Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Hey Y'all Let's Talk about Basic Income

2456720

Posts

  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Jephery wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    RT800 wrote: »
    Wouldn't this result in an increase of the cost of living?

    The cost of living already constantly increases due to inflation.

    If the cost of living increases due to demand, well that means that there were a bunch of people who were not getting enough income to even meet the basic cost of living, and now they are. The US already has more then enough resources to make sure everyone can have a basic standard of living

    I feel like this idea assumes a premise I'm not prepared to grant, namely that the resources in the US belong to all the citizens of the US, and they're just not distributed properly.

    Most of the the resources in the US belong to the individual people in the US, not to the citizens as a whole.

    Those resources are up for sale on the market.

    Some of those resources are perishable, like food, that goes unsold because people don't have the money to buy it. It is wasted.

    I'd like to see a citation on the amount of food that is wasted in the US because no customers can afford to buy it. I don't think this is actually a thing that happens, but I'm happy to be proven wrong.

  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited June 2015
    Quid wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    If you want basic income to be equivalent to a minimum wage 40 hour a week job - which most of us agree is at least often not sufficient in and of itself to cover living expenses - the cost in the United States of America would be

    318.9million *40*52*7.25= 4,809,012,000,000 - almost 5 trillion dollars a year. The total annual expenditure of the US federal government is less than 3.7 billion.

    For the purpose of discouraging work, which would almost certainly have a depressing effect on the economy.

    Its not a feasible idea. Yeah we're the richest country in the world. Most of that is because people work. Its not a birthright.

    That would be a reason not to implement poorly planned basic income.

    Most programs gradually decrease money received as a person earned money. IE Canada's model that decreased benefits 50 cents for every dollar earned.

    From your own OP
    An unconditional basic income (also called basic income, basic income guarantee, universal basic income, universal demogrant, or citizen’s income) is a form of social security system in which all citizens or residents of a country regularly receive an unconditional sum of money, either from a government or some other public institution, in addition to any income received from elsewhere.

    If you're just saying people who don't work can get money solely for the purpose of not working, you're making the discouragement to work explicit as every dollar earned will effectively only be an increase of 0.50, creating a need for a substantial bureaucracy to track and distribute this money and you're not describing basic income.


    edit also: Also the current labor participation rate in the US for 16+ is ~63%. About 20% of the population is <16, so right around 50% of the country doesn't work. We'd still be talking 2.4 trillion dollars a year. end edit

    Quid wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Basic income is a symptom of a crippled society. We need a new tipping point.

    I don't see how.

    Seems to me people only working when and on what they want to is the symptom of an extremely successful society.
    Who mops up shit then?

    People being paid to do so.

    So you wouldn't have a extremely successful society unless you're claiming people will want to work on shit removal.

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    edited June 2015
    spool32 wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    RT800 wrote: »
    Wouldn't this result in an increase of the cost of living?

    The cost of living already constantly increases due to inflation.

    If the cost of living increases due to demand, well that means that there were a bunch of people who were not getting enough income to even meet the basic cost of living, and now they are. The US already has more then enough resources to make sure everyone can have a basic standard of living

    I feel like this idea assumes a premise I'm not prepared to grant, namely that the resources in the US belong to all the citizens of the US, and they're just not distributed properly.

    Most of the the resources in the US belong to the individual people in the US, not to the citizens as a whole.

    Those resources are up for sale on the market.

    Some of those resources are perishable, like food, that goes unsold because people don't have the money to buy it. It is wasted.

    I'd like to see a citation on the amount of food that is wasted in the US because no customers can afford to buy it. I don't think this is actually a thing that happens, but I'm happy to be proven wrong.

    Just google "food waste in the US" and look at the first few links.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/09/23/americans-throw-out-more-food-than-plastic-paper-metal-or-glass/

    And the statistics on food insecurity:

    http://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/impact-of-hunger/hunger-and-poverty/hunger-and-poverty-fact-sheet.html

    There is a clear economic inefficiency. We're wasting food while there are families who do not have steady meals each day,

    Jephery on
    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
    Gennenalyse Rueben
  • NbspNbsp she laughs, like God her mind's like a diamondRegistered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    I'd like to see a citation on the amount of food that is wasted in the US because no customers can afford to buy it. I don't think this is actually a thing that happens, but I'm happy to be proven wrong.

    Food is wasted because portions are increased because there aren't enough customers to justify selling the smaller portions at the same prices. That's how it happens.

  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User regular
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    How does it break down society?

    People are not satisfied with the basic standard of living. They will work so that they can live better lives, and give their children a better future, if that work is available and pays enough money to be worth the effort.

    Maybe people today. But I'm thinking on a longer timeline. Millennials are already having less kids and spend less on material goods, opting more to have great experiences and memories they can post all over social media and make people jealous. Following generations will be even more like that.

    The rest of your post is getting off topic.
    Speaking as a non-millennial, this entire post is pretty presumptuous. If you are earnestly thinking along these lines along a "longer timeline", as it were, then you should be prepared for a huge disappointment later on this longer timeline of yours. At the very least, thinking that a future generation will be exactly like a current generation, only "more" (vaguely), is likely to be more incorrect than correct (i.e. you can't predict the future).

    Di87pOF.jpg
    PSN: Hahnsoo | MHGU: Hahnsoo, Switch FC: SW-0085-2679-5212
    Emissary42Calicadestroyah87Lord_AsmodeusGennenalyse Rueben
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    That's not the point. The person's children receiving the inheritance don't "deserve" that money any more than the next person. There is zero reason to differentiate someone receiving inheritance and someone receiving guaranteed income from the government.

    People aren't fungible. A person raised by someone with a large inheritance to bequeath has had different perspectives, values and education installed, and is more prepared to do something great with a large inheritance. Compare how many lottery winners go bankrupt very quickly versus people who inherit equally large sums of money.

    Plenty of people squander their inheritance just as quickly as a lottery winner. And even if they are better with their money, so what? They still didn't do anything more to "earn" that money than someone who's attended some finance classes.

    Once more, inheritance isn't any more "earned" than basic income.

    That doesn't make it "unearned".

    Then please explain the difference that makes inheritance earned and basic income not.

    Someone built up an inheritance for the purpose of bestowing it on to future generations of their kin, possibly well beyond the immediate benefactor. I'm seeing this more as a "passing the torch" type thing rather than the "free money" thing you are painting it as.

    It's still just free money. It doesn't matter if it's from the government or their parents. You haven't shown what that person has done to earn it any more than the next person.

    I feel like it doesn't matter what they did. The money belongs to someone, and they want to make sure it is given to someone else. It's not really our business whether the child deserves it according to your definition, or mine! It's not our money.

    It's not the child's money either. It's their parent's money. Their parent is more than free to give that money to the child before death too. It will also be taxed at the same rate.

    DevoutlyApatheticshrykeLord_AsmodeusKalnaurGennenalyse Rueben
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    RT800 wrote: »
    Wouldn't this result in an increase of the cost of living?

    The cost of living already constantly increases due to inflation.

    If the cost of living increases due to demand, well that means that there were a bunch of people who were not getting enough income to even meet the basic cost of living, and now they are. The US already has more then enough resources to make sure everyone can have a basic standard of living

    I feel like this idea assumes a premise I'm not prepared to grant, namely that the resources in the US belong to all the citizens of the US, and they're just not distributed properly.

    Most of the the resources in the US belong to the individual people in the US, not to the citizens as a whole.

    Actually, most of the resources in the U.S. belong to the U.S. And they're free to be taxed and redistributed by the government as per the constitution.

    shrykeLord_AsmodeusschussKalnaurGennenalyse Rueben
  • TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    That's not the point. The person's children receiving the inheritance don't "deserve" that money any more than the next person. There is zero reason to differentiate someone receiving inheritance and someone receiving guaranteed income from the government.

    People aren't fungible. A person raised by someone with a large inheritance to bequeath has had different perspectives, values and education installed, and is more prepared to do something great with a large inheritance. Compare how many lottery winners go bankrupt very quickly versus people who inherit equally large sums of money.

    Plenty of people squander their inheritance just as quickly as a lottery winner. And even if they are better with their money, so what? They still didn't do anything more to "earn" that money than someone who's attended some finance classes.

    Once more, inheritance isn't any more "earned" than basic income.

    That doesn't make it "unearned".

    Then please explain the difference that makes inheritance earned and basic income not.

    Someone built up an inheritance for the purpose of bestowing it on to future generations of their kin, possibly well beyond the immediate benefactor. I'm seeing this more as a "passing the torch" type thing rather than the "free money" thing you are painting it as.

    It's still just free money. It doesn't matter if it's from the government or their parents. You haven't shown what that person has done to earn it any more than the next person.

    I feel like it doesn't matter what they did. The money belongs to someone, and they want to make sure it is given to someone else. It's not really our business whether the child deserves it according to your definition, or mine! It's not our money.

    This seems to be arguing whether or not society has either the right to or the interest in wealth distribution. The fact that we have a system of taxes and benefits at all would seem that it does. Ergo, I propose that we instead focus on merits of basic income, what a well-designed basic income system would look like, and whether there are any more attractive options for solving the problem of labor obsolescence.

    Hahnsoo1QuidPLAHefflingLord_AsmodeusDarkewolfejoshofalltradesEdith UpwardsGennenalyse Rueben
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Jephery wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    RT800 wrote: »
    Wouldn't this result in an increase of the cost of living?

    The cost of living already constantly increases due to inflation.

    If the cost of living increases due to demand, well that means that there were a bunch of people who were not getting enough income to even meet the basic cost of living, and now they are. The US already has more then enough resources to make sure everyone can have a basic standard of living

    I feel like this idea assumes a premise I'm not prepared to grant, namely that the resources in the US belong to all the citizens of the US, and they're just not distributed properly.

    Most of the the resources in the US belong to the individual people in the US, not to the citizens as a whole.

    Those resources are up for sale on the market.

    Some of those resources are perishable, like food, that goes unsold because people don't have the money to buy it. It is wasted.

    I'd like to see a citation on the amount of food that is wasted in the US because no customers can afford to buy it. I don't think this is actually a thing that happens, but I'm happy to be proven wrong.

    Just google "food waste in the US" and look at the first few links.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/09/23/americans-throw-out-more-food-than-plastic-paper-metal-or-glass/

    That link says nothing about food going to waste because no one can afford to buy it. It's all about food being thrown away after it's bought, because as a society we waste a lot.

    I'm sorry, but this still doesn't seem like a thing that actually happens.

    Captain MarcusLanlaornEdith Upwards
  • SmokeStacksSmokeStacks The Myth, the Legend, the Bowman, the Shambler FuckerRegistered User regular
    Nbsp wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    I'd like to see a citation on the amount of food that is wasted in the US because no customers can afford to buy it. I don't think this is actually a thing that happens, but I'm happy to be proven wrong.

    Food is wasted because portions are increased because there aren't enough customers to justify selling the smaller portions at the same prices. That's how it happens.

    This makes no sense.

    Food is wasted in the US at the store level because it can be difficult to forecast sales, some items have incredibly short shelf lives and expire before purchase, and margins are high enough that it's better to over order and have stock and lose some salable product than under order and have no salable product at all.

    Food isn't wasted because people can't afford to buy it, food is wasted because in the food business it's better to throw out than to run out.

    73CQcJZ.png
    spool32PantsBPLAElvenshaeHefflingCaptain MarcusLord_AsmodeusSkeithEdith Upwards
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    edited June 2015
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    How does it break down society?

    People are not satisfied with the basic standard of living. They will work so that they can live better lives, and give their children a better future, if that work is available and pays enough money to be worth the effort.

    Maybe people today. But I'm thinking on a longer timeline. Millennials are already having less kids and spend less on material goods, opting more to have great experiences and memories they can post all over social media and make people jealous. Following generations will be even more like that.

    The rest of your post is getting off topic.

    That is silly. Millennials having less kids and spend less on material goods because the job market for millennials is totally fucked.

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/millennials-are-the-most-underemployed-generation-2014-11-19

    If there was work on the level they were qualified for, they would take it.

    Jephery on
    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
    AistanCalicaVeagleLord_AsmodeusSkeithKalnaurEdith UpwardsGennenalyse RuebenMatev
  • NbspNbsp she laughs, like God her mind's like a diamondRegistered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    It's not the child's money either. It's their parent's money. Their parent is more than free to give that money to the child before death too. It will also be taxed at the same rate.

    Not if the parent decided to instead invest the money into a corporation and then adds the child as a board member and then when they die the child is still in control of the corporation.


  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited June 2015
    PantsB wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    If you want basic income to be equivalent to a minimum wage 40 hour a week job - which most of us agree is at least often not sufficient in and of itself to cover living expenses - the cost in the United States of America would be

    318.9million *40*52*7.25= 4,809,012,000,000 - almost 5 trillion dollars a year. The total annual expenditure of the US federal government is less than 3.7 billion.

    For the purpose of discouraging work, which would almost certainly have a depressing effect on the economy.

    Its not a feasible idea. Yeah we're the richest country in the world. Most of that is because people work. Its not a birthright.

    That would be a reason not to implement poorly planned basic income.

    Most programs gradually decrease money received as a person earned money. IE Canada's model that decreased benefits 50 cents for every dollar earned.

    From your own OP
    An unconditional basic income (also called basic income, basic income guarantee, universal basic income, universal demogrant, or citizen’s income) is a form of social security system in which all citizens or residents of a country regularly receive an unconditional sum of money, either from a government or some other public institution, in addition to any income received from elsewhere.

    If you're just saying people who don't work can get money solely for the purpose of not working, you're making the discouragement to work explicit as every dollar earned will effectively only be an increase of 0.50, creating a need for a substantial bureaucracy to track and distribute this money and you're not describing basic income.
    Quid wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Basic income is a symptom of a crippled society. We need a new tipping point.

    I don't see how.

    Seems to me people only working when and on what they want to is the symptom of an extremely successful society.
    Who mops up shit then?

    People being paid to do so.

    So you wouldn't have a extremely successful society unless you're claiming people will want to work on shit removal.

    You seem to have not read what I also posted. People could still earn more money. The vast majority of people aren't satisfied making the bare minimum to get by. That the benefit goes down as the money is earned doesn't prevent it from being basic income and either way I'm not especially interested in arguing semantics.

    And fortunately capitalism provides an answer to your other problem: Pay people more to shovel shit.

    Quid on
    durandal4532Mojo_JojoCalicaTofystedethVeagleLord_AsmodeusschussSkeithGennenalyse Rueben
  • NbspNbsp she laughs, like God her mind's like a diamondRegistered User regular
    edited June 2015
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    The rest of your post is getting off topic.
    Speaking as a non-millennial, this entire post is pretty presumptuous. If you are earnestly thinking along these lines along a "longer timeline", as it were, then you should be prepared for a huge disappointment later on this longer timeline of yours. At the very least, thinking that a future generation will be exactly like a current generation, only "more" (vaguely), is likely to be more incorrect than correct (i.e. you can't predict the future).

    I predicted Millennials.

    Nbsp on
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    edited June 2015
    spool32 wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    RT800 wrote: »
    Wouldn't this result in an increase of the cost of living?

    The cost of living already constantly increases due to inflation.

    If the cost of living increases due to demand, well that means that there were a bunch of people who were not getting enough income to even meet the basic cost of living, and now they are. The US already has more then enough resources to make sure everyone can have a basic standard of living

    I feel like this idea assumes a premise I'm not prepared to grant, namely that the resources in the US belong to all the citizens of the US, and they're just not distributed properly.

    Most of the the resources in the US belong to the individual people in the US, not to the citizens as a whole.

    Those resources are up for sale on the market.

    Some of those resources are perishable, like food, that goes unsold because people don't have the money to buy it. It is wasted.

    I'd like to see a citation on the amount of food that is wasted in the US because no customers can afford to buy it. I don't think this is actually a thing that happens, but I'm happy to be proven wrong.

    Just google "food waste in the US" and look at the first few links.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/09/23/americans-throw-out-more-food-than-plastic-paper-metal-or-glass/

    That link says nothing about food going to waste because no one can afford to buy it. It's all about food being thrown away after it's bought, because as a society we waste a lot.

    I'm sorry, but this still doesn't seem like a thing that actually happens.

    The point isn't that all food waste is due to people being unable to afford it.

    The point is:

    1. A ton of food is wasted
    2. Millions of people in the US do not have food security.
    3. If people had the money to be food secure, they would buy food and be food secure.
    4. This is an economic inefficiency because clearly everyone could have food security if they had the money, because a ton of food is being wasted.

    There is no lack of food available for purchase in the US, yet families go hungry.

    Jephery on
    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
    Quiddurandal4532PLAshrykeLord_AsmodeusDarkewolfeEdith UpwardsGennenalyse Rueben
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Nbsp wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    I'd like to see a citation on the amount of food that is wasted in the US because no customers can afford to buy it. I don't think this is actually a thing that happens, but I'm happy to be proven wrong.

    Food is wasted because portions are increased because there aren't enough customers to justify selling the smaller portions at the same prices. That's how it happens.

    This also seems like a completely unfounded assertion.

    Emissary42Elvenshae
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    PantsB wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    If you want basic income to be equivalent to a minimum wage 40 hour a week job - which most of us agree is at least often not sufficient in and of itself to cover living expenses - the cost in the United States of America would be

    318.9million *40*52*7.25= 4,809,012,000,000 - almost 5 trillion dollars a year. The total annual expenditure of the US federal government is less than 3.7 billion.

    For the purpose of discouraging work, which would almost certainly have a depressing effect on the economy.

    Its not a feasible idea. Yeah we're the richest country in the world. Most of that is because people work. Its not a birthright.

    That would be a reason not to implement poorly planned basic income.

    Most programs gradually decrease money received as a person earned money. IE Canada's model that decreased benefits 50 cents for every dollar earned.

    From your own OP
    An unconditional basic income (also called basic income, basic income guarantee, universal basic income, universal demogrant, or citizen’s income) is a form of social security system in which all citizens or residents of a country regularly receive an unconditional sum of money, either from a government or some other public institution, in addition to any income received from elsewhere.

    If you're just saying people who don't work can get money solely for the purpose of not working, you're making the discouragement to work explicit as every dollar earned will effectively only be an increase of 0.50, creating a need for a substantial bureaucracy to track and distribute this money and you're not describing basic income.


    edit also: Also the current labor participation rate in the US for 16+ is ~63%. About 20% of the population is <16, so right around 50% of the country doesn't work. We'd still be talking 2.4 trillion dollars a year. end edit

    Quid wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Basic income is a symptom of a crippled society. We need a new tipping point.

    I don't see how.

    Seems to me people only working when and on what they want to is the symptom of an extremely successful society.
    Who mops up shit then?

    People being paid to do so.

    So you wouldn't have a extremely successful society unless you're claiming people will want to work on shit removal.

    You're only halving the effective pay rate up to the cap; after that every dollar earned is a dollar.

    And people will work on shit removal if you pay them well for it. All it does is remove coercion into unpleasant jobs for low pay through threat of starvation or homelessness.

    Quiddurandal4532jmcdonalddestroyah87shrykeVeagleLord_AsmodeusNSDFRandKalnaurGennenalyse Rueben
  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    A basic income would be an enormous boon for the sciences.

    Take a moment to donate what you can to the International Rescue Committee, the National Immigration Law Center, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the American Civil Liberties Union. There has never been a more urgent moment to do so.
    TL DRMojo_JojoredxVeagleLord_AsmodeusFoolOnTheHillKalnaurEdith UpwardsGennenalyse Rueben
  • TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    PantsB wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    If you want basic income to be equivalent to a minimum wage 40 hour a week job - which most of us agree is at least often not sufficient in and of itself to cover living expenses - the cost in the United States of America would be

    318.9million *40*52*7.25= 4,809,012,000,000 - almost 5 trillion dollars a year. The total annual expenditure of the US federal government is less than 3.7 billion.

    For the purpose of discouraging work, which would almost certainly have a depressing effect on the economy.

    Its not a feasible idea. Yeah we're the richest country in the world. Most of that is because people work. Its not a birthright.

    That would be a reason not to implement poorly planned basic income.

    Most programs gradually decrease money received as a person earned money. IE Canada's model that decreased benefits 50 cents for every dollar earned.

    From your own OP
    An unconditional basic income (also called basic income, basic income guarantee, universal basic income, universal demogrant, or citizen’s income) is a form of social security system in which all citizens or residents of a country regularly receive an unconditional sum of money, either from a government or some other public institution, in addition to any income received from elsewhere.

    If you're just saying people who don't work can get money solely for the purpose of not working, you're making the discouragement to work explicit as every dollar earned will effectively only be an increase of 0.50, creating a need for a substantial bureaucracy to track and distribute this money and you're not describing basic income.


    edit also: Also the current labor participation rate in the US for 16+ is ~63%. About 20% of the population is <16, so right around 50% of the country doesn't work. We'd still be talking 2.4 trillion dollars a year. end edit

    Quid wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Basic income is a symptom of a crippled society. We need a new tipping point.

    I don't see how.

    Seems to me people only working when and on what they want to is the symptom of an extremely successful society.
    Who mops up shit then?

    People being paid to do so.

    So you wouldn't have a extremely successful society unless you're claiming people will want to work on shit removal.

    Please consider that pilot programs have decreased the earned benefit by a percentage only after a certain threshold, minimizing the disincentive to work.

    To your latter point that no one will want to do dirty jobs, that could be an interesting conversation! Obviously we will not go entirely without janitorial services, for example, but would the cost of such service go up if people were less desperate? To what degree as a society might we become willing to either change our behavior (cleaning up after ourselves and essentially viewing previously-cheap janitor work as a discontinued subsidy on messiness), go without certain things that were dependent on those previously-cheap services (no more games night at the mall because nerds ruin the bathroom and it's expensive to rectify). Or perhaps even the perception of such work would change, once it is no longer done because starvation is the alternative - can we allow for a proud Master Janitor who is respected for his professionalism and attention to detail?

    Lord_Asmodeus
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Jephery wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    RT800 wrote: »
    Wouldn't this result in an increase of the cost of living?

    The cost of living already constantly increases due to inflation.

    If the cost of living increases due to demand, well that means that there were a bunch of people who were not getting enough income to even meet the basic cost of living, and now they are. The US already has more then enough resources to make sure everyone can have a basic standard of living

    I feel like this idea assumes a premise I'm not prepared to grant, namely that the resources in the US belong to all the citizens of the US, and they're just not distributed properly.

    Most of the the resources in the US belong to the individual people in the US, not to the citizens as a whole.

    Those resources are up for sale on the market.

    Some of those resources are perishable, like food, that goes unsold because people don't have the money to buy it. It is wasted.

    I'd like to see a citation on the amount of food that is wasted in the US because no customers can afford to buy it. I don't think this is actually a thing that happens, but I'm happy to be proven wrong.

    Just google "food waste in the US" and look at the first few links.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/09/23/americans-throw-out-more-food-than-plastic-paper-metal-or-glass/

    That link says nothing about food going to waste because no one can afford to buy it. It's all about food being thrown away after it's bought, because as a society we waste a lot.

    I'm sorry, but this still doesn't seem like a thing that actually happens.

    The point isn't that all food waste is due to people being unable to afford it.

    The point is:

    1. A ton of food is wasted
    2. Millions of people in the US do not have food security.
    3. If people had the money to be food secure, they would buy food and be food secure.
    4. This is an economic inefficiency because clearly everyone could have food security if they had the money, because a ton of food is being wasted.

    There is no lack of food available for purchase in the US, yet families go hungry.

    So, I appreciate the clarification. This isn't what you said at first, and you simply can't rely on shorthand.

    I have to start by challenging your #2. What is "food security"? What does that mean?

    Why is your #3 true? Unless "food security" is somewhere near starvation or actual prolonged hunger, why is it obvious that many or most people who fit your definition in #2 would spend money on food instead of something else?

    Finally, your' #4 assumes that the earlier, unclarified statement is true... i.e. we are wasting food because no one is buying it. You haven't shown that at all... it looks from the link you offered that most food is wasted after it's bought because Americans are lazy and bad at cooking what's in the fridge when Dominos is just a phone call away.

  • FaranguFarangu I am a beardy man With a beardy planRegistered User regular
    This is a topic I am super interested in, and I will share my thought process later tonight after work, but this is a program that I think is needed to help readjust our society to what is to come in the future.

  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited June 2015
    Quid wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    If you want basic income to be equivalent to a minimum wage 40 hour a week job - which most of us agree is at least often not sufficient in and of itself to cover living expenses - the cost in the United States of America would be

    318.9million *40*52*7.25= 4,809,012,000,000 - almost 5 trillion dollars a year. The total annual expenditure of the US federal government is less than 3.7 billion.

    For the purpose of discouraging work, which would almost certainly have a depressing effect on the economy.

    Its not a feasible idea. Yeah we're the richest country in the world. Most of that is because people work. Its not a birthright.

    That would be a reason not to implement poorly planned basic income.

    Most programs gradually decrease money received as a person earned money. IE Canada's model that decreased benefits 50 cents for every dollar earned.

    From your own OP
    An unconditional basic income (also called basic income, basic income guarantee, universal basic income, universal demogrant, or citizen’s income) is a form of social security system in which all citizens or residents of a country regularly receive an unconditional sum of money, either from a government or some other public institution, in addition to any income received from elsewhere.

    If you're just saying people who don't work can get money solely for the purpose of not working, you're making the discouragement to work explicit as every dollar earned will effectively only be an increase of 0.50, creating a need for a substantial bureaucracy to track and distribute this money and you're not describing basic income.
    Quid wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Basic income is a symptom of a crippled society. We need a new tipping point.

    I don't see how.

    Seems to me people only working when and on what they want to is the symptom of an extremely successful society.
    Who mops up shit then?

    People being paid to do so.

    So you wouldn't have a extremely successful society unless you're claiming people will want to work on shit removal.

    You seem to have not read what I also posted. People could still earn more money. The vast majority of people aren't satisfied making the bare minimum to get by. That the benefit goes down as the money is earned doesn't prevent it from being basic income and either way I'm not especially interested in arguing semantics.

    And fortunately capitalism provides an answer to your other problem: Pay people more to shovel shit.

    No you seem to have not actually read up on what you want to discuss. We have programs where people get money from the government conditionally. Social security, welfare, unemployment and disability are the primary ones. They cover situations where conditions make it difficult or unfeasible for them to participate in society usefully permanently or temporarily. Basic income by your own definition is not conditional on anything.

    What you seem to want to discuss is creating a new social safety net that is conditional on not working, and that isn't so much a net as a hammock. Why you think this is something worth incentivizing I don't know.

    The reason people are willing to shovel shit or do other unpleasant and/or low skill work is because they want to have the basics. If you cut out the bottom of the labor market, the economy suffers. You might think those people aren't contributing anything meaningful to society and are simply pawns in some kind of cruel game, but its wrongheaded and patronizing.

    People working generates prosperity, not just having money. Its why infrastructure or government spending in general is a better economic stimulator than a tax cut. Spending a substantial majority of the federal government's money so as to incentivize non-participation in the workforce is not a good idea, before you even get to the consequences. Its beyond utopian thinking to straight delusion.

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
    Lanlaorn
  • Jam WarriorJam Warrior Registered User regular
    It's a lovely idea. It's also the leftest of lefty leftist left-wing ideas and so is never going to happen any time soon given the current worldwide political climate and media bias.

    MhCw7nZ.gif
    AistanCalicaVeagleCrimson KingFoolOnTheHillNeoToma
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    edited June 2015
    spool32 wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    RT800 wrote: »
    Wouldn't this result in an increase of the cost of living?

    The cost of living already constantly increases due to inflation.

    If the cost of living increases due to demand, well that means that there were a bunch of people who were not getting enough income to even meet the basic cost of living, and now they are. The US already has more then enough resources to make sure everyone can have a basic standard of living

    I feel like this idea assumes a premise I'm not prepared to grant, namely that the resources in the US belong to all the citizens of the US, and they're just not distributed properly.

    Most of the the resources in the US belong to the individual people in the US, not to the citizens as a whole.

    Those resources are up for sale on the market.

    Some of those resources are perishable, like food, that goes unsold because people don't have the money to buy it. It is wasted.

    I'd like to see a citation on the amount of food that is wasted in the US because no customers can afford to buy it. I don't think this is actually a thing that happens, but I'm happy to be proven wrong.

    Just google "food waste in the US" and look at the first few links.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/09/23/americans-throw-out-more-food-than-plastic-paper-metal-or-glass/

    That link says nothing about food going to waste because no one can afford to buy it. It's all about food being thrown away after it's bought, because as a society we waste a lot.

    I'm sorry, but this still doesn't seem like a thing that actually happens.

    The point isn't that all food waste is due to people being unable to afford it.

    The point is:

    1. A ton of food is wasted
    2. Millions of people in the US do not have food security.
    3. If people had the money to be food secure, they would buy food and be food secure.
    4. This is an economic inefficiency because clearly everyone could have food security if they had the money, because a ton of food is being wasted.

    There is no lack of food available for purchase in the US, yet families go hungry.

    So, I appreciate the clarification. This isn't what you said at first, and you simply can't rely on shorthand.

    I have to start by challenging your #2. What is "food security"? What does that mean?

    Why is your #3 true? Unless "food security" is somewhere near starvation or actual prolonged hunger, why is it obvious that many or most people who fit your definition in #2 would spend money on food instead of something else?

    Finally, your' #4 assumes that the earlier, unclarified statement is true... i.e. we are wasting food because no one is buying it. You haven't shown that at all... it looks from the link you offered that most food is wasted after it's bought because Americans are lazy and bad at cooking what's in the fridge when Dominos is just a phone call away.

    Two:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_security
    Food security is a condition related to the supply of food, and individuals' access to it. Concerns over food security have existed throughout history. There is evidence of granaries being in use over 10,000 years ago, with central authorities in civilizations including Ancient China and Ancient Egypt being known to release food from storage in times of famine. At the 1974 World Food Conference the term "food security" was defined with an emphasis on supply. Food security, they said, is the "availability at all times of adequate world food supplies of basic foodstuffs to sustain a steady expansion of food consumption and to offset fluctuations in production and prices".[2] Later definitions added demand and access issues to the definition. The final report of the 1996 World Food Summit states that food security "exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life".[3][4]

    Household food security exists when all members, at all times, have access to enough food for an active, healthy life.[5] Individuals who are food secure do not live in hunger or fear of starvation.[6] Food insecurity, on the other hand, is a situation of "limited or uncertain availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods or limited or uncertain ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways", according to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).[7] Food security incorporates a measure of resilience to future disruption or unavailability of critical food supply due to various risk factors including droughts, shipping disruptions, fuel shortages, economic instability, and wars. In the years 2011-2013, an estimated 842 million people were suffering from chronic hunger.[8] The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, or FAO, identified the four pillars of food security as availability, access, utilization, and stability.[9] The United Nations (UN) recognized the Right to food in the Declaration of Human Rights in 1948,[6] and has since noted that it is vital for the enjoyment of all other rights.[10]

    The 1996 World Summit on Food Security declared that "food should not be used as an instrument for political and economic pressure".[4] According to the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, failed agriculture market regulation and the lack of anti-dumping mechanisms cause much of the world's food scarcity and malnutrition.

    Statistics on food security in the US: http://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/impact-of-hunger/hunger-and-poverty/hunger-and-poverty-fact-sheet.html

    Three is basic human nature. People eat as much as they can. Hell, that is part of why we have an obesity crisis, if we can eat more than we need to, then we will! If a person could afford to be food secure, they would be.

    Four follows logically from the first three points.

    Jephery on
    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    PantsB wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    If you want basic income to be equivalent to a minimum wage 40 hour a week job - which most of us agree is at least often not sufficient in and of itself to cover living expenses - the cost in the United States of America would be

    318.9million *40*52*7.25= 4,809,012,000,000 - almost 5 trillion dollars a year. The total annual expenditure of the US federal government is less than 3.7 billion.

    For the purpose of discouraging work, which would almost certainly have a depressing effect on the economy.

    Its not a feasible idea. Yeah we're the richest country in the world. Most of that is because people work. Its not a birthright.

    That would be a reason not to implement poorly planned basic income.

    Most programs gradually decrease money received as a person earned money. IE Canada's model that decreased benefits 50 cents for every dollar earned.

    From your own OP
    An unconditional basic income (also called basic income, basic income guarantee, universal basic income, universal demogrant, or citizen’s income) is a form of social security system in which all citizens or residents of a country regularly receive an unconditional sum of money, either from a government or some other public institution, in addition to any income received from elsewhere.

    If you're just saying people who don't work can get money solely for the purpose of not working, you're making the discouragement to work explicit as every dollar earned will effectively only be an increase of 0.50, creating a need for a substantial bureaucracy to track and distribute this money and you're not describing basic income.
    Quid wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Basic income is a symptom of a crippled society. We need a new tipping point.

    I don't see how.

    Seems to me people only working when and on what they want to is the symptom of an extremely successful society.
    Who mops up shit then?

    People being paid to do so.

    So you wouldn't have a extremely successful society unless you're claiming people will want to work on shit removal.

    You seem to have not read what I also posted. People could still earn more money. The vast majority of people aren't satisfied making the bare minimum to get by. That the benefit goes down as the money is earned doesn't prevent it from being basic income and either way I'm not especially interested in arguing semantics.

    And fortunately capitalism provides an answer to your other problem: Pay people more to shovel shit.

    No you seem to have not actually read up on what you want to discuss. We have programs where people get money from the government conditionally. Social security, welfare, unemployment and disability are the primary ones. They cover situations where conditions make it difficult or unfeasible for them to participate in society usefully permanently or temporarily. Basic income by your own definition is not conditional on anything.

    What you seem to want to discuss is creating a new social safety net that is conditional on not working, and that isn't so much a net as a hammock. Why you think this is something worth incentivizing I don't know.

    The reason people are willing to shovel shit or do other unpleasant and/or low skill work is because they want to have the basics. If you cut out the bottom of the labor market, the economy suffers. You might think those people aren't contributing anything meaningful to society and are simply pawns in some kind of cruel game, but its wrongheaded and patronizing.

    People working generates prosperity, not just having money. Its why infrastructure or government spending in general is a better economic stimulator than a tax cut. Spending a substantial majority of the federal government's money so as to incentivize non-participation in the workforce is not a good idea, before you even get to the consequences. Its beyond utopian thinking to straight delusion.

    People working still receive the income. So no, it's not dependent entirely on them not working.

    The rest of your post is simply untrue. If you want people to do unpleasant jobs, pay them what it's actually worth to do those jobs. Don't simply decide they have to do them or starve. Forcing companies to pay better wages for the poorest people doesn't hurt the economy at all and in fact improves it.

    JepheryCalicaPonyFuzzytadpoleshrykeVeagleGennenalyse RuebenMrTLicious
  • Emissary42Emissary42 Registered User regular
    It's a lovely idea. It's also the leftest of lefty leftist left-wing ideas and so is never going to happen any time soon given the current worldwide political climate and media bias.

    Oddly, it's also got a small amount of traction in some libertarian-leaning circles too since substituting basic income for existing programs may take out a lot of inefficiencies. Usually it's tied to changes in tax policy as well.

    bowen
  • HefflingHeffling No Pic EverRegistered User regular
    PantsB wrote: »
    If you want basic income to be equivalent to a minimum wage 40 hour a week job - which most of us agree is at least often not sufficient in and of itself to cover living expenses - the cost in the United States of America would be

    318.9million *40*52*7.25= 4,809,012,000,000 - almost 5 trillion dollars a year. The total annual expenditure of the US federal government is less than 3.7 billion.

    For the purpose of discouraging work, which would almost certainly have a depressing effect on the economy.

    Its not a feasible idea. Yeah we're the richest country in the world. Most of that is because people work. Its not a birthright.

    This is absolutely the most inane way to approach this problem. You're literally just taking the current population total and multiplying by hours and min wage to reach that number. Then comparing to the US budget.

    Firstly, 318,900,000 people won't qualify for a basic income. Many will be employed, earning greater than this basic income and thus not getting paid out. Others will be supported by existing social security programs, such as social security. So they wouldn't receive a basic income or would receive less of one. Persons earning pensions will reduce or eliminate their basic income burden. Children shouldn't require a full basic income, and are subsidized by other programs (school, free lunches, etc).

    Once you take all those exclusions out, you're at least an order of magnitude down, so ball park it at $500B USD.

    On the budget side, total is $3,818.8B with Healthcare and Welfare accounting for 36% of that. The defense budget is 21% of that, or $951B. So we are already spending around 1.5T on support programs, with another 1T on social security. As a country, we could rework our system to accommodate a basic income. We could make most of that up by eliminating various tax breaks for the rich and corporations.

    If a movement doesn't have someone that can sit down opposite those in a position of power and strike a deal, how can that movement achieve success?
    QuidbowenJepheryTL DRFuzzytadpoleshrykeLord_AsmodeusGennenalyse Rueben
  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    edited June 2015
    A basic income would be an enormous boon for the sciences.

    Sciences? The whole fucking economy man.

    Right now I have some things I would like to do. I want to go full time to making games and starting a computer business on the side.

    I can't afford to because shit is expensive. If I had a way to afford to pay my rent and utilities and feed myself, I could launch those ideas full force. Now imagine this happening everywhere in the US.

    Innovation would be happening everywhere.

    Maybe you don't like someone like pewdiepie personally, but you'd have a whole new world of entertainers that could build themselves up and do the thing they love rather than what is needed to pay the bills.

    Or maybe you've got a person who knows a little bit about games and makes the next minecraft, which is basically single handedly funding the augmented reality market. A market that didn't really exist so well before (google glass is loltastic).

    Maybe you've got someone who loves taking care of lawns and makes it an art, but invents some new tools that help the environment because they noticed a trend since it's not just a job, it's a lifestyle to them.

    All of this shit creates more jobs. This is why putting money in the hand of your low and mid classes reaps huge rewards over hoping the investing class spends money now and again instead of hoarding it. This "NO REGULATION CAPITALISM HEY HO!" game is dumb. Capitalism is great once you regulate the fuck out of it. And a socialist basic income system can fit really nicely into it.

    bowen on
    Ladies.
    Jepherydurandal4532AistanCalicatapeslingerFuzzytadpoleVeagleLord_AsmodeusschusslonelyahavaSkeithRhan9Gennenalyse RuebenMatev
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    edited June 2015
    TL DR wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    That's not the point. The person's children receiving the inheritance don't "deserve" that money any more than the next person. There is zero reason to differentiate someone receiving inheritance and someone receiving guaranteed income from the government.

    People aren't fungible. A person raised by someone with a large inheritance to bequeath has had different perspectives, values and education installed, and is more prepared to do something great with a large inheritance. Compare how many lottery winners go bankrupt very quickly versus people who inherit equally large sums of money.

    Plenty of people squander their inheritance just as quickly as a lottery winner. And even if they are better with their money, so what? They still didn't do anything more to "earn" that money than someone who's attended some finance classes.

    Once more, inheritance isn't any more "earned" than basic income.

    That doesn't make it "unearned".

    Then please explain the difference that makes inheritance earned and basic income not.

    Someone built up an inheritance for the purpose of bestowing it on to future generations of their kin, possibly well beyond the immediate benefactor. I'm seeing this more as a "passing the torch" type thing rather than the "free money" thing you are painting it as.

    It's still just free money. It doesn't matter if it's from the government or their parents. You haven't shown what that person has done to earn it any more than the next person.

    I feel like it doesn't matter what they did. The money belongs to someone, and they want to make sure it is given to someone else. It's not really our business whether the child deserves it according to your definition, or mine! It's not our money.

    This seems to be arguing whether or not society has either the right to or the interest in wealth distribution. The fact that we have a system of taxes and benefits at all would seem that it does. Ergo, I propose that we instead focus on merits of basic income, what a well-designed basic income system would look like, and whether there are any more attractive options for solving the problem of labor obsolescence.

    I don't think we can assume that because taxes, therefore far far far more taxes.

    There's no point in discussing the merits of a Mercedes if all you can afford to buy is a Kia. I mean, unless you just want to bs about cars, which is fine of course!

    So I suppose it's worth having a meta-clarification from the OP or others: is it worth discussing in this thread whether it's possible to implement a basic income without a dramatically larger level of taxation or some other idea that assumes the resources of the country belong collectively to the country rather than to its individual citizens? Or would you prefer to skip over the "should we" and just talk about "given that we should and that we can, how does it look?"

    spool32 on
  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    TL DR wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    That's not the point. The person's children receiving the inheritance don't "deserve" that money any more than the next person. There is zero reason to differentiate someone receiving inheritance and someone receiving guaranteed income from the government.

    People aren't fungible. A person raised by someone with a large inheritance to bequeath has had different perspectives, values and education installed, and is more prepared to do something great with a large inheritance. Compare how many lottery winners go bankrupt very quickly versus people who inherit equally large sums of money.

    Plenty of people squander their inheritance just as quickly as a lottery winner. And even if they are better with their money, so what? They still didn't do anything more to "earn" that money than someone who's attended some finance classes.

    Once more, inheritance isn't any more "earned" than basic income.

    That doesn't make it "unearned".

    Then please explain the difference that makes inheritance earned and basic income not.

    Someone built up an inheritance for the purpose of bestowing it on to future generations of their kin, possibly well beyond the immediate benefactor. I'm seeing this more as a "passing the torch" type thing rather than the "free money" thing you are painting it as.

    It's still just free money. It doesn't matter if it's from the government or their parents. You haven't shown what that person has done to earn it any more than the next person.

    I feel like it doesn't matter what they did. The money belongs to someone, and they want to make sure it is given to someone else. It's not really our business whether the child deserves it according to your definition, or mine! It's not our money.

    This seems to be arguing whether or not society has either the right to or the interest in wealth distribution. The fact that we have a system of taxes and benefits at all would seem that it does. Ergo, I propose that we instead focus on merits of basic income, what a well-designed basic income system would look like, and whether there are any more attractive options for solving the problem of labor obsolescence.

    I don't think we can assume that because taxes, therefore far far far more taxes.

    There's no point in discussing the merits of a Mercedes if all you can afford to buy is a Kia. I mean, unless you just want to bs about cars, which is fine of course!

    So I suppose it's worth having a meta-clarification from the OP or others: is it worth discussing in this thread whether it's possible to implement a basic income without a dramatically larger level of taxation or some other idea that assumes the resources of the country belong collectively to the country rather than to its individual citizens? Or would you prefer to skip over the "should we" and just talk about "given that we should and that we can, how does it look?"

    You would need to increase taxes a bit, but it's not obscene.

    A change in the upper limit of taxation, removing SSI/unemployment/disability and just making it part of the income tax and rejiggering capital gains to be proportionate to income it takes in would be enough.

    Ramp up taxation to something like 80% like it used to be on the upper limits is a good first step.

    Ladies.
    QuidCalicashrykeLord_AsmodeusDarkewolfeGennenalyse Rueben
  • ElvenshaeElvenshae Registered User regular
    Jephery wrote: »
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    That would be a reason not to implement poorly planned basic income.

    Most programs gradually decrease money received as a person earned money. IE Canada's model that decreased benefits 50 cents for every dollar earned

    This is not a closed loop. It expects a person will eventually begin to earn their own money. What if that doesn't start happening fast enough?

    That's how a great society ends.


    Crippled.

    Those people weren't earning money to begin with. So I'm not really following your logic here.

    Because now it's the entire government's problem. Not the individual.

    Taking care of the poor is the government's problem. This is a method of solving that problem that has been proven to work in every test program. Every time it's been implemented the local economy improved. And you've yet to provide actual reasoning as to why you think it wouldn't.

    It is one of the government's problems.

    That doesn't mean the government should go bankrupt trying to solve it.


    No test program has been run long enough or on a large enough scale to show how eventually basic income breaks down the entire society. I'm considering programming a simulation.

    How does it break down society?

    People are not satisfied with the basic standard of living. They will work so that they can live better lives, and give their children a better future, if that work is available and pays enough money to be worth the effort.

    Orrrrr ...

    People will instead vote themselves a raise.

    omgbfz5lzi1s.png
    Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
    The Disappearance of Inigo Sharpe: Tomas à Dunsanin
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    TL DR wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    That's not the point. The person's children receiving the inheritance don't "deserve" that money any more than the next person. There is zero reason to differentiate someone receiving inheritance and someone receiving guaranteed income from the government.

    People aren't fungible. A person raised by someone with a large inheritance to bequeath has had different perspectives, values and education installed, and is more prepared to do something great with a large inheritance. Compare how many lottery winners go bankrupt very quickly versus people who inherit equally large sums of money.

    Plenty of people squander their inheritance just as quickly as a lottery winner. And even if they are better with their money, so what? They still didn't do anything more to "earn" that money than someone who's attended some finance classes.

    Once more, inheritance isn't any more "earned" than basic income.

    That doesn't make it "unearned".

    Then please explain the difference that makes inheritance earned and basic income not.

    Someone built up an inheritance for the purpose of bestowing it on to future generations of their kin, possibly well beyond the immediate benefactor. I'm seeing this more as a "passing the torch" type thing rather than the "free money" thing you are painting it as.

    It's still just free money. It doesn't matter if it's from the government or their parents. You haven't shown what that person has done to earn it any more than the next person.

    I feel like it doesn't matter what they did. The money belongs to someone, and they want to make sure it is given to someone else. It's not really our business whether the child deserves it according to your definition, or mine! It's not our money.

    This seems to be arguing whether or not society has either the right to or the interest in wealth distribution. The fact that we have a system of taxes and benefits at all would seem that it does. Ergo, I propose that we instead focus on merits of basic income, what a well-designed basic income system would look like, and whether there are any more attractive options for solving the problem of labor obsolescence.

    I don't think we can assume that because taxes, therefore far far far more taxes.

    There's no point in discussing the merits of a Mercedes if all you can afford to buy is a Kia. I mean, unless you just want to bs about cars, which is fine of course!

    So I suppose it's worth having a meta-clarification from the OP or others: is it worth discussing in this thread whether it's possible to implement a basic income without a dramatically larger level of taxation or some other idea that assumes the resources of the country belong collectively to the country rather than to its individual citizens? Or would you prefer to skip over the "should we" and just talk about "given that we should and that we can, how does it look?"

    The assumption that taxes are okay is already there. We do it every day. It's in the constitution. That you don't like taxes doesn't make basic income nonviable.

    shrykeLord_AsmodeusGennenalyse Rueben
  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    If paying 10-30% more in taxes my entire life means I'll never have to worry about being hungry or dying because I can't afford a doctor... that's money well spent IMO.

    Ladies.
    QuidmcdermottjmcdonaldHefflingAistanJihadJesusCalicaFuzzytadpoleshrykeRedTideEtiowsaVeagleSiskaLord_AsmodeusAlbino BunnyPLAschussminirhyderjgeisFoolOnTheHillfugacityZomroDarkewolfeHachfacelonelyahavaSkeithjoshofalltradesRhan9Edith UpwardsGennenalyse RuebenMatevRhalloTonny
  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    bowen wrote: »
    A basic income would be an enormous boon for the sciences.

    Sciences? The whole fucking economy man.

    Right now I have some things I would like to do. I want to go full time to making games and starting a computer business on the side.

    I can't afford to because shit is expensive. If I had a way to afford to pay my rent and utilities and feed myself, I could launch those ideas full force. Now imagine this happening everywhere in the US.

    Innovation would be happening everywhere.

    Maybe you don't like someone like pewdiepie personally, but you'd have a whole new world of entertainers that could build themselves up and do the thing they love rather than what is needed to pay the bills.

    Or maybe you've got a person who knows a little bit about games and makes the next minecraft, which is basically single handedly funding the augmented reality market. A market that didn't really exist so well before (google glass is loltastic).

    Maybe you've got someone who loves taking care of lawns and makes it an art, but invents some new tools that help the environment because they noticed a trend since it's not just a job, it's a lifestyle to them.

    All of this shit creates more jobs. This is why putting money in the hand of your low and mid classes reaps huge rewards over hoping the investing class spends money now and again instead of hoarding it. This "NO REGULATION CAPITALISM HEY HO!" game is dumb. Capitalism is great once you regulate the fuck out of it. And a socialist basic income system can fit really nicely into it.

    I mostly look at it from the perspective of the sciences because of the direct experiences I've had.

    Right now we start with a pool of 100 people who gladly take very low pay in order to contribute meaningful work to a field for which they have a passion.

    We then spend the next decade or so paring that pool down to 1 person who's lucky enough to get tenure track. Not the best person, not the person who has or will contribute the most. Just the person who is left.

    Basic income would allow a lot of people to do a lot of work that is very necessary and is not amenable to the standard capitalist structure.

    Take a moment to donate what you can to the International Rescue Committee, the National Immigration Law Center, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the American Civil Liberties Union. There has never been a more urgent moment to do so.
    bowenmcdermottCalicaLord_AsmodeusNSDFRandGennenalyse Rueben
  • SmokeStacksSmokeStacks The Myth, the Legend, the Bowman, the Shambler FuckerRegistered User regular
    bowen wrote: »
    A basic income would be an enormous boon for the sciences.

    Sciences? The whole fucking economy man.

    Harry Potter exists because a person was able to utilize a monetary safety net and focus on something they wanted to do. A multi-billion dollar franchise.

    You don't like Harry Potter? Don't think it's a classic? What about To Kill a Mockingbird?

    It's amazing what some people can do when they can devote their time to a passion instead of 40 hours a week at a job they hate that they only show up for out of a strong desire to not live on a bench in the park.

    73CQcJZ.png
    bowenmcdermottjmcdonaldMojo_JojoHefflingwazillaCalicadestroyah87shrykeVeaglePLAminirhyderFoolOnTheHillfugacityZomroSkeithJobless AnarchistjoshofalltradesRhan9Edith UpwardsGennenalyse RuebenMatev
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    TL DR wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    That's not the point. The person's children receiving the inheritance don't "deserve" that money any more than the next person. There is zero reason to differentiate someone receiving inheritance and someone receiving guaranteed income from the government.

    People aren't fungible. A person raised by someone with a large inheritance to bequeath has had different perspectives, values and education installed, and is more prepared to do something great with a large inheritance. Compare how many lottery winners go bankrupt very quickly versus people who inherit equally large sums of money.

    Plenty of people squander their inheritance just as quickly as a lottery winner. And even if they are better with their money, so what? They still didn't do anything more to "earn" that money than someone who's attended some finance classes.

    Once more, inheritance isn't any more "earned" than basic income.

    That doesn't make it "unearned".

    Then please explain the difference that makes inheritance earned and basic income not.

    Someone built up an inheritance for the purpose of bestowing it on to future generations of their kin, possibly well beyond the immediate benefactor. I'm seeing this more as a "passing the torch" type thing rather than the "free money" thing you are painting it as.

    It's still just free money. It doesn't matter if it's from the government or their parents. You haven't shown what that person has done to earn it any more than the next person.

    I feel like it doesn't matter what they did. The money belongs to someone, and they want to make sure it is given to someone else. It's not really our business whether the child deserves it according to your definition, or mine! It's not our money.

    This seems to be arguing whether or not society has either the right to or the interest in wealth distribution. The fact that we have a system of taxes and benefits at all would seem that it does. Ergo, I propose that we instead focus on merits of basic income, what a well-designed basic income system would look like, and whether there are any more attractive options for solving the problem of labor obsolescence.

    I don't think we can assume that because taxes, therefore far far far more taxes.

    There's no point in discussing the merits of a Mercedes if all you can afford to buy is a Kia. I mean, unless you just want to bs about cars, which is fine of course!

    So I suppose it's worth having a meta-clarification from the OP or others: is it worth discussing in this thread whether it's possible to implement a basic income without a dramatically larger level of taxation or some other idea that assumes the resources of the country belong collectively to the country rather than to its individual citizens? Or would you prefer to skip over the "should we" and just talk about "given that we should and that we can, how does it look?"

    The assumption that taxes are okay is already there. We do it every day. It's in the constitution. That you don't like taxes doesn't make basic income nonviable.

    Don't be a silly goose. There exists the idea of too much taxation. Unless you disagree that it is a legitimate thing to believe, you can't argue that because some taxation is OK, any amount of taxation is OK.

    Are you arguing that any amount of taxation is acceptable?

    Frankiedarling
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    bowen wrote: »
    If paying 10-30% more in taxes my entire life means I'll never have to worry about being hungry or dying because I can't afford a doctor... that's money well spent IMO.

    Bargain at twice the price.

    Well maybe 1.5x the price.

    Public attitudes towards taxes in socialist hellholes like Denmark seem to affirm this.

    JihadJesusshrykeLord_AsmodeuslonelyahavaGennenalyse Rueben
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    edited June 2015
    edit: math is hard

    spool32 on
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    edited June 2015
    Elvenshae wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    That would be a reason not to implement poorly planned basic income.

    Most programs gradually decrease money received as a person earned money. IE Canada's model that decreased benefits 50 cents for every dollar earned

    This is not a closed loop. It expects a person will eventually begin to earn their own money. What if that doesn't start happening fast enough?

    That's how a great society ends.


    Crippled.

    Those people weren't earning money to begin with. So I'm not really following your logic here.

    Because now it's the entire government's problem. Not the individual.

    Taking care of the poor is the government's problem. This is a method of solving that problem that has been proven to work in every test program. Every time it's been implemented the local economy improved. And you've yet to provide actual reasoning as to why you think it wouldn't.

    It is one of the government's problems.

    That doesn't mean the government should go bankrupt trying to solve it.


    No test program has been run long enough or on a large enough scale to show how eventually basic income breaks down the entire society. I'm considering programming a simulation.

    How does it break down society?

    People are not satisfied with the basic standard of living. They will work so that they can live better lives, and give their children a better future, if that work is available and pays enough money to be worth the effort.

    Orrrrr ...

    People will instead vote themselves a raise.

    That doesn't address the point at all. Even if elected officials voted to raise the basic income, for whatever reason, people would still work for extra income.

    If that extra income from having a job means sending your kid to Harvard or MIT over a state college, or buying an awesome new house or car, you think people would just sit at home and do nothing? They'll find a job, and make some money.

    Yeah, there are some lazy people who are satisfied with whatever shitty living conditions they have, but most people aren't like that. Most people are competitive, and want to see themselves as living a better life than their neighbors, and their children being the best they can be.

    To say otherwise is to say that America is completely composed of lazy, shitty people, who want nothing in life and don't care about their future or their family's future, which is the opposite of everything that supposedly makes America, and capitalist societies in general, awesome.

    Jephery on
    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    TL DR wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Nbsp wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    That's not the point. The person's children receiving the inheritance don't "deserve" that money any more than the next person. There is zero reason to differentiate someone receiving inheritance and someone receiving guaranteed income from the government.

    People aren't fungible. A person raised by someone with a large inheritance to bequeath has had different perspectives, values and education installed, and is more prepared to do something great with a large inheritance. Compare how many lottery winners go bankrupt very quickly versus people who inherit equally large sums of money.

    Plenty of people squander their inheritance just as quickly as a lottery winner. And even if they are better with their money, so what? They still didn't do anything more to "earn" that money than someone who's attended some finance classes.

    Once more, inheritance isn't any more "earned" than basic income.

    That doesn't make it "unearned".

    Then please explain the difference that makes inheritance earned and basic income not.

    Someone built up an inheritance for the purpose of bestowing it on to future generations of their kin, possibly well beyond the immediate benefactor. I'm seeing this more as a "passing the torch" type thing rather than the "free money" thing you are painting it as.

    It's still just free money. It doesn't matter if it's from the government or their parents. You haven't shown what that person has done to earn it any more than the next person.

    I feel like it doesn't matter what they did. The money belongs to someone, and they want to make sure it is given to someone else. It's not really our business whether the child deserves it according to your definition, or mine! It's not our money.

    This seems to be arguing whether or not society has either the right to or the interest in wealth distribution. The fact that we have a system of taxes and benefits at all would seem that it does. Ergo, I propose that we instead focus on merits of basic income, what a well-designed basic income system would look like, and whether there are any more attractive options for solving the problem of labor obsolescence.

    I don't think we can assume that because taxes, therefore far far far more taxes.

    There's no point in discussing the merits of a Mercedes if all you can afford to buy is a Kia. I mean, unless you just want to bs about cars, which is fine of course!

    So I suppose it's worth having a meta-clarification from the OP or others: is it worth discussing in this thread whether it's possible to implement a basic income without a dramatically larger level of taxation or some other idea that assumes the resources of the country belong collectively to the country rather than to its individual citizens? Or would you prefer to skip over the "should we" and just talk about "given that we should and that we can, how does it look?"

    The assumption that taxes are okay is already there. We do it every day. It's in the constitution. That you don't like taxes doesn't make basic income nonviable.

    Don't be a silly goose. There exists the idea of too much taxation. Unless you disagree that it is a legitimate thing to believe, you can't argue that because some taxation is OK, any amount of taxation is OK.

    Are you arguing that any amount of taxation is acceptable?

    Define dramatically larger then. Cause even at its highest level of taxation on the very richest our economy boomed. Likely because of the high level of taxation.

    bowenHefflingCalicaJuliusFuzzytadpoleLord_AsmodeusDarkewolfejoshofalltradesGennenalyse Rueben
Sign In or Register to comment.