Universal Minimum Income

genuineoriginal

New member
Well,now that we have the wages part of the economy all ironed out we should address the cash flow/food cost portion of the mix. I think 12.00 a gallon milk,7.00 a gallon gas,15.00 hamburgers,and 6.00 loaves of bread should be enough to be able to pay a 24,000.00 a year employee and still stay in business. Maybe not but with leeway we can adjust it as we need.
It might be enough this month, but what about next month?

3f1kfK_web.jpg
 

aikido7

BANNED
Banned
The problem started when President Ronald Reagan began to eject the poor, homeless and mentally ill out of the institutions and programs to fend for themselves on our city streets.

Some of us were skeptical and alarmed at the time, but were advised to be quiet and let the authoritarian father figure and his selfish offspring do it his way.

The Jews of biblical times had a real solution.

Because of their life under periods of living under Pharaohs, Kings, military commanders and groups of people, they strove to build a society that would address the extreme physical and moral dislocations they felt:

1. Leave a portion of every harvest for the stranger, the immigrant, the poor and the homeless.

2.Mandate a certain period every so often when all land reverts back to its original owner or family.

3.Set a date to cancel all debts, public and private.

4.A Jew named Jesus extended these qualities into the environment he lived in.

5. 20 or 30 years later, a Jew named Paul supported little Christian communities to "hold all things in common."

Structural socialism can help.

Throwing money into crippled and corporate-run programs or local bureaucracy-heavy enterprises or praying for a free market solution do no good.

Programs like Housing First for the homeless brings a success rate of over 70% and saves millions.
 

aikido7

BANNED
Banned
I think this idea is on the right track, but is unnecessarily excessive.

Instead of giving everyone 24K, why not set that as a base economic necessity, and guarantee it to all citizens if needed. Then allow anyone who wants to work, and can, to earn up to 48K without paying income taxes. And then, beyond that amount, we would pay a graduated increasing income tax up to 98% on 10m+/year.

Then make health care and education free to all citizens.

This would:

1. guarantee everyone a survivable income.
a. any kid could afford to get advanced education.
b. retirees would be guaranteed a comfortable retirement
c. workers would have the power to refuse work, giving them power in the job market, again (raising wages and working conditions).

2. allow increasing income for increasing productivity.
a. preserving entrepreneurial drive.
b. greatly increasing individual and collective education, exploration, and inventiveness.

3. eliminates the hodgepodge of social welfare programs and the IRS by combining them in one system.
a. eliminates the need for complicated justification criteria for the poor.
b. can more easily be adjusted for exceptional circumstances if necessary.

4. eliminates the creation of an absurdly wealthy elite.
a. ending their ability to pervert the democratic process with their massive wealth.
b. spreading the wealth (possibilities/opportunities) out among the population.
c. maintaining a more fair and reasonable scale of economic compensation.
d. maintaining a more equitable and democratic economy and society.
It all saves money and helps us interact with the rest of us. It fosters community.

If others fear community with folks of different-color skin or different cultures, it is they who will complain the most. The trouble is, their political representatives can also harbor those same paranoid worries.
 

whitestone

Well-known member
It might be enough this month, but what about next month?

3f1kfK_web.jpg

lol,yep for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction. The amazing part to me is that if people are paid 24,000.00 a year and work for 20 years until retirement(why work past that if retirement is a fixed thing) then across their career they would almost gross 5 million dollars.

The punch line though is were trying to figure out how to help millionaires stay off food stamps and live comfortable.
 

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned

Eric h

Well-known member
I don't know how people can survive and work for so little. The equal of 10.00 hourly almost seems too low for a normal life in America, I can't imagine 1.90 avg.

I cannot comprehend this either, people in poverty tend to work long hours, the $1.90 per day is probably about twenty cents per hour.

I seem to remember Chinese workers being paid about 50 cents per hour to make Iphones. The price Apple charge their customers, just means someone has a few billion dollars pocket money.
 

aikido7

BANNED
Banned
I cannot comprehend this either, people in poverty tend to work long hours, the $1.90 per day is probably about twenty cents per hour.

I seem to remember Chinese workers being paid about 50 cents per hour to make Iphones. The price Apple charge their customers, just means someone has a few billion dollars pocket money.
That is the norm for corporations, private entities and capitalists (and communists if you count Red China--which follows both).

Jesus made most of his remarks to address poverty and income inequality in his day. He told us not to "worship God and mammon."
 

whitestone

Well-known member
I don't know how people can survive and work for so little. The equal of 10.00 hourly almost seems too low for a normal life in America, I can't imagine 1.90 avg.


It wouldn't work in the U.S. at 1.90u.s. they could buy one can of potted meat@ .50, a small box of crackers .75 and one .25 pack of cool-aid,one piece of fruit @.30=1.80per day U.S.,,,leaving .10 per day times 30 days and you have a bag of sugar for the cool-aid.


It's the direct opposite of everyone making 5-20 million across their lives. In the U.S. you could maintain life,but nothing more on 1.90 a day,no,h.t.o.,gas,car,home,ect.ect. they would have to filter and boil water out of the rivers and streams.

On the other hand in the nations where they do only make 1.90 a day and they can buy a can of potted meat for a penny they could get 30 cans for .30. If all the other foods were also this cheap they could buy a months worth of groceries for a weeks salary,1.90x5 9.50-10.00 so they still have a bout 20.00 left across the month for rent,lights,gas for Vespa ect.

So because of the state of economy in the U.S. it would equal extreme poverty,while in other nations it is a comparable lifestyle to the same amount of good's we spend thousands of dollars on. Imagine .10 a gallon gas,penny loaves of bread and 4.00 light bills and at a 1.90 a day with a budget and one could save a fair retirement.

At the end the U.S. economy needs to,has to crumble. And while it is crumbling the economies in the other nations would need to rise to the same level ours crumbles to so that we pay the same price for the same can of potted meat as the rest of the world.
 

kmoney

New member
Hall of Fame
Second look at 1: it looks like a collosal figure, but what you have to take into account is the number of people who already make $24,000 or more.

Are you saying that people who already make 24k or more wouldn't get anything from the gov't?
 

kmoney

New member
Hall of Fame
I think this idea is on the right track, but is unnecessarily excessive.

Instead of giving everyone 24K, why not set that as a base economic necessity, and guarantee it to all citizens if needed. Then allow anyone who wants to work, and can, to earn up to 48K without paying income taxes. And then, beyond that amount, we would pay a graduated increasing income tax up to 98% on 10m+/year.

Then make health care and education free to all citizens.

This would:

1. guarantee everyone a survivable income.
a. any kid could afford to get advanced education.
b. retirees would be guaranteed a comfortable retirement
c. workers would have the power to refuse work, giving them power in the job market, again (raising wages and working conditions).

Another benefit is that people could pursue careers that aren't based solely on getting a livable wage. Artists wouldn't have to starve anymore. :eek:
 

Angel4Truth

New member
Hall of Fame
Another benefit is that people could pursue careers that aren't based solely on getting a livable wage. Artists wouldn't have to starve anymore. :eek:

Some of them should be starving, to force them to drop it as a career. There is some really bad art out there.
 

PureX

Well-known member
Another benefit is that people could pursue careers that aren't based solely on getting a livable wage. Artists wouldn't have to starve anymore. :eek:
Well, they would probably still starve, because they'd be spending their minimum allowance on materials. But at least they'd have that choice. ;)
 
Top