‘Basic income’ poll: 64% of Europeans would vote in favor!

originally posted by: eluryh22
1) Cost: What is the net gain or loss between the current welfare systems vs this "new" system. If it will cost more, how much more and who is expected to pay for it? (To me, "rich" is a relative term and means different things to different people).

In the case of the US, it would completely eliminate SS, SSI, Welfare, WIC, SNAP, and several others. You would still end up paying out more money but you would also save a lot on bureaucracy. The costs associated with doing so have been calculated to be minimal (no difference than flat tax plans that give everyone a rebate every month... it's literally the exact same thing, only a difference in amount given). As far as who pays, those with jobs do obviously. The more you make, the more you're going to pay just like in any sane tax system.

2) Unintended consequences: I could be wrong but it seems as though a lot of people are making the assumption that introducing this new dynamic will not affect all other parts of life.

- Lets say you give each person $2,500 per month.

- As things are now (in my neck of the woods) an one bedroom apartment with basic amenities can cost around $1,600 per month.

- If suddenly there are thousands upon thousands of additional people that could now afford the $1,600 per month apartment, why would a landlord not raise the cost of the apartment based on this new demand? I propose that costs for all sorts of "things" would go up incredibly if something like this were to be enacted.

No one is talking about giving that much, but rather that not working still puts you in the say bottom 10% of income. The idea is that you can afford food and rent in a low CoL area. In your example that's about $1000/month for a 2 bedroom with a roommate. As far as your example goes, that doesn't happen because incomes aren't increasing. At the bottom end of things you're just getting income from a check rather than a paycheck, but the value isn't really changing at all.

3) People are People: What happens when people blow through their monthly pittance without taking care of their basic needs? Are we suddenly going to let people start starving to death in the street? Or, more likely, are we going to have to keep up with dedicated food and shelter programs in ADDITION to this "new" thing?

What happens when people do that now? It's largely only the homeless where that happens and the homeless is a problem this isn't directed at trying to solve (nor is it able to).

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: luthier

Are you arguing that a person cannot become an employer? Employers tend to hire people. Not only that, but it isn't out of the ordinary to employ oneself.

Yeah. I am self employed and have bought automation equiptment. Guess what? It made me not have to hire people. I make guitars I bought a table top CNC. So basically not only have I eliminated the need to hire I also am no longer using my distributor for necks and laser inlay etching.

a reply to: Davg80

I've heard about it for a few years now. It's been tried, too - it makes perfect sense to me.

Provide the populace with funds, and they will consume - the more consuming, the more jobs...etc.

It's not much different than bank bailouts...ya know...if you think about it, but impressively more just.

If we don't have disposable income (or even necessary income to house, clothe, feed ourselves) the economy can't grow. If we don't have housing, food, shelter, clothing, etc. we can't do anything at all. There was a great program on NPR recently about Maslow's pyramid of human needs. (Surprisingly, not everyone is aware of the work of Maslow!)



People who can't get their most basic needs met aren't interested in anything else. They are surviving. They don't have the luxury of attaining "self-actualization", or even exploring their interests!

This idea is simple common sense.
A class of 1st graders could figure it out. Preschoolers, even. Nobody can play unless everybody has some cash/tender at the start. Imaging playing monopoly - but it's you alone, against the 'bank' and you don't get any money at the start.




Get it?
Start with nothing and you're, well....buggered...basically.

originally posted by: TheTory
I think a basic income would be ruinous, but perhaps a few societies would be willing to run that experiment. If the only condition for such a pay check is to simply exist, I'm fairly certain the downfall of the society that provides for that pay check would be inevitable.

and yet, the children of the wealthy need to only exist, and to keep the inherited wealth of their parents stable, to continue to receive income...it's been going on for centuries.

a reply to: Kali74

You're absolutely quite correct about that.

My guess is that Hilary will add some compulsory service program in place to force people to work at public works projects or something similarly odious.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: luthier

Are you arguing that a person cannot become an employer? Employers tend to hire people. Not only that, but it isn't out of the ordinary to employ oneself.

Yeah. I am self employed and have bought automation equiptment. Guess what? It made me not have to hire people. I make guitars I bought a table top CNC. So basically not only have I eliminated the need to hire I also am no longer using my distributor for necks and laser inlay etching.

But you've employed yourself and provide a service, as opposed to being employed by someone else and providing their service. Your self-employment is still a positive gain to a society, even if you don't utilize the services of others.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: TheTory
I think a basic income would be ruinous, but perhaps a few societies would be willing to run that experiment. If the only condition for such a pay check is to simply exist, I'm fairly certain the downfall of the society that provides for that pay check would be inevitable.

and yet, the children of the wealthy need to only exist, and to keep the inherited wealth of their parents stable, to continue to receive income...it's been going on for centuries.

Yes, some families have the wherewithal to accumulate wealth, providing for their families for generations. That's a good thing, not a bad thing.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

So..........would that mean that people would quit killing people in home invasions while stealing the Xbox and big screen TV?

originally posted by: TheTory

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: luthier

Are you arguing that a person cannot become an employer? Employers tend to hire people. Not only that, but it isn't out of the ordinary to employ oneself.

Yeah. I am self employed and have bought automation equiptment. Guess what? It made me not have to hire people. I make guitars I bought a table top CNC. So basically not only have I eliminated the need to hire I also am no longer using my distributor for necks and laser inlay etching.

But you've employed yourself and provide a service, as opposed to being employed by someone else and providing their service. Your self-employment is still a positive gain to a society, even if you don't utilize the services of others.

No not exactly.

I have also stopped using suppliers. Who may need to cut jobs if that happens across the board.

The machine I use makes me more money with less work but that doesn't mean i t didn't take the place of two people and the work from previous suppliers. It also doesn't mean I will net more money. Especially if no one had any.

a reply to: luthier

Less overhead equals lower prices. Once again, that is a net gain to society.

a reply to: KawRider9


The problem is there may soon be no cart to pull or a really small cart to pull. If AI really is the end all for production then the cart (jobs, employment, means to earn $) is going to get real small. There will still be one offs like plumbers and carpenters and some skilled positions, but if a crap ton of jobs go to the robots and the like, I could see it get real interesting.
Seems if people have no $ they can't but stuff even super duper cheap stuff. It is a symbiotic relationship between big companies and the consumers. Consumers got no dough it trickles up to big companies have no big earnings.

Seasonal

a reply to: TonyS

Sure couldn't hurt. But how should I know?

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Davg80

I've heard about it for a few years now. It's been tried, too - it makes perfect sense to me.

Provide the populace with funds, and they will consume - the more consuming, the more jobs...etc.

As a libertarian I think this is a great idea because everyone is treated equally. If You have a paper currency You have to have some sort of monetary inflation to keep the system running. As far as I'm concerned it's a lot fairer to have a currency that benefits humanity instead of the federal reserve board members. What most people don't realize is We are all slaves at the moment and will continue to remain slaves as long as We have a debt based currency. The best part is We could end government pensions and SS in one swoop and then the budget would be balanced. As far as taxes We need to give everyone skin in the game and to tax everyone equally which the best way would be with a sales tax just so all those patriotic socialists can pay their fair share too.

from what i've heard they'll be giving that a go in Ontario sometime in 2017.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

So..........would that mean that people would quit killing people in home invasions while stealing the Xbox and big screen TV?

No, but it should reduce it. When quality of life and the perception of social mobility go up, crime goes down.

a reply to: TheBandit795

Can you just make the point, please?
I'm not in a place where I can watch the vid at the moment.

*********************

And just in case I need to head anyone off at the pass leading to the Fire Swamp - I only said I'd heard about it, and that the theory was about consumption feeding the economy.

It's a theory. I didn't say I agreed with it...(And I didn't say I don't)...
THE ABOVE REFERS TO BASIC INCOME.

*********************

Maslow's heirarchy is pretty well established anthropological and psychological TRUTH.
I didn't invent it.

In case anyone's interest in going in depth to learn more:
TED Radio Hour Segment: Maslow's Human Needs
From Fri the 13th
*WOOOOooooooOOOOOooo"

There are others on NPR as well. Interesting stuff. Pathetic that so few are aware of these very elementary psychological truths regarding the human condition.

/shrug

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: luthier

Less overhead equals lower prices. Once again, that is a net gain to society.

It doesn't always thought does it? Less overhead does not mean lower prices in many markets. Especially small niches like guitars. In the case of pharmaceuticals it means more profit since the patent keeps away competition.

Are you an Austrian school follower? If so I will just stop now because it's impossible to reason.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

The point is very simple. Consumption does not make an economy grow, savings does. And I didn't mention Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs at all.

a reply to: TheBandit795

Okay. So - some theorists say that if people have money, they will spend it, and that grows the economy.
At this point, I don't really wish to argue about it -
I have a very bitter taste in my mouth regarding Wealth Hoarding.
Wall Street is running a racket - and the whole damn thing is a run-away train that now slices large swaths of humanity to bits under it's velocity.

"Savings" - that's for retirement and emergencies. Letting it sit and "gain interest" is a game. It's fictional.
Spending $10,000 on fixing up my house is a physical manifestation: a "real" estate.

Thanks for the "yes, but some people say" ------
I'm going to stick with the people who promote it.
Switzerland, for example.