Posted on 09/04/2017 11:04:34 PM PDT by blueplum
Giving every adult in the United States a $1000 cash handout per month would grow the economy by $2.5 trillion by 2025, according to a new study on universal basic income.
The report was released in August by the left-leaning Roosevelt Institute. Roosevelt research director Marshall Steinbaum, Michalis Nikiforos at Bard College's Levy Institute, and Gennaro Zezza at the University of Cassino and Southern Lazio in Italy co-authored the study.
[snip] These estimates are based on a universal basic income paid for by increasing the federal deficit. As part of the study, the researchers also calculated the effect to the economy of paying for the cash handouts by increasing taxes. In that case, there were would be no net benefit ...
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
Yeah. That would be just fine with me if we make that trade.
CONSERVATIVES: “We are willing to do away with all welfare and means tested programs, and exchange it instead with a Universal Basic Income that is given to people to do with as they wish.”
LIBERALS: “Great! We accept, get rid of welfare, WIC, Obamaphones, Section 8 housing, etc. We’re on board with this! You just watch how this improves things.
(next legislative session)
LIBERALS: “The Universal Basic Income endeavor has worked wonders, everyone loves it, even with no Welfare, WIC, etc. But there are problems. We have people who can’t get the food they used to get with WIC, even with the UBI, and that is a problem. They used to be able to get lobster and sirloin steak, but now they can’t afford those things, and they see rich people buying those things and they feel discriminated against. Also, since they can’t have the government supplied cell phone, they can’t pay for a standard plan that includes unlimited texting AND pay for cable television too. This is viewed as discriminatory, and there have already been protests about it. To alleviate this, we propose to either raise the UBI by another $1000, or implement a new program (eligible only to certain people who can’t make it on $1000 a month) that provides certain government approved goods and services...”
CONSERVATIVES: But wait-you promised us this would replace all means tested programs like those you proffer, and you also agreed to only have COLA increases in the UBI! We...”
LIBERALS: “See, this is why people think you are all racist...”
(Legislation to increase UBI AND programs to supplement UBI pass in next cycle)
Lather.
Rinse.
Repeat.
No, only welfare for the banks. Happy with that? Just try to get a loan for a small business.
If it leans any further left, it'll be prone.
It never occurs to the progs that cutting taxes would do the same thing.
Yes, that’s the point: if we’re going to have a massive welfare state, then do it by redistributing an equal bare bones living amount to everyone, eliminating most of the bureaucracy.
And that’s why it won’t work: the massive bureaucracy won’t just disperse.
No. The main argument against UBI isn’t that it will or won’t work, per se. We know that for a large percentage, probably the majority, it simply will not work.
And then there will be programs to augment it. I say this with 100% certainty.
It will not work UNLESS there is GUARANTEED to be NO additional money thrown into other programs to “remedy shortcomings” of the UBI.
And you can’t promise that, because Community Organizers, liberal politicians, and weak-willed Republicans will never, EVER promise not to pursue additional monies. Even if it were a Constitutional Amendment, they would still ignore it.
IT WILL NOT WORK.
There is a big push for this.
Even on FR, I have seen many people suddenly in favor of it, at it is all over social media.
So why is this suddenly a concern?
see post 15.
Only first level thinkers would consider this a good idea.
Milton Friedman did not support giving all citizens a set amount per this scheme. He supported a “negative income tax” under which income is only taxed above some set level. A person making less than that set amount was given money to bring his income to that level. A person making no money at all would be given the entire amount to reach that level. This plan would replace all other methods of welfare.
It sounds good, but in practice I believe it would be no better than the current system. The level of basic income would be the subject of endless debate and ever changing legislation, and the plan would allow the clever but lazy man to live at three times the minimum level by using two fake ids in addition to his real identity.
But try to cut taxes by $1000 a person and the liberals will lose their minds with anger.
I disagree. Automation of agriculture destroyed 19 out of every 20 ag jobs. Computers destroyed millions of copying/filing jobs. People were freed up to do other things. Of course that is painful, as not everyone WANTS to do other things. A job is basically some service that people with money are willing to pay for.
Broken window fallacy recycled.
The issue is this.
If I make widgets, why would I keep paying for a workforce I no longer need?
For that matter, how would people buy my widgets?
The last major labor decentralization happened in the 1930’s. Gas engines meant that one man could farm what it would have taken dozens to do. The transition as painful, but people did find work again.
UBI will not solve anything. Taxes on goods would have to increase beyond the cost of UBI, and you would end up more behind.
You can not create wealth by taking and redistributing.....
This has been tried over and over again in places like the Soviet Union, China, Cuba and North Korea. It does not work and leads to utter disaster every time.
Even China knows this, and it’s why when it comes to business they are capitalist.
I can’t believe the idiots at CNBC are trying to sell this B.S. again.
Like my time in the Navy “pay line”, if that hair brained “give away” was implemented I’d be first in line (last name begins with “A”), get my cash before the funds ran out and feeling sorry for those who’s last name begins with a “Z”. Not to worry Zeitlow’s (old Navy pal), that hair brained idea will likely go no where.
The idea that increased deficit spending can cure recessions has been tested repeatedly, and it has failed repeatedly. The economic models that assert that every $1 of deficit spending grows the economy by $1.50 cannot explain why $1.4 trillion in deficit spending did not create a $2.1 trillion explosion of new economic activity.
Why Government Spending Does Not End Recessions
Moving forward, the important question is why government spending fails to end recessions. Spending-stimulus advocates claim that Congress can "inject" new money into the economy, increasing demand and therefore production. This raises the obvious question: From where does the government acquire the money it pumps into the economy? Congress does not have a vault of money waiting to be distributed. Every dollar Congress injects into the economy must first be taxed or borrowed out of the economy. No new spending power is created. It is merely redistributed from one group of people to another.[7]
Congress cannot create new purchasing power out of thin air. If it funds new spending with taxes, it is simply redistributing existing purchasing power (while decreasing incentives to produce income and output). If Congress instead borrows the money from domestic investors, those investors will have that much less to invest or to spend in the private economy. If they borrow the money from foreigners, the balance of payments will adjust by equally raising net imports, leaving total demand and output unchanged. Every dollar Congress spends must first come from somewhere else.
For example, many lawmakers claim that every $1 billion in highway stimulus can create 47,576 new construction jobs. But Congress must first borrow that $1 billion from the private economy, which will then lose at least as many jobs.[8] Highway spending simply transfers jobs and income from one part of the economy to another. As Heritage Foundation economist Ronald Utt has explained, "The only way that $1 billion of new highway spending can create 47,576 new jobs is if the $1 billion appears out of nowhere as if it were manna from heaven."[9] This statement has been confirmed by the Department of Transportation[10] and the General Accounting Office (since renamed the Government Accountability Office),[11] yet lawmakers continue to base policy on this economic fallacy.
Let me guess, the study authors subscribe to the “Book-learned ‘experts’ know best and Government can do it all” camp?
So, Obamacare described ‘children’ at age 26 still living with parent(s). That wouldn’t be eligible for “this handout for per adult”, would it?
Again, instead of handing out $1,000 per month per adult, why not just abolish all private businesses and let government provide all our needs for all then?
Who is the giver and who is the givee in this scenario?
Where does the giver obtain the funds to give to the givee?
Does the givee pay taxes on the gift?
Does the givee pay taxes on any gain derived from the gift?
On a more serious note people as prominent as Milton Friedman have considered this type of plan.
There are many ways to create an economy. America could devote its efforts to producing planes, tanks, and guns and then drop them into the pacific ocean and go home and build more planes, tanks, and guns, which will be dropped in the ocean.
I prefer the founders’ notion of constituting a government whose sole function is to protect the peoples’ rights and protect them from fraud leaving the people free to feed, clothe, shelter, and educate themselves without government interference.
Name a successful communist economy. Because that’s what they’re advocating.
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.