83% of Americans receive enough food. 99% of Americans have a roof over their heads. Obviously we want both numbers to be 100% but what country actually reaches those numbers without sacrificing democracy? The freedom of choice is a double-edged sword because not everyone makes the right financial choice.
You're talking about radically changing the economic, political, and cultural realities of a society that has, for over two hundred years, stated that its creed is not equality of results, but equality of opportunity.
We as a country may preach that, but we sure as fuck don't live up to it.
The OP is proposing a dangerous question. Why not just cut to the meat of his argument?
He is saying everyone is worth the same and must be treated the same. This is a difficult philosophical argument that can not be meaningfully solved in one fell swoop as he is suggesting.
No. You are wrong.
Even if we accept some variation of the premise "your worth is determined by how much you work," the OP still does not claim that all people are worth the same. The OP merely claims that there is a floor to worth, and that floor is somewhere in the neighborhood of 10k/year. If you can convince a board of directors somewhere that you are worth $20m/year plus stock options, more power to you.
So the value of a life is $10,000 a year, essentially. You can not be worth less than $10,000 dollars to America. Even if you do absolutely nothing, you will receive $10,000 just for being an American citizen.
The bigger issue is that the market will rebalance to profit from the 10K the poor get.
Will diapers get more expensive? You bet.
Food? Yes.
Rent? Yes.
By trying to help the poor, you will make more people poor. Because this plan will hurt lower-middle income people the most.
I agree with you. I just posted that so people could see the sheer economic insanity of those set of facts.
Look at Weimar Germany if you want to see what happens with the mass printing of money. Devaluation. A complete erosion of purchasing power.
Eddy on
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
0
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
The OP is proposing a dangerous question. Why not just cut to the meat of his argument?
He is saying everyone is worth the same and must be treated the same. This is a difficult philosophical argument that can not be meaningfully solved in one fell swoop as he is suggesting.
No. You are wrong.
Even if we accept some variation of the premise "your worth is determined by how much you work," the OP still does not claim that all people are worth the same. The OP merely claims that there is a floor to worth, and that floor is somewhere in the neighborhood of 10k/year. If you can convince a board of directors somewhere that you are worth $20m/year plus stock options, more power to you.
So the value of a life is $10,000 a year, essentially. You can not be worth less than $10,000 dollars to America. Even if you do absolutely nothing, you will receive $10,000 just for being an American citizen.
I mean. Yeah. That is the idea.
I think it is an obviously good idea, if practicable. I would very much like to get into an in-depth discussion about whether or not it is, in fact, practicable. I am somewhat depressed that we cannot even get into that kind of conversation because a significant number of posters basically think it would be a sinful policy even if feasible.
While I agree with many of pi-r8's points, I don't like the rhetoric used in his last argument in the OP.
That being said, this is something I have been thinking for a long time.
The american economy is built on a large amount of luxury purchases- things you don't necessarily need, but rather things that you want. In many ways the american economy is devoted not necessarily to to life or liberty, but rather the pursuit of happiness, if you will pardon the rhetoric here.
I have always wondered what our economy would look like if every adult citizen was provided with the bare necessities for life: food, water, sanitation, shelter, and health care. As in, these things are guaranteed to you in some fashion to a degree that if you so desired you could live off of them forever.
Surely they would be the barest of necessities, but I have always felt that this option would allow more economic freedom for individuals to invest in luxury goods. Obviously the incentive to perform a task for money would be so that you could afford the luxury products you desired (video games, car, jet ski, skateboard, fancy food, beer, dining out, and so forth) with the satisfaction of knowing that at least at the end of the day you have something to eat no matter what.
I just feel like that security would alleviate a lot of societal problems.
I guess I am advocating a sort of trickle up economy then.
But I mean feel free to tell me why I am wrong about this- There are many things I know about, but economics are not really in that list.
What if I want a nicer house? Do I have to live in the government made concrete box?
What if I want to eat kumquats all day? Am I stuck with government cheese?
I'm not entirely certain why you are asking those questions? No where did I say that this "government cheese" or "government boxes" would be the only option, just that they would at least be promised to every American citizen. You aren't forced to live there, but if say you no longer can afford your nice house, you at least aren't going to freeze to death in the street or die of starvation.
I mean I am really speaking in generalities here. I don't really know the inherent problems or pitfalls to this approach, but I do know that your questions do not really address any of them.
If everyone gets $10,000 dollars, those $10,000 dollars will quickly mean nothing. $10,000 will be the new $0.
$10,000 wouldn't even buy you a loaf of bread, since EVERYONE will have at least that much money. And what would the bread-seller's incentive be to give you that loaf of bread when someone else with $10,001 offers to buy it?
Eddy on
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
Why would anyone work for a wage of $10k, if they could get a wage of $10k for doing nothing? The only reason would be if they loved that job, and wanted to do it for free. This would just force corporations to raise the lost wages, actually.
I'm not sure I'm seeing why society is obligated to pay able-bodied people to quit their jobs.
what about the positions that are no glory and have zero social esteem?
What are some of these positions? I already talked about the McDonald's job in the OP- do you really think that's a job that needs to be done?
Sure, why wouldn't it be? McDonald's sells a legal product that people want to buy. It employs some people in making that product. Where's the downside?
Anyway, if you make labor for that job too expensive, McDonalds will just rely on more automation.
I already said this in the OP, but we can talk about it more. McDonald's has a huge amount of externalities that hurt people. It poisons people (literally, it gives people food sickness, as well as just giving them a lot of fat and salt), it hurts the environment, and it takes money away from independant business that don't have those problems. We'd be better off, on the whole, if every McDonalds employee just stayed home watching TV all day.
The OP is proposing a dangerous question. Why not just cut to the meat of his argument?
He is saying everyone is worth the same and must be treated the same. This is a difficult philosophical argument that can not be meaningfully solved in one fell swoop as he is suggesting.
No. You are wrong.
Even if we accept some variation of the premise "your worth is determined by how much you work," the OP still does not claim that all people are worth the same. The OP merely claims that there is a floor to worth, and that floor is somewhere in the neighborhood of 10k/year. If you can convince a board of directors somewhere that you are worth $20m/year plus stock options, more power to you.
So the value of a life is $10,000 a year, essentially. You can not be worth less than $10,000 dollars to America. Even if you do absolutely nothing, you will receive $10,000 just for being an American citizen.
The bigger issue is that the market will rebalance to profit from the 10K the poor get.
Will diapers get more expensive? You bet.
Food? Yes.
Rent? Yes.
By trying to help the poor, you will make more people poor. Because this plan will hurt lower-middle income people the most.
That's inflation for you.
Which is why I think "giving money to people" is possibly bad and "Give people jobs and pay them for services, even if you pay them and give other benefits." is the better way.
Though, it seems some people think that individual debt keeps the cost of living down because people can't afford luxuries, if I'm understanding some of you right. So having the government offer jobs and to pay off people's schooling would increase inflation because all of these people have jobs, can afford to pay more, and don't have the debt that goes along with it. If I'm reading between your lines properly.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
The OP is proposing a dangerous question. Why not just cut to the meat of his argument?
He is saying everyone is worth the same and must be treated the same. This is a difficult philosophical argument that can not be meaningfully solved in one fell swoop as he is suggesting.
No. You are wrong.
Even if we accept some variation of the premise "your worth is determined by how much you work," the OP still does not claim that all people are worth the same. The OP merely claims that there is a floor to worth, and that floor is somewhere in the neighborhood of 10k/year. If you can convince a board of directors somewhere that you are worth $20m/year plus stock options, more power to you.
So the value of a life is $10,000 a year, essentially. You can not be worth less than $10,000 dollars to America. Even if you do absolutely nothing, you will receive $10,000 just for being an American citizen.
I mean. Yeah. That is the idea.
I think it is an obviously good idea, if practicable. I would very much like to get into an in-depth discussion about whether or not it is, in fact, practicable. I am somewhat depressed that we cannot even get into that kind of conversation because a significant number of posters basically think it would be a sinful policy even if feasible.
No one suggested it would be "sinful". It's just ridiculously infeasible and it doesn't seem like the consequences have been thought through by the proponents.
Deebaser on
0
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
If everyone gets $10,000 dollars, those $10,000 dollars will quickly mean nothing. $10,000 will be the new $0.
$10,000 wouldn't even buy you a loaf of bread, since EVERYONE will have at least that much money. And what would the bread-seller's incentive be to give you that loaf of bread when someone else with $10,001 offers to buy it?
If that money is redistributed via taxation and rather than printed from nothing, I don't think this would actually happen.
83% of Americans receive enough food. 99% of Americans have a roof over their heads. Obviously we want both numbers to be 100% but what country actually reaches those numbers without sacrificing democracy? The freedom of choice is a double-edged sword because not everyone makes the right financial choice.
That 1% that doesn't have a roof over their head? They didn't end up that way because of "poor financial choices." They wound up that way because of broken families, mental illness, drug addiction, etc. Were they afforded a choice, I would imagine they would not choose "hungry and homeless."
Also, they generally do not receive government help outside of, say, shelters and soup kitchens because you need a home to get most government benefits (also employment, too.)
You're not going to eliminate homelessness by giving people a baseline income if they are mentally ill, or have a drug addiction.
Yes, but you can find other ways to help them without "sacrificing democracy."
I disagree with the OP. Handing out a flat cash sum in the name of human decency is not good policy. But neither is what you're saying. We're all working towards the same goal of human happiness, yes? I'm assuming you're not an advocate of material hoarding for hoarding's sake. Some people face hurdles in life. It is both for their and our benefit to help them get back on their feet and on their way, nor is it terribly difficult (on our parts) to do so.
The OP is proposing a dangerous question. Why not just cut to the meat of his argument?
He is saying everyone is worth the same and must be treated the same. This is a difficult philosophical argument that can not be meaningfully solved in one fell swoop as he is suggesting.
No. You are wrong.
Even if we accept some variation of the premise "your worth is determined by how much you work," the OP still does not claim that all people are worth the same. The OP merely claims that there is a floor to worth, and that floor is somewhere in the neighborhood of 10k/year. If you can convince a board of directors somewhere that you are worth $20m/year plus stock options, more power to you.
So the value of a life is $10,000 a year, essentially. You can not be worth less than $10,000 dollars to America. Even if you do absolutely nothing, you will receive $10,000 just for being an American citizen.
The bigger issue is that the market will rebalance to profit from the 10K the poor get.
Will diapers get more expensive? You bet.
Food? Yes.
Rent? Yes.
By trying to help the poor, you will make more people poor. Because this plan will hurt lower-middle income people the most.
Alright, let's say diapers get more expensive. There's an easy solution to that- buy cloth diapers, and wash them. That takes a lot of time. Most working Americans don't have that time, so they're forced to buy disposables. But if they quit their jobs, or work fewer hours, they'll have time for that sort of thing.
Same with food- instead of buying expensive premade food, they can buy raw ingredients instead, which are much cheaper.
I really don't see why rent would increase, but if it does they can save money by doing home maintenence themselves.
I really don't think this is an issue of "print moar money!", I think there is more nuance than that.
I mean I am not 100% certain, but I feel like the "lol inflation because you are giving everyone money money money money" is kind of missing the point
But maybe not.
What if we removed the monetary sum and just had the idea. The idea that the American government will provide, for every legal citizen of a certain age, the food, shelter, and other necessities they need to survive.
Why would anyone work for a wage of $10k, if they could get a wage of $10k for doing nothing? The only reason would be if they loved that job, and wanted to do it for free. This would just force corporations to raise the lost wages, actually.
I'm not sure I'm seeing why society is obligated to pay able-bodied people to quit their jobs.
what about the positions that are no glory and have zero social esteem?
What are some of these positions? I already talked about the McDonald's job in the OP- do you really think that's a job that needs to be done?
Sure, why wouldn't it be? McDonald's sells a legal product that people want to buy. It employs some people in making that product. Where's the downside?
Anyway, if you make labor for that job too expensive, McDonalds will just rely on more automation.
I already said this in the OP, but we can talk about it more. McDonald's has a huge amount of externalities that hurt people. It poisons people (literally, it gives people food sickness, as well as just giving them a lot of fat and salt), it hurts the environment, and it takes money away from independant business that don't have those problems. We'd be better off, on the whole, if every McDonalds employee just stayed home watching TV all day.
At base, I get the sense that you support this $10,000 giveaway at least in part because you want to social engineer away individual decisions you don't like.
The problem is, you're replacing certain social pathologies with even worse ones.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
0
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
Which is why I think "giving money to people" is possibly bad and "Give people jobs and pay them for services, even if you pay them and give other benefits." is the better way.
There is a ton of shit that needs doing in this country. I'd be more than happy to raise taxes to hire people to fix our infrastructure.
If everyone gets $10,000 dollars, those $10,000 dollars will quickly mean nothing. $10,000 will be the new $0.
$10,000 wouldn't even buy you a loaf of bread, since EVERYONE will have at least that much money. And what would the bread-seller's incentive be to give you that loaf of bread when someone else with $10,001 offers to buy it?
This wouldn't do anything to affect the value of higher salaries. Someone earning $100,000 would still have just $100,000 (although his taxes might be a bit higher). So no, bread wouldn't cost $10,000, because even the super rich couldn't afford that.
Pi-r8 on
0
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
No one suggested it would be "sinful". It's just ridiculously infeasible and it doesn't seem like the consequences have been thought through by the proponents.
I think any argument that rests on deserving money turn out to be centered on a non-rational moral criterion (that is, a sin) when you investigate what it really means to deserve something.
Modern man- When I try and quote your post it bugs out on me so I will respond here.
I agree at least with that statement, as I said in my initial comment. This is where Pi-r8 and I diverge: I am not out to destroy Mcdonald's or Walmart, much as I dislike them.
And one side effect is that you'd see a drop in wages for a lot of lower-paying jobs. If I was paying someone $30K a year for a job and this program came into effect, I'd drop their salary $10K the next day. This would actually end up being a subsidy for corporations.
Why would anyone work for a wage of $10k, if they could get a wage of $10k for doing nothing? The only reason would be if they loved that job, and wanted to do it for free. This would just force corporations to raise the lost wages, actually.
In an NIT, it is never the case that you make less income (or comparable income) working than just collecting the NIT (assuming, of course, that there's no fraud involved - which admittedly is a big assumption).
In actual fact, what happens is that the NIT seems to reduce labor supply by 1-2%. So, yes, people are willing to work less when they're guaranteed not to starve. However, a minor decrease in labor supply is, in my mind, a good thing. It means employers need to provide better non-salary incentives for working for them - in other words, even if you're hiring minimum wage people, you need to make sure that your workplace isn't a hellhole.
I'll also point out that current welfare systems also result in a decrease in the labor supply, and one that is harder to measure. Since almost all welfare is means-tested, and some is cut off entirely if you get even a part-time a job (SSI disability being the most egregious example) the current system means that people are less likely to take part-time, workshare, or seasonal jobs if a little bit of work means losing their benefits forever.
An NIT also means that there's more incentive for a poor worker to work under the table. Instead of dodging a miniscule tax bill, the under-the-table worker now gets to collect money from the government. Of course, this too is a problem of current welfare systems.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
83% of Americans receive enough food. 99% of Americans have a roof over their heads. Obviously we want both numbers to be 100% but what country actually reaches those numbers without sacrificing democracy? The freedom of choice is a double-edged sword because not everyone makes the right financial choice.
That 1% that doesn't have a roof over their head? They didn't end up that way because of "poor financial choices." They wound up that way because of broken families, mental illness, drug addiction, etc. Were they afforded a choice, I would imagine they would not choose "hungry and homeless."
Also, they generally do not receive government help outside of, say, shelters and soup kitchens because you need a home to get most government benefits (also employment, too.)
You're not going to eliminate homelessness by giving people a baseline income if they are mentally ill, or have a drug addiction.
Yes, but you can find other ways to help them without "sacrificing democracy."
I disagree with the OP. Handing out a flat cash sum in the name of human decency is not good policy. But neither is what you're saying. We're all working towards the same goal of human happiness, yes? I'm assuming you're not an advocate of material hoarding for hoarding's sake. Some people face hurdles in life. It is both for their and our benefit to help them get back on their feet and on their way, nor is it terribly difficult (on our parts) to do so.
I agree with you, I just thought you were a proponent of "give them all free money they'll know what to do with it". This is why I try to support government programs and such, where an input can be given for universal benefit (see: New Deal).
Eddy on
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
Mass employment programs (that are targeted and address specific needs, and don't build empty malls in the middle of nowhere like China's doing) generally work very well, particularly if their economic benefit serves the population they're employing.
They're also commonly associated with SOCIALISM, so good luck selling that until the Tea Party croaks.
Although if the median income is 33k, and you make 30k the cut-off point, you will end up in the ballpark of $1.5 trillion.
The cut-off point should probably be much lower.
Unfortunately the OP has addressed neither means testing nor funding. Since those two questions determine the cost of the proposal, there's no way to discuss it.
Well, the proposal to limit the GBI to people who make less than 30k is right in the OP.
One immediate consequence that I can see is that no job will ever pay anywhere in the range of 29,999.99/yr to 40k, since anything in that range would be better-served by taking a lower paying job + GBI.
That's the big question: is it, if income < $30K get $10K, else get $0?
If so, there'd be a huge, obvious problem.
Or is it, if income <$30K get $10K, else if income <$50K get $10K plus an additional %50 marginal tax rate, else get $0?
If so, you'd have much of the population face a roughly 100% marginal tax rate.
Or is it something else? This matters hugely, more so than anything posted in the OP.
Mass employment programs (that are targeted and address specific needs, and don't build empty malls in the middle of nowhere like China's doing) generally work very well, particularly if their economic benefit serves the population they're employing.
They're also commonly associated with SOCIALISM, so good luck selling that until the Tea Party croaks.
Wildly off topic, but I want to punch Sarah Palin so hard. Tea Partiers give such a bad name to Libertarianism.
Eddy on
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
Mass employment programs (that are targeted and address specific needs, and don't build empty malls in the middle of nowhere like China's doing) generally work very well, particularly if their economic benefit serves the population they're employing.
They're also commonly associated with SOCIALISM, so good luck selling that until the Tea Party croaks.
Wildly off topic, but I want to punch Sarah Palin so hard. Tea Partiers give such a bad name to Libertarianism.
Hate to tell you this, buddy, but libertarians give a bad name to libertarianism.
For every well-meaning one there are a thousand who just hate paying taxes, or want to think that they are the Randian Superman who is entirely self-sustaining (except for mom and dad of course).
I really don't think this is an issue of "print moar money!", I think there is more nuance than that.
I mean I am not 100% certain, but I feel like the "lol inflation because you are giving everyone money money money money" is kind of missing the point
But maybe not.
What if we removed the monetary sum and just had the idea. The idea that the American government will provide, for every legal citizen of a certain age, the food, shelter, and other necessities they need to survive.
Yeah- it's not supposed to "give everyone more money" it's just supposed to make sure that even people at the bottom have a little bit of money. I just think that giving people money directly would be an easier and more dignified method than than giving out specific things. A citizens income, which recongizes that even those at the bottom benefit society, instead of a than a charity that we give you because we pity you.
what about the positions that are no glory and have zero social esteem?
What are some of these positions? I already talked about the McDonald's job in the OP- do you really think that's a job that needs to be done?
i'm not sure i follow
someone making minimum wage at mcdonald's isn't experiencing a hell all that dissimilar from someone making minimum wage at marshall's or some discount clothing store (clothing not being a luxury in the same class as fast food)
even the bare essentials- shelter, clothing, food- require people to manufacture and tender those essentials to a wanting public
note that this isn't really a response to the subsidy being discussed- minimum wage workers pull around $15k a year if they miss no days- but in response to the claim that 'work' isn't necessary
i think there's a disconnect between what you're writing and what i'm reading
I really don't think this is an issue of "print moar money!", I think there is more nuance than that.
I mean I am not 100% certain, but I feel like the "lol inflation because you are giving everyone money money money money" is kind of missing the point
But maybe not.
What if we removed the monetary sum and just had the idea. The idea that the American government will provide, for every legal citizen of a certain age, the food, shelter, and other necessities they need to survive.
Yeah- it's not supposed to "give everyone more money" it's just supposed to make sure that even people at the bottom have a little bit of money. I just think that giving people money directly would be an easier and more dignified method than than giving out specific things. A citizens income, which recongizes that even those at the bottom benefit society, instead of a than a charity that we give you because we pity you.
Unfortunately I do believe that a flat handout can possibly engender more problems than it solves on a larger scale.
However, I am interested in the concept of the Negative Income Tax, and am reading more about it.
I also feel like the government doing the buying and redistributing of some basic goods may be better than just handing out money, but again I don't really know economics.
I agree at least with that statement, as I said in my initial comment. This is where Pi-r8 and I diverge: I am not out to destroy Mcdonald's or Walmart, much as I dislike them.
Well I am out to destroy Walmart and this would actually BENEFIT them. They could pay people even shittier wages if everyone had $10,000 of gauranteed income.
I agree at least with that statement, as I said in my initial comment. This is where Pi-r8 and I diverge: I am not out to destroy Mcdonald's or Walmart, much as I dislike them.
Well I am out to destroy Walmart and this would actually BENEFIT them. They could pay people even shittier wages if everyone had $10,000 of gauranteed income.
Which is why I disagree that a flat government salary is the way to handle this!
It was such a good theory... in theory. I just want to get high off my ass without someone busting my balls about it
FUN FACT: Part of why weed was made illegal by the Fed in the 30s and had such stupidly strict laws to go with it is that the cotton/lumber/tobacco industry bankrolled the fuck out of a campaign advertising the social evils of the "devil's weed," since widely available hemp would threaten a lot of existing industries.
The more libertarian a society, the more this happens with like every industry ever.
The OP is proposing a dangerous question. Why not just cut to the meat of his argument?
He is saying everyone is worth the same and must be treated the same. This is a difficult philosophical argument that can not be meaningfully solved in one fell swoop as he is suggesting.
No. You are wrong.
Even if we accept some variation of the premise "your worth is determined by how much you work," the OP still does not claim that all people are worth the same. The OP merely claims that there is a floor to worth, and that floor is somewhere in the neighborhood of 10k/year. If you can convince a board of directors somewhere that you are worth $20m/year plus stock options, more power to you.
So the value of a life is $10,000 a year, essentially. You can not be worth less than $10,000 dollars to America. Even if you do absolutely nothing, you will receive $10,000 just for being an American citizen.
The bigger issue is that the market will rebalance to profit from the 10K the poor get.
Will diapers get more expensive? You bet.
Food? Yes.
Rent? Yes.
By trying to help the poor, you will make more people poor. Because this plan will hurt lower-middle income people the most.
Alright, let's say diapers get more expensive. There's an easy solution to that- buy cloth diapers, and wash them. That takes a lot of time. Most working Americans don't have that time, so they're forced to buy disposables. But if they quit their jobs, or work fewer hours, they'll have time for that sort of thing.
Same with food- instead of buying expensive premade food, they can buy raw ingredients instead, which are much cheaper.
I really don't see why rent would increase, but if it does they can save money by doing home maintenence themselves.
So you've just made disposable diapers a luxury good. And now poor people have to spend more of their time washing cloth diapers, instead of .... living their life.
I really don't think this is an issue of "print moar money!", I think there is more nuance than that.
I mean I am not 100% certain, but I feel like the "lol inflation because you are giving everyone money money money money" is kind of missing the point
But maybe not.
What if we removed the monetary sum and just had the idea. The idea that the American government will provide, for every legal citizen of a certain age, the food, shelter, and other necessities they need to survive.
Yeah- it's not supposed to "give everyone more money" it's just supposed to make sure that even people at the bottom have a little bit of money. I just think that giving people money directly would be an easier and more dignified method than than giving out specific things. A citizens income, which recongizes that even those at the bottom benefit society, instead of a than a charity that we give you because we pity you.
if they blow their ration- recognizing, as i think we have, that a healthy sect of the direly impoverished are substance abusers or mentally ill- what do you do when they com to the GBI office and go 'i have no more money, i need more or i will die'?
is there a point where the only sustainable model of a 'guarantee of life' system v a 'guarantee of opportunity' system involves institutionalizing these people?
Organichu on
0
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
And one side effect is that you'd see a drop in wages for a lot of lower-paying jobs. If I was paying someone $30K a year for a job and this program came into effect, I'd drop their salary $10K the next day. This would actually end up being a subsidy for corporations.
Why would anyone work for a wage of $10k, if they could get a wage of $10k for doing nothing? The only reason would be if they loved that job, and wanted to do it for free. This would just force corporations to raise the lost wages, actually.
In an NIT, it is never the case that you make less income (or comparable income) working than just collecting the NIT (assuming, of course, that there's no fraud involved - which admittedly is a big assumption).
In actual fact, what happens is that the NIT seems to reduce labor supply by 1-2%. So, yes, people are willing to work less when they're guaranteed not to starve. However, a minor decrease in labor supply is, in my mind, a good thing. It means employers need to provide better non-salary incentives for working for them - in other words, even if you're hiring minimum wage people, you need to make sure that your workplace isn't a hellhole.
I'll also point out that current welfare systems also result in a decrease in the labor supply, and one that is harder to measure. Since almost all welfare is means-tested, and some is cut off entirely if you get even a part-time a job (SSI disability being the most egregious example) the current system means that people are less likely to take part-time, workshare, or seasonal jobs if a little bit of work means losing their benefits forever.
An NIT also means that there's more incentive for a poor worker to work under the table. Instead of dodging a miniscule tax bill, the under-the-table worker now gets to collect money from the government. Of course, this too is a problem of current welfare systems.
That's the big question: is it, if income < $30K get $10K, else get $0?
If so, there'd be a huge, obvious problem.
Or is it, if income <$30K get $10K, else if income <$50K get $10K plus an additional %50 marginal tax rate, else get $0?
If so, you'd have much of the population face a roughly 100% marginal tax rate.
Or is it something else? This matters hugely, more so than anything posted in the OP.
It would be a scaling benefit. This is from Friedman's "On Eliminating Poverty:"
The arrangement that recommends itself on purely mechanical grounds is a
negative income tax. We now have an exemption of $600 per person under the
federal income tax (plus a minimum 10 per cent flat deduction). If an
individual receives $100 taxable income, i.e., an income of $100 in excess
of the exemption and deductions, he pays a tax. Under the proposal, if his
taxable income minus $100, i.e., $100 less than the exemption plus
deductions [is negative], he would pay a negative tax, i.e., receive a
subsidy. If the rate of subsidy were, say, 50 per cent, he would receive
$50. If he had no income at all, and, for simplicity, no deductions, and
the rate were constant, he would receive $300. He might receive more than
this if he had deductions, for example, for medical expenses, so that his
income less deductions, was negative even before subtracting the exemption.
The rates of subsidy could, or course, be graduated just as the rates of
tax above the exemption are. In this way, it would be possible to set a
floor below which no man's net income (defined now to include the subsidy)
could fall - in the simple example $300 per person. The precise floor set
would depend on what the community could afford.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Which is why I think "giving money to people" is possibly bad and "Give people jobs and pay them for services, even if you pay them and give other benefits." is the better way.
There is a ton of shit that needs doing in this country. I'd be more than happy to raise taxes to hire people to fix our infrastructure.
Wisconsin tried it, they got sued to hell and back
This is unacceptable to me. The United States GDP is so much absurdly higher than everyone else, and the cost of a single general's pet project could probably get that up to 90%
Also Pi-r8 I for one definitely feel weird about the claim that work isn't necessary.
I don't like saying things like "the McDonald's burger guy is not a job that needs doing"
Well sure it is, if people want McDonald's burgers!
Sure. The thing is, as long as people want a burger, they'll find a way to get a burger! That's basic economics. The problem is, most people will just go for the cheapeast burger available.
I think owning a hamburger restaurant would be a pretty fun job. Cook up some burgers, then serve them out and make sure the customers enjoy them. Behind the scenes, you can make sure that all the food is as safe and tasty as it can be. Get a few good friends to help you, and pay them a decent wage Just because that sort of thing is fun to do. There's a burger restaurant like that in my town, in fact.
Unfortunately, the burgers there cost $7.00. They survive by selling to the upscale market. The downscale market is totally cornered by McDonald's, because they can make undercut everyone else. They wouldn't be able to do that if they had to pay their workers a fair wage, and then the quality would improve. Meanwhile, the people who didn't have a job and couldn't afford McDonald's, could buy raw beef and cook it themselves, because they'd have time to do that.
Also Pi-r8 I for one definitely feel weird about the claim that work isn't necessary.
I don't like saying things like "the McDonald's burger guy is not a job that needs doing"
Well sure it is, if people want McDonald's burgers!
Sure. The thing is, as long as people want a burger, they'll find a way to get a burger! That's basic economics. The problem is, most people will just go for the cheapeast burger available.
I'm not sure why this is a problem, in of itself.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Posts
We as a country may preach that, but we sure as fuck don't live up to it.
I agree with you. I just posted that so people could see the sheer economic insanity of those set of facts.
Look at Weimar Germany if you want to see what happens with the mass printing of money. Devaluation. A complete erosion of purchasing power.
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
I mean. Yeah. That is the idea.
I think it is an obviously good idea, if practicable. I would very much like to get into an in-depth discussion about whether or not it is, in fact, practicable. I am somewhat depressed that we cannot even get into that kind of conversation because a significant number of posters basically think it would be a sinful policy even if feasible.
I'm not entirely certain why you are asking those questions? No where did I say that this "government cheese" or "government boxes" would be the only option, just that they would at least be promised to every American citizen. You aren't forced to live there, but if say you no longer can afford your nice house, you at least aren't going to freeze to death in the street or die of starvation.
I mean I am really speaking in generalities here. I don't really know the inherent problems or pitfalls to this approach, but I do know that your questions do not really address any of them.
$10,000 wouldn't even buy you a loaf of bread, since EVERYONE will have at least that much money. And what would the bread-seller's incentive be to give you that loaf of bread when someone else with $10,001 offers to buy it?
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
I already said this in the OP, but we can talk about it more. McDonald's has a huge amount of externalities that hurt people. It poisons people (literally, it gives people food sickness, as well as just giving them a lot of fat and salt), it hurts the environment, and it takes money away from independant business that don't have those problems. We'd be better off, on the whole, if every McDonalds employee just stayed home watching TV all day.
That's inflation for you.
Which is why I think "giving money to people" is possibly bad and "Give people jobs and pay them for services, even if you pay them and give other benefits." is the better way.
Though, it seems some people think that individual debt keeps the cost of living down because people can't afford luxuries, if I'm understanding some of you right. So having the government offer jobs and to pay off people's schooling would increase inflation because all of these people have jobs, can afford to pay more, and don't have the debt that goes along with it. If I'm reading between your lines properly.
No one suggested it would be "sinful". It's just ridiculously infeasible and it doesn't seem like the consequences have been thought through by the proponents.
If that money is redistributed via taxation and rather than printed from nothing, I don't think this would actually happen.
Yes, but you can find other ways to help them without "sacrificing democracy."
I disagree with the OP. Handing out a flat cash sum in the name of human decency is not good policy. But neither is what you're saying. We're all working towards the same goal of human happiness, yes? I'm assuming you're not an advocate of material hoarding for hoarding's sake. Some people face hurdles in life. It is both for their and our benefit to help them get back on their feet and on their way, nor is it terribly difficult (on our parts) to do so.
Alright, let's say diapers get more expensive. There's an easy solution to that- buy cloth diapers, and wash them. That takes a lot of time. Most working Americans don't have that time, so they're forced to buy disposables. But if they quit their jobs, or work fewer hours, they'll have time for that sort of thing.
Same with food- instead of buying expensive premade food, they can buy raw ingredients instead, which are much cheaper.
I really don't see why rent would increase, but if it does they can save money by doing home maintenence themselves.
I mean I am not 100% certain, but I feel like the "lol inflation because you are giving everyone money money money money" is kind of missing the point
But maybe not.
What if we removed the monetary sum and just had the idea. The idea that the American government will provide, for every legal citizen of a certain age, the food, shelter, and other necessities they need to survive.
The problem is, you're replacing certain social pathologies with even worse ones.
Rigorous Scholarship
There is a ton of shit that needs doing in this country. I'd be more than happy to raise taxes to hire people to fix our infrastructure.
This wouldn't do anything to affect the value of higher salaries. Someone earning $100,000 would still have just $100,000 (although his taxes might be a bit higher). So no, bread wouldn't cost $10,000, because even the super rich couldn't afford that.
I think any argument that rests on deserving money turn out to be centered on a non-rational moral criterion (that is, a sin) when you investigate what it really means to deserve something.
I agree at least with that statement, as I said in my initial comment. This is where Pi-r8 and I diverge: I am not out to destroy Mcdonald's or Walmart, much as I dislike them.
OP aside, what we're talking about here is a negative income tax (NIT).
In an NIT, it is never the case that you make less income (or comparable income) working than just collecting the NIT (assuming, of course, that there's no fraud involved - which admittedly is a big assumption).
In actual fact, what happens is that the NIT seems to reduce labor supply by 1-2%. So, yes, people are willing to work less when they're guaranteed not to starve. However, a minor decrease in labor supply is, in my mind, a good thing. It means employers need to provide better non-salary incentives for working for them - in other words, even if you're hiring minimum wage people, you need to make sure that your workplace isn't a hellhole.
I'll also point out that current welfare systems also result in a decrease in the labor supply, and one that is harder to measure. Since almost all welfare is means-tested, and some is cut off entirely if you get even a part-time a job (SSI disability being the most egregious example) the current system means that people are less likely to take part-time, workshare, or seasonal jobs if a little bit of work means losing their benefits forever.
An NIT also means that there's more incentive for a poor worker to work under the table. Instead of dodging a miniscule tax bill, the under-the-table worker now gets to collect money from the government. Of course, this too is a problem of current welfare systems.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I agree with you, I just thought you were a proponent of "give them all free money they'll know what to do with it". This is why I try to support government programs and such, where an input can be given for universal benefit (see: New Deal).
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
They're also commonly associated with SOCIALISM, so good luck selling that until the Tea Party croaks.
That's the big question: is it, if income < $30K get $10K, else get $0?
If so, there'd be a huge, obvious problem.
Or is it, if income <$30K get $10K, else if income <$50K get $10K plus an additional %50 marginal tax rate, else get $0?
If so, you'd have much of the population face a roughly 100% marginal tax rate.
Or is it something else? This matters hugely, more so than anything posted in the OP.
Wildly off topic, but I want to punch Sarah Palin so hard. Tea Partiers give such a bad name to Libertarianism.
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
Hate to tell you this, buddy, but libertarians give a bad name to libertarianism.
For every well-meaning one there are a thousand who just hate paying taxes, or want to think that they are the Randian Superman who is entirely self-sustaining (except for mom and dad of course).
Yeah- it's not supposed to "give everyone more money" it's just supposed to make sure that even people at the bottom have a little bit of money. I just think that giving people money directly would be an easier and more dignified method than than giving out specific things. A citizens income, which recongizes that even those at the bottom benefit society, instead of a than a charity that we give you because we pity you.
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
i'm not sure i follow
someone making minimum wage at mcdonald's isn't experiencing a hell all that dissimilar from someone making minimum wage at marshall's or some discount clothing store (clothing not being a luxury in the same class as fast food)
even the bare essentials- shelter, clothing, food- require people to manufacture and tender those essentials to a wanting public
note that this isn't really a response to the subsidy being discussed- minimum wage workers pull around $15k a year if they miss no days- but in response to the claim that 'work' isn't necessary
i think there's a disconnect between what you're writing and what i'm reading
Unfortunately I do believe that a flat handout can possibly engender more problems than it solves on a larger scale.
However, I am interested in the concept of the Negative Income Tax, and am reading more about it.
I also feel like the government doing the buying and redistributing of some basic goods may be better than just handing out money, but again I don't really know economics.
Well I am out to destroy Walmart and this would actually BENEFIT them. They could pay people even shittier wages if everyone had $10,000 of gauranteed income.
I don't like saying things like "the McDonald's burger guy is not a job that needs doing"
Well sure it is, if people want McDonald's burgers!
Which is why I disagree that a flat government salary is the way to handle this!
FUN FACT: Part of why weed was made illegal by the Fed in the 30s and had such stupidly strict laws to go with it is that the cotton/lumber/tobacco industry bankrolled the fuck out of a campaign advertising the social evils of the "devil's weed," since widely available hemp would threaten a lot of existing industries.
The more libertarian a society, the more this happens with like every industry ever.
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
So you've just made disposable diapers a luxury good. And now poor people have to spend more of their time washing cloth diapers, instead of .... living their life.
This is a horrible solution.
if they blow their ration- recognizing, as i think we have, that a healthy sect of the direly impoverished are substance abusers or mentally ill- what do you do when they com to the GBI office and go 'i have no more money, i need more or i will die'?
is there a point where the only sustainable model of a 'guarantee of life' system v a 'guarantee of opportunity' system involves institutionalizing these people?
This thread needs more ronya.
It would be a scaling benefit. This is from Friedman's "On Eliminating Poverty:"
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Wisconsin tried it, they got sued to hell and back
This is unacceptable to me. The United States GDP is so much absurdly higher than everyone else, and the cost of a single general's pet project could probably get that up to 90%
Sure. The thing is, as long as people want a burger, they'll find a way to get a burger! That's basic economics. The problem is, most people will just go for the cheapeast burger available.
I think owning a hamburger restaurant would be a pretty fun job. Cook up some burgers, then serve them out and make sure the customers enjoy them. Behind the scenes, you can make sure that all the food is as safe and tasty as it can be. Get a few good friends to help you, and pay them a decent wage Just because that sort of thing is fun to do. There's a burger restaurant like that in my town, in fact.
Unfortunately, the burgers there cost $7.00. They survive by selling to the upscale market. The downscale market is totally cornered by McDonald's, because they can make undercut everyone else. They wouldn't be able to do that if they had to pay their workers a fair wage, and then the quality would improve. Meanwhile, the people who didn't have a job and couldn't afford McDonald's, could buy raw beef and cook it themselves, because they'd have time to do that.
Rigorous Scholarship