Thunderdome 2015 » Printable Version of Topic » "Minimum Income" for all....

Forum: Internet Links
Topic: "Minimum Income" for all....
started by: GORDON

Posted by GORDON 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: 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? 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. No more food stamps. No more SS. A trillion dollars would probably be saved right there, and divided up. 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.

Posted by Alhazad 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.)

Posted by TheCatt 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.

Posted by GORDON 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.

Posted by TheCatt on Aug. 21 2015,06:19

(GORDON @ Aug. 21 2015,07:56)

QUOTE

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.

Racist.

Posted by GORDON 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. I figure that was a conservative estimate, I am not trying to purposely skew my numbers. 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. 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. 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.

Posted by GORDON 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. We can start a facebook page for this and send it viral. 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.

Posted by Malcolm 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.

Posted by Leisher 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?

Posted by GORDON 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.

Posted by Leisher 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.

Posted by TheCatt on Aug. 21 2015,10:35

(Leisher @ Aug. 21 2015,11:08)

QUOTE

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.

STOP DISTORTING MARKETS.

Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 21 2015,10:37

But the whole point is everyone gets it regardless of income. Might as well stick to that. Although if you'd rather, instead of making it a monthly check (which means more bureaucracy to handle) instead tie it into tax filings. 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. 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.

Posted by GORDON on Aug. 21 2015,10:59

(TPRJones @ Aug. 21 2015,13:37)

QUOTE

Good idea, but I still think checks on the 1st and 15th are better. 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?). 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. 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. 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. 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.

Posted by GORDON 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. People using those programs are paying WAY more than their "Minimum Income" number for health care. I think we'd have to make health care truly cost-free for the user, somehow, for this to work.

Posted by Alhazad on Aug. 21 2015,15:13

(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....

And we still haven't accounted for Malcolm's point that the average age is only rising, which will require re-figuring and drive benefits down or debts up every year.

Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 21 2015,15:55

QUOTE

You still have to deal with people who hate seeing others given what they've had to work for...

Yeah, but they'd be getting it, too. That might mitigate it a little with that group.

Posted by GORDON 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.

Posted by GORDON 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

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.

Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 13 2015,11:29

(GORDON @ Nov. 13 2015,13:23)

QUOTE

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.

Posted by GORDON on Nov. 13 2015,11:58

Yes, I had intended from all sources of income.

Set the system so that if there is a budget surplus, the minimum salary goes up, which means rich peeps also get to make and keep more money. Incentiveses them to keep improving things. The important thing is that the salary cap will always be tied to the minimum salary to keep a runaway top 1% situation from happening the way it is now.

++++

For a minute I was thinking the minimum income could save businesses money by really reducing what they pay employees who bother to still work.... but then I realized no one would work full time at McD's for $1 per hour when they are already making $15k per year for being alive. I imagine we'd have a more natural minimum wage (beyond the Guaranteed Minimum Salary, hereafter known as the GMS), though. There would be no need to artificially set a limit. People will either flip burgers for $5 hour, or they wont, but at least they'd have their GMS as a "living wage," as the hippies call it.

Posted by TPRJones on Nov. 17 2015,07:34

Read < For Us, The Living > by Heinlein. Not his best work as an author, but part of it is outlining exactly what you just said but with a solid grounding in economic theory to go with it.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 11 2016,18:40

(GORDON @ Aug. 21 2015,00:03)

QUOTE

Finland is considering giving all of their citizens a "minimum income," no matter whether or not they currently have a job.

Here's another article about it, they are maybe moving forward with a "negative income tax."

< http://www.city-journal.org/html....52.html >

QUOTE

This year, the Finnish government hopes to begin granting every adult citizen a monthly allowance of €800 (roughly $900). Whether rich or poor, each citizen will be free to use the money as he or she sees fit. The idea is that people are responsible for their actions. If someone decides to spend their €800 on vodka, that is their decision, and has nothing to do with the government. In return for the UBI, however, the public accepts the elimination of most welfare services. Currently, the Finnish government offers a variety of income-based assistance programs for everything from housing to children’s education to property insulation. Axing these programs should free up enough public resources to finance the UBI. The bureaucracy that currently governs welfare payments will disappear. There will no longer be any need to ask for government help, nor to fill out forms or wait for the competent authorities to examine each dossier to determine eligibility.

Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 11 2016,18:55

I kinda like it, but there's gonna be the dumbasses who blow it all and still need help.

And there's people who just aren't capable of helping themselves.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 11 2016,19:04

(TheCatt @ Apr. 11 2016,21:55)

QUOTE

I kinda like it, but there's gonna be the dumbasses who blow it all and still need help.

And there's people who just aren't capable of helping themselves.

More and more I think these people need to just be sloughed off of the skin of civilization. If they can't find a church charity or a sucker of a family member to feed them, then they just gotta be cut loose.

How to keep them from breaking into houses and raiding the fridge because they spent all their money on day 1 on crack? I dunno. One problem at a time.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 11 2016,19:41

QUOTE

How to keep them from breaking into houses and raiding the fridge because they spent all their money on day 1 on crack? I dunno. One problem at a time.

Uh, no. That's a prereq to implementing this shit because doing it ad hoc is rife with shitty compromises. Even if you had < something like this >, it still wouldn't work. The real bitch is that there are some crackheads worth the effort.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 11 2016,19:53

Ease the restrictions on lethal home defense systems. Let the problem fix itself.

The universe is going to keep creating poor people faster than we can fix them, and eventually we will hit critical mass. Might as well fix the problem while we still have some nice stuff.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 11 2016,20:02

The universe ain't creating shit unless you're talking about hypothetical people somewhere on other planets. People create poor people.

Posted by Alhazad on Apr. 11 2016,20:27

(Malcolm @ Apr. 11 2016,20:02)

QUOTE

The universe ain't creating shit unless you're talking about hypothetical people somewhere on other planets. People create poor people.

And interestingly, as education, income, and availability of family planning services rise, they create fewer of them. So a negative tax could be a good breeding disincentive as well.

< http://www.economist.com/node/14743589 >

QUOTE

Macroeconomic research bears out this picture. Fertility starts to drop at an annual income per person of $1,000-2,000 and falls until it hits the replacement level at an income per head of $4,000-10,000 a year (see chart 2). This roughly tracks the passage from poverty to middle-income status and from an agrarian society to a modern one.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 11 2016,20:39

(Malcolm @ Apr. 11 2016,23:02)

QUOTE

The universe ain't creating shit unless you're talking about hypothetical people somewhere on other planets. People create poor people.

Thanks for nailing that down, I honestly didn't know people created p;eople.

o fuck what if they create themselves mind blown

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 11 2016,20:47

QUOTE

Thanks for nailing that down...

Obvious as it may sound, it does imply shit like this...

QUOTE

as education, income, and availability of family planning services rise, they create fewer of them [people]

... is important and has a chance of bringing it under control. It's no coincidence the 100 or so countries with the least of the above have the highest fertility rates. Then all the refugees from unpleasant places everyone loves bitching about might not flee in such titanic droves.

Posted by Alhazad on Apr. 11 2016,20:56

(GORDON @ Apr. 11 2016,20:39)

QUOTE

o fuck what if they create themselves mind blown

Hah!