So-called Basic Income - Stockton, Ca.

[Abraham]

Yep, $500.00 a month - free, no restrictions on use.

Is it per person or family - beats me?

Where does the money come from - beats me?

What's the criteria to qualify for so-called free money - beats me?

Another doomed socialist idea...

Or do you think it a good idea?

[flechero]

It's ludicrous but I'd take it.... and invest it.

[Abraham]

What?

No lottery tickets, crack or what have you?

This experiment will be a dismal failure, but when it goes off the rails, socialists will not mention it...

[philip964]

One of the thoughts is that you take all government welfare type social services and programs and you end them. In theory this leaves you with a lot less government. You then take that money and give everyone man woman and child a check every month. Rich or poor they get a check.

It takes a lot of high priced, large pension, people to manage all these programs for the government. They have buildings they work in. They need phones insurance, computers, pensions, air conditioning, furniture, janitors, cars to drive around in while they manage the services they give to the public.

For every dollar that these programs actually give out to a person in need or a person who knows how to scam the system, how much does the management of the program cost. A dollar, ten dollars, eighty five dollars? Most not for profit charities hover around the 80% range, the Clinton's at the 95% range.

Seems like it would work, except, well its the government, so they would mess it up. Then the people in need would mess it up, they would still want the free rent, free food, credit cards, there would still be children with no lunch showing up for school hungry.

I'm not sure what we do when robots are doing everything. A basic income may be the only answer.

A robot income tax is not far off.

Yeah and for sure rich middle class people would get taxed on their basic income, you just know that would happen.

[Abraham]

" A basic income may be the only answer."

I couldn't possibly disagree more!

This I agree with: "Seems like it would work, except, well its the government, so they would mess it up."

Not that I would agree even if the government did a good job of accommodating socialism.

Because it fails every time...see Venezuela for the latest example...

[Jusme]

And the State government still can't understand why people are leaving California in droves.

[Pariah3j]

I've seen some proposals of eliminating welfare as we know it, and turning it into 'Universal basic income'. The idea being this could be more of an upwards mobility program that allows people in the system to move, save, invest, etc. Currently, if you are on welfare you can't move to where the jobs are, most simply can't afford it. I'm probably not articulating it as well as the person I heard giving the argument, but at least in theory/principal, the proposed idea had me sold. Of course for it to work, all other forms of welfare will have to be eliminated.

[Abraham]

Yes, some see socialism as a good thing.

It isn't.

It's failed so many times that it's recognition as a halting, stumbling bankrupt idea (in all it forms) yet, some people are fooled into thinking: hey, it 'could work' if only implemented properly...

Wrong!

How many times does it have to ruin, often kill people and countries globally to finally be given the heave ho into the dustbin of history?

Yet, people keep dragging it's corpse up and decIare we can animate it into robust life.

You can't.

socialism is a fraud and always has been.

[Jusme]

I've seen some proposals of eliminating welfare as we know it, and turning it into 'Universal basic income'. The idea being this could be more of an upwards mobility program that allows people in the system to move, save, invest, etc. Currently, if you are on welfare you can't move to where the jobs are, most simply can't afford it. I'm probably not articulating it as well as the person I heard giving the argument, but at least in theory/principal, the proposed idea had me sold. Of course for it to work, all other forms of welfare will have to be eliminated.

Yes, some see socialism as a good thing.

It isn't.

It's failed so many times that it's recognition as a halting, stumbling bankrupt idea (in all it forms) yet, some people are fooled into thinking: hey, it 'could work' if only implemented properly...

Wrong!

How many times does it have to ruin, often kill people and countries globally to finally be given the heave ho into the dustbin of history?

Yet, people keep dragging it's corpse up and decIare we can animate it into robust life.

You can't.

socialism is a fraud and always has been.

Amen!!

Welfare by any other name still stinks!
I realize people end up in bad circumstances beyond their control, but we live in the greatest country in the world, and have more opportunities, than anywhere else. As Abraham stated, Socialist programs don't work, they eliminate, the desire to improve one's position. Basic income, is just welfare rebranded, it's been called The New Deal, Government Assistance, etc, etc. Once someone e becomes dependent upon the government, for their livelihood, it is almost impossie to stop, and the habit passes down through generations. I am all for, susidized education, training, etc. As long as it has a specified, end point. At some point people have to get up, and take care of themselves.
Isn't it amazing, how many people found out they could do without welfare, when restrictions, like drug testing were placed on them?JMHO

[apostate]

How is this fundamentally different from the Permanent Fund Dividend in Alaska?

[G26ster]

How is this fundamentally different from the Permanent Fund Dividend in Alaska?

The Alaska dividend is derived from funds the state receives from private companies that are harvesting Alaskan resources for profit. The funds are invested and the residents of the state get to share in the income derived from those investments. IOW, Alaskan residents are sharing in profits the state makes from the sales of resources that are owned by its residents. The last year I lived there, it was less than $300 annually. Not anything like the Stockton proposal.

[philip964]

How is this fundamentally different from the Permanent Fund Dividend in Alaska?

The Alaska dividend is derived from funds the state receives from private companies that are harvesting Alaskan resources for profit. The funds are invested and the residents of the state get to share in the income derived from those investments. IOW, Alaskan residents are sharing in profits the state makes from the sales of resources that are owned by its residents. The last year I lived there, it was less than $300 annually. Not anything like the Stockton proposal.

I checked Alaska does not have a State income or sales tax. So they are not doing a slight of hand trick.


Any basic income would have to be just an income redistribution system. Take from everyone working and give to everyone working or not. Only way it could possibly be better if it is more efficient than the current system by eliminating government workers. If all the other things stay in place, then a massive tax increase would be required to have the extra funds to redistribute.

Houston can’t pay its bills now. Dallas I heard was worse. California is so underwater, I’m sure once a Dem government happens there will have to be a federal bailout.

[Jay2121]

Just failed in Finland. It will fail there.

https://www.investors.com/politics/edit ... zes-sloth/

[apostate]

How is this fundamentally different from the Permanent Fund Dividend in Alaska?

The Alaska dividend is derived from funds the state receives from private companies that are harvesting Alaskan resources for profit.

Certainly the details are different but they're both fundamentally forms of wealth distribution, with a per capital benefit.

[Abraham]

wealth redistribution - a euphemism for robbery.