Enacting a basic income for all Americans

a reply to: ketsuko

Either we are a collective now, or we are individuals.

Here's a thought puzzle -

So, let's say we are individuals.
The 'collective' doesn't matter. Not one whit.

I'm fine with that. So, here we go:

You decide to go it on your own - to be an individual - and give up ALL the things that are available to you as part of this 'collective':
you give up your passport, and citizenship. You give up all credentials you've earned/paid for; you turn in your driver's license. You no longer have a Social Security Number, or ANY help in case you are in a horrid situation. You are inadmissible to ANY shelter or food-bank. You are no one.

Except you. You are just "you." And you don't need anyone else's help. ???

And no one anywhere is part of 'the collective.' There are no teachers in public schools - there are no highway crew, either. NOTHING that the 'government' provides. All gone. For everyone.

Right? But....but, now you can't drive on the roads because there aren't any.......and if you do, and get into a horrible accident, you can't go to the nearest county hospital, nor can you call 911 and expect service. Nope! It's just you, right there - having 'differentiated' yourself from the rest of the public. No cops, no traffic lights, no anything that you rely on every day.

Do you think that's okay?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs
a family is a collective, isn't it? I mean each member has a role to play, a contribution to add. But they also have a need they are looking to the others to fill.
Even the smallest baby has something to contribute wouldn't you say?
And well I don't know about your family but mine is made up of individuals. They certainly aren't made from the same cookie cutter.
I have three sons and well each of them had different needs, each of them a different personality, and well, I couldn't treat them all exactly the same because they weren't the same!!
but we were a unit, a collective.
I don't think it's an choice between one or another. It's more like a collective has to have individuals within it and for it to be successful, their individuality has to be acknowledge, respected, and nurtured.

a reply to: dawnstar

Even the smallest baby has something to contribute wouldn't you say?

Absolutely.

And well I don't know about your family but mine is made up of individuals. They certainly aren't made from the same cookie cutter.

Absolutely not - I have two kids. Each of them has different personalities, strengths, weaknesses, etc. They are now in their mid-20s. When they lived at home, and even now - we are a 'posse'. They are part of my team.

I have three sons and I well each of them had different needs, each of them a different personality, and well, I couldn't treat them all exactly the same because they weren't the same!!
but we were a unit, a collective.

Exactly.

I'm afraid now that you misinterpreted my posts.
This country is a 'collective' just like a family is. All members have things to offer, and things they are incapable of offering. Perhaps we have too many people to remain a functioning 'collective.'

I don't know.
But I know how to balance the household budget, make sure that my kids are okay, and not get buried in debt.
I think we're doing all right.

But we ARE a posse. A collective. A "tribe" of sorts.

Truth is, like many have stated already. A new system will have to emerge. We lived for hundreds of thousands of years in communities, where we collectively took care of each other. With automation coming eventually, there will probably need to be a hybrid socialistic/capitalistic system. Socialism for all things necessary to support human life. Capitalism for everything else. In regard to the socialistic structures we develop, they should not be facilitated by the federal government, and should be ran by each individual region, county, city, or community (whatever works best). the federal government could assist, not by regulating, but by ensuring fair trade between States. But there are so many other issues right now, none of this will happen, until we have had it with our current system. There are many groups now, that have decided to put such a system in place using the laws already on the books to do so. It will take time...but we are witnessing the capitalistic system crumble before our eyes. It is not sustainable, and not for the fault of capitalism itself, but from the greed that corrupts the human heart.

a reply to: ExPostFacto

With automation coming eventually, there will probably need to be a hybrid socialistic/capitalistic system. Socialism for all things necessary to support human life. Capitalism for everything else.

That's exactly what we have now.
A mixed economy -

I think the point I am making that it isn't a matter or weather or not we are a collective rather than an individual but rather can a group of individuals gather together in a strong enough bond to form a collective to work for a common good.
at this point, I don't think we have a choice. we are too interwoven, reliant on each other, and well, we have to work together or we will destroy ourselves.

a reply to: onequestion

Great that you have posted - here is where the rest of the world is up to with this en.wikipedia.org...
25 countries are currently either in the process of enacting or experimenting with this, including some States. I setup a facebook page to discuss this very thing, and have an answer that would benefit 95% of the population in my country.

Nearly ready to go - waiting for a reply requesting current unemployment costs - my idea in economist speak is fiscally neutral and I doubt that it would cost any who have posted here if the scheme was adopted.

Hoping the discussion continues, I will post a link here within the week and thanks again for posting.

a reply to: onequestion


The idea of establishing a basic income is believed to be, some how, the newest and most progressive idea, following the long train of events from the days of the first minimum wage laws until now. However there have been many grand ideas in this quest to establish and economically dependable.......foundation for the working man ect, a safety net ect, ect.....now a wage net is said to be desirable. A wage net that like the others will have to be supported by making the providers of goods and services the facilitators and thus ultimately the customer. The customer that will clam up their spending when prices are forced up high enough to cover the basic wage. Which said price increases will just end up putting low wage folks right back into the same relative position.

So everyone would receive basic income?

That would mean more of my tax dollars going to criminals...

No thanks.

a reply to: dawnstar

I'm going to bed soon - but, I want to recommend to you:

Non-Zero: The Logic of Human Destiny by Robert Wright.

Goodnight, dawnstar. And everyone else.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Sort of. We do not have free food for all. What I'm saying is food for all means everyone has access to that food, not just based on income. A commune form of socialism works much better, not this form of socialism that federal dollars makes corporations rich from the distributed monies.

I'm wondering how many would support the complete elimination of all the people that don't pay taxes, do not pay into the system in any way, do not believe in capitalistic ventures, and whom do not, in any way, have any ability to contribute to the system.

a reply to: ExPostFacto

A commune form of socialism works much better, not this form of socialism that federal dollars makes corporations rich from the distributed monies.

Totally agreed!


Okay, really, gotta go, guys and gals.....

I believe in the absolute equality of all people on earth, no need for money, but have always believed in guaranteed income for all citizens since childhood. No elites, counsels of citizens and governments that are proportional democracy. Primary caregiver stays home with kids, and may later on work part time.

No money again best, but otherwise price control on all essentials, such as homes, food, utilities. No poisons in food, land and homes for all. Cost with utilities no more than 1/3 income combined. And, income based on family size, or again no money. No one is entitled to be more than another.

Depends on the health and situation. Disabled and elderly equal. And as for everyone else, this would ensure part time positions and lots of opportunities, not competition, but placement to grow talents and learn skills and be able to assist. Absolute transparency of all technologies, and a clean advanced world that at least toes into the cosmos if not more.

Equality and Freedom. Anything else is crimes against all souls.

a reply to: EternalSolace
wouldn't that describe most of the kids??
ya that should solve alot of problems eventually, once the humans die off without any offspring!

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: ExPostFacto


"With automation coming eventually, there will probably need to be a hybrid socialistic/capitalistic system. Socialism for all things necessary to support human life. Capitalism for everything else."

That's exactly what we have now. A mixed economy -

Kind of , but not the model mentioned above. What we have is a lobbyist oligarchy controlled economy.

So we have the Few Capitalist Oligopolies controlling the gov't , and the gov;t controlling the consumer and the market via quasi communism.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: EternalSolace
wouldn't that describe most of the kids??
ya that should solve alot of problems eventually, once the humans die off without any offspring!

Wouldn't it though? The eventual loss of 90% of worldwide jobs will be lost to automation. Should 90% of the world population be eliminated because they couldn't repair such machines?

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
I personally believe Basic Income is an eventuality that will come to pass within the next 20 years. Moore's law continues to bring exponential innovation unchecked, and as technology improves, more work will be done via automation or AI.

I also believe it will be a point of major contention in the history of the nations as they move toward it.

I don't know, seems like with increased automation we'll just continue to have increased unemployment and the poverty that goes with it. If a basic income were a viable solution, it would be working thus far. It's called welfare, and it is a dead end street for those who have experienced 'generational welfare.'

People need their basic needs met, yes. But people also need to feel like they are contributing something, in order to feel part of society.

So what about this: Automation ensures everyone has their basic needs met. All on the same level. Then, in order to "Level Up" (work towards a car, bigger house, etc) there are certain tasks you complete. And you get to choose from a huge list. (Help tend a neighborhood garden, repair a road, do programming, etc.) to earn bonus points towards your choice of rewards. Sort of like in a computer game, lol.

I dunno, kinda sounds like what we're already doing, and the 'bonus points' are just $$$, right? But there is something about Having Choice of tasks and Contributing and Feeling Accomplishment that really needs to be looked at more closely, IMO. People would be truly woven into the fabric of their society, and motivated to keep it strong. Heck, it's almost like money IS the problem that divides. The ones that have SO MUCH get to decide everything.

So sorry for rambling a bit. This one's a puzzle and got me thinking.

a reply to: EternalSolace
would we need all those machines if we reduced the population by 90%?
I think that is what I am finding most unbelievable about it.
how many different types of cereal are being sold by various companies out there? Sodas, cars, everything!!
so all these companies producing all this junk somehow think that they can increase their profits by making the cost of labor cheaper and cheaper while increasing prices more and more. okay, but well barring any involvement from the gov't to keep help the poor pay for the needs and some of their desires, well it seems only logical that every time they do this, they remove more people from their customer base. sooner or later, their customer base is gonna become so small that they can't justify producing the goods anymore. when that time comes well, it will be time for them to find another way to earn money...
it's unsustainable no matter how you look at it.

a reply to: dawnstar

Possibly not. But who are you, or anyone else, to dictate who reproduces or not?