"Basic Income" is a terrible idea

[Chrysia]

Do you agree with basic income?

I think a basic income is inevitable, especially if we want to continue our consumer-based economy.

[PosPosPos]

He has a point (at least in the US) on this one. It would cost over 3 trillion/year.



Unless you use this example, which puts it well over 5 trillion (more than our actual total revenue).

It doesn't matter if cost of doing it is 10 bucks, a billion or several trillions - if the money circulates properly between mincome recipients, business owners and the government, then it hardly matters how much money are actually changing between hands.

[Theodarzna]

And neither do you. It is far more likely that you are the one who is overestimating the problem than I am the one underestimating it. Japan's unemployment rate is under 5% and we are the automated country on Earth, by far.

Here are some reasons why it's a bad idea:

Decrease motivation to work or receive an education for necessary jobs that cannot be automated. Or it could cause such a flood into these careers that people fight over too few jobs while the rest do nothing.
Just a few reasons why it is a bad idea:

It requires a complete restructuring of taxation, social insurance, social security and pensions.

It will cause a huge flood in immigration.

It causes the rise of a shadow economy.

It will cause inequality by vastly raising price.

It cannot be realistically financed.

- - - Updated - - -



Your posts are always so wonderfully devoid of substance.

Motivation to work, depends purely on is work actually a goal? Like is work serving some function in it of itself? I thought under a purely free market WORK was a choice? Not some coerced thing you force people to do? So essentially you are advocating flipping the morality of the Free Market on its head by using legalistic tricks to making participation compulsory by severely punishing either unwillingness or inability to participate. So you set up a game, but require everyone to play even if they do not wish to play or if their means of playing are limited.

We already have a flood of immigration, no western Neo-Liberal country seems capable of breeding anymore and actually sustaining the population base necessary to uphold a consumer economy.

Also drastically simplifying our government is a good thing, complexity breeds corruption as it offers places to hide.

It does not have to raise prices. Some goods and even services are now trivially cheap to provide, indeed the only reason there would be an increased cost is HUMAN DESIRE TO INCREASE COST, considering our level of automation, why not just turn some production into completely automated systems whom would lack the desire for increased income.

[Deleted]

Do you agree with anything that has a huge net benefit to society?

As I don't know anything about what is being proposed I can't say. I just wondered what they thought.

[PosPosPos]

As I don't know anything about what is being proposed I can't say. I just wondered what they thought.

You quoted someone who explained to you clearly about what is being proposed, and the benefits to society.

Then immediately after you say you don't know what is being proposed.

Can I take to mean that your inability to take a side on the issue stems from a wilful refusal to read simple english sentences, and not because the pertinent information to make such a decision wasn't available to you?

[Deleted]

you asked how it was funded. you can google that if you were genuinely interested in the answer(s). Instead you're being passive aggressive as some sort of entry into the discussion.

i'm assuming your next reply will involve something about socialism killing kittens.

And i'll have you know that sarcasm is the highest form of wit.

I'm interested to know what other people thought, if I wanted to use google I would have.

I don't know enough about socialism to say if it kills kittens.

[PosPosPos]

I'm interested to know what other people thought, if I wanted to use google I would have. It was just a question.

This was your post:

Not really read anything about 'basic income' sounds a bit silly to me. How is this funded?

You were clearly asking how basic income works. Not how people thought/felt it works. Hence you were asking for facts and not opinion, which can be better served by googling it up.

But continue being pedantic and shifting goalposts.

[Deleted]

This was your post:



You were clearly asking how basic income works. Not how people thought/felt it works. Hence you were asking for facts and not opinion, which can be better served by googling it up.

But continue being pedantic and shifting goalposts.

OK whatever, I don't really care I'm only here to learn more about stuff. Sometimes it's better asking other people than googling stuff.

Maybe I didn't word my original question correctly. Its not really a problem lol.

[Spectral]

I don't buy that it would work well without a much more paternalistic implementation. Many people are not good decision makers. If a basic income were implemented and replaced SNAP, I do not think it would be long before I was regaled with tales of hungry children and the need to bring SNAP back.

[Chrysia]

I don't buy that it would work well without a much more paternalistic implementation. Many people are not good decision makers. If a basic income were implemented and replaced SNAP, I do not think it would be long before I was regaled with tales of hungry children and the need to bring SNAP back.

If kids start going hungry because the parent's can't prioritize feeding their kids over getting high or something, you remove the children, just like you currently do with people that sell their SNAP benefits for drugs.

[Spectral]

If kids start going hungry because the parent's can't prioritize feeding their kids over getting high or something, you remove the children, just like you currently do with people that sell their SNAP benefits for drugs.

This does not sound like an improvement over current state to me.

Really, how one feels about basic income freedom is likely to be dictated by their general opinion of the judgment and character of the poor in a country. In the United States, I do not have a positive opinion of the judgment and character of the poor.

[Grummgug]

If kids start going hungry because the parent's can't prioritize feeding their kids over getting high or something, you remove the children, just like you currently do with people that sell their SNAP benefits for drugs.

That can't be a good idea because too many liberals just want to destroy the family and take all kids away from parents to be raised and indoctrinated by government. You go this route and they will start arguing for all kinds of reasons to take kids away from parents. I don't trust liberals with this kind of policy applied to the general public.

[Chrysia]

This does not sound like an improvement over current state to me.

Really, how one feels about basic income freedom is likely to be dictated by their general opinion of the judgment and character of the poor in a country. In the United States, I do not have a positive opinion of the judgment and character of the poor.

It's at worst equivalent to the current state with the added benefit of removing significant chunks of expensive bureaucracy. In general it would be better since the UBI covers more people than the current programs do.

- - - Updated - - -

That can't be a good idea because too many liberals just want to destroy the family and take all kids away from parents to be raised and indoctrinated by government. You go this route and they will start arguing for all kinds of reasons to take kids away from parents. I don't trust liberals with this kind of policy applied to the general public.

Where the fuck do you get this idea? I've never met a liberal in my life that suggest all children should be removed from their parents and raised by the government. I haven't even met progressive fuckheads who think this.

[Theodarzna]

This does not sound like an improvement over current state to me.

Really, how one feels about basic income freedom is likely to be dictated by their general opinion of the judgment and character of the poor in a country. In the United States, I do not have a positive opinion of the judgment and character of the poor.

The poor have worse judgement IMHO mostly do to a lack of stability. Have you ever observed their day to day lives?

People get hooked on drugs, drink to excess and smoke mainly because its their main source of pleasure and relaxation. Yes its easy for me to wag my finger at such nasty brutish ways when I have the free time go for an actual horse ride, reading a book for four hours straight, and have a glass of wine at 3 PM with no negative consequence, but if you work at Wal-Mart full time, jeese I can only imagine how miserable one might be.

People with chronic insecurity and misery behave in strange ways.

[Spectral]

It's at worst equivalent to the current state with the added benefit of removing significant chunks of expensive bureaucracy. In general it would be better since the UBI covers more people than the current programs do.

This isn't obviously the case. If current state distributes money in a fashion where it mostly gets spent as intended (i.e. SNAP gets spent on food and Section 8 gets spent on housing), this could easily provide more added utility than the spending of people given complete freedom over how to spend if they're sufficiently bad at judgment. My best guess is that poor people are sufficiently bad at budgeting that they're better off with someone from the government saying, "you have $300 for food, $550 for housing, and $X in cash" than just giving them the money. The inefficiencies in SNAP aren't very high anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

The poor have worse judgement IMHO mostly do to a lack of stability. Have you ever observed their day to day lives?

People get hooked on drugs, drink to excess and smoke mainly because its their main source of pleasure and relaxation. Yes its easy for me to wag my finger at such nasty brutish ways when I have the free time go for an actual horse ride, reading a book for four hours straight, and have a glass of wine at 3 PM with no negative consequence, but if you work at Wal-Mart full time, jeese I can only imagine how miserable one might be.

People with chronic insecurity and misery behave in strange ways.

I wasn't trying to address why the poor exercise poor judgment with their money. I don't relate well to them and it's all too easy for me to give pessimistic views, but that doesn't really matter - the point is that I'm skeptical of the idea that handing the poor cash will result in them spending it better than allocation plans that insure that some is spent on food and housing.

[Grummgug]

It's at worst equivalent to the current state with the added benefit of removing significant chunks of expensive bureaucracy. In general it would be better since the UBI covers more people than the current programs do.

- - - Updated - - -



Where the fuck do you get this idea? I've never met a liberal in my life that suggest all children should be removed from their parents and raised by the government. I haven't even met progressive fuckheads who think this.

1. In the 1970s, liberals began to argue that parents selecting what school their kids go to is racist. So they seriously implemented a plan of FORCED BUSING to shuttle kids to the "proper" schools that parents would not pick. That right there should tell you their intentions. They don't trust parents to pick the right schools and tried to take that decision from ALL parents. If they don't trust them with that, they don't trust them with anything. Families reacted by moving out of cities into the suburbs and exurbs where the policy had not been implemented.

2. At one point, Swift even flirted with the idea of “simply abolishing the family” as a way of “solving the social justice problem” because “there would be a more level playing field”

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...atherine-timpf

A recent article being discussed in another thread right now openly touts this attitude. Abolish the family.

[Theodarzna]

This isn't obviously the case. If current state distributes money in a fashion where it mostly gets spent as intended (i.e. SNAP gets spent on food and Section 8 gets spent on housing), this could easily provide more added utility than the spending of people given complete freedom over how to spend if they're sufficiently bad at judgment. My best guess is that poor people are sufficiently bad at budgeting that they're better off with someone from the government saying, "you have $300 for food, $550 for housing, and $X in cash" than just giving them the money. The inefficiencies in SNAP aren't very high anyway.

- - - Updated - - -


I wasn't trying to address why the poor exercise poor judgment with their money. I don't relate well to them and it's all too easy for me to give pessimistic views, but that doesn't really matter - the point is that I'm skeptical of the idea that handing the poor cash will result in them spending it better than allocation plans that insure that some is spent on food and housing.

Not asking that question is essentially missing the point.

[Arkamenitas]

I want to toss a hypothetical out there.

Lets say, 20 years from now (obviously the number will vary but eventually this is going to happen) automation hits full force. things like mcdonalds go full auto and require only a skeleton crew for maintenance. millions of people are now out of work.

Now, i've heard plenty of 'just get a new job with an education' so far. lets take a look at a plausible turn of events here. All these people are now out of work, with what money, exactly, can they go back to school? even if school was free, they still couldn't afford to live while they did so. Maybe my estimates are off here, but i highly doubt that the majority of people working at mcdonalds are sitting on some kind of cash reserve to go back to school while simultaneously being able to live. so now you have millions of people displaced out of low to no skill jobs that have no real way of actually gaining the skills to advance themselves. Oh, and good luck getting a loan for school without a job

But lets consider something here. Lets say X owns mcdonalds. He automates, saving tons of money and making ridiculous profits - at least until everybody else in that wage tier automates too. over the next few years, everybody else does automate (as much as is possible). Mcdonalds, and similar businesses, start hemorrhaging money. But why? they have a super low overhead! The bottom line is, millions of people are out of work. It doesn't matter how efficient your production line is if nobody has money to pay for anything. There are now millions of people desperate for the "new" entry level job, owned by Y. Y drops his wages for his employees like a stone. After all, his job is now the lowest common denominator and he has millions of potential employees if somebody actually tries to quit over the pay cut. Everybody else who owns business in Y's tier of jobs follows suit, so while Y and his colleagues start rising towards the 1%, everybody working under them suddenly has less money to spend on any but the bare necessities (if even that much, because unless grocery stores start giving food away for free, you still cant buy anything with zero dollars income). Crime rises, as does health care.

Welfare and like systems at this point are so far gone they cannot possibly pay more than a tiny fraction of the unemployed people. I can't imagine that going over well. The government is losing money like crazy - after all, how can you tax people with no income?

Everybody seems to remember that you need money to make money, but how easily we forget that you also need money to spend money. The 1% would probably have to abandon the country (after all, no more money to be made here) and repeat the cycle somewhere else.

In my mind, there is one potential serious drawback to a universal basic income - the long term effect on willingness to work. and yet, that's something we cant observe without actually putting a long term trial into place. and even this in my mind comes down to numbers. If basic income covers just the basics, (that is to say food, rent, utilities), then having anything but the sparsest of existences still requires you work - without the stress of knowing losing your job means losing everything, potentially. Income tax will almost certainly need to go up at the highest ends of the spectrum, but likely with some tuning (suppose, for purely hypothetical numbers, that everybody making below 100k/yr taxes out in such a way that they still do better than they would have done before - that is to say, basic income offsets the tax increase by progressively smaller amounts as you approach 100k/yr, and beyond that threshold income tax progressively wins out, first by a negligible amount but then progressively scaling with increasing income). To use somebody else's example, lets say a 200k/yr lawyer. Sure, he's going to pay more income tax and come out net negative relative to before the basic income, but only if you ignore all other factors. For example, that the amount people who can actually afford to pay him has also gone up.


In regards to the mincome argument, and that it paid for itself, i see two things that could contribute notably. First off - taxes. Everybody has more money, so suddenly you are making more in taxes, after all, every time that infusion of money changes hands, you get some of it back. second off - combining all the current the current 'social assistances' available in that area under one umbrella reduces the paperwork dramatically. I obviously don't know for sure, but it seems like the universal basic income should have just One restriction - You need to be an 18+ citizen to collect (this also kills off the idea of 'breeders'). No other qualifications. Now suddenly the government no longer needs to complete tons of paperwork - just verify your ID and off you go, added to a direct deposit list. No mail. No legal bullshit, no need to "enforce" looking for a job, or have all this administration for what would suddenly boil down to a very simple system./

Note that im not pretending to see every angle here, but i just wanted to throw out some food for thought

[Chrysia]

1. In the 1970s, liberals began to argue that parents selecting what school their kids go to is racist. So they seriously implemented a plan of FORCED BUSING to shuttle kids to the "proper" schools that parents would not pick. That right there should tell you their intentions. They don't trust parents to pick the right schools and tried to take that decision from ALL parents. If they don't trust them with that, they don't trust them with anything. Families reacted by moving out of cities into the suburbs and exurbs where the policy had not been implemented.

2. At one point, Swift even flirted with the idea of “simply abolishing the family” as a way of “solving the social justice problem” because “there would be a more level playing field”

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...atherine-timpf

A recent article being discussed in another thread right now openly touts this attitude. Abolish the family.

Soooo one crackpot professor in England is representative of Liberals as a whole? And you're blatantly misrepresenting what busing was about. Good job.

[Spectral]

Not asking that question is essentially missing the point.

I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not. If your claim is that addiction's a real problem that's a bigger problem for the poor, I agree. This seems like an endorsement of the point that just giving an addict a bunch of money rather than SNAP and Section 8 is a recipe for homelessness and death. Cutting a check for $1K to a heroin addict is pretty much dooming them to being found face down in a ditch.