2 ms·

Okay sure, but it makes a seriously weird nonlinearity to the work/income relationship. Let's say I make a modest wage, $15/hr. For every hour of work I do, I

Okay sure, but it makes a seriously weird nonlinearity to the work/income relationship. Let's say I make a modest wage, $15/hr. For every hour of work I do, I earn about $12 post-tax. My income is y=12x. $24k per year working a normal 40 hour week. Okay. Now let's say I make the same wage but I get a guaranteed $20k tax-free. For every hour I work, I earn $12 post-tax. My income looks like y=12x+20000. 44k/year if I work a regular 40 hour week. But I could also work only 20 hours a week and still make $32k/year, doubling my effective wages. I could work 10 hours a week and bring in $26k/year. Or work a single hour and make an effective hourly rate of $22,012 in that one hour. People are absolutely smart enough to see how that works and many of them will choose not to work at all. Yeah, it might be true that you don't live anywhere near as fun of a lifestyle on $20k/year as $44k/year but that's only if you value spending money. There are plenty of people who would be content to contribute nothing TO society but still collect their checks FROM society. That kind of asymmetry is worrisome to me.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> Okay sure, but it makes a seriously weird nonlinearity to the work/income relationship. Pretty much every set of real policies in the world does that. So, what? > Now let's say I make the same wage but I get a guaranteed $20k tax-free. For every hour I work, I earn $12 post-tax. My income looks like y=12x+20000. 44k/year if I work a regular 40 hour week. But I could also work only 20 hours a week and still make $32k/year, doubling my effective wages. I could work 10 hours a week and bring in $26k/year. Or work a single hour and make an effective hourly rate of $22,012 in that one hour. Which doesn't really matter. Total income over hours worked isn't what measures the incentive to work, the marginal utility (not the same as dollar amount, to be sure, as income experiences diminishing marginal utility) of the next dollar is what sets the incentive. So, sure, the incentive is less in a system with basic income compared to one otherwise identical without it -- but nowhere near what you are portraying. > People are absolutely smart enough to see how that works and many of them will choose not to work at all. Sure, some will, but to an extent that's the point; people are going to be without wage labor one way or another. > Yeah, it might be true that you don't live anywhere near as fun of a lifestyle on $20k/year as $44k/year but that's only if you value spending money. You mean, if you value any of the things for which money can be exchanged. Which, pretty demonstrably, most people do.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> Okay sure, but it makes a seriously weird nonlinearity to the work/income relationship. Pretty much every set of real policies in the world does that. So, what? > Now let's say I make the same wage but I get a guaranteed $20k tax-free. For every hour I work, I earn $12 post-tax. My income looks like y=12x+20000. 44k/year if I work a regular 40 hour week. But I could also work only 20 hours a week and still make $32k/year, doubling my effective wages. I could work 10 hours a week and bring in $26k/year. Or work a single hour and make an effective hourly rate of $22,012 in that one hour. Which doesn't really matter. Total income over hours worked isn't what measures the incentive to work, the marginal utility (not the same as dollar amount, to be sure, as income experiences diminishing marginal utility) of the next dollar is what sets the incentive. So, sure, the incentive is less in a system with basic income compared to one otherwise identical without it -- but nowhere near what you are portraying. > People are absolutely smart enough to see how that works and many of them will choose not to work at all. Sure, some will, but to an extent that's the point; people are going to be without wage labor one way or another. > Yeah, it might be true that you don't live anywhere near as fun of a lifestyle on $20k/year as $44k/year but that's only if you value spending money. You mean, if you value any of the things for which money can be exchanged. Which, pretty demonstrably, most people do.