|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
GORDON 
90%
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 36125
Joined: Jun. 2004
|
 |
Posted on: Aug. 20 2015,21:03 |
|
   |
Finland is considering giving all of their citizens a "minimum income," no matter whether or not they currently have a job.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33977636
This is an interesting concept.
My question is this: Â What is the current cost of all welfare programs.... both the money that is handed out, AND the bureaucratic cost of keeping those departments running? Â Combine those 2 numbers, divide it by the population of legal American citizens, and what would each person get?
Might even include Social Security in there.... working peeps can stop paying the tax, the benefit could go away, the cost of running the Social Security Administration could go away, and the benefit is replaced by the "minimum income."
No more welfare. Â No more food stamps. Â No more SS. Â A trillion dollars would probably be saved right there, and divided up. Â You wouldn't even need to worry about all those unemployed peeps from those departments.... they now get the minimum income.
*does some guesstimate math*
1,000,000,000,000 / 300,000,000 = 3,333.
Which maybe isn't enough to get by for a year. Would be a little better for families when everyone gets it.
I dunno.
Edited by GORDON on Aug. 20 2015,21:03
--------------
I don't give a fuck!
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
Alhazad
Custom titles are for closers.
Group: "Members"
Posts: 959
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Aug. 20 2015,23:23 |
|
 |
I dunno... if I owned a house and had the inclination to do basic repairs myself, I'd take $3333/yr in a heartbeat. (Hell, I'll take it now. I can make up the difference writing fluff pieces.)
--------------
We're Back: A Dinosaur's Story
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
TheCatt
Top 2%
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 22951
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Aug. 21 2015,04:53 |
|
|
Current federal welfare spending looks like $2.5 trillion, give or take. (including SS, medicaid/medicare/etc). All states combined only $128B
Assume only 1/2 of the US needs it, that gives you $16k / person.
--------------
It's not me, it's someone else.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
GORDON
90%
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 36125
Joined: Jun. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Aug. 21 2015,04:56 |
|
|
Yeah but you've got to go all or nothing..... not just those who "need" it.
Maybe make the minimum age 18, so parents dont feel like they can pump out mo babies for mo money. I think that's a good rule. Also eliminates the immigrant/anchor baby thing.
This could actually solve a lot of problems.
--------------
I don't give a fuck!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
GORDON
90%
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 36125
Joined: Jun. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Aug. 21 2015,06:33 |
|
|
Ok, so $2,500,000,000,000 / 200,000,000 = $12,500.
That is the current welfare spending divided by 200,000,000, which is just a guess for how many Americans there are over the age of 18. Â I figure that was a conservative estimate, I am not trying to purposely skew my numbers. Â I did no research on that number.
$12,500 is, according to this, above the poverty level.
Isn't that interesting.
All that extra money in the economy, too. Â I bet GPD would go up, and we can tie the "Minimum Income" increases and decreases to the GDP.
As people get more successful and make more money, the money they get from "Minimum Income" just returns as income tax dollars.
Interestinger and interestinger. Â I may have found my presidential campaign platform.
edit - My bad, I didn't realize those poverty numbers were broken down by state. They are in the ballpark, though. Fact is, you shouldn't be able to live in San Fran or NYC making the minimum income. Too bad for you, get a job.
Edited by GORDON on Aug. 21 2015,06:36
--------------
I don't give a fuck!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 7
|
GORDON
90%
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 36125
Joined: Jun. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Aug. 21 2015,07:06 |
|
|
This could be the answer to the "post labor economy" we've always wondered about.
If anyone can think of any holes in the idea, name them. Â We can start a facebook page for this and send it viral. Â That's how you get shit done.
The people who will hate this idea the most are the clerks making $75k a year slowly shuffling paperwork in the social security offices.
Edited by GORDON on Aug. 21 2015,07:08
--------------
I don't give a fuck!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 8
|
Malcolm
I disagree.
Group: Privateers
Posts: 27168
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Aug. 21 2015,07:43 |
|
|
(GORDON @ Aug. 21 2015,08:33)
QUOTE That is the current welfare spending divided by 200,000,000, which is just a guess for how many Americans there are over the age of 18.
Yo. You have roughly 61M from 0-14. You can tack on another 18M for ages 16-18, perhaps. Problem is the population, as whole, is getting to live longer. The number of over 18s is only going up.
--------------
Diogenes of Sinope:
"It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
"Other dogs bite only their enemies, whereas I bite also my friends in order to save them."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC:
"Better dead than smeg."
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 9
|
Leisher
Top 3%, yo.
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 26651
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Aug. 21 2015,08:08 |
|
|
I'm interested.
Lower income (or no income) people will complain abut having to make lifestyle changes, but that should be the point. You shouldn't get to live the life you want without working for it.
The other complaint from this group will be that they have x number of kids, and your formula doesn't take that into account.
For the middle class, the additional money will be a boon. I'd add tax incentives for home owners to use their $16k for home improvements. Think about it. You're getting them to spend money in a very local way, improving the cost of real estate, improving living conditions, making folks better neighbors, etc.
For the rich, however you want to qualify them, maybe add incentives for them to donate their money to charities? Or make them ineligible and their money is still budgeted, but it goes into something else, like paying down the debt or another social program?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 10
|
GORDON
90%
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 36125
Joined: Jun. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Aug. 21 2015,08:11 |
|
|
It doesn't take that much income to have over $12k in federal taxes, so upper middle class and above are already paying it all back, anyway.
--------------
I don't give a fuck!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 11
|
Leisher
Top 3%, yo.
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 26651
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Aug. 21 2015,09:18 |
|
|
Of course they're paying for it anyway. They pay the majority of the taxes.
However, not giving them the "automatic salary" would be a selling point, and something they don't need anyway. By budgeting for it as well, you now have additional funds to pay for something else without really generating additional funds.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 12
|
|
|
| Post Number: 13
|
TPRJones
I saw The Fault in our Stars opening night.
Group: Privateers
Posts: 12384
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Aug. 21 2015,10:37 |
|
|
But the whole point is everyone gets it regardless of income. Â Might as well stick to that. Â Although if you'd rather, instead of making it a monthly check (which means more bureaucracy to handle) instead tie it into tax filings. Â Right at the top of the form you immediately get a payment credited for each person over 18 on the filing, and if it all drains away because you still owe taxes after so be it. Â Everyone gets their minimum income for the year when they file taxes and it's up to them to save enough to last the whole year.
And now the IRS is handling all the details so that no new bureaucracy is needed.
The only downside is that it will cause inflation, but hell, everything causes inflation so go for it. As long as the amount is tied to a formula that includes inflation (or more specifically includes it as a secondary effect in whatever you tie it to, like GPD increases) then it won't be a problem in the long run.
Edited by TPRJones on Aug. 21 2015,10:39
--------------
Vidi Perfutui Veni
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 14
|
GORDON
90%
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 36125
Joined: Jun. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Aug. 21 2015,10:59 |
|
|
(TPRJones @ Aug. 21 2015,13:37)
QUOTE But the whole point is everyone gets it regardless of income. Â Might as well stick to that. Â Although if you'd rather, instead of making it a monthly check (which means more bureaucracy to handle) instead tie it into tax filings. Â Right at the top of the form you immediately get a payment credited for each person over 18 on the filing, and if it all drains away because you still owe taxes after so be it. Â Everyone gets their minimum income for the year when they file taxes and it's up to them to save enough to last the whole year.
And now the IRS is handling all the details so that no new bureaucracy is needed.
The only downside is that it will cause inflation, but hell, everything causes inflation so go for it. Â As long as the amount is tied to a formula that includes inflation (or more specifically includes it as a secondary effect in whatever you tie it to, like GPD increases) then it won't be a problem in the long run.
Good idea, but I still think checks on the 1st and 15th are better. Â It keeps the truly stupid from buying 2 jet skis and then starving all year, then someone wants to start more programs to feed the poor... again. As for no extra bureaucracy, just have the Selective Service people do it (that's the military draft people, right?). Â They are already requiring males to register at age 18, just expand it to women and the form just lets us know where to mail the check/deposit the funds. Â They can take 1% of the people from the Social Security Administration who just lost their jobs to shuffle the extra paperwork.
It's got to be everyone. Â If there is some arbitrary income level then peeps are still gaming the system with the "If I get a small raise I will lose more money when I lose the benefit" kind of thing. Â We keep hearing how 1% of the population controls 90% of the wealth, well we can handle 1% of overpayment to people who wont notice the blip of extra income.
Edited by GORDON on Aug. 21 2015,11:00
--------------
I don't give a fuck!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 15
|
GORDON
90%
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 36125
Joined: Jun. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Aug. 21 2015,11:05 |
|
|
This seems like a really good idea, but there's one major glitch I can think of:
The $2.5T number Catt gave included Medicare and Medicaid. Â People using those programs are paying WAY more than their "Minimum Income" number for health care. Â I think we'd have to make health care truly cost-free for the user, somehow, for this to work.
Edited by GORDON on Aug. 21 2015,11:05
--------------
I don't give a fuck!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 16
|
|
|
| Post Number: 17
|
|
|
| Post Number: 18
|
GORDON
90%
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 36125
Joined: Jun. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 13 2015,10:23 |
|
|
I may have thought of a way to pay for universal health care, as well, which as far as I recall is the big hurdle on my minimum income scheme.... we'd need to cap income on the highest earners to 100 or 1000 times the "minimum" income.
Someone do the math on that. Google some shit to get mean or median incomes... not sure which... and then see how much money for the coffers capping it would make us.
--------------
I don't give a fuck!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 19
|
GORDON
90%
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 36125
Joined: Jun. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 13 2015,10:24 |
|
|
(Alhazad @ Aug. 21 2015,18:13)
QUOTE
(GORDON @ Aug. 21 2015,11:05)
QUOTE This seems like a really good idea "good idea" doesn't get it over the goal line. You still have to deal with people who hate seeing others given what they've had to work for, people for whom 'work ethic' is practically a religion and who are set on inflicting it on others, people who just fear change and lack of actual jobs be damned....
I have a hunch that the same people who would oppose it because, "THEY DIDN'T EARN IT" would also love the plan because it puts so many government programs under the axe. We'd shrink the government workforce by a huge percentage on day 1.
--------------
I don't give a fuck!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 20
|
TheCatt
Top 2%
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 22951
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 13 2015,11:29 |
|
|
(GORDON @ Nov. 13 2015,13:23)
QUOTE I may have thought of a way to pay for universal health care, as well, which as far as I recall is the big hurdle on my minimum income scheme.... we'd need to cap income on the highest earners to 100 or 1000 times the "minimum" income.
Someone do the math on that. Â Google some shit to get mean or median incomes... not sure which... and then see how much money for the coffers capping it would make us.
Current minimum wage income is $7.25, which is roughly $15k/year at full-time.
15k * 100 = $1,500,000 / year
15k * 1000 = $15,000,000 / year
Are you just including wages, or all sources of income (investment income, etc)?
0.1% of households make $1.5M / year. Source
Old, but the fastest I found.
QUOTE As of 2005 there are approximately 146,000 (0.1%) households with incomes exceeding $1,500,000
The problem is, it doesn't say 1) how much more than $1.5M they make.
I can only find out that 0.1% means $20M+ in assets.
Although
QUOTE The Tax Policy Center in Washington estimates that 42 percent of all capital gains and dividends reported to the IRS for 2014 came from the top 0.1 percent. Put another way: Of roughly $722 billion in total capital gains and dividends reported, about $305 billion were filed by the top echelon of earners.
So if we allow those 160k households to only earn $1.5M, they would only get $240M/year in investment income.
I'm going to assume that these people primarily make investment income, not labor income (sports figures and movie stars probably being notable exceptions).
But that alone saves you $300 billion if you include investment income in your limits.
--------------
It's not me, it's someone else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
