Guaranteed Annual Income

[Theopolis Q. Hossenffer]

I know that this is a big topic for far left and far right as well. One wants to have everyone to have a minimum annual income and the other wants "You don't work, you don't eat" We all have our ideas on this, me included. I wonder though if anyone has thought of this possibility. What if there was a guaranteed basic income. But instead of in addition to all the current Government public assistants plans there is only one. That is replace Snap, Section 8, unemployment insurance, TANF, SSI Etc. Maybe even Medicaid and the Dreaded Obamacare as well.
Perhaps figure out how much the average folks on assistance get and just give them cash Real Republicans(both of them) will be thrilled because people would decide how to spend their own money on what they think is important. Leftists might not be so thrilled but if incomes were not cut then they would not really be able to bitch. Have to be just enough to barely exist so as not to stifle ambition. Then the government employees and the bureaucracy can be eliminated. Those laid off could just as Ivanka said, "Try Something New" and as was said in the last downturn back in the double naughts "Start their own Business" Or of course, just lay around on the dole. What do you think?

 

[tvstrip]

I thought Yang either campaigned on this or actually implemented it on a small scale? Or at least someone did, but I don't think it went too well.

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

Where are the funds going to come from for this magical solution to all our woes?

 

[gmase]

I don't see a minimum annual income working very well. The money distributed would end up in someone else's hands for a variety of reasons. Cash would be distributed, services and products consumed, and society would still need to provide subsidized healthcare, affordable housing, and food support. I would prefer to continue providing assistance to at least have some comfort the money is generally spent where intended. The fraud we see now in those programs would pale in comparison to what we would see then.

You would see certain industries preying on those who got the checks. Much like payday and short-term lenders do now. Or, entities who provide lump-sum settlements in exchange for the right to the future payments. What happens when the lump-sum payment is exhausted? We are right back where we started. It would dwarf the student loan issue.

I thought Yang either campaigned on this or actually implemented it on a small scale? Or at least someone did, but I don't think it went too well.

Yes. Yang campaigned with it and it flopped.

 

[Theopolis Q. Hossenffer]

Where are the funds going to come from for this magical solution to all our woes?

I don't suggest more funding Ace, just doing something assistance in a different way. As I said, replace the other forms of welfare with just a check(or debit card). Reimagining so to speak how money is spend and hopefully reduce the overhead.

I don't see a minimum annual income working very well. The money distributed would end up in someone else's hands for a variety of reasons. Cash would be distributed, services and products consumed, and society would still need to provide subsidized healthcare, affordable housing, and food support. I would prefer to continue providing assistance to at least have some comfort the money is generally spent where intended. The fraud we see now in those programs would pale in comparison to what we would see then.

You would see certain industries preying on those who got the checks. Much like payday and short-term lenders do now. Or, entities who provide lump-sum settlements in exchange for the right to the future payments. What happens when the lump-sum payment is exhausted? We are right back where we started. It would dwarf the student loan issue.


Yes. Yang campaigned with it and it flopped.

Why? Remember, replacement not addition. And learning to handle your own life is (in addition to a Republican mantra) is what we are supposed to do. How did the America survive before the 1930's? No welfare, no Social Security, no government housing. People banded together in families, neighborhoods, whatever and took care of one another. Lots of things wrong with the bad old days I admit but finding out your Neighbor was a human being wasn't one of them.

 

[gmase]

Why? Remember, replacement not addition. And learning to handle your own life is (in addition to a Republican mantra) is what we are supposed to do. How did the America survive before the 1930's? No welfare, no Social Security, no government housing. People banded together in families, neighborhoods, whatever and took care of one another. Lots of things wrong with the bad old days I admit but finding out your Neighbor was a human being wasn't one of them.

I understand your theory about replacing the current social programs. Interesting, but It is not workable. Person A gets $2,000. Guess how much their rent will be? Their payment will go to a landlord. Then, there won't be anything left for groceries, healthcare, or childcare. People making $75k per annum with high-deductible health plans have a problem paying the deductibles. I cannot imagine how someone getting the hypothetical $24k per annum would have anything for healthcare. My preference would be to just give them healthcare. Give a meth addict $2,000, guess where it goes?

Call me cynical.

 

[Theopolis Q. Hossenffer]

Call me cynical. Ok. That said, the healthcare cost to the government is a whole lot more than $2000 per month. Remember this plan is to be a supplement, just like the other stuff now handed but in cash to the citizen. This is not supposed to be a total income, a helping hand so to speak. The main goal would be to get rid of the extremely large probably overpaid and over benefited bureaucracy that runs it. Just an idea that will never be tried. I wanted to talk about something else besides the Trumpisas and Antifas anyway,.