WSJ in favor of univ. basic income.

[FlyerInHi]

Hobie I wonder what practical and moral fabric you’re talking about. Please be specific. Saying NO might be to our detriment. Why try all sorts of protectionism and social programs administered by bureaucrats when you can just have simple UBI?

Let’s say that with computers, we can tax the very richest and transfer that money to the poorest. What practical and moral barriers do you see?

Civilization is about improving the human condition. Clear air, clean water, free education, air-conditioned classrooms, etc…

[bearishgurl]

I don’t support UBI. Just like TANF (welfare cash aid), people are going to run out of month before they run out of money. The gubment doesn’t have the resources to pay grown adults twice monthly and make sure they have enough to eat and a roof over their heads. It’s just going to be another “giveaway” which will be taken out of the OASDI fund, which hardworking Americans have paid into all of their lives in exchange for a promised (modest) “monthly pension” at the age of 66, as moneymaker posted here.

It will also disincentivise millenials from ever getting their sh!t together enough to move out of parents’ homes. They’ll just party on the money, lease new vehicles, buy electronics and continue to stay in parents’ back bdrms and eat their food indefinitely whilst stiffing their student loan lenders :=0

This idea, if implemented, will surely turn out to be is a disaster, IMO.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi]. . . Concentration at the top 1% is very bad for the economy because those people don’t spend. They park money in real estate. That squeezes the lower classes who have no money left to spend on goods and services.[/quote]If a “1%er” doesn’t need to have their nails done every two weeks or to have the latest ~$800 iphone, then neither does a 20-something who has a $10K year ($833.33 mo) gubment “grant,” no earned income, student debt and who has not and is not actively looking for a job.

End of story.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=FlyerInHi]. . . Concentration at the top 1% is very bad for the economy because those people don’t spend. They park money in real estate. That squeezes the lower classes who have no money left to spend on goods and services.[/quote]If a “1%er” doesn’t need to have their nails done every two weeks or to have the latest ~$800 iphone, then neither does a 20-something who has a $10K year ($833.33 mo) gubment “grant,” no earned income, student debt and who has not and is not actively looking for a job.

End of story.[/quote]

You’re making a moral argument about need. But morality had nothing to do with self determination and standard of living. And your moral hangups are preventing us all from living better.

There are a lot more poor people than rich who want to get their nails done. More consumers, more nail salons, more small businesses, more economic activity, more money for business owners, and around it goes.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=bearishgurl] The gubment doesn’t have the resources to pay grown adults twice monthly and make sure they have enough to eat and a roof over their heads. [/quote]

Have you heard of a company named ADP? If you pay someone a semi monthly salary, you can set it and forget it, the computer takes care of the direct deposit.

Consumers would make sure they have enough. If they don’t, they’ll just scrape by ’til the next paycheck. Consumers make spending decisions, not government. I would ban payday lenders to prevent predatory lending.

[Hobie]

Brian: Practical argument against is fundamental economics of where the money comes from.

Moral fabric: Recall in your US history when there was a time when in America we did not have such programs. You had to pull your self up by your own bootstraps. Only welfare was the local church and giving friends and neighbors. No government programs.

I should be stunned with the thinking that a computer can simply make the transactions. But I understand you and your ilk. There will always be stratification in societies. Deal with it! Everyone is not nor ever equal in terms of productivity.

That is where the bell curve came from: to ring sense into masses. ( humor)

[bearishgurl]

[quote=bearishgurl]I don’t support UBI. Just like TANF (welfare cash aid), people are going to run out of month before they run out of money….[/quote]

Correction: I meant, “… run out of money before they run out of month.“

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=bearishgurl] Um, FIH, if people “spend” all their UBI on consumables, how are they going to live every month and eat? $10K doesn’t go very far, ESP in CA! What am I missing, here?[/quote]

UBI is the minimum security blanket. People can still work and earn more. When people feel secure, they spend more into the real economy.

China is trying to do that with health care, minimum wages, etc… Basically what we did with New Deal and Great Society. UBI would be going to the next level.

Granted, there is an optimal level. We need to experiment and find that level.[/quote]$833.33 month isn’t an “optimal level” to live in CA and never will be …. that is, unless someone else (parents/spouse/relative) is paying your bills. It’s extremely difficult for someone to live on $833.33 month in “flyover country.” Only if one is on Medicaid/Medicare and has heavily subsidized housing can it work … and even then, it doesn’t “work” very well.

A LOT of people in the country have SS benefits or SSI equivalent to $833.33 mo. In CA, they cannot live on this paltry sum and they certainly can’t live on it and also pay the property taxes, insurance and maintenance on a house, even if they “inherited it” free and clear! (I’ve seen multiple examples of this and it’s not pretty … at all :=0) The vast majority of these very low-income Californians who aren’t longtime homeowners (w/paid-off homes) and aren’t (fortunate) “heirs” of a CA home are forced to move into a run down mobile home in the interior of the state or forced to move in with relatives who pay their bills (in or out of state) for the rest of their lives.

[FlyerInHi]

Hobie, who says there won’t be social economic classes? UBI is just basic. I remember my history. We had homesteading and free land which was confiscated from the natives. The point here is putting money in hands of people who will spend it and create most economic activity.

Where does money fundamentally come from? I’m curious. The way I understand it, money (the fiat money we have) comes from the government which must spend it before it’s in circulation.

BG, UBI is basic. People can work and earn more. The point is that it’s more effective than all the welfare program.

[Hobie]

[quote=FlyerInHi]The point here is putting money in hands of people who will spend it and create most economic activity.[/quote]

Agreed. Let each of us earn and keep what we earn. Spend what we make. Easy.

[FlyerInHi]

Hobie, I think you’re letting your morals blind you.

Say you own a business and could have more customers. Wouldn’t you want to pay slightly higher taxes in exchange for more customers and more revenue?

Henry Ford paid his workers well and they spent their money on his cars. win-win. everyone is richer.

Times change, economic models need to change with the times.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=bearishgurl] The gubment doesn’t have the resources to pay grown adults twice monthly and make sure they have enough to eat and a roof over their heads. [/quote]

Have you heard of a company named ADP? If you pay someone a semi monthly salary, you can set it and forget it, the computer takes care of the direct deposit.

Consumers would make sure they have enough. If they don’t, they’ll just scrape by ’til the next paycheck.[/quote]How do you know this, brian?

And how much will “ADP” charge the gubment to make hundreds of millions of bimonthly “payments?”

[quote=FlyerInHi]Consumers make spending decisions, not government….[/quote]Uhhh …. yeah. This is my greatest fear. “Consumers make spending decisions.”

We already have this. And take note of how many “consumers” in the US living on the street and in homeless shelters and availing themselves of SNAP, commodities and food coops. Many in this group are still running out of month before they run out of money AND food. Ohh, but the vast majority of them have the latest cell phone and the monthly service to operate it. Problem is, they can’t live in or eat their phone.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi]. . . Henry Ford paid his workers well and they spent their money on his cars. win-win. everyone is richer. . . .
[/quote]Read what you wrote, brian. “… his workers …” He KNEW how much “his workers” made and gave them first dibs to finance a Ford.

New vehicles cost much more today (2.5 to 5+ times one year’s proposed “UBI”) than in Henry Ford’s era. Most of those collecting UBI are going to have bad credit or no credit. Who is going to lend them the money to buy a new vehicle today? Even those auto dealers on the radio pushing subprime auto loans want to see $350 income per week, regardless of credit.

UBI at $10K year is only an average of $194.25 week. That isn’t even enough to live on your own, much less buy a vehicle. It’s barely enough for gas (for a used car “given” to you) and food and to help out the parent/relative with whom you’re living with utilities, plus a cell phone bill (if it isn’t too high).

[FlyerInHi]

BG, we don’t need ADP. The post office could become a government owned bank that’s later privatized, and thus makes money for the government. That’s how they do it in Germany and China. They build airports and privatize them later too.

If people run out of UBI, they can beg while they wait for the next payment. They don’t need to do anything. That’s assuming they don’t have jobs and additional income which UBI would allow.

The current welfare system is overly bureaucratic and often so time consuming that people can’t go out and apply for jobs. That’s not to mention vast, costly bureaucracies at the federal, state and local levels.

[FlyerInHi]

BG, you keep on assuming that people will live on UBI only.

The Ford example is for illustration only. for sure, a different model is needed today. My point is that we want money to circulate in the economy, and not parked in rich people’s tax heavens.

Sure, the richest will likely pay higher taxes to fund UBI and other programs, but the economy as a whole would benefit. Consumer spending, standard of living, psychological welfare would increase thanks to better financial security, productivity would increase, GDP would grow faster.

BG, I understand that some consumers would make bad choices… too bad. UBI would be better, and maybe cost less than the vast welfare bureaucracies we have today.

[Author]

Posts