You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #64: Various arguments. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
patriotvoice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-19-08 07:32 AM
Response to Original message
64. Various arguments.
No matter their income level, people prefer to party -- the rich buy cocaine, codeine, and Lamborghinis; the poor buy booze, pot, and lottery tickets. The difference is that the rich really do have disposable income, while the poor really do not.

This addiction to unnecessary things is not a class condition, it's a human condition. The argument for GMI is to end poverty by simply erasing the very conditions under which "poverty" is defined: "you are poor if you make less than $X, so we will make sure everyone makes $X+1." But that doesn't address the human condition, the preference to buy discretionary before mandatory, to buy before save.

How would GMI address the human condition? How would GMI guarantee the income is spent on the things necessary to actually reduce poverty?

* * *

Let us compare minimum wage (MW) to minimum income (MI). The idea behind MW is simple: work 40 hours per week, 50 weeks a year and the average American should be able to survive. When initiated, the program worked well. But it has not kept up with cost-of-living. How would MI be any different? How would it fight inflation?

* * *

"Guaranteed income" slaps many in the face: regardless of what you do, you get a minimum. A guaranteed wage is more palatable: you work and you get a certain minimum.

* * *

The use of an arbitrarily income line to define poverty is ripe for abuse. Let us assume GMI is $20,001 per year. Suppose I have $40,000 in savings, no employment, and expenses of $20,000 per year. Should I receive the GMI? If I did, that would guarantee I never had to work again: I would receive enough each year to pay my expenses and I would never have to work again.

* * *

What causes poverty? Lack of money.
What causes a lack of money? Expenses exceed income.
GMI addresses the income side of the equation with liquid cash.
Why prefer that over addressing the expense side with tangibles?

In other words, why not provide:
- Guaranteed maximum housing cost,
- Guaranteed maximum grocery cost,
- Guaranteed maximum heating/cooling cost,
- Guaranteed maximum health care cost?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC