Universal Income Instead Of "Itemized Welfare"

Yes, yes, I know. Socialism. Freedom. Etc.

Looking for a general discussion on the economics.

Let’s say, INSTEAD of food stamps, instead of medicaid, instead of universal health care, we have universal income. We could literally (gasp) print it - so we arent taking other’s income. Everyone gets it.

Since we no longer “itemize”, the welfare process would be simplified. We would maintain competition in the markets since consumers still need to shop and purchase.

Obviously, it isnt that simple and is far away from ever happening, but is an interesting thing to talk about.

What are your thoughts on, instead of providing direct welfare to low income US citizens, we “print” money for universal income for everyone. How would this “printing” be different than fed QE?

If you are printing it, how are you taking other’s income?

Income is earned, not printed.

You wouldnt be, unless you make the case that it causes inflation. In which case it causes inflation for everyone. However, keep in mind universal income would replace welfare benefits as they currently exist, so taking those away must be put into consideration if discussing inflation.

I think that after we have printed trillions of dollars to bail out Wall Street in 2008 to 2014, there has not been the inflation that was predicted. I remember predictions of hyper-inflation.

I don’t support welfare no matter how it’s financed.


Why would 3.8% unemployment facilitate the need for another welfare system?

It’s not “another” it’s a “replacement”

1 Like

It will eventually be necessary, whether people want to admit it or not. So many of the jobs workers are now performing are likely going to become automated within my lifetime. And who can really blame corporations? A machine doesn’t take breaks. It doesn’t call in sick or demand a raise. It doesn’t need to be covered by health insurance.

So if you have an ever shrinking number of jobs for a growing number of people, what is the end game? Either society guarantees a basic standard of living or you are going to have major social upheaval the likes of which we haven’t seen before.


Maintaining a basic standard of living for the millions at the bottom ensures that the hundreds at the top maintain theirs.

The idea is to replace our current welfare system with universal income.

How would universal income for all citizens be “welfare”? Where does money come from? Not from the sky.

from https://www.dictionary.com/browse/welfare






the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc., of a person, group, or organization; well-being: to look after a child’s welfare; the physical or moral welfare of society.

welfare work.

financial or other assistance to an individual or family from a city, state, or national government: Thousands of jobless people in this city would starve if it weren’t for welfare.

( initial capital letter ) Informal . a governmental agency that provides funds and aid to people in need, especially those unable to work.

See the bold section

You ignored the other definitions though.

It also looks like you are pro-starvation.

Nothing standing in the way of private individuals, states, counties or towns offering assistance to the needy.

And what do you believe is the likely outcome if rich people don’t donate enough out of the kindness of their hearts to sustain a basic standard of living for millions of people?

I used to be against welfare from the government too, but the amount of assistance the wealthy received the last decade has changed my mind. We can’t have a government that only works for some.

Except for, you know, history proving that it wont happen. There’s nothing stopping people from never killing eachother again either. Should we just rely on finger crossing?

More people will suddenly find themselves capable of work?

And if the jobs don’t exist or people are incapable of working?

Some people have no empathy.