5 ms·

Right. The income value I keep seeing floated is in the realm of US$8000 per year. This is not basic income, it's basically a large tax credit. I don't know why

by cmurf 10y ago

Right. The income value I keep seeing floated is in the realm of US$8000 per year. This is not basic income, it's basically a large tax credit. I don't know why it's called basic income, there's nothing really basic about it when it can't completely pay for one basic thing like say rent or mortgage.

drabiega 10y ago
Actually, under some models $8000 could be enough. A job paying that much locks you down, but if you got that much in basic income you could move somewhere for which that is enough to leave, albeit cheaply. I know there are places in rural Pennsylvania where you could get by on that. Those places don't have much for jobs to go around, but population influxes of people with lots of free time and a willingness to work a little for some spending money could change that. On the other hand, there exists a worry that people on such an income who couldn't find additional work would keep getting pushed around to new areas as the influx develops each cheap locale.
- cmurf 10y ago
  Well, enabling nomadism in a modern society very well may have positives for individuals and local economies alike for all the same sorts of reasons why nomadism is a successful and very efficient strategy of survival. The ecological era "farmer" gene required a disposition in humans to feel compelled (or at least comfortable) staying put. And that gene just so happens to be common today in developed nations. But it's not for everyone, and the economics right now are very much against the nomadic personality type. That could be mitigate to a good degree by such a small guaranteed income.
  - kazinator 10y ago
    Indeed; if people feel more secure, they can ditch their job and find a better one, perhaps while improving their skills. A basic income could be a lubricant for people to improve their lives.
arprocter 10y ago
You mention rent. Something I'm confused about BI is that it doesn't seem to account for regional prices - 8k for housing goes a lot further in Newark than it does in Manhattan, and when you start comparing different regions the differences are probably even greater
- Grishnakh 10y ago
  Of course it doesn't, and it shouldn't. If it did, everyone would move to the high-cost locations because they'd get paid more, and then the BI would have to spiral upwards endlessly to pay for that. If someone demands to live in the most posh district of SanFran, for instance, why should society pay for that (esp. when it won't be just them, it'll be hordes of people wanting to move there)? If someone wants to live in an expensive area, they need to earn their own money to pay for it. The whole point of BI is to make sure people aren't starving or homeless or in danger of that. If you can live comfortably on the BI in bumfuck, PA or KS, then that's enough for you: society has done its part in making sure you're provided for. Maybe it's not exactly where you want to live, but society has no obligation to provide for your whims. If you don't like it, get a job and make more money.
  - arprocter 10y ago
    But wouldn't that lead to people living in the middle of nowhere where there aren't many jobs? Edit: also what happens to all the people living in projects in what would otherwise be expensive areas? Ship them off to a sparsely populated non desirable area? Good luck with that
    - technofire 10y ago
      If a bunch of people move to the middle of nowhere, they will need goods and services, and thus jobs will be created as enterprising people move to provide them.
      - ascagnel_ 10y ago
        But those customers don't have money to spend -- why would anything but the most predatory business (rent-to-own/layaway firms, payday loans, etc) move to service them?
kazinator 10y ago
Something that you can get if you have no income can't be a "tax credit". Tax credits are usually non-refundable: they reduce your tax, but not below zero.
geon 10y ago
I'm pretty sure there are places in your country where $8000/year would be plenty enough to live on. Not in any luxury, obviously. Living in central SF, or Manhattan would be unfeasible. Is that s bad thing? BI could prevent urbanization, and make small businesses blossom in smaller countryside towns. And outside of a city you would have better opportunities to grow some food on your own, making your BI last a bit longer.
- ahartman00 10y ago
  "BI could prevent urbanization, and make small businesses blossom in smaller countryside towns." I agree that urbanization has its downsides. However, lets remember that they aren't making land anymore:) As someone who grew up on a farm, I remember looking at suburbs as they sprawled out, taking over farmland. I was thinking, what are those people going to eat? Also, my observation is that there are more small business downtown, whereas walmart has dominated rural areas. Totally anecdotal, I know. "And outside of a city you would have better opportunities to grow some food on your own" I imagine this must be a dream to those who grew up in cities, having a secluded house with a nice garden. I know i am living the dream with dozens of restaurants/bars/shops within walking distance! But if we take an acre of farmland, and replace it with a house, lawn, and .1 acre of garden, what happens to the food supply? Apartment buildings and urbanization have their pros.
  - geon 10y ago
    The US has way lower population density than the EU, and even here there's plenty of space. And you don't need much space to grow some veggies.
    - ahartman00 10y ago
      Im not sure what you mean by plenty of space? I know when Ive had my urban friends over to my parents house, they all remarked about how empty it is 'out here'. But it is not empty, that farmland is in fact being used. Maybe things look different in my chunk of the world, I do come from a community that is largely agricultural. you dont need much space to grow some veggies, true, the point I was trying to make is that replacing an acre of veggies with a house and .1 acre of veggies reduces the total supply of food(since good, farmable land is limited). Given the demand for food is rising, the impact on the price of food is somewhat predicable

by cmurf 10y ago

drabiega 10y ago

Actually, under some models $8000 could be enough. A job paying that much locks you down, but if you got that much in basic income you could move somewhere for which that is enough to leave, albeit cheaply. I know there are places in rural Pennsylvania where you could get by on that. Those places don't have much for jobs to go around, but population influxes of people with lots of free time and a willingness to work a little for some spending money could change that. On the other hand, there exists a worry that people on such an income who couldn't find additional work would keep getting pushed around to new areas as the influx develops each cheap locale.

cmurf 10y ago
Well, enabling nomadism in a modern society very well may have positives for individuals and local economies alike for all the same sorts of reasons why nomadism is a successful and very efficient strategy of survival. The ecological era "farmer" gene required a disposition in humans to feel compelled (or at least comfortable) staying put. And that gene just so happens to be common today in developed nations. But it's not for everyone, and the economics right now are very much against the nomadic personality type. That could be mitigate to a good degree by such a small guaranteed income.
- kazinator 10y ago
  Indeed; if people feel more secure, they can ditch their job and find a better one, perhaps while improving their skills. A basic income could be a lubricant for people to improve their lives.

arprocter 10y ago

You mention rent. Something I'm confused about BI is that it doesn't seem to account for regional prices - 8k for housing goes a lot further in Newark than it does in Manhattan, and when you start comparing different regions the differences are probably even greater

Grishnakh 10y ago
Of course it doesn't, and it shouldn't. If it did, everyone would move to the high-cost locations because they'd get paid more, and then the BI would have to spiral upwards endlessly to pay for that. If someone demands to live in the most posh district of SanFran, for instance, why should society pay for that (esp. when it won't be just them, it'll be hordes of people wanting to move there)? If someone wants to live in an expensive area, they need to earn their own money to pay for it. The whole point of BI is to make sure people aren't starving or homeless or in danger of that. If you can live comfortably on the BI in bumfuck, PA or KS, then that's enough for you: society has done its part in making sure you're provided for. Maybe it's not exactly where you want to live, but society has no obligation to provide for your whims. If you don't like it, get a job and make more money.
- arprocter 10y ago
  But wouldn't that lead to people living in the middle of nowhere where there aren't many jobs? Edit: also what happens to all the people living in projects in what would otherwise be expensive areas? Ship them off to a sparsely populated non desirable area? Good luck with that
  - technofire 10y ago
    If a bunch of people move to the middle of nowhere, they will need goods and services, and thus jobs will be created as enterprising people move to provide them.
    - ascagnel_ 10y ago
      But those customers don't have money to spend -- why would anything but the most predatory business (rent-to-own/layaway firms, payday loans, etc) move to service them?

kazinator 10y ago

Something that you can get if you have no income can't be a "tax credit". Tax credits are usually non-refundable: they reduce your tax, but not below zero.

geon 10y ago

I'm pretty sure there are places in your country where $8000/year would be plenty enough to live on. Not in any luxury, obviously. Living in central SF, or Manhattan would be unfeasible. Is that s bad thing? BI could prevent urbanization, and make small businesses blossom in smaller countryside towns. And outside of a city you would have better opportunities to grow some food on your own, making your BI last a bit longer.

ahartman00 10y ago
"BI could prevent urbanization, and make small businesses blossom in smaller countryside towns." I agree that urbanization has its downsides. However, lets remember that they aren't making land anymore:) As someone who grew up on a farm, I remember looking at suburbs as they sprawled out, taking over farmland. I was thinking, what are those people going to eat? Also, my observation is that there are more small business downtown, whereas walmart has dominated rural areas. Totally anecdotal, I know. "And outside of a city you would have better opportunities to grow some food on your own" I imagine this must be a dream to those who grew up in cities, having a secluded house with a nice garden. I know i am living the dream with dozens of restaurants/bars/shops within walking distance! But if we take an acre of farmland, and replace it with a house, lawn, and .1 acre of garden, what happens to the food supply? Apartment buildings and urbanization have their pros.
- geon 10y ago
  The US has way lower population density than the EU, and even here there's plenty of space. And you don't need much space to grow some veggies.
  - ahartman00 10y ago
    Im not sure what you mean by plenty of space? I know when Ive had my urban friends over to my parents house, they all remarked about how empty it is 'out here'. But it is not empty, that farmland is in fact being used. Maybe things look different in my chunk of the world, I do come from a community that is largely agricultural. you dont need much space to grow some veggies, true, the point I was trying to make is that replacing an acre of veggies with a house and .1 acre of veggies reduces the total supply of food(since good, farmable land is limited). Given the demand for food is rising, the impact on the price of food is somewhat predicable