Citizen's Income

[Arta]

I'm sure a family of 3 could live on 1533 a month.

Yes. That's the whole point. To provide a basic living income. It is not, however, enough for most people to sustain a comfortable lifestyle.

[Banana fanna fo fanna]

quote]

Yes. That's the whole point. To provide a basic living income. It is not, however, enough for most people to sustain a comfortable lifestyle.

You got served by the quote tags.

[CrAz3D]

quote]

Yes. That's the whole point. To provide a basic living income. It is not, however, enough for most people to sustain a comfortable lifestyle.

If you can live why actually work to make more just to have more stuff?
Maybe they're more intouch with buddhism or somethiing

[topaz]

I foresee mountains of abuse and (more) unemployment.

[Arta]

If you can live why actually work to make more just to have more stuff?
Maybe they're more intouch with buddhism or somethiing

I don't know if you've ever been poor, so I'll let you know, from my own experience, that it's unpleasant. Some people are, of course, lazy, but most have a good enough work ethic that they'd rather work than be poor. Being poor sucks.

I foresee mountains of abuse and (more) unemployment.

Abuse? How?

[CrAz3D]

We currently live a few thousand dollars below poverty, but this is only for a few years while my dad is in school.
Stuff has been tight, but we've never been poor.

But still, if people don't think they need to live beyond their means then $1500 a month is plenty.
$6k a month, like in Mississippi, is quite excessive, its mroe than our family combined monthly income is currently.

[Forged]

Mississippi doesn't give out $6,000 a month in welfare, they have one of the worst welfare systems in the country.  I am not sure how much they give out, but it would be more around 1,000 a month.

[dxoigmn]

We currently live a few thousand dollars below poverty, but this is only for a few years while my dad is in school.
Stuff has been tight, but we've never been poor.

So people who live below the poverty line, are not poor. I guess that clears up a lot of things you have been saying on these forums.

But still, if people don't think they need to live beyond their means then $1500 a month is plenty.
$6k a month, like in Mississippi, is quite excessive, its mroe than our family combined monthly income is currently.

I call bullshit. I highly doubt people on TANF in Mississippi receive $6000 a month. It's probably more like $6000 a year.

[Arta]

Someone needs to find some evidence!

[CrAz3D]

I somewhere confused myself & went from yearly to monthly.

It was less than $6000 yearly in 1995.
That is the same article I was looking at previously.

Now with corrected figures I can see living on $500 a month rather tight, but still workable if you do it right.  (I'll find more numbers & show them if I can find them all)


New Mexico Welfare Info:
$4712/year ($392.67/month)
Poverty level is like $13,798
Average percapita income in Dona Ana County is $13,999
So basic welfare is $10k a year less than poverty line/average income of Dona Ana County.

$392 monthy could be divided to*
-$200/mo for an apartment (with water)
-$40/mo electricity
-leaving $152 for food ($5 a day)

You don't need anything else, still livable, especially if you cram a few more people in that apartment all "making" same amount paying for the same apartment/utilities.

Now, if you implement this with some drug dealing (homemade meth is common here & as is pot running) you have a "decent life".



*NOTE:
Prices are from experience, not something I saw online.

[Rule]

I think this proposal is very silly for the following reasons.  More generally, I think it indirectly advocates "need-blind" giving, which really is not an effective way to help the most people given a certain amount of money to spend.

1) First off, it assumes that most people (> 95%?) will keep working -- this is a very risky assumption.  Regardless of what heuristically pleasing argument you may come up with for why people would still work, what if they didn't?  What if this were implemented and a quarter of the population decided just to be completely lazy?  What then? I don't think the chances of this happening are so negligable that it shouldn't be considered, and if it did happen, a great deal of money would have been wasted in "testing" this.

2) They say that the increased tax will take more money away from high earners than they are receiving with this "living allowance," therefore people in need are being helped.  This is ridiculous.  What about inherited wealth?  What about retired millionaires?  Should those earning lower wages (assuming that they work at all) (and remember, they could be much lower wages -- e.g. no minimum wage) be giving a considerable amount of their earnings away to people who don't need the money at all?

3) Also, if this were implemented it seems that individual situations won't be considered when giving away this "living allowance."  In almost all cases, this is bad, whether it has to do with giving out welfare, or looking at a university transcript; let's say you're hiring a student for an academic position based on grades.  If an applicant has a cumulative average of C+, and in his last two years of schooling has an average of A-, and another applicant has a cumulative average of B (which is the same as his average every year), would you just hire the applicant with the highest cumulative average?  I should hope that you would think about each situation separately and come to an intelligent decision about who is more capable.  Similarly, if a woman's husband dies, and she has 12 kids to look after and is also pregnant, should she be given the same allowance as a wealthy retired business owner?  Obviously not, even if the ridiculous stipend would cover her expenses.

I can't believe you're for this!

[Arta]

I'll respond in detail to your post later, but I just wanted to get this onto the record: I'm neither for nor against this! I'm making up my mind. I just wondered what other people think about it.

[Banana fanna fo fanna]

The government spends around £500 billion every year, around £170 billion of this is spent on social protection and associated bureaucracy. Why not turn this into a universal payment, (like child benefit), but to everyone. This works out nearly £3000 for every man, woman and child in the country.

Why not just do an across-the-board tax cut and cut those programs?

Also, what if they abuse this cash (i.e. drug addicts buying drugs rather than receiving food stamps)?

[CrAz3D]

Undoubtedly there will ahve to be new programs to distribute the monies, keep track of people, more buearacrcy

[Rule]

I'll respond in detail to your post later