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.
A basic income isn't meant to provide you with the life you want to live. It's meant to provide you with a life, so that you are able to work towards the life you want to live. If your example lost his job, sacrifices would have to be made until he finds another job.
+16
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.
A basic income isn't meant to provide you with the life you want to live. It's meant to provide you with a life, so that you are able to work towards the life you want to live. If your example lost his job, sacrifices would have to be made until he finds another job.
Exactly.
But those sacrifices do not include selling plasma or giving blowjobs behind the Olive Garden dumpster, because you have enough to put a roof over the heads of you and your dependents and keep them fed / warm / connected.
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.
If you want to keep living where you are I'm sure they're not going to do forced relocation. People will move on their own as they work out the incentives, like they always have. The government providing $X isn't going to change that. If you need more than X to live, then you'll still need a job, it's just that X is 0 right now, so at the very least it will turn needing two full time minimum wage jobs into maybe one part-time minimum wage job
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.
A basic income isn't meant to provide you with the life you want to live. It's meant to provide you with a life, so that you are able to work towards the life you want to live. If your example lost his job, sacrifices would have to be made until he finds another job.
Fewer sacrifices than if there was no minimum income and zero chance of ending up destitute on the street with almost no chance of being able to recover.
Throughout American history many ghost towns have been created because the oil/coal/gold ran out, because the big company factory closed its doors, or because the railroad or highway was built a few miles too far away and no one passed by anymore.
The movement of people is part of the history of America and will continue to be no matter what we do.
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!".
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 own.
But
I can't even right now.
That_Guy literally said we need to empty out Appalachia and send everyone somewhere else.
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
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.
Speak for yourself, comrade!
Anyway, the simple argument against our current military expenditure isn't a difficult one to make. We spend a considerable amount (something like 10% last I checked of the number) maintaining Cold War Military systems. Why? Those aren't things we're ever going to actually use, and it seems far better to disarm/destroy (where possible) those and put the money towards something else that, you know, actually benefits society.
Not to mention the massive surplus of equipment we produce each year. You know, the same equipment that allowed the police to treat Ferguson like a warzone. We could cut all of that shit out, too.
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 own.
But
I can't even right now.
That_Guy literally said we need to empty out Appalachia and send everyone somewhere else.
Not forcibly.
You need to stop making the assumption that when someone says something needs to happen it means at the end of a gun.
+7
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.
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 own.
But
I can't even right now.
That_Guy literally said we need to empty out Appalachia and send everyone somewhere else.
That was an aside from someone who lives in Appalachia, not the core argument of the thread.
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.
No one has actually said this.
If you want to live in Appalachia go for it. Also, pay for it own.
But
I can't even right now.
That_Guy literally said we need to empty out Appalachia and send everyone somewhere else.
The obvious response is: "Well, okay. That Guy said it. But That Guy always says those kind of things." That Guy is almost like Florida Man in that regard (the generic "That Guy" person, not the forumer). In my Monster Hunter games, That Guy is the person who falls 3 times to ruin our mission.
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.
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 own.
But
I can't even right now.
That_Guy literally said we need to empty out Appalachia and send everyone somewhere else.
That was an aside from someone who lives in Appalachia, not the core argument of the thread.
I also have a tendency to infuse my posts with the fair amount of hyperbole.
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
You people are ignoring that the instant this is implemented we'd have to build the Donald Trump Illegals Wall. And the Donald Trump Illegals Giant Net in the Sea, the Donald Trump Canada Wall, etc.
You think the hordes of illiterate masses pouring into the Eurozone is bad, if you start handing out thousands of dollars to people for free every single person in the Third World will try their damnedest to get in.
Besides, if you give everyone in the U.S. 20 grand a year (not an unreasonable assumption for basic income) that works out to 7 trillion a year, which is almost one-and-a-half times our current budget (about 4 trillion) and doesn't include spending for the military, the government, the nationalized healthcare program that would naturally be in the new socialist paradise, etc. Who's going to pay for that?
You people are ignoring that the instant this is implemented we'd have to build the Donald Trump Illegals Wall. And the Donald Trump Illegals Giant Net in the Sea, the Donald Trump Canada Wall, etc.
You think the hordes of illiterate masses pouring into the Eurozone is bad, if you start handing out thousands of dollars to people for free every single person in the Third World will try their damnedest to get in.
Besides, if you give everyone in the U.S. 20 grand a year (not an unreasonable assumption for basic income) that works out to 7 trillion a year, which is almost one-and-a-half times our current budget (about 4 trillion) and doesn't include spending for the military, the government, the nationalized healthcare program that would naturally be in the new socialist paradise, etc. Who's going to pay for that?
I feel that you did not read the multiple posts that pointed out that not every single person would receive the entire income.
Meanwhile there's not reason to give the income to non citizens either. Though, incidentally, when Brazil tried it and there was an influx of non recipients in to the area the economy still improved.
+1
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I used to be against the idea of a mincome because I was worried about disincentives for work.
But I've since decided that our current safety net doesn't generally do this outside of a few bad actors (who always exist) while it would at the same time improve the lot of a large portion of Americans. I think it may have been @TL DR that convinced me of it last time it popped up.
Properly applied, I see the mincome bringing back social mobility, increasing incentives for familial unity while taking off the biggest pressure on that unity (money!), and being in general The Right Thing to Do to rebalance the scales on the universal destination of goods which is properly ordered to the benefit of all mankind rather than just the uberwealthy.
Cost is a problem, but I am 100% sure that we can figure that out. Perhaps by making sure that people actually pay their taxes rather than using all kinds of loopholes and welfare to get out of 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.
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?
1) Do I really need to go into great detail as to why it is a bad idea for our government to give away billions of dollars in equipment designated obsolete to countries like Egypt, then re-buy the same equipment from US suppliers?
2) The government already decides when a town no longer has a reason to exist when they shutter a military base.
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.
A basic income isn't meant to provide you with the life you want to live. It's meant to provide you with a life, so that you are able to work towards the life you want to live. If your example lost his job, sacrifices would have to be made until he finds another job.
Yes its not designed so you can have a fancy house and a fancy car. It is so you can find an apartment/feed/cloth yourself and provide basic transportation. Most people even if it existed would still want to work to get more fun stuff and better housing.
+1
Options
That_GuyI don't wanna be that guyRegistered Userregular
With increased automation, the cost of goods and services should go down proportionately. Providing a living wage of 20k a year NOW could decrease to 400 or 500 a year.
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
On illegal immigration - to say that we can't have nice things because people will want them is silly. The US economy tanked, and illegal immigration declined as well. Our economy booms, and everyone wants a piece. If anything, this credit could be structured in such a way that it is inaccessible to illegal immigrants and provides a disincentive. Alaska pays its residents an annual stipend of a couple thousand dollars - can anyone find a source for that having been paid out to illegal immigrants?
On those disincentivized to work - good! If you can be content on $20k/year doing whatever it is you want and not taking any money for it, then more power to you. As the demand for labor decreases further, hopefully this will be a larger percentage of people making art or gardening or volunteering.
As for bad actors, this criticism is often levied against welfare programs in an attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill, and I'm not convinced that tax cheats would be more than a rounding error in this case, either.
+8
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
With increased automation, the cost of goods and services should go down proportionately. Providing a living wage of 20k a year NOW could decrease to 400 or 500 a year.
Bingo. The current model is "labor costs decrease; owners profit and laborers are forced to compete over the smaller remaining slice of the pie". This model pivots toward "labor costs decrease; the cost of living decreases as well and laborers can enjoy more leisure or take up other vocations as they see fit".
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!
Okay, thoughts.
First, let's start with the idea of what "money" even means.
You do a job for me, I give you $100. That is your money, let's say, and the government has no right to it. But... what are you asserting is "yours"? A piece of paper? That piece of paper only has value to the extent that the government says it has value. "$100" is a meaningless phrase devoid of context.
So let's refine that statement: you haven't earned $100, you've earned some amount of purchasing power. Depending on what you do with it, that purchasing power can get you ten burgers or two pairs of shoes or two video games or one concert ticket or all manner of other things. Not even that, though - depending on where you are and when you are and how lucky you are and how smart you are, that amount can get you differing quantities of the same exact things. It can get you one pair of shoes or, perhaps, two pairs of the exact same shoes, depending on a complicated set of factors.
So money, then, however you define it, is an extremely fluid and nebulous construct, defined at least partially by the same government some would like to say should have no role in determining how much of it you get.
Let's examine a hypothetical situation: let's say in one scenario, you make $100 which is untaxed. You use that money to buy one $100 pair of shoes. In another scenario, you make $100, which is taxed at fifty percent. You then use it to buy the same pair of shoes that are, in this scenario, priced at $50.
In which of those scenarios are you better off? If your answer is not "neither", I'd be very interested to see your work.
So here's the thing about basic income: implementing it would fundamentally and irrevocably change the economy in enormous ways. I think it's very difficult to predict exactly how it would do so. Pretty much everyone would have more money, though some people may have less. The price of most things would probably go up, except for those things that went down or stayed the same. Actual purchasing power would probably change, but fuck if I can tell how.
In the end, it is exceptionally difficult to tell what would happen to the numerical values attached to the imaginary pieces of paper that get passed around. If you want to claim that it is unjust that someone with two million Fun Bux might only have one million Happy Dollrz after the introduction of basic income, with no regard for what those concepts refer to, that's cool, but maybe explain why you care about that.
Alternately, if you don't really care about what your money can buy, only the fact that someone might get a few Fun Bux that they didn't earn, that's cool, too. Just be honest about that part, as well.
For my part, I think basic income is a really cool idea that would be great to establish from the beginning if you're building your civilization up from scratch. How we get from where we are to that point? God, fuck if I know. I'm not convinced it's possible to implement on a large scale, though I'd love to be wrong on that.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+19
Options
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
But this model would increase the cost of labor, so I don't see how that follows.
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
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.
(looks at the Waltons)
(looks at the Kochs)
...I'd say the evidence shows that it is our business.
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
edited June 2015
As a general note, I like mincome for nothing else than a more efficient solution to all the crazy different social programs we have now. Just give people a lump of cash and be done with it. All the oversight involved with means testing and tapering and other conditional programs is costly and wasteful.
Sir Landshark on
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
So going to Basic Income let us look at some nice articles from the The Economist and the fact this is an idea as old as the US. The fact it is Paine is just delicious to me. But that is a discussion for another thread.
The idea has a long intellectual heritage. In 1797 Thomas Paine, one of America’s founders, penned a pamphlet arguing that every person is entitled to share in the returns on the common property of humanity: the earth’s land and natural resources (today, you might include radio spectrum or the profits of central banks). Paine suggested paying citizens the equivalent of around $2,000 in today’s money—which was then over half the annual income of a labourer—on their 21st birthday, in lieu of their share of the planet. The benefit would be granted to all, to avoid creating “invidious distinctions” between rich and poor. Since Paine’s proposal, the idea of universal payouts—whether one-off or recurring—has periodically attracted support from both sides of the political aisle.
So what is Paine looking at? A return to the population of a single time payout for the public goods the individuals and country use on their behalf. The idea that resources are communal property that we the people should get paid for exists now. Alaska's pay out yearly to its citizens is an example of that. As pointed out in the article a lot of countries including the US doesn't really have a sovereign wealth fund.
This article is short but it also shows another issue, Basic Income is expensive. A quick snippet on that:
Yet £2,000 does not provide much of a safety net, and more generous schemes are enormously expensive. In 1970 James Tobin, an economist, produced a simple formula for calculating their cost. Suppose the government needs to levy tax of 25% of national income to fund public services such as education, policing and infrastructure. Paying for a basic income worth 10% of the average income requires average taxes to rise by ten percentage points, to 35%. A basic income worth 20% of the average income requires average taxes to be 20 percentage points higher, at 45%, and so on. Eradicating relative poverty, defined as income beneath 60% of the median, would require tax rates approaching 85%. The Swiss proposal is absurdly expensive: a rough calculation suggests it would cost about SFr197 billion ($210 billion), or 30% of GDP. A generous basic income funded by very high taxes would be self-defeating, as it would reintroduce the sort of distortions that many of its advocates hope to banish from the welfare system. Loafers could live comfortably without lifting a finger.
So is this really true? Probably but it comes down to the idea this is income so you do get some back from taxes. A growth from it going back into the economy for goods and so on. I would argue it isn't a straight 10% as Tobin is saying. But I would also argue the idea of it isn't to bring everyone to the 60% median but instead produce the basic assistance so you get roof, food, and care. Already the basics we try to provide through an overly complex and heavily discriminatory welfare system. I would also argue that a key part of something like basic income is reducing cost in other areas such as changing the health system to a more efficient single payer system instead of the current system that has at least 20% of the funds put into it eaten by "overhead" and profit. Again another thread to argue but if you guarantee basic health needs you get a population less attached to single jobs and able to move around the economy more. Possibility of growth due to innovation increases.
Also I want to point out the Economist is British conservative so there is a slant but it puts some good points in the second article.
Whatever else they say about a basic income, everyone seems to assume that it would decrease income inequality. But those who support the proposal as an egalitarian salve should think twice. Raising the floor for all by adopting an annual UBI would make no dent in the wealth gap. Everybody from a homeless person to a middle-class teacher to a hedge-fund billionaire would receive the same cheque from the government. While the extra thousands would make the most difference to those on the bottom of the pile, the cash would be in lieu of all existing welfare benefits. And the income would not be sufficient to launch most of the poor into the lower middle class. Even if the income could bring a family of four above the $23,550 poverty line—a figure that would cost trillions—it would still leave many Americans in effective destitution, particularly those living in expensive urban centres like New York City where the average monthly rent is now $3,000. Compounding the problem would be upward pressure on housing prices that a UBI may spur.
A lot of what we are looking to here is a way to help salve the current massive inequality. UBI or just the idea of Basic Income doesn't do this. But it will improve some of the standing of the lower class. I think this article does underestimate the power of adding even a $500 in cash to a lot of the poor, working poor or lower middle class's monthly income.
So let us think of what basic income can do:
1)Dismantle the discriminatory and over complicated welfare system that has been built in the US or other developed countries allowing those using the system to spend more time trying to move out of it instead of navigating it.
2)Provide a chance for innovation and entrepreneurship as basic income allows people to be less attached to a single job and be able to strike out on their own. (theorized)
3)Help reduce suffering with in the lower classes by providing for basic needs.(theorized)
What it probably can't do:
1)Remove the need for work. Most folks who it would be their only income aren't going to be the ones living in the suburbs unless life events occur and hopefully that would lead to only a temporary loss of income. Even with in today's system if the loss goes to long downsizing, relocation, and other adverse events occur. Basic income won't change that.
2) Dismantle income inequality. It might help a little bit. But this is a more complex issue than just taxes or small wealth reallocation. It needs to be hit from a top to bottom government and societal action. As small as incentives to as heavy handed as wealth redistribution.
3)A magic pill. This will be a shift in society. One that is probably coming as less human labor is required in the long run. But it doesn't fix everything but it can help mitigate some of the structural loss due to new technology.
On the relocation thing. Suburbia is not a sustainable option in the long in the states. It already is being reversed as the poor are being pushed out of gentrifying cities to areas that have no support services for them that did exist in the city. This is not something basic income will fix or speed up or slow down. This is an issue that includes issues with race, infrastructure, educational equality, land ownership verse renting, and public transportation at minimum. And basic income won't lead the poor in Appalachia to being emptied into a city. Just as nothing else has forced them out yet either. Rural poverty exists because rural land tends to be affordable but at the same point they are lacking services and nothing about UBI would change that. Societal changes and improved access to services in rural areas can help that but that is a separate topic.
+12
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
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.
Balzac put it best:
Behind every great fortune lies a great crime.
Which is why I find it hard to argue the claim that society has no right to the property.
Meanwhile there's not reason to give the income to non citizens either. Though, incidentally, when Brazil tried it and there was an influx of non recipients in to the area the economy still improved.
I am confused. You guys are talking about this being a program where if people want to work to earn more than the basic income, they can, but he says that people who are employed don't qualify. You'd also have to increase the social security payments (or roll the entire thing into basic income) or else young people with no job might get more than Gramps who's worked his whole life. The "disqualified for pensions" stuff gives companies every incentive to stop paying out pensions, because, hey, Uncle Sam'll just pay them basic income instead. Heck let's end every retirement program while we're at it.
As for the non-citizens thing, what happens when they flood the borders and then demand amnesty?
+1
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
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 money generates prosperity. Tax cuts are a bad idea because people don't spend the money they save.
Of course spending money leads to more working to generate the stuff that money can be spent on. The idea behind the basic income is that it is money that will be directly spent, generating more prosperity. It's really no different from other forms of welfare: give money to the poor that they spend so it ends up in the economy again.
Meanwhile there's not reason to give the income to non citizens either. Though, incidentally, when Brazil tried it and there was an influx of non recipients in to the area the economy still improved.
I am confused. You guys are talking about this being a program where if people want to work to earn more than the basic income, they can, but he says that people who are employed don't qualify. You'd also have to increase the social security payments (or roll the entire thing into basic income) or else young people with no job might get more than Gramps who's worked his whole life. The "disqualified for pensions" stuff gives companies every incentive to stop paying out pensions, because, hey, Uncle Sam'll just pay them basic income instead. Heck let's end every retirement program while we're at it.
As for the non-citizens thing, what happens when they flood the borders and then demand amnesty?
Employed, earning greater than the basic income. Not just employed.
And hey, if the government guarantees people's retirement every bit as good as my pension will I'm more than happy to give it up.
0
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered 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.
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 own.
But
I can't even right now.
That_Guy literally said we need to empty out Appalachia and send everyone somewhere else.
No. He said he lives there and its a shithole, and implied that maybe if folks weren't tethered to the cycle of poverty due to a GBI they'd elect to gtfo.
How much is needed? I earlier used the federal minimum wage which is generally closer to the poverty wage to simplify. 15K a year is below the poverty rate for a two individual household. If awarded non-conditionally, the cost is approximately 4.8 trillion/year (the total expenditure of the federal government is 3.7). If awarded to the unemployed including children, the cost is ~2.5 trillion. If awarded to nonemployed adults, the cost is roughly 1.5 trillion. If awarded to households with income under 15K, that's another 10% of the population (~30 million) or $450 billion.
And this wouldn't actually give enough to live off of for all the cost. Because minimum wage is too fucking low. That's the actual problem. A living wage would be at least 10 bucks an hour. And that increases the cost to 6.4 trillion for everyone or 2 trillion if only given to nonemployed adults. But now 26% of the households don't make that much so the cost would go up well past 2.5 trillion.
The idea of unconditional basic income seems to have been abandoned for some kind of hybrid safety net. Someone without a job will be have the choice of working to earn some amount of money and lose their basic income, or to not work and earn their basic income. Its a direct disincentive to work, regardless of how you taper off the benefits. And indeed that's the benefit: people won't have to work in order to provide for their families. It will just show up.
The net result - the stated purpose - would be fewer people working. That's not stimulating to the economy even if they have that money in their pockets because the benefit they provide through work is now gone. And if fewer people are working, the cost estimates are lower. And the tax base and the economy both shrink. Which means fewer jobs are available, lower pay and less incentive to work. Its a depressive cycle.
Its a bad idea. Work is not something your mean old boss or some secret backroom cabal makes you do just because. It should not be discouraged. People who can work should work. People should be invested in their society and take responsibility for their own destiny as much as is feasible. Work encourages both. Its fundamentally good to soceity for you to be productive and useful. Its fundamentally good for you to be productive and useful to society. We shouldn't start spending money to discourage it.
If someone can't work due to disability, or have a diminished ability to work because of some medical condition, then sure. If someone is solely responsible for children, helping them is good. But you shouldn't be entitled to coast through life only taking if you're simply lazy. For every artist or writer who actually produces something in that paradigm - let alone one who wouldn't have if they had to hold a regular job - there will be 50 permanent adolescents never achieving or trying anything.
So either the benefit is disastrously expensive or its incredibly expensive with disastrous results. Either way its ill conceived utopian thinking. Its not time to cash out and burn off the economy simply because having adult responsibilities isn't fun
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 money generates prosperity. Tax cuts are a bad idea because people don't spend the money they save.
Of course spending money leads to more working to generate the stuff that money can be spent on. The idea behind the basic income is that it is money that will be directly spent, generating more prosperity. It's really no different from other forms of welfare: give money to the poor that they spend so it ends up in the economy again.
Doesn't that just result in inflation?
0
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
Employed, earning greater than the basic income. Not just employed.
And hey, if the government guarantees people's retirement every bit as good as my pension will I'm more than happy to give it up.
So if basic income's 20 grand, and I'm earning thirty grand, I get the shaft? Seems a little unfair considering the guy lazing it away on basic income can get a part time job that pays 18 grand a year and now he's earning almost ten thousand dollars more than me for a lot less work.
Employed, earning greater than the basic income. Not just employed.
And hey, if the government guarantees people's retirement every bit as good as my pension will I'm more than happy to give it up.
So if basic income's 20 grand, and I'm earning thirty grand, I get the shaft? Seems a little unfair considering the guy lazing it away on basic income can get a part time job that pays 18 grand a year and now he's earning almost ten thousand dollars more than me for a lot less work.
It could be done gradually. As has been stated in this thread.
Perhaps you should stop jumping to the next worst assumption and read it.
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 own.
But
I can't even right now.
That_Guy literally said we need to empty out Appalachia and send everyone somewhere else.
No. He said he lives there and its a shithole, and implied that maybe if folks weren't tethered to the cycle of poverty due to a GBI they'd elect to gtfo.
I'm on mobile and his original is one character wide now lol.
You are wrong though, and he said it was hyperbole so I let it go.
Yeah why do people always assume hard cutoffs? Simple, extra 20% tax on everything earned until BI is paid back. Boom, done. Guy earning 18k extra? Pays 3.6k of extra taxes. He's got 34.4 - taxes You earning 30k? Pay 6k. You've got 44 - taxes
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
We spend like, what, $3.5 trillion on entitlement spending right now? Maybe $1 trillion of that is healthcare that you would still need with mincome, but the other $2.5 trillion would get replaced. US pop for 18+ (to avoid the whole welfare babby thing) is like 240 million, so $2.5 trillion divided evenly is about $10k/yr. OK, why not start there?
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
I used to be against the idea of a mincome because I was worried about disincentives for work.
But I've since decided that our current safety net doesn't generally do this outside of a few bad actors (who always exist) while it would at the same time improve the lot of a large portion of Americans.
I argued in the robots thread that people, in general, like working. They just don't like working 40+ hours in a shitty job for shitty pay just to keep their head up. In the experiments with basic income it was usually discovered that people started working less, but they didn't stop working altogether.
Employed, earning greater than the basic income. Not just employed.
And hey, if the government guarantees people's retirement every bit as good as my pension will I'm more than happy to give it up.
So if basic income's 20 grand, and I'm earning thirty grand, I get the shaft? Seems a little unfair considering the guy lazing it away on basic income can get a part time job that pays 18 grand a year and now he's earning almost ten thousand dollars more than me for a lot less work.
There are a lot of apples and oranges being talked about. Most people are I think saying that the program would top you up to 20k.
So it would be pointless to work for less than 20k plus the value of your free time.
Like eljeffe, I don't know what that would do to the economy...
Posts
A basic income isn't meant to provide you with the life you want to live. It's meant to provide you with a life, so that you are able to work towards the life you want to live. If your example lost his job, sacrifices would have to be made until he finds another job.
Exactly.
But those sacrifices do not include selling plasma or giving blowjobs behind the Olive Garden dumpster, because you have enough to put a roof over the heads of you and your dependents and keep them fed / warm / connected.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
If you want to keep living where you are I'm sure they're not going to do forced relocation. People will move on their own as they work out the incentives, like they always have. The government providing $X isn't going to change that. If you need more than X to live, then you'll still need a job, it's just that X is 0 right now, so at the very least it will turn needing two full time minimum wage jobs into maybe one part-time minimum wage job
Fewer sacrifices than if there was no minimum income and zero chance of ending up destitute on the street with almost no chance of being able to recover.
The movement of people is part of the history of America and will continue to be no matter what we do.
"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!".
But
I can't even right now.
That_Guy literally said we need to empty out Appalachia and send everyone somewhere else.
Speak for yourself, comrade!
Anyway, the simple argument against our current military expenditure isn't a difficult one to make. We spend a considerable amount (something like 10% last I checked of the number) maintaining Cold War Military systems. Why? Those aren't things we're ever going to actually use, and it seems far better to disarm/destroy (where possible) those and put the money towards something else that, you know, actually benefits society.
Not to mention the massive surplus of equipment we produce each year. You know, the same equipment that allowed the police to treat Ferguson like a warzone. We could cut all of that shit out, too.
Not forcibly.
You need to stop making the assumption that when someone says something needs to happen it means at the end of a gun.
That was an aside from someone who lives in Appalachia, not the core argument of the thread.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I also have a tendency to infuse my posts with the fair amount of hyperbole.
Edit: I am totally like "Florida Man."
You think the hordes of illiterate masses pouring into the Eurozone is bad, if you start handing out thousands of dollars to people for free every single person in the Third World will try their damnedest to get in.
Besides, if you give everyone in the U.S. 20 grand a year (not an unreasonable assumption for basic income) that works out to 7 trillion a year, which is almost one-and-a-half times our current budget (about 4 trillion) and doesn't include spending for the military, the government, the nationalized healthcare program that would naturally be in the new socialist paradise, etc. Who's going to pay for that?
I feel that you did not read the multiple posts that pointed out that not every single person would receive the entire income.
Imma just point you to the post Heffling made.
Meanwhile there's not reason to give the income to non citizens either. Though, incidentally, when Brazil tried it and there was an influx of non recipients in to the area the economy still improved.
But I've since decided that our current safety net doesn't generally do this outside of a few bad actors (who always exist) while it would at the same time improve the lot of a large portion of Americans. I think it may have been @TL DR that convinced me of it last time it popped up.
Properly applied, I see the mincome bringing back social mobility, increasing incentives for familial unity while taking off the biggest pressure on that unity (money!), and being in general The Right Thing to Do to rebalance the scales on the universal destination of goods which is properly ordered to the benefit of all mankind rather than just the uberwealthy.
Cost is a problem, but I am 100% sure that we can figure that out. Perhaps by making sure that people actually pay their taxes rather than using all kinds of loopholes and welfare to get out of it.
1) Do I really need to go into great detail as to why it is a bad idea for our government to give away billions of dollars in equipment designated obsolete to countries like Egypt, then re-buy the same equipment from US suppliers?
2) The government already decides when a town no longer has a reason to exist when they shutter a military base.
Yes its not designed so you can have a fancy house and a fancy car. It is so you can find an apartment/feed/cloth yourself and provide basic transportation. Most people even if it existed would still want to work to get more fun stuff and better housing.
On those disincentivized to work - good! If you can be content on $20k/year doing whatever it is you want and not taking any money for it, then more power to you. As the demand for labor decreases further, hopefully this will be a larger percentage of people making art or gardening or volunteering.
As for bad actors, this criticism is often levied against welfare programs in an attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill, and I'm not convinced that tax cheats would be more than a rounding error in this case, either.
Bingo. The current model is "labor costs decrease; owners profit and laborers are forced to compete over the smaller remaining slice of the pie". This model pivots toward "labor costs decrease; the cost of living decreases as well and laborers can enjoy more leisure or take up other vocations as they see fit".
Okay, thoughts.
First, let's start with the idea of what "money" even means.
You do a job for me, I give you $100. That is your money, let's say, and the government has no right to it. But... what are you asserting is "yours"? A piece of paper? That piece of paper only has value to the extent that the government says it has value. "$100" is a meaningless phrase devoid of context.
So let's refine that statement: you haven't earned $100, you've earned some amount of purchasing power. Depending on what you do with it, that purchasing power can get you ten burgers or two pairs of shoes or two video games or one concert ticket or all manner of other things. Not even that, though - depending on where you are and when you are and how lucky you are and how smart you are, that amount can get you differing quantities of the same exact things. It can get you one pair of shoes or, perhaps, two pairs of the exact same shoes, depending on a complicated set of factors.
So money, then, however you define it, is an extremely fluid and nebulous construct, defined at least partially by the same government some would like to say should have no role in determining how much of it you get.
Let's examine a hypothetical situation: let's say in one scenario, you make $100 which is untaxed. You use that money to buy one $100 pair of shoes. In another scenario, you make $100, which is taxed at fifty percent. You then use it to buy the same pair of shoes that are, in this scenario, priced at $50.
In which of those scenarios are you better off? If your answer is not "neither", I'd be very interested to see your work.
So here's the thing about basic income: implementing it would fundamentally and irrevocably change the economy in enormous ways. I think it's very difficult to predict exactly how it would do so. Pretty much everyone would have more money, though some people may have less. The price of most things would probably go up, except for those things that went down or stayed the same. Actual purchasing power would probably change, but fuck if I can tell how.
In the end, it is exceptionally difficult to tell what would happen to the numerical values attached to the imaginary pieces of paper that get passed around. If you want to claim that it is unjust that someone with two million Fun Bux might only have one million Happy Dollrz after the introduction of basic income, with no regard for what those concepts refer to, that's cool, but maybe explain why you care about that.
Alternately, if you don't really care about what your money can buy, only the fact that someone might get a few Fun Bux that they didn't earn, that's cool, too. Just be honest about that part, as well.
For my part, I think basic income is a really cool idea that would be great to establish from the beginning if you're building your civilization up from scratch. How we get from where we are to that point? God, fuck if I know. I'm not convinced it's possible to implement on a large scale, though I'd love to be wrong on that.
(looks at the Waltons)
(looks at the Kochs)
...I'd say the evidence shows that it is our business.
First article:
So what is Paine looking at? A return to the population of a single time payout for the public goods the individuals and country use on their behalf. The idea that resources are communal property that we the people should get paid for exists now. Alaska's pay out yearly to its citizens is an example of that. As pointed out in the article a lot of countries including the US doesn't really have a sovereign wealth fund.
This article is short but it also shows another issue, Basic Income is expensive. A quick snippet on that:
So is this really true? Probably but it comes down to the idea this is income so you do get some back from taxes. A growth from it going back into the economy for goods and so on. I would argue it isn't a straight 10% as Tobin is saying. But I would also argue the idea of it isn't to bring everyone to the 60% median but instead produce the basic assistance so you get roof, food, and care. Already the basics we try to provide through an overly complex and heavily discriminatory welfare system. I would also argue that a key part of something like basic income is reducing cost in other areas such as changing the health system to a more efficient single payer system instead of the current system that has at least 20% of the funds put into it eaten by "overhead" and profit. Again another thread to argue but if you guarantee basic health needs you get a population less attached to single jobs and able to move around the economy more. Possibility of growth due to innovation increases.
Also I want to point out the Economist is British conservative so there is a slant but it puts some good points in the second article.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/11/government-guaranteed-basic-income
A lot of what we are looking to here is a way to help salve the current massive inequality. UBI or just the idea of Basic Income doesn't do this. But it will improve some of the standing of the lower class. I think this article does underestimate the power of adding even a $500 in cash to a lot of the poor, working poor or lower middle class's monthly income.
So let us think of what basic income can do:
1)Dismantle the discriminatory and over complicated welfare system that has been built in the US or other developed countries allowing those using the system to spend more time trying to move out of it instead of navigating it.
2)Provide a chance for innovation and entrepreneurship as basic income allows people to be less attached to a single job and be able to strike out on their own. (theorized)
3)Help reduce suffering with in the lower classes by providing for basic needs.(theorized)
What it probably can't do:
1)Remove the need for work. Most folks who it would be their only income aren't going to be the ones living in the suburbs unless life events occur and hopefully that would lead to only a temporary loss of income. Even with in today's system if the loss goes to long downsizing, relocation, and other adverse events occur. Basic income won't change that.
2) Dismantle income inequality. It might help a little bit. But this is a more complex issue than just taxes or small wealth reallocation. It needs to be hit from a top to bottom government and societal action. As small as incentives to as heavy handed as wealth redistribution.
For inequality I still love this article:http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014.html#.VZGuGkYeqO4
3)A magic pill. This will be a shift in society. One that is probably coming as less human labor is required in the long run. But it doesn't fix everything but it can help mitigate some of the structural loss due to new technology.
On the relocation thing. Suburbia is not a sustainable option in the long in the states. It already is being reversed as the poor are being pushed out of gentrifying cities to areas that have no support services for them that did exist in the city. This is not something basic income will fix or speed up or slow down. This is an issue that includes issues with race, infrastructure, educational equality, land ownership verse renting, and public transportation at minimum. And basic income won't lead the poor in Appalachia to being emptied into a city. Just as nothing else has forced them out yet either. Rural poverty exists because rural land tends to be affordable but at the same point they are lacking services and nothing about UBI would change that. Societal changes and improved access to services in rural areas can help that but that is a separate topic.
Right, as an offset for technological increases in efficiency which decrease labor costs.
Balzac put it best:
Which is why I find it hard to argue the claim that society has no right to the property.
I am confused. You guys are talking about this being a program where if people want to work to earn more than the basic income, they can, but he says that people who are employed don't qualify. You'd also have to increase the social security payments (or roll the entire thing into basic income) or else young people with no job might get more than Gramps who's worked his whole life. The "disqualified for pensions" stuff gives companies every incentive to stop paying out pensions, because, hey, Uncle Sam'll just pay them basic income instead. Heck let's end every retirement program while we're at it.
As for the non-citizens thing, what happens when they flood the borders and then demand amnesty?
Spending money generates prosperity. Tax cuts are a bad idea because people don't spend the money they save.
Of course spending money leads to more working to generate the stuff that money can be spent on. The idea behind the basic income is that it is money that will be directly spent, generating more prosperity. It's really no different from other forms of welfare: give money to the poor that they spend so it ends up in the economy again.
Employed, earning greater than the basic income. Not just employed.
And hey, if the government guarantees people's retirement every bit as good as my pension will I'm more than happy to give it up.
No. He said he lives there and its a shithole, and implied that maybe if folks weren't tethered to the cycle of poverty due to a GBI they'd elect to gtfo.
How much is needed? I earlier used the federal minimum wage which is generally closer to the poverty wage to simplify. 15K a year is below the poverty rate for a two individual household. If awarded non-conditionally, the cost is approximately 4.8 trillion/year (the total expenditure of the federal government is 3.7). If awarded to the unemployed including children, the cost is ~2.5 trillion. If awarded to nonemployed adults, the cost is roughly 1.5 trillion. If awarded to households with income under 15K, that's another 10% of the population (~30 million) or $450 billion.
And this wouldn't actually give enough to live off of for all the cost. Because minimum wage is too fucking low. That's the actual problem. A living wage would be at least 10 bucks an hour. And that increases the cost to 6.4 trillion for everyone or 2 trillion if only given to nonemployed adults. But now 26% of the households don't make that much so the cost would go up well past 2.5 trillion.
The idea of unconditional basic income seems to have been abandoned for some kind of hybrid safety net. Someone without a job will be have the choice of working to earn some amount of money and lose their basic income, or to not work and earn their basic income. Its a direct disincentive to work, regardless of how you taper off the benefits. And indeed that's the benefit: people won't have to work in order to provide for their families. It will just show up.
The net result - the stated purpose - would be fewer people working. That's not stimulating to the economy even if they have that money in their pockets because the benefit they provide through work is now gone. And if fewer people are working, the cost estimates are lower. And the tax base and the economy both shrink. Which means fewer jobs are available, lower pay and less incentive to work. Its a depressive cycle.
Its a bad idea. Work is not something your mean old boss or some secret backroom cabal makes you do just because. It should not be discouraged. People who can work should work. People should be invested in their society and take responsibility for their own destiny as much as is feasible. Work encourages both. Its fundamentally good to soceity for you to be productive and useful. Its fundamentally good for you to be productive and useful to society. We shouldn't start spending money to discourage it.
If someone can't work due to disability, or have a diminished ability to work because of some medical condition, then sure. If someone is solely responsible for children, helping them is good. But you shouldn't be entitled to coast through life only taking if you're simply lazy. For every artist or writer who actually produces something in that paradigm - let alone one who wouldn't have if they had to hold a regular job - there will be 50 permanent adolescents never achieving or trying anything.
So either the benefit is disastrously expensive or its incredibly expensive with disastrous results. Either way its ill conceived utopian thinking. Its not time to cash out and burn off the economy simply because having adult responsibilities isn't fun
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Doesn't that just result in inflation?
So if basic income's 20 grand, and I'm earning thirty grand, I get the shaft? Seems a little unfair considering the guy lazing it away on basic income can get a part time job that pays 18 grand a year and now he's earning almost ten thousand dollars more than me for a lot less work.
It could be done gradually. As has been stated in this thread.
Perhaps you should stop jumping to the next worst assumption and read it.
I'm on mobile and his original is one character wide now lol.
You are wrong though, and he said it was hyperbole so I let it go.
I argued in the robots thread that people, in general, like working. They just don't like working 40+ hours in a shitty job for shitty pay just to keep their head up. In the experiments with basic income it was usually discovered that people started working less, but they didn't stop working altogether.
There are a lot of apples and oranges being talked about. Most people are I think saying that the program would top you up to 20k.
So it would be pointless to work for less than 20k plus the value of your free time.
Like eljeffe, I don't know what that would do to the economy...