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.
ITT the military is a support program akin to welfare?
I think I'm missing a lot of core assumptions that make this idea work for those who support it.
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.
ITT the military is a support program akin to welfare?
I think I'm missing a lot of core assumptions that make this idea work for those who support it.
The assumption I imagine is that the defense could be cut.
Though incidentally the military is a prime example of the government giving a lot of people money to do nothing. Take a look at any holding division.
If you're making $1,000,000 a year in a repressed economy because of stock options, imagine how much money you'd making in an economy that was booming instead.
Even if it's higher taxed, you're still reaping the rewards of doing more and better business.
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
+1
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
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.
ITT the military is a support program akin to welfare?
I think I'm missing a lot of core assumptions that make this idea work for those who support it.
No, but it is a socialist jobs program, full stop.
At least when it comes to our more extraneous and overly expensive defense contracts making useless military hardware in exchange for jobs in every district.
We could probably just stop a majority of those programs in exchange for funds to put towards some kind of guaranteed income with no real loss in capability.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
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.
I think the onus is on those who are promoting the idea to explain how much of the wealth of the citizens of the US will be taxed away to support the idea, and why that amount ought to be acceptable to them. Instead, you and others are saying we shouldn't even need to mention that part because we already have taxation.
Assuming you guys want to even talk about it. I mean, Economics Top Gear is probably pretty fun for a bunch of people and that's fine with me!
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.
I think the onus is on those who are promoting the idea to explain how much of the wealth of the citizens of the US will be taxed away to support the idea, and why that amount ought to be acceptable to them. Instead, you and others are saying we shouldn't even need to mention that part because we already have taxation.
Assuming you guys want to even talk about it. I mean, Economics Top Gear is probably pretty fun for a bunch of people and that's fine with me!
Let's go with the 500 billion number and go ahead and take it from the top ten percent or so.
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
I think a huge advantage something like this could have would be that new parents of all income levels could afford to have one stay home and make a career of raising their children.
Generally speaking, a parent being present through childhood has been shown to be beneficial. This could have long-term major bonuses to society as a whole.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
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.
ITT the military is a support program akin to welfare?
I think I'm missing a lot of core assumptions that make this idea work for those who support it.
No, but it is a socialist jobs program, full stop.
At least when it comes to our more extraneous and overly expensive defense contracts making useless military hardware in exchange for jobs in every district.
We could probably just stop a majority of those programs in exchange for funds to put towards some kind of guaranteed income with no real loss in capability.
Democrats have been knocking this idea around since before I could vote. Unless it affects their districts of course.
Even if we got rid of ALL the defense contracts, we're not going to get $951B in returns, and even if we did, who knows what that would do to the larger economy or whether it'd balance out somehow.
I suppose it's worth me keeping in mind that the purest socialist jobs programs are designed to kill people and break things.
0
Options
Mojo_JojoWe are only now beginning to understand the full power and ramifications of sexual intercourseRegistered Userregular
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.
Well the Swiss came fairly close to it the other month. So stranger things have happened
Edit: had my wires crossed, the referendum hasn't happened yet. There was a 77% no vote against a different minimum wage proposal that got misreported.
Mojo_Jojo on
Homogeneous distribution of your varieties of amuse-gueule
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.
ITT the military is a support program akin to welfare?
I think I'm missing a lot of core assumptions that make this idea work for those who support it.
No, but it is a socialist jobs program, full stop.
At least when it comes to our more extraneous and overly expensive defense contracts making useless military hardware in exchange for jobs in every district.
We could probably just stop a majority of those programs in exchange for funds to put towards some kind of guaranteed income with no real loss in capability.
Democrats have been knocking this idea around since before I could vote. Unless it affects their districts of course.
Even if we got rid of ALL the defense contracts, we're not going to get $951B in returns, and even if we did, who knows what that would do to the larger economy or whether it'd balance out somehow.
I suppose it's worth me keeping in mind that the purest socialist jobs programs are designed to kill people and break things.
Or save them from national disaster. Or deliver supplies to people in need. Or build infrastructure.
Yeah, there are some lazy people who are satisfied with whatever shitty living conditions they have,
So, in your mind, the basic guaranteed income is only enough to get you a "shitty living condition"?
y'know what? Yeah, as a starting point.
A GBI should be able to:
1) put a roof over your head
2) put food on your plate
3) keep the lights, internet, phone on
4) provide support for medical emergencies through some kind of governmental program like medicaid
5) 100-200 bucks a month beyond that for small luxuries.
I don't think it needs to be good enough to make payments on a new car, or do vacations that involve airline tickets, or weekly trips to the fancy restaurant.
But you should be able to live on your own without fear of the street. And if you want that 3 bedroom ranch house with two cars and private education for the kids? You will need to earn that.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I think a huge advantage something like this could have would be that new parents of all income levels could afford to have one stay home and make a career of raising their children.
Generally speaking, a parent being present through childhood has been shown to be beneficial. This could have long-term major bonuses to society as a whole.
I'm not sure the data on this is as conclusive as you think. Aperiodically there's debate in the national press (of Norway, where I live) about this.
Brief background: Most people send their kids to kindergarten, usually at the age of 1. In most couples with kids, both parents work. However, undesired part-time (is part time, want to be full time) is significantly more prevalent among women.
The press aperiodically print stories about whether or not this is good for the kids. A lot of research indicated it is good; it helps socialise the kids who would otherwise mostly meet only siblings and a few neighbours.
It is especially helpful for the children of immigrants, who also pick up the majority language, which they otherwise might not do until they start school (at 6), putting them drastically behind their classmates who either speak Norwegian natively or learned it in kindergarten.
Yeah, there are some lazy people who are satisfied with whatever shitty living conditions they have,
So, in your mind, the basic guaranteed income is only enough to get you a "shitty living condition"?
y'know what? Yeah, as a starting point.
A GBI should be able to:
1) put a roof over your head
2) put food on your plate
3) keep the lights, internet, gas, water, trash, car insurance, phone on
4) provide support for medical emergencies through some kind of governmental program like medicaid
5) 100-200 bucks a month beyond that for small luxuries.
So 1-4, two tanks of gas, and a trip to Goodwill for the family.
I guess I walk to the store the rest of the time? Unless it's oil change month, then I walk the whole time.
idk dude that seems low to me. Or do couples get double?
spool32 on
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
Yeah, there are some lazy people who are satisfied with whatever shitty living conditions they have,
So, in your mind, the basic guaranteed income is only enough to get you a "shitty living condition"?
y'know what? Yeah, as a starting point.
A GBI should be able to:
1) put a roof over your head
2) put food on your plate
3) keep the lights, internet, gas, water, trash, car insurance, phone on
4) provide support for medical emergencies through some kind of governmental program like medicaid
5) 100-200 bucks a month beyond that for small luxuries.
So 1-4, two tanks of gas, and a trip to Goodwill for the family.
I guess I walk to the store the rest of the time? Unless it's oil change month, then I walk the whole time.
idk dude that seems low to me. Or do couples get double?
In your situation you have a wife and multiple dependents.
I see the income scaling based on marital status and size of household.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
+6
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
Yeah, there are some lazy people who are satisfied with whatever shitty living conditions they have,
So, in your mind, the basic guaranteed income is only enough to get you a "shitty living condition"?
y'know what? Yeah, as a starting point.
A GBI should be able to:
1) put a roof over your head
2) put food on your plate
3) keep the lights, internet, gas, water, trash, car insurance, phone on
4) provide support for medical emergencies through some kind of governmental program like medicaid
5) 100-200 bucks a month beyond that for small luxuries.
So 1-4, two tanks of gas, and a trip to Goodwill for the family.
I guess I walk to the store the rest of the time? Unless it's oil change month, then I walk the whole time.
idk dude that seems low to me. Or do couples get double?
In your situation you have a wife and multiple dependents.
I see the income scaling based on marital status and size of household.
And the wife would also be eligible for a GBI.
Hey look, an actual benefit to maintaining stable households!
Yup, each working age person would get it, and scales based on dependencies (like our income tax does).
I have no problem extending this to everyone at age 18. Getting people on track with saving and good money habits instead of hiding it in their parent's wallets for another 6 years is pointless. Especially knowing parents. Maybe reduce the benefits if the parents can prove the students still live at home.
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
+7
Options
Powerpuppiesdrinking coffee in themountain cabinRegistered Userregular
Yeah, there are some lazy people who are satisfied with whatever shitty living conditions they have,
So, in your mind, the basic guaranteed income is only enough to get you a "shitty living condition"?
y'know what? Yeah, as a starting point.
A GBI should be able to:
1) put a roof over your head
2) put food on your plate
3) keep the lights, internet, gas, water, trash, car insurance, phone on
4) provide support for medical emergencies through some kind of governmental program like medicaid
5) 100-200 bucks a month beyond that for small luxuries.
So 1-4, two tanks of gas, and a trip to Goodwill for the family.
I guess I walk to the store the rest of the time? Unless it's oil change month, then I walk the whole time.
idk dude that seems low to me. Or do couples get double?
Start there though, for the sake of argument.
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
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.
comically, everybodys favourite austrian school economist was a fan
a certain minimum income for everyone … a sort of floor below which nobody need fall even when he is unable to provide for himself... a necessary part of the Great Society in which the individual no longer has specific claims on the members of the particular small group into which he was born.
there is a libertarian strand who argue that
a) maximum liberty is only achievable if you are able to escape the opression of those who control money and use that to control your behaviour, eg conditional handouts from family/parents
b) workers who must work to survive are not free; if the threat of termination of employment is a threat because they will be rendered destitute etc then it gives the employer unnecessary power of the employee. cf the lengths some people allow employers to go to when vetting them
therefore the only way to be free is to be free of financial tyranny, at least for the basics that you really need (accomodation, food, etc)
this is a great argument and should be deployed at all opportunities when talking to libertarians, not least because it coopts the langwij of wage slavery
surrealitycheck on
+25
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
I also noticed you put gas and car insurance in a stealth-edit into my list, and I purposefully did leave those out.
Freedom to live without fear of the street does not mean the freedom to live exactly the way you want.
Maybe you end up having to move into an apartment near busses or trains or other funded public transit options, maybe owning a home when you aren't working isn't practical.
Suburbia in its current state would most definitely fail this model - people would have to live closer to population centers to make the economics of this work.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I think part of the reason this pops up in discussions of automation overtaking the labor market isn't purely the loss of jobs, but the change in profit (and also tax revenue) you could generate in newly 'laborless' industries. The question is how much of a gain will you see in economic output (and how the balance of profits and costs change in various industries), and is that enough to handle the establishment and operation of national basic income?
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.
ITT the military is a support program akin to welfare?
I think I'm missing a lot of core assumptions that make this idea work for those who support it.
A significant amount of military spending subsidizes jobs for Americans directly by providing jobs for something like 2,000,000 US citizens directly, and millions more indirectly. The indirect jobs may be anything from highly paid defense contractors, to the many military towns that spring up around military bases across the US. There are many places like Leesville, LA, which is located around Fort Polk, which have no other meaningful industry or reason to exist.
And there's the fact that the U.S. Military gives away tens of billions of dollars in equipment every year, while we still have factories in the US churning out those same items to sell to the US military.
We could cut our military budget in half (oh look, almost the half trillion we'd need!), and we would still be vastly outspending every other country on the planet.
I also noticed you put gas and car insurance in a stealth-edit into my list, and I purposefully did leave those out.
Freedom to live without fear of the street does not mean the freedom to live exactly the way you want.
Maybe you end up having to move into an apartment near busses or trains or other funded public transit options, maybe owning a home when you aren't working isn't practical.
Suburbia in its current state would most definitely fail this model - people would have to live closer to population centers to make the economics of this work.
And that's what I was getting towards. You're not talking about just the money, you're talking about a dramatic rework of the whole society including mass population movement.
It's either more expensive than you think because of regional challenges you must include, or it's necessarily unevenly applied, or its the "let's empty Appalachia" plan.
spool32 on
0
Options
Powerpuppiesdrinking coffee in themountain cabinRegistered Userregular
I also noticed you put gas and car insurance in a stealth-edit into my list, and I purposefully did leave those out.
Freedom to live without fear of the street does not mean the freedom to live exactly the way you want.
Maybe you end up having to move into an apartment near busses or trains or other funded public transit options, maybe owning a home when you aren't working isn't practical.
Suburbia in its current state would most definitely fail this model - people would have to live closer to population centers to make the economics of this work.
That doesn't seem like a good thing to be left unsaid! It's going to be hard to have a discussion if everybody's talking about drastically different hypotheticals!
+2
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
I also noticed you put gas and car insurance in a stealth-edit into my list, and I purposefully did leave those out.
Freedom to live without fear of the street does not mean the freedom to live exactly the way you want.
Maybe you end up having to move into an apartment near busses or trains or other funded public transit options, maybe owning a home when you aren't working isn't practical.
Suburbia in its current state would most definitely fail this model - people would have to live closer to population centers to make the economics of this work.
And that's what I was getting towards. You're not talking about just the money, you're talking about a dramatic rework of the whole society including mass population movement.
It's either more expensive than you think because of regional challenges you must include, or it's necessarily unevenly applied, or its the "let's empty Appalachia" plan.
No, it is the "give people a basic(read: basic) level of income" plan.
It is not designed to replace jobs, or even provide the level of benefit having a real job offers. People who get a college degree, certifications, and work their butts off in their industries will continue to live in suburbia or nicer homes. And people living in rural Appalachia working local unskilled labor jobs will continue to do so, to some benefit.
What it does is provide a ground floor for income. No more, no less.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
+8
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
I also noticed you put gas and car insurance in a stealth-edit into my list, and I purposefully did leave those out.
Freedom to live without fear of the street does not mean the freedom to live exactly the way you want.
Maybe you end up having to move into an apartment near busses or trains or other funded public transit options, maybe owning a home when you aren't working isn't practical.
Suburbia in its current state would most definitely fail this model - people would have to live closer to population centers to make the economics of this work.
That doesn't seem like a good thing to be left unsaid! It's going to be hard to have a discussion if everybody's talking about drastically different hypotheticals!
Lets say I live in a house that costs 3,000/mo just to live in, after mortgage and utility. I got this home because I am a skilled worker with some financial means. I also have a new mid-tier luxury car on a monthly lease.
Me losing my job and relying on the basic income to cover this lifestyle is just not an acceptable outcome.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
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.
ITT the military is a support program akin to welfare?
I think I'm missing a lot of core assumptions that make this idea work for those who support it.
A significant amount of military spending subsidizes jobs for Americans directly by providing jobs for something like 2,000,000 US citizens directly, and millions more indirectly. The indirect jobs may be anything from highly paid defense contractors, to the many military towns that spring up around military bases across the US. There are many places like Leesville, LA, which is located around Fort Polk, which have no other meaningful industry or reason to exist.
And there's the fact that the U.S. Military gives away tens of billions of dollars in equipment every year, while we still have factories in the US churning out those same items to sell to the US military.
We could cut our military budget in half (oh look, almost the half trillion we'd need!), and we would still be vastly outspending every other country on the planet.
1: the outspending Stat is a useless talking point without explaining why is bad that we spend so much, and whether there are negative consequences to spending less, and whether we should care about them. It makes you look flippant and unserious.
2: why does government (especially federal govt) get to decide that a whole town has no reason to exist, and use that as a justification for taking action to remove it?
0
Options
That_GuyI don't wanna be that guyRegistered Userregular
I also noticed you put gas and car insurance in a stealth-edit into my list, and I purposefully did leave those out.
Freedom to live without fear of the street does not mean the freedom to live exactly the way you want.
Maybe you end up having to move into an apartment near busses or trains or other funded public transit options, maybe owning a home when you aren't working isn't practical.
Suburbia in its current state would most definitely fail this model - people would have to live closer to population centers to make the economics of this work.
And that's what I was getting towards. You're not talking about just the money, you're talking about a dramatic rework of the whole society including mass population movement.
It's either more expensive than you think because of regional challenges you must include, or it's necessarily unevenly applied, or its the "let's empty Appalachia" plan.
Speaking as someone who lives in the Appalachians, this place is an utter shithole. We absolutely need to empty this place out and relocate everyone to engineered urban centers. This place is a mass of suburban sprawl and terrible infrastructure. There aren't even fucking sidewalks on most streets. Even if there were sidewalks, everything is super spread out so you have to drive EVERYWHERE. Most of this area is devoid of reliable cellular services. During the summer, the tap water is brown in much of this area. Good luck even getting landline service in many places.
I also noticed you put gas and car insurance in a stealth-edit into my list, and I purposefully did leave those out.
Freedom to live without fear of the street does not mean the freedom to live exactly the way you want.
Maybe you end up having to move into an apartment near busses or trains or other funded public transit options, maybe owning a home when you aren't working isn't practical.
Suburbia in its current state would most definitely fail this model - people would have to live closer to population centers to make the economics of this work.
And that's what I was getting towards. You're not talking about just the money, you're talking about a dramatic rework of the whole society including mass population movement.
It's either more expensive than you think because of regional challenges you must include, or it's necessarily unevenly applied, or its the "let's empty Appalachia" plan.
No, it is the "give people a basic(read: basic) level of income" plan.
It is not designed to replace jobs, or even provide the level of benefit having a real job offers. People who get a college degree, certifications, and work their butts off in their industries will continue to live in suburbia or nicer homes. And people living in rural Appalachia working local unskilled labor jobs will continue to do so, to some benefit.
What it does is provide a ground floor for income. No more, no less.
Doesn't sound like it accomplishes the goals, if it doesn't cover all the basics. We might as well just stick with TANF and the status quo.
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.
ITT the military is a support program akin to welfare?
I think I'm missing a lot of core assumptions that make this idea work for those who support it.
A significant amount of military spending subsidizes jobs for Americans directly by providing jobs for something like 2,000,000 US citizens directly, and millions more indirectly. The indirect jobs may be anything from highly paid defense contractors, to the many military towns that spring up around military bases across the US. There are many places like Leesville, LA, which is located around Fort Polk, which have no other meaningful industry or reason to exist.
And there's the fact that the U.S. Military gives away tens of billions of dollars in equipment every year, while we still have factories in the US churning out those same items to sell to the US military.
We could cut our military budget in half (oh look, almost the half trillion we'd need!), and we would still be vastly outspending every other country on the planet.
1: the outspending Stat is a useless talking point without explaining why is bad that we spend so much, and whether there are negative consequences to spending less, and whether we should care about them. It makes you look flippant and unserious.
2: why does government (especially federal govt) get to decide that a whole town has no reason to exist, and use that as a justification for taking action to remove it?
Those towns literally only exist because of federal money.
I am baffled that you think it's good to spend federal money to support people near military bases but not people elsewhere.
+2
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
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?"
Agreed; I was commenting on the 'inheritance versus welfare and who deserves what' conversation which I think we have identified as a dead end.
If we disagree it's likely on whether such a program is viable, the sticking point being to what degree the flow of wealth can be modified and still achieve the desired result. If you want to have that discussion, fine. As you said, "taxation therefore more taxation" is not a valid argument. I do think that a practical conversation will be more productive than an ideological one, however.
I also noticed you put gas and car insurance in a stealth-edit into my list, and I purposefully did leave those out.
Freedom to live without fear of the street does not mean the freedom to live exactly the way you want.
Maybe you end up having to move into an apartment near busses or trains or other funded public transit options, maybe owning a home when you aren't working isn't practical.
Suburbia in its current state would most definitely fail this model - people would have to live closer to population centers to make the economics of this work.
And that's what I was getting towards. You're not talking about just the money, you're talking about a dramatic rework of the whole society including mass population movement.
It's either more expensive than you think because of regional challenges you must include, or it's necessarily unevenly applied, or its the "let's empty Appalachia" plan.
No, it is the "give people a basic(read: basic) level of income" plan.
It is not designed to replace jobs, or even provide the level of benefit having a real job offers. People who get a college degree, certifications, and work their butts off in their industries will continue to live in suburbia or nicer homes. And people living in rural Appalachia working local unskilled labor jobs will continue to do so, to some benefit.
What it does is provide a ground floor for income. No more, no less.
Doesn't sound like it accomplishes the goals, if it doesn't cover all the basics. We might as well just stick with TANF and the status quo.
No, the status quo sucks and requires excessive proof and hurdles for the beneficiaries. It is a job in and of itself, and for no real benefit.
And what goals does it not accomplish?
I honestly feel from the stuff you are saying is that your expectation is for a significant amount of the work force to say "fuck it", stop working, and demand that they government give them more money. Wheras what this would rather do is provide a much more comprehensive net at the bottom that is not just for safety, but for elevation of all rungs of society (more money in the hands of people far more likely to spend a sizable % on goods and services, less prison strain, etc.)
I mean, people could take a year or two off work, get a low cost apartment, and study their asses off so they can launch a new stage in their career.
Or someone could intern at a prestigious law firm without needing rich parents to pay for said opportunity, thus elevating them out of their current income strata.
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I also noticed you put gas and car insurance in a stealth-edit into my list, and I purposefully did leave those out.
Freedom to live without fear of the street does not mean the freedom to live exactly the way you want.
Maybe you end up having to move into an apartment near busses or trains or other funded public transit options, maybe owning a home when you aren't working isn't practical.
Suburbia in its current state would most definitely fail this model - people would have to live closer to population centers to make the economics of this work.
And that's what I was getting towards. You're not talking about just the money, you're talking about a dramatic rework of the whole society including mass population movement.
It's either more expensive than you think because of regional challenges you must include, or it's necessarily unevenly applied, or its the "let's empty Appalachia" plan.
Speaking as someone who lives in the Appalachians, this place is an utter shithole. We absolutely need to empty this place out and relocate everyone to engineered urban centers. This place is a mass of suburban sprawl and terrible infrastructure. There aren't even fucking sidewalks on most streets. Even if there were sidewalks, everything is super spread out so you have to drive EVERYWHERE. Most of this area is devoid of reliable cellular services. During the summer, the tap water is brown in much of this area. Good luck even getting landline service in many places.
At least we are calling a spade a spade now, and talking about how forced relocation for their own good is a possible solution to the financial challenge.
This doesn't sound like its giving people more liberty.
I also noticed you put gas and car insurance in a stealth-edit into my list, and I purposefully did leave those out.
Freedom to live without fear of the street does not mean the freedom to live exactly the way you want.
Maybe you end up having to move into an apartment near busses or trains or other funded public transit options, maybe owning a home when you aren't working isn't practical.
Suburbia in its current state would most definitely fail this model - people would have to live closer to population centers to make the economics of this work.
And that's what I was getting towards. You're not talking about just the money, you're talking about a dramatic rework of the whole society including mass population movement.
It's either more expensive than you think because of regional challenges you must include, or it's necessarily unevenly applied, or its the "let's empty Appalachia" plan.
Speaking as someone who lives in the Appalachians, this place is an utter shithole. We absolutely need to empty this place out and relocate everyone to engineered urban centers. This place is a mass of suburban sprawl and terrible infrastructure. There aren't even fucking sidewalks on most streets. Even if there were sidewalks, everything is super spread out so you have to drive EVERYWHERE. Most of this area is devoid of reliable cellular services. During the summer, the tap water is brown in much of this area. Good luck even getting landline service in many places.
The drive to Binghamton NY to NYC is kind of... surreal. It's like going back in time 80 years.
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
+1
Options
Powerpuppiesdrinking coffee in themountain cabinRegistered Userregular
I also noticed you put gas and car insurance in a stealth-edit into my list, and I purposefully did leave those out.
Freedom to live without fear of the street does not mean the freedom to live exactly the way you want.
Maybe you end up having to move into an apartment near busses or trains or other funded public transit options, maybe owning a home when you aren't working isn't practical.
Suburbia in its current state would most definitely fail this model - people would have to live closer to population centers to make the economics of this work.
That doesn't seem like a good thing to be left unsaid! It's going to be hard to have a discussion if everybody's talking about drastically different hypotheticals!
Lets say I live in a house that costs 3,000/mo just to live in, after mortgage and utility. I got this home because I am a skilled worker with some financial means. I also have a new mid-tier luxury car on a monthly lease.
Me losing my job and relying on the basic income to cover this lifestyle is just not an acceptable outcome.
There is a huge degree of flexibility between allowring for a $3k/mo house and allowing for gas and car insurance. I think we should allow for the second one but not the first.
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.
I think the onus is on those who are promoting the idea to explain how much of the wealth of the citizens of the US will be taxed away to support the idea, and why that amount ought to be acceptable to them. Instead, you and others are saying we shouldn't even need to mention that part because we already have taxation.
Assuming you guys want to even talk about it. I mean, Economics Top Gear is probably pretty fun for a bunch of people and that's fine with me!
Taxes should only be applied to wealth in the form of an inheritance tax.
That being said, the capital gains tax costs the US $200-250B a year in lost revenue. A trivial tax on trading stocks could easily lead to another $100B a year. There are many ways to go about paying for a basic income.
I also noticed you put gas and car insurance in a stealth-edit into my list, and I purposefully did leave those out.
Freedom to live without fear of the street does not mean the freedom to live exactly the way you want.
Maybe you end up having to move into an apartment near busses or trains or other funded public transit options, maybe owning a home when you aren't working isn't practical.
Suburbia in its current state would most definitely fail this model - people would have to live closer to population centers to make the economics of this work.
And that's what I was getting towards. You're not talking about just the money, you're talking about a dramatic rework of the whole society including mass population movement.
It's either more expensive than you think because of regional challenges you must include, or it's necessarily unevenly applied, or its the "let's empty Appalachia" plan.
Speaking as someone who lives in the Appalachians, this place is an utter shithole. We absolutely need to empty this place out and relocate everyone to engineered urban centers. This place is a mass of suburban sprawl and terrible infrastructure. There aren't even fucking sidewalks on most streets. Even if there were sidewalks, everything is super spread out so you have to drive EVERYWHERE. Most of this area is devoid of reliable cellular services. During the summer, the tap water is brown in much of this area. Good luck even getting landline service in many places.
At least we are calling a spade a spade now, and talking about how forced relocation for their own good is a possible solution to the financial challenge.
This doesn't sound like its giving people more liberty.
No one has actually said this.
If you want to live in Appalachia go for it. Also, pay for it.
Also maybe, just maybe, don't assume anyone posting in the thread has some hidden agenda where what they really want is to rip people out of their homes and destroy liberty.
+12
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
Strong reaction against any large social change is unhelpful; this hypothetical is a massive change and can be expected to have significant effects in both the long and short term.
"Mincome doesn't provide for a car so rural folk will fail" is uncharitable and hyperbolic. "Mincome has the potential to disincentivize rural living" is more productive but still tangential because no one has suggested that it provide for 100% of a community's needs. People are still intended to work under this model - it is not a case of Wall-E's Pleasure Cruise And Also Everyone Else Starves.
Posts
ITT the military is a support program akin to welfare?
I think I'm missing a lot of core assumptions that make this idea work for those who support it.
The assumption I imagine is that the defense could be cut.
Though incidentally the military is a prime example of the government giving a lot of people money to do nothing. Take a look at any holding division.
Even if it's higher taxed, you're still reaping the rewards of doing more and better business.
No, but it is a socialist jobs program, full stop.
At least when it comes to our more extraneous and overly expensive defense contracts making useless military hardware in exchange for jobs in every district.
We could probably just stop a majority of those programs in exchange for funds to put towards some kind of guaranteed income with no real loss in capability.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I think the onus is on those who are promoting the idea to explain how much of the wealth of the citizens of the US will be taxed away to support the idea, and why that amount ought to be acceptable to them. Instead, you and others are saying we shouldn't even need to mention that part because we already have taxation.
Assuming you guys want to even talk about it. I mean, Economics Top Gear is probably pretty fun for a bunch of people and that's fine with me!
Let's go with the 500 billion number and go ahead and take it from the top ten percent or so.
Generally speaking, a parent being present through childhood has been shown to be beneficial. This could have long-term major bonuses to society as a whole.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Democrats have been knocking this idea around since before I could vote. Unless it affects their districts of course.
Even if we got rid of ALL the defense contracts, we're not going to get $951B in returns, and even if we did, who knows what that would do to the larger economy or whether it'd balance out somehow.
I suppose it's worth me keeping in mind that the purest socialist jobs programs are designed to kill people and break things.
Well the Swiss came fairly close to it the other month. So stranger things have happened
Edit: had my wires crossed, the referendum hasn't happened yet. There was a 77% no vote against a different minimum wage proposal that got misreported.
Or save them from national disaster. Or deliver supplies to people in need. Or build infrastructure.
So, in your mind, the basic guaranteed income is only enough to get you a "shitty living condition"?
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
y'know what? Yeah, as a starting point.
A GBI should be able to:
1) put a roof over your head
2) put food on your plate
3) keep the lights, internet, phone on
4) provide support for medical emergencies through some kind of governmental program like medicaid
5) 100-200 bucks a month beyond that for small luxuries.
I don't think it needs to be good enough to make payments on a new car, or do vacations that involve airline tickets, or weekly trips to the fancy restaurant.
But you should be able to live on your own without fear of the street. And if you want that 3 bedroom ranch house with two cars and private education for the kids? You will need to earn that.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I'm not sure the data on this is as conclusive as you think. Aperiodically there's debate in the national press (of Norway, where I live) about this.
Brief background: Most people send their kids to kindergarten, usually at the age of 1. In most couples with kids, both parents work. However, undesired part-time (is part time, want to be full time) is significantly more prevalent among women.
The press aperiodically print stories about whether or not this is good for the kids. A lot of research indicated it is good; it helps socialise the kids who would otherwise mostly meet only siblings and a few neighbours.
It is especially helpful for the children of immigrants, who also pick up the majority language, which they otherwise might not do until they start school (at 6), putting them drastically behind their classmates who either speak Norwegian natively or learned it in kindergarten.
So 1-4, two tanks of gas, and a trip to Goodwill for the family.
I guess I walk to the store the rest of the time? Unless it's oil change month, then I walk the whole time.
idk dude that seems low to me. Or do couples get double?
In your situation you have a wife and multiple dependents.
I see the income scaling based on marital status and size of household.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
And the wife would also be eligible for a GBI.
Hey look, an actual benefit to maintaining stable households!
I have no problem extending this to everyone at age 18. Getting people on track with saving and good money habits instead of hiding it in their parent's wallets for another 6 years is pointless. Especially knowing parents. Maybe reduce the benefits if the parents can prove the students still live at home.
Start there though, for the sake of argument.
comically, everybodys favourite austrian school economist was a fan
there is a libertarian strand who argue that
a) maximum liberty is only achievable if you are able to escape the opression of those who control money and use that to control your behaviour, eg conditional handouts from family/parents
b) workers who must work to survive are not free; if the threat of termination of employment is a threat because they will be rendered destitute etc then it gives the employer unnecessary power of the employee. cf the lengths some people allow employers to go to when vetting them
therefore the only way to be free is to be free of financial tyranny, at least for the basics that you really need (accomodation, food, etc)
this is a great argument and should be deployed at all opportunities when talking to libertarians, not least because it coopts the langwij of wage slavery
Freedom to live without fear of the street does not mean the freedom to live exactly the way you want.
Maybe you end up having to move into an apartment near busses or trains or other funded public transit options, maybe owning a home when you aren't working isn't practical.
Suburbia in its current state would most definitely fail this model - people would have to live closer to population centers to make the economics of this work.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
A significant amount of military spending subsidizes jobs for Americans directly by providing jobs for something like 2,000,000 US citizens directly, and millions more indirectly. The indirect jobs may be anything from highly paid defense contractors, to the many military towns that spring up around military bases across the US. There are many places like Leesville, LA, which is located around Fort Polk, which have no other meaningful industry or reason to exist.
And there's the fact that the U.S. Military gives away tens of billions of dollars in equipment every year, while we still have factories in the US churning out those same items to sell to the US military.
We could cut our military budget in half (oh look, almost the half trillion we'd need!), and we would still be vastly outspending every other country on the planet.
And that's what I was getting towards. You're not talking about just the money, you're talking about a dramatic rework of the whole society including mass population movement.
It's either more expensive than you think because of regional challenges you must include, or it's necessarily unevenly applied, or its the "let's empty Appalachia" plan.
That doesn't seem like a good thing to be left unsaid! It's going to be hard to have a discussion if everybody's talking about drastically different hypotheticals!
No, it is the "give people a basic(read: basic) level of income" plan.
It is not designed to replace jobs, or even provide the level of benefit having a real job offers. People who get a college degree, certifications, and work their butts off in their industries will continue to live in suburbia or nicer homes. And people living in rural Appalachia working local unskilled labor jobs will continue to do so, to some benefit.
What it does is provide a ground floor for income. No more, no less.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Lets say I live in a house that costs 3,000/mo just to live in, after mortgage and utility. I got this home because I am a skilled worker with some financial means. I also have a new mid-tier luxury car on a monthly lease.
Me losing my job and relying on the basic income to cover this lifestyle is just not an acceptable outcome.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
1: the outspending Stat is a useless talking point without explaining why is bad that we spend so much, and whether there are negative consequences to spending less, and whether we should care about them. It makes you look flippant and unserious.
2: why does government (especially federal govt) get to decide that a whole town has no reason to exist, and use that as a justification for taking action to remove it?
Speaking as someone who lives in the Appalachians, this place is an utter shithole. We absolutely need to empty this place out and relocate everyone to engineered urban centers. This place is a mass of suburban sprawl and terrible infrastructure. There aren't even fucking sidewalks on most streets. Even if there were sidewalks, everything is super spread out so you have to drive EVERYWHERE. Most of this area is devoid of reliable cellular services. During the summer, the tap water is brown in much of this area. Good luck even getting landline service in many places.
Doesn't sound like it accomplishes the goals, if it doesn't cover all the basics. We might as well just stick with TANF and the status quo.
Those towns literally only exist because of federal money.
I am baffled that you think it's good to spend federal money to support people near military bases but not people elsewhere.
Agreed; I was commenting on the 'inheritance versus welfare and who deserves what' conversation which I think we have identified as a dead end.
If we disagree it's likely on whether such a program is viable, the sticking point being to what degree the flow of wealth can be modified and still achieve the desired result. If you want to have that discussion, fine. As you said, "taxation therefore more taxation" is not a valid argument. I do think that a practical conversation will be more productive than an ideological one, however.
Pop some social programs up in the city for low rent housing, make it look a lot better to live there vs suburbia.
Boom, after a few decades, you've shifted populations back to the city where you can better handle economies of scale.
No one said you have to rip up farms and houses in suburbia to do this, but the people who this program benefit would be better off in the cities.
No, the status quo sucks and requires excessive proof and hurdles for the beneficiaries. It is a job in and of itself, and for no real benefit.
And what goals does it not accomplish?
I honestly feel from the stuff you are saying is that your expectation is for a significant amount of the work force to say "fuck it", stop working, and demand that they government give them more money. Wheras what this would rather do is provide a much more comprehensive net at the bottom that is not just for safety, but for elevation of all rungs of society (more money in the hands of people far more likely to spend a sizable % on goods and services, less prison strain, etc.)
I mean, people could take a year or two off work, get a low cost apartment, and study their asses off so they can launch a new stage in their career.
Or someone could intern at a prestigious law firm without needing rich parents to pay for said opportunity, thus elevating them out of their current income strata.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
At least we are calling a spade a spade now, and talking about how forced relocation for their own good is a possible solution to the financial challenge.
This doesn't sound like its giving people more liberty.
The drive to Binghamton NY to NYC is kind of... surreal. It's like going back in time 80 years.
There is a huge degree of flexibility between allowring for a $3k/mo house and allowing for gas and car insurance. I think we should allow for the second one but not the first.
Taxes should only be applied to wealth in the form of an inheritance tax.
That being said, the capital gains tax costs the US $200-250B a year in lost revenue. A trivial tax on trading stocks could easily lead to another $100B a year. There are many ways to go about paying for a basic income.
No one has actually said this.
If you want to live in Appalachia go for it. Also, pay for it.
"Mincome doesn't provide for a car so rural folk will fail" is uncharitable and hyperbolic. "Mincome has the potential to disincentivize rural living" is more productive but still tangential because no one has suggested that it provide for 100% of a community's needs. People are still intended to work under this model - it is not a case of Wall-E's Pleasure Cruise And Also Everyone Else Starves.