my main concern with this is that the working class will lose social status compared to those who don't work. In fact it could give those who don't work more status than the working class (my broad definition of working class would include anyone who does not have enough to stop working) because they have much more time. i don't think this is something we want to see. Although its arguably better than the current welfare system it still hurts hard-working people with little wealth. i would argue for a basic income in terms of food, shelter and some facilities, but not money. this will keep a clear class difference between the working class and dependent people. which means unemployment still means misery and work still means happiness. it would keep the incentive intact without being cruel.
Moving Forward on Basic Income
381–390 of 1001 posts
Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income
#382So, a question for the BI fans: I've seen it said repeatedly that BI will save us money (or at least, not be so outrageously expensive) in part because we can eliminate existing welfare programs. "Just cut a single check, no more overhead from several agencies", they say. But riddle me this: what do you do when someone on BI has a financial emergency or, as will happen with some regularity, just flat-out blows all th…
Right now you can blow all of your food stamps money on bottles of ketchup if you want. Nothing is stopping you. And there is no fall-back. And food stamps don't fix your car, section 8 housing doesn't fix your car, even if you have SSI, it's not really enough money to fix your car.
So all of this is a straw man and completely irrelevant to anything related to BI. Once you expend your welfare, you don't get more just because you asked.
Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income
#383Can anyone explain how this can be implemented mathematically? Assume 300 million people @ $12k / year, you are spending $3.6 trillion. That is already more than current government revenue, leaving all current government services unfunded.
What about a BI based on resources rather than the dollar? There already exists a renewable surplus of food, water, and shelter.
There are around 4-6 empty houses in the US for every homeless person and around 40% of food goes to waste.
So providing for the most basic physiological needs of the ~45 million impoverished people in the US is not a problem of production, it's a problem of distribution and waste management.
Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income
#384I do not really know where I stand on BI yet, but my concern is that if the BI is coming from taxes, why not tax income less and tax consumption more? This will encourage people to still be productive members of society rather than trying to find ways to live off the BI forever.
Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income
#385What amazes me in this discussion about BI is that most people don't seem to realize that systems similar to BI have already been tried in Europe, and that they didn't work. I come from the Netherlands, which has always had unemployment benefits. Nowadays you get those only if you meet a bunch of strict conditions but it hasn't always been so tough. In the early eighties, there were almost no checks whatsoever. The r…
> worked for black money and collect the social benefit at the same time This one doesn't apply to BI, since you get the same amount of BI money whether you work or not and regardless of how much you earn.
I keep seeing this repeated in discussions about BI, but I honestly have no idea how it would be possible. I get that everyone receives the same size check, no matter what their income, but who pays for the BI program?
I assume it is funded through taxes and that people that earn more income will pay higher taxes. So once you take BI received - taxes paid, people that earn more outside income get less from the BI program than those that don't. And we are back in the same situation where a welfare program creates disincentives for work.
Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income
#386So, a question for the BI fans: I've seen it said repeatedly that BI will save us money (or at least, not be so outrageously expensive) in part because we can eliminate existing welfare programs. "Just cut a single check, no more overhead from several agencies", they say. But riddle me this: what do you do when someone on BI has a financial emergency or, as will happen with some regularity, just flat-out blows all th…
The best answer that I've heard to this question (when I asked it on HN a year or two ago) is that you give people their money on a weekly basis. If they blow it and have no money for food, well they are going to get another check in a week. This doesn't totally solve the problem of course, but makes the "I blew all my money on a new car and now I can't eat" issue much more manageable.
"Hey, I will lend you money for that new car if you give me X% of your weekly checks for Y amount of time".
Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income
#387What amazes me in this discussion about BI is that most people don't seem to realize that systems similar to BI have already been tried in Europe, and that they didn't work. I come from the Netherlands, which has always had unemployment benefits. Nowadays you get those only if you meet a bunch of strict conditions but it hasn't always been so tough. In the early eighties, there were almost no checks whatsoever. The r…
There are places in Europe [0] also experimenting with government-sponsored BI but the Netherlands is not one of those from what I understand, and what you describe is not at all what BI is.
[0] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/finland-to-co...
Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income
#388What amazes me in this discussion about BI is that most people don't seem to realize that systems similar to BI have already been tried in Europe, and that they didn't work. I come from the Netherlands, which has always had unemployment benefits. Nowadays you get those only if you meet a bunch of strict conditions but it hasn't always been so tough. In the early eighties, there were almost no checks whatsoever. The r…
Unemployment insurance is not BI. BI goes to everyone, Unemployment insurance only goes to people who aren't working legally. Unemployment insurance reduces the incentive to work because it pays people to not work. It similarly incentivizes black market labor. BI does not do that. It does (if we get replace minimum wage with basic income) allow people to do work that pays nothing or very little. However, I would see…
It does allow people to do work that pays nothing or very little. However, I would see that as boosting overall economic productivity
That's a contradiction. Productivity is defined as output divided by hours worked. Output is defined roughly as "sales of things that people want".
Putting aside market failures for a moment, work that pays nothing is very often work that nobody wants done. There are lots of people who will happily churn out poems about their personal angst all day if they had the opportunity to do so and call it 'work' but if nobody wants to buy their poems then it's not considered economic productivity. And it must be this way as otherwise you could get idiotic situations like someone who just goes running every day and says they were "productive" because they did "work", ignoring that it was income free because it didn't help anyone else. At some level the notion of productive work must be tied to an exchange of goods or services or else the phrase becomes kind of meaningless.
Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income
#389Earlier quoted context omitted.
Realistically a Basic Income wouldn't be guaranteed forever either, as it'd rely on a government, which tend to be replaced every 4 - 8 years. The main difference is perhaps that they know how long it will last. Edit: rephrase because I didn't express myself very well
> Realistically a Basic Income wouldn't be guaranteed forever either, as it'd rely on a government, which tend to be replaced every 4 - 8 years. The main difference is perhaps that they know how long it will last. That's like saying our existing welfare programs won't be around forever. But guess what -- they will. Handing out free money is an easy way to win votes and an even easier way to lose them if you take it a…
Welfare in the USA has been scaled back considerably over the past 20 years, and it has been done with enough popular support that the people working to reduce welfare continue to win elections.
So no, welfare will not necessarily be around forever. And the systems that exist rarely last long on an individual basis.
Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income
#390Earlier quoted context omitted.
What sort of emergency do you envision? Most of today's financial emergencies hinge on either losing your job or incurring extreme debt due to uninsured medical care. I can't speak for all BI proponents but I, personally, support universal health care in addition to BI. With health care taking care of medical expense emergencies, basic income is left to take care of job-related emergencies. Your example of "my car br…
In other words, can you really have BI without universal health care?
Yes, of course. Universal health care coverage (read: insurance) can't be used to buy groceries or pay rent. Basic income will never be enough to pay for somebody's cancer treatments.
Neither one is a substitute for the other; both are extremely beneficial.