5 ms·

Plus, everyone doesn't need the income and we cannot afford it anyway. I'm partial to trying pro-rated guaranteed minimum income paid weekly or nightly (one ca

Plus, everyone doesn't need the income and we cannot afford it anyway. I'm partial to trying pro-rated guaranteed minimum income paid weekly or nightly (one can dream). I have seen several proposals that include a clause affecting voting rights of the receivers.

tikhonj 11y ago
I am generally in favor of a negative income tax, but fiddling with voting rights is a complete non-starter. Disallowing people to vote, or giving some people more voting power, skews all politics in ways that are inherently hard to fix or even address. It creates a weirder incentive scheme for the government which already behaves oddly thanks to odd incentives. A plan that took voting power away from its beneficiaries would sow the seeds of its own undoing—if not in a single action than over hundreds of small amendments and exceptions. The end-game I'd expect is for most of the benefits of the plan to be chipped away, leaving only the changed voting rights. That's really not the way to go.
- brbsix 11y ago
  People still donate to charity, don't they? Or voluntarily sign up for insurance programs? If the programs were effective in reaching their stated goals, I wouldn't expect them to be entirely chipped away. If instead the programs revealed some perverse disincentives on the other hand, I'd expect the result you described, and rightly so.
- protomyth 11y ago
  I'm a on the fence as your argument mirrors my own, but I can see the fear of basically voting yourself a raise with pandering politicians. I think the line of thinking is inspired by professional voting blocks which is a more as likely scenario.
  - rspeer 11y ago
    Why is "voting yourself a raise" something that needs to be prevented when poor people do it, but not when rich people do it?
    - protomyth 11y ago
      Cronyism and mob rule are two sides on the same coin that needs to be prevented. If 51% can take all the money in a budget from others, everything collapses.

tikhonj 11y ago

I am generally in favor of a negative income tax, but fiddling with voting rights is a complete non-starter. Disallowing people to vote, or giving some people more voting power, skews all politics in ways that are inherently hard to fix or even address. It creates a weirder incentive scheme for the government which already behaves oddly thanks to odd incentives. A plan that took voting power away from its beneficiaries would sow the seeds of its own undoing—if not in a single action than over hundreds of small amendments and exceptions. The end-game I'd expect is for most of the benefits of the plan to be chipped away, leaving only the changed voting rights. That's really not the way to go.

brbsix 11y ago
People still donate to charity, don't they? Or voluntarily sign up for insurance programs? If the programs were effective in reaching their stated goals, I wouldn't expect them to be entirely chipped away. If instead the programs revealed some perverse disincentives on the other hand, I'd expect the result you described, and rightly so.
protomyth 11y ago
I'm a on the fence as your argument mirrors my own, but I can see the fear of basically voting yourself a raise with pandering politicians. I think the line of thinking is inspired by professional voting blocks which is a more as likely scenario.
- rspeer 11y ago
  Why is "voting yourself a raise" something that needs to be prevented when poor people do it, but not when rich people do it?
  - protomyth 11y ago
    Cronyism and mob rule are two sides on the same coin that needs to be prevented. If 51% can take all the money in a budget from others, everything collapses.