Why Republicans are fighting the basic-income programs many cities and states are adopting: 'Is money a birthright now?'
Why Republicans are fighting the basic-income programs many cities and states are adopting: 'Is money a birthright now?'
Republican lawmakers from five states are seeking to ban guaranteed basic-income programs, citing costs for taxpayers.
If they don’t want money to be a birthright they should make it so money isn’t necessary to stay alive
I'm sure the average Republican would say being alive isn't a birthright either.
Unless you’re an embryo.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…
– US Declaration of IndependenceI disagree with
3(e: actually 4) words in that sentence, but I’m struggling to find a single phrase that modern conservatives agree with.
Stephanie Hendon, 34, lived in a shelter while her husband was living on the street, making it difficult for them to raise their four kids. After a year of payments from the Austin Guaranteed Income Pilot, she had a three-bedroom apartment, a new car, clothes for her children, a new job, and new financial strategies for the future.
This is what GOap fights against: The literal improvement of peoples existence.
Never vote Republican. They hate you!
Its selfish bullshit. Their response would be one of a handful:
"Why should I work if the government will just give me everything for free!?"
"Why should I have to pay for lazy people who made bad decisions!?"
"Why does the government not understand debt!? They're going to bankrupt us!"
They strongly believe in survival of the fittest. Either you become wealthy or everything you did was your fault and a mistake and you should die if you can't afford life. The only salvation you should get (I almost used the word deserve, which they 100% would argue you don't deserve.) would be salvation dolled out by a charity that people volunteered to give of their own desire.
Of course the charities never have nearly enough money to accomplish this which they fully understand but don't care one iota about. It's almost entirely selfishness on their part, mixed in with a heaping dose of ignorance.
Survival is a birthright you absolute fucking vultures. We made money a requirement for that.
And it's not like you can screw off into the forest to live a self-sufficient life either, because I'm pretty sure that's illegal in most places in the world. If the forest isn't already devoid of resources due to human activity that is.
It's also just a ridiculous proposition. So much media tells us this is possible, but no, it's not, not even if you find a virgin jungle. Professional survivalists who train and study for it still wouldn't be able to actually live a full life - at some point you're vulture food without society. We're cooperative, tribal animals. That's our strength, and we've built economic systems designed to take that strength from us.
"Money isn't a birthright" says political faction in favor of tax-free inheritance for its filthy rich members. More at 11:00.
EDIT: weird mobile correction typo
That's different. Those inter-generational landlords went out and earned it.
Could you do what they did? No, I didn't think so!
It's not easy being born to the right family, if it was easy everyone would do it and it wouldn't pay so well! Duhhhhhh
:P
How else are you supposed to stabilize a highly-developed postindustrial economy with increasingly rare opportunities to get ahead for most of the population? Didn't you people read your Friedrich Hayek?
How else are you supposed to stabilize a highly-developed postindustrial economy with increasingly rare opportunities to get ahead for most of the population?
glances at the command economy model
You're not going to like the answer.
Hayek was for private money, not infinite debt to pay for UBI?
IDK, he seemed pretty clear when he said that "the assurance of a certain minimum income for everyone, or a sort of floor below which nobody need fall even when he [sic] is unable to take care of himself, appears not only to be a wholly legitimate protection against a common risk to all, but a necessary part of the Great Society in which the individual no longer has specific claims on the members of the particular small group into which he was born."
Hey, are you also referring to Negative Income Tax by Friedman?
'Is money a birthright now?'
Only for some. Or are we outlawing inheritances as well?
Rich Republicans and their useful idiots: vampire hissing sound DEATH TAX! additional hissing
Sorry, helping the poor is too Christ-like for Republicans.
Basic Income as an obligation on the public sector would mean a smaller pool of residents with heavy obligation to private church groups and religious charities that recruit out of low income communities.
Nobody's going to come to the Sermon On The Mount if you can get your loaves and fishes anywhere.
I'm a Lifelong Republican and I LOVE how the Republican Party is a CHAMPION for the Working Class! Money is NOT a Birthright unless you're already super rich and then it's OK to suck at the Government's Teat!
Lol I came so close to downvoting. You really need a /s in there.
Is money a birthright now?
No but there are a lot of birthrights which are increasingly only available if you have money.
The system used to be to give those things away for free to people who can't afford them - but that's changing. Just giving money to poor people is far easier.
there are a lot of birthrights which are increasingly only available if you have money
This is the logical consequence of the anti-new-deal/anti-desegregation/anti-civil-rights jurisprudence that turns on capital supremacy and property rights trumping the notion that the state has an interest in protecting any other sort of right; it's something the capital supremacy folks have always wanted but which the desegregation crowd finally joined in on when they thought they could get segregation back by backing capital's ability to smuggle discrimination under the skirts of its property interests.
When you look at the White Flight phenomenon and correlate it to the widespread disappearance of public 3rd places, When you notice that state colleges and universities lost funding and started hiking tuition shortly after desegregation meant black and brown people could attend them, it sure looks like Americans were faced with the decision to have desegregated public wealth or no public wealth, they chose the latter
Also you free up a ton of people from bureaucratic administration jobs so they might do usefull, productive work.
How do you live in Louisiana and not realize your government hates you
Please, ban it. I dare you. When other states introduce UBI, watch people across the political spectrum leave for greener pastures.
Except for the poor, who don't have the money to move, and who need it the most.
Yeah there's several states I'd move to if I could move my job there and I already had guaranteed affordable housing.
Unfortunately neither of those things are ever likely to be true, certainly not at the same time. I can't afford to move.
At which point, I wonder if the political representation would improve.
Why people are fighting the unlimited inheritance right heirs have: 'Is money a birthright now?'
They do realize all that UBI eventually filters up to their capitalist overlords.
They are not that dumb. (Tuberville nonwithstanding)
They just like to fuel the culture wars, and to divide and conquer.
The real reason they oppose it (and other safety net things, like unemployment pay and health care that's not tied to a job) is that they don't want a mobile workforce that can easily quit or unionise if abused.
The power dynamics between employees and employers would shift dramatically if employees knew they could just stay home and still get a few $k to fall back on.
Heck, even the small stimulus checks during the pandemic had a huge effect like that that is still shaking out as increased union activity.
Capitalists depend on the threat of hunger and homelessness. UBI undermines that.
UBI will ultimately end up in the pockets of landlords, shareholders and offshore wealth funds anyway. Sort out the inequality first, then do it.
The point of UBI isn't to sit in the pockets of the working class. It's to properly stimulate the economy while giving the working class spending money. It's meant to be spent, meant to go up the chain.
The biggest problem right now is non competitive markets that we have to pay into like housing, communications, utilities, and groceries. We need to get The trust busting hammer out. Competitive markets keep prices low. And for markets that can't be competitive, well they shouldn't be markets, they should be government agencies.
UBI also addresses the welfare chasm. In many cases, people on welfare who want to work can't, because working means they're ineligible for welfare but their income is less than what they make on welfare. It's a sort of trap that keeps many people in the welfare system.
UBI fills the gap, and allows people who want to work, but who are unable to work full time, or are unskilled and are qualified for only the lowest paying, entry-level jobs, to take that work, build skills and experience, and pull themselves up out of the welfare system.
UBI often assumes that it replaces welfare as we know it, but you'd get the same benefit if the bar for disqualifying welfare was higher, s.t. people could still claim welfare while working, until they reached some more sustainable income level.
It's not the main goal is UBI, but UBI would address this one very real issue we have with the current welfare system.
Working class people are becoming less and less competitive in the market because too much money is being extracted from them through rent/profit/interest and given to their wealthy competitors who already have an advantage over them. Both ends of the equation need addressing, which is why I think UBI is good but not enough without taxing wealth. That's just my opinion!
And most importantly take people out of the job market.
I think that's a misconception. UBI is not free money for all. There will not be appreciably more money sloshing around.
Taxation will be balanced around the average earner giving back the same amount of money in tax as they get in UBI.
People below average will be better off. People above average will be worse off. People way up in the 0.01% will be considerably worse off.
Guess which of those groups keeps inventing new reasons why UBI won't work.
The well-off will never be not well-off unless they literally depend on the people's exploitation. If they do, well, like they say, its like whoever the technological advances they depend on immediately put out of commission in terms of employment options off the table
Source: trust me, bro.
I do agree with this, without restriction on increases that x increase will just go into basic living services, you saw that with the stimulus checks as well. but part of me wants them to do it then go after everyoje that raised for gorging but I don't think there is actual prevention of that
Of course it is. But only if you have rich parents.
This reminds me of arguing with a coworker once. I was saying we essentially have basic income for the wealthy. If you have a million dollars, you can turn that into ~$45k year with just high yield savings accounts. No risk. It's insured.
He was like, "But they're taking risks with their money so that's not the same." I was like, "No risk. It's insured."
He was like, "But that money is being used on stuff. The bank invests it to start businesses." I was like, "If you just give money to poor people, they will spend it, and support businesses, and in better ways." But then we had to stop talking about it because we were at a work event. I think he started to reject the premise that poor people buying groceries is better for the economy than a bank investing in Snapcat (it's snapchat, for cats!), or whatever.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
In the past year, Arizona, Iowa, South Dakota, Texas, and Wisconsin legislators have introduced bills to ban income programs, arguing they are too costly and could make participants too reliant on the government.
GOP Rep. Lupe Diaz, who authored the bill, specifically attacked a 2022 Phoenix program that gave $1,000 to 1,000 low-income families each month for a year, pulling from federal relief funds.
The Arizona news comes shortly after Iowa GOP state Rep. Steve Holt introduced a bill banning basic-income programs, which he called "socialism on steroids" at a recent hearing.
GBI programs "undercut the dignity in earning a dollar, and they're a one-way ticket to government dependency," Republican state Sen. John Wiik, the bill's sponsor, said at a February committee meeting.
Bettencourt noted that Uplift Harris, which received over 48,000 applications within the first three days, could violate a section of the Texas constitution stating the legislature cannot give counties the authority to grant public money for individual aid.
Ivanna Neri, senior director of partnerships at UpTogether, which partnered with Austin for the pilot, told BI that attempts to ban basic-income projects don't often consider that these programs could have long-term impacts on wealth inequality and could power the economy.
The original article contains 1,242 words, the summary contains 202 words. Saved 84%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Social security for all!
Iowa has been dealing with automation and outsourcing problems for a long time. I’m surprised that the farming families aren’t asking for UBI. Considering how farming subsidies have been in place for decades it wouldn’t even be a big stretch.
You might want to look up how many tax subsidies and federal programs the farmers are protected by. They don't want anyone else to get a piece of that pie.
The alternative is "You can't afford to live? Then die." Or arguably worse, "Here, we'll give you a pittance so that you don't actually die, at least not immediately, but your life will be brutish and short, and treat you as though you're beholden to us."
Always has been
Now? When was it not?
'Is money a birthright now?'
Hasn’t it always been, either directly or indirectly?
"Small government" for us librul peasants but not for them.
Is money required to deal with Republicans ?
Yes but not much if it’s in Rubles.
Because the Koch brothers pay them for that?
UBI is interesting but I find that if you’re a free market traditional capitalist, its existence (as well as welfare) is kind of a distortion of market functions. The US in general seems reticent to collectivism as a concept, otherwise welfare and SS would not be looked at as a “I paid for this” entitlement. Now, the real question to ask politicians is if income inequality is a problem? I’d wager many in private would say no.
People having access to basic necessities is a distortion of market functions, so such the markets. The economy is supposed to work for us, not the other way around, so I really couldn't care less if it's distorted in ways that benefit ordinary people.
Don’t disagree, also pretty close to impossible to have a non distorted market place considering you’re dealing with people, not strictly rational forces. My point is more the perspective from people who may not consider a financial subsidy via UBI to be providing value as it distorts the value of income. I’m not a fan of UBI being “universal” in the sense that people who don’t need it still getting access (it’s main benefit is it simplifies access and avoids needing to prove income), but its certainly simpler and less distorting than say housing vouchers and food subsidies. That being said, I don’t think most people actually care about the well being of those less fortunate and that’s representative in our elected officials.
You might find Negative Income Tax proposed by Milton Friedman interesting, he certainly was no collectivist.