5 ms·

Basic income only works if everyone receives it. If it's like welfare and you lose it if you're employed, then no one works. If it's truly universal basic inc

by Mikeb85 11y ago

Basic income only works if everyone receives it. If it's like welfare and you lose it if you're employed, then no one works. If it's truly universal basic income, it actually encourages work because any additional income increases your standard of living.

baddox 11y ago
While BI may not discourage work for most people, I don't see how it would encourage work for anyone, given the marginal utility of money.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  Versus existing programs that are poorly structured (some existing programs are poorly structured, some aren't), an unconditional program would remove some disincentives to work where increased work income leads to cuts in benefits and a net lower standard of living. (Of course fixing poorly structure programs is going to be easier than implementing a basic income)
  - baddox 11y ago
    That's a valid point. My previous comment wasn't considering that BI would replace the current means-tested welfare programs, mostly because I do not believe that a BI would actually lead to elimination of the other programs. There will still be people who waste their BI for a variety of reasons, and I don't think society will be fine with them living destitute with no additional safety net.
    - dllthomas 11y ago
      "There will still be people who waste their BI for a variety of reasons, and I don't think society will be fine with them living destitute with no additional safety net." I am not "fine with them living destitute", but if a person cannot get by with a reasonable income provided then clearly they need some sort of help beyond the financial. "Means tested free stuff" doesn't seem a very good fit.
      - baddox 11y ago
        > then clearly they need some sort of help beyond the financial I'm not sure what you mean by that. They need help, and that help will almost certainly cost money, regardless of whether you're giving them money, products, services, etc. Because the help will cost money, there will almost certainly need to be means testing.
    - ZenoArrow 11y ago
      "My previous comment wasn't considering that BI would replace the current means-tested welfare programs" That's exactly what it would do. If, as in your hypothetical situation, someone spends their basic income too fast, they'll just have to wait until the next week/next month to get their next installment. If they can't manage that, then there are likely to be other contributing factors, such as drug addiction or mental illness, in which case you can offer alternative forms of support.
- Mikeb85 11y ago
  Let's say my basic income is $1000. All my expenses are paid every month, and I have $100 disposable income. I can work 10 hours at $10/hour, and all of a sudden my total income goes up 10%, my disposable income goes up 100%. Work 40 hours my income goes up 40%, and disposable income goes up 400%. And so on. Not to mention, it'll encourage going to school or starting a business as basic needs can be met in the event of failure. The point at which earning extra money no longer brings utility/happiness is well beyond the income of most poor people...
  - baddox 11y ago
    That's not an example of BI encouraging someone to work. If they didn't have the $1000 BI, they would be at least just as incentivized to work.
    - Armisael16 11y ago
      That statement is always made in comparison to traditional unemployment or welfare services, which give you fewer benefits once you start making more money.
    - Mikeb85 11y ago
      As welfare and min wage stand today, often working does not increase your standard of living or even basic ability to live.
    - jschwartzi 11y ago
      What would they work at? Just because we can all find jobs for ourselves, it doesn't mean that everyone in the world will be the same. Incentivizing someone to do something that is impossible is cruel.
gwright 11y ago
I think the confusion comes from the use of the term 'basic income'. There is a difference between income assistance that is given to everyone in order to simplify the delivery of government benefits (generally to avoid having to have complicated needs/eligibility requirements and the associated enforcement mechanisms) and and a guaranteed income that is not just assistance but in fact a sufficient amount to live on. I think the difficulty in evaluating a basic income mechanism is in understanding how such a program would work with different amounts of basic income, $200/month, $500/month, $1000/month? Is it per person? per household? extra amounts per child? Is it adjusted geographically? Depending on how you answer those questions you get different incentives and different costs for the program. While I don't have good answers to many of those questions I don't think a basic income program can work if it is construed as a way to enable anyone to simply quit their job, pursue their artistic or intellectual pursuits, and have 'the government' (i.e. other people) pay for that privilege. That type of an existence, while desirable, is not a 'right' to be supported by forcibly taking assets away from other people (taxing/redistribution of wealth).
- Mikeb85 11y ago
  > forcibly taking assets away from other people (taxing/redistribution of wealth). Taxation is not "taking assets away". Everyone that lives and works in a Western country today is able to because of successive generations who have built this society. If you have a computer job today, it's thanks to the people who developed the first computers years ago. Who went to universities other people built, travelled on infrastructure the government built, and so on. You know what a country without taxes looks like? The 3rd world. Dirt roads, no power or water, no police or emergency services. That's what life without taxes is. And no the private sector doesn't pick up the slack - they buy big trucks, haul away resources and live in a separate country, where nice things are paid for by the government through taxes. The question shouldn't be "what's fair?". But "what sort of society do we want?". If paying hipsters to do nothing but sip coffee all day builds a better society (who knows, maybe those bored hipsters will do something creative like start an app or something), we should be all for it. I'd rather sip coffee in Paris while paying 75% tax than live in Somalia paying no taxes.

by Mikeb85 11y ago

baddox 11y ago

While BI may not discourage work for most people, I don't see how it would encourage work for anyone, given the marginal utility of money.

maxerickson 11y ago
Versus existing programs that are poorly structured (some existing programs are poorly structured, some aren't), an unconditional program would remove some disincentives to work where increased work income leads to cuts in benefits and a net lower standard of living. (Of course fixing poorly structure programs is going to be easier than implementing a basic income)
- baddox 11y ago
  That's a valid point. My previous comment wasn't considering that BI would replace the current means-tested welfare programs, mostly because I do not believe that a BI would actually lead to elimination of the other programs. There will still be people who waste their BI for a variety of reasons, and I don't think society will be fine with them living destitute with no additional safety net.
  - dllthomas 11y ago
    "There will still be people who waste their BI for a variety of reasons, and I don't think society will be fine with them living destitute with no additional safety net." I am not "fine with them living destitute", but if a person cannot get by with a reasonable income provided then clearly they need some sort of help beyond the financial. "Means tested free stuff" doesn't seem a very good fit.
    - baddox 11y ago
      > then clearly they need some sort of help beyond the financial I'm not sure what you mean by that. They need help, and that help will almost certainly cost money, regardless of whether you're giving them money, products, services, etc. Because the help will cost money, there will almost certainly need to be means testing.
  - ZenoArrow 11y ago
    "My previous comment wasn't considering that BI would replace the current means-tested welfare programs" That's exactly what it would do. If, as in your hypothetical situation, someone spends their basic income too fast, they'll just have to wait until the next week/next month to get their next installment. If they can't manage that, then there are likely to be other contributing factors, such as drug addiction or mental illness, in which case you can offer alternative forms of support.
Mikeb85 11y ago
Let's say my basic income is $1000. All my expenses are paid every month, and I have $100 disposable income. I can work 10 hours at $10/hour, and all of a sudden my total income goes up 10%, my disposable income goes up 100%. Work 40 hours my income goes up 40%, and disposable income goes up 400%. And so on. Not to mention, it'll encourage going to school or starting a business as basic needs can be met in the event of failure. The point at which earning extra money no longer brings utility/happiness is well beyond the income of most poor people...
- baddox 11y ago
  That's not an example of BI encouraging someone to work. If they didn't have the $1000 BI, they would be at least just as incentivized to work.
  - Armisael16 11y ago
    That statement is always made in comparison to traditional unemployment or welfare services, which give you fewer benefits once you start making more money.
  - Mikeb85 11y ago
    As welfare and min wage stand today, often working does not increase your standard of living or even basic ability to live.
  - jschwartzi 11y ago
    What would they work at? Just because we can all find jobs for ourselves, it doesn't mean that everyone in the world will be the same. Incentivizing someone to do something that is impossible is cruel.

gwright 11y ago

I think the confusion comes from the use of the term 'basic income'. There is a difference between income assistance that is given to everyone in order to simplify the delivery of government benefits (generally to avoid having to have complicated needs/eligibility requirements and the associated enforcement mechanisms) and and a guaranteed income that is not just assistance but in fact a sufficient amount to live on. I think the difficulty in evaluating a basic income mechanism is in understanding how such a program would work with different amounts of basic income, $200/month, $500/month, $1000/month? Is it per person? per household? extra amounts per child? Is it adjusted geographically? Depending on how you answer those questions you get different incentives and different costs for the program. While I don't have good answers to many of those questions I don't think a basic income program can work if it is construed as a way to enable anyone to simply quit their job, pursue their artistic or intellectual pursuits, and have 'the government' (i.e. other people) pay for that privilege. That type of an existence, while desirable, is not a 'right' to be supported by forcibly taking assets away from other people (taxing/redistribution of wealth).

Mikeb85 11y ago
> forcibly taking assets away from other people (taxing/redistribution of wealth). Taxation is not "taking assets away". Everyone that lives and works in a Western country today is able to because of successive generations who have built this society. If you have a computer job today, it's thanks to the people who developed the first computers years ago. Who went to universities other people built, travelled on infrastructure the government built, and so on. You know what a country without taxes looks like? The 3rd world. Dirt roads, no power or water, no police or emergency services. That's what life without taxes is. And no the private sector doesn't pick up the slack - they buy big trucks, haul away resources and live in a separate country, where nice things are paid for by the government through taxes. The question shouldn't be "what's fair?". But "what sort of society do we want?". If paying hipsters to do nothing but sip coffee all day builds a better society (who knows, maybe those bored hipsters will do something creative like start an app or something), we should be all for it. I'd rather sip coffee in Paris while paying 75% tax than live in Somalia paying no taxes.