Would you support universal basic income if it meant eliminating all other social safety net progs?

[Harrekin]

I get the whole concept & why its a cheaper alternative but wouldnt it make more sense if there was a cut off point , people makin $500k a yr wouldnt even need or miss the $1,500 .

Cheaper alternative?

Are you on mushrooms or something? Even a cursory glance suggests it's over 10X moar expensive.

Itd be five time the total cost of the recent middle east wars PER YEAR.

 

[see4]

Okay.

What if a peaceful person thinks they and they alone should make decisions about their own well being and they don't want to have somebody else do that ? Would you be willing to use force against them to make them do what you want ?

I need a reply that doesn't rely on cognitive dissonance or crayons.

Same way it works now. When you are on unemployment or government assistance, you have to abide by a certain set of rules. If you do not follow those rules, you do not get paid.

If you choose not to pay taxes, which is well within your "freedumbs", you give up your right to breathe clean air, drive on our paved roads, use our gasoline, and walk on any public land. Or go to jail.

If you choose to whine about how the gub-ment is bringing you down, I have the right to point and make fun of you. Oddly, you seem to only complain about the gub-ment and your freedumbs when a black man is in office, and most likely when a woman is in office.

 

[see4]

Personally, I think it would cause an economic collapse. I doubt most would keep their minimum wage jobs making cheeseburgers and pushing shopping carts. There would be a huge labor shortage. This would drive wages up for those still wanting to work, but then there is also the issue of inflation. Due to having to pay higher wages, prices would increase. Slumlords across the country would be raising rents the moment people started getting checks.

There is also the issue of how to pay for it all. For it to work, there would probably need to be an 80-90 percent tax on those working. What would be the point of taking out close to six figures in student loans and spending years in college if the government is going to take most of your earnings. Would it be worth all that effort to get a 50k a year job if the government takes 40 of it in taxes. Would it even be worth working at all in such a scenario?

Free money is an easy sell to people, after all, who doesn't like free money? But I am not sure it would be good for the country's economic health. I am not sure it could be done from a financial standpoint either. I could see maybe a smaller, more supplementary type of income, say 4-6 thousand a year. That may not be enough to live on, but it would make a big difference to someone making eight bucks an hour.

Unfortunately for your argument, statistics show otherwise. So does common sense.

If people receiving free money, let's use unemployment distributions as an example, were to not want to hold down a job, then can you explain to me why the unemployment rate is lower now than it was 5 years ago? Can you explain to me why all these people who were receiving free money are now holding down jobs?

Do you think $1,500 a month is a enough to survive? For those who can survive on that, will not work. For those who can't, will work, and continue to do so.

 

[sheskunk]

Unfortunately for your argument, statistics show otherwise. So does common sense.

If people receiving free money, let's use unemployment distributions as an example, were to not want to hold down a job, then can you explain to me why the unemployment rate is lower now than it was 5 years ago? Can you explain to me why all these people who were receiving free money are now holding down jobs?

Do you think $1,500 a month is a enough to survive? For those who can survive on that, will not work. For those who can't, will work, and continue to do so.

Just because a person no longer receives unemployment doesn't always mean they have a job. Unemployment benefits only get paid out for a set amount of time. Once that time lapses you get dropped. The more people that get dropped the lower the unemployment rate appears to go. It's not an accurate indication, it's a skewed number.

You already know this though.

 

[schuylaar]

if everyone is getting a UBI, the only money that is taxed is above and beyond the UBI, which is money people chose to make and consented to be taxed on.

thus, it is done under consent, not force.

inb4 pedophilia get s described as consensual and voluntary.[/QUOTE]

.

or talk of "lubricants"..poor, poor @Rob Roy i'm not sure if off the grid has been kind to you.

 

[see4]

Just because a person no longer receives unemployment doesn't always mean they have a job. Unemployment benefits only get paid out for a set amount of time. Once that time lapses you get dropped. The more people that get dropped the lower the unemployment rate appears to go. It's not an accurate indication, it's a skewed number.

You already know this though.

Nope. Nope. Nope. Wrong. Nope. Sorry. Come again. Nope.

Furthermore, you didn't answer the question, you deflected.

By your above statement, you are saying that everyone who was unemployed and receiving unemployment benefits, is now no longer receiving those benefits and are out of work. That is what you are telling me. And that is simply not even remotely accurate.

 

[see4]

Cheaper alternative?

Are you on mushrooms or something? Even a cursory glance suggests it's over 10X moar expensive.

Itd be five time the total cost of the recent middle east wars PER YEAR.

No. Prove your statement. But first explain to me what the OP topic means to you, just so we all know you are on the same page... or not.

 

[sheskunk]

Nope. Nope. Nope. Wrong. Nope. Sorry. Come again. Nope.

Furthermore, you didn't answer the question, you deflected.

By your above statement, you are saying that everyone who was unemployed and receiving unemployment benefits, is now no longer receiving those benefits and are out of work. That is what you are telling me. And that is simply not even remotely accurate.

That's not what I said at all. You do understand what "skewed" means, don't you?

I'm not here to answer your questions.

 

[NoDrama]

A UBI of $1,500/month ($18,000/year) to every American citizen, regardless of age, from birth to death & the elimination of all other social safety net programs

Support/oppose? Why?

You could make it $10,500 every month and you would eventually still have homeless people, poor people and people who cannot take care of themselves.

 

[ginwilly]

When I took sociology they talked about dividing all of the money up equally amongst each adult. Back then we each got a million, I'm sure it's more than that now.

The statement was within 6 months the rich would be rich again, the poor would be poor again. Nobody could make a good argument otherwise.

 

[Rob Roy]

Do we get a pony too? I really want a pony with a long silky mane. And free veterinary care too. And I get to keep my veterinarian if I like her,right? She should have long silky hair too; to match my pony.

Did you say free pony?

 

[Rob Roy]

tell us again about your belief that small children can consent to being paid for sex, sicko.

One one hand you correctly say that a person who doesn't consent to something being forcefully done to them or their property has been assaulted in some way. Good doggy, you get a biscuit.

Yet on the other hand, you actively support an entity assailing somebody or their property to achieve something you like.

Why do you hold opposing points of view within yourself, is it because you are a hypocrite? Why yes it is.

 

[Rob Roy]

Same way it works now. When you are on unemployment or government assistance, you have to abide by a certain set of rules. If you do not follow those rules, you do not get paid.

If you choose not to pay taxes, which is well within your "freedumbs", you give up your right to breathe clean air, drive on our paved roads, use our gasoline, and walk on any public land. Or go to jail.

If you choose to whine about how the gub-ment is bringing you down, I have the right to point and make fun of you. Oddly, you seem to only complain about the gub-ment and your freedumbs when a black man is in office, and most likely when a woman is in office.

Oh hello, I see you've wiped the drool from your chin and are attempting to articulate some kind of rationalization and pack of lies.

Rights to clean air don't come from government, but jail does come from government. Also, it's not "our gasoline".

Government has dumbed you down, by design. Poke away, air hump your own leg if it turns you on.

I don't support any President, it's a lie and a contradiction that there can be an oxymoronic "leader of the free world" .

A leader in a free world is a person that you admire and voluntarily follow or emulate on an individual basis of your own choosing.

A politically appointed leader holds force thru a gun, that would negate his / her claim to leading a "free world".

 

[King Arthur]

Yeah, I can come up with a list of hypotheticals and I'm sure you could as well.

My main point is that the "safety" nets aren't going to go away. People need them.

Really? and foodstamps would still be needed why?

 

[King Arthur]

Cheaper alternative?

Are you on mushrooms or something? Even a cursory glance suggests it's over 10X moar expensive.

Itd be five time the total cost of the recent middle east wars PER YEAR.

And who is paying that bill? So who really cares if we rack up some more debt by getting the economy rolling again.

 

[Rob Roy]

Really? and foodstamps would still be needed why?

If incomes rise, the cost of other goods and services are likely to also. Not everything will rise in price, nor will it happen all at once, but enough prices will rise that the increase in a persons income, will quickly become moot, as his costs will rise too.

The relationship between income and cost of living increases needs to be considered when the government tries to fix problems that their previous "fixes" caused.

I think the solution can't be brought about by the same entity that caused much of the problem in the first place.

 

[King Arthur]

If incomes rise, the cost of other goods and services are likely to also. Not everything will rise in price, nor will it happen all at once, but enough prices will rise that the increase in a persons income, will quickly become moot, as his costs will rise too.

The relationship between income and cost of living increases needs to be considered when the government tries to fix problems that their previous "fixes" caused.

I think the solution can't be brought about by the same entity that caused much of the problem in the first place.

If it was up to them we would all be in prisons doing labor for free.

 

[Rob Roy]

If it was up to them we would all be in prisons doing labor foree free.

In a sense many are, even when they aren't in an actual brick and mortar building / cell.

The USA won't let you decide what you can ingest. They will take your house, shoot your dog and beat you senseless if you disagree.

As far as laboring for free, that's a foregone conclusion. Your property and the money you earn from your labor isn't yours, until they've gotten the first cut, with or without your agreement.

 

[desert dude]

If you got $18K "for free", you would be resentful and sullen. You would stamp your indignant little foot and declare that it's not fair that your neighbor has more than you.

Welfare has never improved the life of anybody in the long run.

 

[Rob Roy]