Posted on 04/15/2014 3:42:42 AM PDT by kingattax
First, the bad news: Even if the economy improves, middle-class career paths will continue to disappear as globalization and technological innovation render more jobs obsolete.
Now, the good news: The fear, stress and humiliation caused by unemployment (and underemployment) can be alleviated with a simple solution.
And now, the even-better news: This simple solution is starting to find backers on both sides of the political spectrum.
A monthly cash payment to every American, no questions asked, would solve several of our most daunting challenges.
It's called a basic income, and it's cheaper and much more effective than our current malfunctioning safety net, which costs nearly $1 trillion per year.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Another wet-behind-the-ears professional student-turned-’professor’ who barely is old enough to grow a beard.
His ‘income’ is derived from brainwashing students on socialism three days a week for an hour and writing socialist nonsense as part of his “publish or perish” regimen. It comes so easy to him, automatic and regularly, so why can’t everyone get some, too?
They all talk about he economy of doing this and that while espousing the overall paradise such and such will create IF ONLY we gave somebody more money. They always conveniently forget to mention that the government will have to steal that money from someone who actually had to work and sweat for it.
“...the government will have to steal that money from someone who actually had to work and sweat for it.”
Will have to steal the money to give to worthless slime? They already do that today!
“Bread and Circuses.” The fall of Rome and the fall of America.
I like it. We can replace much of the current bureaucracy and federal anti-poverty programs - as currently constructed - actually create an incentive for people NOT to work because if they do work, they lose their benefits. And it makes more sense not to go all that effort to find a minimum job that barely pays them more than welfare. Sane people don’t bother because they’re not going to be rewarded for being responsible.
A guaranteed basic income would cover basic survival necessities - shelter, food, transportation and health care. People would be free to earn more if they wanted to and the guarantee would always remain in place. It would be pro-work and pro-family. It could be administered by a simple piece of software.
And people who can’t manage their income? They can always be taken of by private philanthropy. A civilized society will never let people fend for themselves and having them sleep on the streets. We could do a lot worse than by abolishing our hugely expensive, inefficient and intrusive anti-poverty bureaucracy and make certain no one needs to fear for themselves and their families.
Its been around for a long time now and deserves serious consideration. One can see why liberals support it but it has merit as well from a conservative and libertarian point of view.
Half of the country already has a guaranteed income. The other half has to pay for it.
With nobody working, nobody producing and making product, how can you guarantee anything?
That is true. So true. But the government uses various faux programs, specious qualifications and general subterfuge to do it.
What this socialist proposes is to drop all pretense and just get right to it and admit to their idea money is a fundamental right of everyone - in their eyes ‘everyone’ is a Democrat.
Sounds like something George McGovern used to tout.
There is a vast, untapped cornucopia of wealth in this country the socialists have been furtively drooling over for decades.
After raping private and public corporations of their profits, they will be coming for your 401K, your IRA, your ROTH IRA, and your savings.
Initially, it will be a one-time ‘assessment’, a wealth tax, then followed by actual taking later when they realize they’ve pissed that away, too. You’ll be left with a ‘chit’ that’s good for a few bucks more on your Social Security check each month.
“Then there’s the societal stability factor: If people’s basic economic needs are being met—no matter what the unpredictable job market is doing—we don’t have to worry about the potential for civil unrest as a result of mass unemployment.”
“Once people have the freedom to elect to work less, their capacity to engage in the work of rebuilding community and democracy can increase far beyond what is possible in today’s precariously overworked society,” Alperovitz said.
How so? As long as all the poverty programs and minimum wages are abolished, I'm all for a negative income tax.
This was advocated by none other than Milton Friedman.
It will start out “your 401K”. It will be declared it is unfair for you to be the only person that gets a chit from your 401K. You will be told it has to be spread evenly so that everyone gets a chit.
But we know they will spend it as quick as they seize it.
That's true, but that's because of the convoluted socialist programs and departments in place. You have a negative income tax, and all of that would disappear.
With nobody working, nobody producing and making product, how can you guarantee anything?
Because with the minimum-wage and poverty programs abolished, there would be jobs galore. That guaranteed income can be used to pay for basic necessities while people get better jobs.
-——you get to sit on your butt one day a week.——
That has already happened. There is a defacto 30 hour week for many as a result of Obamacare.
The phenomenon has migrated to corporate America where Domino’s Pizza is touting the art work done during the day off in their commercials. In keeping with the manifesto of the wicked witch Nancy, Domino’s is trolling for artists to make pizza. One guy claims to be an artist who’s art is just pizza.
One wonders if he is a full timer, 40 hours
They would actually manage their income better, because other than private charities or family, there would be no government to fall back on.
I oppose making the subsidy monthly though. Make it annually at tax time and let banks or other financial services set it up so people can get it monthly.
I can hear Nancy Pelosi now; the basic income does not provide a dignified existence so we must supplement it with this and that program (targeted, of course). The now unemployed welfare state bureacracy would certainly demand a program in consideration of their intergenerational service. The Democrats will oblige as they naturally seek new opportunities for graft. The rent seekers will have full-time work as they pursue ‘fairness’.
Stupid idea, and no true conservative or libertarian would espouse it.
Actually it works the opposite way. Current anti-poverty programs erect a hard ceiling on what you can earn. SSI for example, doesn’t allow you to have more than $2000 in the bank and if you have a job where you earn more than that - you lose the benefit. There is no incentive to work hard and save because you can’t keep your safety net AND any extra money you earn. That discourages work.
A basic income guarantee on the other hand would create a floor. If you take a job? No problem you still benefit from the floor income and earn as much as you want and you can take risks. What if you want to take more than one job and earn even more? Great! Now there is an incentive to work hard because your safety net now works as insurance no matter what happens in the economy.
Its obvious from an economic and moral point of view which is superior and cost-effective. And which incentivizes desirable conduct in people from the standpoint of society. As the article mentions, a basic income program could be run with simple software. You don’t need a special bureaucracy to take care of just the poor; you can relieve every one from falling through the cracks and they can live in a decent society.
Watch for riots if you replace other government assistance programs with this.
What level of taxation will we put up with? Call me greedy or whatever, but it is still taking something away from someone who earned it and giving it to someone who didn’t...
That would not work that way. Some people will never work. Those that do will soon be stoned for having more money than those who don’t work. You see, the problem is the nature of people. For some, the lack of income is pure laziness, sloth, criminal behavior and greed. Those same people would be griping that it is unfair that others have more money and job skills. There motto “I deserve more to make it even”.
This would accomplish nothing.
There is never enough.
All sounds idyllic and nice. However it is highly unlikely this ‘floor income’ would be given to everyone. Government always establishes limits on those that actually produce, whether it is in graduated taxes, taking income tax deductions, or eligibility for largess. Always. This would be like asking a tiger to go Vegan.
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.