Posted on 09/16/2015 8:24:46 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Utter bovine scatology.
If the government provides money to people for being alive, the amounts will end up being astronomical so the politicians can buy votes.
The “land of opportunity” becomes the “land of disincentives” under this BS approach.
Income for doing what? And who pays for it?
That is so generous of Matt to use his own money to provide all humans a basic income.
Maybe they have "employment difficulties", and thus are poor, because they have a violent attitude?
My thoughts exactly….those, plus what extreme idiot nonsense...
Wow! What a great idea!
Maybe sum it up as: “To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability.”
I bet this has never, ever been tried anywhere before!
isn’t this called welfare/socialist security/SNAP/EBT, etc, etc. And, BTW, it should all be ended. Completely unconstitutional spending of other people’s money. Anyone who wants money, should go out and earn it. If you can’t, that is what private charities are for. Go to them, and they will discern whether you are a lazy parasite or honestly in need.
The government pays for it. :/
Should work fine, until they run out of other people’s money.
It’s a replacement of all the forms of welfare with an income. It’s brilliant, in a way. Why pay for all of those gov’t bureaucrats to administer all these different programs, determine eligibility, negotiate contracts, look for cheaters, etc.
Do away with it all. Everyone gets a minimum income. If you want more out of life, you go do more.
It also gets rid of the perverse incentives that keep people from working. Like where you earn one dollar too much and you lose your housing or healthcare. We should be encouraging people to work and be deploying our bureaucrats in useful positions in private industry.
We will always have some poor. This country is not going to eliminate all forms of support and see people scrounging on the street.
This cuts out the middleman. It’s an idea worth looking at.
“Maybe they have “employment difficulties”, and thus are poor, because they have a violent attitude? “
—
Your paraphrasing is perfection.
.
I didn’t realize we had found life on another planet.
The new labor leader in England is for increasing welfare payments which they call benefits. See the tv show here and the British version of “Shameless” for how good the benefits are.
First, I think that children should also receive a basic income (paid to their parents).
Let the breeding begin.
Oh, and the author doesn’t understand “economies of scale”.
That would just about complete the liberal quest for herds of useless moochers, kept and fed in government feed lots like human cattle, to be brought out on election days to keep their masters in office.
Wow! What a great idea!
Maybe sum it up as: “To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability.”
I bet this has never, ever been tried anywhere before!
*********************************************************************
And they can just tax the rich to pay for it!
I’ve seen this advocated by Charles Murray, a libertarian sort of guy, believe it or not. The idea being to replace the bloated “welfare system”, that is, ALL of it, with a basic income. Overall it would be cheaper than what we have now, and should have some interesting (good) side effects. Of course the law of unintended consequences would rear its ugly head somewhere, but its not that crazy of an idea.
my family of 6 would get $30,000 a year :0
Something makes me think this would bankrupt us.
And who pays for it?
Why do you hate children?
</progressive silliness>
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.