In The News Today...

Quote: AZDuffman

Why, exactly, do you think Republicans would be in favor of this?

Because, for some odd reason, the party of “small government” loves to create intrusive hoops for lower income people to jump through. They seem to actually get off on it, tbh.

Quote: ams288

Because, for some odd reason, the party of “small government” loves to create intrusive hoops for lower income people to jump through. They seem to actually get off on it, tbh.

That is true but at least poor people don't need to hire accountants to do their taxes.

Quote: kenarman

I don't necessarily disagree with the nut of that statement but if your parents are still alive let me know if your thoughts have changed on the subject after they are gone.

They won't. I've contemplated it and stand where I stand, the popularity of my opinion and appeals to emotion notwithstanding.

If you no longer have any potential to be productive, then you're either set up to be able to afford the care, or you're not. It doesn't prohibit a healthcare provider from accepting less off of a person than they might normally charge, or churches (or whatever) accepting donations to help a person pay for healthcare.

Hell, I'm not even against individual states putting these programs in place. I think of it as the potential for as many as fifty case studies and the things that work the best would, one would assume, become more widespread as other states would adopt them.

I just think the Federal Government should have nothing to do with it.

Quote: AZDuffman

The difference is you are saying you want to give everyone say $1000 per month. So you must take at least $1000 from everyone. Thus nobody can get anything in net.

Many things are theoretically possible. Fusion energy. Freezing people and bringing them back in 100 years. The Browns winning a Superbowl.....

But then practicality rears its ugly head.

I give up. I don't know how to make you understand that I am talking about redirecting the money that is already being taken. I'm not talking about taking any additional money or raising tax rates.

Quote: DRich

Isn't the simple answer is just to remove a percentage of the people collecting benefits and then there would be more benefits for others,

I know it sounds too simple, but I think it is that easy.

I guess that's also simple, but I still think it would be even better not to have several different departments in charge of different forms of what is effectively welfare. Just have one department that verifies incomes and cuts checks to those who income-qualify.

Quote: kenarman

Anybody getting it is probably not suffering malnutrition. Once they lose UBI the malnutrition shows up. So people would need to spend all their money on drugs and not on food to get UBI - just like they do now.

Drug testing is kind of handy. A savings vs paying out $1000. Not that there is any chance this would be adopted.

Quote: Mission146

I give up. I don't know how to make you understand that I am talking about redirecting the money that is already being taken. I'm not talking about taking any additional money or raising tax rates.

Think about what you are saying then. What percent of the nation are on welfare programs? Lets say it is the bottom fifth. So you are going to redirect the money from 20% of the population to 100% of the population? Is that 20% going to survive on so much less?

What would happen is all the welfare programs would fire up in a few years. Same as the Democrats went along with welfare reform for a few years then gutted it when they had power again. Happens every time.

Quote: AZDuffman

Think about what you are saying then. What percent of the nation are on welfare programs? Lets say it is the bottom fifth. So you are going to redirect the money from 20% of the population to 100% of the population? Is that 20% going to survive on so much less?

What would happen is all the welfare programs would fire up in a few years. Same as the Democrats went along with welfare reform for a few years then gutted it when they had power again. Happens every time.

Not everyone would income qualify for UBI.

I think the two things that you would want to get rid of are Federal Medicare/Medicaid and also Social Security, because many of those on Social Security would get UBI anyway. The one thing I don't know the details on is how we are going to pay people what they have already put into Social Security, which they should get on at least a dollar-for-dollar basis.

That's the problem with a Ponzi Scheme---they're really not designed to close out in a way that returns 100% to the investors.

But, you'd ultimately 86 Medicare and Medicaid at the Federal level (no more line item taxes for that---everyone wins) and phase out Social Security and quit accepting new money into that system (no more Social Security withholdings---everyone wins.)

Negligible compared to Medicare/Medicaid, but we'd also want to get rid of HUD at the Federal level. The only thing HUD really accomplishes is screwing things up for state/local Departments of Housing, tries to standardize everything and generally just gets in the way of what those agencies are trying to do.

HUD actually got sued by various departments of housing, and lost, because they were redirecting excess revenues to other housing authorities who were operating at a loss rather than letting the ones who were operating profitably (as they normally would) put the extra funds in their rainy day fund, or equivalent.

So, HUD, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid...gone, gone, gone.

The next step is the Federal Government will reduce their public school funding contributions to $0, then they will no longer have any right (which they don't now anyway) to have a say what goes on in education and that can be left for the states to handle.

The National Endowments for the Arts & Humanities are also gone just because those are stupid.

Anyway, I know it wouldn't work because nobody would go for it. The point is, you could easily put a $1,000 check in the hands of every adult who makes less than $20,000/annually otherwise. They just won't get anything else from the Federal Government, so any welfare or services over-and-above that check will be whether or not their state does it.

Quote: Mission146

Not everyone would income qualify for UBI.

Anyway, I know it wouldn't work and nobody would go for it. The point is, you could easily put a $1,000 check in the hands of every adult who makes less than $20,000/annually otherwise. They just won't get anything else from the Federal Government, so any welfare or services over-and-above that check will be whether or not their state does it

There is our disconnect. EVERYONE qualifies for UBI. That is why they call it "universal." It is not about cash instead of welfare, it is about everyone getting a check. If you want to make a case for a check instead of food stamps that is one thing. On one hand it simplifies things, no more selling food stamps at a discount for cash. On the other it takes away the Feds ability to direct monies.

Either way, UBI is not about that, it is about cash for all.

Quote: AZDuffman

There is our disconnect. EVERYONE qualifies for UBI. That is why they call it "universal." It is not about cash instead of welfare, it is about everyone getting a check. If you want to make a case for a check instead of food stamps that is one thing. On one hand it simplifies things, no more selling food stamps at a discount for cash. On the other it takes away the Feds ability to direct monies.

Either way, UBI is not about that, it is about cash for all.

That's the way they talk about UBI now, but my plan for UBI would be more akin to, "Guaranteed Minimum Income." If you're already making more than the cutoff, then you have already exceeded the guaranteed minimum income. I seriously doubt Jeff Bezos needs a UBI check.

Anyway, you and I both know (especially combined with our other spending/deficit/national debt) that there is no way UBI can feasibly happen on top of what the Federal Government is already doing---not to mention the other bull**** that the far left thinks we can also do at the same time. (Free Healthcare For All, Free College Tuition for All, $15 Federal Minimum Wage, etc...)

I am simply proposing a new solution which is that we gut every single Federal entitlement program, and instead, every adult who makes $20,000/annually, or less, via employment will receive a monthly check for $1,000.