DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Opening of the Way
HTML https://openingoftheway.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: News, Politics, and General
*****************************************************
#Post#: 12--------------------------------------------------
UBI
DIR By: forbitals
Date: February 15, 2019, 7:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
UBI ( Universal Basic Income )
This idea has been around for a long time, known under different
names. But now, in the wake of the lost 2016 Presidential
Election, and maybe the demonstrated popularity of Bernie
Sanders, it is being taken more seriously.
UBI is not needs tested. And as I see it, you would not even
need to apply for it.
So a question would be, can the government actually pay out that
much money? Well it might be like $10k or $20k per person, or
at least for adults, and then something for children. So maybe
$4 to 8 Trillion per year, an epic amount of money.
Okay, but lets look more closely. What happens to the money,
and where does it go?
Well it gets spent, and then generally it ends up back where it
started, with the people who print the money, our Federal
Government.
So half is paid out to people above the median income. So they
might put it in that mountain of dead money which inflates the
Stock and Real Estate Markets.
Or it might go to Dan Quayle's Isle of Man favorite tax dodge.
HTML http://img.timeinc.net/time/photoessays/2012/political_buttons_0207/polbuttons_quayle.jpg
Okay, but we still got them though, as with pre-Reagan taxes,
their tax hike will be more than their UBI. So more money will
be in circulation, creating jobs and business revenue.
They might deposit in a bank. But banks can't sit on the money,
they have to loan it out. So usually it keeps getting
redeposited into banks until it reaches 1 over the Cash Reserve
Ratio. Either way, it keeps getting clipped until it makes it
back to the government.
Now the other half of the money goes out to those bellow the
median income level. They spend it the fastest. Some of it
will end up in the hands of the rich as described above. Other
will keep getting clipped by, if not income tax, by sales tax.
Sales tax is not very progressive at all.
So to answer the question, this huge amount of money is not
depleting gov't funds at all, as it just goes back to the gov't.
Some economists don't like to classify stuff like this as either
GDP or taxes, as it is just transfer payments. From where ever
you look at it, it just keeps coming back.
So really, this is just Keynesianism take a couple of steps
further. Keynesianism is not Socialism, as it does not try to
set up state control of industries. It is like they say,
"Saving Capitalism from itself."
But Keynesianism is still focused on creating full employment.
That works to a point. But in later stages of Capitalism there
are more problems, like environmental, and social problems if
you are promoting the middle class family.
So the next step beyond Keynesianism would be to go to a Welfare
State. And yes this worked under LBJ. Even Nixon showed
specific support with his Family Assistance Plan (FAP).
But there was a huge political backlash and we got Reagan and
his Welfare Queen stories.
The problem with welfare is that it is needs tested, it is done
in order to regulate the poor and to subject the poor to ritual
humiliations so that they become a symbol which is used to
maintain workforce and political discipline.
So the way to move the next step is UBI, because it is not needs
tested.
So this amounts to a huge expansion of the economy, like what,
50%, but no longer tied to employment.
So first of all we cannot follow idiots like Rick Perry and gut
environmental protections and worker safety, to create jobs.
Expanding the economy like this to bring more people in, we must
use the best environmental science we have, and have unions and
worker and consumer safety.
Now, the idea is not to fatten slum lords. Rent control exists
some places, but it has problems.
So the other way is just to use governmental authority and plow
the slum lords under. Complete them out of business.
So there have to be public offerings for all basic and necessary
services.
So say a housing projects authority which builds high rise
towers, 20 , 30, 40 floors. Start one per year in each area.
Average finishing one per year. They have schools, child care,
libraries, retail, community centers, everything, and on the
bottom floors. And they are built on rail mass transit lines.
So you really have very little use for a car.
And these are not just for the poor, again, no needs test. Just
click on the box that you want it, and you get it as soon as
available.
So right away there you have an economic and material utopia,
and so easy.
Then if you seek employment or try to start a business, your
prospects will be so much better, as the economy is about 50%
bigger, and with this commitment to providing these universal no
needs tested services.
Maybe it is fixed so that you need to give 50% of you UBI to get
into one of these housing projects. Maybe we have a mix of
gov't and private contractors building them, competing with each
other, keeping each other honest. We build at a stead pace out
forever. Eventually buy up the slum lord property and make it
into parks, if not farmland or wilderness.
Universal Single Payer Health Care of course.
Most things like that, universal and no needs test.
Taxes are accessed by a means test. But nothing requires any
needs test.
No gov't or public funds being depleted, just money
recirculating into perpetuity.
Good education. People who believe in themselves and do not
carry any stigma for having been poor.
The right that wants to blame the poor, or invoke religion to do
that, fuck 'em.
Far less reliance on automobiles, Good public transit.
Bicycles, but also very little need for anything more than just
walking.
More people will be employed or running their own businesses
than the way it is now. And the monetary costs of the social
problems we face today are most certainly greater than what this
would cost. Really just Keynesianism taken a couple of steps
further so that it no longer depends on employment.
Satin Doll - Patti Austin
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdPLKc8hdlk
#Post#: 44--------------------------------------------------
Re: UBI
DIR By: forbitals
Date: June 13, 2019, 3:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
... those who are getting an income, are not necessarily
"contributing" anything more to our society than those who do
not have such income. The most serious needs in our society are
always going to be the needs of those who have no ability to
pay. These for example are always going to be those with the
greatest need for a lawyer.
Most paying employment does not contribute anything to our
society, nothing commensurate with the resources it uses up,
staring with the gasoline and tire rubber used by all those
people driving in their cars to work.
We already produce enough of all the goods and services people
need, but despite that we still have people living in a state of
extreme deprivation, simply because they have not been able to
secure one of those good paying jobs.
The US experienced its greatest period of sustained economic
growth when the top personal income bracket was 90%. And then
the greatest purchasing power for the working man was 1969 'till
1972, when the top bracket was 70%, the level AOC suggests we go
back to.
And remember, it was Richard M. Nixon who said, "We are all
Keynesian's now."
Needs tested welfare is probably going one step beyond
Keynesianism. It has great economic expansion benefits, and
most of the needed tax revenue comes from just the
re-circulation. And it solves the problems which arise when
some people don't have money to spend. But then it makes those
welfare recipients into the national scapegoats. Our entire
politics comes to revolve around them, when they aren't the ones
doing anything wrong.
Non-needs tested Universal Basic Income is probably going two
steps beyond Keynesianism, but Keynes himself did suggest it, as
did Thomas Paine, and as did Milton Freedman and a panel of his
colleagues.
If all the money re-circulated until taxes nibbled it up, the we
would not have to raise taxes. But usually rich people have
gotten themselves installed in key economic choke points, and
then half of the money does go to people above the median income
in the first place, so that money the rich get goes into
inflating the stock and real estate markets, and that is a
complete waste. So we will have to increase taxes on the rich,
just to get their UBI benefit, and their UBI re-circulation cut,
back from them.
In the early 70's, Control Data Systems, St. Paul Minnesota, did
have on site free employee child care.
France has long had Universal Free Child Care. It is not
mandatory, but you don't see people complaining about it. Most
seem to use it. Its purpose is not to enforce the Work Ethic,
its purpose is to benefit the children, and hence their entire
society.
As a side note, France does not seem to take
ADHD-Asperger's-Autism very seriously, seeing it is more like a
stress induced condition, more like battle fatigue.
Needless to say the advocates in the Anglo-American Autism
Industry are livid.
In the early 70's, the US Congress did pass Universal Free Child
Care, but Nixon vetoed it saying, "It would "Sovietize the
American Family".
At the material level UBI pretty much does create utopia. Now
of course there are a great many details to work out.
I have not read most of this anywhere, but in my opinion there
are 3 other things you must have, and then it pretty much just
all works out.
1. Strong public housing offering. Price set at 1/2 UBI.
Anyone can live there, but to have enough space, this will cost
money to build. Make on public transit rail lines, and all
services on the lower floors of the tower clusters. So it is
basically assumed that those who live in the public housing will
not have automobiles. Not just the poor, anyone who wants to
live there, 1/2 UBI. Public housing should be able to make a
profit. Have a mix of public and private contractors, competing
with each other building it on an on going basis. Expansion in
demand for housing at this bottom end might be 2 to 1.
No rent control. Rent control has its own problems. Just use
public housing to compete with the private landlords.
2. Universal Medicare, but this time with cost controls.
Originally Medicare was to have cost controls, board established
fees, but LBJ scraped this to bring the AMA on board.
3. Some kind of Free College. Maybe the Bernie Sanders system,
but maybe something more rudimentary. Don't ever want the gov't
offering blank checks. This has been the problem with Medicare,
and it is the problem with Student Loans. So there have to be
cost controls. Maybe at least initially it is simply a program
of supervised independent studies, run by the Community
Colleges, running online, but with some discussion seminars in
community centers in the public housing towers.
Modern life entails too much pressure, and much of this comes
down to daily transportation needs. Want people to be pretty
much able to do all the things they need, in the public housing
clusters. Want to rebuild our cities this way, what they are
calling Urban Villages. And the rail transport running
underneath is a big part. Try to keep it within an elevator
ride and 600' of people's front doors. And many employed people
will work locally, or online.
And the services in the lower floors of these towers are
available to anyone, not just to the tower residents. And it is
all right on the rail public transit lines.
Ayanna Pressley says she, Ocasio-Cortez and group of
congresswomen make up the 'Destiny's Child' of birth control
HTML https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ayanna-pressley-says-she-ocasio-cortez-and-group-of-congresswomen-make-up-the-destinys-child-of-birth-control/ar-AACPItg
Ted Cruz and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have an odd-couple plan to
drain the swamp, and we love it
HTML https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/2019/05/30/ted-cruz-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-odd-couple-plan-drain-swamp-love
Ted Cruz and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez may be teaming up again —
on over-the-counter birth control
HTML https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2019/06/12/ted-cruz-alexandra-ocasio-cortez-may-teaming-again-access-birth-control
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez criticizes Trump administration on
census citizenship question
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Mrnpmax0I0
Warning: Sarah Huckabee Sanders!
HTML https://www.newsweek.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-census-citizenship-question-1443689
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1