Citizen's Wage: A Version of the Concept

[Vlad]

(05-13-2016, 07:20 AM)xxlt Wrote: You do realize you sound like a Franklin Delano Roosevelt Democrat now, right?

Your plan is a good one, and your example a good one, I am just rather surprised to hear you suggest it. Putting people to work in this fashion helped to end the Great Depression, and helped build many of America's roads and public buildings. Just brace yourself: people are about to start calling you a communist.

WTF? I don't know where you got that from but the right has always advocated putting welfare leeches to work.

When Maine forced their welfare recipients to work:

http://usherald.com/maine-welfare-recipients-must-work-for-their-benefits/

[Benton]

(05-13-2016, 09:12 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Nah, the commie would take my fish, and give it to those too lazy to learn to fish.

Well, technically, a commie would take your fish and give you part of it back. To make up for the part of fish you lost, you would also get some beets and half a cup of dirty water. And the beet farmer would get part of your fish, some of his beets and half a cup of dirty water.

[StLucieBengal]

There would need to be hard caps on the mincome. Woodrow wilson said that the fed Income tax rate wouldn't go over 5%. Yet it was in the 90's.

[xxlt]

(05-12-2016, 10:04 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: The OP says that all other programs would then be eliminated (food stamps, welfare, etc.).

It's an interesting idea and in the news, sort of, with the upcoming Swiss vote for a monthly government stipend. 

I wonder if some economist has crunched the actual numbers of what size of payment the govt could afford to pay out. Would it actually be better for the economy to go even higher? Or increases to a base payment based on other achievements. Reduction for commiting a crime?

There was a nice piece on the radio about this this morning. They mentioned the vote in Switzerland (which I had not heard about before Yojimbo mentioned it, but I've scaled way back on my news consumption lately) and contemporary discussion/debate on the issue in several other countries.

They also talked about the history of universal basic income a bit. Founding Father and darling of much of the right wing for the last 20-30 years, Thomas Paine was the first prominent person in the U.S. cited as a proponent of universal basic income. He wrote about it in sweeping and glowing terms, as a hallmark of our success as a nation. Conservative economics superstar Milton Friedman also advocated for universal basic income. But perhaps most interesting was that Richard Nixon was an advocate of universal basic income, and it nearly was implemented in the early 1970's. It had bipartisan support but some Democrats undermined the legislation because they thought the payment should be a bit higher.

Apparently a lot more people are talking about it than I realized. It is interesting because you sort of expect people to reflexively say, "Oh yeah, another 'free stuff' idea... socialism can't work...blah blah blah..." but so many who have advocated and are advocating it are on the right side of the aisle, and many independents are supportive of the idea, as are some successful entrepreneurs. For example, the founder of Zip Car, Robin Chase, was included in the piece this morning as an advocate. It isn't lazy people who want a free ride but rather enlightened people from all over the spectrum who are considering this.

And, of course then, it isn't just the welfare queen democrats who are dreaming of it. In fact, I suspect most welfare recipients have never heard of it, and by the way, the stereotype that they are all democrats has been shattered, as the states with the most welfare recipients have elected Republicans for the last decade or more.

Last but not least, they mentioned another benefit this morning on the radio. People who are trapped in exploitative jobs they can't afford to quit would have more leverage to move with u.b.i. and this would lead to stronger wages and better working conditions in the workplace to attract and retain workers. And an economist also said if it was done the right way, it would not cause inflation.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

The problem with this idea is that it won't be enough and people will expect more...not just want more.

Maybe this is the first step towards that Star Trek Society though.

[Benton]

(05-14-2016, 11:04 AM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: The problem with this idea is that it won't be enough and people will expect more...not just want more.

Maybe this is the first step towards that Star Trek Society though.

People generally spend what they have across all income levels. For this to work, I think it would have to be ties in with inflation rates or something so that there would be gradual imcreases and reductions to offset the differences in the economy

[StLucieBengal]

(05-14-2016, 12:18 PM)Benton Wrote: People generally spend what they have across all income  levels. For this to work, I think it would have to be ties in with inflation rates or something so that there would be gradual imcreases and reductions to offset the differences in the economy

There has to be a hard cap.   If you want more then get a job.  Can't get a job then adjust your standard of living.

[Benton]

(05-14-2016, 02:33 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: There has to be a hard cap.   If you want more then get a job.  Can't get a job then adjust your standard of living.

Then a few decades it's enough to buy a soda. Without having it relevant to the cost of living, it doesn't really do any good. It's just some arbitrary number.

[StLucieBengal]

(05-14-2016, 03:45 PM)Benton Wrote: Then a few decades it's enough to buy a soda. Without having it relevant to the cost of living, it doesn't really do any good. It's just some arbitrary number.

Without the hard cap.   Politicians can raise this as a means to get elected.    This is what should have been done with the federal income tax.   

[Benton]

(05-14-2016, 03:48 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Without the hard cap.   Politicians can raise this as a means to get elected.    This is what should have been done with the federal income tax.   

Same argument was made with social security. While a valid one, it didn't happen then either.

[StLucieBengal]

(05-14-2016, 10:14 PM)Benton Wrote: Same argument was made with social security. While a valid one, it didn't happen then either.

Well social security should have never happened.   It's been a train wreck.   

[Benton]

(05-14-2016, 10:18 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Well social security should have never happened.   It's been a train wreck.   

Social security would have been fine if lawmakers hadn't dipped into it.

[StLucieBengal]

(05-15-2016, 12:21 AM)Benton Wrote: Social security would have been fine if lawmakers hadn't dipped into it.

Exactly.   The government can't be trusted.    

I think a middle ground on this mincome would be raise to inflation but needs to be voted on every 10 years to keep or not.   This way future congresses aren't saddled with the program and have an option. To kill.

[*michaelsean*]

Does anyone really believe that all other social programs would go away and stay away? It wouldn't take long before someone proposed a new program while telling us we hate woman children and minorities if we oppose it.

[Rotobeast]

(05-16-2016, 11:40 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Does anyone really believe that all other social programs would go away and stay away? It wouldn't take long before someone proposed a new program while telling us we hate woman children and minorities if we oppose it.

This is a valid point.
Dems rely on these programs to garner votes.
Otherwise minorities may start voting Republican.
*gasp*