Could A Guaranteed Minimum Income Be A Workable Solution For The Poor?

Try instituting a flat tax first to equalize the proportion people pay and having corporations pay a "reasonable" amount on worldwide earnings.

You could then dismantle the IRS.

Establishes a minimal taxable income and does not fuck over someone who works hard and earns more than the average bear.

Then would sow the seeds for the next move of exploring the minimum income guarantee.
 
I read about this a few weeks ago. Oh wait, we thought it was a horrid idea: Everyone talks about basic income. Here’s why they don’t implement it

"In Canadian terms, an equivalent transfer of $1,200 a month would cost the treasury more than $500-billion a year. Of course, you might then be able to cancel existing social assistance, child benefits, employment insurance and Old Age Security – but that would only add up to about $100-billion in savings, leaving you $400-billion short. As a reference point, current Canadian federal revenues are about $300-billion a year, so we’d need to more than double our current taxes to pay for it. In the Canadian political world, new programs costing $1-billion or $2-billion generate intense political heat, so a Finnish-style basic income proposal costing in the hundreds of billions is simply a non-starter for Canada."

And in the summer, I read it was a good idea. I'm leaning towards it's a horrible idea.

The time for a Guaranteed Annual Income might finally have come

There are always going to be poor and rich people. Why must we always make everything so egalitarian? Just leave it so folks work by merit. The ones who were saved in that Canadian experiment, I'd like to see what happened to them after they went back to meritocratic society.
 
Efficiency and progress is ours once more,
Now that we have the Neutron bomb,
It's nice and quick and clean and gets things done.

Away with excess enemy,
But no less value to property,
No sense in war but perfect sense at home:

The sun beams down on a brand new day,
No more welfare tax to pay,
Unsightly slums gone up in flashing light,
Jobless millions whisked away,
At last we have more room to play,
All systems go to kill the poor tonight.

Gonna
Kill kill kill kill Kill the poor...
Tonight.

Behold the sparkle of champagne,
The crime rate's gone
Feel free again
O' life's a dream with you, Miss Lily White.
Jane Fonda on the screen today
Convinced the liberals it's okay
So let's get dressed and dance away the night!

While they:
Kill kill kill kill Kill the poor...
Tonight!
 
Efficiency and progress is ours once more,
Now that we have the Neutron bomb,
It's nice and quick and clean and gets things done.

Away with excess enemy,
But no less value to property,
No sense in war but perfect sense at home:

The sun beams down on a brand new day,
No more welfare tax to pay,
Unsightly slums gone up in flashing light,
Jobless millions whisked away,
At last we have more room to play,
All systems go to kill the poor tonight.

Gonna
Kill kill kill kill Kill the poor...
Tonight.

Behold the sparkle of champagne,
The crime rate's gone
Feel free again
O' life's a dream with you, Miss Lily White.
Jane Fonda on the screen today
Convinced the liberals it's okay
So let's get dressed and dance away the night!

While they:
Kill kill kill kill Kill the poor...
Tonight!
Looks like lyrics from Carnivore or Rottrevore.
 
I would much rather allocate additional tax dollars to subsidize things the poor need to achieve self-sufficiency, than give them all a free-and-clear wad of cash each month and point them in the direction of free market. Let us pay for them to have decent (i.e. better than it is currently) housing, food, and education, and a small semi-flexible allowance, and make these provisions contingent on their staying in school and working toward self-sufficiency. There is too much potential in a guaranteed minimum income to enable degenerate behavior (something they should leave to our lot) and dependence, and waste the people's money.

I agree that a flat tax on income, from all sources, is a good idea.

Personal deductions that end up subsidizing industries, e.g. for mortgages, investments, etc., should be abolished; only write-offs for the costs of education and work should be allowed.

Tax penalties should be introduced to discourage people from having children before they can financially support them. The penalties can be used to fund improved state services for the same children. This is an effective redistribution of aid from parents, who have too much liberty in what they can do with welfare payments, directly to the providers of youth services.

Also, while income tax should be flat, tax stipulations to prevent the dangerous hyperconcentration of wealth we see now should also be introduced.
 
Tax penalties should be introduced to discourage people from having children before they can financially support them.
interesting. how would that work in practice? especially given the ever tightening abortion restrictions.

Also, while income tax should be flat, tax stipulations to prevent the dangerous hyperconcentration of wealth we see now should also be introduced.

what would this look like? sliding scale of wealth taxes? limits on certain amounts of income?
 
Those who are against it probably never fell on hard times before.

It's an good idea to have GMI to provide equal opportunity to everyone. Right now the social mobility in the US is very poor.

On the other hand, it's going to be hard to implement without taking COLA into account. $1k in NYC will feel like $300 in Spokane.

For the offset, estate tax, corporate tax,etc reforms will help.
 
This is spot on. Use a 1700s definition of poverty and there is almost none in the United States, as is evidenced by the fact that people flee to our country. It's only due to advancements that people are relatively less well off. No more new iPhones or better cars, we're making sure every shirker gets $12k/yr.
But it would be nice if the printing of (((Federal Reserve))) notes benefited the poor and/or middle class too.
 
You're forgetting that in the not so distant future all of us will need to be on basic income as well. Reinsurance? An AI can do that much better. Construction? 3D printing houses on site. Academics? An AI will be able to publish 100x faster than you can. Arts? An AI will be able to output so many songs or paintings per hour there's bound to be a few amazing ones in there. Build a better AI? There will be a point where an AI will be better at that as well.

Everything can and will be automated. This poses a problem for the owners of the means of production, because if everyone is unemployed there won't be any consumers to purchase their automated products and services. The economy will need to be restructured to make it viable. A basic income would be a start, but not enough.
 
Last edited:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...g-strategic-disaster-at-mar-a-lago/?tid=ss_tw

Is the American Dream killing us?


By Robert J. Samuelson April 2 at 8:01 PM

It isn’t often that economics raises the most profound questions of human existence, but the recent work of economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton (wife and husband, both of Princeton University) comes close. You may recall that a few years ago, Case and Deaton reported the startling finding that the death rates of non-Hispanic middle-aged whites had gotten worse — they were dying younger.

The results were startling because longer life expectancies have been a reliable indicator of improvement in the human condition. In 1940, U.S. life expectancy at birth was 63 years; by 2010, it was 79 years. The gains reflect medical advances (drugs, less invasive surgery), healthier lifestyles (less smoking) and safer jobs (less physically grueling factory work). These trends were expected to continue.

But in a new paper, Case and Deaton confirm and extend their findings. In the new century, mortality — that is, dying — has increased among middle-aged non-Hispanic whites, mainly those with a high school diploma or less. By contrast, life expectancy is still improving among men and women with a college degree. It’s also increasing among blacks and Hispanics, whose mortality rates have traditionally exceeded whites’.





The conclusions largely corroborate the work of conservative scholar Charles Murray. In a 2012 book — “Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010” — he argued that the country was splintering along class lines as well as racial and ethnic lines. Like Case and Deaton, he focused on people without a college degree. Some political analysts have attributed President Trump’s victory to support from this angry group.

The main causes of rising death rates among non-Hispanic whites 50 to 54, men and women, are so-called “deaths of despair” — suicides, drug overdoses and the consequences of heavy drinking. Since 1990, the death rate from these causes for this group has roughly doubled to 80 per 100,000. These deaths offset mortality gains among children and the elderly, leading to a fall in overall U.S. life expectancy in 2015, Case and Deaton say.

Why? That’s the mystery. Trying to answer takes us afield from economics to questions usually left to literature. How do people judge themselves? What do they expect from life? How do they deal with disappointments and setbacks?

One theory attributes the spike in deaths of despair to growing income inequality. There would be fewer suicides, drug overdoses and alcohol-related deaths if incomes were distributed more equally, the argument goes. People take out their frustrations and anger by resorting to self-destructive behavior.

Although this sounds plausible, Case and Deaton are skeptical. They don’t discount it entirely but think the argument is oversold. They point out that, in many places and among many populations, growing income inequality has not increased death rates. For example, American blacks and Hispanics are living longer despite growing economic inequality. In Europe, slow economic growth and more inequality have not led to higher death rates.

Instead, Case and Deaton advance a tentative theory — they emphasize tentative — that they call “cumulative deprivation.” The central problem is a “steady deterioration in job opportunities for people with low education.”

One setback leads to another. Poor skills result in poor jobs with low pay and spotty security. Workers with lousy jobs are poor marriage candidates; marriage rates decline. Cohabitation thrives, but these relationships often break down. “As a result,” write Case and Deaton, “more men lose regular contact with their children, which is bad for them, and bad for the children.”

To Case and Deaton, these “slow-acting and cumulative social forces” seem the best explanation for the rise in death rates. Because the causes are so deep-seated, they will (at best) “take many years to reverse.” But even if their theory survives scholarly scrutiny, it’s incomplete. It misses the peculiarly American aspect of this story.

The proper question may be: Is the American Dream killing us?

American culture emphasizes striving for and achieving economic success. In practice, realizing the American Dream is the standard of success, vague though it is. It surely includes homeownership, modest financial and job security, and a bright outlook for our children. When striving accomplishes these goals, it strengthens a sense of accomplishment and self-worth.

But when the striving falters and fails — when the American Dream becomes unattainable — it’s a judgment on our lives. By our late 40s or 50s, the reckoning is on us. It’s harder to do then what we might have done earlier. We become hostage to unrealized hopes. More Americans are now in this precarious position. Our obsession with the American Dream measures our ambition — and anger.
 
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This country is 20 trillion in debt. Exactly who will pay for a universal basic income?

They do something different in Arab petro states, I don't see a ton of social or economic evolution coming from those countries.
 
This country is 20 trillion in debt. Exactly who will pay for a universal basic income?

They do something different in Arab petro states, I don't see a ton of social or economic evolution coming from those countries.

The middle class tax cow of course! Take a little here, add a special refugee/sanctuary city tax temporarily, punish the carbon gass guzzlers commuting to work, but always leave just enough for them to get by and before you know it you're paying 70% stoppages like in Greece. All to fund grandiose virtue signalling pet projects.

There is already a universal income, it's called dole money.
 
In my post I meant to say they do something very similar in petro states.

So basically the despot leaders payoff the public to sit on their ass, and bring in slave labor to work their oil fields.
 
The middle class tax cow of course! Take a little here, add a special refugee/sanctuary city tax temporarily, punish the carbon gass guzzlers commuting to work, but always leave just enough for them to get by and before you know it you're paying 70% stoppages like in Greece. All to fund grandiose virtue signalling pet projects.

There is already a universal income, it's called dole money.

Good synthesis. You killed this thread. Universal income is just another fucking neoliberal scam.
 
People are lazy as fuck. Provide a minimum income and you'll have Brazil.

What is more sensible is a one time birth benefit given to the child allowed to grow into retirement via a market index fund mix. You'd cut the need for social security by 90% by leveraging compound interest.

Of course every illegal on the planet would birth a kid here to get in on it, so the program would fail because this country can't protect its borders.
 
People are lazy as fuck. Provide a minimum income and you'll have Brazil.

What is more sensible is a one time birth benefit given to the child allowed to grow into retirement via a market index fund mix. You'd cut the need for social security by 90% by leveraging compound interest.

Of course every illegal on the planet would birth a kid here to get in on it, so the program would fail because this country can't protect its borders.

So what happens when the entire middle class is unemployed due to automation? Society would collapse.
 
You're forgetting that in the not so distant future all of us will need to be on basic income as well. Reinsurance? An AI can do that much better. Construction? 3D printing houses on site. Academics? An AI will be able to publish 100x faster than you can. Arts? An AI will be able to output so many songs or paintings per hour there's bound to be a few amazing ones in there. Build a better AI? There will be a point where an AI will be better at that as well.

Everything can and will be automated. This poses a problem for the owners of the means of production, because if everyone is unemployed there won't be any consumers to purchase their automated products and services. The economy will need to be restructured to make it viable. A basic income would be a start, but not enough.

More economist BS ignorant of dynamic life cycle accounting and energy/environmental crisis.

Too much netflix isn't helping you.
 
More economist BS ignorant of dynamic life cycle accounting and energy/environmental crisis.

Too much netflix isn't helping you.

Yeah, we've all had enough of experts, haven't we?

I'm not sure how global warming is relevant in a discussion about automation. Automation works many orders of magnitude faster, so it will impact us much sooner than the environment will.
 
So what happens when the entire middle class is unemployed due to automation? Society would collapse.

Sounds like leftist jargon. What would happen? We have too many people on the planet, its too easy to survive. What do you want to do, keep overpopulating and put them on a dole? So people with jobs have to sustain everyone else? Where does the money come from to do this?

The unfortunate truth is with automation, this level of population is unsustainable. Cold hard truths start to settle in.
 
Sounds like leftist jargon. What would happen? We have too many people on the planet, its too easy to survive. What do you want to do, keep overpopulating and put them on a dole? So people with jobs have to sustain everyone else? Where does the money come from to do this?

The unfortunate truth is with automation, this level of population is unsustainable. Cold hard truths start to settle in.

So you just want everyone to starve? Guess where everyone will go when they run out of money to buy food? You're not thinking very rationally.

Hint: you won't have a job either
 
So you just want everyone to starve? Guess where everyone will go when they run out of money to buy food? You're not thinking very rationally.

Hint: you won't have a job either

I don't want that, but it's what would likely happen.
 
I don't want that, but it's what would likely happen.

I am sure the virtue signalling hearts and minds of the metropolitan progressive elites who produce nothing but shit, will find a way to feed the world. Likely organic, involve pyramid schemes of ever increasing population to fund the national pension liabilities of the generation before it....what could possible go wrong?

We've been here before, it was ancient Rome....and maybe the Easter islanders. It didn't turn out well for them either.
 
Last edited:
So you accept that you'll likely starve to death without any change to the way society works at the moment?

People that can grow food and self sustain will be ok. As Lord Buckley Lord Buckley said, we've been here before.

Somehow these leftists believe there is this utopian solution like a universal income, but there isn't. Most of our economic growth comes from overpopulation.

Automation will trigger mass job losses, which triggers mass tax shortages, which triggers mass tax increases or mass benefit losses, which triggers economic defaults. In the end, a global economic depression will ensue, as jobless people won't be consumers. And there we'll see the war, genocide, and exploitation take hold that humans are famous for.

Then all that fancy technology dies. We'll start again, this time a little smarter.

I'd love to see an alternative, but something close to this looks most likely when you try for a minimum income.
 
Arnathor Arnathor , look what your premier is doing now, $50 million

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/wynne-announcement-hamilton-1.4082476


Premier Kathleen Wynne announced Monday a plan to study basic income in Ontario, in a three-year pilot project based in Hamilton, Lindsay and Thunder Bay.

The province will explore the effectiveness of providing a basic income — no matter what — to people who are currently living on low incomes, "whether they are working or not," Wynne said.

Wynne said the pilot will provide the basic income to 4,000 households chosen from applicants invited "randomly" by the province in the coming weeks.

A single person could receive up to about $17,000 a year, minus half of any income he or she earns. A couple could receive up to $24,000 per year. People with disabilities could receive up to $6,000 more per year.

"People are anxious about their jobs; they're anxious about their futures," she said. "They're worried about the soaring costs of renting or buying a place to live."

People are especially concerned for those who don't start out wealthy, she said.

"Many people are concerned about what the world is promising for their kids," she said. "It's a world of global competition, reduced benefits, more and more part-time employment."

The premier said the three-year project will start with people making "just under $17,000 a year, but even that amount may make a real difference to someone who is striving to reach for a better life.

"We have chosen these communities intentionally because they are the right size and they have the right mix of population," Wynne said.

"We need to address the concerns of those who worry about falling behind, even as they work so hard to get ahead."

The amount is not "extravagant," she said, but it sends a message:

"It says to them, 'Government is with you; the people of Ontario are with you,'" she said.

4,000 households to be studied

Joining Wynne were Minister of Community and Social Services Helena Jaczek and Chris Ballard, the minister responsible for the province's poverty reduction strategy.

Jaczek said that people in the program will be randomly contacted from each region's low-income population and invited to apply.

The program will cost $50 million a year for each of the three years and 4,000 households will participate. That will include 1,000 people from the Hamilton, Brantford and Brant regions.


[EMBED]

People who receive medical and dental benefits from the province under other welfare programs would not have to give those up.

The ministers have been spearheading the province's effort to experiment with basic income. The strategy for reducing poverty involves "a system of automatic transfers for those beneath an income threshold," according to a discussion paper on the topic commissioned by Wynne and the ministers last summer.

The province has said it will launch the pilot project providing money to low-income households with no strings attached.

'There's so much poverty'

Elizabeth McGuire, who chairs the Campaign for Adequate Welfare and Disability in Hamilton, said after the speech she was "blown away" and pleased the program would launch in Hamilton.

"Because there's so much poverty here in the city. And we have so many neighbourhoods which are so clearly defined but are yet so economically depressed because of the loss of manufacturing," she said. "There's no solution other than basic income, but I didn't believe the government was hearing us."

She said Wynne's announcement was the government doing "the right thing."

Deirdre Pike, who works as a senior social planner at the Social Planning and Research Council, echoed that.

"We have people in Hamilton, 7,000 of them, waking up today, they earn about $7,000 a year — I bet a lot of them will be applying to get $17,000 a year and see how that will change their lives," she said.

'Working poor ... stand to benefit the most'

Academics who study basic income said the pilot gives a chance to see how the idea plays in a changed economy.

"I think really it's the working poor who stand to benefit the most from this kind of a program, the people who are out there trying to get a job, trying and possibly working part time, working a series of part-time jobs, who can use this program to gain the kind of stability that might be able to let them move ahead a little bit and develop a career," said Evelyn Forget at the University of Manitoba.

Money with no strings attached removes barriers for someone who receives disability assistance but also wants to work, said Michael Veall, an economics professor at McMaster University.

Filling out all of the paperwork to get a job while collecting disability, and then worrying about whether the government will think you really have a disability, can be draining, he said.

"All these things are really difficult, and they sap people's energy, and they cause lots of economic stress in the household," Veall said.

Wynne said the government will be closely monitoring the pilot, but didn't commit today to extending the program once the three years are up, even if the program is a success.
 
We probably all agree that 1) more and more things are being automated 2) automation is leads to massive gains in productivity 3) IF anyone has the ability to stop this "progress," they won't because such people are likely those benefiting the most from it 4) the idea of most work, as we think of it, won't make sense in 50-100 years

More speculative: 5) if productivity continues to increase at this pace, assuming natural resources hold out and/or we become very efficient in their use, the concept of money as we think of it will also cease to make much sense. The implications of that are ???, but I don't think a guaranteed minimum income then will be anything like our various social welfare systems. I think we probably can also acknowledge that we are nowhere near productive enough to be even thinking about a guaranteed minimum income.

FWIW, I believe that bleeding heart leftist Milton Friedman supported a guaranteed minimum income.
 
We probably all agree that 1) more and more things are being automated 2) automation is leads to massive gains in productivity 3) IF anyone has the ability to stop this "progress," they won't because such people are likely those benefiting the most from it 4) the idea of most work, as we think of it, won't make sense in 50-100 years

More speculative: 5) if productivity continues to increase at this pace, assuming natural resources hold out and/or we become very efficient in their use, the concept of money as we think of it will also cease to make much sense. The implications of that are ???, but I don't think a guaranteed minimum income then will be anything like our various social welfare systems. I think we probably can also acknowledge that we are nowhere near productive enough to be even thinking about a guaranteed minimum income.

FWIW, I believe that bleeding heart leftist Milton Friedman supported a guaranteed minimum income.

It is simpler than that. On Star Trek, on Earth and in space, there was no need for money (except for those fucking Ferengi and their gold latinum).

People are just working backwards from the 23rd century to lay down the groundwork for this to happen.

Once again, science fiction to the rescue.

Fuck Milton Friedman. Praise Philip K. Dick (name alone).
 
First cum the robot sex workers. Then come the leftists to give them rights. Then come the electric sheep. Then cum the Scots.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom