Universal Basic Income

One would hope. As my brother likes to say, the difference between no money and a little money is a lot greater than the difference between some money and a lot of money. Of course, at Bezos level the same could be said about Social Security.

And this is why the system would fail.

Because the politicians would start picking and choosing things. Start attaching all sorts of strings to it.

Everyone has to get it and it has to be the same for everyone. Yeah okay we give it to Jeff Bezos. Does he need it? Hell no. He still needs to get it though. He can donate it to charity. It will still end up in the economy.

And taxes have to change. It's the height of stupidity to give people this money and than put an income tax on it.

Oh wait, now I get it. Lanz works for the biggest welfare division of our government. Cut out the middlemen, and his pointless job goes bye-bye.

What a self-made libertarian!

All of them.

You are truly a special kind of stupid.

Or you're far more pessimistic in the face of what evidence we do have.

Yes, this.

Note that as long as there remains any kind of income tax, the net effect will always be that at a certain level of income, you're not really getting the UBI, because you're outpaying it in your taxes. If income tax remains one of the main sources of government spending, this will be true for most earners. So effectively, most earners will not be receiving UBI. Whether that happens because they never get the payment, or they get it and it's directly taken away again in taxes is mostly a logistical question at that point.

So so far, all empirical evidence contradicts your prediction. I'm assuming that matters as little to your position on the UBI as it does to your position on climate change?

Who needs facts when you already know the truth?

“The difference between the religious fanatic and the political fanatic is merely the source of their fanaticism.” Eric Hoffer.

it amaze me sometimes just how many of "libertarian-forge" makes bank off of government jobs...

We are working on it right now in the US.

How so?

the flaw with this thesis is that 40% or more regularly vote against their own self interest now, and in state like mine it's more 60-70%

It's far too simplistic to assume that because a given politician/party promises "I'll give you more" that they've locked in a constituency.
But let's say for the sake of argument that the GOP did just that - locked in White Evangelicals by promising them all their Domininist goals (abortion, gays, "religious liberty" etc) and also locked in White Nationalist via implicit advancement of their goals....

How exactly is locking in a segment of the population with the promise that "we'll make it easier for you to survive" a more dangerous or ethically questionable pursuit?

Ideally, folk like Bezos would receive UBI but their taxes would be high enough that it's essentially paid back.

Really? You think that people in well paid jobs are going to quit and rely on a much lower payment instead? Does this include you? It certainly doesn't include me.

Seems to me that if large numbers of people would be happier doing less work for less money then we wouldn't see so many seeking out full-time work.

Apparently folks like @Marso would prefer to smash the Fair Labor Standards Act (established in 1938, revised in 1940) and make the peasants work until they drop, because otherwise the "common people" would be shiftless and lazy and won't do a damn thing.

Hell, even that old Nazi sympathizer Henry Ford put his plants on a 40-hour week in 1926.

In @Marso's universe we can put four-year-olds in the mines and factories again so he can convince himself that he's above it all, and not just when he's flying.

Bear in mind this is someone who believes the question of whether someone deserves enough money to live off is a question of market forces.

There is this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_around_the_world#Germany

Take it for what it's worth.

Germany has an awkward relationship with the work ethic and what it can do for you. But I'm not surprised Sean is grabbing onto it, somehow.

Probably because you're only able to relate to people based on the caricature of them you've devised. Rest assured, that's 100% your problem and none of mine.

Frankly, I find the potential upside to UBI very compelling and I'm not entirely convinced of the downside, but some people here are acting like any talk of any possible downside is totally unfounded paranoid raving, which obviously is also not true.

No, you saved me a lot of work there.

The same question came up in the 1960's during Johnson's "War on Poverty" when opponents pointed out that the government might spend less by just giving the money directly to poor people. No solution is going to be 100% effective because some people are no damn good. Personally, I think a basic income guarantee would be a much better way to go, but I'm not kidding myself that it would be perfect. Humans aren't perfect and no system set up by humans is going to be perfect.

Yep, good points all around. These are complex situations and there won't be any perfect solution. The best we can do is strive to continually improve overall in every way we can.

Results of the latest study.

Yes I’d imagine receiving free money would make people happy

I'm intrigued by the possibility of the UBI--Charles Murray gives a pretty decent conservative argument for it--but I'm still inclined to think it's not workable.

Can you post or link Murray's assessment?

Does it involve Mitch McConnell screaming, turning green, melting into a puddle of slime, and evaporating away like in "Heavy Metal"?
Cuz that's what my plan has.
The rest is kinda negotiable after that.
But that first one is a deal breaker.