When will we have a Basic Minimum Income?

[cpa]

That's half true.

Forbes (sure it's slanted, all MSM is slanted) ran an article saying that the average person puts in about $300k into SSI, and gets about $280k out (give or take)

But most working adults don't put nearly enough into Medicare to what they take out. It's close to 3-to-1. So it's still a huge entitlement.

Sorry, Seniors, You Didn't Pay for (All of) That

Max, I did not read the article; I am just going off your summary. For the average person to contribute $300,000 into Social Security, that would equate to lifetime earnings of (300,000/.062) or a tad more than $4,838,700 in earnings spread over an approximate forty year period, or $120,000 per year. The Social Security maximum wage base for 2016 was $118,500, so there is something inherently wrong with that statement. When we factor in the employer contribution of .062, then the average lifetime earnings drops to a more reasonable $2,419,000, or roughly $60,000 per year. I think the statement needs to explain that the 300K contribution is paid equally by the employee and the employer. Of course, self-employed persons pay both halves.

Wage earners contribute 1.45% of their pay to Medicare. Similarly, employers match this amount each payroll. (However, there is no wage cap like for Social Security.) If we use the above arithmetic, the average worker will have about $70,000 of Part A premiums paid after forty years of employment. I can see where one hospital stay can easily cost this much after age 65. This is only to "pre-pay" Part A--hospitalization. Part B--outpatient is collected monthly either via direct premium payments or deducted from monthly Social Security benefits. The part B premium is tied to a person's adjusted gross income, so the minimum $127 and change can increase for those who make 200K per year in retirement. And then there is Part D--prescription drugs, also paid out-of-pocket once eligible and receiving Part A and B.

 

[tomas]

This situation is already existing in many Nations around the world.

Some African and middle eastern countries already have over 50% unemployment. The poor must struggle, but they make it, and their populations continue to grow at a rapid rate. What we consider poverty is a common way of life for them.

In the UAE, perhaps 80% of the Emerati citizens work for the Government. Most common labor is imported from other nationals for difficult work, in a stifeling climate, for subsistance wages.

Even in some American citys only about 50% of the eligible workforce is fully employed with living wages.

In totally, in the USA, already a tremendous number of the potential total workforce (17 years of age and up) is not gainfully employed.

Maybe the future is already here.

When I was a child, I had essentially a minimum income level of living provided by my parents.

Now as a retired adult, I have a government provided minimum income, as well as health care insurance provided by the Social Security Administration. Very few of my retired workers have gainful employment, but we seem to get by. Spend our days in search of entertainment, friendships, family and maintaining good health.

Sigh. I really wish people would better understand the exam question here. This is not about unemployment due to bad economy. That's hard to fix because there's not enough money in the system. It is about 50% or greater non employment in a bountiful economy where labor has been displaced by automation. People aren't needed to produce, only to consume. Those two situations call for different approaches. They are NOT the same. There are plenty of discussions about welfare. Let's keep this discussion about BMI and other approaches to addressing life after automation has taken over half of the jobs. Or even reasonable arguments as to why that won't happen... or how to forestall it.

 

[PJFW8]

Sigh. I really wish people would better understand the exam question here. This is not about unemployment due to bad economy. That's hard to fix because there's not enough money in the system. It is about 50% or greater non employment in a bountiful economy where labor has been displaced by automation. People aren't needed to produce, only to consume. Those two situations call for different approaches. They are NOT the same. There are plenty of discussions about welfare. Let's keep this discussion about BMI and other approaches to addressing life after automation has taken over half of the jobs. Or even reasonable arguments as to why that won't happen... or how to forestall it.

Difficult for us to understand in the western Carolinas were there is a surplus of good jobs. There's a shortage of those who can pass a drug test.

 

[tomas]

Difficult for us to understand in the western Carolinas were there is a surplus of good jobs. There's a shortage of those who can pass a drug test.

ouch. That's terrible.

 

[kort677]

Care to share more accurate facts then?

I'm just going by the Forbes article, which has all the statistics listed.


I don't think that's what SS is based on... you think that of the working population, >50% will die before they reach eligible retirement age? I strongly doubt that.

80 years ago when SS was began, the odds of living long enough to collect was a lot longer than they are today.
this is one big reason for the stress on the system today.

 

[Uncle Paul]

This reverse taxation (getting government money, just because you are a resident) is already happening in Alaska, and several resource rich nations. Those governments take in so much money that they have decided to pay some of it back to everyone who resides in their juristiction. Some scandanavian countries have so much income from their oil, mineral and energy wealth that everybody gets either a check or very generous benefits.

Same in some oil rich Middle Eastern countries. In the Emerates their citizens get gifted housing when married (within their faith) and money to educate their children if the toe the ethnic line.

If robots replace the workers, products might become so incredibly cheap that very little income might be necessary to have a relatively high standard of living. The citizens will need to be given the funds necessary to purchase the production from the automated factories.

 

[mspohr]

Difficult for us to understand in the western Carolinas were there is a surplus of good jobs. There's a shortage of those who can pass a drug test.

Good jobs that require a drug test?

 

[Max*]

Max, I did not read the article; I am just going off your summary. For the average person to contribute $300,000 into Social Security, that would equate to lifetime earnings of (300,000/.062) or a tad more than $4,838,700 in earnings spread over an approximate forty year period, or $120,000 per year. The Social Security maximum wage base for 2016 was $118,500, so there is something inherently wrong with that statement. When we factor in the employer contribution of .062, then the average lifetime earnings drops to a more reasonable $2,419,000, or roughly $60,000 per year. I think the statement needs to explain that the 300K contribution is paid equally by the employee and the employer. Of course, self-employed persons pay both halves.

Wage earners contribute 1.45% of their pay to Medicare. Similarly, employers match this amount each payroll. (However, there is no wage cap like for Social Security.) If we use the above arithmetic, the average worker will have about $70,000 of Part A premiums paid after forty years of employment. I can see where one hospital stay can easily cost this much after age 65. This is only to "pre-pay" Part A--hospitalization. Part B--outpatient is collected monthly either via direct premium payments or deducted from monthly Social Security benefits. The part B premium is tied to a person's adjusted gross income, so the minimum $127 and change can increase for those who make 200K per year in retirement. And then there is Part D--prescription drugs, also paid out-of-pocket once eligible and receiving Part A and B.

The exact quote from the article is "The average earning male who retired in 2010 paid $300,000 in lifetime payroll taxes for Social Security, but will receive only $277,000 in lifetime benefits from that program. For females, the lifetime benefits ($302,000) almost exactly equal lifetime taxes."

Their medicare estimate was $61k, so you're close with your $70k. So the math works out there.

So I'm guessing they mean both employer and employee payroll taxes, which is skewing the argument for the uninformed.



So... thank you for bringing clarify/debunking the article!

 

[Max*]

Good jobs that require a drug test?

The sarcasm is strong with this one.

 

[tomas]

Good jobs that require a drug test?

There are MANY! And others that should.

 

[mspohr]

There are MANY! And others that should.

Drug testing is worthless.
What 7 States Discovered After Spending More Than $1 Million Drug Testing Welfare Recipients

 

[kort677]

Good jobs that require a drug test?

it's almost SOP for many jobs these days.
both my children have to pass screenings for their jobs, one is a software developer and the other is in the financial business.
one son when he was in school sold cell phones in target and he had to get tested. Like I said it isn't very uncommon to have to pass a drug test for many jobs.

 

[Max*]

Drug testing is worthless.
What 7 States Discovered After Spending More Than $1 Million Drug Testing Welfare Recipients

I don't agree, this wasn't a blind test.

That's one way to interpret the results. The other way is that due to the fact that the recipients know they're going to get drug tested, they don't do drugs....

If I tell you that in order to get $1,000, you need to come in 3 months from now and not test positive for drugs. Chances are you won't do drugs. So statistically you'll have a low rate (like in the article, most states were below 1%).
But if there's no new incentive not to do drugs (besides jail, which applies in both cases), and I randomly test you, the drug usage rate will be higher (like in the article, 9.4%).

 

[ohmman]

I don't agree, this wasn't a blind test.

That's one way to interpret the results. The other way is that due to the fact that the recipients know they're going to get drug tested, they don't do drugs....

If I tell you that in order to get $1,000, you need to come in 3 months from now and not test positive for drugs. Chances are you won't do drugs. So statistically you'll have a low rate (like in the article, most states were below 1%).
But if there's no new incentive not to do drugs (besides jail, which applies in both cases), and I randomly test you, the drug usage rate will be higher (like in the article, 9.4%).

All of this, of course, assuming the drug is not chemically or otherwise addictive.

 

[mspohr]

I don't agree, this wasn't a blind test.

That's one way to interpret the results. The other way is that due to the fact that the recipients know they're going to get drug tested, they don't do drugs....

If I tell you that in order to get $1,000, you need to come in 3 months from now and not test positive for drugs. Chances are you won't do drugs. So statistically you'll have a low rate (like in the article, most states were below 1%).
But if there's no new incentive not to do drugs (besides jail, which applies in both cases), and I randomly test you, the drug usage rate will be higher (like in the article, 9.4%).

Of course. That's the point.
Drug testing is never blind. You are always told you are going to be tested.
That's why it is worthless.

 

[Max*]

Of course. That's the point.
Drug testing is never blind. You are always told you are going to be tested.
That's why it is worthless.

I think we're talking past each other.

If the program prevents them from doing drugs, who cares if they're caught or not?


If your point is "drug testing is expensive", then yes, sure, there's a negative financial ROI. But it's not "pointless", at least not from that article.

 

[mspohr]

I think we've gone off track here again. The basic minimum income programs just give money to people without any qualifications or strings attached. You can't deny someone BMI because they are a drug user or lazy or a Muslim or transgender or any other reason that you don't happen to like this week. If you do that then you don't get the benefits of BMI since you have to set up a bureaucracy to monitor people and you reduce the number of people (and the economic stimulus) from the benefit.
So BMI is not about social engineering. It's about economic stimulus and helping people with a basic minimum income... regardless of their lifestyle.

 

[kort677]

Of course. That's the point.
Drug testing is never blind. You are always told you are going to be tested.
That's why it is worthless.

do you do realize that the tests can pick up trace residual amounts that are present long after usage?
regardless of being alerted to being tested if there are drugs in your system it more than likely would show up.

 

[tomas]

Can we do drug testing on TMC members?

 

[ohmman]

Continuing to lighten things up, here's a relevant Onion "article":

‘What If We Try This?’ Asks Robotics Grad Student About To Eliminate 30% Of Workforce