Posted on 03/20/2014 2:14:19 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
What if you could receive a guaranteed basic yearly income with no strings attached? Didn’t matter how much money you made now, or in the future. Nobody would ask about your job status or how many kids you have. The check would arrive in the mailbox, no matter what.
Sounds like a far-fetched idea, right? Wrong. All over the world, people are talking guaranteeing basic incomes for citizens as a viable policy.
Half of all Canadians want it. The Swiss have had a referendum on it. The American media is all over it: The New York Times’ Annie Lowrey considered basic income as an answer to an economy that leaves too many people behind, while Matt Bruenig and Elizabeth Stoker of theAtlantic wrote about it as a way to reduce poverty.
The idea is not new: In his final book, Martin Luther King Jr. suggested that guaranteeing people money without requiring them to do anything in exchange was a good way for Americans to share in prosperity. In the 1960s and early 1970s, many in the U.S. gave the idea serious consideration. Even Richard Nixon supported a version of it. But by 1980, the political tide shifted to the right and politicians moved their talking points to unfettered markets and individual gain from sharing the wealth and evening the playing field.
Advocates say it’s an idea whose time has finally come. In a world of chronic job insecurity, stagnant wages, boom-and-bust cycles that wipe out ordinary people through no fault of their own, and shredded social safety nets, proponents warn that we have to come up with a way to make sure people can survive regardless of work status or economic conditions. Here are five reasons they give as to why a guaranteed basic income might just be the answer.
(Excerpt) Read more at salon.com ...
And what will they buy?
The stupid..it burns.
“Money handed to people with no strings attached is worth exactly as much as the effort they put into earning that money. In other words, it’s worthless.”
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Amazing how so many fail to understand such a simple and obvious truth.
My respect for Ayn Rand grows every day. Fifty years ago I read in Atlas Shrugged that Americans were the first to use the term “to make money” rather than “to get money” because Americans used to realize that money is actually MADE by the act of working to acquire it. The coin, cash, check or digital entry is merely a way of keeping track of how much money you have actually MADE. Handing it from one hand to another with no requirement for work does not MAKE any money.
I have actually spoken with people who seemed to believe that the government can take care of everyone’s need without anyone having to work unless they, “just want to”.
You know, if we just had LAWS against drugs, prostitution and other vices, the poor would be able to spend their money wisely!
;-0
You?
Well, sure. Actually people would have more incentive than under welfare system, where working and earning reduces what you get. If people worked and made money for extra stuff beyond their bare living expenses they wouldn't be punished for it. A lot of people who are working now could get by working 20 or 30 hours a week, but work 40 or more because they want to live better and save money.
You sound like a democrat.
I’m not supporting the idea. I’m comparing it to what we have now, which is worse in some ways, not a theoretical ideal. But if you read my earlier comment, I don’t think it would ever happen, precisely because the “no strings attached” idea goes against the fundamental nature of government.
Anyone buying into this nonsense would probably also help elect Obama for a third term.
The rate food is going up even with some spoilage it might be a better investment.
It's never enough.
I still laugh at my oldest son, now 25, who was pleading with his mom to purchase him a particular toy 15+ years ago: "if you buy this for me, I'll never be bored again!"
LOL times 50!
The technical term is corporatism.
But as with all systems that are at base, socialist, you run out of other peoples money after a while. Whether it is welfare to the top or the bottom.
Bravo, somebody needed to say that and you said it well!
For a long time I have felt that with all the new communications technology there is less and less communication of anything worthwhile.
A built in bias of laziness.
It’s simple. We’ll be the Eloi and China the Morlocks.
Why not use silver as a means and facilitator of trade?
Anything of value, but paper money wouldn’t have value.
Why would anyone want to accumulate wealth based on paper money after it’s already been devalued once and with prices going up because everyone is now receiving a check for doing nothing, you would soon have to increase the amount of the check everyone was receiving just so they could live.
Once you decrease the value of the money to the point it wipes out accumulated wealth you’ve got runaway inflation.
Paper money becomes worthless.
People would be glad to work just for food.
Communists don’t read history because they think they already know how it comes out. And instead of learning the hard way they just look for a scapegoat and try again. That is why it’s a religion.
Eliminate all welfare and if you don’t make your own way in this world quit consuming oxygen!
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.