1. Home
  2. Economy & Jobs
  3. "We are demanding an emergency program to provide employment for everyone in need of a job, or if a …
Have a Big Idea?
Citation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6zVj3nBmNs

8 Comments

Add a Comment
Log In Create an Account
Anonymouse
Where will this money come from? How do we decide how much every person is entitled to? How do you prevent this from being abused, much like every other financial aid program that has ever been created?
Dec. 12, 2014, 8:11 a.m.
Anonymouse
And for that matter, wouldn't it put even more power into the governments hands? If we the people want to keep our freedom, we need to keep the government in line not supply them with more power.
Dec. 12, 2014, 8:22 a.m.
Yekrats
Quite a bit of money to pay for it could come from cost savings, from replacing existing programs that currently help the poor. For example, if you have a guaranteed basic income, that replaces welfare, CHiP, unemployment, and other government services. Since the income is guaranteed, you don't have the overhead, bureaucracy, and paper-shuffling with other programs that check eligibility. There's a lot of waste there that could be streamlined, just by saying: "OK, you get $X to live on." Additional money could easily be raised by moving back to the 1960's - 1970's tax brackets. Yes, this raises taxes on the rich. However, rich people were not really hurting in the 1960s & 1970s. I remember the 1970s, and rich people were still rich! Optionally, we could put in some absurdly low microtax on every stock market transaction. (Something like $.0001 (hundredth of a cent). Computers do stock market transactions at a bajillion-per-second. Stock broker companies can still do that, and still make money, but give a bit back to the people.
Dec. 12, 2014, 10:11 a.m.
Anonymouse
By cancelling all of these other services though, wouldn't that affect those who need them most? What of people who are disabled and can't supplement this income with another income? If you supplement them further to make up for that, then how do you control that from being abused? Do you not think this will affect the cost of a multitude of products and services? If the majority of the nation has access to more funds you would think costs would lower as more money gets spread out. But then you have to remember, that money goes to a company after a product is purchased. That company then ships that money out of the country to produce more products to sell. That money doesn't get recycled back into our country and make said company hire people within our own nation. It goes somewhere completely different and thus hurts our economy more.
Dec. 12, 2014, 12:03 p.m.
irongamer
History of the US shows we had some of the best economic growth least inequality when everyone contributes to the whole, see the 1960's tax rates. Also, when you place all the wealth within a few hands you end up with a crash, see the 1930's. “It would only cost 0.5% of the 1%’s wealth to eliminate poverty nationwide. Also consider that at least 40% of the 1%’s accounted for wealth is sitting idle. That’s an astonishing $13 trillion in wealth hoarded away, unused.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bMxq1oti-c&feature=share While I don't like his conclusion of a revolution we can choose a more equal system.
Dec. 12, 2014, 1:17 p.m.
Matt
guaranteed annual income means every citizen gets a check every month for the same amount no matter what. its had to abuse a system where every one gets the money. and you generate the money by closing or reducing tax loopholes for the super rich. Its redistribution of wealth. and its the only way to keep the 99% alive while the 1% feed their greed
Dec. 13, 2014, 9:13 a.m.
ohpayq
Read http://reddit.com/r/BasicIncome/wiki to answer all your questions and help design & implement the end of poverty as humanity has known it.
Dec. 14, 2014, 9:53 p.m.
jonathancc
The guarunteed job dream is a joke. Please consider voting directly for the universal basic income idea. http://thinkbig.us/ideas/17634/
Dec. 31, 2014, 12:25 p.m.

Share this idea!