Poll of the Day > New study suggest that every US citizen should receive a '$1000' handout...

(+) Yeah! (+)

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/a-dollar1000-per-month-cash-handout-would-grow-the-economy-by-dollar25-trillion-new-study-says/ar-AAr35pQ?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=wispr

A stack each month for everyone in the US...

Do you agree with this?

Honestly, at the very least it would knock property crime rates down into the dirt. That alone makes it worthwhile. Less victims, less bloat to the criminal justice system. I'm not against it in practice, as long as everybody gets the money and not just poor people.
---

Would only take 2-3 months for retailers to start jacking up prices of goods to compensate.
---

Instead of asking the government to give you your money back in the form of an entitlement program, doesn't it make more sense to advocate they stop taking it from you to begin with?

Judgmenl posted...

Would only take 2-3 months for retailers to start jacking up prices of goods to compensate.

So? They've been doing that since money. You can't buy a chicken dinner for $0.50 anymore.
---

BeerOnTap posted...

Instead of asking the government to give you your money back in the form of an entitlement program, doesn't it make more sense to advocate they stop taking it from you to begin with?

Seriously. This sounds like wealth redistribution.
---

These estimates are based on a universal basic income paid for by increasing the federal deficit. As part of the study, the researchers also calculated the effect to the economy of paying for the cash handouts by increasing taxes. In that case, there were would be no net benefit to the economy, the report finds.

This is a pretty important part of the study and a good example of why its results don't mean very much.

I support a universal basic income, but not implemented like this.
---

darkknight109 posted...

These estimates are based on a universal basic income paid for by increasing the federal deficit. As part of the study, the researchers also calculated the effect to the economy of paying for the cash handouts by increasing taxes. In that case, there were would be no net benefit to the economy, the report finds.

This is a pretty important part of the study and a good example of why its results don't mean very much.

I support a universal basic income, but not implemented like this.

Yeah, that's basically Soviet economics.
---

BeerOnTap posted...

Instead of asking the government to give you your money back in the form of an entitlement program, doesn't it make more sense to advocate they stop taking it from you to begin with?

That really depends on your tax bracket...

And many (mostly Lower/Working Class) people usually do get most 'taxed' money back in the form of EIC every year after filing their taxes.

This is basically a 'free welfare/work' ca$h assistance for everyone in the US.

Because really, do anyone really think having an extra $1000 a month would drastically change one's lifestyle? If anything, less stuff/goods would be wasted...

You would be amazed how much Fast Food/Groceries/OverStocked Clothing gets thrown in the dumpster every day.

Large scale economics is very difficult to understand, and none of us know anything about it really. In these cases, I find it best to defer to those who have spent their entire lives studying the issue.
---

Honestly I do think we need something as a bare backbone for each US citizen to receive to live on at this point, but implementing it in a fair way would be crazy hard to set up.

Crime costs us way too much, prisons are a huge drain etc. I suggest the following.


Everyone in jail for drug related (non-violent etc) charges are released. Drugs are now legal and taxes everywhere in the US. Prostitution is also legal and taxed across the US.

Personal Tax deductions are increased to 15k per person (30k if married).

Every US Citizen regardless of age is given $500 a month, this is taken out of any taxes owed first though, and this counts towards taxable income as well. For those who pay taxes, this can actually be held and removed from taxes at the end of the year, allowing you to just get a check for whatever is left over.

All income flat across the board (after expenses and deductables with the standard 10% minimum tax on total income still applying) is taxed at a flat rate of 40% for everyone, over and above your individual deduction.

With that 40% setup that pretty much means that you won't pay taxes at all, on the first $2000 you make a month (The $500 would cover the taxes you would normally pay).

The $500 replaces food stamps, and most goverment assitance programs (not medical though). It does not replace social security though, which is in addition to the $500.

Someone working min wage, 40 hours a week would now net about $10 an hour base, or $1600 a month, and with the $500 would have about $2100 to spend per month (enough to live just fine almost anywhere in the US).

Waaaay less people would end up in Jail. More taxes over all would be collected (by a fairly large amount if the states taxing pot are anything to go by).

It would be a start, and I think we could pull it off without increasing the deficit at all, and maybe start dropping it down. Considering that most of my friends currently making over $200k a year pay less then 30% in taxes right now, that alone would make up for the difference anyway (and my friends are not even asshats working the system to pay as little as possible).
---

The biggest problem is people getting irate about socialism or perceived unfairness. Lots of people would rather have a worse economy or less money personally just to spite lazy people.
---

Some sort of basic income is a necessity in the transition from capitalism in a fully automated society. If we stick to the status quo, things are going to get really really ugly when unemployment is 90%

I think I could get behind that,wolfy42. Something needs to be done about prisons for sure.
---

KarsUltimate posted...

I think I could get behind that,wolfy42. Something needs to be done about prisons for sure.

Prisons are a nightmare on every level at this point. We are heading towards 40k per person per year now (average, more in some places less in others), and what is worse, that is lost money (IE, not put into circulation, taxed etc).

You could give 10k a year to 4 people, for every person in prison right now. That would all be taxable (over the base deductions) and the money would be spent on things (That are in turn taxed etc) and bolster the economy.

So basically if the take the inmate out (still giving him $10k as well though), that is 3 more people that can get $10k a year.

Obviously not all inmates could be released, but if only the really dangerous ones where kept (and even they where put into a prison that let them generate income, produce...since they wouldn't be as crowded anymore), you could seriously make things way better for everyone.

No reason prisons (if you have far less inmates) can't actually generate income and even pay for themselves mostly. You just can't do it with the massive populations we have in this country.
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

The biggest problem is people getting irate about socialism or perceived unfairness. Lots of people would rather have a worse economy or less money personally just to spite lazy people.

Not true. I'd love it if we had no wealth but that's only valid in theory but impossible to execute due to human nature.
---

Judgmenl posted...

Would only take 2-3 months for retailers to start jacking up prices of goods to compensate.

compensate for what?
---

JOExHIGASHI posted...

Judgmenl posted...

Would only take 2-3 months for retailers to start jacking up prices of goods to compensate.

compensate for what?

Everyone has more money to spend!
---

The fact that it's being run by MSN makes it dubious then I read the connection to Vox, which makes it almost certainly bullshit.

A $1,000 cash handout to all adults would grow the economy by 12.56 percent after eight years, the study finds. Current Congressional Budget Office estimates put the GDP at $19.8 trillion. The cash handout would therefore increase the GDP by $2.48 trillion. (Vox first did this extrapolation in their coverage of the report, and Steinbaum confirmed the accuracy of the extrapolation to CNBC Make It by email.)

When a leftist propagandist like Vox runs leftist information, well....

TheCyborgNinja posted...

Honestly, at the very least it would knock property crime rates down into the dirt. That alone makes it worthwhile. Less victims, less bloat to the criminal justice system. I'm not against it in practice, as long as everybody gets the money and not just poor people.

No, it almost certainly wouldn't. For starters, we ALREADY give out generous entitlements which have done little to reduce crime especially since it gives more free time to people on the entitlements to commit crime. If they were holding down jobs like the rest of us, they would have less time to get into trouble.

BeerOnTap posted...

Instead of asking the government to give you your money back in the form of an entitlement program, doesn't it make more sense to advocate they stop taking it from you to begin with?

It's even worse since any giveback would be accompanied by raised taxes so workers would see little to none of that money back. In general, the problem with these plans is that the advocates stupidly believe that an extension cord plugged into itself can generate power. In reality, the thing needs to be plugged into an actual power source.

darkknight109 posted...

These estimates are based on a universal basic income paid for by increasing the federal deficit. As part of the study, the researchers also calculated the effect to the economy of paying for the cash handouts by increasing taxes. In that case, there were would be no net benefit to the economy, the report finds.

This is a pretty important part of the study and a good example of why its results don't mean very much.

I support a universal basic income, but not implemented like this.

It sorta goes without saying that there can't be a net benefit.

pionear posted...

Because really, do anyone really think having an extra $1000 a month would drastically change one's lifestyle? If anything, less stuff/goods would be wasted...

Actually no. For starters, if they had more money in their pockets, the amount of waste would increase. Consumerism and waste are practically tied at the hip. Second, it wouldn't be an "extra $1000 a month" for most people because sooner or later taxes would need to be increased to compensate. The producers of wealth would instead lose $1000 a month or more. Even if we don't actually fund it and just add it to the deficit, the taxes would need to increase to pay off the increasing interest on the deficit.

pionear posted...

You would be amazed how much Fast Food/Groceries/OverStocked Clothing gets thrown in the dumpster every day.

...you really don't understand how any of this works, do you? No matter what, you're going to have roughly the same amount of waste (by percentage) or, when people have more money, even worse because.

Plus most overstocked clothing doesn't get "thrown in dumpsters" (why would it?). It usually is bought by discount retailers who will clearance it until it sells.
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

The biggest problem is people getting irate about socialism or perceived unfairness. Lots of people would rather have a worse economy or less money personally just to spite lazy people.

No, it's just that most of us don't like having our hard-earned money stolen from us forcibly by mother government.

Zeus posted...

BeerOnTap posted...

Instead of asking the government to give you your money back in the form of an entitlement program, doesn't it make more sense to advocate they stop taking it from you to begin with?

It's even worse since any giveback would be accompanied by raised taxes so workers would see little to none of that money back. In general, the problem with these plans is that the advocates stupidly believe that an extension cord plugged into itself can generate power. In reality, the thing needs to be plugged into an actual power source.

...

You read r/libertarian, don't you?

This guy. I like this guy.

Judgmenl posted...

TheCyborgNinja posted...

The biggest problem is people getting irate about socialism or perceived unfairness. Lots of people would rather have a worse economy or less money personally just to spite lazy people.

Not true. I'd love it if we had no wealth but that's only valid in theory but impossible to execute due to human nature.

It is true. It just isn't applicable to you.
---

Judgmenl posted...

JOExHIGASHI posted...

Judgmenl posted...

Would only take 2-3 months for retailers to start jacking up prices of goods to compensate.

compensate for what?

Everyone has more money to spend!

but compensate means they're losing something. what are retailers losing where they have to increase prices to make up for?
---

Yes, a stimulus can only hurt the economy :L
---

waterdeepchu posted...

Large scale economics is very difficult to understand, and none of us know anything about it really. In these cases, I find it best to defer to those who have spent their entire lives studying the issue.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority



TheCyborgNinja posted...

The biggest problem is people getting irate about socialism or perceived unfairness. Lots of people would rather have a worse economy or less money personally just to spite lazy people.

Well, not just that, you also lose productive people because they can thrive without being productive. Society's net productivity would diminish.

Duck-I-Says posted...

Some sort of basic income is a necessity in the transition from capitalism in a fully automated society. If we stick to the status quo, things are going to get really really ugly when unemployment is 90%

When the state owns everything and almost everything is automated, sure, *maybe* UBI will make sense. Or maybe another system of limited allocations -- ensuring people have *exactly* what they need but no more to discourage waste -- would make sense. At some point we might need to make a change. However, it's worth noting that not everything will be automated and there will likely always be jobs for people because major labor market shifts bring new opportunities.

wolfy42 posted...

KarsUltimate posted...

I think I could get behind that,wolfy42. Something needs to be done about prisons for sure.

Prisons are a nightmare on every level at this point. We are heading towards 40k per person per year now (average, more in some places less in others), and what is worse, that is lost money (IE, not put into circulation, taxed etc).

You could give 10k a year to 4 people, for every person in prison right now. That would all be taxable (over the base deductions) and the money would be spent on things (That are in turn taxed etc) and bolster the economy.

So basically if the take the inmate out (still giving him $10k as well though), that is 3 more people that can get $10k a year.

Obviously not all inmates could be released, but if only the really dangerous ones where kept (and even they where put into a prison that let them generate income, produce...since they wouldn't be as crowded anymore), you could seriously make things way better for everyone.

No reason prisons (if you have far less inmates) can't actually generate income and even pay for themselves mostly. You just can't do it with the massive populations we have in this country.

Most people aren't in jail because they robbed due to poverty. If you wanted to reduce the prison population, you'd have an easier time by curtailing non-violent offenses like drug laws, AoC, and intoxication laws... or, at the very least, treating drug and alcohol offenders so they're less likely to re-offend.

JOExHIGASHI posted...

Judgmenl posted...

Would only take 2-3 months for retailers to start jacking up prices of goods to compensate.

compensate for what?

When people can afford to spend more, prices seem to go up. The system is kinda weird like that...
---

BeerOnTap posted...

Zeus posted...

BeerOnTap posted...

Instead of asking the government to give you your money back in the form of an entitlement program, doesn't it make more sense to advocate they stop taking it from you to begin with?

It's even worse since any giveback would be accompanied by raised taxes so workers would see little to none of that money back. In general, the problem with these plans is that the advocates stupidly believe that an extension cord plugged into itself can generate power. In reality, the thing needs to be plugged into an actual power source.

...

You read r/libertarian, don't you?

This guy. I like this guy.

I don't touch Reddit, other than googling a video game answer.

Lokarin posted...

Yes, a stimulus can only hurt the economy :L

This kind of a stimulus can. More importantly, when stimulus plans balloon the national debt, taxes are higher in the long-term which hurts workers.
---

Zeus posted...

This kind of a stimulus can. More importantly, when stimulus plans balloon the national debt, taxes are higher in the long-term which hurts workers.

I'm forced to concede on these points - my experience doesn't extend into economics.
---

Zeus posted...

When people can afford to spend more, prices seem to go up. The system is kinda weird like that...

Well, it all depends on what they are spending the $$$ on...like I've said before, an extra $1000 isn't that big of a spending bump for most. You think by adding more $$$ to the economy (via consumer spending power) will entail inflation. inflation really only happens when certain goods become scarce and no economic growth.

wolfy42 posted...

I think I could get behind that,wolfy42. Something needs to be done about prisons for sure.

Honestly, this is a whole other topic, but Prisons nowadays is pretty much the new 'Slave Labor' system. And in a Capitalist economy, it needs a tier of the population in a state of being 'poor' and 'disenfranchised' in order for the rest to prosper.

this sounds like it would completely decimate the economy

Really? Now if it was giving every US citizen $100,000, then maybe, but c'mon, $1,000 dollars isn't that much money...

this sounds like it would completely decimate the economy
---

He wasn't saying that, Zeus. But probation and community service (or another method like having some of their money go toward the prison over a period of time) ought to be used more than they are.

I do agree about MSN, though. I don't bother ever since they removed comments, heheh.
---

helIy posted...

this sounds like it would completely decimate the economy

That's because it undoubtedly would.

Stealing money from earners to redistribute has never had positive results, and only serves to remove incentive and stifle innovation.
And don't forget, the government puts its bloated hand into the pot along the way.
They're really good stewards of our money:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Zeus posted...

When the state owns everything and almost everything is automated, sure, *maybe* UBI will make sense.

Whatever we do, it's important that we're not reactive to the problem. Being reactive is almost always worse than being proactive and when it's an existential crisis for everyone but the upper echelons of society maybe we should consider this problem before years/decades after it happens.

Zeus posted...

However, it's worth noting that not everything will be automated and there will likely always be jobs for people because major labor market shifts bring new opportunities.

You people always just assume that we're never going to reach a point where AI outperforms humans in almost all fields. It doesn't matter to a generalized AI if there's a labor shift because a generalized AI can handle the new field as well. Hell we might even reach a point where most people can't even tell the difference between AI generated art and human generated art. I'm skeptical that even the creative types are safe. When human labor becomes obsolete, the people who own the lion's share of necessary resources become kings and capitalism becomes detrimental to the average person. The lower classes will have exactly zero leverage by that point.

If that happens, we can either choose to allow all people to live well or we can choose to allow some people to live like kings while the rest live at their mercy.

BeerOnTap posted...

That's because it undoubtedly would.

Stealing money from earners to redistribute has never had positive results, and only serves to remove incentive and stifle innovation.
And don't forget, the government puts its bloated hand into the pot along the way.
They're really good stewards of our money:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

It's like I could taste paranoia just sitting next to you...
Also, dafuq you talking about taxes have never had positive results? There's always debate about what the best % to tax the populace is, but nobody says 0%.
---

BeerOnTap posted...

In general, the problem with these plans is that the advocates stupidly believe that an extension cord plugged into itself can generate power. In reality, the thing needs to be plugged into an actual power source.

The power source is business, and this system makes every citizen capable of paying in to businesses. Rather than having the few make a few big purchases as power surges in the economic circuitry, you have many cells in parallel buzzing a smooth, reliable charge. When power banks are charged and disconnected from the system, the available output drops and less can be driven. If the power bank doesn't return sufficient energy back in to the system then the remaining cells discharge too far and get permanently damaged.
---

The future really holds three possibilities:

1. Near-total automation requires a minimum guaranteed income to maintain order.
2. Near-total automation without compensation leads to massive civil unrest and collapse.
3. The rise of the machines gives humanity renewed focus.
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

The future really holds three possibilities:

1. Near-total automation requires a minimum guaranteed income to maintain order.
2. Near-total automation without compensation leads to massive civil unrest and collapse.
3. The rise of the machines gives humanity renewed focus.

4. Artificial super-intelligence supplants humanity entirely.

Duck-I-Says posted...

TheCyborgNinja posted...

The future really holds three possibilities:

1. Near-total automation requires a minimum guaranteed income to maintain order.
2. Near-total automation without compensation leads to massive civil unrest and collapse.
3. The rise of the machines gives humanity renewed focus.

4. Artificial super-intelligence supplants humanity entirely.

5. We just ban automation. We're almost stupid enough to do it, too.
---

Lightning Bolt posted...

5. We just ban automation. We're almost stupid enough to do it, too.

Maybe in the US, but what are the chances the whole world would do that? The military pretty much has to pursue it because the first country that perfects military AI has a huge military advantage.

How about we just stop taxing ourselves twice?

We shouldn't pay taxes on income and then pay taxes on items with the money that was already taxed.
---

Zeus posted...

It sorta goes without saying that there can't be a net benefit.

Sure there can - just not if you implement it like the way it's done in the study.
---

So it would basically double the federal budget.
---

Another topic where Zeus' neurosis makes him reply to every poster with his Neo-Nazi opinions and declares us all fake news.
---

SmokeMassTree posted...

How about we just stop taxing ourselves twice?

We shouldn't pay taxes on income and then pay taxes on items with the money that was already taxed.

You tax both so you don't have foreigners and thieves not paying tax or citizens importing all their goods.
---

SmokeMassTree posted...

How about we just stop taxing ourselves twice?

We shouldn't pay taxes on income and then pay taxes on items with the money that was already taxed.

Some people get taxed more than twice.

It's the government--they'll invent ways to tax the hell out of you. Income tax, property tax, soda tax, bag tax, sales tax, even climate change tax.
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOZ-Etb0k0Q
---

BeerOnTap posted...

Instead of asking the government to give you your money back in the form of an entitlement program, doesn't it make more sense to advocate they stop taking it from you to begin with?

I take it you're not a democrat
---

Krazy_Kirby posted...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOZ-Etb0k0Q

That says nothing beyond people don't know the federal budget, much like you.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

SmokeMassTree posted...

How about we just stop taxing ourselves twice?

We shouldn't pay taxes on income and then pay taxes on items with the money that was already taxed.

You tax both so you don't have foreigners and thieves not paying tax or citizens importing all their goods.

I get that but we should get a special "don't tax me on items" card. Scan it rq before you pay for an item, removes taxes. You get a new one every year after you file your taxes.
---

Paying every adult $1000 a month adds up to $3 trillion a year. The current entire federal budget is about $3.8 trillion.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Paying every adult $1000 a month adds up to $3 trillion a year. The current entire federal budget is about $3.8 trillion.

$1k a month seems a bit too much to be honest, don't want to make it easy/comfortable for people to not work at all, but also want to prevent people from commiting crimes so they don't starve etc.

$500 seems like a better number to me.

Also by making changes to how taxes are collected (flat tax), and reducing costs on thinks like prisons, while also taxing drugs etc (instead of spending tons on trying to prevent their use), you could make up for a ton of that.

Since that $500 is actually going to be spent anyway (and taxed when spent in many cases) AND that $500 would count as income (so if the flat tax was 40%....anyone making more then their personal deduction would only net $300 a month, and then pay taxes on things they buy with that) you might even see an over all surplus in the budget when everything is said and done.

Meanwhile $500 is enough for anyone to live on, not comfortably, but homeless would no longer be able to go around begging for cash (They get $500...more then enough to take care of themselves). No more food stamps etc either (thought I would say still provide free meals for kids, and expand that to 3 times a day (even during summer) since it's literally like 39 cents per meal cost.

Largest bonus of the $500 would go to those working minimum wage or close, who barely make enough to get by, the mentally ill, homeless people for whatever reason etc. It would also probably drastically reduce crime (especially in combo with drug laws changing).

Net result would probably be very positive, but only one way to find out.
---