Chicago could soon test universal basic income program


I guess that crime has finally subsided!

Chicago could soon test universal basic income program | Fox News

What about …

6 wounded in shootings Monday


… what?

Look, UBI would be better than the alphabet soup of welfare initiatives we have right now.

Since it’s one program, you could better account for what it’s doing, and tests of simply giving people money in places like Kenya has proven superior to giving resources or money with strings attached.

People tend to better know their needs than Government or NGO bureaucrats do for them.

I don’t know if it will work as well in a 1st world country, but I’d agree to an attempt of any measure that at least tries to kill off bureaucracy.

It’s the damn bureaucracy that tends to discourage people from working…


To give to someone who has not earned it … You must first take it from someone who has!
(Earned It)

Here is an idea.
Abolish welfare handouts and pay people to learn new skills and knowledge.
Knowledge is the foundation of wealth.
No person can be made poorer for having more skills.


The Alaska Permanent Fund; who are we taking from? Essentially, its companies paying rent for using public land, and that rent is distributed among the members of the public that owns the land.

Could we not scale this up?

There are some 34 different Government work skill programs-- and they all basically fail. Are you proposing something different?

You can pay for skills that aren’t useful; that’s what most Pell grants are doing right now.


It’s a nice thought. This won’t replace the alphabet soup. Even if we managed to replace welfare with UBI, it’s still much more expensive than the alphabet soup. Closest thing we’ve had and have to it is EIC. All the alphabets are still around. Heck, now we have more. Milton Friedman suggested it grudgingly as an alternative, but it’s not an alternative. It turned out to be just an add-on.

It will never help kill off the bureaucracy. It will just add to it.

Ahahahahahahahahah!!! :laughing:



In addition to the $500, the bill would adjust the Earned Income Tax Credit program to allow the families to put their tax credit toward their monthly mortgage payment, according to the outlet.

As if they couldn’t do that now.


Why does AS’s tacit approval of this stupidity not surprise me??? It’s about as ignorant as anything to come out of the left in the last 100 years. How many people live in Chicago? 6 or 7 million?? So how is taking half a million dollars from taxpayers and giving it to 1000 of them every month going to “help” the other 6,999,000 Chicagoans?


Milton Friedman was talking about this 40 years ago.

The Negative income tax.

And as I just said, Alaska has a pre-established history with this, with the Alaska Permanent Fund.

You can’t complain to me about discussing the idea Dave. Nor can you tell me that the left invented this, they didn’t.


And then President Reagan and the Congress implemented it, but it changed nothing about the welfare state. Now it’s just one component of it, second Christmas, for many.


…and a “negative income tax” was a stupid idea 40 years ago and still is. If a worker pays $4K in taxes through withholding, HOW is it a good idea for him to then receive a check from the government for $5K??? THAT’S all a “negative income tax” is…a hand-out of your and my money to someone who didn’t earn it.


We live in a world where the demand for welfare isn’t going away. We can’t put the genie back in the bottle.

Especially not now, as people get dispossessed with the march of technology, and see entire industries crumble away.

Negative Income tax is an attempt to take control of the discussion and say “okay, we’ll give them what they want, but with as little bureaucracy, and as much transparency as possible.”

To prevent abuse, to prevent waste, and most importantly, to prevent the current arrangement where people are incentived not to work, and the bureaucracy tries to keep people on the rolls & finding more welfare to give them, instead of finding them work.

I’m not saying it’s the right plan; I don’t know, but I do know it’s trying to have the right discussion, and is trying to avoid the right things.

The institutional interests that make welfare the trap & cycles of dependency we all know it to be.


There is NOTHING in the Constitution that permits this, however. Not one word.


Again, that depends upon how you fund it.

How would an Alaskan Permanent Fund scaled up to a national level, be counter to the Constitution?

Essentially, monetizing a public asset, and dispersing the “rent” to all members of the public as something like a dividend?


Where in the Constitution does it permit land to be “owned” by the government other than the capital city itself or federal government buildings in various locations? If government cannot “own” undeveloped land, then how can it “own” the mineral deposits under it? There’s no such thing as “public asset.”


Roads & bridges. Launch facilities. Dams & levies built by the Army Corps of Engineers. The GPS system.

It’s not just land, there’s plenty of capital too.

But the heart of your question seems to be whether there can be public land, and that would seem to be answered by the existence of eminent domain.

The Constitution doesn’t tie hands as to how public land can be used, only how land can be acquired.


It’s not. But some saw it as a superior alternative to other forms of welfare. If affordable, I would tend to agree. But alas, reality has something else to say on the subject.

This discussion has been had and it’s been tried once. Now we have second Christmas. If we had a discussion about eliminating other forms of welfare in the process and then did that and if it were affordable, then I’d be open to it. But these regressive pieces of crap aren’t even talking about cutting other welfare programs.

And what in the world? They have to have a provision to allow them to put their tax credit toward their monthly mortgage payment? If they can’t figure out how to stretch that EIC refund month to month to make or help make that payment, they’re going waste every dime, be broke and need welfare to get by the rest of the year. That this provision exists suggests that everyone there knows exactly what’s going on for a huge number of folks already receiving the EIC basic income: Second Christmas.


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Don’t think “renting land” is really a legitimate constitutional power. I know all of those in office, elected or appointed, reject that, but I think it’s outside the constitutional scope of the federal government. So is welfare.


Why should the federal government “own” roads and bridges, launch facilities or dams and levees? Eminent Domain is exercised FAR more commonly by private entities rather than by the government itself. All they have to do is claim that their project is “in the general public interest” for it to apply.


Can’t imagine a state running its own space program or GPS constellation. Can’t imagine Tennessee can pay for the TVA on its own.

Which is wrong; that’s wanton abuse, and the aftermath of the Kelo decision proves that it’s often at a waste.


Actually, it’s NOT “wrong.” If a company is building a gas pipeline to transport natural gas to the NE corridor and one or two landowners, out of sheer greed (or some other motive) refuse to sell a pipeline easement to the company building it, threatening the entire, multi-billion-dollar project and denying the people in the NE a steady supply of affordable natural gas for household use, shouldn’t eminent domain be permitted to prevent that? The landowners WILL be paid at the market-value price for the easement, after all and that will be determined by several landowners from the same county.


Re-route the pitpeline.

Should have acquired the land before you started constructing — it’s the companies fault for poor forward-research. We should not be giving the Government more power to cover for their error.

Land owners don’t owe you ****. Life, Liberty, property. John Locke stated that for a reason.

Typically, they’re not. They low ball all the time.