[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

You describe some pitfalls that the program would have to be designed to avoid, but to a large extent you just haven't gotten you mind around the one really radical aspect, and it's implications. I refer to the funding source, which is created money, not tax money.

This means any reduction in tax receipts (which will be not so large, since the program targets people who don't pay income taxes anyway) will be counterbalanced by a reduction in current tax-funded assistance for the poor. It also means people like you don't have to go around fuming that your tax dollars are supporting 'deadbeats.'

You think there's no room for increase in consumption at the low end, with people scraping by now on incomes of 12K a year?

I'm fine with there being provisions that encourage supplementing the support with wages. The goal is a large net increase in consumer buying power, stimulating economic growth, despite any marginal abandonment of work. My guess is most work-abandoners will be persons with no opportunity to make a living wage in the first place, so there will be no reduction in consumer spending for 'non-essentials.' Those people weren't buying new cars or central air conditioners anyway.

I'm also very fine with starting slow on this. Experiment, see if your assumptions or mine are more borne out in practice. Change things as necessary as you learn.

I like this idea Don.