People at my job right now will only work part time because they don't want to lose their free food stamps. This is what happens when you give freeloaders free ****. They want more free **** and don't want to work. All of these government programs have done nothing but create a lazy, entitled generation.
|
-
04-22-2019, 06:41 PM #31
-
04-22-2019, 07:00 PM #32
- Join Date: Sep 2011
- Location: New Hampshire, United States
- Age: 47
- Posts: 16,399
- Rep Power: 150401
At that point, Canada could wreck our sh*t.
According to Yang, everyone qualifies... it is what makes UBI universal. There are currently 328 millions citizens. Of those citizens 80% of the population would be eligible. The other 20% being underage. That leaves 260 million qualified recipients. Yang also proposed a UBI of 1k per month (12k a year).
260m X 12k = 3.12 trillion. That is before the cost of agency / oversight.
So after we eliminate the military, all other welfare programs and add a 10% VAT, how would you suggest we pay for the remaining trillions?
-
-
04-22-2019, 07:02 PM #33
so what happens when inflation hits? i mean, if i knew my customers had an increase of 12k/year, i would be stupid not to increase the price of my goods/services. the same with employment.... if i know all of my potential employees are getting an extra grand a month, i'd lower my wages
US Navy Veteran
eats sriracha with everything
^^VV<><> BA Start
-
04-22-2019, 07:09 PM #34
-
04-22-2019, 07:12 PM #35
-
04-22-2019, 08:38 PM #36
Actually, that's not exactly true. If someone is already receiving government assistance, they would have to choose between UBI and the current form of government assistance they're on.
The technology boom is upon us and UBI is inevitable. You might as well embrace it, as I finally am. I'd rather not be where we are, but again, it's inevitable. You can evolve or be left behind.Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don’t matter and those who matter don’t mind.
-
-
04-22-2019, 08:40 PM #37
-
04-22-2019, 08:46 PM #38
- Join Date: Sep 2011
- Location: New Hampshire, United States
- Age: 47
- Posts: 16,399
- Rep Power: 150401
Got it, it will only cost about 2.7 trillion but we can only cut half of welfare, not all of it.
Net gain = 0
The technology boom is upon us and UBI is inevitable. You might as well embrace it, as I finally am. I'd rather not be where we are, but again, it's inevitable. You can evolve or be left behind.
-
04-22-2019, 10:14 PM #39
-
04-22-2019, 10:23 PM #40
-
-
04-22-2019, 10:30 PM #41
-
04-23-2019, 01:18 AM #42
because they are so good at cutting spending already right...
https://www.usdebtclock.org/
-
04-23-2019, 02:07 AM #43
-
04-23-2019, 02:24 AM #44
-
-
04-23-2019, 06:07 AM #45
-
04-23-2019, 06:13 AM #46
-
04-23-2019, 06:31 AM #47
in a vacuum you'd do those things, in reality you have to price based on competition and pay your employees enough to actually have employees. In general prices would go up but they wouldn't go up proportional to the increase in income until you hit higher income thresholds. If you're making 30% more than you were before you'd probably come out ahead. If you're making 2% more than you were before you probably don't come out ahead.
-
04-23-2019, 08:13 AM #48
-
-
04-23-2019, 08:17 AM #49
so then cut out taxes. don't redistribute other people's money. It's literally the stupidest idea. hey...you work and produce goods and services that are valuable to society. Then you will be required, by use of force, to give me (uncle Sam) 24-34% of what you earn, AND THEN, i might just give you a small stipend of that money back...because i'm so generous. just f*ck right off and let us keep the money we actually earn.
-You are only as strong as your weakest link-
-
04-23-2019, 08:18 AM #50
-
04-23-2019, 08:20 AM #51
-
04-23-2019, 08:25 AM #52
Your whole premise is flawed.
Ill repeat, when the electorate become big enough to elect enough politicians to pass UBI, then they are big enough to dictate its amount...and if you think that same electorate is going to cut any spending or keep it at its original amount of say 1K a month...then you might be retarded.
-
-
04-23-2019, 08:33 AM #53
-
04-23-2019, 08:36 AM #54
-
04-23-2019, 08:38 AM #55
- Join Date: Sep 2008
- Location: Fort Worth, Texas, United States
- Age: 41
- Posts: 17,265
- Rep Power: 0
UBI doesn't really solve the problems of automation or economic inequality of opportunity. I have no issue funding legit education opportunities, healthcare and food programs for kids, elderly or disabled folks, but I don't support just giving everyone checks. I don't need the government sending me money.
-
04-23-2019, 08:38 AM #56
-
-
04-23-2019, 08:43 AM #57
That's cause automation is not a problem at all, job loss as a result of automation is. Technology is either going to work for everyone or for the few and it's amazing to see how many people are voting against themselves. Either that or they dont understand the way things are headed.
As far as addressing economic inequality how would it not help? For someone making 24k a year people an extra 12k a year is increasing their buying power 50%.
-
04-23-2019, 09:06 AM #58
-
04-23-2019, 09:10 AM #59
-
04-23-2019, 09:12 AM #60
Good question OP, seems many ppl already answered so just some quick pointers
1: It costs too much for any government to afford.
2: Even if the government could afford it, it would cause such inflation whatever amount you're getting wouldn't be worth anything anymore.
3: Even if the government could afford it, and somehow there was no inflation, we know from experiments with small groups of people receiving basic income, the first thing they do is cut back on working hours and as such become economically less productive. So if done on a society wide scale, you're going to run into some huge productivity issues.Het bier zal weer vloeien
In ons Gelderland
Op winst in de strijd
Op vlees en jolijt
Kom laat ons nu drinken
Op ons Gelderland
Bookmarks