Is Universal Basic Income the answer?

[rjs330]

Thats the point. Why not to make it easy?

I understand that it was rough in the past, practically for the whole existence of humanity.

But we want the next generations to have a better life than us, dont we? And the society is so developed today that its possible.

There is no way we could pay for that. That's just ridiculous pie in the sky stuff. What it costs to
raise a child is about $12,000 or more per year.

It would cost at least $888,000,000,000 a year to do what you want. You've just added about another trillion dollars to the federal budget per year. And don't forget only 50% of people pay income taxes in the US.

Yeah it sounds good and feels good, but it's folly.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

And as long as mom keeps having babies we will keep ponying up the dough.

Common social insurance should be for the emergency or based on real need. I lose my job through no fault of my own. And I need a bit if help in the short term as I get another one. I become perminently disabled and can't survive on my own. My husband dies and I've been a stay at home mother and have no income. So I need a bit of assistance until I get a job to pay the bills or go to school to be able to get a good job.

It's not meant for "I want to stay home with my kids, so everyone else should support me and give me their money."

Come on a LOT of parents have two working parents and the kids are okay. Is it best? No. But we are are going to pay for mom to stay home? What unmitigated Gaul!

As long as I pump.out babies I am going to tell everyone else they have to pay for my choices.

And no abortion is high because people refuse to accept responsibility for their actions.

And that next stable family you are talking about will further perpetuate the desire to make other people pay me for my choice to have children and stay home. Realism tells you that people are selfish. People will and have chosen to have kids just to get more money.

We have laws in society against child abuse and against child neglect. Society enforces these laws because it has a moral interest as well as a practical interest in protecting future adult members of that society. This shows that children are not simply possessions of the parents who spawned them. Possessions like my TV or my bottle cap collection I can dispose of or even destroy if I so desire. Not so with children. Children do not "belong" to the parents in quite the same way as their private possessions, and society rightly enforces this distinction with the laws mentioned. If, therefore, society determines that it is in the interests of that same society to facilitate compliance with those laws, society may decide to provide a certain amount of material support for those that bear the responsibility of caring for the children society has chosen to protect with those laws. Otherwise a law against child neglect becomes an unfunded mandate.

As for the "common social insurance" that you do support, why do you include losing your job "through no fault of your own?" Is it really "through no fault of your own" if you decided to go directly into a factory job right out of school instead of going on to get a more advanced education? When the factory downsizes due to automation, why should society pay you for your poor choice in taking the easy way to quick money? So it appears you do favor government support of some people's poor choices - just not parents who chose to have children they cannot support. Interesting.

As for the speculation that people will just get lazy if their very existence is not threatened unless they work hard, that just doesn't ring true. The many super-rich people who have more money than they need, but still work hard for even more is proof of that. If people were truly satisfied with the amount of funding provided by a UBI, there would be no super-rich, because they would all stop working as soon as they had the equivalent amount of money that would supply them at that level for the rest of their lives.

 

[trophy33]

It's not meant for "I want to stay home with my kids, so everyone else should support me and give me their money."

You still do not understand that it works both ways. You give money to them, they give money to you. Its not one direction only.

Come on a LOT of parents have two working parents and the kids are okay. Is it best? No. But we are are going to pay for mom to stay home? What unmitigated Gaul!

So, you do not want to make it closer to the "best" because... ?

As long as I pump.out babies I am going to tell everyone else they have to pay for my choices.
And no abortion is high because people refuse to accept responsibility for their actions.

But do you realize that the baby is not "theirs" only, but is the part of the society/economy for many years, right? Its not isolated problem of one single irresponsible mom for ever. By helping the baby you are helping yourself and the society as a whole.

Realism tells you that people are selfish. People will and have chosen to have kids just to get more money.

No, the reality tells me that the majority is responsible and rational. And helping others if they can.

Only a minority of people wants to just sit at home with kids for their whole life. Majority wants a career and to be successful. Even your richest ones are still working, helping, creating charities... why?

Are you trying to say that Americans are so bad people that what works in the EU cannot work there, because you are all selfish and lazy and if you will not be afraid of death you will do nothing useful? It seems as a serious mistrust in common folk, therefore in democracy.

 

[trophy33]

There is no way we could pay for that. That's just ridiculous pie in the sky stuff. What it costs to
raise a child is about $12,000 or more per year.

It would cost at least $888,000,000,000 a year to do what you want. You've just added about another trillion dollars to the federal budget per year. And don't forget only 50% of people pay income taxes in the US.

Yeah it sounds good and feels good, but it's folly.

Why much poorer countries can afford to have moms at home for at least a year or two? Why can they have laws that the employer must keep the work position for the mother so that she can return to it after the maternity leave?
Why can they have a common health care system so that even the poorest ones can get the same care like the richest?
Why can they have free education so that even the poorest child can get the same quality and grow out of the original social conditions without debts for life?

Why do you think that in the US it must be a jungle of survival from day to day? You are one of the richest country int the world with the social services like some 3rd world country.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Here in the US pretty much everyone assembles conclusions on the basis of facts believed to be true.

But the facts from the media or from school history books are usually wrong, and through no fault of the person doing the reasoning, if the facts are wrong then the conclusions are usually also wrong.

It's the old adage: BS baffles brains.

 

[MorkandMindy]

To know what worked in the past, people reference history.

I studied American history in school, which I found interesting, but now all it does is explain why people keep getting things wrong because schoolbook history was written to inspire patriotism, and the writing was funded by trusts set up by millionaires. Accuracy does not seem to have been a priority.

 

[Pommer]

There is no way we could pay for that. That's just ridiculous pie in the sky stuff. What it costs to
raise a child is about $12,000 or more per year.

It would cost at least $888,000,000,000 a year to do what you want. You've just added about another trillion dollars to the federal budget per year. And don't forget only 50% of people pay income taxes in the US.

Yeah it sounds good and feels good, but it's folly.

It’s only money.

 

[MorkandMindy]

There is no way we could pay for that. That's just ridiculous pie in the sky stuff. What it costs to
raise a child is about $12,000 or more per year.

It would cost at least $888,000,000,000 a year to do what you want. ...

No wonder the US is broke.

We must ban having children - it worked for China!

 

[gaara4158]

When you as an individual demand money from the government you are demanding that other people's money be given to you personally. That's covetous.

There is general welfare such as roads and bridges, a strong defense etc. And there is individual welfare.

Our nation was NOT founded on welfare as it is seen today. It was founded on freedom and individual responsibility with limited government. Welfare as we see it today didn't happen until the 1930s. In the time of the founding aid to the poor was left to the states and local governments. Often it consisted of assigning those who were indigent work. Or if disabled etc they were placed in alms houses or things if that nature. They didn't pay single moms to stay home. I'd you were able bodies you were expected to work and sometimes you were assigned to people to work for. Even road building by the federal government was questioned.

President Monroe echoed Madison’s views, and added some of his own, in vetoing a bill for maintaining the Cumberland Road in 1822. He denied that Congress had the power to do this. “If the power exist,” he said, “it must be either because it has been specifically granted to the United States or that it is incidental to some power which has been granted. If we examine the specific grants of power we do not find it among them, nor is it incidental to any power which has been specifically granted.” Among those from which he could not trace the power, he declared, was the clause “to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare.”[8] In an addendum to his veto message, he included this thought: “Have Congress a right to raise and appropriate the money to any and to every purpose according to their will and pleasure? They certainly have not. The Government of the United States is a limited Government, instituted for great national purposes, and for those only.”[9]

Madison said this:

If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”

So no welfare as you and others refer to it as was NOT the intent of the founding of this country. Not of the constitution.

Jefferson said this:

Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.

They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please…. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.

That of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.

You have a woeful understanding of history.

We have already agreed that the current welfare system is a travesty, so while I can appreciate the effort you took in researching and typing all of that out, it is entirely irrelevant. What we need, as I’m sure you’ll agree, is workers being able to keep more of the money that is generated by their labor. But why should what we consider “labor” be limited to commercial employment? Is it not labor to be a homemaker? To become educated? To be a good citizen? Everyone benefits from having members like these in their community, so why gatekeep these things behind wealth and free time, something the hardest working among us don’t have? Ideally, the government steps in to provide for public needs where markets fail to do so. If they don’t step in to allow parents to raise their children properly, people to educate themselves, and citizens to fulfill their civic duties, we’re all going to be paying the price anyway.

 

[Pommer]

What we need, as I’m sure you’ll agree, is workers being able to keep more of the money that is generated by their labor.

Short-term okay, great idea.
Long-term, we’re moving out of a “jobs-based” economy; the kicker is that only well-heeled will need apply, the hoi polloi will have to amuse themselves as best they can.
Things get worse after that.
Or we chuck the current system for a more society-based economy that values contributions to The Greater Good with more than just mere money.

 

[rjs330]

We have laws in society against child abuse and against child neglect. Society enforces these laws because it has a moral interest as well as a practical interest in protecting future adult members of that society. This shows that children are not simply possessions of the parents who spawned them. Possessions like my TV or my bottle cap collection I can dispose of or even destroy if I so desire. Not so with children. Children do not "belong" to the parents in quite the same way as their private possessions, and society rightly enforces this distinction with the laws mentioned. If, therefore, society determines that it is in the interests of that same society to facilitate compliance with those laws, society may decide to provide a certain amount of material support for those that bear the responsibility of caring for the children society has chosen to protect with those laws. Otherwise a law against child neglect becomes an unfunded mandate.

As for the "common social insurance" that you do support, why do you include losing your job "through no fault of your own?" Is it really "through no fault of your own" if you decided to go directly into a factory job right out of school instead of going on to get a more advanced education? When the factory downsizes due to automation, why should society pay you for your poor choice in taking the easy way to quick money? So it appears you do favor government support of some people's poor choices - just not parents who chose to have children they cannot support. Interesting.

As for the speculation that people will just get lazy if their very existence is not threatened unless they work hard, that just doesn't ring true. The many super-rich people who have more money than they need, but still work hard for even more is proof of that. If people were truly satisfied with the amount of funding provided by a UBI, there would be no super-rich, because they would all stop working as soon as they had the equivalent amount of money that would supply them at that level for the rest of their lives.

So we agree that children are human beings and not possessions. And as a human being they have rights too. But society does not have a blanket right to remove parental rights for any reason the society seems as proper.

Yes, if a person decides to go to work somewhere and the business closes down, it is not the fault of the worker that they lost their job. You do know that just cause you go to college you are not guaranteed a good paying job for the rest of your life, right? Are you willing to say then that college kids are making a stupid decision by attending college?

People are not universally the same. There are hard drivers that will work hard no matter what or how much they make. There are also a lot of people who don't. They will do as little as they have to and if they don't have to work, won't. There are people with a lot of ambition and people with no ambition. UBI rewards the lazy.

Also UBI is probitive. If you have everyone in America $1000 a month (which doesn't even cover a UBI) it would cost 4 trillion dollars. That's close to the entire federal budget.

It's pie in the sky unworkable and foolish.

 

[rjs330]

You still do not understand that it works both ways. You give money to them, they give money to you. Its not one direction only.


So, you do not want to make it closer to the "best" because... ?

But do you realize that the baby is not "theirs" only, but is the part of the society/economy for many years, right? Its not isolated problem of one single irresponsible mom for ever. By helping the baby you are helping yourself and the society as a whole.


No, the reality tells me that the majority is responsible and rational. And helping others if they can.

Only a minority of people wants to just sit at home with kids for their whole life. Majority wants a career and to be successful. Even yourrichest ones are still working, helping, creating charities... why?

Are you trying to say that Americans are so bad people that what works in the EU cannot work there, because you are all selfish and lazy and if you will not be afraid of death you will do nothing useful? It seems as a serious mistrust in common folk, therefore in democracy.

First if all the EU doesn't have what you claim.

Also the EU criticizes stay at home moms.

EU chastises Britain for having too many stay-at-home moms - LifeSite

No you don't understand how it works. 50% of people don't pay taxes. So no they aren't giving money to me. I .just giving money to them. It IS only one direction.

No the child is NOT societies child. Man you scare me. I can see the future with people like you in charge. Women have babies, but the babies are raised by the state. There is no such thing as parents. Cause whatever the state says is right is right and the parent has no say. Cause you know, society says so. No it doesn't take a village to raise a child. It takes good responsible parents to raise a child properly. Teach a child the value of good values, a good work ethic, independence and a willingness to help others in need. Not demanding that others give to them, provide for them and support them.

 

[rjs330]

Why much poorer countries can afford to have moms at home for at least a year or two? Why can they have laws that the employer must keep the work position for the mother so that she can return to it after the maternity leave?
Why can they have a common health care system so that even the poorest ones can get the same care like the richest?
Why can they have free education so that even the poorest child can get the same quality and grow out of the original social conditions without debts for life?

Why do you think that in the US it must be a jungle of survival from day to day? You are one of the richest country int the world with the social services like some 3rd world country.

You know, the US has maternity leave. Although businesses are not required to pay mom for staying home . And businesses have to hold the job open for mom. And no, most poor countries do not have a year or two maternity leave. Where do you get this stuff? Most countries, including EU countries might give 6 mo's at the most.

And you free education has restrictions. I would not be against free college if we had the same restrictions.

And I admit US healthcare is far too expensive and something needs to be done about it.

 

[trophy33]

First if all the EU doesn't have what you claim.

Also the EU criticizes stay at home moms.

EU chastises Britain for having too many stay-at-home moms - LifeSite

No you don't understand how it works. 50% of people don't pay taxes. So no they aren't giving money to me. I .just giving money to them. It IS only one direction.

Most mothers stay at home roughly for two years. Even though it may not be the maternity leave but other social benefits which names I do not even try to memorize, there is plenty (which isagain the argument for just one benefit called "the universal income").

No the child is NOT societies child. Man you scare me. I can see the future with people like you in charge. Women have babies, but the babies are raised by the state. There is no such thing as parents. Cause whatever the state says is right is right and the parent has no say. Cause you know, society says so. No it doesn't take a village to raise a child. It takes good responsible parents to raise a child properly. Teach a child the value of good values, a good work ethic, independence and a willingness to help others in need. Not demanding that others give to them, provide for them and support them.

Actually, I said the opposite. The state should pay mothers to stay with children, instead of putting them to some common care and go to work, as you propose.

 

[trophy33]

Most countries, including EU countries might give 6 mo's at the most.

Maybe its not called the maternity leave, I do not know, I have never studied it, I am single. I only know they are at home and that they get many benefits. Not everyone, of course, some haste to return to work for various reasons. And they can.

For example, in Germany, mothers stay at home even longer:
"Only one-third of mothers with kids under three go to work in Germany, the vast majority of them part-time."
Why do so few German mothers go back to work?

And you free education has restrictions. I would not be against free college if we had the same restrictions.

The only restriction I know of is that you can study for free the full term +1 year. If you fail and repeat the study, then you begin to pay next years of study. But its still much less than in the USA, manytimes just a symbolic amount, depends on a school.
And I think that if you are from a really poor family, you can ask for any payments to be forgiven and even be given stipendiums (the school will pay you).

There are no student debts for years and years as in the USA.

And I admit US healthcare is far too expensive and something needs to be done about it.

Good.

 

[trophy33]

Also the EU criticizes stay at home moms.

EU chastises Britain for having too many stay-at-home moms - LifeSite

Because of the doctrine of gender equality. Some EU officials think that to be a stay-at-home mom discriminates women and is bad for their career. But its not the EU that is paying benefits, it is paid by national govs, so its just it... a critique.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

So we agree that children are human beings and not possessions. And as a human being they have rights too. But society does not have a blanket right to remove parental rights for any reason the society seems as proper.

But you agree that laws against child abuse and child neglect should be enforced, right? That was my only point. So we can consider that a "yes" and move on.

Yes, if a person decides to go to work somewhere and the business closes down, it is not the fault of the worker that they lost their job.

If that is how you want to look at it, I can look at child-raising in the same way. If a couple decides to have a child thinking they will be able to support that child, then due to circumstances that are not their fault, they are unable to do so, it would be a proper function of government to help them out, just like you say it is proper to help out the unemployed factory worker.

You do know that just cause you go to college you are not guaranteed a good paying job for the rest of your life, right?

You do know that just thinking you can support a child is no guarantee you will be able to support that child, right?

The point is, you drew a distinction between help for child raising and help for a temporarily unemployed. I am showing that there is no distinction.

Are you willing to say then that college kids are making a stupid decision by attending college?

Are you willing to say then that parents are making a stupid decision by thinking they can support a child?

People are not universally the same. There are hard drivers that will work hard no matter what or how much they make. There are also a lot of people who don't.

I submit that it is the other way around. There are some who will not work hard, and there are lots of people that do work hard. The mistake is thinking that the super-rich are the only ones who work hard, or that they work hard at all. Similarly it is a mistake to identify the poor as those whose do not work hard. I seriously doubt if Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk work as hard as the nurses in our hospitals or the man who drives the Amazon delivery truck in our neighborhood.

UBI rewards the lazy.

..and the current system rewards the lucky.

 

[MorkandMindy]

UBI rewards the lazy.

UBI is for everyone. You can work as much as you want and not lose UBI.

Disability Benefits are for people with disabilities and the long-term unemployed unable to work within the area where they live.

Disability: The rule I understand was: 'do any work, and you lose your disability.' But starting in 1999 a 'ticket to work' system started allowing a person to work up to 45 hours per month without losing disability insurance or disability benefits.

Unemployment. Someone I know well had a strenuous job for many years and did it well, but heard unemployment paid more than his job and left work. Now unemployment has ended he is unwilling to go back to work. He was always prone to anxiety from anything new.

Unemployment pay can be a bad idea if it pays more than work and requires people to leave work.

UBI does not depend on having under 2,000 dollars in your bank account, under 1,500 dollars month income, or losing your job. It allows you to save up money and work and worry less about your job getting automated or leaving the country.

 

[MorkandMindy]

When you as an individual demand money from the government you are demanding that other people's money be given to you personally. That's covetous.

The federal budget for FY 2022 states: 'income taxes contribute $2.039 trillion or 49% of total receipts.'

 

[rjs330]

Maybe its not called the maternity leave, I do not know, I have never studied it, I am single. I only know they are at home and that they get many benefits. Not everyone, of course, some haste to return to work for various reasons. And they can.

For example, in Germany, mothers stay at home even longer:
"Only one-third of mothers with kids under three go to work in Germany, the vast majority of them part-time."
Why do so few German mothers go back to work?


The only restriction I know of is that you can study for free the full term +1 year. If you fail and repeat the study, then you begin to pay next years of study. But its still much less than in the USA, manytimes just a symbolic amount, depends on a school.
And I think that if you are from a really poor family, you can ask for any payments to be forgiven and even be given stipendiums (the school will pay you).

There are no student debts for years and years as in the USA.


Good.

From the article you posted.

Although public policy is changing in Germany – for example, there are now more full-time nursery places available – prevailing attitudes still leave many German women with the feeling that they must choose between work and family.

It also talks about women having to work part time with lower pay and fewer benefits. So the article does not support your conclusions that things are so much better over there.

And free college isn't all that great either over there. There is rationing of students, high drop out rates and restrictions.

Free College in Europe: A Cautionary Tale for the United States


European countries that offer tuition-free higher education also struggle with the issue of completion. Finland, for example, ranks first among all Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries in terms of subsidies for higher education, with 96% of all higher education funding coming from public sources. However, Finland ranks 25th among OECD countries for degree attainment.

Finland offers a nice deal for students only if they are lucky and talented enough to get in. In 2016, Finnish institutions of higher education accepted just 33 percent of applicants. That’s the degree of selectivity we’d expect from an elite college in America, yet that is the admissions rate for Finland’s entire university system. There is a price to pay for that kind of selectivity: Finland ranks in the bottom third of developed countries for college-degree attainment. Meanwhile, the tuition-charging United States ranks in the top third, thanks to open-enrollment policies at many of our colleges and universities, along with private financing and plenty of spots offered through a diverse range of institutions.

There are other things too line students still graduating with a lot of debt. They don't get to study whatever they want. There are a lot of issues that you don't seem to be aware of.

No, College Is Not “Free” in Europe – It’s Expensive and Broken

I know you live socialism. And it all sounds very nice. Free stuff. How awesome. But its not free, it creates other problems and is not the panecea you make it out to be.