Budget to penalize large families!

[joeberg]

True, but amex and Chase don't need names or proof...

True, but also don't have the same resources to get it.

[aygart]

Please stop posting certain accusations Amex and Chase are not the only ones who can Google and read forums.

Don't be under the illusion that they will have found out anything new over here.

[joeberg]

Don't be under the illusion that they will have found out anything new over here.

I have no such illusions, but don't be under the illusion that more exposure and publicity doesn't influence their agenda.

[hachover]

I have no such illusions, but don't be under the illusion that more exposure and publicity doesn't influence their agenda.

This is true. A lot of public agenda is set with a finger in the wind. If this boiled enough people's blood and the accusations went viral, you can bet it would start getting attention from the same people who already knew about it but had other things to focus on.

[as2]

I have no such illusions, but don't be under the illusion that more exposure and publicity doesn't influence their agenda.

What agenda? Enforcing the law? Why would you shelter these people? I would never hand them in, but to say that one shouldn't imply that it happens, is ridiculous. If they weren't aware, there would not be government departments dedicated to eradicating it

[binyomink]

Zuckerberg to the rescue
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/25/mark-zuckerberg-calls-for-universal-basic-income-at-harvard-speech.html

[JoeyShmoe]

Zuckerberg to the rescue
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/25/mark-zuckerberg-calls-for-universal-basic-income-at-harvard-speech.html

Fixed the link for you, remove the last k

[cholent]

Of the 2 the family with less children take priorty.
Also, the gov. Is not providing fs in order  to soften the impact, that's a side benefit.

So why does the government provide fs?

[Sport]

So why does the government provide fs?

So poor people will have what to eat.
Nothing to do with encouraging or discouraging having children.

[Baruch]

The 30% stays at 30% no matter the family size.

True, but the income limit to receive benefits rises.

No ones arguing if programs are an incentive not to work. I personally am liberal on that issue, and don't care, although I do think there are ways of making programs smarter, that will make working more incentivised.

There was an argument being made that the larger the family the less incentive. That is what the argument is about.

[aygart]

True, but the income limit to receive benefits rises.

No ones arguing if programs are an incentive not to work. I personally am liberal on that issue, and don't care, although I do think there are ways of making programs smarter, that will make working more incentivised.

There was an argument being made that the larger the family the less incentive. That is what the argument is about.

When the amount needed to get past FS is higher the incentive to work is less. It is much easier to get to a salary of $30k than it is to get to a salary of $60k. If 90% or more of earnings until $60k do not benefit the person then what is the incentive to work?

[aygart]

True, but the income limit to receive benefits rises.

No ones arguing if programs are an incentive not to work. I personally am liberal on that issue, and don't care, although I do think there are ways of making programs smarter, that will make working more incentivised.

There was an argument being made that the larger the family the less incentive. That is what the argument is about.

Do you feel that over the long term it is helpful or hurtful to the family to create a situation where they are stuck with a FS income?

[Baruch]

When the amount needed to get past FS is higher the incentive to work is less. It is much easier to get to a salary of $30k than it is to get to a salary of $60k. If 90% or more of earnings until $60k do not benefit the person then what is the incentive to work?

To be honest, that actually makes sense. (90% is an over exaggeration, the regular guy on programs loses about 50-60% of his income, until the insurance cliff comes.)

But all truth be told, I never really cared if there was an economics argument to be made for the proposal.
I still don't want to see tens of thousand of my brethren, being thrown into poverty.

[aygart]

To be honest, that actually makes sense.

But all truth be told, I never really cared if there was an economics argument to be made for the proposal.
I still don't want to see tens of thousand of my brethren, being thrown into poverty.

Do you feel that over the long term it is helpful or hurtful to the family to create a situation where they are stuck with a FS income?

[Baruch]

It definitely is hurtful to some, but overall I believe it's more helpful. I know many people who are just lo yutzlachs. And Rebbeim etc. who's salaries simply doesn't cover the bills. There are people who just can't en enough. Should we just leave them without food?

And it definitely has to be reformed.
Maybe Zuckerberg's proposal is the way to go? (I'm kidding. On second thought, maybe I'm not)

[aygart]

I definitely is hurtful to some, but overall I believe it's more helpful. And it definitely has to be reformed.
Maybe Zuckerberg's proposal is the way to go?

They have had such programs in many places around the globe such as USSR, Cuba, N Korea......

[Baruch]

They have had such programs in many places around the globe such as USSR, Cuba, N Korea......

lol. It actually is different. Because his proposal only has a minimum income, but Communism has a maximum income too.

I really haven't thought about it. I was half kidding.

[Dawie]

lol. It actually is different. Because his proposal only has a minimum income, but Communism has a maximum income too.

I really haven't thought about it. I was half kidding.

is your last name Sanders? are you from Vermont?
just a little Jewish Geography

[Baruch]

is your last name Sanders? are you from Vermont?
just a little Jewish Geography

[hachover]

They have had such programs in many places around the globe such as USSR, Cuba, N Korea......

Finland announced a pilot at the beginning of this year. It's not novel.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/19/basic-income-finland-low-wages-fewer-jobs

In the US - basic income is a fundamental part of the Fair Tax. It makes much more sense than our current hodge podge of tax deductions, credits, and welfare programs. But if you try to change things and swap one for the other you will face major opposition. And if you try to add it to the existing tax structure it makes very little sense and conservatives will fight it.