Not far fetched, sounds like...
Income redistribution invariably has negative aggregate economic consequences.
It can not be good for the economy.
Any arguments to the contrary are transparent sophistry.
Wealthy Arab countries do something similar to this already (for their own tiny native populations); they do no work, and import foreigners for everything (while they collect welfare petrodollars). That is why Kuwait fell in one day.
If you ELIMINATED illegal drugs, prostitution, and other vices - then, yes, it’s possible to reduce poverty, as people would only be able to spend their money on necessities.
Yep, sounds practical.
All this money would come from where? Tax folks an extra $12,000 per year so they can receive their guaranteed $3,000 a year?
I often wonder how some of these people eat without stabbing themselves in the face with the fork.
This is beyond stupid.
This is drooling idiot.
As if I had any.
Stupid.
The money comes from those foolish enough to work. Soon everyone learns how to beat the system.
Soon the rest of the world learns what s$$holes Americans are and start swarming in, happily taking the guaranteed income and hating us in return.
It’s inflationary. The guaranteed income becomes the new ZERO income. Prices of everything shoot up, and the folks start clamoring for a higher guaranteed income.
This is really just a communist idea, cleverly disguised with a new name.
Not far fetched, sounds like...
Actually, Milton Friedman proposed a “negative income tax” to replace all social welfare programs. I suspect that it would be less expensive than current government welfare programs.
But we know that this would end up as just another freebie.
On the other hand, St. Paul said, “if he will not work, neither shall he eat.”
They propose giving $3000 a YEAR to every man woman and child as a way to bring people out of poverty, improve human dignity and quality of life. All that for a mere $3000/ year. What planet are they living on? Unfortunately, ours.
Capitalism does not fail, so the author’s contention that it’s left too many people behind is false from the start. All capitalism promises is an opportunity. Ability, effort, and personal initiative take it from there. Those who want to provide the “reward” without the effort are soul-sucking leeches who want to destroy the spirit of mankind to enhance their own “power”.
What do they plan on doing when there aren’t any folks working to create the things the money goes to and turning it into a pile of green wrapping paper? You can bet every dime you’ve got that the producers of the world are going to notice folks getting a five-figure income for doing nothing and aren’t going to like it.
Why stop at a free “basic” income? That’s such a puny concept. Let’s make everyone rich instead by giving a trillion dollar coin to every adult in the U.S. Then we’d all be rich! And no one would ever have to work again! Since we’d ALL be RICH! Myself? The first thing I would buy is a pony. And a jet airplane. Oh, and then I would buy the Mona Lisa. And the Broncos. Gosh, I just LOVE being RICH! And not having to work.
(BTW, the trillion dollar coins could be made from a base metal like nickle, so they would be cheap to make, and a few extra ones could be minted for the government itself, so taxes could be completely eliminated and yet government could still function perfectly. It’s such an elegant solution I don’t know why it hasn’t been implemented yet!)
That can't be true. MLK is heralded as a Republican who judges people by the content of their character.
It’s already been tried in the former Soviet Union, in Red China, in Cuba, in Vietnam, and elsewehere, with results history has documented only too well.
Thomas Sowell wisely suggests that we subject all government programs to these three questions:
1 - Compared to what?
2 - At what cost?
3 - What hard evidence do you have?
And what will they buy?
The stupid..it burns.
Anyone buying into this nonsense would probably also help elect Obama for a third term.