What's your opinion on Basic Income?

[Blain]

"panem et circenses" is sadly becoming a way of life.

 

[fskimospy]

I am curious what the poll result would look like had the question been "Would you support a basic standard of living in your country?" instead of what it is now.

It does seem that the more people talk about it the more people support it. I imagine many of the "hell no"s came from people before thinking about it too much.

 

[sandorski]

"panem et circenses" is sadly becoming a way of life.

Not sure why that makes you sad. To me, it's not so much a "Way" of life, but more a Fact of life. Hungry and/or dissatisfied people leads to trouble.

 

[Blain]

Members of an aristocracy definitely see the benefit of keeping the masses "quiet" and pacified.

 

[Jaskalas]

Members of an aristocracy definitely see the benefit of keeping the masses "quiet" and pacified.

Like we have today, with all the welfare and strings attached? There's an enormous amount of bureaucracy that would be cut out if the process were simpler.

 

[yllus]

Yeah, all the people not liking it are thinking it's just free money when it's a substitute for existing programs, except much simpler. Sort of like flat tax. You'd think more conservatives would be for it but, judging by the "Hell No!" voters, they're currently sticking to their primitive instincts. It's ok to think outside the box every once in a while, folks, and not be suspicious of everything. You want people to be free to make their own choices, this is it.

When money is being handed out and you're not part of the group getting any, the natural inclination is to become extremely critical of those being given the money. It's the root of human jealousy - if you get something and I don't, it hurts inside. Then a lot of people take it a step beyond that and actively wish people to suffer humiliation in order to get their hands on free money, but what can you really do.

It does seem that the more people talk about it the more people support it. I imagine many of the "hell no"s came from people before thinking about it too much.

Yeah, I started with a "hell no" years back when I read about this too. But then I read more, and it makes a ton of sense (not to mention the data is backing this approach up).

 

[sandorski]

Members of an aristocracy definitely see the benefit of keeping the masses "quiet" and pacified.

So does everyone else. We all desire a peaceful society.

 

[Slew Foot]

I used to think this was a stupid idea but I think it could work out well if a few conditions were met:

1. Only American citizens over 18 with a GED or better would qualify
2. Must reside in the US to qualify
3. Every qualifying person would get the same amount, regardless of employment status.
4. All other forms of welfare would be abolished

The problem I see is with #4, because the bleeding hearts would complain that it was unfair that some guy working 80 hours at 2 jobs and making a decent living was getting the same amount as some unemployed lazy asshole with 4 kids from 5 fathers and the program would end up getting "means tested" and become just another welfare check.

 

[OverVolt]

Isn't it called the military.

 

[piasabird]

Where is the incentive to work? Who pays for housing? Next logical step is basic housing and food allowance for everyone.

 

[OverVolt]

Free two handfuls of rice and housing the size of a jail cell!

Whelp... time to get a job.

 

[pcgeek11]

Isn't it called the military.

What does that mean?

 

[OverVolt]

1. Only American citizens over 18 with a GED or better would qualify
2. Must reside in the US to qualify
3. Every qualifying person would get the same amount, regardless of employment status.

It reminded me of being a soldier in the military is all.

 

[sandorski]

Where is the incentive to work? Who pays for housing? Next logical step is basic housing and food allowance for everyone.

The incentive to work is in improving one's situation. I'm not even sure why this is a question. I mean, even when everyone could buy their own house, new cars, etc, they still desired better things.

 

[Matt1970]

The incentive to work is in improving one's situation........

Stop it, you're killing me here.

 

[Orignal Earl]

The incentive to work is in improving one's situation. I'm not even sure why this is a question. I mean, even when everyone could buy their own house, new cars, etc, they still desired better things.

There are posters who would collect their 12k a year, and would never work again.
Sitting around and just existing seems to be enough for them

The day that happens is the day I stop working. Free money for life? I already got my house paid off, and a small chunk of savings. That would cover all my basic needs and Id be home free.

 

[sandorski]

There are posters who would collect their 12k a year, and would never work again.
Sitting around and just existing seems to be enough for them

Sure, but if sustenance is all a person wants, that wouldn't explain why most people strive for more.

 

[Abwx]

Where is the incentive to work? Who pays for housing? Next logical step is basic housing and food allowance for everyone.

Food.
Housing.
Justice/Security.
Education.
Healthcare.

These are the basic rights that should be granted to anybody and not being dependent of other people wills, i mean a worker that is unemployed is considered as responsible of his situation even if a country is in full recession, that is the ideology of the conservatives, on one hand i do lay offs and on the other hand i brand the layed off as the cause of their dire situation...

 

[waggy]

I used to think this was a stupid idea but I think it could work out well if a few conditions were met:

1. Only American citizens over 18 with a GED or better would qualify
2. Must reside in the US to qualify
3. Every qualifying person would get the same amount, regardless of employment status.
4. All other forms of welfare would be abolished

The problem I see is with #4, because the bleeding hearts would complain that it was unfair that some guy working 80 hours at 2 jobs and making a decent living was getting the same amount as some unemployed lazy asshole with 4 kids from 5 fathers and the program would end up getting "means tested" and become just another welfare check.

I think it would be a great idea. but it there is no way it happens in the US because of #4.

12-15k is not enough to cover basic living expenses. in fact in some cases that won't even cover medical cost or even rent.

the example you use is exactly what scares me. then they would end up getting a food bonus, rent bonus etc +teh 15k..

no. no way it works here in the US.

 

[fskimospy]

I think it would be a great idea. but it there is no way it happens in the US because of #4.

12-15k is not enough to cover basic living expenses. in fact in some cases that won't even cover medical cost or even rent.

the example you use is exactly what scares me. then they would end up getting a food bonus, rent bonus etc +teh 15k..

no. no way it works here in the US.

It's always baffling to me how often people say "nope, that could never work in the US". Of course it could, we have vastly more resources to make it work than any other country. If by "no way it works" you mean "I don't want this" that's one thing, but the US could absolutely institute a basic income if we wanted to.

 

[k3n]

deleted

 

[jackstar7]

I'm against this. For the simple fact most people don't know how to manage their own money, let alone their body weight. The amount of millennials with expensive/high end cell phone plans, yet living with their parent(s), is another example.

I will say I am for government mandated healthcare, housing, to drive down the ridiculous costs of the private sector.

I also have no problem with "death panels" or euthanasia. If you have only 12 months to live, it doesn't make sense to spend a million dollars in public money keeping that person alive, unless that individual has some sort of special skills, like predicting the future (like in Minority Report, lol), or some other "supernatural" abilities.

Why are either of the bolded a problem for you?

 

[norseamd]

The incentive to work is in improving one's situation. I'm not even sure why this is a question. I mean, even when everyone could buy their own house, new cars, etc, they still desired better things.

This is exactly what I am actually thinking about this idea. Basic housing and food are not going to be luxurious in any way and if you want to have the finer shit in life you are going to have to work for it.

 

[Zaap]

All of this is true now. (If you want things in life, you have to work for them.)

You can also sit around on your ass collecting checks and living on the dole.

This (OLD I might add) idea would do nothing to change any of that, just increase the number of people willing to do the later, and enslave those wanting the former to have to pay for even more of the later.

I love how human nature is always ignored in these things, in favor of pie-in-the-sky fantasies.

And then the true totalitarian nature of some rears its ugly head when people start fantasizing how they'd enforce things... "What if people don't spend the money the way they *should*..." "JUST LOCK THEM UP!!"

So in other words- government gives you a pittance= government owns you.

For some, that's clearly the ultimate fantasy, since they worship government. Others recognize it as the nightmare it would be and say "no, thanks."

 

[Jaskalas]

It's always baffling to me how often people say "nope, that could never work in the US". Of course it could, we have vastly more resources to make it work than any other country. If by "no way it works" you mean "I don't want this" that's one thing, but the US could absolutely institute a basic income if we wanted to.

12k a year doesn't cover Rent. How high are we raising it to make it effective?

Of course...that's if you're a single adult living alone. Add in another person and 24k a year might work.