Would a Basic Minimum Income dramatically reduce abortions?

[ralfy]

2 hours ago, Credo in Deum said:

Why is the Gold Standard a silly idea? It’s purpose is to create a stable currency that would prevent Governments from printing their currency into extinction, like what we’re doing now!   The Central Banks are moving to a digital currency system; this is part of the globalist plan for a one world government and slavery state.  With digital currency, the government would have complete control of your money. 

If your argument is that we need a basic minimum income because robots threaten our livelihood then why not pass legislation that regulates/restricts the implementation of robots?  Furthermore if AI/Robotics are going to cause us to not have jobs and require a basic minimum income then what makes you think such a government won’t try to restrict pregnancies in order to save money? The U.S. did have forced sterilization not to long ago, what makes you think they wouldn’t do forced abortions? 

From what it looks like, by advocating for a Basic Minimum Income you’re  going to do nothing but further the growth of technocracy and help make the majority of people obsolete. 
 

 

If you take the total supply of gold and even silver worldwide and divide it by the world population, you end up with only a few troy ounces per person.

Much of money supply has been digital or its equivalent for some time, with only a fraction consisting of cash and coins. That's because much of the world economy involves large transactions.

Much of credit worldwide is controlled by commercial banks, and even central banks work for them. In the case of countries like the U.S., the central bank is actually a private consortium of Wall Street banks.

About automation threatening jobs, the catch is that robots aren't consumers. That means businesses automate because they want more production, but to pay for that they need more consumers, and consumers can buy only using income from jobs. Thus, automation can only lead to shifts in types of jobs.

It's one of those interesting ironies of capitalism, and can also be seen in light of technocracy: businesses want to maximize profits by decreasing labor costs through technology, but profits can only be made when what's produced is sold, and the buyers are the same laborers.

 

 

 

 

[Peace]

On 12/31/2021 at 10:45 AM, Luigi said:

Might, might, might, might. I do not want to spend tax money on "might." I want to know what taxpayers are getting for the money the government takes  from their wages. 

Some people would use the money to raise their children. Some people would use the money for abortions. Some people would buy hair extensions. Some people would buy recreational marijuana. 

It would be a wash - equal amounts of good and bad spending (and I'm being optimistic here - my true expectation is that most of a BMI would be wasted). I cannot support wasting tax dollars on a proposal that would have no clear benefit to the nation or its people. 

I'm generally in favor of a universal basic income (specifically in the form of a negative income tax as advocated for by Friedman). The idea here, of course, is that you have to eliminate all of the current social programs like food stamps, public housing, medicare, etc, and the agencies that run them.

With UBI you take $100 cash out of our paychecks and hand the $100 to someone in need, who uses it however he sees fit. With the current system out of the $100 the government takes, it gives $25 to employees of X welfare agency, $25 to employees of Y welfare agency, $25 to employees of Z welfare agency, and then there's a $15 housing allowance and $10 in food stamps left over the for person who actually needs the money. The idea with UBI is that you eliminate all of the agencies that remove so much money and efficiency out of the system.

Sure, if you give people money, is some of it going to be put to unintended uses? Certainly. But that already happens now. When I grew up and we got food stamps, we sold some of them at 50 cents on the dollar to our neighbors, and then took the remaining money and spent it on other things that we wanted or needed. And even if you assume that recipients aren't going to try to work the system (which is unrealistic) you are going to end up with plenty of "bad spending" because the people running the agencies don't know how to properly allocate funds to reflect the real needs of people. Central planning failed miserably for communist Russia and any other country who has tried it, so I'm not sure why it makes sense here.

The question is which is a better alternative, just giving people money and letting them use it as they see fit, or treating them essentially as "children" who need to be told exactly what their needs are and how they should spend. If you lost your job and needed help for a few months in between jobs, would you rather I give you cash, or would you want me to give you a $100 voucher for food, a $100 voucher for rent, a $100 voucher for your energy bill? Would you prefer that I just lend you some cash so that you can pay your bills, or would you want to me to require that you bring me a copy of your gas bill and electricity bill, so that I can pay them for you, because if I just gave you the cash there's a possibility that you would buy drugs with it?

Obviously you'd rather get the money yourself because you best know what your own needs are. And you would not want to be demeaned and treated like a child, or someone who is not trustworthy.

But when we look at other people, we tend to look at them as infants who are incapable of making the same choices for themselves that we deem ourselves capable of. I don't think that's right.

Edited January 2, 2022 by Peace

[Luigi]

Peace - I agree with a great deal of what you say. I know a good many people who are dependent on the government dole, and I've seen what a pain in the patoot it is for them. I know a grocery checker who developed the theory - I've read the same theory by academics recently, but I heard it from her first, and a long time ago - that it's expensive to be poor. I get all that. 

I also get that government administrative offices are wasteful. The taxpayer winds up spending a lot of tax dollars on the administrators, tax dollars that really should go directly to our fellow citizens in need.  I'm not sure that a UBI would solve that problem, though. I fear that it would just be one bureaucracy replacing another, because everything the federal government does (or even thinks about!) is a bureaucratic nightmare. 

I also get that the government dole doesn't cover a whole lot of costs that need to be covered. The same grocery checker who developed "It's expensive to be poor" is of the opinion that "food stamps" should be converted to "necessity stamps." That would preclude the buying of a sheet cake with a photo sprayed onto the icing for a baby's first birthday party, but it would allow the purchase of tooth brushes, tooth paste, deodorant, cleaning supplies, pest control products, and other necessities that are not covered by any federal program. 

I know all about the black market in food stamps. Some people whom I respect a great deal engage in it. One even told me, "Well, you pretty much have to!" She's a church-going woman, runs a wonderful church-based program, she works, her husband works, and most of their children are grown, but she still participates in the food stamp black market. Eliminating that would be worthwhile, but again, my feeling is that a UBI would simple replace the current multi-system with a new, more efficient, centralized system that would soon develop its own black market. 

But really my biggest reason for opposing any kind of UBI is that poverty is not *only* a question of inadequate income. I know plenty of people who are economically middle class or higher, earn more-than-adequate income to live as they were raised (or better), are well educated, and are good at mathematics, but who are still in serious, serious debt. They have internalized the American marketing-and-advertising industry's ideal that "You need more, newer, bigger, better, and more expensive." These are people with graduate degrees - both husband and wife - declaring bankruptcy, or at least going to credit counseling so they don't have to declare bankruptcy. 

Being able to set realistic consumer goals has nothing to do with income. Being able to live on what you earn and still save a little for retirement has *some* to do with income, but once you've reached a critical threshold, it really doesn't make any additional difference if you are consumed by greed, if you're never happy with what you have, if you live for conspicuous consumption. 

By the same token, I know plenty of people who never had "enough" money (by federal definition) but who lived a reasonable life, never went hungry, raised their children, and the whole bit. Father of 15, welder, adult brother-in-law with Down's Syndrome lived with them - they gardened, they wore hand-me-downs, the older children helped out with the younger children. Father of 11, engineer, bought powdered milk in 50-pound sacks, bought 70 loaves of day-old bread per month, godparents helped out with Catholic school tuition. I could go on, but you probably know people in each of these categories, too. 

A further problem is that "Enough is never enough." If the government distributed a UBI, the recipients would think it too little, and most liberals (of my acquaintance) would also think it too little. And fellow citizens who are just above the cutoff point would want the cutoff point raised, and if the formula is based on dollars-for-butts then a good many people would have more children to get higher payment. 

Our current system needs reform, but I don't think an UBI would is the way to go. 

[Peace]

10 hours ago, Luigi said:

Peace - I agree with a great deal of what you say. I know a good many people who are dependent on the government dole, and I've seen what a pain in the patoot it is for them. I know a grocery checker who developed the theory - I've read the same theory by academics recently, but I heard it from her first, and a long time ago - that it's expensive to be poor. I get all that. 

I also get that government administrative offices are wasteful. The taxpayer winds up spending a lot of tax dollars on the administrators, tax dollars that really should go directly to our fellow citizens in need.  I'm not sure that a UBI would solve that problem, though. I fear that it would just be one bureaucracy replacing another, because everything the federal government does (or even thinks about!) is a bureaucratic nightmare. 

I also get that the government dole doesn't cover a whole lot of costs that need to be covered. The same grocery checker who developed "It's expensive to be poor" is of the opinion that "food stamps" should be converted to "necessity stamps." That would preclude the buying of a sheet cake with a photo sprayed onto the icing for a baby's first birthday party, but it would allow the purchase of tooth brushes, tooth paste, deodorant, cleaning supplies, pest control products, and other necessities that are not covered by any federal program. 

I know all about the black market in food stamps. Some people whom I respect a great deal engage in it. One even told me, "Well, you pretty much have to!" She's a church-going woman, runs a wonderful church-based program, she works, her husband works, and most of their children are grown, but she still participates in the food stamp black market. Eliminating that would be worthwhile, but again, my feeling is that a UBI would simple replace the current multi-system with a new, more efficient, centralized system that would soon develop its own black market. 

But really my biggest reason for opposing any kind of UBI is that poverty is not *only* a question of inadequate income. I know plenty of people who are economically middle class or higher, earn more-than-adequate income to live as they were raised (or better), are well educated, and are good at mathematics, but who are still in serious, serious debt. They have internalized the American marketing-and-advertising industry's ideal that "You need more, newer, bigger, better, and more expensive." These are people with graduate degrees - both husband and wife - declaring bankruptcy, or at least going to credit counseling so they don't have to declare bankruptcy. 

Being able to set realistic consumer goals has nothing to do with income. Being able to live on what you earn and still save a little for retirement has *some* to do with income, but once you've reached a critical threshold, it really doesn't make any additional difference if you are consumed by greed, if you're never happy with what you have, if you live for conspicuous consumption. 

By the same token, I know plenty of people who never had "enough" money (by federal definition) but who lived a reasonable life, never went hungry, raised their children, and the whole bit. Father of 15, welder, adult brother-in-law with Down's Syndrome lived with them - they gardened, they wore hand-me-downs, the older children helped out with the younger children. Father of 11, engineer, bought powdered milk in 50-pound sacks, bought 70 loaves of day-old bread per month, godparents helped out with Catholic school tuition. I could go on, but you probably know people in each of these categories, too. 

A further problem is that "Enough is never enough." If the government distributed a UBI, the recipients would think it too little, and most liberals (of my acquaintance) would also think it too little. And fellow citizens who are just above the cutoff point would want the cutoff point raised, and if the formula is based on dollars-for-butts then a good many people would have more children to get higher payment. 

Our current system needs reform, but I don't think an UBI would is the way to go. 

Hmm. Do you take issue with the general concept of welfare? With all this talk about "people are living beyond their means" it sounds a bit as though you don't like the idea that the government is taking money out of your pocket and giving it to other people. Other people who don't really need it because they don't know how to live as thrifty as you suggest that they should.  It kind of sounds as though you want all of the social welfare programs to be eliminated because they would be unnecessary if only people knew how to live within their means. Am I off base?

Sure, UBI is not a panacea. It ain't going to solve all of the problems of the world, and the system can be abused like any other.

But the problems you identified above aren't unique to UBI. "Enough is never enough" - sure. But people who live in public housing would rather have nicer, bigger public housing. People who receive food stamps would rather have more food stamps, etc. There is a cutoff point for welfare benefits just like there is a cutoff for UBI, and plenty of parent already look at their children as a "welfare check".

If UBI is out and we have all of these identified problems with the current system, what is your alternative?

I'm guessing that you are gonna say "Eliminate all social programs and let everybody fend for themselves. This will force people to be efficient."

Is that the better alternative that you have in mind? If not, what is it?

[Luigi]

"I'm guessing that you are gonna say "Eliminate all social programs and let everybody fend for themselves. This will force people to be efficient." "

I'm not gonna say anything. 

I'll just keep my mouth shut. 

 

[Credo in Deum]

How is UBI going to pay for itself?  In short, who or what are you gonna tax to get this miracle income without inflation? 
 

 

[Peace]

20 minutes ago, Credo in Deum said:

How is UBI going to pay for itself?  In short, who or what are you gonna tax to get this miracle income without inflation? 

You eliminate all the massive social programs like medicare, unemployment, food stamps, public housing, etc. I’d nix public education myself, too. Every person gets some amount of cash, but other than that no other government assistance for the most part.

https://www.aei.org/economics/exploring-a-budget-neutral-ubi/

[little2add]

who's going to get this free lunch, everybody? rich or poor?

  If that's the case then why would you get out of bed in the morning?   or just stay in your pajamas, all day ?

asking for a friend

Edited January 2, 2022 by little2add

[Credo in Deum]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

You eliminate all the massive social programs like medicare, unemployment, food stamps, public housing, etc. I’d nix public education myself, too. Every person gets some amount of cash, but other than that no other government assistance for the most part.

https://www.aei.org/economics/exploring-a-budget-neutral-ubi/

Sounds like a system that doesn’t favor the elderly. 

[little2add]

Sounds like a system that favors slothfulness 

 

[Peace]

1 hour ago, little2add said:

who's going to get this free lunch, everybody? rich or poor?

Everyone gets it. Hence “Universal” basic income.

1 hour ago, little2add said:

  If that's the case then why would you get out of bed in the morning?   or just stay in your pajamas, all day ?

asking for a friend

For the same reason that I get out of bed today. I’d much rather work and make $25, $50 or $100 than not work and receive only $10.

52 minutes ago, Credo in Deum said:

Sounds like a system that doesn’t favor the elderly. 

I suppose you could work that into the system. The allocation for elderly people could be greater, to take into account average increased expenses for healthcare, for example.

[Peace]

43 minutes ago, little2add said:

Sounds like a system that favors slothfulness 

I don’t see why, especially if it’s implemented as a negative income tax, under which people who work always make more than those who don’t.

Anytime you give anyone anything that they have not worked for you can say it  “favors slothfulness”. Should kids whose parents do not pay taxes not be allowed to work? Should we eliminate food assistance programs? Medicare? If you don’t pay taxes should you be prevented from driving your car down a publicly funded road?

Over the course of a lifetime I would guess that for most Americans the net benefits that they recoup from the government outweighs the amount that they pay in taxes. It’s likely that only the wealthy, say those making 200k or more, pay more in taxes over a lifetime than what they receive. I’d guess that most of us are in fact being subsidized by the wealthy and the super wealthy, so should the government cut our social security, our Medicare, our unemployment, etc. because we are too lazy to have made the same amount of money as the wealthy people who subsidize us? Shouldn’t wealthy people look at you and say your benefits should get cut, because you haven’t earned them and they don’t want to encourage you to be lazy?

https://taxfoundation.org/rich-pay-their-fair-share-of-taxes/

As we can see in Table 1, in 2017, households in the lowest quintile received $67.67 in direct federal benefits for every $1 they paid in federal taxes.[4] Households in the second quintile received $4.60 in benefits for every $1 of taxes they paid, while households in the middle quintile received $1.60 in total direct benefits for every $1 of taxes they paid.

By contrast, households in the fourth quintile received $0.71 in direct federal benefits for every $1 they paid in taxes while households in the highest quintile received just $0.15 in direct federal benefits for every $1 they paid in federal taxes. For households in the top 1 percent, their return on every $1 of federal taxes paid was just $0.02. These figures demonstrate how progressive tax and spending policies have become.

[little2add]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

cut our social security,

you do understand that social security is 100% paid for by the individual , not from  government subsidies in any way, right?

1 hour ago, Peace said:

people who work always make more than those who don’t.

no conundrum here

[Peace]

12 minutes ago, little2add said:

you do understand that social security is 100% paid for by the individual , not from  government subsidies in any way, right?

Not really. Some people will get more than what they paid in, and others will get less than what they paid in.

For example, two unmarried people who paid in the same amount, one dies on his 62nd birthday and does not receive a dime, the other lives until his 100th birthday and receives $1000 a month for 38 years. The person who dies young effectively subsidizes the person who lives long.

It used to be the case that the average person got many times more in benefits than what they actually paid into the system, but I think the ratio has gotten worse and worse over the years as the system has become bankrupt. I think the ratio may even be negative for most people in my generation,

And if you look at the actual cash flow of the system, I think you’ll see that it actually structured a bit more like a Ponzi scheme nowadays. The money that is used to pay social security for the current group of retirees is paid for by people who are currently working today. The money that the current group of retirees paid into the system- the government has already spent most of that money. It’s gone. So I don’t think what you are saying is true in any sense, really. I think if you research the system you’ll see that this is the case.

[little2add]

SS is fully funded by involuntary contributions by the eventual benefactor, over his or her lifetime.   Your Social Security number is essentially your bank account number.  Every contribution you made your whole life is credited to your account.

Needless to say, It is true that some of the money is skimmed off to top to pay for other things.  

when Social Security started out, 10 people paid in for every 1 payout, today it's quite the opposite for every 1 person who pays in,  20 persons receive benefits.

 so-called experts have been saying for years that the SS fund will run out of money,  very soon

it is what it is , I guess

Edited January 2, 2022 by little2add

[little2add]

abortion has dramatically altered the equation because younger replacements (newborns) percentage has dramatically decreased and the general population ratio of retirees has increased.

[Peace]

14 minutes ago, little2add said:

SS is fully funded by involuntary contributions by the eventual benefactor, over his or her lifetime.   Your Social Security number is essentially your bank account number.  Every contribution you made your whole life is credited to your account.

I'm not sure what you mean. Let's say that a person (Mr. Smith) makes $40,000 a year and works for 40 years. He pays 6.2% on the $40,0000 x 40  years = $99,200. Let's say he lives a very long life, and receives say $1000 a month in social security benefits x 40 years = $480,000.

Do you think that the full amount he receives in benefits $480,000 was generated from the $99,200 that he paid into the system? The amount that he paid in certainly isn't going to generate enough interest to turn the $99k into $480k.

That's not really how the system works. How it works is that the money taken out from my paycheck today as "my" social security tax (and also many other working people like me, and employers who also pay into the system) is used to make up the difference between what Mr. Smith actually paid into the system, and what he actually receives. In his case, he is subsidized by others. Its not as if there is a something like an "individual bank account" for Mr. Smith and the government gives back to him exactly what he has paid in, and nothing more. He is subsidized.

[little2add]

     

[Peace]

12 minutes ago, little2add said:

     

Well I suppose you are right. Enjoy the rest of your day, and your government subsidies.

[Vernon]

1 hour ago, little2add said:

SS is fully funded by involuntary contributions by the eventual benefactor, over his or her lifetime.   Your Social Security number is essentially your bank account number.  Every contribution you made your whole life is credited to your account.

Needless to say, It is true that some of the money is skimmed off to top to pay for other things.  

when Social Security started out, 10 people paid in for every 1 payout, today it's quite the opposite for every 1 person who pays in,  20 persons receive benefits.

 so-called experts have been saying for years that the SS fund will run out of money,  very soon

it is what it is , I guess

No it doesn't work that way. Those who now receive social security are not receiving money they paid into the system as if it were put away with their name on a bank account. That money was spent on retirees at that time. It is totally funded by what is now being collected and is not tied to the exact amount that was paid in. 

There are 2.7 workers for each social security recipient. It's a huge and unfair burden on young workers and it will get worse.