Earlier quoted context omitted.
To make it work you'd have to take whatever the amount is and extract it from all other government benefit programs. You get $700 / month from the government for basic income. Your social security, welfare, unemployment, disability, etc is reduced by $700 / month. Reducing all of those programs by the first $700 would effectively gut each of them enough to finally make some reforms without inducing panic in everyone…
"fair tax" is the stupidest thing ever. How do you implement a progressive tax on consumption? You'd have to keep track of every purchase a person makes to know how much they've spent. It's worse than keeping track of income, and it's also a massive surveillance tool. Then there's the whole problem that people who have lower income will pay a higher percentage of it in tax. There is nothing good about that scheme.
A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing
711–720 of 840 posts
Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing
#712Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the article is talking more about the difference from the current system. > But by excluding 45 million retirees who already receive a basic income through Social Security, the cost falls to $2.7 trillion. These retirees can be excluded from the calculation because they are already being paid, they wouldn't add any additional cost to the system.
Is it fair to say they're being paid if they paid into the system paying them for their entire working lives? Can someone please explain why people call Social Security an entitlement? Am I missing something?
Because it is. What you're missing is what the word entitlement means. They paid into the system, they are entitled to get those checks, i.e. they have a right to it. Calling it an entitlement is not an insult.
Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing
#713Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it fair to say they're being paid if they paid into the system paying them for their entire working lives? Can someone please explain why people call Social Security an entitlement? Am I missing something?
The money you put into SS is used to pay the benefits of the people drawing on it today. Anything left over is loaned to the government (yes an IOU to itself). There is no account with your name on it that holds the dollars that have been taken from you all your life. There is no trust fund. It's a giant pyramid scheme.
No it isn't.
> The money you put into SS is used to pay the benefits of the people drawing on it today.
That doesn't make it a pyramid scheme.
Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing
#714Earlier quoted context omitted.
"fair tax" is the stupidest thing ever. How do you implement a progressive tax on consumption? You'd have to keep track of every purchase a person makes to know how much they've spent. It's worse than keeping track of income, and it's also a massive surveillance tool. Then there's the whole problem that people who have lower income will pay a higher percentage of it in tax. There is nothing good about that scheme.
How come it has to be progressive? Wealthier folks consume more and therefore pay more.
Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing
#715Earlier quoted context omitted.
I fear it will only increase inflation to a level that the 10k people get is representing about the same in goods as the current level is they have. Free money is fake: it doesn't work in my opinion. It either increases the price level (hey - even the poor bum gets 10k a year, so he can afford a $10 bread, isn't it?) or it will stop people from over-achieving. My motivation to earn extra with a job only to see it go…
Well, buts it's NOT free money. The money is coming from rich people and being given to poor people. The 'amount' of money in the system stays the same and therefore inflation stays the same. Also, at least recently everyone has been talking about how inflation is too LOW not too high.
Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing
#716Earlier quoted context omitted.
So far as I can tell, "the public" has this perfectly clear. (Or at least as clear as "the public" ever has anything, which is not necessarily all that clear.) I think what you mean is that I need to convince you . I've no idea what (if anything) you would accept as evidence. Here's the first paragraph of the Wikipedia page on communism; feel free to check that the [...]s don't hide anything that changes the meaning.…
We'll have to agree to disagree. And as I say, step outside your bubble. The vast vast majority of the population reject basic income, in favour of a meritocracy, where the harder you work, the more money you can earn. Confiscating money from everyone, and then distributing it equally amongst the population (Regardless of whether they need it or deserve it) doesn't sit very well with people.
Meritocracy still persists under a UBI, just like meritocracy persists alongside our welfare system.
> Confiscating money from everyone, and then distributing it equally amongst the population (Regardless of whether they need it or deserve it) doesn't sit very well with people.
Yes, that is a massive political hurdle that will need to be overcome. A large problem is that the way we tax isn't ideal. A land value tax would be easier to justify from a moral standpoint, along with being economically superior to an income tax.
Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing
#717Interesting how this article spins Basic Income as something of particular interest to conservatives while liberals would object to it. I suppose that can help sell the concept to highly partisan anti-liberals, but I know plenty of liberals and progressives who strongly support Basic Income. The idea that the people employed in the bureaucracy managing the current mess of programs losing their job is a silly concern.…
That's not basic, though. I don't think there are many towns (maybe none) in the USA where you can't stay warm, dry, safe, and clean with a soft bed and a healthy diet for $700 per month.
Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing
#718This article says it's talking about a universal basic income, and makes the usual point that a completely universal, no-strings-attached income is simple to administer, doesn't have poverty traps, etc. And then, towards the end where it starts looking at numbers, it starts saying things like > But by excluding 45 million retirees who already receive a basic income through Social Security, the cost falls to $2.7 tril…
Can someone explain to me how a true basic income would be expected to work? If you're not excluding anyone, where does this massive amount of money come from? I suppose it has to be taxed out of the wealthy? So they still receive the income but pay it back in taxes? This is an honest inquiry. Yes you can save money by cutting these programs, but that argument doesn't add up for me yet because you still have to pay E…
Actually you can pay for it. Exactly because any regular ordinary person can pay for it. Exactly because abundance is inherently free. (For the rest of the comment I'll redefine the label "you" to be one single ordinary person who wants to make a basic income happen IRL.) [0]
Abundance is free because it defeats the fundamental condition required for a scarcity-allocating market. That fundamental condition is: there is not enough for everybody. For example, try selling stray kittens in a neighborhood overrun with stray cats. No scarcity, no market price. In contrast, basic income requires abundance otherwise you have no business trying to universally share something you don't have enough of. Everybody can't have formula one race cars and red bottom heels. So just to be explicit:
With a universal basic income, you should only seek to share only those things you have in abundance. And since abundance is free, you are merely
**seeking to share free shit**.
**Abundance cycles**
A) Armed with the above perspective, you launch a form of self-sustaining loop called an abundance cycle. You take out a home equity loan for $25K. You use $15K of that $25K to build [1], or buy [2], a THOW ("tiny house on wheels").B) You give the tiny house to a handy builder-type who redirects the savings in rent towards spending more time building, you guessed it, more tiny houses. You use the remaining $10K to cover materials for the initial THOWs that the builder builds from scratch.
**Ride free**
C) The next THOW is gifted to a mechanic. The mechanic brings transportation into the abundance cycle. D) Y'all build, then sell a third THOW to buy requisite parts/materials for the mechanic's transportation phase. E) Mechanic personage, freed from financial shackles of keeping a roof overhead, begins spitting out reliable autos restored from $3K jalopies and hoopties found on craigslist [3]. They alternatively build electric bikes [4] and velomobiles [5] if requested over a car. **Gotta eat**
F) Your circle of three, all saving on rent and transportation, is now able to repeat the process to bring a grower into the loop. A house and car is gifted to a combination aquaponics [6] grower, diy soylent [7] mixer, mealsquare [8] baker and cricket powder [9] integrator. **Zap that**
G) Next, the self-sustaining circle does its amoeba thing to encompass a solar installer. The installer works with the builder to produce, or retrofit, THOWs topped with solar panels [10]. The circle goes off grid if/when desired. Now you've got food, shelter, transportation, and energy all covered. **Highly contagious**
H) You assemble the circle, affectionately calling itself the "amoeba initiative". It meets and decides to split into two organisms. I) The first organism focuses on gifting houses, transports, foods and electricities to as many people as possible as fast as possible. "Build two, sell one, gift one, repeat" is it's poorly-chosen motto. Gifts are first made to contagion vectors, namely giftees most able to produce more gifts. **Umm, water?**
J) The second organism does the research [11] and entrepreneur thing to find the best way to cover the last and most difficult and most critical basic need, water. Strategically selected expertises seek to bring to the masses a Slingshot-like [12] water purifier. Delivering clean water from polluted urban water sources-- think Flint, MI --means full grid independence. Kowtow to ~~immorten joe~~ the water MUDs only when you want unnaturally relocated grass species growing unnaturally green. **No fossils**
K) You assemble the AI ("amoeba initiative") again. You task them with extending arms to cover energy storage with air batteries the size of shipping containers, ala LightSail [13], which solves the weight and toxicity problems with time-shifting power from the solar panels. This in turn is crucial to weaning the last tenacious supplicants of the fossil fuel teat. You also task the assembly to polish cel-tower-obsoleting [14] laptops and mesh-connecting [15] smartphones, in order to deliver i) internet, ii) more importantly mobile data, and iii) most importantly carrier independence. **Better markets**
L) While the AI is still assembled, you reluctantly but necessarily task them with a PRA ("public relations arm"). The PR arm demonstrates and clarifies, in preemption of forseeable change resistors, how freer and larger and healthier private markets result from all the free and scary sharing of abundance. A market economy will always precipitate from the phenomena that is the human appetite. By design the human appetite, even when fed all essential nutrients, is infinite and will always find more to want beyond need. "Built to crave perfection", "continuous improvement necessitates an infinite appetite", "trust good instincts" are among catch-phrases tossed onto the annoyingly named ideate wall that triggers your early escape from PRA's first session. Exhausted, the assembly decides to table whether to engulf the tailors' guild; apparently folk suffering about naked isn't enough of thing. **Zero net cost** (nee Shit's free yo!)
M) One day, the AI throws a recognition ceremony. A sizeable surplus resulted from delivering requests for customization of the "basic" AI houses, transports, and recipes. From the surplus, the AI assembly symbolically pays back your original $25K loan. They hand you a wordy plaque that truthfully states "You did it for free" as the last line. **tl;dr**
Because of something called abundance cycles, even you can cover the world's basic needs, eliminate missed human potential and consequently bend hyper-exponentially the curve of human progress. The 13 "unlucky" steps are just an "off the top of the dome" illustration. A serious treatment can do much better exactly because a basic income focused on sharing abundance is free to do, exactly because abundance is intrinsically free.tl;dr($tl;dr) Because abundance cycles
*p.s.*
Seriously... imagine bending the curve of human progress for $25K. Recoupable. That is a fraction of the cost of 1 basic income trial or study. It's not my place to tell any advocates who do _actual better more_ work than myself to "Stop studying, Start doing", so maybe you can find a lesser hypocrite than myself to tell YC Research. ;-)=====
[00] precedent https://www.reddit.com/r/BasicIncome/comments/3m8x3d/hey_guy...
[01] http://www.tumbleweedhouses.com/pages/plans
[02] http://www.tumbleweedhouses.com/products/amish-barn-raiser
[03] http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2016/01/28/the-man-who-gets-h...
[04] http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2015/08/31/electric-bike-revi...
[05] http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2012/10/electric-velomobiles....
[06] http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2014/10/20/aquaponics/
[08] http://www.mealsquares.com/faq.html
[09] http://static1.squarespace.com/static/52524dbbe4b0b242f8ce4c...
[10] http://defyingnormal.com/blog/2014/08/26/tour-solar-setup-va...
[11] http://simonthorpesideas.blogspot.com.au/2015/05/science-and...
[12] http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-tech/re...
[13] http://www.lightsail.com/
[14] https://myriadrf.org/projects/novena-rf/
[15] http://www.technologyreview.com/news/516571/build-your-own-i...
Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing
#719Earlier quoted context omitted.
For fractional reserve, the 10X money is what's circulated in the system. The liability on the book is just accounting. The bank doesn't have 10X money to start with. It has 1X but it's allowed to lend out upto 10X. The extra 9X is created out of thin air. Of course the 10X is the theoretical max; ultimately what controls the nX (where 1 Lending out loan creates money circulated in the system. Paying off debt destroy…
>It has 1X but it's allowed to lend out upto 10X No, a bank cannot lend out 10X of it's deposits. That's simply wrong. Say a person deposits $1. The bank owes the person $1. If the bank thinks this $1 is unlikely to be withdrawn soon, it can lend out $0.90 (assuming a 10% reserve rate). End of story. This bank having received $1 cannot turn around and lend $10. Note that this point the bank has $0.10 of the original…
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking#/me...
Fractional reserve plus debt do create money. The accounting cancels out on the book but there are money circulating in the system. If accounting balanced to 0 means no money is created, then FOMC buying and selling treasury creates no money at all since it's net zero on the book at the end. Yet FOMC has the stated purpose to create/destroy money for the Fed.
The debt among friends example doesn't create money because it's the same $10 passing from friend to friend while the IOU issued is not very liquid. It would work if you hand $10 to Bob for safe keeping and he gives you a deposit slip while lends $10 to Carl. Now you have the deposit slip valued at $10 and Carl has $10 in his pocket. The deposit slip is very liquid since you can get back the money at any time.
Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing
#720Earlier quoted context omitted.
>agreed that the rich invest while the poor consume // You just twisted my words and acted disingenuously. I said, for the third time, the rich consume. The rich consume far more than the poor. The rich invest more than the poor, but that's because the poor don't have money to invest. Take all the money from the rich and give it to the poor and consumption and investment will shift. The people holding the money aren'…
The point is what will happen in aggregate. If the poor gain $1 additional and the rich lose $1 additional, will investment go up or down? If it goes up then we should target fiscal stimulus at the rich during bad economic times. If it goes down then a BI will reduce future investment. You are unfortunately in the situation that the stated reasons for your preferred policies contradict each other. That's quite strang…
Basic Income makes "vote with your wallet" a meaningful concept, instead of a hollow joke.