6 ms·

Hillary Clinton almost ran for president on a universal basic income

22 points by drewrv 9y ago

MrZongle2 9y ago
Key passage: "Unfortunately, we couldn’t make the numbers work. To provide a meaningful dividend each year to every citizen, you’d have to raise enormous sums of money, and that would either mean a lot of new taxes or cannibalizing other important programs. We decided it was exciting but not realistic, and left it on the shelf."
- xster 9y ago
  Ah now she's the vanguard of the progressives like she's the vanguard of party unity and Sanders is the saboteur in the Democratic Party despite her still trying to strong arm super delegates despite complete popular losses all the way to June in 2008 and her saying in interviews that Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June and she still shouldn't back Obama just in case he's assassinated. The passage should read more like: "Unfortunately, we couldn't make the time. To provide a meaningful amount of acknowledgment of existence to the working middle class, you'd have to signal an enormous amount of disloyalty to your corporate donors, and that would mean actually going to the midwest and cannibalizing time spent promising right wing policies to rich suburban Republicans. We decided it was exciting but not necessary. We raised over a billion dollars and can just buy our way through the general election."
- thatonechad 9y ago
  Anyone with a 4th grade knowledge of mathematics would realize this is a terrible idea. Even the research states this would raise GDP if you didn't raise taxes and pay for it with debt. Its the socialist dream to simply create money out of thin air or put it on credit. But the rich can be taxed more right?
  - KGIII 9y ago
    Yes, the rich can be taxed more. I can easily afford more taxes. I don't mind paying my taxes, though I have some complaints about how they are spent.
    - ImSkeptical 9y ago
      You realize you can overpay your taxes and not take refunds. Or, alternatively, give to charity equivalents (and not deduct from taxes). If you think that you personally should pay more in taxes, that's within your power!
      - SimbaOnSteroids 9y ago
        Yes but him alone does not a difference make.
      - matthewmacleod 9y ago
        This is a flippant response. Progressive taxation works primarily because those with broad shoulders contribute the most. Individuals contributing more to government income at the individual level does not have the same results, primarily because the benefits of higher taxation can only be realised if the policy is universally applied.
        the_d00d 9y ago
        Given the context...I think his response was apt
        conanbatt 9y ago
        The point is that the person wanting to pay more taxes is not hindered from doing so. The idea is being able to force the ones that dont want to do it, to do it. Of course a policy universally applied will be more effective, but its silly to say its what people want. If people want to give more, they can.
        ImSkeptical 9y ago
        The comment I'm replying to writes: >I can easily afford more taxes. I don't mind paying my taxes That person's argument is "I don't mind" and therefore taxes should be increased. My point is that just because that individual commenter doesn't mind, that doesn't generalize to everyone else who would be paying more in taxes. In other words "I don't mind paying more" is an argument for you to pay more taxes. It's not an argument for me to pay more taxes, because I do mind. My comment is trying to raise this idea, albeit in a somewhat flip way.
- saurik 9y ago
  Don't most of the advocates of Universal Basic Income agree with the premise of "cannibilizing other important programs"? I tend to associate UBI with "what you get if you challenge a Libertarian to provide welfare", as it is a single primitive that for some level of squinting replaces large numbers of more specific programs.
  - koube 9y ago
    Yes, that is one of the arguments put forth against UBI in the Intelligence Squared Debate on UBI [1]. Basically, the argument is that you'll never raise taxes in the USA, so if you want to help the poor, you have to target the poor, not give half that money to rich people. If you're unable to raise taxes, which you very likely won't be able to, then you just end up taking money away from the poor. If you can raise taxes, you can rebalance the money given to the rich with a progressive tax making it essentially a Negative Income Tax AKA Mincome [2], but again it whether you'd be able to do it or not is a different question. [1] https://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/universal-basic-income-safety-net-future https://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/universal-basi... [2] http://i.imgur.com/JbnFDo5.gifv http://i.imgur.com/JbnFDo5.gifv
  - thatonechad 9y ago
    I'm running out of things that the progressives want the government to pay for without any logic and mathematics behind it: 1.) College 2.) Healthcare 3.) Abortion 4.) UBI Why not just throw the entire enchilada out there and just have them pay for everything? If giving people money allows for economic growth, then wouldn't it make sense to just give everyone unlimited amount of money. Why stop at X when you can go for Y.
    - ganeshkrishnan 9y ago
      1,2& 3 is already free is most countries and even in developing countries like India. Why are Americans so averse to universal health coverage?
      - thatonechad 9y ago
- filoeleven 9y ago
  > that would either mean a lot of new taxes or cannibalizing other important programs Like the state of Endless War? https://theintercept.com/2017/09/13/the-clinton-book-tour-is-largely-ignoring-the-vital-role-of-endless-war-in-the-2016-election-result/ https://theintercept.com/2017/09/13/the-clinton-book-tour-is... If I had my druthers I'd like to see the "defense" budget halved--I don't understand what $600 billion of military spending gets us over $300 billion, and Ron Paul, a libertarian, ran on that very platform. It's okay to say that $300B isn't enough to cover the costs of UBI, but it's a damn sight closer to meeting that threshold, and in my opinion it would result in a lot less blowback (read: future excuses for more military spending). This is something that is still essentially off the table amongst mainstream political discourse, and that is a problem.
whack 9y ago
Sounds to me like they weren't willing to really commit to the idea of basic income. For a country the size of America, you can't have any meaningful basic income just by taxing a few specific activities. If you really believe in the idea, you have to go whole-hog and fund it with taxes on the top 1%, 10% and 25%. There are numerous policies which we've pursued in the past few decades which have paid enormous dividends for the top 1% and 10%, policies such as free trade, immigration and the transition away from manufacturing and towards specialized services. These policies have certainly boosted aggregate GDP and average incomes, but most of the benefits have not trickled down to the median/lower-middle-class Americans. Unless we take more forceful action soon, reactionary populists like Trump are only going to keep getting more power, and before long, we're going to see a clampdown on free-trade, immigration and technological innovation. We desperately need a program like basic income, that taxes the winners in the economy and provides for those being left behind, so that everyone has a reason to cheer for and participate in national GDP growth. Yes, this means more taxes on people like you and me, but it's well worth it to prevent a populist revolt.
- thatonechad 9y ago
  Does this happen before or after we pay the 20 trillion in debt we are?
- matt_wulfeck 9y ago
  I guess "reactionary populist" is squarely in the eye of the beholder, because I would consider any candidate proposing such drastic redistribution of wealth to be a reactionary populist also.
  - ganeshkrishnan 9y ago
    >candidate proposing such drastic redistribution of wealth to Except this is unlikely and not happening now. Hillary could have exaggerated and talked about basic income but she didn't and lost a populist movement.
- xster 9y ago
  60% of Democrats voting on a defense budget increase [1] more than double the amount Trump proposed? Of course, insta approval, zero public interest. You want to lift Americans out of poverty or provide education? Ridiculous pie in the sky. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2017/07/14/most-house-democrats-just-voted-for-a-defense-budget-far-bigger-than-trumps/#e7df7db6ea0e https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2017/07/14/most-hou...
Mikeb85 9y ago
Instead Hillary Clinton ran on a platform of "it's not realistic" in the primaries, and I don't even know what in the general. "I'm with her" is the most egocentric slogan anyone could have come up with...
- mc32 9y ago
  Apparently she revealed in her book that she was frustrated by Bernie's one-upping her at every turn. We'll do what she said, but have more of it, or make even better. Offer more. She didn't want to go down the rabbit hole cuz soon as you say I'll match their ideas, they'd just come back with "now with more and improved [promise].
  - lumberingjack 9y ago
    I did not see that at all, I did see Sanders focused on income and wealth inequality. IDK what HRC focused on her campaign was a cluster of womans stuff and race stuff
    - mc32 9y ago
      Basically this: >Hillary Clinton complains that her chief opponent in the primaries, Bernie Sanders, consistently undercut her by one-upping her "bold" and "ambitious" proposals without explaining how his policies would work.< http://reason.com/blog/2017/09/05/hillary-clinton-complains-about-bernie-s http://reason.com/blog/2017/09/05/hillary-clinton-complains-...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ringaroundthetx 9y ago
I like how the Swiss National Bank gives dividends to the cantons. Its shares are also publicly traded. I really like that kind of interaction with the government and could support something like that in the United States, more so than illiquid municipal bonds or boring treasuries. The Federal Reserve makes a great profit with its unprecedented position and influence in the global markets, and should be able to do this with greater efficacy than the Swiss National Bank. It could result in an avenue to accomplish universal basic income at state or municipal levels or through a variety of other programs that are recipients of FRB payouts.

22 points by drewrv 9y ago

Key passage: "Unfortunately, we couldn’t make the numbers work. To provide a meaningful dividend each year to every citizen, you’d have to raise enormous sums of money, and that would either mean a lot of new taxes or cannibalizing other important programs. We decided it was exciting but not realistic, and left it on the shelf."

xster 9y ago
Ah now she's the vanguard of the progressives like she's the vanguard of party unity and Sanders is the saboteur in the Democratic Party despite her still trying to strong arm super delegates despite complete popular losses all the way to June in 2008 and her saying in interviews that Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June and she still shouldn't back Obama just in case he's assassinated. The passage should read more like: "Unfortunately, we couldn't make the time. To provide a meaningful amount of acknowledgment of existence to the working middle class, you'd have to signal an enormous amount of disloyalty to your corporate donors, and that would mean actually going to the midwest and cannibalizing time spent promising right wing policies to rich suburban Republicans. We decided it was exciting but not necessary. We raised over a billion dollars and can just buy our way through the general election."
thatonechad 9y ago
Anyone with a 4th grade knowledge of mathematics would realize this is a terrible idea. Even the research states this would raise GDP if you didn't raise taxes and pay for it with debt. Its the socialist dream to simply create money out of thin air or put it on credit. But the rich can be taxed more right?
- KGIII 9y ago
  Yes, the rich can be taxed more. I can easily afford more taxes. I don't mind paying my taxes, though I have some complaints about how they are spent.
  - ImSkeptical 9y ago
    You realize you can overpay your taxes and not take refunds. Or, alternatively, give to charity equivalents (and not deduct from taxes). If you think that you personally should pay more in taxes, that's within your power!
    - SimbaOnSteroids 9y ago
      Yes but him alone does not a difference make.
    - matthewmacleod 9y ago
      This is a flippant response. Progressive taxation works primarily because those with broad shoulders contribute the most. Individuals contributing more to government income at the individual level does not have the same results, primarily because the benefits of higher taxation can only be realised if the policy is universally applied.
      - the_d00d 9y ago
        Given the context...I think his response was apt
      - conanbatt 9y ago
        The point is that the person wanting to pay more taxes is not hindered from doing so. The idea is being able to force the ones that dont want to do it, to do it. Of course a policy universally applied will be more effective, but its silly to say its what people want. If people want to give more, they can.
      - ImSkeptical 9y ago
        The comment I'm replying to writes: >I can easily afford more taxes. I don't mind paying my taxes That person's argument is "I don't mind" and therefore taxes should be increased. My point is that just because that individual commenter doesn't mind, that doesn't generalize to everyone else who would be paying more in taxes. In other words "I don't mind paying more" is an argument for you to pay more taxes. It's not an argument for me to pay more taxes, because I do mind. My comment is trying to raise this idea, albeit in a somewhat flip way.
saurik 9y ago
Don't most of the advocates of Universal Basic Income agree with the premise of "cannibilizing other important programs"? I tend to associate UBI with "what you get if you challenge a Libertarian to provide welfare", as it is a single primitive that for some level of squinting replaces large numbers of more specific programs.
- koube 9y ago
  Yes, that is one of the arguments put forth against UBI in the Intelligence Squared Debate on UBI [1]. Basically, the argument is that you'll never raise taxes in the USA, so if you want to help the poor, you have to target the poor, not give half that money to rich people. If you're unable to raise taxes, which you very likely won't be able to, then you just end up taking money away from the poor. If you can raise taxes, you can rebalance the money given to the rich with a progressive tax making it essentially a Negative Income Tax AKA Mincome [2], but again it whether you'd be able to do it or not is a different question. [1] https://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/universal-basic-income-safety-net-future https://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/universal-basi... [2] http://i.imgur.com/JbnFDo5.gifv http://i.imgur.com/JbnFDo5.gifv
- thatonechad 9y ago
  I'm running out of things that the progressives want the government to pay for without any logic and mathematics behind it: 1.) College 2.) Healthcare 3.) Abortion 4.) UBI Why not just throw the entire enchilada out there and just have them pay for everything? If giving people money allows for economic growth, then wouldn't it make sense to just give everyone unlimited amount of money. Why stop at X when you can go for Y.
  - ganeshkrishnan 9y ago
    1,2& 3 is already free is most countries and even in developing countries like India. Why are Americans so averse to universal health coverage?
    - thatonechad 9y ago
filoeleven 9y ago
> that would either mean a lot of new taxes or cannibalizing other important programs Like the state of Endless War? https://theintercept.com/2017/09/13/the-clinton-book-tour-is-largely-ignoring-the-vital-role-of-endless-war-in-the-2016-election-result/ https://theintercept.com/2017/09/13/the-clinton-book-tour-is... If I had my druthers I'd like to see the "defense" budget halved--I don't understand what $600 billion of military spending gets us over $300 billion, and Ron Paul, a libertarian, ran on that very platform. It's okay to say that $300B isn't enough to cover the costs of UBI, but it's a damn sight closer to meeting that threshold, and in my opinion it would result in a lot less blowback (read: future excuses for more military spending). This is something that is still essentially off the table amongst mainstream political discourse, and that is a problem.

whack 9y ago

Sounds to me like they weren't willing to really commit to the idea of basic income. For a country the size of America, you can't have any meaningful basic income just by taxing a few specific activities. If you really believe in the idea, you have to go whole-hog and fund it with taxes on the top 1%, 10% and 25%. There are numerous policies which we've pursued in the past few decades which have paid enormous dividends for the top 1% and 10%, policies such as free trade, immigration and the transition away from manufacturing and towards specialized services. These policies have certainly boosted aggregate GDP and average incomes, but most of the benefits have not trickled down to the median/lower-middle-class Americans. Unless we take more forceful action soon, reactionary populists like Trump are only going to keep getting more power, and before long, we're going to see a clampdown on free-trade, immigration and technological innovation. We desperately need a program like basic income, that taxes the winners in the economy and provides for those being left behind, so that everyone has a reason to cheer for and participate in national GDP growth. Yes, this means more taxes on people like you and me, but it's well worth it to prevent a populist revolt.

thatonechad 9y ago
Does this happen before or after we pay the 20 trillion in debt we are?
matt_wulfeck 9y ago
I guess "reactionary populist" is squarely in the eye of the beholder, because I would consider any candidate proposing such drastic redistribution of wealth to be a reactionary populist also.
- ganeshkrishnan 9y ago
  >candidate proposing such drastic redistribution of wealth to Except this is unlikely and not happening now. Hillary could have exaggerated and talked about basic income but she didn't and lost a populist movement.
xster 9y ago
60% of Democrats voting on a defense budget increase [1] more than double the amount Trump proposed? Of course, insta approval, zero public interest. You want to lift Americans out of poverty or provide education? Ridiculous pie in the sky. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2017/07/14/most-house-democrats-just-voted-for-a-defense-budget-far-bigger-than-trumps/#e7df7db6ea0e https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2017/07/14/most-hou...

Mikeb85 9y ago

Instead Hillary Clinton ran on a platform of "it's not realistic" in the primaries, and I don't even know what in the general. "I'm with her" is the most egocentric slogan anyone could have come up with...

mc32 9y ago
Apparently she revealed in her book that she was frustrated by Bernie's one-upping her at every turn. We'll do what she said, but have more of it, or make even better. Offer more. She didn't want to go down the rabbit hole cuz soon as you say I'll match their ideas, they'd just come back with "now with more and improved [promise].
- lumberingjack 9y ago
  I did not see that at all, I did see Sanders focused on income and wealth inequality. IDK what HRC focused on her campaign was a cluster of womans stuff and race stuff
  - mc32 9y ago
    Basically this: >Hillary Clinton complains that her chief opponent in the primaries, Bernie Sanders, consistently undercut her by one-upping her "bold" and "ambitious" proposals without explaining how his policies would work.< http://reason.com/blog/2017/09/05/hillary-clinton-complains-about-bernie-s http://reason.com/blog/2017/09/05/hillary-clinton-complains-...

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

ringaroundthetx 9y ago

I like how the Swiss National Bank gives dividends to the cantons. Its shares are also publicly traded. I really like that kind of interaction with the government and could support something like that in the United States, more so than illiquid municipal bonds or boring treasuries. The Federal Reserve makes a great profit with its unprecedented position and influence in the global markets, and should be able to do this with greater efficacy than the Swiss National Bank. It could result in an avenue to accomplish universal basic income at state or municipal levels or through a variety of other programs that are recipients of FRB payouts.