6 ms·

If BI isn't enough to replace existing welfare systems, then it isn't enough. You can't half-ass something like this.

by beat 11y ago

stevesearer 11y ago
I'm more speaking to what I believe is the inevitability of some people making bad decisions (like buying a bunch of powerball tickets or betting your money at the racetrack or something.) with the money they receive and then not being able to afford the basics. There would obviously be many people who are benefitted by BI, but my question is more wondering what happens to the percentage of people that end up still needing extra help.
- dllthomas 11y ago
  If someone needs extra help after a basic income, clearly they need non-monetary help. Making it easier to distinguish those cases seems like an improvement.
- Alupis 11y ago
  I question how a "BI" can be paid for long-term. Presumably BI is taxed like any other income, but of course that means the amount of tax revenue collected will not balance the amount of money paid to citizens... unless we really raise the rates on "wealthy" people (who's definition may shift if everyone is provided a free "comfortable" standard of living). In which case this "BI" becomes a Robbin Hood tax on the nation's wealthy, job creators, innovators, etc. Knowing several people personally that would be likely to only exist off of the BI (and not produce anything, or do anything with their free time), I have my doubts about a BI nation-wide leading to a boom in productivity. This may be a selection bias, but it seems to me as time goes on, we have more and more individuals content to not produce, leaving their days to just games and other "fun" activities.
  - beat 11y ago
    Are those people you mention actually productive now? Most of the people I know who would do nothing are already doing nothing.
    - Alupis 11y ago
      > Are those people you mention actually productive now? Well, kind of, but only enough to pay rent and eat. But that's my point, individuals like this, who only work the bare minimum to just keep existing and have no drive or motivation to achieve more, are very likely to just not work anymore at all since their basic needs are now provided. At the moment, they at least work somewhat. This helps keep local businesses running (even if just barely). With a BI, these folks stop all production and resort to their ideal lifestyle of not doing anything. It's a little naive to think these individuals will suddenly change in light of all this new-found free time, and run out to create businesses or new things. We can examine lottery jackpot winners for evidence of what many people would do if they didn't have to worry about money anymore (they do nothing in large part). I just don't see any scenario where a BI leads to increased productivity like what is being claimed. In contrast, I can foresee unemployment rates increasing, as fewer individuals participate in the workforce at all (to no determent of themselves, since their standard of living is provided free of cost). This will ultimately put strain on the system since not enough production is happening to offset this behavior, which will lead to drastic measures like dramatically increasing tax rates more and more. I just don't buy the argument that giving someone a free living without any expectation of productivity in return will lead to a net increase in productivity.
      - beat 11y ago
        It's different for me. I know a bunch of people who are deeply creative, artists and musicians and such, who spend enormous amounts of time volunteering their productivity - or what's left of it, after "earning a living". I'd love to see them with the opportunity to not have to worry about eating, so they could make things instead. The conflation of value and money is one of the worst things about our society. Money is, in many ways, units of suck. Jobs pay because no one would do them if they didn't pay.
  - ctolsen 11y ago
    Many people tend to think of BI as a solution to a world where scarcity is no longer that much of an issue. In a world where a lot of wealth is created by automation, the picture starts to look different, to the extent that BI becomes not just desirable, but inevitable. At that point, it shouldn't matter too much if those people choose to stay unproductive. But even now, while those people may not produce, they would certainly still have to consume. So there is some economic activity created. The question, of course, is whether it's enough to support the greater economy and if the incentives to do extra work are good enough. Also, I sincerely doubt that these people you talk about are the norm. As mentioned in the article, there's certainly evidence that people may tend to get more education, act more creatively, and pursue productivity at a higher rate when they are removed from the fear of poverty – likely because basic needs are met and aren't a primary source of stress.
  - bufordsharkley 11y ago
    I think in order for it to be sustainable, it can't be tied to taxation on production, but rather taxes on rent. For if production goes down, it becomes impossible to fund this entitlement. But if the entitlement is strictly tied to land rent (analogous to the citizen's dividend that Alaskans get for the extraction of natural resources), this can't completely disappear.
flubert 11y ago
I don't think you've captured the nature of the question. If you give everyone a cash handout, some percentage of them might spend all of their allowance on alcohol and lottery tickets, and not have enough left over for food or rent at the end of the month, leaving them hungry and homeless. Under BI, is this situation acceptable, because it is their own fault for "wasting" the money?
- dllthomas 11y ago
  If someone can't keep their lives together with a reasonable income, sure it's their fault for wasting their money. I wouldn't say that they don't deserve help at that point, but I would say that it's clear they need some deeper kind of help than money (targeted or not).
- beat 11y ago
  If someone is so disabled that BI alone won't save them, then yes, other things will step in. This is a great opening for private charity, in fact. Given BI as a baseline, the conservative dream of having private charity handle things might actually work, because it would be limited to the exception cases.
- patmcc 11y ago
  People can do this currently with food stamps too (by selling them for 80% of face value or whatever), so it's not a new situation. So I'd say yes, we obviously can't give people unlimited funds.
noonespecial 11y ago
The system we've got now isn't even working quarter-ass. Finding a "replacement" is a pretty low bar.

If BI isn't enough to replace existing welfare systems, then it isn't enough. You can't half-ass something like this.

by beat 11y ago

If BI isn't enough to replace existing welfare systems, then it isn't enough. You can't half-ass something like this.

I'm more speaking to what I believe is the inevitability of some people making bad decisions (like buying a bunch of powerball tickets or betting your money at the racetrack or something.) with the money they receive and then not being able to afford the basics. There would obviously be many people who are benefitted by BI, but my question is more wondering what happens to the percentage of people that end up still needing extra help.

dllthomas 11y ago
If someone needs extra help after a basic income, clearly they need non-monetary help. Making it easier to distinguish those cases seems like an improvement.
Alupis 11y ago
I question how a "BI" can be paid for long-term. Presumably BI is taxed like any other income, but of course that means the amount of tax revenue collected will not balance the amount of money paid to citizens... unless we really raise the rates on "wealthy" people (who's definition may shift if everyone is provided a free "comfortable" standard of living). In which case this "BI" becomes a Robbin Hood tax on the nation's wealthy, job creators, innovators, etc. Knowing several people personally that would be likely to only exist off of the BI (and not produce anything, or do anything with their free time), I have my doubts about a BI nation-wide leading to a boom in productivity. This may be a selection bias, but it seems to me as time goes on, we have more and more individuals content to not produce, leaving their days to just games and other "fun" activities.
- beat 11y ago
  Are those people you mention actually productive now? Most of the people I know who would do nothing are already doing nothing.
  - Alupis 11y ago
    > Are those people you mention actually productive now? Well, kind of, but only enough to pay rent and eat. But that's my point, individuals like this, who only work the bare minimum to just keep existing and have no drive or motivation to achieve more, are very likely to just not work anymore at all since their basic needs are now provided. At the moment, they at least work somewhat. This helps keep local businesses running (even if just barely). With a BI, these folks stop all production and resort to their ideal lifestyle of not doing anything. It's a little naive to think these individuals will suddenly change in light of all this new-found free time, and run out to create businesses or new things. We can examine lottery jackpot winners for evidence of what many people would do if they didn't have to worry about money anymore (they do nothing in large part). I just don't see any scenario where a BI leads to increased productivity like what is being claimed. In contrast, I can foresee unemployment rates increasing, as fewer individuals participate in the workforce at all (to no determent of themselves, since their standard of living is provided free of cost). This will ultimately put strain on the system since not enough production is happening to offset this behavior, which will lead to drastic measures like dramatically increasing tax rates more and more. I just don't buy the argument that giving someone a free living without any expectation of productivity in return will lead to a net increase in productivity.
    - beat 11y ago
      It's different for me. I know a bunch of people who are deeply creative, artists and musicians and such, who spend enormous amounts of time volunteering their productivity - or what's left of it, after "earning a living". I'd love to see them with the opportunity to not have to worry about eating, so they could make things instead. The conflation of value and money is one of the worst things about our society. Money is, in many ways, units of suck. Jobs pay because no one would do them if they didn't pay.
- ctolsen 11y ago
  Many people tend to think of BI as a solution to a world where scarcity is no longer that much of an issue. In a world where a lot of wealth is created by automation, the picture starts to look different, to the extent that BI becomes not just desirable, but inevitable. At that point, it shouldn't matter too much if those people choose to stay unproductive. But even now, while those people may not produce, they would certainly still have to consume. So there is some economic activity created. The question, of course, is whether it's enough to support the greater economy and if the incentives to do extra work are good enough. Also, I sincerely doubt that these people you talk about are the norm. As mentioned in the article, there's certainly evidence that people may tend to get more education, act more creatively, and pursue productivity at a higher rate when they are removed from the fear of poverty – likely because basic needs are met and aren't a primary source of stress.
- bufordsharkley 11y ago
  I think in order for it to be sustainable, it can't be tied to taxation on production, but rather taxes on rent. For if production goes down, it becomes impossible to fund this entitlement. But if the entitlement is strictly tied to land rent (analogous to the citizen's dividend that Alaskans get for the extraction of natural resources), this can't completely disappear.

flubert 11y ago

I don't think you've captured the nature of the question. If you give everyone a cash handout, some percentage of them might spend all of their allowance on alcohol and lottery tickets, and not have enough left over for food or rent at the end of the month, leaving them hungry and homeless. Under BI, is this situation acceptable, because it is their own fault for "wasting" the money?

dllthomas 11y ago
If someone can't keep their lives together with a reasonable income, sure it's their fault for wasting their money. I wouldn't say that they don't deserve help at that point, but I would say that it's clear they need some deeper kind of help than money (targeted or not).
beat 11y ago
If someone is so disabled that BI alone won't save them, then yes, other things will step in. This is a great opening for private charity, in fact. Given BI as a baseline, the conservative dream of having private charity handle things might actually work, because it would be limited to the exception cases.
patmcc 11y ago
People can do this currently with food stamps too (by selling them for 80% of face value or whatever), so it's not a new situation. So I'd say yes, we obviously can't give people unlimited funds.

noonespecial 11y ago

The system we've got now isn't even working quarter-ass. Finding a "replacement" is a pretty low bar.