Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ben on May 26, 2017, 11:24:28 AM
-
No link, just heard it on the news. Zuckerberg was pushing a universal basic income at a Harvard speech to allow people to follow their dreams and ideas (sounds kinda like Pelosi on free healthcare). The same guy who uses the H1B visa.
This stuff is easy to say if you're a gazillionaire. I have always found that some of the most worthless and rudderless individuals I have ever met are trust fund babies. I'm not sure that throwing $40K/yr or so at someone is going to get most people to do any more than innovate different ways to hang out at the beach.
I'd be all for the experiment. Zuckerberg should take about $10billion of his money, pick around 10,000 random people across the country, and pay them $50K/yr until the money runs out. See what they've done at the end of the experiment. If they've succeeded and innovated, great! If they spent all their time at the beach, that's great too, because they did so on his dime, not the taxpayer's dime.
-
Zuckerberg should take about $10billion of his money, pick around 10,000 random people across the country, and pay them $50K/yr until the money runs out. See what they've done at the end of the experiment. If they've succeeded and innovated, great! If they spent all their time at the beach, that's great too, because they did so on his dime, not the taxpayer's dime.
This times twelve-hundred and four.
-
This stuff is easy to say if you're a gazillionaire. I have always found that some of the most worthless and rudderless individuals I have ever met are trust fund babies. I'm not sure that throwing $40K/yr or so at someone is going to get most people to do any more than innovate different ways to hang out at the beach.
I'd be all for the experiment. Zuckerberg should take about $10billion of his money, pick around 10,000 random people across the country, and pay them $50K/yr until the money runs out. See what they've done at the end of the experiment. If they've succeeded and innovated, great! If they spent all their time at the beach, that's great too, because they did so on his dime, not the taxpayer's dime.
I'll volunteer. I'd spend a lot of time in my garden, hunting, reading, and teaching my children. I'd be a full-time tutor for 4 gifted children.
That's worth $40K or $50K a year. Add my wife's $40K and we'll also take vacations to Hawaii.
-
It simply isn't true that we want to create jobs, that's not the point of it all. Quite the opposite in fact, we want to destroy jobs, destroy as many as we can. Which is the value of automation to us of course, that we do destroy jobs.
UBR is interesting as a kind of though experiment I guess, I don't see it being relevant any time soon.
Even the people who support it usually do so in a a vague "eventually we'll need it sense" and not a specific proposal to make it happen now.
-
I'll volunteer. I'd spend a lot of time in my garden, hunting, reading, and teaching my children. I'd be a full-time tutor for 4 gifted children.
So you'd teach them, read them, and then hunt them? That is disturbing.
-
So you'd teach them, read them, and then hunt them? That is disturbing.
Not at all. Good E&E skills are a rare thing today. Start 'em young.
-
So you'd teach them, read them, and then hunt them? That is disturbing.
No, I saw it as first comes the hunt, and then the survivors reap the benefits of reading and teaching. I must suggest this technique to my wife the elementary school teacher. I know she has several kids that she would make certain do not survive the hunt. And it would certainly motivate the rest.
-
No, I saw it as first comes the hunt, and then the survivors reap the benefits of reading and teaching. I must suggest this technique to my wife the elementary school teacher. I know she has several kids that she would make certain do not survive the hunt. And it would certainly motivate the rest.
If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning.
-
I'm not even going to argue the merits or demerits of having a UBI system. The mere fact that certain people are confidently predicting the need for it is de-facto assurance that they will be wrong.
The basic premise is that automation is going to put tons of people out of work, burger flippers, taxi drivers, truck drivers, the UPS/FedEx/USPS-man, pizza drivers, you name it.
What's funny is that these guys, bleeding edge capitalists, the robber-barons of this era more or less can't themselves see that the economy is not a zero-sum game.
What happened every time some other kind of machinery or automation created a systemic disruption? The automobile largely killed the careers of stable-boys, feed-farmers, tack and saddle makers, but it created oil drillers, refinery workers, automobile plant workers, gas station attendants, road builders, mechanics, tire makers... and the list goes on and on, and got even bigger as cars and trucks improved. The automobile industry wound up employing orders of magnitude more people than the "horse industry" ever did.
For the sake of argument, say that automation eliminates 90% of retail, low-skill factory work, and transportation/driver jobs. And those making the warnings will naturally argue "this time it's different" (something someone always argues...) because ostensibly all the capital freed up by automation, and no more paying of wages will indeed go into new industries but those too will be automated. Fine. However, nothing is 100%, so even assuming that will be true... and ignoring that we're not even considering jobs/industries, or meaningful work someone is willing to pay someone else for that we haven't even dreamed up yet... All we need is a 1:1 replacement of all these lost jobs. Very minor, considering every other disruption in the world, factories, steam, the automobile, air travel, electricity, the Internet to date has always created an exponential growth in the number of workers needed.
That said... I don't think we're even looking at the right problem. The coming explosion in productivity and new capital from automation may create a labor shortage the likes of which we've never seen. The competition to get a warm body... anybody to accept a job might be so great that it'll make the "fight for $15" people look like pikers. Furthermore, there's few if any countries in the First World that has it's "native" population reproducing at even 1:1 replacement rate. They're only buoyed up by the fact that the Second and Third World wants to live here. What happens when automation sweeps their countries way faster (think cell phone penetration) than the rest of the "industrial revolution" did or even has to do so yet than it did in the First World and they stop coming?
Even that might not be the "right problem". What we're ultimately talking about is post-scarcity. We've never ever had that in human history. We don't really know what it will be like. We could even see ourselves in such bizarre circumstances as an economy that runs in reverse. Where the consumers/users are paid to do so.
-
But think of the buggy whip makers!!!
-
For the sake of argument, say that automation eliminates 90% of retail, low-skill factory work, and transportation/driver jobs. And those making the warnings will naturally argue "this time it's different" (something someone always argues...) because ostensibly all the capital freed up by automation, and no more paying of wages will indeed go into new industries but those too will be automated. Fine. However, nothing is 100%, so even assuming that will be true... and ignoring that we're not even considering jobs/industries, or meaningful work someone is willing to pay someone else for that we haven't even dreamed up yet... All we need is a 1:1 replacement of all these lost jobs. Very minor, considering every other disruption in the world, factories, steam, the automobile, air travel, electricity, the Internet to date has always created an exponential growth in the number of workers needed.
There is no economic law that displaced workers will find other employment. It HAS historically happened, but as every prospective says "past performance is no guarantee of future returns". In the past two decades, dead rust belt areas were assumed that labor would move elsewhere with low friction. This hasn't happened. Interesting stuff, actually. If a company cut 10,000 jobs across 50 states, those 200 per state could easily move elsewhere. But cut 10,000 jobs in a specific area? You create a blight area with positive feedback loops that encourage economic issues, very very resistant to regrowth. Makes sense. A mill or plant supports dozens to hundreds of small businesses. Doesn't even have to be a plant closing. Labor friction was much much higher than any economist thought.
Doesn't even have to be a plant closing. Ferguson had the same phenomena. Businesses close. Housing market crumbles. Selling your house would mean huge losses. Economic hardship causes more marginal businesses to close.
I'm not dismissive of historic trends. I just don't have enough blind faith to believe that historic trends never change. Akin to "housing pricing always goes up".
Good video that covers the subject well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU
But think of the buggy whip makers!!!
Good example. Horses. Historically, constant technology improvements made their lives better.
Saddles. Stirrups. Bridles. Stage coaches. Medicine. Automation kicked in and then horses didn't need to die in terrible wars or serve as draft animals. For a long time, better technology meant more better jobs for horses. However, it didn't last forever. Eventually... it didn't. Now we only need a tiny fraction of horses as previously. While the few remaining horses are living comfortably, the unneeded horses only became not a burden because they were shot or turned into glue. Unless we plan on doing the same to people as we did horses, I'm not at all convinced things will go smoothly.
Technology has sharply reduced the number of lawyers, manufacturing, etc. So far, economics show that it has not led to an increase new better jobs for people. The economists were absolutely shocked at this. They counted on conventional optimism as well, and the numbers haven't backed it up.
-
There is no economic law that displaced workers will find other employment. It HAS historically happened, but as every prospective says "past performance is no guarantee of future returns".
And I think it's important to consider how little "data" we have to work with. Looking at job displacement/replacement shifts that have occurred since the industrial revolution gives something to make educated guesses from, but it's still foolish to assume that those trends will continue if something like artificial intelligence coming into play.
-
Oh, as for UBI. It won't work if one does simple math.
US government revenue is $3.18 trillion.
$3,180,000,000,000 360,000,000 = $8,833.33 check for every person. If you eliminated every single other cent being spent by the US government.
Good luck living on that. US poverty line is $12,060. In my area, minimum living wage is allegedly $21,165.
For poverty 'basic income' you would need 4,341,600,000,000, a measly 1.4x increase in taxes.
For minimum 'basic income' you would need 7,619,400,000,000, or tax revenue would have to be increased by 2.4x.
If you want to continue normal government stuff, you're looking at 2.4x increase for poverty basic income. 3.4x increase for minimum basic income.
I tend to pay 30% in taxes. I'd personally face a 72% tax rate. Or 102% tax rate. In return for minimum living standards.
The notion is that you'd be able to discontinue paying for social services. By just handing out money. Which assumes people not capable of financially, mentally or physically supporting themselves would instantly BE able to financially, mentally or physically support themselves. Which is obviously not statistically possible.
-
Detroit killed and the unions killed the manufacturing, not the other way around. That is why the area has not recovered, it still has the same disease holding it back.
-
Detroit killed and the unions killed the manufacturing, not the other way around. That is why the area has not recovered, it still has the same disease holding it back.
I wasn't touching so much on the who or what did the killing, just the after effects. Thing is, manufacturing isn't dying in the US. It's not growing as fast as China but they only recently surpassed us.
We're still the second largest manufacturing country. Just not manufacturing jobs. Off shoring, politics, and most importantly, higher and higher efficiency/productivity mean you need less people to do the same amount of work.
-
Oh, as for UBI. It won't work if one does simple math.
This is also similar to CA currently pushing to be the first single payer state for health insurance. The projected budget for that recently came back and was apparently double the current overall state budget (and people with math skills said the projected budget was way under-reported). The math doesn't seem to have deterred the state's dem supermajority though. They seem to think a tax increase will take care of it. Nevermind that we already pay one of the highest state rates in the country and don't come near to covering the current overspending.
-
All of the guaranteed income people are Democrats. (please correct me if I am wrong) The DNC can't even pay minimum wage to some of its employees.
Why should I believe they can provide a universal basic income to our citizens? Am I missing something? :laugh:
-
This is also similar to CA currently pushing to be the first single payer state for health insurance. The projected budget for that recently came back and was apparently double the current overall state budget (and people with math skills said the projected budget was way under-reported). The math doesn't seem to have deterred the state's dem supermajority though. They seem to think a tax increase will take care of it. Nevermind that we already pay one of the highest state rates in the country and don't come near to covering the current overspending.
I can certainly understand supporting UBI if you know it has zero chance of passing. You always sound great if you can promise free stuff and someone else stops you from giving out free stuff. Fiscal responsibility people are just plain meanies who hate puppies, obviously.
That's a very different story from actually pulling the trigger.
-
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
So "they" decide the minimum UBI is $35K a year, but you only qualify if you make less than that. Joe Bluecollar has worked his ass off making his way up to $40K a year so doesn't qualify for UBI payment. His neighbor, Freddy Freeloader sets on his ass all day and .gov sends him $35K a year.
Somebody tell me why Joe Bluecollar, or anyone else would accept that?
-
Freddy Freeloader sets on his ass all day and .gov sends him $35K a year.
Also likely tax free, so he ends up with more dough than the $40K/yr stiff.
-
So "they" decide the minimum UBI is $35K a year, but you only qualify if you make less than that. Joe Bluecollar has worked his ass off making his way up to $40K a year so doesn't qualify for UBI payment. His neighbor, Freddy Freeloader sets on his ass all day and .gov sends him $35K a year. Somebody tell me why Joe Bluecollar, or anyone else would accept that?
Um, I don't think that's how it works...
all citizens or residents of a country regularly receive an unconditional sum of money, either from a government or some other public institution, in addition to any income received from elsewhere.
They both get the same free government money regardless of what else they do. That's the universal part.
-
For poverty 'basic income' you would need 4,341,600,000,000, a measly 1.4x increase in taxes.
Hogwash. Government can simply print up more money.*
* This message brought to you by the economic whiz-kids of the DNC.
-
Um, I don't think that's how it works...They both get the same free government money regardless of what else they do. That's the universal part.
That may be the definition, but in the current US political climate, and that for the foreseeable future, no dem or RINO would ever, ever, ever, ever allow any bill to pass that gives $35K/yr (or whatever amount) to anyone who is making say, $100K or more.
They won't even cut their taxes, so there's no way they'll "give" them anything. Which would make UBI in the US nothing more than expanded welfare for specific groups. We've already seen the similar example with the ACA screwing people who are individually insured and make more than ~$45K.
-
Um, I don't think that's how it works...They both get the same free government money regardless of what else they do. That's the universal part.
Of course that is not how it works - it doesn't work at all.
-
No, I saw it as first comes the hunt, and then the survivors reap the benefits of reading and teaching. I must suggest this technique to my wife the elementary school teacher. I know she has several kids that she would make certain do not survive the hunt. And it would certainly motivate the rest.
Pour encourager les autres.
-
All of the guaranteed income people are Democrats. (please correct me if I am wrong) The DNC can't even pay minimum wage to some of its employees.
Why should I believe they can provide a universal basic income to our citizens? Am I missing something? :laugh:
What you are missing is what you pointed out -- they are Democrats. Democrats are always good at spending other people's money.
You didn't think Zuckerberg was volunteering any of his 72 billion dollars to support other people, did you?
-
What you are missing is what you pointed out -- they are Democrats. Democrats are always good at spending other people's money.
You didn't think Zuckerberg was volunteering any of his 72 billion dollars to support other people, did you?
Of course not. He was complaining about new graduates having to pay back student loans. He could have stepped up and paid money to every one of those graduates and put his money where it mouth is. He has his money. He wants to be generous with someone else's money.
-
There is no economic law that displaced workers will find other employment. It HAS historically happened, but as every prospective says "past performance is no guarantee of future returns". In the past two decades, dead rust belt areas were assumed that labor would move elsewhere with low friction. This hasn't happened. Interesting stuff, actually. If a company cut 10,000 jobs across 50 states, those 200 per state could easily move elsewhere. But cut 10,000 jobs in a specific area? You create a blight area with positive feedback loops that encourage economic issues, very very resistant to regrowth. Makes sense. A mill or plant supports dozens to hundreds of small businesses. Doesn't even have to be a plant closing. Labor friction was much much higher than any economist thought.
Doesn't even have to be a plant closing. Ferguson had the same phenomena. Businesses close. Housing market crumbles. Selling your house would mean huge losses. Economic hardship causes more marginal businesses to close.
I'm not dismissive of historic trends. I just don't have enough blind faith to believe that historic trends never change. Akin to "housing pricing always goes up".
Good video that covers the subject well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU
Good example. Horses. Historically, constant technology improvements made their lives better.
Saddles. Stirrups. Bridles. Stage coaches. Medicine. Automation kicked in and then horses didn't need to die in terrible wars or serve as draft animals. For a long time, better technology meant more better jobs for horses. However, it didn't last forever. Eventually... it didn't. Now we only need a tiny fraction of horses as previously. While the few remaining horses are living comfortably, the unneeded horses only became not a burden because they were shot or turned into glue. Unless we plan on doing the same to people as we did horses, I'm not at all convinced things will go smoothly.
Technology has sharply reduced the number of lawyers, manufacturing, etc. So far, economics show that it has not led to an increase new better jobs for people. The economists were absolutely shocked at this. They counted on conventional optimism as well, and the numbers haven't backed it up.
First, many people already get welfare, social security, and unemployment which tends to subsidize people NOT to going where the jobs are and NOT being productive. IMO, it also encourages irresponsible govt.
Second, your example of "housing prices always go up" is a good example. It was a trend caused in large part by government subsidies of home loans and lots and lots of regulations. The government subsidizing wages won't work any better and will likely be much much worse.
-
My other concern with something like this: If the government can decide the minimum pay everyone should have, would they also decide what the maximum would be? Wealthy people often like to do things that keep others from becoming wealthy.
-
UBR is interesting as a kind of though experiment I guess, I don't see it being relevant any time soon.
Even the people who support it usually do so in a a vague "eventually we'll need it sense" and not a specific proposal to make it happen now.
Step 1: Start at $100/month. $1200/year. Drop some cash welfare benefit by $1200/year. Lower the amount for the 25% tax rate, digging into the 15% rate, by $12k.
Result: You make more than $37,951 you're exactly equally off. If you're receiving some cash welfare benefit in excess of $1200, you're equally well off. If you were making below $38k but NOT getting the cash benefit, you're slightly better off.
Continuing: Increase by $100/month for ~5 years, ending at a payment of $500/month, though I wouldn't cry at $600. Eventually you get rid of non-healthcare related welfare payments, including non-cash versions. If you expect for people to pay for their own healthcare, payments would have to be higher, and probably sequestrated into some sort of 'healthcare only' account to make sure it isn't diverted. Continue dropping the lower 'introduction' tax rates, eliminate the personal exemption, and welfare programs, starting with the most 'cash-like'.
End result: The lowest tax rate is 25% and the personal exemptions are gone, but that's okay because you get the equivalent of a $6k refundable credit. If you earn somewhere in the $100k range your finances are within a couple bucks of what they were before. If you were on welfare you aren't anymore, though you get $500-600/month to do with as you please. More importantly, you're not going to lose that money if you get a job, so there's less incentive to sit on your butt. We also need to hire a lot fewer welfare agents to watch you sit on your butt to make sure you don't make something of yourself while still receiving the benefit. Bonuses all around.
Less government, cheaper, check.
Less control over people's lives, check.
Government getting stuff done at minimal intervention, check.
Drastically less bureaucracy needed, check.
Flat(ter) tax rates! check.
That's how a libertarian does a BIG.
Now, to go look at the rest of the comments...
I'm not dismissive of historic trends. I just don't have enough blind faith to believe that historic trends never change. Akin to "housing pricing always goes up".
Good example. Horses. Historically, constant technology improvements made their lives better.
Actually, not all live in comfort now, with the closing of horse slaughterhouses, it was discovered that the slaughterhouses put a minimum value on horses - so the ones that didn't go to the glue factory were well taken care of because they were above that base value. With that option gone, the value of a horse can easily go negative - it's an expense to get rid of a horse anymore, and thus you see far more neglect. In some cases you can't give them away, and they're still big animals that need to eat.
Ironically, closing the slaughterhouses to be 'more humane' led to far more cruelty against horses.
Technology has sharply reduced the number of lawyers, manufacturing, etc. So far, economics show that it has not led to an increase new better jobs for people. The economists were absolutely shocked at this. They counted on conventional optimism as well, and the numbers haven't backed it up.
Better production per individual can lead to better pay for all, but in the latest boom it's been the owners who have gotten the vast majority of the gains, thus why the incomes of the rich have been going up while the labor of the poor has declined in value.
I'm not even going to argue the merits or demerits of having a UBI system. The mere fact that certain people are confidently predicting the need for it is de-facto assurance that they will be wrong.
I'd like to see it, done properly, as I think it'd be drastically cheaper and more effective. By eliminating welfare cliffs, we can shove these types back into the labor system far more easily.
Oh, as for UBI. It won't work if one does simple math.
So you mean I need to break out the calculus?
$3,180,000,000,000 360,000,000 = $8,833.33 check for every person. If you eliminated every single other cent being spent by the US government.
I posit about $6k/year, which if you get 4 adults to team up is $24k, or the poverty line for the US.
Good luck living on that. US poverty line is $12,060. In my area, minimum living wage is allegedly $21,165.
Then they need to move out and make room for those that can earn the $21k needed. Or your area can pay a differential if they want the poor people still around to exploit with low wages.
$21k, as is, is way too close to the national median income.
For poverty 'basic income' you would need 4,341,600,000,000, a measly 1.4x increase in taxes.
For minimum 'basic income' you would need 7,619,400,000,000, or tax revenue would have to be increased by 2.4x.
Here's the thing: Electronic money transfers are incredibly cheap. As I mentioned in the plan above, what you do is get rid of the lower tax brackets, such that for the vast majority of people, the amount they pay in extra taxes under the system is negated by the BIG they receive.
If you want to continue normal government stuff, you're looking at 2.4x increase for poverty basic income. 3.4x increase for minimum basic income.
Why? For one, $12k-$20k/year is ridiculously generous. Two, you're ignoring all the federal welfare programs that could be eliminated. Three, you're not figuring on increasing taxes on the lower end, to tax back the BIG amounts gradually, resulting in no welfare cliffs.
I tend to pay 30% in taxes. I'd personally face a 72% tax rate. Or 102% tax rate. In return for minimum living standards.
What makes you assume this? How do you figure this? Is the 30% your marginal tax rate, or overall? You're not including adding the BIG amount back into your income?
The notion is that you'd be able to discontinue paying for social services. By just handing out money. Which assumes people not capable of financially, mentally or physically supporting themselves would instantly BE able to financially, mentally or physically support themselves. Which is obviously not statistically possible.
Because it's a monthly amount, the odds are that they'll figure it out sooner or later, usually sooner. Because it's monthly, unlike lottery winners, they can't spend all of it immediately. Generally, they'll figure out ways to optimize their income, just like they figure out ways to take encumbered money like food stamps and turn it into unencumbered money they can use to spend on anything.
All of the guaranteed income people are Democrats. (please correct me if I am wrong) The DNC can't even pay minimum wage to some of its employees.
Why should I believe they can provide a universal basic income to our citizens? Am I missing something? :laugh:
There are actually libertarian guaranteed income people, though we approach it differently than the democrats do. They approach it as a human rights thing. I approach it as being ultimately a money saver as well as personal freedom increaser.
-
Money is nothing but a store of wealth.
Where does this wealth come from ??
-
Money is nothing but a store of wealth.
Actually, I disagree with this. Money isn't a "store" of anything, not fiat currency at least. It's a marker of some value. As proof, look at wealthy people - they'll keep as little in 'cash' as practical.
Where does this wealth come from ??
Various places. Natural resources, people working, etc...
As for paying for a BIG, generally taxes, though if given a long enough term, I'd go for an Alaska style permanent fund.
Keep in mind that we're already paying out ridiculous amounts in welfare payments, so it's actually pretty easy to come out more or less neutral on the payments - and we don't want the payments to stay exactly the same, because part of the goal is eliminating the "welfare cliffs" that discourage people from progressing.
I was swearing more or less constantly when they did a local piece and mentioned how many workers, inside alaska, would decline raises and full time hours because of the threat it placed on their benefits. Earning $1/hour more could literally cost them thousands.
-
So your solution to people making bad decisions because it threatens a source of free money is to come up with another system to give them free money.
Money can be store of wealth, it just has flaws and disadvantages just like every other store of wealth.
-
Firethorn, I look at what you outlined the same as communism. Note: this is not a dig at you nor am I being dismissive.
What I mean is (and I'm likely to get flamed myself here), in theory in a theoretically tabula rasa world, where you take humans, human history, and human nature out of the equation and run a computer simulation of communism, it's a workable system. Just like your explanation of UBI. Once you inject humans into the equation though, both systems become practically unworkable.
Why will people work under UBI? I don't mean people that will decide, "Hey, I've got UBI to support myself now. I can live my dream and study Herodotus." or "I can travel the country and be the wildlife photographer I've always wanted to be instead of working at the Lowes." I mean the people that dig ditches, fix the electrical in your house, unclog your toilets, replace your roof, etc. Who is going to do physically difficult, but necessary jobs if they don't need the money? Maybe the roofing contractor will (try to) stay in business, but where is he going to find laborers to work on a roof in 100 degree weather when they can make a little less doing nothing?
Not to mention on the other end, I still argue that no politicians in this country will ever attempt to promote a system that gives "X" dollars to everyone, whether they are jobless or multi-millionaires. We can't even get any traction on a flat tax because "it favors the rich". Giving a millionaire an annual stipend will go exactly nowhere. If there is any democrat that has promoted UBI applied equally, I'd love to see the info (and if they got reelected). I'm pretty sure though, all the dems that promote it do so for "those making under "X" dollars). Which again sticks it to the middle and lower middle class the most, because the very wealthy have the assets to shrug it off.
-
Actually, I disagree with this. Money isn't a "store" of anything, not fiat currency at least. It's a marker of some value. As proof, look at wealthy people - they'll keep as little in 'cash' as practical.
Perhaps you can explain to me the difference between "store of wealth" and "marker of some value".
Yes, the rich keep very little in "cash", but last I checked their banks and brokerages keep tally in some denomination of currency(ies). Which is money in non-cash form.
And just to clarify. You made the jump from "money" to "cash". Cash is a form of money, they are not interchangeable terms.
-
Firethorn, I look at what you outlined the same as communism. Note: this is not a dig at you nor am I being dismissive.
What I mean is (and I'm likely to get flamed myself here), in theory in a theoretically tabula rasa world, where you take humans, human history, and human nature out of the equation and run a computer simulation of communism, it's a workable system. Just like your explanation of UBI. Once you inject humans into the equation though, both systems become practically unworkable.
Why will people work under UBI? I don't mean people that will decide, "Hey, I've got UBI to support myself now. I can live my dream and study Herodotus." or "I can travel the country and be the wildlife photographer I've always wanted to be instead of working at the Lowes." I mean the people that dig ditches, fix the electrical in your house, unclog your toilets, replace your roof, etc. Who is going to do physically difficult, but necessary jobs if they don't need the money? Maybe the roofing contractor will (try to) stay in business, but where is he going to find laborers to work on a roof in 100 degree weather when they can make a little less doing nothing?
Not to mention on the other end, I still argue that no politicians in this country will ever attempt to promote a system that gives "X" dollars to everyone, whether they are jobless or multi-millionaires. We can't even get any traction on a flat tax because "it favors the rich". Giving a millionaire an annual stipend will go exactly nowhere. If there is any democrat that has promoted UBI applied equally, I'd love to see the info (and if they got reelected). I'm pretty sure though, all the dems that promote it do so for "those making under "X" dollars). Which again sticks it to the middle and lower middle class the most, because the very wealthy have the assets to shrug it off.
That was my point. Even if ($deity forbid) "they" ever manage to pass some kind of UBI you can bet your sweet ass it will be income based/limited.
-
Firethorn, I look at what you outlined the same as communism. Note: this is not a dig at you nor am I being dismissive.
Well, either you have a rather non-standard view of communism or you didn't understand the proposal.
Because our current system is closer to communism. You know, the whole 'to each according to their needs' thing? A UBI/BIG is getting as far away from 'according to their needs' as we can while still providing assistance, because we're not individually making sure somebody receiving it has 'suitable' housing, 'suitable' food, and so forth by giving housing assistance that pays the rent for a place directly, providing 'food stamps' that is today money loaded onto a card that can only be used at qualified businesses for qualified products, etc...
I propose this because the current decision of the government is that it's going to provide all sorts of assistance to prevent people from, well, starving in the street. I also dislike the idea of people having it better in prison than outside. Prison's expensive, remember? (Just looked up California's figure for something else. $75k/year on average)
What I mean is (and I'm likely to get flamed myself here), in theory in a theoretically tabula rasa world, where you take humans, human history, and human nature out of the equation and run a computer simulation of communism, it's a workable system. Just like your explanation of UBI. Once you inject humans into the equation though, both systems become practically unworkable.
Well, if you have 'perfect' humans, pretty much any system works. This idea tries to take advantage of human nature.
1. The individual generally knows their own needs best. Yes, even dirt poor unemployed people. As such, by avoiding inefficiencies of arbitrage and inefficiently fulfilled needs, the poor can actually, on average, have a better quality of life(as far as they're concerned, which is who matters) with less money.
2. The current system is littered with welfare "cliffs" - where people will turn down raises, full time work, and such because there are cases where $1 more in income will literally cost them $1k or more. This discourages people getting off of assistance. By combining them all and introducing a gradual reduction, you can make it so they always benefit by earning more.
As one disabled guy in another forum put it, his healthcare costs like $50k/year. If he busts an income level, he loses his healthcare. He's disabled, there's so many exemptions out there that his only option would be being hired by a major company with a good enough health care system that he'd be immediately covered. Only a select number of government jobs would give him coverage that's complete enough quickly enough to not bankrupt him. As he's disabled, his work options are limited anyways. In his case, what I'd do is provide a disability payment. Regular old non-disabled people get the base payment.
Why will people work under UBI? I don't mean people that will decide, "Hey, I've got UBI to support myself now. I can live my dream and study Herodotus." or "I can travel the country and be the wildlife photographer I've always wanted to be instead of working at the Lowes." I mean the people that dig ditches, fix the electrical in your house, unclog your toilets, replace your roof, etc. Who is going to do physically difficult, but necessary jobs if they don't need the money? Maybe the roofing contractor will (try to) stay in business, but where is he going to find laborers to work on a roof in 100 degree weather when they can make a little less doing nothing?
Why do you work? Why do I work? Because I want more. Keep in mind the amount I proposed - $6k per person. Then a marginal tax rate of 25% until you get to somewhere around $100k*.
So it's not that they'd make "a little less" doing nothing. Let's say your roofing contractor makes $10/hour, and works 50 weeks/year(so math is easy).
UBI: $6k.
Work: $10*40*50 = $20k
Taxes: $5k
Net income: $21k
Benefit from working: $16k
So do you think that the roofing guy won't work for said $16k? For a lifestyle that's over 3 times the cost as base?
Not to mention on the other end, I still argue that no politicians in this country will ever attempt to promote a system that gives "X" dollars to everyone, whether they are jobless or multi-millionaires.
You do have a point that the political feasibility of this is indeed rather unlikely. Still, there's a system that "fixes" this problem, in that you can implement it as a "Negative Income Tax", much like today with the "Earned Income Tax Credit".
*I figured out a few different options to try to keep it as revenue neutral a proposal as possible.
-
Why do you work? Why do I work? Because I want more. Keep in mind the amount I proposed - $6k per person. Then a marginal tax rate of 25% until you get to somewhere around $100k*.
So it's not that they'd make "a little less" doing nothing. Let's say your roofing contractor makes $10/hour, and works 50 weeks/year(so math is easy).
UBI: $6k.
Work: $10*40*50 = $20k
Taxes: $5k
Net income: $21k
Benefit from working: $16k
So do you think that the roofing guy won't work for said $16k? For a lifestyle that's over 3 times the cost as base?
Here's our sticking point. Perhaps I don't understand UBI, but everything I've seen or read on it defines it as an income that covers all basic living expenses at or above the poverty level. $6K isn't enough to support anyone who wants to go back to school, start their own business, or "take a chance on being an innovator", which I believe is what Zuckerberg was talking about.
Your suggestions seem to be looking at alternatives to welfare (which is a noble goal), but that's not really "universal" - it's aimed at the lowest income classes.
-
Here's our sticking point. Perhaps I don't understand UBI, but everything I've seen or read on it defines it as an income that covers all basic living expenses at or above the poverty level. $6K isn't enough to support anyone who wants to go back to school, start their own business, or "take a chance on being an innovator", which I believe is what Zuckerberg was talking about.
But going to college or starting a business aren't basic living expenses?
UBI would be enough to keep you fed, healthy (to a limited extent I assume), and in a stable living situation. Stuff everyone needs. College funding or seed money for a business would require extra work to make extra money, just like now.
-
But going to college or starting a business aren't basic living expenses?
Dude, really? Absolutely not. Neither is a right of any kind, nor are they even anything that should be expected. 50% of the people that are in college collecting debt now would be better off taking some welding classes, going to culinary school, or any number of better options for them vs useless degrees that get them a Starbucks job where they spend their time complaining that they need UBI. Nor should my tax dollars go to someone taking a chance on starting a business (look up how many businesses fail every year). The guy who came up with fidget spinners is making a killing. Good for him. If he failed however, that would be the breaks and all on him, not you or me supporting anyone's wild ideas with our tax dollars. That's almost anti-capitalism.
UBI would be enough to keep you fed, healthy (to a limited extent I assume), and in a stable living situation. Stuff everyone needs. College funding or seed money for a business would require extra work to make extra money, just like now.
Again, and if someone wants to steer me to reading material, I'm happy to read up and maybe change my mind, but everything I've seen on UBI is not the above. All that I've seen, and what Zuckerberg was talking about, is that it's not a partial stipend. $5K or $10K doesn't cover UBI as I understand it. UBI covers the roof over your head and basic utilities, food, and health. Basically everything you need without having to go out and earn so that if your dream fails, you don't end up under a bridge. There's nothing in it about four people getting $5K/yr bunking up as roommates in a 1 bedroom apartment, or eating government cheese as your basic food source.
-
Neither is a right of any kind, nor are they even anything that should be expected
Right, that's what I'm saying, that's why it's not covered in UBI. Not everyone needs it. I don't think Zuckerberg is saying it's included either but that if people don't have to worry about the stuff that UBI covers, it frees up their time & resources to pursue if they do want it. If you have a whole bunch of people who have big dreams but their paycheck only gets them enough to survive they aren't going to take that chance on making it big. The theory behind UBI is that it will allow them to take those chances and innovate because the risks involved in failure are minimal.
UBI covers the roof over your head and basic utilities, food, and health.
Yes, isn't that basically what I said? Fed, healthy and in a stable living situation? I don't understand where you think we have a difference of understanding or what Zuckerberg is proposing differently.
-
Right, that's what I'm saying, that's why it's not covered in UBI. Not everyone needs it. I don't think Zuckerberg is saying it's included either but that if people don't have to worry about the stuff that UBI covers, it frees up their time & resources to pursue if they do want it. If you have a whole bunch of people who have big dreams but their paycheck only gets them enough to survive they aren't going to take that chance on making it big. The theory behind UBI is that it will allow them to take those chances and innovate because the risks involved in failure are minimal.
Yes, isn't that basically what I said? Fed, healthy and in a stable living situation? I don't understand where you think we have a difference of understanding or what Zuckerberg is proposing differently.
Okay, sorry - I misunderstood where you were coming from. On the one, I read it as if you were supporting college as a UBI expense, and on the other, I think I was mixing you up with Firethorn's $6K example.
-
Here are some basic income experiments:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_pilots
-
UBI covers the roof over your head and basic utilities, food, and health. Basically everything you need without having to go out and earn so that if your dream fails, you don't end up under a bridge. There's nothing in it about four people getting $5K/yr bunking up as roommates in a 1 bedroom apartment, or eating government cheese as your basic food source.
That's basic living expenses. Show me privacy on Maslow's hierarchy. Plenty of places in the world, 4+ adults in what typically passes for a 1 bedroom place here is pretty common, and they're healthy. Americans aren't a special species with different basic needs. Heck, military barracks and the service members who have lived in them for extended periods are proof of that.
Could I live like that indefinitely? Sure. Would I want to? Not on a bet. I might do it for a time to save up some money, but I'd always be strongly inclined to go find whatever work I could do to get enough extra cash to get myself to the point of not having to share sleeping space with anyone I'm not in an actual relationship with. That should be the goal of any welfare-type program; to keep the person healthy while still encouraging them to become self-supporting.
As for government cheese, I've said before that I'd favor ditching virtually all food stamp programs in favor of a simple system granting 8 Humanitarian Daily Rations per week to every citizen who cares to collect them. Then, not only do you have 2200+ calories every day but you can even save up your spares and have a month's supply stashed away in just over half a year. According to the pricing I've seen, at that level of bulk purchase, they'd be well under $1 each, vegetarian, halal, etc. and with no qualifications, the workload to determine who gets them is completely eliminated. Sell extras for $1.50 each to help fund the program and give people who need or just want the extra calories a cheaper option than McDonalds. If Bill Gates wants to supplement his income to the tune of maybe $8 per week by picking his rations up and selling them to fat people cheaper than the government price for extras, fine, but I'm betting that system would self-regulate so that only people for whom food is a significant part of the budget actually go get them.
For education, as has been said elsewhere, let's divert some/most of the college assistance toward trade schools and certification programs, with a preference based on market demand and demonstrated aptitude. Student loans and grants would often be better used teaching mechanically inclined little Johnny how to fix HVAC systems or diesel engines than getting him a sociology degree, or Suzy who's been assistant manager at the diner could get 2 years of specific training in restaurant management and a recognized certification instead of spending four years on a business degree. Even better, it would happen a lot faster, with a virtual certainty that they would be able to earn enough to repay the loans.
-
Right, that's what I'm saying, that's why it's not covered in UBI. Not everyone needs it. I don't think Zuckerberg is saying it's included either but that if people don't have to worry about the stuff that UBI covers, it frees up their time & resources to pursue if they do want it. If you have a whole bunch of people who have big dreams but their paycheck only gets them enough to survive they aren't going to take that chance on making it big. The theory behind UBI is that it will allow them to take those chances and innovate because the risks involved in failure are minimal.
My theory is that most people are generally lazy if allowed to be. The people who would innovate or work hard to go for the big risk are probably going to do it anyway without UBI. I don't think UBI would encourage enough additional people to do those things to make it worth setting all that up. It would just end up being a big money giveaway that politicians can use to buy votes. I think going a pure free market approach and working on removing the barriers and costs that discourage people from starting a new business would be much more worthwhile.
-
Second, your example of "housing prices always go up" is a good example. It was a trend caused in large part by government subsidies of home loans and lots and lots of regulations. The government subsidizing wages won't work any better and will likely be much much worse.
Ask people in Detroit if housing prices always go up.
In fact, ask anyone who bought a house right at the peak of the bubble, before it burst. There are a LOT of homeowners in this country right now who are "under water" on home ownership -- they owe more than the house can sell for in today's market.
-
The problem with things like UBI and the Earned Income Credit is that they are DIS-incentives for people to work. Yeah, I've got a great idea or I'd really like to make more, but if I do, then I lose some of my freebies.
I deal with it every year, people that make just enough to qualify for EIC, but don't make too much to lose the benefit (most try to make enough to max out their EIC as the amounts are a on a bell curve. And do I have to deal with couples claiming to be single and dividing up the kids so that they can max out the EIC ?? BZZZZTTTTT Sorry, but that's illegal. If you are married you file MARRIED FILING JOINTLY or MARRIED FILING SEPARATELY. The former will allow you to claim the EIC, the later will not. You cannot file SINGLE or HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD. QUALIFYING WIDOW(ER) is right out. )
MechAg94 is correct, people are lazy if allowed to be. There is also system capture. I saw it with the homeless, they will do just enough to keep the freebies, but not enough to escape and lose the freebies.
Any type of government guarantees as to income or food are doomed to fail, either by design (can you say Venezuela) or via fraud and abuse.
And I distinctly remember .gov cheese and butter growing up. Not because we qualified for it, but because my Dad owned a tavern. One day a guy came wanting a beer, but he had no money. He offered my dad a block of .gov cheese in exchange. My dad agreed to the trade.
Within a week, he was inundated with guys coming in with .gov cheese and butter looking to trade for beer.
We had cheese and butter for breakfast, lunch and dinner every day of the week. Dad gave away cheese and butter to neighbors, friends, and relatives. I remember one trip to my mom's side of the family in southern Illinois where we brought two big coolers of cheese and butter to give to them.
I would bet that some people signed up for the free cheese just to turn it into a free beer.
-
As for government cheese, I've said before that I'd favor ditching virtually all food stamp programs in favor of a simple system granting 8 Humanitarian Daily Rations per week to every citizen who cares to collect them. Then, not only do you have 2200+ calories every day but you can even save up your spares and have a month's supply stashed away in just over half a year. According to the pricing I've seen, at that level of bulk purchase, they'd be well under $1 each, vegetarian, halal, etc. and with no qualifications, the workload to determine who gets them is completely eliminated. Sell extras for $1.50 each to help fund the program and give people who need or just want the extra calories a cheaper option than McDonalds. If Bill Gates wants to supplement his income to the tune of maybe $8 per week by picking his rations up and selling them to fat people cheaper than the government price for extras, fine, but I'm betting that system would self-regulate so that only people for whom food is a significant part of the budget actually go get them.
While you or I might think that is reasonable, I'm not sure that is where the UBI people are. Maybe not the UBI supporters on APS, but the coastal elite types in favor of it do not seem to be looking for some "minimum daily requirements" thing. As part of "basic", they mean UBI is high enough so you can buy the same food anyone with a median income job might buy, or else they look at the Michelle Obama food model. They certainly don't seem to be looking at something as "demeaning" as going to some gov sponsored food warehouse.
-
Any type of government guarantees as to income or food are doomed to fail, either by design (can you say Venezuela) or via fraud and abuse.
Hence the preference for a system that places a much higher reward on working (by not taking away benefits over paltry amounts of other income) and isn't worth the risk of fraud. ($6000/year is hard to justify going to prison over)
The cheapass rations system, OTOH, is basically fraud proof; if every citizen can get 8/wk for free, and more for $2 or less each, (and no need for any identity or citizenship verification on the extras) who the heck is going to chance anything to get more? I can't think of a situation where it would be worth even a risk of a $50 fine to come up with one or more fake identities to get free extras when you couldn't sell them for enough to make even $16/identity/week because anyone can buy them legitimately for that price. (Even without the cheap extras, the only situation I could think of would be someone unwilling to ID themselves to any official due to outstanding warrants or similar, paying over market value for others to get them extras, but even then I think it would be easier to find someone sympathetic who doesn't use the program anyway and pay their gas money for the trip to the nearest distribution point.)
While you or I might think that is reasonable, I'm not sure that is where the UBI people are. Maybe not the UBI supporters on APS, but the coastal elite types in favor of it do not seem to be looking for some "minimum daily requirements" thing. As part of "basic", they mean UBI is high enough so you can buy the same food anyone with a median income job might buy, or else they look at the Michelle Obama food model. They certainly don't seem to be looking at something as "demeaning" as going to some gov sponsored food warehouse.
Then they are welcome to foot the bill for it. With their own money, not anyone else's unless it's freely donated.
Honestly, there have been times in my life when I would have been thrilled to see exactly the two-part system I laid out, and I suspect many others who have spent some time being actually broke would agree. I doubt a lot of those who see jail as three meals a day and a dry bed would object to it, especially if there were also cheap bulk housing like a barracks or long-term hostel model to go with it. I would gladly have traded my $900/mo efficiency apartment in Dallas plus the monthly utilities for a year or more renting a $200 or less bunk and locker to save up a down payment for a house.
-
Hence the preference for a system that places a much higher reward on working (by not taking away benefits over paltry amounts of other income) and isn't worth the risk of fraud. ($6000/year is hard to justify going to prison over)
The cheapass rations system, OTOH, is basically fraud proof; if every citizen can get 8/wk for free, and more for $2 or less each, (and no need for any identity or citizenship verification on the extras) who the heck is going to chance anything to get more? I can't think of a situation where it would be worth even a risk of a $50 fine to come up with one or more fake identities to get free extras when you couldn't sell them for enough to make even $16/identity/week because anyone can buy them legitimately for that price. (Even without the cheap extras, the only situation I could think of would be someone unwilling to ID themselves to any official due to outstanding warrants or similar, paying over market value for others to get them extras, but even then I think it would be easier to find someone sympathetic who doesn't use the program anyway and pay their gas money for the trip to the nearest distribution point.)
Then they are welcome to foot the bill for it. With their own money, not anyone else's unless it's freely donated.
Honestly, there have been times in my life when I would have been thrilled to see exactly the two-part system I laid out, and I suspect many others who have spent some time being actually broke would agree. I doubt a lot of those who see jail as three meals a day and a dry bed would object to it, especially if there were also cheap bulk housing like a barracks or long-term hostel model to go with it. I would gladly have traded my $900/mo efficiency apartment in Dallas plus the monthly utilities for a year or more renting a $200 or less bunk and locker to save up a down payment for a house.
Well, either I don't know what UBI is, or some of you guys don't. Universal means everybody gets it. EVERYBODY.
If we're talking about ways to get people off welfare or provide food for those that can't afford it, that's not UBI. That's simply another form of group specific welfare. Maybe better than the current system, but still focused on "the poor".
-
While you or I might think that is reasonable, I'm not sure that is where the UBI people are. Maybe not the UBI supporters on APS, but the coastal elite types in favor of it do not seem to be looking for some "minimum daily requirements" thing. As part of "basic", they mean UBI is high enough so you can buy the same food anyone with a median income job might buy, or else they look at the Michelle Obama food model. They certainly don't seem to be looking at something as "demeaning" as going to some gov sponsored food warehouse.
For people who are truly in need:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFJ_jmTaZ3Q
As an aside, I remember this PSA on Saturday mornings when the .gov was passing out the Free Cheese
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xRv9ZQOCPo
We've volunteered at "Feed My Starving Children".
If these packets are good enough to keep the children and poor of the rest of the world alive, then they are good enough for our poor and starving:
https://www.fmsc.org/-/media/files/pdfs/mediaresources/fmsc-facts-2016.pdf
So for $.25 you can feed 6-12 people a nutritious meal, so depending on the number and size of people in the family you can feed everyone for less then $1.00 per day. Throw in a bag of beans and a bag of rice (weight of bags determined by # of people in the household) and there's more then enough to feed everyone for an reasonable cost. No more food stamps or food stamp fraud. I would guess there would be a limited black market for FMSC food packs, beans, and rice. It would also serve as an incentive to get your butt to work, any work. And if we got rid of the minimum wage at the same time; many, many, many people would suddenly be able to find work and begin to pull themselves up by their boot straps.
-
Well, either I don't know what UBI is, or some of you guys don't. Universal means everybody gets it. EVERYBODY.
I was referring to Firethorn's proposal where everybody from the bum on the corner to each member of the Trump family does get the $500/mo, and those who earn significantly above poverty level have some, all or more taken back in income taxes.
The fraud potential I was talking about would be receiving it under multiple identities; either effectively stealing it from real live people or "reviving" dead ones to get it.
-
So for $.25 you can feed 6-12 people a nutritious meal, so depending on the number and size of people in the family you can feed everyone for less then $1.00 per day.
So why aren't these packs produced for retail sale as well? If I could get them for $1 each, and the organization got at least a third of the >$0.75 profit, that would mean that every one sold covers at least one to be given away. Or sell it on the website and every pack bought provides three more. Go to $2 each and it's still a good deal, that pays for seven meals for every one bought. Even if it's pretty much a bland gruel by modern American standards, a few days per person of nutritionally balanced food for a buck would fly off the shelves when the preppers found it. "Just add water" prep means campers and hikers would buy it up too.
-
I was swearing more or less constantly when they did a local piece and mentioned how many workers, inside alaska, would decline raises and full time hours because of the threat it placed on their benefits. Earning $1/hour more could literally cost them thousands.
This is the reason I favor a flat rate income tax, with a floor (to be determined), and with as few exemptions as possible (preferably, none).
-
There are actually libertarian guaranteed income people, though we approach it differently than the democrats do. They approach it as a human rights thing. I approach it as being ultimately a money saver as well as personal freedom increaser.
I think there is a business case to be made to pay people not to riot. Giving a handout is cheaper than having a city go up in flames and the dealing with the aftermath.
I also think that government knows this. We effectively already do this today. What we don't do is be honest about it. "Welfare", "assistance", "disability" - they are all really the same thing in different guises.
A rather understated benefit of UBI is that it will allow replacing a multitude of interconnected entities with one administration. Imagine how many bureaucrats you could fire... The overhead will drop though the floor.
-
I think there is a business case to be made to pay people not to riot. Giving a handout is cheaper than having a city go up in flames and the dealing with the aftermath.
Related: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/cities-have-begun-to-challenge-a-bedrock-of-american-justice-theyre-paying-criminals-not-to-kill/2016/03/26/f25a6b9c-e9fc-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html?utm_term=.79415338cdfc
A rather understated benefit of UBI is that it will allow replacing a multitude of interconnected entities with one administration. Imagine how many bureaucrats you could fire... The overhead will drop though the floor.
No offense meant, but I think that's naive. The bureaucrats will find a way to justify their continued existence. What's that old saying? "The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy."
-
Sorry for the long post guys, was busy at work, had to wait until after to pay proper attention to this.
First up, some links on libertarian proposals for this:
https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-case-basic-income - reduce size and scope of government by eliminating bloated bureaucracies, and reducing 'paternalism', IE people poking their noses into what poor people spend their money on.
https://www.cato-unbound.org/2014/08/04/matt-zwolinski/pragmatic-libertarian-case-basic-income-guarantee - recommends $10k/year, which is more than my $6k, but meh.
http://basicincome.org/news/2016/08/us-johnson-supports-basic-income-libertarian-principles/
That's basic living expenses. Show me privacy on Maslow's hierarchy. Plenty of places in the world, 4+ adults in what typically passes for a 1 bedroom place here is pretty common, and they're healthy. Americans aren't a special species with different basic needs. Heck, military barracks and the service members who have lived in them for extended periods are proof of that.
Indeed, which is why I point out that $6k per adult, assuming you have 4 living together, actually reach the federal poverty line. Well, within a few dollars.
Don't want to have 3 roommates? Get a job!
Could I live like that indefinitely? Sure. Would I want to? Not on a bet.
As you mention, goal achieved!
As for government cheese, I've said before that I'd favor ditching virtually all food stamp programs in favor of a simple system granting 8 Humanitarian Daily Rations per week to every citizen who cares to collect them.
Do you have a citation on being able to get them down below $1 each? Because I'm looking online and they seem closer to $7 each, and I doubt that even bulk purchasing will keep the total cost much lower once you factor in the cost of obtaining warehousing, down to the minor towns, and don't forget that you'd need said warehouses/distribution centers along at least the bus routes, so you can't just buy/lease the cheapest warehouse in town. You'll also need an agent at each distribution center to issue said rations, while ensuring that people only get their quota.
No, I don't think such a program would be as cheap as you think. Note, crawled wikipedia, where it says that a HDR is 'approximately' 1/5th the cost of a MRE, which is $87/12. Or about $1.50. I wouldn't be surprised in that case if the majority of the expense ends up being the cost of the distribution center and employee(s) to issue them.
I also don't think it's "fraud proof" for one moment. You're giving away food. I can see plenty of fraud, a lot of it on the back end. Fake issuing out more packages than you actually distribute, sell the packages on ebay, or even overseas. People picking it up could use fake information to pick up more than their 'share', and again, sell it to those who can't be bothered to pick them up themselves, overseas, campers, etc...
Then you have the "prison loaf" problem - it's quite possible to have food that's so nasty that people will willingly starve rather than eat it.
It's not like I object all that much - it's just that we've found through hard experience that the close aid is to cash, the more effective it is, contrary to all expectations. Food stamps are actually cheaper.
For education, as has been said elsewhere, let's divert some/most of the college assistance toward trade schools and certification programs, with a preference based on market demand and demonstrated aptitude.
Trade schools are already generally quite affordable compared to college, and as long as they meet certain easy requirements are still eligible for various types of financial aid. It's the latter two that are more interesting as far as requirements go. Right now the government doesn't distinguish between a STEM degree where graduates are typically hired the year before graduation, and other degrees where the applicant typically languishes for a year or more after graduation before finding a job - as a barista.
So I'm getting a sort of military ASVAB + limited choice vibe here: Here's the open career fields that your tests indicate that you're eligible for, and here's what we recommend.
But that's diverging from the idea of a UBI a bit...
The problem with things like UBI and the Earned Income Credit is that they are DIS-incentives for people to work. Yeah, I've got a great idea or I'd really like to make more, but if I do, then I lose some of my freebies.
Actually, the disincentives that you mention is one of the things that a UBI is supposed to address. Because your "freebies" consist of, solely, $6k-10k in payments a year. Which you do not lose if you get a job. So where's the disincentive to work more?
And I distinctly remember .gov cheese and butter growing up. Not because we qualified for it, but because my Dad owned a tavern. One day a guy came wanting a beer, but he had no money. He offered my dad a block of .gov cheese in exchange. My dad agreed to the trade.
Congratulations, you've discovered arbitrage!
I would bet that some people signed up for the free cheese just to turn it into a free beer.
No way in hell would I take your bet. Because I know darn well that many did.
This is the reason I favor a flat rate income tax, with a floor (to be determined), and with as few exemptions as possible (preferably, none).
Actually, it's not income taxes that are causing the problem. They're all adjusted so that when, for example, you go from the 10% tax rate to the 15%, it doesn't penalize you.
IE Your first $9,325(2017) is 10%
So if you earn $10k(adjusted), you pay:
$9325*.10=932.50
$675*.15 = 101.25
Totaling $1,033.75 (rounded up to the nearest whole dollar, $1034).
Rather than owing $1,500.
But many welfare benefits don't work that way. Earn $1 over $10k? There goes your $200/month food stamp benefit. Earn $1 over $20k? There goes your housing assistance... Every program has it's own phaseouts, assuming they're not cliffs, and because you could be on a number of benefit plans, overlapping phaseouts, even if a proper phaseout exists, can result in a cliff of its own. For the purposes of this, a "cliff" is encountered whenever earning $X amount more results in the loss of $X+Y benefits, with Y being a positive number.
-
I think there is a business case to be made to pay people not to riot. Giving a handout is cheaper than having a city go up in flames and the dealing with the aftermath.
I also think that government knows this. We effectively already do this today. What we don't do is be honest about it. "Welfare", "assistance", "disability" - they are all really the same thing in different guises.
A rather understated benefit of UBI is that it will allow replacing a multitude of interconnected entities with one administration. Imagine how many bureaucrats you could fire... The overhead will drop though the floor.
I've got a great business model for dealing with rioters. Use a *expletive deleted*ing water cannon on them. Industrial quantities of tear gas, and arsonists and looters can be dosed with lead.
Enough of that and you'll see a hell of a lot less of riots.
-
I've got a great business model for dealing with rioters. Use a *expletive deleted*ing water cannon on them. Industrial quantities of tear gas, and arsonists and looters can be dosed with lead.
Enough of that and you'll see a hell of a lot less of riots.
Why use a water cannon? Seems like a waste of water. Lead can be reused.
Firethorn, you seem to have an overly optimistic view of people. A UBI isn't going to make the lazy less lazy. Giving people money will not increase their incentive to work.
-
I've got a great business model for dealing with rioters. Use a *expletive deleted*ing water cannon on them. Industrial quantities of tear gas, and arsonists and looters can be dosed with lead.
Enough of that and you'll see a hell of a lot less of riots.
Does the French Revolution ring any bells? People get desperate enough, and you're going to have to worry about arsonists and looters who are as armed as you are.
Firethorn, you seem to have an overly optimistic view of people. A UBI isn't going to make the lazy less lazy. Giving people money will not increase their incentive to work.
And you're overly pessimistic. Yes, there will be people "too lazy" to work. In testing, these turned out to be mostly new mothers and teenagers in school.
And the thing is, do you realize that we're already giving them money? Quite huge amounts of it, actually. Additionally, most of those on welfare are working. They're just not working full time, or that much, if any, above minimum wage. They might be lazy, but they're not that lazy. There are quite a few who at least say they'd be willing to work more if it wasn't that they'd lose their healthcare, or housing assistance, or whatever, at great cost.
Hell, I saw it with my brother. Marry his baby-momma, lose thousands in benefits a year for her kids(she had one before from a different father). BIG? Doesn't care. Marry away.
Once more, the current system disincentivizes people with "welfare cliffs". They will literally lose income by earning income, at least at certain levels.
Let's not assume that these people are that stupid. They're stuck on what's known as a "local maximum". Let's say your boss came to you with a "promotion" - then let you know that the pay raise was a "Negative five thousand", oh, and you'd be expected to work another 20 hours a week. Would you take it?
Why? Let's assume that people are greedy but somewhat short sighted. There was a workup of a single mother. Turns out that her "local maximum" was a full time job at $13.94/hour, at which the mixture of benefits is equivalent of $57k. In order to be better off, she'd have to go from $29k/year(the limit for housing & food benefits) to over $60k/year to be better off!
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2Fuser5%2Fimageroot%2F2012%2F11-2%2Fwelfare%2520cliff.jpg&hash=9fa965e4795fa90666423c0baa429d1a2a47890d)
Note that there are EIGHT different programs in the chart. I'm proposing reducing it to ONE.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2Fuser3303%2Fimageroot%2F20160830_welfare_0.jpg&hash=52363c0a38678de640eb698d1738424b422f4765)
-
I'd like to think I'm not overly pessimistic. I do seem to recall being called an optimist once. I can't see how handing people money will make them less lazy. If only the basic amount of money required to survive is being doled out, how is the economy going to grow? Where exactly does this extra investment money come from? Or is this going to be just another form of welfare, but even worse? UBI screams stagnation to me.
-
I'd like to think I'm not overly pessimistic. I do seem to recall being called an optimist once. I can't see how handing people money will make them less lazy. If only the basic amount of money required to survive is being doled out, how is the economy going to grow? Where exactly does this extra investment money come from? Or is this going to be just another form of welfare, but even worse? UBI screams stagnation to me.
Oh, that's the problem. It's not that we're handing them money that's supposed to make them less lazy. I'm targeting a vice more powerful than sloth in humans - greed. I figure that, properly incentivized, greed will win out over laziness. Well, other than the stay at home in the basement types, but then, they're generally supported by their parents, no skin off of our nose. That and, again, a lot of people on welfare aren't that lazy, and if they are, it's because they've been trained to be.
It's that we're giving it to them in such a way that if they drag their asses out and go work that they get more of it. Call it an 'incentive' to work in that they'll have more luxuries if they do so. As I keep saying, for many welfare is currently a trap - they will, at least for a time, earn less if they get a job that pays over a certain amount. As I asked before, you're offered a promotion. Along with this promotion comes the expectation of working 20 more hours a week and a negative $5k "pay raise". Do you take the offer?
Yes, the UBI is another form of welfare, but it's not "even worse". It's better.
1. Because it's a pure cash payment and static per adult, it's cheap to administer
2. Pure cash is actually a more effective form of welfare, people on the dole need less money in the form of cash than they do if you split it up like in the chart - between food stamps(2-3 programs), housing assistance, energy subsidies, subsidized child care, etc...
3. Eliminating welfare cliffs - As I keep saying, a lot of the poor stay on government programs because they make more money that way. Fix it so that they actually *make* money if they go out and get more work or better paying work, they might actually do so.
4. It's a cheaper automatic way to handle welfare and numerous other payments that are currently need based. Verifying need is expensive bureaucratically, so we want to avoid that. It's why I'd give Bill Gates the same $6k/year as I'd give Joe McBroke.
5. Eliminates some of the problems we have with single motherhood. If a intact family gets the same or better benefits, people are more likely to stick together - 2 UBIs handles 1 household better than 2.
6. Disincentives broke women from having kids. If they weren't assured the government would pay for them, do you think they'd have so many?
etc...
Okay, on to other things. Why are you bringing up the economy? Is normal welfare supposed to grow the economy? Stagnation, in what? Are you assuming that people are just going to sit on what's really an even more stingy payment that what is often currently offered? At $6k/year you're not going to be able to afford a TV, XBox, internet, cell phone, etc...
What about cost savings? You give a homeless person $6k/year, and he can probably afford a bunkhouse* somewhere. Food, etc... It's certainly cheaper than leaving them homeless($40k/year (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/mar/12/shaun-donovan/hud-secretary-says-homeless-person-costs-taxpayers/)). If bunkhouses are illegal, well, fix that!
-
http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/georgia-food-stamp-recipients-lose-benefits-after-new-work-requirements
-
http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/georgia-food-stamp-recipients-lose-benefits-after-new-work-requirements
So?
-
Actually, it's not income taxes that are causing the problem. They're all adjusted so that when, for example, you go from the 10% tax rate to the 15%, it doesn't penalize you.
The number of people I've encountered who do not understand this is absolutely stunning to me.
-
As you mention, goal achieved!
And exactly the goal, IMO; one could live and be perfectly healthy, but in conditions I can't imagine anyone actually wanting badly enough to not at least supplement the income with some part time yard work or something.
Do you have a citation on being able to get them down below $1 each?
That was based on the"1/5 the cost of an MRE" and some numbers I found somewhere on containerload prices for US MREs being sold to other countries.
I also don't think it's "fraud proof" for one moment. You're giving away food. I can see plenty of fraud, a lot of it on the back end. Fake issuing out more packages than you actually distribute, sell the packages on ebay, or even overseas. People picking it up could use fake information to pick up more than their 'share', and again, sell it to those who can't be bothered to pick them up themselves, overseas, campers, etc...
If any of those people wanting it could get it legitimately for $2, there's no incentive to pay more on the black market. For that matter, even online sales could be killed that way; .gov can also sell them on the web, with cheap delivery.
Then you have the "prison loaf" problem - it's quite possible to have food that's so nasty that people will willingly starve rather than eat it.
Some MREs are that bad, but some I actually like. HDRs seem a bit bland, or disturbingly vomit-like in the case of peas in tomato sauce, but as free food goes, I've certainly had worse. Monitoring the extras people buy would pretty quickly show the most successful menu items.
It's not like I object all that much - it's just that we've found through hard experience that the close aid is to cash, the more effective it is, contrary to all expectations. Food stamps are actually cheaper.
Cheaper per calorie consumed? I find that hard to believe. But the primary advantage here is that nobody gets to say their $500/mo leaves them starving.
So I'm getting a sort of military ASVAB + limited choice vibe here: Here's the open career fields that your tests indicate that you're eligible for, and here's what we recommend.
Only in terms of benefits available; obviously there would be no limits on what someone can pay for out of their own pocket or find private financing for. I'm not even saying that Suzy the restaurant manager shouldn't be able to get some assistance if she wants to learn to be a diesel mechanic despite having trouble changing a tire on her Yugo, but not as much as someone with a demonstrated aptitude. Taxpayer backed loans or flat out taxpayer funded grants should be based on actual potential benefit to the nation.
-
The number of people I've encountered who do not understand this is absolutely stunning to me.
Why is that? Do you find our tax code to be clear, concise and easy to understand? Do you consider it a particularly intuitive way to set up progressive taxation?
Firethorn,
First off, you are making a case for a very different system than what is being suggested by Zuckerberg and others. Secondly, I doubt you will find many advocates here for the existing and manifold welfare systems, and you make some entirely valid criticisms of them. They are poorly designed, poorly administered, inefficient and provide incentives for counterproductive decision making. That said, the idea that all existing bureaucracy and welfare could be flushed away and replaced outright is more than a little optimistic but entirely necessary to justify your proposed replacement. A more realistic and achievable goal would be to build in better means testing and smoother transitions for other welfare programs.
White Horseradish,
It may serve in the short run to pay Danegeld to prospective rioters, but in the long run it encourages greater misbehavior and further extortion by rewarding the threat of violence. Ever see a child whose parents give in at the threat of a tantrum? Yeah, it might mean getting out of a given situation with less conflict, but the long-term cost is vastly greater than dealing with it firmly and immediately.
-
2. Pure cash is actually a more effective form of welfare, people on the dole need less money in the form of cash than they do if you split it up like in the chart - between food stamps(2-3 programs), housing assistance, energy subsidies, subsidized child care, etc...
This is one I've seen in action; couple with two kids in a bills-paid two bedroom apartment, dad hurt off the job ended up working fast food and taking night classes to get into a career he could do with a bad back. Daughter was approaching puberty, so sharing a room with her brother was pretty much past its limit. They were eligible for some rent assistance and some utility assistance, but they couldn't apply the utility assistance toward the rent, which would have made the difference in upgrading to a three bedroom apartment.
Eventually, they did manage to get help from a church that wasn't prohibited from using common sense in administering their assistance, though.
3. Eliminating welfare cliffs - As I keep saying, a lot of the poor stay on government programs because they make more money that way. Fix it so that they actually *make* money if they go out and get more work or better paying work, they might actually do so.
The most important aspect of any program, IMO.
5. Eliminates some of the problems we have with single motherhood. If a intact family gets the same or better benefits, people are more likely to stick together - 2 UBIs handles 1 household better than 2.
6. Disincentives broke women from having kids. If they weren't assured the government would pay for them, do you think they'd have so many?
etc...
I might be slightly more generous; say, $9k for an adult and a child, but no further incentives for more kids. Thus an intact couple could get $18k for themselves and two kids, but a single mother caps out at one kid.
What about cost savings? You give a homeless person $6k/year, and he can probably afford a bunkhouse* somewhere. Food, etc... It's certainly cheaper than leaving them homeless($40k/year (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/mar/12/shaun-donovan/hud-secretary-says-homeless-person-costs-taxpayers/)). If bunkhouses are illegal, well, fix that!
Exactly; as I said, I would seriously consider a bunkhouse or hostel arrangement temporarily if it was significantly cheaper than my current living arrangement. Another $150-200/mo going toward debts, then into savings would have me back to the financial shape I'm shooting for in half the time.
-
I might be slightly more generous; say, $9k for an adult and a child, but no further incentives for more kids. Thus an intact couple could get $18k for themselves and two kids, but a single mother caps out at one kid.
Not ever going to happen in the current state of things.
Allow me to respond with what would be the very rational counter argument: "You want to STARVE CHILDREN for the bad choices of their parents!??!?! YOU MONSTER!"
-
Do you find our tax code to be clear, concise and easy to understand? Do you consider it a particularly intuitive way to set up progressive taxation?
Our entire tax code? No. But the tax brackets themselves and how it works when you go from one bracket to the next is a very basic and important concept. That's why it's so stunning to find out, especially in the middle of a discussion about taxes, that someone doesn't even understand how that works.
-
IMO, optimism and good government are mutually exclusive. In addition to "if you subsidize it, you will get more of it."
-
The number of people I've encountered who do not understand this is absolutely stunning to me.
Dittohead and Firethorn, maybe you guys can explain this to me and my CPA, because when I jump tax brackets, I'm penalized. Extremely so in some cases regarding dividends and capital gains.
-
Y'all are putting a lot of effort into solutions that shouldn't need to be solved. But if you really want to give money away apart from charity, find a way to do it below the federal level. Below the state level would be even better. The more local the money is collected and spent, the more likely it will be used efficiently. As long as the money is coming from some far away big govt and taxpayers somewhere else, there will be little incentive to use the money wisely.
-
The number of people I've encountered who do not understand this is absolutely stunning to me.
When I was younger I was for a much steeper drawdown of welfare benefits than I am now, part of the problem I've come to realize is that you end up with overlapping costs. IE a welfare program that uses gross income, which is taxed, even if only at 10%. So a 50% reduction becomes a 56% reduction.
That was based on the"1/5 the cost of an MRE" and some numbers I found somewhere on containerload prices for US MREs being sold to other countries.
I can't help but think that at that level of abstraction that the price estimate might not hold - it depends on the price the wiki owner looked at. MSRP, Amazon, bulk, what?
If any of those people wanting it could get it legitimately for $2, there's no incentive to pay more on the black market. For that matter, even online sales could be killed that way; .gov can also sell them on the web, with cheap delivery.
I still think that it's abusable if the .gov is subsidizing it in any way. And if you're using it to argue that somebody on the UBI isn't starving, well, why not just increase the UBI a bit?
Only in terms of benefits available; obviously there would be no limits on what someone can pay for out of their own pocket or find private financing for. I'm not even saying that Suzy the restaurant manager shouldn't be able to get some assistance if she wants to learn to be a diesel mechanic despite having trouble changing a tire on her Yugo, but not as much as someone with a demonstrated aptitude. Taxpayer backed loans or flat out taxpayer funded grants should be based on actual potential benefit to the nation.
Well, as the way things are, you don't have to work for the military either, and accept military training... (I agree)
-
Allow me to respond with what would be the very rational counter argument: "You want to STARVE CHILDREN for the bad choices of their parents!??!?! YOU MONSTER!"
Not at all; the kids get their own 8 ration packs a week.
Which would also provide far more incentive to the states' various agencies to act swiftly and mercilessly on "parents" whose kids aren't getting fed properly.
-
I still think that it's abusable if the .gov is subsidizing it in any way. And if you're using it to argue that somebody on the UBI isn't starving, well, why not just increase the UBI a bit?
Because handing them enough food to live on absolutely eliminates any possible validity that some might give to claims that people can't afford to eat on the UBI. The rare few that actually can't eat a HDR would still be handled as special cases, but the "food stamps ain't enough to pay for my diabetic-friendly gluten free nut free kosher vegan taco fixins" BS could be headed off pretty easily.
-
Not at all; the kids get their own 8 ration packs a week.
Which would also provide far more incentive to the states' various agencies to act swiftly and mercilessly on "parents" whose kids aren't getting fed properly.
What country do you live in? =)
-
Firethorn,
First off, you are making a case for a very different system than what is being suggested by Zuckerberg and others.
Well, I did start off by saying that libertarians can support a UBI, though our justifications are rather different. Given that to my knowledge Zuckerburg hasn't expressed any details or plan, can you really say it would be that different of a system?
Secondly, I doubt you will find many advocates here for the existing and manifold welfare systems, and you make some entirely valid criticisms of them.
My general point is that the politicians, and by extension the electorate that picks them, have decided welfare systems are necessary. As such, I seek an optimal state for them. Discussing whether to have them at all is a different, though related, topic.
I happen to believe that a well setup welfare system solves more negatives than it creates. Prison shouldn't be more luxurious than not being a criminal, and there is a floor on how badly we can treat them.
As for 'better' means testing, well, that's a great goal, but better in what way? More granular, cheaper, harsher, nicer, what? I prefer 'As automatic as possible', folding it into the tax code seems the easiest way to reduce duplication of effort.
Smoother transitions would indeed help, but we're still dealing with dozens of different welfare programs.
As for riots, I think White meant it more in the 'don't make them so desperate to become violent' sense rather than rewarding violence aka North Korea extorting more food.
Y'all are putting a lot of effort into solutions that shouldn't need to be solved.
Not that much effort. This is relaxing for me. Anyways, there's lots of problems that shouldn't need solving that need such none the less.
But if you really want to give money away apart from charity, find a way to do it below the federal level. Below the state level would be even better. The more local the money is collected and spent, the more likely it will be used efficiently. As long as the money is coming from some far away big govt and taxpayers somewhere else, there will be little incentive to use the money wisely.
If you think federal level spending is wasteful, you should see local.
Part of the reason I'd like to see it be federal is to encourage people to move if necessary to save expenses. Save the expensive areas for those with the income to live there.
Because handing them enough food to live on absolutely eliminates any possible validity that some might give to claims that people can't afford to eat on the UBI. The rare few that actually can't eat a HDR would still be handled as special cases, but the "food stamps ain't enough to pay for my diabetic-friendly gluten free nut free kosher vegan taco fixins" BS could be headed off pretty easily.
Heh, reminds me of the time I was in a debate about a UBI and I had a guy insisting it should be variable to include his 'need' for an expensive private religious school for his kids. He didn't like my answer of 'get a job, convince the religious organization that insists it's necessary to pay for it, or ask for donations'
-
If you think federal level spending is wasteful, you should see local.
I disagree. Local govts don't get to print money the same way the Feds do. Even at the state level, the wasted spending and debt is a fraction of regular federal waste.
If the voters in your area decide to spend millions on some welfare scheme, I at least don't have to pay for it. You and your fellow voters just might pay more attention if you know your local taxes are going to double instead of knowing that people in the other 49 states will help cover it.
-
IMO, with the current status of federal politics in the US, this is a nice thought exercise, but not something that would be intelligently written or implemented.
-
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-03-28/how-utah-keeps-the-american-dream-alive
A different approach to combating poverty.
-
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-03-28/how-utah-keeps-the-american-dream-alive
A different approach to combating poverty.
Very interesting article. Especially the near equal success rate to Denmark without the tax dollars.
-
^^^ Plus one. It seems that a key factor to their success is the Church.
-
No offense meant, but I think that's naive. The bureaucrats will find a way to justify their continued existence. What's that old saying? "The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy."
That's if you do it via administrative means and if you do it gradually.
If you simply do away with all the programs they used to administer in the same move as instituting UBI, they aren't going to get the chance.
I've got a great business model for dealing with rioters. Use a *expletive deleted*ing water cannon on them. Industrial quantities of tear gas, and arsonists and looters can be dosed with lead.
Enough of that and you'll see a hell of a lot less of riots.
However much moral satisfaction you get out of that, it's an expensive way to do it. Collateral damage, and all that. Just keeping around the suppressive apparatus you need for that sort of thing isn't cheap. There is also the matter of it being used against you at some point, when the people in charge of government aren't who you like.
-
It seems to me that Firethorn's proposal is to give people enough money so that they are "comfortable" in poverty, if they choose. My point has, and always, been that I want to make people UNcomfortable so that they go and seek employment to get our of poverty. A diet consisting of Beans, Rice, and Gruel sounds like just the right thing to get people to say "Fark this. I want better." and motivated them to get off their asses and go earn a living.
And there's no way the Fed .gov can do that effectively. (State, unlikely as well; local .gov, perhaps; Charities, most likely.)
And now I'm off to read the Utah story.
-
Just keeping around the suppressive apparatus you need for that sort of thing isn't cheap.
Every fire department has the equipment needed. Those with good brush trucks even have the off-road fast-attack version.
It seems to me that Firethorn's proposal is to give people enough money so that they are "comfortable" in poverty, if they choose. My point has, and always, been that I want to make people UNcomfortable so that they go and seek employment to get our of poverty. A diet consisting of Beans, Rice, and Gruel sounds like just the right thing to get people to say "Fark this. I want better." and motivated them to get off their asses and go earn a living.
At $500-600/mo, even if basic food rations are provided, they're hardly going to be playing XBox on a big screen, unless they're living 10-12 per bedroom to pool enough money for that.
Figure even on a bunkhouse model, I don't see a month of lodging and utilities getting much under $200. So assuming they go with the cheapest possible room and board, (eating the rations) they're still living in essentially a barracks where they don't get to choose their roommates just to have $300 left over. If they save up a few months they can buy a crappy car that will eat at least another $100/mo in gas, registration, insurance, etc. Now they're down to $200. Cheap cell phone plan, now $150 left. So, after the basics of getting by and trying to find a job are taken care of, they have $5/day of play money. Ooops; forgot a lot of poor people smoke, so after the cheapest pack of cigs available, they may have $3 a day. One malt liquor and that's gone, and they still haven't had a clothing budget. (Though in fairness, that's probably the easiest charity to get; somebody's always giving away clothes.) If they're not motivated to work at that point, nothing short of a cattle prod is going to do it.
-
My point has, and always, been that I want to make people UNcomfortable so that they go and seek employment to get our of poverty. A diet consisting of Beans, Rice, and Gruel sounds like just the right thing to get people to say "Fark this. I want better." and motivated them to get off their asses and go earn a living.
Thing is if you make them too uncomfortable, they will seek your head on a platter instead of employment.
Also, there is the whole thing of running out of crap jobs and acquisition of skill being out of financial reach.
I think that as soon as fast food people get their $15, we are going to start seeing fully automated McDonalds and Burger King running with maybe one employee to keep the ingredient hoppers full. All those people will have to go somewhere.
Back when we switched from cars to horses, an unemployed buggy whip maker could go get an assembly line job at Ford. You didn't need a great deal of skill that you couldn't be taught on the job relatively quickly. Now, if you want to work at a factory, you need to know a bit more than how to insert two bolts and tighten them until the wrench clicks. So, without some form of education, you are getting people who aren't useful at anything other than those crap jobs that are disappearing. Education involves money. Either we have to lend money to the unemployed with no idea if they will pay it back, or we have to think of something else.
Every fire department has the equipment needed. Those with good brush trucks even have the off-road fast-attack version.
I'm not talking hoses. I'm talking people.
Also, lead was involved.
-
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-03-28/how-utah-keeps-the-american-dream-alive
A different approach to combating poverty.
So destroying marriage and religious and social cohesion makes it harder to climb out of poverty ?? Who knew ?!?!?!
-
Every fire department has the equipment needed. Those with good brush trucks even have the off-road fast-attack version.
At $500-600/mo, even if basic food rations are provided, they're hardly going to be playing XBox on a big screen, unless they're living 10-12 per bedroom to pool enough money for that.
Figure even on a bunkhouse model, I don't see a month of lodging and utilities getting much under $200. So assuming they go with the cheapest possible room and board, (eating the rations) they're still living in essentially a barracks where they don't get to choose their roommates just to have $300 left over. If they save up a few months they can buy a crappy car that will eat at least another $100/mo in gas, registration, insurance, etc. Now they're down to $200. Cheap cell phone plan, now $150 left. So, after the basics of getting by and trying to find a job are taken care of, they have $5/day of play money. Ooops; forgot a lot of poor people smoke, so after the cheapest pack of cigs available, they may have $3 a day. One malt liquor and that's gone, and they still haven't had a clothing budget. (Though in fairness, that's probably the easiest charity to get; somebody's always giving away clothes.) If they're not motivated to work at that point, nothing short of a cattle prod is going to do it.
More than likely they are doing all sorts of things for cash and then collecting your free money as well.
-
Thing is if you make them too uncomfortable, they will seek your head on a platter instead of employment.
Wasn't there an old quote about paying tribute to Danes?
I think those that would be willing to do that are likely already doing it.
-
My mother tells stories of Great Depression, where hobos would "dismount" from the trains that behind their farm and come up to the house looking for work. My grandfather would always find something for them to do (as there was no shortage of work available). He would then pay them for their day's labors and the hobos would join the family for their meals. Some would spend several days there until the work (for the time being) ran out. Others were only there for a day, working all day, eating a meal or two, before either leaving that evening on the next passing train, or spending the night and departing either before or after breakfast. There was always enough to give the some food "for the road".
Now I'm not advocating the we go back to roving groups of unemployed (which we pretty much have now with the chronic homeless), but if we eliminate minimum wage, then I predict there will be a plethora of entry level jobs available to start climbing the economic ladder.
In fact, I would bet that what the Food Pantries in Utah expect would be work that would be considered less than minimum wage jobs.
-
It seems to me that Firethorn's proposal is to give people enough money so that they are "comfortable" in poverty, if they choose.
As KD5NRH mentioned, $500-600/month isn't "comfortable" for any but the most ascetic people. And those types tend to not be lazy for their own reasons.
It's more to provide enough goods to avoid other costs. Consider your link-dump of a state cutting people off of food stamps. Food stamps for a single person maxes out at under $200/month. In the affected counties, they managed to trim ~3% of their total rolls with their push - and of some of the cheaper people, at that. It wasn't 62% of those on food stamps, it was 62% of the single people. So, maximum benefit of less than $2400/year. So a maximum of about $17M saved a year for kicking 7k people off the program. I still have question of how many were added during that time, how many they could have expected to leave the program anyways over that time, etc... But consider, they only removed benefits from those without dependents.
Seems an ideal time to have an anchor baby to me. Welfare security for 18-20 years right there. How much does a kid cost the system per year? A lot more than $2.4k. How about a hospital visit due to malnutrition? One of those avoided is probably worth a dozen people. What it somebody becomes homeless as a result? Every homeless person costs ~$40k/year. What if somebody switches to stealing and ends up in prison? That's expensive as well.
My point has, and always, been that I want to make people UNcomfortable so that they go and seek employment to get our of poverty. A diet consisting of Beans, Rice, and Gruel sounds like just the right thing to get people to say "Fark this. I want better." and motivated them to get off their asses and go earn a living.
And you don't think $500/month, for 'everything', isn't going to make the beans look like a luxury?
If they're not motivated to work at that point, nothing short of a cattle prod is going to do it.
Pretty much. The only ones who'd have a relatively luxurious life on $500/month would be the NEATs living in their parent's basements. And they'll be NEATs $500 or not.
Thing is if you make them too uncomfortable, they will seek your head on a platter instead of employment.
As I've mentioned before, the French revolution is probably a better model to look at than Vikings. The Vikings were an external force which could go elsewhere. We can't displace a significant number of our poor overseas, after all.
My mother tells stories of Great Depression, where hobos would "dismount" from the trains that behind their farm and come up to the house looking for work.
Now what happens when we have approximately 3 times as many people, and an order of magnitude less farmers with work to be done? When the trains move faster and stop less, so there's no free rides? When the government insists on all sorts of labor rules? The modern incarnation is the day laborer in front of Home Depot and such, but that's technically illegal.
Now I'm not advocating the we go back to roving groups of unemployed (which we pretty much have now with the chronic homeless), but if we eliminate minimum wage, then I predict there will be a plethora of entry level jobs available to start climbing the economic ladder.
Yeah, but they need to be able to survive long enough to climb. Thus the idea with the UBI. With the UBI in place, we could get rid of minimum wage. Still, we have to be careful about causing a downward spiral in wages.
For Utah - consider this bit: "But Housing First runs into fierce emotional resistance in many quarters, because it smacks too much of rewarding people for self-destructive behaviors. "
Housing first has been a resounding success for Utah. I see a lot of opposition to the UBI idea for the same reasons Housing First does. But here's the idea: By implementing programs that work at reducing the scope of the problem, you free up resources to address even more. I'm currently going through some professional training at work - going over "The Goal" and such. I'm seeing how government can do some of the same things as the manufacturers do in the book to improve profitability. Government tends to work better when it's not run on an idealistic model, but on one that identifies the goals of government and realistically pushes to achieve them. Lower crime is better than prison, for example. Schools don't have to be expensive to be good, etc...
I disagree. Local govts don't get to print money the same way the Feds do. Even at the state level, the wasted spending and debt is a fraction of regular federal waste.
That's only if you look at "the fed" vs "a state", while ignoring the waste in the subdivisions of the state, or that there's 49 other states.
If the voters in your area decide to spend millions on some welfare scheme, I at least don't have to pay for it. You and your fellow voters just might pay more attention if you know your local taxes are going to double instead of knowing that people in the other 49 states will help cover it.
Odds are, your area is already spending millions on various welfare schemes. You're already paying for it, congratulations. Also, as I pointed out before, your taxes wouldn't double.
-
Now what happens when we have approximately 3 times as many people, and an order of magnitude less farmers with work to be done? When the trains move faster and stop less, so there's no free rides? When the government insists on all sorts of labor rules? The modern incarnation is the day laborer in front of Home Depot and such, but that's technically illegal.
What farm these days would take a guy off the street? It's not digging holes with a shovel, it's operating expensive equipment. There is some unskilled work, but there is not a whole hell of a lot of it, and usually it's very seasonal.
Like I said. We are running out of crap jobs.
-
I don't think we are running out. That work is still there. And who says all the jobs will be farming? Those were just examples. On the farming, why do they have all those machines? It is because the cost of labor justified the machines. Regardless, didn't we note not long ago how much was being paid for temporary farm help in some areas? Even if you don't want to work as a janitor or grape picker, there are other ways. A guy came through my neighborhood a couple years ago with some paint and stencils offers to paint my house address number on the curb by the driveway. Did it in a nice Texas Flag colors. He did a dozen or more houses just near me at $20 each that day. Some people were calling friends and relatives and giving him addresses to go to next. I have heard that one business owner in Houston got started in business pressure washing driveways. He did prison time and couldn't find a job so he got a pressure washer and went around offering to clean driveways. I forget what business he runs now, but I think it is well known locally. A local radio guy once said you would be surprised how many small business owners are owned by ex-cons.
In general, we have just gotten used to not hiring for the smaller jobs. Between minimum wage and the general cost of hiring employees due to taxes and regulations and liability, companies keep staffing lean. They contract minor work out or add it to the duties of someone they already have. My company keeps staffing at the minimum needed to safely get the job done. Our headcount is determined at a very very high level.
The other part that has fallen out of favor is trainee or apprentice positions. Headcounts are kept lean so there is not extra room for those jobs. That isn't really a minimum wage issue, but an issue with the cost of running a business and hiring employees in this country.
-
That's only if you look at "the fed" vs "a state", while ignoring the waste in the subdivisions of the state, or that there's 49 other states.
Odds are, your area is already spending millions on various welfare schemes. You're already paying for it, congratulations. Also, as I pointed out before, your taxes wouldn't double.
You are missing my point. I don't care what waste goes on in the other 49 states if I don't have to pay for it. Same for other county govts outside my own. I would only care about my local system that is run by someone local and overseen by local politicians. The more local it is the more personal it becomes.
And I know we are spending millions on various forms of welfare (which includes a chunk of Social Security that isn't for retirees). I don't like it. Of all the people I have heard of or seen that were collecting welfare, far more were scamming the system in some way than people who actually needed help. IMO, it is a waste that is not helping the people it was intended to help.
-
The other part that has fallen out of favor is trainee or apprentice positions. Headcounts are kept lean so there is not extra room for those jobs. That isn't really a minimum wage issue, but an issue with the cost of running a business and hiring employees in this country.
This is another problem I've seen quite a bit. Some of our best people started out as unpaid interns or straight-commission sales reps who didn't technically get started selling for a few weeks, but the people who need that sort of thing most can't afford the gas, laundry, lunches etc. for 1-3 months before they either move on or impress the boss enough to get hired on to a regular spot or changed to base+commission.
-
I wasn't thinking of unpaid positions so much as lower paid. Most of the contractors still use helpers which is the way most of the young guys learn their way around. It can be tough work and a lot of people won't do it.
There was a young guy we had doing our janitorial work part time a while back (son of a coworker). He said he was offered an electrician helper position for 3 months on a plant job. He said he turned it down since he wouldn't be able to keep his "steady janitor job". Nevermind that he would probably make more money in 3 months than he did all year as a janitor. Nevermind that he sucked as a janitor and barely knew how to sweep the floor and we wanted to get rid of him. Nevermind that his girlfriend with his kids was collecting welfare and wasn't working. We figured he didn't want put the work in to keep the helper job and knew he wouldn't last the 3 months. IMO, guys like him would happily live on your UBI income and do a few small jobs for spending money if that much. And I think there are a lot more people like that than most are willing to imagine. I think the only way to get through to them is to cut them off completely.
-
^^^Based on what I see in my medical/dental clinics, I think there is a fair number of people content to be on the dole and sit on their ass.
-
IMO, guys like him would happily live on your UBI income and do a few small jobs for spending money if that much. And I think there are a lot more people like that than most are willing to imagine. I think the only way to get through to them is to cut them off completely.
Meh. I'd be satisfied with seeing the people on welfare just not living as well as the ones working. If they're happy in a bunkhouse with packed rations, fine.
-
Nevermind that he sucked as a janitor and barely knew how to sweep the floor and we wanted to get rid of him. Nevermind that his girlfriend with his kids was collecting welfare and wasn't working. We figured he didn't want put the work in to keep the helper job and knew he wouldn't last the 3 months. IMO, guys like him would happily live on your UBI income and do a few small jobs for spending money if that much. And I think there are a lot more people like that than most are willing to imagine. I think the only way to get through to them is to cut them off completely.
I think that there are probably less than you think, but I did notice a few things about the story:
1. Baby-momma is already on welfare, ergo we're already spending money on her. Sounds somewhat similar to my brother*, there's a good chance the Janitor is living with them. Without the ring and a cooperative momma, they can get more government dole.
2. You wanted to get rid of him. With the UBI, his sucky ass isn't taking up time/slot at your work, it's back home. He's at least out of the way, you know?
3. Part of the idea of the UBI is to change incentives. By not paying for kids(or at least reducing payments), we encourage fewer welfare anchor babies. It's cheaper to take care of an adult than an adult and children. By not giving a *expletive deleted*it about 'households', the fact that larger households are cheaper per person will encourage larger households, which are more efficient. Eventually somebody will get a job...
*Apprentice electrician in Florida right at the time of the housing meltdown. Lost his job later than most, couldn't find work elsewhere.
Meh. I'd be satisfied with seeing the people on welfare just not living as well as the ones working. If they're happy in a bunkhouse with packed rations, fine.
Pretty much.
Edit:
And as far as Utah and their anti-poverty efforts, I want to point out that the article mentions that they're investing significant resources into anti-poverty efforts, it's just that as much of the labor is donated, it looks cheaper if you look at it in a pure cash flow basis. If you adjusted for the 'goods in kind' deals, it's probably as expensive as many of the higher spending states. Still more effective though.
-
Edit:
And as far as Utah and their anti-poverty efforts, I want to point out that the article mentions that they're investing significant resources into anti-poverty efforts, it's just that as much of the labor is donated, it looks cheaper if you look at it in a pure cash flow basis. If you adjusted for the 'goods in kind' deals, it's probably as expensive as many of the higher spending states. Still more effective though.
I'm more than willing to bet that the "volunteer" labor is far more efficient than government-paid labor.
-
CAn someone explain to me why there would be a "downward spiral in wages" ?? It's not like Bob the unemployed homeless guy is suddenly going to come in and take you six figure IT job. He's going to be sweeping up, or taking out the garbage, or harvesting vegetables or doing other menial tasks. What happened to "Doing the jobs Americans won't do ?? I would bet any amount that if we say, started giving folks shelter halves, beans, rice, and gruel, there would be real competition from Americans to do day labor and harvest fruits and veggies. It would at least give them a place to start their way up the ladder.
And Firethorn. What you mention with "Pooling their checks" does happen. Witness the "Baby Momma" phenomenon. You honestly think those women are putting the Baby Daddy on the housing application?? And Baby Daddy is getting a check also. And Illegals do it as well, with several living in one apartment, getting all kinds kinds of .gov assistance while working under the table.
You think your idea is to make the system "less bad". My contention is that current system needs to been blown up and done away with completely. If I was completely cruel, I would blow up the entire system, and not provide for any replacement, but since that really isn't an option, I'm willing to provide at least enough sustenance to allow those able to work to do so. For those unable (Due to physical or mental conditions, although they would have to be pretty extreme...as I have real life example of those with crushing physical disabilities able to provide for themselves), then yes. I have no problem with providing them a place to live and food beyond beans, rice and gruel. Yes, bring back mental hospitals, if we can "warehouse" old people in nursing homes, then we can do the same for those incapable of work, and beyond their family's ability to care for them.
-
CAn someone explain to me why there would be a "downward spiral in wages" ?? It's not like Bob the unemployed homeless guy is suddenly going to come in and take you six figure IT job. He's going to be sweeping up, or taking out the garbage, or harvesting vegetables or doing other menial tasks. What happened to "Doing the jobs Americans won't do ?? I would bet any amount that if we say, started giving folks shelter halves, beans, rice, and gruel, there would be real competition from Americans to do day labor and harvest fruits and veggies. It would at least give them a place to start their way up the ladder.
And Firethorn. What you mention with "Pooling their checks" does happen. Witness the "Baby Momma" phenomenon. You honestly think those women are putting the Baby Daddy on the housing application?? And Baby Daddy is getting a check also. And Illegals do it as well, with several living in one apartment, getting all kinds kinds of .gov assistance while working under the table.
You think your idea is to make the system "less bad". My contention is that current system needs to been blown up and done away with completely. If I was completely cruel, I would blow up the entire system, and not provide for any replacement, but since that really isn't an option, I'm willing to provide at least enough sustenance to allow those able to work to do so. For those unable (Due to physical or mental conditions, although they would have to be pretty extreme...as I have real life example of those with crushing physical disabilities able to provide for themselves), then yes. I have no problem with providing them a place to live and food beyond beans, rice and gruel. Yes, bring back mental hospitals, if we can "warehouse" old people in nursing homes, then we can do the same for those incapable of work, and beyond their family's ability to care for them.
The current system requires that the recipients have a modicum of honor and shame. However, our culture has been mocking honor and shunning "shame" (for certain things at least) and somehow we're surprised that the welfare system is corrupt. (Please replace the word "welfare" with almost any other government system.)
MUCH of what was designed in years past is now failing because it was designed for a different people. Sometimes it's simply a matter of technology (We're living longer, for example), but a lot is because the character of the people was significantly different. There were warnings of the effect on people's character, but they were usually dismissed.
Now, although many of the programs are partly responsible for the degradation of that character (as noted by Senator Moynihan- before he was a Senator), but they are not the sole issue.
Honestly, looking at history, I'm fairly certain that only a widespread return to Christ1- and, thereby, Christian morals- can reverse the trend we are seeing in moral decline. It HAS happened in the past (the Great Awakening, for example), so I'm not going to say it will never happen. I am, though, rather frightened by what would be necessary to do it, given that 9/11 seemed to be having that effect... for about a month.
1: Which is impossible to be accomplished by humans (i.e. NOT WITH THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT), but, fortunately, there is Another for whom nothing is impossible. Additionally, too many "Christians" aren't living by Christ's teachings, either.
-
And Firethorn. What you mention with "Pooling their checks" does happen.
And in the systems Firethorn proposed, it's fine; two people pooling their $500 checks to have $1000 a month are still not going to be living it up all that much. So now they can split a $300/mo slum somewhere instead of each paying $200 in a bunkhouse. That leaves them with $350/mo each, and they can share a beater car too, so call it $300/mo each. Phones knock that down to $250/mo and they're probably going to blow that on beer and smokes. Still no XBox, fancy rims, etc. 4 living in a simple enough slum might get some better toys, but that many adults sharing what amounts to an efficiency apartment is pretty undesirable to the vast majority of Americans.
For those unable (Due to physical or mental conditions, although they would have to be pretty extreme...as I have real life example of those with crushing physical disabilities able to provide for themselves),
Yup. I once worked with a guy who had full use of one arm and zero legs, due to a spinal injury suffered when he was a high school dropout roofer. He used the money he got from that to get a GED and was working his way through college doing tech support because he could still answer a phone and use a one handed keyboard. (Other arm worked to some degree, but very little control over the hand.)
-
And in the systems Firethorn proposed, it's fine; two people pooling their $500 checks to have $1000 a month are still not going to be living it up all that much. So now they can split a $300/mo slum somewhere instead of each paying $200 in a bunkhouse. That leaves them with $350/mo each, and they can share a beater car too, so call it $300/mo each. Phones knock that down to $250/mo and they're probably going to blow that on beer and smokes. Still no XBox, fancy rims, etc. 4 living in a simple enough slum might get some better toys, but that many adults sharing what amounts to an efficiency apartment is pretty undesirable to the vast majority of Americans.
Yup. I once worked with a guy who had full use of one arm and zero legs, due to a spinal injury suffered when he was a high school dropout roofer. He used the money he got from that to get a GED and was working his way through college doing tech support because he could still answer a phone and use a one handed keyboard. (Other arm worked to some degree, but very little control over the hand.)
Let me do some examples:
Local, 3 bedroom apartments: $800. Large living room area, nice decks. Pool and gym room part of the amenities. Cable+ Internet, $50. Xbox $300 (one time expense)
Used Moped: $500 (one time expense). No insurance necessary. Phones: $30 a month.
So let's add that up: $940 per month for Xbox life and mopeds. 3 guys living in there, each with their own "hog" and phone leaves each ~$185 a month each for eating. That's a little over $2 per meal and cereal and milk are pretty cheap.
I'm fairly certain that a LOT of young men would be perfectly content with such a set-up. Add some random piecemeal work and they'd be pretty comfortable. That's without anyone sharing a nicely-sized bedroom, btw.
-
And in the systems Firethorn proposed, it's fine; two people pooling their $500 checks to have $1000 a month are still not going to be living it up all that much. So now they can split a $300/mo slum somewhere instead of each paying $200 in a bunkhouse. That leaves them with $350/mo each, and they can share a beater car too, so call it $300/mo each. Phones knock that down to $250/mo and they're probably going to blow that on beer and smokes. Still no XBox, fancy rims, etc. 4 living in a simple enough slum might get some better toys, but that many adults sharing what amounts to an efficiency apartment is pretty undesirable to the vast majority of Americans.
Yup. I once worked with a guy who had full use of one arm and zero legs, due to a spinal injury suffered when he was a high school dropout roofer. He used the money he got from that to get a GED and was working his way through college doing tech support because he could still answer a phone and use a one handed keyboard. (Other arm worked to some degree, but very little control over the hand.)
You are assuming that is their only income or at least the only handouts they get. Those people can find motivation when it comes to continuing to be lazy or getting drugs. I heard the guy in my story died recently. I don't know the reason. I hope his kids turn out better than him.
Also, the current system is deliberately sabotaged over and above the actual welfare programs in addition to fraud on the user end. SS disability, welfare, food stamps, tax returns, school food programs, unemployment, etc (I am sure there are more I never heard of) are all used as welfare programs and each has a big chunk of fraud attached to them. Food stamps could already be used to only supply bread and gruel. It is deliberately rigged to allow users to buy all sorts of stuff and give them far more money than needed to buy real food. From what I have heard SS disability fraud has become industrialized and I have no idea if there is any attempt at all to enforce anything.
I think the only long term solution is to get rid of all of them. I don't think there is a way to set up a system that won't evolve into a bloated mess even if it is set up very well initially. We just do not have the consistent leadership at the federal level for that to happen. Even my idea of pushing it down to the local level doesn't solve that. It just makes it so people like me in Texas don't have to pay for fraud in Hoboken, New Jersey. Maybe people in Hoboken will take notice when their local welfare is being scammed right and left, maybe they won't. I would rather force people to use their creativity and ingenuity to make their own living rather than scam taxpayers through the govt. In the US, basic food is cheaper than most countries around the world. People shouldn't need government help just to eat.
I think free medical care is likely a better use of government "charity" than direct welfare and even that would likely be screwed up and mess up the medical services for everyone else.
-
Also, the current system is deliberately sabotaged over and above the actual welfare programs in addition to fraud on the user end. SS disability, welfare, food stamps, tax returns, school food programs, unemployment, etc (I am sure there are more I never heard of) are all used as welfare programs and each has a big chunk of fraud attached to them. Food stamps could already be used to only supply bread and gruel. It is deliberately rigged to allow users to buy all sorts of stuff and give them far more money than needed to buy real food. From what I have heard SS disability fraud has become industrialized and I have no idea if there is any attempt at all to enforce anything.
Anecdotally, I have heard that it's far easier to scam your way onto disability than it is to do it legitimately. The scam doctors/lawyers know exactly the right words to say/type and legitimate doctors write the legitimate issues.
-
I'm more than willing to bet that the "volunteer" labor is far more efficient than government-paid labor.
Which is why it's still more effective. I was just pointing out that Utah is spending a lot more on anti-poverty efforts than the traditional indicators would suggest. It's just being paid through "church taxes." While one could argue that that's not mandatory, if you're going to be part of the church it pretty much is.
The trick is how to do some of the same things elsewhere, where you don't have church investment.
You are assuming that is their only income or at least the only handouts they get.
That's the thing, we're encouraging them gaining more income, by not taking away their benefits as soon as they get a job. We're doing it wrong if the government is still giving out other handouts, and if they're getting handouts from private parties that's between them and the private party.
Also, the current system is deliberately sabotaged over and above the actual welfare programs in addition to fraud on the user end. SS disability, welfare, food stamps, tax returns, school food programs, unemployment, etc (I am sure there are more I never heard of) are all used as welfare programs and each has a big chunk of fraud attached to them.
Citations on the "big chunks of fraud"? Because from everything I've read, tax fraud is orders of magnitude more money than welfare fraud. Well, there's medicare fraud as well, but the 'living expenses' type welfare programs are too little money per submission to bother much.
Local, 3 bedroom apartments: $800. Large living room area, nice decks. Pool and gym room part of the amenities. Cable+ Internet, $50. Xbox $300 (one time expense)
Hmm...
$800/3 = $267
$267 + 17 + 30 = $314, leaving $186, as you say.
However, I have some problems:
1. A used moped is NOT a 'one time expense'. You might not need insurance in your area for it, but what about gas? Even if it's only $10/week? Plus, it'll wear out eventually.
2. What about utilities. How does a $100 electric bill each month change things? What about, besides the Xbox, the TV to play it on? What about games? Clothing, etc...?
So, out of the $186 you lose ~$33 for utilities, $20 for the XBox & TV($600 for hardware, 3 year lifespan, rounded up to include games), $20 *per* moped, $50 for cellphone, and you're down to $63/month for food.
It works out better with 4 people per apartment...
I'm fairly certain that a LOT of young men would be perfectly content with such a set-up. Add some random piecemeal work and they'd be pretty comfortable. That's without anyone sharing a nicely-sized bedroom, btw.
If such a quality of life is so acceptable to so many, why aren't more people living like that, just doing enough piecework to get by? My answer: It's not really acceptable to all that many people. They WILL work. If too many find $500/month acceptable to live like that, reduce the amount given.
Anecdotally, I have heard that it's far easier to scam your way onto disability than it is to do it legitimately. The scam doctors/lawyers know exactly the right words to say/type and legitimate doctors write the legitimate issues.
I have heard the same as well.
-
Anecdotally, I have heard that it's far easier to scam your way onto disability than it is to do it legitimately. The scam doctors/lawyers know exactly the right words to say/type and legitimate doctors write the legitimate issues.
Working in healthcare, it is certainly my belief that this is true. In some parts of the US, there are organized rings of attorneys and healthcare providers that do disability evaluations on an assembly line basis. In my literature, I periodically read about the Feds busting them for various types of financial fraud. This also is the case for personal injury cases, such as auto accidents and slip and falls.
-
Local, 3 bedroom apartments: $800. Large living room area, nice decks. Pool and gym room part of the amenities. Cable+ Internet, $50. Xbox $300 (one time expense)
That's one seriously cheap 3 bedroom. I'm in a fairly cheap area and a 1/1 with bills paid is going to be $450-550/mo. More bedrooms run the price up fast because of the college kids frequently rooming up and used to it to the point that you really only have to beat the cost of each getting their own place by a small margin.
Used Moped: $500 (one time expense). No insurance necessary. Phones: $30 a month.
Here, a street legal moped has to be insured and registered.
I'm fairly certain that a LOT of young men would be perfectly content with such a set-up.
If they're happy with it, good for them. I'd probably hang out with them and gain some tips on economizing. What I'm tired of seeing is the voluntarily unemployed cruising around in a vehicle newer than their last job experience and partying every week.
-
Anecdotally, I have heard that it's far easier to scam your way onto disability than it is to do it legitimately. The scam doctors/lawyers know exactly the right words to say/type and legitimate doctors write the legitimate issues.
Witnessed it first hand. While barfing in the SS Disability doc's garbage can the day after an 8 hour chemo treatment. He deemed that I was still capable of working an 8 hour day.
-
That's one seriously cheap 3 bedroom. I'm in a fairly cheap area and a 1/1 with bills paid is going to be $450-550/mo. More bedrooms run the price up fast because of the college kids frequently rooming up and used to it to the point that you really only have to beat the cost of each getting their own place by a small margin.
Just looked, the utterly cheapest 3 bedroom advertised in my town is $909, minimum. $1021 is more realistic, being the average of the bottom 3 advertised places. The number 3 being selected from job requirement to get 3 bids/quotes on everything.
Here, a street legal moped has to be insured and registered.
I think this is true in most areas. It's really cheap, but even $50/month matters when you're limited to $500.
If they're happy with it, good for them. I'd probably hang out with them and gain some tips on economizing. What I'm tired of seeing is the voluntarily unemployed cruising around in a vehicle newer than their last job experience and partying every week.
Indeed. So what if they find some cheap work to make their lives better. Isn't that the whole point? Encourage them to join the workforce?
-
No, the point is to get them off the dole ENTIRELY...
-
And getting them working is step 1, remember?
At 25% income tax, they're off it at $24k earned. About $12/hour with a full time job.
-
Some years ago, I read that the fed gov spends over $60,000 a year in anti-poverty programs for every family in poverty in the USA.
Large amounts of welfare and other money go to low-ish income people who are well above the poverty line (earned income tax credit for example).
There is also massive administration involved.
All of this creates "entitled" clients for the system we have now.
And shall I mention that the biggest takers in the country are the elderly, who typically cash out far more than they put in in taxes? (medicare, SS)
-
At 25% income tax, they're off it at $24k earned. About $12/hour with a full time job.
Right. And since "no long term unearned benefits at all unless you're truly and legitimately disabled" (I'm willing to grant quite a bit of short-term, say, 90 days every 5 years or similar, benefits to those who have a temporary setback) would never fly, dropping $6k/yr per adult, (and let's go ahead and void that for any that are incarcerated or out of the country for the entire year, that will save a few billion) recovered in taxes from the non-destitute, beats the heck out of paying tens of thousands to the ones that are gaming the system.
-
And getting them working is step 1, remember?
At 25% income tax, they're off it at $24k earned. About $12/hour with a full time job.
Here's the flaw in your plan.....THEY. DO. NOT. WANT. TO. GET. OFF. IT. It allows them to lay around and do whatever they want, whenever they want, and still have a roof over their head, food in the bellies, the latest iPhones, wheel spinners, tattos, nails, and hair-dos. And you expect them to work to pay for all that stuff, when they can just collect a check each month and a several thousand dollar EIC tax refund check from their fake hair, nail or babysitting business ?? Please... You are deluded.
When there's not money for all that and they are eating beans and rice for fourth or fifth day in row...picking some vegetables may not seem so bad after...
-
Some years ago, I read that the fed gov spends over $60,000 a year in anti-poverty programs for every family in poverty in the USA.
Surprises me 0%. And yeah, for somebody able to game the system...
And shall I mention that the biggest takers in the country are the elderly, who typically cash out far more than they put in in taxes? (medicare, SS)
Even if you figure in the interest they could have earned over the period between paying taxes and getting benefits back?
Here's the flaw in your plan.....THEY. DO. NOT. WANT. TO. GET. OFF. IT.
Given that them wanting to get off it isn't part of my plan, how can it be a flaw? The whole idea is that we set it up so that their situation(financial) is always improved by earning more!
It allows them to lay around and do whatever they want, whenever they want, and still have a roof over their head, food in the bellies, the latest iPhones, wheel spinners, tattos, nails, and hair-dos. And you expect them to work to pay for all that stuff, when they can just collect a check each month and a several thousand dollar EIC tax refund check from their fake hair, nail or babysitting business ?? Please... You are deluded.
Okay, now I know the problem - you're arguing against the current welfare system, not my proposal. I can't even call it a proper strawman argument. But I'm having fun, so let's dissect.
Latest Iphone: $550. They're spending $50 more than they get(under my plan) a month for it. Replace every 2 years, that's still $23, plus $50 for the plan to go with it. $73 out of $500 spend.
Wheel spinners: I googled this, to try to get prices, but found that it can be a $50 for 4 bolt-ons. So let's say 'fancy rims' at $800 total. 3 years on it, $22/month. But you need a car to go with it... $300/month for car/insurance/fuel.
Personal appearance: Let's just say $100/month.
Leaving them with -100/month to pay for food and shelter. I guess living in the car is an option...
I eagerly await a budget where they can afford all this without working on $500/month. While not eating beans and rice all the time...
EIC tax refund? The EITC would be gone, remember? Instead, at least at lower incomes, there's a flat 25% tax rate. An example of where you're debating the current system, not my proposal.
But oh wait, "fake hair, nail or babysitting business" - you mean they're running a fake business? Or a business in fake hair? Doesn't that kind of contract the "just collect a check each month"? Are you sure it's me that's deluded? Because it's looking to me that you're accusing a mirror, not me. I don't know about you, but I consider those working in cosmetics to be working. You might not consider it to be worthy work, but those people creating wigs, weaves, shining up nails and such are actually working. Same deal with babysitting, though we tend to call it 'child care' these days.
In any case, if they're working at a hair or nail salon or at child care, they're earning money through labor. At which point, why the hell are you still concerned about what they're spending their money on?
Let's say they clear $2k/month. 25% tax, They get to keep $1.5k of their income, get the $500, leaving them with $2k. $24k/year, which is actually enough to have a modest apartment, vehicle, food, and such. They're effectively OFF the benefit. Let's say that they only earn $500. They pay $125 in taxes, get the $500, leaving them with $875. I doubt anybody here is going to think that $875/month is going to pay for the luxuries you talk about, but it's still a hell of a lot better than $500. At a consistent $875, that's a lot less Ramen that they're eating. They might be able to afford a moped. A new game for their playstation occasionally. Be able to have internet. Etc...
Earn $1,257? Around a full time minimum wage? With the UBI they end up with $1,443, paying $314 in taxes.
But I receive a military retirement check every month. I receive a check for over DOUBLE what I'm proposing to give these people, every month. Guess what? I'm still working. My retirement check each month is basically my house payment. If I really restricted my spending - move to a cheaper area, find some roomies, I might be able to live off of my retirement check. Hell, at that point I'd probably qualify for some assistance.
But what do I get for that extra money? I can probably afford to have only 1 roomie, and share a vehicle between the two of us.
What are you going to get on $500/month? Not much past food and shelter, I think.
When there's not money for all that and they are eating beans and rice for fourth or fifth day in row...picking some vegetables may not seem so bad after...
...What other foods are you going to be able to afford on $500/month? Are you living in a tent or something?
-
Okay, now I know the problem - you're arguing against the current welfare system, not my proposal. I can't even call it a proper strawman argument.
No, he is arguing against ANY system of free money/free necessities. You are the one that is deluded into thinking YOUR system will work where nothing like it ever has. The only thing your system will accomplish is that you will feel better.
IMO, the feeling better part is the case with most govt charity. People in the US give more to charity than most other countries despite our taxes and govt welfare, but that isn't enough. People can't just give their own money to help others and be satisfied. They have to use politics to give other people's money away also. It just ends up being a political vote buying scheme in the end and initial intentions amount to very little.
-
No, he is arguing against ANY system of free money/free necessities. You are the one that is deluded into thinking YOUR system will work where nothing like it ever has. The only thing your system will accomplish is that you will feel better.
Pretty sure you mean "she", not "he".
And we're back to people yelling "you're deluded" into mirrors. Either that or you haven't been paying attention much. Or have you forgotten already that our government already spends obscene amounts of money on "anti-poverty" efforts that do anything but? Hint: Attacking the messenger isn't a valid debate tactic. All you're doing is convincing me that you don't have any valid points against it, thus must attack me personally, rather than, you know, making valid critique points of the idea itself.
Because please remember that I propose this as a reformation of the situation as it currently is. Where, as somebody else mentioned, we're spending something like $60k in antipoverty spending per family in poverty. Is it really a bad thing for me to "feel better" when we lower government expenditures and actually decrease poverty at the same time?
People in the US give more to charity than most other countries despite our taxes and govt welfare, but that isn't enough.
Well, I wouldn't say 'despite', because our taxes and government welfare are also substantially LOWER than most other countries.
People can't just give their own money to help others and be satisfied. They have to use politics to give other people's money away also. It just ends up being a political vote buying scheme in the end and initial intentions amount to very little.
Well, you can argue that, but I'd argue that that ship has already sailed. But rest assured, that I would switch to opposing it if it becomes a "vote buying scheme", because, well, assuming that "everything" will become a vote buying scheme isn't a useful position for improving our government, life, etc...
As for spending other people's money, well, view it like education. Even if you don't personally have a kid in school, you still benefit from the kid growing up to be a educated productive member of society. Same deal with anti-poverty efforts. I mean, do you like spending the money to keep the resulting criminals in jail, treating the homeless in emergency rooms that send our healthcare expenses through the roof, etc...?
I'm not proposing spending any money that isn't already being spend, just spending it more efficiently.
For example, by not requiring children to get aid, by turning them into an expense rather than a benefit, we should see a lot less welfare babies within a couple years. With fewer children born into poverty, the amount of inter-generational poverty should decrease sharply.
-
The flaws in your plan/scheme that you are not grasping:
1) People will work awfully hard to keep their .gov freebies. And they will not go an seek any gainful employment to improve their lot as long as their necessities are provided for. How many people worked to get out of places like Cabrini Green and Robert Taylor homes in Chicago....Damn few. The vast majority were content to have an apartment, food stamps and TV. Despite all the crime, gang activity, drugs, shitty schools, all the other horribleness of Public Housing they didn't lift a finger to improve their lot in life. They did however, work awfully hard to keep their .gov freebies (and demand more)
2) On a homeless shelter one morning, after listening to several people bitch about lack of jobs and opportunities, a guy came offering a job for 2-3 days at $8.45/hr waving signs for a store closing at various locations. You would have thought the guy came in farted in everyone's face they way they turned their backs on him to hide. He even bumped it up to $9.50. No takers. He left, with zero takers. Why? I asked several of the homeless and "If I make (that much) money, I either get my benefits cut by that amount or lose my bennies entirely." THey know the rules of the game and how to maximize their bennies to avoid doing any actual work.
2) Politicians are corrupt, they need votes to get elected and they will buy them with .gov money, no matter what your scheme thinks.
3) We need to work on ways to get them off the dole and working. Not keeping them on the dole and working the occasional side job (Drug Dealers already do that.)
4) It like a version of Socialism...."It will work this time, because we'll put the right people in charge and do it this way so people can't lie and cheat and beat the system." Sorry, but IT. WON'T. WORK.
P.S. And when I mentioned the fake Nail Care, Hair Care, and/or Daycare businesses. I meant fake as in "exists on paper only", and often only one or two sheets. One being at P&L that surprisingly showed a profit right at the max amount of EIC for the # of kids she had, and the other being a "flyer" for her business done in crayon. And lots of misspellings. We make copies for our files and complete the return. We are not the IRS. You sign on the bottom line that this is true and correct. Even though everyone knows it's all a lie.
-
Pretty sure you mean "she", not "he".
And we're back to people yelling "you're deluded" into mirrors. Either that or you haven't been paying attention much. Or have you forgotten already that our government already spends obscene amounts of money on "anti-poverty" efforts that do anything but? Hint: Attacking the messenger isn't a valid debate tactic. All you're doing is convincing me that you don't have any valid points against it, thus must attack me personally, rather than, you know, making valid critique points of the idea itself.
Because please remember that I propose this as a reformation of the situation as it currently is. Where, as somebody else mentioned, we're spending something like $60k in antipoverty spending per family in poverty. Is it really a bad thing for me to "feel better" when we lower government expenditures and actually decrease poverty at the same time?
Well, I wouldn't say 'despite', because our taxes and government welfare are also substantially LOWER than most other countries.
Well, you can argue that, but I'd argue that that ship has already sailed. But rest assured, that I would switch to opposing it if it becomes a "vote buying scheme", because, well, assuming that "everything" will become a vote buying scheme isn't a useful position for improving our government, life, etc...
As for spending other people's money, well, view it like education. Even if you don't personally have a kid in school, you still benefit from the kid growing up to be a educated productive member of society. Same deal with anti-poverty efforts. I mean, do you like spending the money to keep the resulting criminals in jail, treating the homeless in emergency rooms that send our healthcare expenses through the roof, etc...?
I'm not proposing spending any money that isn't already being spend, just spending it more efficiently.
For example, by not requiring children to get aid, by turning them into an expense rather than a benefit, we should see a lot less welfare babies within a couple years. With fewer children born into poverty, the amount of inter-generational poverty should decrease sharply.
:laugh:
Maybe you should tear you eyes away from the mirror. No amount of improvement, restructuring, and replacement will do what you want. The only way to force some people to fend for themselves is to cut them off. You can try to make it "work", but in the end you are dealing with human nature which hasn't changed and no govt program will change it.
No money giveaways will ever be done efficiently or effectively by govt. Even the legitimate things we want govt to do are constantly mixed with corruption, waste, and greed and have to be watched. With things like welfare, there are no results on the other end, just more people wanting money and more demands to increase budgets to politicians wanting the votes. When is the last time we have seen reports on how much money is used for administration, and how much actually goes to recipients? We don't even see that for social security. It didn't start out that way. You system won't start out that way either. It will end up that way sooner than you think.
-
1) People will work awfully hard to keep their .gov freebies.
Indeed. Well, let me restate that in a more accurate way: People will seek the highest gain for the lowest cost. Any arguments against this?
Corollary: People will often take current gain, even if it's a lower amount, than future gain. This allows people to get hung up on 'local maximums'.
And they will not go an seek any gainful employment to improve their lot as long as their necessities are provided for.
Repeating this does not make it true, nor does it convince me without you providing more evidence.
How many people worked to get out of places like Cabrini Green and Robert Taylor homes in Chicago....Damn few. The vast majority were content to have an apartment, food stamps and TV. Despite all the crime, gang activity, drugs, shitty schools, all the other horribleness of Public Housing they didn't lift a finger to improve their lot in life. They did however, work awfully hard to keep their .gov freebies (and demand more)
Great! You just listed a number of problems with the past welfare system, some of which extend to the current system. Of course, given that I want to overthrow the current system, it's not very moving, you know?
Also, you seem to take it as a given that they were 'unwilling' to 'lift a finger', yet they would do so in order to 'keep their .gov freebies'. Sounds an awful lot like work to me, you know? Keeping all those 'freebies'?
Here I am getting accused of being delusional, but you sit there and are spouting contradictory premises within the same paragraph!
As for places like you mention, well, I've actually read up on them. Talk about welfare traps to end all welfare traps. Putting those addresses down on work applications, for example, was a death knell for most of them. Straight into the circular file.
2) On a homeless shelter one morning, after listening to several people bitch about lack of jobs and opportunities, a guy came offering a job for 2-3 days at $8.45/hr waving signs for a store closing at various locations. You would have thought the guy came in farted in everyone's face they way they turned their backs on him to hide. He even bumped it up to $9.50. No takers. He left, with zero takers. Why? I asked several of the homeless and "If I make (that much) money, I either get my benefits cut by that amount or lose my bennies entirely." THey know the rules of the game and how to maximize their bennies to avoid doing any actual work.
Oh golly gee! People are looking to maximize their quality of life. Should we be surprised? Shocked? Condemn the people who recognize that taking such a short term job could end up with them on the street,considerably worse off?
Now consider if they were under my proposed UBI. They take the job, earn ~$200, pay $50 in taxes, and still get their $500. They make $650 that month, rather than $500, the government is ahead $50(yay!), the dude looking for workers might just build some contact points with the better workers when he needs more. The workers get a bit of work experience, a contact point, a little extra money, and the knowledge that working makes life better.
2) Politicians are corrupt, they need votes to get elected and they will buy them with .gov money, no matter what your scheme thinks.
Trump got elected. Not all politicians are that corrupt, and the solution is to badger them into doing the right thing.
3) We need to work on ways to get them off the dole and working. Not keeping them on the dole and working the occasional side job (Drug Dealers already do that.)
Again, make up your mind! Earlier, you just implied that even a 2-3 day job would be good, here you say that them 'working the occasional side job' is bad!
Otherwise, it's a good thing that that's what I'm trying to work on, right? By eliminating the local maximum/welfare cliffs, we make it such that even said temporary jobs, which are often stepping stones to permanent employment, improve the lot of the unemployed. Yes, that means that we end up paying out money to people who are working. My deal: So what! If they can see themselves as better off by working more an smarter(higher pay), they will do so!
The guy probably would have gotten takers at $7.25/hour if he'd offered it 'under the table' so it didn't impact their benefits. Illegal, but profitable.
And here we see yet another contradiction in your arguments: It's not that they weren't willing to work. It's that they weren't willing to work for free! The 'for free' part being due to the loss of benefits if they worked, as opposed to simply not being willing to work at all.
4) It like a version of Socialism...."It will work this time, because we'll put the right people in charge and do it this way so people can't lie and cheat and beat the system." Sorry, but IT. WON'T. WORK.
Snerk. Reduced to sayings, are we? Again, yelling and impassioned but meaningless quotes doesn't actually make your arguments stronger.
Here's the deal: In my suggestion the trick is that we're minimizing having people 'in charge'. The benefits program is statically defined in the simplest terms possible. $500/month, every citizen not in prison or on the run. Done. Lying, cheating, and beating the system? There's no disability to fake. Having more kids results in your benefits being spread to more people, meaning that you earn less money. Incentive to have kids as a single mother on the dole? Gone. Incentives to NOT work, because it costs you benefits? Gone.
So, once more: Since my UBI is substantially different than traditional welfare, arguments against traditional welfare are unmoving. You know, because I want to get rid of it as well?
P.S. And when I mentioned the fake Nail Care, Hair Care, and/or Daycare businesses. I meant fake as in "exists on paper only", and often only one or two sheets. One being at P&L that surprisingly showed a profit right at the max amount of EIC for the # of kids she had, and the other being a "flyer" for her business done in crayon. And lots of misspellings. We make copies for our files and complete the return. We are not the IRS. You sign on the bottom line that this is true and correct. Even though everyone knows it's all a lie.
Ah, understandable. You know, as cryptic as EITC is, it takes some intelligence to figure out the amount to claim to maximize it?
So my question is, will they still bother making a fake business if EITC is gone and there's a 25% net tax owed on the claimed income? If they actually have income that they're not claiming, well, that's something for the IRS to figure out itself as well, right? And finding that they have income that they didn't claim(Capone, anybody?) is easier than finding that they didn't have income that they did claim.
Maybe you should tear you eyes away from the mirror.
Very weird mirror I'm looking at then. Must be magic. I mean, I'm not yelling or anything, but I see two people looking into their own mirrors and yelling. Me, I'm eating popcorn.
No amount of improvement, restructuring, and replacement will do what you want. The only way to force some people to fend for themselves is to cut them off. You can try to make it "work", but in the end you are dealing with human nature which hasn't changed and no govt program will change it.
Here's the thing. "Some People". You also have the drowning metaphor - somebody who's drowning, can't even keep their head above water, aren't capable of seeing the shore, even if it's close by and would otherwise be easy to reach.
The idea behind the UBI is to given them just enough assistance that they can see the shore.
As for 'cutting them off', well, do you enjoy cutting off your nose to spite your face? Various studies have shown that cutting people off is actually about the worst thing that you can do. It makes for a great catch phrase, doesn't work so well in reality. Interventions work better.
No money giveaways will ever be done efficiently or effectively by govt. Even the legitimate things we want govt to do are constantly mixed with corruption, waste, and greed and have to be watched. With things like welfare, there are no results on the other end, just more people wanting money and more demands to increase budgets to politicians wanting the votes. When is the last time we have seen reports on how much money is used for administration, and how much actually goes to recipients? We don't even see that for social security. It didn't start out that way. You system won't start out that way either. It will end up that way sooner than you think.
Thing about welfare is that it's laced with requirements. Requirements require administration to enforce. They provide spots for fraud to be used.
Meanwhile, the Alaska PFD doesn't have much problem with corruption. It's a static payment which would require lots of fake records being created to really exploit, there's a long lead time, thus it's easier to file fake tax returns with the federal government. There, at least, you don't have the evidence of your felony hanging around for most of a year before you get the money.
But as is, you're just throwing generic platitudes around, so I'll pay them about as much mind as I do other platitudes: none. Come up with some specific arguments.
-
I give up. I worked with and around people who both did what they could to improve their lot in life, and others who didn't lift a finger. The difference I found was that those that never took a dime or .gov money kept working to improve themselves and their jobs. The one who took welfare didn't do anything to improve themselves or their lot in life.
And perhaps I should clarify about "Worked awfully hard to keep their .gov freebies." to "whined awfully hard about keeping their .gov freebies." Also the reason they didn't want to work holding sign boards was that they considered it 1) W-O-R-K, 2) they thought it was "degrading", and 3) the were afraid is would cut into their freebies. See they were already getting a UBI, why work ??
My favorite was the guy that had been homeless and on welfare for 15 years, whining about how this county should give him "more" in his check because it was a more affluent area then others that he's been in. That's when I turned in my helpers apron and told the volunteer coordinator, "*expletive deleted*ck these parasites."
So you just keep going with your pie-in-the-sky plan. I'm sure it will work if we can only put the right people in charge.
-
I give up. I worked with and around people who both did what they could to improve their lot in life, and others who didn't lift a finger.
First up, sorry for the delay, I wanted to make a thoughtful reply to this.
I'm thinking that the problem may be that you don't actually understand my proposal, as you keep making arguments against the current system, that are not really applicable to mine. So let me summarize:
The existing situation:
We are spending way too much money on welfare and anti-poverty efforts. Worse, we're spending the money ineffectively, in that it's tending to entrench people in poverty, rather than getting them out of it. We're spending more than enough to lift everybody out of poverty, assuming we just gave every family in poverty the cash. It is wasteful.
Complicating matters is that due to there being a huge number of different programs, each with their own requirements. This imposes a large administrative cost to our anti-poverty efforts, reducing the amount of money available for aid programs. Due to the large number of programs, those unskilled, new to welfare, are unlikely to maximize their benefit, creating calls for even more benefit programs. Meanwhile, those skilled at gaining benefits, such as multi-generational welfare recipients, are capable of qualifying for many programs, allowing for a better quality of life than somebody working full time at a low to medium wage. Sometimes by engaging in fraud.
The core problem is basically that it incentivizes the wrong things. One of which is the existence of "welfare cliffs" where earning more money will result in losing more than the money's worth in benefits. For example, if earning $14,999 or less qualifies you for free medical care, but at $15,000 this benefit is cut off completely, it is a welfare cliff worth several thousand dollars. One might need to go "instantly" from $14k to $18k or more in order for the wage increase to translate to a real increase in income. Obviously, this disincentives working and improving yourself.
My UBI/BIG suggestion:
1. All other non-healthcare non-disability welfare benefits go away. On the slowest drawdown would be social security. The disability system needs serious reform as well, but that's a different topic.
2. They are replaced with a UBI - Universal Basic Income. The amount I peg it at is "around" $500/month.
3. As part of this, the lowest tax brackets go by-by, as does personal exemptions. Including EITC and such. The starting rate is, again, "around" 25%. It might end up being 26-28%. This was done to keep the tax level for those earning something around 1/3rd to 1/2 of the median and more the same, while flattening the tax rates as much as possible. 28% results in a slight tax increase($1.5k max for somebody making $91.9k or more), The UBI is to be paid for via the funds from the various terminated welfare programs. Basically, in order to 'pay' back the UBI at what I consider a reasonable rate, 25% is a little too slow, but increasing the rate to 26% or more results in tax increases for people making over $50k or so.
4. I acknowledge that implimenting my system would require a vast change in political beliefs. However, I've been a libertarian for years and am not afraid of being the underdog.
Okay, having given the basic proposal. I will continue with the intended effects.
1. As you have pointed out multiple times, those on welfare are afraid of losing their benefits. As I've pointed out multiple times, but have not seen you either dispute or acknowledge, there exists various "welfare cliffs" where a person is worse off getting a job than staying on benefits. I say that that fear is actually a secondary effect - people are greedy and are going to seek to maximize their quality of life. As I asked before, would you take a "promotion" that cost you $10k in income and expected you to work 50% more hours?
I'm learning DevOps stuff right now, and recently read "The Goal". It quite rightly points out that you have to be careful how you measure your metrics and set your goals, especially any incentives. Because workers will attempt to maximize their income by fulfilling the requirements for the incentives - even if said requirements actually hurt the company!
Why the UBI Solves this: You get the $6k whether you're a homeless bum or Bill Gates. A base tax rate of 25-28% ensures a gradual taxing back of the UBI, eliminating all welfare cliffs. As such, complaining about welfare takers who aren't willing to work "because they'd lose their benefits" becomes a farce. They may still be lazy, and I'll admit that I don't want to pay somebody who can work $6k to sit on their bum either.
2. Homelessness and Prison aren't cheap either. Consider the $6k a bribe to keep them from costing us even more money. At something like $40k per homeless person and $60k per prisoner, if the UBI keeps even 10% from hitting us in the pocketbook that way, it's cheap. Yes, I'd take the UBI away from prisoners. Call it my 'prison shouldn't be nicer than life outside' policy.
3. Kids. People in poverty still have lots of them. Many escape to earn more, many don't. Many become burdens. By shifting payments away from rewarding single mothers having kids, we should see a lot fewer kids born to single mothers in poverty. Kids are expensive, a lot more than $6k/year, on average. You have medical, schooling(attempted), etc...
The difference I found was that those that never took a dime or .gov money kept working to improve themselves and their jobs. The one who took welfare didn't do anything to improve themselves or their lot in life.
On the other hand, I've seen quite a few in my family better themselves off ".gov money", eventually getting off of it. And one that has cost rather more than they're likely to ever pay back, and that's excluding the medical expenses as a child(heart condition requiring surgery, I won't fault that). Prison tends to do that.
And perhaps I should clarify about "Worked awfully hard to keep their .gov freebies." to "whined awfully hard about keeping their .gov freebies." Also the reason they didn't want to work holding sign boards was that they considered it 1) W-O-R-K, 2) they thought it was "degrading", and 3) the were afraid is would cut into their freebies. See they were already getting a UBI, why work ??
That's kind of the point. #3 indicates that it's not a UBI(or at least not mine). That they're unwilling to work(even holding a signboard) indicates that they're getting too much welfare. #1 - I'm willing to bet that they're getting a whole lot more than $500/month. Care to challenge me on that? #2 - the pay for doing the signwork wouldn't result in a sufficiently improved standard of living to justify the work. Not surprising with #3 rearing it's head in the form of welfare cliffs. Would you go out and, in today's price climate, hold the signboard for the equivalent of $0.25/hour, once you factor in FICA taxes, reduction in food stamps(30%), state and federal income tax, reduced housing and utilities payments, etc...?
Now, if we implimented my policy and they still don't want to work, then we could discuss alternatives, couldn't we? At least they'd be cheaper on the pocketbook.
The goal is them realizing that even a minimum wage(with UBI we can start getting rid of that) job improves their lot in life substantially. While yeah, you will probably have the issue that many will hit satiation before they hit $24k in income, especially the first generation types, even a full time minimum wage job(~$15k/year) will reduce the cost to government by over half. As any wage increase will increase their income, they're a lot less likely to turn it down.
That's when I turned in my helpers apron and told the volunteer coordinator, "*expletive deleted*ck these parasites."
In cases of people like that, consider the $6k a bribe to stay away from us and to not have kids that they transfer the attitude to. It's going to take a bit to drain the swamp.
So you just keep going with your pie-in-the-sky plan. I'm sure it will work if we can only put the right people in charge.
Again, this indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of my plan when you make this comment. "The right people in charge" indicates active management, if you look at our welfare system like a mutual fund. I'm proposing an index fund. If you went to somebody proposing an index fund and started really stressing about having to have "the right people in charge" of it for it to work, can you see how you'd get funny looks?
The only "right people" I need are managers competent enough to follow the rules. The IRS, in this case, would be doing most of the work, but that's doable by changing the tax tables.
-
Your UBI proposal is putting lipstick on a pig. Nobody shoudl get anything unless they earn it (Again, I am willing to help provide for those incapable due to disability of providing for themselves.
So no, I, and others keep, have been telling you why your pie-in-the-sky plan will not work. Because we have real world experience working and dealing with people on the dole. Your magical system isn't going to change human nature.
1) If people can get their basic needs met, they generally are content to stay that way. Lazy wins.
2) No matter how many safeguards or checks you think you've built in, people will find a way to beat it. (See US Tax code or the Harmonized tariff schedule)
3) Those people receiving it will whine and politicians will buy their votes (Remember Obama Phones ??) with more freebies and or changing the rules in your magical system.
4) You system is a dollar for dollar replacement of the current system.. Which is completely unsustainable. Changing from a purple handbasket to yellow handbasket doesn't change the fact that we are still going to hell.
5) I think we've more that adequately proven, time and time again, that whatever you subsidize you get more of.
6) Name one thing the .gov does well. Just one. So what in the wide, wide world of sports makes you think they can do this well or even half assed ?
-
What he said.
Tell me some more about why I should keep less of the money I earn to support leaches that WON'T do anything to support themselves?
I don't have a problem with giving someone a hand up when they've had a setback, either due to their own screw up ( the only way to ensure you never fail is to never try) or though no fault of their own.
Those demanding a hand out can damn well bugger off.
-
Tell me some more about why I should keep less of the money I earn to support leaches that WON'T do anything to support themselves?
Because, somewhat counter-intuitively, it's cheaper than NOT paying. Homeless people are expensive. Criminals are expensive. It doesn't take many turning to crime or becoming homeless before it's hitting your pocket harder than the welfare.
I figure that within, oh, about a decade you'd be seeing a lot less generational unemployed.
I don't have a problem with giving someone a hand up when they've had a setback, either due to their own screw up ( the only way to ensure you never fail is to never try) or though no fault of their own.
Those demanding a hand out can damn well bugger off.
Well, you have those who fall on hard times, yes. Though at this point we have too many inter-generational welfare recipients. The problem, as I see it, is that the incentives were structured wrong. In making sure that 'the children' were taken care of, we ended up incentivizing single mothers - even if you can't get a job or husband, pop out a few kids and you'll be taken care of. Then see the kids who, once they get into school, basically have their mother shove every expense they can onto the school. School lunch program? In some areas it's school breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and all too often they go hungry over the weekends. So - we stop incentivizing them having kids. They can't take care of them? Adoption. Expensive short term, cheaper long term. Besides, I figure they'll stop having kids quickly enough when they aren't a money train.
[/quote]Your UBI proposal is putting lipstick on a pig. Nobody shoudl get anything unless they earn it (Again, I am willing to help provide for those incapable due to disability of providing for themselves.
What about the disability of growing up in a welfare home where they've degraded to the point that not even the schools can, as you put it, "put lipstick on a pig"?
Much like our new housing director, you make them 'comfortable' enough that they can look towards the future(Maslow's hierarchy of needs), but uncomfortable enough that they're looking to shift.
That said, pig lipstick equivalences isn't actually an argument. Well, it might be a "argument from incredulity" fallacy.
So no, I, and others keep, have been telling you why your pie-in-the-sky plan will not work.
Actually, by my perceptions I've received a lot of confirmations, because most of the arguments are against welfare as is, not my UBI proposal.
I haven't seen:
1. How somebody is going to 'live large' on $500/month as opposed to the current system where they could be receiving several thousand a month now.
2. An explanation on how the unemployed/poor are exempt from the human syndrome known as 'greed'.
3. Most explanations on how they're lazy and don't want to work have quoted them as saying 'they don't want to lose their benefits'.
4. Along with that, nobody has disputed that welfare cliffs exist. Other than those that agreed with me(more or less), it has been ignored.
So, as I've said before, in order to really debate me, you need to address my points, preferably with equal specifics.
Because we have real world experience working and dealing with people on the dole. Your magical system isn't going to change human nature.
1. It's not magic
2. It's designed to work with human nature better than the current system. Greed is human nature, remember?
1) If people can get their basic needs met, they generally are content to stay that way. Lazy wins.
Not really. Yes, you have a proportion that are that way. If Lazy won all the time, the median income in the US would be a lot lower. Though I'll admit that we are dealing with the bottom end of the bell curve.
Again, back to Maslow's hierarchy. You fill those basic needs they start looking higher. Maybe not right now, but eventually. Plus, 'basic needs' actually includes things like entertainment, and that costs money.
2) No matter how many safeguards or checks you think you've built in, people will find a way to beat it. (See US Tax code or the Harmonized tariff schedule)
Okay then, either you're committing a Nirvana Fallacy (no solution is good enough unless it's perfect in every way), or you should be able to come up with some way that people could significantly game this program. Preferably in a way that they're not already gaming the IRS/welfare agencies NOW.
Because I'm fully aware that there will be fraud. Question is, how much? Realistically the best you can do is keep it to a low burn. That's where the KISS principle comes in. Regular IRS checks for not declaring income and such, no real means checking for eligibility, leaves you time to check for things like citizenship.
3) Those people receiving it will whine and politicians will buy their votes (Remember Obama Phones ??) with more freebies and or changing the rules in your magical system.
And they don't do that now? It's same deal with gun rights - we fight them. Besides, think about all the 'vote winning' that we've seen with promised tax cuts, including cutting benefits. Because outside of certain areas, the extreme poor are both a minority and a low-voting rate minority at that. It's part of why gun owners are such a powerful block - we actually get out and vote.
So, without further evidence or logical arguments, I don't consider 'but they might change the program' to be a convincing argument against it.
4) You system is a dollar for dollar replacement of the current system.. Which is completely unsustainable. Changing from a purple handbasket to yellow handbasket doesn't change the fact that we are still going to hell.
We've been keeping up the current system for decades. Keep in mind that my idea is that after a bit, probably a generation, the people currently on welfare will realize that working actually pays, and at least get part time jobs, cutting their dependence upon the government dime in half over the half we already cut it. As I mentioned, by removing the incentives for single mothers, we should see a lot less kids by single mothers, along with the massive subsidies kids get, the costs from the extra criminality, etc...
5) I think we've more that adequately proven, time and time again, that whatever you subsidize you get more of.
So my cutting the benefits those who depend completely on welfare in half(or more) we're going to see more of them? By effectively subsidizing people working(by ensuring they see the benefit of such), we won't get more people working? By not subsidizing single mothers we'll see more of them?
I'm well aware of the principle, as well as the limitations it presents.
6) Name one thing the .gov does well. Just one. So what in the wide, wide world of sports makes you think they can do this well or even half assed ?
To get back to the mutual fund metaphor, we've already accepted that our fund managers are idiots. They panic buy at high prices(gotta get it before it goes up even more!) and panic sell at low prices(gotta divest before it drops even more!) rather than the desired behavior of buy low sell high.
The UBI is the index fund of mutual funds. It's hard to mess up. Far harder than the current mess.
There's a reason I talk about the IRS handling most of it. They can do so without any real extra work on their part for the "tax back" portion. Worst case, we're looking at 12-13 times as many electronic transfers, but electronic transfers are cheap. Especially when it's a set amount each month.
-
Because, somewhat counter-intuitively, it's cheaper than NOT paying. Homeless people are expensive. Criminals are expensive. It doesn't take many turning to crime or becoming homeless before it's hitting your pocket harder than the welfare.
So, basically "protection money".
I don't fault your motives but I believe your focusing on the wrong aspect.
The left, deliberately or otherwise has economically and socially crippled multiple generations with welfare. They have compounded the disability with the liberal controlled education system. We're now into the 4th generation of people that expect and demand to suckle at the government teat. If the flow is threatened violent responses result in a bigger teat.
Start with the education system, actually teach them how to be functional, productive citizens. Teach that success comes from effort, not violence.
We have become way to soft on crime, particularly violent crime. The emphasis, thanks in very large part to the war on drugs, is in the wrong sector.
Prison shouldn't be a pleasant experience nor looked on as inevitable. Nor should it be a warehouse for miscreants. Hard work and education towards a marketable skillset should be the focus.
Teach people that if they want to get ahead they have to work for it legally. Criminal acts get hammered, repeat offenders get hammered extra hard.
Honest citizens shouldn't be forced at.the point.of a gun to support worthless dregs that refuse to participate in a civil society. Whether that gun is in the hands of a criminal or the government.
-
I figure that within, oh, about a decade you'd be seeing a lot less generational unemployed.
You figure wrong. You do not understand the mentality. Take public housing as an example. I worked for a time in a public housing agency, so I have some first-hand experience.
For starters, fire up the way-back machine and return to the 1950s, right after the Koren war. I grew up in a small, rural 'burb right outside what passed for a major city in my state. Just across the town line, inside the city limits, there was a low-rise public housing complex of around 350 units. In 1955 I was in the fifth grade, and my fifth grade teacher lived there. It was nice. However it worked out, I ended up escorting his daughter to dancing classes in out town hall once a week, so one (or both) of my parents drove to his apartment, we picked up the daughter and went to class, and then brought her home again. We usually dropped in and socialized for a half hour or so when we brought her home. Their home was neat and clean, and the yards of the neighboring units were neat. Many of the residents were Korean War veterans who were adapting back to civilian life and saving up to buy their first house. Which was the intent of public housing.
Fast forward to 1980, when I joined the public housing agency in that same city. The executive director of the agency was black. When I came on board, he personally took me around to all the projects (including the one where my fifth-grade teacher had lived) to introduce me to the community leaders in each project and so that residents would see that I was with Sam. Once that had been done, he assured me I would be safe going back to the projects -- as long as I went during the day. It was made clear that, as a white man, I was NOT to go into any of the projects at night. For my own safety. One of the construction projects I was overseeing was a comprehensive remodeling of that same complex where my teacher had lived. The units were totally trashed by 1980. HUD spent over 3-1/2 million dollars renovating them, and two years later they looked like we had never touched them.
The agency also had several high rise buildings. One day maintenance had a call from a woman in one of the high rises. Her refrigerator didn't work and she wanted a new one. Maintenance repaired it, and she was informed that she wasn't going to get a new one because her existing refrigerator had been repaired. A couple of days later maintenance got another call from the same woman. She wanted a new refrigerator. She had her teen-age son and some of his friends haul the old one up to the ninth floor and drop it off a balcony. "You can't fix it now, so I need a new one."
People who think like that aren't interested in bettering themselves. Deal with it.
-
And they don't do that now? It's same deal with gun rights - we fight them. Besides, think about all the 'vote winning' that we've seen with promised tax cuts, including cutting benefits. Because outside of certain areas, the extreme poor are both a minority and a low-voting rate minority at that. It's part of why gun owners are such a powerful block - we actually get out and vote.
So, without further evidence or logical arguments, I don't consider 'but they might change the program' to be a convincing argument against it.
I'll point to the last three elections as proof. 2008: Overwhelming Democratic turnout. Especially their "Base" urban poor. (even the rural poor went heavily for Obama. Why ?? he promised them Free *expletive deleted*it. (I'm sure you heard the term Free *expletive deleted*it Army ?) And again in 2012. The FSA turned out again to reelect Obama. Not so much giving the House to the Democrats, but the did retain the Senate, and the damage had been done already via the ACA. 2016: Hillary failed to energize and turn out the Democrat Base in the same numbers that Obama did. (Why do you think she was in Philly that last day before the Election?) People vote FOR stuff, not against it. And you are going to vote for the person that gives you what you want, like more gun rights, lower taxes, less regulations. Whether or not Joe Shitbird gets more or less .gov freebies might not even make the Top Ten in Things You Look For In A Candidate. And that may not even be a campaign issue, until the ones they get to Congress and decide "the poor need more". That's how we got here. Each program was stand-alone program that got added because, they have housing, now they need food....now they need infant formula*...now they need a check...now they need the internet...now they need a phone.
I'm tired of paying the Danegeld....If it's to prevent them from rioting, then let it burn. From what I have witnessed, they only harm themselves when they do that...
We've been keeping up the current system for decades. Keep in mind that my idea is that after a bit, probably a generation, the people currently on welfare will realize that working actually pays, and at least get part time jobs, cutting their dependence upon the government dime in half over the half we already cut it. As I mentioned, by removing the incentives for single mothers, we should see a lot less kids by single mothers, along with the massive subsidies kids get, the costs from the extra criminality, etc...
So my cutting the benefits those who depend completely on welfare in half(or more) we're going to see more of them? By effectively subsidizing people working(by ensuring they see the benefit of such), we won't get more people working? By not subsidizing single mothers we'll see more of them?
I'm well aware of the principle, as well as the limitations it presents.
To get back to the mutual fund metaphor, we've already accepted that our fund managers are idiots. They panic buy at high prices(gotta get it before it goes up even more!) and panic sell at low prices(gotta divest before it drops even more!) rather than the desired behavior of buy low sell high.
The UBI is the index fund of mutual funds. It's hard to mess up. Far harder than the current mess.
There's a reason I talk about the IRS handling most of it. They can do so without any real extra work on their part for the "tax back" portion. Worst case, we're looking at 12-13 times as many electronic transfers, but electronic transfers are cheap. Especially when it's a set amount each month.
The IRS is filled with retards, and I use that in the most kindest sense of the word. Contrary to the Radio and TV commercials, the IRS is made up of all-seeing, all-knowing 10ft tall giants. They are idiots, they don't even know the laws and regulations themselves. Unless you are pretty blatant about not paying, or trying to commit fraud, then they send you a refund check and ignore you. The mechanic that has his own shop, the guy importing and printing the shirts for the sports teams 100+ different Park Districts. Both in business for 15+ years. They get audited. The lady* that has a childcare business this year and hair salon next and each year make right at the peak of the EIC bell curve.....crickets. (And yes, I have refused to do those returns I suspect of fraud.)
The ACA has been one giant fluctercluck each year. I know of no one that has been audited or even called to the carpet for lying about having insurance. All you have to do is check the box "YES". The only times I've seen the IRS get involved is if you got insurance through the Marketplace. Then you have to fill out the form with you policy number(s). Claim to have it through your employer, they don't check. Claim to have Medicaid, they don't check. Claim to have gotten on your own without going through Healthcare.gov, they don't check.
Sorry, but the All-Seeing, All Knowing, Omnipotent OZ IRS? A bunch of overwhelmed, incompetent, 'tards.
-
So, basically "protection money".
"Protection money" implies extortion. Is keeping good brakes and tires on your vehicle extortion, or a simple safety precaution that actually saves money due to lowered risk of accident?
I don't fault your motives but I believe your focusing on the wrong aspect.
Eh, it's the topic of this discussion, I've talked about schools before. Besides, kids don't learn if they don't value the education, and when their 'plan' is to suck on the government teat like their parent, even the best funded school in the world can't help but the tiny fraction that are born self-motivated.
If the flow is threatened violent responses result in a bigger teat.
If they get violent, then jail, prison, and other punishments as appropriate. It's expensive and I don't like it, hell, bring in caning. The quicker they figure out that they need to contribute, the better.
Basically I agree with you, this is supposed to be a system that acts as a safety net that actually has a ladder back up that's easily accessible.
You figure wrong. You do not understand the mentality. Take public housing as an example. I worked for a time in a public housing agency, so I have some first-hand experience.
Public housing is gone under my UBI program, remember? And you can't just tell me that I'm wrong. You have to come up with a logical argument as to why I'm wrong.
People who think like that aren't interested in bettering themselves. Deal with it.
On Momma's actions, here is my surprised face:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsports.cbsimg.net%2Fimages%2Fvisual%2Fwhatshot%2F6513_Pop.jpg&hash=490490f3727a11d6c1e0b7f6f8cb04cb09793a98)
Oh, I understand the attitude. Mom and Son deserve charges for theft and/or vandalism, as appropriate. That said, it goes back to my core assumption: Greed combined with messed up rewards is a perfect explanation for their actions. Personally, I'd recommend caning in response. It tends to leave a lasting impression while being cheap.
Here's the deal: Under the UBI, they're renting from a commercial company. Unless the boss of that company is rather lenient, the response to the activity would be eviction, not replacement. And they'd know that, so therefore wouldn't do it.
It's all a question of what behavior you reward. I don't guarantee jack except $500 per month. You want to replace your fridge? Buy a new one. Just wrecked yours expecting a new one? Tough *expletive deleted*it, eat canned food and do without refrigeration until you can save up for a new one. It'd be quite a learning experience for many of them.
Part of the problem, as I see it, is that when they're provided housing that's nicer than they 'require', they're more or less free to convert the excess 'niceness' into other things. They don't value it because it's non-transferrable. With the UBI idea, they can live in the cheapest shithole they can find, and use the excess money on other things. It's part of why it's cheaper to just provide cash to people than to try to provide benefits. Because inevitably, people insist that they get nicer stuff than the people themselves would get if they had the choice.
I'll point to the last three elections as proof. 2008: Overwhelming Democratic turnout. Especially their "Base" urban poor.
Okay, the extreme poor are overwhelmingly democrat. But they don't actually get out and vote (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/income-gap-at-the-polls-113997). If the poor actually did at rates comparable to the middle class and higher, Hillary would have been president.
Note: I didn't say that they didn't vote liberal. I said that they don't bother showing up to the polling stations, most of the time. Those that do tend to vote liberal and for free *expletive deleted*it, yes, no dispute there.
The FSA turned out again to reelect Obama.
FSA? Flexible Spending Account? Food Services of America? Farm Service Agency? None seem appropriate for your use, and that's what's on the first page of a google search.
And you are going to vote for the person that gives you what you want, like more gun rights, lower taxes, less regulations. Whether or not Joe Shitbird gets more or less .gov freebies might not even make the Top Ten in Things You Look For In A Candidate.
True that, but I've already acknowledged that my plan isn't happening anytime soon in today's political climate, so why bring it up again? I'm just arguing the technical merits.
I'm tired of paying the Danegeld....If it's to prevent them from rioting, then let it burn. From what I have witnessed, they only harm themselves when they do that...
I'm looking to prevent a repeat of the French Revolution, us losing our heads over this stuff. But the problem is, after they burn their own *expletive deleted*it, are they going to stay there, or start hitting up new neighborhoods?
The IRS is filled with retards, and I use that in the most kindest sense of the word.
Well then, it's a good thing we're not actually asking them to do anything new, isn't it? They don't need to be "giants". Remember my mentioning the Nirvana fallacy. *expletive deleted*it don't have to be perfect, just better than before.
Both in business for 15+ years. They get audited. The lady* that has a childcare business this year and hair salon next and each year make right at the peak of the EIC bell curve.....crickets. (And yes, I have refused to do those returns I suspect of fraud.)
That's because they know they can't make their money back from the lady, she doesn't have enough income to matter. The real shops? They do.
The ACA has been one giant fluctercluck each year.
I'm able to summarize my plan in a single page. The ACA was several phonebooks of lawmaking that nobody read the entirety of before passing.
Again, Actively managed mutual fund vs index fund.
I know of no one that has been audited or even called to the carpet for lying about having insurance.
You might not have, but my mom(an accountant) has. Quite extremely expensively for a few of them.
All you have to do is check the box "YES". The only times I've seen the IRS get involved is if you got insurance through the Marketplace. Then you have to fill out the form with you policy number(s). Claim to have it through your employer, they don't check. Claim to have Medicaid, they don't check. Claim to have gotten on your own without going through Healthcare.gov, they don't check.
Funny thing is, I live in a state that's exempt(we don't have any plans that meet the affordability requirements for the penalty), and both Tricare and the VA send me letters showing that I was covered.
Sorry, but the All-Seeing, All Knowing, Omnipotent OZ IRS? A bunch of overwhelmed, incompetent, 'tards.
Since when is an omnipotent IRS required? Nirvana fallacy again. Keep in mind that I was restricting the changes they need to make to only the tax tables.
Summary:
1. I know they're 'lazy' pieces of *expletive deleted*it. I also know that many are quite cunning in their own way and will respond to any reward system in a greedy and lazy way. You know, just like the rest of us. We're just on different local optimizations. So the trick is to avoid poor optimizations, to make it such that there isn't any local optimums while dependent upon welfare.
2. I know that there will be Fraud, Waste, and Abuse. There always is, especially in an organization as big as the IRS. You apply the usual controls against it and move on with life. If things were as bad as you try to imply it is, we'd have a completely non-functional government.
3. Trying to use a vastly more complicated policy as an example of how my drastically simpler policy will fail is unmoving. Somebody doesn't have to be able to assemble a working engine from scratch to change the oil.
-
People who think like that aren't interested in bettering themselves.
Don't care.
I mean, literally, I don't care about those people at all. Frankly, at $500/mo and no extras, they'd be cheaper than they've been for the last several decades, so screw 'em.
What I want is a system that rewards the ones who try, which the $500-base-and-tax-anything-more-to-make-it-back system does. They are out there, and I've known quite a few. Heck, I've been one. If I got $100/week and anything I earned came off the top of that, there wouldn't be any point in doing any job that I couldn't get at least $150/week take home pay from. Maybe more if there are other benefits on the line. Instead, giving the $500/mo then taxing any earnings up to $24,000 at 25% means that you'd get to keep $0.75 of every earned dollar on top of the $500, so even earning $50 a week on some spotty part time work becomes worthwhile.
So really, I'd much rather have Danny Dontcare enjoying his bunk and beans than Sally Singlemom passing up part time work while her kid's at school because it will cost her more in benefits than she could hope to earn. Even if there are ten times as many Dannys as Sallys, it's worth it to reward the ones who do try to improve themselves.
-
3. Trying to use a vastly more complicated policy as an example of how my drastically simpler policy will fail is unmoving. Somebody doesn't have to be able to assemble a working engine from scratch to change the oil.
More relevant analogy; do you think all the Framers of the Constitution put together could make sense of the current tax code?
-
More relevant analogy; do you think all the Framers of the Constitution put together could make sense of the current tax code?
Nope.
I mean, literally, I don't care about those people at all. Frankly, at $500/mo and no extras, they'd be cheaper than they've been for the last several decades, so screw 'em.
Thank you for your kind words and a short & sweet explanation that I couldn't really come up with. The work of a great writer is being about to be succinct.
The completely non-working, completely dependent upon welfare, but not disabled portion of the population is actually pretty small.