Basic Income - The first step to end poverty?

[Mods please move if it doesn't belong in this category, thanks]

As a human being we live in a society. We need other people to get food, work, recreation, communication, transportation, innovation and so on.
I sincerely believe that everyone in this society has the right to live no matter where you are on the globe, how smart / less smart you are, how rich / poor you are. It's our given right to live our life!
Unfortuantly in the world we live in now, most pets have better life then a lot of people living in poverty.

There is this foundation who is reasearching the possibility to provide every human being in this world a basic income to fulfill the primary needs (food and shelter). If you wish to read about their ideas check the following site: www.globalincome.org...

Before you call me a communist or what sort of left / right type of person i will tell you the following:
We have / had all sorts of goverment types, democracy, monarch, communism, socialism and so on.
I do believe that they all have flaws.
I stand for a NEW system global wide. My thought about this is: combine all the positive points from each system to make a new system.

- Democracy: people should be able to vote not only for representatives but also on laws.
- Kapitalism: there must be difference in income so that people are motivated to compete in achieving goals while they study / work.
- Communism: there must be a MAXIMUM income so that the difference in wealth can't be like it is nowadays.
I mean it's unbelievabale that the 1% own 95% of all the money in this world (I'm not aware of the real statistics but it gives u an idea.)

It isn't my goal to rip off all the millionairs / billionairs. They have the right to own more then others based on their achievements and / or inheritance. But i think there must be a law that says for example: A person is allowed to earn as much as 5 million dollars a year. Everything on top of that needs to be taxed. So that everyone else can have a basic income like for example 60000 dollars a year (The communism way).

I know that this new type of government is a sort of NWO, but i think it is better then the NWO that the TPTB is planning to place in our world.
If we are ahead of them then we can maybe achieve a NWO without the totalitarian goals that the TPTB have.
If there was a global gov. then the "military industrial complex" can be supressed and the money that comes free out of it can be used in sience, free public transportation, free telecommunication, free internet and so on.

And we shouldn't call it New World Order but New World Acceptance.

I'm curious about your thoughts on this. Let's hope that with this discussion we can find sollutions / ideas to the sick & polluted world we live in today

So who gets to runs this show? I call dibs on a seat on the Central Planning Board! Oh, how I'd love to be an Alpha!

I could be a whiz at ignoring the principle of individual freedom while trying to improve the lot of mankind through some pet formula of my own. Trust me.

Originally posted by METACOMET
So who gets to runs this show? I call dibs on a seat on the Central Planning Board! Oh, how I'd love to be an Alpha!

I could be a whiz at ignoring the principle of individual freedom while trying to improve the lot of mankind through some pet formula of my own. Trust me.

It's not that hard actually what we could do is the following:
All the leaders (Prime ministers, Kings, presidents and so on) in the world we have today are entitled by every human being to vote on te be the prime leader.
So this way one world leader can be placed on top of all the others and this person could lead the show.
If the prime leader is not having good intentions then the population (including the other leaders) have the right to veto him.
And also we all need to have the right to vote for a law to be passed / canceled.
For example the prime leader wants to adress that a person needs to be jailed for collecting rain water (as stated in this post: www.abovetopsecret.com...) then the population can decline this since i think that most of the people agree that this law is redicolous!

I disagree with the maximum income very much. Big private capital is important for the advancement of humanity. Billionaires often invest into things that noone else will. This is one of the reasons why communist countries were a failure.

Ordinary high income tax for the wealthy is much better solution than any ad-hoc artificial cut-off.

Originally posted by Maslo
I disagree with the maximum income very much. Big private capital is important for the advancement of humanity. Billionaires often invest into things that noone else will. This is one of the reasons why communist countries were a failure.

Ordinary high income tax for the wealthy is much better solution than any ad-hoc artificial cut-off.

I also believe that a company needs to be semi owned by the government.
So that means that every person can start a business but the government is 50% owner of it.
If there is a complaint by the public / other companies then the government can step in to force changes / improvements as demanded by other peoples / companies.

Besides if the government is in control of the cash, then we don't need the big corps to invest in innovation.
People could demand the government to invest / research some areas which has interest to us all.
Like for example the farma industry it's unbelievable that they have a monopoly position. besides if it was owned by the gov. it would mean that the distribution of meds can be free for everyone.

First Basic Income...spread the wealth...tax the rich and then they will try to eliminate private property to pay for it and dampen your desire to want more.

reply to post by Slave NO MORE


for the individual:
i would like to see more finance education. how to balance a checkbook and a home budget. to learn not to go into debt. to learn how to save money. to have the option to be paid in gold backed currency.

for the politician:
no more carreer politicians. term limits for all elected position. their pay should reflect the people they represent. no representative should be eating steak when the people they represent can only afford top ramen noodles. if the average wage of the people they represent is $40k then that is what they get paid.

just some ideas off the top of my head.

subfab

reply to post by Slave NO MORE


I agree totally, there must be incentive to work hard, so you have to pay hard workers more. Having said that, it is positiely EVIL that someone thinks they deservve a billion dollars a year while paying the workers actually making the money for them slave labor wages.

reply to post by Slave NO MORE

Besides if the government is in control of the cash, then we don't need the big corps to invest in innovation.

Oh yes, we do, because innovation pursued by government capital and private capital is not the same. They are complementary. I dont know where you get this faith in the government from. It is needed, but it is also corrupt and incompetent. When talking about innovation, there should be no limit to private spending, in fact it would be best if research and development spending was tax-deductible.

Originally posted by subfab
reply to post by Slave NO MORE

 

for the individual:
i would like to see more finance education. how to balance a checkbook and a home budget. to learn not to go into debt. to learn how to save money. to have the option to be paid in gold backed currency.

for the politician:
no more carreer politicians. term limits for all elected position. their pay should reflect the people they represent. no representative should be eating steak when the people they represent can only afford top ramen noodles. if the average wage of the people they represent is $40k then that is what they get paid.

just some ideas off the top of my head.

subfab

edit on 15-8-2012 by subfab because: correct a typo

To prevent people getting into debt is also simple.
Create 2 valuta's.
1. is the primary money for paying rent and food. (Not usable to buy a PC or other luxury and also not able to trade it)
2. Luxury money to get recreation, luxury etc.

You can scrap credits this way since everyone has the basics for life and if you don't have the money to build a pool in ur garden than too bad for u, get a better job or start a new business. Go study to be able to get a better job.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Slave NO MORE

 

Besides if the government is in control of the cash, then we don't need the big corps to invest in innovation.

Oh yes, we do, because innovation pursued by government capital and private capital is not the same. They are complementary. I dont know where you get this faith in the government from. It is needed, but it is also corrupt and incompetent. When talking about innovation, there should be no limit to private spending, in fact it would be best if research and development spending was tax-deductible.

If a company has an idea for innovation, they then can request the government for funding their reasearch etc.
If this all is transparent, the public / other companies can have influence into what is usefull research and what not for the benefit of us all.

Also if an individual has an innovative idea, he should also be funded by the government to realize his/her idea. This way everyone is entitled in having funds to innovate for the sake of humanity instead of for the benefit of the owner of one company.

I like this idea. That way I can sit around on my butt all day and be given a basic income. Hey I can sell drugs on the side and make some more while i am guaranted this basic income. meanwhile Biil gates does nothing to improve microsoft because he is already capped out, so why do anything else? Same with those that run other co.s. To get rid of debt , simple get reid of credit. Use what you got, save up to buy what you want. it worked for centuries until something came up called compound intterest. Shut down central banking and you solve a world of issues. Poverty isn't about lack of money, it is about lack of incentive.

RP

My humanitarian side agrees with what you are saying.

My practical side says that we should discourage poor people from having children.

We cannot, as race of people, continue to have unchecked population growth. We especially need to curtail the lower end of the economic spectrum from reproducing. They contribute less to society then they consume.

reply to post by reluctantpawn

That way I can sit around on my butt all day and be given a basic income

That's ur right indeed. And there's nothing wrong to that! If you don't feel like getting incentives and are satisfied with the basics, good for you. A lot of people however would like to go out and play some pool, go to cinema or whatever. So if you don't need all the luxury. Then you don't have to do anything about it.

Hey I can sell drugs on the side and make some more while i am guaranted this basic income

There are a lot of countries at the moment that are considering legalisation of drugs. If that happens, people can buy it from a drugstore then u will need to compete with them. If i have to chose get drugs from a drugstore or a homedealer, hey i know where to go. The drugstore. They will have laws to supervise creation / distribution while you can add some nasty ingridients that possibly can be fatal for someone.

meanwhile Biil gates does nothing to improve microsoft because he is already capped out, so why do anything else?

Bill gates hasn't been doing anything for microsoft since a long time now. All he do is demand more profit. The people WORKING for microsoft are the ones that are innovating the operating systems and other products. And besides. why we need a new windows every year? Better to have it every 5 year. If you look into corporations a lot of them still use windows XP. People who go with the flow and buy the newest windows every year are hype lovers. They just want to belong to the hipsters. Besides, every windows version do the same thing on a computer and that is doing binary calculations. Every windows that existed and that will come is only capable of doing this! I disagree to make a new product every year it's better to improve existing ones with for example updates.

Shut down central banking and you solve a world of issues

No not shut them down, unprivatise them is the sollution.
Every country currently has national debt --> to a bank --> which is owned by one or more persons.
This means that they have more power then a country. Give the government their power back and they can support the people again instead of the banksters.

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws" - Rothschild
Why you think he thinks this way? 1 word: powerrrrr!!!!!!

Originally posted by Wildbob77
My humanitarian side agrees with what you are saying.

My practical side says that we should discourage poor people from having children.

We cannot, as race of people, continue to have unchecked population growth. We especially need to curtail the lower end of the economic spectrum from reproducing. They contribute less to society then they consume.

I agree that to a certain point, the world will be overpupulated, but then why find the sollution in mass genocide to reduce the pupulation by a "military industrial complex" and the manmade diseases? All we need to do is use that money to find ways in populating other planets. I'm from the Netherlands and i don't know if you know our history, but we lifted large parts of land out of the sea. If we can do it others can make more land aswell!

This plan could only work on an idealistic utopia dream land. The costs of living varies widely in cities, states, countries, continents. A $1000 stipend for housing would make someone rich beyond their dreams in Mexico but in Switzerland you would have trouble finding anything that cheap. If it is paid according to cost of living those in the poor areas would be outraged due to the inequalities. Additionally what happens when tenants do not care for or trash their place of living? Or major repairs are needed such as roofing, furnace, etc? You going to hand them a check for that too? Property taxes exist all over the world.

reply to post by jjkenobi

If it is paid according to cost of living those in the poor areas would be outraged due to the inequalities

We have inequalities allready today. A person in the Netherlands doing the same work as someone in a 3d world country don't have the same salary. I wish for equal wages. Why is it that someone in the Netherlands can get more of his / her salary then someone in for example Afrika? They both do the same work so should have equal wages. There should be some standard listing what job has to be paid how much. Then for example the US don't have the problem anymore that corporations are outsourcing to china where the labour costs is less then in the US. You will see that the unemployment rate will drop.

Additionally what happens when tenants do not care for or trash their place of living? Or major repairs are needed such as roofing, furnace, etc?

There can be laws made for this, for example throw this person in jail or forced community labour when they destroy property. That's how it is with public property allready isn't it? And for repairs etc: use government budgetised funding. Here in the netherlands for example every child gets money from the gov on a 3 month period. U can use it to pay for clothes etc.

The problem in this world today are priorities.
I don't understand why NBA players, actors etc (shouldn't be a job in my opinion) earns more then for example a surgeon

reply to post by Slave NO MORE

If a company has an idea for innovation, they then can request the government for funding their reasearch etc.

Again, repeat after me: government is often incompetent and corrupt.

The research approved by government is not the same, it is COMPLEMENTARY to research and development done by private entities. Plenty of good ideas will be rejected by stupid bureacrats in your system, and a lot of unproductive BS will be funded.

As for the idea of basic income, I am all for it, I think it is very sad that there are people who lack basic necessities that everyone should have. But this applies mostly to third world, most developed countries already have "basic income" in the form of various welfare systems. When we realize this, it becomes evident that basic income would not even cost that much, because living costs are on the order of few dollars a day in these countries. It is completely doable, only our own apathy and greed keeps us from eliminating poverty.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Slave NO MORE

 

If a company has an idea for innovation, they then can request the government for funding their reasearch etc.

Again, repeat after me: government is often incompetent and corrupt.

The research approved by government is not the same, it is COMPLEMENTARY to research and development done by private entities. Plenty of good ideas will be rejected by stupid bureacrats in your system, and a lot of unproductive BS will be funded.

As for the idea of basic income, I am all for it, I think it is very sad that there are people who lack basic necessities that everyone should have. But this applies mostly to third world, most developed countries already have "basic income" in the form of various welfare systems. When we realize this, it becomes evident that basic income would not even cost that much, because living costs are on the order of few dollars a day in these countries. It is completely doable, only our own apathy and greed keeps us from eliminating poverty.

That's why i would like to see a new form of government. The way most governments nowadays work is like this:
The population is able to choose a few people to be a representative of the country. And then these representatives have the power to make decisions for all of the population. There should be some kind of "poll" site where the population can democraticly vote for laws, improvements, innovations and so on. When for example a company has the idea for an innovation, they can request the government which in turn will post this request on a website. Then the people can decide if this innovation has some value. This way you also can exclude double research etc by multiple companies. If we start to share knowledge with eachother, this will save money. I agree that less smart people shouldn't be able to vote for things like innovations in heartsurgery. but you can make different leveled vote rights. Someone with no education can make votes for normal day to day laws. And someone with a economic Phd. can make votes for economic innovations and laws etc.

Minimum Income??? I need to know where this kind of economics is being taught where anything good happens at the end of it because it's not what the courses at school cover in any functional system.

People in 3rd world live on dollars because no one has more than dollars to spend. If you flood the economy where dollars support people by giving everyone $100 a week to feel like we've given them a working wage...what have we done? The people selling whatever it is those dollars previously bought can't remain stocked and so if they want to remain in business with their supply of whatever, they need to price to the market.

It's not dollars to live in the $100 to everyone minimum income village anymore. It's whatever the market will bear with money burning a hole...and in the end, well, it always seems to balance back about the same place eventually. Chasing ends to get 'em to meet and just a bit beyond what is being brought in. Whatever that amount ever seems to be.