Would only take 2-3 months for retailers to start jacking up prices of goods to compensate.
Instead of asking the government to give you your money back in the form of an entitlement program, doesn't it make more sense to advocate they stop taking it from you to begin with?
These estimates are based on a universal basic income paid for by increasing the federal deficit. As part of the study, the researchers also calculated the effect to the economy of paying for the cash handouts by increasing taxes. In that case, there were would be no net benefit to the economy, the report finds.
These estimates are based on a universal basic income paid for by increasing the federal deficit. As part of the study, the researchers also calculated the effect to the economy of paying for the cash handouts by increasing taxes. In that case, there were would be no net benefit to the economy, the report finds.
This is a pretty important part of the study and a good example of why its results don't mean very much.
I support a universal basic income, but not implemented like this.
Instead of asking the government to give you your money back in the form of an entitlement program, doesn't it make more sense to advocate they stop taking it from you to begin with?
I think I could get behind that,wolfy42. Something needs to be done about prisons for sure.
The biggest problem is people getting irate about socialism or perceived unfairness. Lots of people would rather have a worse economy or less money personally just to spite lazy people.
Would only take 2-3 months for retailers to start jacking up prices of goods to compensate.
Judgmenl posted...
Would only take 2-3 months for retailers to start jacking up prices of goods to compensate.
compensate for what?
A $1,000 cash handout to all adults would grow the economy by 12.56 percent after eight years, the study finds. Current Congressional Budget Office estimates put the GDP at $19.8 trillion. The cash handout would therefore increase the GDP by $2.48 trillion. ( Vox first did this extrapolation in their coverage of the report, and Steinbaum confirmed the accuracy of the extrapolation to CNBC Make It by email .)
Honestly, at the very least it would knock property crime rates down into the dirt. That alone makes it worthwhile. Less victims, less bloat to the criminal justice system. I'm not against it in practice, as long as everybody gets the money and not just poor people.
Instead of asking the government to give you your money back in the form of an entitlement program, doesn't it make more sense to advocate they stop taking it from you to begin with?
These estimates are based on a universal basic income paid for by increasing the federal deficit. As part of the study, the researchers also calculated the effect to the economy of paying for the cash handouts by increasing taxes. In that case, there were would be no net benefit to the economy, the report finds.
This is a pretty important part of the study and a good example of why its results don't mean very much.
I support a universal basic income, but not implemented like this.
Because really, do anyone really think having an extra $1000 a month would drastically change one's lifestyle? If anything, less stuff/goods would be wasted...
You would be amazed how much Fast Food/Groceries/OverStocked Clothing gets thrown in the dumpster every day.
The biggest problem is people getting irate about socialism or perceived unfairness. Lots of people would rather have a worse economy or less money personally just to spite lazy people.
Instead of asking the government to give you your money back in the form of an entitlement program, doesn't it make more sense to advocate they stop taking it from you to begin with?
TheCyborgNinja posted...
The biggest problem is people getting irate about socialism or perceived unfairness. Lots of people would rather have a worse economy or less money personally just to spite lazy people.
Not true. I'd love it if we had no wealth but that's only valid in theory but impossible to execute due to human nature.
JOExHIGASHI posted...
Judgmenl posted...
Would only take 2-3 months for retailers to start jacking up prices of goods to compensate.
compensate for what?
Everyone has more money to spend!
Large scale economics is very difficult to understand, and none of us know anything about it really. In these cases, I find it best to defer to those who have spent their entire lives studying the issue.
The biggest problem is people getting irate about socialism or perceived unfairness. Lots of people would rather have a worse economy or less money personally just to spite lazy people.
Some sort of basic income is a necessity in the transition from capitalism in a fully automated society. If we stick to the status quo, things are going to get really really ugly when unemployment is 90%
KarsUltimate posted...
I think I could get behind that,wolfy42. Something needs to be done about prisons for sure.
Prisons are a nightmare on every level at this point. We are heading towards 40k per person per year now (average, more in some places less in others), and what is worse, that is lost money (IE, not put into circulation, taxed etc).
You could give 10k a year to 4 people, for every person in prison right now. That would all be taxable (over the base deductions) and the money would be spent on things (That are in turn taxed etc) and bolster the economy.
So basically if the take the inmate out (still giving him $10k as well though), that is 3 more people that can get $10k a year.
Obviously not all inmates could be released, but if only the really dangerous ones where kept (and even they where put into a prison that let them generate income, produce...since they wouldn't be as crowded anymore), you could seriously make things way better for everyone.
No reason prisons (if you have far less inmates) can't actually generate income and even pay for themselves mostly. You just can't do it with the massive populations we have in this country.
Judgmenl posted...
Would only take 2-3 months for retailers to start jacking up prices of goods to compensate.
compensate for what?
Zeus posted...
BeerOnTap posted...
Instead of asking the government to give you your money back in the form of an entitlement program, doesn't it make more sense to advocate they stop taking it from you to begin with?
It's even worse since any giveback would be accompanied by raised taxes so workers would see little to none of that money back. In general, the problem with these plans is that the advocates stupidly believe that an extension cord plugged into itself can generate power. In reality, the thing needs to be plugged into an actual power source.
...
You read r/libertarian, don't you?
This guy. I like this guy.
Yes, a stimulus can only hurt the economy :L
This kind of a stimulus can. More importantly, when stimulus plans balloon the national debt, taxes are higher in the long-term which hurts workers.
When people can afford to spend more, prices seem to go up. The system is kinda weird like that...
I think I could get behind that,wolfy42. Something needs to be done about prisons for sure.
this sounds like it would completely decimate the economy
When the state owns everything and almost everything is automated, sure, *maybe* UBI will make sense.
However, it's worth noting that not everything will be automated and there will likely always be jobs for people because major labor market shifts bring new opportunities.
That's because it undoubtedly would.
Stealing money from earners to redistribute has never had positive results, and only serves to remove incentive and stifle innovation.
And don't forget, the government puts its bloated hand into the pot along the way.
They're really good stewards of our money:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
In general, the problem with these plans is that the advocates stupidly believe that an extension cord plugged into itself can generate power. In reality, the thing needs to be plugged into an actual power source.
The future really holds three possibilities:
1. Near-total automation requires a minimum guaranteed income to maintain order.
2. Near-total automation without compensation leads to massive civil unrest and collapse.
3. The rise of the machines gives humanity renewed focus.
TheCyborgNinja posted...
The future really holds three possibilities:
1. Near-total automation requires a minimum guaranteed income to maintain order.
2. Near-total automation without compensation leads to massive civil unrest and collapse.
3. The rise of the machines gives humanity renewed focus.
4. Artificial super-intelligence supplants humanity entirely.
5. We just ban automation. We're almost stupid enough to do it, too.
It sorta goes without saying that there can't be a net benefit.
How about we just stop taxing ourselves twice?
We shouldn't pay taxes on income and then pay taxes on items with the money that was already taxed.
How about we just stop taxing ourselves twice?
We shouldn't pay taxes on income and then pay taxes on items with the money that was already taxed.
Instead of asking the government to give you your money back in the form of an entitlement program, doesn't it make more sense to advocate they stop taking it from you to begin with?
SmokeMassTree posted...
How about we just stop taxing ourselves twice?
We shouldn't pay taxes on income and then pay taxes on items with the money that was already taxed.
You tax both so you don't have foreigners and thieves not paying tax or citizens importing all their goods.
Paying every adult $1000 a month adds up to $3 trillion a year. The current entire federal budget is about $3.8 trillion.