Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all.
Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage") |
|
Post Reply 
|
Page 123> |
| Author | ||
Finnforest 
Special Collaborator 
Honorary Collaborator Joined: February 03 2007 Location: The Heartland Status: Offline Points: 17607 |
 Topic: Basic IncomePosted: April 27 2016 at 15:30 |
|
|
The idea of Basic Income is that everyone gets a check, guaranteed, with no strings attached, and with NO requirement to work, or look for work. A basic income to live on. What they do from there is up to them. If people choose to live very frugally, perhaps they would not work at all and pursue other passions. If people want an elite lifestyle, they are free to work as aggressively as ever to achieve that lifestyle. One of the cited advantages are the cost savings that could come from the transition of multiple forms of welfare systems, each hamstrung by rules, regulations, and bureaucracies, into one easy program that doesn't ask questions. Everyone gets a check regardless of whether they work. Costs savings from simplification.
I'm very curious about this idea. One strange thing is that it is an issue that is unpredictable from a partisan perspective. Some on the Left and Right support it, others on both the Left and Right oppose it. The reasons for this divide are laid out in this linked article from 538, which makes clear the idea is being studied but that good data is lacking. I'm very curious to hear from guys like Brian and Pat, who are good with math and economics, what do you personally think of the workability of Basic Income? And I'd like to hear anyone's opinion on the validity of the idea, without focusing on the politics. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/universal-basic-income/ Edited by Finnforest - April 27 2016 at 15:52 |
||
 |
||
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: September 30 2006 Location: Pearland Status: Online Points: 65876 |
Posted: April 27 2016 at 17:33 |
|
|
I've always been fond of the idea, and I suspect society wouldn't be much different with it; you'd have those that wanted to work and move ahead, and those that are happy painting a landscape.
Basic Income sounds like the sequel to Basic Instinct, wherein Sharon Stone's character has to actually work for a living. |
||
|
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy
|
||
|
||
|
Vompatti
Forum Senior Member 
VIP Member Joined: October 22 2005 Location: elsewhere Status: Offline Points: 67471 |
Posted: April 27 2016 at 18:02 |
|
|
Yes please. It would get rid of a lot of bureaucracy, the money that goes to welfare would be evenly distributed, and I wouldn't have to send a new application every month.
 |
||
|
||
|
A Person
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 10 2008 Location: __ Status: Offline Points: 65760 |
Posted: April 27 2016 at 18:08 |
|
|
I like the idea but I have no idea how it would be implemented, there are a lot of ways to make people worse off than they already are. Personally I wish we had an economy that primarily functioned to meet the needs of the people rather than the profit of private individuals but that's neither here nor there.
|
||
|
||
|
Vompatti
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member Joined: October 22 2005 Location: elsewhere Status: Offline Points: 67471 |
Posted: April 27 2016 at 18:19 |
|
|
The only thing I'm worried about is that if everyone got the same amount prices would go up so that what you would get wouldn't be enough for rent and food and beer.
|
||
|
||
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer 
Joined: April 05 2006 Location: Tallahassee, FL Status: Offline Points: 34550 |
Posted: April 27 2016 at 20:27 |
|
|
Indeed, the idea does have some strange bedfellows in both support and opposition.
You hear about this idea on the left today, but it was Milton Friedman who first proposed the "negative income tax" which was basically giving $ to everyone unconditionally. As you say, the thinking is usually a reduction in waste by streamlining it all, and avoiding welfare traps. I know Ontario (I believe?) is going to pass a moderate version of it, giving out $ the idea being if rent and etc is covered, all your income from work can go to other things, and you may even be freer with how you use it. Funny you made this thread, just a few days was listening to an NPR podcast where they discussed the idea, and how a town in Canada actually tried it long ago, but the program was scrapped and all the data was tucked away, totally unorganized and forgotten about for decades, and with laws saying they can't contact participants....the researcher found it impossible to really analyze  My take on it? Hmmmmmm there's a lot of different ways to look at this. 1: Morally: Personally, I'm a pro work liberal. I have always believed in government job programs. This way people who are left behind by the labor market can be have a solid living, but be put to work for society. Infrastructure, environmental, child/elderly care all sorts of things that are very beneficial to the country. I personally prefer it over a lump sum of money. There's no right or wrong to this, just what you feel. I'd rather people be put to work in a beneficial fashion. Not only is it good for the country, but it will make people feed good, we generally want to feel useful and that we are earning our living. I can support a small, supplemental amount I suppose. However, I would not be personally supportive of an amount high enough one could live on. 2: Economically: It really depends on the amount. If small, it shouldn't cause any perverse incentive, (aka people not looking for work). I am not sure if inflation is a fear, because depending on the amount...it may not be any more than we spend already on welfare. I suppose there could be issues with things like rent, if a lump sum was giving out everyone could then flock to housing and cause issues. If the program is specifically targeted perhaps this could be avoided. Like, "Hey Bob, you need $X per month for rent, so you Bob will get that. Alice needs $Y so she will get Y" but this would of course require oversight, planning and would defeat the purpose of it being a simplifying process. I also wonder if this would cause rent to increase. If $500/month is suddenly given to you, well hey as a landlord why dont I just raise it? You can cover it after all. There may need to be some time of price control. This is partly what happens with college in the US. Because the price can be covered through gov aid, many colleges simply raise their price. It's also fueled by the fact many people want college, more than seats available, and of course everyone needs housing, so I think this type of specific inflation could be an issue. OK sorry, I didn't pre think this post, just kinda started rambling on as I ponder  Basically: It depends on the level. If small and supplemental I don't see much issue, and could support it. If larger (even able to live on solely) I am far more unsure. Since you asked personally, I am not toooo into the idea. I'd rather jobs be provided by the government at a good wage. This should accomplish much of the same thing (everyone having money, less need for welfare) but has the advantage in my book that people can be productive for society, and they can earn a solid living (let's say $15/hr) with less fear of inflation and disruption.
Edited by JJLehto - April 27 2016 at 20:28 |
||
|
||
|
A Person
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 10 2008 Location: __ Status: Offline Points: 65760 |
Posted: April 27 2016 at 20:48 |
|
I heard something about it being tried in Canada just the other day too. I think on some political vid, if I find it I'll see if I can find a source. |
||
|
||
|
Finnforest
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: February 03 2007 Location: The Heartland Status: Offline Points: 17607 |
Posted: April 27 2016 at 22:12 |
|
|
Thanks Brian for the thoughtful reply.
Couple things. Lets say the amount would be $2500/month for sake of discussion. I think the intent would be for people who don't wish to work, they could live on it provided they were frugal. They might have to move to somewhere less trendy...obviously SF and Manhattan are out of the question. But there are places you can live on that. I think its very important that it would be tried as "no questions/no rules" because as soon as you start putting conditions on it, you need that bureaucracy to support and enforce. The simplicity of "one amount, no questions" is where you get the savings to pay for it? Speaking rhetorically now as I'm sure how I really feel...but for discussion....maybe the disincentive to work you mention should not necessarily be viewed as bad. Automation is reducing more and more jobs. But even if that wasn't the case, isn't part of the appeal needed to coalesce enough support that we as citizens should no longer have to teabag corporations just to survive? Should no longer have to put up with their bullsh*t just to afford food? It seems the appeal of the idea is that people who want the two fine cars, the lake home, the golf membership....they will have to work their ass off to be wealthy enough for that lifestyle. But different kind of people who enjoy their free time for art, writing, whatever, could afford a basic frugal life without having to bow to the corporate (or govt) masters. It would seem this could work for both types of people, those who want it all, and those who just prefer to have their time rather than material wealth? Inflation I can't speak to...that is where it gets sticky. You'd know better, but I would think it might spike as the plan rolled out, but eventually level out and be not much different than the effect current welfare programs have? Edited by Finnforest - April 27 2016 at 22:14 |
||
|
||
|
zachfive
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 13 2005 Location: Kitsap WA Status: Offline Points: 770 |
Posted: April 27 2016 at 22:45 |
|
|
If this idea is on the table may I suggest that we also consider giving up on money all together. Creating a new zeitgeist here people.
|
||
|
||
|
Man With Hat
Collaborator
Jazz-Rock/Fusion/Canterbury Team Joined: March 12 2005 Location: Neurotica Status: Offline Points: 166183 |
Posted: April 27 2016 at 22:53 |
|
|
I support this, but then I'm a bit of a bohemian at heart.
|
||
|
Dig me...But don't...Bury me
I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect. |
||
|
||
|
DDPascalDD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 06 2015 Location: The Netherlands Status: Offline Points: 856 |
Posted: April 28 2016 at 03:24 |
|
|
Here in The Netherlands we are already kind of close to this. You will always get enough money to live from (just enough to make a living) if you are wanting to work but can't at the moment, very simply put.
I think making it a standard for everyone without conditions is a good idea. But people should indeed have to work for every luxury they'd want. The only thing I'm questioning is where all that money comes from... It could be well the case that a lot of money pressing (so inflation indeed) is required, the income from income taxes will also dissapear. |
||
|
||
|
Meltdowner
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: June 25 2013 Location: Portugal Status: Offline Points: 10281 |
Posted: April 28 2016 at 07:21 |
|
|
That exists in Portugal, I know some families that live with that: they live in a cheap house in a village and receive money for each member of the family but since they are considered poor, they'll also get free food, clothes, education, etc. I predict many more will follow that example in the future since workers are paying more and more taxes and retirement pensions are getting smaller to pay for all that. Not to mention that transportation (even public) is awfully expensive. People that would receive the minimum wage probably earn more by staying at home.
|
||
|
||
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005 Location: Philly Status: Offline Points: 15784 |
Posted: April 29 2016 at 20:58 |
|
|
As I get older I have a real problem about weighing in on an issue in any substantive way unless I've spent the necessary work to really understand the issue. I certainly haven't done that here, but I'll say a general thing or two.
I like the idea in that it achieves the same goals as many of our current welfare programs without the administrative overhead. This should keep costs down some but more importantly it should eliminate a lot of the discriminatory policing that currently goes on which is really my primary concern here. People worry about abuse which can happen under this framework, but I really think it's kinda naive. Some seem worried that the money will be squandered on drugs, gambling, etc rather than providing basic necessities for the families receiving them. Anyone who thinks that I think pretty clearly has never lived in a neighborhood where welfare is prevalent. EBT cards are just another form of currency. I may or may not purchase them frequently at a discount myself. Also, stores place no restrictions on goods which can be bought in practice while ostensibly following the legal requirements. So I don't really see how anything would change by a UBI. Now I don't necessarily agree with the UBI, and I think my political philosophy is sufficiently well known to not have to elaborate. However, it seems more humane and more efficient than our current arrangement. If nothing else it would eliminate the stigma associated with utilizing welfare, and the unfortunate racism that comingles itself with that stigma, by making the medium of exchange indistinguishable between benefactors and non benefactors of welfare. |
||
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
||
|
||
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005 Location: Philly Status: Offline Points: 15784 |
Posted: April 29 2016 at 21:01 |
|
I'm not sure we would see this. If the people receiving the negative tax are the same as currently receiving welfare then we're just changing the liquidity of their assets. No scarcity issue is being changed so the landlords catering to these people are already sort of targeting the margin and raising rents would probably just result in them driving out their customer base I suspect. |
||
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
||
|
||
|
Finnforest
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: February 03 2007 Location: The Heartland Status: Offline Points: 17607 |
Posted: April 29 2016 at 21:26 |
|
But its not just the people "currently receiving welfare", BI would be every adult, except perhaps the very wealthy who could be means tested out. Or maybe I misunderstood your point here. |
||
|
||
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: December 30 2007 Location: Raeford, NC Status: Offline Points: 32588 |
Posted: April 29 2016 at 21:39 |
|
|
We may be moving in that direction anyway with so many positions becoming automated.
|
||
|
||
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: December 30 2007 Location: Raeford, NC Status: Offline Points: 32588 |
Posted: April 29 2016 at 21:42 |
|
That would make political districting even more interesting and controversial than it is now. |
||
|
||
|
A Person
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 10 2008 Location: __ Status: Offline Points: 65760 |
Posted: April 29 2016 at 22:20 |
|
Fully automated luxury communism here we come! |
||
|
||
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006 Location: Tallahassee, FL Status: Offline Points: 34550 |
Posted: April 30 2016 at 01:04 |
|
Thanks for the kind words btw, I finally am starting an econ program and clearly internet discussion is where it pays off! Yeah, that was just me kinda brainstorming, I am not sure at all it'd have any major impact on rent. It certainly wont have any impact on general inflation, especially at a reasonable level. Only reason I had potential concern about rents is it does remind me of college here in the states...With prices covered schools can raise prices, and people need/want it so not much there's no downward pressure. Basically demand far exceeding supply, and made even more so as it's subsidized. I could see perhaps a similar thing with rent/housing. People will need it still, even more so now with a cushion/basic income provided so without a control, I'd just wonder if rent prices could be raised and basically negate it. That said, I have no idea. No one really does, makes it pretty fascinating to think about. |
||
|
||
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006 Location: Tallahassee, FL Status: Offline Points: 34550 |
Posted: April 30 2016 at 01:27 |
|
|
I've been hearing this idea usually coupled with the notion that this is indeed finally the era where machines replace most of our labor. So a basic income becomes more appealing, and sometimes people get into much more fanciful scenarios like replacing our monetary economy entirely. Guess we will see! For now, I like the idea of a wide scale jobs program at a good wage. At let's say $15/hr that's a bit over the $2500/month amount so could make a basic income not really necessary. True one can absolutely live on that amount, while it's no hip city...Central NJ is pretty darn pricey and I got by on roughly $15/hr. In terms of building savings and living well, it wasn't so great but I was out of the parents place, getting by fine, could enjoy nights out drinking or getting food regularly. Don't get me wrong, to get even $500 a month no strings attached would've make things a helluva lot easier! (Long as Scott didn't then realize he could raise our rent without any impact )
This is a good point, but that's for those who would simply be seeing their welfare restructured but not amount changed. For people who are working and getting by with little or none, could it perhaps be an issue then? Like if I make $2500 a month and pay $500 in rent, then a BI comes in and I get $500 for free, Im now getting $3000 a month, why not raise rents? If within this amount I'd not be priced out. As it was said, this idea usually is based on going to most people. But yeah, it's not an outrageous idea, it doesn't seem terribly disruptive and if we are actually seeing the permanent replacement of labor with machines, the idea will make even more sense. For now, I'd only want to see this at a small level, like how some countries do a few hundred a month. As for crappy jobs being lost not being a bad thing, you are right about that! It's always been the argument. That's progress. We may have lost jobs due to children not being to work in mines but no one will say that was a bad thing. Edited by JJLehto - April 30 2016 at 01:37 |
||
|
||
|
Post Reply
|
Page 123> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Basic Income
Topic Options
JJLehto wrote: