Yang's $1,000/month UBI Government Payment

[TGS]

Someone here who is a democrat or "humanity first technocrat", please explain to me why this isn't the dumbest fucking concept I've read about this year.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zc4bGkU05o

[0ddl0t]

It isn't *as* bad if it replaces existing entitlements. I'd rather an indigent person have to move to Detroit or Wabash Indiana to make their $1,000/month work than stay in SF or NYC using a $2,000/month housing voucher + food stamps + medicaid etc.

But I fear it'll be used as a tool of wealth redistribution instead.

[Darth_Uno]

Funny, I was reading about this last night.

Now I’m not one to dismiss something immediately just because a Democrat proposes it, although that’s a good indicator of how good (usually bad) an idea it is. He’s actually got it spelled out pretty well on his website, but all it keeps saying is “studies show this, studies show that,”, and as far as I can tell these studies don’t reflect anything I’ve ever seen in the real world.

[TheNewbie]

Giving people money for nothing is not healthy, from the government it’s not American and it’s doomed to fail.

The left has zero wisdom, I mean zero, and has little understanding of human nature. Not to mention the ironic contempt they have for anyone who is not a white heterosexual cis gender Christian male.


Liberals need to wake up and fight the left instead of running around like scared chickens and thinking conservatives are the enemy. There will be a price to pay for a liberal who fights the left, but it will make their country a better place.

Yang seems like a nice guy, too bad he went to college and took it seriously.

[BehindBlueI's]

I know we've done a lengthy thread on the pros and cons of a UBI before but I can't find it in a search. Still combing, though.

Ah, here it is: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?30778-Universal-Basic-Income-(California-of-course-)

Used Google instead of the built in site search and found it right away.

[Grey]

Why are you guys shitting on my future play fund? I may as well get some free shit for all the taxes I pay :P

[Cookie Monster]

I look out in this world and see shit pretty fucked up. I am open to a new idea.

Telling everyone they need to work harder and you can’t have my fucking money isn’t working.

[farscott]

I struggle with the idea of an UBI as my concern is that it will make things worse for those who need it and not better. And for those of us who are net taxpayers, the taxable burden either has to increase or more money has to be borrowed (created by the Federal Reserve System). $12,000 per year per person times 350 million people is $4.2 trillion per year. The US GDP is about $20 trillion, so the UBI is more than 20% of GDP. Yang's plan is to offset the cost with a federal 10% VAT (Value Added Tax), and quite frankly that scares me as it less than half (20% of $20 trillion is $4 trillion). So the VAT rate would have to increase to stop the debt from increasing.

Once we have a de facto federal sales tax, our tax burden looks much like those in the EU as there would be local, state, and federal sales and income taxes. I would only support a VAT IF the Constitution is amended to not allow the federal income tax.

VATs are also "regressive", much like straight sales taxes are. So the people who need the benefit of the UBI pay the brunt (in terms of percentage of their income) in taxes to purchase goods. So the people the scheme purports to help do not get so much help as $1200 per year is likely lost to the VAT versus basically nothing in federal income tax now.

[Darth_Uno]

I would only support a VAT IF the Constitution is amended to not allow the federal income tax.


I'd have to look at the numbers, but that sounds like something I'd support. Not necessarily to fund UBI, but just in general.




VATs are also "regressive", much like straight sales taxes are. So the people who need the benefit of the UBI pay the brunt (in terms of percentage of their income) in taxes to purchase goods. So the people the scheme purports to help do not get so much help as $1200 per year is likely lost to the VAT versus basically nothing in federal income tax now.

In Yang's plan, groceries and other staples are exempt. Which he claims is what low-income recipients would spend it on, and totally not drugs, alcohol and cigarettes.

[TGS]

I look out in this world and see shit pretty fucked up. I am open to a new idea.

Telling everyone they need to work harder and you can’t have my fucking money isn’t working.

Well, too bad, because you can't have my fucking money.

The world will always need ditch diggers, dude. Seeing financial inequality in the world and thinking, "the world is pretty fucked up" is the problem, not the existence of financial inequality; that's called life. There has been inequality since man harvested his first piece of food and always will be, and any system that aims to take from the productive people and give to the unproductive to an extreme (like Yang's proposal) is headed for implosion.

The entire point of the US Constitution and our country is personal responsibility and freedom, not "to have the government make my problems go away." The entire basis of the United States is built on this notion. Anything that seeks to make the people financially dependent on the government is the enemy of our American way of life. Wang's catch phrase of "Not left, not right, but forward" is a lie because policies like these are regressive, which seek to make The People beholden to a ruler.

Taking communism and repackaging it as a "Freedom Dividend" is bullshit.

[blues]

https://imgix.ranker.com/user_node_img/50058/1001149208/original/buying-groceries-took-forever-photo-u2?w=650&q=50&fm=pjpg&fit=crop&crop=faces

Welcome to the worker's paradise!

[farscott]

I find the term "Freedom Dividend" unsettling as a dividend is a payment one gets in return on an investment. And there is no special "Freedom Dividend" in the plan for those members of the US military who fought to preserve and/or expand American freedoms. And lots of studies show that many veterans come back with issues that impact their ability to live the American Dream. The number of homeless veterans is troubling. If we are paying anyone a BI, I propose paying veterans who were honorably or medically discharged.

[TGS]

I find the term "Freedom Dividend" unsettling...

Shut your capitalist mouth and get in line, Comrade.

Off to see the Commissars with you.

[blues]

Shut your capitalist mouth and get in line, Comrade.

Off to see the Commissars with you.

Next he'll tell us the Patriot Act isn't patriotic.

[Chance]

Is this replacing the various benefits / entitlements / assistance programs we already have, or provided in addition to them?

[Cookie Monster]

Well, too bad, because you can't have my fucking money.

The world will always need ditch diggers, dude. Seeing financial inequality in the world and thinking, "the world is pretty fucked up" is the problem, not the existence of financial inequality; that's called life. There has been inequality since man harvested his first piece of food and always will be, and any system that aims to take from the productive people and give to the unproductive to an extreme (like Yang's proposal) is headed for implosion.

The entire point of the US Constitution and our country is personal responsibility and freedom, not "to have the government make my problems go away." The entire basis of the United States is built on this notion. Anything that seeks to make the people financially dependent on the government is the enemy of our American way of life. Wang's catch phrase of "Not left, not right, but forward" is a lie because policies like these are regressive, which seek to make The People beholden to a ruler.

Taking communism and repackaging it as a "Freedom Dividend" is bullshit.


I was probably talking in a broader view of how things are fucked up, income inequality is one thing and might be related to poor education, childhood hunger, the destruction of the environment, and all sorts of other problems.

We’ll always need ditch diggers yes but we’ll always get hard third world immigrants to do it.

Home taking care of puking kids and wife so I don’t know if I really have something relevant to put together.

I get and agree that the US is about taking care of yourself and personal responsibility and freedom. But I look at this idea like having my crew install the truck boxes on our work trucks. I used to believe it was cheapest for us to do it ourselves, fuck that shop labor rate of $80 per hour. But then I got two dudes monkey fucking a truck and box for 3 hours and extra holes in the box and the truck and we didn’t get the real work done and I spent twice the cost in salary.

So maybe UBI makes it cheaper and better, less hungry kids, better schools, better families, less people in prison, less people shitting in the streets, and overall a better society that is cheaper then the current way things are going.

I don’t know, maybe it makes it better maybe we still end up in a world where I am shooting people coming after my stored food and wishing I stocked more .308 rounds.

I got no answers just a day of rain and the stench of puke in the house.

[Joe in PNG]

Is this replacing the various benefits / entitlements / assistance programs we already have, or provided in addition to them?

In theory, a replacement.

In actuality, should they pass it, they'll never get around to repealing the other various benefits / entitlements / assistance programs we already have.

Because this has absolutely nothing to do with actually helping people, and everything to do with buying votes using taxpayer money.

The more people they can get depending on government assistance, the more votes they get. Bread and circuses, dude.

[farscott]

There is another issue with UBI that addresses a fundamental truth about money. There is never enough or there is too much. For money to function as a store/equivalent of wealth, it needs to be scarce. When there is too much money, the result is called the Weimar Republic or Zimbabwe.

That fact that as long as resources are limited that money has to be limited is at odds with the idea that everyone can have enough. There have to be winners and losers at some level or everyone loses. Everyone can never win. That is a hard truth that is at odds with the idea that everyone can/should/could/would succeed. The question comes down to limiting winners. Every attempt has led to widespread misery as opposed to pockets of misery.

[TGS]

I was probably talking in a broader view of how things are fucked up, income inequality is one thing and might be related to poor education, childhood hunger, the destruction of the environment, and all sorts of other problems.

We’ll always need ditch diggers yes but we’ll always get hard third world immigrants to do it.

Home taking care of puking kids and wife so I don’t know if I really have something relevant to put together.

I get and agree that the US is about taking care of yourself and personal responsibility and freedom. But I look at this idea like having my crew install the truck boxes on our work trucks. I used to believe it was cheapest for us to do it ourselves, fuck that shop labor rate of $80 per hour. But then I got two dudes monkey fucking a truck and box for 3 hours and extra holes in the box and the truck and we didn’t get the real work done and I spent twice the cost in salary.

So maybe UBI makes it cheaper and better, less hungry kids, better schools, better families, less people in prison, less people shitting in the streets, and overall a better society that is cheaper then the current way things are going.

I don’t know, maybe it makes it better maybe we still end up in a world where I am shooting people coming after my stored food and wishing I stocked more .308 rounds.

I got no answers just a day of rain and the stench of puke in the house.

Stay off the drugs, dude.

[Joe in PNG]

Sadly, far too many people never ask the question "how is the government going to use this Wonderful Idea to screw me?"

Too many people never ask "what kind of really bad unintended consequences are we setting up?"

And too many people feel they have to Do Something when the real solution is to Do Nothing At All.

If you give the government your property (including your means of making a living), your life and liberty will go with it.

[WobblyPossum]

My issue with the UBI idea has always been: Wouldn’t the market just adjust for everyone having $12,000 more every year? Wouldn’t the prices of everything increase and negate the additional income? Also, wouldn’t the companies that have to pay the VAT increase the costs of their products and services so as not to negatively impact their profit margins and piss off their shareholders?

[Darth_Uno]

And once this is in effect, it will never go away. If everybody gets $1000 a month no strings attached, all everyone is going to see is $1000 for free, no matter how the government gets the money to pay for it. Anybody who runs for office and says they want to get rid of it it will have zero chance of going anywhere.

Look at Social Security. I'd wager many Americans would agree in principle that the government should not be involved in the pension business. But when it comes to cutting benefits or abandoning the whole shebang, that's not a good platform to run on. Yes, I know it's a little different because you paid in and now you get "your" money back. Fair enough, and completely understandable. But my point stands.

[blues]

Sadly, far too many people never ask the question "how is the government going to use this Wonderful Idea to screw me?"

Kind of like when the government gave me the opportunity to switch to the "much better" FERS retirement plan. I said "Thanks but no thanks, I'll stay with the shitty old plan."

And I never put the post of duty I actually wanted first on any list.

[BehindBlueI's]

My issue with the UBI idea has always been: Wouldn’t the market just adjust for everyone having $12,000 more every year?

The closest large scale equivalent we could look at in US history would be the introduction of the GI Bill. A lot of people who couldn't afford homes, cars, college education, etc. all of a sudden could. Things did get more expensive, but this was accompanied by the entire economy growing dramatically, more jobs, raised wages, more businesses sprouting, more investment opportunities, etc. Arguably that lead to our modern middle class and the rise of the blue collar worker's economic mobility. It's not an exact duplicate, of course. The economy is different than in that we're a more global economy and make fewer things at home. As such it is probably debatable but I think we'd see a similar effect, just reduced in scope.

I encourage anyone who hasn't done so to read the thread I linked to earlier.

[Joe in PNG]

The closest large scale equivalent we could look at in US history would be the introduction of the GI Bill. A lot of people who couldn't afford homes, cars, college education, etc. all of a sudden could. Things did get more expensive, but this was accompanied by the entire economy growing dramatically, more jobs, raised wages, more businesses sprouting, more investment opportunities, etc. Arguably that lead to our modern middle class and the rise of the blue collar worker's economic mobility. It's not an exact duplicate, of course. The economy is different than in that we're a more global economy and make fewer things at home. As such it is probably debatable but I think we'd see a similar effect, just reduced in scope.

I encourage anyone who hasn't done so to read the thread I linked to earlier.

Then again, one can make the point that the long term of the GI Bill has been negative, as it led to an oversupply of higher education. With that, we have a problem with student loan debt, and the problem of trying to require college degrees for positions where they really aren't needed.

[Cookie Monster]

Stay off the drugs, dude.

Your ability to elevate discussions and provide clear reasoning is unparalleled. Cookie is out.

[TGS]

Your ability to elevate discussions and provide clear reasoning is unparalleled. Cookie is out.

People shit in the street because certain locales have given up on enforcing standards, and even enables them by giving them just enough to get by (sounds familiar).

People do not shit in the street because the US Government fails to give them $1000/month.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[BehindBlueI's]

Then again, one can make the point that the long term of the GI Bill has been negative, as it led to an oversupply of higher education. With that, we have a problem with student loan debt, and the problem of trying to require college degrees for positions where they really aren't needed.

One could have a goose that lays golden eggs and bitch the eggs are hard to stack, as well. One could equally bitch that the GI Bill required tax dollars, or as is fashionable to call it today "wealth redistribution" in order to give the veterans those benefits. I think it's a pretty up hill sell that it was a long term negative, though. There's precious little in the real world that's not a mixture of positive and negatives, much of which is subjective.

[jrm]

Then again, one can make the point that the long term of the GI Bill has been negative, as it led to an oversupply of higher education. With that, we have a problem with student loan debt, and the problem of trying to require college degrees for positions where they really aren't needed.

I seriously doubt that a benefit for services rendered for about 1% of the population is the cause of an over supply of higher education.

[GardoneVT]

Let’s take a step back and look at the problem.

Why do we see poor people? Because some skills are more valued by society then others. That’s life, period.
It is economically and psychologically impossible to change that. Even in a society with no money, the currency simply transitions to something else .

Giving $1,000 to people is simply robbery by the tax code, and everyone of all political beliefs will know it too. That does three bad things- devalues a work ethic (why work for $1,000 if I get it for free), and ruins economic growth for working people- with more cash in circulation , inflation becomes a risk which has to be addressed on a macroeconomic scale. So enjoy higher interest rates, reduced credit availability and higher APRs for everything. Buying a home, starting a business or taking out a loan to pay for that $100k medical bill just went up.

Then there’s the Black Market. More money to unskilled folks = more purchasing power for illegal narcotics, so we’d also be subsidizing cartels.

BTW- as clarification the GI Bill is not a handout or welfare program. It’s an entitlement duly earned by honorable military service, and is thus not a relevant subject to compare with this economically suicidal proposal.

[peterb]

Let’s take a step back and look at the problem.

Why do we see poor people? Because some skills are more valued by society then others. That’s life, period.
It is economically and psychologically impossible to change that. Even in a society with no money, the currency simply transitions to something else .

The things a society values change over time. Changes in values cannot be legislated but can be encouraged by intelligent policy.

[BehindBlueI's]

BTW- as clarification the GI Bill is not a handout or welfare program. It’s an entitlement duly earned by honorable military service, and is thus not a relevant subject to compare with this economically suicidal proposal.

Honorable military service predates the GI Bill considerably, and while we can split the hair of what is a welfare program vs an entitlement program it remains the sole large scale experiment in direct payments to a large section of the public that was not a wage for labor (or return on investing) and observing the economic outcome*. It's considered part and parcel of military service today, much like SSI is for the work force, but that's because we are used to it and take it for granted. The original recipients did not view it as such, and apparently did not consider it an entitlement. Critics called it a handout and even the DAV opposed it.


Though it was the first veterans' law
that was devoid of "hand-out" (you had
to help yourself to get GI Bill help). it
was opposed by many who had cried
long and loud against veterans' "handouts."



Dr. Suzanne Mettler..says the GI Bill came as a complete surprise to most veterans. "I've interviewed many veterans from the World War II era, and I asked them, ‘Did you feel you were owed the GI Bill?' And they would tell me, sometimes rather vehemently, ‘No, we were not owed the GI Bill.'"

The purpose was to take a group of people that historically had issues reintegrating into society, provide them with readily available cash independent of labor, and hope that it would result in a beneficial outcome for both the veterans and for society at large. Remember it was called the "readjustment act" originally.


Colmery told an audience in Topeka, Kan., that the re-assimilation of veterans "is the gravest social problem which confronts us. They can either make the country or break it, save democracy or scrap it, promote world order or World War III. The result depends on us, not them."

And it was not a given, even after it's original implementation:


GI Bill benefits were cancelled altogether in 1956.... In 1959, a report by the Bradley Commission determined that serving in the military should be "an obligation of citizenship, not a basis for government benefits.

I would invite you to read the contemporary statements of those who opposed it at the time and compare it to the comments in this thread should you still doubt how relevant it is to the topic at hand. The recipients would be made lazy. They would not work. They would indulge in vice. Too many of the "wrong people" would get educated, such as:


Milliard Rice [of the DAV organization in a letter to a Senator on the Finance Committee]...bitterly attacked the unemployment compensation provisions of the bill, which were soon to benefit over eight
million veterans, saying: 'The lazy and 'chisely' types of veterans would get the most benefits. whereas
the resourceful, industrious and conscientious veterans would get the least benefits, if any."

Quotes taken from various articles at: https://www.legion.org/education/history


*of working age people, anyway. One could likely count various pension acts as similar large scale payouts not tied to wages.

[txdpd]

There isn’t an oversupply of higher education. There’s an over abundance of people with 4 years degrees that amount to little more than certificates of theft.

I don’t think UBI and GI Bill are a good comparison. IMO UBI is more akin to student loans. Student loans is the just the monetization of kids to make a select few rich people even richer. You take financial illiterate kids, sell them promises of future wealth, and milk them for everything they are worth. You give lower and middle class people money and it’s going to be spent at retail with the profits going straight to the top. It isn't some "the rising tide lifts all ships" nonsense, because of that automation thing Chang keeps talking about. UBI is just funneling money up hill to make a select few rich people, like Chang, even richer. All he's doing is milking the American tax payer for everything they are worth, for his benefit, while promising some imaginary benefit to the financially illiterate masses.

[Joe in PNG]

Was the post WWII GI Bill a good thing in the short run? Yes.

However, the post WWII GI Bill did cause a massive expansion in higher education. For instance, Richard Feynman spent his first night as a professor at Cornell sleeping on a couch, because of a lack of space.

Was the GI Bill the main cause of the Higher Education Bubble and Student Loan Crisis we are in now? No.

But, it was a way for the Government to get it's foot in the door of college funding, and a way for colleges to get hooked on money from the government.

I'd also argue that a lot of wrong economic lessons were learned after the unusual circumstance that followed the American Post WWII economy. Yes, being the only nation in the world that didn't have smoking rubble instead of factories does tend to push one's economy into the black.

And yes, tradeoffs and side effects are the nature of people working together. But one does have to ask if those tradeoffs and side effects are worth it. My view is no.

[Lost River]

Where has the government being in charge of giving away other people's money ever worked for a country in the long run?

Cuba?

Venezuela?

People's Republic of California?


It is like a giant Ponzi Scheme, where you know who is always the biggest loser...

[Borderland]

No new taxes until the fed gets their spending under control. Yang's plan is a ponzi scheme just like SSI and Medicare.

Notice how nobody wants to propose a flat tax on everything except the essentials like clothes, food, health care and housing.

That's really the only fair tax but it'll never happen.

[Yung]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GtM689X2IM

[GardoneVT]

The things a society values change over time. Changes in values cannot be legislated but can be encouraged by intelligent policy.

In our society, money is considered a reward for productive work and a medium of exchange. You undermine both with a Basic Income policy.


Honorable military service predates the GI Bill considerably, and while we can split the hair of what is a welfare program vs an entitlement program it remains the sole large scale experiment in direct payments to a large section of the public that was not a wage for labor (or return on investing) and observing the economic outcome*. It's considered part and parcel of military service....

Some clarifications on the GI Bill are appropriate here. As a veteran whose used the entitlement to earn one degree (thus enabling the scholarship behind his second one, let me break down some necessary details.

1: it is NOT an automatic part of enlisting in the military. One can opt out of the GI Bill in exchange for other DoD funded education programs, one of which pays off Federal student loans in exchange for honorable service instead. One could even opt out entirely (obviously an uncommon choice).

2: Earning it is just that. I know recruiters and some refer to the GI Bill as an automatic entitlement: it is not so. Exit the military without an honorable and you’re in for an uphill battle to qualify for GI Bill use. “But Gardone only idiots get out with a less then honorable”. That isn’t always the case. Sometimes members piss off the wrong boss and get an incorrect discharge characterization. Sometimes they get hit with a really bad break, like the 8 year NCO who got separated on a General Discharge because of a PT failure 10 years ago & a personnel squadron fuckup.

3: Not all universities understand how it works. Some don’t want to, and the GI Bill does little good if your college either doesn’t understand how to process it or thinks you’re a “baby killer” unworthy of the time of day. A universal handout it is not.

The GI Bill should conceptually be considered a performance bonus, IME . Insofar as the opposition from the 40s goes, those folks also thought point shooting pistols was state of the art. Times change ;)

As to the problem Yang is trying to solve, a better way to fix income inequality is twofold-

Enforce existing corruption laws and arrest people who violate public trust with crooked deals and contracts. Handing out $1,000 to people wont scale worth a damn. Handing out sentences to mayors, councilmen and alderpeople for stealing $50,000,000 in public tax revenue scales quite well. This ensures the existing multitude of state and federal welfare programs do as they’re intended, instead of being slush funds for people like Obama’s ex bag man Tony Rezko.

Remove restrictive anti-small business laws, while cracking down on Large Business influence on government. When Boeing can get an exec appointed as the #2 man in the Secretary of Defense while small Mooney Aviation goes bust, it’s a signal of societal problems that go beyond money alone.

Those solutions aren’t sexy and don’t sound cool in debates, but they’ll do a lot less damage and more good then this UBI nonsense.

[Joe in PNG]

No new taxes until the fed gets their spending under control. Yang's plan is a ponzi scheme just like SSI and Medicare.

Notice how nobody wants to propose a flat tax on everything except the essentials like clothes, food, health care and housing.

That's really the only fair tax but it'll never happen.

That's a thing Americans don't understand about the all encompassing social programs in places like Sweden- pretty much everyone pays the same % in taxes.

Here, lots people want all the free stuff, but want someone else to pay for it. And since promising more free stuff gets votes, while cutting it doesn't, this will continue.

[ranger]

That's a thing Americans don't understand about the all encompassing social programs in places like Sweden- pretty much everyone pays the same % in taxes.

Here, lots people want all the free stuff, but want someone else to pay for it. And since promising more free stuff gets votes, while cutting it doesn't, this will continue.

That worked in Sweden when everyone was contributing their fair share - will be interesting to see what happens when 1/5 of your population is now pulling from the system. I believe they are now delaying retirement age for those who have been paying into system for decades.

[blues]

That's a thing Americans don't understand about the all encompassing social programs in places like Sweden- pretty much everyone pays the same % in taxes.

Here, lots people want all the free stuff, but want someone else to pay for it. And since promising more free stuff gets votes, while cutting it doesn't, this will continue.

Of course they don't understand. Nobody said there'd be math!

[blues]

That worked in Sweden when everyone was contributing their fair share - will be interesting to see what happens when 1/5 of your population is now pulling from the system. I believe they are now delaying retirement age for those who have been paying into system for decades.

Sounds like Bernie Madoff's kind of plan.

[Joe in PNG]

That worked in Sweden when everyone was contributing their fair share - will be interesting to see what happens when 1/5 of your population is now pulling from the system. I believe they are now delaying retirement age for those who have been paying into system for decades.

It will also be interesting to see what happens to all the free stuff should the US decide to not be the Defenders of Europe anymore.

[Borderland]

I know recruiters and some refer to the GI Bill as an automatic entitlement: it is not so.

Neither is health care for vets.

I went down a lot of rabbit holes for 3 years with the VA. Stone wall for any health care or disability.

They finally came thru about a year after I gave up of getting anything although I had a service connected disability.

Military benefits is a shit show.

[Borderland]

That's a thing Americans don't understand about the all encompassing social programs in places like Sweden- pretty much everyone pays the same % in taxes.

Here, lots people want all the free stuff, but want someone else to pay for it. And since promising more free stuff gets votes, while cutting it doesn't, this will continue.



And their taxes are a lot higher than ours. I've talked to people on vacation from places like Denmark. Two older gents were amazed that so many people in the US own RV's. They wanted to know how everyone could afford an expensive RV. To them it was a very extravagant luxury item. I told them it might have something to do with disposable income and taxes.

[GardoneVT]

That's a thing Americans don't understand about the all encompassing social programs in places like Sweden- pretty much everyone pays the same % in taxes.

Here, lots people want all the free stuff, but want someone else to pay for it. And since promising more free stuff gets votes, while cutting it doesn't, this will continue.

Discussions of money naturally trend towards numbers and math, but the thing which gets missed is there’s a psychological element as well. A big reason why the US exists and the USSR doesn’t is psychology- in the US , work harder and you earn more. In most other parts of the world the deal is you get born into a wealthy class -or you stay poor until your dying days.

Money is the allocation vehicle of this social contract. We NEED people to work harder , build more businesses, earn more money which then lifts the whole of the society upward. Hand it out and you’ve just cancelled this psychological agreement. Best of luck convincing those on the dole to care about working, education, or their country if they get a handout anyways for just existing.

Want to know how this UBI plays out? Picture going to work and finding out the intern is making more money then you. Even though their wage doesn’t directly connect to yours, you’d probably hit up LinkedIn two microseconds after finding out. Why? Clearly your organization doesn’t care about your work or they’d pay you more then the trainee.

That’s economic psychology at work. Failure to understand this is a dangerous (and common) malady.

[peterb]

Discussions of money naturally trend towards numbers and math, but the thing which gets missed is there’s a psychological element as well. A big reason why the US exists and the USSR doesn’t is psychology- in the US , work harder and you earn more. In most other parts of the world the deal is you get born into a wealthy class -or you stay poor until your dying days..

Social mobility in the US is not as great as we like to think it is.

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/02_economic_mobility_sawhill_ch3.pdf

[ranger]

Social mobility in the US is not as great as we like to think it is.

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/02_economic_mobility_sawhill_ch3.pdf

The opportunity is there - problem is it looks a lot like "work".

[Joe in PNG]

We're also pretty dang high on the social mobility ladder already, compared to most of the world and almost all of history.

Americans aren't restricted by caste or class- oh, some may argue that this or that is the same thing, but that's the dramatic over-exaggerations of privilege.

[txdpd]

The other thing about Sweden is that they are producers.

They produce somewhere around 10% of the world’s timber exports, are one of Europe’s leading producers of iron ore, 4th largest heavy equipment manufacturer and produce huge quantities of manufactured goods for export. They make stuff and send it all over the world. A good chunk of their workforce is tied up in blue collar labor.

It’s funny how liberals here love to idolize a country with a blue collar work force that they have so much contempt for.

[GardoneVT]

Social mobility in the US is not as great as we like to think it is.

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/02_economic_mobility_sawhill_ch3.pdf

It is substantially better then in most countries, some of which forbid upward mobility in practice or by law.

[Baldanders]

It is substantially better then in most countries, some of which forbid upward mobility in practice or by law.

Social mobility in many European countries that many of you would consider dirty commies is higher than the US.

We had a very small middle class before the massive interventions post-WWII by our govt. As we bought the "by-your-bootstraps" horseshit, and rolled back the changes of those years, that middle class has evaporated. It doesn't fucking matter how hard working Americans are, our system is now largely based on Vulture Capitalism that is busy stripping the largesse built during the "commie" years.

The fact that US wages for the vast majority of American workers don't budge an inch, regardless of how low the unemployment rate goes, shows that this is a rigged game. As for the idea that people are just dumb and don't pick the right career path check this story from my family:

My father clawed his way to the top of the corporate pyramid in his career, eventually becoming the CEO of a Fortune 500 company. He took his earnings and put them into the home construction industry. In 2006. Whoops.


Guess where that wealth is now?

My father was involved in long-range economic forecasting for decades. He hob-nobbed with folks like Steve Jobs, he was able to refer to $80 billion deals as "small change." After the housing collapse, he said "I didn't really understand the system."

So the average, or below average American is supposed to see the future and pick a long-term viable career path how?

Oh yeah, we are supposed to go into massive debt and re-train, since America's corporations successfully got rid of any need to pay for training anyone a long time ago. Maybe the job we will re-train for will still be in demand when we are done training. Or not. Then we can die poor, or really fucking poor. Great.

When I see "if everyone had my work ethic and brains, everything would be great for everyone" I read "I don't understand how government or economic policy shapes individual decision making or prosperity, I just like feeling superior--and acknowledging that luck may have had any role in my own prosperity is a truth I cannot face."

Sure, many on the bottom are lazy dumbfucks. This has been true throughout time, all over the globe. No country has gone down the shitter because of a massive outbreak of lazy dipshititis. Many countries have been destroyed by the elites strip-mining the assets of said nation. E.g. : the destruction of the Roman independent farmer by the landlords as they fufilled their military service, which led to huge standing armies with no other possible jobs, and eventually to armies whose allegiance to their general was far greater than their allegiance to the nation.

If you think your brains and work ethic make you poor-proof, you don't understand history in the slightest.

[Joe in PNG]

If memory serves, the Soviet Union, Japan, and Venezuela were reported to have better economies and standards of living in years past.

Much of what many Americans know about Europe is slanted, spun, propagandized, twisted, redacted, and just plain wrong.

[Baldanders]

If memory serves, the Soviet Union, Japan, and Venezuela were reported to have better economies and standards of living in years past.

Much of what many Americans know about Europe is slanted, spun, propagandized, twisted, redacted, and just plain wrong.

Japan has a higher standard of living than the US, and higher individual wealth. Also, they are far happier than us. Have you bought the "Japan on the brink of collapse" narratives?

I can't trust economic data from dictatorships? Datum noted.

Please explain how this graph is the result of Britain, Italy, Sweden and France, "cooking the books."


https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/02/14/americans-overestimate-social-mobility-in-their-country

ETA: Much of what Americans know about America is slanted, spun, propagandized, twisted, redacted and perfectly designed to keep everyone who isn't the elite utterly convinced that America's problems percolate up from the bottom up while our saintly job creators suffer the slings and arrows of the poor.

Yes, I have been an (unsuccessful) small business owner. I am not blaming the real job creators (by percentage) for keeping America going.

[Joe in PNG]

Please explain how this graph is the result of Britain, Italy, Sweden and France, "cooking the books."



Question- have you spent any significant time outside of the USA?

Yes, while this graph or that chart may say that this or that place is better, often times you find that the reality on the ground is a lot different.

Even on a national scale, the charts and graphs say that places like NYC or San Francisco are "better" places to live than most of those icky redstate flyover areas- and we pretty much know most of that is BS.

[ranger]

I travel a lot internationally on business. Just got home from Sweden and Germany. I am always happy to come home. You cannot compare some of these European nations with the population of one of our large cities with the entire US - their welfare state is unraveling right now.

[the Schwartz]

We're also pretty dang high on the social mobility ladder already, compared to most of the world and almost all of history.

Americans aren't restricted by caste or class- oh, some may argue that this or that is the same thing, but that's the dramatic over-exaggerations of privilege.

You're right.

In a capitalist system there are always going to be those who fail. Doesn't mean that they have to stay there "at the bottom" though. Plenty of opportunity here in the US if one has the "fire in their belly" to pursue it (go back to school, develop a new career path, etc.). Many who make those dramatic over-exaggerations of privilege are afflicted by sheer laziness and want it all laid in their lap. That is where most of the "socialist" crowd come in; there is nothing more attractive than liberating wealth from those who have made it themselves. Just portray them as "evil billionaires" and the (socialist) masses follow. Funny thing is, if/when the socilaists suddenly or unexpectedly find themselves possessing the magnitude of wealth that they disdained others for possessing, they too become capitalists.

[AKDoug]

Japan has a higher standard of living than the US, and higher individual wealth. Also, they are far happier than us. Have you bought the "Japan on the brink of collapse" narratives?

Uh.. Japan is at 58 on the U.N. "happiness ranking" we're at 19. We also outrank them significantly in standard of living ranking in GDP per person and individual buying power. We also beat them in mean wealth per adult. While they may outrank us in median wealth per adult, living expenses and consumer goods are also more expensive in Japan.

[GardoneVT]

Social mobility in many European countries that many of you would consider dirty commies is higher than the US.

We had a very small middle class before the massive interventions post-WWII by our govt. As we bought the "by-your-bootstraps" horseshit, and rolled back the changes of those years, that middle class has evaporated.......If you think your brains and work ethic make you poor-proof, you don't understand history in the slightest.

If you believe debasing your currency through handouts makes people poor proof, you understand neither history or economics.

[Obelisk]

UBI is an extremely bad idea. Okay imagine Yang managed to become a dictator and got his yang gang bucks out. I can tell you even if he won no way in hell could he get it passed. Let’s assume it indeed passed. A married couple now has $24k extra a year. Let’s assume their rent or current mortgage is $1,000. With that new money they’ll more than likely want to move to a better house with nicer schools. Along with them everyone else will have the same idea. Those houses will now be price adjusted to demand. The home they decide to sell to buy new house will be too. House prices will climb to insane levels. With $2,000 a month you could buy a nice house where I live now, with Yang money you won’t get much. Present home owners would benefit, but new home buyers not so much. In fact I’d expect to see a surge in rentals with insane rents. Why sell properly when you can get rent as home prices are astronomically priced worse than before?

Not only homes, but cars. Demand drives price. Any big ticket item will be pricey as demand climbs. Besides demand we’ll have inflation. Add the 10% National sales tax and VAT and the Yang bucks won’t look so great. In fact the Yang bucks you get back will more than likely just be enough to float your increased taxes, increased prices, and inflation. But $24k for a married couple is still a lot of money in today’s money, I’m just not sure what $24k in Yang era bucks would be worth. What would the purchasing power be?

Let’s talk about the VAT. How many jobs are we going to lose on that alone? We already struggle to compete with Mexico and China with EPA, OSHA, worker’s compensation, social security, Medicaid, Medicare, benefits, and now a VAT? Yang says automation is coming and we’ll have a loss of jobs. Yang is also for open borders which makes no sense as it conflicts his loss of jobs statement. So let in more jobless? A VAT will also injure exports as if our goods aren’t expensive enough already.

I’m calling it now, if it became reality the only ones getting Yang bucks will be fast food workers on your dime.

[Baldanders]

If you believe debasing your currency through handouts makes people poor proof, you understand neither history or economics.

Nothing makes anyone at anytime poor-proof.

National collapses happen.

[GardoneVT]

National collapses happen.

Well put, as currency failures will cause just that.

[Baldanders]

Well put, as currency failures will cause just that.

Which I don't see happening soon...unless the Chinese get more savvy. Spreading assets really far can basically make one poor-proof, but that's probably a minimum of $1million or so.

Yeah, all tbat shit about Japan and all above...
Yeah that was retarded. My bad.



Point about the US being a plutonomy remains. Risk has been de-evolved from our upper class in a big way in the last 40 years.

[Baldanders]

On the actual point of this thread: I am somewhat wary of a UBI, but the idea of giving folks money to spend rather than social programs makes some sense to me. Even if some spend it on the "wrong" things, all the more reason for the idea of "well you have money, you fucked up" to take hold.

It makes more sense to me than minimum wage laws, and I think it would end up being a subsidy for small business owners who would have more employees who could make it on a small/irregular amount of hours.

ETA: but if non-citizens are eligible, no way.

[fixer]

My essential problem with UBI is a couple

Why $1000? If Yang and his silly 'math' lapel button are legit, then he can derive for us the necessity of this exact value. This would show some thought put into the concept.
This can easily lead to a slippery slope--the next Democrat shill will be railing at the oppressed who don't have a $15,000 per month 'living UBI'. If you can't see through this then you are willfully blind.
I hate gimmicks...and this is the biggest yet.
Logistics---how does someone who lives on the street, with no address, get this payment?
Logistics--Crime will increase. Think about the likely chaos with homeless people running around with $1000 in their pockets--and everyone knows it. Will some people get off the street? yep...but again its foolish to think the only variable driving homelessness is the absence of $1000 cash dollars.
Logistics--Now folks who are prone to exceptionally poor decisions, are well funded to get the drugs they've always wanted.

In total, I see this costing society more than anything.

However....one reason I'm 10% open to this idea:

If this program is successful, and done on a limited basis as experiment, and the issues mentioned above are muted, minimal, or non existent...if we can mark other social programs for a quick and certain sunset, then I'm for it.

In other words, if we can put the government middle man out of business then I'm willing to consider this. Despite the stupid marketing surrounding it, it is a much more efficient use of tax dollars.

This could really help limit the size of government.

Basically---if I can put total fuck-faces like Peter Strozck (an example of a statist) out of work by simplifying the social safety net with a UBI, then I'm all for it.

(I know Strozck worked for a different agency but am using him as an example of a deep-state jackass).

[JohnO]

Who gets the $1K/Mth? Have a baby get an extra $1k? If that were to be the case the loafers would out breed the producers a light speed.

[JHC]

On the actual point of this thread: I am somewhat wary of a UBI, but the idea of giving folks money to spend rather than social programs makes some sense to me. Even if some spend it on the "wrong" things, all the more reason for the idea of "well you have money, you fucked up" to take hold.

It makes more sense to me than minimum wage laws, and I think it would end up being a subsidy for small business owners who would have more employees who could make it on a small/irregular amount of hours.

ETA: but if non-citizens are eligible, no way.

Yep, the idea is to replace grossly inefficient programs with a more simple one. Yang as "futurist" imagines something I've been talking about for a few years. When AI/technology in general does to the service sector what it did to the manufacturing sector. Zombieland would be no fun.

IDK how that will go.

But here's a read for you.

"The first point of agreement between Republicans and proponents of UBI is about what the government is good at: relatively little. This is one of Yang’s favorite points. A government program with a bunch of bureaucrats operating file-the-proper-paperwork mechanisms is bound to have some inefficiencies. But, as Yang points out, what the government does well is promptly and reliably sending out a load of checks in the mail. Republicans balk at the idea of UBI because it seems like an extreme version of your standard government handout. But it isn’t. It actually eliminates most of the government subsidies against which Republicans have traditionally marshaled principled arguments."

https://quillette.com/2019/11/20/why-ubi-ought-to-appeal-to-conservatives/?fbclid=IwAR3DGCohvLqJKxrz4MHPFMBsj8mL34qK9EK3VZ_O G4_PsVQNldMNwS35GA0

[Hambo]

I'm willing to help Yang out. The govt doesn't even have to pay me. Just quit charging me income tax and we can call it even. :cool:

Warren and Yang should team up because they have the best plans to build up the debt. Warren-Yang: Make America Venezuela Soon

[ralph]

I'm willing to help Yang out. The govt doesn't even have to pay me. Just quit charging me income tax and we can call it even. :cool:

Warren and Yang should team up because they have the best plans to build up the debt. Warren-Yang: Make America Venezuela Soon


Might be an interesting option, Give people a choice..$1000 a month, OR no income tax... Of course, all the high rollers are going to jump on the no income tax option, But for example, if I were given the choice, I’d have to go do a little math first, I’m thinking that the no income tax option would benefit me more...

[farscott]

Yep, the idea is to replace grossly inefficient programs with a more simple one. Yang as "futurist" imagines something I've been talking about for a few years. When AI/technology in general does to the service sector what it did to the manufacturing sector. Zombieland would be no fun.

IDK how that will go.

But here's a read for you.

"The first point of agreement between Republicans and proponents of UBI is about what the government is good at: relatively little. This is one of Yang’s favorite points. A government program with a bunch of bureaucrats operating file-the-proper-paperwork mechanisms is bound to have some inefficiencies. But, as Yang points out, what the government does well is promptly and reliably sending out a load of checks in the mail. Republicans balk at the idea of UBI because it seems like an extreme version of your standard government handout. But it isn’t. It actually eliminates most of the government subsidies against which Republicans have traditionally marshaled principled arguments."

https://quillette.com/2019/11/20/why-ubi-ought-to-appeal-to-conservatives/?fbclid=IwAR3DGCohvLqJKxrz4MHPFMBsj8mL34qK9EK3VZ_O G4_PsVQNldMNwS35GA0

The comments on the article are more interesting than the article. I also enjoyed the portion of the article where the author said, "For the sake of argument, let’s set aside the problem of paying for it. Let’s also set aside the question of whether people would in fact spend that money wisely." Those two problems and questions encompass the entire problem and solution. For example, if we, as a nation, cannot pay for the UBI, it will not be a solution for long. And if the money is not spent to better the lives of the recipients, what is the benefit? And I am not talking about poor people. Wealthy people would just stuff the UBI into their investment portfolios while poorer people spend it, so the richer would literally get richer courtesy of fed.gov. Is that what the country wants?

I look at UBI as something that may be worth an experiment even though I find it morally repulsive. I need to expound on why I believe this to be true. In 2007 and 2008 when it became obvious that the financial system was in distress and the Great Recession was upon us, there was a lot of discussion about fed.gov as the lender of last resort and saving businesses that were deemed too big to fail. I believed (and still do as Senator Shelby will attest due to my frequent badgering of him) that it was wrong and would eliminate the incentive of risk versus reward. Why be prudent if fed.gov will allow you to profit when the bet goes well and bail you out when things are bleak?

But then I had a really interesting discussion with now Fed President Neel Kashkari, who was with the US Department of the Treasury when this all happened and ran TARP. He made the case that if fed.gov had not done TARP, the Great Recession would have become the Great Depression II, lasting decades and leading to war. The issue was the financial system was at the brink (within hours or days) of failure, and it would be much worse if fed.gov did a repeat of the Hoover Administration. He was -- and is I still believe is -- convinced that the long-term damage from not having TARP was worse than the long-term reduction in breaking the risk versus reward paradigm. He also argued that the fed.gov had to be the lender as there was no one and nothing else who could absorb it. Finally he noted that fed.gov turned a profit on TARP, so productive taxpayers paid nothing for the program. He did admit that there are still too many banks that need to be shrunk as they are still too big to fail and benefited from the crisis. But we live in an imperfect world and have to take the bad with the good.

As such, I am now more willing to try things that I may not personally believe will work or will have perverse outcomes. I do not like the UBI concept, believe it is unworkable, fear it will not help, and, yet, would love to see an experiment. Say with California as the state is a microcosm for all of the national issues, just a few years ahead in the death spiral of an unworkable economy with haves and have-nots being further separated each day.

[Borderland]

Might be an interesting option, Give people a choice..$1000 a month, OR no income tax... Of course, all the high rollers are going to jump on the no income tax option, But for example, if I were given the choice, I’d have to go do a little math first, I’m thinking that the no income tax option would benefit me more...

Something is going to break real soon. Either they're going to have to scrap income tax altogether or raise the rates, especially on high income earners. That's not going to make very many people happy. Trump gave everyone, especially high income earners' a tax cut but that just raised our debt to 24 trillion. If you don't think that's an issue, what for the next budget appropriations fight in congress and they shut down the fed gov't .......again.

Income tax is a bad idea. Lots of people with income, like those who are self employed, don't pay it. They work on a cash basis. I've hired a few.;)

Those that pay no income tax would prefer the 1K/mo. That alone would make me favor the no-more-income-tax plan. Everyone would then be playing on a level field. The fed could then raise the consumption tax on fuel, tobacco, alcohol, airline tickets etc. Wouldn't break my heart. At least the free loaders would be paying something.

[ralph]

Something is going to break real soon. Either they're going to have to scrap income tax altogether or raise the rates, especially on high income earners. That's not going to make very many people happy. Trump gave everyone, especially high income earners' a tax cut but that just raised our debt to 24 trillion. If you don't think that's an issue, what for the next budget appropriations fight in congress and they shut down the fed gov't .......again.

Income tax is a bad idea. Lots of people with income like those who are self employed don't pay it. They work on a cash basis. I've hired a few.;)

Those that pay no income tax would prefer the 1K/mo. That alone would make me favor the no-more-income-tax plan. Everyone would then be playing on a level field. The fed could then raise the consumption tax on fuel, tobacco, alcohol, airline tickets etc. Wouldn't break my heart. At least the free loaders would be paying something.

Wasn’t the government funded by sales tax in the years prior to WWI? Seemed to work, but I’m thinking that institutions like the MIC wouldn’t like this, as their gravy train would probably have to be cut a bit...a large bit.. One rule of thumb everyone needs to remember when talking about issues like this, There’s NO money in solving problems.. This is especially true when talking about a corrupt government like ours, the elected members of which, are primarily concerned with getting re-elected, rather than doing the job they were elected for in the first place..

[GardoneVT]

I don’t need to slam two trains together to know it’s gonna make an epic mess.

UBI may be a well intentioned effort to fix income inequality or poverty, but the honest solutions to those problems already exist. We’ve even tried it a time or two before. Cut government expenses, reduce regulatory & tax burdens, and let the market operate. Give Free Market Capitalism a Chance!

Of course there’s zero support in and outside of DC to meaningfully cut government expenses, so that ideas intellectual theater.

[Joe in PNG]

The idea of using UBI to replace all those social programs and multiple entitlements is nice, but it will never work.

Because they will never get around to repealing all those social programs and multiple entitlements.

Both are just legitimized vote buying scams.

[deputyG23]

Wasn’t the government funded by sales tax in the years prior to WWI? Seemed to work, but I’m thinking that institutions like the MIC wouldn’t like this, as their gravy train would probably have to be cut a bit...a large bit.. One rule of thumb everyone needs to remember when talking about issues like this, There’s NO money in solving problems.. This is especially true when talking about a corrupt government like ours, the elected members of which, are primarily concerned with getting re-elected, rather than doing the job they were elected for in the first place..

Taxes on distilled spirits provided a lot of US funding prior to 1913.

[txdpd]

Please explain how this graph is the result of Britain, Italy, Sweden and France, "cooking the books."


https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/02/14/americans-overestimate-social-mobility-in-their-country


Graphs like that are basically the pot calling the kettle black, and skew relatively insignificant differences in percentages over a broad span to make something out of nothing. Scaled out 0-100% everyone’s dots end up in about the same place.

The grass is the same shade of green everywhere in the developed world.

[ralph]

The idea of using UBI to replace all those social programs and multiple entitlements is nice, but it will never work.

Because they will never get around to repealing all those social programs and multiple entitlements.

Both are just legitimized vote buying scams.

Pretty much it, But we can’t have the truth get the way of telling (or selling) a nice story, now can we?

[Joe in PNG]

Pretty much it, But we can’t have the truth get the way of telling (or selling) a nice story, now can we?

People need to be more cynical and misanthropic when it comes to government.

[Jeep]

I struggle with the idea of an UBI as my concern is that it will make things worse for those who need it and not better. And for those of us who are net taxpayers, the taxable burden either has to increase or more money has to be borrowed (created by the Federal Reserve System). $12,000 per year per person times 350 million people is $4.2 trillion per year. The US GDP is about $20 trillion, so the UBI is more than 20% of GDP. Yang's plan is to offset the cost with a federal 10% VAT (Value Added Tax), and quite frankly that scares me as it less than half (20% of $20 trillion is $4 trillion). So the VAT rate would have to increase to stop the debt from increasing.

Once we have a de facto federal sales tax, our tax burden looks much like those in the EU as there would be local, state, and federal sales and income taxes. I would only support a VAT IF the Constitution is amended to not allow the federal income tax.

VATs are also "regressive", much like straight sales taxes are. So the people who need the benefit of the UBI pay the brunt (in terms of percentage of their income) in taxes to purchase goods. So the people the scheme purports to help do not get so much help as $1200 per year is likely lost to the VAT versus basically nothing in federal income tax now.

I think that this is the post of the thread to date. The math is easy, but no one-especially the media--ever seems to do it. For example, Obama's original stimulus plan in 2009 of $900 billion to create or save 3 million jobs came to $300,000 per job. Since even the government can't spend $300,000 to create or save a job, it was clear from the start that the stimulus was really designed to get cash into the hands of many of the groups who had supported Obama--which it did.

A new entitlement that costs $4.2 trillion a year--or 20% of the GDP--will cause federal taxes to double.

So what does that mean for you? If you are in a family of four, the government will pay you $48,000 per year. But, if you are in the top 50% of income earners you are going to be paying at least all of that, plus the government's handling charges for all the bureaucrats needed to keep track of people, prevent fraud and sent the checks out. And you probably will be paying some part of someone else's $48,000 per year because there are not enough billionaires and millionaires to pay for this, and if it is paid for with a VAT then the whole thing will be pretty phony because even the poor will get relatively little net benefit. In other words, it is likely you will be net negative, and perhaps significantly net negative for this. Which means that a lot of people will have a lot less money to spend--which will decrease VAT revenues and require more income tax contribution (which will further cut spending)

I lived in Europe for a good part of my childhood. When the government put a 10% VAT in, they said it would not raise prices. It did--prices went up by an average of 10% the first day, which meant everyone was 10% poorer. They used the money for the basic income they were paying to all mothers in the country. The economic theory was something to the effect that mothers were now guaranteed money in case their worthless husbands spent all their wages on drink (of course, the worthless husbands simply beat the basic income out of their wives so they could spend it on drink). In fact, it was a ridiculous system of taking money from everyone, paying a big slug to the new unionized government workers who would vote for the Socialist politicians who pushed this, and then returning a smaller amount to the people than was taken in the first place. Now the "mother's allowance" is a fixed entitlement that can't be changed that swallows a huge amount of the very high taxes the people are charged. And the VAT rate now averages over 20% and the income tax rate on the middle class is close to 10%.

It's all a scam, as is a guaranteed income. It simply costs far too much and mathematically it always will. And giving money to the bulk of the people who will pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits is simply a con designed to get people to think that this is good for them when they in fact are paying in much more than they are taking out. The numbers don't lie. You can't make a guaranteed income work.

[Borderland]

I don’t need to slam two trains together to know it’s gonna make an epic mess.

UBI may be a well intentioned effort to fix income inequality or poverty, but the honest solutions to those problems already exist. We’ve even tried it a time or two before. Cut government expenses, reduce regulatory & tax burdens, and let the market operate. Give Free Market Capitalism a Chance!

Of course there’s zero support in and outside of DC to meaningfully cut government expenses, so that ideas intellectual theater.

One of the reasons for that is the vast expanse of government jobs. Lots of politicians keeping those jobs for their constituents. If the fed is anything like where I worked (local gov't) they could easily cut 25% of that work force and still provide the same level of service.

Case in point. I used to work as a project surveyor on some pretty big projects (10-15M). About the time I retired my job as a project surveyor was eliminated and moved to private contracts. Did the number of positions in my unit change? Nope. Just less work being done by the same number of employees. I know this because I still have contact with people I worked with.

Gov't is too big but I'm afraid that it won't change because of the ripple it would cause in the economy. Not everyone can get a job that replaces those wages and benefits with little or no credentials like professional licenses or education. It's job welfare and hidden from the public. Democrats like it because unions can deliver the votes. Ever wonder why gov't employee unions always endorse democrats? Job welfare is your answer. This goes right back to the proposition that gov't isn't very good at much of anything.

I was threatened with my job a few times but all I did was say put it in writing so I can consider your proposal. Never happened. I'd be right back doing the same job next week working in the private sector making more money, more benefits and less BS.