What's your opinion on Basic Income?

[PokerGuy]

Providing assistance to those who need it is one thing, providing "free" income to everyone (the vast majority of whom don't actually need it) is completely different. I voted "hell no!".

Providing assistance to someone who needs a hand up = good. Providing handouts to every single member of the population (including the flood of additional illegals that would surely come to get their handout) = bad.

 

[Zaap]

Providing handouts to every single member of the population (including the flood of additional illegals that would surely come to get their handout) = bad.

Yeah and let's all pretend for a minute that the usual bleeding hearts (ie: SUCKERS) wouldn't claim that denying a "guaranteed living" to every person flooding in is xenophobic and racist, no matter how obviously unsustainable. Yeah, right.

Half the reason now citizens in need can't get more support and whose job prospects are made far worse is the fact that the bleeding hearts have written them off in favor of catering to illegals. That situation would amplify a thousand fold with this scheme, because the usual suspects would never agree to tight immigration standards that would have to accompany any true overhaul of the system.

 

[Abwx]

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.

Here in France, as in many european countries, there s a minimum income that was voted in 1990, one single person or even a family could eventualy live from welfare but for sure it will be a miserable life, a single person get about 730-750€/month, a family will get more depending of the children count, they are healthcare covered at 100% or so since we have a single payer system, all in all whoever is in such a situation wil generaly do everything he could to get even a minimaly paid job.

 

[norseamd]

Here in France, as in many european countries, there s a minimum income that was voted in 1990, one single person or even a family could eventualy live from welfare but for sure it will be a miserable life, a single person get about 730-750€/month, a family will get more depending of the children count, they are healthcare covered at 100% or so since we have a single payer system, all in all whoever is in such a situation wil generaly do everything he could to get even a minimaly paid job.

So could you provide me some understanding of what is going on in France right now?

With my limited knowledge the current economic problems seem like they are probably resulting from government corruption and waste especially from the Sarkozy administration and that the welfare in France is at least not directly to blame for all this mess.

 

[Albatross]

Related

 

[SoulWager]

Ignoring historical baggage and politics, what are we actually trying to accomplish?

If you were stripped of all your possessions and dropped into a new country/economy as a child, what would you want it to look like?

Should a government/economy be designed to maximize the chances of such a child achieving his or her goals over the course of a lifespan? Should it be designed to maximize the amount of work that child does in it's lifetime? Should it be designed to maximize happiness, at the expense of work and accomplishment?

What work would you be happy to let a robot do? What work would you prefer be done by humans? What work(if any) would you prefer to do yourself?

What method of taxation would be best able to accomplish the above?


I think an estate tax would be necessary, and a basic income would be helpful to most of the above. Dead people shouldn't get to pursue their goals at the expense of the living, and I don't think being born to a rich person is a good enough reason to get priority over billions of dollars. Sure, I don't mind an exemption big enough that most people don't have to worry about it (say 500k per heir or something).

 

[Matt1970]

I think an estate tax would be necessary, and a basic income would be helpful to most of the above. Dead people shouldn't get to pursue their goals at the expense of the living, and I don't think being born to a rich person is a good enough reason to get priority over billions of dollars. Sure, I don't mind an exemption big enough that most people don't have to worry about it (say 500k per heir or something).

So you are saying the government has more right to your money than your offspring does? So all the stock the Steve Jobs owned when he died would become the property of the government? Essentially in situations like that you are handing ownership and control of the company over to the government when the owner or largest shareholder dies. No thanks.

 

[Dari]

Providing assistance to those who need it is one thing, providing "free" income to everyone (the vast majority of whom don't actually need it) is completely different. I voted "hell no!".

Providing assistance to someone who needs a hand up = good. Providing handouts to every single member of the population (including the flood of additional illegals that would surely come to get their handout) = bad.

Illegals would not be included.

 

[SoulWager]

So you are saying the government has more right to your money than your offspring does? So all the stock the Steve Jobs owned when he died would become the property of the government? Essentially in situations like that you are handing ownership and control of the company over to the government when the owner or largest shareholder dies. No thanks.

I'm not saying the government would get control, just ownership. Control could stay with the second biggest shareholder until the government auctions off it's shares, perhaps giving the current shareholders the right of first refusal.

 

[Matt1970]

I'm not saying the government would get control, just ownership. Control could stay with the second biggest shareholder until the government auctions off it's shares, perhaps giving the current shareholders the right of first refusal.

Government auctions off shares, they then have the money. That is the government having more right to your money than your offspring does. Hell I bet most Liberals wouldn't even vote for that.

 

[Matt1970]

Illegals would not be included.

They won't be illegals for long.

 

[SoulWager]

Government auctions off shares, they then have the money. That is the government having more right to your money than your offspring does. Hell I bet most Liberals wouldn't even vote for that.

And why should your offspring get a right to your money, if you didn't think it was important enough to give it to them while you were still alive?

 

[Matt1970]

And why should your offspring get a right to your money, if you didn't think it was important enough to give it to them while you were still alive?

Because you don't get the right to tell people when they can give their money to their offspring. If they want to wait till they are dead, then that is their right. You and/or the government are not entitled to that money. Go make your own.

 

[SoulWager]

You and/or the government are not entitled to that money. Go make your own.

You can say the exact same thing to their offspring. If you want people to "make their own", why should you get to pick and choose who that applies to? What do you have against merit and work determining an individual's wealth?

It's not even about making sure your kid has enough to survive on(the exemption can easily cover that), it's about power over other people.

 

[Double Trouble]

And why should your offspring get a right to your money, if you didn't think it was important enough to give it to them while you were still alive?

Because it's my money and I should get to do with it whatever I want, including leaving it to my offspring.

 

[lopri]

Because it's my money and I should get to do with it whatever I want, including leaving it to my offspring.

And here comes the inevitable libertarian paradox. Who do you think is carrying out on the duty of your mandate, "leaving it to my offspring?" (let's suppose you are not crawling out of your grave with your cherished .38.)

Why, yes. The State. By enforcing inheritance laws and contract laws, and in compliance of all the other laws and regulations including tax laws and anti-discrimination laws.

 

[lopri]

I mean, think about it. Why would anyone honor a dead person's wish? In a world where libertarians dream of, there should be no government regulation to force others to follow whatever is written on dead person's will. But, no, somehow that is not acceptable to libertarians. Ask any libertarian around you and wait for her answer.

Libertarianism is an intellectual fraud of the 21st century U.S.

 

[Belegost]

I mean, think about it. Why would anyone honor a dead person's wish? In a world where libertarians dream of, there should be no government regulation to force others to follow whatever is written on dead person's will. But, no, somehow that is not acceptable to libertarians. Ask any libertarian around you and wait for her answer.

Libertarianism is an intellectual fraud of the 21st century U.S.

As a libertarian I think the majority of inheritance transfer is BS. Each person should make their way on their own. Beyond objects of sentimental and familial value, inheritance should be heavily taxed. Especially the idea of transferring large amounts of liquid wealth through trusts and other such havens.

I will impart as much wisdom and knowledge to my children as I can, and do my best to enable them to succeed on their own merits. However my intent to is donate the majority of my financial holdings (if any remain) to charity on my death.

 

[lopri]

Belegost: I salute your high morals. I agree with you that inheritance should be taxed heavily. I also believe any loophole that might enable someone to get around that principle should be monitored and closed.

Everything that you wish to happen after you are gone you are relying on the government regulations. Imagine you own a piece of land - whether you leave it to charity or your offspring, you still rely on the government regulation (i.e. force) to execute that will after you are gone.

 

[Matt1970]

You can say the exact same thing to their offspring. If you want people to "make their own", why should you get to pick and choose who that applies to? What do you have against merit and work determining an individual's wealth?

It's not even about making sure your kid has enough to survive on(the exemption can easily cover that), it's about power over other people.

Actually I can, but that's the thing, I have that say because it's MY money. Where you get the notion someone having the right to do with their money what they please is power over you or other people is beyond me.

 

[fskimospy]

Because you don't get the right to tell people when they can give their money to their offspring. If they want to wait till they are dead, then that is their right. You and/or the government are not entitled to that money. Go make your own.

You support policies that tell people what they can do with their money every day.

 

[Abwx]

So could you provide me some understanding of what is going on in France right now?

With my limited knowledge the current economic problems seem like they are probably resulting from government corruption and waste especially from the Sarkozy administration and that the welfare in France is at least not directly to blame for all this mess.

A book would be needed to really explain the situation, to stay on topic i would say that welfare is not the problem as such, looking through the numbers it appears that even corporates benefit from it, just imagine that they get more aids and subsides than what they pay as income taxes, our problem, wich has many heads, is that we were ruled 10 years by conservatives wich managed the country according to dogmas imported from the US, you see, ideologicaly speaking we re all living in the same world, the economic school of Chicago with Milton Friedman or other Van Heyk are as well known here, if not more, than in the US.

So we had our economy litteraly torned apart during thoses ten years with taxes massively reduced for the 20% wealthier, automotive output was halved, despite making 1bn€/year net income the steel industry, Arcelor wich was rated 1 on the world, was sold to a smaller private company that just shrinked it by 40%, real estate inflated by 140% hence attracting all the investors money and definitly negating any attractivity for real industries, the list goes on of the "achievements" of those cluless conservatives who think that laissez faire is still relevant, Sarkozy who was elected in 2007 with a capitalist agenda just looked irrelevant in 2008 when the international economic downturn pressed even the most capitalist countries to massively subside their economies, it was a shock for them when they saw Obama s administration buying GM and other private entities to keep them from bankruptcy while massively subsiding the rest of the lot with printed fiat money, heck, with its money printing press working at full rate the US is surely the de facto biggest and most rabid welfare state in the world, whoever benefit from this bonanza.

 

[glenn1]

Ignoring historical baggage and politics, what are we actually trying to accomplish?

If you were stripped of all your possessions and dropped into a new country/economy as a child, what would you want it to look like?

Should a government/economy be designed to maximize the chances of such a child achieving his or her goals over the course of a lifespan? Should it be designed to maximize the amount of work that child does in it's lifetime? Should it be designed to maximize happiness, at the expense of work and accomplishment?

What work would you be happy to let a robot do? What work would you prefer be done by humans? What work(if any) would you prefer to do yourself?

What method of taxation would be best able to accomplish the above?


I think an estate tax would be necessary, and a basic income would be helpful to most of the above. Dead people shouldn't get to pursue their goals at the expense of the living, and I don't think being born to a rich person is a good enough reason to get priority over billions of dollars. Sure, I don't mind an exemption big enough that most people don't have to worry about it (say 500k per heir or something).

Why don't you just be honest to yourself and everyone else and stop with pretending you're acting from a noble cause? I can almost guarantee the only reason why anyone supports a prohibitive estate tax, is because they think a prohibitive tax on the wealthy while they're still alive is politically unobtainable. As if even if you could tax the super-rich at 90% you think it brings you up a peg in value while it brings them down. Well, people like the Koch Brothers, Bill Gates, etc. quite frankly are better people than Eskimospy and his ilk who would have the government take away his money. People who want to confiscate wealth from others strictly for reasons of "fairness" are some of the most vile and hateful people around and morally bankrupt.

 

[jackstar7]

Why don't you just be honest to yourself and everyone else and stop with pretending you're acting from a noble cause? I can almost guarantee the only reason why anyone supports a prohibitive estate tax, is because they think a prohibitive tax on the wealthy while they're still alive is politically unobtainable. As if even if you could tax the super-rich at 90% you think it brings you up a peg in value while it brings them down. Well, people like the Koch Brothers, Bill Gates, etc. quite frankly are better people than Eskimospy and his ilk who would have the government take away his money. People who want to confiscate wealth from others strictly for reasons of "fairness" are some of the most vile and hateful people around and morally bankrupt.

Well argu--wait, no it isn't. This is just emotionally-driven drivel.

Meanwhile, I was pointed to this article: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ons-pushing-a-guaranteed-basic-income/375600/

 

[PokerGuy]

Illegals would not be included.

LOL, good one. I can hear the bleeding hearts whining already about those poor disenfranchised illegals being left out. obummer and his minions are already hard at work to create amnesty for tens of millions of illegals, and we have no realistic border at this point to keep out the additional millions that would surely come and be the next invading wave.