3 ms·

They are funding it for 12 years. That's pretty close to forever. Any political system can change its policy over such a timespan. Your second point is valid:

They are funding it for 12 years. That's pretty close to forever. Any political system can change its policy over such a timespan. Your second point is valid: this is additional money from outside. But the word "donor" would not apply in a true BI scheme. It would be seen as obligation to the community (via taxes), in the same way you pay for public infrastructure, because it adds a value to the community as a whole. (If it wasn't seen that way, it would probably not be implemented in the first place.)

mantas 9y ago
12 years is not close to forever at all. Humans live for much longer than that and they know they've to plan beyond that. Of course, even if they were promised money forever, some people would call bullshit and still plan ahead. But quite a few people do believe existing system, without declared timeout, are permanent. Especially if they were born in the system and haven't experienced any alternatives. But building system based on assumption that humans won't believe it's permanent would be kinda dumb :) Donor is exactly correct word for net-loss in BI scheme. You give up part of your wealth and get nothing in return. You know what you get back in return for your taxes. Like infrastructure or school for your kids. Welfare, when done correctly, is insurance. You know you can get in trouble, thus you pitch in. You have a chance to get in trouble and cash out. But once "welfare queens" pop up, people are pissed off. Since they feel like donors instead of paying insurance. What adds value to community is, for example, funding a local theatre, newspaper or building a park. You pay and you get something in return. You may pay proportionally more than other members of community. But you still get something in return nevertheless. Meanwhile BI doesn't add value by itself. Nor it gives anything in return to those who pay.
- T2_t2 9y ago
  > 12 years is not close to forever at all. Humans live for much longer than that and they know they've to plan beyond that. Depends on the country and the quartile. Read the program, and they target the poorest of the poor in Kenya. I'm not really sure that the poorest in Kenya have a life expectancy approaching that of westerners. Happy to be corrected!
  - mantas 9y ago
    How short should life expectancy be to consider 12 years as "forever"? 35? As in, you grow up and got 12-ish years to live? By the way, Kenya's life expectancy is over 60, varies from source to source. One could argue that this is life expectancy for people born today and older generations have it much shorter. But it was over 50 since late 60s! I'm pretty sure 20-something expecting to live to 50 or 60 do not consider 12 years as "forever". Nor do 40-something who expects to beat the statistics. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/datablog/2013/dec/12/kenya-how-changed-independence-data https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/datablog/2013...

mantas 9y ago

12 years is not close to forever at all. Humans live for much longer than that and they know they've to plan beyond that. Of course, even if they were promised money forever, some people would call bullshit and still plan ahead. But quite a few people do believe existing system, without declared timeout, are permanent. Especially if they were born in the system and haven't experienced any alternatives. But building system based on assumption that humans won't believe it's permanent would be kinda dumb :) Donor is exactly correct word for net-loss in BI scheme. You give up part of your wealth and get nothing in return. You know what you get back in return for your taxes. Like infrastructure or school for your kids. Welfare, when done correctly, is insurance. You know you can get in trouble, thus you pitch in. You have a chance to get in trouble and cash out. But once "welfare queens" pop up, people are pissed off. Since they feel like donors instead of paying insurance. What adds value to community is, for example, funding a local theatre, newspaper or building a park. You pay and you get something in return. You may pay proportionally more than other members of community. But you still get something in return nevertheless. Meanwhile BI doesn't add value by itself. Nor it gives anything in return to those who pay.

T2_t2 9y ago
> 12 years is not close to forever at all. Humans live for much longer than that and they know they've to plan beyond that. Depends on the country and the quartile. Read the program, and they target the poorest of the poor in Kenya. I'm not really sure that the poorest in Kenya have a life expectancy approaching that of westerners. Happy to be corrected!
- mantas 9y ago
  How short should life expectancy be to consider 12 years as "forever"? 35? As in, you grow up and got 12-ish years to live? By the way, Kenya's life expectancy is over 60, varies from source to source. One could argue that this is life expectancy for people born today and older generations have it much shorter. But it was over 50 since late 60s! I'm pretty sure 20-something expecting to live to 50 or 60 do not consider 12 years as "forever". Nor do 40-something who expects to beat the statistics. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/datablog/2013/dec/12/kenya-how-changed-independence-data https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/datablog/2013...