We should have a Guaranteed Minimum Income in the USA, would solve crime, etc.

where would that money come from? If it was in the articles, then sorry that i was too lazy to read it.

How does this differ from food stamps, etc?

Well I have lived and worked in Norway & Sweden and quite a few other countries , where at that time, the government provided money even for those who did not wish to work. Housing, healthcare, a month paid vacation in the summer, etc etc. My friends would take me around town " no slums here, we are all equal. Crime is almost nonexistent. Usually the worst crime is someone stealing a neighbors homeade wine"

fast forward two decades, Violent crime comparable per capita to the worst US cities, drug use through the roof. Healthcare services scaled back. Even with all its Oil riches and relatively small population Norway found it could not sustain it social programs. there simply is not enough money to give people a decent quality of life.

We need a maximum income.

Anyone making more than $1 million per year or with assets in excess of $5 million should be jailed and his assets confiscated

And they should set that minimum guaranteed income at whatever I make each year so that I can quit my job and get paid for sitting on my #ss.

Capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. You want more, you work for it.

Socialism (a.k.a. communism)is the equal sharing of misery. Don't bother working for anything more, it will just be taken away.

Why? Because they work hard?

gibsmedat wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_minimum_income

Guaranteed minimum income (GMI) also called Citizen's Income, is a system[1] of social welfare provision that guarantees that all citizens or families have an income sufficient to live on, provided they meet certain conditions. Eligibility is typically determined by citizenship, a means test and either availability for the labour market or a willingness to perform community services. The primary goal of a guaranteed minimum income is to combat poverty. If citizenship is the only requirement, the system turns into a basic income guarantee.

Sounds good in theory, but guaranteed income (aka welfare) does not work. After the 1960s War on Poverty and the resulting rise of welfare in the United States, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a Democrat, famously warned that welfare would destroy the family unit because unmarried women could draw more money without a husband. He was right.

Here are the problems with welfare.

The guaranteed income is paid without working. The government gets the money to pay the guaranteed income by taxing its citizens who do work. An increasing segment of the population realizes, "Why should I work and pay these huge taxes when I can become unemployed and get free money from the government?" The welfare recipients look at jobs and say, "Why should I work? I'll only make a tiny bit more than I'm getting free from the government without working?"

As a result, welfare creates a permanent welfare class. Entire generations are raised with no work ethic.

We can see the slow demise of European nations that have been using the welfare state model for decades.

gibsmedat wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_minimum_income

Guaranteed minimum income (GMI) also called Citizen's Income, is a system[1] of social welfare provision that guarantees that all citizens or families have an income sufficient to live on, provided they meet certain conditions. Eligibility is typically determined by citizenship, a means test and either availability for the labour market or a willingness to perform community services. The primary goal of a guaranteed minimum income is to combat poverty. If citizenship is the only requirement, the system turns into a basic income guarantee.

You speak as if theft & robbery are the only type of crimes. Even they wouldn't drop that much as human greed knows no bounds. Think about it.

yeah im not sure how well that work. im generally more liberal with thoughts here than most people, but that just doesnt sound like it would be the right thing. essentially its unemployment that never goes away. bad idea. no motivation to get a job and better the country. a maximum income is also a bad idea, for obvious reasons. nothing in economics is that cut and dry. its all about balancing incentives and keeping things fair.

^^ what a few posters above said. low income is a correlate not a cause to crime. there are far more "poor people" that don't commit crime than those that do.

what about our white-collar crime, hm? merton, etc

America First wrote:

We need a maximum income.

Anyone making more than $1 million per year or with assets in excess of $5 million should be jailed and his assets confiscated

We need a minimum hours of work per week.

Anyone not working at least 40 hours should be jailed and his assets confiscated.

You pay your bills and I'll pay mine.

If the OP is being anything but facitious, this country is in deep doo doo ...

thanks for posting this anecdote

This is such a silly argument that my only reasonable response can be, "You, Sir, are silly."

No. Inequality provides incentives for people to work and create.

BUT

there SHOULD be a strong safety net to give people security for when they don't succeed.

Basically I agree with the Rawlsian position on distributive justice, the difference principle, which states that inequality should exist to the extent that its beneficial to society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_as_Fairness

The Equality Principle is the component of Justice as Fairness establishing distributive justice.

Rawls presents it as follows in A Theory of Justice:

"Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both:

(a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just savings principle, and

(b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity."[6]"

One of the reasons this won't work is because people will spend money on things they don't need and still will need to buy drugs with money they don't have. Give an alcoholic 10 bucks and see what he does with it. Now give a drug addict 2k a month guarranteed where he doesn't have to work. He will spend it on TV's furniture, food, movies, etc...and won't have enough left to buy drugs so he will still have to kill and steal to get it.

Running on Empathy wrote:

If the OP is being anything but facitious, this country is in deep doo doo ...

Unless, against all odds, the OP does not represent this country.

If only it were that easy.

Unfortunately, poverty is not the cause of crime. A breakdown of moral values, stemming from the deterioration of FAMILIES is the major cause of crime.

The world is full of poor people who are honorable and do not commit crimes. Likewise, it has plenty of rich people who do commit crimes. A social welfare system that gives a nominal amount of money to everyone would not put a dent in any crime rates.

Moreover, such a system would effectively destroy the economy, ushering in an era of sub-par growth and massive unemployment.