Sunday21

Guaranteed Income Supplement

Recommended Posts

Guest MormonGator

This is a horrible idea. Welfare destroyed poor communities, and just throwing money at people without accountability could compound addiction problems. And taxation is theft anyway, so there's that too. 

Other than that I love the idea.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

This is a horrible idea. Welfare destroyed poor communities, and just throwing money at people without accountability could compound addiction problems.  

This, and this is the reason I favor eliminating cash welfare.  I have no problem with feeding the hungry by giving them food, but I've known too many people that, given $20 when they were broke and hungry, would get fast food and cigarettes and be broke and hungry again the next day.

Make Humanitarian Daily Rations available to all citizens and legal residents one per person per day, (allowing weekly or monthly stocking up as well) regardless of income, and eliminate all other food aid.  2400 calories a day is plenty for anyone who isn't working a heavy labor job.  Offer extra HDRs or upgrade to MREs for $1 each for those who are working.  For housing, offer vouchers for temporary aid (keeping those having temporary setbacks from losing a house or apartment for 6-12 months max unless on legitimate disability - don't get me started on how I'd reform disability) and barracks-style housing for longer term. 

There are much better ways to help those in need than just handing them money and expecting them to use it well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s another study in Mississippi 

http://springboardto.org/index.php/blog/story/introducing-the-magnolia-mothers-trust

i can’t read the following article because I am not an subscriber but Washington Post has an article:

Springboard to Opportunities program in Jackson, Miss., gives moms $1,000 a month as part of a “universal basic income” experiment

Aug. 31, 2019 · A Mississippi program giving low-income mothers a year of “universal basic income” reflects an idea .... Trying the experiment in conservative Mississippi, though, made the program inherently different.

 

image.jpeg

Edited by Sunday21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
1 minute ago, Sunday21 said:

Here’s another study in Mississippi 

http://springboardto.org/index.php/blog/story/introducing-the-magnolia-mothers-trust

i can’t read the following article because I am not an subscriber but Washington Post has an article https://www.washingtonpost.com/

Springboard to Opportunities program in Jackson, Miss., gives moms $1,000 a month as part of a “universal basic income” experiment

Aug. 31, 2019 · A Mississippi program giving low-income mothers a year of “universal basic income” reflects an idea .... Trying the experiment in conservative Mississippi, though, made the program inherently different.

 

image.jpeg

You can give all the money in the world to a drug addict. And they'll spend it on drugs. 
You can give all the money in the world to an untreated schizophrenic. And they'll buy an apartment and burn it down because the voices in their head tell them to. 
You can give all the money in the world to someone who is has no desire to work or better themselves. And in three months they'll just demand more money because they've run out of what you gave them. 
You can give all the money in the world...oh never mind. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that giving $1,000 to every American 18 years or older would make the US as a whole a better place. Particularly under Yang’s plan where if you are already getting financial assistance through other government subsidies, you won’t qualify for the $1,000. Only the self reliant who do not pull from government programs would get the $1,000.

The part I hate about it is that the people paying for it would be the wealthy. I get uncomfortable when politicians say “you make too much money so you need to give it away” (Like Andrew Yang, Bernie, AOC and most everyone else on the left)

I am completely fine knowing that there are people out there making more money in a year than I will make in my life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

You can give all the money in the world to a drug addict. And they'll spend it on drugs. 
You can give all the money in the world to an untreated schizophrenic. And they'll buy an apartment and burn it down because the voices in their head tell them to. 
You can give all the money in the world to someone who is has no desire to work or better themselves. And in three months they'll just demand more money because they've run out of what you gave them. 
You can give all the money in the world...oh never mind. 

Not everyone is a drug addict. Andrew Yang has an easy solution to it. If someone is already pulling from government aid, they would not get the $1,000. And I would imagine most of the people we wouldn’t want to give money to are already getting government aid. 

Now I am not for a UBI unless it is willingly offered by someone who already has the money to make it happen. Printing money would obviously be disastrous, and taking from the rich seems to be wrong and counter productive. “We love small business owners (as long as you stay small business owners and continue to struggle)”.

As it stands, I love everything about how Andrew Yang plans to regulate  a UBI (which he calls a dividend) I just dispose his mentality on how it should be funded. I don’t think their will be any good way to fund a UBI. It just can’t work.

Edited by Fether

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
1 minute ago, Fether said:

Not everyone is a drug addict

Correct. Still though, just throwing money at people is a terrible idea. Look at how welfare has decimated poor families. 
 

1 minute ago, Fether said:

Andrew Yang has an easy solution to it.

There are no easy solutions.

 

2 minutes ago, Fether said:

taking from the rich seems to be wrong and counter productive.

So instead of taxing the rich, do you think we should tax the poor and middle class? 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Correct. Still though, just throwing money at people is a terrible idea. Look at how welfare has decimated poor families. 
 

If I was given an additional $1,000, it would go toward paying off debt and investing in my future. And before you say “good for you, most people aren’t like that”. I want you to know that there are a ton of people out there that would use it to better their lives.

 

30 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

There are no easy solutions.

There is. Like I said. If someone is already getting government aid, they would not get the $1,000. That rules out most druggies, mentally ill, lazy and “disabled” who live in subsidized homes, get food stamps and are on Medicaid. The only people getting the $1,000 would be those who are self reliant. It is not meant to provide a living, but to make a better living for those already working.

Funding it is the only roadblock for me. There is no reasonable option unless companies are wanting to incentives certain workers to move to undesirable places. No one should be forced to pay another man, and printing money would be awful. Yang wants to “tax” innovation in AI and other machinery that takes jobs from citizens. Not so much that is discourages innovation, but enough that companies will still innovate to make money, but they share the profit with the American people by funding the UBI (“Freedom Dividend”).

But in simple terms... steal from the rich and give to the poor.

I think Yang has the regulating side down, but Until someone can come up with a reasonable way to fund it, I’m out.

30 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

So instead of taxing the rich, do you think we should tax the poor and middle class? 
 

Tax everyone equally and uphold the laws equally. I’m Technically a small business owner. I have expenses I need to run it.

For the sake of simplicity. Let’s say everyone is tax 10%

If I made $50,000, but spent $5,000 on running my business, I “write off” that amount and instead of paying $5,000 in taxes, I pay $4,500. I also drove 5,000 miles for work so i can write off another  $2,500. I have kids too so I get credits for that and now I find myself getting a small tax return. So due to my expenses and my dependents, I pay “$0 I’m taxes”. BUT because I’m a small business owner, I also have to pay payroll tax every month, so over the course of the year, I paid around $3,000 in payroll tax (not sure how that is all calculated, my accounts takes care of everything) So after all is said and done, I Made around $42,000 that year (-3000 from payroll tax and 5000 from business expenses). If I couldn’t write off my expenses, I would have had to pay additional taxes to the government and would only have made $37,000. But because the government recognizes I need money to run my business, I don’t pay taxes on that.

Now here is the kicker.

Huge corporations are doing this exact same thing, just on a larger scale. When we see that say amazon made 50billion and paid “0 in taxes”. They still paid an obscene amount in payroll tax as well as taxes in many other places that I don’t have to worry about. the reason they paid “0 in taxes” is because they perfect the 2 and same day shipping. Which has forced competitors to do the same, making the USA a better place. So due to innovation and expenses in getting that running, they get write offs. They also wrote off all their expenses in running their vehicles, warehouses, payroll, charitable donations, etc.

 You start changing tax laws to force big corporations to pay more taxes, it will effect everyone down to the small business owner. And if someone guy out there is saying “$3,000,000 a year is too much, you have to give 80% of the government so we can give it to the poor”, then we have a big problem. The American dream is alive and well until you make too much money.

One ideology that is destroying America is that the rich are evil and we need their money.

Edited by Fether

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
28 minutes ago, Fether said:

There is.

I thought that way too when I was younger. Then I began to realize how complicated the real world was. 

 

28 minutes ago, Fether said:

I want you to know that there are a ton of people out there that would use it to better their lives.

I want you to know that there are a ton of people out there who would ruin their lives with it. You also have the equal problem of people adapting to 1000$, getting accustomed to it, than demanding more. After all, if you give a mouse a cookie...

This truly is a horrible idea. 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

You also have the equal problem of people adapting to 1000$, getting accustomed to it, than demanding more. After all, if you give a mouse a cookie...

This is fair. Some of The most ungrateful and entitled people I have met have been people who do nothing but have their livelihoods provided for by the government or others

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Lord said, love they neighbor as thyself.

If you truly love someone as yourself, you would treat them as yourself.  You would give ALL you had to your neighbor if you get down to it, as you would love them just as much as you love yourself.  You would never want them to go without shelter, food, or even many of the things they desire.  At the very least you would do an even split.  You love yourself enough to give yourself things you want, have housing and to eat.  Many love themselves to have a car, TVs, and many other things.

Most Christians (and including me) do NOT FOLLOW THIS COMMANDMENT in any shape or form.  They love themselves FAR TOO MUCH.  Thus, we have many, even in our own states who go hungry, without shelter, and without many of the comforts we take for granted.

This is one reason why I see in the past century that we have had the rise of socialistic ideas such as that presented in this thread.  IF we were actually CHRISTIAN we probably could eliminate the entirety of the poverty problem in the US overnight.

Unfortunately, despite how much we CLAIM to be a  Christian nation, we are not.  In many ways, as if we go by how our members are reflected...we are not even a Christian Church.  We have those who are poor, homeless, and many other difficulties among the poverty stricken, even in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

On this reflection, how do we fix this?

 I do not think it is possible within our Church currently.  Even if every member gave everything they had to their neighbors, all it would accomplish would be a church in poverty where we lose all our churches, temples, and all else as neither we nor the Church would have anything anymore.  We are too few, and the rest of the population is too many.

On the otherhand, it MAY be doable as a society if our society as a WHOLE took the commandments of the Lord seriously.  That hasn't happened, and the government has stepped in to a degree with social policies such as Welfare, Social Security, and other things.

In comparison to how much it costs (administrative costs included) such an idea as guaranteed income to those below a certain amount could be cheaper than the policies we enact now, especially if administered to groups that fall below a certain income line. 

Personally, I think another policy would be better.  Guaranteed housing and food for any who desire it.  It would be given as per need.  So a single individual would only be able to obtain a single studio flat or the equivalent with enough food to feed them.  A married couple could have a one bedroom habitation.  A family of three could have a one bedroom habitation.  A family of four could have a two bedroom habitation and so forth.  They would receive food as per their need, probably very similar to how the Church distributes it's food in Utah and the region where the Saints have traditionally been the majority over the past century.  I would add the one thing the Church many times does not include which would be there is NO QUALIFIER.  That means a person in need does not need to do anything more than ask (for example, someone asks the Bishop and he gives them food, no other things can be required of the petitioner).

We would also provide clothing as needed (using the church welfare system as a guide, but as with food, NO REQUIREMENT OTHER THAN ASK).  The Lord never said in Mosiah that there were qualifiers if someone asked for help/money, but to give.  If they ask, they receive.

The biggest thing to look at is to avoid those who abuse this system...for example one who asks for more clothes than they need, thus a reasonable limit on clothes given out per annum would probably be required (similar to food) as per given as required.

THEN, we MIGHT add on a basic guaranteed income for a period of time, as what someone would need.  For example, maybe a guaranteed income for one year, no questions asked.  This is on top of the Food and Housing.  This will not be much, but enough to sate the desire of want at times, or extra costs.  This would give them the chance to actually get back on their feet if they need to or to find work.

The problem we have with Welfare and Social Security today is there are counter incentives to working.  If someone works, they lose these benefits.  If they try and fail at a job, they have to reapply for the benefits (which can be a lengthy process at times).  Or, if they are older, they have a desire to retire and live off SS and Medicare with the feeling that they deserve this (despite SS probably being the biggest Ponzi scheme ever created...which is not a bad thing per se, but it means the money they think is theirs has already been input and probably spent and they are actually living off other people's money or investments when they are getting SS).

A different plan I feel would be more effective at helping those in need in our nation. Thus, I'm not against Guaranteed income.  I can see it being cheaper than some alternatives, but I think that due to a lack of Christlike love in our nation (me included in that) we have problems that living truly as a Christian nation could be solved over night.  As we do NOT truly live as a Christian nation, governments have tried to take over that role and as such we see them struggle to find the best way to do this.  This idea of guaranteed income is just one more of those ideas in their struggle of how to solve the problem of poverty because we, as supposed Christian citizens, refuse to do so on our own.

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose part of me buys into the rather sci-fi notion that perhaps one day when automation becomes an even far greater system something akin to universal basic income might be the natural evolution.

Another part of me figures this is a better idea than many current welfare systems. A bit more honest, we are just going to flat out admit we're handing out money.

And then another part of me gets the creepy crawlies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Correct. Still though, just throwing money at people is a terrible idea. Look at how welfare has decimated poor families. 
 


 

I don't care if it's a terrible idea or not.  Who in their right mind thinks it's acceptable to take money from one person under threat of violence and give it to another?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I don't care if it's a terrible idea or not.  Who in their right mind thinks it's acceptable to take money from one person under threat of violence and give it to another?

But ...you pay taxes now right? You pay for roads, schools, national defence, food stamps, even foreign aid. American troops are serving around the world. The CDC famously has helped to eradicate malaria in many countries. The US has fought in major foreign wars. Surely if you pay taxes you are accustomed to giving money to support other people?

The GIS programs are often proposed as more efficient ways of reducing poverty. Reducing the effects of poverty has been part of my role as a member of the RS presidency. Poverty control, is an area in which there are strong opinions, so let’s do some studies and find out.

In addition, my country is changing quite a bit due to climate change in regions of the country in which there is considerable poverty. These areas of the country need to transition and GIS may help. As a northern country the effects of climate change are dramatic. Roads and homes built on permafrost experience serious deterioration.

The caribou herds in the north of my province are flourishing by the way. Our polar bears are getting fat. 

 

Edited by Sunday21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sunday21 said:

But ...you pay taxes now right? You pay for roads, schools, national defence, food stamps, even foreign aid. American troops are serving around the world. The CDC famously has helped to eradicate malaria in many countries. The US has fought in major foreign wars. Surely if you pay taxes you are accustomed to giving money to support other people?

The GIS programs are often proposed as more efficient ways of reducing poverty. Reducing the effects of poverty has been part of my role as a member of the RS presidency. Poverty control, is an area in which there are strong opinions, so let’s do some studies and find out.

In addition, my country is changing quite a bit due to climate change in regions of the country in which there is considerable poverty. These areas of the country need to transition and GIS may help. As a northern country the effects of climate change are dramatic. Roads and homes built on permafrost experience serious deterioration.

The caribou herds in the north of my province are flourishing by the way. Our polar bears are getting fat. 

 

Not the same thing.  Even if I agreed with you that taxation isn't theft, you are comparing apples to oranges.  In one scenario, money is taken and used for communal services that everyone has (mostly) equal access to.  In the other you're directly redistributing wealth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Not the same thing.  Even if I agreed with you that taxation isn't theft, you are comparing apples to oranges.  In one scenario, money is taken and used for communal services that everyone has (mostly) equal access to.  In the other you're directly redistributing wealth.

Thank you for the clarification. Well let’s see what happens in the study. 

In my country, we have Welfare. This program is income support for people with disabilities, people in economically deprived parts of the country, temporary assistance for young mothers so we are already handing out money. I had assumed that the US had similar programs but perhaps I am wrong on that? We have a lower income pension for people over a certain age as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sunday21 said:

Thank you for the clarification. Well let’s see what happens in the study. 

In my country, we have Welfare. This program is income support for people with disabilities, people in economically deprived parts of the country, temporary assistance for young mothers so we are already handing out money. I had assumed that the US had similar programs but perhaps I am wrong on that? We have a lower income pension for people over a certain age as well. 

We do have similar programs.  I oppose those, also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Grunt said:

We do have similar programs.  I oppose those, also.

I see. Well I would like to find programs that spend money more efficiently. As our areas of jurisdiction are very large in some cases, provinces rather than states, the problems of the north are my problems. Handling climate change in a northern country is a major issue. On the plus side the bears are doing well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

I find experiments, even very flawed experiments, interesting. We have different competing theories so let’s see what happens. 

 

I also like the idea of experiments because they can show/clarify points and ideas we only think we know...

However I see some issues that a short term experiment can't take into account... For one Inflation.  If people have more money then the cost of goods will go up.  This happens slowly but it does happen... This is why you can't see a movie for a nickel anymore.  If everyone has an extra thousand then in time cost will inflate and that thousand will not cut it.  This puts us right back were we started.  If we are going to do this I want a fix, not something that just passes it down to the next generation.

The other issue I see is this

1 hour ago, Grunt said:

I don't care if it's a terrible idea or not.  Who in their right mind thinks it's acceptable to take money from one person under threat of violence and give it to another?

While short term experiments can be funded by donations, grants, or other voluntary means... One can't scale up without it becoming compulsory.  Plus there is the simple fact that if you become dependent on anyone for anything you become subject to control because of said dependency.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now