It Is Time For Basic Economic Literacy
I don't know whether you're saying "supporting a Basic Income is entailed by basic economic literacy" or "basic economic literacy precludes a Basic Income".
It Is Time For Basic Income
711–720 of 761 posts
Re: It Is Time For Basic Income
#712I think that digital currencies is the way to go to test this idea.
Perhaps, but I'm not convinced they help as much as it appears. The biggest difficulty is the need to establish uniqueness of an individual to the network, which is really difficult without some centralization.
Re: It Is Time For Basic Income
#713Let's just discourage people from earning a living even more....
For those at the margin currently receiving conditional support, a transition to unconditional support discourages people from earning a living substantially less.
Re: It Is Time For Basic Income
#714Earlier quoted context omitted.
First off children don't get the full amount only 1/2 which reduces costs by ~13%. $8500 / (1-.13) = 9770 / year which is rather close to 10k/year. A single person living on 10k after taxes is about the same as a single mother living on 15k hard but hardly impossible. If you add 10k per kid it creates a rather strong incentive to have a few kids. Also, the assumption is you cut a lot of government spending not just s…
Spending on welfare programs is a tiny share of our budget. Add up everything -- state and federal -- and it's about 600bn from the data I've seen -- and before the recession it was half that. Your comment about the 12.5% you save from social security should tell you what you need to know: In order to provide a "basic income" for JUST SENIORS we have to have a 12.5% tax. Now, nominally it's less, because social secur…
We give a lot more money than just 600bn to low income people though the tax code. (aka 10% income tax vs 39.6% income tax) Still 600bn / what amounts to ~275 million people = ~2,200$/person or 22% of a 10k basic income. Not to mention stipends for collage students etc.
~23.5% of the population under 18 get 1/2
prisoners get nothing or close to it.PS: Only 65.5% of Social security goes to retired workers. Well over 63 million people get paid from social security but less than 40 million of them get traditional retirement benefits. http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat_snapshot/
Re: It Is Time For Basic Income
#715So let's assume this was implemented. Some citizens, with their guaranteed basic income, will spend it wisely to cover their needs...as envisioned by proponents of this approach. Others, however, will waste their income and again find themselves short of what is necessary to cover their needs. What then? Simply increase the amount of basic income awarded, and hope that by throwing more money at the symptoms of povert…
If someone is unable to meet their needs when provided with the resources to do so, they probably have bigger problems (mental illness, substance abuse) that should be themselves addressed. Making sure everyone has access to some resources they can build upon, and making sure everyone is sufficiently well off, are not the same problem. Throwing money at people substantially addresses the former. Some of the latter is likely to remain, and that portion is not likely to be addressed by throwing more money.
Re: It Is Time For Basic Income
#716I encourage fans of this idea to experiment with it. Find a complete stranger and give him a guaranteed income if he abstains from government programs. Come back in five years and share your results. As for me, I don't wish to be forced into running your experiment.
Experiments have been done, and have shown good results. I've no objection to further experimentation, but at some point we should implement the policy that looks best. There is, mathematically speaking, clearly some non-empty set of optimal values for a Basic Income. How confident are you that $0 is in that set, even in the face of argument (from not just the modern left, but also Thomas Paine and Milton Friedman and some modern Libertarians) and experiment?
Re: It Is Time For Basic Income
#717Earlier quoted context omitted.
With BI it always is beneficial to work. Even if you only work for a couple of months a year (for instance picking strawberries) you will make more money than not doing anything. So if anything BI incentives people to work even if only for once in a while.
All this shows is that BI doesn't entirely eliminate existing incentives to work. That's uncontroversial. It could still very well be that BI provides a disincentive relative to an identical system without BI.
No that is actually one of the major claims from opponents of BI and thus controversial. That it removes the incentive for someone to work.
But there is nothing that indicates this at all. In fact the Canadian experiment mincome although not conclusive did not show people in general stopping to work.
Re: It Is Time For Basic Income
#718Another missed advantage: it moves the job market from demand/supply type of market to easy/difficult type of market: the highest paid jobs will be the ones nobody wants to do.
That would mean the CEO would be the lowest paid employee at every company.
I'm not sure if this is intended as snark at CEOs, criticism of the notion that a shift would occur, criticism of the notion that a shift should occur, or just general extrapolation.
Personally, I expect we would see unpleasant jobs become more expensive than they currently are, and pleasant jobs become less expensive than they currently are. I think it's tremendously unlikely that this effect would be so dramatic that "the CEO would be the lowest paid employee at every company", even accepting the implicit assumption that CEO is the least unpleasant job (which seems false).
Re: It Is Time For Basic Income
#719Earlier quoted context omitted.
All this shows is that BI doesn't entirely eliminate existing incentives to work. That's uncontroversial. It could still very well be that BI provides a disincentive relative to an identical system without BI.
No that is actually one of the major claims from opponents of BI and thus controversial. That it removes the incentive for someone to work. But there is nothing that indicates this at all. In fact the Canadian experiment mincome although not conclusive did not show people in general stopping to work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome
You think a major claim of BI opponents is that there is zero remaining incentive to work, as opposed to simply a substantially reduced incentive? Show me anyone (who understands that BI isn't lost when someone works) making that claim anywhere.
I agree with you that the evidence shows there is not even substantially reduced incentive. In the case of Mincome in particular, it did show a decrease in hours worked, which is consistent with the claim that you were objecting to - that BI reduces the incentives for work (relative to the same system with no BI). Asserting that the global disincentive is small and that conditional assistance provides far more disincentive would have been entirely appropriate. Asserting that there is zero disincentive - without an explanation for why we saw one in Mincome - is not, and your earlier comment was arguing that by asserting remaining incentive was not zero which just doesn't make sense as an argument.
Re: It Is Time For Basic Income
#720bureaucratic overhead with proper tech is close to zero. Basic Icome is too a big leap in social and political context. I am very much in favour of Minimal Activity proposition. It's way more easier to implement.
"I am very much in favour of Minimal Activity proposition."
Could you define this?