Replace pensions with basic income??

I've been thinking... with the pension crisis in Illinois, it seems like government can't really afford to provide pensions, we've just been living a lie all this time as governments failed to pay into their pension accounts.

So the jig is up, pensions are a thing of the past which are going bankrupt. But wait!!! What if we switched pensions out for a basic income guarantee? That way they have to pay as they go and not put it off to never. After all, they would have had to pay out until a person died with pensions anyway, so the pay till you die aspect doesn't change. And meanwhile people are actually getting a benefit rather than an I.O.U. that isn't going to be paid back, far in the future.

 

Public Sector Unions should not be able to shake down Democrat politicians for pensions that exceed the private sector. If government workers were provided pensions consistent with people paying the bill, there wouldn't be a problem. The problem arises when Democrat politicians don't have to explain the debt they incur since they are long gone when the bill comes crashing down on the people who trusted them.

Teachers in my area are paid 95% of their last salary in retirement. That's unsustainable.

 

Who is going to pay for a basic income for life? It still has to be funded. If they can't afford to fund the pension system how are they going to fund a basic income for life? WHERE DOES THE MONEY COME FROM?

 

UBI and RBI have been talked about for ages. They're neither sustainable nor are they good for society.

 

The magic Liberal money tree of course. Rich people? They can afford everything can't they? That's what the MSM tells us. Of course the math doesn't add up but who cares.

 

Is that because to create a dollar they also create a unit of debt of equal value? So debt spiral until no one's willing to buy the debt anymore and the system collapses???

 

It has more to do with once UBI is a thing, you essentially say any job that pays less than UBI is essentially erased from history.

Take something simple like... fast food workers. They're undoubtedly paid minimum wage because it's a simple job anyone can do with little to no education. Not sure what your states minimum wage is, but here, it's 7.25/hr. This comes out to $15,080.00 gross per year. We'll say UBI matches this figure.

What would happen, overnight, is that anyone that's working a minimum wage job would have to make a decision. Are they going to continue working for the same amount of money as someone else, who literally does nothing? Well, a few might because they want to advance in the company they're with, but the majority will not. So fast food, retain chains, Wal-Mart, etc etc, anyone that pays minimum wage now has to do one of two things:

Raise Wages, which will immediately raise prices on everything they have because the company overhead has now shot up, or, they're going to fold up shop, sell off their assets, and call it a good run.

In the case of the former: You will see a very slow death of industry, as a continuous balancing act will push more and more people into the UBI system, taking them out of the workforce. Fewer people in the workforce means fewer taxes, and there comes a point where the system collapses in on itself, and anyone that's on UBI is now essentially screwed.

In the case of the latter: Fewer businesses in operation means fewer workers in the United States. Fewer businesses means less people paying taxes. In order to compensate for this, high paying jobs will be taxed FAR heavier, eventually running them out of the country. What you'll have at the end of this show is a bunch of pissed off poor people fighting in the streets, and no educated upper class to help pick things up. (Sound familiar, Venezuela?).

UBI is neither good, nor sustainable. Anyone that claims otherwise has zero economic sense, and probably was a 2016 Sanders supporter.

Edit: For the record, this is why all entitlement programs are garbage, up to and including social security. Welfare is essentially short form UBI, as long as said welfare queen keeps spitting out kids.

 

What if a basic income is just available to people who work at a specific job for a certain amount of time?

So politicians and teachers get it, not the lazy bum who sits around all day doing whatever???

 

What about shaking down Republican politicians for pensions that exceed the private sector? Or is that okay in your book as long as they are republicans?

 

So you're not talking about Basic Income, you're talking about a...pension.

You've really gone round and again in thread huh?

 

Look at Soc Sec and Medicare as prime examples of what you say. We are already seeing huge numbers of people leaving the workforce (admittedly not for UBI but that's irrelevant) and leaving SS and Medicare even more underfunded than it has been.

You nailed it!

 

Well by work I don't mean a lifetime of work, I mean like 4 years. Just enough so everyone doesn't game the system: I'm going to work in politics this summer to get the basic income coming my way.

And then the basic income is paid in addition to the paycheck as a lifetime benefit package, and it continues on no matter what happens though thick or thin.

 

Well I got the impression that the Republicans want to kick people off of pensions. Anything to cut, cut, cut.

But even they can't renegotiate with the government unions.

 

If public sector workers make the same salary as those in the private sector, you might have a point. However, the pension paid to most public sector workers is a benefit promised to offset a lower wage while working.

Teachers in my area are paid 45% of the average of their last five years working, if they have at least 30 years of service. They can also draw Social Security, when they are eligible. The same is true of many other public sector jobs in my area.

Start cutting pensions and other benefits given to offset low salaries and you will soon have no one working in the public sector. Try policing the streets, putting out fires, and educating kids without them.

 

The thing about a basic income is that the people continue to benefit from it until the system crashes in on itself. That's better than working a lifetime for a promise that gets taken away at the last minute because the system crashes.

 

It's hard to believe this is a serious proposal. Go to school for years, work 4 years, so by the time you start to get good at it...retire for the rest of your life. All from Scrooge McDuck's vault?

 

Based on Americans' kids' performance against the rest of the world, that may be an improvement. 24th reading, 41st math, and 25th science in 2015 even after a huge kick from the Stimulus doesn't make me want to throw more money down that hole.

 

Why would they retire? They still get paid.

 

When was the last time public sector unions voted for or contributed to Republicans?

 

Or, here's a crazy idea. We remove all entitlements, period. From there, when it comes to retirement planning, we utilize resources we already have, like mutual fund managers, to plan for retirement in a way that actually aid the system, not harm it?

Entitlements destroy nations.

 

Having been in a union environment for all my working career, one thing I've learned is that when it comes to negotiating if either side is not in agreement, all they have to say is no.....and then bargain until each side is satisfied. The problem is most politicians (both democrat & republican alike) are more concerned with getting re-elected or advancement in their political careers so they take the easy path out and in many cases agree to anything proposed with minimal bargaining and later place the blame solidly on the union which is truly wrong.

 

Federal Aviation Administrators Association; International Association of FireFighters also donated monies as did The National Active & Retired Federal Employees Assn, all in 2016. This does not include the local public sector unions that may have donated monies to republicans.

 

Do you think it is a fair comparison between the US educating and testing every single child in the US from age 5-graduation, regardless of learning ability, handicap, or family situation, against countries that track their less academic students into vocational training and not into the place where they are tested for academic performance?

We used to have vocational training in schools too, and only counted our academic students' test scores. When apples were compared to apples we did fine. Vocational training was expensive and class size was limited. So, when it came time to cut costs, vocational training was cut, and everyone was thrown into the same academic box. Every student is not suited for college, nor do they need a college education, if they can be trained in a vocation. Yet, those test scores count in academic progress when compared to countries that separate them out.

Educating the youth is the key to a better future for us all. We all age, and someday those kids will be running the country, industry, and business. The better we do for them, the better they will do for us. Or, we can be short-sighted, cut funding, blame teachers, and reap the outcome in the future.

 

Again, who is going to pay for this? Where does the money come from?

 

Maybe because their job is physically demanding? Like cleaning porta-potties?