Will basic income become the califfornia norm town starts 500.00$ no string payments

[georgephillip]

They could do it the easy and more cost effective way and just look at Finland. They tried it and dropped it. But as in all things there is always hope that doing the same thing over and over will have a different result.

Finland doesn't have the same economy (or population) as the US. Basic Income has the potential to reverse many of the negative economic trends we've seen over the past five decades.

Why we should all have a basic income

"Consider for a moment that from this day forward, on the first day of every month, around $1,000 is deposited into your bank account – because you are a citizen.

"This income is independent of every other source of income and guarantees you a monthly starting salary above the poverty line for the rest of your life...."

"'Basic income' would be an amount sufficient to secure basic needs as a permanent earnings floor no one could fall beneath, and would replace many of today’s temporary benefits, which are given only in case of emergency, and/or only to those who successfully pass the applied qualification tests.

"UBI would be a promise of equal opportunity, not equal outcome, a new starting line set above the poverty line."

So where do you suggest that this monthly amount come from? Is it going to just magically appear? Do you suggest that we increase taxes to cover the amount. If so then not only do you have to tax a thousand a month but you also need to include the wages of those that are taking in and distributing this new found wealth. So you are talking giving someone $1,000.00 and taxing $1100.00 so a net loss.

Oh let me guess it is the old someone else will pay for my freebies. Yeah the usual stupid bull.

And as usual it may not have worked before but it will this time. Why do so many people always expect a diffrent result from the same input? If you throw a rock into the air, no matter how many times, it still falls down. It will never take flight.

So where do you suggest that this monthly amount come from? Is it going to just magically appear? Do you suggest that we increase taxes to cover the amount. If so then not only do you have to tax a thousand a month but you also need to include the wages of those that are taking in and distributing this new found wealth. So you are talking giving someone $1,000.00 and taxing $1100.00 so a net loss.

Where are you getting your numbers?

Why we should all have a basic income

"What tends to go unrealized about the idea of basic income, and this is true even of many economists – but not all – is that it represents a net transfer.

"In the same way it does not cost $20 to give someone $20 in exchange for $10, it does not cost $3 trillion to give every adult citizen $12,000 and every child $4,000, when every household will be paying varying amounts of taxes in exchange for their UBI.

"Instead it will cost around 30% of that, or about $900 billion, and that’s before the full or partial consolidation of other programmes and tax credits immediately made redundant by the new transfer.

"In other words, for someone whose taxes go up $4,000 to pay for $12,000 in UBI, the cost to give that person UBI is $8,000, not $12,000, and it’s coming from someone else whose taxes went up $20,000 to pay for their own $12,000."

And we shouldn't forget the citizens (legal and natural) who pay NO taxes:

Amazon will pay $0 in federal taxes this year — and it's partially thanks to Trump

So basically you are saying that you think money falls out of the air. We just print more. If you give someone $10.00 you have to get that $10.00 from some where. The funny thing is there is no magic involved.

You can not have something just show up. If I give you three rocks (I am keeping it simple for you) then you give one rock to each of three people and then they give you back only a portion of the rock you gave them. How long can you give each person a whole rock? It is a simple question, there is no hidden answer.

So basically you are saying that you think money falls out of the air. We just print more. If you give someone $10.00 you have to get that $10.00 from some where. The funny thing is there is no magic involved.

Do you see any reason why government can not spend money directly into the real economy in a similar fashion to how it bailed out the economic parasites who crashed the global economy in 2008 with Quantitative Easing?

So you thought quantitative easing was over? Think again

 

[Maxdeath]

They could do it the easy and more cost effective way and just look at Finland. They tried it and dropped it. But as in all things there is always hope that doing the same thing over and over will have a different result.

Finland doesn't have the same economy (or population) as the US. Basic Income has the potential to reverse many of the negative economic trends we've seen over the past five decades.

Why we should all have a basic income

"Consider for a moment that from this day forward, on the first day of every month, around $1,000 is deposited into your bank account – because you are a citizen.

"This income is independent of every other source of income and guarantees you a monthly starting salary above the poverty line for the rest of your life...."

"'Basic income' would be an amount sufficient to secure basic needs as a permanent earnings floor no one could fall beneath, and would replace many of today’s temporary benefits, which are given only in case of emergency, and/or only to those who successfully pass the applied qualification tests.

"UBI would be a promise of equal opportunity, not equal outcome, a new starting line set above the poverty line."

So where do you suggest that this monthly amount come from? Is it going to just magically appear? Do you suggest that we increase taxes to cover the amount. If so then not only do you have to tax a thousand a month but you also need to include the wages of those that are taking in and distributing this new found wealth. So you are talking giving someone $1,000.00 and taxing $1100.00 so a net loss.

Oh let me guess it is the old someone else will pay for my freebies. Yeah the usual stupid bull.

And as usual it may not have worked before but it will this time. Why do so many people always expect a diffrent result from the same input? If you throw a rock into the air, no matter how many times, it still falls down. It will never take flight.

And as usual it may not have worked before but it will this time. Why do so many people always expect a diffrent result from the same input? If you throw a rock into the air, no matter how many times, it still falls down. It will never take flight.

You're making a fatal mistake in reasoning if you are actually equating economics and physics Validation in a hard science like physics comes only through two primary forms, theorems and theories. Gravity is a legitimate theory because it has been confirmed through experiments and observations conducted across centuries. Economics rests on assumptions and not on theories or theorems.

What Makes A Good Model in Economics and Finance - ppt video online download

So you are hoping that someone will not notice that you are trying to somehow produce money that is not there? We are talking a fundamental principle in everything here. Given a finite number of objects you can not slit those objects indefinitely. They do not magically respawn.

I was using gravity as an example of a simple principle called stupidity. If you think that tossing a rock into the air somehow equates to economics you may need more help in fundamentals.

 

[Maxdeath]

They could do it the easy and more cost effective way and just look at Finland. They tried it and dropped it. But as in all things there is always hope that doing the same thing over and over will have a different result.

Finland doesn't have the same economy (or population) as the US. Basic Income has the potential to reverse many of the negative economic trends we've seen over the past five decades.

Why we should all have a basic income

"Consider for a moment that from this day forward, on the first day of every month, around $1,000 is deposited into your bank account – because you are a citizen.

"This income is independent of every other source of income and guarantees you a monthly starting salary above the poverty line for the rest of your life...."

"'Basic income' would be an amount sufficient to secure basic needs as a permanent earnings floor no one could fall beneath, and would replace many of today’s temporary benefits, which are given only in case of emergency, and/or only to those who successfully pass the applied qualification tests.

"UBI would be a promise of equal opportunity, not equal outcome, a new starting line set above the poverty line."

So where do you suggest that this monthly amount come from? Is it going to just magically appear? Do you suggest that we increase taxes to cover the amount. If so then not only do you have to tax a thousand a month but you also need to include the wages of those that are taking in and distributing this new found wealth. So you are talking giving someone $1,000.00 and taxing $1100.00 so a net loss.

Oh let me guess it is the old someone else will pay for my freebies. Yeah the usual stupid bull.

And as usual it may not have worked before but it will this time. Why do so many people always expect a diffrent result from the same input? If you throw a rock into the air, no matter how many times, it still falls down. It will never take flight.

So where do you suggest that this monthly amount come from? Is it going to just magically appear? Do you suggest that we increase taxes to cover the amount. If so then not only do you have to tax a thousand a month but you also need to include the wages of those that are taking in and distributing this new found wealth. So you are talking giving someone $1,000.00 and taxing $1100.00 so a net loss.

Where are you getting your numbers?

Why we should all have a basic income

"What tends to go unrealized about the idea of basic income, and this is true even of many economists – but not all – is that it represents a net transfer.

"In the same way it does not cost $20 to give someone $20 in exchange for $10, it does not cost $3 trillion to give every adult citizen $12,000 and every child $4,000, when every household will be paying varying amounts of taxes in exchange for their UBI.

"Instead it will cost around 30% of that, or about $900 billion, and that’s before the full or partial consolidation of other programmes and tax credits immediately made redundant by the new transfer.

"In other words, for someone whose taxes go up $4,000 to pay for $12,000 in UBI, the cost to give that person UBI is $8,000, not $12,000, and it’s coming from someone else whose taxes went up $20,000 to pay for their own $12,000."

And we shouldn't forget the citizens (legal and natural) who pay NO taxes:

Amazon will pay $0 in federal taxes this year — and it's partially thanks to Trump

So basically you are saying that you think money falls out of the air. We just print more. If you give someone $10.00 you have to get that $10.00 from some where. The funny thing is there is no magic involved.

You can not have something just show up. If I give you three rocks (I am keeping it simple for you) then you give one rock to each of three people and then they give you back only a portion of the rock you gave them. How long can you give each person a whole rock? It is a simple question, there is no hidden answer.

So basically you are saying that you think money falls out of the air. We just print more. If you give someone $10.00 you have to get that $10.00 from some where. The funny thing is there is no magic involved.

Do you see any reason why government can not spend money directly into the real economy in a similar fashion to how it bailed out the economic parasites who crashed the global economy in 2008 with Quantitative Easing?

So you thought quantitative easing was over? Think again

I take it you are unfamiliar with debt. We can spend money we don't have but eventually it must stop.

 

[georgephillip]

They could do it the easy and more cost effective way and just look at Finland. They tried it and dropped it. But as in all things there is always hope that doing the same thing over and over will have a different result.

Finland doesn't have the same economy (or population) as the US. Basic Income has the potential to reverse many of the negative economic trends we've seen over the past five decades.

Why we should all have a basic income

"Consider for a moment that from this day forward, on the first day of every month, around $1,000 is deposited into your bank account – because you are a citizen.

"This income is independent of every other source of income and guarantees you a monthly starting salary above the poverty line for the rest of your life...."

"'Basic income' would be an amount sufficient to secure basic needs as a permanent earnings floor no one could fall beneath, and would replace many of today’s temporary benefits, which are given only in case of emergency, and/or only to those who successfully pass the applied qualification tests.

"UBI would be a promise of equal opportunity, not equal outcome, a new starting line set above the poverty line."

So where do you suggest that this monthly amount come from? Is it going to just magically appear? Do you suggest that we increase taxes to cover the amount. If so then not only do you have to tax a thousand a month but you also need to include the wages of those that are taking in and distributing this new found wealth. So you are talking giving someone $1,000.00 and taxing $1100.00 so a net loss.

Oh let me guess it is the old someone else will pay for my freebies. Yeah the usual stupid bull.

And as usual it may not have worked before but it will this time. Why do so many people always expect a diffrent result from the same input? If you throw a rock into the air, no matter how many times, it still falls down. It will never take flight.

And as usual it may not have worked before but it will this time. Why do so many people always expect a diffrent result from the same input? If you throw a rock into the air, no matter how many times, it still falls down. It will never take flight.

You're making a fatal mistake in reasoning if you are actually equating economics and physics Validation in a hard science like physics comes only through two primary forms, theorems and theories. Gravity is a legitimate theory because it has been confirmed through experiments and observations conducted across centuries. Economics rests on assumptions and not on theories or theorems.

What Makes A Good Model in Economics and Finance - ppt video online download

So you are hoping that someone will not notice that you are trying to somehow produce money that is not there? We are talking a fundamental principle in everything here. Given a finite number of objects you can not slit those objects indefinitely. They do not magically respawn.

I was using gravity as an example of a simple principle called stupidity. If you think that tossing a rock into the air somehow equates to economics you may need more help in fundamentals.

Does this mean those pesky telemarketers will go away...? ~S~

Five Millions Tons of Smoke in the Stratosphere | Nuclear Darkness & Nuclear Famine

"Following a war between India and Pakistan, in which 100 Hiroshima-size (15 kiloton) nuclear weapons are detonated in the large cities of these nations, 5 million tons of smoke is lofted high into the stratosphere and is quickly spread around the world.

"A smoke layer forms around both Hemispheres which will remain in place for many years to block sunlight from reaching the surface of the Earth.

"One year after the smoke injection there would be temperature drops of several degrees C within the grain-growing interiors of Eurasia and North America.

"There would be a corresponding shortening of growing seasons by up to 30 days and a 10% reduction in average global precipitation."

The safest continent on the planet will be the one that is the least inhabitable, Antarctica.

So you are hoping that someone will not notice that you are trying to somehow produce money that is not there? We are talking a fundamental principle in everything here. Given a finite number of objects you can not slit those objects indefinitely. They do not magically respawn.

It sounds like you are confusing a national economy capable of electronically creating its own sovereign currency with a household economy?

If so, you have a lot in common with your rocks.

How to Fund a Universal Basic Income Without Increasing Taxes or Inflation

"The other option is 'qualitative easing,' a form of central bank quantitative easing in which the money flows directly into the real economy rather than simply into banks.

"In Europe, politicians are taking another look at this once-derided 'helicopter money.'

"A UBI is being proposed as monetary policy that would stimulate productivity without increasing taxes.

"As Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, former senior vice president of the World Bank, explains:

"'. . . [W]hen the government spends more and invests in the economy, that money circulates, and recirculates again and again. So not only does it create jobs once: the investment creates jobs multiple times.'

"'The result of that is that the economy grows by a multiple of the initial spending, and public finances turn out to be stronger: as the economy grows, fiscal revenues increase, and demands for the government to pay unemployment benefits, or fund social programmes to help the poor and needy, go down.'

"As tax revenues go up as a result of growth, and as these expenditures decrease, the government’s fiscal position strengthens.'"

 

[Maxdeath]

They could do it the easy and more cost effective way and just look at Finland. They tried it and dropped it. But as in all things there is always hope that doing the same thing over and over will have a different result.

Finland doesn't have the same economy (or population) as the US. Basic Income has the potential to reverse many of the negative economic trends we've seen over the past five decades.

Why we should all have a basic income

"Consider for a moment that from this day forward, on the first day of every month, around $1,000 is deposited into your bank account – because you are a citizen.

"This income is independent of every other source of income and guarantees you a monthly starting salary above the poverty line for the rest of your life...."

"'Basic income' would be an amount sufficient to secure basic needs as a permanent earnings floor no one could fall beneath, and would replace many of today’s temporary benefits, which are given only in case of emergency, and/or only to those who successfully pass the applied qualification tests.

"UBI would be a promise of equal opportunity, not equal outcome, a new starting line set above the poverty line."

So where do you suggest that this monthly amount come from? Is it going to just magically appear? Do you suggest that we increase taxes to cover the amount. If so then not only do you have to tax a thousand a month but you also need to include the wages of those that are taking in and distributing this new found wealth. So you are talking giving someone $1,000.00 and taxing $1100.00 so a net loss.

Oh let me guess it is the old someone else will pay for my freebies. Yeah the usual stupid bull.

And as usual it may not have worked before but it will this time. Why do so many people always expect a diffrent result from the same input? If you throw a rock into the air, no matter how many times, it still falls down. It will never take flight.

And as usual it may not have worked before but it will this time. Why do so many people always expect a diffrent result from the same input? If you throw a rock into the air, no matter how many times, it still falls down. It will never take flight.

You're making a fatal mistake in reasoning if you are actually equating economics and physics Validation in a hard science like physics comes only through two primary forms, theorems and theories. Gravity is a legitimate theory because it has been confirmed through experiments and observations conducted across centuries. Economics rests on assumptions and not on theories or theorems.

What Makes A Good Model in Economics and Finance - ppt video online download

So you are hoping that someone will not notice that you are trying to somehow produce money that is not there? We are talking a fundamental principle in everything here. Given a finite number of objects you can not slit those objects indefinitely. They do not magically respawn.

I was using gravity as an example of a simple principle called stupidity. If you think that tossing a rock into the air somehow equates to economics you may need more help in fundamentals.

Does this mean those pesky telemarketers will go away...? ~S~

Five Millions Tons of Smoke in the Stratosphere | Nuclear Darkness & Nuclear Famine

"Following a war between India and Pakistan, in which 100 Hiroshima-size (15 kiloton) nuclear weapons are detonated in the large cities of these nations, 5 million tons of smoke is lofted high into the stratosphere and is quickly spread around the world.

"A smoke layer forms around both Hemispheres which will remain in place for many years to block sunlight from reaching the surface of the Earth.

"One year after the smoke injection there would be temperature drops of several degrees C within the grain-growing interiors of Eurasia and North America.

"There would be a corresponding shortening of growing seasons by up to 30 days and a 10% reduction in average global precipitation."

The safest continent on the planet will be the one that is the least inhabitable, Antarctica.

So you are hoping that someone will not notice that you are trying to somehow produce money that is not there? We are talking a fundamental principle in everything here. Given a finite number of objects you can not slit those objects indefinitely. They do not magically respawn.

It sounds like you are confusing a national economy capable of electronically creating its own sovereign currency with a household economy?

If so, you have a lot in common with your rocks.

How to Fund a Universal Basic Income Without Increasing Taxes or Inflation

"The other option is 'qualitative easing,' a form of central bank quantitative easing in which the money flows directly into the real economy rather than simply into banks.

"In Europe, politicians are taking another look at this once-derided 'helicopter money.'

"A UBI is being proposed as monetary policy that would stimulate productivity without increasing taxes.

"As Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, former senior vice president of the World Bank, explains:

"'. . . [W]hen the government spends more and invests in the economy, that money circulates, and recirculates again and again. So not only does it create jobs once: the investment creates jobs multiple times.'

"'The result of that is that the economy grows by a multiple of the initial spending, and public finances turn out to be stronger: as the economy grows, fiscal revenues increase, and demands for the government to pay unemployment benefits, or fund social programmes to help the poor and needy, go down.'

"As tax revenues go up as a result of growth, and as these expenditures decrease, the government’s fiscal position strengthens.'"

You are doing a great job of cut and paste. To bad you do not understand anything you are posting.

You have yet to post where you are getting the initial investment. The increase in taxes on increased spending will not compensate for the full universal income payments. Yes paying unemployment and other items will go down because it can be reduced by the amount of the income being given by ubi.

We can postulate a world where elephants fly, six equals four, people are self motivated and always good and debt does not matter. BUT in the world that we actually live in none of that is true.

 

[georgephillip]

Finland doesn't have the same economy (or population) as the US. Basic Income has the potential to reverse many of the negative economic trends we've seen over the past five decades.

Why we should all have a basic income

"Consider for a moment that from this day forward, on the first day of every month, around $1,000 is deposited into your bank account – because you are a citizen.

"This income is independent of every other source of income and guarantees you a monthly starting salary above the poverty line for the rest of your life...."

"'Basic income' would be an amount sufficient to secure basic needs as a permanent earnings floor no one could fall beneath, and would replace many of today’s temporary benefits, which are given only in case of emergency, and/or only to those who successfully pass the applied qualification tests.

"UBI would be a promise of equal opportunity, not equal outcome, a new starting line set above the poverty line."

So where do you suggest that this monthly amount come from? Is it going to just magically appear? Do you suggest that we increase taxes to cover the amount. If so then not only do you have to tax a thousand a month but you also need to include the wages of those that are taking in and distributing this new found wealth. So you are talking giving someone $1,000.00 and taxing $1100.00 so a net loss.

Oh let me guess it is the old someone else will pay for my freebies. Yeah the usual stupid bull.

And as usual it may not have worked before but it will this time. Why do so many people always expect a diffrent result from the same input? If you throw a rock into the air, no matter how many times, it still falls down. It will never take flight.

So where do you suggest that this monthly amount come from? Is it going to just magically appear? Do you suggest that we increase taxes to cover the amount. If so then not only do you have to tax a thousand a month but you also need to include the wages of those that are taking in and distributing this new found wealth. So you are talking giving someone $1,000.00 and taxing $1100.00 so a net loss.

Where are you getting your numbers?

Why we should all have a basic income

"What tends to go unrealized about the idea of basic income, and this is true even of many economists – but not all – is that it represents a net transfer.

"In the same way it does not cost $20 to give someone $20 in exchange for $10, it does not cost $3 trillion to give every adult citizen $12,000 and every child $4,000, when every household will be paying varying amounts of taxes in exchange for their UBI.

"Instead it will cost around 30% of that, or about $900 billion, and that’s before the full or partial consolidation of other programmes and tax credits immediately made redundant by the new transfer.

"In other words, for someone whose taxes go up $4,000 to pay for $12,000 in UBI, the cost to give that person UBI is $8,000, not $12,000, and it’s coming from someone else whose taxes went up $20,000 to pay for their own $12,000."

And we shouldn't forget the citizens (legal and natural) who pay NO taxes:

Amazon will pay $0 in federal taxes this year — and it's partially thanks to Trump

So basically you are saying that you think money falls out of the air. We just print more. If you give someone $10.00 you have to get that $10.00 from some where. The funny thing is there is no magic involved.

You can not have something just show up. If I give you three rocks (I am keeping it simple for you) then you give one rock to each of three people and then they give you back only a portion of the rock you gave them. How long can you give each person a whole rock? It is a simple question, there is no hidden answer.

So basically you are saying that you think money falls out of the air. We just print more. If you give someone $10.00 you have to get that $10.00 from some where. The funny thing is there is no magic involved.

Do you see any reason why government can not spend money directly into the real economy in a similar fashion to how it bailed out the economic parasites who crashed the global economy in 2008 with Quantitative Easing?

So you thought quantitative easing was over? Think again

I take it you are unfamiliar with debt. We can spend money we don't have but eventually it must stop.

When the government uses its sovereign right to issue currency directly into the productive economy (instead of bonds and other debt instruments), it stands to increase tax revenues enough to cover its direct spending.

How to Fund a Universal Basic Income Without Increasing Taxes or Inflation

"This is due to the “velocity of money” – the number of times a dollar is traded in a year, from farmer to grocer to landlord, etc.

"In a good economy, the velocity of the M1 money stock (coins, dollar bills, demand deposits and checkable deposits) is about seven; and each recipient will pay taxes on this same dollar as it changes hands.

"According to the Heritage Foundation, total tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is now 26 percent. Thus one dollar of new GDP results in about 26 cents of increased tax revenue.

"Assuming each of the seven trades is for taxable GDP, $1.00 changing hands seven times can increase tax revenue by $7.00 x 26 percent = $1.82.

"In theory, then, the government could get more back in taxes than it paid out."

 

[Maxdeath]

So where do you suggest that this monthly amount come from? Is it going to just magically appear? Do you suggest that we increase taxes to cover the amount. If so then not only do you have to tax a thousand a month but you also need to include the wages of those that are taking in and distributing this new found wealth. So you are talking giving someone $1,000.00 and taxing $1100.00 so a net loss.

Oh let me guess it is the old someone else will pay for my freebies. Yeah the usual stupid bull.

And as usual it may not have worked before but it will this time. Why do so many people always expect a diffrent result from the same input? If you throw a rock into the air, no matter how many times, it still falls down. It will never take flight.

So where do you suggest that this monthly amount come from? Is it going to just magically appear? Do you suggest that we increase taxes to cover the amount. If so then not only do you have to tax a thousand a month but you also need to include the wages of those that are taking in and distributing this new found wealth. So you are talking giving someone $1,000.00 and taxing $1100.00 so a net loss.

Where are you getting your numbers?

Why we should all have a basic income

"What tends to go unrealized about the idea of basic income, and this is true even of many economists – but not all – is that it represents a net transfer.

"In the same way it does not cost $20 to give someone $20 in exchange for $10, it does not cost $3 trillion to give every adult citizen $12,000 and every child $4,000, when every household will be paying varying amounts of taxes in exchange for their UBI.

"Instead it will cost around 30% of that, or about $900 billion, and that’s before the full or partial consolidation of other programmes and tax credits immediately made redundant by the new transfer.

"In other words, for someone whose taxes go up $4,000 to pay for $12,000 in UBI, the cost to give that person UBI is $8,000, not $12,000, and it’s coming from someone else whose taxes went up $20,000 to pay for their own $12,000."

And we shouldn't forget the citizens (legal and natural) who pay NO taxes:

Amazon will pay $0 in federal taxes this year — and it's partially thanks to Trump

So basically you are saying that you think money falls out of the air. We just print more. If you give someone $10.00 you have to get that $10.00 from some where. The funny thing is there is no magic involved.

You can not have something just show up. If I give you three rocks (I am keeping it simple for you) then you give one rock to each of three people and then they give you back only a portion of the rock you gave them. How long can you give each person a whole rock? It is a simple question, there is no hidden answer.

So basically you are saying that you think money falls out of the air. We just print more. If you give someone $10.00 you have to get that $10.00 from some where. The funny thing is there is no magic involved.

Do you see any reason why government can not spend money directly into the real economy in a similar fashion to how it bailed out the economic parasites who crashed the global economy in 2008 with Quantitative Easing?

So you thought quantitative easing was over? Think again

I take it you are unfamiliar with debt. We can spend money we don't have but eventually it must stop.

When the government uses its sovereign right to issue currency directly into the productive economy (instead of bonds and other debt instruments), it stands to increase tax revenues enough to cover its direct spending.

How to Fund a Universal Basic Income Without Increasing Taxes or Inflation

"This is due to the “velocity of money” – the number of times a dollar is traded in a year, from farmer to grocer to landlord, etc.

"In a good economy, the velocity of the M1 money stock (coins, dollar bills, demand deposits and checkable deposits) is about seven; and each recipient will pay taxes on this same dollar as it changes hands.

"According to the Heritage Foundation, total tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is now 26 percent. Thus one dollar of new GDP results in about 26 cents of increased tax revenue.

"Assuming each of the seven trades is for taxable GDP, $1.00 changing hands seven times can increase tax revenue by $7.00 x 26 percent = $1.82.

"In theory, then, the government could get more back in taxes than it paid out."

What you are essentially cut and pasting is called trickle down economics. There are many that claim it does not work.

You have still not posted where you plan on getting this initial ubi. What happens when the economy crashes? How long do you need to fund this ubi before it can be self sustaining, if ever? What do we do about our existing debt and future debt until ubi pays for itself? How do we convince inflation to not outpace ubi? How do we convince people to actually find and hold a job instead of becoming dependent on ubi just as some have done with welfare?

You seemed to have missed the last line in your whole little post "in theory". Theory is great but seldom proves itself practical in real life. "In theory" the government could give each citizen a million dollars or a billion dollars but in reality it would not work.

 

[anynameyouwish]

All of the money is going to be spent on weed.

then the weed sellers will spend it on take out pizza and going to clubs, enhancing the economy.

pizza sellers will go to theaters...

theater owners will buy new boats

boat sellers will buy new planes.....

Nice investment!

 

[xband]

Give the homeless $500 a month and they will invest it in Mutual Funds. Be sure to give the homeless the paperback book, Stock Market for Dummies.

 

[2aguy]

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - After months of planning, Stockton, Calif., is sending debit cards loaded with $500 to a select group of residents starting Friday as part of a closely watched experiment in universal basic income, the first led by a U.S. city.

Will 'basic income' become the California norm? Town starts $500 no-strings payments



THESE STUPID ASSES ARE GOING TO GO BROKE SO FAST!! AND WE / THEY / TAX PAYERS ARE GOING TO BE THE ONES WHO PAY FOFR THIS SHIT SYSTEM!! OMFFG!!

Sooner or later you run out off other people's money bahhaha

How do they even pay for this?

 

[georgephillip]

Finland doesn't have the same economy (or population) as the US. Basic Income has the potential to reverse many of the negative economic trends we've seen over the past five decades.

Why we should all have a basic income

"Consider for a moment that from this day forward, on the first day of every month, around $1,000 is deposited into your bank account – because you are a citizen.

"This income is independent of every other source of income and guarantees you a monthly starting salary above the poverty line for the rest of your life...."

"'Basic income' would be an amount sufficient to secure basic needs as a permanent earnings floor no one could fall beneath, and would replace many of today’s temporary benefits, which are given only in case of emergency, and/or only to those who successfully pass the applied qualification tests.

"UBI would be a promise of equal opportunity, not equal outcome, a new starting line set above the poverty line."

So where do you suggest that this monthly amount come from? Is it going to just magically appear? Do you suggest that we increase taxes to cover the amount. If so then not only do you have to tax a thousand a month but you also need to include the wages of those that are taking in and distributing this new found wealth. So you are talking giving someone $1,000.00 and taxing $1100.00 so a net loss.

Oh let me guess it is the old someone else will pay for my freebies. Yeah the usual stupid bull.

And as usual it may not have worked before but it will this time. Why do so many people always expect a diffrent result from the same input? If you throw a rock into the air, no matter how many times, it still falls down. It will never take flight.

And as usual it may not have worked before but it will this time. Why do so many people always expect a diffrent result from the same input? If you throw a rock into the air, no matter how many times, it still falls down. It will never take flight.

You're making a fatal mistake in reasoning if you are actually equating economics and physics Validation in a hard science like physics comes only through two primary forms, theorems and theories. Gravity is a legitimate theory because it has been confirmed through experiments and observations conducted across centuries. Economics rests on assumptions and not on theories or theorems.

What Makes A Good Model in Economics and Finance - ppt video online download

So you are hoping that someone will not notice that you are trying to somehow produce money that is not there? We are talking a fundamental principle in everything here. Given a finite number of objects you can not slit those objects indefinitely. They do not magically respawn.

I was using gravity as an example of a simple principle called stupidity. If you think that tossing a rock into the air somehow equates to economics you may need more help in fundamentals.

Does this mean those pesky telemarketers will go away...? ~S~

Five Millions Tons of Smoke in the Stratosphere | Nuclear Darkness & Nuclear Famine

"Following a war between India and Pakistan, in which 100 Hiroshima-size (15 kiloton) nuclear weapons are detonated in the large cities of these nations, 5 million tons of smoke is lofted high into the stratosphere and is quickly spread around the world.

"A smoke layer forms around both Hemispheres which will remain in place for many years to block sunlight from reaching the surface of the Earth.

"One year after the smoke injection there would be temperature drops of several degrees C within the grain-growing interiors of Eurasia and North America.

"There would be a corresponding shortening of growing seasons by up to 30 days and a 10% reduction in average global precipitation."

The safest continent on the planet will be the one that is the least inhabitable, Antarctica.

So you are hoping that someone will not notice that you are trying to somehow produce money that is not there? We are talking a fundamental principle in everything here. Given a finite number of objects you can not slit those objects indefinitely. They do not magically respawn.

It sounds like you are confusing a national economy capable of electronically creating its own sovereign currency with a household economy?

If so, you have a lot in common with your rocks.

How to Fund a Universal Basic Income Without Increasing Taxes or Inflation

"The other option is 'qualitative easing,' a form of central bank quantitative easing in which the money flows directly into the real economy rather than simply into banks.

"In Europe, politicians are taking another look at this once-derided 'helicopter money.'

"A UBI is being proposed as monetary policy that would stimulate productivity without increasing taxes.

"As Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, former senior vice president of the World Bank, explains:

"'. . . [W]hen the government spends more and invests in the economy, that money circulates, and recirculates again and again. So not only does it create jobs once: the investment creates jobs multiple times.'

"'The result of that is that the economy grows by a multiple of the initial spending, and public finances turn out to be stronger: as the economy grows, fiscal revenues increase, and demands for the government to pay unemployment benefits, or fund social programmes to help the poor and needy, go down.'

"As tax revenues go up as a result of growth, and as these expenditures decrease, the government’s fiscal position strengthens.'"

You are doing a great job of cut and paste. To bad you do not understand anything you are posting.

You have yet to post where you are getting the initial investment. The increase in taxes on increased spending will not compensate for the full universal income payments. Yes paying unemployment and other items will go down because it can be reduced by the amount of the income being given by ubi.

We can postulate a world where elephants fly, six equals four, people are self motivated and always good and debt does not matter. BUT in the world that we actually live in none of that is true.

You have yet to post where you are getting the initial investment. The increase in taxes on increased spending will not compensate for the full universal income payments. Yes paying unemployment and other items will go down because it can be reduced by the amount of the income being given by ubi.

The initial investment could come from the Fed and/or Treasury just as it did for Wall Street's benefit a decade ago:

Universal Basic Income Is Easier Than It Looks

"The Federal Reserve alone could do the job.

"It could buy 'Green' federal bonds with money created on its balance sheet, just as the Fed funded the purchase of $3.7 trillion in bonds in its 'quantitative easing' program to save the banks.

"The Treasury could also do it.

"The Treasury has the constitutional power to issue coins in any denomination, even trillion dollar coins."

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

The initial investment could come from the Fed and/or Treasury just as it did for Wall Street's benefit a decade ago:

Universal Basic Income Is Easier Than It Looks

"The Federal Reserve alone could do the job.

"It could buy 'Green' federal bonds with money created on its balance sheet, just as the Fed funded the purchase of $3.7 trillion in bonds in its 'quantitative easing' program to save the banks.

"The Treasury could also do it.

"The Treasury has the constitutional power to issue coins in any denomination, even trillion dollar coins."

Everyone has a vested interest in keeping banks afloat to stave off economic collapse so people will not have their savings wiped out. That banks have acted like greedy criminals is a given but government supposedly has oversight to prevent this sort of thing and they have always failed to keep banks on a short leash. So whose fault is that?

There is the regrettable rationale for keeping banks afloat in spite of themselves at times. In whose interests is it to simply hand out money to trailer park meth heads and those people unwilling to work that the Green New Deal mentions?

No one as far as I can tell except for those bottom of the barrel individuals who will now have cigarette, beer and lottery
money given to them every month, thanks to the productive segment of society.
California again demonstrates why they are swimming in red ink and the most dysfunctional state in the union.

 

[Harry Dresden]

they also have 100 billion plus in unfunded pension liabilities.....you think that 10 will cover it?....

Still waitin' fer that link....

those links have been put up more than once in threads about California,including threads you have been in....here just for you again....
California faces a $1 trillion unfunded pension liability and lawmakers focus on foam and plastic straws – Orange County Register
Sales tax on your local ballot? California’s pension crisis may have nominated it
https://www.ppic.org/publication/public-pension-liabilities-in-california/
Democrats running for California governor need to stop talking about Trump and start talking about public pensions
Can California Save Itself From A Pension Disaster?

Nothing there is less than a year old and one is over 5. Gonna hafta do better than that.

and every one true....why dont you prove those articles wrong....you asked me for links,i gave them to you,now its your turn....prove those stories are false....

They're old.

and yet you cant seem to prove them wrong.....how come?.....

 

[georgephillip]

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - After months of planning, Stockton, Calif., is sending debit cards loaded with $500 to a select group of residents starting Friday as part of a closely watched experiment in universal basic income, the first led by a U.S. city.

Will 'basic income' become the California norm? Town starts $500 no-strings payments



THESE STUPID ASSES ARE GOING TO GO BROKE SO FAST!! AND WE / THEY / TAX PAYERS ARE GOING TO BE THE ONES WHO PAY FOFR THIS SHIT SYSTEM!! OMFFG!!

Sooner or later you run out off other people's money bahhaha

How do they even pay for this?

How do they even pay for this?

Will 'basic income' become the California norm? Town starts $500 no-strings payments

"The money for the program comes from a $1 million grant from the Economic Security Project, a network organization that has raised $10 million to fund and explore universal basic income programs and their viability."

 

[georgephillip]

The initial investment could come from the Fed and/or Treasury just as it did for Wall Street's benefit a decade ago:

Universal Basic Income Is Easier Than It Looks

"The Federal Reserve alone could do the job.

"It could buy 'Green' federal bonds with money created on its balance sheet, just as the Fed funded the purchase of $3.7 trillion in bonds in its 'quantitative easing' program to save the banks.

"The Treasury could also do it.

"The Treasury has the constitutional power to issue coins in any denomination, even trillion dollar coins."

Everyone has a vested interest in keeping banks afloat to stave off economic collapse so people will not have their savings wiped out. That banks have acted like greedy criminals is a given but government supposedly has oversight to prevent this sort of thing and they have always failed to keep banks on a short leash. So whose fault is that?

There is the regrettable rationale for keeping banks afloat in spite of themselves at times. In whose interests is it to simply hand out money to trailer park meth heads and those people unwilling to work that the Green New Deal mentions?

No one as far as I can tell except for those bottom of the barrel individuals who will now have cigarette, beer and lottery
money given to them every month, thanks to the productive segment of society.
California again demonstrates why they are swimming in red ink and the most dysfunctional state in the union.

Everyone has a vested interest in keeping banks afloat to stave off economic collapse so people will not have their savings wiped out. That banks have acted like greedy criminals is a given but government supposedly has oversight to prevent this sort of thing and they have always failed to keep banks on a short leash. So whose fault is that?

The revolving door between Wall Street and "government" that has enjoyed bipartisan support over the past five decades looks like a good suspect. Which economic class does that benefit?

CHARTS: How the rich won the Great Recession

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Not swallowing that bait. The issue is giving people money for doing nothing. Is it a good idea?
I say definitely not

 

[georgephillip]

The initial investment could come from the Fed and/or Treasury just as it did for Wall Street's benefit a decade ago:

Universal Basic Income Is Easier Than It Looks

"The Federal Reserve alone could do the job.

"It could buy 'Green' federal bonds with money created on its balance sheet, just as the Fed funded the purchase of $3.7 trillion in bonds in its 'quantitative easing' program to save the banks.

"The Treasury could also do it.

"The Treasury has the constitutional power to issue coins in any denomination, even trillion dollar coins."

Everyone has a vested interest in keeping banks afloat to stave off economic collapse so people will not have their savings wiped out. That banks have acted like greedy criminals is a given but government supposedly has oversight to prevent this sort of thing and they have always failed to keep banks on a short leash. So whose fault is that?

There is the regrettable rationale for keeping banks afloat in spite of themselves at times. In whose interests is it to simply hand out money to trailer park meth heads and those people unwilling to work that the Green New Deal mentions?

No one as far as I can tell except for those bottom of the barrel individuals who will now have cigarette, beer and lottery
money given to them every month, thanks to the productive segment of society.
California again demonstrates why they are swimming in red ink and the most dysfunctional state in the union.

California Dreamin'? Only 5 Countries Have A Bigger GDP Than The Golden State [Infographic]

"One group called YesCalifornia have even laid out the hypothetical legal framework for 'Calexit', calling for an independence referendum in 2019.

"Despite all of 2016's unlikely happenings, most observers agree that an independent California at some point in the future probably won't join the list of crazy occurrences.

"The last time a state seceded was in the 1860s, resulting in the civil war."

 

[georgephillip]

Not swallowing that bait. The issue is giving people money for doing nothing. Is it a good idea?
I say definitely not

Do you understand everyone gets the UBI stipend regardless of any and all other income they receive? When the Industrial Revolution first began it promised to free humanity from the need to work at some point in the future. Why not start now?

The Impact of Artificial Intelligence - Widespread Job Losses | IoT For All

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Wall of Debt - Unsustainable California
The picture is pretty until you turn it over and look from another angle.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Do you understand everyone gets the UBI stipend regardless of any and all other income they receive?

Yes and that makes this experiment even more stupid.

When the Industrial Revolution first began it promised to free humanity from the need to work at some point in the future. Why not start now?

Because we aren't anywhere remotely near that point in time, if we ever will be, and
and if some moronic think tank wants to toss away millions on this "experiment" (oooh...what will people do with extra money- some will spend it foolishly, some won't) that's their business.

I think it's ulterior purpose is to set up an unreal expectation that Uncle Scam can give away money with absolutely no strings attached and that's a dangerous thing.