4 ms·
> having people sit around idle probably isn't Basic income doesn't aim for people to sit idle, and in practice basic income doesn't seem correlated with idlen
by Riseed 11y ago
> having people sit around idle probably isn't
Basic income doesn't aim for people to sit idle, and in practice basic income doesn't seem correlated with idleness. Some studies show an increase in work hours [0], and another showed a slight decrease in work hours among new parents and teenagers [1].
Loss of self-worth need not occur when people are given the freedom to say "no" to unfulfilling and unproductive jobs, the freedom to take time off to care for their own or another's health issues, and the ability to pursue their passions -- teaching inmates, launching a startup, or becoming a world-class gamer.
[0] e.g. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2268552 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2268552
[1] http://public.econ.duke.edu/~erw/197/forget-cea%20(2).pdf http://public.econ.duke.edu/~erw/197/forget-cea%20(2).pdf
- davidw 11y agoThe suggestion in the book is a negative income tax: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax
- Riseed 11y agoOne big difference between basic income and negative income tax is who receives them. Basic income is given to everyone, and negative income tax is only given to those below a threshold amount -- creating two classes of people: givers and receivers, us and them. The negative income tax experiment in New Jersey showed that the negative income tax created a disincentive to work, and increased family breakups. [0] Negative income tax, by virtue of being tied to the tax system, operates on a year-based system and pays retroactively. Regardless of whether the year's overall income would qualify for negative income tax, the individual still needs to self-fund any time off. A negative income tax does nothing to help those who are temporarily out of work, or who only want a few months off to help with childcare, learn a new skill, or address an illness. [0] http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/NegativeIncomeTax.html http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/NegativeIncomeTax.html
- davidw 11y agoInteresting! Looks like there's certainly a lot of room for experimentation.
- mattkrisiloff 11y agoIt's possible the negative income tax experiments results were more complicated than thought -- especially with how the results were portrayed: http://www.widerquist.com/karl/Articles--scholarly/Failure2communicate.pdf http://www.widerquist.com/karl/Articles--scholarly/Failure2c...
- Riseed 11y agoThanks! I hadn't seen that paper yet.
- bryanlarsen 11y agoIs increased family breakups necessarily a bad thing? There are plenty of people who are stuck in abusive marriages because they are financially dependent on the abuser.
- Riseed 11y agoAbility to leave bad relationships is one of the proposed benefits of basic income and similar ideas. The linked article hypothesized "reduced pressure on the breadwinner to remain". Too many fights over money, financial ability to leave a bad relationship, and no need to "stay together for the bills" could all be causes.
- evanpw 11y agoA negative income tax is basically equivalent to a basic income funded with a progressive income tax. No matter how you pay for it, some people are going to pay more in taxes than they get from the basic income, and some will pay less. For people who have a job, we already have a system for them to pay taxes with each paycheck (withholding). By reversing that, you could make negative income tax payments year-round rather than at tax return time.