3 ms·

I would like to point out that several EU countries have minimal basic income. It translates as 'minimal liveable income' and is paid to people who have no oth

by jkot 11y ago

I would like to point out that several EU countries have minimal basic income. It translates as 'minimal liveable income' and is paid to people who have no other income. It is about 60 euro/month in Czech republic. In Germany it is about 300 euro/month, but can easily go up to 1000 euro/month with all extras. Problem is that one has to prove he does not have any other income. That could be problem for some people, for example illegal foreigners. Or divorced fathers who have income on paper, but everything gets confiscated for alimony.

danielbarla 11y ago
> ... and is paid to people who have no other income So, are we talking about unemployment benefits? Because one of the things a guaranteed / universal basic income aims to do is eliminate the so called "welfare cliffs". An example of a welfare cliff would be: let's say you can get 300 euro / month being unemployed, or 310 euro / month working 60 hours a week. Does it make sense to get the job? With a UBI scheme, you'd get the basic salary, and you'd go do the job as well, kind of a win-win. Of course the overall picture is much more complex than that, but that's the idea.
- krzyk 11y ago
  Wouldn't it just make the money worth less? Right now every one starts at $0, after the change everyone will start at e.g. $1000, so you just move the axis, at some point prices in stores will increase because people have more money and this will eventually lead to the point where $1000 is worth almost the same as $0 where we started.
  - transfire 11y ago
    I realized this a long time ago about the problem with poverty: zero times anything is still zero. So no, $1000 will never be the same as $0. Yes, the system will adjust via inflation, but not to $0. In fact, a proper BI would act as a kind-of self-correcting cornerstone for the rest of the economy.
  - danielbarla 11y ago
    To some degree, I'm sure - it may indeed have secondary effects like lowering of the average salary, or increasing of average prices, etc. But I don't think it can get to the point that you're specifying, simply because prices will always be determined in a way to maximise profits, as opposed to simple price fixing. But other, potentially larger secondary effects is that overall productivity and efficiency of the economy should increase, driving prices lower. Essentially, what we're talking about is that people below a certain threshold are not free enough to pursue paths which would give them the most benefit in the long run. E.g. they cannot enroll in a university, or whatever, because they are living day to day. By giving financial independence to everyone, you are giving them the freedom to achieve these long term goals. It'd also give more people the freedom to get into the startup scene, and I think HN agrees that innovation is an overall net win. Also, clearly the money has to come from somewhere in the short term, and this would likely be a form of taxation which would come from richer people and companies, and it'd redistribute this wealth to the poorer ones. It can be argued that the current (and seemingly near future) distribution of wealth is rather one sided, and things would be better if wealth was distributed more evenly. Of course, that wealth would be re-injected into the economy rather rapidly, so arguably little would be lost.
stinos 11y ago
I would like to point out that several EU countries have minimal basic income Sort of, but that different from the unconditional income for all adults, which is what the article is about. For one there's what you mention yourself, but afaik there are also countries where you have to be able to prove you are actively looking for work/follwoing courses/... in order to continue to receive it. (btw one reason unconditional income might in the end be cheaper for a country lies in getting rid of the administration to deal with all these rules and execptions). Apart from that there are the social aspects, here's one: I know enough people who tend to look down on others who are not working and receiving that income. That might fade away if both groups get the same income, as the offenders will quickly realise they would be looking down on themselves.
pgeorgi 11y ago
Basic income is typically called "Bedingungsloses Grundeinkommen" (unconditional basic income) in Germany, to indicate the difference between what we already have and what BI aims for. The social security tier you seem to refer to (Arbeitslosengeld II, ALG II, also known as Hartz IV) has all kinds of conditions, eg. personal wealth above a certain value needs to be used first; significant others need to chip in first (and for people younger than 25 also their parents, and if you live in a flat share agreement, overzealous officials may try to exploit that fact); there's a cooperation requirement on seeking jobs (and the officers in charge to deal with that can mess with you in plenty ways). The "father who has income on paper" (and presumably a job) scenario is the smallest problem, by the way. Alimony is capped at a living income (which happens to be defined as "enough to not receive social security benefits"). But it seems to me that the system is not very efficient to get people back into jobs, even though that's its basic premise: Continuing to receive ALG II can be a full-time job in itself. The "promise" of unconditional basic income is discussed somewhere else on the page: you get the money, now you're free to live with that somehow or find a job on your own terms. It gets rid of the busywork, both for the recipient and the social security sector.
jld89 11y ago
In France it is 524€ per month with a usually undisclosed Christmas bonus.
varjag 11y ago
This is an unemployment/disability benefit, precisely the kind of thing basic income is supposed to eliminate.

by jkot 11y ago

danielbarla 11y ago

> ... and is paid to people who have no other income So, are we talking about unemployment benefits? Because one of the things a guaranteed / universal basic income aims to do is eliminate the so called "welfare cliffs". An example of a welfare cliff would be: let's say you can get 300 euro / month being unemployed, or 310 euro / month working 60 hours a week. Does it make sense to get the job? With a UBI scheme, you'd get the basic salary, and you'd go do the job as well, kind of a win-win. Of course the overall picture is much more complex than that, but that's the idea.

krzyk 11y ago
Wouldn't it just make the money worth less? Right now every one starts at $0, after the change everyone will start at e.g. $1000, so you just move the axis, at some point prices in stores will increase because people have more money and this will eventually lead to the point where $1000 is worth almost the same as $0 where we started.
- transfire 11y ago
  I realized this a long time ago about the problem with poverty: zero times anything is still zero. So no, $1000 will never be the same as $0. Yes, the system will adjust via inflation, but not to $0. In fact, a proper BI would act as a kind-of self-correcting cornerstone for the rest of the economy.
- danielbarla 11y ago
  To some degree, I'm sure - it may indeed have secondary effects like lowering of the average salary, or increasing of average prices, etc. But I don't think it can get to the point that you're specifying, simply because prices will always be determined in a way to maximise profits, as opposed to simple price fixing. But other, potentially larger secondary effects is that overall productivity and efficiency of the economy should increase, driving prices lower. Essentially, what we're talking about is that people below a certain threshold are not free enough to pursue paths which would give them the most benefit in the long run. E.g. they cannot enroll in a university, or whatever, because they are living day to day. By giving financial independence to everyone, you are giving them the freedom to achieve these long term goals. It'd also give more people the freedom to get into the startup scene, and I think HN agrees that innovation is an overall net win. Also, clearly the money has to come from somewhere in the short term, and this would likely be a form of taxation which would come from richer people and companies, and it'd redistribute this wealth to the poorer ones. It can be argued that the current (and seemingly near future) distribution of wealth is rather one sided, and things would be better if wealth was distributed more evenly. Of course, that wealth would be re-injected into the economy rather rapidly, so arguably little would be lost.

stinos 11y ago

I would like to point out that several EU countries have minimal basic income Sort of, but that different from the unconditional income for all adults, which is what the article is about. For one there's what you mention yourself, but afaik there are also countries where you have to be able to prove you are actively looking for work/follwoing courses/... in order to continue to receive it. (btw one reason unconditional income might in the end be cheaper for a country lies in getting rid of the administration to deal with all these rules and execptions). Apart from that there are the social aspects, here's one: I know enough people who tend to look down on others who are not working and receiving that income. That might fade away if both groups get the same income, as the offenders will quickly realise they would be looking down on themselves.

pgeorgi 11y ago

Basic income is typically called "Bedingungsloses Grundeinkommen" (unconditional basic income) in Germany, to indicate the difference between what we already have and what BI aims for. The social security tier you seem to refer to (Arbeitslosengeld II, ALG II, also known as Hartz IV) has all kinds of conditions, eg. personal wealth above a certain value needs to be used first; significant others need to chip in first (and for people younger than 25 also their parents, and if you live in a flat share agreement, overzealous officials may try to exploit that fact); there's a cooperation requirement on seeking jobs (and the officers in charge to deal with that can mess with you in plenty ways). The "father who has income on paper" (and presumably a job) scenario is the smallest problem, by the way. Alimony is capped at a living income (which happens to be defined as "enough to not receive social security benefits"). But it seems to me that the system is not very efficient to get people back into jobs, even though that's its basic premise: Continuing to receive ALG II can be a full-time job in itself. The "promise" of unconditional basic income is discussed somewhere else on the page: you get the money, now you're free to live with that somehow or find a job on your own terms. It gets rid of the busywork, both for the recipient and the social security sector.

jld89 11y ago

In France it is 524€ per month with a usually undisclosed Christmas bonus.

varjag 11y ago

This is an unemployment/disability benefit, precisely the kind of thing basic income is supposed to eliminate.