who would be for this?

[Demo_Chris]

10. No....(your comments in bold)

The financing is explained quite clearly in the linked article.

The financing is NOT explained at all, it's is danced around by talking about some savings. The cost of this plan exceeds the current total of all federal receipts by about 1.5 Trillion. If a family earns $2000 a month, trading in their Honda ($300 a month savings!) does not allow them to finance a $3000 a month Ferrari.

Of course the financing is directly linked to taxes, which isn't really your third issue, which would be better characterized as the "moral hazard" issue, wherein apparently everyone will become shiftless and lazy if they don't have the threat of destitution to motivate them, a theory I completely reject

Don't assign value judgments where I have not. I said that individuals would predictably reduce their own hours worked. I believe that the article predicts this as well. And why wouldn't they? That's one of the major selling features of the plan -- it frees people from wage slavery and allows them to live and enjoy their lives. I would expect to see many people who are currently full time voluntarily drop some hours in order to devote time to their families and hobbies and what not. That's not lazy, it's sane. If you are handed a guaranteed $1200 extra a month, $2400 extra for a family, why in the hell wouldn't you cut back your own hours worked?

And it's not like we have some shortage of labor waiting to grab a few hours and fill the gap. The issue, and it is not insurmountable, is that every person who takes advantage of this reduces the amount of taxable income they earn. They are reducing their taxable income and replacing it with a tax-free subsidy. This can be overcome by making the subsidy taxable of course, but it would need to be addressed somehow.

If it is your belief that a society where inequality is reduced by setting a floor on income will result in runaway inflation, then I guess you must believe that our economy requires the current historically imbalanced levels of inequality in order to maintain prosperity and security for the few at the top.

I am no expert, but it seems that the injection of TRILLIONS of dollars a year, in liquid currency, would have a massive impact on price inflation. This impact would reduce the effectiveness of the subsidy. I think (again, no expert, so this is a guess) that if the subsidy is fixed and the government does not initially try to chase the inflation, that prices would stabilize and wages would come up to compensate. But the key point is this: don't expect a $1200 subsidy to be worth what $1200 is worth today.

As I said, I am IN FAVOR of this plan or something like it. I think it is necessary. NECESSARY. So don't bite my head off for raising what I believe are reasonable considerations and questions.