5 Reasons to Consider a No-Strings-Attached, Basic Income for All Americans

[xchrom]

http://www.alternet.org/economy/5-reasons-consider-no-strings-attached-basic-income-all-americans



***SNIP

1. It would help fight poverty: America is the richest country in the world, yet widespread poverty continues to afflict us. Social Security has arguably been the most successful program for reducing poverty in American history, dramatically cutting poverty among the elderly and keeping tens of millions above the poverty threshold. Why not expand it to all?

***SNIP

2. It could be good for the economy: A basic guaranteed income has the potential to positively impact the economy in several ways, which is why economists from John Kenneth Galbraith to Milton Friedman have advocated it.

3. It could have many benefits to society: Clearly, we want policies that help us create a more stable society where more people can reach their potential and fewer people resort to crime and violence. Advocates say a guaranteed basic income does just that.

***SNIP

4. It might be more efficient than present systems: In the current patchwork of systems confronting poverty, like welfare, food stamps and vouchers, people can fall through the cracks. A guaranteed income could help solve problems caused by rules and restrictions that leave some without subsistence income when they need it.

[seveneyes]

1. That would only be about one Trillion dollars/year in the USA

We waste a lot more than that.

[Laelth]

58. I think it would cost a lot less than that ... 300 bil./year, perhaps. n/t

-Laelth

[seveneyes]

65. I think it metioned 3k/year for every man, woman and child

$3000 x 315,000,000 people is about a Trillion bucks.

[Laelth]

70. Not all of us will get the check. n/t

-Laelth

[whopis01]

76. Isn't that the idea of a no-strings-attached, basic income?

Everyone gets the check regardless whether or not you have other income.

[tblue37]

80. Dependent minors probably would not. nt

[reformist2]

2. It would be a heckuva lot cheaper to administer... no more red tape as to who qualifies!

[Angleae]

3. And you plan on getting the money for this from ... where?

[reformist2]

5. Taxes and/or print it. It actually wouldn't be much more expensive than our patchwork welfare system

[woo me with science]

16. +100000 And the benefits...

freeing people from desperation, giving them the space to pursue work and creative activities instead of functioning as desperate cogs in a sick society.

Imagine the potential savings in healthcare and prisons if you remove day-to-day desperation about having enough to survive.

People post those heart-stirring photos of how shelter animals are transformed from hopeless, ugly, pathetic creatures into vibrant, active, busy companions, just by ensuring they have their basic needs met. Yet we are supposed to believe that the same dynamic is unrealistic for human beings.

The goal of a predatory, wealth-hijacking society is the desperation of its workers, because desperate workers are easier to control and exploit. We constantly are fed sick lies about what we can and can't afford to do for people. We pour billions into war.

Government should exist to serve people, not the other way around. And we are not "workers." We are human beings who should be using government to create societies that enrich us, help us care for one another, and allow us to live, create, and make the most of our short time here on earth.

[daleanime]

53. Amen....

[Nuclear Unicorn]

61. A lot of the jobs that get done in our society are only done because

despite their unpleasantness the monetary compensation outweighs unpleasantness of the task, and the only reason the monetary compensation outweighs the unpleasantness is because enough people are willing to pay enough money for someone else to do it -- because the job is just that unpleasant.

Much of society would be cold, naked, homeless and dog-paddling in rivers of their own filth but for the fact that many others are working dangerous and filthy jobs on their behalf.

[hunter]

66. I love the shelter animal comparison!

All our dogs have been "losers" from the animal shelter.

Too old, too sad, too fearful, behavior problems, dogs that had been flea covered mangy mite bitten strays, dogs that had been neglected or abused...

It's not instant happiness all around but eventually we end up with some pretty good dogs.

For people it's a whole hell of a lot easier to get out and about in the world, maybe even find a job, from a safe secure home than it is to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" away from the mean, mean streets.

Like you I believe it's a control issue by the scum at the top. Desperate fearful workers can be abused. Homelessness, hunger, and more dangerous living situations are very real threats in this nation. Workers are very fearful of falling even further.

Frankly I think the welfare system ought to be generous enough that anyone can fearlessly say, "Take this job and shove it!" and that any job that can't pay a living wage is not a job worth doing.

Businesses that abuse workers or won't pay a living wage ought to be eliminated with "extreme prejudice" and the social safety net needs to be strong. If that is not the case it probably means that someone is not paying their fair share of taxes and becoming wealthy at the expense of most everyone else.

Personally I think we ought to tax the uber-wealthy class out of existence. The world doesn't need billionaires.

[Yo_Mama]

24. I think you must be wrong about that

Hey, it's early in the morning, the coffee is just going down, so I could well be confused. But there are over 300 million of us. If we guaranteed every person 5K a year in minimum income, that would be more than 1.5 trillion. Surely?

300,000,000 X 5,000 = 1,500,000,000,000 or 1.5 trillion.

Okay, so everyone wouldn't need it, but 5K isn't much of an income either. You can't fund it by doing away with Medicaid, Medicare etc, so you can't assume that all current social spending halts. Food stamps you still need. You are still going to need rental/housing/heat assistance.

To put this in perspective, the 5K minimum grant would cost us in excess of 100 billion a month. We are currently spending about 90 billion a month on federal insurance programs (Medicaid, Medicare, etc). That means about 200 billion a month for a paltry 5K annual minimum income plus just medical insurance. That totals to 2.4 trillion a year. Current federal spending is under 3.5 billion a year. There's nothing much left for anything else.

We are currently spending more than 70 billion a month on SS + Disability. Okay, assuming some of those payments can be offset or eliminated by the 5K grant, halve that. It's still more than 400 billion a year. So now social spending is 2.8 trillion, leaving 600 billion for everything else. Then you still need food stamps - 5K annually ain't much. That's approximately another 100 billion a year.

I don't think you CAN raise taxes to compensate for that, and any theory that the addition of this minimum is going to boost the economy enough to raise incomes for taxes to increase to compensate for it seems bizarre, to say the least.

[jeff47]

37. Actually, you don't need those programs.

Food stamps you still need. You are still going to need rental/housing/heat assistance.

Nope. That's the point. Instead of individual programs with individual benefits, you just cut a single check. And yes, that means the check is larger.

Think of it this way: One of my coworkers grew up very poor, but is proud that they never took food stamps. They grew a lot of their own food instead. They could do this because they lived in a rural area where they had space to grow their food. That option isn't available to people living in an apartment in New York City, so they need food stamps. On the other hand, that coworker's family would have greatly benefited from a program that helped pay for gasoline and car maintenance, while the NYC family doesn't need that.

So just give them a check, and let them spend it on what they need.

It will cost a lot. But it also means every "low income" program goes away, replaced with a much simpler-to-administer program. For example, we don't have to manage a list of WIC-approved items. Heck, we don't even have to verify income. Just give it to everyone. Or if you'd prefer to save a few bucks, employers are already telling the IRS how much people make. Use that info to mail out checks only to people who make less than the minimum.

It will require raising taxes. But our top tax rate is already very low compared to the rest of the advanced world....and even our own historical tax rate. To argue that such a tax increase crashes the economy is to ignore the tax rates in the 1950s and 1960s - a massive boom despite top tax rates as high as 90%. Heck, the "massive Reagan boom" had a top tax rate of 50%.

As for boosting the economy, the poor will spend every single dime of that money. It'll also let a whole lot of people start their own business, instead of plugging away at a corporate job to keep food on the table.

[joeglow3]

41. People assume taxes paid is a function of one number - tax rates

However, you have to have a number to multiply that tax rate by. Yes, tax rates were up to 90%, but people had damn near unlimited tax deductions. We can raise top tax brackets, but it is a pet peeve of mine (as a tax cpa) when people fail to recognize how taxes paid is calculated.

[jeff47]

42. It's a reasonable shorthand when discussing topics on a web site.

And since we aren't talking about changing those deductions, they're not a huge effect. The same deductions applied to a 39.5% top tax rate and 50% top tax rate is not a massive difference. It's a sliver of the 10.5% difference.

Heck, we should also be discussing details like capital gains taxes.

Anyway, deductions will need to be considered when actually determining a rate. But we're not doing that. We're tossing around ideas that Congress will not enact in the foreseeable future.

[Common Sense Party]

59. People also assume (incorrectly) that we can pay for everything by simply raising

the top brackets.

THERE SIMPLY AREN'T ENOUGH RICH PEOPLE.

Do the math any way you want, but there aren't enough rich people to fund all the nifty programs we'd love to have. Unless we're planning on making the top rate 90% on anything earned above $100,000 I don't think we can get anywhere close. (And then most of the wealthy will leave the country.)

To fund what we need to fund and to pay off the massive federal debt built up over the last 40 years (because we DIDN'T fund what we spent), we need to raise taxes on the lower earners, too. There are a lot more non-rich people in this country. Everyone needs to be paying something, and most everyone should be paying a couple percent more than they are now.

[jmowreader]

72. Don't say that

I came up with a simple and easy-to-understand tax hike a few years ago: take the lowest bracket and add one percent to it, the next bracket and add two percent, and so on until you got to the top bracket which would go up by six percent. I would have left all the current deductions and credits in place. You would have thought I'd recommended sending Jonathan Swift's stew pot over to poor people's houses from the screaming that ensued.

[Common Sense Party]

75. I think that makes much more sense than what we've been doing.

I'm doing okay financially. Nowhere even remotely close to the top 1% or even the top 5%, but we're not hurting. I don't mind paying more than those who aren't as fortunate. But even when I was just getting by, sometimes I'd get a refund check at tax time and scratch my head, thinking I probably shouldn't be getting this.

I left the Republican Party because of their willful obtuseness and inability to see that the country can't keep spending, spending, spending and borrowing, borrowing, borrowing, all the while cutting taxes on everybody.

At the same time, I don't think the Democratic Party quite gets it, either, because the current philosophy seems to be, "The wealthy will pay for it." Yeah, they should pay their share and should pay a higher rate than the rest of us, but there aren't enough of them to pay for everything.

I think we all need to pitch in and have at least SOME skin in the game.

And we need to pay for all the crap Congress has done for the last 40 years--it's not right to make our grandkids pay for all that.

[grahamhgreen]

56. & from not as many needed to be jailed for illegal work activity.

[eShirl]

7. Same place we get money for military, CIA, black ops

[dotymed]

4. As a SS recipient. SS is not enough to really raise

people above "poverty...the "guidelines" maybe.
SS waited 3 years after I was able to work before they "approved" my heart failure.
They base your income on your last 5 years of employment. That messed my retirement and SS wage up.
They pull these tricks on peoples lives daily.

[magical thyme]

17. they base your income based on an average of your best 35 years of employment

For people born in 1952, they have a worksheet at their website that enables you to project it. They take the annual income for a given year, multiply it by an "index" factor (eg. the index factor for 1972 is 6.21. the index factor for 2008 is 1.07). After determing the indexed earnings, total your top earning 35 years and divide that sum by 420 (the number of months in 35 years) = average monthly indexed income. Multiply the 1st $816. by 90%. Multiply everything between $816 and $4,917 by 32%. Multiply everything >$4,917 by 15%. Add the 3 totals and multiply that sum by 75% = estimated monthly benefit if you retire at 62.

[dotymed]

35. Unfortunately

that is NOT how your disability income is determined.
Your retirement yes, your disability is figured from the last 5 years earnings.
If you are unable to work for some of those years, it doesn't effect their calculations.
THEY (not your Dr.'s) determine the onset of your disability.

[magical thyme]

45. wow, I didn't realize that.

What's odd is that my last Social Security statement, which came back in 2010, showed that if I were to become disabled "right now" my disability payments would be higher than if I retired at 66.

Yet my income for the 5 years leading up to 2010 ranged from 0 to paltry.

Did they change how they calculate disability since 2010? Or are they just sending out lies all along to fool us?

[dotymed]

77. Those statements are true.

However, the govt. decides when you are officially disabled and eligible for SS. You may be eligible for a large disability at that moment. Sadly very seldom does SS determine "in your favor" the first time. So you have to file for reconsideration. These things take time. Usually years. The "five year rule" is ticking away....
Usually by the time you are approved, looking at your average income over the last five years, you only have a year or two of actual work...the rest of the time has been spent chasing after what you and your Dr.'s know.
Yes, they usually "back-date" your disability but in most cases they will not over-ride the initial SS "judge's" decision. It took me 2 years for their judge to determine that I could work at a toll booth. There doesn't have to be jobs available in that field. After I was "approved"
my disability was back-dated to the day after he made that insane decision.

Heart failure, COPD, emphysema, etc., working at a toll booth surrounded by pollution...fuck that idiocy. So after 4 years, my SS was back-dated two years. This left me with earnings for 2 1/2 out of 5 of the last years.... that cut my SS in half. It also messed up my Union retirement. To get that, (in my case) you have to have worked full-time, in my profession w/in the last 1 1/2 years... I missed that by a few months too. You cannot get disability retirement (full benefits) until SS says you are disabled.
All "catch-22's" that insure poverty in retirement.
I have a Son who lives with me.. that is an extra $450 monthly until he is 18.
Try to provide for a H.S. Senior on that...
Edited for spelling and clarity.

[Chico Man]

6. The constant drumbeat of socialist propagangda

Posted here - linking to alternet articles - reminds me of folks hawking LaRouche books outside the DMV.

[eShirl]

8. What's wrong with alternet?

[reformist2]

9. LOL, someone railing against "socialist" articles on a website for Democrats!

[a2liberal]

11. What do you expect

when it's ok for people to non-ironically call themselves "conservative democrat"s here, despite the TOS saying that "Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people"? These "socialist" ideas (minimum wage, unions, public schools, single-payer healthcare, etc.) used to be mainstream Democratic ideas but now apparently they're too wacko for the conservadems here

[hfojvt]

43. it is pretty funny though

we can't even seem to elect a significant number of liberals even, and some people think socialism will fly. No doubt all those conservative voters who made the House majority Republican, will vote for socialists in the next election

[KG]

13. !

[RainDog]

18. Thomas Paine was the first to promote basic minimum income

when the nation was being founded - and, of course, long before "socialism" was a word for backward people to scorn.

Martin Luther King Jr. also promoted a basic minimum income.

Strangely, so did Milton Friedman, because it would be cheaper than current models to administer.

I would like to assume you're joking about your dismissal of this idea because to do so would indicate a closed-minded, backward-thinking mentality that really has no place among democrats.

FDR started the human rights movement in the U.S. when the capitalist vultures bankrupted the world. That movement has never been fully realized.

Those who dismiss such ideas remind me of creationists trying to tell scientists the earth is 6000 years old - it's so stupid it's unbelievable. During the Bush recession, European nations with social democracies fared better than the U.S. as far as the well being of its citizens.

The purpose of govt. is to guarantee the well being of its citizens.

Anyone who forgets this needs to remember it quickly. This nation does not exist to make capitalists happy or to oversee their corruption - hard to believe, considering what exists, but that's the reality.

[woo me with science]

21. Beautiful post.

Thank you.

[xchrom]

23. +2

[reformist2]

25. People are so afraid of great new ideas... even "new ideas" that are 200+ years old!

[HughBeaumont]

26. Sadly, he's not joking.

Google his economic topic history on this site . . . one of them "Way Too Big Tent" persons.

[RainDog]

55. pitiful n/t

[hfojvt]

44. you may have that backwards

you (or Alternet, once again) are the one proposing that the earth is 6,000 years old.

When people laugh at your idea, you scold them for having a closed mind, and being "backward people".

You mention European social democracies, and yet none of them guarantee a basic minimum income.

[RainDog]

48. no, I'm afraid you've misunderstood

"Socialist" thinking - social democracies - is one part of my post. That's the system the mouth-breather, above, disparages.

Switzerland, however, was looking at implementing a basic minimum income. They were putting it up for a vote. Don't know the outcome on that one yet.

As I noted, it's not my idea - it's one that's been around for as long as the United States has existed, at the least.

So, in truth, it is and was the mouth breather who was demonstrating basic ignorance - imo.

I'm surprised to see you taking up for this person - but maybe not. You're always griping about people talking about white privilege, if I have the correct person among the "h" etc. people here.

You've made remarks that are just short of racist - and I have said to you that you should try to extend some compassion to others when people were disgusted with you for those remarks. fwiw.

Anyway, the only reason to be opposed to social govt. programs is if you don't believe in basic democratic party principles, again, imo.

[hfojvt]

50. socialism, though, as I learned in graduate school

is too far outside the mainstream in the US.

Carry pictures of Chairman Mao, and you ain't gonna make it with anyone any how.

Canada, England, Sweden, German and Swiss social democracies, OTOH, are another thing.

And I don't believe I have made any remark very near racist, although I did sorta recently get jumped for saying "people of color" (which I said to broaden the scope to ALL non-white people) and some people think it is borderline racist to say black instead of African American.

I do take some positions here which are borderline heresy, and thus some people are suspicious of anything I say and looking for a chance to expose my "true" colors and dance on my tombstone.

So it goes. Friends come and go, but enemies accumulate.

[RainDog]

54. Socialism is part of social democracy

I personally think mixed economies do the best because they meet the needs of people while responding to changes better than either extreme economic system.

I'm not talking about dancing on your tombstone - I was just noting I tried to speak on your behalf to others here when you've said things that are, as others noted - more than a little racist - or so it seemed.

As far as I know, we've never been friends and I have no reason to see you as an enemy.

Better reading comprehension, or thinking about this or that might be useful to you, tho. I'm sure that was sometimes needed for grad school, too.

[daleanime]

57. +1

[AAO]

68. One correction:

This nation does not exist to make capitalists happy or to oversee their corruption

This nation was not intended to exist to make capitalists happy or to oversee their corruption
(because the reality is, even though that was not the intent, that is the end result).

[HughBeaumont]

27. Oh, cool. Red-Baiting for breakfast. Because THAT'S what was missing.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Red_baiting

Even in the present day, after the collapse of the Soviet Union and China's tacit abandonment of communism, Red-baiting is still popular among the American-right wing. Glenn Beck and various talk radio figures liberally (ahem) use such terms as "communist" and "Marxist" to refer to anything they dislike.

Popular targets at present are U.S. President Barack Obama, who is said to be a crypto-communist pushing "Obamunism," and the Democratic Party; in 2009, the Republican National Committee was pressured to adopt a plank stating that the Democrats are a socialist party.

There is at least one known example of the form of *ahem* argument, though not in keeping with the original intent, being used by people further to the left than the target. During a teacher's strike in Chicago against mayor Rahm Emanuel (previously a major participant in the aforementioned Obamunism), protesters were observed carrying signs exhorting the public to "Fight Rahmunism!"

[jeff47]

39. Yes, an idea proposed by Richard Nixon is socialist propaganda. (nt)

[SomethingFishy]

78. Yeah.. god forbid we should consider anything that

doesn't fuck over the poor and working class. It might be "socialism".. booga booga...

[Chico Man]

79. I would argue

That a "no strings attached basic income for all Americans" would fuck over the poor and working class. Basic economics.

[Demeter]

10. Shades of Richard Nixon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_minimum_income

Guaranteed minimum income (GMI) also called minimum income, is a system[1] of social welfare provision that guarantees that all citizens or families have an income sufficient to live on, provided they meet certain conditions. Eligibility is typically determined by citizenship, a means test and either availability for the labour market or a willingness to perform community services. The primary goal of a guaranteed minimum income is to combat poverty. If citizenship is the only requirement, the system turns into a universal basic income.



http://www.remappingdebate.org/article/guaranteed-income%E2%80%99s-moment-sun?page=0,2

...In August 1969, in the eighth month of his presidency, Richard Nixon delivered a speech proposing the replacement of AFDC with a program that would benefit “the working poor, as well as the nonworking; to families with dependent children headed by a father, as well as those headed by a mother.” In case the point was missed, he continued: “What I am proposing is that the Federal Government build a foundation under the income of every American family with dependent children that cannot care for itself — and wherever in America that family may live.”

Guaranteed annual income had arrived. From the margins of economic thought just a generation earlier, the GAI was now at the heart of President Nixon’s domestic policy agenda in the form of the “Family Assistance Plan” (FAP)...

[demwing]

12. The idea needs a new name

"FAP" is already taken.

[progressoid]

73. Well, it might get people interested in it.

[hfojvt]

46. hmmm, apparently single, childless people need not apply

"a foundation under the income of every American family with dependent children"

[A Little Weird]

14. Sounds like an excellent idea to me

[dotymed]

36. Me too

except for people whose children are grown or childless people.
EVERY needy person deserves a decent quality of life.

[lovemydog]

15. I'm 100% in favor

One trillion can be obtained by restoring marginal tax rates on the richest 2% to Eisenhower-era levels. It's no skin off their backs to pay more in taxes.

[PowerToThePeople]

19. Free the (wage) slaves. n/t

[WinkyDink]

20. I don't think the Kochs need any more, do you?

[Victor_c3]

22. My only concern would be that it would create a two-tiered society

like in some of the oil rich middle eastern countries. If you are a citizen, you receive enough money from the government and oil revenues that you don't have to work so many people don't work at all. Or at least that was how it was when I visited Qatar about 10 years ago.

The argument I'd expect hear is "well, then employers will have to pay people more to do their shit jobs if they want to hire people to work in places like Walmart and McDonalds" except that in these countries they don't pay people more. They just hire non-citizens and guest workers from places like the Philippines to do the shit jobs. So you have a population of well-to-do citizens of the country and masses of dirt poor guest workers with all of the problems that poverty brings with it.

I believe it is an interesting idea, but sadly the pragmatist in me doesn't think it'd make our society any better or our economic system more fair.

[RC]

30. So you prefer the 2-tiered society we have now?

The one with the fuzzy line between working 2 or 3 minimum wage jobs to get by and those that can get by with only one low wage job, by living with someone else with a low wage job?

Something tells me you do not really understand how money circulating in the economy works.

[eShirl]

31. I thought those jobs were going to be replaced with robots?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

28. It certainly would let us 'downsize the government'

if indeed we did have one simple program that eliminated poverty, rather than dozens of different programs that are aimed at specific segments of those in poverty. Lots of paperwork and red tape could simply disappear.

[upaloopa]

29. Please include unicorns that fart glitter

Sometimes I think the level of intelligence on this board rivals freeperville!
$5,000 a year? Hell I spend that in two weeks print money? It would be worthless with unheard of inflation

[RC]

33. Every little bit helps.

That is $13.69 a day. Enough to adequately feed a person. Or gas for transportation between their 2 or 3 minimum wage jobs. Or their share of the rent. Or to pay the heat bill...

This country already has too many unicorns that fart glitter, we need actual, working solutions for a change.


Edited to add:
You make at least $130,000 a year?

[eShirl]

34. I can't tell if your argument is that it's too little, or too much. n/t

[JoeyT]

47. Iknowrite!?

That's barely enough to keep gas in my yacht. There's no way it's going to help poor people that are barely scraping by. Some of them don't even have the money to BUY a yacht.

$5000 a year is a lot of money to people that make minimum wage and work a 40 hour week. It's a third of their pre-tax income.

Sometimes I think the level of intelligence on this board rivals freeperville!

Quite right, only not for the reason you think.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

69. I do not break wind, particularly of the glittery sort. nt

[Recursion]

32. I love the idea of replacing basically all our entitlement programs with a minimum income

That way none of the "perverse incentive" arguments even get made.

[jeff47]

38. Oh, they'll still make that argument

It's not like that argument is based in reality today.

[jeff47]

40. There's another reason they don't cover in the article.

6. We're gonna need it as automation rolls out.

New automation technology has always replaced more jobs than it creates. The combine harvester cut more farm labor jobs than it created building, operating and maintaining the harvesters. At the time, those workers could be absorbed by new and expanding industries in the cities.

That doesn't happen anymore. Factory workers laid off due to automation are not getting new factory jobs. They're getting lower-paid service jobs. And displacing the workers that used to have those jobs. Who end up without reliable full-time employment.

That's going to get worse as technology advances. "Lights out" factories with zero humans working the production lines are new...for now. They're going to be popular. And they're going to eliminate virtually all 'factory' jobs. Even in the service industry, automation is replacing labor - there's a good chance the person working the drive-through at your local McDonalds doesn't actually fill your drink anymore. A machine does.

In the not-too-distant future, we're going to have less labor to be done than people to do that labor. In the short run, there's a few hacks we could apply - let's cut one day off from a "normal" work week, but raise hourly pay to compensate. $10/hr at 40hr/week becomes $12.50/hr at 32hr/week. But technology keeps advancing. Soon we'll be back to excess labor. Cut another day off the normal work week? Technology keeps advancing...

We're going to need something like a minimum income to deal with the fact that we will shortly have more people than jobs.

[MineralMan]

49. The idea is a good one. However, unless we can elect an

overwhelming majority of progressives to Congress, it's about as likely as a hot day in January in Minnesota. We can't even manage to elect a decent Democratic majority in the House, what with bickering over who's progressive enough to run for office. In the United States, a guaranteed income is a revolutionary idea, but we have a reactionary Congress.

Here's what I suggest:

GOTV 2014 and Beyond!

If we do that for a few elections, something like this might be possible. If we do not devote our efforts toward that, we'll keep right on getting obstructivism instead of progressivism. It's up to us, really. If Democrats who could be active in elections actually took the time to each get another 10 voters to the polls, we'd win control in Congress walking away. We don't seem to be doing that, though. I'll keep on working on it, though, this year, in 2016, and as long as I remain breathing.

[daleanime]

62. Plan for the future....

work on today.

[grahamhgreen]

51. Unemployment is a necessary part of capitalism, there fore, unemployed workers must be payed.

The system is not built to have zero unemployment.... Yet the unemployed must eat.... Or they'll be forced to commit illegal acts.

[taught_me_patience]

52. Fairy dust and unicorns

in an article almost completely devoid of analysis.

[HughBeaumont]

63. "Fairy Dust and Unicorns" . . .

. . . . What are "Things a Millennial will See Under Free Market Capitalism Before 'Retirement' or 'A Living Wage that Successfully Accommodates Necessities'"?

[RainDog]

71. Philippe Van Parijs has done quite a bit of work on this

If you want to read more about it.

http://www.modernmoneyandpublicpurpose.com/uploads/1/2/5/3/12534585/arguing_for_basic_income.pdf

[Democracyinkind]

60. Inevitable if current trends in productivity continue.

Not that "socialist" (in a "teally existing socialistic way) at all - and the money will come from the same place that the black security state budget comes from.

[hughee99]

64. How much would the minimum income be?

I don't think there's a number that's going to work. If it's too low, it's ineffective, if it's too high, it's too expensive.

[Lunacee_2013]

74. Kickity.

The more I hear about this, the more I like it. Give everyone a bare minimum yearly wage and add on health care and education, tax the top 1%er types and their corporations to get the money to fund it. That way everyone is covered, and they have a house to live in. It doesn't have to be nice and fancy, just basic. If people want nice and fancy, then they can work for it, just like everybody else should. We Americans have enough to help ourselves! It's depressing to see homeless people on the streets, to talk to them and to hear just how close their lives mimic my own. I can only take so much, yet they've taken so much more. I don't see how they do it, except that they have no other choice. And what about the mentally ill? Just today I had a guy who was talking to himself stop and make a path right through traffic for me (I'm mostly legally blind) to cross the road. What about him? Just because he hears voices that are not there, does that mean we as a society get to throw him away? He never ûasked for anything, just waved and wished me a safe afternoon as I walked by.

Sorry, I've kinda gotten OT, but how do we bring up everyone who is in poverty? I'm tired of seeing hungry kids and homeless vets and sick old people almost everyday. It makes my eyes water even now, just thinking about it. And I know the only reason I'm not on the streets with them is luck. Luck and family and that's it. I'm having second thoughts about posting this now, but I think it's important to remember just how much programs like this would help change people's lives for the better.