Universal Basic Income

[TakeYouToTasker]

Any society which decides to permanently subsidize individuals who can't find work will suddenly find themselves with a tremendous amount of individuals who can't find work.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Any society which decides to permanently subsidize individuals who can't find work will suddenly find themselves with a tremendous amount of individuals who can't find work.

I once heard an economist ask that question: is t the point of an advanced economy to reduce the amount of work?

[Dr.Sack]

Nixon was able to get UBI passed twice in the House. UBI is a conservative idea. Roll back Welfare state, everyone over 18 gets a check per month. Milton Friedman & Thomas Paine advocated basic income. Ask an Alaskan if they like their oil dividend.

Edited February 13, 2017 by Dr.Sack

[Azalin]

Nixon was able to get UBI passed twice in the House. UBI is a conservative idea. Roll back Welfare state, everyone over 18 gets a check per month. Milton Friedman & Thomas Paine advocated basic income. Ask an Alaskan if they like their oil dividend.

 

Nixon was no conservative. Price controls? The EPA? That was a different, and much more leftist Republican party than what we have now. And if you're saying that Milton Friedman has ever advocated for government subsidy of private income, I would have you provide a link to him stating such in his own words, because anything I've ever heard from him is the complete opposite of that.

[Dr.Sack]

 

Nixon was no conservative. Price controls? The EPA? That was a different, and much more leftist Republican party than what we have now. And if you're saying that Milton Friedman has ever advocated for government subsidy of private income, I would have you provide a link to him stating such in his own words, because anything I've ever heard from him is the complete opposite of that.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/why-arent-reformicons-pushing-a-guaranteed-basic-income/375600/

 

Indeed Milton Friedman at one time did support a basic income via a negative income tax.

[TakeYouToTasker]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/why-arent-reformicons-pushing-a-guaranteed-basic-income/375600/

 

Indeed Milton Friedman at one time did support a basic income via a negative income tax.

Nixon was no conservative, but it wouldn't matter if he was, as all you're doing here is making an appeal to (presumed) authority in all three cases.

 

It doesn't matter a whit what Nixon, nor Friedman, nor Paine thought on the issue. Each man, while right on issues to varying degrees, was still human, and perfectly capable of being wrong.

 

If you want to argue in favor of a particular policy, argue on the merits of the policy; don't point out lists of people you presume to be favorable to your opponent whom you say agree with you. That's a logical fallacy.

[4merper4mer]

Were basic incomes advocated after the events of the Big Bend Tunnel or did ingenuity and human spirit win out?

[boyst]

If you want to have a basic income you need to prove you are basic. And eating at McDonalds and having a cell phone are not basic.

 

When these people stop bitching and cannot afford to grow their own food, I'll listen.

 

!@#$s thinking they cannot support themselves yet living in huddled masses of a city where they cannot support themselves is ludacris. Grow your own food, build your own structures, learn to live basic and shut up. There doesn't need to be a handout to sit on your ass. It is such a bull **** idea.

[4merper4mer]

Nixon was no conservative, but it wouldn't matter if he was, as all you're doing here is making an appeal to (presumed) authority in all three cases.

 

It doesn't matter a whit what Nixon, nor Friedman, nor Paine thought on the issue. Each man, while right on issues to varying degrees, was still human, and perfectly capable of being wrong.

 

If you want to argue in favor of a particular policy, argue on the merits of the policy; don't point out lists of people you presume to be favorable to your opponent whom you say agree with you. That's a logical fallacy.

 

 

Oh look. He's channeling his professor again.

[Azalin]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/why-arent-reformicons-pushing-a-guaranteed-basic-income/375600/

 

Indeed Milton Friedman at one time did support a basic income via a negative income tax.

 

Did you watch that whole video? Friedman said that the benefit of the negative income tax was that it would be less of a burden on the budget than the various welfare programs of the time, more fair to everyone via the tax code, while having little to no safeguards against fraud. His advocacy was from the point of view of making income assistance less onerous for taxpayers, not for strengthening or expanding it.

[Dr.Sack]

 

Did you watch that whole video? Friedman said that the benefit of the negative income tax was that it would be less of a burden on the budget than the various welfare programs of the time, more fair to everyone via the tax code, while having little to no safeguards against fraud. His advocacy was from the point of view of making income assistance less onerous for taxpayers, not for strengthening or expanding it.

Of course I did. You can get rid of many programs by moving in this direction. Hence it's a conservative principle as it's designed to simplify bureaucracy and shrinks the size of government, and the best concept is that it conserves money as it is the most efficient system. Conservatives love the idea of conserving money and not wasting resources - hard to argue. I could take this a step further and say if we move to a national universal healthcare we can eliminate the VA, Medicaid, ACA, and simply expand Medicare as the healthcare for all solution. Universal healthcare is more efficient per capita than our current healthcare system.

[Azalin]

Of course I did. You can get rid of many programs by moving in this direction. Hence it's a conservative principle as it's designed to simplify bureaucracy and shrinks the size of government, and the best concept is that it conserves money as it is the most efficient system. Conservatives love the idea of conserving money and not wasting resources - hard to argue. I could take this a step further and say if we move to a national universal healthcare we can eliminate the VA, Medicaid, ACA, and simply expand Medicare as the healthcare for all solution. Universal healthcare is more efficient per capita than our current healthcare system.

 

A NIT is only conservative relative to the larger, more onerous methods of income assistance & aid currently in place. Supplementation of income with tax dollars is not a conservative principle. I agree that the idea of a negative income tax is a more attractive way to provide assistance, but it still provides a disincentive for people to better themselves.

 

With regard to nationalizing healthcare into a single, universal system, I fail to see how that will help at all, especially considering that the reason healthcare is in it's current state is due largely to regulatory interference in the first place. But that's an argument for a different thread.

[Dante]

Socialism on a global level. NWO's wet dream!

[TakeYouToTasker]

Of course I did. You can get rid of many programs by moving in this direction. Hence it's a conservative principle as it's designed to simplify bureaucracy and shrinks the size of government, and the best concept is that it conserves money as it is the most efficient system. Conservatives love the idea of conserving money and not wasting resources - hard to argue. I could take this a step further and say if we move to a national universal healthcare we can eliminate the VA, Medicaid, ACA, and simply expand Medicare as the healthcare for all solution. Universal healthcare is more efficient per capita than our current healthcare system.

Implementing a libertarian or conservative reform of a socialist or liberal entitlement does not make it a libertarian or conservative entitlement. It makes it a somewhat less offensive socialist or liberal entitlement. However libertarians and conservatives are likely oppose to it's existence either way.

 

All this really boils down to is a plea that conservatives and libertarians accept the notion of a nanny state, and allow socialists and liberals to dictate policy, and then relegate themselves to following the socials and liberals around with a mop cleaning up after them while leaving the shells of their failed programs in place.

Edited February 13, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker

[Tiberius]

Any society which decides to permanently subsidize individuals who can't find work will suddenly find themselves with a tremendous amount of individuals who can't find work.

They don't work in Alaska?

 

And what research is your theory based on? Zero?

[unbillievable]

Nixon was able to get UBI passed twice in the House. UBI is a conservative idea. Roll back Welfare state, everyone over 18 gets a check per month. Milton Friedman & Thomas Paine advocated basic income. Ask an Alaskan if they like their oil dividend.

 

You're citing the state ranked 50th in unemployment.

Of course I did. You can get rid of many programs by moving in this direction. Hence it's a conservative principle as it's designed to simplify bureaucracy and shrinks the size of government, and the best concept is that it conserves money as it is the most efficient system. Conservatives love the idea of conserving money and not wasting resources - hard to argue. I could take this a step further and say if we move to a national universal healthcare we can eliminate the VA, Medicaid, ACA, and simply expand Medicare as the healthcare for all solution. Universal healthcare is more efficient per capita than our current healthcare system.

 

Why is it the default position of the left that increasing government control of an industry somehow leads to lower government expenditure? It has never happened, ever.

 

Similarly, raising the minimum wage is supposed to reduce the amount of wellfare recipients...

 

It makes sense that the base of the Democratic party is made up of young voters who can still fall for the same broken promises.

Any society which decides to permanently subsidize individuals who can't find work will suddenly find themselves with a tremendous amount of individuals who can't find work.

 

Remember when they increased the unemployment benefit to 1yr and suddenly it was taking people a year to find a job? Thanks, Obama.

[IDBillzFan]

Nixon was able to get UBI passed twice in the House. UBI is a conservative idea. Roll back Welfare state, everyone over 18 gets a check per month. Milton Friedman & Thomas Paine advocated basic income. Ask an Alaskan if they like their oil dividend.

 

This is an interesting way to bring up a point.

 

Tell me...both Clinton and Obama were big fans of shutting down illegal immigration by building a border wall and clamping down on anyone who tries to get into the country illegally. By your way of discussing things, Trump is merely pushing for a long-standing liberal position on immigration. So why aren't liberals cheering Trump's plan?

 

Obama was adamant about banning travel from the same countries that Trump is banning? That seems to me to be very liberal/progressive plan. Why aren't liberals cheering Trump's clearly liberal plan?

 

We'll wait.

[Andrew Son]

If you want to have a basic income you need to prove you are basic. And eating at McDonalds and having a cell phone are not basic.

 

When these people stop bitching and cannot afford to grow their own food, I'll listen.

 

!@#$s thinking they cannot support themselves yet living in huddled masses of a city where they cannot support themselves is ludacris. Grow your own food, build your own structures, learn to live basic and shut up. There doesn't need to be a handout to sit on your ass. It is such a bull **** idea.

That is your solution to poverty? Land ownership and farming?

[Nanker]

You know who else was in favor of Universal Basic Income?

[boyst]

That is your solution to poverty? Land ownership and farming?

its part of the solution. What's wrong with farming? Do you know how much cheaper it is to raise your own food or learn a skill set from doing so? Most importantly the lessons learned by children in ag can be very rewarding.