RE: Debate Forum - Week 8 - Guaranteed Income
Ok so it’s time to let my inner paranoid conspiracy voice free.
From the off, i believe it’s guaranteed to be a complete disaster, not for the government, but for the people.
This is a long term plan to get more control of the masses. It will only last for 7 years (all debts and contracts seem to run on a seven year cycle) before the government will want all recipients chipped or the payment will be removed. At this point in time, many families and individuals will be reliant upon the payment to make ends meet and will have no choice but to be chipped.
An example of this has happened in Australia, the government last year insisted that it would be mandatory for all children to be vaccinated or part of the child care allowance (approx $2.5k per child per year) would be removed. This was basically blackmailing the poor to comply. If you still refused to vaccinate after the payment ceased, some schools would refuse an un-vaccinated child and you could be threatened with court and prison. Some people went to court, i don’t think anyone won, and then they withdrew most of the payment anyway. To conclude the example, Government won and poor people lost.
Also, we know the money has to come from somewhere, so income tax will have to rise to cover the cost, and you will be told "don’t worry you will get most of it back when you receive the payment", and people will believe that it will cost them little or nothing and will not object. Over time contributions will be required to increase to cover the costs, and the payments will stagnate and not rise with inflation.
Those paying into the system will start to question why? Why do i go to work when i can sit on my ass watching TV all day and still have the same amount of money left at the end of the week? People will start to quit their jobs.
Propaganda will be used. If you are against basic income, then you hate poor people. You are bad and government is good. Government only wants to help. If you can work but don't, then you too hate poor people because your draining all the hard earned money the government has raised to help the poor.
Then more control will follow, if you’re not working, but are physically capable of work, then the payments will be stopped unless you start to work for government programs – first 10hr per week then 20hr per week until you realise the government “owns you” the end.
We the minority that believe in community, self reliance and freedom are outnumbered by those that want big government. In a democratic society, we lose. If your still in the matrix, take the money and get yourself, family and friends as self reliant as possible so that when the time comes for you to be chipped, you can give them the “bird”. Stay free, stay safe and don’t get chipped.
I agree that government will ALWAYS overstep its mandate and try to force measures on people like the vaccines for money example you highlighted.
UBI distributes the tax (especially natural resource taxes) to the people instead of centralizing the expenditure in Government hands. UBI has the unique attribute in that it does not allow government to make moral judgements. Its a claim it if you want system, so as long as that stays in place the government will be restricted in its ability to refuse you.
For the record I am 100% for self reliance and I have been off grid water, elec and some food for years. I just think that the redistribution to lower the extreme effects of poverty on the individual and society is a worthwhile investment.
As with all these approaches the devil will always be in the detail, and I will never get chipped ; )
Would you contemplate the idea of using that money to return people to the land, provide tools and training with the end goal being independence rather than paying out money to address immediate needs? A phased approach may be necessary to address immediate needs but long term resulting in people returning to the land and building independence. That would require that the government then step out of the way at some point.
I don't know that it is possible to have the say what the money will be spent on without getting the government involved which I am against. I think the people will make better decisions than the government on how to spend it
Your point about the money being used "to address immediate need " is a difficult one. I am sure some people will waste it and some will use it buy food they need for the day. I am equally sure that others will use it use it to help themselves get through school or buy solar panels and water tanks.
I think rather than paying people to get back to the land the government should stop making it so hard for people to do so especially when it comes to policies that encourage mega farms over sustainable farms and ridiculous amount of land owned by the state and churches.
i love the idea of the money being used for people to return to the land. Unfortunately government is actively targeting those that wish to do so and i don't think they will let their little tax payers walk away easily. Hopefully i will be in a position to help others when the time comes, and i will continue to prepare for that eventuality. i think if we take the money and use it to help others that wish to return to the land, it's money well spent.
I agree. If the government was REALLY interested in resolving the question of poverty, they would be returning the people to the land, teaching independence and even provide the tools if necessary. Their job is to put themselves out of a job! Well written.
Permaculture + earthships = the world I want to live in.
Return the people to the land is the best possible move forward
Agreed. That is the path we chose over 10 years ago to become self-sufficient in our efforts to self-govern. Working well so far!
yes on so many levels!
I think some people are getting confused between UBI and welfare as it exists in other countries. UBI is for all citizens of a country, everyone gets it even if you are working. It is independent of income, so even the rich will get the payment. There will be no discrimination on who receives the payment.
i followed the experiment conducted in Finland and all the feedback from the 2000 or so people was that it had a positive impact on their lives and according to the feedback people still went to work and looked for jobs, they didn't quit and sit around all day. The choice of Finland to run this type of experiment, was a good one. The Fins have a positive help the government mindset and don't mind paying over 50% of their income in TAX.
I too looked into the Finland project and the 2000 people they gave UBI to was the unemployed. So I'm not sure where you are getting your data from to suggest that it goes to everyone, no matter how rich or poor.
https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2018/jan/12/money-for-nothing-is-finlands-universal-basic-income-trial-too-good-to-be-true
The Finish experiment was with unemployed people yes, but it was recognised as being against the law because it was biased. Roope Mokka of the think tank Demos Helsinki said "Finland actually had to pass a law to ensure that they were not in violation of the constitution, “because all the constitutions of democratic countries in the world say that you have to treat people equally"This experiment, however, is not a test of UBI, in that it’s not actually universal. It’s only for unemployed people. “I think what we’re experimenting with now is called partial basic income,” says Mokka. “This is of course a limited experiment. I don’t know how relevant it is, because a lot of groups are missing.” If so, then in a future test, basic income will also have to be given to people who are already employed, to see if they quit or change".
jobs.https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/the-finnish-experiment/
Roope Mokka of the think tank Demos Helsinki
Wikipedia - UBI:- Payments does not require the recipient to work or look for work, and is independent of any other income.[2][3][4]