Let's talk about Universal Basic Income

[KarateCowboy]

At your local voting booth. Word would need to get around before this has a shot at being passed into law.

You've already answered the question. There's no more special requirements to it. The idea really is that simple.

But that is not earning it, and it's not fair or right. You don't get paid just to take up space. You have to pull your own weight.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Fair enough. It's still being replaced, though.

SS has a few more years of life. Trust Fund obligations are guaranteed by the 'Full faith and Credit' of the gov't.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

At your local voting booth. Word would need to get around before this has a shot at being passed into law.

That went right over your head didn't it?

 

[Guy1]

But that is not earning it, and it's not fair or right. You don't get paid just to take up space. You have to pull your own weight.

There's this persisting idea that you somehow have to earn to not starve on the streets that simply doesn't work any way you look at it. It undermines an individual's freedom, it creates crime due to desperation, and it undermines the market by creating an unwilling, easily exploitable workforce.

That went right over your head didn't it?

Oh no, I caught the sarcastic, unproductive, passive-aggressive tone of your comment, I just didn't deal with it.

 

[AztecSDSU]

Income guarantees, or negative income systems, have a lot of merit. First, you need to dispel the myth massive numbers of people are going to stop working. The reality is a basic income guarantee is just that, a basic income to cover things like housing and food. Most people obviously want a good deal more than the bare minimum. Otherwise they'd work now for just basics and not for more than that.

There are a number of positive economic effects. It increases the consumer base when everyone has enough money to buy a few things. We can defund welfare programs that in addition to the costs of assistance are expensive to administrate. We would also remove the disincentive to work the current welfare system creates. When a person earns even slightly too much money they loose benefits that aren't replaced with those slightly higher wages. Thus they have no incentive to seek higher wages. A negative income tax system eliminates that disincentive.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Just thought I'd share and maybe start a conversation.

To make a long story short for those who don't know of it, it's basically guaranteed, livable income for every eligible person (the requirements being something basic like being a legal adult and citizen or the like). This would, of course, replace welfare programs like Section 8, SSI, food stamps, etc. and alleviate a number of issues associated with these bureaucratic systems. It has its own subreddit which contains plenty of relevant information. I'll try to answer any questions any of you may have if you're not entirely convinced.

I don't really like this idea...specific aid (like food stamps, medicare, etc.) goes towards very specific needs. While there is always a chance for abuse, for the most part there types of financial aid go towards exactly what they're meant for. In the program you're suggesting, there's no accountability at all to where those funds would go. It's entirely possible that poor money management is the reason that a person requires aid in the first place...this program wouldn't help that, it might even make it worse.

Also, there doesn't seem much disincentive to getting off this program. Most people who are on welfare or receive some type of aid are embarrassed to do so...they want to get off it as soon as possible. It's meant as a safety net to keep people who are down on hard times from skipping through the cracks...and it works that way too. Most people who get on financial aid of some type get off it as soon as they can. I don't see an 18 yo gettin@ a big fat check having much incentive to work.

 

[Guy1]

I don't really like this idea...specific aid (like food stamps, medicare, etc.) goes towards very specific needs. While there is always a chance for abuse, for the most part there types of financial aid go towards exactly what they're meant for. In the program you're suggesting, there's no accountability at all to where those funds would go.

I really only hear people on the right say these sorts of things. Do you happen to be one of those?

It's entirely possible that poor money management is the reason that a person requires aid in the first place...this program wouldn't help that, it might even make it worse.

You can't help voluntary poverty. The people that actually are getting the short end of the stick, though, will be better off.

Also, there doesn't seem much disincentive to getting off this program.

Why would there be? You seem to misunderstand the entire point of this. Every eligible person gets an income. It's not a matter of "getting off" it because life suddenly got a bit better. You will keep receiving it no matter what (Aside from, you know, issues of imprisonment and citizenship stuff).

Most people who are on welfare or receive some type of aid are embarrassed to do so...they want to get off it as soon as possible.

There's a real social stigma when you have to pull out a food stamp to get what you need to live. Thing is, though, everyone gets the money in the first place. There's no "Ew, that person's broke" reaction from anyone. And even if there were still a stigma associated with the whole thing, it's not like you can tell whether someone is using BI money to buy things without asking.

It's meant as a safety net to keep people who are down on hard times from skipping through the cracks...and it works that way too.

With issues like welfare traps removing all incentive to work for some, and not to mention great inefficiency.

I don't see an 18 yo getting a big fat check having much incentive to work.

That would be their freedom not to work.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

There's this persisting idea that you somehow have to earn to not starve on the streets that simply doesn't work any way you look at it.

Commodities don't produce themselves, my friend. Somebody has to produce them. If you don't have to earn it somebody else does. As far as it not working... what does that mean? It's been the rule, not the exception, for five thousand years of recorded history, and who knows how many thousands of years of prehistory.

The Communist states a had guarantee like that, and at least they had the common sense to combine with universal obligation of all to work. It only works if you can guarantee that everybody chips in. Of course, another way to ensure that there are people to pay into the system is to limit elgibility, but then it isn't universal.

 

[Guy1]

Commodities don't produce themselves, my friend. Somebody has to produce them.

They're produced in mass quantities by an ever shrinking pool of people. Really, we're at the age where a handful of farmers can produce enough food for thousands. Productivity is way up.

As far as it not working... what does that mean?

Well it depends what angle we're coming at this from. From a social point of view, you have people starving on the streets when they can easily be taken care of, from an economic point of view, the employer holds more power than is allowable in a "free market." That said, if you don't care about any of those and just want people to work, there's nothing I can really tell you here. I could point out U3 and U6 figures, but that wouldn't matter to you.

It's been the rule, not the exception, for five thousand years of recorded history, and who knows how many thousands of years of prehistory.

When we go back to ancient levels of technology, I'll agree with the continuation of the idea.

The Communist states

First of all, I'd appreciate keeping Communism out of this. What you've had in the past is a series of attempts by humans to put in place a system that just doesn't work for large populations, devolving into what we've seen.

It only works if you can guarantee that everybody chips in. Of course, another way to ensure that there are people to pay into the system is to limit elgibility, but then it isn't universal.

There are always going to be people to pay into the system. That's sort of the thing with capitalism: Most people just want more money.

 

[football5680]

This wouldn't work and would lead to the deterioration of society. If people don't have to work then they won't. If you guarantee them an income regardless of what they do then there is no incentive to work. Eventually the economy would collapse and this system wouldn't exist anymore.

The only way to sustain the system is to scare the citizens and force them to work but this would be much worse. Communism sounds like a good idea on paper but it doesn't work in reality. The country will either collapse or the citizens will suffer.

 

[AztecSDSU]

Commodities don't produce themselves, my friend. Somebody has to produce them. If you don't have to earn it somebody else does. As far as it not working... what does that mean? It's been the rule, not the exception, for five thousand years of recorded history, and who knows how many thousands of years of prehistory.

The Communist states a had guarantee like that, and at least they had the common sense to combine with universal obligation of all to work. It only works if you can guarantee that everybody chips in. Of course, another way to ensure that there are people to pay into the system is to limit elgibility, but then it isn't universal.

The primary objection always stems from this weird fear that all of the sudden everyone is just going to refuse to work. The communist system failed because it imposed an iron ceiling on everyone, which was that nobody could have anything. That's the exact opposite of what an income guarantee does. It merely establishes a floor, a minimum standard of living. But the sky is still the limit and just like now people don't tend to want just the minimum. People love to be productive, its in our nature. The handful of people that might opt to not work still contribute though. The mere act of buying things with their income guarantee helps the economy.

 

[stamperben]

As has been pointed out before this is not just a liberal idea.

If Republicans could shake loose from the bounds of the culture wars and start thinking about practical solutions, we could pick up where we left off politically in the ’90′s. A minimum income offers the opportunity to take the subject of the safety net completely off the table when talking about efforts to roll back central government power. No one should be able to claim that endless government expansion into personal decision-making is necessary to protect the poor.
​

A minimum income could rescue the GOP
Not only the GOP, but give stability to the country as a whole. And not only stability, but mobility which is something I see conservatives here write much on. But then, I personally think their words here are hollow...

 

[HonestTruth]

Why Economist Thomas Piketty Has Scared the Pants Off the American Right

Why Economist Thomas Piketty Has Scared the Pants Off the American Right | Alternet



Thomas Piketty is no radical. His 700-page book Capital in the 21st Century is certainly not some kind of screed filled with calls for class warfare. In fact, the wonky and mild-mannered French economist opens his tome with a description of his typical Gen X abhorrence of what he calls the “lazy rhetoric of anticapitalism." He is in no way, shape, or form a Marxist.

But he does do something that gives right-wingers in America the willies. He writes calmly and reasonably about economic inequality, and concludes, to the alarm of conservatives, that there is no magical force that drives capitalist societies toward shared prosperity. Quite the opposite. He warns that if we don't do something about it, we may end up with a society that is more top-heavy than anything that has come before — something even worse than the Gilded Age.

For this, in America, you get branded a crazed Communist by the right. In this past weekend's New York Times, Ross Douthat sounds the alarm in an op-ed ominously tited " Marx Rises Again." The columnist hints that he and his fellow pundits have only pretended to read the book but nevertheless feel comfortable making statements like "Yes, that’s right: Karl Marx is back from the dead" about Piketty.

For Douthat and his tribe, the proposition that unfettered capitalism marches toward gross inequality is not a conclusion based on carefully collected data, strenuous research and a sweeping view of history.





Just a hard dose of reality - in other words, the TRUTH

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What's the difference between a guaranteed minimum income and welfare, which is based somewhat on one's 'minimum needs'? They are both welfare programs.

 

[MachZer0]

There's this persisting idea that you somehow have to earn to not starve on the streets that simply doesn't work any way you look at it. It undermines an individual's freedom, it creates crime due to desperation, and it undermines the market by creating an unwilling, easily exploitable workforce.



Oh no, I caught the sarcastic, unproductive, passive-aggressive tone of your comment, I just didn't deal with it.

You're confusing freedom with security

 

[MachZer0]

What's the difference between a guaranteed minimum income and welfare, which is based somewhat on one's 'minimum needs'? They are both welfare programs.

A guaranteed minimum income is a euphemism. One of liberalism's methods is to control the language by confusing terms. That's why they try to obfuscate the difference between things like freedom and security.

 

[stamperben]

What's the difference between a guaranteed minimum income and welfare, which is based somewhat on one's 'minimum needs'? They are both welfare programs.

Is your trade changing and leaving you behind? See the writing on the wall? Have an idea for your own startup business? A guaranteed income will give you the freedom to leave your job and become an entrepreneur, to be successful on your own.

 

[MachZer0]

Is your trade changing and leaving you behind? See the writing on the wall? Have an idea for your own startup business? A guaranteed income will give you the freedom to leave your job and become an entrepreneur, to be successful on your own.

Makes one wonder how entrepreneurs ever succeeded in this country

 

[pyramid33]

If you are over 30 year's of age and making less than $30,000 a year, the system has failed you.

 

[stamperben]

Makes one wonder how entrepreneurs ever succeeded in this country

They were either well off to begin with or had financial backers for the most part.