Income? Who is giving them this income? Where is this money coming from from which this "income" is being paid? You do realize the far left is currently just letting millions and millions of strangers just flow across the border into our country with almost no limits or restrictions or limits to the numbers. There is no sanity in which leaders are controlling the borders and saying... ok we'll let in 50,000 immigrants for 1 year or 100,000 per year and no more. No, it is a free for all. Are you also aware that many leftist areas want to also immediately set them up with hand outs from government programs. So this "basic income" you speak of... the U. S. taxpayers, the workers and earners... will be taxed to death to hand out money to foreigners who literally just walked across the border last week. The economics do not work. That is immoral and that cannot be sustained. We need the money ourselves. There is no way to tax people enough (even though politicians will try) to pay all of these endless hand out, money give away to the entire world programs.
It's one of those ideas that I think might be crazy enough to actually work. Mostly I see it as a freer alternative to convoluted welfare systems, and simple enough that a huge chunk of the redistributed wealth doesn't end up in the pockets of middlemen.
This is strictly coming from the angle of seeing it as an alternative to the convoluted maze of welfare programs like TANF, SNAP, Medicaid, CHIP, SSI, EITC, etc, and with the prerequisite that a household eligible for UBI must forego such benefits. Those programs at least have their share of perverse incentives like so:
If I had it my way, there would also be no increase in taxes to pay for it. Whatever tax revenue is set aside to pay for such welfare programs is what ends up getting redistributed. It wouldn't be a fixed amount but one that fluctuates based on tax revenue and government expenditure. That also places some healthy pressure as I see it to promote efficiency with government spending.
One of the things I like most about it is that everyone is eligible regardless of income. Of course, if we do the arithmetic, someone like me would end up paying more than I receive back. Yet from a psychological perspective, I think that works better and ends up being far less divisive. It's similar as I understand it to how the Nordic Model works; many citiens systems in the Nordic countries see it as beneficial since a lot of their welfare programs target almost every citizen.
A counter-argument I see is that if we just freely hand citizens redistributed money on a monthly basis, they might spend it on counter-productive things like drugs and alcohol and useless things they don't need. Yet that already happens to my understanding with these existing welfare programs like SNAP with an underground economy trading things like food stamps for drugs. I do think it's a legitimate concern regardless, but I prefer a system that allows decent and responsible people to get the most out of it over ones that punish the decent ones in favor of preventing the bad ones from doing bad.
@LingyRolls My ideals would favor that sort of approach although I think there needs to be a transition for it. Even the most hardcore libertarian types usually propose something like UBI or negative income tax as an intermediary transitioning step away from the convoluted welfare systems we have now. With a simple redistribution system like that, it can be much more easily phased out if desired by gradually diminishing the payments.
Well... Every CHILD deserves a happy childhood where they don't have to worry about food, lodging and education.
Of course I agree with people who say that people who cannot afford to take care of children shouldn't have children in the first place...
But... if the child has already been born... we can't put it back into it's mother's womb and send it back to god. ... Now that the child's here... Someone's gonna have to provide for it...
If we can help those children we totally should... They shouldn't have to suffer due to the wrongdoings of adults around them.
So... yea all KIDS should get it... and usually that means you'll have to feed the mother too because grumpy parents as usually abusive towards their kids...
However if the parents tend to abuse the system... The child and the income both need to be relocated into safer locations.
There are many families that have sacrificed through the years in order to afford to have children. If they couldn't afford to have 4 kids they limited themselves to 3, and so forth. I find it annoying when my parents sacrificed and now people expect to be paid to have kids? It's doubly annoying when illegal immigrants have large families at taxpayer's expense with things like this, in addition to free medical care for deliveries and that while everyone else pays for insurance, co pays, and then whatever their insurance doesn't cover. You are in great trouble when you have a difficult delivery with complications and may face a bill of $200,000 or more, while illegal immigrants go their merry way owing nada. Therefore I say no. If you can't afford a child then don't have any and use birth control.
Sounds too much like a bribe. I’m sure they wouldn’t be paying enough to keep my ass at home all day watching kids.
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(30-35)
+1 y
Im for universal basic income because I’ve worked for companies where they suddenly have to downsize. In this cut throat world, corporations don’t care if they let you go. Governments print money at will and keep driving their debt higher and higher. Can people read my post with a straight face and say the government spends dollar for dollar on everything they should?
For example, the United States government has spend over $7 trillion on the war in the Middle East all for colonial purposes. The United States helped fund ISIS and other extremist groups. The question is why? So they’ll spend money on wars but people are against universal basic income. Money is truly worthless, it goes by a country’s power and being backed up by their military means. But as we have seen throughout history, empires who were once rich by their military and monetary standard eventually were defeated and broke.
People can read this and give my comment a thumbs down. But I call out the govt on their stupid shit and these pointless wars. Even for women they get discriminated from jobs and better pay. I’m okay for universal basic income. Anyone who decides to give my comment a thumbs down. Just remember, if you lost your job because your company downsized or had to let you, I would hope there is universal basic income in place to help. I at least have empathy for others. I’m not a douche bag who’s an ignorant POS online.
3
1 Reply
Opinion Owner
+1 y
To be clear even though people won’t read this part. I’m not for people being lazy. People should work. Basic income should be if you lost your job, dealt with an accident approved by a doctor. If we live a healthy robust economy and there are jobs available in retail, restaurants, administrative, office, construction, education, customer service, etc. Then yes, go out and work. I do think work weeks should be shortened full time from 5 days to 4 days which have been tested around the world in the last few years. People have to remember over 100 years ago. Men would work 12+ hrs a day 7 days a wk. i ask anyone reading this…you wanna work 12+ hrs a day, 7 days a wk? Because that was normalized over 100 years ago until people back then demanded for better pay and more days off and better benefits. There help and fighting the good fight for workers rights and because we have more days off and less hours at work, that’s not fiction, it’s fact.
By forcing all women to become stay home moms, you're stifling the talent of women. There are a lot of talented brilliant women who have a lot to contribute to the workforce. You're stifling the growth of major companies. I don't think its morally correct to strip certain gender of opportunities while giving all the opportunities to men. I was successfully raised by two working parents. Don't let those haters tell you that working parents can't raise kids. They're just disillusioned haters. In fact most kids in this country are raised by working parents.
Delusional — children need a mom at home- if you don’t want to raise children, you shouldn’t have them. It’s sad so many parents put their children in a daycare center.. the ultimate in selfishness. Men and women are different and the failure to recognize this has led to the current trans fad. That being said, UBI is not the way to fix our problems.
i was successfully raised by BOTH working parents. I am college educated, hold a decent job, have a bright future, good morals, respectful, compassionate human being. Its HATERS like you that are the problem. People like you like to perpetuate the claim that working parents cannot successfully raise kids. I'm living proof that working parents CAN successfully raise children. I grew up with plenty of classmates who were raised by working parents. Many of us are now grown adult millennials with college degrees and great jobs.
For elementary school, I got off school at 3 pm. There was an afterschool program that would pick us up from the school and sent us 5 blocks away where we would spend another 3 hours doing homework, studying, being tutored by teachers, played games. At 6pm, our parents would pick us up and take us home. I did this all the way until I was 15 years old. By 15, I was old enough to walk home from school , make my own lunch at home, do my homework.
I really can't say that my upbringing was bad or lacking in anything significant. On weekends, my parents still taught me how to cook, ride a bike, visit places, tutored me on my studies.
At the end of the day, you don't make sense. You're just a hater. Anyone who goes against your old fashioned traditional ideals are up to be put up for persecution.
In fact, vast majority of kids in this country are raised by working parents. I have known plenty of them that are grown adults, with college degrees, hold great jobs. It makes no sense why so many people are talking shit about working parents. Our parents worked really hard to raise us. Yet, our parents get no respect or recognition. If all mothers didn't work, how would parents be able to send their kids to college?
what the most common situation for most working parents is that the parents pay the grandparents or retired relatives to take care of the young children. Often times many parents do not trust strangers to care for their kids.
Against it because when you look at it from a economic stand point, it will end up creating more issues then it will solve. Also nothing with the government is free and we pay a lot more then taxes when it comes to getting our government involved in anything. Because the moment the government gets involved the cost of doing business starts to climb. Over regulation and oversight does create a lot of issues.
That and just because people want to start a family does not mean they should. So such a program would incentivize people that are not read to start a family or frankly shouldn't to start one to do so. Not to mention that much like every other aid program it would be abused by many people simply for the "free" money.
It just encourages people with zero skills to pump out kids to keep that cash coming in.
Also once they hit 5 or so, the kids are at school.
Then at 11 kids are out at school, not home until say 4pm, dinner and then in room doing homework or on social media, playing games etc.
Complete waste of taxes, some of which will be paid for by parents who both work, have 2 well adjusted kids and are expected to ‘support’ someone with 5 kids who just hang around the streets, oh and chances are the father just takes the cash for drink etc.
I support the idea that a ''country'' provides support for easier living of their citizens. Practically, I see limitations of how much that should be, and there's also always a risk that certain people will exploit this idea - to the disadvantage of the overall group (nation). I have raised kids myself (in a ''family group'') and I have also lived by myself for stretches in my life. Being a home-person (by experience) is clearly NOT a full time ''job''. Those who say so have their own 'agenda' in argumentation. I'm not belittling the effort of doing these things right. But face it: not even some 100 years ago ''traditional nuclear families'' managed to raise kids, to keep the house in order, AND to run a fully fledged farm (or similar) at the same time (man and woman together, by the way, and also often covering the previous generation in this).
My parents would have been against it and so am I. There are several reasons for this but I'll give my top 3.
1. For the government to give families a basic income, they would have to increase taxes (basically steal more money from families to give back pennies of the dollars they took).
2. If you disagree with what they want to do, they then can say, "if you don't go along, you don't get your check until you yeild"yield!
3. With the national debt so high, how long before you don't get a check anymore cause the government says, we're broke!
No, we shouldn't have any UBI. That idea along w/ many of the government programs is what is taking money away from people whether it's welfare for blacks, minorities, and women or Obamacare which is just welfare for doctors, hospitals, and investment companies and the list continues on. You want to see people retain more money and have more spending power, reduce the government. And just for the record, no I'm not a Liebertarian or Lol-bitarian, their ideology is just fucked up as feminism, MGTOWs, and every other ideology out there.
I'm for people earning a fair wage where they can live like that without putting the pressure on other families. How they used to in the past.
But the more immigrants any country accepts, the lower the wages are going to be. Hence wages nowadays make this lifestyle so difficult because bringing women into the workforce lowered the wages for everyone.
And no, they didn't do it because they gave a shit about women :) Just like they don't give a shit about immigrants. They do it so you work like a slave and can't even afford your own house.
True, immigrants are willing to work for less so take away other's jobs. They also work "under the table" and don't pay much in taxes. Half of them don't even have auto insurance in my area.
I totally get what you're saying, but I think basic universal income for whatever group it may be is wrong and misguided. First of all you open a can of worms that soon everyone will say they deserve the same even if they don't. A universal income means government involvement in your life dependency on the government for your well-being which is not the governmens roll at all. The more we involve government in our day today life the worse life is going to get for us all. Although on the surface I like the idea, but in reality you may as well hand over your life to a socialist leader somewhere else in the world because that's what you would be headed for. One particular political party pushes strongly for more government involvement making us more dependent on government programs thus making us slaves or puppets however you want to put it. Government dependency is no where to be.
27.3K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
It will not do what is intended. My wife stayed home for 11 years when our kids were little and we lived on one income. We were then only parents in the neighborhood that did not sent their kids to some daycare place. I was not a high earner and my wife could have brought home a good paycheck. We felt that we did not want strangers to raise our kids. Offering a handout to people will only let them spend more money on vacations and luxury cars.
All things considered, I like the idea of UBI more than a lot of things. I do make enough that the tax hikes would probably result in a net loss for me, but it's not me I'm concerned about. I'd still want to see what the findings are in more of the UBI experiments. So far it's been rather positive. But knowing you're in an experiment taints the results in my opinion.
But yeah I like it more than safety nets with income cutoffs, which basically punish you for trying to leave poverty.
I wouldn't be a fan if it specifically targeted stay-at-home mothers. I don't think the government should be in the business of making laws that apply differently based on the demographic. But if it was familial support or based on having children, I wouldn't have too many issues.
I am all for promoting the nuclear family… but I’m typically not a big fan of universal basic income idea in any of its forms… Where does the money come from? Taxes. Taking from the middle class to give to the poor brings everyone done to a lower level. Taxing corporations reduces the amount of jobs companies can create, which means more people are unemployed or underemployed. Taxing the wealthy? They already donate money to charities to avoid paying taxes. More taxes = less opportunities and growth potential. I think a better idea is to lower the tax liabilities of those that are married (more than current)
We already have over population in America thanks to the influx of illegals. I would have loved to have had more children, but I could only afford one. I worked the entire time I was raising him and had no other income but mine. In my case, my then husband abandoned us after the baby was born. I see the illegals with big family, lots of kids mostly living off the government, but I didn't do that. I worked for me and my child.
Im not against it per se. Im not FOR any kinds of handout programs but we give money to people without jobs and underemployed people. We give money to broken families. Generally assistance is not "assistance" but a financial incentive. So if we are going to give a single mom of 2 $600 a month in food stamps let alone other benefits... it damn sure makes more sense to take that away from her and provide the incentive if she had made her marriage work and they were an in tact family unit. Maybe that would have kept that family together. in my opinion if people do dumb stuff they should face the consequences and live in the dirt. Only when you hit rock bottom will someone change their ways.
My wife stays at home by choice and I busted my balls to make it to a point in my career where I make a huge salary to pay for whatever our family needs and wants.
So, I'm AGAINST it. Want to be a stay at home mom? Then plan for how that decision will impact your family. No freebies just because you choose a particular vocation.
People just need to live more within their needs.. and if you want more, work more. It's not that complicated. I hear guys whining about how they need two incomes, while I'm living in luxury on a single income. Now it wasn't always that way but I put in the hard work to get there. Universal basic income is worse than communism in my book.
I agree with with Anon guy says. Not for lazy people but for those families who work or were fired or can't find jobs despite qualifications , etc.
I also :S 🙈 don't understand how the world works... I understand paying insurance and perhaps certain taxing is linked to pension (& retirement benefits) but.. if true, why will the government need the help of citizens to care for other citizens? ❓ Can't they just make mire money? Lol.
It's free money. Which going back to economics is that there is never a free lunch. All it will do is create more inflation, so the people actually earning have less money effectively to spend so they can put a roof over their head and food on the table.
On paper, I like the idea. I'm a traditionalist myself. However, in practice we have to be realistic. Where are we going to get that money from? We will either have to raise the taxes, or relocate the funds from somewhere else within the budget. Both don't make sense. If anything, I believe whatever excess should first be allocated to paying the country's national debt before anything else, which is now more than $20 trillion.
I'm in favor of mothers staying home and raising their kids. That's better overall for the family and the kids. However, I am opposed to government getting involved in that. Providing tax incentives is okay, but subsidizing stay-at-home mothers is government overreach.
Whether a mother stays at home or not is a decision that should be made by the parents, not the government.
UBI is not feasible financially anyway, and what should be done is there should be payments made each month per child to households under a certain income ceiling.
But in answer to your question in a UBI scenario, each person should get the same payment.
Why would anyone want the government to replace the husband? Talking about nuclear family and then leaving out what nuclear means. The man should provide! Not the government! Who is the woman truly married to if the government provides! This is poison for families.
The husband would still be able to work. This is just to offset the living costs in contemporary times and to foster the traditional nuclear family where the mother stays home to raise the kids.
i'm very much against it. because that is litterally communism... communism doesn't work. it just opens the door for even more corruption and for even less power to the people.
also it's just economics 101. if you increase the availability of a good, the value will drop. so if everyone gets money just like that, that money will not be worth anything.
I live in California and we have Medi-Cal where they get food, free rent and spending money to live. What is the difference between this and Universal Basic Income?
Ultimately, having children is an important decision that couples make (or make through their actions in some cases.) Part of the responsibility of being a parent is being able to care for your children, or determining whether or not you can prior to having them (monetarily or otherwise) or be able to work things out if things fall through. The government shouldn't have to provide assistance to allow one parent to stay home because of a decision the couple made.
Plus, this would basically incentivize having kids, as it would allow one person, who may or may not have already been working, to get paid to stay home.
They have tried something similar in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand in the form of 'Family Tax Credits' which are paid directly to the mothers, but I don't know how successful they have been to encourage, promote, and preserve the traditional nuclear family and its values.
Against. I saw a YT video a while ago pointing out all the reasons it's bad/wouldn't work. Very economics-heavy stuff that most of us wouldn't understand, but the gist of it is the math wouldn't pan out in being beneficial.
3
0 Reply
Anonymous
(36-45)
+1 y
I dont see why a stay at home mom should be paid income to stay home, chill, relax, watch tv, play with her children, and do minor chores when moms with jobs would still be forced to pay daycare and go to work for 8 hours a day
And hell what about the fathers who are pressured to make as much money as possible to support their family then at the same time criticized for not being around as much as the mother?
Then there would be people having litters of children. Just to get paid to breed. If it would be limited to 2 or 3 children at the most with free surgical sterilizations. It wouldn’t bother me as much! It is your right to have children. But then it is your obligation to clothe, feed, educate, and provide a roof over their heads!
On face value this is a great idea. When you start thinking about how this will be implemented, which methods can be used. And their implementation so far, on other welfare programs. You start to see that this is almost impossible.
The nuclear family is dead. The government killed it, slowly through the decades. With bad internal economic policies, with focusing on power in the world, with listening to lobbyist instead of the people, with destroying the worker syndicates.
The nuclear family can only be resurrected by bringing back the middle class. A class that is struggling to keep that status, in all western nations.
Fuck no! Why should my taxes pay so some welfware people can sit at home and collect free money and not work and single day in there life.. I'm sorry but poverty is a choice and if you plan on having kids that you can't pay for then you should not be able to have kids.
I do not think the government needs another reason to tax everyone else to pay for it so they can give it all away. When I was married I worked and my wife stayed home with the kids. No one payed us. We made it work and so should everyone who decides to do that.
12.2K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
Who provides that? The government has NO money. That means you take my money and give it to someone else. What if my wife and I, are supporting two children at near minimum wage ourselves? Where does the money come from?
I think mom and dad are equal. But still women's, housewive's role is most important in raising kids. Without women there will be no family, never will be. You can't start / create a family without a woman, house wife. A mother's love is most important than father's love. Some women call me misogynist but I think housewives deserve more love and respect for their contribution. 👏👏👏👏👏👏
Even many of the current welfare programs piss me off and I sure don't think we need to develop something else to support these lazy ass people who lay on their asses all day making kids expecting the government to jump in and support them.
No that is something everyone should get or no one. We should not cherry pick people for it. in my opinion it's basically the futures social welfare. It's way to early to implement it. We need robot slaves first and fully automated industries.
I'm for it so long as it does not come from tax money, so if volunteers or rich people want to donate to the cause. Otherwise I'm against any thing like that from raising already extremely high taxes even higher to fund it.
Of course. But this society is suicidal and sociopathic. These poor miserable butthurt dudes have such a poverty scarcity mindset that they would rather die miserable and alone than insure the continuation of the society they actually hate and complain about all the time.
Its not UBI by definition if it only applies for certain families. Moreover the question of UBI is directly linked to the actual sum being paid. Like 1 $ for all American's once in a month costs some 334 million per month while 1000 $ some 334 billion per month, over three times your current social security spending.
I don’t see us providing a Universal Basic Income and our situation of $5 gas, housing prices beyond the middle class and 20% increase in food items getting any better. Free money drives up demand, not supply.
Thats stupid. Women can work, Why put more pressure on the man when he's already expected to provide for the family. One salary doesn't raise a family anymore, and who's going to pay for that…. Taxpayers, its not like free college where it can be offset from eliminating student union/athletic funding fees, and putting a cap on how much state/tax funded schools can spend on athletics each year
Everybody should be able to afford bills and housing. Regardless of how their family unit is built up as.
2
0 Reply
Anonymous
(36-45)
+1 y
Im against paying people for doing nothing but for paying mothers for raising children given we have driven prices too high for women to afford to raise families. Effectively short changing the most important job to a country's existence raising children.
Just sounds like another form of government assistance to me and I don’t wanna be indebted to the government. And it’d cause taxes to increase which is never a good thing.
Why should only people with children get free money? Why not give universal basic income to every citizen of the nation? It's not universal if you're excluding others who are also citizens of the country.
They honestly think that governments will pay people without any for of expectations.
1
0 Reply
Anonymous
(30-35)
+1 y
I certainly wish there would be more support for nuclear families. Feminism has done a lot to destroy them, to the obvious detriment of western society. But I don't support socialism either, so I voted against.
1
0 Reply
Anonymous
(30-35)
+1 y
I'm a single man. Why do I care about stay-at-home mothers?
Kids are on school 6-8 hours a day. Go do something with your life. Go work a IT job
Home > Society & Politics > Polls > Are you FOR or AGAINST providing Universal Basic Income to traditional nuclear families where the mother stays home to raise her children?
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
Anonymous(30-35)+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
Most Helpful Opinions