Guaranteed Income Supplement


Sunday21
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

 

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.

 

So?  That's true regardless where the money comes from.

Edited by Grunt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Grunt said:

So?  That's true regardless where the money comes from.

So...  I was under the impression that you would be supportive of the idea that it would be bad to be dependent on some faceless government bureaucrat or politician.  

With that assumption the following should be pretty clear.  We do have employers.. and we are dependent on them this is true.  However the options we have for dealing with an employer doing stuff we do not like with our pay check.. verses the government doing stuff we don't like with our paycheck... is huge.  Thus I am less dependent on employer then I would be on the government even if the amount of money was exactly the same.

Case in point. One of the function Government is suppose have is contract arbitration.  Thus if my employer is being shady I can bring in the Government to get corrective actions.  Whereas if the shady actor is the Government that does not really work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

So...  I was under the impression that you would be supportive of the idea that it would be bad to be dependent on some faceless government bureaucrat or politician.  

With that assumption the following should be pretty clear.  We do have employers.. and we are dependent on them this is true.  However the options we have for dealing with an employer doing stuff we do not like with our pay check.. verses the government doing stuff we don't like with our paycheck... is huge.  Thus I am less dependent on employer then I would be on the government even if the amount of money was exactly the same.

Case in point. One of the function Government is suppose have is contract arbitration.  Thus if my employer is being shady I can bring in the Government to get corrective actions.  Whereas if the shady actor is the Government that does not really work. 

I'm not understanding what you're saying, perhaps.  I'm against any government agency taking money from one person and using it to support another, except in the execution of necessary government functions (which is another discussion entirely)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something that rubbed me the wrong way about one of the Presidents Bush (I forget which one)  He had a much-ballyhooed tax reform thing, one aspect of it was 80% of Americans got an envelope mailed to them from the IRS, with two shiny new hundred-dollar bills in it.   I utterly despised that action, because even though it was a result of lowering taxes, it was openly and brazenly pandering to America, pretending to be the president that gives 'ya money.  The exact polar opposite of what one would hope would come from conservative principles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
2 hours 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?

Yup. Agree. Hence why I said "taxation is theft" in my first post here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I'm not understanding what you're saying, perhaps.  I'm against any government agency taking money from one person and using it to support another, except in the execution of necessary government functions (which is another discussion entirely)

OK...  Lets walk through the logic that I am going for and see were I lose you/you disagree.

Dependency on someone else gives that person power over you.  (See any Parent dealing with their kid)

While dependency can't be totally avoided.. every functional adult should be trying to avoid it as much as possible. (aka be independent).

The Government handing out money encourages dependency on the Government... and is therefore a means of the Government to increase its power over us.

Power Corrupts.

Corrupt Governments are incredibly hard to remove/fix

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

OK...  Lets walk through the logic that I am going for and see were I lose you/you disagree.

Dependency on someone else gives that person power over you.  (See any Parent dealing with their kid)

While dependency can't be totally avoided.. every functional adult should be trying to avoid it as much as possible. (aka be independent).

The Government handing out money encourages dependency on the Government... and is therefore a means of the Government to increase its power over us.

Power Corrupts.

Corrupt Governments are incredibly hard to remove/fix

I don't see anything in that statement I disagree with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, NightSG said:

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.

Most parents raise their children with cash supplements even in their college years.  And the more affluent  provide their children with more cash.  Being raised in such a culture - it is not strange that more and more expect, in all "Fairness" that the more affluent provide more cash to those with less available cash.  It is odd that we expect other children to be different than our own and think it fair - but we think fairness only applies when we are in need - it seldom happens when it is others in need.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Most parents raise their children with cash supplements even in their college years.  And the more affluent  provide their children with more cash.  Being raised in such a culture - it is not strange that more and more expect, in all "Fairness" that the more affluent provide more cash to those with less available cash.  It is odd that we expect other children to be different than our own and think it fair - but we think fairness only applies when we are in need - it seldom happens when it is others in need.

 

The Traveler

Equality in outcome is not fairness.  Taking from one and giving to another is not fairness.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Grunt said:

Equality in outcome is not fairness.  Taking from one and giving to another is not fairness.

In fact, this is reiterated in scripture, both ancient (the parable of the talents) and modern, such as as in D&C 130:

Quote

18 Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection.
19 And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come.
20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—
21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Grunt said:

Equality in outcome is not fairness.  Taking from one and giving to another is not fairness.  

The point of fairness is all in how it is phrased.  Taking from those that have too much and giving to those without enough would seem more like fair - especially if those with too much got it from taking from those with less - which is basically the corporate paradigm and why an MRI costs over a thousand $ in the USA and $15 in China.   When it comes to economics - whenever supply and demand are not balanced there is no fairness. 

Among my personal treasures a a silicon disk.  I love using it for an object lesson.  Roughly 25% of the earth's crust is silicon and in its raw form is practically worthless (good old supply and demand).  A pure manufactured completed disk without flaws like mine is worth between $50,000 and $100,000.  Mine, however, has a flaw and is called scrap and is not worth much more than raw silicon even though it has gone through a great deal of process to create a flawless disk - something happened - always unplanned.  

Most people are somewhat like my silicon disk and are diminished by a flaw which prevents them from reaching their potential value.  Oh if we could just correct the flaw.  Silicon does not act upon itself to overcome flaws but must undergo extensive outside support to reach it's potential value.  How fair is it that one such disk is gifted greater care and therefore of greater value than one not cared for enough?

Sadly as long as there are flaws in humanity - the more we try to make things fair; the more unfairness is increased but the greatest of all unfairness is what comes from not attempting to be fair.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
20 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Taking from those that have too much and giving to those without enough would seem more like fair

You aren't the judge of what is "too much". Neither is anyone else. 

Let me rephrase that. You are 100% free to lecture me and judge me about having too much money. You should not be free to force me to give away my money. 

20 minutes ago, Traveler said:

When it comes to economics

With all due respect @Traveler, you don't really understand economics. Just judging on past posts. That's not an insult .Everyone has topics that they don't understand. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Traveler said:

The point of fairness is all in how it is phrased.  Taking from those that have too much and giving to those without enough would seem more like fair - especially if those with too much got it from taking from those with less - which is basically the corporate paradigm and why an MRI costs over a thousand $ in the USA and $15 in China.   When it comes to economics - whenever supply and demand are not balanced there is no fairness. 

Among my personal treasures a a silicon disk.  I love using it for an object lesson.  Roughly 25% of the earth's crust is silicon and in its raw form is practically worthless (good old supply and demand).  A pure manufactured completed disk without flaws like mine is worth between $50,000 and $100,000.  Mine, however, has a flaw and is called scrap and is not worth much more than raw silicon even though it has gone through a great deal of process to create a flawless disk - something happened - always unplanned.  

Most people are somewhat like my silicon disk and are diminished by a flaw which prevents them from reaching their potential value.  Oh if we could just correct the flaw.  Silicon does not act upon itself to overcome flaws but must undergo extensive outside support to reach it's potential value.  How fair is it that one such disk is gifted greater care and therefore of greater value than one not cared for enough?

Sadly as long as there are flaws in humanity - the more we try to make things fair; the more unfairness is increased but the greatest of all unfairness is what comes from not attempting to be fair.

 

The Traveler

I just absolutely disagree with your wealth redistribution model, so we'll have to agree to disagree.   Just because other nations enslave one part of its population in forced service to another part of its population doesn't make it just.  It's still theft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
9 minutes ago, person0 said:

This exactly.

Thanks bud. I'm used to arguing with socialists because my good friend @Midwest LDS is a hardcore Bernie guy. Dude voted for Ralph Nader in 2000. And 2004. And 2008. And 2012. And 2016. 

No, I'm sorry. He voted for LaRouche in 2016. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Fether said:

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.

Andrew Yang is an idiot.  You would think with all his academic excellence it would occur to him that the purchase power of $1,000 is not the same across the entire country.  Think about it - $1,000/mo can't afford you a studio apartment in San Francisco whereas you can pay the mortgage on tens of acres of land with that money in Marquette Kansas.  And, he must have gone to the same Economics College as AOC because he also can't grasp the concept that artificially increasing the supply of money has an economic impact to cost of goods... and @Suzie, you don't need to wait for all those experiments to know what will happen with giving people money -  hello College Debt Problem... that's EXACTLY why it has become a problem - government giving students money to spend on college drastically increases the price of college.  You want to do socialist programs, you end up having to install communist governments because it breaks the free market cycle.

There is a much better way of accomplishing Yang's vision - and it has been proposed in Congress.  But because it's by Republicans (or Libertarians) nobody pays it attention.  It's called THE FAIR TAX.  It has a built-in tax refund (same as giving people money if they have zero tax liability) tied to the poverty line amount in each State - think about it, the poverty line in California is a much higher dollar amount than in Kansas as the dollar has a much lower purchasing value in Cali than in Kansas.   And here's a bonus - the wealthy doesn't necessarily get to bear the brunt of the subsidy... the Spenders do and everybody has the freedom to choose to spend or not spend.

And just so we're clear... this right here is 100% proof Yang is an idiot.  "I'm giving people money" - hello Yang, it's not YOUR money, it's THEIR money you are giving back to them.  It's like me taking money from my husband's wallet and buying him a Christmas present for it signed From Your Wife.

 

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m against Yang too... but I’m not about to let I’ll informed people bag on a bad idea for the wrong reasons.

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

You would think with all his academic excellence it would occur to him that the purchase power of $1,000 is not the same across the entire country.  Think about it - $1,000/mo can't afford you a studio apartment in San Francisco whereas you can pay the mortgage on tens of acres of land with that money in Marquette Kansas

He knows this and comments in it. His plan is not to provide a living off of the “Freedom Dividend”, he makes that obviously clear and he talks about it a ton. It’s purely just to take a little weight off the backs of some of the hard working Americans.

 

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

he also can't grasp the concept that artificially increasing the supply of money has an economic impact to cost of goods

He isn’t artificially increasing the money. He is taking from the rich and giving to the poor. His idea is that $233,000,000,000 a month in the hands of every (qualified) America would do more good than in the hands of 1,000 power house corporations.

Watch any of his lengthy interviews and he explains how he will fund it. Tax innovation of technology and AI, particularly anything that takes jobs away from Americans. 

Again, I’m not for his plan, but let’s be intellectually honest when trash talking it.

Edited by Fether
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fether said:

His idea is that $233,000,000,000 a month . . .

I highly doubt that much money could reasonably be taken from the wealthy on a monthly basis, however, if that is really the amount of money 'available', wouldn't it be better to put it directly towards the national debt and have our country debt free in less than10 years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Fether said:

I’m against Yang too... but I’m not about to let I’ll informed people bag on a bad idea for the wrong reasons.

He knows this and comments in it. His plan is not to provide a living off of the “Freedom Dividend”, he makes that obviously clear and he talks about it a ton. It’s purely just to take a little weight off the backs of some of the hard working Americans.

Do you even get what I'm saying?  If your vision is to take a little weight off the backs of some all Americans (the dividend is not just for some but for all - the concept is to prepare all people for when unemployment soars due to tech advances - a faulty premise to begin with, because what does it mean that horse carriage makers, carriage drivers, street poop scoopers lose their jobs because of the invention of the combustion engine?) giving an arbitrary fixed dollar amount across wildly varying "Price for a Basket of Goods" ranges is... dumb.

 

Quote

 

He isn’t artificially increasing the money. He is taking from the rich and giving to the poor.

He is not. Andrew Yang is one of the few Democrats that actually heavily criticize the "Tax the Rich" scheme of Warren and Sanders. 

 

Quote

  His idea is that $233,000,000,000 a month in the hands of every (qualified)  America would do more good than in the hands of 1,000 power house corporations.

Watch any of his lengthy interviews and he explains how he will fund it. Tax innovation of technology and AI, particularly anything that takes jobs away from Americans. 

How is this "Taking From  the Rich to give to the Poor"?  Are you just yapping front-runner Democratic talking points?

Now let me explain to you what Artificially Increasing Cash Supply means.  This is a Keynesian economic model wherein the government injects money out of Public coffers to transfer into the Private Market.  Capitalism is only operating in the Private Market.  The government is exempt from Capitalistic rules because they can print money, set interest rates, collect taxes and tarrifs, etc. etc. - they basically do not need to produce anything to gain assets.  In the USA currently, all products are produced in the Private Market.  If Bernie gets his way,this will change to most if not all products will be produced in the Public Enterprise.  Now take note that in a Capitalistic System, Price is determined through the balance of Supply and Demand.  Therefore, injecting a supply of Cash into the Private Capitalistic Market without a corresponding increase in production of Value (Demand for Cash), reduces the Price (Value) of Cash.  In simplistic terms, if I have a doodad I'm selling in the free market, the Price for that doodad will rise to meet the amount of Cash you have in your pocket to pay for it.  And because it didn't cost you anything to acquire that Cash, you will not have a corresponding value to attach to the worth of that Cash to you outside your desire to own the doodad.

This is why College Tuition increased drastically after the government gave out Pell Grants.  Colleges increased their tuition to gobble up the supply of risk-free money. Students were willing to go to College for whatever the College charges because the students don't attach any production value to that Cash that magically appears to pay for the tuition.

The only way you can combat this is to do what Insurance Companies do - Instill Price Controls.  When the government is supplying the Cash, the government can instill Price Controls.  Now, see if you can identify what economic model you just converted to?   China.  Yep.  Andrew is a Yang through and through.

 

Quote

Again, I’m not for his plan, but let’s be intellectually honest when trash talking it.

Yes.  Let's.  It, of course, comes with the presumption that you actually understand the implications of what he's saying.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/1/2019 at 5:45 PM, Fether said:

I believe that giving $1,000 to every American 18 years or older would make the US as a whole a better place.

I believe you're wrong, and I can't believe you're saying that. $1000 per person is an extra THREE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR. Think about that for a few seconds.

The irony is, of course, that WE will have to pay out an average of $1000 per person per year more in taxes to fund the program. Much more than that, of course, maybe $2000 or $3000 per person per year, given government's deplorable inefficiencies.

Of all the crappy political ideas—and there are many—this is among the crappiest, right up there with Warren's fifty-zillion-dollar universal health care.

On 12/1/2019 at 6:21 PM, Fether said:

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

And you truly believe this is a moral solution?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

19 hours ago, estradling75 said:

So...  I was under the impression that you would be supportive of the idea that it would be bad to be dependent on some faceless government bureaucrat or politician.  

With that assumption the following should be pretty clear.  We do have employers.. and we are dependent on them this is true.  However the options we have for dealing with an employer doing stuff we do not like with our pay check.. verses the government doing stuff we don't like with our paycheck... is huge.  Thus I am less dependent on employer then I would be on the government even if the amount of money was exactly the same.

Case in point. One of the function Government is suppose have is contract arbitration.  Thus if my employer is being shady I can bring in the Government to get corrective actions.  Whereas if the shady actor is the Government that does not really work. 

Much of what you have stated describes the military organization.

In fact, for much of the US's life the military was small.  It was expected that when trouble hit the citizen would come to volunteer for War, and many of the US's stable military units were actually militia rather than professional military.

There were several ideas behind having a large military.  First, we have an instant defense force instead of having to build it up from the ground (well, we had a small army but as the World Wars indicated, building up can create a delay where the enemy is taking over islands and other places you don't want them to take).  Secondly, YOU (the government) are in control of the military assets in the nation.  It gives rise to the idea of limiting more weapons to the common man (because if you have a large professional military, why would there be a need for individual's who could form their own military) and military weapon access. 

This can also be seen as a reason why the government has the ideas to have Veteran benefits as well as early military retirement (at least originally...after 20 years for a pension).  It keeps those who were most capable or most likely (In the Veterans case, many times it would be the ones with the most combat experience that get the benefits) to be able to form a rebellion reliant on the Government.

Do you consider THIS inappropriate?

(I do know many that actually do consider it inappropriate spending, it is the third greatest expense of our government along with Welfare/Social security programs).

I support the military and think it does a great amount of good, but your descriptions of government spending and taxation to support other things would seem to also be applicable to such things as a LARGE and MASSIVE (rather than a smaller and more compact that can be built up in times of War instead) military establishment or any other form of government that has those employed by said government.

4 hours ago, Vort said:

I believe you're wrong, and I can't believe you're saying that. $1000 per person is an extra THREE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR. Think about that for a few seconds.

The irony is, of course, that WE will have to pay out an average of $1000 per person per year more in taxes to fund the program. Much more than that, of course, maybe $2000 or $3000 per person per year, given government's deplorable inefficiencies.

Of all the crappy political ideas—and there are many—this is among the crappiest, right up there with Warren's fifty-zillion-dollar universal health care.

And you truly believe this is a moral solution?

I think that depends on what you consider moral.  The US and most members in the Church today (as I have pointed out) are not "moral" as per the commandment of the Lord to Love thy neighbor as they self.  This is a MAJOR reason so much inequality even exists. 

I am also part of the problem, but I realize I don't live the commandment as fully as the Scriptures imply we should.  Others probably do not or make up excuses as to why they should not follow the commandment as it is written.

That said, I think a more measured approach COULD be done.  I mentioned it before, I'll mention it again.  Provide the necessary Housing and Food that someone requires.  The Housing is going to be small, but adequate (meaning that the drive for something bigger or better is still going to be there, if they want it they would have to work for it) for whatever family size there is.  Food would be healthy (not necessarily sugary or otherwise, but healthy.  They are probably not going to get some of the wasteful foods that many get) similar to what the Church gives out with it's church Welfare programs in Utah, Idaho, and Northern Arizona.  If one asked, they could have clothes within limits to wear.  These would be things similar to what one can get at Deseret Industries or the Bishop's Warehouse.

Money is more debatable.  As it has been mentioned in the thread above, it does not account for inflation or the variations around the country in costs.  However, I would not object to people receiving a small amount of money delegated out for a duration of time at which end they could ask again and receive.  This is to make it so that if they wish to work, they can, and to not be a persuasive means (such as how we do with Welfare and SS today) for them to avoid finding work.

The Church already has a few of these types of systems working already, though typically it is NOT for the needy.  In some ways, at least one is even MORE socialistic than what people are looking at here.

The Missionary program (and yes, I believe it runs at a loss if we are looking at it economically) has all missionaries pay into it a set fee.  Out of that is allocated to each mission and missionary according to need.  They receive housing and a small amount to cover food and other costs.  In some areas they also receive vehicles and at times electronics.  They are on a missionary medical program.  This is absolutely socialistic in approach.  On the otherhand one could also say it is also the Law of Consecration also at work among the missionaries.

Another system is among our General Authorities in which they receive a stipend (~120K though inflation has probably made it a little higher today) to pay for their earthly needs.  They all receive it.  They also receive some other benefits.  This is also given out by the Church.

I think that there are ways that we can address the problems and difficulties of poverty far better than we have done in the past.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

 

Much of what you have stated describes the military organization.

In fact, for much of the US's life the military was small.  It was expected that when trouble hit the citizen would come to volunteer for War, and many of the US's stable military units were actually militia rather than professional military.

There were several ideas behind having a large military.  First, we have an instant defense force instead of having to build it up from the ground (well, we had a small army but as the World Wars indicated, building up can create a delay where the enemy is taking over islands and other places you don't want them to take).  Secondly, YOU (the government) are in control of the military assets in the nation.  It gives rise to the idea of limiting more weapons to the common man (because if you have a large professional military, why would there be a need for individual's who could form their own military) and military weapon access. 

This can also be seen as a reason why the government has the ideas to have Veteran benefits as well as early military retirement (at least originally...after 20 years for a pension).  It keeps those who were most capable or most likely (In the Veterans case, many times it would be the ones with the most combat experience that get the benefits) to be able to form a rebellion reliant on the Government.

Do you consider THIS inappropriate?

(I do know many that actually do consider it inappropriate spending, it is the third greatest expense of our government along with Welfare/Social security programs).

I support the military and think it does a great amount of good, but your descriptions of government spending and taxation to support other things would seem to also be applicable to such things as a LARGE and MASSIVE (rather than a smaller and more compact that can be built up in times of War instead) military establishment or any other form of government that has those employed by said government.

What an incredibility obtuse distortion of my position.

First I mentioned the dependency on an Employer... While it can be called a dependency it avoids most of the pitfalls of dependency... because it is more of an exchange.. I give my Employer something (labor) they give me something (money/benefits).  And if that exchange breaks down I can go elsewhere for employment (This can be hard but it is doable)

The Government can also be an Employer, The Government has functions it is suppose to do... Military is one of them.  The Government employing people to perform its function is potentially risky because it can be hard to check its abuses but it has to also be an Employer or it can't do its job. Thus the Government offering military jobs including benefits is needful but needs to be watched for abuses.

This is totally different then the Government saying here is "free money" on a long term basis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share