Basic income as a human right

Post Reply New Topic

It's not much of a commitment:



Chances are, this will be an experiment like others in the past where a very small number of people receive a very small amount. This is quite different to the idea of Universal Basic Income - everyone receiving enough to live on. Of course, I'd love to be proven wrong here and see some meaningful results come out of this.

They might do ok with it. In some countries people are a little more thoughtful about things. Over there they might be.

However, the US was founded on an "earn it yourself" mentality. It's ingrained in most of us from childhood here that we should and could work and we can make something of ourselves. It may just be specific to the US, but think about it. When they "settled" this country (read stole it from the Indians that were here and killed them or locked them up somewhere else) there was all this land there for the taking. People would come from other countries, pick a plot of land and work it and build on it. Then it became theirs. They built societies and towns and cities and a nation out of woodland and deserts. Nothing was here when we got here, pioneers did this. We kept it up. It's that pioneer "spirit" I guess that is still part of our culture. We are descended from people who left everything somewhere else, a place to live and a possible job, medical attention, company and comfort, and who came here and started from nothing but trees, beavers and bears and seeds and built a life. That whole idea (or ideal if you will) is still around. That because our forefathers did this, that we have it in us to do the same thing in a way, and we are doing it with conveniences around and probably no bears. That is why Americans are so against something like that. Because of our history and an ingrained idea.

Most of us today who espouse the "work for it yourself" mentality wouldn't be able to do what the people did who gave us that mentality. Maybe 20 years ago I could have built a log cabin and raised my family by farming and hunting, but not now, and nor would I want to. There are tons of people who couldn't even though they are physically able. We aren't mentally tough enough for that now, most of us aren't anyway. I don't know if I am or not. However, we hold on to an ideal from a time long past and have made it part of the very fabric of society. It's why people come here from other countries. In America you can come with nothing and make something of yourself if you work hard. Or thats why they used to come here. So it's part of who we are as a country, and if you were born and raised here you probably have a little of that thinking in you, even if you don't realize it or even if you don't think that it's a good mindset.

I think most of the replies to this thread are missing the point. I don't think I've ever heard of a universal basic income proposal that gave each person $50,000/year (or the equivalent in another currency), ending the need for anyone to have a job for any reason other than their own enjoyment. What most advocates of a basic income support is roughly 10-15k. The average person would still be working for a paycheck since most people would want to be able to live comfortably and buy things they like, so there isn't a lack of incentive for work.

The main benefits, at least theoretically, would be that homelessness and poverty would be reduced; people would have more money to spend, which would stimulate the economy; people would be able to afford to take more financial risks, meaning more art, innovation, and entrepreneurship.

Funding would, of course, be a problem, but it doesn't necessarily mean higher taxes for the working class. We could close up tax loopholes and increase taxes on the richest. Then, look at spending in the U.S. We could dramatically reduce our military budget and still have the most expensive military in the world. We could eliminate corporate welfare, which we spend far more on than social welfare.

I won't do the math on what exactly would need to be done for it to be economically feasible (honestly, I'm too lazy for that), but I don't think it would be impossible to come up with a solution.

^^^
QFT

Ctte2112, my husband makes about 24k a year and that supports us. We have lived on 15k before. The cost of living here is low and we could do it and live fairly decently. I have a very nice house and our bills are paid, although we go from paycheck to paycheck and have no savings. We get in serious trouble when he misses work or gets laid off because it's tight. If they gave me 15k a year just to have, I wouldn't go looking for a job to make more. I'd probably blow it on myself although I'd like to say I'd save it. I might save some but I'd blow a lot. I might get some cosmetic stuff done I need done but can't afford.

I'm not talking about people getting 50k a year from the govt. Down here a lot of people wouldn't go to work if the govt gave them 15k. Thats about what people in food service and retail make. How many of them love their jobs so much they would go to work if they got that money free instead? None. They are getting by, and while maybe some would save that money and go to work and live better, many, many wouldn't. So many wouldn't in fact that the wage would have to go up so the price of goods would go up so it wouldn't really help the economy much after all because other wages wouldn't go up from jobs that pay more but not much more than the govt gave out and a whole group of lower middle class and working class people would suffer because of it. Then, the money they gave me would just be used to buy what we have now, although it would cost more. And yes the Walmart people would be making more but they wouldn't be able to afford everything either because goods have gone up to pay their salaries. McDonalds would be long gone because nobody is paying $12 for a Big Mac.

Think of the repercussions all around and not just the few people who might truly benefit from it. Also, factor in human nature as well.

What if it was adjusted in each area for cost of living?



Then it seems that you would benefit from it. You'd have savings, providing financial security, and extra spending money, boosting the economy.



Can you explain where this rapid inflation came from? I'm not following.

My cousin works as a short order cook (near minimum wage), walks to work (no car), and lives with his mom (no rent). He would love to take in 10-15k/yr in "free money". He would probably quit his job tomorrow and buy beer and cigarettes with the money.

10-15k/year is a lot of money when you have no car, or house payment, and no kids to care for.

Last edited by LoveNotHate on 28 Jun 2015, 4:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

The rapid inflation would come from people who make about 15k a year anyway quitting jobs they hate. They could live like they are living already and not go to work. Some would find better jobs, and some would still go to those jobs and use the extra money, but a whole lot of people who have s**t jobs (not careers, jobs and s**t jobs at that) would quit. It would also be harder to get people to work at a place that isn't all that great and only pays you what the government gives you for free. They would have to pay workers more in those jobs, which would drive up the price of those goods, and that's honestly going to happen in almost every retail place in the country if that were to happen.

Example. I have to get a job, I have no skills or experience. I guess I have to run a freaking cash register or stock things. I go to the interview and find out they will pay me what the government gives me without doing anything. I'm not doing that, no thank you. I can live on this while I try to find something better or get a grant and go to school or something. I don't have to work retail anymore.

In other words, NOBODY will have to work retail anymore, so retail would have to compete with the govt. Some people would, people who are doing it for a while, or people who use both that money and govt money and live better, but most of the people who work in retail wouldn't do that. So because retail has to compete they pay more an hour. They give you about $17k a year full time. Where do you think they get that money? By raising prices. So, the people who do work for a little more than the govt gives will spend all that extra govt money buying what they already have which has gone up, so they aren't ahead at all. It's like they got nothing. They are in the same place, they are buying what they used to, it's just more expensive. Gas will go up because gas stations have to pay more. That means everything goes up. Not only goods but services because everybody has to have transportation. The cost of living will rise because all of retail will rise. It won't just be items going up but everything else stays the same. It wouldn't do any good.

And yes, I would use my money and benefit from it. I might benefit greatly. But I dont NEED it now. I'd love it, but I don't NEED it. Why waste that money when people don't NEED it when it risks that financial crisis? Also, why waste it when people don't NEED it even if it wouldn't (which it would)? We already give money to people who don't work. Housing, medical care and food too. It's called Welfare, Disability, Unemployment, Food Stamps, HUD, Medicaid. We have resources so people with no income don't die. Why waste government money, which they keep raising taxes to get more of anyway, just to give it all away when people have incomes? Just to help them get a better house and in my case a boob job? (not my house, it's great. just my boobs need renovating)

Also, where would it come from? A new tax? A tax increase? Then a good percentage of the money you give out would just go right back in taxes. Dont say it would come from defense. We have a strong defense and even if you don't agree with the war, we are keeping our military. I don't want to be invaded by some douchebag country just because we can't defend ourselves so we can be all feel good touchey feeley and make sure everybody has even more crap.

Yes people live in poverty. Yes people struggle. It's bad. Yes some fall in the cracks of the system and do without. It's bad. I live right at the poverty line you know. We are a family of four (five if you count my daughter's fiance and six if you count my other daughters friend who lives here) and we get by on $24k a year. That is the poverty line I do believe. We do fine on it, but the cost of living isn't high out in the country in the Deep South. Not everybody does fine. We didn't always do fine. I've struggled. Lots of people struggle and always will struggle. Some may lose that fight. However, giving away money to everybody isn't the solution. The solution is to give people tools to be able to earn more money. Incentives to work like tax breaks or perks of some sort. A way for the govt to fund higher education for those who can't afford it and who can do well in college. A bell curve income tax that is lower before 30, peaks from 30 to 55 and then decreases. Lots of things, not just those. Those were just off the top of my head and probably wouldn't work, but they aren't anywhere near as outlandish as the "Free Money Ya'll" idea.

Also, something else you may not know if you don't know a lot of addicts. I do know many of them and have known lots of them all my life. More money means more drugs. Everybody having more money means the addicts have it too and they will spend it on drugs. Which the government paid to either be brought in to the country or most likely from my towns main drug, cooked up. Could you imagine the freaking anarchy if every dope cook and meth head in the country was given 15k? It would be gone in one or two months, yes on the meth head end, but the cooks would have made tons and there would be more and more of that s**t around. You say they could do that now, but I know several guys who do that and I know one big time dope cook. They all cook only when they have the money to do it. It will get sold no matter what, but it takes cash to cook. They make money when they sell it but many times they have bills cause dope cooks aren't very reliable workers and don't normally hold a job and plus they do drugs too so they will spend theirs on other drugs and do their s**t. With the influx of cash and the profit they make from it, many will buy supplies for many future cooks and there will be about three times as much meth around for a very long time, as it is now. How will the tweakers buy it since they went through all their money in a month or two? Easy. Same way they do now. Conning and stealing. Working a little until they get fired. Mainly the first two. It's bad enough to have tweakers around who tweak two or three days out of the week, do you really want to amp all that up and have meth heads high all the time cause there is more dope? Trust me on this, I know that business inside and out and have never been a meth head, just around it a whole, whole lot. I know how it works and exactly what would happen. Also, you'd think they would OD and die, but they won't. For some unknown reason, meth heads seem to have an ungodly high tolerance and will stay f****d up until their body just gives out. Then they sleep for four days and start over. Yes. They do OD sometimes. A good bit. But it's a proportionately small number to the number of tweakers. Also, tweakers don't do meth the way stoners smoke pot. Tweakers are re-upping over and over and over for days and days until they fall out or run out. That is what it would be. No boob job is worth that. I'd have to spend all my government money on a gun and ammo cause of the tweakers. It wouldn't be all over the place and a national crisis, but the meth problem would get ten times worse almost overnight without increasing the number of meth heads. I promise that.

I'm not saying it's wrong to give away money. If the govt had it, it would be good to do something to help people. However, this ain't it. This particular idea causes too many problems. Why not vouchers for merchendise and rent and gas and utilities? Instead of cash? That wouldn't cause everybody to quit retail and start inflation. Also, why not give them out in small increments over time? Maybe have a case by case thing. That would create jobs, good government jobs for new caseworkers. Everyone would come in every so often or when they had a problem and show the worker the problem and the worker would give them something that would fix it. A voucher for the dr, they could pay a bill or two for them, a voucher for a vehicle or repair, a check to the roofer for a roof, school clothes, groceries, hell you could even go in and ask for $12 for three packs of cigs and they would give you a voucher for the store. The only thing that wouldn't be bought with the vouchers are booze, sudafed and any of the other ingredients that dope cooks use. Or baby forumla or diapers. They would have that there in the office and give it to people who have babies. I say that because formula is something that people buy with food stamps and sell cheaper than the store does and they get cash for it. Usually to buy, take a guess. Really. You think I'm being mean but I've seen it done many times and it's done by people I know. Sometimes it's for bills and emergencies, but usually it's for dope. And not weed either. People who get cash EBT buy lots of diapers and do the same thing. It's easy money for them and cheaper diapers for moms on a tight budget. It's a win win situation to those involved, but I for one, don't want to pay a tax to finance it, so give those out and don't allow them to be bought with vouchers. With my idea everyone has a safety net, and while some people may get more than others at times, they may need more than others at times and less in future times. Have restrictions on it. Give drug tests. Positive for weed is fine, maybe even some pills, but you test positive for meth, coke or smack and you get NOTHING because those are the drugs that people have to do s**t like that for. Really. I know this, I'm not just guessing or hearing it second hand. Trust me here ok? It's public here I'm not talking about people with details or things I've done or places I've been.

Do you just not want to see the problems that the plan might cause? It seems like it would only help, and it would help a whole lot of people, but it wouldn't help others the way you think it would. It would also cause way too much s**t that we would never get out of because there would be no way to reduce the salary in retail once it's happened. You can't put that melted ice cream back on the cone. Forget it. I'm not trying to be mean and bust your bubble, nor am I a conservative, a Republican or anywhere near the right. I'm just explaining the things that would happen with the kinds of people who I mainly know. Poor people who barely get by with s**t jobs and dope heads. I can predict their behavior easy, I've been around them, intimately, all my life and been poor and had a s**t job as well. The number of people it would truly help who were in need would be far less than the rest and it's just not worth it. It's really not. Can you see my points at all?

people keep ignoring the fact that corporations like wallyworld have at least 70 offshore tax shelters that let them skate by on about 3 billion smacker$ of tax money every year. if only uncle sam would come down hard on such corporate perfidy, that would go some ways towards a modest income support program. why are all these working class folks saying corporate welfare is a great thing but welfare for the working class is bad? do people still actually believe in "trickle down economics" after corporations exported all the good jobs?

Last edited by auntblabby on 28 Jun 2015, 4:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

I heard that! That's probably what would happen with most employees in those low paying crappy jobs. Face it, nobody takes a job like that because they want to. They take it because they need to work and it's all they can get. If they could get the money without it, they wouldn't. Also, most people who have those jobs aren't really used to a higher standard of living and aren't really believing they can ever have it, so the idea of saving and working anyway to make better money isn't as sane to them as it is to others. I'd like to think I'd work and save the extra money, but I've been hand to mouth too long so I wouldn't. It doesn't look hand to mouth, but it's been paycheck to paycheck for 28 years and there is no net other than the money my husband will get when his mother dies. It's going to take everything I can do to keep him working when he gets that and not let him waste it. I'm going to have his sister tie it up so I have to OK whatever it is, or our oldest daughter. That way he won't screw us up. I know that mentality, I live it.

If he came down on them for using that loophole he would have to come down on the small time investors who are just trying to have a decent retirement or who are trying to put something back for later. You can't say you can only be so rich. Thats not fair at all. It's a valid loophole and they use it. Just because it rubs some people the wrong way doesn't mean what they are doing is wrong. It might be immoral under some moral systems and moral under others. You can't single out somebody for paying more than the same share others do, or single out people with more money for using loopholes that those with less money use. It's not fair at all. That is punishing someone for success and reminds me and probably lots of people of communism. It's saying "OK, you have enough. I'm taking part of it and giving it to somebody else". People are worried about where that would end, who would be exempt from the having too much. Big corporations to begin with because nobody really cares about them, but then billionaires and millionaires and guys with two million in assets? Maybe guys with one million? Then what? Half a million is more than somebody needs and more than one house is one too many and eventually the government could decide what you or your company need and not let you have more or take it away. It sounds ridiculous but it's true. I wouldn't want that kind of precedent at all. If it's earned legally then it belongs to whoever earned it whether they deserve it or not and whether they hoard it or help others with it or not.

Life isn't meant to be fair, it's meant to be lived as well as you can. That isn't all that great for me, but I'm not complaining about Walmart having more than me, you and everybody on WP put together. I don't expect it to be fair and I know there is absolutely no way to make it fair, or even fairer without making it unfair to someone else. We all have to play the hand we are dealt as good as we can. For some that means raising and winning and playing very well and bluffing and walking away with everybody else's shirt. For others that means losing. For still others that means cheating and getting caught or learning to cheat very, very well. Either way, we can't tell the dealer that we don't like our cards to give us different ones. You can win a hand that is so bad it's not even a hand, it's a foot. You can bluff or you can cheat, but you can win it. Not everybody can do that, and while that isn't fair would you blindfold and put in earplugs on everybody else because one guy can't bluff convincingly? That would make it fair you know. To that one guy, that is. Unfair to everybody else. It's not fair and never will be so you learn to play the game. If you can't learn, and many can't, then you struggle through and hope you win a hand from time to time and be glad you aren't the guy who got shot because they thought he was cheating or robbed at the wrong table. You can't do anything else no matter how hard you try. One day every single one of us will be dealt aces over eights and somebody new will come to the table. It's an everchanging game and it's one we are all stuck in whether we want to be or not and it cannot be helped or made fair. Sometimes it's rigged, sometimes everybody but you cheats, sometimes you surprise yourself with a win, sometimes you never win a hand. I wish I had a magic wand and I'd make it not like that but I don't and it is and nobody can change it. Nobody. Not even with all the programs in the world because you still have the other people involved who have human nature and they will work around it.

Deal me in, I'm making sure you always have a place at the table whether you want to play or not. Come on, ante up, five card draw Jacks or better, nothing wild. Whose gonna open?

if that is the kind of America you want [big ones rewarded obscenely, everybody else shat upon] you are welcome to it. all things considered, I'd prefer life in the commonwealth where there is more basic fairness by gov't design and by popular will, where corporations who ship jobs overseas are not genuflected to as something akin to paragons of virtue like in America.

Interest rates & taxes should be removed.

P.S.: Even The Messiah agrees. Read all about it for yourself !

We do have a minimum income here in the UK. There are moves trying to increase it. This minimum does not give a reasonable income to a single person working out of a couple. I wonder if a decent increase would simply raise inflation.

I'd work

as for gas stations its called Credit/debit cards and most states you pump your own gas. cashiers are quickly being replaced with automatic checker machines. I'm a cashier. there goes the only job I've ever been able to do.

also what about requiring some kind of job for standard hours to get the money.
you seem to think just about everyone is lazy. you might be but most people aren't, fyi as someone who has no job, its super boring. I like work it gets me out, I meet people. I get to do something.

see the company and ceo makes millions and millions. this whole prices will increase is so the ceo's 200 million a year doesn't drop to 180 million a yeah. the horror that would be, so instead increase prices. there is enough money in the world to pay for everyone and everything. its currently all in the hand a very few people who just store it in banks and talk to each other about how much money they have then buy 500 million dollar yachts that they use once a year.