Survey: Roughly half of Americans in favor of UBI welfare

[Swordsmyth]

What about the lifetime of theft committed against people near or at retirement age? Doesn't that count for anything?

Suppose there's 2 people, John and Fred who are 65. John works his entire life and saves about a half million for retirement. He would've saved a million except he had 500k stolen at gunpoint by the government, supposedly for his retirement. Fred is in and out of prison for child molesting and has been on welfare his entire life so he has no retirement savings and since he has never had a job he's never had his income stolen for retirement. Now suppose we want to cut back spending on SS. There's 2 basic ways to do it. We can reduce the benefits across the board so that both John the hard worker and Fred the child molester, both get their benefits reduced equally. Or we can just cut John off completely and keep his stolen money, while maintain the same payment to Fred. So now Fred, the child molestor gets rewarded with a salary equal to or probably exceeding hard working John's salary. Do you not see the moral problem with this? This is what you are supporting.

Victims of theft don't have a right to steal from others to recover their loses, I'm sorry for their loss but if they can't recover their money from the perpetrators it is their problem. (especially those who voted for the culprits)
I want to stop handing out stolen money to anybody but due to the "throwing little old ladies out on the street" factor the closest we can get is a phase-out plus means testing.

The military is a benefit to everyone(general welfare), so the theft required to support it is not nearly as bad as income redistribution. You could also make the argument that forced retirement savings is a general benefit. You CAN'T make that argument about a communistic means testing retirement program.

This isn't about "general welfare", this is about preventing theft, a military is required to prevent foreign theft but forced retirement savings is theft in and of itself and it is an invitation to the greater theft of stealing the funds and bankrupting the system. (which is what has happened)

 

[oyarde]

Plymouth Colony Basic Needs Socialism Experiment.

But I'm sure if clever man updates it with some electronic gizmos and a bunch of firepower on a national and global stage to promote it, it'll rock.
/s

EDIT:
The Great Thanksgiving Hoax 11/27/2014 Richard J. Maybury

https://mises.org/library/great-thanksgiving-hoax-1

typical americans

 

[Madison320]

Victims of theft don't have a right to steal from others to recover their loses, I'm sorry for their loss but if they can't recover their money from the perpetrators it is their problem. (especially those who voted for the culprits)
I want to stop handing out stolen money to anybody but due to the "throwing little old ladies out on the street" factor the closest we can get is a phase-out plus means testing.

So according to your logic the government can never compensate anyone because they'd be using stolen money. What if the military is testing a missile and it lands on your house? If you're consistent you'd have to say no, they can't be compensated. That would be theft.

What about means testing prepaid college tuition? What if your kids are ready to go to a university, that you already paid for 10 years ago, and they say "nope, sorry, we're cutting costs. Only familes with incomes under 20K can get that tuition. You have to pay the full amount. We can't give you stolen money."

How about if we means test every govt benefit? Poor people can get into parks for free. Everyone else has to pay $100. Roads are a benefit. Poor people get their license for free, plus free driving lessons. Everyone else has to pay $5,000.

It's not as simple as reducing the net amount of theft. There are many other variables. Reducing SS payments across the board is light years more moral than the communist, means testing method.

Also if you means test SS guess what? Now you've created a moral hazard for anyone contemplating saving for retirement. Who's going to want to save when the people that don't save get rewarded and you don't?


Also it's ironic that you called UBI "communist" in this thread, while supporting means testing. Means testing is far more communist than UBI. Means testing enables equal outcomes for unequal inputs. UBI never does. Not that I support UBI but it'll never result in equal outcomes for equal inputs because everyone gets the same amount whether you work or not.

 

[Swordsmyth]

So according to your logic the government can never compensate anyone because they'd be using stolen money. What if the military is testing a missile and it lands on your house? If you're consistent you'd have to say no, they can't be compensated. That would be theft.

The compensation money should come from the military's budget and should leave them with less money to spend. (the military budget is a legitimate government function and they caused the damage, SS is an extra tax for an illegitimate government function)

What about means testing prepaid college tuition? What if your kids are ready to go to a university, that you already paid for 10 years ago, and they say "nope, sorry, we're cutting costs. Only familes with incomes under 20K can get that tuition. You have to pay the full amount. We can't give you stolen money."

Not taking money from someone because they already paid for a service is not the same as giving people money that must be taken from somebody else.

How about if we means test every govt benefit? Poor people can get into parks for free. Everyone else has to pay $100. Roads are a benefit. Poor people get their license for free, plus free driving lessons. Everyone else has to pay $5,000.

Adding new fees is not the same as stopping stealing from one group of people to give to another.

It's not as simple as reducing the net amount of theft. There are many other variables. Reducing SS payments across the board is light years more moral than the communist, means testing method.

Social Security is communist, anything that reduces it's size while moving it towards extinction is less communist, if I were proposing means testing without ending SS that would be more communist but I never called for that.

Also if you means test SS guess what? Now you've created a moral hazard for anyone contemplating saving for retirement. Who's going to want to save when the people that don't save get rewarded and you don't?

Not if nobody new is going to get any SS payments.

Also it's ironic that you called UBI "communist" in this thread, while supporting means testing. Means testing is far more communist than UBI. Means testing enables equal outcomes for unequal inputs. UBI never does. Not that I support UBI but it'll never result in equal outcomes for equal inputs because everyone gets the same amount whether you work or not.

Getting the same amount whether you work or not IS equal outcomes for unequal inputs.
Also I don't support means testing in government except as part of a process to eliminate programs like SS because it is unfair but it is more unfair to continue stealing from everybody to give money to people who aren't even going to be "thrown out on the street".

 

[Madison320]

Not taking money from someone because they already paid for a service is not the same as giving people money that must be taken from somebody else.

Where does the money come from to pay for the tuition?

 

[Swordsmyth]

Where does the money come from to pay for the tuition?

Nowhere, no new tuition payments are made.

 

[Madison320]

Nowhere, no new tuition payments are made.

???

1. Citizens prepay for retirement = Parents prepay for college tuition

2. In both cases governments spend the money.

3. Government pays for retirement with new taxes (stolen money) = Government pays for tuition with new taxes (stolen money)

So according to your logic the government should cancel retirement payments and make the citizen pay = the government should cancel tuition payments and make the parents pay. So in either case you get screwed and have to pay twice.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

I for one am astounded that people who are told that they have the right to vote themselves their neighbors' wealth, do so..

...

..

.

 

[Swordsmyth]

???

1. Citizens prepay for retirement = Parents prepay for college tuition

2. In both cases governments spend the money.

3. Government pays for retirement with new taxes (stolen money) = Government pays for tuition with new taxes (stolen money)

So according to your logic the government should cancel retirement payments and make the citizen pay = the government should cancel tuition payments and make the parents pay. So in either case you get screwed and have to pay twice.

Are we talking about a government managed fund to pay tuition at private colleges?
That is the only way your comment makes sense, if the tuition was prepaid to the government to go to a government school then no new tuition needs to be paid, the government must simply allow the student to attend sans tuition.

If we are talking about a government managed fund to pay tuition at private colleges then I would say exactly what I am saying about SS: END THE PROGRAM AND STOP PAYING OUT MONEY TO ANYONE WHO ISN'T GOING TO STARVE.

 

[Madison320]

Are we talking about a government managed fund to pay tuition at private colleges?
That is the only way your comment makes sense, if the tuition was prepaid to the government to go to a government school then no new tuition needs to be paid, the government must simply allow the student to attend sans tuition.

If we are talking about a government managed fund to pay tuition at private colleges then I would say exactly what I am saying about SS: END THE PROGRAM AND STOP PAYING OUT MONEY TO ANYONE WHO ISN'T GOING TO STARVE.

I'm not sure it matters but I was assuming a government university. Anyway you're simply wrong. It costs money for a student to attend a university. You have to pay for the teacher's fees, buildings, etc, etc. That money would have to come from new taxes.

 

[Swordsmyth]

I'm not sure it matters but I was assuming a government university. Anyway you're simply wrong. It costs money for a student to attend a university. You have to pay for the teacher's fees, buildings, etc, etc. That money would have to come from new taxes.

Taxes that were already collected and budgeted, the government need only allow the student to attend sans tuition and then reduce the budget for the college (or wherever the money was diverted).

 

[Madison320]

Taxes that were already collected and budgeted, the government need only allow the student to attend sans tuition and then reduce the budget for the college (or wherever the money was diverted).

For your sake I hope you're just messing with me.

 

[Swordsmyth]

For your sake I hope you're just messing with me.

I would say the same to you, spreading the theft around is a bad idea, we can't afford SS payments and they are fundamentally wrong, we need to eliminate the program as much and as fast as we can if the economy is to be saved.

Government has stolen too much from too many in too many ways to even consider using government to repay those who have been stolen from.

If the world ever gets too far out of balance we may have to track down the oligarchs and take their stolen wealth from them and redistribute it to the public they and their ancestors have stolen from, BUT THAT IS TO BE AVOIDED AT ALL COSTS SINCE THE PRECEDENT IT SETS IS TRULY UNTHINKABLE.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Ideally, any welfare program (such as social security) would be immediately abolished, and the victims fully compensated, as with any other criminal enterprise. Unfortunately, when the tortfeasor is the state, which has no property other than what it steals on a periodic basis (taxes), compensation would not be just (it would require the robbery of further victims to compensate the previous victims). HOWEVER, if we are going to assume that the welfare program will continue, as apparently it will, it would be sensible to least penalize those who've already been victimized the most: i.e. to cut the least the benefits of those who've already paid the most in taxes. The overarching goal has to be to minimize future robbery, period, but if there are multiple methods of accomplishing that, which are otherwise equal, it makes sense to choose the method which least harms those who've already been most harmed. So, for instance, "means testing" is inferior to an across the board cut in benefits.

 

[Madison320]

Ideally, any welfare program (such as social security) would be immediately abolished, and the victims fully compensated, as with any other criminal enterprise. Unfortunately, when the tortfeasor is the state, which has no property other than what it steals on a periodic basis (taxes), compensation would not be just (it would require the robbery of further victims to compensate the previous victims). HOWEVER, if we are going to assume that the welfare program will continue, as apparently it will, it would be sensible to least penalize those who've already been victimized the most: i.e. to cut the least the benefits of those who've already paid the most in taxes. The overarching goal has to be to minimize future robbery, period, but if there are multiple methods of accomplishing that, which are otherwise equal, it makes sense to choose the method which least harms those who've already been most harmed. So, for instance, "means testing" is inferior to an across the board cut in benefits.

I agree. My point is not that people have some sort of "absolute right" to social security, since they were previously robbed. But it should be factored in. And if your goal is to eliminate social security and encourage saving for retirement, means testing will backfire since it rewards NOT saving for retirement.

Like I said earlier, I think the best plan is to gradually reduce the benefits and gradually reduce the amount taken.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Finland's basic income trial falls flat

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43866700

By Laurence Peter
BBC News
23 April 2018
Euro notes, file picImage copyrightGETTY IMAGES
The Finnish government has decided not to expand a limited trial in paying people a basic income, which has drawn much international interest.
Currently 2,000 unemployed Finns are receiving a flat monthly payment of €560 (£490; $685) as basic income.
"The eagerness of the government is evaporating. They rejected extra funding [for it]," said Olli Kangas, one of the experiment's designers.
Some see basic income as a way to get unemployed people into temporary jobs.
The argument is that, if paid universally, basic income would provide a guaranteed safety net. That would help to address insecurities associated with the "gig" economy, where workers do not have staff contracts.
Supporters say basic income would boost mobility in the labour market as people would still have an income between jobs.
Finland's two-year pilot scheme started in January 2017, making it the first European country to test an unconditional basic income. The 2,000 participants - all unemployed - were chosen randomly.
But it will not be extended after this year, as the government is now examining other schemes for reforming the Finnish social security system.
"I'm a little disappointed that the government decided not to expand it," said Prof Kangas, a researcher at the Social Insurance Institution (Kela), a Finnish government agency.
Speaking to the BBC from Turku, he said the government had turned down Kela's request for €40-70m extra to fund basic income for a group of employed Finns, instead of limiting the experiment to 2,000 unemployed people.

 

[ChaosControl]

If automation increases enough youd pretty much have to have UBI. Either that or cut what is considered full time employment in half or something in order for there to even be enough jobs available and those jobs in turn would need to significantly increase pay.

And yes UBI could eliminate social security, food stamps, tax credits, etc. Do not see how it coulf cut medicare since that is medical insurance and different in cost based on the person. UBI wouldnt be tax free. Itd push everyones income up some so most likely everyone's tax burden would go up some extent. That is how it would be phased out. And yeah a tax on monopolies and companies benefitting the most from automation could offset the rest. I am pretty sure we will see it eventually. More of a when than an if. Unfortunately I see it being implemented very poorly just like all government systems.

Edit: Finlands trial seems odd. Unemployed only and a rather small amount. And they wont even publish the results until next year. Seems like it was more of just an unemployment welfare test than anything.