Is this the universal basic income that Americans will buy?

Eliminate the minimum wage for unskilled labor and anyone who can work will be able to find a job that will probably not support them. IMO, government could then subsidize the wages of those workers.

Anyone who really cannot work could receive some kind of support that should not be confused with a working wage. We are probaly not that far off on this issue, but I am very opposed to paying those who are able to work to remain idle. They should all be working and advancing up the ladder as they gain experience and skills.

 

Taxes put the brakes on an economy.

A VAT would have us look like Europe with 1% growth and 12% unemployment.

 

What prevents you from lifting yourself out of poverty?

 

I already stated it back in post #36.
Link:
Is this the universal basic income that Americans will buy?

 

I don't take the argument that taxes put a break on the economy. We already have sales taxes. And, if anyone passes the VAT tax onto consumers, a sales tax is what it's going to look like.

Also, I think 1% growth is within a reasonable range for a developed country. We don't have much to build now because we already have everything. Building infrastructure in a developing country is a huge boom for its growth. But growth becomes harder and harder to achieve the more developed a country is.

 

There is a huge bureaucracy in the social services industry. Many programs, many stuff, oh my! If we got rid of it and implemented a program to give money directly to the people then a lot of people in the social services industry will be out of a job.

Many say this is only an emergency plan for automation taking all of the jobs, and major unemployment, but with changing policies comes major societal changes anyway.

 

Everyone does feel that is onerous. Anyone who does not think that is not onerous or unpleasant was never in that position. Nothing was given to me, both my parents were dead before I graduated jr high school. I served in Nam and did not get my degree till I was 36 years old. It is onerous to work in a mill for 12 years
supporting a family. I saved every dollar I could and did not get security after 20 years, more like 20 years after I got my degree. Horatio Alger is not the normal outcome but a small minority for people who go to work every day for 12 bucks an hour.

 

Crank's advice is a good one, however, it's undoable for me because I have expenses that I can't get rid of. I have a car and all the expenses that go with it.

 

Okay, sure. It's not fun, but it's the only way when you're not born with a silver spoon in your mouth, and you're a wage slave.

That so many think they're somehow 'winning' by not doing the hard yards, is the great mystery.

 

Why can't you get rid of your car? No public transport?

 

I'd rather have a car than public transit. The busses have street preachers on them (I cannot get away from them fast enough), Uber or Lift require smartphone apps (I don't have a smartphone). The local taxi service is a really nasty bunch who are price gouging people because they have no competition.

Plus if there is ever a natural disaster, and I have to evacuate, then not only do I want a car but I need a car.

 

Anyway, I'm in a good mood. I just received a paycheck and now I can pay off my debt and have cash again.

 

But it does not matter how hard you work or for how long or your preservernse in saving. only a small minority will ever experience financial security. You cant point to the 1 out of 50 that does and say that is the direction to go.

 

And there's your answer. It's this attitude which prevents people from getting ahead.

 

Yes, it does matter. And that one in fifty is why you have a 2%. THEY are the ones prepared to do what it takes.

It's more honest to just admit that most people don't want to work that hard and deny themselves that much. Given that, such people cannot then complain about their lot. Refusal to accept the reality of what it takes to escape poverty, is the individual's problem. It has no bearing on their entitlements, and it absolutely doesn't entitle them to complain.

 

My wife introduce me to the phenomena of gifted Christian psychics........
several of them have predicted a massive outpouring of the Holy Spirit at the time that the USA dollar and the Canadian dollar are at par.

The vulnerable USA Derivatives market may well be the catalyst for this.........
It would be economic insanity for Canada, Australia, Israel and Great Britain to allow the USA petrodollar to go all peso.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ada-and-unified-field-theory-of-m-w-p.548225/

 

No most people do want to work hard and most people do. I don't know what country you live in but I don;t know one person who is not disabled that does not work. Not one- never mind "most" . I think the great majority of Americans are somewhat satisfied with thier lot in life.

My point still stands 2% is not a bar to aspire to.

 

I'm OK with society being involved in social programs. However, they should never come from federal government. It is the wrong place to do it. The reason is simple. Federal government has no competition. It can do whatever it wants to do without any consequence. States, as an example can have 49 competitors as well as some territories. If social programs are handled at the state level and a citizen doesn't like it, he or she can move to another state. We see people moving away from some states now because of the state and local tax structure. Competition is good for society.

 

This is the left-wing view: that government (at least, at its best) is really quite good.

On the other hand, I would assert that the very best government ever produced, in its very finest hour, was merely a necessary evil--and nothing better than that.

 

But sales taxes would not disappear--or even diminish--with the passage of a VAT. This would just amount to an additional tax.

And I strongly prefer a low-tax society (even if the tradeoff is less-generous government benefits)...

Donald Trump has demonstrated that we need not be satisfied with a mere one-percent growth (as Barack Obama had posited).

Four percent is probably not sustainable. But three percent--well, that does seem reasonable...

 

Maybe if I had the right to fight my way through the street preachers?

Fight Scene From Airplane!
Dur0:27.

 

Based on what I hear about UBI and Negative Income Tax, I think most social programs cost more to administrate than to give just cash.

I thought the target growth rate was traditionally 2%??? But then we fell on hard times.

 

You apparently want us to become more like the social democracies of Europe.

I do not.

I really think that they would do very well to become much more like us...

Perhaps liberals (such as Barack Obama) claimed that we should expect no more growth than that.

I do believe that President Trump has shown that it is quite possible to have a growth rate greater than a mere two percent.

 

Here is another take on UBI. I'm not starting a new thread topic because I'm not sure that there's a paywall on this news story or not.

Rep. Rashida Tlaib introduces closest plan in Congress to universal basic income
https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-p...ic-income/?tid=ss_mail&utm_term=.477ef07113d2

The point is for a $3000-$4000 dollar a year for every individual.