Do away with Fractional Reserve Banking. Government pays out citizens income instead. Commercial banks create money from debt so the rich rentiers at the top get richer. Rest of society gets poorer and demise of middle class gets closer. Most of the money given out would actually return to the government so would not cost so much. It would also then be trickle down NOT trickle up.
See above really. There are a lot of people who for no fault of their own cannot work or who struggle and who are happy to volunteer to help in all sorts of areas from environmental work eg tree planting to helping the elderly or to do things that contribute but aren't necessarily generating an income for themselves. With permanent unemployment being a real issue and creating an underclass, which shouldn't be ignored and increased mechanism predicted to take more jobs and with human rights and quality of life being things that matter; I do think that allnations that can do this should -and should help nations that cannot to do so too. We may never reach Utopia but we sure can get closer to it if we try than if we don't
Those opposing the unconditional living wage on the grounds that "Somebody has to earn the money before you have an opportunity to take it from them and give it to somebody else" and "This certainly creates zero incentive to continue to work to earn money, just so it can be taken away" The same can be said about inheritance and trust funds. Only 50% of the USAs top 100 rich people started out poor. 18 of the Sunday Times Rich List, made £21 billion by simply existing and being related to someone else who did all the hard work. According to those you say you must earn the money get all inheritance should go back to the state or better yet destroyed, because you can have something for nothing no matter how rich you parents are right?
The idea of an unconditional living wage is used in Switzerland and has worked well. There is no difference in providing welfare and an unconditional wage in theory. An unconditional wage would prevent discrimination in welfare, and provide a safety net for everyone. It could decrease the use of other programs, and be taxed, and possibly boost the economy.
Since the 1970's, worker wages have essentially stagnated while CEO and upper management has seen a steady and drastic increase in compensation. This tells me that while we, as a nation, produce $15.68 trillion yearly in gross domestic production, the folks who do the work of producing that wealth see a smaller and smaller return on the work they do. An unconditional living wage would help to mitigate this systemic imbalance, while encouraging entrepreneurial efforts, increasing local-economy liquidity, and drastically increase county and state tax revenues. Basically, much of what we consider to be rather nasty aspects of our economy right now quickly become mitigated with an unconditional living wage. You could also discontinue programs such as social security, medicaid/medicare, and SNAP/WIC as we would no longer require these stop-gaps to fill-in that space between where a persons paycheck ends and their living expenses begin.
Such a proposal would limit inequality and make for a happier society. I believe co-operation and not competition is a more humane and kindly way for a country to follow. If everyone was assured of having a sufficiency then I think people would be happier and suffer less stress. Some might say that some jobs, perhaps dangerous or less salubrious should have greater remuneration. This could well be true, and could work in the system of a guaranteed universal sufficient minimum wage.
As advances in artificial intelligence, robotics and automation humans will become less and less relevant in the production of good and services in economy. The economy needs consumption to grow and Unconditional Basic Income that replaces state pensions and social welfare as well as the bureaucracy that administrates it makes a whole lot of sense. It will stabilize the family and consumer confidence which is required for the economy to grow.
The richest ten percent or so of the population are so disproportionately wealthy compared to the rest that a redistribution which guaranteed a living wage to all would still leave them almost unscathed. Even the super-rich can afford equality and like everyone else would benefit from a more contented society.
The main advantage of having a living wage is people will be relieved of dependence on employment for basic living expenses. The main disadvantage is how will citizens use this money or benefits. Is there any guarantee that they will spend it for the family. A possible solution is to make the wage only useful for basic requirements such as food, shelter, clothing, basic energy requirements etc.
Everyone should have the right to just enough income to have a roof over their head and some food in their bellies every night. No one should have to be forced to go without those things, they are basic human rights. Further, by ensuring they have this, you will foster a much healthier economy, as people will have more motivation to spend money being able to, and more motivation to look for work not having to worry about where their next meal will come from or if they will have a home the next day. There is really no downside to an unconditional living wage, you will have a happy people, no homeless people which would reduce crime hugely, and a much much healthier job market. So yes absolutely do I think governments should grant all citizens an unconditional living wage.
Any government that pays you to live can't be a free society. We would be forever enchained to those taking care of us. Where has personal responsibility gone. So what if others have more or less. Who cares if someone else was dealt a better hand. The laws of true Freedom do not allow an individual to turn away from being responsible for their own well being. We must recognize the truth and understand that as long as we rely on someone else to survive, we are no longer truly free. The more responsible we are and the less we have to take care of irresponsible individuals, the greater our freedom and opportunities for happiness will be. (side note) hand ups are great for everyone, but hand outs are destructive.
You CANNOT give away something you dont have. Somebody has to earn the money before you have an opportunity to take it from them and give it to somebody else. This certainly creates zero incentive to continue to work to earn money, just so it can be taken away. The money makers will give up, and then there will be nothing for anybody. The government already operates at a major deficit and we have quite an impressive debt racked up. Just where is this money coming from that you intend to give away? Every socialist/communist country in the history of this planet fails. We are no exception and we too will fail under communist/socialist rule. Capitalism made us great. Its making China great as we speak. They are surpassing us on every level and wages have risen over 1300% in the last couple decades. The average citizen in China will have more buying power than US citizens in the near future, all thanks to adopting capitalism after their communist regime came to and end. Socialism is not the way, and its why we are behind the curve. Please go get a job and earn the money you expect to spend
Money should be earned by hard work. We have to many people that live off the government the way it is. This would only encourage people to have low paying jobs that do not take much skill or time and they will get paid the same as some one that works as hard as they can.
I believe that there should definitely be a social "safety net," and that rich governments that can spend billions of dollars on unnecessary military projects can easily afford to feed their poor. However, I don't think this aid should be given unconditionally. All that will lead to is corruption, the money being spent on drugs, and things like that. People should have to demonstrate they'll use it responsibly and are trying to improve themselves and/or society.