3 ms·

I love the idea of a BIG, because we are post-industrial and have a surplus of almost everything we need in the first world, but just don't distribute it due to

by zanny 14y ago

I love the idea of a BIG, because we are post-industrial and have a surplus of almost everything we need in the first world, but just don't distribute it due to the dramatic income divide. It would also let me, say, try writing a new development IDE, or a new programming language, or a new OS kernel, or most other low-level software products you can't "sell" to people, full time. Right now you really just can't commit to those kinds of projects because they don't feed you. The only problem is it can't happen in our current culture. At all. At least in the US, the entire political system, tax code, etc are all so horribly broken, abused, exploited, and convoluted no change can happen at such a fundamental level. I just wish there was a new frontier to try these ideas out on. I wonder how badly humanity as a species suffer from the inability to pick up, go to unknown lands, and try something new. You just can't try new social or political philosophy anywhere anymore.

rdl 14y ago
I'd personally support BIG/negative income tax if it were universal and thus eliminated the administrative overhead and political power of other special interests created by special programs for the poor. Even as a libertarian who is generally against government intervention (mainly because it distorts the economy, but also because it's inefficient), this seems like the best realistic tradeoff we could make. It's unclear to me if it should be a cash payment or basic life support (barracks-style housing, food) available for the asking; advantages and disadvantages to each. There are probably people who are incapable of managing their own affairs (the mentally ill, orphans, aged), but for other people, cash is more appropriate -- letting an entrepreneur decide that buying a new laptop is worth eating sub-standard food for a few months.
- zanny 14y ago
  The latter is extremely vulnerable to corruption and exploitation. The housing will become dilapidated, the food will become as bad as public school lunches. If you fix it to the living wage as determined by economic theory, you are getting a real currency you can utilize, vs. easily corrupted resources. It is very easy to say "I'm supposed to get a check for $X, but I got $Y" but hard to protest poorly maintained state housing and food rations. You do bring up an important consideration, but the thing is that something like BIG is just that - a fixed paycheck derived by increased taxes. I almost wouldn't be surprised if switching over that today would barely increase tax rates over current social welfare in place, just because it cuts out a significant managerial overhead when its just "ship checks to all social numbers over 18 that are still alive" or even "ship checks to registered voters", though the latter would probably be struck down in court. People who can't manage the money they get would still end up in conditions like anyone broke today, except in their case they can expect new money next month. Unlike the perpetual hole you easily get yourself in currently, if you are getting a living income regularly, rebounding after declaring bankruptcy isn't as catastrophic. It should, hopefully, only require some moderate counseling to manage money, else you have a more severe issue that is best solved through mental health professionals.

by zanny 14y ago

rdl 14y ago

I'd personally support BIG/negative income tax if it were universal and thus eliminated the administrative overhead and political power of other special interests created by special programs for the poor. Even as a libertarian who is generally against government intervention (mainly because it distorts the economy, but also because it's inefficient), this seems like the best realistic tradeoff we could make. It's unclear to me if it should be a cash payment or basic life support (barracks-style housing, food) available for the asking; advantages and disadvantages to each. There are probably people who are incapable of managing their own affairs (the mentally ill, orphans, aged), but for other people, cash is more appropriate -- letting an entrepreneur decide that buying a new laptop is worth eating sub-standard food for a few months.

zanny 14y ago
The latter is extremely vulnerable to corruption and exploitation. The housing will become dilapidated, the food will become as bad as public school lunches. If you fix it to the living wage as determined by economic theory, you are getting a real currency you can utilize, vs. easily corrupted resources. It is very easy to say "I'm supposed to get a check for $X, but I got $Y" but hard to protest poorly maintained state housing and food rations. You do bring up an important consideration, but the thing is that something like BIG is just that - a fixed paycheck derived by increased taxes. I almost wouldn't be surprised if switching over that today would barely increase tax rates over current social welfare in place, just because it cuts out a significant managerial overhead when its just "ship checks to all social numbers over 18 that are still alive" or even "ship checks to registered voters", though the latter would probably be struck down in court. People who can't manage the money they get would still end up in conditions like anyone broke today, except in their case they can expect new money next month. Unlike the perpetual hole you easily get yourself in currently, if you are getting a living income regularly, rebounding after declaring bankruptcy isn't as catastrophic. It should, hopefully, only require some moderate counseling to manage money, else you have a more severe issue that is best solved through mental health professionals.