Universal Basic Income(in the near future)? And why you feel this way
1
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
6 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.Yes for various reasons. 1. Money is an artificial creation anyway. 2. Any sovereign state can print as much money as they like. 3. It does not prevent people from earning more. 4. People who genuinely work harder at their own business are NOT penalised. 5. The poor do not have to be subsidised by taxes on middle income earners (as we know, the rich avoid taxes). 6. The economy is stabilised because money stays in the country and in circulation (the rich take money out of the country and put it in tax havens).
One piece of legislation needs to be introduced alongside UBI making money speculation illegal otherwise a run on the currency would destroy the system and the economy with it (and the rich would do it deliberately given the chance.)
SimonCyrene
Level 7
Sep 18, 2018
0
Universal Basic Income, combined with a Universal Flat Income Tax, would eliminate poverty without destroying entrepreneurship or incentive to work. It would eliminate the need for minimum wage legislation, making entry level employment more available for young people, who need on the job experience to improve their lot in life. UBI would also eliminate the need for most financial welfare programs.
[parncutt.org]
PBuck0145
Level 7
Sep 18, 2018
0
@IBuiltTheMoon I agree. Consumption based taxation is the only fair way to do that. (tax)
@IAMGROOT Answer: Replacing income tax with "Consumption based taxation".
A flat, identical income tax rate, with no deductions, levied on individuals and on corporations would be fair to all segments of society. The Universal Basic Income would compensate for the lack of personal deductions.
Our current complex, deduction-rich, exemption-rich graduated system is too easy for the wealthy to "game", giving them lower de facto tax rates.
Definitely in the minority here, but I oppose this because it is unsustainable, for one. And two, it will only provide justification to tax those who actually earn their money even more to support those who don't. Collectivism = loss of freedom (and money). No thanks.
IAMGROOT
Level 7
Sep 18, 2018
1
It is sustainable because the billionaire class makes unbelievable amounts of money. As far as taxing what they earn: They don't really earn the money they get because their money makes the money for them. What they own makes the money.
@dare2dream That is a vastly oversimplified statement.
@IAMGROOT says the man who made a vastly oversimplified statement backed up by no evidence at all lol ???
@SimonCyrene All pyramid schemes run out of money eventually. This would be the ultimate scheme.
@IAMGROOT would you like to back that up with some evidence, i mean, any evidence at all that we could either agree with or dispute?
@SimonCyrene Since I pose a dissenting opinion you want me to provide evidence? What other evidence on either side has been presented here by anyone? I think instituting UBI in the US would be very complicated. Who would get it? I know it's "Universal" so we could assume that everyone would, but my guess is that "Liberal Socialists" would scream that the "billionaire class" should not get it. Ok, fine, there's 1% that won't. What about households earning $250K+/Yr? Where do you draw the line? And how would it be instituted? As a new (add-on) program, leaving existing entitlements untouched? Would it replace SS? Would it replace Food Stamps, WIC and other entitlements? If not, giving 300M+ people a basic allowance would be a huge undertaking that I'm pretty sure would result in raising taxes on producers. Again, this is collectivism and in my opinion, is unsustainable and will result in an erosion of freedom. I believe also it would be a disincentive for people to contribute to the economy so we'd see those numbers grow (people unwilling to work). All any of us is doing here is spouting our opinions, right or wrong.
@IAMGROOT not because you pose a dissenting opinion (martydom complex? ?) but because you make assertions without backing them up whilst criticising others for oversimplification. Spouting opinions is fine, as long as you don't try to present them as facts in order to dis someone elses opinion. ?
It’s a great idea but it has to be on solid economic footing. First balance the budget and pay off the national debt. Build up a huge public trust fund, invested in stocks and bonds. At some point there’d be no need to tax. Later, each citizen could receive dividends—just enough for subsistence. All social programs could be ended.
With robots taking over jobs something like that might be necessary. Hopefully, by that time our sick, bloated healthcare system will have died and something better will be in place.
WilliamFleming
Level 8
Sep 18, 2018
0
Or wipe out the national debt and start again ? ?
I would phrase it as "the minimum wage shoudl also be a living wage", where anyone who works one full tiem job shodul be able to support themselves... or is UBI something different? We weren't given all that much information.
snytiger6
Level 9
Sep 18, 2018
1
@Renickulous When you get into the bottom 50%, you find that often two parents hold three or four jobs between them. So, livign wage woudl be the bottom, and if they cant' make ends meet with one job, the spouse/partner coudl work part time, and it would still be an improvement.
How do you determine what the amount is?
chalupacabre
Level 8
Sep 18, 2018
0
I would say minimum basic needs.
@dare2dream no luxuries for the poor! ?
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Related Groups More
World Music
1359 members
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.