Americans: What will you do with your coronavirus stimulus check? (aka Socialism)

Originally posted by socool8520
Welll....isn't this basically giving you back your own money? Is that really socialism?

It's the government taking the money of the working masses and redistributing it as they see fit. It's part socialism and part communism, all rolled into one. Corruption too, whole lot of corruption in their.

Originally posted by socool8520
Welll....isn't this basically giving you back your own money? Is that really socialism?

I just saw this question. Robtard answered some of it.

Look at my post. It's redistribution of wealth from the top 2 quintiles of income earners. That's the basics of basics of socialism.

Contrast that with communism where it seeks to redistribute to a point of equity (all denizens get an equal redistribution of economic output).

Originally posted by dadudemon
It's in the research results from the limited research we have on UBI's.

For some reason, it greatly reduces single motherhood (a major win), sends young men and young women to college significantly more (another major win), and - for some weird counterintuitive reason - it makes people work more often.

Here's a question I want researchers to resolve for me regarding true UBI's:

What about a true UBI causes people to work more often?

This group, here, is doing research on UBI in a meaningful way:

https://www.givedirectly.org/basic-income/

They discuss the pros and cons and publish their research.

1 problem: their study group is Kenya which is a far more poorer country than a place like Canada, the UK, Japan, or the US. These results may only be applicable to countries like Kenya where a UBI might be the difference between a college education and death (weird polar opposites).

I remember you bringing this up before. The thing is that these are pretty small sample group and a different cultures. They also don't tend to last for a long time. I think the longest one cited was at about 12 years.

The Kenya UBI relies on other countries. The idea of paying for it seems to gut a lot of other things. I get that cuts should be made, but how much are we willing to cut from everywhere? The consolidation of current welfare wouldn't come close to paying for it. You could gut the military funding, but how weak should the military be? Then what about universal healthcare? Is that included in this UBI?

I think this is why many of the proposals were voted down. We would have to tax the hell out of the rich, and cut a lot of the funding for other programs (not that isn' needed).

Donated it to nyc food bank.

Originally posted by Mindship
Donated it to nyc food bank.

*big applause*

Originally posted by socool8520
I remember you bringing this up before. The thing is that these are pretty small sample group and a different cultures. They also don't tend to last for a long time. I think the longest one cited was at about 12 years.

Correct, the one I listed (which collected a lot of commentary and research and constitutes what I believe is the best collection of information on UBI I can find) is a 12 years study in Kenya and it is still ongoing.

A true study would need to last about 25 years. That's a longass time. It needs to last through young adults having children and those children reaching the age of 24-25. Why? Need to see education and Socio-Ecnomic Status (SES) outcomes which should also include Socio-Economic Mobility.

Originally posted by socool8520
The Kenya UBI relies on other countries. The idea of paying for it seems to gut a lot of other things. I get that cuts should be made, but how much are we willing to cut from everywhere? The consolidation of current welfare wouldn't come close to paying for it. You could gut the military funding, but how weak should the military be? Then what about universal healthcare? Is that included in this UBI?

$100 million seems like they are getting funded from any place except for Kenya and Kenyans. Private funding. Making the viability of such research, when applied to the US which would cost us $2 trillion + annually, quite low (in my opinion).

Originally posted by socool8520
I think this is why many of the proposals were voted down. We would have to tax the hell out of the rich, and cut a lot of the funding for other programs (not that isn' needed).

That's where proposal's like Yang's come in. He'd cut many social programs to support the UBI. But the US isn't social-programmed enough to bridge the gap between funding and budget deficits. Making it even harder on the US to pull something like this off.

Part of the US problem is how debt laden we are. I think we need to introduce much better consumer credit protections than Obama introduced to help us with the housing market crash. Debt obligations should not last longer than 10 years and interest should not constitute greater than 15% of income. Meaning, people should not be able to get loans and credit lines that would cause their credit payments to have more than 15% of their income, total.

This means houses that cost $900,000 should not be purchasable by anyone who cannot afford to pay $8,865 a month in a housing payment. Why? (($900,000/10 years)*(1.15 in max interest))/12 months in each year to get a monthly payment maximum. Add in insurance and property taxes and you're looking at a $9,000-$9,500 a month house payment.

But America is great! America is awesome! We debt laden the people into oblivion.

In our great country that runs on debt, you can buy that same house with a monthly payment of $4,678.42! But how?

By paying $548,731.64 in interest based on a 30 year FHA loan.

Amazing! You can almost by 2 houses of equal value for the cost of the 900,000 home.

In my proposed credit system, the banks can only charge $135,000 in max interest. That's max. They will likely have to adjust those numbers down because most people will have other debts and are capped at 15% interest of their income from all debt sources.

Even under the current system, it shows that with the amortization schedule, you could only charge 2.83% in interest for the 10 year loan (because the total cost of the loan shouldn't exceed 15% in interest based on the cap I've set on loans and total income to interest).

Imagine how much buying power the American people would have if this policy would be implemented. Money would no longer go to wasted sectors of the economy which rely purely on making money off of imaginary money. More money would go into tangible goods and services instead of fees and interests of fake money. The rich as well as the poor would benefit fairly from these practices but the poor would more especially benefit from it as a function of their raw dollar amounts available in their monthly budgets ($100 extra each month means much more to someone making $28k a year than someone making $280K a year).