America needs to utilize the best parts of socialism and capitalism. Advocates of socialism primarily seek to ensure every person has what they need to survive. Advocates of capitalism want to ensure people have the opportunity to thrive and work to get what they want out of their lives. It is crucial to realize that these ideologies are targeting two very separate groups of individuals. We need to adopt an ideology that utilizes sociology to get people what they NEED and capitalism to give people what they WANT.
I strongly support;
welfare, unemployment, medicare, medicaid, social security, minimum wage, affirmative action, drug prohibition, estate taxes and income tax.
basic income, universal health care, universal college education, complete free trade, unrestricted job outsourcing, inheritance caps, flat net worth tax and luxury sales taxes.
If we eliminated and adopted the respective issues listed above, I believe we could easily double and possibly triple our GDP per capita and average quality of life, while at the same time, completely eliminate poverty and cut our crime rates to under 20% of what they are currently at.
Welfare benefits were never intended to be a literal long term income. But with Americans (mostly white males) losing their jobs to illegal (Mexican) immigrants, through no fault of their own, to further enrich the greedy "free market capitalists", and also through tech advances and robots, something must be done soon or you will have riots in the streets, and I don't mean "race" riots. If this trend continues, the have-nots will ultimately storm the palace gates, and you know who will win that one.
Americans are losing their jobs through no fault of their own, because of the greed of the companies they work for. Welfare benefits were never intended to be a literal "income", but as more and more people are thrown under the bus due to tech advances, robots and the hiring of illegal immigrants, something has to be done to prevent eventual rioting in the streets. Yes, you read that right.
Each and every government is faced with a dilemma, "why does my country still have poverty?" At first, it seemed like a tax-free threshold would be enough as everyone would have the option of working enough to support themselves. After a while, we realised that certain welfare payments were necessary to keep people from poverty while they were studying, after retirement, during pregnancy, and during times which through no fault of their own, they became unemployed.
This worked to an extent; however, poverty still remains. Why? Because there are sanctions, rules, and regulations that prevent some who need additional income support from receiving it. This is where basic income via a negative income tax or universal basic income guarantee comes in. Suddenly, we have a safety without any holes or gaps for people to fall through, but most importantly: no child grows up in poverty. You can argue that for whatever reason a grown adult has made their choices, whether right or wrong, to end up in a state of poverty; however, this is never the case for children. For this reason, it should be implemented in the United States.
There are many arguments for a basic income, but a critical one is that it guarantees everyone an allowance from the resources of our planet - to which no one has any more right than any other. The 'owners' of our planet's land and minerals can extract what they wish by virtue of their great wealth; however, the resources that our planet provides are no more theirs than anyone else's. Everyone should derive some benefit from their sale.
If the government took a trillion dollars and invested 1 million for each family, the interest on that million would provide each family a basic income of $50,000 per year, which would be spend on things a family needs to survive. That's how millionaires and billionaires "earn" their money. Nobody asks to be born and nobody wants to die of starvation. In the richest country in the world, nobody should have to.
When you said you were for free trade, I knew you weren't being serious. Free trade negatively affects the lower incomes more than the upper incomes. I'm sorry you think free trade is a great program. Can you still hear the jobs being sucked out? (As Ross Perot once said)
Out of the fact that I am too lazy to fully respond to all of your points, I will respond to your worst point.
You want to eliminate poverty? Well of course, who doesn't want to eliminate poverty? The problem is, is there will always be poor people. There will always be people without jobs and people with low level jobs. Nothing is holding these poor people back from working hard and getting a higher paying job.
20% of the country will always be in the bottom 20%, nothing will ever change that.
Also by the way, by giving everybody a minimum income, nobody would work unless they made significantly more than that minimum income. How do you plan on paying for that minimum income to millions of people. In general how do you plan on paying for everything your doing. Cutting Medicare and Medicaid and social security would not provide enough funds to do what you are proposing.
What makes America great is everybody has equal opportunity. Nobody should be entitled to anything beyond basic food needs and basic shelter needs.
If I go out and work my butt off in life and manage to make a lot of money through my own ingenuity, hard work, sheer luck, or whatever else, I should have the right to keep that money. There is no reason why someone who is content with doing nothing with their life should get the same paycheck I do. Plus, the government has no right to go screw with my pay.
Although everyone wants to eliminate poverty, your idea would not really work out. I really want to end poverty and all the problems associated it with as well, but I don't think this is the solution. Where would the money to provide the basis of an income for all of the countries' citizens? Many governments are already in debt, so they can't afford to use more money providing income for every person. Inflation would also limit what a person can purchase with his or her income. The income might eventually not make any substantial difference later on in life. I can also see a lot of abuse associated with your idea. The more money that is involved, then the more corruption.
This would mean taxes would have to be huge in order to give everyone money so the cost of production would skyrocket and there would be immense birocratic investments also. What's the point of giving someone X sum of money if we he won't be able to afford anything with it. What we need is the government to GTFO, let us use gold and bitcoin and not their fake money so that prices will drop substantially and then someone with half the current minimum wage might afford double of what is affordable now. Robin Hood economics doesn't work.
If you are so stupid you cant pay for your own survival then you deserve to die. You are not a benefit to society and you will only pollute future generations if you reproduce. Communism and socialism slow down evolution and in effect, the human race. If you help the poor now you help a few. If you let them die you help millions down the line who will get better genes and have a longer, and more enjoyably life.
Now I know there are those that actually live on the streets in America, but compared to what poverty used to be in this country, people have it pretty good. Standards of living have just gone up, or in other words, people expect more for the same. Besides which that money has to come from someone. If you make the businesses front the cost, they will pass it onto the consumer who is making the basic income and everything they buy will increase in price accordingly, so that really they aren't saving/making anything more than they used to, they just have the illusion of it, and we make a whole new bureau of the government that consumes more of our taxes.