Let's talk about Universal Basic Income

[ThatRobGuy]

No, but then we're not trying to steal anyone's cars. I suggest you lay off the rhetoric. It's getting irritating.

$37,500/y would be the cutoff point assuming a 15k BI.

I'm not going to entertain your ridiculous numbers, so I'll just skip ahead to this next bit.

If you're not going to "entertain the ridiculous numbers", then you've just displayed that you're operating off of emotion based off of something you've read on a reddit article, and aren't willing to truly address the facts at hand.

It's all about the numbers, why don't you want to address them? the facts and figures are what would drive whether or not this is feasible. By you not being willing to even acknowledge them (and wouldn't even include them when you quoted me) shows me that you don't want anything to do with the hard facts & numbers (and by snipping it out of my post, you apparently want to make sure that nobody else sees them either)

You've proposed a system involving income subsidies based off of tax revenues, yet you get all indignant and refuse to acknowledge income & tax data

Here's the hard data (for anyone who's actually interested in the logistics and the math behind what it would take to accomplish this):

If we increased the effective tax rate on the top 1% by an additional 40%, and used that additional 40% only for the purposes of providing a fixed amount of guaranteed income to all citizens, we'd be looking at about ~$2,200/person.

To get close to the number you're speaking of (a 15k guarantee), we'd be looking at a scenario where the top 10% would have to pay roughly an additional 30-40% over what they're paying now.

You can say this numbers are "ridiculous", but they are what they are. We have 1.4 million people earning "1%" incomes totaling about 1.6 trillion dollars. We have ~325 million citizens that you're trying to get a guaranteed income for.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You seem to have an issue with taxation, period. Your taxes go to things you don't like. It's not up to you to pick and choose where your money goes. As I explained, people over a certain bracket will pay more than they receive. I'm frankly unsure of how to talk to you. You seem to equate taxation to theft, which is baffling.

When taxes are taken specifically from one group with the intent of giving it directly to another group, then it is theft...

Taxation for purposes of the common good (roads, schools, hospitals, etc...) are vastly different then taxation for the purpose of "well, this CEO makes a pile of money, this other guy doesn't, so we're going to take from the CEO to give to this other guy...that has nothing to do with "common good", it's specifically targeting groups.

 

[Joykins]

When taxes are taken specifically from one group with the intent of giving it directly to another group, then it is theft...

Taxation for purposes of the common good (roads, schools, hospitals, etc...) are vastly different then taxation for the purpose of "well, this CEO makes a pile of money, this other guy doesn't, so we're going to take from the CEO to give to this other guy...that has nothing to do with "common good", it's specifically targeting groups.

In the vast history of taxation, certainly as much of it has been the former as the latter...only the ruling elites were the ones pocketing it.

 

[HannahT]

A negative income tax would cost less than all current social programs to fund.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax

Did you read the criticism at the bottom?

Criticism
A common criticism is that the NIT might reduce the incentive to work, since recipients of the NIT would receive a guaranteed minimum wage equal to the government payment in the absence of employment. A series of studies in the United States beginning in 1968 attempted to test for effects on work incentives. Jodie Allen summarizes the key studies:

The Stanford Research Institute (SRI), which analyzed the SIME/DIME findings, found stronger work disincentive effects, ranging from an average 9 percent work reduction for husbands to an average 18 percent reduction for wives. This was not as scary as some NIT opponents had predicted. But it was large enough to suggest that as much as 50 to 60 percent of the transfers paid to two-parent families under a NIT might go to replace lost earnings. They also found an unexpected result: instead of promoting family stability (the presumed result of extending benefits to two-parent working families on an equal basis), the NITs seemed to increase family breakup.[17]

So even if you didn't 'tax' what I mentioned - the rest would be a reality.

Human Nature here! If you can get something for free? Why work for it!

You are handing people NO incentive to work. When you lower the people that are working? You taxable income goes down with it. If the money isn't there to pay your Universal Basic Income? Then what?

Some people may wish to continue to work no matter what, but that isn't speaking for the majority of the population.

As the proverb goes:

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

 

[FreedByte]

Did you read the criticism at the bottom?

Criticism
A common criticism is that the NIT might reduce the incentive to work, since recipients of the NIT would receive a guaranteed minimum wage equal to the government payment in the absence of employment. A series of studies in the United States beginning in 1968 attempted to test for effects on work incentives. Jodie Allen summarizes the key studies:

The Stanford Research Institute (SRI), which analyzed the SIME/DIME findings, found stronger work disincentive effects, ranging from an average 9 percent work reduction for husbands to an average 18 percent reduction for wives. This was not as scary as some NIT opponents had predicted. But it was large enough to suggest that as much as 50 to 60 percent of the transfers paid to two-parent families under a NIT might go to replace lost earnings. They also found an unexpected result: instead of promoting family stability (the presumed result of extending benefits to two-parent working families on an equal basis), the NITs seemed to increase family breakup.[17]

So even if you didn't 'tax' what I mentioned - the rest would be a reality.

Human Nature here! If you can get something for free? Why work for it!

You are handing people NO incentive to work. When you lower the people that are working? You taxable income goes down with it. If the money isn't there to pay your Universal Basic Income? Then what?

Some people may wish to continue to work no matter what, but that isn't speaking for the majority of the population.

As the proverb goes:

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

So you don't want any social programs? Compared to other social programs, the NIT maintains work incentives quite well. And at least they could find jobs with the NIT, unlike what is the case with the minimum wage.

 

[AztecSDSU]

When taxes are taken specifically from one group with the intent of giving it directly to another group, then it is theft...

Taxation for purposes of the common good (roads, schools, hospitals, etc...) are vastly different then taxation for the purpose of "well, this CEO makes a pile of money, this other guy doesn't, so we're going to take from the CEO to give to this other guy...that has nothing to do with "common good", it's specifically targeting groups.

Then you would have to consider all taxes theft. Taxing people's property to pay for schools if they don't have children is taking money from one group (childless people) and giving it to another group (people with children).

The social contract upon which society exists does include a certain amount of wealth redistribution. The CEO needs the people he's paying minimum wage to regardless of they fact they can't live on it to have all his money. Therefore there's no element of theft in taking a percentage of his excess and giving it to the people he depends on for his wealth so they can be not malnourished.

 

[AztecSDSU]

Did you read the criticism at the bottom?

Criticism
A common criticism is that the NIT might reduce the incentive to work, since recipients of the NIT would receive a guaranteed minimum wage equal to the government payment in the absence of employment. A series of studies in the United States beginning in 1968 attempted to test for effects on work incentives. Jodie Allen summarizes the key studies:

The Stanford Research Institute (SRI), which analyzed the SIME/DIME findings, found stronger work disincentive effects, ranging from an average 9 percent work reduction for husbands to an average 18 percent reduction for wives. This was not as scary as some NIT opponents had predicted. But it was large enough to suggest that as much as 50 to 60 percent of the transfers paid to two-parent families under a NIT might go to replace lost earnings. They also found an unexpected result: instead of promoting family stability (the presumed result of extending benefits to two-parent working families on an equal basis), the NITs seemed to increase family breakup.[17]

So even if you didn't 'tax' what I mentioned - the rest would be a reality.

Human Nature here! If you can get something for free? Why work for it!

You are handing people NO incentive to work. When you lower the people that are working? You taxable income goes down with it. If the money isn't there to pay your Universal Basic Income? Then what?

Some people may wish to continue to work no matter what, but that isn't speaking for the majority of the population.

As the proverb goes:

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

You're handing people the exact some incentive to work that they have now: wanting more than the necessities of life.

An NIT system does seem to show the most impact with women, a group that even now is predisposed to wanting to avoid working. Of course, there is a pretty easy fix to that: NIT payments take a spouse's income into consideration. If the spouse makes too much than no NIT payment.

 

[BigDaddy4]

The money is coming from a mix of tax hikes (In the form of the adoption of flat taxes and code simplifications, and , most importantly, cuts to programs. You pay for a variety of welfare programs as it stands. Not to mention things like Social security on top of that. Thing is, though. We spend so much money trying to figure out who to give to and how much to give, you're better off just giving indiscriminately. Obviously, it's not like we're about to eliminate things like VA and the DE, but clearly some of their functions could and probably would become redundant with this in place, further facilitating even more cuts. Then you have things like the military budget that can be cut significantly without major ill effect (Spending is close to 550B in the year 2014 from what I could see).

Yes, I concede that just cuts won't pay for it all, but it gets us a good bit of the way there without touching the amount you pay as it is. That's where the flat tax comes in. Your BI (In any sensible system I could imagine) is exempt from taxes, while your income is taxed at the appropriate rate. Unlike what other, less reasonable people here are insisting, it's not 40% on top of what you already pay, but rather a flat 40%. If you're well off, you'll be in the group that ends up paying in effective taxes. If you're not, you are paid more than you pay.

The cutoff point, as I stated before, for 15k, is exactly 37500/y.

Tl;dr: Cut redundant and unnecessary programs to make the government more efficient while imposing progressive taxes on income.

Is this $15k/yr per person or per household? Theoretically, a household could have $30k or more free money.

Husband - $15k
Wife - $15k
21 yo son - $15k
18 yo daughter - $15k
Grandma - $15k
Total household = $75k

All for not working. Add in more kids/stepkids over 18 or other relatives and that's a pretty good household income. All for NOT working.

 

[HannahT]

You're handing people the exact some incentive to work that they have now: wanting more than the necessities of life.

An NIT system does seem to show the most impact with women, a group that even now is predisposed to wanting to avoid working. Of course, there is a pretty easy fix to that: NIT payments take a spouse's income into consideration. If the spouse makes too much than no NIT payment.

Your not handing the same incentive to work as they have now. Why would people suggest changing the system to do the same thing?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

...and yes, I know, we do need people in low paying jobs...however, we also need those jobs to be low paying to keep pricing down. The whole reason that $50k is considered a livable income is because the guys who bag groceries only make $8/hour.

If we had to start paying them triple that, or subsidizing that income with additional taxes, that person earning $50k no longer has the same buying power or net pay that they once had...

So if your main goal is to keep pricing down, then why not target the corporations, execs and investors that reap billions in profits and yet do not lower prices?

Big corporations could stand to pay their employees a lot more and still easily be in the black.

Also if you want to keep pricing down, then do you advocate lowering minimum wage to $2? 50 cents? You don't really seem to care about the guys at the bottom and would prefer to just bolster profits.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

When taxes are taken specifically from one group with the intent of giving it directly to another group, then it is theft...

Taxation for purposes of the common good (roads, schools, hospitals, etc...) are vastly different then taxation for the purpose of "well, this CEO makes a pile of money, this other guy doesn't, so we're going to take from the CEO to give to this other guy...that has nothing to do with "common good", it's specifically targeting groups.

You've made a subjective definition of "common good" to include roads and schools and hospitals.

What about people that don't drive on roads? What about people that don't have children to send to school? What about people that aren't sick and rarely (if ever) go to the hospital?

Your argument fails because all taxes require us to give back to society even if we don't participate in the "common good" activity. Its about increasing the well-being of our society as a whole. If people weren't greedy, they would gladly give back money for the common good. The GREED of everyone (not just CEOs) and the rampant individualism of our money-driven society is the problem. "Taxation is evil and illegal!" they yell. All because they want to cling to their money and possessions and don't want to chip in to help their fellow man. Its a cultural problem.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

A free market doesn't compel people to do anything for any reason other than the sheer desire to make more money.

Desire to make money starts with the desire to put a roof over your head and food on your table. You have to admit, that's pretty complelling.

That is the idea of capitalism: Everyone wants to make more money.

Everyone would like to have more money; not everyone is willing to do what is necessary to make it.

As I said to a previous poster, the worst possible thing people can do is send the money overseas. They could sit at home watching movies all day and it would still move the economy forward in some way while avoiding the massive costs to society that would come from their poverty and possible turn to crime as a means to sustain themselves.

The idea is that poverty would motivate them to contribute something to society. After all the cost of poverty would be greatest to them.

Only some of them are. Let's face it, people want to work.

Some people do. I like to think most people still do. I know from personal experience, though, that some don't.

Even the ones that sit at home eventually have to get bored and do something with their lives

.

Maybe turn to crime to amuse themselves? Or something less harmful, but decidedly non-productive? Idle hands being the devil's workshop and all.

Do you like the idea of Capitalism and Free-markets, or am I just arguing from the wrong angle here?

I realize that free markets are generally more efficient than planned economies, sure. I wouldn't call myself a doctrinare free marketer.

 

[Guy1]

Desire to make money starts with the desire to put a roof over your head and food on your table. You have to admit, that's pretty complelling.

It's coercive, rather than compelling.

Everyone would like to have more money; not everyone is willing to do what is necessary to make it.

And now everyone has a chance to step down if they don't want to work and let those that do step in.

The idea is that poverty would motivate them to contribute something to society. After all the cost of poverty would be greatest to them.

That is both inhumane and naive. The entire point here is that desperation is the worst possible reason to have someone take up jobs. If they don't want to work, then they shouldn't. It helps nobody when they do, and it helps everyone when they have the choice not to.

Some people do. I like to think most people still do. I know from personal experience, though, that some don't.

And that's good. Look, your whole life you've been brought up to see people's value to society by how much they contribute in the form of labor. I'm trying to tell you that it increasingly doesn't apply in modern society. There aren't enough jobs to sustain people, people are being replaced with robots which leave behind fewer jobs to take, and a smaller and smaller number of people both have everything (the rich), and can produce everything (the average worker). It no longer makes sense to want everyone to get a job.

Maybe turn to crime to amuse themselves?

Maybe, but it sounds like something teenagers would do primarily. There is always a disincentive in the system for crime, though.

Or something less harmful, but decidedly non-productive? Idle hands being the devil's workshop and all.

Their freedom to do said "less harmful" thing.

I realize that free markets are generally more efficient than planned economies, sure. I wouldn't call myself a doctrinare free marketer.

Alright then. Thank you for the information.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

So if your main goal is to keep pricing down, then why not target the corporations, execs and investors that reap billions in profits and yet do not lower prices?

Big corporations could stand to pay their employees a lot more and still easily be in the black.

Also if you want to keep pricing down, then do you advocate lowering minimum wage to $2? 50 cents? You don't really seem to care about the guys at the bottom and would prefer to just bolster profits.

As I've already explained in a couple of other posts, targeting those ultra wealthy entities doesn't scratch the surface in terms of coming up with the kind of money that would be required for giving everyone a livable income...and those goes for both ideas (government/tax sponsored redistribution, and the notion of CEOs making less so their employees can make more is a pipe dream as well)

Fortune 500 2012 - CEO pay vs. our salaries - FORTUNE on CNNMoney.com

For example, Michael Duke makes 17 million per year as the CEO of Wal-Mart...

There are close to 1 million lower income wal-mart employees...how much can one realistically expect to recoup by slashing his pay down to $100k/year and redistributing the rest to the 1 million employees?

 

[HannahT]

You've made a subjective definition of "common good" to include roads and schools and hospitals.

What about people that don't drive on roads? What about people that don't have children to send to school? What about people that aren't sick and rarely (if ever) go to the hospital?

Your argument fails because all taxes require us to give back to society even if we don't participate in the "common good" activity. Its about increasing the well-being of our society as a whole. If people weren't greedy, they would gladly give back money for the common good. The GREED of everyone (not just CEOs) and the rampant individualism of our money-driven society is the problem. "Taxation is evil and illegal!" they yell. All because they want to cling to their money and possessions and don't want to chip in to help their fellow man. Its a cultural problem.

It seems very odd that you call people that don't agree with you 'greedy', but don't think its greedy of you to say why should have I have to pay for schools, roads or hospitals if I rarely use them. What that doesn't sound like its all about me, and I shouldn't have to share in order to contribute to the common good? SURE it does!

You also use the roads if you live on one, walk on the sidewalk, ride a bike on one, or take a bus.

Most people would have a hissie if that hospital wasn't available to them after a car accident, or if they might have cancer.

Majority of people wish to have an educated society, and that is why you pay for schools. Yet, I guess for you keeping them ignorant is a good thing for the common good?

Taxes pay for infrastructure so you can running clean water, and ways to bring electricity into your home, and for waste water to NOT just stay around in your bathroom. You don't use those either?

Majority of the industrialized societies of today are very generous when it comes to charities, and give plenty of money out of their own pockets when disaster strikes. That is called compassion for the common good.

Your statements make no sense when it comes to reality.

Not wishing to work, and having the government give you basic income so you don't have to is greedy. I'm not talking about individuals that clearly need people to look after them. Not one sane person doesn't feel its the moral thing to do to make sure they are taken care of.

Yet, to say that I need a basic income because I breath and live here....and those that do work need to give it to me or they are greedy and have a cultural problem is NUTS!

Everyone has a responsibility to find ways of contributing.

This kind of talk reminds me of young people that live with mom and dad, and want them to stop complaining about supporting them because they don't want to put effort into getting job. I want Uncle Sam to pay for my place to live, food I eat, healthcare that I need, and utilities so I can still have my playstation and netflix.

Yet, somehow that ISN'T a culture problem. Wow.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

It seems very odd that you call people that don't agree with you 'greedy', but don't think its greedy of you to say why should have I have to pay for schools, roads or hospitals if I rarely use them. What that doesn't sound like its all about me, and I shouldn't have to share in order to contribute to the common good? SURE it does!

You also use the roads if you live on one, walk on the sidewalk, ride a bike on one, or take a bus.

Most people would have a hissie if that hospital wasn't available to them after a car accident, or if they might have cancer.

Majority of people wish to have an educated society, and that is why you pay for schools. Yet, I guess for you keeping them ignorant is a good thing for the common good?

Taxes pay for infrastructure so you can running clean water, and ways to bring electricity into your home, and for waste water to NOT just stay around in your bathroom. You don't use those either?

Majority of the industrialized societies of today are very generous when it comes to charities, and give plenty of money out of their own pockets when disaster strikes. That is called compassion for the common good.

Your statements make no sense when it comes to reality.

Not wishing to work, and having the government give you basic income so you don't have to is greedy. I'm not talking about individuals that clearly need people to look after them. Not one sane person doesn't feel its the moral thing to do to make sure they are taken care of.

Yet, to say that I need a basic income because I breath and live here....and those that do work need to give it to me or they are greedy and have a cultural problem is NUTS!

Everyone has a responsibility to find ways of contributing.

This kind of talk reminds me of young people that live with mom and dad, and want them to stop complaining about supporting them because they don't want to put effort into getting job. I want Uncle Sam to pay for my place to live, food I eat, healthcare that I need, and utilities so I can still have my playstation and netflix.

Yet, somehow that ISN'T a culture problem. Wow.

You completely misinterpreted my post. The questions I was asking (what if people don't use roads/hospitals/schools, etc) was to highlight the ridiculousness of the other posters' arguments. And to highlight the subjectivity of "common good".

I fully support higher taxes for better roads, school and hospitals. I would support tax hikes in all income brackets but I would support higher taxes for higher incomes as well. I would encourage everyone to give more actually by their own choice.

Did you know you can actually choose to pay more taxes as a "gift" to the federal government when you file your return?


How many people willingly do this? Very, very few.

Why? Because most people are busy stamping around in a huff about the government taking "their" money which they want to use to buy "stuff". Rather than buying that new flashy car to show your social status, go buy a cheap used car and give the rest to the "common good".

And those that hate taxes then complain about the government being inept. But the reason the government is inept is because it never has enough funds from taxes. Politicians are afraid to mention the words "tax hike" because its political suicide. So the government perpetually does not have enough funds to provide the services that it is trying to give thus making the public more likely to dislike the government for its ineptness and the cycle continues...

The government is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't. Add in a few corrupt politicians and a scandal or two (things which all private organizations, charities and corporations have) and you end up with a society that unfairly hates the government and all that it does.

 

[AztecSDSU]

It seems very odd that you call people that don't agree with you 'greedy', but don't think its greedy of you to say why should have I have to pay for schools, roads or hospitals if I rarely use them. What that doesn't sound like its all about me, and I shouldn't have to share in order to contribute to the common good? SURE it does!

You also use the roads if you live on one, walk on the sidewalk, ride a bike on one, or take a bus.

Most people would have a hissie if that hospital wasn't available to them after a car accident, or if they might have cancer.

Majority of people wish to have an educated society, and that is why you pay for schools. Yet, I guess for you keeping them ignorant is a good thing for the common good?

Taxes pay for infrastructure so you can running clean water, and ways to bring electricity into your home, and for waste water to NOT just stay around in your bathroom. You don't use those either?

Majority of the industrialized societies of today are very generous when it comes to charities, and give plenty of money out of their own pockets when disaster strikes. That is called compassion for the common good.

Your statements make no sense when it comes to reality.

Not wishing to work, and having the government give you basic income so you don't have to is greedy. I'm not talking about individuals that clearly need people to look after them. Not one sane person doesn't feel its the moral thing to do to make sure they are taken care of.

Yet, to say that I need a basic income because I breath and live here....and those that do work need to give it to me or they are greedy and have a cultural problem is NUTS!

Everyone has a responsibility to find ways of contributing.

This kind of talk reminds me of young people that live with mom and dad, and want them to stop complaining about supporting them because they don't want to put effort into getting job. I want Uncle Sam to pay for my place to live, food I eat, healthcare that I need, and utilities so I can still have my playstation and netflix.

Yet, somehow that ISN'T a culture problem. Wow.

I think you're missing his point. If taking money from people for the common good, like taxing the childless for schools, is a worthy goal than it seems to me that establishing a minimum standard of living is an equally worthy goal. Not to mention would go a long towards eradicating the social problems allowing generational poverty has created.

 

[HannahT]

Why? Because most people are busy stamping around in a huff about the government taking "their" money which they want to use to buy "stuff". Rather than buying that new flashy car to show your social status, go buy a cheap used car and give the rest to the "common good".

And those that hate taxes then complain about the government being inept. But the reason the government is inept is because it never has enough funds from taxes. Politicians are afraid to mention the words "tax hike" because its political suicide. So the government perpetually does not have enough funds to provide the services that it is trying to give thus making the public more likely to dislike the government for its ineptness and the cycle continues...

The government is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't. Add in a few corrupt politicians and a scandal or two (things which all private organizations, charities and corporations have) and you end up with a society that unfairly hates the government and all that it does.

I'm sorry I misinterpreted you.

Sadly, I have plenty of friends and family that either have worked for - or retired from government positions. People get frustrated by the waste more than the taxes. Even the employees complain about the screwy way they go about things, and how its not stream lined to be more efficient. Everyone knows it too, but its so darn big its to hard to change. So it doesn't.

For example, this is little but still....my daughter's boyfriend entered the Air Force. While he was there they found out he has some skin condition that wouldn't allow him to stay, but was discharged for medical reasons. It made sense, because due to his condition he couldn't have the small pox vaccine for example (it would kill him). That was just one aspect of it.

So they decide they are going to discharge him, but it takes almost 3 months before he is home. They paid him out the nose for 3 months - after he graduated basic - to answer phones because they didn't know what else to do with him until the paperwork was done. If he wasn't answering the phones he was pretty much doing nothing - because they couldn't find anything for him to do.

So our government paid him for 3 months to hurry up and wait. That's wasteful.

A neighbor here works at the government funded mental hospital. She was hurt on the job by a patient there. She went and got herself care of course, but she is going to 8 months waiting for the government to get her an appt with THEIR doctor - to approve the care the physicians feels she needs. They won't pay for it otherwise, and her wait to be back to work will be longer. Guess what? She is being paid her entire salary this whole time.

8 months and counting....that's wasteful!

I was reading up as to WHY they picked the vendor they did for the healthcare website. They picked this company because of the government regulations that needed to be used - and written into the coding, function, etc. So they had to make it 10 times harder to do, and only one or two vendors were willing to do the job. Of course we all know they failed big time. Red tape costs plenty. What a nightmare having to deal with that JUST to get a website up and going. No doubt they had to pick an company that clearly didn't know what they were doing, because I would guess most places don't want to touch that nightmare with a 10 ft pole!

Why do they not have enough funds? I gave three examples of what is eating the resources up, and that just scratches the surface. You notice each and every election promises are made that change is coming. I'm old, and they have been saying that since I was a teenager. lol no doubt before that, but I wasn't paying much attention being a child and all.

Yet, they claim there is nothing left to cut, nothing to streamline, the cabinet is bare. Please.

That is what is frustrating.

If you have very LARGE inefficient monster that grows bigger by the year? Of course it will cost more to run it. lol they need to get 'green' since they love it so much with their own inner workings! Yet, they won't.

 

[Guy1]

I'm sorry I misinterpreted you.

Sadly, I have plenty of friends and family that either have worked for - or retired from government positions. People get frustrated by the waste more than the taxes. Even the employees complain about the screwy way they go about things, and how its not stream lined to be more efficient[...]

Yet, they claim there is nothing left to cut, nothing to streamline, the cabinet is bare. Please.

That is what is frustrating.

If you have very LARGE inefficient monster that grows bigger by the year? Of course it will cost more to run it. lol they need to get 'green' since they love it so much with their own inner workings! Yet, they won't.

Injecting my own arguments into this, you've touched on one of the ideas behind BI. We have dozens of different government agencies to deal with poverty and homelessness specifically. Not to mention things like corporate welfare and minimum wage, among any number of other laws passed in an attempt to fix these social ills. Can you imagine something more inefficient and massive?

We're spending so much money figuring out how to force people to work, how to make more work to force them to, who to give money to, how much to give, when to stop, etc., that we're better off just giving everyone money in the first place and cutting all these ridiculous programs and regulations. A single program to address all these problems; one so simple, a small child could understand and run it.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I'm sorry I misinterpreted you.

No worries

Sadly, I have plenty of friends and family that either have worked for - or retired from government positions. People get frustrated by the waste more than the taxes. Even the employees complain about the screwy way they go about things, and how its not stream lined to be more efficient. Everyone knows it too, but its so darn big its to hard to change. So it doesn't.

For example, this is little but still....my daughter's boyfriend entered the Air Force. While he was there they found out he has some skin condition that wouldn't allow him to stay, but was discharged for medical reasons. It made sense, because due to his condition he couldn't have the small pox vaccine for example (it would kill him). That was just one aspect of it.

So they decide they are going to discharge him, but it takes almost 3 months before he is home. They paid him out the nose for 3 months - after he graduated basic - to answer phones because they didn't know what else to do with him until the paperwork was done. If he wasn't answering the phones he was pretty much doing nothing - because they couldn't find anything for him to do.

So our government paid him for 3 months to hurry up and wait. That's wasteful.

A neighbor here works at the government funded mental hospital. She was hurt on the job by a patient there. She went and got herself care of course, but she is going to 8 months waiting for the government to get her an appt with THEIR doctor - to approve the care the physicians feels she needs. They won't pay for it otherwise, and her wait to be back to work will be longer. Guess what? She is being paid her entire salary this whole time.

8 months and counting....that's wasteful!

I was reading up as to WHY they picked the vendor they did for the healthcare website. They picked this company because of the government regulations that needed to be used - and written into the coding, function, etc. So they had to make it 10 times harder to do, and only one or two vendors were willing to do the job. Of course we all know they failed big time. Red tape costs plenty. What a nightmare having to deal with that JUST to get a website up and going. No doubt they had to pick an company that clearly didn't know what they were doing, because I would guess most places don't want to touch that nightmare with a 10 ft pole!

Why do they not have enough funds? I gave three examples of what is eating the resources up, and that just scratches the surface. You notice each and every election promises are made that change is coming. I'm old, and they have been saying that since I was a teenager. lol no doubt before that, but I wasn't paying much attention being a child and all.

Yet, they claim there is nothing left to cut, nothing to streamline, the cabinet is bare. Please.

That is what is frustrating.

If you have very LARGE inefficient monster that grows bigger by the year? Of course it will cost more to run it. lol they need to get 'green' since they love it so much with their own inner workings! Yet, they won't.

Do you have a solution?

Do you have a better method?

Governments are huge organizations and the larger an organization, the more inefficiencies will be present. Large private corporations also have huge inefficiencies present. It is really difficult to measure how inefficient an organization is.

But what would you have the government do? If it seriously downsized it would have to lay off thousands of people and it would get blasted for putting people out of work. And then it would get blasted for not providing services and for cutting programs that people deem as valuable. And it would get blasted for failing to look out for the populace.


One of the biggest problem with democracy right now though: even if citizens do come up with a better way, how would we ever implement it? How do we get our politicians and leaders to listen to us: the people?