Something we may agree on

[Yerda]

The basic income.

About Basic Income

A basic income is an income unconditionally granted to all on an individual basis, without means test or work requirement. It is a form of minimum income guarantee that differs from those that now exist in various European countries in three important ways:

• it is being paid to individuals rather than households;
• it is paid irrespective of any income from other sources;
• it is paid without requiring the performance of any work or the willingness to accept a job if offered.

Sounds mental, but it could cut through a lot of bureaucracy of the modern welfare state and sidesteps a lot of the associated bitterness. Trials have been very promising with almost entirely positive outcomes. See for example:

INDIA: Basic Income Pilot Project releases an impressive list of findings. | Basic Income News

And I can think of a simple way of paying for it. Instead of billions in corporate welfare to encourage the owners to maintain employment, just give people they money directly and let them set about their own work.

For the Libertarian what could be more attractractive than everyone having the ability to engage in free economic enterprise. A society of rugged individual exchange.

Seriously though, this seems like a policy that left and right can meet on.

 

[Ingledsva]

• it is being paid to individuals rather than households;

So a household with 5 or 6 non-working people can collect enough money to afford anything they want without working for it?

• it is paid irrespective of any income from other sources;

So we are going to pay for rich people, whom don't need our money?

• it is paid without requiring the performance of any work or the willingness to accept a job if offered.

Why would we just give money - that other people had to work for, - (it doesn't grow on trees,) - to people whom don't want to work?

I'm all for a Socialist Democracy, but I think all people should pay forward, and do their part, by working at something, and paying those taxes that continue the program for their children, and grandchildren.

*

 

[Glaurung]

How long would it take before the recipients demand more money because they can't afford all the extra gizmos that those who have jobs can?

I'm not sure I like the idea of rewarding people for merely existing, but then again if the hard numbers show it to be better and cheaper than the current welfare system then I'd support it.

 

[Yerda]

So a household with 5 or 6 non-working people can collect enough money to afford anything they want without working for it?

No the basic income is unlikely to pay for a new yacht. It is probably going to be enough for food, clothes, and rent. Above that you would probably have to work if you want more.

So we are going to pay for rich people, whom don't need our money?

It would be universal.

Why would we just give money - that other people had to work for, - (it doesn't grow on trees,) - to people whom don't want to work?

There are benefits in having people who don't want to accept jobs having money.

 

[Yerda]

I'm not sure I like the idea of rewarding people for merely existing, but then again if the hard numbers show it to be better and cheaper than the current welfare system then I'd support it.

The numbers are looking promising at least.

 

[Ingledsva]

No the basic income is unlikely to pay for a new yacht. It is probably going to be enough for food, clothes, and rent. Above that you would probably have to work if you want more.

It would be universal.

There are benefits in having people who don't want to accept jobs having money.

Not for me there isn't. The money has to come from working people, that are paying taxes.

I see no reason to support non-working people in this scenario. As I said, I believe in a Socialist Democracy, where everyone is taken care of from birth - to college - to death. However, I feel all should work and pay into the program to keep it going.

How do you plan to keep this payout going if people can get money for nothing? Who is going to want to work?

You can see the problems we have with welfare in the USA. This would just make it worse.

*

 

[Bunyip]

You remind me of a recent development in Utah, where the city council did the math and worked out that it was cheaper to give the homeless a house than to provide all the other services necessary to the homeless. So they gave them houses. Good humanitarian behaviour can be economically sound.

As to a fair wage, this will ultimately have to pan out globally - which will be, erm....interesting.

 

[Yerda]

How do you plan to keep this payout going if people can get money for nothing?

As I said, there is a lot of money to be saved by simply cutting out the huge costs of current welfare bureaucracy. In some models this covers the entire cost and then some. For others there is an eye-wateringly massive corporate welfare bill, the purpose of which is to bribe the owners of the planet to create jobs. We could simply cut that and give people the money directly allowing them to pursue their own work. All studies to date indicate, counter-intuitively for many, that a basic income in the form of cash payments increases economic participation.

Who is going to want to work?

Anyone who wants more than they can get with the basic income, which is almost everyone. Anyone who simply wants to work, which is almost everyone. Anyone with something that they particularly want to do, which is almost everyone.

You can see the problems we have with welfare in the USA.

I'm a UK citizen but I'm sure our problems are similar.

 

[Ingledsva]

As I said, there is a lot of money to be saved by simply cutting out the huge costs of current welfare bureaucracy. In some models this covers the entire cost and then some. For others there is an eye-wateringly massive corporate welfare bill, the purpose of which is to bribe the owners of the planet to create jobs. We could simply cut that and give people the money directly allowing them to pursue their own work. All studies to date indicate, counter-intuitively for many, that a basic income in the form of cash payments increases economic participation.

Anyone who wants more than they can get with the basic income, which is almost everyone. Anyone who simply wants to work, which is almost everyone. Anyone with something that they particularly want to do, which is almost everyone.

I'm a UK citizen but I'm sure our problems are similar.

What part of zero are they going to save?

If everyone decides they don't want to work (pay taxes,) since they can get money for just sitting around, who is going to support those free-loaders? Government money comes from taxes, from working people. No working people = no taxes = zero money for the people who don't want to work.

And I might add - the government collapses - lights go out - no city workers, no one picks up the garbage, no police to keep you safe, water stops flowing, sewers back up, no one drives the busses, no wait staff, or cooks, for the lunch crowd, no teachers, etc.

*

 

[Ultimatum]

The basic income.

About Basic Income

A basic income is an income unconditionally granted to all on an individual basis, without means test or work requirement. It is a form of minimum income guarantee that differs from those that now exist in various European countries in three important ways:

• it is being paid to individuals rather than households;
• it is paid irrespective of any income from other sources;
• it is paid without requiring the performance of any work or the willingness to accept a job if offered.

Sounds mental, but it could cut through a lot of bureaucracy of the modern welfare state and sidesteps a lot of the associated bitterness. Trials have been very promising with almost entirely positive outcomes. See for example:

INDIA: Basic Income Pilot Project releases an impressive list of findings. | Basic Income News

And I can think of a simple way of paying for it. Instead of billions in corporate welfare to encourage the owners to maintain employment, just give people they money directly and let them set about their own work.

For the Libertarian what could be more attractractive than everyone having the ability to engage in free economic enterprise. A society of rugged individual exchange.

Seriously though, this seems like a policy that left and right can meet on.

There is no way, with the oversupply of labour in the UK, that we could ever sustain a basic income. Also, a basic income makes people extremely lazy: we need to incentivise, with raising the tax threshold, people to go to work. We want those who work to be more wealthy than those who do not.

 

[Yerda]

What part of zero are they going to save?

The current costs of running welfare departments in the developed world are considerably larger than zero.

If everyone decides they don't want to work (pay taxes,) since they can get money for just sitting around, who is going to support those free-loaders? Government money comes from taxes, from working people. No working people = no taxes = zero money for the people who don't want to work.

Why are you assuming that no-one will work? I've already said twice that studies indicate that people given basic income cash grants are more likely to work.

I understand it is a mad idea. But, please, read a little. It may not work but it is worth a proper look. If we fall back on rhetoric every time someone suggests an idea we'll never make this world any better.

Here's an article, read the first paragraph at least:

Column: The poor are responsible too - Financial Express

Or maybe give this a quick scan:

USBIG: What is BIG?

 

[Yerda]

There is no way, with the oversupply of labour in the UK, that we could ever sustain a basic income. Also, a basic income makes people extremely lazy: we need to incentivise, with raising the tax threshold, people to go to work. We want those who work to be more wealthy than those who do not.

None of this is accurate. We could more than afford a basic income from the corporate welfare bill. A basic income has been shown to do the opposite of encourage laziness. People who work will still make more than those who don't.

 

[Yerda]

From the trial in India:

• Contrary to a common criticism of cash transfers, cash grants were associated with an increase in labour and work.
• Cash grant households were twice as likely to have increased their production work as non-transfer households.

And for the rugged individual, who loves nothing more than the entrepreneurial spirit:

• Cash grant households were three times as likely to start a new business or production activity as others, with a majority attributing that to the cash grants.

 

[Koldo]

The basic income.

About Basic Income

A basic income is an income unconditionally granted to all on an individual basis, without means test or work requirement. It is a form of minimum income guarantee that differs from those that now exist in various European countries in three important ways:

• it is being paid to individuals rather than households;
• it is paid irrespective of any income from other sources;
• it is paid without requiring the performance of any work or the willingness to accept a job if offered.

Sounds mental, but it could cut through a lot of bureaucracy of the modern welfare state and sidesteps a lot of the associated bitterness. Trials have been very promising with almost entirely positive outcomes. See for example:

INDIA: Basic Income Pilot Project releases an impressive list of findings. | Basic Income News

And I can think of a simple way of paying for it. Instead of billions in corporate welfare to encourage the owners to maintain employment, just give people they money directly and let them set about their own work.

For the Libertarian what could be more attractractive than everyone having the ability to engage in free economic enterprise. A society of rugged individual exchange.

Seriously though, this seems like a policy that left and right can meet on.

My only question is: How do you prevent inflation if you were to apply this to a whole country?

 

[Sunstone]

Respectful question: Does anyone think that as computers, robots, and automation replace jobs, the pool of jobs left for humans might decrease to the point where it is not necessary for countries to have large labor forces?

 

[Yerda]

My only question is: How do you prevent inflation if you were to apply this to a whole country?

If you tell me why it might cause inflation I might be able to answer.

I know that Milton Friedman used to advocate a similar idea and he took inflation quite seriously. He called it negative taxation. It's cheaper to give cash payments however.

 

[Koldo]

If you tell me why it might cause inflation I might be able to answer.

I know that Milton Friedman used to advocate a similar idea and he took inflation quite seriously. He called it negative taxation. It's cheaper to give cash payments however.

If you outright grant money to everyone, thereby increasing the ammount of money at everyone's disposal, the price of goods and services will tend to rise along the time to adjust for this.

 

[Iti oj]

Respectful question: Does anyone think that as computers, robots, and automation replace jobs, the pool of jobs left for humans might decrease to the point where it is not necessary for countries to have large labor forces?

Of course and that's no reason for people's to be hungry or homeless.

 

[Iti oj]

Great posts @Jaiket

 

[Yerda]

If you outright grant money to everyone, thereby increasing the ammount of money at everyone's disposal, the price of goods and services will tend to rise along the time to adjust for this.

We aren't talking about increasing the supply.