A possible palatable way for having universal basic income

a reply to: dfnj2015

So I was thinking what would be a good mechanism for having helicopter money but in way that would be politically acceptable. So here's what I've come up with. Every year, when individuals file their taxes, say there is some percentage, I don't know what would be a good amount, say 50% to start and then dial it back if needed. So say we have a 50% number, then whatever the amount of taxes that are due to the Federal Government, say a family owes $15000, then 50% of it would be paid by the Federal Reserve which would result in the family getting back $7500.00. Think of it as an "Inflation Dividend" being paid by the Federal Reserve.

Isn't this just called a tax cut? Why not just cut taxes dramatically so people get to keep more of their money? What is the point of sending money to the government for them to just give it right back to you?

The bottom 50% of wage earners already don't pay federal taxes, so not sure how this plan is supposed to work with them since you said it would only work if you pay taxes....

We don't have a taxation problem, we have a SPENDING problem.

a reply to: dfnj2015

To be fair, the suggestion of UBI (in really ANY capacity) would give the "banking system" more power, influence, and clout than ever before.

A lot of us dont like that.

There are also those of us who would like to see technology meet these social needs. It cuts out the horrific middle man that currency has become, and delivers actual, hard goods to meet actual needs.

Dont give up.. I dont know if your heart is in the right place or anything, but some feedback would be to use less propaganda and blatantly propagandistic, biased sources (like truthout).

Come up with something new!

Here's a "palatable" approach. At least for the USA.

Calculate the total number of dollars the USA spends for the "poor" via every social program that exists. I've seen older articles estimate this at around $35k per person per year average. Some states pay more, some less. Regardless we'll go with $35k.

Stop every single social program that exists and pay out the money directly to the "poor". That's almost $3,000 per month. Over $600 per week. And that's it. You buy your own rent, your own food, your own school lunches, your own Obamacare. If you spend it all on weed and doritos and cable tv that's a you problem, not a govt problem.

This also could include a substantial govt workforce reduction in managing the vast network of social programs. Consolidate it all down to one program.

Side note, a basic income of $35k puts you well above the top 20% of income earners in the world.

a reply to: dfnj2015

If you want to eat, then you work.

If you want better things, then you work.

If you want to support lazy bums, then YOU work to do that.

Simple...

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Here's a "palatable" approach. At least for the USA.

Calculate the total number of dollars the USA spends for the "poor" via every social program that exists. I've seen older articles estimate this at around $35k per person per year average. Some states pay more, some less. Regardless we'll go with $35k.

Stop every single social program that exists and pay out the money directly to the "poor". That's almost $3,000 per month. Over $600 per week. And that's it. You buy your own rent, your own food, your own school lunches, your own Obamacare. If you spend it all on weed and doritos and cable tv that's a you problem, not a govt problem.

This also could include a substantial govt workforce reduction in managing the vast network of social programs. Consolidate it all down to one program.

Side note, a basic income of $35k puts you well above the top 20% of income earners in the world.

I could get behind this.... totally eliminate fed govt involvement in any kind of welfare/aid. All of it should be done at the local level and charity.

The issue is that there are some people who will blow it all on hookers and weed. We have to let these idiots fail. We can't allow do gooders to pull at the heart strings (It's for the children). Government has to stay out of it. Otherwise, you get UBI and welfare.... you can't have both.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: dfnj2015
You can easily prove your idea by donating 70% of your
own money to your neighbors.
Until you do that, your idea is a joke.

I appreciate your confidence. But the American economy is like the Titanic. It's a big ship with a small rudder. I can assure you if I gave 100% of my money to my neighbor it would do absolutely NOTHING to turn the ship!

What about your neighbor's ship?

a reply to: dfnj2015

Andrew yang 2020!

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: dfnj2015

Universal Income is Foolish.

If "automation" is a reason, lower retirement age to 50 and let the "youth" have the job.

Nobody wants a job. The youth lest of all. And to prove my point if you won the lottery would you still work? Huh why not? Automation and universal income is going to happen but it should be a extremely thought out method not yangs give everyone a 1000 dollars pitch.

The monetary system needs to change to reflect this new system. I know it sucks that most of us grew up in this wage slave system and will continue too but it’s unsustainable even now and will not make any sense in the future. Don’t for a second believe the current system of work a majority of your life doing something you hate in best cases 30 percent of the time and in worst 80 percent of the time is good for anybody. It’s not healthy and it’s not normal.

a reply to: dfnj2015

So what are you thinking? Are you trying to find a way for people to have food and shelter while detaching from this f'ed up system? So a person could continue to live and possibly enjoy this reality without sacrificing their blood, sweat and tears on the holy alter of the oligarchs?

Or are you looking for a way to eradicate the imbalance brought on by human greed? The imbalance created for that beautiful lust of the material that everyone likes to champion through cries of 'capitalism'?

Just questioning, lately I am trying to figure this one out myself.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: dfnj2015

Andrew yang 2020!

Yang is an extremely bad idea using the current monetary system. Why don’t you just hand the country over to China while we are at it because they own large amounts of property in the United States . Your 1000 dollar yang bucks won’t pay for crap when the system crashes and hyperinflation kicks in due to his “math” that still would require another .8 trillion a year which he would need to borrow.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Here's a "palatable" approach. At least for the USA.

Calculate the total number of dollars the USA spends for the "poor" via every social program that exists. I've seen older articles estimate this at around $35k per person per year average. Some states pay more, some less. Regardless we'll go with $35k.

Stop every single social program that exists and pay out the money directly to the "poor". That's almost $3,000 per month. Over $600 per week. And that's it. You buy your own rent, your own food, your own school lunches, your own Obamacare. If you spend it all on weed and doritos and cable tv that's a you problem, not a govt problem.

This also could include a substantial govt workforce reduction in managing the vast network of social programs. Consolidate it all down to one program.

Side note, a basic income of $35k puts you well above the top 20% of income earners in the world.

I could get behind this.... totally eliminate fed govt involvement in any kind of welfare/aid. All of it should be done at the local level and charity.

The issue is that there are some people who will blow it all on hookers and weed. We have to let these idiots fail. We can't allow do gooders to pull at the heart strings (It's for the children). Government has to stay out of it. Otherwise, you get UBI and welfare.... you can't have both.

That wouldn’t work because it would put all the weight on the private sector to make up the taxes. The vast social programs eliminated would mean you have less money to tax from dropping the overall amount of 35k to considerably less per year. You would save a lot of money however. The real problem nobody is addressing is the hoarding of wealth by multinational corporations in off shore bank accounts that would ultimately go to helping raise the wages and income of people. By them skirting their responsibility to pay taxes like the rest of us they keep us in a employers market.

This detail needs to be addressed first and foremost! Basically if you got a loan from our government or it became publicly traded in our stock exchange you owe us taxes

a reply to: Veryolduser

Some people think we need this system to crash so we can make something better.

Am I one of them? Not today.