What's your opinion on Basic Income?

[Dari]

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).

You can kill two birds with one stone by having the federal government get the money and giving it to the states. Then the states can give it out as a voucher of some sort. That way PPP matches market price (within reason). This would eliminate abuse and increase the amount of renters in the country. This would allow for more social mobility and thus reduce the supply/demand gap for jobs in various parts of the country.

 

[Matt1970]

........ individual $12k/year amount needing to exceed the poverty line. ........ some sacred cows need to burn:

[*] Medicare - the ACA requires everyone to get private health insurance, and the government should get out.

There goes a good chunk of your $12K/year.

 

[Mursilis]

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 don't know that the poverty/crime correlation is as high as many think. Wall Street bankers aren't known to be poor, but as the recent recession demonstrated, many of them will rob you blind if given the chance.

 

[michal1980]

on the surface, I say no. If we kill off all welfare. maybe.

But it would have to be given to everyone, and I can already see the dems adds.

Koch brother make millions and still get a 12k a year check from the government. That's not fair.

 

[Dari]

This could actually work. If there's a time delay for new arrivals and if we just aggregate all the local, state and federal welfare programs and if we call it something else, it could be a success.

 

[yllus]

I think it makes a lot of sense. I haven't been on welfare myself, but I've seen the process in action by helping someone who was - it's a horrendous mess of non-stop appointments, paperwork to constantly be filed and questioning that borders on harassment, but is certainly great at making you feel worthless.

Compiling those funds plus whatever else you generally get as a citizen into a single or monthly cheque is so much more sensible. We can't help those who are just going to spend it poorly anyways, but for those who want to spend their time finding work and not attending three appointments a month at an office two hours away by bus to stay on welfare, that's a huge boost.

I believe the aggregation of this sort of payout is also agreed upon by economists as the best way to dole out welfare.

 

[soulcougher73]

I think youd have to overhaul the health system as well to pull this off. Youd have to have GBI and UHC. Free market healthcare will eat up your GBI.

 

[dguy6789]

delete

 

[chucky2]

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.

This, times infinity.

 

[Jaskalas]

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

This is not some remote fantasy. Automation of jobs has been a capitalistic practice for centuries. China is presently mass producing robots for this specific purpose.

It is happening, and it's right in front of your face. I'm sorry if you cannot see what the world looks like in 2025. In our immediate future, the unemployment line is only going to grow.

 

[Greenman]

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.

Free money and easily obtainable dope isn't an answer, it's a junkies pipe dream.

 

[moonbogg]

There is simply not enough money to go around to cover people's rent. The cost of rent where I live is $1,500.00 for a 1 bedroom apartment. Plus other survival needs, you are looking at over $2,000.00 per month. If you give people that for free, this country would fall apart over night because everyone would be sleeping in.
With the stress American's face at work, this survival income would serve as their ticket to say "F-You" to the boss. My guess is about 20% of the nation quits their jobs in the first month.
You wouldn't be able to buy a burger anywhere, because fast food people would all quit immediately. How stupid would they have to be to work all day if they can make MORE money sleeping at home?

 

[TheSlamma]

Koch brother make millions and still get a 12k a year check from the government. That's not fair.

People don't put a dime into the system year after year and get 12K a year, not fair either.

 

[yllus]

There is simply not enough money to go around to cover people's rent. The cost of rent where I live is $1,500.00 for a 1 bedroom apartment. Plus other survival needs, you are looking at over $2,000.00 per month. If you give people that for free, this country would fall apart over night because everyone would be sleeping in.
With the stress American's face at work, this survival income would serve as their ticket to say "F-You" to the boss. My guess is about 20% of the nation quits their jobs in the first month.
You wouldn't be able to buy a burger anywhere, because fast food people would all quit immediately. How stupid would they have to be to work all day if they can make MORE money sleeping at home?

Keep in mind that this sort of measure isn't designed to give people more money. Those making little to no income already get that sort of cash, just broken apart in five to ten different programs with lots of administrative overhead and hassle. Designed properly, this is actually a cost-saving exercise.

The simplicity of the scheme is the main prize. You get a set amount (let's say $15,000) indexed to inflation. That's the start and end of it. If you decide to use that money to support renting a 3-story house in the middle of nowhere, go for it. If you instead take a room in a 2-bedroom apartment so you can be in a city where lots of jobs are, you can do that too. This is the end of complicated region-specific schemes that requires bureaucracy literally everywhere.

Regarding people quitting: Again, this is simply the same money being doled out but with far less overhead. Some people will always use welfare to buy crack and sleep on the streets; little can change that. But for people scraping by for time and money, this is huge.

 

[BoberFett]

Keep in mind that this sort of measure isn't designed to give people more money. Those making little to no income already get that sort of cash, just broken apart in five to ten different programs with lots of administrative overhead and hassle. Designed properly, this is actually a cost-saving exercise.

The simplicity of the scheme is the main prize. You get a set amount (let's say $15,000) indexed to inflation. That's the start and end of it. If you decide to use that money to support renting a 3-story house in the middle of nowhere, go for it. If you instead take a room in a 2-bedroom apartment so you can be in a city where lots of jobs are, you can do that too. This is the end of complicated region-specific schemes that requires bureaucracy literally everywhere.

Regarding people quitting: Again, this is simply the same money being doled out but with far less overhead. Some people will always use welfare to buy crack and sleep on the streets; little can change that. But for people scraping by for time and money, this is huge.

Wait, maybe we need some definitions here. Doesn't basic income apply to everyone and not just the unemployed?

And are we dismantling the rest of the safety net entirely? What if I do waste my money and then can't afford food, shelter and clothing for my kids? Do I get to cry to the state to give me more? What do they do? Tell me and my kids to get bent, or do we have basic income PLUS guaranteed necessities?

And with a basic income, do we eliminate the minimum wage and let the market decide what labor is worth? Or is there a minimum wage PLUS basic income?

The idea is an interesting thought experiment, and might be workable someday. But the US is definitely not there yet.

 

[ivwshane]

Why would minimum wage be removed? The whole reason for giving a GBI is because businesses already don't pay well for a good chunk of Americans.

Your other questions are sundial to mine and I can only imagine that the remedy to wasting this money on non essential things is to only allow the money to be used for the basics.

Corrupting and scheming could be an issue so I think some kind of system that doesn't allow the trading of such credits.

I'd also be for putting any leftover amount of GBI automatically into a retirement savings account similar to social security. Money/GBI not used during your working years would then get added to your GBI when you retire and in catastrophic situations you'd be allowed to pull out the money.

I think this would create a system where people save instead of trying to spend 100% of their GBI each month.

 

[fskimospy]

Wait, maybe we need some definitions here. Doesn't basic income apply to everyone and not just the unemployed?

And are we dismantling the rest of the safety net entirely? What if I do waste my money and then can't afford food, shelter and clothing for my kids? Do I get to cry to the state to give me more? What do they do? Tell me and my kids to get bent, or do we have basic income PLUS guaranteed necessities?

And with a basic income, do we eliminate the minimum wage and let the market decide what labor is worth? Or is there a minimum wage PLUS basic income?

The idea is an interesting thought experiment, and might be workable someday. But the US is definitely not there yet.

Yes the idea behind a basic income is to eliminate all other forms of assistance. I think it makes a ton of sense. Instead of trying to figure out a patchwork of systems that may give too much help in some areas and too little in others let the person decide what they need.

Much more efficient.

 

[BoberFett]

Why would minimum wage be removed? The whole reason for giving a GBI is because businesses already don't pay well for a good chunk of Americans.

Your other questions are sundial to mine and I can only imagine that the remedy to wasting this money on non essential things is to only allow the money to be used for the basics.

Corrupting and scheming could be an issue so I think some kind of system that doesn't allow the trading of such credits.

I'd also be for putting any leftover amount of GBI automatically into a retirement savings account similar to social security. Money/GBI not used during your working years would then get added to your GBI when you retire and in catastrophic situations you'd be allowed to pull out the money.

I think this would create a system where people save instead of trying to spend 100% of their GBI each month.

Minimum wage would be removed because basic income BECOMES the new minimum wage. Everyone gets it, whether working or not. At that point, a business can pay anything they want, and it's up to the individual to decide how much their time is worth over above their minimum lifestyle guaranteed by basic income. If someone wants to live in a shitty apartment, eat ramen, and play Xbox all day, they can do that and always get paid. It's going to be hard to convince them to go flip burgers for $0.25/hr. The marginal utility isn't there.

And I'm not sure how your idea encourages saving rather than spending.

 

[BoberFett]

Yes the idea behind a basic income is to eliminate all other forms of assistance. I think it makes a ton of sense. Instead of trying to figure out a patchwork of systems that may give too much help in some areas and too little in others let the person decide what they need.

Much more efficient.

OK... But then please address the issue of "I blew all my money at the casino and my kids are starving. How dare you let my children starve? Give me more."

 

[moonbogg]

The obvious problem with this is that whatever amount everyone gets each year, is just about the exact amount goods and services will increase in cost per year in general. You can fully expect prices to increase accordingly, thus making the benefit to this money pointless or greatly diminished.

 

[Dari]

OK... But then please address the issue of "I blew all my money at the casino and my kids are starving. How dare you let my children starve? Give me more."

Those people get a free trip to prison and their kids go to family or foster care.

 

[Dari]

Minimum wage would be removed because basic income BECOMES the new minimum wage. Everyone gets it, whether working or not. At that point, a business can pay anything they want, and it's up to the individual to decide how much their time is worth over above their minimum lifestyle guaranteed by basic income. If someone wants to live in a shitty apartment, eat ramen, and play Xbox all day, they can do that and always get paid. It's going to be hard to convince them to go flip burgers for $0.25/hr. The marginal utility isn't there.

And I'm not sure how your idea encourages saving rather than spending.

That would be reason enough NOT to get rid of minimum wage. Minimum exists for PPP as well so it cannot be eliminated. In another country, instead of everyone getting 15K they would get 5K. The reason is because almost everything there is cheaper.

 

[Dari]

The obvious problem with this is that whatever amount everyone gets each year, is just about the exact amount goods and services will increase in cost per year in general. You can fully expect prices to increase accordingly, thus making the benefit to this money pointless or greatly diminished.

Not true. Again, most of the money is already being spent on existing welfare programs.

 

[Belegost]

Busy day today so I didn't get a chance to read through this earlier. I'm going to try to discuss a number of points that came up in one post.

How is it paid? I think it should be a monthly or biweekly check. I think most people are capable of making decent decisions on their own, and that it's demeaning to force people to spend in specific ways. As Dari mentioned, if you blow your GBI and your children are hungry, you have abused your children, and foster care for the children, and either prison, or my preference being moved to a halfway house and required to go through counseling and education for being a responsible parent.

Similarly for people who have substance abuse problems, or mental illness. One of the advantages to GBI is that when a person needs mental health care they bring with them a decent amount of money to help pay for it. I further think that savings in the prison system could be diverted to increased funding for mental institutions and substance abuse recovery.

For the PPP - I would actually be for a flat rate over wide geographic areas (at least at the state level.) The problem I see is that very desirable places to live like SF suffer from inflation because the area is desirable, if the GBI payment rises in those areas, it increases the desirability, and hence increases the inflation.

Where I see an advantage to the GBI system is that it becomes far less of a risk to move away to a lower cost area; you're guaranteed to have money when you get there, instead of worrying about finding a job. This has a bonus effect of bringing outside funds to lower cost areas, which are generally also areas with less economic activity, by adding people spending their GBI to those areas the economy will improve there. This adds jobs in currently depressed regions, and could help stave off Detroit like problems with a spiral of exodus.

I would support dropping minimum wage requirements, since everyone has basic living covered any amount of money earned over that is adding to their life. But at the same time by having a basic income level the need to work to survive is taken away, so people will be far less likely to work for overly low wages. This helps even out the power imbalance that naturally exists between employer and worker. I would strongly suspect that for the most part wages will settle to an equilibrium near to where minimum wage is; because if the work doesn't pay enough to really improve life it's not going to be attractive enough to get people.

On inflated prices reducing the effectiveness of the GBI. Given that there the fraction of the population that is at starvation level is quite low in the US, we are already spending the money for basics for the poorest to survive, for the most part for that segment this will be a change in how the funds are distributed, but not a change in how much is being purchased. So the overall effect on prices for essentials should not be changed significantly.

On immigration problems. Fortunately quite some time ago a country was faced with wanting to provide some security to people in the society, a sort of social security system. Of course they realized that just putting piles of money out for anyone to grab would be a problem. They hit upon a brilliant plan whereby citizens and permanent residents could obtain an identification number that would indicate they were eligible. Without this so-called social security number one could not receive benefits.

I recommend we hijack this idea with a GBI number only provided to citizens and permanent residents.

 

[Chaotic42]

What if it were paid directly to your landlord and directly to an account at the grocery store where you could use it to pay for staples?

Some people are going to defraud stuff no matter what, but that might make sure that the money is being used for what it should be used for.