California city to experiment with 'universal basic income'

Yeah, I believe there was a problem with the lottery funding for a bit. Haven't heard of anything lately. I'm not totally pleased with Rauner, but our main problem is the entrenched Democrats. The heavily populated Democrat Chicago area keeps the state from going red.

 

The first party that advances a radical reform program to create vested accounts for working Americans to replace most major government programs will disintegrate the other party.

 

There have been experiments with universal basic income in the past. Some have had positive social effects, some not.

Milton Friedman, the libertarian economist, believe in a universal basic income (a.k.a. "negative income tax"). The key to this idea, though, was the exclusion of all other forms of welfare.

You can read about the successes and failures of the experiments here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_pilots#Pilots_in_United_States_in_the_1960s_and_1970s

And here: http://basicincome.org/topic/pilot-experiments/

 

I actually recognize the UBI as a logical eventuality for a nation that is transitioning from a production economy to a data one.

(and its coincidental that you mentioned automation in your 1-3 because that was my basis as well)

However that recognition is purely in the theoretical as I have no confidence in government's ability to practically implement such a thing.

I like your 1-3 in concept and surely it gets my mind thinking but, no, it doesn't address the concerns that I have.

Concerns that are more people problems than procedural ones.

At its core a UBI is wealth redistribution, its massive wealth redistribution.

So the first thing that comes to my mind is the math behind it.

If there are 100 people and they each need $100 a month to live then that's $10,000 that has to be redistributed each month.

But then what happens when government decides to let 100 more people in? ...now its $20,000 that has to be redistributed each month.

If the USA takes this large leap forward to a nation wide UBI then we will be seen the world over as the nation that is handing out free money.

That means we're going to basically have a billion people wanting to immigrate here.

So if we implement UBI then we must shut the door, fully and permanently, to immigration by any person(s) for any reason unless said person is of substantial personal wealth.

Now that would have to either include locking down on visitor VISAs or, heh, attaching some sort of tracking braclet to people that come to visit so they can be collected when they overstay their allowed time - I don't know gear are just spinning here.

Basically the laws that make UBI possible would have to be permanently bound with laws that forbid nearly all immigration.

The only way I can think of doing that in a manner that couldn't be overturned by a different Congress would be a Constitutional amendment.

..

And that's just one of the great many things I would expect from a program such as this.

I'd also expect the money to be both carrot and stick in order to control criminal behavior and encourage positive community interaction.

But as I said above I have no confidence that government will implement such harsh but necessary rules for a UBI.

And because of that a UBI isn't going to be something I'll support outside of the theoretical.

 

I agree, we could have tariffs and divide amount the people, but would mean we have to restrict who gets it, maybe have to be born here or live here 10+ years of legal status plus so many hours of work credit to get it

 

One of us did. But spectacular; keep up the good work.

 

Another phony assertion.

Friedman advocated what we have today with the EITC to an extent. His negative income tax would make up the difference between a higher standard decduction and the difference between what someone EARNED and that deduction.

 

I heard this morning a member of the group advocating this "really helps them gain their economic success going forward"?

What? It is taking from someone else's economic success and doesn't give it to them.

 

Most UBI experiments show increased employment, productivity, entrepreneurialism and consumer spending. It makes perfect sense if you actually know what you're talking about and not quoting "Taxation is theft!" idiots.

 

UBI should not be considered until the minimum wage laws are eliminated.

 

So did tightening work requirements for those on welfare and that didn't have to merely transfer money from a person who earned it to someone who did not and does not work.

 

Universal basic income would fail to cut poverty, says OECD

A universal basic income paid at a flat rate to all citizens would fail to reduce poverty levels in advanced economies and require substantially higher taxes to fund its simplicity, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has concluded in a detailed study of the idea.

Proponents of basic incomes argue that they would provide security for everyone in society, reduce inequality and provide insurance against robots replacing humans in the labour market. These claims receive short shrift in the detailed modelling exercise undertaken by the OECD, the Paris-based international organisation that specialises in cross-national comparisons of policy ideas. Its modelling shows the simplicity of basic income schemes would come at the cost of a need for large increases in taxation, less effective targeting of support on the poorest and large numbers of gainers and losers.
https://www.ft.com/content/82334db2-414d-11e7-9d56-25f963e998b2

Universal basic income 'useless', says Finland's biggest union

Finland’s basic income experiment is unworkable, uneconomical and ultimately useless. Plus, it will only encourage some people to work less.

That’s not the view of a hard core Thatcherite, but of the country’s biggest trade union. The labour group says the results of the two-year pilot program will fail to sway its opposition to a welfare-policy idea that’s gaining traction among those looking for an alternative in the post-industrial age.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...inland-useless-says-trade-union-a7571966.html

 

It is the only answer to the universal unfairness of certain individuals who are persistently inadequate, can't learn, can't develop skills and can only steal to survive.
Since you speak in universals.

 

Perhaps you should follow Venezuela. It's a basic lesson on destructive govt. As for the 'minimum income ' would a work requirement also be attached to that income?

 

Nonsense. We chose a system that cannot function without losers. We have a moral and societal obligation to correct that.

 

His next response is priceless ... In it he showcases the liberal "particpation trophy" mentality.

 

We function perfectly without losers.
I like Darwin.

 

?? The system doesn't need losers, losers need the system.

 

Command economy collectivism makes losers out of everyone. a nation of lazy, unproductive layabouts looking to get by on the least amount of effort possible. Why do you think there's no food in Venezuela? Why strive for a better life when government won't let you reap the rewards?

 

I remember trying to use the old "guilt trip" psychology on my parents. Entitlements addicts call it appealing to our collective social conscience ... "A rose by any other name ... " It's just as desperate, and obvious as my own pleadings, trying to get my fathers car keys.

 

yes. if you're opposed to giving DC's giant-brained central planners more money and control over the economy so things can be more 'fair', 'equal' and 'socially just', you're to be guilted and shamed as greedy (and racist. and a bigot. and, well, deplorable)

 

Pride doesn't come from things 'given', it comes from what you did yourself. And chances are made, not given.

 

A key principle of the Left has always been that wages are for workers - not for idlers.

A subsidy for low skilled workers might have merit.

 

The minimum wage idles most of the unskilled products of our failed education system.

 

A UBI is essentially the logical conclusion of a min wage so that makes no sense. Eliminating the welfare state on the other hand...

That's a donut hole issue. If working disqualifies me from getting benefits and benefits are more generous than the wages I'd make with the employment opportunities in my community than logic dictates I don't work. Forcing me to work to get benefits compels me to work (a little is better than nothing) but it doesn't actually solve anything. If anything it depresses local economies by reducing the buying power of the poor.

For an outsider fighting 'welfare queens' that seems a win but the math doesn't check out. You have to eliminate the donut hole where working doesn't eliminate benefits if you expect people to stop milking the system without causing economic harm. Your way is why so many rural towns are so downtrodden, all to fuel an uninformed talking point.