This California town will give a $500 monthly stipend to residents

[TalkRadio1]

Just 80 miles east of Silicon Valley, one of the wealthiest regions in the country, is Stockton, California — once known as America's foreclosure capital.

Soon, the former bankrupt city will become the first in the country to participate in a test of Universal Basic Income, also known as UBI. Stockton will give 100 residents $500 a month for 18 months, no strings attached.

The nontraditional system for distributing wealth guarantees that citizens receive a regular sum of money. The goal is to create an income floor no one will fall beneath.

The Stockton project has its roots in Silicon Valley, too. Its financial backers include Facebook cofounder Chris Hughes' organization, the Economic Security Project — a fund to support research and cultural engagement around Universal Basic Income. It contributed $1 million to the Stockton initiative.

https://money.cnn.com/2018/07/09/technology/stockton-california-basic-income-experiment/index.html

 

[HisArpy]

Lol, dumbfuks.

Do the math on 100 ppl at $500/mo for 18 months.

Now, for the bonus prize, how much money did Silicon valley contribute?

 

[Rightguide]

Another waste of time and money.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Another waste of time and money.

Should the voters of a town not be able to vote how they would like to spend their money?

 

[HisArpy]

Should the voters of a town not be able to vote how they would like to spend their money?

Lolz. It's not "their" money.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Lolz. It's not "their" money.

LOL. Whose money is it?

 

[HisArpy]

LOL. Whose money is it?

From the article AND as directly quoted in the OP:

Its financial backers include Facebook cofounder Chris Hughes' organization, the Economic Security Project — a fund to support research and cultural engagement around Universal Basic Income. It contributed $1 million to the Stockton initiative.

Reading is fundamental. And it's best to do it before you open your mouth and speak in imbecillic tongues.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

From the article AND as directly quoted in the OP:



Reading is fundamental. And it's best to do it before you open your mouth and speak in imbecillic tongues.

Actually reading is a complex function. These businesses are getting tax incentives for being a part of this.

 

[ronmcc2448]

The money wont do any good. Alex Spanox could give 10,000 people $500.00 and it would go to waste.

You can see where Spanos and others have reached out and touched the city of Stockton. You can also see where the City of Stockton is straight ghetto and hood and your taking your life into your hands in the day time. IE the fairgrounds for any event unless you go straight in and straight out and don't pass go.

They have some people that are putting a lot of money into sports and entertainment. Stockton now has Minor League NBA,Basketball,MLB Baseball, NHL Hockey. Not to mention MLS Soccer in Sacramento and NBA basketball in Sacramento and Oakland.

Stockton's last Mayor is in Jail. The Port of Stockton is one of the busiest.

 

[HisArpy]

Actually reading is a complex function. These businesses are getting tax incentives for being a part of this.

You still don't get it.

It's not public monies. It's PRIVATE DONATIONS that exceed the amount spent on the program by at least $100K in 18 months. That's a pretty good profit for the City.

Tax incentives are a different matter entirely because they contribute to the reduction of funds in the general STATE coffers. If you want to tie the 2 together what you get is pay-to-play - tax reductions in exchange for donations to public run programs. I wonder if anyone can do the accounting to see if the tax breaks from silicon valley corporations exceed the donation amounts...

What this comes down to is that you need to stop automatically promoting and supporting the socialist agenda and START THINKING for yourself. Otherwise, you just look like a stupid head.

http://rs1225.pbsrc.com/albums/ee388/AngeledEyes/StupidHead.gif?w=280&h=210&fit=crop

 

[RocketLauncher]

Tax incentives are a different matter entirely because they contribute to the reduction of funds in the general STATE coffers. If you want to tie the 2 together what you get is pay-to-play - tax reductions in exchange for donations to public run programs. I wonder if anyone can do the accounting to see if the tax breaks from silicon valley corporations exceed the donation amounts...

^^^^Word^^^^

 

[Que]

You still don't get it.

It's not public monies. It's PRIVATE DONATIONS that exceed the amount spent on the program by at least $100K in 18 months. That's a pretty good profit for the City.

Tax incentives are a different matter entirely because they contribute to the reduction of funds in the general STATE coffers. If you want to tie the 2 together what you get is pay-to-play - tax reductions in exchange for donations to public run programs. I wonder if anyone can do the accounting to see if the tax breaks from silicon valley corporations exceed the donation amounts...

What this comes down to is that you need to stop automatically promoting and supporting the socialist agenda and START THINKING for yourself. Otherwise, you just look like a stupid head.

http://rs1225.pbsrc.com/albums/ee388/AngeledEyes/StupidHead.gif?w=280&h=210&fit=crop

Tax break, unless specifically a one-to-one tax credit simply means that a corporation is giving away some money along with the money they would have lost to taxes is they retained it. It still costs actual money to give money away.

Although I doubt in this case the tax break given is going to be described as corporate welfare by Sergeant Spidey.

 

[Luk]

It costs more to arrest, jail, and release criminals than this proposal will cost. IF it somewhat works.

 

[Que]

It costs more to arrest, jail, and release criminals than this proposal will cost. IF it somewhat works.

Money-wise you are more than correct. The problem is that it presupposes that the reason criminals do crime is because some modest amount is needed for some basic necessities.

I'm generalizing a lot but the lower socio-economic classes which include criminals and non-criminals tend to spend money on things that some of the rest of us would do without if we hit a rough patch. Give them more money, they blow through that, too.

It kind of comes down to the chicken or the egg?

Because there is a strong correlation with poverty and crime the leap is often made one direction or the other. Perhaps both are wrong but one side tends to believe that poverty causes crime. I fall on the other side of the spectrum suggesting that criminality leads to poverty. The same lack of work ethic that makes lottery tickets in low-income neighborhoods popular is the same mindset that results in people taking tremendous risk for very little reward when you consider what they get for their crimes.

I'm not going to suggest that I would be completely above criminal activity if I saw an opportunity that I thought would be incredibly lucrative with very low risk. The problem is there are no such opportunities.

 

[RocketLauncher]

Money-wise you are more than correct. The problem is that it presupposes that the reason criminals do crime is because some modest amount is needed for some basic necessities.

I'm generalizing a lot but the lower socio-economic classes which include criminals and non-criminals tend to spend money on things that some of the rest of us would do without if we hit a rough patch. Give them more money, they blow through that, too.

It kind of comes down to the chicken or the egg?

Because there is a strong correlation with poverty and crime the leap is often made one direction or the other. Perhaps both are wrong but one side tends to believe that poverty causes crime. I fall on the other side of the spectrum suggesting that criminality leads to poverty. The same lack of work ethic that makes lottery tickets in low-income neighborhoods popular is the same mindset that results in people taking tremendous risk for very little reward when you consider what they get for their crimes.

I'm not going to suggest that I would be completely above criminal activity if I saw an opportunity that I thought would be incredibly lucrative with very low risk. The problem is there are no such opportunities.

Wtf?! I suppose there's no such thing as white collar crime? Seems to lead riches beyond the imaginings of your average Joe and a get out of jail free card. Pfft, criminality leads to poverty my ass.That costs taxpayers a fuck of a lot more money and innocent lives than the petty crimes of the poor. Stereotype much?

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

You still don't get it.

It's not public monies. It's PRIVATE DONATIONS that exceed the amount spent on the program by at least $100K in 18 months. That's a pretty good profit for the City.

Tax incentives are a different matter entirely because they contribute to the reduction of funds in the general STATE coffers. If you want to tie the 2 together what you get is pay-to-play - tax reductions in exchange for donations to public run programs. I wonder if anyone can do the accounting to see if the tax breaks from silicon valley corporations exceed the donation amounts...

What this comes down to is that you need to stop automatically promoting and supporting the socialist agenda and START THINKING for yourself. Otherwise, you just look like a stupid head.

http://rs1225.pbsrc.com/albums/ee388/AngeledEyes/StupidHead.gif?w=280&h=210&fit=crop

Says the inbred idiot who unthinkingly bows to the Capitalist agenda and has never known any other corporate welfare program besides this one that they ever had a problem with.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Money-wise you are more than correct. The problem is that it presupposes that the reason criminals do crime is because some modest amount is needed for some basic necessities.

I'm generalizing a lot but the lower socio-economic classes which include criminals and non-criminals tend to spend money on things that some of the rest of us would do without if we hit a rough patch. Give them more money, they blow through that, too.

It kind of comes down to the chicken or the egg?

Because there is a strong correlation with poverty and crime the leap is often made one direction or the other. Perhaps both are wrong but one side tends to believe that poverty causes crime. I fall on the other side of the spectrum suggesting that criminality leads to poverty.

That's just idiotic. Plenty of poor people never committed a crime. In fact white ex-cons routinely take jobs from equally qualified blacks with no criminal record at all.

 

[Que]

Wtf?! I suppose there's no such thing as white collar crime? Seems to lead riches beyond the imaginings of your average Joe and a get out of jail free card. Pfft, criminality leads to poverty my ass.That costs taxpayers a fuck of a lot more money and innocent lives than the petty crimes of the poor. Stereotype much?

You think a white-collar criminal is going to be deterred by a $500 a month stipend? You also seem to think that there's no such things as petty white-collar crime there absolutely is.

Anecdotes that I hear first-hand from my brother are revealing. He likes to say that criminals and drug addicts hurt themselves and their family more than they hurt Society. I happen to agree with him. That's not what's under discussion here what's under discussion is whether or not giving these criminals and drug addicts $500 a month is going to change anything about Society. I say they're going to blow through it because that's what they do.

What you'll see is a decrease in property crimes and an increase in illicit drug sales on whatever day of the month the check goes out. Exactly the same as what happens each month right now with the basket of entitlements that goes out generally at the first part of each month.

Just for your edification do you see where I say I am generalizing here? That's where I have acknowledging that this is in fact stereotyping. Stereotyping is actually useful it's how we filter in view the world. Pretending that no one fits a particular stereotype is abundantly stupid. Also assuming that anyone in particular is going to fit a particular stereotype is the only time that stereotypes are problematic. The word stereotype it's not a problem stereotyping is not a problem. Try to learn just a little bit about sociology and maybe we can have a intelligent discussion on the subject.

 

[Que]

That's just idiotic. Plenty of poor people never committed a crime. In fact white ex-cons routinely take jobs from equally qualified blacks with no criminal record at all.

You're astonishingly illiterate. Try to go back read it again for understanding. I specifically said that includes criminals and non-criminals you see that part where I said it includes criminals and non-criminals? That is where I specifically acknowledge that impoverished people doesn't include only criminals.

Also where is this because you assume that the word criminal somehow means black. Why is that?

Just for your edification there are black criminals who are impoverished there are blacks who are not criminals that are impoverished they're also whites that are criminals and impoverished and whites who are impoverished but not criminals.

Shall I draw you a Venn diagram?

 

[Luk]

Money-wise you are more than correct. The problem is that it presupposes that the reason criminals do crime is because some modest amount is needed for some basic necessities.

I'm generalizing a lot but the lower socio-economic classes which include criminals and non-criminals tend to spend money on things that some of the rest of us would do without if we hit a rough patch. Give them more money, they blow through that, too.

It kind of comes down to the chicken or the egg?

Because there is a strong correlation with poverty and crime the leap is often made one direction or the other. Perhaps both are wrong but one side tends to believe that poverty causes crime. I fall on the other side of the spectrum suggesting that criminality leads to poverty. The same lack of work ethic that makes lottery tickets in low-income neighborhoods popular is the same mindset that results in people taking tremendous risk for very little reward when you consider what they get for their crimes.

I'm not going to suggest that I would be completely above criminal activity if I saw an opportunity that I thought would be incredibly lucrative with very low risk. The problem is there are no such opportunities.

I would guess that if the program only deterred half of the would-be criminals, it would be a success.

 

[Que]

I would guess that if the program only deterred half of the would-be criminals, it would be a success.

On the numbers you are more than right.

think about all of the people who actually have some sort of prescription and sell off a few of their pills to make ends meet, and all of the cascading problems that result from those getting out on the street.

Maybe while they're enjoying their minor stipend they have some free time to sit around and think up some kind of little hustle that they can make some legitimate money.

If we're just going to give the money away as an experiment I think that the person should be allowed to continue to get the money even if they end up being a success in some other way and technically don't need the money anymore leave that as a cushion.

Do you remember that movie trading places? I think it will be fun to double down on this experiment and make it something like will give you $500 a cat every month for the next 18 months or will give eighteen thousand nto a mutual fund and whatever it grows to in 5 years you get that as a lump sum but you got a tough it out for the next five years.

There was aggressively invested that could easily be 30 to $40,000 in 5 years.

My gut says nobody takes the better deal. They'd take the money now.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

You're astonishingly illiterate. Try to go back read it again for understanding. I specifically said that includes criminals and non-criminals you see that part where I said it includes criminals and non-criminals? That is where I specifically acknowledge that impoverished people doesn't include only criminals.

You are shockingly stupid and dishonest as fuck. You actually wrote

"I fall on the other side of the spectrum suggesting that criminality leads to poverty."

Now does criminality lead to poverty or does it not?

Fucking moron. Own what you said, coward. Fucking bitch. Don't lie to me, you will always get called on your horseshit.

 

[Luk]

On the numbers you are more than right.

think about all of the people who actually have some sort of prescription and sell off a few of their pills to make ends meet, and all of the cascading problems that result from those getting out on the street.

Maybe while they're enjoying their minor stipend they have some free time to sit around and think up some kind of little hustle that they can make some legitimate money.

If we're just going to give the money away as an experiment I think that the person should be allowed to continue to get the money even if they end up being a success in some other way and technically don't need the money anymore leave that as a cushion.

Do you remember that movie trading places? I think it will be fun to double down on this experiment and make it something like will give you $500 a cat every month for the next 18 months or will give eighteen thousand nto a mutual fund and whatever it grows to in 5 years you get that as a lump sum but you got a tough it out for the next five years.

There was aggressively invested that could easily be 30 to $40,000 in 5 years.

My gut says nobody takes the better deal. They'd take the money now.

The flaw in your the last part of your post is that many (all) are too poor NOW and too desperate NOW to wait 5 months let alone 5 years for the investment to mature. This is a test that should be allowed to play out. Many have nothing to lose and the City is suffering for it.

 

[jaF0]

Will $500/mo even cover the property taxes?

 

[RocketLauncher]

You think a white-collar criminal is going to be deterred by a $500 a month stipend? You also seem to think that there's no such things as petty white-collar crime there absolutely is.

Anecdotes that I hear first-hand from my brother are revealing. He likes to say that criminals and drug addicts hurt themselves and their family more than they hurt Society. I happen to agree with him. That's not what's under discussion here what's under discussion is whether or not giving these criminals and drug addicts $500 a month is going to change anything about Society. I say they're going to blow through it because that's what they do.

What you'll see is a decrease in property crimes and an increase in illicit drug sales on whatever day of the month the check goes out. Exactly the same as what happens each month right now with the basket of entitlements that goes out generally at the first part of each month.

Just for your edification do you see where I say I am generalizing here? That's where I have acknowledging that this is in fact stereotyping. Stereotyping is actually useful it's how we filter in view the world. Pretending that no one fits a particular stereotype is abundantly stupid. Also assuming that anyone in particular is going to fit a particular stereotype is the only time that stereotypes are problematic. The word stereotype it's not a problem stereotyping is not a problem. Try to learn just a little bit about sociology and maybe we can have a intelligent discussion on the subject.

Where exactly does it say they plan on giving money to criminals? Your assumptions, stereotypes and generalizations paint the poor as criminals. You do realize 50% of the people living below the poverty line are children? I can stereotype too; all the problems this planet and society are faced with can be blamed 100% on the 1%. Oops, sorry that's not a stereotype that's a fact.
Just for edification purposes generalizing is a lazy tactic to try to win a losing argument. You're right, the word stereotyping is not the problem it's the people who insist stereotyping is a useful tool that are abundantly stupid.
As well:

'Also assuming that anyone in particular is going to fit a particular stereotype is the only time that stereotypes are problematic.'

Can you not see the irony in this statement? You discrediting your own argument in one sentence?
Rely less on hearsay, learn just a little about grammar and work on your literary skills ('That's where I have acknowledging...') if you wish to engage others in intellectual discussions.
You could try asking Chancey and Luking-atdix to help you with that, they have exemplary literary abilities, although it pains me to say that.
And do you seriously think I'm that stupid that I would even harbour the thought that a white collar criminal is going to be deterred by $500? Why the fuck would a white collar criminal need the $500 stipend? The $500 is for those living below the poverty line and trust me a lot of the people livng below the poverty line are the working poor. Poverty is not a crime last time I looked and criminals are not relegated soley to the poor.