Okay.

okay where were we

It's still government control at the end of the day

The money comes from somewhere

And government is not a revenue generator

government revenue is taxpayer money

Yes.

Why should the taxpayer be expected to pay into an equity system?

It's not an equity system.

basic income,

The bottom is equity

It is literally redistribution of wealth, just on a small scale

Its equal opportunity. If the govt gets its revenue from something other than tax

It's not opportunity, it's outcome

So you're against welfare?

Im only against how its implemented now.

Right now its just a really easy way to get votes at the expense of taxpayers

As a rule, yes

That said, i can sympathise with those that can't provide for their own due to debilitation,
Hence i'm okay with essential welfare

but like ginga said

Not as a means to buy votes

I think any safety net should be minimized, and dissolved if a better alternative emerges outside of government provided means

Okay, well it is my proposal that this would be a viable option for those that wish to leave welfare and re-enter the work force.

The system now is okay, its just too corrupt.

No drug testing on applicants.

that is the whole idea behind welfare, a safety net to help people get back on track

The issue is "good luck getting people to work if they're comfortable"

Drug testing is costly and ineffective.

And the definition of "actively searching for employment" is rather easy to spoof

Which is the issue, we have no idea to proove that they are spending welfare on what its meant for.

And dont forget the sugar industry push to stop the ban on being able to buy soft drinks with food stamps

There's a bigger issue with UBI: It'll create a class of people who depend heavily on state income.

They'll have literally nothing better to do but complain they need more. It'll be the G7 protests daily.

Okay, well I don't care if they're actively looking or not, so there's that.

There is alot of lobbying and politics in welfare as it is now.

When it should be an apolitical position

Plus, you'd have issues of what is a "sustainable income"

Why wouldn't you, if they're receiving money for it?

NYC is much, much more than upstate.

Ginga, theres lobbying in politics for ENTERTAINMENT 😛

I never said it would be sustainable at first.

I said 1,000 a month.

So the NYC'ers will complain they need more UBI and the upstaters would be swamped. Probably not do anything at all.

1000 a month is nothing in NYC. It'll barely have any effect.

Yes.

Correct