CNN cuts the foreplay, goes straight to calling for communism

[Perd Hapley]

Interestingly, the so-called Fair Tax also proposes that everyone receive a govt. stipend.

To be fair, of course, it's a lost smaller than this "minimum income," and paid yearly.

[freakazoid]

The question that I like to ask is "What is money and where does it derive its value?"

I think that it was practically that question that removed any leftism that was in me. Came in the form of a simple video from either Mises or Cato. Very enlightening. Started with the most basic and worked its way up.

[brimic]

Interesting read. Thanks.

Actually, brimic, part of his argument, agree or disagree, is that a direct pass-through be conditioned on less excuse for government regulation/intervention.

Right there is the heart of the delusion... government doesn't give up control/regulation- that ratchet only clicks    one way.

[Balog]

Interesting read. Thanks.

Actually, brimic, part of his argument, agree or disagree, is that a direct pass-through be conditioned on less excuse for government regulation/intervention.

Uh huh. Kind of like how amnesty is always "conditioned" on increasing border security?

[Angel Eyes]

According to http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_Americans_are_over_the_age_of_18, there are about 226 million Americans over the age of 18 (2006 census data).

Giving each and every one of them $10,000 per year would cost about $ 2.26 trillion, if I did my arithmetic correctly.

Are we spending that kind of money on welfare programs?  The entire Federal budget for 2013 was "only" $3.45 trillion (according to Wikipedia).  Social Security spending for 2013: $808 billion.  Medicare spending: $585 billion.  Defense spending (DOD, VA and DHS): $822 billion.  Would the proposed stipend replace S.S. and Medicare?  I strongly doubt it.

Murray wants to limit the payments to those over 21, so the number of recipients would be slightly lower.  If we limit recipients to U.S. citizens and permanent residents, that would reduce the number further.

I'm just not seeing how there could be a net savings.

[Balog]

According to http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_Americans_are_over_the_age_of_18, there are about 226 million Americans over the age of 18 (2006 census data).

Giving each and every one of them $10,000 per year would cost about $ 2.26 trillion, if I did my arithmetic correctly.

Are we spending that kind of money on welfare programs?  The entire Federal budget for 2013 was "only" $3.45 trillion (according to Wikipedia).  Social Security spending for 2013: $808 billion.  Medicare spending: $585 billion.  Defense spending (DOD, VA and DHS): $822 billion.  Would the proposed stipend replace S.S. and Medicare?  I strongly doubt it.

Murray wants to limit the payments to those over 21, so the number of recipients would be slightly lower.  If we limit recipients to U.S. citizens and permanent residents, that would reduce the number further.

I'm just not seeing how there could be a net savings.

Shhh, don't confuse them with numbers. It will NEVER be politically viable to stop welfare, unless we replace it with an annual stipend of a $25 gift card to Walmart. Then liberals will totally go for it.

[Hawkmoon]

Hmmm ...

The concept of a basic income is not entirely abstract. Several countries, such as Brazil, have achieved notable success with their programs, lifting many people out of poverty.

Reality check:

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/world/2014/04/01/cfp-brazil-world-cup-prostitution-darlington-pkg.cnn&iref=allsearch&video_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2Fsearch%2F%3Fquery%3Dbrazil%26x%3D23%26y%3D0%26primaryType%3Dmixed

Tell us how that's working out in Brazil, eh?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2592613/Brazilian-government-storm-one-Rios-largest-slums-today-clean-operation-ahead-World-Cup.html

[tokugawa]

I will need to defend this idea, because, as stupid as an idea as it is, if offered as an alternative to our current safety net, it may be cheaper and better.

The key is to completely do away with all unemployment, disability, food stamps, and every other form of welfare.

Just simply send a check to every man and woman (maybe child) in the country some amount a month.

This could be a better system because:

1) It does not discourage work. If you currently get welfare benefits, when you start to work, you make no or minimal gains over your previous position on welfare, creating a massive disincentive to work. (Why work to make $300 a week when I can do nothing and get $250?)

 One reason-because we could send them 5,000 dollars a month and they would all be whining for more.

2) It cuts the bureaucracy. Rather than all the different agencies administering these programs, all you need is one that sends out monthly checks. You will still have to deal with fraud, but you don't have 20 different agencies that are being defrauded.

3) Although fraud would exist, the opportunities would be decreased. You can create fake people, but that currently exists with many of the agencies. Under the new system of monthly checks, no longer are "disabled" people carrying couches up to their house, people on food stamps driving around in new Cadillacs, etc... Everyone gets the same amount.



Now, of course, these are the case ONLY if we did away with the current welfare system. Which is why it would never happen because:

1) It does not discourage work. If the government gives the money out no matter what you do, people are more likely to work and start wondering why the government is taking so much of their money.

2) It cuts the bureaucracy. Rather than all the different agencies administering these programs, all you need is on that sends out monthly checks. The Federal employees will scream about their gravy train disappearing.

3) Although fraud would exist, the opportunities would be decreased. How can a government dole out special favors if everyone gets the same check?




So, YES, this is a bad idea. It may be better than what we have now. (Which is why, as the article notes, even Milton Friedman gave grudging support to the idea.)

Also note, the author of this piece mentions none of these.

[Perd Hapley]

Don't bother to quote him tokugawa. No one's going to read it. We'd rather jerk our knees, spasmodically.

[Firethorn]

Interestingly, the so-called Fair Tax also proposes that everyone receive a govt. stipend.

To be fair, of course, it's a lost smaller than this "minimum income," and paid yearly.

This was my thought, but at work I can't log in(log in page is blocked).  I 'sort' of like the idea, like others have stated you'd need to replace all the other welfare stuff with this, though personally I'd probably keep medicaid. 

Let's roll with $10k - it's not enough to live on your own with, but if you share a place with 4 others it can work.  Plenty of incentive to work though.

How do we pay for this all?  Let's go with a flat 25% tax rate(which would really soak the Buffet types...)
Earn $0 - make $10k pay 0 taxes.
Earn $20k - pay $5k in taxes, take home $25k
Earn $40k - pay $10k in taxes, resulting in a wash as far as the $10k/year minimum income goes.

The benefit?  You keep 3/4 of every dollar you earn, so there's no cliffs/loss of value of money other than marginal utility losses(the first $10k/year is more valuable to a person than the last). 

The 25% was just chosen to be easy, mind you.  Personally I'd like to set it where it'd need to be for a balanced budget, with the caveat that if I have that much power a lot of spending is going to stop.

[birdman]

I have a better idea.
Flat tax rate sufficient to fund a reasonable set of actual government services with a balanced budget.
Zero deductions, adjustments, or minimums.  Everyone pays the exact same percentage.
Eliminate all transfer payment based government programs.

Everything else is forced theft at gunpoint.  Period.

[Firethorn]

Problem with that is that the negatives to society from people rendered homeless and such are higher/more expensive than the aid.

Prison is roughly 3-4 times as expensive as welfare.

[brimic]

Problem with that is that the negatives to society from people rendered homeless and such are higher/more expensive than the aid.

Prison is roughly 3-4 times as expensive as welfare.

Hunger is a powerful motivator.
That very basic human drive/motivator has been stripped from society for the last 50 years.

[Perd Hapley]

Problem with that is that the negatives to society from people rendered homeless and such are higher/more expensive than the aid.

Prison is roughly 3-4 times as expensive as welfare.

Are you saying that our welfare spending reduces the prison population? 

[birdman]

Problem with that is that the negatives to society from people rendered homeless and such are higher/more expensive than the aid.

Prison is roughly 3-4 times as expensive as welfare.

How many homeless were there in the 1910's?
How many in prison?
Bet you both were smaller statistically than today.
In which case, since I described a situation of roughly 1915, your point is invalid.

[birdman]

Hunger is a powerful motivator.
That very basic human drive/motivator has been stripped from society for the last 50 years.

And high speed lead poisoning is a better deterrent than prison.

[RevDisk]

Help me out here. We have welfare because society has decided (or our masters have decided and we let them) that it is the .gov's job to prevent people from being homeless/starving/without medical care etc etc etc.

So in what utopian fantasy land will we remove ALL of those programs, and substitute a flat payment that is totally insufficient to cover basic living expenses, which goes to everyone including those who have no need of it? How is that any more difficult than just dismantling the welfare state entirely? "People will never vote for a program to stop giving food/shelter/medical care to the poor, but they will go for a program that substitutes a laughably small stipend for everyone."

Eh, I think it'd be smarter to make it a flat payment up to a certain income bracket. Say, $12K or $15k per year until you make $20k. Taper off, or not, whatever. That's 19.2% of the population.

Not that it matters, because a flat payment model would never happen. Said bureaucracies are quite large and they do vote as well.

I have a better idea.
Flat tax rate sufficient to fund a reasonable set of actual government services with a balanced budget.
Zero deductions, adjustments, or minimums.  Everyone pays the exact same percentage.
Eliminate all transfer payment based government programs.

Everything else is forced theft at gunpoint.  Period.

I've always thought that was the most efficient means of taxation as well as compliance. All income, from all sources, equally taxed at a flat rate. I'd recommend it start at some small number, however. Say, $10k ish. The amount you'd get would be negligible but the impact would be significant. I'm thinking students, old people, mostly-retired folks, barely-employed folks (stay at home husband or wife that wants to make some extra cash on the side and the like) as much as "poor people". I'd say the same for businesses that make under $10k.

Not that it matters, because the bureaucracies in question would scream like branded cattle and the politicians would NEVER, EVER allow a tax system that removes so such power/corruption from their grasp. Manipulation of the tax code is the Congressional crown jewel of power, corruption, nepotism, crony capitalism and political posturing. Never happen. You might as well ask for regulation that is reasonable, easy to comply with and makes logical sense.

Are you saying that our welfare spending reduces the prison population? 

Well, no, it probably doesn't. But that is sorta supposed to be the point of welfare spending. To keep the poor in their specific areas, and keep them from spilling out of their specific areas. Theoretically, yes, it would be nice if they stopped committing crime in their own areas, but that's not exactly expected by rational folks.

[brimic]

Not that it matters, because the bureaucracies in question would scream like branded cattle and the politicians would NEVER, EVER allow a tax system that removes so such power/corruption from their grasp. Manipulation of the tax code is the Congressional crown jewel of power, corruption, nepotism, crony capitalism and political posturing. Never happen. You might as well ask for regulation that is reasonable, easy to comply with and makes logical sense.

+ a gazillionty.

Politicians won't even consider something like repealing the 16th amendment, that is why they throw out red herrings like 'flat tax' or 'fair tax' from time to time. They need to keep 'income tax' in one form or another as part of the dominant lexicon, to do otherwise would entertain the notion of downsizing government to its constitutionally mandated size and scope and the resulting loss of power.

[roo_ster]

Problem with that is that the negatives to society from people rendered homeless and such are higher/more expensive than the aid.

Prison is roughly 3-4 times as expensive as welfare.

Doesn't have to be.  Tent & quonset huts in the middle of BFE, hard labor to support the operation and tire out those inclined to cause trouble.  Plenty of folk have made a profit from less material.

Simply stated, the welfare state is evil.  More evil than all the evil and pain that might develop in its absence.  It perpetuates and grows poverty.  It grows and spreads moral degradation...to both recipients and those who believe in its efficacy. 

[makattak]

I have a better idea.
Flat tax rate sufficient to fund a reasonable set of actual government services with a balanced budget.
Zero deductions, adjustments, or minimums.  Everyone pays the exact same percentage.
Eliminate all transfer payment based government programs.

Everything else is forced theft at gunpoint.  Period.

It is indeed a much better idea. I'd love to live in a country that works that way.

However, it's even less likely than the Fair Tax or Flat Tax. As I said, full governmental collapse is the only way we will return to that state of things.

And, given mankind's history, I'm not too sanguine on the chances of getting another Constitution like our own was.

[brimic]

And, given mankind's history, I'm not too sanguine on the chances of getting another Constitution like our own was.

Our own constitution was never what it was. Before the ink was dried, statists were figuring out how to deconstruct it.

[birdman]

Also, eliminate estate tax (as it is the worst form of double taxation), corporate taxes (since that money would be taxed under my system when it reaches the shareholders/owners, as regular income, since there aren't any disparities), and make capital gains taxes identical or lower than actual income taxes, but index them to inflation.
Capital investment of any kind would be immediately depreciable in the year the payments were made (again, goal is to encourage investment and growth, and simplify tax code), but that in my system would require zero effort, since there is not such thing as business taxes.

Effectively, it treats all income -to a person- as income, taxes money only once.

Charitable donations would be the -ONLY- allowable deduction, and if done at a business level, are counted as expenses.

[brimic]

Effectively, it treats all income -to a person- as income, taxes money only once.

Why tax income at all?
Our country got by just fine for the first 1/2 of its existance without an income tax. When the income tax was first proposed, it was a very tiny tax on what today would be called the 1%, but even this tiny bit was enough to start growing leviathon to eventually reach its all-devouring size that it is today.

[Firethorn]

How many homeless were there in the 1910's?
How many in prison?
Bet you both were smaller statistically than today.
In which case, since I described a situation of roughly 1915, your point is invalid.

Actually I find your argument nonsensical and therefore any point you were trying to make is invalid.  One example:  Compare average lifespan and quality of life in 1910 and today.  Even the homeless are generally better off.

I'll try to boil down my thoughts:
1.  The budget SHOULD be balanced.  Debt paid off, etc...
2.  #1 isn't really possible in a short period of time :(
3.  In order to transition from where we are now to where I think we should be, there will need to be a transition period.  Some things during the transition will actually cost more.
4.  Taxation should be more about balancing spending than social manipulation(don't think you can get away from it entirely).
5.  If by helping people earlier it ends up costing us less than when, for example, they commit crimes in order to obtain life needs resulting in us needing to imprison them at high cost, we should do so. 
6.  On a related matter, I'd kind of like to avoid a repeat of the French revolution. 

Look, I also think hunger is a wonderful motivator, but you have to ask yourself is it going to motivate them to find a job or commit a crime?  Doesn't take many of the latter to screw things up for everyone.  If we can arrange it so people only cost the government ~$10k/year vs over $100k, can we really afford to ignore those savings? 

Personally I'd probably be trying to use the government to help increase the demand for labor.  Increase the demand enough and structure the laws right* to encourage businesses to actually be willing to train people, and our unemployment problem will mostly go away.

*Simplify Simplify Simplify

Why tax income at all?
Our country got by just fine for the first 1/2 of its existance without an income tax. When the income tax was first proposed, it was a very tiny tax on what today would be called the 1%, but even this tiny bit was enough to start growing leviathon to eventually reach its all-devouring size that it is today.

I'm actually with you, it's just that the government is so huge at this point you'll have to decrease it gradually, and a lot of adjustments will have to be made.

[Perd Hapley]

Firethorn,

Do you not think that Great Society programs have vastly increased our prison population?

And when you speak of using government to increase demand for labor, and incentivize OJT, you do mean getting government out of the way (including an elimination of minimum wage), yes?