The Mincome Experiment of 1974-79 • Hacker News Board

Re: The Mincome Experiment of 1974-79

#21

Post by alistairSH » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 6:27 PM UTC

ad_hominem wrote: post #14

Zikes wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would have to be in an extremely liberal area. Socialism is still a four letter word in the US, and this is the epitome of socialist initiatives.

It seems like reducing socialism to me. Instead of the gov't hand-picking (centrally planning) benefactors of tax dollars, e.g. defense contractors or oil/ag subsidies, it's being returned to the people (and all the people - not just some according to their need or whatever).

True, but if I pay $60,000 in federal taxes each year, and only receive $25,000 in "mincome", then it's still "socialism" (as Americans seem to define it).

It seems that any tax plan that is remotely progressive is immediately labeled as "socialist" by the right.

Re: The Mincome Experiment of 1974-79

#22

Post by clavalle » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 6:31 PM UTC

I wonder if it would be feasible to pick a small town in the US and have private parties contribute enough to run such an experiment -- perhaps with better record keeping.

Say a town of 3000 adults and 1000 needed help to get to a 'living wage' level. Let's call living wage an average of $40K per year and, on average, the 1000 people needed about half that to get to that level.

$20m/year plus administrative costs, let's say $5m. $25m for the experiment. Say we run it for a guarantee of 5 years, so that is $125 million.

Too bad. A bit beyond a kickstarter level.

Maybe somebody could supplement it with a reality show.

Re: The Mincome Experiment of 1974-79

#23

Post by vlunkr » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 6:33 PM UTC

Can someone explain to me how basic income could work? I'm really interested, not trying to start a battle. The biggest question: Where does the money come from? Massive taxes on the wealthy? You can't just pull a salary for everyone out of thin air. In the case of this town in Canada, the project was probably funded by taxes from other parts of the country, and could not have worked universally.

Re: The Mincome Experiment of 1974-79

#24

Post by innguest » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 6:33 PM UTC

GauntletWizard wrote: post #17

ergothus wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was my initial response when I first heard this concept a few years ago, and the answer is somewhat surprising (Note: I'm not an economist, so please someone correct me if I get anything wrong here): 3 things can alter those prices: A change in supply, a change in demand, or general inflation/deflation. The supply doesn't inherently change in this plan, nor does demand (*assuming everyone is getting these goods…

If you think inflation's only source is 'printing money', you may not be qualified to speak on economic issues. Liquidity, the monetary supply, and the cost of exchange are quite a bit more complex than that, and far more prone to being manipulated and falling over, as both the Housing Crisis and Libor Scandal taught us.

I'm sorry but you are wrong. Inflation is nothing but the increase of money supply without an equivalent increase in production.

What you are doing is being a good Keynesian and trying to make people believe that this stuff is too complicated for them to even start having an opinion on it. That strategy is condescending and not productive, and encourages helplessness in people.

Re: The Mincome Experiment of 1974-79

#25

Post by bryanlarsen » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 6:34 PM UTC

Zikes wrote: post #7

mchanson wrote: post #2

Hope we start experimenting with this in the US also. Maybe at a state level.

It would have to be in an extremely liberal area. Socialism is still a four letter word in the US, and this is the epitome of socialist initiatives.

In the States it should be called a "negative income tax". It's basically the same thing with a different name, but it's the name that Milton Friedman and other leading right-wing economists use.

Re: The Mincome Experiment of 1974-79

#26

Post by jfoutz » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 6:35 PM UTC

aninhumer wrote: post #11

jnbiche wrote: post #3

Where true basic income differs from this experiment by Canada is that true basic income should be for every adult, regardless of income, race, marital status, sexuality, etc. Not just for poor people, as with Mincome in this Canadian town. A few arguments for: 1) It becomes a defacto emergency lifeline when a ostensibly middle class person loses their job or suffers an extremely expensive illness. In the US, it can…

>this means that disability should be eliminated if this passes That depends whether you think the point of disability benefit is to allow disabled people to survive, or to allow them have a comparable quality of life to an able bodied person.

I really like the idea of basic income. I think you bring up an excellent point about degree of disability. I think it's really unlikely BI would be at the same level as someone on full disability. However, i do think the VA's model of % disability is helpful here.

BI would (i hope) replace the first say, 10-20% brackets. Hopefully, that would simplify VA administration, so they could focus on specializing support for higher % disability servicemen.

Re: The Mincome Experiment of 1974-79

#27

Post by keithba » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 6:35 PM UTC

Zikes wrote: post #7

mchanson wrote: post #2

Hope we start experimenting with this in the US also. Maybe at a state level.

It would have to be in an extremely liberal area. Socialism is still a four letter word in the US, and this is the epitome of socialist initiatives.

Milton Friedman created a reasonable argument for conservatives that this program is in-line with conservative economic principles.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/23/business/23scene.html?_r=0

Re: The Mincome Experiment of 1974-79

#28

Post by irremediable » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 6:36 PM UTC

Zikes wrote: post #7

mchanson wrote: post #2

Hope we start experimenting with this in the US also. Maybe at a state level.

It would have to be in an extremely liberal area. Socialism is still a four letter word in the US, and this is the epitome of socialist initiatives.

It's a weird one, actually; lots of socialists like the idea, but so do lots of libertarians. Alas, conservatives hate it.

Re: The Mincome Experiment of 1974-79

#29

Post by lowboy » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 6:41 PM UTC

innguest wrote: post #24

GauntletWizard wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think inflation's only source is 'printing money', you may not be qualified to speak on economic issues. Liquidity, the monetary supply, and the cost of exchange are quite a bit more complex than that, and far more prone to being manipulated and falling over, as both the Housing Crisis and Libor Scandal taught us.

I'm sorry but you are wrong. Inflation is nothing but the increase of money supply without an equivalent increase in production. What you are doing is being a good Keynesian and trying to make people believe that this stuff is too complicated for them to even start having an opinion on it. That strategy is condescending and not productive, and encourages helplessness in people.

> Inflation is nothing but the increase of money supply without an equivalent increase in production

Wouldn't that mean that inflation would also be caused by a decrease in production without an equivalent decrease in the money supply?

Re: The Mincome Experiment of 1974-79

#30

Post by bryanlarsen » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 6:41 PM UTC

vlunkr wrote: post #23

Can someone explain to me how basic income could work? I'm really interested, not trying to start a battle. The biggest question: Where does the money come from? Massive taxes on the wealthy? You can't just pull a salary for everyone out of thin air. In the case of this town in Canada, the project was probably funded by taxes from other parts of the country, and could not have worked universally.

It's not as expensive as you think, if you run the numbers. Most of the money comes from dismantling welfare, social security, food stamps, et cetera. Tax rates on the middle class are increased enough to cancel out the basic income benefit, so that washes out. As long as the poor isn't the majority of your population, it's not a large tax increase on the rich.