Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Liberal here, I do not approve.
Give them food stamps. Health insurance.
Subsidize housing.
School Supplies. Clothes. Gas.
Education - skills, ESL, whatever is needed.
But not cash. I want to know exactly what my taxes are being used for.
With guaranteed income programs, you know exactly what your taxes are being used for: extra income for low-income families, to do what they believe will provide the most benefit for them.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/in-mississippi-a-long-running-guaranteed-income-program-is-helping-black-mothers
Anonymous wrote:What a dumb idea. Must be election time soon. Let’s buy all the votes we can.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What a dumb idea. Must be election time soon. Let’s buy all the votes we can.
It works. Every jurisdiction that has done it, has been a success. People end up working more and being more successful. The reason is that it takes just a little help to get someone out of poverty. What hurts poor people is that unexpected expense that pushes them back. This helps with that.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This program seems like an old idea. I am not sure what the point is.
The point is helping people improve their lives.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-28/for-more-than-20-guaranteed-income-projects-the-data-is-in
It’s not scalable to everyone who would be eligible, and I’m not sure how fair it is to help some and not others. If we “help” everyone, then nobody is helped.
We can't help everyone, so we should help nobody...
The pilot programs are not scalable and are not designed to be scalable. They are designed to be pilot programs. The policies suggested by the results from the pilot programs certainly are scalable. What they probably aren't, is politically feasible. That's because we're a country where policies favored by large majorities of the population are somehow politically impossible to implement.
The reason these programs are “successful” for those in the programs is because the same money is not being extended to everyone else. If everyone were getting this money, then prices go up, and they are stuck competing with everyone for the same amount of housing and resources, just with more money in the mix. In the end, the ones who win are those who own the capital, just as it has always been.
The programs are not intended to extend the money to everyone else (unlike, for example, Social Security and Medicare), o We Can't Make Anything Better And We Shouldn't Even Bother Trying PP.
Anonymous wrote:Liberal here, I do not approve.
Give them food stamps. Health insurance.
Subsidize housing.
School Supplies. Clothes. Gas.
Education - skills, ESL, whatever is needed.
But not cash. I want to know exactly what my taxes are being used for.
Anonymous wrote:What a dumb idea. Must be election time soon. Let’s buy all the votes we can.
Anonymous wrote:Cambridge, MA is doing something similar:
https://www.marketplace.org/2023/07/24/cambridge-expands-guaranteed-income-program-to-all-eligible-families/
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This program seems like an old idea. I am not sure what the point is.
The point is helping people improve their lives.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-28/for-more-than-20-guaranteed-income-projects-the-data-is-in
It’s not scalable to everyone who would be eligible, and I’m not sure how fair it is to help some and not others. If we “help” everyone, then nobody is helped.
We can't help everyone, so we should help nobody...
The pilot programs are not scalable and are not designed to be scalable. They are designed to be pilot programs. The policies suggested by the results from the pilot programs certainly are scalable. What they probably aren't, is politically feasible. That's because we're a country where policies favored by large majorities of the population are somehow politically impossible to implement.
The reason these programs are “successful” for those in the programs is because the same money is not being extended to everyone else. If everyone were getting this money, then prices go up, and they are stuck competing with everyone for the same amount of housing and resources, just with more money in the mix. In the end, the ones who win are those who own the capital, just as it has always been.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This program seems like an old idea. I am not sure what the point is.
The point is helping people improve their lives.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-28/for-more-than-20-guaranteed-income-projects-the-data-is-in
It’s not scalable to everyone who would be eligible, and I’m not sure how fair it is to help some and not others. If we “help” everyone, then nobody is helped.
We can't help everyone, so we should help nobody...
The pilot programs are not scalable and are not designed to be scalable. They are designed to be pilot programs. The policies suggested by the results from the pilot programs certainly are scalable. What they probably aren't, is politically feasible. That's because we're a country where policies favored by large majorities of the population are somehow politically impossible to implement.