• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why the world should adopt a basic income

Lafayette

Lafayette

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
9,594
Reaction score
2,072
Location
France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From the Economist: Why the world should adopt a basic income

Excerpt:
A BASIC income (BI) is defined as a modest, regular payment to every legal resident in the community, paid unconditionally as a right, regardless of income, employment or relationship status.
Click to expand...
Contrary to conventional wisdom, the case for BI does not rest on the assumption that robots and artificial intelligence will cause mass unemployment or that it would be a more efficient way of relieving poverty than present welfare systems (although it would). The main arguments are ethical and relate to social justice, individual freedom and the need for basic security.

First, a BI is a matter of social justice. The wealth and income of all of us has far more to do with the efforts and achievements of our collective forebears than with anything we do for ourselves. If we accept private inheritance, we should accept social inheritance, regarding a BI as a “social dividend” on our collective wealth.

In an era of rentier capitalism, in which more and more income is being channelled to the owners of assets—physical, financial and intellectual—and in which wages will continue to stagnate, a BI would provide an anchor for a fairer income-distribution system. And it would compensate the growing “precariat”, hit by labour flexibility, technological disruption and economic uncertainty.
Click to expand...

In an era of rentier capitalism… [a basic income] would provide an anchor for a fairer income-distribution system. And, in countries with high crime-rates it could have a profound effect upon criminal activity. From a Pew Report here:
Research indicates that about 75 percent of America's state prison inmates, almost 59 percent of federal inmates, and 69 percent of jail inmates did not complete high school.
Click to expand...


Rentier-capitalism, is "franglais" - that is rentier in French means (in English) "a person living on income from property or investments". You know, uh ... people like Donald Dork and his entire family.

Though, of course, they like to call themselves working "businessmen and businesswomen". So, pray tell, what's in a name? (Fecal-matter smells odious like all fecal-matter ... ;^)

It is almost never a real question of "How much you got", but "How you got it" ...

NB: Note that in the definition of Basic Income, the key criterion is "legal resident in the community". Meaning one was born with national citizenship or acquired it legally. It does not mean the guy/gal who just made it through the fence from some foreign country (who probably deserves asylum but not necessarily citizenship).
 
Last edited:
It'll be great ... until the money runs out...
 
There are two basic income redistribution schemes being proposed along these lines: 1) the Basic Income Guarantee (BIG) every adult legal resident gets given $X/month no matter whether they earn any income or not 2) or the Guaranteed Adjusted Income (GAI) every household deserves at least $X/month - meaning that they get given only the difference between $X and what that household earned in outside income that month. Under the GAI option the number of people (not just adults) in the household determine how large that $X amount is.

Neither acts like an inheritance since it is not a one time gift (of accumulated wealth) passed on to heirs upon the demise of another single person since both are variable amounts (BIG eventually becomes less so - after several generations) taken by force from the living. Both depend on a (very?) progressive taxation system since, obviously, only those at the lower income levels can see any net gain.

The myth is that these either of these schemes will replace the need for any other social spending (income redistribution) programs but that is obviously not so for BIG - since it is only an income supplement (not enough to actually live on w/o other income) and would give a two adult household twice as much as a single adult household even though adding one adult to a household does not double that household's living expenses.

Unlike GAI, BIG does not discourage work as much or reduce the effective hourly wage earned for those at lower income levels (initially to zero - slavery?).
 
Last edited:
"Why the world should adopt a basic income"


See Finland's free money program ... :lol:
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yep, that happens as the goal (of income equality?) is approached.
Click to expand...

Income equality will never be achieved. There's a better chance for invisible pink unicorns to come out and reveal themselves.
 
Not Gonna Happen, Never.
 
PoS said:
Income equality will never be achieved. There's a better chance for invisible pink unicorns to come out and reveal themselves.
Click to expand...

Note that I said when income equality is approached. Any income redistribution scheme can obviously only benefit those with lower incomes and therefore must be funded exclusively by those with higher incomes. That means such a system will self destruct as you approach income equality.
 
Milton Friedman is the person who exposed me to libertarianism in the early 70's. the attached video of the same era describes a workable reverse income tax approach and Friedman aptly explains why this methodology is far superior to our array of still failing public assistance programs
if you don't believe such a system of negative income tax is a viable alternative i implore you to watch what Friedman has to say. and if you don't want to dedicate the time to watch from the beginning, go to the conclusion at 13:50
 
justabubba said:
Milton Friedman is the person who exposed me to libertarianism in the early 70's. the attached video of the same era describes a workable reverse income tax approach and Friedman aptly explains why this methodology is far superior to our array of still failing public assistance programs
if you don't believe such a system of negative income tax is a viable alternative i implore you to watch what Friedman has to say. and if you don't want to dedicate the time to watch from the beginning, go to the conclusion at 13:50
Click to expand...


Public assistance doesn't work because it is means tested. which makes it very very difficult to get out of the system. in order to do so you have to exponentially increase your income level above a certain point.
i have constantly been apposed to means tested help. it doesn't help anyone and keeps people in a cycle of poverty.

however the OP's idea doesn't work either. why? you run out of other peoples money or those people that have to fund it leave and go elsewhere.
 
justabubba said:
Milton Friedman is the person who exposed me to libertarianism in the early 70's. the attached video of the same era describes a workable reverse income tax approach and Friedman aptly explains why this methodology is far superior to our array of still failing public assistance programs
if you don't believe such a system of negative income tax is a viable alternative i implore you to watch what Friedman has to say. and if you don't want to dedicate the time to watch from the beginning, go to the conclusion at 13:50
Click to expand...


I'm a strong proponent of the idea - I've spent not a little time and effort fleshing out my own proposal. But it has to be tied to work requirements, or it becomes an incentive for people to do nothing, especially since it imposes a very high effective tax rate on lower income earners.
 
ludin said:
Public assistance doesn't work because it is means tested. which makes it very very difficult to get out of the system.
Click to expand...

welfare cliffs make it very difficult to get out of the system. A NIT avoids that particular pitfall.
 
cpwill said:
welfare cliffs make it very difficult to get out of the system. A NIT avoids that particular pitfall.
Click to expand...

I don't believe in paying people for nothing.
There are issues with the NIT just like the current welfare system.

There are issues with any system with the people on the fringes.
 
Human history is a series of developments wherein we bettered ourselves and developed improvements out of necessity. If you remove the motivation for improvement, you stop trying. Do you really think people will be motivated to help themselves escape poverty if they are just being handed a bare bones amount of cash every month?
 
ludin said:
I don't believe in paying people for nothing.
Click to expand...

The American public is unwilling to allow people to fall below a certain threshold, especially when it can be established that they are not doing so because of laziness.

In an idyllic world, there would be no public welfare, and no need for it. We do not live in that world. Therefore, public policy should be crafted within that restraint in order to enable the poor to be lifted up and lift themselves up. Policy which encourages bad behavior (avoiding work, avoiding self-improvement, having children out of wedlock, not saving) is worse than policy which achieves the same goals while encouraging either the opposite of those bad behaviors, or at least is neutral to them.

There are issues with the NIT just like the current welfare system.

There are issues with any system with the people on the fringes.
Click to expand...

There are issues with any system designed by fallen humanity. That does not mean some systems aren't better than others.
 
NoMereRanger said:
Human history is a series of developments wherein we bettered ourselves and developed improvements out of necessity
Click to expand...

Human history shows both upwards and downward movement. Hegel isn't going to save us from failure.

If you remove the motivation for improvement, you stop trying. Do you really think people will be motivated to help themselves escape poverty if they are just being handed a bare bones amount of cash every month?
Click to expand...

Some will. Others will not.

Incidentally, what Batt. are you?
 
ludin said:
I don't believe in paying people for nothing.
There are issues with the NIT just like the current welfare system.
Click to expand...
what are the issues you find in opposition to the negative income tax?

There are issues with any system with the people on the fringes.
Click to expand...
in that dated video, Friedman acknowledged people will try to game the system - any system. however, it makes no sense to abandon the good only because it is not perfect
 
NoMereRanger said:
Human history is a series of developments wherein we bettered ourselves and developed improvements out of necessity. If you remove the motivation for improvement, you stop trying. Do you really think people will be motivated to help themselves escape poverty if they are just being handed a bare bones amount of cash every month?
Click to expand...

there will be some who are content to live a subsistence existence. and that has always been a part of the human condition
but it would be wrong to deny assistance to those who would use the social safety net to emerge from poverty only because of a relatively small number of louts
 
Lafayette said:
From the Economist: Why the world should adopt a basic income

Excerpt:


In an era of rentier capitalism… [a basic income] would provide an anchor for a fairer income-distribution system. And, in countries with high crime-rates it could have a profound effect upon criminal activity. From a Pew Report here:
Click to expand...
The question is whether there's a correlation. If those criminal HAD a high school education would they NOT be criminals or did their criminal nature cause them to drop out.
Layfayette said:
Rentier-capitalism, is "franglais" - that is rentier in French means (in English) "a person living on income from property or investments". You know, uh ... people like Donald Dork and his entire family.

Though, of course, they like to call themselves working "businessmen and businesswomen". So, pray tell, what's in a name? (Fecal-matter smells odious like all fecal-matter ... ;^)
Click to expand...
So buying, improving and selling real estate doesn't count as working?
Lafayette said:
It is almost never a real question of "How much you got", but "How you got it" ...

NB: Note that in the definition of Basic Income, the key criterion is "legal resident in the community". Meaning one was born with national citizenship or acquired it legally. It does not mean the guy/gal who just made it through the fence from some foreign country (who probably deserves asylum but not necessarily citizenship).
Click to expand...
Not sure "era of rentier capitalism" is an accurate description of the current situation.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
There are two basic income redistribution schemes being proposed along these lines: 1) the Basic Income Guarantee (BIG) every adult legal resident gets given $X/month no matter whether they earn any income or not 2) or the Guaranteed Adjusted Income (GAI) every household deserves at least $X/month - meaning that they get given only the difference between $X and what that household earned in outside income that month. Under the GAI option the number of people (not just adults) in the household determine how large that $X amount is.

Neither acts like an inheritance since it is not a one time gift (of accumulated wealth) passed on to heirs upon the demise of another single person since both are variable amounts (BIG eventually becomes less so - after several generations) taken by force from the living. Both depend on a (very?) progressive taxation system since, obviously, only those at the lower income levels can see any net gain.

The myth is that these either of these schemes will replace the need for any other social spending (income redistribution) programs but that is obviously not so for BIG - since it is only an income supplement (not enough to actually live on w/o other income) and would give a two adult household twice as much as a single adult household even though adding one adult to a household does not double that household's living expenses.

Unlike GAI, BIG does not discourage work as much or reduce the effective hourly wage earned for those at lower income levels (initially to zero - slavery?).
Click to expand...
But it does lower the hourly effective rate for those working to pay the taxes to fund this monstrosity.
 
Bullseye said:
But it does lower the hourly effective rate for those working to pay the taxes to fund this monstrosity.
Click to expand...

Yep, that is the idea behind such income redistribution schemes - take from those with 'too much' and give it to those with 'too little'.
 
ludin said:
I don't believe in paying people for nothing.
There are issues with the NIT just like the current welfare system.

There are issues with any system with the people on the fringes.
Click to expand...

Why not. The option, to survive, is to take what you are unable to have in order to exist, live, persist.

You, in the above statement, are thus denying anyone a fundamental right to existence.

Which is why our jails of full of people who have never even got through high-school. (Sixty-percent of the entire number incarcerated!)

Allow people the means to better themselves with an education, and our jails will have fewer of them. And, if it takes a government guaranteed income to that end then the cost will be far lesser than that paid to maintain overcrowded penitentiaries ...

And that can happen by means of a Guaranteed Minimum Income, which they (as sufficiently intelligent humans) will strive to escape in order to better their lives and "live normally like others by working for a living at a higher annual income".

I'd rather test that theory than deny outright its ability to work ...
 
Quote Originally Posted by NoMereRanger View Post
Human history is a series of developments wherein we bettered ourselves and developed improvements out of necessity
Human history shows both upwards and downward movement. Hegel isn't going to save us from failure.

If you remove the motivation for improvement, you stop trying. Do you really think people will be motivated to help themselves escape poverty if they are just being handed a bare bones amount of cash every month?
Some will. Others will not.

Incidentally, what Batt. are you?
Click to expand...

True, but history as a whole has been a steady projection upwards. We started as nomads, then learned how to raise crops, then build pyramids, then gunpowder, paper, electricity, vaccines, cars, microchips and now we can have stuff delivered to our 3 story mcmansions using flying toy helicopters.

I think the natural inclination is to want something for nothing and the chicks for free. Necessity has always been our biggest motivator. If someone is just handing me $1000 a week, why would I go bust my ass for $1200(hypothetical).

And by Batt. you mean what?
 
justabubba said:
there will be some who are content to live a subsistence existence. and that has always been a part of the human condition
but it would be wrong to deny assistance to those who would use the social safety net to emerge from poverty only because of a relatively small number of louts
Click to expand...

I don't have hard numbers on what percentage of those on welfare are legit "louts" but my educated guess is that it is higher than most people care to admit. If there was a way to consolidate and crack down on corruption then I would be more on board with a state welfare program but in the end private charity will always be the most efficient and effective I think.
 
cpwill said:
The American public is unwilling to allow people to fall below a certain threshold, especially when it can be established that they are not doing so because of laziness.
Click to expand...
There is a difference between can't work and won't work, but when I see a bunch of people that have mental deficiencies all in a building putting bolts and washers into bags for different companies
to earn a little bit of money then I say that a lot of people that say they can't work just don't want to. It was the best thing i ever saw.

In an idyllic world, there would be no public welfare, and no need for it. We do not live in that world. Therefore, public policy should be crafted within that restraint in order to enable the poor to be lifted up and lift themselves up. Policy which encourages bad behavior (avoiding work, avoiding self-improvement, having children out of wedlock, not saving) is worse than policy which achieves the same goals while encouraging either the opposite of those bad behaviors, or at least is neutral to them.

There are issues with any system designed by fallen humanity. That does not mean some systems aren't better than others.
Click to expand...

The issue is that the system is arbitrary. Who sets what the pay is and who sets where it ends. what are the stipulations for getting it etc ...
how are you going to fund it as well.

I would rather expand the EIC and the standard deduction vs anything else.
that makes more sense.

I would restructure payroll taxes as well.
So that you don't pay taxes up to the standard deduction then you start paying taxes.

In this case the first 24k that you make is tax free. you get your full pay check.
after that you start paying withholding taxes.

that would help families out a lot more. people do not realize how regressive payroll taxes are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom