Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: $1000 for everyone - Unconditional Basic Income

Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 11, 2011, 4:53 p.m. EST by ubi (6)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Basic income is a particular form of guaranteed minimum income, which gives all people access to some income irrespective of their current work performance or their past work performance. A guaranteed minimum income in this sense is something which has existed in several European countries for a number of years, but basic income differs from the existing guaranteed minimum income along three dimensions: first, basic income is strictly individual, given to all people on an individual basis irrespective of their household situation; second, it is given to all irrespective of income from other sources (labor income or capital income); third, basic income is not subject to whether people are willing to work or not. It is not restricted to the involuntarily unemployed, but would be paid to everyone, including people who choose not to engage in paid work (for example, housewives, househusbands, volunteers, students, and tramps).

Funding solutions could involve a combination of the following:

  • Income taxes
  • Sales taxes
  • Capital gains taxes
  • Inheritance taxes
  • Wealth taxes, e.g. property tax
  • Luxury taxes
  • Elimination of current income support programs and tax deductions
  • Pollution taxes
  • Profit accrued from state-owned enterprises
  • A National Mutual Fund
  • Lottery / gambling taxes



Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by armchairecon1 (169) 12 years ago

Awesome plan. You should run for president

[-] 3 points by newearthorder (295) 12 years ago

Do you know how the 'Punk Rock' scene started? It began in England when they started a scheme where everyone who say they couldn't find a job would get a check for minimum subsistence. It wasn't much, many shared housing,...see the 1980's classic 'The Young Ones'...probably on youtube.com

To be assured that one couldn't get a job they would dye their hair different colors, wear metal on their faces, and get lots of tattoos.

For instance,..the band UB40 was named after the form Englanders filled out to collect these 'Unemployment Benefits'.

It was tried here in the 1960's but didn't make it out of a very liberal congress.

On one hand, no one should starve or freeze.

On the other hand...work should always be better & more desirable than not work.

[-] 1 points by michael4ows (224) from Mountain View, CA 12 years ago

Cool... I did not know that UB40's name was based in that... Unemployment Benefit, Form 40 :)

As for the free money... dont see how that can work really. If it's enough money to live on, nobody will bother to do any work, but then there won't be any source of money... so it falls apart.

[-] 1 points by fooligan (30) 12 years ago

People would still work. If they wanted luxuries in life and because people like to work but they would be free to choose the sort of jobs they do, possibly for the value the work creates possibly for the environmental benefits the work creates. And if the money was raised by a % tax every time money was spent, the money would never run out ;-)

[-] 0 points by newearthorder (295) 12 years ago

It was not much,...like, maybe $200 a month in today dollars. Everyone,..we love you Dorothy,..never surrender!

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 12 years ago

"Do you know how the 'Punk Rock' scene started? It began in England when they started a scheme where everyone who say they couldn't find a job would get a check for minimum subsistence. It wasn't much, many shared housing,...see the 1980's classic 'The Young Ones'...probably on youtube.com"

That would seem like fascinating history to punk.

But nothing you said supports it.

UB40, despite being contemporary with the punk movement, were probably the farthest thing from punk there was. They were an early boy band

They didn't even try to dress punk or even rock.

They actually dressed quite suitably for job interviews.

Also, in "The Young Ones", there was only 1 guy that was punk (Vyvyan) and he was going to medical school..

I'm sorry but I'm going to have to rate this theory a False.

[-] 1 points by JonFromSLC (-107) from West Valley City, UT 12 years ago

good post

[-] 0 points by newearthorder (295) 12 years ago


[-] -1 points by newearthorder (295) 12 years ago

UB40 was mostly Ragae as I recall,..their only real hit was 'Red, Red, Wine'. I didn't mean to imply that they were a punk band, only that I'm pretty sure they had a lot of fans that were on the 'dole'.

The point was the scheme produced the punk look, not the sound. Sometimes, the side-effects of monetary policy can be really amazing and historical.

I am not sure if this system is still in place. When I was in High School we had a band and I played, rhythm guitar. The guy who played lead had just moved in across the street. He was from Brighton, England. (The band was awesome),...but, he filled us in on the scene in England. There were no cell phone or internet then, Push-button phones wired to the wall was high-end technology.

He joined the Hare Krishnas and took the bass player with him. They are living in India now.

[-] 2 points by CoExist (178) 12 years ago

We can make this a $1000 for everyone every month starting at the age of 16. And call it a Living Wage Life Fund - LWLF. Soon this can be implemented all over the world.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 12 years ago

A thousand a month? Are you kidding me? I want at the very least $1000 a week. And at that, you better not even think about taxing me.

[-] 2 points by CoExist (178) 12 years ago

Sure why not, $1000 a week it is

[-] 1 points by Daennera (765) from Griffith, IN 12 years ago

No seriously. I want to know where all this magical money is going to come from to fund this. Why my question keeps getting disliked doesn't make any sense. You want to give something away, fine, but before I agree I want to know how you plan on paying for it.

[-] 1 points by tejas (17) 12 years ago

just where do you think this money is going to come from? 43,000 factories have left the U.S.

occupy your state houses, instead, and dissolve The United States of America, Inc. Put it into receivership of The People.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 12 years ago

it won't work because of human nature.

[-] 1 points by Daennera (765) from Griffith, IN 12 years ago

So who's paying for all this?

[-] 1 points by dildo (5) 12 years ago

we deserve $100,000 $1,000 is chump change

[-] 1 points by Commiesrstupid (5) 12 years ago

How about lowering taxes down to 10%, so we don't have the highest taxes on the planet. That might just bring back jobs from other countries with less tax burden.... Oh and maybe decreasing the size of our government so we don't spend more than we take in. Do you think a retailer would increase the prices on their merchandise, to sell more product? NOOOO! They reduce the prices and call it a sale to draw in more commerce!!! This is pretty basic logic.... I don't understand why liberals think that taxing more is the answer. It just doesn't work and has never worked; JIMMY CARTER is a good example of over taxing business. Also drilling in Alaska just might help a little bit. But thats just crazy to drill here, when we can pay other countries to regulate our gas prices! We want higher gas prices so we can make the oil companies [that you libs whine about] richer.

[-] 1 points by fooligan (30) 12 years ago

You must be a very unhappy person. Mind you with a name like yours so would I be. I blame the parents ;-)

[-] 1 points by nichole (525) 12 years ago

Uh, and that will get me through, uh, almost three weeks barring any unforeseen catastrophe. I work, and don't receive fair compensation.

[-] 1 points by Teleboard1 (2) 12 years ago

$1000 for everyone is nothing when you look at how rich some of these fat cats are. Let's take all their money and split it up evenly so it can be FAIR!


[-] 1 points by TH3W01F (180) from Ottawa, ON 12 years ago

This won't work. Even if it came to be, the 1% would find a way to raise the prices on goods and make it so that your 1000$ wouldn't be worth the paper it was printed on!

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 12 years ago

"This won't work. Even if it came to be, the 1% would find a way to raise the prices on goods and make it so that your 1000$ wouldn't be worth the paper it was printed on!"

Well, actually you're right and wrong.

Prices would go up. But not because of some conspiracy from the 1%, but because you'd have more money chasing after the same amount of goods.

However, it would increase aggregate demand, which is exactly how you get out of a recession. As prices will go up and the amount of goods goes down faster, the producers of these goods will need to replenish these goods at a faster rate. This will cause them to demand more workers, decreasing unemployment and thereby decreasing the amount of people that will choose minimum income over employment. Also, the people who are now working are actually paying taxes, so revenues will increase.

[-] 1 points by zoom6000 (430) from St Petersburg, FL 12 years ago

we have long way to copy scandinavan model

[-] 1 points by AMH (123) 12 years ago


Put together enough cooperative corporations with nationwide membership, and we would have an unconditional basic income without government intervention.

[-] 1 points by crashingglobalmarkets (43) from Brick, NJ 12 years ago

Do u even read b4 responding? Its 4 every1 even u whether yer job still hasnt been outsourced or not or even nonworking and even the 1%. Even u could get this bill passed by cronycongress right now

[-] 1 points by crashingglobalmarkets (43) from Brick, NJ 12 years ago

It would stimulate the economy with a infusion of cash thatll end up in some grateful folks tills and its egalitarian ... For all. No downside. Beneficial to 99%. Im for it. Especially with what we are bracing for straight ahead - the greatest global finance crisis ever

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 12 years ago

In all honesty I think that people on unemployment should have to do some work helping the city in someway. Even though a majority of people use unemployment for legitimate reasons, I cannot deny that some people do take advantage of the system. I think requiring some levels of community service would benefit the community as well as the unemployed and it does away with the oppressor's ability to call the unemployed "freeloaders." It's a win for the cities that have unemployment and it's a win for the unemployed who require extended benefits due to a shitty job market.

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 12 years ago

If there are more people then work to do, then why would you make them do something that payed work can accomplish? That seems so counter productive. You put someone in unemployment so they can work for free? So then they not only have no money to spend. They can't even go out to find work because they are to busy working for nothing.

Jobs are will get less and less as technology advances. Forcing people to do pointless jobs is not the solution.

[-] 1 points by Thinkdeer (250) 12 years ago

so you are in favor of a new deal type system. in which people work for the govt until they can find a better position in the private sector?

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 12 years ago

Yeah kind of. I mainly mean they keep their benefits until they find a job. But this implores incentive to work extra hard on finding a job and it helps the city you live in. Hours could vary depending on city and state decisions.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

i think you might check out why there are no chain gangs anymore before you start. if this was feasible then the incarcerated would be made to work for their benefits dont you think?

[-] 1 points by Thinkdeer (250) 12 years ago

Prisoners do work, in 2009 u.s. prison labor produced 2.4 billion annually. A lot of the labor they do go towards producing arms for the military (as I recall should fact check this part). The ridiculous part is the sheer number that are incarcerated for crimes that somebody who was even upper middle class could just pay their way out of, or turn out to be innocent. Sounds a lot like slave labor.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

but they are not forced to work.. they can choose to opt out ..working is not a requirement of incarceration.

[-] 1 points by Thinkdeer (250) 12 years ago

sort of, good behavior increases chance of getting out of prison, work is an example of good behavior. So it is a form of coercion into work, if you don't work you are stuck here longer. Imagine yourself wrongly accused forced into prison you want to get out, choosing to not do labor doesn't seem like an option, does it?

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

still. they are not forced. and they are working for a result.. the 14 million unemployed are never going to back to work ,, this is a mostly permanent shift in the economy so there is no reward waiting at a designated time. most of the unemployed have been unemployed for over a year and many for over 2-3 years.. and the jobs are still being eliminated. although this would be a option when the unemployment runs out.. to force the government to provide employment to those whos jobs have been eliminated permanently.

[-] 1 points by Thinkdeer (250) 12 years ago

I think we can agree to that latter part.

Though I, personally, would like to see a rise in co-operatism and collective businesses as a means for people to provide for each other and themselves independent of the government. Much easier to influence somebody you can see face to face on equal footing.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 12 years ago

The unemployed aren't criminals.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

no but you want to force them to work for the unemployment , its the same principle and the reason we dont have chain gangs.

[-] 1 points by Thinkdeer (250) 12 years ago

I don't know if working for compensation is equivalent to chain gangs. The idea of providing work until people can find better jobs in the private sector doesn't seem all that cruel. Personally I am not a fan of the entire system, but if we are going to aim towards reforming rather than restarting, providing labor to the unemployed doesn't seem so bad.

It should be noted of course that unemployment is a separate issue from welfare for low income single provider households or households in which disability prevents work.

[-] 1 points by ukpoorperson (11) from Owston, England 12 years ago

Forcing people to do work for their benefits takes away real jobs from those who want to work. Be realistic, we all know there are not enough jobs for all of us so let those who want to work have the jobs. I want a job but I cant get one because they've all been taken by people forced into employment and paid only their benefit. What a fucking scam!!!!!.

Also. If I work I expect to see my standard of living improve yet because of this stupid minimum wage my standard of living actualy go's down. An employer takes a healthy profit from his business and has a wonderfull lifestyle, why shouldn't I expect the same for my labour???


[-] 1 points by BrainC (400) from Austin, TX 12 years ago

but wait, why do I keep hearing about Mexicans are doing the jobs that Americans dont want. How does that make sense? You are in the UK, so I am not sure you are aware of this.

So are you in favor of the minimum wage, or against it?

[-] 1 points by ukpoorperson (11) from Owston, England 12 years ago

The minimum wage in the uk is fast becoming the Standard Wage. It's a scam. Why on earth is an employer going to pay more? I am 52 and single and the minimum wage is a lot less than my cost of living and because I'm single I dont qualify for any top ups. That means if I work I WILL go into debt. Had two minimum wage jobs so far and both times took me deeper into debt. That's what minimum wage does for us.

Also. People on minimum wage do not earn enough to pay tax so do not contribute and those who have dependents still have to rely on top up benefits. How on earth is this going to help the country???


[-] 1 points by BrainC (400) from Austin, TX 12 years ago

I am still not clear. Do you support the minimum wage, yet want it to be raised?

Just out of curiosity, at 52, do you have any marketable skills tat would command a higher than minimum wage salary?

[-] 1 points by ukpoorperson (11) from Owston, England 12 years ago

Maybe you didn't see my edit? :-)

People on minimum wage do not earn enough to pay tax so do not contribute and those who have dependents still have to rely on top up benefits. How on earth is this going to help the country???

Been a driver (HGV) most of my life. Used to be well paid until they allowed the polish (nothing against them, I'd do the same) in and they are more than happy to work for LESS than the minimum wage. They sleep rough or ten of them will share a small bed sit. Living that way allows them to work for less.

You ask if I think the minimum wage should be raised. Well if we're going to have a minimum wage surely it should enable me to live without debt. And surely it should allow me to save if I'm careful. Would you agree?

I think it would be pointless raising it because the cost of living would follow it.


[-] 1 points by BrainC (400) from Austin, TX 12 years ago

good answer. I agree, if the minimum wage is raised, so does the cost of living.

Sorry to hear you are having a hard time finding a job. Good luck with that.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 12 years ago

Try making money online. There are a tremendous amount of market inefficiencies online that can be exploited for profit. I put myself through college and graduate school doing just this part time.

[-] 0 points by getajoblosers (65) 12 years ago

Ah yes, let's be as similar to Europe as possible. That will solve everything.

By the way, where do you suppose this $1000 is going to magically appear from? Oh, I forgot, my wallet as usual.

[-] 0 points by raines (699) 12 years ago

Try getting a job, any job . Work is not a dirty word, it's your responsibility to yourself. Ever hear the term "work ethic"?

[-] 0 points by Glaucon (296) 12 years ago

Wouldn't this simply raise the cost of housing since everyone would have $1000 a month? After offer and demand settles and inflation increases, those who do not work and only receive $1000 would not be able to buy much anyhow. No?

[-] 1 points by fooligan (30) 12 years ago

Index link the payment to inflation. Job done ;-)

[-] 0 points by 53percenter (125) 12 years ago

If $1000 is good, why not $100,000?

[-] 1 points by fooligan (30) 12 years ago

The clue is in the title LOL ;-)

[-] 0 points by journey4word (214) 12 years ago

GREAT :) I'm all for it :)

ok, where does the money come from? the profits from solar energy?

[-] 1 points by fooligan (30) 12 years ago

The money could come from a uniform tax on spending. In fact all taxes could be abolished and replaced with this one single tax using the same principle as the fiat money system. The payment could be index linked to inflation and the free market economy could then truly take over the jobs market. It's a basic income. If people want luxuries they have to earn more money, while still keeping all their basic income guarantee. It eliminates poverty overnight, while working with all the economic principles already used by government, business and banks all over the world. It makes absolute economic sense. There is no economic argument against it. The only arguments are ideological and political.;-)

[-] 0 points by journey4word (214) 12 years ago

flat tax. hmnn.

so when I have to spend more each month because I feed and cloth a family of 5. i spend my own money driving to work and not the companys limo. I pay more in electricity and water than old joe banker who has just him and his wife. THEN I am paying nearly 3 times the taxes he is.

[-] 1 points by fooligan (30) 12 years ago

I think you'll find old Joe banker is spending more than you with the wages he's on ;-)

[-] 0 points by journey4word (214) 12 years ago

not me if I were rich :)

I'd hire a butler, my spending on his salary would be employing someone, which would offset the spending cost. included in his salary would be the house food costs. since he does the shopping. since its his job to buy and prepare the food he would get a tax refund on buying my food. cleaning supplys would be my maids business not mine, etccccccc

Flat tax is PUSHED by the RICH. if that doesn't make you a bit suspisious in its self I'm not sure what else to say.

but I'm just going on 40+ years of life experience.

[-] 1 points by fooligan (30) 12 years ago

So he would pay quite a salary to the maid and butler, assuming they would work for him seeing as they now have a basic income guaranteed. And I didn't say flat tax, its an i not and l as in FIAT money system, the way money is created at the moment. And who would said rich person get to buy his house, his boat, and whatever else he spends his money on. If rich people are so keen on a tax on spending, why are they so opposed to the tobin tax? If a basic income guarantee was introduced it would change things in the most profound way possible. The fact the rich don't want it introduced, even though there are no economic arguments against it should make you suspicious should it not ;-) ps I'm 46

[-] 0 points by journey4word (214) 12 years ago

ty for clearing that up.

problem is they don't buy a house, or a boat every day, middle class America is the largest consumer and with the (not your suggested FIAT system but my mistaken content) "Flat tax", That middle class gets stuck with the Largest amount to pay every DAY.

Back to $1,000 a month for every American: Do you believe $1,000 a month per person could be the same as $1,000,000 per month? by that I mean the cost of living would match the increase in capitol.

my company paying an extra $100 a month in taxes, I have to charge $1 more for my product to my 100 customers. you are one of my customers and now you only have $999.00 you spend your money at 30 other places, each has to raise their prices to compensate for this extra tax, and you hand it back to them from your $1000. which is now considerably less if any at all.

I'm sure you have a more elaborate way to describe what I'm getting at but. seems to me if it is $10 a month, $1,000 or $100,000 a month, eventually we would be back where we are now, with Record Inflation

that's the economic argument. as far as I can tell

[-] 1 points by fooligan (30) 12 years ago

Fair point. To be fair, I'm no economist but if the payment was index linked to inflation then then it would eliminate poverty in one fell swoop and everyone would have a basic income while the adjustment took place. The introduction of a spending tax would be compensated by the abolition of income tax, meaning that people have more money in their pockets to pay the increased prices as well. I'm sure this concept would mean a major readjustment, but it would work. A tax on spending is not the only way to fund it either. Here is an academics view. Quite long but worth a read by anyone really interested in the pro basic income guarantee argument. It's not a "socialist" project either, because after funding a basic income with a tax on spending, is let the true free market do the rest, wages, commerce the lot so its pretty right wing really, http://www.docstoc.com/docs/27440196/Funding-a-Basic-Income-Guarantee

[-] 0 points by journey4word (214) 12 years ago

I'm all for it. what the hell. couldn't get any worse right?

and besides, if it fails we can always try something else.

[-] 1 points by fooligan (30) 12 years ago

Absolutely ;-)


[-] 0 points by lecorsaire (25) 12 years ago

Wow you have just created another form of welfare/entitlement. Where is this money going to come from? From the wallets of taxpayers. Are you crazy enough to think this is good idea. People work for money. No one deserves handouts. Getting paid for just being alive. Keep smoking weed my friend.

[-] 2 points by guitarmywin (158) 12 years ago

The word entitlement gets bandied about a lot these days. It is one of THOSE trigger words that is supposed to get your ire up even before you know the issues. For example , why is SS referred to as entitlement when it is a fund that people have paid into all there working lives? I think a more appropriate usage would be when heirs of wealthy parents are entitled to large sums of money they never worked for. If no one deserves handouts then there should be a limit to the amount of money you can bequeath to your children. The oracle from Omaha capped his children's handout.

[-] 1 points by lecorsaire (25) 12 years ago

I actually believe Social Security is a good thing and you do pay for it. Inheriting money is NOT the same thing as a handout. This is privately owned money that is passed down and stays within the family. Or should all property just be taken away and distributed to the public upon death? It is definitely not the same as just giving Joe Schmo money for doing nothing.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

use the Bushes as a analogy of why private money passed down is a bad thing. the Founders wished to get rid of aristocracy. Aristocracy is power based on family wealth. now, we all know that self made men are deserving of their wealth, and i'd even say that those who grew up watching their father struggle to provide for the family are kind and sparingly with their money. But, here is where the problem begins. Bush JR never struggled, never gained humility, and was not understanding of all the people. Bush don't hate poor people, he just doesn't respect them, because he had it too good for too long. and that is why the estate tax should be high. no?

[-] 0 points by 53percenter (125) 12 years ago

Hmm, just like the Kennedy's.

[-] -1 points by lecorsaire (25) 12 years ago

I can only say that he never should have been elected, let alone twice. I blame the rural American people who are just uneducated idiots. We were really the laughing stock of the world once the re-election results came in.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

did you attempt to educate the rural electorate. if not, take some of the blame. we get the government we deserve, not the one we wish.

[-] 0 points by lecorsaire (25) 12 years ago

How would I have been able to do that from NYC as a 15 year old back then? The Internet on dial-up was no where what it is now.

I usually tend to side with the left on most issues and center-right on a select few like immigration and welfare.This is typical for the tri-state area. I really have no control over how much Fox News the rest of the country watches!

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

i speak of you in a metaphorical sense, did those in the know, educate their peers, or did they play off of their peers' fears. i don't know you personally so how could I judge you.

[-] 1 points by lecorsaire (25) 12 years ago

Maybe just a simple 10 question test on the candidates and where they stand on key issues. I think that would go a long way in preventing horrible decision like those in '00 and '04. At least they got it right in '08 which I still can't believe to this day. I just hope they don't fall for the GOP's bs once more and set us back another decade.

[-] 0 points by lecorsaire (25) 12 years ago

They definitely weren't educated about anything relating to what was going on. I feel that you should have to pass a test on relevant political issues before being allowed to vote. It's ridiculous that you have people voting for a guy just because they liked the commercial or because said guy had the most tv time.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

some even say he got elected because of his swagger and inability to articulate. though, I believe that is a little too judgmental. yes, and to be fair, those that don't educate themselves are more to blame, than those who manipulated the message to suit their needs. so, it is the messengers and the audiences' fault for who gets elected. yae, the republic works.

[-] 0 points by lecorsaire (25) 12 years ago

As much as everyone is complaining even at OWS itself, we as Americans have it quite good compared to the rest of the world. Yeah some of us 9%+ might be unemployed but we still have a roof over our head, food, clean water, and working waste management systems. Imagine living in a slum in Dhaka, Bangladesh defecating in the back of your hut and washing yourself and your clothes in filthy, disease infested water. I feel that we all have gotten spoiled by our high standard of living.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

so you want the country to become like bangladesh before you demand change? having it quite good is because we work. the government has encouraged business practices that make sure we dont work. as this continues we get closer to having it like bangladesh. surely you can see where the path leads.

[-] 0 points by 53percenter (125) 12 years ago

Did you mean Bangladesh or Zuccatti Park?

[-] 0 points by lecorsaire (25) 12 years ago

You're right. It bothers me how much shit Obama's been getting the last year. I mean this guy is really doing the best he can balancing the interests of the people and corporate America. Anyone who thinks his job is easy really has no idea. You can't just do what you want. JFK and RFK are solid proof of what happens when you implement too much change in short period of time. Seriously we could've done a lot worse than Obama and we are really not doing that bad considering the state the economy was when Lehman collapsed and w were nearing a financial meltdown. Yes the bail out sucked but it was necessary. There would have been immeasurable damage to the world had all the banks been left to rot. Imagine the chaos and anarchy which would have resulted. The scary thing is we are very close to that possibility again thanks to our Greek friends. Every country is financially connected to each other like never before and you can never know the extent of the damage until its too late.

[-] 1 points by guitarmywin (158) 12 years ago

I guess we could entitlees's Joe Shmoo the third? Frankly I don't see the difference. Certainly there would still be properties bequeathed. Just cap it at some amount based on a formula. Having large amounts of money handed to few may serve to keep them out of touch with the many.

[-] 0 points by lecorsaire (25) 12 years ago

Private property is private and that has to be respected. Who cares that Bush Jr. didn't struggle. His parent's estate belongs to him, and his will belong to his children. Are you telling me that if your parents were wealthy you would refuse your inheritance and donate it for the public good?

I actually believe in no estate tax like in Switzerland, Singapore, and Dubai. You are already taxed on everything that you own, so why should another cut be taken when you pass away? If I ever amass a decent estate you can bet I'll live out my last years in one of those places preferably Zurich.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

that is what the republic is for. to take from the corpse, that which he earned in life and give it back to the republic. stop being selfish.

[-] 0 points by lecorsaire (25) 12 years ago

That's being selfish? My father worked hard his whole life as a doctor accumulating wealth. That will get passed down to my sister and I, and whatever I accumulate will be passed down to my children someday. I could care less about those in need or the "republic". Let them work and amass their own wealth. Everyone has the opportunity to do so. If one chooses to be lazy and wait for things to fall on their lap that's really not my concern.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

and that behavior is the republic's achilles heel.


[-] 0 points by JenLynn (692) 12 years ago

If you're going to give money to people you have to take it from someone else. Not sure you have enough rich people. We could raise taxes on everyone, average person pays about 25% in the US to local, state, and federal governments. Up it to 35 or 36%, like it is in most of Europe and you might be able to do it. Just have to convince voters that we'd be better off if the guys that worked gave away money to people that didn't. Good luck with that, you can't get people to pay for what government does now.

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 12 years ago

The "take it from someone else" argument is just silly really. It's what the government does all the time. Only now they take money (tax) and give it to the rich (banks and the war industry). I don't see how that is right, while when that same money is used to insure everyone of a means of living instead, then it's suddenly bad.

[-] 0 points by SmallBizGuy (378) from Savannah, GA 12 years ago

Hey...free money! Let's make it $1,000,000 a week. Everyone could own a yacht and a mansion. Oops.....who is going to build the yacht and mansion if no one has to work?.....oh...I know....the Mexicans.

Quit thinking so small. Brilliant ideas should be BIG.

[-] 0 points by JonFromSLC (-107) from West Valley City, UT 12 years ago

There is this system... it's called welfare and foodstamps.

[-] 1 points by foreverleft (233) 12 years ago

It's hard work applying for all that shit.

[-] -2 points by JonFromSLC (-107) from West Valley City, UT 12 years ago

Oh no, god forbid you actually have to do something to earn free money. Lazy pieces of crap.

[-] 1 points by madcat (47) 12 years ago

While I do agree that people should definitely have to do a little bit of paper work to prove that they actually are poor and actually have been trying to get a job, well, you could have just said it like that instead of calling them lazy pieces of crap. Not only that, but you would have had a much better chance getting through to this person. Calling them lazy pieces of crap makes him tune out the message you're trying to get through.

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 12 years ago

It's not only that you have to do something for it. But it's also causing a lot of bureaucracy. People having to spend time judging others right to it. That is not a healthy way for society to function. People shouldn't be made to feel more or less then someone else.

A basic income creates equality, giving people the power to focus on things that matter instead of worry about things that don't. I don't think a basic income is enough to fix the problem our world is facing today, but it might be a step in the right direction.

[-] -1 points by lecorsaire (25) 12 years ago

This is why our nation is in the state it is in. Laziness. Walk into any retail store and look at how inefficient and lazy the minorities are. Seriously the only reason black people are not laid off is to prevent some kind of discrimination lawsuit. I have never seen lazier people than them in my life. They take at least 5 minutes per customer to ring up a couple of items which the scanner does for them! All they have to do is collect cash and even that is too much work. In Germany, white Germans do the same jobs they do and they do them fast, efficiently and with good attitudes. Is it any wonder they are still living in the projects with free college educations available to them.

[-] 0 points by FreeMarket (42) from Wichita, KS 12 years ago

My experience is "you get what you incentivize". This is a basic truth of management. If you pay people to not work, less work will be done. Money given to someone who did not earn it, is money taken from someone else who did earn it. You may disagree with how they earned it, but that is another issue.

This plan is just the opposite of what will help the US get out of the current downturn. People should make things and provide services, not lobby for handouts.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

agreed.. and with all the jobs gone.. what are people going to make? and with no jobs,, who is going to pay for any services?

[-] 1 points by FreeMarket (42) from Wichita, KS 12 years ago

No jobs? There is an unlimited amount of work to be done in the world. I don't want to make light of the unemployed. I am very familiar with difficult financial times. But there is always something you can make, or learn to make, always some service you can provide or learn to provide. There is always work to be done.

[-] 2 points by rbe (687) 12 years ago

Lol! Free market believers are so delusional.

[-] 1 points by FreeMarket (42) from Wichita, KS 12 years ago

Help me out here please. Where am I deluded? What have I said that is not true? I am willing to change my beliefs if you will show me where I am wrong.

Thanks for the help.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 12 years ago

First off, let me ask you, how old are you?

[-] 1 points by FreeMarket (42) from Wichita, KS 12 years ago

I am 55 years old.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 12 years ago

I believe that the overall demand for human labor has declined due to automation. It's much cheaper to automate jobs than to deal with inefficient employees, sick employees, pregnant or PMSing employees, and overall complaining employees. Therefore, the unemployment rate is only going to continue to climb as more jobs are automated. The overall state of the economy has given employers more incentive to automate as well, making the situation snowball, so to speak. Adam Smith, when he came up with his theories, didn't imagine that capitalists would eventually be able to eliminate the most costly aspect of running a business: human labor. When less humans are earning money, then less money will be spent on goods and services, which will further the overall collapse of the system.

This is starting to happen all over the world, even in places like China. It's not a bad thing, it's a positive thing, and a sign that capitalism worked in allowing us to create the technology to make our lives easier. Equilibrium hasn't been reached in our society's understanding of the current situation and until it does, we will have lots of problems. We are still, for the most part, operating like we have for the past decades in terms of economic theory.

The reason I asked your age is I've noticed that a lot of people in the baby boomer generation and older, have a hard time letting go of older viewpoints. I do too. I'm not a baby boomer, but I'll be 30 soon, and I have hard time accepting things people 10 years younger than me accept. Our society is changing so fast nowadays, that I think people have a hard time changing ideas.

Here's a few links that explain my views pretty well:




[-] 1 points by FreeMarket (42) from Wichita, KS 12 years ago

No doubt I am slower to change my mind than a younger person. Some things however, do not change.

  1. People have unlimited wants. An individual person may be satisfied with his situation, but people as a whole always want more. Have you known wealthy people? Spending can become a never-ending game. It does not matter how many zeros on you paycheck, there is a way to spend it

  2. Since people have unlimited wants, there will always be work to do to fill those wants. The future where "robots do everything" will never come because there is ALWAYS more to be done. You may not like the work, or the pay, but there will always be work. Learning marketable skills is so important because if you have them, you have more pleasant choices on what work you do.

Run out of work in the world? Until human nature changes, the world can no more run out of work that it can run out of gravity.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 12 years ago

I agree in that I think there will always be more work, but I believe that at least 90% or more of it will be done my machines.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

no you are thinking of street vending.. maybe not literally but in principle. not realistic

[-] 1 points by FreeMarket (42) from Wichita, KS 12 years ago

It is not realistic to learn a skill that will allow you to trade your time for money? I think we may have found the root of the problem.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

not realistic to believe this path will lead to a survival wage. yes you can make kewpie dolls.. and sell them.. but your not gonna pay any carpayments or rent or mortgages withthe proceeds. there are craft fairs everywhere.. most of those people do that as a hobby not to make a living.

[-] 1 points by FreeMarket (42) from Wichita, KS 12 years ago

Agreed. The focus needs to be on things people need, very little of which you will find at a craft fair. I was thinking more on the lines of becoming a certified welder or electrician, learning a healthcare trade, becoming a truck-driver, writing software etc.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

those are the type jobs being eliminated. maybe not software these may have been valid idea back when unemployment was 5% not anymore. learning to do something different, cause you are talking about people who already have a skill or trade, will not bring a job back from overseas even if you get a phd in welding.

[-] 1 points by FreeMarket (42) from Wichita, KS 12 years ago

My examples, and many more jobs were advertised today in the local paper, here in the US.

Finding employment is more competitive than it was a few years ago, it may get harder yet, I can't know. However I stand by my original statement, there is always work that needs to be done.

Many of my friends have lost jobs to outsourcing or the business cycle or some other reason. I do not diminish in any way the hurt or suffering involved in loosing a job, or the emotions involved in taking lesser employment.

When we work, we are trading our time for dollars. We feel valuable because every day someone is willing to pay for our time. When we lose a job, we lose that artificial reinforcement of self worth. When we take a job paying less, we feel like we are worth less as a person because we have less of that reinforcement. It is not true, of course. Compensation may depend on skills or even luck, but worth is determined by character.

The solution is to continue working at SOMETHING and continue improving our skills.

There are actually a few jobs coming back from China. Wages in China, especially on the accessible East coast, are increasing. The "$.50 a day" statements are uninformed. Skilled workers in Beijing often cost between $5.00 and $10.00 per hour. Minimum wage varies by province, but if you want the $200 per month workers, you have to go to the interior were transportation is a problem and the workers have fewer skills.

Unskilled jobs will always go to countries with masses of starving people, and maybe that is not such a bad thing. Each of us need to focus on making ourselves more valuable.

[-] 0 points by 53percenter (125) 12 years ago

Are you out of your mind? Every job FreeMarket listed is in high demand and is increasing. You are just looking for every excuse for not working.

[-] 0 points by lecorsaire (25) 12 years ago

Street vending? How about Zuckerberg and Facebook? Buffett and Berkshire Hathaway? Gates and Microsoft? Jobs and Apple? Lady Gaga? Developers on the App Store? Maybe something as simple as opening a specialty shop? Get off your ass and create something instead of complaining. It costs nothing and the rewards are potentially endless!

[-] 0 points by lecorsaire (25) 12 years ago

There are jobs but the ones you're thinking about are gone because other countries can do them for a hell of a lot less. The jobs that are available are either the ones no one wants to do so Mexicans take them, and the ones where you actually need an education and have to be highly skilled in your field. The average Joe the Plumber is fucked either way. However this was a long time coming so anyone who didn't adapt to this situation deserves what they get:nothing.

[-] -1 points by stevo (314) 12 years ago

Dipshit liberals always come up with crazy ideas like this.

[-] 1 points by buphiloman (840) 12 years ago

and what ideas have conservative intellectual giants like yourself come up with to end income inequality and mass homeless/jobless-ness?

[-] 0 points by 53percenter (125) 12 years ago

It's called a job!