6 ms·

Have any proponents of Basic Income policies ever proposed instead of handing out money, we hand out tangible assets instead? A basic house, clothing, food, acc

Have any proponents of Basic Income policies ever proposed instead of handing out money, we hand out tangible assets instead? A basic house, clothing, food, access to education and healthcare (and maybe some transportation in less walkable areas) seems like it would cover everything a person needs to live without any other source of income, and through economies of scale these things could all become cheaper to provide as opposed to having to depend on sources of money to fund dividends.

fastbeef 7y ago
B-b-but that's communism!
- rossenberg79 7y ago
  Not really, all property is still owned by the individuals exclusively.
  - luckylion 7y ago
    That is, until you tax it to finance the basic income ;)
  - dgellow 7y ago
    But you then have no freedom concerning the choice of good. With a basic income you’re free to use the money as you want, so for example if you don’t want some goods and want to instead invest everything in a business idea while sharing your parents house, living almost naked, without spending on education, you’re free to do so. With your suggestion you assume what people want and provide something that kind of match that (people don’t want a house, they want a specific kind of house at a specific location, same for the clothes), while the basic income approach is just a tool to help people participate in the market, without any guess of what people actually and the full logistical process required to distribute those goods.
SubiculumCode 7y ago
Yes, this has been proposed. However, I do not like it. I believe people know and should have control of how they spend a basic income. Basic assets sounds to me a lot like "everyone gets a Lada" the horrible car of the Soviet Union. Moreover, I do not see how this is better than just giving an income. Income is more flexible and fungible. There are already economies of scale in a free market.
- rossenberg79 7y ago
  > I believe people know and should have control of how they spend a basic income. Why? If it’s not being spent on those things anyway isn’t the person just making a financial mistake?
  - SubiculumCode 7y ago
    Because I believe in a free people. I believe in market solutions. I believe people should be allowed to take risks. I believe people often know what they need more than someone who lives far away.
    - luckylion 7y ago
      And when they make a mistake, do we just give them new money because they've put all the old money into the lottery?
      - jdblair 7y ago
        Yes, next month we do.
        luckylion 7y ago
        I personally have a few extra calories that can last me through a few weeks if need be. What about those that can't? Let them starve? Create a welfare service to save them? Hope for charities? Sounds a lot like we'd just push the problem a few meters away and then run into it again.
radicalriddler 7y ago
In Australia, the government has produced a debit card that welfare recipients receive 80% of their funds to. It turns out people don't like it when the government tells them where they can shop and what they can/can't buy. I'm all for tangible assets, but I believe that a majority of people will be against it.
oscilloscope 7y ago
The issue here is there needs to be administrative mechanisms to match supply and distribution of assets to demand. If you give someone $20 worth of food, but what they really need is a place to sleep, then that's not an optimally distributed asset. They could maybe trade the food for a place to rest, but this will incur search, transaction, depreciation and negotiation costs. They won't get the full value of the asset. With cash, the recipient gets $20 worth of value to spend on what they need most. They don't need to barter the asset they received, they can directly participate in consumer markets to get what they need. We also already have the mechanism to generate these cash flows, in the form of interest and dividends on capital assets.
atmosx 7y ago
There are currently two main approaches, the libertarian approach who says that social welfare should be exchanged for money, which is exactly what you are proposing and the social approach which supports the idea that both are necessary, so BI should come on-top of social welfare. The argument for the first approach is that people know better their needs and that money is not enough to cover both while the proponents of the second approach say that it's a false dichotomy, giving money to a poor family without access to healthcare or education is likely to increase the gap between rich and poor, educated and uneducated, etc. So the current cycle we're trying to break, will become more vicious. I took for granted that we should hand out both, unconditionally.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  > while the proponents of the second approach say that it's a false dichotomy, giving money to a poor family without access to healthcare or education is likely to increase the gap between rich and poor, educated and uneducated, etc. So the current cycle we're trying to break, will become more vicious Which is a silly argument, because anyone who needs those things and is given the equivalent money can use it to buy them. Indeed, it gives them less opportunity because it deoptimizes what they can use the money for. If you need education, there are merit-based scholarships. There are creative solutions like your father taking a job as a janitor at a university where the children of full-time staff pay no tuition. Or getting a two year degree at a community college which gets you a lower middle class job instead of minimum wage which gets you enough money to pay for a bachelor's degree over a few years in night school. And then you can take the government money as money, save it up and use it to start your own business. But if the money has to be used for school, then you use it for school, any ingenious alternative method of paying for school is for naught, and you graduate still poor and have to take the first job offer you receive in the rat race because as soon as you get kicked out of the dorms you immediately need first and last month's rent plus the security deposit.
  - atmosx 7y ago
    > Which is a silly argument, because anyone who needs those things and is given the equivalent money can use it to buy them. Nothing about BI is silly, BI could make or break our future. All assumptions should be double-tested and nothing should be taken lightly. > [...] because anyone who needs those things and is given the equivalent money can use it to buy them. Cancer treatment for example in Europe is mostly mostly free. In Cuba is totally free. In India can be cheap. In US is very expensive. > Indeed, it gives them less opportunity because it deoptimizes what they can use the money for. If you need education, there are merit-based scholarships. Scholarships are for the 1% of the population. I am not sure we should take them into account. Plus scholarships are based on scores. A kid growing up in a troubled family has much smaller chance of getting one compared to his peers. > There are creative solutions like your father taking a job as a janitor at a university where the children of full-time staff pay no tuition. I'm not sure we're on the same page here, what problem do you think that BI is trying to solve???
Jedi72 7y ago
I think there should be much more focus on this kind of plan. People dont need income, they need housing etc. My concern is that if you swap out welfare and services for basic income inflation will eat away at it and sooner or later BI wont mean very much and we now have no services either.
- luckylion 7y ago
  We have that kind of plan in large parts of Europe already. Germany guarantees housing, heat, food etc, but has at some point switched to distributing money instead of vouchers, so individuals have more freedom to decide where/how to spend it.
  - ido 7y ago
    Used to. There is dramatically less public housing today than in the past (a lot of the old stock was sold to private investors) & not nearly enough new stock is being built. Having a WBS in Berlin is far from ensuring you actually get housing.
    - luckylion 7y ago
      It doesn't rely on public housing, the state will pay the rent for private apartments. > Having a WBS in Berlin is far from ensuring you actually get housing. That's true, but that's because of the limit of existing apartments, not because the government doesn't pay for it. Similarly, the government guarantees healthcare, but that doesn't mean that you will always be healthy. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a change in the housing market (that is: more building projects in general, but primarily more properties + subsidies given to cooperatives), but it's another issue.
      - ido 7y ago
        Fair enough. Regarding: > the government guarantees healthcare, but that doesn't mean that you will always be healthy. It guarantees you will always get treated if you seek such treatment (within reason, basically all actual medical problems will be treated for free here). I had spent 3 weeks in a hospital including numerous tests (MRI, CT, ultrasound) & concluded in brain surgery. I paid next to nothing & despite nobody being able to guarantee the procedure would be a success I think this is as close as you can reasonably get. I would be surprised if the same in the US will not have resulted in a hefty bill, even for most people covered under generous employer-backed health insurance.

fastbeef 7y ago

B-b-but that's communism!

rossenberg79 7y ago
Not really, all property is still owned by the individuals exclusively.
- luckylion 7y ago
  That is, until you tax it to finance the basic income ;)
- dgellow 7y ago
  But you then have no freedom concerning the choice of good. With a basic income you’re free to use the money as you want, so for example if you don’t want some goods and want to instead invest everything in a business idea while sharing your parents house, living almost naked, without spending on education, you’re free to do so. With your suggestion you assume what people want and provide something that kind of match that (people don’t want a house, they want a specific kind of house at a specific location, same for the clothes), while the basic income approach is just a tool to help people participate in the market, without any guess of what people actually and the full logistical process required to distribute those goods.

SubiculumCode 7y ago

Yes, this has been proposed. However, I do not like it. I believe people know and should have control of how they spend a basic income. Basic assets sounds to me a lot like "everyone gets a Lada" the horrible car of the Soviet Union. Moreover, I do not see how this is better than just giving an income. Income is more flexible and fungible. There are already economies of scale in a free market.

rossenberg79 7y ago
> I believe people know and should have control of how they spend a basic income. Why? If it’s not being spent on those things anyway isn’t the person just making a financial mistake?
- SubiculumCode 7y ago
  Because I believe in a free people. I believe in market solutions. I believe people should be allowed to take risks. I believe people often know what they need more than someone who lives far away.
  - luckylion 7y ago
    And when they make a mistake, do we just give them new money because they've put all the old money into the lottery?
    - jdblair 7y ago
      Yes, next month we do.
      - luckylion 7y ago
        I personally have a few extra calories that can last me through a few weeks if need be. What about those that can't? Let them starve? Create a welfare service to save them? Hope for charities? Sounds a lot like we'd just push the problem a few meters away and then run into it again.

radicalriddler 7y ago

In Australia, the government has produced a debit card that welfare recipients receive 80% of their funds to. It turns out people don't like it when the government tells them where they can shop and what they can/can't buy. I'm all for tangible assets, but I believe that a majority of people will be against it.

oscilloscope 7y ago

The issue here is there needs to be administrative mechanisms to match supply and distribution of assets to demand. If you give someone $20 worth of food, but what they really need is a place to sleep, then that's not an optimally distributed asset. They could maybe trade the food for a place to rest, but this will incur search, transaction, depreciation and negotiation costs. They won't get the full value of the asset. With cash, the recipient gets $20 worth of value to spend on what they need most. They don't need to barter the asset they received, they can directly participate in consumer markets to get what they need. We also already have the mechanism to generate these cash flows, in the form of interest and dividends on capital assets.

atmosx 7y ago

There are currently two main approaches, the libertarian approach who says that social welfare should be exchanged for money, which is exactly what you are proposing and the social approach which supports the idea that both are necessary, so BI should come on-top of social welfare. The argument for the first approach is that people know better their needs and that money is not enough to cover both while the proponents of the second approach say that it's a false dichotomy, giving money to a poor family without access to healthcare or education is likely to increase the gap between rich and poor, educated and uneducated, etc. So the current cycle we're trying to break, will become more vicious. I took for granted that we should hand out both, unconditionally.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago
> while the proponents of the second approach say that it's a false dichotomy, giving money to a poor family without access to healthcare or education is likely to increase the gap between rich and poor, educated and uneducated, etc. So the current cycle we're trying to break, will become more vicious Which is a silly argument, because anyone who needs those things and is given the equivalent money can use it to buy them. Indeed, it gives them less opportunity because it deoptimizes what they can use the money for. If you need education, there are merit-based scholarships. There are creative solutions like your father taking a job as a janitor at a university where the children of full-time staff pay no tuition. Or getting a two year degree at a community college which gets you a lower middle class job instead of minimum wage which gets you enough money to pay for a bachelor's degree over a few years in night school. And then you can take the government money as money, save it up and use it to start your own business. But if the money has to be used for school, then you use it for school, any ingenious alternative method of paying for school is for naught, and you graduate still poor and have to take the first job offer you receive in the rat race because as soon as you get kicked out of the dorms you immediately need first and last month's rent plus the security deposit.
- atmosx 7y ago
  > Which is a silly argument, because anyone who needs those things and is given the equivalent money can use it to buy them. Nothing about BI is silly, BI could make or break our future. All assumptions should be double-tested and nothing should be taken lightly. > [...] because anyone who needs those things and is given the equivalent money can use it to buy them. Cancer treatment for example in Europe is mostly mostly free. In Cuba is totally free. In India can be cheap. In US is very expensive. > Indeed, it gives them less opportunity because it deoptimizes what they can use the money for. If you need education, there are merit-based scholarships. Scholarships are for the 1% of the population. I am not sure we should take them into account. Plus scholarships are based on scores. A kid growing up in a troubled family has much smaller chance of getting one compared to his peers. > There are creative solutions like your father taking a job as a janitor at a university where the children of full-time staff pay no tuition. I'm not sure we're on the same page here, what problem do you think that BI is trying to solve???

Jedi72 7y ago

I think there should be much more focus on this kind of plan. People dont need income, they need housing etc. My concern is that if you swap out welfare and services for basic income inflation will eat away at it and sooner or later BI wont mean very much and we now have no services either.

luckylion 7y ago
We have that kind of plan in large parts of Europe already. Germany guarantees housing, heat, food etc, but has at some point switched to distributing money instead of vouchers, so individuals have more freedom to decide where/how to spend it.
- ido 7y ago
  Used to. There is dramatically less public housing today than in the past (a lot of the old stock was sold to private investors) & not nearly enough new stock is being built. Having a WBS in Berlin is far from ensuring you actually get housing.
  - luckylion 7y ago
    It doesn't rely on public housing, the state will pay the rent for private apartments. > Having a WBS in Berlin is far from ensuring you actually get housing. That's true, but that's because of the limit of existing apartments, not because the government doesn't pay for it. Similarly, the government guarantees healthcare, but that doesn't mean that you will always be healthy. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a change in the housing market (that is: more building projects in general, but primarily more properties + subsidies given to cooperatives), but it's another issue.
    - ido 7y ago
      Fair enough. Regarding: > the government guarantees healthcare, but that doesn't mean that you will always be healthy. It guarantees you will always get treated if you seek such treatment (within reason, basically all actual medical problems will be treated for free here). I had spent 3 weeks in a hospital including numerous tests (MRI, CT, ultrasound) & concluded in brain surgery. I paid next to nothing & despite nobody being able to guarantee the procedure would be a success I think this is as close as you can reasonably get. I would be surprised if the same in the US will not have resulted in a hefty bill, even for most people covered under generous employer-backed health insurance.