What's your opinion on Basic Income?

[Dari]

A fellow economist from Germany said that this idea was proposed by a leftist politician in his home country recently. Basically, a basic income (or minimum income) would be given to everyone. It would basically be a survival income that would cover food and rent. In theory, it would allow the individual to focus their activity on finding or creating employment. Naturally, it would replace welfare. I told him that there would be substantial abuse, even in an egalitarian country like Germany. He wasn't so sure. Do you think it would work here?

link

 

[Greenman]

Might work for the Germans, would be a disaster of Biblical proportions here.

 

[Zaap]

In Germany with their culture, work ethic, refusal to just throw their borders open and invite in anyone who can stumble in and cash checks at other people's expense.... it's still is a lousy idea. The money to pay for it still wouldn't grow on trees even in a more responsible society like Germany's so it'd just end up a tremendous burden tossed on the shoulders of those working.

In the US and other nanny states hell bent on giving up sovereignty to anyone that wanders in and our culture of lazy whininess and entitlement... hell no. Its the equalivalent of a national existence trophy for people that have been led to believe they're so special and unique (see aforementioned entitlement mentality) that they deserve to enslave others to fund their lives. Because again, since actual money doesn't grow on trees, it would be paid for only by heavily looting someone else's pocket.

IF this country would regain its national sovereignty (no benefits for *anyone* that's a non-citizen that hasn't paid into the system or come here legally) I'd be all in favor of an increased social safety net with lots more options... not for people to just sit on their ass and get paid to exist, but for those truly down on their luck in need. But for citizens only, so.since we've been conned into believing we have to provide for citizens of other countries so long as they can wander across a border, or pump out a kid on US soil... then forget it.

 

[brycejones]

load of xenophobic bs

Would you like some cheese with your whine?

 

[Zaap]

Would you like some cheese with your whine?

Yes. Provide it for me just for existing, and because I demand it. Otherwise you're a greedy xenophobic bastard.

 

[zanejohnson]

i think it's a great idea, i also think it would drastically lower crime.

 

[zanejohnson]

a basic income + decriminalization of all narcotics, and i think you have damn near a utopia...

only problem is, the gov doesn't make any money in this situation, so it can never happen.

 

[Zaap]

So everyone in favor also in favor of zero income taxes?

I mean, if you're going to just give people money for existing (no real thought about where it has to come from of course) completely divorced of work done or any value added to society... why would you turn around and demand a percentage of income that's actually worked for and earned?

 

[zanejohnson]

So everyone in favor also in favor of zero income taxes?

I mean, if you're going to just give people money for existing (no real thought about where it has to come from of course) completely divorced of work done or any value added to society... why would you turn around and demand a percentage of income that's actually worked for and earned?

lol i'm no economist.....

but i agree on an income tax, at a federal level, with the highest earners paying the most in (but on a scale, not a huge rate for the highest earners)

something like, 10 percent 50-100k, 20 percent from 100-250k, then 40 percent for 250k+

under say.... 25k, no income tax, or very small, like <5 percent

the basic income would have to fall at about 15k/ annually.... so that people can have that 10k window for entrepreneurship, without penalty

 

[Dari]

a basic income + decriminalization of all narcotics, and i think you have damn near a utopia...

only problem is, the gov doesn't make any money in this situation, so it can never happen.

I never thought of the criminal aspect. If money, property and lives are saved from less crime, then less spending on security could mean more money spent elsewhere.

 

[Zodiark1593]

Would you like some cheese with your whine?

Explain why this is Xenophobic?

 

[MongGrel]

Never work atm, I'll go with pie.

 

[Jaskalas]

A basic income requires something... a society of abundence. Maybe we have that, or close to it now... but we're still waiting on the eve of robots replacing a majority of labor. Once that happens, and we have 30% or greater unemployment to address... basic income will make a lot more sense.

 

[Chaotic42]

I get the feeling that the cost of the basic staples and housing would then increase such that those wages were no longer sufficient... unless price controls were implemented on food and housing.

I don't know where that would lead, but I'm fairly sure it wouldn't work here. Economic and social systems require a high-majority buy-in or they don't work. Something like that would be radically opposed here.

 

[alcoholbob]

It would work if your country could efficiently limit the growth in population. Unless you are willing to budget more and more on border control it's just going to be a magnet for refugees and ultimately collapse. As Milton Friedman once said, you can't have open borders and a welfare state. Free movement of people and labor will result in eventual equilibrium.

 

[Slew Foot]

The day that happens is the day I stop working. Free money for life? I already got my house paid off, and a small chunk of savings. That would cover all my basic needs and Id be home free.

 

[compuwiz1]

If this were to come into being, we'd have more takers than makers. Unfortunately we already have enough entitlement mentality that is growing like a disease here. Unsustainable, I'd say. Socialism works only as long as there is other people's money. When that runs out it falls.

BTW, I find the number of yay votes disturbing. What the fuck are you people thinking?

 

[Jaskalas]

BTW, I find the number of yay votes disturbing. What the fuck are you people thinking?

I have my reasons to vote for either yes or no. So I did the next best thing and took the "pie". Yes because something has got to give in our economy, we're heading towards utter collapse.

No because we're not quite ready / it's a radical re imagining of the fundamentals of economics and labor.

Yes because soon the unemployment line will stretch across the entire nation as robots replace labor.

Massive changes in economics WILL happen in our life times.

 

[Belegost]

So I'm going to start by talking about the numbers of a guaranteed basic income (GBI), mostly because they work out to appeal to self-interest.

First, my estimate of the cost of the GBI is around $3T/year, and I get there by taking 240M adults and multiplying by the individual $12k/year amount needing to exceed the poverty line. Other estimates I have seen are in the 2 ~ 2.5T range, based on estimating at a household level, but I'll use mine because it's more pessimistic.

Next is how to pay for 3T/year in expenditures. First, some sacred cows need to burn:

• Social Security - the idea was to give a safety net for the old and disabled, GBI is THE safety net, this money goes to that entirely. 1T/year [1]
• Welfare/Housing/Food Stamps - Like above, the GBI is the safety net, these are unneeded, estimated federal, state, local .5T/year [1]
• Unemployment benefits - I haven't found good data on this except a quick note from the CBO giving an estimate of around 100B in fed spending. States bear a lot of this cost, so I'm going to estimate this at .25T/year
• Medicare - the ACA requires everyone to get private health insurance, and the government should get out. This should be replaced by a program to subsidize premiums for those with demonstrable need. Currently this is at 1T/year[1], I think the replacement would save .75T/year

So from spending cuts alone we get 2/3 of the funding (and if we go with more optimistic estimates, we've paid for it). Leaving only 1T/year to come up with. So far we haven't touched taxes, so everyone is still earning the same income they already have plus receiving their GBI check for an extra 12000/year. If we raise taxes to put some of that back in, say such that the top 60% of earners put back an average of 8000/year, we get .96T/year in increased taxes. The rest I suggest come from a serious overhaul of capital gains taxes and especially inheritance taxes to close loopholes and reduce the level of trust-fund legacy at the top, and it's a small enough amount to not require particularly large changes.

So as it stands, every adult in the US would get $12k/year, even with an increase in taxes those currently earning good incomes would receive an average of $4K/year extra.

Now for the non-economic reasons. First I tend towards a libertarian view, people should be free to live their lives as they find best and not prodded and pushed by the government to live a certain way (which I see the current social services doing be enforcing spending on specific line items in specific ways.) However, I am not inhumane, I have no desire to Dickens-style impoverishment and suffering in my fellow humans. Further I think that ensuring a basic level of life for everyone is an incredible achievement as nation, and broader as a species, provided it is done in a way that ensures the dignity of the individual (which I feel the GBI does.)

Second, the social benefits, given that crime levels are highly correlated with poverty, I suggest that crime will decrease. On that same line, our costs for running the prison system decrease - when a person is incarcerated their GBI payment is routed to the prison which should offset a good portion of the cost.

I further see this as encouraging people to explore creative and entrepreneurial options - if a person need not fear homelessness and starvation because their band doesn't work out they're more likely to take a shot at it. If a person doesn't need to work 50 hours a week at two minimum wage jobs to pay the bills they have a lot more time to consider writing a book, or painting, or starting a restaurant. I am quite willing to accept that there will always be some part of society that is just lazy - Jesus said "the poor you will always have with you" well I'll paraphrase that as "the lazy you will always have with you."

So, I think it's feasible, and that even those making good income today would get more money from it, and that it will greatly improve how we deal with the issue of a social safety net.

[1] usgovernmentspending.com

 

[pcgeek11]

Robots will replace labor when we get those flying cars like the Jetsons. What a load!

Hell No, we already have too many moochers on the dole now.

 

[Chaotic42]

Robots will replace labor when we get those flying cars like the Jetsons. What a load!

Hell No, we already have too many moochers on the dole now.

The problem is that we need job growth to not only increase, but increase with the population. Those jobs also need to pay enough so that people can live comfortably.

I think those days are gone. The baby boomers lived in the best period we've had or will have for a while.

 

[Sinsear]

no thanks

 

[lopri]

One thing people should consider is what economists call "marginal utility." In layman's terms, this simply means that $100 matters more to me than Bill Gates. So when someone has $100 M in her bank account, another $10,000 is not a big deal and it will not change her quality of life in a meaningful way. To a person who lives on minimum wage with no savings, $10,000 can open the door for life opportunities that was previously not available to her.

 

[ivwshane]

Great post!

So I'm going to start by talking about the numbers of a guaranteed basic income (GBI), mostly because they work out to appeal to self-interest.

First, my estimate of the cost of the GBI is around $3T/year, and I get there by taking 240M adults and multiplying by the individual $12k/year amount needing to exceed the poverty line. Other estimates I have seen are in the 2 ~ 2.5T range, based on estimating at a household level, but I'll use mine because it's more pessimistic.

Next is how to pay for 3T/year in expenditures. First, some sacred cows need to burn:

• Social Security - the idea was to give a safety net for the old and disabled, GBI is THE safety net, this money goes to that entirely. 1T/year [1]
• Welfare/Housing/Food Stamps - Like above, the GBI is the safety net, these are unneeded, estimated federal, state, local .5T/year [1]
• Unemployment benefits - I haven't found good data on this except a quick note from the CBO giving an estimate of around 100B in fed spending. States bear a lot of this cost, so I'm going to estimate this at .25T/year
• Medicare - the ACA requires everyone to get private health insurance, and the government should get out. This should be replaced by a program to subsidize premiums for those with demonstrable need. Currently this is at 1T/year[1], I think the replacement would save .75T/year

So from spending cuts alone we get 2/3 of the funding (and if we go with more optimistic estimates, we've paid for it). Leaving only 1T/year to come up with. So far we haven't touched taxes, so everyone is still earning the same income they already have plus receiving their GBI check for an extra 12000/year. If we raise taxes to put some of that back in, say such that the top 60% of earners put back an average of 8000/year, we get .96T/year in increased taxes. The rest I suggest come from a serious overhaul of capital gains taxes and especially inheritance taxes to close loopholes and reduce the level of trust-fund legacy at the top, and it's a small enough amount to not require particularly large changes.

So as it stands, every adult in the US would get $12k/year, even with an increase in taxes those currently earning good incomes would receive an average of $4K/year extra.

Now for the non-economic reasons. First I tend towards a libertarian view, people should be free to live their lives as they find best and not prodded and pushed by the government to live a certain way (which I see the current social services doing be enforcing spending on specific line items in specific ways.) However, I am not inhumane, I have no desire to Dickens-style impoverishment and suffering in my fellow humans. Further I think that ensuring a basic level of life for everyone is an incredible achievement as nation, and broader as a species, provided it is done in a way that ensures the dignity of the individual (which I feel the GBI does.)

Second, the social benefits, given that crime levels are highly correlated with poverty, I suggest that crime will decrease. On that same line, our costs for running the prison system decrease - when a person is incarcerated their GBI payment is routed to the prison which should offset a good portion of the cost.

I further see this as encouraging people to explore creative and entrepreneurial options - if a person need not fear homelessness and starvation because their band doesn't work out they're more likely to take a shot at it. If a person doesn't need to work 50 hours a week at two minimum wage jobs to pay the bills they have a lot more time to consider writing a book, or painting, or starting a restaurant. I am quite willing to accept that there will always be some part of society that is just lazy - Jesus said "the poor you will always have with you" well I'll paraphrase that as "the lazy you will always have with you."

So, I think it's feasible, and that even those making good income today would get more money from it, and that it will greatly improve how we deal with the issue of a social safety net.

[1] usgovernmentspending.com

 

[ivwshane]

Some questions I have which I couldn't find info on in the wiki; is how would this be paid? Meaning would citizens get a big check to spend on what they want or would it be a voucher type deal that can only be spent on certain things. I don't think a blank check would work but some system that only allows the money to be spent on say rent/mortgage, food, utilities, and health care, I think would be more doable.

I agree that a GBI should also eliminate current safety net systems like welfare, section 8, etc.

The other question would be; is the GBI based on geographical location or is it a national standard? $12000 in San Fran doesn't do as much as $12000 in Texas.

I'd say most people in the US would be against a setup like this though, we are a nation of people who don't like to take vacations and we work long hours and we do so because if we don't we are made to feel bad (see some of the previous replies).