Skip to comments.
It’s time for a guaranteed national income
Lakeland Times ^
| November 08, 2005
| Richard Moore
Posted on 11/08/2005 4:20:51 PM PST by SJackson
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-88 last
To: SJackson
Redistribution... thy name is socialism!!!
81
posted on
11/08/2005 8:39:13 PM PST
by
El Conservador
("No blood for oil!"... Then don't drive, you moron!!!)
To: hinckley buzzard
This moron must be under thirty years old. We tried his grand experiment, to the tune of five trillion dollars, and it netted us exactly nothing in terms of eradicating poverty. Oh yes, and the "guaranteed national income" was indeed a proposal in the 1972 election, by that famous conservative, George McGovern. The "War on Povery/Great Society" programs target their benefits only to those who don't work. See my #71. I would suggest that a (low) guaranteed income combined with an absolutely flat tax structure would be far better than the welfare/tax system as it exists today.
As far as I'm concerned, every dollar a person earns should make that person $0.70 (or thereabouts) richer, whether it's the first or the billionth. Under today's welfare system, that isn't the case. The lowest "net income retention" (amount one will net from earning an extra dollar) is for those below the poverty line. Why should someone get a job if 40 hours of work won't even net them $40 over what they'd get from not working?
82
posted on
11/08/2005 8:56:01 PM PST
by
supercat
(Don't fix blame--FIX THE PROBLEM.)
To: xzins
83
posted on
11/08/2005 9:02:25 PM PST
by
newfarm4000n
(God Bless America and God Bless Freedom)
To: supercat
How would that create a new class?
It would create a new class of "poor" people with a guaranteed income rather than the current crop of "poor" people living off of a substandard "guaranteed income" called welfare.
With a "guaranteed income" of up to $30,000, they can buy a lot of drugs and booze, but the money, in most cases, will not be used to improve their economic situation.
This plan is simply a new way to distribute wealth at higher rates to people whose only motivation in life is to get other to pay their way. Consider it a huge pay raise for welfare recipients and see if it sounds any better.
84
posted on
11/09/2005 4:12:22 AM PST
by
DustyMoment
(FloriDUH - proud inventors of pregnant/hanging chads and judicide!!)
To: SJackson
But we already have a gaurenteed national income. $0
Just as it should be. What New Orleans needs is to blow the levees and let the lake assume it's natural banks. Let the people move to where the jobs are and break up that democrat run hell hole forever. Then we can let the Mississippi assume it's natural course and stop fighting every flood to keep it in it's current unnatural course. (The real course runs through Morgan City LA. It's about 145 miles to the seas vice the 300 or so on the current course.)
85
posted on
11/09/2005 7:07:25 AM PST
by
John O
(God Save America (Please))
To: DustyMoment
It would create a new class of "poor" people with a guaranteed income rather than the current crop of "poor" people living off of a substandard "guaranteed income" called welfare. With a "guaranteed income" of up to $30,000, they can buy a lot of drugs and booze, but the money, in most cases, will not be used to improve their economic situation.
A $30,000 "guaranteed income" is way too high. But replacing the current welfare system with a $6,000 or so straight payment would IMHO be an improvement. The people who would misspend that are the same ones who misspend what they get now.
Read post 71 for more on the subject.
86
posted on
11/09/2005 6:38:13 PM PST
by
supercat
(Don't fix blame--FIX THE PROBLEM.)
To: supercat
The people who would misspend that are the same ones who misspend what they get now.
Sorry, I'm not buying it. Unemployment and welfare were inteded to be "helping hand" parts of the safety net, NOT a way of life. The same is true for low wage entry level type jobs (such as burger flipper somewhere); they were intended to be gap-fillers for people with higher aspirations, NOT career choices!!
If these people aim low and hit their target, they have nothing to complain about. They reached their career goals and I don't feel obigated to support them at a higher level than they are already receiving.
87
posted on
11/10/2005 5:21:17 AM PST
by
DustyMoment
(FloriDUH - proud inventors of pregnant/hanging chads and judicide!!)
To: SJackson
Richard Moore's (aka "Mother Bountiful") offer of only $30,000.00 is clearly a racism-inspired to further oppress our African brothers and sister and a transparent attempt at economic genocide.
A more compassionate dollar amount would offer $250,000.00 taxpayer dollars per annum to each and every victim of the result of BushandRoves's "dynamite the levee" act of domestic terrorism. The money would be available until the victims decided it would no longer be needed.
88
posted on
11/10/2005 5:37:10 AM PST
by
martin gibson
(I know not what course others may take, but as for myself, give me Ralph Stanley or give me death!!!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-88 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson