27 ms·

Main problem with introducing basic income is that you are effectively punishing hard-working people for their effort (with taxes) and reward people that don't

by mamon 11y ago

Main problem with introducing basic income is that you are effectively punishing hard-working people for their effort (with taxes) and reward people that don't want to work with the free money. Unless you have millions of slaves or immigrants (or, futuristically thinking, robots) at your disposal this will make your country go bankrupt very quickly. Which is a common problem with socialism, but made exponentially worse.

drcube 11y ago
Basic income is for everyone, workers and the unemployed, rich and poor alike. Or at least it should be. Every dollar you earn should be a bonus, on top of basic income, or else like you said, you create disincentives to work. If you're referring to the "fairness" of the distributed tax burden, that's a problem with or without basic income.
- anon4 11y ago
  Lots of people care very strongly about personal property, including the money they earn and don't want the state to take what they earn and give it to "useless freeloaders". I think that, if you're advocating for what amounts to asking everyone to carry the entire world together including the people who can't "carry their own weight", you need to unapologetically sell a philosophy of why it's good to help others. You can't wave away "fairness" for people whose mental process is "I have mine, you have yours, I'll only give you from mine if you give me from yours at equal or greater value".
- mamon 11y ago
  I see your point, but think about one thing: how many people are stuck in a jobs they hate just because they have to pay the bills? If you give them basic income that covers all their basic needs then first thing they will do is they will quit their jobs. Also, I can imagine that many women would leave their jobs to stay at home with their children (or to finally give birth to one). That's at least few millions of people that would immediately loose incentive to work. Fairness of taxes is mainly theoretical exercise because this world isn't and never will be fair. So we need to deal with the fact that people don't like paying taxes and will do many things to avoid it, including quitting their jobs.
  - perfunctory 11y ago
    I am sorry to say that but your view of the basic income sounds rather shallow. I would encourage you to read up on the subject.
    - privong 11y ago
      > I am sorry to say that but your view of the basic income sounds rather shallow. I would encourage you to read up on the subject. I'm not the parent, but can you suggest some good resources for doing so?
    - mamon 11y ago
      Actually, the part about mothers working less to spend more time with their children was actually noticed [1] And that was just an experiment, where participants knew it won't last forever. In real life effect might be stronger. What really is shallow is the understanding of how economy works by proponents of basic income. As I wrote earlier: to make it possible you need either robots or slaves, because most consumer goods don't grow on trees and even the ones that do grow on trees still need some manual labor to be done before they can be bought with your basic income money. Disincentivising work will make them less available and therefore more expensive. The last large scale implementation of unconditional basic income was in ancient Rome, and see how that ended for them :) [1]http://www.canadiansocialresearch.net/ssrgai.htm#Disposable http://www.canadiansocialresearch.net/ssrgai.htm#Disposable
      - DonaldFisk 11y ago
        If people's disposable income drops to basic income level because they quit their jobs, there will be less demand for non-essential consumer goods. The idea that people will voluntarily starve themselves to death because they're too lazy to work while fruit rots on or under trees is ludicrous.
  - drcube 11y ago
    But why do they quit their jobs? If it's to start a business, educate themselves, obtain skills for landing a job they enjoy more, etc, then all those are good things, and not a downside to basic income. And if they're just too damn lazy to work, and are satisfied with whatever minimal amount of basic income they receive, and have no drive to do better, then maybe employers are better off without them?
latj 11y ago
You have to stop thinking this way. As technology progresses we need fewer and fewer people working. Its not just because people dont want to work-- its because they cant, because we dont need them to work. Crop yield is high. Robots build the expensive things and child slaves build the cheap things. The service jobs are still there, but we're just about to the point where taxi drivers, waiters, and fast food workers are going to be priced out by automation. Get out of your mind that you are hard working and everyone else is lazy. There is enough excess in the system to feed, clothe, educate, and care for every person no matter what they do during the day. And you can still be richer than them. You just cant be grossly-evil-rich to the point where you have to corrupt the financial and political system to make more money.

by mamon 11y ago

drcube 11y ago

Basic income is for everyone, workers and the unemployed, rich and poor alike. Or at least it should be. Every dollar you earn should be a bonus, on top of basic income, or else like you said, you create disincentives to work. If you're referring to the "fairness" of the distributed tax burden, that's a problem with or without basic income.

anon4 11y ago
Lots of people care very strongly about personal property, including the money they earn and don't want the state to take what they earn and give it to "useless freeloaders". I think that, if you're advocating for what amounts to asking everyone to carry the entire world together including the people who can't "carry their own weight", you need to unapologetically sell a philosophy of why it's good to help others. You can't wave away "fairness" for people whose mental process is "I have mine, you have yours, I'll only give you from mine if you give me from yours at equal or greater value".
mamon 11y ago
I see your point, but think about one thing: how many people are stuck in a jobs they hate just because they have to pay the bills? If you give them basic income that covers all their basic needs then first thing they will do is they will quit their jobs. Also, I can imagine that many women would leave their jobs to stay at home with their children (or to finally give birth to one). That's at least few millions of people that would immediately loose incentive to work. Fairness of taxes is mainly theoretical exercise because this world isn't and never will be fair. So we need to deal with the fact that people don't like paying taxes and will do many things to avoid it, including quitting their jobs.
- perfunctory 11y ago
  I am sorry to say that but your view of the basic income sounds rather shallow. I would encourage you to read up on the subject.
  - privong 11y ago
    > I am sorry to say that but your view of the basic income sounds rather shallow. I would encourage you to read up on the subject. I'm not the parent, but can you suggest some good resources for doing so?
  - mamon 11y ago
    Actually, the part about mothers working less to spend more time with their children was actually noticed [1] And that was just an experiment, where participants knew it won't last forever. In real life effect might be stronger. What really is shallow is the understanding of how economy works by proponents of basic income. As I wrote earlier: to make it possible you need either robots or slaves, because most consumer goods don't grow on trees and even the ones that do grow on trees still need some manual labor to be done before they can be bought with your basic income money. Disincentivising work will make them less available and therefore more expensive. The last large scale implementation of unconditional basic income was in ancient Rome, and see how that ended for them :) [1]http://www.canadiansocialresearch.net/ssrgai.htm#Disposable http://www.canadiansocialresearch.net/ssrgai.htm#Disposable
    - DonaldFisk 11y ago
      If people's disposable income drops to basic income level because they quit their jobs, there will be less demand for non-essential consumer goods. The idea that people will voluntarily starve themselves to death because they're too lazy to work while fruit rots on or under trees is ludicrous.
- drcube 11y ago
  But why do they quit their jobs? If it's to start a business, educate themselves, obtain skills for landing a job they enjoy more, etc, then all those are good things, and not a downside to basic income. And if they're just too damn lazy to work, and are satisfied with whatever minimal amount of basic income they receive, and have no drive to do better, then maybe employers are better off without them?

latj 11y ago

You have to stop thinking this way. As technology progresses we need fewer and fewer people working. Its not just because people dont want to work-- its because they cant, because we dont need them to work. Crop yield is high. Robots build the expensive things and child slaves build the cheap things. The service jobs are still there, but we're just about to the point where taxi drivers, waiters, and fast food workers are going to be priced out by automation. Get out of your mind that you are hard working and everyone else is lazy. There is enough excess in the system to feed, clothe, educate, and care for every person no matter what they do during the day. And you can still be richer than them. You just cant be grossly-evil-rich to the point where you have to corrupt the financial and political system to make more money.