?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Posted without comment

Guaranteed Minimum Income.

Thoughts?

Oh yeah, and vote for The Signal (again!) at the Podcast Awards!

Comments

( 7 comments — Leave a comment )
zandperl
Aug. 3rd, 2006 06:46 pm (UTC)
I don't think I like the idea, though there may be something in the details that alleviates my worries, I haven't read the whole article. Namely, the current welfare system does little to encourage people capable of working to do so, and this seems the same. The only thing good about it is that the gov't money doesn't go away when you get a job, so maybe that's an improvement on what we currently have. I suspect it would also make the paperwork for unemployment easier, though I'm not sure what it'd do to tax paperwork. It could also make for a lot of dishonest postal carriers. How would homeless people get their check? How would people w/o ID prove their ID?
slartibart
Aug. 3rd, 2006 07:00 pm (UTC)
[rant]
I think it looks great on paper, but I'm afraid the implementation would be a disaster...much like communism. I can't see this working in a practical world, and I am generally in favor of LESS government involvement in people's lives, not more. While this MAY be simpler than the Welfare State, I don't think much of the Welfare State either. I'm not of the mind that it is government's job to take care of me in the first place, and I am in principal opposed to any systems that perpetuate that philosophy.
[/rant]
khepra
Aug. 3rd, 2006 08:18 pm (UTC)
I think one of our government's biggest problems from an social/economic standpoint is that it's trying to be a combined capitalist and socialist state and those two things don't mix well imo.

I'm against it for several reasons. It doesn't seem to have anything in place to encourage people to actually work and it penalizes the wealthy (I don't have a problem with a flat tax based on income though - just the concept that under this system the rich are being forced to care for the poor).

I'm with Kev on the Less Government=Good and the fact that it isn't government's role to support/coddle it's citizens. (I'm Libertarian, go figure =p)
(Deleted comment)
fangly
Aug. 4th, 2006 03:40 pm (UTC)
The problem I see with it is that a large number of people don't know how or aren't good at managing money. Just because you give someone enough money to live on doesn't mean they will use it for the purpose you intended. I think it would also drive up crime as now you know everyone is getting at least what you get, if not more.

I completely agree with the flat tax and the aforementioned stance on less gov is better. What this country is really in need of is less hand holding and more self preservation. Katrina should have taught everyone that, but I somehow feel that only a few realized the real big picture. Humanity is breeding out survival skills, and an overwhelming need to rely on the government is replacing it.

h_postmortemus
Aug. 8th, 2006 11:15 am (UTC)
Oh HELL NO.
merovingian
Aug. 8th, 2006 11:13 pm (UTC)
Here's the one I like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Tax

(The other one I like is taxpayer-directed expenditure to competitive government funds as a transition to privatizing all non-military government functions.)

But sadly, I'm skeptical of the current U.S. legislative culture's interest in improvement.
( 7 comments — Leave a comment )