Switzerland rejects free money for all

Menshevik

Ad Honorem
Dec 2012
8,852
The People's Republik of Kalifornia.
#41
I guess that would depend on whose definition you're using.

I was only trying to make the point that we're already spending nearly $3,000,000,000,000 on "welfare," so it's not like one trillion is a number that's out of the ordinary.
What do you mean, nearly $3 trillion?
from your link:

social security: $916 billion
medicare/medicai: $1 trillion
other safety net programs: 366 billion

Adds up to roughly 2.3 trillion. I added in, perhaps wrongly, the benefits for vets and federal workers.
 
#42
Not nearly $3 trillion then, more like just over $2 trillion.

If $2.3 trillion was released that would provide roughly $9000 dollars a year. But then no medicare, medicaid or current benefits to veterans could be afforded.
 

Menshevik

Ad Honorem
Dec 2012
8,852
The People's Republik of Kalifornia.
#43
Not nearly $3 trillion then, more like just over $2 trillion.

If $2.3 trillion was released that would provide roughly $9000 dollars a year. But then no medicare, medicaid or current benefits to veterans could be afforded.
The veterans benefits weren't included in the $2.3 trillion, remember?

That aside, what's your point?
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
7,973
#44
Work it out though. If every adult in USA was to be given, let's say, $4000 a year, which is only about $80 a week, that would cost about $1 trillion a year, if I am not wrong. No amount of savings of overheads is going to make that affordable.
You could do it in a revenue neural way. It would have to be more than that to be efefctive but tehree iis w whoel range of payments it replaces, and amounts of regulation and bureaucracy that are no longer needed,
 
#45
The veterans benefits weren't included in the $2.3 trillion, remember?

That aside, what's your point?
Sorry I didn't read properly. Anyway my point is simply that to fund this scheme would apparently require the abolition of medicare and medicaid as well as social security. Does anybody think that is a good idea?
 

Menshevik

Ad Honorem
Dec 2012
8,852
The People's Republik of Kalifornia.
#46
Sorry I didn't read properly. Anyway my point is simply that to fund this scheme would apparently require the abolition of medicare and medicaid as well as social security. Does anybody think that is a good idea?
I'm not sure how well it would work. But, like other people have said, some amount of money could potentially be saved by a UBI absorbing these other programs. For example, how much of the money allocated for Social Security goes to pay employees who work for the administration? How much of it is used to keep the lights on, rent/buy facilities, etc.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
7,973
#48
Sorry I didn't read properly. Anyway my point is simply that to fund this scheme would apparently require the abolition of medicare and medicaid as well as social security. Does anybody think that is a good idea?
NO it does not. You are creating a straw man.

It can be done in a revenue/cost neutral way were no one is actiually worse off than they are now..

Those better off would have their taxes raised so they would not be getting the money in effect. There are a whole range of ways of paying welfare and supporting those without sources of money. this is just some sort of grand unified theory of simplification of that. Those on higher incomes will have their taxes raised rto cover the cost of those oin higher incomes receiving it (but they are no worse off than before) the extra costs of people receiving some more money and the greater accessibility would be funded by the savings in overheads and removal of unnecessary bureaucracy.
 

Menshevik

Ad Honorem
Dec 2012
8,852
The People's Republik of Kalifornia.
#49
This isturning into partisan politivs. Have a care, there will be no leniency in the Chamber.
What did I miss? For the past few pages people have just been discussing numbers and figures and whether or not a UBI could be feasible. Where did it cross over into partisan politics?
 

VHS

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
4,188
Brassicaland
#50
1 full time job should make enough to support a spouse, 2 kids. By which I mean the lowest paid full time salary should provide enough pay for 1 adult to support a family.

If a full time job can not manage this due to overtaxation, pay not matching inflation, high prices on essential goods and services... then I’d support this payment for full time working people only.
Unemployed maybe should have it reduced by 10% each month until the get a full time job.
I don’t agree with working people funding the idle and lazy though.
We had a previous thread about the future of waged employment, and it was quite a heated debate:
Is the end of employments really likely?
With the driverless cars and a few other game changing technologies ahead, we may witness something that we never experienced.
Some people enjoy "idealizing" the post-war era until the Vietnam War as the “Golden Age” for Americans, due to the relative ease to get employment and support families.
What rendered (this word is simply too convenient) the single wage earner plan nearly unsustainable for most families today?
 

Similar History Discussions