Universal basic income trials being considered in Scotland

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vouthon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
stinkcat_14 said:
Who said I am resentful? I am just bringing up the problem with welfare programs.
Click to expand...
But you didn’t use a good example for the problem with welfare programs because Social Security is, by design, meant for people to stop working. Not all welfare programs are like that. And not everyone would agree that a pension program is welfare.
 
ChristIsTheWay said:
But you didn’t use a good example for the problem with welfare programs because Social Security is, by design, meant for people to stop working. Not all welfare programs are like that. And not everyone would agree that a pension program is welfare.
Click to expand...
It is not a pension program. It is a welfare program.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
It is not a pension program. It is a welfare program.
Click to expand...
It is a pension program, plain and simple. It is not welfare, no matter how much you want it to be. Not every government program is welfare.
 
As someone who is on government assistance, properly implemented universal income could be a fine replacement for that. No more “it is actually more sensible not to work” and doing things that are dumb to qualify. It treats the poor with dignity by allowing them to choose how to spend money and frees up administrative costs.
 
We have to remember that it is the government who are dependent on tax payers and wealth creators.

If there is a large group of people who we say are dependent on government then in reality they are dependent on tax payers and wealth creators.

The trouble comes when the dependent (the government) also has all of the control as to who gets what. Never a good situation.
 
abucs said:
We have to remember that it is the government who are dependent on tax payers and wealth creators.

If there is a large group of people who we say are dependent on government then in reality they are dependent on tax payers and wealth creators.

The trouble comes when the dependent (the government) also has all of the control as to who gets what. Never a good situation.
Click to expand...
This post is correct. The government doesnt create wealth, it just prints money. This would never work in the US. Its another idea from progressives that is born out of ignorance.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
Who said I am resentful? I am just bringing up the problem with welfare programs.
Click to expand...
It is not a ‘welfare’ program – the true ‘Guaranteed Basic Income’ would go to EVERY citizen, not just the poor.

People would have the choice not to participate. If this were put into effect we would no longer need the tangle of welfare and the agencies needed to run it. Early experiments have shown that recipients used the money to meet basic expenses and did not buy luxury items with it.

Sooner or later, we will have to face the truth that the jobs are not coming back. Our society is built on consumerism, and if people don’t have money they don’t consume.

And, yes – there will always be a percentage that do nothing. Is that any reason to penalize the rest?
 
In the U.S. I would much rather see significant increase to the Federal Minimum Wage and free higher education including not only free college to those who qualify but also free technical schools focusing on emerging technical jobs - rather than a universal basic income.

Compentancy and accomplishment make people much happier in the long run than any income guarantee - in my humble opinion.
 
ChristIsTheWay said:
If by class of people you mean everyone. With a universal basic income program, every citizen receives a check from the government. Since I already depend on the government for police, fire, and military protection, I can’t say a basic income check is going to make me completely dependent on the government. And I think Kanichen is also right, advances in AI and robotics are coming the next few decades that will render HUGE portions of the population unemployed and underemployed. Since I think banning such advances is infeasible, something else must be done.
Click to expand...
You receive a check. Everyone receives a check from the government. Where does government get the money to keep the checks from bouncing?

Rhetorical question.

And that said, Milton Freedman had the concept of negative income tax (NIT) 50 years ago. Replacing the current welfare state ( and that must be a prerequisite to any type of plan such as this, the elimination of the welfare state and its attending bureaucracy) would force recipients to manage well the money, always with the knowledge that only through hard work will their lives move from this baseline income.

The same could be done through a sales tax approach, which would be even better
 
stinkcat_14 said:
Like I said, if you give people money for doing nothing, there are those who are going to take it.
Click to expand...
There is already a large class of people who get money for doing nothing. They are called “investors.” That said, I think it is way too early to implement a UBI. There is still a lot of work that needs to be done. If, at some time in the far future, automation advances to the point where less than 1% of the people are needed to do all the work that needs doing, then we might have to revisit this question.
 
There is a lot of this in the U.S. already. The various welfare programs, Social Security and the Earned Income Credit are all “basic income guarantees”.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
There is already a large class of people who get money for doing nothing. They are called “investors.” That said, I think it is way too early to implement a UBI. There is still a lot of work that needs to be done. If, at some time in the far future, automation advances to the point where less than 1% of the people are needed to do all the work that needs doing, then we might have to revisit this question.
Click to expand...
I would argue that investors at least bring something to the table. I mean economies need capital to thrive and I am not sure how you get it without compensating those who provide it. Now, whether they are compensated too much is another question. As an investor myself (although not enough to live solely off my returns), they are certainly more than adequate. What would happen if returns are lowered is anyone’s guess.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
There is already a large class of people who get money for doing nothing. They are called “investors.”
Click to expand...
If there is no investment then there are no companies, then there is no employment, then there is no tax, then there is no government.

So an underlying component of the modern miracle of our economic civilization are investors, whose skill is apparently doing nothing?

Really?
 
abucs said:
If there is no investment then there are no companies, then there is no employment, then there is no tax, then there is no government.

So an underlying component of the modern miracle of our economic civilization are investors, whose skill is apparently doing nothing?

Really?
Click to expand...
Yes, really. Investors are necessary, but they do no work. If you entrust your money to a financial advisor, you don’t even have to know what investment decisions are made on your behalf. You can literally forget all about your investment. The money can just keep rolling in year after year, while you relax on the beach and others do the work. I don’t propose that we change this. But I do propose that we keep this in mind whenever the suggestion is made that poor people without a job do not deserve an income unless they start working.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Yes, really. Investors are necessary, but they do no work. If you entrust your money to a financial advisor, you don’t even have to know what investment decisions are made on your behalf. You can literally forget all about your investment. The money can just keep rolling in year after year, while you relax on the beach and others do the work. I don’t propose that we change this. But I do propose that we keep this in mind whenever the suggestion is made that poor people without a job do not deserve an income unless they start working.
Click to expand...
You seem to believe that most investors dont earn the money they invest. My wife and I will, once retired, have put about 1 million into our 401’s. We will have earned every single dime.
 
philipl said:
You seem to believe that most investors dont earn the money they invest. My wife and I will, once retired, have put about 1 million into our 401’s. We will have earned every single dime.
Click to expand...
Oh, your 401K earns no interest? You may have worked hard for the priniclal you invested, but what work did you do to earn the interest?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Oh, your 401K earns no interest? You may have worked hard for the priniclal you invested, but what work did you do to earn the interest?
Click to expand...
I took risk. How do you feel about government employee pension plans?
 
ChristIsTheWay said:
You’re surprised that lots of elderly people who had spent decades working decided to accept the government’s offer to retire?
Click to expand...
You’ve just destroyed the argument for UBI, even though you didn’t know it.

When SSI was first being pushed, it was sold as a way to make sure that every old person had some food on the table and could pay their electric bill. It was NOT a retirement program! At. All. It was promised that it would only be a program to make sure that the poor widow would be able to buy food so she didn’t starve.

And now look where we are today. SSI has metastasized into the primary retirement plan for most americans. It is woefully bloated and costs are spiraling out of control. We also have MANY americans who would otherwise be productive workers who have decided to stop working and just collect checks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top