicate how the Roman Empire hailed the time when people stopping doing anything noteworthy, you have even failed to show how, in today's job market, we now have extraordinarily high levels of unproductiveness or people now listlessly drifting through life. What you have done is ignore all historical precedent and just simply assert your opinion based off of a handful of specific instances of outdated jobs being replaced by tech...which I've never denied happens...in fact, I'll go one step further and agree! Every time there is technological advancement outdated jobs are replaced by tech. However, it doesn't follow that there are no jobs to move into, you have utterly failed to demonstrate that absurd connection.

What Ia m referring to is unique in human history and has never happened before today. Just like the previous two industrial revolutions were not expected and handling the fallout was difficult, this one will be very difficult as well and is totally unlike anything that happened to the ancient Romans, lol.

How is this different from any other technological revolution? What traits, specifically, make you think this is unique? Also, why do you also make the conclusion that, without any other precedent, this "unique event" will lead to less production and less purpose for humanity? Upon what study or fact-based documentation are you making these assertions?

 

[Picaro]

The Marxists like to value humans based on their 'economic value' too; it's a popular notion with most sociopaths.

Well, the Corporate Crony Networks value us even less. They see us as cattle to milk and then send to the slaughter house when they dont find the milk to their taste any more.

We will have huge social instability coming that will increase year by year as we evolve into a Third Industrial Revolution or Digital Revolution form of 'jobless economy'.

People that have been conditioned to think of their net worth as being related to the job they can hold are going to be doing much, much more than merely begging for a hand out. This cuts to their sense of self-worth and well being as well as economic security. This is the core 'anger well' that will flood our political system. The Dems will likely go to more Socialism, as Sanders seems to indicate, but the GOP could evolve toward things that circumvent more socialism and still provide a sense of well being and economic security without incurring new and greater costs, depending on how UBI is set up.

See post 55 and 56 for the details I was tossing around for discussion if you are interested.

I will, I'm just limited on how much time I can spend here. as I posted earlier, it's not a new idea, and some of it had both liberal and conservative support.

 

[Picaro]

If you want a Universal Basic Income do some universal basic work.

That is a quite reasonable suggestion and one which, when properly explained and implemented, would doubtless have the support of lots of people. What is "universal, basic work"? The universal part is pretty easy: universal work is work that is available to everyone. "Basic work"? Work that anyone can perform satisfactorily.

Put the two together and you come up with a solution to unemployment: the government as employer of last resort. Anyone who can't find a job can get one from the government. What kind of job? A job that fits the skills and abilities of the individual worker. Workers with little or no job skills should receive training as part of the job. How much pay and what benefits? That's something that should e adjusted on a quarterly basis. Federal minimum wage, obviously, eligibility for workman's comp, and ACA as well.

Providing uivesal basic work instead of mailing out cash has real benefits for the recipients as well as the larger society. Good idea! Thanks.

The problem with basic work is too many lack the necessary skills even for "basic work". I support two-year universal service by every citizen between the age of 16 and 36; payback to the form of government which provides them freedom and security. For those who lack basic skills a period of training on skills needed for the most basic of jobs our society provides, for others who excel in training or have skills they bring to the party, training on supervision and management of the work being down in service to America.

Think of it, a massive bureaucracy of mostly volunteers working to make America's roads, rivers, lakes and sea shores trash free, pollution free (lead free) and restored, allowing fish to spawn in our rivers, working undersupervision to repair levees and reduce flooding and providing recreation for our citizens; youngsters with a dim future learning skills in carpentry, electricity, plumbing, painting and the installation of solar on government buildings, not only protecting government buildings and the homes of seniors, the disabled and non profits, reducing their costs.

An admirable post, but learning many of those skills would be useless unless criminal illegal immigration is shut down as well. It's more than just 'job training', as you probably know already.

 

[JimBowie1958]

How is this different from any other technological revolution? What traits, specifically, make you think this is unique? Also, why do you also make the conclusion that, without any other precedent, this "unique event" will lead to less production and less purpose for humanity? Upon what study or fact-based documentation are you making these assertions?

What is different is the speed at which the tech inspired industry achieves maximum capitalization. In prior industrial revolutions it took generations to achieve full capitalization, but with this one it is only a matter of years if not months.

 

[Wry Catcher]

If you want a Universal Basic Income do some universal basic work.

That is a quite reasonable suggestion and one which, when properly explained and implemented, would doubtless have the support of lots of people. What is "universal, basic work"? The universal part is pretty easy: universal work is work that is available to everyone. "Basic work"? Work that anyone can perform satisfactorily.

Put the two together and you come up with a solution to unemployment: the government as employer of last resort. Anyone who can't find a job can get one from the government. What kind of job? A job that fits the skills and abilities of the individual worker. Workers with little or no job skills should receive training as part of the job. How much pay and what benefits? That's something that should e adjusted on a quarterly basis. Federal minimum wage, obviously, eligibility for workman's comp, and ACA as well.

Providing uivesal basic work instead of mailing out cash has real benefits for the recipients as well as the larger society. Good idea! Thanks.

The problem with basic work is too many lack the necessary skills even for "basic work". I support two-year universal service by every citizen between the age of 16 and 36; payback to the form of government which provides them freedom and security. For those who lack basic skills a period of training on skills needed for the most basic of jobs our society provides, for others who excel in training or have skills they bring to the party, training on supervision and management of the work being down in service to America.

Think of it, a massive bureaucracy of mostly volunteers working to make America's roads, rivers, lakes and sea shores trash free, pollution free (lead free) and restored, allowing fish to spawn in our rivers, working undersupervision to repair levees and reduce flooding and providing recreation for our citizens; youngsters with a dim future learning skills in carpentry, electricity, plumbing, painting and the installation of solar on government buildings, not only protecting government buildings and the homes of seniors, the disabled and non profits, reducing their costs.

Sarcasm can really make a point sometimes. Hopefully the intended audience knows it when they see it.

Thank you so much for your insightful and cogent observation. I'm sure my audience understands my response for what it is.

 

[Fishlore]

The problem with basic work is too many lack the necessary skills even for "basic work". I support two-year universal service by every citizen between the age of 16 and 36; payback to the form of government which provides them freedom and security. For those who lack basic skills a period of training on skills needed for the most basic of jobs our society provides, for others who excel in training or have skills they bring to the party, training on supervision and management of the work being down in service to America.

Think of it, a massive bureaucracy of mostly volunteers working to make America's roads, rivers, lakes and sea shores trash free, pollution free (lead free) and restored, allowing fish to spawn in our rivers, working undersupervision to repair levees and reduce flooding and providing recreation for our citizens; youngsters with a dim future learning skills in carpentry, electricity, plumbing, painting and the installation of solar on government buildings, not only protecting government buildings and the homes of seniors, the disabled and non profits, reducing their costs.

Your outline of possible "basic work" jobs is a good one and may help some folks see that the idea of government as employer of last resort is much more than just a pie-in-the-sky fantasy.

As technology decreases the labor factor in wealth prouction, we need to shift our idea of "jobs" away from wealth production and toward community needs. Government must tax wealth as it is created, however it is created. People must work for their own good and for the needs of society. We have many, many jobs which are vitally important for our society but which don't produce wealth. Workers in nursing homes, day care facilities and U.S. Navy ships are just three examples. We need these workers even though their employers find it difficult to turn a profit on their labor.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The problem with basic work is too many lack the necessary skills even for "basic work". I support two-year universal service by every citizen between the age of 16 and 36; payback to the form of government which provides them freedom and security. For those who lack basic skills a period of training on skills needed for the most basic of jobs our society provides, for others who excel in training or have skills they bring to the party, training on supervision and management of the work being down in service to America.

Think of it, a massive bureaucracy of mostly volunteers working to make America's roads, rivers, lakes and sea shores trash free, pollution free (lead free) and restored, allowing fish to spawn in our rivers, working undersupervision to repair levees and reduce flooding and providing recreation for our citizens; youngsters with a dim future learning skills in carpentry, electricity, plumbing, painting and the installation of solar on government buildings, not only protecting government buildings and the homes of seniors, the disabled and non profits, reducing their costs.

Your outline of possible "basic work" jobs is a good one and may help some folks see that the idea of government as employer of last resort is much more than just a pie-in-the-sky fantasy.

As technology decreases the labor factor in wealth prouction, we need to shift our idea of "jobs" away from wealth production and toward community needs. Government must tax wealth as it is created, however it is created. People must work for their own good and for the needs of society. We have many, many jobs which are vitally important for our society but which don't produce wealth. Workers in nursing homes, day care facilities and U.S. Navy ships are just three examples. We need these workers even though their employers find it difficult to turn a profit on their labor.

I still think it is crucial to allow people the free time to supplement a meager basic income with crafting their own commodities and supplies. This is what makes the thing doable. Forcing people to show up and piss off 8 hours a day is pointless. Maybe one day a week, but this UBI should be without strings o that people feel assured that they have this minimum income.

 

[320 Years of History]

Finally got around to reading the two posts you (JimBowie1958) noted as pertaining to funding UBI....

A cash grant of Poverty line Equivalent +25% per person, adjusted by local costs and adjusted for inflation annually. Right now that looks like about $10,000 per person. This is unconditional whether the recipient is a felon, a millionaire or a naturalized citizen, but only goes to CITIZENS.

Okay...so you and I see the UBI payment proposed by its advocates as being roughly in the same ballpark.

Altogether federal programs to assist the poor, welfare, Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare ,etc, come to around $2,300 billion annually.

Are you sure about this? The figures I found re: the money collected for SSI and Medicare don't come close to the $2.3T you've noted above. The sum you've noted seems in line with the payments made by the various programs noted.

The inference I take from your citing those programs that you are willing to continue the current approach to funding social program payments (FICA/FUTA, welfare, AFDC, SNAP, EITC, etc.), and that you'd merely replace all/most of them with the UBI. Have I inferred accurately?

While I don't have a problem with the government borrowing to find its activities, I am considerably less keen on doing it for a UBI. The reason is that UBI is universal and the current scheme of payments is "cherry pickable," meaning if we need to cut back on any of them, we can analyze which one will have the least negative impact and cut that one and leave the other(s) as is. You can't do that with a UBI, or at least not with dispensing to some degree with the universality of the distributions' nature, timing and/or extent. Call that flexibility, but flexibility is important in the context of governments having to make spending choices; flexibility is important and good to have in matters of scarcity and choice.

So only about $350 billion needs to be raised with a series of targeted taxes to make up the budgetary costs.

I agree that $350B isn't an unacceptably huge sum for the U.S. to raise via taxes or frugality.

Now the caveat to all this is that abstract numbers do not reflect real world costs completely, and there are many things done in the government that go well past simple welfare, disability and other costs.

Understood. I've taken the figures you've presented as rough or ("order of magnitude") ones, not literal ones.

 

[Fishlore]

The problem with basic work is too many lack the necessary skills even for "basic work". I support two-year universal service by every citizen between the age of 16 and 36; payback to the form of government which provides them freedom and security. For those who lack basic skills a period of training on skills needed for the most basic of jobs our society provides, for others who excel in training or have skills they bring to the party, training on supervision and management of the work being down in service to America.

Think of it, a massive bureaucracy of mostly volunteers working to make America's roads, rivers, lakes and sea shores trash free, pollution free (lead free) and restored, allowing fish to spawn in our rivers, working undersupervision to repair levees and reduce flooding and providing recreation for our citizens; youngsters with a dim future learning skills in carpentry, electricity, plumbing, painting and the installation of solar on government buildings, not only protecting government buildings and the homes of seniors, the disabled and non profits, reducing their costs.

Your outline of possible "basic work" jobs is a good one and may help some folks see that the idea of government as employer of last resort is much more than just a pie-in-the-sky fantasy.

As technology decreases the labor factor in wealth prouction, we need to shift our idea of "jobs" away from wealth production and toward community needs. Government must tax wealth as it is created, however it is created. People must work for their own good and for the needs of society. We have many, many jobs which are vitally important for our society but which don't produce wealth. Workers in nursing homes, day care facilities and U.S. Navy ships are just three examples. We need these workers even though their employers find it difficult to turn a profit on their labor.

I still think it is crucial to allow people the free time to supplement a meager basic income with crafting their own commodities and supplies. This is what makes the thing doable. Forcing people to show up and piss off 8 hours a day is pointless. Maybe one day a week, but this UBI should be without strings o that people feel assured that they have this minimum income.

That government of last resort job is not compulsory. If you want to stay home and craft you own commodities and supplies good luck and may you make more than the government will pay you to rake leaves etc.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

This idea has a lot to commend it economically as well as socially. Young Republicans may be surprised to learn that the idea was seriously proposed by President Richard Nixon. He called the plan a negative income tax. Of course, that was before the GOP was hijacked by anarchists and religious fanatics.

The problem is the programs it proposes to eliminate will never go away. Some people will squander their money, and then the typical progressive call for programs to help them will start all over again.

A base income and no safety net would require some harsh choices to be made, and progressives simply don't have the stomach for it.

That's the problem with this idea in a nutshell. BUT I believe that could be solved with WEEKLY direct deposits. ANYONE can learn to manage their money a week at a time.

 

[martybegan]

This idea has a lot to commend it economically as well as socially. Young Republicans may be surprised to learn that the idea was seriously proposed by President Richard Nixon. He called the plan a negative income tax. Of course, that was before the GOP was hijacked by anarchists and religious fanatics.

The problem is the programs it proposes to eliminate will never go away. Some people will squander their money, and then the typical progressive call for programs to help them will start all over again.

A base income and no safety net would require some harsh choices to be made, and progressives simply don't have the stomach for it.

That's the problem with this idea in a nutshell. BUT I believe that could be solved with WEEKLY direct deposits. ANYONE can learn to manage their money a week at a time.

I am reminded of something I was taught in Engineering School. "Nothing can be made Idiot-proof, because the world will always come up with an improved idiot".

If we provide people with the $$ and remove all the programs that used to do the work, some bleeding hearts will see these "improved idiots" and demand government DO SOMETHING to help them, this will inflate and inflate until we are back to where we were, AND we are paying taxes to pay everyone something.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

This idea has a lot to commend it economically as well as socially. Young Republicans may be surprised to learn that the idea was seriously proposed by President Richard Nixon. He called the plan a negative income tax. Of course, that was before the GOP was hijacked by anarchists and religious fanatics.

The problem is the programs it proposes to eliminate will never go away. Some people will squander their money, and then the typical progressive call for programs to help them will start all over again.

A base income and no safety net would require some harsh choices to be made, and progressives simply don't have the stomach for it.

That's the problem with this idea in a nutshell. BUT I believe that could be solved with WEEKLY direct deposits. ANYONE can learn to manage their money a week at a time.

I am reminded of something I was taught in Engineering School. "Nothing can be made Idiot-proof, because the world will always come up with an improved idiot".

If we provide people with the $$ and remove all the programs that used to do the work, some bleeding hearts will see these "improved idiots" and demand government DO SOMETHING to help them, this will inflate and inflate until we are back to where we were, AND we are paying taxes to pay everyone something.

Oh, in the final analysis I agree with you, I'm just saying there ARE ways to go about it. It would require a Constitutional amendment IMO saying in effect "No more forms of welfare EVER"\

I don't believe we could ever get enough conservatives and liberals to agree to pass such an amendment in exchange for the "universal salary"

 

[martybegan]

This idea has a lot to commend it economically as well as socially. Young Republicans may be surprised to learn that the idea was seriously proposed by President Richard Nixon. He called the plan a negative income tax. Of course, that was before the GOP was hijacked by anarchists and religious fanatics.

The problem is the programs it proposes to eliminate will never go away. Some people will squander their money, and then the typical progressive call for programs to help them will start all over again.

A base income and no safety net would require some harsh choices to be made, and progressives simply don't have the stomach for it.

That's the problem with this idea in a nutshell. BUT I believe that could be solved with WEEKLY direct deposits. ANYONE can learn to manage their money a week at a time.

I am reminded of something I was taught in Engineering School. "Nothing can be made Idiot-proof, because the world will always come up with an improved idiot".

If we provide people with the $$ and remove all the programs that used to do the work, some bleeding hearts will see these "improved idiots" and demand government DO SOMETHING to help them, this will inflate and inflate until we are back to where we were, AND we are paying taxes to pay everyone something.

Oh, in the final analysis I agree with you, I'm just saying there ARE ways to go about it. It would require a Constitutional amendment IMO saying in effect "No more forms of welfare EVER"\

I don't believe we could ever get enough conservatives and liberals to agree to pass such an amendment in exchange for the "universal salary"

That doesn't even get into the whole concept of everyone "working" for the government.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

This idea has a lot to commend it economically as well as socially. Young Republicans may be surprised to learn that the idea was seriously proposed by President Richard Nixon. He called the plan a negative income tax. Of course, that was before the GOP was hijacked by anarchists and religious fanatics.

The problem is the programs it proposes to eliminate will never go away. Some people will squander their money, and then the typical progressive call for programs to help them will start all over again.

A base income and no safety net would require some harsh choices to be made, and progressives simply don't have the stomach for it.

That's the problem with this idea in a nutshell. BUT I believe that could be solved with WEEKLY direct deposits. ANYONE can learn to manage their money a week at a time.

I am reminded of something I was taught in Engineering School. "Nothing can be made Idiot-proof, because the world will always come up with an improved idiot".

If we provide people with the $$ and remove all the programs that used to do the work, some bleeding hearts will see these "improved idiots" and demand government DO SOMETHING to help them, this will inflate and inflate until we are back to where we were, AND we are paying taxes to pay everyone something.

Oh, in the final analysis I agree with you, I'm just saying there ARE ways to go about it. It would require a Constitutional amendment IMO saying in effect "No more forms of welfare EVER"\

I don't believe we could ever get enough conservatives and liberals to agree to pass such an amendment in exchange for the "universal salary"

That doesn't even get into the whole concept of everyone "working" for the government.

I've seen numerous studies that HAVE shown however that closing down all welfare and just giving every family in the US that earned under $X a year say $40K a year would be cheaper to the taxpayers and not have a negative impact on inflation