4 ms·

Those same arguments could be made against welfare to an extent. The advantage of this system is that it would be simpler and therefor cheaper to administer and

by jiggy2011 13y ago

Those same arguments could be made against welfare to an extent. The advantage of this system is that it would be simpler and therefor cheaper to administer and possibly harder to game.

VMG 13y ago
The fundamental problem is separating the cheaters from those who really deserve help. In a system where the individual can decide where to put the money, everybody can decide who is deserving of help. If you mandate wealth redistribution, you need to create a complex ruleset that decides who is eligible. The rules are established by the ineffective and opaque processes of politics and government. The resulting system is more complex, more expensive and easier to game.
- arrrg 13y ago
  With a basic income guarantee everyone would get money, and the same amount. There is no need to divine who needs it because everyone does. No matter the income.
  - VMG 13y ago
    True, my argument was against welfare, I misread your original comment. Basic income still has the problem that people get my money who do not deserve it in my opinion.
    - arrrg 13y ago
      What we are talking about are the basic necessities to a life in dignity. A roof over your head and enough to eat and clothe yourself, as well as enough to at least participate in society in some way (e.g. enough money to afford some sort of information gathering thingie, be it a newspaper subscription, TV or phone). The bare minimum. I happen to believe that no one has the right to deny that anyone. It’s a basic human right. Every human deserves a life in dignity and there is no way to lose that. (And, I know, implementing that world wide right now is practically impossible. That, just like, e.g. any sort of restrictions of freedom of movement, labor, capital and goods, is a travesty but for the near future I’m hopeless about anything changing in that regard. It’s sad and unacceptable.) Within that understanding of the world (and also the understanding that we won’t have work for everyone as time goes on) something like a guaranteed basic income seems at least like something worth trying out to me. (Many of the current welfare schemes seems broken to me, too focused on tight paranoid control and stigmatizing people.) But then again, I’m European. (Also, not the person you were originally responding to.)
- run4yourlives 13y ago
  There is no redistribution. Everyone is entitled to the same benefit, just like they are entitled to fire protection. Over a certain amount of income earned however, the benefit becomes negligible.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > There is no redistribution. Everyone is entitled to the same benefit, just like they are entitled to fire protection. This type of thing (even when it involves fire protection) is redistribution. One set of people are taxed to pay for things, another set of people get the benefit -- even if it is the same set of people the distribution of the tax and the benefit aren't the same, and the difference is redistribution. Note that I am not saying this is undesirable, merely that it clearly is redistribution.
    - run4yourlives 13y ago
      >One set of people are taxed to pay for things, another set of people get the benefit Ah, no. ALL people pay for things. How that payment occurs is a product of a progressive tax system in most cases, but there is no requirement that such a system exists to run service. You wouldn't call a private security service employed by a gated community "wealth redistribution", would you? Although if they had an income driven progressive fee structure it would be.
beat 13y ago
Yes, but I also figure that anyone smart enough to effectively game the welfare system is smart enough to do substantially better than what even gamed welfare can provide.
- robeasthope 13y ago
  Trust me, in the UK at least, you really don't need much to game the welfare system. While the government is making gradual changes the requirements and checks for UK citizens to claim job seekers allowance week after week are laughable low compared to the rhetoric thrown around.
  - vacri 13y ago
    The other side of the coin is what do you do when there actually aren't jobs available in the region and there are too many people to effectively set up in self-employment? Making people jump through hoops and then frowning at their failings is fine when isolated to an individual, but at a demographic level it breaks down. I recently spend five months out of work and unable to find a job and received welfare. I saw others like me playing the system. I saw others like me struggling to satisfy the system and more, applying for everything and getting rejections similarly. The system doesn't differentiate between the two. To some degree it's the old 'where do you draw the line' - do you prefer to see the innocent suffer or the guilty go free?

Those same arguments could be made against welfare to an extent. The advantage of this system is that it would be simpler and therefor cheaper to administer and possibly harder to game.

VMG 13y ago

The fundamental problem is separating the cheaters from those who really deserve help. In a system where the individual can decide where to put the money, everybody can decide who is deserving of help. If you mandate wealth redistribution, you need to create a complex ruleset that decides who is eligible. The rules are established by the ineffective and opaque processes of politics and government. The resulting system is more complex, more expensive and easier to game.

arrrg 13y ago
With a basic income guarantee everyone would get money, and the same amount. There is no need to divine who needs it because everyone does. No matter the income.
- VMG 13y ago
  True, my argument was against welfare, I misread your original comment. Basic income still has the problem that people get my money who do not deserve it in my opinion.
  - arrrg 13y ago
    What we are talking about are the basic necessities to a life in dignity. A roof over your head and enough to eat and clothe yourself, as well as enough to at least participate in society in some way (e.g. enough money to afford some sort of information gathering thingie, be it a newspaper subscription, TV or phone). The bare minimum. I happen to believe that no one has the right to deny that anyone. It’s a basic human right. Every human deserves a life in dignity and there is no way to lose that. (And, I know, implementing that world wide right now is practically impossible. That, just like, e.g. any sort of restrictions of freedom of movement, labor, capital and goods, is a travesty but for the near future I’m hopeless about anything changing in that regard. It’s sad and unacceptable.) Within that understanding of the world (and also the understanding that we won’t have work for everyone as time goes on) something like a guaranteed basic income seems at least like something worth trying out to me. (Many of the current welfare schemes seems broken to me, too focused on tight paranoid control and stigmatizing people.) But then again, I’m European. (Also, not the person you were originally responding to.)
run4yourlives 13y ago
There is no redistribution. Everyone is entitled to the same benefit, just like they are entitled to fire protection. Over a certain amount of income earned however, the benefit becomes negligible.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > There is no redistribution. Everyone is entitled to the same benefit, just like they are entitled to fire protection. This type of thing (even when it involves fire protection) is redistribution. One set of people are taxed to pay for things, another set of people get the benefit -- even if it is the same set of people the distribution of the tax and the benefit aren't the same, and the difference is redistribution. Note that I am not saying this is undesirable, merely that it clearly is redistribution.
  - run4yourlives 13y ago
    >One set of people are taxed to pay for things, another set of people get the benefit Ah, no. ALL people pay for things. How that payment occurs is a product of a progressive tax system in most cases, but there is no requirement that such a system exists to run service. You wouldn't call a private security service employed by a gated community "wealth redistribution", would you? Although if they had an income driven progressive fee structure it would be.

beat 13y ago

Yes, but I also figure that anyone smart enough to effectively game the welfare system is smart enough to do substantially better than what even gamed welfare can provide.

robeasthope 13y ago
Trust me, in the UK at least, you really don't need much to game the welfare system. While the government is making gradual changes the requirements and checks for UK citizens to claim job seekers allowance week after week are laughable low compared to the rhetoric thrown around.
- vacri 13y ago
  The other side of the coin is what do you do when there actually aren't jobs available in the region and there are too many people to effectively set up in self-employment? Making people jump through hoops and then frowning at their failings is fine when isolated to an individual, but at a demographic level it breaks down. I recently spend five months out of work and unable to find a job and received welfare. I saw others like me playing the system. I saw others like me struggling to satisfy the system and more, applying for everything and getting rejections similarly. The system doesn't differentiate between the two. To some degree it's the old 'where do you draw the line' - do you prefer to see the innocent suffer or the guilty go free?