Well if we’re going to go down the road to means test the wealthiest, maybe we should consider means testing the takers. We’ll all agree the disabled and elderly need the support. But if I’m going to be asked to support those who choose to not support themselves, then I’m going to have to ask for something in return. I’ll give you that guaranteed income, and I’ll find you community service to perform. And then I’m going to have to eliminate support for additional babies when the first ones are on welfare. And what if they can’t manage on their guaranteed income either? Then what?
But we really don’t want to go down that road do we? We just want to take from the makers and providers.
I don’t believe that is correct. By definition, SS covers ALL folks who pay into the system, regardless of asset levels. In other words, asset levels was not a consideration per se. If it was, Congress would have setup some sort of cap depending on say, non-earned income.
“I don’t believe that is correct. By definition, SS covers ALL folks who pay into the system, regardless of asset levels. In other words, asset levels was not a consideration per se. If it was, Congress would have setup some sort of cap depending on say, non-earned income.”
I agree, it is for everyone who paid in, and the more you’ve paid, the greater benefits you get. If was not set up as a welfare system.
However, I rould be curious to see how people would fund the system being talked about here, without destroying the other benefits.
The biggest takers in this country are Boeing and Verizon and another 100 or so of the largest companies in the country. Some of these companies make billions of dollars a year and have negative income tax rates. (I own Verizon shares).
I agree with @mom2collegekids. This country is not ready for a guaranteed income.
We have enough trouble increasing the minimum wage.
A guaranteed income for all is not going to be more money for everybody. Taxes are going to be raised for many to pay for this.
There were and probably are conservative economists who wanted or want to see a guaranteed income. Milton Friedman was an advocate of a guaranteed income. He was also an advocate of the earned income tax credit which was politically possible during his lifetime and passed.
A very successful venture capital firm is funding research about a guaranteed income. This company has invested in about 1,000 start ups and thinks a guaranteed income may be necessary in the future.
Many of us who are capitalists support a strong safety net to take care of people’s needs. A strong safety net and then the wealthy can make whatever they want. Politically and economically, this makes for a stronger, more stable country.
These companies also employ thousands of people who do pay taxes.
I think many people get lost in the sauce of being worried about the what the other guy is getting. Take care of yourself and those in need in your community and I’m guessing you’ll be better off because of it.
This actually reminds me of an interview between Neil Cavuto and a college student regarding free college education. Slightly different context, but the overall theme is relevant.
Some of the largest companies in the world are takers.
When a person receives food stamps, who really gets the money?
The farmer, the distributor of good, the retailer, etc…
The person who receives food stamps gets food.
When a poor person receives government money, the money is spent in the economy. Companies and people who own these companies benefit.
To help stimulate economic growth after the great recession, folks in DC put provisions in the tax code which accelerated depreciation for various equipment purchases. Idea was it would encourage companies to buy equipment by reducing their near term taxes. That reduced taxes for many equipment heavy businesses. In many cases by a lot.
So what do politicians do? They lambaste companies for paying little or no taxes. Totally disingenuous. But reality. provide a carrot and stick and then beat companies up with it for political points.
Another issue is many companies would have purchased the equipment anyway. I remember a CEO of a large company saying he got the pleasure of telling his board that the company would get a $1 billion tax benefit for equipment they were going to purchase anyways (because they pretty much had to). Reduced tax revenues and no economic stimulus.
50 years of experimenting with transfer payments, trying to refute the notion that money is essentially banked labor, doesn’t seem to have taught us a thing.
Putting the multitude of existing programs under one heading isn’t going to either, no more than pushing deck chairs around ever has.