Check your privileges

[Timsup2nothin]

Why though?

Well, I thought it was easier to just say "people on social security don't get basic income," but you seemed to be taking exception to that.

 

[Lexicus]

Well, I thought it was easier to just say "people on social security don't get basic income," but you seemed to be taking exception to that.

No, my question is why shouldn't we just pay the basic income to social security recipients?

 

[metalhead]

The only real reason not to is to make the program less reliant on deficit spending. And yes, I agree that's not an actual concern in the real world, but it is a political concern, one that is worth accounting for if one ever wants to sell basic income as a workable program.

Besides, I'd have other plans for SS. Big benefits increases, paid for by eliminating the cap on earnings subject to taxation, and a progressive payroll tax. You could even simply target SS to raise everyone's benefits by the basic income amount, if you wanted to. But it's probably more efficient and less messy from an administrative standpoint to handle that through the SS trust fund, rather than cut seniors 2 checks.

 

[rah]

Hey, I come here to get the left perspective. My main newspaper leans right and I want to make sure I get balance.
You guys may not be able to get me to change my mind but it does get me thinking. And if I don't challenge my beliefs regularly I'll end up like one of those "GET OFF MY LAWN" types. And I have never fooled myself into thinking I'm going to change anybodies opinion here.

 

[rah]

paid for by eliminating the cap on earnings subject to taxation,

This alone would save SS for many many years to come.

 

[Akka]

Can't you imagine someone arguing the same thing about social security circa 1925?

I was about to take annual leave as example, but then noticed that the USA, nearly alone in the entire world, doesn't actually have annual leave...

 

[Timsup2nothin]

No, my question is why shouldn't we just pay the basic income to social security recipients?

Because if the basic income is intended to be enough to live on, and social security is intended to be enough to live on, why would anyone need to receive both?

 

[metalhead]

Basic income is supposed to be enough to scrape by with. SS is ostensibly supposed to replace a significant percentage of your income in retirement as a pension would.

 

[bernie14]

The part that involves redistributing actual tangible wealth in the form of dollars is simple. Every American gets the same amount. No more welfare, less federal housing assistance, no more food stamps.

As for the hoarders, I don't know if they are bad people, but I believe the elitism is intentional and they are incredibly daft if they don't understand what they're doing. It may be a simple product of human nature, but the whole reason we have stuff like societies and government is to ensure that the bad parts of human nature aren't harmful and destructive to other people.

Here is a great rundown of the issue, what has been done to hoard wealth and rob the American dream from the majority of the country. I think this is partly why a backlash against "elites" gained so much traction as personified by Donald Trump and to a lesser extent Bernie Sanders. People realize this is going on, even if it hasn't crystallized into a coherent meme in the popular imagination. Here's a key excerpt that wraps it up into a tidy package, but you should read the whole article:

They (upper-middle class Americans) then pass those advantages onto their children, with parents placing a “glass floor” under their kids. They ensure they grow up in nice zip codes, provide social connections that make a difference when entering the labor force, help with internships, aid with tuition and home-buying, and schmooze with college admissions officers. All the while, they support policies and practices that protect their economic position and prevent poorer kids from climbing the income ladder: legacy admissions, the preferential tax treatment of investment income, 529 college savings plans, exclusionary zoning, occupational licensing, and restrictions on the immigration of white-collar professionals.
​

And it is definitely getting worse, because it is becoming more entrenched, and the differences harder to overcome. I can't give an exact time frame, but it's probably closely tied to the huge increase in college costs over the last 20 years, because this is how the most pronounced differences are perpetuated. Kids who are able to graduate college with little or no debt have an enormous leg up on their peers, even if they receive no further financial assistance from their parents. And because of this, because the top 20% have been able to wall themselves off in enclaves of privilege, those stuck outside look less and less attractive to college admissions people - and it just so happens that any kind of good middle class life now requires a degree from a decent school.

darn metal, you are much more dangerous than I initially thought, i mean yeah, sure, let's all go after the monarchs, plutocrats and evil multinationals but stifle the ambition of 20% of the population? no better way to make everyone a drone!

Is this your goal? Not very realistic.
Some of the developers that work for me, I personally trained or they taught themselves. They didn't have the skill prior. Some of them I choose from our phone rep pool. The ones that showed desire and aptitude or some that came to me and asked what it would take for me to consider them. I want that guy that would willingly fix toilets. I don't hire drones. And yes, I know that not everyone would qualify for that. But these kids that are putting themselves in deep debt for degrees that will unlikely pan out into a well paying job are just making poor decisions.

and it stands to reason that since it was your labor that trained those people, you should have a say in any business decision those people make in the future....

The main reason we no longer have 'easy' jobs that yield a middle-class lifestyle (we still do, actually, but they're mainly union jobs and that's no coincidence) is the power imbalance that exists between employers and employees.


But why? What possible reason could you have for this belief other than an irrational prejudice against burger flipping?

possibly that more people are likely to be able to flip a burger than perform neurosurgery? and yeah, sorry but most people value neurosurgery over burger flipping....the error, I think, is in equating value with superiority, which you seem to be doing

Perhaps someone can explain it to me, but what I've never really understood is why top earners actually need to earn so much.

And why low earners supposedly don't need as much money to live on as everyone else.

Surely one human being's needs are, within fairly narrow limits, much the same as another human being's needs.

good question, I think it has to do with some strange connection to our animal instinct of survival and our ability to accumulate wealth....needs become wants and wants become fantasy fulfillment

Isn't that just a way to negatively frame the idea that "life shouldn't be an arena" ?

your mind is the arena....there is how you make sense of what you percieve and then, there is everything else (Captain Obvious strikes again!! )

Here's that "woven in" sense of superiority. Go work in a fast food place, encounter a steady stream of jerks letting you know how superior they are since they have a "demanding" job to cry the blues about and figure you're paid to be a dumping ground and make them feel better about themselves, and then get back to me about how 'undemanding' it is.

but hopefully, they would realize that the only way they could make that jerk feel better is to cook him one hell of a hamburger

 

[Lexicus]

but stifle the of 20% of the population? no better way to make everyone a drone!

Yeah, because taking away their fifth yacht is really going to "stifle their ambition"

possibly that more people are likely to be able to flip a burger than perform neurosurgery? and yeah, sorry but most people value neurosurgery over burger flipping....the error, I think, is in equating value with superiority, which you seem to be doing

Neurosurgeons would certainly be paid more than burger flippers in my socialist paradise, so I don't really see your point.

Because if the basic income is intended to be enough to live on, and social security is intended to be enough to live on, why would anyone need to receive both?

I mean, you've argued that it's possible to subsist by dumpster diving, so by this logic why would anyone "need" to receive either?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Basic income is supposed to be enough to scrape by with. SS is ostensibly supposed to replace a significant percentage of your income in retirement as a pension would.

Key word: replace. If SS replaces income, why would it be added to basic income?

I mean, you've argued that it's possible to subsist by dumpster diving, so by this logic why would anyone "need" to receive either?

It is, and I personally prefer it to dealing with a government agency so I'd probably never sign up for the basic income myself. I was speaking of the general case though, in which as Metalhead points out SS is meant to replace income upon retirement so I see no reason to expect it to be additive with the basic income. Just like I see no reason for someone making a mountain of investment income off of inherited wealth to suddenly have SS added on to their income just because they reached the age where a working person might retire.

 

[bernie14]

Yeah, because taking away their fifth yacht is really going to "stifle their ambition"

well, if that were the case, I would go along with a yacht redistribution program

 

[Timsup2nothin]

but hopefully, they would realize that the only way they could make that jerk feel better is to cook him one hell of a hamburger

Actually I'm more of a believer in sliding over the counter and punching them in the face, myself.

 

[Lexicus]

It is, and I personally prefer it to dealing with a government agency so I'd probably never sign up for the basic income myself. I was speaking of the general case though, in which as Metalhead points out SS is meant to replace income upon retirement so I see no reason to expect it to be additive with the basic income. Just like I see no reason for someone making a mountain of investment income off of inherited wealth to suddenly have SS added on to their income just because they reached the age where a working person might retire.

Eventually we'd want to just merge them into one program probably.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Eventually we'd want to just merge them into one program probably.

That's my opinion as well.

 

[metalhead]

darn metal, you are much more dangerous than I initially thought, i mean yeah, sure, let's all go after the monarchs, plutocrats and evil multinationals but stifle the ambition of 20% of the population? no better way to make everyone a drone!

I'm in that 20%, and I assure you that if you think taxes are going to stifle ambition, then you have no idea how ambition works.

Should achievement beget wealth which begets privileges? Sure. But that line has been perverted. It is parents' wealth that largely determines one's wealth, and the wealthy have purposely set it up that way.

There is no meritocracy in America; if you believe ambition and talent is what ought to bring one wealth and privilege, then we need to tear down those barriers, man.

 

[Zkribbler]

Basic income is supposed to be enough to scrape by with. SS is ostensibly supposed to replace a significant percentage of your income in retirement as a pension would.

No. Social Security is to keep you out of poverty n you latte years. It is not a pension plan.

 

[civver_764]

The main reason we no longer have 'easy' jobs that yield a middle-class lifestyle (we still do, actually, but they're mainly union jobs and that's no coincidence) is the power imbalance that exists between employers and employees.

The main reason is because automation became more efficient than hiring a person to do it. It's got nothing to do with power, no more than you using an ATM rather than a human bank teller does.

 

[Berzerker]

atms dont really replace tellers, they just allow greater access

 

[civver_764]

The problem with basic income:

1. Give everybody $20000.
2. Raise taxes on rich people and corporations to finance it.
3. Corporations raise the price of their goods, $20000 is now only worth $18000.
4. Give everybody $2000 more, raise taxes more.
5. Rinse and repeat.