17 ms·
Ontario announces that it will begin a basic income trial in 2016
- johnny_kinds 11y agoThe issue with basic income is in the long-term. When more and more generations of people start to depend on it (I've seen it with welfare in my hometown), it becomes a crutch and will stifle their future success. Eventually, there won't be enough people giving back into the system and the whole thing will collapse. Before this happens, taxes will continue to be raised in people in lower income brackets. The politicians love it though. It creates an instant voter base. Why would a person, receiving free money, vote for someone that will take it away? Because of things like this, I wish we had laws in place that all voters had to at least 1) work some sort of job (it doesn't matter what it is) and 2) proof they paid income taxes.
- nokya 11y agoTwo strong assumptions in your comment: 1) "there won't be enough people giving back into the system" Considering the fact that we don't even know precisely how it will be financed, why is this already a conclusion? 2) "I wish we had laws in place that all voters had to at least 1) have a job 2) proof they paid income taxes" I have never seen any factual data supporting this. Actually, surveys seem to support the exact opposite: a large majority of people without work want to work, and a considerable portion of employed people wish they didn't have to work anymore to pay their basic utility bills. And would you surrender your right to vote just because you got laid off last month?
- ChrisLomont 11y ago>Considering the fact that we don't even know precisely how it will be financed If it's paid for by creating new money, this has historically led to hyperinflation. If it's paid for out of revenue, by definition it comes from taxes, and no matter what source those taxes, they come from income that would have gone to people. Thus the common economic maxim that only people pay taxes. So either it's printing money or it's coming from people. Do you have a third option?
- chadzawistowski 11y agoHyperinflation is not a foregone conclusion of printing new money; it depends on how fast it is printed. >Hyperinflations are usually caused by large persistent government deficits financed primarily by money creation (rather than taxation or borrowing). As such, hyperinflation is often associated with wars, their aftermath, sociopolitical upheavals, or other crises that make it difficult for the government to tax the population. A sharp decrease in real tax revenue coupled with a strong need to maintain the status quo, together with an inability or unwillingness to borrow, can lead a country into hyperinflation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation
- ChrisLomont 11y agoI agree, but printing enough to pay "living" income for a decent percent of a population will lead to hyperinflation. That is a substantial amount. Consider what would happen if instead of using taxes to pay SS in the US we just printed that much each year. It would be a disaster. I was pointing out to the OP that his implication that the money will not be paid by others through taxes at some level is unlikely. Printing enough to make a basic income program for a populace is economic suicide.
- chadzawistowski 11y ago>Consider what would happen if instead of using taxes to pay SS in the US we just printed that much each year. It would be a disaster. Would it? In the eight years since 2008, the Federal Reserve's balance sheet has grown by nearly $4.5 trillion[0], mostly to the benefit of financial institutions and the stock market. Meanwhile, the cost of social security in 2015 was $888 billion. The first quantitative easing was an emergency response, sure. Yet it expanded by an additional $2 trillion since 2010! I have to wonder if this money would be better allocated to living income, putting cash in the hands of consumers and boosting aggregate demand. [0] 2015 Federal Balance Sheet Report http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/quarterly_balance_sheet_developments_report_201511.pdf http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/quarterly...
- 11y ago
- CaptSpify 11y agowelfare != basic income though. I'm not saying your concerns aren't valid, but it's different when everyone gets it, and there's no hoops to jump through.
- chatmasta 11y ago> it becomes a crutch and will stifle their future success The need to work already stifles people's success. People spend time working "dead-end jobs" where every hour worked diminishes their chance of future success. If people didn't have to work that _______ job, they wouldn't. But they do, because they have no choice. A basic income gives them that choice. It does not "stifle" it.
- pauleastlund 11y ago> ... a crutch that stifles people's success ... I'm not sure how that's a "crutch." Also, in the future utopia you're describing where no one has to work a shit job that "stifles [future] success"... who cleans the toilets? Who waits tables?
- chatmasta 11y agoBusinesses that cannot find people to clean the toilets or wait the tables will not be able to sustain themselves. This may lead to a family-centric economy, where businesses like the city corner-store flourish because the family owns and cares for the business. The economic benefit to the family in aggregate is greater than the basic incomes afforded to the individual family members. (Also, edited my comment to remove the reference to crutch.)
- lewisl9029 11y agoOne of the issues basic income attempts to address is increased levels of automation and the associated decrease in the overall number of jobs available. As a society, what should we do about the people who will be driven out of the job market by this trend? I personally believe basic income is a much better solution than the wellfare systems we have in place to deal with mass unemployment. Traditional need-based wellfare systems actually disincentivize work in that you can often lose wellfare benefits once you start working full-time, whereas basic income has no strings attached, and any work you choose to in hopes of improving your standards of living will actually improve your standards of living instead of being a trade-off.
- Dylan16807 11y ago
- bcook 11y agoIf a majority of a society wants only to barely survive, rather than improve themselves and/or humanity, that is a problem itself. I see little reason to let anyone suffer, regardless of that fact that they may have "earned" their suffering. Do you have any modern, long-term examples of basic income failing?
- ambicapter 11y ago> If a majority of a society wants only to barely survive, rather than improve themselves and/or humanity, that is a problem itself. That's one way of looking at it. Another way is that advances in technology have made it such that there is a 1% of individuals who progress so fast that they make the rest look like they're at a standstill by comparison, regardless of how hard they try.
- bcook 11y agoI don't think OP was referring to people who are trying but cannot succeed. I think he was saying that basic income encourages a society to rely upon the government and forget about putting any effort in to trying to succeed.
- 11y ago
- k-mcgrady 11y ago>> " I wish we had laws in place that all voters had to at least 1) work some sort of job (it doesn't matter what it is) and 2) proof they paid income taxes." Terrible, terrible idea. This is how people are discriminated against. Prevent enough people that don't agree with your politics from getting a job, they can no longer vote, and you can screw them.
- tomjakubowski 11y ago> Terrible, terrible idea. This is how people are discriminated against. Prevent enough people that don't agree with your politics from getting a job, they can no longer vote, and you can screw them. Sadly, you can already do this in the most US states today by wink-nudging the criminal justice system into disproportionately locking up members of groups you'd rather not see voting.
- juliendorra 11y agoAbout your idea of restricting voting: you know that it has been like that with most older republics and democracies, right? In France it was called "democratie censitaire" - before voting rights became universal (ahem, if you were a man…). None of these republics were the rational, balanced sharing of resources state you envision. Universal voting rights brought a lot of change and arguably made society more leveled.
- zo1 11y ago"Universal" except for individuals with criminal records. #Edit, for the downvoters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement
- weaksauce 11y agowelfare is different than a basic income though. The crutch part about welfare is that there is little incentive to get a job for many people because getting a job and working 40 hours a week would probably take you off welfare and might only get you a small sum over what you got off welfare without working at all. So where is the point in that? Basic income gives a set amount to everyone without restrictions. So there is no perverse incentive to not work because it would be similar amounts of money and bump you off the program. Every bit of money you earn from a job when you are on basic income is a bit of money on top of that set amount. The thesis in your statement comparing the two is fundamentally flawed.
- nokya 11y agoWe will be voting to implement the same mechanism in Switzerland in next June. Fear campaigns by right-wing parties are intensifying.
- zo1 11y agoYou call it "Fear campaigns", others would call it "participating in the democratic process".
- k-mcgrady 11y agoNot sure about the specific situation to parent is referring to but there is a difference. Take the UK referendum to leave the EU. There are valid points on both sides but when MP's start saying that leaving/staying makes it more likely we'll be attacked by terrorists I would consider that a fear campaign. It's a completely hypothetical point and only spoken to scare people into agreeing with you.
- nickff 11y agoBoth sides of almost every political debate use fear to try to get their way. Anti-encryption folks talk about the parade of horribles that private communications could enable, anti-gun people talk about school shootings, pro-army/navy/air force groups talk up terrorists and foreign enemies, pro-social program partisans pretend that the rich make money by abusing the poor. There is unfortunately nothing new, unique, or particular about a group using fear to persuade or dissuade people from supporting a measure.
- sageikosa 11y agoIn social science, society is the guinea pig.
- nickff 11y agoI agree with the sentiment, but am somewhat more pessimistic, and would say that the more usual case is: 'In social science, the people are the guinea pigs.' and disturbingly often: 'In social programs, the poor are the guinea pigs.'
- ra1n85 11y agoBasic income seems to come from the right place from people that support it. I do think it's misguided benevolence, though. I hope that largely removing adversity and creating dependence aren't viewed as trivial changes here. People need to be challenged. We need to consider the more subtle ramifications of this. Humans have always labored. Work is in our blood.
- zzalpha 11y agoWhat leads you to the conclusion that basic income == not working? Or that working for subsistence is somehow noble while basic income and working to achieve other goals (creative outlet, education, etc) isn't?
- ra1n85 11y agoThat's not my conclusion. I'm sorry for you if that's the way you understood it. I'm certain that basic income would also be supplemental to other forms of income. Your second point is not even in the same ballpark with what I said, however.
- zzalpha 11y agoYou talk of "removing adversity and creating dependence" which is a pretty classic Calvinist trope. What else am I to conclude from you comment?
- ssmoot 11y agoI'm not challenged in the same way someone making $30k a year is. They're not challenged at that level. They're just stressed, poor and have a lower overall quality of life. The only real challenge in my life is to keep some perspective and maintain a positive outlook. So from where I'm sitting this sounds pretty patronizing.
- vixen99 11y agoWhat else is it other than being patronized?
- eliteraspberrie 11y agoFor context, Ontario has no natural resources. We have always been an export economy. With globalization and automation, manufacturing is mostly gone, and it's creating social problems. We have a fundamentally different view of the role of government here, we believe government should promote quality of life and happiness. Yes it is socialism and we don't apologize.
- koder2016 11y agoBasically productive people bribe unproductive to avoid crime. Even better idea is creating part-time paid charity work. This way egos are not harmed.
- sp332 11y agoI thought productive people paid for unproductive people's food and rent. You know, because otherwise they would be dead.
- nickff 11y agoPlease do not profess to speak for all Ontarians, or all Canadians; you do not. There is no general 'we', there are a number of disparate groups with their own views and motives. The average voter is not even so complex as to have a self-consistent integrated worldview.[1] In addition, many of your fellow Ontarians disagree as to the cause of the province's malaise, and the potential solution(s). There are many areas without natural resources, which have still managed to do very well (economically) in recent times. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Rational_Voter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Rational_Voter
- GFK_of_xmaspast 11y agoIsn't Ontario full of logged forests and mines? Not to mention hydro power? (as documented here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjLBXb1kgMo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjLBXb1kgMo)
- giarc 11y ago
- CydeWeys 11y agoCan someone explain to me why universal basic income seems to be more popular than negative income taxes these days? To use some examples I'm picking out of my hat: 1. Universal basic income: Everyone gets $10K per year. 2. Negative income tax: Everyone gets $15K per year, phased out linearly across an income of $60K (i.e. if you earn $0 you get $15K, if you earn $20K you get $10K, if you earn $40K you get $5K, and if you earn $60K then the negative income tax is fully phased out). Why is 1 preferable to 2? Is it just that it's less susceptible to tax fraud? Note that the amount that an unemployed person gets in UBI is less, because the same amount of money is being distributed to more people, even millionaires.
- Frondo 11y agoMy guess would be simplicity and fairness: everyone gets $X per month, no matter who you are, that's a simple thing to get. It fits neatly into our pre-existing mental models of how people get paid in the world. Tying it to taxes, sure you could still space it out monthly, but we're used to thinking of taxes as a once-yearly (or once-quarterly) event. Fairness: everyone, even millionaires, gets the same thing. The idea doesn't discriminate, so it's not just "the poors getting a handout" (n.b. I don't endorse that idea or phrasing).
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- Mz 11y agoI think: First, basic income is a simple concept. Anyone can understand the idea. The idea is that everyone gets a check. Everyone. (The reality: It probably won't work that way.) Taxes are complicated and poorly understood and so on. Second, I think a lot of people are incredibly scared right now. I have seen articles from very wealthy people about how afraid they are for the world these days. A great many people are afraid that automation is "taking our jobs" and that if we do not simply cut a check for everyone, vast swaths of people will be left out and there is just a lot of fear right now. The world is more complicated than ever. An elegant solution in the face of that level of complexity is hard for many people to envision, much less fathom. (For the record: I am not for basic income. I am for 1) Affordable housing and 2) making "gig work" a path to a real middle class income.)
- allengeorge 11y agoThe linked budget announcement says simply that the government will begin consultations on how best to test and implement a Basic Invome scheme in 2016, not that it'll actually trial it this year. Not that a trial will begin his year. And, given the so-so response towards Ontario's supplemental pension plan, I wouldn't take support for this scheme as a given.
- vamur 11y agoBasic income should be done like in the Expanse (e.g only for those with no/minimal income) and it should be dynamic - percentage based on the current economy size. It should also be spent only on domestic products to stimulate local economy. Otherwise, it will be another Ponzi scheme like the current pension systems. Which would be a shame since it's a good idea and necessary due to technological advances.
- mpg33 11y ago"Basic Income" is wrong idea imo. I'd rather see something like a "Public Dividend" that would redistribute corporate income tax revenue.
- studentik 11y ago> "Public Dividend" Interesting idea, thank you! While basic income is 'free lunch' with its value based on government decision, public dividend is calculated from revenue of tax paying companies, stimulating to understand that there is no 'free lunch'.
- dublinben 11y agoA basic income that isn't universal isn't basic income. The entire point is that everyone in society receives the same minimal amount, regardless of what other income they might receive. The reduces bureaucratic complexity and problems like the welfare trap.
- vamur 11y agoNo, the point should be to provide a safety net while not creating a Ponzi scheme or forcing working population into welfare.
- wallacoloo 11y agoThat may be a valid approach. The parent comment is merely pointing out that your proposal is technically distinct from "basic income", and therefore should be labeled appropriately.
- manishsharan 11y agoGiven the fact that the Canadian economy isn't doing well and the government is running deficits, how are we going to pay for this ? What are we going to cut ? What taxes are we going to increase? Given the fact that value of CAD has dropped significantly which has led to increased food prices, how will this not hurt the working poor and the middle class ?
- flurdy 11y agoBasic Income is meant to cost less than current tax and benefits as the bureaucracy to means test every request for benefits is a lot less or even totally redundant. Ie less forms, less interviews, less investigations, less complaints, less fraud, and in the end less bureaucrats, ie cheaper. Obviously that does not happen over night, and no country/state/province has gone full Basic Income yet (Universal nor Negative) so still just theory.
- gyardley 11y agoWhile I have the same concerns, and my suspicion is that basic income given today's society would be an unaffordable and incentive-killing disaster, in 2016 they're just beginning to figure out how and whether to implement a pilot project. It's hard to see how that could be anything but a good thing - it'll give us more data on how basic income performs today, so people can finally stop pretending the behavior of people in some town in Manitoba forty years ago has anything to do with the very-different present. Once we have more information - god knows when, perhaps a decade from now - then we can measure the actual benefits, ask the hard questions you're asking, and figure out if the costs would be worth it. But right now that's premature.
- MathsOX 11y agoRemember that this is about Ontario, not Canada. Ontario happens to be the largest sub-sovereign debtor in the world and has had spreads over underlying CAD govie benchmarks increase dramatically over the past few years. Unless this plan is revenue neutral, which is likely not going to be the case, markets will continue to charge ever greater premiums for borrowing. Ontario desperately needs to get its fiscal house in order; it spends like it's a sovereign with the capacity to access a broad set of monetary and fiscal measures that only sovereigns have.
- guylepage3 11y agoDefinitely excited to see this trial take place.
- guylepage3 11y agoDefinitely excited to see this trial take place.
- mladenkovacevic 11y agoI have nothing against basic income as long as there are incentives and opportunities to motivate people to do better for themselves either financially or creatively. As an Ontario resident it'll be interesting to see if this goes into effect and what the long term results are. Can we get another province to try a libertarian approach and we can compare notes in about 25 to 50 years?
- deelowe 11y agoBasic income is supported by the libertarian party. http://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-case-basic-income http://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-case-basic...
- mladenkovacevic 11y agoAh OK gotcha.. I need to do some more reading on this it seems. Thank you.
- deelowe 11y agoNo problem.
- vlunkr 11y agoI don't think that officially says the libertarian party supports it. Just that it may be compatible with their principles. I'm quite certain many libertarians would not go along with that at all.
- deelowe 11y agoWell, there's no true scottsman after all. Maybe I should have said "by many members of the libertarian party."
- JWLong 11y agoDoesn't help that when it comes to Libertarians, some of them are Irish. ~"If two libertarians ever find themselves in agreement on a particular issue, they know that one of them has sold out."
- thedevil 11y agoThis basic income idea has been popping up a lot lately. And there's some merit to it, but there's some major problems too. The biggest problem I see is giving people cash. Why not instead give each adult a voucher for housing (just barely adequate for cheap housing) and each person $5/day food stamps (or something similar), regardless of income. Everyone gets a lower stress level this way. The risk of being homeless or hungry go to near zero. It doesn't matter if you're unemployable, or starting a business, or between jobs. You know you're going to be okay. While giving people cash seems to have the same effect, it doesn't. At least here in the US, money problems are (mostly) a money-management problem. Many people use any cash they get to pay for whatever seems the most pressing at the moment - whether it's rent or a big screen TV. People buy the TV when they have money and rent isn't due yet, then have a little unexpected expense and can't pay rent. The stress level hurts them, hurts their families, causes increased expenses (e.g. payday loan). My parents were like this, in six-figure-income years and in dead-broke years. It hurt us quite a bit. And "loaning" them money NEVER helped - they'd pay the mortgage today and then buy the TV when the next payday came in. And there's LOTS of people like this, which is why there's a payday loan on every corner. Now, we've taken care of my mom by covering her housing and utilities directly. And her stress level is down a lot. It works great. This would have also helped me a lot when I was a student. And it means more startups - since all startups would be "ramen profitable" by default. And in the US, we could fund this with about a 10% tax (probably less if we took some funds out of SS, disability, section 8, etc.).
- nostromo 11y ago> Why not instead give each adult a voucher for housing (just barely adequate for cheap housing) and each person $5/day food stamps (or something similar), regardless of income. Because individuals are better at determining their priorities than are central planners. It sounds like your parents were bad with money -- but it also sounds like your assistance with budgeting has been more valuable than the government could ever hope to be.
- ddorian43 11y agoIndividuals in that situation usually are not.
- avz 11y agoThe often raised argument in defense of UBI is the automation of production. Well, work isn't just about producing goods. We work to solve problems. And there are plenty of problems and challenges that machines won't solve for us ranging from cancer and dementia to clean energy to global warming. Not to mention some nice-to-haves for the long-term like space colonization, life extension or nanotechnology. Saying that humans should not need to work is like saying this is it. We're done here. This is the world we want.
- Chinjut 11y agoWork on whatever you want to work on. If you're interested in nanotechnology, by all means, go work on it. But why should we design the world to force others to labor in ways they'd rather not under threat of destitution (starvation, homelessness, etc.), if we could instead allow people freedom from this bondage? The way the world works now is that the wealthy are free to spend their time however they like, and the poor are forced to work on the projects the wealthy want worked on, regardless of their own interests, just to stay alive. Is this it? Are we done here? Is this the world we want?
- avz 11y agoPeople at risk of starvation or homelessness are indeed in exceptional life circumstances and need urgent assistance. This is a matter for social welfare programs. Most developed countries already have such systems in place. UBI is not a welfare system. It is universal by definition. Most recipients of UBI are not in the dire circumstances you described. So let's talk about the real beneficiaries. I see no reason why a software engineer or a doctor needs an early retirement scheme that allows them to quit their job on the graduation day.
- spacecowboy17 11y agoUBI will be financed by those software engineers and doctors because they are in the higher income tax bracket. Those people will still be paying more to the system than getting from it.
- 11y ago
- marcoperaza 11y agoI think there's a real opportunity for a grand compromise between the left and right here. If a basic income/negative income tax is bundled with abolishing most or all other government handouts and retirement plans, small government minded people like myself could get behind it. One thing I worry about is that this could cause massive inflation and a recession (stagflation) as people drop out of low-wage work in droves. What percent of society will decide to live on solely the basic income if it's high enough to pay for basic expenses? Work is virtuous and builds character. Idle hands are the devil's playthings. And what would it do to our democracy if a huge portion of the population is living on someone else's dime and not even trying to join the workforce. Isn't it fair to call them children? What insight could they possibly have in the democratic process except to vote their own immediate monetary interests? I believe in universal suffrage, which is why this is a conundrum for me.
- chillwaves 11y ago> Work is virtuous and builds character. Idle hands are the devil's playthings. The only difference is people will get to work for themselves, not for others. Re: the overall tone, I already have two parents and do not need another.
- marcoperaza 11y agoA basic income will never and should never happen if its supporters are unwilling to face up to its challenges. Play this offense-taking politics with it and you won't convince anyone. And you'll lose the trust of any libertarians and conservatives who are already in favor of it.
- foota 11y agoLooks like someone beat YC to it :)
- hippich 11y agoSimple question - in ideal world where UBI replaces welfare system, what happens to person, who takes UBI check, spend it all in casino and next day is due day for rent, health insurance, no food in refrigerator, etc?
- jjoonathan 11y agoDispense UBI weekly or daily. If the person spends it on gambling, then tonight they go on the streets just like they do today, and tomorrow they make better choices. If the pattern continues it serves as evidence that the person isn't fit to fend for themselves and needs to be institutionalized.
- hippich 11y agoWhat exactly should happen when such person get institutionalized?
- mattmanser 11y agoYou can flip that on its head and ask the same question about an employee who blows all their paycheck in a casino. It's just an utterly pointless what-if. In all seriousness, how many people do you think will actually go and spend it all in a casino? 0.01%? 0.001%? What's the point of asking a question about the 0.001% of people with such a bad gambling habit that they'd immediately spend all their money in a casino. It should be utterly irrelevant to the discussion. It's a different problem. Some people will muck up their lives. UBI won't solve that. Some people will still get hit by a car, some people will still have mental health problems and some people will still get pregnant at 14. UBI won't solve that. Some people will still get hooked on heroin. UBI won't solve that. Some people will get struck by lightning and need emergency treatment. UBI won't solve that. It won't be the only social welfare program needed. There are some people who through accident or poor choices will still need extra help.
- avar 11y ago> It won't be the only social welfare program needed. There are > some people who through accident or poor choices will still need > extra help. Whenever UBI comes up some proponents of it support it largely on the notion that it could actually save money by abolishing the bureaucratic social welfare we have today. Lots of comments here are pointing out something to that effect. Which makes OPs question less absurd, because it goes to 1) How many selective welfare programs should still remain? 2) If #1 is large enough does the "but it can replace existing welfare programs" argument for UBI make sense?
- ZoeZoeBee 11y agoThe title of the article is completely misleading. http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/budget/ontariobudgets/2016/ch1e.html http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/budget/ontariobudgets/2016/ch1e.... From the Budget: >One area of research that will inform the path to comprehensive reform will be the evaluation of a Basic Income pilot. The pilot project will test a growing view at home and abroad that a basic income could build on the success of minimum wage policies and increases in child benefits by providing more consistent and predictable support in the context of today’s dynamic labour market. The pilot would also test whether a basic income would provide a more efficient way of delivering income support, strengthen the attachment to the labour force, and achieve savings in other areas, such as health care and housing supports. The government will work with communities, researchers and other stakeholders in 2016 to determine how best to design and implement a Basic Income pilot. I find it quite interesting they are presupposing a Universal Basic Income, will strengthen attachment to the labor force instead of decreasing it. Human Nature suggests other wise.
- Pxtl 11y agoA challenge with Ontario is that the province is already on hard financial times and the current government is politically beholden to the bureaucracy. The financial idea of mincome is that the government can shut down a bunch of over-managed social programs in favour of a unified simple payment direct to the residents... ...but there's not political will to shrink the government complexity and capture this savings, which means mincome in Ontario is the fiscal policy equivalent of this xkcd comic: https://m.xkcd.com/927/ https://m.xkcd.com/927/
- shitgoose 11y agoBeing already over 300 billion CAD in debt, it only make sense for Ontario to spend a bit more. Looks like Ontario government gave up hopes to repay the debt, so who cares - a basic income more, a basic income less...
- refurb 11y agoI wonder if "payday loan" companies would jump all over basic income? "Can't wait for your next month's basic income check? We'll get you CASH right now for only a small fee.* We're here to help you!" *Annual interest rate of 1200%
- gibybo 11y agoI think you're right, but I also think there would be much more political pressure to restrict them.
- aninhumer 11y agoI think the solution to this is not to legally enforce debt collection of Basic Income, so it's impossible to be forced into poverty by debt. IMO the core purpose of Basic Income is to provide a baseline standard of living, so this solution fits well with that ideal. This would, however, increase the risk to creditors across the board (since the worst penalty for defaulting is living on Basic Income) but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.
- elcapitan 11y agoWhile I can understand the benefits of basic income, it still bugs me that this might massively undermine democracy and turn out to be a point of no return for a society. Once every single voter has an incentive to vote for politicians that promise increases of their basic income, each election will turn into a competition on increasing that type of spending. It's basically a massive redistribution scheme. This is different from welfare systems, which only support a small number of people who actually need it.
- kaeluka 11y agoHow is that different from any democracy? People are incentivised to vote for people who promise lower taxes. Edit: or better infrastructure, ...
- ghostwriter 11y agoIt's different fundamentally. Lower taxes do not automatically guarantee you better income, but they do guarantee that the result of your work remains for you at your disposal in a larger extent. But the value still has to be produced by yourself, not the government that takes it from others.
- kaeluka 11y agoGranted, lower taxes are different. Better infrastructure, more child support, ... still are the same problem, IMO. Yet, the system -- somehow -- works. FWIW, that's the reason I'm in Churchill's camp: "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." Democracy relies on politicians believing what they say. It is easily gamed. Yet I have no better alternative. Challenge my view :)
- bigmanwalter 11y agoYeah, it's absolutely terrible that something which benefits the majority of people might actually become an election issue.
- shurcooL 11y agoI wonder how many people would use this as on opportunity to be able to spend more time working on open source.
- kethinov 11y agoI've wondered this as well. One of the greatest inequities of today's startup experience is the fact that the vast majority of startup founders are already affluent and are basically immune to risk. UBI would allow people to do entrepreneurship with no risk. They still wouldn't have all the same business opportunities (because obviously plenty of businesses require actual startup capital just go get going, not just people's time), but I think this would help a lot with smoothing over the inequality of opportunity that results from this.
- d0m 11y agoI'm from Montreal where there's already income to families not making enough money. This is great but obviously some people abuse the system and use it to drink beer all day so some Montrealers don't like the idea of using their taxes to give them money. But one very important point that people don't know is that giving basic income like that, even if abused, reduce criminality. When you have no money and are desperate, you're more likely to start doing illegal actions. Economically speaking, when you start thinking about the cost of more criminality, you realize that it's a pretty good deal to give basic income. Not everyone here agrees with what I just said - most people don't even know that - but I think that in itself is a great reason.