Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Finance, the economy & Economics Universal Basic Income? Guaranteed Job?

I'd be interested to read other folks' ruminations on how your own lives would have unfolded with a UBI factored in?

I'll be honest, I practically had a UBI life. My father died when I was in high school, so I attended college while receiving SS benefits. It was not a lot, but it paid my living expenses. I worked throughout high school, college and law school. I would not have done so if I were allowed to concentrate on my studies. I then spent a career in the Army. Twice I had to file for unemployment. Nonetheless, because I was frugal, saved incessantly, and managed my savings well, I was able to retire early.

I say this primarily to make two points: First, I know what it is like to be on a limited income, not from employment; Second, because it never stopped me from trying to improve my situation and take care of my family.

I just wrote a detailed response to your query on Safari IMac. It disappeared to the right then vanished. This is a continual problem I have in many forums with this fuggin kompewtr..

Zeke----- as Apple cannot help me--you surely must have the last and final answer to my dilemma--no? I need your help man....

Most folks in highly technical fields: Math, Physics, Statistics, Biology, Chemistry, etc. find themselves, like me, faced with a choice early on. Either you take a full time corporate job (the pay can be very enticing, but not as much as say SALES in the same firm) or you go into Academia (pay is less and pressure (both internal and corporate) is horrific).
The problem is, with either option you are always being confined to corporate work, and you are presenting your results to people who have no clue what you're talking about. Having tried, for a short while, both, I came to the conclusion that I wasn't getting anywhere professionally. I then embarked on my current path which is consulting, thus being able to pick my clients and the work I want to do. There is no UBI (or equivalent) for consultants. If you have a gig, you're being paid. If not, you're screwed. You can't apply for unemployment (unless you're on a 1099 - which is rare - and then you have to be on the same gig for at least 6 months - also rare). So the only way to survive is to be as stingy as possible, and have savings because you can count on the fact that you'll need them.
If there were some form of UBI one might be able dedicate one's talents to problems that serve humanity, the greater good, if you will, and not corporate greed. The field of pure research - dedicated to solving hard problems that take time and that could benefit everyone - has been destroyed by Capitalism. Even what were once places of pure thought (IBM, Los Alamos, Bell Labs) have become fronts for corporations and only work on problems whose short term results will generate profits somewhere for someone. But never for the people who actually achieve those results.

Sorry, I've got to jump in here.

Part of the problem with a cash UBI is that the poor typically spend any cash they get buying fast food, cigarettes, and maybe alcohol maybe drugs and then running out of money before the next check arrives. They really don't know how cheaply somebody can live by cooking every meal at home, not smoking, etc. (My sister is a perfect example of this.) Give them more cash and they will just buy more McDonalds, etc. You would just be subsidizing the fast food industry, payroll lenders, pawn shops, and so forth.

You can avoid that problem with my free food, shelter, clothing, and medical care approach.

As for creating a UBI tax credit, that only works for people who pay some taxes and file. You would be boosting the working poor a bit, but ignoring everybody below that level! I think we really need a bottom-up system. And I suspect this would be easy to pass because we already spend the money it would take on welfare programs. We just need to redirect that money to actually help the real poor.

I also think "the poverty line" is hogwash: $11,770 income for an individual is poor but certainly survivable. The real poor are homeless and have to beg or collect aluminum cans to survive.

Well, you could create "minimums monestaries" for those interested in Math and Statistics. Free food, shelter, clothing, and medical care for those interested in the mostly mental exercises. It's much harder to do Physics, Biology, and Chemistry research because you need labs and equipment. That takes grant money or corporate sponsorship.

The Food Stamps program limits what you can use the money for. (It isn't cash, BTW). You CANNOT buy cigarettes or alcohol. If someone wants to eat at MacDonalds because it's cheap then so be it. You can't dictate what food people want.
As for drugs, again, the food stamps come on a card and I know of no drug dealers that accept that card as payment.
I agree. I don't see how a tax credit would work.

In any large city in the U.S. you would live in a cardboard box with that income. In the smaller places where cost of living is lower it is still very little, but at the same time you are limiting job opportunities - which is contradictory to the whole point. So unless the program also creates decent paying work in small cities you are not solving the problem. Just putting a band-aid.

Or government sponsorship, such as it once was in the not so distant past.

I'm not sorry at all. I have several thoughts on this. First, I think that is an overgeneralization of "the poor", but it would certainly apply to many people. Even "subsidizing" some of those industries, though, does a great deal of the work, as one of the points is still getting the money to the bottom of the economic ladder. It gets money into the local economy. Welfare, unemployment compensation, social security do the same thing. Interestingly, though, we don't complain about what people spend their SS "benefits" on, or unemployment checks... we assume they are buying necessities (and they usually are). But welfare comes with all kinds of strings and the social opprobrium that goes with them, even though that money serves the same purpose.
While I agree, there is a certain portion of the population that are not going to be reached no matter what resources are available to them. Homelessness is not solved even in communities with robust emergency housing options. Some people simply will not use shelters. (I have a friend with a schizophrenic daughter, so have now seen it first hand.). But, the perfect should not be the enemy of the good.

I disagree, but not strongly. The purpose for a tax credit is specifically to establish participation, as would the requirement to use direct deposit. Poor people are denied many of the basic resources and institutions we take for granted. By using direct deposit and making bank services available to them they get into "the system." They become participants, they have "a stake" in the economy. Similarly, a tax credit system gives them a stake in the government. Paying/filing taxes is a civic function, not a punishment.

There has to be a base line. I think $12000/a year is reasonable. Enough to survive, but not be complacent. I think vigorous workforce training, housing, and economic literacy programs would also be important.

11,700 would not provide even the cardboard box in Los Angeles.

But if we get back to the issue of competition vs cooperation it is irrelevant. We should be looking for areas in which the public can pay, such as free medical care and higher taxes on upper bracket earners. We could also tax all those companies that exported income to other nations.