Survey: Roughly half of Americans in favor of UBI welfare

[Anti Federalist]

More Americans now support a universal basic income

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/26/roughly-half-of-americans-now-support-universal-basic-income.html

•Forty-eight percent of Americans support a universal basic income.
•Longtime advocates say we're closer than ever to adopting the program.

Annie Nova Published 8 Hours Ago | Updated 7 Hours Ago CNBC.com

Political philosopher and economist Karl Widerquist, an associate professor at Georgetown University in Qatar, remembers a poll from 10 years ago that showed just 12 percent of Americans approved of a universal basic income.

That's changed — and quickly. Today, 48 percent of Americans support it, according to a new Northeastern University/Gallup survey of more than 3,000 U.S. adults.

"It represents an enormous increase in support," said Widerquist, who is a well-known advocate for a universal basic income. "It's really promising."

Proposals for universal basic income programs vary, but the most common one is a system in which the federal government sends out regular checks to everyone, regardless of their earnings or employment.

Pilots of such programs are underway in Finland and Canada. In rural Kenya, a basic income is managed by nonprofit GiveDirectly. India — with a population of more than 1.3 billion residents — is considering establishing a universal basic income.

"People are saying, 'Look we cannot let inequality continue to grow because the political consequences could be a disaster.'" -Guy Standing, co-founder of the Basic Income Earth Network

Some projects are happening closer to the U.S.

Y Combinator Research, based in Oakland, California, started a test of a basic income last year, and is raising funds to expand the research project. This year in Stockton, California, Mayor Michael Tubbs's Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration will give several dozen low-income families $500 each month in a study of basic income. And for decades, Alaska residents have each received around $2,000 a year from the Alaska Permanent Fund.

These examples are an opportunity to debunk many of the myths about a universal basic income, said Guy Standing, co-founder of the Basic Income Earth Network. He recently spoke at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on the subject.

"The claim is often made that if you give people a basic income, they'll become lazy and stop doing work," Standing said. "It's an insult to the human condition. Basic incomes tend to increase people's work rather than reduce it."

That's because research has shown that a basic income can improve people's mental and physical health, Standing said, as well as encourage them to pursue employment for reasons more meaningful than just a need to put food on the table.

Rising inequality, and its vast effects, have triggered a "perfect storm" for basic income, Standing said.

"People are saying, 'Look we cannot let inequality continue to grow, because the political consequences could be a disaster'," Standing said, pointing to the recent rise of more authoritarian figures.

Even amid a booming economy, wage-growth has been sluggish. At the same time, the list of jobs robots are able to fill is growing more impressive (and perhaps worrisome). The Northeastern University/Gallup survey showed that three quarters of Americans believe machines will take away more jobs than they'll generate.

"We don't need to threaten people with homelessness and poverty to get them to work," Widerquist said. "It's capitalism where income doesn't start at zero."

Still, the survey found that 52 percent of Americans do not support a basic income. The idea is more popular with certain groups.

For example, 65 percent of Democrats want to see a universal basic income, and 54 percent of people between the ages of 18 and 35 do. In comparison, just 28 percent of Republicans support universal basic income.

"Anything that sounds like welfare gets a much more negative reaction from Republicans," said Frank Newport, editor-in-chief of Gallup.

Newport said he found it interesting that the public doesn't necessarily want the government to pay for the universal basic income. Instead, 80 percent of supporters say that the companies that benefit from artificial intelligence should pay the higher taxes to fund a basic income.

Standing said Americans might be receiving those checks sooner than previously thought, thanks to the realization of what could follow if they never came.

"You can't have a free market economy if people are constantly insecure," Standing said. "You can't expect them to be rational."

[amartin315]

More Americans now support a universal basic income

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/26/roughly-half-of-americans-now-support-universal-basic-income.html

•Forty-eight percent of Americans support a universal basic income.
•Longtime advocates say we're closer than ever to adopting the program.

Annie Nova Published 8 Hours Ago | Updated 7 Hours Ago CNBC.com

Political philosopher and economist Karl Widerquist, an associate professor at Georgetown University in Qatar, remembers a poll from 10 years ago that showed just 12 percent of Americans approved of a universal basic income.

That's changed — and quickly. Today, 48 percent of Americans support it, according to a new Northeastern University/Gallup survey of more than 3,000 U.S. adults.

"It represents an enormous increase in support," said Widerquist, who is a well-known advocate for a universal basic income. "It's really promising."

Proposals for universal basic income programs vary, but the most common one is a system in which the federal government sends out regular checks to everyone, regardless of their earnings or employment.

Pilots of such programs are underway in Finland and Canada. In rural Kenya, a basic income is managed by nonprofit GiveDirectly. India — with a population of more than 1.3 billion residents — is considering establishing a universal basic income.

"People are saying, 'Look we cannot let inequality continue to grow because the political consequences could be a disaster.'" -Guy Standing, co-founder of the Basic Income Earth Network

Some projects are happening closer to the U.S.

Y Combinator Research, based in Oakland, California, started a test of a basic income last year, and is raising funds to expand the research project. This year in Stockton, California, Mayor Michael Tubbs's Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration will give several dozen low-income families $500 each month in a study of basic income. And for decades, Alaska residents have each received around $2,000 a year from the Alaska Permanent Fund.

These examples are an opportunity to debunk many of the myths about a universal basic income, said Guy Standing, co-founder of the Basic Income Earth Network. He recently spoke at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on the subject.

"The claim is often made that if you give people a basic income, they'll become lazy and stop doing work," Standing said. "It's an insult to the human condition. Basic incomes tend to increase people's work rather than reduce it."

That's because research has shown that a basic income can improve people's mental and physical health, Standing said, as well as encourage them to pursue employment for reasons more meaningful than just a need to put food on the table.

Rising inequality, and its vast effects, have triggered a "perfect storm" for basic income, Standing said.

"People are saying, 'Look we cannot let inequality continue to grow, because the political consequences could be a disaster'," Standing said, pointing to the recent rise of more authoritarian figures.

Even amid a booming economy, wage-growth has been sluggish. At the same time, the list of jobs robots are able to fill is growing more impressive (and perhaps worrisome). The Northeastern University/Gallup survey showed that three quarters of Americans believe machines will take away more jobs than they'll generate.

"We don't need to threaten people with homelessness and poverty to get them to work," Widerquist said. "It's capitalism where income doesn't start at zero."

Still, the survey found that 52 percent of Americans do not support a basic income. The idea is more popular with certain groups.

For example, 65 percent of Democrats want to see a universal basic income, and 54 percent of people between the ages of 18 and 35 do. In comparison, just 28 percent of Republicans support universal basic income.

"Anything that sounds like welfare gets a much more negative reaction from Republicans," said Frank Newport, editor-in-chief of Gallup.

Newport said he found it interesting that the public doesn't necessarily want the government to pay for the universal basic income. Instead, 80 percent of supporters say that the companies that benefit from artificial intelligence should pay the higher taxes to fund a basic income.

Standing said Americans might be receiving those checks sooner than previously thought, thanks to the realization of what could follow if they never came.

"You can't have a free market economy if people are constantly insecure," Standing said. "You can't expect them to be rational."

you know, what happens when somebody takes out a loan against his future income, and spends it all on something and loses it...what do you do then? let him die? this is why UBI can't work.

[donnay]

That's because half of Americans have been on welfare and don't know any better.

[tod evans]

That's because half of Americans have been on welfare and don't know any better.

Over 50% "get a check"..

SSI, disability, government "employee" or pensioner, and welfare too...

Then throw in the businesses that only exist off of graft.......:eek:

[donnay]

Over 50% "get a check"..

SSI, disability, government "employee" or pensioner, and welfare too...

Then throw in the businesses that only exist off of graft.......:eek:


Yep, what better way to control people? It has always been the carrot and stick agenda.

[Matt Collins]

Good thing we don't live in a democracy where majority rules.

[oyarde]

WTF . american greatness .

[Ender]

Nobody asked me- Fake News.

[CCTelander]

Over 50% "get a check"..

SSI, disability, government "employee" or pensioner, and welfare too...

Then throw in the businesses that only exist off of graft.......:eek:


I guess those of us who aren't dependent upon government for our subsistence will just have to vote that much harder then.

[timosman]

Nobody asked me- Fake News.

We have oversampled the useful idiot demo many times over to make sure your views are included.:cool:

[Brian4Liberty]

Proposals for universal basic income programs vary, but the most common one is a system in which the federal government sends out regular checks to everyone, regardless of their earnings or employment.

We should send a check for $1,000,000 each year to every person on the planet. We are a rich nation. We can afford it.

[Ender]

We should send a check for $1,000,000 each year to every person on the planet. We are a rich nation. We can afford it.

Money's just clicks on a keyboard, so that should be easy. ;)

[kahless]

I would not oppose the UBI if we are not going to have free markets as we are whittled down to a handful of monopolies and globalism that enslave us. You add automation putting the majority out of work and no abolition of anti-liberty property taxes so we can check out of the system to live freely on our own lands, then you would be a fool to oppose the UBI.

I would go a step further say people should campaign for UBI in that case. Either oppose it or drag the Oligarchs out of the homes, dismantle the monopolies and confiscate all their wealth. Restore liberty and abolish taxes on private property thereafter.

[Mordan]

i am pro UBI... in a new crypto dollar managed by the FEDs.

if idiots spend it all on booze.. my answer is go read Darwin.

[Anti Federalist]

i am pro UBI... in a new crypto dollar managed by the FEDs.

if idiots spend it all on booze.. my answer is go read Darwin.

E-currency, new credits, prepaid cards...it will be paid in some form of that.

So that purchasing booze will be prohibited, along with many other things as well.

[bunklocoempire]

The Land of Cockaigne (Bruegel)

https://www.pictshare.net/01seyakstk.jpg

[TheTexan]

Good thing we don't live in a democracy where majority rules.

"constitutional republic"

https://media.giphy.com/media/Fml0fgAxVx1eM/giphy.gif

[kahless]

It was the Republicans that first floated the UBI. Nixon's plan in 1969 would have given a poor family of four $1600 a year, equivalent to around $10,000 in today's dollars.

[phill4paul]

https://i.imgur.com/zZaypDa.gif

[phill4paul]

E-currency, new credits, prepaid cards...it will be paid in some form of that.

So that purchasing booze will be prohibited, along with many other things as well.

So I can't spend it at ammo.com? Well, there went my enthusiasm.

[Madison320]

I don't see how the math makes any sense. Let's say you make it 10K a year. There's about 320 million citizens, that's 3.2 trillion which is our entire revenue. That leaves no money for the military or court system or SS or Medicare. What about sick or disabled people who can't live on 10K? What about retired people?

The problem is that if you make the payment small enough that we can afford it, it'll just be a small supplement, most people won't be able to live off it.

[kahless]

I don't see how the math makes any sense. Let's say you make it 10K a year. There's about 320 million citizens, that's 3.2 trillion which is our entire revenue. That leaves no money for the military or court system or SS or Medicare. What about sick or disabled people who can't live on 10K? What about retired people?

The problem is that if you make the payment small enough that we can afford it, it'll just be a small supplement, most people won't be able to live off it.

There are some proposals where all existing programs are eliminated and replaced with an UBI that everyone receives..

[Swordsmyth]

I don't see how the math makes any sense. Let's say you make it 10K a year. There's about 320 million citizens, that's 3.2 trillion which is our entire revenue. That leaves no money for the military or court system or SS or Medicare. What about sick or disabled people who can't live on 10K? What about retired people?

The problem is that if you make the payment small enough that we can afford it, it'll just be a small supplement, most people won't be able to live off it.

Ctrl-P

[timosman]

I don't see how the math makes any sense. Let's say you make it 10K a year. There's about 320 million citizens, that's 3.2 trillion which is our entire revenue. That leaves no money for the military or court system or SS or Medicare. What about sick or disabled people who can't live on 10K? What about retired people?

The problem is that if you make the payment small enough that we can afford it, it'll just be a small supplement, most people won't be able to live off it.

Once we discover alien life maybe we can convince them to invest in our UBI scheme.

[kahless]

A tax increase on monopolies could make up for about 1.5T shortfall and would be a way to deal with them. Historically all the right wing media screaming about raising taxes on the rich would likely ensure the poor and middle class take the hit to pay for the UBI. Meanwhile someone like Bezo's and Amazon would again pay nothing.

[Madison320]

There are some proposals where all existing programs are eliminated and replaced with an UBI that everyone receives..

There's lots of proposals out there. Karl Marx had one. That didn't mean it would work.

You're not serious about this are you?

[Swordsmyth]

A tax increase on monopolies could make up for about 1.5T shortfall and would be a way to deal with them. Historically all the right wing media screaming about raising taxes on the rich would likely ensure the poor and middle class take the hit to pay for the UBI. Meanwhile someone like Bezo's and Amazon would again pay nothing.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Madison320]

Pilots of such programs are underway in Finland and Canada. In rural Kenya, a basic income is managed by nonprofit GiveDirectly. India — with a population of more than 1.3 billion residents — is considering establishing a universal basic income.


Just to add to my previous post, all these "test" UBI programs work fine as long as it's a test on a teensy little group. The math blows up when you try to expand it to everyone. Hasn't any one of these idiots done some basic math? It's not hard, you take the number of citizens times the amount and you'll instantly discover it doesn't work. It's not quantum physics.

[kahless]

There's lots of proposals out there. Karl Marx had one. That didn't mean it would work.

You're not serious about this are you?

No cliche responses from me posting here. Karl Marx is a huge leap since no one is talking about government ownership of means of production.

So I am not proposing anything, it is just serious thinking about how they might justify it and where we are headed.

[kahless]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

I do not want to take the hit on paying for it so for me it makes a right. Sick of being played for a fool while they promote such things and then make the rest of us pay for it.

[donnay]

I guess those of us who aren't dependent upon government for our subsistence will just have to vote that much harder then.

No you will be ahead of the game when all this comes crashing down. ;)

[Krugminator2]

I don't see how the math makes any sense. Let's say you make it 10K a year. There's about 320 million citizens, that's 3.2 trillion which is our entire revenue.

There are 240 million people over 18. You don't give everyone 10k. You phase it out. If you got rid of every welfare program and got rid of Social Security and Medicare, UBI at 13k a year would be a trillion dollars a year cheaper by 2020. https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-guaranteed-income-for-every-american-1464969586

In theory you should get rid of the minimum wage since now everyone is automatically over the poverty line. So teenage unemployment would drop In the version I linked to you force people to buy catastrophic health insurance with it.

I don't know if it is a good idea in practice but in theory it makes sense to me.

[Krugminator2]

Newport said he found it interesting that the public doesn't necessarily want the government to pay for the universal basic income. Instead, 80 percent of supporters say that the companies that benefit from artificial intelligence should pay the higher taxes to fund a basic income.



Which it is why I am against it. It only becomes economical if you fund it by getting rid of Social Security and Medicare and make UBI the only public assistance.

The problem with any new entitlement is people want to soak the rich to pay for it and not cut anything else.


https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/30/15712160/basic-income-oecd-aei-replace-welfare-state

And in particular, no one agrees on how such a plan would be funded. Conservative and libertarian proponents tend to want to pay for it by eliminating the entire welfare state (http://www.fljs.org/files/publications/Murray.pdf), including health programs like Medicare and Medicaid and social insurance programs such as Social Security. More cautious center-left or moderate libertarian proponents — who are loath to cut those aspects of the safety net,endanger people’s retirements, and let uninsured sick people die in the streets — tend to only propose funding through eliminating means-tested programs (http://www.economonitor.com/dolanecon/2014/01/13/could-we-afford-a-universal-basic-income/) like food stamps and the earned income tax credit, as well as tax benefits such as the health care exclusion and mortgage interest deduction. The most ambitious lefty proponents (https://go.redirectingat.com/?id=66960X1516588&xs=1&url=https%3A%2F%2Fsmile.amazon.com%2FBasic-Income-Radical-Proposal-Society%2Fdp%2F0674052285%3Fsa-no-redirect%3D1) want to finance the program entirely through new tax revenue.

This isn't libertarian but if you went to a flat tax, UBI, and a mechanical monetary policy based on a computer program, you would eliminate a lot of worst elements of waste.

[oyarde]

Once we discover alien life maybe we can convince them to invest in our UBI scheme.

Too late , I already traded the aliens use of Dankes house through the week for all the gold and bitcoin they had .

[oyarde]

There are 240 million people over 18. You don't give everyone 10k. You phase it out. If you got rid of every welfare program and got rid of Social Security and Medicare, UBI at 13k a year would be a trillion dollars a year cheaper by 2020. https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-guaranteed-income-for-every-american-1464969586

In theory you should get rid of the minimum wage since now everyone is automatically over the poverty line. So teenage unemployment would drop In the version I linked to you force people to buy catastrophic health insurance with it.

I don't know if it is a good idea in practice but in theory it makes sense to me.

Uh , negative . They are never getting rid of medicare ever . No matter how much UBI you give away there are tons of people who could not live on it and pay medical expenses . Nothing like that would ever clear the senate .

[Swordsmyth]

I do not want to take the hit on paying for it so for me it makes a right. Sick of being played for a fool while they promote such things and then make the rest of us pay for it.

You will lock in a feudal system with no new businesses able to compete and a giant serf class that will vote socialist until doomsday.

[Anti Federalist]

It was the Republicans that first floated the UBI. Nixon's plan in 1969 would have given a poor family of four $1600 a year, equivalent to around $10,000 in today's dollars.

Of fucking course it was.

[CCTelander]

Of fucking course it was.


Gotta love those "fiscally conservative," "small government" Republicans.

[timosman]

Gotta love those "fiscally conservative," "small government" Republicans.

Why is it legal to fuck with us so much?:confused:

[Pauls' Revere]

So, any good business pays as little tax as possible. Taxes upon business is passed unto the customer as higher prices.

[kahless]

You will lock in a feudal system with no new businesses able to compete and a giant serf class that will vote socialist until doomsday.

So you are saying if they force the UBI on us I should want to the poor and middle class taxed rather than the monopolies. Screw that, the slave masters promoting it can sacrifice and still live comfortably. Besides with the UBI you are eliminating the favoring of one citizen over another by eliminating existing social programs and replacing it with a UBI that everyone receives.

You want to create new businesses then break-up the monopolies. Look behind the illusion we are living in and you can see we already are living in a feudal system which is only getting worse each passing month with the monopolies continuing to grow. It is every business segment including our food supply. Just go down to any chain grocery store to see the illusion of free markets with all these brands when the reality is all the products are owned by a handful of globalist companies.

The giant serf class is going to only grow larger if something is not done about the continued consolidations of practically every business segment. That is not free market capitalism and to boot we have robotic automation which will grow the serf class by 10x. If the country is going to head in that direction without action then a UBI will become necessary.

[Swordsmyth]

So you are saying if they force the UBI on us I should want to the poor and middle class taxed rather than the monopolies. Screw that, the slave masters promoting it can sacrifice and still live comfortably. Besides with the UBI you are eliminating the favoring one citizen over another by eliminating existing social programs and replacing it with a UBI that everyone receives.

You want to create new businesses then break-up the monopolies. Look behind the illusion we are living in and you can see we already are living in a feudal system which is only getting worse each passing month with the monopolies continuing to grow. It is every business segment including our food supply. Just go down to any chain grocery store to see the illusion of free markets with all these brands when the reality all the products are owned by a handful of globalist companies.

The giant serf class is going to only grow if something is not done about the continued consolidations of practically every business segment. That is not free market capitalism and to boot with have robotic automation which will grow the serf class by 10x. If the country is going to head in that direction without action then a UBI will become necessary.

I'm saying that if they force UBI on us you should work to get rid of UBI not shift the burden.

[timosman]

So, any good business pays as little tax as possible. Taxes upon business is passed unto the customer as higher prices.

If a government wants money from corporations they can always sign up with their lobbying groups.

[kcchiefs6465]

So the key to eliminating poverty AND fiscal sanity is a UBI?

That's a lot of bullshit to swallow. Even by today's standards.

[timosman]

So the key to eliminating poverty AND fiscal sanity is a UBI?

That's a lot of bullshit to swallow. Even by today's standards.

We also have to defeat global warming. :cool:

[kcchiefs6465]

We also have to defeat global warming. :cool:
And nuke the Koreans.

I don't know how the poor in this country would survive if the actual poor didn't eviscerate in MAGA ejaculate.

[nobody's_hero]

I'm just curious what the difference is between raising minimum wage and giving an extra 10K/year to people working minimum wage. Both have inflationary consequences. If I'm working as a paramedic making $30,000/year, or I could flip burgers for $20,000 year and get a $10,000 bonus just for being alive, hand me the spatula. Less responsibility, less liability, less stress, and less spending time in a vocational college. Now if you want paramedics, you gotta pay'em more than the burger flippers.

Your labor has a value. Once you completely dissolve the relation between labor hours and monetary compensation, the end result is that people will have no incentive to pursue more meaningful careers. More specifically, they just get lazy as F@#k and more entitled. I flipped your damn burgers, now gimme my beer and cigarette money!!

[Danke]

http://www.leskobooks.com/dvdevery.jpg

[Mordan]

Just to add to my previous post, all these "test" UBI programs work fine as long as it's a test on a teensy little group. The math blows up when you try to expand it to everyone. Hasn't any one of these idiots done some basic math? It's not hard, you take the number of citizens times the amount and you'll instantly discover it doesn't work. It's not quantum physics.

you can try it out with pure inflation... FEDs create a new crypto coin. Everyone gets 100 coins every week. By law make it legal tender.

Let the market decide its value. all federal agencies accept it for taxes based on its dollar value.

I bet you 1 million dollars that its value will not be zero. You would be surprised.

[Mordan]

Uh , negative . They are never getting rid of medicare ever . No matter how much UPI you give away there are tons of people who could not live on it and pay medical expenses . Nothing like that would ever clear the senate .

i agree. Medical insurance is a tricky problem. UBI cannot cover such costs. But UBI can cover basic needs like not worrying about food on the table.

[Madison320]

There are 240 million people over 18. You don't give everyone 10k. You phase it out. If you got rid of every welfare program and got rid of Social Security and Medicare, UBI at 13k a year would be a trillion dollars a year cheaper by 2020. https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-guaranteed-income-for-every-american-1464969586

In theory you should get rid of the minimum wage since now everyone is automatically over the poverty line. So teenage unemployment would drop In the version I linked to you force people to buy catastrophic health insurance with it.

I don't know if it is a good idea in practice but in theory it makes sense to me.

A trillion dollars cheaper than what? 13K times 240,000,000 = 3.1 trillion!

I think the biggest problem with UBI is that it doesn't accomplish its primary goal. It's supposed to be some sort of safety net but no one can actually live off that low of an amount. Since it's only a supplement, why bother with it? Why not just have no welfare?

We should get rid of the minimum wage either way, that's not an advantage of UBI.

I guess my question is, what does UBI accomplish? The idea behind medicare and SS is that you support people that can't physically work. UBI doesn't accomplish that.

The only thing I like about it is that it's not means tested. But neither is SS and Medicare, at least that I know of.

[CCTelander]

No you will be ahead of the game when all this comes crashing down. ;)


Or a convenient target for those dependent who suddenly get cut off?

[donnay]

Or a convenient target for those dependent who suddenly get cut off?

Zombie Apocalyptus. Be smarter than the serpent.

[SovereignMN]

UBI and crypto-currency has the potential to fulfill the biblical prophecy of the "Mark Of The Beast"

http://wakethechurch.org/Articles/tabid/410/ID/11065/Beast-Tech-The-Universal-Basic-Income-and-Blockchain.aspx



Beast-Tech: The Universal Basic Income and Blockchain

By Jason Charles | Wake the Church | June. 6, 2017

Updated Reference: China Becomes First Country in the World to Test a National Cryptocurrency

There is an avalanche of technologies and ideas converging that will completely reshape the economic landscape on a mass scale in the very near future. I call these technologies Beast-Tech. Beast-Tech is any technology, that can be utilized to track men and woman from every sector of earth. In essence it is the operational technologies that make the Biblical Mark of the Beast possible. Hence the name Beast-Tech.

Beast Tech

The Apostle John was given a prophetic vision that envisioned a world marked by a global superpower capable of controlling human-kind like animals. This verse, speaking of the Antichrist in Revelation reads,

And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Revelation 13:17

According to this prophecy there will be a world leader capable of forcing both rich and poor to mark themselves with the name of a world leader that also has certain numbers attached to it. This mark is so powerful that it can literally cut you off from acquiring your basic sustenance to live. Home, food, protection, freedom to travel, access to all of the societal perks gone in an instant if you don't accept this mark. These words in the Book of Revelation have captivated many minds. Only recently, as of 20 years have we started seeing a convergence of technologies and global networking that can now make this tech an actualized possibility.

Before we begin many people have speculated that the Mark of the Beast must be the RFID chip. On that I tend to disagree and have written on that in the past in an article called "Why the Implantable RFID Chip is Not the Mark of the Beast" for the curious.

What I think the Mark is falls more in line with Augmented Reality Technologies in conjunction with a truly digital currency linked to a socialist nightmare called the Universal Basic Income.

The Universal Basic Income

Now in a recent speech by Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, he laid out what is in my opinion a shared elitists blueprint towards the implementation of the Mark of the Beast. In the speech he hit on this concept called a Universal Basic Income (UBI). He also mentioned things such as universal healthcare, DNA sharing, universal electronic voting, and universal childcare which equally fit into the grand vision of the technological culture of the Beast system.

Listen and watch Zuckerberg for yourself.



"We should explore ideas like universal basic income to make sure that everyone has a cushion to try new ideas," Zuckerberg said at his Harvard commencement address Thursday. (CNN)

If you can get through the awkwardness, what you realize is he is selling Harvard grads on a vision of socialism that dwarfs anything we have seen in the last century.

This UBI "cushion" as termed by Zuckerberg is being constructed and endorsed by men like Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk at Tesla and futurists like Ray Kurzweil at Google as we speak. In fact there is a big list of big players pushing for this right now.

"An increasing number of high-profile Silicon Valley executives are endorsing universal basic income (UBI), a system in which everyone receives a standard amount of money just for being alive.

On the one hand, it's a way to reduce poverty, but tech folks also see it as a way to solve the growing problem of robot automation. That issue hits close to home for many of them, because they are the ones largely driving this robot revolution."(Business Insider)

This is not a pie in the sky dream, even the World Economic Forum is pushing it,

The WEF writes,

"Consider for a moment that from this day forward, on the first day of every month, around $1,000 is deposited into your bank account – because you are a citizen. This income is independent of every other source of income and guarantees you a monthly starting salary above the poverty line for the rest of your life.

What do you do? Possibly of more importance, what don’t you do? How does this firm foundation of economic security and positive freedom affect your present and future decisions, from the work you choose to the relationships you maintain, to the risks you take?" (WE Forum)

If the World Economic Forum is pushing this it means this whole idea is originating from the UN and above, these corporations such as Facebook and Google are simply the spokes-people tasked with the big sell. Hence the propaganda that is being put out currently in regards to the UBI. On top of all this, if you can believe it, Finland is even experimenting with this UBI concept right now,

"Finland's experimental scheme to provide its citizens with a basic income, regardless of employment, launched earlier this week.

The two-year pilot scheme will provide 2,000 unemployed Finnish citizens, aged between 25 and 58, with a monthly basic income of 560 euros ($581.48) that will replace their other social benefits.

These citizens will continue to receive the basic income even if they find work." (CNBC)





So we have to ask what exactly is this system that is being proposed and how on earth do they intend on transitioning a Global World Product (GWP) of $107 Trillion into a digital currency that is accessible to everyone in the world making it easy for the average person to conduct daily transactions. How they would do this you ask? Well have you ever heard of Bitcoin and the Blockchain?



Blockchain and Cryptocurrency

I am sure many reading this are already familiar with Bitcoin, but do you know how it actually works? Here is a great video showing the concepts behind the Blockchain infrastructure that allows applications of all types to utilize this fascinating technology, including Bitcoin which has now reached an amazing price of $2900 each.

Video on the Basics of the Blockchain



Now to be honest I have always been skeptical of Bitcoin, the reason being A) It is a fully digital currency and B) because the creator of Bitcoin is unknown. These two points are very important, we know that a universal currency and digital currency is a real possibility of fulfilling the "Buy and Sell" part of the Mark of the Beast prophecy. It is universal, it isn't tied to real assets, but digital ones and if governments get involved and even the UN then we know something is up. Well guess what something is up, but first let's look at the origin of Bitcoin and the Blockchain.

Supposedly the creator is Satoshi Nakamoto, who according to wikipedia, is just a pen name,

"Satoshi Nakamoto is the name used by the unknown person or persons who designed bitcoin and created its original reference implementation.[1] As a part of the implementation, he also devised the first blockchain database. In the process he was the first to solve the double spending problem for digital currency. He was active in the development of bitcoin up until December 2010." (Wikipedia)

As of now there are many candidates who the media has fingered as the real creator, but the real identity has yet to be verified. So in reality the creator of the Blockchain and Bitcoin could either be some international hacker, or it could very well be the NSA or some other crypto government agency seeking to create a organic adoption of the world's first digital currency. I truly believe that the later is highly possible. The fact that it was adopted by activists and libertarian/anarchist hackers early on as a means to bypass the global banking infrastructure could very well be exactly what global entities designed it to be. Knowing that any suggested global currency would be outright rejected by the activists and hackers first it was ingenious to release it as a disrupting technology that was seized upon by this very skeptical community. This is not a new conspiracy theory, there is a group called the CIA project that is making this claim,

"Another evidence the group is trying to bring is related to the source code of the digital currency.

It says the common programme used by most cryptocurrencies to create secure keys is suspected to be back-doored by the NSA, citing a "recent WikiLeaks document".

Bitcoin did not use the most popular programme to create secure keys, and the fact shows that the NSA already had full information about bitcoin, according to the group.

"While bitcoin believers portray bitcoin as a new decentralised currency, the command structure of bitcoin core development is 100% centralised," CIA Project says.

The claim could be refuted as bitcoin's source code is open source, and therefore the NSA need not put a back door in the code. The programme that bitcoin uses to secure transactions, SHA-256, is created by the NSA. The open source programme is said to be one of the most secure algorithms in the world." (IBTimes)

This whole thing could be a vast conspiracy to sucker the hacker communities into adopting a currency that will inevitably be the backbone of a one world economic system. While the CIA Project people are raising the alarm in regards to the possibility it is a Trojan horse, economists are predicting that as we enter into 2017 governments will be gobbling up bitcoins like they would gold or silver as a reserve. The CEO of a company that utilizes the Blockchain technology to protect identies has recently made this prediction,

"Although no country has made any official statement regarding this, Bitcoin’s amazing performance throughout 2016 may cause governments to acquire small portions of the cryptocurrency as a store of value. If one country starts doing so, Bitcoin reserves could become a global practice as no government would want to be left high and dry with its paper notes.

Lingham writes,

Imagine if China started buying up large amounts of Bitcoin — would the rest of the world governments stand idly by and watch? I don’t think so — so my prediction here is that by 2017, governments will become the largest buyers of Bitcoin, pushing the price up to new highs." (Bitconist.com)

Then you couple this realization with the fact the UN is now experimenting with the Blockchain and even recommending the adoption of Bitcoin type Cryptocurrencies makes all this a bit surreal.

"The United Nations (UN) is in the final stages of what could be one of the most epic blockchain projects of all time.

After successfully using the ethereum blockchain to transmit Pakistani rupees to 100 people earlier this year, the UN's World Food Program (WFP) is arranging extra security to ensure it safely executes the next stage of its work.

A pilot test, scheduled to begin in Jordan on 1st May, will see the WFP sending an unspecified number of dinars to more than 10,000 recipients in need of financial support and extra food, with the goal of expanding the number of recipients to 500,000 people by 2018.

To protect the privacy of the recipients, the exact amount to be dispersed is not being revealed. But the technology being developed is part of an even bigger push to make the UN's services so resilient that they could survive even the destruction of the UN itself." (Coindesk)

As you can see between these two things a Universal Basic Income and also the adoption of Cryptocurrency by governments and even the UN is a major tell as to what this really is all about. I have no doubt that these two things will converge in the near future. How? I am not exactly sure. It could be a manufactured global crisis it could be something they just ease us into, but one thing is for sure this is being discussed currently. In fact the Bitcoin enthusiasts are already dreaming up ways in which Bitcoin and the Blockchain can be utilized as a Universal Basic Income.

"Imagine needing to ensure the safe delivery of $1,000 to every individual on Earth. Our current system, which manages to "lose track" of 2.3 trillion dollars, is not up for the task," said Greg Slepak, developer for the okTurtles Foundation, which works on a handful of power-distributing internet projects based on blockchain technology.

Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, on the other hand, can be programmed to carry out certain tasks—say, periodically pay dividends to all of its members. This makes can makes welfare payments much cheaper. "Basic income, and especially universal basic income, requires a secure, tamper-proof ledger that can be audited by anyone to ensure the safe delivery of funds," Slepak said. And that's one thing cryptocurrencies provide." (Motherboard)

Conclusion
So this is why I am skeptical of these upcoming technologies and label them as Beast-Tech. There is something driving this push that is beyond grassroot acceptance. As tempting as it would be to get into Bitcoin, you have to ask is it a good thing to be an early adopter of this Beast-Tech? Especially given where it is all headed? Please Sign-up for our Newsletter and Like us on Facebook, for updates!

We as Christians have to look through the benefits and the possibilities to see how these technologies can be used to further drive humanity into a system of slavery. The idea of a Universal Basic Income is socialism on steroids. If we have learned anything it is welfare just makes lazy people even lazier as they come to expect, and rely on capital injections to sustain their lives. The Bible literally commands us to work 2 Thessalonians 3:10. I am inclined to always believe the Bible on these issues.

For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. 2 Thessalonians 3:10

[Krugminator2]

A trillion dollars cheaper than what? 13K times 240,000,000 = 3.1 trillion!




UBI phases out as you go up income, so it is means tested in a way. Current entitlement spending is 2.6 trillion right now


We should get rid of the minimum wage either way, that's not an advantage of UBI.

I guess my question is, what does UBI accomplish? The idea behind medicare and SS is that you support people that can't physically work. UBI doesn't accomplish that.

The only thing I like about it is that it's not means tested. But neither is SS and Medicare, at least that I know of.

Obv the min wage should be eliminated. UBI just eliminates the pretense of what min wage laws are purported to do by people who support them.

I would read the Charles Murray article on what he thinks UBI would accomplish. He gives his specific social examples.

Why would you be against means testing? SS and Medicare are insolvent. They should be cut and means testing is an easier way to accomplish that. If you have 10 million in assets, you probably shouldn't get those programs given their financial state. I am strongly in favor of outright eliminating those programs, but I want to do whatever moves the ball in the right direction.

[Swordsmyth]

You only get UBI if you don't make very much in the first place. UBI phases out.

Which further reduces the incentive to work.

[Krugminator2]

Which further reduces the incentive to work.


All welfare reduces the incentive to work. I am going on the assumption that welfare won't be eliminated. My understanding is UBI would disincentivize work less than traditional welfare programs, because if you make too much traditional welfare programs just go away all together whereas UBI gradually phases out.

[Swordsmyth]

All welfare reduces the incentive to work. I am going on the assumption that welfare won't be eliminated. My understanding is UBI would disincentivize work less than traditional welfare programs, because if you make too much traditional welfare programs just go away all together whereas UBI gradually phases out.

The idea stinks, stop promoting it.

[Madison320]

UBI phases out as you go up income, so it is means tested in a way. Current entitlement spending is 2.6 trillion right now



Obv the min wage should be eliminated. UBI just eliminates the pretense of what is purported to do by people who support it.

I would read the Charles Murray article on what he thinks UBI would accomplish. He gives his specific social examples.

Why would you be against means testing? SS and Medicare are insolvent. They should be cut and means testing is an easier way to accomplish that. If you have 10 million in assets, you probably shouldn't get those programs given their financial state. I am strongly in favor of outright eliminating those programs, but I want to do whatever moves the ball in the right direction.

You're talking about normal welfare. Universal Basic income is different, it gives the same amount to everyone:

"A basic income (also called basic income guarantee, citizen's income, unconditional basic income, universal basic income (UBI), basic living stipend (BLS) or universal demogrant) is typically described as a new kind of welfare regime in which all citizens (or permanent residents) of a country receive a regular, liveable and unconditional sum of money, from the government"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

I hate means testing. Imagine if they means tested Social Security. People that save their whole life would get their income stolen and given to idiots who buy 50K SUV's and McMansions they can't afford. Eff that!!!!

[Krugminator2]

The idea stinks, stop promoting it.

You aren't saying why though. Just saying something is a bad idea isn't acceptable. I see a lot of people (usually anarchists) who get indignant and red in the face when someone just agree with them. That isn't an argument. Whether it is a good or bad idea in practice should be debated, if for no other reason some of the best liberty thinkers (Charles Murray, Hayek, Friedman) support it.

[Krugminator2]

You're talking about normal welfare. Universal Basic income is different, it gives the same amount to everyone:



In Charles Murray's version he takes it away with a surtax. " Under my version of the UBI, taking a job is pure profit with no downside until you reach $30,000—at which point you’re bringing home way too much ($40,000 net) to be deterred from work by the imposition of a surtax."


I hate means testing. Imagine if they means tested Social Security. People that save their whole life would get their income stolen and given to idiots who buy 50K SUV's and McMansions they can't afford. Eff that!!!!

I would like to cut everyone's social security proportionally right now across the board if I could. People don't deserve the benefits they are getting. It is generational theft. The program is insolvent. I just don't think that will happen. So I would means test on top earners and people with some minimum amount of assets. The benefits of SS are small for someone in that position.

[Swordsmyth]

You aren't saying why though. Just saying something is a bad idea isn't acceptable. I see a lot of people (usually anarchists) who get indignant and red in the face when someone just agree with them. That isn't an argument. Whether it is a good or bad idea in practice should be debated, if for no other reason some of the best liberty thinkers (Charles Murray, Hayek, Friedman) support it.

I've said why before and so have many other people, anyone who supports it is suspect. (That includes Murray, Hayek, Friedman and YOU)

On a site like this it shouldn't be necessary for me to point out all the bad effects of the government giving out free money but they range from economic distortion to the government controlling people by threatening to take the money away if the person does something they don't like.

-Rep

[Krugminator2]

I've said why before and so have many other people, anyone who supports it is suspect. (That includes Murray, Hayek, Friedman and YOU)




So no actual argument against then.


On a site like this it shouldn't be necessary for me to point out all the bad effects of the government giving out free money

The government already gives out free money. The choice isn't between no free money and free money. The choice is less free money or more free money. See. I would like to actually pay less in taxes. I am working through my taxes right now. It makes me very mad. And if UBI reduces the largest government expense, then I am for it.

[Swordsmyth]

So no actual argument against then.

Read the rest of the post you truncated, I mentioned what is wrong with them.

A troll like you doesn't deserve an extended debate, I won't let you waste my time debating communism on a libertarian forum.

[bunklocoempire]

Plymouth Colony Basic Needs Socialism Experiment.

But I'm sure if clever man updates it with some electronic gizmos and a bunch of firepower on a national and global stage to promote it, it'll rock.
/s

EDIT:
The Great Thanksgiving Hoax 11/27/2014 Richard J. Maybury

The problem with this official story is that the harvest of 1621 was not bountiful, nor were the colonists hard-working or tenacious. 1621 was a famine year and many of the colonists were lazy thieves.
https://mises.org/library/great-thanksgiving-hoax-1

[oyarde]

In Charles Murray's version he takes it away with a surtax. " Under my version of the UBI, taking a job is pure profit with no downside until you reach $30,000—at which point you’re bringing home way too much ($40,000 net) to be deterred from work by the imposition of a surtax."



I would like to cut everyone's social security proportionally right now across the board if I could. People don't deserve the benefits they are getting. It is generational theft. The program is insolvent. I just don't think that will happen. So I would means test on top earners and people with some minimum amount of assets. The benefits of SS are small for someone in that position.
I have never drawn social security . Mine would be about 1300 a month before they took a 100 for medicare . Pretty big stretch though to say I do not deserve it . from 15 to 50 alone I pd in a quarter million . If I had drawn it at 62 even , at no point would I ever live long enough just to get back what I pd in up to age 50 .

[Swordsmyth]

I have never drawn social security . Mine would be about 1300 a month before they took a 100 for medicare . Pretty big stretch though to say I do not deserve it . from 15 to 50 alone I pd in a quarter million . If I had drawn it at 62 even , at no point would I ever live long enough just to get back what I pd in up to age 50 .

The only reason I support ending Social Security without paying out to all the people who paid in is because one victim of theft doesn't have the right to steal from others to recover their money, means testing is a good start towards ending Social Security but I wonder if it isn't intended to prolong it's existence instead.

+Rep for not taking Social Security.

[Krugminator2]

Read the rest of the post you truncated, I mentioned what is wrong with them.

A troll like you doesn't deserve an extended debate, I won't let you waste my time debating communism on a libertarian forum.

Last time I checked you vigorously supported tariffs. There is no libertarian argument for tariffs but you had no problem making that case.

I see you also negged me for saying mean things about Roy Moore, an anti-libertarian theocrat. If UBI results in a smaller welfare state, then there is no logical reason to oppose it.

[Swordsmyth]

Last time I checked you vigorously supported tariffs. There is no libertarian argument for tariffs but you had no problem making that case.

I see you also negged me for saying mean things about Roy Moore, an anti-libertarian theocrat. If UBI results in a smaller welfare state, then there is no logical reason to oppose it.
UBI will not result in a smaller welfare state and it will make the welfare state nearly irreversible.

[Madison320]

The only reason I support ending Social Security without paying out to all the people who paid in is because one victim of theft doesn't have the right to steal from others to recover their money, means testing is a good start towards ending Social Security but I wonder if it isn't intended to prolong it's existence instead.

+Rep for not taking Social Security.

I'm fine with phasing it out gradually but it needs to be done across the board. Means testing is utter BS. You must not be saving much for retirement.

[Madison320]

In Charles Murray's version he takes it away with a surtax. " Under my version of the UBI, taking a job is pure profit with no downside until you reach $30,000—at which point you’re bringing home way too much ($40,000 net) to be deterred from work by the imposition of a surtax."


Let's say we decide we can spend 1 trillion on welfare at the national level (obviously we both agree it'd better if it was 0, but this is for the sake of argument). Would you rather give it out to able bodied citizens and let those that can't work fend for themselves? I have much less sympathy for a young healthy person that chooses not to work, compared to an elderly person that can't work.

The problem I see with UBI is that it's NOT a replacement to existing welfare, it's clearly going to be an ADDITION, since it's not enough to support people that can't physically work.


I would like to cut everyone's social security proportionally right now across the board if I could. People don't deserve the benefits they are getting. It is generational theft. The program is insolvent. I just don't think that will happen. So I would means test on top earners and people with some minimum amount of assets. The benefits of SS are small for someone in that position.

How many people make enough money that SS won't make a dent in their income? I'll bet it's very few. You won't save much. The problem is they'll have to move the cutoff down to people that have a few hundred thousand in their retirement. Suppose you worked hard and lived frugally your whole life and managed to save 500K. At 5% interest that's 25K a year to live off. Now suppose your neighbor, who owns a house twice as big as yours, always takes vacations and drives a huge car, has a 70" TV, all the latest crap, has no savings and is in debt. So that means he gets his SS check and medicare and you don't, so he ends up with way more income than your 25K. Oh and by the way you'll need to use that 500k for medical expenses. The "good" news is that in a couple years you'll qualify for SS and Medicare because your 500k will evaporate.

I don't like having my income stolen and redistributed while I'm working, but it's infinitely worse to have it all stolen and redistributed when I retire because at that point there's nothing I can do about it. Plus it erases a lifetime of responsible living and rewards a lifetime of irresponsible living.

[Swordsmyth]

I'm fine with phasing it out gradually but it needs to be done across the board. Means testing is utter BS. You must not be saving much for retirement.

The reason I support means testing is that it starts to end SS payments to some people while not "throwing little old ladies out on the street", it needs to be implemented along with a total end to new payouts so that SS goes away when the last current recipient who can't support themselves without it dies.

[Madison320]

The reason I support means testing is that it starts to end SS payments to some people while not "throwing little old ladies out on the street", it needs to be implemented along with a total end to new payouts so that SS goes away when the last current recipient who can't support themselves without it dies.

You can't phase it out by means testing without rewarding a lifetime of irresponsible behavior and crushing a lifetime of responsible behavior. That's the worst form of communism. Weren't you just complaining about that in this thread?


There's a much better way, comrade. Just raise the age a little each year, maybe 2 months and simultaneously lower the amount you have to pay into it. Means testing is just a euphemism for "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".

[Swordsmyth]

You can't phase it out by means testing without rewarding a lifetime of irresponsible behavior and crushing a lifetime of responsible behavior. That's the worst form of communism. Weren't you just complaining about that in this thread?


There's a much better way, comrade. Just raise the age a little each year, maybe 2 months and simultaneously lower the amount you have to pay into it. Means testing is just a euphemism for "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".

All SS payments are theft, I support cutting down on theft by any means necessary, I don't like that the irresponsible continue to receive payment under means testing but you won't get any support for "throwing little old ladies out on the street", if you don't means test and just stop accepting new retirements then SS will continue to take money from current workers to give to people who don't even "need" it in addition to the "little old ladies who will be put out on the street".

[Madison320]

All SS payments are theft, I support cutting down on theft by any means necessary, I don't like that the irresponsible continue to receive payment under means testing but you won't get any support for "throwing little old ladies out on the street", if you don't means test and just stop accepting new retirements then SS will continue to take money from current workers to give to people who don't even "need" it in addition to the "little old ladies who will be put out on the street".

I don't care if I don't get any support. I care what's right. Yes, it's all theft but not all theft is equal. Means testing is a much more communistic method to phasing it out, compared to phasing it out across the board. You do understand that don't you?

[Swordsmyth]

I don't care if I don't get any support. I care what's right. Yes, it's all theft but not all theft is equal. Means testing is a much more communistic method to phasing it out, compared to phasing it out across the board. You do understand that don't you?

I care that a phase-out with means testing gets rid of more theft faster which is closer to what is right than a phase-out without means testing.
The only reason I mentioned not getting support for "throwing little old ladies out on the street" is because that is a problem of stopping it entirely right now which would be the economically ideal action but that is not what you are proposing.

[Madison320]

I care that a phase-out with means testing gets rid of more theft faster which is closer to what is right than a phase-out without means testing.
The only reason I mentioned not getting support for "throwing little old ladies out on the street" is because that is a problem of stopping it entirely right now which would be the economically ideal action but that is not what you are proposing.

Like I said before, you must not have saved for retirement.

If your only goal is ending theft are you also in favor of eliminating the military?

[Swordsmyth]

Like I said before, you must not have saved for retirement.
I'm nowhere near retirement and I shall have to save for retirement or never retire because SS is going to die on it's own, I want to kill it in a controlled manner that brings the greatest economic benefit by stopping as much theft as possible.





If your only goal is ending theft are you also in favor of eliminating the military?
I'm in favor of massive cuts but a military is required to prevent foreign theft.

[DamianTV]

Sadly, it is becoming more and more apparent that the only Freedom far too many people want is the Freedom FROM Responsibility. Expect this number to slowly increase as time continues.

[Madison320]

I'm nowhere near retirement and I shall have to save for retirement or never retire because SS is going to die on it's own, I want to kill it in a controlled manner that brings the greatest economic benefit by stopping as much theft as possible.


What about the lifetime of theft committed against people near or at retirement age? Doesn't that count for anything?

Suppose there's 2 people, John and Fred who are 65. John works his entire life and saves about a half million for retirement. He would've saved a million except he had 500k stolen at gunpoint by the government, supposedly for his retirement. Fred is in and out of prison for child molesting and has been on welfare his entire life so he has no retirement savings and since he has never had a job he's never had his income stolen for retirement. Now suppose we want to cut back spending on SS. There's 2 basic ways to do it. We can reduce the benefits across the board so that both John the hard worker and Fred the child molester, both get their benefits reduced equally. Or we can just cut John off completely and keep his stolen money, while maintain the same payment to Fred. So now Fred, the child molestor gets rewarded with a salary equal to or probably exceeding hard working John's salary. Do you not see the moral problem with this? This is what you are supporting.



I'm in favor of massive cuts but a military is required to prevent foreign theft.

The military is a benefit to everyone(general welfare), so the theft required to support it is not nearly as bad as income redistribution. You could also make the argument that forced retirement savings is a general benefit. You CAN'T make that argument about a communistic means testing retirement program.

[Swordsmyth]

What about the lifetime of theft committed against people near or at retirement age? Doesn't that count for anything?

Suppose there's 2 people, John and Fred who are 65. John works his entire life and saves about a half million for retirement. He would've saved a million except he had 500k stolen at gunpoint by the government, supposedly for his retirement. Fred is in and out of prison for child molesting and has been on welfare his entire life so he has no retirement savings and since he has never had a job he's never had his income stolen for retirement. Now suppose we want to cut back spending on SS. There's 2 basic ways to do it. We can reduce the benefits across the board so that both John the hard worker and Fred the child molester, both get their benefits reduced equally. Or we can just cut John off completely and keep his stolen money, while maintain the same payment to Fred. So now Fred, the child molestor gets rewarded with a salary equal to or probably exceeding hard working John's salary. Do you not see the moral problem with this? This is what you are supporting.
Victims of theft don't have a right to steal from others to recover their loses, I'm sorry for their loss but if they can't recover their money from the perpetrators it is their problem. (especially those who voted for the culprits)
I want to stop handing out stolen money to anybody but due to the "throwing little old ladies out on the street" factor the closest we can get is a phase-out plus means testing.




The military is a benefit to everyone(general welfare), so the theft required to support it is not nearly as bad as income redistribution. You could also make the argument that forced retirement savings is a general benefit. You CAN'T make that argument about a communistic means testing retirement program.
This isn't about "general welfare", this is about preventing theft, a military is required to prevent foreign theft but forced retirement savings is theft in and of itself and it is an invitation to the greater theft of stealing the funds and bankrupting the system. (which is what has happened)

[oyarde]

Plymouth Colony Basic Needs Socialism Experiment.

But I'm sure if clever man updates it with some electronic gizmos and a bunch of firepower on a national and global stage to promote it, it'll rock.
/s

EDIT:
The Great Thanksgiving Hoax 11/27/2014 Richard J. Maybury

https://mises.org/library/great-thanksgiving-hoax-1

typical americans

[Madison320]

Victims of theft don't have a right to steal from others to recover their loses, I'm sorry for their loss but if they can't recover their money from the perpetrators it is their problem. (especially those who voted for the culprits)
I want to stop handing out stolen money to anybody but due to the "throwing little old ladies out on the street" factor the closest we can get is a phase-out plus means testing.


So according to your logic the government can never compensate anyone because they'd be using stolen money. What if the military is testing a missile and it lands on your house? If you're consistent you'd have to say no, they can't be compensated. That would be theft.

What about means testing prepaid college tuition? What if your kids are ready to go to a university, that you already paid for 10 years ago, and they say "nope, sorry, we're cutting costs. Only familes with incomes under 20K can get that tuition. You have to pay the full amount. We can't give you stolen money."

How about if we means test every govt benefit? Poor people can get into parks for free. Everyone else has to pay $100. Roads are a benefit. Poor people get their license for free, plus free driving lessons. Everyone else has to pay $5,000.

It's not as simple as reducing the net amount of theft. There are many other variables. Reducing SS payments across the board is light years more moral than the communist, means testing method.

Also if you means test SS guess what? Now you've created a moral hazard for anyone contemplating saving for retirement. Who's going to want to save when the people that don't save get rewarded and you don't?


Also it's ironic that you called UBI "communist" in this thread, while supporting means testing. Means testing is far more communist than UBI. Means testing enables equal outcomes for unequal inputs. UBI never does. Not that I support UBI but it'll never result in equal outcomes for equal inputs because everyone gets the same amount whether you work or not.

[Swordsmyth]

So according to your logic the government can never compensate anyone because they'd be using stolen money. What if the military is testing a missile and it lands on your house? If you're consistent you'd have to say no, they can't be compensated. That would be theft.
The compensation money should come from the military's budget and should leave them with less money to spend. (the military budget is a legitimate government function and they caused the damage, SS is an extra tax for an illegitimate government function)


What about means testing prepaid college tuition? What if your kids are ready to go to a university, that you already paid for 10 years ago, and they say "nope, sorry, we're cutting costs. Only familes with incomes under 20K can get that tuition. You have to pay the full amount. We can't give you stolen money."
Not taking money from someone because they already paid for a service is not the same as giving people money that must be taken from somebody else.


How about if we means test every govt benefit? Poor people can get into parks for free. Everyone else has to pay $100. Roads are a benefit. Poor people get their license for free, plus free driving lessons. Everyone else has to pay $5,000.
Adding new fees is not the same as stopping stealing from one group of people to give to another.


It's not as simple as reducing the net amount of theft. There are many other variables. Reducing SS payments across the board is light years more moral than the communist, means testing method.
Social Security is communist, anything that reduces it's size while moving it towards extinction is less communist, if I were proposing means testing without ending SS that would be more communist but I never called for that.


Also if you means test SS guess what? Now you've created a moral hazard for anyone contemplating saving for retirement. Who's going to want to save when the people that don't save get rewarded and you don't?

Not if nobody new is going to get any SS payments.



Also it's ironic that you called UBI "communist" in this thread, while supporting means testing. Means testing is far more communist than UBI. Means testing enables equal outcomes for unequal inputs. UBI never does. Not that I support UBI but it'll never result in equal outcomes for equal inputs because everyone gets the same amount whether you work or not.

Getting the same amount whether you work or not IS equal outcomes for unequal inputs.
Also I don't support means testing in government except as part of a process to eliminate programs like SS because it is unfair but it is more unfair to continue stealing from everybody to give money to people who aren't even going to be "thrown out on the street".

[Madison320]

Not taking money from someone because they already paid for a service is not the same as giving people money that must be taken from somebody else.


Where does the money come from to pay for the tuition?

[Swordsmyth]

Where does the money come from to pay for the tuition?
Nowhere, no new tuition payments are made.

[Madison320]

Nowhere, no new tuition payments are made.

???

1. Citizens prepay for retirement = Parents prepay for college tuition

2. In both cases governments spend the money.

3. Government pays for retirement with new taxes (stolen money) = Government pays for tuition with new taxes (stolen money)

So according to your logic the government should cancel retirement payments and make the citizen pay = the government should cancel tuition payments and make the parents pay. So in either case you get screwed and have to pay twice.

[r3volution 3.0]

I for one am astounded that people who are told that they have the right to vote themselves their neighbors' wealth, do so..

...

..

.

[Swordsmyth]

???

1. Citizens prepay for retirement = Parents prepay for college tuition

2. In both cases governments spend the money.

3. Government pays for retirement with new taxes (stolen money) = Government pays for tuition with new taxes (stolen money)

So according to your logic the government should cancel retirement payments and make the citizen pay = the government should cancel tuition payments and make the parents pay. So in either case you get screwed and have to pay twice.

Are we talking about a government managed fund to pay tuition at private colleges?
That is the only way your comment makes sense, if the tuition was prepaid to the government to go to a government school then no new tuition needs to be paid, the government must simply allow the student to attend sans tuition.

If we are talking about a government managed fund to pay tuition at private colleges then I would say exactly what I am saying about SS: END THE PROGRAM AND STOP PAYING OUT MONEY TO ANYONE WHO ISN'T GOING TO STARVE.

[Madison320]

Are we talking about a government managed fund to pay tuition at private colleges?
That is the only way your comment makes sense, if the tuition was prepaid to the government to go to a government school then no new tuition needs to be paid, the government must simply allow the student to attend sans tuition.

If we are talking about a government managed fund to pay tuition at private colleges then I would say exactly what I am saying about SS: END THE PROGRAM AND STOP PAYING OUT MONEY TO ANYONE WHO ISN'T GOING TO STARVE.

I'm not sure it matters but I was assuming a government university. Anyway you're simply wrong. It costs money for a student to attend a university. You have to pay for the teacher's fees, buildings, etc, etc. That money would have to come from new taxes.

[Swordsmyth]

I'm not sure it matters but I was assuming a government university. Anyway you're simply wrong. It costs money for a student to attend a university. You have to pay for the teacher's fees, buildings, etc, etc. That money would have to come from new taxes.
Taxes that were already collected and budgeted, the government need only allow the student to attend sans tuition and then reduce the budget for the college (or wherever the money was diverted).

[Madison320]

Taxes that were already collected and budgeted, the government need only allow the student to attend sans tuition and then reduce the budget for the college (or wherever the money was diverted).

For your sake I hope you're just messing with me.

[Swordsmyth]

For your sake I hope you're just messing with me.

I would say the same to you, spreading the theft around is a bad idea, we can't afford SS payments and they are fundamentally wrong, we need to eliminate the program as much and as fast as we can if the economy is to be saved.

Government has stolen too much from too many in too many ways to even consider using government to repay those who have been stolen from.

If the world ever gets too far out of balance we may have to track down the oligarchs and take their stolen wealth from them and redistribute it to the public they and their ancestors have stolen from, BUT THAT IS TO BE AVOIDED AT ALL COSTS SINCE THE PRECEDENT IT SETS IS TRULY UNTHINKABLE.

[r3volution 3.0]

Ideally, any welfare program (such as social security) would be immediately abolished, and the victims fully compensated, as with any other criminal enterprise. Unfortunately, when the tortfeasor is the state, which has no property other than what it steals on a periodic basis (taxes), compensation would not be just (it would require the robbery of further victims to compensate the previous victims). HOWEVER, if we are going to assume that the welfare program will continue, as apparently it will, it would be sensible to least penalize those who've already been victimized the most: i.e. to cut the least the benefits of those who've already paid the most in taxes. The overarching goal has to be to minimize future robbery, period, but if there are multiple methods of accomplishing that, which are otherwise equal, it makes sense to choose the method which least harms those who've already been most harmed. So, for instance, "means testing" is inferior to an across the board cut in benefits.

[Madison320]

Ideally, any welfare program (such as social security) would be immediately abolished, and the victims fully compensated, as with any other criminal enterprise. Unfortunately, when the tortfeasor is the state, which has no property other than what it steals on a periodic basis (taxes), compensation would not be just (it would require the robbery of further victims to compensate the previous victims). HOWEVER, if we are going to assume that the welfare program will continue, as apparently it will, it would be sensible to least penalize those who've already been victimized the most: i.e. to cut the least the benefits of those who've already paid the most in taxes. The overarching goal has to be to minimize future robbery, period, but if there are multiple methods of accomplishing that, which are otherwise equal, it makes sense to choose the method which least harms those who've already been most harmed. So, for instance, "means testing" is inferior to an across the board cut in benefits.

I agree. My point is not that people have some sort of "absolute right" to social security, since they were previously robbed. But it should be factored in. And if your goal is to eliminate social security and encourage saving for retirement, means testing will backfire since it rewards NOT saving for retirement.

Like I said earlier, I think the best plan is to gradually reduce the benefits and gradually reduce the amount taken.

[Anti Federalist]

Finland's basic income trial falls flat

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43866700

By Laurence Peter
BBC News
23 April 2018
Euro notes, file picImage copyrightGETTY IMAGES
The Finnish government has decided not to expand a limited trial in paying people a basic income, which has drawn much international interest.
Currently 2,000 unemployed Finns are receiving a flat monthly payment of €560 (£490; $685) as basic income.
"The eagerness of the government is evaporating. They rejected extra funding [for it]," said Olli Kangas, one of the experiment's designers.
Some see basic income as a way to get unemployed people into temporary jobs.
The argument is that, if paid universally, basic income would provide a guaranteed safety net. That would help to address insecurities associated with the "gig" economy, where workers do not have staff contracts.
Supporters say basic income would boost mobility in the labour market as people would still have an income between jobs.
Finland's two-year pilot scheme started in January 2017, making it the first European country to test an unconditional basic income. The 2,000 participants - all unemployed - were chosen randomly.
But it will not be extended after this year, as the government is now examining other schemes for reforming the Finnish social security system.
"I'm a little disappointed that the government decided not to expand it," said Prof Kangas, a researcher at the Social Insurance Institution (Kela), a Finnish government agency.
Speaking to the BBC from Turku, he said the government had turned down Kela's request for €40-70m extra to fund basic income for a group of employed Finns, instead of limiting the experiment to 2,000 unemployed people.

[ChaosControl]

If automation increases enough youd pretty much have to have UBI. Either that or cut what is considered full time employment in half or something in order for there to even be enough jobs available and those jobs in turn would need to significantly increase pay.

And yes UBI could eliminate social security, food stamps, tax credits, etc. Do not see how it coulf cut medicare since that is medical insurance and different in cost based on the person. UBI wouldnt be tax free. Itd push everyones income up some so most likely everyone's tax burden would go up some extent. That is how it would be phased out. And yeah a tax on monopolies and companies benefitting the most from automation could offset the rest. I am pretty sure we will see it eventually. More of a when than an if. Unfortunately I see it being implemented very poorly just like all government systems.

Edit: Finlands trial seems odd. Unemployed only and a rather small amount. And they wont even publish the results until next year. Seems like it was more of just an unemployment welfare test than anything.