Ardent capitalists will not like this proposal one bit.


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/07/17/ch ... ogram.html

As noted they are starting this in Stockton, CA. I don't know how Chicago would finance this. It's certainly the way we are headed though.

Ardent capitalists will not like this proposal one bit.


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/07/17/ch ... ogram.html

I hear people like you and Brick mention this but never really see any serious movement in an actual government. Does not matter either way really but I think we will see a huge resistance to this from the people just above whatever cut off line would differentiate between the working and non working.

I have no idea how universal basic income will work on anything less than a federal level, but Ruffcorn is right that we are heading toward it. There's just not gonna be enough work to do.

We have already reached a point where a significant amount of the work being done should be automated or at mostly computerized. I would say insurance claims are something that a computer could likely do. And anytime someone's job is to move things on spreadsheets, it's likely they should be doing it in a different way.

People will go crazy

CH is correct. It has to be at the Federal level, and it must be a more robust benefit. If you do it only in Chicago, you will have people moving in to gain the benefit and drive up housing costs. The people taxed to cover it will move out.

Immigration will cause problems on a national scale because it would cause even more pressure for people to come to the U.S.

It is an interesting concept. [b]Just makes sure there is revenue to support it.[/b]

We have already reached a point where a significant amount of the work being done should be automated or at mostly computerized. I would say insurance claims are something that a computer could likely do. And anytime someone's job is to move things on spreadsheets, it's likely they should be doing it in a different way.

One of the liberal arguments against M4A.

When I was flying in for my brothers funeral. I was listening to this guy talk about something like it.
In stead of an income tax there is a universal federal sales tax. Then everyone gets an equal payment. You want more you work. The only way it could work is if we fixed immigration and the prison system.

The concept has very little to do with immigration or prison. And those fixes are also a completely separate discussion.

I'm fine with UBA if the money for it comes out of other more inefficient benefits programs which for those people would qualify. Let the people get a little more money by removing the inefficiency.

But Zuckerberg reveals exactly why the left should be alarmed that Silicon Valley is taking the lead on this issue.

First, the idea that UBI has bipartisan appeal is disingenuous. The left would have a policy that redistributes wealth by funding UBI through a more progressive tax scheme or the diverting of capital income. But libertarians like Charles Murray argue for a UBI that completely scraps our existing welfare state, including programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and housing subsidies. This would be extremely regressive, since money currently directed towards the poor would instead be spread out for a basic income for all. And certain benefits like health insurance can’t effectively be replaced with cash.

https://newrepublic.com/article/143758/ ... -wrong-ubi


If you're on the same side as Charles Murray, you should get on the other side. If he ordered a chocolate shake, I'd order a vanilla.

I would say insurance claims are something that a computer could likely do.

I would say it depends significantly on what line of business you're talking about.

When I was flying in for my brothers funeral. I was listening to this guy talk about something like it.
In stead of an income tax there is a universal federal sales tax. Then everyone gets an equal payment. You want more you work. The only way it could work is if we fixed immigration and the prison system.

Ardent capitalists will not like this proposal one bit.


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/07/17/ch ... ogram.html

I doubt it is a coincidence that an alderman not running for re election is the originator of the legislation.

This very well may be the stupidest thing I've ever heard in my life.

Considering you're a longtime member of CFMB, I find that difficult to believe.

This very well may be the stupidest thing I've ever heard in my life.

In the end, it's a far more efficient system and gives people the power to either succeed or fail based upon their own decisions and merits. If they still sink with the negative income tax, then that's on them.