What's your opinion on Basic Income?

[yllus]

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.

Unfortunately this line of thinking leads to endless bureaucracy and hassle with little in the way of real fraud protection occurring. Also, it stymies real creativity: Maybe a bunch of people want to pool money under one roof owned by a relative (or no roof to get radical) in order to save up to launch a new small business. Does he need some sort of form to get an exception so he can get his money in cash, not in direct payment form? We'll quickly go back to the same bloated near-useless system we have today.

People know better than governments in regards to how their needs are best met. I think we should let people make their own decisions.

 

[tnt118]

I do like the idea and would support something if it were truly viable.

Random curious question: is there any variance taken into account for cost of living in different regions?

 

[Chaotic42]

Unfortunately this line of thinking leads to endless bureaucracy and hassle with little in the way of real fraud protection occurring. Also, it stymies real creativity: Maybe a bunch of people want to pool money under one roof owned by a relative (or no roof to get radical) in order to save up to launch a new small business. Does he need some sort of form to get an exception so he can get his money in cash, not in direct payment form? We'll quickly go back to the same bloated near-useless system we have today.

People know better than governments in regards to how their needs are best met. I think we should let people make their own decisions.

I think that a requirement for any sort of transition to the "next level" of society is going to hinge upon a trustworthy, efficient government. Until we get that, I don't know that we can really make any meaningful jump.

 

[BoberFett]

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.

So everyone gets BI plus minimum wage? That's just dumb.

 

[Atreus21]

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

Didn't Milton Friedman support a negative income tax?

 

[sandorski]

An interesting idea that I think could eventually become the Norm. It does raise some issues though. One would be that it dramatically changes how things work now. For eg, it really changes the purpose of Wages, they would act more as a Bonus rather than a Necessity. This would likely decrease Wages dramatically, which might be a tough sell. It would also likely mean that Tax Rates need to be more static and with fewer Deductions which is another tough sell in this day and age. On the whole though, I think these things would balance out to where everyone's fiscal situation(from Employees to Business Owners/Shareholders to Companies) would be essentially the same. It's just that psychological hurdle that's the problem.

It would be interesting to see a Nation do it and not get fucked around by International actions to undermine it. Just to see the results.

 

[ivwshane]

I don't understand why people think wages would go down, unless minimum wage is abolished as well but doing that makes zero sense. Removing minimum wage and having the government pay out a GBI is nothing but a huge windfall to businesses who would rather increase profits than pay a higher wage.

I think having a GBI and a minimum wage would restore the balance of power between employer and employee, I also think a universal health care system would also restore that balance.

 

[alcoholbob]

Didn't Milton Friedman support a negative income tax?

He supported it at first, then he did a 180 and stopped supporting it.

He said a negative income tax is fine if you get rid of the billion welfare departments in the government. But the politicians just wanted the negative income tax (EITC) as another entitlement to tack on to everything else and was happy to have Milton's "support", but obviously ignored him once he realized it was just going to be an additional entitlement program and starting writing against it.

 

[OverVolt]

Never give away money. Use government funds to give away food to those who qualify or build housing for the poor, but don't give them the money and let them be the ones deciding what to buy if they are living off the dole. You have to earn that power by working.

 

[Dari]

Unfortunately this line of thinking leads to endless bureaucracy and hassle with little in the way of real fraud protection occurring. Also, it stymies real creativity: Maybe a bunch of people want to pool money under one roof owned by a relative (or no roof to get radical) in order to save up to launch a new small business. Does he need some sort of form to get an exception so he can get his money in cash, not in direct payment form? We'll quickly go back to the same bloated near-useless system we have today.

People know better than governments in regards to how their needs are best met. I think we should let people make their own decisions.

Good point. WHile there are always some that will make bad decisions, I believe that the majority of people are good and have their best intentions at heart. I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to control their own finances.

I do like the idea and would support something if it were truly viable.

Random curious question: is there any variance taken into account for cost of living in different regions?

I think it should be handled by the states, not the federal government, for this very reason. I am sure welfare budgets differ by states relative to PPP so this should be no different.

So everyone gets BI plus minimum wage? That's just dumb.

Why not? Basic income replaces existing welfare programs. Getting rid of minimum wage is asking for trouble. Big trouble. You are essentially asking for deflation, which is a trillion times harder to deal with than inflation. While, in theory, s/d should allow for a meeting point similar to current wages at the low end, it certainly isn't going help. Besides, basic income is there to help the poor, not businesses.

 

[fskimospy]

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."

We have people who do that now and we ignore their requests for more money.

A universal basic income is the most logical solution if you actually sit down and think about it.

 

[Jaskalas]

We have people who do that now and we ignore their requests for more money.

A universal basic income is the most logical solution if you actually sit down and think about it.

I'll give it credit for not being "big gov". I mean, it's a fairly simple program - little to no strings attached.

 

[Dari]

We have people who do that now and we ignore their requests for more money.

A universal basic income is the most logical solution if you actually sit down and think about it.

Yeah, all the people not liking it are thinking it's just free money when it's a substitute for existing programs, except much simpler. Sort of like flat tax. You'd think more conservatives would be for it but, judging by the "Hell No!" voters, they're currently sticking to their primitive instincts. It's ok to think outside the box every once in a while, folks, and not be suspicious of everything. You want people to be free to make their own choices, this is it.

 

[Matt1970]

Yeah, all the people not liking it are thinking it's just free money when it's a substitute for existing programs, except much simpler. Sort of like flat tax. You'd think more conservatives would be for it but, judging by the "Hell No!" voters, they're currently sticking to their primitive instincts. It's ok to think outside the box every once in a while, folks, and not be suspicious of everything. You want people to be free to make their own choices, this is it.

A 3 to one vote against it on a forum with more that has a liberal majority tells you it isn't just conservatives voting "Hell No!".

 

[soccerballtux]

People were not asked to be born into a monopoly game where the properties are already purchased and the intellectually low-hanging-fruit already picked and eaten.

 

[Dari]

A 3 to one vote against it on a forum with more that has a liberal majority tells you it isn't just conservatives voting "Hell No!".

I think you can tell the conservatives from the real libertarians based on that poll. The latter are more cautious so they voted "...Pie". Also, this forum may have a liberal voice but conservatives make their voices heard when they feel they should. Also, they tend to congregate in P&N more than other subforums. Finally, the term "basic income" or "guaranteed basic income" is not something that a conservative would become endeared to. So the name needs to be changed.

 

[Matt1970]

I think you can tell the conservatives from the real libertarians based on that poll. The latter are more cautious so they voted "...Pie". Also, this forum may have a liberal voice but conservatives make their voices heard when they feel they should. Also, they tend to congregate in P&N more than other subforums. Finally, the term "basic income" or "guaranteed basic income" is not something that a conservative would become endeared to. So the name needs to be changed.

Absolute nonsense. When over 60% of a forum that is mostly liberal doesn't support something, you can guarantee there are quite a few liberals that don't support it. Even adding the "pie" to the supporters still shows quite a few liberals against the basic income.

 

[Jaskalas]

Absolute nonsense. When over 60% of a forum that is mostly liberal doesn't support something, you can guarantee there are quite a few liberals that don't support it. Even adding the "pie" to the supporters still shows quite a few liberals against the basic income.

I find the bipartisan majority in this country is both afraid of change, and loves big gov. They gave us both the Patriot Act and Obamacare. Good things aren't going to come from a middling apathy that spends its time suckling from Washington DC.

We need new players, new parties, new ideas.

Initially, these ideas are going to scare people. They will be strange and unfamiliar, and not garner much of a vote. Yet change is exactly what we need in this country. We can only stagnate for so long with a dysfunctional government racking up debt... until hell breaks lose.

Something has gotta give, and big changes such as "Basic Income" can help us. I voted to sit on the fence on this one, as I'm not sure we're ready for it... but then a poster eloquently explained how we could pay for it today. I was impressed with its practicality, and would likely change my vote to yes.

Automation is accelerating. Labor WILL be devalued. Unemployment lines WILL grow. We need to do something.

 

[jackstar7]

Absolute nonsense. When over 60% of a forum that is mostly liberal doesn't support something, you can guarantee there are quite a few liberals that don't support it. Even adding the "pie" to the supporters still shows quite a few liberals against the basic income.

60% of 50 votes... that's not "the forum" voting. That's a sub-section of a smaller sub-section.

But continue on, Nate Silver.

 

[Matt1970]

I find the bipartisan majority in this country is both afraid of change, and loves big gov. They gave us both the Patriot Act and Obamacare. Good things aren't going to come from a middling apathy that spends its time suckling from Washington DC.

We need new players, new parties, new ideas.

Initially, these ideas are going to scare people. They will be strange and unfamiliar, and not garner much of a vote. Yet change is exactly what we need in this country. We can only stagnate for so long with a dysfunctional government racking up debt... until hell breaks lose.

Something has gotta give, and big changes such as "Basic Income" can help us. I voted to sit on the fence on this one, as I'm not sure we're ready for it... but then a poster eloquently explained how we could pay for it today. I was impressed with its practicality, and would likely change my vote to yes.

Automation is accelerating. Labor WILL be devalued. Unemployment lines WILL grow. We need to do something.

A Basic Income does nothing to fix and of the real problems in our nation. If that's "change", then you can keep the change.

 

[Matt1970]

60% of 50 votes... that's not "the forum" voting. That's a sub-section of a smaller sub-section.

But continue on, Nate Silver.

I reserve judgment till more votes are in if you wish, but until I start to see a majority supporting it, I am hard pressed to think only conservatives are against it.

 

[ivwshane]

A Basic Income does nothing to fix and of the real problems in our nation. If that's "change", then you can keep the change.

What are the "real" problems?

 

[repoman0]

Stuff

I really like your two posts in this thread. Every time this comes up, I instantly think this is a terrible idea without much of a second thought, but implemented similarly to how you suggest, it'd be a fantastic replacement to a multitude of social problems that are horribly inefficiently run. And the numbers surprisingly work out such that even people in higher income brackets can't complain because a few of the largest drains on their paychecks are eliminated (social security, etc.)

Every time I see someone trying to use food stamps at a grocery store, it looks like an atrocious experience .. cashier doesn't know how to handle it, has to call manager over, people in line are pissed off, person using food stamps is horribly embarrassed. Straight up cash is so much more efficient and there's no dividing line between people who are currently working and people who are having a difficult time; I could imagine it increasing their confidence in their job search and at interviews. And if someone wants to sit at home all day and do nothing -- well, fine. The income isn't enough to live particularly well. It'd be an embarrassment to be that guy not doing anything with his life and living off the government. And it costs the same as what we have now, so we can afford to support these occasional people who do nothing with their time because to me, the benefits seem to drastically outweigh the potential for abuse.

I also think it's a necessity of the implementation that everyone gets it to some extent, paid for by the decrease in nonsense bureaucracy. And of course, it's huge that people with great ideas who are otherwise not willing to take the risk of living on the street or living on food stamps can do something about their ideas, kick off businesses, etc.

 

[Abwx]

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.

Do you think it would work here?

link

That was proposed by Dame Juliet Rhys-Williams.
The notably conservative economic school of Chicago whose most notorious ideolog was Milton Friedman recycled the idea in 1962, the exact denomination is negative income tax, that is, if you are below the tax threshold then you are compensated by an amount that increase your income up to the taxable threshold.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax

Now if it can work, yes if working provide much more purchasing power, this would also get rid of the historical injustice that make the babies born in the low classes the future exploited workforce of thoses who are born in wealthy classes.

 

[Matt1970]

What are the "real" problems?

For starters before the economy went in the toilet we had the better part of a $1 Trillion trade deficit. We have been consuming more than we make for over 40 years now. We have a pretty massive house of cards held up by a $17 Trillion deficit. If you believe that the debt is perfectly manageable and we can continue to perpetually sell debt in the US with no real ramifications, then there are no worries.