Basic Income/Negative Income Tax

Basic Income Programs in Marin County and Oakland Exclude White People. Is That Legal?

The answer mostly hinges on how much the government is involved.


Basic income pilot programs are proliferating throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. The goal is to empower poor families with unconditional cash grants. But there's a catch: You aren't eligible if you're white.

Last week, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf announced the launch of the Oakland Resilient Families partnership, which will provide 600 families with a $500 monthly cash stipend for the 18 months.

"The poverty we all witness today is not a personal failure, it is a systems failure," said Schaaf. "Guaranteed income is one of the most promising tools for systems change, racial equity, and economic mobility we've seen in decades."

The program—modeled off of a similar pilot in Stockton, California—will be eligible to families with at least one child under 18, who are making no more than 50 percent of the area's median income ($59,000 for a family of three), and who are black, indigenous, and/or people of color (BIPOC).

The Resilient Families partnership, while endorsed and promoted by Schaaf and the city government, is funded entirely by philanthropic donations. It will be run by a collection of community groups, including the nonprofits Family Independence Initiative, Mayors for a Guaranteed Income, and Oakland Thrives, a public-private partnership.

A recent study of Stockton's basic income pilot program found that recipients saw their financial security and reported mental well-being rise, reports NPR.

Eligible families will apply online to participate in the program and will be chosen at random. The program is scheduled to start this spring.

It's similar to another basic income pilot being launched in nearby Marin County. That program, reports the San Francisco Chronicle, will provide a $1,000 monthly stipend to 125 low-wage women of color with at least one child over the next two years.

The program will be administered by the Marin Community Foundation, a nonprofit, which is also contributing $3 million to the endeavor. The Marin County Board of Supervisors voted last Tuesday to spend $400,000 on the program.

Oakland's program is probably the better-designed out of the two, says Max Ghenis, founder and president of the UBI Center, a think tank that researches basic income policies.

"Oakland set up smaller amounts and used the budget to expand the population that's being reached, so that's a pretty smart step," he tells Reason, saying that research on cash transfer programs shows that smaller amounts provided to a larger number of people do a better job of alleviating poverty.

The same is true of programs that target families with children, which both Marin County and Oakland do. "The impact [of a cash stipend] on the future well-being and development of those kids is much stronger than alleviating the poverty of adults," Ghenis says.

Transfer programs with strict income cutoffs often discourage recipients from earning more money, as additional wages could cost them even more in benefits. These pilot programs should be able to avoid that perverse incentive, given that once participants are selected, they'll remain eligible for the monthly cash stipend even if their income rises.

Limiting eligibility of these programs by race could well prove legally problematic, says Walter Olson, a legal expert at the Cato Institute. The U.S. and California constitutions, he notes, generally prohibit race-selective programs and public services.

This is particularly true of Marin County's decision to award public funding to its local basic income pilot program.

"The structure of the program is racially discriminatory. It will probably not make it over the threshold for when government is allowed to discriminate," Olson says, telling Reason that governments can generally only discriminate along racial lines when implementing programs narrowly aimed at righting past discriminatory behavior by that same government.

The legal issues around Oakland's basic income pilot are harder to parse, he says, given that it is privately funded and administered, but also heavily promoted by city officials.

"The issue that comes out is, is there state action?" says Olson.

Much of the fleshing out what counts as state action stems from court cases in the post–Jim Crow South, where local and state governments would nominally privatize government services like schools or libraries in order to maintain racially discriminatory rules about their use.

Oakland's basic income pilot could be found to be unconstitutional on similar grounds depending on how active of a role city officials take in administering or directing people toward the program, says Olson.

At the same time, he says, libertarians should be wary of defining state action too broadly.

"By libertarian standards, there ought to be quite a bit of leeway for local government to talk up things, endorse things," says Olson, giving the example of a city closing off streets for a parade honoring a local same-sex college.

While the local government would be prohibited from operating a same-sex college, it shouldn't be so constrained as to not be able to promote it. That's separate from the political question of whether local officials should be endorsing race-selective programs the way Schaaf has.

"The legal controversy is only part of it. I think it's appropriate to have a controversy about what our mayors are getting into when they seem to put a city's endorsement behind these kinds of things," says Olson.

"We've just gone through ten years of agitation about how you should be allowed to have medical studies" that select for race, he says. There's no reason that social experiments should be immune from that same scrutiny.

Ghenis says that race-based eligibility requirements could also undermine public support for basic income proposals.

"I do worry that something like this could be spun as something closer to reparations than [universal basic income]. The polling is much stronger for semi-universal cash relief than it is for reparations," he says. "I think there's a political case and also an external validity case. If ultimately, we want to get to UBI, we need to see how more inclusive programs fare."

NEXT: Conservative Economic Nationalism Is Not as Popular as People Think

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Remind me: who counts as People Of Color (POCs)?

    1. Bureaucrats will decide that! Us peons needn’t trouble our pretty little heads about it! What, me worry?!?! Isn’t it GRAND to just trust in Our Masters, and NOT have to worry?!?!

      1. [ JOIN PART TIME JOB ] Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
        on this page…..READ MORE

      2. I blame the people of this city. Why aren’t they sueing? Ate these public funds? Than SUE

    2. Block Insane Yomomma counts despite being half-white, raised almost entirely by the white side of his family, and spending almost all of his formative years in elite white schools and neighborhoods. All because he decided at some point along the way that he despises whitey and mainstream America and thus chose to reject that entire part of his identity.

      People like Clarence Thomas and Candace Owens on the other hand don’t count, because they actually like the constitution, America, and our founding ideals of “E pluribus unum” and all men being created equal and they actually believe in unity instead of hate and division.

      1. Shut the fuck up you uneducated rube.

        1. flag, refresh. Now I see you, oops, I don’t.

          1. Kill Mormons. Refresh.

            1. Ha! The jokes on you. The Progs got the message and adopted Polygamous relations. Next stop, the teachings of Joe Smith. The Bible is so last Century. All of my missionaries are coming for you KARNy boy. The magic undies work. A full line of magic lingerie is next with an endorsement by Khloe Kardashian!
              Speak to the tablets my friend.

              1. If 3 or more consenting adults want to get married that’s their business.

                In reality it’s your church that is against legalizing polygamy because they lie and try and hide their past polygamy and racism.

                Mormons are the scourge of the earth. Send them all to the gas chamber!

                1. Unmask your email like you promised, you hicklib faggot.

                  1. You never gave me your address traitor

                    1. I did, you’re just too much of a pussy to show up.

                      Unmask your email like you promised, you hicklib faggot.

                    2. You never gave me your address traitor

                    3. I did, you’re just too much of a pussy to show up.

                      Unmask your email like you promised, you hicklib faggot.

                    4. He did. Quit lying, sarc.

                    5. He never gave me his real address.

                      He’s an inbred pussy.

                      No way he lives in Denver. He’s way too backwards.

                    6. I told you where you can find me, you hicklib faggot. Come visit!

                2. You are the racist and fascist living in mommy’s basement

        2. Fuck off, whichever staff writer you are.

          1. They really aren’t all that into us.

            1. This.

              Why do comments sections exist? To build loyalty, and to increase ad exposure to readership. It’s not for staffers to socialize with the consumers, previous attempts by writers notwithstanding.

          2. I highly doubt the staff at Reason cares what the mostly backwards Nazis comment on here.

            1. Keep plugging away and maybe they will

    3. Like, do Asians count?



      People from Samoa?


      1. They should just call it “African American Handouts, Trailer Trash and Methheads Need Not Apply Because You Don’t Vote Right” and be done with it.

        1. What they don’t tell you is that any African Americans who don’t vote right also need not apply. In fact, they will be subjected to racist vitriol by these avowed “anti-racists,” who will feel it’s fine to be racist against those people for rejecting them, their White Saviours.

      2. BiPOC means “Everyone that is not white” 🙂

    4. One drop Brian. That’s what they said. They need to stick to it.

    5. You qualify. How can they deny you? Just check all the blocks. If they say anything, just scream “First you took our land, then you took our dignity, now you are calling me a thief just because I am Black, Hispanic, Asian, and Pacific Islander”!
      What are they going to do, a DNA test?

      1. If I were a philanthropist (dabba-dibbie-dibbie-dibbie-dibbie-dibbie-dibbie-doo!) here would be my plan for Universal Basic Income:

        I would use the clout of my wealth to lobby for the repeal of as many taxes and business and professional licensing laws as possible. That includes taxes on income, dividends, capital gains, estates, corporations, sales, excise, imports, and specific products. That includes all professions equally too.

        I would also use the clout of my wealth to lobby for repeal of every redistributionist “rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul-or-vice-versa” scheme. That includes EBT, Section 8, WIC, SSI Disability, utility and heating oil subsidies, and subsidies and bailouts to business, farming, and labor.

        Since this applies to everyone equally, it is Universal, since it is so simple, it is Basic, and since it gets everyone in “Root, Hog, or Die” mode, it would definitely result in Income! U.B.I.

        Not being a total hard-ass, I would also make micro-loans and micro-grants to every form of education, business, or profession that looked like it could profit the one doing it and produce a excellent good or service for consumers. That would mean more U.B.I.

        And you know what? There would be no Crazy-Charlie, Helter-Skelter, Balkanized U.S.A., Ragnarok Turner Diaries, White Lotus, Mau-Mau Race Wars! Just can’t-we-all-just-get-along-get-money-and-swirl-it-up-on-our-off-time! How’s that for a plan?

    6. Put me down as a descendant of people from Olduvai, Tanzania.

  2. Is which legal, the program or the race selection?

    1. Movie Soul Man becomes a how to manual

  3. Even if it is illegal, who is going to stop it from happening? SCOTUS? What, and be tarred as enablers of Jim Crow? Proponents of Jim Eagle? Not a chance. We are beyond laws, legalities, and constitutional concerns. When a country is in the process of collapse (which is exactly what is happening) there are no rules; there is only force. Legal or illegal are old world concepts and we live in a brand new world.

    This country is fucked and anybody that can’t see it is fucked in the head.

    1. Shut the fuck up you racist bigot.

      You will only speak when spoken too you anti-American fascist traitor!

      1. “Geiger Goldstaedt”

        There, he’s been spoken too.

        1. Are you also an America hating Nazi Traitor like Geiger?

          1. I thought Americans were Nazis? I can never keep up with the shifting goalposts of the mentally deranged.

            1. Depends on the winds and the alignment of stars.

              1. All one needs to do is cheque which way the wind blows

                1. lol

            2. No. I know having Trump’s dick down your throat has damaged your brain due to lack of oxygen.

              Trump worshippers are Nazis who hate America. People like you.

              1. You are definitely on medications, or should be. Time for your pills gramps.

              2. Hate you. Get it right.

              3. I thought Trump had a tiny mushroom dick? I can never keep up with the shifting goalposts of the mentally deranged

              4. Man, Sqrsly/WK/KAR have really gone off the deepend. Too much socking being exposed as they forget which account they are on.

      2. Like I said, fucked in the head.

        1. Shut up traitor

          1. Like I said, fucked in the head … and a little dick.

            1. If you hate America why don’t you leave?

              1. 1960’s redneck: “America, love it or leave it”
                2020’s prog: “America, love it or leave it”

                1. Sorry I love my country and want to protect it from Fascists.

                  1. Well cursing like a sailor, calling people names, discussing where the last President’s penis would be if this was your world and basically making yourself sound like a paranoid schizophrenic who forgot their meds for days, is not how you protect your country. You do that by educating yourself on the important things, like Constitutional Law and how they government has been screwing you and every other American by slowly take it by our rights away for years. Off you’re worried about fascism, you may want to keep up the mental patient act instead of genuinely studying law to learn where you may be able to help get this country back to the people rather than a few upper level, power hungry, old rich, jackasses with micro-managing control issues. Because, if you were REALLY paying attention, you’d know that the longer those old fools stay in the upper echelon, the more America starts to look like a fascist, citizen hating government is in control.

              2. Why don’t you leave?

                1. I’m not a traitor like you

  4. I worry that this kind of stuff is a recruiting tool for the white-victimhood groups.

    1. Good point! Also, black-face cosmetics sales may go WAY up! Are cosmetics companies in on the take?

      1. Movie Soul Man becomes a how to manual

    2. Oh, is that worries you? The exploitable optics? Not the actual out-and-out racism?

      1. Of course I don’t like race-based policies, and I also don’t like taxpayer-funded welfare. The article says it’s “philanthropic donations”, but I bet that’s misleading. I bet the people administering the program are paid by taxpayers.

        1. The philanthropy is the funneling of tax payer funds to line the donation manager’s pockets. What trickles down to the policy recipients, as always, will be a small fraction of the intended fund.

    3. If you can choose your gender then you can choose your race.

      1. Sweet! I’m gonna be a Vulcan!

        1. I’ll choice the most noble and intelligent of the Star Trek races, the Ferengi.

            1. Panty Raid!!!

      2. Excellent idea. I strongly feel that I am a black female trapped in a white man’s body. I demand my benefits!

    4. A racist program acts as a recruiting tool for other racists? This is an interesting and novel theory.

      1. A racist policy gives those who support it another way to target those who do not, regardless of its intentions, by calling those who do not support the racist policy racists.
        As evidenced in the first comment in this thread.

        1. How is it with tobacco stains?

    5. The problem is that it’s so transparent. The guy who grew up in a trailer with one parent working minimum wage isn’t any better off just because of a lack of melanin, and anyone with half a brain can see that.

      It’s the same problem with any affirmative action or diversity program. By definition, you are selecting inferior people because of their birth conditions. It becomes rational to avoid minorities.

      Amazon had this problem, as their HR bot found men outperformed women (presumably as a result of diversity programs), it began downgrading women in general. When sex was removed from the equations, it downgraded all women’s colleges. This completely logical algorithm became biased BECAUSE of the diversity programs that were already in place.

      So these programs, which were designed to end biases, end up JUSTIFYING IT.

    6. It might be accurately perceived as demonstrating that progressives are deliberately excluding/targeting white and “white-adjacent” (Asian/uppity) people with their policies?

  5. A public/private partnership is providing the funds for this fund being run by “donations”. Sounds like a money washing scheme where the local government funds charities which then fund a third party charity that is doing the prohibited action. This needs to be reviewed to see just how much the third party charities are acting merely as middlemen for government officials.

    1. Good point also! I recall reading years ago about the EPA sending funds to the likes of the Sierra club for “environmental studies”. Money being fungible, the Sierra club could then devote more money (donations) to SUE the EPA, to FORCE the EPA to… Yes, you guessed it! Grab more power over private land owners!

    2. One cent rule:. If one cent of government money (wage, salary, equipment, office space, anything) is spent on this then it is a government program.

  6. What do you expect? It’s the Jim Eagle era.

    1. More like Jim Pigeon. Someone is definitely a pigeon in these scenarios.

    2. An Eagle is bigger than a Crow, and the Trump era was far more racist than the heydays of the KKK, resegregation of the Civil Service and Seperate But Equal.
      Sheesh, it’s like you dog-faced pony soldiers are senile or something.

      1. LOL. Spot on impression.

  7. The 5 largest ethnic groups in Oakland, CA are White (Non-Hispanic) (29%), Black or African American (Non-Hispanic) (22.7%), Other (Hispanic) (17.5%), Asian (Non-Hispanic) (15.2%), and White (Hispanic) (6.06%).

    I seriously doubt that the whites who live in Oakland are going to change their vote as a result of this.

    1. I don’t think the goal is to change votes. Shocking to be sure, but I do doubt it.

      1. I don’t think the goal is to change votes

        No, it’s to explicitly pander to the second largest demographic who might otherwise be scared off by all the Woke insanity being pushed.

        1. It’s purpose is to help remove any shame in being on the government dole. Calling it “universal basic income” normalizes it’s receipt, as opposed to receiving “welfare benefits”.

      2. Democrats open stated last week their goal was to give money out for people to like government better, such as by buying votes.

  8. I see rents will be going up by about a $1000.00

    1. But not for whites.

      1. Because it will soon be illegal to rent to whites?

  9. Basic Income could work but ONLY if it replaces existing welfare, instead of being yet another layer of dole over the top. I can see the argument for replacing the welfare jigsaw with a single UBI. Let people actually work and still get part of the UBI, instead of being incentivized to stay home and watch Oprah. Heck, you could replace unemployment with it.

    Not the most libertarian idea in the world, but in terms of damage done to society, it’s not nearly as bad as the current system.

    HOWEVER, it has to be universal. Not certain races and ethnicities and identities only. And it needs barriers and stops to keep it from expanding like a malignant fungus, like current welfare is.

    1. It will also only work if it is limited in scope. If the government hands out too much money to too many people, it will just result in rising prices for everything.

      1. HO2

        1. Never stop.

      2. What about the Biden administration makes you think “limited in scope” is on the horizon?

        1. Well at least he’s not Bernie.

          One good thing about Sleepy Joe is that he’s… sleepy.

          1. Right. Because his handlers couldn’t just write 70+ executive orders while he’s asleep, and just wake him up to sign them.

          2. You’re an oblivious moron.

            1. So you think Bernie would be better in the “limited government” arena? What hipster varietal are you smoking?

        2. Nothing.

          I didn’t vote for Biden. I don’t support the Biden Administration.

          1. Because you live in a deep blue state. And yes you do.

            1. By the way… my citation is this mornings roundup.

      3. “”It will also only work if it is limited in scope.””

        If it is limited, it is not universal.

        1. Universal and is everyone is eligible. NOT universal as in everyone gets unlimited dollahs. Jeepers.

          1. Oh, look at this guy. Wants kids to starve.


            1. Turning an argument into a dispute about the definition of a word is a pretty fuckwit move. Just sayin’.

              1. You’re just jealous that you’re not 10’ tall, loser!

        2. Yes, that is correct.

      4. “And it needs barriers and stops to keep it from expanding like a malignant fungus, like current welfare is.”

        Maybe tie it to a combination of inflation, the GNP, and/or other economic factors. Another problem is that “X” amount of “aid” might be adequate in some areas, in other areas, it might amount to very little. Most of the monies involved should probably be administered on State and local levels. Friedman also recommended that it be set at a level somewhere below the minimum wage.

        1. How about zero?

          1. The current system is awful. A UBI wouldn’t necessarily be much better for the participants — a bit more economic freedom for those stuck on it, and less hassle from the government, but not much else. But. the reality is, we seem pretty stuck with entitlements. They are not going away anytime soon. Or probably ever.

            But we can make them less costly to the taxpayer and, at the same time, phase out a couple million federal, state, and local employees. That alone would save around five hundred billion dollars every year.

            1. Phasing out the employees you mention should absolutely happen but never will until the Democrats’ hold on power is decisively broken.

        2. Go ahead. You’re free to give everyone all the UBI you want. Just count me out of the supply side of that equation.

        3. I just want a way that Congress can’t keep raising it to get votes. They don’t for welfare, because welfare is a state and county matter that Congress has very little say in. Some states do keep voting to raise the dole, but unlike the Feds they can’t print money out of nowhere. Which is pretty much the reason California isn’t giving everyone a million dollars a month. The state is at the end of the budget. Can’t give out more without voter approved taxes. Which are not coming as fast as the lefties want.

          So yeah, sometimes distributed power is better than centralized power. Such a concept for the Right and Left.

          1. What do you thing all of this recent federal spending largess is about? It’s about bailing out Democrat-controlled states that are teetering on bankruptcy because of their increasingly insane leftist policies.

    2. +

    3. I am not sure what the value of discussing the value of a program “if” it were operated in a way it is never going to be operated.
      “If” UBI were universal and the sole form of welfare and “if” cats could talk and “if” horses could deal cards…

  10. When people asked Bill Clinton whether what he was doing with campaign finance, etc. was ethical, he replied that it was perfectly legal–as if that were what really mattered.

    When people asked the George W. Bush administration whether invading Iraq was the smart thing to do or whether torture was ethical, they replied that it was perfectly legal, which seemed to miss the point.

    Barack Obama didn’t care that entering into the Paris Climate treaty was illegal, but what really bothered me was that he didn’t seem to care about whether what he was doing was in our best interests.

    The thing that bothers me about distributing taxpayer money to people on the basis of race is that it’s illegal. Is it ethical? Is it in the best interests of society? There are millions of things that are perfectly legal but we shouldn’t do because they’re stupid and unethical.

    Why isn’t that reason enough? It’s not as if doing stupid and unethical things were somehow justified by being perfectly legal.

    1. “The thing that bothers me about distributing taxpayer money to people on the basis of race is [not] that it’s illegal.”

      —-Ken Shultz


      1. Yes, let’s start with legal and constitutional.

        ”Before the Freedom of Information Act, I used to say at meetings, ‘The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer.’”
        — Henry Kissinger

    2. Legal? Ethical?

      I think we’re way beyond such quaint notions. Politicians do whatever they can get away with to ensure they stay in the game. Legal and ethical play a part only so long as they are actual impediments to doing so.

      1. “Will I lose my awesome taxpayer funded gig over this?”

      2. As long as people like us won’t shut up about the wisdom and ethics of policy, they can’t ignore them completely, and the more of us there are who won’t shut up about it, the more attention they’ll have to pay to wisdom and ethics when making policy.

        1. Wanna bet?

  11. Basic Income Programs in Marin County and Oakland Exclude White People. Is That Legal?

    No. If the government is involved in any way, then it isn’t legal.

    1. Like it or not, it’s the government that defines what is or is not legal. Arguments whether something is legal are pointless when it comes to the government. The Nazis gassing millions of Jews was all perfectly legal.

      Principles are not about legality, principles are about morality. Is it moral to take from some by force to give to others? No it is not. Denying Whites people a portion of the extortion take because they are White is just another layer of immorality on top of the immorality.

      1. Luckily, we have a federal system and a separation of powers within the Federal level. The Oakland (city) and Marin (county) governments are doing something patently, incredibly illegal. We can stop them at the state legislature, the state courts, the Federal courts, and possibly the Congress.

  12. Hey, are you looking to buy cookies online? visit our website we provide delivery within 24 Hours

    1. Why would I buy cookies online when every website gives me one or more for free?

      1. + 5

        1. It wasn’t laundered. Unless, of course, one considers tax-deductible donations as “laundering” of tax-payer money… oh… oops.

  13. I do worry that something like this could be spun as something closer to reparations than [universal basic income]…

    Worrisome is not how the San Fran area politicians would characterize that framing.

  14. The legal issues around Oakland’s basic income pilot are harder to parse, he says, given that it is privately funded and administered

    You mean after the government money was laundered? It ain’t privately funded. I guaran-fucking-tee it.

    1. Imagine a private scholarship fund whose first condition was “not available to blacks.”


      No problem. It’s privately funded.

  15. Local story.

  16. “The impact [of a cash stipend] on the future well-being and development of those kids is much stronger than alleviating the poverty of adults,” Ghenis says.

    Can we PLEASE stop incentivizing breeding? I think the orgasm is enough of an incentive without government subsidies.

  17. If you flipped it around, and this program was only going to white people, would it be legal? If the answer is no, then it’s not legal now.

    1. That would be racist. This is justice

      1. Don’t confuse facts with the Truth.
        -Another Woketard

    2. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 (42 USC 1981(a)) could be read to allow preferential treatement for non-whites but not for whites.

      1. I don’t see how. That reads:

        (a)Statement of equal rights
        All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.

  18. Which brings up: “How does one prove one’s race?” How Black is Black enough? How much Color does it take to be considered a BIPOC? Hell, even gender is up for debate now.

    1. This is all done by self-identification.
      Discuss among yourselves if that is better or worse.

  19. The answer hinges on the 14th Amendment, and is clearly No, it isn’t legal.

  20. Geez even libertarians are using bipoc now. Way to try to fit in.

    1. Which libertarian are you talking about?

  21. when it comes to these studies, i am less concerned with the legality and other virtue signalling they cram into them…… and more concerned with the way they are openly and blatantly designed to reach a conclusion to support actions that are NOT actually supported by the study. they start with a desired conclusion, and then craft the “study” to give them the conclusion they want.

    if you give 600 people an extra $500/week, in a city of millions….. of course they are going to see an improvement in their economic situation. but, if you extend that to EVERYONE in the city, then costs go up, and nobody is better off. factor in the heavy taxes needed to fund UBI, and many people are worse off. these kind of social programs do not lift anyone out of poverty, they drive those not in poverty closer to it.

    1. You have to consider the fact that “Community Organizing” degrees became wildly popular among the useless and unemployable after Obama reached the Presidency. The Obama/Biden government tried to employ all those people with “Community Organizing” degrees as “Climate Scientists” but they ran out of slots. The government and the military are loaded with an entire generation of utterly useless workers, but highly effective race-baiters. It is as if they built an entire degree program around Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton tactics.

    2. Yup. Some good things just aren’t scalable.

  22. Welfare has had profound negative effects on black families since the “War on Poverty” began, this will just make it that much worse…with the additional effect of obliterating race relations in those counties. Why do Democrats hate black people so much?

    1. Because keeping them dependent on Democrat largesse keeps them as a reliable voting bloc. Democrats don’t want to lift anyone out of poverty, quite the opposite, and the equity hustlers have made it clear that hard work, being results oriented, showing up on time, etc. (and anything else that could possibly lead someone to better their own situation) are white supremacist values, so it’s fine to attack any “BiPOC” people who work hard as “white adjacent” (the fancier way of saying “Don’t act white”) whenever convenient. Democrats want a stupid, helpless, and defenseless population.

  23. So a business is not free to refuse service to black people, but this business is free to refuse service to white people? (and that’s what it’s doing)

  24. Can you invest in the Oakland tattoo industry? I see profits going through the roof.

  25. As I’ve said before, we’ve reached the point where Democrats are allowed to be openly racist with no consequences.

    1. Have you ever fought them in enemy territory (Twitter, Facebook, etc)? That’s why there’s ‘no consequences’.

      1. Only a retard thinks posting on twitter is fighting them. Stop attacking us for calling you a retard.

        1. The war today is online. If you refuse to fight that’s fine, but then no one will join your cause. They will think you have no valid claim. And you will be woefully unprepared when the socialists come here. You’re trying to deepen the rift as a pretext for real-world war, but it’s a losing strategy.

          1. Do you think that the Twitter people matter to many people in the real world? They are lemmings that listen to Hollywood types and Politicians. Do you believe that you can “talk sense” to those people? I can’t. You can’t, they won’t allow it. They worship Cardi B, Oprah, and the Kardashians. It is pointless.
            What if everyone just disengages? Let them shout at each other. Let them cancel each other. They are like the rotten school children on the playground playing “gang up”. You can take a beating or you can walk away and arm yourself in case them decide to come to you.

            1. Yes of course you can talk sense into them, just as I am talking sense into you. At least you can demoralize them so they are quiet and you can get your point across.

              You think you can win just by hiding out in your basement with your weapons. That’s a losing strategy because the people on the fence will assume you have no real argument and will join the socialists – who will eventually come here and crush you and you’ll have no defense.

              Anyway if you don’t like twitter then fight on facebook. You want to believe that people are irrational as an excuse for resorting to violence. But in fact people are perfectly rational if misguided.

              1. So how many people’s minds have you changed, and about what, on Twitter?

                1. If you guys fought the enemy with the same persistence and cohesion that you gang up on your allies here in your safe space and deny it, you could actually change a few minds.

                  But you refuse because you’re cowards spoiling for a war you can’t win.

                  1. So still no answer to this question.

              2. You’re right about the war today being online, at least somewhat. However, that is more a representation of whichever government big-wig’s individual thought process than the American government as a whole. They don’t have time to hang out fussing on twitter because they’re entirely preoccupied with destroying this country, CONSTITUTION first, in order to keep some level of control over people. They do this quietly because they don’t want to draw attention to the changes until it’s too late to do anything about them.
                With this blatantly obvious racist and ignorant BS going on, and all the talk about taking away our 2nd rights, or at least hacking this amendment to bits, I would wonder exactly what was happening where nobody is divided.

              3. I talk to progressives in the real world and can tell you that talking sense into them is a no go. They will not listen and are well past the idea that they need to bother even minimally justifying what they think anymore. Although I don’t know why I’m bothering with you given your idea of “talking sense” is calling people pussies for not getting into pointless Twitter/FB scuffles. If you think you can reason with people like a cousin of mine who recently posted a photo of one of her baby’s stuffed toys wearing a mask, go ahead, waste your time, but no blue check is on social media to be shown the error of their ways.

                1. Right you are. These days, I just listen to their “facts” until they contradict themselves, and then I counter-attack one of their stupid policies with the “facts” asserted in another.

                  Sadly, even that strategy fails. I am then accused of “linear thinking” (logic), an oppressive tactic of barbaric patriarchal society.

          2. the online “war” is the root of many of our problems these days. first, there is the way the platforms are designed to create echo chambers….. people on all sides being deluded into extreme views that don’t jive with reality. second, there is the fact that if you manage to break into one of those echo chambers, you are easily dehumanized and dismissed by those you think you are fighting. bad ideas get reinforced, and challenges to those idea are easily ignored.

            the number of people who spend all their time fighting online, while doing almost nothing in the real world, is the reason so many people are living in alternate realities and minds are rarely changed.

  26. It’s almost as if they’re explicitly *trying* to justify all those angry white conservatives who claim they’re being systemically discriminated against.

    1. An angry white conservatives who points out they’re being systemically discriminated against is considered a win for the liberals. It shows (to their minds) how nuts the other side is.

      1. It’s like having someone shoot at you while reacting with astonished disbelief that you’d take cover.

  27. What about past discrimination against the LGBTQQIAAP2+?
    Maybe the program needs an extension?

    1. You left out C & S for cis and straight (among probable others).

  28. Democrats are RACIST!! NO!
    Who could’ve guessed that? /s

  29. Yes – pay people to sit at home and relentlessly insult and berate you into giving them more money. What could possibly go wrong?

    I’m all for basic income schemes. But they must have standards.

    1. “at home and relentlessly insult and berate you”

      That’s what you call “fighting them on twitter” tough.

      So, you were lying?

      1. I speak the truth. Why are you bickering with your allies? That’s why we keep losing.

  30. I bet the citizens of San Francisco would generously donate provided the donees never leave Oakland.

  31. Sooo do you hve to be 100% ethnic? What if you’re married to a white person or you or your kids are mixed-race? Can you get a fractional basic inome amount? What if your ddomestic situation is a “Different Strokes” scenario where you’re white and they’re adopted?

    1. Didn’t you just describe our VP family?

    2. The equity crowd actually hate mixed-race families and are getting less and less inhibited about saying it. I heard about an acquaintance recently who was scolded by a black woman for having children with a black man. I wish I’d been there to point out to this idiot that she was aligning herself with actual white supremacists on this point.

  32. Is it legal? Who knows. That’s for the Liberal media to decide.

    But it’s definitely unconstitutional.

  33. So, in short, if I’m Irish I need not apply?

    1. Black Irish.

      1. Nah, I’m Black Irish and these people definitely wouldn’t have me.

  34. The basic income programs does include white people. Who do you think are the white guilt schmucks paying for it?

  35. It is illegal and a violation of International Law and US Treaty Obligations. Specifically, it violates the international Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

    It also is a crime against humanity under several theories and when considered as part of a broader pattern of conduct, could provide evidence of intent to commit genocide which is actionable under US law.

  36. Call me crazy but this seems racist and discriminatory to exclude a group of people from a benefit based on the color of their skin. Seems very exclusive not inclusive like Libs preach all day.

  37. Wouldn’t it be better to fix the system? Maybe end drug prohibition so black fathers don’t go to jail? Maybe deregulate so it’s easier to start and run a business? Neither of those even cost anything.

    1. Infinite +es, IceTrey! See my plan below. You’ll love it!

  38. If I were a philanthropist (dabba-dibbie-dibbie-dibbie-dibbie-dibbie-dibbie-doo!) here’s what would be my plan for Universal Basic Income:

    I would use the clout of my wealth to lobby for repeal of as many taxes and business and professional license laws as possible. That includes repealing taxes on income, dividends, capital gains, property, estate, inheritance, excise, imports, and specific products and services. That includes all levels of government, Federal, State, County, City, and otherwise Local.

    I would use the clout of my wealth to lobby for repeal of all laws against “victimless crimes” of consenting adults. That way, they can become paying ventures, secure financing and insurance without banks and insurers getting busted for “money laundering,” and organized crime would be ended, allowing for a more peaceful environment for all commerce to thrive.

    I would use the clout of my wealth to lobby against all redistributionist “rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul-or-vice-versa” schemes by government. That includes EBT, WIC, Section 8, SSI Disability, Earned Income Tax Credit, Utility and Heating Oil Subsidies, and subsidies for business, farming, or labor.

    Not being a total hard-ass, I would also use my wealth to give micro-loans and micro-grants to both profitable ventures and non-profit ventures to prepare people to be more educated, productive, and self-reliant.

    Bacause all of this would apply to everyone, it would be Universal, because it is so simple, it would be Basic, and because it would get everyone in “Root, Hog, or Die” mode, it would definitely result in Income: U.B.I.

    And an added bonus of all this U.B.I. plan: There would be no Crazy-Charlie, Helter-Skelter, Mau-Mauing, Machete Kills, Turner Diaries, Ragnarok, White Lotus “Race War” because people would be too damn busy working to make their lives better! The American Credo would include: “Can’t we all just get along, get money, and get our freak on during our off-time?”

    How’s this for a U.B.I. plan? Now all I need is philanthropist money to do it. 🙂

    1. thats the Trump Plan in general.

      1. Uh, in what Universe?

  39. Hand out free money, but exclude white people because they are white, and the government wants to partner with you. Try to refer a gay couple to a different baker for their wedding cake and the government takes you to court. I’m assuming this makes sense to someone?

    1. No! No! You must be more creative. Dont deny them a cake. Bake it with Ex Lax and have a good laugh. After all theyre ” Mud Roaders.. “

      1. Now, Dave, are still in that “Alternate Universe” where Donald Trump is a libertarian philanthropist?

        Using Ex-Lax or any other laxative in food of people whose medical condition you don’t know is potentially dangerous. Also, it is a stereotype that same-sex attracted men are exclusively or even mostly into anal sex. Please come with better material.

  40. In the new leftist government any constitutional outrage against white people is okay because, “everything is white folks fault”.

  41. the sub- title says it all.

    Its a lie that this is ” income”

    Its WELFARE. Its an admission the Leftist Raw Deal Welfare State HAS failed ( past tense) and this is the latest insane attempt to do the same thing again expecting different results, a definition of insanity.

    Im ” colored” Im a mild shade of white – pink. Do I get universal income? Or is this discrimination?

    Universal stupidity…

  42. “…will be chosen at random.”

    Voting declarations will have nothing to do with it. Nope.

    1. Vote….buying…??

      Naaahhhh…..cant be.

  43. Of course there is state action involved, even if the money is put up privately. I always knew that critical race theory proponents were a bunch of fascists.

    1. Marxists.

      Critical theory, any flavor, is Marxism.

      1. Of course Marxism and Fascism are just different names for the otherwise identical criminal gangs fighting over the same street corner.

  44. Yep, this is clearly the path to a color blind society.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.