Posted on 11/09/2012 6:38:06 AM PST by ksen
It would make a lot of sense to integrate all that into a single program that would be much more efficient, and could be much more transparent regarding exactly how much we are spending.
Good point.
Basic Income Support is not communism. Stop being ridiculous.
Sweet Jesus. This is the Free Republic website, no?
You’ve lost your grip on reality. Seek professional help.
Precisely. Furthermore, the tax burden necessary to support this on a widescale basis would act as a disincentive to work.
You have to live with what is, not what you would like it to be. First of all, once the different program spending levels are aggregated into a total, it will become clearer how much we are spending for this. Secondly, there will always be some level of support for the poor by the rest of us, if only to avoid outrageous levels of crime, and the issue is ‘how much’?
To be clear, Hayek didn’t actually advocate that such a basic minimum income be implemented in modern Western societies, because he believed that such policy would attract too many immigrants from other nations who’d overwhelm the system. Not an unreasonable assumption, obviously.
Hayek’s intention with the minimum basic income idea was to undercut specious “social justice” arguments which pit the claims of one group against other groups under pretext of ‘fairness’, and so on (Hayek detested “social justice”). Ergo, in a society where every individual is guaranteed a min. basic income floor regardless of their demographics, then questions per how the haves vs. have-nots are going to divide up the loot, become less relevant.
At least that’s the intention—I make no claim as to whether it would actually accomplish this aim. This link explains more: http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2012/05/hayek-enemy-of-social-justice-and-friend-of-a-universal-basic-income/
I can think of ways a minimum basic income standard could be beneficial, if it were used to streamline all the other welfare spending we already do. No medicare, no social security, no food stamps, no housing assistance, etc. Just throw it all under a guaranteed basic income, and then let people make their own choices from there. If they still can’t be responsible, at least nobody can say ‘society’ wasn’t doing anything for them.
Taxes for any non-constitutional purpose are theft. If the government has no authority to spend the monies then taking them at all is theft.
They're the agreed upon price to live in our society.
I don't recall our Founding fathers ever agreeing to support a class of parasites. Nor did I.
We don't have non-elected overlords whimsically determining how much to take from us.
You've not been following the "election" have you? We have elected representatives that make these decisions and are able to be replaced if enough of us don't like it.
It means more lottery tickets being sold.
Taxes without representation are not moral or legal. We the People...the very pay ingest taxpayers in this country...were just royally and bipartisanly
disenfranchised of our vote in this election.
“Direct” disenfranchisement refers to actions that explicitly prevent people from voting or having their votes counted, as opposed to “indirect” techniques, which attempt to prevent people’s votes from having an impact on political outcomes (e.g., gerrymandering, ballot box stuffing, stripping elected officials of their powers).
http://www.umich.edu/~lawrace/disenfranchise1.htm
And by not challenging it, fighting it..and getting in their faces about it...we grant permission for it to continue....and even worse...increase the probability of needing to resort to the cartridge box for resolution.
We have no further moral or legal obligation Federal Taxation at this point until this is corrected....and the vote is legitimate and non-corrupt.
...to. Federal Taxation.....
Yes, Voter ID is a must.
Are you as naive as you appear to be, or are you just trying to provoke. Others have replied better than I can, but taxes to fund Obamaphones ARE theft.
The first 'Obamaphones' appeared 3 months before he was elected. The programs is an offshoot of Reagan's Lifeline program for landlines but was expanded under Clinton and the first cell phones started appearing around July-August 2008.
I guess the point of all that is to say this program isn't his baby even though he hasn't gotten rid of it.
I agree that Wall Street is full of parasites and instead of being supported by the government most of them should be in jail.
How can you have been here so long and still be so delusional?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.