USA Guaranteed income?

[Sunday21]

I may have a different perspective on things due to my upbringing or lack thereof. My parents were at the very least unsuited to be parents. My somewhat socialist country has saved me a few times in my life. I think as we move towards the last days there will be more children in this situation. I work 6 days a week although objectively I could coast through life. My brother and sisters have a much higher than average work ethic. Sometimes you need a little help. 

So a number of empical tests are on the way. Let’s see what happens.

[anatess2]

7 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

I may have a different perspective on things due to my upbringing or lack thereof. My parents were at the very least unsuited to be parents. My somewhat socialist country has saved me a few times in my life. I think as we move towards the last days there will be more children in this situation. I work 6 days a week although objectively I could coast through life. My brother and sisters have a much higher than average work ethic. Sometimes you need a little help. 

So a number of empical tests are on the way. Let’s see what happens.

The fallacy to this emperical example is the idea that only the government can help unfortunate people and without it, these people are never getting out of their unfortunate circumstances.

FAMILIES.  Your parents were unsuited... where are your grandparents?  Aunts, uncles, cousins?  They're all unfortunate?  Or are they all absent because they left you to the hands of government?

Edited January 30, 2018 by anatess2

[Sunday21]

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

The fallacy to this emperical example is the idea that only the government can help unfortunate people and without it, these people are never getting out of their unfortunate circumstances.

FAMILIES.  Your parents were unsuited... where are your grandparents?  Aunts, uncles, cousins?  They're all unfortunate?  Or are they all absent because they left you to the hands of government?

All in another country! My relatives in the old country banded together and helped each other. But dark days are coming. I want to help the children of the badly behaved and broken.

[estradling75]

7 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

I may have a different perspective on things due to my upbringing or lack thereof. My parents were at the very least unsuited to be parents. My somewhat socialist country has saved me a few times in my life. I think as we move towards the last days there will be more children in this situation. I work 6 days a week although objectively I could coast through life. My brother and sisters have a much higher than average work ethic. Sometimes you need a little help. 

So a number of empical tests are on the way. Let’s see what happens.

The question for you @Sunday21 how did you and your siblings get that work ethic?  And how do you keep it?  Because that is the question that needs to be answered with any kind of assistance.

People hit hard time, people get reversals of fortune, people have bad luck, and we should help when we can... But there is a strong tendency for people to work only as hard as they think they need to. (I am sure you have felt that from time to time)  If you take away the risk of going hungry and/or homeless how do you teach and develop a work ethic?

[person0]

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

but in many times and places people were too wicked (they think they deserve things because they "earned" it rather than seeing that it is all a gift from the Lord)

And because the Lord has not commanded it, there is no doubt in my mind people will still continue to be too wicked and think they earned it.  Especially when instituted from a secular government platform.  Another problem is that once universal income is instituted, all the other universal things people want will come with it, such as health insurance.  The Law of Consecration is not anywhere close to a socialistic income modeled society.  The primary difference is that the law of consecration has roots in the following:

Quote

20 And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredstunto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.

21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

22 He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.

23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:

25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.

26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:

27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.

28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.

29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.

The unrighteous and unfruitful can not participate in such a program and expect that it would ever be successful.

[anatess2]

19 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

All in another country! My relatives in the old country banded together and helped each other. But dark days are coming. I want to help the children of the badly behaved and broken.

I have family from all over the planet - including Canada.  When my dad got cancer, my family in Canada pitched in to help.  And so did my family in Australia and the UK.  When my dad passed away, most of them flooded the Philippines to attend my dad's funeral.

You can help the children of the badly behaved and broken without the need for government to force everyone to do so under duress.

[zil]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

FAMILIES.  Your parents were unsuited... where are your grandparents?  Aunts, uncles, cousins?  They're all unfortunate?  Or are they all absent because they left you to the hands of government?

In the west, by and large, families have decided that they prefer to have someone else care for their family members in need.  Sometimes that's the government, sometimes it's a charity, sometimes it's a business the family pays.  For a family to actually care for a needy family member with their own money, and especially their own time, is quickly becoming a thing of the past (at least in the US and as far as I can tell).

Edited January 30, 2018 by zil

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, zil said:

In the west, by and large, families have decided that they prefer to have someone else care for their family members in need.  Sometimes that's the government, sometimes it's a charity, sometimes it's a business the family pays.  For a family to actually care for a needy family member with their own money, and especially their own time, is quickly becoming a think of the past (at least in the US and as far as I can tell).

THIS.

This is the culture that needs to change rather than instituting socialism.  It is when people choose to freely exercise charity and service and are directly impacted by it that society can be blessed.

Edited January 30, 2018 by anatess2

[Vort]

15 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

How do we break the cycle of poverty?

I can tell you how we DON'T break the cycle of poverty: By taking money from those who work hard and giving it to those who don't work.

[Guest MormonGator]

34 minutes ago, Vort said:

I can tell you how we DON'T break the cycle of poverty: By taking money from those who work hard and giving it to those who don't work.

Hey pal, you have no right to tell me I can't spend your money. 

[JohnsonJones]

4 hours ago, MormonGator said:

so...giving out checks from the government makes people not rely on the government? 

I don't think people understand one of the ways it is supposed to work.  It is supposed to guarantee someone has an income.  Now, one way it works is if they get equal amounts of that from working, they are earning that money and the government doesn't need to pay anything.  However, otherwise, it is deducted from the amount that they already earn.  The idea is that most people will be able to earn more than the guaranteed income in a functioning economic system.  Those who are being paid over the income level will already be covered by their job, not paid by the government. 

Currently, one of the main complaints is that people who take welfare may be afraid of working.  This is because the system is rigged that if you work, you stand a chance of losing all of that, even if you are making less. 

Under one proposed guaranteed income program, the idea is to quell the fear that people have of losing their income, but rather are able to find work if they so wish without having to fear about no longer being able to pay bills or other things. 

In theory, this would actually reduce the amount of money the government is paying.

Of course, another problem with the current welfare system is that companies and corporations are using it as a subsidy to their own employement paying scale rather than paying what they should.  This means Walmart workers and others are being paid to the point that some of them need food stamps and other government aid just to survive.  This corporate welfare NEEDS TO END.  Which is where the taxes come in, but that's my own point.

The US has EVERYTHING one needs to make anything out there...the problem is that it has been so much cheaper for companies to move operations overseas and import rather than do what they used to do in the US.  This has made it so that the operations to get the raw resources or produce many of these materials are no longer in operation in the US.  The only way to change this is to change their behavior.  As per the Constitution, Income tax is a new thing...it was introduced...but taxing imports and exports...that's a perfectly legal way that's been there from the beginning.  In addition, making them at least repay (though I think punishment is more in line to deter them from doing corporate welfare from the government) at a 10X the cost or paying more than it would have if they simply paid their employees a fair wage instead of relying on government welfare would be a good scenario.

Edited January 30, 2018 by JohnsonJones
To clarify

[Guest MormonGator]

7 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I don't think people understand one of the ways it is supposed to work. 

Oh, we agree on that, that's for sure.   

Edited January 30, 2018 by MormonGator

[Vort]

5 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

The idea is that most people will be able to earn more than the guaranteed income in a functioning economic system.  Those who are being paid over the income level will already be covered by their job, not paid by the government. 

And a bogus idea it is.

In the state of Washington, if you are unemployed and go get a job at e.g. McDonald's, your income is deducted almost dollar-for-dollar from your unemployment benefit. Ergo, when I have been unemployed, I have been actively discouraged from getting a part-time job at Home Depot or someplace, despite wanting to do so. I am literally penalized for working! If I stay home, I get $X to clean my house, work on my yard, and respond to any job contacts, no matter how useless. If I go work 40 (or 20, or whatever) hours a week at a low-wage job, I get $(1.01)X. I will literally work for about a dollar or two an hour.

Note that this is for a guy who wants to work somewhere. I'd rather work than not work, but I won't work for free. How much less, then, for those who are disinclined to work in the first place?

This is nonsense. But it is the way things are. "Guaranteed income" is a brain-dead idea, and as such appeals primarily to Democrats and others of the political left.

[JohnsonJones]

3 hours ago, person0 said:

And because the Lord has not commanded it, there is no doubt in my mind people will still continue to be too wicked and think they earned it.  Especially when instituted from a secular government platform.  Another problem is that once universal income is instituted, all the other universal things people want will come with it, such as health insurance.  The Law of Consecration is not anywhere close to a socialistic income modeled society.  The primary difference is that the law of consecration has roots in the following:

The unrighteous and unfruitful can not participate in such a program and expect that it would ever be successful.

The Law of Consecration is almost the very definition of a Theocratic socialistic government.  A quick study on how it was implemented in Utah will show that it can work, but as you say, it is highly dependant on those who are righteous and are willing to work.  Some of the most desolate place in Utah flourished under this law...and it may be that without it, those places may have actually failed (as in, everyone dies there).  The sharing of necessities at first (and yes, that did include healthcare to the best ability they had to offer it, which in some cases was more a local knowledge by one without formal schooling) was key in promoting those towns and areas to survive.

The key to all of it is to allow people to work.  Right now, the way some of the laws operate, it discourages one from going out and working, or if already working, getting an even better job than they already have.  Under the guaranteed income that has been utilized in some areas and proposed in some areas (there are different ideas and thoughts on it), it encourages people to work, but if they can't, it guarantees that income.  Once they make more than that (and normally, in an operating economy, they should see more than that) the government isn't paying that income anymore, their job is.  However, they are not punished for trying to find better paying jobs.

In our current system, many times they are punished, which is a major difference between the guaranteed income vs. the welfare system the US currently utilizes.

[estradling75]

12 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Of course, another problem with the current welfare system is that companies and corporations are using it as a subsidy to their own employement paying scale rather than paying what they should.  This means Walmart workers and others are being paid to the point that some of them need food stamps and other government aid just to survive.  This corporate welfare NEEDS TO END.  Which is where the taxes come in, but that's my own point.

 

Another myth and lie.

Companies like Walmart pay what the Job is worth to them to have done... End of Line.

It is people who take a job at Walmart knowing it can not support them so they turn to the Government for an handout... instead of doing what is needed to get a job that will support them that cause the issue you complain about.

You want to end corporate "hand outs"  as you call them.  The best, easiest, and fastest way is to create more jobs so that there are better jobs out there... With more jobs out there then the "wal-mart" jobs go to the people who don't need a fully supportive job.

[JohnsonJones]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

And a bogus idea it is.

In the state of Washington, if you are unemployed and go get a job at e.g. McDonald's, your income is deducted almost dollar-for-dollar from your unemployment benefit. Ergo, when I have been unemployed, I have been actively discouraged from getting a part-time job at Home Depot or someplace, despite wanting to do so. I am literally penalized for working! If I stay home, I get $X to clean my house, work on my yard, and respond to any job contacts, no matter how useless. If I go work 40 (or 20, or whatever) hours a week at a low-wage job, I get $(1.01)X. I will literally work for about a dollar or two an hour.

Note that this is for a guy who wants to work somewhere. I'd rather work than not work, but I won't work for free. How much less, then, for those who are disinclined to work in the first place?

This is nonsense. But it is the way things are. "Guaranteed income" is a brain-dead idea, and as such appeals primarily to Democrats and others of the political left.

It is still in the experimental stage.  Studies have shown that a majority on welfare are actually ALREADY WORKING (a common misnomer is that those on welfare are not working, which is actually a false dichotomy).  In addition, those on CHIP in many instances already have jobs, they just don't have the coverage they need for their children.

The idea ironically is unpopular among hardline conservatives, but I think part of that is because they do not comprehend why or how it is supposed to work (part of it I think is disdain for those they think they are better than, rather then recognizing that some of those on welfare probably work harder than most of us who are not on welfare), and part of it is because they think they "EARN" what they have rather than seeing it that the Lord gives us all that we have.  If we view it that you own NOTHING, and NOTHING you have you deserve, and truly, you should have it taken away tomorrow because it's the Lords and not ours...it can change one's tune quickly on their opinions sometimes.

We are all beggars for the Lord's mercy, and as such, all that we have is the Lords already.  Now, I am as selfish as anyone here, I'm not about to give you all my house and everything else...but (and as most of what we are discussing is theory) in theory, I should recognize that in reality, this is NOT my stuff, it is the LORD's stuff.  In an equal world, I would probably be able to get by on 30K for me and my spouse if I had to (and that is probably still seen as being rich in many places) and the rest of what I have and earn should be given to someone else.  I'm certain the student that is working two jobs full time (as a janitor and at the warehouse) and going to school full time is working harder than I am.  They are not on Welfare because they are not hard working, but because of how our system operates currently.  To say I deserve more than they do...is just fooling myself.

The Law of Consecration corrects this mistake...but as we currently are fixated on keeping "our" money (instead of being those who manage the property of the Lord which he has allowed us to manage), I think we would face many of the same problems that those who could not abide by it originally faced.

I think the Law of Consecration would actually be a LOT harsher than the guaranteed income ideas...and I don't know if I am righteous enough to even live it or abide by it if it were brought back.  I think, the Law of Consecration is a divine idea...but to actually live it would mean we would have to be selfless and loving to our neighbors...in fact, even love our neighbors as ourselves.

[JohnsonJones]

3 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Another myth and lie.

Companies like Walmart pay what the Job is worth to them to have done... End of Line.

It is people who take a job at Walmart knowing it can not support them so they turn to the Government for an handout... instead of doing what is needed to get a job that will support them that cause the issue you complain about.

You want to end corporate "hand outs"  as you call them.  The best, easiest, and fastest way is to create more jobs so that there are better jobs out there... With more jobs out there then the "wal-mart" jobs go to the people who don't need a fully supportive job.

People take a job at Walmart because that's a job they can get.  There are nations where stores are forced to pay a living wage.  The reason they do not in the US is NOT because they cannot afford it, but because they can get away with it.

In the 40s and 50s, people made a career out of retail.  One individual working at Macy's or Sears was actually able to support a family.

Then the laws changed.  It isn't that the stores are UNABLE to do so, but they can get away with it so their CEOs can make Billions of dollars instead of a few million dollars.

PS: Ironically, I can tell this is unpopular among some Mormons.  It is interesting to see that.  The idea of Consecration WAS unpopular among conservatives in Joseph Smith's day and to a degree in Brigham Young's day.  I know Mormons are overwhelmingly conservative in modern times, but if you go back just a mere 100 years...Mormons were actually on the really liberal side of things...and yes, that includes socialism and other liberal ideas from the early to mid 20th century.

I think some of the change came about in regards to when Democrats lost the chastity morality of their party, which I think swung many Mormons from the left to the right...though it is interesting that eventually economic conservatism also followed that.  Mormons were at the forefront of the Welfare program originally and the US even somewhat styled the original programs after the Mormon church's own programs at the time.  Not that one would know that now.

Edited January 30, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[estradling75]

1 minute ago, JohnsonJones said:

People take a job at Walmart because that's a job they can get.  There are nations where stores are forced to pay a living wage.  The reason they do not in the US is NOT because they cannot afford it, but because they can get away with it.

In the 40s and 50s, people made a career out of retail.  One individual working at Macy's or Sears was actually able to support a family.

Then the laws changed.  It isn't that the stores are UNABLE to do so, but they can get away with it so their CEOs can make Billions of dollars instead of a few million dollars.

Then focus on the right issue...  Why can people only get a job a Walmart???   Fix that issue... because it is the real issue.  Fix that and the problem is actually fixed.  Every thing you have proposed leads to people not even being able to get a job a Walmart and makes the problem worse.

The simple fact of the matter is you want the government to wave some magic fairy wand to make people stop being greedy, selfish and self interested.  And that is an insane delusion that only makes things worse.

You have ignored the simple fact that corporations pass any and all expenses on to its customers/employees.  If you force a company to pay its employees more then it reduces the number of employees (Look at every minimum wage hike ever), and or raise the price of it good/services. 

[JohnsonJones]

11 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Then focus on the right issue...  Why can people only get a job a Walmart???   Fix that issue... because it is the real issue.  Fix that and the problem is actually fixed.  Every thing you have proposed leads to people not even being able to get a job a Walmart and makes the problem worse.

The simple fact of the matter is you want the government to wave some magic fairy wand to make people stop being greedy, selfish and self interested.  And that is an insane delusion that only makes things worse.

You have ignored the simple fact that corporations pass any and all expenses on to its customers/employees.  If you force a company to pay its employees more then it reduces the number of employees (Look at every minimum wage hike ever), and or raise the price of it good/services. 

This is true to a degree...costs ARE passed on to customers.  We are living I a society today where things are incredibly cheap.  Compare the prices from Walmart to those found in Macy's to see the difference between a store that sells Chinese fall aparts and unliveable wages, and one that at least (though not all anymore) pays somewhat higher. 

Of course it will cost more.  This used to also be true when we wanted to buy American...but the people have decided on cheap goods from China rather than American goods and hence the factories and everything else have gone overseas. 

That's why I want to raise taxes on imports...level the playing field.

It isn't a problem with only being able to get a job at Walmart or places like that, that's always been there.  It was there in the 40s, it was there in the 50s.  It was there in the 1800s.  What is different in all those eras are the laws and what people can get away with. 

You are right, there is no magic fairy wand we can wave, but we can change behaviors depending on the laws and what is passed.  200 years ago the idea of an income tax would have been repugnant.  People now talk about taxes in regards to income tax being lowered (though thus far it seems I will pay more), but what is that compared to an income tax of NOTHING...like they had when the constitution began?  Why is it that we now find income tax acceptable, when our forefathers did not?  It's due to the laws and changing attitudes of people.

150 years ago most of the care for the elderly was done by children or the churches.  That became unfeasible in the 20th century and hence why we started down this road of many of these governmental social programs to begin with. 

So, there is no fairy wand...I agree with you.  But we know what worked occasionally under the Law of Consecration under Brigham Young in the most harsh portions of Utah...and we know what did not work...and some even have some ideas about it (like me, which would be unrighteousness, selfishness and greed).  When we look at that as a blueprint, we can see that if it is presented in certain ways, and people actually adhere to it, there can be success.

In that light...If the Lords laws are a magic fairy wand...then I suppose in that aspect I do believe in magic fairy wands...

[estradling75]

4 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

So, there is no fairy wand...I agree with you.  But we know what worked occasionally under the Law of Consecration under Brigham Young in the most harsh portions of Utah...and we know what did not work...and some even have some ideas about it (like me, which would be unrighteousness, selfishness and greed).  When we look at that as a blueprint, we can see that if it is presented in certain ways, and people actually adhere to it, there can be success.

In that light...If the Lords laws are a magic fairy wand...then I suppose in that aspect I do believe in magic fairy wands...

Point accepted the Gospel of Christ is the closest thing we have to a magic fairy wand...  But it is not in the hands of the government... and more government laws and rules can not, take its place no matter how we might wish it so...

All those "good times" you talk about in the past worked when individual people took responsibility for themselves and for others.  The government did not and can not mandate that, it can only take advantage of it.  And those "good times" failed the moment people started demanding that others take responsibility for them.  And having the "Government" take responsibility for people is the height of this failure mode.

 

 

[Guest]

22 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

This is a burning point with many in the US who recognize what has happened.  Walmart for example has made the news multiple times in the past decade in regards to this.   The employees are receiving welfare and food stamps.  Walmart is literally being held up by the US welfare programs.

This, of course, should outrage most people that a corporation is taking advantage of the US in this way. 

I am outraged at the fact that the cost of living is being inflated by a government program to pay people money for things they don't need.  Remember that even food stamps are fungible when supplemented by a wage.  And we've also had many adventures into fraud where food stamps were actually being used to buy alcohol and cigarettes.

People are supposed to have difficulty with poverty so they will be motivated to get out of poverty.  But the simple fact is that some people simply want to live in poverty.  They don't realize it.  But that is what they are actually asking for.

[mordorbund]

I'm glad this discussion is still happening.

If the last election has taught conservatives anything, it's that these debates need to happen. The first runner up for the DNC was an avowed "democratic socialist", and it's quite possible that the only reason he lost was because his party rigged the primaries in Hillary's favor. He still has a significant number of supporters; and while I don't think he'll run again in 2020, I'm certain his popular ideology will manifest in one or more candidates. I will not be surprised to see it work it's way into the presidential debate.

And if the last election combined with the previous administration has taught us anything, it that we can't just shame people out of ideas we disagree with. They'll feel alienated and grow silent. They just take it underground and let it fester and lie to the polls. Waiting it out until a champion validates what they've long believed, they'll reverse the tide and we'll be blindsided.

So please continue this discussion. We've gotten rusty and the old tools of "socialism bad! look at USSR! look at Cuba! look at Nazi Germany! look at China!" just aren't cutting it anymore.

[Ironhold]

The ultimate issue with a guaranteed minimum income is: where will the money come from? 

There are a *lot* of people who would regard this the same as their hitting the lottery and so drop right out of the work force. 

[anatess2]

On 1/31/2018 at 3:52 PM, Ironhold said:

The ultimate issue with a guaranteed minimum income is: where will the money come from? 

There are a *lot* of people who would regard this the same as their hitting the lottery and so drop right out of the work force. 

Bernie Sanders tweeted not too long ago that all it takes is for America to have the WILL to expand Medicare to everybody to solve the problem of healthcare.  Yeah, only a short-sighted Socialist refers to a $15T project as "only takes Will".

[Traveler]

I believe a big problem of poverty is that we think of it as a single category rather than elements of human society.  For example – it appears to me that there are at least 5 classes of poverty (perhaps 6) and only one of those classes can be solved economically.  It is also my impression that the vast majority of poverty fall outside of the class that can be helped with through economic process only.  In short, I do not believe it matters how much money is given to those in poverty – poverty will remain.

With this understanding – I am for a minimum wage (or negative income tax).  I also believe that everyone should be taxed – and that those receiving even a minimum wage should be taxed.  I have wondered if such tax should be flat for all citizens – I have considered many options and am not fully convinced - only that everyone that enjoys citizenship should be taxed. 

The final idea for me is that regardless of what a person receives – the incentive to work is paramount.  Not that anyone should be forced to work but those that work should always have benefit over those that do not work or work less.   As near as I can tell – almost all of the modern social programs to help those in poverty disincentives those that work (the LDS welfare programs being an exception).   

 

The Traveler