"Basic Income" is a terrible idea

[Deleted]

The only way id be ok with it is if the receivers were forced (if able) to do other work robots cant.
Picking up trash, gardenwork, etc.

[alturic]

But why would you want them to work if robots can do the work more efficiently/cheaper/accurately than humans can?

I don't even remotely have a solution to that. If you come up with an idea on how giving people money because robots are taking all the jobs away. We can discuss it though.

[Turtlewithnoshell]

The problem with things like this is that people confuse "good ideas" with "nice ideas".
Sure it would be nice if everyone could afford everything and nobody had to be hungry. That's just not how the world works.

[Deleted]

By most you must mean a tiny minority. In Finland if I had the will I could be perpetually unemployed. I choose not to because I have been unemployed and it's fucking boring.

You must be the majority then.
Are we really gonna argue a known fact about human psychology?

[alexw]

Your big ''if'' has no bearing on society today.

Plus, people will always want humans to help and assist.
The majority of work will NEVER be automated. That's just stupid.

and yes, I don't think that people should get luxuries if they don't work, sue me.

Just because you don't like what the academics and people who have studied this are saying doesn't mean it isn't true. Just like with AGW if its a choice between reality and those denying reality, reality always wins.

[zorkuus]

You must be the majority then.
Are we really gonna argue a known fact about human psychology?

The fact that people prefer to have their minds occupied with something rather than being bored to death?

[alexw]

We certainly don't have welfare in the European basic-income sense. We don't even have welfare like we used to, meaning support from the state for the indigent that isn't behind work or training gates. I love your optimism, and maybe we will improve our social programs to help people over time. But given the tenor of much of this thread (and the folks on Capitol Hill who say the same thing), I'm a little skeptical.

IMO the country will have to wait for the old white conservatives to die off to the extent they can't block change anymore. Its basically them that block the adjustments that society needs to make.

[Logwyn]

But why would you want them to work if robots can do the work more efficiently/cheaper/accurately than humans can?

Could make it where you send your robot to work.. You are responsible for you bot? Kinda like you have to maintain and keep your truck if you are a delivery persons.

[alturic]

Working 40h a week would not just be earning 2k. It would be 2k plus whatever you earn from working 40h a week.

Minus a large portion of your working salary on the (massive) tax increases needed to give every citizen money whether they work or not.

[padie]

Again, you show your ignorance as to how taxes work.

1) A person (collectively a society) makes 50k a year. For ease of math purposes, they pay 10k in taxes to the government.
2) A program like "basic income" is announced. How do we pay for it? We cant take it from the 10k mr taxpayer is paying because that is already going to roads, special interest programs, government jobs, infrastructure, social justice groups, etc.
3) Solutions to pay for it? Increase taxes. Now mr tax payer pays 15k instead of 10k.

So don't make up fabricated stories that a massive government program like "basic income" pays for itself, because that is bonafied bullshit. Someone is paying for it, and it would be everyone who pays taxes paying for it in the form of an INCREASE in their tax rate.



So they just cut government spending in other areas to pay for this mini program? What if this program was permanently implemented? You don't think that the government officials would have to put a piece of legislation together that would raise taxes to pay for such a program? You think they would just cut other government programs to pay for it? You are delusional if you think that.

Bottom line @Endus, government programs don't just magically pay for themselves. Someone has to pay for it in the form of taxes. And if you think a short test period that the government may have reallocated funds to "test" it out was evidence of it "paying for itself," and you don't think they would raise taxes to put in a permanent program, I have some beach front property in Colorado i'm willing to sell you.

If a person makes 50k a year, he would also get the basic income. He will pay more taxes yes, but in the end he'd gain more then vs the extra taxes he has to pay.
You save money by cutting the administration and control over it(everyone gets it).

[Belloc]

Like the other person, that's some insane logic. I guess it all comes back to how people were raised though. Me? I was raised to earn what I want. Not expect it to be given to me. :-/

The problem you're having with this is that you don't understand that, in an automated world, you can't earn anything unless you're an artist. How can you make a living if there are no jobs?

You're looking at the issue from the viewpoint of the current world. Yes, in the current world, we have to work. That's fine for now. There will come a time, however, when there is no more work for us to do. What then? Just let everyone die except those making art, music, and entertainment? How does a creatively bankrupt person make a living when there are no more factories to work in? No more data to enter into databases? No more drivers to carry goods around the world? No more pilots flying planes? No more employees to manage?

In a perfect world, humanity doesn't have to work. That world isn't today -- but it is in the future. You're stuck in the now when you should be looking towards the future.

And, no, I don't think that everyone should be given a basic income TODAY. I specifically stated, in my first post, that this is something for the distant future. As in, long after we've all died.

[alturic]

those. People. already. Fucking. EXIST.

Correct. That's the point? This discussion is about making "those people", EVERYONE.

[Vyxn]

IMO the country will have to wait for the old white conservatives to die off to the extent they can't block change anymore. Its basically them that block the adjustments that society needs to make.

old white conservatives? what kind of racist remark is that?
and what if I said old black democrats need to die out

[Anastacy]

Minus a large portion of your working salary on the (massive) tax increases needed to give every citizen money whether they work or not.

If people are only given a basic income that does not support entertainment (i.e. covers food and rent), do you expect everyone to just huddle in their homes and do nothing?

Does't money work itself back into the system, even at the bare minimum of participation, because food is taxed?

[Endus]

Most people take the easy way.
Working 40h a week and earning 2k or not working 40h week and earning 2k.
You dont see the logical effect of human nature vs an equal reward structure?

Because this is wrong for two distinct reasons.

The first is that it's more a comparison between working 40h a week and earning 2k a week, or working 0h a week and earning 400 a week, maybe.

The second is that hardship is an incredibly poor motivator. And self-improvement continues to be just as much a motivator as always.

Again, you show your ignorance as to how taxes work.

1) A person (collectively a society) makes 50k a year. For ease of math purposes, they pay 10k in taxes to the government.
2) A program like "basic income" is announced. How do we pay for it? We cant take it from the 10k mr taxpayer is paying because that is already going to roads, special interest programs, government jobs, infrastructure, social justice groups, etc.
3) Solutions to pay for it? Increase taxes. Now mr tax payer pays 15k instead of 10k.

So don't make up fabricated stories that a massive government program like "basic income" pays for itself, because that is bonafied bullshit. Someone is paying for it, and it would be everyone who pays taxes paying for it in the form of an INCREASE in their tax rate.

#2 isn't really correct, since a large part of what those taxes pay for is existing social benefit programs and their administration, and while the BI payments are going to be higher, the administrative overhead is far lower.

#3 isn't the big deal you think, because the "Mr. Taxpayer" who's paying more is upper middle class and arguably not paying enough, already. I'm not gonna take the cries of a lawyer complaining about their tax load all that seriously, when it's put up against those struggling in actual poverty.

[alturic]

The problem you're having with this is that you don't understand that, in an automated world, you can't earn anything unless you're an artist. How can you make a living if there are no jobs?

You're looking at the issue from the viewpoint of the current world. Yes, in the current world, we have to work. That's fine for now. There will come a time, however, when there is no more work for us to do. What then? Just let everyone die except those making art, music, and entertainment? How does a creatively bankrupt person make a living when there are no more factories to work in? No more data to enter into databases? No more drivers to carry goods around the world? No more pilots flying planes? No more employees to manage?

In a perfect world, humanity doesn't have to work. That world isn't today -- but it is in the future. You're stuck in the now when you should be looking towards the future.

And, no, I don't think that everyone should be given a basic income TODAY. I specifically stated, in my first post, that this is something for the distant future.

But by your logic, the "creative" types are simply going to barter, no? I'll make X painting for you, while you give me Y music. We're going into utopian type discussions. In this "future" where only the "creatives" really have a way to earn money, there's going to be some communism type laws in place. One or two children per family, etc.

[Jun]

Man, it's almost like everyone wants to screw everyone else over.

That's okay, though. There will probably come a day when some of you can no longer work, for some arbitrary reason, and you'll need to depend on someone else to get by, be it family, or even the government.

And on that day, I hope you learn to appreciate what it means to aid those in need, because not everyone on these welfare programs is just some slacker with evil plans of laziness. There are plenty of people who need help getting by, and no degree or work experience is going to change that for them.

I don't have the answers on how to do this, but it's a necessity; one that we should all be working together on.

[Deleted]

The fact that people prefer to have their minds occupied with something rather than being bored to death?

http://www.rug.nl/research/portal/pu...b)/export.html

Have a read then get back to me.

[alturic]

If it is already possible under the current system, what makes you think the number of those people would increase with basic income?

Because it's human nature? Do the least amount of non-fun stuff as nessecary to benefit... remember when you were a kid and your parents told you to clean your room? Do laundry? Cut the grass? Why didn't you want to do it?

[unbound]

I've seen this term thrown around in recent months and it makes my skin crawl. What "Basic Income" is, is a very socialist idea that the government tax people who earn a living by going to work and being productive members of society, and giving people who do nothing / do not work a wage.

Do you realize how terrible this is? It would mean that people who already don't have any desire / motivation / drive to work and be productive members of society would be given a check each week to just live. What are the people on the side of thinking this is a good idea, what do they actually think this will accomplish / solve? And have they thought of the consequences of such policy?

-All businesses raise prices because they know people are getting a "free lunch" check each week, especially business like grocery stores, fast food
-Middle class earners would effectively be making less money (not only because of the increased taxes to pay this "basic income") because everyone else around them would be making 20-30k a year doing nothing. They would demand raises to match this offset.
-Rent prices would go up (given)

There are other impacts that such a policy would have.

Last question, what happens when prices rise to where the "basic income" is no longer above the poverty level? Keep taxing the middle class and "rich" to subsidize people unwilling to work? (we already have a welfare system in place for people who want to work but cant due to injury, illness, looking for work etc).

So, let's get rid of some myths in all of this:

- Business raise prices based on what people are willing to pay. Supply side economics doesn't work in a world of oligopolies. Basic income only alters the real equation based on the fact that ability of more to buy certain products may see a price increase.
- Every non-straw man approach I've seen (i.e. not the BS you real on RW sites) doesn't significantly impact the middle class. The approaches more heavily tax the rich since the real problem is the wealth inequality (i.e. the rich are increasing keeping more of the profits and not paying their workers since oligopolies also affect worker wages, not just prices).
- Some rent prices would indeed go up...see the first bullet.

Most people will indeed work when given the opportunity. Less than 10% of people receiving any public assistance do so for more than 3 years (i.e. most of those welfare queen stories are BS).

At the end of the day, it is just another approach to address the reality of a world driven by "greed is good". As wealth inequality grows ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM ), we are running into increasingly difficult decisions. Unless the really rich start becoming willing to actually help society (i.e. not just giving bare minimum of suspect donations for tax benefits only) such as a) retraining people whose jobs are lost due to changing technologies / changing locations, b) supporting reasonable earnings for their employees (e.g. if minimum wage was tied to inflation for the past 50 years, it would already be $15 / hr...if it was tied to productivity gains for the past 50 years, it would be about $20 / hr), c) pay taxes commensurate with the percentage of wealth owned, and d) actually be the job creators they pretend / claim to be.

The bullets I have at the beginning of my response is reality. If you don't think so, you need to educate yourself. I am in a position to hire and fire people...I am reasonably senior in my large corporations (over 200,000 employees worldwide)...I know precisely why we hire and fire (and none of it has anything to do with taxes on us or how much we pay employees).

Now, some questions to RW people who swallow corporate PR BS hook, line and sinker:
- How come when corporations reduce their costs, those savings never get passed on to consumers? If you really believe prices go up due to costs of employment, why does the reverse never happen? (e.g. when Nike moved production from US to South Korea, prices of their shoes actually went up...again, because of price people were willing to pay, Nike costs actually went down quite a bit).
- How come corporate inversions didn't hire a whole bunch of people once they became established in Ireland, Bahamas, etc since their taxes went way down?
- Why do you think corporations fight against minimum wage raises so much? If they are just going to pass those costs to consumers, they might object mildly, but they wouldn't fight [B]nearly[/B as hard as they do.


The real answers are actually pretty easy when you understand that all corporations do the same thing...make profit. The industry(ies) they are involved in is just how they make those profits. The real answers are:
- Every savings in costs (whether through cheaper labor, lower taxes, etc) is seen as increased margins. Every increase in costs (whether through raises, supplies) is seen as decreased margins. Savings are always just kept. Increased costs will be passed on where possible, but that depends on the industry and what little competition that exists may impact (for research, look up implicit collusion).
- See bullet above.
- See first bullet.

Did you know that it would only cost about $1 / pizza to pay for minimum wage increases? Did you know it would only cost about $0.50 / trip (not per item) at Walmart for minimum wage increases?

With all of this stated...I'm not a fan of the basic income concept. However, unless the super-rich start to develop empathy for their fellow humans, it may be one of the few ways to address what is going on around us.