Universal Basic Income again

My positions are easy to defend. Truth always is.

America doesn't start wars although it often ends them If you think ANY nation, including America, is immune from being conquered, you should study history a bit more.

 

The US doesn't start wars? That's insight into how well conditioned your thinking is. Institutionalized blinders. Peace, out.

 

The biggest trucking companies could do it immediately, and in doing so take more and more is the market share. This is a other case of advancing tech leading to monopoly (or near monopoly).

 

How much is your military budget? Does this dwarf that?

 

Color me skeptical.

 

Where have they been a "smashing success"?

Finland tried it for two years and gave up on it.

Finland’s Failed Universal Basic Income Experiment

The idea of universal basic income seems to be right in theory. However, in practical life, it is riddled with problems.

Changes The Poverty Line
The universal basic income does not eradicate poverty. In fact, it is likely that the poverty situation worsens because of this scheme. This is because the government gives a basic income to everyone. However, in order to do so, they have to either borrow money or print more money. In both cases, this causes large scale inflation. As a result, the value of the money that has been given out to the recipients reduces. In fact, the amount of the money earned by people also decreases. As a result, the poverty line simply changes to a higher number. Hence, even though the income of the people increases, the number of people in poverty remains the same or even increases.

Reduces Incentive To Work
The problem with Universal Basic Income is that it is paid out to people regardless of whether they work or not. This income is high enough for the people to sustain their daily expenses.

Prior to Universal Basic Income, unemployment allowance was paid out only to people who were out of a job. Hence, if they received $15000 as unemployment allowance, they would not take a job if it paid them $20,000. This is because effectively they would be earning only $5000 extra and will have to work extremely hard. Hence, the first $15,000 was effectively being taxed at 100%.

The reason why Universal Basic Income was favored over unemployment benefits is that in theory, it did not reduce the incentive for people to work. This is because UBI is paid regardless of employment status. Hence, if a person gets a job for $20,000, they don’t need to let go of other benefits that they are already receiving.

In practice, however, the experience has been very different. Universal Basic Income is meant to provide expenses that help a person survive regardless of employment status. Since many entry-level employees are content with that life, they don’t want to work more. UBI, therefore, becomes a system wherein the government is paying its labor force to prevent it from being productive.

Raises Income Taxes
Also, the government cannot give something to someone unless they have already taken it from someone else. Hence, in order to pay universal basic income, the government first has to raise income taxes. This makes production more expensive since the factor costs increase with the increment in taxes. The government is effectively sabotaging its own economy, i.e., it is discouraging productive people from working whereas simultaneously providing incentives for workers to stay idle. Over a period of time, productive people will abandon the economy and the government will be left only with the idle people.

Social Chaos
When workers have a lot of free time and money for survival, social problems are created. Idle time is often associated with alcoholism and recreational drug abuse. This results in increased medical bills for the government. Also, the government has to strengthen the workforce in order to maintain law and order in society.

The bottom line is that universal basic income is a failed idea. Finland’s very expensive failed experiment is proof that the rest of the world need not repeat the mistakes.
https://www.managementstudyguide.com/finland-failed-universal-basic-income-experiment.htm

 

The Defense Dept has requested a 2024 budget of $842 billion, so yes, a UBI of any significance would cost a lot more than the budget for defense.

 

Can you actually NAME some wars started by America? Your failure to do so in your response indicates you probably can't.

 

Vietnam, Korea, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen and more. Smedley Butler's were in Central and South America.

 

I'm fine with UBI at the federal poverty line, as long as its in place of all other social safety net programs, except social security.

This would completely eliminate poverty in the US and for less money.

 

North Vietnam was actively fighting the South through its support of the Viet Cong long before we got involved. It was an active conflict without our involvement at all. When South Viet Nam asked for our help under the auspices of the SEATO (South East Asia Treaty Organization) we were bound by that treaty to assist. What you say isn't true. The US did NOT start the war.

Korea was another active conflict that we got involved in to help an ally. North Korea invaded South Korea long before we got there. South Korea appealed to the UN for help. MacArthur was appointed the Supreme Commander of UN forces in Korea. What you say isn't true. The US did NOT start the war.

The Syrian Civil War began with unrest in 2011 and was a full blown war by 2012. Although US non-lethal aid (food, trucks, etc) were sent earlier, no US forces were committed until 2014. What you say isn't true. The US did NOT start the war.

The Iraq War began with the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York City.

The Afghanistan War started with the attack on the United States by Osama bin Laden.

Libya? What war? You mean one retaliatory raid? That's not a war.

Yemen? "The Yemeni Civil War (Arabic: الحرب الأهلية اليمنية, romanized: al-ḥarb al-ʾahlīyah al-yamanīyah) is an ongoing multilateral civil war that began in late 2014 mainly between the Rashad al-Alimi-led Presidential Leadership Council and the Mahdi al-Mashat-led Supreme Political Council, along with their supporters and allies. Both claim to constitute the official government of Yemen.[1" What you say isn't true. The US did NOT start the war.

 

I think a Universal Basic Income at the Federal Poverty Level for all citizens, combined with ending ALL other social safety net programs, except social security would be a very good step. It would cost less and eliminate all poverty from the United States

SOCIALISM HURTS. SO DOES THE TRUTH: The Mississippi Question is real, spectacular — and the UK is losing.

“It was nine years ago when Fraser Nelson, the editor of The Spectator, first suggested that the U.K. was poorer than any U.S. state but Mississippi. This came as an uncomfortable shock for many in Britain for whom Mississippi, as a byword for backwardness, conjures up clichés about the Deep South. Every time anyone has made the comparison since, there has been an indignant outburst from Britons keen to denounce the data.”

As the UK has 'drifted back to pre-Thatcher socialism and the stagnation it brings, while Mississippi and other US red states have embraced more free-market approaches and entrepreneur-based economic policies. Not only has Mississippi surpassed the UK economically, their lead is increasing.'

'Last year, the U.K.’s output per person was the equivalent of $45,485; Mississippi’s was higher, at $47,190. If Britain were invited to join the U.S. as the 51st state, its citizens would be at the bottom of the table for per capita GDP.'

 

I might support a UBI at the state leve but not at the US gov't leve. It simply has no legislative authority. Any state does, although I would fight against it in my particular state.

 

Do you support the Federal and State social network programs?

 

Not federal, because they violate the constitution.

 

But if you could negotiate the end of Federal social net programs, except for social security, in exchange for payments at the FPL, save money and completely eliminate poverty, you wouldn't negotiate?

 

I don't know what FPL is, so I would be a wee bad negotiator.

 

They lowest 20% already make more than that.

 

Federal Poverty Level

 

I am all for UBE (Universal Basic Employment).. but free money for lazy bums for doing nothing? NEVER!!

 

How do you propose to ensure everyone can get a job with enough hours and pay that it is enough to live on?

 

Its called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. If anyone is uncomfortable with their low salary, tell them to get to school and get an education, or a trade. If you make be a lazy bum comfortable, they will just soak up the freebies. If they get hungry, they will be uncomfortable and expend effort to get a better job. Laziness should not be rewarded.

Obviously, if people are mentally, emotionally, or physically "challenged" and are unable to earn their way, help should be available. But if just an attitude (laziness), then they should get uncomfortable and get to work. If relocation is required... so be it. If working in a whole new job or industry is required... so be it.

 

I was asking about how you will ensure there being enough work hours available and pay being high enough so that they can all earn enough to survive on. We are facing a future where this is far from certain, yet your have presumed it.

 

This post is one of those that could easily come from George Bush, Dick Cheney, Joe Biden or his Haitian press secretary. Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored by propagandists.

 

You know it's funny...on a thread like this I hear all sorts of doom and gloom about the end of work, AI taking all the jobs, so we absolutely need UBI. But then I go to an illegal immigration thread, and I hear, "we can't fill jobs," or "we need illegals to work."

I'm not saying you are one of these people by the way, but your comment reminded me of that. It's funny how some people's worldview can change from issue to issue, depending on what they are required to believe.