California city fights poverty with guaranteed income

[Umka36 781]

I'm sure this will fly:

 

"Hughes, 34, has proposed the U.S. government give a guaranteed income of $500 a month to every working American earning less than $50,000 a year, at a total cost of $290 billion a year. He says a 50-percent tax rate on income and capital gains for Americans earning more than $250,000 would pay for it." - Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/california-city-fights-poverty-guaranteed-income-101127720--business.html

Edited June 5, 2018 by Umka36

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

1. 10 minutes ago, Umka36 said:

   I'm sure this will fly:

    

   "Hughes, 34, has proposed the U.S. government give a guaranteed income of $500 a month to every working American earning less than $50,000 a year, at a total cost of $290 billion a year. He says a 50-percent tax rate on income and capital gains for Americans earning more than $250,000 would pay for it." - Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes

    

   https://www.yahoo.com/news/california-city-fights-poverty-guaranteed-income-101127720--business.html

   Yeah right since just a few years ago Stockton filed for bankruptcy. How are they going to pay for this?

[Umka36 781]

"The Economic Security Project is providing $1 million to fund the Stockton trial after approaching Tubbs to ask if his city would be interested in piloting a basic income program."

[TBoneTX 45,536]

"The problem is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

[Dashinka 24,597]

4 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

"The problem is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

Someone important (other than yourself) said this once.

 

 

[bcking 3,157]

This isn't the solution. Just giving people money doesn't solve anything.

 

I'd love to give people in need health insurance, or food, or shelter. Just giving money is horribly inefficient and likely unsuccessful. 

 

EDIT: Though I find it a little bit interesting that we could give everyone earning <50,000 thousand a year 500 dollars a month in exchange for 50% of our Defense Spending. We'd still be spending more than the next highest country even if we did (320 billion compared to China's 216 billion...in 2014 so maybe it's slightly different now). It's still a bad idea though.

Edited June 6, 2018 by bcking

[Dashinka 24,597]

34 minutes ago, bcking said:

This isn't the solution. Just giving people money doesn't solve anything.

 

I'd love to give people in need health insurance, or food, or shelter. Just giving money is horribly inefficient and likely unsuccessful. 

 

EDIT: Though I find it a little bit interesting that we could give everyone earning <50,000 thousand a year 500 dollars a month in exchange for 50% of our Defense Spending. We'd still be spending more than the next highest country even if we did (320 billion compared to China's 216 billion...in 2014 so maybe it's slightly different now). It's still a bad idea though.

Why not just suggest to give it back to the actual earners of the money?  There is simply too much government control of the money.

[bcking 3,157]

7 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Why not just suggest to give it back to the actual earners of the money?  There is simply too much government control of the money.

I could think of a lot of things we could do with that money. As I said, this plan wouldn't be in the top 10 on my list.

 

Perhaps giving it back to the earners would be up there, but as I'm sure you already know I am generally supportive of social support programs (which in my mind is not the same as just handing money out) so I personally would probably consider things like providing access to health care for everyone, or helping to provide other basics like food and shelter before I considered just giving it back.

Edited June 6, 2018 by bcking

[Dashinka 24,597]

2 minutes ago, bcking said:

I could think of a lot of things we could do with that money. As I said, this plan wouldn't be in the top 10 on my list.

 

Perhaps giving it back to the earners would be up there, but as I'm sure you already know I am generally supportive of social support programs (which in my mind is not the same as just handing money out) so I personally would probably consider things like providing access to health care for everyone, or helping to provide other basics like food and shelter before I considered just giving it back.

They only work until one runs out of other people's money.

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, Bill & Katya said:

They only work until one runs out of other people's money.

I'm talking about using money we already take from people (part of our Defense spending), I'm not suggesting we take more. I agree we take plenty already.

[jg121783 3,917]

19 hours ago, Umka36 said:

I'm sure this will fly:

 

"Hughes, 34, has proposed the U.S. government give a guaranteed income of $500 a month to every working American earning less than $50,000 a year, at a total cost of $290 billion a year. He says a 50-percent tax rate on income and capital gains for Americans earning more than $250,000 would pay for it." - Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/california-city-fights-poverty-guaranteed-income-101127720--business.html

This is a horrible idea on so many levels. First of all why should someone be penalized so heavily for working harder than others and making a decent living? A 50% tax rate for anyone is absurd. If this idea were actually the law I am sure most people earning around $250k a year would scale back their earnings to avoid the large tax which might have a negative impact on the economy.

 

The other issue I see here is the government claiming they know how to spend your money better than you do. I am sure many people making that much money already give to charities that know how to use the money far more effectively than some government agency that pays some bums who don't want to work rather than providing help for those who need it and can't work for whatever reason.

 

It would be interesting to see a comparison between some of the good charities out there and government agencies that give money to people as far as how efficiently the money is spent. I am sure the charities use the money far more efficiently. All these people who think the government should pay for everything (health care, basic income, ect) can't grasp the concept of how inefficient the government really is.

 

$20k for a toilet seat? Really? You think a government that spends like that has your best interest at heart? We are better off cutting all the "social" programs to the bare minimum and allowing people to keep more of their money so they can give more to charities who are far more efficient than a large corrupt government could ever be. That would also have the effect of shifting the money to people who actually need it rather than some deadbeat who just doesn't want to work.

[Dashinka 24,597]

20 hours ago, jg121783 said:

This is a horrible idea on so many levels. First of all why should someone be penalized so heavily for working harder than others and making a decent living? A 50% tax rate for anyone is absurd. If this idea were actually the law I am sure most people earning around $250k a year would scale back their earnings to avoid the large tax which might have a negative impact on the economy.

 

The other issue I see here is the government claiming they know how to spend your money better than you do. I am sure many people making that much money already give to charities that know how to use the money far more effectively than some government agency that pays some bums who don't want to work rather than providing help for those who need it and can't work for whatever reason.

 

It would be interesting to see a comparison between some of the good charities out there and government agencies that give money to people as far as how efficiently the money is spent. I am sure the charities use the money far more efficiently. All these people who think the government should pay for everything (health care, basic income, ect) can't grasp the concept of how inefficient the government really is.

 

$20k for a toilet seat? Really? You think a government that spends like that has your best interest at heart? We are better off cutting all the "social" programs to the bare minimum and allowing people to keep more of their money so they can give more to charities who are far more efficient than a large corrupt government could ever be. That would also have the effect of shifting the money to people who actually need it rather than some deadbeat who just doesn't want to work.

In a socialist system, no one should work harder than anyone else as it might make others look lazy.