Should the Government Give Away Free Money ?

a reply to: AlienView


There have been some experiments which showed that such a system actually works.

From wikipedia:

Mincome was an experimental Canadian basic income project that was held in Dauphin, Manitoba during the 1970s. The project, funded jointly by the Manitoba provincial government and the Canadian federal government, began with a news release on February 22, 1974, and was closed down in 1979. The purpose of this experiment was to determine whether a guaranteed, unconditional annual income caused disincentive to work for the recipients, and how great such a disincentive would be.

It allowed every family unit to receive a minimum cash benefit. The results showed a modest impact on labor markets, with working hours dropping one percent for men, three percent for married women, and five percent for unmarried women.[1] However, some have argued these drops may be artificially low because participants knew the guaranteed income was temporary.[2] These decreases in hours worked may be seen as offset by the opportunity cost of more time for family and education. Mothers spent more time rearing newborns, and the educational impacts are regarded as a success. Students in these families showed higher test scores and lower dropout rates. There was also an increase in adults continuing education.[3][4]

A final report was never issued, but Dr. Evelyn Forget (/fɔrˈʒeɪ/) conducted an analysis of the program in 2009 which was published in 2011.[4][5] She found that only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less. Mothers with newborns stopped working because they wanted to stay at home longer with their babies, and teenagers worked less because they weren't under as much pressure to support their families, which resulted in more teenagers graduating. In addition, those who continued to work were given more opportunities to choose what type of work they did. Forget found that in the period that Mincome was administered, hospital visits dropped 8.5 percent, with fewer incidents of work-related injuries, and fewer emergency room visits from car accidents and domestic abuse.[6] Additionally, the period saw a reduction in rates of psychiatric hospitalization, and in the number of mental illness-related consultations with health professionals.[7][8]

a reply to: AlienView

www.ted.com...

.. so, closing the gaps between richest and poorest helps us. And "mincome" (free money) helps closing these gaps. So, in my book it's a Good Thing (TM)

I would settle for them not taking money from my paychecks and on anything and everything I buy.

However I know some people would be so very grateful, and others would be apathetic and foster independence.

But free money Sign me up!

Poor people who can't manage money will always be poor and broke no matter how much you give them. Just look at the lottery winner statistics.

However I am all for cutting out govt administration jobs so for this reason I'd support the plan for that reason.

originally posted by: iclimbtowers
I would settle for them not taking money from my paychecks and on anything and everything I buy.

Your taxes are partially used to pay the poor. But in a very inefficient way. See, we all need money (that's the system we created). So, let's end the stupidity of never-ending rules and regulations to determine who needs it and does not - simply give it to all. It will free people, force us to rethink and start really using automation and mechanisation instead of having cohorts of people doing booooooring or even plain stupid jobs.

However I know some people would be so very grateful, and others would be apathetic and foster independence. But free money Sign me up!

Indeed, and so it would be. And the apathetic folks would remain apathethic - but well fed and well housed, and even right wing capitalists must agree that if they have an income - they have something to spend, so the economy benefits from "free money" too. It's a simple, smart system.

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme In most cases I think it would breed dependency, sloth and apathy. Also I bet a lot of people would mismanage it. Blowing it on certain items.

You say that as if you think it's a bad thing.

Go to Fiji, or the Marquesas. Lazy happy people. What's not to like? And. They've been like that for centuries without technology. Think how much more apathy we can have now that we have robots and combine harvesters.

I know there's lots of people who want to rip you off with rents and taxes and selling you stuff you don't need, but maybe we should reject all that and live happy.

Embrace your inner sloth.

a reply to: supermouse

Well problem is there's a big difference between living off the land/sea and adhering to traditional lifestyles.....and being indentured in the system like we are.

I think many would agree a carefree life is better but to us carefree is generally more than just being comfortable.

Many Americans are lazy and happy. The difference is in places like Fiji, they're lazy and happy because it's their way of life. In America they're lazy and happy because they're kept in a complacent state.

a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

Except the lazy aren't happy because we value productivity culturally and people are realizing that productivity isn't necessarily a 9-5 job that you hate.

Once again it's already being empirically shown to work as a model of charity.

www.npr.org...

a reply to: tavi45

Given the amount of people who consider welfare a career, or siphoning off their parents....I'd have to say many Americans are lazy, happy and carefree. Problem is they're being duped.

Giving people money for nothing is breeding laziness.

Many would try to enrich their lives in their freetime.

Most would sit back and drink a beer or watch tv, music, read, etc.

If everybody (and I mean everybody) got free money and began to feel there's no need to contribute, then we have a problem. TPTB would never allow it to happen, 7+ billion living off of robot-made goods and constantly consuming?

In this current phase, humanity as a whole could never handle it responsibly.

a reply to: AlienView

They already do. It's called the Earned Income Credit.

The council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Foreign Affairs magazine recently carried an essay the advocated central banks do exactly this. It is an interesting read


Print Less but Transfer More
Why Central Banks Should Give Money Directly to the People

www.foreignaffairs.com...

this is a great idea

it will never happen

if it were to happen, too many government jobs would be lost

and we all know

government jobs can not be destroyed

a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

You're falling for the propaganda again. America's productivity has never stopped growing at all.

m.ibtimes.com...

There are lazy people on welfare and lazy people with trust funds. There are also hardworking people on welfare too. One of my best friends who is a die hard Republican and hates socialism and welfare was in unemployment for 2 years. He now has a job and works his ass off and is expecting a child soon.

Are you aware that due to the implementation of Reagonomics philosophy and practice, the benefits of increased productivity both in human effort and technological advancement go to the people at the top?

At my last "normal" job (I now work for a well moralled small business for half my income and am self employed for the other half) we had a very high turnover rate. While I was there I noticed a pattern. When someone would leave a full time position it would never be refilled. The extra work was delegated to me and the other part time workers. After 2 or 3 full time workers left they would rehire one new full time worker. This gap in productivity was filled by adding machines or employing more part time workers.

The same part time workers who were deliberately and openly kept at part time to avoid being forced to give us any sort of rights or voice, itself an incredibly common practice nowadays. This truly evil practice allows higher productivity with equal or reduced cost.

The worst part is that when this system would fail and they would desperately need help they would call a part time worker in on short notice. Being the type of guy who loves to help and also needed money I leaped at the opportunity. Two months later they took me off the schedule for a whole week. They had neglected to inform me that the extra work I did to help out put me over my allowed limit of hours. I never went in to help on my day off again. Thanks to the high turnover though, there was always a bright eyed optimistic new worker ready to be sucked into the soul crushing bureaucracy of modern "capitalism".

Its not lazy poor people dragging our country down. It's the fault of rich entitled robber barons. But keep believing the propaganda. I'll leave you with this gem of an article. It's quite sad, read at your own peril.

rt.com...

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
a reply to: tavi45
Giving people money for nothing is breeding laziness.

Yeah - I know: nit a vest while you cr*p, - worship Work at all times!

If everybody (and I mean everybody) got free money and began to feel there's no need to contribute, then we have a problem. TPTB would never allow it to happen, 7+ billion living off of robot-made goods and constantly consuming? In this current phase, humanity as a whole could never handle it responsibly.

The "constantly consuming" part sounds like the dream of any right-wing capitalist

But seriously: instead of 7+ billion living off robot-made goods - we now have 12 million or so people whom live off the labour of the rest: the millionaires and billionaires. Whom insist WE should all work harder, longer and for less money - so they can have more of it. Such nonsense - and the worst part is that it are the workers themselves that keep that injust system alive by insisting that it is a good thing we all work hard.

I believe the "robot" scenario is far better as it would indeed allow 7+ billion people to live happy lives. And yes, a happy live involves work, but far less of the dull and boring kind and much more of a different kind: socializing, taking care of others, maintaining our cultural heritage, arts and science, education.

CREAM WILL ALWAYS RISE TO THE TOP

As an instance >>>>

Yes give everyone £25,000 an annum .....

1 # A % will spend and have nothing left within a very short time

2 # A % will divide the amount by 12 and spend that amount monthly
remaining solvent till the next payment.

3 # And then we have the CREAM who will live off say 2/3rds of that
and with the rest buy cheap what is popular and sell at a profit! lend to
the no.1 group who have overspent ... at a profit. And there you have
it, a number of people who have been wise, careful and enterprising.
Ending up with more than they started with ....

Now group 1 and 2 (who were in the same position to begin with) are
at a disadvantage, and begin to call number 3 capitalists, advantaged
slave owners etc. etc.

Like I said at the top of the post CREAM WILL ALWAYS RISE TO THE TOP

I am not religious but I seem to remember a parable about a father giving
his two sons equal one made something of it and the other son just
wasted his share

originally posted by: Blueracer
Bad idea. Lets take for example a landlord who knows his tenant is being subsidized by the government. Landlord figures he can raise the rent to make more money. Other businesses raise their prices too. Tenant winds up in the same boat he was in before. And let's not forget that the cause of most, if not all, problems-GOVERNMENT- decides in order to create more revenue, they can raise taxes too because tenant has more money.

this is happening now and to be honest having a guarenteed minimum income (something like the op is proposing) would probably prevent some of the inflationary effects not to mention streamline all those programs into one simple system requiring less staff to monitor.

In the 80's I wrote a letter asking them the maximum amount that they gave out to a family of 5 if they had no income through all their programs. They came back with a rediculous number (If I were to take a guess if was the amount of just the cash assistance) that was under $200. Whoever answered the letter (did so on the behalf of Clinton) didn't feel like it was worth the trouble of finding out or maybe there was no way of knowing! But the point of my letter was that if that amount was more than the maximum amount a person could earn and qualify for these programs then that would drive inflation up and well actually force some people to decrease their earnings so they could have more of their needs met!
A minimum income tied to a reasonable minimum wage would eliminate any need for any other programs - including social security! that fact that it is tied to the minimum wage would diminish the chance that it would have any inflationary affect since if they raised the prices and caused the gov't to raise the minimum income then their own payroll costs would also end up being higher!

but as we talk about "free money" let us not forget about the billion or so that we have already threw into our war on isis along with the money that we gave away to them to train and arm them so we can have this great war!!! why is it that we seem to have no problem spending a billion blowing up oil refineries along with kids-- destruction. but have so much concern with spending money to make sure that our own people are fed and cared for?

originally posted by: eletheia
CREAM WILL ALWAYS RISE TO THE TOP

Hot air does too..

3 # And then we have the CREAM who will live off say 2/3rds of that and with the rest buy cheap what is popular and sell at a profit!

Indeed. You're totally ignoring the 'cream' that was born rich and will die rich without doing anything than get laid, doped up, drunk and - richer. But indeed, there might be people that start off with nothing too, get money from others (like the minimum income) and then start screwing others by selling them stuff they bought before at a price it wasn't worth when they bought it. I've seen all that and it is the core of all evil: simply dealing and wheeling without really adding anything, constantly pressing the folks that really DO the work to work for less and work more and harder, because your "cream" has to make money instead of delivering services or a good product. In fact, these are the real parasites and they sell their filthy work well up to the point that it became a desirable job to be a parasite. "I'm a broker" or "I'm an investor" or "I'm a banker" - shock and awe. But the measly tinkerer, the stupid office worker, the guy that fetches your garbage - oh, surely they are loosers, aren't they? No wonder they get payed zilch, if they only had had the guts to steal from others - but they are mostly decent folks, which would be ashamed if they did so.

Don't get me wrong: by no means do I think we can do without entrepreneurs: there will be need for people that start things, that help set things up. I don't mind some folks that really attribute to society having say 4-5 times as much money as the poorest few whose attribution is being alive and part of society, no more. But that is not what happens: what happens is that a cabal of so-called 'entrepreneurs' steals from the people to enrich themselves. The worst don't even make a product nor offer a real service - they make profits by moving other folks money around. These are disgusting and an enemy of the people - but the people allow it, indeed: even stimulate it! Such foolishness.

The real cream would offer assistance to the folks that aren't able to spent money wisely.

But however - this has nothing to do with minimum wages or minimum income. Regardless how people acquire money - they can or can not spend it wisely, can or can not make a profit, and yes, in a society that has a minimum income there still WILL be loan sharks, bankers, brokers, resellers, billionaires and other thieves. Maybe we should do something about that, but it seems to be human nature to tolerate it, so maybe that's the way it is.

I am not religious but I seem to remember a parable about a father giving
his two sons equal one made something of it and the other son just
wasted his share

I am religious and I vaguely recall something about giving to the poor instead of taking from them.

a reply to: ForteanOrg


You missed my point entirely In life there will always be those

that strive and make the most of things, and then there are those who

sit back with the "woe is me" attitude and expect someone else to pick

up the tab.

Granted some of the 'haves' were born to it .... but then there are also

many of the haves that worked dammed hard for it ... ENVY is a nasty

destructive trait that it seems many people are afflicted with!

you do know what happens if the people get desperate enough?...right?....I don't know why the wealthy keep trying to take more and more. how much more than a billion dollars does anyone need? at an interest rate of just 2% annually, they can make 20 million a year, without losing the 1 billion to start with, all the while doing nothing but sitting on their ass. you would think that they would have learned this from their expensive private school history and economic books, or from daddy and mummy.