LogFAQs > #953945264

streamofthesky posted...

Yes.
That's called UBI, and we should fucking do it. first we need to tax corporations to pay for it, shift from the current employment based taxation (payroll tax, income tax, social security tax, etc...) to one based on taxing companies for point of sale transactions (sell to an American, you eat our tax even if "my HQ is in Ireland, lulz").
Then taxes cease to discourage hiring people and even if we went full automation, we'd have the corporate taxes to pay for the safety net.

Hilariously, now the far left seem to think UBI is a right wing Milton Friedman idea and don't like that it replaces all the existing social programs, saying Yang's plan will be less benefits than unemployment, SNAP, "Earned" Income Tax Credit, etc...

But yeah, UBI encourages people to work since you get it whether you have a job or not. Unemployment when it's generous encourages people to not work.

I'm more for you only getting UBI if you work, even if it's only a small amount, it's a suppliment to wages you earn, not enough to just flat live on, at least until there are not enough jobs for every american to work 2 days or more a week (and there certainly are enough jobs for that right now).

I'm against NOT WORKING just because you can't do certain jobs. Can you talk on a phone? Then you can work, wait times to talk to a person, for instance about your passport, are insane (like 5+ hours). How many "disabled" people getting money for nothing could actually be answering phones and drop that down to a 5 minute wait instead of a 5 hour wait?

Yeah, if your totally disabled, can't move, can't talk on a phone etc, that is fine, but I would suggest that most people who are on disability COULD do jobs even if it was only working from home/answering phone calls etc.

Same with parents with kids, work at a child care facility, where you can both watch your child, and other children, so other parents can work other jobs.

I don't believe in giving out free money as long as any Americans are having to work, it's not fair. Why should some have to work extra hard/long, so others get to do absolutely nothing?

IF you can work, you should work.

But you shouldn't have to spend your whole life working anymore. Even if you only work 2 days a week, I propose a "living wage" plan that suppliments income up to a certain amount (it's based on the hours you work mind you, so there is incentive to work more, but caps at 30 hours a week or something like that).

Basically you can still deal with minimum wages etc, but you get a supplimental income of $10/hr you work per week up to 30 hours.

Min wage (and hopefully all wageS) would still get bumped, probably to something like $15/hr)...which means if you work 30 hours a week, you would actually be netting $25/hr, or $750 a week, and that would be the bare minimum you could get paid for that amount of time.

Basically it's a universal basic wage per hour (Based on the theory that each human beings time is worth a bare minimum amount per hour).

The taxes come from corporations/money that is gained by automizing many current positions etc. The government can even help companies get this automated etc, but there is a tax for that after a companies automates (that tax goes towards paying the UBW).

Net result, companies pay less as they don't pay employees anymore (or far less), citizens need to work less as there are less jobs (but still plenty for everyone to work at least 2 days a week), and citizens each make enough money to live on, even if they do only work 2 days (or 16 hours) a week.

16 hours *25$ is about $1600 a month....it would be a bit tight to live on that in some places, but over all it could work. Anyone working 24 hours or more though would be able to live comfortable almost anywhere in this country.


---

Tacobot 3000 "Saving the world from not having tacos."
Friends don't make their friends die Hanz. Psychopathic friends do.