A basic income for all?

[LexusInfernus 908]

As we all perhaps know, the amount of jobs available for people is steadily and rapidly decreasing. Thanks to massive innovations in the field of robotics and artificial intelligence, people are losing their jobs because computers and robots can do it better and cheaper. 

But this poses a problem for the fundamental basis of our capitalist system, which is mass consumption. If people don't have jobs, and therefor don't have an income, they can't consume and the economy collapses. 

So some people have proposed a nice alternative to welfare, namely the 'basic income'. This is a monthly payment everyone gets, with no strings attached. It would replace food stamps, welfare and all other social security programs and just leave you with this. 

Do you think this would work?

[timmetje 75]

Interresting idea.

 

But where would the money to pay that basic income come from? If it comes from nowere, money loses it's value and then money would not be a form of wealth anymore

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Something for nothing?  Not if I get a vote on it!  What is being said is the the world is overpopulated, and the additional leisure time caused by joblessness can only exacerbate that.

 

We are in a period of economic adjustment.  The five or six day work week is obsolete.  What is needed is job sharing and lowered expectations.  The whole inflationary system is about to collapse from the positive feedback that has been accelerating since the end of WW II.  No matter what people have been brain-washed to accept, the current over-consumptive system cannot last.  The economic machine is broken and will be shaken apart by any attempts like this to fix it.

 

The concept of money is that it is created by production.  If a person is not productive, then where would any income come from?  Bear in mind that governments, by their very nature, are non-productive.  Governments produce nothing, but live on the production of others.

 

The devil makes work for idle hands.

[hym 358]

On a long enough time line, all welfare systems are inevitably doomed to failure. Call it by a different name, but the proposal is still welfare.

[Zelgadis 638]

On a long enough time line, all welfare systems are inevitably doomed to failure.

 

You're welcome to believe that all you want, but such a claim is utterly impossible to defend. 

 

Lexus, what you're describing called a Guaranteed Minimum Income. Not a new idea, but one that's been gaining traction recently. I would be in support of that as an acknowledgement that we, if we want to call ourselves civilized, should make sure that basic needs are provided for all. I'm not a fan of the black and white notion of "work or starve," and "something for nothing." Notions such as that are profoundly medieval. 

 

In the end, "welfare" saves money. Utah (of all places) is in the final stages of a program to provide food and housing to all homeless people. You know what? It's cheaper to do that than pay for the social problems that homelessness causes. Gee, being good to people is good for everyone? What a novel concept.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Interresting idea.

 

But where would the money to pay that basic income come from? If it comes from nowere, money loses it's value and then money would not be a form of wealth anymore

Well you are from the Netherlands, so I would recommend that you watch last Sunday's 'Tegenlicht' which is about this topic. It also answers that question to some extend. Basically, the money comes from taxes, just as social security programs are paid for by taxes. Only instead of having those social security programs, we replace it by this. 

[NMUSpidey 3,956]

A mere five years ago I would have been wholeheartedly against this, and wondered how people could possibly think it was a good idea to even consider such a system.  Now, however?  I'm not so sure this is that bad.  Maybe it's good.  The problem (in America or maybe even Japan) would be getting the 'alpha'-type sociopaths at the top to part with the money they extort from the companies they "run."  I can't roll my eyes hard enough at those people.

 

I also kind of think that it's not exactly right to think that this will make all of humanity into a race of fat, lazy mooches.  Sure, some would, but the ones who would probably are already.  Most people need to have some kind of purpose in their lives, something to do every day to be productive and contribute to society.  Imagining that we would all simply stop working and spend our free money on booze to sit at home and watch Youtube or Netflix all day is depressing to me.  I would speculate that most people who spend their lives doing that are depressed, too. 

 

That being said, I do kind of agree with Nonny that the current system is broken and only getting more broken, but I don't have a crystal ball.  I have no idea what's going to happen.  Whatever.  Everything changes anyways and I'm pretty much just along for the ride.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Ever inflating money is definitely not the answer.  Supply may be a problem, but making sure every person on earth had access to basic needs is not impossible, just a huge undertaking.  First, we have to get rid of the "I want more than my neighbour" ideas of capitalism.  How we do that without causing a world-wide collapse is a good question, but taxing the rich is a good start.

 

However, who would be Robin Hood, taxing the rich to give to the poor?  The middle men should not be allowed to get rich on this either.

[Meg 368]

Why assume that people would use the money to finance their basic needs?    We already know that there are people who will forgo food to get another drink or hit of whatever drug.  Granted, if they had the money to do so, the robbery rate might go down but, in some cases at least, it would be spending tax money to help people destroy their lives and those around them.

 

The idea of wiping out all forms of social security except one is intriguing but there would be lots of wrinkles.  Does the payment of $x per person start at birth?   Who gets control over the babies' money?  Does the amount go up as the kid gets older?

 

Oddly, it might make more jobs available.  I know lower income people who work 2 or 3 jobs just to make ends meet.  They would probably be happy to give up one of them if they had another source of income.

 

It does bring up an interesting question:  how many of us would get out of bed and go to work each day if we didn't have to?

 

 

[Ocram's Razr 963]

I think that new forms of currency would need to be invented in order for this to be in the least bit feasible. If the government gave away money to everyone without a job and everyone with a job that pays lower than the standard, then the inevitable result to this new found money is not wealth for the poor but hyperinflation, which just makes more people poor (those that can afford things that don't loose value would be fine, which is not many).

I read somewhere relatively recently (on my phone so I don't know how to find the link) that almost 1/2 of Americans reach the top 2% of income earners for at least 6 months in their lives and over 1/10 of Americans reach the top 1% of income earners for at least 6 months of their lives. This phenomenon of American exceptionalism will be destroyed by inflationary policies.

I think that it would be ideal if the government built more spartan subsidized housing (unemployed people could live in studios, dorms, 1 bedroom apartments, or 2 bedroom micro-apartments depending on family size for free) in order for absolutely all citizens to have a place to at least sleep and a place to eat, if these buildings would have cafeterias that provide adequate nutrition (not junk "food" that has great taste but no nutrition beyond bad sources of calories) for free and the government includes in minimum wage for workers, students, and those on welfare "Nutrition Credits," where at least one food purveyor in every 5 mile radius of places where at least 20 people live sells at least 1 item that only costs nutrition credits of each category (protein, vegetables, fruits, whole-grains).

My idea would still raise taxes but not as much and would not increase inflation as much (if at all). It will provide a better standard of living for more people but it is impossible for unproductive people without productive family members or huge savings to live a comfortable American upper-middle class standard.

--Ocram

[LexusInfernus 908]

It does bring up an interesting question:  how many of us would get out of bed and go to work each day if we didn't have to?

As someone who spend about 6 months doing nothing (I was between studies and couldnt get a job) I can tell you that the utter boredom of doing nothing all day is absolutely horrible. Sure, the first month its fun, but after that you just go crazy. Humans are not build to do nothing all day. 

 

What this idea might change is that people are going to take risks, and instead of sticking to some dead end job they hate, they try to do something new and something they like. Work for themselves, start their own business, try out an idea they had but couldnt do because the financial risks were just to big. 

[Zelgadis 638]

Why assume that people would use the money to finance their basic needs?    We already know that there are people who will forgo food to get another drink or hit of whatever drug.  Granted, if they had the money to do so, the robbery rate might go down but, in some cases at least, it would be spending tax money to help people destroy their lives and those around them.

 

This is precisely the reason why I believe if we were to implement such a system, it would have to be more complex than just "give everyone the money." I don't know what such a system would look like, but perhaps a dual currency system could work. Regular money would still work for everything that it does now. The government could pay out the GMI money in such a way that it could only be used for food and housing. Regulations would have to be put in place regarding inflation as well, otherwise, prices would quickly increase to reflect this new program.

 

To finance this, I'm 100% in favor of taxing the rich. Talk about an overall lazy group of people. The dirty little secret that nobody seems to talk about is that most people who are rich did not get that way through hard work and big ideas. Nope, they inherited it. People like Mitt Romney would be nothing without daddy's money; he's a mediocre businessman at best. I find it disingenuous how so many of these people who got rich off daddy's money characterize someone just wanting a place to live as a moocher. If they want to see what a moocher looks like, they should look in the mirror. Go back to 90% tax rates on the rich and use the money to make sure that everyone is secure in their basic survival needs.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

OK, I just looked up the article. I cannot find the exact article I was looking for but these by Huffington Post and NPR should do.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/09/one-in-five-rich_n_4411733.html

http://www.npr.org/2014/06/28/326223105/being-rich-is-more-common-than-you-think-at-least-temporarily

Furthermore, many of the persons considered to be in the lower 50% of wealth include young professionals with a high amount of student loan debt or who spend most of their money, according to BBC http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26613682

Student loan debt is caused by skyrocketing tuition costs. Two major contributors of rising tuition is skyrocketing administrative expenses (the majority of the expenses of North American universities and liberal arts colleges are from administrative positions that did not exist before Jimmy Carter became president) and decreased funding from governments (which has only worsened because of the deficit).

Anyway, the temporarily wealthy and the mostly permanently middle-class (which are pretty wealthy by global standards) would be hurt by any attempts at taxing "the rich" over 80%, let alone 90%. However, if we increased the Capital Gains Tax, added a graduated inheritance tax (almost non-existent tax levels for the less well-off, high taxes for the most well-off heirs), added a fossil fuel tax, a graduated luxury tax (more expensive cars get taxed higher than less expensive cars), a fuel-economy tax (gas guzzlers get taxed higher than efficient autos), and increased the percentage taxed on highest incomes.

What some people do not realize is that most tax systems work by having different percentages for each portion of an income. If the tax rate on incomes over $250,000/yr is 70% and the tax rate on incomes over $300,0000/yr is 90% (and 80% on $275/yr), only the portion of the income over $300,000/yr would be taxed at 90%. This ensures that someone who makes more will never be taxed so much that they end up with less than someone who makes less. This is a fair system. I do believe that a tax rate of 90% on income over $400,000/yr would be fair but only if taxes on the poor are not increased at all and taxes on the middle class are only slightly increased (if at all).

--Ocram

[Haljackey 17,242]

I think I am against this. To me, a better idea is to make it so a minimum wage pays enough for basic necessities without things like food-stamps to help them out (Something for something).

 

In addition, this minimum wage should increase with inflation when needed to keep people above the poverty line.

[LexusInfernus 908]

I think I am against this. To me, a better idea is to make it so a minimum wage pays enough for basic necessities without things like food-stamps to help them out (Something for something).

 

In addition, this minimum wage should increase with inflation when needed to keep people above the poverty line.

The minimum wage is only there for people that have a job. The problem with that is that we are moving towards an economy where a lot of jobs are just gone. Where there will be structurally high unemployment because robots and computers do all of the work. 

[Ocram's Razr 963]

Why assume that people would use the money to finance their basic needs? We already know that there are people who will forgo food to get another drink or hit of whatever drug. Granted, if they had the money to do so, the robbery rate might go down but, in some cases at least, it would be spending tax money to help people destroy their lives and those around them.

The idea of wiping out all forms of social security except one is intriguing but there would be lots of wrinkles. Does the payment of $x per person start at birth? Who gets control over the babies' money? Does the amount go up as the kid gets older?

Oddly, it might make more jobs available. I know lower income people who work 2 or 3 jobs just to make ends meet. They would probably be happy to give up one of them if they had another source of income.

It does bring up an interesting question: how many of us would get out of bed and go to work each day if we didn't have to?

You raise a very good point, Meg. That is why I am whole-heartedly against any government giving away general use (normal) money with no strings attached to everyone under a certain limit. I think that it would be smarter to build basic housing and let all citizens live there for free (but it must have little-to-no luxuries and be built efficiently) and give away credits for nutrition (not junk "food" and not luxury spices) that can be used to purchase nutritious and healthy ingredients and be used to cover part of the cost of nutritious and healthy (but also delicious and expensive) meals and ingredients. Spices, refined sugar, table salt, cooking fats, and labour/services for preparation would not be subsidized and would be subject to tax (as most of them are already taxed in San Francisco and Seattle). General purpose money, which can be used to buy luxuries like cars and fancy clothes, entertainment like movies, plays, and deluxe TV packages (and high speed Internet), and "addictive substances" would have to be earned and in the future economy, where jobs will be scarce, few people will be able to afford vices.

--Ocram

[hym 358]

On a long enough time line, all welfare systems are inevitably doomed to failure.

You're welcome to believe that all you want, but such a claim is utterly impossible to defend.

As some of the world's greatest economists (and some mathematicians) support this viewpoint, I guess we are going to have to disagree on this.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

OK, let's find a mechanism to provide the necessaries, as the legal system calls them.  Food, shelter, clothing geared to the climate, etc. 

 

And while we are at it, let's set up a merit system for free education.  You go as far as you can provided you have the demonstrated ability to continue, and not by expertly learning to write exams.  At higher levels a 'may proceed' must be given by properly qualified people who have taken the time to understand each person.  These 'qualification boards' would most surely employ more people, and not all of them need to be qualified educators. 

 

The one-size-fits-all method of education that is in use in North America today must be scrapped in favour of what I call a 'sit at the feet of a mentor' system.  Classrooms are out.  Laboratories are in.  A laboratory doesn't have to be equipped for 'scientific' pursuits.  It can be a quiet room in which students and mentors can just mix and hold conversations.  (Good heavens!  Talk???  You bet!).  Some conversations might involve a blackboard/white board/chalk talk or a written discussion on some kind of communication system.

 

Let everyone proceed at his own pace and let no one who is making any progress be removed.  Some people are bright enough to zip through the lower levels but everyone will eventually hit the point where the work is more difficult and more rewarding.

 

One of the things that would happen here is that there would be more mentors employed because education would become a one-to-one experience.  Drop outs would be encouraged for people who had reached their capacity, but discouraged for people who are just lazy.  Deliberate ignorance should carry a stigma.

 

So, essentially, we'd revert to the system used in the 19th century in some universities in Europe.  You sell your selected professor on the idea that you want to be his student, and if he accepts, you study under/with him until you both agree that it is time for you to move on.  Move on to another docent, or to finally graduate with a degree as agreed by your supervisors.

 

Some people might find themselves more interested in a trade apprenticeship.  This means finding a master who will take you on as an apprentice.  The same sort of system applies until you reach journeyman status.  Going beyond that means doing some masterwork and having it judged acceptable.

 

Undo the present straight jacket of "education".

 

Oh, and do remember that with the 'everyone gets a living' system, there need be no fees.

[LexusInfernus 908]

As some of the world's greatest economists (and some mathematicians) support this viewpoint, I guess we are going to have to disagree on this.

 

Hardly. Under economic and population stability a welfare system can endure indefinitely. 

 

And if they do disappear. Well...history has shown what happens in countries where the rich trample over the poor long enough. Welfare is simply a necessity to maintain politic stability. Hell you can even argue it provides economical stability as it keeps up the purchasing power of the poor, and purchasing power is the motor of a capitalist economy.

 

As for the opinion of economists. Well, their opinion is as worthless as the opinion of astrologers on whats going to happen to you this month. Economics is not an exact science and economists are notorious for being wrong more often than they are right.  

[hym 358]

Hardly. Under economic and population stability a welfare system can endure indefinitely. 

 

On a long enough timeline, neither of these things exist.  Economies most certainly do not tend towards decades long periods of stable behavior.  Populations, though somewhat more stable, cannot be counted on either.  (Japan's population is expected to drop over 20% in the next 35 years.  The world's population is expected to begin falling this century.)

[Duke87 1,070]

The key argument in favor of this concept is being missed.

 

Consider what the current patchwork of welfare in the US (and probably other countries, too) looks like: you have social security, medicaid, food stamps, public housing, tuition assistance, etc. etc. Basically there is a huge mess of a ton of different things. All of this costs taxpayers a significant amount of money not just in welfare payouts but also in the administrative burden of running all these programs, making sure people qualify for them, fighting fraudulent use of them, etc.

 

The reason "basic income" is a lovely idea is that it is incredibly simple. If you get rid of all the crap listed above and just issue payments to people who have income below a certain threshold on their tax return, yes, you will be paying out more money in welfare checks. But then you can enormously reduce the money spent on running and managing welfare, to the point where it may actually cost taxpayers less money at the end of the day. It's not just about doing the best thing for society, it's about efficient operation of government. KISS principle.

[dogma555 187]

Many will insist money needs to be a motivator.. and that something like a basic income would lead to nothing but a lethargic society. but i dunno, I see thousands of thousands of uploaded free BAT's to sites like this, where the creator receives no financial compensation what-so-ever. Enough to a point where my plugin folder is double digit gigabytes! .. projects as complex and innovative as NAM .. and I've never paid these guys a dime for their contributions and everyone with the ability to seems to stay quite motivated and willing to contribute to the community at hand.

 

Still, basic income is not the right answer to income inequality (at least to the extent of America).. we need a return to real capitalism where it's actually POSSIBLE to COMPETE against bad companies.. but in a corporatist oligopoly where they collude more than they compete, this is impossible.. only way to change that is to tax big businesses to death and give the subsidies to entrepreneurs willing to build up small businesses in their place. Transform every Wallmart or big box store into an entire strip of small businesses. But good luck electing an honest public official that *won't* agree to take bribe money from said big businesses and end up doing nothing.

 

 

In addition, this minimum wage should increase with inflation when needed to keep people above the poverty line.

 

This just leads to a never ending cycle though...

 

Government increases minimum wage.. it causes economy inflation .. because businesses, corporations, and conglomerates alike raise prices to offset the cost of having to pay their workers more .. just causes never ending economy inflation .. on and on and on. We need maximum wages and incomes, not minimums.

 

I would argue the concept of even having "minimum" wages and "poverty" lines in itself causes a social stigma to these socioeconomic issues and conditions and just gives people an all too easy way of comparing each others values leading to a recipe for class conflict that should be done away with.

 

EDIT:

 

you have social security, medicaid, food stamps, public housing, tuition assistance, etc. etc. Basically there is a huge mess of a ton of different things.

 

Except that in America, this is completely contrary to the principles that build the country.. and the people who want to keep it that way.. so what can we do? This is a country founded on protecting a wealthy elite who inherited money and wanted to avoid paying taxes on it .. and who decades later would have the most influential professors at places like Yale like Sumner spreading Social Darwinism to future business leaders. What makes the US's tradition to them is the survival of the fittest .. liberty, IN equality, and survival of the fittest. Absolute freedom of action. Taxes, welfare, etc are all seen as "unfair help"  and nothing but an endangerment to the species where the "weak" will breed more like them and drag "their" country down.

 

The super wealthy have enough access and connections to financial magicianship to hide all their taxes through offshore accounts, phony charities, and exotic insurance policies and tax code loopholes. All you need is a good lawyer, an insurance policy, and good financial advisory and you can pay almost zero taxes on almost all your income.. so the burden to paying these taxes falls on the shrinking middle class who can't afford these luxuries to support the lower classes that the higher classes are able to be exempt from.

 

 

Instead of double posting, please use the edit button and edit your post to include your new thoughts.  There is no need to post twice in a short amount of time when there are better options available.

-ST Moderating Staff

[catty-cb 4,381]

The elections for a new government was held in New Zealand during the past weekend, one of the parties that was standing for government is called the "New Zealand Democratic Party for Social Credit" and their platform was to provide everyone with a "Basic Income"

 

http://www.democrats.org.nz/Policy/tabid/70/ArticleId/1048/smid/994/ArticleCategory/118/Basic-income.aspx#.VCJERpSSyE4

 

 

 

Promote the right of every New Zealander to have an adequate basic income

• Provide the basic income free from tax

• Pay the basic income to every resident New Zealander as a right of citizenship

• Progressively replace all current benefits and allowances with a basic income regardless of employment, marital, or gender status

• Retain supplements for the disabled, their carers and housing

 

Exactly 1,609 New Zealanders voted for it, and as a political party has to have over 500 paid up members before they can run for parliament in an election its obviously not something anyone outside their party wanted either, I certainly didn't vote for them, the party I did vote for only got 186,031 votes    

[LexusInfernus 908]

On a long enough timeline, neither of these things exist.  Economies most certainly do not tend towards decades long periods of stable behavior.  Populations, though somewhat more stable, cannot be counted on either.  (Japan's population is expected to drop over 20% in the next 35 years.  The world's population is expected to begin falling this century.)

 

Irrelevant, given that production still increases, even though there are less people working. The reason its currently unsustainable is because despite massive leaps in production and efficiency, workers don't actually get paid for it. Their wages are pretty much frozen while all of the extra profits go to the one percent. That way the government can't actually tax people more, thus not increasing the revenue needed to pay for the social security programs. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

This whole idea is a little on the moot side, in my humble opinion.

 

Some definitions are missing and assumptions have been made.

 

Define income.  Define basic.  Define necessaries.

 

None of the above need the concept of money.  Money is a fiction we have all agreed to believe in.

 

What needs to be provided is: shelter from the elements, food, sanitation, and health care as needed.  None of these involve giving away buckets of money, only physical things.  Some might consider subsistence foods unpalatable, but believe me hunger is a great sauce. 

 

If you are going to have a "welfare state" giving money to clients is a cop-out.  Serving properly involves giving things not cash.  In this sort of set up, many people would be employed in the transfer of goods and services, rather than a computer handing out bank credits. 

 

Luxuries such as privacy are not on my agenda.

[LexusInfernus 908]

This whole idea is a little on the moot side, in my humble opinion.

 

Some definitions are missing and assumptions have been made.

 

Define income.  Define basic.  Define necessaries.

 

None of the above need the concept of money.  Money is a fiction we have all agreed to believe in.

 

What needs to be provided is: shelter from the elements, food, sanitation, and health care as needed.  None of these involve giving away buckets of money, only physical things.  Some might consider subsistence foods unpalatable, but believe me hunger is a great sauce. 

 

If you are going to have a "welfare state" giving money to clients is a cop-out.  Serving properly involves giving things not cash.  In this sort of set up, many people would be employed in the transfer of goods and services, rather than a computer handing out bank credits. 

 

Luxuries such as privacy are not on my agenda.

The problem with giving people stuff instead of money causes numerous problems, mostly because I can assure you that supply and demand will NEVER match up if you do that. Great, you give people a house or food or access to medical care. But what if they already own a house when they become unemployed and need assistance? What if they have a local church that gives away food for free to the poor or what if they have a small garden where they can grow a lot of food themselves? What if they aren't sick? The things you then provide them are utterly worthless to those people and yet you have not managed to help them one little bit. But if you gave them money, those people could decide for themselves what they needed most at that time. Perhaps they need to get their car to the garage for a fix which allows them to become more mobile again. Perhaps they can put that money on a bank account, save it up and use it for when their garden no longer provides them with enough food or they do become ill and need to see a doctor. Or perhaps they can use that money for other little necessities in their life that do not directly fall under the most basic categories like shelter, food or healthcare. 

 

And on the plus side, giving people money allows them to start consuming or continue consuming, which in turn only benefits the economy. But when you give people those things directly, the economy doesn't benefit.  

 

But sure, you create a whole bureaucratic nightmare, a whole industry of giving people welfare stuff. But how is that helpful? Its basically turning the government into a job creator for the sake of creating more jobs. Those jobs are paid for by tax dollars, so essentially you end up pouring in 10 billion dollar for every 1 billion dollar of stuff being given to the poor. Wouldnt it be a much better use of resources if you pour in 10 billion and get about 9.9 billion dollar directly to the people who need it? 

[Ocram's Razr 963]

Well, capitalism (and mercantilism) requires scarcity and growth to function and fiat currency is also useless without the two. Consumerism is bad for the planet and has been a prime factor in cultural appropriation and the degradation of morals. Also, if the USA were to give away free money, instead of making employment more fair, it would have to be able to find everyone who "deserves" the money. I think it would be best if women can get paid maternity leave, everyone can get more vacation days that don't expire (and taking unpaid vacation with far away advanced notice should not be grounds for immediate firing), and the minimum wage goes up with inflation (because a $15 national minimum wage is unreasonable, especially for uneducated, unskilled fast food workers who cannot spell, living in a poor area with a currently low cost of living).

There would also have to be a way to tell who deserves this free money. Does it go only to citizens living below the poverty line? Does it go to all residents earning low wages (but includes people slightly above the poverty line and non-citizens)?

In short, because of abundance, automation, and lowered (and in some places negative) growth, giving away free money will collapse Capitalism and I highly doubt that anyone who advocates it [giving away free cash] can honestly both understand economics and be in favor of capitalism (usually one or the other has to be missing). Other economic structures would be needed and they would be best off if they gave away bare necessities for free and people had to do something for luxuries.

--Ocram

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Well, ownership of previous assets aside, let us assume that the whole set up is based on everyone benefits and not just the impoverished.  All the arguments here have been on the basis of the "needy". 

 

My system is based on equal share for all.  If a client is able to improve his lot in some way, more power to him.  I don't care to address any of the social "what ifs".

 

All members of society are clients of the system.  You get the handouts will ye, nil ye.  If you have no need of them, then have the charity to pass them on, but if everyone gets the same things, what's the point?

 

The whole point here is to eliminate capitalism entirely.  No "more equal" pigs allowed.

 

By the way, this is one definition of a pure communism (not Marxism).  There is no discussion of political systems here.  So far, it has only worked in cloistered religious orders.

[jmsepe 2,038]

No for me, basically because I believe the government ought to provide basic needs to its people through revenues taken from the people per se.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

You realize my system does away with the idea of governments as we know them.