Invite Friends

Topic: Social Issues

Universal basic income: should govt. give everyone a guaranteed minimum salary?

  • Comments: 129 |
  • Votes: 26
  • Share
Picture?type=square
Discussion started by Tok Staff:
Finland tried the experiment and found it increased well-being but not employment. Fair trade or does this demotivate people from working?
Background article: ... Read more
Results in this view: Yes 56% - Convince Me 0% - No 44%
Picture?type=square
  • 21
Picture?type=square
  • 30
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
  • 8
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
  • 26
Picture?type=square
  • 17
Picture?type=square
  • 5
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
By Laurel Kornfeld Basic income is basic. It gives everyone a safety net by providing their basic necessities, giving them time to pursue the skills they are best at, increasing their chances of contributing their best to society. It will also make for happier families because there would no longer be anxiety about providing children with food, clothing, and shelter. Most people want more than the basics and will have greater ability to pursue the things they love, enabling them to make greater contributions to society.
Anonymous-user
  • 1
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
  • 1
Anonymous-user
  • 4
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey There is already a basic social safety net. Accepting income not earned has a corrupting influence and takes away ones purpose and sense of fulfillment. The weak minded would ranther accept a diminished lifestyle for the sake of security that can never truly be found in life, while giving up the joy of personal accomplishment and the liberties that come with financial freedom and independence. The of death of personal responsiblity will be the end of our nation.
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman We are not free people if we are forced to work to survive. It'\s slavery when you get paid much less than what your work is worth and given just enough to live paycheck to paycheck with the threat of starving to death if you don't accept the carrot on a stick.
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey When you are paid less then your work is worth, it is time to change your work. It is not up t others to make those choices, it is your choice to stay a low paying job, or improve yourself to the degree you can find better work.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Vincent D'Emidio Eloquent words, Mr. Tracy, but why don't you state the REAL reason why you, and all of the guys who voted no, are against it? The truth is that you guys don't wanna be on the giving end of this arrangement. It's not that you are "concerned" about other people's...especially POOR people's...self-esteem. You people just don't wanna foot the bill, that's all.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey When the government forces the more productive to relinquish their work product to others it is not giving, it is stealing. Is i have become more productive and prosperous in life have also found that the amount of my true voluntary giving has increased substatilly increased. Without knowing me you are in no position to judge my level or concern or assistance to the poor, you just spouting Leftist platitudes.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Vincent D'Emidio "Leftist platitudes"? Alright, back in the Sixties, when the tax rates were much higher, this country had an UNPRECEDENTED level of affluence in the GREATEST economy we ever had...and we were able to sustain the, ahem, "Welfare State", as you people (yes, I said "you people") like to call it in your "right-wing platitudes". The rich FILTH would, of course, whine and complain, but in the end, they paid their FAIR share in taxes, and everybody benefited. Do you actually deny that this country was at its height during the Sixties?!!! Great economy, civil rights, science instead of religious GARBAGE, most businesses being Union-shop...what could be wrong with that?

Does that sound like a "platitude" to you?
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey Your living in the past, we are all better off today then in the Sixties. I wouldn’t go back. As far as tax rates go, yes the marginal rate were higher, but the high income earners also had many more deductions, allowances, accelerated depreciation and credits available they could take to reduce their taxable income and none ever paid near the marginal tax rate unless they were stupid as perhaps a lottery winner without business experience or a good accountant.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Vincent D'Emidio "Better off today"? In the mid-1960s, a working-class family could afford a vacation in Miami, without being bled to death economically. Could they do that now? Ha! In the 1960s we had Blue Cross available to low-wage employees, straight from their workplace...do they have that now? Ha! In the 1960, Evolution was UNQUESTIONED...Science was UNQUESTIONED, and Bible-bangers were LAUGHED at, as they should be! What about now?

If they raised the Marginal tax rate to what it was in the 1960s, I've got no problem with "high income earners...having many more deductions, allowances, accelerated depreciation and credits available"
Reply
  • | about 1M ago